Re:AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway
by gojomo on Monday September 27, 2010 @10:37AM
(#1731797)
Not if his income was over $200K in the prior 2 years, and expected to be the same in the current year. The income level is an alternate, not additional, qualification.
And, perhaps he fudged some numbers, by inflating the value of something illiquid, to claim to be accredited slightly before he was.
As I understand it -- but could be wrong, IANAL -- this requirement isn't a matter of providing formal documentation to the government beforehand, but of asserting your status to the security issuer, perhaps with some documentation, and them accepting your assertion.
Only if things go south, and disputes/lawsuits begin, would the fact that money was accepted from non-accredited investors begin to cause liability and enforcement troubles for the issuers. So the issuers are motivated to ask for some documentation, but could also easily 'look the other way' or accept flimsy assertions in some instances.
And, perhaps he fudged some numbers, by inflating the value of something illiquid, to claim to be accredited slightly before he was.
As I understand it -- but could be wrong, IANAL -- this requirement isn't a matter of providing formal documentation to the government beforehand, but of asserting your status to the security issuer, perhaps with some documentation, and them accepting your assertion.
Only if things go south, and disputes/lawsuits begin, would the fact that money was accepted from non-accredited investors begin to cause liability and enforcement troubles for the issuers. So the issuers are motivated to ask for some documentation, but could also easily 'look the other way' or accept flimsy assertions in some instances.