
Module 1 — Foundations · Lesson 1.4
The Rules of Raising: Regulation D and Accredited Investors
Rule 506(b) or 506(c), who may invest, and what you may say while you raise
What you'll learn
- Explain why a private round needs an exemption and why Rule 506 is the usual one
- Choose between Rule 506(b) and Rule 506(c) and state what each permits and requires
- Apply the current accredited-investor tests for individuals and entities
- Describe the 2025 staff position on verifying accredited status by minimum investment amount
Founders often learn securities law the expensive way: after a demo-day post, a public tweet about the round, or a cheque from a friend who turned out not to qualify. None of the rules are hard; they are just unfamiliar. This lesson covers the small set every raise depends on. It is not legal advice — the conditions turn on facts, and your counsel should confirm the exemption before the first sale. For the full framework at exam depth, the Series 82 course in this catalogue covers Regulation D rule by rule.
Why a private round needs an exemption
Under the Securities Act of 1933, an offer or sale of securities must be registered with the SEC unless an exemption applies. Equity is a security; so are SAFEs, convertible notes and fund interests. Registration is the process of a public offering, which is why private companies rely on exemptions instead.
The exemption used for most private capital is Rule 506 of Regulation D. As Lesson 1.3 showed, Rule 506(b) alone accounted for about 378 billion dollars of non-fund capital in the twelve months to June 2025. A Rule 506 offering preempts state registration — states may still require a notice filing and a fee — and it requires a Form D notice filed with the SEC no later than 15 calendar days after the first sale (Lesson 4.4). It also carries a bad-actor disqualification under Rule 506(d): certain past violations by the issuer or people connected to the offering, including placement agents, can make the exemption unavailable, so issuers and desks check covered persons before they start.
506(b) or 506(c): the general-solicitation choice
Rule 506 comes in two forms, and the difference is how you find investors.
Under Rule 506(b), the issuer may not use general solicitation or general advertising. Rule 502(c) gives the core examples: any advertisement, article, notice or other communication published in a newspaper, magazine or similar media or broadcast on television or radio, and any seminar or meeting whose attendees were invited by general solicitation. Rule 152 adds the working test: an issuer relying on an exemption that prohibits general solicitation must have a reasonable belief, for each purchaser, either that it did not solicit them through general solicitation or that it had a substantive relationship with them before the offering began. In exchange, 506(b) allows up to 35 purchasers who are not accredited investors in any 90-calendar-day period — each of whom, alone or with a purchaser representative, must have enough knowledge and experience in financial and business matters to evaluate the investment — and accredited investors without verification beyond a reasonable belief. Selling to any non-accredited purchaser triggers disclosure requirements under Rule 502(b), which is why most venture rounds stay all-accredited anyway.
Under Rule 506(c), the issuer may solicit generally — post the round, pitch on a public stage, advertise — but every purchaser must be accredited, and the issuer must take reasonable steps to verify that they are. The rule lists non-exclusive methods: reviewing tax filings for the income test, bank and brokerage statements plus a credit report for the net-worth test, or a written confirmation from a registered broker-dealer, investment adviser, attorney or CPA.
The choice is practical. A founder raising quietly from people they know, introduced through investors and networks, is usually in 506(b). A founder or desk that wants to market the round publicly needs 506(c) and the verification that comes with it — and cannot switch mid-raise without counsel, because a public post made during a 506(b) offering is exactly the communication the rule prohibits.
Who is an accredited investor in October 2026
Rule 501(a) defines accredited investors. For natural persons, the main tests have not changed in years, and the eCFR text current as of October 21, 2026 still reads as follows.
Net worth: an individual whose net worth, alone or jointly with a spouse or spousal equivalent, exceeds 1,000,000 dollars, excluding the primary residence as an asset (and, subject to the rule's details, excluding mortgage debt on it up to its fair market value).
Income: individual income above 200,000 dollars in each of the two most recent years, or joint income with a spouse or spousal equivalent above 300,000 dollars in each of those years, with a reasonable expectation of the same in the current year.
Professional credentials: since the 2020 amendments, individuals holding certifications the SEC has designated qualify — currently the Series 7, Series 65 and Series 82 licences in good standing. Knowledgeable employees of a private fund qualify for investments in that fund.
Entities qualify through several routes, including certain entities with total assets above 5,000,000 dollars, entities in which all equity owners are accredited, and family offices meeting the rule's conditions.
Two current developments are worth knowing. In October 2026 the SEC published a notice, with comments due December 4, 2026, asking whether to designate the Certified Financial Planner certification as a qualifying credential. It is a proposal under consideration, not a change in the rule. And the dollar thresholds are not indexed to inflation, so the share of households that qualify drifts upward over time.
Verification after the 2025 staff letter
Verification was the practical obstacle to Rule 506(c): investors dislike handing over tax returns to every company they back. In March 2025 the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance issued a no-action letter to Latham & Watkins that changes the calculation for larger cheques. The staff agreed that a high minimum investment amount is a relevant factor in verifying accredited status, citing the Commission's own 2013 statement that fewer verification steps may be reasonable when an offering requires a high minimum investment that the purchaser meets. On the facts presented — the request described minimums of 200,000 dollars for natural persons and 1,000,000 dollars for entities — together with written representations from each purchaser that they are accredited and that the minimum investment is not financed in whole or in part by a third party, and no actual knowledge to the contrary, the staff agreed an issuer could reasonably conclude it had taken reasonable steps to verify.
Read it carefully. A no-action letter is a staff position on the facts presented, not a rule or a Commission statement, and different facts could lead to a different conclusion. It helps rounds with large minimum cheques; it does nothing for a raise built on small ones. And it does not change who is accredited — only how an issuer may reasonably confirm it.
Make the exemption a fact on the deal, not a memory
- 1
Record the exemption on the round
On the round's deal in /deals, note whether counsel has the raise under 506(b) or 506(c) and the first-sale date once it happens. update_deal can store both as custom fields so the agent and your colleagues see them on every read.
- 2
Keep an investor's status on the deal, not in an inbox
Each investor's per-deal status and next step live on the deal-to-contact link. Use them to track where accreditation confirmation stands — for example a status like Accreditation pending — so nobody wires before it is resolved.
- 3
Go deeper when you need the law itself
The Series 82 course in Learn covers Regulation D, accredited investors and general solicitation rule by rule, with citations to the rule text.
Compliance hygiene for the raise
- Exemption decided before first outreach
- Whether counsel has confirmed 506(b) or 506(c) before any investor is contacted.
- Healthy signal: Yes, every time. Deciding afterwards is how a public post ends up inside a 506(b) offering.
- Investors with accreditation confirmed before funds
- Share of committed investors whose accredited status (and, under 506(c), verification) is recorded before closing.
- Healthy signal: 100% at close. Anything less is a closing risk, not a paperwork gap.
- Public mentions of the round during a 506(b) raise
- Count of posts, talks or press that describe the offering while it is open under 506(b).
- Healthy signal: Zero. Talk about the company, not the offering, and ask counsel before any public appearance.
Key takeaways
- ·Every round sells a security and needs an exemption; Rule 506 is the usual one.
- ·506(b) forbids general solicitation but allows limited non-accredited purchasers; 506(c) allows it but requires every purchaser to be verified accredited.
- ·As of October 2026 the individual tests remain $1M net worth excluding the home, or $200K / $300K income; Series 7, 65 and 82 holders qualify; a CFP designation is only under consideration.
- ·A 2025 staff letter lets high minimum investments, with written representations, support 506(c) verification — a staff view on stated facts, not a rule.
With the money, the market and the rules in view, Module 2 turns to what you actually sell — priced equity, SAFEs and notes — and the arithmetic of what each costs you.
Sources
- 1.17 CFR 230.501 — Definitions and terms used in Regulation D
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (eCFR) · Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, up to date as of October 21, 2026 · 2026
The accredited-investor tests: $1,000,000 net worth excluding the primary residence; $200,000 / $300,000 income in each of the two most recent years; designated professional certifications; entity tests.
- 2.17 CFR 230.506 — Exemption for limited offers and sales without regard to dollar amount of offering
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (eCFR) · Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, up to date as of October 21, 2026 · 2026
506(b)'s 35 non-accredited purchasers per 90-calendar-day period and the sophistication requirement; 506(c)'s all-accredited requirement and non-exclusive verification methods; 506(d) bad-actor disqualification.
- 3.17 CFR 230.502 — General conditions to be met
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (eCFR) · Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, up to date as of October 21, 2026 · 2026
Rule 502(c)'s prohibition of general solicitation and its examples; Rule 502(b)'s information requirements when selling to non-accredited purchasers under 506(b).
- 4.17 CFR 230.152 — General principle of integration
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (eCFR) · Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, up to date as of October 21, 2026 · 2026
The reasonable-belief requirement: each purchaser either was not solicited through general solicitation or had a substantive relationship with the issuer before the offering commenced.
- 5.Latham & Watkins LLP — No-Action Letter (Rule 506(c))
SEC Division of Corporation Finance · Staff no-action letter, March 12, 2025 · 2025
Staff agreement that a high minimum investment, with written representations of accredited status and no third-party financing, can support a reasonable conclusion that verification steps were taken; not a rule or Commission statement.
- 6.Potential Designation of Certified Financial Planner Certification as Qualifying Natural Persons for Accredited Investor Status
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission · Release No. 33-11448, notice and request for comment (published October 5, 2026) · 2026
The SEC is considering designating the CFP certification; comments due December 4, 2026; the existing designations of the Series 7, 65 and 82 licences, made when Rule 501(a)(10) was adopted in 2020.
- 7.15 U.S.C. 77r — Exemption from State regulation of securities offerings
Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School · United States Code (as published by LII) · 2026
Covered-security status for offerings exempt under Commission rules issued under Section 4(a)(2), and the states' preserved power to require notice filings substantially similar to those in effect in 1996, with fees.