Category Archives: campaigns

We proudly invite you to 4th Annual Crowdfunding USA on May 4-5, 2017 National Press Club Washington, DC.

Crowdfund Beat Media Presents: 
 
The Important gathering will discuss what’s new on State of Investing and Risk Mitigation through evolving Internet finance space under the label “2017 the Year of 2.0 Equity & SME Finance-Online Lending or Investing- Crowdfunding “Jobs Act” under new congress & President Trump administration”

 See Conference website & Full Agenda Speakers 

 
For Promotional Opportunities, Group Discount, Sponsorship, and how to become a panelist call 1-888-580-6610 or email to info@crowdfundingusa.com

CF USA AGENDA’s  SNAPSHOT

SEC – FINRA – JOBS ACT – Early Investing
Family Offices – IRA Trust
Rules and Regulations Consideration
Rule 506(c) – Title II Tittle III REG D REG CF
Definition of accredited investor?
Liquidity for the private securities space
Redefining Securities Distribution through Crowdfunding

Real Estate Crowdfunding

Why Hot Real Estate CrowdFunding Is The Next  New Frontier?
Impact of crowdfunding on real estate finance and deal-making
Is Real Estate Crowdfunding Offers An Attractive Alternative For Secure Investments?
The Impact of Technology and Internet on Real Estate Crowdfunding

Trump to Lift Community Bank Regulations (and what that means for house flippers)

Shadow Banking
Dodd-Frank: A Republican Congress
will likely be looking for ways to scale back time and money on business regulation.
Real Estate Crowdfunding and Community Development

Pros & Cons of Internet finance and lending 

2017 State of CrowdFunding

Business of Crowdfunding & Reaching the Goal – How to Make It Happen

Multiple Faces of Crowdfunding on Equity

Future of EB-5 Business Finance & Crowdfunding
Disruption of Equity Crowdfunding on VC’s – Angel Investors
Is Online Lending & Fintech industry here to stay?

Exploring Title II
Why it dominates and will continue to dominate crowdfunding
What initiatives are being pursued to create secondary markets or other means
Effect of IPO window

Regulation A+ Mini IPO
Many of the Reg A deals got pulled this last year.
Is this offering type holding up to investor interest.
Need research on Reg CF, Reg A+ and other offerings.
How much was raised, and how have they performed.
Aftermarket performance of Reg A+ deals

After hours Networking 

Round table discussion

 

The Battle to Launch a Next-Generation Retirement Product & Control $14 Trillion in Investment Direction

By Dara Albright,CrowdFunding Beat Guest Editor, FinTechREVOLUTION.tv  , Dara Albright Media,

In the Fall of 2016, I penned an article entitled, “Modernizing the Self-direct IRA – The Trillion Dollar FinTech Opportunity” – the first in a new series of articles that focuses on next-generation retirement planning. The piece underscored how FinTech will mend America’s flawed retirement system and foster the growth of “digital” investing.

Retire1

This initial report drew attention to the growing necessity for a low-cost, high speed, autonomous retirement solution that would meet the demands of today’s alternative micro-investor. Most significantly, the piece summarized the two distinct individual retirement account prototypes – the Brokerage IRA and the Trust Company IRA – which are vying to become the self-directed IRA exemplar and dominate the $14 trillion retail retirement market.

Sometimes I feel like I am the only one sensing a war brewing in the retail retirement market. But then again, I am somewhat clairvoyant.

Perhaps the majority of America’s retail investors are too busy reluctantly allocating their retirement dollars to sanctioned bond funds – many of which yield more clout than performance – to even notice the race to create a next-generation retail retirement product that will economically custody coveted micro-sized alternative investment products and, in doing so, ensure that a greater number of Americans maintain more properly diversified retirement portfolios.

Maybe most old-school financial professionals are just too preoccupied chasing the “whale” to realize the imminent colossal impact of the rising micro-alternative investor.

No matter the rationale, the fact is that this battle to produce a next-generation retail retirement vehicle is likely to go down as the largest industry duel in the history of commerce – dwarfing the cola and software wars by trillions.

The victorious retirement product stands to inherit the power to redirect $14 trillion dollars of mutual fund assets and disrupt long-standing retirement asset monopolies – thus paving the way for a superior breed of investment products to emerge (download: http://www.slideshare.net/smox2011/the-trillion-dollar-fintech-opportunity).

Unlike previous corporate clashes, the winning IRA model is easy to predict. The frontrunner will be the one possessing the most optimum technological and regulatory framework to accommodate the needs of the modern retail investor. Today’s retail investor is not looking for another mutual fund. He is not begging for ETFs. Nor is he interested in day-trading stocks. Instead, he is craving yield, and he is demanding access to the same level of returns that institutions have been enjoying for years through alternative asset diversification. Simply put, modern investors are looking for a self-directed retirement vehicle that enables them to readily, easily and affordably spread tiny increments of retirement capital across a broad range of asset classes.

Except for the possibility of a sudden legislative change, hands down, the trust company based model will emerge as the clear victor. The Brokerage IRA is bound by too many compliance constraints to enable it to efficiently and cost-effectively facilitate micro investments into alternative asset classes such as P2P notes or crowdfinanced offerings.

The Trust Company IRA, by contrast, operates under a much more favorable regulatory scheme, and any technological shortcomings are presently being addressed and conquered (see: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ira-services-launches-p2p-lendings-first-cloud-based-api-driven-retirement-investment-solution-at-lendit-2016-300247413.html).

Because it is faster and easier to overcome a technological deficiency than it is to amend regulations, the Trust Company IRA will continue to amass a significant advantage. This is especially true as technology becomes less and less of a commodity and the political climate becomes more and more contentious

There are simply too many compliance-related obstacles that FINRA-regulated BDs would need to surmount in order to formidably compete with the trust company based model. Perhaps one of the most pressing is the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule which is scheduled to take effect in April.

Under the new DOL rule – which expands the definition of a fiduciary to include commission-based brokers – brokerage firms that handle retail retirement accounts will find themselves facing additional and unwelcomed liability.

In the wake of the DOL rule, retail brokerages have already been seen scrambling to adjust their existing retail retirement product lines. Merrill Lynch has announced that it will be closing its commission-based retirement business altogether, and Edward Jones pronounced that it will simply stop offering mutual funds and ETFs as options in commission-based retirement accounts.

Yes, you read that correctly. Retail brokerages would prefer to limit access to investment products or exit the retail retirement business altogether than to deal with the regulatory headaches of helping small investors prepare for retirement.

Instead of being able to access “prepackaged” diversified investment products, Edward Jones’ retail clientele will either have to self-diversify across stocks, bonds, annuities and CDs, or move to a managed account that charges an asset-based management fee. Since the typical retail investor’s account is too small to properly self-diversify using individual investment products such as stocks and bonds, and since asset-based management fees tend to be much more expensive than one-time commissions, once again retail investors are getting the shaft.

According to CEI finance expert John Berlau, “The DOL fiduciary rule will restrict access to financial advice and reduce choices for lower and middle-income savers. The restrictions can deter companies from serving middle-class savers, creating a “guidance gap” that could cost an estimated $80 billion in lost savings.”

As the DOL Fiduciary Rule succeeds in eliminating both financial advisors and investment choices from the traditional retirement planning equation, smaller investors will be forced into taking a more autonomous stance to retirement prep – leading to a seismic shift in both retail assets and retirement vehicles.

This will have widespread implications on the financial services industry that will include a mass exodus from brokerage IRAs into Trust Company IRAs as well as a flock to robo-advisors, marketplace finance and well as P2P and digital investing – a trend in retail investing that is already well underway.

As the battle for the retail retirement account unfolds, I am going to be reveling in the irony of how once again needless regulatory oversight is helping fuel the FinTech revolution.

Originally published on Dara Albright Media.

hqdefault

Dara Albright – President of Dara Albright Media, Co-founded the FinFair ConferenceFinTechREVOLUTION.tv

Recognized authority, thought provoker and frequent speaker on topics relating to market structure, private secondary transactions and crowdfinance. Welcome to my new personal blog where you can glean unique insight into the rapid transformation of global capital markets.

 

Crowdfunding- The Good, The Bad & The (really) Ugly

By Shane Liddell is the CEO and chief Crowdfundologist at Smart Crowdfunding LLC,. Crowdfund Beat Guest post,

Part 3 –The (really) Ugly

Introduction

In Part 1 I covered all of the good things that we have seen as crowdfunding continuously gathers momentum across the world. The future looks bright indeed!

In Part 2 I wrote of changes within the industry, especially within rewards based crowdfunding – the competition which makes it so much harder for the small guys and the Indiegogo platform now giving preferential treatment to corporates, allowing them “…to pay for special placement on Indiegogo’s site, making them more discoverable than other campaigns”. I also explained that although campaign creators are often labelled as scammers when they fail to deliver on their promises, in many cases this is not true at all.

Here in Part 3, we delve into the dark world of extortion, blackmail and a whole host of other not so nice behavior. I’ll cover some real scams where the campaign creator’s intention from the very beginning was to steal people’s money, in some cases, with the crowdfunding platforms help too!

Part 3-The (REALLY) UGLY

Extortion and Blackmail

Ethan Hunt – Micro Phone

During our very early days of offering crowdfunding campaign marketing services, we were engaged by a Mr. Ethan Hunt who had just launched his Micro Phone campaign on the Indiegogo platform. Ethan and I shared a few phone calls as his campaign began to gather momentum and I specifically remember being on a call with him one day, while the money was rolling in, and each refresh of his campaign page showed more and more backers claiming the rewards on offer. Times were good and there was an element of excitement in his voice (and mine too). Who wouldn’t be excited to see such fantastic traction?

Around 4 weeks later, with almost $50,000 raised, Ethan reached out to me to say he’d been contacted by a guy named Michael Gabrill who claimed that he had some negative information about Ethan and that if he did not pay him $10,000 he would release this information to the public through various media channels. Ethan forwarded me the email communications so I could see for myself.

Low and behold, there it was in black and white.

My advice to Ethan at the time was to just ignore this guy, as I was sure that Gabrill was just a typical opportunist money grabber and was probably seeking attention too. Ethan wrote back to him, refusing to pay a single cent but what happened next surprised us both – Garbrill began contacting various media including Pando and even went so far as to create a webpage slandering Ethan and his Micro Phone project.

The story continued and in Ethan’s own words at the time:

“Did Michael Gabrill attempt to extort money from us? Yes, he did, this is fact he has admitted to doing it here and on one of the many webpages he has set up in an attempt to cover his actions and his motives, claiming it was a test to see if we would incriminate ourselves. Incriminate us for what? Running a successful and legitimate campaign? Or refusing to pay him money not to do what he has done, something he threaten(ed) to do if we did not pay him.

What did Michael Gabrill do exactly? Well, he approached me the day after our campaign reached 100% funding which means in laymans terms when our campaign had received enough contributions for our campaign to be successful and for us to receive payment of the funds at the end of the campaign.

It took more than 30 days to reach our goal and our campaign to be fully funded. During this time, Michael Gabrill sat back and waited until there was enough motivation for us as campaign owners to if he could build enough fear of loss by the thought of him getting our campaign closed down to pay him money for his silence.

Why if Michael Gabrill if he really believed the campaign was fraudulent did he not immediately report it? Simple up until the campaign is 100% there would be no motivation for campaign owners to pay him a penny. This was never about him believing there was an issue with the campaign it was about his motivation to gain financially from a successful campaign. Something, we are sure he has done many times before.

Why do we think he has done this before? He waited until we were 100% funded, he claimed he could shut us down, he claimed that we had no intention of delivering anything to contributors and were going to steal their money and he wanted his cut or he was going to have us arrested for fraud.

Michael Gabrill’s only motivation was money, he sent me a link to his first webpage and told me if we paid him it would not go up. That webpage included photos of myself, details Michael Gabrill had obtained from my eBay account (which could only have been accessed by an eBay employee) and he claimed I was a creep or in Australian terms a sex offender. When I refused to pay him and reported him, he had the webpage active in less than 10 minutes. Only an extortionist would have a pre built webpage ready to go to force his victims into paying him to remove it.

Is our campaign is legitimate? Yes it is, we have registered businesses in Hong Kong and Australia, neither Mike or I have ever been investigated for fraud and we have both been successfully running business in Australia, Hong Kong and China for more than 25 years.”

To end the story, Ethan initiated legal action and managed to have all the slandering webpages created by Gabrill removed and received a public apology from the man himself too. In turn, Indiegogo went on to ban Gabrill completely from their platform.

This turned into a very time consuming and costly endeavor for Ethan but unfortunately, there are many Gabrills lurking in the shadows and waiting to pounce.

 

Bob Rohner – RG Energy

Bob signed up with us a few months after Ethan but his story is a different one in that his crowdfunding campaign didn’t really do too well at all. We tried our best but the ‘crowd’ seemed to think that what Bob was attempting to do was nigh impossible.

However, during the third week of his campaign. Bob received an email from someone claiming to be the owner of RG Energy, a company based in Ohio. Bob’s business was registered in Iowa. They emailed Bob stating that because they were using their RG Energy’s company name, he would have to pay $10,000 (yes, coincidently the same amount as Ethan was asked for) in license or royalty fees. What??

After a little research, it turned out that this goon had registered a company by the same name in Ohio AFTER Bob had launched his crowdfunding campaign thinking he could get money out of him by playing this little game. This led Bob to get his legal team involved and the problem swiftly went away.

 

The Scammers – Very few real ones but they are out there!
Intentional scams are very rare. During my time in the industry I have seen no more than 3 or 4 which were clearly scams from the very beginning.
Many labelled as scams today are situations whereby the people involved set out with good intentions, only to find out that what they are attempting to do is either impossible or far costlier than they expected. Crowdfunding campaign first, homework afterwards rarely works.
Julien (Courteville) Buschor – Launching Multiple campaigns helped him steal almost $400,000

During July 2015, a campaign on the Indiegogo platform called Smart Tracker 2 (ST2) caught my attention for the simple reason that it had raised over $20,000 within the first 24 hours. Normally, campaigns that gain this kind of traction so quickly have done their homework and are fully prepared with social media assets before launch. In most cases, they have a substantial number of social media followers. However, when I looked at the Smart Tracker accounts I saw that they barely had any followers at all. In fact, at the time, their Facebook page showed only 149 ‘likes’ and their Twitter account a measly 19 followers. Maybe they’d done a fantastic job of building a targeted email database before launch, was a thought at the time. My suspicions were aroused though which lead me to delve a little deeper.

I returned to the ST2 campaign page and began to scroll through their backer list. As I scrolled down to the very first backer, and began searching through the list of names, low and behold, I began to see some of the same names appear as backer’s multiple times and eventually realized that 7 or more user accounts had contributed to the campaign many times over – a clear sign of self-funding taking place. This raised alarm bells and prompted further investigation.

What I discovered was a first for me. A look at the user account profile that created this this ST2 campaign showed that this was the 4th campaign launched since the beginning of the year by the very same person – Julien Scherer (whose real name turned out to be Julien Buschor) and now it was only July? Ding..ding..ding. The alarm bells grew louder!

Upon further investigation I discovered that Mr Buschor first launched a campaign called Last Crime in January 2015 raising over $7,000 and claiming:

“Last Crime was made with cutting edge technology that can easily analyze data, provide facial recognition, perform phone and email scanning and much more”

A month later yet another campaign had launched by the name of Innovative Swiss Teeth Whitening Machine raising over $ 60,000 and with a tagline of “Swiss White Teeth, the most advanced swiss teeth whitening light with color screen and USB interface

A few short weeks later the Smart Tracker campaign launched and managed to raise just over $18,000. And finally, the ST2 campaign as initially mentioned above.

The answer to the question – How had the Smart Tracker 2 campaign managed to raise over $20,000 so quickly? –  was now fairly obvious as it was clear that Mr Buschor had rolled funds from his other campaigns into this new one.

Armed with this information, we reached out to Mr Buschor using a private email address and began a lengthy exchange of emails over the following few days. Initially he was panicked and changed user names on the campaigns listed above and sometimes became aggressive in his defense, but he did begin to accept that we knew his game. We threatened to report his campaign to Indiegogo and eventually, he did confirm that he had self-funded the ST2 campaign and his defense was made with a claim of “I’ve done nothing wrong as it’s legal so Indiegogo won’t cancel our campaign”

Mr Buschor self-funded his ST2 campaign to the tune of over $20,000, using money collected from previous campaigns to create a sense of popularity in the eyes of the public. No doubt in my mind that we were seeing a real con man in action!

As my marketing agency, Smart Crowdfunding is listed as a ‘Partner’ on Indiegogo itself, I reached out directly to their Trust and Safety division armed with all of the evidence needed to show that Mr Buschor had been scamming the public. I was certain they would listen, or at least reach out to me for more details. Nope. I received a canned email response saying very little except that they would investigate the matter. Did I hear back from them after this? Nope.

Of even more concern was that the ST2 campaign continued and on July 12th was promoted through the Indiegogo newsletter to a huge database of millions of people. Funding continued to ramp up and eventually the campaign raised more than $300,000.

Was it really a scam you may ask? Absolutely! The comments page on the ST2 campaign tells the whole shameful story!

As for Mr Buschor, he was resident in Switzerland and made local news for all of the wrong reasons as seen HERE

 

BioRing- The Amazing Ring That Made $460,000 Disappear

Now, this one had scam written all over it from the very beginning. However, even some notable Crowdfunding Marketing agencies were taken for a ride in the process too.

During mid-January 2016, we (Smart Crowdfunding) received an email inquiry from a Daniel Johnson asking about our services. After a few back and forth emails with our team, this lead to a Skype call booked for the 20th January. For some reason, they had to reschedule and we rebooked a time for 9am on 27th January, this time with a James Lee.

The call went ahead as planned, and James told me all about BioRing and that they were going to launch a crowdfunding campaign to raise the funds to manufacture the product and get it out there into the market. I explained our campaign development and marketing process, and the need to build an audience prior to launching. James asked if we would work on a percentage only basis to which I replied “No” and then went on to explain that without any validation testing we do not know if his product is a good fit for crowdfunding. Upon concluding the call I did say that I would email through our fee structure and the call ended.

My thoughts at the time were that what they were trying to do was nearly impossible, so a few days later I emailed again stating that after careful consideration I could not help them as I felt their product was impossible to develop.

We did not hear from either Daniel or James again.

The BioRing campaign eventually launched in June 2016 and did rack up over $700,000 in funding.

Fortunately, at least some of the backers were refunded, as Indiegogo did not release any of the InDemand money to the campaign owners. The total amount ‘stolen’ is now showing at $424,664 as of today’s date.

Now, that’s a lot of money and has, in effect, added to a community of backers claiming to never back another Indiegogo campaign again as can be clearly seen on the comments section of the BioRing campaign page. There are many other campaigns with such negative comments.

These disgruntled backers have a right to be pissed and there are hundreds of thousands of them who have supported other campaigns that are disgusted with the treatment they receive from Indiegogo themselves.

You can read more about this scam in this excellent investigative article from Sara Morrison here

The ironic thing with BioRing is that the marketing agencies involved – Funded Today (FT), Herscu and Goldsilver (H&G) and Command Partners (CP) – were up in arms when they didn’t get paid after the campaign concluded, having raised over $700,000. It surprises me that none of them thought that this campaign was nothing but a scam from the very beginning, considering FT were taking a 25% cut of funds raised, H&G a 10% cut and I assume CP a minimum 10%….so, a minimum of 45% off the top! Add to this the 5% Indiegogo platform fee and payment processing fees of around 3.5% meaning that BioRing were giving away more than 50% of the backer’s money!

A screenshot of the BioRing campaign team captured prior to the campaign been flagged as fraudulent. Since then all associated team members removed themselves from the campaign, most likely out of embarrassment. 


2017 Real Estate Crowdfunding Sites

Alphabetically

CrowdFundBeat Media, Copyright © All Rights Reserved

Report: Real Estate Crowdfunding Set to Be $5.5 Billion Industry in 2017

Also:  CrowdFunding Lists, Data, Analytics, Research, Statistics, Reports, Infographic

Crowdfund Beat Media, “2020 Prospect Report”the leading research and advisory and firm specializing in  crowdfunding solutions for private, public and social enterprises, has announced the release of its comprehensive 2017 CF-RE Crowdfunding for Real Estate report, which will provide the first ever detailed look at the intersection of real estate and crowdfunding. The 120-page report features data on the exponential growth of real estate crowdfunding, the emergence of specialized real estate crowdfunding platforms and how this revolutionary new method of real estate finance and investment is disrupting this asset class.

Interesting to note that some platforms are purely providing additive capital to sponsored deals, earning a fee for intermedition, while some are a bit more compensatory, with the inclusion of management fees and a carried interest. As of now, all are focused on accredited investors, though one has included DPOs in their mix. Here is the lists:

2017 Real Estate Crowdfunding Sites. Alphabetically

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not in the list? News@crowdfundbeat.com

CrowdFundBeat Media Copyright © All Rights Reserved

2017 Crowdfunding Persons of the Year

 

unnamed-7
Sherwood Neiss, Jason Best. Principals Crowdfund Capital Advisors, LLC

Each year, Crowdfund Beat Media Group assesses the landscape of the crowdfunding industry to identify thought leaders and individuals significantly impacting the evolution of digital finance.   To culminate this search, the Group selects a Crowdfunding Person of the Year, whom it believes has made an indelible mark to advance adoption and growth of the crowdfunding effort.  With Title III of the JOBS ACT, effectively Regulation CF, went live past May, we have identified two individuals that have been working tirelessly and successfully in making crowdfunding a reality, and feel honored to recognize them as 2017 Crowdfunding Persons of the Year.

Jason Best and Sherwood “Woodie” Neiss are Principals at Crowdfund Capital Advisors, where they have advised government agencies, NGOs and global leaders on the merits of crowdfunding and its impact on entrepreneurial activity.   Prior to the expanse of their travels and relationships, including with the World Bank and InterAmerican Development Bank, they initiated Startup Exemption, with Zak Cassady-Dorion, which laid the foundation of the legislative framework that evolved into Title III.

2017-personoftheyear1

 

It is due to these past and ongoing contributions that Crowdfund Beat Media feels compelled and honored to award Woody and Jason 2017 Crowdfunding Persons of the Year.

By Jorge Sanchez, Crowdfund Beat Guest Editor,

Innovation and entrepreneurial activity is driven by entrepreneurs, their ideas, actions, and the relationships formed in the marketplace. While this has been the case for economic growth, the primary funding mechanism we have had in place is not a natural extension of these business processes. We have had a large proportion of the entrepreneurial class being underserved by the capital needed to fund or grow their ventures. This was because the current legal landscape prohibited it.  However, today if a tech startup or business needs capital they have modern technology at their disposal that enables them to leverage their social networks in order to fund their startup or grow their businesses.

As a result of the Great Depression, regulatory actions were taken that imposed limits on where entrepreneurs can seek funding. Fueled by fear and desperation, the risks and power of investing in our nation’s business opportunities were removed from the public and placed in the hands of banks and wealthy investors. Because most people did not have access to these investors, small business, and startup financing became a function of bankers and collateral, not innovation and market demands.

Fortunately, this flaw in our funding landscape has been mended. Through the actions of a few ambitious and determined men, decades-old financial regulation have been amended to reflect modern capabilities and economic reality. Today, markets don’t just function to determine which businesses survive, but also which businesses are born.

img_1681
Niess, Zak Cassady, Best

Sherwood “Woodie” Neiss, Jason Best, and Zak Cassady-Dorion are not politicians, they are not lobbyist, nor are they D.C. insiders. The men behind, perhaps the most important policy change of our lifetimes, are entrepreneurs. The three Thunderbirds are businessmen with experiences that awarded them with intimate knowledge about the needs of startups and the pains of raising capital. They did not just embark on a political journey, they instead created The Startup Exemption and to tackled head on the problem, making regulatory change. Their historic campaign lasted just 460 days, culminating in the framework that was adopted and signed into law by president Obama in April 2012.

The journey began with a problem that had been widely acknowledged, but was never addressed. The impact the group has and will continue to have is the direct result of their development of a solution with the collaboration of stakeholders and early thought-leaders like Kevin Lawton, Danae Ringelmann, and Steve Cinelli in the form of a framework that would later go on to become a part of the JOBS Act

In the halls of congress, the trio of entrepreneurs were an anomaly and there was doubt and pessimism that the group could accomplish their task at all, especially not with the absence of a large war chest and an army of lawyers. But perhaps that is exactly why the political neophytes were able to accomplish their lofty goal in a year and a half, instead of the five to ten policy experts predicted.

Those on The Hill turned out to be people that understood technology and how to leverage it, not the technological laggards that policy makers are commonly portrayed as. The group also discovered that they had tapped into a problem with universal support. During a time with an alarming unemployment rate, flat GDP growth, and a slowdown in the flow of cash from banks to small businesses, D.C. lawmakers were happy to be met with a solution for the biggest problem facing the nation.

img_3344
Sherwood Neiss, Karen Kerrigan , Jason Best, Douglas Ellenoff on May 16th, 2016 Capitol Hill in DC

In May 2016, Regulation Crowdfunding of the JOBS Act went live and the startup exemption become law. Over half a year later, we have seen a steady and methodical adaptation of the innovation. Jason and Sherwood are now principals at Crowdfund Capital Advisors (CCA), where they advise governmental leaders and stakeholders, like the SEC and the World Bank, on how to draft and implement crowdfunding in order to ignite job creation from the grassroots level.

When asked about the adoption of the regulation so far, the pair expressed optimism and satisfaction. They see success by how it is being embraced by the industry, thoughtfully and with care to ensure the integrity of the law is upheld and the balance of investor’s and entrepreneur’s needs and concerns are maintained. The crowdfunding community looks to amend the laws to further strengthen the fit between the needs of the entrepreneur and the laws regulating them.

Amendments to the original rules are coming to a boiling point. The Fix Crowdfunding act, proselytized by many within the crowdfunding world, aims to make the exemption more friendly and appealing to issuers by raising the limits on funds that can be raised, enabling the use of special purpose vehicles, and removing liabilities away from portals for the issuers who use their services. While any changes to the regulation are being carefully scrutinized to ensure adequate investor protection, Sherwood believes the regulatory bodies are motivated to support job growth by empowering entrepreneurs with access to capital. They will do so with the data and case studies that have been collected since the first iteration of the law went live in May 2016.

Jason and Sherwood’s outlook crowdfunding is bright, they see a thriving asset class which creates a new path to capital for underserved entrepreneurs who collectively make up the largest non government source of employment.

It is for these efforts and their continued commitment to the progression of Crowdfunding, that Sherwood Neiss and Jason Best are being honored as the 2017 Crowdfunding Person of the Year.

 

photo

 

 

 

 

Crowdfunding- The Good, The Bad & The (really) Ugly

By Shane Liddell is the CEO and chief Crowdfundologist , CrowdfundBeat guest post.

eli-wallach-with-clint-ea-011

 

 

Introduction

Crowdfunding is by definition, “the practice of funding a project or venture by raising many small amounts of money from a large number of people, typically via the Internet.” The earliest recorded use of the word was by Michael Sullivan in Fundavlog during August 2006. The term crowdfunding was used for the first time in the year 2006 when Michael Sullivan launched Fundavlog. This, however, was a failed attempt to fund events and projects related to a video blog.

With the signing of the JOBS Act on April 5th 2012, the word of the day became “crowdfunding” and publicity from this historic event generated interest from all corners of the world and helped push crowdfunding into mainstream news.

The first instance of online crowdfunding took place during 1997, when fans funded the entire U.S. tour for the British rock group Marillion, raising just over US$60,000 in donations through a fan-based Internet campaign.

If the crowd and the web are considered to be two essential elements of crowdfunding, its very first examples came into being in the 1990s with the emergence of platforms for charity fundraising and projects funded by Internet-based campaigns. The UK-based charity fundraising platform JustGiving was founded in the year 2000.

The modern crowdfunding model is generally based on three types of actors: the project creator who proposes the idea or project to be funded, individuals or groups who support the idea, and a platform that brings the parties together and facilitates the transactions.

Part 1-The Good

The crowdfunding industry is doubling or more every year, and is spread across several types of funding models including rewards, donation, equity, and debt/lending.

Just five years ago there was a relatively small market of early adopters within online crowdfunding, helping raise $880 million during 2010. Things changed fast with $6.1 billion raised in 2013, $16.2 billion in 2014, and a whopping $34.4 billion in funds raised during 2015. In comparison, the Venture Capital industry invests an average of $30 billion each year. By 2016 the crowdfunding industry is on track to account for more funding than venture capital, according to a 2015 report by Massolution.

 

The highest reported funding by a crowdfunded project to date is Star Citizen, an online space trading and combat video game being developed by Chris Roberts and Cloud Imperium Games, which – as of 21 November 2016 – claims to have raised over $133,000,000 USD using a combination of crowdfunding platforms including its own.

One of the most influential factors behind the rapid growth of crowdfunding over the past 10 years was due to the global recession of the late 2000’s and early 2010’s. This highly turbulent time saw many small and established businesses struggling to survive.  Crowdfunding saved some of these businesses from crumbling into nonexistence by facilitating the raising of much needed capital. Traditional sources of funding – bank loans, overdrafts, credit cards – were all but drying up as the financial industry strained under the immense pressure the recession brought, with several household brand names suddenly put out of business too!

There are many success stories around, some of which I have personally been involved in helping reach way beyond their initial funding goals. FOBO TIRE, the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) managed to raise a total of $186,105 USD through their Indiegogo campaign back in 2014 but then went on to even greater things. Their products entry into retail happened through UK retailer Maplin and since then they have picked up a few awards along the way too.

Just last week, Phazon CEO, Chris Houle was chosen to appear on the CBC show Dragons Den, securing a great deal from the Dragons. His Indiegogo campaign, having raised over $2M earlier this year.

Many have heard of the highly successful Occulus Rift Kickstarter campaign launched during Q3 of 2012, raising a total of $2,437,429 and with Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook announcing the purchase of the company for a huge $2B USD on March 25th, 2014

There are many other similar successes out there including the renowned Pebble Watch who managed to raise a total of over $30M through 2 crowdfunding campaigns on the Kickstarter platform.
Conclusion

Startups rarely survive without funding and crowdfunding has enabled entrepreneurs to bring their ideas to the crowd for validation, and through engagement with potential customers, gain valuable feedback too.

Crowdfunding is here to stay!

Look out for Part 2 – The Bad, where I delve into the aspects of crowdfunding that are rarely spoken of, including the use of the dreaded word “scampaigns”.

About The Author

Shane Liddell is the CEO and chief Crowdfundologist at Smart Crowdfunding LLC, the crowdfunding marketing agency. He became active within the crowdfunding industry early in 2012, seizing the opportunity to offer help to crowdfunders from all corners of the world. He has delivered successful campaigns for entrepreneurs, startups, corporations and filmmakers and has assisted over 500 crowdfunders with campaign development, consulting, marketing and promotion services, some of which have raised millions of dollars in the process. He has attended numerous equity crowdfunding industry events, including the SEC Small Business Forum and the CfPA Summit in Washington DC. Shane holds the position of Executive Director of the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA)

SEC Makes Intrastate Crowdfunding A Little Easier

By Mark Roderick CrowdFunding Beat  Sr. contributing editor and crowdfunding attorney with Flaster/Greenberg PC.aaeaaqaaaaaaaaf7aaaajdm2zwu1ywjmlwe2zjgtndljns04mtu3ltzmnza4mde3m2y4ma

The SEC just adopted rules that should make intrastate Crowdfunding easier, at least if State legislatures do their part.

To understand how the new rules help and how they don’t, start with section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act of 1933, which has been, until now, the basis for all intrastate Crowdfunding laws. While section 5 of the Securities Act generally provides that all sales of securities must be registered with the SEC, section 3(a)(11) provides for an exemption for:

Any security which is a part of an issue offered and sold only to persons resident within a single State or Territory, where the issuer of such security is a person resident and doing business within or, if a corporation, incorporated by and doing business within, such State or Territory.

In 1974 the SEC adopted Rule 147, implementing section 3(a)(11). That was long before the Internet, and as state legislatures have enthusiastically adopted intrastate Crowdfunding laws since the JOBS Act of 2012, some aspects of Rule 147 have proven problematic. The rules just adopted by the SEC fix some of the problems of Rule 147:

  • In its original form, Rule 147 required that offers could be made only to residents of the state in question. The revised Rule 147 says it’s okay as long as the issuer has a “reasonable belief” that offers are made only to residents.
  • In its original form, Rule 147 required issuers to satisfy a multi-part test to show they were “doing business” in the state. Under the revised Rule 147, an issuer will be treated as “doing business” if it satisfies any one of several alternative tests.
  • The revised Rule 147 provides safe harbors to ensure that the intrastate offering is not “integrated” with other offerings.
  • In its original form, Rule 147 provided that securities purchased in the intrastate offering could not be sold except in the state where they were purchased for nine months following the end of the offering. The revised Rule 147 provides, instead, that securities purchased in the intrastate offering may not be sold except in the state where they were purchased, for a period of six months (not six months from the end of the offering).

Those are all good changes. But the SEC didn’t stop there. In addition to changing Rule 147 for the better, the SEC has adopted a brand new Rule 147A. Rule 147A more or less begins where Rule 147 leaves off and adds the following helpful provisions:

  • Most significantly, offers under Rule 147A may be made to anyone. That means the issuer may use general soliciting and advertising – and the Internet in particular – to broadcast its offering to the whole world. Purchasers – the investors who buy the securities – must still be residents of the state, but offers may be made to anybody.
  • The issuer doesn’t have to be incorporated in the state, as long as it has its “principal place of business” there – defined as the state “in which the officers, partners or managers of the issuer primarily direct, control and coordinate the activities of the issuer.” Thus, a Delaware limited liability company could conduct an intrastate “offering in Indiana, as long as all the officers and managers live and work in Indiana.

Why did the SEC bother to create a whole new Rule 147A to add these provisions, rather than just adding them to Rule 147?

The answer is that Rule 147 is an implementation of section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act, and if you look at section 3(a)(11) you’ll see that the additional provisions in Rule 147A – allowing offers to everybody, allowing a non-resident issuer – are prohibited by the statutory language. To add these provisions, the SEC had no choice but to create a new Rule 147A that is entirely independent of section 3(a)(11).

And there’s the rub. Many of the existing intrastate Crowdfunding laws require the issuer to comply with Rule 147 and section 3(a)(11). Texas, for example, says:

Securities offered in reliance on the exemption provided by this section [the Texas intrastate Crowdfunding rule] must also meet the requirements of the federal exemption for intrastate offerings in the Securities Act of 1933, §3(a)(11), 15 U.S.C. §77c(a)(11), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 147, 17 CFR §230.147.

This means that issuers in Texas will not be allowed to conduct an offering under the more liberal provisions of Rule 147A until the Texas State Securities Board changes that sentence to read:

Securities offered in reliance on the exemption provided by this section must also meet the requirements of the federal exemption for intrastate offerings in the Securities Act of 1933, §3(a)(11), 15 U.S.C. §77c(a)(11), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 147, 17 CFR §230.147, or, alternatively, the requirements of the federal exemption for intrastate offerings in Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 147A, 17 CFR §230.147A.

To those who have spent the last three years pushing intrastate Crowdfunding laws through state legislatures, it might look as if the boulder has rolled back down the hill. But there might also be a silver lining. Almost all the state rules were adopted before Title III became final, and almost all include very modest offering limits. Now that Title III is working as promised, Rule 147A might present an opportunity for legislatures not just to take advantage of the more liberal provisions, but also to raise offering limits and make other adjustments, seeking to make their state rules more competitive with the Federal Title III rules.

In the big picture, the SEC has once again proven itself a fan of Crowdfunding. And that’s good.

Questions? Let me know.

Mark Roderick is one of the leading Crowdfunding lawyers in the United States. He represents platforms, portals, issuers, and others throughout the industry. For more information on Crowdfunding, including news, updates and links to important information pertaining to the JOBS Act and how Crowdfunding may affect your business, follow Mark’s blog, or his twitter handle: @CrowdfundAttny. He can also be reached at 856.661.2265 or mark.roderick@flastergreenberg.com.

On the SEC’s New Intrastate Crowdfunding Rules and the Nanny State

By Samuel S. Guzik, CrowdFundBeat special guest editor,  Guzik & Associate

On October 26, 2016, the SEC’s three Commissioners convened at their headquarters to adopt new rules intended to modernize what had historically been a little used path of raising capital for startups, early stage businesses and community-based enterprises: the so called intrastate exemption. It had its origins in our federal securities regulation legislation adopted back in 1933, which required the federal registration of the sale of securities in the U.S.  absent an exemption from registration.

sec-meeting-commission-white-piwowar-stein


In 1933 Congress, in its wisdom, carved out from the registration requirement those offerings that were purely local in character, where offers and sales were made by local businesses within their state borders.  This area it left to regulation by the states – on a state by state basis – with each state left to decide for itself how best to balance the need to protect its investing public with the ability of local businesses to access capital.

And to facilitate the utilization of this exemption from registration the Commission enacted Rule 147, intended to be a non-exclusive safe harbor to facilitate compliance with the federal exemption.

Over the years it became more and more apparent that both the exemption itself and the Rule were flawed – hence its use languished – in favor of other more manageable exemptions from federal registration.   Its use was generally shunned by securities lawyers, as it was too easy to fall out of compliance with its requirements.

And time was not kind to the intrastate exemption. If your business was a corporation, the statutory exemption was limited to corporations incorporated in the state where the offering occurred, thus excluding local businesses who might elect to incorporate in out of state jurisdictions.   And with the onset of the Internet in the 1990’s the Commission struggled with how to address offers by a local business on the internet which by their very nature would cross state borders.  This struggle came to a head in 2014, when the SEC Staff issued an informal interpretation, a “CDI” (compliance and disclosure interpretation), opining that unrestricted Internet solicitation and advertising of an offering was taboo for an offering relying on the intrastate exemption.  This effectively put a damper on local investment crowdfunded offerings in the dozens of states that had adopted, or were to adopt, intrastate crowdfunding statutes relying on the intrastate exemption.

keith-higgins-corpfin-sec

The 2014 CDI was greeted with a growing chorus of mystified securities lawyers, state securities regulators and small business advocates.  At a time when the SEC was dragging its feet to adopt regulations to implement interstate (nationwide) investment crowdfunding,  it had in effect shut off many states from enacting local crowdfunding statutes which would enable SME’s to leverage the Internet in local investment crowdfunding campaigns.

Invest Today Billboard AdvertisementIn 2015 the Staff at the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance took the bull by the horns, recommending that the Commission adopt new rules to modernize and expand the federal intrastate crowdfunding exemption. On October 30, 2015, the same day that the Commission adopted the long-awaited final rules implementing JOBS Act Title III crowdfunding, it came with its own October surprise: proposed rules to update and expand the intrastate exemption – notably, allowing unrestricted Internet advertising of an offering.

One year later, on October 26, 2016, the Commission adopted final intrastate crowdfunding rules, much improved from the proposed rules. Gone in the final rules, among other things, was a provision which would have prohibited state legislatures and state securities regulators from authorizing local investment crowdfunded offerings in excess of $5 million per year.  Though no state has yet to authorize crowdfunded offerings above this amount, virtually all of those who commented on the propose rules were unanimous: this was a matter best left to the discretion of each state – not the federal government.  And in the UK, where investment crowdfunding has flourished, the $5 million dollar ceiling has been broken and is expected to go higher.

Though the vote by the Commissioners on the final rules was unanimous, not so with the sentiment of the Commissioners.  In Commissioner Kara M. Stein’s public remarks on the final rules, she was not shy about expressing reservations about the ability of the individual states to protect their local residents from questionable offerings and bad actors, cautioning of the need for continuing federal oversight:kara-stein-sec-intrastate

“Today’s rules amend Rule 147, and create a new federal offering exemption known as Rule 147A.  Hopefully, the updated safe harbor and new exemption before us today will foster opportunities and create new paths forward for such smaller firms, while still safeguarding investors.”

 

“At least, this is the theory.  Like other experimental capital-raising rules, such as Regulation A+ and Regulation Crowdfunding, only time will tell how well the theory works in practice. Only time will tell whether we can relax capital-raising regulations, while also maintaining appropriate investor protections.  So, while today’s rules may provide smaller companies with additional funding opportunities, today’s rules also raise some investor protection concerns.”

And in closing her remarks, Commissioner Stein  again emphasized what she viewed as the “experimental” nature of these new rules:

“Today’s amendments to Rules 147 and 504 and the new exemption under Rule 147A are part of a suite of rules focused on providing options for smaller businesses seeking to raise capital.  On balance, I think they are worth the experiment.  However, by collecting, sharing, and examining data on how these new options are working in practice, we should be able to recalibrate these rules if the experiment is not working out as planned.”

Most respectfully, I must take exception to Commissioner Stein’s characterization of these rules. It is not a question of whether the glass is half full, or half empty. In my opinion, the glass, from Commissioner Stein’s perspective, is simply upside down.

Science Chemistry TechnologyThe real “experiment,” historically, dates back not only to 1933, when Congress first carved out this statutory reservation of power to the states. The “experiment” also dates back to 1776, when our Founders adopted a Constitution which gave specified powers to the federal government, with all other powers being reserved to the states.  The “experiments” our Founders had in mind were those which would take place under laws enacted by each of the states – as they, and not the federal government, saw fit.  States were to set up their own laboratories of experiment for matters uniquely concerning their residents, and occurring within their borders – free from interference by a federal bureaucracy.

Seems that Commissioner Stein never got that memo. In her view, it would be up to the SEC to “recalibrate” the new rules if the states get it wrong – in the judgment of the Commission, of course.

So Why Does Any of This Matter?

It would be easy to be dismissive of the recently adopted intrastate rules.  After all, historically the intrastate exemption has not been in favor –there have been much better options – with far fewer pitfalls. Even more so now, with new pathways of capital formation opened up by the JOBS Act of 2012.  And with the advent of federal investment crowdfunding, most would yawn when examining the seemingly unimpressive statistics for the use of intrastate crowdfunding during brief period in which intrastate crowdfunding has been allowed.

I submit that current statistics are not very meaningful – as they do not tell the whole story. There is a lag between the time that new capital raising paths are created and when they become “mainstream.”  And let us not forget – until these new rules go into effect (April 2017), as a general matter broad internet solicitation is not permitted in intrastate crowdfunded offerings relying on the current Rule 147 – covering most of the 35 states which have adopted their own intrastate crowdfunding statutes.  And crowdfunding without the Internet is more akin to a day without sunshine. Not much can grow in that environment.

path-trail-utah-desert-blue-sky-mesa-scrub-bush

Size Does Not Always Matter

Statistics, however, do not tell the whole story. Most businesses start out as local businesses.  But when it comes to allocating investor capital in SME’s, most of it winds up in California, New York, and Massachusetts, leaving the vast majority of this country as “capital deserts.”

Patrick McHenry 2Those are not my words. They are the words of US Congressman and Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry, who hails from the Great State of North Carolina – the same gentlemen who has been unrelenting in his efforts to implement smart federal legislation intended to remove unnecessary federal regulatory barriers to SME capital formation: starting with the JOBS Act of 2012, and continuing to this day with a host of bills to further improve the access of SME’s to much needed capital – especially in capital-starved “flyover” states.

Make no mistake about it.  This is not a political issue, notwithstanding the heated rhetoric in 2016 which has saturated our media.  To put a fine point on this, I offer the views of our Democratic Vice President, Joe Biden, spoken in 2014 at the U.S. sponsored Global Economic Summit, on the other side of the world in Morocco to an assembly of thousands of entrepreneurs and government officials, including the head of the U.S. Small Business Administration, Maria Contreras – Sweet.

“The single most valuable resource on this planet I think we could all agree on in this room is not what’s in the ground, but what’s in the mind.  It’s the single least explored part of the world, the mind.  The things that are going to happen in the next two, five, 10, 15 years are breathtaking.  Investors, they have to be willing to expand the horizon and invest in early stage entrepreneurs — not only in Silicon Valley — but . . . everywhere, everywhere where there’s talent.”

maria-contreras“Governments have to unlock the marketplace of ideas by allowing people to express their views openly about what they’re thinking and what they’re trying.”

“They must unlock the commercial marketplace by eliminating barriers to access to capital; ensuring that rules are fair and predictable, removing excessive cumbersome regulations.”

“The government can’t grow the economy by itself.  As a matter of fact, it’s not the major reason.  It’s a catalyst for growth — no matter how big the megaproject.  To prosper in the 21st century, you also need to grow from the bottom up, allowing your people to unlock their talents through private enterprise and political and economic freedom and action.”

And there was some irony – not apparent from the remarks themselves.  They were spoken at a U.S. sponsored world conference intended to promote entrepreneurial activity in Muslim-majority countries – one of former Secretary of State Clinton’s initiatives started by her back in 2009.

Washington Monument DCSo let’s not be too “provincial” when pronouncing judgment on who knows best, when it comes deciding how investors should best be protected – or what is needed to enhance capital formation for SME’s –  or where those funds are needed most – especially when the boundaries of that “province” are marked by the Washington Beltway – and the matters at hand reside within the borders of a single state.

So let’s wake up – and give some deference to our local communities, big and small, U.S. entrepreneurs everywhere, including in the flyover states, and the state legislatures which regulate them.  Sometimes big ideas start in small, seemingly unlikely places.

“Bite-size” businesses, in the aggregate, are important to our economy and job creation. And in Finfair Panel with Amy Cortesethis day and age of readily accessible technology “Uber” sized businesses often have their genesis with relatively modest amounts of capital.

After all, it’s why one notable leader championing the importance of local investing, and New York Times contributor,Amy Cortese, calls it “Locavesting,” – not “Loco” – vesting.

SEC Adopts Final Expanded Intrastate Crowdfunding Rules

By Samuel S. Guzik, CrowdFundBeat special guest editor,  Guzik & Associate

Today the SEC unanimously adopted amendments to Rule 147 and Rule 504, and adopted a new Rule 147A, intended to modernize and facilitate local offerings by companies in their home state.  The final rules are much improved from the proposed rules issued in October 2015, in response to virtually unanimous views of rule commentors.

The only fly in the ointment is that most states will need to update their legislation in order to be able to take advantage on the new, relaxed rules allowing broad internet solicitation. However, sales are still limited to investors in the company’s state.

The new rules will generally take effect in April 2017.

Here is a link to the SEC’s Final Rules Release: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2016/33-10238.pdf

Following is the SEC Press Release announcing the adoption of the final rules and a brief summary of the key provisions:

US-SEC-gov

 

SEC Adopts Final Rules to Facilitate Intrastate and Regional Securities Offerings

Rules Provide More Options for Companies to Raise Money While Maintaining Investor Protections

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2016-226

Washington D.C., Oct. 26, 2016 —The Securities and Exchange Commission today adopted final rules that modernize how companies can raise money to fund their businesses through intrastate and small offerings while maintaining investor protections.

“These final rules, while continuing to provide investor protections, update and expand the capital raising avenues for smaller companies, allowing them to more fully take advantage of changes in technology and business practices,” said SEC Chair Mary Jo White.

The final rules amend Securities Act Rule 147 to modernize the safe harbor under Section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act, so issuers may continue to use state law exemptions that are conditioned upon compliance with both Section 3(a)(11) and Rule 147.  The final rules also establish a new intrastate offering exemption, Securities Act Rule 147A, that further accommodates offers accessible to out-of-state residents and companies that are incorporated or organized out-of-state.

To facilitate capital formation through regional offerings, the final rules amend Rule 504 of Regulation D under the Securities Act to increase the aggregate amount of securities that may be offered and sold from $1 million to $5 million.  The rules also apply bad actor disqualifications to Rule 504 offerings to provide additional investor protection, consistent with other rules in Regulation D.  In light of the changes to Rule 504, the final rules repeal Rule 505 of Regulation D.

Amended Rule 147 and new Rule 147A will be effective 150 days after publication in the Federal Register.  Amended Rule 504 will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.  The repeal of Rule 505 will be effective 180 days after publication in the Federal Register.

*   *   *

FACT SHEET

Exemptions to Facilitate Intrastate and Regional Securities Offerings

SEC Open Meeting
Oct. 26, 2016

Action

The Securities and Exchange Commission is considering whether to adopt new and amended rules that would update and modernize how companies can raise money from investors through intrastate and small offerings.  The rules are part of the Commission’s efforts to assist smaller companies with capital formation while maintaining investor protections.

Highlights of the Final Rules

New Rule 147A and Amendments to Rule 147

The adoption of new Rule 147A and the amendments to Securities Act Rule 147 would update and modernize the existing intrastate offering framework that permits companies to raise money from investors within their state without concurrently registering the offers and sales at the federal level.

Amended Rule 147 would remain a safe harbor under Section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act, so that issuers may continue to use the rule for securities offerings relying on current state law exemptions.  New Rule 147A would be substantially identical to Rule 147 except that it would allow offers to be accessible to out-of-state residents and for companies to be incorporated or organized out-of-state.

Both new Rule 147A and amended Rule 147 would include the following provisions:

  • A requirement that the issuer has its “principal place of business” in-state and satisfies at least one “doing business” requirement that would demonstrate the in-state nature of the issuer’s business
  • A new “reasonable belief” standard for issuers to rely on in determining the residence of the purchaser at the time of the sale of securities
  • A requirement that issuers obtain a written representation from each purchaser as to residency
  • A limit on resales to persons residing within the state or territory of the offering for a period of six months from the date of the sale by the issuer to the purchaser
  • An integration safe harbor that would include any prior offers or sales of securities by the issuer made under another provision, as well as certain subsequent offers or sales of securities by the issuer occurring after the completion of the offering
  • Legend requirements to offerees and purchasers about the limits on resales

Amendments to Rule 504 and Repeal of Rule 505

Rule 504 of Regulation D is an exemption from registration under the Securities Act for offers and sales of up to $1 million of securities in a 12-month period, provided that the issuer is not an Exchange Act reporting company, investment company, or blank check company.  The rule also imposes certain conditions on the offers and sales, with limited exceptions made for offers and sales made in accordance with specified types of state registration provisions and exemptions.  The amendments to Rule 504 would retain the existing framework, while increasing the aggregate amount of securities that may be offered and sold under Rule 504 in any 12-month period from $1 million to $5 million and disqualifying certain bad actors from participation in Rule 504 offerings.  The final rules also would repeal Rule 505, which permits offerings of up to $5 million annually that must be sold solely to accredited investors or no more than 35 non-accredited investors.

Background

The Commission adopted Rule 147 in 1974 as a safe harbor to a statutory intrastate exemption, Section 3(a)(11), which was included in the Securities Act upon its adoption in 1933.  Commenters, market participants and state regulators have indicated that the combined effect of the statutory limitation on offers to persons residing in the same state or territory as the issuer and the prescriptive eligibility requirements of Rule 147 limit the availability of the exemption for companies that would otherwise conduct intrastate offerings.

The $1 million aggregate offering limit in Rule 504 has been in place since 1988.

Effective Date

Amended Rule 147 and new Rule 147A would become effective 150 days after publication in the Federal Register.  Amended Rule 504 would become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.  The repeal of Rule 505 would become effective 180 days after publication in the Federal Register.

#           #          #

OTC Markets Group and CrowdFund Beat to Host Regulation A+ Bootcamp in New York City

facebook_regabootcamp-1 NEW YORK, Oct. 26, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — OTC Markets Group Inc. (OTCQX: OTCM), operator of financial markets for 10,000 U.S. and global securities, and CrowdFund Beat, a news and information source for the crowdfunding market, today announced they will co-host a Regulation A+ Bootcamp on November 10 at OTC Markets Group’s headquarters in New York City.

 

The one-day workshop will provide startup companies and entrepreneurs with expert guidance on how to raise capital under Title IV of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, also known as “Regulation A+,” which allows small companies to raise up to $50 million annually in crowdfunded offerings from accredited and unaccredited investors.  Speakers will include legal, accounting and other crowdfunding industry experts, including:

  • Kim Wales, Founder and CEO of Wales Capital, who will provide an overview of the state of the Reg A+ market
  • Doug Ellenoff, Partner at Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, who will discuss legal considerations involved in a Reg A+ offering
  • Ron Miller, CEO of StartEngine Crowdfunding, Inc., and Darren Marble, CEO of CrowdfundX, who will discuss equity crowdfunding portals and marketing an offering
  • Craig Denlinger, Managing Partner of Artesian CPA and CrowdfundCPA.com, and attorney Mark Roderick of Flaster Greenberg PC who will provide an overview of the numbers, valuation and legal structure to be considered in a Reg A+ filing
  • Scott Purcell, Founder and CEO of FundAmerica, LLC, who will talk about the escrow process
  • Crowdfunding industry expert Dr. Richard Swart, Chief Strategy Officer of NextGen Crowdfunding, who will address how Reg A+ has evolved
  • Attorneys Seth Farbman and Yoel Goldfeder of VStock Transfer, LLC who will discuss selecting a transfer agent and depositing shares into brokerage accounts
  • Jason Paltrowitz, Executive Vice President of OTC Markets Group, who will discuss investor considerations and how and where a company’s Reg A+ securities can become publicly traded.

The event will conclude with a group discussion and question-and-answer session with Jonathan Frutkin of The Frutkin Law Group, Sam Guzik of Guzik & Associates, Brian Korn of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Blaine McLaughlin of VIA Folio™, a division of FOLIOfn Investments, Inc., and Jonathan Wilson of Taylor English Duma LLP.

Attendees will be able to ask questions and schedule one-on-one meetings with the speakers.

“It has been over a year since Reg A+ became effective, yet still there are questions about how it works and what is needed to make a Reg A+ offering successful,” said Jason Paltrowitz, Executive Vice President of Corporate Services at OTC Markets Group.  “Our boot camp is designed to answer some of those questions and provide small businesses and entrepreneurs with step-by-step instructions on how to conduct a Reg A+ offering and take their company public.  We are thrilled to partner with CrowdFund Beat on this initiative and look forward to an exciting event.”

“What’s most important is we have data over the past year on Reg A+ that will be shared by the conference’s panel who are the who’s who of the crowdfunding industry.  This boot camp is really about trends and where things are going forward,” said Sydney Armani, Publisher of CrowdFundbeat.com.

To register for the event or for more information, visit http://www.regapluslist.com/.

About OTC Markets Group Inc.
OTC Markets Group Inc. (OTCQX: OTCM) operates the OTCQX® Best Market, the OTCQB® Venture Market, and the Pink® Open Market for 10,000 U.S. and global securities.  Through OTC Link® ATS, we connect a diverse network of broker-dealers that provide liquidity and execution services.  We enable investors to easily trade through the broker of their choice and empower companies to improve the quality of information available for investors.

To learn more about how we create better informed and more efficient markets, visit www.otcmarkets.com.

OTC Link ATS is operated by OTC Link LLC, member FINRA/SIPC and SEC regulated ATS.

Subscribe to the OTC Markets RSS Feed

About CrowdFund Beat

CrowdFund Beat is the Crowdfunding Industry’s go-to source of Smart Content for all news and trends Crowdfunding related.  With an extensive online video library, CrowdFund Beat is the Worldwide source of information.  The company also produces two marquee Industry Conferences: The Silicon Valley Fintech Conference in Silicon Valley and The Fourth Annual Conference and Workshop, held at the National Press Club in Washington.  This year CrowdFund Beat is commissioning a robust written and Video Report of where the Industry is heading called 2020 Outlook Crowdfunding Industry Report, to be Published in January, 2017.

Media Contacts:
OTC Markets Group Inc., +1 (212) 896-4428, media@otcmarkets.com
CrowdFund Beat, LLC, +1 (888) 580-6610, news@crowdfundbeat.com

Logo – http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20110118/MM31963LOGO

SOURCE OTC Markets Group Inc.

Related Links

http://www.otcmarkets.com

Busted!  SEC Targets Reg A+ Marijuana Company, Med-X, in Administrative Proceeding.

By Samuel S. Guzik, CrowdFundBeat special guest editor,  Guzik & Associate

The Regulation A+ industry was buzzing this week – not with excitement, but with a healthy dose of trepidation.  One of the first, high (no pun intended) profile Regulation A+ offerings, launched in November 2015, after a seemingly successful “Testing the Waters” campaign, was for a company called Med-X, a startup formed to participate in the newly burgeoning marijuana industry – the so called “Green Rush.”

c0b9d2b6-ea54-47a5-a803-0cb4ab3b61a6-large16x9_potleaf

But this month’s headline for Med-X was a bit more sanguine, enough to counteract even the most potent dosage of THC:  “REGULATION A EXEMPTION OF MED-X, INC. TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED.”  The story that followed was not the kind of publicity any company is looking for – especially when it is in the throes of raising money under Reg A+. Actually, it was not a story. Rather, it was an Administrative Order issued by the SEC on September 16, 2016, temporarily suspending the exemption of Med-X under Regulation A+.

Why? Well, it seems that this company failed to notice, or at least heed, the requirement that Reg A+ issuers file periodic informational reports as a condition of maintaining their status as Reg A+ issues. The basic requirement calls for a company, at the least, to file a semi-annual and annual report with the SEC following the “qualification” of the offering.  Seems that Med-X failed to file its annual report, which would include audited financial statements, when due back in the Spring of 2016.

Some have speculated that the SEC was targeting a disfavored industry – marijuana. I doubt it. The SEC  has approved the registered sale of other companies in this industry long before Regulation A+ was adopted.

Others have speculated that this action reflects an uneven hand towards Regulation A+ issuers. After all, this type of swift action is rare for fully reporting companies which are delinquent in their filings. One more time: I think not.

The Staff at the SEC has been remarkably supportive of the rollout of Regulation A+, as measured anecdotally in terms of the efficiency in which it has been processing the review of Regulation A+ offerings.

Rather, I think back to one of the more notable sound bytes I coined in a Webinar back in April 2015: “Regulation A+ is not your daughter’s Kickstarter campaign.”  Raising capital from outside investors is serious, heavily regulated business.  And as indicated by some of the early Regulation A+ participants, the level of sophistication of the management of some of these issuers has hardly met the bar required to file and prosecute a Regulation A+ offering.

Yes, Regulation A+ is a little more complex than the pipedream: filling out a form, waiting for SEC approval, and then crowdfunding your way to $50 million.  Apart from detailed disclosure rules, including audited financial statements, and the always difficult task of raising capital – especially for early stage companies – there is an ongoing SEC reporting requirement. Yes, the requirement is lighter than a fully reporting public company, to be sure, but enough to quickly overload an early stage company, with limited financial and human resources.

So if nothing else, this is one SEC enforcement action can be expected to inject a dose of reality into the Regulation A+ capital raising process.  As our President might say, “A Teachable Moment.”

samuel guzik

Samuel S. Guzik has more than 35 years of experience as a corporate and securities attorney and business advisor in private practice in New York and Los Angeles, including as an associate at Willkie Farr and Gallagher, a major New York based international law firm, a partner at the law firm of Ervin, Cohen and Jessup, in Los Angeles, and in the firm he founded in 1993, Guzik & Associates.

Mr. Guzik has represented public and privately held companies and entrepreneurs on a broad range of business and financing transactions, both public and private. Mr. Guzik has also successfully represented clients in federal securities litigation and SEC enforcement proceedings. Guzik has represented businesses in a diverse range of industries, including digital media, apparel, health care and numerous high technology based businesses.
Guzik is a recognized authority and thought leader on matters relating to the JOBS Act of 2012 and the ongoing SEC rulemaking, including Regulation D Rule 506 private placements, Regulation A+, and investment crowdfunding. He has been consulted by Congressional members, state legislators and the U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy on matters relating to the JOBS Act and state securities matters.

Guzik & Associates

1875 Century Park East, Suite 700

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: 310-914-8600

www.guziklaw.com

www.corporatesecuritieslawyerblog.com

@SamuelGuzik1

 

Attorney Sanctioned by SEC for Unregistered Broker-Dealer Activity

By  Bret Daniel , Wealthforge.com, CrowdfundBeat Guest Post,

The SEC crackdown on unregistered entities continues to grab headlines. Recently, we wrote about the importance of complying with the broker-dealer registration requirement under Section 15(a) by highlighting the latest violations by portfolio managers, online platforms, and individuals.

We suggested that anyone that helps to facilitate a securities offering, even in the broadest sense, should consult a lawyer about the necessity of registering as a broker. The most recent SEC enforcement action, however, demonstrates that even lawyers can get tangled up in the wide net cast over unregistered broker-dealers.

images-10

EB-5: Visa or Security?

Mark Ivener was a partner at the California-based law firm Ivener & Fullmer, LLP (both “Respondents”).1 Ivener specialized in immigration law and regularly counseled clients on how to qualify for EB-5 visas under the Immigrant Investor Program. The program allows foreign investors to obtain an EB-5 visa—and permanent resident status for themselves, their spouses, and their children—by investing $1 million2 in a commercial enterprise in the United States that creates or preserves at least ten full-time jobs for American workers.  A prevalent vehicle for making such an investment is through a Regional Center. Regional Centers are allocated a certain number of EB-5 visas for qualifying investments that typically take the form of limited partnership interests, a security under federal securities law. When Ivener counseled clients on how to qualify for EB-5 visas, he referred them to at least one Regional Center. The relationship between Ivener, his firm, and that Regional Center was formalized in a “Referral Services Agreement” that provided for referral commissions. In effect, Ivener was advising his clients to invest in EB-5 securities, and further, receiving transaction-based compensation from those investments. From January 2009 to December 2011, Ivener earned commissions totaling $450,000.

The SEC determined the Respondents’ actions were in violation of Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act. Commonly known as the “registration requirement,” Section 15(a)(1) makes it unlawful for an unregistered entity “to effect any transaction in, or to induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of, any security.” Per the terms of a settlement offer, the SEC ordered Respondents to pay $450,000 in disgorgement and $87,855 in interest. Based on the plain language of the statute and broad application by the SEC, it is unsurprising for those versed in securities law that Ivener’s conduct rose to the level of “effecting” or “inducing” the purchase of securities. For Ivener, however, by all accounts an immigration expert, the pitfalls and minefields of securities law may have been completely foreign.

Transaction-Based Compensation

This not the first time we have seen EB-5 matching, a prevalent practice, result in SEC enforcement action.  We provided analysis about one such case relating to a Florida company, Ireeco LLC, and a related foreign entity.

In the Ivener Order, the SEC notes that the Regional Center, the investment vehicles, and the managers “paid commission to anyone who successfully facilitated the sale of limited partnership interests to new investors.” The SEC explicitly classified the commission as transaction-based, but did not provide details on the commission structure.

In the Ireeco case, the sanctions totaled nearly $3.2 million dollars in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest.3 There, the respondent’s illicit commissions were a set percentage of a related flat-fee, but the commissions were contingent upon the investor receiving a condition green card. Therefore, although the Ireeco respondents’ commission was independent of the size of the investment, it was contingent upon a successful closing.

Regardless of what technically qualifies as transaction-based compensation, the range of activities garnering enforcement activity highlights some very important points: (a) a broad range of commission structures may draw ire from the SEC and (b) transaction-based compensation may not be dispositive of whether one is in violation of Section 15(a).

Other Factors to Consider

Generally, “[a] person effects transactions if he or she participates in securities transactions ‘at key points in the chain of distribution.’4 Transaction-based compensation is a clear indicator of participation in key points of the securities distribution chain. However, it is only one of several factors. Other activities to consider include:

  • Selecting the market to which a securities transaction will be sent
  • Assisting an issuer to structure prospective securities transactions
  • Helping an issuer to identify potential purchasers of securities
  • Helping purchasers to identify potential security offerings
  • Soliciting securities transactions (including advertising)
  • Participating in the order taking or routing process
  • Operation or control of electronic or other platforms to trade securities

Such broad framing affords the SEC flexibility, and enforcement action like that taken against Mr. Ivener and his firm illustrates the Commission’s commitment to rooting out and shutting down unregistered brokers in every field.

Bret Daniel

Bret is part of the legal team at WealthForge where he manages client contract flow, internal policy development, and contributes thought leadership on issues ranging from tax to employment law. Bret brings a small business background to WealthForge and is currently a law student at the University of Richmond