Category: SEC

How To Do It Wrong In Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, SECLeave a comment

Missed chancesAn SEC enforcement order came across my desk that illustrates how to operate a Crowdfunding portal if you want to meet people who work for the government. The order, with names removed, is available here.

As a preface, everything I know about this portal comes from the SEC’s enforcement order. It is possible that the SEC’s allegations are false – even though the portal agreed to a settlement, without admitting wrongdoing – and that the portal actually was in full compliance with all applicable laws.

With that said, here’s what the portal did, or is alleged to have done:

  • In May 2013, before “general solicitation” was legal, it established a website that listed investments for anyone to see, i.e., not behind a firewall.
  • Although the site included a disclaimer that investments were not available to U.S. persons, the portal did not take steps – for example, using IP addresses – to enforce this rule. In fact, more than 50 individuals who listed the U.S. as their place of residence were allowed to register, and several actually invested.
  • The portal allowed at least some of the U.S. investors to self-certify that they were “accredited investors,” without even explaining what that meant.
  • The portal charged a commission for raising capital without being registered as a broker-dealer.

The violations alleged by the SEC do not fall within an ambiguous gray area. They are just flat-out over the line. And note the timing: May 2013, after the no-action letters to FundersClub and AngelList, in which the SEC gave the world a road map for legal Crowdfunding.

I can only guess this portal was represented by one of my competitors. 🙂

That’s a joke, of course. Much more likely, the company wasn’t represented by anybody and just did what seemed to make sense, without knowing they were violating anything.

The portal was incorporated and operated offshore. Nevertheless, it was subject to U.S. securities laws because it solicited U.S. investors.

Fortunately, everything this company wanted to do can be done legally and at a very low cost. If you want to raise money exclusively offshore, then exclude U.S. investors. If you want to raise money from the U.S. and offshore, use Regulation S. If you’re raising money from U.S. investors use VerifyInvestor.com or Crowdentials to verify they’re accredited. If you’re going to charge a commission use an online broker-dealer. If you want to allow investors to self-certify, then use Rule 506(b) and hide your deals behind a firewall. Spend just a little money on a lawyer and stay off the SEC’s Christmas card list.

Questions? Let me know.

New Domain Extensions Become Available

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Domains, JOBS Act, SEC, Securities Exchange CommissionLeave a comment

Crowdfunding Image - XXXL - iStock_000037694192XXXLargeWe started with .COM. Then .NET, .EDU, .INFO, .ORG, and a handful of others. But we’re about to be flooded with new domain extensions, more than a thousand of them.

In the world of finance, we’re going to have .BANK, .BROKER, .CAPITAL, .FUND, .INVESTMENTS, and .FINANCE. In the world of food we’re about to have .FOOD, .EAT, .GROCERY and .KITCHEN. You get the idea.

The flood of new extensions offers opportunity and challenge. Maybe the .FUND extension would work great for your new Crowdfunding portal. On the other hand, maybe you’re already using portal.com and now you have to worry about a competitor using portal.fund (Hint: a different domain extension doesn’t give a competitor the right to violate your trademark).

Some of the new extensions are already available, while the rest are coming soon. For a complete list and to register, go to a registrar website such as http://www.Godaddy.com.

Questions? Let me know.

The Next Big Thing In Crowdfunding: Pooled Assets

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Entrepreneurs, Investing, JOBS Act, SEC, Title II CrowdfundingLeave a comment

September 23rd marks the first anniversary of Title II Crowdfunding. The number of portals has grown exponentially but most or all portals continue to offer investments in single deals, e.g., an apartment building in Austin. Before long, I believe the market will shift to investments in pools of assets. Rather than the single apartment building in Austin, a portal will list a pool of 20 apartment buildings in the Southwest.

Accredited or not, very few individual investors have the knowledge or experience to invest in individual deals. And based on the stock market, most individual investors don’t want to. Individuals have historically preferred mutual funds over individual stocks; a mutual fund is just a form of pooled assets.

An investor can create his own pool, investing $5,000 in each of 20 apartment buildings rather than $100,000 in a single property. On Prosper or Lending Club, I bet most investors participate in multiple loans.

But that doesn’t give consumers quite what they want. What they want is a fund manager, someone who will choose the 20 apartment buildings and also decide when to sell them. A stock market investor who wanted to creat her own pool could buy 20 individual stocks, but instead she buys a mutual fund.

Do Crowdfunding investors view the portals themselves as mutual funds? Maybe investors expect Fundrise, Patch of Land, Wealth Migrate, or iFunding to play the role of the mutual fund manager, selecting only deals worthy of investment. On the advice of counsel, every portal tries hard to disclaim that legal responsibility, but maybe investors ignore the disclaimers, looking for a “brand” for investing.

I certainly expect portals to start offering asset pools. I’ll go out on a limb and say the first portal offering curated pools will have a great competitive advantage, and I’ll go further and say that Crowdfunding won’t reach its potential until pooled asset investments are widely available.

Pooling assets makes things a bit more complicated and a bit more expensive: more legal rules come into play; you have to think harder about giving investors liquidity; and, most important, you have to pay someone to make investment decisions and take the legal risk. But that’s where the market is headed.

Questions? Let me know.

What Can I Show On My Site, To Whom, And When?

On By crowdfundattnyIn AngelList, FundersClub, Investing, Investor, JOBS Act, Rule 506(b), Rule 506(c), SECLeave a comment

The SEC no-action letters issued to FundersClub and AngelList early in 2013 created some confusion around the deal-specific information that can be shown to prospective investors. Let’s try to clear that up.

Rule 506(b) Deals

You cannot show your Rule 506(b) deals to just anyone browsing the Internet, because that would be “general solicitation and advertising,” which is permitted under Rule 506(c) but still prohibited under Rule 506(b). If you’re a real estate portal, you can say “We have great real estate deals on our site,” but you can’t say “Look at this multi-family rental project in Austin.”

Both FundersClub and AngelList hid their deals behind a firewall. A user couldn’t see the deals until he registered at the site and promised he was accredited. In the 2013 no-action letters the SEC approved this arrangement, sort of.

I say “sort of” for three reasons:

  • The two no-action letters weren’t actually about registering users. They were about whether FundersClub and AngelList had to register as broker-dealers. Nowhere do the no-action letters say “We agree that, because you hide your deals behind firewalls, you’re not engaged in prohibited general solicitation and advertising.”
  • The no-action letters were issued by the Division of Trading and Markets within the SEC, not the Division of Corporation Finance. Typically, the Division of Corporation Finance would deal with so-called “exempt offerings” (offerings that are exempt from the general registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933), of which general solicitation is a part.
  • Most intriguingly, the no-action letters aren’t exactly consistent with prior SEC rulings dealing with the online solicitation of customers, specifically the IPONET rulings in 2000. Those rulings assumed that the person doing the online solicitation was a registered broker-dealer; by definition, FundersClub and AngelList were not broker-dealers.

As a result, we can’t be 100% certain that the SEC, if asked point blank, would approve those arrangements from the perspective of general solicitation and advertising.

Nevertheless, the no-action letters were issued and the Crowdfunding industry has adopted the FundersClub and AngelList model: if you’re doing Rule 506(b) deals, you put the actual deals behind a registration firewall.

Once an investor registers at your site he can see the deals, but he can’t invest in them. In a series of no-action letters issued long before the JOBS Act, the SEC established that once an investor has become a customer, he has to wait before investing – the so-called “cooling off period.”

Some sites today are using a 21 day cooling off period, presumably because Title III incorporates a 21 day cooling off period. But the Title III rule is irrelevant to Rule 506(b). Thirty days is probably better, although, again, the notion of a cooling off period comes from SEC rulings, not a statute.

One more twist: at the end of the cooling off period, your investor can invest only in new deals, not deals that were on the site when he registered.

Rule 506(c) Deals

Rule 506(c) is far simpler. If you are doing only Rule 506(c) deals, you can show anything to anyone anytime.

Using Rule 506(c), you can show every detail of every deal to every casual viewer, even before the viewer has registered at your site. If you think that’s a bad idea from a marketing perspective or because you’re trying to protect confidential information, no problem. You don’t have to show all the details on your home page, but you can.

You can also make users register before they can see deals, just like Rule 506(b). If you take that route, you can ask users whether they’re accredited when they register, as you would under Rule 506(b), but you don’t have to ask. You can let everyone see the deals, accredited and non-accredited alike.

If you ask whether users are accredited – because you think it’s a good idea from a marketing perspective – that doesn’t mean you have to stop non-accredited investors at the door. Non-accredited investors can see the deals, too. Maybe they’ll tell their accredited friends.

Suppose a user tells you she’s accredited when she registers. Can you take her word for it? At that point in the process, absolutely! We don’t want to spend money or time on verification yet, and we don’t want to create transactional friction where we don’t have to.

With Rule 506(c), there is only one critical moment: when your investor is ready to write a check. At that point you must verify that she’s accredited, not merely by asking her but by looking at her tax returns, or getting a letter from her lawyer, or, most likely, having her verified by a third party service like VerifyInvestors or Crowdentials.

There’s no cooling off period with Rule 506(c), either. Your investors can see all the deals and invest right away.

Have I mentioned before that Rule 506(c) is better for Crowdfunding?

Questions? Let me know.

Crowdfunding To Foreign Investors Through Regulation S

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Regulation S, SEC, Securities Exchange CommissionLeave a comment

crowdfunding_investorMost portal operators think sooner or later about raising money from foreign investors. SEC Regulation S offers a convenient mechanism to do just that.

Regulation S allows a U.S. company to sell debt or equity securities to foreign investors under the following conditions:

  • The issuer must reasonably believe that the investors are offshore.
  • The issuer may not engage in any “direct selling efforts” in the U.S.
  • For debt securities, sales to U.S. persons are prohibited for 40 days. For equity securities, the period is increased to one year.
  • Various legends and Bylaw provisions are required to enforce the prohibition on U.S. sales.

(Careful readers will note that none of these requirements is geared toward protecting the foreign investors. Instead, all of the requirements are geared toward ensuring the the securities are sold only to foreigners. As a U.S. regulatory agency, the SEC simply has no jurisdictional mandate to protect foreign investors.)

Three features make Regulation S especially useful for Crowdfunding portals and issuers:

  • A Regulation S offering may be conducted using general solicitation and advertisement, i.e., through Crowdfunding.
  • A Regulation S offering to foreign investors may be conducted concurrently with a Regulation D offering to U.S. investors, even for the same securities.
  • Under Regulation S, the issuer can be indifferent as to whether foreign investors are accredited.

That’s not the end of it, of course. Other countries have their own securities laws and their own SEC’s, and a U.S. issuer must comply with those rules as well.

Questions? Let me know.

Update On Accredited Investor Definition

On By crowdfundattnyIn Accredited Investor, Crowdfunding, Investor, JOBS Act, SEC, UncategorizedLeave a comment

I wrote to my close friend Mary Jo White, the Chair of the SEC, urging that the SEC expand, rather than restrict, the definition of accredited investor. My letter is here.

SEC letter_Roderick

Questions? Let me know.

Title III And The Evolution Of Business Law

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Entrepreneurs, JOBS Act, SECLeave a comment

I’m not optimistic about Title III for the usual reason:  I think the cost of complying with the statute will prove too high. I’ve even proposed my own fix to the statute. But there are plenty of smart people who think otherwise, including Ron Miller of StartEngine, and ultimately opinions don’t matter. The market will decide whether Title III can work in its current form.

The SEC proposed regulations last October 23rd and the comment period ended long ago. Rather than wait for the statute to improve, I’m ready for the SEC to consider the comments, make changes to the proposed rules as it sees fit, finalize the regulations, and let the market do its job.

Whatever the defects of current Title III, and there are many, chances are they will be fixed over time. Time after time, almost from the beginning of time, the legal system has responded to the needs of the business community. Examples:

  • Hundreds of years ago, governments created corporations in direct response to the need of traders and investors to limit liability on foreign adventures.
  • With the advent of income taxes in the 20th century, business people had to choose between the limited liability of a corporation and the pass-thru tax treatment of a general partnership. But not for long. Soon legislatures created limited partnerships and S corporations, providing the best of both worlds.
  • When defects were discovered in limited partnerships and S corporation – for example, the risk that limited partners could face unlimited liability – legislators fixed them and fixed them until, lo and behold, Wyoming created an even better entity, the limited liability company we all know and use today (which, in turn, has already been improved).
  • Private placements have always been legal, regulated by the SEC through no-action letters and other guidance. But the private placement market needed clear rules. Hence, Regulation D in 1982. And now Title II of the JOBS Act has improved Regulation D by adding Rule 506(c).
  • Since I have been practicing law (less than a century) the corporate laws of most jurisdictions, including Delaware, have improved dramatically, as state legislatures respond to the needs of businesses large and small.

There are two things you never want to see being made:  sausage and law. But over time, commercial laws do change, usually for the better. If Wyoming can invent limited liability companies, surely we and our Federal government can improve Title III as the need becomes apparent.

So with malice toward none, with charity toward all, let’s stop debating whether Title III can work and let the market figure it out.

Questions? Let me know.

A Constructive Approach To Accredited Investor Definition

On By crowdfundattnyIn Accredited Investor, Crowdfunding, Dodd-Frank Act, JOBS Act, SECLeave a comment

crowdfunding_investorSection 413(b) of Title IV of the Dodd-Frank Act allows the SEC to evaluate the current definition of “accredited investor,” which has been in place since 1982, and to revisit the issue at four year intervals. As the SEC deliberates, alarm bells are sounding in the industry, warning that a new definition could destroy not only the nascent Crowdfunding industry but the entire ecosystem around private capital formation.

Though well-intended, these warnings are misguided, in my opinion.

If the SEC indexed the existing definition to the CPI over the last 32 years, leading to an income threshold of about $500,000 and a net worth threshold of about $2.5 million, the effect would indeed be devastating, with only star athletes and Google employees allowed to invest. However, I see no reason to believe the SEC has anything like that in mind, for several reasons:

  • The SEC could have changed the definition on its own initiative at any time over the last 32 years but hasn’t.
  • Not only has the SEC not changed the definition, it has never expressed any particular concern with Rule 506, where most private placements take place.
  • Most important, the Dodd-Frank Act instructs the SEC to modify the definition “as the Commission may deem appropriate for the protection of investors, in the public interest, and in light of the economy.” In my own extensive but necessarily anecdotal experience, I have seen no evidence that the current income or net worth requirements fail to protect investors or, for that matter, that they are particularly relevant to protecting invesors. In the absence of widespread problems, there is simply no reason to make the definition more stringent than it is today and, given the Congressional mandate to keep one eye on the economy – that is, on the economic benefits of making capital available – there are probably stronger reasons to relax the current definition.

According to the Chairman of the SEC, Mary Jo White, the SEC is considering a more nuanced definition of accredited investor, one that takes into account not just income and net worth but also financial sophistication. That sounds right to me.

For now, the best way to help the SEC adopt a sensible definition of accredited investor is to provide real data. If you have reliable information about the incidence of fraud in private placements, for example, or about the correlation (or lack thereof) between financial sophistication and annual income, the SEC would love to see it. Feel free to send it to me and I will forward it.

In the meantime, don’t worry. . . .too much.

Questions? Let me know.

Investor Verification: Questions & Answers from The SEC

On By crowdfundattnyIn Investor, Investor Verification, Rule 501(a)(5), SEC, Securities Exchange CommissionLeave a comment

The SEC recently issued four questions and answers dealing with investor verification.

Question #1

If a purchaser’s annual income is not reported in U.S. dollars, what exchange rate should an issuer use to determine whether the purchaser’s income meets the income test for qualifying as an accredited investor?

Answer: The issuer may use either the exchange rate that is in effect on the last day of the year for which income is being determined or the average exchange rate for that year.

Question #2

Can assets in an account or property held jointly with another person who is not the purchaser’s spouse be included in determining whether the purchaser satisfies the net worth test in Rule 501(a)(5)?

Answer: Yes, assets in an account or property held jointly with a person who is not the purchaser’s spouse may be included in the calculation for the net worth test, but only to the extent of his or her percentage ownership of the account or property. [July 3, 2014]

Question #3

Rule 506(c)(2)(ii)(A) sets forth a non-exclusive method of verifying that a purchaser is an accredited investor by, among other things, reviewing any Internal Revenue Service form that reports the purchaser’s income for the “two most recent years.” If such an Internal Revenue Service form is not yet available for the recently completed year (e.g., 2013), can the issuer still rely on this verification method by reviewing the Internal Revenue Service forms for the two prior years that are available (e.g., 2012 and 2011)?

Answer: No, the verification safe harbor provided in Rule 506(c)(2)(ii)(A) would not be available under these circumstances. We believe, however, that an issuer could reasonably conclude that a purchaser is an accredited investor and satisfy the verification requirement of Rule 506(c) under the principles-based verification method by:

  • Reviewing the Internal Revenue Service forms that report income for the two years preceding the recently completed year; and
  • Obtaining written representations from the purchaser that (i) an Internal Revenue Service form that reports the purchaser’s income for the recently completed year is not available, (ii) specify the amount of income the purchaser received for the recently completed year and that such amount reached the level needed to qualify as an accredited investor, and (iii) the purchaser has a reasonable expectation of reaching the requisite income level for the current year.

Where the issuer has reason to question the purchaser’s claim to be an accredited investor after reviewing these documents, it must take additional verification measures in order to establish that it has taken reasonable steps to verify that the purchaser is an accredited investor. For example, if, based on this review, the purchaser’s income for the most recently completed year barely exceeded the threshold required, the foregoing procedures might not constitute sufficient verification and more diligence might be necessary.

Question #4

A purchaser is not a U.S. taxpayer and therefore cannot provide an Internal Revenue Service form that reports income. Can an issuer review comparable tax forms from a foreign jurisdiction in order to rely on the verification method provided in Rule 506(c)(2)(ii)(A)?

Answer: No, the verification safe harbor provided in Rule 506(c)(2)(ii)(A) would not be available under these circumstances. In adopting this safe harbor, the Commission noted that there are “numerous penalties for falsely reporting information” in Internal Revenue Service forms. See Securities Act Release No. 33-9415 (July 10, 2013). Although the safe harbor is not available for tax forms from foreign jurisdictions, we believe that an issuer could reasonably conclude that a purchaser is an accredited investor and satisfy the verification requirement of Rule 506(c) under the principles-based verification method by reviewing filed tax forms that report income where the foreign jurisdiction imposes comparable penalties for falsely reported information.

Where the issuer has reason to question the reliability of the information about the purchaser’s income after reviewing these documents, it must take additional verification measures in order to establish that it has taken reasonable steps to verify that the purchaser is an accredited investor.

The Takeaway

The lesson is that issuers and portals should not try to verify investors on their own. Leave that to a third party service like Crowdentials or VerifyInvestor – they keep track of these rules so you won’t have to.

Questions? Let me know.

The Federal Basis For Intra-State Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Intra-State Crowdfunding, JOBS Act, SEC, SEC Rule 147, Title III, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

Texas is the latest of a half dozen states to propose an intra-state Crowdfunding law. Typically, these laws allow issuers to raise money from non-accredited investors, even before Title III of the JOBS Act comes into effect, as long as all the investors are residents of the state in question and the offering satisfies requirements that vary from state to state.

At the Austin event, an audience member asked a very good question: If I comply with the Texas law, do I also have to comply with a Federal law? The answer is a qualified Yes.

Federal law begins with the proposition that securities may not be issued unless registered under the Securities Act of 1933. However, section 3(a)(11) of the Act provides an exemption for:

Any security which is a part of an issue offered and sold only to persons resident within a single State or Territory, where the issuer of such security is a person resident and doing business within or, if a corporation, incorporated by and doing business within, such State or Territory.

Thus, Federal law includes an exemption for some purely intrastate offerings.

SEC Rule 147 (17 CFR 230.147) provides a “safe harbor” under section 3(a)(11). Where all the conditions of Rule 147 are satisfied, the SEC will assume that the offering is exempt from Federal registration:

  • The issuer may neither offer nor issue any securities within the six month period before the first offer or sale of the intrastate offering nor within six months after the last offer or sale of the intrastate offering.
  • The issuer must be incorporated in the state where the offering is made. (Caution: Many lawyers use Delaware entities as a matter of course. Unless you’re in Delaware, don’t.)
  • At least 80% of the issuer’s revenues must come from business within the state.
  • At least 80% of the issuer’s assets must be located in the state.
  • At least 80% of the money raised in the offering must be used in the state.
  • All of the investors in the offering must be residents of the state.
  • While the offering is being conducted and for nine months thereafter, all resales must be to state residents.
  • The issuer must place a legend on stock certificates referencing these restrictions, and take other steps to ensure that the offering remains intrastate only.

Rule 147 is just a “safe harbor.” An intrastate offering that does not satisfy all of these conditions might still qualify for the statutory exemption under section 3(a)(11), depending on all the facts.

Some State Crowdfunding exemptions, Texas included, require that that the issuer satisfies Rule 147. In those States, by definition, an issuer that satisfies the requirements of the State exemption satisfies the Federal requirements as well. In other States, an issuer that dots all the I’s and crosses all the T’s of an intrastate Crowdfunding offering has a very good chance of qualifying under the Federal statutory exemption as well, even if the State exemption does not refer to Rule 147 explicitly.

That’s why the answer is a qualified Yes. An issuer that complies with the Crowdfunding rules of a State still has to qualify for the Federal exemption, but that shouldn’t be hard.

Questions? Let me know.