The SEC has recently updated the rules governing Rule 506(c) offerings, and for many searchers and independent sponsors, this could be a game-changer in raising capital. While many in the private investment space have traditionally relied on Rule 506(b) for its flexibility in investor verification, the new regulatory environment may make 506(c) the more effective option—especially for those looking to expand their investor base through public marketing.
Why 506(c) May Now Be the Better Option: ✅ You Can Advertise Your Deal – Unlike 506(b), where solicitation is restricted, 506(c) allows you to publicly promote your investment opportunity through online platforms, social media, pitch events, and newsletters. This can significantly increase exposure to potential investors beyond just personal networks.
✅ More Scalable Fundraising – Many searchers and independent sponsors rely on word-of-mouth to secure investors under 506(b), but 506(c) lets you reach a broader pool of accredited investors who may not be in your immediate network.
✅ More Transparency & Efficiency – Because all 506(c) investors must be verified accredited investors, you avoid the gray areas of self-certification under 506(b), reducing regulatory risk and ensuring a more sophisticated LP base.
✅ Institutional Appeal – Some family offices and institutional investors actually prefer 506(c) offerings because the accredited investor verification ensures compliance and credibility.
What’s Changing? The SEC’s new rule is clarifying accredited investor verification requirements for 506(c), but for sponsors willing to comply, the ability to legally market an offering to a much wider investor base may far outweigh the challenges.
Key Takeaway If you’ve been hesitant about using 506(c) because of verification concerns, the ability to publicly market your deal could now make it a superior fundraising tool over 506(b)—especially as independent sponsors and searchers look to scale their capital raises.
Just as an effort to simplify - perhaps over-simplifying - the relevance to searchers seeking private capital:
Previously, to enjoy the *much* more generous standards re: solicitation with a 506c) - as compared to 506(b) - issuers where charged with verifying the accreditation status of investors (often entailing hiring firms to validate investors’ financials at significant expense).
Now, it would appear that an issuer can move ahead with a 506(c), enjoying the solicitation benefits, and, as long as minimum investments are 200k, rely on basic representations by the investor on accreditation, as opposed to having to affirmatively act to verify.
We shall see, but good chance this removes substantial expense and friction from 506(c). May go as far as - unless an issuer MUST have some non-accredited investors (506(b) allows up to 35 with substantial disclosure requirements###-###-#### c) is accredited only), 506(c) becoming the objectively favorable default between the two (of course, there are other exemptions).
Glad to discuss if folks have any questions, matt@ridgestrategic,com
https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/no-action-interpretive-exemptive-letters/division-corporation-finance-no-action/latham-watkins-503c###-###-####