Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A short field note from syndication attorney Tilden Moschetti on why a Rule 506(b) accredited investor questionnaire is not enough for a publicly advertised Rule 506(c) Regulation D private placement.
Syndication Attorney Field Notes is a short-form educational podcast from Tilden Moschetti for sponsors, real estate syndicators, fund managers, and business owners raising capital through Regulation D offerings, private placements, syndications, and investment funds.
Each episode breaks down one issue from the legal notebook: finder’s fees, broker-dealer registration, Rule 506(b), Rule 506(c), investor verification, private placement memorandums, subscription agreements, Form D, Blue Sky filings, fund structure, and the mistakes that show up before the documents are drafted.
Plain-English field notes. One issue, one misconception, one practical takeaway. Public education only, not legal advice.
This is Syndication Attorney Field Notes. I'm Tilden Moschetti, and I'm a syndication attorney. Today's field note is about the accredited investor questionnaire versus Rule 506(c) verification in a Regulation D private placement.
Let me start with a scenario I keep seeing.
A sponsor calls me. He's done four or five deals with the same group of investors. Now he's got a bigger multifamily deal, and he wants to post it on LinkedIn. And he says, my investors already signed my accredited investor questionnaire, so I'm covered, right? And the answer is: not for this deal.
Here's the plain-English version.
A 506(b) questionnaire records what an investor claims to be true. A 506(c) verification proves what an investor actually has. That's the whole thing. Claiming versus proving.
And once you advertise a specific deal to the public, you've moved from a claiming standard to a proving standard. The old signed questionnaire, by itself, doesn't carry the weight anymore.
Now, here's the part that trips people up.
The trigger is almost never the investor. It's the marketing.
Think about the same multifamily deal two ways.
Way one. You email a group of investors you've worked with for years. People you actually have a real, pre-existing relationship with. That's the private-network world that Rule 506(b) is built around. In that world, a well-drafted questionnaire, backed by your relationship, generally supports a reasonable belief that the investor is accredited.
Way two. You run a Facebook ad. You post the deal on LinkedIn. You talk about that specific offering on a public podcast. That's general solicitation. And once you do that for a specific deal, you're in Rule 506(c) territory.
Same investor. Different path. Because the marketing changed.
And this is important: a 506(b) questionnaire cannot be grandfathered into a 506(c) raise. The fact that a longtime investor signed something for your last deal does not carry over to a deal you advertised publicly.
So let me make the distinction concrete.
A 506(b) questionnaire works like the self-reported form at a doctor's office. The investor checks a box. Yes, my net worth is above the threshold. Yes, my income met the standard for the last two years. You're recording what they say.
A 506(c) verification works like a mortgage application. The lender doesn't take your word for your income. Your documents have to match. Under 506(c), you have to take reasonable steps to verify that the investor is actually accredited.
So, in a 506(b) deal, you take the investor's word. In a 506(c) deal, the investor's word is not enough on its own.
Now, what does verification actually look like in practice? Because sponsors picture something painful.
The SEC gives you safe harbors. Predefined methods that they've already accepted. One path is financial documentation. For income, that's things like W-2s and tax returns for the last two years. For net worth, it's bank and brokerage statements plus a check on liabilities.
But let's be honest. You're asking a high-net-worth person to hand you their tax returns. That feels invasive. And it should.
So here's the cleaner path, and it's the one most experienced sponsors use. A written confirmation from a qualified professional. A CPA, an attorney, or a registered investment adviser can confirm the investor's accredited status under a safe harbor. The investor's actual numbers stay with their own trusted professional. You get the confirmation without ever seeing their financials.
That's a one-page letter instead of a stack of documents. Less friction for everyone.
Now let me tell you what not to assume.
Don't assume a longtime investor skips verification because they already know you. For that publicly advertised deal, the relationship doesn't waive the requirement.
Don't assume a signed questionnaire, on its own, satisfies the proof-based standard in a public raise. It doesn't.
And here's the big one. Don't assume a third-party verification portal takes the responsibility off your plate. Portals are genuinely useful. They act as a buffer, they automate the intake, they apply consistent steps. But the issuer keeps the ultimate responsibility to make sure the offering complies with Rule 506(c).
A portal is a workflow tool, not a legal shield. You can outsource the task. You cannot outsource the liability.
So here's my field note.
When your marketing changes, your investor qualification workflow changes with it. Keep your 506(b) intake and your 506(c) verification as two separate paths. Don't run a public deal through the same self-certification form you built for your private group.
And don't treat verification like an apology to your investors. When a longtime LP pushes back and says, don't you trust me, the answer isn't to blame the SEC. The answer is simpler than that. As we move into institutional-grade deals, our compliance has to scale with us. Point them to the professional letter, protect their privacy, and let the process make you look like the operator you're becoming.
The longer written version of this is in the show notes. I'm Tilden Moschetti, and that's today's field note.