Tag: JOBS Act

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.

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

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding2 Comments

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.

New Podcast – In-Depth Commercial Real Estate

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding Real Estate, Real Estate1 Comment

In this episode Paul speaks to Crowdfunding attorney Mark Roderick about Crowdfunding in real estate. They go in-depth how the JOBS act that created crowdfunding changed funding portals, advertising, and where the future of raising capital is and what sponsors should focus on and be careful with.

In-Depth Commercial Real Estate

In-Depth Commercial Real Estate is an exploration of the people, ideas, strategies, and methods behind commercial real estate. In each episode, we’ll talk to an expert about a particular topic: from CMBS and cap. rates to innovation and hiring strategies, and everything in between.

Disclaimer: This real estate podcast is for informational and educational purposes only and does not imply suitability. The views and opinions expressed by the presenters are their own. The information is not intended as investment advice.For any inquiries or comments, you can reach us as info@indepthrealestate.com.

Questions? Let me know.

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

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

sara palin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions? Let me know.

Syndications, Cryptocurrencies and Crowdfunding, Oh My!

On By crowdfundattnyIn Cryptocurrencies, Podcasts, Real EstateLeave a comment

Real Estate Nerds Podcast: Syndications, Cryptocurrencies and Crowdfunding, Oh My!

real estate nerdsCLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Mark Roderick fills us in on how the rich can take care of themselves and the non-rich need the government which is why he thinks crowdfunding is so important to the regular Joe. Since the JOBS Act of 2012, Mark has spent much of his time in the crowdfunding space.

If you have ever thought to yourself the internet is a ruthless landscape slowly squeezing the middleman and driving human being up the value chain? Then you’ll want to tune into this week’s episode where Mark will explain everything from syndications to cryptocurrencies to crowdfunding, oh my!

Questions? Let me know.

A Millennial’s Guide to Real Estate Investing Podcast

On By crowdfundattnyIn Podcasts, Raising Money, Real EstateLeave a comment

MSR millenials guide to RE investingCLICK HERE TO LISTEN

On this episode of A Millennial’s Guide to Real Estate Investing, host Antoine Martel sits down with Mark Roderick, a leading crowdfunding, investing and fintech lawyer. They talk about blockchain, crowdfunding, the JOBS act, and how all of these things are going to be changing the real estate industry. Also discussed are the different types of crowdfunding flavors and how each of them work.

Questions? Let me know.

Real Estate Crowdfunding: How Far We’ve Come

On By crowdfundattnyIn Equity Crowdfunding, Real Estate, Real Estate Investment Trust, UncategorizedLeave a comment

 

The JOBS Act was signed by President Obama on May 5, 2012. Last month, a client of mine, Tapestry Senior Housing, raised about $13.6 million of common equity for a project in Moon Township outside Pittsburgh. Tapestry is an affiliate of Tapestry Companies, LLC, a national firm that operates as an owner, manager and developer of senior and multifamily properties. The Moon Township project involved the adaptive re-use of an existing Embassy Suites hotel.

This was the largest raise in the history of the CrowdStreet platform and, in my opinion, an important milestone for the Crowdfunding industry.

Not long ago, real estate Crowdfunding was limited to single-family fix-and-flips. At the annual meeting of NAIOP in Denver, in October 2014, I moderated a panel on Crowdfunding with Adam Hooper of RealCrowd and Darren Powderly of CrowdStreet, as it so happens. The audience for our panel was the smallest of the conference — but at the same time probably the youngest and most enthusiastic.

The size of the deals grew and high-quality sponsors like Tapestry began to notice. Now, when word gets out that someone has raised $13.6 million of equity, I believe we’re going to see a spike in interest from a broad spectrum of sponsors in every industry sector.

You can’t raise $13.6 million for just any sponsor and any deal, of course. Tom LaSalle, Jack Brandt, and their team at Tapestry have a remarkable track record in the senior housing space, and this was their third deal on CrowdStreet. CrowdStreet itself has a terrific and well-deserved reputation as a premier site. Put a great deal, a great sponsor, and a great site together and you get a terrific result.

But let’s not forget the most important factor of all (besides the lawyer, I mean). In the Moon Township deal, Tapestry and CrowdStreet gave about 280 accredited investors from all over the United States the opportunity to participate in the kind of investment once reserved for the wealthy. That is now, and will continue to be, the most important ingredient for success. When we talk about Crowdfunding as the democratization of capital, that’s what we mean.

Tapestry raised $13.6 million from 280 investors. There are close to 10 million accredited investors in the United States alone. To my mind, that means that the opportunity for growth, even within Rule 506(c), is practically unlimited.

So hats off to Tapestry and CrowdStreet, and on to the next deal.

Questions? Let me know.

The Per-Investor Limits of Title III Require Concurrent Offerings

On By crowdfundattnyIn Title II, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

Since the JOBS Act was signed by President Obama in 2012, advocates have been urging Congress to increase the overall limit of $1 million (now $1.07 million, after adjustment for inflation) to $5 million. But for many issuers, the overall limit is less important than the per-investor limits.

The maximum an investor can invest in all Title III offerings during any period of 12 months is:

  • If the investor’s annual income or net worth is less than $107,000, she may invest the greater of:
    • $2,200; or
    • 5% of the lesser of her annual income or net worth.
  • If the investor’s annual income and net worth are both at least $107,000, she can invest the lesser of:
    • $107,000; or
    • 10% of the lesser of her annual income or net worth.

These limits apply to everyone, including “accredited investors.” They’re adjusted periodically by the SEC based on inflation.

These limits make Title III much less attractive than it should be relative to Title II. Consider the typical small issuer, NewCo, LLC, deciding whether to use Title II or Title III to raise $1 million or less. On one hand, the CEO of NewCo might like the idea of raising money from non-accredited investors, whether because investors might also become customers (e.g., a restaurant or brewery), because the CEO is ideologically committed to making a good investment available to ordinary people, or otherwise. Yet by using Title III, NewCo is hurting its chances of raising capital.

Suppose a typical accredited investor has income of $300,000 and a net worth of $750,000. During any 12-month period she can invest only $30,000 in all Title III offerings. How much of that will she invest in NewCo? Half? A third? A quarter? In a Title II offering she could invest any amount.

Because of the per-investor limits, a Title III issuer has to attract a lot more investors than a Title II issuer. That drives up investor-acquisition costs and makes Title III more expensive than Title II, even before you get to the disclosures.

The solution, of course, is that Congress should make the Title III rule the same as the Tier 2 rule in Regulation A:  namely, that non-accredited investors are limited, but accredited investors are not. I can’t see any policy argument against that rule.

In the meantime, almost every Title III issuer should conduct a concurrent Title II offering, and every Title III funding portal should build concurrent offerings into its functionality.

Questions? Let me know.

If I Raise Money Using Crowdfunding, Will I Be Able To Raise More Money Later?

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Raising Money2 Comments

 

I have rarely attended a Crowdfunding conference where this question wasn’t asked. Maybe those of us in the industry haven’t done a good enough job answering it.

Before getting into details, I’ll note that it is no longer a hypothetical question, as it was when the JOBS Act was signed into law in 2012. Today, many companies have indeed graduated from Crowdfunding to venture rounds, to angel rounds, to Regulation A offerings, and even to IPOs.

But judging from the look on the faces of the audience, that answer never seems completely satisfying. Isn’t there something about Crowdfunding that sophisticated investors don’t like?

The answer is “Only if the Crowdfunding round is done wrong!” So:

  • Institutional investors don’t want anyone else participating in their round. If you give your Crowdfunding investors preemptive rights, or the equivalent of preemptive rights, the institutional investors won’t like it. That’s why you don’t give your Crowdfunding investors preemptive rights.
  • Institutional investors don’t want anyone but you managing the company. That’s why you keep your Crowdfunding investors (and friends & family investors) out of management. Ideally, you issue non-voting stock (or its equivalent) to the Crowdfunding investors, and don’t permit representation on your Board.
  • Institutional investors want to know what they’re getting into. If you conduct your Crowdfunding round carefully, with clear legal documents, that’s not a problem.
  • Institutional investors don’t like surprises. They don’t want to learn afterward that your Crowdfunding investors, or anyone else, have rights they didn’t know about. That’s why you form your entity in Delaware, which gives the parties to a business transaction more or less unlimited freedom of contract.
  • Institutional investors don’t like a messy cap table. There’s no reason to have a messy cap table in Crowdfunding. Often, we bring in Crowdfunding investors through a special-purpose vehicle, or SPV. We can also issue to Crowdfunding investors a separate class of stock. One way or another, we keep the cap table clean.
  • Institutional investors worry about legal claims brought by Crowdfunding investors. Of course they do! That’s why we conduct the Crowdfunding offering correctly, just as we conduct the institutional round.
  • Institutional investors don’t like sharing information with all those investors. With today’s technology tools, communicating with investors isn’t difficult, and Delaware law allows us to limit who gets what. But it’s certainly true that the more investors you have, the more people get the information.
  • Institutional investors just don’t like hanging out with the riffraff. That’s never stated outright, but implied. If we address all the real issues, I have never found it to be true.

As Crowdfunding gains traction, I expect institutional investors to embrace it fully, as another facet of their own business models. In the meantime, be assured that if done right, raising money through Crowdfunding today will not keep you from raising more money in the future.

Questions? Let me know.

SEC Makes Intrastate Crowdfunding A Little Easier

On By crowdfundattnyIn Uncategorized3 Comments

Source: NASAA Intrastate Crowdfunding Update – October 17, 2016

The SEC just adopted rules that should make intrastate Crowdfunding easier, at least if State legislatures do their part.

To understand how the new rules help and how they don’t, start with section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act of 1933, which has been, until now, the basis for all intrastate Crowdfunding laws. While section 5 of the Securities Act generally provides that all sales of securities must be registered with the SEC, section 3(a)(11) provides for 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.

In 1974 the SEC adopted Rule 147, implementing section 3(a)(11). That was long before the Internet, and as state legislatures have enthusiastically adopted intrastate Crowdfunding laws since the JOBS Act of 2012, some aspects of Rule 147 have proven problematic. The rules just adopted by the SEC fix some of the problems of Rule 147:

  • In its original form, Rule 147 required that offers could be made only to residents of the state in question. The revised Rule 147 says it’s okay as long as the issuer has a “reasonable belief” that offers are made only to residents.
  • In its original form, Rule 147 required issuers to satisfy a multi-part test to show they were “doing business” in the state. Under the revised Rule 147, an issuer will be treated as “doing business” if it satisfies any one of several alternative tests.
  • The revised Rule 147 provides safe harbors to ensure that the intrastate offering is not “integrated” with other offerings.
  • In its original form, Rule 147 provided that securities purchased in the intrastate offering could not be sold except in the state where they were purchased for nine months following the end of the offering. The revised Rule 147 provides, instead, that securities purchased in the intrastate offering may not be sold except in the state where they were purchased, for a period of six months (not six months from the end of the offering).

Those are all good changes. But the SEC didn’t stop there. In addition to changing Rule 147 for the better, the SEC has adopted a brand new Rule 147A. Rule 147A more or less begins where Rule 147 leaves off and adds the following helpful provisions:

  • Most significantly, offers under Rule 147A may be made to anyone. That means the issuer may use general soliciting and advertising – and the Internet in particular – to broadcast its offering to the whole world. Purchasers – the investors who buy the securities – must still be residents of the state, but offers may be made to anybody.
  • The issuer doesn’t have to be incorporated in the state, as long as it has its “principal place of business” there – defined as the state “in which the officers, partners or managers of the issuer primarily direct, control and coordinate the activities of the issuer.” Thus, a Delaware limited liability company could conduct an intrastate “offering in Indiana, as long as all the officers and managers live and work in Indiana.

Why did the SEC bother to create a whole new Rule 147A to add these provisions, rather than just adding them to Rule 147?

The answer is that Rule 147 is an implementation of section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act, and if you look at section 3(a)(11) you’ll see that the additional provisions in Rule 147A – allowing offers to everybody, allowing a non-resident issuer – are prohibited by the statutory language. To add these provisions, the SEC had no choice but to create a new Rule 147A that is entirely independent of section 3(a)(11).

And there’s the rub. Many of the existing intrastate Crowdfunding laws require the issuer to comply with Rule 147 and section 3(a)(11). Texas, for example, says:

Securities offered in reliance on the exemption provided by this section [the Texas intrastate Crowdfunding rule] must also meet the requirements of the federal exemption for intrastate offerings in the Securities Act of 1933, §3(a)(11), 15 U.S.C. §77c(a)(11), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 147, 17 CFR §230.147.

This means that issuers in Texas will not be allowed to conduct an offering under the more liberal provisions of Rule 147A until the Texas State Securities Board changes that sentence to read:

Securities offered in reliance on the exemption provided by this section must also meet the requirements of the federal exemption for intrastate offerings in the Securities Act of 1933, §3(a)(11), 15 U.S.C. §77c(a)(11), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 147, 17 CFR §230.147, or, alternatively, the requirements of the federal exemption for intrastate offerings in Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 147A, 17 CFR §230.147A.

To those who have spent the last three years pushing intrastate Crowdfunding laws through state legislatures, it might look as if the boulder has rolled back down the hill. But there might also be a silver lining. Almost all the state rules were adopted before Title III became final, and almost all include very modest offering limits. Now that Title III is working as promised, Rule 147A might present an opportunity for legislatures not just to take advantage of the more liberal provisions, but also to raise offering limits and make other adjustments, seeking to make their state rules more competitive with the Federal Title III rules.

In the big picture, the SEC has once again proven itself a fan of Crowdfunding. And that’s good.

Questions? Let me know.