Crowdfunding: When Will the SEC Finally Enact the Implementing Rules?

The below was released in conjunction with Sequel Technology & IP Law (SequelTech), which is Of Counsel to The Berkman Law Firm, PLLC

                                                                                                Media Contact:

                                                                                                Dan Shafer, Shafer Media

                                                                                                831-531-4679

                                                                                                dan@shafermedia.com

Crowdfunding: A Hot Potato

on Which the SEC Must Make Decisions Soon

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 13, 2013 -- Attorneys at Sequel Technology & IP Law, PLLC (Sequeltech), a well-known intellectual property firm based in Washington, D.C., are calling for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to move the process of regulating so-called “crowdfunding” Web sites closer to its front burner.

When President Obama signed into law the Jump Start Our Business Startups (JOBS) legislation in April, 2012, he and Congress took official notice of the existence for the preceding few years of a fund-raising technique for small and startup businesses called “crowdfunding.” The law established a broad framework for crowdfunding Web services like Project Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com), Indiegogo (http://www.indiegogo.com) and EquityNet (https://www.equitynet.com/), which actually pioneered the field.

“Up to now, crowdfunding services have been acting as mostly passive intermediaries between companies seeking funding for projects and products and large numbers of individuals who are interested in providing small-dollar donations to help them along,” says Jeffrey W. Berkman, Of Counsel to SequelTech.

Companies who use crowdfunding sites to raise capital do not offer securities in return. Rather, they provide themed give-aways, credits on a movie, a chance to get a pre-release or free copy of the product, and the like.

From the start, crowdfunding sites have been viewed with suspicion and wariness by traditional securities brokers and salespeople. They clearly operate outside any framework of SEC regulations. However, in the current economic climate, many government officials see these sites as providing a much-needed service for companies that need to raise capital but can’t afford the sometimes staggering fees associated with registering a stock offering with the government or raising funds through the current framework of a private placement.

With the passage of the JOBS Act, the SEC was given authority over these unconventional funding services. A few broad guidelines were included in the legislation:

○        Businesses wishing to avail themselves of crowdfunding must not raise more than $1 million per year through the mechanism.

○        Crowdfunding sites will be required to be registered with a self-regulatory organization and regulated by the SEC.

○        There will be some sort of means test to insure investors are qualified in the sense that investors in other, more traditional, private placement offerings are qualified, albeit with perhaps fewer restrictions.

○        The firm behind the crowdfunding site must be a broker or can be a non-broker but it still must be registered with the SEC.

○        Significantly, crowdfunding will allow general advertising and solicitation to accredited investors in a non-registered offering, which is prohibited under securities law.

But the passage of the JOBS Act didn’t have the immediate effect of clarifying the rules and regulations which would govern crowdfunding. Rather, the JOBS Act placed the obligation on the SEC to adopt the required rules and regulations for implementation.

“Unfortunately, up to now the SEC has failed to enact the implementing rules and regulations governing crowdfunding,” SequelTech Founder and Managing Partner Melise Blakeslee points out.  There is speculation as to why the outgoing SEC Chairman failed to act by the January 31, 2013 deadline.  However, with the appointment of Mary Jo White as SEC Chairman, Berkman sees the dawning of a new era at the SEC. “Chairman White,” he says, “has a reputation for being tough and getting things done, so many observers who want to see crowdfunding clarified and properly regulated are expressing hope that the time may now come soon.”

It will soon be a year since the JOBS Act was signed into law. The crowdfunding industry has continued to grow and prosper. Thousands of companies, projects and non-profit organizations have received funding. But so long as the SEC fails to issue the needed regulations spelling out in detail the restrictions it will impose on these Websites, crowdfunding, which is hailed by many start-ups and emerging companies as a game-changing opportunity to raise funds, remains unavailable.

What does this mean if you’re interested in funding a product or project via a crowdfunding site? It means you’ll want your attorneys to keep a close eye on the SEC regulatory process so that you can make timely adjustments to your plans and fund-raising tactics as needed without losing out on the enormous potential of crowdfunding. “And if you’re thinking about starting a new business to get in on the ground floor of crowdfunding, you should pay close attention to the news about the forthcoming SEC regulations,” warns Blakeslee.

ABOUT SEQUEL TECHNOLOGY & IP LAW PLLC

            Sequel Technology & IP Law (SequelTech) is a Washington, D.C.-based law firm specializing in intellectual property and high-technology law. Founded in 2009, the firm is headed by Managing Partner Melise Blakeslee.  Melise Blakeslee and Jeffrey W. Berkman work together as "of counsel" on various business law, IP and high-technology law matters for clients in a variety of industries.  

Disclaimer:  The discussions in this Blog do not constitute legal advice nor create an attorney-client relationship.  You are urged to seek the advise of an experienced lawyer who can provide counsel with respect to your corporate/business law matters.

Why You Need a Shareholders Agreement (Part I)

If you are forming a corporation with a partner, regardless of whether it is with your best friend that you have known since birth or a new business relationship, executing a well-crafted Shareholders Agreement is essential.  Too often, partners mistakenly believe that the corporate By Laws answer all the questions and will adequately set the parameters for the relationship between shareholders.  While the By-laws address day-to-day operations of the corporation, the Shareholder Agreement is where a number of specific rights and obligations of the shareholders are set forth.  Common provisions of a Shareholders Agreement will address such issues as voting rights, restrictions on voluntary and involuntary transfers of stock, buy-out clause, non-competition obligations, death, incapacity or divorce of a shareholder, and limitations on Board of Directors powers.  The next several posts will address the importance of the Shareholders Agreement, some of the common provisions, as well as several issues that are often overlooked in drafting the Agreement.

1.  Do Not Confuse the Articles, By-laws and Shareholders Agreement.

Entrepreneurs forming a corporation for the first time may find that they are unclear as to the differences between the Certificate of Incorporation (or Articles of Incorporation), By-laws and the Shareholders Agreement:

    A. Certificate of Incorporation:  This document (which often have a different name outside of New York, such as Articles of Incorporation), is the only document that must be filed in New York to form a corporation.  As with many states, New York provides a simple form requiring only limited information to be included in the Certificate (name of the entity, purpose, county where located, number of authorized shares, and name of registered agent).  While you may draft your own form, the simple New York form is all that is required to incorporate.  There are siutations where you might draft your own Certificate of Incorporation, as where there are different classes stock, and the Certificate of Incorporation will be more complex.  However, the basic Certificate of Incorporation is a bare-bones document that does not address any issues relating to corporate governance, authority of the Board of Directors, or the rights and obligations of the shareholders.

  B.  By-laws of a Corporation.  The By-laws serve the purpose of setting forth important terms relating to the governance of the corporation.  Thus, the By-laws establish important aspects for day-to-day operation of the corporation:

            (i) Board of Directors:  the number of members of the Board of Directors, meetings of the Board, voting, removal, vacancies, and powers of the Board of Directors;
 
            (ii) Shareholders:  Annual and Special Meetings of Shareholders, including notice, voting, and general procedures;

           (iii)  Officers:   election/appointment and removal procedures and authority of officers;

           (iv)  Indemnification:  indemnification of Directors, officers, employees of the corporation; and
   
          (v)   Miscellaneous:  Stock, Maintaining Books and Records, Seal of the Corporation, Amendments to the By Laws.        

    C.  The Shareholders Agreement.  The Shareholders Agreement  is the document among the Shareholders and the Corporation where a number of specific rights and obligations of the shareholders and the corporation are detailed.  The Shareholder Agreement is a contract, and can include essentially any terms that do not violate the New York Business Corporation Law (or any other applicable law).  Typical provisions can include voting agreements or rights among the shareholders, restrictions on voluntary transfers of stock (i.e., selling stock to a third-party) and involuntary transfers (death, bankruptcy or divorce of a shareholder), a buy-out clause, non-competition obligations, information rights of shareholders, and limitations on authority of the Board of Directors and dispute mechanisms.

2.  Why the Shareholder Agreement is Essential.

The Shareholder Agreement is essential as it clarifies the rights and obligations of the Shareholders between each other as well as certain obligations of the corporation to the shareholders that are not otherwise included in the By-laws.  Too often entrepreneurs, to their peril, are willing to rely on the relationship with their friend (now business partner) or believe they lack the negotiating position to ask for certain rights as a condition of an investment or becoming a minority partner in a business.  A well-drafted Shareholders Agreement not only helps delineate the rights of the business partners, but it will in most cases resolve any disputes before they arise because the issue will have been addressed in the Agreement.

Below are some typical disputes that will be alleviated with a Shareholders Agreement:

• Deadlock in a 50/50 corporation
• The sale of shares by your business partner to his undesirable friend
• The transfer of shares to the free-loading son of your deceased business partner
• The transfer of shares to your business partner's spouse in a divorce
• A decision by the Board to hire an employee at a ridiculously high salary         

If the business partners have a Shareholders Agreement, all of the above can be dealt with before they become issues.
 
3.  What are some of the Key Provisions to Include in a Shareholders Agreement?

Important provisions in a Shareholder Agreement will, at a minimum, include:

    A.  Restrictions on voluntary and involuntary transfers of a shareholder's stock;

            (i) Right of First Refusal
            (ii) Co-Sale (Tag Along) Rights
                                               
    B.   Resolution mechanism/buy-out clause in case of a deadlock;
   
    C.   Voting rights and obligations among shareholders;
   
    D.   Limitations on Board of Directors powers; and
   
    E.   Several Miscellaneous Rights

           (i) Restrictive Covenants
           (ii) Drag-Along Obligations in the event of sale of the company
           (iii) Information Rights

The next several posts will discuss the above typical clauses of a Shareholders Agreement, including important drafting tips.



Disclaimer:  The discussions in this Blog do not constitute legal advice nor create an attorney-client relationship.  You are urged to seek the advise of an experienced lawyer who can provide counsel with respect to your corporate/business law matters.

Private Placements: The Friends and Family Exemption and Other Misconceptions

There is a common misconception among start-ups and emerging companies seeking to raise capital that the securities laws don't apply to them simply because the company is small, or they are not raising millions of dollars or the purchasers are "friends and family".  While all of these may seem logical reasons not to incur the expenses and involve the resources that are required to prepare for a private placement, the fact remains that these are not valid legal excuses for avoiding the application of the securities laws. 

Notwithstanding the desire of the small, private company to avoid the expense and time of complying with the securities laws, if you are considering raising even a small amount, the following principles apply:

1.  Securities Laws Apply to Private Companies.  The fact that a company is private, or is not seeking to do an initial public offering (IPO) to become public, does not mean the securities laws don't apply.  The simple rule to follow is that if you are raising capital through an equity (i.e., stock, LLC interests, partnership interests) or debt (loan, convertible notes) offering, assume that the securities laws apply even for private, closely held companies.

2. An Offering Must Be Registered with the SEC Absent an Exemption.  If you are a small or emerging private company, don't assume that an offering need not be registered with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).  The law is actually the opposite:  an offering of securities must be registered unless there is an exemption available under the securities rules.

3. The Securities Laws Apply to More than Stock Offerings.   Don't fall into the trap that the securities laws only apply to stock offerings.   The definition of a "security" is very broad under the securities rules, meaning that not only stock, but LLC, partnership interests, debt, notes and other forms of raising capital will generally fall under the definition.  You should start with the assumption that registration is required and look for an exemption rather than believing the securities laws are inapplicable because your company is only selling a small amount of LLC interests in your private company.

4. The "Friends and Family" Round is Still an Offering.  The fact that your investors are friends or relatives is not a valid exemption from application of the securities laws.  While there are a number of exemptions from registration of an offering (as opposed to application of the securities laws), you won't find a "friends and family" exemption.  If an exemption applies to the offering (such as sales to accredited investors, under Rule 506 of Regulation D), you can substantially reduce the expenses and time associated with the private placement, but you cannot avoid application of the securities laws.   

5. An Exemption from Registration Is Not the Same as Ignoring the Securities Laws.  Even if an exemption from registration is applicable, the securities laws still must be followed when doing the offering otherwise the exemption will be lost and the offering will be in violation of the securities laws.  One common exemption from registering the offering is the right to sell securities to an unlimited number of "accredited investors" and 35 non-accredited investors who must have sufficient financial knowledge and experience to understand the risks relating to the investment.  However, the sale of securities to even one person who does not meet these investor criteria will result in a loss of the exemption, and render the offering in violation of the securities laws.  The lesson is that while there are several types of exemptions, if a company is relying on one of them, they need to be sure to comply or risk substantial legal exposure.

6. A Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) is Advisable Even for Rule 506 Offerings. Under Rule 506 of Regulation D, securities can be offered in an exemption from registration to "accredited investors".  These investors must meet certain annual income (in excess of $200,000, or $300,000 with a spouse) or net worth (in excess of $1,000,000) thresholds before they are deemed "accredited".  The good news is that an offering to an accredited investor means no information has to be provided to the investor, but the reality is that while a full-blown PPM can be avoided, it is prudent to provide at least an investment letter or scaled-down PPM detailing the risks associated with the investment.  This document will go a long way to defending any claims by a disgruntled investor if the company later has financial or operational difficulties.

7. The PPM is Not a Shield from All Liability.  Even if you find an exemption from the registration requirements, and even if you provide a PPM, the anti-fraud rules still apply.  The offering materials cannot mislead investors with false or insufficient information.  The PPM can be a significant tool for defending against claims that may be asserted later by a dissatisfied investor, but it needs to be properly drafted, and include sufficient disclosures regarding the risks of the investment as well as warnings about the suitability of the investment.  
          
8. Blue Sky (State) Laws Apply.  Even if the offering qualifies for an exemption from registration, state Blue Sky laws still apply.  For many states, the availability of a federal exemption from registration is sufficient, requiring only a notice filing (and, of course, payment of a fee) within a prescribed period after the offering.  However, New York, for example, requires the filing of a Form 99 and the payment of a significant fee prior to the first sale.  So, don't ignore the state laws simply because the offering is exempt under the federal securities laws.

9.  The JOBS Act Eliminates Ban on Solicitation Only as to Accredited Investors.  The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act ("JOBS Act") will eliminate the previous ban on general advertising or solicitation for offerings under Rule 506 of Reg. D, but only if the purchasers are accredited investors.  The issuer will need to take reasonable steps to verify the purchaser is an accredited investor, and what satisfies this "reasonableness" requirement is unclear.  The main point is that companies should not misunderstand the JOBS Act as allowing general advertising and solicitation to anyone unless the issuer can reasonably verify the accredited investor status. 

10. Violations of the Securities Laws Can Result in Substantial Liability.  If you take the risk of avoiding compliance with securities laws on the theory that offering is small or the investors are friends (for example), be aware that a disgruntled investor could lead to liability in the form of rescission of the sale, civil and criminal liability.


The Take Away:  If Your Company is Raising Money, You Will Need to Ensure Compliance with the Securities Laws Regardless of the Size of the Offering or Nature of the Investors. 
             



Disclaimer: The discussions in this blog do not constitute legal advice nor create any attorney-client relationship. You are urged to seek the advice of an experienced lawyer who can provide counsel with respect to your corporate/business law matters

Disaster Preparation for Businesses: Legal Issues

In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, all businesses should consider how to prepare a disaster that strikes your business.  In considering the legal issues that can arise, it is important recognize that disaster preparation should not only take into account possible future weather or other events that cause damage to a business, but also the loss of a key employee, the death or incapacity of a business partner or even the loss of a key supplier. 

I recently gave an interview on Image Talk, a blog talk radio interview presented by YPI Consultants (http://www.ypiconsultants.com/), discussing disaster preparation and related legal issues.  You can listen to the interview at  www.blogtalkradio.com/ypiconsultants/2012/11/13/image-talk



Disclaimer: The discussions in this blog do not constitute legal advice nor create any attorney-client relationship. You are urged to seek the advice of an experienced lawyer who can provide counsel with respect to your corporate/business law matters

Financial and Legal Issues You Need to Consider Before Buying a Franchise or Small Business.

If you are considering buying a franchise or a business, there are many business and legal issues you need to address.  I recently gave an interview on Image Talk, a blog talk radio interview presented by YPI Consultants (http://www.ypiconsultants.com/), discussing issues faced by enterpreneurs when buying a business.  The importance of proper financial and legl due diligence, understanding the franchise agreement/purchase contract, business and legal risks, and business continuity/transition are among the key topics discussed.

You can listen to the interview at:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ypiconsultants/2012/09/11/image-talk

Disclaimer: The discussions in this blog do not constitute legal advice nor create any attorney-client relationship. You are urged to seek the advice of an experienced lawyer who can provide counsel with respect to your corporate/business law matters

Issues Overlooked by Start-Ups: A Live Blog Chat (Part II)

This is Part II of a recent interview I gave August 7 on Image Talk, a blog talk radio interview presented by YPI Consultants (http://www.ypiconsultants.com/).  In this interview I discuss several legal issues that small businesses and start-ups often overlook, including those relating to ownership of intellectual property rights, invention assignment agreements, website development and website policies. 

You can listen to the interview at:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ypiconsultants/2012/08/07/image-talk






Disclaimer: The discussions in this blog do not constitute legal advice nor create any attorney-client relationship. You are urged to seek the advice of an experienced lawyer who can provide counsel with respect to your corporate/business law matters

Board-Level Attention to Trademarks is Essential

This Article is authored by Melise Blakeslee, of counsel.*

The protection of intellectual property may seem like a day-to-day operations task with which senior executives and Board members need not concern themselves in the absence of a crisis. But in today’s world of rapid expansion, particularly into the international realm, keeping a close eye on some aspects of trademark protection is sufficiently essential that it warrants high-level attention.

As the Board of Directors begins to explore expansion into international markets, it is important that they ensure that the appropriate product marketing people as well as the company’s trademark counsel be brought into the discussion early. It is too easy to lose valuable trademark protection during international expansion. Many nations have what are called “first to file” trademark laws that assign a trademark to the first person to file for it. If third parties, including your own distribution and manufacturing partners, get wind of your expansion plans before you have secured your trademark rights, difficult and expensive situations can arise.

It is also important that members of the Board monitor senior management to ensure that distribution agreements include appropriate trademark protection language. Too often, these agreements are silent on the subject and in this case silence is clearly not golden. In the absence of clear protection language, a distributor may pre-empt your trademark rights innocently or intentionally. Determining the right person or company to secure particularly international trademarks is a function of the company’s long-term goals. And these goals are most often best understood by members of the Board.

Recent experience leads me to guess that nowadays many marketing departments are “clearing” new trademarks by simply doing a Google search on the Internet. This is a mistake. Conducting only an informal search opens the door to a charge of willful infringement and doesn’t give you any insight whatsoever as to the ability to move into other related product lines using the new brand. It is vital that proper searches be conducted in accordance with best trademark practices to ensure legally binding protection and avoidance of litigation.

Staying on top of possible infringements of your trademarks is another place Board members can play a key role. Insisting on constant monitoring and vigilance of the Internet for mentions of your brands can save significant amounts of money and time by nipping even innocent infringement in the bud. Management should ask for regular reports about what particular trends are impacting the company’s brands on the Internet. Using these reports, management should be giving guidance as to what should be pursued and how. This task is endless, unfortunately. The good news is that consistent enforcement with careful prioritization and smart strategies will help in the long run.


Melise provides advice to clients of The Berkman Law Firm on a vareity of matters including the intricacies of protecting, licensing and enforcing intellectual property rights, and brand protection, Internet-related problems, and data security. She is the author of Internet Crimes, Torts and Scams: Investigation & Remedies, published by Oxford University Press, 2012.



Disclaimer: The discussions in this blog do not constitute legal advice nor create any attorney-client relationship. You are urged to seek the advice of an experienced lawyer who can provide counsel with respect to your corporate/business law matters