Skip to content

Compliance Building

Doug Cornelius on compliance for private equity real estate

Menu
  • Home
  • About
    • About
    • About Doug
    • About This Website
    • Why I Blog
    • Speaking Engagements
    • Contact
    • Publications
  • Archives
    • Topic Archive
    • Book Reviews
    • Most Popular
  • Subscribe
  • Disclaimers
    • Disclaimers
    • Policies and Procedures
    • Use of Site Content
    • Comments
    • FTC Disclosure
Menu

A Classic Example of a General Solicitation Failure

Posted on May 4, 2017 by Doug Cornelius
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The SEC opinion in KCD Financial Inc. (SEC Opinion 34-80340, March 29, 2017) affirms a fine and disciplinary action against KCD for selling securities in a private placement when no exemption from registration was available under Rule 506. The KCD opinion makes clear that you can’t fix the general solicitation failure by then only selling only to people had a prior relationship with issuer.

The action is against KCD, a broker-dealer, for selling the unregistered securities of Westmount Realty Finance’s WRF Distressed Residential Fund 2011. The offering’s PPM stated that the securities were being made in reliance on an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act and that interests in the Fund were being offered only to persons who were accredited investors as set forth in Regulation D. In 2011, that meant no general solicitation or advertising.

Westmount screwed up and issued a press release that ended up being published in two local newspapers. Westmount screwed up even further by linking to those newspaper articles from Westmount’s website.

As long ago as 1964, [the SEC] has held that the statutory definition of “offer to sell” included “any communication which is designed to procure orders for a security,” and that even a communication that did not on its face refer to a particular offering could nonetheless constitute an offer as long as it was “designed to awaken an interest” in the security. [Gearhart & Otis, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 7329, 1964 SEC LEXIS 513, at *59 (June 2, 1964), aff’d on other grounds, 348 F.2d 798 (D.C. Cir. 1965)]

The articles reported that “Dallas-based Westmount Realty Finance LLC announced Tuesday that it launched a $10 million real estate fund to acquire bank-owned residential properties and nonperforming, discounted residential loans.” (Yes, the article is still visible online.) That seems to clearly be general solicitation.

The argument from KCD was that it did not generally solicit any of the actual investors in the WRF Fund. When prospective new investors called, KCD asked if they had seen the article. If yes, they were not allowed to invest.

This argument was rejected. Once you engage in a general solicitation in violation of Rule 502(c), the Rule 506 exemption is not available for any subsequent sales of the securities regardless of limiting the sales only to investors who did not see the general solicitation. SEC guidance in 1983 pointed out that soliciting people with a pre-existing relationship and had reasonably believed that the recipients had the knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that he or she was capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the prospective investment is not general solicitation. “The mere fact that a solicitation is directed only to accredited investors will not mean that the solicitation is in compliance with Rule 502(c). Rule 502(c) relates to the nature of the offering not the nature of the offerees.”

Some of this has gone away since the SEC changed the general solicitation rules. Most firms do not want to check the box that says they engaged in general solicitation, fearing it will create greater SEC scrutiny.

Sources:

  • In the Matter of the Application for KCD Financial
  • SEC opinion reiterates strict position on general solicitations and affirms FINRA action against placement agent
  • Westmount Realty launches $10M RE fund
  • Interpretive Release on Regulation D, Securities Act Release No. 6455, 1983 SEC LEXIS 2288 (Mar. 3, 1983)

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search for Stuff

Recent Stories

  • Compliance Bricks and Mortar for January 16
  • Staff Report on Capital-Raising Dynamics
  • Compliance Bricks and Mortar for January 9
  • “Small”: I Don’t Think You Know What That Means
  • CFTC is Saying Goodbye to Private Funds
  • New York’s LLC Transparency Act Will Remain Limited
  • SEC and CFTC With Only Republicans
  • Compliance Books from 2025
  • Happy New Year
  • The One That Can Drive You and Give You Investment Advice

Fight Cancer

Please support my Pan-Mass Challenge
Make a donation to fight cancer. donate.pmc.org/DC0176
pan-mass challenge badge

I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. Since I’m a lawyer, this website may be considered attorney advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions. Please read my disclaimers page before taking any action. And then, don't take any action based on what I wrote.

Creative Commons logo with the text 'Some Rights Reserved' and three symbols representing attribution, non-commercial use, and share alike.

Compliance Building - by Doug Cornelius is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.