Discover Growth Fund, LLC, a U.S. Virgin Islands limited liability company v. BEYOND COMMERCE, INC., A Nevada Corporation

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting and approving the Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 7 -4) in its entirety; and this action is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. (See pdf order for details and specifics.) Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/17/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:21-cv-00328-MMD-CLB Document 17 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
DISCOVER GROWTH FUND, LLC,
a U.S. Virgin Islands limited liability
company,

11
12

Case No.: 3:21-cv-00328-MMD-CLB

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

15

BEYOND COMMERCE, INC.,
a Nevada corporation,

16

MEMORANDUM

AND ORDER

Defendant.

17
18

The Motion for Approval of Stipulation for Settlement of Claims (Doc. 7) (“Motion”) filed

19

by Plaintiff DISCOVER GROWTH FUND, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Discover”) came on for hearing

20

on November 17, 2021 before the Honorable Miranda Du, U.S. District Judge. The Court,

21

having been presented with a Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant

22

BEYOND COMMERCE, INC. (“Defendant” or “Beyond Commerce”) (Doc. 7-4), considered

23

the Motion and supporting and responding papers, Declaration of John Burke (Doc. 7-1),

24

Defendant’s Non-Opposition (Doc. 8), Declaration of Peter M. Stazzone (Doc. 9), and

25

arguments of counsel, conducted a fairness hearing on the Motion as set forth in the

26

Settlement Agreement, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court grants the Motion for the

27

reasons explained below.

28

//
//

[PROPOSED] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAGE 1

Case 3:21-cv-00328-MMD-CLB Document 17 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 10

1

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2

The Court makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

3

FINDINGS OF FACT

4

Plaintiff Discover is an institutional investor. (Doc. 7-1 at ¶ 4.) Defendant is a Nevada

5

corporation. (Doc. 9 at ¶ 1.) Defendant is a company operating in two markets: (1) the business-

6

to-business internet marketing technology and services market; and (2) the information

7

management market, in developing proprietary software for digital transformation of clients’

8

existing content. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Its stock is publicly traded on the OTC Markets under the trading

9

symbol “BYOC.”

10

Beyond Commerce issued to Discover a Senior Secured Redeemable Convertible

11

Debenture with an initial face value of $2,717,391.30 on August 7, 2018 (the “Debenture”), in

12

exchange for an aggregate of $2.5 million in cash. (Doc. 7-4 at ¶ 1.) The Debenture was

13

convertible into shares of Defendant’s common stock, at a discount to the market price based upon

14

a variable pricing formula. (Id.) Beyond Commerce then filed a resale Registration Statement

15

with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, for the shares of common stock issuable to

16

Discover upon conversion of the Debenture, which became effective on February 7, 2019. (Id.)

17

The parties entered into an Exchange Agreement on March 19, 2021, pursuant to which

18

they exchanged the Debenture, which then had a face value of $1,556,905.00, for 1,556,905 shares

19

of Beyond Commerce Series C Convertible Preferred Stock. (Doc. 7-4 at ¶ 1.)

20

Discover entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement with Beyond Commerce on March 31,

21

2021, pursuant to which it purchased an additional 10,000 shares of preferred stock for $1 million

22

in cash. (Doc. 7-4 at ¶ 2.) (The Exchange Agreement and Stock Purchase Agreement are referred

23

to collectively as the “Agreements.”) Under the Agreements, Beyond Commerce is required to

24

maintain a reserve of 15.56 billion shares of common stock for issuance to Discover upon

25

conversion of the preferred stock. (Id.)

26

Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant relating to the Agreements. (Doc. 7-4 at ¶ 5. See

27

also Doc. 1.) Within these Agreements, Defendant represented there were no claims, litigation, or

28

other similar matters pending against Defendant at the time the Agreements were entered into.
[PROPOSED] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAGE 2

Case 3:21-cv-00328-MMD-CLB Document 17 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 10

1

(Doc. 7-4 at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff discovered, after entering into the Agreements, that a third party had in

2

fact put Defendant on notice of the third party’s claim against Defendant. The third party later

3

filed a lawsuit against Defendant based on such claim. (Doc. 7-4 at ¶ 3.)

4

Defendant has acknowledged that the claims held by Plaintiff are bona fide outstanding,

5

resulted from arms-length agreements negotiated in good faith, and that the amounts being settled

6

are currently due debts arising in the ordinary course of business. (Doc. 9 at ¶ 5.) Defendant

7

further acknowledges that it is obligated to pay the full amount of the claims without counterclaim

8

or right of offset. (Id.)

9

Plaintiff and its U.S. attorneys, advisors, and representatives have worked cooperatively

10

with Defendant and its attorneys and advisors to reach a mutually-beneficial agreement. (Doc. 9

11

at ¶ 6.) The parties have entered into a settlement agreement to settle the outstanding claims in

12

exchange for stock, subject to Court approval following a fairness hearing. (Doc. 7-4.) (The terms

13

and conditions of the settlement are set forth in the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 7-4) filed in this

14

action.) Defendant’s CEO and board of directors have determined that the settlement is fair to

15

Defendant and in the best interests of its stockholders. (Doc. 9 at ¶ 6.)

16
17

Trading in Defendant’s shares is volatile and unpredictable. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Over the last year,
the trading price and volume for the shares have fluctuated substantially. (Id.; Doc. 9-1.)

18

Plaintiff is a highly sophisticated institutional investor who regularly enters into

19

transactions of this type, and is fully aware of the significant risks in exchanging debt for common

20

equity of a small public company that has substantial doubt as to its ability to continue as a going

21

concern. (See Doc. 7-1 at ¶ 15-16.) Plaintiff can afford a complete loss of its investment and is

22

willing to accept that risk, provided Defendant abides by the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

23

(Id. at ¶ 15.) If Defendant succeeds and performs, there is the potential for Plaintiff to fully recoup

24

its investment and possibly generate a sizable return. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff is receiving shares

25

that it should be able to sell for more than the amount of the claims. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Plaintiff has

26

analyzed the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, company fundamentals and market

27

dynamics, and determined that the negotiated agreement is fair and reasonable, and adequate to

28

settle its claim. (Id. at ¶ 11.)
[PROPOSED] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAGE 3

Case 3:21-cv-00328-MMD-CLB Document 17 Filed 11/17/21 Page 4 of 10

1

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2

I.

3

The parties have agreed to settle this case pursuant to a Settlement Agreement which

4

requires Defendant to issue 72,638 shares of its preferred stock to Discover. (Doc. 7-4 at ¶ 1.)

5

Because payment for the settlement of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant will be in the form of

6

unregistered shares of preferred and common stock, court approval is required under Section

7

3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77c(a)(10), and the comparable provision of

8

Nevada state “blue sky” law, NRS 90.280(6)(c). See Oceana Capital Grp. Ltd. v. Red Giant Ent.,

9

Inc., 150 F. Supp. 3d 1219, 1222 (D. Nev. 2015).

Proposed Settlement

10

II.

Jurisdiction and Venue

11

This court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), because the amount

12

in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and the action is between citizens of different states. See 28

13

U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93 (2010). Defendant is a Nevada

14

corporation. Plaintiff is a limited liability company based in the United States territory of the

15

Virgin Islands. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(e) (“The word ‘States,’ as used in this section, includes the

16

Territories”). Venue lies in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (c)(2) and (d). See Pacer

17

Global Logistics, Inc. v. Nat'l Passenger R.R. Corp., 272 F. Supp. 2d 784, 788 (E.D. Wis. 2003).

18

III.

19

Generally, public companies are not permitted to issue their stock without first filing a

20

registration statement nor are persons receiving it permitted to immediately resell the shares into

21

the public markets. See 15 U.S.C. § 77e(c), 15 U.S. Code § 77d(a)(1). Section 3(a)(10) of the

22

Securities Act provides an exemption for

23
24
25
26
27

Application of the Exemption

any security which is issued in exchange for one or more bona fide
outstanding securities, claims or property interests, or partly in such
exchange and partly for cash, where the terms and conditions of such
issuance and exchange are approved, after a hearing upon the
fairness of such terms and conditions at which all persons to whom
it is proposed to issue securities in such exchange shall have the right
to appear, by any court . . . .
15 U.S.C. § 77c(a)(10).

28
[PROPOSED] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAGE 4

Case 3:21-cv-00328-MMD-CLB Document 17 Filed 11/17/21 Page 5 of 10

1

The Section 3(a)(10) exemption is often used to effectuate settlements of claims against

2

public company defendants. See, e.g., Oceana Capital, 150 F. Supp. 3d at 1219; Chapel Invs.,

3

Inc. v. Cherubim Ints., Inc., 177 F. Supp. 3d 981, 987 (N.D. Tex. 2016); YA II PN, Ltd. v. Taronis

4

Techs., Inc., 435 F. Supp. 3d 622 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), citing In re Tripath Tech., Inc., Sec. Litig., No.

5

C 04 4681 SBA, 2006 WL 1009228, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2006) (“The Settlement Shares are

6

to be issued in exchange for bona fide outstanding claims; all parties to whom it is proposed to

7

issue such securities have had the right to appear at the hearing on the fairness of the Settlement;

8

and the Settlement Shares are therefore unrestricted and freely tradeable exempted securities

9

pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77c(a)(10).”).

10

For the exemption to apply, the court must: (1) find that the person to receive shares holds

11

securities, claims or property interests that were outstanding prior to the hearing, (2) conduct a

12

fairness hearing at which all persons to whom the securities will be issued has the right to appear

13

and be heard, and (3) find that the terms and conditions of the proposed exchange are fair. See

14

Chapel Invs., 177 F. Supp. 3d at 987. “Fundamentally, the court must find the proposed issuance

15

and exchange of securities is fair after considering the totality of the evidence.” Oceana Capital,

16

150 F. Supp. 3d at 1224.

17

IV.

Fairness of the Proposed Exchange

18

Here, the parties have entered into the Settlement Agreement to settle the outstanding

19

claims in exchange for stock, subject to Court approval. The terms and conditions of the settlement

20

are fully set forth in the Settlement Agreement. (See Doc. 7-4.) Defendant will issue an additional

21

72,638 shares of preferred stock to Plaintiff in settlement of the outstanding claims. (Id. at ¶ 1.)

22

Given Beyond Commerce’s small market capitalization, the settlement will result in

23

significant dilution. See Crown Bridge Partners, LLC v. Sunstock, Inc., No. 18 CIV. 7632 (CM),

24

2019 WL 2498370, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2019) (when convertible securities are issued, “the

25

stock price will almost certainly drop, because the supply of shares available for purchase in the

26

market increases”).

27

approximately three years in a manner designed to maximize its total economic return on

28

investment by mitigating the negative price impact to the extent practicable, including directing

However, Discover has been selling shares of Defendant’s stock for

[PROPOSED] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAGE 5

Case 3:21-cv-00328-MMD-CLB Document 17 Filed 11/17/21 Page 6 of 10

1

trades to alternative trading systems which allow institutional investors to trade without exposure

2

until after the trade has been executed, and reported to avoid disclosing their selling strategies to

3

the market and pushing the price down, and adjusting the number and percentage of shares sold

4

based on daily supply and demand. (Doc. 7-1 at ¶ 9.) See also ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shaar

5

Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 106 (2d Cir. 2007) (convertible security is not manipulative, even when

6

coupled with selling). In addition, the alternative to settlement for Defendant is to incur a monetary

7

judgment it cannot afford to pay or file bankruptcy.

8

Discover is an investment fund fully aware of the significant risks involved. (Doc. 7-1 at

9

¶ 15.) Discover has invested in convertible securities of many small public companies, which it

10

has converted into billions of shares of common stock that it resold into the public markets. (Id.)

11

Plaintiff can afford a complete loss of its investment, and is willing to accept that risk, provided

12

Defendant abides by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Id.) If Beyond Commerce succeeds

13

and performs, there is the potential for Plaintiff Discover to achieve a sizable return. (Doc. 7 at

14

7.) Discover is receiving preferred stock that converts at a substantial discount to the market price,

15

and it should be able to sell the common shares for more than the amount of its claims. (Doc. 7-1

16

at ¶ 10.)

17

Plaintiff is “a sophisticated investor, not in need of the protections afforded by

18

registration.” See Ackerberg v. Johnson, 892 F.2d 1328, 1337 (8th Cir. 1989); Berckeley Inv. Grp.,

19

Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 215 (3d Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has conducted an independent market

20

analysis for Defendant’s securities, and understands both the upside potential and the downside

21

risks inherent in the settlement. (Doc. 7-1 at ¶¶ 11, 15.) Similarly, Defendant is a public company

22

whose Chief Financial Officer and board of directors have reviewed the Settlement Agreement

23

with counsel. (Doc. 9 at ¶ 10.) These factors are sufficient for the Court to find the negotiated

24

agreement between commercial parties is fair. See Chapel Invs., 177 F. Supp. 3d at 987.

25

V.

Consideration of Registration Requirements

26

If the Court approves the exchange as fair, Defendant will not be required to register its

27

shares under Section 5 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e, because the shares to be issued will

28
[PROPOSED] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAGE 6

Case 3:21-cv-00328-MMD-CLB Document 17 Filed 11/17/21 Page 7 of 10

1

be entirely exempt from the Securities Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 77c(a)(10), Oceana Capital, 150 F.

2

Supp. 3d at 1225.

3

In addition, Plaintiff is not required to register as a dealer under Section 15(a) of the

4

Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77o(a), because Discover is a private investor or trader, rather than a

5

dealer. Oceana Capital, 150 F. Supp. 3d at 1226.

6

The plain language of the statute provides that the term “dealer” does not include a party

7

who buys or sells securities for its own account “but not as a part of a regular business.” See 15

8

U.S.C. § 78c(a)(5)(B). The primary meaning of the term “regular” is “usual; normal; customary.”

9

See Dictionary.com (2021). The term “regular business” as used in subsection (B) means “the

10

regular business of providing dealer services to others . . . , such as soliciting investor clients,

11

handling investor clients' money and securities, [and] rendering investment advice to investors.”

12

See Chapel Invs., 177 F. Supp. 3d at 990. These services “distinguish the activities of a dealer

13

from those of a private investor or trader.” In the Matter of Sodorff, 50 S.E.C. 1249, 1992 WL

14

224082 at *5 n.27 (Sept. 2, 1992); Louis Dreyfus Corp. (SEC No-Action Letter), Fed. Sec. l. Rep.

15

P 78,526, 1987 WL 108160 *2 (July 23, 1987).

16

The plain language “part of a regular business” means that “a dealer must be engaged in

17

the securities business, and be buying and selling for his own account.” See Sodorff, 1992 WL

18

224082, at *5 (emphasis added). In Sodorff, Sodorff was deemed a dealer because he “solicited

19

investors and handled their money and securities, rendered investment advice, and sent

20

subscription agreements to investors for their review and signature, all of which are characteristics

21

of dealer activity.” Id. Discover does not engage in any of these dealer activities. (See Doc. 7-1.)

22

If it were possible for an entity whose only activities are buying and selling securities to be a dealer,

23

the statute would have said “all or part of” rather than “part of.” Cf., e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1955(a)

24

(“all or part of” a business), 11 U.S. Code § 1322(b)(8) (“all or part of” a claim). “A person who

25

buys and sells securities for his own account in the capacity of a trader or individual investor is

26

generally not considered to be engaged in the business of buying and selling securities and

27

consequently, would not be deemed a dealer.” Chapel Invs., 177 F. Supp. 3d at 990. See also

28

National Council of Savings Institutions (SEC No-Action Letter), 1986 WL 67129, at *2 (July 27,
[PROPOSED] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAGE 7

Case 3:21-cv-00328-MMD-CLB Document 17 Filed 11/17/21 Page 8 of 10

1

1986) (describing the list of factors that make someone a “trader” rather than someone “engaged

2

in the business” of buying and selling securities as a dealer).

3

Brokers and “dealers effect securities transactions for customers, for which they typically

4

charge a commission or other transaction-based fee.” XY Plan. Network, LLC v. United States Sec.

5

& Exch. Comm'n, 963 F.3d 244, 248 (2d Cir. 2020). “Dealers regularly purchase or sell securities

6

to their customers in the ordinary course of their trade or business.” See Topic No. 429, Traders

7

in Securities. “Dealers are distinguished from investors and traders because they have customers

8

and derive their income from marketing securities for sale to customers or from being compensated

9

for services provided...” Id. Whereas a dealer buys and sells securities from its customer and to

10

its customer for a small fixed commission, investors like Plaintiff buy securities directly from

11

issuers like Defendant, often at a substantial discount, and then resell them into the public market

12

for a variable but potentially large profit. Id.

13

Accordingly, Discover should not be required to register as a dealer due to its participation

14

in the negotiation of the settlement of its claims, the exchange of the claims for shares of stock

15

pursuant to court approval, or the resale of the shares on the open market. Oceana Capital, 150 F.

16

Supp. 3d at 1225-26; Chapel Invs., 177 F. Supp. 3d at 989-90.
ORDER

17
18
19
20
21
22

In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1.

The Settlement Agreement (Doc. 7-4), incorporated herein by reference, is adopted

and approved in its entirety;
2.

The Court was advised prior to the hearing on the Motion for Approval of

23

Stipulation for Settlement of Claims, that Defendant would rely on the exemption of Section

24

3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 77c(a)(10), and NRS 90.280(6)(c)

25

(Doc. 9 at ¶ 9);

26

3.

Plaintiff Discover holds bona fide outstanding claims, the terms and conditions of

27

the exchange of the claims for shares of preferred stock of Defendant Beyond, as set forth in the

28

Settlement Agreement, are approved after a hearing upon the fairness of such terms and conditions
[PROPOSED] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAGE 8

Case 3:21-cv-00328-MMD-CLB Document 17 Filed 11/17/21 Page 9 of 10

1

at which Plaintiff Discovery, the only person to whom it is proposed to issue securities in such

2

exchange, had the right to appear;

3
4
5

4.

Defendant Beyond shall forthwith issue to Plaintiff Discover unrestricted and freely

tradeable shares of its preferred stock as stated in the Settlement Agreement;
5.

Defendant Beyond is not required to register the shares of its preferred and common

6

stock to be issued pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, because they are exempt from the

7

Securities Act pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) thereof;

8
9

6.

Plaintiff Discover is not required to register as a dealer under Section 15 of the

Exchange Act, because it is a private investor or trader rather than a dealer under 15 U.S.C. §

10

78c(a)(5)(B); and

11

7.

12
13

The Settlement Agreement having been approved, this action shall be dismissed

with prejudice in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

17
DATED: November ___, 2021

16

Hon. Miranda M. Du
U.S. District Court Chief Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Proposed order submitted by:
ROBERTSON, JOHNSON,
MILLER & WILLIAMSON
50 West Liberty Street, Suite 600
Reno, Nevada 89501
By:

/s/ Jarrad C. Miller
Jarrad C. Miller, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff

24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAGE 9

Case 3:21-cv-00328-MMD-CLB Document 17 Filed 11/17/21 Page 10 of 10

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

Pursuant to FRCP 5(b) and Local Rule 5-4, I hereby certify that I am an employee of

3

Robertson, Johnson, Miller & Williamson, over the age of eighteen, and not a party to the within

4

action. I further certify that on the 19th day of October, 2021, I electronically transmitted the

5

foregoing [PROPOSED] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER to the following:

6
7
8
9
10
11

Aaron D. Shipley, Esq.
McDonald Carano LLP
2300 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200
Las Vegas, NV 89102
[e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant
/s/ Teresa W. Stovak
An Employee of Robertson, Johnson,
Miller & Williamson

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAGE 10