Category Archives: ourcrowd

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

IPO Fintech Startup ClickIPO Will Bring Initial and Secondary Public Offerings to Main Street Investors 

By Jorge Sanchez, Crowdfund Beat Guest Editor,

 

The Initial Public Offering(IPO) has long been one of the most honored and revered business milestones. For entrepreneurs, early employees and investors IPOs are seen as the ideal liquidation event. But it is also seen by many as more, the IPO represents the ultimate validation of a business: a metamorphosis of a private company into one subjected to the democracy of the public equity market.

AAEAAQAAAAAAAAgmAAAAJDUzYzliMGExLTE1NjgtNDEwNi05NGExLTI0OWNkNWI5ZDU4ZA

As monumental as an IPO is, both for the company and members of the public which support the business, investing in an IPO is anything but public or democratic.

ClickIPO Securities, a FINRA registered broker dealer, is a financial technology startup that is changing the way underwriters allocate shares in public offerings by inviting individual investors into the IPO market with an easy to use app and creating the infrastructure to facilitate the process from the underwriter to the investor.

Based in Scottsdale, Arizona, Click IPO Securities is led by finance leaders Scott Coyle and James Farrelly, while development efforts are lead by tech startup veterans Jerrod Bailey and Vann Gutierrez.

To bring individual investors back into the IPO market, ClickIPO has created a technology pipeline that connects the underwriting investment bank to the retail investor. Underwriters are provided with a dashboard that makes the process transparent. The turnkey platform provides syndicate managers a single point of contact through which they can allocate shares through dozens of broker-dealers to thousands of investors with one simple allocation. A broker-dealer dashboard complete with compliance and regulatory automation technology allows online brokerage firms to integrate their clients into the IPO pipeline. To give retail investors access to IPOs and secondary offerings, ClickIPO has created a mobile app with a scoring system that minimizes the risk to issuers and underwriters of IPO flipping. The app allows a user to research available IPO and secondary offerings, choose a company they like, and place an order, all through the app. Once the shares are purchased, they will be placed in the customer’s existing brokerage account.

The significant account minimums at large investment banks that underwrite public offerings have limited the investment in IPOs to institutional investors and the wealthy. The only way for an individual investor to gain access to an IPO is through a broker-dealer or a relationship with the investment bank underwriting the offering, this route is limited, based on connections, and suffers from difficulties that arise due to compliance and technology issues.

There is also another risk inhibiting the entry of individual investors into the IPO market; All too often when a syndicate manager allocates shares of an IPO, some of those shares end up in the hands of an IPO flipper disguised as an individual investor. A flipper is someone who through a broker-dealer is allocated shares of an IPO and quickly sells them (any time in the first 30 days is considered flipping) once the shares start trading on an exchange. With the intent to sell early regardless of the price, the IPO flipper creates downward pressure on the share price. The IPO flipper does not add any value in this process but instead diminishes value for everyone else. Once a syndicate manager allocates the shares of an IPO, they don’t have an effective way to track which investors held shares and which investors flipped(sold) shares . They can only minimize flipper risk by limiting IPO flippers from getting shares in the first place, which has proven to be difficult in the current model for syndicate managers.

The team at ClickIPO has developed a solution to mitigate the risk of IPO flipping. At one end of the ClickIPO pipeline is a mobile app that is incredibly frictionless: the ClickIPO app is connected directly to an investor’s existing brokerage account. This mobile app may likely partner with every major brokerage firm and create a pure network of buy-and-hold IPO and secondary offering investors.

At the core of the mobile app is the ClickIPO Investor Score. Something akin to a credit score for IPO and secondary offering investors, the ClickIPO Investor Score takes into account the investor’s behavior and generates a metric representative of the desirability of that investor to an underwriting firm. The allocation algorithm awards priority to those on the platform who have proven they do not engage in IPO flipping behavior through the development of an attractive ClickIPO Investor Score. While the proprietary algorithm takes into account many factors that make an investor desirable to an underwriting firm, the most highly weighted factor is the average duration that an investor holds shares. Holding shares for more than 30 days will reward the investor with a higher score, the longer an investor holds his shares, the more significant the positive impact will be; Those that exit their position prior to the 30 day mark will receive a negative impact on their score, however, if the price of the offering has a significant increase, the negative impact of selling shares in the first 30 days will be less.

ClickIPO also provides value for broker-dealers offering their customers access to IPOs. The burden and risk associated with regulatory and compliance issues has diminished the broker-dealer benefits of offering IPOs to investors until now. The ClickIPO broker-dealer dashboard comes complete with regulation and compliance automation technology, allowing the broker-dealer to provide access to IPOs to their customers while mitigating the risks associated with regulation and compliance. There is also a monetary incentive for broker-dealers to join the network; When ClickIPO places shares into the accounts of broker-dealers, they receive a commission from the underwriter. ClickIPO allots a portion of this commission to the broker-dealer, often making it a more profitable transaction for the broker-dealer than a traditional marketplace transaction.

The deal flow provided by underwriters (major investment banks) is critical to the ClickIPO business model, ClickIPO has developed a powerfully simple process on top of a sophisticated technology infrastructure to assist underwriters. Where the ClickIPO Investor Score eliminates most of the risk of IPO flippers to an underwriter, ClickIPO delivers additional value with an automated, compliant, and secure process with their syndicate manager platform. Because ClickIPO aggregates thousands of investors onto a single platform, syndicate managers will  have a single interface through which they can allocate millions of shares efficiently to these individual investors. After determining how many shares will be allocated to ClickIPO Securities, the ClickIPO allocation algorithm automatically distributes the shares throughout the broker-dealer network and directly into the accounts of the end users based on their priority set by the ClickIPO Investor Score. Additionally, the ClickIPO pipeline generates a great deal of data that is not available today. These data points are presented on the platform and give underwriters insight into the behavior of investors.

The waitlist for the app is live and can be found on ClickIPO’s website where interested investors can sign up to access IPOs and secondary offerings when the app goes live during the second quarter of 2017.

ClickIPO has integrated a series of complementary tools that allows individual investors to access IPOs. With such a deeply integrated and efficient distribution system, it seems ClickIPO may have an infrastructure capable of conducting all non-institutional IPO allocations for any offering and any underwriter. Non-institutional allocations represent approximately 20% of most offerings. I spoke with Scott Coyle, CEO of Click IPO Securities and asked about the ambitions of the company, he said, “we intend to become the premiere retail aggregation pipe by providing access to hundreds of IPO and Secondary offerings every year, to millions of individual investors”.

 

If I Raise Money Using Crowdfunding, Will I Be Able To Raise More Money Later?

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

I have rarely attended a Crowdfunding conference where this question wasn’t asked. Maybe those of us in the industry haven’t done a good enough job answering it.

Before getting into details, I’ll note that it is no longer a hypothetical question, as it was when the JOBS Act was signed into law in 2012. Today, many companies have indeed graduated from Crowdfunding to venture rounds, to angel rounds, to Regulation A offerings, and even to IPOs.

But judging from the look on the faces of the audience, that answer never seems completely satisfying. Isn’t there something about Crowdfunding that sophisticated investors don’t like?

equity-crowdfunding1-300x161

 

 

 

 

 

The answer is “Only if the Crowdfunding round is done wrong!” So:

  • Institutional investors don’t want anyone else participating in their round. If you give your Crowdfunding investors preemptive rights, or the equivalent of preemptive rights, the institutional investors won’t like it. That’s why you don’t give your Crowdfunding investors preemptive rights.
  • Institutional investors don’t want anyone but you managing the company. That’s why you keep your Crowdfunding investors (and friends & family investors) out of management. Ideally, you issue non-voting stock (or its equivalent) to the Crowdfunding investors, and don’t permit representation on your Board.
  • Institutional investors want to know what they’re getting into. If you conduct your Crowdfunding round carefully, with clear legal documents, that’s not a problem.
  • Institutional investors don’t like surprises. They don’t want to learn afterward that your Crowdfunding investors, or anyone else, have rights they didn’t know about. That’s why you form your entity in Delaware, which gives the parties to a business transaction more or less unlimited freedom of contract.
  • Institutional investors don’t like a messy cap table. There’s no reason to have a messy cap table in Crowdfunding. Often, we bring in Crowdfunding investors through a special-purpose vehicle, or SPV. We can also issue to Crowdfunding investors a separate class of stock. One way or another, we keep the cap table clean.
  • Institutional investors worry about legal claims brought by Crowdfunding investors. Of course they do! That’s why we conduct the Crowdfunding offering correctly, just as we conduct the institutional round.
  • Institutional investors don’t like sharing information with all those investors. With today’s technology tools, communicating with investors isn’t difficult, and Delaware law allows us to limit who gets what. But it’s certainly true that the more investors you have, the more people get the information.
  • Institutional investors just don’t like hanging out with the riffraff. That’s never stated outright, but implied. If we address all the real issues, I have never found it to be true.

As Crowdfunding gains traction, I expect institutional investors to embrace it fully, as another facet of their own business models. In the meantime, be assured that if done right, raising money through Crowdfunding today will not keep you from raising more money in the future.

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.

New to Crowdfunding? Here’s What to Expect.

40Billion.com, Crowdfund Beat Guest Post.

With the popularity and success of crowdfunding as a new way to fund new projects, it’s easy for other aspiring entrepreneurs to believe that sites like Kickstarter are their golden ticket to launching a business. But the reality is, crowdfunding isn’t always as simple as it seems.

Whether you’re looking to raise a small amount of startup cash or acquire a larger sum through equity crowdfunding, there are a few challenges you might face during the process that you may not have expected.

cartoon concept for crowdfunding, businessman hand with light bulb and with money. vector illustration in flat design on blue background
cartoon concept for crowdfunding, businessman hand with light bulb and with money. vector illustration in flat design on blue background

Choosing the right platform

The first step is to choose the right platform. Not all of them are created equal. Platforms like Kickstarter or Indiegogo are great for raising smaller amounts of money, but equity crowdfunding portals are best for entrepreneurs looking for large sums of money. If you’re interested in the latter, it’s important to do your research and find the platform that meets your needs. Also, find an experienced attorney who specializes in equity financing.

Establishing a realistic goal amount and time frame

Many entrepreneurs, especially those new to the crowdfunding scene, tend to think that they will be able to quickly raise all the money they need and then more by the time their campaign ends. It’s important to be realistic about time and money when it comes to planning your campaign.

Consider how much capital you would need to take your business to the next major milestones, and don’t rely solely on crowdfunding sites for your fundraising.

Creating a buzz

Having a great business idea that is supported by friends and family is good, but it does not mean that the donations will come pouring in once you launch your crowdfunding campaign. Doing a lot of prep work before your campaign will help create and maintain interest in your project.

Before starting the project, gauging level of interest for your investment opportunity or project is a critical part of the process. Even though supporters have told you that they would support the campaign, it gets lost in their email inbox. Without specific requests, it’s difficult for people to actually pull the trigger on an investment or funding opportunity. Make sure you have personalized outreach to your first degree networks, and remember to ask for assistance in spreading the word.

When you’re ready to spread the word and create a buzz around your crowdfunding campaign or project, sites like 40Billion.com make this easy. They broadcast and promote your campaign to their large network of several million users across the most popular social networking sites for businesses – including Twitter, LinkedIn, 40Billion, and even Facebook. Innovative services like tweet ads and promoted company listings were created for crowdfunders to tap into a growing, active network online without spending thousands on pay-per-click ads or traditional advertising.

The risk factor

Everyone knows that there’s risk involved in any business venture. What investors want to know is, exactly how much of a risk will they be taking by offering you a large sum of money? Even small venture funds express interest in investing, but ask the entrepreneur to come back to them when they have an investor who is leading the round of funding. Everyone wants to know the amount of risk.

A lot of investors at the early stage simply want to de-risk investing by being the last money in the round once a lot of other sophisticated investors have already committed. This often creates a scenario where founders have a few hundred thousand dollars in “commitments” for months without any way to actually close on anything. Using a reputable equity crowdfunding platform with accredited investors can help solve this problem.

While the “lead investor” issue most commonly affects startups seeking large-scale investors, the same basic principle can apply to a smaller Kickstarter campaign: If potential funders see that no one is backing the project or that people are only contributing a few dollars, what incentive do they have to donate a large amount of money? This is where building interest and spreading the word become critical to raising the funds you need.

Even if you aren’t launching a crowdfunding campaign at this time, it’s important to learn about the industry, as well as what it takes to succeed.

Source:

http://upflow.co/l/5cIW/2017/01/02/new-to-crowdfunding-heres-what-to-expect-2

Crowdfunding: Can It Work for Brick & Mortar?

By , Crowdfund Beat Guest Post,

Founder + CEO of PieShell – Crowdfunding for food + beverage,

Having a store front or restaurant is expensive, especially when you’re just getting started. Between build-out and equipment costs, starting inventory, licenses, fees, and working capital, starting a brick and mortar business can easily add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s because of this that many people say that rewards-based crowdfunding isn’t a good option for brick and mortar businesses, but we beg to differ.

Crowdfunding is a great option for restaurants, bakeries, coffee shops, and more (if it’s done in the right way and on the right scale). We’re here to tell you how to make crowdfunding work for brick and mortar operations!

First, A Word of Advice

In previous blogs we’ve cautioned against being overly ambitious when it comes to crowdfunding. Instead, we advise breaking down your grand vision into a series of stepping-stones, picking one and making that the first stepping-stone for your crowdfunding project. Ask yourself, what’s the next step in my business?

We’re doubling down on this advice. If you’re already in business, we recommend using crowdfunding for upgrading or expanding your existing restaurant operation. You may want to invest in new kitchen equipment, renovate your space, or add new offerings to your menu. If you’re still pre-launch, then crowdfunding can be an excellent way to supplement funding from traditional sources like investors and banks. In fact, sometimes crowdfunding can be a precursor to traditional investment, as it shows that there is genuine interest in your venture.

For Existing Restaurants

Crowdfunding, much like running a restaurant, is time consuming and can be hectic. However, we think that brick and mortar businesses actually have a leg up when it comes to crowdfunding.

Unlike online-only businesses or those without a permanent location, owning a restaurant gives you the opportunity to interact with potential supporters in person and on a regular basis. Use this exposure to reach people who love what you’re doing and want to see it continue. Your “regulars” are the perfect people to tap for support, either by asking in person or advertising your crowdfunding project in your space (get ready to make some killer table tents!).

A great example of restaurant crowdfunding comes from Manu Alfau, chef and owner of La Bodega in Seattle, Washington. Manu used his existing customer base to raise $9,000 to build an outdoor patio. For gifts, he offered parties and food from La Bodega — things that he already knew his supporters would love.

For Startups

If you’re in the pre-launch phase, make sure that you’ve invested in the community where you plan to set up shop. That means doing things like being at local farmers’ markets, building an audience on social media that’s made up of people who are local to the area, and networking with other business owners to tap into their pool of customers.

Like we said earlier, it’s unlikely that you’ll be able to raise the full cost of starting a restaurant, so pick a reasonable crowdfunding goal and plan on supplementing it with personal funds, traditional financing, or a combination of both.

For startups, one advantage of crowdfunding is the opportunity to make people feel like they are truly invested in the success of your business. Simply put, crowdfunding is a way to create a sense of community ownership, which is incredibly important when it comes to sustaining a small business.

Gifts that Make Sense

Brick and mortar businesses also have a great opportunity to make a positive impression through gifts. Gifts should get people back into your establishment where they can experience the fruits of their contributions and also become repeat customers!

For example, in 2010 in the small town of Vergennes, Vermont, Julianne Jones and her husband decided to take over a former laundromat and transform it into a French-style bakery. They rewarded their supporters with tokens that could be exchanged for goods once the bakery opened.

Obviously, this strategy is limited to those in the area, so make sure to have a back-up plan for supporters who won’t be able to make it in person.

Meet OUR First Brick and Mortars

Ok, ok, there’s a reason that we chose to focus on crowdfunding for restaurants for this blog. We’re welcoming our first three brick and mortars to the PieShell family!

The first, The Cookie Cups, was live on PieShell at the end of 2016 and successfully reached their first stepping-stone, moving them closer to their bakery cafe dreams!

Second is Bon Chovie, a rock-and-roll seafood restaurant that started life at the “flea food market” Smorgasburg. They will be launching their crowdfunding project on PieShell in the next couple months to help fund the move to a new location in Brooklyn.

And last but not least, LC Farmery. A casual and engaging experience, connecting West Chelsea patrons to passionate craft producers from around the state via a rotating menu of locally sourced ingredients from farmers, fisherman, and purveyors, will be launching a project in the spring.

We’re excited to see them pave the way for many more restaurants to come!

Crowdfunding Beat Media Announces 2017 Conference & Expo USA Tour

 

You are invited to attend:

Crowdfunding Beat Media, Conference & Expo Tour 2017

New York – Silicon Valley – Washington DC.-  Denver

By Sydney Armani, Founder / CEO / Publisher / Speaker, 

Happy Holidays 

Crowdfunding Beat Media, Conference & Expo – Tour 2017 will explore new methods of finance, as well as review existing and developing legal considerations and international initiatives.

We will bring together investment community and the new generation of social entrepreneurs – crowdfunders. The event offers you unique opportunity to promote your business in the center of private investments and innovations. We have several options available for those who will participate in the conference. Also, we offer packages of the virtual exhibitor and advertiser, for those who won’t be in the conference.

As you know, we have built CrowdFund Beat  into a leading media platform covering the crowdfunding and marketplace finance space.  Our viewership continues to grow daily as we are Internationally recognized as the definitive “Go-To” for all news & trends Crowd Fund Related. . .

Before we do our normal general Marketing, we are offering you first rights of participation to personally “touch” the eager CrowdFunding National Community and showcase YOU to this ever growing community by Inviting you to be a Conference Speaker and/or Sponsor of any of the following exciting 2017 Opportunities:

We are looking forward to your participation and much appreciate if you share these events with your social network.

Furthermore, we are now advancing our efforts into proprietary research on the space, and are pleased to introduce “2020 Vision”,  a  prognostication report on equity crowdfunding that will be released with much fanfare at our 5th Annual Silicon Valley Fintech Conference that will now have a new, and even larger home, at the Santa Clara Convention Center.  The Report will have general distribution to the International Crowdfunding Industry as well as being promoted at each and every 2017 CrowdFundBeat USA Tour Conferences. 

About:

CrowdFund Beat Media International ” Established  2012″ is an online source of news, information, events and resources for crowdfunding. We e-publish latest news and expert view related to the crowdfunding industry in the USA, Canada, UK, Italy, Germany, France, Holland and coming soon in Spain, Australia, Japan and China on a daily basis. With support of a group of crowdfunding professionals and experts, We are including an editorial column to our journal, in order to present a better perceptive on this new industry to our readers. At crowdfundbeat.com we think of our effort as an educational and informative service to the crowdfunding community, and appreciate your suggestions to make our work more helpful and efficient.

Crowdfunding Beat Media, Conference & Expo Tour 2017

cropped-crowdfundingusa2017tour-y

REGISTRATION – SIGN UP NOW!

HR 3784 – SEC Office of Small Business Advocate – Is Now the Law of the Land

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

On December 16, 2016, President Barack Obama Signed into Law HR 3784 – SEC Office of Small Business Advocate, creating an independent Office of Small Business Advocate at the SEC, reporting directly to the full Commission and Congress. This legislation was first introduced into Congress in October 2015, where it was originally co-sponsored by former House Representative John Carney (D-Del) (now Governor-Elect of the State of Delaware) and Congressman Sean Duffy (R-Wisc) and was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives in 2016. It was passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate on December 9, 2016, as part of a flurry of year-end bills passed by the Senate before it recessed for the year.

aaeaaqaaaaaaaafcaaaajgm2ndy3mdbkltqzn2mtngfmmi04ytrhlty2zdbkmzhlnzfiza

The bill had broad industry support upon its introduction in October 2015, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Venture Capital Association, National Small Business Association, Small Business Investor Alliance, SBEC, and the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA), of which I served as its Chair and President at the time.

Remarkably, this Bill passed Congress unanimously without the support of the SEC. In testimony from SEC Chair Mary Jo White before the Senate Banking Committee in June 2016 she was asked by the Senate bill co-sponsor, Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), whether she supported this legislation. Her response:

 “We currently have the Office of Small Business Policy within the Division of Corporate Finance. I am an advocate for small business.” 

A roundabout way of saying “no” – it seems to me.

In the past I have referred to this bill as the missing title of the JOBS Act of 2012. Though it parallels to a large extent to the SEC Office of Investor Advocate – part of the Dodd Frank Act of 2010 – the need for this legislation goes back decades.

The successful passage of this law was the result of the participation and support of many individual and groups. However, I am proud to have had a major role in initiating this legislation, among other things:

  • I was the first person to publicly advocate for this legislation, in Feb 2014, in an article published on Crowdfund Insider.
  • I met with former SEC Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher in June 2014 to advocate for this bill.
  • I was cited by Commissioner Gallagher in a public address (Note 36) by Commissioner Gallagher given at the Heritage Foundation in September 2014 where he advocated for the need for a permanent Office of Small Business Advocate.
  • I worked with the original sponsor, Rep. John Carney (D-Del) (now Governor-elect of Delaware) in drafting this legislation prior to its introduction in Congress.
  • I assisted in procuring the initial Republican co-sponsor – Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis).

A special thank you is in order for SEC Commissioner Gallagher. Without his public and vocal support for this legislation it might have taken many more years for this historic legislation to become a reality.

A copy of the Bill can be found here.

For those of you who want to dig deeper on this subject, here is some background material on the Bill and my role in its journey:

http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2016/12/93592-sec-small-business-advocate-moves-closer-reality-senate-passes-bill/

http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2016/11/92607-unstacking-deck-smes-washington-call-sec-small-business-advocate/

This entry was posted in Capital Raising, Corporate Governance, Corporate Law, Crowdfunding, General, Regulation A+ Resource Center, SEC Developments and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

First Crowdfunding portal to be expelled from FINRA

By   Crowdfund Beat Guest post,

On November 2, 2016, FINRA terminated the FINRA registration for UFP, LLC (“UFP”), making UFP the first crowdfunding portal to be expelled from FINRA.   UFP ran an online funding portal, uFundingPortal.com, where it acted as an intermediary in debt and equity crowdfunding offerings conducted in reliance on SEC Regulation Crowdfunding rules.  FINRA’s investigation into UFP alleged that from May through September 2016, UFP violated various SEC Regulation Crowdfunding rules and FINRA Funding Portal Rules. As a result of FINRA’s investigation, UFP pulled its website and submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (the “AWC”) in order to settle these alleged rule violations with FINRA.  The AWC is available at: http://disciplinaryactions.finra.org/Search/ViewDocument/67004.

Finra-Building-Logo007-Article-201509021417

FINRA alleged that UFP violated Rule 301(a) and Rule 301(c)(2) under SEC Regulation Crowdfunding.  Rule 301(a) requires funding-portal intermediaries like UFP to have a reasonable basis for believing that issuers using its crowdfunding portal comply with applicable regulatory requirements, and Rule 301(c)(2) requires that access to funding portals be denied to issuers that present the potential for fraud or otherwise raise investor protection concerns. FINRA found UFP to be in violation of Rule 301(a) because 16 of the issuers on UFP’s portal had failed to file certain requisite disclosures with the SEC and, in each case, UFP had reviewed these issuers’ SEC filings and therefore had reason to know that these filings were incomplete.

In addition, FINRA found UFP to be in violation of Rule 301(c)(2) by failing to deny access to its portal when it had a reasonable basis to believe these issuers and/or their offerings presented the potential for fraud. For example, FINRA found that these 16 issuers all had impracticable business models and oversimplified and unrealistic financial forecasts; 13 of these issuers disclosed identical amounts for their funding targets, maximum funding requests, price per share of stock, number of shares to be sold, total number of shares and equity valuation; three of these issuers had identical language in the “Risk Factors” sections of their websites; and two issuers listed identical officers and directors even though they had vastly different business plans.  Additionally, UFP had reason to know that four of these issuers either had officers or directors who owed back taxes or had not filed an annual tax return for 2015.   FINRA also alleged that UFP violated Funding Portal Rule 200(c)(3), which prohibits funding portals from including any issuer communication on its website that it knows or has reason to know contains any untrue statement of material fact or is otherwise false or misleading.

source http://www.mofojumpstarter.com/2016/12/16/finra-action-against-crowdfunding-platform/

FINRA Action Against Crowdfunding Platform

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.

#           #          #

SEC REGULATORY ALERT: COMMISSION POISED TO ADOPT EXPANDED INTRASTATE CROWDFUNDING RULES

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission has announced that it will be meeting on October 26, 2016 to consider and adopt amendments to Rule 147, the safe harbor for the issuance of securities pursuant to the so called intrastate exemption.  Rule 147 has been problematic for issuers in the past, as it restricts offers and sales of securities solely to residents within a state’s borders.

SEC informal written Staff interpretations issued in 2014 took the position that open internet solicitation by an issuer would preclude the use of this exemption for local businesses, even if sales were limited to residents of that business’s state. Many, including myself, have criticized this Staff position, simply because it was at odds with many prior, longstanding SEC rulings allowing general solicitation via radio and newspaper ads which crossed state borders.

In October 2015 the Commission issued a new proposed rule, Rule 147A, which would have broadened this exemption to allow internet solicitations, but at the same time limited the aggregate amount that could be sold in an offering to $5 million. The Commission also proposed to eliminate the existing Rule 147 in its entirety, something which many commentators pointed out would effectively nullify the majority of the existing state crowdfunding exemptions, now available in approximately 35 states.  Moreover, most securities practitioners agree that the statutory intrastate exemption, without a “safe harbor” rule, would render the exemption unusable, leaving issuers with a single option: relying on the new Rule 147A – with its $5 million cap.

Though most comments on the proposed rule welcomed the modernization of the intrastate exemption, most were opposed to limiting the offering amount and eliminating the existing Rule 147 safe harbor. It is therefore highly likely that the final rules will incorporate these comments and concerns.

Stay tuned for more developments on this upcoming Commission action at www.corporatesecuritieslawyerblog.com.

NASAA and Members of Congress Come Together on the Need for the SEC to Expand Intrastate Crowdfunding Rules

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

It is rare that I am able to find agreement with the publicly stated positions of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA). Equally rare – members of Congress who are traditionally strong advocates for “smart” regulatory reform of capital formation by SME’s to find themselves on the same page as NASAA.  However, there appears to be a growing, even overwhelming, consensus that the SEC’s proposed rules to modify current federal restrictions on the intrastate sale of securities – are on the one hand a step in the right direction.  But on the other hand, the SEC’s rule, as proposed, does not go far enough, and places unnecessary restrictions on the ability of states to decide what is in the best interests of their constituents – free of interference from the SEC.

By way of background, on October 30, 2015, the same day that the Commission announced final investment crowdfunding rules in furtherance of Title III of the JOBS Act of 2012 to implement investment crowdfunding on a national level – it also issued for comment a proposed rule, primarily intended to facilitate investment crowdfunding at the state level – Rule 147A. Significantly, the proposed rule would allow companies to advertise their offering on the Internet, something which the SEC Staff has stated is prohibited under current Rule 147 – and much to the consternation of state regulators and securities lawyers  alike.  In doing so, the SEC proposed to limit the amount that a state could authorize under its laws to $5 million. And it also proposed to eliminate the existing rule, Rule 147, in its entirety.

On October 7, 2016, a bi-partisan group of 15 members of Congress, many members of the House Financial Services Committee, signed a letter addressed to the SEC, encouraging the Commission to finalize its rulemaking, but with some important modifications. In particular, as proposed by the Commission, the existing “safe harbor” rule, Rule 147, which would allow states to regulate offerings occurring entirely within their state, would be scrapped in its entirety, and replaced by a new rule, Rule 147A, under the Commission’s general rulemaking powers.  This approach, if adopted in the final rules, has at least two untoward effects, as regards the ability of states to fashion their own rules for intrastate offering, including intrastate investment crowdfunding.

First, of the 35 or so states which have enacted their own investment crowdfunding statutes, adoption of the Rule, as proposed, would in effect, terminate these exemptions in many of the states which enacted their exemptions based entirely upon the current rule – proposed to be eliminated – bringing intrastate crowdfunding to a halt.  Comment letters to date have almost universally requested the SEC to clarify and expand the existing Rule 147, but to retain the existing rule.  Though a technicality of sorts, failure to fix this glitch would require the large majority of states authorizing intrastate investment crowdfunding to go back to their state legislatures to incorporate any new rule which replaces the current Rule 147. And until then, intrastate crowdfunding would be shut down.

Second, though the SEC’s proposed rule makes necessary improvements, it comes with some conditions which many find unpalatable – and unnecessary. In particular, the SEC rule, as proposed, would limit the ceiling under this proposed exemption to $5 million.  Opposition to this condition has been strong, simply because this is a matter which ought to be determined by each state – on a state by state basis.

The latest missive by 15 members of the House Financial Services Committee includes Congressman and Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry, a leading proponent of the JOBS Act of 2012 and subsequent legislation, and Congressman John Carney, the original sponsor of a Bill which passed the House this year which if enacted would create a new, independent office at the SEC – Office of Small Business Advocate – and would report to the full Commission and to Congress.  Undoubtedly, their letter will signal to the SEC the need to approval final rules as expeditiously as possible nearly a year after originally proposed. So look for good things to come from the Commission in this area in the coming months.

For those who want to dig a little deeper, I am providing links to my Comment Letter to the SEC as well as the Comment Letter submitted by NASAA, both back in January 2016.

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.

 

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