Tag: The Investment Company Act of 1940

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.

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.

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.