11. Bad Actor/pp. 66–70/17 CFR 228.104
Rule 104 — Regulation A’s disqualification, imported
The exemptions are unavailable if the issuer or any Rule 262(a) covered person would be disqualified under Rule 262. Pre-effective events do not disqualify; they must be disclosed, 506(e)-style. Waivers remain available. Corp Fin would get delegated authority to grant them.
II.A.5 Disqualification (Rule 104)
Lookback before effective date
Disclosure only
RFCs
40–42
Analysis
What the text does
Rule 104(a) cross-reads Rule 262. The covered-person list is the Regulation A list: issuer, predecessors, affiliated issuers, directors, executive officers, other officers participating in the offering, general partners, managing members, 20% voting-equity beneficial owners, promoters, paid solicitors and their GPs/directors/officers. Instruction: read every “Regulation A” in 262(a) as “Regulation Crypto Assets.”
The lookback does not reach events before the final rule’s effective date. Those events must still be described in writing to each purchaser a reasonable time before sale (or in the offering circular). Failure to disclose a pre-effective event does not destroy the exemption if the issuer did not know and, exercising reasonable care, could not have known. Reasonable care requires a factual inquiry; the nature of the inquiry varies with the facts. That is Rule 506(e) transplanted.
The alternatives section (pp. 268–269) floats two other designs: apply disqualification to pre-existing events, or narrow the lookback (e.g., misdemeanor lookback limited to the penalty period). The Commission kept 262 for consistency — issuers already running a 262/506(d) questionnaire can reuse it — and used disclosure rather than disqualification for the pre-effective stock of crypto-industry settlements.
Research
Comparables and the record
- Rule 262 (Reg A), Rule 506(d) (Reg D), Rule 503 (Reg CF) — the three existing bad-actor codes. 104 picked 262, not 506(d). Differences are small but real (covered-person list, timing).
- Disqualification of Felons and Other “Bad Actors” from Rule 506 Offerings, Release 33-9414 (July 10, 2013) — the policy origin.
- Proposed 17 CFR 200.30-1(n)(1) would delegate to the Director of Corporation Finance the authority to grant Rule 104 waivers for good cause.
Ideation
What to file
- Propose adding persons with administrative keys, or persons who hold more than 20% of the subject crypto asset, to the covered-person list. Otherwise 104 is an equity-company rule taped onto a token issuer.
- If you have a pre-2025 ICO settlement, the lookback holiday is why you can use this exemption at all. File a comment supporting the 506(e)-style treatment and attach the form of disclosure you would use.
- Waivers: ask Corp Fin to publish a 104 waiver matrix (same as the 506(d) waiver letters) so the first ten applications are not a lottery.
Analysis
What the text does
Rule 104(a) cross-reads Rule 262. The covered-person list is the Regulation A list: issuer, predecessors, affiliated issuers, directors, executive officers, other officers participating in the offering, general partners, managing members, 20% voting-equity beneficial owners, promoters, paid solicitors and their GPs/directors/officers. Instruction: read every “Regulation A” in 262(a) as “Regulation Crypto Assets.”
The lookback does not reach events before the final rule’s effective date. Those events must still be described in writing to each purchaser a reasonable time before sale (or in the offering circular). Failure to disclose a pre-effective event does not destroy the exemption if the issuer did not know and, exercising reasonable care, could not have known. Reasonable care requires a factual inquiry; the nature of the inquiry varies with the facts. That is Rule 506(e) transplanted.
The alternatives section (pp. 268–269) floats two other designs: apply disqualification to pre-existing events, or narrow the lookback (e.g., misdemeanor lookback limited to the penalty period). The Commission kept 262 for consistency — issuers already running a 262/506(d) questionnaire can reuse it — and used disclosure rather than disqualification for the pre-effective stock of crypto-industry settlements.
Requests for comment
Numbered questions on this page
- RFC 40
Is Rule 262 the right disqualification code to import?
Desk If you wanted 506(d) instead, say why. The covered-person list is the delta.
- RFC 41
Should pre-effective events disqualify rather than merely be disclosed?
Desk Investor-protection comment. Costs: a large share of 2017–2024 issuers would be ineligible.
- RFC 42
Is the reasonable-care inquiry instruction sufficient?
Desk Ask for a token-holder / key-admin questionnaire illustration.
RCA publishes source-linked intelligence for professionals. Nothing here is a token-buying call, a legal opinion, or an “approved / safe / regulated” badge. Every material claim is dated. Incomplete files stay incomplete.