Developments in Securities Regulation, Corporate Governance, Capital Markets, M&A and Other Topics of Interest. MORE

In a recent speech, Keith Higgins, Director, SEC Division of Corporation Finance, gave his views on certain misperceptions and other matters regarding general solicitation under the JOBS Act.

Mr. Higgins noted that since general solicitation became effective, almost 900 new offerings have been conducted in reliance on the exemption, raising more than $10 billion in new capital.  But that pales in comparison to the use of the old “private” Rule 506 exemption (now called Rule 506(b)) which, during the same time period, was relied upon in over 9,200 new offerings that resulted in the sale of over $233 billion in securities.

Mr. Higgins noted one wonders why the new Rule 506(c) exemption has not caught on more widely with issuers who have long clamored for the general solicitation ban to be lifted. He spoke to three of the most commonly-heard explanations:

1.         Reasonable Steps to Verify. Some believe that the reluctance of issuers to use the new Rule 506(c) exemption is because the rule requires that the issuer take “reasonable steps to verify” the accredited investor status of a purchaser. It’s not true that the rule requires that an accredited investor produce his or her tax returns or brokerage statements in all circumstances. There are actually two paths for complying with the rule’s verification requirement. Issuers can rely on one of the four non-exclusive verification methods for a natural person that, if used, would be deemed to satisfy the verification requirement. The other method, however, is the principles-based verification method in which the issuer would look at the particular facts and circumstances to determine the steps that would be reasonable to verify that someone is indeed an accredited investor.

When using the principle-based verification method consider:

  • How much information about the prospective purchaser does the issuer already have? The more information the issuer has indicating that the person is an accredited investor, the fewer verification steps that it may have to take to comply with the rule’s requirement.
  • How did the issuer find the prospective investor? A person that the issuer located through publicly-accessible and widely-disseminated means of solicitation may need to undergo a greater level of verification scrutiny than a person who may have been pre-screened as an accredited investor by a reasonably reliable third party.
  • Are the terms of the offering such that only a person who is truly an accredited investor could participate? The ability of a purchaser to satisfy a minimum investment amount requirement that is sufficiently high such that only accredited investors, using their own cash, could reasonably be expected to meet it is relevant in deciding what other steps are needed to verify accredited investor status.

The SEC has had recent inquiries asking whether the staff would provide guidance – presumably on a case-by-case basis – confirming that a specified principles-based verification method constitutes “reasonable steps” for purposes of the rule’s requirement.  Mr. Higgins noted the notion of the staff reviewing and approving specific verification methods seems somewhat contrary to the very purpose of a principles-based rule and he is not yet convinced of the need for this type of staff involvement.   According to Mr. Higgins, while the staff may not be in a position at this point to provide guidance on what constitutes “reasonable steps” under particular circumstances, he believes the staff will not be quick to second guess decisions that issuers and their advisers make in good faith that appear to be reasonable under the circumstances.

2.         Definition of “General Solicitation.” Mr. Higgins noted another commonly-heard criticism is that the definition of a “general solicitation” is too vague, creating so much uncertainty about whether a particular communication or activity is a form of general solicitation that issuers have adopted a very cautious mindset about the new Rule 506(c) exemption.  He stated some may even be under the erroneous impression that the Commission has broadened the definition so that activities such as “venture fairs” and “demo days” are now prohibited. The truth of the matter is that the recent rulemaking has not changed any notions of what constitutes a general solicitation.

3.         “Overhang” of the 2013 Regulation D Proposal.  Mr. Higgins observed that he cannot predict what the Commission will ultimately do on the pending Regulation D rule proposal, but he spoke to a fear the staff has heard expressed that the proposed requirements and penalties might be applied retroactively to offerings conducted before the adoption of the proposal. He pointed to comments of SEC Chair White where she stated that issuers are not expected to comply with any aspect of the rule proposal until such time as the Commission approves a final rule and such rule becomes effective.   Ms. White also expressed her expectation that the Commission will consider the need for transitional guidance for ongoing offerings that commenced before the effective date of any final rules, as it did when it adopted Rule 506(c) last summer.


Stinson Leonard Street LLP provides sophisticated transactional and litigation legal services to clients ranging from individuals and privately held enterprises to national and international public companies. As one of the 75 largest firms in the U.S., Stinson Leonard Street has more than 520 attorneys and offices in 14 cities, including Minneapolis, Mankato and St. Cloud, Minn.; Kansas City, St. Louis and Jefferson City, Mo.; Phoenix, Ariz.; Denver, Colo.; Washington, D.C.; Decatur, Ill.; Wichita and Overland Park, Kan.; Omaha, Neb.; and Bismarck, N.D.

The views expressed herein are the views of the blogger and not those of Stinson Leonard Street or any client.