Andrew Abramowitz

Interesting Reads of the Week: July 20, 2015

Some interesting legal reads for the week of July 20, 2015:

 

Interesting Reads of the Week: July 20, 2015 Read More »

The “Gig” Economy and Of Counsel Relationships

One of the most-discussed trends in the workplace in recent years is the growing number of people who make a career out of accepting a series of freelance assignments, rather than simply taking on a full-time job as an employee.   A prominent example is the Uber car driver, who takes on jobs at times as determined by the driver, rather than agreeing to work particular shifts in advance. There are significant concerns with the development of the “gig” economy, since freelancers don’t have many of the legal protections available to employees, and these concerns will need to be addressed.  However, the flexibility that these arrangements give to those to participate is undeniably appealing.

The “Gig” Economy and Of Counsel Relationships Read More »

Interesting Legal Reads of the Week

Some interesting legal reads for the week of July 6, 2015:

 

Interesting Legal Reads of the Week Read More »

Interesting Legal Reads of the Week

Some interesting legal reads for the week of June 15, 2015:

 

Interesting Legal Reads of the Week Read More »

The Distinction Between Entity Name and Trademark

When I assist clients in setting up entities, one of the threshold matters, of course, is the selection of a name for the entity.  Once that is settled, and the entity is set up, many clients assume the job is complete as far as protecting the business name, unaware that protection of the name for purposes of trademark law involves a completely separate legal analysis and process.  The purpose of this post is to briefly explain the difference.

The Distinction Between Entity Name and Trademark Read More »

Interesting Reads of the Week

Some interesting legal reads for the week of June 1, 2015:

 

Interesting Reads of the Week Read More »

Thoughts on a Profile of a Virtual Law Firm

Last Sunday’s New York Times had an interesting profile of a Washington, D.C. area six-woman virtual law firm, the Geller Law Group. I recommend you read it in its entirety.  I have some thoughts. …

Thoughts on a Profile of a Virtual Law Firm Read More »

Interesting reads for the week of May 4, 2015

Some interesting legal reads for the week of May 4, 2015:

 

Interesting reads for the week of May 4, 2015 Read More »

Regulation A+ – An Improved Way for Smaller Companies to Go Public

The new Regulation A+ offerings, which are available for use starting on June 19, 2015, should not be thought of in the same category as Regulation D offerings. If a company’s primary goal is to raise as much money as possible with as little offering-related and ongoing securities compliance as possible, you still can’t beat Regulation D. Rather, Regulation A+ offerings will be useful to smaller companies who want some of the advantages of going public, without having to rely on imperfect solutions like reverse mergers or self-filing registrations.

Regulation A+Unlike small companies that go public through means like a reverse merger, companies relying on Regulation A+ are not subject to the high ongoing disclosure burdens of public companies. Tier 2 offerings under Regulation A+ (up to $50 million) impose limited ongoing disclosure requirements as compared to the burdens imposed on traditional public companies, and Tier 1 offerings (up to $20 million) don’t impose any ongoing requirements at all after initial clearance with the SEC and state blue sky regulators (the latter of which is preempted for Tier 2 offerings). Many small companies that go public via reverse mergers find it difficult to keep up with the compliance costs of being a public company; companies using Regulation A+ will not have the same issue.

Unlike Regulation D offerings, Regulation A+ permits a limited amount of securities to be sold by existing stockholders – up to $6 million in Tier 1 offerings, and up to $15 million in Tier 2 offerings. As a result, the company’s early investors and founders have an opportunity to cash out and realize a profit on their investment of money or time. Additionally, the shares purchased in a Regulation A+ offering are unrestricted, meaning there’s a potential for a secondary market to emerge in the company’s shares.   In most cases, there won’t be high trading volume comparable to large public companies, but this is already the case with small companies that go public via a reverse merger or otherwise.

Another factor that could cause a company to opt for a Regulation A+ offering is when the target investor base has several non-accredited investors. Under Regulation D, a Rule 506(b) offering permits no more than 35 non-accredited investors, and a Rule 506(c) offering (i.e., generally solicited) permits zero non-accredited investors. In contrast, non-accredited investors can freely participate in Regulation A+ offerings, though in the case of Tier 2 offerings, an investor can invest no more than 10% of the investor’s annual income or net worth, whichever is greater.

Regulation A+ – An Improved Way for Smaller Companies to Go Public Read More »

Interesting Legal Reads of the Week

Some interesting legal reads for the week of April 27, 2015:

 

Interesting Legal Reads of the Week Read More »