SEC Rule 147 and the Michigan Invests Locally Exemption

Crowdfunding Lawyer

Michigan Invests Locally Exemption

We have written repeatedly on Michigan’s new crowdfunding regulations established as the Michigan Invests Locally Exemption (“MILE”). Whether you like them or not, the MILE regulations take aim at striking a balance between permitting new avenues of equity-driven fundraising, while seeking to protect its participants from unscrupulous offerors.

MILE only applies, however, to strictly intrastate equity offerings. Interstate equity-crowdfunding activity, on the other hand, is subject to oversight by the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission.

SEC Rule 147

Rule 147 (see 17 CFR 230.147) is nicknamed the “safe harbor” exemption because it outlines how the SEC analyzes whether or not a company’s activities are intrastate, and thus free from its oversight when engaging in equity sales via crowdfunding.

A company’s “safe harbor” is obtained when it demonstrates (1) its residency within the state; (2) a significant amount of its business is conducted within the state; (3) and all offers or sales are made only to residents of the state. Let’s review the three main requirements:

  1. Residency is demonstrated by a company’s organization within the state or by the company stationing its principal place of business within the state.
  2. 80% Rule: The offering company must derive at least 80% of its gross revenues from the state; have at least 80% of its assets located in the state prior to any offering; use at least 80% of the net proceeds of the exempt offering to operate its business in the state; and have its principal office located in the state.
  3. The offering company can only offer and sell securities to residents of the chosen state.

What effect do the Safe Harbor provisions have on MILE?

The requirements of Rule 147, particularly that of the so-called 80% rule, demonstrate the SEC’s intention to narrowly limit the application of its “safe harbor” rule. The fact is that unless your business is hyper-local (e.g. a restaurant, bar, etc.) and intends to earn a substantial measure of its revenue, and reinvest any earnings, within the state, your business must pay close attention to whether or not it qualifies for the Rule 147 “safe harbor” exemption – or whether it must comply with SEC regulations of financial offerings beyond those enumerated in MILE.

In short, crowdfunding is a new and fluid area of the law and you should be reluctant to risk the equity and control of your business without first consulting competent legal counsel. The attorneys at Revision Legal are well-versed in the nuances of crowd-funding regulations and would be glad to help you determine how to move forward with your planned equity offering and whether your business qualifies for Rule 147’s “safe harbor” provision.

Extra, Extra!
Recent Posts

Does the AI-Copyright Legal Fight Represent a National Security Threat?

Does the AI-Copyright Legal Fight Represent a National Security Threat?

Copyright

The holders of copyrights for newspapers, magazines, books, and other publications are involved in numerous legal battles with owners of AI modules over alleged copyright infringement. The plaintiff copyright owners claim that the AI large language modules have been trained on huge quantities of copyrighted materials without permission and — most importantly — without payment. […]

Read more about Does the AI-Copyright Legal Fight Represent a National Security Threat?

How Does Buy-Sell Insurance Work For An Owners’ Agreement?

How Does Buy-Sell Insurance Work For An Owners’ Agreement?

Corporate

The owners of most small, closely-held businesses negotiate and sign some form of an “Owner’s Agreement.” An important part of such Agreements is the “Buy-Sell” provisions. These are often some of the most difficult to negotiate. The gist of the buy-sell part of the Owners’ Agreement is to establish the rules for what happens if […]

Read more about How Does Buy-Sell Insurance Work For An Owners’ Agreement?

Status on Social Media Moderation Statutes and Cases

Status on Social Media Moderation Statutes and Cases

Internet Law

Social media content moderation by technology platforms was one of the “hot” legal topics in 2023-2024. Three States — California, Texas, and Florida — passed different statutes to either require more content moderation (California) or to limit such moderation (Texas and Florida). All the statutes, in one way or another, demanded more transparency and information […]

Read more about Status on Social Media Moderation Statutes and Cases

Put Revision Legal on your side