IBJNews

Bill opens door to crowdfunding investments for businesses

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Privately owned businesses in Indiana will be able to raise investments online as part of a bill on the way to Gov. Mike Pence's desk.

Senate Enrolled Act 375, which still needs Pence’s signature to become law, would mirror similar pending changes to federal law from the Jumpstart Our Business Startups, or JOBS, Act.

Both acts would loosen up rules for investing in private companies, allowing them to use a relatively new online practice known as crowdfunding. It first was popularized as a way to raise money for not-for-profits and art projects. Under the acts, investors would be able to buy small equity stakes in companies over the Internet.

The state bill cruised through the Indiana General Assembly in the recently finished short session. Both the Senate and House of Representatives passed it in February before amending the legislation last week.

The state bill “is complementary” to its federal equivalent, said its author, Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle.

One of the main differences between the state and federal crowdfunding bills involves who can invest.

The JOBS Act stipulates that anyone using crowdfunding for raising equity capital must offer their investment opportunities to the entire U.S. But the Indiana bill lets Hoosier businesses raise money just within Indiana.

Keeping fundraising within state boundaries is a lot cheaper, said Kevin Hitchen, a founder of Localstake, an Indianapolis investment firm centered around online fundraising.

“[For] a lot of small businesses and startups, it takes too much money to do,” Hitchen said about fundraising across state borders. The businesses have to pay for costs such as audits and legal guidance in order to meet the more stringent federal requirements.

Also, the Indiana law likely could go into effect sooner than the federal one, Holdman said.

The JOBS Act became law in mid-2012, but the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission still must issue rules on the crowdfunding piece of the act before that part goes into effect.

The Indiana law could go into effect as early as July 1, when the state implements laws passed this General Assembly. But Holdman expects the process to take until at least September. Much like how the federal law needs the SEC’s input, the state version needs the Indiana Secretary of State’s office to issue rules.

Assuming Pence signs the bill, the state office “would try to make sure we got it ready as soon as possible,” said Valerie Kroeger, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state.

Not everyone is convinced the bill is a good idea.

James Klimek, an attorney who specializes in securities law, expressed a slew of concerns with the state’s act, as well as its federal counterpart and the notion of crowdfunding investments in general.

Klimek is concerned that companies could jump into crowdfunding without realizing that the fundraising process for investment capital carries significant fees. In addition, private companies that use crowdfunding wouldn't be required to disclose as much information to investors as public companies typically do. And inexperienced investors can weigh down companies’ operations with their questions and concerns, he said.

Also, without the SEC setting legal precedent for the JOBS Act yet, Klimek fears Indiana is rushing into legislation that federal law could in some way overturn or make obsolete.

About the SEC, “actions can speak louder than words,” he said. “They’ve been very slow to adopt rules, which they still haven’t done.”

Holdman countered that the Indiana bill offers several protections for both investors and businesses. The law, for example, caps investments at a $5,000 maximum to make sure no one puts too much money into one venture.

The bill cleared the legislature, but it has not yet arrived at the governor’s office. David Long, president pro tempore of the Indiana Senate, needs to sign the bill first, which he intends to do by the end of the week, spokespeople for the Republican caucus said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT