
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: August 14, 2018

Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comYou bought stock in a private placement and the company is growing. Now you want to sell half of that stock to your neighbor or to transfer portions to your wife and children. How is this accomplished? What laws and rules apply? Where do you go for guidance?

These are common questions we often hear from investors. Thankfully, the federal government has eased restrictions in recent years, making the process of private transfers far less complicated than it once was.
Under the federal securities laws, a company may not offer or sell securities unless the offering has been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or an exemption from registration applies. A securities offering that is exempt from registration with the SEC is often referred to as an unregistered offering or private placement offering.
Private placements differ from traditional securities offerings in several key ways. Most notably, they have restrictions on their transfer, and you will need to comply with an exemption from registration to resell. When you acquired the restricted securities, you likely received a certificate stamped with a “restrictive” legend. The legend indicates that the securities may not be resold in the marketplace unless they are registered with the SEC or are exempt from the registration requirements.
The good news is that over the last several decades, the federal government (Congress and the SEC) have eased the previously rigid restrictions on such transfers so that these types of private transactions between friends, neighbors, business associates or family members are no longer subject to regulations that used to call for waiting years to achieve required holding periods or obtaining complex legal opinions reciting facts supporting exemptions allowing private transactions before a stated holding period ran.
The federal government determined that encouraging capital formation by young companies was important for our economy, so it eased holding period and transfer requirements over the past several decades. An earlier long-standing two year holding period was reduced to one year twenty plus years ago and is now down to six months under Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933.
Today, with liberalized rules and shortened holding periods, privately transferring unregistered securities is far more easily accomplished. The liberalizations have virtually eliminated the need for the average investor to seek a no-action letter from the SEC — a letter that states that under the facts presented, the SEC would take no enforcement action against the proposed securities transfer.
Private transactions are now more readily seen by regulators as exempt under Section 4(a)(1) of the Securities Act or under the SEC’s shortened Rule 144 holding periods.
Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 authorizes private placements by exempting from registration “transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering.” Meanwhile, Section 4(a)(1) exempts from registration “transactions by any person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.”
Accordingly, investors who hold private placements can sell their securities in a private sale without registration if they are not considered an “underwriter.” Under section 2(a)(11), a person may qualify as an “underwriter” if he acquires securities with a view to “distribution” or is participating in a “distribution,” which generally means an offering that is not a private offering. Because it is based on a combination of Sections 4(a)(1) and 4(a)(2), the resale exemption is often referred to as “Section 4(1-1/2).”
In 2015, the FAST Act created a new exemption for certain resales of securities. While the newly-created Section 4(a)(7) of the Securities Act is largely intended to codify Section 4(1-1/2), it contains its own specific requirements. They include:
Rule 144 authorizes the public resale of restricted securities provided that a number of conditions are met. If you are not (and have not been for at least three months) an affiliate of the company issuing the securities and have held the restricted securities for at least one year, you can sell the securities without satisfying the conditions of Rule 144. An affiliate is a person, such as an executive officer, a director or large shareholder, in a relationship of control with the issuer.
If the issuer of the securities is subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements and you have held the securities for at least six months but less than one year, you may sell the securities as long as the current public information condition is satisfied. It mandates that there is adequate current information about the issuing company publicly available before the sale can be made. For reporting companies, this generally means that the companies have complied with the periodic reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. For non-reporting companies, this means that certain company information, including information regarding the nature of its business, the identity of its officers and directors, and its financial statements, is publicly available.
Even if you can satisfy all the conditions of Rule 144, you must still have the legend removed from the certificate. Transfer agents can remove a restrictive legend; however, they will typically only do so if the issuer consents—usually in the form of an attorney’s opinion letter to the transfer agent. So, although transfer agents may still require a legal opinion letter to affect a private transaction, these letters have become far less difficult to obtain and require far less of an attorney’s fact review time.
Finally, state regulators remain relevant, depending upon where you reside. Virtually all states have isolated transaction exemptions applicable to the typical investor in a private transaction. As a result, the entire process of privately transferring your unregistered securities investments is now a “piece of cake.”
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan Brecher, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
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!