SEC Proposes to Simplify 'Complex and Confusing' Exempt Offering Rules

Published at: March 5, 2020

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has voted to propose a set of rule changes to simply and improve the "patchwork" rules for exempt securities offerings.

The proposed rule changes aim to improve the existing ‘complex and confusing’ framework to make it easier for companies to conduct offerings that still protect investors.

In the US offerings of securities, including Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), must either be registered with the SEC or qualify for an exemption. The majority of entrepreneurs and emerging businesses — such as Telegram — raise capital via the exempt offering framework.

Unaccredited investor limit raised

Many exemptions in the crypto space fall under Rule 504 of Regulation D. Under the proposed rule changes the maximum amount that can be raised from non-accredited investors under this rule will increase from $5 million to $10 million in a 12 month period.

Announcing the proposed rules, the SEC said they "reflect a comprehensive retrospective review of the patchwork system built over many decades, seek to address gaps and complexities in the exempt offering framework that may impede access to capital for issuers and access to investment opportunities for investors."

As one example the SEC notes the current framework has 10 exemptions or "safe harbors", each of which have very different requirements thay "may be confusing and difficult for issuers to navigate." The new rules propose four non exclusive ‘safe harbors.’

The proposed amendments would also:

Implement one broadly applicable rule to address the ability of issuers to move from one exemption to another and ultimately to a registered offering.Increase the offering limits and revise certain individual investment limits.Set clear and consistent rules guiding communications between investors and issuers, including allowing issuers to use generic solicitation of interest materials to ‘test the waters’ prior to determining which exemption it will use for the sale of the securities. Harmonize certain disclosure and eligibility requirements and bad actor disqualification provision to reduce differences between exemptions

Proposals reflect public submissions

The proposals have been informed by public submissions, in response to the SEC’s June 2019 concept release proposal. Public comment on the amendments will be open for 60 days from today.

The SEC has taken an active approach towards cryptocurrency projects that it believes have broken existing regulations around unregistered securities, most notably in its pursuit of Telegram over its $1.7 billion Gram token sale.

Chairman Jay Clayton said of the proposed rule changes:

“The complexity of the current framework is confusing for many involved in the process, particularly for those smaller companies whose limited resources spent on navigating our overly complex rules are diverted from direct investments in the companies’ growth. These proposals are intended to create a more rational framework that better allows entrepreneurs to access capital while preserving and enhancing important investor protections."

SEC also looks to expand definition of ‘accredited investor’

The SEC is also looking to expand the definition of an “accredited investor” which currently means an individual with a net worth of $1 million or an entity controlling over $5 million in assets. New rules proposed in December would expand the definition out to those with professional knowledge, experience or qualifications.

The existing rules are designed to protect everyday investors from predatory offerings, but are controversial because they prevent ordinary people from taking advantage of wealth formation opportunities. The current Regulation D exemptions, depend on exclusively or primarily offering a security only to “accredited investors.”

Tags
Sec
Related Posts
SEC vs. Telegram: Part 1 — Key takeaways for now
Telegram is a popular, global, cloud-based instant messaging, videotelephone and voice-over service company. Particularly popular with crypto-enthusiasts, at the end of 2017, Telegram came up with a plan to raise funds to support the development of a new crypto asset, dubbed Gram, and a network originally planned as the Telegraph Open Network. Proceeds would also fund further expansion of the messaging service that had previously been funded by the founders. Telegram set out to fundraise in two distinct stages. The first involved the sale of contractual rights to acquire Grams if and when they were successfully launched. The second stage …
Technology / Sept. 21, 2020
Ripple CEO answers 5 key questions about the SEC lawsuit
Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse has revealed the firm unsuccessfully attempted to settle its securities violation lawsuit with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and slammed the “regulatory chaos” around cryptocurrencies. I’m not going to litigate the SEC’s unproven allegations on Twitter, and as you can imagine, there are new considerations to what can / should be said publicly after the litigation process starts. However, I would like to address 5 key questions I’ve seen. 1/10 — Brad Garlinghouse (@bgarlinghouse) January 7, 2021 In a Twitter thread addressing what he described as “5 key questions,” the CEO strongly denied the …
Regulation / Jan. 8, 2021
SEC vs. Telegram: Part 3 — The extraterritorial reach of US securities laws
As mentioned in the first and second parts of this story, on March 24, 2020, in a widely reported and closely followed decision, Judge Peter Castel imposed a sweeping preliminary injunction preventing Telegram from issuing its planned crypto asset, Grams. Shortly thereafter, the judge clarified his initial ruling by explicitly holding that the injunction applied to all sales worldwide regardless of where the original purchasers might be located. Efforts by Telegram to see that the Grams would not easily be resold into the United States were unavailing. This part of the story looks at the decision to apply U.S. requirements …
Technology / Sept. 23, 2020
SEC vs. Telegram: Part 2 — The case against integrating the two prongs of a SAFT
As discussed in the previous article, Telegram is a popular global instant messaging company. In 2018, it sold contractual rights to acquire a new crypto asset that it was developing (to be called Grams) to a group of accredited (and wealthy) investors around the world. Telegram raised about $1.7 billion from 171 investors, including 39 U.S. purchasers. This was a prelude to the planned launch of Grams, which was to occur about a year and a half later in October 2019. This two-step process — where a crypto entrepreneur sells contractual rights to acquire a crypto asset upon launch in …
Technology / Sept. 22, 2020
The US SEC amendments and SAFT process
Earlier this year, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission — in both the SEC versus Telegram and SEC versus Kik cases — vigorously argued that sales of contractual rights to acquire tokens on a when-issued basis (widely referred to as Simple Agreements for Future Tokens, or SAFTs) should be integrated with later sales of the tokens. When the judges in those cases issued rulings agreeing with the SEC, it felt like a door was closing on the SAFT process, making it unworkable for future crypto offerings. Then, on Nov. 2, a divided SEC adopted a series of amendments to …
Technology / Nov. 15, 2020