Monthly Archives: March 2016
Responding To SEC Comments
Background
The SEC Division of Corporation Finance (CorpFin) reviews and comments upon filings made under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The purpose of a review by CorpFin is to ensure compliance with the disclosure requirements under the federal securities laws, including Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X, and to enhance such disclosures as to each particular issuer. CorpFin will also be cognizant of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws and may refer a matter to the Division of Enforcement where material concerns arise over the adequacy and accuracy of reported information or other securities law violations, including violations of the Section 5 registration requirements. CorpFin has an Office of Enforcement Liason in that regard.
CorpFin’s review and responsibilities can be described with one word: disclosure!
CorpFin selectively reviews filings, although generally all first-time filings, such as an S-1 for an initial public offering or Form 10 registration under the Exchange Act, are fully reviewed. Forms 8-K reporting a change of auditor, a material acquisition, or a change in financial statements are almost always reviewed. Moreover, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires that CorpFin review all public companies at least once every three years. Section 508 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act specifies certain factors that the SEC should consider when scheduling reviews, including market capitalization, financial restatements, volatility of the company’s stock price and the price/earnings ratio.
CorpFin does not publicly disclose the criteria it uses to identify companies and filings for review. Essentially, a publicly reporting company’s filings may be reviewed at any time and periodic comment letters are a standard part of being a public company.
There are three basic levels of review. A review by CorpFin can be a “full review” in which CorpFin will review a filing from cover to cover, including both legal and accounting aspects and basic form for compliance with the federal securities laws. A partial review may include either legal or accounting, but generally a partial review is related to financial statements and related disclosures, including Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and is completed by CorpFin accounting staff. A review may also be a targeted review in which CorpFin will examine the filing for one or more specific items of disclosure. Moreover, although not a designated level of review, CorpFin sometimes “monitors” a filing, which is a term used for a light review.
Reviewers are appointed files based on industry sectors. CorpFin has broken down its reviewers into the following eleven broad industry sectors: healthcare and insurance; consumer products; information technologies and services; natural resources; transportation and leisure; manufacturing and construction; financial services; real estate and commodities; beverages, apparel and mining; electronics and machinery and telecommunications. Each industry office is staffed with an assistant director and approximately 25 to 35 professionals, primarily accountants and lawyers. Each filing has more than one reviewer with a frontline contact person and supervisor. A full review file will have an accounting and legal reviewer as well as a supervisor.
Neither the SEC nor the CorpFin evaluates the merits of any transaction or makes an assessment or determination as to whether a transaction or company is appropriate for any particular investor or the marketplace as a whole. The purpose of a review is to ensure compliance with the disclosure requirements of the securities laws. In that regard, CorpFin may ask for increased risk factors and clear disclosure related to the merits or lack thereof of a particular transaction, but they do not assess or comment upon those merits beyond the disclosure.
Comment Letters and Responses
Comment letters are based on a company’s filings and other public information about the company. For instance, CorpFin will review press releases and a company’s website, management communications and speeches, and conference presentations in addition to the company’s filings with the SEC. In comment letters, CorpFin may ask that a company provide additional supplemental information to the staff (such as backup materials to justify factual information such as reference to reports, statistics, market or industry size, etc.), revise disclosure in the document, provide additional disclosure in the reviewed filing or provide additional or different disclosure in future filings. Where a change is requested in future filings, intended disclosures may be provided in the comment letter response for SEC advance approval.
A company generally responds to the particular comment letter with a responsive letter that addresses each comment and where appropriate, amended filings on the particular report(s) being commented upon. The response letter may refer to changes made in a filing in response to the comment or provide reasoning or explanations as to why a change was not made or in support of a particular disclosure. CorpFin then may issue additional comment letters either on the same question or issue, or additional questions or issues as it continues its review, and analyze the company’s responses. The company should carefully consider its responses to comments that could open the door to additional review and comments. Comments related to accounting treatment and the flow-through to MD&A can be especially tricky and open the door to further review and changes.
Each comment response should clearly present the company’s position on the pertinent issue in a way that will persuade CorpFin that it is the correct position. Comment responses should cite applicable SEC rules and guidance and accounting authority (as the comments themselves most often do). Responses should explain how the company’s approach serves to satisfy the SEC’s requirements while providing good disclosure to investors. Avoid conclusory or argumentative statements. If it is the company’s position that the technical application of the rule will place too large of a burden on the company, explain how the company is burdened and how the alternative provided by the company will provide adequate disclosure for investors. The argument that technical compliance is overly burdensome rarely succeeds with CorpFin, but at times a middle ground can be reached if the company is convincing enough in its analysis.
The comment and response process continues until the staff has resolved all comments. CorpFin may request that the reasoning behind a disclosure be added to the SEC report itself, and so the company should consider whether it wants particular language included in public filings when drafting a response letter to a comment.
Although the basic process involves letters and responses, the CorpFin staff is available to discuss comments with a company and its legal, accounting and other advisors. The process can and often does involve such conversations. CorpFin will not give legal or accounting advice, but it will talk through comments and responses and discuss the analysis and adequacy related to disclosures. The initial comment letter received from CorpFin will have the reviewer’s direct contact information. The back-and-forth process does not require a formal protocol other than the required written response letter. That is, a company or its advisors may engage in conversations regarding comments, or request the staff to reconsider certain comments prior to putting pen to paper.
Moreover, CorpFin encourages this type of conversation, especially where the company or its advisors do not understand a particular comment. The staff would rather discuss it than have the company guess and proceed in the wrong direction. Where the staff suggests that a company should revise its disclosure or its financial statements, the company may, and should as appropriate, provide the staff with a written explanation of why it provided the disclosure it did. This explanation may resolve the comment without the need for the requested amendment. A CorpFin review is not an attack and should not be approached as such. My experience with CorpFin has always been pleasant and involves a type of collaboration to improve company disclosures.
A company may also “go up the ladder,” so to speak, in its discussion with the CorpFin review staff. Such further discussions are not discouraged or seen as an adversarial attack in any way. For instance, if the company does not understand or agree with a comment, it may first talk to the reviewer. If that does not resolve the question, they may then ask to talk to the particular person who prepared the comment or directly with the legal branch chief or accounting branch chief identified in the letter. A company may even then proceed to speak directly with the assistant director, deputy director, and then even director. Matters of legal disclosure or application of GAAP accounting principles are not an exact science, and discussions are encouraged such that the end result is an enhanced disclosure by the company and consistent disclosures across different companies. The SEC provides all of these individuals contact information on its website and will willingly engage in productive conversations with a company.
When responding to comment letters and communicating with SEC staff, it is important that a person who understands the process, such as SEC counsel, take the lead in communication. Responses should be consistent, both related to a particular comment letter and over time. A company that flip-flops on accounting treatment or disclosures will lose credibility with the SEC and invoke further review and comments.
CorpFin is also willing to provide a reasonable amount of extra time to respond to comment letters when requested. Most comment letters request a response within 10 days. CorpFin is usually willing to give an extra 10 days but will balk at much longer than that without a very good reason by the company for the delay.
If the reviewed filing is a Securities Act registration statement, such as an S-1, the CorpFin staff will verbally inform the company that it has cleared comments and the company may request that the SEC declare the registration statement effective. Where the reviewed filing is an Exchange Act filing that does not need to be declared effective, CorpFin will provide the company with a letter stating that it has resolved all of its comments.
Comment letters and responses are posted on the EDGAR database by CorpFin no earlier than 20 days after it has finished the review process.
The SEC generally requires an affirmative statement from the company acknowledging that the company cannot use the SEC’s comment process as a defense in any securities-related litigation. This language is referred to as a “Tandy” letter. The Tandy portion of a response must be agreed to by the company itself, so if the response letter is on attorney letterhead, a signature line must be provided for the company or the company can submit a separate letter. The Tandy language for an Exchange Act filing is generally as follows:
The company acknowledges that:
- the company is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the filing;
- staff comments or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments do not foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the filing; and
- the company may not assert staff comments as a defense in any proceeding initiated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United States.
Tandy language for a Securities Act registration statement is generally as follows:
The company acknowledges the following:
- should the Commission or the staff, acting pursuant to delegated authority, declare the filing effective, it does not preclude the Commission from taking any action with respect to the filing;
- the action of the Commission or the staff, acting pursuant to delegated authority, in declaring the filing effective does not relieve the company from its full responsibility for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the filing; and
- the company may not assert staff comments and the declaration of effectiveness as a defense in any proceeding initated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United States.
A company can stay prepared for comment letters, and responses, by making sure it has adequate internal controls and procedures for reporting. The company should also stay on top of SEC guidance on disclosure matters, which can be accomplished by ensuring that the company has experienced SEC counsel that, in turn, stays up to date on all SEC rules, regulations and guidance. Likewise, the company should retain an accountant that monitors up-to-date accounting pronouncements and guidance. The company should maintain a file with backup materials for any disclosures made, including copies of reference materials for third-party disclosure items. In responding to comments, it is helpful to review other companies’ comment response letters and disclosures on particular issues. Where the SEC has requested changes in future filings, the company and its counsel must be sure to continuously monitor to be sure those changes are included. As mentioned, the SEC reviews public information on the company, including websites and press releases and accordingly, these materials should be reviewed for consistency in SEC reports. As CorpFin is only reviewing information provided by, or publicly available related to, a company, the completion of a review is not a guarantee as to the accuracy or adequacy of the information in the filing and cannot be used as a defense to claims of fraud or misrepresentations.
Although a full discussion of confidential treatment and requests are beyond the scope of this blog, a company may seek confidential treatment of materials and responses to comments under Rule 83. Rule 83 requires the company to respond to comments with two separate letters – one containing the confidential information and the other not. Unlike confidential treatment requests under Rule 406 and 24b-2, a confidential treatment request for a comment response letter does not require that the company provide a justification for such confidential treatment. However, if a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request is submitted by a third party related to such comment letter response, the SEC will inform the company and request justification for continued confidential treatment. Confidential treatment under Rule 83 expires after 10 years unless a renewal is requested. Both Rule 83 and other confidential treatment rules require very specific transmittal procedures, and the documents must all clearly indicate that confidential treatment is requested. In a future blog I will discuss confidential treatment requests and SEC review policies.
Conclusion
The very best way to handle comments and responses is to have a competent team in place that submits high-quality SEC reports in the first place and that is able to communicate with the SEC and understand the legal disclosure and accounting requirements, including interpretative changes over time. The topic of disclosures and disclosure requirements is in the forefront these days, and changes are being reviewed and considered by the SEC (see, HERE for example). Understanding the disclosure requirements for your particular company and industry will save substantial time and effort for a public company.
For a review of basic public company disclosures, see my blog HERE. For more information regarding officer and director liability associated with signing SEC reports, see my blog HERE.
Click Here To Print- LC PDF Printout Responding To SEC Comments
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.
Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.
Download our mobile app at iTunes.
Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2016
SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Reviews Capital Formation
On February 25, 2016, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) met and listened to three presentations on access to capital and private offerings. The three presentations were by Jeffrey E. Sohl, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Decision Science Director, Center For Venture Research at University of New Hampshire; Brian Knight, Associate Director of Financial Policy, Center for Financial Markets at the Milken Institute; and Scott Bauguess, Deputy Director, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis at the SEC. The presentations expound upon the recent SEC study on unregistered offerings (see blog HERE).
The presentations were designed to provide information to the Advisory Committee as they continue to explore recommendations to the SEC on various capital formation topics. This blog summarizes the 3 presentations.
By way of reminder, the Committee was organized by the SEC to provide advice on SEC rules, regulations and policies regarding “its mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitating capital formation” as related to “(i) capital raising by emerging privately held small businesses and publicly traded companies with less than $250 million in public market capitalization; (ii) trading in the securities of such businesses and companies; and (iii) public reporting and corporate governance requirements to which such businesses and companies are subject.”
Presentation by Jeffrey E. Sohl, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Decision Science Director, Center For Venture Research at University of New Hampshire
As I’ve written about many times, all offers and sales of securities must be either registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) or made in reliance on an available exemption from registration. The exemptions for private offerings are found in Sections 3 and 4 of the Securities Act. In particular, most private offerings are governed by Sections 4(a)(2), 3(b) and 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act. Rules 506(b) and 506(c) of Regulation D, Regulation S and 144A provide safe harbors under Section 4(a)(2). Section 3(b) provides the authority for Rules 504 and 505 of Regulation D. Section 3(a)(11) provides statutory authority for intrastate offerings. In addition Regulation Crowdfunding, expected to go effective in May 2016, will implement the much anticipated Title III crowdfunding as codified in the new Section 4(a)(6) (see HERE).
Crowdfunding generally is where an entity or individual raises funds by seeking contributions from a large number of people. Accordingly, any offering that allows solicitation of the crowd is viewed as a form of crowdfunding. Equity crowdfunding is currently accomplished through the use of: (i) Rule 506(c) offerings which allow for advertising and solicitation to a crowd as long as all sales are strictly limited to accredited investors, and such accredited status is reasonably verified by the issuer (see HERE); (ii) Intrastate offerings under Section 3(a)(11) and Rule 147 (see HERE); and (iii) Rule 504 state specific offerings (see HERE).
Mr. Sohl’s presentation concentrates on a statistical analysis of capital raising for pre-seed, seed/start-up, early-stage and later-stage enterprises. Pre-seed funds almost unilaterally come from founders, friends and family. Generally, no unaffiliated third-party source invests at this stage. Mr. Sohl’s presentation is in the form of a needs analysis illustrating the difficulties in accessing capital and the funding gaps for new businesses.
Third-party private equity can begin at the seed/start-up phase but grows with the level of maturity of the enterprise. Sohl begins with the premise that third-party private equity comes from three primary sources: crowdfunding, angels and venture capitalists, in that order, based on the maturity of the company. In other words, crowdfunding is likely to be involved in the seed/start-up phase followed by angels with venture funds stepping in at later series A and B rounds. According to Sohl, since 2013 equity crowdfunding has had a success rate of 19.6% with an average raise ask being $2,000,000 and an average actual raise being at $210,000. Of the funds raised, 21% have been convertible debt, 7% straight debt and 72% equity. Sohl presents similar statistics on the success of angel and venture capital rounds, average deal sizes and a breakdown by industry sector. The numbers are low. For example, only 4.2% of seed and start-up financing comes from venture capital sources.
Using Sohl’s data analytics and assuming that a new business has successfully begun using founders, friends and family funds, Sohl points out that there remains a large funding gap for seed/start-up and early-stage companies.
Presentation by Brian Knight, Associate Director of Financial Policy, Center for Financial Markets at the Milken Institute
Brian Knight’s presentation is titled “How Small and Mid-size Businesses are Funding Their Future.” Mr. Knight and Milken Institute surveyed 636 owners and c-suite executive of private companies with annual revenues from less than $500,000 up to $1 billion on the topic of how these small and mid-size businesses are funding their businesses, accessing capital and planning for growth. Mr. Knight and the Milken Institute published a complete report on their findings. This blog is a short summary based on the presentation made to the SEC Advisory Committee.
The key findings in the report are (i) debt is the preferred method of financing; (ii) when choosing between financing sources, price, ease of access, speed of funding and certainty are the highest ranking considerations; (iii) there is no clear preference between bank and non-bank financing though banking relationships are valued; and (iv) businesses have a lack of understanding, and interest, in alternative sources of funding and recent securities law changes (nearly 80% of those surveyed were unfamiliar with recent changes to the laws).
I find this last point very interesting and think that the lack of understanding and interest is a result of a lack of reliable succinct sources of information, presented in layman’s terms, together with a time of rapidly changing rules and regulations. The survey also found that 90% of businesses would not consider alternative financing such as crowdfunding, intrastate offerings or Regulation A. However, I think that this tells more about the pool of companies surveyed (only 636) and is a factor of the lack of knowledge by these companies.
The survey also asked what reasons a company would consider in using alternative financing sources, with those reasons being, in order of importance: (i) they believe it would be good for public relations/press; (ii) believe such funding could be achieved on better terms; (iii) believe such funding will be less expensive to pursue and have lower compliance costs; and (iv) they want to expand their investor base. To the contrary, the reasons for rejecting such financing options include: (i) lack of knowledge and understanding; (ii) uncertainty about legality; (iii) fear of investor fraud; and (iv) a desire to know their investors.
Of the firms surveyed, 32% had not raised capital in the last three years. Of those that raised capital, 32% did so through bank financing, 10% from non-bank loans, 9% from friends and family, 9% from family offices and 8% from other equity investment sources. The survey also showed that the majority of companies expected to be able to self-fund through current and retained revenues. The survey found what we all would logically expect, which is that the more advanced the business is in its life cycle, the less it needs outside funding sources.
Although debt is the preferred financing source, the same businesses almost unilaterally agree that little or no debt is best for a business’s balance sheet. The decision to incur debt financing is needs-driven. Businesses borrow when they need cash flow.
Presentation by Scott Bauguess, Deputy Director, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis at the SEC
The presentation by the SEC was organized as a discussion of the findings of the SEC study on unregistered offerings and recent activity resulting from the JOBS Act implementation. As a reminder, Title I of the JOBS Act, creating emerging growth companies (EGC) and providing a more cost-effective IPO onramp with greater test-the-waters abilities, was enacted on April 5, 2012. Since the creation of the EGC category of business, close to 85% of IPO’s are by EGC qualified businesses. Title II, creating Rule 506(c) allowing for general solicitation and advertising in private offerings, became effective on September 23, 2013. Title IV, creating Regulation A/A+, became effective on June 19, 2015. Very little Regulation A/A+ information is available as it is too new. Finally, Title III Crowdfunding is expected to become effective on May 16, 2016.
Continuing the trend discussed in the SEC survey, in 2014 and 2015, Regulation D remained the most often used method of raising capital. Small businesses continue to have the greatest need for capital and continue to be a driver of employment in the U.S. economy. Even amongst public companies, smaller reporting companies comprise the largest class of company at over 40% of all issuers. In 2013, there were more than 5 million businesses with fewer than 500 employees.
The SEC is hopeful that the JOBS Act provisions will both open opportunities to companies that would successfully raise capital from other sources, and provide an opportunity for businesses that otherwise could not raise capital from other sources.
Related to Rule 506(c), the SEC has not seen any increase in fraud on the market as a result of general solicitation. However, the SEC also notes that Rule 506(c) has been slow to gain traction but continues to be more and more widely used. The SEC will continue to monitor its use and report statistical findings.
Click Here To Print- LC PDF Printout SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Reviews Capital Formation
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.
Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.
Download our mobile app at iTunes.
Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2016
Top 4 Reasons Why 2016 is the Year of Crowdfunding Automation
2016 is the year when online automation revolution in equities and securities of private companies will take place.
American tech firms such as FundAmerica CrowdValley and WealthForge are already leading the way in streamlining the automation process. Most importantly, these processes are in compliance with the online requirements of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), as well as the Jumpstart Our Business Startup (JOBS) Act.
These online automations allow entrepreneurs, platforms and investors to verify accredited investors online. They will also be able to streamline deal flows, due diligence, the digital signing of documents, automated payments, and much more. Furthermore, dozens of broker-dealers and payment players have already started to create solutions to automate the progression of private deals.
Online automation is a revolution that will cause a positive shift in the crowdfunding industry in 2016. Here are some of the changes we will see in 2016 as a result of online automations:
1. New securitization of crowdfunding debt and equity will emerge
As the crowdfunding marketplace matures, institutions will accept debt and equity securitization. The application of Regulation A+, enacted by SEC in mid 2015, extends beyond equity markets. This rule has the power to take a wide range of real estate asset and illiquid debt classes to the crowd through securitization. This means an incredible level of financial ingenuity is likely to take place in the coming months.
2. More Real Estate Crowdfunding (RECF) platforms and broker dealers will automate their processes
As online automation becomes key in 2016, we will see more RECF platforms automate their processes to simplify compliance with SEC and FINRA. FundAmerica is one of the leading crowdfunding for realty platforms that has fully automated its processes in line with SEC and FINRA requirements. According to the 2015 Times Realty News Real Estate Crowdfunding Report, Realty Mogul is another top realty crowdfunding platform with an investor dashboard that automates the whole investment process from real estate investment opportunities, to the review of legal documentation to signing documents online. Patch of Land has also automated its due diligence procedures, while Carlton Group is already using CrowdEngine automation software to support its one billion dollar realty crowdfunding platform.
With automation of processes, it is also easier for individuals to access secured loans that can be used for any purpose – even investing in real estate. If you are in UK, browse this site Secured Loan Expert for it offers free quotes, help and expert advice. You can easily get your secured loan in four simple steps. Or if you are in the US, visit wellsfargo and learn how to invest, or access secured loans. It provides you things to consider before applying for a secured loan.
3. Monitoring of realty crowdfunding platforms will become easier
In 2016, competition among realty crowdfunding platforms is likely to shape their strategies to attract entrepreneurs and investors. We, therefore, expect to see a dozen aggregators enter the realty space as more real estate crowdfunding platforms embrace online automation as a strategy to speed up capital raising activities in the industry. This move will significantly aid democratization of realty investing and make it easier to monitor and manage crowdfunding activities with just one login.
4. More crowdfunding automation software will be developed
As crowdfunding automation increases in significance, we can expect to see more software being developed to meet with SEC and FINRA requirements. There will also be the need for software to keep up with the growing demand of the automation of crowdfunding platforms. For instance, RECF platforms will be developing software to comply with Rule 15(c) 2-4 of SEC which requires that all cash raised through private securities offerings remain in a bank escrow awaiting funding contingencies to occur. Automation software will be developed for other automated functions such as e-signing, services offered by broker-dealers, investor management, investor verification among others.
The Author
David Drake is the Chairman of LDJ Capital, a multi-family office; Victoria Partners, a 300 family office network: LDJ Real Estate Group and Drake Hospitality Group; and The Soho Loft Media Group with divisions Victoria Global Communications, Times Impact Publications, and The Soho Loft Conferences. Reach him directly at David@LDJcapital.com.
House Passes More Securities Legislation
In what must be the most active period of securities legislation in recent history, the US House of Representatives has passed three more bills that would make changes to the federal securities laws. The three bills, which have not been passed into law as of yet, come in the wake of the Fixing American’s Surface Transportation Act (the “FAST Act”), which was signed into law on December 4, 2015.
The 3 bills include: (i) H.R. 1675 – the Capital Markets Improvement Act of 2016, which has 5 smaller acts imbedded therein; (ii) H.R. 3784, establishing the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee within the SEC; and (iii) H.R. 2187, proposing an amendment to the definition of accredited investor. None of the bills have been passed by the Senate as of yet.
Meanwhile, the SEC continues to finalize rulemaking under both the JOBS Act, which was passed into law on April 5, 2012, and the Dodd-Frank Act, which was passed into law on July 21, 2010. The SEC provides comprehensive information on its progress under each of the Acts on its website. For Dodd-Frank see HERE and for the JOBS Act see HERE.
H.R. 1675 – Capital Markets Improvement Act of 2016
On February 3, 2016, the House passed H.R. 1675, the Capital Markets Improvement Act of 2016, comprising 5 titles including (i) Title I – Encouraging Employee Ownership Act of 2015; (ii) Title II – Fair Access to Investment Research; (iii) Title III – Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage Simplification; (iv) Title IV – Small Company Disclosure Simplification; and (v) Title V – Streamlining Excessive and Costly Regulations Review.
The Executive Office strongly opposes H.R. 1675 and has issued a Statement of Administration Policy voicing its objections. The Executive Office points out that the bill has many flaws, imposes risks to investors, is overly broad, allows financial institutions to avoid appropriate oversight and is duplicative of existing administration authorities. I will continue to monitor progress and provide updates.
Title I – Encouraging Employee Ownership Act of 2015
The bill requires the SEC to amend Securities Act Rule 701 to require an issuer to provide certain delineated disclosures to employee investors regarding compensatory benefit plans if the aggregate sales price or aggregate amount of securities sold in any 12-month period exceeds $10 million, indexed for inflation every 5 years. The current regulations have a threshold of $5 million.
The Executive Branch strongly opposes the bill and even issued an official Statement of Administration Policy expressing its opposition.
Brief Summary of Rule 701
Rule 701 provides an exemption from the registration requirements under Section 5 of the Securities Act for offers and sales of securities pursuant to certain compensatory benefit plans and contracts related to compensation. The exemption only applies to issuers that are not subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act and is generally used by private companies.
The aggregate amount of sales under Rule 701 is limited to the greater of: (i) $1,000,000; (ii) 15% of the total assets of the issuer (or of the parent if the parent is a co-issuer or guarantor); or (iii) 15% of the total outstanding of the class of securities being offered. Rule 701 currently requires the delivery of the compensatory benefit plan or contract as applicable and additional disclosure if the aggregate sales exceed $5 million. Those additional disclosure include risk factors, a summary of the plan and financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP.
Although securities issued under Rule 701 are restricted under Rule 144, they become freely tradable 90 days after the issuer becomes subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act without regard to the current information and holding period requirements under Rule 144 for non-affiliates and without regard to the holding period requirements for affiliates.
Like other exemptions, Rule 701 transactions are still subject to the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Rule 701 does not pre-empt state law and accordingly, state securities laws must be complied with in any issuance under the Rule.
Title II – Fair Access to Investment Research
Title II requires the SEC to adopt rules providing that research issued by investment funds will not be deemed to be an offer for the sale of securities regardless of whether the report covers an issuer that is going to or has embarked on a registered offering and regardless of whether a broker-dealer associated with the fund will participate in the offering. The Act contains strong language, including prohibiting an SRO (FINRA) from maintaining or enforcing any rules conditioning the ability of a member to publish or distribute research on whether the member is participating in a registered offering.
Title III – Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage Simplification
Title III attempts to codify a broker-dealer registration exemption for mergers and acquisition brokers. The Executive Office Statement of Administration Policy points out that Title III as written is overly broad and would eliminate the registration requirements for M&A brokers engaged in a transaction for any privately held company with gross revenues up to $250 million. The Executive Office thinks this exemption amount is too high, among other issues. Moreover, the Executive Office notes that the SEC has already recognized an exemption for M&A brokers though a no action letter (see my blog HERE).
Title IV – Small Company Disclosure Simplification
Title IV creates an exemption from the XBRL requirements for small and emerging growth companies. The Executive Office also opposes this change on the grounds that “[o]pen data disclosure systems benefit investors, issuers, and the public, increasing transparency of publicly traded companies by making their filings more easily accessible. Impeding regulators’ ability to use 21st century technological tools to regulate markets and protect investors is contrary to the SEC’s mission.”
I support Title IV and the exemption from the XBRL requirements.
Title V – Streamlining Excessive and Costly Regulations Review
Title V may be herculean in nature. Title V requires the SEC to review each significant regulation issued by the SEC to determine by vote of the SEC if such regulation is (i) outmoded, ineffective, insufficient or excessively burdensome; or (ii) is no longer necessary in the public interest or consistent with the SEC’s mandate to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitate capital formation. Title V requires the immediate review and a 10-year periodic review. The Executive Office statement of opposition states that “[T]hese requirements are unnecessarily duplicative, wasteful and costly. The SEC already complies with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and is encouraged, under Executive Order 13579, to review rules to assess whether they are outdated or excessively burdensome. Requiring a review and full Commission vote on every major rule every 10 years under full Administrative Procedure Act-style requirements would severely hinder the SEC’s ability to monitor markets and protect investors.”
H.R. 3784 – Establishing Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee
On February 1, 2016, the House passed H.R. 3784, the SEC Small Business Advocate Act. The Act proposes to amend the Securities Exchange Act to establish the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation within the SEC. The office would be charged with (i) assisting small businesses and their investors in resolving significant problems with the SEC and other SROs; (ii) identifying areas where small businesses and their investors would benefit from changes in SEC and other SRO regulation; (iii) identifying problems small businesses have with security access to capital; (iv) analyzing the potential impact of proposed rules and regulations on small businesses; (v) conduct outreach programs with small businesses and their investors; and (vi) work to propose these changes to the SEC and Congress.
In addition, the Act would create the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee. The committee would provide the SEC with advice on SEC rules, regulations, and policies relating to (i) capital raising by emerging, privately held small businesses and publicly traded companies with less than $250 million in public market capitalization through securities offerings; (i) trading in the securities of such businesses and companies; and (3) public reporting and corporate governance requirements of such businesses and companies.
The new proposed committee seems duplicative of the existing SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies, which was organized by the SEC to provide advice on SEC rules, regulations and policies regarding “its mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitating capital formation” as related to (i) capital raising by emerging privately held small businesses and publicly traded companies with less than $250 million in public market capitalization; (ii) trading in the securities of such businesses and companies; and (iii) public reporting and corporate governance requirements to which such businesses and companies are subject.
H.R. 2187 – Amendment to the Definition of Accredited Investor
Also on February 1, 2016, the House passed H.R. 2187, the Fair Investment Opportunities for Professional Experts Act, proposing an amendment to the definition of accredited investor as to natural persons. In particular, the bill proposes to add provisions to the definition of accredited investor to include (i) any natural person who is currently licensed or registered as a broker or investment adviser by the SEC, FINRA or a state securities regulator and (ii) any natural person the SEC determines by regulation to have demonstrable education or job experience to qualify such person as having professional knowledge of a subject related to a particular investment, and whose education or job experience is verified by FINRA.
In addition, the bill tweaks other aspects of the definition related to natural persons. The bill proposes to adjust the current $1,000,000 net worth accredited investor eligibility standard every 5 years for inflation. The bill tweaks the exclusion of a person’s primary residence from the calculation such that any indebtedness secured by the residence (i.e., a mortgage) that is in excess of the fair market value of the home, will be included as a liability in determining net worth. I think this creates ongoing calculation issues as the value of homes can vary widely in a short period of time.
I doubt the bill in its current form will gain any traction or ultimately become law, but we will, no doubt, see changes to the accredited investor definition in the near future. For further discussion, see my blog HERE.
Click Here To Print- LC PDF Printout House Passes More Securities Legislation
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.
Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.
Download our mobile app at iTunes.
Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2016
Will Pre-funded Deals Strategy cause a shift in Real Estate Crowdfunding?
Real estate crowdfunding platforms are increasingly shifting towards pre-funded deals to increase their market share and deal flow. Pre-funded deals occur when a crowdfunding platform gives a real estate developer who needs capital right way a loan guarantee without having to first take the risk of raising the entire loan amount from online investors. According to the 2015 TRN Real Estate Crowdfunding Report, crowdfunding platforms are opting for this strategy to meet the needs of developers who need to raise capital quickly in order to close lucrative deals in a short amount of time. In such situations, pre-funded deals come in handy because raising funds online can take longer – usually a few weeks or even months. While pre-funded deals enable real estate developers fast funding, it also benefits investors who get returns faster because deals with developers are closed prior to the commencement of the fundraising process online.
Financing Requirements
The challenge with the innovative idea of funding projects upfront is that a crowdfunding platform needs to have substantial funds to back the projects. This cash flow requirement has seen crowdfunding platforms run funding rounds and accept financial backing from institutional investors and VCs so they can maintain a solid credit line that they need to drive, as well as sustain, loan facilities before turning around to offer online investors a stake in the pre-funded deals. Patch of Land became the first platform to offer developers an online investors pre-funded deals. The firm ran a series A funding campaign that saw it raise $23.6 million. A significant amount of these funds went towards securing a solid line of credit to sustain its loan facility. Fundrise is another crowdfunding platform that adopted the pre-funded loan facility strategy at an early stage. Like Patch of Land, Fundrise ran a funding round that raised $3.6 million to drive, as well as sustain, its pre-funding loan facility announced on its portal.
Real estate crowdfunding platforms that are also using pre-funded deals strategy include:
- Acquire Real Estate
- Prodigy Network
- Crowdventure
- CityFunders
- Sharestates
The Benefits
The pre-funded deals trend has already started altering the competitive landscape in the crowdfunding industry. Crowdfunding platforms that have adopted this strategy are benefiting from increased deal flows as well as rising revenues. Patch of Land, an early adopter of pre-funded deals, acknowledges the strategy has offered it an important competitive edge in the crowdfunding industry. Patch of Land recorded an increase in deal flow and transaction volumes since it adopted this strategy.
According to Fundrise co-founder Daniel Miller, the pre-funded model is a business model that’s more like investment banking as opposed to a pure technology platform where people post their deals and wait to see what comes in. According to Miller, pre-funded deals have been an important shift in the growth of Fundrise, a platform that has raised more than $31 million from financial, technology, and real estate institutions including Silverstein Properties and Renren in 2014. In our recently released report on real estate crowdfunding platforms, Fundrise reported a rise in its monthly transactions since it began offering pre-funded deals in September 2014. The platform raised an estimated $20 million for deals in New York alone, a factor that has contributed immensely to its rising market leadership and dominance in the industry.
Pre-funded deals are also addressing the problem of delays in deal closings, uncertainty and failed targets among deal sponsors. Realty Mogul‘s Chief Executive Jilliene Helman acknowledges that financing for crowdfunding platforms allows them to fund deals as soon as they are closed. Availing funds without delays offers sponsors the certainty they need. Realty Mogul has so far raised more than $52 million to finance more than 180 properties since its launch in 2013.
The Future
Whether crowdfunding platforms can sustain pre-funding deals as a strategy or not is yet to be seen. There is no doubt however that crowdfunding platforms will be requiring financing from VCs and institutional investors to sustain their loan facilities in the near future. This is an aspect that investors who have already put substantial amounts in past funding rounds might not find appealing. Even so, crowdfunding platforms that have successfully leveraged on this strategy have increased their competitive advantage and gained and substantial market share over platforms that have not offered pre-funded deals due to financial challenges. Pre-funding deals guarantees the crowdfunding platforms increased transaction volumes and a steady deal flow that translates to more profits and bigger market share. Going forward, crowdfunding firms will need to keep evolving their strategies to remain competitive in the dynamic crowdfunding industry.
The Author
David Drake is the Chairman of LDJ Capital, a multi-family office; Victoria Partners, a 300 family office network: LDJ Real Estate Group and Drake Hospitality Group; and The Soho Loft Media Group with divisions Victoria Global Communications, Times Impact Publications, and The Soho Loft Conferences. Reach him directly at David@LDJcapital.com.
SEC Gives Insight On 2016 Initiatives
SEC Chair Mary Jo White gave a speech at the annual mid-February SEC Speaks program and, as usual, gave some insight into the SEC’s focus in the coming year. This blog summarized Chair White’s speech and provides further insight and information on the topics she addresses.
Consistent with her prior messages, Chair White focuses on enforcement, stating that the SEC “needs to go beyond disclosure” in carrying out its mission. That mission, as articulated by Chair White, is the protection of investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation. In 2015 the SEC brought a record number of enforcement proceedings and secured an all-time high for penalty and disgorgement orders. The primary areas of focus included cybersecurity, market structure requirements, dark pools, microcap fraud, financial reporting failures, insider trading, disclosure deficiencies in municipal offerings and protection of retail investors and retiree savings. In 2016 the SEC intends to focus enforcement on financial reporting, market structure, and the structuring, disclosure and sales of complex financial instruments.
2016 Disclosure Agenda
Chair White hit on the tremendous volume of regulatory changes and congressional mandates. Since 2010 Congress has given the SEC nearly 100 statutory mandates covering a multitude of complex rule requirements, with the FAST Act, JOBS Act, and the Dodd-Frank Act just being 3 examples. White confirms that the amount of recent rulemaking is of historic proportions, completing or overhauling many regulatory areas and providing dramatic changes to others. Again, 3 small examples are the FAST Act, JOBS Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, with the multitude of regulatory changes flowing from these 3 statutory directives.
In 2016 the SEC will continue implementing rules as directed by Congress. In addition to finalizing the remaining security swap and security-based swap dealer requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC hopes to continue rulemaking related to the asset management industry, the structure of the equity markets and disclosure requirements (under Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X).
Related to the asset management industry, in May 2015 the SEC proposed increased reporting for investment advisers and mutual funds, including a requirement that funds report risk metrics, the use of derivatives, securities lending and liquidity of holdings.
Related to the structure of equity markets, the SEC has increased oversight over proprietary traders (see my blog HERE) and has proposed major revisions to regulations for alternative trading systems (this will be the subject of a future blog). Also related to equity markets, Chair White referenced the recent ANPR on new transfer agent rules (see my blog HERE) and the Tick Size Pilot program (see my blog HERE). Moreover, Chair White revealed that the SEC intends to shorten the clearing settlement life cycle from T+3 to T+2.
Disclosure effectiveness has been an ongoing central topic since the JOBS Act required the SEC to launch its Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative. The SEC intends to continue its focus in this arena and expects both additional rulemaking and industry guidance in 2016.
I have written several times on the SEC initiative and the subject of improving the disclosure requirements for reporting companies. Recently the SEC sought comment on financial disclosure requirements for subsidiaries and affiliate entities (see my blog HERE). Moreover, several of the provisions in the recent FAST Act were related to these initiatives. In particular, The FAST Act adopted many of the provisions of a bill titled the Disclosure Modernization and Simplification Act, including rules to: (i) allow issuers to include a summary page to Form 10-K (Section 72001); and (ii) scale or eliminate duplicative, antiquated or unnecessary requirements for EGCs, accelerated filers, smaller reporting companies and other smaller issuers in Regulation S-K (Section 72002). In addition, the SEC is required to conduct yet another study on all Regulation S-K disclosure requirements to determine how best to amend and modernize the rules to reduce costs and burdens while still providing all material information (Section 72003). See my blog on the FAST Act and these provisions HERE.
In September 2015, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) met and finalized its recommendation to the SEC regarding changes to the disclosure requirements for smaller publicly traded companies. My blog on these recommendations can be read HERE.
Prior to that, in March 2015, the American Bar Association submitted its second comment letter to the SEC making recommendations for changes to Regulation S-K. For a review of these recommendations, see my blog HERE.
Mission and Philosophy
Chair White made a point of conveying the message that the SEC is not just about disclosure. They have broad regulatory authority over trading markets, broker-dealers, SRO’s, the settlement and clearing process and the PCAOB. The SEC intends to continue to work in each of these areas, including additional regulations on the swaps markets, clearing agencies, transfer agents, and technology systems. In addition, the SEC has and will continue to seek public comment on proposed rules, ideas related to proposed rules, and concepts in general. As Chair White states, “[W]e are therefore increasingly considering using measures beyond disclosure to fulfill our mission of providing strong investor protection, safeguarding market integrity, and achieving other regulatory objectives.”
Click Here To Print- LC PDF Printout SEC Gives Insight On 2016 Initiatives
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.
Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.
Download our mobile app at iTunes.
Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2016
StartEngine launches as a Regulation A+ Crowdfunding Equity platform
StartEngine Crowdfunding Inc, a leading technology accelerator in Los Angeles that provides tech startups with mentorship and resources, officially launch Friday, 19th June 2015. StartEngine is set to offer users real crowdfunding. Founded in 2011, StartEngine focuses on media and digital technology market. By 2014, this company had invested in 57 new businesses and looks forward to helping thousands of entrepreneurs realize the American Dream.
The launch of StartEngine crowdfunding engine comes just a few months after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved changes to Regulation A+ as required by the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act or JOBS Act’s Title IV rules that allow entrepreneurs to raise a maximum of 50 million dollars in capital through crowdfunding. These changes are often referred to as “Regulation A+.” According to Ron Miller, CEO at StartEngine, ‘Investing through crowdfunding is one of the greatest entrepreneurship advancement happening in our generation and we are happy to be part of this revolution.
Matching Fundraised Amounts
StartEngine’s ability to tap into a broad mentor network gives it a competitive advantage over other crowdfunding platforms. This platform has more than 230 mentors who commit themselves to help young entrepreneurs create and refine their business plans. Mentors use their experience to offer entrepreneurs specific guidance in technology, marketing, finance, distribution and strategy support. StartEngine uses a state-of-the-art crowdfunding portal to help startups access seed capital for their companies. The platform has a team of experienced network affiliates and customer service that help entrepreneurs raise capital under the revised regulation A+ crowdfunding rules. StartEngine applicants are expected to raise capital on the portal first. The StartEngine team then selects companies that display highest potential, and co-invests in these companies to match the amount raised before accepting them into its accelerator program.
Testing the Waters
Through StartEngine, entrepreneurs will be able to launch their crowdfunding campaigns without incurring upfront costs, just like they do on platforms like Kickstarter. Most importantly, entrepreneurs can now invite investors who are interested in their ventures and test the waters before making offerings. The StartEngine platform allows users to request for “interest of money to invest” as they launch their campaigns without having to make an offering. Having tested the waters, entrepreneurs can then proceed to file Form 1-A and seek SEC’s review of their filing as required under Regulation A+.
Upon completion of SEC review, entrepreneurs proceed to make official offerings and receive investments from any person that expresses interest in their projects. This is an important feature. This is how StartEngine differ from all other crowd funding platform in the US as it allows entrepreneurs to offer stock in private offerings to non-accredited investors from anywhere in the US.
Accredited investor, in the context of a natural person, includes anyone who:
- earned income that exceeded $200,000 (or $300,000 together with a spouse) in each of the prior two years, and reasonably expects the same for the current year, OR
- has a net worth over $1 million, either alone or together with a spouse (excluding the value of the person’s primary residence).
FundAmerica’s Founder and CEO, Scott Purcell says, “StartEngine is a high class crowdfunding platform that features talent, industry and management expertise necessary to provide users the best shot at getting funding successfully. We are looking to partner with StartEngine because they are absolute leaders in front-end management and marketing of online based offerings.”
Zero Campaign Launch Fees
StartEngine charges entrepreneurs zero fees to test the waters. However, as funds trickles into escrow accounts, a 20 dollar administration fee is charged after the money is released from escrow. No money can be accepted, escrowed or not, until after SEC qualification of the offering.
StartEngine CEO, Ron Miller says, “payment of our 20 dollar investor admin fee is deducted from the proceeds and released directly to StartEngine from escrow. This is definitely disclosed to each investor. We also request for warrants that equal the admin fee amount. These warrants accord us the right to buy shares for the same price that they were offered to other investors on our platform.”
CrowdCheck offers users complete legal and compliance service, and the fixed fee package covers all other costs other than accounting fees. Generally, the costs for professional services should amount to less than 2 percent of the entire offering amount.
Sara Hanks, a former SEC lawyer who now handles SEC applications at CrowdCheck says, “CrowdCheck believes that though Regulation A offerings cannot be done without engaging a well experienced securities lawyer, who understands how the process of filing works, a lot of compliance work isn’t purely legal and entrepreneurs do not have to incur high legal costs. We offer smaller companies a high quality product that addresses both legal and compliance needs at a fixed price.”
FundAthena, Offerboard and Venerato are doing this too and we will follow up with articles about them shortly as we review and analyze them next.
The Author
David Drake is the Chairman of LDJ Capital, a multi-family office; Victoria Partners, a 300 family office network: LDJ Real Estate Group and Drake Hospitality Group; and The Soho Loft Media Group with divisions Victoria Global Communications, Times Impact Publications, and The Soho Loft Conferences. Reach him directly at David@LDJcapital.com.
State Blue Sky Concerns; Florida and New York
I have often written about state blue sky compliance and issues in completing offerings that do not pre-empt state law, including Tier 1 of Regulation A+ and initial or direct public offerings on Form S-1. I’ve also often expressed my opinion that the SEC, together with FINRA, is best suited to govern most securities-related registrations and exemptions, including both for offerings and broker-dealer matters, and that the states should be more focused on state-specific registrations and exemptions (such as intrastate offerings) and investigation and enforcement with respect to fraud or deceit, or unlawful conduct.
Despite the SEC support for the NASAA-coordinated review program to simplify the state blue sky process for securities offerings, such as under Tier 1 of Regulation A+, only 43 states participate. I say “only” in this context because the holdouts – including, for example, Florida, New York, Arizona and Georgia – are extremely active states for small business development and private capital formation. Moreover, even using the coordinated review program, the states have vastly different rules and interpretations of the same rules.
Blue sky compliance is tricky at best. In this blog I am discussing particular difficulties with the blue sky legislation in Florida and New York as an example of the types of traps an issuer can face without proper planning and, of course, competent legal counsel.
For a review of federal pre-emption of state securities laws, see my two-part blog on the National Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (NSMIA) HERE and HERE. For further information on the NASAA-coordinated review program, see my blog HERE for further discussion.
Florida
Florida does not have an issuer exemption from broker-dealer registration for public offerings, including offerings made under Regulation A/A+ or self-underwritten public offerings made using Form S-1. Put another way, an issuer must register as a broker-dealer with the state of Florida (the state has an issuer registration process) in order to complete a Regulation A or direct public offering, and sell securities to investors within the state of Florida. Tier 2 of Regulation A+ pre-empts state law and accordingly, Florida cannot impose issuer broker-dealer registration.
The sale of Securities in Florida is regulated by the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, Division of Securities and is generally found in Chapter 517 Florida Statutes and corresponding rules adopted under the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Chapter 517, Florida Statutes – Securities and Investor Protection Act and Chapter 69W-100 through 69W-1000, Florida Administrative Code.
All sales of securities in Florida must be made by a properly registered dealer (Chapter 517.12(1), Florida Statutes) or by someone utilizing an exemption provided by Chapter 517.12(3), Florida Statutes. However, the broker-dealer registration exemptions, including the issuer exemption, only apply to exempt offerings. Neither a Regulation A nor a direct public offering are exempt offerings. Accordingly, persons who sell securities in a Tier 1 Regulation A offering or direct public offerings, including issuers and their officers, directors and employees, must register as a broker-dealer in the state of Florida to sell to investors within the state of Florida.
In addition, Florida law has another trap where an issuer or finder could inadvertently violate the law. Florida Statute §475.41 specifically states that a contract by an unlicensed broker to sell or to negotiate the purchase or sale of a business for compensation is invalid and in particular:
No contract for a commission or compensation for any act or service enumerated in §475.01(3) is valid unless the broker or sales associate has complied with this chapter in regards to issuance and renewal of the license at the time the act or service was performed.
Fla. Stat. §475.01(3) defines “operating” as a broker as meaning “the commission of one or more acts described in this chapter as operating as a broker.” “Broker” is defined broadly in Fla. Stat. §475.01(1)(a) and includes, among other things:
… a person who, for another, and for compensation or valuable consideration directly or indirectly paid or promised, expressly or impliedly, or with an intent to collect or receive compensation or valuable consideration therefore… sells… or negotiate[s] the sale, exchange, purchase, or rental of business enterprises or business opportunities… or who advertises or holds out to the public by any oral or printed solicitation or representation that she or he is engaged in the business of appraising, auctioning, buying, selling, exchanging, leasing or renting business enterprises or business opportunities… or who directs or assists in the procuring of prospects or negotiation or closing of any transaction which does, or is calculated to, result in a sale, exchange, or leasing thereof, and who receives, expects, or is promised any compensation or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly… (emphasis added)
Relying on these provisions, Florida courts and arbitration panels have found consulting and finder arrangements related to mergers and acquisitions and other corporate finance transactions that would otherwise not require federal broker-dealer registration, to be unlawful.
In addition to the conflict with federal law, the Florida statute is particularly troubling for practitioners as it is not included in the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act found in chapter 517 of Florida Statutes. Florida Statute §517.12 is the state equivalent to Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act requiring broker-dealer registration. Like the Exchange Act, §517.12 requires registration as a broker or dealer for the sale or offer of any securities.
Section 475, on the other hand, is the Florida statute governing “Real Estate Brokers, Sales Associates, Schools and Appraisers.” Section 517 gives no reference to Section 475 and vice versa. Other than through research of case law, a practitioner would have no reason to research laws governing real estate transactions in association with business mergers and acquisitions and the payment of related finders’ fees.
Selling securities without a license can be a criminal matter under §517.302. Violation of §517.302 is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and is a strict liability offense. A separate violation of §517.12 occurs every time the defendant sells a security without the proper license. Thus, a defendant who sells a security to eight different victims would commit eight separate violations of §517.12. Neither ignorance of the license requirement nor the defendant’s good faith reliance on the advice of counsel is a recognized defense.
The Florida provisions remind us of the complexities associated with state blue sky compliance.
New York
New York State’s securities statute, Articles 23-A of the General Business Law, known as the Martin Act, is unique among state securities laws in two important respects. First, the Martin Act does not require the registration of securities, other than securities sold in real estate offerings, theatrical syndications or intra-state offerings. Instead, it requires that issuers register as dealers in their own securities. New York exempts issuers from registering as dealers when they complete a firm commitment underwritten offering but not in other circumstances, including a best efforts underwritten offering or where no underwriter or placement agent is utilized.
Second, the Martin Act does not differentiate between registered or exempt offerings or provide for exemptions for federally covered (state pre-empted) offerings. The Martin Act requires that any person “engaged in the business of buying and selling securities from or to the public” to register as a broker-dealer. Although the Martin Act does not offer any guidance, case law has interpreted the words “to the public” to exclude private offerings under Section 4(a)(2). However, despite requests, New York has failed to amend the Martin Act to make any differentiation, leaving practitioners not knowing what, if any, notice filings would be required for private offerings.
As a result of the controversy surrounding New York’s blue sky compliance, many practitioners simply do not file any notice documents or pay any fees where the offering pre-empts state law under the NSMIA. As a reminder, securities subject to the NSMIA are called “covered securities.”
Covered securities may still be, and generally are, subject to notice filing requirements by the individual states. The NSMIA specifically allows the states to require a copy of any document filed with the SEC, together with annual or periodic reports of the value of securities sold or offered to be sold to persons located in the state (if not already included in the SEC filing) as long as such filing is solely for notice purposes and for the assessment or calculation of a fee. States may also require the filing of consent to service of process.
States may also require the payment of a fee in connection with a notice filing except that fees are specifically prohibited in connection with securities that are listed or authorized for listing on a national securities exchange such as the NYSE or NASDAQ and securities in Title III crowdfunding transactions except where 50% or greater of the securities are sold in a single state. Although a state may not condition the federal pre-emption granted by the NSMIA upon the payment of a fee, it can suspend an otherwise covered offering in its state for the failure to file a notice filing and pay the fee.
The Committee on Securities Regulation of the New York State Bar Association submitted a position paper to the Office of the New York State Attorney General in August 2002 related to New York’s overreaching blue sky laws with respect to private offerings; however, the state of New York did not respond.
The Committee concluded that all offerings exempt under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Rule 506 of Regulation D are exempt from the Martin Act and that New York cannot require issuers to register as broker-dealers for such federally pre-empted private offerings. The Committee goes further by stating that “[I]f New York State wishes to receive a notice and fee for Section 4(a)(2) and Rule 506 offerings, it must amend the Martin Act to require (or to permit the Attorney General to require) notice filings in non-public offerings.” Many practitioners rely on this position paper in support of the position that no filings must be made with New York when relying on Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act.
Conclusion
My consistent view is that the SEC, together with FINRA, is best suited to govern most securities-related registrations and exemptions, including both for offerings and broker-dealer matters, and that the states should be more focused on state-specific registrations and exemptions (such as intrastate offerings) and investigation and enforcement with respect to fraud or deceit, or unlawful conduct.
I am thrilled with the opportunity that Tier 2 of Regulation A+ offers for issuers in completing going public transactions that pre-empt state blue sky law and would like to see an expansion of the NSMIA for direct and initial public offerings using form S-1.
Click Here To Print- LC PDF Printout State Blue Sky Concerns; Florida and New York
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.
Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.
Download our mobile app at iTunes.
Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2016