Category Archives: private equity

HAPPY 17th ANNIVERSARY to ASSOULINE & BERLOWE!

MIAMI – Assouline & Berlowe, P.A., The Business Law Firm, is pleased to announce that today it is celebrating its 17th Anniversary.

Started on February 10, 2003, through humble beginnings, in a small subleased space in Coral Gables, Assouline & Berlowe has weathered the many business climate changes and challenges of the past two decades.

Assouline & Berlowe is proud of its contributions to its communities in the tri-county area, as part of its presence with offices in Miami, Ft. Lauderdale/Dania Beach, and Boca Raton.  Assouline & Berlowe regularly supports both its legal community and numerous charitable organizations alike.

Assouline & Berlowe is strategically positioned to continue its expansion as a strong player in South Florida’s international business environment.

To all those that we have worked with in the past and to those we hope to work with in the future, we say thank you.

Layout 1Circa. Feb.10,2003

Leave a comment

Filed under Appeals, Arbitration, Awards, Bankruptcy, BK, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Copyright, Corporate Law, Daddy Yankee, Environmental Law, Florida Bar, Human Resources, Intellectual Property, International, International Arbitration, IP Litigation, Judgments, Labor & Employment, labor and employment law, law school, Litigation, Marital Law, Mossack Fonseca, New Bankruptcy Court Judge, New Partner, panama papers, Patent Prosecution, private equity, Real Estate, St. Thomas University, trademark, Trusts & Estates, Uncategorized, venture capital

BROWARD COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION: Member of the Week – Eric N. Assouline, Esq.

The Broward County Bar Association Featured Assouline & Berlowe Litigation Partner as the “Member of the Week”.

Eric N. Assouline, is a co-founder of Assouline & Berlowe, P.A., a business litigation and transactional boutique law firm.  Eric credits his personal and professional success to hard work, a strong work ethic inspired by his parents, and good Jewish values.

Eric is a first-generation American.  Eric was raised in Queens, New York, by immigrant French Moroccan parents, with few resources.

Started in 2003, Assouline & Berlowe’s main practice areas are pat­ent and intellectual property law; commercial litigation and appeals; real estate; labor and employment; international law and arbitration; creditors’ rights and bankruptcy; and as of 2018 the law firm added an additional practice area – Trust, Estates, and Guardianship.  The firm has three South Florida offices, and has served as counsel of record on many complex cases outside of Florida.

Eric N. Assouline is a litigation partner in the Miami and Ft. Lauderdale offices, and the head of the business litigation practice group.  Eric’s prac­tice focuses on complex business litigation, intellectual property and real estate litigation, bankruptcy and creditors’ rights.  Eric en­joys a complicated business litigation dispute, analyzing the risks and benefits of the strategy to employ, and then implementing the plan.  Eric takes pride in taking a case from inception to conclusion for the client, which often includes trips into the appellate and bankruptcy courts.

As the business world continues its international expansion, Assouline & Berlowe guides its clients through their legal challenges.  As a French speaking attorney, Eric has been hired by many clients from France and they are always shocked at the expense involved in litigating a case in the United States.  Eric does his best to bridge his clients between differing legal environments.  With the assistance of his partner, Daniel Vielleville, who was an attorney in Venezuela before becoming an attorney in the United States, they bridge the gap with the firm’s Latin American clientele.  Corporate Partner Carl Perdue plays a similar role with corporate matters from his extensive experience with complex Middle East corporate finance.

Assouline & Berlowe’s management predicts growth in the areas of technology, real estate, intellectual property, and trust and estate issues.  “We’re more than just another boutique law firm. We take great pride in the high quality legal work that we do every day. I believe our extensive network of attorneys that refer their clients to our firm, including many referrals from former opposing counsel, is a testament to how we honor our craft,” Eric Assouline has been quoted as saying.

In the Beginning

Eric Assouline and Peter Berlowe first served together as mem­bers of the University of Miami Law Review.

After law school, they worked together in the Miami office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, where they trained as litigators on nationally recognized cases. While there, Eric Assouline served as the court appointed receiver’s lead litigation attorney charged with recovery actions in a high-profile global Ponzi scheme.

When Assouline & Berlowe first opened its doors 0n February 10, 2003, in Coral Gables, its office was sublet from Peter Berlowe’s father.  Eric has been quoted as saying “Our first office had thick shag carpet, old fash­ioned wood paneling, and had not been renovated in decades. The furnishings were comprised of mis-­matched furniture and left over construction mate­rials that we used to build a new countertop for the receptionist area,” From those humble beginnings, Assouline & Berlowe expanded with an of­fice in Broward in July 2004, and later another office in Boca Raton in 2008.

As part of its flagship intellectual property practice, the firm has two registered patent attorneys, includ­ing Peter Koziol, who is the head of the IP Litigation Group and Greg Popowitz, who has been with the firm for over 5 years.

Ellen Leibovitch, who is board certified in the areas of labor and employment, heads the firm’s Boca Raton office.

Eric Assouline has been quoted as saying that “Through our 10 attorneys we now have several hundred years of collective business law ex­perience, much of it gained in practice at large, presti­gious law firms.”

Eric Assouline has also been quoted as saying: “As the managing partner of the firm, I need to know what everyone is doing. I have an ethical obliga­tion to protect all of the firm’s clients and to be there to pick up the pieces if anything were to happen to any particular attorney at the firm. But I do not tell attor­neys how to do their job. The attorneys at my firm are exceptionally qualified and know their craft. My job is to make it as easy as possible for them to get their work done and keep the firm’s clients satisfied.”

Eric Assouline believes that his firm has the talent and experience to compete with any firm in the area of business law.  “As it re­lates to regional boutique business firms, because we are smaller, we can offer more flexibility without com­promising on service.” Eric stresses the fact that clients regularly interact with the firm’s attorneys through multi-office video conferencing. “This not only gives us what I believe is a significant competitive edge, but it helps keep clients in close contact, which is important to our client relationships.”

Giving Back

As individual professionals and as a firm, the attorneys of Assouline & Berlowe believe in sharing and they have backed that belief from the beginning. “We’ve long been involved in giving back to the community, in time, money and energy, to support numerous worthy causes and those who are less fortunate,” Eric Assouline has been quoted as saying.

Just some examples include: a mayoral debate for Miami-Dade County; a fundraising program for the Cystic Fibrosis Founda­tion; and a charity golf tournament in Boca Raton and a Walk-a-Thon in Sunrise, both in support of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.  “In 2008, as the economy struggled, we did not feel it was appropriate to have a year-end holiday staff party. So, instead we made donations to the Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital in Hollywood and to the Miami Children’s Hospital,” Eric Assouline has been quoted as saying.

Eric Assouline currently serves on the board of directors of: the B’nai Brith Justice Unit; the Jewish Na­tional Fund; Hillel of Broward and Palm Beach Counties; the University of Miami Law Alumni Association; and the Florida Alumni of Arizona State University.

Eric Assouline has been a regular guest speaker at St. Thomas Univer­sity School of Law, where his wife, Iris Rogatinsky, is a law pro­fessor.  During his talks, Eric Assouline has mentored law students seeking his advice and insight on the practice of law, and he has conducted lectures on litigation and deposition skills for Pincus Professional Edu­cation. He also regularly volunteers to judge law school moot court and mock trial competitions at the University of Miami and Nova Southeastern Law School.

“I feel fortunate that I have been given this opportunity and I do my best to instill the same strong work ethic and uncompromising moral values upon my children with the help of my amazing wife.” She also worked with both Eric Assouilne him Peter Berlowe at Weil Gotshal & Manges.

Eric Assouline’s rise from humble beginnings to prominence in the legal community has colored his view of the world, the com­munity, and his firm. Eric Assouline and the attorneys of Assouline & Berlowe recognize their fortuity. Eric Assouline has been quoted as saying: “You will not hear me complain about my life. I find it very unbecoming to complain about triv­ial matters. No one is perfect and no situation is perfect forever. I like to say that I don’t look at the glass half full. I am grateful I even have a glass to drink. And as far as I am concerned, my glass always runneth over.”

Eric N. Assouline, Esq.

Business Litigation Partner

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

Miami Tower

100 SE 2nd St., Suite 3105

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: 305-567-5576

Email: ena@assoulineberlowe.com

www.assoulineberlowe.com

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law,  Real Estate, International Dispute Resolution, Commercial Litigation, Corporate Law, and Bankruptcy

Miami · Ft. Lauderdale · Boca Raton

Assouline & Berlowe SuperLawyers 2019

Layout 1

Leave a comment

Filed under Appeals, Arbitration, Awards, Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Copyright, Corporate Law, Florida Bar, Intellectual Property, International, International Arbitration, IP Litigation, Judgments, Labor & Employment, labor and employment law, law school, Litigation, Patent Prosecution, private equity, Real Estate, St. Thomas University, trademark, Trusts & Estates, Uncategorized

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION LLM Students’ Graduation Reception

Assouline Berlowe UM LLM Flyer 2019 (00264360xA4579)

MIAMI: Assouline & Berlowe, The Business Law Firm, is hosting the students and the 2019 graduating class of the University of Miami’s International Arbitration program.  We want to thank our good friend Professor John Rooney and Sandra Friedrich for helping coordinate this fantastic event.  If you are one of these students, please do not forget to register through the school or by clicking on the following link:  https://forms.gle/ZKnpt9HN929trYe3A

Eric N. Assouline, Esq., Assouline & Berlowe, P.A., Miami Tower, 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 3105, Miami, Florida 33131, Telephone: 305-567-5576, Email: ena@assoulineberlowe.com

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Appeals, Arbitration, Awards, Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Copyright, Corporate Law, Intellectual Property, International, International Arbitration, IP Litigation, Judgments, Labor & Employment, Litigation, Patent Prosecution, private equity, Real Estate, Trusts & Estates, Uncategorized

Assouline & Berlowe is a Proud Member of Nextlaw, the Largest Worldwide Network of Attorneys – Now Ranked by Chambers

Chambers Approved (00261036xA4579)

MIAMI, Florida – March 15, 2019. Assouline & Berlowe, P.A. is pleased to announce that Nextlaw Referral Network (NRN) has been recognized as a Leading Global Legal Referral Network by Chambers & Partners in the Chambers 2019 guide. Assouline & Berlowe, P.A. has been a member of Nextlaw Network since September 2016.

Nextlaw Network has achieved this milestone faster than any network in history, having been founded in October 2016 by Dentons, the world’s largest law firm. The Network grew to be the largest in under one year and is now three-times larger than the second largest network in the world.

“We are proud to be the champion of the small to medium-size law firms,” said Nextlaw Network CEO Jeff Modisett. “Until now, medium-sized law firms were excluded from most networks because of high annual fees and the exclusive, territorial and monopolistic nature of the traditional network business model. Our Network welcomes all top law firms in the world, focusing on quality, not size.”

Assouline & Berlowe, P.A. Managing Partner Eric N. Assouline, Esq. said, “Membership in the Nextlaw Referral Network provides us with unprecedented global reach, including leading capabilities in 205 countries. We have access to top lawyers in any practice, industry or sector, anywhere in the world, enabling us to provide our clients with the best local and global services possible. The Nextlaw Referral Network makes us truly ‘in and of the community.’”

Chambers is an independent legal directory that conducts in-depth interviews, reviews submissions from law firms and collects feedback from clients to identify and rank the most outstanding legal referral networks, law firms and lawyers.

Nextlaw Network has more members and covers more countries than any other single legal referral network in the world. Members conduct more than 2,000 searches per month on the network’s advanced proprietary platform, which is seamlessly linked with its sister network, the Nextlaw Public Affairs Network. More than 70 percent of NRN members are Chambers ranked.

The Network also serves as a strategic platform by distributing cutting-edge legal technology at discounts to members, working with another sister company, Nextlaw Labs. Nextlaw Labs curates the best technology in the profession. The Network also promotes thought-leadership in emerging, disruptive technologies, such as AI and Blockchain.

Nextlaw Network is one of the only referral networks that offers inter-disciplinary functionality. In today’s complex global environment, clients often need access to professionals who understand the regulatory, business and economic cultures everywhere they do business, which means integrating legal and public affairs representation.

The Network provides no jurisdictional exclusivity, due to its guiding principle to offer clients the best lawyers in any practice, sector, anywhere in the world.
Assouline & Berlowe, P.A. is a South Florida Business Law Firm, formed in 2003, with offices in Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and Boca Raton. Assouline & Berlowe, P.A. concentrates its practice in the areas of: Intellectual Property Law and Litigation; International and Domestic Dispute Resolution, including litigation, arbitration, and appeals; Real Estate and Corporate Law and Litigation; Labor & Employment Law; Trusts, Estates & Probate Administration and Litigation; and Creditors’ Rights and Bankruptcy.
About Nextlaw Referral Network
Nextlaw Referral Network is the broadest and most sophisticated legal referral platform in the world. Introduced in October of 2016, it already includes nearly 670-member firms, over 25,000 lawyers covering all of the world’s major jurisdictions in more than 205 countries. In addition, working closely with its sister company, Nextlaw Labs, the platform will also introduce new technologies, products and services to its members. The platform also includes Nextlaw Global Public Affairs Network, the first of its kind network that includes more than 50 of the world’s top public affairs and public relations firms.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE

Miami Tower, 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 3105, Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: 305-567-5576

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law, Trust & Estates, Probate and Guardianship

Leave a comment

Filed under Appeals, Arbitration, Awards, Bankruptcy, BK, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Copyright, Corporate Law, Intellectual Property, International, International Arbitration, IP Litigation, Judgments, Labor & Employment, labor and employment law, Litigation, Patent Prosecution, private equity, Real Estate, trademark, Trusts & Estates, Uncategorized

VENTURE FINANCING: WHAT LEGAL INSTRUMENT?

pexels-photo-164474.jpeg

Start-up and Emerging Growth Companies often struggle with structuring a Private Securities Offering. Without “giving away the store,” Founders want to maximize realized funding and maintain management control. Potential investors want a reliable exit strategy and realistic profit multiples; capital enhancement with “belt and suspenders” safeguards. Structuring a Financing Package that includes a legal instrument with terms and conditions that balance these conflicting interests is no easy task.

A Company’s business life-cycle position is critical in attracting potential investors, and in successfully negotiating reasonable financing terms and conditions. When competing for funds, a technology start-up with no “proof of concept,” a weak management team, and no revenue stream is certainly disadvantaged. A more mature firm, with strong management and a product near commercialization, will be more attractive. Also, many entrepreneurs fail to create an “alignment of interests” construct; an investor universe with a risk–reward strategy compatible their operational and financial growth horizon.

There is no perfect financing instrument template for all financing deals. Creating an attractive Financing Package, that establishes a solid co-owner relationship (without possible future “buyers’ remorse”), requires careful analysis by a Deal Team that includes business, financial, and legal counsel. The relationship’s “mortar” is the financing instrument’s legal architecture.

Stand-alone Convertible Notes, in many early-Seed rounds, have terms and conditions more easily explained to less-sophisticated investors. Debt instruments, they have no impact on valuation. The drawback; they must carry interest (at least, the Federal rate), and a maturity date. From an investor’s perspective, the conversion features are positive add-ons to the Notes’ purchase price.

Introduced in 2013, by YCombinator, a Silicon Valley firm providing Startup funding, Simple Agreement for Future Equity (“SAFEs”) are debt-equity hybrids “intended to replace convertible notes in most cases…while preserving their flexibility.” Without interest and maturity provisions, SAFEs “are designed to have the same economics and mechanics as convertible notes.” The only significant negotiating terms are the conversion discount rate and the valuation cap; the highest valuation that can be used to determine the Notes’ price.

In early seed deals with family, friends, and less sophisticated Angels, Common Stock seems simple and most cost-effective. While affecting valuation, investors are granted no greater rights or preferences than existing shareholders; interests are aligned. Attempting to maintain decision-making control, Founders think about dual-class Common Stock. Venture capitalists, especially institutions, view this as unpalatable. A collateral rights agreement may be helpful in those situations.

Convertible Preferred Stock remains the instrument of choice for institutional and more sophisticated investors. Conversion is tied to the “Next Qualified” financing, the documentation does not affect valuation, and both parties can negotiation specific conversion formula at inception. Moreover, in the event of insolvency and other specified event, this form carries preferences placing the Preferred ahead of Common Stock.

Market appetite is always the principal driver in any Financing. As of December 2017, PitchBook (a financial data and software company) estimated that 157 US Venture Capital Funds, with $24 Billion in project commitments, have $92 Billion in “Dry Powder;” available for investment. To attract those funds, a Financing Package must demonstrate a strong management team, a well-developed business and financial thesis, and include a legal instrument that mitigates conflicting interests.

Carl H. Perdue, JD, LLM
Senior Counsel and Partner
Business and Finance

The above material is for information purposes only; and is not to be considered legal or financial advice.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

1801 N. Military Trail, Suite 160

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Main: (561) 361-6566

Fax: (561) 361-6466

Email: CHP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Corporate Law, International, private equity, venture capital

SEC Chairman’s Remarks at the Securities Regulation Institute

pexels-photo-730547.jpeg

Speaking at Washington, DC, on January 22, 2018, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman, Jay Clayton spoke about two issues before the Commission: (1) his expectations for market professionals, particularly when dealing with new products or new forms of old products, especially concerning Initial Coin Offerings (“ICO”)and (2) the SEC’s approach to remaining Dodd-Frank rulemaking mandates.

Chairman Clayton said “Market professionals, especially gatekeepers, need to act responsibly and hold themselves to high standards….It is expected that they will bring expertise, judgment, and a healthy dose of skepticism to their work. Said another way, even when the issue presented is narrow, market professionals are relied upon to bring knowledge of the broad legal framework, accounting rules, and the markets to bear…The SEC is undertaking significant efforts to educate the public that unregistered securities investments offered by unregistered promoters, with no securities lawyers or accountants on the scene, are, in a word, dangerous….The SEC is looking closely at the disclosures of public companies that shift their business models to capitalize on the perceived promise of distributed ledger technology and whether the disclosures comply with the securities laws, particularly in the case of an offering.”

As to the remaining Dodd-Frank mandates, the Chairman noted that the Commission is actively working on “ pursuin(g) an agenda that is true to the agency’s mission as viewed through the lens of long-term Main Street investors…(including) the broad dissatisfaction with the current regulatory approach to retail investment advice, which is commonly referred to as the “fiduciary rule.”…Executive compensation rules for both public companies and SEC-regulated entities…e rules are challenging…as a result of the complexity and scope of the existing executive compensation disclosure regime, as well as the nature of the mandates, I believe a serial approach is likely to be most efficient and best serve the SEC’s mission. I am pleased that we recently issued interpretive guidance to help companies comply with the new pay ratio rules.

The Chairman also discussed the interplay of the Securities Laws with the Administrative Procedure Act and the Congressional Review Act and the Court rulings on that subject, He indicated that the Staff is “crafting rules” sensitive to the substantive constraint of those statutes.

Concerning clawbacks related to executive compensation, the Chairman remarked that although several companies have publicized clawback policies, some going beyond what Dodd-Frank requires, few companies have attempted clawback compensation this is one area that will be given rulemaking priority.

Carl H. Perdue, JD, LLM
Senior Counsel and Partner
Business and Finance

The above material is for information purposes only; and is not to be considered legal or financial advice.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

1801 N. Military Trail, Suite 160

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Main: (561) 361-6566

Fax: (561) 361-6466

Email: CHP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

Leave a comment

Filed under commercial litigation, Corporate Law, International, private equity, Trusts & Estates, venture capital

Need Help Finding Investors? Can I Hire A “Finder? Yes. But, At Your Peril!

pexels-photo-259027.jpeg

We often hear from Start-Up and Emerging Growth Company entrepreneurs about their difficulty in sourcing venture capital. With no, or limited, operating/revenue history, getting funding to move from concept, to prototype, and to commercialization is challenging. And often, without hiring experienced financial and legal counsel, what could be a successful financing deal ends in disappointing failure.

The earlier the business life cycle, the greater capital needs. Family and friends are usually the first source of venture capital. “Angel Investors” (high-net worth individuals) the next tranche; and for more mature companies, “Institutional Investors,” (boutique and corporate Venture Capital and Private Equity firms, Insurance Companies, and the like) investing in the next successive financing rounds. If these sources are unavailable, a frustrated entrepreneur in need of cash sometimes turns to a so-called “Finder;” an individual or firm receiving compensation based on successfully finding potential investors.

Section 3(a)(4)(A) of the federal Securities Act of 1933 defines a “broker” broadly as any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others. Although Section 2(a)(1) defines a “Security” in 153 words. Simply, a “Security” is a debt or equity interest or participation in a business or other venture where the interest or participation holder (the investor) relies on the business or venture for his or her profit or loss and not on his or her own efforts.  Under the Securities Act of 1933, the following are some, but not all, activities requiring individual or entity registration:

  • Finding investors for entities issuing securities, even in a “consultant” capacity;
  • Engaging in, or finding investors for, venture capital or “angel” financings, including private placements;
  • Finding buyers and sellers of businesses (i.e., activities relating to mergers and acquisitions where securities are involved);
  • investment advisers and financial consultants;
  • persons that market real-estate investment interests that are securities;
  • persons that act as “placement agents” for private placements of securities;
  • persons that effect securities transactions for the account of others for a fee, even when those other people are friends or family members;
  • finding investors or customers for, making referrals to, or splitting commissions with registered broker-dealers, investment companies or other securities intermediaries;
  • finding investment banking clients for registered broker-dealers;

Under Florida Statute Section 517.12(1), a person who, for compensation, refers; solicits; offers; or negotiates for the purchase or sale of securities is required to register with the State of Florida’s Office of Financial Regulation.
Relying on an unregistered Finder’s “pitch” about a supposed or real list of very well healed contacts sometimes leads to fraud and disappointment. Unregistered Finders may be subject to severe sanctions under State and Federal Securities Laws. Investment contracts between company and investor, having Finder involvement are voidable and subject to Rescission. Those contracts may be cancelled, with the investors getting their money back!

Carl H. Perdue, JD, LLM
Senior Counsel and Partner
Business and Finance

The above material is for information purposes only; and is not to be considered legal or financial advice.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

1801 N. Military Trail, Suite 160

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Main: (561) 361-6566

Fax: (561) 361-6466

Email: CHP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

Leave a comment

Filed under commercial litigation, Corporate Law, International, private equity, Trusts & Estates, venture capital

Update: Federal Trade Commission Prosecutes It’s First Crowdfunding Case

Federal Trade Commission

In a recent blog post on this subject, Assouline & Berlowe outlined pertinent provisions of Florida’s Intrastate Crowdfunding legislation. The new law is aimed at assisting venture entrepreneurs and smaller businesses raise investment capital through general solicitation and without the usual high transaction costs. By utilizing an intermediary online platform, individuals and businesses can reach a vast number of potential investors; usually those who have limited amounts to invest. As with all searches for “The Next Big Thing,” Caveat Emptor!

On June 11, 2015, in its first crowdfunding case, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced legal action against a promoter who used the online intermediary platform Kickstarter.com to solicit funds to produce The Doom That Came to Atlantic City; a board game. Parenthetically, Kickstarter.com successfully raised over $1 billion since its inception. Crowdfunding online platforms raised approximately 2.7 billion in 2012, and approximately $5.1 billion in 2013.

The FTC files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the FTC that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge. This case is part of the FTC’s consumer protection program related to FinTech; the use of new and emerging financial technology

The FTC and the promoter reached a case settlement. The promoter is

  • prohibited from making any deceptive representations in any future crowdfunding campaign;
  • required to honor any stated refund policy;  and
  • barred from disclosing or benefiting from customers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of such information properly

A $111,793.71 judgment was also imposed against the promoter; but was suspended because of his inability to pay. If it is found that he misrepresented his financial condition, it will be reinstated.

In its announcement, Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection said:

“Many consumers enjoy the opportunity to take part in the development of a product or service through crowdfunding, and they generally know there’s some uncertainty involved in helping start something new. But consumers should be able to trust their money will actually be spent on the project they funded.”

According to the FTC, the promoter, doing business as , Co., raised $35,000, promising certain rewards. He raised more than $122,000 from 1,246 backers, most of whom pledged $75 or more.  After 14 months, the promoter cancelled the project promising to return the funds. Neither the funds nor the promised rewards were provided to the investors. The FTC’s complaint alleged that the promoter “spent most of the money on unrelated personal expenses and for a different project.”

The FTC’s Complaint outlined the Kickstarter.com “campaign:”

To initiate a Kickstarter “campaign,” the project creator develops a “homepage” that provides information (usually including a video and multiple pictures) about the product, service, or content that will be created with the raised funds. This homepage serves as the launch point for the entire project. In addition to information about the final product, the homepage provides information about the total amount of money needed for the project and the number of days left to fund it. Project creators can choose the length of the fundraising period, but Kickstarter limits the maximum time period to 60 days.

Kickstarter is structured for “all or nothing” funding. If the creator does not raise sufficient funds to meet the original fundraising goal within the time period agreed to, the creator does not receive any money and no backer is charged.

Kickstarter’s Terms of Use stated that Kickstarter funds must be used on a project with a “clear goal” that “produces” a deliverable.

Every project’s homepage offers multiple “pledge” options. Each tier promises specific deliverables or, in Kickstarter parlance, “rewards.” Usually, the higher the amount pledged, the greater the rewards promised to the consumer.

To become a project “backer” on Kickstarter, a consumer must first locate that project’s homepage by searching for the project by its name or by browsing the various categories and subcategories within Kickstarter’s main page. A consumer has the option of searching for a project by category (e.g., dance, food, games, etc.) or location (e.g., city or state). Kickstarter’s main homepage also features “staff picks” or “popular projects that appear as soon as you arrive at the website. Clicking on the title of the project takes the consumers to its homepage.

From the project homepage, consumers can select the amount they wish to pay.

Kickstarter will prompt the consumer for his credit card information. The consumer will not be charged until the fundraising period is complete and the project reaches its funding goal. Once the project reaches its funding goal, Kickstarter charges the consumer’s credit card and transmits the money to the project creator. In the event that a project reaches its funding goal but is unable to provide rewards to its backers, Kickstarter’s Terms of Use (as existing in the current case) stated that the project creator must refund the consumers the amount pledged.

Crowdfunding is becoming an important fund raising tool. Initially developed from philanthropic campaigns, the process allows small investors greater participation in free enterprise. For the entrepreneur closed to traditional capital sourced, it can provide the “seed money” to take a concept to IPO. With all financial products, due diligence is important and skepticism critical!

To view the see the full FTC release, click here.

For more information on Crowdfunding or other Venture Capital or Private Equity matters, please contact:

Carl H. Perdue, JD, LLM
Senior Counsel and Partner
Business and Finance

The above material is for information purposes only; and is not to be considered legal or financial advice.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

1801 N. Military Trail, Suite 160

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Main:  (561) 361-6566

Fax: (561) 361-6466

Email: CHP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, commercial litigation, private equity, venture capital