SEC Proposes New Form D Filing Requirements

On July 10, 2013, the same day it announced the adoption of rules permitting general solicitation under certain conditions and disqualifying “bad actors,” the Securities and Exchange Commission issued proposed new rules entitled “Amendments to Regulation D, Form D and Rule 156 under the Securities Act.” The proposal dramatically increases the Form D filing requirements for Rule 506 offerings and increases the consequences for failing to file Form D or filing Form D late.

In a previous post, I discussed the fact that the consequences for failing to file Form D are usually not significant and usually can be cured. If this proposed rule is enacted, this will change.

The proposed amendments to Regulation D would institute the following:

  • In Rule 506(c) offerings (i.e., offerings in which general solicitation is permitted), the issuer would be required to file an “Advance Form D,” covering certain of the items required in a regular Form D, at least 15 days before the issuer commences any general solicitation;
  • In any Rule 506 offering, the issuer would be required to file a closing amendment to Form D within 30 days after the termination of the offering;
  • Issuers that failed to file any required Form Ds within the last five years would be disqualified from relying on Rule 506 in any further offerings (however, failures to file before the effective date of the rule would be grandfathered). If the issuer then files all delinquent Form D filings, the disqualification would expire one year after the delinquent filings had been completed. Issuers would get a one-time (per offering) 30-day cure period, so for instance, if one Form D filing is 10 days late, no disqualification would occur, but if the issuer was then late on a second filing, the issuer would be disqualified from using Rule 506 for another year;
  • Under a new Rule 509, issuers would be required to include certain legends (i.e., disclaimers) in any written general solicitation materials used in a Rule 506(c) offering and additional disclosures for private funds if such materials include performance data;
  • Under a new Rule 510T, for a temporary period of two years, issuers would be required to submit online to the SEC, on a nonpublic basis, any written general solicitation materials used in Rule 506(c) offerings no later than the date of first use;
  • Private funds’ offering documents would be subject to the anti-fraud guidelines contained in the current Rule 156 (which currently applies only to mutual funds). This would apply regardless of whether the private fund uses general solicitation; and
  • Form D would be revised to require more detailed information.

Some of the proposed rule changes are perfectly appropriate and reasonable. For instance, creating guidelines for private fund offering documents, in my view, will not be particularly burdensome and may be helpful for the fund’s legal counsel in giving guidance on what is appropriate to disclose. Nor do I have any real issue with adding some additional questions to Form D. However, I do have many significant issues with these proposed rules, namely:

  1. Automatically disqualifying issuers from using Rule 506 simply for failing to file what is, in the end, mere paperwork seems like an overly harsh penalty. Form D is not an investor protection requirement; it is there to help the government keep current on trends in the private securities market. Since the disqualification is automatic, it is possible that companies will be disqualified from Rule 506 without even being aware of the fact and that a determination would be made that the issuer was disqualified after the completion of an offering, subjecting the issuer and its owners, officers, directors, and other personnel and advisers to significant civil and criminal liability. This is especially true given that after the effectiveness of this rule, issuers would be subject to many Form D filing requirements: (1) 15 days prior to general solicitation (if used), (2) 15 days after the first sale, (3) “as soon as practicable” after there are certain material changes to the offering or it is discovered that there was a mistake in the original filing, (4) annually for offerings that last over one year, and (5) within 30 days after the end of the offering. With some of these, it can be difficult to discern when the deadline actually occurred. For instance, when does an offering actually end? Sometimes that is clear. Many times, if the full amount of the offering is not sold, it is not clear. What constitutes “as soon as practicable?” Often times the deadline for filing some Form Ds or amendments is not clear-cut — which seems at odds with the purpose behind Rule 506 of providing a safe harbor, i.e., a method of complying with the rules that gives a certain level of comfort and certainty to the person attempting such compliance.
  2. The harsh penalty of being unable to raise money in a Rule 506 offering can potentially be a death sentence. If a company is in an early growth stage, it is often dependent on raising capital. If it can’t do it, the company may fail completely. The penalty for failing to file paperwork should not be a corporate death sentence! (For an example of a company that was unable to raise further funds because of securities violations, see the example of Neogenix Oncology, in the following posts: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3).
  3. I am also somewhat uncomfortable with increasing the number of Form D filings that are required. For larger institutions or private funds this may not be much of an issue, but for startups, more required paperwork just gives the startup more opportunities to run afoul of the law, without providing investors any additional protections.
  4. Another issue I have with the proposed rule is that Form D must be filed at least 15 days prior to the commencement of a general solicitation. If the frequently held “investor pitch days” were ever deemed to be a general solicitation (and there are at least some good arguments on why they could be, as discussed in this great post by William Carleton), the fact that the pitching companies did not file Form D at least 15 days in advance could already disqualify them from raising funds.
  5. All written general solicitation materials must be submitted to the SEC prior to their use. Sounds reasonable, right? What happens the next time a startup founder tweets about his capital raise? That could be a violation if the SEC doesn’t get a copy of the tweet first (which of course, is never going to happen).

I could go on. These rules, I suspect, will not be as harsh on the private fund industry, which is already accustomed to a fairly significant regulatory compliance burden. But for startups, if enacted, they would be a massive obstacle to growth. These rules are not yet in effect. I’m hoping that the startup community makes itself heard and gives feedback to the SEC, so that the final rules do not end up making us rue the day the SEC lifted the ban on general solicitation.


© 2013 Alexander J. Davie — This article is for general information only. The information presented should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.

About Alexander Davie

Alexander Davie is a corporate and securities attorney based in Nashville, Tennessee. Businesses of many varieties rely on his counsel and judgment throughout all stages of their growth. In particular, fund managers and investment management professionals seek the expertise Alex gained when he served as general counsel to a private investment fund. Alex also has significant experience and enjoys working with companies and entrepreneurial ventures, especially within the technology industry. As a believer in technology's ability to enrich people's lives and allowing people to connect with each other in new ways, he is passionate about helping tech startups achieve success. He is active in Nashville's startup community as a mentor at the Nashville Entrepreneur Center and participates in numerous other events geared towards making Nashville a nationally ranked location for starting a business.

You can read more about Alex here.

Comments

  1. I’ve been searching everywhere for a copy of the new Form D that is going to need to be filed with the SEC. Has it been published yet? Also, I have been looking for the “intake page” on the SEC’s website where the solicitation material will need to be submitted. No luck there either. Are either of these things available? Will they be available soon?

    • Collin,

      The new form D has not been published yet, neither has the intake page. The regulations are merely proposed regulations and may change significantly before they are approved (if ever). Hopefully they will change significantly. I expect that once the regulations are in final form, you will begin to see these items published.

      • Thank you! The problem I’m running into is that my boss is very eager to get started on this, and is envisioning a launch on September 23rd, and I can’t find any concrete information to give to him yet. The only thing I’m sure about (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that issuers who rely on 506(c) will only be able to sell to accredited investors, and that the issuers are responsible for ensuring the accreditation. Also that issuers are responsible for making sure that disclaimers are evident throughout the solicitation materials (the “Legend”).

        I’ve also told him of the “bad actor” rule.

        Am I missing anything?

        Thanks a bunch for your time.

        • Well, by the fact that you’re asking, I take it you don’t have securities counsel? If so, I highly recommend that your company retains counsel before attempting a securities offering. Securities law is very contextual, and so there could be any number of issues that are implicated by your company’s situation.

          • Thanks again!

            We’ve actually scheduled a meeting with a securities attorney for next week.

    • One other thing: Form D is only filed electronically; there is no paper version, so I don’t know if you’ll ever see an updated paper version of the Form.

      Form D will be updated soon to add the new Rule 506(c) option.

  2. Hi Alexander, very informative, thank you, Is the proposed new form D filing requirement pass already?

    • No the proposed regulations have not been approved as of yet. They ended up extending the comment period and received many negative comments, so the final regulations may end up being very different.

Trackbacks

  1. AngelList Posts Thoughtful Comments to Proposed SEC Form D Regulations

    On August 12, 2013, the crowdfunding platform AngelList submitted some really great and thoughtful comments

Leave a Reply