SEC Issues Concept Release on Harmonization of Securities-Offering Exemptions
In his Real Estate Securities column, Peter Fass discusses a concept release issued by the SEC on June 18 which seeks feedback "on possible ways to simplify, harmonize, and improve the exempt offering framework" of the The Securities Act of 1933.
October 16, 2019 at 12:30 PM
9 minute read
The Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act) requires that all securities offerings in the United States be registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) unless an exemption is available. On June 18, 2019, the SEC issued a concept release (Release) to solicit feedback "on possible ways to simplify, harmonize, and improve the exempt offering framework to promote capital formation and expand investment opportunities while maintaining appropriate investor protections." The Release does not propose specific rule changes, rather is seeks feedback.
Current Exemption Framework
The exemptions from 1933 Act registration requirements are in Section 3 of the 1933 Act, which generally exempts certain classes of securities, and Section 4 of the 1933 Act, which exempts certain types of securities offerings. SEC rules provide safe-harbor standards for certain exemptions and understandings of the exemptions are informed by interpretations from the courts and the SEC. In addition, the scope of exempt offerings has evolved through legislative changes and SEC rulemaking and guidance. The Release solicits feedback primarily on 1933 Act exempt offerings.
The principal offering exemptions used by a real estate sponsor include:
- Section 4(a)(2) exempts "transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering"
- Regulation D exempts certain small offerings pursuant to Section 3(b) and provides a nonexclusive safe harbor under Section 4(a)(2) and an exemption that allows general solicitations if certain conditions are complied with
- Regulation A, which permits offers and sales of up to $20 million (Regulation A Tier 1) or $50 million (Regulation A Tier 2) of securities over a 12-month period, provided that certain conditions, including filing requirements, are met:
- Rule 504 exempts offers and sales of up to $5 million of securities in a 12-month period.
- Rule 506(b) permits sales of securities to an unlimited number of accredited investors and up to 35 unaccredited investors who, alone or with a representative, meet certain knowledge and experience requirements, provided that certain conditions are met, such as no general solicitation or advertising is used to market the securities and the requirement to provide buyers specified disclosure if any unaccredited investors are included in the offering.
- Rule 506(c) permits sales of an unlimited amount of securities through general solicitation provided all purchasers are accredited investors, the issuer takes steps to verify the accredited investor status of the investor and certain other conditions are satisfied.
The conditions that offering exemptions follow are based on investor protection considerations, generally correlated with the sophistication of the potential investors. Conditions include limits on the size or amount of the offering, the manner in which the offering can be conducted, eligible investors (such as qualified institutional buyers and accredited investors), disclosure or filing requirements, resale restrictions and types of issuers.
Investors who want to resell securities acquired from an issuer in a registered offering or an exempt offering must either register the resale under the 1933Act or rely on an exemption. Resale exemptions are subject to conditions set out in 1933 Act, SEC rules, regulations and guidance and case law.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 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 AllBinance Sued in New York by American Gold Star, Hostage and Service Member Families
4 minute readJudge OKs 'Oversized' Brief Defending Trump Election Interference Prosecution
4 minute readDOJ Files Antitrust Suit Against Visa Alleging It Thwarts Payment-Processing Rivals
'$20 Billion in Damages': FTX Bankruptcy Estate and MDL Resolve Differences
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Joseph J. Mueller and Rachel Bier of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have entered appearances for Omachron Alpha, Omachron Intellectual Property and SharkNinja Operating in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Kirkland & Ellis, asserts three patents in connection with SharkNinja's sale of the 'Vertex' and 'Stratos' cordless vacuum cleaners. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, is 1:24-cv-12373, Dyson, Inc. et al v. SharkNinja, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Shloime Fellig of Latham & Watkins has entered an appearance for Ardelyx the company's CEO and CFO in a pending securities class action related to Xphozah, a drug which treats kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. The complaint, filed Aug. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Pomerantz LLP, contends that the defendants failed to disclose that the company would not be seeking the drug’s acceptance into the Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, a bundled payment system regulated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin, is 1:24-cv-12119, Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Alexander P. Ott, Megan Corrigan and Karen Gover of McDermott Will & Emery have entered appearances for Analog Devices, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of semiconductor processing equipment, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, which asserts two patents, was filed July 9 in Massachusetts District Court by Arrowood LLP and the Devlin Law Firm on behalf of Ocean Semiconductors. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, is 1:24-cv-11759, Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices Inc.
Who Got The Work
Forrest M. 'Teo' Seger of Clark Hill has entered an appearance for Equifax Information Services in a pending lawsuit for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was filed Aug. 13 in Texas Western District Court by Halvorsen Klote on behalf of Quinton Humphrey. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, is 5:24-cv-00892, Humphrey v. LVNV Funding, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Winston & Strawn partners Amanda Groves and Shawn R. Obi have entered appearances for Wells Fargo Bank in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 13 in California Northern District Court by the Kazerouni Law Group and Kellett & Bartholow, contends that Wells Fargo overcharged tens of thousands of customers on their mortgage loan accounts and attempted to downplay liability by sending out 'cryptic' letters and cashier checks. According to the suit, the defendant's failure to disclose to customers how their accounts were overcharged or to provide any accounting or itemization of actual damages constitutes a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, is 3:24-cv-05105, Prado v. Wells Fargo & Company et al.
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