Tag: SEC regulations

Regulation A+ Is Here

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Regulation ALeave a comment

A Plus Walking the Red CarpetWell, that didn’t take long.

It’s been a mere 457 days since the SEC proposed regulations under Title IV of the JOBS Act, aka Regulation A+, and a mere 1,070 days since the JOBS Act was signed into law. Yet the SEC approved final regulations today, with just a few tweaks from the proposed rules. Regulation A+ will go into effect in roughly 60 days.

The most important provisions of the proposed regulations survived intact: companies will be allowed to raise up to $50 million – from anyone, not just accredited investors – without approval from state regulators. You will still have to file a thick offering statement with the SEC, and investors – both accredited and non-accredited – will still be limited to investing 10% of the greater of income or net worth. Nevertheless, I expect Regulation A+ to be used very widely, indeed to transform the Crowdfunding landscape.

I’ll be providing a link to the final regulations shortly (as well as a bunch of other useful links), as well as some thoughts about where Regulation A+ will be most useful.

Title III, anybody?

Questions? Let me know.

Do The Officers Of A Crowdfunding Issuer Have To Register As Broker-Dealers?

On By crowdfundattnyIn Broker-Dealer, Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Laws, Title II CrowdfundingLeave a comment

thinking woman in jarToday, the most challenging legal question in Title II Crowdfunding is who is required to be a broker-dealer and under what circumstances. The question is most acute for the officers of an issuer, those who direct the issuer’s activities and put the offerings together.

Section 3(a)(4)(A) of the Securities and Exchange Act 1934 generally defines “broker” to mean “any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for others.” Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act makes it illegal for any “broker. . . .to effect any transactions in, or to induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of, any security” unless registered with the SEC.

Simply put, anybody in the business of effecting securities transactions for others must be registered. There is a lot of law around what it means to be “engaged in the business of effecting securities transactions for others.” Based on decided cases and SEC announcements, important factors include:

  • The frequency of the transactions.
  • Whether the individual‘s responsibilities include structuring the transaction, identifying and soliciting potential investors, advising investors on the merits of the investment, participating in the order-taking process, and other services critical to the offering.
  • Whether the individual receives commissions or other transaction-based compensation for her efforts.

Perhaps the most important rule is that the issuer itself – the entity that actually issues the stock – does not have to register as a broker-dealer. The logic is that the issuer is effecting the transaction for itself, not for others.

But what about the President of the issuer, and the Vice President, and all the other employees who send the mailings and put the deal on the website and answer questions from prospective investors? Are they required to register as – or, more accurately, become affiliated with – broker-dealers?

The answer is complicated.

SEC Rule 3a4-1, issued under the Exchange Act, provides a “safe harbor” from registration. Under Rule 3a4-1, an employee of an issuer will not have to register if she is not compensated by commissions, and EITHER:

Her duties are limited to:

  • Preparing any written communication or delivering such communication through the mails or other means that does not involve oral solicitation of a potential purchaser, as long as the content of all such communications are approved by a partner, officer or director of the issuer; or
  • Responding to inquiries of a potential purchaser in a communication initiated by the potential purchaser, as long as her response is limited to providing information contained in an offering statement; or
  • Performing ministerial and clerical work.

OR

  • She performs substantial services other than in connection with offerings; and
  • She has not been a broker-dealer within the preceding 12 months; and
  • She does not participate in more than one offering per year, except for offerings where her duties are limited as described above.

Consider the President of the typical Title II portal offering borrower-dependent notes to accredited investors. Her duties are certainly not limited as described above, and she might participate in – actually direct – dozens of offerings per year. Does that mean she has to register as a broker-dealer?

Not necessarily. Rule 3a4-1 is only a safe harbor. If you satisfy the requirements of Rule 3a4-1 then you are automatically okay, i.e., you don’t have to register. But if you don’t satisfy the requirements of Rule 3a4-1, it doesn’t automatically mean you are required to register. Instead, it means your obligation to register will be determined under the large body of law developed by the SEC and courts over the last 80 years.

Courts and the SEC have identified these primary factors among others:

  • The duties of the employee before she became affiliated with the issuer. Was she a broker-dealer?
  • Whether she was hired for the specific purpose of participating in the offerings.
  • Whether she has substantial duties other than participating in the offerings.
  • How she is paid, and in particular whether she receives commission for raising capital.
  • Whether she intends to remain employed by the portal when the offering is finished.

Within the last couple years, a high-ranking lawyer in the SEC spoke publicly but informally about broker-dealer registration in the context of private funds, an area similar to Crowdfunding in some respects. He expressed concern at the way that some funds market interests to investors and suggested that some in-house marketing personnel might be required to register. At the same time, he suggested that an “investor relations” group within a private fund – individuals who spend some of their time soliciting investors – wouldn’t necessarily be required to register if the individuals spend the majority of their time on activities that do not involve solicitation. On one point he was quite clear: the SEC believes that if an individual receives commissions for capital raised, he or she should probably be registered.

Whether an officer or other employee of a Crowdfunding issuer must register as a broker-dealer will be highly sensitive to the facts; change the facts a little and you might get a different answer. With that caveat, I offer these general guidelines:

  • If an employee receives commissions, he has to register no matter what.
  • If an employee performs solely clerical functions, he does not have to register.
  • If an employee participates in only a handful of offerings, he does not have to register.
  • If an employee spends only a small portion of his time soliciting investors, he does not have to register.
  • If an employee advises investors on the merits of an investment, he’s walking close to the line. Describing facts, especially facts that are already available in an offering document or online, in response to an investor inquiry, doesn’t count as advising investors on the merits of an investment.

Here are two corollaries to those guidelines.

  • As long as he’s not paying himself commissions, the Founder and CEO of an issuer that is a bona fide operating company (not merely a shell to raise money) doesn’t have to register.
  • If the CEO hires Janet to solicit investors, and that’s all Janet does, and she speaks regularly with investors over the phone and helps them decide between Project A and Project B, the SEC is probably going to want Janet to be registered.

Of course, the most conservative approach for Crowdfunding issuers to run every transaction through a licensed broker-dealer. However, that adds cost and most issuers are trying to keep costs down.

This area is ripe for guidance from the SEC, and maybe even a new exemption for bona fide employees of small issuers. Stay tuned.

NOTE: I want to give a shout-out to Rich Weintraub, Esq. of Weintraub Law Group in San Diego. He and I had several very stimulating and thought-provoking conversations on this topic. If there are mistakes in the post, they’re all mine.

Questions? Let me know.

Crowdfunding And Fiduciary Obligations

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Laws, Fiduciary Obligations, JOBS ActLeave a comment

The term “fiduciary obligations” sends a chill down the spine of corporate lawyers – although some may object to using the word “spine” and “corporate lawyer” in the same sentence.

A person with a fiduciary obligation has a special legal duty. A trustee has a fiduciary obligation to the beneficiaries of the trust. The executor of an estate has a fiduciary obligation to the beneficiaries of the estate. The fiduciary obligation is not an obligation to always be successful, or always be right, but rather an obligation to try your best, or something close to that. A trustee who fails to anticipate the stock market crash of 2008 has not breached her fiduciary obligation. A trustee who fails to read published reports of a company’s impending bankruptcy before buying its stock probably has.

A person with a fiduciary obligation is required to be loyal, to look out for the interests of those under her care, to put their interests before her own.

By law and longstanding principle, the directors of a corporation have a fiduciary obligation to the corporation and its shareholders. In the classic case, a director of a corporation in the energy business took for his own benefit the opportunity to develop certain oil wells. Foul! cried the court. He has breached his fiduciary obligation by failing to pass the opportunity along to the corporation, to which he is a fiduciary.

Modern corporate statutes allow the fiduciary obligations of directors to be modified, but not eliminated, even if all the shareholders would sign off. If the corporation is publicly-traded, the exchange likely imposes obligations on the director (and the President, and the CEO, etc.) in addition to the fiduciary obligations imposed by state corporate law.

Which takes us to Crowdfunding. crowd funding word cloud

Most deals in the Crowdfunding space are done in a Delaware limited liability company. The Delaware Limited Liability Company Act allows a manager – the equivalent of a director in a corporation – to eliminate his fiduciary obligation altogether. If I’m representing the sponsor of the deal then of course I want to protect my client as fully as possible. And yet, I’m not sure that’s the best answer for the industry overall.

The U.S. public capital markets thrive mainly because investors trust them, just as the U.S. consumer products industry thrives because people feel safe shopping (that’s why securities laws and consumer-protection laws, as aggravating as they can be, actually help business). My client’s investors may or may not pay attention to the fiduciary duty sections of his LLC Agreement, but I wonder whether the Crowdfunding market as a whole can scale if those running the show regularly operate at a lower level of legal responsibility than the managers of public companies. Will it drive investors away?

Part of my brain says that it will, and yet, over the last 25 years or so, as corporate laws have become more indulgent toward management and executive pay has skyrocketed, lots of people have wondered when investors will say “Enough!” It hasn’t happened so far.

Questions? Let me know.

Crowdfunding And The Trust Indenture Act Of 1939

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, JOBS Act, Regulation A, Trust Indenture Act of 1939Leave a comment

Handing over moneyThe Securities Act of 1933. The Exchange Act of 1934. The Investment Company Act of 1940. Those are the pillars of the U.S. securities laws, as relevant today as they were 80 years ago. And here’s one more old law relevant to Crowdfunding: the Trust Indenture Act of 1939.

Here’s the idea. A company issues its promissory notes (obligations) to a large group of investors. If the company defaults on one or two notes, it might not be financially feasible for those particular investors to take legal action. Even if the company defaults on all the notes it will be a mess sorting out the competing claims. Which investor goes first? If there is collateral, which investor has priority? At best it’s highly inefficient, economically.

The Trust Indenture Act of 1939 imposes order and economic efficiency. It provides that where a company issues debt securities, like promissory notes, it must do so pursuant to a legal document called an “indenture” and, most important, with a trustee, normally a bank, to represent the interests of all the investors together. The TIA goes farther:

  • It provides that the indenture document must be reviewed and approved by the SEC in advance.
  • It ensures that the trustee is independent of the issuer.
  • It requires certain information to be provided to investors.
  • It prohibits the trustee from limiting its own liability.

Why don’t Patch of Land and other Crowdfunding portals that issue debt securities comply with the TIA? Because offerings under Rule 506 are not generally covered by the law. Conversely, because Lending Club and Prosper sell publicly-registered securities (their “platform notes”), they are covered, and have filed lengthy indenture documents with the SEC.

The real surprise is with Regulation A+. If a Regulation A+ issuer uses an indenture instrument to protect the interests of investors then it will be subject to the TIA and its extensive investor-protection requirements. If the issuer does not use an indenture, on the other hand hand, it will not be subject to the TIA as long as it has outstanding less than $50 million of debt. That’s a strange result – giving issuers an incentive not to use an indenture even though indentures protect investors.

That’s what happens sometimes when you apply very old laws to very new forms of economic activity. Welcome to Crowdfunding.

Questions? Let me know.

Improving Legal Documents In Crowdfunding: Tax Allocations

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Laws, JOBS Act, Legal Documents, Tax, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Because I started life as a tax shelter lawyer, I’m especially sensitive to how income and losses are allocated within partnerships and limited liability companies (limited liability companies are taxed as partnerships). Agreements in the Crowdfunding space leave something to be desired.

As we all know, partnerships are not themselves taxable entities. The items of income and loss of the dollar handshakepartnership “flow through” and are reported on the personal tax returns of the owners. Allocating income and losses is simple when you have one class of partnership interest and everything is pro rata, e.g., you get 70% of everything and I get 30%. It becomes a lot more complicated in the real world.

Say, for example:

  • The sponsor of a deal takes a 30% promote in operating cash flow after investors received an 8% annual preferred return.
  • On a sale or refinancing, the sponsor takes a 40% promote after the investors receive a 10% internal rate of return.
  • In the early years of the deal the project generates ordinary losses, then generates cash flow sheltered by depreciation deductions, then generates section 1231 gain.

The allocation of income and loss in a partnership is governed by section 704(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. Long ago, the IRS issued regulations under section 704(b) that use the concept of “capital accounts” to determine whether a given allocation has “substantial economic effect.” Rules within rules, exceptions within exceptions, definitions within definitions, the section 704(b) regulations are a delight for the kind of person (I admit it) who wasn’t necessarily the coolest in high school.

For years afterward, tax shelter lawyers vied with one another to include as many of the rules and definitions of the regulations as possible in their partnership agreements, verbatim. That lasted until we recognized that (1) no matter how hard we tried, it was impossible to be 100% sure that the allocations would come out right; and (2) there was a better way.

The better way is to give management the right to allocate income on a year-to-year basis, with the mandate that the allocation of income should follow the distribution of cash. To wit:

Company shall seek to allocate its income, gains, losses, deductions, and expenses (“Tax Items”) in a manner so that (i) such allocations have “substantial economic effect” as defined in Section 704(b) of the Code and the regulations issued thereunder (the “Regulations”) and otherwise comply with applicable tax laws; (ii) each Member is allocated income equal to the sum of (A) the losses he or it is allocated, and (B) the cash profits he or it receives; and (iii) after taking into account the allocations for each year as well as such factors as the value of the Company’s assets, the allocations likely to be made to each Member in the future, and the distributions each Member is likely to receive, the balance of each Member’s capital account at the time of the liquidation of the Company will be equal to the amount such Member is entitled to receive pursuant to this Agreement. That is, the allocation of the Company’s Tax Items, should, to the extent reasonably possible, following the actual and anticipated distributions of cash, in the discretion of the Manager. In making allocations the Manager shall use reasonable efforts to comply with applicable tax laws, including without limitation through incorporation of a “qualified income offset,” a “gross income allocation,” and a “minimum gain chargeback,” as such terms or concepts are specified in the Regulations. The Manager shall be conclusively deemed to have used reasonable effort if it has sought and obtained advice from counsel.

Even today, I see partnership agreements that devote pages to the allocation of tax items. The approach in the paragraph above is much simpler and, even more important, much more likely to achieve the right result.

Questions? Let me know.

SEC Subcommittee Reports On Accredited Investor Definition

On By crowdfundattnyIn Accredited Investor, Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Laws, Dodd-Frank Act, Entrepreneurs, JOBS ActLeave a comment

The Dodd-Frank Act instructs the SEC to evaluate the definition of “accredited investor” and, if it sees fit, to modify the definition “as the Commission may deem appropriate for the protection of investors, in the public interest, and in light of the economy.”

As regular readers of this blog know, I’ve been optimistic that the SEC would not take this opportunity to kill Title II Crowdfunding and every other kind of Rule 506(c) private placement (which includes most angel investing as well) by creating an onerous new definition. The report issued recently by a SEC subcommittee, while surprising in some respects, doesn’t dent my optimism.

The subcommittee report makes two important, though obvious, points:

  • The Committee does not believe that the current definition as it pertains to natural persons effectively serves this function in all instances.
  • The current definition’s financial thresholds serve as an imperfect proxy for sophistication, access to information, and ability to withstand losses.

The existing definition is imperfect, yes. The question is, what to do about it?

Although the report does not provide a clear answer to that question, the good news, from my perspective, is that the report does not suggest merely indexing the current thresholds ($200,000 of income, $1 million of net worth) to inflation, which would disqualify most accredited investors and send the private placement market into a tailspin. Instead, the report seeks a standard that will address both financial sophistication and the ability to withstand loss.

The report suggests two specific measures of financial sophistication: the series 7 securities license and the Chartered Financial Analyst designation. Following the lead of the United Kingdom, the report also suggests that those with proven investment experience – for example, a member of an angel investing group – might qualify. Finally, the report suggests, as others have before, that the SEC could develop an examination for the purpose of qualifying investors.

Declining a suggestion from several quarters, the report does not include lawyers or accountants as investors who should be deemed to have financial sophistication.

The reports veers a little off track, in my opinion, when it speculates that, in conjunction with changing the definition of accredited investor, the SEC could limit the amount invested by each investor – following the 10% limit of Regulation A+, for example. That kind of limitation would be new to Rule 506 offerings.

In my Model State Crowdfunding law, I use a definition of accredited investors that includes lawyers, accountants, and anyone with the license from FINRA, as long as the lawyer, accountant, or license-holder has income of at least $75,000. Recognizing the imperfection of any definition, I think that strikes about the right balance. Bolt on an SEC-administered examination option and we’re right there with the subcommittee report.

All in all, it’s good to see the SEC, once again, thinking through the issues carefully. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Questions? Let me know.

CFGE Crowdfund Bank And Lending Summit in San Francisco

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Portals, Crowdfunding Real Estate, Crowdfunding Speaking Engagements, Entrepreneurs, Equity Crowdfunding, Investing, Investor, JOBS ActLeave a comment

Roderick CFGE

Since Labor Day, I’ve spoken at half a dozen events: for entrepreneurs, for intellectual property lawyers, for finance professionals, for digital marketing groups. This week I’ll be speaking at one of the premier Crowdfunding events in country, the CFGE Crowdfund Banking and Lending Summit on the 16th and 17th in San Francisco.

The conference features some of the leaders in the industry, including:

  • Richard Swart, Director of Research for Innovation in Entrepreneur and Social Finance, Colman Fung Institute for Engineering Leadership at UC Berkeley.
  • Ron Suber, the President of Prosper.
  • Jason Fritton, the Founder and CEO of Patch of Land.
  • Tom Lockard, the Vice President for Real Estate Investment and Institutional Sales of Fundrise.
  • Nikul Patel, the Chief Lending Officer of LendingTree.
  • Jesse Clem, the Co-Founder of LOQUIDITY, LLC.
  • Joy Schoffler, the CEO of Leverage PR.

Whether you’re new to Crowdfunding or an industry veteran, I’d strongly suggest you attend. I’m always amazed how much more there is to learn.

To register, click here. Make sure to use my promo code and receive a 25% discount! Promo code: Roderick

And while you’re there, please stop by and say hello. Crowdfunding and skiing – those are my two favorite topics.

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.

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.

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.