Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: EB-5 Program Becomes Examination Priority For Both the SEC and FINRA. By Omar Hakim, Esq.

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: EB-5 Program Becomes Examination Priority For Both the SEC and FINRA. By Omar Hakim, Esq.

    EB-5 Program Becomes Examination Priority For Both the SEC and FINRA

    by


    Private Placements: Focusing Closely on EB-5 Program

    It is well-known in the EB-5 community that the Securities Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) is scrutinizing the EB-5 program closer than ever. The SEC and the Financial Industry Regulation Authority (“FINRA”) each formalized their belief that the EB-5 program needs greater regulation in their 2016 examination letters. Both regulatory agencies annually publish examination priorities that highlight areas of concerns that the agencies plan to focus on particularly in their examinations and investigations in the coming year.[1] Each agency outlined in their 2016 examination letters that they will be focusing closely on private placement offerings under the EB-5 program. The source of the concerns likely stems from the increasing popularity and use of the program, and from recent regulatory changes that allow general solicitation of private placements.

    Concerns Expressed in Examination Letters

    In the examination letters, the SEC and FINRA specifically stated how their focus for private placements includes, among other things, “EB-5 investment funds”. Although FINRA highlighted its focus on “EB-5 investments funds” in 2015, it reiterated its intent to focus on this area for 2016. This is the first time that the SEC has highlighted the EB-5 program as a priority in its examination letter. Given that the examination priority letter is only five pages, the fact that the SEC specifically chose to highlight the EB-5 program as a priority should strike fear in those projects that are misusing investors funds or engaging in other unethical behavior.

    In the 2016 examination letters, the agencies expressed the following:

    The SEC Examination Priorities for 2016

    “We will review private placements, including offerings involving Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 or the Immigrant Investor Program (“EB-5 Program”) to evaluate whether legal requirements are being met in the areas of due diligence, disclosure, and suitability.”[2] (emphasis added)

    FINRA 2016 Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter

    FINRA’s focus on private placements is to address its concerns with suitability, disclosure and due diligence. FINRA stated that its concerns “are relevant regardless of the underlying industry of the issuer or the type of investment…,” specifically naming “EB-5 investment funds” as an example.[3](emphasis added)

    The agencies’ rising concerns for the EB-5 program likely stem from the ability to conduct general solicitations for private placements under SEC Rule 506(c) of Regulation D. Namely, the fear is issuers are targeting unsuitable investors, or failing to provide such investors sufficient information about the underlying risks with private offerings. With that in mind, the central examination focus over the EB-5 program is to ensure the private offerings are being offered to investors after performing proper due diligence, and providing fair and balance disclosures.

    Specifics of Changes in the Regulatory Landscape Unclear

    It is too early to determine exactly how the SEC and FINRA’s focus on the EB-5 program will affect the EB-5 regulatory landscape. Any drastic changes will likely occur through comprehensive EB-5 reform, such as S.2415 – the EB-5 Integrity Act of 2015. However, it is clear that both agencies find a particular need to review the conduct of issuers making private offerings under the EB-5 program. As both agencies perform their examinations, their findings may encourage heightened regulatory requirements to alleviate the concerns of due diligence, suitability and adequate disclosure.

    In Summary:

    The SEC and FINRA have made it clear that their examinations for 2016 will have a focus on private placements under the EB-5 program. The concerns that the SEC and FINRA have likely stem from the record popularity of the EB-5 program and from recent regulatory changes that allow general solicitation for private offerings, causing fears that issuers are targeting unsuitable investors or failing to inform such investors of the underlying risks for private placements. The hope is that the increased scrutiny will weed out bad actors from the program, and dissuade many with unscrupulous intentions from entering the program in the first place. As the agencies perform their examinations, their findings may encourage heightened regulatory requirements of private offerings under to the EB-5 program and highlight the need for comprehensive EB-5 reform, such as those called for under S.2415 – the EB-5 Integrity Act of 2015.

    About the Author:

    Omar Hakim, Esq. is an attorney at Mona Shah & Associates in New York City. The firm is an established source for EB-5, assisting numerous Regional Centers/EB-5 Projects and Investors in navigating this complex, nuanced and constantly changing area of immigration law. Omar offers clients years of experience in corporate finance, the financial regulatory system, securities matters and in general corporate governance matters. Additionally, he is able to draw on his experiences at major federal regulatory agencies and bodies, which includes work at the SEC, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, and the CFTC. He earned his J.D. at the University of Virginia; his Master of Laws in Securities and Financial Regulation at the Georgetown University Law Center; and his B.A. in Economics at Georgetown University.



    [1] The SEC and FINRA conduct random and periodic examinations of firms or persons to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements or investigate concerns raised that a particular firm may be in violation of regulatory requirements.

    [2] SEC, Examination Priorities For 2016, available at https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/national-examination-program-priorities-2016.pdf.

    [3] FINRA, 2016 Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter, available at http://www.finra.org/industry/2016-regulatory-and-examination-priorities-letter.

    Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Omar Hakim, Esq. is an attorney at Mona Shah & Associates in New York City. The firm is an established source for EB-5, assisting numerous Regional Centers/EB-5 Projects and Investors in navigating this complex, nuanced and constantly changing area of immigration law. Omar offers clients years of experience in corporate finance, the financial regulatory system, securities matters and in general corporate governance matters. Additionally, he is able to draw on his experiences at major federal regulatory agencies and bodies, which includes work at the SEC, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, and the CFTC. He earned his J.D. at the University of Virginia; his Master of Laws in Securities and Financial Regulation at the Georgetown University Law Center; and his B.A. in Economics at Georgetown University.


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

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Article: Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It
      ImmigrationDaily
      Last week on Fox News, Tucker Carlson said,
      08-21-2018, 01:24 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      ImmigrationDaily
      Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

      CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/polit...ent/index.html

      Presidential use of "national security"
      ...
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
      ImmigrationDaily

      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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.
      ImmigrationDaily

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

      by


      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). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    Working...
    X