1 min read
Sources:
Form 1-A, Kevin's account
[]
Short answer
The structure gives one answer and the practice needs another. Legally, the company’s officers owe duties to the company and its shareholders; members are customers with a contract; the audience is owed the disclosures the law requires. In practice the same person serves all three every day, and the filing lists the overlap between the media business, the courses and the investor-owned company as a conflict. How Kevin resolves a conflict when the three want different things is a question only he can answer. 12
What is on the record
Reinvest’s officers owe fiduciary duties to the company and, through it, to shareholders. Alpha members are customers under non-refundable terms. Viewers of the channel, which is run by Kevin’s separate company, are owed sponsorship disclosure and nothing more. The offering circular treats the overlap of these roles as a risk and discloses the reimbursement arrangement between the company and the channel.
Shareholders by law, members by contract, viewers by disclosure, and one person answering to all three. The filings treat the overlap as a risk and disclose every deal that crosses it. 1
Simply put
✅ The structure
➡️ Officers owe the company. Members bought a product. Viewers are owed labels on ads.
✅ The reality
➡️ Same person, same day, all three. The record of how he chooses is the record of related-party deals, all public.
Sources
Form 1-A, Risk Factors and Interest of Management (overlap between the founder's media business and the Company; related-party arrangements) Open the filing
Kevin's account, How the YouTube business fits: “Reinvest takes no creative control over the content” Read the excerpt
