When I start a new client relationship, the referral source introduces me to the potential client, usually by email, and then I have an initial call or meeting with the potential client. I don’t require that a fee be paid before I agree to proceed with this background consultation. It’s only after the meeting where we make engagement arrangements if there is a need to do so. Many attorneys, however, feel strongly that this is a bad policy and insist that even the initial meeting is on the clock. Of course, attorneys can feel free to set whatever ground rules they want, as long as they’re properly communicated in advance. There may be practice areas where immediate charging makes sense, but for what I do, I think this sort of policy reveals a mindset about the attorney that I try to avoid.
A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted how sketchy brokers have been marketing problematic private placements to accredited investors. While the article focused on the brokers, I was struck by the identity of one of the investor victims noted in the article as having lost a lot of money: George Stephanopoulos, the ABC News anchor and former Clinton Administration official. I don’t mean to cause Mr. Stephanopoulos any further embarrassment by highlighting this here (though I’m guessing that the readership of my blog is far less than that of the Journal), but the fact that he was scammed is a useful illustration of the misguidedness of the accredited investor definition and associated rules.
The current definition of “accredited investor” under SEC rules essentially uses wealth as a proxy for sophistication, as an individual can qualify by either having an annual income of $200,000 or a net worth of $1 million not including the value of one’s primary residence. An offering made to all accredited investors does not have an information requirement, meaning the investors do not need to be provided with a similar level of disclosure that would be associated with a registered public offering.
A year or two ago, the phrase “share buybacks” was a phrase only known to those in and around the world of corporate finance. It refers to a company’s use of available cash to purchase its own shares in the open market. The effect of this is to reduce the total number of shares outstanding, which makes the remaining shares more valuable. Recently, however, share buybacks have become enmeshed in political debates as shorthand for actions taken by corporate America and encouraged by Wall Street that are not in the best interest of workers and society generally. For example, The New York Times recently reported on how cash freed up by the recent tax cuts are being spent on share buybacks, as opposed to more worthy uses such as hiring new employees.
In the past few years, my private company clients have been flocking to online, cloud-based cap table services, such as Capshare and Carta (formerly eShares), as a platform to manage the company’s back-office functions for their capital structure. Aside from presenting an online cap table for reference by potential new investors and others, these sites provide a number of other services, such as being an online repository for documentation like stock option agreements and facilitating company valuations under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.
President Trump’s inimitable personal attorney, Michael Cohen, was reported by the Wall Street Journal to have used a Delaware LLC as a vehicle for payment to a porn actress of $130,000 for her silence about an alleged consensual affair with Trump. The purpose of this arrangement, apparently, was to keep Trump’s involvement quiet by using an LLC with a generic name, Essential Consultants LLC, though this goal was undermined by the fact that the publicly-filed Certificate of Formation of that entity was signed by “Michael Cohen, authorized person.” This sort of filing does not need to list any owners, and in practice is usually signed by the person with the law or accounting firm, often a paralegal, that actually prepares the filing at the client’s direction. (It’s amusing that the operation that has the financial wherewithal to pay six figures in hush money is too cheap to pay a law firm three figures to maintain the confidentiality of the principal’s involvement.)