Tag: SEC

Investor Verification: Questions & Answers from The SEC

On By crowdfundattnyIn Investor, Investor Verification, Rule 501(a)(5), SEC, Securities Exchange CommissionLeave a comment

The SEC recently issued four questions and answers dealing with investor verification.

Question #1

If a purchaser’s annual income is not reported in U.S. dollars, what exchange rate should an issuer use to determine whether the purchaser’s income meets the income test for qualifying as an accredited investor?

Answer: The issuer may use either the exchange rate that is in effect on the last day of the year for which income is being determined or the average exchange rate for that year.

Question #2

Can assets in an account or property held jointly with another person who is not the purchaser’s spouse be included in determining whether the purchaser satisfies the net worth test in Rule 501(a)(5)?

Answer: Yes, assets in an account or property held jointly with a person who is not the purchaser’s spouse may be included in the calculation for the net worth test, but only to the extent of his or her percentage ownership of the account or property. [July 3, 2014]

Question #3

Rule 506(c)(2)(ii)(A) sets forth a non-exclusive method of verifying that a purchaser is an accredited investor by, among other things, reviewing any Internal Revenue Service form that reports the purchaser’s income for the “two most recent years.” If such an Internal Revenue Service form is not yet available for the recently completed year (e.g., 2013), can the issuer still rely on this verification method by reviewing the Internal Revenue Service forms for the two prior years that are available (e.g., 2012 and 2011)?

Answer: No, the verification safe harbor provided in Rule 506(c)(2)(ii)(A) would not be available under these circumstances. We believe, however, that an issuer could reasonably conclude that a purchaser is an accredited investor and satisfy the verification requirement of Rule 506(c) under the principles-based verification method by:

  • Reviewing the Internal Revenue Service forms that report income for the two years preceding the recently completed year; and
  • Obtaining written representations from the purchaser that (i) an Internal Revenue Service form that reports the purchaser’s income for the recently completed year is not available, (ii) specify the amount of income the purchaser received for the recently completed year and that such amount reached the level needed to qualify as an accredited investor, and (iii) the purchaser has a reasonable expectation of reaching the requisite income level for the current year.

Where the issuer has reason to question the purchaser’s claim to be an accredited investor after reviewing these documents, it must take additional verification measures in order to establish that it has taken reasonable steps to verify that the purchaser is an accredited investor. For example, if, based on this review, the purchaser’s income for the most recently completed year barely exceeded the threshold required, the foregoing procedures might not constitute sufficient verification and more diligence might be necessary.

Question #4

A purchaser is not a U.S. taxpayer and therefore cannot provide an Internal Revenue Service form that reports income. Can an issuer review comparable tax forms from a foreign jurisdiction in order to rely on the verification method provided in Rule 506(c)(2)(ii)(A)?

Answer: No, the verification safe harbor provided in Rule 506(c)(2)(ii)(A) would not be available under these circumstances. In adopting this safe harbor, the Commission noted that there are “numerous penalties for falsely reporting information” in Internal Revenue Service forms. See Securities Act Release No. 33-9415 (July 10, 2013). Although the safe harbor is not available for tax forms from foreign jurisdictions, we believe that an issuer could reasonably conclude that a purchaser is an accredited investor and satisfy the verification requirement of Rule 506(c) under the principles-based verification method by reviewing filed tax forms that report income where the foreign jurisdiction imposes comparable penalties for falsely reported information.

Where the issuer has reason to question the reliability of the information about the purchaser’s income after reviewing these documents, it must take additional verification measures in order to establish that it has taken reasonable steps to verify that the purchaser is an accredited investor.

The Takeaway

The lesson is that issuers and portals should not try to verify investors on their own. Leave that to a third party service like Crowdentials or VerifyInvestor – they keep track of these rules so you won’t have to.

Questions? Let me know.

Our Experience With Regulation A – by Ben Miller, Co-Founder of FundRise

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Portals, Crowdfunding Real Estate, Guest Blog, JOBS Act, Regulation ALeave a comment

To improve the user experience, I am inviting guest bloggers. The first is Ben Miller, a Co-Founder of Fundrise, who explains how he and his brother Dan invented Crowdfunding through Regulation A.

Please let me know if you would like to post. I’m looking for content like Ben’s – interesting, informative, educational.

-MARK RODERICK

____________________________________________________________________________________

By: Ben Miller, Co-Founder of Fundrise.

My brother Dan and I were in the real estate business for a long time, developing commercial and residential projects in the Washington, D.C. area, before we thought about crowdfunding. We got some of our capital from the same place many real estate developers get their capital: from investment funds in New York or even outside of the country.

Most of them had little connection to the places we were building and often had never even heard of the neighborhood. On the other hand, our friends and neighbors, people with real connection to the projects, couldn’t invest with us.

fundriseWe started to imagine a world where everyone could invest in high-quality real estate deals, which were then limited to professional investors. We thought about ordinary people investing in their own communities, creating a win-win for the community and business owners. Like every other developer, we’ve had our share of battles with local zoning agencies. We imagined how that process might change if actual investors from the community showed up at council meetings to support the project.

This was before crowdfunding or the JOBS Act were on the table, and every lawyer we spoke to (and we spoke to plenty) told us that our idea was impossible.

Finally we discovered SEC Regulation A. Although Regulation A had been around since 1936, before we came along it had been used very rarely, which probably explains why the lawyers hadn’t heard about it. In all of 2012 fewer than a dozen companies had used Regulation A to raise capital across the whole country, as compared to more than 7,000 Regulation D offerings.

We soon found out why. Although Regulation A allows you to raise money from anybody, including from non-accredited investors, first you have to file a disclosure document with the SEC and with the state securities regulators in any state where you offer the security, and get the regulators to approve your offering. Regulation A is nothing like the new Crowdfunding under SEC Rule 506(c), which is simple and streamlined by comparison.

Once we figured out how to file the disclosure document, which is really like a mini registration statement, we learned that neither the SEC nor the state regulators had ever seen a real estate development project offered under Regulation A. We spent hundreds of hours and way too much in legal fees working through all of the issues. We were literally doing something that had never been done in the history of the U.S. capital markets, and at the same time paving the way for everyone else.

After lots of work, lots of frustration, and lots of conversations with regulators, we succeeded. Our Regulation A filing was approved and we raised $325,000 for the project. I won’t even tell you how much it cost to raise that $325,000, but we were okay with it because we saw the experience then, and still do, as an investment in our future.

We have completed three Regulation A offerings since then. Each time we’ve gotten better and faster, not to mention that the regulators have learned along with us.

Here’s what it took to complete our most recent Regulation A offering:

reg a breakdown

Our most recent filing:

fedex

Fundrise has branched out since those early days. As the leading real estate portal in the world we offer not only Regulation A projects but Rule 506(c) investments under the JOBS Act. And we’re very excited about the new Regulation A+. Regulation A+ improves on Regulation A by allowing us to raise up to $50 million of equity from non-accredited investors (subject to a limitation on how much each person can invest) and further streamline the process by filing only with the SEC, and not with state securities regulators. Fundrise has always been a pioneer, and we expect to pioneer the possibilities of Regulation A+ as well as soon as it becomes available.

Whatever the future holds for Fundrise, and we believe our future is unlimited, we’ll always remember that Regulation A allowed us to open the door into the world of crowdfunding and give unaccredited investors the chance to invest in real estate for the first time in history.

Follow @BenMillerise and @Fundrise on Twitter.

 

Austin Roundup

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding Real Estate, Crowdfunding Speaking Engagements, JOBS Act, Speaking Engagements, Title II, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III Crowdfunding, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Austin cityscapeHats off to the folks at Coastal Shows for making the Austin event – officially the CFGE Crowdfund Real Estate Summit – the best Crowdfunding event ever.

The event featured the leading players in the industry:

Title III of the JOBS Act may be flawed, and the final rules for Regulation A+ may be long overdue, but the speakers and panelists agree that Crowdfunding is here to stay, with Title II leading the way. Two days before the conference began, Fundrise raised $31 million of capital in a Series A round of financing. That served as a very useful background, illuminating the potential of a market that promises to transform the U.S. capital formation industry.

Over coffee during the day and beer in the evening, I spoke with dozens of real estate developers and entrepreneurs. Their message came through loud and clear: We’re tired of dealing exclusively with our traditional sources of capital and are eager to raise money through Crowdfunding channels.

Developers are eager for new sources of capital, and individual investors are eager to participate in a market that, until now, has been reserved for institutions and the very wealthy. That’s Crowdfunding, in a nutshell.

What happens in Vegas might stay in Vegas, but what happened in Austin is going to spread across the country. Thanks for a great event, Coastal Shows.

PPM Or No PPM: That Is The Question

On By crowdfundattnyIn JOBS Act, PPM, Private Placement Memorandum, Regulation D offerings, Title II, Title II CrowdfundingLeave a comment

Crowdfunding Image - XXXL - iStock_000037694192XXXLargeSome Title II Crowdfunding portals use a full-blown Private Placement Memorandum for each offering, while others do not. What’s the deal?

For readers unfamiliar with the term, a Private Placement Memorandum, or PPM, is usually a long document, often half an inch thick or more printed, that is given to prospective investors and used partly to describe the deal but mostly to explain the risks.

The PPM finds its origins in the lengthy prospectus required of companies selling securities to the public in a registered offering. Following suit, Rule 502(b)(2) of Regulation D requires an issuer to provide specified information to prospective investors in some offerings and in some situations – for example, where securities are offered to non-accredited investors in an offering under Rule 506(b).

But where securities are sold only to accredited investors under Rule 506(b) or 506(c), the issuer is not required to provide the information described in Rule 506(b)2) – or any other information, for that matter. The idea is that accredited investors are smart enough to ask for the important information and otherwise watch out for themselves.

Companies like Fundrise that offer securities under Regulation A or Regulation A+ are required to provide specific information to investors. But Crowdfunding under Title II of the JOBS Act involves selling only to accredited investors in transaction described in Rule 506. Therefore, the law leaves to the issuer and the portal what information to provide and in what form.

For them, what are the pros and cons of a full-blown PPM?

The cons are obvious. Nobody but a lawyer could love a PPM. A full-blown PPM is bulky and unattractive, repetitive and filled with legalese. Ostensibly written to provide information to prospective investors, PPMs have, through time and custom, become so daunting that prospective investors rarely even read them. From a business perspective, a PPM creates friction in the transaction.

However, the pros are also obvious. Although Regulation D does not require an issuer or portal to provide any information, an issuer that fails to provide information, or provides incomplete or inaccurate information, may be liable to disgruntled investors under 17 CFR 240.10b-5, the general anti-fraud rule of Federal securities law, or various state statutory and common law rules.

That’s why the PPM exists: to provide so much information to prospective investors (albeit in an unreadable format), and to describe the risks of the investment in such repetitive detail, that no investor can claim after the fact “I didn’t know.”

The question is whether the issuer and the portal can get the same benefit without all the disadvantages. And the answer, in my opinion, is a resounding Yes!

In fact, the trend in private placements over the last two decades has been away from the full-blown PPM and toward a simpler disclosure document. I have been representing issuers in private placements of securities for more than 25 years and never prepare a PPM except where required by law (e.g., with non-accredited investors). None of the issuers I have represented during those 25+ years has been sued for securities law violations – much less successfully – and in my anecdotal experience, claims arising from alleged failures to disclose material information rarely if ever hinge on the presence or absence of a full-blown PPM.

Not only are portals not required to provide a full-blown PPM, in my opinion the question presents portals with a great business opportunity. Given that information must be provided, the manner in which it is provided, in what format, with what visual effects, how clearly and with what explanation, could well distinguish a portal in the minds of prospective investors. With the technology inherent in the platform, not to mention the creative minds in the industry, I expect that the manner of providing information will become one of the key ways that individual Title II portals distinguish themselves from one another and that the Crowdfunding industry in general improves the process of capital formation. Someday we will look back on the thick PPM and ask “Can you believe we once did it that way?”

A portal that gets it right – and there will be more than one way to get it right – will also create some protectable intellectual property interests and the accompanying breathing space vis-à-vis its competitors and additional valuation on exit.

Questions? Let me know.

SEC Rules 506(B) And 506(C): Clearing Up The Confusion

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Portals, Rule 506, Rule 506(b), Rule 506(c), SEC, Securities Exchange Commission, Securities LawsLeave a comment

Some Crowdfunding portals offer Rules 506(b) transactions in addition to, and sometimes even in lieu crowd funding word cloudof, Rule 506(c) transactions. Let’s clear up the confusion.

In the beginning. . . .

Long before the JOBS Act, section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 provided that an issuer of securities did not have to go through the time and expense of a registered public offering in a transaction “not involving any public offering.” Recognizing the putting-the-rabbit-in-the-hat nature of that language and wishing to provide more clarity to the public, the SEC issued Regulation D in 1982, which provides a series of Rules guiding issuers through the shoals of private – as opposed to public – offerings.

One of the Rules in Regulation D, Rule 506(b), describes a kind of private offering that has been the favorite of issuers and their lawyers for many years:

  • An unlimited amount of money raised
  • An unlimited number of accredited investors plus 35 non-accredited investors
  • Exemption from state Blue Sky registration

Rule 506(b) provides great flexibility to issuers. However, consistent with the distinction inherent in Regulation D between private and public offerings, Rule 506(b) prohibited the use of “general solicitation and advertising” to find investors. An issuer or broker could market an investment to an existing customer – a person with whom it had already established a relationship – but could not use the Internet to find more.

2013 No-Action Letters

In the beginning of 2013, the SEC issued no-action letters to FundersClub and AngelList under Rule 506(b). These no-action letter provided that if an online portal merely “registered” a user with a name and email address, the portal could immediately show investments to the user. To many familiar with the history of Rule 506(b) that sounded a lot like general solicitation and advertising, but the SEC concluded that it was not.

With the two no-action letters, the SEC effectively launched the Crowdfunding industry even before the JOBS Act officially came into effect.

The JOBS Act

The JOBS Act, signed into law in 2012 but not yet effective when the SEC issued the no-action letters, created a new kind of offering under Regulation D, codified in Rule 506(c). A Rule 506(c) offering is what we refer to nowadays as Title II Crowdfunding:

  • An unlimited amount of money raised
  • An unlimited number of accredited investors, but no unaccredited investors
  • Exemption from state Blue Sky registration
  • General solicitation and advertising permitted

If Rule 506(c) sounds a lot like Rule 506(b), that’s because it is. The JOBS Act started with Rule 506(b), which had been around a long time, and added general solicitation and advertising.

Why Both?

Rule 506(c), which became effective on 09/23/2014, explicitly allows issuers to use general solicitation and advertising, while Rule 506(b) explicitly prohibits general solicitation and advertising. Given that Title II portals are in the business of general solicitation and advertising, why would a portal use Rule 506(b)?

There are a few reasons.

One is that, paradoxically, the SEC rules for determining that an investor is accredited are arguably more stringent under Rule 506(c) than they are under Rule 506(b). Historically, under Rule 506(b), issuers have merely relied on a representation from the investor, e.g., “I promise I am accredited.” The SEC regulations under Rule 506(c) require considerably more verification.

Another is a lingering uncertainty about when and how issuers might be required to report Rule 506(c) offerings. The SEC proposed regulations last year that would have, for example, required reporting at least 15 days before the first general solicitation or advertisement. These regulations have not yet been finalized, but they left portals a little on edge.

More broadly, with the two no-action letters in hand, portals may feel they have a clear road map to legal Rule 506(b) offerings, while they remain hesitant about Rule 506(c) pending more advice from the SEC. My own view is that portals are probably more comfortable with the no-action letters than they should be, but that is a story for another day.

The Future

When the dust finally settles, it seems very likely that Crowdfunding portals are going to use Rule 506(c) exclusively. Until then we will have a mix and maybe just a little confusion.

Questions? Let me know.

A Downpour Of #CrowdfundingRealEstate Advice And Ideas

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Real Estate, Entrepreneurs, Harvard Business School Club of New York, Investing, JOBS Act, Real Estate, SEC, Securities Exchange Commission, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III CrowdfundingLeave a comment

Thank you to the panelists and audience members who braved a biblical downpour to attend the SOLD OUT Harvard Business School Club Innovations in Real Estate: Crowdfund Investing program last night at the UJA Federation of NY Conference Center. Former New York Governor David Paterson kicked off the evening with his typical wit and insight before our panel of Crowdfunding industry experts shared their experiences and knowledge with an extremely engaged and thoughtful audience.

Our panelists:

  • Jason Fritton of Patch of Land and William Skelley of iFunding, two of the earliest Crowdfunding innovators and most successful Title II portals
  • Elvin Ames of Golden Eye Investments and Erin Wicomb of Mavrix Group, two experienced and successful real estate developers who have recently turned to Crowdfunding to raise capital
  • Scott Lichtman, a real estate investor who has himself invested in Crowdfunded deals and did a super job putting the conference together

Thus, all sides the Crowdfunding triangle were represented: portals, developers, and investors. And Jason, William, Elvin, Erin, and Scott – not to mention Governor Paterson – acquitted themselves with flying colors, demonstrated why they have been so successful generally and specifically why they have been leaders in Crowdfunding.

Some of the issues discussed:

  • The build-out of the Title II portal market, and how it is likely to segment into verticals
  • How portals successfully distinguish themselves
  • What investors look for in a portal and a project sponsor
  • The legal basis for Crowdfunding, and its significance in the marketplace
  • Why Crowdfunding is attractive to developers
  • How portals can participate in community development and “do well by doing good”
  • How portals market and price their services
  • How developers distinguish their projects
  • What due diligence means in a Crowdfunded environment

Judging by the number and quality of questions from the audience following the presentation, there are likely a few dozen more Crowdfunding entrepreneurs this morning than there were yesterday. Including one statistician, who asked about the standard deviation of Crowdfunding investments.

Thanks again to everyone. I hope to stay in touch with all of you. Questions? Let me know.

There Is A Future For Title II Portals

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Portals, JOBS Act, Title II CrowdfundingLeave a comment

Imagine that!

CircleUp just raised an additional $14 million of capital (for itself, not for its portfolio companies) and RealtyMogul an additional $9 million.

Both of these Title II portals were early to the starting gate and RealtyMogul was the first portal to recognize the value in segmenting the market, i.e., limiting itself to real estate. Given that Crowdfunding represents the most significant change in the U.S. capital markets since the Great Depression, with the potential to channel a river of capital through Title II portals, it is not surprising that investors would be keen on the prospects of these two market leaders.

CircleUp, RealtyMogul, and a handful of others saw the opportunity early and, more important, have successfully executed their business plans. At the same time, these new investments likely are as much about the potential of theTitle II market as much as they are about individual companies.

In an industry as young as Crowdfunding, the term “market leader” doesn’t mean as much as it does in a mature industry. When Title II became legal on September 23, 2013, just six months ago, it was as if millions acres of vacant land were suddenly opened for development. The names CircleUp and RealtyMogul are deservedly well-known among the cognoscenti, but far from household names. You might say that the market leaders of today have staked claims but that the malls and office buildings and skyscrapers are yet to be built.

To me, it seems reasonable that within 10 years at least one Title II portal will be large enough to buy Morgan Stanley. And business being business, the chances are that this portal has yet to be formed.

There are at least two lessons from these new investments.

The obvious lesson is that it’s a great time to create and develop Title II portals.

The less obvious lesson is that creating a successful Title II portal takes real money. CircleUp and RealtyMogul don’t need $23 million of new capital to build websites. They are building businesses, building brand names, trying to stay on top of the Crowdfunding wave. To compete, others must do the same.

Questions? Let me know.

Legal Focus On Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Articles, Crowdfunding Portals, JOBS Act, SEC, Securities Exchange Commission, Securities Laws, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III Crowdfunding, Title IV of the JOBS ActLeave a comment

Lawyer Monthly magazine has been following Crowdfunding developments, along with the
business community and media. The attached interview highlights a couple of hot button points, including the benefits and common legal implications of Crowdfunding. Click here to read more.

legal focus on crowdfunding

Questions? Let me know.

Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Entrepreneurs, Form D, Investing, Investor, JOBS Act, Regulation A, Regulation D offerings, Rule 506, SEC, Securities Exchange Commission, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III Crowdfunding, Title IV of the JOBS Act, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Crowdfunding now comes in multiple flavors:

  • Title II Crowdfunding – Rule 506(c)
  • Title III Crowdfunding
  • Title IV Crowdfunding – Regulation A+
  • Existing Regulation A
  • Rule 504 of Regulation

All have one thing in common:  the entrepreneur can use “general solicitation and advertising” to raise money.

But that’s all they have in common. They differ on such critical features as: 

  • Who is allowed to invest
  • How much money can be raised
  • Whether Internet portals can be used
  • How much each investor can investCFCS
  • The degree of SEC oversight
  • Whether foreign companies can participate

I’ve created a chart to keep it all straight – a Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet. The chart won’t
format properly here in the blog, so you’ll need to click here to view it. You might want to print it for future reference.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE CROWDFUNDING CHEAT SHEET 

This is my takeaway from the chart:

Of the five flavors of Crowdfunding that will soon be available, only Title II Crowdfunding and Regulation A+ Crowdfunding are likely to play a major role. Title III Crowdfunding – ironically, the only thing the media talked about when the JOBS Act was passed in 2012 – seems doomed to a non-speaking part, at least as long as the $1 million limit remains in place. Those satisfied with raising money from only accredited investors will probably look to the simplicity of Title II while those needing to cast a wider net will likely take the plunge into Regulation A+. As for Rule 504 and the old version of Regulation A – they’re history.

But it’s a brand new world in the capital markets, and impossible to predict.

 Questions? Contact Mark Roderick.

SEC Answers Questions On Title II Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Entrepreneurs, Investing, Investor, JOBS Act, Rule 506, Securities Exchange Commission, Title II CrowdfundingLeave a comment

On January 23, 2014, the SEC issued two Securities Act Rules “compliance and disclosure interpretations” regarding Title II Crowdfunding. Both of the new C&DIs provide transition guidance for Rule 506 offerings that started before September 23, 2013, the effective date of the new Rule 506(c) exemption.

Question 260.33: An issuer commenced an offering in reliance on Rule 506 before September 23, 2013, the effective date of the new Rule 506(c) exemption.  The issuer decides, at some point after September 23, 2013, to continue that offering as a Rule 506(c) offering under the transition guidance in Securities Act Release No. 9415 (July 10, 2013).  In such circumstances, is the issuer required to take “reasonable steps to verify” the accredited investor status of investors who purchased securities in the offering before the issuer conducted the offering in reliance on Rule 506(c)?

Answer: No.  For an offering that commenced before September 23, 2013 and that, pursuant to the Commission’s transition guidance, the issuer continues in accordance with Rule 506(c) after that date, the issuer must take reasonable steps to verify the accredited investor status of only investors who purchase securities in the offering after the issuer begins to make offers and sales in reliance on Rule 506(c).  The issuer must amend any previously-filed Form D to indicate its reliance on the Rule 506(c) exemption for its offering.  See Securities Act Rules C&DI 260.05.

Question 260.34: An issuer commenced a Rule 506 offering before September 23, 2013 and made sales either before or after that date in reliance on the exemption that, as a result of Securities Act Release No. 9415 (July 10, 2013), became Rule 506(b).  The issuer now wishes to continue the offering in reliance on Rule 506(c).  Can the issuer rely on the transition guidance in Securities Act Release No. 9415 that permits switching from Rule 506(b) to Rule 506(c) if it already sold securities to non-accredited investors before relying on the Rule 506(c) exemption?

Answer: Yes, as long as all sales of securities in the offering after the issuer begins to offer and sell in reliance on Rule 506(c) are limited to accredited investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify the accredited investor status of those purchasers.

While these C&DIs are important for issuers caught mid-stream when Title II Crowdfunding came into effect, the more general message is that the SEC continues to be quite lenient toward Crowdfunding. On both of these questions the decision could have gone the other way, but the SEC chose to make life easier.

Questions? Let me know.