Tag: crowdsourcing

SEC On Intrastate Crowdfunding: Relax

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Laws, Intra-State Crowdfunding, Rule 147, UncategorizedLeave a comment

I think the SEC has done a terrific job with Crowdfunding, all things considered. In its latest contribution, the SEC just told issuers how to navigate a bumpy stretch of highway in intrastate Crowdfunding.

The bumps start with Federal Rule 147, written long before the Internet was a glimmer in Al Gore’s eye. Among other things, Rule 147 provides that an intrastate offering must be offered only to residents of a single state. That rule makes sense in a paper-only world, but how to comply when an offering is on the Internet, visible to everyone with a browser?

To get past the bumps, the SEC drilled down on the technology and realized that a user’s IP address reveals the state where his or her computer is located. Taking the logical step, the SEC confirms that as long as the offering can be viewed only by users with in-state IP addresses, it satisfies that piece of Rule 147.

I’d like to say the SEC got that idea from my blog, but I’m sure that’s not true.

From the 2013 no-action letters to the flexible regulations under Rule 506(c) to the proposed regulations under Regulation A+, the SEC has shown that it “gets” Crowdfunding. Now, if Congress would just give us a workable Title III. . . .

Questions? Let me know.

Encouraging Local Investment In Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Articles, Investing, Investor, JOBS ActLeave a comment

Crowdfunding provides deep pools of capital to entrepreneurs and makes high-quality investments available to individuals for the first time. Those things are great, transformative.

But Crowdfunding achieves its greatest potential at the local level, where communities invest in themselves. An entrepreneur needs capital to start a local business. Her customers are her neighbors. They help design her business to respond to their needs, and they invest in her business to share in the financial rewards and to improve their own neighborhood. There’s a lot more going on there than finance.

I once served on a panel with David Paterson, the former Governor of New York. Governor Paterson spoke about the usefulness of Crowdfunding for community development and community redevelopment, and now works as the Director of Community for iFunding, one of the leading portals.

I have spoken with and represent others thinking along the same lines, putting local money back into local economies.

We should think about ways to encourage localized Crowdfunding investment. When we’re talking about revising Title III, or crafting better state Crowdfunding laws, we should include community development folks in the conversation. They’re going to have better ideas than I have, but I can think of one small step in the right direction.

Why not provide some economic incentive? For example, suppose State X allows a $5,000 maximum investment from non-accredited investors. Why not raise that limit to $7,500 or $10,000 if the project is in the same county as the investor?

That works for two reasons. One, it encourages investing locally. Two, the investor is likely to know more about the project in his neighborhood than he knows about a project on the other side of the state, so he can make a more informed decision. For that matter, as a consumer he might be in a position to help the project after it’s built.

It’s a small step. Crowdfunding is global, but it works even better when it’s local.

Questions? Let me know.

A Model State Crowdfunding Law

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Laws, JOBS Act, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Model State CFI was asked recently to draft a Crowdfunding statute for Texas, to augment the proposals made by the Texas State Securities Board. Having done that, I have turned my Texas statute into a model law that could be used by any state, including the handful that have already adopted Crowdfunding in one form or another. The model law is a PDF here.

I drafted the model statute with these goals:

  • To balance the interests of investors, entrepreneurs, and state securities regulators;
  • To reflect the lessons I’ve learned over more than 30 years in the capital formation business;
  • To capture the current best practices of states and the Federal government;
  • To introduce new concepts that will allow Crowdfunding to flourish; and
  • As a Jeffersonian believer in Federalism, to leave space for state-by-state experimentation.

These are some of the key features:

  • The statute relies on portals that will be registered with state securities regulators. The same portal could be registered in more than one state and, indeed, could male offerings at the Federal level as well.
  • The statute imposes disclosure requirements that mirror the disclosures typically made in private placement transactions.
  • The statute expands the concept of “control persons.”
  • The statute requires that state securities regulators have 24/7 real-time access to any material shown to prospective investors.
  • The statute introduces and expands the Federal “bad actor” concept.
  • The statute raises investment limits for truly local projects, to encourage local investing.
  • The statute expands the definition of “accredited investor.”
  • The statute allows issuers to raise up to $2 million per offering.
  • The statute prohibits issuers from seeking to limit their liability for fraud or misrepresentation.
  • The statute gives state regulators broad latitude to modify in accordance with local conditions.

Everything is about balance. Without overwhelming issuers with bureaucracy, the statute protects investors and creates an ecosystem where capitalism can flourish.

I’m going to be reaching out to states with the model law. I would love to hear your input and advice.

Questions? Let me know.

Improving Legal Documents In Crowdfunding: Internal Rate Of Return

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, JOBS Act, Legal DocumentsLeave a comment

Internal rate of return, a financial concept, is not always used correctly in Crowdfunding documents.

The internal rate of return, often referred to as IRR, calculates the total rate of return of an investment, expressed as a percentage. Suppose you invested $100 in a bond that paid $5 at the end of each year for four years and were redeemed at the end of the fifth year for $105. Not surprisingly, that investment has an IRR of 5%.

Suppose you try to calculate IRR at the end of the fourth year? You tell Microsoft Excel that you paid $100 and have received $5 per year for four years and Excel says your IRR is minus 43.25%, i.e., you’ve made a terrible investment. What went wrong?

What went wrong is that you didn’t give Excel all the information it needs. It’s like the George Carlin joke, when he plays a sportscaster and announces “Here’s a partial score: Yankees 3.”

To get the right answer for IRR at the end of the fourth year, you have to tell Excel that the bond is still worth $100. When you do that, Excel calculates that your IRR is 5%.

And so it is in Crowdfunding. Often, the sponsor promises that upon any “capital transaction” – a sale or a refinancing, typically – the investors receive an IRR of X% before the sponsor receives his “promote.” Typical language:

The net proceeds of a Capital Transaction shall be distributed first to Investors, until they have received an internal rate of return of 8%, and then 70% to Investors and 30% to Sponsor.

But that’s like “Yankees 3.” It works if the Capital Transaction was a sale of the entire business, but it doesn’t work if the Capital Transaction was anything else, like a refinancing or a sale of only part of the business. With this language the investors are going to receive a complete return of their investment even if only a portion of the project has been sold, which might not be what the parties intended.

To get the right result you need to say something like this:

The net proceeds of a Capital Transaction shall be distributed first to Investors, until they have received an internal rate of return of 8%, and then 70% to Investors and 30% to Sponsor. If the Capital Transaction does not consist of the sale of all of the Company’s property and the distribution of all of the net proceeds to the Members, then the internal rate of return shall be calculated by (i) assigning to the remaining assets of the Company a value determined in good faith by the Manager, and (ii) assuming a residual value to the Investors equal to the amount they would receive if all such remaining assets were sold for such value and distributed in a Capital Transaction.

As for a definition of internal rate of return:

The term “internal rate of return” means the internal rate of return calculated using the XIRR function in Microsoft Excel.

Questions? Let me know.

Improving Crowdfunding Legal Documents

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Legal DocumentsLeave a comment

I don’t know much about videos or marketing, but I know a lot about legal documents. In a series of posts I’m going to suggest improvements to some of the legal documents used in Crowdfunding. Most of the time, I’ll suggest actual language a portal or issuer can cut and paste – after talking with a lawyer, of course.

By and large, the legal documents you see on Crowdfunding websites were pulled from other deals. For example, the Operating Agreement you see on a real estate Crowdfunding website is usually the same document the lawyer used for pre-Crowdfunding deals. And in many respects that’s okay because legal documents are pretty agnostic as to industry.

But in other respects it’s not okay. Sometimes you have to tailor the legal document to the industry.

An example is the section of the Operating Agreement that talks about an investor’s right to information. The provision from one well-known site says that the records of the company “. . . shall be available at the Company’s principal office for inspection and copying by any Member at any and all reasonable times during normal business hours at such Member’s expense.” Another says “A Member and the Member’s authorized representative shall, upon reasonable request and for purposes related to the interest of that Member, have reasonable access to, and may inspect and copy, during normal business hours all books, records and other materials pertaining to the Company or its activities.”

No! These provisions were typical in the pre-Crowdfunding world, but they don’t work with Crowdfunding.

You might have 218 investors in a Crowdfunding deal. You have to limit the right of investors to come to your office to inspect the books, and you have to limit what they can see. Under the Delaware limited liability company statute, if you don’t provide otherwise, your investors have the right to see basically everything, including a list of all the other investors. With one or two unscrupulous or irrational investors, that’s a recipe for losing sleep.

We want to:

  • Be fair to investors and provide all the information they need
  • Avoid spending an inordinate amount of management time dealing with bad apples
  • Protect your confidential information
  • Avoid dealing with 218 investors each asking for the same information
  • Give you discretion to protect your business and the interests of your investors

For an example of actual legal language that does just that while, I believe, fully complying with the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, click here.

Questions? Let me know.

Choosing And Protecting A Name For Your Crowdfunding Business

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Articles, Crowdfunding Real Estate, Investing, Investor, LLCs, Real Estate, Technology PlatformsLeave a comment

Names matter, even for a local business, but they matter a great deal for a Crowdfunding business, where your customers know you only from a distance.

Generally speaking you can choose three kinds of names:

  • A name that describes what you do, e.g., Real Estate Crowdfunding Portal, LLC.
  • A name with no inherent meaning, e.g., Xeta, LLC.
  • A name somewhere in between, e.g., Lifelong Investments, LLC.

Each category has advantages and disadvantages:

  • A name that describes what you do…well, it describes what you do. When a consumer sees the name she knows what you’re selling. On the other hand, a name that describes what you do is often not very memorable.
  • The strongest names are those that start out with no inherent meaning. Amazon, Starbucks, E-Bay. When consumers think of Amazon they think about the gigantic online retailer, nothing else. The name is worth a billion dollars! On the other hand, Amazon had to spend more than a billion marketing dollars to give meaning to a name that otherwise belonged to a river.
  • A name somewhere in between is somewhere in between. It might be sexier than a name that is merely descriptive and require a lot less marketing fuel than a name with no meaning, but with the associated disadvantages as well.

In the Crowdfunding industry to date, most portals have chosen the more descriptive over the more powerful. Poliwogg is an exception. Fundrise might be another.

With two well-known Crowdfunding companies – Crowdentials and VerifyInvestors – we see two different approaches to choosing a name. And we can’t say for certain whether one is better than the other. That will depend on what each company does with its name.

Having chosen a name, how do you protect it?

To start with, a business acquires “common law” rights to a name merely by using it, without filing anything with the government and without involving lawyers. If another real estate Crowdfunding portal tried to use the Fundrise name today they couldn’t do it, even if the Miller brothers had never done anything to protect their name (they have).

Contrary to common belief, merely registering a company name with the state by forming a corporation or other entity provides no real protection. State filings are simply a matter of bureaucracy – the state wants to make sure that no two names are confusingly similar on its own records.

For the best protection, however, the business owner should obtain a Federal trademark from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A Federal registration provides important benefits, including:

  • The registration constitutes “constructive notice” to all later users in all locations.
  • The registration permits the owner to get an injunction against a trademark infringer and sue for damages, including profits, costs, treble damages and attorneys fees.
  • The registration can strengthen the value of the name as a corporate asset.
  • The registration demonstrates your right to use the name to the owners of other websites, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, which are often called on to “officiate” disputes over names.

The trademark application process normally takes about a year, assuming no significant problems. Once granted, a trademark registration can last forever if continuously used and renewed.

NOTE: Not every name can be trademarked. A name like “Real Estate Crowdfunding Portal,” which merely describes the product or service, probably cannot be registered by itself. But it might be registered with a distinctive logo.

Finally, don’t forget to acquire the domain name.

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.