The Business Plan And Private Placement Memo

Since a private placement memorandum, usually abbreviated as the PPM, is the norm in most deals, the founder should familiarize himself with the standards for memorandum preparation, keeping in mind that, like any legal document, there are various audiences. The audience composed of potential plaintiffs (and, theoretically at least, the SEC enforcement staff) will read the document against the requirements contained in the cases imposing liability. The audience composed of investors will read the document for its substantive content: “What are the terms of the deal?” To professional investors interested enough to become potential buyers, the private placement memorandum is a handy collection of only some of the information they are interested in, plus a lot of surplus verbiage (the empty language about suitability standards, for example). To the issuer, it is a sales document, putting the best face possible on the company and its prospects. To the managers, the memorandum is a summary of the business plan. Indeed, it may incorporate the business plan as an exhibit or be “wrapped around” the plan itself—a memorialization of how the business is to be conducted.

The first page of the PPM, the cover page, contains some of the information one might see on the front of a statutory prospectus: name of the issuer, summary description of the securities to be sold, whether the issue is primary (proceeds to the issuer) and/or secondary (proceeds to selling shareholders), the price per share, the gross and net proceeds (minus selling commissions and expenses), and a risk factor or two (that is, the offering is “highly speculative” and the securities will not be liquid). Some would argue a date is important, because, legally, the document speaks as of a certain date. However, if the memo becomes substantively stale between the offer and the closing, it is critical that the issuer update and circulate it; omission of material information as of the closing is not excusable on the theory that the memo displays an earlier date. Moreover, a dated memorandum will appear just that—dated—if a few months elapse and the issue is still unsold. A related issue is whether to specify a minimum amount of proceeds that must be subscribed if the offering is to go forward. If the financing is subject to a “minimum,” a reference belongs on the cover page. It makes common sense that there be a critical mass in most placements; however, a stated requirement that X dollars be raised or all subscriptions returned inhibits an early-closing strategy—the ability to “close,” if only in escrow—with the most eager of the issuer‘s potential investors. Such “closings ” may not be substantively meaningful; the deal may be that the “closing” will be revisited if more money is not raised. However, a first closing can have a salubrious shock effect on the overall financing; it can bring to a halt ongoing (sometimes interminable) negotiations on the terms of the deal and create a bandwagon effect.

The cover page should be notated, a handwritten number inscribed to help record the destination of each private placement memorandum. It is also customary to reflect self-serving, exculpatory language (of varying effectiveness in protecting the issuer), that is:

1. The offer is only an offer in jurisdictions where it can be legally made and then only to persons meeting suitability standards imposed by state and federal law. (The offer is, in fact, an “offer” whenever and to whomsoever a court designates.)

2. The memorandum is not to be reproduced (about the same effectiveness as stamping Department of Defense papers “Eyes Only,” a legend understood in bureaucratese to mean, “may be important … make several copies”).

3. No person is authorized to give out any information other than that contained in the memo. (Since the frequent practice is for selling agents to expand liberally on the memo’s contents, it would be extraordinary if extraneous statements by an authorized agent of the issuer were not allowed in evidence against the issuer, unless perhaps they are expressly inconsistent with the language of the memo.)

4. The private placement memorandum contains summaries of important documents (a statement of the obvious), and the summaries are “qualified by reference” to the full documentation. (A materially inaccurate summary is unlikely to be excused simply because investors were cautioned to read the entire instrument.)

5. Each investor is urged to consult his own attorney and accountant. (No one knows what this means; if the legally expertised portions of the private placement memorandum are otherwise actionably false, it would take an unusually forgiving judge to decide the plaintiff should have obeyed the command and hired personal counsel.)

6. The offering has not been registered under the ’33 Act and the SEC has not approved it.

The foregoing is not meant as an exercise in fine legal writing and the avoidance of excess verbiage. Certain legends are mandatory as a matter of good lawyering—a summary of the “risk factors”; a statement that investors may ask questions and review answers and obtain additional information (an imperative of Reg. D); and, of course, the language required by various state securities administrators. A recitation tipping investors that they will be required in the subscription documents to make representations about their wealth and experience is generally desirable, particularly in light of cases finding against plaintiffs who falsified their representation. However, in my opinion, a cover page loaded with superfluous exculpations may cheapen a venture financing, signaling to readers that the deal is borderline, in a league with “double write-off” offerings in the real estate and tax-shelter areas.

A well-written private placement memorandum will follow the cover page with a summary of the offering. This section corresponds to a term sheet, except that the language is usually spelled out, not abbreviated. The important points are covered briefly: a description of the terms of the offering, the company’s business, risk factors, additional terms (i.e., anti-dilution protection, registration rights, control features), expenses of the transaction and summary financial information. The purpose of the summary is to make the offering easy to read and understand. As stated, suppliers of capital are inundated with business plans and private placement memoranda; the sales-conscious issuer must get all the salient facts in as conspicuous a position as possible if he hopes to have them noticed.

At this juncture, it is customary to reproduce investor suitability standards, identifying and flagging the principal requirements for a Reg. D offering, that is, the definition of “accredited investor.”

Issuers should approach offerings that have stated maximums and minimums with caution. The SEC has made its position clear. If the issuer elects to increase or decrease the size of the offering above the stated maximum/minimum, each of the investors who have signed subscription agreements must consent to the change in writing. It is not open to the issuer to send out a notice to the effect that “We are raising or lowering the minimum and, if we do not hear from you, we assume you consent.” The issuer must obtain the affirmative consent of each investor, which may be a bit difficult if the investor is, at that point, somewhere in Katmandu.

Investors should be aware that issuers sometimes do not want the investors to know certain information. For example, some issuers elect to code the numbers on the private placement memorandum so that no investor knows he is receiving, say, number 140; he is, instead, receiving “14-G.”

Finally, the current trend is to prepare both a full placement memo as well as a brief summary, such as the so-called “elevator pitch”, a concise summary that can be read while riding in an elevator. Venture capitalists are chronically short on time and a 40-page document is likely to be left unread if this is the only pitch material available.

Are You Savvy on Restricted Stock Units?

Written by: Joseph W. Bartlett, Co-Chair of VC Experts

A structure is creeping into the process of rewarding and motivating managements of public and private companies with equity awards. [1]

Although the subject of discussion in this article is not new, nonetheless my experience is that a significant percentage of the parties involved in the capital markets … particularly the private capital markets where emerging growth companies are organized to travel the Conveyor Belt, [2] from the embryo to the IPO … are unfamiliar with restricted stock units (“RSUs”).

The grant of a restricted stock unit (“RSU”) by a corporation to an employee gives the employee the right to receive a share of the corporation‘s stock, or if the RSU agreement so provides, its cash value equivalent, upon satisfaction of one or more specified vesting conditions.

The vesting conditions may be either time-based (completion of a specified period of employment following the date of grant) or performance based (achievement of performance goals over a specified measurement period), or both.

To the extent the RSUs granted to the employee become vested, the employee will receive either the number of shares that have vested, or if the RSU agreement so provides, a cash amount equal to the shares’ fair market value.

In the usual case, the RSU’s are “settled” by the delivery of the shares or payment of the cash amount at the time the RSUs vest. However, an RSU agreement can, and often does, provide for the payment or delivery of shares to be deferred until the occurrence of some later specified date or event; but if payment is to be delayed beyond March 15 of the year following vesting, then the payment-triggering event must be one permitted under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.

Under Section 409A rules, the payment event could be termination of employment, or it could be the occurrence of a change in control , as defined for Section 409A purposes [3], which would be a typical private company exit event when cash can be realized to enable the employee to sell enough shares to pay the tax … and keep the rest. An IPO, another typical exit event, would not be a 409A-permissible payment event for an already vested RSU. But an RSU agreement could provide for the RSUs to both become vested and payable upon the first to occur of an IPO, a change in control (including one not meeting the Section 409A definition), termination of employment, or at some specified date corresponding to the investors’ expected exit and realization date, e.g., the 7th anniversary of the date of grant.

For federal income tax purposes, an employee is not taxed with respect to a grant of RSUs either at the time of grant or at the time of vesting. He is subject to tax only upon his receipt of the shares or their cash equivalent at the time the RSUs are settled. At that time, he is taxed, at ordinary income rates, on the then fair market value of the shares he receives, or the amount of the cash he receives.

In a number of respects, RSUs compare favorably with other forms of equity grants, as a medium for delivering incentive compensation to a private company’s employees.

    • A grant of RSUs delivers full share value to the employee. It provides him not only with upside potential but also downside protection. He can realize value from the grant even if the date of grant value of the RSUs should later decline. In contrast, with an option grant the employee will realize value only if and to the extent that the shares covered by the option increase in value after the grant date.

 

    • A grant of restricted shares also delivers full share value to the employee, and in addition, provides the employee with an opportunity for capital gains treatment on eventual sale of the shares. In contrast, when RSUs are settled, the then value of the shares is subject to tax at ordinary income rates. But as indicated above, RSUs are not taxed at the time of grant, nor at the time of vesting if settlement of the RSUs does not occur until a later date. As a result, it should be possible in most cases to structure an RSU grant so as to delay settlement, and thus, taxation, until a realization event occurs. This may not be the case with a restricted stock grant. The employee would have to pay tax, at ordinary income rates, on the value of his restricted shares either at the time of grant if he makes a Code section 83(b) election, or at the time the shares vest if he doesn’t make the election. He may therefore be subject to tax, at ordinary income rates, with respect to a substantial portion of the ultimate value of his restricted shares well before an exit event occurs permitting a sale of the shares.

 

  • Like an RSU grant, an employee is not taxed with respect to a stock option at the time of grant or at the time of vesting. He is subject to tax at the time he exercises the option, if it is a nonqualified stock option (“NQSO”), or if it is an incentive stock option (“ISO”), at the time he sells the shares acquired on exercise of the option. [4] In either case, the grant of a stock option, whether an NQSO or an ISO, would permit tax to be delayed until the occurrence of a realization event, since a stock option grant can permit the option to be exercised at any time during its term after it becomes vested. Although in the case of an NQSO, tax would be at ordinary income rates, as is so with an RSU, in the case of an ISO, the increase in value of the shares from date of grant to date of sale could qualify for tax at capital gains rates, subject to certain limits and conditions. However, there are several negatives to be considered in connection with a stock option grant.

(i) Valuation Issues. Tax law requirements [5] mandate that the exercise price of a stock option not be less than the fair market value of the underlying shares at date of grant. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in significant adverse tax consequences for the employee under Section 409A. Share valuations for a private company are an inherently uncertain matter. To minimize the exposure to adverse treatment under Section 409A, the exercise price for the option usually would be established based on an independent third party valuation.

(ii) Dilution. Because an option delivers value to the employee only to the extent that the fair market value of the shares at the time of exercise exceeds the option exercise price, it would be necessary for an option grant to cover a greater number of shares than a grant of RSUs or restricted stock, in order to deliver an equivalent economic value to the employee. As a result, an option grant would mean more dilution for the investors as compared with an economically equivalent grant of RSUs or restricted stock.

(iii) Limits on Capital Gain treatment for ISOs. Capital gain treatment for an ISO is available only if the shares acquired on exercise are held for at least 1 year following the date of exercise of the option, and 2 years following the date of grant of the option. In the usual case, an employee holding an option on shares of a private company would not want to exercise his option until there is an IPO or other realization event, and will want to sell the shares he acquires on exercise of the option as soon as practicable after that event occurs, in order to (a) fund his payment of the exercise price for the shares, and (b) avoid loss of value in the shares in a highly volatile market that could bring a significant drop in share price prior to the end of the ISO-required holding periods. If the employee does sell the shares before the end of the ISO required holding periods, the increase in value of the shares since date of grant will be taxed at ordinary income rates, instead of capital gain rates. [6]

All things considered, for many private companies the grant of RSUs may be the best vehicle for delivering incentive compensation to the company’s executives, despite the fact that the values so delivered will be subject to tax at ordinary income rates.

After all, the objective is to give an incentive to the executives which pays them for navigating the company’s trip from “the embryo to the IPO” or to a trade sale. And, if the tax is at ordinary income rates the answer is ‘so what?’… as long as the executives receive and are able to sell enough shares to make a big difference in the executive’s life.


[1] See, Perkins, “Equity Compensation Alphabet Soup- ISO, NSO, RSA, RSU and More,” Contributing Author, the Venture Alley at DLA Piper, LLP, Buzz, on VC Experts (www.vcexperts.com)

[2] Bartlett, “From the Embryo to the IPO, Courtesy of the Conveyor Belt (Plus a Tax-Efficient Alternative to the Carried Interest), ” The Journal of Private Equity Winter 2011, Copyright (c) 2011, Institutional Investor, Inc.

[3] The definition would include the acquisition by a third party of more than 50% of the total fair market value or voting power of the company’s shares, or more than 40% of the total gross fair market value of the company’s assets.

[4] However, the “spread” at the time of exercise of an ISO might be subject to the alternative minimum tax (“AMT”) in the year of exercise.

[5] Code section 409A and the regulations issued thereunder in the case of a nonqualified stock option, and Code section 422(b)(4) in the case of an incentive stock option (“ISO”).

[6] Other limits on capital gains treatment for ISOs: (i) ISO treatment is available only for shares with a total grant date value of up to $100,000, in respect of all of the employee’s ISOs that first become exercisable in any calendar year; and (ii) ISO treatment is available for an option only if exercised by the employee during employment or by the end of the 3rd month following termination of employment. If an exit event has not occurred before the end of the 3 month post-termination exercise period and the employee wants to wait until an exit event does occur to exercise his option, doing so will result in loss of ISO status for his option and taxation at ordinary income rates, instead of capital gain rates, for the “spread” when he does exercise the option.

After a Down Round: Alternatives for Employee Incentive Plans

*Excerpt from VC Experts Encyclopedia of Private Equity & Venture Capital

Employee Incentive Plans for Privately-Held Companies

Despite the recent improvement in capital markets activity, many small, privately-held technology companies continue to face reduced valuations and highly dilutive financings, frequently referred to as “down rounds.” These financings can create difficulties for retention of management and other key employees who were attracted to the company in large part for the potential upside of the option or stock ownership program. When down rounds are implemented, the investors can acquire a significant percentage of the company at valuations that are lower than the valuations used for prior financing rounds. Lower valuations mean lower preferred stock values for the preferred stock issued in the down round, and as preferred stock values drop significantly, common stock values also drop, including the value of common stock options held by employees.

Consequently, reduced valuations and “down round” financings frequently cause two results: (i) substantial dilution of the common stock ownership of the company and (ii) the devaluation of the common stock, particularly in view of the increased aggregate liquidation preference of the preferred stock that comes before the common stock. The result is a company with an increasingly larger percentage being held by the holders of the preferred stock and with common stock that can be relatively worthless and unlikely to see any proceeds in the event of an acquisition in the foreseeable future.

In the face of substantial dilution of the common stock and significant devaluation in equity value, companies are faced with the difficulty of retaining key personnel and offering meaningful equity incentives. Potential solutions can be very simple (issuing additional options to counteract dilution) or quite complex (issuing a new class of stock with rights tailored to balance the concerns of both investors and employees). Intermediate solutions range from effecting a recapitalization that will result in an increase in the value of the common stock to implementing a cash bonus plan for employees that is to be paid in the event of an acquisition. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, and each may be appropriate depending on the circumstances of a particular company, but the more complex alternatives can offer companies greater flexibility to satisfy the competing demands of employees and investors. This article briefly reviews three of the solutions that can be implemented-the use of additional options, recapitalizations and retention plans (cash and equity based).

Granting Additional Options

The simplest solution to address the dilution of common stock is to issue additional employee stock options. For example, assume that, prior to a down round, a company had 9,000,000 shares of common and preferred stockoutstanding and the employees held options to purchase an additional 1,000,000 shares. Also assume that, in the down round, the company issued additional preferred stock that is convertible into 10,000,000 shares of common stock. On a fully-diluted basis (i.e., taking into account all options and the conversion of all preferred stock), the employees have seen the value of their options reduced from 10% of the company to 5%, or by 50%. In this case, the company might issue the employees additional options to increase their ownership percentage. It would require additional options to purchase in excess of 1,000,000 shares to return the employees to a 10% ownership position, although a smaller amount would still reduce the impact of the down round and might be enough to help entice the employees to stay.

If the common stock retains significant value, the grant of additional options can be an effective solution. It is also relatively straightforward to implement; at most, stockholder approval may be required for an increase in the optionpool. In many cases, however, the aggregate liquidation preference of the preferred stock is unlikely to leave anything for the common holders following an acquisition, particularly in the short term. In that event, the dilution of the common stock becomes less relevant – 5% of nothing is the same as 10% of nothing. Companies with this kind of common stock devaluation will need to consider more intricate solutions.

Recapitalizations

If the common stock has been effectively reduced to minimal value by the down round, a company could increase the common stock value through a recapitalization. A recapitalization can be implemented through a decrease in the liquidation preferences of the preferred stock or a conversion of some preferred stock into common stock, thereby increasing the share of the proceeds that is distributed to the common stock upon a sale of the company. This solution is conceptually straightforward and certainly effective in increasing the value of the common stock. In most cases with privately-held venture capital backed companies, however, the holders of the preferred stock are the investors who typically fund and implement the down rounds and in nearly all cases the preferred stockholders have a veto right over any recapitalization. Accordingly, implementing a recapitalization would require the consent of the affected preferred stockholders, which may be difficult to obtain, particularly because the preferred stockholders may not like the permanency of this approach. In addition, a recapitalization can be quite complicated in practice, raising significant legal, tax and accounting issues.

Retention Plans

Another approach is the implementation of a retention plan. Such plans can take a number of forms and can use cash or a new class of equity with rights designed to satisfy the interests of both the investors and employees. These solutions are more complicated, but also more flexible.

Cash Bonus Plan

In a cash bonus plan, the company guarantees a certain amount of money to employees in the event of an acquisition. This amount can equal a fixed sum or a percentage of the net sale proceeds, to be allocated among the employees at the time of the sale, or it can be a fixed amount per employee, determined in advance. Allocations can be based on a wide variety of parameters, enabling a high degree of flexibility. Often these plans have a limited duration (such as 12 to 24 months, or until the company raises a specified amount of additional equity).

A cash bonus plan is easy to understand, provides the employees with cash to pay any taxes that may be due and can be flexible if the allocations are not determined in advance. However, there are a number of hurdles. Many acquisitions are structured as stock-for-stock exchanges (i.e., the acquiring company issues stock as payment for the stock of the target company) because such exchanges may be eligible for tax-free treatment. A cash bonus plan may interfere with the tax-free treatment and, thus, may reduce the value of the company in the sale or may be a barrier to the transaction altogether.

A cash bonus plan can also be problematic in that it requires cash from a potential acquirer in the event there isn’t sufficient cash on hand in the target company. A mandatory cash commitment from an acquiror may also make the company less attractive as a target. Typically, a cash bonus plan can be adopted (and amended and terminated prior to an acquisition) by the board of directors, although a cash bonus plan creates an interest that may in effect be senior to the preferred stock, which requires consideration as to whether the consent of the preferred holders is required.

New Class of Equity

A stock bonus or option plan utilizing a new class of equity, although more complicated, shares many of the benefits of the cash bonus plan, but avoids some of the major disadvantages. A newly created class of equity, such as senior common stock or an employee series of preferred stock, permits the use of various combinations of rights. The new class of equity can be entitled to a fixed dollar amount, a portion of the purchase price or both. These rights can be in preference to, participating with or subordinate to any preferred holders, and the shares may be convertible into ordinary common stock at the option of the holders or upon the occurrence of certain events. Referring to our earlier example, the company might return the employees to their pre-down round position by issuing them senior common stock entitled to 10% of the consideration (up to a certain amount) in any sale of the company. Although a return of the employees to their pre-down round position may not be acceptable to the preferred stockholders and may not be necessary to keep the employees incentivized, the new class of equity can be tailored to fit whatever balance is acceptable to the investors.

This type of approach has several advantages. First, unlike a simple issuance of additional options, it gives real value to employees that were affected by a devaluation of their common stock. Second, unlike a cash bonus plan, it does not require an acquiror to put up cash when they purchase the company and the acquirer is less likely to discount the purchase price. Third, unlike a cash bonus plan, it will not affect the tax-free nature of many stock-for-stock acquisitions. Finally, it provides certainty to the participants, who know exactly what they will be entitled to receive upon a sale of the company.

The main disadvantage of creating a new class of equity, at least from the employees’ standpoint, is that the employee will either have to pay fair market value for the stock when it is issued or recognize a tax liability upon such issuance, when they may not have the cash with which to pay the taxes. This disadvantage can be partially ameliorated by the use of options for the new class of equity, rather than issuing the new equity up front, which at least allows the employee to control the timing of the tax liability by deciding when to exercise. Moreover, for many employees an option may qualify as an incentive stock option under federal tax law, thus allowing the employee to defer taxation until the sale of the underlying stock. A new class of equity will also be somewhat more difficult for most employees to understand, at least when compared to traditional common stock options.

In addition, a new class of equity adds complexity from the company’s perspective. It may raise securities and accounting issues, and shareholder approval of an amendment to the company’s charter will be required. At a minimum, it will require more elaborate documentation than some of the simpler alternatives, such as a cash bonus plan, and thus it will likely be more expensive to implement at a time when the company may be particularly sensitive to preserving its cash. A new class of equity may also result in future complications such as separate class votes or effective veto rights in certain circumstances. As with the other solutions that address the devaluation problem, there may be resistance from the existing preferred holders, whose share of the consideration upon a sale of the company would thereby be reduced.

These complexities are surmountable and companies may find that they are more than balanced by the advantages that a new class of equity provides over other solutions in addressing issues of reduced common stock valuations and dilution.

A Founder’s Guide to Making a Section 83(b) Election

Guest Post by: Kevin E. Criddle, Associate, DLA Piper

One of the more important tax decisions founders of early-stage companies will face is whether or not to make an election under Section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code for stock awards or other acquisitions of shares subject to vesting. By making this decision promptly upon acquiring the shares, founders can avoid missing the 83(b) filing deadline and protect themselves from significant tax consequences down the line. Below, we have set out six of the most commonly asked questions by our clients:

1) What is a Section 83(b) election?

Section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code allows founders, employees and other service providers to accelerate the time for determining taxable income on restricted stock awards or purchases subject to vesting. A Section 83(b) election is made by sending a letter (a sample form can be found here) to the Internal Revenue Service requesting to be taxed on the date the restricted stock was granted or purchased rather than on the scheduled vesting dates.

Founders that decide to make an 83(b) election need to do so promptly to ensure that they do not miss the 83(b) filing deadline. An 83(b) election must be filed with the IRS within 30 days after the grant or purchase date of the restricted stock. The last possible day for filing is calculated by counting every day (including weekends and holidays) starting with the day after the grant date.

 2) What are the benefits of an 83(b) election?

There are several reasons why filing an 83(b) election may be beneficial for a founder. Most notably, Section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code allows founders to accelerate the determination of taxable income on an award or purchase of restricted stock to the date it was granted rather than on the date(s) the shares vest. If the restricted stock is purchased for an amount equal to its fair market value, an 83(b) election will result in no recognition of income as of the purchase date. Additionally, an 83(b) election advances the beginning of the one-year long-term capital gain holding period, often resulting in preferential capital gain rather than ordinary tax treatment upon sale (long-term capital gain tax rates are 0, 15 and 20 percent for most taxpayers). Simply stated, an 83(b) election can result in significant tax savings under the right circumstances.

3) What happens if a founder does not file an 83(b) election?

If a Section 83(b) election is not filed by the deadline, a founder would pay taxes on restricted stock grants at each vesting date. The founder’s tax would be assessed at ordinary income rates on the amount by which the stock’s value on the vesting date exceeds the purchase price, if any. This may result in a significant tax obligation if the value of the shares has increased substantially over time.

4) What are the risks of an 83(b) election?

Despite its benefits, the 83(b) election is not without risk. Making a Section 83(b) election accelerates the date that taxable income is recognized from the vesting date to the date the restricted stock is granted or purchased. This means that if a founder makes an 83(b) election, pays taxes on income based on the fair market value of the shares on the grant date, and then later forfeits his or her shares, the founder may have paid tax on unrealized income.

5) What scenarios could make an 83(b) election more or less advantageous?

All things considered, a Section 83(b) election will likely be more (or less) advantageous for a founder in the following scenarios:

Section 83(b) Election is More Advantageous Section 83(b) Election is Less Advantageous
  • the amount of income reported at grant is small
  • the amount of income reported at grant is large
  • the stock’s growth prospects are moderate to strong
  • the stock’s growth prospects are low to moderate
  • the risk of stock forfeiture is very low
  • the risk of stock forfeiture is moderate to high

6) What are the steps to filing an 83(b) election?

To make an 83(b) election, the following steps must be completed within 30 days of the grant date:

  1. Complete a Section 83(b) election letter—a sample form can be found here.
  2. Mail the completed letter to the IRS within 30 days of your grant date:
  • Mail to the IRS Service Center where you file your tax return—the address for your IRS Service Center can be found here.
  • Preferably send the letter by certified mail and request a return receipt.
  1. Mail a copy of the completed letter to your employer.
  2. Retain one copy of the completed and filed letter for your records and retain proof of mailing.

As always, founders should consult with their tax advisors to determine how a Section 83(b) election applies to their individual circumstances.


Kevin E. Criddle, Associate, DLA Piper

Kevin Criddle’s practice focuses on securities and corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions, venture capital and private equity investments and general corporate counselling.

 

Business Plan Forecasting: Valuation Effects

The art of preparing forecasts in a business plan–and it is an art, not a science–involves the founder in a delicate balancing process. On the one hand, a forecast is a representation of a fact–the founder’s state of mind–and an intellectually honest founder will represent his state of mind accurately, for careless, let alone dishonest, preparations may involve liability. [1] On the other hand, the forecast is a critical element in the negotiation process. Thus, as one prominent source on business plan preparation has noted:

The entrepreneur should be careful to avoid negotiating in the business plan. For example, the entrepreneur who indicates he or she will sell 20 percent of the company for $200,000 has just established the upper end of the negotiating range. Sophisticated reviewers will realize that at worst they can acquire 20 percent of the venture for $200,000, and that they might be able to negotiate a better price. [2]

The problem is that the forecast is an “indication” of price and value since it drives valuation, even though the business plan says nothing about “20% for $200,000.” Potential investors, reading the forecast as an offer by the founder to value his company at a given number, will decode the standard language of venture capital valuation. Consequently, it would be ingenuous to prepare a forecast without at least knowing how the investment community will read it. To be sure, if the founder does nothing more than work backwards in the forecasting process, targeting the valuations he wishes to achieve and then filling in the forecast behind that number, he may have made less than a bona fide effort to be candid. Nonetheless, ignorance of how the audience will react to a forecast is not bliss in the venture universe.

The answer, then, is that the forecast should be prepared with two considerations in mind. It should represent the founder’s best thinking as to likely future events. But, at the same time, the founder should not close his eyes to what the consequences of his forecast will be; accordingly, he should at least understand how venture capitalists approach the forecasts in the context of the valuation process.

Most venture capitalists contemplate a five-year time horizon on the theory an exit strategy is feasible at the end of five years. Therefore, the founder’s forecast should go out as far as the investors are looking. [3] Depending upon the maturity of the company and the ability of its product to excite, an informed founder can usually estimate what kind of compounded rates of return the venture capitalists are looking at over a five-year period. If the founder “guesstimates” that the venture capitalist will be looking for a 38 percent compounded rate of return, a quick calculation shows the venture capitalist will be anticipating its investment will quintuple in five years. If the founder is planning to raise $250,000 from the venture capitalists, then the founder knows a forecast which shows anything less than $1 million in net after-tax earnings in year five will mean he has to surrender more than 12.5 percent of the company. To illustrate, the venture capitalist can then be counted on to multiply 1 million times a price/earnings multiple (and that usually is somewhere around 10 because, among other reasons, that number appears often in the marketplace and is easy to work with); once the venture capitalist comes up with a $10 million valuation, he will then calculate that his $250,000 should be worth $1.25 million in year five and find himself agreeing to take 12.5 percent of the company for $250,000 in year one if, and only if, he sees (and believes) forecast earnings of $1 million or more in year five.

A final word on this point. Borrowing from the speech of Kenneth Olson to the 1987 M.I.T. graduating class, [4] the forecast is both a prediction and a target. If you don’t shoot high, the Law of Self-fulfilling Prophecies dictates that you won’t reach high. Exuberance in preparing one’s forecast, if intellectually honest, is an integral part of a founder’s mental terrain.

Lest one get the impression that the previous discussion baldly suggests the forecast should come out exactly where the founder wants it to, it should be remembered that professional venture capital investors are not stupid. They will test the forecast and explore thoroughly the assumptions used, smoking out numbers that are intellectually dishonest or, to put it in the vernacular, do not pass the “red face” test. A very steep climb in earnings in some remote period, for example, will be suspect. Because it is easier to kibitz a forecast in the early years, a spike upward in year five, when anybody’s guess is as good as anybody else’s, will reveal itself as result-oriented. Moreover, an intellectually dishonest set of projections may provoke a negative reaction or outright rejection without further investigation. Furthermore, many investors view the forecast as a quasi-promise [5] by the founder, a representation that he proposes (albeit not legally bound) to make the forecast come true. The forecast is not so much a prediction of the future–five years is too long a time frame for precise predictions [6]–but an undertaking by the party in control to accomplish a given objective. Indeed, a confident forecast of summary results may become a critical issue in the financing negotiations. Experienced investors are accustomed to confront the founder with his rosy forecast, agree to a valuation based thereupon, and then insist that a system of penalties be institutionalized, taking equity away from the founder if and to the extent he fails to achieve the projections he authored. As elsewhere noted, most venture financing’s entail multiple rounds and, accordingly, are of the benchmark variety even if not explicitly so provided in the Purchase Agreement. The second-round investors, generally the same parties who invested in the first round, will be influenced in their pricing decision (in turn driving the founder’s dilution) by the founder’s record measured by the forecast. On occasion, the inability to meet an overly optimistic forecast may be the trigger for a control “flip”–ousting the founder from office.



[1] In the public venue, the case of Beecher v. Able, 374 F Supp. 341 (S.D.N.Y. 1974), suggests that the forecast must be based on facts that would lead one to conclude the results are “highly probable.” Id. at 348. The overall atmosphere has changed since that case was decided, spurred by the SEC’s more tolerant attitude toward forecasts and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

[2] Siegel et al., The Arthur Young Business Plan Guide (1987). The art of forecasting is sometimes known as the “bull’s eye” theory. Under this theory, one shoots the arrow first and then paints the bull’s eye around the arrow wherever it happens to land.

[3] See generally Haslett & Smollen, Preparing A Business Plan, in Pratt’s Guide 31 (1994).

[4] Olson, Learning the Dangers of Success: The Education of an Entrepreneur, New York Times, July 19, 1987.

[5] See White, The Entrepreneur’s Manual: Business Start-Ups, Spin-Offs, and Innovative Management 147-48 (1977).

[6] In Regulation S-K, Item 10(b)(2), the SEC, while it “encourages” forecasts in public disclosure statements, appears to endorse the conventional view that long-term forecasts are misleading. The Commission is correct, of course, but that view is not apposite in a venture placement. The investors know the forecast results will not come true unless the founder somehow makes them come true.

The Entrepreneur’s Shares: A Balanced Approach To Founder’s Equity

Guest post by Daniel I. DeWolf, Evan M. Bienstock, Samuel Effron, and Ilan Goldbard – Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

When accepting money from outside investors, entrepreneurs are generally asked to give up some degree of control over their start-up, exchanging equity in their company for cash. In an effort to minimize the control they relinquish, upon formation of their company entrepreneurs can grant themselves equity that comes with special rights. These rights, such as special voting privileges or guaranteed board seats, allow founders to maintain control of their company in spite of a dwindling ownership percentage. They may also include special rights that make it possible for a founder to cash out some of his equity prior to an IPO or other exit event.

Continue reading