Category: Corporate law

SEC Awards $600,000 to Whistleblower

On February 22, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a $600,000 whistleblower award to an individual who voluntarily provided the agency with original information which led to a successful enforcement action.

Through the SEC Whistleblower Program, when a qualified whistleblower’s information contributes to an enforcement action in which the SEC collects at least $1 million, the whistleblower is entitled to an award of 10-30% of the funds collected by the government. The SEC also extends anti-retaliation protections to whistleblowers and thus does not disclose any identifying information about award recipients.

In determining the exact percentage for a whistleblower award, the SEC weighs a number of factors. According to the order for the $600,000 award, the SEC considered that “[the whistleblower] provided new information that significantly contributed to the success of the Covered Action; [the whistleblower] provided substantial, ongoing assistance, including participating in an interview with Commission staff and providing helpful documents on multiple occasions; and the charges in the Covered Action were based, in part, on [the whistleblower’s] information.”

The SEC Whistleblower Program has already issued a slew of whistleblower awards in the 2022 fiscal year. Since the fiscal year began on October 1, 2021, the SEC has awarded over $100 million to over 30 individual whistleblowers.

The 2021 fiscal year was a record year for the program. During the fiscal year, the SEC received a record 12,200 whistleblower tips and issued a record $564 million in whistleblower awards to a record 108 individuals. Over the course of the year, the whistleblower program issued more awards than in all previous years combined.

Overall, since issuing its first award in 2012, the SEC has awarded approximately $1.2 billion to nearly 250 individual whistleblowers.

Geoff Schweller also contributed to this article.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2022. All Rights Reserved.
For more articles about SEC whistleblowers, visit the NLR White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights section.

Intra-Class Conflict Dooms Auto Insurance Class Action in Fifth Circuit

Last week the Fifth Circuit issued a short opinion that made an important point that does not arise often in class certification decisions. Class certification failed because the plaintiffs’ proposed theory of liability would benefit only some class members and disadvantage others, who would be overpaid if the plaintiffs’ theory were correct. For that reason alone, the plaintiffs could not adequately represent the class.

Prudhomme v. Government Employees Insurance Company, No. 21-30157, 2022 WL 510171 (5th Cir. Feb. 21, 2022) (per curiam) was similar to another case I recently wrote about—the plaintiffs claimed that their insurer undervalued their vehicles that were deemed total losses, in violation of Louisiana statutes. Sidestepping questions about commonality and predominance, which are usually the focus of class certification decisions, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification because the adequacy of representation requirement was not met. This was because “a portion of the proposed class members received payments above (that is, benefitted from) the allegedly unlawful valuation.” According to the district court opinion, an expert witness opined that approximately one-fifth of the class would have received less on the plaintiffs’ theory than they received from GEICO. While the plaintiffs argued that class members who were overpaid on their theory might still be entitled to some damages under Louisiana law, that would likely create a typicality problem. Class representatives cannot adequately represent a class if they offer “a theory of liability that disadvantages a portion of the class they allegedly represent.”

Look out for this type of issue the next time you are litigating a class action. It might be lurking in your case when you peel back the onion.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
For more articles about class-action lawsuits, visit the NLR Litigation section.

When Board Conflict Crosses the Line…

Elected officials are, naturally, sometimes at the center of conflict and division within their board.  Conflict is to be expected.  However, what happens when board members take action to freeze out a minority board member from information that he or she needs to do his or her respective job?  The use of information-control tactics against minority members on a board, impeding their ability to receive that information necessary to perform his or her duties is problematic – and it may be unconstitutional.\

Elected officials have duty to be informed. Palm v.Centre Tp., 415 A.2d 990, 992 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980):

It is the duty of a school board member, a commissioner, a councilman, or a supervisor to be informed. Supervisors are not restricted to information furnished at a public meeting. A supervisor has the right to study, investigate, discuss and argue problems and issues prior to the public meeting at which he may vote. Nor is a supervisor restricted to communicating with the people he represents. He is not a judge. He can talk with interested parties as does any legislator.

This responsibility extends beyond the contours of the public meeting and what is discussed at those meetings.

Elected officials have protections under the First Amendment. The Third Circuit has historically recognized that a public official’s right to free speech under the First Amendment will be violated when the retaliatory conduct of her peers interferes with her ability to adequately perform her elected duties. See Werkheiser v. Pocono Tp., 780 F.3d. 172, 182 (3d Cir. 2015); Monteiro v. City of Elizabeth, 436 F.3d 397, 404 (3d Cir. 2006).

To avoid entering the territory of this kind of interference, everyone can play a role in ensuring the government functions adequately and that Board members’ rights, duties, and privileges are protected.  Board division, when gone too far, can cross constitutional lines.  To avoid walking that line, there are things that everyone can do to make for a well-functioning Board or meeting:

  • Managers can stay neutral and ensure that every board member is kept up to date on significant municipal operations and projects.
  • Solicitors can host a meeting with the board to educate the board on laws pertaining to their position, such as a municipal code and the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act.
  • Board members can foster respect for fellow board members and learn how to communicate so that each board member can participate in healthy debate on contentious issues.  Enacting policies related to meeting decorum can be helpful, but they need to be enforced evenhandedly.

For more tips for handling divisiveness among a board, see the December 2021 article on “Tips for Handling Board Conflicts” in the Pa Township News.

©2022 Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky
          

SEC Issues Two Whistleblower Awards for Independent Analysis

On February 18, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced two whistleblower awards issued to individuals who provided independent analysis to the SEC which contributed to a successful enforcement action. One whistleblower received an award of $375,000 while the other received $75,000.

According to the award order, the whistleblowers “each voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that was a principal motivating factor in Enforcement staff’s decision to open an investigation.”

Through the SEC Whistleblower Program, qualified whistleblowers, individuals who voluntarily provide original information which leads to a successful enforcement action, are entitled to a monetary award of 10-30% of funds recovered by the government.

A 2020 amendment to the whistleblower program rules established a presumption of a statutory maximum award of 30% in cases where the maximum award would be less than $5 million and where there are no negative factors present. The SEC notes that this presumption did not apply to the two newly awarded whistleblowers. According to the SEC, the first whistleblower unreasonably delayed in reporting their disclosure and the second whistleblower only provided limited assistance.

In the award order, the SEC justifies its decision to grant the first whistleblower a larger award than the second. According to the SEC, the first whistleblower’s disclosure included high quality about an issue which “was the basis for the bulk of the sanctions in the Covered Action” whereas the second whistleblower’s disclosure did not touch on this pivotal issue. Furthermore, the first whistleblower provided significant ongoing assistance to the SEC staff while the second whistleblower did not.

Since issuing its first award in 2012, the SEC has awarded approximately $1.2 billion to 247 individuals. Before blowing the whistle to the SEC, individuals should first consult an experienced SEC whistleblower attorney to ensure they are fully protected under the law and qualify for the largest award possible.

Article By Mary Jane Wilmoth of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto. Geoff Schweller also contributed to this article.

For more whistleblower and white collar crime legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2022. All Rights Reserved.

Red States Move to Penalize Companies That Consider Climate Change When Making Investments

A number of conservative-leaning states, particularly those with a significant fossil fuel industry (e.g., Texas, West Virginia), have begun implementing polices and enacting laws that penalize companies which “pull away from the fossil fuel industry.”  Most of these laws focus on precluding state governmental entities, including pension funds, from doing business with companies that have adopted policies that take climate change into account, whether divesting from fossil fuels or simply considering climate change metrics when evaluating investments.

This trend is a troubling development for the American economy.  Irrespective of the merits of the policy, or fossil fuel investments generally, there are now an array of state governments and associated entities, reflecting a significant portion of the economy, that have adopted policies explicitly designed to remove climate change or other similar concerns from consideration when companies decide upon a course of action.  But there are other states (typically coastal “blue” states) that have enacted diametrically opposed policies, including mandatory divestments from fossil fuel investments (e.g., Maine).  This patchwork of contradictory state regulation has created a labyrinth of different concerns for companies to navigate.  And these same companies are also facing pressure from significant institutional investors, such as BlackRock, to consider ESG concerns when making investments.

Likely the most effective way to resolve these inconsistent regulations and guidance, and to alleviate the impact on the American economy, would be for the federal government to issue a clear set of policy guidelines and regulatory requirements.  (Even if these were subject to legal challenge, it would at least set a benchmark and provide general guidance.)  But the SEC, the most likely source of such regulations, has failed to meet its own deadlines for promulgating such regulations, and it is unclear when such guidance will be issued.

In the absence of a clear federal mandate, the contradictory policies adopted by different state governments will only apply additional burdens to companies doing business across multiple state jurisdictions, and by extension, to the economy of the United States.

“Republicans and right-leaning groups fighting climate-conscious policies that target fossil fuel companies are increasingly taking their battle to state capitals. Texas, West Virginia and Oklahoma are among states moving to bar officials from dealing with businesses that are moving to ditch fossil fuels or considering climate change in their own investments. Those steps come as major financial firms and other corporations adopt policies aligned with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Article By Jacob H. Hupart of Mintz

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

State Treasurers Call on SEC to Investigate Apple’s Nondisclosure Agreements

In a January 30, 2022 letter to SEC Chair Gensler, eight State treasurers requested that the SEC investigate Apple’s nondisclosure agreements and whether Apple misled the SEC about their use of nondisclosure provisions in employment and post-employment agreements.  According to the January 30th letter, “multiple news reports have stated that whistleblower documents demonstrate Apple uses the very concealment clauses it repeatedly claimed it does not use . . .”  The January 30th letter also points out the importance of permitting employees to report unlawful conduct and the need for shareholders to have accurate information about workplace culture.

The SEC can investigate whether Apple’s alleged use of concealment clauses in agreement and policies violates the SEC’s anti-gag rule, which prohibits any “person” from taking “any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation, including enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement . . . .”  Exchange Act Rule 21F-17, 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-17.

The purpose of the anti-gag rule is to facilitate the disclosure of information to the SEC relating to possible securities law violations.  As explained in the release adopting the SEC’s whistleblower rules, “an attempt to enforce a confidentiality agreement against an individual to prevent his or her communications with Commission staff about a possible securities law violation could inhibit those communications . . . and would undermine the effectiveness of the countervailing incentives that Congress established to encourage individuals to disclose possible violations to the Commission.”  Implementation of the Whistleblower Provisions of Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Release no. 34-64545 (May 25, 2011).

The SEC has taken enforcement actions for violations of Rule 21F-17, most of which are focused on employer agreements and policies that have the effect of impeding whistleblowing to the SEC.  These enforcement actions have strengthened the SEC’s whistleblower program by encouraging whistleblowers to report fraud and encouraging employers to revise their NDAs and policies to clarify that such agreements and policies do not bar lawful whistleblowing.

Apple’s market capitalization of approximately $2.8 trillion renders it the world’s most valuable company.  If Apple is using concealment clauses and unlawful NDAs to silence whistleblowers, then Apple shareholders may not have an accurate and complete picture of the company’s financial condition and risks, including Apple’s ESG-related risks and risks stemming from its potential violations of anti-trust laws.  Accordingly, it will be critical for the SEC to take enforcement action if it finds that Apple has violated the SEC’s anti-gag rule.

By some estimates, fraud and other white-collar crime costs the US economy $300 billion to $800 billion per year.  To combat fraud, regulators and law enforcement need the assistance and cooperation of whistleblowers to detect and effectively prosecute fraud.  But there are many substantial risks that deter whistleblowers from coming forward, including the risk of being sued for breaching a confidentiality agreement.  The continued success of whistleblower reward programs will hinge in part on regulators taking a firm stand against agreements and policies that impede whistleblowing.

For more information on unlawful restrictions on whistleblowing, see the article De Facto Gag Clauses: The Legality of Employment Agreements That Undermine Dodd-Frank’s Whistleblower Provisions.

This article was written by Jason Zuckerman and Matthew Stock of Zuckerman Law. For more articles relating to NDAs, please click here.

WEBSITE LAYOUT PASSES MUSTER: Court Enforces Cruise Line’s TCPA and Arbitration Disclosures Over Objection

Those of you who attended Lead Generation World heard me discuss the big trend from back in 2020 in which Courts were refusing to enforce online disclosures owing to perceived problems with website layout.

Things like “below the button” disclosures and distracting visual elements were often described as defeating a manifestation of assent to disclosure terms in that unfortunate line of cases.

Well, 2022 has brought a couple of cases that have determined website disclosures to be just fine. Yesterday I reported on a big win by Efinancial, and today we have a nice victory by a cruise ship company.

In Barney v. Grand Caribbean Cruises, Inc., CASE NO. 21-CV-61560-RAR, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8263 (S.D. Fl. January 17, 2022) the Defendant moved to enforce an arbitration provision on its website arguing that the Plaintiff had agreed to the terms and conditions by submitting a sweepstakes entry form.

Predictably, the Plaintiff argued that the disclosures were not enforceable because the website layout was insufficient–specifically that the font was too small and the terms excessively lengthy.

The Court was not impressed.

Noting that the disclosure was plainly readable and above the button–and it required a check box–the Court simply refused to heed the Plaintiff’s argument that he didn’t know he was agreeing to consent and arbitration. Here’s the analysis:

First, in terms of placement, the Website does not tuck away its statement regarding the Terms & Conditions in an obscure corner of the page where a user is unlikely to encounter it. Rather, the statement is located directly between the contact information fields and the “Submit Entry” button. The user is required to check the box indicating assent to the Terms & Conditions before any information is submitted. Id. ¶ 14. Thus, it is impossible that a user would miss seeing the statement regarding the Terms & Conditions or—at the very least—the checkbox indicating assent to them. Second, rather than merely informing the user that the Terms & Conditions exist, the statement directs the user to the precise location where the Terms & Conditions can be accessed—namely, at the “bottom of the page.” Finally, and most significantly, the user is required to check an acknowledgement box to accept the Terms & Conditions before any information is submitted through the Website—an affirmative act indicating [*14] assent. The checkbox accompanies the statement, which specifically includes language indicating that the user “agree[s] to the Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.” Thus, there is an explicit textual notice that checking the box will act as a manifestation of an intent to be bound. A reasonable user confronting a statement that “I consent to receive e-mail, SMS/Text messages, and calls about offers and deals from an automatic dialing system and/or pre-recorded voice technology” and “confirm that I am over age 25 [and] agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions that are hyperlinked at the bottom of the page” would understand that he or she is assenting to the linked terms, including those pertaining to mandatory arbitration. And the record shows that Plaintiff indeed checked the box before clicking “Submit Entry.” Connolly Decl. ¶ 20. Plaintiff’s objections to the design of the Website hold no water. Plaintiff assails the statement regarding the Website’s Terms & Conditions as “lengthy” with “extremely small font that blends into the background.” Resp. at 9. But as seen in the screenshot of the Website on the day of Plaintiff’s visit, the statement’s text is clearly legible [*15] and not overly long. Indeed, it is roughly the same size and color as the text indicating the fields for “First Name,” “Last Name,” “Email,” and “Phone Number.” Plaintiff also objects to the placement of the link to the Terms & Conditions at the bottom of the page. Id. at 10. But, as discussed supra, that is precisely where the statement directed the user to view them.

As you can see the Court found the layout to be perfectly appropriate and was particularly moved by the presence of the opt in check box. Although many cases have recently enforced disclosures WITHOUT checkboxes, they do remain favored by the Courts.

I think Barney represents a case of a pretty clearly enforceable provision. The above-the-button text coupled with the radial button and the clear articulation of the terms being accepted made this an easy case for the court.

I will note that the TCPA consent is connected to the terms and conditions lingo–I don’t love that since the TCPA disclosure should be “separately signed”. But the agreement by the consumer that they are over 25 is a nice touch–helps to protect against claims that minors are supplying consent illegally.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more articles about TCPA litigation, visit the NLR Litigation section.

SEC Report Details Record-Shattering Year for Whistleblower Program

On November 15, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Whistleblower Program released its Annual Report to Congress for the 2021 fiscal year. The report details a record-shattering fiscal year for the agency’s highly successful whistleblower program. During the 2021 fiscal year, the SEC Whistleblower Program received a record 12,200 whistleblower tips and issued a record $564 million in whistleblower awards to a record 108 individuals. Over the course of the year, the whistleblower program issued more awards than in all previous years combined.

“The SEC’s Dodd-Frank Act whistleblower program has revolutionized the detection and enforcement of securities law violations,” said whistleblower attorney Stephen M. Kohn. “Congress needs to pay attention to this highly effective anti-corruption program and enact similar laws to fight money laundering committed by the Big Banks, antitrust violations committed by Big Tech, and the widespread consumer frauds often impacting low income and middle class families who are taken advantage of by illegal lending practices, redlining, and credit card frauds.”

“The report documents that whistleblowing works, and works remarkably well, both in the United States and worldwide,” continued Kohn. “The successful efforts of the SEC to use whistleblower-information to police Wall Street frauds is a milestone in the fight against corruption. Every American benefits from this program.”

In the report, Acting Chief of the Office of the Whistleblower Emily Pasquinelli states “[t]he success of the Commission’s whistleblower program in landmark FY 2021 demonstrates that it is a vital component of the Commission’s enforcement efforts. We hope the awards made this year continue to encourage whistleblowers to report specific, timely, and credible information to the Commission, which will enhance the agency’s ability to detect wrongdoing and protect investors and the marketplace.”

Read the SEC Whistleblower Program’s full report.

Geoff Schweller also contributed to this article.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2021. All Rights Reserved.
For more on SEC Whistleblower Rewards, visit the NLR White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights section.

The Confidentially Marketed Public Offering for the Smaller Reporting Company

What is it?

A Confidentially Marketed Public Offering (“CMPO”) is an offering of securities registered on a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 where securities are taken “off the shelf” and sold when favorable market opportunities arise, such as an increase in the issuer’s price and trading volume resulting from positive news pertaining to the issuer.  In a CMPO, an underwriter will confidentially contact a select group of institutional investors to gauge their interest in an offering by the issuer, without divulging the name of the issuer.  If an institutional investor indicates its firm interest in a potential offering and agrees not to trade in the issuer’s securities until either the CMPO is completed or abandoned, the institutional investor will be “brought over the wall” and informed on a confidential basis of the name of the issuer and provided with other offering materials.  The offering materials made available to investors are typically limited to the issuer’s public filings, and do not include material non-public information (“MNPI”).  By avoiding the disclosure of MNPI, the issuer mitigates the risk of being required to publicly disclose the MNPI in the event the offering is terminated.  Once brought over the wall, the issuer, underwriter and institutional investors will negotiate the terms of the offering, including the price (which is usually a discount to the market price) and size of the offering.  Once the offering terms are determined, the issuer turns the confidentially marketed offering into a public offering by filing a prospectus supplement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and issuing a press release informing the public of the offering.  Typically, this occurs after the close of markets.  Once public, the underwriters then market the offering broadly to other investors, typically overnight, which is necessary for the offering to be a “public” offering as defined by NASDAQ and the NYSE (as discussed further below).  Customarily, before markets open on the next trading day, the issuer informs the market of the final terms of the offering, including the sale price of the securities to the public, the underwriting discount per share and the proceeds of the offering to the issuer, by issuing a press release and filing a prospectus supplement and Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC.  The offering then closes and shares are delivered to investors and funds to the issuer, typically two or three trading days later.

What Type of Issuer Can Conduct a CMPO and How Much Can an Issuer Raise?

To be eligible to conduct a CMPO, an issuer needs to have an effective registration statement on Form S-3, and is therefore only available to companies that satisfy the criteria to use such form.  For issuers that have an aggregate market value of voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the issuer (“public float”) of $75M or more, the issuer can offer the full amount of securities remaining available for issuance under the registration statement.  Issuers that have a public float of less than $75M will be subject to the “baby shelf rules”.   In a CMPO, issuers subject to the baby shelf rules can offer up to one-third of their public float, less amounts sold under the baby shelf rules in the trailing twelve month period prior to the offering.  To determine the public float, the issuer may look back sixty days from the date of the offering, and select the highest of the last sales prices or the average of the bid and ask prices on the exchange where the issuer’s stock is listed.  For an issuer subject to the baby shelf rules, the amount of capital that the issuer can raise will continually fluctuate based on the issuer’s trading price.

What Exchange Rules Does an Issuer Need to Consider?

The public offering period of a CMPO must be structured to satisfy the applicable NASDAQ or New York Stock Exchange criteria for a “public offering”.  In the event that the criteria are not satisfied, rules requiring advance shareholder approval for private placements where the offering could equal 20% or more of the pre-offering outstanding shares may be implicated.  Moreover, a sale of securities in a transaction other than a public offering at a discount to the market value of the stock to insiders of the issuer is considered a form of equity compensation and requires stockholder approval.  Nasdaq also requires issuers to file a “listing of additional shares” in connection with a CMPO.

Advantages and Disadvantages of CMPOs

There are a number of advantages of a CMPO compared to a traditional public offering, including the following:

  • A CMPO offers an issuer the ability to raise capital on an as needed basis as favorable market conditions arise through a process that is much faster than a traditional public offering.
  • The shares issued to investors in a CMPO are freely tradeable, resulting in more favorable pricing for the issuer.
  • In a CMPO, the issuer can determine the demand for its securities on a confidential basis without market knowledge.  If terms sought by investors are not agreeable to the issuer, the issuer can abandon the CMPO, generally without adverse consequences on its stock price.
  • If properly structured as a public offering, a CMPO will negate the requirement to obtain stockholder approval for the transaction under applicable Nasdaq and NYSE rules.

Disadvantages of conducting a CMPO include:

  • To conduct a CMPO, an issuer must be eligible to use Form S-3 and have an effective registration statement on file with the SEC.
  • Issuers subject to the baby shelf rules may be limited in the amount of capital they can raise in a CMPO.
  • In the event a CMPO is abandoned, investors that have been “brough over the wall” and received MNPI concerning the issuer may insist that the issuer publicly disclose such information to enable such investors to publicly trade the issuer’s securities.

This article is for general information only and may not be relied upon as legal advice.  Any company exploring the possibility of a CMPO should engage directly with legal counsel.

© Copyright 2021 Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
For more articles on the NASDAQ and NYSE, visit the NLR Financial, Securities & Banking section.

My Mother Wants to Invest in My Startup: Raising Funds With Non-Accredited Investors

Emerging companies are filled with potential, and the entrepreneurs running them have countless great ideas that may one day change the world. These owners typically fund their startup companies with money from their own pockets at first. But eventually, as the company grows, the company needs more capital to fuel that growth. This is when entrepreneurs often turn to outside sources for funds. It may seem innocuous to ask family and friends to contribute to your growing, high-potential business. Of course, they want to support you and the work you are doing.

But don’t be too quick to accept money from your biggest fans. The securities laws in the United States regulate capital raising, and entrepreneurs need to know how to raise funds within the boundaries of the securities laws before taking money from anyone, including family and friends, so as to avoid potential issues after taking that much-needed capital.

Under United States securities laws, and the securities laws of each individual state (or “blue sky” laws), offers and sales of securities have to be either registered or exempt from registration. Generally, registered offerings are too cost prohibitive for startup companies. This means a startup needs to issue securities pursuant to an exemption from registration. The most widely available and used exemptions depend entirely or mostly on limiting the offering to only “accredited” investors, but not every entrepreneur has a rich aunt or uncle in the family who qualifies as an accredited investor. Some exemptions permit offering to non-accredited investors, but depend on those investors still being  “sophisticated.” An investor can qualify as a non-accredited but “sophisticated” investor if the investor, either alone or with a “purchaser representative,” (as defined by the SEC) has sufficient knowledge and experience in financial and business matters to be capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the prospective investment. While your mother and best friend and second cousin may be very smart and may even run their own businesses, they may lack the sophistication the SEC requires to satisfy exemption requirements. Determining whether to include non-accredited investors, whether sophisticated or not, in the offering at the outset is important because it will affect which exemptions from registration are available for the offering and on what basis.

A brief description of some of the more typical exemptions that contemplate inclusion of non-accredited investors in the offering is below. Depending on which exemption is used, the cost and time it takes to get to the offering may vary dramatically.

Regulation Crowdfunding

Regulation Crowdfunding came about via the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, more commonly referred to as the “JOBS Act.” Regulation Crowdfunding is similar to the popular platform Kickstarter except, instead of giving out a t-shirt to investors, the entity raising capital can give out equity. A capital raise through Regulation Crowdfunding must meet the following requirements, among others:

  1. all transactions must take place through a registered broker-dealer or an online, SEC-registered funding platform;
  2. the company can raise a maximum aggregate amount of $5 million in a 12-month period;
  3. non-accredited investors may invest in the offering, but the amounts in which they can invest are limited; and
  4. the company must disclose certain information by filing a Form C with the SEC.

Generally, securities issued through Regulation Crowdfunding may not be resold for at least one year. An offering under Regulation Crowdfunding is not subject to state securities regulations.

Although non-accredited investors can invest in a Regulation Crowdfunding offering, the amount of securities that can be sold to a non-accredited investor is limited:

  • If the investor’s annual income or net worth is less than $107,000, the investor can invest the greater of $2,200 or 5 percent of the greater of the investor’s annual income or net worth.
  • If the investor’s annual income or net worth is equal to or greater than $107,000, the investor can invest 10 percent of the greater of the investor’s annual income or net worth, not to exceed an amount invested of $107,000.

Accredited investors may invest an unlimited amount in an offering under Regulation Crowdfunding (subject to the maximum amount a company can raise each year).

While the ability to raise a respectable amount of capital from any investor may seem appealing, there are some negatives to consider when thinking of conducting an offering pursuant to Regulation Crowdfunding. First, the Form C that is required to be filed at the outset of the offering requires the company to disclose a significant amount of information. A higher information requirement almost always leads to higher legal and other advisor costs. Second, the company must make annual filings, which include either audited financial statements or financial statements certified by the company’s principal executive officer. Finally, the company has no control over who actually invests. When it comes time to sell the company, the lack of relationship with a potentially large portion of investors may lead to challenges. And if the company is not as successful as planned, these investors could be prime plaintiffs in a securities action.

Regulation D

Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) sets forth safe harbors providing for exemption from registration under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act. Some of these safe harbors are available even if offering to non-accredited investors, including Rule 504 and Rule 506(b) of Regulation D.

Rule 504

Under Rule 504, a company can offer to sell up to $10,000,000 of securities in a 12-month period. A company utilizing this exemption may not be a reporting company, an investment company, or a blank check company. The company may use general solicitation so long as certain state securities disclosure conditions are met, and securities generally may be sold to non-accredited investors, depending on state law. Because Rule 504 does not pre-empt state law, a company issuing securities pursuant to Rule 504 must comply with state securities laws, in addition to the federal securities laws, which requires the issuer to qualify or register the offering in every state in which the company plans to offer the securities, or requires the issuance to be subject to an exemption. Compliance with state securities laws is time-consuming and costly, especially if the company is issuing securities in multiple states.

Rule 506(b)

Under Rule 506(b), a company can raise an unlimited amount of capital and can sell securities to an unlimited number of accredited investors. A company also can sell securities to up to 35 non-accredited but sophisticated investors. However, selling to non-accredited investors, no matter how sophisticated they are, requires the company to provide substantially more disclosure, including financial statements, to such non-accredited investors. A higher information requirement almost always leads to higher legal and other advisor costs. The company also must make itself available to answer questions from non-accredited investors. Rule 506(b) also prohibits the use of general solicitation in an offering.

Regulation A

Another product of the JOBS Act, the amended version of Regulation A (referred to herein as simply “Regulation A”) is sometimes referred to as a “mini public offering.” Companies may sell securities to investors under two tiers, each of which has different requirements. Under either tier, the company must file with the SEC an offering statement on Form 1-A, which must be qualified by the SEC before the company may take any funds from investors. Before the SEC qualifies the offering, the SEC will review and provide comments to the company’s Form 1-A, and the company will have to amend the Form 1-A based on the SEC’s comments to the SEC’s satisfaction.

Tier 1

  • A company can raise up to $20 million in a 12-month period.
  • The company must include in its disclosure documents financial statements that have been reviewed by an independent accounting firm.
  • There is no individual investment limit.
  • The company must file a Form 1-Z exit report.

Tier 2

  • A company can raise up to $75 million in a 12-month period.
  • The company must include in its disclosure documents financial statements that have been audited by an independent accounting firm.
  • Investors in a Tier 2 Regulation A offering that are not accredited investors are subject to an investment limit equal to 10 percent of the greater of the investor’s annual income or net worth if the investor is a natural person or 10 percent of the greater of the investor’s annual revenue or net assets if the investor is not a natural person.
  • The company is required to file with the SEC annual reports on Form 1-K, with audited financial statements, semiannual reports on Form 1-SA, current reports on Form 1-U, and an exit report on Form 1-Z.

A company selling securities under Regulation A may use general solicitation, though any general solicitation before the Form 1-A has been filed must comply with the requirements for “test the waters” communications. An offering conducted under Tier 1 is subject to state blue sky laws, but an offering under Tier 2 is not. Securities sold in reliance on Regulation A are not restricted securities, meaning they generally can be freely resold, subject to applicable state blue sky laws. As mentioned above, complying with state blue sky laws is time-consuming and costly.

Other registration exemptions may be available in specific situations that allow offering to non-accredited investors, but the above are the most readily available. As the process and requirements for qualifying for any of these exemptions makes clear, raising money from your mother is not as simple as accepting a check. Always have a plan on how and to whom you are offering securities before you start taking money. Meeting the requirements of an exemption that allows offering securities to a non-accredited investor is typically time-consuming, complicated, and costly because of the disclosure requirements.

© 2021 Varnum LLP
For more articles on startups, visit the NLRSecurities & SEC section.