Category Archives: Equity Crowdfunding, Alternative Funding

Canada: Growing Momentum And Clarity For Equity Crowdfunding In Canada

Gowlings via Mondaq | W. Ian Palm and Martine Guimond | May 1, 2014

GowlingsIn a short time, crowdfunding has caught the imagination of many entrepreneurs and become an important new fundraising technique.  Through crowdfunding an issuer can aggregate substantial amounts of capital by seeking small contributions from many different people.  Many start ups, small businesses, charities, artists and others now look to a variety of crowdfunding platforms to raise capital.  To date however, in most jurisdictions these platforms have been limited to some sort of donation, reward, pre-purchase of products, or peer to peer lending model.

Equity crowdfunding, the sale of securities through the use of crowdfunding techniques, has had a bumpier ride to reality.  Some jurisdictions, such as Australia, have had some sort of equity crowdfunding for a number of years.   There was early momentum around equity crowdfunding in the United States when the JOBS Act 2 came into force in 2012 but much of the early excitement has waned with the drawn out process of its implementation.  Canadian securities regulatory authorities have been actively studying equity crowdfunding models for some time as well.  To date however, with very few exceptions, equity crowdfunding has not been possible in Canada due to regulatory restrictions.  This could change very soon.

Overview

In the past couple of years there has been a great deal of discussion and speculation about the nature and scope of possible regulatory changes in Canada to allow for equity crowdfunding.  Recent developments suggest we are now much closer to a time when equity crowdfunding and other more flexible means for raising capital for early stage businesses in Canada will be a reality.  Recent orders, proposals and notices issued by various Canadian securities administrators provide some clarity to the regulatory framework we can expect for equity crowdfunding:

  • Saskatchewan was first off the mark.  On December 6, 2013 the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan adopted an order permitting limited equity crowdfunding for Saskatchewan-based startup businesses.3
  • On March 20, 2014, the securities regulatory authorities in Quebec, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Nova Scotia published proposals for two new prospectus exemptions related to crowdfunding:
    • one for start-up crowdfunding based on the Saskatchewan model (the "Start-Up Crowdfunding Exemption") aimed more particularly at providing an alternative source of capital to non-reporting issuers at a very early stage of development, and
    • the other more broadly applicable integrated crowdfunding exemption (the "Integrated Crowdfunding Exemption") available to both reporting issuers and non-reporting issuers.
  • On the same day, the Ontario Securities Commission published a proposal for four new prospectus exemptions, including an offering memorandum exemption, an expanded exemption for friends, family and close business associates and an equity crowdfunding exemption substantially similar to the Integrated Crowdfunding Exemption referred to above.
  • Again on the same day, the British Columbia Securities Commission issued a notice seeking comments on a proposed start-up crowdfunding exemption substantially similar to the Start-Up Crowdfunding Exemption.  It takes the view that a form of equity crowdfunding is already permitted in British Columbia with the use of the existing offering memorandum exemption.

These proposals together are expected to allow Canadian businesses, especially start-ups and early stage businesses, to access capital from a potentially large number of investors using online portal platforms that would be registered with securities regulators.  The proposed exemptions would, subject to certain conditions, allow both reporting and non-reporting issuers to raise money by distributing securities through online portals.

Related:

 

The Integrated Crowdfunding Exemption

The framework for the IntegratedCrowdfunding Exemption which is proposed for Quebec, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Ontario has two main components: (i) the requirements that an issuer must meet in order to distribute securities under the exemption, and  (ii) a set of funding portal registration requirements.  Under the IntegratedCrowdfunding Exemption, an issuer (whether reporting or non-reporting) would be allowed to distribute securities without a prospectus through a registered crowdfunding portal provided certain conditions are satisfied:

Issuer and Offering Conditions

  • The issuer must be incorporated or organized in Canada and have its head office in Canada, and a majority of its directors must be residents of Canada.
  • The exemption is not available to an issuer that is an investment fund, a non-reporting real estate issuer or an issuer without a written business plan.
  • While an issuer is limited to securities of its own issue, the exemption permits the use of a broad range of types of securities to be offered including: (i) common shares, (i) non-convertible preference shares, (iii) securities convertible into common shares or non-convertible preference shares, (iv) non-convertible debt securities linked to a fixed or floating interest rate, (v) units of a limited partnership and (vi) flow-through shares under the Income Tax Act (Canada).
  • A maximum of $1.5 million can be raised under the exemption, including any amounts raised in reliance on the exemption during 12 months immediately preceding the current offering.
  • An offering document must disclose a minimum offering size and specify whether there is a maximum offering size.
  • An offering cannot be completed unless: (i) the minimum offering is fully subscribed, and (ii) at the time of completion of the offering, the issuer has the financial resources to achieve the next milestone in its written business plan or, if no milestones exist, to carry out the activities set out in the business plan.
  • There are specific restrictions on solicitation and advertising, including the following: (i) offering materials must be made available to potential investors on the portal's website and cannot be posted on any other website, (ii) offering materials must be delivered to the regulator at the same time that they are posted on the portal's website, (iii) investors can be directed to the portal's website by paper notice or through social media, (iv) marketing materials are limited to the offering document, documents described in the offering document and any term sheet or other summary (including a video).
  • The issuer must abide by certain point of sale disclosure obligations by providing a streamlined disclosure document that includes basic information about the offering, the issuer and the portal.

Investor Rights and Conditions

  • The proposed exemption provides for certain investor protection measures including the following: (i) an investor can invest no more than $2,500 in a single investment and no more than $10,000 under the Integrated Crowdfunding Exemption in a calendar year, (ii) investors must sign a risk acknowledgement form confirming that they meet the investment limits, understand they may lose their entire investment and understand the other specified risks that are set out in the form,  and (iii) the investor has a right to withdraw within 48 hours prior to the disclosed offering deadline.
  • If a comparable right is not provided by the securities legislation of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides, the issuer must provide a contractual right of action for rescission or damages in the event of a misrepresentation in any materials made available to the purchaser.

Continuous Disclosure Obligations

  • There are certain specific ongoing continuous disclosure and book and record-keeping obligations for both reporting and non-reporting issuers. For example, a non-reporting issuer must disclose annual financial statements that are audited if the issuer has achieved the prescribed financial threshold, or reviewed by an independent public accounting firm if the issuer has not achieved the financial threshold. Reporting issuers must provide ongoing continuous disclosure in accordance with securities law requirements.

Portal Registration Requirements

Investments made in reliance upon the proposed Integrated Crowdfunding Exemption will have to be facilitated through a funding portal registered as a restricted dealer, a new category of registrant to be designated by applicable securities regulatory authorities.  Registered portals and applicable senior officials will be subject to certain proficiency requirements and other general registrant requirements.  More significantly, registered portals and every applicable registered individual may only act as an intermediary in connection with a distribution of securities made under the crowdfunding prospectus exemption and may not register in any other dealer or adviser category.  This would significantly limit additional capital markets activities that a registered portal might otherwise undertake in respect of issuers and investors.

Continue to the full article --> here

Consultation Nova Scotia (Jun 3 and 5, 2014): Crowdfunding is coming to Nova Scotia

Nova Scotia Securities Commission | Tanya Wiltshire | April 29, 2014

Nova-Scotia Securuities Commission

Who: The Nova Scotia Securities Commission is hosting a public information session

What: Crowdfunding for businesses

Where: Nova Scotia Community Colleges

Waterfront Campus
June 5 @ 2pm – 4pm Rm 5329
Campus Boardroom 5th floor
80 Mawiomi Pl
Dartmouth, NS
Kingstec Campus
June 3 @ 10 a.m. - noon
Rm 2101
236 Belcher Street
Kentville, NS

This session is to provide Nova Scotians with information on the proposed government rules that will allow individuals and companies to crowdfund business projects using internet portals. There will also be additional information on other capital raising exemptions.

We are asking for potential and existing business owners, industry participants and local community members who are interested in raising capital to come to this information session and provide us with their feedback on the proposed Nova Scotia Crowdfunding exemptions.

Related:

The Nova Scotia Securities Commission published for comment on March 20, 2014 the Integrated Crowdfunding Prospectus Exemption (the Crowdfunding Exemption) and the Start-Up Crowdfunding Prospectus Exemption (the Start-Up Exemption). The proposed exemptions would allow companies to raise capital through internet portals.

The Crowdfunding Exemption and the Start-Up Exemption are designed to meet the needs of start-ups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) at different stages in growth while providing a number of investor protection measures.

Comment deadline is June 18, 2014. For more information:  CSA Notice

Please RSVP by May 27, 2014 to:

Tanya Wiltshire

Securities Commission

902-424-8586

E-mail: wiltshth@gov.ns.ca

View the original Media Advisory --> here

OurCrowd Global Crowdfunding Platform Secures $25 Million in Funding

Crowdfund Insider | JD Alois | April 28, 2014

Jon Medved - ourcrowdIsrael based OurCrowd, a leading global equity crowdfunding platform, has closed a $25 million Series B funding round. According to OurCrowd this is the largest investment round in the equity crowdfunding sector to date. The investment will be used both to further expand OurCrowd activities in Israel and worldwide, and to provide general partner funding participation for each OurCrowd deal on its website. Terms of the investment, and the list of participants in the round, were not disclosed.

OurCrowd is a hybrid investment crowdfunding site that combines in house VC funds to certain deals.  The accredited only platform promotes not only Israel based companies but also searches for high quality, global early stage companies. Investor minimums start at $10,000.  The one year old company has experienced dramatic growth led by well known entrepreneur and innovator Jon Medved.  The company recently announced an expansion into the Australian equity crowdfunding market.

OurCrowd CEO, Medved, stated:

“We are delighted to have closed this major funding milestone for OurCrowd. As we look back on our first year since launching in February 2013, we are gratified by the support of our global community of 4,000 accredited investors, our talented group of entrepreneurs and the 36 portfolio company teams. This additional funding will allow us to extend our global leadership in equity crowdfunding for early stage companies.”

OurCrowd, which began its activity by investing in early stage Israeli companies, has become the world’s largest equity crowdfunding firm in terms of dollars invested into companies through its platform. In addition to its own current $25 million Series B round, and its previous $5.5 million Series A funding round (Feb 2013), to date OurCrowd has raised another $43 million for its 36 portfolio companies from accredited investors in 26 different countries. OurCrowd is already extending its global reach: four of its last ten equity crowdfunding deals were for companies based outside of Israel. Portfolio company round size has grown from several hundred thousand dollars per deal to a new high of over $3 million in a single deal. Eighteen portfolio companies have already raised more than $1 million each through OurCrowd’s platform.

View:  Canadian Securities Administration Request for Comments - Draft Regulation 45-108 (by June 18, 2014)

Geoff Levy, the former CEO and Chairman of Investec Bank Australia and member of OurCrowd’s Advisory Board, who is an investor in the current round, said,

“OurCrowd’s emergence as the global leader in equity crowdfunding is now supported by a significant funding round. This new fuel will allow the management team to continue to execute the business plan and bring a wide group of new investors to the exciting tech startup scene worldwide. From their base in Israel, the ‘Startup Nation,’ OurCrowd will now make additional headway in Israel and other global innovation hotspots.”

Continue to the full article --> here

Ontario’s proposed prospectus exemptions: crowdfunding exemption

Stikeman Elliott | Cara Cornacchia | April 23, 2014

Stikeman Elliot Canadian Securities Law 2In its March 20, 2014 proposals for four new prospectus exemptions intended to facilitate capital raising for businesses in Ontario, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) proposed a crowdfunding prospectus exemption (the “Crowdfunding Exemption”) aimed at facilitating greater access to capital through the exempt market, particularly for start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises.

The securities regulatory authorities in each of Quebec, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have also published for comment a crowdfunding exemption substantially similar to the proposed exemption in Ontario. In addition, these regulators, other than Saskatchewan, have published a separate crowd-funding exemption for start-ups, which would provide both a prospectus and registration exemption (the “Start-up Exemption”) as an alternate source of capital for non-reporting issuers in early phases of growth. In these jurisdictions, it is expected that both the Crowdfunding Exemption and the Start-up Exemption will coexist. These regulators believe that the Crowdfunding Exemption and the Start-up Exemption are complementary as they are targeted at issuers at different stages of development. The Start-up Exemption is currently available in Saskatchewan, and is substantially similar to what has been proposed by the other jurisdictions.

British Columbia has not published for comment a Crowdfunding Exemption, but did request comments on whether it should consider a Start-up Exemption. Although the Alberta Securities Commission is not publishing the Crowdfunding Exemption or the Start-up Exemption for comment, it will be considering the public comments in respect of these proposals.

Jurisdiction

Proposed Exemption

Maximum Offering Amount

Maximum Investment Amount

Ontario Crowdfunding $1.5 million every 12 month period $2,500 per single investment; $10,000 aggregate per calendar year
Quebec, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Nova Scotia Crowdfunding $1.5 million every 12 month period $2,500 per single investment; $10,000 aggregate per calendar year
Quebec, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Nova Scotia Start-up $150,000 per offering subject to a maximum of 2 offerings per calendar year $1,500 per single investment
British Columbia Start-up $150,000 per offering subject to a maximum of 2 offerings per calendar year $1,500 per single investment
Alberta Neither N/A N/A


Crowdfunding Exemption

As we discussed in a post last month, the proposed Crowdfunding Exemption would be available to both reporting and non-reporting issuers incorporated or organized in Canada. This exemption would not available to investment funds, “real estate issuers” that are not reporting issuers, or issuers without a written business plan. The type of securities that could be offered pursuant to this exemption could not be novel or complex, and would be limited to certain types of securities including, among others, common shares, non-convertible preference shares and non-convertible debt securities.

Under the Crowdfunding Exemption, issuers could raise no more than $1.5 million in the 12-month period immediately preceding the offering. Any offering under the Crowdfunding Exemption could not be completed unless the minimum offering is fully subscribed and the issuer, at the time of completion of the offering, has financial resources sufficient to achieve the next milestone in its written business plan or, if no milestones, to carry out the activities set out in its business plan.

Related:

Investors would be limited to investing up to $2,500 per single investment under the Crowdfunding Exemption, and could not invest more than an aggregate of $10,000 under the Crowdfunding Exemption in a calendar year. Each investor would be required to sign a risk acknowledgement form confirming, among other things, that they fall within the prescribed investment limits and acknowledging the key risks associated with the investment.

Issuers would be required to provide a disclosure document, which includes basic information about the issuer, the offering, the funding portal through which the offering is made and certain financial information of the issuer, including, in the  case of a reporting issuer, the most recent annual financial statements filed with the securities regulatory authority, and, in the case of a non-reporting issuer, audited annual financial statements if an issuer has crossed certain prescribed thresholds. Issuers, both reporting and non-reporting, would also be subject to certain ongoing disclosure requirements.

Securities issued in reliance on the Crowdfunding Exemption by a reporting issuer would generally be subject to a four-month hold period and, in the case of a non-reporting issuer, could not be resold until the issuer becomes a reporting issuer, unless the sale is made under another prospectus exemption (other than the Crowdfunding Exemption).

Related:  Saskatchewan Approves Equity Crowdfunding Startup Exemption

Following an offering, a report of exempt distribution would be required to be filed within 10 days of the distribution.

Any offering under the Crowdfunding Exemption would be required to be carried out through a funding portal registered under applicable securities laws. Portals would be required to comply with general registrant requirements applicable to exempt market dealers, and would be required to, among other things, conduct background checks on issuers and their directors, officers, promoters and control persons, and review disclosure documents of issuers. A portal could not provide advice to investors about the securities offered on their platform.

Start-up Exemption

The proposed Start-up Exemption (which is not being proposed in Ontario) would be available to non-reporting issuers only, other than investment funds, whose head office is located in a participating jurisdiction. Under this exemption, an issuer would not be allowed to raise more than $150,000 per offering, and the exemption could only be used twice in a calendar year. Investors would be limited to investing no more than $1,500 per single investment under the Start-up Exemption. Similar to the Crowdfunding Exemption, each investor would be required to sign a risk acknowledgment form, and issuers would be required to file a report of exemption distribution following the closing of any distribution.

Unlike the Crowdfunding Exemption, companies relying on the Start-up Exemption would not be required to file financial statements, nor would they be subject to ongoing disclosure. Additionally, there would be no requirement for a portal to be registered as a dealer provided it complies with the requirements applicable to portals set out in the Start-up Exemption.

Since the exemption is only available to non-reporting issuers, securities sold pursuant to the Start-up Exemption would be subject to an indefinite hold period, and could only be resold under another prospectus exemption or after the issuer becomes a reporting issuer.

Continue to the full article --> here

Why Fraudsters Won’t Sink Equity Crowdfunding

Forbes | BY | Apr 22, 2014

Crowdfunding projects and fraudTo those who fear that opening up equity crowdfunding to unaccredited investors will result in rampant fraud, some experts in the space say: Don’t underestimate the crowd. In most cases, fraudsters will be outed.

When an entrepreneur is raising money with crowdfunding, social buzz tends to correlate with money raised. The more you hustle to get your story out, the more money you raise. And usually, it’s the entrepreneur's friends and family that make that first push to get the word out and initiate contributions, said Alon Hillel-Tuch, co-founder and chief financial officer of crowdfunding platform RocketHub, during a panel discussion about equity crowdfunding held at Fordham Law School in New York City last month. When a crowdfunding campaign raises a significant amount of money without a corresponding amount of social activity, that's often a sign of a red herring.

“You know, fraudsters don't have friends and family that support them. By definition, they lack that,” he said. “So what we've noticed is when a project goes live on RocketHub right now and starts getting a lot of funds from people with no social media activity, that raises a red flag within our fraud detection engine and we actually are able to close projects purely based on social trends.”

Related: Equity crowdfunding is too dangerous says investor protection group

Hillel-Tuch compared launching a crowdfunding campaign to getting middle schoolers to start dancing together. “Boys on one side and girls on the other side and music is playing and nobody's dancing, right? But then somebody starts dancing. If it's the high school quarterback, everybody else shows up, obviously. But if it's someone else, maybe some people start joining in, maybe some of the cliques show up and eventually you notice everyone is dancing. But someone had to start it and that person had to have social capital,” Hillel-Tuch said.

The analogy may sound simplistic. But the point is that a crowdfunding campaign, by its very nature, requires social momentum. And if there isn't the requisite amount of social momentum, the ball just won't get rolling. While the U.S. is still fretting about how exactly it should best protect its investors, there’s plenty of evidence in other countries that that shows that the crowd does a very impressive job protecting investors. In Australia, where equity crowdfunding has been in place for 8 years, the Australian Small Scales Offering Board has had zero complaints of fraud, said Kim Wales, founder of Wales Capital, a management consulting firm focused on the implementation of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups, or JOBS Act.

In the U.K., where companies have been legally raising money through crowdfunding for three years, there have also been zero instances of fraud, says Wales. “And why is that? Well, because we're turning over a lot of the due diligence to the crowd,” she said, at the same panel discussion at Fordham Law School.

Passed in April 2012, the JOBS Act, made it legal for anyone -- including non-professional or unaccredited investors -- to participate in equity-based crowdfunding. (Before this, equity crowdfunding was only open to accredited investors – or those deemed sufficiently wealthy.)

View: Canadian Securities Administration Request for Comments (before June 18, 2014):  Equity Crowdfunding Draft Regulation 45-108

In equity-based crowdfunding, an entrepreneur gives a piece of his or her company in exchange for cash, making it a riskier proposition than donation-based crowdfunding, in which an entrepreneur might give away gifts or recognition in exchange for cash.

As the Securities and Exchange Commission continues to finalize the rules for equity-based crowdfunding, there's been a question of the how much responsibility the government should have in protecting a non-professional investor from losing money on a startup. “The JOBS Act and what we have to do with crowdfunding puts us squarely in the crosshairs of capital formation and investor protection,” said Joanne Rutkowski, a member of the SEC division that is working to finalize the equity crowdfunding rules, at the panel. “There's a tension there, and it's just something that you have to work within. You're never going to resolve it,” Rutkowski.

That may be so, but the crowd has shown that it is a fairly impressive fraud prevention tool. And investing now is very different than it was 80 years ago, when the SEC first came out with major federal regulations on the offer and sale of securities at a federal level.

Continue to the full article --> here

How Much Does an Offering Memorandum Cost?

Venture Law Corporation | Alixe Cormick | April 22, 2014

how much does an OM costAsking what the “all-in-costs” are for preparing an offering memorandum (an OM) is like asking how much it costs to build a house. A new 4,000 square foot custom-built house in West Vancouver, BC will cost more than a 1,200 square foot kit house in Abbotsford, BC.  Both homes may be lovely, but they are not the same in terms of construction, features, or cost.  A “one size fits all” price does not work in estimating the cost of a new house or the cost to prepare an OM.  To get an accurate estimate for either more information in needed from you as the client.

A law firm who gives you a quote for an OM without knowing more about your business and circumstances places you at risk of unforeseen fees and charges multiplying well beyond that original quote if that quote is unrealistically low. Alternatively, if the law firm assumes preparing your OM is unduly complicated, the quote may be so high that you may decide going forward is not for you. Neither situation is in your best interest.

Related:  Two equity crowdfunding exemptions taking hold in Canada

This article discusses the costs of preparing an OM under the OM exemption set out in section 2.9 of National Instrument 45-106 Prospectus and Registration Exemptions (the OM Exemption) which requires a prescribed form of offering document. There are separate forms for reporting and non-reporting issuers (e.g., private companies). These companies may be brand new start-ups or well established companies with complicated business structures operating around the world.

Summary of Offering Memorandum Costs

OM costs vary and depend on several factors. Costs related, directly and indirectly, to preparing an OM and related documents in Canada can be broken down as follows:

Legal fees Legal fees can cost between $10,000 to $150,000 plus taxes and disbursements. This is a wide range and depends on a number of factors including the sophistication and involvement of management of an issuer and professional advisors.
Accounting fees: Accounting fees can cost between $5,000 to $200,000 plus taxes and disbursements. Under the OM Exemption, you need IFRS audited financial statements while under the OM Exemption Lite[1] you need unaudited financial statements reviewed under PE-GAAP or IFRS.
Agent work fees: Works fees are fees payable to an intermediary, such as an exempt market dealer or investment dealer, and are for the work performed by the intermediary in getting an issuer ready for financing. Works fees can cost between $5,000 to $90,000 plus taxes and disbursements.
Agent sales commissions and finder’s fees: Sales commissions are payable to a registered dealer, such as an exempt market dealer and/or investment dealer who are involved in selling securities to investors and/or unregistered finders who are referring (a) issuers to dealers or (b) investors to issuers and/or dealers, in return for a fee. Sales commission are generally 7% to 16% of the total aggregate amount raised by an issuer, depending on a number of factors, and typically would include any finder’s fees.
Regulatory filing fees: Regulatory filing fees in each Canadian province or territory where capital is raised ranges from $0 to a percentage of the total aggregate amount raised in a particular jurisdiction.(1)
Marketing fees: These include sales and travel costs associated with entertaining or pitching potential dealers and/or investors (fees are indeterminate).
Other expenses Other expenses include printing costs associated with printing the OM and any related market materials.

Note: (1) PEI & NS: $0; NWT, YK & NU: $100; NB: $350; ON: $500; SK: $750; BC: the greater of $100 or 0.01% of capital raised in BC; and AB: the greater of $100 or 0.025% of capital raised in AB.

Most of these expenses are upfront fixed costs, which issuers must pay even if an offering is not completed for failure to raise the minimum offering. However, if the offering is completed, typically these offering costs are deducted from the gross aggregate proceeds raised with the net amount being paid to the issuer at closing. So how does a reputable law firm provide a fee quote or enter into a fixed fee arrangement? This is discussed below.

Determining Associated Legal Fees for Preparing an Offering Memorandum

Typically, engagements with a law firm start with an hourly retainer letter or a scoping fixed fee retainer. Law firms will either enter into a fixed fee retainer or provide an estimate of legal fees after the terms of its engagement has been determined. The reason firms start with an hourly fee or scoping retainer is the need to get more information, review existing documents, and flesh out what your goals and needs are as a client. A law firm also needs to make sure you fully understand key issues, risks, and what the law firm will do (and not do) for you in its engagement. These scoping conversations and the resulting scope of work document are often the most critical step in a deal. It sets the stage for the entire transaction and ensures that everyone has a complete understanding of the transaction and his or her role. Without a scoping document, which some refer to as a Deal Memorandum, it is difficult for you as a client to understand what legal documents and/or advice you need and the associated costs.

Calling different lawyers and law firms and asking for a quote for an OM will likely result in a wide range of costs and fees, which may not necessarily be comparing “apples-to-apples”. Going with the lowest quote without first understanding the scope of work appropriate for your deal is the last thing you want to do. Yes, you have a price or quote but it is likely a never-ending escalating number as you move forward and new items are constantly being added to the list of what must be completed. The law firm will then typically charge you for this “extra work” which you did not anticipate nor budget. Not a situation you want to be in. So how does legal counsel determine the scope of its engagement with you? Simple, you need to engage counsel to prepare a scoping document, deal memorandum or other document that sets out the scope of work you require for your deal. Topics discussed during various meetings, telephone calls and exchange of documents are discussed below.

Scoping Engagement

The scoping process discussed above involves a thorough review of a client’s key documents. It also requires a law firm to spend a considerable amount of time with a client discussing various issues and working out a definitive approach and a structure for an offering under the OM Exemption. The scoping engagement process includes determining:

  1. Client Issues;
  2. Client’s Business Objective(s);
  3. The Preparedness of Client;
  4. Specific Tasks Involved in Offering;
  5. What Documents are Necessary and Who is Responsible;
  6. Closing Matters;
  7. If There are Necessary Tasks in This Engagement Typically Outside a Law Firm’s Scope of Work;
  8. Issues Likely to Come-Up in Connection with the Offering;
  9. Other Constraints;
  10. Deal Management Issues; and
  11. The Engagement Letter

Appendix A contains a chart outlining and discussing each of these items in more detail. The scoping process provides transparency and certainty to all the parties involved in the transaction. It eliminates 90% of the surprises when going forward and ensures everyone knows their role and the expectations of other participants.

How to Keep Legal Fees to a Minimum

You are not alone if you would like to minimize your legal fees in preparing an OM and related documents in connection with raising capital under the OM Exemption or any other legal transaction. Here are a few simple actions you can take to reduce your legal fees:

  1. Organize your due diligence documents. The number one way you, as a client, can control legal fees is by taking responsibility in gathering and organizing all the due diligence documents and other information pertaining to your business. Consider hiring someone for this purpose. Once you have created a due diligence binder or file, you will find it is rather easy to keep it updated. This is particularly true if you create an electronic file of all these items. Many clients find that gathering all this information in one place and in an orderly manner also reduces the cost of their audit review each year. You should ask your lawyer for a due diligence checklist to assist you with identifying all relevant documents and information.
  2. Keep your place in the cue. Lawyers typically have many clients and it is important to keep your place in cue so your deal is completed in accordance with your reasonable expectations. A law firm typically provides its client with a list of steps, documents and a timeline evidencing a process for completing a transaction in a timely manner. A lawyer allocates time to do your work in his or her schedule. If a lawyer does not receive key documents back from you or from third parties involved with a transaction, the lawyer cannot move forward with your file. Your lawyer, having many clients, will move forward with other client’s work until he or she receives the document or information the lawyer requested from you to complete the next step of your file. This means your lawyer may have to complete that other client’s work before he or she can start again on your file. It also means your lawyer must reacquaint himself or herself with your file and determine if you need to update or change anything the lawyer completed earlier because of this delay. Time and costs add up if your lawyer must chase you or a third party for information or a document to move forward with your file. This will obviously result in scope creep.
  3. Avoid scope creep. A law firm’s engagement letter contains a lot of detail in terms of what work you want it to do for you. Essentially, anything you ask a law firm to do outside of what is set out in the engagement letter is scope creep and is an additional billing item. Generally, a law firm will try to alert a client that something a client has asked it to do is outside its original retainer. Law firms will bill any new items requested on an hourly or fixed amount basis as an extra cost. Scope creep can also occur when the terms of a transaction keep changing so it is important to get it right at the beginning. This is why preparing term sheets are important.
  4. Get your key third party documents in hand. Financial statements are key elements to preparing an OM. OMs require IFRS GAAP audited financial statements and current quarterly unaudited financial statements. The only exception is if you are making the offering in one of the jurisdictions that has adopted the OM Exemption Lite and the issuer is seeking to raise less than $500,000. If so, you can include unaudited financial statements and satisfy other requirements under the OM Exemption Lite. Obtaining audited financial statements takes a lot of time. If you are mining company, you must obtain a Form 43-101 technical report from an independent qualified person. This too, takes time. You are wasting your money in hiring a lawyer to prepare an OM if you do not have these documents or do not have them on their way to being completed.

Continue to the full article --> here

What we can learn about Equity Crowdfunding “Title III” raises from other jurisdictions

Paul Niederer blog | P. Niederer | April 20, 2014
Crowdfunding

While equity crowdfunding for unaccredited investors is not yet legal in the U.S.A. until Title III is passed,  it is alive and well in other jurisdictions. Capital raising from unaccredited investors takes place every day.The two most active countries in equity crowdfunding or raising capital with the support of unaccredited investors are Australia (8 years) and the United Kingdom (3 years).

ASSOB in Australia and Crowdcube in the United Kingdom have enough runs on the board to pass on some capital raising lessons to us.

Each operates equity crowdfunding under differing legislation but in reality both have established and operate the largest platforms in each of their countries, ASSOB has facilitated capital raisings of $138 million and Crowdcube $36 million.

View:

Paul Niederer3

One of the best ways to understand the learnings from the platforms is to look at some examples of successful capital raisings.

1. Preshafood (ASSOB) – $3.3 million raised from 29 accredited and unaccredited investors

Business

Preshafood Limited is a food and beverage company using a revolutionary High Pressure Processing (HPP) method to produce fruit juices and food products of an exceptional quality.

Funding Needs

The initial capital raising was for $1.5 million to increase production six times. Subsequently further funds were sought to further expand production and distribution.

Result

The initial raise of $1.5 million was oversubscribed by $1 million. Eventually $3.3 million was raised

Going Forward

Preshafood won first prize in both the ‘Best New Juice or Juice Drink’ and the ‘Best New Beverage Concept’ categories, from over 340 entries from 40 countries. The awards served to cement Preshafood’s position as a growing competitor in the quickly developing non-alcoholic beverages industry. The also won Telstra Small Business of the year award and are now profitable, growing and will probably exit to a major drinks industry player

2. E-Car Club (CROWDCUBE) - £100,000 raised from 62 accredited and unaccredited investors

Business

E-Car Club, the UK’s first entirely electric car club, was formed in September 2011 and was funded via the Sustainable Venture Development Partners.  The company also had a grant from the Technology Strategy Board (TSB)

Funding Needs

Following the successful launch of three Nissan LEAF cars in Wolverton and Milton Keynes, a capital raising of £100,000 was sought to fund operations, including establishment of additional hubs in Southern England and development of strategic partnerships.

Rewards involved free E-Car Club membership, free driving credit, an invitation to join the E-Car Advisory Committee and lifetime community membership (worth £15/month).

Result

E-Car Club successfully raised £100,000 from 62 investors allowing them to continue to develop the business.

Going Forward

In February 2014, E-Car Club secured £500,000 of funding from Ignite Social Enterprise LP, the social impact fund backed by Centrica Plc. The additional funding will allow E-Car Club to pursue its social mission, delivering access to lower cost transport solutions and improving the quality of life for local communities in up to twenty new locations.

3. Opmantek (ASSOB) – $700,000 raised from 28 accredited and unaccredited investors

Business

Opmantek Ltd is an Australian business that develops, markets, packages and distributes software in the network management field.

Funding Needs

They were seeking $600,000 in exchange for 25% equity in the company, to launch commercial modules and services to the existing customer base.

The funds raised through this offer were predominantly to:

  • Hire a Chief Technology Offices and two Developers to support and develop parallel innovations;
  • Fund the commercialisation and marketing of NMIS v8;
  • Apply for patent protection of intellectual property.

Result

$700,000 was raised and due to continued demand in the shares secondary sales eventuated

Going Forward

Opmantek Ltd has confirmed that another major Latin American telecommunications provider has licensed its award winning Network Management Software – NMIS .he company continues to grow and will probably exit to a major telecommunications player

4. Righteous (CROWDCUBE) – £225,000 raised from accredited and unaccredited investors

Business

Righteous, the ‘all natural’ salad dressing brand was set up by ex-Unilever marketer Gem Misa in 2011.

Funding Needs

In 2012 Gem raised £75,000 to create a marketing campaign and nurture growth. At the end of 2013 Misa a capital raising for further £150,000 to expand into overseas markets, including Canada via Costco and the USA via Whole Foods distributor KEHE.

Result

The potential for this London-based business is huge, with the USA condiments market worth ten times that of the UK (£11 billion).

Going Forward

Righteous products are now sold in over 600 supermarkets in the UK (Tesco, Waitrose, Ocado, Boots, Sainsburys) and more than 500 in North America. Business turnover has grown by 1,260% in three years (from £122,500 in 2012).

5. SelfWealth (ASSOB) – $1.65 million raised from 32 accredited and unaccredited investors

Business

SelfWealth is:

  • The new paradigm in investing;
  • A community of self investors; and
  • “Self Investment Made Simple”.

SelfWealth offers a low-cost, holistic solution to self-directed investors delivered seamlessly on-line, enabling investors to take greater control of their own wealth creation for an annual subscription fee without commissions.

Funding Needs

SelfWealth sought $1,492,551 to build their on-line offering to self-directed investors.

Result

$1.65 million was raised with two angel investors starting the raise off with $200,000 each.

Going Forward

The Company has developed a  social network for investors. Instead of paying fees and commissions to professionals, SelfWealth enables pension fund owners to collaborate with the community and construct their own portfolio. SelfWealth is providing portfolios, performance, reporting and great research tools – all in one place.

Each of the above equity crowdfunding raises needed a compliant professional equity funding platform but more importantly each needed a story, team and followers.

For companies considering raising funds they should self-assess to check they have:

  1. A Convincing, Compelling, Credible Story coupled with a perceived viable business model
  2. A Balanced, Passionate, Capable and Likeable Team
  3. Lots of Suitable People to share the story with and engage

Continue to the full article --> here