Everything you wanted to know about crypto offerings but were afraid to ask

With Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Jay Clayton making the public announcement last July he believes every ICO he’s seen is a security, every company in the cryptocurrency, blockchain and token world was put on notice that raising capital by selling coins or tokens was entering a different phase in the United States. As a result, securities lawyers like myself, have been flooded with calls and requests for our services.

I was interviewed by one of my favorite journalists, Tony Zerucha at Bankless Times, about how ICOs, token offerings and the like can be legally done these days and you can (and should) read the entire published article here. For those who want the CliffNotes version, here you go:

• Any U.S. company that wants to raise capital by selling coins, tokens or cryptocurrency, and any company that wants to access the 325 million potential investors who live in the United States, must follow securities laws at this point. With my work in the JOBS Act legal realm, I have been been talking to dozens of crypto companies. Because the grand majority will use one of two JOBS Act provisions: Regulation D, rule 506(c) (if they limit the offering to accredited investors), or Regulation A+ if they want to access the entire U.S. population, those of us who specialize in JOBS Act offerings and equity crowdfunding have become quite popular.
• I've lost count of the number of companies I have had to turn down at this point because they already have done something that is not compliant or legal. The first step is to make sure each company has not already screwed up what they want to do because they were not well informed as to how they should proceed. I ask some pretty simple questions to start, and you would be surprised at how few companies have the right answers.
• I start with the basics. I ask every company to explain to me in a sentence why they need a token and how blockchain is integral to their business. If I had a Bitcoin for every company that came to me with a concept that used the term “blockchain” or “token” without even knowing what it meant or how it was going to be used, I’d be a Bitcoin billionaire. Or maybe a Bitcoin millionaire, depending on the fluctuating exchange rates.
• You would be amazed at how many people cannot answer this question in one hour, much less one sentence. Some businesses do not need a blockchain, or a token. For example, I do a pretty good job of running a law firm without a blockchain. A pilot does not need a coin to fly an airplane. A chef does not need a utility token to cook a perfect steak. I realize that blockchain technology is revolutionary in many ways for many things. But, you can’t just throw the term “blockchain” into every business model. If a company is not able to explain in simple terms why they need blockchain in their business, they probably don’t need blockchain, and probably should not be doing a coin offering.
• I hate it when I hear, “Kendall, our pre-sale is next week. Would you take a look at our white paper and be sure we are okay?” If they are already online soliciting for their sale, there is a good chance they’ve already violated a law or two. And if they already have anything scheduled in terms of a sale, it’s probably too late for any securities lawyer to help unless they are willing to pump the brakes.
• I also hear this one a lot: “We’re okay because we’ve hired” followed by ‘a top ‘ICO’ ‘Blockchain’ or ‘Crypto’ consultant on our Board of Advisors.”  I ask these companies if their advisor is a securities attorney who has experience with the JOBS Act and securities token offerings, and then I look at my iPhone to see if the call has been disconnected because there is always dead silence. Ninety-five per cent of these “crypto experts” have absolutely no idea how to do a securities law-compliant token offering in the United States, and many charged these companies a lot of money to give them bad advice.
• I received a ton of emails, most of them spam, over the past few years with the newest hottest ICO offers, and I saw the news about the crazy amount of money being raised. I think most securities lawyers saw these ICOs raising millions with no disclosures, no investor protections, no financial statements and no real information revealed other than hype and the repeated use of the term “blockchain.” Not only were these obviously sales of securities, many of them were just blatant scams that couldn’t pass a sniff test in allergy season. No, I can’t say that seeing the SEC jump in and state regulators filing enforcement actions and class action suits being filed was at all surprising.
• A company needs to assume that what they are selling is a security, because the SEC is certainly going to assume that. You can’t call something a “utility token” and assume you can get away with not following securities laws. It does not matter what you call it, if it cannot pass the Howey Test, or if you are selling it with the idea that the purchaser may be buying something that will increase in value over time, you should treat it like a security. There are well defined exemptions that allow U.S. companies to sell securities without registering, so follow those laws in your token sale, and the capital raise portion should be legal.
• To me, Reg A+ is the holy grail for token security offerings. Everyone can invest, not just rich people. The tokens sold can immediately be listed on an Alternative Trading System (ATS) and are liquid and tradable. I love that the SEC must qualify a Reg A+ offering before it can be sold. This means if you have any problems in your offering, there is a likelihood it is going to be flagged by someone at the SEC before you start selling, rather than after when something goes wrong like with Reg D or Reg S. It is not cheap to do, but nowhere near as expensive as an S-1 and full registration with the SEC. You will have ongoing reporting requirements and a company is limited to raising $50 million per year. While most companies would be thrilled with raising $50 million per year, this limitation would prevent some companies from using Reg A+ if their capital needs are higher. That said, a Reg A+ raise can be done in conjunction with a Reg D offering, if it’s structured correctly, to raise more that the limit.
• The big questions are: What happens after someone purchases the token or coin? Can they sell it outside of an ATS? How? Can they use it as a currency? Can they use it as a utility token? There is a huge amount of uncertainty as to how the courts and regulators are going to treat security coins and tokens after they are in the hand of investors. This is one reason why I like Reg A+ so much. As soon as the offering closes, the Reg A+ securities tokens may be listed on a secondary trading platform and be bought or sold. This immediate liquidity is a huge selling point. There are rules and restrictions that limits sales under Reg D and Reg S, so this is not possible with either of those exemptions.
• My experience is that the SEC is very open to this new method of raising capital, as long as you follow securities laws and protect investors. The SEC is well aware that if they shut down all crypto offerings, another country will become the leader in this area, and billions of dollars of capital will flow out of the U.S. They do not want this to happen, so they are working with securities lawyers and their counterparts at the CFTC, Department of Treasury, FinCen and others to try to find solutions. Yes, you have a target on your back if you do a crypto offering. But, as long as you have a justifiable legal basis in securities law for what you plan to do, the chances are the SEC is not going to stand in your way.

As I said in the interview, the days are gone of some random millennial plagiarizing a white paper found on Google while their tech geek buddy sets up a website to promote and accept Bitcoin for an ICO followed by millions of dollars magically appearing, unless those people want to risk going to jail or being sued.

Anyone who wants to do this right in the U.S. is going to need experienced securities counsel. They are very likely going to need a licensed broker-dealer. They are going to need a secondary trading platform. They are probably going to need accountants and maybe auditors. Doing this right is not going to be cheap. But, then again, getting sued or arrested and having your business shut down is far more expensive than simply doing this legally and compliantly from the beginning.

Read the entire interview here, to learn more:

Do You Need A Broker-Dealer For Regulation A?

In my role helping companies raise up to $50 million in new capital using equity crowdfunding, I am frequently asked if a company that wishes to pursue a Regulation A+ capital raise must hire a broker-dealer for the offering. I have written an in-depth article about this on Medium, which you can read here (if you like to read stuff lawyers write and enjoy footnotes and long-winded legal analysis). On the other hand, if you want the simple Cliff Notes version, keep reading below!

The simple answer to the title question above is that moving forward with a Regulation A+ offering without a broker-dealer attached is a dangerous move for an issuer, even though it technically can be done. However, if an issuer wants to sleep well at night and not worry that one of the 50+ state securities regulators or the SEC will come knocking on their door, then bite the bullet and hire a broker-dealer who is licensed in all 50 states and by FINRA for your Regulation A+ offering.

The big issue related to hiring a broker-dealer for most issuers is the cost. A broker-dealer will likely have up front due diligence costs, and will charge a percentage of the funds raised in the offering as a commission. This raises this important question: Will an issuer save money by not hiring a broker-dealer? 

Up front, maybe. In the long run, probably not. As illustrated below, in order to go forward on a Regulation A+ offering without a broker-dealer, an issuer may have to register as a “dealer” in many states and at the federal level, which will cost thousands in legal and filing fees. Assuming everything is done correctly and runs smoothly, registering with all of these entities could involve hefty up-front costs, and in most cases far more than the broker-dealer would have charged for due diligence. More importantly, if anything is done wrong in that registration process in any of the venues, or if any state or federal securities regulator thinks something was done wrong, then there will be huge costs to fight the enforcement actions that could arise all over the country.

Why do companies even consider taking on all of this risk by not hiring a broker-dealer?

Regulation A+ of the JOBS Act is silent as to whether an issuer must hire a broker-dealer in order to sell unregistered securities to the general public under this JOBS Act exemption. Given this silence, most legal authorities agree that the law and SEC rules related to Regulation A+ do not, on their own, require an issuer to hire a FINRA licensed broker-dealer to sell their unregistered securities.  Therefore, some issuers feel this is enough of a justification to go at it without a broker-dealer.

What these companies are missing is that the text of Regulation A+ and the SEC regulations related to the statute are not the sole consideration in this matter given that securities are being sold. Other state and federal laws and regulations that regulate who may sell securities may prevent an issuer from selling their own Regulation A+ securities without a licensed broker-dealer in some jurisdictions. The JOBS Act waiver of state Blue Sky review does not necessarily prevent the states from regulating who can sell Regulation A+ securities in their state. Because each state has its own set of laws related to who is allowed to sell securities, who must be registered to do so, and under what circumstances securities can be sold by that entity, there are valid concerns that a state regulator could impose significant penalties on an issuer who chooses to sell its Regulation A+ securities within that state, without a broker-dealer licensed in that state.

So, you ask, what is the worst case scenario if a company decides to try to save a few dollars, and sell their Regulation A+ securities on their own? Let me give you the scenario that would keep me awake at night, and the one that typically compels me to advise my clients to hire a broker-dealer and not go at it alone:

Let’s say the company sells its Regulation A+ securities to a little old lady in Florida, without using a broker-dealer registered in Florida. The company does not do well, or the stock is listed on an exchange and the price drops. Little old lady hires a lawyer, and wants her money back. She also contacts the state securities regulators in Florida, and tells them about this mean and awful company that took her retirement savings away from her.

The lawsuit and the state securities regulators review will probably show that the company did not comply with every aspect of Florida securities law, in particular, by not hiring a broker-dealer (which would have rendered the case moot).

Do you think a Florida jury is going to side with a company that violated state law and sold stock to the little old lady? Do you think securities regulators are going to help the little old lady, or the company that violated its state’s securities laws?

The result could be rescission of the agreement to sell the stock – meaning the little old lady gets her money back. There could also be rescission ordered for all investors in the state, meaning a huge financial problem for the issuer who has to give money back to everyone who invested, not just the little old lady. On top of that, fines and penalties could be ordered. And, to make matters worse, a court or the state regulators could extend the penalties against the officers and directors of the company personally, particularly if they were involved in selling activities themselves.

Ouch.

All avoidable by simply hiring a broker-dealer.

I’m not alone in my concerns here. Kat Cook is the Chief Compliance Officer for Keystone Capital Corporation, a FINRA licensed broker-dealer with experience in Regulation A+ arena and other areas of the rapidly emerging FinTech industry. Cook believes that this threat is very real of having to rescind all subscriptions agreements and return capital raised if a state securities regulator finds that local laws were not complied with. “Compliance with Reg A+ means that the issuer should hire a very knowledgeable JOBS Act securities attorney and retain a supporting broker-dealer to help…or prepare to give the funds raised back to the investors,” warns Cook.

If you want far more in-depth analysis and some state law citations that let you dig deep into this, click here https://medium.com/@KendallAlmerico/do-you-need-a-broker-dealer-for-regulation-a-7308535d9b19 and read my Medium article.

Kendall Almerico is an attorney based in Washington DC whose practice involves JOBS Act related securities offerings such as those involving Regulation A+ or Regulation CF. This article should not be considered as legal advice, and the opinions expresses in the article are personal opinions of Mr. Almerico and should not be relied upon by anyone as legal advice. Other lawyers may have different opinions. The topics covered in this article are very complex, and any company considering using Regulation A+ or selling securities in any manner should seek the advice of competent and experienced legal counsel before making any decisions related to the matters set out in this article.

BrewDog plc Gives Original Investors a 2,765% Return: Equity crowdfunding has a poster child.

Originally Published at Entrepreneur.com on May 10, 2017

BrewDog plc, the irreverent Scottish craft brewery that has built a successful international business through many rounds of equity crowdfunding involving 50,000+ online investors, recently announced that a U.S. private equity company has acquired approximately 22 percent of the company in a $264 million transaction. This minority investment values BrewDog at $1.24 billion.

BrewDog's Lineup of Craft Beer

Most importantly, this transaction allows BrewDog's “equity punks” -- the name for its shareholders who invested in the company through crowdfunding -- to sell a portion of their stock to the private equity firm, providing some liquidity to these investors. By doing so, BrewDog has offered a substantive response to critics of equity crowdfunding who wonder how small investors will benefit from these types of offerings.

Keep in mind, BrewDog is still a private U.K. company. Their shares are not publicly traded on any exchange, which also gives some liquidity for their early crowdfunding investors, despite the company remaining private. For those who invest in private companies, whether through crowdfunding or otherwise, we all know returns on private company investments before the company becomes public are few and far between.

James Watt, BrewDog’s co-founder, explains: “Shares purchased in Equity for Punks I are now worth 2,765 percent of their original value. Even craft beer fans that invested in Equity for Punks IV, which closed in April 2016, have seen the value of their shares increase by 177 percent in just one year.” The deal gives BrewDog plc’s army of equity punks the opportunity to sell 15 percent of their shares (capped at 40 shares per investor) at the $1.24 billion valuation.

BrewDog Founder Martin Dickie and James Watt

This has tremendous significance to the world of equity crowdfunding. With Regulation CF, where a startup company can raise up to $1 million online, and Regulation A (the “Mini-IPO”), where a company can raise up to $50 million online from anyone in the general public, the popularity of raising capital online grows every day. Crowdfunding has become a multi-billion industry in a very short period of time. But because the JOBS Act, the law that made equity crowdfunding legal, only went into effect in 2015, success stories with an exit for investors are rare. BrewDog's success, using U.K. laws very similar to the JOBS Act, and leading to a return on investment for those who backed the company online for the past few years, bodes well for the development of equity crowdfunding under the newer U.S. laws.

This is welcome news to those in the equity crowdfunding industry. It was not long ago that the $2 billion buyout of Oculus by Facebook caused the media and many rewards crowdfunding backers to lose their minds. Oculus had run a rewards-based crowdfunding campaign on Kickstarter that raised $2,437,429 from 9,522 backers. In rewards crowdfunding, no shares in the company are sold, but rather the backers received the virtual reality hardware and software in return for a donation. When Facebook acquired Oculus for a couple of billion dollars, some backers from the Kickstarter campaign went ballistic, claiming they did not receive a return on their “investment.”

At the time, a New York Times editorial and a Bloomberg column showed that even the media failed to grasp the huge difference between rewards-based (a donation) and equity crowdfunding (an actual investment). The Bloomberg article even accused Oculus of pulling off a scam because the supporters of its Kickstarter campaign did not get a share of the profits from the buyout. One blogger was so angered that he wrote an article with one of the better headlines in the history of blogging -- “I'd Rather Stick My Head In A Whale's Blowhole Than Play Facebook's Oculus Rift.”

As I pointed out at the time, each of Oculus’ 9,500+ Kickstarter backers knew that they were not investing in the company, and that they were not getting equity when they swiped their credit cards in exchange for an early version of Oculus’ new VR headset. Had equity crowdfunding been legal in the U.S. at the time, and had Oculus run the same campaign on an equity crowdfunding website, those who invested would likely have seen phenomenal returns. However, equity crowdfunding wasn’t legal at the time.

Now, equity crowdfunding has its poster child.

BrewDog has raised tens of millions in several equity crowdfunding rounds since 2010. They have built a community of tens of thousands of people who have not only invested, but who have also become brand ambassadors and evangelists for everything BrewDog. And now, those investors will have an opportunity to not only continue to savor the perks of having invested, like free beer and online discounts, but also to see a financial reward for their equity crowdfunding investment.

BrewDog plc's headquarters and Scotland brewery

Equity crowdfunding finally has a success story that should spur on the growth of this nascent industry. BrewDog has given us an example of how investing in equity crowdfunding offerings is far different than donating to a Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaign. Investors finally have an example of how an equity crowdfunding investment can bring them a very real return.

How Will Donald Trump's Presidency Affect Crowdfunding?

Image credit: Joe Raedle | Getty Images

Originally published at Entrepreneur.com on January 10, 2017

Donald Trump will soon be inaugurated as the country’s 45th president and will potentially impact the burgeoning crowdfunding industry in a "yuge" way. Before I share my thoughts as one of the country’s top crowdfunding attorneys, let me tell you what five industry leaders believe the Trump presidency will mean for crowdfunding.

Disclaimer: This is NOT a political article. For those on the right, please don’t send me red baseball caps embroidered with “Make Crowdfunding Great Again.” For those on the left, please do not label me or the crowdfunding leaders in this article as “deplorable” or worse.

Indiegogo has been at the forefront of rewards crowdfunding since the very beginning. Indiegogo’s co-founder and Chief Business Officer, Slava Rubin, had this to say: "It's obviously impossible to know exactly how the next four years will play out since the new administration hasn't moved into the White House yet. Trump's platform included easing up on banking regulations -- which the stock market has reacted well to -- and it will be interesting to see how that translates for equity crowdfunding. The one year anniversary of Title III is coming up this May, so that will be a good time to examine what kind of progress has been made under the new administration."

RocketHub was one of the world's pioneering crowdfunding portals and has developed into a global community for entrepreneurial growth through a partnership with luxury lifestyle network ELEQT. RocketHub's CEO Ruud Smeets shared his take on the Trump presidency.

“Any abrupt change in the political landscape is a challenge and can have ripple effects throughout one's business," Smeets said. "Having a strong support 'crowd' can be a great benefit to any entrepreneur, especially in times of change. The emerging Trump presidency may create more volatility, but it also holds the promise of potentially bringing less regulation and more freedom for innovation and entrepreneurship. That would be good news for alternative funding options like crowdfunding, which still is a highly regulated market space with certain barriers to growth. It remains to be seen though how Trump’s plans on healthcare, international trade, isolationism and any attendant currency effects will affect small business ownership as a whole.”

Roy Morejon, whose firm Command Partners has been one of the most prolific and successful PR and marketing agencies in the crowdfunding space said the initial effects of a Trump presidency seem to be positive for the crowdfunding industry. Recent meetings with top technology leaders from Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Intel and Tesla seemed to be productive with innovation and jobs being a top priority.

"With Trump's business background, American innovation and job creation should flourish," Morejon said. "At our crowdfunding marketing agency, we're seeing a flurry of activity in the equity crowdfunding space in hopes that Trump will alleviate some of the red tape with some of the current crowdfunding regulations.”

Ruth Hedges is one of the pioneers of the JOBS Act and executive producer of the Global Crowdfunding Convention, the largest and longest running crowdfunding convention in the country. Here are her thoughts on the Trump presidency related to crowdfunding: "As America enters uncharted waters with social safety net programs and medical insurance for 20 million people threatened with destruction, we'll need to call on crowdfunding to provide help to those people who will surely suffer, because crowdfunding is not red or blue, black or white, Christian, Muslim or Jew. It is not left or right, but showcases the best of our humanity. And it demonstrates the potential to bring together people from all backgrounds and beliefs to work for our common good as Americans."

Craig Denlinger is one of the go-to auditors for financial reports needed to comply with equity crowdfunding laws. His firm, Artesian CPA, has provided the SEC financial filings for several companies using Regulation A+ to raise capital. Denlinger said "while it is difficult to decipher between what Trump says and what Trump intends, I anticipate that Trump will be a positive force for the crowdfunding community based on his words and actions to this point. With the incumbent SEC Chair Mary Jo White set for early retirement next month, Trump is poised to appoint a more regulation-averse head of the agency looking to scale back on barriers to innovation and job creation. Trump’s planned federal hiring freeze and quotes such as 'eliminating two regulations for every one created' or 'rank all regulations and cut those least important' further confirm this belief.”

The experts have spoken. Here is my two cents.

The “crowd” is a dynamic group that effects change one dollar at a time. With its support, Pebble Watch raised $32,000,000+ in two Kickstarter rounds, BrewDog raised more than $40,000,000 through several equity crowdfunding offerings, and countless other ideas and businesses have been afforded the opportunity to succeed. Crowdfunding brings people together in a way that is truly American because political affiliation isn't a factor in the equation. Each project or offering can be a melting pot of Democrats, Republicans and maybe even Whigs -- anyone can support a business they like regardless of gender, race or religion. Even Congress managed to find common ground to pass the JOBS Act with bipartisan support.

Because navigating the legal maze of rules and regulations is presently the biggest thing hampering equity crowdfunding, President Trump will have a positive influence on the industry if he delivers on his promise to reduce regulations. Reducing regulations will slash attorney fees and compliance costs for companies wishing to use equity crowdfunding. I truly hope the Trump administration will remove unnecessary red tape and open the door for even more democratization of the capital formation process through equity crowdfunding.

And, if the new administration wants to create a new unpaid cabinet position of “Secretary of Crowdfunding” to help them reduce the barriers to entry for small businesses, I happen to know a lawyer/writer/entrepreneur who lives in D.C. and might be available to fill that role.