Private Placements

SEC Approves Advertising for Private Placements

September 20, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

In a 4-1 vote, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) approved a rule that would now allow broker-dealers, hedge funds, and private equity firms to advertise to the general public for private placement securities offerings. Firms are still limited to sales to accredited investors. Accredited investors are defined as those who have a net worth of $1 million, excluding the value of the investors primary residence, or earning at least $200,000 annually. According to Investment News, there are 9 million homes in the United States that meet this standard.

The SEC’s new rule will require that private-placement issuers take reasonable and appropriate steps to assess an investor’s qualifications and ability to meet the accredited investor standard. According to the SEC, the broker may have to independently verify that the client meets the appropriate standards.

The new rule will give funds the ability to publicly solicit private investments. The SEC’s rule is an implementation of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act enacted by Congress in April 2012. Will the law help entrepreneurs raise capital or will investors lose another level of protection? Only time will tell.

SEC Issues Concerns Over Private Oil and Gas Offerings

September 7, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

Private securities offerings of oil and gas ventures pose a substantial danger for investor fraud. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), there has been an increase in the number of civil fraud cases related to oil and gas private placements. Investing in private placement offerings carries unique risks and private oil and gas offerings have additional risks for investors to be aware of and to consider.

The SEC’s Investor Alert listed common red flag sales pitches that fraudulent oil and gas investments often make to investors including:

Sales pitches referring to high oil and gas prices;

John S. Turo Settles With Regulatory Agency Concerning Allegations of Selling Unregistered Securities

August 30, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

John S. Turo (a/k/a James S. Turo) recently reached a settlement with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) concerning allegations that he sold unregistered, nonexempt securities through general solicitation of the public in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 and in violation of NASD Rule 2110 and FINRA Rule 2010. The FINRA settlement result in a fine of $20,000. Turo became a registered securities representative and principal in 2003. From May 2005 until April 2007, Turo was associated with Innovation Capital, LLC. Starting in 2001, Turo was also associated with GT Securities, Inc. (GT Securities a/k/a Growthink Securities, Inc., Growthink, Inc., GTK Partners). Turo is the Managing Director and Chief Compliance Officer of GT Securities.

From 2008 and through 2010, Growthink issued securities to raise capital for GT Securities. In order to raise the capital, Turo sold private placements investments in Growthink to approximately 46 investors totaling $2,611,124. FINRA alleged that the private placement sales were nonexempt securities offerings that violated Rule 506 of Regulation D requiring registration and prohibits general solicitation of the investment to the public.

In order to sell the Growthink securities, FINRA alleges that Turo held webinars online on topics such as strategic business planning, entrepreneurship, and private equity investing that included general solicitations for investments in Growthink. The webinars were open to the general public. In addition, investors did not need a pre-existing relationship with Growthink or Turo in order to register and participate in the webinars. Thus, the webinars lacked a pre-screening process in order to limit the participants to only those who would qualify as accredited investors under the securities laws governing the sale of private placements. FINRA’s complaint alleged that the foregoing sales practices and the private placement offering itself violated various securities laws.

vFinance Investments Inc. Settles Dispute Concerning Private Placements

August 26, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has settled a dispute with vFinance investments, Inc. (vFinance) concerning several violations of the securities laws including selling private placements in violation of the securities laws, failure to supervise, failure to disclose that the firm had worked with a statutorily disqualified person, and failure to retain and review email communications.

vFinance has been a FINRA member since 1998 has approximately 8 branch offices and employs about 40 registered representatives. The recent settlement is not the first time vFinance has been investigated by regulators. According to CRD records, there have been a total of 16 SEC, state, and FINRA regulatory actions initiated against vFinance in the past ten years.

The recent FINRA allegations concern several alleged violations. First, FINRA alleged that vFinance violated Regulation M. Regulation M is intended to prevent manipulative practices in the course of a securities offering by persons with an interest in the outcome by preventing conduct that could artificially influence a security’s market. In this case, FINRA alleged that vFinance representatives solicited nearly $6 million from investors for the PERF Go-Green Holdings, Inc. (PGOG) private placement. During the offering period, vFinance placed the PGOG’s common stock on the firm’s restricted list in order to avoid any potential conflict. However, despite the PGOG being placed on the firm’s restricted list, 22 customers of two representatives have been accused of selling 255,300 shares of the common stock of PGOG when the issuer was on the firm’s restricted list.

Sunset Financial Services, Inc. Fined by FINRA Regarding Private Placement Sales

July 13, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

On July 12, 2013, Sunset Financial Services, Inc. (Sunset) reached a settlement with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) concerning allegations that Sunset failed to supervise the sale of certain private placement securities. FINRA accused Sunset of failing to establish and maintain appropriate supervisory systems in compliance with FINRA rules regarding the sale of private placements.

The FINRA complaint alleges that the improper activity took place between January 2008 and March 2011. Sunset began private placement investment sales in 2001 and in 2004 the fund at issue was approved for sale to customers by Sunset. The private placement provided bridge loans for short-term mortgages for properties in California and Arizona. Sunset was paid 2% of sales plus trail concessions from the fund. In 2008, Sunset made $1.14 million form the total $57 million raised for the private placement.

According to FINRA, the first red flag indicating that the private placements were not as safe as the firm was advertising to customers occurred in 2008. At that time, a third party published a report on that highlighted that the mortgages the fund invested in had experienced a 20% increase in the rate of default. Sunset failed to follow up on the report such as re-evaluating the adequacy of keeping the fund on an approved sales list. The second red flag occurred from 2008-2009 when the private placement no longer allowed fund redemptions due to financial difficulties. It was also later discovered that the CEO of the private placement was also the son of a registered representative of Sunset.