Tag: regulation crowdfunding

SEC Regulation Crowdfunding guidance explaining new compliance interpretations for Reg CF offerings, investor limits, and financial statement requirements.

SEC Issues New Reg CF Guidance: Key Compliance Updates for Crowdfunding Issuers & Funding Portals

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding Investors, Crowdfunding Portals, Form C, Regulation CF1 Comment

In February, the SEC published five new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations — C&DIs — about Reg CF. The SEC issues C&DIs to tell the public its views without issuing formal regulations. Unlike what you might be told in a telephone conversation with the SEC staff, you can rely on a C&D.

Moving Your Offering to a Different Platform

A Reg CF offering may be conducted on only one platform. If you start on one platform, can you switch to another?

Yes, according to the new guidance, but only if you haven’t made any sales. You must cancel the offering on the original platform, have the offering materials removed from that platform, and file a new Form C to start fresh on the new platform.

Former Exchange Act Reporting Companies

Public companies – companies required to file reports under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act — may not use Reg CF. But the new guidance clarifies that the disqualification ends for a company whose reporting obligations are terminated.  

The Rolling 12-Month Cap

Rule 100(a)(1) limits how much an issuer can raise through Reg CF to $5 million in any 12-month period. The question is: when does the 12-month period start?

The new guidance says the cap uses a rolling 12-month calculation measured from the date of each closing. If you closed your first tranche on June 15, 2025, the one-year anniversary of that closing is June 15, 2026. On that date, the amount raised in that closing – but just that closing – drops out of the calculation.

“Annual Income” for Investor Limits

Rule 100(a)(2) limits how much a non-accredited investor can invest in Reg CF offerings over a 12-month period, based on the investor’s “annual” income and net worth. The new guidance clarifies that “annual” means the calendar year. 

Stale Financial Statements in Ongoing Offerings

Suppose you start a Reg CF Offering on March 3, 2026 using financial statements from 12/31/2024 and 12/31/2023. If the offering is still open on 04/30/2026, then you must file your financial statements for 12/31/2025 before proceeding. In other words, you can’t keep an old set of financials in your Form C indefinitely just because the offering is still technically open. 

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

how to get rid of artificially low targets in reg cf

How To Get Rid Of Artificially Low Targets In Regulation Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding Portals, Reg CF, SEC, Securities Exchange CommissionLeave a comment

As I’ve explained several times to both readers, I believe artificially low minimums are a huge impediment to Reg CF. A company needs to raise $750,000, sets its target at $10,000, and raises $17,439.98. Poof, that money disappears. The company offsets some of its expenses and the funding portal claims a successful offering.

In my opinion, very few serious investors will participate in such an offering. And because it’s so common, I believe most serious investors just stay away from the industry.

I’ve never heard anyone defend artificially low minimums. What I have heard from both portal and issuers is they need artificially low minimums for financial reasons. The issuer comes to the portal with no money. Both the issuer and the portal plan to use the first dollars raised to market the offering. If we can raise $10,000 and invest in marketing, maybe we can raise $50,000 more. If we raise $50,000 more and invest in marketing, maybe we can raise the rest. 

As my friend Irwin Stein says, a well-planned, well-funded Reg CF offering should succeed. The challenge is that many issuers come to the table without a marketing plan or budget. The issuer and the funding portal bridge the gap by effectively asking early investors to take a lot more risk without telling them about it or compensating them for it. 

Long ago I learned it’s better to deal with reality. If the reality is that the issuer lacks a marketing plan or budget, then rather than hide the ball from early investors, let’s split the offering into two parts. Let’s have a first offering for $50,000 to pay for marketing, then a second offering for $750,000 (or whatever) with a real target, maybe $550,000. The company is saying, “Ideally we’d like $750,000 but we can still manage to execute a viable business plan with $550,000.” 

Investors in the first offering are taking far more risk than investors in the second and should be compensated accordingly. They might get two or three times the shares per $1.00 invested or might even get a different security altogether.

We might find that the company’s most ardent supporters – friends and family – will fund the first round. We would also find, I expect, that companies seeking to raise money for marketing will explain their marketing plans in detail and want to advertise high-quality marketing firms.

Far too often, well-intentioned people look to the SEC or Congress to improve Crowdfunding, only to see their hopes dashed. For example, many people look to the SEC or Congress to improve liquidity in Crowdfunding. Last Autumn I suggested a way that portals and issuers could ensure liquidity themselves. I have a client doing that right now. 

We can do the same with artificially low minimums. They’re bad for investors and bad for the industry. And we don’t need them.

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

shark tank for regulation crowdfunding

Shark Tank For Regulation Crowdfunding?

On By crowdfundattnyIn Reg CF, Regulation CF, Rule 2042 Comments

I’ve been asked by more than a handful of entrepreneurs about using Reg CF in a Shark Tank format. The founder appears in a TV studio with experienced investors, who pepper her with questions. If viewers like what they see, they scan a QR code at the bottom left, which takes them through the Reg CF investment process.

Non-accredited investors getting easy access to great startups, agnostic as to geography. Exactly what the JOBS Act wanted. 

I’ve had to tell each of those entrepreneurs No.

Each entrepreneur thought I was the bad guy, but the real bad guy is Rule 204, the Reg CF advertising rule. Rule 204 gives a company raising money two choices for advertising outside the funding portal. One, you can say anything you want as long as you don’t mention any of the six “terms of the offering.” Two, you can mention the terms of the offering but say almost nothing else, just the company’s name, address, phone number, and URL, and a brief description of the business (i.e., a “tombstone” ad).

The six deadly “terms of the offering” are:

  1. How much you’re trying to raise
  1. What kind of securities you’re selling (e.g., stock or SAFE)
  1. The price of the securities
  1. How you plan to use the money
  1. The closing date of your offering
  1. How much you’ve raised to date

Now imagine the founder answering questions in the studio. She can say anything she wants about the product, about herself, her team of advisors, the market, the social benefits of the company, all that stuff. Even with careful scripting, however, it’s unrealistic to think she can answer questions accurately and generate enthusiasm in the audience (which is the point) without mentioning any of those six items. Maybe a founder can do it here and there, but you wouldn’t bet your TV show on it.

The purpose of Rule 204 is to ensure that every Reg CF investor gets the same information as every other investor. The regulations want everything about the company and the offering to be in one place:  the funding portal. They don’t want someone who watches your TV show to know either more or less than someone who doesn’t.

Personally, I think Rule 204 is misguided. If there’s a risk that someone who watches your TV show will know either more or less than someone who doesn’t, you can (i) post a video of the TV show on the funding portal, and (ii) make sure TV viewers invest through the funding portal’s platform, where they can see everything. Eliminating Rule 204 would invigorate the Reg CF market without hurting investors.

Eliminate Rule 204 and stop issuers and portals from using artificially low minimums. That’s my platform for 2026.

In the meantime, I’m afraid a Shark Tank for Reg CF isn’t going to work.

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


Self-hosted Reg CF offerings legal analysis SEC crowdfunding rules

How To Draft A Form C For Regulation Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding Vehicles, Form C, Reg CF, SPVLeave a comment

Form C is the disclosure document used in Reg CF. Because I see so many Form Cs that aren’t done properly, I thought it would be worthwhile to explain how a Form C should be drafted and why too many lawyers go astray.

Rule 201 (17 CFR §227.201) tells us exactly what should be disclosed in a Form C:

  • Rule 201(a) calls for the name, legal status, physical address, and website of the issuer.
  • Rule 201(b) calls for the names and business experience of officers and directors. 
  • Rule 201(c) calls for the name of each person owning 20% or more of the voting stock.
  • All the way through Rule 201(z), which calls for copies of testing the waters materials.

Rule 201 is exhaustive, i.e., there is no disclosure requirement in Reg CF outside Rule 201, other than a short financial summary. 

If you had never prepared a disclosure document, how would you provide the disclosures required by Rule 201? Chances are, you would simply go down the list, from Rule 201(a) to Rule 201(z), and provide answers to all the questions. And that is exactly the right way to do it.

Look at this Form C, for a company called ScienceCast, Inc. Look at the Table of Contents, how it just goes through Rule 201, item-by-item. Look at the body, where each item is labeled with the corresponding rule. Look how the Form C describes the role of the crowdfunding vehicle, or SPV. If you had never prepared a disclosure document and were trying to do things right, I bet this is how you would do it.

Yet look at most of the Form Cs that are filed with the SEC. They don’t follow this format at all or follow it only loosely. In the worst case, of which there are many examples, you can’t even tell it’s a Form C. It looks like a typical Private Placement Memorandum you would see in a Regulation D offering.

And that explains why too many lawyers go off track. A lawyer who has prepared hundreds of Private Placement Memoranda thinks “A Form C is just another type of disclosure document. I’ll start with the form I’m already familiar with rather than create something new from scratch.”

Legal forms can be very useful, but they can also become like an old ship encrusted with barnacles. Over time, lawyers tend to add things to form documents as new cases are decided or new concepts come to mind, but rarely is any of the old stuff scraped away, much less the whole document re-thought.

Using the fresh-out-of-the-box Form C rather than the encrusted Private Placement Memorandum has many benefits:

  • It’s far easier to make sure all the disclosures are there.
  • It’s far easier to check for accuracy.
  • It’s far easier to create an easy-to-understand template.
  • It’s far more efficient, cutting costs.
  • It’s far easier for a lawyer to prepare or review, cutting costs.
  • It’s far easier for the funding portal to explain to the issuer.
  • It avoids all the duplication you see in a typical PPM.
  • It avoids all the state notices and other unnecessary legal boilerplate you see in a typical PPM.
  • It’s far easier for an investor to compare one offering to another.
  • It’s far easier for an investor to read and understand.
  • It uses less energy, reducing the impact of Reg CF on the fragile coral reefs surrounding Australia.

For Reg CF to grow, the industry must standardize. I hope it can at least standardize around a Form C.

Questions? Let me know.

PODCAST: Is the SEC Democratizing Investment?

On By crowdfundattnyIn Podcasts, Regulation A, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Democratizing investment. A huge step forward.

My guest today is Mark Roderick, founder of Lex Nova Law and one of the top online crowdfunding experts in the country. Mark and I discuss the very exciting changes proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulation crowdfunding, or Reg CF, the securities regulation that is really the first step taken by the S.E.C. towards democratizing investment. The additional changes proposed will give this regulation real legs.

Impact Real Estate Investing Podcast

Insights and Inspirations

  • Mark believes the latest round of changes to the crowdfunding rules will bring some fundamental changes to the industry including higher quality deals.
  • As the deals get better, so will the industry grow, and more investors join in.
  • He expects to see changes in the physical landscape in just 5 years as these rules begin to have a far-reaching effect.

A Summary of the Investment Company Act for Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Investment Company ActLeave a comment

Hardly a day goes by without someone asking a question that involves the Investment Company Act of 1940. Although the Act is hugely long and complicated, I’m going to try to summarize in a single blog post the parts that are most important to Crowdfunding.

Why the Fuss?

If you’re in the Crowdfunding space, you don’t want to be an “investment company” within the meaning of the Act:

  • As an investment company, you’re not allowed to raise money using either Title III (Regulation Crowdfunding) or Title IV (Regulation A).
  • Investment companies are subject to huge levels of cost and regulation.

What is an Investment Company?

An investment company is company in the business of holding the securities of other companies. That statement raises many interesting and technical legal issues that have consumed many volumes of legal treatises and conferences at the Waldorf. But almost none of it matters to understand the basics.

All that matters from a practical perspective is that stock in corporations, interests in limited liability companies, and interests in limited partnerships are all generally “securities” within the meaning of the Act.

And that means, in turn, that if you hold stock in corporations, interests in limited liability companies, and/or interests in limited partnerships, then assume you’re an “investment company” within the meaning of the Act, unless you can identify and qualify for an exception.

How Much is Too Much?

Holding some securities doesn’t make you an investment company. Under one of the many technical rules in the Act, a company won’t be considered an investment company if:

  • No more than 45% of its assets are invested in securities, as of the end of the most recent fiscal quarter; and
  • No more than 45% of its income is derived from investment securities, as of the end of the most recent four fiscal quarters.

Does That Mean a Typical SPV is an Investment Company?

Unless the SPV can find an exception, yes.

Many Crowdfunded investments use a “special purpose vehicle,” typically a Delaware limited liability company. Investors acquire interests in the SPV, and the SPV invests – as a single investor – in the actual operating company. Because the only asset of the SPV is the interest in the operating company, which is a “security,” the SPV is indeed an investment company, unless it qualifies for one of the exceptions below.

Simple Exceptions

The definition of “investment company” is so broad, most of the action is in the exceptions. I’m not going to talk about all of them, only those that are most relevant to Crowdfunding.

  • No More Than 100 Investors – A company with no more than 100 investors (who do not have to be accredited) isn’t an investment company. That’s the exception used by SPVs in Crowdfunding. Which means that as the size of deals in Crowdfunding grows, SPVs will no longer be used.
  • All Qualified Investors – A company with only “qualified investors” isn’t an investment company. A “qualified investor” is generally a person with more than $5 million of investable assets. Many hedge funds rely on this exception, but it’s not going to be used widely in Crowdfunding.

NOTE:  A company that would be an investment company but for either of those two exceptions is still not allowed to use Title III or Title IV.

  • Companies That Invest In Mortgages – A company that invests in or originates mortgages is usually not an investment company.
  • Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries – A company that conducts its business through wholly-owned subsidiaries isn’t an investment company, as long as the subsidiaries are not investment companies. For these purposes, “wholly-owned” means the parent owns at least 95% of the voting power.
  • Majority-Owned Subsidiaries – A company that conducts its business through majority-owned subsidiaries usually isn’t an investment company, as long as the subsidiaries are not investment companies. For these purposes, “majority-owned” means the parent owns at least 50% of the voting power.

The 45% Exception

Some companies, including some REITs, own interests in subsidiaries that are not wholly-owned or even majority-owned. To avoid being treated as investment companies, those companies typically rely on an exception that requires more complicated calculations. Under this exception, a company is excluded from the definition of “investment company” if it satisfies both of the followings tests:

  • No more than 45% of the value of its assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items) consist of securities other than what I will refer to as “allowable securities.”
  • No more than 45% of its after-tax income is derived from securities other than those same “allowable securities.”

For these purposes, the securities I am calling “allowable securities” include a number of different kinds of securities, but the two most important to us are:

  • Securities issued by majority-owned subsidiaries of the parent; and
  • Securities issued by companies that are controlled primarily by the parent.

So think of those securities as being in the “good” basket and other kinds of securities as being in the “bad” basket.

In determining whether a security – such as an interest in a limited liability company – is an “allowable security,” and therefore in the “good” basket, the following definitions apply:

  • A subsidiary is a “majority-owned subsidiary” if the parent owns at least 50% of the voting securities of the subsidiary.
  • A parent is deemed to “control” a subsidiary if it has the power to exercise a controlling influence of the management or policies of the subsidiary.
  • A parent is deemed to “control primarily” a subsidiary if (1) it has the power to exercise a controlling influence of the management or policies of the subsidiary, and (2) this power is greater than the power of any other person.

Summary

If your business model involves investing in other companies and you plan to raise money from other people, the Investment Company Act of 1940 should be on your To Do List.

As a rule of thumb, you can feel comfortable investing in wholly-owned subsidiaries, majority-owned subsidiaries, and subsidiaries where you have exclusive or at least primary control. If you find other investments making up, say, more than 25% of your portfolio, measured by asset value or income, look harder.

Questions? Let me know.