A sponsor raising capital under 506(b) may run a Facebook ad, send an email to a purchased conference list, or post publicly about a deal that gains unexpected traction. Common advice at that point is simply to switch to 506(c) and continue, but that advice is only partially correct, and what it leaves out is the part that matters most.
What 506(b) and 506(c) Actually Require
Regulation D, Rule 506(b) under The Securities Act of 1933 (the ‘33 Act) is the original exemption and prohibits general advertising or solicitation, restricting capital raising to individuals with a documented pre-existing relationship. In exchange, it allows up to 35 non-accredited but sophisticated investors to be included. Investors may self-certify their status without independent verification.
Regulation D, Rule 506(c) under the ‘33 Act permits general advertising, including ads, public posts, and emailing cold email lists, but requires every investor to be formally verified as accredited through methods such as a letter from a licensed CPA, attorney, or financial advisor. The issuer of a 506(c) offering must have a ‘reasonable assurance’ that all investors were accredited at the time they made their investment. The third party verification must have been completed, and the investor must attest that they still meet the accredited investor qualifications, within 90 days of accepting the investment.
These are two distinct exemptions, selected by a sponsor before capital raising begins, and that choice carries consequences once a deal is already underway.
What "Tainted" Actually Means
The no-solicitation rule is central to Rule 506(b) protection. Once any communication about a specific offering reaches the public, whether through an ad, a public post, or an email to people without a documented pre-existing relationship, that communication constitutes general solicitation under SEC rules. A single act of general solicitation taints the entire offering, not just the investor who came through that particular channel. Some regulators will argue that it happens when you send something to two or more people.
If the offering is ever reviewed and a regulator or investor’s attorney can prove that public solicitation occurred – even if it’s just one ad – the exemption is at risk for every investor in the deal, not only those who may have responded to the solicitation itself.
What Switching to 506(c) Does and Does Not Fix
Switching to Rule 506(c) going forward doesn’t cure advertising that already occurred when the Rule 506(b) offering was in place. But it does mean that future investors coming in after the switch are operating under the correct exemption. The switch does not address the status of investors who already wired capital before the switch took place.
Investors who came in while the offering was operating under a tainted Rule 506(b) exemption remain in a deal that may carry a compliance problem regardless of any subsequent change in the exemption being claimed. The switch is prospective only; it does not retroactively resolve what happened before it occurred.
The 30-Day Cooling-Off Period
A related issue arises when a sponsor terminates a Rule 506(c) offering and later wants to conduct a Rule 506(b) offering that may include non-accredited investors. To use the ‘33 Act’s Rule 152, which offers the 30-day non-integration safe harbor, the sponsor generally must terminate or complete the 506(c) offering and wait more than 30 calendar days before commencing the 506(b) offering.
The waiting period alone is not enough: for each purchaser in the 506(b) offering, the sponsor must reasonably believe that the purchaser either was not solicited through the prior 506(c) general solicitation or had a substantive relationship with the sponsor before the 506(b) offering commenced. In practical terms, the sponsor should stop 506(c) selling efforts and public-offering activity, and should not treat the 30-day interval as a way to funnel publicly solicited prospects into the later 506(b) offering.
In an active raise with a defined closing window, often 90 days, a pause of more than 30-days is frequently not a practical option, particularly when investors are ready to fund and a property has a specific closing date. This makes reverting to 506(b), even where it might otherwise be the appropriate fix, often unavailable in the middle of a live deal.
Why Syndicators Receive Incomplete Advice
Many sponsors understand 506(b) and 506(c) at a conceptual level and correctly recognize that switching to 506(c) solves the advertising problem going forward. What often gets missed is the retrospective exposure tied to investors who already came in before the switch, since the exemption functions as an ongoing legal status attached to each investor at the time of their specific investment, not merely a filing classification that can be updated at will.
What to Do in This Situation
If a solicitation has occurred but no capital has yet been accepted, the appropriate step is to stop and consult a securities attorney before the next investor wires funds, since options remain available at that stage. If capital has already been accepted from investors who came in during a potentially tainted offering, the facts need to be assessed investor by investor, examining when the solicitation occurred, who came in afterward, and what can be documented about each investor's pre-existing relationship.
Assuming the switch to 506(c) resolved the issue and continuing without further review carries significant risk, as does halting the raise entirely out of uncertainty without first understanding the actual scope of exposure. A clear assessment of the specific facts is the necessary starting point in either case.
Conclusion
Sponsors mid-raise who are uncertain whether a past action constitutes general solicitation, or who have already accepted investors and want clarity on their position, may schedule a consultation at syndicationattorneys.com to discuss the situation. We can explain what would be required to review the offering's specific timeline and facts with a securities attorney.
Attorney Advertising – void where prohibited.
This content provides general information on federal securities law and is directed to non‑Florida residents or companies. It is not legal advice and is not intended as advertising or solicitation of legal services for Florida residents or Florida law matters. Use of this content or contacting us about it does not create an attorney–client relationship.
