October 21, 2020

Volume X, Number 295

October 21, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 20, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 19, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Securities and Exchanges Commission Prevails in Regulation A+ Litigation

Regulation A+, which became effective on March 25, 2015, permits the offering of up to $50,000,000 in securities in any twelve-month period, subject to the certain requirements (a “Tier 2 Offering”).  Tier 2 Offerings are not subject to state securities laws registration and qualification requirements due to federal preemption provided by Section 18 of the National Securities Market Improvement Act of 1996 (NSMIA) because such securities are offered or sold to a “qualified purchaser” (as defined by the  Commission).

When the proposed rules for Regulation A+ were issued by the SEC, several states filed comment letters raising concerns about federal preemption.  Once final rules for Regulation A+ were adopted, the Montana State Auditor Monica Lindeen filed a motion on behalf of the Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance (“MCSI”) to stay its enactment of Regulation A+, which the SEC denied.  As a result, on April 14, 2016, the Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, along with MCSI, petitioned the D.C. Court of Appeals for review of the final rules of Regulation A+.  On June 14, 2016, the Court denied the petition and ruled the SEC’s rules are permitted under the Securities Act.

Why were Montana and Massachusetts (as well as several other states’ security regulators) so upset with the federal preemption around Tier 2 Offerings by the SEC?  Primarily, they expressed concern that their citizens would not  be adequately protected by the requirements of a Tier 2 Offering.  They argued that the SEC exceeded its authority by adopting a definition of “qualified investor” for Tier 2 Offerings that permits potential investors that are neither accredited nor “sophisticated” to invest up to 10% of the greater of their annual income or net worth.  These states claimed that Tier 2 Offerings are more likely to be fraudulent than other types of offerings, pointing to the relatively higher rate of fraud in Rule 506 offerings (which are also subject to federal preemption), compared to Regulation A offerings. For this reason, these states argued that preemption of state laws providing for oversight over such offerings unnecessarily expose their citizens to misinformation, fraud, and financial harm.  They contended this risk is compounded by the fact that the SEC had not added any resources to adequately protect potential investors from potentially misleading or fraudulent issuer offerings.

The SEC has made clear it disagrees with such assertions.  The SEC has stated that the increased requirements of a Tier 2 Offering (as compared to a Tier 1 offering) are sufficient protection for investors, negating the need for such investors to be accredited or sophisticated.  These increased requirements  include mandating audited financial statements in the offering statements and providing for ongoing reporting. In addition, the SEC has pointed out that the states still maintain oversight over Tier 1 offerings, which are anticipated to be more local in nature.  However, since Tier 2 offerings are anticipated to be larger national offerings the SEC reasoned that the offering process needs to be more streamlined, and that additional oversight by states would be unnecessarily duplicative and redundant, adding that adequate investor protection is provided by the more stringent disclosure requirements and limitations on how much unsophisticated investors may invest. Lastly, the SEC has pointed out that preemption under Tier 2 Offerings does not remove states’ ability to prosecute fraud after the issuance.

The D.C. Circuit court  ruling upholding the rules regulating Tier 2 Offerings confirmed that the SEC had the authority to make these decisions and preempt state securities laws registration and qualification requirements by its adoption of the definition of a “qualified purchaser” in a Tier 2 Offering.  The court concluded that the SEC acted properly when it defined a “qualified purchaser” under a Tier 2 Offering to include purchasers who, while not accredited investors, limited their purchases to no more than 10 percent of their annual income or net worth.  The court ruled that when Congress enacted the JOBS Act, it gave the SEC the proper authority to define the term “qualified purchaser” for different types of securities offerings.  Although the D.C. court acknowledged the new rules “stripped a layer of state review” away, it stated that investors would still be adequately protected by the new rules for Tier 2 Offerings.

As time passes, it will be interesting to see whether the contentions of the SEC or states regarding the level of adequate protection necessary for investors in a Tier 2 Offering will be borne out.

Copyright © 2020, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.National Law Review, Volume VI, Number 179

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

John Hempill, Corporate Lawyer, Sheppard Mullin, private and public finance
Partner

Mr. John Hempill is a partner in the Corporate Practice Group in the firm's New York office.

Areas of Practice

John Hempill is counsel to a number of companies in various industries. He has extensive experience in private and public finance, ranging from representing private emerging growth companies, venture capital funds and strategic investors in seed rounds and later stage private financings, to representing public companies and investment banks in public offerings, as well as 144A and PIPE financings.

Mr. Hempill is also an experienced mergers and...

212-634-3073
Kevin P. Rogan, Sheppard Mullin, Interface Innovation Attorney, consumer internet start ups lawyer
Associate

Kevin Rogan is an associate in the Corporate Practice Group in the firm's Palo Alto office. He has particular experience working with startups. 

Prior to attending law school, Kevin worked for several years in Silicon Valley as a Product Manager for a variety of consumer internet start-ups, before eventually working for Yahoo!.  As a Product Manager, Kevin designed, launched, and managed several successful online products and services.  He was one of the early employees at Shutterfly, which is now a public company and a leader in the field of consumer digital photography products.  Kevin later worked as a Product Manager for Yahoo! Travel where, among other things, he won an award for the best “Hack Day” original idea conceived and turned into a working prototype in one day.

650.815.2625