Businesses of all types and sizes throughout the United States, Mexico and beyond bring their disputes to Gardere's litigation team and receive practical, responsive, boutique-style attention in return. Our clients have access to the firepower and value of a well-known and highly-regarded Firm's capabilities and interdisciplinary strengths.
Gardere has a national and international energy practice formed around our Energy Industry Team, which is a multidisciplinary group of approximately 60 attorneys with diverse backgrounds, experience and skills specific to the energy industry. Our team includes attorneys who have served as in-house counsel for major energy companies, providing a depth of insight into our clients' needs, issues and concerns. We understand and regularly practice in virtually every sector of the energy, and we represent a wide variety of industry participants from multinational corporations to individuals.
From our offices in the United States and Mexico, our International Practice helps clients operate in today’s global economy. We have more than 30 professionals operating as a boutique within an Am Law 200 law firm and are able to provide focused service with the resources of a large firm. We understand that clients who are engaged in the global marketplace need lawyers who can operate seamlessly across multiple jurisdictions. Our international experts are multi-lingual, are culturally fluent and intimately familiar with various legal systems across the world, especially those in Latin America. Whether you need help with commercial transactions, regulatory matters, customs and import regulations, immigration matters, M&A and joint ventures, international disputes, or international tax planning, Gardere’s international team is here to assist you.
We represent domestic and foreign private funds in all aspects of fund formation, fund operations, platform and add-on acquisitions, and portfolio company operations. Our team has a reputation for being the go-to-lawyers for private equity funds, hedge funds, venture capital funds and family offices. We are known for our vast deal experience, the efficient way we staff and manage our work, and the way we maintain our relationships. We get deals done with sophisticated, strategic, and practical advice tailored to the needs of our clients.
*Not admitted to practice law.
When it becomes effective on Sept. 23, 2013, the SEC’s new Rule 506(c) (PDF) will permit private-placement issuers to avoid making the often-difficult determination of whether their offering-related activities may violate the prohibition against general solicitation and general advertising in the SEC’s Rule 502(c) (“General Solicitation”). As counsel to issuers conducting or proposing to conduct private placements or offerings under existing Rule 506 (which will continue as Rule 506(b)) are well aware, determining or giving advice regarding the activities that do or do not constitute General Solicitation can only be a matter of judgment, based primarily on certain SEC pronouncements and responses to various no-action letter requests. It appears likely that some private-placement issuers will elect not to rely on new Rule 506(c), however, because of one or more of the conditions to that Rule or because of the possible adoption of one or more future conditions or restrictions that the SEC has proposed for that Rule. Accordingly, the prohibition against General Solicitation, and therefore the scope of General Solicitation, will continue to be relevant.
Although General Solicitation is described, on a non-exclusive basis, in Rule 502(c), there is no definitive or authoritative statement of it. Such a statement would have to come from the SEC or its staff. For years the SEC or its staff has, perhaps reasonably enough, consistently maintained that what constitutes General Solicitation is a matter of particular facts and circumstances and, therefore, has not provided a “bright-line” test that might be applied.
The SEC staff has focused on the existence of a “pre-existing substantive relationship” between an issuer or other offeror (such as a broker or placement agent) and an offeree to avoid a General Solicitation. Other factors which the SEC has apparently considered — but which appear not to be as critical — include how an offeree was identified or contacted, an offeree’s suitability as a potential investor in the private offering, the relationship between the offeror (if not the issuer) and the issuer, and the number of offerees. The focus on a pre-existing substantive relationship is apparently intended to assure that the issuer or other offeror is in a position, before even making an offer, to determine that a proposed offeree has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that the offeree is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the prospective investment. The SEC staff believes that such a position should be based upon the issuer’s or other offeror’s actual knowledge of or familiarity with the proposed offeree’s current situation, and not just on the offeree’s general characteristics (such as whether the proposed offeree is an apparently highly compensated doctor or company executive or a person with a high net worth).
In the absence of a definitive or authoritative statement or a “bright-line” test, it may be worthwhile to identify some of the key sources of the SEC’s views that counsel to a private-placement issuer should review, in addition to Rule 502(c), as guidance for determining or advising on General Solicitation. Those sources include the following:
A couple of law-review articles which summarize the SEC’s views, in the context of arguing against the prohibition of General Solicitation, may also be helpful:
OUR TAKE: Because it appears that the prohibition against General Solicitation will continue to be relevant after the effectiveness of new Rule 506(c), an effort to understand the SEC’s views regarding General Solicitation will continue to be necessary.
The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.
You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander. A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.
Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used. For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.
AND and OR may be used in a search. Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance."
The + and - sign operators may be used. The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".
To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks. For example, "Project Finance".
Searches are not case sensitive.