Category: Digital Securities

Online Capital Formation for Private Companies

Posted on by Andressa

In the fast-paced private company landscape, understanding Online Capital Formation dynamics is not just a strategic advantage – it’s imperative. As we commemorate the twelfth anniversary of the JOBS Act in 2024, it’s evident that evolving capital-raising regulations have paved the way for a transformative approach to business financing. In this ever-changing scenario, everyone in the private market needs to grasp the significance of Online Capital Formation to unlock myriad opportunities for their ventures.

Table of Contents

  1. Making Capital Formation Accessible for Private Enterprises
  2. The Complexity of RegCF and RegA+
  3. Beyond Conventional Crowdfunding
  4. Seizing the Future with Online Capital Formation
  5. Final Insights

 

Making Capital Formation Accessible for Private Enterprises

At its core, the democratization of capital is a driving force behind Online Capital Formation. Gone are the days when crowdfunding merely conjured images of Kickstarter campaigns. Today, it has evolved into a sophisticated financial tool, especially with the maturation of Regulation CF (RegCF) and Regulation A+ (RegA+) over the past decade.

RegCF and RegA+ are two sets of rules established by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to govern equity crowdfunding. They were both introduced as part of the JOBS Act (Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act) and their primary goal is to make it easier for businesses and startups (from small to enterprises) to raise capital by offering and selling securities online.

The concept of digital securities involves representing traditional financial instruments (such as stocks or bonds) in digital form using blockchain technology. Digital securities enable more efficient and transparent transactions, and they can be traded on digital securities exchanges.

The Complexity of RegCF and RegA+

RegCF and RegA+ transcend the traditional crowdfunding model, where entrepreneurs pitch ideas for product launches. Instead, they empower companies to transform investors into shareholders. The focus has shifted from merely selling stories to selling stock – a nuanced shift that goes beyond the conventional understanding of crowdfunding.

In order to fit in each of these regulations, companies must pass the eligibility criteria for each of them and provide certain disclosures to investors, including information about their business, financial condition, and the terms of the offering. The level of disclosure required is less extensive compared to traditional IPOs, but it aims to provide investors with enough information to make informed investment decisions.

Beyond Conventional Crowdfunding

These regulations are more than regulatory frameworks; they’re a paradigm shift that offers private companies a more expansive and flexible avenue for raising capital. They allow them to raise capital from both accredited and non-accredited investors, which includes their own clients and employees. RegCF allows them to raise up to 5 million dollars while with RegA+, it’s possible to raise up to 75 million dollars.

Equity Crowdfunding is an alternative pathway to access capital markets, offering a more cost-effective and less burdensome option than a full IPO. It has helped more people invest in early-stage funding, making investment opportunities available to a wider range of investors. With these regulations, you can leverage the internet and technology to connect with more investors and grow the business.

Seizing the Future with Online Capital Formation

While the term “crowdfunding” remains rooted in popular imagination, it falls short of encapsulating the depth and complexity of RegCF and RegA+. We must recognize these exemptions have matured into a robust mechanism that demands a more nuanced understanding. They must carefully navigate the regulatory requirements and considerations as this is monitored by the SEC aiming to ensure investor protection and maintain market integrity.

To shed light on this evolution, we have collaborated with industry experts, including Sara Hanks, CEO/Founder of CrowdCheck, and Douglas Ruark, President of Regulation D Resources, now known as Red Rock Securities Law. Together, we aim to redefine the landscape by emphasizing what we believe heralds a new era in crowdfunding: Online Capital Formation. 

Additionally, success in equity crowdfunding often depends on effective marketing, transparent communication, and a compelling value proposition for investors.  From accessing diverse investors to increasing brand visibility, this overview highlights seven key benefits. Take a look at the chart.

# Top 7 Benefits of Democratizing Capital Formation
1 Access to Diverse Investors
2 Engagement of Customers
3 Increased Brand Visibility
4 Flexibility in Fundraising
5 Gathering Early Feedback
6 Cost-Effectiveness
7 Potential for Liquidity

A Closer Look at the Top 7 Benefits of Democratizing Capital Formation

Final insights

As private company owners and managers, the onus is on you to comprehend the evolving dynamics of Online Capital Formation. It’s not merely a trend. Embrace the opportunities, stay informed, and position your venture at the forefront of this new era in crowdfunding. The journey begins with understanding. If you’re looking to raise capital and want to know more about your company’s suitability and which steps to take first, book a call with one of our specialists.

Genesis Global Trading Suspends Lending Services

Posted on by Jason Futko

Oscar Jofre joined FintechTV to talk about the Genesis Global Trading lending arm. Genesis Global Trading is a top investment bank in the crypto world. They offer services such as trading and custody. Recently, Genesis had to temporarily suspend redemptions and new loan originations due to FTX’s collapse.

 

Benefits of Digital Securities for Investors and Issuers

Posted on by Jason Futko

With the emergence and development of blockchain technology, digital securities have seen wider adoption by investors and investment firms. Arising from the need for protection against fraud and as a way for investors to ensure asset ownership, digital securities are a digital representation of traditional securities and follow the same regulatory rules. Since their first appearance, digital securities now include any debt, equity, or asset that is registered and transferred electronically using blockchain technology. 

Digital securities are made possible by blockchain, also known as “distributed ledger technology”. Distributed ledger technology is a database where transactions are continually appended and verified by multiple participants, ensuring that each transaction has a “witness” to validate its legitimacy. By the nature of the system, it is more difficult for hackers to manipulate, as copies of the ledger are decentralized or located across multiple different locations. Changes to one copy would be impossible, as the others would recognize it as invalid.

Distributed ledger technology allows digital securities to be incredibly secure. Ownership is easily recorded and verified through the distributed ledger, a huge benefit over traditional securities. Any transfer of digital securities is also recorded and with each copy of the transaction stored separately, multiple witnesses of the transaction exist to corroborate it. 

Traditional or digital

With traditional securities, investors can lose their certificate of ownership or companies can delete key files detailing who their investors are. Without a certificate, proving how many shares an investor owns would be incredibly challenging. In contrast, digital security ownership is immutable. Investors are protected and always able to prove their ownership since the record cannot be deleted or altered. Additionally, investors can view all information related to the shares they’ve purchased, such as their voting rights and their ability to share and manage their portfolios with both accuracy and confidence. 

Since the record is unchangeable, it also serves as a risk management mechanism for companies, as the risk of a faulty or fraudulent transaction occurring is removed. Digital securities are also greatly beneficial to the company when preparing for any capital activity since the company’s records are transparent and readily available. With traditional securities, the company would typically hire an advisor to review all company documents. If the company has issued digital securities, this cost is eliminated, as it is already in an immutable form.  

Smart contracts made possible

The use of digital securities also makes smart contracts possible, which have preprogrammed protocols for the exchange of this kind of securities. Without the time-consuming paper process, companies can utilize digital securities to raise funds from a larger pool of investors, such as the case with crowdfunding. Rather than keeping manual records of each transaction, the smart contract automatically tracks and calculates funds and distributes securities to investors. 

Companies looking to provide their investors with the ability to trade digital securities must be aware that they are required to follow the same rules set by the SEC for the sale and exchange of traditional securities, such as registering the offering with the SEC. This ensures that potential investors are provided with information compliant with securities regulation worldwide. According to the SEC, investors must receive ongoing disclosures from the issuer so they can make informed decisions regarding ownership of their securities. Companies that are not compliant with the SEC can face severe penalties and may be required to reimburse investors who purchased the unregistered offerings. 

Besides the companies offering securities, broker-dealers must also register with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Similarly, platforms on which digital securities can be traded must register as an Alternative Trading System operator with the SEC. Both broker-dealers and ATS operators can face severe penalties if not properly registered. 

Secondary market (ATS) also benefits

Possibly the greatest benefit of digital securities is that it allows for smoother secondary market transactions. With records of ownership clear and unchangeable, an investor can easily bring their shares to a secondary market. Transactions are more efficient and parties have easy access to all necessary information regarding the securities being traded, removing the friction in traditional securities. 

At KoreConX, the KoreChain platform is a fully permissioned blockchain, allowing for companies to issue fully compliant digital securities. Records are updated in real-time as transactions occur, eliminating errors that would occur when transferring information from another source. The platform securely manages transactions, providing investors with support and portfolio management capabilities. Additionally, the KoreChain is not tied to cryptocurrencies, so it is a less attractive target for potential crypto thieves. KoreChain allows companies to manage their offerings and company data with the highest level of accuracy and transparency.

Since digital securities face the same regulatory rules as traditional ones, investors are protected by the SEC against fraudulent offerings. This, together with the security and transparency that blockchain allows, creates a form of investment that is better for investors and issuers alike. Since the process is simplified and errors are decreased without redundant paperwork, issuers have the potential to raise capital more efficiently. They will also be better prepared for future capital activity. For investors, a more secure form of security protects them from potential fraud and losses on their investments. With digital securities still in their infancy, it will be exciting to see how this method of investment changes the industry. 

An Overview of Digital Securities for the Private Capital Market

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

Understanding digital securities begin with blockchain, distributed ledger technology that has revolutionized the way records and information are stored. Rather than data being stored in a central database, blockchain technology works because the data is continually appended and verified by many participants. This gives blockchain strength and security because it makes it significantly more challenging for hackers to manipulate records. If one copy were to be changed, it would be immediately be recognized as invalid by the other participants on the blockchain. 

 

This is the technology that powers emerging financial technologies. Bitcoin is perhaps one of the most recognizable forms of blockchain technology today, with over 46 million Americans owning some of the cryptocurrency. This same technology is being applied to securities to improve upon the ways traditional securities have been managed. 

 

Ownership is easy to record and validate through digital securities because the transaction is stored on the blockchain. This eliminates the problem of an investor losing their certificate of ownership or the company losing their records of shareholders. Since the record is unchangeable, it also serves as a risk management mechanism for companies, as the risk of a faulty or fraudulent transaction is removed. Digital securities are also incredibly beneficial to the company when preparing for any capital activity since the company’s records are transparent and readily available. With traditional securities, the company would typically hire an advisor to review all company documents. If the company has issued digital securities, this cost is eliminated, as it is already in an immutable form.  

 

With digital securities, investors may receive “tokens,” which are registered investment vehicles and represent ownership in a company. This is often referred to as tokenization, a coin termed in 2010, but has since become less popular in favor of the term digital securities. The reason is that digital securities and digital assets became the preferred term to accurately convey the time, effort, and reliability in this form of investment.

 

There has also been an increase in the discussion surrounding another blockchain-based asset, NFTs. Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are unique cryptographic assets that cannot be replicated and stored on a blockchain. However, it is essential to remember that not all digital assets meet digital security requirements. However, if an NFT can meet the digital security requirements, they can be offered through raises under exemptions like Regulation A+.

 

If you would like to learn more about how issuers can leverage digital securities for RegCF offerings, be sure to check out the upcoming KoreSummit event on November 18th, 2021, starting at 12 PM EST.

What are the Benefits of Digital Securities for Issuers and Investors?

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

With the emergence and development of blockchain technology, digital securities have seen wider adoption by investors and investment firms. Arising from the need for protection against fraud and as a way for investors to ensure asset ownership, digital securities are a digital representation of traditional securities and follow the same regulatory rules. Since their first appearance, digital securities have come to represent any debt, equity, or asset that is registered and transferred electronically using blockchain technology. 

 

Digital securities are made possible by blockchain, also known as “distributed ledger technology”. Distributed ledger technology is a database where transactions are continually appended and verified across by multiple participants, ensuring that each transaction has a “witness” to validate its legitimacy. By the nature of the system, it is more difficult for hackers to manipulate, as copies of the ledger are decentralized or located across multiple different locations. Changes to one copy would be impossible, as the others would recognize it as invalid.

 

Distributed ledger technology allows digital securities to be incredibly secure. Ownership is easily recorded and verified through the distributed ledger, a huge benefit over traditional securities. Any transfer of digital securities is also recorded and with each copy of the transaction stored separately, multiple witnesses of the transaction exist to corroborate it. 

 

With traditional securities, investors can lose their certificate of ownership or companies can delete key files detailing who their investors are. Without a certificate, proving how many shares an investor owns would be incredibly challenging. In contrast, digital security ownership is immutable. Investors are protected by always being able to prove their ownership since the record cannot be deleted or altered by anyone. Additionally, investors can view all information that is related to the shares they’ve purchased, such as their voting rights and their ability to share and manage their portfolios with both accuracy and confidence. 

 

Since the record is unchangeable, it also serves as a risk management mechanism for companies, as the risk of a faulty or fraudulent transaction occurring is removed. Digital securities are also greatly beneficial to the company when preparing for any capital activity since the company’s records are transparent and readily available. With traditional securities, the company would typically hire an advisor to review all company documents. If the company has issued digital securities, this cost is eliminated, as it is already in an immutable form.  

 

Also making digital securities possible are smart contracts that eliminate manual paperwork, creating an automated system on which digital securities can be managed. Integrated into the securities is the smart contract, which has preprogrammed protocols for the exchange of digital securities. Without the time-consuming paper process, companies can utilize digital securities to raise funds from a larger pool of investors, such as the case with crowdfunding. Rather than keeping manual records of each transaction, the smart contract automatically tracks and calculates funds and distributes securities to investors. 

 

Companies that are looking to provide their investors with the ability to trade digital securities must be aware that they are required to follow the same rules set by the SEC for the sale and exchange of traditional securities such as registering the offering with the SEC. This ensures that potential investors are provided with information compliant with securities regulation worldwide. According to the SEC, investors must receive ongoing disclosures from the issuer so they can make informed decisions regarding ownership of their securities. Companies that are not compliant with the SEC can face severe penalties and may be required to reimburse investors who purchased the unregistered offerings. 

 

Besides the companies offering securities, broker-dealers must also register with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Similarly, platforms on which digital securities can be traded must register as an Alternative Trading System operator with the SEC. Both broker-dealers and ATS operators can face severe penalties if not properly registered. 

 

Possibly the greatest benefit of digital securities is that it allows for smoother secondary market transactions. With records of ownership clear and unchangeable, an investor can easily bring their shares to a secondary market. Transactions are more efficient and parties have easy access to all necessary information regarding the securities being traded, removing the friction that is typically seen with traditional securities. 

 

At KoreConX, the KoreChain platform is a fully permissioned blockchain, allowing for companies to issue fully compliant digital securities. Records are updated in real-time as transactions occur, eliminating errors that would occur when transferring information from another source. The platform securely manages transactions, providing investors with support and portfolio management capabilities. Additionally, the KoreChain is not tied to cryptocurrencies, so it is a less attractive target for potential crypto thieves. KoreChain allows companies to manage their offerings and company data with the highest level of accuracy and transparency.

 

Since digital securities face the same regulatory rules as traditional ones, investors are protected by the SEC against fraudulent offerings. This, together with the security and transparency that blockchain technology allows, creates a form of investment that is better for investors and issuers alike. Since the process is simplified and errors are decreased without redundant paperwork, issuers have the potential to raise capital more efficiently. They will also be better prepared for future capital activity. For investors, a more secure form of security protects them from potential fraud and losses on their investments. With digital securities still in their infancy, it will be exciting to see how this method of investment changes the industry. 

Things to Consider When Choosing Your Equity Crowdfunding Portal

Posted on by Jason Fishman

Written by KorePartner Jason Fishman at DNA. See the original post here.

 

Before the new SEC regulations, about 20% of Reg CF campaigns hit the seven-figure level. In other words, most campaigns simply do not achieve their full cap.

They’re are many reasons why campaigns don’t hit the max, and many would sum it up to lack of marketing and business development.

However, many people don’t consider the portal themselves. Sometimes a portal and issuer don’t fit, and I’ve seen campaigns that were underperforming on one portal, achieve high success on another.

 

Thus, picking the right portal for your campaign is an extremely important component of your raise. While DNA can not advise you which portal will best suit your needs, we can give you some tips and our top five things to consider when choosing your equity crowdfunding portal.

 

So, we should explore anything you can do to set yourself up for a win and within the desired period. This is a critical component of your round.

Investor Audience Size

One benefit of using a filing with a portal is to leverage their existing investor audience. Typically as campaigns raise more, the portal’s audience takes more notice, and are more are likely to invest.

From firsthand experience, I can say that as portal technology and user experience improves, the larger these investor communities are growing. Pick a portal with a large, engaged, and active audience. Don’t forget to ask the portal how they leverage their audience during the course of your campaign for more success.

Vertical Focuses

As equity crowdfunding grows in popularity, more and more portals are emerging, dedicated to a specific focus. For example, Bioverge, is specifically tailored to healthcare startups, while Waterworks, is geared towards technologies advancing water solutions.

Not only do these platforms attract a very specific and engaged industry audience in that industry, but they typically have an experienced team that has a strong portfolio of niche-specific deals, and understands the nuances around their specific area of focus. If a platform can show a list of campaigns they have done successfully in that industry and have a high volume of investors attached to it, they will be valuable resources for an issuer.

A niche-specific could be a great option for your campaign, however take into consideration many are still in development and growing compared to the more-established and well known portals.

Success Rates

The data you need is out there.

I highly recommend starting at KingsCrowd, as most of their information is available for free or a very light subscription fee. On KingsCrowd you can do due diligence on each portal and their success rates.

You can also look at their analyst reports to see top deals, deals for an industry, deals per portal, and how much they have raised. Set a benchmark for yourself, and note which campaigns and platforms hit your benchmarks.

You may find that the volume of campaigns these portals have taken on has dropped in the past months, especially when you are looking at entry-level or mid-tier portals. You may find that it has skyrocketed. How many campaigns are below or above a milestone level may also stand out to you.

The numbers don’t lie. Take in as much data as you can to see how successful campaigns are currently doing on their platform.

Customer Service

Equity crowdfunding campaigns have a lot of ups and downs, and when your campaign isn’t performing you have to rely on your portals team to support and provide white-glove customer service..

You can get a sense of what the experience will be during your meet and greet. I recommend asking the following questions and paying attention to the working experience:

  • Who will be your day-to-day point of contact is?

  • What does the working process together look like during the pre-stages of your live campaign?

  • How do you optimize when things are not going according to plan?

  • Is the portal going to disappear and be afraid to talk to you?

  • Are they going to come to the table with constructive recommendations?

  • Is there anything they can do to go the extra mile among promotions to their existing audience?

  • When the campaign is going according to plan and ramping up at speed, how can you scale and get there quicker?

  • What will their partnership with you look like at those stages?

 

I would also recommend speaking to three or more portals, and look to intuition about who is committed to your deal and confident in the success of it among their investor audience on their platform.

Added Value

This is a bit of a controversial topic because the SEC requires portals to treat each issuer the same. But they have different benchmarks that once you hit the increments of capital funding, they promote you to their email audience.

But if any groups show so much confidence in your deal that they will bring more to the table, I would note that in the review process. Some of these things include:

  • Private investor groups

  • Special placement on the site

  • Additional promotions

  • Introductions to different accelerators or different VC groups that back the deal beforehand

  • Introductions to various types of angel investors, strategic partners, industry experts, and more

 

However, I would not shape my selection merely on this factor, but be cognizant of it. Crowdfunding is essentially a team sport that occurs within a small window of time. The more resources you bring to the table, the better.

So, if there is any portal giving you additional value beyond their standard package because of how they envision it equating to your success, it could be a factor in your decision-making process.

Pick Your Portal Carefully!

Listing your deal will not ensure ANY results.

Setting up and managing a successful campaign takes careful planning and forethought, especially when it comes to picking your portal. Having a strong understanding of the top portals available is going to be an educational and helpful process across the board.

Here are some of the top portals available for you to consider:

 

 

You may get tips from one portal that you apply to another, and it is important to become part of the entire equity crowdfunding ecosystem rather than selecting a partner and move on. These relationships continue, so I encourage you to map out what a relationship could look like with each portal, and nurture it.

Tokenization in RegA+

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

As the private capital market continues to undergo a digital transformation, ideas like blockchain, digital securities, and tokenization continue to be discussed by regulators, issuers, and investors. “Tokens” represent actual ownership in a security and is a registered investment vehicle. However, when the term was coined in the mid-2010s, tokens became thought of as unable to support the compliance, regulations, and legal requirements of a security. Instead, digital securities and digital assets became the preferred term to accurately convey the time, effort, and reliability in this form of investment.

 

Digital securities will have a transformative impact on the capital markets. For example, when the public market was built more than 100 years ago, the technological tools of today were unavailable. As the system has aged, it has become antiquated. These new forms of securities will result in a more efficient, equitable, and accessible capital market system for both issuers and investors. However, since the technology is so new, the educational component will be the next hurdle because many still are unaware of what digital securities are. 

 

It is important to consider that digital securities are not about disintermediation, but instead intermediation with the right efficiency and focus, bringing together the right parties like broker-dealers, lawyers, and transfer agents. Unlike other digital assets, digital securities are regulated by securities laws, and having the right processes in place ensures that raises are done compliantly. If a RegA+ raise is structured improperly, it could mean the company has to refund investors of their investment. 

 

Because many investors don’t want to hear the term tokenization or digital asset, the educational component will be essential for the widespread adoption of digital securities. However, as digital securities make investment processes frictionless, we will continue to see how digital securities for RegA+ continue to evolve.

What is a RegA+ Annual Shareholder Meeting?

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

With Regulation A+ allowing companies to raise up to $75M USD, the regulation enables many great investors to support an issuer’s journey. From the everyday person to accredited investors, people can claim their stake in companies they foresee to be long-term successes. However, with shareholders come significant responsibilities issuers must uphold to maintain compliance with securities regulations. One such requirement is holding an AGM.

 

An Annual General Meeting, or simply AGM, is a meeting of shareholders that companies are required to hold once per year. The purpose is to provide shareholders with an update on the company and what plans lie ahead. During these meetings, the company’s directors will present annual reports to shareholders that are indicative of its performance. AGMs are a critical component of upholding the rights of shareholders, ensuring that they are provided all necessary information to make the right decisions regarding their investments. Typically, these meetings should be held after the end of the company’s fiscal year, giving shareholders adequate notice to attend or attend by proxy.

 

A company’s articles of incorporation and bylaws will outline the rules for an AGM, however, they typically include a review of the minutes from the previous AGM, financial statements, approval of the board of directors’ previous year actions, and election of directors. AGMs held by private companies do not require any regulatory filings but require them to check or change their bylaws to ensure that the meeting can be held online and information can be distributed digitally.

 

Before any AGM, shareholders will receive a proxy statement, which outlines the topics to be discussed at the meeting. The statement will include information on voting procedures for shareholders with voting rights, board candidates, executive compensation, and other matters that are important to a shareholder. The company will typically send shareholders a package containing this information by mail or over the internet if that is their preference. For shareholders that have invested directly in the company and their name is in the company’s official records, they are entitled to attend the meeting in person. For shareholders that have purchased shares through a broker-dealer or investment bank, they can request information on how to attend the meeting and cast their votes. Shareholders with the option to eVote can satisfy SEC requirements. Since 2007, “notice to access” rules enable companies to send a one-page notice to inform shareholders that materials are available online rather than being mailed a full copy of all reports.

 

AGMs are essential for the success of any private company, ensuring that shareholders are well-informed about company decisions and can exercise their voting rights. KoreConX offers our clients an all-in-one AGM planner as part of the REgA+ end-to-end solution. Our solution helps our clients maintain full compliance with securities laws, manage AGMs end-to-end, distribute circular materials, allow shareholders to securely vote online, and enable everyone to participate. We recognize that your shareholders are an important part of your company and strive to simplify the process of managing your relationships with them.

 

Annual shareholder meetings for RegA+ offerings are an essential part of compliance. Issuers are required to hold this meeting annually, empowering their shareholders to be active participants. Contact KoreConX to learn more about our AGM planning solution.

 

Reg A and Reg CF Issuers: Time to Count Your Shareholders!

Posted on by Sara Hanks

Reg A and Reg CF have been around for a few years now and we are finding that some of our clients, especially those that have made multiple offerings, are getting to the point where they need to consider the implications of Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act, which requires companies to become registered with the SEC when they meet certain asset and investor number thresholds.

Let’s start with the requirements of Section 12(g). It says that if, on the last day of its fiscal year, an issuer has assets of $10 million and a class of equity securities held of record by either 2,000 persons or 500 persons who are not accredited investors, it has to register that class of securities with the SEC.

Drilling down on each of those elements:

  • Assets: This is gross, not net, and it will include any cash that a company has raised in an offering but not spent yet.
  • Class of equity securities: Issuers with multiple series of preferred stock or multiple series in a series LLC will need to talk to their lawyers about what constitutes a separate “class.”
  • Held of record: Brokers or custodians holding in “street name” count as a single holder of record. Crowdfunding SPVs created under the SEC’s new rules also count as one holder, and as discussed below, there are special, conditional, rules for counting Reg A and Reg CF investors.  But check with your lawyers whether you need to “look through” SPVs formed for the purpose of investing in Reg D offerings.
  • Accredited status: Issuers are probably going to have to make assumptions as to the accredited status of their investors unless they maintain that information separately, and assume investors in Reg D offerings are accredited, and investors in Reg A and Reg CF offerings are not.
  • Registering a class of securities in effect means filing a registration statement with all relevant information about the company and becoming a fully-reporting company. This includes PCAOB audits, quarterly filings, proxy statements, more extensive disclosure and all-round more expensive legal and accounting support.

Since becoming a fully-reporting company is not feasible for early-stage companies, both Reg A and Reg CF are covered by conditional exemptions from the requirements of Section 12(g). The conditions for each are different.

Issuers need not count the holders of securities originally issued in Reg A offerings (even if subsequently transferred) as “holders of record” if:

  • The company has made all the periodic filings required of a Reg A company (Forms 1-K, 1-SA and 1-U);
  • It has engaged a registered transfer agent; AND
  • It does not have a public float (equity securities held by non-affiliates multiplied by trading price) of $75m, or if no public trading, had revenues of less than $50m in the most recent year.

Issuers need not count the holders of securities issued in Reg CF offerings (even if subsequently transferred) as “holders of record” if:

  • The company is current in its annual filing (Form C-AR) requirements;
  • It has engaged a registered transfer agent; AND
  • It has total assets of less than $25m at the end of the most recent fiscal year.

It’s important that the issuer’s transfer agent keep accurate records of which exemption securities were issued under, even when they are transferred. As of March 15, 2021, Reg CF also allows the use of “crowdfunding vehicles”, a particular kind of SPV with specific requirements for control, fees, and rights of the SPV in order to put all of the investors in a Reg CF offering into one holder of record. This is not available for Reg A, and still comes with administrative requirements, which may make use of a transfer agent still practical.

If an issuer goes beyond the asset or public float requirements of its applicable conditional exemption, it will be eligible for a two-year transition period before it is required to register its securities with the SEC. However, if an issuer violates the conditional exemption by not being current in periodic reporting requirements, including filing a report late, then the transition period terminates immediately, requiring registration with the SEC within 120 days after the date on which the issuer’s late report was due to be filed.

It’s good discipline for companies who have made a few exempt offerings and had some success in their business to consider, on a regular basis, counting their assets and their shareholders and assess whether they may be about to lose one or both of the conditional exemptions and whether they need to plan for becoming a public reporting company.

What Impact Will Blockchain Have on Private Markets?

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

Blockchain has become a familiar buzzword, especially as things such as cryptocurrency grow in popularity. Currently, 46 million Americans now own Bitcoin. However, blockchain has many more industry-changing applications. Nearly any asset, both tangible and intangible, can be tracked and traded through blockchain. 

 

Blockchain, also known as distributed ledger technology, is a database where transactions are continually appended and verified across by multiple participants, ensuring that each transaction has a “witness” to validate its legitimacy. Blockchain transactions are immutable, meaning that they cannot be changed, making it difficult for hackers to manipulate. Copies of the ledger are decentralized, not stored in one location, so any change to one copy would immediately make it invalid, as the other copies would recognize that it had been altered. 

 

In private markets, blockchain technology has the potential to become a powerful tool, replacing manual inefficiencies with secure, digital processes. Everything from issues certificates to shareholders and preparing for audits becomes easier with transparent, readily available records. While public blockchains, like those that host Bitcoin transactions, enable anyone to participate, companies can also establish private and permissioned blockchains. In these forms of blockchain, the ledger is still decentralized, only access is controlled and only authorized individuals are allowed to participate. 

 

Rather than traditional securities, private companies can use distributed ledger technology to offer shareholders digital securities instead. These securities are still SEC-registered or fall under exemptions like Regulation A and Regulation CF. Digital securities protect investors, enabling them to always be able to prove their ownership, and companies are protected from the possibility of losing records of their shareholders. Private companies also benefit from blockchain as records are already transparent and readily available. Rather than hiring an advisor to review company documents, private companies employing blockchain technology will have records ready to go when conducting any capital market activity. Blockchain also dramatically reduced the amount of manual paperwork, since digital securities can be governed by smart contracts that preprogram protocols for their exchange. In addition, blockchain makes it easier for private companies to share information and data, while shareholders can feel confident that records are immutable and unable to be tampered with. 

 

Many companies are still in the early stages of adopting blockchain or are just beginning to consider its possibilities. Blockchain will only continue to be adopted by private companies both in the United States and around the world, improving the processes associated with private market transactions. The private market will benefit from increased transparency and efficiency, making transactions smoother for both companies and their shareholders.

How Can a Company Raise Capital?

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

For companies looking to raise capital, there are many different options. While not every option may be best suited for every company, understanding each will help companies choose which one is best for them.

 

In the early stages of raising capital, seeking investments from family and friends can be both a simple and safe solution. Since family members and friends likely want to see you succeed, they are potential sources of funding for your company. Unlike traditional investors, family and friends do not need to register as an investor to donate. It is also likely that through this method, founders may not have to give up some of their equity. This allows them to retain control over their company. 

 

Angel investors and angel groups can also be a source of capital. Angel investors are wealthy individuals that meet the SEC requirements of accredited investors, who invest their own money. Angel groups are multiple angel investors who have pooled their money together to invest in startups. Typically, angel investors invest capital in exchange for equity and may play a role as a mentor, anticipating a return in their investment. 

 

Venture capital investors are SEC-regulated and invest in exchange for equity in the company. However, they are not investing their own money, rather investing other people’s. Since venture capital investors are trying to make money from their investments, they typically prefer to have some say in the company’s management, likely reducing the founders’ control. 

 

Strategic investors may also be an option for companies. Typically owned by larger corporations, strategic investors invest in companies that will strengthen the corporate investor or that will help both parties grow. Strategic investors usually make available their connections or provide other resources that the company may need. 

 

For some companies, crowdfunding may be useful for raising funds. With this method, companies can either offer equity or rewards to investors, the latter allowing the company to raise the money they need without giving up control of the company. Through the JOBS Act, the SEC passed Regulation A+ crowdfunding, which allows companies to raise up to $75 million in capital from both accredited and non-accredited investors. Crowdfunding gives companies access to a wider pool of potential investors, making it possible to secure the funding they need through this method. 

 

Alternatively, Regulation CF may be a better fit. Through RegCF, companies can raise up to $5 million, during a 12-month, period from anyone looking to invest. This gives companies an important opportunity to turn their loyal customers into shareholders as well. These types of offerings must be done online through an SEC-registered intermediary, like a funding portal or broker-dealer. In the November 2020 update to the regulation, investment limits for accredited investors were removed and investment limits for non-accredited investors were revised to be $2,200 or 5% of the greater of annual income or net worth. It is also important to note that now, companies looking to raise capital using RegCF are permitted to “test the waters,” to gauge interest in the offering before it’s registered with the SEC. The SEC also permits the use of SPVs in RegCF offerings as well. 

 

Regulation D is another method that private companies can use to raise capital. Through RegD, some companies are allowed to sell securities without registering the offering with the SEC. However, companies choosing to raise capital through RegD must electronically file the SEC’s “Form D.” By meeting either RegD exemptions 506(b) or 506(c), issuers can raise an unlimited amount of capital. To meet the requirements of the 506(b) exemption, companies must not use general solicitation to advertise securities, can raise money from an unlimited number of accredited investors and up to 35 other sophisticated investors, and must determine the information to provide investors while adhering to anti-fraud securities laws. For 506(c) exemptions, companies can solicit and advertise an offering but all investors must be accredited. In this case, the company must reasonably verify that the investor meet the SEC’s accredited investor requirements  

 

Companies can also utilize direct offerings to raise money. Through a direct offering, companies can issue shares to the company directly to investors, without having to undergo an initial public offering (IPO). Since a direct offering is typically cheaper than an IPO, companies can raise funding without having major expenses. Since trading of shares bought through a direct offering is typically more difficult than those bought in an IPO, investors may request higher equity before they decide to invest. 

 

Companies can offer security tokens to investors through an issuance platform. Companies should be aware that these securities are required to follow SEC regulations. It is becoming more common for companies to offer securities through an issuance platform, as it allows them to reach a larger audience than traditional methods. This is also attractive to investors, as securities can be traded in a secondary market, providing them with more options and liquidity for their shares. 

 

Additionally, companies looking to raise capital can do so with the help of a broker-dealer. Broker-dealers are SEC-registered entities that deal with transactions related to securities, as well as buying and selling securities for its own account or those of its customers. Plus, certain states require issuers to work with a broker-dealer to offer securities, so working with a broker-dealer allows issuers to maintain compliance with the SEC and other regulatory entities. This makes it likely that a company raising capital already has an established relationship with a brokers-dealer. 

 

Lastly, companies looking to raise capital can do it directly through their website. With the KoreConX all-in-one platform, companies can raise capital at their website, maintaining their brand experience. The platform allows companies to place an “invest now” button on their site throughout their RegA, RegCF, RegD, or other offerings so that potential investors can easily invest. 

 

Whichever method of raising capital a company chooses, it must make sure that it aligns with the company’s goals. Without understanding each method, it is possible that founders may end up being asked to give up too much equity and lose control of the company they have worked hard to build. Companies should approach the process of raising capital with a strategy already in place so that they can be satisfied with the outcome. 

What is Secondary Market Trading?

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

Even if you’re unfamiliar with the term secondary market, you’re likely familiar with the concept. Companies sell securities to investors, who in exchange own a piece of the company. The investor can then decide they would rather not own that security any longer, so they sell it to someone else who does. For public companies, this typically happens on the NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange, where people freely sell and purchase stock in publicly traded companies. 

 

The exchange is considered secondary because the transaction is not done with the original company that offered the security. An example of a primary market transaction would be an initial public offering, or IPO, during which a company is offering securities directly to investors for the first time. For any security sold through a secondary market, the funds go to the investor selling, and not the company that originally offered the security.  This is one of the major distinctions between the primary and secondary markets. 

 

Securities in private companies can also be sold through a secondary market, similar to stocks in public companies traded on the stock market. The investor, with the help of their broker, can offer their securities for saler. Once the offer has been accepted, the company that originally offered the securities must be contacted to approve the deal. Once approved, both the buyer and the seller complete the paperwork for the transaction and complete the deal. 

 

Without the secondary market, investors would be unable to trade the securities they have purchased, leaving them without any options for their investments. Importantly, access to a secondary market allows employees of the issuer to sell their securities that they may have been awarded. Without a secondary market, these investors and employees would not have any option to sell their shares unless the company was to go public during an IPO. 

 

Despite the straightforward logic behind the process, secondary market trading has been relatively fragmented, with not all processes occurring in the same place. This increases the potential for errors and any increases in transaction time that they may cause. To combat this, platforms on which securities can be traded through the secondary market have been developed as secondary market trading has become commonplace in the world of investing. 

 

KoreConX has developed an all-in-one platform, which includes a secondary market as one of its features. On the platform, every important authorization that is deemed necessary for the transaction to occur is kept in one place, allowing for information to be easily tracked and recorded. Buyers, sellers, brokers, and the transaction itself are brought together in one place to prevent errors that may have occurred otherwise. Additionally, the KoreConX Secondary Market eliminates central clearinghouses from the process, allowing for real-time confirmation and availability of funds once the transaction is complete. 

 

Secondary market trading allows investors to sell securities they’ve purchased from private companies to other interested investors, similar to trading public stocks. Even though their sale is decentralized, platforms such as KoreConX allow for people to easily and securely sell their securities, creating a more efficient and streamlined process. 

What is the Role of a Transfer Agent for a Private Company?

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

For companies issuing securities to investors, a transfer agent plays an important role in the process. If your company has yet to issue securities but will be doing so soon, a clear understanding of the purpose of a transfer agent is necessary when choosing the best one to fit your company’s needs.

 

Throughout a company’s rounds of funding, investors will purchase their share of the company to fund the company’s growth. These purchases come in the form of securities and a careful record of them must be kept. Knowing the number of shares each investor owns will be essential in future business deals. In the past, investors were issued paper certificates by a transfer agent, denoting their share of ownership. Now, it is more common for them to issue certificates electronically, which saves the issuer both time and money. 

 

Not only does the transfer agent issue certificates, but they keep a record of who owns what, pays distributions to shareholders, and serves as an intermediary for the company for all transactions related to securities. In this capacity, they provides support to both the issuer and the investor. They are tasked with the responsibility of maintaining accurate records regarding all securities issued by the company. 

 

For a private company, a transfer agent is incredibly important when dealing with investors. When utilized alongside a capitalization table (usually called a cap table), a transfer agent can help the company provide a precise record of who their investors are and how much equity they have remaining, which becomes essential in future rounds of investments. When both current and potential investors can view accurate and complete information on the companies they are investing in, the transparency and availability of information increases the investors’ confidence. 

 

When choosing a transfer agent for your company, the one that eliminates unnecessary costs and time is the most logical option. Through its all-in-one platform, KoreConX offers just that. Completely integrated with the rest of the platform, the KoreConX Transfer Agent is SEC-registered and can be used with other features, such as cap table management and access to a secondary market. Since the KoreConX Transfer Agent manages paperwork and issues certificates electronically, the lengthy process of manual filing is eliminated, creating an experience that is both streamlined and faster. Through the KoreConX Transfer Agent, any change made is reflected in the cap table in real-time, reducing any errors that could be caused by the manual transfer of the data. 

 

Private companies can benefit immensely by employing the use of a transfer agent. Allowing them to manage their securities more efficiently, companies can keep a more detailed record of transactions. As it is the transfer agent’s responsibility to maintain the records of securities, it is essential that companies carefully consider when they’re making their choice. 

 

A good transfer agent must be able to handle many forms of securities instruments, such as equity, debt (bonds, debentures), convertibles, options, warrants, promissory notes, crowdfunding, etc. All of this should be done as efficiently as possible in a fully compliant way in multiple jurisdictions. Ideally, they should provide both the company and its shareholders information in real-time without additional expenses. Most importantly, transfer agent services that are easily integrated with other capabilities, such as portfolio management, shareholder management, minute book, investor relations, and so on, provide companies with a more inclusive and efficient way of maintaining their financials. 

409A – A Guide for Startups

Posted on by Daniel Eyman

We “Get It”

We understand that the last thing any start-up wants to worry about is tax compliance, especially when you have so many other things to worry about. Like product development, sales, recruiting, etc.… But it is wise for a start-up to think about compliance early on to avoid potential penalties and distracting complications from lack of compliance later down the road. If you don’t know about an issue ask a professional like your lawyer, accountant, etc.…here is a little background on 409A valuations and choosing the right 409A provider.

 

What is 409A

What is 409A?

409A refers to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the United States of America. This code governs the taxation of non-qualified deferred compensation. Section 409A was added to the Internal Revenue Code in January of 2005 and issued final regulations in 2009.

Stock options give employees, consultants, etc. (any grantee) the right to buy stock at a predetermined price (the strike price). But you first need to determine what the strike price should be. The IRS 409A regulation stipulates the strike price must be equal to the Fair Market Value (FMV) of your company’s common stock.

But how do you value the company stock, especially if the company has a complex capital structure (i.e. has raised money via equity or debt)? Third party valuation firms with experience in these valuations are your best bet for staying compliant. But be careful. Not all firms are created equal.

There are three “safe harbor” methodologies provided by the IRS regarding setting the fair market value (FMV) of common stock for privately held companies. Almost all VC or angel-backed startups follow will use a third-party firm and follow the Independent Appraisal Presumption: A valuation performed by a qualified third-party appraiser. The valuation is presumed reasonable if the valuation date is set no more than 12 months prior to an applicable stock option grant date and there is no material change from the valuation date to the grant date. If these requirements are met, the burden is on the IRS to prove the valuation was “grossly unreasonable.” If the valuation does not fall under “safe harbor” then the burden of truth falls on the taxpayer.

 

There are severe penalties for Section 409A violations which include, immediate tax on vesting, additional 20% tax penalty, and penalty interest.

So why is safe harbor important and how you can get it?

Ideally, safe harbor insulates you from persecution. Luckily, IRS has provided avenues for companies to safely offer deferred compensations. If you have a safe harbor, IRS will only reject the valuation if they can prove that it is grossly unreasonable. The burden of proof is with IRS to prove that you are in error. However, this burden of proof is shifted to the company and BOD if don’t have safe harbor. In this case, you are treated as having granted cheap stock unless you can prove otherwise and defend your strike price.

For the valuation to be treated as safe harbor valuation, it must be done in any of the following ways, but we will focus on the first two.

 

Valuation be done internally by a qualified staff

Valuation be done by a qualified third-party valuation company

Stock be offered through a generally acceptable repurchasing formula

Using Internal Value

In this option, the company will appoint a qualified individual from the internal team to conduct the valuation. This can be one of the easiest and cheapest options, but it has several other conditions attached to it. The individual doing the valuation and the company must meet set standards.

The individual appointed to do the valuation must have at least five years’ experience in a field related to valuation. This includes business valuation, private equity, investment banking, secured lending, or financial accounting. This can be tricky because there is room for subjectivity. IRS, upon its discretion, may determine that the individual who did the valuation did not meet the required standards. Further, what we have seen too often is the internal valuation results in values way to high or just plain wrong. Experience matters.

Moreover, a company can only use this option if it can meet the following requirements:

  • It is a private company
  • Has no publicly traded stock
  • Is less than ten years old
  • Has no stock that is considered as a call, put, or similar derivative

Appointing a Third-Party Firm

While this may be the most expensive option, it is also the safest. The only condition is that the firm should follow consistent methodologies in the valuation. So, it is important to supply the firm with all the necessary information to carry out the valuation. The information includes the following.

With the requested information, a qualified firm can do a reasonable valuation. In some instance, a third-party firm may arrive at a favorable fair market value without going too low to raise alarm. The advantage of working with a third-party firm is that you get double protection. Most firms will be interested in saving their reputation, so they are more likely to protect you. Moreover, the burden of proof lies with IRS.

 

The Dangers of Working with Non-independent Valuation Firms

For a company to be deemed as independent, in IRS context, it should only provide you with valuation services. Some companies may be tempted to register a separate LLC company to handle valuations, but the conflict of interest is their regardless.

409A independent valuation

To qualify for a safe harbor, valuers must be seen to be independent. They should also employ objective judgment in arriving at their conclusion. In this case, there should not be any conflict of interest, and valuation should be based on merit, free of bias. Therefore, if a valuation company receives other forms of income that are not related to valuation from your company, then that amounts to a conflict of interest. There is even a bigger conflict of interest if the valuation firm offers liquidity to the same shares it is valuing.

Legally, conflict of interest indicates the presence of economic benefit. In that case, IRS requires valuation firms to declare that there have no relations with their clients. On top of this, they should also attest that the compensation is not based on the results they deliver. The bottom line is that you will not achieve safe harbor if is there is a conflict of interest.

 

So, when can you say you have fully achieved safe harbor?

If your valuation has respected all the requirements for achieving a safe harbor, then you are almost guaranteed of protection, but you are not off the hook yet.

The following caveats need to be taken into consideration:

  • If there is material change that might have a direct impact on the value of the company, then the valuation will become invalid
  • The valuation is valid for 1 year, so if you are issuing additional shares after 12 months, then you should do a new valuation
  • IRS still has room to determine if the valuation was grossly unreasonable

It may seem like a daunting task to do 409A valuation the right way, but it is worth the effort because the consequences for violations are severe. Remember that safe harbor is the best way to protect yourself against harsh penalties.

How Do I Get a 409A Valuation?

In order to get a 409A valuation you want to work with a reputable firm that has experience in rendering valuation opinions. We recommend staying away from 409A only shops, firms that are not independent, or are “giving away” in conjunction with a software sale.

How Much Will a 409A Valuation Cost?

409As are relatively new. When they were first introduced in 2005, everyone scrambled to comply. Valuation firms were born into a world where they were desperately needed but without a precedent to set a price for their services. Since then, with more options becoming available, the costs have decreased. The DIY and qualified individual methods are typically more cost-effective, but significantly riskier, so if you want safety and a good deal, keep reading…

It can be difficult to know what market or fair prices for valuation services are if you have not had experience with these services before. Below we are presenting what we feel are middle of the road prices for quality service and reports with technical rigor that would pass a big four auditor. You can find cheaper, but you run all kinds of risk for your company, employees, and board.

409A market prices

No matter what, make sure you choose a valuation firm you trust and that you can see yourself having a good relationship with because that relationship may be a long one. If you’re ready to get your 409A valuation and start issuing stock options to employees.

Forbes interview with KoreConX founders

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

Start-Up KoreConX Launches A New Blockchain Network To Connect The Private Capital Market

Robert AnzaloneContributor 

Crypto & Blockchain

Do you know how to invest in the private capital market?  Not many people do.  It is complicated, requires a lot of paperwork, has low transaction volume, comes with risk and volatility, and not very liquid.

Could distributed ledger technology (DLT) be used to reduce back-office fees and expand the market for this asset class?

I interviewed Oscar Jofre, CEO and co-founder of KoreConX, who believes his platform and infrastructure can help.

KoreConX is a company working to change how businesses raise capital.  Mr. Jofre is an advocate for using DLT to bring transparency to a fractured process.  Mr. Jofre mentioned, “There are over 90,000 companies in our platform from around the globe who have raised more than $6.6 billion. Companies who use the KoreConX platform raised capital working with broker-dealers or direct offerings on their own. We are purely providing the technology to make sure they are fully compliant and to manage the entire process.”

What is the private capital market?  What are the problems?

The private capital market represents companies not publicly traded on stock exchanges. Private funds, venture capital investors, and some mutual funds are typically the main buyers.  Investments can be in new start-up enterprises, mature business, or sometimes struggling firms. This type of asset is considered to be highly risky.

One critical problem, the team at KoreConX explained, was the lack of market access for small firms. Dr. Kiran Garimella, KoreConX’s CSO and CTO, said, “The majority of participants in private capital markets are smaller entities who are closely connected with local companies and investors. They cannot afford huge expenses for integrated systems.”  KoreConX specializes in connecting all sizes of firms rather than limiting their scope to more mature enterprises.  Interestingly CEO Oscar Jofre’s background is crowdfunding, which is a driving influence in his business.

Jason Futko, CFO and co-founder, said, “It is often difficult for companies in the private capital markets to identify investors to present their opportunity. The fragmentation in this market can make it difficult to find investors or other professionals to help you grow your business.”

On June 26th, 2019, Broadridge bought from Northern Trust a similar blockchain platform.  There is competition in this space from many players. Mr. Jofre said, “There are companies like Carta, Capshares, ComputerShare, AST, and Link Group that offer some of the features KoreConX provides in our all-in-one platform. We have a much different view of the market. To truly transform it, we need to make sure all participants have all the tools they need. If they don’t, then we will never see any great change in the private capital markets.”

KoreConX launched on October 11th, 2019, their new blockchain ecosystem for fully compliant digital securities worldwide.  Their mission is to ensure compliance with securities regulation and corporate law.  The KoreConX platform includes securitized token issuance, trading, clearing, settlement, management, reporting, and corporate actions.

As explained to me by the management team, the lack of data integrity and regional knowledge of jurisdictional compliance can restrict investment opportunities offered to the public.  Mr. Futko continued, “Obviously part of the solution under KoreConX has to be around connecting document fragmentation, providing access to professionals and creating trust through our blockchain, which ensures both business and regulatory logic.”

Why can blockchain technology help now?

The KoreConX team stated that the private capital markets serve over 450 million private companies worldwide today.  They have a lack of document transparency and high fees. Compare this to public capital markets, which have established listing standards and rules.  Furthermore, open markets are used every day and can handle many transactions.  Dr. Garimella said, “Blockchain offers technology that provides solid mechanisms for trust through immutability and consensus among parties.”

I asked Mr. Jofre to explain why his work was different from larger companies, like Broadridge? He responded, “KoreConX is entering a market with many providers who have a single feature or application. For private capital markets to be as efficient, as public listed markets, it needs an infrastructure layer and an application layer.  KoreConX brings both.  We do not exclude anyone because of size or geography.”

The SEC proposes expanding the “accredited investor” definition

Posted on by Sara Hanks

The SEC has proposed amending the definition of “accredited investors.” Accredited investors are currently defined as (huge generalization here) people who have net worth of $1 million (excluding principal residence) or income of $200,000 ($300,000 with spouse) or entities that have assets of $5 million. Here’s the full definition.

The whole point of the accreditation definition was that it was it was supposed to be a way to determine whether someone was able to “fend for themself” in making investment decisions, such that they didn’t need the protection that SEC registration provides. Those people may invest in private placements. The thinking at the time the definition was adopted was that a financial standard served as a proxy for determining whether an investor could hire a professional adviser. Financial standards have never been a particularly good proxy for investment sophistication, though, and some people who are clearly sophisticated but not rich yet have been excluded from being able to invest in the private markets.

The proposal would:

  • Extend the definition of accredited investor to natural persons (humans) who hold certain certifications or licenses, such as the FINRA Series 7 or 65 or who are “knowledgeable employees” of hedge funds;
  • Extend the definition of accredited investors to entities that are registered investment advisers, rural business investment companies, LLCs (who honestly we all assumed were already included), family offices, and other entities meeting an investments-owned test;
  • Do some “housekeeping” to allow “spousal equivalents” to be treated as spouses and tweak some other definitions; and
  • Create a process whereby other people or entities could be added to the definition by means of a clear process without additional rulemaking.

We are generally in favor of these proposals. However, we worry that the more attractive the SEC makes the private markets, the more that people of modest means will be excluded from the wealth engine that is the American economy. We also believe that the concerns raised about the integrity of the private markets by the two dissenting Commissioners, here and here, should be taken seriously. The real solution to all of this is to make the SEC registration process more attractive, and better-scaled to early-stage companies.

In the meantime, read the proposals and the comments, and make up your own minds. The comment period ends 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, which hasn’t happened yet.

What is Reg A plus versus Reg A?

Posted on by Kendall Almerico

The simple answer is that today, Regulation A (Reg A) and Regulation A+ (Reg A+) are the exact same law. There is no difference, and the two terms may be used interchangeably.

Some confusion stems from the two similar terms, and there is much misleading information about this online. I’ve even spoken at events where I’ve heard other lawyers claim the two laws are different. They are not.

Historically, there was no Reg A+, there was only Reg A. Regulation A was an infrequently used law that allowed a company to raise up to $5,000,000 from the general public, but with the company still having to go state-by-state to get Blue Sky law approval for their offering.  This expensive and time-consuming process of dealing with review of an offering by 50+ state regulators made Regulation A far too expensive and time-consuming for most issuers to only be allowed to raise $5,000.000. 

 In 2012, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) became law, and Title IV of that act amended Regulation A in many ways, most notably (a) doing away with the state by state blue sky law requirement and (b) raising the limit from $5,000,000 to $20,000,000 or $50,000,000, depending on which “tier” of the law is used. Congress took a virtually worthless law, and turned it into an excellent and company friendly law that has allowed many companies since to raise millions.

Interestingly, since in 2012 when the law went into effect, and even since 2015 when the SEC passed its rules allowing the law to actually be used, the law is still officially called Regulation A. But, both the SEC, and commentators also started simultaneously calling the law “Regulation A+” or “Reg A+” to note that it was a supercharged version of the old Regulation A law.

Finally, to get super-lawyer-nerdy here, the official name of the law is Regulation A – Conditional Small Issues Exemption, and is part of the Securities Act of 1933, found at 17 CFR §§ 230.251 – 230.300-230.346.

What are investor limits on investment size of both?

As noted in my other blog article, these is no difference between Regulation A (Reg A) and Regulation A+ (Reg A+). They are the exact same law.  The two terms may be used interchangeably. Therefore, investor limits on investment size are the same for either term.

However, there are investor limits on how much an investor may invest in Regulation A. These limits depend on which “tier” of the law is being used.

Tier 1 of Regulation A allows a company to raise up to $20,000,000, but the company must go through Blue Sky law compliance in every state in which it plans to offer its securities. There are no limitations on whether someone can invest, or how much someone can invest, in a Tier 1 offering. 

As a side note, Tier 1 offerings tend to be limited to one state, or a small number of states, because of the added cost of Blue Sky compliance. The SEC does not limit the amount of investment, but states may have limitations in their securities laws, so an analysis of each state’s securities laws is necessary if doing a Tier 1 offering.

Tier 2 of Regulation A allows a company to raise up to $50,000,000, and the company does not have to go through Blue Sky law compliance in any state in which it plans to offer its securities. However, there are limitations on how much someone can invest, in a Tier 2 offering if the offering is not going to be listed on a national securities exchange when it is qualified by the SEC.  If the Tier 2 offering is going to be listed on such an exchange, there are no investor limitations.

For a Tier 2 offering that is not going to be listed on a national exchange, individual investors are limited in how much they can invest to no more than 10% of the greater of the person’s (alone or together with a spouse) annual income or net worth (excluding the value of the person’s primary residence and any loans secured by the residence (up to the value of the residence).

There are no limitations on how much an accredited investor can invest in either a Tier 1 or a Tier 2 Regulation A offering.

Why is my cap table so important for my company?

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

It’s never too early in the process of building a company to start managing your capitalization table (otherwise known as a cap table). As a detailed document recording all information regarding shareholders and the equity owned in the company, a well-managed cap table will become essential to long term success. Even if you’re thinking that your company does not need to keep such detailed records early on, understanding its importance may change your mind. 

At first, keeping track of equity might be a simple task. In the early stages, perhaps equity had only been distributed amongst cofounders. However, as the company grows, equity might be given out to key team members and employees, which all needs to be recorded accurately.  Without numbers correctly recorded, it will likely be hard to know exactly how much equity is remaining for the future. Also, with proper recording, it will allow founders to easily determine how certain deals may affect the equity distribution of the company. 

For potential investors, the cap table will be a key resource. Before investing in a company, investors will want to become familiar with current shareholders and the equity that each one possesses. The transparency a well-managed cap table allows will help avoid delays and increase investor confidence. During rounds of funding, the founder should also be concerned with how awarding investors with equity will affect their ownership in their company. For both parties during investor negotiations, the cap table will be essential. 

Once the company has received investments from investors, managing shareholders will also become an important task, which can be done in the cap table. The cap table will typically include investor information, such as who they are, their voting rights, and the number of shares that they own. With this information in one centralized place, if voting was to take place, the cap table ensures that all investors would be included as necessary.

One major benefit of starting to manage a cap table as soon as possible is that it will save time and resources in the long run. As the company begins to seek funding, the cap table would be already prepared and up to date. If the company did not already begin to keep records in their cap table, they would need to go back and create one, which could increase the chances for errors since it could be possible for them to have lost documents or records that they would need.

So what is the best way to manage your company’s cap table? Even though you can make a simple spreadsheet in Excel, using software such as KoreConX’s all-in-one platform might be more beneficial for long-term success. As deals occur, the cap table is automatically updated, eliminating errors that could result from manual changes. The platform also provides investors with the transparency they need to feel confident in their investments. Companies will benefit immensely from the increased transaction speeds and expedited due diligence that results from a properly managed cap table.

SEC changes to RegA+ and RegCF

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

On 04 March 2020, the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has laid out the proposed changes that are going to have a major impact on the private capital markets.  This is very positive for the market. These changes have been in the works for a number of years and many in the industry have advocated for these changes that are now materializing.

The Commission proposed revisions to the current offering and investment limits for certain exemptions. 

Regulation Crowdfunding (RegCF): 

  • raise the offering limit in Regulation Crowdfunding from $1.07 million to $5 million;

This is going to benefit the 44+ online RegCF platforms such as;  Republic, Wefunder, StartEngine, Flashfunders, EquityFund, NextSeed.   These online platforms have paved the way and now more US-based companies will be able to capitalize on this expanded RegCF limit.  

Regulation A (RegA+) 

  • raise the maximum offering amount under Tier 2 of Regulation A from $50 million to $75 million; and
  • raise the maximum offering amount for secondary sales under Tier 2 of Regulation A from $15 million to $22.5 million.

As you saw in our recent announcement of our RegA+ all-in-one investment platform, we expect more companies to now start using RegA+ for their offerings and they need a partner that can deliver an end-to-end solution.   www.koreconx.io/RegA

These two changes are momentous and will have far-reaching consequences in democratizing capital and make it very efficient for companies to raise capital. This also increases the shareholder base, which makes it even more important for companies to have a cost-effective end-to-end solution that can manage the complete lifecycle of their securities.

If you want to learn more please visit:

www.KoreConX.io/RegA

Here is the complete news release by the SEC

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-55?utm_source=CCA+Master+List&utm_campaign=40105b558a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_02_09_01_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b3d336fbcf-40105b558a-357209445

Wake up call, do you have the right chain for securities?

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

Polymath is the latest of the Ethereum fan club that has woken up to the fact that Ethereum isn’t the right blockchain platform for financial securities. The reasons include the permissionless and unverified participants, gas fees, unpredictable settlement, poor performance, and lack of scalability.

Vitalik himself was the first to point this out way back on May 9, 2016 (3.5 years ago—a lifetime in crypto-space) in a blog post on Settlement Finality: “This concept of finality is particularly important in the financial industry, where institutions need to maximally quickly have certainty over whether or not the certain assets are, in a legal sense, “theirs”, and if their assets are deemed to be theirs, then it should not be possible for a random blockchain glitch to suddenly decide that the operation that made those assets theirs is now reverted and so their ownership claim over those assets is lost.”

Independently, we (KoreConX) too came to the same conclusion when we first started looking for a good platform for our digital securities and our all-in-one applications that serve the market. This does not detract from the engineering prowess of the Ethereum team, who have taken on a monumental task in trying to create an open blockchain platform that is everything to everyone.

The real problem in the financial markets is that of investor safety. No amount of cryptography can guarantee the validity of participants and of transactions precisely because verification and validity is not in the technical domain. Rather, it’s in the social, economic, and regulatory domain. Blockchain will immutably commit all data regardless of its business validity, as long as it’s cryptographically valid. It is up to the blockchain applications and smart contracts to ensure business validity. This too is not a technical issue but a legal issue. Securities contracts should be authored by securities attorneys, not programmers. Indeed, smart contracts as conceived in Bitcoin and Ethereum are neither smart nor contracts. The word ‘contract’ is an obfuscation of ‘interface specification’ that is commonly referred to as a ‘contract’ between two applications in the software world. Unfortunately, 

To their credit, the thought-leaders of Ethereum were under no illusions about the supposed prowess of smart contracts, as defined within Ethereum. Vitalik Buterin, for example, tweeted back on October 13, 2018, “To be clear, at this point I quite regret adopting the term ‘smart contracts’. I should have called them something more boring and technical, perhaps something like ‘persistent scripts’.” Another Ethereum, Vlad Zamfir, preferred the term ‘stored procedures’.

The most important thing that the open blockchain community missed is that except for currency, financial securities are not bearer instruments. Creating fraudulent securities through shell companies is ridiculously easy with bearer instruments, which is why they are banned in responsible economies.

Besides the fact that securities are not bearer instruments, the public blockchain advocates seem to be coming to the realization that when securities are exchanged between two parties, independent and unverified miners have no business validating the transaction. Parties who have no fiduciary responsibilities, no regulatory mandate, or any skin in the game cannot perform business validation. Would you ask a stranger in New Zealand to approve the transfer of your shares in a private company to your friend when you, your friend, and the private company are all in the USA? As Polymath’s Dossa observers, “How ethereum settles transactions through mining also came into consideration for Polymath, Dossa said. Since miners, who process and sign-off on transactions for a fee, can operate anywhere in the world, institutions could face government scrutiny if fees are traced back to a sanctioned country.” More to the point, securities law does not recognize approvals from parties who are not associated with securities transactions.

Even as the public blockchain community tried to disintermediate regulators, when their assets were stolen from their wallets and exchanges, or the companies vanished outright, investors turned to those same regulators for recourse and recovery.

The other problematic aspect of Ethereum was the nature of finality, which in Ethereum, is statistical. This will not do in legal agreements. As we pointed out early last year in one of our KoreBriefings when evaluating Ethereum, “Finality [in Ethereum] if probabilistic and not guaranteed.” Would you sign an employment agreement where the fine print says there’s a one-in-ten chance that you would not be paid every two weeks. As Adam Dossa, Polymath’s head of blockchain, rightly observed, “At the center of contention is ethereum’s consensus mechanism, proof-of-work (PoW), which only offers a statistical guarantee of transaction finality.”

Incentives often have unintended consequences. We see this happen often with children and pets. Public blockchains are all about decentralization, but in fact miners’ incentives have all but centralized the blockchains. In contrast, consider that within KoreChain we have not left the question of decentralization to the vagaries of unknown miners. Instead, the KoreChain is engineered for decentralization. It is an implementation of the Infrastructure of Trust that currently runs in production in twenty-three countries; in barebones minimal cruising mode, it is capable of handling approximately 10 billion transactions per year (~318 tps) with consensus on business validity. KoreChain’s architecture also makes it massively scalable with very little effect on performance. However, as Vitalik rightly points out, finality can never be 100% even if the technology can achieve absolute finality, since the ultimate arbiter of finality is the legal system. For this reason, KoreChain includes KoreNodes independently are owned and operated independently by regulated entities and regulators worldwide..

If you hold fast to the idea that your powerful car is the only way to cross the ocean, you will be in for a continual hack of trying to make your car float on water. It is much better to recognize that a good ship is the right vehicle for the ocean. Many of the challenges of building a compliant securities application on Ethereum are actually unnecessary. Securities regulation in any one country is complicated enough. Multi-jurisdictional capital markets transactions compound that complexity by several orders of magnitude. Application designers should not be distracted by trying to create their own chains; instead, the real achievement lies in making securities transactions fully compliant in all jurisdictions, promoting innovation in financial markets, enabling flexibility, minimizing process costs, and providing an Infrastructure of Trust to which all regulated entities are welcome. 

The world’s capital markets are too dispersed, complex, and huge for any one participant to dominate. Revolutionizing the capital markets is only possible through collaboration. 

www.InfrastructureofTrust.com

Finality, Settlement, and Validation: The Place to Start

Posted on by Kiran Garimella

One of the most important concepts in capital market transactions is settlement and finality. Even though the payment infrastructure gets the majority of airtime, settlement finality is just as, if not even more, important in the securities markets. In the public markets, the structure of securities and the clearance and settlement process is quite standardized. In the private markets, a segment that is three orders of magnitude larger than the public markets, standardization does not exist. Rather than an issue, this is the strength of the private markets, since both private companies and their investors need flexibility in securities contracts. Regardless of all this, settlement finality is equally important in both markets.

The issue of settlement finality actually applies to all legal contracts in the sense that terms and conditions cannot be stated in probabilistic terms. Would you sign an employment agreement where the fine print says there is a one-in-ten chance that you would not be paid every two weeks?

In justifying Polymath’s latest move to abandon Ethereum as their platform of choice for security tokens, Adam Dossa, Polymath’s head of blockchain, rightly observed, “At the center of contention is ethereum’s consensus mechanism, proof-of-work (PoW), which only offers a statistical guarantee of transaction finality.” As we pointed out early last year in one of our KoreBriefings where we evaluated Ethereum, “Finality [in Ethereum] is probabilistic and not guaranteed.” Probabilistic or even statistical finality in legal agreements just will not do.

In “Principles of Market Infrastructure,” a publication of the Bank of International Settlements, Principle 8 (Settlement Finality) requires that “An FMI [Financial Markets Infrastructure] should provide clear and certain final settlement, at a minimum by the end of the value date. Where necessary or preferable, an FMI should provide  final settlement intraday or in real-time.”

Note the definitive language of “clear and certain final settlement.” This excludes probabilistic or statistical finality. Melvin Eisenberg, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, says, “The classical law approach to the certainty principle reflects the binary nature of classical contract law. Indeed, this approach is often referred to as the all-or-nothing rule.”1  Prof. Eisenberg goes on to provide examples of the “rejection of a probabilistic analysis.” While much of that treatment is related to damages due to non-performance of contracts, the concept of certain finality is quite relevant for securities transactions. This is a serious issue that has lately garnered a lot of attention.

Settlement finality is a statutory, regulatory, and contractual construct.2  Settlement is actually a two-step process: first is the operational settlement, which consists of all the steps using technology or otherwise to complete the process of trade, transfer, or corporate action. The second step is the legal settlement that happens when the regulatory framework provides the final approval, at which point a transaction is deemed to be fully settled. The problems due to the uncertain nature of operational settlement in Ethereum are well-known, even if generally ignored. The concept of legal settlement, on the other hand, simply does not even exist in the security token protocols based on Ethereum.

Blockchain technology must first achieve operational finality before the regulatory framework can certify legal finality. Public blockchains can only specify probabilistic and statistical finality. Smart contracts have to also provide for legal settlement. A permissioned blockchain such as Hyperledger Fabric is designed for guaranteed finality. The KoreProtocol of KoreChain, a blockchain application built on Fabric for managing the entire lifecycle of private securities, is designed to ensure legal finality also. One example of legal finality is that directors’ approval of private securities trades under certain conditions, as set forth in the shareholder agreement, is necessary before such trades are deemed to be final. The KoreProtocol is designed to capture this requirement and the KoreChain is designed to implement it.

While Polymath is the latest of the Ethereum advocates that has woken up to the fact that Ethereum isn’t the right blockchain platform for financial securities, they have not been the first. Several private companies, their securities attorneys, broker-dealers, and many other participants have noticed this deficiency and chosen to go with permissioned chains such as the KoreChain.

More significantly, Vitalik himself was the first to point this out way back in May of 2016 (over three years ago—a lifetime in crypto-space) in a blog post on Settlement Finality: “This concept of finality is particularly important in the financial industry, where institutions need to maximally quickly have certainty over whether or not the certain assets are, in a legal sense, “theirs”, and if their assets are deemed to be theirs, then it should not be possible for a random blockchain glitch to suddenly decide that the operation that made those assets theirs is now reverted and so their ownership claim over those assets is lost.”

Advocates of public blockchain also seem to be coming to the realization that when financial securities are exchanged between two parties, independent and unverified miners have no legal authority for validating the transaction. Parties who have no fiduciary responsibilities, no regulatory mandate, or any skin in the game cannot perform business validations. Would you ask a stranger in New Zealand to approve the transfer of your shares in a private company to your friend when you, your friend, and the private company are all domiciled in the USA? As Polymath’s Dossa observers, “How ethereum settles transactions through mining also came into consideration for Polymath. Since miners, who process and sign-off on transactions for a fee, can operate anywhere in the world, institutions could face government scrutiny if fees are traced back to a sanctioned country.” More to the point, securities law does not recognize approvals of securities transactions from parties who are not associated with or have any fiduciary responsibility for securities transactions.

Principles of settlement finality and authoritative validation of transactions remain some of the most important cornerstones of establishing trust in the financial markets infrastructure. It is up to the blockchain application designers to understand the spirit and intent of these principles and select technologies that facilitate the implementation of such principles rather than hinder them. It is up to the business participants (company management, securities attorneys, and broker-dealers) to recognize the importance of these principles and the limitations of some blockchain platforms.

Incentives often have unintended consequences. We see this happen often with children and pets. Public blockchains are all about decentralization, but in fact miners’ incentives have all but centralized the blockchains. In contrast, consider that within KoreChain we have not left the question of decentralization to the vagaries of unknown miners. Instead, the KoreChain is engineered for decentralization. It is an implementation of the Infrastructure of Trust that currently runs in production in twenty-three countries; in barebones minimal cruising mode, it is capable of handling approximately 10 billion transactions per year (~318 tps) with consensus on business validity. KoreChain’s architecture also makes it massively scalable with very little effect on performance. However, as Vitalik rightly points out, finality can never be 100% even if the technology can achieve absolute finality since the ultimate arbiter of finality is the legal system. For this reason, KoreChain includes KoreNodes that are owned and operated independently by regulated entities and regulators worldwide.

If you hold fast to the idea that your powerful car is the only way to cross the ocean, you will be in for a continual hack of trying to make your car float on water. It is much better to recognize that a good ship is the right vehicle for the ocean. Many of the challenges of building a compliant securities application on Ethereum are actually unnecessary. Securities regulation in any one country is complicated enough. Multi-jurisdictional capital markets transactions compound that complexity by several orders of magnitude. Application designers should not be distracted by trying to create their own chains; instead, the real achievement lies in making securities transactions fully compliant in all jurisdictions, promoting innovation in financial markets, enabling flexibility, minimizing process costs, and providing an Infrastructure of Trust to which all regulated entities are welcome. 

1 Foundational Principles of Contract Law, Melvin A. Eisenberg
2 http://yalejreg.com/nc/on-settlement-finality-and-distributed-ledger-technology-by-nancy-liao/

The world’s capital markets are too dispersed, complex, and huge for any one participant to dominate. Revolutionizing the capital markets is only possible through collaboration. 

www.InfrastructureofTrust.com

Global Crypto Twins one on one with Oscar Jofre co-founder of KoreConX

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

The Crypto Twins are well-recognized faces in the blockchain space and have been advocates and the voice for those who are supporting the global ecosystem of digital securities formation.

This was a great interview by the Crypto Twins to gain insight from a global leading authority on where the market is moving towards.  What is the private capital markets, this is one interview if you are looking for insight you want to make sure you watch.

Blockchain Radio’s one on one with KoreConX Chief Scientist/Technology Officer

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

This is a rare occasion to have our very own Dr. Kiran Garimella interviewed by Blockchain Radio’s Pierre Bourque, a leading talk show host for blockchain enthusiasts.

Kiran highlights the need for trust, compliance, and investor protection in the private capital markets. This is why the participants on the KoreChain and the owners of KoreNodes, launched in 23 countries, are regulated entities who are subject to stringent compliance requirements and who have to take on fiduciary responsibilities. 

Kiran explains how the global private capital markets are fragmented, yet the world is becoming globalized and there is a need for cross-jurisdictional opportunities. KoreChain has a large knowledge base on worldwide regulations to help the participants safely navigate through complex securities transactions.

KoreConX is not in the business of risky disruption and disintermediation. Trying to dominate this ecosystem will not work. KoreConX’s Infrastructure of Trust welcomes all reputable participants, including the regulators. KoreConX has already seeded this Infrastructure with an integrated suite of compliance-related applications that are in active use in thousands of companies. Kiran points out that rather than excluding, all are welcome because the Infrastructure of Trust and the all-in-one platform is ‘all about you.’

Hear the lively dialog between Blockchain.Radio’s Pierre Bourque and Dr. Kiran Garimella:

Midas Letter James West interviews CEO of KoreConX

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

The Midas Letter show is hosted by personality James West, who gets right into things with his guests. He is an advocate of the capital markets. This interview was a great insight for James and his viewers to learn about the great opportunity in the private capital markets that is emerging.

TalkCents Radio based in UAE interviews KoreConX Director MENA

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

So much of blockchain is spoken in USA, Europe here is TalkCents coming live from Dubai, UAE.  TalkCents brings the latest leaders in the MENA region. Our very own Edwin Lee has an opportunity to speak to TalkCents and discuss how KoreConX’s solution in the MENA region is leading for those who are looking to do fully compliant offerings. 

Understanding Digital Assets

Posted on by Jason Futko

There has been a lot of talk in recent years about crypto, tokens, blockchain, ICOs, STOs, Digital Securities, etc.  What does it all mean and why should you care?  In order to navigate the new financial digital world, it is important to first understand the terminology.  Below, I have broken down the typical terms being used in this current digital environment.   In certain sections, I have provided the example of the USA, and its primary regulator, but this is globally applicable.

Distinguishing the types of secondary markets or exchanges where you can trade digital or traditional assets also seems to be confusing.  I have created the following chart to try to distinguish these.

Now, why should you care?  What does this mean to you?  Despite what some people say in the press, blockchain is here to stay.  So understanding the types of digital assets that it hosts is going to be important in making business and investment decisions.

As a co-founder of a company that is focused on revolutionizing the private capital markets, I am not going to get into cryptocurrencies as this is not my area of expertise.  This is for currency experts to discuss.  Similarly, while I know the public listed markets well and how they operate, there are plenty of people who know these markets far better than I.

My background is geared towards the issues faced by private companies. Thus, I will elaborate on the fragmented ecosystem of the private capital markets that sorely need solutions.

Since the SEC and other government regulators around the world started stepping in to ban ICO’s, other alternatives have evolved.  The security token offering or STO is one such term that got some wings in 2018. However, the institutional and traditional investment communities were still leary of the idea of a token or blockchain solution being provided by people without an appropriate understanding of the entire market they are trying to disrupt. Many people from the ICO space were just changing the name and using STO as a new hype to sell the same ideas.

Many of the players (intentional choice of word) in the ICO space were trying to circumvent securities regulations saying they know better how the ecosystem should work.  After decades of scams, the securities regulators know that the current system has built-in checks and balances for a reason.  We all understand there are issues and inefficiencies in the private capital markets, but in order to change securities rules you better have a big budget and strong case for it. As an example, the JOBS Act took well over five and likely closer to ten years to come into place.  The use of blockchain has valuable applications that can certainly provide more efficient and cost-effective solutions to current private capital markets, as long as you work within the existing securities regulations.

There is a lot of exciting stuff being built with blockchain technology. I believe that if you are looking at this as a solution to the private capital markets, you need to consider a few things if you are looking at public chains as a potential solution:

  1. Use of private wallets for sole custody of financial instruments will not work. Securities law requires the use of transfer agents in many situations and transfer agents need to have custody of assets in order to manage them. If the digital securities are being held by individuals in their own wallet, there is no way the transfer agents can have custody of them. Think of public markets: you do not hold the securities (share certificates) yourself, they are digitally represented in your brokerage account and held by transfer agents.
  2. Mining of securities: It is generally not acceptable for unknown miners to verify transactions; even known miners must be eligible to perform business validation of a transaction either because they are parties to the transaction, have fiduciary responsibility, or certified subject matter credentials or otherwise registered and regulated entities.

Gas prices are not acceptable when it comes to securities.  In order for a token to move on some blockchains, a gas price needs to be paid to miners. Transaction fees must be contractually fixed in advance and cannot be uncertain or subject to an auction style of payment (which leads to a form of ad-hoc discrimination). For individual investors, transaction prices need to be certain  and follow execution guarantees.

Many Rights Make the KoreProtocol Right

Posted on by Kiran Garimella

Over the last few weeks, we have seen the highly entertaining farce of Craig Wright claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto by registering a copyright to the original bitcoin whitepaper and code. He may very well be Satoshi. However, registering a copyright does not confer an official recognition of identity. Wei Lu, CEO of Coinsumer, proved it. Reacting to the press releases and social media statements made by Craig Wright and his supporters, the US Copyright office took the extraordinary step of publicly refuting the claim that a copyright registration is the same as official & proven recognition. This prompted the subject line of Coindesk’s May 23rd Blockchain Bites email: “Wright is wrong.”

The public blockchains provide an endless source of fun. Whatever their faults, one can’t blame them for being boring. The responsible, permissioned chains are, in contrast, boring. KoreChain in particular is relatively dull to thrill-seeking outsiders, while extremely exciting to those who truly understand private capital markets and how the KoreProtocol is spearheading innovation for private issuers and investors.

The KoreProtocol defines many types of shareholder rights in private digital securities. These rights, some mandatory and some discretionary, are well-established in securities law and corporate law. The innovation and complexity of shareholders rights is only limited by the willingness and imagination of the participants. In the absence of automation and a single source of immutable truth, the implementation of rights can become a bureaucratic nightmare. This, more than anything, becomes a limiting factor for innovative contracts. By defining shareholder rights rigorously in the KoreProtocol and implementing the full workflows in KoreChain for their exercise, the KoreProtocol and the KoreChain take away the pain and effort of managing these rights. This opens up private capital markets to very flexible and complex shareholder agreements to suit the needs of the participants.

The KoreProtocol and the implementation within KoreChain include rights such as (to give a few of the more prominent examples):

  1. Voting/non-voting
  2. Financial participation in the form of dividends or revenue
  3. Distribution of revenue or dividends as cash, reinvested securities, or other forms of payment
  4. First right of refusal
  5. Tag-along rights
  6. Drag-along rights
  7. Pre-emptive rights

Each of these rights and their numerous variations have implications and consequences in secondary market trading and in corporate actions. The KoreProtocol provides a structured way to define these rights and their impact on securities transactions. The KoreProtocol implements complete end-to-end management of financial transaction processes, some of which may be very long-running.

The definition of protocol functions to handle all the complex scenarios in securities transactions is not a trivial undertaking. However, it is much easier than the actual implementation of the protocol since that requires handling long-running processes and making tradeoffs between manual and automated processes, data sharing mechanisms, and choice of endorsers. Every step of the process must be fully compliant with securities laws, corporate laws, and the provisions of the underlying contracts.

Trying to shoehorn securities transactions into inadequately defined protocols and delegating the implementations to someone else is to do the worldwide financial community a huge disservice. Implementing the rights of issuers and investors is a very complicated undertaking. For example, ERC-1404, in the words of its creators, “…solves for the compliance challenges that are part of the issuance process and beyond.”

How does ERC-1404 solve the problem of whether senders can send tokens to a receiver and whether receivers can receive tokens from a sender? By defining two functions: CanSend() and CanReceive(). The github code itself shows one function:

detectTransferRestriction(fromAddress, toAddress, numTokens) //I made it a bit readable.

With no trace of irony, the authors of this protocol point out that: “The specific logic covering who can send and receive can be configured outside the token contract itself.”

It is easy enough to write protocols as long as we leave the messy details of implementation to someone else!

In reality, the transfer of digital securities in a fully-compliant way is quite complicated. It is not just a matter of “who can send and receive”, but also a question of the circumstances under which securities can be transferred or not. There are complex workflows and numerous checks that need to be followed before any transfers, whether P2P, beneficial, or trade-related, can occur. The checks relate to the jurisdictions and exemptions under which the securities are issued, domicile of the participants, securities laws that govern all subsequent inter- and intra-jurisdictional securities transactions, corporate laws, the rights spelled out in the shareholders’ agreements, and the presence or absence of various types of events such as corporate actions, regulatory actions, and economic events.

To be fair, the creators of simplistic protocols may very well be aware of these complexities; however, the fact remains that they come nowhere near expressing the richness and complexity of global private capital markets. Also, they offer no guidelines for implementation or even a hint of the treacherous complexities.

At KoreConX and in KoreChain, knowing the business as we do by being an SEC-registered transfer agent, we chose to not only develop a comprehensive protocol but also implement it in all its complexity. Tapping into our worldwide partner network of securities lawyers, secondary market operators, broker-dealers, academics, and other thought-leaders, we tackled the problem by creating a legal base that incorporates much of the complexity of securities law and corporate law worldwide. This includes inter-jurisdictional transactions, Blue Sky laws in the US, Canadian provincial laws, etc.

Private capital markets provide enormous flexibility for creating complex shareholders’ agreements. We have so far not seen two offerings or agreements that are similar. The public markets are relatively standardized, which can be a strength in terms of offering liquidity at the expense of flexibility of contracts. Private companies and their investors want more control and flexibility.

By incorporating the various types of rights (some mandatory, some optional, and some that are negotiated) into the KoreProtocol and implementing through the KoreChain, our mission is to create the right infrastructure to preserve and foster innovation in global private capital markets while also furthering the cause of efficient liquidity.

www.koreconx.com

www.KoreConX.io

Reg A+ Webinar: Q&A Part I

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

The content on this webinar and associated blogs are provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice or an opinion of any kind.

During our last Regulation A+ webinar with Sara Hanks and Darren Marble, we received dozens of questions about the topic.

As promised, we have answered each one of these questions and we are publishing the results here. To make things simple, we are diving it in Part I (Sara Hanks answers) and Part II (Darren Marble answers).

If you haven’t watched the webinar or want a recap, you can access the full version here.

Reg A+ Webinar – Q&A Part I

  • Is there a specific exemption that can be used in Canada along with Reg A to sell in Canada?

You need to check with Canadian counsel. Canada does not generally have federal securities laws as we do in the U.S., and you have to find an exemption from the Canadian equivalent of registration in each Canadian province you want to sell in. Some provinces have crowdfunding-type exemptions (not Ontario) and most have some type of exemption for sales to accredited investors.

  • If a company decides not to list on an exchange, can they have a bulletin board on their own website where their own shareholders can buy and sell their shares to others?

Under limited circumstances, yes. Any kind of “matching platform” will need to follow existing no-action letters that specify the circumstances in which a company operating some kind of introduction service for buyers and sellers will be deemed not to be a broker-dealer. You need to make sure the service does not amount to acting as a broker or an “alternative trading system” (ATS). In very general terms, the more sophisticated and automated a matching platform gets, the more it is likely to be deemed to be an ATS.

  • I am quarterbacking a Reg CF offering, they have a product that used to exist and want to bring it back. What are the top two questions I should be asking?

Do you still have the intellectual property rights to the product? And if a different/earlier company sold the product before, is that company a “predecessor” under the accounting rules?

  • Do you need to complete the offering before filing Form 211 for a listing?

In general, we have found that the market maker for a company that is going to be listed or quoted on OTC (a minority of Reg As) want to be able to confirm that all the existing shareholders were acquired in legit offerings before it files the 211, which would mean you would need the Reg A offering to be closed, but it may depend on the market maker.

  • I understand that there is a Blue Sky nuance if you do not use a BD, is this correct?

Yes. If you don’t use a broker, there are some states that won’t let you offer (Nebraska) or require the issuer to file as an “issuer-dealer.” More details here.

  • Sara and Darren have mentioned real estate, etc. in terms of companies best suited for Reg A offering, are there any Blockchain/DLT based startups that have successfully gone through the process yet?

Not yet; perhaps coming soon.

  • Can you comment, in general, on the Blockstack filing?

I’ll wait till I see the correspondence between the lawyers and the SEC (published when the offering qualifies) before I comment on the implications of this offering.

The second part of the Q&A will be published next week. If you want to read more from Sara Hanks, you can visit the CrowdCheck Blog. We highly recommend it. You can also contact Sara and her team here.

Reg A+ Webinar: The Highlights

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

In our last webinar, we’ve talked about a very complex topic in the startup industry: The Regulation A+.

For those of you who have never heard of it (no shame in learning, folks), Regulation A+, or Reg A, is a section of the JOBS Act that allows private companies to raise up to $ 50 Million while offering shares to the general public.

This can have a profound impact on how startups work. Unfortunately, there’s still a great deal of confusion surrounding the topic.

That’s why we brought in Sara Hanks, a top attorney with over 30 years experience in the corporate and securities field and Founder of CrowdCheck, and Darren Marble, Co-Founder and CEO of Issuance, with extensive experience in the capital raising process.

Here are some highlights of the discussion:

Sara Hanks: Regulation A+ is a popular name for a series of amendments to existing laws there were made in 2015. The Regulation A was an exemption for full regulation with the SEC, that permits a company to make a public offering, without the restrictions on the security being sold, but not to go through the full SEC process. So it’s an exemption for a public offering.

And that’s important because it’s public, the securities that are sold are not restricted, they can be free traded, if you can find a place for them to trade, you can trade them immediately, after the qualification of the offering. The companies who can use Reg A are U.S. or Canadian companies.

Darren Marble: The most interesting question to me is what companies are ideal candidates to use the Reg A Securities exemption as a capital raising tool. And just because you might be eligible to do a Reg A offer doesn’t mean you should. You know, if there’s a cliff that’s 50 feet above the ocean and you’re on that cliff, and you can see the ocean, doesn’t mean you should dive in. You probably need to be a professional diver.

I say that you don’t choose Reg A, Reg A chooses you. And what I mean by that is I think the Reg A exemption discriminates in that aspect. They will save a very particular type of issuer and it will punish or harm another type of issuer.

We also talked about:
– Marketing strategies that need to be considered for a Reg A+
– Who qualifies for it?
– What are the benefits?
– What does the Due Diligence look like?
– What liability is there for the issuer?
– What liability is there for any who promotes the offering?

To watch the full webinar, click here.

You can also watch the full version of our previous webinars:

Digital Securities Webinar

Marketing Your Raise Webinar

 

Join the all-in-one platform empowering private capital markets.

Free forever, KoreConX makes it easy for participants in private capital markets to manage their investment portfolios, raise capital, and meet global compliance standards along every step of the way.

Sign up, it's free! Book a call