On September 9, 2014, the staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) issued an exemptive
letter providing relief to commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) from having to comply with certain conditions in
CFTC Rules 4.7(b) and 4.13(a)(3).
These conditions had been an impediment to use of recently-adopted Rule
506(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), which allows an issuer to make a
private offering without requiring that the issuer and its agents avoid “general solicitation” in connection with
the offer and sale of the securities. The staff’s action was intended to harmonize the CFTC’s rules with Rule 506
and could expand the scope of communications and/or use of advertising in connection with the offer and sale of
private funds that are commodity pools.
Section 201(a) of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, the so-called “JOBS Act,” required the Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to adopt rules eliminating the prohibition against general solicitation2
connection with the offer and sale of securities under Rule 506 of Regulation D3
under the Securities Act and
Rule 144A under the Securities Act, provided that all purchasers are “accredited investors”
in Rule 506 offerings
or “qualified institutional buyers” (“QIBs”)
in Rule 144A offerings.
See CFTC Letter No. 14-116 (Sept. 9, 2014), available at: http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrlettergeneral/documents/letter/14-116.pdf.
“General solicitation” and “general advertising” include newspaper and magazine advertisements, television and radio communications and
seminars where persons in attendance were invited by general solicitations or advertisements. The SEC has construed other media accessible to the
public, such as web sites not protected by password, as possible general solicitations or advertisements.
Rule 506 allows unregistered offerings in unlimited dollar amounts to an unlimited number of investors, provided that no more than 35 of the
purchasers are unaccredited investors.
“Accredited investor,” as defined in Rule 501(a), means anyone who comes within certain categories, or who the issuer reasonably believes to come
within those categories. A similar “reasonable belief” standard appears in Rule 2a51-1(h) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the
“Investment Company Act”) regarding the term “qualified purchaser” as used in Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act. The proposing and
adopting releases of Rule 2a51-1 indicate the SEC intended the reasonable belief standard in Rule 2a51-1(h) to reflect the same approach taken in
Rule 501(a) of Regulation D and Rule 144A(d)(i).
Rule 144A is a safe harbor from registration under the Securities Act for resales of certain eligible securities to QIBs.
“Eliminating the Prohibition Against General Solicitation and General Advertising in Rule 506 and Rule 144A Offerings,” Securities Act Release
No. 9415 (July 10, 2013), available at: http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2013/33-9415.pdf. Previous Sidley Updates on this topic can be found at:
SEC Adopts Significant Changes to Private Offering Rules
SEC Takes Step toward Fulfilling Congressional Mandate to Eliminate Ban on General Solicitation in Connection with Certain Unregistered
Congress Liberalizes Securities Offering RegulationINVESTMENT FUNDS UPDATE
In response to the JOBS Act requirement, the SEC adopted new Rule 506(c) under Regulation D (the “General
Solicitation Rule”), eliminating the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in Rule 506 offerings,
• Sales satisfy all terms and conditions of Rule 501 and Rules 502(a) and (d);
• All purchasers of the securities are accredited investors (which includes anyone who the issuer reasonably
believes is an accredited investor); and
• The issuer takes “reasonable steps to verify” that the purchasers of the securities are “accredited investors.”
Operators of private funds that are considered commodity pools due to their use of futures contracts, futures
options, swaps or other commodity interests that offer and sell interests in the pools pursuant to Rule 506 must
ensure that they comply with applicable provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC Rules.
CFTC Rule 4.7 provides relief from certain of the disclosure, periodic and annual reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements under the CFTC’s Rules to CPOs in two situations: (1) a registered CPO may offer or sell
participations in a commodity pool solely to qualified eligible persons (“QEPs”) in an offering that qualifies for
exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities
or pursuant to the SEC’s Regulation S, or (2) a bank that is registered as a CPO in connection with a
commodity pool that is a collective trust fund whose securities are exempt from registration under the Securities
Act pursuant to Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act, provided that the offer and sale is made without marketing
to the public and is made solely to QEPs. CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3) provides a registration exemption for CPOs that
operate commodity pools with de minimis commodity interest exposure and that, among other requirements,
are offered and sold without marketing to the public in the United States.
Due to the communication restriction conditions in these CFTC exemptions, most CPOs have taken the view (as
has the CFTC staff) that they could not take advantage of the ability to engage in advertising pursuant to the
General Solicitation Rule without losing such exemptions.
The staff’s exemptive letter grants exemptive relief from the Regulation 4.7(b) requirements that an offering be
exempt pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act and that the securities must be offered solely to QEPs,
and from the requirement in Regulation 4.13(a)(3)(i) that securities must be “offered and sold without
marketing to the public.” The exemptive relief is available only for issuers relying on Rule 506(c) or resellers
relying on Rule 144A and is not self-executing. To claim relief under the exemptive letter, a CPO must file a
notice with the CFTC’s Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight.
The exemptive relief will remain in effect until the effective date of any final CFTC action in consideration of the
JOBS Act and the SEC’s amendments to Regulation D and Rule 144A pursuant to the JOBS Act.
This exemptive relief may lead to increased use of Rule 506(c) by private funds that are commodity pools,
although it should be noted that private funds that are not commodity pools and so were not blocked from use by
the CFTC exemptions to date have not used Rule 506(c) extensively. Even with this hurdle cleared, there remain
U.S. Congress Enacts JOBS Act, Increasing 499 Investor Limit for Private Funds to 1,999 and Eliminating Prohibition Against General Solicitation
in Connection with Certain Private Offerings
The SEC has indicated that an offering made pursuant to Rule 506(c) is not an offering pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act, as the use
of general solicitation remains incompatible with a statutory private offering.INVESTMENT FUNDS UPDATE
issues that fund managers should consider before conducting a Rule 506(c) offering or engaging in general
solicitation, including the heightened verification standards for accredited investors in Rule 506(c) offerings, the
lack of a fall back to Section 4(a)(2) in the event there is general solicitation, the proposed SEC rules relating to
Rule 506(c) offerings, the impact on state securities law exemptions, and potential increased scrutiny from the
SEC. In addition, foreign securities and investment fund laws need to be considered. For example, a Rule 506(c)
offering or general solicitation could, in certain circumstances, result in the fund manager being considered to be
marketing its private funds in the European Union, in which case such offering or general solicitation would be
subject to the EU Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD).
While Rule 506(c) has not been broadly used to date, the CFTC staff’s exemptive relief may afford private fund
managers the opportunity to more broadly communicate with the market regarding their business and
operations without potentially running afoul of the ban on general solicitation set forth in Rule 506(b), including
where there is no desire to broaden existing distribution channels for fund interests. It is also possible that the
establishment of a harmonized, clear safe harbor regarding general solicitation may put more regulatory
pressure on communications by private fund managers that in the past may have relied on “pattern and practice”
in the industry.
If you have any questions regarding this update, please contact one of the following or the Sidley lawyer with whom you usually
James B. Biery
Nathan A. Howell
William D. Kerr
Thomas J. Kim
Laurin Blumenthal Kleiman
Michael J. Schmidtberger
Sidley Investment Funds Practice
Sidley has a premier, global practice in structuring and advising investment funds and advisers. We advise clients in the formation
and operation of all types of alternative investment vehicles, including hedge funds, fund-of-funds, commodity pools, venture
capital and private equity funds, private real estate funds and other public and private pooled investment vehicles. We also
represent clients with respect to more traditional investment funds, such as closed-end and open-end registered investment
companies (i.e., mutual funds) and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Our advice covers the broad scope of legal and compliance
issues that are faced by funds and their boards, as well as investment advisers to funds and other investment products and
accounts, under the laws and regulations of the various jurisdictions in which they may operate. In particular, we advise our clients
regarding complex federal and state laws and regulations governing securities, commodities, funds and advisers, including the
Dodd-Frank Act, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Securities Act of 1933, the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Commodity Exchange Act, the USA PATRIOT Act and comparable laws in non-U.S.
jurisdictions. Our practice group consists of approximately 120 lawyers in New York, Chicago, London, Hong Kong, Singapore,
Shanghai, Tokyo, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Sidley Private Equity Practice
The lawyers in our practice advise clients on every aspect of a broad range of domestic and cross-border private equity transactions,
including leveraged buy-outs, going-private transactions, growth capital investments, PIPEs and a variety of other acquisitions and
financings. We represent private equity sponsors, the private equity arms of financial institutions and other organizations, and
hedge funds in these matters. In addition, we regularly advise private equity sponsored portfolio companies, assisting them in all INVESTMENT FUNDS UPDATE
their legal needs, including add-on acquisitions, recapitalizations, investments, liquidity events and other extraordinary
Sidley Securities & Derivatives Enforcement and Regulatory Practice
Sidley’s Securities & Derivatives Enforcement and Regulatory group advises and defends clients in a wide range of securities- and
derivatives-related matters. With more than 150 lawyers in 10 offices worldwide, we provide comprehensive regulatory,
enforcement, and litigation solutions in matters involving the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), self-regulatory organizations (SROs), state
attorneys general, and state securities regulators. Our team is distinctive in that it combines the strength of nationally recognized
enforcement lawyers with the skills of equally prominent counseling lawyers. We work collaboratively to provide our clients with
informed, efficient, and effective representation.
To receive future copies of this and other Sidley updates via email, please sign up at www.sidley.com/subscribe
BEIJING ∙ BOSTON ∙ BRUSSELS ∙ CHICAGO ∙ DALLAS ∙ FRANKFURT ∙ GENEVA ∙ HONG KONG ∙ HOUSTON ∙ LONDON ∙ LOS ANGELES
NEW YORK ∙ PALO ALTO ∙ SAN FRANCISCO ∙ SHANGHAI ∙ SINGAPORE ∙ SYDNEY ∙ TOKYO ∙ WASHINGTON, D.C.
Sidley Austin refers to Sidley Austin LLP and affiliated partnerships as explained at www.sidley.com/disclaimer. www.sidley.com