Wednesday, November 13, 2013

SEC Rule 506 (c) Offerings Are Better than Crowdfunding and Traditional Private Placement Exemptions


By:  Jim Verdonik
I'm an attorney with Ward and Smith PA. I also write a column about business and law for American Business Journals, have authored multiple books and teach an eLearning course for entrepreneurs. You can reach me at JFV@WardandSmith.com or JimV@eLearnSuccess.com. Or you can check out my eLearning course at http://www.elearnsuccess.com/start.aspx?menuid=3075 or http://www.youtube.com/user/eLearnSuccessor or you can purchase my books at http://www.amazon.com/Jim-Verdonik/e/B0040GUBRW

There's been a lot written lately about the SEC's proposed crowdfunding rules and new Rule 506 (c).

But most of the articles don't address the bottom line issue:  Which exemption is best for most companies that are trying to raise capital?

Here's the bottom line answer:  New Rule 506 (c) provides much greater capital raising flexibility than both the proposed crowdfunding rules and traditional private placement exemptions.

Only Rule 506 (c) offerings have all the following advantages that affect your ability to communicate to a wide audience on a cost efficient basis:

- Allow you to use social media, advertising and other solicitations with the only limit being that you are not allowed to commit fraud.  Social media is a cost efficient tool for attracting investors if you know how to use it.

- Allow maximum flexibility about what you disclose to investors and how you disclose it, subject only to the requirement that you not commit fraud.

-  Do not require financial statements that have been reviewed or audited by independent accountants no matter how much money you raise. 

- Provide an exemption from state rules that require pre-sale filings and reviews by state securities administrators, which can cause delays and extra offering expenses.

- Allow you to raise any amount of capital.

- Have no post-sale filing requirements other than filing Form D with the SEC and some states.

The one downside to Rule 506 (c) offerings is that you must sell only to accredited investors and take reasonable steps to verify that all your investors are accredited.   See my blog post on July 18, 2013 that discusses the accredited investor verification process. 

Accredited investor verification is a small price to pay for all the advantages Rule 506 (c) offerings provide.

Financial statement requirements in crowdfunding offerings and Rule 506 (b) and 505 offerings that include non-accredited investors can double or triple your capital raising expenses.  Crowdfunding's requirement that you must continue to file reports with the SEC for an indefinite time period after you raise money is also a cost burden.  And you can use social media in crowdfunding offerings only if you limit yourself to a notice that is a lot like the traditional "tombstone" ads you see in the Wall Street Journal.  BORING doesn't sell in social media.  In return for all these limits, the crowdfunding rules will permit you to raise small amounts of money from many investors without worrying whether the investors are accredited.  That's not a great deal compared to the short-term and long-term costs of complying with the crowdfunding rules.

So, does crowdfunding offer no benefits?

As discussed above, Rule 506 (c) offerings give you great flexibility in what you say, how you say it and what social media and other advertising and solicitation tools you use.  Choices and alternatives are generally good things, but they can present problems.  Using social media effectively is a skill that not every business has.  If you are not effective in how you use social media, your sales effort will fail.  The one stop shop approach that provides all the technology and regulatory compliance will be attractive to some people. 

Some people like to do the work to renovate their own homes.  Others prefer to hire a contractor to do it for them.  They either lack the skills to do it themselves or they don't have the time.  For that they pay a higher price.  Some people will decide to pay the SEC's regulatory price required to use the proposed crowdfunding exemptions.

The primary benefits of crowdfunding platforms is that they will offer a clear pathway for investors and businesses to meet.  This will be particularly true of crowdfunding platforms that specialize by industry.  They will attract investors that are interested in that particular industry.

Think of it like cable TV channels.  If you want the news, you know what channels specialize in news.  The same goes for movies, history, travel and cooking.  Investors seeking certain types of deals will gravitate to crowdfunding platforms that specialize in their type of deal.  That's a valuable service. 

Of course, having the best of both crowdfunding platforms channel to investors and Rule 506 (c) flexibility is what most people will probably choose. 

There is no reason why you have to accept the restrictions of the SEC's crowdfunding rules to take advantage of crowdfunding platform services.  If you comply with Rule 506 (c)'s accredited investor verification rules, you will be able to do Rule 506 (c) offerings through crowdfunding platforms.  Indeed, until the SEC's proposed crowdfunding rules become effective, these hybrid offerings types of offerings will be the only deals you can do through crowdfunding platforms.

Crowdfunding platforms will be one of many types of technology and marketing services people operate to facilitate 506 (c) offerings.  That will allow businesses raising capital to use social media in creative ways to drive people to their crowdfunding platform offering instead of being limited to ineffective tombstone advertisements.  Another benefit of combining Rule 506 (c) with crowdfunding platforms will be that you can avoid the SEC's proposed requirement that you use only one crowdfunding platform.  Rule 506 (c) contains no such restriction.  So, you can use multiple channels to communicate with investors.

Combining crowdfunding technology with Rule 506(c) offerings will present some regulatory and technical challenges to the intermediaries who operate crowdfunding platforms, but it will offer many benefits to businesses raising capital.

Of course, no single exemption is best in every circumstance for every company trying to raise capital.

Here's a table that shows the requirements for eight different offering exemptions, including proposed crowdfunding rules and traditional Rule 506 (b) offerings.

Judge for yourself which type of offering exemption gives you the best deal:


 
SEC SECURITIES OFFERING EXEMPTIONS
 
 
 
Crowd Funding
(Proposed Regulations not in effect)
Rule 506 (c)
Rule 506 (b)
(if have all Accredited Investors)
Rule 506 (b)
(if include any non-accredited investors)
Rule 505
(if have all Accredited Investors)
Rule 505
(if include any non-accredited investors)
Rule 504
Section 4 (2)
Social Media and Other Advertising Permitted
Yes, but only limited advertising outside the intermediary's portal
Yes, limited only by anti-fraud rules
No
No
No
No
No
No
Exemption from State Securities Filings Before Sale
Yes (1)
Yes(1)
Yes (1)
No
No
No
No
No
Allows Sales to Non-Accredited Investors
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Accredited investor Verification Required
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Dollar Limits
$1 million in 12 months
No
No
No
$5  million
$5 million
$1 million in 12months
No
Specific Disclosure Rules Apply
Yes, very structured disclosure
No, only anti-fraud rules apply
No, only anti-fraud rules apply
Yes, very structured disclosure(2)
No, only anti-fraud rules apply
Yes, very structured disclosure
(2)
No, only anti-fraud rules apply
No, only anti-fraud rules apply
Audited Financial Statements Required
Yes unless less than $100,000 (3)
No
No
Yes(4)
No
Yes (4)
No
No
Required to file with SEC
Yes
Form D (5) (6)
Form D (5)
Form D (5)
Form D (5)
Form D(5)
Form D (5)
No
Post-Offering Reporting Obligations
Yes, burdensome post offering filings
Form D
Amendments
(5)
Form D Amendments
(5)
Form D Amendments
(5)
Form D Amendments
(5)
Form D Amendments
(5)
Form D Amendments
(5)
No
Integration
Risks with  other Offerings
Unclear (7)
Yes (7)
Yes (7)
Yes (7)
Yes (7)
Yes (7)
Yes (7)
Yes (7)
Limits on Amounts any Single Investor Can Invest
Yes.  Limits are based on investor net assets and income levels.
 No
 No
 No
Any investor can invest up to the $5 million total offering limitation amount.
Any investor can invest up to the $5 million offering limitation amount..
Any investor can invest up to the $1 million total offering limitation amount.
 No
 Number of Investors Permitted
 No limit
 No limit
 No limit
 No limit for accredited investors. Limited to 35 non-accredited investors
 No limit
 No limit for accredited investors. Limited to 35 non-accredited investors
 No limit
 Small number only.  Useful if they are all related to the business or to one another.

 

(1)   Post- sale filing requirements of states are not pre-empted.  Fraud provisions of state laws are not pre-empted.

(2)   Rule 502 (b) requires to the extent material to an understanding of the issuer, its business and the securities being offered the information required by Part II of Form 1-A of Regulation A, but special rules apply to public reporting companies and foreign private issuers.

(3)   Proposed rules require for offerings greater than $500,000, audited financial statements, but (i) for offerings $100,000 or less, issuers can substitute their income tax return and financial statements certified by the issuer's principal executive officer, and (ii) for offerings between $500,000 and $500,000, issuers can substitute reviewed financial statements.

(4)     Rule 502 (b) requires to the extent material to an understanding of the issuer, its business and the securities being offered three different audit requirements depending on the size of the offering: (i) for offerings up to $2,000,000, the financial statements required by Article 8 of Regulation S-X, except that only the balance sheet as of a date not more than 120 days before the offering begins must be audited, (ii) for offerings up to $7,500,000. audited financial statements that a "small reporting company" would be required to file in a registration statement on Form S-1, but if the issuer cannot obtain audited financial statements without unreasonable effort or expense, then only the issuer's balance sheet, which shall be dated within 120 days of the start of the offering, must be audited, and (iii) for offerings over $7,500,000, the financial statement required in a registration statement on the form that the issuer would be entitled to use, but if the issuer cannot obtain audited financial statements without unreasonable effort or expense, then only the issuer's balance sheet, which shall be dated within 120 days of the start of the offering, must be audited.  Special rules apply to issuers that are limited partnerships.

(5)   Rule 503 (a) requires filing Form D within 15 calendar days after the first sale.  Amendments must be filed to reflect changes and to correct mistakes.

(6)   Proposed rule change would require issuers in a Rule 506 (c) offering to file Form D 15 days before the first offer is made and to file advertising the same day the advertising occurs.

(7)  Integration poses the biggest risk for businesses that are active in capital raising.  Integration is a concept the SEC and state securities regulators use to combine what are nominally two or more securities offerings into one securities offering.  Integration can destroy your exemptions.  It is unclear how the SEC will deal with crowdfunding and other offerings that are either being conducted at the same time or within six months of one another.


If you would like to learn more about learning how to grow your business or other issues important to your success, you can reach me at JFV@WardandSmith.com or JimV@eLearnSuccess.com. Or you can check out my eLearning course at http://www.elearnsuccess.com/start.aspx?menuid=3075 or http://www.youtube.com/user/eLearnSuccess or you can purchase my books at http://www.amazon.com/Jim-Verdonik/e/B0040GUBRW
"http://player.vimeo.com/video/53287764?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0&badge=0
 

 



 





Monday, October 28, 2013

How Social Media is Changing How You Raise Capital in Public Private Placements


By:  Jim Verdonik
I'm an attorney with Ward and Smith PA. I also write a column about business and law for American Business Journals, have authored multiple books and teach an eLearning course for entrepreneurs. You can reach me at JFV@WardandSmith.com or JimV@eLearnSuccess.com. Or you can check out my eLearning course at http://www.elearnsuccess.com/start.aspx?menuid=3075 or http://www.youtube.com/user/eLearnSuccessor or you can purchase my books at http://www.amazon.com/Jim-Verdonik/e/B0040GUBRW

[This post is a longer version of an article I wrote that was published in Triangle Business Journal in October 2013l]
What happens when the irresistible force collides with the immovable object?
In this corner, sits defending champ and immovable object, the Securities and Exchange Commission – guardian since 1933 of the holy rule that you can't mix public offerings and private placements.
In the opposing corner, stands the challenger Social Media – the irresistible force that is mixing our public and private lives every day.
It used to be illegal to sell securities in private placements using social media tools like Twitter, Face Book and LinkedIn that most people use every day.
But the "Public Private Placement" was born on September 23, 2013.  Advertising of all kinds is now allowed in private placements under certain conditions.
What does the "Public Private Placement" mean for how you raise capital to grow your business?
Many "experts" predict the SEC will lock up public-private placements in a dungeon and throw away the key.  Mixing public and private upsets securities law fundamentalists.  For many in the securities industry, the SEC is the immovable object that can resist any force.
But I disagree.  What makes me think the SEC won't prevail in fighting public private offerings?
In April 2012 Congress and the President agreed to create public private placements in the JOBs Act.  WOW!  Isn't that astounding?  What power forged the bonds of rare bi-partisan agreement?  Simple agreement that:
·         Capitalism doesn't work without capital.
·         Keeping your securities offering a secret isn't a good way to raise capital.
·         Modern communications tools level the playing field to give everyone greater access to capital.
So, Congress and the President decided people can use technology to raise capital, even though that means mixing public communications with private placements.
In response, our immovable SEC has proposed new unworkable rules to fight Social Media's irresistible force, which gives everyone a direct inexpensive link to a world-wide audience. 

  • Waiting periods after you notify the SEC you intend to advertise.
  • Filing every communication with the SEC the same day you make them when Social Media campaigns by nature involve a conversation with many points of contact.
  • Requiring warning legends that are longer that all Tweets and many other forms of Social Media communications.

But Social Media isn't helpless.  It demonstrated the power to attract investors to take action, when two individuals used Twitter and Face Book to obtain $300 million of investor commitments to finance buying a business without paying brokers' commissions.  Of course, the SEC killed the deal before it closed, because this happened before public-private offerings were legal.
But that squashed deal speaks volumes about the power of social media to raise capital. 
  • Is it logical to assume that people struggling to raise capital will ignore that power?
  • Will America forego the opportunity to replace Goldman Sachs with Twitter?
  • Or will Wall Street remain a high priced gatekeeper to capital?
SEC rules can't squash Social Media, because humans are social beings.  It's our nature to want to know what other people are doing and how it affects us.  Businesses prosper and regulators make good rules when they channel the power of human nature rather than fight it.  
The SEC's wall between registered public offerings and private placements became outdated when Social Media combined private communications with a mass audience.  The Internet and Social Media broke down the old dividing lines between telephone calls and postal service that facilitated private communications on the one hand and television, radio and the press on the other hand that transmitted advertisements.
When the expectation of privacy died in our daily lives, the SEC's wall between public and private started falling down.  It makes no sense to insist on private business communications in a time when we all live our lives on a massive party-line conference call.
The power of individuals to find common interests with people across the planet and to exchange ideas freely at low cost in real time redefined your community.  Your new neighbors might be people you never met in person.  Your community might have members in three hundred cities around the world.  You might be a member of a hundred such communities or networks.  Each member of each community freely forwards your communications to others.  No one is shocked when this sharing occurs.
Traditional SEC rules allowed you to communicate with your old neighbors.  New SEC rules won’t work unless they allow you to communicate with your new neighbors.
Beyond that, it's silly to fight Social Media Public Private Placements, because Social Media brings private placements out of the shadows and into the light where everyone can see them.  Light deters fraud.  Attention makes it easier to detect and punish fraud.  High pressure sales draw criticism from a big audience that talks among themselves.  The more deals investors see; the more sophisticated they become and they share that sophistication with other community members.
Social media and the Internet have empowered consumers who buy cars, books and countless other items by facilitating comparison shopping.  The result is that people pay less for more and the overall quality of products has improved as sellers compete with one another for the business of for informed buyers.  Why would anyone assume the same thing won't happen with investors?
That's why I'm predicting a one-sided Social Media victory like high tide overwhelms children's sandcastles.  Eventually, the SEC will conclude that since it can't stop people from using ordinary tools to do things they think are important it should issue reasonable rules to channel that activity in positive directions.
So, why wait until the SEC surrenders?  Start thinking about how to conduct successful public private offerings by balancing:
  • Advertising effectiveness.
  • Budget
  • Avoiding fraud 
Big rewards await those who develop the best combination of these three factors.
Sending your business plan to sit in an unread pile at a venture capital fund's office  just doesn't make much sense anymore.  (Did it ever?)
Do you have the team it takes to succeed in this new capital raising environment?
Or are your advisers stuck in the past?
The race has begun.
What are you waiting for?
If you would like to learn more about learning how to grow your business or other issues important to your success, you can reach me at JFV@WardandSmith.com or JimV@eLearnSuccess.com. Or you can check out my eLearning course at http://www.elearnsuccess.com/start.aspx?menuid=3075 or http://www.youtube.com/user/eLearnSuccess or you can purchase my books at http://www.amazon.com/Jim-Verdonik/e/B0040GUBRW


 

 



 

Thursday, September 19, 2013

SEC Rule 506 (c): Who Is Allowed Be A Capitalist?


By Jim Verdonik
I'm an attorney with Ward and Smith PA. I also write a column about business and law for American Business Journals, have authored multiple books and teach an eLearning course for entrepreneurs. You can reach me at JFV@WardandSmith.com or JimV@eLearnSuccess.com. Or you can check out my eLearning course at http://www.elearnsuccess.com/start.aspx?menuid=3075 or http://www.youtube.com/user/eLearnSuccessor or you can purchase my books at http://www.amazon.com/Jim-Verdonik/e/B0040GUBRW

Everyone knows you need a license drive a car.
You also need a license from the Government to be a doctor or a lawyer or an accountant or stock broker.
Wow! It seems like the Government likes to restrict access to all the good paying jobs.
Maybe that's why Government makes it difficult to make an investment, unless you are already mega rich.
You don't need a Government license for minimum wage jobs like flipping burgers at MacDonald's or greeting people at Wal-Mart.  The Government lets anyone work in low paying jobs.
Why do you need a special Government permission to make good money, but Government allows anyone to work for the minimum wage?
Maybe the Government licenses doctors, lawyers, accountants and stock brokers because people pay them a lot of money.  Or, maybe people pay them a lot of money, because Government license requirements limit competition.
Does this sound like another version of the question:  Which came first, the chicken and the egg?
People have long debated whether the benefits of Government licenses justify the increase in cost associated with Government licenses.  Few people change their minds.
But let's examine the basic motivation for limiting the ability of people to make investments.  Supposedly, Government licenses exist to protect the public from people who aren't competent to perform services. 
But does the same rationale apply to investors?  What explains why the Government imposes restrictions on who is allowed to make different types of investments?  Does licensing investors make any sense?
Investors give money.  They don't collect money.  And money is fungible.  One person's money is no better or worse than another person's money.  So, limiting who can invest doesn't promote higher quality investing.
Then why is the Government so intent on limiting who can make investments?
Let's talk about the SEC's recent rule change for Rule 506 (c) private placements under Regulation D that requires businesses to verify that an investor is an "accredited investor."
You used to be able to take someone's word for it, if they told you that they are an "accredited investor."
Now, if you want to advertise your offering, you have to check financial documents people must give you to prove they are an "accredited investor."
It's kind of like a store clerk or bar tender who checks your driver's license before they sell you a beer or wine.
But instead of your driver's license, the clerk or bar tender asks to see your bank statements or tax returns.  That's much more intrusive into personal finances and exposes you to identity theft and other risks. 
Why would the Government want to increase these risks for investors?  Identity theft occurs a lot more often than securities fraud.  So, Government seems to be struck in time warp fighting an old enemy while new enemies are creating bigger dangers.
Why is the Federal Government using SEC Rule 506 (c) to decide who is allowed to be a capitalist?  Are the benefits worth the risks and the inconveniences?
Many people the new Rule ostensibly seeks to protect don't want this protection.
The new verification requirement is already annoying many investors.  The Angel Capital Association announced a few days after the new rule was released that the new SEC rule could kill angel investing: http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/blog/new-sec-rules-could-kill-angel-investing/

We'll discuss the accredited investor verification process SEC Rule 506 (c) imposes at length below and why many investors oppose the new verification requirements.


Thursday, September 5, 2013

Does Filing Your Private Placement Tweets with the SEC make Sense? SEC Rule 506 (c)'s Advertising Torture Dungeon


By Jim Verdonik
I'm an attorney with Ward and Smith PA. I also write a column about business and law for American Business Journals, have authored multiple books and teach an eLearning course for entrepreneurs. You can reach me at JFV@WardandSmith.com or JimV@eLearnSuccess.com. Or you can check out my eLearning course at http://www.elearnsuccess.com/start.aspx?menuid=3075 or http://www.youtube.com/user/eLearnSuccessor or you can purchase my books at http://www.amazon.com/Jim-Verdonik/e/B0040GUBRW

Do you like movies about time travel?
You know the basic plot.
A character goes into the future or into the past and doesn't understand how anything works.
The SEC has been trapped in a Grade B time travel movie since the Internet arrived.  It keeps trying to squeeze a big free flowing Internet into the same old securities laws and rules.
People used to communicate with one another by sending a letter or calling one person on a telephone.  The SEC is having a difficult time adjusting to a more complex world of shared communications to multiple audiences the Internet created.
The SEC might not understand how the Internet changed the way we communicate and how to adapt capital raising laws to this new world.  But we have proof the SEC knows the Internet exists:
  • The SEC has a website. 
  • Public companies file their disclosure documents with the SEC over the Internet.
  • The SEC even permits you to deliver proxy statements and annual reports to shareholders over the Internet. 
But the SEC just doesn't understand why the Internet (and social media in particular) have changed how people think about and use communications.
That's why the SEC is proposing rules for selling securities in private placements that are very unfriendly to using the Internet generally, or social media in particular.
Does the SEC believe the Internet and social media are temporary?
Or does the SEC believe the Internet and social media can be locked in a corner by rules?
Here's another question:
Can you imagine a country that spends tens of billions of dollars every year to improve communications, but prohibits businesses from using that investment to raise the capital needed to grow the economy?
Let's explore how this crazy country decided that people can use the Internet to:
  • Watch mindless movies.
  • Buy porn.
  • Make snarky comments about how someone dresses.
But can't use the same tools to raise capital to create JOBS. 
Scope of this Article
In July 2013 the SEC made the biggest changes to private placement capital raising rules since the SEC issued Regulation D more than three decades ago by changing to Rule 506.
See the end of this article for links to other articles about these Rule 506 changes.
In this article, we'll talk about:
  • Why is the SEC finding it difficult to adapt securities laws to the Internet and social media?
  • How do you navigate through private placements while the SEC and state securities regulators go through a long process of adjusting to the modern world?
  • Why will the  SEC eventually give up?
If you are a parent, this time period might remind you of the "terrible twos."  Your goal is to survive while your child adapts to new realities.  During this process, focus on the fact that the SEC is just one of many organizations that are trying to adjust to media changes.  The adjustment period may be unpleasant, but it remains as inevitable as growing up.

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

How Will the SEC Know I'm Advertising in a Rule 506 (c) Private Placement?


By Jim Verdonik

I'm an attorney with Ward and Smith PA. I also write a column about business and law for American Business Journals, have authored multiple books and teach an eLearning course for entrepreneurs. You can reach me at JFV@WardandSmith.com or JimV@eLearnSuccess.com. Or you can check out my eLearning course at http://www.elearnsuccess.com/start.aspx?menuid=3075 or http://www.youtube.com/user/eLearnSuccessor or you can purchase my books at http://www.amazon.com/Jim-Verdonik/e/B0040GUBRW

When I counsel a client, I always get worried when I hear the words:  "How will they know?"
Sometimes these words are a signal that the client is willing to do anything to achieve their goals.  But in my long years counseling clients, I've found that people usually don't intend to commit a crime.  They often back into it without really being fully aware of what they are doing.  And it's usually pretty easy to convince them they are making a big mistake.
Often, they are just being naïve about how the world works.  The often rationalize about ways to escape a bad situation.  They are like a deer standing in the road harboring the illusion that your oncoming car won't hit them if they stand still long enough.  That works until your car crashes into the deer.  Sometimes you get hurt, but the deer is usually a bigger loser.
But what matters is that the client is at a dangerous cross road in their life.
It's up to me to convince them that they are better off not taking the risk of ending up like the deer in the road.
Here's a link to a video that tells how I did that with the CEO of a public company who was acting like a deer in the headlights.

Another common client complaint is:  "Everyone else is doing it, why can't I do it?"=
Every parent gets lots of practicing answering this question from their children.  Children are born with the notion that they should be able to do anything they see other people doing.  This probably has evolutionary benefits.  Maybe it’s the instinct that drives us to learn by mimicking others.  But it's also how we get ourselves into trouble.
Let's explore how these two common human traits can get you into trouble when you try to raise capital to grow your business.
Scope of this Article
In July 2013 the SEC made the biggest changes to private placement capital raising rules since the SEC issued Regulation more D than three decades ago.
More than 90% of private placements rely on SEC Rule 506.  These changes include prohibiting you from using Rule 506 if someone affiliated with your business or with your capital raising efforts has violated securities or other finance industry laws.  The SEC also added new Rule 506 (c), which allows you to raise capital in private placements by advertising or doing a general solicitation.  But new Rule 506 (c) requires you to verify accredited investor status of all buyers if advertise.
See the end of this article for links to other articles about these Rule 506 changes.
This article explores:
  • How will the SEC and state securities regulators will find out about your advertising?
  • Why is it dangerous to assume that what you see other people doing in their advertisements is legal?
  • What happens if you are caught advertising when you didn't comply with the Rule?
  • What happens if your advertising is misleading??