Corporate Finance

Subscribe to Corporate Finance via RSS

A colleague sent me a link to a White House blog post focusing on Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act), known as the Capital Raising Online While Deterring Fraud and Unethical Non-Disclosure Act (CROWDFUND Act).  The main theme of the blog post, entitled The Promise of Crowdfunding and American Innovation, is stated in its summary: ”Crowdfunding’ rule makes it possible for entrepreneurs across the country to raise small-dollar investments from ordinary Americans.”  This much is true.  And the post accurately notes that “previous forms of crowdfunding” also already did this.

But the post goes on to extol the virtues of the CROWDFUND Act, which offers (among other things) a registration exemption for investment (or securities) crowdfunding–a very special type of crowdfunding involving the offer or sale of debt, equity, investment contracts, or other securities.  Or at least the blog post tries to extol the virtues of the CROWDFUND Act.  I am not buying it.  In fact, the post doesn’t come up with much of substance to praise . . . .

The coauthors focus a key paragraph on explaining why the CROWDFUND Act is heavy on investor protection provisions.  But they do not talk…

This year, my research and writing season has started off with a bang.  While grading papers and exams earlier this month, I finished writing one symposium piece and first-round-edited another.  Today, I will put the final touches on PowerPoint slides for a presentation I give the second week in June (submission is required today for those) and start working on slides for the presentation I will give Friday.

All of this sets into motion a summer concert conference, Barbri, and symposium tour that (somewhere along the line) got a bit complicated.  Here are the cities and dates:

New Orleans, LA – June 2-5
Atlanta, GA – June 10-11
Nashville, TN – June 17
Chicago, IL – June 23-24
Seattle, WA – June 27

I know some of my co-bloggers are joining me along the way.  I look forward to seeing them.  Each week, I will keep you posted on current events as best I can while managing the research and writing and presentation preparations.  The topics of my summer research and teaching run the gamut from insider trading (through by-law drafting, agency, unincorporated business associations, personal property, and benefit corporations) to crowdfunding.  A nice round lot.

This coming week, I will be at the Law and Society Association annual conference.  My presentation at this conference relates to an early-stage project on U.S. insider trading cases.  The title and abstract for the project and the currently envisioned initial paper (which I would, of course, already change in a number of ways) are as follows:

Well, given that I just spent several hours constructing a somewhat lengthy post that I apparently lost (aargh!), I will keep this relatively short.

This summer, I am working on a benefit corporation project for the Annual Adolf A. Berle Symposium on Corporation, Law and Society (Berle VIII) to be held in Seattle next month.  In that connection, I have been thinking about litigation risk in public benefit corporations, which has led me to consider the specific litigation risks incident to mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”).  I find myself wondering whether anyone has yet done a benefit corporation M&A transaction and, if so, whether a checklist might have been created for the transaction that I could look at.  I am especially interested in understanding the board decision-making aspects of a benefit corporation M&A transaction. (Haskell, maybe you know of something on this . . . ?)

Preliminarily, I note that fairness opinions should not carry as much weight in the benefit corporation M&A approval context, since they only speak about fairness “from a financial point of view.” Benefit corporation boards of directors must consider not only the pecuniary interests of shareholders in managing the firm, but also the firm’s articulated public benefit or benefits (which…

What factors generate a healthy secondary market in securities?  That is my question for this week.  I have found myself struggling with this question since I was first called by a reporter writing a story for The Wall Street Journal about a work-in-process written by one of our colleagues, Seth Oranburg (a Visiting Assistant Professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law).  The article came out yesterday (and I was quoted in it–glory be!), but the puzzle remains . . . .

Secondary securities markets have been hot topics for a while now. I followed with interest Usha Rodrigues’s work on this paper, for example, which came out in 2013.  Yet, that project focused on markets involving only accredited investors.  

Seth’s idea, however, is intended to prime a different kind of secondary market in securities: a trading platform for securities bought by the average Joe (or Joan!) non-accredited investor in a crowdfunded offering (specifically, an offering conducted under the CROWDFUND Act, Title III of the JOBS Act).  [Note: I will not bother to unpack the statutory acronyms used in that last parenthetical expression, since I know most of our readers understand them well.  But please comment below or message me if you need help on that.]  Leaving aside one’s view of the need for or desirability of a secondary market for securities acquired through crowdfunding  (which depends, at least to some extent, on the type of issuer, investment instrument, and investor involved in the crowdfunding), the idea of fostering a secondary securities market is intriguing.  What, other than willing buyers and sellers and a facilitating (or at least non-hostile) regulatory environment, makes a trading market in securities?

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) promulgated rules to regulate the swaps marketplace, securities trades that were previously unregulated and a contributing factor in the 2008 financial crisis.  The CFTC oversees the commodity derivatives markets in the USA and has dramatically increased regulations and enforcement as a result of Dodd-Frank.  As of January 2016, the CFTC finalized Dodd-Frank Rules  exemptive orders and guidance actions. Commodity derivatives market participants, whether acting as a commercial hedger, speculator, trading venue, intermediary or adviser, face increased regulatory requirements including:

  • Swap Dealer Regulation such as  De Minimis Exceptions, new capital and margin requirements to lower risk in the system, heightened  business conduct standards to lower risk and promote market integrity, and increase record-keeping and reporting requirements so that regulators can police the markets.
  • Derivative Transparency and Pricing such as regulating exchanges of standardized derivatives  to increase competition, information and arbitrage on price. 
  • Establishing Derivative Clearinghouses for standardized derivatives to regulate and lower counter party risks

The full list of CFTC Dodd Frank rulemaking areas is available here. In conjunction with the new regulations, the CFTC has stepped up enforcement actions according to a 2015 CFTC  enforcement report detailing 69 enforcement actions for the year.  Through these enforcement actions, the CFTC collected $2.8 billion in fines (outpacing SEC collections of $2 billion with a much larger agency budget and enforcement docket).

Jet lag prevented me from posting this yesterday.  (Yes, I am scheduled to be the BLPB every-Monday blogger going forward.)  But at least I am awake enough now to post a bit more on the 7th International Conference on Innovative Trends Emerging in Microfinance (ITEM 7 Conference) I attended last week in Shanghai, China.  My initial post on Wednesday provided some information on Chinese microfinance and the initial day of the conference.  This week, my post focuses on definitional questions that I have been pondering relating to my participation in this series of conferences.  Specifically, I have been sorting through the relationship between microfinance and crowdfunding.  My understanding continues to evolve as I become more familiar with the literature on and practice of microfinance internationally.

At the conference, one of the participants noted that while microfinance and crowdfunding appear to be mutually reinforcing, they still do not enjoy comfortable relations in scholarship and practice.  After weighing that statement for a moment, I had to agree.  I actually have been personally struggling with the nature of the relationship between the two for a few years now.  (I often wonder whether folks like co-blogger Haskell Murray who commonly work in the social…

ITEM7(MFIVisit-1)

Between jet lag and the comprehensive conference proceedings and activities here in Shanghai, it’s all I can do to stay awake to finish this post . . . . But I am not complaining. Shanghai is a wonderful city, and the 7th International Conference on Innovative Trends Emerging in Microfinance (ITEM 7 Conference) has been a super experience so far.

Given my sleep-deprived state, I will just share with you here today a few key outtakes from the presentations we had yesterday (at a pre-conference site visit to the largest microfinance lender in Shanghai) and earlier today (at the conference itself) on microfinance in China.  Here goes.

  • Chinese microfinance is not really microfinance, in major part. It is SME (small and medium enterprise) lending. MSE loans are loans up to  30,000,000 Yuan RMB (about $4,600,000), and the average single loan amount for MSE lending is about  5,000,000 Yuan RMB (just under $770,000).
  • Unlike those in archetypal microfinance and those involved in actual micro-credit lending transactions in many other countries, borrowers in Chinese microfinance lending (such as it is) are largely men rather than women.
  • Despite these and other marked differences between Chinese microfinance and global microfinance, Chinese microfinance data does not

…

“[T]he effective date of a registration statement shall be the twentieth day after the filing thereof.” That statement, in section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,  makes the process seem so reassuringly quick and simple. If I want to offer securities to the public, I file a registration statement with the SEC and, less than three weeks later, I’m ready to go. But, as every securities lawyer knows, it isn’t really that easy.

It can take months for the registration statement in an IPO to become effective. The statutory deadline is circumvented through the use of a delaying amendment, a statement in the registration statement that automatically extends the 20-day period until the SEC has finished its review. See Securities Act Rule 473, 17 C.F.R. § 230.473.

But wouldn’t it be so much more conducive to capital formation if there really was a hard 20-day deadline? I understand that the SEC doesn’t have the staff to complete a full review in that time frame, but it would force them to focus on the important disclosure issues rather than some of the trivialities one sees in the current comment letters.

I’d like to see someone test that automatic…

As many of you know, I teach both traditional doctrinal and experiential learning courses in business law.  I bring experiential learning to the doctrinal courses, and I bring doctrine to the experiential learning courses.  I see the difference between doctrinal and experiential learning courses as a matter of emphasis.  Among other things, this post explores the intersection between traditional classroom-based law teaching and experiential law teaching by analogizing business law drafting to yoga practice principles.  This turned out to be harder than it “felt” when I first started to write it.  So, the post may be wholly or partially unsuccessful.  But I persevere . . . .

I begin by noting that we are, to some extent, in the midst of a critical juncture with respect to experiential learning in legal education.  Some observers, including both legal practitioners and faculty, criticize the lack of experiential learning, noting that legal education is too theoretical and policy-oriented, resulting in the graduation of students who are ill-prepared for legal practice.  Yet, other commentators note that too great an emphasis on experiential learning leaves students without the skills in theory and policy that they need to make useful interpretive judgments and novel arguments for their clients and to participate meaningfully in law reform efforts.  Of course, different law schools have different programs of legal education (something not noted well enough, or at all, in many treatments of legal education).  But even without taking that into account, many in and outside legal education (including, for example, in articles here and here) advise a law school curriculum that merges the two.  I think about and struggle with constructively effectuating this all merger the time.

Now, about the yoga . . . .  Most of you likely do not know that, in addition to teaching law, being a wife and mom, and other stuff, I enjoy an active yoga practice.  As I finished a yoga class on Sunday afternoon, I realized that yoga has something to say about integrating doctrinal and experiential learning, especially when it comes to instruction on legal drafting in the business law area.  Set forth below are the parallels that I observe between yoga and business law drafting.  They are not perfect analogs, but they are, in my view, instructive in a number of ways important to the teaching mission in business law.  The first two bullet points are, as I see it, especially important as expressions of the idea that law teaching is more complete and valuable when it holistically integrates doctrine, policy, theory, and skills.  The rest of the bullets principally offer other insights.

Andrew Schwartz, a professor at the University of Colorado, has recently published an interesting article discussing how crowdfunding deals with the fundamental problems of startup finance: uncertainty, information asymmetry, and agency costs. His article, The Digital Shareholder, 100 MINN. L. REV. 609 (2015), is available here.

Here’s the abstract:

Crowdfunding, a new Internet-based securities market, was recently authorized by federal and state law in order to create a vibrant, diverse, and inclusive system of entrepreneurial finance. But will people really send their money to strangers on the Internet in exchange for unregistered securities in speculative startups? Many are doubtful, but this Article looks to first principles and finds reason for optimism.

Well-established theory teaches that all forms of startup finance must confront and overcome three fundamental challenges: uncertainty, information asymmetry, and agency costs. This Article systematically examines this “trio of problems” and potential solutions in the context of crowdfunding. It begins by considering whether known solutions used in traditional forms of entrepreneurial finance—venture capital, angel investing, and public companies—can be borrowed by crowdfunding. Unfortunately, these methods, especially the most powerful among them, will not translate well to crowdfunding.

Finding traditional solutions inert, this Article presents five novel solutions…