We are excited to welcome Steven Anapoell as today’s guest blogger. Steven is the Shareholder for Greenberg Traurig. Steven advises clients interested in raising capital for, and establishing regional centers to administer, projects qualifying for investment under the EB-5 Entrepreneur Investment Visa Program.
Often in my practice, I am approached by clients who have misunderstandings about the EB-5 securities offering process. This article is meant to debunk a few of the common EB-5 myths related to the nature and scope of private placement memoranda (PPM) and related due diligence.
MYTH # 1: In EB-5 securities offerings, it is not necessary to undertake meaningful due diligence regarding the proposed project or the issuer of securities. Attorneys simply can rely on (and take at face value) the business plan and economic study prepared by third parties, including the economist, without reviewing any contracts or other readily available documentation to confirm that the information to be included in the PPM is accurate or complete.
MYTH # 2: EB-5 securities offerings are different than traditional securities offerings. Not only is the level of disclosure less, but reviewing the documents and performing the type of due diligence generally undertaken in non-EB-5 securities offerings is just not undertaken.
MYTH # 3: The type of disclosure generally included in PPMs for non-EB-5 offerings should not be used in connection with EB-5 securities offerings. Investors don’t want that level of disclosure, and such disclosure will deter them from investing.
MYTH # 4: Use of unlicensed finders and other introducers of capital are not regulated in the EB-5 program. Everyone does it, and the same rules do not apply with securities offerings under the EB-5 program as in traditional non-EB-5 offerings.
Unfortunately, nothing can be further from the truth. There are no EB-5 program specific exemptions to the U.S. securities laws. Whether you are selling limited liability company or limited partnership interests to raise money for a hotel, assisted living facility, manufacturer, restaurant or other endeavor, securities laws apply, and the persons responsible for preparing the PPM should take reasonable steps to confirm that the information included in the PPM does not misstate or omit facts that would be considered material to an investor’s investment decision. You do not get a “free pass” to avoid complying with applicable securities laws just because some or all of your investors are seeking a visa under the EB-5 program. PPMs are not template-based boilerplate documents and should be approached with care and diligence.
Federal and state securities laws require the issuer of securities to provide prospective investors with full, fair and complete disclosure of all “material” facts about the offering, the issuer of the securities and the issuer’s management personnel, business, operations and finances. Information is “material” if a reasonable investor would consider the information important in making an investment decision. Further, simply disclosing material facts is not enough. When disclosed, the facts articulated must be developed fully so there is fair, full and complete disclosure. At the obvious level, for example, it is not sufficient to simply state that you own a building without also disclosing that the building is uninsured, has been damaged by Hurricane Sandy or has been condemned by the health department. At a more subtle level, you also must disclose, if applicable, that the building is subject to a mortgage and the amount of that mortgage. Although your statement about ownership would be true, it is incomplete and would be considered materially misleading. The existence of a mortgage affects the economic value and other attributes of ownership.
To assist clients with ensuring that their PPMs contain full, fair and complete disclosure, legal counsel should provide his or her clients with a due-diligence questionnaire requesting key information and related documents to support the factual statements made in the PPM. Counsel also should provide management with a directors, officers and key personnel questionnaire to elicit information that should be included in the discussion of each named director, officer or other key person’s business experience. Without such questionnaires, clients would not be aware that certain information is material from a securities law disclosure perspective.
Entities raising capital from investors seeking a visa under the EB-5 program should consult with legal counsel to ensure that they are complying with applicable securities laws. Depending on deal structure, the applicable securities laws may include any or all of the following: (i) the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and state “blue sky” laws regarding the offer and sale of securities; (ii) the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended; and (iii) the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, and state equivalents. These entities also must comply with applicable foreign securities laws and should evaluate whether introducers of capital (commonly referred to as finders or broker-dealers) must comply with the broker-dealer registration requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
For an overview of these securities laws and certain issues that arise from the intersection of the EB-5 program and the US. securities laws, please access the following articles on EB5insights.com:
- The Inadvertent Broker-Dealer: Using EB-5 New Commercial Enterprises to Raise Capital for Project Companies (December 11, 2012)
- Drafting Private Placement Memoranda for EB-5 Securities Offerings: What the Treatises Don’t Tell You (Real Estate Finance, June 2012)
- Are Loans Considered Securities For Purposes Of Applying The Investment Company Act Of 1940 To Pooled Investment Vehicles Making Loans To Project Companies? (April 30, 2012)
- Avoid Becoming the Next Regional Center or Project Company Being Sued (April 3, 2012)
- EB-5 and Internet Marketing- What’s All the Fuss About? (January 9, 2012)
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.