SEC Proposes Changes to Accredited Investor Definition
In his Real Estate Securities column, Peter Fass discusses the SEC's proposed amendments to the definition of "accredited investor."
February 18, 2020 at 12:00 PM
6 minute read
On Dec. 18, 2019, the SEC proposed amendments to the definition of "accredited investor" in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act). See Amending the "Accredited Investor" Definition, SEC Release 33-10734 (Dec. 18, 2019) (proposing release). The definition of "accredited investor" uses income and net worth thresholds to identify natural persons as accredited investors. The bright line standard also identifies entities with the financial sophistication and ability to bear the risk to participate in certain securities offerings including Regulation D based on their statutes alone.
Real Estate syndication offerings often rely on Rule 506 of Regulation D to exempt such offerings from registration under the 1933 Act. Rule 506 of Regulation D requires that, with certain limited exceptions, purchasers of the securities offered are limited to accredited investors. The amendments modify certain of the existing categories of accredited investors and create certain new categories, including new categories for persons with professional certifications, knowledgeable employees of private funds, and certain family offices and their family clients.
New Categories
The following new categories of qualifying natural persons and entities would be added to the accredited investor definition:
Natural persons with professional certifications, designations or other credentials. The amendments include individuals holding certain specified professional certifications, designations or other credentials in new Rule 501(a)(10). Natural persons holding the following professional licenses include: Series 7 (licensed general securities representative), Series 65 (licensed investment adviser representative) and Series 82 (licensed private securities offerings representative). The rationale is that individuals holding these certifications by virtue of passing the certification examinations have the required knowledge of the securities laws that allows them to make informed investment decisions without the need for additional protections under the securities laws.
Natural persons who are knowledgeable employees. The amendments add in new Rule 501(a)(12) "knowledgeable employees" of a private fund as a new category of natural persons qualifying as accredited investors in relation to that fund. The rationale is that by virtue of their active involvement in the activities of a fund, the employees are sufficiently sophisticated financially to be able to make informed investment decisions. Employees of a private fund who as part of their regular duties have participated in the fund's investment activities for at least 12 months fall within the amended definition. Note that knowledgeable employees of a private fund are deemed accredited investors only with respect to investments in that private fund.
The inclusion of knowledgeable employees in the definition of "accredited investor" allows these employees to invest in the private fund without the fund itself losing accredited investor status when the funds have assets of $5 million or less. Under Rule 501(a)(8), private funds with assets of $5 million or less may qualify as accredited investors if all of the fund's equity owners are accredited investors. Unless they qualify as accredited investors, these small private funds could otherwise be excluded from participating in some offerings under Rule 506 that are limited to accredited investors.
Amending the accredited investor definition in this manner would allow knowledgeable employees to invest in these small private funds as accredited investors, while permitting the funds to remain eligible to qualify as accredited investors under Rule 501(a)(8). This new category is similar to the existing category for directors, executive officers, or general partners of the issuer (or directors, executive officers, or general partners of a general partner of the issuer) in Rule 501(a)(4).
Registered investment advisers. Investment advisers registered under §203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and state registered investment advisers to Rule 501(a)(1) are added as accredited investors.
Limited liability companies. The amendments add limited liability companies to Rule 501(a)(3) as long as they meet the other requirements of the definition: (1) having total assets in excess of $5 million and (2) are not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities being offered.
Entities that meet an investments-owned test. The amendments add a category in new Rule 501(a)(9) that covers entities that: (1) own investments in excess of $5 million; (2) are not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities being offered; and (3) otherwise are not covered by other subsections of Rule 501(a). The new category includes entities such as Indian tribes and government bodies as well as other entity types that may be formed in the future.
Certain family offices and family clients. The amendments add family offices with at least $5 million in assets under management in new Rule 501(a)(12), provided that such family offices are not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities being offered and that the purchase of the securities is directed by a person who has knowledge and experience in financial matters. The new Rule 501(a)(13) covers family clients (as defined in the Investment Advisers Act) of a family office meeting the requirements of new Rule 501(a)(12).
Spousal equivalents. The amendments revise Rules 501(a)(5) and 501(a)(6) to permit individuals to include joint income from spousal equivalents (not just joint income from a spouse, as is currently the case) when calculating the joint income thresholds. Under Rule 501(a)(6), an individual is considered an accredited investor if together with a spouse he/she exceeds the $300,000 joint income threshold. Under Rule 501(a)(5), the qualifying threshold for an individual is $1 million joint net worth.
Spousal equivalent is defined as "a cohabitant occupying a relationship generally equivalent to that of a spouse." Further, the Amendments clarify that for purposes of the calculation of joint net worth, net worth can be aggregated between the investor and his/her spouse (or spousal equivalent if the term is adopted) and that the securities purchased based on the joint net worth test may be purchased by the investor individually and do not need to be purchased jointly with the spouse (or the spousal equivalent).
Conclusion
The amendments do not propose any changes to the financial thresholds contained in the definition of accredited investor. The relevant thresholds under the definition are $5 million for total assets, $1 million for individual or joint net worth (excluding primary residence), and $200,000 for individual income or $300,000 for joint income. These thresholds have not been adjusted for inflation since 1982.
Peter M. Fass is a partner at Proskauer Rose.
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
© 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 AllGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrump, ABC News Settlement in Defamation Lawsuit Includes $1M in Attorney Fees For President-Elect
Can Law Firms Avoid Landing on 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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