One common misconception I encounter among startups is the idea that companies raising capital can include non-accredited investors in Rule 506 offerings. While it is technically true that a Rule 506 offering may include up to 35 non-accredited investors, what is often missed is that it is not really practical to do so. [Read more…]
When the JOBS Act was passed, a lot of people hoped that it would de-regulate startup finance, resulting in a boom of new startups being funded. Through repealing the ban on general solicitation, allowing online angel investment platforms, creating the new “Regulation A+,” and allowing equity crowdfunding, the JOBS Act was supposed to make funding startups considerably easier. But there have been some significant bumps in the road. First, in my view, the equity crowdfunding exemption that was included in the bill was unworkable from the beginning. That continues to be true under the crowdfunding regulations proposed by the SEC and of course the SEC has yet to adopt final equity crowdfunding regulations (which means that equity crowdfunding is still largely prohibited for non-accredited investors). While the SEC finally did implement the lifting of the ban on general solicitation by creating the new Rule 506(c), it also has proposed new onerous rules governing its use (as well as the use of the existing Rule 506(b)). The SEC has proposed implementing regulations for Regulation A+, but has not adopted final regulations, which means that the exemption still cannot be used. In addition, the SEC is getting pushback from state securities regulators on the proposed Regulation A+ on the issue of preempting state registration requirements, which may result in the removal of preemption from the final regulations (which would make the exemption considerably less useful). Furthermore, since Regulation A+ investors would be counted as shareholders for purposes of triggering reporting under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), as the proposed rules are currently written, any use of the exemption would also likely trigger expensive Exchange Act reporting requirements. [Read more…]
On August 12, 2013, the crowdfunding platform AngelList submitted some really great and thoughtful comments to the SEC with respect to the SEC’s proposed Reg. D amendments related to new Form D filing requirements and enhanced penalties for failure to file (which you can read more about here). AngelList expressed its concern that the newly proposed Form D rules would result in “disastrous unintended consequences” for startups, observing that proposed rules reflect how sophisticated Wall Street issuers, investment banks, and law firms, rather than early stage businesses, engage in capital raising. [Read more…]
In my last post, I discussed new proposed Regulation D rules which impose new obligations upon issuers of securities in private placements. In that post, I expressed some concern that these new rules could be quite burdensome, especially the rule disqualifying issuers from using Rule 506 on future securities offerings for failing to file Form D in a timely fashion. Others involved with startup capital formation have also expressed similar concerns. In this post, I’ll compile the comments I’ve seen thus far. [Read more…]
On July 10, 2013, the same day it announced the adoption of rules permitting general solicitation under certain conditions and disqualifying “bad actors,” the Securities and Exchange Commission issued proposed new rules entitled “Amendments to Regulation D, Form D and Rule 156 under the Securities Act.” The proposal dramatically increases the Form D filing requirements for Rule 506 offerings and increases the consequences for failing to file Form D or filing Form D late.