Jobs Act Crowdfunding | Jobs Act Title III (2024)

Most people have heard of equity crowdfunding and the process where small to medium-sized businesses seeking investment can raise capital from accredited investors. Much is also written about describing the opportunities opened up by the democratization of investment via Title III of the JOBS Act that came into effect in 2016. These changes helped to shift focus to supporting startups in the uncontested market space away from the traditional powerhouse of Silicon Valley. However, the untold story is of the challenges faced by locally-based entrepreneurs and startups, particularly minorities, when accessing startup capital.

When entrepreneurs from all walks of life are able to find low-cost ways to access and secure funding for new businesses, and people can build wealth through a diverse investment strategy, local economies and the U.S. economy can thrive. Connecting small business entrepreneurs with people looking to invest in their local neighborhood businesses is what’s powering the reemergence of hyper local communities and economies. This is our mission here at MainVest, an alternative small business investment marketplace that was founded in 2018 with the sole aim of revitalizing the American dream through hyper local investment.

You might ask how MainVest understands the plight of entrepreneurs compared with the other 30 or so regulated equity crowdfunding portals available in the marketplace. It’s the only alternative investment platform focused solely on small businesses as there are no seed rounds or seed funds required. And banks typically require demonstrations of one to two years of capital or leveraging loans against assets for small business loan applications. This places some businesses in a tricky position if they are unable to fulfil a bank’s requirements.

Amplifying the Uber Model

As an early employee at Uber launching the brand in the Boston market, I helped to build one of the fastest growing companies of all time, and obtained a unique perspective into the small towns and businesses of the greater Boston area including former mill towns like Worcester and Lawrence, Massachusetts, noting the income disparities in these once thriving heavily-populated places. Once centers of economic prosperity, these suburbs have become overlooked by traditional investors, and are now struggling economically. This reality prompted deeper thought into ways in which these communities could help themselves by providing alternative routes to accessing small business funding and wealth generation, similar to how Uber provided opportunities for people to generate additional income around their day job.

Time spent working for Uber in Washington, DC right around the time that Title III of the JOBS Act came into effect was introduced by Congress was particularly formative. While the legislation was largely aimed at opening up investment for early-stage tech companies there was also the opportunity to empower non-tech founders to access the capital they so often struggle to find.

In particular, minority entrepreneurs have traditionally faced challenges in accessing startup capital. The most recent report by the U.S. Office for Advocacy in 2018 focused on Financing Patterns and Credit Market Experiences: A Comparison by Race and Ethnicity for U.S. Employer Firms. It showed that there was still a gap in unmet funding needs, as many minorities said they didn’t apply for small business loans because they didn’t think they would be approved by the lender. While this is a perception issue, the report also cited that this demographic was more averse to accruing large sums of debt therefore, are more likely to seek alternative funding.

Retrofitting the New Financial Regulations

While private investment typically focuses on west coast and Silicon Valley startups, this gap in the market for providing pathways to capital in communities completely disconnected to traditional funding options is a huge opportunity. The change in financial regulations means that entrepreneurs and small business owners can become connected with potential investors who may not normally invest in a startup, but are looking for alternative investment opportunities, creating financial opportunities for everyone.

MainVest utilizes the revenue sharing note as the main investment vehicle on its platform. Investors purchase revenue sharing notes, usually with a minimum of $100, which entitle them to a set percentage of revenue on a quarterly basis until a target return is hit. This aligns incentives between issuers and investors, as investors are paid back faster the quicker that the business generates revenue. Therefore, investors are incentivized to frequent the businesses in which they’re invested and act as evangelists, allowing businesses to rely on strong community support, revenue, and loyalty as they grow. The tax revenue, jobs, and financial returns created by the business flows directly back into the community of investors that supported its launch. At this time, 100 percent of businesses that have raised investment through MainVest are on track —or ahead of – their repayment schedule.

A Growing Local Movement Restoring Main Street America

This new movement of community-led positive transformation to impact the longevity and vibrancy of local towns is supporting the reemergence of strong local communities and economies. Encouraging people to invest in their communities ultimately creates healthier towns with thriving economies, valuable real estate, strong school systems and more. And with the relaxation of restrictions around how individual investors – regardless of their income or net worth – can invest in private, early-stage companies, neighbors, friends and family can now directly impact and shape the communities they live in.

Investors are able to generate passive income from an entirely novel asset class that rewards them for the risk taken without being overly complex or time-inclusive. While accredited investors have long been able to build wealth through private investment and pursue both financially and emotionally rewarding opportunities, MainVest aims to open up investment to non-accredited investors who are typically limited to their employer-sponsored 401k or online investment portals for investment opportunities.

Win-Win for Startups and Investors

Startup and small business founders can utilize the revenue sharing model to grow their business flexibly when private equity or traditional lending are not options. Traditional lending is out of the question for any founder with a less-than-ideal credit score, or more importantly, collateral. Younger generations are buying houses later in life and paying off unprecedented student loan debt, meaning that a once-reliable source of collateral is out of reach for otherwise qualified business owners. Because capital raised through MainVest lives lower on the capital stack than other debt, it is an appealing solution for founders with a solid business plan that cannot secure a loan otherwise. Given that private equity is heavily concentrated in Silicon Valley and often reserved for high-growth opportunities, startup founders that don’t fit into the traditional mold (including female and minority entrepreneurs, who still receive far less funding than other groups) can tap into their community for startup funding. Using MainVest as a first step can unlock other forms of capital later on as founders can build out initial locations, purchase inventory, and grow their brand. There are 9,000 investors signed up on the platform and in the last six months of operation, 30 businesses in the New England areas have been successfully funded.

Seeking Investment for the Most Instagrammable Restaurant in America

Teatotaller is an example of a business that utilized community investment via the MainVest platform for their expansion. Despite having a solid financial track record for their cafe and meeting space in Somersworth, New Hampshire, the founder did not feel confident that a traditional bank or term loan would be the best choice for his business. With the knowledge that food ventures are seen as extremely risky by traditional lenders, and that the timing of build outs can be variable, the founder sought a more flexible option. Adept at brand building and named one of the “Most Instagrammable Restaurant in America” by Food Network Magazine in 2019, Teatotaller already had generated interest within its community, but still needed to raise $60,000 of flexible capital, which it did and will be repaid once the new location is fully built out and operational. A local startup that secured investment from their neighborhood that continues to thrive.

Five Factors for Startups to Consider When Seeking Alternative Funding

• How much capital will get the job done without creating too much debt, or a shortfall for key projects?
• Alternative funding options typically require grassroots efforts to market your business, investment offering, or pitch. Are you prepared to spend more time on this?
• Is the business plan easily understood by investors of all experience levels? Consider creating multiple pitch decks for VC-level investors and first-time community investors.
• Is it simple to inform and educate target audiences about alternative funding methods? Will potential investors and supporters fully understand this approach?
• How does any alternative funding secured fit into your overall capital stack? What are future implications?

Over the last decade, crowdfunding, a new method of raising capital, has gained widespread popularity. Crowdfunding is a means through which a company may raise small amounts of money from a large number of “unsophisticated” individuals; in other words, raise capital from the “crowd”. The passage of new crowdfunding regulations by the SEC discussed herein represents a change in policy from the Securities Act of 1933, which made it illegal to engage in a “public offering” of securities without onerous regulation. The term “public offering” however, is a somewhat illusive term as it remains undefined under the law. Over the last 100 years or so, the term “public offerings” has been subject to various forms of clarification, as well additional regulation, such as Regulation D, which provides a safe harbor from certain disclosure requirements. In 2012 the regulatory framework shifted when Congress passed the Jumpstart Our Business Startup Act (“JOBS Act”). In the following paragraphs we will outline the history of crowdfunding and the implications of Title III of the JOBS Act[1] (“Title III”) in allowing this practice to flourish.

In the early days of crowdfunding, companies, often consumer product companies, raised capital in exchange for a contribution or donation from individuals. Often known as perk-based crowdfunding, the investor did not receive equity ownership in the company. Rather, they received an incentive – an early version of the product, a discount, a credit, or something similar. Stated in another way, the exchange is capital for the perk, the investor did not receive any participation in the success of the venture. This was, and still is, done through an online portal, the most recognizable being Kickstarter [https://www.kickstarter.com/] and Indiegogo [https://www.indiegogo.com/].

In 2012 the crowdfunding model shifted with Congress’ passage of the JOBS Act. The purpose of the JOBS Act was to entice more investment into startup businesses and entrepreneurship, softening previously existing barriers to entry to startup investing. In October of 2015, the SEC adopted Title III (often referred to as Regulation Crowdfunding or Reg CF). This law effectively created a new exemption from the Securities Act of 1933, and companies were officially able to use this exemption as of May 16, 2016. The new exemption allowed companies to raise small amounts capital from large numbers of individuals, via crowdfunding, in exchange for equity ownership in the company (unlike the perk system outlined above). Specifically, an investor is now able to receive equity ownership, along with the rights and responsibilities of being a shareholder, including rights to vote and payments of dividends or distributions. Alas, the common investor has a new opportunity to participate in the success of the business they helped launch.

Prior to the JOBS Act, companies were incentivized to restrict their investor base to “Accredited Investors”; individuals with, amongst other criteria, an annual income of at least $200,000.00 (or $300,000.00 if married), or someone who has a net worth of at least $1,000,000.00 (due to reasons and policy beyond the scope of this article). The JOBS Act, and specifically Title III, is a nationwide regulation that provides clear guidelines for raising capital from non-Accredited investors. The benefits are two-fold; for the company, which now has a larger pool of individuals to seek investment from and, for individuals, providing meaningful access to private company investment opportunities previously limited to a small sect of wealthy and experienced investors. In order for a company to take advantage of the JOBS Act, and raise capital via equity crowdfunding, Title III lays out certain requirements, with the most important listed below [2]:

• Sale Amount: Issuers are only able to raise up to $1,070,000.00 across all crowdfunding portals in a 12-month period.
• Intermediary Requirement: In order to combat fraud, the offering must be conducted through an online platform, with the operator of such platform, the intermediary, being either a registered broker-dealer or a funding portal that is registered with both the SEC and FINRA. These registered portals include, but are not limited to https://www.seedinvest.com/, https://www.fundable.com/, and https://wefunder.com/.
• Investor Restrictions: Investors are limited in the amount of money they can invest under Title III. These limits are as follows: (i) Investors with an annual income AND net worth of at least $107,000.00 may invest up to 10% of the lesser of their annual income or net worth, however, an Investor may not make more than $100,000.00 in investments in Title III investments in a 12-month period, and (ii) Investors who do not meet the threshold in (i) may invest the greater of $2,200.00 or 5% of the lesser of their annual income or net worth.
• Reporting Requirement: During the process of crowdfunding Issuers must make certain disclosures; at the beginning of the offering, during the offering, and at its completion. The Issuer must file an offering statement using a Form C through EDGAR, the SEC’s online system, provide updates of the offering by filing a Form C-U within 5 days after reaching 50% and 100% of the offering amount, and file an annual report by filing a Form C-AR on EDGAR. Other filing requirements exist as well if the offering is amended, increased, or certain other circ*mstances arise.
• Eligibility: The Issuer must be a United States entity (corporation, limited liability company, etc.). Further, the Issuer must not have failed to comply with reporting requirements under this regulation during the two years preceding the offering.
• Resale Restrictions. Subject to certain exemptions, securities sold through this exemption cannot be re-sold for one year.

While Title III has certainly opened the door for companies to have greater access to capital, and for individuals to invest in companies where they were previously unable, Title III is still in its infancy and has plenty of critics. Congress has discussed multiple amendments, the most consequential of which would be to increase the offering size allowed under Title III. Many detractors feel that the requirements and restrictions placed on companies makes equity crowdfunding too expensive to comply with, specifically when compared with the limitations placed on the offering size.

Before fundraising via crowdfunding, it is important for a company to consider all of their options. This is a great tool, but not right for all companies who must understand their specific needs and capacity. As a newer form of investment, crowdfunding will undoubtedly be an evolving area of SEC regulation, so it is important for interested parties to monitor the newest regulations to remain compliant, and benefit from the opportunities of this new domain.

Authors

Matthew J. Moisan is a partner and Justin G. Lurie is an associate in LeClairRyan, based in the national law firm’s New York City office. Both represent companies in all stages of development, with a particular focus on founding entrepreneurs, tech startups and emerging growth companies. They can be contacted at: matthew.moisan@leclairryan.com or justin.lurie@leclairryan.com

[1] This article focuses on the Title III equity crowdfunding exemption, however, there are other types of exemptions used under different scenarios. There is an exemption under Title II of the JOBS Act as well as Regulation A+ that are applicable and used under different circ*mstances.

[2] For further information regarding compliance requirements of Title III, you may visit the SEC’s website at https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/secg/rccomplianceguide-051316.htm

How recent changes in crowdfunding regulations have opened up new opportunities for investors and small to mid-sized companies to efficiently raise capital.

Equity Crowdfunding – Growing out of Infancy

To understand the significance of equity crowdfunding including recent changes that will have a huge impact on the investment marketplace for investors and early-stage companies alike, we must first acknowledge the specific constraints on capital formation stemming from the Securities Act of 1933 that equity crowdfunding seeks to address. At the same time, we should be aware that the latest key installment of these sweeping regulations, Title III of the JOBS Act, only took effect in May 2016. Equity crowdfunding is still in its infancy and we have we have only just begun to see the potential impacts that recent regulatory changes will have for startups and in the venture capital industry.

The JOBS Act has several provisions that make it easier for today’s entrepreneurs to raise money. Title II of the Jobs Act made it possible for companies to solicit the general public for investment capital for the first time in 80 years. This change finally made it legal for startups and smaller early stage companies to actively solicit business by way of advertising to the public rather than being limited to dealing with investors with whom they had a pre-existing relationship.

Real estate investment crowdfunding was the first industry to really embrace this new investment class. Early crowdfunding platforms like OurCrowd took the opportunity to jumpstart an entirely new industry, and others like “Patch of Land” reported having facilitated more than 500 investments totaling over $300 million. Others in this early-lucrative niche include EarlyShares on the commercial real estate side, and PeerRealty which specializes in multi-family residential real estate. Already, the largest crowdfunding portals represent almost every major industry – from residential and commercial real estate, to high-tech, innovative consumer products, and now the multi-trillion dollar energy industry with the recent Reg CF approval of EnergyFunders.com in January of 2018.

It wasn’t until Title III of the JOBS Act was enacted, however, that equity crowdfunding actually opened the doors allowing non-accredited investors to buy private securities alongside their more financially-empowered accredited counterparts. The welcoming of non-accredited investors to the table represents the formation of an entirely new revenue class to provide financing for entrepreneurs. There really is no limit to the number or scope of opportunities that will be made available over the next several years. Opportunities that had been formerly available only to those with the right connections and financial qualifications have just been opened up to investors large and small. Equity crowdfunding platforms are providing access for startups to reach thousands of potential investors all at once, as they are now available to be legally advertised to accredited and non-accredited investors alike.

The Barriers to Wealth Creation are Coming Down

The SEC has brought more than a dash of equality into the investing world recently. While the barriers to wealth creation are not disappearing, they are undergoing substantial reductions. Due diligence and solid information gathering are critical. It’s incumbent on the crowdfunding platforms to provide transparent information about the officers and each company’s background and business. As always, it’s up to each investor to do their homework.

Investor eligibility and minimum investments vary tremendously from one platform to another. Each equity crowdfunding platform may offer a slightly or dramatically different model depending on the rules which they utilize. Some take pledges, others act as intermediaries between investors and companies, and others act as issuers. One of the largest equity crowdfunding platforms, AngelList, operates funds that own shares in multiple companies or across asset classes. Some of their “deal by deal investments” and funds have hefty minimum investments that effectively put participation out of reach for the average investor, while others like SeedInvest and EnergyFunders offer lower thresholds to entry.

Investing in the Age of the Internet and Social Media

Powered by the internet and the ubiquitous age of social media, equity crowdfunding’s evolution is inevitable. The category has certainly seen its share of winners and losers, and social media makes it easier to connect investors with capital while platforms provide the access. Platform-specific projects and niches are popping up everywhere and the industry is just getting started.

As the world changes, the variety of investment opportunities will continue to evolve and shift, but that doesn’t mean the onus of due diligence is removed from the shoulders of the investor. It does mean that the investment marketplace will continue to diversify and provide more opportunities to assemble a diversified portfolio even as it allows access to any number of potential grand slam startups, innovative technologies, and even new ways to lend a hand to important social and humanitarian causes.

It’s been almost half a year since Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg-CF) was officially launched. The securities regulation, also known as Title III under the JOBS Act, has now made it possible for unaccredited investors to participate in offerings that had been previously limited to the wealthiest Americans.

According to data from CrowdFund Capital Advisors, there have been a total of 125 Reg-CF offerings filed with the SEC as of Oct. 16 with the majority coming from California. In fact, California has twice as many offerings as Florida, the next closest state. Interestingly, the majority of issuers (57 percent) are startups less than one year old.

The JOBS Act crowdfunding revolution is here, but it’s easy to miss unless one looks closely. In total, only $11.4 million has actually been invested. It’s important to remember that the JOBS Act, which was passed into law on April 5, 2012, actually took 1,502 days for the rulemaking and SEC implementation process. We’re certainly in the early days of crowdfunding being legal, but all indications are promising for this new form of capital formation.

BYOC = Bring Your Own Crowd

One of the misconceptions about securities crowdfunding is that an issuer can simply place an offering on a Reg-CF crowdfunding portal and just sit back while the Internet finds them. Unfortunately, that approach is almost certainly doomed to fail. Much like we have learned from donation-based crowdfunding portals such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo, it is essential for the person or company launching the campaign to take responsibility for generating interest and web traffic to the project page.

To be successful in crowdfunding, one must bring their own crowd. It’s true that every once in a while, a project catches the attention of the media and “goes viral,” but counting on this to happen for your company on its own is a major mistake. Instead, crowdfunding works best for companies that already have a large social media following or a plan to generate one quickly.

N1CE Frozen co*cktails from Superstar DJs

One example of an issuer with a built-in crowd is the DJ team of Ingrosso, Axwell & Alesso, who founded
“N1CE Frozen co*cktails.” This DJ team’s “alcoholic popsicles” were already a hit at popular music festivals where they performed to more than 2.5 million people last summer.

By offering securities to their fans, they’ve enabled supporters to literally “be part of the party.” At the time of this writing, they had secured $163,310 from 200 investors. The team already had a very strong social media presence that, before crowdfunding existed, was used to engage fans and sell tickets to concerts. Now, they can take that fan engagement to another level and leverage relationships to secure investors in their company.

In addition to offering securities (such as debt or equity), Reg-CF issuers can also couple traditional rewards and perks that are used extensively in donation-based campaigns. For the N1CE team, this included T-shirts, hats, invitations to attend launch parties, personal phone calls from the CEO, packaging naming rights and even an opportunity to join the DJs on stage in Ibizza. N1CE was particularly well suited for securities crowdfunding because it has a consumer-focused product that is easily understood and communicated.

Breakthrough Medical Solutions from Superstar Parents

Another strategy for successful securities crowdfunding is to engage communities of supporters around a particular mission or cause. Edward Damiano isn’t just the CEO and founder of Beta Bionics, he’s also the parent of a child with Type I diabetes. His company created the iLet, a fully integrated bionic pancreas that allows children with Type I diabetes to go through daily life without the debilitating task of monitoring their blood sugar levels. What’s noteworthy about this company is that they have engaged other parents and groups who care about this cause to not just be a donor to a nonprofit, but to be an investor in a company that is building solutions that might help their children.

Reg-CF allows any individual to be a part of something they are passionate about with the potential for an investment return. Whether it’s a frosty alcoholic beverage or a treatment for a debilitating disease, the innate desire for people to belong to a cause greater than themselves will create fertile ground for Reg-CF and all forms of crowdfunding to thrive.

Regulations under the JOBS Act, including Regulation Crowdfunding, Regulation A+ and Rule 506(c), have dramatically opened up investment opportunities in private companies to non-accredited investors. Nonetheless, non-accredited investors still face significant limitations on their ability to participate in the market for private securities – which at least one commentator has called the “new public markets.” Because the JOBS Act regulations restrict the crowdfunding special purpose vehicles available to non-accredited investors to single issuer funds, such investors are denied a tool that would facilitate broad-based, diversified investing in private securities.

Existing regulations, such as Rule 506(c), allow persons who qualify as “accredited investors” under the Securities Act to purchase equity in early-stage companies through special purpose vehicles and thus can facilitate investor diversification in crowdfunded companies; however, no regulation presently allows non-accredited investors the same right. While the “Fix Crowdfunding Act,” (HR 4855), which passed the U.S. House of Representatives with broad bipartisan support and is expected to pass the U.S. Senate, would allow special purpose vehicles to hold securities sold under Regulation Crowdfunding, such vehicles would be limited to the acquisition, holding and disposition of securities of a single issuer.

While the pending legislation provides several benefits to issuers, such as a cleaner capitalization table and the ability to deal with one person as a representative of all crowdfunding security holders, it does nothing to enable non-accredited investors to build a diverse portfolio of private securities. This is especially concerning with respect to investments in crowdfunded equity securities: Equity securities sold pursuant to Regulation Crowdfunding or Regulation A+ are likely to be in early-stage companies where significant downside risk can be mitigated by potential major gains from other highly successful investments.

Such broad-based, diversified investing is a powerful tool for investor wealth creation. In fact, a powerful parallel comes from a study of venture capital funds, which tend to invest in emerging and startup companies similar to those likely to use crowdfunding.

The study found that the best-performing venture funds achieved their performance not because they had a fewer number of failed investments but because their successful investments were highly lucrative. In fact, the best performing funds in the study contained more deals that lost money in absolute terms than less successful funds. However, their “hits” more than offset their “misses.” Unlike in debt crowdfunding, where investors have downside protection by being structurally senior in payment to equity, equity crowdfunding takes on a higher risk of loss in exchange for greater upside – and diversification is a powerful tool to allow investors to manage the risks of equity crowdfunding.

However, the existing regulatory scheme does nothing to address the fact that the typical crowdfunding investor is likely only to be able to invest in one-off investment opportunities. While accredited investors have access to sophisticated venture funds that invest in multiple private companies each year, these funds do not permit non-accredited investors to participate. Given their lack of access to multi-issuer special purpose vehicles, and limited time to research independent crowdfunding issuances, non-accredited investors are severely limited in their ability to pursue an investment diversification strategy.

Further, as each crowdfunding investor must evaluate each potential investment separately, the SEC effectively is leaving investment decision-making to individuals, who, because of their non-accredited investor status, are deemed to be financially illiterate. Even those with some investment literacy may not have time to research and diligence multiple potential investments. The result is that individual non-accredited investors are limited to concentrated investments in a few private companies, which substantially – and perhaps unacceptably – increases their risk exposure compared to the investment risk profile afforded to accredited investors investing in venture funds.

Some have expressed concerns that permitting non-accredited investors to invest in a portfolio of crowdfunded companies could expose them to possible exploitation by less than scrupulous portfolio managers. However, the regulatory structure in place under Regulation Crowdfunding already provides significant protections that may protect investors from the worst of such exploitation.

First, non-accredited investors have strict limits as to the amounts they can invest in crowdfunded securities. That is, the total exposure of such investors is already capped and so multi-issuer special purpose vehicles would allow them to diversify at their existing levels of exposure. In addition, the requirement that any paid manager of a special purpose vehicle be a registered investment manager ensures the SEC’s ability to monitor multi-issuer special purpose vehicles and take action against exploitation of non-accredited investors. Finally, Regulation Crowdfunding requires that crowdfunding portals register with the SEC, and tasks them with a gatekeeper function, which serves to ensure that investors and managers have adequate information as to any crowdfunded security in which they wish to invest.

Despite its potential to bring new investors into the private securities markets, the regulatory environment for crowdfunding appears to continue to view crowdfunding through an improper “Kickstarter” paradigm. Regulators, it seems, see crowdfunding as a way for interested investors to make “passion-based” investments in business to which they have an emotional attachment. The potential for crowdfunding, however, is greater and more meaningful – it instead should be seen as a way of expanding access to private markets to non-accredited investors. And by making it easier for these investors to diversify their investments in private companies through a fund of crowdfunded companies, the crowdfunding regulations would be more attractive to prudent investors and thus more likely to facilitate capital formation for smaller issuers.

AboutAdam Hull

Adam Hullis a partner in the Dallas office ofGardere Wynne Sewell LLP. Adam represents private equity and venture capital funds in the acquisition of companies across a wide variety of industries, including technology, life sciences, midstream natural gas, oil and gas field services, hospitality and manufacturing. He also represents issuers in venture capital and private equity financing and regularly advises companies on general corporate compliance and governance matters.

AboutRick Jordan

Rick Jordanis a partner atGardere Wynne Sewell LLP where he splits his time between the firm’s Austin and Dallas offices. He is the current Chair of the Emerging Business/Venture Capital Committee of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of Texas. Rick represents investors and issuers in venture capital financings primarily in the technology, life sciences and biotech sectors, and regularly serves as lead counsel on mergers and acquisitions transactions as well as securities and corporate governance matters. He also acts as outside general counsel for both public and private companies.

AboutChristopher Babco*ck

Christopher Babco*ckis an associate in the Dallas office ofGardere Wynne Sewell LLP. Chris assists clients in a wide range of corporate and securities transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, private equity investments, corporate governance matters, venture capital financings and securities offerings.