
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: August 29, 2016

Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comIn many cases, start-ups and other small businesses are selling company stock without registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or state regulatory authority. However, the key question is whether the offering qualifies for one of several exemptions from registration under the federal Securities Act of 1933 or state laws regulating the offering and sale of securities (often referred to as blue sky laws).

By way of example, you generally don’t need to file with securities regulators when forming your corporation and selling stock to yourself as well as co-founding shareholders. You also may not need to file with regulators when raising some initial capital from friends and family. However, it is imperative to thoroughly analyze what exemptions, if any, may apply to your particular stock sale, issuance or grant. Companies should also be mindful that federal and state laws do differ, so registration may be required by one regulator and not the other.
Start-ups commonly take advantage of Rule 701 under the Securities Act when making equity awards to key members of the company. Rule 701 exempts certain compensatory equity awards issued to directors, officers, employees, trustees, service providers, etc. The key requirement is that the stock must be awarded pursuant to a written compensatory benefit plan or compensation contract. Accordingly, it may not be used for capital-raising transactions. Notably, Rule 701 is available to consultants and advisors, provided that they are natural persons who provide bona fide services to the issuer.

Start-ups also frequently rely on Rule 506(b) of Regulation D when awarding stock to directors and executive of officers. Regulation D is a “safe harbor,” meaning that if you comply with the rule you are considered to have engaged in an offering that is exempt from registration. Even if you fail to comply with Regulation D, that doesn’t mean that your corporation has conducted a public offering of securities that should have been registered. The issuance of shares to a founder, or even several founders, is almost always considered to be a transaction “by an issuer not involving any public offering,” which is an exempt securities offering under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act. Accordingly, registration under the ’33 Act is not required for such sales. You don’t lose the 4(a)(2) exemption just because you did not file the Form D.
Don’t take exemptions as a license to then look for investors by offering the company stock or the stock that you received to others through the internet, a newspaper advertisement or other media without first registering that further offering. The important thing to keep in mind is that the ’33 Securities Act registers offerings and the ’34 Securities Exchange Act registers shares. It is a common occurrence today that an offering of shares that is exempt from registration under the ’33 Act does not mean that the offering, or the resale of those shares (which constitutes a different offering), is also exempt.
Securities transactions that are not exempt from registration and are not registered with the SEC violate Section 5 of the Securities Act. Violations may result in injunctive or other enforcement proceedings brought by the SEC, as well as private suits by securities purchasers seeking damages or rescission. In addition to costly SEC penalties, the company may also be required to make a rescission offer for all securities subject to the illegal transaction.
Registration and exemption issues are important to consider before making any offer to sell or commitment to issue company securities, therefore, if you are unsure how to approach the matter or have any questions, please contact me, 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.

High-profile founder litigation is more than just a media spectacle. For startup founders, these cases underscore the legal and structural risks that can arise when rapid growth outpaces formal oversight. While launching a new company can be both an exciting and deeply rewarding endeavor, founders must be mindful that it also comes with significant risks. […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Every New Jersey company should periodically evaluate its governance framework. Strong corporate governance protects directors and officers, builds investor confidence, reduces litigation exposure, and positions a company for sustainable growth. The first quarter of the year is a great time to evaluate your corporate governance practices and perform any routine maintenance needed to keep that […]
Author: Ken Hollenbeck

Being served with a lawsuit is one of the most stressful legal events a business or individual can face. Whether the claim involves a contract dispute, an employment matter, an intellectual property issue, or another legal challenge, the actions you take in the first few days can significantly shape the outcome of your case. Acting […]
Author: Robert E. Levy

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) continue to gain momentum as we move through 2026. After enduring a significant contraction following the 2021 boom and the regulatory scrutiny that followed, SPAC activity rebounded sharply in 2025 and now carries forward into 2026 with real momentum. The SPAC resurgence reflects broader improvements in both market conditions and the […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Compliance programs are no longer judged by how they look on paper, but by how they function in the real world. Compliance monitoring is the ongoing process of reviewing, testing, and evaluating whether policies, procedures, and controls are being followed—and whether they are actually working. What Is Compliance Monitoring? In today’s heightened regulatory environment, compliance […]
Author: Dan Brecher

New Jersey personal guaranty liability is a critical issue for business owners who regularly sign contracts on behalf of their companies. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision provides valuable guidance on when a business owner can be held personally responsible for a company’s debt. Under the Court’s decision in Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. […]
Author: Charles H. Friedrich
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!