Source: https://www.stradley.com/insights/publications/2016/01/private-funds-alert-january-2016
Timestamp: 2020-07-13 07:44:10
Document Index: 784193853

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 11', 'art 10', 'art 9', 'art 8', 'art 7', 'art 6']

Private Investment Funds Alert, January 2016 Summary of the SEC’s Report on the Review of the Definition of ‘Accredited Investor’ | Insights | Stradley Ronon
Private Investment Funds Alert, January 2016
Summary of the SEC’s Report on the Review of the Definition of ‘Accredited Investor’
On Dec. 18, 2015, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission issued its Report on the Review of the Definition of “Accredited Investor” (the Report). The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act directs the SEC to review every four years the definition of “accredited investor” as it relates to natural persons to determine whether the definition should be modified or adjusted for the protection of investors, in the public interest and in light of the economy.
The Report itself is a very useful summary of the private placement exemption, the pros and cons of the current definition of accredited investor, and the pros and cons of any revisions to the current definition of accredited investor.
Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the 1933 Act), exempts “transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering” (private offering) from the registration and reporting requirements of Section 5 of the 1933 Act. The 1933 Act did not define what constitutes a private offering. In SEC v. Ralston-Purina, the Supreme Court stated that whether a transaction was public did not hinge on just the limitation of scope of the pool of offerees, but whether the pool of offerees “affected need[ed] the protection of the [1933] Act. An offering to those who are shown to be able to fend for themselves is a ‘transaction not involving any public offering.’” In identifying an example of a class of offerees who could fend for themselves, the Supreme Court cited “executive personnel who because of their position have access to the same kind of information that the [1933 Act] would make available in the form of a registration statement.”
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, the SEC promulgated Regulation D under the 1933 Act in an attempt to define a pool of investors referenced in the Supreme Court’s decision. Regulation D established a nonexclusive safe harbor. Transactions conducted in compliance with this safe harbor would be deemed to not affect natural persons or entities that needed the protection of the 1933 Act.
One of the types of transactions is an offering to “accredited investors.” Accredited investors are deemed to be sufficiently “sophisticated” and are capable of fending for themselves such that the protections of the 1933 Act are not needed. In promulgating Regulation D, the SEC used natural persons’ income and wealth as a proxy in determining that persons could fend for themselves and gain access to the same level of information as if the protections of the 1933 Act were provided.
Rule 501(a) of Regulation D under the 1933 Act defines an accredited investor as a natural person who 1) has a net worth or joint net worth with his or her spouse in excess of $1,000,000 (excluding their primary residence)1 on the date of purchase; or 2) had an income in excess of $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with that person’s spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of those years and who reasonably expects an income of the same level in the current year. Rule 501(a) of Regulation D also defines accredited investors to include certain listed entities, some of whom are required to meet an asset-based test.
In 2013, Regulation D was revised to allow a general solicitation (public announcement) of securities without registering under Section 5 of the 1933 Act, provided that all the investors who purchase the securities are accredited investors.
The income and net worth standards were set by the SEC in 1983.2 Congress, the SEC and members of the public have questioned whether the more than 30-year-old standard has become outdated. Since that time, inflation has increased the number of natural persons who qualify under the definition of accredited investor. In addition, other social and economic changes have occurred that do not fit neatly within the definition of accredited investor for both natural persons and entities. As an example, the SEC cited the use of limited liability companies, which is not specifically identified in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D.
In the Report, the staff of the SEC made a series of recommendations to the SEC Commissioners for their consideration. The main recommendations are to 1) revise the current financial thresholds for natural persons; and 2) allow for other forms of proof of investor sophistication. While the purpose of the Report was to review the definition of accredited investor for natural persons, the staff also included additional recommendations regarding the definition of accredited investor for entities:
The Commission should revise the financial threshold requirements for natural persons to qualify as accredited investors and the list-based approach for entities to qualify as accredited investors. The Commission could consider the following approaches to address concerns with how the current definition identifies accredited investor natural persons and entities:
Create additional inflation-adjusted income and net worth thresholds that are not subject to investment limitations.
The Commission should revise the accredited investor definition to allow individuals to qualify as accredited investors based on other measures of sophistication. The Commission could consider the following approaches to identify individuals who could qualify as accredited investors based on criteria other than income and net worth:
Permit individuals with experience investing in exempt offerings to qualify as accredited investors.
Permit knowledgeable employees of private funds to qualify as accredited investors for investments in their employer’s funds.
While the above are the SEC staff’s recommendations to the Commission, the SEC staff did not state that they found the current definition of accredited investor to be not protective. It is interesting to note that the SEC staff did not recommend the elimination of the accredited investor definition, but rather recommended modifications to the existing standards.
Many of the proposals above (e.g., allowing individuals to qualify as accredited investors based on other measures of sophistication) have been discussed for years, without any formal rule proposals. In addition, the SEC staff hinted that if the current definition of accredited investor is not revised, it should be coupled with a minimum investment amount or a limit on how much of a person’s net worth may be invested within a 12-month period. However, it is still too early to predict which recommendations the Commission will decide to implement or how long it would take to implement them. In addition, the Commission is currently composed of only three persons. With two additional individuals to be appointed, and depending on who those appointees are, any proposed rules may deviate from the recommendations in the Report.
1 Note: If the liability of a person’s residence exceeds the value of the residence, then that excess liability must be subtracted from that person’s net worth calculation.
2 The joint income standard of $300,000 was set by the SEC in 1988.
The posting of information on this website, or the receipt of information by viewers of this website, is not intended to – and does not – create an attorney-client relationship. This website is not intended to provide legal advice, and visitors to this website should refrain from acting on information posted here without seeking specific legal advice from individually qualified counsel.
Partner-in-Charge, Washington, DC
Chair, Private Investment Funds
ESG: All Aboard! Webcast
Nicole Kalajian Moderates Washington DC Compliance Round Table Web Event
The Banking Law Journal | PDF
Steve Feinour Discusses the ETF Rule on Nasdaq Webinar
Surviving Election Season:
Refresher on Pay-to-Play Rules for Investment Advisers
Peter Hong and Lawrence Stadulis Serve as Panelists for Strafford Webinar Focused on Recent SEC Enforcement Actions and Guidance
OCIE Examining LIBOR Transition Preparedness
DOL Unveils New ESG Proposal, Raising Significant Questions for ERISA Fiduciaries and the Industry
1940 Act Issues to Consider During the Pandemic - Part 11
Jamie Gershkow Serves as Panelist on ETFLogic Webinar Discussing the New ETF Rule
Private Fund Structuring “101”
ValueWalk | PDF
Private Equity in ERISA DC Plans: DOL Issues Guidance
Bruce G. Leto Honored at Settlement Music School 112th Anniversary Gala
1940 Act Issues to Consider During the Pandemic - Part 10
Deborah Hong and Cheri R. W. Johnson Honored by The Legal Intelligencer’s Professional Excellence Awards
Cord-Cutting: DOL Embraces Technology with New Retirement Plan Disclosure Safe Harbor
1940 Act Issues to Consider During the Pandemic - Part 9
SEC Proposes New Rule for Good Faith Determination of Fair Value
Nicole Kalajian Serves as Panelist for Chicago Bar Association Business Law Drafting and Negotiating Subcommittee Webinar
Bruce Leto Discusses SEC Emergency Relief for Fund Boards with the Independent Directors Council
COVID-19 Disaster Relief Arrives for Private-Sector Retirement Plan Sponsors and Administrators
SEC Adopts Offering Reforms for Registered Closed-End Funds and Business Development Companies
1940 Act Issues to Consider During the Pandemic - Part 8
1940 Act Issues to Consider During the Pandemic - Part 7
SEC Staff Previews Regulation Best Interest Examinations
1940 Act Issues to Consider During the Pandemic - Part 6
Stradley Ronon Investment Management Partners Provide Tips on Answering Client Questions Arising from Recent Market Volatility
Stradley Ronon Attorney Nicole Kalajian Addresses Cyber Security Concerns during COVID-19
Stradley Ronon Attorney Nicole Kalajian Participates in COVID-19 Discussion on Considerations for SEC and CFTC Registrants
Nicole Kalajian Speaks at International Blockchain Congress