在加拿大
首先感谢WJ200e网友的提醒。 我试着问了美国那里的朋友。下面是得到的结果。看着太累了。有没有人能给翻译一下呀？美国那边的朋友扔给一篇文章就跑了。也不给翻译一下。 Dodd-Frank Act makes immediate changes to accredited investor standard in private placements The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Act) was signed into law on July 21, 2010. The Act modifies the net worth standard for an “accredited investor,” authorizes the SEC to review and adjust “accredited investor” standards as they apply to individuals and prohibits the offer or sale of securities under Regulation D by certain “bad actors.” Immediate Change to Net Worth Standard for Accredited Investors Effective July 21, 2010, the date of enactment of the Act, Section 413(a) of the Act changed the net worth standard for an individual accredited investor to exclude the value of the individual’s primary residence. The net worth threshold for an accredited investor remains $1 million, either individually or jointly with a spouse; however, individuals are no longer permitted to include the value of their primary residence for purposes of reaching the $1 million net worth standard. The SEC recently provided guidance, in a July 23, 2010 Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation, that the amount of any indebtedness that is secured by a primary residence up to the value of the residence should also be excluded in determining net worth, but any such indebtedness in excess of the value of the residence should be considered a liability and deducted from an individual’s net worth. This change affects the definition of an accredited investor for Regulation D offerings.1 Rule 505 of Regulation D permits sales to be made to an unlimited number of accredited investors and up to 35 non-accredited investors as long as the size of the offering does not exceed $5 million. Rule 506 of Regulation D permits sales to be made to an unlimited number of accredited investors and up to 35 financially sophisticated non-accredited investors without any limit on the size of the offering. In either case, substantial disclosure must be provided to non-accredited investors. The $1 million standard (excluding a primary residence) remains fixed for four years following the Act’s passage. After the initial four-year period, the SEC may further adjust the accredited investor net worth standard. Given that the change was immediately effective on July 21, 2010, any issuer conducting a private placement under Regulation D or Section 4(6) should revise its subscription documents to incorporate the new net worth standard.Subsequent Review and Adjustment by the SECDiscretionary Review and Adjustment of Accredited Investor Standards. The Act authorizes, but does not require, the SEC to review its accredited investor standards, as applicable to individuals, to determine whether the standards should be adjusted for the protection of investors, in the public interest or in light of the economy. Currently, an individual is an accredited investor if he or she had an income above $200,000 individually or $300,000 jointly with a spouse in each of the two previous years, as well as a reasonable expectation of maintaining those income levels, or a net worth (individually or jointly with a spouse) of at least $1 million. The Act authorizes the SEC to adjust these income and net worth standards for individuals, except that the $1 million net worth standard (excluding the value of a primary residence) may not be adjusted until four years after the date of enactment. This change applies to the accredited investor standard as applicable to both Section 4(6) and Regulation D offerings.2Adjustments for Inflation. Although the Act does not specifically address this point, any review by the SEC of the accredited investor standards for individuals may consider that the income and net worth have not previously been adjusted to account for inflation. The $1 million net worth and $200,000/$300,000 income standards were established in 1982. If the accredited investor income standards were fully adjusted for inflation, the required annual income currently would be approximately $449,000 individually and $674,000 jointly with a spouse, and the net worth standard would be approximately $2.25 million. Such an adjustment would, of course, significantly reduce the number of persons who qualify as accredited investors. At this point it is unclear whether the SEC will adjust for inflation, and, even if it does, whether it would set standards to account for the full effect of inflation since 1982. Prohibition on Offering or Sale of Securities by Certain “Bad Actors” The Act requires the SEC, not later than one year after the Act’s passage, to issue rules disqualifying any offer and sale of securities under Regulation D by certain “bad actors.” The new rules disqualifying such “bad actors” from Regulation D exempt offerings must be substantially similar to the disqualifying provisions of Rule 262, and must disqualify any offering of securities by a person that (1) is subject to a final order barring the person from engaging in the business of securities, insurance or banking; (2) is subject to a final order that is based on a violation of any law or regulation prohibiting fraudulent, manipulative or deceptive conduct within the ten years prior to the new offering; or (3) has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor in connection with the purchase or sale of any security or involving false filings with the SEC. Rule 262’s disqualification provisions cover directors and officers of an issuer and beneficial owners of 10% or more of any class of equity securities of an issuer. SEC Review of Regulation D Offerings Not RequiredThe Act as signed into law does not include a provision, contained in an earlier version of the bill, that would have required the SEC to review Regulation D offerings. A prior version of the bill would have mandated SEC review of Regulation D offerings and given the SEC 120 days to complete its review. If the SEC did not complete its review within 120 days, the securities being issued would lose their exempt status and would become subject to state securities laws. The final Act does not contain the proposed Regulation D review requirements.
评论
回复: 已生效的最新美国Dodd-Frank金融改革法案对EB-5申请的影响貌似跟eb5投资没关系啊，或至少跟我们中国投资者没关系吧。。
评论
回复: 已生效的最新美国Dodd-Frank金融改革法案对EB-5申请的影响eb-5本质上是一种私募行为。而在美国本土对私募行为SEC是有规定的。 其中一项规定是：私募的参与人必须是accredited investor翻译成中文叫做“合格投资人”以前的定义是个人过去3年的年收入不低于20万美元。夫妻的话合计收入不得低于30万美元一年。或者你在银行有100万美元存款。这些规定实际上是为了保障一般以工资收入的人群不要去碰私募的产品。怕影响社会稳定。在eb-5项目里的中国投资人就是这里面所讲的“合格投资人”。 如果联邦法律有了改变，要求合格投资人必须达到新的标准，那么在全美的其他各个行业和领域应该是同样的采用新的标准。这就是为什么有些美国律师可能已经开始要求中国的投资人出具（除了自住房产外的）100万美元净资产（net worth）的证明。这倒是也说明了该律师业务水平还是蛮高的。有新规定马上遵守。 现在我搞不清的是，这个Dodd-Frank联邦法案的实施在法理上是否也要求移民局在移民事务上同样遵守该法律。还是移民局可以暂缓执行或不执行。如果是这样的话，法律基础在什么地方。为什么移民局可以不执行？总之，想弄明白。 照理说一个新的法律，只要涉及到这个新法的所有事物都要按照新法来办理。 但是对于中国eb-5投资者而言，这未必是个好消息。因为除了您现在需要证明50万美元合法来源后。您还需要证明您合法地拥有除自己房产外的另外100万美元净资产。申请难度会加大。
评论
回复: 已生效的最新美国Dodd-Frank金融改革法案对EB-5申请的影响和EB5一点关系都没有！！！
评论
回复: 已生效的最新美国Dodd-Frank金融改革法案对EB-5申请的影响和EB5一点关系都没有！！！点击展开...let's wait and watch. Time will tell us all.
评论
回复: 已生效的最新美国Dodd-Frank金融改革法案对EB-5申请的影响Gentlemen - In simple terms, we are relying on an exemption to registration of the Offering under SEC regulations under either/both Regulation D and Regulation S, depending on where the investors reside at time of their investment. If overseas and not a “ US person”, Reg S kicks in. Otherwise Reg D kicks in. Either way, we are limiting the investment to “accredited investors” as defined under said SEC rules, based on net worth and/or annual income of the investor. If Reg D applies, a Reg D notice of sale must be filed, but no registration of the Offering is required. Hope this helps.好吧，不懂E问的兄弟们，这意思就是，EB-5投资不在楼主的条款范围之内。
评论
真蓝 说:Gentlemen - In simple terms, we are relying on an exemption to registration of the Offering under SEC regulations under either/both Regulation D and Regulation S, depending on where the investors reside at time of their investment. If overseas and not a “ US person”, Reg S kicks in. Otherwise Reg D kicks in. Either way, we are limiting the investment to “accredited investors” as defined under said SEC rules, based on net worth and/or annual income of the investor. If Reg D applies, a Reg D notice of sale must be filed, but no registration of the Offering is required. Hope this helps. 好吧，不懂E问的兄弟们，这意思就是，EB-5投资不在楼主的条款范围之内。点击展开...不错。谢谢了解 security 规定的行家。能不能再问一下，上述的规定对于人在美国的投资者是否适用呢？人在美国，人不在美国是主要区别呢？还是美国人（包括已经是绿卡的人），非美国人是主要的区别对待原因呢？ -- 不懂想了解得清楚些。谢谢 另外，eb-5的PPM是否是要file 给SEC，等SEC批复才可以成为一个正式的offering呢？还是eb-5 offering不需要SEC的介入呢？ 美国本国如果作私募的话，是否需要SEC通过才可以向accredited investors以非公开广告的方式私下招募呢？
评论
回复: 已生效的最新美国Dodd-Frank金融改革法案对EB-5申请的影响不错。谢谢了解 security 规定的行家。能不能再问一下，上述的规定对于人在美国的投资者是否适用呢？人在美国，人不在美国是主要区别呢？还是美国人（包括已经是绿卡的人），非美国人是主要的区别对待原因呢？ -- 不懂想了解得清楚些。谢谢 另外，eb-5的PPM是否是要file 给SEC，等SEC批复才可以成为一个正式的offering呢？还是eb-5 offering不需要SEC的介入呢？点击展开...人在不在美国，不影响适用条款，关键是这个项目是不是EB-5项目。是EB-5，阿狗阿猫来投都不影响。但是一般的美国的私募项目（EB-5研究的多，别的没狩猎），应该受这个条款监管。另，EB-5的PPM没SEC什么事。一起学习，一起进步。
评论
回复: 已生效的最新美国Dodd-Frank金融改革法案对EB-5申请的影响不错。谢谢了解 security 规定的行家。能不能再问一下，上述的规定对于人在美国的投资者是否适用呢？人在美国，人不在美国是主要区别呢？还是美国人（包括已经是绿卡的人），非美国人是主要的区别对待原因呢？ -- 不懂想了解得清楚些。谢谢 另外，eb-5的PPM是否是要file 给SEC，等SEC批复才可以成为一个正式的offering呢？还是eb-5 offering不需要SEC的介入呢？ 美国本国如果作私募的话，是否需要SEC通过才可以向accredited investors以非公开广告的方式私下招募呢？点击展开...关于你最后的一条，答案是“indeed”
评论
回复: 已生效的最新美国Dodd-Frank金融改革法案对EB-5申请的影响人在不在美国，不影响适用条款，关键是这个项目是不是EB-5项目。是EB-5，阿狗阿猫来投都不影响。但是一般的美国的私募项目（EB-5研究的多，别的没狩猎），应该受这个条款监管。 另，EB-5的PPM没SEC什么事。 一起学习，一起进步。点击展开...谢谢。这方面Miller Mayer律师楼好像特别强调过。还没有机会跟他们交流。以后会的。再次感谢。
评论
回复: 已生效的最新美国Dodd-Frank金融改革法案对EB-5申请的影响谢谢。这方面Miller Mayer律师楼好像特别强调过。还没有机会跟他们交流。以后会的。再次感谢。点击展开...看来你在做NY的NAVY项目....不错的项目，稳定压倒一切。
评论
回复: 已生效的最新美国Dodd-Frank金融改革法案对EB-5申请的影响确实与EB5无关。在美国EB5虽然是为想移民的投资者设立的，但在项目集资上并不只有非美国人才可以投资，本土人也可以对项目进行投资，文章所说的就是这部分人，这说明美国政府也在保障没有能力而敢冒险的人，也算是保护社会安定吧，假如中国的股市私募也有这样类似的规定，跳楼的会少几个，呵呵，说笑了。比较一下政府某某人说过，股票这东西玩不起的就不要玩了，而美国政府用法律限制那些玩不起的人也保护了他们及家人的稳定生活。赞一个。
评论
回复: 已生效的最新美国Dodd-Frank金融改革法案对EB-5申请的影响看来你在做NY的NAVY项目....不错的项目，稳定压倒一切。点击展开...没做。那个项目基本上还凑合，但是中间的那个由纽约市政府成立的公司ＢＮＹＤＣ没有任何ｅｑｕｉｔｙ，只有一纸６０年的租约。这个空壳企业如果哪一年成本超过利润的话，除了倒闭没有其他出路。那时候投资人连告谁都不知道。 当然，现在同样比较的话，这个项目还算中上。 他们推出的第二期，生拉硬拽地又把政府拉进来。连原来主推他们项目的中介看着都不舒服。Ｇｅｏｒｇｅ和Ｐａｕｌ两个穷房地产律师倒是因为这个项目个人咸鱼翻身了。
评论
回复: 已生效的最新美国Dodd-Frank金融改革法案对EB-5申请的影响不得不说，眼光很牟利。不过，这样的项目你们还不接，那真的没什么项目好接了。
·生活百科 Fronius Primo gen24 8.0随机掉落功率gen
·生活百科 RCA的适配器到闪电？