Financial institutions used to close customer accounts or refuse to open customers’ accounts based on subjective reasons such as:

• Mitigating risks related to regulatory compliance
• Money laundering
• Fraud
• Terror financing
• Operational risks
• Religious or political views
• Avoiding reputational damage to the bank
• High-risk or politically sensitive industries

In 2011, federal regulators began issuing informal guidance encouraging banks to consider these subjective standards. This practice gave regulators great latitude to be biased against certain industries which they considered to be too risky and to warn banks against doing business with them.

Banks are heavily regulated and can only operate when in good standing with the regulators. Banking regulators are more than a strong influence on bank operations. They can direct and control bank activities.

President Trump’s August 7, 2025, Executive Order, “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans” (EO 14331), requires banks to ensure that decisions to restrict or terminate accounts (debanking) are based on individualized, documented, objective, and risk-based criteria, rather than political or religious beliefs.

Key Details of the Executive Order and Implementation

• Purpose: To eliminate “politicized or unlawful debanking” by financial institutions
• Requirements: Financial institutions must base decisions on documented, objective, and risk-based analyses
• Regulatory Actions: Federal regulators (OCC, FDIC, Fed, NCUA, CFPB) are instructed to review institution policies, take remedial action (fines, consent decrees) against those engaging in illegal debanking, and remove “reputational risk” as a justification for terminating accounts
• Scope: Protects against discrimination based on political views, religious beliefs, or lawful business activities
• Enforcement: The OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) announced actions to enforce this order, including reviewing bank performance under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

Legislative Efforts

Congress passed the Ensuring Fair Access to Banking Act to further solidify these requirements into federal law. This law places restrictions on certain banks, credit unions, and payment card networks if they refuse to do business with a person who complies with the law. Restrictions on financial institutions for violations include prohibiting the use of electronic funds transfer systems and lending programs, termination of an institution’s depository insurance, and specified civil penalties. It establishes the right for a person to bring a civil action for a violation of this bill.

Government officials used to encourage banks to debank customers primarily to mitigate perceived risks related to money laundering, terrorism financing, and fraud. Using initiatives like “Operation Chokepoint” and “Know Your Customer” (KYC) rules, regulators have pushed banks to close accounts for high-risk or politically disfavored industries (such as gun manufacturers, crypto, and energy companies) under the guise of “reputational risk”.

Neither the Constitution nor any Congressional statute grant powers to the regulators to decide which lawful businesses deserve access to banking services. If you have been the victim of debanking, please consult the lawyers at Corporate Securities Legal LLP to review your rights and protect your financial reputation.

“The third-party litigation financing industry is not specifically regulated under U.S. federal law. However, some states regulate consumer funding by, for example, limiting the fees funders can charge. There also is no nationwide requirement to disclose litigation funding agreements to courts or opposing parties in federal litigation, although courts have required disclosures of funding arrangements in some instances”. The Litigation Funding Transparency Act and HR 1109, which seek to expose potential conflicts of interest and reduce risks of prolonged, funded litigation was introduced in Congress in February of 2026 but is still moving through the process to become law.

Common Complaints and Risks

• Lack of Transparency: TPLF agreements are usually confidential, and not subject to discovery, although that rule is slowly changing. The objective is to increase transparency and mitigate risks in the justice system. Defendants are put at a disadvantage if they do not know if a third-party investor is pulling the strings in a lawsuit.
• Control over Litigation: Although funders are investors, they may require contractual control over case decisions, including veto power over settlements.
• Foreign Influence: Many foreign entities are using TPLF to attack U.S. companies and gain access to sensitive information.

How TPLF Impacts Commercial Businesses

• Rise in “Nuclear Verdicts”: The influx of outside capital allows plaintiffs to pursue high-stakes, prolonged litigation, often resulting in massive, excessive jury awards that exceed $10 million.
• Increased Litigation Frequency: TPLF incentivizes the filing of non-meritorious or “questionable” claims, as plaintiffs are shielded from the risks of losing.
• Harder Settlement Negotiations: Because funders prioritize maximizing their investment returns, they may push for higher payouts, rejecting reasonable, early settlement offers that businesses often prefer.
• Rise in Specific Areas: TPLF is common in large commercial disputes.
• Operational Strain: Businesses face higher insurance premiums, tighter coverage terms, and increased legal fees defending these cases.

Although federal and state regulation of TPLF is slow in coming, businesses can take steps themselves to mitigate risks through contractual arrangements and other possible legal positions. The lawyers at Corporate Securities Legal LLP have many years of experience dealing with difficult threats to business operations, both for startups and for public companies.

After a few years of declining merger and acquisition (M&A) activity, transaction volume is beginning to rise again, making this an important time for companies to prepare for potential deal opportunities. Whether a company intends to expand through acquiring additional products or services or seeks to combine with a complementary business, preparation is essential to successfully execute a transaction when opportunities arise.

Advance preparation positions a company as a viable and attractive candidate for merger and acquisition activity.

Increased Capital Driving M&A Activity

Recent dry powder surveys demonstrate that significant funding remains available for mid-market and smaller M&A transactions. “Dry powder” refers to uninvested cash or liquid assets held by investors—particularly private equity and venture capital firms—for future deployment.

These funds are maintained to allow investors to:

• Quickly pursue acquisition opportunities;
• Respond to favorable market conditions;
• Navigate economic downturns without liquidating existing investments;
• Compete effectively for strategic transactions.

Current estimates place available dry powder at approximately $1.3 trillion, with nearly 24% held for four years or longer. This prolonged capital reserve creates mounting pressure on private equity firms to deploy funds efficiently in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Modern M&A participants now include:

• Private equity firms;
• Sovereign wealth funds;
• Direct corporate investors;
• Large family offices.

Evolving Deal Structures and Market Confidence

Today’s M&A environment increasingly relies on creative transaction structures designed to allocate risk and preserve financing flexibility. Common approaches include:

• Club deals involving multiple investment partners;
• Private credit financing arrangements;
• Strategic risk-sharing between buyers and sellers;
• Enhanced due diligence practices.

Improved financing conditions, increased corporate confidence, and expectations of a more relaxed regulatory environment have further contributed to renewed acquisition activity.

Programmatic M&A as a Growth Strategy

Research conducted by McKinsey & Company indicates that companies engaging in programmatic M&A strategies consistently outperform competitors. Successful acquirers commonly demonstrate several shared characteristics.

Expansion Beyond Core Markets

Effective acquirers frequently pursue transactions outside their traditional business lines, targeting:

• Adjacent sectors within the same industry;
• Emerging markets offering higher growth potential;
• Strategic expansion opportunities beyond core operations.

By anticipating natural growth slowdowns in established markets, programmatic acquirers position themselves to capture future expansion opportunities.

Strategy-Driven Decision Making

Successful dealmakers remain disciplined in following clearly defined acquisition strategies. Rather than pursuing transactions opportunistically, they evaluate deals based on long-term value creation and competitive positioning.

Prioritizing Value Over Purchase Price

High-performing acquirers focus on whether a transaction creates measurable value rather than whether it offers the lowest acquisition price. Even higher-cost acquisitions may be justified when projected synergies and operational efficiencies exceed total transaction costs.

Active Portfolio Management

Leading acquirers also recognize the importance of divestitures. Strategic capital reallocation—including both acquisitions and dispositions—often distinguishes companies that maximize shareholder value from those focused solely on expansion.

Why Preparation Matters

The manner in which a company approaches merger and acquisition activity can ultimately determine the success or failure of the combined enterprise. Companies that maintain organized financial records, clear strategic objectives, and sound legal structures are better positioned to respond quickly when acquisition opportunities arise.

The securities lawyers at Corporate Securities Legal LLP have extensive experience guiding clients through M&A strategy, transaction structuring, and financing solutions designed to support successful business combinations.

Contact Corporate Securities Legal LLP to discuss how proper preparation can position your company to capitalize on today’s growing M&A opportunities.

Shareholders of public companies do not manage the day-to-day operations of a company, but they retain one of the most important governance rights—the ability to elect members of the Board of Directors. Through informed voting decisions, shareholders influence corporate strategy, oversight, and long-term policy direction.

The number of directors and the length of their terms are established in a company’s articles of incorporation or bylaws. As a result, shareholders understand the governance impact of their votes prior to participating in director elections.

Director Nominations and Shareholder Voting Rights

Director candidates are typically recommended by company management; however, shareholders also have the right to nominate alternative candidates whom they believe better represent their interests or strategic vision for the company.

Director elections occur during the company’s annual shareholder meeting. Because relatively few shareholders attend these meetings in person, most voting occurs through proxy authorization.

Historically, proxy voting created structural disadvantages for shareholders participating remotely.

Limitations of the Traditional Proxy System

Under prior rules, proxy voters were required to select between competing ballots:

• A proxy card supporting management’s full slate of director nominees; or
• A proxy card supporting the dissident shareholder slate.

This system effectively created a winner-take-all voting structure, favoring management nominees. Shareholders voting by proxy were unable to mix and match candidates from competing slates, even though shareholders attending meetings in person retained that flexibility.

The disparity frustrated proxy voters and limited meaningful shareholder choice in contested director elections.

SEC Adoption of Universal Proxy Card Rules

To address this imbalance, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted final rules in 2021 requiring the use of universal proxy cards in contested director elections.

Under these rules, proxy cards must include all duly nominated director candidates, regardless of whether they are proposed by management or dissident shareholders. The amendments allow shareholders voting by proxy to select their preferred combination of nominees in the same manner as shareholders voting in person.

Key Requirements Under the Universal Proxy Rules

The SEC’s amendments impose several procedural and disclosure requirements on both registrants and dissident shareholders, including:

• Providing proxy cards listing all management and dissident nominees;
• Exchanging advance notice identifying director nominees;
• Complying with established filing deadlines;
• Meeting minimum solicitation requirements applicable to dissident parties;
• Following standardized presentation and formatting requirements for proxy cards;
• Clearly specifying shareholder voting options;
• Disclosing the effect of a shareholder’s decision to withhold votes from nominees.

To ensure that shareholder-nominated candidates demonstrate meaningful investor support, dissident parties are also required to solicit shareholders representing at least 67% of the voting power of outstanding shares.

Implications for Corporate Boards and Executives

Universal proxy rules place proxy voters and in-person voters on equal footing, significantly increasing shareholder influence in contested elections. As a result, companies must prepare more carefully for annual meetings and potential activist challenges.

Corporate leadership can mitigate risk by:

• Maintaining transparency in governance practices;
• Providing shareholders with clear and comprehensive information regarding director qualifications;
• Demonstrating board effectiveness and strategic alignment;
• Engaging proactively with shareholder concerns prior to proxy contests.

Well-informed shareholders are more likely to evaluate candidates based on experience, integrity, and strategic value rather than name recognition or tenure alone.

The Importance of Strong Board Governance

Effective board composition remains central to sustaining corporate strategy and protecting shareholder value. Universal proxy voting increases accountability while reinforcing the importance of maintaining a qualified, independent, and strategically aligned Board of Directors.

The securities attorneys at Corporate Securities Legal LLP have long advised corporate boards on governance preparedness, proxy compliance, and shareholder engagement strategies. Proactive legal guidance helps companies preserve board stability while ensuring compliance with evolving SEC regulations governing contested director elections.

Whether you are launching a startup or expanding an established business, the need for outside financing often arises at critical moments. You may be seeking capital to bridge a temporary slowdown, fund growth initiatives, or pursue new market opportunities. Regardless of the reason, securing outside investment requires careful preparation and a strategic approach.

Investors expect companies to be organized, transparent, and legally prepared. Taking the proper steps in advance can significantly improve your chances of a successful financing transaction.

Building the Right Advisory Team

Outside professionals play an essential role in preparing a company for financing. Accountants, market analysts, and business planners each bring valuable expertise, but the most critical advisor throughout the financing process is an experienced business law attorney.

Your attorney will not only draft and negotiate key transaction documents, but will also identify the information and records required for investor due diligence. Proper legal guidance helps ensure that your materials are complete, accurate, and presented in a way that supports negotiations for fair and balanced investment terms.

Understanding and Negotiating the Term Sheet

One of the first and most important documents in an outside financing transaction is the term sheet. The term sheet outlines the basic economic and control terms of the proposed investment and serves as the framework for the final financing documents.

Key provisions commonly addressed in a term sheet include:

• Company valuation;
• Ownership dilution;
• Liquidation preferences;
• Voting rights and board representation.

Although often described as “non-binding,” many term sheet provisions have lasting consequences once accepted. A clear understanding of industry norms and the legal implications of these terms is essential. Your attorney can help you evaluate these provisions and prepare the definitive agreements that follow the term sheet.

Preparing a Clear Capitalization Table

A capitalization table provides a comprehensive snapshot of the company’s ownership structure. It identifies all issued and outstanding equity interests and the rights associated with each class or instrument.

A well-prepared capitalization table typically includes:

• Common and preferred stock;
• Stock options and option plans;
• Convertible notes and other convertible securities;
• Warrants and rights to purchase equity;
• Ownership or control interests in other business entities.

Pro forma capitalization tables are particularly valuable, as they model various financing scenarios and illustrate the dilutive impact of proposed deal terms. Investors rely on this information to understand their prospective ownership position and economic return.

Organizing Corporate and Legal Records

Investors will conduct thorough legal due diligence before committing capital. As part of this process, they will expect access to well-organized corporate records and documentation, including:

• Formation documents, articles of incorporation, and bylaws;
• Equity issuance records and shareholder agreements;
• Material contracts, leases, notes, and loan agreements;
• Employment, consulting, and confidentiality agreements;
• Board and shareholder meeting minutes and resolutions;
• Judgments, liens, mortgages, and regulatory filings.

Investors will also evaluate whether their investment could trigger conflicts with existing agreements or create liens on company assets. Clear documentation demonstrates good corporate governance, compliance, and operational reliability.

Why Legal Preparation Matters

Proper preparation for outside financing reduces risk, strengthens negotiating leverage, and builds investor confidence. Companies that fail to address legal and structural issues early often face delays, reduced valuations, or unfavorable deal terms.

The business lawyers at Corporate Securities Legal LLP have extensive experience guiding clients through the preparation and execution of outside financing transactions. Their strategic approach helps companies present themselves professionally, protect their interests, and move efficiently toward closing.

Contact Corporate Securities Legal LLP to schedule a consultation and begin preparing your business for successful outside financing.

When companies decide to merge, one of the most critical—and often contentious—issues is determining the value being exchanged. While it may seem like a straightforward financial exercise, company valuation is rarely simple. Multiple valuation methodologies exist, and parties often disagree over which factors deserve the greatest weight.

Differences in assumptions, strategic objectives, and risk tolerance frequently lead to divergent views of value.

Identifying Valuable Company Assets

Tangible assets are generally the easiest to value. These assets are often assessed based on purchase price, adjusted for depreciation. However, a company’s true value extends well beyond its physical assets.

Intangible Assets and Internal Value Drivers

Key non-tangible components that significantly affect valuation include:

• Intangible assets
• Customer relationships
• Intellectual property
• Brand reputation
• Pending litigation
• Contingent liabilities

External Factors Affecting Valuation

A company’s value is also influenced by conditions outside the organization, including:

• Broader market conditions
• Regulatory changes
• Industry trends
• Macroeconomic factors

Common Valuation Methods in Mergers

Disputes often arise not because one party is “wrong,” but because different valuation methods reflect different strategic priorities. Common approaches and points of disagreement include:

• Overstating projected cost savings from combining operations
• Valuing intellectual property, patents, and brand equity
• Selecting accounting models such as comparable transaction analysis versus discounted cash flow analysis
• Assessing the negative impact of legal disputes, environmental exposure, or pension liabilities
• Valuing the company based solely on total assets minus liabilities
• Relying on valuations from comparable mergers within the same industry

Each approach can produce materially different outcomes.

Why Buyers and Sellers Value Companies Differently

Understanding valuation disagreements requires examining each party’s objectives.

Seller Perspectives

Sellers often emphasize future growth and recent performance trends. Their valuation typically reflects optimism about continued expansion and the realization of projected synergies.

Buyer Perspectives

Buyers, lacking deep historical insight into the target company, tend to adopt a more conservative posture. They focus on:

• Market volatility
• Competitive pressures
• Downside risk
• Integration challenges

Additional Factors Driving Divergent Valuations

Several structural issues also contribute to valuation differences:

• Discount rates: Higher perceived risk leads to higher discount rates and lower valuations
• Standalone vs. combined value: Determining a company’s standalone value is usually easier than estimating post-merger synergies
• Lack of perfect comparables: No two transactions are identical, and differing interpretations of market data often yield different results
• Tax treatment: Tax consequences vary depending on deal structure
– Earn-out payments are generally treated as ordinary income
– Asset purchases may qualify for capital gains treatment
– Buyers and sellers often benefit differently from each structure

Maximizing Value in a Merger

The ultimate goal of a merger is to create greater value than either company could achieve independently. Achieving that outcome requires realistic assumptions, disciplined analysis, and careful planning.

The attorneys at Corporate Securities Legal, LLP bring financial insight, industry knowledge, and strategic judgment to help clients achieve accurate valuations and informed decision-making. Our team actively identifies and mitigates risks that are frequently overlooked, including:

• Unrealistic cost-saving or revenue assumptions
• Rapid industry shifts
• Competitor responses
• Changing customer expectations
• Inadequate due diligence
• Post-merger operational integration challenges

With experienced legal and strategic guidance, companies can navigate valuation disputes effectively and position themselves for long-term success following a merger.

How is the definition of an accredited investor being expanded?

The proposed rule will amend the definition of an “accredited investor” as follows:

With regard to individuals, the proposed rule would add the term “spousal equivalent” to the definition of a spouse, and give accredited investor status to individuals:

• that have certain professional certifications or designations or other credentials; or
• whose status as a private fund’s “knowledgeable employee.”

With regard to entities, the proposed rule would expand the list of entities, including, but not limited to:

• entities that meet an investments test; and
• family offices with at least $5,000,000 in assets under management and their family clients.

Background

Under the U.S. federal securities laws, a company that offers or sells its securities must register the securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or qualify for an exemption from registration.[1] Regulation A+ and crowdfunding provide an exemption from registration that allow the company to raise capital to with unaccredited investors, however, the process for preparing these offering documents can oftentimes be just as burdensome on the company as registering the securities. Rule 506 of Regulation D provides additional exemptions from registration; for these exemptions, we recommend only raising capital from accredited investors. If the SEC is successful in broadening the scope of who is considered to be an accredited investor, more investors will hold accredited investor status, making it easier for private companies trying to raise capital using Rule 506.

What is an accredited investor?

Rule 501 of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) defines an accredited investor. In summary, an accredited investor is: an individual that has a net worth of $1,000,000, excluding their primary residence; or an individual that has an annual income of $200,000 or more (or $300,000 combines with their spouse) for two years and has a reasonable expectation of meeting those income requirements in the upcoming year. Additionally, Rule 501 defines specific types of entities; and directors, executive officers, or general partners of the issuing company as being accredited.

Public Policy

The SEC depicts the “accredited investor” definition as a central component of Regulation D, stating that it is “intended to encompass those persons whose financial sophistication and ability to sustain the risk of loss of investment or ability to fend for themselves render the protections of the Securities Act’s registration process unnecessary.”[2] Considering this definition, it’s clear why the SEC would like to expand the definition of an accredited investor to “identify more effectively institutional and individual investors that have the knowledge and expertise to participate in our private capital markets and therefore do not need the additional protections of the registration under the Securities Act.”[3]

Wilson Bradshaw LLP is a boutique securities law firm in Irvine, California and New York City. We help businesses solicit investors for both public and private companies in a compliant manner. We restrict our practice to securities law, focusing on private and public offerings and SEC enforcement work.

[1] U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Accredited Investor, Fast Answers (Nov. 27, 2017), https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answers-accredhtm.html.

[2] U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Report on the Review of the Definition of “Accredited Investor”, Files (Dec. 18, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/files/review-definition-of-accredited-investor-12-18-2015.pdf.

[3] U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 17CFR Parts 230 and 240, Release Nos. 33-10734; 34-87784; File No. S7-25-169, Amending the “Accredited Investor” Definition (Dec. 18, 2019), https://www.sec.gov/files/review-definition-of-accredited-investor-12-18-2015.pdf.

We recently posted about the advantages of a Private Placement Memorandum (ppm), and the necessity of complying with all of the requirements to stay within the exemption granted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. This post explores the reasons you need the assistance of a securities attorney in the preparation and execution of your PPM to avoid misunderstandings with your potential investors and the resulting problems to you and to them.

Forbes Magazine suggests some of the more common issues that investors should look for, and the business owner should also be aware of them, so the offering will be clear and understandable to both parties. Understanding the risk factors is critical. These factors should be listed in the term sheet, and the investors should have a working understanding of how much they can lose”, but a thorough and understandable explanation of the risks and the consequences can go a long way in preventing angry, confused investors down the road.

Liquidity of the securities is important, so you need to clarify under what conditions your investors can sell, and how much it will cost them. Are there restricted conditions for making distributions to the investor? Will you be making regular distributions, which the investor can count on, or do you only need to pay the investors when you sell certain assets or other major events?

Are you making the offering on a contingency basis, and if so, are those conditions for concluding the placement clearly explained. A common condition would be that a specified dollar amount needs to be invested before a specified date, or else the placement is canceled. “If any specified conditions or contingencies are not met, the offering document should clearly state that investors will be refunded their investment amount. If there are no contingencies, be wary. An offering that may proceed without a minimum level of investments or other conditions could be a red flag, as the issuer can use the proceeds immediately, regardless of the amount raised from other investors.” That means the wording on your Private Placement Memorandum needs to be very specific on these issues, and clearly understandable.

FINRA emphasizes, “Each year, companies raise billions of dollars selling securities in non-public offerings that are exempt from registration under the federal securities laws. These offerings, known as private placements, can be a key source of capital for American businesses, especially small or start-up companies. But investing in private placements is risky and can tie up your money for a long time. As with other investments, you can also lose some or all of your money.”

If some of this seems a little unnecessary or insignificant, remember, the investors most likely have their attorneys looking at it, and they will be watching to see if you fail to fully advise their clients of all required disclosures.

The law firm of Wilson, Bradshaw & Cao LLP is experienced in all securities issues and transactions, so you can rest assured that your PPM will be handled professionally and accurately.

Those ideas, stemming from your own thinking and from your own experiences, are called intellectual property, and they can have significant value in the market place when developed and applied in a business undertaking. As such, they become valuable to you, and the law has provided ways to protect that intellectual property.

While you are focusing on making your ideas become reality to potential customers, there are many other individuals that are looking for good ideas like yours, so they can jump in and use those ideas in their own business. By using your ideas, they don’t have to go to the trouble of thinking up those ideas and going through the same good and bad experiences that you went through to develop that intellectual property. If they have a well-developed business process and organization, they will be able to get your intellectual property to market faster than you can while you are just starting up. That creates unfair competition for you and is the reason the law can protect you and your intellectual property, which you took the time and energy to develop.

Those protections include patents, copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade secrets, business models, and operating processes. They can even include plans to attract and retain talented employees and contractors, as well as operating contracts and compensation plans. When you contract for services, negotiate new deals, or interview potential employees, you should use confidentiality agreements, so that other people will not use or disclose your intellectual property which you discussed with them in the normal course of business. You should also use assignment agreements so that when your employees use your intellectual property and discover a way to improve on it, that improvement will become part of your intellectual property, and not theirs, to distribute or profit from it. You are paying them and all the overhead expenses to use your intellectual property, so the improved results rightfully belong to you.

The attorneys at Wilson Bradshaw LLP have represented many startup businesses, and have been through the process themselves. They are ready to assist you in preparing the documents which will protect your business and intellectual property as you attract and retain the customer base which you have worked so hard to develop. With offices in New York City and Irvine, California, we mainly help entrepreneurs raise capital through the offering of securities. Part of that is making sure the Company’s IP is protected.