SEC Proposes Major Upgrades To Crowdfunding Rules

The SEC just proposed major changes to every kind of online offering:  Rule 504, Rule 506(b), Rule 506(c), Regulation A, and Regulation CF.

The proposals and the reasoning behind them take up 351 pages. An SEC summary is here, while the full text is here. The proposals are likely to become effective in more or less their existing form after a 60-day comment period.

I’ll touch on only a few highlights:

  • No Limits in Title III for Accredited Investors:  In what I believe is the most significant change, there will no longer be any limits on how much an accredited investor can invest in a Regulation CF offering. This change eliminates the need for side-by-side offerings and allows the funding portal to earn commissions on the accredited investor piece. The proposals also change the investment limits for non-accredited investor from a “lesser of net worth or income” standard to a “greater of net worth or income” standard, but that’s much less significant, in my opinion.
  • Title III Limit Raised to $5M:  Today the limit is $1.07M per year; it will soon be $5M per year, opening the door to larger small companies.

NOTE:  Those two changes, taken together, mean that funding portals can make more money. The impact on the Crowdfunding industry could be profound, leading to greater compliance, sounder business practices, and fewer gimmicks (e.g., $10,000 minimums).

  • No Verification for Subsequent Rule 506(c) Offerings:  In what could have been a very important change but apparently isn’t, if an issuer has verified that Investor Smith is accredited in a Rule 506(c) offering and conducts a second (and third, and so on) Rule 506(c) offering, the issuer does not have to re-verify that Investor Smith is accredited, as long as Investor Smith self-certifies. But apparently the proposal applies only to the same issuer, not to an affiliate of the issuer. Thus, if Investor Smith invested in real estate offering #1, she must still be verified for real estate offering #2, even if the two offerings are by the same sponsor.
  • Regulation A Limit Raised to $75M:  Today the limit is $50M per year; it will soon be $75M per year. The effect of this change will be to make Regulation A more useful for smaller large companies.
  • Allow Testing the Waters for Regulation CF:  Today, a company thinking about Title III can’t advertise the offering until it’s live on a funding portal. Under the new rules, the company will be able to “test the waters” like a Regulation A issuer.

NOTE:  Taken as a whole, the proposals narrow the gap between Rule 506(c) and Title III. Look for (i) Title III funding portals to broaden their marketing efforts to include issuers who were otherwise considering only Rule 506(c), and (ii) websites that were previously focused only on Rule 506(c) to consider becoming funding portals, allowing them to legally receive commissions on transactions up to $5M.

  • Allow SPVs for Regulation CF:  Today, you can’t form a special-purpose-vehicle to invest using Title III. Under the SEC proposals, you can.

NOTE:  Oddly, this means you can use SPVs in a Title III offering, but not in a Title II offering (Rule 506(c)) or Title IV offering (Regulation A) where there are more than 100 investors.

  • Financial Information in Rule 506(b):  The proposal relaxes the information that must be provided to non-accredited investors in a Rule 506(b) offering. Thus, if the offering is for no more than $20M one set of information will be required, while if it is for more than $20 another (more extensive) set of information will be required.
  • No More SAFEs in Regulation CF:  Nope.

NOTE:  The rules says the securities must be “. . . . equity securities, debt securities, or securities convertible or exchangeable to equity interests. . . .” A perceptive readers asks “What about revenue-sharing notes?” Right now I don’t know, but I’m sure this will be asked and addressed during the comment period.

  • Demo Days:  Provided they are conducted by certain groups and in certain ways, so-called “demo days” would not be considered “general solicitation.”
  • Integration Rules:  Securities lawyers worry whether two offerings will be “integrated” and treated as one, thereby spoiling both. The SEC’s proposals relax those rules.

These proposals are great for the Crowdfunding industry and for American capitalism. They’re not about Wall Street. They’re about small companies and ordinary American investors, where jobs and ideas come from.

No, the proposals don’t fix every problem. Compliance for Title III issuers is still way too hard, for example. But the SEC deserves (another) round of applause.

Please reach out if you’d like to discuss.

Free Seminar – Smart Talk: Crowdfunding 101

I have been asked by the University City Science Center in Philadelphia, PA to be the featured speaker on Crowdfunding at the “Smart Talk – Crowdfunding 101” seminar on October 24, 2013.

I will discuss the basic changes to the JOBS Act and what this means for you and your company’s future, including: Rule 506 of Regulation D issued by the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC); new requirements for establishing that investors are accredited; SEC regulations; mechanics of a Crowdfunded offering; proposed changes to Form D; and the exclusion of “bad actors.”

The seminar will take place on Thursday, October 24, 2013 at the Quorum at the University City Science Center in Philadelphia, PA from 8:30 – 10:00 a.m. This event is free, but space is limited, so you must register to attend. To register, email the University City Science Center to secure a seat. For additional information on the event, click here.

I hope to see you there!

MARK RODERICK

Will The SEC’s 15 Day Notification Rule End Angel Fairs?

No, it won’t.

On July 10, 2013 the SEC proposed rules that would, among other things, require a company to notify the SEC at least 15 days before using any “general solicitation” to raise money under the newly-adopted Rule 506(c) of Regulation D, also known as Title II Crowdfunding.

This proposal triggered more anxiety in the investment community than any other. Angel groups in particular were concerned about the possible effect on “angel fairs” and similar networking events, where companies look for investors and publicity by making presentations and handing out literature. If these activities constituted general solicitation, so the thinking went, and a company had not notified the SEC at least 15 days in advance, the company would be violating the law with potentially serious consequences.

Should companies stop presenting at angel fairs? Should attendance at angel fairs be limited? Would the SEC rule bring a wrenching halt to the way startups have raised money for 30 years?

There are two reasons why the concerns in the investment community are probably overblown.

First, “general solicitation” is not a new concept. Regulation D has always prohibited general solicitation. Rule 506 of Regulation D is itself a regulatory implementation of section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, which provides simply that the registration requirements do not apply to “transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering.” It has always been the position of the SEC, reflected in Rule 502(c), that using general solicitation to attract investors crossed the indistinct line from “private offering” to “public offering.”

Thus, every angel fair that has ever been held for the last several decades has been subject to the SEC prohibition on general solicitation. Yet given all that time and all those opportunities, the SEC has never taken the position that what happens at angel fairs constitutes prohibited general solicitation.

Having stood aside and permitted angel fairs for three decades, it seems unlikely that the SEC would take the opposite position today, after Congress announces its support for Crowdfunding by enacting the JOBS Act!

So far, it is safe to say that the SEC has taken the opposite approach, i.e., by making Crowdfunding easier, not more difficult. Consider, for example, the two no-action letters issued by the SEC on March 26, 2013 to FundersClub and AngelList. It seems very possible, even likely, that these letters would not have been issued before enactment of the JOBS Act. The SEC seems to have taken the wishes of Congress to heart and there is no reason to believe it intended to do otherwise with the 15 day proposal.

The other reason the concerns are overblown is that the rule in question is not yet in effect. The public comment period ended on September 23, 2013 and the SEC is considering the many comments made by the investment community. The chances are very high that when the SEC issues the final rule, these comments will be taken into account.

Maybe I’ll be proven wrong. Maybe the SEC will suddenly reverse course after 30 years and issue final rules that blow angel fairs out of the water, throw up unnecessary impediments to Crowdfunding despite the JOBS Act, and make everyone angry. Don’t bet on it.

Questions? Let me know.

Crowdfunding – A Monumental Change in Securities Law

I have been asked by the New Jersey Institute of Continuing Legal Education to present a webinar on the recent change of Crowdfunding rules. The program will take place on Wednesday, October 9, 2013 and has been approved for CLE credits.  For additional information on the webinar, or to register, click here.

More info: Crowdfunding – A Monumental Change in Securities Law

Now, for the first time, small companies and entrepreneurs will be able to raise money directly from the public using newspaper advertisements, Facebook pages, and other means of “general solicitation,” without going through brokers or other middlemen.

My presentation, entitled “A Monumental Change in Securities Law: Crowdfunding is Now Open for Business,” will discuss the basic changes to the law, including: Rule 506 of Regulation D issued by the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC); new requirements for establishing that investors are accredited; SEC regulations; mechanics of a Crowdfunded offering; proposed changes to Form D; and the exclusion of “bad actors.”

I concentrate my practice on the representation of entrepreneurs and their businesses. I represent companies across a wide range of industries, including technology, real estate, and healthcare. I am also spearheading my firm’s Crowdfunding Practice.

Check back frequently for information on Crowdfunding, including news, updates and links to important information pertaining to the JOBS Act and how Crowdfunding may affect your business.

Questions? Let me know.

SEC Proposes Rules to Track Crowdfunded Offerings

Having just allowed the use of advertisements and “general solicitation” to raise money, the SEC now proposes several steps to protect investors and keep track of the explosion in Crowdfunding the new rules are certain to trigger.

Beefing Up Form D

Form D has been around for along time, but now the SEC proposes to beef it up significantly. The company raising money through general solicitation will now have to:

  • File a Form D no later than 15 days before first engaging in general solicitation.
  • File a closing amendment to Form D within 30 days after the offering has been completed or abandoned.
  • Disclose much more information in the Form D, including:
    • Its website address;
    • Specific uses of the proceeds of the offering;
    • The number and types of accredited investors participating in the offering;
    • Whether general solicitation materials were filed with FINRA;
    • The types of general solicitation used or to be used; and
    • Methods used or to be used to verify the accredited investor status of purchasers.

More Legends

The SEC also proposes a number of new legends that must appear in general solicitations, including that the securities can only be sold to accredited investors, that the SEC has not passed on the merits of the offering, that investing entails risk (!), and that past performance does not guaranty future performance.

Sending General Solicitation Material to the SEC

Finally, the SEC proposes that companies must submit their written general solicitation materials to the SEC, on a temporary basis, by no later than the date of first use of the materials. This rule would expire two years after its effective date, presumably giving the SEC enough time to see what is happening in the marketplace and issue a new or different rule as it sees fit.

*     *     *

Unlike the rules allowing general solicitation, these new rules are merely proposals, and could be revised or withdrawn after a 60 day public comment period.

Questions? Let me know.

SEC Finalizes “General Solicitation” Regulations: Full Steam Ahead

Since President Obama signed the JOBS Act into law on April 5, 2012, we have been waiting for the SEC to finalize the rules on Crowdfunding.

At long last the SEC has done just that, at least with respect to one of the two components of Crowdfunding. Sometime in mid-September, company will be allowed to use “general solicitation” in certain “Rule 506 offerings.” The rules governing the other component of Crowdfunding, where small issuers will be allowed to raise money through Internet portals from small, unsophisticated investors, will have to wait for later in the year.

Even so, these new regulations mark the largest change to the securities laws in almost 80 years. Companies will now be allowed to raise money from accredited investors (in the case of individuals, those with over $1 million of net worth or incomes over $200,000 per year) through social media, print materials, email, and other means. Not only will companies have greater access to the capital they need, but the new rules are likely to significantly disrupt the money-raising industry, displacing brokers, lawyers, and other middlemen just as the Internet has displaced so many middlemen before them.

Now the technical rules.

The rules allow general solicitation and general advertising where:

  • All purchasers are accredited investors; and
  • The company takes reasonable steps to verify that the purchasers are accredited investors; and
  • All of the requirements in Rule 501, Rule 502(a), and 502(d) are satisfied.

Whether the company has taken “reasonable steps” will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Among the relevant factors:

  • The type of accredited investor that the purchaser claims to be (e.g., the CEO of a Fortune 100 company or a store clerk).
  • The amount and type of information that the issuer has about the purchaser.
  • The nature of the offering, including the manner of the solicitation.

When the regulations were proposed last August, many people complained about the absence of hard-and-fast rules and the resulting ambiguity. The final rules take a large step in the direction of certainty by providing that a company will be considered to have taken reasonable steps to verify that a natural person is an accredited investor if it does any of the following:

  • If basing the decision on the purchaser’s net income:
    • Reviews W-2s, 1099s, or other IRS documents that report the person’s income for the past two years; and
    • Obtains a written representation that the person reasonably expects to reach the income level required to qualify as an accredited investor in the current year.
    • If basing the decision on the purchaser’s net worth:
      • Reviews one or more types of documents dated within the past three months, including bank statements, brokerage statements, tax assessments, and a report from one of the national consumer reporting agencies concerning liabilities; and obtains a written representation that the person has disclosed all liabilities necessary to make a net worth determination; or
      • Obtains a written representation from certain third parties, including registered broker-dealers or investment advisors, that they have taken reasonable steps to verify the person’s accredited investor status within the past three months and have determined that the person is an accredited investor; or
      • Permits existing security-holders who had acquired issuer securities in a previous Rule 506 offering and had qualified as accredited investors at that time to certify his or her accredited investor status at the time of the sale.

These steps are neither exclusive nor mandatory. The final rules also discuss other factors and procedures.

In addition to taking reasonable steps to verify that purchasers are accredited, the company must also have a reasonable belief that they are accredited. This has always been part of Rule 506 and was not changed by the JOBS Act.

NOTE:  These new rules offer enormous opportunities for entrepreneurs seeking to raise money for their existing businesses or start new businesses. Please contact us if you would like to discuss your idea.

Questions? Let me know.

Is My Portal Legal?

As Crowdfunding gains traction, Crowdfunding portals are springing up and marketing themselves aggressively to entrepreneurs and prospective investors.

No, I take that back. Websites are springing up and marketing themselves aggressively to entrepreneurs and prospective investors, but technically there aren’t any “Crowdfunding portals” yet. Crowdfunding portals are a creature of the JOBS Act, and the JOBS Act hasn’t yet come into effect because the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) hasn’t yet issued regulations.

If the websites springing up today are not really Crowdfunding portals, then what are they? Are they legal? That matters a lot for entrepreneurs.

Background

The JOBS Act created two kinds of Crowdfunding:

  1. Using one kind of Crowdfunding, companies can raise up to $1 million from in unlimited number of investors through Internet “portals” that would be registered with the SEC and licensed by FINRA.
  2. Using the other kind, companies can use “general solicitation” to raise an unlimited amount of money from “accredited investors” by following Rule 506 issued by the SEC under Regulation D.

But neither kind of Crowdfunding is available yet.

Today, we see websites that combine the concept of a “portal” with a traditional private offering of securities. At these sites, accredited investors sign up to review companies, and companies sign up to raise money from investors. If everything goes right you end up with a happy entrepreneur and a legal Rule 506 offering.

What Could Go Wrong?

By definition, these Internet sites are not Crowdfunding portals and what they do is not JOBS Act Crowdfunding. For the sites to be legal they must satisfy the securities law rules as they existed before the JOBS Act. And it turns out that it’s not easy to mesh the very fast, very public world of the Internet with the rules in place long before the Internet was a twinkle in Al Gore’s eye.

These are a few of the tough issues these sites face:

  • Until the SEC issues Crowdfunding regulations, companies are not allowed to use “general solicitation” to attract investors. But if you visit some of these sites – public to anyone with Internet access – you see the companies listed.
  • If a portal isn’t careful, it might end up with one or more unaccredited investors, disqualifying the whole offering.
  • The sites generally don’t work for free – they are paid by the companies that raise money. In general, only a licensed broker can receive compensation in connection with the sale of securities.
  • Some sites provide “due diligence” on companies, offering to help investors to separate the good from the bad. That kind of service generally requires a license as an investment advisor.
  • State securities regulators can be even more aggressive than the SEC. If an offering violates Federal law then it probably violates state law, too.

Some sites seem more aggressive legally than others. Entrepreneurs should pay attention.

Why Does It Matter to the Entrepreneur?

If a website raises money improperly, the website can find itself in hot water. The operators of the website may be fined, banned from the securities industry (thus missing out on Crowdfunding when the SEC finally issues regulations), even go to jail.

But it’s no picnic for the entrepreneur and his or her company, either. If the portal does something wrong it likely means the company engaged in an unregistered, and therefore illegal, public offering of securities. The entrepreneur can also be fined, banned from the securities industry, or even go to jail. Moreover, the entrepreneur could be forced to give all the money back to the investors.

Conclusion

Raising money has always been hard. The internet and the JOBS Act are making it easier, but in the Wild West version of Crowdfunding we live in today, entrepreneurs have to be picky about their portals.

Questions? Let me know.