MIN

READ

Filing a tax return accurately is one of the most effective ways to stay compliant with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Although the word “audit” often causes concern, being selected for an IRS examination does not necessarily mean that a taxpayer has done something wrong. In many cases, the agency simply needs additional information to […]

/ By Paola Atzingen

Filing a tax return accurately is one of the most effective ways to stay compliant with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Although the word “audit” often causes concern, being selected for an IRS examination does not necessarily mean that a taxpayer has done something wrong. In many cases, the agency simply needs additional information to verify that a return was completed correctly.

Understanding how IRS audits work and adopting good tax compliance practices can help individuals and businesses reduce the likelihood of facing unnecessary scrutiny.

Image: Canva

What Is an IRS Audit?

An IRS audit, officially referred to as an examination, is a review of an individual’s or business’s financial records to determine whether the information reported on a tax return is accurate and complies with federal tax laws. Depending on the circumstances, the IRS may request documentation to verify income, deductions, credits, or other reported items.

In most cases, the IRS begins the audit process by sending an official notice through the U.S. mail. While an IRS representative may contact a taxpayer later in the process, the agency does not initiate audits through phone calls, emails, text messages, or social media.

What Can Trigger an IRS Audit?

Although some tax returns are selected randomly, most audits result from inconsistencies or reporting patterns that require further review. Common factors include unreported income, mathematical errors, deductions or tax credits that appear disproportionate to a taxpayer’s income, and discrepancies between the information reported on a return and records received by the IRS from employers, financial institutions, or other third parties.

Taxpayers with foreign financial reporting obligations who fail to disclose required accounts or assets may also attract additional scrutiny. Likewise, individuals and businesses with higher levels of income are statistically more likely to be audited than the average taxpayer.

The IRS generally conducts three types of audits. A Correspondence Audit is handled by mail and usually involves requests for specific documents. An Office Audit requires the taxpayer to meet with an IRS representative at a local office, while a Field Audit is the most comprehensive, taking place at the taxpayer’s home, business, or accountant’s office.

Best Practices to Reduce Your Risk

While no strategy can completely eliminate the possibility of an audit, maintaining organized financial records and preparing tax returns carefully can significantly reduce the risk.

Keeping receipts, invoices, bank statements, and other supporting documentation makes it easier to substantiate the information reported on a return. Reviewing tax forms before filing helps identify calculation mistakes and inconsistencies, while reporting all sources of income ensures that IRS records match the taxpayer’s return.

It’s equally important to claim only deductions and tax credits that are properly documented and supported by applicable tax rules. If the IRS requests additional information, responding promptly and accurately can help resolve the matter more efficiently.

For companies and investors operating across borders, another critical factor is having the right international structure in place from the beginning. A well-designed cross-border structure helps ensure compliance with U.S. reporting obligations while minimizing reporting gaps and inconsistencies that may attract IRS scrutiny.

International operations involving foreign corporations, partnerships, trusts, financial accounts, or related-party transactions often trigger specific reporting requirements, including Forms 5471, 5472, 8865, 8938, 3520, as well as the FBAR (FinCEN Form 114). Failing to identify and meet these obligations—even unintentionally—can lead to significant penalties and increase the likelihood of an IRS examination.

Proper planning goes beyond tax efficiency. When an international structure is established with clear entity classifications, ownership mapping, and well-documented intercompany transactions, businesses are better positioned to meet their reporting obligations, maintain consistent documentation, and respond confidently to IRS inquiries. In this sense, sound international structuring serves as a key compliance strategy, helping reduce audit risks while supporting long-term cross-border operations.

For businesses, foreign investors, and individuals with more complex tax situations, working with experienced tax professionals provides an additional layer of confidence. Professional guidance helps ensure compliance with current regulations, minimizes reporting errors, and prepares taxpayers to respond effectively if questions arise.

An IRS audit is not necessarily an indication of wrongdoing, but rather a process designed to verify the accuracy of tax filings. By maintaining complete records, reporting information consistently, and seeking professional tax guidance when needed, taxpayers can significantly reduce the likelihood of an examination and navigate the U.S. tax system with greater confidence. 

Avoid costly tax mistakes before they happen. Whether you’re an individual taxpayer, a foreign investor, or a company with international operations, Drummond Advisors helps clients navigate U.S. tax obligations, strengthen compliance, and build the right international structure to minimize audit risks. Contact our team to learn how we can support your business.

Written by Paola Von Atzingen and Maikon Luiz

5 MIN

READ

U.S. tariff policy remains at the center of international trade discussions in 2026. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that part of the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump’s administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful, the U.S. government has already refunded approximately $81 billion to companies that had paid surtaxes […]

/ By Marcos Ferreira

U.S. tariff policy remains at the center of international trade discussions in 2026. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that part of the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump’s administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful, the U.S. government has already refunded approximately $81 billion to companies that had paid surtaxes on imported goods.

In addition to representing one of the largest tax refunds in recent U.S. history, the case creates new challenges for companies that import, export, or maintain international operations. For organizations with a presence in the U.S. market, the current environment requires close attention to regulatory changes, tax implications, and strategic planning opportunities.

What Led to the Tariff Refunds?

In April 2025, the U.S. government announced a broad package of tariffs on imports from several trading partners, justifying the measure under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law enacted in 1977 that grants the President emergency powers during national emergencies.

However, in February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the IEEPA did not provide the authority to establish this tariff regime. As a result, the federal government was required to begin reimbursing importers for the tariffs that had been unlawfully collected.

According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, between the beginning of fiscal year 2026 (October 2025) and July 2026, approximately $81 billion had already been refunded to eligible companies, with the largest payments occurring between May and June.

The Impact on U.S. Public Finances

The refunds had an immediate effect on federal finances.

In June 2026 alone:

  • The U.S. government collected approximately $23.6 billion in tariff revenue;
  • Refunded approximately $49.2 billion to importers;
  • Recorded a net outflow of $25.6 billion related to tariffs.

This contributed to a monthly federal budget deficit of approximately $120 billion, while the cumulative fiscal year deficit reached roughly $1.367 trillion. Beyond the refunds themselves, rising interest payments on the national debt also continued to pressure the federal budget.

Is the Matter Settled? Not Yet.

Although the Supreme Court invalidated tariffs imposed under the IEEPA, this does not mark the end of U.S. tariff policy.

Following the Court’s decision, the administration began relying on other legal authorities available under U.S. trade law, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, to temporarily maintain certain tariffs while developing new trade strategies. At the same time, the administration continues to conduct investigations that may lead to additional tariffs targeting specific countries and industries.

In practice, this means the regulatory environment remains highly dynamic, requiring companies engaged in international business to continuously monitor developments.

Which Companies May Be Affected?

The issue extends well beyond U.S. importers.

Foreign companies with subsidiaries, distribution centers, or commercial operations in the United States may also face significant impacts, particularly if they:

  • Import goods directly into the U.S. market;
  • Rely on global supply chains;
  • Operate under international supply agreements;
  • Maintain tax structures involving multiple jurisdictions.

In many cases, businesses may need to reassess contracts, logistics costs, pricing strategies, and tax planning to reflect the evolving regulatory landscape.

Opportunities for International Businesses

Despite the legal uncertainty created by frequent policy changes, the current environment also presents valuable opportunities.

Tax Structure Review

Companies can reassess their corporate and tax structures to identify efficiencies under the new regulatory framework.

Recovery of Previously Paid Tariffs

Organizations that paid tariffs later deemed unlawful should determine whether they qualify for refunds and identify the administrative procedures required to recover those amounts.

Import Planning

With the possibility of future tariff changes, businesses should carefully evaluate product sourcing, applicable trade agreements, and tariff classifications.

Regulatory Risk Management

The case underscores the importance of continuously monitoring legislative developments, judicial decisions, and U.S. trade policy changes.

Image: Canva

What Should Companies Do Now?

Regardless of industry, companies with international operations should consider taking the following proactive measures:

  • Review their import and export supply chains;
  • Confirm whether they paid tariffs that were subsequently ruled unlawful;
  • Evaluate opportunities to recover overpaid amounts;
  • Update financial forecasts to account for potential tariff changes;
  • Review international contracts to address future regulatory developments;
  • Strengthen tax and customs compliance programs.

An integrated approach involving legal, tax, accounting, and international trade professionals can significantly reduce risk while improving an organization’s ability to adapt to an increasingly dynamic regulatory environment.

What to Expect in the Coming Months

Experts estimate that total tariff refunds could eventually exceed $175 billion if all eligible claims are processed. At the same time, the U.S. administration continues to pursue alternative legal mechanisms to preserve trade protection measures, suggesting that additional regulatory and judicial disputes may still emerge.

For global companies, this means U.S. trade policy will remain a strategic risk management issue requiring continuous monitoring and long-term planning.

Conclusion

The refund of $81 billion in tariffs represents a landmark moment in U.S. trade policy and demonstrates how judicial decisions can dramatically reshape the business environment.

For companies operating internationally, this case reinforces the importance of maintaining corporate and tax structures capable of responding quickly to regulatory changes, reducing risk while taking advantage of opportunities to recover credits and improve operational efficiency.

Drummond Advisors closely monitors legislative, tax, and trade developments in the United States, helping global companies structure operations, review tax strategies, maintain international compliance, and expand successfully into the U.S. market.

Do you believe your company may be eligible for a tariff refund? Contact our team through the chat available on our website or email us at info@drummondadvisors.com.


Written by Marcos Ferreira, Content Analyst at Drummond Advisors.

Sources

  • Reuters – Tariff refunds push US June budget deficit to $120 billion
  • Thomson Reuters Institute – Supreme Court’s tariff decision: What’s next for businesses and how to plan
  • Penn Wharton Budget Model (estimate cited by Reuters)
  • U.S. Department of the Treasury – Monthly Treasury Statement
  • Globo – Após derrota na Suprema Corte, governo Trump já devolveu US$ 81 bilhões em tarifas

4 MIN

READ

Intercompany loan transactions are common within multinational corporate groups. However, determining the appropriate interest rate is one of the most sensitive aspects of Transfer Pricing and has become an increasing focus of tax authorities. An interest rate that lacks adequate economic support may result in tax adjustments, limitations on interest deductibility, and penalties. Conversely, a […]

/ By Drummond Advisors

Intercompany loan transactions are common within multinational corporate groups. However, determining the appropriate interest rate is one of the most sensitive aspects of Transfer Pricing and has become an increasing focus of tax authorities.

An interest rate that lacks adequate economic support may result in tax adjustments, limitations on interest deductibility, and penalties. Conversely, a well-documented pricing policy strengthens the taxpayer’s position, reduces audit risks, and provides greater certainty for cross-border financing transactions.

Although both Brazil and the United States follow the arm’s length principle, the methods used to demonstrate that an interest rate reflects market conditions differ significantly.

United States: The AFR as a Reference, But Not Necessarily a Market Rate

In the United States, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) publishes the Applicable Federal Rate (AFR) each month. The AFR serves as a minimum benchmark for certain related-party transactions, particularly under the rules established by Section 7872 of the Internal Revenue Code.

In addition, Section 482 provides standards that, under certain circumstances, reduce the likelihood of IRS challenges when the interest rate falls within a range associated with the AFR.

However, the AFR does not always reflect the rate that unrelated parties would negotiate. In transactions involving higher credit risk, unsecured financing, or bullet-payment structures, an independent lender would generally require a higher return.

In these cases, preparing a benchmark study in accordance with Treasury Regulation §1.482-2(a) becomes essential to demonstrate, based on market data, that the interest rate satisfies the arm’s length principle.

Brazil: New Rules Require Documentation Based on Comparable Transactions

With the enactment of Law No. 14,596/2023, Brazil adopted the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, replacing its former system based on predetermined statutory parameters.

Normative Instruction RFB No. 2,161/2023 regulates financial transactions between related parties, including intercompany loans, cash pooling arrangements, and guarantees, without establishing any interest rate that is automatically accepted by the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service.

In practice, determining an arm’s length interest rate requires consideration of several factors, including:

  • The borrower’s credit risk profile, generally assessed on a standalone basis, with a specific evaluation of any implicit group support;
  • The characteristics of the transaction, including maturity, currency, collateral, and repayment terms; and
  • Comparable transactions identified through recognized financial databases such as Bloomberg or Capital IQ.

Under this new framework, documentation supported by comparable market data is no longer simply a tool for justifying higher interest rates. It has become a fundamental component of Transfer Pricing compliance.

Image: Canva

Key Differences Between Brazil and the United States

AspectUnited StatesBrazil
Minimum ReferenceAFR for certain situationsNo predefined acceptable interest rate
Demonstrating an Arm’s Length RateBenchmark study when supporting a rate different from the AFRBenchmark study required to demonstrate compliance with the arm’s length principle
Credit AnalysisMay consider implicit group supportPrimarily standalone analysis, with specific consideration of potential implicit group support
Legal FrameworkInternal Revenue Code Sections 482 and 7872Law No. 14,596/2023 and Normative Instruction RFB No. 2,161/2023

Considerations for Multinational Groups

Companies conducting intercompany financing transactions between Brazil and the United States should evaluate each loan agreement under the applicable rules of both jurisdictions.

Although both countries apply the arm’s length principle, the requirements for demonstrating that an interest rate is consistent with market conditions are not identical. A benchmark study prepared solely to satisfy IRS requirements may not fully comply with Brazilian regulations, just as documentation prepared for Brazil may not satisfy all U.S. requirements.

A comprehensive analysis involves more than selecting an interest rate. It should also assess the borrower’s creditworthiness, the transaction’s terms, the existence of collateral, the financing period, and the economic evidence supporting the agreed-upon pricing.

How Drummond Can Help

Drummond’s Transfer Pricing team advises multinational groups on structuring and documenting intercompany financial transactions, including:

  • Establishing interest rates that comply with the arm’s length principle;
  • Preparing benchmark studies for financial transactions;
  • Reviewing intercompany loan agreements, cash pooling arrangements, and guarantees;
  • Preparing Transfer Pricing documentation to comply with both Brazilian and U.S. regulations; and
  • Providing support during audits, tax examinations, and reviews of related-party transactions.

If your company engages in intercompany financing or is considering reviewing its Transfer Pricing policy for financial transactions, our team is available to evaluate your current structure and develop a solution aligned with the requirements of each jurisdiction.

Written by Adriana Lemos, Transfer Pricing & Cross-Border Strategy.

MIN

READ

Expanding to the United States is a strategic move for startups, technology companies, traditional businesses, and international groups seeking access to the world’s largest consumer market, as well as investors, business partners, and global growth opportunities. However, one of the first decisions an international entrepreneur must make is: which business structure should they choose? Among […]

/ By Marcos Ferreira

Expanding to the United States is a strategic move for startups, technology companies, traditional businesses, and international groups seeking access to the world’s largest consumer market, as well as investors, business partners, and global growth opportunities.

However, one of the first decisions an international entrepreneur must make is: which business structure should they choose?

Among the most popular options are the Limited Liability Company (LLC) and the C-Corporation (C-Corp). While both offer liability protection and allow businesses to operate legally in the United States, they differ significantly in terms of taxation, governance, fundraising, and international planning.

In this article, we explain the key characteristics of each structure and the factors global founders should consider before expanding their operations into the U.S.

Why Is Choosing the Right Business Structure So Important?

The entity you choose directly impacts:

• How the company is taxed
• Compliance and governance requirements
• Investor participation
• Fundraising opportunities
• Profit distribution
• International tax planning
• Future mergers, acquisitions, and investment rounds

Choosing the wrong structure can create unnecessary costs, regulatory challenges, and even limit future growth opportunities.

What Is an LLC?

A Limited Liability Company (LLC) is one of the most commonly used business structures in the United States, particularly among small businesses, consulting firms, holding companies, and independent entrepreneurs.

Its main characteristic is that it combines the liability protection of a corporation with the operational flexibility of a partnership.

Key Advantages of an LLC

Tax Flexibility

An LLC may elect different tax treatments depending on the company’s strategy and the tax residency of its members.

In many cases, taxation flows directly to the members (owners), avoiding taxation at the corporate level.

Reduced Administrative Formalities

Compared to a corporation, an LLC typically requires fewer formal meetings, fewer corporate records, and less administrative bureaucracy.

Liability Protection

LLC members are generally not personally liable for the company’s debts and obligations.

Lower Startup and Maintenance Costs

Forming and maintaining an LLC is often simpler and more cost-effective.

What Are the Limitations of an LLC for International Founders?

Despite its advantages, an LLC is not always the best choice for businesses with global ambitions.

Some common challenges include:

• Less familiarity among institutional investors
• Potential tax complexities for foreign owners
• Limitations in certain Venture Capital structures
• Reduced attractiveness for large-scale fundraising rounds

Companies planning to raise capital from U.S. investment funds often find themselves converting to a corporate structure later.

What Is a C-Corporation?

A C-Corporation (C-Corp) is a legal entity separate from its shareholders.

It has its own legal identity, pays corporate income taxes, and is widely used by high-growth startups, technology companies, and businesses seeking outside investment.

Most Venture Capital-backed startups in the United States are structured as C-Corps, particularly in the state of Delaware.

Image: Canva

Key Advantages of a C-Corporation

Easier Access to Investment Capital

Venture Capital funds, angel investors, and private equity firms generally prefer investing in C-Corporations.

This preference is driven by:

• Standardized corporate governance
• Simplified share issuance
• Easier implementation of stock option plans
• Well-established corporate law frameworks

Scalability

The C-Corp structure was designed for rapid growth.

It facilitates:

• Investment rounds
• Admission of new shareholders
• Mergers and acquisitions
• International expansion

Stronger Market Perception

Many multinational companies, investors, and business partners are more familiar with the traditional U.S. corporate structure.

LLC or C-Corp: Which Structure Makes More Sense for Global Founders?

The answer depends on your business objectives.

An LLC May Be More Appropriate When:

• The focus is operational efficiency rather than fundraising
• There are only a few owners
• The goal is to maintain a simple structure
• Tax flexibility is a priority

A C-Corp May Be More Appropriate When:

• The company plans to raise Venture Capital
• Rapid growth is a priority
• There is potential for future M&A transactions or an IPO
• The business wants to build a scalable structure from the beginning

International Tax Considerations That Cannot Be Ignored

Foreign businesses must evaluate not only U.S. tax laws but also the consequences in their home jurisdictions.

Important issues include:

• Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC) rules
• International tax treaties
• Dividend taxation
• Double taxation mitigation
• Transfer pricing regulations
• International holding company structures

These factors should be analyzed before forming a U.S. entity.

A structure that is efficient from a U.S. perspective may create unexpected tax consequences elsewhere if not properly planned.

Common Mistakes Made by International Founders

Some of the most frequent mistakes include:

• Choosing an LLC simply because it is less expensive
• Forming a company without evaluating global tax implications
• Ignoring state and federal compliance requirements
• Failing to align the corporate structure with fundraising goals
• Delaying international tax planning until after expansion

Correcting these decisions later is often significantly more expensive and complex.

How to Make the Right Decision

The choice between an LLC and a C-Corp should take into account:

• Business model
• Growth strategy
• Need for external investment
• Shareholders’ country of residence
• International tax planning considerations
• Long-term business objectives

There is no universally superior structure. There is only the structure that best fits a company’s specific stage and strategic goals.

Conclusion

Expanding into the United States opens the door to growth, capital access, and global opportunities. However, selecting the right business structure is one of the most important decisions in that process.

While an LLC offers flexibility and operational simplicity, a C-Corporation is generally the preferred option for companies seeking investment capital and accelerated growth.

Before forming a U.S. entity, it is essential to evaluate the legal, tax, and strategic implications of the decision.

Drummond Advisors assists founders, startups, and international companies with the structuring of U.S. operations, providing integrated support in corporate, tax, accounting, and compliance matters to ensure a secure expansion aligned with global business objectives.

Need assistance? Contact us through our online chat or by email at info@drummondadvisors.com.

Written by Marcos Ferreira, Content Analyst at Drummond Advisors

6 MIN

READ

The proposal to change working hours in Brazil has reached a significant milestone in the legislative agenda. The Chamber of Deputies has approved, in two rounds of voting, the Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC) that eliminates the traditional 6×1 work schedule (six working days followed by one day off). The approved text reduces the maximum weekly […]

/ By Marcos Ferreira

The proposal to change working hours in Brazil has reached a significant milestone in the legislative agenda. The Chamber of Deputies has approved, in two rounds of voting, the Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC) that eliminates the traditional 6×1 work schedule (six working days followed by one day off). The approved text reduces the maximum weekly workload from 44 to 40 hours, establishing a limit of five working days and two days of rest per week.

For the corporate environment, this moment demands immediate attention and strategic planning. Although the measure still depends on approval in the next legislative stages before it can be enacted, the proposal’s approval by the Chamber’s Special Committee by a vote of 34 in favor and 4 against signals the rapid advancement and consolidation of a structural change in Brazilian labor relations.

Given this imminent regulatory transition, anticipating compliance measures is essential for companies to mitigate operational risks and ensure legal certainty. Below, we analyze the transition timeline, the practical impacts on collective bargaining agreements, and the regulatory and contractual actions organizations should adopt.

1. The Transition: Stages of the New Work Schedule

In order to reduce the immediate financial and operational impact on the productive sector, the final text includes a phased transition rule following the future enactment of the constitutional amendment.

Phase I (60 Days After Enactment)

The definitive end of the 6×1 schedule takes effect. Employees become entitled to two paid weekly rest days, with one of them preferably falling on Sunday.

Within the same timeframe, the maximum weekly workload is reduced from 44 to 42 hours.

Phase II (14 Months After Enactment)

The final reduction takes effect, establishing a maximum workload of 40 hours per week and a strict limit of 8 working hours per day.

It is important to note that the PEC explicitly prohibits any salary reduction, whether nominal or proportional, resulting from the reduction in working hours. This protection also applies to collectively negotiated minimum salary levels.

2. Next Steps in the Legislative Process

Following approval by the Chamber of Deputies, the PEC will move to the Federal Senate.

As a constitutional amendment, the proposal must be approved in two rounds of voting by at least three-fifths of the senators (49 votes).

Employer associations have already begun mobilizing in the Senate to seek additional adjustments, and there is a possibility of debates surrounding parallel proposals, such as compensation based on hours worked. Nevertheless, the political timeline suggests that the matter could receive final consideration later this year.

If the Senate modifies the substance of the proposal, it will return to the Chamber of Deputies for further review.

3. Structural Impact: Collective Bargaining Agreements and Time Banks

The flexibility of the transition will depend heavily on union negotiations. Companies will need to review their internal policies based on the following guidelines established in the proposal.

The Role of Collective Bargaining Agreements During the Transition

During the 12-month period between the implementation of the 42-hour workweek and the final 40-hour limit, the PEC expressly allows Collective Bargaining Agreements (CCTs) and Collective Labor Agreements (ACTs) to authorize daily working hours beyond the standard 8-hour limit.

This measure is intended to facilitate the compensation of working hours during the transition, provided that the two-day weekly rest requirement is strictly respected.

Expiration of Existing Provisions

The proposal establishes that, 60 days after enactment, any provisions in existing collective agreements or conventions related to working hours or weekly rest that are incompatible with the new limits will automatically become invalid.

As a result, companies should carefully review the contents of their collective agreements and conventions. Early assessment is critical to identify conflicts with the new framework and begin planning the regulatory transition.

Time Bank Adjustments

As weekly working hours decrease first to 42 hours and later to 40 hours, overtime calculations and time bank policies will change.

Hours previously considered part of the standard 44-hour workweek will become overtime hours. Companies will need to recalculate accumulation limits and optimize time-tracking systems to avoid labor liabilities.

Organizations currently operating under a 44-hour workweek and relying heavily on overtime should immediately review their practices to avoid future labor claims and excessive labor costs.

Image: Canva

4. Legal Compliance: The Need to Revise Contracts and Agreements

One of the primary areas requiring attention will be the review of all employment-related documentation.

The constitutional reduction in working hours will render existing practices obsolete and legally vulnerable if not properly formalized.

Amendments to Individual Employment Contracts

All active employment agreements based on a 44-hour workweek will require formal amendments.

These amendments should specify:

  • The new workload (first 42 hours, then 40 hours);
  • The revised distribution of workdays and rest days;
  • Explicit confirmation of salary preservation.

Updates to Individual Compensation Agreements

Individual working-time compensation agreements will remain valid.

However, companies will need to review and update these arrangements to ensure compliance with the new weekly limits of 42 and later 40 hours.

Alignment Between Contracts and Collective Agreements

Individual employment contract provisions must align with the terms established in future collective bargaining agreements.

Flexible arrangements implemented unilaterally by employers or without appropriate union support may be deemed invalid during inspections or labor disputes.

5. Special Regimes and Relevant Exceptions

The approved text includes important provisions designed to protect certain business models and professional categories.

Exception for High-Income Professionals

Working-hour limitations and time-tracking requirements will not apply to employees who:

  • Hold a university degree; and
  • Earn more than 2.5 times the Brazilian Social Security ceiling (currently equivalent to BRL 21,188.87 per month).

For this group, working-hour controls will only apply if required by collective bargaining agreements or voluntarily adopted by the employer.

The entitlement to two weekly rest days, however, remains guaranteed.

Alternative Work Schedules (Such as 12×36)

For essential sectors—including healthcare, security, transportation, and urban sanitation—collective agreements may establish exceptional compensation arrangements.

The objective is to preserve the equivalent of two weekly rest days over the course of a calendar month, allowing rest periods to be accumulated and taken later.

6. Practical Recommendations for Companies

Drummond Advisors recommends that companies begin preventive planning immediately.

Audit Contracts and Agreements

Identify all employment agreements and individual compensation arrangements that will require legal amendments once the PEC is enacted.

Model Operational Costs

Assess the financial impact of reduced working hours on productivity.

Determine whether additional hiring will be necessary or whether operational demands can be addressed through automation and task redistribution.

Prepare for Labor Negotiations

Coordinate with employer associations and labor unions regarding upcoming collective bargaining discussions, focusing on compensation agreements, time banks, and shift schedules.

Update Internal Systems

Prepare electronic time-tracking and payroll systems to support the transition from 44 to 42 hours and eventually to 40 hours per week, preventing payroll discrepancies and compliance issues.

Conclusion

Proactively adapting to this new labor framework not only reduces legal risks and labor liabilities but can also become a competitive advantage in talent management and retention within the Brazilian market.

Organizations that begin planning now will be better positioned to navigate the transition efficiently, maintain compliance, and preserve operational stability as the new rules take shape.

Written by Daniel Rangel, Head of Labor Law at Drummond Advisors

2 MIN

READ

We would like to remind you that the deadline for filing the Brazilian Corporate Income Tax Return (Escrituração Contábil Fiscal – ECF) for the 2025 calendar year is July 31, 2026. In this context, we would like to highlight several areas that require special attention: Block X – Transfer Pricing • Transfer Pricing rules were […]

/ By Drummond Advisors

We would like to remind you that the deadline for filing the Brazilian Corporate Income Tax Return (Escrituração Contábil Fiscal – ECF) for the 2025 calendar year is July 31, 2026.

In this context, we would like to highlight several areas that require special attention:

Block X – Transfer Pricing

• Transfer Pricing rules were updated by Law No. 14,596/2023 and Brazilian Federal Revenue Service Normative Instruction No. 2,161/2023.

• Transfer Pricing analyses conducted under the new legislation must be properly reflected in the ECF.

• It is essential to review the methods applied, any required adjustments, and supporting documentation to avoid inconsistencies and potential tax assessments.

Block X – Worldwide Taxation

• Brazil’s Worldwide Taxation Regime requires Brazilian legal entities with investments in foreign companies to recognize the results of those foreign entities for Corporate Income Tax (IRPJ) and Social Contribution on Net Income (CSLL) purposes.

• Information regarding the foreign investee company, including its balance sheet and income statement, must be reported in Block X of the ECF.

• It is critical to review the information being reported, the adjustments made, and any applicable offsets or consolidations to ensure proper reporting in accordance with Brazilian tax legislation.

Image: Canva

Block W – Country-by-Country Report (CbC Report)

• Companies that are part of multinational enterprise groups with consolidated revenue exceeding the applicable threshold must submit a Country-by-Country (CbC) Report.

• Proper completion of this filing ensures transparency and compliance with international reporting standards.

Our Solution

We offer a specialized review service for Blocks X and W of the ECF, ensuring:

• Compliance with current legislation;

• Mitigation of tax risks;

• Timely filing within the statutory deadline.

Please contact our team through the available chat or by email at info@drummondadvisors.com to schedule a review and ensure full compliance with this reporting obligation.

Written by Hanna Lauar, Senior Associate at Drummond Advisors

4 MIN

READ

One of the most significant changes introduced by Brazil’s new transfer pricing legislation, aligned with OECD guidelines, is the specific treatment of Low Value-Adding Intra-Group Services (LVAS). But what exactly qualifies a service as “low value-adding” for transfer pricing purposes? The Concept Law No. 14,596/2023 and the regulations issued by the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service […]

/ By Drummond Advisors

One of the most significant changes introduced by Brazil’s new transfer pricing legislation, aligned with OECD guidelines, is the specific treatment of Low Value-Adding Intra-Group Services (LVAS).

But what exactly qualifies a service as “low value-adding” for transfer pricing purposes?

The Concept

Law No. 14,596/2023 and the regulations issued by the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service establish that low value-adding intra-group services are those that:

• Have a supporting operational nature and do not constitute part of the group’s core business activities;

• Do not involve the assumption of significant risks by the service provider;

• Do not utilize unique and valuable intangible assets;

• Do not generate a significant competitive advantage or contribute to the group’s strategic decision-making.

Examples recognized under the legislation include:

• Routine accounting and financial services;

• Administrative legal support services;

• Human resources activities;

• IT support services;

• Support-related communications and marketing activities.

Application of the Simplified Method

Once a service is classified as a low value-adding service, a simplified pricing methodology may be applied based on the total cost of providing the service, plus a 5% gross profit markup.

However, this markup operates differently depending on the direction of the transaction:

• A minimum markup of 5% applies when the service provider is a legal entity domiciled in Brazil, protecting the Brazilian tax base on exported services;

• A maximum markup of 5% applies when the service provider is a related party located abroad, limiting deductibility on imported services and preventing profit shifting through excessive pricing.

This differentiated treatment is intended to prevent both the underpricing of exported services and the overpricing of imported services that could improperly reduce Brazil’s taxable income base.

Image: Canva

Important Consideration

The improper classification of a service as LVAS is one of the most common risks in this area.

Services that, in substance, involve the transfer of know-how, strategic decision-making, or the use of valuable intangible assets do not qualify for the simplified treatment, regardless of how they are described in intercompany agreements.

For example, sales and marketing teams may formally be described as providing operational support services. However, if they directly influence the group’s commercial strategy, brand management, or market development efforts, the economic substance of the transaction may prevent the service from qualifying as LVAS.

Shared Employee Costs

Another equally relevant and often overlooked risk involves sales, marketing, HR, finance, or legal professionals employed by a Brazilian entity who dedicate part of their time to benefiting a related entity located abroad.

In such cases, an intra-group service is being provided and must be compensated accordingly.

If the service qualifies as LVAS, the treatment is relatively straightforward:

• The proportional cost associated with the time dedicated to the foreign related party must be identified and segregated;

• A minimum 5% markup must be applied to both direct and indirect costs;

• The allocation among beneficiary entities must be formalized using a reasonable allocation key and supported by proper documentation.

Companies that fail to formalize this arrangement may effectively subsidize the foreign entity without compensation. In addition to violating the arm’s length principle, such situations may be challenged by the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service as unreported revenue or as evidence of an undocumented transfer pricing policy.

For tax purposes, the characterization of a transaction is not determined solely by the terminology adopted by the parties. The economic substance of the transaction prevails over its contractual form.

The proper identification and documentation of low value-adding intra-group services is not merely a compliance requirement. It is a strategic decision that directly impacts a group’s transfer pricing policy, effective tax burden, and legal certainty in transactions between related entities.

Drummond Advisors has a specialized Transfer Pricing and Cross-Border team ready to assist companies in evaluating the impacts of transfer pricing regulations. Our services include reviewing international structures, intercompany agreements, transfer pricing policies and documentation, as well as assessing whether transactions comply with the arm’s length principle under Brazilian legislation, U.S. tax rules, and OECD guidelines.

Written by Adriana Lemos, Transfer Pricing & Cross-Border Strategy Lead at Drummond Advisors

MIN

READ

Internationalizing operations can be a major milestone for millions of entrepreneurs around the world. Expanding into new markets, increasing opportunities, and strengthening a company’s positioning are strategic moves that, while promising, require time, planning, and careful attention to a series of bureaucratic processes. But after all, how long does it take? The answer depends on […]

/ By Paola Atzingen

Internationalizing operations can be a major milestone for millions of entrepreneurs around the world. Expanding into new markets, increasing opportunities, and strengthening a company’s positioning are strategic moves that, while promising, require time, planning, and careful attention to a series of bureaucratic processes.

Image: Canva

But after all, how long does it take?

The answer depends on several factors. Every business has its own particularities and requires specific attention when it comes to strategic planning, corporate structuring, taxation, visas, and regulatory compliance. Because of this, every internationalization process is unique and directly influenced by the company’s level of maturity and preparedness.

International expansion can generate financial, strategic, and branding advantages. Crossing borders may lead to increased revenue, access to more competitive markets and stronger currencies, greater scalability, and a stronger corporate reputation. In addition, having an international presence often increases a company’s credibility and perceived value — even within its home market.

The average timeline of the whole process to internationalize can take anywhere from 3 to 5 years.

More than speed, the success of this journey is directly connected to the quality of the planning and the ability to execute each stage strategically and securely.

In practice, many companies are able to establish an international operation within a few months, but bringing that structure to maturity is a much deeper process. Building a presence in another market requires cultural adaptation, commercial validation, network development, operational consistency, and the ability to sustain long-term growth.

If your company is considering international expansion, the first step is understanding your business’s level of readiness and building a plan aligned with your long-term goals. Contact our specialists at Drummond Advisors to learn more about the internationalization process.

Written by Paola Von Atzingen, from the Drummond Advisors team.

2 MIN

READ

Brazil’s 2026 General Elections are approaching, and Brazilians—whether residing in Brazil or abroad—should be aware of a key legal deadline: May 6, 2026. Under Brazilian law, voting and voter registration are mandatory civic obligations for eligible citizens, pursuant to Article 14 of the Brazilian Constitution and the Brazilian Electoral Code (Law No. 4,737/1965). By May […]

/ By Drummond Advisors

Brazil’s 2026 General Elections are approaching, and Brazilians—whether residing in Brazil or abroad—should be aware of a key legal deadline: May 6, 2026.

Under Brazilian law, voting and voter registration are mandatory civic obligations for eligible citizens, pursuant to Article 14 of the Brazilian Constitution and the Brazilian Electoral Code (Law No. 4,737/1965).

By May 6, 2026, voters may request electoral services such as registration, updates, transfer of electoral domicile, or regularization of their electoral status.

After this date, the electoral registry will be closed, and no changes will be permitted until after the elections in October.

What can be done before May 6?

Before the deadline, individuals may:

  • Apply for a first-time voter registration
  • Transfer their voting domicile (including to or from abroad)
  • Update personal information
  • Regularize any pending electoral issues

Most services can be initiated online through Brazil’s Electoral Court (TSE/TRE) Self-Service platform. However, in some cases, biometric data collection may require in-person attendance.

Image: Canva

Brazilians abroad: why this matters?

In addition to the constitutional obligation to vote, compliance with electoral requirements is often a legal prerequisite for a range of administrative and civil acts in Brazil.

Maintaining regular status with the Brazilian Electoral Justice is typically required for:

  • Brazilian passport renewals and issuance
  • CPF (tax ID) regularization
  • Execution of various legal and civil acts in Brazil

Failure to regularize one’s electoral status may result in administrative restrictions, financial penalties, and delays in essential procedures.

How Drummond can support you

Drummond Advisors provides comprehensive legal and administrative support for Brazilians abroad, including:

  • Brazilian Passport renewals and issuance
  • Strategic guidance on electoral regularization
  • Assistance with Brazilian document issuance and updates
  • Consular and administrative support
  • Visa and global mobility services

Our team combines legal expertise with practical experience to navigate complex bureaucratic requirements, ensuring full compliance and operational efficiency, wherever you are located.

Don’t wait until the last minute!

Brazil’s Electoral Justice recommends early action, as demand increases significantly as the deadline approaches.

For Brazilians living abroad, proactive planning is essential to ensure full compliance and avoid disruptions before the electoral registry closes.


Article prepared by Victória Vono, Senior Consultant – Brazil & LATAM Immigration, and Liz Fireman, Junior Consultant – Brazil & LATAM Immigration at Drummond Advisors

52 MIN

READ

Written by Leticia Mariz, Partner at Drummond Advisors, and Johanna Chan, Associate Attorney at Drummond Advisors Raising capital in the United States can be a challenging process because it involves navigating a complex set of federal and state securities laws that govern how securities can be offered and sold, require disclosures, and provide conditions for […]

/ By Drummond Advisors

Written by Leticia Mariz, Partner at Drummond Advisors, and Johanna Chan, Associate Attorney at Drummond Advisors

Raising capital in the United States can be a challenging process because it involves navigating a complex set of federal and state securities laws that govern how securities can be offered and sold, require disclosures, and provide conditions for compliance with exemptions from registrations. Aside from this, companies must also consider different types of investors and their expectations, managing their risk tolerance and strategic interests.

Fundraising may be undertaken by operating companies, such as startups in a venture capital financing round, or by investment funds or other pooled investment vehicles. In our practice, we have observed a growing interest among Brazilian clients in raising funds in the United States, not only from operational companies seeking investors to support business growth, but also from companies wishing to grasp investment opportunities in the United States by means of pooled investment vehicles or by fund managers looking to structure special purpose vehicles or funds for investment in the United States or abroad. This growing interest is likely driven by Brazilians’ increasing preference for investing in dollarized assets, as well as by the opportunities offered by the U.S. market, including the real estate sector.

The equity shares or debt issued by a company, whether operational or not, are generally considered securities when offered to a group of investors. Any offering of securities in the United States is regulated by both federal and state securities laws. This article is intended to serve as a guide to provide clients with a clearer understanding of the regulatory landscape and what can be expected when investing in the United States.

At the federal level, the most relevant laws are the following: (1) Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”); (2) Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Securities Exchange Act”); (3) Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Investment Advisers Act”); and (4) Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”). This article does not address state-level regulations and clients are advised to investigate the applicable state law prior to engaging in the structure of funds or offering of securities in the United States.

This article is organized as follows: Part I discusses the relevant laws and regulations that govern the offer, sale, and resale of securities. It also covers the tests to determine the existence of covered offerings and the exemptions available to issuers to offer or sell securities without registering with the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Part II covers the regulation of investment advisers and the requirements concerned persons should comply with. It also discusses the reach of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as compared to the SEC. Lastly, Part III discusses the registration requirements and exemptions surrounding investment companies and includes a discussion on foreign investment companies seeking to raise capital in the United States.

I.                   SECURITIESOFFERING

a.                SECURITIES ACT OF 1933AND SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

  1. Securities Act of 1933

The Securities Act[1] was enacted to require issuers who offer securities to the public to disclose material information and to ensure that any transactions related to the offer of these securities are not based on fraudulent information or practices.[2] It allows issuers to offer securities to the public only after filing a registration statement containing specified information about the company and the security for sale. The purpose of registration is the disclosure of all the company’s information so that the public can make an informed investment. In general, registration forms call for: a description of the company’s properties and business, a description of the security to be offered for sale, information about the management of the company, and financial statements certified by independent accountants.[3]

  • Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

This is an act which provides for the regulation of securities exchanges and of over-the-counter markets operating in interstate and foreign commerce and through the mails, to prevent inequitable and unfair practices on such exchanges and markets, and for other purposes.”[4] The SEC is given authority to regulate the registration of securities, impose reporting requirements by companies with publicly traded securities, oversee brokerage firms, transfer agents, and clearing agencies. A company becomes subject to this Act once any of the following occur[5]: (1) listing on a National Securities Exchange; (2) the company exceeds the shareholder threshold; or (3) even without listing securities on a National Securities Exchange, the company has sold securities under an effective registration statement.

3.      Difference between the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

While both the Securities Act and Securities Exchange Act regulate securities, they focus on different aspects of it. The Securities Act regulates the issuance of new securities, such as during an initial public offering (IPO). On the other hand, the Securities Exchange Act governs trading securities after they have been issued, typically involving transactions that would no longer concern the original issuer.

  • SECURITIES DEFINED

The primary law that regulates the registration of securities is the Securities Act of 1933. As discussed above, securities may only be offered and sold to the public only after filing a registration statement. But how is security defined and what constitutes an offer?

Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act lists what is considered as “security”. Securities come in various forms. The most common examples of securities are notes, stocks, bonds, debentures, certificates of interests, or similar financial instruments.[6] Additionally, Section 2(a)(3) defines the term “offer” as that which includes “every attempt or offer to dispose of, or solicitation of an offer to buy, a security or interest in a security, for value.”

            Supplementarily, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provides for Rules to determine whether certain obligations and interests are considered securities.[7] While the UCC is a model code, it has been adopted by 50 states and the District of Columbia as part of their state law. Based on this, the following are considered securities:[8]

  1. Share or similar equity interest issued by a corporation, business trust, joint stock company, or similar entities;
  2. Investment Company Security;
  3. An interest in a partnership or limited liability company that is (a) dealt in or traded on securities exchanges or in securities markets, (b) its terms expressly provide that it is a security under the Uniform Commercial Code, or it is an investment company security; and
  4. Security certificate.
  • TESTS TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS A SECURITIES TRANSACTION

In addition to the definition provided by law, courts have developed tests to determine whether a financial instrument or transaction qualifies as a security or not. The most common tests are the Howey Test and the Reves Test, discussed below.

  1. Howey Test         

The Howey Test determines whether a financial instrument or transaction is considered a security or not and was developed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of SEC v. W.J. Howey Co..[9] The test found that if the following elements are present in the transaction, it would be considered security and would need to be registered:[10]

  1. There is an investment of money;
  2. Such investment is made in a common enterprise;
  3. There is an expectation of profits from the investment; and
  4. The profits come from the efforts of others, either primarily or substantially.

If the above test is satisfied, it is immaterial whether the enterprise is speculative or nonspeculative, or whether there is a sale of property with or without intrinsic value. [11]

This article does not go into an in-depth analysis of each of the elements described above, but those are analyzed in detail in the Howey case and in the cases where such test is applied.

  • Reves Test

This test was also developed by the US Supreme Court, in the case of Reves v. Ernst & Young.[12] The case involved a determination of whether a note is considered a security within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act. The Court chose not to apply the Howey Test to determine whether a note is considered a security. It explained that the Howey Test was originally meant for a different kind of instrument and using it would overlook the other types of instruments enumerated in the law.[13]

The test presumes that every note is a security unless it bears a strong resemblance to one of the categories of notes that are not considered as securities. These categories, identified by a long list of Second Circuit decisions, include the following:

  1. The note delivered in consumer financing;
  2. The note secured by a mortgage on a home;
  3. The short-term note secured by a lien on a small business or some of its assets;
  4. The note evidencing a character loan to a bank customer;
  5. Short-term notes secured by an assignment of accounts receivable; or
  6. A note which simply formalizes an open-account debt incurred in the ordinary course of business. [14]

To determine if a note bears a familial resemblance to one of the above-enumerated categories, the Court weighs four (4) factors:[15]  

  1. Motivation of the parties to enter into the transaction;
  2. Plan of distribution of the instrument;
  3. Reasonable expectations of the investing public; and
  4. Whether some factor, such as the existence of another regulatory scheme significantly reduces the risk of the instrument, thereby rendering application of the Securities Act unnecessary.
  • EXEMPTIONS TO THE OBLIGATORY REGISTRATION OF SECURITIES

As a general rule, securities must be registered with the SEC before they can be offered or sold. However, the law provides specific exemptions that allow certain securities or transactions to bypass registration as long as they meet certain requirements. In this section, we will discuss these exemptions and requirements under Section 3 and Section 4 of the Securities Act, as well as Regulations D and S.

  1. Section 3 of the Securities Act

Section 3 of the Securities Act exempts the following securities from registration:[16]

  1. Securities issued or guaranteed by the United States government, any Territory thereof, by the District of Columbia, by any State of the United States, or political subdivision of the State or Territory;
  2. Securities issued or guaranteed by a bank;
  3. Commercial papers, which are any note, draft, bill of exchange or banker’s acceptance which arises out of a current transaction or the proceeds of which have been or are to be used for current transactions, and which have a maturity at the time not exceeding 9 months;
  4. Certificates issued by a receiver or by a trustee in a bankruptcy, with the approval of the court;
  5. Securities exchanged by the issuer with its existing security holders, but only when no commission or other remuneration is given directly or indirectly for soliciting such exchange;
  6. Court -or government approved exchanges; or
  7. Subject to the qualifications under the Securities Act, equity security issued in connection with the acquisition by a holding company of a bank under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 or the Home Owner’s Loan Act.

It is worth noting, however, that this exemption does not eliminate the liability of issuers under Section 12 or 17 of the Securities Act – imposing civil liability in connection with prospectuses and communications as well as penalty for involvement in fraudulent interstate transactions, respectively – or under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act or Rule 10(b)-5 under the Exchange Act – which regulates the use of manipulative and deceptive devices to effect a sale of securities.

  • Section 4 of the Securities Act

Section 4 of the same Securities Act also provides exemption from registration requirements for the following transactions[17]:

  1. Transactions by any person other than an issuer, dealer or underwriter;
  2. Transactions by an issuer not involving a public offering (Private Placement Exemption);
  3. Transactions by a dealer that is no longer acting as an underwriter in an offering, depending on the number of days after a public offering is completed;
  4. Brokers’ transactions that are executed upon a customer’s order on any exchange or in the over-the-counter market. This does not include the solicitation of orders;
  5. Transactions by an issuer made only to one or more accredited investors if (a) the aggregate offering price does not exceed $5 million, (b) there is no advertising or general solicitation of the transaction, and (c) the issuer files a Form D with the SEC within 15 days after the date of the first sale of securities;
  6. Transactions involving the offer or sale of securities by an issuer provided that the aggregate amount sold to all investors under the exemption does not exceed $1 million within any 12-month period and all other offering conditions under Section 4(a)(6) are complied with; or
  7. Transactions for resales of securities that meet certain requirements, including each purchaser be an accredited investor.

One of the principal exemptions under Section 4 is found in Section 4(a)(2), which pertains to sales that do not involve a public offering (item 2 of the above list). This exemption under Section 4(a)(2) is the basis for many private placements, where securities are sold to a limited number of investors. Although the requirements for a private placement exemption are not explicitly outlined in the Securities Act, the following factors are commonly considered when determining whether an offering qualifies for this exemption:[18]

  • Private offering: The exemption is generally available for private offerings that are not made to the general public. The issuer must restrict the offering to a limited number of sophisticated investors or individuals with a pre-existing relationship with the issuer.[19]
    • Access to information: Investors often have access to information about the issuer, its management, and financial condition. This access allows investors to evaluate the investment opportunity even without the protections provided by a registered offering.
    • Investor sophistication: The exemption is typically available to “sophisticated” investors who have the knowledge and experience to evaluate the risks and merits of the investment. The issuer may require potential investors to provide representations regarding their financial status and investment experience.
    • Investment intent: The investors must intend to acquire the securities for investment purposes rather than with the intention of distributing or reselling them to the public. To rely on the exemption, the issuer must ensure that the offering is not part of a larger plan to conduct a public offering. This means that subsequent offerings or sales of securities must be separate and distinct from the original private placement.
  • Regulation D of the Securities Act 1933

Regulation D (“Reg D”) is a set of rules – including Rules 504 and 506 – promulgated by the SEC that provides specific exemptions for certain private offerings of securities under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act. The rules facilitate capital raising by allowing securities to be sold without registration, provided that the company meets certain conditions. Reg D is essentially a safe harbor rule. This means that issuers are protected from liability related to registration requirements as long as they follow the regulation guidelines.

  • Rule 504

Rule 504 permits the sale of securities of up to $10 million within a 12-month period without the need for registration with the SEC.[20] If a second transaction fails to meet the limitation on the aggregate offering price, it does not affect the availability of this exemption to the first transaction.

However, not all companies are eligible to rely on this exemption. Rule 504 specifically excludes the following entities[21]:

  1. Investment Companies;
    1. Companies required to report under the Securities Exchange Act;[22]
    1. A development stage company that:
      1. Has no specific business plan or purpose; or
      1. Has indicated that its business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies; [23]  or
    1. Companies that are liable for a “bad actor” disqualification.[24]

The “bad actor” disqualification provisions disqualify offerings from relying on Rule 504 if the issuer or other covered persons[25] have experienced a disqualifying event,[26] such as being convicted of, or sanctioned for, securities fraud or other violations of specified laws.[27] Further details about bad actor disqualification below.

  • Rule 506

Rule 506 allows companies to raise an unlimited amount of capital through the sale of securities, without needing to register the same with the SEC. However, the availability of this exemption is subject to certain conditions, as enumerated below, and is dependent on whether the purchaser is a non-accredited investor or an accredited investor:[28]

            506(b) – Sale to non-accredited investors; no general solicitation:[29]

  1. There are no more than 35 non-accredited purchasers of securities from the issuer in any 90-day calendar day period.
  2. Such investor must be a “sophisticated” investor or someone who is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the investment.
  3. No general solicitation.
  4.  Comprehensive information needs to be provided.

506(c) – Sale to accredited investors: [30]

  1. Purchaser is an accredited investor; and
  2. Issuer has taken reasonable steps to verify that the purchaser is accredited.
  3. General solicitation accepted.

A key consideration under Rule 506 is the prohibition on general solicitation and advertising when offerings are made to non‑accredited investors. This means that any advertisement or announcement through websites or any other form of media is not allowed. To avoid mistakenly making a “general solicitation”, the company can limit its offering to investors with whom the company has a pre-existing relationship with.[31] On the other hand, if the offering is made to only accredited investors, then the issuer is permitted to broadly solicit through advertisements, or media.[32]

Accredited investors are those who meet any of the wealth, income, or financial sophistication criteria outlined by the SEC. As to wealth and income criteria for individuals, for example, such person must have a net worth or joint net worth with a spouse or partner of at least $1 million, not including the value of his or her primary residence, or an income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent calendar years or joint income with a spouse or spousal equivalent exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year.[33] For entities, the requirements vary, and they may be considered an accredited investor if (a) they possess assets that are valued over $5 million; (b) own investments in excess of $5 million; (c) all equity owners are accredited investors; or (d) if they are a bank, insurance company, or a registered investment company or trusts with assets in excess of $5 million. [34] These examples are not an exhaustive list. [35]

Another key consideration in Rule 506 offerings is compliance with disclosure requirements. If non‑accredited investors are included in the offering, issuers must furnish disclosures equivalent to those mandated in registered offerings[36]. That is, issuers are generally required to provide the same kind of information as described in Part I of a registration statement and financial statements although these statements are not required if the company is newly formed and has not completed its first fiscal years, or if there have been no material operations or financial activity [37]. On the other hand, if the offering is limited to only accredited investors, the SEC does not require any specific disclosure obligations beyond relevant anti-fraud provisions. However, in practice, most issuers still provide a Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) to mitigate liability.

It must also be noted that to be eligible for the exemption under this rule, the issuer must file a notice of sales (Form D filing) no later than 15 days from the date of the first sale. The form serves to provide the SEC with information about the issuer and the offering, even though the offering is exempt from full registration.

  • Bad Actor Disqualification

Rule 506 also excludes those issuers from relying on the exemption if they, or certain persons associated with them, are subject to a “bad actor” disqualification.[38]  Under the Bad Actor Disqualification provisions, an issuer is prohibited from offering or selling securities under Regulation D exemptions if it or its related parties have been involved in certain disqualifying events, such as criminal convictions, court injunctions, suspension or expulsion from membership in a self-regulatory organization, such as FINRA, securities law violations, or regulatory sanctions.[39] Note that the disqualification applies not only to the issuer but to other related parties as follows: [40]

  1. Any predecessor of the issuer;
  2. Any affiliated issuer;
  3. Any director, executive officer, other officer participating in the offering, general partner or managing member of the issuer;
  4. Any beneficial owner of 20% or more of the issuer’s outstanding voting equity securities, calculated on the basis of voting power;
  5. Any promoter connected with the issuer in any capacity at the time of such sale;
  6. Any investment manager of an issuer that is a pooled investment fund; any person that has been or will be paid (directly or indirectly) remuneration for solicitation of purchasers in connection with such sale of securities;
  7. Any general partner or managing member of any such investment manager or solicitor; or
  8. Any director, executive officer or other officer participating in the offering of any such investment manager or solicitor or general partner or managing member of such investment manager or solicitor.
  • Regulation S of the Securities Act 1933

            Regulation S serves as a safe harbor for offerings and sales of securities made outside the United States, ensuring that these international offerings are not subject to the registration requirements of the Securities Act.

  • General Conditions to Comply with Regulation S

There are two (2) general conditions that must be met in both cases in order to come under categories of the Regulation S safe harbor:

  1. The offer or sale must be made in an offshore transaction; and
  2. No directed selling efforts may be made in or into the United States.

These conditions will be discussed in more detail below.

Offshore Transaction

            One of the fundamental elements of Regulation S is the requirement for an “offshore transaction”. This means that the securities must be sold outside the U.S. to a “non-U.S. person”. Non-U.S. persons are defined under the Rules as any of the following:[41]

  1. Any discretionary account or similar account (other than an estate or trust) held for the benefit or account of a non-U.S. person by a dealer or other professional fiduciary organized, incorporated, or (if an individual) resident in the United States;
  2. Any estate of which any professional fiduciary acting as executor or administrator is a U.S. person if the executor or administrator of the estate, who is not a U.S. person, has sole or shared investment discretion with respect to the assets of the estate, and the estate is governed by foreign law;
  3. Any trust of which any professional fiduciary acting as trustee is a U.S. person, if a trustee who is not a U.S. person has sole or shared investment discretion with respect to the trust assets, and no beneficiary of the trust (and no settlor if the trust is revocable) is a U.S. person;
  4. An employee benefit plan established and administered in accordance with the law of a country other than the United States and customary practices and documentation of such country;
  5. Any agency or branch of a U.S. person located outside the United States if:
    1. The agency or branch operates for valid business reasons; and
    1. The agency or branch is engaged in the business of insurance or banking and is subject to substantive insurance or banking regulation, respectively, in the jurisdiction where located; and
  6. International organizations, their agencies, affiliates, and pension plans.

No Directed Selling Efforts

Issuers and others involved in the offering cannot engage in activities that could be considered “directed selling efforts” toward U.S. persons (such as advertising in the U.S. or otherwise attempting to reach U.S. investors).

  • Categories of Regulation S

Regulation S is divided into two safe harbor provisions:

  1. Issuer Safe Harbor: Offers and sales made in offshore transactions and involving no directed selling efforts to U.S. persons. These offerings are usually fully exempt from U.S. registration requirements, provided that the conditions are met.[42]
  • Resale Safe Harbor: This applies to the resale of securities by investors or other market participants in offshore transactions, subject to certain restrictions. For example, resales may be limited by certain holding periods or resale limitations. This ensures that the securities do not prematurely re-enter the U.S. market. Offerings that rely on this are also exempt but are subject to additional conditions. [43]

Issuer Safe Harbor

Under the first safe harbor rule, the SEC has identified three (3) sub-categories, organized in accordance with the amount of risk that shares sold offshore might flow back into the United States. The higher the risk is, the more conditions the sale or offering of these securities will need to meet. Below is a summary of the three categories:

CategoryDescriptionConditions
Category 1These involve securities that are deemed least likely to flow back into the US or are most likely to stay offshore. Thus, the risk is low.Category 1 is only subject to the 2 general conditions discussed above.
Category 2Those securities that have a substantial US market interest and have a greater risk – as compared to that of Category 1 – of flowing back into the US,In addition to the conditions under Category 1, Category 2 transactions are subject to (a) Transactional Restrictions;[44] and (b) Offering Restrictions.[45]
Category 3This presents the highest risk of having the securities flow back into the US and which have the most US market interest. Thus, they are subject to stricter scrutiny.Category 3 transactions are subject to all conditions under Category 2 albeit with more transactional restrictions, depending on the type of security and the type of buyer.

Resale Safe Harbor

            Rule 904 is the resale safe harbor which applies to resales abroad by anyone other than the issuer, distributor, any of their affiliates, or any person acting on their behalf. This safe harbor is typically used when the securities being offered are restricted securities (e.g., securities that are acquired in a private placement). This allows for lawful resale without triggering U.S. registration requirements under the Securities Act.

  • RESALE OF SECURITIES
  1. Rule 144 of the Securities Act 1933

            The resale of restricted securities (those securities that are acquired through unregistered, private transactions) and controlled securities (securities owned by affiliates of the issuer) are regulated by the SEC under Rule 144. Thus, before these securities may be resold to other persons, it must be ensured that the requirements of Rule 144 are met. This Rule allows for the sale of restricted and controlled securities to accredited and non-accredited investors if the following conditions under the Rule are observed:

  1. Adequate current public information with regard to the issuer of securities must be made available to the purchases.
    1. For reporting issuers, the issuer has filed all required reports under the Securities Exchange Act during the 12 months preceding such sale and that it has been submitted electronically pursuant to the Rules of the Security Act.[46]
    1. For non-reporting issuers, information about the company, including its financial statements, is made publicly available.[47]
  • The purchaser must hold the restricted securities for a period of time, depending on whether the securities were issued from a company subject to the normal reporting requirements:
    • Company subject to the Securities Exchange Act reporting requirements: Holding period should be at least 6 months.[48]
    • Company not subject to the reporting requirements: Holding period should be at least 1 year. [49]
  • The Rule provides for a 1% threshold for the amount of securities that may be sold, which depends on the following:
    • During a 3-month period, an affiliate may only sell up to 1% of the outstanding shares of the same class sold or if listed on a stock exchange, the greater of 1% or the average reported weekly trading volume during the four weeks preceding the filing of a notice of sale on Form 144[50]
    • If debt securities are involved, then the amount of debt securities sold for the account of an affiliate of the issuer, regardless of whether those securities are restricted, shall not exceed the 1% limit. [51]
  • Notice through Form 144 must be filed if the sale involves 5,000 shares or more, or if the value of the shares exceeds $50,000 in any 3-month period.[52]

Once the above conditions are complied with, then the securities are permitted to be resold.

  • Rule 144A of the Securities Act 1933

            Rule 144A – Private Resales of Securities to Institutions – allows for the resale of eligible securities to Qualified Institutional Buyers.[53] Under this rule, if a buyer purchases a security from an issuer that is relying on any of the exemptions mentioned above, the buyer may subsequently resell these securities to Qualified Institutional Buyers without

waiving the original exemptions.

The rules that were discussed above are the primary regulations that we commonly encounter. However, we note that the SEC has enacted additional exemptions that may not be covered in this article. These other rules may offer alternative ways for compliance and should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

  • STATE SECURITIES REGULATION – BLUE SKY LAWS

In addition to the federal securities laws, every state has its own set of securities laws, commonly referred to as “Blue Sky Laws”, that are designed to protect investors against fraudulent sales practices and activities.

Federal preemption under the Securities Act of 1933 limits Blue Sky Laws by exempting certain “covered securities” from state registration, but states can still require notice filings and fees. So as mentioned before, readers are advised to investigate the applicable state law prior to engaging in the structure of funds or offering of securities in the United States.

  1. INVESTMENT ADVISERS

            The Investment Advisers Act empowers the SEC to oversee the regulation, registration, and reporting requirements of investment advisers.[54] For clients who provide advice regarding investments or recommend investments, it is important to assess whether such activities fall under the definition of an investment adviser in order to avoid unintended violations, as well as understanding if there are legal and regulatory obligations they must comply with.

  1. INVESTMENTS ADVISERS, DEFINED

An Investment Adviser is any person or firm that, for compensation, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or who, for compensation and as part of a regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities.[55] Thus, the test for determining whether a person or entity is considered an adviser is if they (1) provide advice or issue reports or analyses regarding securities; (2) is in the business of providing such services; and (3) provide such services in exchange for compensation.

As interpreted by the SEC, the advice should relate to investing in securities. It thus includes: (1) providing desirability of investing in securities in the course of developing a financial program for a client, (2) selecting an investment adviser or manager, (3) providing advice on the relative advantages and disadvantages of investing in the security, as compared to other investments, or (4) a person who advises employee benefit plans on funding plan benefits by investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, as opposed to, or in addition to, insurance products, real estate not involving securities, or other funding media.[56]

To be deemed “in the business” of providing investment advice, such advice need not be the principal business activity of the adviser, nor does it need to be a particular portion of its business activities. Instead, the frequency of the activity, that is, its regularity, is considered.[57] Thus, if the giving of advice is infrequent, or non-recurring, it may not rise to the level of being considered “in the business” of providing such advice.

Image: Canva
  • FORM ADV     

Investment advisers are required by Section 203(a) of the Investment Advisers Act to register with the SEC. That is, unless they are exempted from registration. Under the Act, Investment Advisers are duty-bound to provide advice that is in the best interest of their client, disclose material facts, provide advice and monitoring over the course of their relationship, and to be loyal to their client.[58] Registered Investment Advisers must file a Form ADV, as explained below.

            In addition to the aforementioned requirements, registered advisers with at least $150 million in private fund assets under management (“AUM”) – both US and non-US investors – need to submit periodic confidential reports to the SEC through Form PF.[59] Should the adviser be classified as a large hedge fund adviser or a large liquidity fund adviser, they are required to file quarterly update to the Form PF. On the other hand, if the adviser does not come under the definition of either of the “large” adviser, then they only have to file annual updates. We note that should there be a failure to update the Form PF, in accordance with the schedule and instructions, then it may be considered a violation of the SEC rules which could lead to the revocation of the investment adviser’s registration.[60]

      Persons or entities that are required to register as an investment adviser with the SEC should submit a Form ADV[61]electronically through the Investment Adviser Registration Depository (IARD).[62] This form contains four parts – Part 1A, 1B, 2, and 3. Part 1B requires information specific to state-registered advisers only and for the sake of this paper will not be discussed.[63] Similarly, Part 3 will not be discussed herein because this form applies where investors are considered “retail investors”, to whom advisers must deliver a relationship summary to.[64]

Part 1A of Form ADV requires the disclosure of certain information by the investment adviser which includes the following: (a) identifying information; (b) basis of registration eligibility; (c) information on its advisory business such as the number of employees, number of and types of clients, compensation, and amount of AUMs; (d) other business activities; (e) financial industry affiliations; (f) information on private funds managed; (g) proprietary interests in client transactions; (g) custody arrangements; (h) control persons; (i) separately managed accounts; and (j) criminal and regulatory disciplinary history of the adviser and its related persons.[65]

Part 2 of Form ADV similarly requires the disclosure of information to clients but this time through a brochure and brochure supplement.[66] These documents should be filed with the SEC and provided to clients at the beginning of the relationship and annually thereafter. Part 2 is composed of Part 2A and Part 2B. Part 2A requires the distribution of a brochure which includes plain English disclosures of the adviser’s business, which includes the information disclosed in Part 1A. Part 2B is for the preparation and distribution of a brochure supplement that contains information about each advisory employee who provides investment advice to its clients, such as their: (i) educational background; (ii) business experience; (iii) disciplinary history; (iv) supervision; and (v) other business activities.

  • EXEMPTIONS

Just as certain securities offerings may qualify for exemptions, some investment advisers are also excluded from the requirements of the Investment Advisers Act,[67] particularly:

  1. Investment adviser who does not give advice on securities that trade on a national securities exchange and whose clients are all residents of the state in which the adviser maintains its principal office and place of business;
  2. Investment advisers whose sole clients are insurance companies;
  3. Investment adviser who is a foreign private adviser;
  4. Private Fund Adviser or those that provide advise solely to private funds and have less than $150 million in AUM in the US;[68]
  5. Venture Capital Advisers or those that solely advises one or more venture capital funds, regardless of the amount of AUM.[69] To qualify as a “venture capital fund”, a fund must be a “private fund” that:[70]
    1. represents to investors that the fund pursues a venture capital strategy;
    1. does not provide investors with redemption rights;
    1. holds no more than 20% of the fund’s assets in non-qualifying investments[71] (excluding cash and certain short-term holdings); and
    1. does not borrow (or otherwise incur leverage) more than 15% of the fund’s assets and only on a short-term basis (no longer than 120 days).
  6. Investment Adviser registered as a commodity trading advisor, but only if (a) not primarily engaged in providing securities-related advice and is not an adviser to a registered investment company or a business development company; or (b) an adviser to a private fund and is not primarily engaged in providing securities-related advice;
  7. An investment adviser that is a charitable organization, if its advice is provided only to the charitable organization; or
  8. An investment adviser that acts as an adviser solely to a small business investment company (SBIC) under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

Although exempt from SEC registration, Private Fund Advisers (item d above) and Venture Capital Advisers (item e above) must still report certain information. They may claim exempt reporting advisers (“ERA”) status through the filing of an initial exempt reporting Form ADV. Afterwards, ERAs must then file and update their abbreviated Form ADV annually within 90 days of the firm’s fiscal year end. Forms may need to be updated more frequently depending on material developments.[72]

Filing an abbreviated Form ADV means that ERAs are only required to file Part 1A of Form ADV, as discussed in the previous section, and complete only some sections of the form, particularly:

  1. identifying information;
    1. basis of registration eligibility;
    1. the corporate form and state of organization of the ERA;
    1. financial industry affiliations (i.e., business activities of any related persons and affiliates);
    1. information on the private funds it manages;
    1. control persons; and
    1. disciplinary history of the adviser and its employees.

Unlike investment advisers that are required to register, ERAs do not have to distribute and file any brochure or brochure supplements, as required in Part 2.

Note that even though ERAs are not subject to registration with the SEC, they may still be subject to certain rules under the Investment Advisers Act, like Section 206 which lists the prohibited transactions that investment advisers may not engage in. It is also worth noting that ERAs may still be subjected to SEC examinations and in recent years the SEC has seemed to pursue enforcement actions against ERAs under Section 206. For example, action has been taken against advisers (a) using materially misleading statements regarding management fee calculations; (b) failing to disclose conflicts of interest; (c) failing to comply with fund agreements; and (d) making errors in calculating management fees. [73]

  • PROHIBITION FROM REGISTRATION

It is worth noting that there are advisers that are prohibited from registering with the SEC. However, despite this prohibition with the SEC, they are still subject to registration requirements before the respective state securities authorities. These advisers are divided into two categories:

  1. Small Advisers: Advisers with less than $25 million under management are prohibited from registering with the SEC and must register in the states in which they are doing business; and
  1. Mid-sized Advisers: Advisers with assets under management between $25 million and $100 million are typically regulated by one or more states if they are registered with the state where they have their principal office and place of business.

A mid-sized adviser must register with the SEC if it is not required to be registered as an adviser with the state securities authority in the state where it maintains its principal office and place of business; or is not subject to examination as an adviser by the state where it maintains its principal office and place of business.

While the SEC does not dictate the exact methodology for calculating AUM, it is in the best interest of the company to adopt consistent and transparent practices to build trust with their investors and regulatory authorities. Many fund managers follow the guidelines set by industry associations like the CFA Institute or adopt methodologies used by widely recognized third-party data providers.

  • SPECIAL NOTE ON INTERNET ADVISERS

In 2002, the SEC adopted a new rule – Rule 203A-2(f) under the Investment Advisers Act to exempt from the prohibition on federal registration those advisers that provide advisory services through the internet.[74] This rule was recently amended in March 2024 to adapt to the current technological advancements.[75] To come under the exemption from the prohibition, the internet adviser must meet the following requirements:

  1. The investment adviser has an operational, interactive website or similar digital platform;
  2. That the website or similar digital platform is the medium through which the investment adviser provides digital investment advisory services on an ongoing basis to more than one (1) internet client.[76] The investment adviser must provide advice to all its clients exclusively through the operational interactive website or similar digital platform.

Digital investment advisory services means that the investment advice must be generated by the website’s software-based models, algorithms, or applications.[77] Thus, if the advice was not generated and delivered through electronic means, then it would not be considered as an eligible activity.                                                    

  • FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Under the SEC’s supervision exists one of the most relevant self-regulatory organizations in the United States which is the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). To emphasize, FINRA is not a government agency; it is a private, not-for-profit membership organization, funded by fees from its member firms. It operates independently but is subject to SEC oversight.[78] FINRA’s primary mandate is to protect investors and maintain market integrity through the regulation of various firms and professionals.[79]

FINRA’s key responsibilities include:[80]

  • Establishing and enforcing rules for every single brokerage firm, broker, and any of its representatives. These include reviewing broker advertisements, and other communications made to the public.
  • Detecting and preventing fraud, market manipulation, and insider trading, as well as investigating such wrong doings.
  • Disciplining those brokers or broker firms who violate FINRA rules.
  • Educating investors to enhance financial literacy and protect them from fraud.
  • Licensing firms and individuals to participate in the securities industry.
  • Administration of arbitration and mediation forums to resolve disputes between investors and securities firms.

Who is considered Broker-Dealer?

A broker-dealer firm or individual must be registered with the SEC and become member of FINRA.[81] According to the SEC, a broker is any firm or individual engaged in the business of buying or selling securities for the account of others.[82] A dealer is any firm or individual engaged in the business of buying or selling securities, but for their own account.[83] Other activities may similarly require the firm or individual to register as a broker-dealer. For example, finding investors for companies or for funding rounds, funding buyers and sellers of businesses, operating a platform enabling trading of securities, or providing services to registered broker-dealers.[84] A good indicator of whether a person is considered one is to determine whether they receive commissions or compensation based on the transaction or participate in the solicitation, negotiation, or execution of transactions.[85]

A common question that arises when dealing with SEC and FINRA regulation involves companies that sell their own securities. Companies who issue its own securities are generally considered an issuer, not a broker, as it is the company selling securities on its own account, and not for the account of others.[86] However the SEC has clarified that if an issuer purchases its securities from investors or effectively operates a market in its own securities, it may be required to register as a broker-dealer.[87]

  • STATE LAW

Each client that acts as an adviser should seek legal advice as to the need to register in a particular state. Advice should be, at the minimum, sought from lawyers practicing in the states where entities are formed, key persons are located, offices are located and/or business is performed from, and where clients are located.

  • SPECIAL NOTE ON FEDERAL COVERED ADVISERS

Federal Covered Advisers, meaning those registered with the SEC are still mandated by law to do a “Notice Filing” in the States where they are exempted from registration. Notice Filing generally consist of submitting (i) a copy of the documents that were previously filed with the SEC together with (ii) the consent to service of process.

  1. INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Aside from identifying whether an instrument is considered a security, if the security or the offering is subject to registration, or if a manager of a fund comes under the definition of an investment adviser, clients must also consider whether their vehicle subject to fundraising may be deemed an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act.

            The Investment Company Act regulates the organization of companies that engage primarily in investing, reinvesting, and trading in securities. [88]  Under the Act, a security is defined as any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, or any put, call, straddle, option or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a security.[89]

  1. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT

According to the SEC, as a general rule, an investment company that is organized or otherwise created under the laws of the United States or of a state, that meets the definition of an investment company[90], and does not qualify for an exception or an exemption from registration, must register with the SEC.[91] An investment company is defined as any of the following:[92]

  1. An issuer that is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading in securities;
  2. An issuer engaged in the business of issuing face-amount certificates; or
  3. An issuer that holds more than 40% of its assets (other than cash and government securities) in investment securities. 

Under item 3 above, an issuer may become an investment company otherwise known as an “inadvertent investment company” if it unintentionally qualifies under the definition. In short, if more than 40% of the company’s total assets (excluding cash and government securities) consist of investment securities, the company may be considered an investment company. Naturally, if the company is deemed to be an investment company, it becomes subject to the regulation of the SEC and the failure to register as an investment company thereby becomes a violation. Moreover, contracts may become voidable since these contracts may have been executed in violation of the Investment Company Act.

  • EXCEPTIONS

The Act outlines exceptions to the registration requirement by identifying entities that are not considered investment companies. These exceptions apply automatically once the criteria are met, and entities are therefore not required to register with the SEC.[93] Below are the exceptions:

  1. Section 3(b)(1) – an issuer is not an investment company if the issuer is primarily engaged, directly or through a wholly owned subsidiary or subsidiaries, in a business or businesses other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities.
  • Section 3(b)(2) – an issuer is not an investment company if the SEC, upon application by the issuer, finds and by order declares to be primarily engaged in a business or businesses other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities either directly or (i) through majority-owned subsidiaries or (ii) through controlled companies conducting similar types of businesses.
  • Section 3(c)(1) – private investment companies are excluded from the definition of Investment Companies if they are an issuer whose outstanding securities (other than short-term paper) are beneficially owned by 100 or fewer investors (or in the case of a qualifying venture capital fund, 250 persons) and has no plans for an initial public offering.
  • Section 3(c)(7) – issuers with more than 100 investors but that maintain 2,000 or fewer qualified purchasers (over $5million in assets).

In determining whether the issuer is not considered an investment company under Sections 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(2), the SEC, through its decision in the case In the Matter of the Tonopah Mining Company of Nevada,[94] enumerated 5 factors to be considered:

  1. Issuer’s historic development;
  2. Issuer’s public representation of policy;
  3. Activities of the issuer’s officers and directors;
  4. Source of the issuer’s present income; and/or
  5. Nature of the issuer’s present assets. [95]

Additionally, under Sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7), the fund must maintain the number of investors under the threshold and not only at the time of issuance. If an investor is (i) classified as a private investment company and (ii) holds 10% or more of the voting securities of a Section 3(c)(1) investment company, the number of investors must be determined based on the count of beneficial owners.[96]

  • SPECIAL NOTE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT COMPANIES

As a rule, Section 7(d) of the Investment Company Act does not allow an investment company organized or created outside of the United States – a foreign company – to offer its shares publicly in the United States, unless the SEC authorizes it. Similarly, without the SEC authorization, it is also prohibited from registering under the Investment Company Act.

We note, however, that a foreign investment company is allowed to make a private offering in the United States if after the private offering, the company’s securities are held by no more than 100 beneficial owners resident in the United States.[97] Additionally, the SEC has stated that a foreign fund may privately offer and sell its securities to qualified purchasers in the United States in accordance with Section 3(c)(7) without violating Section 7(d).[98] Thus, a foreign fund that intends to offer and sell its securities privately in the United States, like a  U.S. private investment company, may rely on either Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7).[99]

DISCLAIMER: THIS ARTICLE IS INTENDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE, OPINION, OR COUNSEL. THE CONTENT HEREIN IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE MOST CURRENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS. READERS SHOULD CONSULT FOR ADVICE TAILORED TO THEIR SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES.


[1]              Securities Act of 1933, 17 CFR Part 230.

[2]              Legal Information Institute, Securities Act of 1933 (October 2023), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/securities_act_of_1933.

[3]              U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, What is a Registration Statement?, (February 21, 2024), https://www.sec.gov/education/smallbusiness/goingpublic/registrationstatement

[4]              Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 17 CFR Part 240

[5]              Id.

[6]              Under Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act, “Securities” are any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a ‘‘security’’, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. 

[7]              Uniform Commercial Code, §8-103.

[8]              Id.

[9]              SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946)

[10]             Id.

[11]             SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946)

[12]             Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990)

[13]             Id.

[14]             Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 726 F.2d 930, 939 (CA2 1984) as mentioned in Reeves v. Ernst & Young 494 U.S. 56 (1990).

[15]             Marine Bank, 455 U.S. at 455 U. S. 557-559, as mentioned in Reeves v. Ernst & Young 494 U.S. 56 (1990).

[16]             Securities Act of 1933, 17 CFR Part 230.

[17]             Id.

[18]             U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, Small Biz Essentials: What Pathways Are Available to Raise Capital from Investors, https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/smallbiz-essentials-what-pathways-are-available-raise-capital-investors.

[19]             Securities Act of 1933, Section 4(a)(2).

[20]             17 CFR §230.504.

[21]             Id. §230.503(a)(1).

[22]             Id. §230.503(a)(1).

[23]             Id. §230.503(a)(1).

[24]             Id. §§30.504(a) (3).

[25]             “Covered persons” include: the issuer, including its predecessors and affiliated issuers; directors, officers, general partners or managing members of the issuer; beneficial owners of 20% or more of the issuer’s outstanding voting equity securities, calculated on the basis of voting power; promoters connected with the issuer in any capacity at time of sale; and persons compensated (directly or indirectly) for soliciting investors, including the general partners, directors, officers or managing members of any such solicitor.

[26]             “Disqualifying events” include: Certain criminal convictions; Certain court injunctions and restraining orders; Certain final orders of certain state and federal regulators; Certain SEC disciplinary orders; Certain SEC cease-and-desist orders; Suspension or expulsion from membership in a self-regulatory organization (SRO), such as FINRA, or being barred from association with an SRO member; SEC stop orders and orders suspending the Regulation A exemption; and U.S. Postal Service false representation orders.

[27]             SEC, Rule 504 of Regulation D: A Small Entity Compliance Guide for Issuers, SEC.gov (last updated Apr. 2024) https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/small-business-compliance-guides/rule-504-regulation-d-small-entity-compliance-guide-issuers#:~:text=The%20%E2%80%9Cbad%20actor%E2%80%9D%20disqualification%20provisions,other%20violations%20of%20specified%20laws.

[28]             Id. §230.506 (b) and (c).

[29]             17 CFR §230.506 (b).

[30]             Id. §230.506 (c).

[31]             U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, General Solicitation, https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/capital-raising-building-blocks/general-solicitation (last visited Jan. 20, 2026).

[32]             U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, General Solicitation—Rule 506(c), https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/exempt-offerings/general-solicitation-rule-506c (last visited Jan. 20, 2026).

[33]             Id. §230.501.

[34]             Id. §230.501.

[35]             For a more detailed list, see§230.501 of the Securities Act.

[36]             17 CFR § 230.502

[37]             U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, Regulation A: Guidance for Issuers, https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/regulation-guidance-issuers (last visited Jan. 20, 2026).

[38]             Id. §230.506.

[39]             17 CFR §230.506

[40]             Id.

[41]             Securities Act of 1933, §230.902 (k).

[42]             Securities Act of 1933, § 230.903.

[43]             Id. § 230.904.

[44]             Transactional Restrictions include a distribution compliance period and a notice requirement. The distribution compliance requirement prohibits the offer or sale of the securities to, or for the benefit of, a US person for 40 days from the later of the date the securities are first offered to the public and the closing date of the offering. The notice requirement requires that the distributor must give the buyer notice that the buyer shall be subject to the same restrictions on offers and sales that the distributor is also subject to.

[45]             Offering Restrictions require that offering materials include a restrictive legend that describes the type of security offered, that it has not been registered under the Securities Act, and that it cannot be offered or sold in the US or to US persons without registration or an available registration exemption.

[46]             Securities Act of 1933, §230.144(c)(1).

[47]             Id. §230.144(c)(2).

[48]             Id. §230.144(d)(1).

[49]             Id. §230.144(d)(2).

[50]             Id. §230.144(e)(1). See also https://www.sec.gov/reportspubs/investor-publications/investorpubsrule144#main-content.

[51]             Id. §230.144(e)(2).

[52]             Id. §230.144(h)(1) and (2).

[53]             Id. §230.144A.

[54]             17 CFR Part 275.

[55]             Id. § 202(a)(11).

[56]             SEC, Applicability of the Investment Advisers Act to Financial Planners, Pension Consultants, and Other Persons Who Provide Investment Advisory Services as a Component of Other Financial Services (October 8, 1987), https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/interp/1987/ia-1092.pdf.

[57]             Id.

[58]             Commission Interpretation Regarding Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers, 17 CFR Part 276 (July 12, 2019).

[59]             Rules and Regulations, Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 17 CFR Part 275,Rule 204(b)-1.

[60]             SEC, Form PF General Instructions, https://www.sec.gov/files/formpf.pdf

[61]             Form ADV, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, https://www.sec.gov/files/formadv.pdf.

[62]             Filing Online, Investment Adviser Registration Depository, https://www.iard.com/filingonline.

[63]             Form ADV Part 1B, North American Securities Administrators Association, https://www.nasaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Form-ADV-Part-1B.pdf

[64]             Form ADV Part 3, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formadv-part3.pdf

[65]             Form ADV Part 1A, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formadv-part1a.pdf

[66]             Form ADV Part 2, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, https://www.sec.gov/files/form-adv-part2.pdf

[67]             17 CFR §230 (b)(1).

[68]             A “private fund” is an issuer of securities that would be an investment company “but for” the exceptions provided for in section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act. Section 3(c)(1) relates to a fund that does not publicly offer its securities and has 100 or fewer beneficial owners of its outstanding securities. Section 3(c)(7) relates to a fund that does not publicly offer its securities and limits its owners to qualified purchasers.

[69]             Id. §203A(a).

[70]             Id. §203(l).

[71]             Qualifying investment means generally directly acquired investments in equity securities of private companies (generally, companies that at the time of investment have not made a public offering) and that do not incur leverage or borrow in connection with the venture capital fund investment and distribute proceeds of such borrowing to the fund (i.e., have not been acquired in a leveraged buy-out transaction)

[72]             SEC, Form ADV: General Instructions, https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formadv-instructions.pdf

[73]             See Alumni Ventures Group, LLC, et al., SEC Release No. IA-5975 (March 4, 2022); see also Corona Associates Capital Management, LLC, et al., SEC Release No. IA-6062 (June 30, 2022), Energy Innovation Capital Management, LLC, SEC Release No. IA-6104 (September 2, 2022), SparkLabs Global Ventures Management, LLC, et al., SEC Release No. IA-6121 (September 12, 2022), Naya Ventures, LLC et al., Advisers Act Release No. 5461 (Mar. 12, 2020), Lone Star Value Management LLC and Jeffrey Eberwein, Advisers Act Release No. 5448 (Feb. 24, 2020, and Burrill Capital Management, LLC et al., Advisers Act Release No. 4360 (Mar. 30, 2016).

[74]             SEC, Exemption for Certain Investment Advisers Operating through the Internet, 17 CFR Parts 275 and 279 (December 12, 2002).

[75]             SEC, Exemption for Certain Investment Advisers Operating through the Internet, 17 CFR Parts 275 and 279 (March 27, 2024). The rule becomes effective on July 8, 2024, and the compliance date for the rule is March 31, 2025.

[76]             Id.

[77]             Id. Note that even though generated by algorithm, the adviser still has the duty to inform the client that an algorithm is being used to manage the client accounts.

[78]             FINRA – How We Operate, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, https://www.finra.org/about/how-we-operate(last visited Feb. 11, 2025).

[79]             Five Steps to Protecting Market Integrity, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, https://www.finra.org/about/what-we-do/five-steps-protecting-market-integrity(last visited Feb. 17, 2025).

[80]             Id.

[81]             Registration, FINRA, https://www.finra.org/registration-exams-ce/registration (last visited Aug. 14, 2025)

[82]             Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, https://www.sec.gov/files/oasb-broker-dealer-building-block.pdf(last visited Feb. 17, 2025).

[83]             Id.

[84]             Broker-Dealers, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/capital-raising-building-blocks/broker-dealers(last visited Feb. 17, 2025).

[85]             Broker-Dealers, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/capital-raising-building-blocks/broker-dealers(last visited Feb. 17, 2025).

[86]             Id.

[87]             Id.

[88]             Investment Company Act of 1940, 17 CFR Part 270.

[89]             Id. § 2(a)(36). We note that this definition is less comprehensive than the definition provided under the Securities Act.

[90]             15 U.S. Code § 80a-3

[91]             U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Investment Company Registration and Regulation Package (November 7, 2022), https://www.sec.gov/investment/fast-answers/divisionsinvestmentinvcoreg121504

[92]             Id. § 3 (a)(1).

[93]             Id.

[94]             In the Matter of the Tonopah Mining Company of Nevada 26 S.E.C. 426 (S.E.C. Release No.), 1947 WL 26116 (July 21, 1947)

[95]             SEC, CEVA, Inc. Form 10-K, File No. 0-49842, (November 5, 2012) fhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1173489/000119312512451447/filename1.htm

[96]             15 U.S.C. § 80a-3(c)(1)(A).

[97]             Securities Act Release No. 6862 (April 23, 1990).

[98]             SEC, Response of the Office of Chief Counsel Division of Investment Management, §3(c)(1), §3(c)(7), and §7(d); https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/1997/goodwinprocterhoar022897.pdf (February 28, 1997); see also  SEC, Response of the Office of Chief Counsel Division of Investment Management, §3(c)(1), §3(c)(7), and §7(d); https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/1998/goodwinproctehoar100598.pdf (October 10, 1998).

[99]             Id.