Category: SEC

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.

The Expanded Definition Of Accredited Investor: A (First) Step In The Right Direction

On By crowdfundattnyIn Accredited Investor, JOBS Act, SEC, SEC Proposals2 Comments

For all the ink spilled wondering and worrying how the SEC might change the definition of accredited investor, yesterday’s announcement seems almost anti-climactic.

Perhaps the main story is what the SEC didn’t do. It didn’t limit the definition of accredited investor in any way. Everyone who was an accredited investor yesterday is an accredited investor today. In that sense the SEC continues to demonstrate its support for the private investment marketplace and give the lie to those who believe otherwise.

On the other hand, the SEC didn’t break much new ground expanding the definition, at least for now.

The principal expansion, as expected, was in adding to the list of accredited investors individuals who hold Series 7, Series 65, or Series 82 licenses. The SEC also added investment advisers registered with the SEC or any state and, more surprisingly, venture capital fund advisers and exempt reporting advisers. I say “more surprisingly” because neither venture capital fund advisers nor exempt reporting advisers are required to pass exams or otherwise demonstrate financial knowledge or sophistication.

The list of accredited investors was also extended to include:

  • Entities, including Indian tribes, governmental bodies, funds, and entities organized under the laws of foreign countries, that (1) own “investments” (as defined in Rule 2a51-1(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) in excess of $5 million, and (2) were not formed to invest in the securities offered;
  • Rural business development companies;
  • Family offices with at least $5 million in assets under management and their family clients, as each term is defined under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; and
  • Knowledgeable employees of a private fund, but only with respect to investments in that fund.

Finally, the SEC clarified that existing provisions of the accredited investor definition that refer to spouses also includes “spousal equivalents,” meaning someone who has gotten under your nerves for at least seven years (actually “a cohabitant occupying a relationship generally equivalent to that of a spouse”).

While a modest first step, these additions are welcome and a harbinger of bigger things to come. The new rule explicitly invites FINRA, other industry self-regulatory authorities, and accredited education institutions to develop “certifications, designations, or credentials” that the SEC would approve for accredited investor qualification. I imagine FINRA and professional organizations will jump at the chance. If this leads to millions or tens of millions of Americans learning about securities and participating in the Crowdfunding market, well, that’s a very good thing for everyone.

The new definition will become effective 60 days after being published in the Federal Register.

Questions? Let me know.

SEC Issues Emergency Rules To Facilitate Title III Crowdfunding During Covid-19 Crisis

On By crowdfundattnyIn COVID-19, Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Laws, Crowdfunding Portals, Equity Crowdfunding, JOBS Act, Reg CF, Regulation CF, SEC, SEC Proposals, Securities Exchange Commission, Securities Laws, Title III Crowdfunding1 Comment

With credit markets tightened and 30 million Americans newly out of work, the SEC has adopted temporary rules to make Title III Crowdfunding a little easier from now until August 31, 2020.

The temporary rules are available here. They aim to make Title III a little faster and easier in four ways:

#1 – Launch Offering without Financial Statements

An issuer can launch the offering – go live on a funding portal – before its financial statements are available. (But investment commitments aren’t binding until the financial statements have been provided.)

#2 – Lower Standard for Some Financial Statements

An issuer trying to raise between $107,000 and $250,000 in a 12-month period doesn’t have to produce financial statements reviewed by an independent accountant, only financial statements and certain information from its tax return, both certified by the CEO.

#3 – Quicker Closing

An issuer can close the offering as soon as it has raised the target offering amount, even if the offering hasn’t been live for 21 days, as long as the closing occurs at least 48 hours after the last investment commitment and the funding portal notifies investors of the early closing.

#4 – Limit on Investor Cancellations 

Investors can cancel within 48 hours of making a commitment, but can’t cancel after that unless there’s a material change in the offering.

CAVEAT:  These rules are not available if the issuer:

  • Was organized or operating within six months before launching the offering (e., this is not for brand-new companies); or
  • Previously raised money using Title III Crowdfunding but failed to comply with its obligations.

I’m not sure how much difference these rules will make in practice. But that’s not the main point as far as I’m concerned. The main point is that with about a million other things on its plate, the SEC took the time to think about and draft these rules. The SEC must believe that equity Crowdfunding can play an important role in our capital markets.

On that basis, I predict that the proposals the SEC made on March 4th will be adopted soon after the public comment period expires on June 1st. And after that, who knows.

Questions? Let me know.

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.

Regulation A: What Country Do You See When You Wake Up?

On By crowdfundattnyIn Regulation A, Regulation A Plus Primer, SEC, Uncategorized2 Comments

sara palin

A company may use Regulation A (Tier 1 or Tier 2) only if the company:

  • Is organized in the U.S. or Canada, and
  • Has its principal place of business in the U.S. or Canada.

I’m often asked what it means for a company to have its principal place of business in the U.S. or Canada. The first step is to identify the people who make the important decisions for the company. The next step is to ask what country those people see when they wake up in the morning. If they see the U.S. or Canada, they’re okay. If they see some other country, even a beautiful country like Norway or Italy, they’re not okay, or at least they can’t use Regulation A.

Seeing the U.S. or Canada via Facetime doesn’t count.

A company called Longfin Corp. ignored this rule and suffered the consequences. The people who made the important decisions for the company saw India when they woke up in the morning. The only person who saw the U.S. was a 23-year-old, low-level employee who worked by himself in a WeWork space. In its offering materials the company claimed to be managed in the U.S., but a Federal court found this was untrue and ordered rescission of the offering, $3.5 million in disgorgement, and $3.2 million in penalties.

Harder questions arise if, for example, three of the directors and the CFO see the U.S. when they wake up, but two directors and the CEO see Ireland.

On the plus side, a U.S. mining company with headquarters in Wyoming definitely can use Regulation A even if all its mines are in South America. The “principal place of business” means the location where the company is managed, not where it operates.

Questions? Let me know.

The Cashflow Hustle Podcast: Crowdfunding Techniques to Level Up Your Business

On By crowdfundattnyIn Blockchain Technology, Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Interview, Crowdfunding Interviews, Crowdfunding Laws, Crowdfunding Portals, Entrepreneurs, Podcasts, Portals, Private Securities, Raising Money, SEC, Securities Exchange Commission, Tokenized SecuritiesLeave a comment

CFH47_Mark Roderick.png

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Mark Roderick appeared on the Cashflow Hustle Podcast with Justin Grimes, where he discussed Crowdfunding Techniques to Level Up Your Business.

In this Episode, You’ll Learn About:

1. The Crowdfunding and its flavors
2. The deductions in Crowdfunding
3. The role of SEC
4. Blockchain technology in Crowdfunding
5. The Investor portals
6. Tokenized security in Crowdfunding

Questions? Let me know.

“Secondary Sales” of Private Securities (And Tokens) in Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Private Securities, Rule 144, SEC, Secondary Sales, Tokens1 Comment

We use the term “secondary sales” to refer to sales of securities by anyone other than the issuer, and the term “secondary market” to refer to a marketplace where those sales take place.

Suppose NewCo, LLC, a private (non-public) company, raises money by issuing limited liability company interests under Rule 506(c). One investor, Amanda Sakaguri, later sells her limited liability company interest to a third party. The sale by Ms. Sakaguri is what we refer to as “secondary sale.” If Ms. Sakaguri sold her limited liability company interest on a marketplace – as opposed to a private sale – we call that a “secondary market.”

The Basic Legal Rules for Secondary Sales

All offers of securities must be fully registered with the SEC, under section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. If there were no exceptions to section 5, Ms. Sakaguri would have to register with the the SEC before selling her limited liability company interest. But of course, this being the securities laws, there are lots of exceptions. For example:

  • If Ms. Sakaguri bought her limited liability company interest in a Regulation A offering, she could sell it to anyone right away.
  • If Ms. Sakaguri bought her limited liability company interest in a Regulation CF offering, she could sell it to some buyers right away, and to anyone after one year.

Ms. Sakaguri bought her limited liability company interest under Rule 506(c), so she isn’t eligible for either of those exceptions. For Ms. Sakaguri and other owners of private securities, the most likely potential exception is in section 4(a)(1) of the Securities Act, which exempts “[Sales] by any person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.”

We know Ms. Sakaguri isn’t the issuer. How about a dealer or an underwriter?

A dealer is “[A]ny person engaged in the business of buying and selling securities . . . .for such person’s own account. . . .” but does not include “. . . .a person that buys or sells securities. . . . but not as a part of a regular business.” Provided she isn’t buying and selling securities as a business, Ms. Sakaguri isn’t a dealer.

Whether she’s an underwriter is a harder question, believe it or not. We think of underwriters as big Wall Street firms in gleaming towers, but the definition is much broader than that:  “[A]ny person who has purchased from an issuer with a view to. . . .the distribution of any security. . . .” If Ms. Sakaguri expected to sell her limited liability company interest from NewCo when she bought it, she might be an underwriter, ineligible for the exception.

Whether the seller of a security is an underwriter once caused so much confusion that the SEC adopted a long rule on that topic. 

Rule 144

Rule 144 provides a “safe harbor” for sellers. If a seller satisfies all the conditions of Rule 144, the seller will definitely not be treated as an underwriter for purposes of section 4(a)(1). If a seller doesn’t satisfy all the conditions, it doesn’t mean she will be treated as an underwriter. It just means she’s taking her chances.

Rule 144 imposes different requirements on sellers depending on whether:

  • The issuer is a private or a publicly-reporting company;
  • The seller is an “affiliate” of the issuer (generally meaning under common control); and
  • How the seller acquired the securities in the first place.

We’re going to focus only on private companies, like NewCo, and situations where the seller acquired her interest directly from the issuer.

If Ms. Sakaguri were an affiliate of NewCo, she would be subject to four requirements:

  • She would have to provide current information about the issuer, including its name, its business, its CEO and Directors, and two years’ of financial statements.
  • She would have to hold the securities for at least one year.
  • She would be limited in the volume of securities she could sell.
  • She would be limited in the manner in which she sells the securities.

On the other hand, because Ms. Sakaguri isn’t an affiliate of NewCo, but just an ordinary investor, she’s subject to only one requirement:  she has must hold her limited liability company in NewCo for at least one year. That means:

  • She’s not required to provide any information about NewCo to the buyer.
  • She can sell as much of her limited liability company interest as she wants.
  • She can sell it to anyone, accredited or non-accredited.
  • She can sell it in any manner she want, including on a website.

(Remember, Rule 144 is a safe harbor, not a legal rule. If Ms. Sakaguri is a minority investor in a private company and sells her limited liability company interest after four months because she lost her job and needs the cash, nobody thinks she’s an underwriter. At worst, she’d be sentenced to a week of Fox News.)

Where are the Secondary Markets?

There are lots of investors in the same shoes as Ms. Sakaguri:  everyone who owns an interest in a real estate limited partnership, or a tech startup, or even a family business. If it’s so easy legally for them to sell their interests, why aren’t there lots of places where they can sell them?

A place – a website, for example – where investors could sell their privately-owned securities would probably be treated as an “exchange” under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“[A]ny organization. . . .which. . . .provides a market place. . . .for bringing together purchasers and sellers of securities. . . .”). Section 5 of the Exchange Act makes it illegal for any exchange to operate unless it is either a registered “national securities exchange” under section 6 of the Exchange Act (like NASDAQ or the NYSE) or exempt from registration under SEC rules. The typical private security couldn’t qualify for listing on a national exchange, so Ms. Sakaguri and others in her shoes would be looking for something else.

Fortunately, that something else exists in the form of an “alternative trading system,” or ATS, authorized by the SEC in 17 CFR 240.3a1-1(a)(2) and defined in 17 CFR 242.300 – 303. Today there are dozens of alternative trading systems operating in the United States for many different purposes, including several operated by OTC Markets, Inc. Any broker-dealer can create an ATS without much difficulty, and for that matter anyone can create a broker-dealer.

All the legal pieces of the puzzle are in place:  Ms. Sakaguri is allowed to sell her limited liability company interest under Rule 144; and it’s not hard to create an ATS where she can sell it. So why does everyone complain about the lack of liquidity in private securities?

The answer is that the legal pieces of the puzzle turn out not to be the most important. Ms. Sakaguri is allowed to sell her limited liability company interest, but finding someone who wants to buy it is another story. We can create all the legal mechanisms we want, but a secondary market needs lots of buyers and sellers, especially buyers.

Remember, Ms. Sakaguri is allowed to sell her limited liability company interest under Rule 144 without providing any information about NewCo. That’s great, except there aren’t a lot of people willing to buy that limited liability company interest without information about NewCo. Other characteristics of NewCo, if it’s a typical privately-owned company, also make it unattractive:

  • It probably has a very limited business, possibly only one product or even one asset.
  • It probably has limited access to capital.
  • It probably lacks professional management.
  • Sakaguri probably has limited or no voting rights.
  • There are probably no independent directors.
  • The insiders of NewCo are probably allowed to pay compensation to themselves more or less free of limits, and have probably protected themselves from just about every kind of legal claim that investors could bring.

When Franklin Roosevelt and Sam Rayburn created the American securities laws in the 1930s, what emerged from all the new regulation was the most efficient, most transparent, most vibrant public capital market in the world. Eighty-five years later, you might say Americans have become spoiled by the safety of buying publicly-traded companies on national exchanges. When Ms. Sakaguri asks them to buy her limited liability company interest in NewCo on an alternative trading system, she’s asking for a lot.

To create a more vibrant secondary market for private securities we need greater standardization, greater protections for investors, and greater transparency. Some of these things the industry can do by itself – for example, by using blockchain technology. Other things will probably require regulation.

To create a vibrant market in automobiles we didn’t adopt laws protecting auto manufacturers. We adopted laws protecting consumers, e.g., lemon laws. My guess is that to create a vibrant secondary market for private securities the law should focus on buyers, not sellers.

What About Tokens?

More companies than I can remember have said they want to convert their limited liability company interests or preferred stock to token form because “There’s a secondary market for tokens.”

From a legal point of view that’s not true. The laws governing secondary sales of securities apply equally to the most boring share of common stock, represented by a paper certificate stored in a battered aluminum filing cabinet, and the most interesting token treated as a security under the Howey test, residing only in the cloud on a public blockchain.

But it is true in two other senses:

  • The rules I’ve talked about above apply only to tokens that are securities under the Howey test. A token that is a currency and not a security is not subject to those rules. I would also say that a true utility token isn’t subject to the rules, either, except a token being traded is probably a security under the Howey test, i.e., it probably isn’t a true utility token.
  • The reason there isn’t a vibrant market in private securities isn’t the legal restrictions, but the risk inherent in private securities. The frenzy over anything called a token in the last 12 months has overridden investor fears of private securities. Whether that frenzy will continue is impossible to predict (it won’t).

The same people ask “What about all those crypto exchanges?” There are two answers to that question as well. One, many or all of them have become alternative trading systems controlled by broker-dealers, or are in the process of doing so. Two, many got in trouble. Some are being sued privately, some are being sanctioned by the SEC, and three of the really bad ones had to watch Fox News for a month.

Questions? Let me know.

Using “Finders” To Sell Securities, Including Tokens

On By crowdfundattnyIn Finders, SEC, Securities Laws, Selling SecuritiesLeave a comment

Selling securities is hard, and it makes perfect sense that an issuer or a portal would hire someone to help. And once you’ve hired someone, it also makes perfect sense business-wise to pay her a percentage of what she raises, aligning her interests with yours.

It’s perfect, but it might be illegal.

The Legal Issue

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 generally makes it illegal for any “broker” to sell securities unless she’s registered with the SEC. The Exchange Act defines the term “broker” to mean “any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others.” That’s not a very helpful definition, but if you earn a commission from selling securities, like the helper above, you might be a broker.

So what? Well, if someone who’s a “broker” sells securities without registering with the SEC, lots of bad things can happen:

  • All the investors in the offering could have a right of to get their money back, and that right could be enforceable against the principals of the issuer.
  • The issuer could lose its exemption, g., its exemption under Regulation D.
  • By violating the securities laws, the issuer and its principals could become “bad actors,” ineligible to sell securities in the future.
  • The issuer could be liable for “aiding and abetting” a violation of the securities laws.
  • The issuer could be liable under state blue sky laws.
  • The person acting as the unregistered broker could also face serious consequences, including sanctions from the SEC and lawsuits from its customers.

What is a Broker?

Because the Exchange Act does not define what it means to be “engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities,” the SEC and the courts have typically relied on a variety of factors, including whether the person:

  • Is employed by the issuer
  • Receives a commission rather than a salary
  • Sells securities for others
  • Participates in negotiations between the issuer and an investor, g., helps with sales presentations
  • Provides advice on the merits of the investment
  • Actively (rather than passively) finds investors

More recently, in court cases and in responses to requests for no-action letters, the SEC seems to be moving toward a more aggressive position:  that if a person receives a commission she’s a broker and must be registered as such, end of story.

So far, courts are rejecting the SEC’s hard-line approach. In a 2011 case called SEC v. Kramer, the court stated:

[T]he Commission’s proposed single-factor “transaction-based compensation” test for broker activity (i.e., a person ‘engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the accounts of others’) is an inaccurate statement of the law. . . . . an array of factors determine the presence of broker activity. In the absence of a statutory definition enunciating otherwise, the test for broker activity must remain cogent, multi-faceted, and controlled by the Exchange Act.

As reassuring as that statement sounds, it was made by a District Court, not a Court of Appeals and certainly not the Supreme Court. A District Court in a different part of the country might take the SEC’s side instead.

But I Know Someone Who. . . .

Yes, I know. There are lots of people out there selling securities, including tokens that are securities, and receiving commissions, and nothing bad happens to them.

There are so many of these people we have a name for them:  Finders. The securities industry, at least at the level of private placements, is permeated by Finders. I had a conversation with a guy who offered to raise money for my issuer client in exchange for a commission, and when I mentioned the Exchange Act he said “What are you talking about? I’ve been doing this for 25 years!”

I’m sure he has. The SEC would never say so publicly, but the reality is that where broker-dealer laws are concerned there are two worlds:  one, the world of large or public deals, where the SEC demands strict compliance; and the world of small, private deals, where the SEC looks the other way.

In my opinion, Crowdfunding offerings and ICOs fall in the “large or public deals” category, even though it’s hard to tell a Crowdfunding client they can’t do something the guy down the street is doing.

So What Can I Do?

If you’re selling securities in a Crowdfunding offering or an ICO, don’t hire that person who promises to go out and find investors in exchange for a commission, unless she’s a registered broker.

On the other hand, in an isolated case, if you know someone with five wealthy friends, who promises to introduce you to those friends, without participating in any sales presentations, you might be willing to offer a commission, relying on current law, as long as (1) you understand that a court might hold against you, adopting the SEC’s hard-line approach; and (2) you hire a securities lawyer to draft the contract.

The Future

Several years ago the SEC created an exemption for Finders in the mergers & acquisitions area. I am far from alone in suggesting that we need a similar exemption for Finders in non-public offerings. The current situation, where a substantial part of the securities industry operates in a legal Twilight Zone, is not tenable as online capital raising becomes the norm rather than the exception.

Questions? Let me know.