Amendments and Supplements in a Regulation A Offering

Pigeon Point lighthouse USA, California, Big Sur

Your Offering Statement has been qualified by the SEC. Now something changes. Do you have to file something with the SEC? If so, what and how?

Changes Reported on Form 1-U

Some changes must be reported using Form 1-U:

  • If the issuer has entered into or terminated a material definitive agreement that has resulted in or would reasonably be expected to result in a fundamental change to the nature of its business or plan of operation.
  • The bankruptcy of the issuer or its parent company.
  • A material modification of either (i) the securities that were issued under Regulation A, or (ii) the documents (g., a Certificate of Incorporation) defining the rights of the securities that were issued under Regulation A.
  • A change in the issuer’s auditing firm.
  • A determination that any previous financial statements cannot be relied on.
  • A change in control of the issuer.
  • The departure or termination of the issuer’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, or principal accounting officer, or a person performing any of those functions even if he or she doesn’t have a title.
  • The sale of securities in an unregistered offering (g., Rule 506(c)).

Form 1-U may be used, at the issuer’s discretion, to disclose any other events or information that the issuer deems of importance to the holders of its securities.

NOTE:  If an event has already been reported on an annual or semi-annual report, the same event does not have to be reported again on Form 1-U.

NOTE:  A report on Form 1-U must be filed even if the Regulation A offering has ended.

Amendments

After the offering is qualified by the SEC, the issuer must file an amendment of its Offering Statement “to reflect any facts or events arising after the qualification date. . . .which, individually or in the aggregate, represent a fundamental change in the information set forth in the offering statement.”

Examples of fundamental changes:

  • A change in the offering price of the security.
  • A change in the focus of the issuer’s business, g., we were going to focus on cryptocurrencies, but now we’re pivoting to blockchain-based financial services.
  • The bankruptcy of the issuer.
  • A change in the type of security offered, g., from preferred stock to common stock or vice versa.

An amendment of an Offering Statement must be approved by the SEC before it becomes effective, which means waiting.

Even more important, depending on the nature of the change, the issuer might be required to stop selling securities or even stop offering securities (i.e., shut down its website and all marketing activities) while the amendment is pending.

Supplements

After the offering is qualified by the SEC, the issuer must file a supplement of its Offering Circular to reflect “information. . . .that constitutes a substantive change from or addition to the information set forth” in the original offering circular.

Examples of substantive changes or additions:

  • A new Chief Marketing Officer joined the management team.
  • The issuer’s patent application, disclosed in the original Offering Circular, was approved.
  • The issuer moved its principal office.

Unlike amendments, supplements do not require SEC approval and do not require that that the issuer stop selling or issuing securities. Instead, the supplement must be filed with the SEC within five days after it is first used.

Real Estate Supplements

While its offering is live, an issuer in the real estate business — a REIT, for example — must file a supplement “[w]here a reasonable probability that a property will be acquired arises.” Not when the property is purchased, but when there is a “reasonably probability” that it will be purchased.

The SEC doesn’t specify what information to include in these supplements, except to disclose “all compensation and fees received by the General Partner(s) and its affiliates in connection with any such acquisition.” Including a statement of any significant risks associated with the property is a good idea, too.

Having filed a separate supplement for each property, the real estate issuer must then file an amendment at least once every quarter that consolidates the supplements and includes financial statements for the properties. Notwithstanding the general rule for amendments, however, the issuer doesn’t have to stop offering or selling securities pending SEC approval.

Supplement vs. Amendment

An amendment is required for “fundamental changes,” while only a supplement is required for “substantive changes.” Where to draw the line?

There’s a lot at stake. If an issuer uses a supplement where it should have used an amendment, it will be using an Offering Statement that has not been qualified by the SEC. Meaning, the whole offering will be illegal.

The SEC won’t say whether it believes a given change requires a supplement or an amendment, leaving the decision to the issuer and its lawyer. The SEC will, however, allow an issuer to file an amendment even for non-fundament changes, i.e., where a supplement would have done the trick. Filing an amendment takes a little longer, costs a little more, but eliminates the risk of guessing wrong.

Often, however, an issuer wants to make a change but doesn’t want to go through the amendment process. In those cases, the rule of thumb should be as follows:

Would an investor of ordinary prudence want to re-think his investment decision based on the new information?

If the answer to that question is Yes, the new information should be provided via amendment. If the answer is No, it can be provided supplement.

For example, an investor who liked the cryptocurrency space might not be interested in the financial services space, while the addition of a new CMO might be interesting and useful, but unlikely to affect the investment decision.

Contrary to popular belief, the main risk of this or any other violation of the securities laws is not that the SEC will bring your offering to a screeching halt or fine you. Those things are possible, but the SEC has more important things on its plate. The main risk is that an investor will lose money and hire a clever lawyer, who will then seize on your mistake (or your alleged mistake) as grounds to get the investor’s money back.

Supplement vs. Form 1-U

If a change falls within any of the specified categories of Form 1-U, then it should be reported on Form 1-U rather than via supplement.

If the offering has ended, then supplements are no longer relevant and changes should be reported on Form 1-U.

If the offering is still live and the change does not fall within any of the specified categories of Form 1-U, then it can be reported on either Form 1-U or via supplement, take your pick. However, supplements may not be accompanied by exhibits. So if you need to change or add an exhibit (e.g., you’ve modified your Subscription Agreement or entered into a material contract that doesn’t constitute a fundamental change), you should use form 1-U.

Questions? Let me know.

Tokenization: The Legal Take on Jobs Act Equity Crowdfunding and Security Token Offerings

Podcast: Regulation A+ Crowdfunding

Tokenization podcast MSR

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

If you’re a entrepreneur, you’re probably looking for some way to raise capital. You probably have heard of crowdfunding, but you may not have heard of the Jobs Act of 2012 and how it relates to crowdfunding – which is significant because its potential is enormous. Besides Regulation A+, Reg. CF, and Title II crowdfunding options to name a few, now investors and issuers can take advantage of the “tokenization” of assets via Security Token Offerings based on blockchain technology. However, there are complicated rules associated with all aspects of crowdfunding, which is why it’s so important to have legal representation throughout all phases of the process.

In this podcast episode, we interviewed crowdfunding attorney Mark Roderick from Flaster Greenberg PC who gave us many insights on crowdfunding in general, plus his take on tokenization and what security tokens can actually do for issuers and investors alike. Forget what everyone says about raising money. As stated on the podcast, crowdfunding is a marketing business, but it’s smart to have legal counsel at all times too – which is why anyone thinking of getting involved with crowdfunding on any level would be wise to contact Mr. Roderick and read his crowdfunding blog where you can find hundreds of posts with excellent information dedicated to legal crowdfunding success. See that? Sometimes lawyers can be your friend!

And speaking of crowdfunding, according to Mark, about 90% of the Reg.A+ crowdfunding deals he’s seen is regarding real estate. You know what most of the Reg.CF deals are? (here’s a hint).

Questions? Let me know.

Podcast: The Complete Guide to Investment Crowdfunding Regulations in the US

Podcast MSR Blog Post

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Are the countless rules, regulations and exemptions surrounding crowdfunding in the US starting to get too difficult to keep track of?

Katipult recently partnered with Mark Roderick to help you get a better understanding of regulation relevant to your company. In this podcast, Mark shares information that will help you navigate the complex crowdfunding regulations in the US.

Questions? Let me know.

Podcast: A Primer on Real Estate Crowdfunding

Real Estate Investing for Cash Flow

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

In this episode of The Real Estate Investing for Cash Flow Podcast, Kevin shares the mic with Mark Roderick — Corporate Securities Lawyer with a special focus in Fintech and Crowdfunding. Since the JOBS act of 2012, Mark has spent the majority of his time advising and representing the interests of upstart firms and companies on their fundraising activities. In addition, the contributions to his personal blog give detailed insight into the best fundraising strategies of the digital era.

HIGHLIGHTS [10:52] What was the ultimate catalyst for the JOBS act of 2012? [16:28] What is Mark’s “3 Flavors” of Crowdfunding? [25:44] What are the costs associated with setting up a Regulation A Public Offering? [33:42] What role has investor portals played in the last few years? [41:23] Mark’s closing thoughts.

Questions? Let me know.

Restricted Stock VS. Options for Key Employees of a Crowdfunding or Fintech Business

Mark Roderick Explains Restricted Stock VS. Options for Key Employees of a Crowdfunding or Fintech Business

You want to reward and incentivize your CFO and CMO with equity in the company. What’s the best approach?

First, make sure equity provides the right incentives. For the CFO almost certainly, because the CFO shares responsibility for the profitability of the whole company. For the CMO, maybe not. If we want the CMO focused on sales, maybe a cash commission makes more sense. On the other hand, you might decide that owning stock will have a positive psychological effect for your CMO, even if it doesn’t offer a direct incentive.

With that box checked, these are the most common equity-flavored alternatives:

  • Restricted Stock: The CFO might receive a total of 100 shares of stock today, with her right to receive distributions and otherwise enjoy the full benefits of the stock subject to a vesting schedule. The vesting schedule might be based on time (g., 20 shares per year for five years), economic milestones (e.g., 20 shares for each year showing a growth of at least 20% in cash flow or EBITDA), or a combination of the two.
  • Stock Options: The CFO might be granted the option to purchase 100 shares of stock for $0.10 per share (hoping they will someday be worth a lot more), subject to the same vesting schedule. Under section 409A of the tax code, that $0.10 per share exercise price must be the true fair market value at the date of grant, not an artificially low number.
  • Incentive Stock Options: If the company is a corporation (not an LLC) and satisfies lots of special rules, the CFO might be granted a special kind of stock option, with special tax benefits.
  • Phantom Stock: Rather than actual stock, the CFO might receive a contract right intended to achieve the same economic result.

In the world of entrepreneurs generally and the Fintech and Crowdfunding worlds specifically, restricted stock and stock options are the most common choices, so I’m going to focus on those today.

Economically, restricted stock and stock options are almost identical. But the tax consequences can be quite different. For purposes of the discussion below, I’m assuming (i) the CFO’s 100 shares are worth $0.10 per share today and increase in value at the rate of $1.00 per share per year, (ii) the CFO is given 10 years in which to exercise the options, and (iii) the company is sold in 10 years.

Scenario #1: Direct Stock Issuance – General Rule

If the CFO receives 100 shares today, vesting over five years, then she has zero taxable income today because no shares have vested. At the end of the first year she has $22 of taxable income (20 shares vested @$1.10 value per share), at the end of the second year he has $42 of taxable income (20 additional shares vested @$2.10 value per share), and so on. The employee must pay tax on this income each year, while the company can claim a corresponding tax deduction. Thus, over the duration of the vesting period the CFO pays tax on $310 of taxable income and the company obtains a $310 tax deduction.

In this example the CFO will pay roughly $100 of tax on his $310 of taxable income (depending on tax bracket, state of residence, etc.). The exact amount of the tax isn’t important. What’s important is that (i) she will have to fund this cost from her own pocket, and (ii) if the company is very valuable or she owns a lot of stock, her out-of-pocket tax cost could be prohibitively high.

When the company is sold after 10 years, the CFO will receive $1,010 for her shares and have $700 of gain. This $700 would be taxed at long term capital gain rates, and at that point she’ll have the cash to pay her tax.

Scenario #2:  Direct Stock Issuance Followed by §83(b) Election

Where an employee receives stock subject to a vesting schedule, §83(b) of the tax code permits an employee to elect to report as taxable income the entire current value of the stock. Having made the election, the employee does not report any additional taxable income as the stock vests.

In our example, the CFO could make an election and report $10 of taxable income on the date of grant (100 shares of the @ $0.10 per share). She would then have no additional taxable income as the stock vests, and the company would have no tax deductions. Upon the sale of her stock the employee would have $1,000 of income, taxed at long term capital gain rates.

An election under §83(b) must be filed with the Internal Revenue Service within 30 days after the CFO receives the stock.

NOTE:  Suppose the company fails after two years. Now the CFO has paid tax on $10 and has nothing to show for it except a $10 capital loss. That’s the downside of section 83(b).

Scenario #3: Options

The CFO recognizes no current taxable income as a result of receiving options. Instead, she recognizes taxable income as the options are exercised, equal to the difference between the exercise price of $0.10 per share and the value of the stock at the time.

In the simplest scenario, where the CFO exercises options to purchase 20 shares each year, the tax effect would be almost identical to Scenario #1 above. The CFRO would recognize $20 of taxable income in the first year, $40 the next year, and so forth, for a total of $300 of taxable income. No §83(b) election is available with options.

A more likely scenario is that the CFO wouldn’t (or wouldn’t be allowed to) exercise the options each year, but rather waits to exercise until the company is sold. In this case she would recognize no taxable income until sale, and at that point would recognize $1,000 of taxable income, taxed at ordinary income rates rather than capital gain rates. The company would be entitled to a corresponding deduction of $1,000. Again, the CFO would have plenty of money to pay the tax.

Conclusion

Options are simpler than restricted stock, especially if they can’t be exercised until an exit. And the holder of an option, unlike the holder of actual stock, has no right to see confidential information that the company would prefer to keep private.

For that reason, options typically make more sense from the company’s viewpoint, even though the employee might end up paying more tax (ordinary income vs. capital gains) overall. But every company and every situation is different.

Questions? Let me know.

Podcast: Crowdfunding From a Legal Perspective

Podcast for MSR

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

What does the crowdfunding sector look like from a legal perspective? How do recent and previous laws passed by Congress impact startup entrepreneurs and crowdfunding campaigns? Here to give his unique take on the subject is one of the leading crowdfunding and financial technology lawyers in the United States, Mark Roderick. In his conversation with Roy, Mark opens up about the JOBS Act of 2012, the pros and cons of equity crowdfunding, various liability concerns that startup entrepreneurs should keep on their radar and much more. You don’t want to miss a minute of this engaging episode featuring Mark!

Questions? Let Mark know.

Why Qualified Opportunity Zone Funds Are the Hottest Topic of Crowdfunding Real Estate

Podcast: MAPABLE USA 

Why Qualified Opportunity Zone Funds Are the Hottest Topic of Crowdfunding Real Estate

Mapable USA Podcast

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

The word is out about Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZ) and just about every real estate professional in the country is interested about how this IRS sanctioned program works. Investing in a QOZ Fund provides all Americans with a way to save money on their taxes and provides real estate developers with a great angle to raise money for their projects. But are these investment vehicles securities? Can non-accredited investors participate in this form of crowdfunding? How can issuers create their own fund? Listen to attorney Mark Roderick from Flaster Greenberg PC address these questions, what the intricacies of QOZ investing are, and many other items of interest on this episode of the Mapable USA crowdfunding podcast.

While most funds center around real estate projects, any form of substantial improvement into a Qualified Opportunity Zone will satisfy the requirement of a QOZ fund – and that includes bringing in businesses and employment opportunities into these distressed communities. As such, the QOZ Marketplace is a website in progress connecting and identifying Qualified Opportunity Zone tracks and census data, along with a list of Opportunity Zone Funds and real estate properties for those interested in QOZ investing. Because of their tax deferral benefits, getting people seeking to defer their capital gains taxes to invest in these funds probably won’t be an issue. But Mr. Roderick brings up a great point: because QOZ Funds are self-certified, it’s important to be on the outlook for fraud. His advice? Look for a deal with a strong foundation with reputable people – the tax deferral savings is just icing on the cake!

Recent Blog Posts related to QOZ Fund:

Questions? Let me know.

What’s an Investment Adviser in Crowdfunding?

 

investment adviser.jpgAs Crowdfunding grows and investment advisers migrate into the space, we’re going to devote a few blog posts to investment adviser basics:

  • Federal vs. State regulation of investment advisers
  • Advisers to private funds
  • Venture capital advisers
  • Duties of investment advisers
  • Registration of investment advisers

Today we start with the most basic question:  What is an investment adviser?

Here’s the definition from the Investment Adviser Act of 1940:

“[A]ny person who, for compensation, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or who, for compensation and as part of a regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities. . . .”

The term “securities” is very broad, covering obvious things like stock, bonds, and interests in limited liability companies, but less obviously things like (1) mortgages, and (2) blockchain tokens that are treated as securities under Howey.

EXAMPLE #1:  Molly Smith operates a Crowdfunding site that allows investors to participate in specific mortgage loans made to real estate fix-and-flippers. Because investors choose their own mortgage loans, Molly probably isn’t an investment adviser.

EXAMPLE #2:  Samantha O’Hara creates a fund that buys and sells mortgage loans made to real estate fix-and-flippers. If Samantha is deciding which loans the fund will buy and sell, she’s probably an investment adviser.

EXAMPLE #3:  John Kelly, software engineer, reads the Wall Street Journal and often gives investment tips to his friends. Because he’s not in business and not being compensated, John isn’t an investment adviser.

EXAMPLE #4:  Craig Toricelli creates a fund that buys and sells apartment buildings. Because a fee simple interest in real estate isn’t a “security,” Craig isn’t an investment adviser.

EXAMPLE #5:  Gregg Wright creates a fund that buys and sells bitcoin (buy on the dip!). Because bitcoin isn’t a “security,” Gregg isn’t an investment adviser.

A few common exceptions:

  • Lawyers, accountants, engineers, and teachers aren’t investment advisers if their performance of advisory services is solely incidental to their professions.
  • Brokers and dealers aren’t investment advisers if their performance of advisory services is solely incidental to the conduct of their business as brokers and dealers, and they do not receive any special compensation for advisory services.
  • Publishers of bona fide newspapers, newsletters, and business or financial publications of general and regular circulation aren’t investment advisers if their publications meet three requirements:
    • The publication must offer only impersonal advice, e., advice not tailored to the individual needs of a specific client, group of clients, or portfolio.
    • The publication must contain disinterested commentary and analysis rather than promotional material disseminated by someone touting particular securities.
    • The publication must be of general and regular circulation rather than issued from time to time in response to episodic market activity or events affecting the securities industry.

EXAMPLE:  Each time Cindy Liu, Esquire finishes work on an ICO, she post on her Facebook page:  “Take a look!” Even If her clients think they’re paying for the publicity as well the legal work, Cindy’s not an investment adviser, because she’s not being paid by her Facebook friends.

In that list, you don’t see “advisers to private funds” or “advisers to family offices.” That’s because while these and other common species of investment advisers are exempt from registering with the SEC, they are still investment advisers, which means (1) they are still subject to certain legal obligations, and (2) they still might have to register with a state. More on all that later.

Questions? Let me know.

Think Twice About a Low Target Amount in Title III Crowdfunding

Target amount in Title III Crowdfunding

Many Title III issuers are setting “target amounts” as low as $10,000. I understand the motivation, but I’d urge issuers and the platforms to think twice.

Background

In Title III Crowdfunding (also known as “Regulation Crowdfunding” or “Regulation CF” or “Reg CF”), the issuer establishes a “target amount” for the offering. Once the offering achieves the target amount, the issuer can start spending the money raised from investors, even while continuing to raise more money. That gives issuers a strong incentive to set a low target amount.

EXAMPLE:  A brewery needs to raise $400,000 for equipment, fit-out, marketing, and salaries. If the brewery establishes $400,000 as the target amount, it can’t start spending the money from investors until it raises the entire $400,000. If it establishes $10,000 as the target amount, on the other hand, it can start spending investor money as soon as it raises the first $10,000 — even if the business will fail without the full $400,000.

The platform benefits, also, in two ways:

  • If the brewery establishes a target amount of $10,000 and raises at least that much, the platform can include the brewery in its “Reached Target Amount” list, even if overall the brewery raised only $12,000 and failed.
  • The platform receives a commission only on funds released to the issuer. The sooner money is released to the issuer, the sooner the platform earns a commission.

Minimum Offering Amounts

Target amounts were around long before Title III Crowdfunding, in the form of “minimum offering amounts.” A company raising capital would establish a “minimum offering” equal to the lowest amount of money that would make the business viable. If a brewery absolutely needs $400,000 to be viable, then the minimum offering would be $400,000. If it could plausibly scrape by with $315,000 — maybe by deferring the purchase of an $85,000 piece of equipment — then the minimum offering would be $315,000.

Issuers don’t establish minimum offerings because they want to, but because experienced investors won’t invest otherwise. If $315,000 is the minimum that will make the brewery successful, an experienced investor writing the first check will demand that her money be held in escrow until the offering raises $315,000. If the offering doesn’t raise $315,000, she gets her money back. Investing is hard enough:  why invest in a company that’s guaranteed to fail?

That’s also why we have traditionally seen “minimum/maximum” offerings. The brewery that needs at least $315,000 to be viable might be able to make great use of up to $475,000, with both numbers anchored to a believable business plan.

The Decision in Title III

Cash is king for most entrepreneurs, the sooner the better, so a Title III issuer will be tempted to establish a low target amount. And to the extent an issuer can rely on inexperienced investors, it might be successful, at least in the short term.

But the issuer should also be aware of the downside:  by establishing a low target amount, the issuer is driving away experienced investors. How many experienced investors are driven away, and the amount they might have invested, can’t be captured.

On the positive side, an issuer that establishes a realistic target amount can and should advertise that fact in its Form C, perhaps drawing a favorable contrast vis-à-vis other Title III issuers, whose target amounts were picked from the air. That’s the kind of information an experienced investor will like to see.

An issuer that weighs the pros and cons and nevertheless decides on an artificially low target amount should include a prominent risk factor in its Form C:

“The ‘target amount’ we established for this offering is substantially lower than the amount of money we really need to execute our business plan. If we raise only the target amount and are unable to raise other funds, our business will probably fail and you will lose your entire investment.”

Artificially low target amounts carry a long-term downside for the platform, too. I would argue that as long as issuers are establishing $10,000 minimums, Title III won’t be taken seriously as an asset class, and the industry won’t grow.

Questions? Let me know.

BYU Radio Podcast: What Guardrails Guarantee Crowdfunding Money Ends Up in the Right Hands?

Julie Rose Podcast

Top of Mind with Julie Rose Featuring Mark Roderick

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Nearly a quarter of Americans have contributed to one of those crowdsourced fundraisers online like GoFundMe or Kickstarter. The ability to quickly raise money from lots of people has launched successful startups and led to heartwarming tales about a sick child’s hospital bills getting paid, or a young widow getting help with burial expenses or a viral story of a good deed leading to a huge cash windfall for a lucky Good Samaritan. But it’s not all warm fuzzies and faith in humanity on these sites. Fraud happens.

%d bloggers like this: