Post Image
Finder’s a Keeper Under Michigan Blue Sky Law: Pransky v. Falcon Group, Inc.
Posted on Categories Business & Employment, Court DecisionsTags , ,

By Christopher G. Lazarini

A consultant or intermediary who brings together parties who may be interested in a securities transaction, but who does not play an active role in effecting the transaction, may be a finder and not subject to broker/dealer registration requirements.

Pransky vs. Falcon Group, Inc., Nos. 319266 & 319613 (Mich. App., 6/18/15).

Broker or Merely "Finder"?

Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Consulting Agreement under which Defendant was to assist Plaintiff in obtaining financing for a health spa by introducing Plaintiff to potential investors and/or assisting her in securing a line of credit or mortgage. Plaintiff paid Defendant $20,000 toward an agreed upon $50,000 non-refundable retainer, and agreed to pay additional amounts depending on the amount and type of monies Defendant helped raise. Several months after signing the Consulting Agreement, Plaintiff demanded the return of her $20,000 deposit. Defendant refused, and this suit followed. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s activities required it to be registered as a broker/dealer under the Michigan Securities Act (“MSA”), Defendant was not registered and, therefore, the Consulting Agreement was illegal and void. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Defendant was engaged in the activities of a “finder” under the MSA and did not have to be registered.

Finders and the Michigan Blue Sky Law

Conducting a de novo review, the state Court of Appeals notes that Plaintiff’s claims concern the legality of the Consulting Agreement which, in turn, depends on whether Defendant could perform the services outlined in the Consulting Agreement without being registered under the MSA. This prompts the Court to conduct a lengthy legislative intent analysis. Although modeled after the Uniform Securities Act, the MSA is unique, in the Court’s view, because it specifically addresses the activities of finders, while the Model Act and other jurisdictions do not. Under the MSA, a “finder” is a “person who, for consideration, participates in the offer to sell, sale, or purchase of securities by locating, introducing, or referring potential purchasers or sellers.” The key distinction between “finders,” who do not have to be registered under the MSA, and broker/dealers, investment advisors and their agents, who must be registered, the Court concludes, is that “finders” limit their activities to “participating” in the offer or sale of securities while the latter group plays a more active role in “effecting” securities transactions.

Finding for the Finder

The Court then examines the Consulting Agreement to determine if any of Defendant’s actions would require registration. The Court focuses on the clause requiring Plaintiff to pay Defendant a percentage of monies raised through Defendant’s efforts or connections. The Court concludes that registration is not required, however, because Defendant was not undertaking to advise Plaintiff or anyone else on the value of securities or the advisability of purchasing or selling securities, nor was Defendant undertaking to act as Plaintiff’s agent, even if Plaintiff ultimately issued securities. The Court finds, therefore, that, because Defendant was acting as a finder as defined under the MCA, registration was not required and the Consulting Agreement was not illegal.

(C. Lazarini: Finders operating outside the regulatory rules have long been present in our economic system and may provide effective assistance to small businesses seeking to raise capital. The regulators have often expressed their concerns about the activities of finders and will consider the following factors, among others, in determining whether an unregistered finder has entered the realm of a broker who must be registered: active solicitation of potential investors, participation in the negotiation of the sales of securities, advising on the merits of the potential investment, involvement in multiple transactions, and receipt of transaction-based compensation (i.e., “success fees”). The decision above easily could have gone the other way, had the Court deemed the payment of percentage amounts based on dollars raised to be success fees.)

(SLC Ref. No. 2015-27-04)

NOTICE: The court decision synopsis published above represents an abbreviated description of the actual decision and is re-printed here for its educational value. The author's effort is to report concisely the substance of the decision or a selected portion of the decision; commentary or analysis is generally reserved for the italicized section at the bottom of the summary. Subscribers to SAC's Online Litigation Alert (SOLA)from which this synopsis is excerpted, have immediate access to the full decision, in addition to the synopsis.

Like what you see here?

Twice a week we present blog posts consisting of one write-up from each of our two flagship weekly online Alert services. Consider a subscription to these publications to receive the full array of coverage right on your desktop every week. Give it a try and sign up for a free trial to the Securities Arbitration Alert and the Securities Litigation Alert.