some compliance and disclosure interpretations relating to the use of 506(b by an online private placement under Regulation D.
The issue?
Which private placement offerings will be found to
involve a general solicitation and are therefore subject to the more challenging requirements of the new Rule 506(c, and which private placement offerings can still qualify under the tried and true 506(b.
Noteworthy observations but only speaking generally.
An offering of securities to an angel investing
club is not a general solicitation
With large groups it depends who attends and
the purpose of the meeting. If the company is presenting an offering of securities to a large
group of people who have no specific
relationship to the organizers, then one can reasonably conclude that this is, in fact, a general solicitation.
There is no specific waiting period to create a
pre-existing relationship.
Whether an issuer has sufficient information to
evaluate an investors financial circumstances and sophistication will turn on the facts.
The SEC apparently (reading between the lines
somewhat) prefers an issuer to use a series of special purpose vehicles for investment in portfolio companies, rather than using blind pools. Operative SEC language: . . . . the quality of the relationship between an issuer (or its agent) and an investor is the most important factor in determining whether a substantive relationship exists. A "substantive" relationship is one in which the issuer (or its agent) has sufficient information to evaluate an offeree's financial circumstances and sophistication when determining status as an accredited or sophisticated investor. See,
e.g., Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. (Dec. 3,