Capital Raising

Subscribe to Capital Raising via RSS

Marketplace lending surely had its day in the sun in 2014.  Peer-to-peer lending, which now goes by the term marketplace lending, took a big step forward last year.  We saw the IPO of Lending Club rocket in its first day of trading on December 11, 2014 by first pricing above the range at $15 per share and then touching a high mark of 67% that day. Lending Club has been the leader in this field and its IPO highlighted the importance and the emergence of this new lending alternative. Despite this surge, however, not everyone attended the party in 2014. Noticeably, the SEC still has not finalized its crowdfunding rules, which are an important next step for the marketplace lending industry.

So what exactly is marketplace lending? Put simply, it is an Internet based lending market that is created by connecting borrowers with lenders or investors.  There are various companies with different approaches to the concept.  In Lending Club’s case, potential borrowers fill out online loan applications.  The company (and its bank behind the scenes) then uses online data and technology to evaluate the credit risks, set interest rates and make loans.  On the other side of the equation, Investors are offered notes for investment that correspond to portions of the loans and can earn monthly returns on their notes that are backed by borrower payments.  As a result, marketplace lending effectively offers secondary market trading for loans.

On the positive side, marketplace lending can be good for borrowers because the lower cost structure of an online platform can be passed along to borrowers in the form of lower interest rates.  The use of the Internet and online credit resources can also speed up the credit approval process so that borrowers can get funds faster.  In addition, some borrowers may get access to loans that they could not get from traditional banks.  In other words, the marketplace could help individuals with lower credit scores or negative credit histories find loans.  Thus, despite its critics, marketplace lending can help serve a niche that has historically been underserved by the banking industry.

Marketplace lending, however, at least when it comes to Lending Club and those like it, still has a bank at its core. So some borrowers will still not be able to get loans through this marketplace model.  Also, the investors are buying registered securities with interests in the loans made in the marketplace.  Lending Club turned to registering their notes with the SEC when
Continue Reading Marketplace lending: A hot new industry looking for crowdfunding

BSA requires broker-dealers to know who you are
Photo by St. Murse

As we blogged about in May, the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), which requires financial institutions in the United States to assist U.S. government agencies to detect and prevent money laundering, applies to entities that we may not traditionally think of as “financial institutions,” including securities broker or dealers. Compliance with the BSA is no easy task. And if a recent notice of new proposed rule by the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (also known as FinCEN) becomes law, it’s not about to get any easier.

FinCEN’s stated intent with the proposed rule is to clarify and strengthen customer due diligence requirements for banks, brokers or dealers in securities, mutual funds and futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities. Under current regulations, each of these institutions must establish, document and maintain a Customer Identification Program (or “CIP”) appropriate for its size and business that meets certain minimum requirements, including, among others, the adoption of certain identity verification procedures, and the collection of certain customer information and the maintenance of certain records. The proposed rule adds two (2) new elements to the CIP requirements.

First, the proposed rule
Continue Reading No more secret identities: Broker-dealers may soon be required to identify beneficial owners of legal entity customers

Photo by JMR_Photography

On September 19, Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba completed the initial public offering of its stock. The underwriters for the offering subsequently exercised their option to buy additional shares, making this the largest IPO in history at $25 billion. The stock’s price immediately jumped by a huge amount, finishing its first day of trading at $93.89, a 38% increase over its $68.00 IPO price. The stock has since lost some ground, closing at $87.17 on Tuesday.

What does this massive IPO mean for U.S. technology companies? I see four possible areas of impact:

  1. U.S. technology companies may delay their IPOs until they see how the Alibaba stock performs. This could be a short delay if the stock price holds up or does well. Right now U.S. technology companies Hubspot, Lendingclub.com, GoDaddy.com and Box, among others, are expected to conduct IPOs this fall.
  2. If the substantial demand for Alibaba stock holds up, fund managers may reduce their
    Continue Reading Alibaba’s record IPO – How will it affect U.S. technology companies?
Waiting for the results of the JOBS Act?
Photo by Gueorgui Tcherednitchenko

President Obama signed the JOBS Act into law on April 5, 2012 amid much fanfare and optimism. Small and medium sized fast-growing technology companies and their executives were especially sanguine about this new act as it appeared that it would provide access to much-needed additional expansion capital. These companies were still reeling from the recession and the substantial reduction in available venture capital financing, and they saw the JOBS Act as a potentially positive event. A little more than two years later, has this initial optimism proved to be warranted? Let’s take a look at some of the provisions of the Act.

A new regulatory structure for crowdfunding was initially the most anticipated provision of the JOBS Act. I never believed that crowdfunding would be as beneficial as some people did, but I hoped that it could provide some additional access to capital for smaller companies which were starved for funds. Unfortunately we are still waiting for the SEC’s final crowdfunding regulations. The SEC appears to be caught between two complaining factions here – one which thinks the proposed rules are too restrictive and won’t work, and one which thinks
Continue Reading The JOBS Act – Any results yet?

SEC may change identity of angels
Illustration by Royce Bair

Potential Changes.

Accredited investors have long been critical participants in private financing transactions, and the success of most private financings is largely determined by the participation of these investors and the availability of their capital. State and Federal securities laws have been written or amended to foster and facilitate investment by these accredited investors. Based on recent developments, the standards for qualification as an accredited investor may be changing, and these changes could pose problems for companies seeking financing.

The current requirements for accredited investor status are contained in Rule 501(a) of the 1933 Act. The most commonly used standards for individual investors are a $200,000 annual income (or $300,000 combined income with a spouse) or a $1,000,000 net worth (excluding the value of the investor’s primary residence). Other than the exclusion of the investor’s primary residence (which became effective in 2012), these standards have been in place since 1982 without any changes to reflect the effects of inflation during that period.  

Based on these current standards, observers estimate that there are approximately 8.5 million accredited investors in the United States. Some critics have asserted that this number is far higher than it should be, and that many of these people only qualify as accredited investors because
Continue Reading Accredited investors – potential changes and some helpful guidance

States creating own exemptions for crowd funding
Photo by Josh Turner

The JOBS Act’s crowdfunding provisions were once one of the most eagerly anticipated items contained in that Act. Many companies and their advisors had high hopes that these crowdfunding provisions would open up new arenas for financing smaller companies while easing the costs and challenges associated with securities regulatory compliance. These hopes and dreams have been substantially curtailed as the SEC’s proposed crowdfunding rules (issued in 2013) did not provide the anticipated relief. The SEC received a significant number of comments on these proposed crowdfunding rules, and these comments were predominantly critical due to the perceived regulatory and cost burdens that the proposed Rules seemed to contain.

Hope springs eternal, however, and many people are still eagerly awaiting the SEC’s final crowdfunding regulations to determine if the SEC will adopt a more reasonable position that may be useful to small companies seeking financing. The Federal crowdfunding exemption from registration will not be effective until the SEC issues these final regulations. Many people just want to know what they are actually dealing with here and whether crowdfunding will offer any viable opportunities for small company financing. Somewhat surprisingly given the significant amount of attention and publicity that crowdfunding has generated, the SEC still has not issued those final regulations despite the JOBS Act’s deadline. This situation has caused a significant amount of frustration in the corporate finance community.

Given the uncertainty regarding the status of Federal crowdfunding regulation, some states have seen an opportunity and have taken somewhat bold steps in establishing crowdfunding exemptions on the state level. The states moving ahead of the SEC is somewhat unusual, but it appears that the initial impact of these state crowdfunding initiatives may be economically beneficial to these states.

The predominant model for these state crowdfunding structures is the creation of an intrastate crowdfunding exemption from registration. The states have been very creative in their efforts, as they appear to have used the strong desire for a useful crowdfunding regulatory structure to create state structures that will help to provide economic growth in the states. This is also very compatible with the nature of crowdfunding – since many crowdfunding projects are smaller and localized, they may not be affected by being required to be contained in any one state.

The participating states have mainly modeled their crowdfunding regulations to be
Continue Reading States take the lead on crowdfunding

Intrastate offering exemption
Photo by Jimmy Emerson

Last week, the SEC issued three new interpretations related to the so-called “intrastate offering exemption,” which is a registration exemption that facilitates the financing of local business operations.  An intrastate offering is exempt because it does not involve interstate commerce, and is therefore, outside the scope of the Securities Act.

We have received a few calls this week from startup companies who mistakenly believed that these new interpretations were creating a new registration exemption.  Largely, the mistaken belief is caused by the confusion stemming from some recent state law changes that allow for intrastate crowd funding.  While the new SEC interpretations were prompted by the recent state law changes, the intrastate offering exemption has been around since 1933, but for many reasons, it is not heavily relied upon.  And, despite the three new interpretations, we still advise against using the intrastate offering exemption.

What is this intrastate offering exemption?

The intrastate offering exemption is actually two separate exemptions, Section 3(a)(11) and a safe harbor Rule 147.  Although the two exemptions differ slightly, generally, if the (i) issuer is incorporated or organized in the same state in which it is offering securities; (2) a substantial portion of the issuer’s business occurs within that state; (3) each offeree and purchaser is a resident of the state; (4) the offering proceeds are used primarily within that state; and (5) the securities come to rest within that state, then your offering would be exempt from federal registration requirements.  The investors do not need to be accredited (unlike Regulation D offerings), there is no limitation on the manner of offering, there are no prescribed disclosures, there is no maximum amount that can be raised (unlike Rule 504, Rule 505, or Regulation A), and the shares are freely transferable to other residents of the state.  In other words, it is a fairly broad exemption that allows a lot of flexibility to issuers, especially to startup companies who need as much flexibility as possible when raising capital.

Ok, so what is such a problem with the intrastate offering exemption?

While there is lots of flexibility with the exemption, the intrastate offering exemption
Continue Reading Don’t cross the border!: Intrastate offering exemption still not useful despite new interpretations

Intrastate offering exemption
Photo by Jimmy Emerson

Last week, the SEC issued three new interpretations related to the so-called “intrastate offering exemption,” which is a registration exemption that facilitates the financing of local business operations.  An intrastate offering is exempt because it does not involve interstate commerce, and is therefore, outside the scope of the Securities Act.

We have received a few calls this week from startup companies who mistakenly believed that these new interpretations were creating a new registration exemption.  Largely, the mistaken belief is caused by the confusion stemming from some recent state law changes that allow for intrastate crowd funding.  While the new SEC interpretations were prompted by the recent state law changes, the intrastate offering exemption has been around since 1933, but for many reasons, it is not heavily relied upon.  And, despite the three new interpretations, we still advise against using the intrastate offering exemption.

What is this intrastate offering exemption?

The intrastate offering exemption is actually two separate exemptions, Section 3(a)(11) and a safe harbor Rule 147.  Although the two exemptions differ slightly, generally, if the (i) issuer is incorporated or organized in the same state in which it is offering securities; (2) a substantial portion of the issuer’s business occurs within that state; (3) each offeree and purchaser is a resident of the state; (4) the offering proceeds are used primarily within that state; and (5) the securities come to rest within that state, then your offering would be exempt from federal registration requirements.  The investors do not need to be accredited (unlike Regulation D offerings), there is no limitation on the manner of offering, there are no prescribed disclosures, there is no maximum amount that can be raised (unlike Rule 504, Rule 505, or Regulation A), and the shares are freely transferable to other residents of the state.  In other words, it is a fairly broad exemption that allows a lot of flexibility to issuers, especially to startup companies who need as much flexibility as possible when raising capital.

Ok, so what is such a problem with the intrastate offering exemption?

While there is lots of flexibility with the exemption, the intrastate offering exemption
Continue Reading Don't cross the border!: Intrastate offering exemption still not useful despite new interpretations

Intrastate offering exemption
Photo by Jimmy Emerson

Last week, the SEC issued three new interpretations related to the so-called “intrastate offering exemption,” which is a registration exemption that facilitates the financing of local business operations.  An intrastate offering is exempt because it does not involve interstate commerce, and is therefore, outside the scope of the Securities Act.

We have received a few calls this week from startup companies who mistakenly believed that these new interpretations were creating a new registration exemption.  Largely, the mistaken belief is caused by the confusion stemming from some recent state law changes that allow for intrastate crowd funding.  While the new SEC interpretations were prompted by the recent state law changes, the intrastate offering exemption has been around since 1933, but for many reasons, it is not heavily relied upon.  And, despite the three new interpretations, we still advise against using the intrastate offering exemption.

What is this intrastate offering exemption?

The intrastate offering exemption is actually two separate exemptions, Section 3(a)(11) and a safe harbor Rule 147.  Although the two exemptions differ slightly, generally, if the (i) issuer is incorporated or organized in the same state in which it is offering securities; (2) a substantial portion of the issuer’s business occurs within that state; (3) each offeree and purchaser is a resident of the state; (4) the offering proceeds are used primarily within that state; and (5) the securities come to rest within that state, then your offering would be exempt from federal registration requirements.  The investors do not need to be accredited (unlike Regulation D offerings), there is no limitation on the manner of offering, there are no prescribed disclosures, there is no maximum amount that can be raised (unlike Rule 504, Rule 505, or Regulation A), and the shares are freely transferable to other residents of the state.  In other words, it is a fairly broad exemption that allows a lot of flexibility to issuers, especially to startup companies who need as much flexibility as possible when raising capital.

Ok, so what is such a problem with the intrastate offering exemption?

While there is lots of flexibility with the exemption, the intrastate offering exemption
Continue Reading Don’t cross the border!: Intrastate offering exemption still not useful despite new interpretations

Last shot for JOBS Act?
Photo by Ksionic

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act was enacted on April 5, 2012 with much fanfare and high expectations. The JOBS Act was designed, in part, to help “Emerging Growth Companies” (annual revenues less than $1 billion) gain greater access to growth capital while reducing regulatory restrictions, compliance requirements, and costs. The JOBS Act was welcomed by a business community which was just emerging from a brutal recession and starved for growth capital. The general reaction to the JOBS Act has been disappointment and a feeling that the JOBS Act has failed to live up to its advance billing. With the proposed Regulation A+ still to come, however, the JOBS Act may at last provide some real financing opportunities for private companies seeking growth capital. For background on the JOBS Act see our Emerging Growth Companies Task Force page.

There is no doubt that some good things have come out of the JOBS Act as its various rules have become effective. The elimination of the ban on general solicitation and advertising for some private offerings may prove very helpful to companies trying to find potential investors. The confidential filing of initial public offering documents (which allows a company to file IPO documents and work with the SEC on a confidential basis to resolve problems before the documents become public) has been extremely popular. The maximum number of shareholders that a private company can have before it must register and report as a public company has increased. This allows large private companies to stay private longer, avoiding the dilemma that Facebook and other companies faced. Finally, issuers of securities are now allowed to “test the waters” in some circumstances to determine potential investor interest in an offering before undertaking it. All of these are positive items, but they have not caused a significant increase in successful financing activity.

So what is Regulation A+ and why do we care? This proposed Regulation is one of the last major rulemaking proposals available under the JOBS Act. The SEC voted on December 18, 2013 to propose new rules under the existing Regulation A that would substantially increase the potential for substantial financing transactions conducted under Regulation A. While we haven’t seen the final rules and likely won’t see them for some time, these proposals have been much anticipated in the corporate finance community because of the
Continue Reading Regulation A+: Last gasp of the JOBS Act