• 16May

    As I have blogged about in the past, the JOBS Act will have a significant impact on hedge funds, and in particular smaller hedge funds. As the delayed rule changes become imminent, our firm has noticed a spike in inquiries related to small hedge funds and feeder funds. The JOBS Act is not the only recent congressional act to change the landscape of hedge funds; the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (”Dodd-Frank Act”) made a significant impact as well.

    In particular, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the oft-relied upon exemption from registration for private hedge fund advisers for those advisers with fewer than 15 clients. While eliminating the private adviser exemption, the Dodd-Frank created three new exemptions, which are the operable hedge fund adviser exemptions today. These exemptions are for:

    (1) Advisers solely to venture capital funds;

    (2) Advisers solely to private funds with less than $150 million in assets under management in the U.S.; and

    (3) Certain foreign advisers without a place of business in the U.S.

    Moreover, the Dodd-Frank Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010 imposed certain limited filing requirements for those advisors claiming one of the 3 new exemptions.

    In this series of blogs, I will provide an overview of each of these exemptions and of the form filing and limited reporting requirements for exempt advisers.

    To begin, a reminder of the changes effectuated by and to be effectuated by the JOBS Act, which make the hedge fund adviser exemptions of interest, is in order.

    JOBS ACT Changes Affecting General Solicitation and Advertising of Private Offerings

    Title II of the JOBS Act requires the SEC to amend Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Regulation D promulgated thereunder, to eliminate the prohibition on general solicitation and general advertising in a Rule 506 offering, so long as all purchasers in such offering are accredited investors. The JOBS Act directs the SEC to make the same amendment to Rule 144A so long as all purchasers in the Rule 144A offering are qualified institutional buyers. Neither a Rule 506 offering nor a Rule 144A offering will be considered a public offering (i.e., will lose its exemption) by virtue of a general solicitation or general advertising so long as the issuer has taken reasonable steps to verify that purchasers are either accredited investors or qualified institutional buyers, respectively.

    On August 29, 2012, the SEC published proposed rules eliminating the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in Rules 506. However, the rules as published failed to delineate specific standards for accredited investor verification, and for that reason and other reasons, met with a great deal of opposition and no further action was taken. It is expected that the SEC will either re-publish new proposed rules or enter an interim final rule.

    JOBS ACT Changes to Number of Shareholders Requiring Registration

    The JOBS Act amends Section 12(g) and Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act as to threshold shareholder requirements and registration and deregistration requirements such that the shareholder threshold before requiring registration and subsequent reporting with the SEC has been increased from 500 to either (a) 2,000 or more, or (b) 500 or more unaccredited shareholders.

    JOBS Act Impact on Hedge Funds

    The impact on hedge funds is obvious: They will now be able to advertise for both accredited and qualified institutional investors. Moreover, with the increased number of shareholders allowed before registration, a fund qualified for an exemption under Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 can now advertise and have 1999 accredited shareholders before they would have to register with the SEC and become subject to SEC reporting requirements.

    The lift on advertising goes beyond your basic ability to promote on the Internet. It is a lift on the ban for general solicitation, advertising and marketing in general. For example, for the first time, hedge funds will be able to sponsor sporting events and sporting teams.

    One caveat of the new rules is that advertising is only allowed where ALL investors are accredited or qualified institutions. Accordingly, a fund with 35 unaccredited investors would not be able to advertise, while those unaccredited investors remain in the fund.

    Right now, many hedge funds do not provide any details at all about their investment strategies, historical performance or forecasts of future performance for fear that such open information could be viewed as a solicitation and therefore a violation of the rules. Upon enactment of the new rules, that will all change.

    Hedge funds be able to discuss their strategies and performance in depth not only on their website, but on a broader scale, amongst each other. Broker dealers will be able to pitch investors with glossy brochures. Open invitation seminars, together with all the trimmings, will make a comeback.

    Of course the SEC and state anti-fraud rules stay in place (and I expect will be beefed up), as do FDA standard truth in advertising rules.

    It is widely agreed that these changes will have a dramatic impact on smaller hedge funds.

    Introduction to the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010

    The Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010 repealed the prior private fund advisers exemption for those advisers with fewer than 15 clients and who did not advise or manage public hedge funds or investment companies (the “private adviser exemption”). The Act also implemented 3 new exemptions for (1) advisers solely to venture capital funds; (2) advisers solely to private funds with less than $150 million in assets under management in the U.S.; and (3) certain foreign advisers without a place of business in the U.S.

    The replacement exemptions also only pertain to private fund advisers. Private funds include hedge funds, private equity funds and other types of pooled investment vehicles that are excluded from the definition of “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940 under either section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7). Section 3(c)(1) is available to a fund that does not publicly offer its securities and has 100 or fewer beneficial owners of its securities. Section 3(c)(7) is available to a fund that does not publicly offer its securities and limits the owners of its securities to qualified investors (note that it is funds relying on this exemption which will reap the greatest benefit from the JOBS Act).

    In Part II of this series, I will discuss the registration exemption for advisers to venture capital funds.

    The Author


    Attorney Laura Anthony,
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Merger and Corporate Attorneys

    Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public companies as well as private companies intending to go public on the over-the-counter market, including the OTCBB and OTCQB. For nearly two decades, Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice to being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

    Ms. Anthony’s focus includes, but is not limited to, crowdfunding, registration statements, PIPE transactions, private placements, reverse mergers, and compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, as well as the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

    Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

    Follow me on Facebook and LinkedIn

    Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • 14May

    On April 2, 2013, in response to a Facebook post made by Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, the Securities Exchange Commission (”SEC”) issued a report confirming that companies can use social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to make company announcements in compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure (Regulation FD) as long as investors are alerted as to which social media outlet is being used by the company. In the report the SEC stated that previously published guidance on the use of Company websites was applicable to the use of social media. Accordingly, in a series of blogs I am reviewing the SEC guidance on the use of company websites. This blog is Part III in the series.

    Background

    Regulation FD requires that companies take steps to ensure that material information is disclosed to the general public in a fair and fully accessible manner such that the public as a whole has simultaneous access to the information. Regulation FD ended the era of invitation-only conference calls between company management and a select group of brokers and investment bankers, in which plans and earnings would be discussed and material information shared in advance of such information becoming public knowledge. In its report issued on April 2, 2013, the SEC confirmed that Regulation FD applies to social media in the same manner it applies to company websites.

    SEC Guidance on the Use of Company Websites

    The SEC issued its Commission Guidance on the Use of Company Websites, effective August 7, 2008, which guidance remains applicable today. A complete copy of the guidance is available on the SEC website and is summarized in this series of blogs, with this being Part III in the series. In general the SEC encourages the use of company websites, and technology generally, to provide information to investors, provide analytical tools, and as a source of overall market transparency. The guidance focuses on:

    (1) When information posted on a company website is “public” for purposes of the applicability of Regulation FD;

    (2) Company liability for information on websites, including previously posted information; hyperlinks to third-party information; summary information and the content of interactive websites;

    (3) The types of controls and procedures advisable with respect to website information; and

    (4) The format of information presented with a focus on readability, not printability.

    Company Liability for Information on Websites, Including Previously Posted Information; Hyperlinks to Third-Party Information; Summary Information and the Content of Interactive Websites

    The antifraud provisions of the securities laws apply to statements on a company website, including hyperlinks, or postings on a social media platform in the same manner as they apply to any other statement made by or on behalf of a company. As a quick refresher, Rule 10b-5 makes it unlawful to “make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.” The SEC’s position is that companies are “responsible for the accuracy of their statements that reasonably can be expected to reach investors or the securities markets regardless of the medium through which the statements are made, including the internet.” In order for a statement or information to create liability, it must be material. Materiality is a question of fact and circumstances.

    Effect of Accessing Previously Posted Materials

    Information, once posted on the internet, remains available through technology thereafter. The concern for companies is if previously posted stale or no longer accurate information that is accessed at a later date is considered re-published by the company, thus creating liability. The SEC’s position is that historical information, even if maintained on a company website, is not considered re-published as current information for purposes of creating liability. Of course, if a company affirmatively restates or reissues information, it is considered current information once again.

    To ensure that a person accessing information is informed as to the date of such information, postings should:

    • clearly identify previously posted or historical information, including by dating such information; and
    • place historical information in a separate section of the website.

    Hyperlinks to Third-Party Information


    Under Section 10(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, a company can be held liable for third-party information to which it hyperlinks from its website and which could be attributable to the company. Whether the third-party information could be attributable to the company depends on whether the company has: (i) involved itself in the preparation of the information (entanglement theory); or (ii) explicitly or implicitly endorsed or approved the information (adoption theory). According to the SEC, the following nonexclusive list of factors should be considered:

    • Context of the hyperlink – what the company says about the link or what is implied by the context in which it is used;
    • Risk of confusing investors – the presence or absence of precautions against investor confusion about the source of information;
    • Presentation of hyperlinked information – how the hyperlink is presented graphically on the site, including the layout of the screen; and
    • Content of the information linked – is the content very specific or general in nature; positive or negative information related to the company.

    The SEC, and this firm, advocate being clear as to the purpose of a hyperlink, and being explicit as to what if any portions of the hyperlinked information are endorsed by the company. For example, a page of useful links (such as is in the SEC website, this firm’s website, etc.) should contain an explanation and disclaimer that information on the third-party websites is independent and not endorsed (although if the hyperlinked information is false and misleading positive information about a company, no disclaimer will protect from anti-fraud liability). If the link is related to a specific article or cross-reference, then it should be clear as to what portion of the information is being cross-referenced or endorsed.

    Summary Information


    The SEC has specifically provided guidance on the use of summaries or overviews of information on a company website. Unlike when contained in a registration statement or report filed with the SEC, summary information on a website stands alone and, without context, has the potential to be misleading. Accordingly, to avoid confusion, where appropriate, a company should include information as to the location of the detailed disclosure from which the summary is derived and should use explanatory notes and disclosures. The SEC suggests the following techniques when using summary information:

    • Use of appropriate titles – use appropriate titles and headings;
    • Use of additional explanatory language – use explanatory language to identity the text as a summary and the location of more detailed information;
    • Use and placement of hyperlinks – place hyperlinks to the more detailed information either within or in close proximity to the summary; and
    • Use of layered or tiered format – place most important information up front with embedded or tiered-down links to the more detailed information.

    Interactive Website Features


    Interactive website features are now the norm, whether it is a blog or shareholder forum, or customer service representatives ready to chat online. Since all information has the potential to be attributed to or endorsed by the company, steps should be taken to prevent unintended results. In addition to the various methods discussed above for hyperlinks and summary information, a company should be sure that employees and management are monitored and educated on their postings and information provided in an interactive forum.

    Moreover, as a point of clarity the SEC reminds companies that the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws apply to blogs and to electronic shareholder forums. Regardless of the informal nature of a blog or shareholder forum, statements made by or on behalf of a company will not be treated differently from other company statements. Moreover, statements made by a company employee or representative will always be deemed to be made by or on behalf of the company. In addition, a company cannot request or require that investors waive any rights or protections as a condition to entering into or participating in a blog or forum. Likewise, a company is not responsible for the statements that third parties post on a blog or forum, nor is a company obligated to respond to or correct erroneous statements made by such third parties.


    Format of Information and Readability


    The SEC recognizes the nature of websites and different website formatting. It therefore does not require that information be formatted to provide printer-friendly versions (unless a specific rule explicitly makes such a requirement).


    The Author


    Attorney Laura Anthony,
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Merger and Corporate Attorneys

    Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public companies as well as private companies intending to go public on the over-the-counter market, including the OTCBB and OTCQB. For nearly two decades, Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice to being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

    Ms. Anthony’s focus includes, but is not limited to, crowdfunding, registration statements, PIPE transactions, private placements, reverse mergers, and compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, as well as the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

    Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

    Follow me on Facebook and LinkedIn

    Tags: , , , , , ,

  • 03May

    On April 2, 2013, in response to a Facebook post made by Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, the Securities Exchange Commission (”SEC”) issued a report confirming that companies can use social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to make company announcements in compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure (Regulation FD) as long as investors are alerted as to which social media outlet is being used by the company. In the report the SEC stated that previously published guidance on the use of Company websites was applicable to the use of social media. Accordingly, in a series of blogs I am reviewing the SEC guidance on the use of company websites. This blog is Part II in the series.

    Background

    Regulation FD requires that companies take steps to ensure that material information is disclosed to the general public in a fair and fully accessible manner such that the public as a whole has simultaneous access to the information. Regulation FD ended the era of invitation-only conference calls between company management and a select group of brokers and investment bankers, in which plans and earnings would be discussed and material information shared in advance of such information becoming public knowledge. In its report issued on April 2, 2013, the SEC confirmed that Regulation FD applies to social media in the same manner it applies to company websites.

    SEC guidance on the use of company websites

    The SEC issued its Commission Guidance on the Use of Company Websites, effective August 7, 2008, which guidance remains applicable today. A complete copy of the guidance is available on the SEC website and is summarized in this series of blogs, with this being Part II in the series. In general the SEC encourages the use of company websites, and technology generally, to provide information to investors, provide analytical tools, and as a source of overall market transparency. The guidance focuses on:

    (1) When information posted on a company website is “public” for purposes of the applicability of Regulation FD;

    (2) Company liability for information on websites, including previously posted information; hyperlinks to third-party information; summary information and the content of interactive websites;

    (3) The types of controls and procedures advisable with respect to website information; and

    (4) The format of information presented with a focus on readability, not printability.

    Evaluation of when information on a company website or social media posting is public for purposes of Regulation FD

    According to the SEC, “[I]n order to make information public, it must be disseminated in a manner calculated to reach the securities market place in general through recognized channels of distribution and public investors must be afforded a reasonable waiting period to react to the information.” Therefore, in determining whether information is public, the first question is whether the website or social media platform is a recognized channel of distribution. The answer to that question depends on the efforts the company has taken to alert the marketplace to its website and a particular social media platform as a source for the distribution of information, and whether the public and marketplace actually look to these sources. In other words, a company can launch a campaign informing the world that it will post weekly sales updates on its Twitter page; however, if in fact only a small handful of people view that Twitter page, the information is likely not public.

    In determining whether information is public, the second question is whether information posted on a website or social media platform is disseminated to the marketplace. Generally in today’s world, all information posted on a website in an unrestricted manner or social media platform would be disseminated information. The underlying factual analysis depends on the manner in which the information is posted and the timely and ready accessibility of the information to the marketplace.

    A non-exclusive list of factors in determining whether a website or social media platform is a recognized channel of distribution and whether information posted is timely and accessible and therefore disseminated, includes:

    • how the company informs the public of its website and social media use (for example, by disclosing this information in its reports filed with the SEC and in its press releases);
    • whether the company makes the public aware, including through its periodic filings and press releases, that it will and does post information on its website and through social media, and whether the company is consistent in both its message that it intends to and its use of the website and social media as a method of posting information;
    • whether the website or social media platform is user-friendly and information posted is easily found and accessible;
    • the extent to which information on the website or social media is picked up and retransmitted by third-party sources, including media outlets;
    • the methods the company uses to make the information accessible, including the use of “push” technologies such as an RSS feed;
    • whether the website and social media postings are current and accurate;
    • whether the company is consistent with its postings and updates;
    • other methods the company uses to disseminate information in relation to the use of the website or social media; and
    • the materiality of the information posted.

    In determining whether information is public, the third question is whether the marketplace is afforded a reasonable waiting period to react to the information. What constitutes a reasonable waiting period is a question of fact. A non-exclusive list of factual considerations include:

    • the size of the market following the company;
    • whether the website or social media platform is user-friendly and information posted is easily found and accessible;
    • the steps the company takes to make the market aware that it uses its website and/or social media as a key source of providing important information;
    • whether the company has taken steps to actively disseminate the information; and
    • the nature and complexity of the information.

    Ultimately in determining whether the information has been made public, the company should remember that the goal of Regulation FD is to prevent selective disclosure and the advantages to those receiving it and to ensure full and fair disclosure of information to the market as a whole. Although information on a website or social media posting may not be a selective disclosure, if it does not accomplish the goal of making the information public, a subsequent disclosure may be selective and therefore a violation of Regulation FD. The more important the information, the more steps the company should take to disseminate the information. Once information has been made public, the subsequent disclosure of the same information, such as to an analyst in a private conversation, would not trigger a violation of Regulation FD.

    Complying with Regulation FD public disclosure requirements

    Rule 101(e) of Regulation FD requires that once a selective disclosure has been made, the company must contemporaneously file a Form 8-K and/or use other reasonable methods of ensuring that the disclosed information is broadly and non-exclusively disclosed to the public. If an unintentional selective disclosure is made, a company must promptly file an 8-K and/or take additional measures to ensure that the information is broadly and non-exclusively disclosed to the public.

    At the time the SEC issued its guidance in 2008, it concluded that for some companies whose websites are widely followed by the investment community, website postings alone may be sufficient to accomplish the required broad disclosure. As noted above, the same analysis is to be used for social media postings, though I would still recommend the filing of an 8-K and the issuance of a press release, especially when the information is important.

    In Part III of this series I will address Company liability, including application of the anti-fraud provisions, for information on websites, including previously posted information; hyperlinks to third-party information; summary information and the content of interactive websites.

    The Author

    Attorney Laura Anthony,
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Merger and Corporate Attorneys

    Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public companies as well as private companies intending to go public on the over-the-counter market, including the OTCBB and OTCQB. For nearly two decades, Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice to being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

    Ms. Anthony’s focus includes, but is not limited to, crowdfunding, registration statements, PIPE transactions, private placements, reverse mergers, and compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, as well as the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

    Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

    Follow me on Facebook and LinkedIn

    Tags: , , , , , , , ,

  • 25Apr

    On April 2, 2013, the Securities Exchange Commission (”SEC”) issued a report confirming that companies can use social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to make company announcements in compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure (Regulation FD) as long as investors are alerted as to which social media outlet is being used by the company. The report was issued following an investigation into a Facebook posting made by Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix. In the report the SEC stated that previously published guidance on the use of Company websites was applicable to the use of social media. Accordingly, a review of the SEC guidance on the use of company websites is in order.

    Background

    Regulation FD requires that companies take steps to ensure that material information is disclosed to the general public in a fair and fully accessible manner such that the public as a whole has simultaneous access to the information. Regulation FD is designed to ensure that all investors are on an even playing field in relation to access to material information. Regulation FD ended the era of invitation-only conference calls between company management and a select group of brokers and investment bankers, in which plans and earnings would be discussed and material information shared in advance of such information becoming public knowledge. In its report issued on April 2, 2013, the SEC confirmed that Regulation FD applies to social media in the same manner it applies to company websites.

    SEC guidance on the use of company websites

    The SEC issued its Commission Guidance on the Use of Company Websites, effective August 7, 2008, which guidance remains applicable today. A complete copy of the guidance is available on the SEC website and is summarized in this series of blogs, with this being Part I. In general the SEC encourages the use of company websites, and technology generally, to provide information to investors, provide analytical tools, and as a source of overall market transparency. The guidance focuses on:

    (1) When information posted on a company website is “public” for purposes of the applicability of Regulation FD;

    (2) Company liability for information on websites, including previously posted information; hyperlinks to third-party information; summary information and the content of interactive websites;

    (3) The types of controls and procedures advisable with respect to website information; and

    (4) The format of information presented with a focus on readability, not printability.

    Overview of Exchange Act Rule on the Use of Company Website

    As an overarching principle, the SEC recognizes company websites as a means of providing and delivering information on a scale similar to the EDGAR database. Moreover, the SEC goes so far as to confirm that the electronic delivery of information, whether through a website, the EDGAR database, electronic mail, or the like, is the preferred method above all other forms of delivering or providing information. In fact, proxy materials are required to be posted and be publicly accessible on a company website (see SEC Internet Proxy Release). The SEC further promotes the use of websites by requiring that:

    • Companies disclose their website address in their annual Form 10-K’s and state whether their Exchange Act reports are available on the site (Regulation S-K Item 101(e));
    • Mutual funds disclose in their prospectus whether reports are on their website and if not, provide an explanation (see Item 1(b) of Form N-1A);
    • Companies make their reports available on their website as a precondition to incorporating such reports by reference in a Form S-1 or S-11 (see general instructions to Form S-1 and S-11);
    • Companies post all beneficial ownership reports under Section 16 on their website (see Exchange Act section 16(a)(4(C) and Rule 16a-3(k);
    • Companies post on their website notice of an intent to delist or deregister their securities (see Exchange Act Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(iii);

    Moreover, the SEC now allows a Company to meet certain Exchange Act filing requirements by posting information on either their website or the EDGAR database. In particular,

    • A company may disclose non-GAAP financial measures and Regulation G required information on its website;
    • An asset-backed issuer may post disclosures of static pool data on its website;
    • A company may provide its audit, nominating or compensation committee charters on its website;
    • A company may disclose a material amendment to its code of ethics, or a material waiver of a provision of its code of ethics, on its website (rather than file a Form 8-K); and
    • A company may provide information regarding board member attendance at the annual shareholder meeting on its website.

    In Part II of this series I will address when information posted on a company website is “public” for purposes of the applicability of Regulation FD.


    The Author

    Attorney Laura Anthony,
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Merger and Corporate Attorneys

    Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public companies as well as private companies intending to go public on the over-the-counter market, including the OTCBB and OTCQB. For nearly two decades, Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice to being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

    Ms. Anthony’s focus includes, but is not limited to, crowdfunding, registration statements, PIPE transactions, private placements, reverse mergers, and compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, as well as the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

    Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

    Follow me on Facebook and LinkedIn

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 17Apr

    I recently blogged about how to determine valuation in a start-up or development stage entity for purposes of structuring a prepackaged private placement, or for negotiating the venture capital transaction. I followed that blog with one explaining the various types of financial instruments that can be used for an investment.

    Before a company can package a private placement offering or effectively negotiate with a venture or angel investor, it has to have its proverbial house in order. This blog circles back to the beginning discussing pre-deal considerations.

    General

    In order to successfully attract quality investors, a company must have its financial and legal house in order. I always advise my clients to act as if they are public, even if they never intend to go public. What is meant by that is to maintain proper corporate books and records. Draft and sign minutes of meetings of the board of directors, officers or committees. Keep systems in place to make sure that upper management is informed of events affecting their jurisdiction. Keep proper financial records utilizing a timely system such as Quickbooks. Maintain a corporate structure such that each person knows his or her area of control and on the other side, nothing material is falling through the cracks. All of this takes extra effort, but at the end of the day the business will be more efficient and problems will identify themselves before they are too costly or disastrous. Moreover, maintaining a proper house will convey itself when dealing with investors.


    Importantly, the Company should have a professional, complete business plan and separately a much shorter executive summary. This business plan and executive summary will be the “first impression” of the investor and will often provide the basis for their belief in management and desire to entertain the idea of an investment going forward.


    In the case of a packaged private offering, the attorney will rely heavily on the business plan for portions of the private placement memorandum. In the case of a venture capital or angel investor, the business plan may be the only full disclosure document reviewed.


    Besides the business plan and executive summary, most sophisticated investors like to see a PowerPoint presentation.


    In addition, the Company executives should have an oral presentation prepared and practiced. This oral presentation is sometimes referred to as an elevator pitch. Venture capital and angel investors will often start with the elevator pitch and PowerPoint presentation before deciding whether they are sufficiently interested to review the executive summary and/or full business plan.


    Financial Matters


    Prior to speaking with investors, a company should ensure that their financial records are up to date, including ensuring that all tax returns have been filed. In addition, the company should have a clear understanding of the amount of funds it needs from investors and the intended use of proceeds. An internal analysis should be completed for extraneous expenses and out-of-date financial reporting systems. If the company has not done so, financial projections should be prepared illustrating key milestones and clearly stating underlying assumptions.


    Legal Matters


    A Company must make sure that its corporate books and records are up to date and properly maintained, which includes, as mentioned above, keeping proper board and minutes meetings. The state of incorporation should be checked to make sure that the corporation is in good standing and that all publicly available information is accurate and up to date. Handshake and verbal contracts or amendments should be memorialized in writing.


    Likewise, the stock issuance and registrar of the company should be complete and up-to-date accounting for any options, warrants, or other convertible securities. Antiquated options and warrants should be canceled. Pre-emptive and other extraordinary shareholder rights should be examined for necessity; if they are not necessary, get rid of them.


    Every prior security issuance should be examined for compliance with state and federal securities laws, and where there is a noncompliance corrective measure should be taken—including, where necessary, a rescission offering.


    Intellectual property rights, if any, should be carefully reviewed and protections put in place. Patents and trademarks can greatly enhance the value of an entity. Where applicable, it should be certain that employees and independent contractors have executed nondisclosure agreements, work-for-hire, and intellectual property assignment agreements in favor of the company. In addition to analyzing existing protections and patentable rights, an analysis should be completed to ensure that a company is not violating the intellectual property rights of a third party. An intellectual property analysis is similar to a chain of title search. All potential claims by or against the company should be reviewed and addressed.


    Litigation or matters that could result in litigation should be reviewed and analyzed for potential material adverse effects on the company.


    All general regulatory matters should be reviewed—Is the company properly licensed to conduct its business in each jurisdiction that it conducts business? Is the company abiding by all foreign laws and regulations and cross-border laws and regulations, including treaties?


    The Author


    Attorney Laura Anthony
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Merger and Corporate Attorneys


    Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public companies as well as private companies intending to go public on the over-the-counter market, including the OTCBB and OTCQB. For nearly two decades, Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice to being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

    Ms. Anthony’s focus includes, but is not limited to, crowdfunding, registration statements, PIPE transactions, private placements, reverse mergers, and compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, as well as the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.


    Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

    Follow me on Facebook and LinkedIn

    Tags: , , , , , ,

  • 11Apr

    On April 10, 2013 Mary Jo White was sworn in as chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  Ms. White was nominated by President Obama on February 7, 2008 and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 8, 2013.

    Chairman White is the first former prosecutor to lead the SEC.  Chairman White served as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1993 to 2002 where she specialized in prosecuting complex securities and financial institution frauds and international terrorism cases.  She is the only woman to ever have held that position.

    As set forth on the SEC website, ” Prior to becoming the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Chairman White served as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney and later Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York from 1990 to 1993. She previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1978 to 1981 and became Chief Appellate Attorney of the Criminal Division.  After leaving her U.S. Attorney post, Chairman White became chair of the litigation department at Debevoise & Plimpton in New York, where she led a team of more than 200 lawyers.  Chairman White previously was a litigation partner at the firm from 1983 to 1990 and worked as an associate from 1976 to 1978.”

  • 10Apr

    On April 2, 2013, the Securities Exchange Commission (”SEC”) issued a report confirming that companies can use social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to make company announcements in compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure (Regulation FD) as long as investors are alerted as to which social media outlet is being used by the company.  The report was issued following an investigation into a Facebook posting made by Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix.  The SEC declined to pursue an enforcement action against Mr. Hastings.

    Regulation FD requires that companies take steps to ensure that material information is disclosed to the general public in a fair and fully accessible manner such that the public as a whole has simultaneous access to the information.  Regulation FD is designed to ensure that all investors are on an even playing field in terms of access to material information.  Regulation FD ended the era of invitation-only conference calls between company management and a select group of brokers and investment bankers, in which plans and earnings would be discussed and material information shared in advance of such information becoming public knowledge.

    In its report issued on April 2, 2013, the SEC confirmed that Regulation FD applies to social media in the same manner that it applies to company websites.  The SEC has previously issued guidance stating that company websites are an effective means of delivering information in compliance with Regulation FD, as long as the investing public has been informed that they are to look to the company website for such information.

    In the short term, social media should be used cautiously and only after a company is comfortable that it has properly informed the investing community which social media site is being used.  The current guidance and standards associated with posting information on a website apply to social media.

    To be cautious, I would advise a company making social media postings to also file a Form 8-K and issue a press release informing the general public of the postings and disclosing which social media site it is using.  In addition, companies that decide to use social media should create an account for the company and not allow management to use personal accounts for posting information regarding the company where an investor would not reasonably look for such information.

    The Author

    Attorney Laura Anthony,
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Merger and Corporate Attorneys

    Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public companies as well as private companies intending to go public on the over-the-counter market, including the OTCBB and OTCQB. For nearly two decades, Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice to being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

    Ms. Anthony’s focus includes, but is not limited to, crowdfunding, registration statements, PIPE transactions, private placements, reverse mergers, and compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, as well as the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

    Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

    Follow me on Facebook and LinkedIn

    Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • 28Mar

    I recently blogged about how to determine valuation in a start-up or development stage entity for purposes of structuring a prepackaged private placement, or for negotiating the venture capital transaction.   Determining a valuation is instrumental to answering the overriding questions of what percentage of a company is being sold and at what price. However, once you determine the value, you must determine what financial instrument is being sold, or put another way, what will be the form of the investment.

    The world of financial instruments can appear daunting and complicated, and no entity should attempt to structure a private offering or enter into an investment agreement without the advice of competent counsel.  However, an understanding of the basic components of financial instruments will increase the efficiency of counsel and greatly add to the comfort level of all parties involved.  This blog is limited to a discussion of the basic components of financial instruments that would be used to finance a small private or public company which is further defined as an entity with $75 million or less in revenues.

    Types of Financial Instruments:

    In the broadest sense, there are two types of financial instruments used for investment: debt and equity.  For purposes of this discussion, I refer to the individual or entity receiving the financial instrument as the “Holder” and the Company issuing the financial instrument as the “Issuer.”

    An equity instrument can be titled common stock, preferred stock, LLC membership interest or  LLC Membership Unit (or Unit for short), warrant or option, each having a particular meaning and not being interchangeable.

    A debt instrument can be titled a promissory note, note, or debenture, each having the same meaning and each term being interchangeable.  A debt instrument can either be convertible into equity or not convertible.

    Both debt and equity can have financial provisions attached to it (interest or dividend rates, payment preferences, liquidation values, etc.) and non-financial provisions attached to it (right to appoint or elect board members or negative [cannot] covenants such as the Issuer cannot incur further debt without approval of the Holder).

    In determining what to offer investors (or what to expect investors to negotiate for), an Issuer can choose from the below “menu” of equity and debt instruments.  Although an Issuer should be careful not to fashion an offering that is overly complicated and that will result in confusion with future financing, from a legal standpoint, the “menu” below is “build your own.”

    Equity Instruments:

    An equity instrument can be titled common stock, preferred stock, LLC membership interest or  LLC Membership Unit (or Unit for short), warrant or option, each having a particular meaning and not being interchangeable.

    LLC Membership interest or LLC Membership Unit – An LLC Membership Unit is the broad title of equity in a limited liability company.  Through an operating agreement, LLC Members delineate classes of equity and the rights and preferences associated with each class.  The LLC structure is entirely flexible, and classes of equity can have any of the rights or preferences, both financial and non-financial available for common or preferred stock.

    Common Stock Common stockholders are behind preferred stockholders in the rights to receive dividends and behind both preferred stockholders and creditors in the rights to receive payments upon liquidation.  Common stock is the most “common” type of equity security.  Although common stock is usually voting, especially in publicly traded equity markets, it can be designated as either voting or non-voting.  There is no fixed dividend or other fixed or special rights or preferences associated with common stock.

    Preferred Stock Preferred stock is the most commonly used investment vehicle due to its flexibility.  Preferred stock can be structured to offer all the characteristics of equity as well as of debt, both in financial and non-financial terms.  Preferred stock can be structured in any way that suits a particular deal.  The following is an outline of some of the many features that can be included in a preferred stock designation:

    1.            Dividends – A dividend is a fixed amount agreed to be paid per share based on either the face value of the preferred stock or the price paid for the preferred stock (which is often the same); a dividend can be in the form of a return on investment (such as 8% per annum), the return of investment (25% of all net profits until the principal investment is repaid) or a combination of both.  Although a dividend can be structured substantially similarly to a debt instrument, there can be legal impediments to a dividend payment and a creditor generally takes priority over an equity holder.  The ability of an Issuer to pay a dividend is based on state corporate laws, the majority of which require that the Issuer be solvent (have the ability to pay creditors when due) prior to paying a dividend.  Accordingly, even though the Issuer may have the contractual obligation to pay a dividend, it might not have the ability (either legally or monetarily) to make such payments.

    - As a dividend may or may not be paid when promised, a dividend either accrues and cumulates (each missed dividend is owed to the preferred shareholder) or not (we didn’t get the dividend this quarter, but hopefully next).

    - Although a dividend payment can be structured to be paid at any interval, payments are commonly structured to be paid no more frequently than quarterly, and often annually.

    - Dividends on preferred stock are generally preferential, meaning that any accrued dividends on preferred stock must be fully paid before any dividends can be paid on common stock or other junior securities.

    2.            Voting Rights – Preferred stock can be set up to establish any level of voting rights from no voting rights at all, voting rights on certain matters (sole vote on at least one board seat; voting rights as to the disposition of a certain asset but otherwise none), or super voting rights (such as 10,000 to 1 or 51% of all votes).

    3.            Liquidation Preferences – A liquidation preference is a right to receive a distribution of funds or assets in the event of a liquidation or sale of the company Issuer.  Generally creditors take precedence over equity holders; however, preferred stock can be set up substantially similar to a debt instrument whereby a liquidation preference is secured by certain assets, giving the preferred stockholder priority over general unsecured creditors vis-à-vis that asset.  In addition, a liquidation preference gives the preferred stockholder priority over common stockholders and holders of other junior equities.  The liquidation preference is usually set as an amount per share and is tied into the investment amount plus accrued and unpaid dividends.

    - In addition to a liquidation preference, preferred stockholders can partake in liquidation profits (for example, the preferred stockholder gets the entire investment back plus all accrued and unpaid dividends, plus 30% of all profits from the sale of the company Issuer; or the preferred stockholder gets the entire investment back plus all accrued and unpaid dividends and then participates pro rata with common stockholders on any remaining proceeds (known as a participating liquidation preference) ).

    4.            Conversion or exchange rights – A conversion or exchange right is the right to convert or exchange into a different security, usually common stock.

    - Conversion rights include a conversion price which can be set as any mathematical formula, such as a discount to market (75% of the average 7 day trading price immediately prior to conversion); a set price per share (preferred stock with a face value of $5.00 converts into 5 shares of common stock thus $1.00 per share of common stock); or a valuation (converts at a company valuation of $30,000,000).

    - Conversion rights are generally at the option of the stockholder, but the Issuer can have such rights as well, generally based on the happening of an event such as a firm commitment underwriting (Issuer has the right to convert all preferred stock at a conversion price of $10.00 per share upon receipt of a firm commitment for the underwriting of a $50,000,000 IPO).

    - The timing of conversion rights must be established (at any time after issuance; only between months 12 and 24; within 90 days of receipt of a firm commitment for a financing in excess of $10,000,000).

    - Conversion rights usually specify whether they are in whole or in part, and for public companies limits are often set (conversion limited such that they cannot own more than 4.99% of outstanding common stock at time of conversion).

    5.            Redemption/Put Rights – A redemption right in the form of a put right is the right of the Holder to require the Issuer to redeem the preferred stock investment (to “put” the preferred stock back to the Issuer); the redemption price is generally the face value of the preferred stock or investment plus any accrued and unpaid dividends; redemption rights generally kick in after a certain period of time (5 years) and provide an exit strategy for a preferred stock investor.

    6.            Redemption/Call Rights – A redemption right in favor of the Issuer is a call option (the Issuer can “call” back the preferred stock); generally when the redemption right is in the form of a call, a premium is placed on the redemption price (for example, 125% of face value plus any accrued and unpaid dividends or a pro rata share of 2.5 times EBITDA).

    7.            Anti-dilution protectionAnti-dilution protection protects the investor from a decline in the value of his or her investment as a result of future issuances at a lower valuation.  Generally the Issuer agrees to issue additional securities to the Holder, without additional consideration, in the event that a future issuance is made at a lower valuation such as to maintain the investors overall value of investment; an anti-dilution provision can also be as to a specific percent ownership (Holder will never own below 10% of the total issued capital of the Issuer).

    8.            Registration rights – Registration rights refer to SEC registration rights and can include demand registration rights (the Holder can demand that the Issuer register his or her equity securities) or piggyback registration rights (if the Issuer is registering other securities, it will include the Holder’s securities, as well).

    9.            Transfer restrictions – Preferred stock can be subject to transfer restrictions, either in the preferred stock instrument itself or separately in a shareholder’s or other contractual agreement; transfer restrictions usually take the form of a right of first refusal in favor of either the Issuer or other security holders, or both.

    10.          Co-sale or tag along rightsCo-sale or tag along rights are rights of Holders to participate in certain sales of stock by management or other key stockholders.

    11.          Drag along rightsDrag along rights are the rights of the Holder to require certain management or other key stockholders to participate in a sale of stock by the Holder.

    12.          Other non-financial covenants – Preferred stock, either through the instrument itself or a separate shareholder or other contractual agreement, can contain a myriad of non-financial covenants, the most common being the right to appoint one or more persons to the Board of Directors and to otherwise assert control over management and operations; other such rights include prohibitions against related party transactions, information delivery requirements, non-compete agreements, confidentiality agreements, limitations on management compensation, limitations on future capital transactions such as reverse or forward splits, and prohibitions against the sale of certain key assets or intellectual property rights. In essence, non-financial covenants can be any rights that the preferred stockholder investor negotiates for.

    Options/Warrants An option or warrant is the right to purchase equity, generally common stock, at a certain price during a certain period of time.

    Debt Instruments

    As mentioned above, a debt instrument can be titled a promissory note, note, or debenture, each having the same meaning and each term being interchangeable.  Moreover, a debt instrument can either be convertible into equity or not convertible.  Conversion is simply a form of payment: Instead of cash, the Holder is accepting an equity instrument as either whole or partial payment for the debt obligation.

    The basic elements of a debt instrument are as follows:

    1.            Amount – What is the amount of the debt in monetary terms?

    2.            Term – When does the debt obligation become due; a date can be specified; the debt can be payable on demand by the Holder, or payable upon the happening of certain events with a backup term (the receipt of a firm commitment financing for $XX but in no event later than May 1, 2014) or the reaching of certain milestones (Issuer signs ABC Company as a client, but in no event later than May 1, 2014).

    3.            Interest rate – What is the rate of interest being charged on the debt; is the interest compounded (i.e., do you pay interest on interest)?

    4.            Transferability or assignability – Can one or both parties assign their rights and interests in the debt instrument to a third party?

    5.            Secured or unsecured – Is the debt instrument secured by collateral generally consisting of real or personal property, but can also consist of other financial instruments (sometimes called a pledge agreement).

    6.            Guaranty – Is a third party, such as a principal of the Issuer, guaranteeing the obligations in the debt instrument?

    7.            Prepayment rights – Can the debt be prepaid in whole or in part?

    8.            Payment Preferences/Subordination/Senior debt – The debt instrument can contractually require that it will be paid prior to other debts incurred either before or after the debt date.  A right to receive payment in advance of other obligations is a payment preference, which is often referred to as “senior debt,” whereas the debt that is below the senior debt is often referred to as “subordinated debt.”

    9.            Convertibility – A debt can be convertible into an equity instrument either in whole or in part.  If convertible into an equity instrument, the conversion price must be decided (for example, $1.00 of debt for each share of common stock) and the type of equity (see discussion on types of equity instruments); the term “mezzanine debt” is often used to refer to convertible debt instruments, or the concurrent issuance of a combination of debt and equity (for example, mezzanine financing may involve a $1,000,000 convertible senior loan together with 250,000 warrants for the purchase of common stock).

    10.          Default provisions – Default may be monetary or non-monetary; generally a debt accelerates and becomes due and payable in full upon default.

    11.          Non-Financial covenants – any of the non-financial covenants discussed under preferred stock can be attached to a debt instrument.

    Conclusion

    The foregoing is a broad-based discussion of equity and debt instruments used in typical private placement documents or negotiated venture capital investments.  Ultimately, these financial instruments can be formulated in such a way as to benefit either the Issuer or the Holder and hopefully, both parties.

    The Author

    Attorney Laura Anthony
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Merger and Corporate Attorneys

    Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public companies as well as private companies intending to go public on the over-the-counter market, including the OTCBB and OTCQB. For nearly two decades, Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice to being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

    Ms. Anthony’s focus includes, but is not limited to, crowdfunding, registration statements, PIPE transactions, private placements, reverse mergers, and compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, as well as the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

    Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

    Follow me on Facebook and LinkedIn

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 12Mar

    Background

    Title II of the JOBS Act, requires the SEC to amend Rule 506 of Regulation D to permit general solicitation and advertising in offerings under Rule 506, provided that all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors and such accredited status is reasonably verified by the Issuer.

    In addition, Title II creates a limited exemption to the broker dealer registration requirements for certain intermediaries that facilitate these Rule 506 offerings.  In particular, new Section 4(b) to the Securities Act of 1933, has added a new exemption to the broker dealer registration requirements for:

    (A) a person that  maintains a platform or mechanism that permits the offer, sale, purchase, or negotiation of or with respect to securities, permits general solicitations, general advertisements, or similar related activities by issuers of such securities, whether online, in person, or through any other means

    (B) that person or any person associated with that person co-invests in such securities; or

    (C) that person or any person associated with that person provides ancillary services with respect to such securities.

    Ancillary services are defined in the JOBS Act as (A) the provision of due diligence services, in connection with the offer, sale, purchase, or negotiation of such security, so long as such services do not include, for separate compensation, investment advice or recommendations to issuers or investors; and (B) the provision of standardized documents to the issuers and investors, so long as such person or entity does not negotiate the terms of the issuance for and on behalf of third parties and issuers are not required to use the standardized documents as a condition of using the service.

    Finally, the exemption from registration as a broker or dealer also requires that such person and each person associated with such person (A) receives no compensation in connection with the purchase or sale of the security; (B) does not have possession of customer funds or securities in connection with the purchase or sale; and (C) is not subject to statutory disqualification pursuant to Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act (i.e. bad boy provisions).

    SEC Guidance

    On February 5, 2013 the SEC issued guidance, via frequently asked questions, regarding the exemption from broker-dealer registration under Title II. Interestingly, the SEC clarifies that the exemption from broker-dealer registration does not require the drafting or enactment of any rules and accordingly was effective upon signing of the JOBS Act in April 2012 and is fully operational.  Of course, the intermediary cannot assist in an offering involving general solicitation until the rules allowing such offerings have been finalized, but intermediaries can set up shop, build websites and develop relationships in the interim.

    The last question and answer in the SEC guidance may be of the most significance, the SEC confirms that the broker dealer exemption does not pre-empt state law and accordingly, persons acting in reliance on the new exemption, must also confirm compliance with any and all applicable state securities regulations.  State securities laws vary widely, including the laws related to broker dealer registration.  I have not researched the various state laws on this issue, but think it would be a mistake to underestimate how this will impact the practical application of the new exemption.

    Although the new statutory language appears self evident, the SEC confirms that the exemption applies to websites and social media sites as exempt platforms.

    Although the SEC states that it interprets “compensation” very broadly to include any economic benefit, it notes that Congress specifically allowed for co-investing and accordingly, profits from such co-investments would not be considered compensation to disqualify this broker dealer registration exemption.

    In addition, not only is it permissible for a venture capital fund or its adviser to operate a website where it lists offerings of securities by potential portfolio companies, co-invests in those securities with other investors, and provides standardized documents, the SEC believes that this very scenario shall dominate the use of the exemption.  The SEC states, “[A]s a practical matter, we believe that the prohibition on compensation makes it unlikely that a person outside the venture capital area would be able to rely on the exemption from broker-dealer registration.”

    Reliance on the exemption in Section 4(b) is not limited to use by any type of person, as long as they follow the rules, including not receiving compensation in association with the sale of securities.  Persons associated with issuers, including officers, directors and employees, can rely on the exemption and create websites advertising Rule 506 offerings.

    On the other hand, if a privately offered fund, or syndicate of privately offered funds, pays a salary to an internal marketing person to operate such a website or platform, that person would be deemed to receive compensation and would not be able to rely on the new exemption.  The SEC goes further to note that they are of the view that persons who market interests in private funds may be subject to the broker dealer registration requirements found in Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act.

    On a technical note, the SEC confirms that the exemption is not an exclusion from the definition of broker dealer.  Platforms and intermediaries operating under the new Section 4(b) may (and most likely are) broker dealers, they are just exempted from registering as such.

    The Author

    Attorney Laura Anthony,
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Merger and Corporate Attorneys

    Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public companies as well as private companies intending to go public on the over-the-counter market, including the OTCBB and OTCQB. For nearly two decades, Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice to being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

    Ms. Anthony’s focus includes, but is not limited to, crowdfunding, registration statements, PIPE transactions, private placements, reverse mergers, and compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, as well as the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

    Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

    Follow me on Facebook and LinkedIn

    Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

  • 11Mar

    NASDAQ acquires Sharepost

    On Wednesday March 6, 2013, NASDAQ surprised the small cap and investment community when it announced it is acquiring Sharepost’s private company market place (PCMP) exchange and rebranding it the Nasdaq Private Exchange.

    In December, 2011, I wrote a few blogs on PCMPs.  A PCMP is a trading platform, such as SharePost or SecondMarket that provides a market place for illiquid restricted securities, such as private company securities, 144 stock, debt instruments, warrants, and the like or alternative assets.  It is on a PCMP that pre-IPO Facebook, Groupon and LInkedin received their trading start.  Following the IPO of these large entities, and in particular Facebook, traffic and use of PCMP sites declines, but NASDAQ clearly believes the decline is temporary, and I agree.

    Private Company Market Places

    Each PCMP offers a fully automated back office, documentation, escrow, transfer and settlement support. Users open trading accounts, like they would with any other broker dealer.  The PCMP provider collects a commission or fee for these services, all bolstering the requirement that they be registered as a broker dealer, or affiliated with a broker dealer.  The PCMP broker dealers are small firms (not Smith Barney) and the entire dynamic has the potential to bring back the small IPO and investment banking relationships that dominated the NASDAQ field twenty years ago.     NASDAQ itself sees this potential and hopes to attract many broker dealers as participants in the new exchange.

    A PCMP offers a true secondary and initial trading market for restricted and illiquid securities, where one did not exist previously.  Even the screens on the PCMP trading sites look substantially similar to a Bloomberg or NASDAQ trading screen, showing high and low prices,  current bid and offers, charts, last bid information and the like.

    In order to use a PCMP, a buyer or seller must be qualified.  Individuals must be accredited.  All participants are subject to the anti-fraud, registration and exemption provisions of the federal, and if applicable state, securities laws.  Everything must be password protected and electronically secure.  All required legal documents must trade hands whether created by the PCMP acting as escrow or back office, or by the buyer and seller consummating the transaction.  The downside of a PCMP is a lack of unified or sometimes any disclosure on the Issuer’s whose securities are being traded.  Both the SEC and congress are currently reviewing rules related to PCMPs and hopefully will find an affordable middle ground.  PCMPs are directed at sophisticated accredited investors, and as such, will hopefully, avoid the over-regulation of standard public company trading platforms.

    There is no way to margin, short or create a derivative using a PCMP, thus greatly hindering, if not eliminating, market manipulation.

    The JOBS Act Impact

    PCMPs are venues ready to be utilized following the impending implementation of the Crowdfunding Act and removal of the restrictions on general solicitation and advertising for Regulation D rule 506(c) and Rule 144A offerings mandated by the JOBS Act of 2012.

    Title II of the JOBS Act provides that the SEC will amend Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Regulation D promulgated there under, to eliminate the prohibition on general solicitation and general advertising in a Rule 506 offering, so long as all purchasers in such offering are accredited investors.  Although on August 29, 2012 the SEC published proposed rules implementing Title II, those rules have been met with numerous comments and opposition and it is entirely unclear when a final rule will be enacted, but it will be.

    Advertised offerings under Title II will be available to both private and public companies.  Securities sold in these advertised offerings will be “restricted securities” as defined by Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933.  Following a holding period, and in accordance with Rule 144, these securities will become eligible for resale.  For a public company, the secondary market already exists, but for a private entity, a PCMP will now allow for a secondary market.

    Likewise, the securities issued in a crowdfunding offering are restricted securities.  The Crowdfunding Act states that the securities purchased in a crowdfunding offering may not be resold during a one year holding period, beginning on the date of purchase, unless such securities are transferred (A) to the issuer of the securities; (B) to an accredited investor; (C) as part of an offering registered with the SEC; or (D) to a member of the family of the purchaser or the equivalent, or in connection with the death or divorce of the purchaser or other similar circumstance, in the discretion of the SEC.

    The SEC will need to draft new rules to cover these re-sale restrictions as they do not fit within the parameters of the current Rule 144.  The easy provisions are Items (C) and (D).  In (C), the company includes the securities in a registration statement filed with the SEC.  Generally this would be part of a going public transaction and would result in the Company’s securities trading on either an exchange or the over the counter market.  Item (A) raises a ton of questions, which I’ve discussed in detail in prior blogs.

    The real meat is in (B). The first question raised is whether the transferee is subject to the same resale restrictions as the transferor.  So if a crowdfunding investor immediately resells his or her securities to an accredited investor, is that accredited investor bound by the same resale restrictions?  Does the one year holding period tack?

    Although the details will need to be ferreted out, I can foresee an immediate trading aftermarket for crowdfunding securities, among accredited investors, through PCMPs.

    The Author

    Attorney Laura Anthony,
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Merger and Corporate Attorneys

    Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public companies as well as private companies intending to go public on the over-the-counter market, including the OTCBB and OTCQB. For nearly two decades, Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice to being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

    Ms. Anthony’s focus includes, but is not limited to, crowdfunding, registration statements, PIPE transactions, private placements, reverse mergers, and compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, as well as the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

    Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

    Follow me on Facebook and LinkedIn

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries