Tag: Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act

Massachusetts Adopts Crowdfunding

Flag-map_of_Massachusetts.svg

Add Massachusetts to the growing list of states that are sidestepping the unusable federal crowdfunding alternative.

“The Crowdfunding Exemption is designed to foster job creation by helping small and early-stage Massachusetts companies find investors and gain greater access to capital with fewer restrictions. The exemption is also intended to provide necessary investor protections by requiring key disclosures, and by making the exemption unavailable to bad actors that have violated the securities laws or committed financial fraud.”

The federal crowdfunding provisions in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 was supposed to be a panacea for crowdfunding. But the final language of the law was amended at the last minute. The Securities and Exchange Commission was vocally opposed to it, but issued proposed regulations in October 2013 to implement the exemption. The SEC received about 300 written comments to the proposed regulations, but there is no sign that the final regulations will come out any time soon. The Federal crowdfunding regime will not be effective until the SEC issues those regulations. Even then, the regime is likely to be unwieldy.

A May 1, 2014 Wall Street Journal article, entitled “Frustration Rises Over Crowdfunding Rules,” describes efforts in the U.S. Congress to amend the JOBS Act even before the federal regime takes effect. However, many states have decided that crowdfunding is worth trying and are not waiting for the SEC.

The new Massachusetts crowdfunding regime is limited to $1 million a year, which can be increased to $2 million with audited financial statements. The company must set a fundraising minimum and must keep funds in escrow at a Massachusetts bank until it reaches the target.

The investment amount limitations are a bit messy. For those with net worth and income of less than $100,000, an investment is limited to the greater of $2000 or 5% of annual income or net worth. For the wealthier, it can go up to 10% of income or net worth. The Massachusetts regulation looks to the SEC accredited investor standard for calculating those amounts (i.e. exclude the home).

There is a limitation on form. The business must be formed under Massachusetts law, have its principal place of business in Massachusetts and authorized to do business in Massachusetts. It’s too bad the regime excludes the Delaware formed organizations from crowdfunding. That limits future growth of the company. Bigger money investors will want a Delaware entity for the certainty under the Delaware corporate laws for protection of their shareholder rights.

Sources:

Congress Tries to Fix the JOBS Act

house financial services

I’m still surprised that the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act flew through Congress two years ago. It’s surprising to see bi-partisan support for anything. Unfortunately, the law was flawed and has accomplished little that it set out to accomplish.

The Title III Crowdfunding law was wildly hailed as monumentally changing the way small businesses could raise capital. However, the law was deeply (fatally?) flawed. The law handed the Securities an impossible framework to craft regulatory control. The SEC has not produced the new regulations because of the deep flaws in the law. That fact is clearly acknowledged in a recent legislative cover memo. Plus there is a titanic clash between the consumer protection and capital formation goals of the the SEC.

Title II demanded a lifting of the ban on general solicitation. Congress added a caveat that the company raising the capital take reasonable steps to ascertain that the investor is an accredited investor. That’s a bad hurdle, but not insurmountable. However, the SEC’s consumer protection goal produced a nasty set of proposed regulations that has scared off many firms from taking advantage of the new possibilities for advertising and solicitation.

Congress is trying to fix the problem. There is a hearing today on three bills that offer technical fixes to the JOBS Act.

The first is rebuilding of the Crowdfunding platform. This bill repeals the old law and replaces it with a modified version of the original House bill proposed by Rep. McHenry.

The second is an improvement to the oft-forgotten Regulation A exempted offerings. The proposal would raise the offering amount to 10 million and makes a few other tweaks.

The third blows up the SEC’s proposed regulatory changes to Form D and otherwise makes advertising and solicitation more palatable for private offerings.

Hearing entitled “Legislative Proposals to Enhance Capital Formation for Small and Emerging Growth Companies, Part II”
Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:30 AM in 2128 Rayburn HOB

Witnesses:

  • Mr. Benjamin Miller, Co-Founder, Fundrise
  • Ms. Annemarie Tierney, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, SecondMarket
  • Mr. William Beatty, Director of Securities, Securities Division, Washington State Department of Financial Institutions
  • Mr. Jeff Lynn, Chief Executive Officer, Seedrs Limited

These are well-thought out changes that would improve capital formation. I fear that the House Financial Services Committee has become too partisan to effectively legislate.

Accredited Investor Verification

rich accredited investor

When Congress imposed a lifting of the ban on advertisements for private placements, it also imposed a mandate that the fundraiser “take reasonable steps to verify that purchasers of the securities are accredited investors.” The methods for verification were to be determined by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The SEC, to its credit, did not impose impose strict methods for verification. It largely decided to allow fundraisers to use a principles-based approach. The SEC did include four non-exclusive safe harbors for verification.

Congress thought that lifting the ban would invigorate fundraising. But funds and companies have been reluctant to use it. According to a speech by Keith Higgins, only 10% of private placements have used the Rule 506(c) methods. Since September 2013, there were 900 offerings that raised $10 billion under Rule 506(c). But there were over 9,200 offerings that raised $233 billion under the old Rule 506(b) regime.

With the verification requirement, the outcome and backlash has been that fundraisers should only use one of the four methods. That of course, is silly. It’s safe, but overly cautious. The SEC did specifically state that reliance on an investor’s self-answered questionnaire alone is not taking reasonable steps. You will need to look at your potential investor and find out some additional information.

That investigation adds time and and energy. For private equity funds, it’s probably a step that should be taken anyhow. Investor defaults on capital calls is a bad thing. You want to make sure that your potential investor will be able to make the contributions over course of the expected timeline of capital calls. That’s a bit different than a one time contribution to a hedge fund or private company investment.

Minimum investment goes a long way to meeting the reasonable steps. If an investor is making a $1 million investment then presumably the investor has the $1 million new worth which is the accredited investor baseline test. The SEC did not specifically endorse this standard. The concern is that the investor may have borrowed the money to make the investment. The SEC is clearly worried about shady operators getting little old ladies to mortgage their homes to make risky investments.

For me, the biggest concern is the overhang of the proposed changes to Regulation D that were put up for comment at the same time the SEC lifted the ban. That injects too much uncertainty into the fundraising process. The SEC stated that there will likely be a grace period and some transitional relief. But its hard to plan a fundraising that could take 12 months with that kind of uncertainty.

I was interested in using Rule 506(c) because of the uncertainties around the definition of general solicitation and advertising. It would be great to eliminate potential foot-faults. I could sleep better at night, not worrying about whether an employee would mention fundraising at an industry event. The company could respond to media requests and could correct misinformation in the media about the fundraising.

But the SEC has left too much uncertainty in the process to fully embrace a Rule 506(c) offering.

References:

Crowdfunding and the Ban on General Solicitation

18 Rabbits Bars

While entrepreneurs are looking to create crowdfunding portals under Title III of the JOBS Act, small business owners looking to raise capital should keep an eye on the regulatory changes under Title II of the JOBS Act. That may do a better job of opening the spigot for capital than the avalanche of crowdfunding portals likely to appear.

Look at the case of Alison Bailey Vercruysse, a maker of granola-based foods, and her company 18 Rabbits. According to a story in yesterday’s Washington Post, her products attracted a loyal following, but she could not tap those fans for capital as she tried to grow her firm.

“People would come up to me in different places and say: ‘I’m interested in investing in your company. How can I do that?’ ” Vercruysse said. “I couldn’t say we were trying to raise money. I’d end up saying things like; ‘Buy our granola. That would help us.’ ”

Without the ban on general solicitation, the company could put a message on its packaging or its website for accredited investors interested in investing.

Currently, the Securities and Exchange Commission has a ban on the use of general advertising and solicitation for raising private capital under the most popular exemption, Rule 506. Title II of the JOBS Act requires the SEC to remove that ban for offering where all investors are accredited. The agency tried to rush the rules last summer to meet the Congressional deadline, but investor advocates demanded that the SEC slow down. The SEC is gathering public comment before finalizing the rule.

Two SEC commissioners, Dan Gallagher and Troy Paredes, were in favor of immediately lifting the ban. SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar did not like the rule, saying it lacked adequate investor protections. The fourth SEC Commissioner, Elise Walter voted for the proposal, but expressed concerns. She has stated the SEC must consider ways to mitigate potential harm to investors. The fifth and presumably deciding Commissioner’s seat is vacant with the departure of Mary Shapiro. Looking into my crystal ball, it would seem that the rule is not going to be finalized anytime soon. At least not until the vacancy is filled.

Sources:

Crowdfunded Companies Won’t Be Here Anytime Soon

Money

When the JOBS Act passed last spring, there was a huge surge on the future of crowdfunding. In pursuit of the riches of startup investing, many ignored the already successful world of Kickstarter, Indie Go Go, and others that already successfully fund projects. Those platforms don’t show the investor a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They show the investor the final project and maybe the chance to purchase one or participate.

By switching to equity fundraising, the focus would switch to the potential financial reward and perhaps less on the value of the project. Critics wailed about the onslaught of fraud. Proponents praised the unleashing of entrepreneurial capital. The lawyers and regulators worried about how to implement this new capital raising regime.

Congress didn’t make it easy. They chose do throw out the original crowdfunding law proposed for the JOBS Act and replaced it with a very cumbersome and difficult new piece of legislation. They gave the Securities and Exchange Commission 270 days to come out with the regulations. That’s on top of the huge pile of regulatory mandates passed 2 years ago with Dodd-Frank.

We have seen no inkling that the SEC has come close to proposed regulations. With the departure of Mary Shapiro, the SEC is down to four commissioners. Two of whom have publicly voiced their concerns about crowdfunding. Even if the SEC can gather three out of four of the commissioners to agree on proposed regulations, there will be a lengthy comment period and likely re-writing to get to the final regulations.

In addition to the SEC, FINRA will need to create a regulatory regime for the registration of crowdfunding portals. To get a taste of how difficult this going to be, you can take a look at the first baby steps of regulatory work that came from FINRA.

FINRA is inviting prospective crowdfunding portals to voluntarily file an interim funding portal form. The filing is meant to help FINRA develop rules that reflect the funding portal community and its business. It is not an application and does not get anyone any closer to having a working equity crowdfunding platform.

For a taste of the difficulties take a look at the last question:

Please describe how the [Funding Portal] addresses the requirements for funding portals under the JOBS Act. In particular, please describe how the [Funding Portal] would
(i) address investor education;
(ii) take measures to reduce the risk of fraud with respect to funding portal transactions;
(iii) ensure adherence to the aggregate selling limits; and
(iv) protect the privacy of information collected from investors.

The successful crowfunding portals are going to have to master difficult regulations, successfully court attractive investment opportunities, master the 50 states of privacy legislation, come up with effective investor eduction tools, and successfully attract investors willing to write checks.

I still think crowdfunding will end up being a minor league system for the investment banks. They have the resources to conquer these hurdles. They can use the database of investors to mine for more conventional investment opportunities. They can use the few successful crowdfunded companies to sell bigger opportunities for raising more capital. It seems to me that we are still many, many months away from seeing the first crowdfunding portal under the JOBS Act.

Sources:

506(c) and General Solicitation and Advertising in Securities Offerings

Section 201(a)(1) of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”) directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to amend Rule 506 of Regulation D. Congress wants to permit general solicitation or general advertising in offerings made under Rule 506, provided that all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors. With one caveat: the issuer must take reasonable steps to verify that purchasers of the securities are accredited investors. After some delays, the SEC has finally published a proposed rule to implement the Congressional mandate.

After waiting all summer for a proposed rule, the SEC decided to finally take action during my vacation. And on the day I promised to take my kids to Story Land. My review of the rule and commentary would have to wait until my kids had their fill of Cinderella and the Bamboo Chutes.

Thanks to William Carleton’s live blog and a review of speeches, I could see that the five commissioners were not in full agreement about the rule or the procedure for adopting the rule. Commissioner Gallagher was in favor of the proposed rules, but wanted it to be an interim final rule. Commissioner Aguilar thought the proposed rules did not go far enough in protecting investors. In the end, that may not mean much.

As expected, the removal of the general solicitation and public offering prohibitions, comes with a few caveats.

Does Not Remove Ban

I found it interesting that the SEC chose to create a new regulatory scheme, rather than merely eliminate the ban. The proposed rule includes a new Rule 506(c) that permits general solicitation and advertising provided all investors are accredited and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that they are accredited. 506(b) stays in place allowing an issuer to have up to 35 sophisticated, but non-accredited investors, provided there is not general solicitation or advertising, but does not have to take reasonable steps to verify the investors’ status.

“Take reasonable steps to verify”

The SEC did not do what many feared would be the worst result under the JOBS Act. The proposed rule does not impose any specific requirement to verify that an investor meets the standard of an accredited investor. “Whether the steps taken are “reasonable” would be an objective determination, based on the particular facts and circumstances of each transaction.”

To some extent that seems okay. In the private equity fund model we have a particular concern that a potential investor will be able meet a capital call. It should just mean having to document the diligence process.

However, the SEC did strike one common aspect of fundraising practice.

[W]e do not believe that an issuer would have taken reasonable steps to verify accredited investor status if it required only that a person check a box in a questionnaire or sign a form, absent other information about the purchaser indicating accredited investor status.

Offering documents will need to be changed.

A Non-Accredited Investor Sneaks In

The language of the JOBS Act made some, including me, nervous that if a non-accredited investor could sneak into an offering and blow up the exemption. A person of limited means really wanted to be an investor, lied on the questionnaire, but passed through the reasonable steps taken by the issuer to verify status. Fortunately, the SEC took that position that the issuer would not lose the ability to rely on the Rule 506(c) exemption, so long as the issuer took reasonable steps to verify that the purchaser was an accredited investor and had a reasonable belief that such purchaser was an accredited investor.

Changes to Form D

In addition, to the new 506(c) the SEC is proposing to amend Form D. The notice filing with the SEC would have a check box to indicate whether an offering is being conducted pursuant to the proposed Rule 506(c) that would permit general solicitation.

Blessing for Private Funds

Private funds typically rely on the Rule 506 safe harbor to raise funds without having to register under the Securities Act. Private funds were also restricted under Section 3(c)(1) and Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act from making a public offering of securities. Historically, the SEC has considered rule 506 transactions to be non-public offerings. But would the SEC change that position given its hostility towards the JOBS Act?

Thankfully, the answer is no.

We believe the effect of Section 201(b) is to permit privately offered funds to make a general solicitation under amended Rule 506 without losing either of the exclusions under the Investment Company Act.

Comments

Now there is 30 comment period. I’m just guessing, but I’d be surprised to see changes to the proposed rule. I think the benefit of the comment period will be to add some additional commentary around the “reasonable steps to verify” standard.

Sources:

The Rebirth of Regulation A Offerings

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to amend Regulation A, raising the threshold for use of that exemption from $5 million to $50 million. From the numbers I’ve seen, Regulation A was rarely used as a source of raising capital. It seemed strange that it was included in the JOBS Act. But there were many strange things in the JOBS Act.

Section 402 of the JOBS ACT required the GAO to study the impact of state securities laws on Regulation A offerings. The GAO released its study: Factors That May Affect Trends in Regulation A Offerings.

The report confirmed the lack of use of Regulation A in capital raising. The number of Regulation A offerings filed with the SEC decreased from 116 in 1997 to 19 in 2011. Similarly, the number of qualified offerings dropped from 57 in 1998 to 1 in 2011.

The big difference is that Regulation A offerings are still subject to state securities laws. In contrast, Rule 506 offerings under Regulation D are not subject to the state securities law.

To contrast, there were 15,500 initial Regulation D offerings for up to $5 million in 2010 and 2011, compared to the 8 qualified Regulation A offerings during the same period.

One aspect of a Regulation A offering compared to a Regulation D offering is that it is subject to review, comment, and qualification by the SEC. According to the GAO report 20% of Regulation A filings were abandoned during the SEC comment process.

Another aspect of Regulation A is that the securities’ sales are not limited to accredited investors. So there is a larger pool of potential investors.

On the state side of the process, all states conduct a similar disclosure review as the SEC. Apparently some states will also engage in a merit review to determine if potential investors are getting a good deal. According to the report, businesses are generally advised by legal counsel to avoid Regulation A offerings in states that have a merit review.

So where does this leave Regulation A offerings in the new world of capital formation after the JOBS Act? I would guess in the same place. The big advantage of Reg A offerings over Reg D offering is that they can be sold to non-accredited investors. That comes with a lot of cost and lost time to go through the review process. I would guess that the new crowdfunding offering would be a more attractive alternative to reaching non-accredited investors. Of course, the regulations on crowdfunding do not yet exist and the mandatory equity crowdfunding portals do not yet exist.

Sources:

Comments on Advertising Restrictions for Private Funds

Section 201 of the recently passed Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act will change the advertising limits on private funds and any other company that raises capital through the private placement safe harbor in Rule 506 of Regulation D. That rule has historically prevented the use of general solicitation and advertising in selling private fund interests. Section 201 requires the SEC to lift the ban through a new rulemaking and gave the SEC 90 days (July 4) to do so.

I still find it strange that Congress did not just create revise the underlying statutes to allow solicitation and advertising in private offerings not registered with the SEC. Instead, Congress took the convoluted route of requiring the SEC to change a rule that interprets a statutory provision of the Securities Act. That injects some uncertainty into what limitations, if any, the SEC will continue to require after July 4 (or whenever the new rule goes into effect).

There are a few other points in Section 201 that concern me and make me worry about fundraising in the post JOBS Act regulatory world.

First, Section 201 limits sales only to accredited investors when using general advertising or solicitation. Currently, a Rule 506 offering can have up to 35 non-accredited investors. That would typically include friends and family investors. It would also include employees.

Second, Section 201 requires the SEC to include a requirement that the issuer take reasonable steps to determine accredited investor status using methods determined by the SEC. That could radically change the current practice and safeguards in the fundraising process.

Third, I’m concerned what the effect will be for a fund or other issuer that ends up selling to a non-accredited investor. A fund can take reasonable steps to determine if a potential investor is accredited. But the investor could be deceptive. That would leave the fund in violation even though it reasonably believed the investor was accredited.

Fourth, Section 201 purports to lift the ban across all federal securities law. In particular, I’d prefer clarification that the advertising and solicitation applies to the Section 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act that permits most private funds to avoid regulation under that law.

In looking through the comments letters to Section 201, I see that I am not alone in these concerns.

The American Bar Association’s Federal Regulation of Securities Committee does a a great job of focusing on my fourth concern and asks for a clear statement that “an offering of fund shares pursuant to Rule 506 or Rule 144A utilizing general solicitation or general advertising will not be a ‘public offering’ for the purposes of Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act.”

The letter also requests clarification of the reasonable belief standard in the Rule 501 definition of accredited investor.

“any person who comes within any of the following categories, or who the issuer reasonably believes comes within any of the following categories, at the time of the sale of the securities to that person…”

The letter falls short in its comments to the verification practice. It merely asks the SEC to have the rule reflect “current custom and practice” without letting the SEC what the customs and practice is. (It’s asking the investor to fill out a questionnaire.)

In it’s comment letter, the Managed Fund Association focuses on reasonable steps for the verification process.

In general, each potential hedge fund investor must complete a subscription document provided by the fund’s manager that provides a detailed description of, among other things, the qualification standards that a purchaser must meet under the federal securities laws. In completing the subscription materials, each investor must identify which applicable qualification standard it meets. In addition to these procedures, many hedge funds managed by MFA members obtain further assurance of the qualification of their investors by virtue of minimum investment thresholds that meet or exceed the net worth requirement in the definition of accredited investor.

The Managed Fund Association also asks that the knowledgeable employee exemption be extended to Rule 506. With private funds, investors prefer (demand?) that senior management have a significant investment in the fund. This aligns interests among the investors and management. When operating under the Section 3(c)(7) exemption from the Investment Company Act, the issue then becomes how a private investment fund can provide an equity ownership to key employee when it’s unlikely that your key employees will have the $5 million in investments needed to qualify as  a Qualified Purchaser. The SEC established Rule 3C-5 to allow “knowledgeable employees” to invest in their company’s private fund without having to be a qualified purchaser. The rule also exempts these knowledgeable employees from the 100 investor limit under the Section 3(c)(1) exemption from the Investment Company Act. The Managed Fund Association recommends

that as part of the implementation of Section 201, the SEC amend the definition of “accredited investor” to include those individuals who meet the definition of “knowledgeable employee” in Rule 3c-5 under the Investment Company Act.

The New York City Bar splits the verification process by asking for a principle-based approach with a non-exclusive safe harbor. Their comment letter points out the body of existing practice and asks the SEC to build on it, rather than replace it.

The clock is ticking and the SEC has very little time to produce a proposed rule for comment. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the SEC miss the deadline given all of the other rule making piled up in front of them. That means the advertising may have to wait that much longer.

Sources – Comment letter from:

SEC Seeks Public Comment Prior to Jobs Act Rulemaking

In an unusual move, the SEC has opened up for comments on the proposed rules under the recently-signed Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, before it has proposed the rules.

The SEC is generally required by law to establish a public comment period at the time it proposes rules or rule amendments. However, similar to the Commission’s action with the Dodd-Frank Act, the public will have an opportunity to voice its views before rules or amendments are proposed under the JOBS Act. The public also will be able to see what others are saying to the agency about these issues.

To facilitate public comment, the SEC is providing a series of links on its website organized by titles of the JOBS Act. Those links are replicated below.

See also: Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act updates from the SEC

Will Private Funds Be Excluded?

Title II of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act directs the SEC to lift the ban on general solicitation and advertising under Rule 506 of Regulation D. That rule creates a safe harbor that deems the covered transactions to not involve any public offering within the meaning of section 4(2) of the Securities Act.

However, private funds also have to deal with the restriction in the Investment Company Act that also limits public offerings. Under the exclusions in 3(c)1 and 3(c)7 the fund must be an issuer “which is not making and does not presently propose to make a public offering of its securities”. Historically, the SEC has interpreted the meaning of “public offering” to be the same between the two acts. So not being a public offering under Rule 506 meant the offering was not public under the Investment Company Act.

For real estate fund managers relying on the 3(c)5 exclusion, there is no ban on a public offering in that exclusion.

The JOBS Act requires the SEC to revise its rule, so we don’t know exactly how the changes to Rule 506 will work. It’s possible that the SEC will limit the changes to the Securities Act and not open general advertising to funds under 3(c)1 and 3(c)7 who are required to be private.

However, Section 201(b) of the JOBS Act contains this:

(b) CONSISTENCY IN INTERPRETATION.—Section 4 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77d) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘The provisions of section 5’’ and inserting

‘‘(a) The provisions of section 5’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(b) Offers and sales exempt under section 230.506 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations (as revised pursuant to section 201 of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act) shall not be deemed public offerings under the Federal securities laws as a result of general advertising or general solicitation.’’.

(My emphasis)

I assume the Investment Company Act is part of the “Federal securities laws.” I suppose you could argue that the Investment Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act operate separately from the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. That would be a tough argument for the SEC to make. The SEC could explicitly not include 3(c)1 and 3(c)7 under the changes to Rule 506.

That would seem unlikely. Take a look at the SEC’s own website “Researching the Federal Securities Laws Through the SEC Website” where it lists the Investment Company Act and Investment Advisers Act as part of the federal securities laws.

More likely would be the SEC issuing a rule with no mention of 3(c)1 and 3(c)7 or the Investment Company Act. That might leave practitioners a bit nervous about the gap.

Sources: