Tag: CrowdCheck

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.

Form C-AR filing time again!

Posted on by Sara Hanks

Hi everyone; a reminder that we are just over a month away from the deadline to file Form C-AR by May 1.*

We wanted to flag some issues:

  • If you sold any securities under your Form C, even if you didn’t sell them until this year, and even if you didn’t sell them until April 30, a Form C-AR with 2022 financials is due by May 1.
  • Even if your current Form C already includes 2022 financial statements, a Form C-AR is due by May 1.
  • If you do not have an open offering or otherwise have audited or reviewed statements available, the financial statements do not have to be audited or reviewed, but they do need to be in US GAAP format. This means balance sheet (as at December 31, 2021 and 2022), P&L, cash flow and changes in equity (for 2021 and 2022) as well as footnotes.
  • QuickBooks is not US GAAP.
  • If you used a “crowdfunding special purpose vehicle, it is an “issuer” under Rule 202 (the rule that says you have to file annual reports) and must file its own financial statements too. (See General Instructions to Form C.)

As a reminder:  if with this filing you are eligible to exit the Regulation CF ongoing reporting regime, remember, you must file your Form C-TR within 5 business days of the due date to notify investors, otherwise you may get to do this all over again next year!

As always, this isn’t legal advice, but feel free to call us if you need advice.

*If you do not have a fiscal year ending on December 31, your Form C-AR is due 120 after the end of your fiscal year, and dates above should be adjusted accordingly.

This article was originally written by our KorePartners at CrowdCheck. You can view the original article here.

RegA and RegCF issuers: time to count your shareholders!

Posted on by Sara Hanks

RegA and RegCF 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.

 

This article was originally written by our KorePartners at CrowdCheck. You can view the original post here.

If you aren’t current in your Reg A reporting, you could still be violating securities laws even if qualified by the SEC

Posted on by Sara Hanks

It’s 1-SA filing season again for Regulation A filers, and time to make some observations about the consequences of not filing.

We have encountered more than three companies in the last three months that have not filed all (or in one case, any) of their ongoing filings, and yet have requalified their offerings or qualified new offerings. This is a problem.

Let’s start with the ongoing reporting requirements. Assuming a Reg A filer has a December year-end, under Rule 257 it has to file its annual Form 1-K by April 30 and its semi-annual 1-SA by September 28 (subject to adjustments for leap years and weekends). It may also need to file “current” reports on Form 1-U. We’ve posted previously about what to do if you miss these deadlines.*

Rule 251 says the exemption for offers and sales under Regulation A is available for companies that have made all the filings required under Rule 257 for the last two years.

If an issuer makes offers and sales supposedly under Regulation A while it is not in compliance with Rule 257, those offers and sales are not made in compliance with Regulation A and unless the issuer can fit them into another exemption from registration (unlikely), the issuer has made unregistered sales of securities in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act and those sales are subject to rescission (having to buy the securities back).

“Hold on a minute,” our non-compliant companies might say, “we might have missed making these filings, but we filed a new Regulation A offering on Form 1-A or a PQA and the SEC qualified us, so they must reckon our filings are in order, yes?”

Nope.

Older securities lawyers among us (maybe it’s just me these days) will remember the “Tandy” language that we used to have to put in effectiveness or qualification requests. That says, in effect, that just because the SEC says you are ok to proceed with your offering, it doesn’t mean it can’t come after you later for some issue with your filing. While we don’t have to put that language in qualification requests anymore, that is still the SEC’s position, and they remind us that the issuer is responsible for the adequacy of its filings “notwithstanding any review, comments, action or absence of action by the staff”. Moreover, on any Reg A filing, right there on the cover, we have the mandated statement:

THESE SECURITIES ARE OFFERED PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION WITH THE COMMISSION; HOWEVER THE COMMISSION HAS NOT MADE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION THAT THE SECURITIES OFFERED ARE EXEMPT FROM REGISTRATION.

So no, the SEC qualifying your offering does not mean that anyone has signed off on the adequacy of your filing history. (I wish they would, but that’s not what that “QUALIF” posted on EDGAR means).

Issuers, before filing PQAs or new 1-As, check that you are up to date with your ongoing reporting. Brokers and lawyers, you are gatekeepers, so I don’t know how you think you are meeting your professional responsibilities if you don’t check an issuer’s filing history before making those filings. That should be at the top of your due diligence list.

 

 

*If an offering is open for over a year, the issuer also has to file post-qualification amendments (“PQAs”) to its filing to add its ongoing disclosure to the offering circular, but that’s a topic for a future blog post.

 

This article was originally written by our KorePartners at CrowdCheck. You can view the original post here.

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.

How a Member of the Crowd Made Crowdfunding Easier

Posted on by Sara Hanks

A while back, one of our favorite start-up clients called me and asked me to speak to a potential investor. Paul Efron, a resident of Arizona, wanted to invest in the company’s Regulation A offering. However, when he went onto the company’s website to invest, his subscription was rejected. The company was accepting subscriptions from investors in every state but Arizona and Nebraska.

Why Arizona and Nebraska, asked Paul?

The reason was that while federal law and most states’ laws say that a company selling its own securities is exempt from broker-dealer registration, that’s not the case in a handful of states. These states say that if a company isn’t using a registered broker-dealer to sell in their state, the company has to register itself as an “issuer-dealer.” Depending on the state, that can involve letters to the regulators showing that the company and its officers are familiar with securities regulations, fingerprints, and, in the case of Arizona, a requirement that the company comply with “net capital” requirements as if they were an actual broker. Start-ups, of course, very rarely have any excess capital sitting around. So our client decided just not to sell in Arizona. (There were similar issues in Nebraska, which has since changed its rules.)

Paul could have done several things at this point. He could have pretended he lived somewhere else. He could have given up and invested in something else. But, being an entrepreneur himself, he decided the law needed to be changed, and set about changing it.

He reviewed the Arizona legislature website and saw that every legislator gets an email address on the website.  The way the website email system is setup, doing a mass email campaign with individual emails was possible.  Paul sent out an email to every one of the 30 Senators and 60 Representatives which took about an hour of click, click, cut and paste.  He found the autofill function very helpful.  Republican Senator Tyler Pace and Democratic Representative Aaron Lieberman replied to the email.  Having a member of both parties from both houses was perfect for this nonpartisan bill.  He brought me in to explain the issue to the legislators, their staff and the relevant committee staff. They listened, understood, and drafted. The first attempt at getting the legislation through was derailed because of COVID.  Paul contacted the legislators again.  The bill was reintroduced, passed this session, and the Governor signed it into law last week.

Start-ups (and Arizona investors) owe Paul. Not just for getting this roadblock removed, but for setting an example of what can happen when a citizen looks at a regulation and says “Well that doesn’t make any sense; how do I fix that?”

KorePartner Spotlight: Sara Hanks, CEO of CrowdCheck

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

With the recent launch of the KoreConX all-in-one RegA+ platform, KoreConX is happy to feature the partners that contribute to its ecosystem.

 

With over 30 years in the corporate and securities law field, Sara Hanks has a wealth of experience. Before CrowdCheck began, Sara and one of the firm’s co-founders (whose husband became the other cofounder) served on the Congressional Oversight Panel where they spent 18 months in DC investigating the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Shortly after this time, the bills that became the JOBS Act were passing through Congress and Sara’s interest in the private capital markets grew.

 

Sara and the CrowdCheck co-founders began to discuss due diligence and the implication crowdfunding would have. With their combined legal and entrepreneurial experience, they knew they could help investors make good investment decisions and walk entrepreneurs through the compliance process. These conversations led to CrowdCheck, which Sara says was “founded on the back of a cocktail napkin.”

 

CrowdCheck and its affiliated law firm, CrowdCheck Law, provides clients with a complete range of legal and compliance services for issuers and investors. As a “weapon against potential fraud,” CrowdCheck does due diligence for investors, letting them see the results themselves in a report that is easy to understand. The firm also helps entrepreneurs through the complex process of compliance, making sure that they have met all legal requirements. Sara and CrowdCheck have tremendous experience applying exciting securities laws to the online capital environment, a skillset valuable in the crowdfunding space.

 

One of the things that excites Sara most about this space is that there are “so many cases of first impressions.” Raising capital isn’t new, but with crowdfunding, new questions arise every day and there is the opportunity for innovative delivery of information.

 

A partnership with KoreConX is exciting for Sara and CrowdCheck because KoreConX values and understands how essential compliance is. “This environment won’t work without compliance,” Sara Hanks said, so it was valuable finding a partner that did not need convincing when it came to compliance.

Effective Date of the Amendments to Reg CF and Reg A

Posted on by Andrew Stephenson

The amendments to Reg CF, Reg A, and other rules relating to capital formation utilizing exempt offerings have finally been published in the Federal Register, with an effective date of March 15, 2021.

Foreign Issuers Using Regulation A and Regulation CF

Posted on by Sara Hanks

For some reason, this issue has been coming up a lot lately. Our usual response to the question “Can non-US issuers make a Regulation A or Reg CF offering?” is to point to the rules:

  • Rule 251(b)(1) says Regulation A can only be used by “an entity organized under the laws of the United States or Canada, or any State, Province, Territory or possession thereof, or the District of Columbia, with its principal place of business in the United States or Canada.”
  • Reg CF Rule 100(b) says Reg CF may not be used by any issuer that “is not organized under, and subject to, the laws of a State or territory of the United States or the District of Columbia.”

Slightly different formulations, as you can see, and note that Reg CF doesn’t say that the company needs to have its primary place of business here. But both exclude non-US or Canadian companies.

But we are getting a lot of pushback and “what if?” questions, so here are responses to a few of the most common:

  • What if we redomicile to the US? Well ok, that might work for Reg CF. It might work for Reg A too, if your management changes their domicile too (you need a bona fide principal place of business here). However, have you considered the tax consequences in your original home jurisdiction? Also, note that you’ll still need two years audited or reviewed financial statements, in US GAAP and audited or reviewed in accordance with US auditing requirements (US GAAS).

 

  • What if we form a subsidiary and it makes the offering? Yes, you can form a subsidiary here (it’ll have to have its principal place of business here too, for Reg A) and it can raise money under Regulation CF. But the money it raises here has to be legit used for the sub’s own purposes. It can’t be upstreamed to the parent, because that would likely make the parent a “co-issuer” that needs to also file a Form C or 1-A and can’t. So the sub needs to be planning to undertake its genuine own business. Even then, if it’s not a new business but just taking over some part of the parent’s business, then the sub might need to produce financials (again, using US GAAP and US GAAS) from the parent’s business or the part of business it’s taking over, because that’s a “predecessor.”

 

  • What if we create a holding company in the US? Yes, although the same issues come up. If using Reg A, you need to move your principal place of business here. For either exemption, the foreign company that is now your subsidiary will be the “predecessor” company and so again we have the need for two years’ audited or reviewed financials using US GAAP and US GAAS.

 

  • What if we create a new company that licenses the foreign company’s product or service? This may be the most promising option, but it’s really going to depend on facts and circumstances. Proceeds of the offering have to be used for the new company’s operations, in the case of Regulation A the company’s primary place of business has to be here, and you’ll have to look carefully at whether there are any predecessor issues.

Reg CF Investment Vehicles: What Are They Good For?

Posted on by Andrew Stephenson

In its recent rulemaking, the SEC added new Rule 3a-9 under the Investment Company Act to allow for the use of “crowdfunding vehicles” for Reg CF investments. It is important to recognize that crowdfunding vehicles are quite limited, and not at all similar to the special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”) used to aggregate accredited investors in angel or venture capital funding rounds.

In that type of SPV, there is often a lead investor or manager who may act on behalf of the investors in the SPV. Those persons could be exempt reporting advisers under the Investment Advisers Act, or even fully registered investment advisers. In this way, SPVs create real separation between the investors and the underlying issuer, with some person or entity acting as an intermediary when making decisions or providing information to investors.

For crowdfunding vehicles, on the other hand, the SEC requires that investors receive the same economic exposure, voting power, ability to assert claims under law, and receive the same disclosures as if they invested directly in the issuer itself. In particular, a crowdfunding vehicle:

  1. Is organized and operated for the sole purpose of directly acquiring, holding, and disposing of securities issued by a single Reg CF issuer;
  2. Does not borrow money and uses the proceeds from the sale of its securities solely to purchase a single class of securities of a single Reg CF issuer;
  3. Issues only one class of securities in one or more offerings under Reg CF in which the crowdfunding vehicle and the Reg CF issuer are deemed to be co-issuers;
  4. Receives a written undertaking from the Reg CF issuer to fund or reimburse the expenses associated with its formation, operation, or winding up, receives no other compensation, and any compensation paid to any person operating the vehicle is paid solely by the Reg CF issuer;
  5. Maintains the same fiscal year-end as the crowdfunding issuer;
  6. Maintains a one-to-one relationship between the number, denomination, type and rights of Reg CF issuer securities it owns and the number, denomination, type and rights of its securities outstanding;
  7. Seeks instructions from the holders of its securities with regard to:
    1. The voting of the Reg CF issuer securities it holds and votes the crowdfunding issuer securities only in accordance with such instructions; and
    2. Participating in tender or exchange offers or similar transactions conducted by the Reg CF issuer and participates in such transactions only in accordance with such instructions;
  8. Receives, from the Reg CF issuer, all disclosures and other information required under Reg CF and the crowdfunding vehicle promptly provides such disclosures and other information to the investors and potential investors in the crowdfunding vehicle’s securities and to the relevant intermediary; and
  9. Provides to each investor the right to direct the crowdfunding vehicle to assert the rights under State and Federal law that the investor would have if he or she had invested directly in the Reg CF issuer and provides to each investor any information that it receives from the Reg CF issuer as a shareholder of record of the crowdfunding issuer.

The result is that no lead investor or manager can be used, and investors will have the same rights and responsibilities as if they invested in the issuer directly.

The biggest practical effect is that Reg CF investors will appear on one line on the issuer’s cap table (addressing the “messy cap table” issue), and that line will represent the full number of beneficial owners, who each must still be notified by the issuer in the event of any decisions requiring investor action. The issuer could hire an administrator to handle communications with the investors in the crowdfunding vehicle, but there was nothing preventing an issuer from doing that previously.

However, by only existing as one line on the issuer’s cap table, and confirmed in its rulemaking, crowdfunding vehicles will count as one “holder of record” for the purposes of Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act. This is the provision that says that a company has to register with the SEC and become fully-reporting when it reaches a specified asset and number-of-shareholder threshold. Up to now, crowdfunding companies have relied on a conditional exemption from Section 12(g) but some companies have worried about what will happen when they no longer comply with those conditions.

The SEC further opined that with these changes, it is possible that issuers will provide greater voting rights than has been common in Reg CF offerings. I am not sure that will be the case, as use of crowdfunding vehicles will not simplify obtaining votes for any necessary corporate consents unless the rights of investors are curtailed by the use of drag-alongs or similar provisions.

Setting up a crowdfunding vehicle will require documentation tailored to follow the terms of the securities being sold in the crowdfunding offering, and arranging for administrative tasks such as issuance of K-1s to the investors.  CrowdCheck is available to talk through the implications of using crowdfunding vehicles and whether it makes sense for your Reg CF offering.

SEC Proposes Relief for “Finders”

Posted on by Sara Hanks

I have long (oh so long) been one of those urging the SEC to give some clarity with respect to the status of “finders.” See here for the latest piece.

Early-stage companies raising funds very often reach out to a guy who knows some guys who have money and have invested in startups in the past. If the first guy wants to be compensated by reference to the amount of money his contacts are able to invest, he may well have violated the broker registration requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. And it’s not only him who needs to be worried; if a startup raises funds through someone who should have been registered as a broker and wasn’t, their sales of securities may be subject to rescission – buying the securities back, with interest.

Nonetheless, startups are so strapped for money (and often don’t understand the requirements of the law) that they do this all the time.

Industry participants have been asking the SEC for guidance in this area for decades, and now the SEC has come up with some simple proposals that should be of use to the startup community.

The SEC is proposing to exempt two classes of finders, Tier I Finders and Tier II Finders, based on the types of activities in which they are permitted to engage, and with conditions tailored to the scope of their activities. The proposed exemption for Tier I and Tier II Finders would be available only where:

  • The issuer is not a reporting company under the Exchange Act;
  • The issuer is seeking to conduct the securities offering in reliance on an applicable exemption from registration under the Securities Act;
  • The finder does not engage in general solicitation;
  • The potential investor is an “accredited investor” as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D or the finder has a reasonable belief that the potential investor is an “accredited investor”;
  • The finder provides services pursuant to a written agreement with the issuer that includes a description of the services provided and associated compensation;
  • The finder is not an associated person of a broker-dealer; and
  • The finder is not subject to statutory disqualification at the time of his or her participation.

Tier I Finders. A “Tier I Finder” is defined as a finder who meets the above conditions and whose activity is limited to providing contact information of potential investors in connection with only one capital raising transaction by a single issuer within a 12-month period, provided the Tier I Finder does not have any contact with the potential investors about the issuer. A Tier I Finder that complies with all of the conditions of the exemption may receive transaction-based compensation (in other words, compensation based on the amount raised) for the limited services described above without being required to register as a broker under the Exchange Act.

Tier II Finders. The SEC is also proposing an exemption that would permit a finder, where certain conditions are met, to engage in additional solicitation-related activities beyond those permitted for Tier I Finders. A “Tier II Finder” is defined as a finder who meets the above conditions, and who engages in solicitation-related activities on behalf of an issuer, that are limited to:

  • Identifying, screening, and contacting potential investors;
  • Distributing issuer offering materials to investors;
  • Discussing issuer information included in any offering materials, provided that the Tier II Finder does not provide advice as to the valuation or advisability of the investment; and
  • Arranging or participating in meetings with the issuer and investor.

A Tier II Finder wishing to rely on the proposed exemption would need to satisfy certain disclosure requirements and other conditions: First, the Tier II Finder would need to provide a potential investor, prior to or at the time of the solicitation, disclosures that include: (1) the name of the Tier II Finder; (2) the name of the issuer; (3) the description of the relationship between the Tier II Finder and the issuer, including any affiliation; (4) a statement that the Tier II Finder will be compensated for his or her solicitation activities by the issuer and a description of the terms of such compensation arrangement; (5) any material conflicts of interest resulting from the arrangement or relationship between the Tier II Finder and the issuer; and (6) an affirmative statement that the Tier II Finder is acting as an agent of the issuer, is not acting as an associated person of a broker-dealer, and is not undertaking a role to act in the investor’s best interest. The Commission is proposing to allow a Tier II Finder to provide such disclosure orally, provided that the oral disclosure is supplemented by written disclosure and satisfies all of the disclosure requirements listed above no later than the time of any related investment in the issuer’s securities.

The Tier II Finder must obtain from the investor, prior to or at the time of any investment in the issuer’s securities, a dated written acknowledgment of receipt of the Tier II Finder’s required disclosure.

A Tier II Finder that complies with all of the conditions of the proposed exemption may receive transaction-based compensation for services provided in connection with the activities described above without being required to register as a broker under the Exchange Act.

A finder could not be involved in structuring the transaction or negotiating the terms of the offering. A finder also could not handle customer funds or securities or bind the issuer or investor; participate in the preparation of any sales materials; perform any independent analysis of the sale; engage in any “due diligence” activities; assist or provide financing for such purchases; or provide advice as to the valuation or financial advisability of the investment.

This exemption would not affect a finder’s obligation to continue to comply with all other applicable laws, including the antifraud provisions of federal and state law. Additionally, regardless of whether or not a finder complies with this exemption, it may need to consider whether it is acting as another regulated entity, such as an investment adviser.

The exemption is really aimed at the guy at the golf club who has accredited buddies he can introduce the startup to. It would be available to natural persons only (not companies) and the finder couldn’t undertake general solicitation (he should know the people he is introducing to the startup; if he has to go searching for them, he’s essentially acting as a broker. The “no general solicitation” and “natural person” conditions means that the proposed exemption doesn’t help clarify the regulatory status of non-broker online platforms.

We are a little disappointed that so many of the comment letters on the proposal have been negative. We do understand that there is a great deal of clarification needed with respect to what it means to be in the business of a broker. And the SEC needs to work closely with the states in this area. But we at CrowdCheck are pleased that the SEC has provided some clarity in this area.

KoreSummit RegA+ 2020

Posted on by Oscar Jofre

KoreSummit is all about education,  We are pleased to be able to offer you the opportunity to receive first-hand knowledge from leading thought leaders to help you in your journey to capital raising.

The KoreSummit RegA+ 2020 online event was a huge success because of you who attended and shared it with your friends.  As promised here are the video segments.

Complete Live Stream

 

RegA+ Verticals

 

Legal RegA+ Global Companies

 

Investor Acquisition/Distribution

 

PR/IR/Social Media/Press

 

Research, Ratings

 

Role of FINRA Broker-Dealer

 

RegA+ Success, the CEO’s

 

The Main Event

 

Digital Securities for RegA+

 

Compliance for RegA+

 

Shareholder Management & Communications

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.

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