Advertisement

May 22, 2013

JOBS Act Update for Biofuels Companies

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the JOBS Act) which was recently passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama could have a significant impact on how many traditionally farmer-owned biofuels companies are structured.

Background 

Many of the biofuels companies formed in the Upper Midwest in the late 1990s and early 2000s were started by local agricultural producers and investors. While this distinctive structure had many advantages, including a natural hedge against commodity prices and access to a large base of knowledgeable investors, securities and tax laws created compliance burdens for companies conducting their equity drives. Companies responded to these regulatory challenges in primarily one of two ways: they either formed (i) a limited liability company (LLC) and registered their equity offering with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), or (ii) a cooperative which was exempt from initial SEC registration.

Companies who organized themselves as LLCs and publicly registered their securities realized the benefits of being able to conduct a public offering to a large number of investors. However, after a successful equity drive, these companies were subject to the costs of being a publicly reporting company, which included hundreds of thousands of dollars annually being spent on compliance costs, in addition to greater management distraction, increased liability and a loss of confidentiality. Companies who organized themselves as cooperatives were able to avoid most of the SEC compliance costs. However, this benefit came at the substantial cost of significantly limiting their flexibility in obtaining their corn supply without incurring significant tax burdens. 

As a result of these challenges, many LLCs who had equity securities registered with the SEC decided to reorganize and deregister from SEC registration, or “go dark.” Similarly, many cooperatives decided to convert to an LLC structure to avoid the tax and operating restrictions of being a cooperative. 

The process for both of these steps was similar. Companies formed multiple classes of LLC equity securities that had different voting and/or economic rights and then reorganized their members into these various classes so that no class of equity securities had more than 500 record holders (300 record holders for any class of equity securities that was previously registered with the SEC). In order for this to be effective, the differences in equity securities needed to be significant. For example, a company could grant different voting rights to members based on the following:

  • Voting vs. non-voting units
  • Right to elect directors
  • Right to amend charter documents (e.g. Operating Agreement)
  • Right to approve fundamental transactions (e.g. dissolution, merger, conversion)

While this type of reorganization can be successful in deregistering a class of equity securities with the SEC, it has the cost of taking away some rights that members previously held. However, many companies and their shareholders voted in favor of deregistering with the SEC because the benefits of deregistration outweighed these costs. 

Greater Flexibility Under the JOBS Act 

The recently passed JOBS Act makes it easier for biofuels companies to experience the tax benefits of operating as an LLC without being subject to the compliance costs associated with a public reporting company. The JOBS Act raises the threshold for mandatory registration under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, from 500 shareholders to the lesser of (i) 2,000 total shareholders or (ii) 500 shareholders who are non-accredited investors. As a result, the necessity of forming multiple classes of LLC equity securities with differing voting and/or economic rights in order to avoid registering with the SEC has been minimized. It is important to note, however, that the JOBS Act did not affect the threshold of 300 shareholders of record, for non-bank holding companies. Thus, biofuels companies who are currently public reporting companies must get below 300 record holders of a class of full voting equity securities to “go dark” but may have up to 2,000 shareholders of record, or up to 500 unaccredited investors, for other classes of equity securities that have not been previously registered.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

gregory j. lynch, member, michael best law firm
Member

Greg Lynch is the Chair of the firm’s Transactional Practice Group and a member of the Renewable Energy Industry Group. He also is the Co-Founder of the firm’s VentureBestSM venture practice. His principal experience has been in the following areas:

  • Early-stage company formation
  • Angel and venture capital financing
  • Public and private placement of securities
  • Stock option and equity incentive plans
  • Business plan review and advice
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • General corporate law,...
608.283.2240

About the Author

peter j. martin, partner, corporate, business law, michael best law firm
Partner

Porter J. Martin is a corporate partner in the Madison office of Michael Best and Friedrich, LLP. Mr. Martin is a founding member of Michael Best’s Renewable Energy team and represents a number of companies in the renewable energy industry. Mr. Martin’s practice encompasses acquisitions and divestitures, project development and construction, corporate restructuring, equity and debt financing, project contracts, input and output agreements, and other general corporate issues. In addition to his renewable energy clients, Mr. Martin represents manufacturing and technology based...

608-283-0116

Contributors

Jeffrey Barrett is an attorney in the Transactional Group in the Milwaukee office where he focuses on mergers and acquisitions and general corporate law matters.

414-225-8294

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.