Articles Posted in Exempt Offerings

As Regulation Crowdfunding or “Reg CF,” the SEC’s extensive rules implementing the federal/interstate crowdfunding provisions (Title III) of the JOBS Act, recently marked its one-year anniversary, the congressional author of Title III, Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC), is now urging the SEC to essentially rewrite Reg CF.

McHenry, a leading crowdfunding industry proponent, outlines his proposal in a seven page May 15th letter to newly sworn-in SEC Chairman Jay Clayton. In his letter to Clayton, McHenry calls for a “comprehensive reform” of Reg CF, outlining in great detail 13 specific revisions to Reg CF that he believes necessary for start-ups and small businesses to fully take advantage of the opportunities that crowdfunding offers. McHenry is hardly alone in his criticism of Reg CF, as the crowdfunding community has roundly panned Reg CF as excessively regulatory in nature and far too costly for start-ups to comply with. While it is unclear if or when the SEC will respond to McHenry’s letter, the proposal should be considered as the opening salvo in what will likely be a full court press by the crowdfunding community to have the rules implementing interstate crowdfunding rewritten in a way much more favorable to the start-up and growth company sectors. Indeed, Clayton’s multi-decade background as an M&A lawyer suggests that the SEC may at least adopt a heightened focus on capital formation issues.

Importantly, McHenry’s recommendations, in his opinion, are all fully within the SEC’s rulemaking ambit, and do not require any legislative action by Congress. Specifically, the main thrusts of McHenry’s proposal are as follows:

Last October, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted amended rules in several areas designed to facilitate capital formation by small businesses, in large part by coordinating federal requirements with requirements of state “crowdfunding” statutes and rules adopted by approximately 35 states since 2011.

Specifically, the SEC amended Rule 504 of Regulation D to raise the offering limit from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000, and created new Rule 147A, broadening the parameters under which intrastate offerings under existing Rule 147 could be conducted. Rule 147A, among other things, allows unlimited solicitation of offerings, including on the Internet, loosens requirements for issuers to qualify as “doing business in” a state, and allows corporate entities formed out-of-state to conduct intrastate offerings in the state where they primarily do business. Also, the previous requirement that intrastate offerings could only be offered to residents of a single state has been eliminated; the single-state restriction now considers only actual sales.

The effective date for the Rule 504 changes was January 20. However, the effective date of the new Rule 147A does not occur until April 20. Most states’ small business crowdfunding exemptions, whether adopted by statute or by rule, are conditioned upon compliance with Section 3(a)(11) of the 1933 Act or Rule 147. In order for issuers in those states to be able to fully utilize the new Rule 147A, those states will have to amend their exemptions to remove that condition.

On October 26, 2016, the SEC adopted final rules in a year-long administrative rulemaking proceeding seeking to modernize the decades-old federal securities registration exemptions applicable to intrastate (i.e., within the borders of one state) offerings and certain small ($1-5 million) offerings.  The SEC’s adopting order in this proceeding both amends the current intrastate offering “safe harbor” found at Rule 147 under the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”) and creates a new free-standing intrastate exemption designated Rule 147A.  The newly-released order also impacts small exempt offerings by increasing the offering limit for capital raises conducted pursuant to Rule 504 under Reg D of the 1933 Act to $5 million from $1 million.  Finally, the order repeals the sparsely-utilized Reg D Rule 505.

The primary impetus for this rulemaking and its oft-stated goal of “modernizing” the SEC’s regulatory regime regarding intrastate offerings clearly has been the spread of intrastate crowdfunding exemptions recently adopted pursuant to state “blue sky” securities laws.  Notably, 42 states have currently enacted, or are in some stage of enacting, an intrastate crowdfunding exemption—the vast majority of these relying upon 1933 Act section 3(a)(11) (the statutory provision for which Rule 147 acts as a safe harbor).  Intrastate crowdfunding, however, despite its quick proliferation over the last four years, has not been immune to controversy.  Perhaps the biggest issue has been how to properly fit 21st century securities offerings based on internet communications and marketing/sales platforms onto a securities exemption crafted in 1933.

Section 3(a)(11) provides an exemption from federal registration for “[a]ny security which is 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.”  Accordingly, it has been the SEC’s contention that any kind of general advertising or solicitation must be conducted in a manner consistent with the requirement that offers made in reliance on Section 3(a)(11) and Rule 147 be made only to persons resident within the state or territory of which the issuer is a resident.  In a published 2014 pronouncement, the SEC has stated that while use of the internet would not be incompatible with a claim of exemption under Rule 147, crowdfunding portals would need to implement adequate measures so that offers of securities are made only to persons resident in the relevant state or territory.