• 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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 27Feb

    The annual “SEC Speaks” conference, in which Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) representatives review the agency’s efforts over the past year and preview the year to come, was held on February 22-23, 2013.

    During the conference the SEC laid out the numerous items on its agenda for the year to come and beyond.  The list included the careful implementation of the various titles of the JOBS Act, including Title II and Title III.

    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 how the SEC shall proceed.  The primary point of contention is how an Issuer will verify that an investor is accredited, and to what extent that verification process should be regulated.   The SEC is likely to publish a new version of the proposed rule and set another public comment period before a final rule is adopted.

    Title III of the JOBS Act is the Crowdfunding Act.  The Crowdfunding Act amends Section 4 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) to create a new exemption to the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act.  The new exemption allows Issuers to solicit “crowds” to sell up to $1 million in securities as long as no individual investment exceeds certain threshold amounts. In addition, the Crowdfunding Act requires that all crowdfunding offerings be conducted through an intermediary that is a broker dealer or funding portal that is registered with the SEC and a member of a registered self-regulatory organization (SRO).  Currently that SRO is Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

    The JOBS Act prohibits the funding portal from taking possession of funds or making investment recommendations.  SEC speakers nonetheless indicated that they may revisit the rule on what constitutes “investment advice” so that portals can keep fraudulent dealers off their website without appearing to recommend any particular dealers.  The SEC’s Trading and Markets Division and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) will both take on monitoring roles to ensure that start-up companies and their funding portals comply with this new regulatory framework.

    During the SEC Speaks conference, SEC officials would not offer any insight as to the timing of the implementation of the new rules, other than that it is on their 2013 agenda.  In addition, the SEC discussed its budgetary restraints and need for additional funding to complete the many tasks before it, leaving a feeling of even more uncertainty as to the rulemaking, especially the Crowdfunding portion which will require relatively significant SEC resources.

    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: , , , , , , ,

  • 27Nov

    President Obama has chosen Elise Walter to temporarily head the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) when Mary Schapiro steps down next month.  With Mary Schapiro leaving and Walter, a current commissioner stepping up, the SEC will be run by only one acting chairman and two other commissioners.  This means that the already delayed rule making for both the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and the Jumpstart our Business Startups Act (JOBS) are likely to be further delayed.

    The already taxed SEC will be headed by a small and temporary team.  Accordingly, it is the popular belief among experts that rule making will continue at a snail’s pace and that no major reform or policy changes should be expected.

    Ms. Walter was originally appointed to the SEC by President George W. Bush in 2008 and has worked alongside Mary Schapiro both at the SEC and FINRA prior to both joining the SEC.  Moreover, Walter served as acting chairman after the departure of Christopher Cos in 2009, and so is familiar with the position.  She will stay in office until December 2013 when Obama will need to nominate a permanent new chief of the regulatory body.

    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

  • 04Oct

    As the expected deadline for the SEC to publish rules and regulations enacting the Crowdfunding Act (Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act)) grows nearer, it is a good time for a complete overview of crowdfunding.  New Sections 4(6) and 4A of the Securities Act of 1933 codify the crowdfunding exemption and its various requirements as to Issuers and intermediaries.  The SEC is in the process of drafting the underlying rules and regulations which will implement these new statutory provisions.

    A. WHAT IS CROWDFUNDING?

    The Crowdfunding Act amends Section 4 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) to create a new exemption to the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act.  The new exemption allows Issuers to solicit “crowds” to sell up to $1 million in securities as long as no individual investment exceeds certain threshold amounts.

    The threshold amount sold to any single investor cannot exceed (a) the greater of $2,000 or 5% of the annual income or net worth of such investor, if the investor’s annual income or net worth is less than $100,000; and (b) 10% of the annual income or net worth of such investor, not to exceed a maximum $100,000, if the investor’s annual income or net worth is more than $100,000.  When determining requirements based on net worth, an individual’s primary residence must be excluded from the calculation.  Clearly there is a conflict in the language determining threshold amounts.  An investor could fall within both categories.  The conflict has been pointed out in numerous letters to the SEC and will presumably be addressed in the rule making.

    In addition, Section 302 of the Crowdfunding Act requires that all crowdfunding offerings be conducted through an intermediary that is a broker dealer or funding portal that is registered with the SEC and a member of a registered self-regulatory organization (SRO).  Currently that SRO is Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

    B. ISSUERS

    General Issuer Requirements

    An Issuer who offers or sells securities in a crowdfunding offering must:

    (1)  File with the SEC and provide investors and the funding intermediary (whether a funding portal or broker dealer) and make available to potential investors:

    (a) The name, legal status, physical address, and website address of the Issuer;

    (b)  The names of the directors and officers, and each person holding more than 20% of the shares of the Issuer;

    (c)  A description of the business of the Issuer and the anticipated business plan of the Issuer;

    (d)  a description of the financial condition of the Issuer, including (i) for offerings of $100,000 or less, income tax returns for the most recently completed year and financial statements certified by the principal executive officer as true and correct; (ii) for offerings of more than $100,000 but less than $500,000, financial statement reviewed by an independent public accountant in accordance with SEC standards and rules for such review; and (iii) for offerings more than $500,000, audited financial statements (note that the offering amount is determined by totaling all Section 4(6) offerings within the preceding 12-month period) ;

    (e)  A description of the stated purpose and intended use of the proceeds of the offering;

    (f)  The target offering amount and a deadline to reach the target and regular updates regarding the progress of meeting the target;

    (g)  The price to the public of the securities and the method of determining the price;

    (h)  A description of the ownership and capital structure of the Issuer including (i) terms of other securities offered and all other classes of securities of the Issuer including details on the differences and potential dilution that could result from a different class (for example, if preferred stock was converted); (ii) a description of how the exercise of rights held by principal shareholders could negatively impact the purchasers of the securities being offered; (iii) name and ownership levels of each existing shareholder owning 20% or more; (iv) how securities being offered are valued and examples of how they may be valued in the future; and (v) risks related to minority ownership and other capital-related risk, such as by the issuance of additional shares, sales of assets, transactions with related parties;

    (i)  All other risk factors of the offering;

    (2)  Not advertise the terms of the offering, except for notices which direct investors to the funding portal or broker;

    (3)  Not compensate, directly or indirectly, any person to promote the offering, unless certain disclosures are made regarding all such compensation; and

    (4) File annual reports with the SEC and provide such reports to investors, with results of operations and financial statements.

    More General Issuer Qualifications

    All crowdfunding Issuers must be United States entities.  Although the Act does not limit the entity type to a corporation, I imagine that the practice and industry itself will impose such a limitation.

    Crowdfunding Issuers cannot be subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or an investment company.  These same restrictions currently apply for Issuers embarking on Rule 504 or Regulation A offerings.

    Issuer Liability Under the Act

    Section 302(c) of the Crowdfunding Act summarizes the potential liability to an Issuer for material misstatements and omissions.  In particular, the Act gives a private cause of action to a crowdfunding investor for rescission if they still own the security (return of their money plus interest in exchange for giving back the stock) or for damages if they no longer own the security.

    Section 302(c) of the Crowdfunding Act imposes liability for making an untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact required to be stated or necessary in order to make the statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, provided the purchaser did not know of such untruth or omission.  The liability standard is the same as is set out in Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. The pertinent “moment of time” for considering liability is the time the investor makes a commitment for purchase.  Section 12 requires that the investor prove causation—that is, that they relied on the misleading information and, as a result of relying on such information, they were damaged.

    The Crowdfunding Act defines the Issuer, for purposes of liability, as the Issuer’s directors or partners, the principal executive officer or officers, principal financial officer and controller or accounting officer, and any other person that is part of the Issuer that offers or sells the securities in the crowdfunding offering.    In layman’s terms, all of the key officers, directors and employees of an Issuer in a crowdfunding offering  can face personal liability for untrue statements or omissions.

    The Issuer (and the individuals) can raise several defenses, such as proof that the investor had actual knowledge of the information or should have been aware of the information if they had taken reasonable care and inquiry. The Act also specifically allows the Issuer to raise the defense that they did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known of such untruth or omission.

    Bad Boy Disqualification

    The Crowdfunding Act requires that the SEC create disqualification rules for both Issuers and funding portals and intermediaries and lists certain provisions to be included in the disqualification provisions.    “Bad actor” disqualification requirements, sometimes called “bad boy” provisions, prohibit Issuers and others (such as underwriters, placement agents and the directors, officers and significant shareholders of the Issuer) from participating in exempt securities offerings if they have been convicted of, or are subject to court or administrative sanctions for, securities fraud or other violations of specified laws.

    The Crowdfunding Act disqualifies any offering or sale of securities by a person that:

    (i) is subject to a final order of a state securities commission or agency or other state authority that (a) bars the person from associated with an entity regulation by such agency; (b) bars the person from engaging in the business of securities, insurance or banking; or (c) bars the person from engaging in savings associations or credit unions;

    (ii) constitutes a final order based on a violation of any law or regulation that prohibits fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive conduct within the 10-year period ending on the date of the filing of the offering; or

    (iii) has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor in connection with the purchase or sale of any security or involving the making of any false filing with the SEC.

    In addition, the SEC is empowered to add additional disqualification factors in its rule making.

    C.  INTERMEDIARIES

    Intermediary Use and Funding Portal Registration Requirements

    Section 302 of the Crowdfunding Act requires that all crowdfunding offerings be conducted through an intermediary that is a broker dealer or funding portal registered with the SEC.

    The Act creates an exemption to broker dealer registration for “funding portals” that, in addition to broker dealers, can act as crowdfunding intermediaries.  Funding portals will be required to be registered with the SEC and to follow all such registration and ongoing rule and reporting requirements.  As with other aspects of the new law, these rules and ongoing reporting requirements have yet to be drafted.   In accordance with the Crowdfunding Act, funding portals must be “subject to the examination, enforcement and other rulemaking authority” of the SEC and must be a member of an SRO registered with the SEC.  Currently, the only applicable registered SRO is FINRA.

    Intermediary Requirements

    Whether the crowdfunding intermediary is a broker dealer or new funding portal, they will be subject to the intermediary requirements set out in Section 4A(a) of the Securities Act.  Each of the requirements is subject to the more detailed rules that will be drafted by the SEC.

    A crowdfunding intermediary must:

    (1)  Provide disclosures to potential investors, including disclosures related to risks and other investor education materials;

    (2)  Ensure that each investor reviews investor education information and positively affirms that they understand that they risk losing their entire investment and can afford such loss;

    (3)  Ensure that each investor answers questions demonstrating an understanding of the level of risk generally applicable to investments in start-ups, emerging businesses, and small Issuers;

    (4)  Ensure that each investor answers questions demonstrating an understanding of the risk of illiquidity;

    (5)  Take measures to reduce the risk of fraud by establishing rules and procedures including obtaining background and securities enforcement history checks on each officer, director and person holding more than 20% of the outstanding equity of an Issuer;

    (6) Not later than 21 days prior to the first day securities are sold, file with the SEC and make available to potential investors all disclosure information required and provided by the Issuer. (This requirement raises many questions, such as: Who is responsible for the accuracy of the information filed?  Will there be a review process with the SEC?  Can sales begin if there are open comments with the SEC?)

    (7) Ensure that no offering proceeds are given or available to the Issuer until the target offering amount has been raised, and allow investors to cancel their investment during that time;

    (8)  Make efforts to ensure that no investor exceeds its allowable investment amount in any 12-month period, including from all Issuers and all funding portals (i.e., $2,000 or 5% of annual net income or net worth if net income or net worth is less than $100,000, or 10% of annual income or net worth up to $100,000 if annual income or net worth is over $100,000);

    (9)  Take steps to protect the privacy of information collected from investors;

    (10) Not compensate promoters, finders, or lead generators for providing the broker or funding portal with personal indentifying information of any potential investor (The SEC needs to clarify in its rule making whether a funding portal or broker faces any aiding and abetting or other liability for accepting such information that they have not paid for, or whether such practice will be acceptable.  In addition, the SEC needs to clarify that brokers and funding portals can indeed compensate promoters, finders and lead generators for directing traffic to their site and other outside promotional activities as long as personal identifying information is not included); and

    (11) Prohibit its directors, officers or partners from having any financial interest in any Issuer using its service.

    Funding Portal Limitations; the Broker Dealer Advantage; Intermediary Fees

    Section 304 of the Crowdfunding Act defines a funding portal as “any person acting as an intermediary in a transaction involving the offer or sale of securities for the account of others, solely pursuant to Section 4(6) of the Securities Act of 1933” (i.e., the new crowdfunding section)—provided, however, that a funding portal intermediary may not:

    (i) offers investment advice or recommendations;

    (ii) solicit purchases, sales, or offers to buy the securities offered or displayed on its website or portal;

    (iii) compensate employees, agents or other persons for such solicitation or based on the sale of securities displayed or referenced on its website or portal; or

    (iv) hold, manage, possess, or otherwise handle investor funds or securities (hopefully the SEC rules will provide guidance on who can provide these functions and the mechanics of those functions).

    Broker dealer intermediaries may perform each of the above listed services.  Accordingly, broker dealer intermediaries have a definite monetary advantage over funding portals in the crowdfunding arena.  First, a broker dealer is already licensed, a member of FINRA and versed in abiding by strict regulations and reporting requirements.

    It is undisputed that a funding portal will be able to charge a fee to an Issuer for using its service.  However, how that fee will be determined and how much that fee can be is currently unknown.  Only licensed registered broker dealers can charge a commission for raising money.  Only licensed registered broker dealers will be able to offer the foregoing services and charge fees for these services.  Moreover, I note that a funding portal has to ensure that Issuers do not receive money until a target offering is made, but at the same time can’t hold the investors’ money during that time.   It seems the SEC will have to require the use of a broker dealer, clearing firm or trusted specialized escrow agent by funding portals to address this quandary.

    D.  The Crowdfunding Act and State Securities Laws

    In addition to federal securities laws, each state has its own securities laws and governing body which oversees and enforces such laws.  The individual state securities statutes are not uniform; every state is different.  However, many aspects of federal securities law pre-empt state securities laws.  Still, pre-emption is never complete pre-emption.  Although the federal securities laws may pre-empt the state securities laws in the areas of form and procedure of an offering, state regulators are always empowered to investigate and prosecute violations of their state anti-fraud securities provisions.  Moreover, state regulators can require certain disclosure filings (such as a copy of the Form D) and the payment of fees.

    In an offering under the Crowdfunding Act, which is Internet-based, investors will come from any or all of the 50 states.  It would be incredibly difficult and expensive for a company to learn about and abide by the laws of each of these states.  Section 305 of the Crowdfunding Act amends Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933 to include securities sold in a crowdfunding offering as “covered securities” for purposes of federal pre-emption of state law.   Consistent with general pre-emption law, Congress specifies that Section 305 relates “solely to State registration, document and offering requirements… and shall have no impact or limitation on other State authority to take enforcement action with regard to an Issuer, funding portal, or any other person or entity using the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(6) of the Act.”

    Specific Provision as to Issuer’s Filing and Fee Requirements

    In addition, the Crowdfunding Act specifically prohibits states from requiring a filing or charging a fee in connection with notice requirements, except for the home state of the Issuer and any state in which more than 50% of all the investors reside.

    Specific Provision as to Funding Portal’s Registration Requirements

    The Crowdfunding Act amends Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Registration and Regulation of Broker Dealers) to prohibit any state from enforcing any law, rule or regulation against a registered funding portal for operating as such.  In layman’s terms, a state cannot require a funding portal to register as a broker dealer in that state, nor can they prosecute a funding portal for acting as an unregistered broker dealer.  States can still investigate and prosecute funding portals for fraud.

    E. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

    Crowdfunding Securities Are Restricted

    The Crowdfunding Act has a self-contained restrictive provision on the resale of crowdfunding securities.  In particular, the securities issued in a crowdfunding offering are restricted securities.  Such securities may not be transferred by the investor until after a one-year holding period, except that they may be resold back to the Issuer, to an accredited investor, as part of a registered offering with the SEC, or to a family member in connection with death or a divorce.

    Many of the mechanics of the restriction are unclear, including, for example, whether an accredited investor purchaser would be still be subject to the one-year holding period.  In addition, as the Crowdfunding Act does not refer to Rule 144, it is unclear whether the crowdfunding securities become wholly free trading after a one-year holding period, or default to Rule 144, including the Rule 144 restrictions related to shell companies.

    Integration

    The integration doctrine sets forth principals for determining whether two or more securities offerings are really one offering that does not qualify as an exempt offering, or an exempt offering is really part of a registered public offering.   The crowdfunding exemption in Section 4(6) of the Securities Act provides that “the aggregate amount sold to all investors by the Issuer, including any amount sold in reliance on the exemption provided under this paragraph during the 12 month period preceding the date of such transaction” may not exceed $1,000,000.  It is unclear what other exempt offerings will integrate with a crowdfunding offering which is limited to $1 million in any 12-month period or whether a crowdfunding offering will integrate with a public offering.  The current integration rules (Rule 155 and 502(a)) are inapplicable to a crowdfunding offering on their face.

    For More Information Contact The Author

    Attorney Laura Anthony,
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions

    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

    This White Paper is provided as a general informational service to clients and friends of Legal & Compliance, LLC. It should not be construed as, and does not constitute, legal advice on any specific matter, nor does this message create an attorney-client relationship. These materials may be considered Attorney Advertising in some states. © 2012 Legal & Compliance, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

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

  • 04Sep

    As required by Title II of the JOBS Act, the SEC has published proposed rules eliminating the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in Rules 506 and 144A offerings.  In a move that is widely supported by legal practitioners, including the Federal Regulation of Securities Committee of the Business Law Section of the American Bar Association, the SEC has proposed simple modifications to Regulation D and Rule 144A mirroring the JOBS Act requirement.  In fact, in the rule release the SEC states that it is “proposing only those rule and form amendments that are, in our view, necessary to implement the mandate” in the JOBS Act.  The entire text of the rule release is available on the SEC website.

    This Part I discussed the proposed amendments to Rule 506, Regulation D offerings.

    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.  The JOBS Act calls for the same amendment to Rule 144A provided all purchasers are qualified institutional buyers (QIB).  In both cases, the JOBS Act requires that the rules require the issuer to take reasonable steps to verify that purchasers of the securities are accredited investors or QIB’s as the case may be, using such methods as determined by the SEC.  Most of the pre-rulemaking comments and commentary by the public and advocacy groups, centered on what steps and methods would be required by the SEC to verify purchaser qualification.

    Rule 506 is a safe harbor promulgated under Section 4(a)(2) (formerly Section 4(2)) of the Securities Act of 1933, exempting transaction by an issuer not involving a public offering.  In a Rule 506 offering an issuer can sell an unlimited amount of securities to accredited investors and up to 35 unaccredited sophisticated investors.  The standard to determine whether an investor is accredited is the reasonable belief of the issuer.  Currently, Rule 506 offerings, must abide by certain general conditions set forth in Rule 502, including Rule 502(c) which prohibits general solicitation and advertising.

    Presently, Rule 144A does not explicitly prohibit general solicitation and advertising but it does limit all offers of securities to QIB’s, which has the same practical effect.  Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the registration requirement) as well as most of the exemptions and safe harbor exemptions regulate both the offers and sales of securities.    As further brief background on Rule 144A, it is noted that technically Rule 144A is not an Issuer’s exemption, but rather is a safe harbor for the resale of restricted securities to QIB’s, much as Rule 144 is a safe harbor for the resale of restricted securities generally.  However, since its passage in 1990, market participants have used Rule 144A as a means of raising capital for issuers by engaging in a Regulation S offering followed by the immediate re-sale of such securities to QIB’s in reliance on Rule 144A.  This method of capital raise has become widely known as a Rule 144A Offering.

    The Amendment to Rule 506

    The SEC is proposing to add a new Rule 506(c) which would permit the use of general solicitation and advertising to offer and sell securities under Rule 506 provided that the following conditions are met:

    1.         the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that the purchasers are accredited;

    2.         all purchasers of securities must be accredited investors, either because they come within one of the categories in the definition of accredited investor, or the issuer reasonably believes that they do, at the time of the sale; and

    3.         all terms and conditions of Rule 501 and Rules 502(a) and (d) are satisfied.

    The current Rule 506 will also remain in place.  Accordingly, an issuer that does not wish to engage in general solicitation and advertising could rely on the old Rule 506 and offer and sell to up to 35 unaccredited sophisticated investors.  An issuer opting to rely on the old Rule 506 would also not have to take any additional steps to verify that a purchaser is accredited.

    Reasonable Steps to Verify Accredited Investor Status

    In a nutshell the SEC declines to define what actions suffice as reasonable steps to verify accredited investor status, and instead leaves the determination to the issuer. According to the SEC, “whether the steps taken are ‘reasonable’ would be an objective determination, based on the particular facts and circumstances of each transaction.”  The SEC suggests that where accreditation has been verified by a trusted third party, it would be reasonable for an issuer to rely on that verification and not conduct its own additional verification process.   However, overall, the SEC was apprehensive to even list suggested methods of verification in case the industry perceived these listed methods as de facto requirements or de facto sufficient steps in all cases.

    The SEC did lay out example of overall factors to be considered:

    a.         The nature of the purchaser and type of accredited investor they claim to be.  For instance, if the purchaser is claiming that they are accredited because they are a broker dealer registered with the SEC, verification could be a simple check on the FINRA website.  Of course, the hardest status to verify will be natural persons claiming they meet the net worth ($1 million) or income ($200,000 a year) requirements, however, the SEC offers no particular guidance on this point.

    b.         The amount and type of information that the issuer has about the purchaser.  Clearly, the more information the better.  The SEC lists the obvious (W-2; tax returns; letters from a bank or broker dealer).  Moreover, although not required it is assumed that an issuer should at least conduct a check of publicly available information.

    c.         Nature and terms of the offering, such as type of solicitation and minimum investment requirements.  The example proffered by the SEC is an offering conducted by soliciting pre-approved accredited investor lists from a reasonably reliable third party, vs. open air solicitation via social media or television or radio advertising.  The latter, of course, requiring greater verification than the former.  The SEC highlights the obvious, such as that the higher the minimum investment required the fewer steps an issuer would need to take to verify accreditation.

    Regardless of the methods an issuer uses to verify accredited status, they should keep adequate and complete records.  If the exemption is challenged, the burden is on the issuer to prove that under the facts and circumstances of their particular offering, they took reasonable steps to verify and they reasonably believed that an investor was accredited at the time of the sale.  However, although the rules do not address the issue, the SEC is cognizant of the privacy concerns raised by having issuers obtain and maintain personal financial records from investors.

    In reviewing the rule release, I believe the SEC took the right approach.  As they state “a method that is reasonable under one set of circumstances may not be reasonable under a different set of circumstances.”

    Reasonable Belief that all Purchasers are Accredited Investors

    In addition to requiring that an issuer take reasonable steps to verify that accredited investor status, the new Rule 506(c) requires that an issuer have a reasonable belief that all purchasers are accredited investors.   Current Rule 506 requires that the issuer has a reasonable belief that investors are accredited and the SEC desires to continue this standard with the new Rule 506(c).  In particular, the reasonable belief standard ensures that the exemption will not be lost if an issuer takes reasonable steps to verify accredited status and reasonably believes that an investor is accredited, but later learns that such investor was not in fact accredited.

    Request for Comment

    As part of its Rule release the SEC requests comments on specific questions related to the proposed rule.  In particular, the SEC is asking the public to opine on whether the proposed rule will be effective in limiting sales to accredited investors or whether specific methods of verification should be adopted.  The SEC asks commentators to suggest methods that issuers could use to verify accredited investor status, and the merits of each method.  Moreover, the SEC asks for comments addressing privacy concerns for investors who are supplying financial and personal information to issuers.  The SEC also asks for comments as to whether additional rules or restrictions should be imposed on certain types of issuers such as shell companies, penny stock issuers, or blank check companies.

    The Author

    Attorney Laura Anthony,
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions

    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 almost two decades Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards 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 and the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including 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 SRO’s 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: , , , , , , ,

  • 27Aug

    Title II of the JOBS Act provides that, within 90 days of the passage of the JOBS Act (i.e. July 5, 2012), 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. However, on June 27, 2012 Mary Schapiro, Securities and Exchange Commission chairman told the House Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs that the SEC would not meet the 90 day deadline.  At that time, Ms. Schapiro told the U.S. House committee that the SEC expected the rules to be implemented by late summer 2012.

    The SEC scheduled a hearing on the general solicitation rules for August 22, 2012, but then rescheduled the hearing for August 29, 2012. The House is not happy with the delay.  In a letter, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) requested Mary Schapiro, to appear before a House subcommittee hearing on September 13, 2012, expressing dissatisfaction over the SEC’s progress in implementing regulations under the new federal JOBS Act.  The hearing was set as a result of the SEC delays.

    Moreover, Rep. McHenry’s  letter demands that the SEC produce to his subcommittee by 5:00 pm EST on August 30, 2012 all communications and documents between or among the SEC commissioners and staff regarding potential SEC action to implement the general solicitation rules.  McHenry’s letter states ”The hearing will examine the Commission’s implementation of the JOBS Act, including your failure to implement Section 201 of the JOBS Act by the Act’s statutory deadline and by the deadline you committed in previous testimony.”

    The SEC has stated on more than one occasion that it is immersed in drafting the new crowdfunding rules, including the rules related to funding portals and other Crowdfund investment intermediaries.  However, the Crowdfund rules are not yet behind schedule, unlike the Title II rules related to the elimination of the prohibition on general solicitation and general advertising for private placements.  The delay in the relatively simple Title II rules does not create confidence for the much more complex crowdfunding rules which are scheduled for early 2013.  Moreover, the SEC is still far behind on completing much of the required new rules under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law as well as market structure reforms following the May 6, 2010 crash.

    The Author

    Attorney Laura Anthony,
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions

    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 almost two decades Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards 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 and the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including 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 SRO’s 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: , , , ,

  • 21Aug

    Background:

    As a reminder, on April 5, 2012 President Obama signed the JOBS Act into law. Part of the JOBS Act is the Crowdfunding Act, the full title of which is the “Capital Raising Online While Deterring Fraud and Unethical Non-Disclosure Act of 2012”. The Crowdfunding Act creates a new exemption to the registration requirements under a newly designated Section 4(6) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  Although the Crowdfunding Act is, by definition, an exemption from the registration requirements and therefore a new form of private placement, innovative and forward thinking minds have already come up with a method of utilizing the crowdfunding methodology for a public, registered offering.

    What is a crowdfunding registered offering:

    A crowdfunding registered offering is a combination of direct public offering (DPO) and initial public offering (IPO).  As I have blogged about in the past, a DPO is like an IPO except the Issuing Company does not use an underwriter to place and sell the stock.  In an IPO, the Issuing Company actually sells to the underwriter or underwriters who immediately resell to other broker dealers and retail customers.  In a DPO, the Company sells directly to the retail customer.  In a crowdfunding registered offering an Issuing Company utilizes the services of a third party service provider, such as a broker dealer or crowdfunding intermediary, to assist in the presentation and advertising of what would otherwise be a DPO.

    Although the term “crowdfunding” is being used the registered offering as described below, actually utilizes the rules of the Securities Offering Reform Act of 2005.  Normally all communications regarding a registered offering must meet the content requirements of a prospectus and include all of the required prospectus disclosures (including financial statements and a slew of important factual, but rather boring, information on the company).  The Securities Offering Reform Act amended Rule 134 (communications not deemed a prospectus) of the Securities Act of 1933, to allow certain oral communications by an Issuing Company, following the filing of a registration statement and prior to its going effective, that do not have to include all the disclosures contained in a prospectus.

    The rule amendment went to great lengths to distinguish between oral, graphic and written communications.  Graphic and written communications need to be filed with the SEC and need to meet the disclosure requirements of a prospectus.  Oral communications need not.  Moreover, communications that are transmitted electronically to a live audience in real time will be considered an oral communication, even if electronic means are used for the transmission (such as multiple physical venues or the over the internet).

    To repeat, oral communications, including live real time internet broadcasts, made by an officer or director of an Issuing company are allowed following the filing of a registration statement and pending its effectiveness.  Of course, the communication is subject to the anti-fraud provisions, but it is not required to meet all the requirements of a prospectus (which would make for a very long and boring presentation!).

    In a crowdfunding registered offering an Issuing Company utilizes the services of a third party service provider, such as a broker dealer or crowdfunding intermediary, to assist in putting together and transmitting live internet road show presentations by an Issuing Company, to large numbers of prequalified potential investors.

    However, and importantly, no sales of securities may be made prior to the effectiveness of a registration statement.  So while these live internet presentations are helpful in creating interest, the next step will be actually making sales of stock following the effectiveness of a registration statement.

    There’s more:

    I have so far described how internet crowdfunding can be used during the period following the filing of a registration statement and prior to its effectiveness.  Although this is helpful, it does not close the sale.  Following the effectiveness of a registration statement, a company can advertise (within certain restrictions) and promote the sale of its now registered securities.   The intermediaries and broker dealers that are offering services in presenting live internet broadcasts during the pre-effectiveness period are likewise offering services during the post effectiveness period.  At least one such provider (MediaShares) is offering to launch a social media campaign and other post effective promotion of the Issuing Company’s registered stock.  If the service provider is a broker dealer, they can go so far as to collect the sales proceeds on behalf of the Company and deliver the sold shares to the investor.

    Conclusion:

    My first reaction is that this process could be very expensive for the Issuing Company.  My estimate is between $200,000 and $300,000.  However, the biggest drawback with a DPO is that it can be hard to place, and if a service provider can help you place the deal, and you are raising enough to cover these expenses, it may be worth it.  Moreover, whereas an underwriter is very picky on who they are willing to underwrite, my guess is that these service providers will work with any Company that is willing to and can afford the fees.

    Finally, I am certain that a broker dealer offering such services will need to comply with FINRA rules and regulations regarding such services, including the fees that may be charged, net cap requirements associated with holding stock and funds, etc.., but that is a blog for another day.

    The Author

    Attorney Laura Anthony,

    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions

    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 almost two decades Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards 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 and the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including 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 SRO’s 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.

    Tags: , , , , ,

  • 30Jul

    Title IV of the JOBS Act – Small Capital Formation – is quickly being called the new Regulation A+.  Title IV of the JOBS Act technically amends Section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, which up to now has been a general provision allowing the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to fashion exemptions from registration, up to a total offering amount of $5,000,000.  The new provision will be Section 3(b)(2) with the old statutory language remaining and being relabeled as Section 3(b)(1).

    Technically speaking Regulation D, Rule 504 and 505 offerings and Regulation A offerings are promulgated under Section 3(b) and Rule 506 is promulgated under Section 4(2).  This is important because federal law does not pre-empt state law for Section 3(b) offerings but it does so for Section 4(2) offerings.  The cost of compliance with the various and varied state laws can be prohibitive with an offering limit of $5,000,000.  Moreover, although Regulation A is technically an exemption from registration, it actually requires the filing of a registration statement with the SEC (Form 1-A) and such registration statement must clear comments.  Accordingly, over the years, Rule 506 has become the private offering exemption of choice and Rule 505 and Regulation A are rarely used.

    The New Regulation A+

    The JOBS Act amended Section 3(b) to add Section 3(b)(2) which requires the SEC to adopt a new exemption as follows:

    (A)  The aggregate offering amount of all securities offered and sold within the prior 12-month period in reliance on the exemption shall not exceed $50,000,000;

    (B)  The securities may be offered and sold publicly;

    (C)  The securities shall not be restricted;

    (D)  The civil liability provisions in Section 12(a)(2) shall apply to any person offering or selling the securities;

    (E)  The Issuer may solicit interest in the offering prior to filing any offering statement in accordance with rules to be written by the SEC;

    (F) The SEC shall require the Issuer to file annual financial statements with the SEC;

    (G)  A suggestion that the SEC require the Issuer to prepare and file an offering document and prospectus with the SEC and that the SEC enact disqualifying bad boy provisions (Regulation A already has such provisions).

    The new regulation is limited to equity, debt and convertible debt securities.  Moreover, the new rule allows the SEC to make Regulation A+ issues file periodic reports analogous to current 10Q and 10K reports by Issuers subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act of 1934.  Currently Regulation A Issuers are not required to report.

    Finally, and what could be the real meat, is that securities sold under the new Regulation A+ are “covered securities”.  That is the new Regulation A+ preempts state law.

    So is this really a new exemption?

    So Issuers under the Regulation A+ will file a registration statement, be preempted from abiding by individual state registration laws, issue free trading shares and thereafter report to the SEC.  Other than the test the waters provision, I’m wondering how this new Regulation A+ exemption will be different to my client base of small cap and smaller public companies, than a straight direct public offering (DPO) using Form S-1.

    Perhaps the new registration form will be simplified, but smaller companies are already allowed to use simplified disclosures on a Form S-1 (such as two years of audits instead of three and omitting certain financial summaries….).  Perhaps the reporting requirements will be simplified, but again, small businesses are already allowed simplified disclosures and the SEC is big on homogenizing forms and reports and for good reason, investors can’t follow the disclosures otherwise, and the point of disclosure is to protect the investing public.

    Unlike the crowdfunding or Emerging Growth Company provisions of the JOBS Act, Title IV has only evoked 8 comment letters from the public and other than one from the North American Securities Administration Association (NASAA) they lack any substance whatsoever and the NASAA letter addresses all sections of the JOBS Act not just Regulation A+.  Perhaps it is because the entities that are interested in small public offerings (up to $50,000,000) don’t differentiate the new Title IV from existing rules and regulations and the bigger companies simply don’t care.

    It is N/A to them.

    Until the SEC publishes and enacts this new Regulation A+ we won’t know if it really is a new opportunity or if it will go the same way as the current Regulation A; which isn’t very far.

    The Author

    Attorney Laura Anthony,
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions

    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 almost two decades Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards 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 and the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including 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 SRO’s such as FINRA and DTC for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

  • 12Jul

    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. 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.  Since it would be impossible to ensure that only accredited investors, or qualified institutional buyers, receive, review or become aware of general solicitations and advertisements, the rule focuses on ensuring that the purchasers qualify.

    It is anticipated that the rulemaking will focus on determining accredited status and the comment letters submitted to the SEC in advance of rule-making have all basically concentrated on that issue.  It is easy for us practitioners to assume that the public knows what makes an investor accredited or an institution qualified and that they can tell you their status.  However, based on how many times I am asked the question, well, we all know what they say about assumptions…

    So qualifying as either an accredited investor or qualified institutional buyer is a straight line, non-discretionary test.  You either do or don’t qualify (like your tax bracket…).

    Below is the test for each.

    Accredited Investor Test

    Accredited investor shall mean any person who comes within any of the following categories, or who the issuer reasonably believes comes within any of the following categories, at the time of the sale of the securities to that person:

    1. Any bank as defined in section 3(a)(2) of the Act, or any savings and loan association or other institution as defined in section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Act whether acting in its individual or fiduciary capacity; any broker or dealer registered pursuant to section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; any insurance company as defined in section 2(a)(13) of the Act; any investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 or a business development company as defined in section 2(a)(48) of that Act; any Small Business Investment Company licensed by the U.S. Small Business Administration under section 301(c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958; any plan established and maintained by a state, its political subdivisions, or any agency or instrumentality of a state or its political subdivisions, for the benefit of its employees, if such plan has total assets in excess of $5,000,000; any employee benefit plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 if the investment decision is made by a plan fiduciary, as defined in section 3(21) of such act, which is either a bank, savings and loan association, insurance company, or registered investment adviser, or if the employee benefit plan has total assets in excess of $5,000,000 or, if a self-directed plan, with investment decisions made solely by persons that are accredited investors;
    2. Any private business development company as defined in section 202(a)(22) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940;
    3. Any organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, corporation, Massachusetts or similar business trust, or partnership, not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities offered, with total assets in excess of $5,000,000;
    4. Any director, executive officer, or general partner of the issuer of the securities being offered or sold, or any director, executive officer, or general partner of a general partner of that issuer;
    5. Any natural person whose individual net worth, or joint net worth with that person’s spouse, at the time of his purchase exceeds $1,000,000, not including their principal residence;
    6. Any natural person who had an individual income in excess of $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with that person’s spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of those years and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year;
    7. Any trust, with total assets in excess of $5,000,000, not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities offered, whose purchase is directed by a sophisticated person as described in Rule 506(b)(2)(ii) and
    8. Any entity in which all of the equity owners are accredited investors.

    Qualified Institutional Investor

    Qualified institutional buyer shall mean:

    1. Any of the following entities, acting for its own account or the accounts of other qualified institutional buyers, that in the aggregate owns and invests on a discretionary basis at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with the entity:
      1. Any insurance company as defined in section 2(a)(13) of the Act ;
        Note: A purchase by an insurance company for one or more of its separate accounts, as defined by section 2(a)(37) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”), which are neither registered under section 8 of the Investment Company Act nor required to be so registered, shall be deemed to be a purchase for the account of such insurance company.
      2. Any investment company registered under the Investment Company Act or any business development company as defined in section 2(a)(48) of that Act;
      3. Any Small Business Investment Company licensed by the U.S. Small Business Administration under section 301(c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958;
      4. Any plan established and maintained by a state, its political subdivisions, or any agency or instrumentality of a state or its political subdivisions, for the benefit of its employees;
      5. Any employee benefit plan within the meaning of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974;
      6. Any trust fund whose trustee is a bank or trust company and whose participants are exclusively plans of the types identified in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(D) or (E) of this section, except trust funds that include as participants individual retirement accounts or H.R. 10 plans.
      7. Any business development company as defined in section 202(a)(22) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940;
      8. Any organization described in section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, corporation (other than a bank as defined in section 3(a)(2) of the Act or a savings and loan association or other institution referenced in section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Act or a foreign bank or savings and loan association or equivalent institution), partnership, or Massachusetts or similar business trust; and
      9. Any investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act.
    1. Any dealer registered pursuant to section 15 of the Exchange Act, acting for its own account or the accounts of other qualified institutional buyers, that in the aggregate owns and invests on a discretionary basis at least $10 million of securities of issuers that are not affiliated with the dealer, Provided, That securities constituting the whole or a part of an unsold allotment to or subscription by a dealer as a participant in a public offering shall not be deemed to be owned by such dealer;
    2. Any dealer registered pursuant to section 15 of the Exchange Act acting in a riskless principal transaction on behalf of a qualified institutional buyer;

      Note: A registered dealer may act as agent, on a non-discretionary basis, in a transaction with a qualified institutional buyer without itself having to be a qualified institutional buyer.

    3. Any investment company registered under the Investment Company Act, acting for its own account or for the accounts of other qualified institutional buyers, that is part of a family of investment companies which own in the aggregate at least $100 million in securities of issuers, other than issuers that are affiliated with the investment company or are part of such family of investment companies. Family of investment companies means any two or more investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act, except for a unit investment trust whose assets consist solely of shares of one or more registered investment companies, that have the same investment adviser (or, in the case of unit investment trusts, the same depositor), Provided That, for purposes of this section:
      1. Each series of a series company (as defined in Rule 18f-2 under the Investment Company Act ) shall be deemed to be a separate investment company; and
      2. Investment companies shall be deemed to have the same adviser (or depositor) if their advisers (or depositors) are majority-owned subsidiaries of the same parent, or if one investment company’s adviser (or depositor) is a majority-owned subsidiary of the other investment company’s adviser (or depositor);
    1. Any entity, all of the equity owners of which are qualified institutional buyers, acting for its own account or the accounts of other qualified institutional buyers; and
    2. Any bank as defined in section 3(a)(2) of the Act, any savings and loan association or other institution as referenced in section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Act, or any foreign bank or savings and loan association or equivalent institution, acting for its own account or the accounts of other qualified institutional buyers, that in the aggregate owns and invests on a discretionary basis at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with it and that has an audited net worth of at least $25 million as demonstrated in its latest annual financial statements, as of a date not more than 16 months preceding the date of sale under the Rule in the case of a U.S. bank or savings and loan association, and not more than 18 months preceding such date of sale for a foreign bank or savings and loan association or equivalent institution.

    The Author

    Attorney Laura Anthony,
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions

    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 almost two decades Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards 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 and the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including 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 SRO’s such as FINRA and DTC for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

    Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • 10Jul

    The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has requested public comment and input in advance of preparing and publishing proposed rules related to the Crowdfunding Act.  The scope of the FINRA rules will be written specifically for registered funding portals and although they will need to be complementary to the SEC rules, it is intended that they not be duplicative.  FINRA has set August 31, 2012 as the deadline for receiving comments.

    As Related to Registered Funding Portals

    Section 302 of the Crowdfunding Act requires that all Crowdfunding offerings be conducted through an intermediary that is a broker dealer or funding portal that is registered with the SEC. Section 304 of the Crowdfunding Act provides that Funding Portals are exempt from the broker dealer registration requirements, as long as they are registered with the SEC as Funding Portals and follow all such registration and ongoing rule and reporting requirements.  In accordance with Section 304, Funding Portals must be “subject to the examination, enforcement and other rulemaking authority” of the SEC and must be a member of an SRO.  That SRO is FINRA.

    It was contemplated that a new organization would emerge to act as the SRO for Funding Portals.  CFIRA (Crowdfund Intermediaries Regulatory Advocates) intended for a time to become that new SRO, however the costs and complexities with reaching that goal prior to enactment of the crowdfunding rules, were not achievable.  CFIRA will continue to be an industry player and may still become an SRO, but for now crowdfunding portals will become members of FINRA and subject to its oversight and review.

    In its Regulatory Notice seeking public comments, FINRA notes that that the rules will be limited in conjunction with the limited scope of activities by a registered funding portal.  Moreover, FINRA specifically requests comments about rules concerning “supervision, advertising, anti-money laundering, fraud and manipulation, and just and equitable principles of trade.”

    As Related to Crowdfunding Activities by Broker-Dealers

    FINRA is also soliciting comment on the application of existing FINRA rules related to crowdfunding activities by broker-dealers.  FINRA notes the JOBS Act specifically limits the FINRA rules related to registered funding portals, but does not limit such rules related to broker-dealers.  FINRA invites broker dealers to submit comments as to whether the current rules governing broker-dealers should be relaxed for crowdfunding activities; to the extent such crowdfunding activities are isolated from the other ongoing broker dealer activities.  FINRA is specifically looking to broker-dealers to provide input on how they intend to structure their organization for crowdfunding activities within the firms (i.e. will they have separate departments, staff, etc.).  Finally, FINRA is requesting comments on whether engaging in crowdfunding might present special conflicts or concerns for the broker-dealers.

    The Author

    Attorney Laura Anthony,
    Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
    Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions

    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 almost two decades Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards 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 and the proxy requirements of Section 14. Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including 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 SRO’s 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.

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

« Previous Entries