Finders under Fire

Small businesses often have challenges with raising capital from investors.  Gaining access to equity capital can be difficult and complying with a myriad of rules and regulations when seeking help in raising funds can be very confusing.  When raising equity capital, many entrepreneurs seek assistance from unlicensed “finders” for introductions to potential investors. Recent government enforcement actions and commentary from regulatory agencies, however, emphasize some of the risks associated with working with unlicensed finders.

So . . . What do Finders Find?

Generally, finders make introductions between investors and companies, but do not actually sell securities or close transactions on behalf of the companies selling the securities.  If a finder is providing anything more than a simple introduction or access to contact information, or is receiving a fee based on the completion of a transaction, then the finder needs to be licensed as a broker-dealer. Continue reading →

Bridge Financing Documents

One of the sets of documents that we automated at AlphaTech is the bridge financing documents for an emerging company.  Attached is a sample of the documents: Convertible Note and Subscription Agreement

Instead of just using form documents as most law firms do, robust automation allows us to deliver common document sets for emerging companies in a more efficient manner.  So what else does “robust automation” yield?  It improves document accuracy, provides a valuable knowledgebase from which to draw, and enables us to deliver common document sets to our clients quickly.  It also frees up time of our lawyers to enable them to spend less time on basic contract drafting and more time on activities that afford our clients higher value. Continue reading →

Paper Stock Certificates: A Thing of the Past?

As public companies are increasingly opting out of providing paper certificates to shareholders in favor of providing electronic registration (a movement known as “dematerialization”), most private companies and their shareholders have yet to follow suit.  Issuing uncertificated shares is allowed under most states’ laws, and, as many on the public company side can attest, numerous cost and time efficiencies can be gained by going paperless with shares.  As we accept electronic statements to represent our public company holdings and exhibits to Operating Agreements to note our LLC ownership interests, do we really still need as evidence of our private company ownership a hokey, bordered piece of paper with an eagle on it?

Disadvantages of Issuing Paper Stock Certificates

Consider the inefficiency and chances for errors in the typical cumbersome process to issue paper stock certificates:  Continue reading →

LLC Choice of Entity for Emerging Technology Companies

The recent $1 Billion Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project Credit program will be a real benefit to many area small life science and medical device companies. A surprise to many though when reading the requirements of the program is that limited liability companies (LLCs) that have as an owner a tax-exempt organization are not eligible for a grant under the program. Having a tax-exempt organization as an owner is more common than one might think. Many university technology transfer offices, such as the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), are tax-exempt organizations and frequently hold an equity interest in the startups to which they license patents. As a result, those LLC biotech licensees are not eligible for a grant under the program. As the CEO of an LLC with which I work (but did not set up) said earlier this week about being excluded from eligibility, “Ouch! That stings! Another painful learning experience.”

LLCs are Typically Not the Best Choice of Entity for Emerging Technology Companies

The “LLC issue” for emerging companies extends well beyond this grant issue for therapeutic companies. I say this even though many attorneys recommend LLCs for virtually all contexts. Sure, LLCs have their place. I frequently advocate using them as holding companies, investment vehicles, and joint venture entities. Among other situations, it also can be appropriate to use them when there is a limited, small group of owners actively participating in the business or when the owners want to have a certain allocation of profits and losses that cannot be accomplished when using an S or C corporation. But for many emerging companies that have or plan to have outside investors, the LLC is often not the best choice of entity. Continue reading →

Angel Financing Transaction Form Documents

As a follow up on the angel investor and venture capital term sheet post, I want to elaborate on some efforts to streamline angel investor transactions and reduce related transactional legal costs. In the last year or so, there has been considerable effort to create standardized open source angel financing documents. The first of these recent efforts was from Y Combinator. With the assistance of the law firm of Wilson Sonsini, Y Combinator published the Series AA Equity Financing Documents. Another organization focused on seed stage companies, TechStars, subsequently released its Model Seed Funding Documents, which were prepared by the Cooley Godward law firm. And, most recently, attorney Ted Wang from Fenwick & West led an effort to put together the Series Seed documents. There are others as well, especially form term sheets, such as this one from gust. In coming months, a Midwest group of attorneys and law firms plan to publish a set of documents that will add to the mix, with a Midwest flavor of default terms.

This post provides a brief summary of each publisher of the open source form documents as well as a brief overview of the standardized terms for each set.

The Reasons for Using Standardized Forms in Angel Financings

As mentioned in an earlier post in connection with the National Venture Capital Association‘s (NVCA) efforts in adopting form venture capital investment documents, industry standardization would be helpful to achieve these and other goals:

  • Reduce transaction costs
  • Reduce time to closing
  • Reflect industry norms
  • Promote consistency among transactions
  • Establish certain industry standards
  • Provide basic explanations as to the reason for particular provisions or the context in which certain provisions should be included

While achieving these goals would be laudable, creating a standard set of angel financing documents that are used by various groups presents challenges. I will cover these issues in a later post. But first, here is a summary of the current open source documents:

Y Combinator Series AA Equity Financing Documents

Toward the end of 2008, Y Combinator was the first of the groups to release an open source set of angel financing documents. Y Combinator provides small investments (typically less than $20,000) to computer, Internet, and software startups. Along with the investment, they provide initial consulting and networking opportunities for startups, including a three-month training program in the San Francisco Bay Area. According to Y Combinator, they take a 2-10% equity stake in participating companies. To date, they have worked with over 140 companies.

The Y Combinator documents were originally created for Y Combinator’s portfolio companies to use for their angel financing rounds. Among other provisions, the documents contain a 1x nonparticipating liquidation preference, no springing future rights from subsequent issuances, participation rights, a basic set of representations and covenants from the issuer, and a board seat.

TechStars Model Seed Funding Documents

In early 2009, TechStars released its set of model seed funding documents. TechStars provides up to $18,000 in seed funding to emerging companies, primarily in Internet and software industries. In addition, they provide educational programs and mentoring for three months in Boston, Boulder, and Seattle, with the chance to pitch angel investors and venture capitalists at the end of the program. In exchange for the funding and services, TechStars takes a 6% stake in companies.

TechStars provides its model documents to founders and lead investors as a starting point in seed and angel financing rounds in the $250,000 to $2 million range. The TechStars documents contain, among other provisions, a 1x nonparticipating liquidation preference, broad-based weighted average anti-dilution protection, springing future rights from subsequent issuances, participation rights, a basic set of representations and covenants from the issuer, and a limited right to a board seat that remains in place until the holders drop below 5% ownership of the company on a fully diluted basis.

Ted Wang’s Series Seed Financing Documents

The Series Seed Financing Documents were released last month (March 2010). An important characteristic of these documents is that they are, for the most part, slimmed down versions of the NVCA forms. As a result, investors who use the NVCA documents will generally be familiar with the terms of these documents. According to Ted Wang, the documents are intended for typical angel financing rounds in the $500,000 to $1.5 million range.

Although the documents are intended to be neutral, they generally contain the most investor-friendly terms of the three sets. Among them are assignment of the company’s right of first refusal to investors, drag-along rights, reimbursement of investor legal fees (up to $10k), and protective provisions typical for a company-friendly venture capital financing. Still, some investors have commented that the terms in the Series Seed documents are not aggressive enough.

The Series Seed documents are also intended to be used “as-is” without further negotiation (just fill in the blanks). The philosophy behind this approach is that the value of standardization outweighs the costs of customization: a controversial concept for many companies and investors. Ted Wang has invited comments and is planning to publish a revised set of documents after one quarter, including regular updates thereafter.

Comparison of Angel Investment Form Documents

All three sets of model documents anticipate that the security issued is preferred stock. Generally speaking, the Y Combinator and TechStars documents are more company-friendly than the Series Seed documents, although the TechStars documents contain anti-dilution protection and the other two do not.

While it may sound like only a self-serving comment, the open source forms should not be a substitute for involving an attorney experienced in angel and venture capital financing transactions. Selecting and negotiating terms (and alternatives), addressing the inevitable deal-specific terms not encompassed within the forms, providing a check as to what current “market” is, and securities law compliance are some of the reasons to involve an experienced attorney in the process. That said, industry or at least regional adoption of a standard set of angel investment documents (with common variations) should significantly reduce transaction legal costs, especially if both sides are represented by experienced counsel familiar with the forms.

If and when the Midwest-based angel financing documents are published, I will provide another update.

Term Sheets for Angel and Venture Capital Investments

When raising funds from angel investors or venture capital firms (VCs), the offering terms are often summarized in a term sheet prior to consummating the deal.  Term sheets negotiated with angel investors are typically less complex than those proposed by VCs, but there can be considerable overlap between the two.

Negotiating with Angel Investors

When dealing with angel investors, it is typical for the company to produce the initial draft of the term sheet.  There are variations by region and it is not uncommon to see an angel investor or angel group prepare the initial draft of the term sheet, especially if the company has not already prepared one.  If an angel investor or angel group has taken on the role of lead investor, it is common to see the term sheet negotiated. In such cases when a term sheet has been negotiated, it is important that the company communicate that fact with subsequent prospective investors to avoid further negotiations and different terms.

Elements of an Angel Investment Term Sheet

In an equity financing with angel investors, the terms of the deal are often rather straightforward.  Typically, the security being offered is either common stock or a stripped down preferred stock. The angel investor term sheet will typically contain at least the following:

  • A description of the security being sold
  • The price for the security
  • The company pre-money valuation
  • The minimum (if any) and maximum amount to be raised
  • Basic information about the issuer (e.g., whether it is a corporation or limited liability company, the state of incorporation/organization)
  • The current capitalization table
  • Any applicable security transfer restrictions

The term sheet may also contain other provisions that address issues such as board representation, veto rights over certain types of transactions or conduct, co-sale or tag-along rights, drag-along rights, dividends, put rights, piggyback registration rights, and anti-dilution provisions.

Once the term sheet is “finalized” for the equity financing with angel investors, it often becomes an important element of the issuing company’s private placement memorandum, if one is used.

Negotiating with VCs

When dealing with VCs, in almost every case, it is the VC who prepares the initial draft of the term sheet. Unless the deal is very small, VCs commonly invest in small groups or syndicates (e.g., two or three firms), with one VC acting as the lead. The lead VC will typically present the term sheet, and the company will have a relatively short time period to accept it or negotiate its terms (in an attempt to prevent the company from “shopping” the deal).

Elements of a Venture Capital Term Sheet

Venture Capital term sheets are usually complex. Below is a list of issues that are often included or addressed in a VC term sheet. This list is in addition to the items listed above for an angel investment term sheet.

  • Conditions to closing the investment
  • Closing date
  • Identity of investors.
  • Dividends (the percentage and whether cumulatve or not)
  • Liquidation preference (e.g., amount (multiple) and whether the security is participating preferred stock or not)
  • Board representation (e.g., single board member or control of the board)
  • Protective provisions (veto rights over certain types of transactions or conduct)
  • Conversion rights
  • Anti-dilution provisions (weighted average or full ratchet)
  • Pay-to-play provisions (assuming more than one VC is participating)
  • Redemption/put rights (requiring the company to buy back the investors’ shares on a given date)
  • VC’s attorneys’ fees (shifting costs over to the company)
  • Demand registration, S-3 registration, and piggyback registration rights
  • Management and information rights
  • Participation or preemptive rights
  • Employee stock or equity incentive requirements and limitations
  • Tag-along (co-sale) and drag-along rights
  • Confidentiality and no shop requirements

There can be a variety of other provisions and requirements included, such as a tranche or milestone funding process.

Upon acceptance of the term sheet, the VC’s attorney steps into the process (if he or she had not already done so at the initial due diligence stage). The VC’s attorney typically produces the initial drafts of the investment documents.

Term Sheet Forms

There are many good resources on the Internet with sample venture capital term sheets. Likely the best known is the one published by the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). The NVCA form term sheet contains many good explanations of the various provisions in a VC term sheet. However, as you might have guessed with the authors of the form (VCs and their lawyers), the NVCA term sheet is generally drafted in favor of the VCs.

A version of the NVCA term sheet form that contains more company-friendly terms and more detailed discussions of the various negotiating points was prepared by those of us on the American Bar Association (ABA) Private Equity and Venture Capital  Committee. The ABA Comments to the NVCA term sheet form is intended to do the following:

  • Generate more options and alternative provisions, including many that are more company-friendly
  • Provide more detailed explanations concerning key provisions and negotiating points
  • Elaborate on current case law and the implications of various provisions
  • Identify which of the alternative provisions are more frequently used

Using resources such as the NVCA term sheet and the ABA Comments can help prepare companies to negotiate effectively (and more efficiently) with angels and VCs.

Using Placement Agents in Private Offerings

One of the requirements in a private offering is that the issuer have a “pre-existing substantive relationship” with its investor. Once exhausting contacts with local or regional venture capital firms and angel investor groups, relatively few entrepreneurs seeking equity investments have adequate personal contacts with wealthy people who can provide sufficient money to meet the capital needs of the entrepreneur’s business. For those who don’t, one option is to engage an intermediary or “placement agent” to assist them in the process of finding potential investors. If a placement agent of an issuer has a pre-existing substantive relationship with an investor, that relationship generally extends to the issuer for purposes of avoiding the advertising restriction imposed on companies in private offerings. A placement agent usually refers to a person or firm that is a registered broker-dealer, but sometimes also includes “finders.”

Broker-Dealers vs. Finders

Broker-dealers are regulated professionals or firms that have passed a series of exams and have gone through a lengthy registration process that includes interviews. Finders, on the other hand, are not generally regulated. According to federal law, a broker-dealer is “any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others.”

For purposes of this article, the key language is “in the business of effecting transactions.” A finder is someone not in “the business of effecting transactions.” Rather, finders infrequently bring investors and companies together, but that’s all they can do. By law, a finder is not permitted to pitch for the company, develop deal terms, or negotiate for or represent the investor or the company.

There are likely many finders out there who actually perform the services of a broker-dealer, but have failed to register as one because of either ignorance or the time and cost that it takes to become registered. However, it is a violation of federal and most state securities laws to fail to register if a person or firm is engaging in conduct that constitutes broker-dealer activities. A violation of one of those laws can bring fines, investment rescission, penalties, headaches, and in egregious situations, imprisonment.

Some states place significant restrictions on performing any “finder-related” activities, and take away common blue sky transaction exemptions if an issuer compensates a finder as part of a sale of securities to the particular state’s residents. Moreover, there are regulatory issues of giving transaction-based compensation to finders (e.g., an 8% finder’s fee), which often times is exactly what the company and finder want to do.

Because of these and other regulatory issues and various limitations associated with using finders, it is usually better to work with a broker-dealer rather than a finder. However, there are many more finders that are willing to work with early-stage companies than there are broker-dealers willing to do so.

Selecting a Placement Agent

You may ask, “how does one find a placement agent?” Entrepreneurs can talk with their lawyers, accountants, or other entrepreneurs about their experiences with various placement agents in their area. Generally speaking, for smaller transactions (e.g., under $5 million), placement agents will typically operate on a regional basis (rather than national).

When selecting a placement agent, there are many things to consider. Probably the most important consideration is trust. By using a placement agent, you are putting a lot of faith in an individual or firm. The reverse is true as well from the placement agent’s perspective in that their reputation is affected by the companies with which they work. Below are some other considerations:

  • Experience generally as a placement agent
  • Experience and success with companies in similar industries raising comparable amounts of money.
  • Reputation
  • Knowledge and experience with securities laws
  • For broker-dealers, good written policies and procedures
  • For finders, the impact of using a finder on state Blue Sky exemptions, and potential legal issues with using the particular finder
  • Pre-existing substantive relationships with prospective accredited investors

Placement Agent Contracts

Contracts with placement agents vary significantly. At the extremes, I have seen handshake deals, which I strongly advise against, and I have seen 25-page agreements. Below is a list of areas that are commonly negotiated in arrangements with placement agents:

  • Exclusivity
  • Duration
  • Compensation amount and type (e.g., retainer/monthly fee versus a transaction-based fee)
  • Events that give rise to compensation
  • Ability to terminate and effect of termination
  • The duration of the “tail” post-termination
  • Additional services
  • Indemnity
  • Representations, warranties, and covenants
  • Use of affiliates to assist in process

Once a company decides to engage a placement agent, finding the right one(s) under the right terms are essential. The placement agent may not only affect the success of your offering, but the placement agent may also affect (positively or negatively) the reputation of you and your company, expose you to securities law liability and sanctions, and bind you to a long-term, comprehensive, and expensive set of services.

So, if you decide to work with one or more placement agents, choose carefully.