Header graphic for print

EB-5 Insights

Where Government Policies and Business Realities Converge

The JOBS Act: Potential Pitfalls for Pooled Investment Vehicles and their General Partners, Managers and/or Regional Center Sponsors

Posted in Securities Law

By Steven Anapoell, Steven Felsenstein and Genna Garver

The hallways are abuzz with EB-5 Program conference attendees excited about the prospect of finally being able to conduct public campaigns for their projects by advertising, discussing projects in media interviews, undertaking internet marketing campaigns and website postings, and by sponsoring seminars and other broad-based capital raising meetings once the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopts rules to implement an expansive new law.[1]  Securities lawyers and conference speakers are explaining that the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”) removes the longstanding prohibitions against general solicitation and advertising in private offerings made pursuant to Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act, but only if all purchasers in these offerings are accredited investors, and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify using methods to be determined by the SEC that all investors are accredited.[2]  Careful lawyers and lecturers remind conference attendees that these securities law changes authorized by the JOBS Act are not yet in effect.  They also note that the new provisions do not obviate the need for a well-written, adequate disclosure document commonly referred to as a private placement memorandum or PPM.[3]  The changes in the law, however, will not reduce the risks of poorly implemented offerings.

The Potential Trap –

Implications for Private Investment Companies

Absent an exemption, pooled investment vehicles that raise capital from investors for the purpose of lending that capital to a project company are considered investment companies by the SEC. Accordingly, such a pooled investment vehicle must register with the SEC as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”) unless there is an available exemption or exclusion from registration.  Two exemptions commonly relied upon are found in Sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act.  Each of these requires that the securities being offered must not be part of a  “public offering.”

Historically, the SEC Division of Investment Management has taken the position that the concept of a public offering as applied under the 1940 Act has the same meaning as “general solicitation” and “general advertising” (i.e., “public offering”) under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), and has rejected any notion that the term “public offering” could have a different meaning under the 1940 Act.  However, with the redefining of the term “public offering” under the Securities Act by the JOBS Act,[4] and the SEC’s reported concerns about risks of abuse due to changes made under the JOBS Act, the staff of the Division of Investment Management may take the position that the term “public offering” in the 1940 Act has a different meaning than the term “public offering” in the Securities Act.  If this is the case, many pooled investment vehicles desiring to avoid registration as an investment company using either of these exemptions under the 1940 Act may find that they cannot engage in the general solicitation or general advertising activities soon to be permitted by the JOBS Act in connection with a securities offerings relying on the Rule 506 exemption.

Implications for the Advisers to Private Investment Companies

It is well settled that the general partner (or manager) of an investment company formed as a limited partnership (or limited liability company) that retains investment control over assets is likely to be deemed to be a “private fund adviser” required to register under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) or under comparable state securities laws.  Under the Advisers Act, the adviser (whether or not registered with the SEC) should be mindful that advertisements and solicitations remain subject to both the regulatory standards and anti-fraud provisions of the Advisers Act and rules thereunder, and that despite the JOBS Act’s removal of the prohibition against general advertising/solicitation under Rule 506, the SEC still retains broad oversight and anti-fraud authority under Section 206 of the Advisers Act.  Accordingly, the SEC could exercise this authority by issuing new rules that, in effect, make certain types of general solicitation and advertising fraudulent or misleading under the Advisers Act, thereby diminishing the scope of permitted marketing by pooled investment vehicles and their general partners or managers.

In addition, many state laws governing the registration of investment advisers provide an exemption from registration if the investment adviser satisfies certain conditions, including the condition that the investment adviser not hold itself out generally to the public as an investment adviser.  By undertaking general solicitation and advertising activities on behalf of a pooled investment vehicle, the applicable general partner or manager of a pooled investment vehicle may be treated as holding itself out to the public as an investment adviser, thereby making the investment adviser ineligible for an exemption that might otherwise be available..

Implications for Offerings pursuant to Regulation S under the Securities Act

Changes to the Securities Act effected by the JOBS Act do not apply to securities offerings exempt from registration pursuant to Regulation S promulgated by the SEC under the Securities Act. Accordingly, pooled investment vehicles relying on the Regulation S exemption will be prohibited from conducting directed selling efforts in connection with such offerings, despite their ability to advertise the offering under Rule 506 of Regulation D.

Implications for broker-dealers  under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Changes to the Securities Act also do not impact regulation of broker-dealers involved in the distribution of securities.  This is a separate topic that we note here so that a reader is alert to other concerns.

Conclusions

The JOBS Act does not address some issues of concern to issuers and advisers.  The JOBS Act does not amend either Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) under the 1940 Act, so the SEC could prohibit pooled investment vehicles that want to rely on 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) registration exemptions from using general solicitation and general advertising to offer securities to potential investors.  Without further guidance from the SEC, an issuer undertaking a general solicitation or advertising pursuant to the JOBS Act amendment to the Rule 506 could run afoul of the prohibition on public offerings contained in the 1940 Act and lose its exemption from registration.  This will depend on whether the SEC continues to treat the term “public offering” consistently in both the 1940 Act and the Securities Act.  If the SEC applies the new standards to pooled investment vehicles relying on the 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) exemption, then these pools may be able to approach a wider audience when seeking investors using a variety of media, including print and electronic communications, than previously had been permitted. 

The foregoing notwithstanding, we anticipate that the SEC will impose, as part of the rulemaking implementing the JOBS Act, certain content-based standards and restrictions on advertisements and other forms of solicitation by pooled investment vehicles undertaking the loan approach.

The JOBS Act also does not alter the authority of the SEC to regulate and oversee advisers to pooled investment entities, or any advertising that they use under changes that will be made to Rule 506.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of Greenberg Traurig LLP.  The comments contained herein do not constitute legal opinion and should not be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.


[1] Pooled investment vehicles generally have been prohibited from advertising or contacting potential investors other than those with whom either the general partner of the pooled investment vehicle or applicable third-party placement agent has a preexisting relationship.

[2] Rule 506 is a safe harbor exemption from Securities Act registration for non-public offerings of securities primarily to persons who are “accredited investors” under the Securities Act.

[3]  The JOBS Act directs the SEC to revise Rule 506 by July 4, 2012 to provide (i) that the prohibition against general solicitation and general advertising no longer apply to offers and sales of securities made under Rule 506, provided that all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors; (ii) that the SEC devise methods to be used by issuers to verify whether such purchasers are accredited investors; and (iii) that issuers undertake reasonable steps to verify that the purchasers are accredited investors.

[4] The JOBS Act amends Section 4 of the Securities Act to provide that offers and sales of securities that are exempt under Rule 506 will not be deemed public offerings for purposes of the federal securities laws as a result of general solicitation or general advertising.

EB-5 Overseas Funding Conference May 16-17, 2012

Posted in EB-5 Investment, EB-5 Program, Immigrant Investor, Regional Center, Speaking Engagement
 
USAdvisors presents:
Overseas Funding Conference
Finding Balance between The EB-5 Regional Center Program, Foreign direct investment and Business Realities

May 16-17, 2012
8:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
Agenda

Greenberg Traurig, LLP
MetLife Building
200 Park Avenue | 15th Floor | New York City

Please click here to register for this event

Visit Greenberg Traurig’s EB5 Blog at www.eb5insights.com

For more information please contact Dawn Lurie or Kate Kalmykov

Premier Sponsor

Nearby Hotels: Andaz 5th Avenue  | 485 5th Avenue | New York, NY 10017 |
T: +1.212.699.5702 Grand Hyatt | 109 East 42nd St. at Grand Central Terminal | New York, NY 10017 | T: +1.212.883.1234

USCIS Follow-up on the Conversation with Director Mayorkas Related to Tenant Occupancy

Posted in EB-5 Program, EB-5 Project, Regional Center

As we reported last week, on April 27, 2012, USCIS Director Mayorkas hosted a Conversation engagement with the EB-5 community on the tenant-occupancy economic model. During the call the Director remained firm that the USCIS had not changed its policy with respect to the use of the economic model. He explained that the new guidance that was issued in February was at the request of adjudicators who wanted to have set guidelines as to the information that applicants need to provide in order to document net new job creation.

Today, USCIS issued a statement in follow-up to that call confirming that they would hold a follow-up engagement with the USCIS’ staff economists on this topic. Additionally, USCIS also promised to provide additional time to regional centers who have been issued Requests for Evidence related to their use of tenant occupancy in the economic reports that outline job creation as part of their I-924 applications.

Are Loans Considered Securities For Purposes Of Applying The Investment Company Act Of 1940 To Pooled Investment Vehicles Making Loans To Project Companies?

Posted in Immigrant Investor, Securities Law

It is well settled that loans (even if just a single loan) are securities under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“ICA”) and that the definition of “security” under the ICA is much broader than that definition under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Aside from treatises and no-action letters discussing the fact that promissory notes are securities for purposes of the ICA, below are some references that you can review regarding the subject:

1. Protecting Investors: A Half Century of Investment Company Regulation, a report prepared by the Division of Investment Management of the Securities and Exchange Commission (1992). Specifically, footnote 251 of Chapter 1 (page 67) which provides, in relevant part:

“. . . notes representing the sales price of merchandise, loans to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and purchasers of merchandise or insurance, and mortgages and other interest in real estate are investment securities for purposes of the Act).”

2. ICA Section 3(c)(5) (dealing with certain equipment or mortgage backed loans) and ICA Rule 3a-7 (dealing with certain structured financings). Specifically, if promissory notes were not securities under the ICA, there would have been no reason to adopt such section or rule . . each of which provides qualifying issuers of securities an exemption from registration as an investment company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under the ICA.

3. SEC Release No. IC-18736 (proposed rule and request for comment) regarding Exclusion From the Definition of Investment Company for Certain Structured Financings (June 5, 1992); and SEC Release No. IC – 19105 (final rule) regarding Exclusion From the Definition of Investment Company for Structured Financings (November 19, 1992).

As a result of being a security under the ICA, parties involved in raising and/or deploying capital under the EB-5 Program must register (or find an available exemption from registration) with the SEC as an investment company and/or as an investment adviser under the ICA and Advisers Act, respectively. Finding an exemption from registration under the ICA, however, does not mean that there is an available exemption from registration under the Advisers Act. Further, even if an adviser is exempt from registration under the Advisers Act, the adviser must still determine whether it is also exempt from state investment adviser registration or regulation. It is well settled that the general partner of a limited partnership and the manager of a limited liability company are investment advisers under the Advisers Act if the limited partnership or limited liability company is an investment company (e.g., a pooled investment vehicle that makes a loan to a project company).

Failure to comply with the ICA or the Advisers Act may lead to substantial civil and criminal liability and penalties, including enforcement actions by the SEC and rescission actions by investors.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of Greenberg Traurig LLP. The comments contained herein do not constitute legal opinion and should not be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.

USCIS Seems to be Changing its Mind About Introducing Premium Processing for EB-5 Regional Center Applicants

Posted in EB-5 Program, Regional Center

During the EB-5 conversation with Director Mayorkas today, he indicated that the USCIS is reconsidering the promise they made almost a year ago to introduce Premium Processing for regional center designation applications with shovel ready projects. During a call that was supposed to focus on the tenant occupancy issue, Director Mayorkas indicated that the Service believes that they need to have sufficient time to examine I-924 applications and will postpone, if not all together reconsider, the introduction of Premium Processing.

Interestingly, the Director started off today’s call by noting that in addition to the economists and business analysts that USCIS has brought on board to examine these applications in the past several years, they are now seeking qualified securities attorneys as well. It seems clear that the Service intends to scrutinize applications more carefully to ensure that they are viable and in compliance with not only EB-5 regulations, but applicable securities laws. In the past year, we have seen that USCIS has sua sponte reopened the designations of previously approved centers and has requested further information to examine whether or not the applications should have been approved in the first place.

GT shares the Director’s concerns regarding the quality of applications being submitted. Look for Steve Anapoell‘s blog post on Monday regarding his discussions with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the application of the Investment Company Act and Investment Advisors Act with respect to capital raises and deployment within the EB-5 program.

Next week Steve and I will be attending the USCIS stakeholders meeting at the California Service Center on Tuesday and will provide a summary of the meeting to our readers.

The USCIS Tenant Occupancy Saga Continues

Posted in EB-5 Program, Regional Center

Last week, Steve Anapoell and I travelled to the Bahamas to speak at the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s EB-5 conference.  Without a doubt, USCIS’ change in position regarding the ability of regional centers to count jobs generated from tenants was a concern for many stakeholders in attendance and was addressed during numerous conference panels.  The new stance on the tenant occupancy economic methodology has put into jeopardy many regional center real estate development projects that seek credit for job creation by tenant businesses that lease space in the project.  It has created a significant element of risk for many existing regional centers and for many individual applicants with pending I-526 and I-829 petitions.  Moreover, many investors now fear that investing in commercial real estate projects may not result in the job creation required to obtain their green cards.  Given this uncertainty, some investors may also reconsider investment in the U.S., the stated goal of Congress in passing the EB-5 program.     

Many stakeholders, including the Association to Invest in the USA (IIUSA) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), have expressed their concerns regarding the uncertainty that both regional centers and investors will face in the EB-5 program as a result of the USCIS change in policy by penning letters to the USCIS.  It appears that USCIS has heard the complaints.  Earlier this week, USCIS announced that Director Mayorkas would be holding an in-person and telephonic conversation with stakeholders on the tenant occupancy economic model.  For those who wish to listen in, please see instructions here to RSVP for the invite. 

Since taking office, Director Mayorkas has been committed to engaging with stakeholders, particularly with respect to the EB-5 program.  I sincerely hope that he will consider the adverse impact that this change in policy has had to date and will continue to have on regional centers, investors and communities across the country relying on the jobs created by the construction of these projects, and urge USCIS to rescind the memorandum on tenant occupancy.

Save the Date: EB-5 Overseas Funding Conference

Posted in EB-5 Program, Regional Center, Speaking Engagement

USAdvisors presents:
Overseas Funding Conference

Finding Balance between The EB-5 Regional Center Program, Foreign direct investment and Business Realities

May 16-17, 2012
9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Greenberg Traurig, LLP
MetLife Building
200 Park Avenue | 15th Floor | New York City
Live from NYC, by webinar in other locations

Visit Greenberg Traurig’s EB5 Blog at www.eb5insights.com

For more information please contact Kate Kalmykov

Premier Sponsor

 

The Jobs Act: Improving Access to Capital Markets for Emerging Growth Companies

Posted in Securities Law

 The Jobs Act is intended to make it easier for smaller companies to raise public and private capital in the U.S. financial markets. Among the most significant provisions in the Jobs Act are the repeal of the prohibition on general solicitation for certain private offerings, the creation of a new category of issuers called “emerging growth companies” that would be exempt from, or subjected to reduced, regulatory requirements for a limited period of time, and the legalization of ‘crowdfunding’ through registered funding portals. The Jobs Act also includes other measures intended to make it easier for private issuers to raise capital and liberalizes provisions requiring private companies to become SEC public reporting companies based on the number of shareholders. Several provisions of the Jobs Act become effective immediately, while others will be implemented through future SEC rule making.

We invite our readers to read the attached GT Alert — The Jobs Act: Improving Access to Capital Markets for Emerging Growth Companies prepared by Stephen T. Adams and Robert E. Puopolo in our Boston office.

 

Avoid Becoming the Next Regional Center or Project Company Being Sued

Posted in EB-5 Investment, EB-5 Project, Regional Center

Recently, a prospective client informed me that it was not required to comply with the U.S. securities laws because all EB-5 money for their project would be raised outside of the U.S. from foreign investors. Not only is that not accurate, but any lawyer preparing disclosure documents relating to an EB-5 investment with the belief the he or she can simply use a template from another deal and “fill in the blanks” may find his or her client facing securities fraud litigation and/ or enforcement action by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).  Furthermore, SEC investigators are considering extending the reach of enforcement actions in cases involving complex financial transactions to lawyers who provided the legal advice on fraudulent deals .

Limited liability company interests and limited partnership interests generally are considered “securities” under federal and state securities laws.  As securities, the offer and sale of these interests to EB-5 investors are subject to the anti-fraud provisions of federal and state securities laws. While the anti-fraud provisions do not mandate or prescribe any specific disclosure, to assure compliance with the anti-fraud provisions, issuers of limited liability company interests or limited partnership interests should provide investors with full, fair and complete disclosure of all information that a reasonable investor would consider important in making an investment decision. Omissions of material facts can lead to substantial liability.  To inform investors of all material facts associated with an investment, well-advised issuers typically provide investors with a written disclosure document, commonly referred to as private placement memorandum, or PPM.  The PPM not only serves as a means of providing required information to investors, but also as a means of documenting that such information was provided to prospective investors, thereby avoiding later claims by disgruntled investors that material information was withheld in connection with their investment by the issuer.

If you would like to learn more about the steps involved in preparing a PPM, please click on the following link which will direct you to my article entitled Drafting Private Placement Memoranda for EB-5 Securities Offerings:  What the Treatises Don’t Tell You.

The Price of an EB-5 Based Greencard Just Got a Little Bit Cheaper

Posted in Immigrant Investor

Today the U.S. Department of State issued a press release announcing the implementation of new visa processing fees that will become effective beginning April 13, 2012.  Because of a reallocation in costs associated with immigrant visas, all categories of immigrant visa fees will decrease. 

As our readers know, having an approved EB-5 is just the first step in the process towards a greencard.  Once an EB-5 is approved by USCIS, the applicant must either consular process in the home country for their immigrant visa or adjust their status in the U.S. to a lawful permanent resident.  Previously an individual with an approved EB-5 petition and their dependents had to pay a fee of $305 each for immigrant visa processing at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad.  The new EB-5 based immigrant visa fee will be $220 per person.  Filing fees for Adjustment of Status will remain the same.