Category: Regulation D offerings

SEC Proposes Major Upgrades To Crowdfunding Rules

On By crowdfundattnyIn Accredited Investor, Angel Fairs, Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Articles, Crowdfunding Laws, Crowdfunding Portals, Crowdfunding Real Estate, Demo Days, Equity Crowdfunding, General Solicitation, Integration, JOBS Act, Raising Money, Regulation A, Regulation A Plus, Regulation A Plus Primer, Regulation D offerings, Rule 506, Rule 506(b), Rule 506(c), SAFE, SEC, SEC Proposals, SPV, Title II, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III, Title III Crowdfunding, Title IV of the JOBS Act, Uncategorized2 Comments

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.

PPM Or No PPM: That Is The Question

On By crowdfundattnyIn JOBS Act, PPM, Private Placement Memorandum, Regulation D offerings, Title II, Title II Crowdfunding1 Comment

Crowdfunding Image - XXXL - iStock_000037694192XXXLargeSome Title II Crowdfunding portals use a full-blown Private Placement Memorandum for each offering, while others do not. What’s the deal?

For readers unfamiliar with the term, a Private Placement Memorandum, or PPM, is usually a long document, often half an inch thick or more printed, that is given to prospective investors and used partly to describe the deal but mostly to explain the risks.

The PPM finds its origins in the lengthy prospectus required of companies selling securities to the public in a registered offering. Following suit, Rule 502(b)(2) of Regulation D requires an issuer to provide specified information to prospective investors in some offerings and in some situations – for example, where securities are offered to non-accredited investors in an offering under Rule 506(b).

But where securities are sold only to accredited investors under Rule 506(b) or 506(c), the issuer is not required to provide the information described in Rule 506(b)2) – or any other information, for that matter. The idea is that accredited investors are smart enough to ask for the important information and otherwise watch out for themselves.

Companies like Fundrise that offer securities under Regulation A or Regulation A+ are required to provide specific information to investors. But Crowdfunding under Title II of the JOBS Act involves selling only to accredited investors in transaction described in Rule 506. Therefore, the law leaves to the issuer and the portal what information to provide and in what form.

For them, what are the pros and cons of a full-blown PPM?

The cons are obvious. Nobody but a lawyer could love a PPM. A full-blown PPM is bulky and unattractive, repetitive and filled with legalese. Ostensibly written to provide information to prospective investors, PPMs have, through time and custom, become so daunting that prospective investors rarely even read them. From a business perspective, a PPM creates friction in the transaction.

However, the pros are also obvious. Although Regulation D does not require an issuer or portal to provide any information, an issuer that fails to provide information, or provides incomplete or inaccurate information, may be liable to disgruntled investors under 17 CFR 240.10b-5, the general anti-fraud rule of Federal securities law, or various state statutory and common law rules.

That’s why the PPM exists: to provide so much information to prospective investors (albeit in an unreadable format), and to describe the risks of the investment in such repetitive detail, that no investor can claim after the fact “I didn’t know.”

The question is whether the issuer and the portal can get the same benefit without all the disadvantages. And the answer, in my opinion, is a resounding Yes!

In fact, the trend in private placements over the last two decades has been away from the full-blown PPM and toward a simpler disclosure document. I have been representing issuers in private placements of securities for more than 25 years and never prepare a PPM except where required by law (e.g., with non-accredited investors). None of the issuers I have represented during those 25+ years has been sued for securities law violations – much less successfully – and in my anecdotal experience, claims arising from alleged failures to disclose material information rarely if ever hinge on the presence or absence of a full-blown PPM.

Not only are portals not required to provide a full-blown PPM, in my opinion the question presents portals with a great business opportunity. Given that information must be provided, the manner in which it is provided, in what format, with what visual effects, how clearly and with what explanation, could well distinguish a portal in the minds of prospective investors. With the technology inherent in the platform, not to mention the creative minds in the industry, I expect that the manner of providing information will become one of the key ways that individual Title II portals distinguish themselves from one another and that the Crowdfunding industry in general improves the process of capital formation. Someday we will look back on the thick PPM and ask “Can you believe we once did it that way?”

A portal that gets it right – and there will be more than one way to get it right – will also create some protectable intellectual property interests and the accompanying breathing space vis-à-vis its competitors and additional valuation on exit.

Questions? Let me know.

Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Entrepreneurs, Form D, Investing, Investor, JOBS Act, Regulation A, Regulation D offerings, Rule 506, SEC, Securities Exchange Commission, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III Crowdfunding, Title IV of the JOBS Act, Uncategorized1 Comment

Crowdfunding now comes in multiple flavors:

  • Title II Crowdfunding – Rule 506(c)
  • Title III Crowdfunding
  • Title IV Crowdfunding – Regulation A+
  • Existing Regulation A
  • Rule 504 of Regulation

All have one thing in common:  the entrepreneur can use “general solicitation and advertising” to raise money.

But that’s all they have in common. They differ on such critical features as: 

  • Who is allowed to invest
  • How much money can be raised
  • Whether Internet portals can be used
  • How much each investor can investCFCS
  • The degree of SEC oversight
  • Whether foreign companies can participate

I’ve created a chart to keep it all straight – a Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet. The chart won’t
format properly here in the blog, so you’ll need to click here to view it. You might want to print it for future reference.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE CROWDFUNDING CHEAT SHEET 

This is my takeaway from the chart:

Of the five flavors of Crowdfunding that will soon be available, only Title II Crowdfunding and Regulation A+ Crowdfunding are likely to play a major role. Title III Crowdfunding – ironically, the only thing the media talked about when the JOBS Act was passed in 2012 – seems doomed to a non-speaking part, at least as long as the $1 million limit remains in place. Those satisfied with raising money from only accredited investors will probably look to the simplicity of Title II while those needing to cast a wider net will likely take the plunge into Regulation A+. As for Rule 504 and the old version of Regulation A – they’re history.

But it’s a brand new world in the capital markets, and impossible to predict.

 Questions? Contact Mark Roderick.

Free Seminar – Smart Talk: Crowdfunding 101

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Speaking Engagements, General Solicitation, JOBS Act, Regulation D offerings, Rule 506, SEC, Securities Exchange Commission, Securities Laws1 Comment

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?

On By crowdfundattnyIn Angel Fairs, AngelList, Crowdfunding, FundersClub, General Solicitation, Regulation D offerings, Rule 506, SEC, Securities Exchange CommissionLeave a comment

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

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Form D, General Solicitation, JOBS Act, Regulation D offerings, Rule 506, SEC, Securities Exchange Commission, Securities LawsLeave a comment

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.

Technology Platform for Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Entrepreneurs, Form D, Regulation D offerings, SEC, Technology Platforms1 Comment

A company raising money through Crowdfunding will face certain logistical challenges:

  • How to keep track of prospective investors
  • How to automate the due diligence process
  • How to execute documents electronically and securely
  • How to communicate with investors
  • How to securely handle the transfer of funds
  • How to satisfy the new SEC requirements regarding accredited investors
  • How to prepare and file the newly-expanded Form D with the SEC

These challenges have always been present in Regulation D offerings, but with a dozen investors, or two dozen, or three dozen, they were merely a manageable nuisance. In a Crowdfunding offering with 150 investors they could be overwhelming.

SeedInvest, a startup with offices in Manhattan, offers a technology platform that claims to do all these things and more. A company seeking to raise money through Crowdfunding, or a brokerage firm seeking to raise money for its clients, or an angel group seeking to manage multiple investments, would in effect “rent” the SeedInvest platform as an alternative to spending the time and money to build its own.

Today, thousands of entrepreneurs – perhaps some of them reading this blog – are planning to jump into the Crowdfunding space. One entrepreneur might be building a portal for biotech companies in the Northeast – a place where investors could find and invest in the best the research centers in the Northeast have to offer. Another might be doing the same for Manhattan commercial real estate, believing there must be many accredited investors around the country who would like to own a piece of New York. And on and on, in every industry and every region.

By using SeedInvest’s platform, or a similar platform offered by a competitor, the entrepreneur overcomes some of the most significant technological and logistical barriers to entry. In effect, the entrepreneur can focus on the business of attracting quality companies and investors while outsourcing the technological back office.

Crowdfunding is already creating new opportunities for entrepreneurs in many industries. SeedInvest is one example; there will be many, many more.

Questions? Let me know.