title III crowdfunding outline for portals and issuers

The Crowdfunding Bad Actor Rules Don’t Apply To Investors

On By crowdfundattnyIn 100 Investor Rule, Accredited Investor, Investor, Investor Disclosures, Reg CF, Regulation A, Rule 506, Title III, Title III Crowdfunding1 Comment

I often see Subscription Agreements asking the investor to promise she’s not a “bad actor.” This is unnecessary. The term “bad actor” comes from three sets of nearly indistinguishable rules:

  • 17 CFR §230.506(d), which applies to Rule 506 offerings;
  • 17 CFR §230.262, which applies to Regulation A offerings; and
  • 17 CFR §227.503, which applies to Reg CF offerings.

In each case, the regulation provides that the issuer can’t use the exemption in question (Rule 506, Regulation A, or Reg CF) if the issuer or certain people affiliated with the issuer have violated certain laws.

Before going further, I note that these aren’t just any laws – they are laws about financial wrongdoing, mostly in the area of securities. Kidnappers are welcome to use Rule 506, for example, while ax murderers may find Regulation A especially useful even while still in prison.

Anyway.

Reg CF’s Rule 503 lists everyone whose bad acts we care about:

  • The issuer;
  • Any predecessor of the issuer;
  • Any affiliated issuer;
  • Any director, officer, general partner or managing member of the issuer;
  • Any beneficial owner of 20 percent or more of the issuer’s outstanding voting equity securities, calculated on the basis of voting power;
  • Any promoter connected with the issuer in any capacity at the time of filing, any offer after filing, or such sale;
  • Any person that has been or will be paid (directly or indirectly) remuneration for solicitation of purchasers in connection with such sale of securities; and
  • Any general partner, director, officer or managing member of any such solicitor.

Nowhere on that list do you see “investor.” The closest we come is “Any beneficial owner of 20 percent or more of the issuer’s outstanding voting equity securities,” but even there the calculation is based on voting power. In a Crowdfunding offering you wouldn’t give an investor 20% of the voting power, for reasons having nothing to do with the bad actor rules. 

So it just doesn’t matter. This is one more thing we can pull out of Subscription Agreements. 

I know some people will say “But we want to know anyway.” To me this is unconvincing. If you don’t ask about kidnapping you don’t need to ask about securities violations.

Questions? Let me know.

Regulation A Resources for Crowdfunding

Updated Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet, Regulation CF, Regulation S, Rule 506(c), Title II, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III, Title III Crowdfunding, Title IV of the JOBS ActLeave a comment

I first posted this Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet in January of 2014. Since then the rules have continued to change and improve. So here’s the current version, up to date with all the new rules and also expanded to answer questions my clients ask. For example, I’ve added a column for Regulation S because many clients want to raise money from overseas while simultaneously raising money here in the U.S.

I hope this helps, especially those new to the world of Crowdfunding.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE UPDATED CROWDFUNDING CHEAT SHEET

Questions? Let me know.

how to get rid of artificially low targets in reg cf

Three Ways To Improve Reg CF

On By crowdfundattnyIn Reg CF, Title III Crowdfunding1 Comment

Reg CF is off and running, on its way to becoming the way most American companies raise capital. Still, there are three things that would improve the Reg CF market significantly.

Revise Financial Statement Requirements

Financial disclosures are at the heart of American securities laws, I understand. The best way to understand an established company is often to pore over its audited financial statements, footnotes and all.

But that’s just not true of most small companies, whether the micro-brewery on the corner or a new social media platform. For these companies, reviewed or audited statements yield almost no worthwhile information to prospective investors. Yet the cost of the statements and the time needed to create them are significant impediments in Reg CF.

In my opinion, the following financial disclosures would be more than adequate:

  • Copies of the issuer’s tax returns for the last two years;
  • Interim financial statements (profit and loss and balance sheet) from Quickbooks or other financial software, through the last day of the month before the offering is launched;
  • A separate statement of the issuers’ assets and liabilities in Form C;
  • An attestation from the Chief Executive Officer;
  • A statement in Form C describing where and how the issuer expects to derive revenue during the next 12 months (e.g., subscription fees, advertisements, rents, etc.);
  • Reviewed financial statements for offerings in excess of $1,235,000; and
  • No requirement for audited statements.

Conversely, I believe annual audited financial statements should be required after a successful raise.

Address Artificially Low Target Amounts

Artificially low target amounts are the worst thing about Reg CF, by a long shot.

In the common approach, a company that needs $750,000 to execute its business plan sets a target amount of $25,000.

The artificially low target works for both the platform and the company. If the company raises, say $38,000, then the platform receives a small commission and advertises a “successful” offering, while the company can at least defray its costs.

But investors have thrown their money away.

Artificially low target amounts are terrible for investors and terrible for the industry, in a vicious cycle. Nobody wants to throw money away, and with so many Reg CF offerings using artificially low target amounts many serious investors will simply stay away from the industry.

Speaking of the Vietnam war, John Kerry asked “Who wants to be the last man to die for a lie?” Here, the question is “Who wants to be the first to invest in a company that needs a lot more?”

The fix is pretty simple. Issuers should be required to disclose what significant business goal can be accomplished if the offering yields only the minimum offering amount or, if no significant business goal can be achieved, should be required to say so.

In the meantime, it’s pretty shocking that while many offerings use an artificially low target amount, very few disclose the enormous additional risk to early investors. That’s a lot of lawsuits waiting to happen.

More Automation for Issuers

Speaking of lawsuits waiting to happen. . .

Most platforms do a pretty good job automating the process with investors. With issuers not so much.

Instead, platforms interact with issuers through people. Theoretically the role of these people is simply to guide the issuer through a semi-automated process. In practice, however, they end up as all-purpose advisors, giving issuers advice about everything from the type of security the issuer should offer to the issuer’s corporate structure to whether an SPV should be used.

As nice and well-meaning as these people may be, they aren’t qualified to give all that advice. Too often they end up giving advice that is either incomplete or wrong, doing a disservice to issuers and creating an enormous potential liability for the platform.

It’s unrealistic to think the platform will staff a team of investment bankers and securities lawyers giving individual advice to each issuer. Instead, in my opinion, the solution is to do a much better job automating the issuer side of the platform. That’s easier said than done, I realize. I hope and expect that the software providers active in Reg CF can provide some industry-wide solutions.

Questions? Let me know.

SEC Increases Reg CF Limits

On By crowdfundattnyIn Regulation CF, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

Who says inflation is all bad? The SEC just published these new, inflation-adjusted limits and thresholds for Reg CF:

These changes are effective on September 20, 2022, even for offerings that are already live.

Questions? Let me know.

Kim Kardashian Fined For Promoting Crypto Without Disclosure

On By crowdfundattnyIn Cryptocurrencies, Promoting Crypto, Securities LawsLeave a comment

I was disappointed to learn that Kim Kardashian doesn’t read my blog posts, at least not all of them. With her hectic lifestyle she probably misses out on a lot of other fun stuff as well. Had Kim read my blog post on May 2, 2018 she would have known about section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933:

It shall be unlawful for any person. . . . to publish, give publicity to, or circulate any notice, circular, advertisement, newspaper, article, letter, investment service, or communication which, though not purporting to offer a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly, from an issuer, underwriter, or dealer, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof [italics added].

Kim was paid $250,000 to promote EMAX tokens to her 330 million Instagram followers. “ARE YOU GUYS INTO CRYPTO????” she wrote, including a link to Ethereum Max’s website. Whoops! By failing to disclose her compensation she violated section 17(b) and will now pay a $1.26 million fine to the SEC.

Sometimes it’s tempting to think of the SEC as all-powerful. In reality the SEC is a tiny agency compared with the size of the markets it regulates. Faced with a chronic shortage of resources, the SEC picks and chooses the cases to enforce, looking for easy cases with maximum visibility. Well, they couldn’t have asked for a better one. As of today another 330 million people know about section 17(b), almost doubling the number who knew from this blog.

Matt Damon, looking for a lawyer?

Questions? Let me know.

Think Twice Before Giving Crowdfunding Investors Voting Rights

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Investors, Investor, Investor DisclosuresLeave a comment

I attend church and think of myself as a kind person, yet I discourage issuers from giving investors voting rights. Here are a few reasons:

  • Lack of Ability:  Even if they go to church and are kind people, investors know absolutely nothing about running your business. If you assembled 20 representatives in a room and talked about running your business, you would (1) be amazed, and (2) understand why DAOs are such a bad idea.
  • Lack of Interest:  Investors invest because they want to make money and/or believe in you and your vision. They aren’t investing because they want to help run your business.
  • Irrelevant Motives:  Investors will have motives that have nothing to do with your business. For example, an investor who is very old or very ill might want to postpone a sale of the business to avoid paying tax on the appreciation.
  • Bad Motives:  Investors can even have bad motives. An unhappy investor might consciously try to harm your business or, God forbid, a competitor might accumulate shares in your company.
  • Lack of Information:  Investors will never have as much information about your business as you have. Even if they go to church, are kind to animals, and have your best interests at heart, they are unable to make the same good decisions you would.
  • Drain on Resources:  If you allow investors to vote you’ll have to spend lots of time educating them and trying to convince them to do what you think is best. Any time you spend educating investors is time you’re not spending managing your business.
  • Logistics:  Even in the digital age it’s a pain tabulating votes from thousands of people.
  • Mistakes:  When investors have voting rights you have to follow certain formalities. If you forget to follow them you’re cleaning up a mess.

I anticipate two objections:

  • First Objection:  VCs and other investors writing big checks get voting rights, so why shouldn’t Crowdfunding investors?
  • Second Objection:  Even if they don’t help run the business on a day-to-day basis, shouldn’t investors have the right to vote on big things like mergers or issuing new shares?

As to the first objection, the answer is not that Crowdfunding investors should get voting rights but that VCs and other large investors shouldn’t. The only reason we give large investors voting rights is they ask for them, and our system is called “capitalism.”

Before the International Venture Capital Association withdraws its invitation for next year’s keynote, I’m not saying VCs and other large investors don’t bring anything but money to the table. They can bring broad business experience and, perhaps most important, valuable connections. A non-voting Board of Advisors makes a lot of sense.

The second objection is a closer call. On balance, however, I think that for most companies most of the time it will be better for everyone if the founder retains flexibility.

To resolve disputes between the owners of a closely-held business we typically provide that one owner can buy the others out or even force a sale of the company. Likewise, while we don’t give Crowdfunding investors voting rights we should try to give them liquidity in one form or another, at least the right to sell their shares to someone else.

Give investors a good economic deal. Give them something to believe in. But don’t give them voting rights.

Questions? Let me know.

Proposed Changes To Taxation Of Carried Interests

On By crowdfundattnyIn JOBS Act, TaxLeave a comment

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 promises big changes to how America responds to global warming, aka climate change. But if enacted in its current form, it will also change how real estate sponsors and hedge fund managers are taxed on carried interests.

A “carried interest” or “promote” is what the sponsor gets for putting the deal together. In a typical hedge fund, the manager receives a 2% annual management fee plus 20% of the profits. In the syndication of an apartment building, the deal sponsor might receive 30% of the profits after investors have received a preferred return of 7% and all their money back. The 20% of the hedge fund manager and the 30% of the real estate sponsor are the “carried interest.”

For many years gains from carried interests were taxed as capital gains rather than ordinary income. This favorable tax treatment attracted widespread criticism, from Warren Buffett among others, and is often referred to derisively as the “carried interest loophole.”

As described here, section 1061 was added to the Internal Revenue Code to close, or at least narrow, the loophole. Under section 1061, gains from carried interests generally are treated as ordinary income if the interest is held less than three years. But in a loophole within a loophole, capital gain was preserved for most real estate syndications by excluding from section 1061 gains from the sale of property used in a trade or business, such as the ownership and operation of an apartment building.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 includes two important changes to section 1061. One, the three year holding period will be extended to five years. Two, the exception for property used in a trade or business will be eliminated.

As someone famous once said, one man’s loophole is another man’s castle (or something like that). For many real estate sponsors, the carried interest is the primary source of income: annual management fees pay the bills, but the carried interest sends the kids to college. Increasing the tax rate on the carried interest by 20 percentage points or more is not trivial.

The capital gain rate is still available if the property is held for five years, but many real estate projects contemplate shorter holding periods.

If the changes are enacted in their current form, I expect sponsors will adjust the economic deal with investors. Most likely, we will see the carried interest percentage increase from around 30% to around 50%, at least for transactions where the holding period will be less than five years. For that matter, we will probably see longer holding periods for both hedge funds and real estate, as the market adjusts.

Senator Sinema of Arizona is a longtime fan of the carried interest loophole and hasn’t yet weighed in on the Inflation Reduction Act. You can bet she’s getting lots of phone calls as we speak.

Questions? Let me know.

Improving Legal Documents In Crowdfunding: New Risk Factor For Supreme Court Ruling

On By crowdfundattnyIn CrowdfundingLeave a comment

It appears the Supreme Court is about to strike down Roe v. Wade, allowing states to regulate or outlaw abortion. Many states are poised to do so with varying degrees of severity. 

In his draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Alito states that the decision would not affect other rights, like the right to gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), the right to engage in homosexual relationships (Lawrence v. Texas), or the right to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut). In my opinion, you should take Justice Alito’s assurance with a large spoonful of salt.. Theoretically, all these cases rest on a constitutional right to privacy. If you knock that pillar down for one right it falls for all of them. On a practical level, Justice Alito himself voted against gay marriage and I have little doubt that there are at least five votes to overturn all these precedents.

Some states are already considering bans on contraception and surely challenges to gay marriage are close on the horizon.

When the COVID-19 pandemic swept the country, companies raising capital had to add one or more risk factor to their offering materials, describing how the pandemic could harm their businesses. I believe the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization calls for the same thing.

Imagine a SAAS company in Austin, Texas, looking to recruit talented young engineers. Imagine the company’s ideal candidate:  a woman who just graduated from Stanford with a specialty in AI. If she has one job offer from the company in Austin and another from a company in Oregon it isn’t hard to see why the Texas company would have a competitive disadvantage, all other things being equal.

Companies are already trying to mitigate the risk. For example, Starbucks has announced free travel to employees to states where abortion is legal. But even that might not eliminate the risk. Do women want to travel out of state for medical care? And, in any case, many states where abortion is or will be illegal are trying to make it illegal to travel out of state for an abortion

Whatever the realities of the marketplace, our job as securities lawyers is to make investors aware of risks so our clients can’t be sued afterward. I suggest the following or something like it in the offering materials of any company where recruitment is important

State Laws Might impair the Company’s Ability to Recruit: The U.S. Supreme Court [seems poised to overturn] [has recently overturned] women’s privacy rights in health care decisions set forth in Roe v. Wade. Moreover, the reasoning used by the Court in overturning Roe v. Wade suggests that other constitutional rights could also become subject to restriction by the states, including the right to gay marriage and use of contraception. Texas, where the Company’s headquarters are located, has enacted strict laws regulating abortion and its political climate is such that it might seek to limit or take away other rights as well. These state laws could impair the Company’s ability to recruit and retain personnel and could put the Company at a competitive disadvantage with companies in other states.

Questions? Let me know.

title III crowdfunding outline for portals and issuers

SEC Proposes New Restrictions For Private Fund Advisers

On By crowdfundattnyIn Private Fund Advisors, SECLeave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following proposal would affect all advisers, including Nikki:

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

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

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

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

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

Questions? Let me know.

Using A SAFE In Reg CF Offerings

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Reg CF, Regulation CF, SAFE, Title III, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

The SEC once wanted to prohibit the Simple Agreement for Future Equity, or SAFE, in Reg CF offerings. After a minor uproar the SEC changed its mind, and SAFEs are now used frequently. I think prohibiting SAFEs would be a mistake. Nevertheless, funding portals, issuers, and investors should think twice about using (or buying) a SAFE in a given offering.

Some have argued that SAFEs are too complicated for Reg CF investors. That’s both patronizing and wrong, in my opinion. Between a SAFE on one hand and common stock on the other, the common stock really is the more difficult concept. As long as you tell investors what they’re getting – especially that SAFEs have no “due date” – I think you’re fine.

The reason to think twice is not that SAFEs are complicated but that a SAFE might not be the right tool for the job. You wouldn’t use a hammer to shovel snow, and you shouldn’t use a SAFE in circumstances for which it wasn’t designed.

The SAFE was designed as the first stop on the Silicon Valley assembly line. First comes the SAFE, then the Series A, then the Series B, and eventually the IPO or other exit. Like other parts on the assembly line, the SAFE was designed to minimize friction and increase volume. And it works great for that purpose.

But the Silicon Valley ecosystem is very unusual, not representative of the broader private capital market. These are a few of its critical features:

  • Silicon Valley is an old boys’ network in the sense that it operates largely on trust, not legal documents. Investors don’t sue founders or other investors for fear of being frozen out of future deals, and founders don’t sue anybody for fear their next startup won’t get funded. Theranos and the lawsuits it spawned were the exceptions that prove the rule.
  • The Silicon Valley ecosystem focuses on only one kind of company: the kind that will grow very quickly, gobbling up capital, then be sold.
  • Those adding the SAFE at the front end of the assembly line know the people adding the Series A and Series B toward the back end of the assembly line — in fact, they might be the same people. And using standardized documents like those offered by the National Venture Capital Association ensures most deals will look the same. Thus, while SAFE investors in Silicon Valley don’t know exactly what they’ll end up with, they have a good idea.

The point is that SAFEs don’t exist in a vacuum. They were created to serve a particular purpose in a particular ecosystem. To name just a couple obvious examples, a company that won’t need to raise more money or a company that plans to stay private indefinitely probably wouldn’t be good candidates for a SAFE. If it’s snowing outside, don’t reach for the hammer.

If you do use a SAFE, which one? The Y Combinator forms are the most common starting points, but in a Reg CF offering, you should make at least three changes:

  1. The Y Combinator form provides for conversion of the SAFE only upon a later sale of preferred stock. That makes sense in the Silicon Valley ecosystem because of course the next stop on the assembly line will involve preferred stock. Outside Silicon Valley, the next step could be common stock.
  2. The Y Combinator form provides for conversion of the SAFE no matter how little capital is raised, as long as it’s priced. That makes sense because on the Silicon Valley assembly line of course the next step will involve a substantial amount of capital from sophisticated investors. Outside Silicon Valley you should provide that conversion requires a substantial capital raise to make it more likely that the raise reflects the arm’s-length value of the company.
  3. The Y Combinator form includes a handful of representations by the issuer and two or three by the investor. That makes sense because nobody is relying on representations in Silicon Valley and nobody sues anyone anyway. In Reg CF, the issuer is already making lots of representations —Form C is really a long list of representations — so you don’t need any issuer representations in the SAFE. And dealing with potentially thousands of strangers, the issuer needs all the representations from investors typical in a Subscription Agreement.

The founder of a Reg CF funding portal might have come from the Silicon Valley ecosystem. In fact, her company might have been funded by SAFEs. Still, she should understand where SAFEs are appropriate and where they are not and make sure investors understand as well.

Questions? Let me know.