Tag: Regulation A

How to Write A Biography For A Crowdfunding Disclosure Document

Improving Legal Documents In Crowdfunding: How to Write A Biography For A Disclosure Document

On By crowdfundattnyIn Form C, Legal Documents, Offering Statement, Regulation ALeave a comment

Investors want to know the people running the show. That’s why we always include a brief biography of the principals in a securities disclosure document, whether a Form C, a Private Placement Memorandum, or an Offering Statement. In Regulation A offerings, for example, companies must:

Give a brief account of the business experience during the past five years of each director, executive officer, person nominated or chosen to become a director or executive officer, and each significant employee, including his or her principal occupations and employment during that period and the name and principal business of any corporation or other organization in which such occupations and employment were carried on. When an executive. officer or significant employee has been employed by the issuer for less than five years, a brief explanation must be included as to the nature of the responsibilities undertaken by the individual in prior positions to provide adequate disclosure of this prior business experience. What is required is information relating to the level of the employee’s professional competence, which may include, depending upon the circumstances, such specific information as the size of the operation supervised.

Note the italicized language:  “What is required is information relating to the level of the employee’s professional competence. . . .” I point that out because to often we see business biographies like this:

John Smith is a visionary leader with an unwavering commitment to excellence, known for his dynamic approach to seizing opportunities and delivering unparalleled value. With a forward-thinking mindset and a passion for innovation, he leverages his far-reaching vision to create transformative strategies that align with stakeholder interests. His results-oriented leadership style empowers teams, drives growth, and positions the company for long-term success in a rapidly evolving market landscape. Outside of his professional achievements, Mr. Smith enjoys spending time with his [fourth] wife and three children, traveling to exotic destinations, and pursuing hobbies such as gourmet cooking, marathon running, and landscape photography.

Alas, that has nothing to do with Mr. Smith’s professional competence.

Mr. Smith’s biography should look more like this:

John Smith has more than 25 years of experience in the logistics and supply chain sector, with a track record of leading operational growth and efficiency in both privately held and publicly traded companies. From 2012 to 2021, he served as Chief Operating Officer of MidAtlantic Freight Systems, where he managed a network of five regional distribution centers, implemented a company-wide warehouse automation initiative that reduced order fulfillment times by 30%, and oversaw a workforce of more than 300 employees.

Before that, Mr. Smith was Director of Business Development at Eastern Transport Group, where he negotiated long-term contracts with Fortune 500 clients and led market expansion into three new states, increasing annual revenue by 45% over four years. Earlier in his career, he held senior operations roles at Interstate Logistics and Northstar Supply Chain Solutions, where he specialized in integrating newly acquired facilities and standardizing operational processes across multiple regions.

Mr. Smith holds a B.S. in Business Administration from Rutgers University and an MBA from Temple University’s Fox School of Business. He has extensive experience in vendor contract negotiations, ERP system implementation, transportation network optimization, and capital project management. Over the course of his career, he has built a reputation for data-driven decision-making, disciplined cost control, and the ability to align operational capabilities with long-term strategic goals.

That’s much more useful to investors. And it’s much more impressive, isn’t it?

Questions? Let me know.

Markley S. Roderick
Lex Nova Law
10 East Stow Road, Suite 250, Marlton, NJ 08053
P: 856.382.8402 | E: mroderick@lexnovalaw.com

Title III Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding And The Investment Company Act

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, ICA, Investment Company Act, JOBS ActLeave a comment

I speak with lots of people about Crowdfunding and write this blog to answer questions they ask. I’ve had hundreds of conversations that start with Crowdfunding and end up with the Investment Company Act. I hope this post will help clarify the relationship between the two.

The Investment Company Act of 1940

Many entrepreneurs have never heard of the Investment Company Act, or ICA, so that part of my conversations begins with a short primer.

Think of a mutual fund, a company that exists only to invest in stock of other companies. That’s an investment company.  Unfortunately, the definition of “investment company” in the ICA is so broad it sweeps in many companies that would never think of themselves as mutual funds. Any company holding stock in another company can be treated as an investment company. 

Investment companies are subject to so many rules and expensive regulations, unless you’re a mutual fund you don’t want to be treated as an investment company.

Suppose a real estate sponsor forms ABC LLC to collect 87 investors, and ABC  LLC invests in the entity that owns the real estate, i.e., owns stock of one company. ABC LLC is an investment company and must comply with all the rules and regulations!  Suppose you and three friends form STU LLC to invest in the stock market together. You have an investment company and must comply with all the rules and regulations! Suppose XYZ LLC raises money from 220 people to invest in startups. XYZ LLC is an investment company and must comply with all the rules and regulations!

Unless, that is, ABC LLC, STU LLC, and XYZ LLC qualify for one of the exemptions describe below.

Common Exemptions

A Company with No More Than 100 Owners

A company with no more than 100 owners is exempt from the ICA. ABC LLC and STU LLC fall within this exemption.

A Venture Capital Fund with No More Than 250 Owners

A venture capital fund with no more than 250 owners is exempt from the ICA. A “venture capital fund” means a fund that holds itself out as a venture capital fund and:

  • Raises no more than $10,000,000;
  • Invests no more than 20% of its capital contributions in any single investments;
  • Doesn’t borrow money; and
  • Doesn’t give investors the right to withdraw, redeem or require the repurchase of their ownership interests.

Depending on its terms, XYZ LLC might fall within this exemption.

A Company with Only Wealthy Investors

A company where each investor is a “qualified purchaser” is exempt from the ICA. A qualified purchaser is, in general, an individual with at least $5,000,000 of investments.

ABC LLC, STU LLC, and XYZ LLC could be eligible for this exemption.

NOTE:  American securities laws have always distinguished between people who are wealthy and people who are not. The theory is that wealthy people, who can hire lawyers and accountants and possibly are smarter, don’t need the protection of the government while other people do. We see the theory in practice most commonly with the different treatment of accredited vs. non-accredited investors. With this exemption to the ICA, we see the theory taken one step farther. 

Intersection with Crowdfunding

These are the key points of intersection between Crowdfunding and the ICA:

The ICA Prohibits Many Good Investment Ideas 

I can’t count how many entrepreneurs have proposed a great idea, only to have me say it can’t be done because of the ICA. For example, suppose you believe in startup culture and want to give more Americans the chance to participate. You know that investing in just one startup is very risky, so you propose to raise money from hundreds of people and invest in 20 startups, a million dollars each.

You call me and I tell you that you can’t. Or more exactly, you can, but only if your hundreds of people are wealthy, which defeats the purpose. 

Neither Reg CF nor Regulation A can be Used by Investment Companies

Alright, you say, suppose I’m willing to limit the number of investors to 250, all non-accredited, raise $10 million rather than $20 million, and otherwise meet the requirements of a venture capital fund. Can I do that?

Yes! Or rather, No! 

Under that structure, your entity would fit within the ICA exemption described above. But to raise the $10 million, you have to find an offering exemption. The general rule, set forth in section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, is that every time you raise money from investors you have to conduct a full-blown IPO. The most common offering types –Rule 506, Reg CF, and so forth – are exemptions from that rule. Which will you use for your new fund?

You can’t use Rule 506(c) because it doesn’t allow non-accredited investors. You can’t use Rule 506(b) because (i) it allows only 35 non-accredited investors, and (ii) it doesn’t allow advertising. And you can’t use Reg CF or Regulation A because they can’t be used by investment companies. With no offering exemptions available, the answer is No, you can’t do it. 

Hold on, you say. I understand that Reg CF and Regulation A can’t be used by an investment company, but didn’t you tell me five minutes ago that my venture fund won’t be treated as an investment company if I follow the rules? Are you experiencing dementia at such an early age, with such youthful features?

Possibly, but that’s not what’s going on here. Unfortunately, neither Reg CF nor Regulation A can be used by a company that would be an investment company if not for the three exemptions I described above. I didn’t say your fund wouldn’t be an investment company, I said it wouldn’t be subject to all the expensive rules and regulations of the ICA.  

It’s like a trick the law plays on you. ABC LLC STU LLC, and XYZ LLC will have “IC” emblazoned on their chests forever. 

The ICA Exemptions and the Offering Exemptions are Apples and Oranges 

People will say “I know I can’t have more than 100 non-accredited investors” or “Am I still subject to the Investment Company Act if I use Rule 506(c)?” 

Those are non-sequiturs. On one side of the fence sits the Investment Company Act of 1940 and its exemptions. On the other side of the fence sits the Securities Act of 1933 and its exemptions. The exemptions for one having nothing to do with the exemptions for the other. They aren’t friends.

Thus:

  • The ICA exemptions apply no matter how you raise the money. If you’re relying on the 100-owner exemption, for example, you can raise the money from 100 qualified purchasers, from 100 accredited investors, from 100 non-accredited investors, or a mix of investors. But you must qualify under one of the offering exemptions separately.
  • Of the offering exemptions commonly used, you can use Rule 506(b) (no advertising, up to 35 non-accredited investors) or Rule 506(c) (no non-accredited investors, unlimited advertising) without thinking about the ICA. But if you want to use Reg CF or Regulation A, you have to think about the ICA a lot.

Every conversation about Crowdfunding should include time for the Investment Company Act. Beware!

Questions? Let me know.

Four Becomes Three: Regulation A Offerings Are Easier Now

On By crowdfundattnyIn Regulation A, SECLeave a comment

In this blog post from long ago, I wondered whether a company raising money through Regulation A could legally sell directly to investors. On one hand, the law in a handful of states require all sales to be through broker-dealers. On the other hand, those state laws might be invalid under section 18(b) of the Securities Act of 1933.

It looks as if common sense and the market are answering the question without litigation.

Late last year, Florida changed its laws to allow direct sales. Florida is a big state with lots of investors, so that’s a big deal. What we once referred to as four “problems states” has become three:  Texas, New Jersey, and Washington.

In my humble opinion, the state laws don’t make sense. A Regulation A offering is reviewed by the Securities and Exchange Commission through a process much like a public offering. Under federal law, the SEC review is enough to allow sales to both accredited and non-accredited investors. I cannot see a justification for a state to require more protection in the form of a broker-dealer review; in fact, this reasoning makes me think that section 18(b) should override the state laws.  

The state laws also add a very significant cost to a Regulation A offering. I’m not aware of any broker-dealer willing to sell Regulation A securities only to residents of three states. Instead, broker-dealers charge more than 2% of the whole raise. Broker-dealers need to charge these fees to cover their own costs and risks, obviously. By driving up the costs of the offering, however, the state laws undermine a primary goal of Crowdfunding, i.e., to make great investments available to ordinary Americans.

Off the soapbox now.

Of the three remaining problem states, New Jersey is the easiest. You file a form to register as a “dealer” and you’re done.

Washington is hard. Washington also allows registration as a dealer, but in my experience the designated dealer must be an individual who is also a general partner/manager of the issuer. For liability reasons, that might not be acceptable. If in doubt, don’t sell securities in Washington.

Texas also allows registration as a dealer. While Texas generally requires that the individual registering have FINRA licenses, that requirement can be waived. The process can take a couple months.

My recommendation:  register in New Jersey; register in Texas and ask for a waiver (start that process early); and don’t sell in Washington.

If anyone has more current advice or information I’d love to hear it.

Questions? Let me know.

new risk factors for crowdfunding and beyond

More Noise About Accredited Investors In Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Accredited Investor, Exchange Act, Investment Company Act, Regulation A, SEC1 Comment

The House of Representatives just passed not one, not two, but three different bills that would expand the definition of “accredited investor.” Does this mean the definition will change? No.

The three proposed changes are:

  • Include in the definition of accredited investor anyone who says he or she understands the risks, using a form of not more than two pages issued by the SEC. This would effectively eliminate the concept of accredited investor.
  • Include in the definition of accredited investor anyone who has received personalized advice from a person who has himself or herself become an accredited investor under 17 CFR §230.501(A)(10), by passing an exam approved by the SEC. The mystery here is why the proposed bill wouldn’t include anyone who has received personalized advice for a registered investment adviser.
  • Allow anyone, including non-accredited investors, to invest in the aggregate up to 10% of their income or net worth in private securities. No time period is provided.

The proposed changes to the definition of accredited investor are part of a larger package of legislation that would ease more than a dozen rules in the federal securities laws, including:

  • Expand the definition of “emerging growth companies.”
  • Create a safe harbor for brokers and finders in private placements.
  • Ease the “independence” rule for auditors.
  • Ease the registration requirements under section 12(g) of the Exchange Act.
  • Expand the definition of venture capital fund for purposes of section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act.
  • Add a new exemption under the Securities Act of 1933 for issuers raising less than $250,000.
  • Double the Regulation A offering limit from $75,000,000 to $150,000,000.

And so on.

This legislation can best be understood by reference to the man who introduced it, Representative McHenry of North Carolina. Representative McHenry was the principal sponsor of the JOBS Act, which created Crowdfunding. Before and since, he has been an advocate for improving access to capital for entrepreneurs and giving ordinary Americans access to opportunities now reserved for the very wealthy.

But Representative McHenry is leaving Congress. He was a close friend of Kevin McCarthy and briefly assumed leadership of the House when McCarthy was deposed. That episode seems to have drained his enthusiasm; he announced his plan to retire shortly afterward.

This legislation should probably be viewed as Representative McHenry’s swan song, his wish list, even his legacy. Unfortunately, and as I’m sure he recognizes, it’s likely that none of it will find its way into law.

Questions? Let me know.

blind pool offerings in crowdfunding

Does Reg CF Allow Blind Pool Offerings?

On By crowdfundattnyIn Reg CF, Regulation CF4 Comments

It’s a trick question.

It’s a trick question because the term “blind pool offering” doesn’t appear in Reg CF. If you try to figure out whether Reg CF allows “blind pool offerings” you’ll drive yourself crazy and/or reach the wrong answer. 

To illustrate the point, suppose NewCo was formed to buy Class B multi-family projects in the southeastern United States but has not yet identified any such properties. If you focus on the term “blind pool offering” you might decide that NewCo can’t use Reg CF. But if you read Reg CF instead, you’ll reach the opposite – and correct – conclusion. 

To see whether NewCo is eligible for Reg CF, we look at the eligibility rules in 17 CFR §227.100(b). NewCo is a Delaware entity, so we’re good under section 100(b)(1). NewCo isn’t subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, so we’re good under section 100(b)(2). And we keep going through the list until we get to section 100(b)(6), which provides that Reg CF may not be used if the issuer:

Has no specific business plan or has indicated that its business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies.

Does that describe NewCo? Well, no. NewCo does have a specific business plan and it’s not about merging with anyone. 

Thus, having gone through the whole list of section 100(b), we conclude that NewCo is eligible to use Reg CF, 100%.

I’ll add two epilogues.

First, Regulation A uses exactly the same language as Reg CF, in 17 CFR §230.251(b)(3). And even a cursory review of the Regulation A offerings reviewed and qualified by the SEC reveals many, many companies like NewCo.

Second, Industry Guide 5, issued by the SEC to provide disclosure guidelines for real estate offerings, specifically contemplates issuers like NewCo. Item 20D provides for certain disclosures in offerings where “a material portion of the maximum net proceeds (allowing for reasonable reserves) is not committed (i.e., subject to a binding purchase agreement) to specific properties. . . .” 

During my first year of law school in 1838, a partnership tax guru named Bill McKee insisted that we read the statute first. It has turned out to be excellent advice.

Questions? Let me know.

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.

Using Reg CF To Raise Money For A Non-U.S. Business

On By crowdfundattnyIn Title III, Title III Crowdfunding2 Comments

To use Reg CF (aka Title III Crowdfunding), an issuer must be “organized under, and subject to, the laws of a State or territory of the United States or the District of Columbia.” That means a Spanish entity cannot issue securities using Reg CF. But it doesn’t mean a Spanish business can’t use Reg CF.

First, here’s how not to do it.

A Spanish entity wants to raise money using Reg CF. Reading the regulation, the Spanish entity forms a shell Delaware corporation. All other things being equal, as an entity “organized under, and subject to, the laws of a State or territory of the United States,” the Delaware corporation is allowed to raise capital using Reg CF. But all other things are not equal. If the Delaware corporation is a shell, with no assets or business, then (i) no funding portal should allow the securities of the Delaware corporation to be listed, and (ii) even if a funding portal did allow the securities to be listed, nobody in her right mind would buy them.

Here are two structures that work:

  • The Spanish business could move its entire business and all its assets into a Delaware corporation. Even with no assets, employees, or business in the U.S., the Delaware corporation could raise capital using Reg CF, giving investors an interest in the entire business.
  • Suppose the Spanish company is in the business of developing, owning, and operating health clubs. Today all its locations are in Spain but it sees an opportunity in the U.S. The Spanish entity creates a Delaware corporation to develop, own, and operate health clubs in the U.S. The Delaware corporation could raise capital using Reg CF, giving investors an interest in the U.S. business only.

NOTE:  Those familiar with Regulation A may be excused for feeling confused. An issuer may raise capital using Regulation A only if the issuer is managed in the U.S. or Canada. For reasons that are above my pay grade, the rules for Reg CF and the rules for Regulation A are just different.

Questions? Let me know.

Why Everyone Benefits from the SEC’s New Crowdfunding Rules

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding Laws, Regulation ALeave a comment

To the delight of both issuers and investors, the SEC continues to make crowdfunding better as they have announced major changes to their crowdfunding rules. In this podcast, crowdfunding attorney Mark Roderick and Co-Founder of Lex Nova Law goes over what he believes are the most important and impactful changes including raising the limits for Regulation A and Regulation CF deals as well as the ability of “finders” to legally accept commissions for bringing deals to the table. And perhaps most importantly, the changes regarding accredited and non-accredited investors are a complete game changer! In this podcast, you’ll find out why that is.

Listen to “Why Everyone Benefits from the SEC's New Crowdfunding Rules” on Spreaker.

We can’t elect a President, but there’s certainly a preponderance of positive energy being circulated in the crowdfunding industry with respect to these rules revisions from the SEC! By increasing the raise limit of Reg.A and Reg.CF offerings, the entire process has become much more realistic in terms of making everything successful on just about every level and aspect of the industry. Now, accredited investors can have whatever stake of a project they want, and non-accredited investors can participate in ways unimaginable just a short time ago. And what’s an accredited investor? That rule has changed too!

One of the biggest changes the SEC has implemented is the legality of “finders” receiving commissions or payments for brokering deals and introducing investors to issuers, syndicators, developers, etc. Before this change, only broker-dealers were allowed to receive compensation for such deals. With the new changes, these finders can now legally receive these commissions and other transaction-based compensation from issuers. The ability to legally monetize your connections is something many have been waiting for for quite a long time!

There’s no question that crowdfunding still has its growing pains. However, one thing’s for sure: finders, investors, and issuers alike should all be jumping for joy after listening to the information Mr. Roderick goes over in this podcast. Broker-dealers, maybe not… But regardless, it’s a new world for crowdfunding and doors continue to open. The industry is definitely heading in the right direction.

WRITE YOUR REGULATION A OFFERING CIRCULAR WITH ADVERTISING IN MIND

Write Your Regulation A Offering Circular With Advertising In Mind

On By crowdfundattnyIn Advertising, Regulation A, Regulation A Offering CircularLeave a comment

Too many issuers think of the Regulation A Offering Circular as just a dry legal document between the SEC and the lawyers. It should be more than that.

As I’ve said once or twice before, Crowdfunding is a marketing business. Creating a great company with a great product isn’t enough. “Build it and they will come” worked for Kevin Costner but it doesn’t work for most companies trying to raise capital.

Here are some examples of things you’d like to say to attract investors:

  • We have a terrific track record in this industry going back 15 years.
  • Our performance during the last five years has doubled industry averages.
  • Our Founder has had successful exits from her last three companies.
  • Experts forecast that our market will triple over the next seven years.

Those can be very powerful messages for prospective investors. But here’s the thing:  you’re not allowed to say them in your Facebook ads unless you’ve already said them in your Offering Circular.

You spend all the time and money to have your Regulation A offering qualified by the SEC, only to learn that you’re not allowed to say what you’d like to say to attract investors. 

Write your Offering Circular with advertising in mind. Make your lawyer speak with your marketing team and vice versa, even though they speak different languages. Create your marketing materials — your website, your Facebook ads, your email campaigns — in conjunction with your Offering Circular, so all the pieces are working together rather than pulling in opposite directions.

Questions? Let me know.

RULE 10b-5: THE HIDDEN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT IN REGULATION A

Rule 10b-5: The Hidden Disclosure Requirement In Regulation A

On By crowdfundattnyIn 10b-5, Regulation A, Regulation A Offering CircularLeave a comment

Preparing a Regulation A Offering Circular is as much an art as a science.

An issuer offering securities using Regulation A can choose from several disclosure formats, including Form 1-A, Form S-1, or Form S-11. Each of these SEC forms includes a list of information that must be disclosed. For example, Form 1-A lists 17 items, ranging from the cover page to the Exhibits, each with sub-categories and special rules. Transparency and disclosure have been the touchstones of U.S. securities laws since the 1930s, and each form includes hundreds of pieces of information that must be disclosed to prospective investors. 

But even an issuer that made a list of all those items and completed the form meticulously wouldn’t be finished, because 17 CFR §240.10b-5 effectively imposes a catch-all requirement for disclosure.

Rule 10b-5(b) provides:

“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly. . . .[t]o make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a  material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.”

The first part of that statement is easy:  you’re not allowed to make untrue statements of material facts, i.e., to lie.

It’s the second part that requires some thought. A couple simple examples:

  • You’re raising money for a grocery delivery business and there’s a guy on your board named Jeffrey Bezos. You’d better tell investors he’s not that Jeffrey Bezos.
  • Your Offering Circular describes the patent with which you expect to revolutionize the world of online payments. You’d better mention the letter you received alleging that your patent is invalid.

In practice, Rule 10b-5(b) means that no matter how many times you compare the SEC form (Form 1-A, Form S-1, Form S-11) to your Offering Circular, checking off all the boxes, if investors lose money a plaintiff’s lawyer can snoop around, with the benefit of hindsight, looking for something else that should have been disclosed. 

That’s why preparing a Regulation A Offering Circular is as much an art as a science.

Questions? Let me know.