|

On the same day that it released rule amendments allowing some Rule 506 offerings to be sold through public solicitation, the SEC proposed an additional set of rule amendments for those offerings. While the newly adopted rule primarily concerns verification of accredited investor status, the additional proposals relate more to the materials used by issuers to solicit those investors.

Currently, offerings under Regulation D require a Form D to be filed 15 days after the first sale; no prefiling is required. The proposal, however, would require that any offering to be sold using general solicitation would require that Form D be filed with the SEC 15 days prior to any solicitation. The SEC has also proposed a temporary rule, Rule 510T, which would go further and require all solicitation material to be filed with the SEC prior to its first use. Under the proposal, this temporary rule would expire in two years.

In addition, the proposed rule changes would require solicitation materials to include legends informing recipients of certain facts relating to the securities offered, such as the requirement that all investors must be accredited, that regulators have not approved the offering and that the securities have transfer restrictions. The proposal also extends to private funds the Rule 156 requirements currently relating to investment company advertising materials.
Continue reading ›

|

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently adopted long-awaited rule changes required by the 2012 Dodd-Frank Act that will allow some offerings under Rule 506 to be offered using general solicitation. At the same time, the SEC proposed a set of additional changes that would further regulate this new type of offering.

Offerings under Rule 506, which provides one of the three operative safe harbor offering alternatives under Regulation D, have been prohibited from using any form of public solicitation since the rule’s inception in 1982. However, Congress responded to calls from industry seeking easier and less expensive ways to raise investment capital by creating the “crowdfunding” exemption and by loosening the public solicitation prohibition for Rule 506 offerings.

The rule amendment creates a new subsection 506(c), which provides that public solicitation is allowed if the offering is limited to accredited investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify each investor’s accredited status. Although the rule does not enumerate specific verification procedures or even create a defined safe harbor, the issuing release describes a “principles-based” approach to verification and discusses a number of verification alternatives that may be considered adequate.
Continue reading ›

|

In a decision last month, the California Court of Appeals may have opened the door for brokers to bypass the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) rigid expungement rules in order to remove matters from their CRD records. Currently, brokers must abide by Rule 2080 in order to expunge their records. The FINRA rule allows for expungement only upon meeting one of three tests: (1) the claim is factually impossible, (2) the broker was not involved in the conduct or (3) the information is false. The rule states that a broker who seeks expungement “must obtain an order from a court of competent jurisdiction directing such expungement or confirming an arbitration award containing expungement relief.”

In its recent decision, the California Court of Appeals held that a court may expunge a broker’s CRD record in the interest of fairness and equity, regardless of FINRA’s rule. Edwin Lickiss filed a petition in the court in April 2011 seeking expungement of 17 customer complaints and a regulatory action from his CRD record claiming that they were old and irrelevant and negatively affected his profession. The customer complaints against Mr. Lickiss had resulted in total payments of $831,000, and Mr. Lickiss was required to personally pay a $5,000 settlement. FINRA objected to Mr. Lickiss’s expungement request, stating that he was trying to “sanitize his record and prevent regulators, brokerage firms and investors from learning of this history for what amounts to ‘time served.'” The trial court dismissed the complaint, citing the requirements of Rule 2080. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that it should have looked to equitable principles instead of FINRA rules.
Continue reading ›

|

The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) released preliminary numbers this month showing that the number of enforcement cases brought by state regulators doubled during 2011. During that year, states brought about 400 cases compared to 208 cases brought during 2010. This increase is due in large part to an expansion of state examinations as a result of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Dodd-Frank gave the states examination authority for some approximately 2,400 “mid-sized” advisers (firms with less than $100 million in assets under management) which are required to switch from SEC to state registration.

As a result of the switch, some former SEC firms that haven’t been examined in many years, if ever, by the SEC now find themselves subject to a state examination and can also look forward to being examined by the state more frequently.
Continue reading ›

|

Proposed legislation designed to create a self-regulatory organization (SRO) for investment advisers may not be acted on during this Congressional session, according to its sponsor, Rep. Spencer Bachus (D-Ala.). Rep. Bachus, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said earlier this week that no consensus has developed regarding any proposal relating to enhancing investment adviser oversight and that, therefore, no action is imminent.

There has been increasing interest and legislative activity over the past several months relating to investment adviser examinations. While there is almost universal agreement that examination coverage should be increased, there is a sharp division among industry members, regulators and legislators about how to accomplish that goal.

Most observers agree that Rep. Bachus’s bill, if passed, would lead to the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) becoming the SRO for investment advisers. Adviser organizations have split over supporting the bill, with the Financial Services Institute (FSI) as a supporter, and the Investment Adviser Association (IAA) and the American Institute of CPAs strongly opposed. Other investment adviser organizations have also come out in opposition to the Bachus bill, as has the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA).
Continue reading ›

|

According to an InvestmentNews poll, 58.7% of 293 advisers who responded to a recent survey support the option of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charging user fees to defray the costs of increased examinations. This is an increase from a year ago when only 27.8% of 335 responding advisers supported the user fee approach. The poll also concluded that 74.7% of advisers said they oppose permitting the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) from becoming the self regulatory organization (SRO) for advisers.

The increased willingness of advisers to pay user fees suggests that there could be more support for the bill soon to be introduced by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that would authorize the SEC to charge user fees for advisers to cover or defray the costs of examinations. Rep. Waters’s bill would combat the SRO bill introduced by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Al) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).
Continue reading ›

|

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released a Regulatory Notice in May clarifying its new suitability rule, Rule 2111. The rule, which was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in November 2010, will be implemented on July 9, 2012. The Notice is intended to answer industry questions and provide guidance on the new rule.

According to FINRA, the new rule imposes the same obligations as the predecessor rule and related case law. It is intended to clarify and codify three main suitability obligations.

The first obligation is reasonable-basis suitability, which has two components: a broker must (1) perform reasonable diligence to understand the nature of the recommended security or investment strategy involving a security or securities, as well as the potential risks and rewards, and (2) determine whether the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors based on that understanding.

The second obligation is customer-specific suitability, in which the broker must have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommendation of a security or investment strategy is suitable for the particular customer based on the customer’s investment profile.
Continue reading ›

|

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) Rule 5123 on June 7, 2012. The text of the final rule can be found here. The rule is creates some obligations for broker-dealers when they are engaged in selling private placements of securities. Due to a number of concerns, the SEC did not approve the rule until FINRA made a number of changes to the originally proposed rule. The final rule, which includes three amendments, was approved on an accelerated basis. The rule does not apply to all private placements. Sales to institutional accounts, qualified purchasers, investment companies, and other classes of purchasers are excluded.

The original proposal would have required broker-dealers involved in a private placement transaction to disclose to each of the investors prior to the sale the anticipated use of the proceeds from the offerings and the amount and type of offering expenses and offering compensation. If the disclosure documents did not include this information, the broker-dealer would have had to create a document for the investor containing the information. The proposal also required each broker-dealer to file the document with FINRA within fifteen days of the date of the first sale. If there were any amendments to the documents, then the amendments would also have to be filed with FINRA within fifteen days.
Continue reading ›

|

Rhode Island has substantially adopted its proposed private fund adviser exemption, which we previously discussed in a posting dated April 10, 2012. The new rule became effective on May 17, 2012. To qualify for the exemption, the adviser must advise only private funds as defined under SEC Rule 203(m)-1. Furthermore, if it advises non venture capital 3(c)(1) funds, for each such fund:

  • The fund’s beneficial owners must meet the definition of a “qualified client” as defined in SEC Rule 205-3 after deducting the value of the primary residence;
  • The private fund adviser has to disclose the following information in writing to each beneficial owner: (1) all service, if any, to be provided to beneficial owners, (2) all duties owed to beneficial owners, and (3) any other material information affecting the rights or responsibilities of the beneficial owners; and
  • The adviser, on an annual basis, must obtain audited financial statements of each fund and provide a copy to the beneficial owner.

Continue reading ›

|

The Financial Services Institute (FSI) Chair, Joe Russo, recently released a letter stating that the FSI supports the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as the new self-regulatory organization (SRO) for investment advisers. Russo stated that the FSI has conducted two polls of its financial adviser members to determine whether they support FINRA as the SRO and 75% agreed that FINRA should become the SRO.

FSI has been asked by a number of critics why it has not advocated repealing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In response, FSI says that the act will likely not be repealed as a practical matter. Therefore, FSI has decided to focus its legislative efforts on securing for its members the least intrusive of the three options for investment adviser regulation posed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Those options are (1) the SEC charging user fees to fund more examiners, (2) FINRA becoming the dual SRO for broker-dealers and investment advisers, or (3) creating a new SRO.
Continue reading ›

Contact Information
2302 Parklake Dr NE
#420
Atlanta, GA 30345
Toll Free: (855) 322-2057Local: (404) 490-4060Fax: (404) 490-4058 jsparker@parkmac.com

Attorney Advertising

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Parker MacIntyre
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design