No announcement yet.

Article: When Do You Need A Broker Dealer in EB-5? By Lori Patterson, John Leo and Kurt Reuss


  • Article: When Do You Need A Broker Dealer in EB-5? By Lori Patterson, John Leo and Kurt Reuss (Moderator)

    When Do You Need A Broker Dealer in EB-5?


    Kurt: Lori, Could you give us your thoughts about the need for a broker-dealer in EB-5 transactions?

    Lori: Since I'm the only person on the panel who doesn't work for a broker-dealer, hopefully I'm objective. Let me begin by saying that every deal is different and thus all the facts are different. Obviously, we take that into account when we advise participants in an EB5 offering what they need to do. Generally, however, we believe that participants, whether issuers or regional centers, could have a better outcome if they associate with a broker-dealer, especially in regard to the following topics:

    • Reg D private placement exemptions;
    • Whether a general solicitation is possible (meaning you can advertise your private placement under 506(c));
    • Whether you've met the requirements which prove you've verified that all of your purchasers are accredited investors; and
    • Ensuring compliance with Reg S and that you’ve appropriately filed with the SEC.

    Now, all of these topics tend to involve actions that a broker-dealer is very qualified to undertake. A broker-dealer will perform the due diligence necessary to ensure that you are meeting the requirements of these particular regulations and that the offering is properly marketed and sold. Beyond that, a broker-dealer might also recognize or advise on other topics, such as whether you are taking some action that lead you to be “deemed” an registered investment advisor.

    I can't stress enough that these type activities are what a broker-dealer who is involved in private placements does every day in the US securities market. The only difference is that these securities are being marketed overseas. In that respect, a broker-dealer is uniquely qualified to assist EB5 participants. I can't necessarily assert that with every single EB5 offering, you need to associate a broker-dealer, but we generally think it's a best practice.

    Kurt: John, would you mind walking us through how Reg D and Reg S offerings should be handled in EB5 transactions?

    John: Well, a Reg D offering would be specific to US investors as opposed to a Reg S with foreign investors. In our opinion, and I would say most attorneys would agree, the regulations are very clear on the Reg D marketing. If you're marketing a transaction to investors in the US, there are very specific procedures that you need to follow. In terms of paying compensation, there are specific requirements and procedures that need to be followed. Those are easily tracked by the SEC as well as FINRA. Historically, most transactions that we've been involved with were Reg D.

    The 506(c) offerings, which are the general solicitations, are typically run through general solicitation websites. For a lot of those, the back end is a broker-dealer that provides basic services. Those sites are designed to be fully automated and typically, an investor is simply going to log in. I would say that most 506(c) general solicitation websites are specifically designed only for US investors. Thus, these fully automated sites might not be well suited for a foreigner as, beyond the login, the procedures may be difficult. Moreover, I haven’t seen any sites where the language has been translated into Mandarin or Cantonese.

    Kurt: John, how difficult would it be to do a general solicitation based on the accreditation rules for investors? Would that be difficult in EB5?

    John: Well, I think the trend is to split the marketing more between the US and China. China's becoming an expensive place to do business. A lot of issuers are looking for more economical means of raising capital, and a 506(c) offering is more economical than paying agents large fees, spending time in China, and traveling back and forth.

    And more and more we're seeing a larger number of Reg D investors that are coming from agents in China. In large offerings that are, say, north of $50 or $100 million in EB5 money, and even though the agents are based in China, it’s been my personal experience that about 20% of the investors are really Reg D investors and not Reg S investors. They could be solicited under or captured under 506(c).

    To answer the question of verifying investor accreditation, you do have to take some extra steps. Typically, under Reg D, investors are going to check off a few boxes, and they’ll tell us they're accredited, and that will be the end of it. Under 506(c), you're required to take extra steps. That could include getting a copy of a tax return, getting a third-party advisor (accountant, banker, etc) to support the assertion that the investor is accredited. It's not just taking the investor at his word and believing that they're accredited simply because that’s what they’re telling you. On the general solicitation websites, that paperwork, as I said, is all done online. But it is specifically set up for US investors.

    My expectation is that the trend is going more and more towards capturing Reg D investors directly, which would include general solicitation or crowd funding.

    Kurt: What about Reg S, John? What do you think about the issuers who decide, "Hey, we want to focus exclusively on Reg S." Do they need a broker-dealer?

    John: I would agree with Lori that there are exceptions. I've seen very, very few. Say you're doing one transaction annually, and all your communications are taking place outside of the US. You, as a developer, are not specifically involved in the business of raising capital; rather you have another full-time business. Under those conditions, you would qualify for the issue exemption. But that's very rare.

    Most issuers have multiple transactions. They're setting up these New Commercial Enterprises one after another. My expectation is that the SEC would view that as you're trying to circumvent a regulation and likely come down on you harder than someone who was just doing a transaction where one rolls into another.

    As an example, I point to Related Companies; they are one of the largest private US developers. They own a broker-dealer. They're not in the securities business. They're in the EB5 business. They have the ability to get the best legal advice available. They have seemingly unlimited resources. They raise a lot of money overseas under Reg S, and they equip themselves with a broker-dealer. Certainly, if you're communicating in the US, you're subject to the SEC regulations.

    Lori: Let me just reinforce the point that Reg S doesn't provide any kind of safe harbor for Blue Sky laws (state securities laws), which is another reason why, even though you might be exclusively offering securities pursuant to Reg S, you might still need a broker-dealer’s involvement to ensure compliance with these state laws.

    John: Based on my personal experience in the EB5 space most Reg S offerings are not “true” Reg S offerings. The reason being, most agents maintain an office in the US and they are essentially engaged in broker-dealer activities as an unregistered broker-dealer. Now, understand that the SEC and FINRA do attend EB5 conferences; they’ll stop by an issuer’s table and pick up marketing materials. I know some issuers that have had discussions with a person who appeared to be an interested investor. As the “interested investor” walked away they asked, "Oh, can I have your card?" It was securities enforcement agent.

    When the SEC or FINRA says it's a priority, believe me, it's a priority. They are acquiring information, mostly marketing materials. At some point in the future, you'll get a letter; "I want the PPM." You want to make sure the PPM matches up with the marketing materials.

    They're researching the agents to see if these agents do maintain a place of business in the US. There was a recent conference out on the West Coast where agents were located. I would guarantee you that FINRA and/or the SEC attended that conference, and they picked up cards of agents, and they'll be following up with them to see where they're actually located.

    If you're engaged in a Reg S transaction, you need to make sure everybody is offshore. If you're engaging an agent to raise capital, and if they have an office in LA or in New York, you potentially have a problem with your transaction.

    Kurt: I have a question that often seems to be a gray area. The issuer exemption allows for a one-time per year offering allowance. I make the argument that if you spend a year marketing an offering then you essentially have to wait another year until the offering is concluded before you're allowed to start your next offering, regardless of the entity or issuer you are raising money for. So doesn’t this mean that you are effectively looking at one offering every two years?

    John: I would agree with that. It takes between 12 and 18 months to complete a decent sized EB5 offering. Upon completion, you would need to wait 12 months. Lori, do you agree or do you have another opinion?

    Lori: That's certainly the safer way to count. The language of the Rule indicates that there should be a 12 month waiting period after completion of the offering, so that's probably what you would want to do.

    This post originally appeared on EB5 Diligence. Copyright © 2015 EB5 Diligence. Reprinted with permission

    About The Author

    Lori Patterson Lori H. Patterson, shareholder in the Baker Donelson's Memphis office, concentrates her practice in securities litigation and litigation involving governmental entities. Ms. Patterson regularly represents broker-dealers, registered investment advisers and financial institutions in (1) customer initiated arbitrations and litigation; (2) enforcement proceedings and investigations by the SEC, self-regulatory organizations and state securities regulators; and (3) intra-industry disputes such as "raiding" claims, claims related to non-competition agreements, the theft of trade secrets and injunctive proceedings. Specifically Ms. Patterson has extensive experience in defending claims and regulatory actions related to private placements, alternative investments and Immigrant Investor Program (EB-5) offerings.

    John Leo John C. Leo ia Chairman and Managing Member of Primary Capital LLC. Mr. 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.

    Kurt Reuss Kurt Reuss provides all his clients with free access to due diligence reports as a licensed broker dealer representative with Primary Capital. Mr. Reuss co-founded EB5 Diligence as a way to provide his clients with the most thorough due diligence reports possible and works closely with investors to assist them in selecting a suitable EB-5 investment.

    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: 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
    • Article: PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases By Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III
      PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases by Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III Before beginning a PERM case, an employer must always check the immigration history of the foreign national to confirm that he or she is eligible to receive permanent residency, and whether the applicant may expect to apply by Adjustment of Status or by Consular Processing. Focus must be placed on determining that the foreign national has always maintained status in the United States – whether it by as a temporary visitor for pleasure, business, as a student or in an authorized category of work. In addition to the Resume and Diplomas of the foreign worker, it is recommended to ask the worker to provide a time line to prove maintenance of status. This can be done by establishing an unbroken line of authorized stay and status in the US, and by confirming that the applicant has not worked without authorization by proving the monthly income from the time of first entering the United States. The issue of maintenance of status is more acute for vi...
      08-13-2018, 02:21 PM