Going Public Transactions For Smaller Companies: Direct Public Offering And Reverse Merger
Introduction
One of the largest areas of my firms practice involves going public transactions. I have written extensively on the various going public methods, including IPO/DPOs and reverse mergers. The topic never loses relevancy, and those considering a transaction always ask about the differences between, and advantages and disadvantages of, both reverse mergers and direct and initial public offerings. This blog is an updated new edition of past articles on the topic.
Over the past decade the small-cap reverse merger, initial public offering (IPO) and direct public offering (DPO) markets diminished greatly. The decline was a result of both regulatory changes and economic changes. In particular, briefly, those reasons were: (1) the recent Great Recession; (2) backlash from a series of fraud allegations, SEC enforcement actions, and trading suspensions of Chinese companies following reverse mergers; (3) the 2008 Rule 144 amendments, including the prohibition of use of the rule for shell company and former shell company shareholders; (4) problems
The Section 4(a)(1) And 4(a)(1½) Exemption; Recommendations For An Amendment To Rule 144 Related To Shell Companies
What are the Section 4(a)(1) and Section 4(a)(1½) exemptions, and how do they work?
Section 4(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) provides an exemption for a transaction “by a person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.” Rule 144 provides a non-exclusive safe harbor for the sale of securities under Section 4(a)(1). In the event that Rule 144 is unavailable, a holder of securities may still rely upon Section 4(a)(1). Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act provides an exemption for sales by the issuer not involving a public offering. The issuer itself may not rely on Section 4(a)(1), and selling security holders may not rely on Section 4(a)(2).
Case law and the SEC unilaterally conclude that an affiliate (officer, director or greater than 10% shareholder) of the issuer may not rely on Section 4(a)(1) for the resale of securities. In particular, an affiliate is presumptively deemed an underwriter unless such affiliate meets the requirements for use of
ABA Federal Regulation Of Securities Committee Makes Recommendations On Regulation S-K
On March 6, 2015, the Federal Regulation of Securities Committee (“Committee”) of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) submitted its second comment letter to the SEC making recommendations for changes to Regulation S-K. The Committee’s recommendations are aimed at improving the quality of business and financial information that must be disclosed in periodic reports and registration statements in accordance with Regulation S-K. I note that I am a member of the Committee, but not a member of the sub-committee that drafted the comment letter, nor did I have any input in regard to the comment letter.
The recommendations fall into four major categories: materiality; duplication; consolidation of existing interpretive and other guidance from the SEC; and obsolescence. The recommendations in the letter are based on themes articulated by the Division of Corporation Finance in a 2013 report to Congress mandated by the JOBS Act and subsequent speeches by the Division’s Director, Keith F. Higgins.
Materiality
The Committee’s letter recommends that
SEC Congressional Testimony – Part 3
On three occasions recently representatives of the SEC have given testimony to Congress. On March 24, 2015, SEC Chair Mary Jo White testified on “Examining the SEC’s Agenda, Operations and FY 2016 Budget Request”; on March 19, 2015, Andrew Ceresney, Director of the SEC Division of Enforcement, testified to Congress on the “Oversight of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement”; and on March 10, 2015, Stephen Luparello, Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, testified on “Venture Exchanges and Small-Cap Companies.” In a series of blogs, I will summarize the three testimonies.
In this last blog in the series I am summarizing the testimony of Stephen Luparello, Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, on “Venture Exchanges and Small-Cap Companies.” The topic of venture exchanges and small-cap companies is of particular importance to me and my clients – it is the world in which we participate.
On May 5, 2015, I published a blog introducing and discussing the
SEC Proposes Broadening Of Broker-Dealer Registration Rules To Include Proprietary And High-Frequency Traders
On March 25, 2015, the SEC proposed rule amendments to require high-frequency and off-exchange traders to become members of FINRA. The amendments would increase regulatory oversight over these traders.
Over the years many active cross-market proprietary trading firms have emerged, many of which engage in high-frequency trading. These firms generally rely on the broad proprietary trading exemption in rule 15b9-1 to forgo membership with, and therefore regulatory oversight by, FINRA. The rule change is specifically designed to require these high-frequency traders to become members of FINRA and submit to its review and oversight.
The proposed rule change amends Rule 15b9-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) to narrow a current exemption from FINRA membership if the broker is a member of a national securities exchange, carries no customer accounts and has annual gross income of no more than $1,000 derived from sources other than the exchange to which they are a member. Currently, income
SEC Congressional Testimony– Part II
SEC CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY – PART II
On three occasions recently, representatives of the SEC have given testimony to Congress. On March 24, 2015, SEC Chair Mary Jo White testified on “Examining the SEC’s Agenda, Operations and FY 2016 Budget Request”; on March 19, 2015, Andrew Ceresney, Director of the SEC Division of Enforcement, testified to Congress on the “Oversight of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement”; and on March 10, 2015, Stephen Luparello, Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, testified on “Venture Exchanges and Small-Cap Companies.” In a series of blogs, I will summarize the three testimonies.
In the first blog in the series, which can be read HERE, I summarized Mary Jo White’s testimony. This second blog in the series summarizes the testimony of Andrew Ceresney and in particular his words on the SEC’s enforcement focus for fiscal year 2016.
Andrew Ceresney, Director Division of Enforcement – Testimony to Congress
Mr. Ceresney began his testimony with a
SEC Congressional Testimony- Part I
On three occasions recently representatives of the SEC have given testimony to Congress. On March 24, 2015, SEC Chair Mary Jo White testified on “Examining the SEC’s Agenda, Operations and FY 2016 Budget Request”; on March 19, 2015, Andrew Ceresny, Director of the SEC Division of Enforcement, testified to Congress on the “Oversight of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement”; and on March 10, 2015, Stephen Luparello, Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, testified on “Venture Exchanges and Small-Cap Companies.” In a series of blogs, I will summarize the three testimonies. This first blog in the series summarizes the testimony of Mary Jo White.
Mary Jo White Testimony
On March 24, 2015, SEC Chair Mary Jo White gave testimony before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services. The testimony was titled “Examining the SEC’s Agenda, Operations and FY 2016 Budget Request.” As can be gleaned from the title, Mary Jo White was giving testimony in support
SEC Cracks Down On Confidentiality Agreements As Violating Whistleblower Rights And Protections
On April 1, 2015, the SEC announced its first filed, and settled, enforcement action against a company for using improperly restrictive language in confidentiality agreements as a method to stifle or retaliate against whistleblowers.
In recent months, the SEC has been issuing requests to companies for copies of confidentiality agreements, non-disclosure agreements, employment agreements, severance agreements and settlement agreements entered into with employees and former employees of the companies. The initiative specifically requests copies of documents since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) and, in particular, the provisions of the Dodd Frank-Act which grant awards and protections for whistleblowers.
In addition, the SEC has been asking for copies of company human resource policies, employee memos, training guides and any and all documents that discuss “whistleblowers” either directly or indirectly. According to a Wall Street Journal article on the subject, the SEC believes that corporations are retaliating against potential
SEC Supports FINRA’s Rule 6490 Authority Over Corporate Actions
In two recent administrative decisions, the SEC has upheld FINRA’s broad authority under Rule 6490 to approve and effectuate corporate actions by public companies trading on the OTC Markets. One of FINRA’s mandates is to protect investors and maintain fair and orderly markets and like broker-dealers, it acts as a gatekeeper in the small-cap industry. FINRA exercises its powers though the direct regulation of its member broker-dealer firms, but also through its Office of Fraud Detection and Market Intelligence, which monitors the trading activity and press releases of issues in the marketplace and conducts related investigations. FINRA works with the SEC as a front line in the detection, investigation and assistance with the prosecution of issuers.
Recently, through its power under Rule 6490, as more fully explained below, FINRA has, with the support of the SEC, expanded its impact on the small-cap marketplace by conducting in-depth reviews of issuers in conjunction with the processing of corporate actions, and denying such
Shareholder Proposals And Procedural Requirements
Although in the small cap marketplace, proxy season really spreads all year, the majority of issuers hold annual meetings in connection with the issuance of their annual reports and the majority of issuers have a December 31 fiscal year end. Accordingly, in the coming months, public companies will be preparing their annual shareholder meeting notices and be dealing with the associated shareholder proposals.
The regulation of corporate law rests primarily within the power and authority of the states. However, for public companies, the federal government imposes various corporate law mandates including those related to matters of corporate governance. While state law may dictate that shareholders have the right to elect directors, the minimum and maximum time allowed for notice of shareholder meetings, and what matters may be properly considered by shareholders at annual meeting, Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and the rules promulgated thereunder, govern the proxy process itself for publicly reporting companies.
SEC Announces Examination Priorities For 2015; Focus On Transfer Agents, Investment Advisers and Broker Dealers
On January 13, 2015, the SEC published its Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) priorities for 2015. The OCIE examines and reviews a wide variety of financial institutions, including investment advisers, investment companies, broker-dealers, transfer agents, clearing agencies and national securities exchanges.
The priorities this year have a primary focus on (i) protecting retail investors, especially those saving for retirement; (ii) assessing market-wide risks; and (iii) using data analytics to identify signs of potential illegal activity. In addition, the SEC will examine municipal advisers, proxy services, never-before-examined investment companies, fees and expenses in private equity and transfer agents.
Transfer agents and broker-dealers will be scrutinized for potential claims of engaging in or aiding and abetting pump-and-dump or market manipulation schemes.
The SEC shares its annual examination priorities as a heads-up and to encourage industry participants to conduct independent reviews and make efforts for increased compliance, prior to an SEC examination, investigation or potential enforcement proceeding. Moreover, the SEC chooses
SEC Rules – The Commission Publishes List of New Regulations for Review
The SEC has published its annual list of rules that are scheduled to be reviewed this year and to invite comment from the public as to whether these rules should be continued without change, amended or rescinded. The SEC is required to review rules each year that have a significant impact on small entities.
The current list includes 25 rules that were adopted by the SEC in 2003. I note that many of these rules were enacted as a follow-on to the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and in response to the then current financial crisis. Persons interested in submitting comments to the SEC regarding these rules can do so through the SEC website. I have ordered the list such that rules that most impact my clients appear first.
Below is a list of rules that will be reviewed this year for potential amendment and a brief summary of the existing rule.
Conditions for Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures –
SEC Sanctions BITCOIN Exchange Operator-A Case Study In Basic Registration And Exemption Requirements
ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100
——————————————————————————————————
On December 8, 2014, the SEC settled charges against a creative, but ill informed, entrepreneur for acting as an unlicensed broker-dealer and for violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Ethan Burnside and his company, BTC Trading Corp., operated two online enterprises, BTC Virtual Stock Exchange and LTC-Global Virtual Stock Exchange, that traded securities using virtual currencies, bitcoin or litecoin. Neither of these exchanges were registered as broker-dealers or stock exchanges. In addition, Burnside and his company conducted separate transactions in which he offered investors the opportunity to use virtual currencies to buy or sell shares in the LTC-Global exchange itself and a separate litecoin mining venture he owned and operated. These offerings were not registered with the SEC as required under the federal securities laws.
According to the SEC release on the matter, “the exchanges provided account holders the ability to use bitcoin or litecoin to buy,
The ECOS Matter; When Is A Reverse Split Effective?
ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100
——————————————————————————————————
In what was presumably an unintended consequence, the application of an SEC- approved FINRA regulation has resulted in a conflict between state and federal corporate law for a small publicly traded company.
On September 16, 2014, Ecolocap Solutions, Inc. (“ECOS”) filed a Form 8-K in which it disclosed that FINRA had refused to process its 1-for-2,000 reverse split. At the time of the FINRA refusal, ECOS had already received board and shareholder approval and had filed the necessary amended articles with the State of Nevada, legally effectuating the reverse split in accordance with state law. Moreover, ECOS is subject to the reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), and had filed a preliminary and then definitive 14C information statement with the SEC, reporting the shareholder approval of the split.
The ECOS 8-K attached a copy of the FINRA denial letter, which can be viewed HERE.
SEC Chair Mary Jo White Speaks on Equity Market Structure
On June 5, 2014, Mary Jo White gave a speech at a conference on the topic of the structure of equity markets, the entire text of which is available on sec. gov. The speech was very high-level and broad-based with few specific initiative announcements. However, it does provide some insight into the direction of planned market structure initiatives and rule releases. This blog is a summary of her speech.
Ms. White began her speech by acknowledging that the SEC agrees with the basic premise that “investors and public companies benefit greatly from robust and resilient equity markets.”
Ms. White announced that she is recommending additional measures to “further promote market stability and fairness, enhance market transparency and disclosures, and build more effective markets for smaller companies.” In addition, she will request that the SEC create a new Market Structure Advisory Committee of experts to review specific initiatives and rule proposals.
Current Market Structure
As noted in Ms. White’s speech, today’s
Will FINRA Rule Changes Related to Private Placement Further Deter Broker Dealers From Placing the Securities of Small Businesses?
On August 19, 2013, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 13-26 about the updated Private Placement Form that firms must file with FINRA when acting as a placement agent for the private placement of securities. A copy of the form is included with the regulatory notice at www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p325359.pdf. The Form went effective on July 1, 2013. FINRA has also updated the FAQs relating to the Private Placement Form. The updated Private Placement Form has six new questions:
- Is this a contingency offering?
- Does the issuer have
SEC Issued Risk Alert on Options Trading Used to Evade Short Sale Requirements
On Friday August 9, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a Risk Alert to help market participants detect and prevent options trading that circumvents an SEC short sale rule.
The SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) issued the alert after its examiners observed options trading strategies that appeared to evade certain requirements of the short-sale rule. The alert describes and warns of the strategies used by some customers, broker-dealers and clearing firms, summarizes related enforcement actions, and makes suggestions regarding practices found to be effective in detecting and preventing trading intended to evade Regulation SHO.
Regulation SHO tightened requirements for short sales, which involve the selling of securities not already owned, usually by the borrowing of securities. Short sellers
SEC Announces it Will Seek an Admission of Fault to Settle Certain Cases
On June 18, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a policy change related to its settlement of certain civil matters. In particular, the SEC has stated that it will now require that the settling party admit wrongdoing as part of a settlement. Previously the standard language for all settlements has been that the defendants “neither admit nor deny wrongdoing.” Defendants, of course, cannot be required to make such an admission or settle a case, but the alternative is fighting it out in court, an expensive and risky process.
The change in policy began with a related change in which the SEC changed its policy to require admissions of wrongdoing to settle cases where the defendant had already admitted such wrongdoing in related criminal cases. Mary Jo White has now announced that, even in cases where there is no parallel criminal case, the SEC will now require individuals and companies to admit liability in “cases where… it’s very important to
OTC Market Group Has Modified Its Alternative Reporting Standard
Background
Over the past few years, the historical Pink Sheets has undergone some major changes, starting with the creation of certain “tiers” of issuers and culminating in its refurbished website and new URL, otcmarkets.com.Otcmarkets.com divides issuers into three (3) levels: OTCQX, OTCQB and Pink Sheets.
Issuers on the OTCQX must be fully reporting and current in their reporting obligations with the SEC and also undergo a quality review by industry professionals.Issuers on the OTCQB must be fully reporting and current in their reporting obligations with the SEC but do not undergo additional quality review.
Issuers on the Pink Sheets are not required to be reporting with the SEC.However, such issuers are then further qualified based on the level of voluntary information provided to the otcmarkets.com.Issuers with no information are denoted by a skull and crossbones, Issuers with limited financial and business information are classified as “limited information,” and Issuers that provide information as set forth in the OTC
SEC Suspends Trading On 61 Shell Companies
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today suspended the trading in 61 dormant shell companies. The trading suspensions are part of an SEC initiative tabbed Operation Shell-Expel by the SEC’s Microcap Fraud Working Group. In May 2012, the SEC suspended the trading on 379 shell companies as part of the initiative. Each of the companies were dormant shells that were not current in public disclosures. Each of the companies failed to have adequate current public information available either through the news service on OTC Markets or filed with the SEC via EDGAR.
The federal securities laws allow the SEC to suspend trading in any stock for up to 10 business days. Once a company is suspended from trading, it cannot be quoted again until it provides updated information including complete disclosure of its business and accurate financial statements. In addition to providing the necessary information, to begin to trade again, a company must enlist a market maker to file a
SEC Guidance On Social Media And Websites For Company Announcements And Communications- Part II
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
SEC Clears Social Media As An Acceptable Form For Company Announcements
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
SEC Issues Guidance Regarding The Exemption From Broker-Dealer Registration In Title II Of The JOBS Act
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
Implementation Of The Elimination Of The Prohibition Against Advertising For Private Accredited Investor Offerings And The Crowdfunding Act, Continues To Be Delayed
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 ABA Pushes To Allow For The Payment Of Finder’s Fees
In April of this year, the American Bar Association Private Placement Broker Task Force delivered to the SEC and published a recommendation for a limited federal exemption from SEC registration for securities intermediaries that would be able to assist in the private raise of capital for both private and public entities. The Task Force previously published a lengthy recommendation and even drafted proposed rules, in June 2005, and has been advocating the rules since that time. The full text of both the April 2012 submission and June 2005 report with proposed rules can be read on the SEC website.
The SEC’s Position and Current Rules on Finder’s Fees
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits the payments of commissions or other transaction based compensation to individuals or entities that assist in a capital raise, unless that entity is a licensed broker dealer.
Periodically, and most recently in April 2008, the SEC updates its Guide to Broker Dealer Registration explaining
An Update On Dealing With The DTC Following The SEC’s Ruling On International Power Group, Ltd.
Background
Back in October and November of 2011, I wrote a series of blogs regarding DTC eligibility for OTC (over-the-counter) Issuers. OTC Issuers include all companies, whose securities trade on the over-the-counter market, including the OTCBB, OTCQB and pinksheets. Many OTC Issuers have faced a “DTC chill” without understanding what it is, let alone how to correct the problem. In technical terms, a DTC chill is the suspension of certain DTC services with respect to an Issuer’s securities. Those services can be book-entry clearing and settlement services, deposit services or withdrawal services. A chill can pertain to one or all of these services. In the case of a chill on all services, the term of art is a “global lock.”
I have previously blogged on how to become DTC-eligible. From the DTC perspective, a chill does not change the eligibility status of an Issuer’s securities, just what services the DTC will offer for those securities. So while
New FINRA Rule 5123 Takes Effect Requiring Notice of Private Placements by Member Firms
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has adopted new Rule 5123 requiring members to file notice of their participation in private placements. The Rule took effect on December 3rd 2012. The new rule does not contain a definition of “private placements” and accordingly is presumed to cover all private placements including those involving general solicitation and advertising under the new Rule 506(c) created by the JOBS Act.
Rule 5123 requires member firms to file a copy of the private placement memorandum, term sheet or other disclosure document with FINRA, for all offering in which they sell securities, within 15 calendar days of the first sale.
FINRA enacted the rule in an effort to further police the private placement market and to ensure that members participating in these private offerings conduct sufficient due diligence on the securities and its issuer
In filings with the SEC, FINRA expressed its position that Rule 5123 is consistent with the JOBS Act in
The JOBS Act IPO On-Ramp
I’ve written extensively on the Crowdfunding Act, or Title III of the Jobs Act, and much less extensively on the other five titles of the Act. Today’s blog will focus on Title I of the Jobs Act – Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies. Several industry types have been referring to Title I as the IPO On Ramp and so will I.
The Jobs Act
The JOBS Act created a new category of companies defined as “Emerging Growth Companies” (EGC). An EGC is defined as a company with annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion that first sells equity in a registered offering after December 8, 2011. In addition, an EGC loses its EGC status on the earlier of (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which it exceeds $1 billion in revenues; (ii) the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth year after its IPO; (iii) the date on which it
Crowdfunding Requirements For Issuers
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.
The new crowdfunding exemption allows Issuers to raise up to $1 million in a twelve month period, 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 their annual income or next worth is less and $100,000; and (b) 10% of the annual income or net worth of such investor, not to exceed a maximum $100,000, if their annual income or net worth is more than $100,000.
Crowdfunding Intermediaries – SEC Issues Guidance
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 SEC has been mandated with the task of drafting the crowdfunding rules and regulations by early 2013. In addition to fashioning the exemption that will allow companies to raise funds using the Crowdfunding Act, the SEC must also fashion rules to govern the crowdfunding intermediaries that companies will be required to use in the process.
Crowdfunding Intermediaries or Funding portals (the terms are interchangeable) are hurrying up to be ready to implement rules that will be enacted in early 2013 while at the same time, waiting to find out what those rules will be. On May 7, 2012, the SEC issued limited guidance for crowdfunding intermediaries. As has been the case since enactment of the JOBS Act,
THE JOBS ACT IMPACT ON HEDGE FUND MARKETING
On April 5, 2012 President Obama signed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) into law. The other day I blogged about the changes to the general solicitation and advertising rules brought about by the JOBS Act. Today I am focusing on the impact those rule changes will have on hedgefunds, and in particular, smaller hedgefunds.
Summary of JOBS Act Changes Effecting General Solicitation and Advertising of Private Offerings
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. The JOBS Act directs the SEC to make the same amendment to Rule 144A so long as all purchasers in the Rule
Crowdfunding intermediaries- Hurry Up and Wait
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”. I think the acronym came first, but applaud the creativity.
I have been blogging extensively on the JOBS Act and Crowdfunding Act. My last blog addressed Herculean effort the SEC must undertake to write the laws and rules which will bring the Crowdfunding Act to fruition by early 2013. In addition to fashioning the exemption that will allow companies to raise funds using the Crowdfunding Act, the SEC must also fashion rules to govern the funding portals that companies will be required to use in the process.
Funding Portals are popping up everywhere, at least in name and concept. All of these portals are busy putting together systems internally, but all of those systems are subject to the SEC
Big Changes Are Coming
I’ve been practicing securities law for 19 years this year (phew!) and for the first time in my career I am excited about changes, big changes, on the horizon for small businesses. I’m talking about the JOBS Act and its ground breaking crowdfunding bill which has now been signed into law.
A Whole New Exemption
Over the years I have consistently received calls from potential clients that wish to use the exemptions provided for in Regulation D to raise money for small or start up ventures. Many of these individuals believe, mistakenly, that Regulation D provides them with a method to raise money. It does not. Regulation D only lays out rules to follow to utilize an exemption from the registration requirements in the Securities Act of 1933. These rules include such items as limitations on the dollar amount raised; who you can raise money from, how you can raise money, prohibitions on advertising and solicitation, disclosure documents required,
PIPE Transactions, Terms and Requirements
A PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity) transaction is typically a private placement of equity or equity-linked securities by a public company to accredited investors that is followed by the registration of the resale of those securities with the SEC. Generally the securities are sold at a discount to market price. A traditional PIPE generally involves a fixed number of securities at a fixed price, with the closing conditioned only on the effectiveness of a resale registration statement. Any transaction that does not fall within this parameter is considered non-traditional and the structure can vary widely, including for example price variables (such as a death spiral), warrants and options, convertible securities and equity line transactions.
Traditional PIPE Transactions
In particular, a traditional PIPE is generally a set number of securities at a set price (which may be a discount to market at the time of close) and is conditioned only upon the effectiveness of a re-sale registration statement. A traditional
