Category: SEC

Who should use a crowdfunding vehicle and why

Who Should Use A Crowdfunding Vehicle And Why

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding Vehicles, Entrepreneurs, Exchange Act, Reg CF, SEC4 Comments

Most of the time, the SEC writes rules to clarify technical legal issues. When the SEC allowed crowdfunding vehicles, on the other hand, it was in response to a psychological issue, not a legal issue.

Entrepreneurs tempted to raise capital using Reg CF, thereby bypassing VCs and other professional investors, were told by those same VCs and professional investors that Reg CF would “screw up your cap table.” Even though that wasn’t true, many entrepreneurs believed it was true. The SEC gave us crowdfunding vehicles to solve the psychological problem:  with a crowdfunding vehicle, you can put all your Reg CF investors in one entity with one entry on your cap table. 

In that way, using a crowdfunding vehicle for your Reg CF offering is like using a C corporation rather than an LLC. You the entrepreneur might know it’s unnecessary, but if your prospective investors think it’s necessary, then it’s necessary. As I often say only partly tongue-in-cheek, that’s why they call it capitalism.

In fact, there is one reason for using a crowdfunding vehicle beyond the psychological. That’s because of a quirk in section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Section 12(g) of Exchange Act

Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act provides that any company with at least $10 million of assets and a class of equity securities held by at least 2,000 total investors or 500 non-accredited investors of record must provide all the reporting of a fully public company. You don’t want that burden for your startup.

The good news is that Reg CF investors aren’t counted toward the 2,000/500 limits, provided:

  1. The issuer uses a registered transfer agent to keep track of its securities; and 
  2. The issuer has no more than $25 million of assets. 

Most startups will never have $25 million of assets. Most startups will never have 500 non-accredited investors or 2,000 total investors. Some startups will issue debt securities rather than equity securities. But some startups could find themselves subject to full public reporting under section 12(g). 

For those startups, a crowdfunding vehicle makes sense. That because, through a quirk in the rules, if you use a crowdfunding vehicle then the only investors who count toward the 2,000/500 limits are entities, like LLCs and corporations. Individual investors aren’t counted at all, and the assets of the company don’t matter.

Thus, if you’re a startup that might otherwise trigger section 12(g), a crowdfunding vehicle makes sense.

Requirements for Crowdfunding Vehicles

A crowdfunding vehicle must:

  • Have no other business.
  • Not borrow money.
  • Issue only one class of securities.
  • Maintain a one-to-one relationship between the number, denomination, type, and rights of the issuer’s securities it owns and the number, denomination, type, and rights of the securities it issues.
  • Seek instructions from investors with regard to:
    • Voting the issuer’s securities (if they are voting securities).
    • Participating in tender or exchange offers of the issuer.
  • Provide to each investor the right to direct the crowdfunding vehicle to assert the same legal rights the investor would have if he or she had invested directly in the issuer.

Those are requirements, not suggestions. In a later post I’ll explain what they mean. Here, I’ll just point out that some high-volume portals violate some of the requirements routinely, in my always-humble opinion. 

******

NOTE:  Crowdfunding vehicles work only with Reg CF. If you raise money from 127 accredited investors using Rule 506(c), you can’t put them in a separate entity. But don’t worry, it doesn’t have to screw up your cap table. 

Questions? Let me know.

Markley S. Roderick
Lex Nova Law
10 East Stow Road, Suite 250, Marlton, NJ 08053
P: 856.382.8402 | E: mroderick@lexnovalaw.com

how to get rid of artificially low targets in reg cf

How To Get Rid Of Artificially Low Targets In Regulation Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding Portals, Reg CF, SEC, Securities Exchange CommissionLeave a comment

As I’ve explained several times to both readers, I believe artificially low minimums are a huge impediment to Reg CF. A company needs to raise $750,000, sets its target at $10,000, and raises $17,439.98. Poof, that money disappears. The company offsets some of its expenses and the funding portal claims a successful offering.

In my opinion, very few serious investors will participate in such an offering. And because it’s so common, I believe most serious investors just stay away from the industry.

I’ve never heard anyone defend artificially low minimums. What I have heard from both portal and issuers is they need artificially low minimums for financial reasons. The issuer comes to the portal with no money. Both the issuer and the portal plan to use the first dollars raised to market the offering. If we can raise $10,000 and invest in marketing, maybe we can raise $50,000 more. If we raise $50,000 more and invest in marketing, maybe we can raise the rest. 

As my friend Irwin Stein says, a well-planned, well-funded Reg CF offering should succeed. The challenge is that many issuers come to the table without a marketing plan or budget. The issuer and the funding portal bridge the gap by effectively asking early investors to take a lot more risk without telling them about it or compensating them for it. 

Long ago I learned it’s better to deal with reality. If the reality is that the issuer lacks a marketing plan or budget, then rather than hide the ball from early investors, let’s split the offering into two parts. Let’s have a first offering for $50,000 to pay for marketing, then a second offering for $750,000 (or whatever) with a real target, maybe $550,000. The company is saying, “Ideally we’d like $750,000 but we can still manage to execute a viable business plan with $550,000.” 

Investors in the first offering are taking far more risk than investors in the second and should be compensated accordingly. They might get two or three times the shares per $1.00 invested or might even get a different security altogether.

We might find that the company’s most ardent supporters – friends and family – will fund the first round. We would also find, I expect, that companies seeking to raise money for marketing will explain their marketing plans in detail and want to advertise high-quality marketing firms.

Far too often, well-intentioned people look to the SEC or Congress to improve Crowdfunding, only to see their hopes dashed. For example, many people look to the SEC or Congress to improve liquidity in Crowdfunding. Last Autumn I suggested a way that portals and issuers could ensure liquidity themselves. I have a client doing that right now. 

We can do the same with artificially low minimums. They’re bad for investors and bad for the industry. And we don’t need them.

Questions? Let me know.

Markley S. Roderick
Lex Nova Law
10 East Stow Road, Suite 250, Marlton, NJ 08053
P: 856.382.8402 | E: mroderick@lexnovalaw.com

SEC Relaxes Accredited Investor Verification Rule For Wealthy People

SEC Relaxes Accredited Investor Verification Rule For Wealthy People

On By crowdfundattnyIn Investor, Investor Verification, Rule 506(c), SEC2 Comments

An issuer raising capital using Rule 506(c) must take “reasonable steps” to verify that all the investors are accredited. Until now, that has normally meant using a third party like VerifyInvestor, which in turn gets a letter from the investor’s accountant. Now it’s going to be a little easier, at least for investors writing big checks.

In a private no-action letter, the SEC allowed the issuer to verify investors without looking at the investor’s tax returns, seeing a letter from the investor’s accountant, or using any of the other methods described in the regulations under Rule 506(c) if:

  • The investor is writing a big enough check — $200,000 for an individual and $1 million for an entity; and
  • The investor promises that he, she, or it is accredited and has not financed the investment through a third party; and
  • The issuer does not have actual knowledge of any facts indicating that the investor is not accredited or has financed the investment.

Technically, the no-action letter doesn’t have the same force as a statute or a regulation. It does, however, reflect the view of the staff of the SEC. Issuers and their lawyers generally can rely on no-action letters, with the understanding that the staff could decide to withdraw or modify its position at any time.

Verifying that an investor is accredited was already so easy, the question is why anyone bothered to ask for this no-action letter. I’m afraid the answer is that growing income and wealth disparities in this country. In some socio-economic circles and for some funds, everyone writes big checks, just as everyone is a “qualified purchaser” for purposes of section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act. The result of the no-action letter is that for that segment of American society, the verification rules no longer exist. 

Two sets of rules, one for the wealthy, another for everyone else. I certainly understand the logic of the no-action letter, but I’m not sure it’s healthy in a macro sense. 

Questions? Let me know.

Crowdfunding Legal Links

Supreme Court Curbs SEC Enforcement Actions, And That’s Not All

On By crowdfundattnyIn Reg CF, SEC1 Comment

Last week, in a 6-3 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the SEC must use the regular federal court system, not its internal administrative proceedings, in an antifraud suit against an investment adviser seeking civil damages. The Court ruled that litigating the case through the SEC’s internal proceedings violated the defendants right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The case throws into question all pending SEC administrative proceedings. Like most Supreme Court decisions, the opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy leaves important questions open. What about proceedings that do not involve fraud? What about proceedings where the SEC is not seeking civil penalties? 

SEC v. Jarkesy must be read in conjunction with two other Supreme Court decisions issued last week, Ohio v. EPA and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In the former, the Court held that the EPA had overstepped its bounds in interpreting the Clean Air Act. In the later, the Court overturned a 40-year precedent, the “Chevron Doctrine.” This doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1977, held that except in unusual cases, courts should defer to the judgment of administrative agencies in interpreting the laws with the jurisdiction of the agencies.

Many have welcomed the trio of decisions, believing they will free individuals and businesses from the biases of the “administrative state.” I am more skeptical.

Take an example close to my heart. As enacted by Congress, the exemption under section 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act of 1933, aka Reg CF, imposed a limit of $1,000,000, which proved completely inadequate. A couple years ago the SEC increased the limit to $5,000,000. Under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, I’m not sure the SEC had the power to increase the limit. If someone challenges the limit, he or she might win.

You show me a regulation you don’t like, I’ll show you others you do like. You show me a decision by an SEC administrative law judge you don’t like, I’ll show you a decision by a federal judge, or by the Supreme Court itself, that you hate. Mr. Jarkesy, the investment adviser accused of fraud, might be happy that the administrative proceedings against him are stopped. Will he be better off in federal court?

As I see it, these cases are about a transfer of power away from the Executive branch to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts said as much: “Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.” 

The Chevron Doctrine was born when the Supreme Court realized in 1977 that courts were not equipped to handle the complexities of modern life and would therefore defer to experts. Since then, modern life has become far more complex. All the same decisions will have to be made. Personally, I see no reason to think the Supreme Court will reach better decisions for the environment or for Reg CF than bureaucrats with subject matter expertise will reach. With bureaucrats we hold an election every four years. With the federal court system, never.

One thing I know for sure, the changes will be great for lawyers. Lawyers benefit from change, and in legal terms the changes the Supreme Court made last week are monumental. The federal courts are about to be flooded with claims from every point on the ideological spectrum. There aren’t nearly enough federal judges to handle all the claims the Supreme Court has just invited, but there are plenty of lawyers!

Questions? Let me know.

Four Becomes Three: Regulation A Offerings Are Easier Now

On By crowdfundattnyIn Regulation A, SECLeave a comment

In this blog post from long ago, I wondered whether a company raising money through Regulation A could legally sell directly to investors. On one hand, the law in a handful of states require all sales to be through broker-dealers. On the other hand, those state laws might be invalid under section 18(b) of the Securities Act of 1933.

It looks as if common sense and the market are answering the question without litigation.

Late last year, Florida changed its laws to allow direct sales. Florida is a big state with lots of investors, so that’s a big deal. What we once referred to as four “problems states” has become three:  Texas, New Jersey, and Washington.

In my humble opinion, the state laws don’t make sense. A Regulation A offering is reviewed by the Securities and Exchange Commission through a process much like a public offering. Under federal law, the SEC review is enough to allow sales to both accredited and non-accredited investors. I cannot see a justification for a state to require more protection in the form of a broker-dealer review; in fact, this reasoning makes me think that section 18(b) should override the state laws.  

The state laws also add a very significant cost to a Regulation A offering. I’m not aware of any broker-dealer willing to sell Regulation A securities only to residents of three states. Instead, broker-dealers charge more than 2% of the whole raise. Broker-dealers need to charge these fees to cover their own costs and risks, obviously. By driving up the costs of the offering, however, the state laws undermine a primary goal of Crowdfunding, i.e., to make great investments available to ordinary Americans.

Off the soapbox now.

Of the three remaining problem states, New Jersey is the easiest. You file a form to register as a “dealer” and you’re done.

Washington is hard. Washington also allows registration as a dealer, but in my experience the designated dealer must be an individual who is also a general partner/manager of the issuer. For liability reasons, that might not be acceptable. If in doubt, don’t sell securities in Washington.

Texas also allows registration as a dealer. While Texas generally requires that the individual registering have FINRA licenses, that requirement can be waived. The process can take a couple months.

My recommendation:  register in New Jersey; register in Texas and ask for a waiver (start that process early); and don’t sell in Washington.

If anyone has more current advice or information I’d love to hear it.

Questions? Let me know.

new risk factors for crowdfunding and beyond

More Noise About Accredited Investors In Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Accredited Investor, Exchange Act, Investment Company Act, Regulation A, SEC1 Comment

The House of Representatives just passed not one, not two, but three different bills that would expand the definition of “accredited investor.” Does this mean the definition will change? No.

The three proposed changes are:

  • Include in the definition of accredited investor anyone who says he or she understands the risks, using a form of not more than two pages issued by the SEC. This would effectively eliminate the concept of accredited investor.
  • Include in the definition of accredited investor anyone who has received personalized advice from a person who has himself or herself become an accredited investor under 17 CFR §230.501(A)(10), by passing an exam approved by the SEC. The mystery here is why the proposed bill wouldn’t include anyone who has received personalized advice for a registered investment adviser.
  • Allow anyone, including non-accredited investors, to invest in the aggregate up to 10% of their income or net worth in private securities. No time period is provided.

The proposed changes to the definition of accredited investor are part of a larger package of legislation that would ease more than a dozen rules in the federal securities laws, including:

  • Expand the definition of “emerging growth companies.”
  • Create a safe harbor for brokers and finders in private placements.
  • Ease the “independence” rule for auditors.
  • Ease the registration requirements under section 12(g) of the Exchange Act.
  • Expand the definition of venture capital fund for purposes of section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act.
  • Add a new exemption under the Securities Act of 1933 for issuers raising less than $250,000.
  • Double the Regulation A offering limit from $75,000,000 to $150,000,000.

And so on.

This legislation can best be understood by reference to the man who introduced it, Representative McHenry of North Carolina. Representative McHenry was the principal sponsor of the JOBS Act, which created Crowdfunding. Before and since, he has been an advocate for improving access to capital for entrepreneurs and giving ordinary Americans access to opportunities now reserved for the very wealthy.

But Representative McHenry is leaving Congress. He was a close friend of Kevin McCarthy and briefly assumed leadership of the House when McCarthy was deposed. That episode seems to have drained his enthusiasm; he announced his plan to retire shortly afterward.

This legislation should probably be viewed as Representative McHenry’s swan song, his wish list, even his legacy. Unfortunately, and as I’m sure he recognizes, it’s likely that none of it will find its way into law.

Questions? Let me know.

Securities Exchange Commission

SEC Adopts Final Rules For Private Advisers And Stresses Fiduciary Obligations

On By crowdfundattnyIn Private Fund Advisors, SECLeave a comment

Last year the SEC proposed new rules for private fund advisers. After public comment the SEC just adopted final rules.

Some of the new rules apply only to investment advisers required to be registered with the SEC. Others apply to all investment advisers, including so-called “private fund advisers.” I’m going to focus on the latter set of rules.

NOTE:  The new rules apply more broadly than you might think:

EXAMPLE:  Nikki Chilandra forms an LLC of which she is the sole manager, raises money from her private network of investors (no more than 100), and uses the money to buy a limited partnership interest in one real estate deal. The LLC is a private fund, and Nikki is likely a private fund adviser subject to the new rules.

Here’s a chart comparing the proposed rules with the final rules:

TopicProposed RuleFinal Rule
Charging for Services Not PerformedAn adviser can’t charge for services not provided. For example, if an asset is sold, the adviser can’t charge for the advisory fees that would have been due over the next two years.The final rules do not include this explicit provision. But that’s only because, according to the SEC, advisers are already prohibited from charging for services not performed because of their fiduciary obligations.
Charging for Compliance CostsAn adviser can’t charge the fund for expenses incurred in a regulatory examination of the adviser.The adviser may charge for these expenses with majority consent, unless the investigation results in sanctions under the Investment Advisers Act.
Reducing Clawback for TaxesAn advisor can’t reduce her clawback by the amount of any taxes.The adviser may reduce her clawback for taxes if she notifies investors within 45 days after the end of the quarter in which the clawback occurs.
Limiting Adviser LiabilityAn adviser can’t limit her liability for a breach of fiduciary duty, willful misfeasance, bad faith, recklessness, or even negligence.The final rules do not include this explicit provision. But the SEC explains that, in its view, the provision isn’t needed in light of the fiduciary and anti-fraud obligations already imposed on advisers under the Investment Advisers Act which, according to the SEC, may not be waived by contract (e.g., in an LLC Agreement).
Allocation of Fees Among FundsAn adviser can’t allocate fees among funds on a non-pro rata basis.The adviser may allocate fees on a different basis if (i) the allocation is fair and equitable under the circumstances and (ii) before charging or allocating the fees, the adviser notifies investors, explaining why it is fair and equitable.
Borrowing from FundAn adviser can’t borrow money from the fund.The adviser may borrow money with majority consent.
Preferential Treatment for Redemptions and InformationAn adviser can’t give preferential rights to redemption or preferential information rights to some investors if it would have a material negative effect on other investors.Both are allowed if the same rights are given to all investors (which makes the treatment non-preferential).
Preferential Economic TreatmentAn adviser can’t give other preferential economic rights to some investors without full disclosure to all investors.Preferential treatment is allowed with full disclosure (i) before an investor invests, (ii) when the fundraising period has ended, and (iii) annually.

In my opinion, the most important feature of the new rules isn’t the new rules themselves but the SEC’s statements concerning the fiduciary obligations of investment advisers. The SEC believes that all investment advisers have a duty of care and a duty of loyalty that cannot be waived by contract and can be liable for their negligence, no matter what the contract says.

Questions? Let me know.

title III crowdfunding outline for portals and issuers

SEC Proposes New Restrictions For Private Fund Advisers

On By crowdfundattnyIn Private Fund Advisors, SECLeave a comment

The SEC recently proposed new rules for private fund advisers. If you raise and/or manage money from other people, you should probably pay attention.

A private fund adviser is an investment adviser who provides advice to private funds. A “private fund” is any issuer that would be treated as an “investment company” if not for the exemptions under section 3(c)(1) (no more than 100 investors) or section 3(c)(7) (all qualified purchasers) of the Investment Company Act.

  • EXAMPLE:  Nikki Chilandra forms an LLC of which she is the sole manager, raises money from her private network of investors (no more than 100), and uses the money to buy a limited partnership interest in one real estate deal. The LLC is a private fund, and Nikki is likely a private fund adviser.
  • EXAMPLE:  Jerry Cooperman forms an LLC of which he is the sole manager, raises money from his private network of investors (without limit), and uses the money to buy a duplex, which is rented to tenants. The LLC is not a private fund because it owns real estate, not securities. Hence, Jerry is not a private fund adviser.

In general, investment advisers are required to register either with the SEC or with the state(s) where they do business. But an advisor who provides advice only to private funds and manages assets of less than $150 million is exempt from registration with the SEC, and many states have similar exemptions. In fact, the SEC has expanded the definition of “private funds” for these purposes to include an issuer that qualifies for any exclusion under the Investment Company Act, not just the exemptions under sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7).

An advisor who qualifies for the private fund exemption, like Nikki, is often referred to as an “exempt reporting adviser.” That’s because while she doesn’t have to register as an investment adviser, she does have to file reports with the SEC (an abbreviated Form ADV) and probably with the state where the fund is located also.

All of that is just to say that investment advisers who provide advice to private funds fall into two categories:  those who are required to register with the SEC and those who are not registered but still have to file reports. The SEC proposals affect both.

The following proposals would affect only advisers registered with the SEC:

  • Advisers would be required to provide investors with quarterly statements with information about the fund’s performance, fees, and expenses. Advisers would be required to obtain an annual audit for each fund and cause the auditor to notify the SEC upon certain events.
  • Advisers would be required to obtain fairness opinions in so-called adviser-led secondary transactions.

The following proposal would affect all advisers, including Nikki:

  • An adviser couldn’t charge for services not provided. For example, if an asset were sold, the adviser couldn’t charge for the advisory fees that would have been due over the next two years.
  • An adviser couldn’t charge the fund for expenses incurred in a regulatory examination of the adviser.
  • An advisor couldn’t reduce her clawback by the amount of any taxes.
  • An adviser couldn’t limit her liability for a breach of fiduciary duty, willful misfeasance, bad faith, recklessness, or even negligence.
  • An adviser couldn’t allocate fees among funds on a non-pro rata basis.
  • An adviser couldn’t borrow money from the fund.
  • An adviser couldn’t give preferential rights to redemption or preferential information rights to some investors if it would have a material negative effect on other investors.
  • An adviser couldn’t give other preferential rights to some investors without full disclosure to all investors.

I’ll just mention two of those items that come up frequently.

First, general partners typically seek to protect themselves from lawsuits brought by investors. Delaware and other states allow the general partner to disclaim all traditional fiduciary duties and adopt a “business judgment” standard in their place. If the SEC’s proposals are adopted, general partners acting as private fund advisers will no longer be allowed to protect themselves in this way and will be liable for a breach of fiduciary obligations as well as simple negligence.

NOTE:  Sponsors like Nikki wear more than one hat. They provide investment advice but perform other duties as well, like deciding whether to admit new LPs and on what terms. The SEC’s proposals would require Nikki to remain liable for negligence when she’s wearing her investment adviser hat but not when she’s wearing her other hats. The LLC Agreement could and should make that distinction.

Second, general partners typically enter into “side letters,” giving some limited partners a better economic deal than others – either a lower promote or a higher preferred return. These arrangements will still be allowed if the SEC’s proposals are adopted, but only if the terms are disclosed to everyone, which is not typically done today.

Questions? Let me know.

SEC (Finally) Approves Crowdfunding Changes

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, SECLeave a comment

With uncanny precision, I predicted the SEC would approve the Crowdfunding changes no later than August 31, 2020. I was right on target except for the month and year.

The SEC Commissions just voted 3-2 to adopt the changes effective 60 days after they’re published in the Federal Register.

It looks as if there were no significant changes to the proposals made on March 4th, but I’ll let you know shortly. You can read the full text and SEC explanations here.

Bumblebee and flowers

SEC Proposes Limited Exemptions For “Finders”

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding Portals, Exchange Act, Finders, Regulation A, SEC, SEC Proposals, Tier I Finders, Tier II FindersLeave a comment

In theory, only broker-dealers registered under section 15 of the Exchange Act are allowed to receive compensation for connecting issuers with investors. In practice, the world of private securities includes lots of folks we refer to as “finders.” Like bumblebees, these folks should be unable to fly according to the laws of physics but many plants couldn’t survive without them.

Because of the disconnect between theory and reality, industry participants have been urging the SEC for years to develop exemptions for finders.

The SEC just proposed exemptions that would allow some finders to operate legally, i.e., to receive commissions and other transaction-based compensation from issuers.

The SEC proposes two tiers of Finders 

  • Tier 1 Finders would be limited to providing the contact information of potential investors to an issuer in one offering per 12 months. A Tier I Finder couldn’t even speak with potential investors about the issuer or the offering.
  • Tier II Finders could participate in an unlimited number of offerings and solicit investors on behalf of an issuer, but only to the extent of:
    • Identifying, screening, and contacting potential investors;
    • Distributing offering materials;
    • Discussing the information in the offering materials, as long as the Funder doesn’t provide investment advice or advice about the value of the investment; and
    • Arranging or participating in meetings with the issuer and investor.

A Tier II Finder would be required to disclose her compensation to prospective investors up front – before the solicitation – and obtain the investor’s written consent.

The Limits to the Proposed Finders

  • The Finder must be an individual, not an entity.
  • The Finder must have a written agreement with the issuer.
  • The proposed exemptions apply only to offerings by the issuer, not secondary sales.
  • Public companies (companies required to file reports under section 13 or section 15(d) of the Exchange Act) may not use Finders.
  • The offering must be exempt from registration.
  • The Finder may not engage in general solicitation.
  • All investors must be accredited.
  • The Finder may not be an “associated person” of a broker-dealer.
  • The Find may not be subject to statutory disqualification.

The SEC issued an excellent graphic summarizing the proposed exemptions

Because they are entities, the typical Crowdfunding portal can’t qualify as a Finder under the SEC’s proposals. And because the proposals don’t allow general solicitation, a Finder who is an individual can’t create a website posting individual deals.

But the no-action letters to Funders Club and AngelList that kick-started the Crowdfunding industry (no pun intended) will invite many Tier 2 Finders to take their businesses online. Under the proposals and the no-action letters, it seems that a Tier 2 Finder could legally create a website offering access to terrific-but-unnamed offerings, but give investors access to the offerings only after registering and going through a satisfactory KYC process per the CitizenVC no-action letter.

A Step Forward for Crowdfunding

Many finders and issuers will jump for joy at the new proposals, while others will be disappointed that the SEC drew the line at accredited investors. In a Regulation A offering or a Rule 506(b) offering open to non-accredited investors, the law requires very substantial disclosure, especially in Regulation A. The SEC must believe that non-accredited investors are especially vulnerable to the selling pressure that might be applied by a finder.

Nevertheless, like the SEC’s proposals to expand the definition of accredited investor, the proposals about finders are a step forward.

CAUTION:  As of today these proposals are just proposals, not the law.

Questions? Let me know.