Finders – Part 3
Following the SEC’s proposed conditional exemption for finders (see HERE), I’ve been writing a series of blogs on the topic of finders. New York recently proposed, then failed to adopt a new finder’s regulatory regime. California and Texas remain the only two states with such allowing finders for intra-state offerings. Also, a question that has arisen several times recently is whether an unregistered person can assist a U.S. company in capital raising transactions outside the U.S. under Regulation S, which I addressed in the second blog in this series (see HERE). This blog will discuss the New York, California and Texas rules.
New York
On December 1, 2020, the state of New York adopted an overhaul to some of its securities laws including modernizing registration and filing requirements with the Investor Protection Bureau and the Office of the Attorney General. Although the proposed rules would have adopted a new definition of “finder” and required licensing and examinations
Finders – Part 2
Following the SEC’s proposed conditional exemption for finders (see HERE), the topic of finders has been front and center. New York has recently adopted a new finder’s exemption, joining California and Texas, who were early in creating exemptions for intra-state offerings. Also, a question that has arisen several times recently is whether an unregistered person can assist a U.S. company in capital raising transactions outside the U.S. under Regulation S. This blog, the second in a three-part series, will discuss finders in the Regulation S context.
Regulation S
It is very clear that a person residing in the U.S. must be licensed to act as a finder and receive transaction-based compensation, regardless of where the investor is located. The SEC sent a poignant reminder of that when, in December 2015, it filed a series of enforcement proceedings against U.S. immigration lawyers for violating the broker-dealer registration rules by accepting commissions in connection with introducing investors to projects relying
