
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: September 11, 2015

Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comThe SEC is also focusing on securities broker-dealer issues in its OCIE compliance exams of private investment funds, and has recently instituted a significant enforcement action against a fund manager. Not surprisingly, the uptick in enforcement coincides with the use of general solicitation and general advertising in Rule 506 private offerings permitted by the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act.
There are serious legal issues to be considered when a start-up company or private investment fund uses its own employees or other third party “finders” to identify and solicit investors to provide capital via a private securities offering. In many cases, these individuals perform activities that require registration with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and SEC.
The Exchange Act prohibits a person from engaging in the business of effecting transactions in securities without a license. As set forth in SEC guidance, registration as a broker-dealer is generally required if a person (1) actively solicited investors, (2) advised investors as to the merits of an investment, (3) regularly participated in securities transactions, and (4) received commissions or transaction-based remuneration. If the SEC finds that an individual satisfies any of the above factors, registration may be required. Accordingly, true “finders” can generally do little more than make introductions in exchange for a fee. For issuers, that means contracts must be structured so that the finder gets paid regardless of whether or not any securities are sold. That would go a long way toward satisfying regulators that the issuer was not participating in a violation.
Of course, as with most securities laws and regulations, there are a number of exemptions. Most notably, the JOBS Act contains an exception from broker registration for intermediaries assisting in securities offerings exempt under Rule 506 of Regulation D. The narrow exemption applies to online intermediaries used in connection with Rule 506 offerings. To qualify for the exemption, the “finder” must (1) maintain a platform or mechanism that permits the offer, sale, purchase, negotiation, general solicitations, general advertisements, or similar activities by issuers, whether online, in person, or through other means, (2) co-invest in the offering, or (3) provide ancillary services with respect to the offering.
The exemption further requires that online platforms (1) may not receive any compensation in connection with the purchase or sale of the security; (2) may not have possession of customer funds or securities in connection with the purchase or sale of the security; and (3) may not receive separate compensation in connection with providing investment advice to issuers or investors.
While there are legal pitfalls for securities issuers who utilize unregistered “finders” to solicit investors, that practice continues, with issuers, “finders” and brokers acting unknowingly outside the law, or purposely seeking to act under the radar. It is, of course, preferable that they educate themselves about exemptions that are available and act accordingly. One good reason to get educated about the exemptions, and comply with them, is that an unhappy investor may seek resolution, by lawsuit or complaint to a regulatory body (SEC, FINRA, State Blue Sky regulator), the radar can be aroused and the regulators may take a look. While the remedy of rescission (return of the investment) may be sufficient in some instances where a violation has occurred, that might not put an end to the matter for the regulators who may seek to flex their muscles and make an example of the violation, so as to discourage others from engaging in such violations. Regulators can seek injunctive relief whether or not the issuer has already granted rescission to investors. Regulators can become aware of the violations through investor-brought court proceedings, and investors, relying on regulators’ actions, can proceed in court seeking remedies readily available to them for securities violations.
Using an unregistered broker to find funding presents a higher degree of risk for issuers in Rule 506 private offerings, including aiding and abetting liability under federal securities laws, which raises the risk of rescission being directed under state securities laws. We have advised numerous issuers on how to properly inter-act with finders. If you have any questions about this issue, or would like assistance with your legal work, please contact me or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Author: Graham Staton

Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!