Category: Title II Crowdfunding

Title II Needs Company

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Entrepreneurs, Fundrise, Title II, Title II CrowdfundingLeave a comment

Statue of Lib CF_Purchased

Title II Crowdfunding is great, and it’s booming. For the first time in history entrepreneurs have access to every accredited investor in the world, and every accredited investor in the world has access to deals once reserved for the very wealthy. New Crowdfunding portals – I call them “stores” – are opening all the time, serving more and wider markets. The stores are growing in sophistication and attracting a growing number of customers, i.e., investors. Register with Fundrise and you can invest in 3 World Trade Center!

But as long as Crowdfunding remains limited to Title II, it’s not going to achieve its potential. And that’s not only, not even primarily, because allowing non-accredited investors to participate would deepen the pool of available capital.

It’s not primarily about capital, but about the Crowdfunding ecosystem. Accredited investors represent a small fraction of Americans. Open the ecosystem to another 100 million potential investors and everything changes. Awareness changes. New ideas are borne and flourish. New businesses are created that wouldn’t have been created otherwise. New experts come into the field, new business models are tested. Behavior and expectations change.

I’m sure there are better and more sophisticated ways to describe what happens when more people join an ecosystem. Maybe things like “network effects” and “information feedback loops.”

Whatever it’s called, we need non-accredited investors in the market for Crowdfunding to achieve its potential. To get non-accredited investors into the market we need the SEC to issue final regulations under Title III and Title IV, and for that to happen it looks as if we’re going to need urging from the Legislative branch.

If you have a moment and the inclination, please click on the link below to find the names and email addresses of your Congressman and Senators, and drop them an email. I’ve included a sample form but of course feel free to create your own.

Title II has been lonely for too long!

Find My Congressman and Senators

Sample Email

Questions? Let me know.

Do The Officers Of A Crowdfunding Issuer Have To Register As Broker-Dealers?

On By crowdfundattnyIn Broker-Dealer, Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Laws, Title II CrowdfundingLeave a comment

thinking woman in jarToday, the most challenging legal question in Title II Crowdfunding is who is required to be a broker-dealer and under what circumstances. The question is most acute for the officers of an issuer, those who direct the issuer’s activities and put the offerings together.

Section 3(a)(4)(A) of the Securities and Exchange Act 1934 generally defines “broker” to mean “any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for others.” Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act makes it illegal for any “broker. . . .to effect any transactions in, or to induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of, any security” unless registered with the SEC.

Simply put, anybody in the business of effecting securities transactions for others must be registered. There is a lot of law around what it means to be “engaged in the business of effecting securities transactions for others.” Based on decided cases and SEC announcements, important factors include:

  • The frequency of the transactions.
  • Whether the individual‘s responsibilities include structuring the transaction, identifying and soliciting potential investors, advising investors on the merits of the investment, participating in the order-taking process, and other services critical to the offering.
  • Whether the individual receives commissions or other transaction-based compensation for her efforts.

Perhaps the most important rule is that the issuer itself – the entity that actually issues the stock – does not have to register as a broker-dealer. The logic is that the issuer is effecting the transaction for itself, not for others.

But what about the President of the issuer, and the Vice President, and all the other employees who send the mailings and put the deal on the website and answer questions from prospective investors? Are they required to register as – or, more accurately, become affiliated with – broker-dealers?

The answer is complicated.

SEC Rule 3a4-1, issued under the Exchange Act, provides a “safe harbor” from registration. Under Rule 3a4-1, an employee of an issuer will not have to register if she is not compensated by commissions, and EITHER:

Her duties are limited to:

  • Preparing any written communication or delivering such communication through the mails or other means that does not involve oral solicitation of a potential purchaser, as long as the content of all such communications are approved by a partner, officer or director of the issuer; or
  • Responding to inquiries of a potential purchaser in a communication initiated by the potential purchaser, as long as her response is limited to providing information contained in an offering statement; or
  • Performing ministerial and clerical work.

OR

  • She performs substantial services other than in connection with offerings; and
  • She has not been a broker-dealer within the preceding 12 months; and
  • She does not participate in more than one offering per year, except for offerings where her duties are limited as described above.

Consider the President of the typical Title II portal offering borrower-dependent notes to accredited investors. Her duties are certainly not limited as described above, and she might participate in – actually direct – dozens of offerings per year. Does that mean she has to register as a broker-dealer?

Not necessarily. Rule 3a4-1 is only a safe harbor. If you satisfy the requirements of Rule 3a4-1 then you are automatically okay, i.e., you don’t have to register. But if you don’t satisfy the requirements of Rule 3a4-1, it doesn’t automatically mean you are required to register. Instead, it means your obligation to register will be determined under the large body of law developed by the SEC and courts over the last 80 years.

Courts and the SEC have identified these primary factors among others:

  • The duties of the employee before she became affiliated with the issuer. Was she a broker-dealer?
  • Whether she was hired for the specific purpose of participating in the offerings.
  • Whether she has substantial duties other than participating in the offerings.
  • How she is paid, and in particular whether she receives commission for raising capital.
  • Whether she intends to remain employed by the portal when the offering is finished.

Within the last couple years, a high-ranking lawyer in the SEC spoke publicly but informally about broker-dealer registration in the context of private funds, an area similar to Crowdfunding in some respects. He expressed concern at the way that some funds market interests to investors and suggested that some in-house marketing personnel might be required to register. At the same time, he suggested that an “investor relations” group within a private fund – individuals who spend some of their time soliciting investors – wouldn’t necessarily be required to register if the individuals spend the majority of their time on activities that do not involve solicitation. On one point he was quite clear: the SEC believes that if an individual receives commissions for capital raised, he or she should probably be registered.

Whether an officer or other employee of a Crowdfunding issuer must register as a broker-dealer will be highly sensitive to the facts; change the facts a little and you might get a different answer. With that caveat, I offer these general guidelines:

  • If an employee receives commissions, he has to register no matter what.
  • If an employee performs solely clerical functions, he does not have to register.
  • If an employee participates in only a handful of offerings, he does not have to register.
  • If an employee spends only a small portion of his time soliciting investors, he does not have to register.
  • If an employee advises investors on the merits of an investment, he’s walking close to the line. Describing facts, especially facts that are already available in an offering document or online, in response to an investor inquiry, doesn’t count as advising investors on the merits of an investment.

Here are two corollaries to those guidelines.

  • As long as he’s not paying himself commissions, the Founder and CEO of an issuer that is a bona fide operating company (not merely a shell to raise money) doesn’t have to register.
  • If the CEO hires Janet to solicit investors, and that’s all Janet does, and she speaks regularly with investors over the phone and helps them decide between Project A and Project B, the SEC is probably going to want Janet to be registered.

Of course, the most conservative approach for Crowdfunding issuers to run every transaction through a licensed broker-dealer. However, that adds cost and most issuers are trying to keep costs down.

This area is ripe for guidance from the SEC, and maybe even a new exemption for bona fide employees of small issuers. Stay tuned.

NOTE: I want to give a shout-out to Rich Weintraub, Esq. of Weintraub Law Group in San Diego. He and I had several very stimulating and thought-provoking conversations on this topic. If there are mistakes in the post, they’re all mine.

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.

Austin Roundup

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding Real Estate, Crowdfunding Speaking Engagements, JOBS Act, Speaking Engagements, Title II, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III Crowdfunding, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Austin cityscapeHats off to the folks at Coastal Shows for making the Austin event – officially the CFGE Crowdfund Real Estate Summit – the best Crowdfunding event ever.

The event featured the leading players in the industry:

Title III of the JOBS Act may be flawed, and the final rules for Regulation A+ may be long overdue, but the speakers and panelists agree that Crowdfunding is here to stay, with Title II leading the way. Two days before the conference began, Fundrise raised $31 million of capital in a Series A round of financing. That served as a very useful background, illuminating the potential of a market that promises to transform the U.S. capital formation industry.

Over coffee during the day and beer in the evening, I spoke with dozens of real estate developers and entrepreneurs. Their message came through loud and clear: We’re tired of dealing exclusively with our traditional sources of capital and are eager to raise money through Crowdfunding channels.

Developers are eager for new sources of capital, and individual investors are eager to participate in a market that, until now, has been reserved for institutions and the very wealthy. That’s Crowdfunding, in a nutshell.

What happens in Vegas might stay in Vegas, but what happened in Austin is going to spread across the country. Thanks for a great event, Coastal Shows.

PPM Or No PPM: That Is The Question

On By crowdfundattnyIn JOBS Act, PPM, Private Placement Memorandum, Regulation D offerings, Title II, Title II CrowdfundingLeave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions? Let me know.

Marc Andreessen On The Future Of Title II Crowdfunding Portals (Sort Of)

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Articles, Crowdfunding Portals, New York Times, Title II CrowdfundingLeave a comment

On the Technology page of yesterday’s New York Times, Nick Bilton reports on an interview with famed tech guru Marc Andreessen.

Mr. Bilton asks Mr. Andreesen, can other cities compete with Silicon Valley?

“In Mr. Andreessen’s view, there shouldn’t be 50 Silicon Valleys. Instead, there should be 50 different kinds of Silicon Valley. For example, there could be Biotech Valley, a Stem Cell Valley, a   3-D Printing Valley or a Drone Valley.”

A different “Valley,” each specializing in a different vertical, with its own ecosystem of entrepreneurs, favorite tweetinvestors, and experts. I believe Title II Crowdfunding portals, now in their infancy, will develop in exactly the same way.

Carve out a niche vertical. Attract investors looking to place bets on the top companies in that vertical. Find the companies. Create the ecosystem.

Mr. Andreessen was talking about real cities, not virtual cities. But in my opinion the point is exactly the same.

 

A Downpour Of #CrowdfundingRealEstate Advice And Ideas

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Real Estate, Entrepreneurs, Harvard Business School Club of New York, Investing, JOBS Act, Real Estate, SEC, Securities Exchange Commission, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

Thank you to the panelists and audience members who braved a biblical downpour to attend the SOLD OUT Harvard Business School Club Innovations in Real Estate: Crowdfund Investing program last night at the UJA Federation of NY Conference Center. Former New York Governor David Paterson kicked off the evening with his typical wit and insight before our panel of Crowdfunding industry experts shared their experiences and knowledge with an extremely engaged and thoughtful audience.

Our panelists:

  • Jason Fritton of Patch of Land and William Skelley of iFunding, two of the earliest Crowdfunding innovators and most successful Title II portals
  • Elvin Ames of Golden Eye Investments and Erin Wicomb of Mavrix Group, two experienced and successful real estate developers who have recently turned to Crowdfunding to raise capital
  • Scott Lichtman, a real estate investor who has himself invested in Crowdfunded deals and did a super job putting the conference together

Thus, all sides the Crowdfunding triangle were represented: portals, developers, and investors. And Jason, William, Elvin, Erin, and Scott – not to mention Governor Paterson – acquitted themselves with flying colors, demonstrated why they have been so successful generally and specifically why they have been leaders in Crowdfunding.

Some of the issues discussed:

  • The build-out of the Title II portal market, and how it is likely to segment into verticals
  • How portals successfully distinguish themselves
  • What investors look for in a portal and a project sponsor
  • The legal basis for Crowdfunding, and its significance in the marketplace
  • Why Crowdfunding is attractive to developers
  • How portals can participate in community development and “do well by doing good”
  • How portals market and price their services
  • How developers distinguish their projects
  • What due diligence means in a Crowdfunded environment

Judging by the number and quality of questions from the audience following the presentation, there are likely a few dozen more Crowdfunding entrepreneurs this morning than there were yesterday. Including one statistician, who asked about the standard deviation of Crowdfunding investments.

Thanks again to everyone. I hope to stay in touch with all of you. Questions? Let me know.

There Is A Future For Title II Portals

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Portals, JOBS Act, Title II CrowdfundingLeave a comment

Imagine that!

CircleUp just raised an additional $14 million of capital (for itself, not for its portfolio companies) and RealtyMogul an additional $9 million.

Both of these Title II portals were early to the starting gate and RealtyMogul was the first portal to recognize the value in segmenting the market, i.e., limiting itself to real estate. Given that Crowdfunding represents the most significant change in the U.S. capital markets since the Great Depression, with the potential to channel a river of capital through Title II portals, it is not surprising that investors would be keen on the prospects of these two market leaders.

CircleUp, RealtyMogul, and a handful of others saw the opportunity early and, more important, have successfully executed their business plans. At the same time, these new investments likely are as much about the potential of theTitle II market as much as they are about individual companies.

In an industry as young as Crowdfunding, the term “market leader” doesn’t mean as much as it does in a mature industry. When Title II became legal on September 23, 2013, just six months ago, it was as if millions acres of vacant land were suddenly opened for development. The names CircleUp and RealtyMogul are deservedly well-known among the cognoscenti, but far from household names. You might say that the market leaders of today have staked claims but that the malls and office buildings and skyscrapers are yet to be built.

To me, it seems reasonable that within 10 years at least one Title II portal will be large enough to buy Morgan Stanley. And business being business, the chances are that this portal has yet to be formed.

There are at least two lessons from these new investments.

The obvious lesson is that it’s a great time to create and develop Title II portals.

The less obvious lesson is that creating a successful Title II portal takes real money. CircleUp and RealtyMogul don’t need $23 million of new capital to build websites. They are building businesses, building brand names, trying to stay on top of the Crowdfunding wave. To compete, others must do the same.

Questions? Let me know.

Legal Focus On Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Articles, Crowdfunding Portals, JOBS Act, SEC, Securities Exchange Commission, Securities Laws, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III Crowdfunding, Title IV of the JOBS ActLeave a comment

Lawyer Monthly magazine has been following Crowdfunding developments, along with the
business community and media. The attached interview highlights a couple of hot button points, including the benefits and common legal implications of Crowdfunding. Click here to read more.

legal focus on crowdfunding

Questions? Let me know.

Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet

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

Crowdfunding now comes in multiple flavors:

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

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

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

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

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

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE CROWDFUNDING CHEAT SHEET 

This is my takeaway from the chart:

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

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

 Questions? Contact Mark Roderick.