top of page

Understanding the Distinctions: 506(b) vs. 506(c) Offerings in Private Capital Markets

When it comes to private capital offerings, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provides guidelines and regulations to ensure transparency and investor protection. Two common types of offerings under Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 are 506(b) and 506(c). While both allow companies to raise capital from accredited investors, there are important distinctions between the two. This article aims to shed light on the differences between 506(b) and 506(c) offerings, providing clarity for both issuers and investors.


506(b) Offering:

The 506(b) offering, also known as the traditional private placement, has been a popular choice for companies seeking to raise capital privately. Under this regulation, issuers can raise an unlimited amount of funds without the need for SEC registration. Here are key features of a 506(b) offering:


1. Accredited Investors Only: Issuers can raise capital from an unlimited number of accredited investors, who are individuals or entities that meet specific income or net worth requirements. Up to 35 non-accredited investors may also participate, provided they possess sufficient knowledge and experience to evaluate the investment's risks.


2. No General Solicitation: One notable feature of 506(b) offerings is the prohibition of general solicitation. Issuers are not allowed to publicly advertise or promote the investment opportunity. Instead, they rely on pre-existing relationships and personal networks to attract investors.


3. Financial Disclosure: While issuers are not required to provide specific financial disclosures to accredited investors, they must furnish all material information that could influence an investor's decision. This typically includes private placement memoranda (PPM) and other offering documents that outline the investment's terms and risks.


506(c) Offering:

Introduced under the JOBS Act in 2013, the 506(c) offering introduced a significant change to private capital markets by allowing general solicitation. Here's what you need to know about 506(c) offerings:


1. Strict Accredited Investor Verification: Unlike 506(b) offerings, 506(c) offerings require issuers to take reasonable steps to verify that all investors are accredited. This verification process ensures compliance with SEC regulations and promotes investor protection.


2. General Solicitation Permitted: One of the main distinctions of 506(c) offerings is the ability to engage in general solicitation. Issuers can openly advertise and promote their investment opportunity through various channels such as websites, social media, and public events.


3. Stricter Disclosure Requirements: To maintain transparency, 506(c) offerings have stricter disclosure requirements. Issuers must provide accurate and complete information about the offering, including the terms, risks, and potential conflicts of interest.


Choosing Between 506(b) and 506(c):

Deciding whether to pursue a 506(b) or 506(c) offering depends on several factors. Companies may prefer a 506(b) offering if they have established relationships with investors and prioritize privacy. On the other hand, 506(c) offerings may be suitable for issuers seeking a broader pool of potential investors and who are comfortable with the heightened disclosure requirements and accreditation verification process.


Understanding the differences between 506(b) and 506(c) offerings is essential for both issuers and investors navigating the private capital markets. While both options provide opportunities to raise capital, they vary in terms of accredited investor verification, solicitation rules, and disclosure requirements. By carefully considering the specific needs and goals of their offerings, companies can choose the most suitable pathway to raise funds, while investors can evaluate the risks and opportunities associated with each type of offering. Consulting legal and financial professionals experienced in private placements can further assist in making informed decisions within the regulatory framework.

Comments


bottom of page