On March 4, 2020, the SEC published proposed rule changes to harmonize, simplify and improve the exempt offering framework. The SEC had originally issued a concept release and request for public comment on the subject in June 2019 (see HERE). The proposed rule changes indicate that the SEC has been listening to capital markets participants and is supporting increased access to private offerings for both businesses and a larger class of investors. Together with the proposed amendments to the accredited investor definition (see HERE), the new rules could have as much of an impact on the capital markets as the JOBS Act has had since its enactment in 2012.
The June concept release sought public comments on: (i) whether the exemptive framework as a whole is effective for both companies and investors; (ii) ways to improve, harmonize and streamline the exemptions; (iii) whether there are gaps in the regulations making it difficult for smaller companies to raise capital; (iv) whether the limitations on who can invest and amounts that can be invested (i.e., accredited investor status) pose enough investor protection and conversely create undue obstacles to capital formation; (v) integration and transitioning from one offering exemption to another; (vi) the use of pooled investment funds as a source of private capital and access to those funds by retail investors; and (vii) secondary trading and re-sale exemptions.
The 341-page rule release provides a comprehensive overhaul to the exempt offering and integration rules worthy of in-depth discussion. As such, I will break it down over a series of blogs, with this first blog focusing on integration.
Background; Current Exemption Framework
As I’ve written about many times, the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) requires that every offer and sale of securities either be registered with the SEC or exempt from registration. The purpose of registration is to provide investors with full and fair disclosure of material information so that they are able to make their own informed investment and voting decisions.
In recent years the scope of exemptions has evolved stemming from the JOBS Act in 2012, which broke up Rule 506 into two exemptions, 506(b) and 506(c), and created the current Regulation A/A+ and Regulation Crowdfunding. The FAST Act, signed into law in December 2015, added Rule 4(a)(7) for re-sales to accredited investors and the Economic Growth Act of 2018 mandated certain changes to Regulation A, including allowing its use by SEC reporting companies, and Rule 701 for employee stock option plans for private companies. Also relatively recently, the SEC eliminated the never-used Rule 505, expanded the offering limits for Rule 504 and modified the intrastate offering structure.
Offering exemptions are found in Sections 3 and 4 of the Securities Act. Section 3 exempts certain classes of securities (for example, government-backed securities or short-term notes) and certain transactions (for example, Section 3(a)(9) exchanges of one security for another). Section 4 contains all transactional exemptions including Section 4(a)(2), which is the statutory basis for Regulation D and its Rules 506(b) and 506(c). The requirements to rely on exemptions vary from the type of company making the offering (private or public, U.S. or not, investment companies…), the offering amount, manner of offering (solicitation allowable or not), bad actor rules, type of investor (accredited) and amount and type of disclosure required. In general, the greater the ability to sell to non-accredited investors, the more offering requirements are imposed.
For more information on Rule 504 and intrastate offerings, see HERE; on rule 506, see HERE; on Regulation A, see HERE; and on Regulation Crowdfunding, see HERE. The disparate requirements can be tricky to navigate and where a company completes two offerings with conflicting requirements (such as the ability to solicit), integration rules can result in both offerings failing the exemption requirements.
The chart at the end of this blog contains an overview of the current most often used offering exemptions.
Proposed Rule Changes
The proposed rule changes are meant to reduce complexities and gaps in the current exempt offering structure. As such, the rules would amend the integration rules to provide certainty for companies moving from one offering to another or to a registered offering; increase the offering limits under Regulation A, Rule 504 and Regulation Crowdfunding and increase the individual investment limits for investors under each of the rules; increase the ability to communicate during the offering process, including for offerings that historically prohibited general solicitation; and harmonize disclosure obligations and bad actor rules to decrease differences between various offering exemptions.
Integration
The current Securities Act integration framework for registered and exempt offerings consists of a mixture of rules and SEC guidance for determining whether two or more securities transactions should be considered part of the same offering. In general, the concept of integration is whether two offerings integrate such that either offering fails to comply with the exemption or registration rules being relied upon. That is, where two or more offerings are integrated, there is a danger that the exemptions for both offerings will be lost, such as when one offering prohibits general solicitation and another one allows it.
The current integration rule (Securities Act Rule 502(a)) provides for a six-month safe harbor from integration with an alternative five-factor test including: (i) whether the offerings are part of a single plan of financing; (ii) whether the offerings involve the same class of security; (iii) whether the offerings are made at or around the same time; (iv) whether the same type of consideration will be received; and (v) whether the offerings are made for the same general purpose. For SEC guidance on integration between a 506(c) and 506(b) offering, see HERE). Although technically Rule 502(a) only applies to Regulation D (Rule 504 and 506 offerings), the SEC and practitioners often use the same test in other exempt offering integration analysis.
A different analysis is used when considering the integration between an exempt and registered offering and in particular, whether the exempt offering investors learned of the exempt offering through general solicitation, including the registration statement itself. Furthermore, yet a different analysis is used when considering Regulation A, Regulation Crowdfunding, Rule 147 and Rule 147A offerings although each of those has a similar six-month test.
The amended rules would completely overhaul the integration concept such that each offering would be viewed as discrete regardless of whether it was completed close in time to a second offering. Under the new rules, where a regulatory safe harbor exists such safe harbor could be relied upon. For all other offerings, the new integration rules would look to the particular facts and circumstances of the offering, and focus the analysis on whether the company can establish that each offering either complies with the registration requirements of the Securities Act, or that an exemption from registration is available for the particular offering. Of course, where exempt offerings allow general solicitation, they must include the regulatory legends required for such offering.
In making the analysis as to whether an offering complies with an exemption, where solicitation is not allowed, the company must have a reasonable belief that the investors were either not solicited or that such investor had a substantive relationship with the company prior to commencement of the offering. Generally a substantive relationship is one in which the company, or someone acting on the company’s behalf such as a broker-dealer, has sufficient information to evaluate, and in fact does evaluate, such prospective investors’ financial circumstances and sophistication and established accreditation. That is, a substantive relationship is determined by the quality of the relationship and information known about an investor as opposed to the length of a relationship. For more on substantive pre-existing relationships, including a summary of the SEC’s no action letter in Citizen VD, Inc., see HERE.
Moreover, the SEC is proposing four new non-exclusive safe harbors from integration, including: (i) any offering made more than 30 calendar days before the commencement or after the termination of a completed offering will not be integrated – provided, however, that where one of the offerings involved general solicitation, the purchasers in an offering that does not allow for solicitation, did not learn of the offering through solicitation (this 30-day test would replace the six-month test across the board); (ii) offerings under Rule 701, under an employee benefit plan or under Regulation S will not integrate with other offerings; (iii) a registered offering will not integrate with another offering as long as it is subsequent to (a) a terminated or completed offering for which general solicitation is not permitted; (b) a terminated or completed offering for which general solicitation was permitted but that was made only to qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) or institutional accredited investors (IAIs); or (c) an offering that terminated more than 30 days before the registration statement was filed; and (iv) offerings that allow for general solicitation will not integrate with a prior completed or terminated offering.
The determination of whether an offering has been terminated or completed will vary depending on the type of offering. A Section 4(a)(2), Regulation D, Rule 147 or Rule 147A offering will be terminated or completed on the later of the date the company has a binding commitment to see all the securities offered or the company and its agents have ceased all efforts to sell more securities. As to Regulation A offerings, such will be terminated or completed when the offering statement is withdrawn, a Form 1-Z has been filed, a declaration of abandonment is made by the SEC or the third anniversary after qualification of the offering. Offerings under Regulation Crowdfunding will be terminated or completed upon the deadline of the offering set forth in the offering materials.
Registered offerings will be terminated or completed upon the (i) withdrawal of the registration statement; (ii) filing of an amendment or supplement indicating the offering is completed and withdrawing any unsold securities; (iii) entry of an order by the SEC; or (iv) three years after the filing of an S-3. Although the same termination and completion analysis for each offering would be preferred, the differing natures of the offering mechanics do not make that feasible.
To avoid an abuse of the 35 unaccredited limitation under Rule 506(b), where a company conducts more than one offering under Rule 506(b), the number of non-accredited investors purchasing in all such offerings within 90 calendar days of each other would be limited to 35.
To avoid abuse involving Regulation S offerings, where there is a concurrent Rule 506(c) offering, the company will need to prohibit resales to U.S. persons for a period of six months except for QIBs or IAIs.
The new integration principles and safe-harbors would be aggregated in Securities Act Rule 152. Moreover, Rules 502(a), 251(c) (i.e., Regulation A integration provision), 147(g) and 147A(g) (both intrastate offering provisions) will be amended to cross reference the new amended rule 152. Other rules (Rules 255(e), 147(h) and 147A(h)) will be eliminated as the provisions will be covered in Rule 152.
Current Exemption Overview Chart
The SEC proposed rule release published the following chart, which was also included in the June concept release, of the most commonly used offering exemptions:
|
Type of Offering |
Offering Limit
within 12- month Period |
General Solicitation |
Issuer Requirements |
Investor Requirements |
SEC Filing Requirements |
Restrictions on Resale |
Preemption of
State Registration and Qualification |
| Section 4(a)(2) | None | No | None | Transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering. See SEC v. Ralston Purina Co. | None | Yes. Restricted securities | No |
| Rule 506(b) of Regulation D | None | No | “Bad actor” disqualifications apply | Unlimited accredited investors
Up to 35 sophisticated but non-accredited investors |
Form D | Yes. Restricted securities | Yes |
| Rule 506(c) of Regulation D | None | Yes | “Bad actor” disqualifications apply | Unlimited accredited investors
Issuer must take reasonable steps to verify that all purchasers are accredited investors |
Form D | Yes. Restricted securities | Yes |
| Regulation A: Tier 1 | $20 million | Permitted; before qualification, testing the waters permitted before and after the offering statement is filed | U.S. or Canadian issuers
Excludes blank check companies,25 registered investment companies, business development companies, issuers of certain securities, and certain issuers subject to a Section 12(j) order “Bad actor” disqualifications apply No asset-backed securities. |
None | Form 1-A, including two years of financial statements
Exit report |
No | No |
| Regulation A: Tier 2 | $50 million | Non-accredited investors are subject to investment limits based on annual income and net worth, unless securities will be listed
on a national securities exchange |
Form 1-A, including two years of audited financial statements
Annual, semi-annual, current, and exit reports |
No | Yes | ||
| Rule 504 of Regulation D | $5 million | Permitted in limited circumstances | Excludes blank check companies, Exchange Act reporting companies, and investment companies
“Bad actor” disqualifications apply |
None | Form D | Yes. Restricted securities except in limited circumstances | No |
| Intrastate: Section 3(a)(11) | No federal limit (generally, individual state limits between
$1 and $5 million) |
Offerees must be in- state residents. | In-state residents “doing business” and incorporated in-state; excludes registered investment companies | Offerees and purchasers must be in-state residents | None | Securities must come to rest with in-state residents | No |
| Intrastate: Rule 147 | No federal limit (generally, individual state limits between
$1 and $5 million) |
Offerees must be in- state residents. | In-state residents “doing business” and incorporated in-state; excludes registered investment companies | Offerees and purchasers must be in-state residents | None | Yes. Resales must be within state for six months | No |
| Intrastate: Rule 147A | No federal limit (generally, individual state limits between
$1 and $5 million) |
Yes | In-state residents and “doing business” in-state; excludes registered investment companies | Purchasers must be in- state residents | None | Yes. Resales must be within state for six months | No |
| Regulation Crowdfunding; Section 4(a)(6) | $1.07 million | Permitted with limits on advertising after Form C is filed
Offering must be conducted on an internet platform through a registered intermediary |
Excludes non-U.S. issuers, blank check companies, Exchange Act reporting companies, and investment companies
“Bad actor” disqualifications apply |
Investment limits based on annual income and net worth | Form C, including two years of financial statements that are certified, reviewed or audited, as required
Progress and annual reports |
12-month resale limitations | Yes |
It is extremely difficult for small and emerging companies to raise capital and changes to the rules that will assist these companies should be pursued and encouraged. On that canvas, I find the question as to whether the SEC should be concerned that making private capital raises more accessible will discourage public offerings, incredibly frustrating.
Small businesses are job creators, generators of economic opportunity, and fundamental to the growth of the country. Small businesses account for the majority of net new jobs since the recession ended and are critical to the health and vitality of our country. In the absence of access to funding, small businesses cannot create new jobs, foster innovation, and develop into the next generation of publicly traded companies whose growth fuels Main Street investors’ retirement accounts. The SEC knows this; it has quoted the mantra many times, including in connection with the creation of its own new office, the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation. All multifaceted large entities, whether they are a large and growing corporation or a regulator like the SEC, face challenges in fostering competing goals (capital formation and investor protection) and ensuring the flow of information from different divisions and offices that are responsible for one goal over another (Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and Enforcement).
In my view, in its efforts to protect Main Street investors and combat micro-cap fraud, the SEC has inadvertently hampered and damaged the under-$350-million micro-cap class of company, and one way to move the needle in the right direction is through exempt offering structure reform.
I advocate for (i) an expansion of the definition of “accredited investor” to take into account characteristics other than an individual’s wealth (see HERE); (ii) allow for investors to “opt in” to accredited status after receiving disclosure including related to risks; (iii) allow for broader issuer communication to investors and potential investors through social media and other internet-based platforms; (iv) combine Rules 506(b) and 506(c) to allow for general solicitation and advertising across the board and investments by an unlimited number of non-accredited investors as long as certain disclosures are provided; (v) allow for the payment of finders’ fees subject to certain investor protections (see my views HERE); and (vi) expand the ability for non-accredited investors to invest in all exempt offerings subject to investment amount limitations.
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Anthony L.G., PLLC
A Corporate Law Firm
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provide ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded public companies as well as private companies going public on the Nasdaq, NYSE American or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For more than two decades Anthony L.G., PLLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker-dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions, securities token offerings and initial coin offerings, Regulation A/A+ offerings, as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-3, S-8 and merger registrations on Form S-4; compliance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including Nasdaq and NYSE American; general corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Ms. Anthony and her firm represent both target and acquiring companies in merger and acquisition transactions, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. The ALG legal team assists Pubcos in complying with the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the small-cap and middle market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, Corporate Finance in Focus. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Ms. Anthony is a member of various professional organizations including the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA), Palm Beach County Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association, the American Bar Association and the ABA committees on Federal Securities Regulations and Private Equity and Venture Capital. She is a supporter of several community charities including siting on the board of directors of the American Red Cross for Palm Beach and Martin Counties, and providing financial support to the Susan Komen Foundation, Opportunity, Inc., New Hope Charities, the Society of the Four Arts, the Norton Museum of Art, Palm Beach County Zoo Society, the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts and several others. She is also a financial and hands-on supporter of Palm Beach Day Academy, one of Palm Beach’s oldest and most respected educational institutions. She currently resides in Palm Beach with her husband and daughter.
Ms. Anthony is an honors graduate from Florida State University College of Law and has been practicing law since 1993.
Contact Anthony L.G., PLLC. Inquiries of a technical nature are always encouraged.
Follow Anthony L.G., PLLC on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Pinterest and Twitter.
Listen to our podcast on iTunes Podcast channel.
law·cast
Noun
Lawcast is derived from the term podcast and specifically refers to a series of news segments that explain the technical aspects of corporate finance and securities law. The accepted interpretation of lawcast is most commonly used when referring to LawCast.com, the securities law network. Example: “LawCast expounds on NASDAQ listing requirements.”
Anthony L.G., PLLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Anthony L.G., PLLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Anthony L.G., PLLC
