Regulatory: The JOBS Act and materiality determination in private placements
As has been recently reported, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act has been signed into law.
June 13, 2012 at 05:05 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
As has been recently reported, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act has been signed into law. The JOBS Act is designed to encourage companies to create jobs by lowering hurdles to going public and complying with the laws governing public companies, and by facilitating the ability of companies to conduct private placements to finance their businesses.
One way in which the JOBS Act facilitates private placements is by requiring the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) to remove the current ban on general solicitation or advertisements, including social media, in private placements of securities, provided that all purchasers in the private placement are “accredited investors.” This change, when it becomes effective, will allow greater exposure to investments for a wider range of potential investors.
The ability to solicit a wider range of potential investors will bring with it some additional challenges for companies conducting private placements. In the past, companies conducting private placements often solicited investments from a small group of sophisticated investors who were well versed in making such investments.
As companies expand their solicitation efforts to investors who are potentially less sophisticated, extra care should be taken to ensure that all material information is available to potential investors, particularly by ensuring that the private placement memorandum contains the information material to investors' decision-making process.
In a private placement with all accredited investors, there are no specific disclosure requirements under the securities law. However, companies conducting such a private placement must look to the anti-fraud provisions of the securities law, including related case law, and to SEC guidance. These sources indicate that in determining whether information is material and should be disclosed to potential investors, companies must look at what information a reasonable investor would need to make an informed decision.
In this regard, the applicable cases make it clear that companies must look at the total mix of the information, and consider what total mix of information , either through a disclosure document, the due diligence process, or just by general access to the information, the investor needs to make an informed decision. These same cases decline to provide any bright-line test.
So, it remains a matter of judgment as to what would be important to investors, but companies should be particularly careful to ensure that investors have access to information about material or recent developments regarding the issuer, and that the information is up-to-date at the time of the sale.
Companies also should exercise caution around the use of financial projections in conducting a private placement, as the desire or advisability of using financial projections will likely increase as companies act to solicit a broader range of investors. The use of financial projections subjects companies to increased risk because companies often fail to adequately disclose the assumptions related to the projections. Disclosing financial projections without robust disclosure of the assumptions could be misleading, and could create liability for companies and their directors and officers.
In short, companies should ensure that they disclose the material assumptions and include good risk factor disclosure. Good risk factor disclosure does not include risk factors that are merely boilerplate, but requires that companies include those risk factors that actually describe the issues that may undermine the financial projections.
While the JOBS Act brings with it enhanced opportunities for companies to access capital through private placements, companies will need to be extra vigilant in ensuring that they provide investors participating in the offering with the information they need to make a fully informed decision.
As has been recently reported, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act has been signed into law. The JOBS Act is designed to encourage companies to create jobs by lowering hurdles to going public and complying with the laws governing public companies, and by facilitating the ability of companies to conduct private placements to finance their businesses.
One way in which the JOBS Act facilitates private placements is by requiring the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) to remove the current ban on general solicitation or advertisements, including social media, in private placements of securities, provided that all purchasers in the private placement are “accredited investors.” This change, when it becomes effective, will allow greater exposure to investments for a wider range of potential investors.
The ability to solicit a wider range of potential investors will bring with it some additional challenges for companies conducting private placements. In the past, companies conducting private placements often solicited investments from a small group of sophisticated investors who were well versed in making such investments.
As companies expand their solicitation efforts to investors who are potentially less sophisticated, extra care should be taken to ensure that all material information is available to potential investors, particularly by ensuring that the private placement memorandum contains the information material to investors' decision-making process.
In a private placement with all accredited investors, there are no specific disclosure requirements under the securities law. However, companies conducting such a private placement must look to the anti-fraud provisions of the securities law, including related case law, and to SEC guidance. These sources indicate that in determining whether information is material and should be disclosed to potential investors, companies must look at what information a reasonable investor would need to make an informed decision.
In this regard, the applicable cases make it clear that companies must look at the total mix of the information, and consider what total mix of information , either through a disclosure document, the due diligence process, or just by general access to the information, the investor needs to make an informed decision. These same cases decline to provide any bright-line test.
So, it remains a matter of judgment as to what would be important to investors, but companies should be particularly careful to ensure that investors have access to information about material or recent developments regarding the issuer, and that the information is up-to-date at the time of the sale.
Companies also should exercise caution around the use of financial projections in conducting a private placement, as the desire or advisability of using financial projections will likely increase as companies act to solicit a broader range of investors. The use of financial projections subjects companies to increased risk because companies often fail to adequately disclose the assumptions related to the projections. Disclosing financial projections without robust disclosure of the assumptions could be misleading, and could create liability for companies and their directors and officers.
In short, companies should ensure that they disclose the material assumptions and include good risk factor disclosure. Good risk factor disclosure does not include risk factors that are merely boilerplate, but requires that companies include those risk factors that actually describe the issues that may undermine the financial projections.
While the JOBS Act brings with it enhanced opportunities for companies to access capital through private placements, companies will need to be extra vigilant in ensuring that they provide investors participating in the offering with the information they need to make a fully informed decision.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250