Reforms to RegD

With Regulation D (RegD) offerings, companies are exempt from registering securities with the SEC. Under RegD, companies can raise capital from accredited investors (and a limited number of nonaccredited investors in some cases) to support the growth of their business. This has become a popular method for private companies to raise capital, and can often be a starting point for larger capital raises under Regulation CF or Regulation A+. This popularity and the minimal disclosure requirements of RegD have prompted SEC Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw to propose changes to RegD disclosure requirements in January. Let’s see about these reforms to RegD.

 

Current Regulations Under RegD

 

The objective of RegD was to enable small and medium-sized businesses to seek capital-raising opportunities, without the cost-prohibitive disclosure requirements of a public offering. Under current regulation, companies may make private offerings of securities without having to register with the SEC, provided that they comply with certain disclosure requirements. These include filing Form D (which provides information about a company’s executives and its financial condition) and providing investors with a private placement memorandum outlining the terms of the offering. However, as this method of capital raising has been leveraged by multi-billion-dollar companies for whom it was not originally intended, the SEC is looking to update the disclosure requirements.

 

Commissioner Crenshaw’s Proposed Reforms

 

Commissioner Crenshaw has proposed a two-tiered framework, similar to Regulation A (RegA) which also provides an exemption from SEC registration requirements. Under the proposed reforms, companies offering securities through RegD would be required to provide more disclosure than is currently required, with the burden of disclosure increasing based on company size. Smaller companies (up to a threshold) would only need to provide basic information about their business operations such as management, operational updates, and financial statements. Larger companies (over the threshold) would be required to provide additional, heightened financial disclosures similar to those that are required under an S-1 filing. 

 

This reform could have far-reaching implications for small and medium businesses that wish to access capital markets and would largely depend on where the threshold is set. It remains to be seen whether these proposed reforms will move forward, but it’s clear that Commissioner Crenshaw is interested in modernizing and streamlining the process of raising capital.  

 

Effects of These Changes

 

The SEC’s proposed reforms would require issuers to provide more extensive disclosure and adhere to certain standards that are typically only associated with public offerings. This could potentially be a costly endeavor, as it would involve additional filing fees, legal expenses, and accounting costs.

 

The proposed reforms could also limit the ability of small businesses to access capital through Regulation D, as the costs associated with meeting the new requirements may be too high for some companies. For example, smaller companies may find it difficult to pay for the necessary accounting and legal fees, or they may not be able to generate enough interest from investors due to the higher thresholds that must be met to qualify for RegD. Small start-ups trying to raise only $250,000, these companies may not have the money to prepare the audited financials and Form 1A level disclosures.

The SEC’s proposed reforms of Regulation D are a step in the right direction toward protecting investors and ensuring that issuers adhere to certain standards. However, these reforms could potentially be harmful to small businesses seeking to raise capital through RegD offerings. The SEC needs to consider the potential effects of its proposed reforms and ensure that they are not overly burdensome on companies whose access to capital is already limited.

 

Celebrity Endorsements of Investment Opportunities

When it comes to investing, celebrities are just like the rest of us. They need to do their research before putting their money into anything. Unfortunately, many stars have fallen victim to investment schemes in the past without doing the proper due diligence. However, an issue that is becoming even more prevalent is celebrities who use their influence and followings to promote securities, without including the proper disclosures, to unsuspecting fans and investors.  So, with the SEC cracking down on celebrities and companies, it’s important to know what you’re getting into when dealing with an investment opportunity tied to a celebrity endorsement.

 

Celebrity Endorsement and Investment Opportunities

 

The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (OIEA) has warned investors not to make investment decisions based solely on celebrity endorsements. While celebrity endorsements exist for a wide variety of products and services, a celebrity endorsement does not mean that an investment is legitimate or appropriate for all investors. As the OIEA says, “It is never a good idea to make an investment decision just because someone famous says a product or service is a good investment.”

 

Celebrities can be lured into participating in a fraudulent scheme or be linked to products or services without their consent. According to the SEC, even if the endorsement and investment opportunity are genuine, the investment may not be good for you. Before investing, always do your research, including these steps:

 

  • Research the background, including registration or license status, of anyone recommending or selling an investment through the search tool on Investor.gov.
  • Learn about the company’s finances, organization, and business prospects by carefully reading any prospectus and the company’s latest financial reports, which may be available through the SEC’s EDGAR database.
  • Evaluate the investment’s potential costs and fees, risks, and benefits based on your personal investment goals, risk tolerance, investment horizon, net worth, existing investments and assets, debt, and tax considerations. 

 

Kim Kardashian and the SEC

 

The SEC’s announcement followed an investigation that found Kim Kardashian failed to disclose that she was paid $250,000 to publish a post on her Instagram account promoting EMAX tokens, a crypto asset security offered by a company called EthereumMax. The post contained a link to the EthereumMax website, which provided instructions for potential investors to purchase the tokens. Since the investigation, she has agreed to settle the charges and pay $1.26 million in cooperation. SEC Chair Gary Gensler noted that “investors are entitled to know whether the publicity of a security is unbiased,” and the SEC’s Director of Enforcement Gurbir S. Grewal added that “Ms. Kardashian’s case also serves as a reminder to celebrities and others that the law requires them to disclose to the public when and how much they are paid to promote investing in securities.”

 

This case highlights the need for transparency surrounding celebrity endorsements of investments. Federal securities laws are clear that any celebrity or other individual that promotes a security must disclose the nature, source, and amount of compensation they received in exchange for the promotion. Without this type of disclosure, investors cannot make informed investment decisions. The SEC’s investigation is ongoing, and it remains to be seen if any additional action will be taken in this case. This case serves as a reminder that celebrities and influencers are not above the law. When considering any investment opportunity, it is important to do your own research and consult with a financial advisor to ensure it is right for you. Be sure to ask questions and demand transparency if you are asked to invest in a security based on a celebrity endorsement.

The SEC Released its 41st Annual Small Business Forum Report

For 41 years, the Securities and Exchange Commission has hosted its annual Small Business Forum. The event, led by the SEC’s Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation, aims to gather feedback from both the public and private sectors to improve capital raising and sheds light on many issues facing small businesses and investors to help event participants develop policy recommendations.

 

Highlighting the needs of small businesses within the US is crucial, as they play a vital role in the economy and job creation. Over the past 25 years, 2 out of every 3 jobs created can be attributed to small businesses. These businesses serve as the lifeblood of their communities.

 

Some of the key takeaways from the four-day event included the fact that more entrepreneurs need to be made aware of resources available when raising capital, as many have great ideas, but lack the knowledge and experience to raise capital effectively. This also means expanding access to capital to both underrepresented groups and locations, especially outside of major “tech-hub hotspots.” Additionally, panel discussions highlighted the issues minority entrepreneurs continue to face when seeking traditional funding options, such as venture capital or private equity. These funding methods often rely heavily on networks and connections that exclude many entrepreneurs. 

 

According to sources such as Crowdfund Insider, the Commission has addressed past issues such as democratizing the definition of an accredited investor by empowering a more significant segment of the population to gain access to Reg D private securities offerings. However, other suggestions often face political challenges and regulatory obstacles.

 

Even so, Commissioner Hester Pierce urged the Commission and forum participants to be inspired by the JOBS Act. She also commented: 

 

“Heightening the importance of this year’s Forum is the Commission’s current posture of, at best, indifference, and at times, hostility to facilitating capital formation. As it happens, today is the tenth anniversary of President Obama signing into law the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act. That bipartisan legislation required the SEC to write rules lessening the burdens on small companies seeking to raise capital. Some of the Act’s provisions were things we could have done on our own. Congress and the President got fed up waiting for the Commission to take small business capital formation seriously.”

 

Additionally, Commissioner Allison Lee remarked:

 

“Many investors are business owners and vice versa. And capital raising and investor protection are not at odds with one another or a zero-sum proposition. Rather, investors need appropriate investment opportunities, and investor protection increases investor confidence, which in turn helps promote capital raising. The relationship between the two is symbiotic and we can and should seek to balance the need for both robust capital raising opportunities and robust investor protection.”

 

Hopefully, seeing how the JOBS Act has expanded capital formation will encourage the SEC to continue the momentum and create more tools and resources to support small businesses. In the meantime, companies should explore existing options and opportunities for capital, such as through the JOBS Act. Small businesses should not wait for the SEC to create more opportunities – they should take advantage of the rules and regulations that are currently in place to raise the capital they need to grow their businesses.

Security Tokens for RegA+

Although security tokens have been around for a while, they have started to gain popularity because they offer several advantages over traditional investment vehicles. In particular, security tokens can be used in RegA+ offerings, allowing companies to raise money from accredited and unaccredited investors. As a result, security tokens have quickly become one of the most popular ways to invest in startups and other high-growth businesses.

 

What are Security Tokens?

 

Security tokens, as the name implies, are securities. And much like traditional securities, they represent an ownership stake in a company or some other asset and are subject to the same SEC oversight as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other forms of investment vehicles. Because of this, they share a familiar structure and have regulatory protection that makes them attractive for companies and investors alike. There is a greater assurance for the issuer that their investment will be protected from the volatility often associated with unregulated cryptocurrencies. For the investor, there is the added security of knowing that an asset backs its investment with value outside of the blockchain. 

 

​​”Security tokens are the missing link between the traditional financial world and the blockchain,” says Andrew Bull, founding partner of Bull Blockchain Law and KorePartner. “They provide the benefits of both worlds: the security of regulated securities and the flexibility and opportunity of digital assets.”

 

However, are security tokens the same as digital securities? The short answer is: yes, security tokens are the same as digital securities. Both represent an ownership stake in an entity or property, subject to SEC regulations. Thus, the names can be used interchangeably. The key difference between security tokens and traditional securities is that the former are digital representations that move and exist on a blockchain. 

 

It is also important to consider that while security tokens are cryptocurrencies, they are different from coins. Coins represent value on their own, like Bitcoin or Ethereum, whereas tokens have a function other than storage or exchange alone. And unlike utility tokens, security tokens represent a stake in an asset that has value outside of the blockchain. 

 

“Because security tokens denominate a stake in an asset that already has value outside of the blockchain, their value is not necessarily domain or ecosystem specific, as is the case with utility tokens,” says Bull. “Instead, the assets apportioned through the security tokens exist in the traditional market, in public and private equities. This makes the security token a naturally more attractive investment to both issuers and investors, as it provides a connection between traditional and digital investment assets.”

 

Benefits of Security Tokens for Issuers and Investors

 

Security tokens offer many benefits to companies and investors. Perhaps most importantly, they provide a bridge between traditional and digital investment assets, making it easier for companies to raise money and investors to gain exposure to the blockchain ecosystem. Because security tokens are subject to SEC regulations, issuing companies may benefit from the reassurance that their investment might be protected to a certain extent. The same benefit goes to the investor.

 

“Both parties can expect their ownership stake to be preserved on the blockchain ledger, as well,” said Bull. Investors can benefit from security tokens because they connect traditional and digital investment assets. Security tokens also have the potential to help investors by providing regulatory protection. This is important because it can help to mitigate the risk associated with investing in more experimental, unregulated cryptocurrencies.

 

On the other hand, digital assets not subject to SEC regulation, like utility tokens, have proven vulnerable to volatility and, therefore, challenging to maintain conditions stable enough to run a company. In this case, the investor in the utility token is exposed to a great deal more risk than the investor in the security token.

 

In summary, security tokens offer several benefits to both companies and investors. They provide a bridge between traditional and digital investment assets, making it easier for companies to raise money and investors to gain exposure to the blockchain ecosystem. These characteristics make security tokens less vulnerable to volatility and a more stable form of investment. They are also subject to SEC regulations, which provide some protection for both companies and investors.

Reg CF Investment Vehicles: What Are They Good For?

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 changes to RegA+ and RegCF

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