The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming ABA Conference on Business Acquisition Negotiations:
When
November 01 – 02, 2012
Where
An article, SEC Proposes to Permit General Solicitation in Private Offerings, by Alan Singer of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP was recently featured in The National Law Review:
On August 29, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a release[1] proposing rule amendments designed to satisfy the legislative mandate of Sections 201(a)(1) and 201(a)(2) of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act), which are focused on permitting general solicitation and general advertising (collectively, general solicitation) in offerings under Rule 506 of Regulation D and Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), respectively. These amendments would enable issuers to utilize offering methods that previously have not been permitted in the private offering context.
Rule 506 is a “safe harbor” rule that, if its conditions are satisfied, provides for the exemption from registration of the offer and sale of securities based on Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act, which exempts transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering. Currently, an issuer or any person acting on the issuer’s behalf cannot engage in general solicitation in connection with a Rule 506 offering. Rule 144A is a “safe harbor” rule that, if its conditions are met, provides for the exemption from registration of resales of restricted securities based on Section 4(a)(1) of the Securities Act, which exempts transactions by persons other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer. Under current Rule 144A, offers and sales must be limited to qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) or to persons the seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe are QIBs. This limitation has the practical effect of prohibiting general solicitation.
Section 201(a)(1) of the JOBS Act requires that the SEC amend Rule 506 to permit general solicitation in Rule 506 offerings, provided that all purchasers are accredited investors. Section 201(a)(2) requires the SEC to adopt amendments to Rule 144A to permit offers, including offers by means of general solicitation, to persons other than QIBs, provided that securities are sold only to persons that the seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe are QIBs. Significantly, Section 201(a)(1) also mandates that rules promulgated by the SEC require the issuer to take “reasonable steps to verify” that all purchasers of securities in a Rule 506 offering involving general solicitation are accredited investors. In contrast, a verification requirement does not apply with respect to determining that a purchaser in a Rule 144A offering subject to general solicitation is a QIB.
The rule amendments proposed by the SEC principally are designed to implement the JOBS Act’s statutory mandate. Proposed new Rule 506(c) provides an exemption from registration for offerings that meet some of the conditions traditionally applicable to Rule 506 offerings, but Rule 506(c) offerings need not meet conditions prohibiting general solicitation and requiring dissemination of specified information in offerings to persons other than accredited investors, provided that all purchasers in the Rule 506(c) offering are accredited investors. In addition, Rule 506(c) would require that the “issuer . . . take reasonable steps to verify that purchasers of securities sold in any offering under [the proposed Rule 506(c) exemption] are accredited investors.” Rule 144A, as proposed to be amended, would no longer restrict offers to QIBs or to persons that the issuer or persons acting on the issuer’s behalf reasonably believe are QIBs. The QIB requirements would apply only to sales under Rule 144A. Because Rule 144A does not expressly prohibit general solicitation, the proposed amendment would effectively enable general solicitation in Rule 144A offerings.
Most of the SEC’s release addresses the verification requirement with respect to accredited investors under new Rule 506(c). The SEC did not propose to require any specified methods of verification, or even provide a nonexclusive list of specified methods of verification. Instead, the SEC provided general guidance as to what constitutes “reasonable steps to verify.” Although the SEC stated that it “anticipate[s] that many practices currently used by issuers in connection with existing Rule 506 offerings would satisfy the verification requirement,” the SEC’s guidance is limited and does not provide much tangible information regarding the verification steps it would deem reasonable, subject to certain obvious exceptions.
The SEC stated that whether steps are reasonable would be based on a number of factors issuers “would consider.” The SEC then addressed what it characterized as “some examples” of these factors, namely the nature of the purchaser and the type of accredited investor the purchaser claims to be, information about the purchaser, and the nature and terms of the offering.
Not surprisingly, the SEC noted that, for entities such as registered broker-dealers, very little effort would be required to verify accredited investor status; in the case of a broker-dealer, merely checking the broker-dealer’s status on FINRA’s Broker Check website would be sufficient. Of course, such a cut-and-dried approach is not always available, and the SEC noted that the nature of the reasonable steps an issuer would take to verify accredited investor status “would likely vary depending on the type of accredited investor that the purchaser claims to be.” Verification is more challenging with regard to natural persons, and the SEC acknowledged that taking reasonable steps to verify such persons’ accredited investor status “poses greater practical difficulties as compared to other categories of accredited investors, and these practical difficulties likely would be exacerbated by natural persons’ privacy concerns about the disclosure of personal financial information.”
Under Regulation D’s definition of “accredited investor,” a natural person is an accredited investor if his or her net worth, exclusive of the person’s primary residence, exceeds $1 million (subject to limited exclusions in calculating liabilities with respect to certain indebtedness secured by the person’s primary residence). In addition, a person is an accredited investor if he or she had an individual income in excess of $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with his or her spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of those years and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year. As described below, while verification that a potential purchaser satisfies the income test could be achieved through the purchaser’s presentation of a Form W-2, providing verification of net worth will present more of a challenge.
Despite its acknowledgment of the difficulties in verifying the status of natural persons as accredited investors, the SEC indicated its unwillingness to countenance a process where the verification would be based solely on at least some forms of purchaser representations. The SEC stated, “[W]e do not believe that an issuer would have taken reasonable steps to verify accredited investor status if it required only that a person check a box in a questionnaire or sign a form, absent other information about the purchaser indicating accredited investor status.” As the examples provided by the SEC regarding acceptable forms of verification involve publicly available information or information obtained from third-party sources, there may be some question as to whether more comprehensive information provided by the purchaser, such as a detailed balance sheet, would satisfy the “other information” requirement.
An issuer’s inability to rely on such information could present a particular challenge in the context of verifying a natural person’s net worth. The income test applicable to natural persons and the assets test applicable to corporations, partnerships, Massachusetts or similar business trusts, or 501(c)(3) organizations could be verified through, for example, a Form W-2 (for purposes of the income test) or a bank statement or brokerage account statement (for purposes of the assets test). However, these types of verification will not be sufficient for the net worth test because that test requires not only assets but also liabilities to be taken into account. How does an issuer knows that it has verified all of a natural person’s outstanding liabilities if it cannot rely exclusively on the representations of the prospective purchaser? As described below, the SEC has suggested that verification by a third party, such as a broker-dealer, attorney, or accountant, may suffice if the issuer has a reasonable basis to rely on the verification. But the “reasonable basis” element of this alternative raises other concerns for an issuer. Therefore, we are hopeful that the SEC will provide additional guidance clarifying that, in this context, an issuer’s procurement of comprehensive information provided by the purchaser would constitute a “reasonable step.”
The SEC’s list of possible sources of verification of accredited investor status range from the obvious to the curious and include the following:
- Publicly available information, for example:
- For a Section 501(c)(3) organization, the organization’s Form 990 series return disclosing the organization’s total assets.
- If the purchaser is a named executive officer of a company having a class of securities registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, proxy statement disclosure of the person’s compensation.
- Third-party information providing “reasonably reliable evidence,” such as the following:
- For a natural person, copies of the person’s Form W-2.
- “[T]he purchaser works in a field where industry and trade publications disclose average annual compensation for certain levels of employees or purchasers, and specific information about the average compensation earned at the purchaser’s workplace by persons at the level of the purchaser’s seniority is publically available.”
- Verification by a third party, such as a broker-dealer, attorney, or accountant, “provided that the issuer has a reasonable basis to rely on such third-party verification.” The SEC did not provide any guidance on what constitutes a “reasonable basis” for such reliance. (In a footnote, the SEC speculated that perhaps verification services may develop, particularly for Web-based Rule 506 offering portals that include offerings for multiple issuers. The SEC noted that such services “as opposed to the issuer itself, could obtain appropriate documentation or otherwise verify accredited investor status.”)
The SEC began its analysis here with the unsurprising observation that an issuer soliciting investors through a website generally available to the public “would likely be” obligated to take greater verification measures than an issuer who solicits new investors from a database of prescreened accredited investors “created and maintained by a reasonably reliable third party,” such as a registered broker-dealer. The SEC then proceeded to focus its analysis on the view expressed by some commentators that a purchaser’s ability to meet a high minimum investment amount “could be relevant to the issuer’s evaluation of steps that would be reasonable” to verify a purchaser’s status as an accredited investor. The SEC stated its belief that “there is merit to this view.” (A large minimum investment was at one time sufficient to confer accredited investor status on a purchaser. As initially adopted, Regulation D included among the categories of persons who were accredited investors a natural person who purchases at least $150,000 of the securities being offered, where the total purchase price did not exceed 20% of the person’s net worth at the time of sale, or joint net worth with the person’s spouse, and where the consideration paid was within specified categories. This category was rescinded in 1988.) The SEC stated:
[I]f an issuer knows little about [a natural person who is a] potential purchaser[,] . . . but the terms of the offering require a high minimum investment amount, then it may be reasonable for the issuer to take no steps . . . other than to confirm that the purchaser’s cash investment is not being financed by the issuer or by a third party, absent any facts that indicate that the purchaser is not an accredited investor.
This statement certainly does not constitute an endorsement of a minimum investment, by itself, as being sufficient to reasonably verify accredited investor status. By requiring that an issuer confirm a negative, namely that the purchaser’s cash investment is not being financed by the issuer or a third party, an issuer would appear to be facing a significant challenge absent the SEC’s willingness to countenance a purchaser’s own representation that it did not obtain such financing from a third party (obviously, the issuer will know if it financed such a purpose). The SEC provided no guidance on this issue.
In summing up its analysis of the factors addressed above, the SEC articulated a two-step test:
In our view, this two-step test is illusory and can be collapsed into a single test: Is the totality of information obtained by an issuer sufficient to support a reasonable conclusion that the person is an accredited investor? If so, the issuer has taken reasonable steps to verify that the purchaser is an accredited investor. If not, the issuer has not taken such steps. In other words, we believe that the SEC ultimately may determine the reasonableness of the steps taken based on its view of the reasonableness of the conclusion reached by the issuer regarding a purchaser’s accredited investor status. Such an analysis could be an invitation to the application of 20/20 hindsight.
The SEC then engaged in a discussion of whether the “reasonable belief” standard continues to apply to the determination of accredited investors. Although the concept of “reasonable belief” is included in JOBS Act Section 201(a)(2) dealing with general solicitation in Rule 144A offerings, the concept is not included in Section 201(a)(1)’s requirement that all purchasers in a Rule 506 offering involving general solicitation must be accredited investors. Nevertheless, the SEC noted that the definition of “accredited investor” remains unchanged; that definition continues to include not only persons who come within the specified categories of accredited investors, but also persons the issuer reasonably believes come within the specified categories. As a result, the SEC concluded that the reasonable belief standard continues to apply to the determination of a person’s accredited investor status. In reaching this conclusion, the SEC noted its belief that the difference in the JOBS Act’s statutory language reflects the different manner in which the reasonable belief standard was included in Regulation D and Rule 144A as initially adopted, and not a congressional intent to eliminate the reasonable belief standard from Regulation D’s definition of “accredited investor.”
We believe the SEC’s analysis is sound, as far as it goes. But what constitutes a “reasonable belief” in the context of a traditional Rule 506 offering, which has not been subject to a verification requirement, and what constitutes a “reasonable belief” in the context of an offering under the new Rule 506(c) exemption from registration, which contains the verification requirement, likely are meaningfully different.
Form D is a notice required to be filed with the SEC by issuers offering securities in reliance on an exemption from registration provided by Regulation D or by Section 4(a)(5) under the Securities Act. In conjunction with its amendment to Rule 506, the SEC proposed adding a separate check box for offerings relying on the new Rule 506(c) exemption (the current reference to “Rule 506” would be changed to “Rule 506(b)”). The SEC stated it proposed the change to assist its efforts to monitor general solicitation in Rule 506(c) offerings and to help it “look into the practices that would develop to satisfy the verification requirement.”
Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 excludes from the definition of an “investment company” any issuer whose outstanding securities (other than short-term paper) are beneficially owned by no more than 100 beneficial holders. Section 3(c)(7) excludes from the “investment company” definition any issuer whose outstanding securities are owned exclusively by persons who, at the time of acquisition, are “qualified purchasers,” as defined in that act. In either case, the exemption applies only to issuers that are not making and do not “presently” (in the case of Section 3(c)(1)) or “at that time” (in the case of Section 3(c)(7)) propose to make a public offering of their securities.
For privately offered funds that may wish to rely on the proposed Rule 506(c) exemption, a question arises as to whether use of general solicitation would constitute a public offering that would make unavailable the Sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) exemptions. The SEC answered the question in the negative, noting that Section 201(b) of the JOBS Act states that offers and sales exempt under Rule 506, as revised under JOBS Act Section 201(a), will not be deemed to be public offerings under the federal securities laws as a result of general solicitation.
Regulation S is a “safe harbor” rule that articulates conditions that, if satisfied, would result in offers and sales of securities being deemed to take place outside of the United States and, therefore, not subject to the registration requirements under the Securities Act. It has been common for issuers to conduct offerings in reliance on Regulation S concurrently with a private offering in the United States conducted in accordance with Rule 506 or Rule 144A. This practice developed as a result of language in Regulation S itself, as well as specific SEC guidance in the release adopting Regulation S,[2] which stated that “[o]ffshore transactions made in compliance with Regulation S will not be integrated with registered domestic offerings or domestic offerings that satisfy the requirements for an exemption from registration under the Securities Act,” even if undertaken contemporaneously.
The use of general solicitation in Rule 506 or Rule 144A offerings raises a question regarding the continued ability to conduct those offerings concurrently with Regulation S offerings. Specifically, the question focuses on whether it remains possible to satisfy the Regulation S requirements that (1) securities sold without Securities Act registration must be sold in an offshore transaction and (2) there can be no directed selling efforts in the United States. In particular, commentators raised concerns regarding the impact of general solicitation on the “no directed selling efforts” requirement. Rather than specifically analyzing the interplay between general solicitation in Rule 506(c) and Rule 144A offerings and the “no directed selling efforts” requirement in Regulation S, the SEC simply reiterated that offshore offerings that are conducted in compliance with Regulation S would not be integrated with concurrent domestic unregistered offerings conducted in compliance with Rule 506 or Rule 144A, as proposed to be amended.
The application of this guidance is not entirely clear. We believe that, absent further guidance from the SEC, general solicitation in a Regulation S offering must be segregated from general solicitation in a U.S. offering such that the Regulation S solicitation will satisfy the “no directed selling efforts” requirement. With regard to Internet postings, taking steps such as providing separate uniform resource locators (URLs) containing information directed to specifically disparate audiences should be helpful. In the case of Internet postings in the context of a Regulation S offering, compliance with guidance provided by the SEC in Use of Internet Web Sites to Offer Securities, Solicit Securities Transactions or Advertise Investment Services, Release No. 33-7516 (March 23, 1998), would be prudent.
The comment period for the proposed rule amendments is relatively short, expiring on October 5, 2012. This may be a response to some political pressure on the SEC to dispense with proposed amendments and proceed directly to adopting final rules, particularly because the July 4, 2012, deadline set forth in the JOBS Act for adopting such rules has already passed.
[1]. Eliminating the Prohibition Against General Solicitation and General Advertising in Rule 506 and Rule 144A Offerings, Release No. 33-9354 (Aug. 29, 2012), available here.
[2]. Offshore Offers and Sales, Release No. 33-6863 (Apr. 24, 1990).
Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
The NLR Law Student Writing Competition offers law students the opportunity to submit articles for publication consideration on the NLR Web site. No entry fee is required. Applicants can submit an unlimited number of entries each month.
An article by R. Holtzman Hedrick of Barnes & Thornburg LLP regarding Reassignment Accommodations, recently appeared in The National Law Review:
In arguably its most significant decision under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in years, the Seventh Circuit, in EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., reversed its own previous holdings regarding the viability of competitive transfer policies for disabled employees. The case can be found here.
For over a decade, employers in the Seventh Circuit have been able to rely onEEOC v. Humiston-Keeling, 227 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 2000), to adopt perfectly valid policies allowing for disabled employees who can no longer perform the essential functions of their current jobs to be considered for reassignment on a competitive basis. In other words, if a more qualified candidate sought the same position as the disabled candidate, the employer could select the best-qualified candidate without running afoul of the ADA. No longer, says the Seventh Circuit.
The circuit court held that under the Supreme Court precedent of U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (requiring an employee to show that an accommodation is reasonable on its face, which then shifts the burden to the employers to demonstrate case-specific undue hardship), reassignment of a disabled but qualified employee to a vacant position is mandatory in the absence of an undue hardship. Despite reaffirming its best-qualified candidate rule even after Barnett was decided (reasoning that that ADA does not require preferential treatment and that violating facially-neutral employment policies creates an undue hardship), the Seventh Circuit decided last week that it had been wrong all along: the “ADA does indeed mandate that an employer appoint employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to that employer.”
The importance of this new automatic reassignment interpretation cannot be overstated. Indeed, questions about an employer’s reassignment obligations are among the most frequently received inquiries by attorneys under the ADA. United Airlines, whose policy in question provided for preferential treatment of disabled employees, although not for automatic reassignment for those who were qualified – meaning the company actually went beyond what the Seventh Circuit required it to do before last week – must feel blindsided by the court. Indeed, this Seventh Circuit panel issued an earlier version of an opinion in this case dismissing the lawsuit under Humiston-Keeling before vacating that decision and issuing a new opinion.
Obviously, employers in the Seventh Circuit (and likely beyond, as the D.C. and Tenth Circuits provide for automatic reassignment, and the Eighth Circuit relied onHumiston-Keeling in deciding that competitive transfer policies were legal) will need to adjust their reassignment policies for disabled employees. In light of this new ruling, it is critical to consult with experienced counsel to navigate what is likely uncharted territory.
© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding The Rainmaker Institute’s Top Ten Marketing Marketing Mistakes:
Here’s What You’ll Discover When You Read This Free E-book:
♦ How to avoid the top 10 marketing mistakes before they destroy your practice
♦ 3 tools top Rainmakers useto automatically attract more and better clients
♦ Specific keys for building a powerful online presence
♦ How to market and position yourself as a recognized specialist
♦ The 1 thing you must never do when marketing your law firm
♦ The top 2 online resources for small and solo law firm marketing
♦ The advertising secrets they don’t want you to know
♦ …And much, much more!
The National Law Review recently published an article by Natalia S. Ballinger of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding State Immigration Laws:
On August 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit struck down several provisions of Alabama and Georgia’s controversial immigration statutes, HB 56 and HB 87, respectively.
Specifically, the court blocked four provisions of HB 56, including the requirement that public schools investigate students’ immigration status and a provision that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit work. The court found that the statute impermissibly interfered with children’s constitutional right to education and further ruled against the state’s measure to criminalize the failure to carry immigration documents and the transporting or harboring of undocumented immigrants. In addition, the provision invalidating contracts with undocumented immigrants was also rejected by the court.
The court also struck down Section 7, a key part of HB 87 which criminalized harboring or assisting undocumented immigrants, on the grounds that it undermined federal law by “present[ing] an obstacle to the execution of the federal statutory scheme and challeng[ing] federal supremacy in the realm of immigration.”
Notably, the court upheld several provisions of both laws, including the right of police officers to check the immigration status of individuals who are suspected of a crime.
©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 7th Annual ABA GPSolo National Solo & Small Firm Conference:
When
October 11 – 13, 2012
Where
The Seventh Annual ABA GPSolo National Solo & Small Firm Conference is an educational and professional forum that will discuss legal developments in the law that impact solo, general practitioners, and small firms. The conference is designed to engage and inform attorneys at all levels of practice. Attendees will gain practical knowledge from an expert faculty comprised of well-known nationally acclaimed speakers.
This conference will cover a wide spectrum of topics including Practice Empowerment, Technology, and Basic Skills.
Practice Empowerment topics include:
Technology programs will explore:
The Basic Skills programs are a must for law students, new practitioners, and those looking to change or expand practice areas. Topics include:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed rule amendments that would eliminate the prohibition against general solicitation and general advertising in certain securities offerings. The rule amendments, which would impact Rule 506 of Regulation D and Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), were proposed in accordance with the requirements of Section 201(a) of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”).
Section 201(a)(1) of the JOBS Act directs the SEC to amend Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act to permit general solicitation or general advertising in offerings made under Rule 506, provided that all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors. Section 201(a)(1) also states that the amended rules must require the issuer to take reasonable steps to verify that purchasers of the securities are accredited investors. Section 201(a)(2) of the JOBS Act requires the SEC to revise Rule 144A(d)(1) under the Securities Act to permit offers of securities pursuant to Rule 144A to persons other than qualified institutional buyers (“QIBs”), including by means of general solicitation or general advertising, provided that the securities are sold only to persons that the seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe are QIBs.
Rule 506 is a non-exclusive safe harbor under Section 4(a)(2) (formerly Section 4(2)) of the Securities Act, which exempts transactions by an issuer “not involving any public offering” from the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act. Under existing Rule 506, an issuer may offer and sell securities, without any limitation on the offering amount, to an unlimited number of “accredited investors,” as defined in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D, and to no more than 35 non-accredited investors who meet certain “sophistication” requirements. The availability of the Rule 506 safe harbor is subject to a number of requirements and is currently conditioned on the issuer, or any person acting on its behalf, not offering or selling securities through any form of general solicitation or general advertising, such as advertisements published in newspapers and magazines, communications broadcast over television and radio, unrestricted Web sites and seminars whose attendees have been invited by general solicitation or general advertising.
Rule 144A is a non-exclusive safe harbor exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act for resales of certain “restricted securities” to QIBs. Resales to QIBs in accordance with the conditions of Rule 144A are exempt from registration pursuant to Section 4(a)(1) (formerly Section 4(1)) of the Securities Act, which exempts transactions by any person “other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.”
The JOBS Act requires that the rule amendments be adopted no later than 90 days after the April 5, 2012 enactment date of the JOBS Act. The SEC already missed this deadline. Initially, the SEC had planned to adopt interim final rules on August 22, 2012 that would have been effective immediately but still subject to comment and revision. However, the SEC abandoned that plan and instead proposed these rule amendments, which it will adopt only after a typical comment and review process.
For a summary of the JOBS Act, please read Congress Passes the JOBS Act.
In this Client Alert, as in the proposing release, general solicitation and general advertising are sometimes referred to collectively as “general solicitation.”
1. Rule 506
In order to implement Section 201(a)(1) of the JOBS Act, the SEC has proposed a new Rule 506(c) which would permit the use of general solicitation to offer and sell securities under Rule 506, provided the following conditions are satisfied:
The proposing release notes that the SEC is preserving the existing ability of issuers to conduct an offering under Rule 506(b) without the use of general solicitation. A company may still wish to utilize this exemption if it does not wish to use general solicitation and thus become subject to the requirement to take reasonable steps to verify the accredited investor status of purchasers or because the company wishes to take advantage of the ability under Rule 506(b) to sell to up to 35 non-accredited investors who meet Rule 506(b)’s sophistication requirements.
In determining the reasonableness of the steps that an issuer must take to verify that a purchaser is an accredited investor, the proposing release explains that issuers are to consider the particular facts and circumstances of each transaction. Factors to be considered include:
The SEC noted in the proposing release that it considered but ultimately decided not to propose requiring issuers to use specified methods of verification, stating that it “would be impractical and potentially ineffective in light of the numerous ways in which a purchaser can qualify as an accredited investor, as well as the potentially wide range of verification issues that may arise, depending on the nature of the purchaser and the facts and circumstances of a particular Rule 506(c) offering.” Similarly, the SEC determined not to propose providing a non-exclusive list of specified methods for satisfying the verification requirement, stating that there may be circumstances where such information would not actually verify accredited investor status and also stating a concern that such a list could be implicitly viewed by the market as required verification methods and thus eliminate the flexibility the new proposed rule is intended to provide.
In response to concerns voiced by some commentators on Section 201(a) of the JOBS Act, the SEC confirmed its interpretation that the JOBS Act and the new proposed Rule 506(c) do not replace the existing “reasonable belief” standard in the accredited investor definition of Rule 501(a) with an absolute standard. The SEC stated, “[i]f a person who does not meet the criteria for any category of accredited investor purchases securities in a Rule 506(c) offering, we believe that the issuer would not lose the ability to rely on the proposed Rule 506(c) exemption for that offering, so long as the issuer took reasonable steps to verify that the purchaser was an accredited investor and had a reasonable belief that such purchaser was an accredited investor.” But the proposing release also cautions that, whatever steps are taken to verify accredited investor status, it will be important for an issuer to maintain adequate records of its actions since any issuer claiming an exemption from registration requirements will have the burden of showing its entitlement to the exemption if challenged.
Finally, the SEC confirmed its belief that the effect of the JOBS Act is to permit privately offered funds such as hedge funds, venture capital funds and private equity funds to make general solicitations under Rule 506(c) without losing their ability to utilize either of the Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) exclusions from the definition of “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
2. Rule 144A
Pursuant to Section 201(a)(2) of the JOBS Act, the SEC also proposed an amendment to Rule 144A(d)(1). As amended, the rule would require only that securities are sold to a QIB or to a purchaser that the seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe is a QIB. Likewise, resales of securities pursuant to Rule 144A could be conducted using general solicitation as long as purchasers are limited in this same manner.
3. Form D
The SEC also proposed to amend Form D, the notice of sale that issuers must file with the SEC for each new offering of securities made in reliance on a Regulation D exemption. The revised form would add a separate box for issuers to check if they are claiming the exemption under new Rule 506(c) and rename the existing check box as “Rule 506(b)” (currently stated simply as “Rule 506”). This will assist the SEC’s efforts to monitor use of the new exemption, practices that develop under the exemption and the size of this offering market.
The SEC is seeking public comment on the proposed rule amendments and certain enumerated topics and questions relating thereto that are set forth in the proposing release. The comment period will remain open until 30 days after the proposed rules are published in the Federal Register. The SEC expects to review the comments
© 2012 Schiff Hardin LLP
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming Consumer Financial Services Basics Conference sponsored by the ABA:
October 08 – 09, 2012
American University
Washington College of Law
Washington, DC
Facing the most comprehensive revision of federal consumer financial services (CFS) law in 75 years, even experienced consumer finance lawyers might feel it is time to get back in the classroom. This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher.It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.Program FocusThis program will explain each of the major sources of regulation of consumer financial products in the context of the regulatory techniques and policies that are the common threads in a complex pattern, including:
Who Should Attend…The learning curve for private practitioners, in-house lawyers and government attorneys to understand the basics and changes to CFS law is very steep. This program is a great way to jump up that curve for:
The National Law Review published an article about Retirement and Pensions Laws Changes written by David J. Leiter and Abby Matousek of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.:
On August 29th, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Council (PBGC)released guidance on how the recently enacted MAP-21 legislation, which gives defined benefit plan sponsors flexibility in near-term plan contributions, will affect PBGC premiums. The guidance clarifies that calculation of variable-rate premiums will be unaffected regardless of whether plan sponsors avail themselves of interest rate stabilization provisions. The guidance also says that MAP-21 increases the flat and variable premium rates and caps variable rate premium. This guidance supersedes any “inconsistent guidance” in the PBGC’s 2012 premium instructions—which will be reflected in the 2013 instructions.
On August 23rd, the PBGC issued a notice requesting an extension of an information collection request for a booklet on qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs). The booklet contains information on benefit options that the PBGC offers on QDROs, modeled orders and child support. The booklet also clarifies rules on when payments to an alternate payee may begin. PBGC is planning several revisions to the booklet, including changing the description of agency procedures for informal review of a draft domestic relations order.
Amidst concerns over DOL’s brokerage window Field Assistance Bulletins, plan fiduciaries are speaking out on the pros and cons of brokerage windows. In an August 16th interview SIFMA managing director Lisa Bleier said brokerage windows allow plan fiduciaries to give participants maximum flexibility in choosing investment options and are often the only way for employers to attain the fullest possible participation in its 401(k) plan. However, the downside to brokerage windows is that employees sometimes make investment choices fiduciaries would avoid. While a relatively small percentage of defined contribution plans have brokerage windows and the decision to offer them is generally based on participant demand.
In an interview, Bradford Campbell, a benefits attorney and former DOL assistant secretary, said DOL officials will address concerns associated with brokerage windows if President Obama wins a second term; however, the issue will likely go away if Mitt Romney wins in November.
At an August 29th ERISA Advisory Council hearing, participants urged DOL to avoid one-size-fits-all regulation that would burden administrators with an affirmative duty to contact participants who undergo significant life events regarding changes to beneficiary designations. Practitioners present at the hearing told DOL that a rule requiring a plan administrator to actively reach out is unnecessary as most plans already encourage employees to update beneficiary choice and burdensome to plan administrators. Witnesses agreed on the importance of up-to-date beneficiary designations and outlined the standards already in place to ensure these designations are updated as necessary.
At the August 30th meeting of the ERISA Advisory Council, flexibility of 401(k) plan distributions was underscored as a valuable tool to meet plan participants’ unique needs. Jason Scott, managing director of Financial Engines Retiree Research Center, told the Council that the common defined benefit model is not necessarily the right way to approach the issue of lifetime income, saying the “real power of the 401(k) plan is its flexibility.” Participants at the meeting agreed that plan sponsors tend to look for lifetime income solutions that are “fully vetted and approved and very easy,” which are not always the best for retirees. Some suggestions to the Council in the area of lifetime income included: encouraging plan sponsors to offer in-plan lifetime income assistance; providing clear guidance that “prudent retirement help includes consideration of the broader picture” (including Social Security); and considering solutions that lower the plan sponsor’s fiduciary risk.
Witnesses told the ERISA Advisory Council on August 30th that the DOL should allow plan sponsors to defer to state insurance regulators’ determinations of an annuity provider’s long-term financial viability and ability to satisfy fiduciary duty. Cynthia Mallett, Vice President of Corporate Benefit Funding at MetLife told the Council that the requirement to assess annuity providers’ financial viability leaves the “entire retirement community at a loss” as it should not be expected that plan sponsors have stronger reviews than state insurance regulators. Participants said that the fiduciary responsibility involved in selecting an annuity provider “is one, if not the biggest, issue for plan sponsors” offering lifetime income options.
At an August 28th meeting of the ERISA Advisory Council, Diann Howland, Vice President of Legislative Affairs at the American Benefits Council, spoke in opposition to the Retirement Savings Security Act of 2011 (H.R. 3656), introduced by Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX). The legislation would promote an insurance product that repays some 401(k) plan loans in the event a participant defaults due to death or disability and would require plan sponsors to automatically enroll plan participants. The American Benefits Council is concerned that the automatic enrollment aspect in terms of costs of the product and the fact that the legislation waives the ERISA fiduciary responsibility. Howland cited concern that the bill continues to garner cosponsors—current cosponsors include Representatives Bruce Braley (D-IA), Ruben Hinjosa (D-TX), Tom Latham (R-IA), Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Pat Tiberi (R-OH).
On August 28th, the IRS held a phone forum to discuss a package of guidance and proposed rules on lifetime income options. The guidance, issued in February, is intended to encourage the use of lifetime income options such as fixed and longevity annuities. The package includes:
The IRS has announced that a hearing scheduled for August 24th has been cancelled. The hearing would have considered proposed regulations that would provide a limited exemption to anti-cutback rules for pension plans, allowing single-employer plan sponsors that are in a bankruptcy proceeding to amend its pension plan to eliminate a lump-sum distribution option if it met certain conditions.
Americans approaching retirement age are faced with new challenges as a result of the financial crisis. The almost-retired “suffered disproportionally” according to a recent New York Timesarticle, experiencing falling home process in addition to lower incomes. The article cites a report from Sentier Research which found that household income for Americans age 55 to 64 fell by almost 10 percent in today’s dollars from three years ago.
A recent study, Baby Boomers and Generation Xers: Are They on Track to Reach Their Retirement Goals?, conducted by the Insured Retirement Institute found that, although the majority of Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are confident they will have enough money to retire comfortably, many have not calculated what their needs will be and have not saved appropriately. While the report found that “there are large groups of people who just do not have realistic expectations,” the results show that those taking important steps—such as consulting financial advisors, calculating savings or buying annuities—are the most confident in their ability to retire.
©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
