
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comCounsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comLegal issues can arise when a start-up company or private investment fund uses its own employees or other third party “finders” to identify and solicit investors to provide capital via a private securities offering. In many cases, these individuals perform activities that require registration with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC).
Using an unregistered person or entity to find funding creates risk for issuers in securities offerings, including aiding and abetting liability for violating federal or state securities laws. Investors can seek the return of their invested funds via claims for rescission.
The Exchange Act prohibits a person from engaging in the business of effecting transactions in securities without a license. As set forth in SEC guidance, registration as a broker-dealer is generally required if a person (1) actively solicited investors, (2) advised investors as to the merits of an investment, (3) regularly participated in securities transactions, and (4) received commissions or transaction-based remuneration. If the SEC finds that an individual satisfies any of the above factors, registration may be required. Accordingly, true “finders” should not do more than make introductions in exchange for a fee. For issuers, that means contracts should be structured so that the finder gets paid regardless of whether or not any securities are sold.
Of course, as with many securities laws, there are a number of exemptions. Most notably, the JOBS Act contains an exception from broker registration for a distinct class of intermediaries assisting in securities offerings who are exempt under Rule 506 of Regulation D. This narrow exemption applies to online intermediaries used in connection with Rule 506 offerings. To qualify for the exemption, the “finder” must (1) maintain a platform or mechanism that permits the offer, sale, purchase, negotiation, general solicitations, general advertisements, or similar activities by issuers, whether online, in person, or through other means, (2) co-invest in the offering, and (3) provide ancillary services with respect to the offering.
This exemption further requires that the online platform (1) may not receive any compensation in connection the purchase or sale of the security; and (2) may not have possession of customer funds or securities in connection with the purchase or sale of the security, and (3) may not receive separate compensation in connection with providing investment advice to the issuers or to investors.
While there are legal pitfalls for securities issuers who utilize unregistered “finders” to solicit investors, that practice continues, with issuers, “finders” and brokers seeking to act, knowing or unknowing, under the radar. However, should an unhappy investor seek resolution, by lawsuit or complaint to a regulatory body (SEC, FINRA, State Blue Sky regulator), the radar can be aroused and the regulators may take a look, whether or not rescission is granted by the issuer in a settlement, or ordered by a court.
Issuers and unregistered finders are not the only ones subject to legal pitfalls here. The SEC is increasingly aggressive in bringing enforcement actions and imposing sanctions on private equity firms, fund managers and brokerage firms who aid or abet finders’ violations of broker-dealer registration requirements. The SEC also looks at unregistered broker-dealer issues in its compliance exams of private investment funds. While there is SEC guidance available from no-action letters, rules and interpretations for brokers, investment platforms and crowdfunding, there is not sufficient public awareness of issues involving unregistered finders. Further regulatory actions and pronouncements can be anticipated.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Dan Brecher, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
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.
Legal issues can arise when a start-up company or private investment fund uses its own employees or other third party “finders” to identify and solicit investors to provide capital via a private securities offering. In many cases, these individuals perform activities that require registration with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC).
Using an unregistered person or entity to find funding creates risk for issuers in securities offerings, including aiding and abetting liability for violating federal or state securities laws. Investors can seek the return of their invested funds via claims for rescission.
The Exchange Act prohibits a person from engaging in the business of effecting transactions in securities without a license. As set forth in SEC guidance, registration as a broker-dealer is generally required if a person (1) actively solicited investors, (2) advised investors as to the merits of an investment, (3) regularly participated in securities transactions, and (4) received commissions or transaction-based remuneration. If the SEC finds that an individual satisfies any of the above factors, registration may be required. Accordingly, true “finders” should not do more than make introductions in exchange for a fee. For issuers, that means contracts should be structured so that the finder gets paid regardless of whether or not any securities are sold.
Of course, as with many securities laws, there are a number of exemptions. Most notably, the JOBS Act contains an exception from broker registration for a distinct class of intermediaries assisting in securities offerings who are exempt under Rule 506 of Regulation D. This narrow exemption applies to online intermediaries used in connection with Rule 506 offerings. To qualify for the exemption, the “finder” must (1) maintain a platform or mechanism that permits the offer, sale, purchase, negotiation, general solicitations, general advertisements, or similar activities by issuers, whether online, in person, or through other means, (2) co-invest in the offering, and (3) provide ancillary services with respect to the offering.
This exemption further requires that the online platform (1) may not receive any compensation in connection the purchase or sale of the security; and (2) may not have possession of customer funds or securities in connection with the purchase or sale of the security, and (3) may not receive separate compensation in connection with providing investment advice to the issuers or to investors.
While there are legal pitfalls for securities issuers who utilize unregistered “finders” to solicit investors, that practice continues, with issuers, “finders” and brokers seeking to act, knowing or unknowing, under the radar. However, should an unhappy investor seek resolution, by lawsuit or complaint to a regulatory body (SEC, FINRA, State Blue Sky regulator), the radar can be aroused and the regulators may take a look, whether or not rescission is granted by the issuer in a settlement, or ordered by a court.
Issuers and unregistered finders are not the only ones subject to legal pitfalls here. The SEC is increasingly aggressive in bringing enforcement actions and imposing sanctions on private equity firms, fund managers and brokerage firms who aid or abet finders’ violations of broker-dealer registration requirements. The SEC also looks at unregistered broker-dealer issues in its compliance exams of private investment funds. While there is SEC guidance available from no-action letters, rules and interpretations for brokers, investment platforms and crowdfunding, there is not sufficient public awareness of issues involving unregistered finders. Further regulatory actions and pronouncements can be anticipated.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Dan Brecher, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!