Coinbase, a secure hosted Bitcoin wallet that makes it easy for anyone to purchase and use Bitcoin, has raised $75M from DFJ Growth, with participation from existing investors, including Andreessen Horowitz, Union Square Ventures, and Ribbit Capital. According to the Company’s blog – “Three of the world’s most respected financial institutions – The New York Stock Exchange, a subsidiary of USAA, and BBVA (a large multinational bank) also invested in the round alongside personal investments from former Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit and former Thomson Reuters CEO Tom Glocer. This marks the first time that financial institutions have made a major investment in a Bitcoin company.”
Space Exploration Technologies, Inc., filed an Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation on January 20, 2015 that authorized 13 million new shares of Series G at $77.46 per share. This allows for a potential $1B raise, and is 10X the share price of their last round at $7.50.
Journalists, bloggers and various other media outlets often reach out to the team at VC Experts because of our innate ability to gather private company financing details, including share prices, stock splits, valuations, and other unique data often overlooked through other sources.
VC Experts Intelligence Database racked up more than 20,000 new private company regulatory filings in 2014 (*more than just Form D’s on file with the SEC). Because of our unique dataset we were mentioned in the media quite a few times. We have listed below some of the “media darlings” that drew the most attention.
During the year we also entered into a strategic partnership with ACE Portal, and our data is now available on S&P Capital IQ– you can see the press releases below. Our Founders, Joe Bartlett and Ross Barrett, played a big part in keeping the conversation going about the importance of accurate data and private company transactions, check out some of their video interviews with ACE Portal below.
2014 Private Company Press Mentions
Be sure to check out our Report Center for individual company reports and industry aggregate reports.
We also compiled a few lists from our Intelligence Database:
- The Hottest Startups of 2014 – Forbes
- These 18 Companies Achieved $1B+ Valuations in 2014 – VentureBeat
2014 Press Releases
The VC Experts content will prove very beneficial to our Investment Banking, Private Equity, Venture Capital and Corporate clientele who utilize our desktop, data and third party investment research in their deal analysis, said Keith Ackerman – Managing Director of S&P Capital IQ’s Research Network and, Strategic Research Partnerships. “Investors using our platform will be able to even more effectively negotiate term sheets, calculate valuations, source deals, and price transactions with more transparency and confidence, which is precisely the intelligence they expect from us.”
“I do not know of any issues of importance to our economy that can match the imperative of maintaining accredited investor status as it now exists,” said Joseph Bartlett, VC Experts Co-Founder. “The cornerstone of economic growth in the United States since World War II has been the availability of venture capital for the likes of Microsoft, Google, Apple. It is, of course, true that many (or most) business startups fail; but if the solution is deemed to be steps to minimalize the opportunities for startups to get funding, we are approaching the end of the road.”
“The integration of VC Experts’ insights, data and analysis into ACE’s transaction management platform furthers our goal of improving the market for private placements by bringing greater efficiency to the private placement process and making information more readily available to investors,” said ACE chief executive officer Peter Williams.
By Paul A. Jones of Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP
In an earlier blog (Capping Preferred Participation: A Compromised Compromise), I argued that the usual middle ground between entrepreneur-friendly “non-participating” preferred stock and investor-friendly “participating” preferred stock – capping participation at some multiple of an investor’s base preference – is seriously flawed. Herewith an alternative approach.
By way of a quick refresh, we are talking about “participation” in the context of a preferred stock liquidation preference. In an exit transaction, other than an IPO, an investor holding “participating” preferred shares gets two bites at the exit proceeds apple. First, a bite equal to his base preference (typically an amount equal to his investment) and then a second bite equal to his pro-rata share of the remaining exit proceeds.
An example: An investor who put down $1 million for a 40% ownership position in Newco in the form of “participating” preferred shares would, in the event Newco was sold for $3 million, receive $1 million “off the top” and in addition 40% of the remaining $2 million of proceeds for a total of $1.8 million. That means the investor, who owned 40% of Newco when it was sold, would get 60% of the exit proceeds. If instead, the investor held “non-participating” preferred shares he would receive either (i) his $1 million base preference or (ii) his 40% pro-rata share of the $3 million or $1.2 million. Clearly, the investor would take the $1.2 million pro-rata share and leave the entrepreneur with $600,000 more money than he would have had if the investor had held participating preferred.
Looking at the above example, it is not hard to see why entrepreneurs don’t like participation and investors do. While the relative impact of the participation right diminishes as the exit proceeds rise (in the example, the difference is always $600,000), at every exit that leaves anything for the common shares, the investor with participating preferred gets more and the entrepreneur less.
In light of the above, entrepreneurs and investors long ago came up with a compromise on the participating/non-participating issue, the so-called “participation cap.” As with non-participating preferred, “capped” participating preferred gives an investor a choice. When exit proceeds are being distributed, the investor can choose to take either his pro-rata share of the proceeds (his percentage ownership at the exit) or his base preference plus participation in the distribution of the remaining proceeds until he has received in the aggregate an amount up to some multiple – say 2x or 3x etc. – of his base preference.