Category Archives: Uncategorized

Help Wanted

help wantedMy work in the Crowdfunding space has been the most interesting and challenging of my career. Now I’m looking to add to our Crowdfunding team here at Flaster/Greenberg, and I hope you can help find the right person.

The right person would have these qualifications:

  • An attorney with 2-4 years of experience in corporate and securities offerings
  • Crowdfunding-specific experience appreciated but not required
  • A good, fast learner, unafraid to ask questions
  • Someone who pays attention to detail, and takes pride in great legal work
  • A good writer and communicator
  • Good technology skills
  • Lives in the Philadelphia area or is able to work effectively remotely

If you or someone you know has these qualifications, please forward a resume to our Human Resources Director, Karen Roberts, at Karen.Roberts@flastergreenberg.com.

Thank you!

MARK

Questions? Let me know.

Marc R. Garber: 9/23/55 – 8/21/2018

marc garberMarc R. Garber, an employee benefits lawyer, was a partner with my firm for almost 20 years. He died last week of cancer at age 62.

Marc loved practicing law. He loved the very arcane qualities of employee benefits law that make most of us shy away. He knew the 1953 case and the 1972 IRS ruling and the 2017 statute and everything in between. He reveled in the intellectual detail, and he was always right. I wish more lawyers shared Marc’s attention to detail. If he had chosen Crowdfunding rather than employee benefits, you wouldn’t know me.

Life dealt Marc some harsh blows, including a traffic accident that shattered his health. He was, in spite of everything, one of the most positive, optimistic human beings I’ve ever met. When I saw Marc’s unrelenting optimism in the face of adversity, and compared that to my own circumstances, I could feel almost ashamed. Marc’s joy for life was both a lesson and an inspiration.

Everyone who knew Marc will miss him dearly.

Yes, A Parent Company Can Use Title III Crowdfunding

Title III Crowdfunding

We know an “investment company,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, can’t use Title III Crowdfunding. For that matter, an issuer can’t use Title III even if it’s not an investment company, if the reason it’s not an investment company is one of the exemptions under section 3(b) or section 3(c) of the 1940 Act. By way of example, suppose a a company is engaged in the business of making commercial mortgage loans. Even if the company qualifies for the exemption under section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, it still can’t use Title III.

We also know that, silly as it seems, a company whose only asset is the securities of one company is generally treated as an investment company under the 1940 Act. That’s why we can’t use so-called “special purpose vehicles,” or SPVs, in Title III Crowdfunding, to round up all the investors in one entity and thereby simplify the cap table.

Put those two things together and you might conclude that only an operating company, and not a company that owns stock in the operating company, can use Title III Crowdfunding. But that wouldn’t be quite right.

A company that owns the securities of an operating company – I’ll call that a “parent company” — can’t use Title III if it’s an “investment company” under the 1940 Act. However, while every investment company is a parent company, not every parent company is an investment company. Here’s what I mean.

Section 3(a)(1) of the 1940 Act defines “investment company” as:

  • A company engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading in securities; or
  • A company engaged in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities, which owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of its assets.

Suppose Parent, Inc. owns 100% of Operating Company, LLC, and nothing else. If Parent’s interest in Operating Company is treated as a “security,” then Parent will be an investment company under either definition above and can’t use Title III. However, it should be possible to structure the relationship between Parent and Operating Company so that Parent’s interest is not treated as a security, relying on a long line of cases involving general partnership interests.

These cases arise under the Howey test, made famous by the ICO world. Under Howey, an instrument is a security if and only if:

  • It involves an investment of money or other property in a common enterprise;
  • There is an expectation of profits; and
  • The expectation of profits is based on the efforts of someone else.

Focusing on the third element of the Howey test, courts have held that a general partner’s interest in a limited partnership generally is not a security because (1) by law, the general partner controls the partnership, and (2) the general partner is therefore relying on its own efforts to realize a profit, not the efforts of someone else.

If Operating Company were a partnership and Parent were its general partner, then the arrangement would fall squarely within this line of cases and Parent wouldn’t be treated as an investment company. As a general partner, however, Parent would be fully liable for the liabilities of Operating Company, defeating the main purpose of the parent/subsidiary relationship, i.e., letting the tail wag the dog.

Fortunately, Parent should be able to achieve the same result even though Operating Company is a limited liability company. The key is that Operating Company should be managed by its members, not by a manager. That should place Parent in exactly the same position as the typical general partner:  relying on its own efforts, rather than the efforts of someone else, to realize a profit from the enterprise.

If Parent’s interest in Operating Company isn’t a “security,” then Parent isn’t an “investment company,” and can raise money using Title III.

Questions? Let me know.

The New 20% Deduction in Crowdfunding Transactions

Taxes and Income - iStock-172441475 - small.jpg

Co-Authored By: Steve Poulathas & Mark Roderick

The new tax law added section 199A to the Internal Revenue Code, providing for a 20% deduction against some kinds of business income. Section 199A immediately assumes a place among the most complicated provisions in the Code, which is saying something.

I’m going to summarize just one piece of section 199A: how the deduction works for income recognized through a limited liability company or other pass-through entity. That means I’m not going to talk about lots of important things, including:

  • Dividends from REITS
  • Income from service businesses
  • Dividends from certain publicly-traded partnerships
  • Dividends from certain cooperatives
  • Non-U.S. income
  • Short taxable years
  • Limitations based on net capital gains

Where the Deduction Does and Doesn’t Help

Section 199A allows a deduction against an individual investor’s share of the taxable income generated by the entity. The calculation is done on an entity-by-entity basis.

That means you can’t use a deduction from one entity against income from a different entity. It also means that the deduction is valuable only if the entity itself is generating taxable income.

That’s important because most Crowdfunding investments and ICOs, whether for real estate projects or startups, don’t generate taxable income. Most real estate projects produce losses in the early years because of depreciation deductions, while most startups generate losses in the early years because, well, because they’re startups.

The section 199A deduction also doesn’t apply to income from capital gains, interest income, or dividends income. It applies only to ordinary business income, including rental income*. Thus, when the real estate project is sold or the startup achieves its exit, section 199A doesn’t provide any relief.

Finally, the deduction is available only to individuals and other pass-through entities, not to C corporations.

*Earlier drafts of section 199A didn’t include rental income. At the last minute rental income was included and Senator Bob Corker, who happens to own a lot of rental property, switched his vote from No to Yes. Go figure.

The Calculation

General Rule

The general rule is that the investor is entitled to deduct 20% of his income from the pass-through entity. Simple.

Deduction Limits

Alas, the 20% deduction is subject to limitations, which I refer to as the Deduction Limits. Specifically, the investor’s nominal 20% deduction cannot exceed the greater of:

  • The investor’s share of 50% of the wages paid by the entity; or
  • The sum of:
    • The investor’s share of 25% of the wages paid by the entity; plus
    • The investor’s share of 2.5% of the cost of the entity’s depreciable property.

Each of those clauses is subject to special rules and defined terms. For purposes of this summary, I’ll point out three things:

  • The term “wages” means W-2 wages, to employees. It doesn’t include amounts paid to independent contractors and reported on a Form 1099.
  • The cost of the entity’s depreciable property means just that: the cost of the property, not its tax basis, which is reduced by depreciation deductions.
  • Land is not depreciable property.
  • Once an asset reaches the end of its depreciable useful life or 10 years, whichever is later, you stop counting it. That means the “regular” useful life, not the accelerated life used to actually depreciate it.

Exception Based on Income

The nominal deduction and the Deduction Limits are not the end of the story.

If the investor’s personal taxable income is less than $157,500 ($315,000 for a married couple filing a joint return), then the Deduction Limits don’t apply and he can just deduct the flat 20%. And if his personal taxable income is less than $207,500 ($415,000 on a joint return) then the Deduction Limits are, in effect, phased out, depending on where in the spectrum his taxable income falls.

Those dollar limits are indexed for inflation.

ABC, LLC and XYZ, LLC

Bill Smith owns equity interests in two limited liability companies: a 3% interest in ABC, LLC; and a 2% interest in XYZ, LLC. Both generate taxable income. Bill’s share of the taxable income of ABC is $100 and his share of the taxable income of XYZ is $150.

ABC owns an older apartment building, while XYZ owns a string of restaurants.

Like most real estate companies, ABC doesn’t pay any wages as such. Instead, it pays a related management company, Manager, LLC, $500 per year as an independent contractor. All of its personal property has been fully depreciated. Its depreciable real estate, including all the additions and renovations over the years, cost $20,000.

Restaurants pay lots of wages but don’t have much in the way of depreciable assets (I’m assuming XYZ leases its premises). XYZ paid $3,000 of wages and has $1,000 of depreciable assets, but half those assets are older than 10 years and beyond their depreciable useful life, leaving only $500.

Bill and his wife file a joint return and have taxable income of $365,000.

Bill’s Deductions

Calculation With Deduction Limits

Bill’s income from ABC was $100, so his maximum possible deduction is $20. The Deduction Limit is the greater of:

  • 3% of 50% of $0 = $0

OR

  • The sum of:
    • 3% of 25% of $0 = 0; plus
    • 3% of 2.5% of $20,000 = $15 = $15

Thus, ignoring his personal taxable income for the moment, Bill may deduct $15, not $20, against his $100 of income from ABC.

NOTE: If ABC ditches the management agreement and pays its own employees directly, it increases Bill’s deduction by 3% of 25% of $500, or $3.75.

Bill’s income from XYZ was $150, so his maximum possible deduction is $30. The Deduction Limit is the greater of:

  • 2% of 50% of $3,000 = $30

OR

  • The sum of:
    • 2% of 25% of $3,000 = 15; plus
    • 2% of 2.5% of $500 = $0.25 = $15.25

Thus, even ignoring his personal taxable income, Bill may deduct the whole $30 against his $150 of income from XYZ.

Calculation Based on Personal Taxable Income

Bill’s personal taxable income doesn’t affect the calculation for XYZ, because he was allowed the full 20% deduction even taking the Deduction Limits into account.

For ABC, Bill’s nominal 20% deduction was $20, but under the Deduction Limits it was reduced by $5, to $15.

If Bill and his wife had taxable income of $315,000 or less, they could ignore the Deduction Limits entirely and deduct the full $20. If they had taxable income of $415,000 or more, they would be limited to the $15. Because their taxable income is $365,000, halfway between $315,000 and $415,000, they are subject, in effect, to half the Deduction Limits, and can deduct $17.50 (and if their income were a quarter of the way they would be subject to a quarter of the Deduction Limits, etc.).

***

Because most real estate projects and startups generate losses in the early years, the effect of section 199A on the Crowdfunding and ICO markets might be muted. Nevertheless, I expect some changes:

  • Many real estate sponsors will at least explore doing away with management agreements in favor of employing staff on a project-by-project basis.
  • Every company anticipating taxable income should analyze whether investors will be entitled to a deduction.
  • Because lower-income investors aren’t subject to the Deduction Limits, maybe Title III offerings and Regulation A offerings to non-accredited investors become more attractive, relatively speaking.
  • I expect platforms and issuers to advertise “Eligible for 20% Deduction!” Maybe even with numbers.
  • The allocation of total cost between building and land, already important for depreciation, is now even more important, increasing employment for appraisers.
  • Now every business needs to keep track of wages and the cost of property, and report each investor’s share on Form K-1. So the cost of accounting will go up.

As for filing your tax return on a postcard? It better be a really big postcard.

Non-Compete Covenants In Crowdfunding And Fintech

Co-Authored By: Adam Gersh & Mark Roderick

Taking a break from securities laws, we’ll take a look at using non-compete covenants in the Crowdfunding and Fintech world.

By “non-compete agreement,” we mean a contract that prohibits an employee from being employed by, or engaging in, a competitive business after she leaves.

EXAMPLE:  Real estate Crowdfunding company ABC requires its non-clerical employees to sign an agreement promising not to work for any other real estate Crowdfunding business for two years after termination of employment.

To be clear, when we say “non-compete agreement” in this post we don’t mean (1) a confidentiality agreement (a contract that prohibits the employee or contractor from using trade secrets or other confidential information), or (2) a non-solicitation agreement (a contract that prohibits the employee or contractor from soliciting customers or employees after she leaves). Confidentiality agreements and non-solicitation agreements are often used in conjunction with non-compete agreements but generally don’t raise the same legal and ethical questions.

Are Non-Compete Agreements Ethical?

Over the last year, I’ve seen a lot of press arguing that non-compete agreements are unethical — a form of human bondage. It’s more complicated, in my opinion.

When the U.S. economy was based on manufacturing, no one thought it was okay for an employee to haul away his employer’s tools when he quit. In today’s knowledge-based economy, where a $65 billion taxi company called Uber owns no taxis, the assets of most companies are intangible, i.e., knowledge and information. If employees can haul away those assets when they leave, there’s a problem.

Most of the time, employers are trying to protect two things:  confidential information and contacts/relationships. If confidentiality agreements and non-solicitation agreements were easy to prove and enforce, we probably wouldn’t need non-compete agreements. The problem is that they’re very difficult to enforce because violations are very difficult to prove – did the former employee solicit the customer, or did the customer solicit her? So, companies use non-compete agreements as a sort of “backstop.”

Here are a few hypotheticals that illustrate the ethical dilemma:

  • Real estate Crowdfunding company ABC hires Jean Smith, who knows nothing about real estate or Crowdfunding. After three years she leaves and starts her own real estate Crowdfunding company, competing with ABC for deals and investors based on the relationships and reputation she developed while on ABC’s payroll.
  • The same facts as above except Jean was fired for embezzlement.
  • The same facts as above except Jean was laid off because her job was replaced by an algorithm.
  • The same facts as above except Jean brought her own personal contacts to ABC as investors.

Are Restrictive Covenants Enforceable?

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been asked “Non-competes aren’t enforceable, right?”

In general, that’s wrong. Properly-drafted non-compete agreements are as enforceable as any other contract in most American jurisdictions. The giant exception to that rule is California, where non-competes for employees are per se unenforceable (with limited exceptions).

Almost everywhere else, a non-compete agreement is enforceable as long as the agreement is “reasonable” to enforce the legitimate interests of the employer. Whether a given non-compete agreement is “reasonable” depends on lots of factors, including the duties of the employee in question (e.g., business development vs. clerical duties), the duration of the restriction, and the geographical limitation. Despite their name, non-compete agreements can’t be used to prohibit competition per se. They can be used only to prohibit competition that is unfair based on the facts and circumstances.

The geographical limitation in particular creates hard questions in Crowdfunding and Fintech, where many businesses are either national or international in scope.

EXAMPLE:  A dental practice in Chicago attracts 80% of its patients from a seven mile radius. It would be unreasonable for the practice to prohibit its employees from working in Texas. But a real estate Crowdfunding business in Chicago, with projects from California to Texas to New York, is a different story. Can that business prohibit its employees from working anywhere?

Then there’s the question of what the company’s business really is. Is it a general dentistry practice or a specialist orthodontic practice? Does the company do all kinds of real estate Crowdfunding or only residential fix-and-flips? With about eight and a half million accredited investors in the U.S. alone, but only a small fraction having signed up at Crowdfunding sites, are Crowdfunding companies – real estate or otherwise – even competing with one another in the traditional sense?

Things are even more complicated in the blockchain world. Are all companies issuing tokens competitors? No. But two companies issuing tokens based on distributed digital storage are probably competitors, even if one is based on New York and the other in Silicon Valley.

Do Non-Compete Agreements Apply Only to Employees?

No, non-compete agreements can be used for contractors and vendors as well as for employees.

Do Non-Compete Agreements Inhibit Innovation and Economic Growth?

We’ll leave that to the economists.

Are Non-Compete Agreements Effective?

In general, yes, they are very effective. Meaning:  an employee who is subject to non-compete agreements generally doesn’t compete.

For one thing, the employee generally wants to comply with her contract, even if the contract seems a little overbearing and a lawyer says it might not be enforceable. So she chooses a new job that doesn’t violate the non-compete agreement, if she can.

But most important, a company that hires an employee subject to a non-compete agreement can also be liable. Once it learns about the non-compete, the new employer usually withdraws its offer, effectively “enforcing” the non-compete on behalf of the former employer and forcing the employee to look for a job elsewhere. Every now and then a new employer wants the employee so much that it takes the risk, but very seldom.

Recommendations

If you’re a company and aren’t located in California, you should have your employees sign non-compete agreements, period. Think about what you’re trying to protect and draft the agreements accordingly.

If you’re an employee think hard before you sign one. It’s probably enforceable, and it might affect your ability to find another job if you leave.

Form of Agreement

Here is a form of an Invention, Non-Disclosure, And Non-Competition Agreement. In addition to a non-compete agreement, this contract includes a confidentiality agreement, a non-solicitation agreement, and a provision that makes the company the owner of any inventions of the employee, useful in most tech companies.

CAUTIONS:

  • Don’t assume this agreement will be right for your company or that it will be enforced as written in your state.
  • This contract was written for a real estate Crowdfunding portal. It can be modified for other Crowdfunding or Fintech companies.

REALCROWD Webinar: An Attorney’s Take on Real Estate Crowdfunding

Listen as Adam Hooper and Mark Roderick discuss crowdfunding for real estate and the legal documents investors sign when investing in a real estate deal.

Mark Roderick is one of the leading attorneys in the Crowdfunding/Fintech industry and speaks at conferences and other events all over the world. If you’re interested in having Mark speak at an event, please contact Molly Grimm,Communications Manager at Flaster Greenberg PC, at 856.382.2211 or via email: molly.grimm@flastergreenberg.com.

SEC Makes Intrastate Crowdfunding A Little Easier

Source: NASAA Intrastate Crowdfunding Update – October 17, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions? Let me know.

Two Upcoming Events

I’m delighted to participate in two important Crowdfunding events over the next few weeks:

  • The Regulation A Bootcamp in Manhattan this Thursday, November 10th. For more information and to register, click here.
  • The CrowdInvest Summit in Los Angeles on December 7th. For more information and to register, click here. (Use prom code “MARK30” for 30% off your conference pass).

Both these events are going to be terrific, with a roster that reads like a who’s-who in the industry.

(Miss Nevada had planned to attend also, but apparently had a last-minute scheduling conflict when she learned I would be participating.)

I look forward to seeing everyone else there!

MARK

Workshop on Regulation A+

 

On March 4th I had the pleasure of co-presenting a workshop on Regulation A (Title IV Crowdfunding) in Mountain View, California, at an event organized by Crowdfund Beat. My co-presenter, Jillian Sidoti of SyndicationLawyers.com, is a terrific person, an engaging speaker, and one of the country’s leading authorities on Regulation A.

I hope you enjoy our conversation and get a sense of the real-life practicalities of preparing and filing a Regulation A offering.

CrowdFund Beat Media International is an online source of news, information, events and resources for the crowdfunding industry. Currently we cover the USA, Canada, the UK, Italy, Germany, France, and Holland, and soon we’ll be expanding to Spain, Australia, Japan and China. We think of our work as an educational and informative service to the crowdfunding community, and appreciate your suggestions.

Intrastate Crowdfunding After Title III

CF WordclouldOn one hand, the SEC just proposed several changes to Rule 147 that will make intrastate Crowdfunding easier:

  • We used to worry, at least a little, about the language in Rule 147 saying that you couldn’t offer securities to anyone outside the state. How does this work when your offers are made with the Internet, we wondered? The SEC just proposed eliminating that requirement.
  • If you were doing an intrastate offering in Texas, Rule 147 used
    to require using a Texas entity – not Delaware, for example. No more.
  • If you’re doing an intrastate offering in Texas, you have to show you’re doing business in Texas. The new proposals would make that easier.
  • The new proposals would also simplify and rationalize the rules around (1) the “integration” of offerings (combining an intrastate offering with other offerings), (2) verifying that investors are residents of the state, and (3) re-sales of securities purchased in an intrastate offering.

All that is great, and should really help the intrastate Crowdfunding market (although I take to heart Anthony Zeoli’s excellent caveat here.)

On the other hand, the SEC also proposed a $5 million cap on intrastate offerings, which seems very important in light of Title III.

Title III Crowdfunding allows any issuer anywhere to raise up to $1 million from non-accredited investors who live anywhere in the world. With Title III Crowdfunding available, why would an issuer use intrastate Crowdfunding? There are only two possible reasons:

  • You’re allowed to raise more money in the intrastate offering
  • The process of the intrastate offering is faster/cheaper/easier

Once the hi-tech folks get their hands around Title III, I think we’re going to see the process becoming faster, cheaper, and easier than it looks now, making Title III comparable (maybe even superior) to intrastate Crowdfunding from that perspective.

Then it just comes down to how much you can raise. If I am a small issuer – raising less than $1 million, for example – why would I use the intrastate law of my state when I can use Title III instead and appeal to the whole universe of investors? Case in point:  New Jersey enacted an intrastate Crowdfunding law just this week – with a $1 million limit. Why would a New Jersey business use that law, with Title III on the books and the gold and silver of Manhattan right across the Hudson River?

And if I’m a software developer wondering what kind of platform to build, isn’t the scale tipped in favor of Title III?

The scales will tip further that way when Congress increases the limit of Title III from $1 million to something higher. Although the SEC can always raise the limit for intrastate Crowdfunding as well, the future probably belongs to Title III.

Questions? Let me know.

%d bloggers like this: