Articles Posted in Private Placements

Boogie Investment Group Inc. has submitted its withdrawal request to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The small broker-dealer is the 20th financial firm that sold Provident Royalties private placements to either leave the brokerage business or announce its intentions to depart. According to Investment News, that’s nearly 40% of independent broker-dealers. Just this year alone, 11 broker-dealers that sold the private placements closed shop. Provident’s bankruptcy receiver reports on its Web site that 52 broker-dealers sold the shares.

Boogie sold about $410K in private placements. Its revenue at the end of the fiscal year was $422K-a definite reduction from the $1.2M of three years back. One of the reasons Boogie decided to bow out of the industry is because of the litigation expenses stemming from the failed private placements. Not only is Boogie contending with a class action lawsuit, but also, it is faced with a securities case filed by investors that purchased Provident’s Shale Royalties products and other arbitration cases not related to Provident private placements.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has been tough on the financial firms and individuals that sold interests in private placements while allegedly failing to thoroughly investigate these products or even have reasonable grounds to believe that placements were suitable for clients. The failure to do the appropriate due diligence resulted in the firms being unable to know what were the risks involved. FINRA also says that the principals it has sanctioned lacked a reasonable basis for allowing their financial firms’ registered representatives to keep selling the offerings.

According to ex- SEC’s Office of International Corporate Finance chief Sarah Hanks, there is the strong possibility that Congress or the Securities and Exchange Commission will modify the agency’s ban on the general solicitation for private securities offerings and the number of shareholders that trigger reporting requirements. Hanks says that comments made by lawmakers and SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro indicate congressional intent to loosen the requirements, as well as “regulatory momentum.” Such changes could happen in the next couple of years.

Restricted securities are securities that did not go through the SEC’s registration and public processes. Requirements don’t allow issuers of nonpublic offerings relying on Section 4(2) of the 1933 Act or its safe harbor—Rule 506 of Regulation to use advertising or general solicitation to draw investors to their placements. The 1934 Securities Exchange Act’s Section 12(g) mandates that an issuer register securities “held of record” by at least 500 individuals and if the issuer’s total assets are over $10 million.

It was just recently that it became known that the SEC was investigating Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s (GS)’s reselling of Facebook-issued securities to investors. Earlier this year, the investment bank made the decision to limit the offering to offshore investors over concerns that the degree of media attention might result in a violation of US securities laws. According to The Wall Street Journal, although Facebook executives had to restructure the deal, the private offering of up to $1.5 billion in Facebook shares stayed on track. As of January, more than $7 billion in orders came through from foreign investors.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is calling on broker-dealers that sell high-risk Regulation D private placements to step up their due diligence efforts, including “pushing and pulling” for information about the financial products. FINRA chief executive and chairman Robert Ketchum says that although granted, levels of due diligence will not be the same for each deal, broker-dealers still need to play an active role when examining a Reg D offering.

Due diligence related to the sale of private placements has become a focus of attention since the Provide Royalties LLC and Medical Capital Holdings Inc. deals collapsed and the Securities and Exchange Commission charged them with fraud. With both deals, many of the broker-dealers that sold them depended on third-party firms to write the due diligence reports about the offerings. Yet, despite not doing any due diligence of their own, these broker-dealers still received a 1% “due-diligence fee” as part of the sale.

Ketchum says that attending a “canned information session” or just reading a document is not enough when part of one’s job is to actively sell or offer advice about private placements. He even suggested that in certain instances, such as when selling gas and oil well partnerships, broker-dealers should visit some of the key production areas.

Regulation D Private Placements
Regulation D Private Placements are usually sold to “accredited” investors” and a limited number of non-accredited investors. In addition to investigating Regulation D private placements before selling them, a broker-dealer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the investment is suitable for each customer and that each client fully comprehends the risks involved in investing.

Related Web Resources:

Finra’s Ketchum: B-Ds must ‘push and pull’ for Reg D details, Investment News, June 8, 2011
FINRA Sets Regulatory Guidance for Investigating Private Placements, FINRA, April 20, 2010

More Blog Posts:
Ameriprise to Sell Securities America Even as it Finalizes Securities Settlement with Investors of Medical Capital Holdings and Provident Royalties Private Placements, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 26, 2011
Provident Royalties Faces $485 Million Texas Securities Fraud, Says SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 26, 2009 Continue Reading ›

In a 3-2 vote, the Securities and Exchange Commission has agreed to propose a rule (mandated by Congress) that exempts Felons and Bad Actors” from private offerings pursuant to Rule 506 of Regulation D under the 1933 Securities Act. The SEC has also agreed—again in a 3-2 vote—to adopt final rules to set up a whistleblower bounty program.

Under the financial reform legislation’s Section 926, the SEC must bar the sales and offerings of securities by recidivist violators that are subject to certain disciplinary proceedings and sanctions or have a misdemeanor or a felony related to the sale or purchase of a security from being able to avail of the safe harbor act’s Rule 506. The rule lets issuers avoid the reporting requirements of the 1933 Act. It also makes up for approximately 93% of private securities that Reg D. offers.

The proposal would prevent a private placement from taking advantage of the rule if the issuer or individual covered by the rule had a disqualifying event, such as a criminal conviction, restraining order, court injunction, certain commission disciplinary orders, U.S. Postal Service false representation orders, commission “stop orders” to suspend exemptions, suspension or expulsion from membership in a “self-regulatory organization” (or from association with an SRO member), or final orders of insurance, state securities, banking, or credit union regulators. Covered persons include officers, directors, managing members of the issuer, 10-percent beneficial owners, and promoters of the issuer.

The Massachusetts Securities Division is requesting information from six broker-dealers regarding the sales of two private-placements that were marketed by Provident Royalties, LLC and Medical Capital Holdings Inc. The investment firms that have been subpoenaed are Centaurus Financial Inc., Investors Capital Corp., Independent Financial Group LLC, CapWest Securities Inc., National Securities Corp., and QA3 Financial Corp.

According to a statement issued last month by Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, Provident and Medical Capital put forth billions in securities that were purchased from the brokerage firms. Now, the state’s securities regulators want information from the broker-dealers regarding suitability data, due-diligence efforts, and promotional materials involving the private placement sales.

The six broker-dealers have expressed surprise that they received the subpoenas. Financial Group claims that the brokerage firm never approved the sale of any offerings from Provident Royalties or Medical Corp. Centaurus Financial is also claiming that it never approved any offerings that were bought from either company.

Investors Capital’s president and CEO, Tim Murphy, says the broker-dealer has never had a selling agreement with Medical Capital, while CapWest CEO Dale Hall says that the brokerage firm has just one client in Massachusetts. QA3 says that two of its clients in Massachusetts purchased $175,000 in Provident offerings but that the brokerage firm did not sell any Medical Capital offerings to investors in the state.

The Massachusetts Securities Division has been intensifying its efforts to examine private placement sales made by independent broker-dealers. Earlier this year, regulators in the state filed a securities fraud lawsuit against Securities America accusing the broker-dealer of misleading investors that bought risky private placements, which included $7.2 million in promissory notes.

Related Web Resources:
Broker-dealers dumbfounded by private-placement subpoenas, Investment News, March 23, 2010
Massachusetts Securities Division
Continue Reading ›

Contact Information