Popular Topics
All Topics
- "Gun Jumping"
- "Test-the-Waters" communications
- 2016 SEC Agenda
- Accelerated Filer
- Accelerated filers
- Access to Capital and Market Liquidity Report
- Accounting
- Accredited investor
- Advance Notice Bylaws
- Airbnb
- Alternative Trading Systems
- Annual meeting
- Annual reports
- ASC Topic 740
- Asset Management
- ATS
- Auction IPOs
- Audit committee
- Auditor attestation
- BlackRock
- Blank-check companies
- Blockchain
- Board committees
- Board Diversity
- Board independence
- Board of Directors
- Boilerplate
- Boilerplate in securities documents
- Broker-dealer
- Broker-dealer registration
- Calculation of Registration Fee
- California
- capital markets
- Capital raising
- CEO letters
- Certified B corporation
- Chair Mary Jo White
- Chairman’s letters
- Chairperson’s letters
- Climate Change
- coal companies
- coal company IPOs
- coal miners
- coal mining
- Columbia Law School
- Compensatory offerings
- Compensatory sales
- Compensatory securities
- Compensatory securities offerings and sales
- Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation 110.02
- conference
- Confidential filings
- Confidential information
- Confidential treatment
- Confidentiality agreements
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Corporate social responsibility
- Corporate social responsibility: CSR
- Corporate Stock-Givaway Program
- Crowdfunding
- CSR
- Cyber breach
- cyber incident
- Cyber risk
- Cyber-attack
- cybersecurity
- DAO
- December 31 Fiscal year end
- Decimalization
- Definition of a Security
- Delaware corporate law
- Delaware Law
- Delaying amendment
- Description of Business
- Designer stock
- Digital Advertising
- Digital securities
- Direct listings
- Direct marketing programs
- Direct response marketing
- Director Nominees
- Director Questionnaire
- Directors
- Disclosure
- Disclosure and Reporting
- Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative
- Disclosure Obligations
- Disclosure Regime
- Disclosure regulation
- Disclosure Requirements
- Disclosure Rules
- Disclosure simplification
- Disclosure updates and simplification release
- Dodd Frank
- Dodd-Frank Act
- Domino's Piece of the Pie Rewards
- Domino's Pizza
- Donald Trump
- Dual Class Shares
- Dual-class Capitalization
- Dual-Class Common Stock
- Dual-class shareholder voting
- Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
- EGC
- Emerging growth companies
- Emerging Growth Company
- environment, social and governance
- Equity Market Structure
- ESG
- Exchange Act
- Exchange Act Rule 12b-2
- Exchange listing
- Exchanges
- executive compensation
- Exempt offerings
- Exempt securities offerings
- Exhibits to Registration Statement
- FAST Act
- Fictitious regulators
- Filing review comments
- Financial statements
- Financing Alternatives
- First-day pop
- Form 10-K
- Form 10-Q
- Form D
- Form S-1
- Form S-3
- Form S-4
- Founder’s letters
- Fraudulent activities
- Free Stock
- Free Stock Offerings
- General Motors Co.
- Glass Lewis
- Golden Leashes
- Greenlight Capital, Inc.
- Hart-Scott-Rodino
- HSR Act
- Impersonators of genuine firms
- Incorporation by reference
- Indications of Interest
- Influencer Marketing
- Information asymmetry
- Initial coin offering
- Initial listing requirements
- Initial public offerings
- Insider Trading
- Interest rate system
- Interest rates
- Intrastate offerings
- Investment banking
- Investor Advisory Committee
- Investor Alert
- IPO
- IPO disclosure
- IPO drawbacks
- IPO pricing
- IPOs
- ISS
- Item 101
- Item 103
- Item 103 of Regulation S-K
- Item 105
- Item 401 of Regulation S-K
- Item 501(b)(7)
- Item 601(b)(24) of Regulation S-K
- James Mackintosh
- JOBS Act
- Ken Langone
- Large Accelerated Filer
- Larry Fink’s 2019 letter to CEOs
- Legal proceedings
- LIBOR
- Loan Agreements
- Loan transactions
- Loans
- Loyalty Programs
- Lyft, Inc.
- Management
- Management; Executive officers and directors
- Mark Cuban
- Material contract exhibits
- Material nonpublic information
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Modernization
- Multi-Class Shares
- NASDAQ
- Nasdaq Independence Rules
- Nasdaq Listing Rules
- Nomination Letter
- Non-accelerated Filer
- Non-GAAP Financial Measures
- NYSE
- Offering fees
- Offering statement on Form 1-A
- Offering statement on Form C
- OTC
- OTC Market Group
- OTC Pink
- OTC quoted companies
- OTCQB
- Paid-for Research
- Pay Ratio Disclosure
- Pay Ratio Rule
- Perpetual dual-class stock
- Power of Attorney
- Prescriptive-based disclosure
- Primary issuances
- Principal Executive Offices
- Principles-based disclosure
- Private Equity
- Prof. John C. Coffee, Jr.
- Prospectuses
- proxy advisory firms
- Proxy Contests
- Proxy fights
- Proxy materials
- Proxy statement
- Proxy voting
- Public benefit corporation
- Public Companies
- Public company acquisitions
- Public Float
- Public M&A
- Public offerings
- Purpose & Profit
- Purpose of the corporation
- Reference interest rates
- Registered offerings
- Registration Filing Fee
- Registration statement
- Registration statements
- Regulation A activity
- Regulation Crowdfunding
- Regulation D
- Regulation FD
- Regulation S-K
- Regulation S-K Item 10(f)(1)
- Regulatory Entrepreneurship
- Reporting Category
- resource extraction antigraft rule
- restricted stock
- Reverse mergers
- Rights offerings
- Risk Factors
- Rule 10b-5
- Rule 10b5-1 plan
- Rule 14a-4
- Rule 163B under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 21F-17
- Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- Rule 253(f)
- Rule 406 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 473 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 483 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 506(c)
- Rule 701
- S&P Dow Jones
- SAFEs
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act §404(b)
- Say-on-Pay Frequency Vote
- SEC
- SEC approval of offerings
- SEC Comments
- SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson Jr.
- SEC disclosure
- SEC Division of Economics and Risk Analysis
- SEC Filing Deadlines
- SEC Filing Reviews
- SEC Form 10
- SEC Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
- SEC Release No. 33-10591
- SEC Report of Investigation
- SEC shutdown
- Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
- Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
- securities
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Securities Act of 1933
- Securities Act Rule 257
- Securities Act Rule 405
- Securities Act Section 17(b)
- Securities Exchange Act
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- Securities litigation
- Securities offerings
- securities transactions
- Severance Agreements
- Sexual harassment
- Sexual misconduct
- Shareholder Activism
- shareholder activists
- Shareholder nominations
- Shareholder rights
- Shareholder voting
- Shareholder Voting Rights
- Signatures in Registration Statement
- Simple Agreement for Future Equity
- Small business
- Small-cap
- Small-cap Companies
- Small-cap Issuers
- Smaller reporting companies
- Smaller reporting company
- Snap IPO
- Social Capital Hedosophia
- Social Media
- SOFR
- SPAC
- SPAC's
- Special Purpose Acquisition Company
- Special situations
- Spin-offs
- Sponsorship
- Spotify
- SRC
- Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 118
- Staleness date
- Startups
- State securities laws
- stock options
- Stock Ownership Guidelines
- Stock Promotion Schemes
- Strategic spin-offs
- Sunset provisions
- Sustainability
- Switch, Inc.
- T+2
- Targeted stocks
- Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Tech IPOs
- Tech M&A
- Tech unicorns
- The CLS Blue Sky Blog
- The Wall Street Journal
- Third Party Payments
- Tick Pilot
- Tick Size
- Tick Size Pilot Program
- Tick Sizes
- Token sales
- Tracking stocks
- Trade Settlement
- Trading
- trading platforms
- U.S. dollar LIBOR
- U.S. federal income tax reform
- Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Underwriting allocations
- Underwriting fees
- Undisclosed Fees
- Unequal Voting Rights
- Universal proxy ballots
- Unregistered offerings
- Unregistered Soliciting Entities
- Uplisting
- Use of boilerplate
- venture capital
- venture capital investors
- venture capital terms
- Venture exchanges
- Virtual currency
- voting control
- voting power
- Whistleblower Program
- Whistleblowers
- “Tandy” Representations
- “Testing the Waters”
Recent Posts
- Institutional Shareholder Services Releases Updated Voting Guidelines Relating to Problematic Capital Structures at Newly Public Companies, Independent Board Chair Proposals and Board Diversity
- Planning and Disclosing Indications of Interest for Participating in IPOs
- SEC Issues Guidance on Proxy Voting Responsibilities of Investment Advisers and Interpretation Regarding Applicability of Proxy Voting Rules to Proxy Advisory Firm Voting Recommendations
- The SEC Proposes a Philosophical Shift to Principles-Based Disclosure in Response to Increasingly Irrelevant, Outdated and Immaterial Information in Public Filings
- The SEC Encourages Public Company Borrowers to Address the Risks of LIBOR’s Phase-Out in Their Public Filings
- Delaware Court Rules That Overbroad Questionnaires “Went Too Far” in Decision to Enjoin Closed-End Funds From Invalidating Shareholder Nominations
- The SEC Looks for More Transparency in Influencer Marketing
- Eye-Opening Study on the Use of Boilerplate in IPO Prospectuses Highlights the Real Costs to Issuers and Investors
- The SEC Warns Prospective Investors to Beware of Claims that the SEC Has Approved a Securities Offering (Because It Hasn’t, Technically)
- The Personal Touch of Founder's Letters in IPO Prospectuses: A View Inside the Zeitgeist of Our Newest Public Companies
Archives
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
Contact Us
(212) 451-2300
www.olshanlaw.com
Delays and Difficulties for Fintech Start-Up Begin with Regulatory Questions About What a Security Is and What It Means to Facilitate Securities Transactions
Orchard Platform’s electronic trading platform appears to have found safe legal ground at last to effect “securities” transactions in marketplace loans.
The story in the May 30 New York Times, “Fintech Start-Up, Backed by Big Names, Finds Wall Street Entry Difficult,” has generated numerous inquiries. The story provides an overview of what appears to be portrayed as the over-regulation of the fledgling Orchard X auction-style trading platform for loans. Moreover, many details regarding the regulatory issues involved with launching such a platform are missing from this story, and it is worth noting that some of the issues are relatively settled within the SEC's existing regulatory framework.
According to the story, Orchard Platform was founded in 2013 and began its financial services business by offering institutional investors an automated service to analyze marketplace lending loans and buying them from different online lenders. From there, Orchard’s long-term plan was to create a “many-to-many” trading platform for these loans. But, apparently, the second step has been anything but easy. After a long process involving building the trading platform, enticing loan platforms to use it, recruiting financial industry veterans and engaging lawyers to pave the way through the SEC, Orchard “arranged” its first sale of about $30 million in loans from an ailing platform in January 2017, from which it received a fee of 0.5% of the sale price, presumably from the seller. More recently, Orchard has provided data for a smaller loan sale for another lender and signed up additional lenders to “broker” loan auctions. Importantly, in the end, “[a]lthough Orchard X would receive commissions for all such sales, it would not clear and settle the auctions like an exchange,” as reported.
The story raises several fundamental regulatory questions that are not entirely answered for readers: whether the transactions effected through the Orchard X platform involve a security that potentially requires registration under the Securities Act and whether Orchard’s platform or activities would constitute the facilitation of a securities transaction that potentially requires the platform itself to register with the SEC and FINRA as an exchange, an alternative trading system (ATS) or a broker-dealer. Accordingly, this article does not pretend to know what happened to Orchard but instead explores the existing regulatory framework to better understand the regulatory challenges that Orchard likely needed to address.
The threshold legal issue Orchard encountered, according to the story, was whether the marketplace loans (whether as a pool of loans or as a beneficial interest in that pool) are considered “securities” under the federal securities laws. The definition of “security” in Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act includes a “note,” “bond,” “debenture” and “evidence of indebtedness,” as well as “investment contract,” which, through enforcement actions, the SEC has broadly defined as any contract, transaction, or scheme involving (i) an investment of money, (ii) in a common enterprise, (iii) with the expectation that profits will be derived from the efforts of the promoter or a third party. By way of example, the story addresses the line between non-securities based loans made by banks, “which take deposits, make loans and hold capital to absorb loan losses,” and securities based loans made by marketplace lenders who “match investors and borrowers directly, with the investors taking the risk of losses in exchange for higher interest rates.” In addition to distinguishing these kinds of loans, the story points out that Orchard sought to standardize legal and data formats for loans among the largest loan platforms, so that the loans would be set up from the start in such a form that would expressly facilitate their trading for speculation and investment, a hallmark of a security under a U.S. Supreme Court decision known as the Howrey test.
If the marketplace loans are deemed “securities,” a platform that facilitates purchases and sales of unregistered securities listed on the platform must take reasonable steps to ensure such transactions are affected in accordance with one or more exemptions under the Securities Act, such as (i) the intrastate offering exemption of Section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act; (ii) the private offering exemption of Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Sections 3(b) and 3(b)(2) of the Securities Act (known as Regulation A and Regulation A+); (iii) the exemptions under Regulation D of the Securities Act - Rule 504 and Rule 506; (iv) the accredited investor exemption under Section 4(5) of the Securities Act; and (v) the other exemptions under Section 4 of the Securities Act. Although not described in the story, presumably Orchard’s platform is limited to qualified institutional buyers under Rule 144A of the Securities Act and accredited investors under Rule 501 of Regulation D.
The next legal issue faced by an operator of a platform that facilitates trading in marketplace loans is whether it would be effecting securities transactions. Activities such as helping an issuer to identify multiple potential buyers of the loans and handling transaction funds or securities would likely trigger a number of rules and regulations that apply to persons who facilitate transactions in securities.
The Exchange Act is the primary federal legislation governing “brokers” and “dealers” in securities. With certain exceptions, Section 15 of the Exchange Act requires registration with the SEC of all broker-dealers using interstate commerce or the facilities of any national securities exchange to effect transactions in securities (other than exempted securities and certain short-term debt instruments). The SEC has promulgated rules requiring the registration of all broker-dealers involved in over-the-counter transactions, while regulation of transactions on national securities exchanges was primarily granted to registered exchanges. Section 15(a)(1) compels registration of most broker-dealers by prohibiting the use by any broker or dealer of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to effect any transactions in, or to induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of, any security (other than an exempted security or commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, or commercial bills) unless such broker or dealer is registered with the SEC in accordance with the Exchange Act. In the case of Orchard, it appears to be an SEC registered broker-dealer.
However, the registration of broker-dealers as compared with their electronic trading platforms, or “exchanges,” has become less clear-cut in recent years. Section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act defines an exchange as “any organization, association, or group of persons, whether incorporated or unincorporated, which constitutes, maintains, or provides a market place or facilities for bringing together purchasers and sellers of securities or for otherwise performing with respect to securities the functions commonly performed by a stock exchange . . . .”
Exchange Act Rule 3b-16(a) interprets the Section 3(a)(1) definition to mean any organization, association or group of persons that:
- brings together the orders of multiple buyers and sellers; and
- uses established, nondiscretionary methods (whether by providing a trading facility or by setting rules) under which such orders interact with each other, and the buyers and sellers entering such orders agree to the terms of a trade.
Absent an exemption, an exchange must register as a national securities exchange pursuant to Section 6 and Section 19(a) of the Exchange Act. Any platform that brings together buyers and sellers of securities must either register as an exchange or an alternative trading system.
Regulation ATS allows an ATS to choose whether to register as a national securities exchange or to register as a broker-dealer and comply with additional requirements of Regulation ATS. An “alternative trading system” is defined as any organization, association, person, group of persons, or system:
- that constitutes, maintains, or provides a market place or facilities for bringing together purchasers and sellers of securities or for otherwise performing with respect to securities the functions commonly performed by a stock exchange within the meaning of Rule 3b-16 under the Exchange Act, and
- that does not set rules governing the conduct of subscribers other than the conduct of such subscribers’ trading on such organization, association, person, group of persons, or system; or discipline subscribers other than by exclusion from trading. (Regulation ATS, Rule 300(a)).
A platform that operates a market or platform to bring together purchasers and sellers of loans that are deemed securities, and does not set rules governing the conduct of subscribers other than the conduct of such subscribers’ trading on such platform, may be required to register as an ATS, which Orchard X has also done.
The story does not say so, but it seems that Orchard’s counsel may have requested assurance from the SEC that it would not recommend enforcement action against Orchard concerning some aspect of these regulatory matters, but did not obtain a “no-action” position. Sometimes, this occurs when an incoming letter presents no “novel” facts in an area of the federal securities laws that is well settled by prior no-action correspondence, and such correspondence provides adequate interpretive guidance to companies and their counsel on what the Division’s position would be with respect to specific factual situations, including in the case of Orchard.
While it is impossible to know from the story exactly what happened with Orchard at the SEC, it appears that its business operations have been modified, presumably in response to its discussions with the SEC staff, to substantially comply with existing SEC guidance by (i) not clearing and settling the auctions like an exchange and (ii) dropping its goal of legal standardization among lending platforms.
Learning from the Orchard experience, it is worth noting existing compliance and registration requirements facing operators of trading platforms which wish to engage in the business of effecting securities transactions that may bring them under the definition of a broker, an exchange or an alternative trading system.