Category: Reverse Merger

First Public Bitcoin Company, An Ecommerce Reseller Of Consumer Products, Goes Public Using A Reverse Merger

First Bitcoin public company (sort of) went public through reverse merger.

Charles Allen, CEO and CFO, of Bitcoin Shop recently went on CNBC to discuss why a reverse merger was the best choice for his company to go public. His reasons included:

  • Publicity from being public
  • Transparency
  • Time to market, merger done in three weeks
  • They wanted to be the first public Bitcoin company
  • Ability to raise funds

For this post, let’s overlook my opinion that reverse mergers are generally a terrible idea. You never know what you are getting into, such as Bitcoin Shop’s recent extensive revisions of two years worth of financial disclosures following the notice of nonreliance on previously issued financial statements and audit reports.

Logo - Bitcoin
Bitcoin Shop goes public through a reverse merger transaction.

There are private companies that not only can navigate the process, but have the systems set up to successfully transition to being a public company. However, they are few and far between. In addition, the fundraising seldom materializes.  To Bitcoin Shop’s credit, they did raise about $1.8 million in a private placement related to the reverse merger.

As to Bitcoin Shop’s Bitcoin-related business, as Mr. Allen described on CNBC, it basically is an affiliate seller of products for other sites. It lists products and permits payment by Bitcoin. It has a goal to be a leading virtual currencly marektplace, but it is not a “Bitcoin” company. It markets stuff sold by others and processes payment and takes fees. It currently has a single vendor, but it plans more.

Bitcoin Shop may be able to earn revenue through markups on products and processing fees and undercut credit and debit card processing fees. Time will tell if this is a viable strategy. But, for all of the technical discussion in its investor presentation and SEC filing discussion the transition, Bitcoin Shop is an ecommerce company that lists products for sale by another vendor and processes payment denominated in Bitcoin.

There is nothing wrong with that, and I would not be surprised to see many more follow suit. However, I am reminded of seemingly hundreds of companies with little relationship to technology slap a “.com” at the end of their name back in the 1990’s. Is history repeating itself?

 

Recent Case Shows How Little The SEC Appreciates The Beauty* Of A Reverse Merger

*Beauty Is in the eye of the stock promoter.
SEC v. Sierra Brokerage, et al.

Many of the arguments in the case are procedural, but the basis of the case involves Tsai, who created shell companies for reverse mergers.  As part of the process, Tsai would distribute the shares to his buddies to spread out the holdings in order to qualify for OTC trading.  Tsai also had stock powers from these people that allowed him to redistribute the shares in the reverse merger.

Tsai’s ability to reclaim the shares at a reduced price constituted “control” over the shareholders in addition to his control over the company and made them all “affiliates.”  According to the SEC and the court, this made him an underwriter and Rule 144 unavailable.  Thus, the distribution was a violation of the registration requirements of the 33 Act.

But wait, there’s more.  His failure to report the shares he controlled via the stock powers was a violation of Section 13(d) and Section 16(a) of the 34 Act (requirements to file Schedule 13Ds and Forms 3, 4 and 5).

If you want to draw broader lessons:

  • Spreading out securities holdings without an effective registration violates the 33 Act
  • The ability to repurchase shares demonstrates control
  • The ability to repurchase shares constitutes beneficial ownership and pecuniary interest for purposes of the Williams Act and Section 16 disclosure and short swing profit rules
  • The SEC still does not like reverse mergers