No announcement yet.

Article: Liability Associated with EB-5 Marketing Materials. By Robert Cornish, John Tishler, John Leo and: Kurt Reuss (Moderator)


  • Article: Liability Associated with EB-5 Marketing Materials. By Robert Cornish, John Tishler, John Leo and: Kurt Reuss (Moderator)

    Liability Associated with EB-5 Marketing Materials


    Moderator: KURT REUSS


    Robert Cornish
    w/ Phillips Lytle


    John Tishler
    w/ Sheppard Mullin


    John Leo
    w/ Primary Capital


    Kurt Reuss
    w/ Primary Capital

    Kurt Reuss: In looking at marketing materials from a number of regional centers there are some common elements we typically see in the larger offerings such as regional centers talking about their experience; the results they’ve gotten from previous projects; the fact that principal has been paid back to investors; the percentage of I-526 and I-829 approvals; the project’s description and highlights. 

    Sometimes we see marketing material that include information on the budget; loan amounts and both the senior loan and the EB5 loan. Developer equity is often in there; as is job cushion; the rate of return to investors and the term.

    Bob, is there anything in that list that strikes you as being something that you’d want to be cautious about?

    Bob Cornish: Certainly, results from previous projects and principal paid back to investors is, in my mind, probably the most prominent issue of those on this list, simply because there are so many prohibitions and guidelines regarding how you represent past performance, how you represent what the results may be from a certain strategy.

    One of the problems you have in the EB5 context versus traditional investment management vehicles is how do you actually measure performance? Is it the return on the investment? Not really since most investments are not designed to generate monetary return other than the return of principal and the green card. More importantly, how do you measure what a successful result is? If 97% of the people who went into the EB5 program were able to get their green cards, what does that mean? Who measures that and how has it been verified?

    Kurt Reuss: Let me be more specific; say it refers to the fact that a regional center has been a promoter of previous offerings and that regional center has raised whatever number they’ve raised from a number of projects. It’s the regional center making this claim so is there anything wrong with that? I mean, it’s not the issuer of this particular offering that’s making a claim.

    Bob Cornish: You have to remember that the regional center is essentially the manager of the investment vehicle and, to some degree, there’s obviously some corporate entity in between. In essence, you have to look at what the regional center says, almost in the same context as you would an investment manager for a mutual fund or for a hedge fund. That means, in my mind, that they make the delineation of what the strategy was or is. Is it comparable to previous strategies and what the results are and why?

    John Leo: To add to that, I believe that the issuer is responsible for their information and they should sign off on any information that’s going out, whether it’s a PPM or marketing materials. I’ve seen a lot of “murkiness,” for example about the capital stack, where issuers are representing developer equity, but when you dig into the facts, technically they did make an investment but it’s also a tax abatement or some sort of tax advantage, so you have to ask then is that really equity in a deal?

    I don’t believe it is but if you’re going to include it, I think you should have a footnote that says “it’s not a $10 million or $5 million investment. It’s a tax break, typically several years down the road, sometimes much longer such as when the project is complete.” You want to look at these materials as Exhibit A. If someone were to scrutinize it in a dispute, you’re going to have to be able to defend it, that’s what it comes down to.

    Kurt Reuss: Bob or John Tishler, I’ve got two marketing pieces here that I wanted to share. I don’t think these are egregious. The question is regarding job cushion.

    One marketing piece says “130% of required EB5 jobs will be created” and another says “actual jobs approved by USCIS” and it lists a number of jobs. Do either of those give you pause? In my mind, especially as it regards to the latter, any material inferring that jobs cushion was “USCIS-approved” is just asking for trouble. 

    John Tishler: These are, I think, the epitome of John Leo’s definition of “murkiness.” Those are really great examples to ponder this concept of securities fraud and realize that it doesn’t mean fraud in the way you commonly understand fraud. Let’s take the first one, 130% of required jobs will be created. I’m going to assume in the background there’s an economist report that projects enough jobs to support that 130% number. I’m also going to presume they’re not lying about the economist report, that if they need a thousand jobs, there’s an economist report that projects 1300 jobs.

    Is it fraud to make the statement that 130% jobs will be created? I can almost guarantee you the person making that statement certainly did not think of it as a fraudulent statement. They’ll argue that the math checks out; 130% is 1300 over a thousand. As a securities lawyer, though, I would have to respond, “Yeah, but you said, ‘Will be created.’” The economist report doesn’t say “will be created”. It’s full of its own assumptions and says, essentially on the basis of the RIMS II model or IMPLAN or whatever model they’re using, based on all these other assumptions we project this many jobs.

    What the report typically says is this; “We project this many jobs on the basis of all of our assumptions.” It doesn’t say they will be created. That would be a comment that we would make as we review those offering materials. We would say, “No, you don’t want to say they will be created.” I mean it would be okay to say that there’s a 30% job cushion on the basis of a report prepared by XYZ Performance Economics. That would be an accurate statement. Then we would also have on the reverse side of the materials that you should always look to the PPM for a full explanation of everything.

    Then we’d be making an accurate, not a murky, statement. I can appreciate that a person who’s just speaking in plain language might say it the way you said it, Kurt. However, as soon as you write that in the marketing materials, you all of a sudden created liability when those jobs are not actually created down the road. And you created liability that you didn’t need to create, because you could have said it my way, that we have this cushion on the basis of a report from XYZ Economics. That wouldn’t be misleading at all. That would be a true statement

    I’m not sure why but a practice has developed amongst a lot of people in the EB-5 industry that they’ll pay a good law firm to write their PPM and to make these kinds of language distinctions in that document. The lawyer delivers the final PPM and they’re done. The issuer never talks to that lawyer again.

    Then they start writing up their marketing materials and they do stuff that the lawyer would have never let them do which goes out in the marketplace. What they don’t realize is that they’ve undermined all the work the lawyer did. At this point, it won’t matter that the PPM was right, because you’re going to be equally as responsible for the marketing materials being wrong.

    In a sense, quite a lot of money was wasted. A lot of very necessary work was undertaken by the lawyers but you’ve undermined the protections that you paid for by taking the lawyers out and not having them review the rest of the package to ensure the same standards that were applied when they reviewed the PPM and the other documents.

    Kurt Reuss: John, how often do you find that a client will not engage a broker dealer and also not engage your firm to review the marketing document? How frequently does that kind of thing happen?

    John Tishler: I have to answer the question this way. I know it happens frequently in the industry. It actually doesn’t happen with my firm because we structure our engagements around reviewing all of the work. When we quote the work, we indicate that delivery of the PPM doesn’t mean the end of our job. There’s going to be other streams of work that we’re going to have to do. Just because of the way we do things, I’m pretty aggressive about trying to make sure it doesn’t happen.

    Now, of course, I don’t send private detectives around to my clients. If they’re hell bent on doing things without telling me, then I won’t know about it. But, knowing how much liability there potentially is for these marketing materials if we don’t review them, we very strongly emphasize that they need to regard that as part of our engagement.

    Now I’m not saying that as that’s some sort of legal standard of care. I think clients are within their rights to ask for a particular assignment to be undertaken by a lawyer and it is undertaken in exactly that manner. However, I would just encourage issuers in regional centers to understand the possible consequences of doing that.

    I think that any of the lawyers who do stop their work at that point will fully explain the consequences of doing that. You’re much more likely to see your marketing materials as the exhibits in litigation or as the things referenced in an SEC enforcement action than you are the PPM. That’s because of their nature; they’re actually more dangerous, so cutting off your legal help is just, in my mind, tremendously unwise.

    Kurt Reuss: John, let’s say you have a client that says, “We’re developing our marketing materials in China. They’ll be distributed in China. They’re going to be presented in China. They’re not going to be coming into the US and we’ve relied on the agents to control that message.” What would you say to a client like that?

    John Tishler: I would say, “Maybe that works but it would depend on a lot of different considerations. Once you’re sued, and after you’ve spent a $1,000,000 or so defending this litigation, we might actually prevail on that argument.” Maybe or maybe not; the fact is there are a lot of potential weaknesses to that argument.

    Kurt Reuss: That’s not a litigation you would want to be involved in.

    John Tishler: Exactly. Now, I’m not going to say that in every case where you do things offshore that there is US jurisdiction for litigation positions. Of course, there is a defense potentially available to people in the US that things conducted offshore are not subject to US law. The caveat is that it’s only potentially available and moreover, it’s an extremely complex discussion which still has no clarity under the law as to what is and what is not subject to US jurisdiction.

    What I tell people who are operating in the real business world, who are trying to conduct an offering and control their expenses and their liability is this, “You’ve got to assume that you can get in trouble over this stuff, whether you or your agent wrote it.” I mean that’s just the safe assumption.

    If you end up getting in trouble, we’ll defend you and, hopefully, you’ve got a litigation budget. But for now, let’s try to avoid getting in trouble. And that means writing your marketing materials consistent with the standard of clarity; that is the same standard of clarity we have for the offering materials.

    I’m not saying that marketing material should be 85 pages of tiny print with very few pictures. They shouldn’t. That’s not their purpose. Their purpose is to be marketing materials intended for a specific audience, and that is a legitimate purpose. I am perfectly fine with marketing materials having wonderful pictures of whatever it is that’s going to be built. I’m perfectly fine with them emphasizing the positive. They just need to be measured and accurate when they emphasize the positive.

    If they make a statement, it needs to be an accurate statement. And if it is more complicated than the quick summary, then it needs to include a footnote. If we just have a pie chart that shows 20% sponsor equity, you might see that in marketing materials, and that’s fine but if a part of that equity is tax credits and things like that then that should be annotated with a footnote. It needs to state, “See the offering materials for a description of the sources of sponsor equity.” Then the offering materials will say what those are.

    This post originally appeared on EB-5 Diligence. Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Robert Cornish focuses on litigation, arbitration, regulatory and compliance matters for broker/dealers, investment advisers, hedge funds, commodity firms, institutional investors and family offices in the U.S. and abroad. He represents clients on FINRA and NFA arbitrations and court proceedings. He also represents securities and commodities registrants in connection with enforcement and disciplinary proceedings before FINRA, NFA, CFTC, SEC and state securities regulators. Having previously served as in-house counsel with prominent investment firms, Mr. Cornish provides valuable insight and counseling for clients with complex business management and marketing matters in the investment arena.

    John D. Tishler is a partner in the Corporate Practice Group in the firm's Del Mar Heights office and is the Co-Chair of the firm's Capital Market/Public Companies team.

    John C. Leo focuses on the day to day management of Primary, which includes compliance and risk management, in addition to the origination and execution of investment banking transactions. John Leo acquired Primary Capital in July 2007. Prior to acquiring Primary, Mr. Leo was the founder, Chairman and majority owner of American Union Securities, Inc. (AUS), which focused on investment banking, mergers and acquisitions in China. Mr. Leo sold his ownership in AUS in March 2007 to expand his focus beyond China. Prior to starting AUS, Mr. Leo founded Venture Capital Partners LLC, a private merchant banking, securities trading, and consulting firm which provided business and financial advisory services to late-stage private companies and small to mid-sized public companies. These services included advising on the structure of equity and debt financing, financial modeling, valuation analysis, drafting business plans, establishing strategic relationships, providing introductions to institutional investors and research analysts, and assisting in the selection of board members. From 1996 through 2001, Mr. Leo worked as a market maker trading Pink Sheet, Over-The-Counter and NASDAQ-listed securities as well as IPOs. He was a registered securities principal and OTC trader with AM Capital and M.H. Meyerson. At these firms, Mr. Leo was responsible for executing orders for non-market makers as well as position trading for the firms’ proprietary accounts. While at M.H. Meyerson, between 1997 and 2001, Mr. Leo managed a profitable trading list of three hundred securities. Mr. Leo traded long and short positions, used technical analysis and hedging techniques, along with short-term charting trends to make investment decisions. In addition to Mr. Leo’s hands-on experience structuring financial transactions and trading securities, he also has expertise in managing compliance issues and corporate governance, having served as a board member of seven public companies as well as the positions of CFO and Corporate Secretary. Mr. Leo maintains the following FINRA registrations: Series 7, 24, 55, 63, 79, and 99.

    Kurt Reuss from Primary Capital.

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM