Scherzer Blog

Issuers should ensure that investors are not criminals

The JOBS Act requires that issuers wishing to engage in general solicitation take “reasonable steps” to verify the accredited investor status of purchasers. Rule 506(c) sets forth a principles-based method of verification which requires an objective determination by the issuer or its representatives that the steps taken are “reasonable” in the context of the particular facts and circumstances of each purchaser and transaction. But perhaps a question whether the investor is a felon should be added to the list.

A case decided in 2011 by California’s Court of Appeal, Second District, suggests that indeed it may be prudent for issuers to ensure that investors are not criminals. The plaintiff in this case intended to purchase units in a limited liability company, but was rejected after the mezzanine lender would not accept the plaintiff as a member due to his status as a former felon. The plaintiff subsequently sued the lender, alleging a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. After a dismissal by a trial court, the case was appealed, resulting in a conclusion that  (1) status as a felon is not a personal characteristic similar to those enumerated in the statute; (2) criminal convictions raised legitimate questions about the honesty and trustworthiness of the plaintiff, and the lender had legitimate business reasons justifying its decision; and (3) the potential consequences of allowing the plaintiff’s claim would improperly involve the courts in second-guessing a lending institution‘s expertise in determining loan and investment criteria. As lenders are absolved from potential liability under the Act, issuers who unwittingly accept convicted felons as investors may be jeopardizing their funding.

October 25th, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

Grace period for E-Verify compliance ends November 5, 2013

Now that E-Verify services are back online, employers must create an E-Verify case for each employee hired during the shutdown (October 1-17, 2013) no later than November 5, 2013. When prompted by the E-Verify system to explain why the case was initiated late (a violation of the three-day E-Verify rule), employers should select “other” from the drop-down menu and enter into the text field “federal government shutdown.” See the USCIS E-Verify instructions page for handling specific situations.

October 25th, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Tenant screening laws update: passing background check costs to the applicants

The states of Washington and Oregon recently enacted laws in connection with tenant screening. Among the provisions in both Washington’s RCW §59.18.257 and Oregon’s OAS §90.295, is that the entire cost of the background check can be charged to the applicant, if the screening is performed by a consumer reporting agency (“CRA”). However, if the landlord conducts the background check, it may not charge in excess of the customary fees of the CRAs in its geographical area.

Notably, California’s Civil Code §1950.6(b) provides that a landlord cannot charge (or pass-through) to the applicant more than $30 for a background check. This application screening fee may be adjusted annually by the landlord or its agent commensurate with an increase in the Consumer Price Index. (The current adjusted amount is $41.50.)

September 12th, 2013|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , |

New Jersey enacts law for social media password protection

Continuing a nationwide momentum of restricting employers’ access to personal social media content of applicants and employees, in August 2013, New Jersey passed Act 2878 joining eleven other states (Maryland, Illinois, California, Michigan, Utah, New Mexico, Arkansas, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada) with similar laws. Dozens more states and the U.S. Congress are considering comparable legislation. New Jersey’s new law, which becomes effective December 1, 2013, prohibits employers from asking or requiring that applicants or employees “provide or disclose any user name or password, or in any way provide the employer access to a personal account through an electronic communications device.”

September 12th, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , |

EEOC fails to prove disparate impact in another case involving background checks

In August 2013, a Maryland federal judge dismissed without a trial a putative suit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) against event-promoter Freeman for alleged discriminatory background screening practices. Calling the EEOC’s expert report “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty,” the court granted a summary judgment to Freeman based on its findings that the EEOC’s expert testimony was unreliable, and would not support a claim of disparate impact. According to the court’s opinion, the EEOC failed to establish an element of its case when it made no effort to analyze Freeman’s multi-step screening policies to identify the specific practices that caused the alleged disparate impact. The court went on to say: “By bringing actions of this nature, the EEOC has placed many employers in the ‘Hobson’s choice’ of ignoring criminal history and credit backgrounds, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, or, on the other hand, incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers.”

The EEOC most likely will appeal the decision, as it has done in another high-profile background check case in Ohio, where in January 2013 the court similarly ruled  that the EEOC failed to prove disparate impact. Although these rulings represent a victory for the employer, the EEOC has not reversed its position, and is expected to continue its attempts to severely limit, if not eliminate, the use of criminal and credit checks by private employers.

September 12th, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

FINRA issues investor alert about calls from brokerage firm imposters

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) issued a new alert on August 6, 2013 labeled as Cold Calls from Brokerage Firm Imposters—Beware of Old-Fashioned Phishing to warn investors of calls from scammers claiming to be representatives of at least one well-known brokerage firm. In this latest twist on phishing scams, the fraudsters are cold-calling investors claiming to offer information about certificates of deposit with yields well above the best rates in the market in an attempt to get potential victims to divulge their personal or financial account information.

FINRA is reminding investors who receive unsolicited calls to never provide personal information or authorize any transfer of funds to any unknown person, and encourages anyone who believes that he/she has been scammed to file a complaint using its online Complaint Center or send a tip to FINRA’s Office of the Whistleblower.

August 7th, 2013|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , |

Disciplinary action serves as reminder of due diligence requirement in Reg. D offerings

A recent disciplinary action reaffirmed FINRA member firms’ obligations to conduct a reasonable investigation of the issuer and the securities it recommends in offerings made under the SEC’s Regulation D, commonly known as private placements. Regulation D provides exemptions from the registration requirements of Section 5 under the Securities & Exchange Act, but it does not exempt these transactions from the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. A broker-dealer thus has a duty—enforceable under federal securities laws and FINRA rules—to conduct a reasonable investigation of the securities it recommends. Moreover, any broker-dealer that recommends securities offered under Regulation D must meet the suitability requirements under NASD Rule 2310, and comply with the advertising and supervisory rules of FINRA and the SEC.

A broker-dealer’s reasonable investigation must be tailored to each Regulation D offering, as its scope will depend on factors such as the sophistication of the investors, the broker-dealer’s affiliation with the issuer, and other facts and circumstances of the offering. The investigation, at a minimum, should include background checks of the issuer and its management, the business prospects of the issuer, the assets held or to be acquired by the issuer, the claims being made, and the intended use of the proceeds.

A firm that engages in Regulation D offerings also must have supervisory procedures under NASD Rule 3010 that are designed to ensure that its personnel and representatives conduct an inquiry that is sufficient to comply with the legal and regulatory requirements; that they perform the suitability analysis required by NASD Rule 2310; that they qualify the investors’ eligibility to purchase the securities; and that they abide by the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and FINRA rules regarding the preparation and distribution of offering documents or sales literature. And a broker-dealer has a further duty to adequately investigate any information located during the investigation that may be considered a “red flag.”

August 7th, 2013|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , , |

Rhode Island is the latest state to “ban the box”

On July 16, 2013, Rhode Island’s SB357 was signed into law, making it the eighth state to pass “ban the box” legislation. Effective January 1, 2014, the law, with a few exceptions, will make it an “unlawful employment practice” for an employer in the state to inquire whether an applicant has ever been convicted of a crime before the first interview. In “banning the box” for private  employers, Rhode Island follows on the heels of Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, as well as the cities of Seattle, Buffalo, Philadelphia, and Newark. And many more jurisdictions have already “banned the box” for public employers and public contractors, and even more have some form of the legislation under consideration. Congress too is pondering its federal HR 6220 or “Ban the Box Act” introduced last July, which similar to these state and local laws, would make it illegal for an employer to ask about criminal history in an interview or on an employment application.

July 23rd, 2013|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

SEC approves JOBS Act requirement to lift general solicitation ban and adopts final rule to disqualify bad actors from certain offerings

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) today adopted a new rule implementing a JOBS Act requirement to lift the ban on general solicitation or general advertising for certain private securities offerings. In connection with this new rule, the SEC issued an amendment proposal requiring issuers to provide additional information about these offerings to better monitor the market with that ban now lifted. The proposal provides for additional safeguards as the market changes and new practices develop.

Continuing the momentum, the SEC also adopted a long-awaited rule  that disqualifies felons and other bad actors from participating in certain securities offerings as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Under this final rule, an issuer cannot rely on the Rule 506 exemption if the issuer or any other covered person had what the SEC considers a “disqualifying event,” briefly described as a securities-related criminal conviction, court injunction or restraining order, final bar order, SEC disciplinary, cease-and-desist or stop order, suspension or expulsion from membership in a self-regulatory organization, or U.S. Postal Service false representation order.

The final rule provides an exception from disqualification when the issuer can show that it did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known that a covered person with a disqualifying event participated in the offering. The disqualification applies only for events that occur after the effective date of this rule. However, matters that existed before the effective date and that otherwise would be disqualifying are subject to a mandatory disclosure requirement to investors.

July 11th, 2013|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , |

SEC announces new enforcement initiatives to combat fraud

 

The Securities and Exchange Commission, (the “SEC”) announced today three new initiatives that will build on its Division of Enforcement’s ongoing efforts to concentrate resources on high-risk areas, as follows:

  • The Financial Reporting and Audit Task Force will concentrate on expanding and strengthening the Division’s efforts to identify securities law violations relating to the preparation of financial statements, issuer reporting and disclosure, and audit failures. Its principal goal will be fraud detection and increased prosecution of violations involving false or misleading financial statements and disclosures. 
  • The Microcap Fraud Task Force will investigate fraud in the issuance, marketing, and trading of microcap securities. These abuses frequently involve serial violators and organized syndicates that employ new media, especially websites and social media, to conduct fraudulent promotional campaigns and engage in manipulative trading strategies to amass ill-gotten gains, largely at the expense of less sophisticated investors. The task force’s principal goal will be to develop and implement long-term strategies for detecting and combating fraud especially by targeting “gatekeepers,” such as attorneys, auditors, broker-dealers, and transfer agents, and other significant participants, such as stock promoters and purveyors of shell companies.
  • The Center for Risk and Quantitative Analytics (CRQA) will support and coordinate the Division’s risk identification, risk assessment and data analytic activities by identifying risks and threats that could harm investors, and assist staff nationwide in conducting risk-based investigations and developing methods of monitoring for signs of possible wrongdoing. A central point of contact for risk-based initiatives nationwide, CRQA will serve as both an analytical hub and source of information about characteristics and patterns indicative of possible fraud or other illegality.
July 2nd, 2013|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top