初探我國新創公司籌資法制之展望──從推特IPO到虛擬通貨STO

A Preliminary Look at the Prospects of the Capital-Raising Regime for Startups in Taiwan: From Twitter’s Initial Public Offering to Security Token Offerings

2013年11月7日，美國知名社群網站Twitter於美國進行初次公開發行（Initial Public Offering，下亦稱「IPO」）；而這場初次公開發行案被認為是在網際網路相關科技產業蓬勃發展的情況下，相當受到各界矚目的一場IPO。細觀Twitter（Twitter, Inc.，中文譯為「推特」，下亦稱「Twitter」）於美國進行的初次公開發行程序，其得利於2012年4月5日通過之企業籌資法（The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, “the JOBS Act”）第一章（Title I）關於「新興成長公司」（Emerging Growth Companies, EGCs，下稱「新興成長公司」）等有關豁免規範，而該法之立法目的便係希望促進新創公司之資本形成。若就企業籌資法各章內容詳細研究，除第一章關於新興成長公司之豁免規範外，尚有第二章（Title II）關於私募規定的若干鬆綁規定、第三章（Title III）開放股權式群眾募資、第四章（Title IV）針對小型發行規定的調整、以及第五章（Title V）提高成為報告公司的股東人數門檻。事實上，上開規定除著眼於促進資本形成此一目的外，更主要對過往1933年證券法（the Securities Act of 1933，下稱「1933年證券法」）、1934年證券交易法（the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934，下稱「1934年證交法」）、2002年沙賓法（the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, “SOX”）等等公開發行規範亦予以鬆綁。再者，企業籌資法似打破過往公募與私募二元區分此一傳統規範模式，進一步促成以公募與私募為光譜兩端之籌資管道，出現位於光譜中間之不同資本形成選項的多層次資本市場生態系。由Twitter初次公開發行一案及美國企業籌資法出發，可供吾人深思如何建構有利於我國新創公司資本形成之籌資法制。本文檢討我國現有相關規範問題，包括我國證交法針對私募的相關規定、強制公開發行及強制股權分散、以及豁免交易制度之擴大設計的立法論芻議。又有鑑於近年來首次代幣發行（Initial Coin Offering，下稱「ICO」）以及證券型代幣發行（Security Token Offering，下稱「STO」）之興起，雖為新創事業籌資途徑開展新頁，卻也產生相應法律爭議，故世界各國正積極研擬相關規範架構；在此等市場趨勢衝擊我國資本市場法制之際，或許正是反思既有規範並推動整體性改革的一個契機。本文以STO業者如何運用美國企業籌資法所擴大鬆綁之數項豁免交易的籌資管道為思考出發點，來初步檢視金管會現行監理架構方案，建議此際吾人應省思如何針對整體籌資法制進行改造。立法論上，是否宜思考如何正確地擴充除私募外之其他豁免交易規範的範圍，擴大建構公募與私募為光譜兩端之間的多元籌資途徑等資本市場生態系？透過整體性制度設計的思維，見樹又見林地在兼顧投資人保障的同時，達成促進我國新創事業資本形成之目標。

On November 7, 2013, Twitter Inc. completed its initial public offering (“IPO”), by taking advantage of exemptions offered for emerging growth companies under Title I of the JOBS Act of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”). The primary purpose of the enactment of the JOBS Act is to promote capital formation by startups. Under the JOBS Act, in addition to exemptions provided under Title I,Title II relaxes some restrictions for private placements, Title III permits equity-based crowdfunding, Title IV liberalizes some regulations of mini-public offerings, and Title V elevates the threshold of the number of shareholders that would trigger the status of Exchange Act reporting companies. Specifically, the JOB Act is aimed at promoting capital formation, by moderating legal provisions under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”). Moreover, the JOBS Act blurs the traditional regulatory boundary between public and private offerings while illuminating a variety of capital-raising options lying between two opposite ends of the spectrum for multi-level capital markets ecosystem (i.e., public and private offerings). By first exploring Twitter’s IPO and the content of the JOBS Act, this article reflects on how to re-construct the capital-raising regime for startups in Taiwan, examining provisions of private placements under Taiwan’s Securities and Exchange Act, proposed mandates on public offering, current requirements on ownership dispersal, and a legislative proposal designed to expand transaction exemptions. The rise of initial coin offering (“ICO”) and security token offering (“STO”), on the one hand, furnishes new opportunities for startups to raise capital; these offerings, on the other hand, create emerging legal issues to be tackled by jurisdictions worldwide. This new market trend is also impacting Taiwan’s capital market legal system, meanwhile giving the government an opportunity to reflect on the current system and then to initiate concomitant reforms. After observing that U.S. firms carry out STOs by utilizing transaction exemptions liberalized under the JOBS Act, this article preliminarily examines the regulatory framework of STO proposed by the Financial Supervisory Commission, while suggesting that it would be the moment to consider how to overhaul the capital-raising legal structure in Taiwan. As a legislative proposal, shall we, instead of missing the forest for the trees, think about how to expand other regulatory options of exempt transactions, positioned on the spectrum of a more comprehensive capital markets ecosystem between two opposite ends of traditional private and public offerings? Through the lens of an integrative institutional design, we can strike a balance between investor protection and capital formation in conducting reformation of the Taiwanese capital-raising regulatory infrastructure for startups.