Section 4(6) provides a registration exemption for offerings to accredited investors, if the aggregate offering amounts up to the dollar limit of Section 3(b) (currently $5,000,000), if there is no advertising or public solicitation in connection with the transaction by the Issuer or anyone acting on the Issuer’s behalf.

The term accredited investor is defined in section 2(a)(15) and generally includes:

• Banks, insurance companies and pension plans;
• Corporations, partnerships and business entities with over $5 million in assets;
• Directors, executive officers and general partners of the issuer;
• Natural persons with over $1 million net worth or over $200,000 in annual income for two years; and
• Entities, all of whose equity owners are accredited.

In addition, the SEC has the power to define as an accredited investor any person, who, on the basis of such factors as financial sophistication, net worth, knowledge, and experience in financial matters, or amount of assets under management qualifies as an accredited investor.

Section 4(6) and Regulation D

Section 4(6) is rarely used as a free standing exemption; rather it is thought that Section 4(6) falls under the mandate of Regulation D although none of the three enumerated exemptions under Regulation D (Rules 504, 505 and 506) are strictly limited to accredited investors.

Practitioners seeking to rely on Section 4(6) should be aware that such securities are not considered federally covered under Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933 and accordingly, in addition to abiding by the federal securities regulations, individual state securities laws must be considered.

Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 provides that the registration requirements of Section 5 do not apply to “transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering.” The definition of an “issuer” is pretty straightforward as found in Section 2(a)(4) and includes, “the person who issues or proposes to issue” a security and is understood to mean the entity that originally sells the securities. However, not so straightforward is what constitutes a “public offering,” which term is not defined in the Securities Act. In reliance on Section 4(2) the SEC enacted Rule 506 as part of Regulation D.

Rule 506 as a Safe Harbor Provision

Rule 506 is a Safe Harbor. In other words, if all the conditions of Rule 506 are met, you can rest assured that the conditions of Section 4(2) have been satisfied. However, Section 4(2) can be satisfied as a standalone exemption separate from Rule 506. The importance of the distinction between Section 4(2) and Rule 506 cannot be underestimated. Often, when the technical requirements of Rule 506 have not been met, usually inadvertently, the Section 4(2) exemption will still stand and save the day. Moreover, many Issuers satisfy the Section 4(2) exemption “by chance” when other exemptions fail. Section 4(2) does not have filing requirements and at times may be the only exemption available to save an Issuer from civil or even criminal liability.

SEC vs. Ralston Purina Company

The leading case defining a public vs. a private offering is SEC vs. Ralston Purina Co., wherein the U.S. Supreme Court laid down its guidelines. The U.S. Supreme Court focuses on the sophistication of the investor coupled with their access and receipt of disclosure information from the Issuer. Disclosure information should be the “kind of information which registration would disclose.” Importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to establish a quantity standard based on the number of investors. Although, ultimately quantity may be considered, the important factors remain investor qualification and access to disclosure information.

SEC Release No. 4552

The leading SEC pronouncement on Section 4(2) is SEC Release No. 4552 in which it set forth what it considers to the requirements for a private placement. According to the release, all the surrounding circumstances must be considered, “including such factors as the relationship between the offerees and the issuer, the nature, scope, size, type and manner of the offering.” Unfortunately, the release does not offer much guidance on each of the factors. Release No. 4552 does however discuss two important concepts in analyzing an offering. The first is “coming to rest” and the second is “integration.”

Coming to Rest

“Coming to rest” is a concept that deals with the issue of when a particular offering is over. The SEC considers an offering to be continuing until the offered securities have “come to rest” in the hands of the persons who are not “merely conduits for a wider distribution.” Integration deals with the issuer of when purportedly singe offerings are integrated to form one larger offering and whether when viewed as a whole, this larger offering, qualifies for an exemption. The list of factors relevant in analyzing integration include, whether:

• The different offerings are part of a single plan of financing;
• The offerings involve the issuance of the same class of security;
• The offerings are made at or about the same time;
• The same type of consideration is to be received; and
• The offerings are made for the same general purpose.

Courts of Appeals have offered guidance on their interpretations of SEC vs. Ralston Purina Co. and Release No. 4552. In particular, in determining whether an offering is private or public (for purposes of the Section 4(2) exemption), courts consider such factors as:

• The number of offerees and their relationship to each other and to the Issuer;
• The number of units offered;
• The size of the offering;
• The manner of the offering;
• Whether the offerees are sophisticated and/or accredited;
• Access and availability of information that would otherwise be found in a registration; and
• Absence of redistribution.

Investor Qualifications

The American Bar Association offers excellent guidance in determining the qualification of the investor, which is a key point regardless of whose guidance is followed. In particular, the following factors should be considered:

• Risk-bearing ability (it is assumed an accredited investor can bear the risk of an investment);
• Degree of sophistication (whether the offeree can understand and evaluate the offering);
• The offerees representative (including investment advisors, accountants and attorneys);
• The manner of disclosure (the clearer and more thorough the disclosure, the less concentration on sophistication);
• Nonqualified offerees (and the impact they have on the entire offering); and
• Economic bargaining power.

In conclusion, the best way to analyze whether a particular offering meets the requirements of the Section 4(2) exemption is to examine the offering through the eyes of the state and federal securities regulators and/or plaintiff’s attorneys. If they could reasonably find problems with the offering, either changes those problem areas before embarking on the offering or come up with a new strategy.

Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) integration guidance in Securities Act Release No. 8828 (August 3, 2007) sets forth a framework for analyzing potential integration issues in the specific situation of concurrent private and public offerings. The guidance clarifies that, under appropriate circumstances, there can be a side-by-side private offering under Securities Act Rule 4(2) or the Securities Act Rule 506 safe harbor, with a registered public offering.

Qualified Institutional Investors

Previously it was thought that a private offering could only take place concurrently with a public offering if limited to qualified institutional investors (must have at least $100 million under management) and two or three additional large institutional accredited investors as set forth in the Black Box no action letter (June 26, 1990), or to an Issuer’s key officers and directors. In addition, many practitioners previously utilized the integration rule set forth in Securities Act Rule 502 in determining whether a private and public offering should be integrated. In Release No. 8828, the SEC clarified that Rule 502 provides the test to be used in determining whether two or more otherwise exempt offerings should be integrated. As a public offering is not an exempt offering this rule does not apply when determining the integration of concurrent private and public offerings.

Solicitation of Investors

The SEC guidance focuses on how the investors in the private offering are solicited and in particular, whether by the registration statement or through some other means that would not otherwise foreclose the use of the Section 4(2) exemption (for example, solicitation through general solicitation or advertising would prohibit the use of Section 4(2)). If the potential investors become interested in a private investment through the registration statement, then it is deemed that a general solicitation has occurred and Section 4(2) would not be available. However, if the investors become interested in the private offering through some other means, such as where there is a substantive pre-existing relationship with the Issuer, then Section 4(2) would be available for use.
Moreover, an Issuer that completes a Section 4(2) private offering concurrently with a public offering may amend its registration statement to include the newly sold securities in its re-sale registration statement.

Clarification of Concurrent Offerings

The SEC also clarifies that in the specific situation of a concurrent private and public offering, only the guidance set forth in Release No. 8828 applies, and not the integration rules for exempt offerings set forth in Rule 502 or the integration rules relating to abandoned private and public offerings as set forth in Rule 155. In addition, an analysis under Release No. 8828 is factually specific and must be determined on a case by case basis.

Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

The Securities Act of 1933 recognizes two broad types of exemptions to the registration requirements of Section 5, exempt securities and exempt transactions.

The Exempt securities are set forth in Sections 3(a)(1) – (8), (13) and (14) of the Securities Act. Exempt securities are continuously exempt from the registration requirements regardless of the nature of the transaction in which they may be offered, issued, sold or resold. Examples of exempt securities which may be publicly offered, issued, sold and resold by their issuers or any other person without registration include:

• Securities issued or guaranteed by the federal government;
• Any security issued or guaranteed by a bank;
• Commercial paper with a maturity of nine months or less;
• Securities issued by non-profit religious, educational or charitable organizations; and
• Insurance contracts

Exempt Transactions

The exempt transactions are set forth in Sections 3(a)(9), 3(b) and Section 4 of the Securities Act. Exempt transactions allow a security to be offered or sold in a particular transaction or circumstance or by a particular person or entity, although a subsequent offer or sale of the security could require registration under Section 5. Examples of exempted transactions include:

• Transactions by any person other than an issuer, underwriter or dealer (Section 4(1) – which permits most secondary trading of securities are form the basis for Rule 144)
• Transaction by an issuer not involving any public offering (Section 4(2) – often called the private placement exemption and is only available for use by the issuer and not for re-sale transactions)
• Brokers transactions (Section 4(3)); and
• An exchange of securities by an issuer with its existing security holders exclusively where no commission or other remunerations is paid or given (Section 3(a)(9) – conversion of convertible debt or equity securities and cashless exercises of warrants are typically accomplished using this exemption)

Examples of other common exemptions include:

• Offer or sales of a debtor through a bankruptcy court;
• Small offerings of less than $5 million under either Regulations A or D
• Offers and sales under written employee benefit plans (Rule 701); and
• Offshore offers and sales and Regulation S.

Of these exemptions the most commonly used are Regulations S, D and A. Regulation S is not technically an exemption but a jurisdictional provision regarding the reach of the Securities Act of 1933. In particular, Rule 901 provides “[F]or the purposes of Section 5 of the Act, the terms “offer to sell”, “sell”, “sale”, and “offer to buy” shall be deemed to include offers and sales that occur with the United States and shall be deemed not to include offers and sales that occur outside the United States.”

Regulation S

Regulation S covers (i) sales of securities to non-U.S. persons and to foreign securities markets by U.S. issuers, (ii) sales of securities to non-U.S. persons and in foreign securities markets by foreign issuers whose securities are not listed in the U.S. securities markets and which are non reporting companies under the Exchange Act, (iii) sales of securities to non-U.S. persons and in foreign securities markets by foreign issuers which are reporting companies under the Exchange Act, and (iv) resales of these securities.

Regulation D

Regulation D consists of eight (8) rules. Rule 501 through 503 contain definitions, conditions and other provisions that apply to Regulation D generally. Rules 504, 505 and 506 are the three current, specific exemptions from registration. Rule 504 provides an exemption for companies that are not subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act of 1934 for the offer and sale of up to $1 million of securities in a 12 month period. Rule 505 exempts offers by companies of up to $5 million of securities in a 12 month period as long as offers are made without general solicitation or advertising, and there are no more than 35 unaccredited purchasers.

Rule 506

Rule 506 is a safe harbor under the private placement exemption (Section 4(2)). There is no limit on the amount of securities that can be offered or sold, so long as (i) offers are made without general solicitation or advertising, and (ii) the sales are made only to accredited investors or no more than 35 unaccredited investors and all investors must be sophisticated.

Accredited investors are generally defined to include:

• Banks, insurance companies and pension plans;
• Corporations, partnerships and business entities with over $5 million in assets;
• Directors, executive officers and general partners of the issuer;
• Natural persons with over $1 million net worth or over $200,000 in annual income for two years; and
• Entities, all of whose equity owners are accredited.

Regulation A

Regulation A permits a public offering of up to $5 million by issuers, including up to $1.5 million by selling stockholders, within any 12 month period. Regulation A is only available to issuers who are not subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act. Affiliate resales are not permitted unless the issuer has had net income from continuing operations in one of its last two fiscal years.

Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!