Monthly Archives: June 2013
SEC Announces it Will Seek an Admission of Fault to Settle Certain Cases
On June 18, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a policy change related to its settlement of certain civil matters. In particular, the SEC has stated that it will now require that the settling party admit wrongdoing as part of a settlement. Previously the standard language for all settlements has been that the defendants “neither admit nor deny wrongdoing.” Defendants, of course, cannot be required to make such an admission or settle a case, but the alternative is fighting it out in court, an expensive and risky process.
The change in policy began with a related change in which the SEC changed its policy to require admissions of wrongdoing to settle cases where the defendant had already admitted such wrongdoing in related criminal cases. Mary Jo White has now announced that, even in cases where there is no parallel criminal case, the SEC will now require individuals and companies to admit liability in “cases where… it’s very important to have that public acknowledgment [of wrongdoing] and accountability.”
She further stated that the determination of whether to seek an admission of wrongdoing will be done on a case-by-case basis, and she that the SEC will be looking to apply the policy to cases of egregious intentional conduct or widespread harm to investors.
The implications of the change are significant. First, I note that the actual disclosures required in ’33 or ’34 Act registration statements or ’34 Act reporting requirements do not materially change, if at all. Rule 401 of Regulation S-K governing disclosures related to officers, directors, promoters, and control persons is written in such a way that the order would be disclosable regardless of the admission of wrongdoing. For example, Rule 401(f)(3)-(5) requires disclosure of the following events:
(3) Such person was the subject of any order, judgment, or decree not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, of any court of competent jurisdiction, permanently or temporarily enjoining him from, or otherwise limiting, the following activities:
(i) Acting as a futures commission merchant, introducing broker, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, floor broker, leverage transaction merchant, any other person regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or an associated person of any of the foregoing, or as an investment adviser, underwriter, broker or dealer in securities, or as an affiliated person, director or employee of any investment company, bank, savings and loan association or insurance company, or engaging in or continuing any conduct or practice in connection with such activity;
(ii) Engaging in any type of business practice; or
(iii) Engaging in any activity in connection with the purchase or sale of any security or commodity or in connection with any violation of Federal or State securities laws or Federal commodities laws;
(4) Such person was the subject of any order, judgment or decree not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, of any Federal or State authority barring, suspending or otherwise limiting for more than 60 days the right of such person to engage in any activity described in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section, or to be associated with persons engaged in any such activity;
(5) Such person was found by a court of competent jurisdiction in a civil action or by the Commission to have violated any federal or state securities law, and the judgment in such civil action or finding by the Commission has not been subsequently reversed, suspended, or vacated;
Regardless of the admission of wrongdoing, SEC settlement orders almost always contain injunctive relief disclosable under 401(f)(3) or (4) above and always contain findings of fact and conclusions of legal violations requiring disclosure under (5) above. Accordingly, a disclosure under these sections would not change.
However, instruction 3 to Rule 401(f) states that:
3. The registrant is permitted to explain any mitigating circumstances associated with events reported pursuant to this paragraph.
Here the disclosure could be quite different. A registrant generally explains the factual circumstances and makes a statement to the effect that they deny wrongdoing but settled the matter to avoid the time, expense and uncertainty of litigation. The decision to settle a case while admitting wrongdoing creates a drafting challenge as to how to explain the admission.
In addition to the disclosure issues, there is the overall concern of reputational damage. Even if the settling party is not a reporting entity or person, the SEC publishes news regarding all administrative and litigation proceedings. The SEC will not negotiate the contents of such releases, which are written in an unfavorable light to the charged party to help reinforce the SEC policy of deterring similar wrongful behavior and in keeping with the policy purpose itself, which is clearly deterrent-based.
Moreover, the admission could work as evidence—even dispositive evidence— in related civil litigation, including shareholder lawsuits.
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.
Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.
Download our mobile app at iTunes.
Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2016
Crowdfunding Using Regulation A? Yes, You Can- Right Now!
As everyone waits for the SEC to begin rule making on Title III of the JOBS Act, a few innovative entrepreneurs are using Regulation A as a vehicle to crowdfund today.Although the procedure, as described in this blog, is not the crowdfunding procedure that will be implemented under Title III of the JOBS Act, it does allow for the use of social media and the Internet to solicit and obtain equity investment funds from the general population including unaccredited investors, of a particular state or states.
Moreover, the laws that allow for this method of fundraising are not new.The vehicle of choice is Regulation A—the existing Regulation A, not the new Regulation A+, which will be implemented under Title IV of the JOBS Act. Using Regulation A to offer securities involves the time and expense of a registered offering; however, the registered securities are free trading and may be offered to unaccredited investors.Regulation A does not preempt state law and accordingly requires full blue sky state approval for use.However, many if not most states allow for solicitation and advertising of a Regulation A offering.Accordingly, upon completing the registration process with the SEC and your chosen state(s), a Company can utilize advertising, including social media, to sell the securities in those chosen states.A few entities, such as Fundrise, are using Regulation A to register their offerings and are subsequently selling the offerings using social media, and doing it extremely successfully.
Regulation A
Although Regulation A is legally an exemption from the registration requirements contained in Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as a practical matter it is more analogous to registration than an exemption.In particular, Regulation A provides for the filing with the SEC of an offering prospectus which closely resembles a registration statement.The SEC then can, and often does, comment on the filing.Practitioners often refer to Regulation A as a short form registration.
Regulation A mirrors a 1933 Act registration process in many ways.Although the Regulation A offering prospectus does not go “effective,” the regulation calls for “qualification” of the offering prospectus under circumstances that mirror those for effectiveness of a registration statement.For example, Rule 252(g) provides for the technical possibility of automatic qualification twenty days after filing the offering prospectus, much the same as Section 8(a) for registration statements.Rule 252(g) also provides for a procedure to delay such effectiveness until the SEC declares the offering “qualified,” much the same way as a registration statement’s automatic effectiveness can be delayed until the SEC declares it “effective.” Oral offers may be made after the offering prospectus is filed, just as with registration statements.Written offers must be accompanied by a preliminary offering prospectus—again, just as with registration statements.
Although Regulation A offerings have many things in common with registered offerings, they differ in many respects as well.One of the most important differences is that, in Regulation A offerings, an issuer may formally “test the waters” before the filing of an offering prospectus, by oral and written communications to potential buyers, designed to gauge interest in the offering.The written documents that may be used to “test the waters” are limited in content and must be filed with the SEC.However,a failure to file the document will not destroy the exemption if the document otherwise meets the Regulation A requirements.
The limitations on the availability to use Regulation A are similar to Rule 504.In particular, Regulation A is only available to US or Canadian companies;the issuer cannot be a blank check or development stage company; the issuer cannot be an Exchange Act reporting company or an investment company; and neither the Company nor is officers and directors can have had previous regulatory problems (the so-called “bad boy” exclusion).The maximum dollar amount of securities that may be sold under Regulation A is $5 million in a twelve-month period, of which $1.5 million can be sold by existing security holders.
State Registration
As indicated above, Regulation A does not preempt state law.Accordingly, a company that is completing a Regulation A offering must abide by both federal and state securities laws.Each state has a process whereby the Regulation A offering can be approved in that state.The state process is generally a state registration process and must be completed prior to any offers or sales of securities in that state.Most states also allow for the limited advertising of such a Regulation A offering, generally in conformity with SEC Rule 134 discussed below.
Accordingly, upon completing the state and federal Regulation A registration process, the company can utilize Rule 134 (discussed below) and coinciding state statutory provisions to market and advertise the offering, including through the use of social media, to both accredited and unaccredited investors.
That is, the Company can crowdfund the offering.
Crowdfunding the Regulation A Offering
Rule 134, promulgated under the 1933 Act, allows for the preparation and dissemination of certain communications following the filing of a registration statement.Those communications, often referred to as”free writing prospectuses,” include in pertinent part:
(1) Factual information about the legal identity and business location of the issuer limited to the following: the name of the issuer of the security, the address, phone number, and e-mail address of the issuer’s principal offices and contact for investors, the issuer’s country of organization, and the geographic areas in which it conducts business; the website address;
(2) The title of the security or securities (such as common or preferred stock, warrants, etc.) and the amount or amounts being offered, which title may include a designation as to whether the securities are convertible, exercisable, or exchangeable, and as to the ranking of the securities;
(3) A brief indication of the general type of business of the issuer, limited to the following:
(i) In the case of a manufacturing company, the general type of manufacturing, the principal products or classes of products manufactured, and the segments in which the company conducts business;
(ii) In the case of a public utility company, the general type of services rendered, a brief indication of the area served, and the segments in which the company conducts business;
(iii) In the case of an asset-backed issuer, the identity of key parties, such as sponsor, depositor, issuing entity, servicer or servicers, and trustee, the asset class of the transaction, and the identity of any credit enhancement or other support; and
(iv) In the case of any other type of company, a corresponding statement;
(4) The price of the security, or if the price is not known, the method of its determination or the bona fide estimate of the price range as specified by the issuer or the managing underwriter or underwriters;
(5) A brief description of the intended use of proceeds of the offering, if then disclosed in the prospectus that is part of the filed registration statement;
(6) The name, address, phone number, and e-mail address of the sender of the communication and the fact that it is participating, or expects to participate, in the distribution of the security;
(7) The names of underwriters participating in the offering of the securities, and their additional roles, if any, within the underwriting syndicate;
(8) The anticipated schedule for the offering (including the approximate date upon which the proposed sale to the public will begin) and a description of marketing events (including the dates, times, locations, and procedures for attending or otherwise accessing them);
Companies such as Fundrise are successfully using this model today.
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.
Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.
Download our mobile app at iTunes.
Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2016
OTC Market Group Has Modified Its Alternative Reporting Standard
Background
Over the past few years, the historical Pink Sheets has undergone some major changes, starting with the creation of certain “tiers” of issuers and culminating in its refurbished website and new URL, otcmarkets.com.Otcmarkets.com divides issuers into three (3) levels: OTCQX, OTCQB and Pink Sheets.
Issuers on the OTCQX must be fully reporting and current in their reporting obligations with the SEC and also undergo a quality review by industry professionals.Issuers on the OTCQB must be fully reporting and current in their reporting obligations with the SEC but do not undergo additional quality review.
Issuers on the Pink Sheets are not required to be reporting with the SEC.However, such issuers are then further qualified based on the level of voluntary information provided to the otcmarkets.com.Issuers with no information are denoted by a skull and crossbones, Issuers with limited financial and business information are classified as “limited information,” and Issuers that provide information as set forth in the OTC Markets Pink Alternative Reporting Standard are denoted with a “current information” symbol.Effective January 3, 2013, OTC Markets modified its OTC Markets Pink Alternative Reporting Standard for current information status.
The New OTC Markets Pink Alternative Reporting Standard Guidelines
Effective January 3, 2013, OTC Markets has made changes to the OTC Markets Pink Alternative Reporting Standard for current information status in an effort to make it more accessible for more companies.OTC Markets has streamlined its disclosure guidelines to align them more closely with the SEC Rule 15c2-11 guidelines, to eliminate the requirement for an attorney letter where audited financial statements are provided and to reduce the requirement for attorney letters from every quarter to just once a year upon the filing of an annual report.
These changes will provide tremendous benefit for companies seeking to obtain current information status with OTC Markets.The prior Pink Alternative Reporting Standard was more analogous to an SEC registration statement than the SEC 15c2-11 guidelines.The streamlined disclosure will allow many more companies to provide current information, where they aren’t quite ready to provide the type of information required of a company subject to the SEC reporting requirements.
Moreover, the elimination of the attorney letter requirement for companies providing audited financial statements, and reducing the requirement for other entities, will likewise make the OTC Market’s current information status much more accessible. The OTC Markets attorney letter places a heavy burden on the attorney preparing the letter to verify the information contained in the letter and conduct in-depth due diligence on the Company.In cases where the Company has already incurred the expense of having audited financial statements prepared, the extra cost associated with a second legal audit proved onerous. Although attorneys who regularly prepare these letters will see a reduction in fees, I believe that OTC Markets is correct in taking this approach, which recognizes that the burden of providing full and accurate disclosure lies with the Company and its officers and directors.
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.
Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.
Download our mobile app at iTunes.
Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2016
SEC Suspends Trading On 61 Shell Companies
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today suspended the trading in 61 dormant shell companies. The trading suspensions are part of an SEC initiative tabbed Operation Shell-Expel by the SEC’s Microcap Fraud Working Group. In May 2012, the SEC suspended the trading on 379 shell companies as part of the initiative. Each of the companies were dormant shells that were not current in public disclosures. Each of the companies failed to have adequate current public information available either through the news service on OTC Markets or filed with the SEC via EDGAR.
The federal securities laws allow the SEC to suspend trading in any stock for up to 10 business days. Once a company is suspended from trading, it cannot be quoted again until it provides updated information including complete disclosure of its business and accurate financial statements. In addition to providing the necessary information, to begin to trade again, a company must enlist a market maker to file a new 15c2-11 application with FINRA. For a Company with a trading suspension this is a difficult process. Many market makers are unwilling to take on the assignment and when they do, the comment process with FINRA can be lengthy. Moreover, even if a 211 application is approved by FINRA, DTC may still refuse to qualify the security for electronic trading.
Bottom line, short of a new registration statement and going public process, these companies have effectively been removed from the public company trading system.
The SEC continues to send the message that companies without current information will not be allowed to trade.
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.
Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.
Download our mobile app at iTunes.
Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2016