|

Delaware has adopted a rule exempting “private fund advisers” from the state’s unlawful conduct provision, including the provision requiring registration as an investment adviser. Under the new rule, a private fund adviser is exempt from Delaware Securities Act unlawful conduct provisions if: (1) neither the private fund adviser nor any advisory affiliates are subject to an event that would disqualify an issuer under federal Regulation D, Rule 506(d)(1); (2) the private fund adviser files with the Director through the IARD each report and amendment that an exempt reporting adviser is required to filed with the SEC under SEC Rule 204-4; and (3) the private fund adviser pays the investment adviser registration fee of $300.

A “private fund adviser” is defined as “an investment adviser who provides advice solely to one or more qualifying private funds, other than a private fund that qualifies for the section (3)(c)(1) investment company act exclusion.” A “qualifying private fund” is a private fund meeting the SEC rule 203(m)-1 “qualifying private fund” definition.
Continue reading ›

|

Last month at the Annual Conference of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Commission revealed its enforcement statistics for 2014, including a record number of enforcement actions (755) and monetary relief obtained ($4.1 Million). The Commission also announced its current initiatives including a continued emphasis in the use of data analytics in both regulation and enforcement investigations. Among the areas of emphasis highlighted at this year’s conference were insider trading, financial reporting and auditing cases, inadequate internal controls for public companies, enhanced scrutiny of auditors and other reporting gatekeepers, and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement.

In addition, 30 trials were conducted in 2014 by the Commission, the most trials in over a decade. By contrast, the Commission tried only 6 cases in 2013. Two-thirds of the trials were in federal court, while one-third were before Administrative Law Judges.
Continue reading ›

|

On February 4, 2015, the SEC issued cease and desist orders against three investment advisers that fraudulently maintained registration with the SEC by listing Wyoming as their principal place of business on their Forms ADV. These three incidences highlight Wyoming’s unusual landscape for investment advisers.

In order to explain the uniqueness of these orders, some background on investment adviser regulation will be provided. Originally, investment advisers were prohibited from registering with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act if it managed under $25 million in assets or met a designated exemption. In July 2011, that threshold was increased to $100 million. If an investment adviser does not meet or exceed the $100 million threshold, it is still required to register with the states in which they maintain their principal place of business. Wyoming is unique in that it does not regulate investment advisers. Any investment adviser with its principal place of business in Wyoming must therefore, according to the amendments to Section 203A of the Investment Advisers Act, register with the SEC.
Continue reading ›

|

Tennessee’s new “Invest Tennessee Exemption” to the state’s securities registration requirements went into effect on January 1, 2015. Like other securities exemption laws recently adopted by other states, Tennessee’s exemption allows for the intrastate offerings of certain securities that do not exceed $1 million. The law sets out the rules for issuers to use this exemption as an alternate way to raise capital.

Under the Invest Tennessee Exemption, securities offerings meeting the following requirements will be exempt from state registration:

Continue reading ›

|

In an effort to inform investors about common fraudulent activities involving individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”), the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) has issued an Advisory on third-party custodians of self-directed IRAs and other qualified plans. The advisory was issued to describe the roles and responsibilities a third-party custodian of a self-directed IRA has and to hopefully dispel some of the common misconceptions investors have about third-party custodians. In particular, NASAA warns investors that IRA custodians’ duties are limited to report information to the IRS, and such custodians do not provide any assurance that the IRA owner’s investments are protected against loss.

When creating an IRA, an investor must find an IRS-approved custodian for the account. Custodians are typically banks or brokerage firms. Once the account is opened, investors can deposit funds into the account and invest in opportunities available through the custodian. With a self-directed IRA, the investor has full control over what the funds in the account are invested in, unlike mutual funds or other types of savings accounts.
Continue reading ›

|

In a speech given at The New York Times Dealbook Opportunities for Tomorrow Conference in New York at the end of 2014, SEC Chair Mary Jo White detailed an extensive plan to increase the agency’s scrutiny of asset managers. Her speech highlighted many of the important issues currently facing the SEC in regulating the asset management industry and its planned response to those issues.

Chair White began by noting the evolution of the asset management industry and the tools currently utilized to protect investors and their assets. In 1940, when the Investment Advisers Act was first passed, there were a total of $4 billion in assets under management at 51 firms, compared to the now over $63 trillion of assets under management at over 22,000 firms. Chair White also noted that almost half of all U.S. households own mutual funds. In addition to mutual funds, asset managers also increasingly recommend modern, sophisticated products like ETFs and derivatives. Registered funds have significantly increased the size and complexity of derivates used in asset management.
Continue reading ›

|

On February 3, 2015, H.R. 686, a bill creating a registration exemption for M&A Brokers, was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Financial Services. This new bill is identical to Section 401 of H.R. 37, which included other financial regulations and had passed the House on January 14, 2015. H.R. 686 essentially duplicates the M&A Broker section – Section 401 of H.R. 37. Introducing this M&A Broker proposal as its own bill could signal a possible lack of confidence of behalf of lawmakers that an adequate amount of votes are available to pass H.R. 37 in the Senate and a hope that Section 401 can make it on its own and become law.

As discussed in previous posts, the M&A Broker exemption proposed by Congress in H.R. 37 – and now in H.R. 686 – fails to address the “grey area” of unregistered actors who participate in private placement of securities that are not M&A transactions. These Private Placement Brokers play an important and integral part for smaller businesses trying to raise capital. Having the M&A Broker exemption on its own in H.R. 686, and not with other significant financial regulations, may allow for amendments to be added more easily. Hopefully one of those amendments would be a Private Placement Broker exemption.

|

The Broker-Dealer section of the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) recently sent out a notice of request for comment on a proposed uniform state model rule (“Model Rule”) that would exempt merger and acquisition brokers (“M&A Brokers”) from state securities registration if certain requirements were met. While NASAA’s proposed Model Rule is similar to the recent SEC No-Action letter concerning M&A Brokers and the exemption for M&A Brokers provided by HR 37, there are some notable differences. Comments on the Model Rule must be submitted to NASAA by February 16, 2015.

First, this post will lay out the three current proposals by SEC staff, Congress, and NASAA to create an M&A Broker registration exemption. Second, a comparison between all three will be made in order to highlight how each body plans to regulate and define the scope of the exemption for M&A Brokers. Each comparison will be broken up into key aspects of each proposal’s efforts to create an exemption for M&A Brokers. Third, this post will emphasize the need to create an exemption, along with M&A Brokers, that will encompass other important unregistered actors: Private Placement Brokers.
Continue reading ›

|

On October 22, 2014, Michigan took a significant step to increase investment crowdfunding opportunities for Michigan businesses by becoming the first state to establish an intrastate market where broker-dealers can sell securities of Michigan-based companies. While “crowdfunding” can have different meanings, including rewards-based fundraising campaigns on sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, “investment crowdfunding” generally refers to small businesses seeking investment capital in small amounts from a large number of investors.

The signing of House Bill 5273 by Governor Rick Snyder, along with the state’s preexisting registration exemption for securities issued by Michigan businesses under the Michigan Invests Locally Exemption (“MILE Act”), allows Michigan business to raise capital over the Internet or though general solicitation by selling the exempt securities within a newly-created alternative intrastate market.
Continue reading ›

|

In a settlement that underscores the SEC’s increased scrutiny of crowdfunding sites and whether they are acting as broker-dealers, the SEC agreed to a settlement with Eureeca Capital SPC (“Eureeca”), on November 10, 2014, over charges alleging willful violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The settlement involves Eureeca’s failure to register as a broker-dealer and to conform with the exemption from securities registration provided by Rule 506(c). According to the terms of the settlement, Eureeca, while neither admitting nor denying the SEC’s allegations, consented to the cease and desist order and the accompanying sanctions.

Eureeca is a crowdfunding portal organized in the Cayman Islands. The site connects issuers with potential investors looking to invest in businesses in exchange for equity. Eureeca receives a percentage of the funds raised in successful offerings as compensation. During the period of time covered by the settlement agreement, the offerings of securities listed on Eureeca’s website were neither registered with the SEC nor did they meet the registration exemption of Rule 506(c) that allows for the sale of unregistered securities for which general solicitation occurs.
Continue reading ›

Contact Information
2987 Clairmont Rd
#200
Atlanta, GA 30329
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 © 2024, Parker MacIntyre
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design