
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.

What Developers Need to Know About New Jersey’s Rent Control Exemption Law to Ensure Entitlement to Exemption for Newly Constructed Multi-family Housing. A property owner in Jersey City is facing a $400 million federal class action lawsuit alleging that the landlord did not follow the procedural steps required to be eligible for exemption from local […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon

The application of traditional federal securities laws to crypto assets continues to evolve. In some cases, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) considers tokens and other digital assets to be securities. This makes them subject to federal securities law, including the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This classification has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins

While the New York City real estate market can be extremely competitive, moving too quickly often backfires. Before purchasing a condominium or cooperative in New York City, it is important to do you homework. Purchasing property in NYC can involve a dizzying number of legal issues. These include condo and co-op rules, rent restrictions, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro

Smart contracts feature a unique blend of legal agreement and technical code. This innovation has the potential to reshape how business is conducted. At the same time, smart contract legal issues around enforceability, jurisdiction, identity, and compliance are common. The legal framework for these self-executing agreements is still evolving. What Are Smart Contracts? Smart contracts, […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins

Retaining top talent continues to be one of the greatest challenges facing employers today. Even in an employer’s market, the loss of a key employee can disrupt operations and result in significant costs. While compensation plays a role, long-term retention often depends on workplace culture, communication, and employee engagement. One increasingly popular strategy for improving […]
Author: Angela A. Turiano

Secured transactions form the backbone of a wide range of business dealings, including business loans, mortgages, and inventory financing. Because the stakes are often high and relatively minor oversights can have drastic consequences, lenders and borrowers should thoroughly understand how to form an enforceable security agreement that protects their legal rights. What Is a Secured […]
Author: Dan Brecher
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!