Category Archives: Equity Crowdfunding, Alternative Funding

Crowdfunding Startups: Opportunities and Bottlenecks

Huffington Post | Sramana Mitra | April 21, 2014

Lead investorThere has been a bit of action for a while now in the crowdfunding world, and certain startups have been able to get themselves off the ground using the Kickstarter / Indiegogo style sites. By and large, these types of financings have gone to companies that are building physical products, digital games, etc. Fundings have also happened for some causes, films, books and art projects that are typically not businesses. Equity crowdfunding has been signed into law in the US through the JOBS Act, but it awaits the SECs directives on the precise rules governing the system. In Europe, it is legal and already in practice. Hopefully, other parts of the world will also start seeing the infrastructure develop shortly.

For our domain of focus, the primary concern is financing digital startups: technology and technology-enabled services. Typically, these are difficult to assess, high-risk companies, and amateur investors from the "crowd" are unlikely to be able to perform adequate due diligence to have a sophisticated investment thesis.

However, there is one category of investors who will have an excellent vantage point from which to assess new ventures.

I am talking about customers.

View:  Crowdfunding 2.0 will turn customers into shareholders

Daniel Cane, co-founder of Blackboard, is doing a new company in healthcare IT that he has "crowdfunded" from customers. Technically, it is not crowdfunding as in the financing was not completed on Kickstarter or a similar site. However, Daniel raised the funding from a bunch of doctors who were enthusiastic about his product and wanted to invest. This converted customers to investors, massively enhancing their stake in the game, and incentivizing them to promote the product to large numbers of other doctors who are likely prospects for the company. [Read the Modernizing Medicine case study]

A full-fledged implementation of equity crowdfunding, I believe, will vastly scale the opportunity for entrepreneurs to engage their customers as investors.

In fact, all sorts of strategic players who can make a company successful, can take a stake in it: potential channel partners, media, analysts, domain experts who want to play across a set of companies in their core expertise area.

This is really exciting!

You may ask, where does that put VCs and professional angels?

Well, the "crowd" is not good at leading financing rounds. Even so-called angels often don't know how to lead rounds. I would argue, the number of investors who know how to lead a round is quite small.

However, to raise an equity financing round, you need a lead investor to set a valuation and issue a term sheet.

Savvy entrepreneurs will, most likely, work with savvy VCs and angels to set the terms and then invite their customers, partners, and strategic influencers to participate. Savvy VCs and angels will recognize the value of having these strategic players in the round, and will not object. After all, everyone makes more money if the company has more levers to push on to accelerate growth.

Continue to the full article --> here

Crowdfunding: An investor’s perspective

ITBusiness.ca | Gerard Buckley @jaguarcapital | April 17, 2014

Shutterstock image3

Yesterday I had the distinct pleasure of being invited by the National Crowdfunding Association of Canada to be a panelist at their breakfast briefing “Igniting Entrepreneurship and Capital Flow in Ontario.”

The other distinguished panelists that I spoke alongside of were James Turner, vice chair of the Ontario Securities Commission, who gave an overview of the Ontario Securities Commission regulatory framework; John Wires of Wires Law who gave the legal overview; Jos Schmitt of Aequitas who spoke of structuring a portal and building an exchange for private securities and how that may be affected by crowdfunding; and yours truly, sharing my views as an investor. We spoke to a sold out audience led by Craig Asano, founder of NCFA and Murray McKercher, NCFA board advisor.

The timing of this briefing coincided to the “Introduction of Proposed Prospectus Exemptions and Proposed Reports of Exempt Distribution in Ontario” on March 20, 2014 and is open for comments for 90 days. This release of proposed amendments to ‘Prospectus and Registration Exemptions” include an Offering Memorandum (OM) Prospectus Exemption, a Family, Friends, and Business Associates Prospective Exemption (FFBA), a prospectus exemption for distributions by a reporting issuer to it’s existing shareholders and the Crowdfunding Prospectus Exemption and regulatory requirements applicable to a Crowdfunding Portal which we addressed in the presentation.

Related:

I would be the first to admit that two years ago I was skeptical of crowdfunding and did not feel that that it would provide a viable alternative for capital formation. Today I believe it is required for me and others to be part of the discussion so that entrepreneurs are well informed on crowdfunding and if they take advantage of this Prospectus Exemption they will continue to be positioned for future capital fundraising for their company. It is my view that crowdfunding will be introduced in most provincial jurisdictions in Canada later this year or early next year as both regulators and government would like to ensure the environment for capital formation for seed and early stage innovation is robust and the introduction of crowdfunding will have low budgetary impact for provincial governments.

My comments here within are divided among three distinct groups of investors, some concerns of regulators , the unintended consequences of crowdfunding and my attempt to be futuristic about how crowdfunding may be viewed several years after implementation.

The general market or ordinary investor perspective

Everyone is speaking of the democratization of investment opportunity in early and growth stage private companies. I see no evidence that most investors that currently invest in mutual funds, ETFs, GIC’s etc. are lining up to invest monies in equities of seed and early stage companies. These changes in prospectus exemptions will be no panacea for the investee companies. Currently less that 10% of Canadians hold equities on a direct basis. As a result of the introduction of crowdfunding I don’t see that number rising substantially in the coming years. Most investors that I speak to are concerned that the gestation period for an ROI (Return on Investment) from crowdfunded Investments will be long and they will take a wait and see approach.

Like it or not investment in early stage companies is a high risk investment. I commented in Money Sense Magazine in May of last year that this asset class should be considered part of an investor’s total portfolio where alternative investments including commodities, speculative ventures, derivatives, early stage companies, etc. should be no more that 5 to 10% of the investor’s portfolio. Any prudent financial adviser or portfolio manager would follow this theory.

During the Q&A I was specifically asked if RSP’s and Registered Savings Plan assets could be used to invest via the crowdfunding exemption in early stage companies. The legislative intention is that these savings plans be used for the longer term liabilities of retirement and therefore from a asset management perspective be matched with longer term assets. A equity investment  in a high risk seed or early stage company does not align with the longer term nature of the assets of a registered savings plan.

The accredited investor perspective

Accredited investors who include our members at Maple Leaf Angels don’t require legislative change to invest in seed or early stage companies. This is the group that is most blase about crowdfunding as they already have the opportunity to invest in private companies. However, I believe it is this group that in the fullness of time will adopt to investing through portals such as Funders Club or Angel List.

It is accredited investors that will be investing the largest amounts as they adopt the technology and become comfortable with the investee companies. I believe in the early evolution of crowdfunding, cannibalization of investment from this group through private placement or offering memorandum will be disguised as crowdfunding to demonstrate the success and adoption rate of crowdfunding.  It is generally understood that currently a Crowdfunding Campaign requires 30 per cent or more of the raise to be pre sold and with equity crowdfunding I don’t see that number changing substantially. It will be through traditional methods of pitch and present to accredited investors where this pre selling will occur.

Tech entrepreneur, business owner, knowledgeable individual etc. who is not an accredited investor

This investor currently is not permitted to invest due to not being an Accredited Investor. When referring to the democratization of investment opportunity it is this investor that is being most referred to. They will be the early adopters investing via a portal for both Offering Memorandum and Crowdfunding Exemptions. They are the friends and associates of the founders of the seed and early stage companies we speak of. They will most likely have exited their own startups and will have investable capital of between 200k and 1mm and come from the millennial generation. They understand the space, participate in the ecosystem, went to school with the founders and I believe will be the most active new investors under the Crowdfunding Exemption. However as a result of the Crowdfunding limits the Offering Memorandum Exemption may become the exemption of choice for this investor.

Investors from the perspective of the regulators

You can not expect that in this day and age that the regulators will give cause for a condition to exist where individual investors are not being protected. It is also highly unlikely that they will discharge this responsibility to a third party such as a SRO (self regulated Organization). Selling unsuitable investments to seniors is a significant concern for regulators as selling unsuitable investments represented >40% of IIROC’s disciplinary actions last year and too many of these actions had seniors as victims.

I feel that credit must be given to the OSC for the pace in which they brought these four Prospectus Exemptions to the marketplace. Having just attended the Angel Capital Association’s Annual Summit in Washington the buzz is, Canada is further advanced than the USA on it’s initiatives for capital formation for seed and early stage companies siteing such programs as Start-Up Visa, FEDDEV’s IBI program and Province of Ontario’s ANP (Angel Network Program) as examples.

Continue to the full article --> here

 

Request for comments (until June 18, 2014): CSA Equity Crowdfunding (Draft Regulation 45-108)

CSA | Participating Jurisdictions | March 20, 2014

Feedback please
Note: if you would like to submit your comments to be aggregated with NCFA Canada's submission please email to casano@ncfacanada.org

On March 20, 2014, the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) of Quebec, the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan (FCAA), Financial and Consumer Services Commission of New Brunswick (FCNB), the Manitoba Securities Commission (MSC) and the Nova Scotia Securities Commission (NSSC) (collectively, the Participating Jurisdictions) are publishing for a 90-day comment period:

• The Integrated Crowdfunding Prospectus Exemption and Crowdfunding Portal Requirements (the Crowdfunding Exemption); and
• The Start-Up Crowdfunding Prospectus and Registration Exemption (the Start-Up Exemption)

It is intended that both proposed exemptions will coexist as they target issuers at different stages of development. To facilitate harmonization, staff of the Participating Jurisdictions and the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) have worked closely and coordinated their efforts in developing proposals relating to the Crowdfunding Exemption. The OSC is also concurrently publishing materials for comment containing prospectus and registration exemptions substantially similar to the Crowdfunding Exemption under a separate Ontario local notice.

View:

The British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) is also concurrently publishing a local notice soliciting comments on the Start-Up Exemption. Although the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) is not publishing the Proposed Exemptions for comments, it will be considering the public comments in respect of them.

Download Overview of Crowdfunding Exemptions

 

Questions on proposed Crowdfunding Exemption and Start-Up Exemption

The participating jurisdictions in the CSA would appreciate feedback on the proposed Crowdfunding Exemption and Crowdfunding Portal Requirements generally, as well as on the following questions:

Proposed Crowdfunding Exemption

Issuer qualification criteria

1) Should the availability of the Crowdfunding Exemption be restricted to non-reporting issuers?

2) Is the proposed exclusion of real estate issuers that are not reporting issuers appropriate?

3) The Crowdfunding Exemption would require that a majority of the issuer's directors be resident in Canada. One of the key objectives of our crowdfunding initiative is to facilitate capital raising for Canadian issuers. We also think this requirement would reduce the risk to investors. Would this requirement be appropriate and consistent with these objectives?

Offering parameters

4) The Crowdfunding Exemption would impose a $1.5 million limit on the amount that can be raised under the exemption by the issuer, an affiliate of the issuer, and an issuer engaged in a common enterprise with the issuer or with an affiliate of the issuer, during the period commencing 12 months prior to the issuer’s current offering. Is $1.5 million an appropriate limit? Should amounts raised by an affiliate of the issuer or an issuer engaged in a common enterprise with the issuer or with an affiliate of the issuer be subject to the limit? Is the 12- month period prior to the issuer’s current offering an appropriate period of time to which the limit should apply?

5) Should an issuer be able to extend the length of time a distribution could remain open if subscriptions have not been received for the minimum offering? If so, should this be tied to a minimum percentage of the target offering being achieved?

Restrictions on solicitation and advertising

6) Are the proposed restrictions on general solicitation and advertising appropriate?

Investment limits

7) The Crowdfunding Exemption would prohibit an investor from investing more than $2,500 in a single investment under the exemption, and more than $10,000 in total under the exemption in a calendar year. An accredited investor can invest an unlimited amount in an issuer under the AI Exemption. Should there be separate investment limits for accredited investors who invest through the portal?

Statutory or contractual rights in the event of a misrepresentation

8) The Crowdfunding Exemption would require that, if a comparable right were not provided by the securities legislation of the jurisdiction in which the investor resides, the issuer must provide the investor with a contractual right of action for rescission or damages if there is a misrepresentation in any written or other materials made available to the investor (including video). Is this the appropriate standard of liability? What impact would this standard of liability have on the length and complexity of offering documents?

Provision of ongoing disclosure

9) How should the disclosure documents best be made accessible to investors? To whom should the documents be made accessible?

10) Would it be appropriate to require that non-reporting issuers provide financial statements that are either audited or reviewed by an independent public accounting firm? Are financial statements without this level of assurance adequate for investors? Would an audit or review be too costly for non-reporting issuers?

11) The proposed financial threshold to determine whether financial statements are required to be audited is based on the amount of capital raised by the issuer and the amount it has expended. Are these appropriate parameters on which to base the financial reporting requirements? Is the dollar amount specified for each parameter appropriate?

Other

12) Are there other requirements that should be imposed to protect investors?

Crowdfunding Portal Requirements

General registrant obligations

13) The Crowdfunding Portal Requirements provide that portals will be subject to a minimum net capital requirement of $50,000 and a fidelity bond insurance of at least $50,000. The fidelity bond is intended to protect against the loss of investor funds if, for example, a portal or any of its officers or directors breach the prohibitions on holding, managing, possessing or otherwise handling investor funds or securities. Are these proposed insurance and minimum net capital amounts appropriate?

Additional portal obligations

14) Do you think an international background check should be required to be performed by the portal on issuers, directors, executive officers, promoters and control persons to verify the qualifications, reputation and track record of the parties involved in the offering?

Prohibited activities

15) The Crowdfunding Portal Requirements would allow portal fees to be paid in securities of the issuer so long as the portal’s investment in the issuer does not exceed 10%. Is the investment threshold appropriate? In light of the potential conflicts of interest from the portal’s ownership of an issuer, should portals be prohibited from receiving fees in the form of securities?

16) The Crowdfunding Portal Requirements restricts portals from holding, handling or accessing client funds. Is this requirement appropriate? How will this impact the portal’s business operations? Should alternatives be considered?

Other

17) Are there other requirements that should be imposed on portals to protect the interests of investors?

18) Will the regulatory framework applicable to portals permit a portal to appropriately carry on business?

 

Proposed Start-Up Exemption

We would appreciate feedback on the proposed Start-Up Exemption and Start-Up Portal Requirements generally, as well as on the following questions:

19) Considering that the Start-Up Exemption will be substantially harmonized amongst the Participating Jurisdictions, it is our intention to allow a portal established in one Participating Jurisdiction to post offerings from issuers established in another Participating Jurisdiction. Also, portals established in one Participating Jurisdiction would be allowed to open their offerings to investors from other Participating Jurisdictions. Do you see any problems with this approach?

20) One of the major differences between the Crowdfunding Exemption and the Start-Up Exemption is that there is no registration requirement for the portal under the Start-Up Exemption. Do you think there are appropriate safeguards to protect investors without the registration of the portal? If not, please indicate what requirements should be imposed to the portal in order to adequately protect investors.

21) We are considering imposing a limit per calendar year of 2 capital raises by an issuer of a maximum amount of $150,000 under the exemption ($300,000 per year). Are these limits appropriate? If not, please provide what you would consider acceptable limits given the parameters of the proposed exemption.

22) The Start-Up Exemption would prohibit an investor from investing more than $1,500 in a single investment under the exemption. Is this limit appropriate? Should there also be a limit on the dollar amount that may be invested on a yearly basis by an investor?

23) Should there be minimal ongoing disclosure that issuers be required to provide to their security holders? If yes, what should it be?

24) We expect issuers using the Start-Up Exemption to maintain the information provided in the Issuer Information form and the Offering Document form updated throughout the distribution period. Should there be an obligation for issuers to further update that information outside the distribution period?

25) Should investors have the right to withdraw their subscription at least 48 hours prior to the disclosed offering deadline, as proposed under the Crowdfunding Exemption?

26) For Nova Scotia only, should Community Economic Development Investment Funds (CEDIFs) be eligible to use the Crowdfunding Exemption and/or Start-Up Exemption? If so, why? If not, why?

27) Are there other requirements that should be imposed to protect investors, taking into account the stage of development of the issuers susceptible to issue securities under the exemption?

Implementation by blanket order of the Start-Up Exemption

The Participating Jurisdictions, other than Saskatchewan, intend to adopt the Start-Up Exemption by way of a blanket order. The proposed blanket orders are designated as follows:
• Blanket Order 45-502 Start-Up Crowdfunding Prospectus and Registration Exemption in Manitoba;
• Blanket Order on Québec Start-up Crowdfunding Prospectus and Registration Exemption in Québec;
• Blanket Order 45-506 in New Brunswick; and
• Blanket Order 45-524 in Nova Scotia.

The Start-Up Exemption already exists in Saskatchewan (General Order 45-925 – Saskatchewan Equity Crowdfunding Exemption) and there is no intention to revoke it. This current exemption in Saskatchewan is not being published for comment. The FCAA is publishing for comment a new version of this current exemption with a view to harmonizing the current exemption with other Participating Jurisdictions.

Request for comments

We welcome all comments on the Proposed Exemptions on or before June 18, 2014.

Please submit your comments in writing. If you are not sending your comments by email, please send a CD containing the submissions (in Microsoft Word format).

Please note that comments received will be made publicly available and posted on the websites of the AMF at www.lautorite.qc.ca and may be posted on the websites of certain other securities regulatory authorities. You should not include personal information directly in comments to be published. It is important that you state on whose behalf you are making the submission.

Please address your submission as follows:

Autorité des marchés financiers
Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan
Manitoba Securities Commission
Financial and Consumer Services Commission (New Brunswick)
Nova Scotia Securities Commission

Please deliver your comments only to the address below. Your comments will be distributed to the other Participating Jurisdictions.

Me Anne-Marie Beaudoin
Corporate Secretary
Autorité des marchés financiers
800, square Victoria, 22e étage C.P. 246, tour de la Bourse Montréal (Québec) H4Z 1G3
Fax : 514-864-6381
E-mail: consultation-en-cours@lautorite.qc.ca

The proposed Crowdfunding Exemption and the proposed Start-Up Exemption are published with this notice.

Questions

Please refer your questions to any of the following:

Sylvie LalondeDirector, Policy and Regulations DepartmentAutorité des marchés financiers514 395-0337, ext. 4461 sylvie.lalonde@lautorite.qc.ca Patrick ThéorêtDirector, Corporate FinanceAutorité des marchés financiers514 395-0337, ext. 4381 patrick.theoret@lautorite.qc.ca
Tony HerdzikDeputy Director, Corporate FinanceSecurities DivisionFinancial and Consumer Affairs Authority ofSaskatchewan306 787-5849 tony.herdzik@gov.sk.ca Liz KutarnaDeputy Director, Capital MarketsSecurities DivisionFinancial and Consumer Affairs Authority ofSaskatchewan306 787-5871 liz.kutarna@gov.sk.ca

Chris Besko
Legal Counsel - Deputy Director
The Manitoba Securities Commission
204-945-2561 chris.besko@gov.mb.ca

Susan Powell
Deputy Director, Securities
Financial and Consumer Services Commission
(New Brunswick)
506 643-7697 susan.powell@fcnb.ca

Abel Lazarus
Securities Analyst, Corporate Finance
Nova Scotia Securities Commission
902 424-6859
Lazaruah@gov.ns.ca

 

Download the full CSA Notice: Draft Regulation 45-108 Respecting Crowdfunding

SeedInvest Raises Series A On Its Own Crowdfunding Platform, $2M Committed So Far

Techcrunch | | April 14, 2014

SeedinvestSeedInvest, the equity crowdfunding platform based in New York that helps other startups (like Vengo Labs) raise rounds, is today launching a campaign on its own platform to complete an intended $3 million Series A round. The startup has already had $2 million committed from VCs Scout Ventures, Great Oaks Venture Capital, Avenue A Ventures, Archer Gray and Krillion Ventures.

The funding will be used to expand the kinds of services that SeedInvest offers both to startups and investors, and comes in advance of a change later this year, courtesy of the JOBS Act, where non-accredited investors will also be able to make investments on the platform. “As soon as the final portion of the JOBS Act kicks-in, we will open SeedInvest to 240 million Americans who will be able to invest in startup companies for the very first time,” Ryan Feit, CEO and co-founder of SeedInvest, said in a statement. Feit tells me that the fundraise “will enable us to grow our team in order to support our rapidly growing investor base.” SeedInvest aims to double its employee base over the next six months.

There have been a number of crowdfunding platforms for startups that have sprouted up in the wake of the JOBS Act, with others including AngelList and InvestPrive in Europe (which played a part in AdQuantic raising money prior to selling to Criteo, from what we understand).

View:  Two equity crowdfunding specific exemptions taking hold in Canada

The features that Feit says differentiates SeedInvest from the others is that many rivals keep 20% of any returns through carried interest, while SeedInvest is completely free for investors. SeedInvest was founded by former professional investors and “we choose only the best quality startups to crowdfund through our platform,” Feit tells me. “Historically, just 3% of all companies that have applied to raise capital on SeedInvest have been published for fundraising.” He says that these differences allows SeedInvest “to attract larger, more sophisticated investors, as evidenced by an average check size of $23,000 last month and investments as large as $550,000.”

Since opening for business in February 2013, SeedInvest has reported $1 million in backing for itself, and helped startups raise $15 million in total, although it claims a much more lofty $128 million+ in “collective investor interest,” which I believe refers to how much money potentially there is for investment on the platform, given the right opportunities. It makes money from offering more premium services for startups listing on the platform, as well as investors investing in it; Feit hasn’t broken down for me how many typically take premium services from SeedInvest today. A typical month, say March, saw 60 investments made on the platform, with the number growing 350% in the first quarter of this year over a year ago.

Feit says that to help vet both startups and investors, especially as its net widens later this year, SeedInvest will conduct “background and bad-actor checks on all issuers to ensure they are legit.” Each company will require a “substantial amount of detailed disclosure.”

Continue to the full article --> here

US Research: Crowdnetic Releases Q1 Detailed Crowdfunded Securities Report

Crowdnetic | Luan Cox | April 14, 2014

Crowdnetic Quarterly reportCrowdnetic, the leading provider of technology and market data solutions to the global crowdfinance marketplace, released its first quarterly PIPR (Private Issuers Publicly Raising) data analysis, for the period ending March 31, 2014. Since September 23, 2013, Crowdnetic has aggregated and normalized data from thousands of PIPRs, providing unprecedented transparency and access for both investors and those seeking to raise capital in the crowdfinance marketplace. This has included monthly reports with detailed analysis of the data by sector, industry, and region, as well as by type of security and issuer.

In this report, Crowdnetic found that 2,834 PIRRs are currently active and included on Crowdnetic’s data platform, CrowdWatch, and its private offerings content suite onMarketWatch. Co-sponsored by Crowdcast Network, Springboard Enterprises, theKingdom Trust Company and Ventureneer, it provides industry insights, breakdowns by geographic distribution, a section on Form D filings and a section on women-led and women-owned companies. Additionally, not only was there an increase in the number of PIPRs during the last month of the quarter, but, when comparing that increase to the relative increase in the number of capital commitments, there’s also been a core increase in capital raising activity. An addition to the report is a section on transaction data, representing all the inflows and outflows over the quarter.

“We are seeing the strong and continual growth in the industry as more investors and private companies raising capital find out about this newly empowered marketplace,” added Luan Cox, CEO of Crowdnetic. “This is a very exciting time in the world of crowdfinance.”

Related:  US Equity Crowdfunding exemptions:  5 state bills adopted and 16 pending

The quarterly report’s also shown a steady growth of active deals across all sectors and the PIPR totals as of March 31, 2014 represent an increase of 24.9% since the first report on January 23, 2014—JOBS Act Title II: The First 120 Days in Review—commemorating three months since the lifting of the ban on general solicitation. For that same time period, the recorded number of capital commitments has shown a 67.8% increase, from $80.2 million to $134.6 million. The Services sector has remained largest in terms of both number of offerings and recorded capital committed, followed by Technology. Regionally, the Western Region of the United States continues to dominate the space in terms of capital commitments, followed by the South.

Download the full report --> now

The Current CBC Radio: Kickstarter meets Bay Street – Selling Shares Through Crowdfunding

The Current - CBC Radio | April 10, 2014

The Current with Anna MarieOnline pleas to crowdfund donations comes from thousands looking to make a film or start a business.  Now, seven Canadian Securities Commissions wants to take that idea, to let companies sell shares to potential investors through crowdfunding portals.

 

Kickstarter meets Bay Street - Selling Shares Through Crowdfunding

Listen to the Current CBC Radio (23mins 59secs)

 

 

Two equity crowdfunding models for Canada

MaRS | By Carlos Pinto Lobo | April 9, 2014

Canadian moneyOn March 20, the Canadian securities landscape radically shifted when seven Canadian securities regulators published requests for comments on two proposed versions of equity crowdfunding models.

The proposed models are from the Ontario Securities Commission and the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC). The BCSC proposed adopting the crowdfunding model that was launched on December 6, 2013, by Saskatchewan securities regulator the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority. The two models highlight two issues.

  1. The Canadian securities landscape has been altered in a revolutionary manner. For the past two years, the calls have been growing louder for securities regulators to democratize the way that the public accesses private equity deals by purchasing them on the Internet. There have been impassioned and principled debates from both sides of the discussion. The announcements from the regulators have changed the status quo of the past 70+ years of the securities industry and firmly state that the way we do business in Canada is about to change. There are a number of changes to the industry laid out in the proposals; however, the most important change is that private equity deals will potentially be accessible to all individuals and no longer simply reserved for those investors who meet the regulators’ definition of wealthy or sophisticated.
  2. The two proposals are significantly different. If left as is, the two significantly different proposals will create a bifurcated crowdfunding regime in Canada. Whatever the arguments for and merits of the two proposals, it is the stakeholders—that is, the public, the ventures, the issuers and the securities industry—that will have to bear the increased costs and confusion of a bifurcated system. This may limit the success of crowdfunding in the country.

Related:

 

Ontario model Saskatchewan model
Jurisdictions adopted or proposed Adopted: None. Proposed: Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan Adopted: Saskatchewan. Proposed: British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec
Offering size $1.5 million per year $150,000 up to twice per year
Limits on the types of securities All, except derivatives All, except derivatives
Disclosure Disclosure document at point of sale Minimal disclosure
Ongoing disclosure obligations Annual financial statements, along with proper securities registers and documentation on how funds were spent Not specified, but presumably as required under corporate legislation.
Audits Audited if more than $500,000 is raised and/or expenditure exceeds $150,000 or if issuer is a reporting issuer. Statements reviewed if less than $500,000 is raised. Optional
Investor risk acknowledgement Yes, signed by each investor Yes, signed by each investor
Cap per investor $2,500 per issuer by an investor, $10,000 per rolling year $1,500 per issuer by an investor, unlimited number of investments with different issuers
Statutory rights of action 48-hour right of withdrawal, statutory right of action against issuer if misrepresentation in offering document, or any document or video made available to the investor None
Funding portals must be registered with the regulator Must be registered as a restricted dealer Portals provide 30 days notice of intent to act as a portal

 Continue to the full article --> here