﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="../StyleSheet/rss.xsl"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Corporate &amp; Securities Law Community Venture Capital</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/corpsec</link><description>Corporate &amp; Securities Law Community</description><copyright>http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/copyright.aspx</copyright><atom:link href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/corpsec/Rss.aspx?id=478" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The JOBS Act, a Year Later – Part 4: Online Angel Investment Platforms</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/05/16/the-jobs-act-a-year-later-part-4-online-angel-investment-platforms.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/05/16/the-jobs-act-a-year-later-part-4-online-angel-investment-platforms.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Angel.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;This post is the fourth in a series examining
the impact of the &lt;a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3606enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr3606enr.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (or JOBS Act)&lt;/a&gt; one year
after its passage and focuses on the provisions related to online angel
investment platforms.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href="http://www.strictlybusinesslawblog.com/2013/04/23/the-jobs-act-a-year-later-part-3-repealing-the-ban-on-general-solicitation/" target="_blank" title="The JOBS Act, a Year Later - Part 3: Repealing the Ban on General Solicitation"&gt;last
post of this series&lt;/a&gt;, I discussed the progress of implementing the first
half of Title II of the</description><author>adavie@alexanderdavie.com (Alexander Davie)</author><pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 12:37:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Options for Issuing Employee Equity in LLCs</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/04/22/options-for-issuing-employee-equity-in-llcs.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/04/22/options-for-issuing-employee-equity-in-llcs.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Money.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Choosing the best type of entity for&amp;nbsp;a company can
be a challenge.&amp;nbsp; C corporations are the&amp;nbsp;norm for most emerging growth
businesses, particularly those&amp;nbsp;raising money from investors.&amp;nbsp;
However, LLCs are becoming more widespread, even for operating
businesses.&amp;nbsp; Founders may want to have the tax benefits of LLCs, which are
not subject to a company-level tax (as is the case with C corporations) and may
enable more tax deductions.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This potential for tax savings does not,
however,&amp;nbsp;come without a cost.&amp;nbsp; LLCs tend to be more complicated and
expensive&amp;nbsp;to setup and manage, particularly for operating
businesses.&amp;nbsp; LLCs can become even more tricky&amp;nbsp;for</description><author>asher.bearman@dlapiper.com (Asher Bearman)</author><pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:59:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Facilitating Startup Growth: Overview of Israel's OSC funding</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/04/16/facilitating-startup-growth-overview-of-israel-s-osc-funding.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/04/16/facilitating-startup-growth-overview-of-israel-s-osc-funding.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_IsraelFlag.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;If you are reading this post, then you probably share my
belief that one of the best things our government can do to spur economic and
job growth is to support the startup community. In recent years, government
entities ranging from state (See &lt;a href="http://www.theventurealley.com/tax/proposes-tax-credit-to-support-investment-in-cybersecurity-industry/" target="_blank"&gt;Maryland&amp;#39;s proposed tax credit to support investment in
cybersecurity industry&lt;/a&gt;) to federal (See &lt;a href="http://www.theventurealley.com/startups/jobs-act-what-matters-most-for-startups-and-vcs/" target="_blank"&gt;JOBS Act: What matters most for startups and VCs&lt;/a&gt;) to the
IRS (See &lt;a href="http://www</description><author>trent.dykes@dlapiper.com (Trent Dykes)</author><pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Lifeline or Rising Tide? Understanding Emerging Growth Companies under the JOBS Act</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/04/15/lifeline-or-rising-tide-understanding-emerging-growth-companies-under-the-jobs-act.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/04/15/lifeline-or-rising-tide-understanding-emerging-growth-companies-under-the-jobs-act.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Corporate+_2600_+Securities+LC/ContentImage_2D00_Seedlings.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Laws don&amp;#39;t often get their own parties. But for the
irresistibly named Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, President Obama &lt;a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/46968391/Obama_Signs_JOBS_Act_to_Juice_Economy_Spur_Hiring" target="_blank"&gt;held&amp;nbsp;a&amp;nbsp;rare&amp;nbsp;public&amp;nbsp;ceremony&lt;/a&gt; in the
White House&amp;#39;s Rose Garden in its honor. Even more notably, this party was quite
bipartisan-Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor stood right next to
Obama as he signed the legislation. Since that day in April 2012, the most
common criticism about the JOBS Act has been that it doesn&amp;#39;t really exist yet.
Many provisions, such as the more controversial element</description><author>LexisNexisCorporateBusinessLaw@lnstaff.com (Corporate and Securities Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:01:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>The JOBS Act After One Year</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/04/03/the-jobs-act-acfter-one-year.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/04/03/the-jobs-act-acfter-one-year.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Money_2800_Growing_2900_.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;A year ago, President Obama signed the Jumpstart Our
Business Startups (JOBS) Act, a legislative product of rare bipartisan
collaboration that was intended to improve employment and make it easier for
smaller firms to raise private equity. (For an overview of the Act&amp;#39;s
provisions, refer &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.dandodiary.com/2012/04/articles/regulatory-reform/the-impact-of-the-jobs-act-on-do-liability/"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.)
Twelve months later, many of the rules needed to implement the JOBS Act remain
uncompleted and the legislation&amp;#39;s promise remains largely unfulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As detailed in a March 29, 2013 Washington Post article
entitled &amp;quot;JOBS</description><author>klacroix@oakbridgeins.com (Kevin M. LaCroix)</author><pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:04:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>How the ACCC Scandal has Disturbed the EB-5 Market in China – Current Market Trends and Updates</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/03/12/how-the-accc-scandal-has-disturbed-the-eb-5-market-in-china-current-market-trends-and-updates.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/03/12/how-the-accc-scandal-has-disturbed-the-eb-5-market-in-china-current-market-trends-and-updates.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Investment.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Introduction:
&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On February 6, 2013, the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) charged the EB-5 project A Chicago Convention Center (ACCC)
and its principal Anshoo R. Sethi with securities fraud. The project was
marketed primarily in China, with great pomp and fanfare. It offered 499 limited
membership interests to EB-5 investors and managed to sell more than $145
million in securities, unfortunately under misleading pretenses. There was $11
million in administrative fees collected from more than 250 investors. Despite
a promise to refund this fee should the case collapse, more than 90 percent of
the administrative fees have already been dissipated. Fortunately</description><author>Shah.Song@placeholder.com (Mona Shah &amp; Yi Song)</author><pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:59:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>New Delaware Chancery Opinion Affecting License Rights in Mergers</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/02/27/new-delaware-chancery-opinion-affecting-license-rights-in-mergers.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/02/27/new-delaware-chancery-opinion-affecting-license-rights-in-mergers.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Triangle.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;On February 22, 2013, in its &lt;i&gt;Meso Scale Diagnostics,
LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GMBH&lt;/i&gt; decision,&lt;i&gt; &lt;/i&gt;the Delaware Court of
Chancery held that a reverse triangular merger is not an assignment by
operation of law, meaning that licensor consent is not required for the
surviving entity to retain the target company&amp;#39;s rights, benefits and
obligations under an existing technology license.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For background, in a &lt;a href="http://www.theventurealley.com/mergers-and-aquisitions/assigning-contracts-in-the-context-of-ma-transactions/" target="_blank"&gt;prior post&lt;/a&gt;, we discussed the impact of common M&amp;amp;A
structures, as well as the impact of common anti-assignment provisions, on the
assignability of contracts of the target</description><author>trent.dykes@dlapiper.com (Trent Dykes)</author><pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:17:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>SEC Prosecution against A Chicago Convention Center EB-5 Project</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/02/12/sec-prosecution-against-a-chicago-convention-center-eb-5-project.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/02/12/sec-prosecution-against-a-chicago-convention-center-eb-5-project.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Money_2800_OneDollar_2900_.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Investor confidence in EB-5 should be bolstered with the
breaking news released on February 8, 2013, that the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) has charged the EB-5 project A Chicago Convention Center
(ACCC) and its principal Anshoo R. Sethi for securities fraud. It is expected this
is the first step of a series enforcement actions the Commission is going to
take against fraud and securities law violations in the EB-5 program. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The project offered 499 limited membership interests to
EB-5 investors and has sold more than $145 million in securities all under
fraudulent pretenses. Anshoo Sethi has collected $11 million in administrative
fees from more than 250 investors, most of which are</description><author>yi@mshahlaw.com (Yi Song)</author><pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:03:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>New NYSE and Nasdaq Compensation Committee Listing Standards</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/02/07/new-nyse-and-nasdaq-compensation-committee-listing-standards.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2013/02/07/new-nyse-and-nasdaq-compensation-committee-listing-standards.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Corporate+_2600_+Securities+LC/ContentImage_2D00_SECLogo.gif" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;As we previously &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.theventurealley.com/corporate-governance/exchanges-to-adopt-new-compensation-committee-standards/"&gt;blogged&lt;/a&gt;,
in June 2012 the SEC adopted &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/33-9330.pdf"&gt;final rules&lt;/a&gt; directing
national securities exchanges to establish listing standards relating to
compensation committees.&amp;nbsp; The &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nyse/2013/34-68639.pdf"&gt;NYSE&lt;/a&gt; and&amp;nbsp;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nasdaq/2013/34-68640.pdf"&gt;Nasdaq&lt;/a&gt; have
now done so.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Our colleagues Christopher C. Paci, Jason C.
Harmon, Joe C. Sorenson, and Christopher B. Edwards&amp;nbsp;have prepared</description><author>andrew.ledbetter@dlapiper.com (Andrew Ledbetter)</author><pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:17:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>SEC Delays Rules on Key EB-5 Section in JOBS Act</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/12/11/sec-delays-rules-on-key-eb-5-section-in-jobs-act.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/12/11/sec-delays-rules-on-key-eb-5-section-in-jobs-act.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/Yi-Song_5F00_130x112.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin:8px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When the JOBS Act was enacted in April 2012, it raised a
significant amount of excitement in the EB-5 community. At the time, there was
a general consensus that the Act could change the landscape of EB-5 private
offerings. However, the Securities and Exchange Commission&amp;#39;s (SECs) indefinite
delay with respect to implementing its rules currently leaves the Act in a
state of limbo. One of Mary Shapiro&amp;#39;s last acts as the outgoing Chairman of the
SEC, scheduled to depart on December 14, 2012, has served to delay the
application of a highly relevant section of the JOBS Act to the EB-5 investor
Program.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The decision on implementing the SEC rules on this
particular section of the JOBS Act has been criticized as being overly</description><author>yi@mshahlaw.com (Yi Song)</author><pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:12:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>New Leadership in China and EB-5 Practice</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/12/06/new-leadership-in-china-and-eb-5-practice.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/12/06/new-leadership-in-china-and-eb-5-practice.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/Yi-Song_5F00_130x112.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin:8px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The seven-member Politburo Standing Committee in China
greeted the world in the Great Hall of the People on November 15, 2012 in
Beijing. What does the new leadership in China mean to EB-5 practice? Most
believe it is too early to tell. However, a few welcoming changes have already
taken place. &lt;a name="_GoBack"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Appreciation
of the Chinese Currency&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Chinese currency RMB has been revalued rapidly since
the convening of the 18&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; National Congress. As of November 17, 2012
the exchange rate of the Chinese Yuan to US dollars is 1USD/6.29RMB, the
highest level in the past eighteen years. That means the Chinese Yuan values
more against the US dollar</description><author>yi@mshahlaw.com (Yi Song)</author><pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:15:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>EB-5 Practice under SEC Proposed Rules to Implement the JOBS Act </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/10/12/eb-5-practice-under-sec-proposed-rules-to-implement-the-jobs-act.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/10/12/eb-5-practice-under-sec-proposed-rules-to-implement-the-jobs-act.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/Yi-Song_5F00_130x112.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin:8px;" border="0" height="112" width="130" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regional Centers&lt;a name="_ednref1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
lawfully raise capital within the EB-5 Program&lt;a name="_ednref2"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[2]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp; pursuant to one or more exemptions from
registration set forth in the United States securities laws.&amp;nbsp; The most commonly utilized exemptions in EB-5
offerings are Regulation D (the Private Placement exemption) and Regulation S
(the Offshore Offering exemption) each promulgated under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.&amp;nbsp; Without a valid
exemption, companies raising money under the U.S. securities laws must register
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (&amp;quot;SEC&amp;quot;) and disclose substantially</description><author>yi@mshahlaw.com (Yi Song)</author><pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:23:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>IRS Proposes Major Revisions to Circular 230</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/10/05/irs-proposes-major-revisions-to-circular-230.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/10/05/irs-proposes-major-revisions-to-circular-230.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/PORTAL/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/Corporate-Tax-Return.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" alt="" /&gt;The IRS issued a notice recently that proposes some major revisions to Circular 230.&amp;nbsp; The notice would change the way disclaimer footers are displayed in attorney communications, possibly eliminating the need for them altogether.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Following are some excerpts from the notice:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another concern that the government has heard from practitioners relates to the unrestrained use of disclaimers on nearly every practitioner communication regardless of whether the communication contains tax advice... The disclaimers also lead to confusion for clients because clients often do not understand why the disclaimer is present and its consequences. In addition, practitioners have complained that the disclaimer&amp;#39;s widespread overuse causes clients</description><author>asher.bearman@dlapiper.com (Asher Bearman)</author><pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:58:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>VC Investment Trends</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/10/03/vc-investment-trends.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/10/03/vc-investment-trends.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/vent-cap-blog/venture-capital-2.jpg"&gt;&lt;img height="161" width="283" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/vent-cap-blog/venture-capital-2.jpg" border="0" style="margin:12px;float:left;border:0px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;According to an &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120920/ECONOMY/120919869?template=smartphone&amp;amp;X-IgnoreUserAgent=1"&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; in Crain&amp;#39;s NY, most of VC investments made during the second quarter of 2012 went to California companies. Out of $2.1 billion in total, only $30 million was invested in New York startups, whereas California companies received $1.45 billion. The total amount is an increase of 16% over a year ago. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;$30 million in investments that went to New York was a decline of 87% as compared to the same period</description><author>arina.shulga@gmail.com (Arina Shulga)</author><pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:54:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>A Masterstroke of Some Kind: Crowdfunding and the JOBS Act</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/09/17/a-masterstroke-of-some-kind-crowdfunding-and-the-jobs-act.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/09/17/a-masterstroke-of-some-kind-crowdfunding-and-the-jobs-act.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/RealLaw-banner.png" style="max-width:550px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Everyone agrees the title was a work of pure genius,&amp;quot;
says Dick Phillips of K&amp;amp;L Gates in &lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/corpsec/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/08/21/lexisnexis_ae00_-corporate-_2600_-securities-law-community-podcast_3a00_-dick-phillips_2c00_-alan-berkeley-and-stan-keller-on-the-jobs-act_2e00_.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;a recent podcast&lt;/a&gt;, referring to the Jumpstart Our Business
Startups (JOBS) Act. &amp;quot;It&amp;#39;s impossible to vote against in an election year.&amp;quot;
When a law is so well named, it&amp;#39;s important to look a little deeper at what
other special terms it&amp;#39;s using and how it might work in practice. The real
story is that it&amp;#39;s the most significant change to the U.S. securities law
landscape in a generation</description><author>LexisNexisCorporateBusinessLaw@lnstaff.com (Corporate and Securities Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:59:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>SEC Proposes General Solicitation Rules</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/09/07/sec-proposes-general-solicitation-rules.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/09/07/sec-proposes-general-solicitation-rules.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/vent-cap-blog/investment-screen.jpg"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/vent-cap-blog/investment-screen.jpg" border="0" style="border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;As anticipated in our &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.theventurealley.com/startups/sec-likely-to-propose-rules-eliminating-general-solicitation-on-august-29-2012/"&gt;previous blogs&lt;/a&gt;, the SEC &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2012/33-9354.pdf"&gt;proposed rules&lt;/a&gt; to permit general solicitation and general advertising in Rule 506 and Rule 144A offerings.&amp;nbsp; The release proposes to create a new Rule 506(c), in which the prohibition against general solicitation would not apply to offers and sales of securities, provided that:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The issuer takes reasonable steps</description><author>andrew.ledbetter@dlapiper.com (Andrew Ledbetter)</author><pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:03:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Q2 2012 Highlights Growing Number of Corporate VC Investments</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/08/20/q2-2012-highlights-growing-number-of-corporate-vc-investments.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/08/20/q2-2012-highlights-growing-number-of-corporate-vc-investments.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/vent-cap-blog/venture-capital.jpg"&gt;&lt;img height="305" width="301" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/vent-cap-blog/venture-capital.jpg" border="0" style="border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA)&amp;nbsp;recently&amp;nbsp;published an &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://nvcaccess.nvca.org/index.php/topics/research-and-trends/314-corporate-venture-capital-remained-strong-in-q2-2012.html"&gt;article&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;that may indicate an increasing role of Corporate Venture Capital&amp;#39;s increasing role in the startup investments arena, as reflected in&amp;nbsp;Money Tree&amp;#39;s &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_docman&amp;amp;task=doc_download&amp;amp;gid=901"&gt;Investment Analysis Report &lt;/a&gt;issued for Q2 2012.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;The data</description><author>asher.bearman@dlapiper.com (Asher Bearman)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Extending US employee stock incentive plans to Australian employees</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/08/13/extending-us-employee-stock-incentive-plans-to-australian-employees.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/08/13/extending-us-employee-stock-incentive-plans-to-australian-employees.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/vent-cap-blog/australia.jpg"&gt;&lt;img height="200" width="200" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/vent-cap-blog/australia.jpg" border="0" style="border:0;margin:12px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Australia highly regulates employee stock incentive plans. Failing to adapt to applicable rules can lead to adverse consequences for employees and employers and ultimately can&amp;nbsp;undermine the intended purpose of such plans.&amp;nbsp;Compliments of our DLA Piper colleagues, &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.dlapiper.com/files/Publication/b9a19a03-0313-4ffd-9abc-43cc028e2b09/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/731ad42f-399c-4293-87f3-465939484efe/extending-us-employee-share-plans.pdf"&gt;here is an overview&lt;/a&gt; of some of the legal and tax issues US parent and Australian subsidiary companies should consider</description><author>trent.dykes@dlapiper.com (Trent Dykes)</author><pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:32:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Article--Social Networks and the Law: Crowdfunding or Fraudfunding? Social Networks and the Securities Laws - Why the Specially Tailored Exemption Must Be Conditioned on Meaningful Disclosure</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/08/07/Crowdfunding-or-Fraudfunding_2D00_Social-Networks-and-the-Securities-Laws.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/08/07/Crowdfunding-or-Fraudfunding_2D00_Social-Networks-and-the-Securities-Laws.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Crowd.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;90 N.C.L. Rev. 1735, June 2012&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Authors:&lt;/b&gt; Thomas Lee Hazen&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Excerpt&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Introduction&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;
Social networks have been used as a medium for financing films and other forms
of art, as well as for charitable solicitations. These and similar fundraising
endeavors are known as crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is the fundraising analog to
crowdsourcing, which refers to mass collaboration efforts through large numbers
of people, generally using social media or the Internet. Social networks have
the potential for using crowdfunding to reach large numbers of people. Since
crowdfunding is designed to reach a large number of people, limiting the
fundraising request to a small amount from each donor</description><author>dougesten.lnc@gmail.com (LexisNexis Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2012 06:50:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Capital Markets Relief: JOBS Act Eases Regulatory Barriers to IPOs and Other Capital Raising Alternatives</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/07/27/capital-markets-relief-jobs-act-eases-regulatory-barriers-to-ipos-and-other-capital-raising-alternatives.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/07/27/capital-markets-relief-jobs-act-eases-regulatory-barriers-to-ipos-and-other-capital-raising-alternatives.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Seedlings.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;by &lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/Portal/members/PhillipKardis_4000_placeholderdotcom/default.aspx"&gt;Phillip
J. Kardis II&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;, Robert K. Smith, and Barry Spatzer&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On April 5, 2012, the President
signed into law the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act (H.R. 3606),
which incorporates several initiatives aimed at easing the regulatory burdens
of traditional IPOs and private placements and generally facilitating access to
the capital markets. The JOBS Act is a sweeping piece of legislation and is
enormously relevant to capital markets participants. Companies and their legal
and financial advisors who are considering various financing alternatives
should consider the</description><author>KLGates@placeholder.com (K &amp; L Gates LLP)</author><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:46:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Tax Changes Are Looming</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/07/27/tax-changes-are-looming.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/07/27/tax-changes-are-looming.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/corporate-law-blog/taxes.jpg"&gt;&lt;img height="200" width="250" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/corpsec/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/corporate-law-blog/taxes.jpg" border="0" style="border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Tax planning can be challenging at any time of year, but this year may be more challenging than normal.&amp;nbsp; As with any presidential election year, there is a lot of legislative uncertainty leading into 2013.&amp;nbsp; Adding even more&amp;nbsp;fuel to the fire, there are&amp;nbsp;a number of significant tax rate changes scheduled to occur at the end of 2012 unless Congress steps in with a last-minute change.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Given the election year, an affirmative action by Congress seems very unlikely prior to November, which could result in last-minute planning for many investors.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong</description><author>asher.bearman@dlapiper.com (Asher Bearman)</author><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:05:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>EB-5 Practice under the JOBS Act</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/07/25/eb-5-practice-under-the-jobs-act.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/07/25/eb-5-practice-under-the-jobs-act.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/Yi-Song_5F00_130x112.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin:8px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Since the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act
(JOBS Act) was passed by Congress this past April, the EB-5 community has
waited in anticipation for the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) to revise
its rul&lt;a name="_GoBack"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;es to remove the prohibition on general
solicitation and general advertising under Regulation D&lt;a name="_ednref1"&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt; promulgated
under the Securities Act of 1933 (the &amp;quot;Securities Act&amp;quot;) for offerings where all
purchasers of the securities are accredited investors.&amp;nbsp; This article focuses on the status quo of
EB-5 practice and compliance of securities law until the SEC guidelines are
issued. &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;General Solicitation and General Advertising</description><author>yi@mshahlaw.com (Yi Song)</author><pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:11:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Yes, Consumer, Real Estate, and Business Finance Companies, You Too Can Take the IPO On-Ramp</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/07/17/yes-consumer-real-estate-and-business-finance-companies-you-too-can-take-the-ipo-on-ramp.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/07/17/yes-consumer-real-estate-and-business-finance-companies-you-too-can-take-the-ipo-on-ramp.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;by &lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/PORTAL/members/PhillipKardis_4000_placeholderdotcom/default.aspx"&gt;Phillip J. Kardis II,&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;Robert K. Smith, and &lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;Barry Spatzer&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Just as HOV lanes were created
to ease the commuting burden for those who meet certain requirements, the
recently enacted Jumpstart Our Business Startups (&amp;quot;JOBS&amp;quot;) Act created
the &amp;quot;IPO On-Ramp&amp;quot; to ease the burden of becoming and being a public
company. To hop on the ramp, all you have to do is meet certain requirements,
and unlike HOV lane limitations, the requirements are not very restrictive. You
just need to be an &amp;quot;Emerging Growth Company.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this EIA, we explore what it means to be an &amp;quot;Emerging Growth
Company&amp;quot;; the benefits of the &amp;quot;IPO On-Ramp&amp;quot;; and the benefits
from the JOBS Act once you become a public company. The JOBS Act, however, does
more than just create</description><author>RotunnoRechtorisPentecostMalettaTerris@placeholder.com (K &amp; L Gates (John W. Rotunno et al.))</author><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:13:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>JOBS Act Heralds New Era for Startup and Emerging Growth Company Financing</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/07/16/jobs-act-heralds-new-era-for-startup-and-emerging-growth-company-financing.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/07/16/jobs-act-heralds-new-era-for-startup-and-emerging-growth-company-financing.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Corporate+_2600_+Securities+LC/ContentImage_2D00_Seedlings.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;by &lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;Karl J. Ege,&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;Martin E. Lybecker, &lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;Danielle Benderly, and &lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;James T. Carroll&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The JOBS Act&amp;#39;s stated purpose
is to spur job creation and economic growth by improving access to capital for
emerging growth companies. To do so, the JOBS Act will make some of the most
significant changes to the U.S. securities law landscape in over a generation.
Perkins Coie experts provide an overview of the securities law changes under
the JOBS Act, as well as implications for private investment companies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;As forecast, on March 27 the
U.S. House passed the Senate&amp;#39;s amended version of the Jumpstart Our Business
Startups Act (the JOBS Act), clearing</description><author>PerkinsCoie@placeholder.com (Perkins Coie)</author><pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:13:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Ten Tips for Navigating Defamation Issues in Social Media</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/07/12/ten-tips-for-navigating-defamation-issues-in-social-media.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/blogs/vent-cap-blog/archive/2012/07/12/ten-tips-for-navigating-defamation-issues-in-social-media.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/vent-cap-blog/social-media-symbol.jpg"&gt;&lt;img height="200" width="250" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/CORPSEC/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/vent-cap-blog/social-media-symbol.jpg" border="0" style="border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Online and social media have revolutionized the way companies interact with their customers - allowing them to target customer interests and engage customers much more directly. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Entering into the world of social media, however, may pose reputational challenges. On-line stores and e-commerce platforms encourage customers to post reviews about the products they offer. Numerous companies directly prompt their customers to &amp;quot;like&amp;quot; them on Facebook or to comment on Twitter about their consumer experiences. But what if the responses customers post are less</description><author>megan.muir@dlapiper.com (Megan Muir)</author><pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:40:00 -0400</pubDate></item></channel></rss>