本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

bad-actor-disqualification-review

Produces a Rule 506(d) bad actor disqualification review for private securities offerings, including a covered persons register, tailored questionnaires mapping to each disqualifying event category, a documented reasonable-care diligence record, and classification analysis of flagged events with remediation or disclosure recommendations. Use this skill when conducting Rule 506(d) diligence, identifying covered persons for a Regulation D offering, drafting bad actor questionnaires, or analyzing potential disqualifying events involving criminal convictions, SEC orders, SRO sanctions, or state regulatory actions. Also trigger when the user mentions bad actor screening, covered persons analysis, Rule 506(d) questionnaire, disqualification waiver, or reasonable care defense. Even if the user just says "bad actor check" or "506(d) diligence," use this skill.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md12.7 KB
  • LICENSE.txt10.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Bad Actor Disqualification Review (Rule 506(d))

Why This Skill Exists

A single disqualifying event involving any covered person eliminates the Rule 506 exemption — and with it, NSMIA preemption across all 50 states. This is not a theoretical risk: offerings have been unwound, rescission rights have been triggered, and issuers have faced enforcement actions because bad actor screening was treated as a checkbox exercise rather than a defensible diligence process. The covered persons net is broader than most practitioners realize (it catches specific individuals at broker-dealers, not just entities), and the lookback periods vary by event category.

This skill executes a structured reasonable-care review that builds a defensible record: covered persons register, tailored questionnaires, independent verification, event classification, and remediation pathways.


Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake (Mandatory)

Ask every time unless the user says "use defaults" or "just draft." Gather:

  1. Offering perimeter — Rule 506(b) vs. 506(c), expected sale date(s), staged closing schedule
  2. Cap table — full beneficial ownership chains, voting agreements, convertible instruments, super-voting stock; sufficient to calculate voting power (not just equity %)
  3. Organizational documents — charter/bylaws or operating agreement, board consents
  4. Officer/director list — full legal names, roles, description of involvement in investor-facing activities
  5. Promoter arrangements — any person who founded/organized the issuer or receives compensation in connection with founding (Rule 405 definition)
  6. Solicitation arrangements — placement agent, finder, broker-dealer, and portal agreements; identify the specific individuals soliciting, not just the firm entity
  7. Prior Form D filings and known enforcement history
  8. Per-person identifiers — full legal name, aliases, DOB, current/prior addresses, FINRA/SEC registrations

If the user doesn't respond, apply and clearly label these defaults: all persons meeting Rule 506(d)(1) categories included; err toward inclusion for borderline covered persons; all lookback periods applied from expected first sale date.

If screening identifiers are unavailable for any covered person, propose a risk-based path (remove from covered role, restructure, delay) before proceeding.


Step 1: Build Covered Persons Register

Map each person/entity to their Rule 506(d)(1) category. Update at every material deal change.

CategoryRule RefPersons/EntitiesBasis for Inclusion
Issuer + affiliated/predecessor issuers506(d)(1)(i)
Directors and executive officers506(d)(1)(ii)Rule 405 "executive officer" definition
Other officers participating in the offering506(d)(1)(ii)Participation = road shows, investor comms, preparing materials; err toward inclusion
General partners / managing members506(d)(1)(iii)Read operating agreement; title alone insufficient in DE LLCs
20%+ voting equity holders506(d)(1)(iv)Voting power, not equity %; aggregate holdings under common control
Promoters506(d)(1)(v)Rule 405 definition
Compensated solicitors506(d)(1)(vi)Direct or indirect remuneration for solicitation
GPs/directors/EOs/MMs of compensated solicitors506(d)(1)(vii)Check specific individuals at each broker-dealer

Voting power traps: Aggregate related-entity holdings under common control; account for voting agreements, preferred stock as-converted, and super-vote share classes. A fund at 15% through one entity + 6% through an affiliate = 21% covered person.


Step 2: Draft Questionnaires

Draft a signed questionnaire for each covered person. Questions must mirror the disqualifying event categories in 17 C.F.R. § 230.506(d)(1). [VERIFY all lookback periods against current rule text before finalizing.]

CategoryLookbackKey Notes
Criminal convictions — securities, false SEC filings, securities-business conduct10 yearsInclude guilty pleas and nolo contendere
Court injunctions/restraining orders — same subjects5 years [VERIFY]Final orders only
Final orders — state securities/banking/insurance/federal banking/NCUA10 yearsBars or fraud-based; confirm "finality" from actual document
SEC disciplinary orders — broker, dealer, IA, funding portal[VERIFY]Suspension, revocation, or limitation
SEC cease-and-desist orders — scienter-based anti-fraud or §55 years [VERIFY]§17(a) trigger requires scienter
SRO suspension/expulsion — FINRA, etc.10 years [VERIFY]Confirm "associated with a member" at time of sanction
U.S. Postal Service false representation orders5 years [VERIFY]

Questionnaire requirements:

  • Define key terms in plain English tied to rule text
  • Require supporting documents for every "yes" response
  • Signature block: (i) certification of completeness, (ii) agreement to update through final sale, (iii) reliance acknowledgment
  • Require refresh if closing is delayed or staged

Step 3: Conduct Independent Verification

Search all covered persons independently. Document date, scope, and results for every search.

DatabaseScope
SEC EDGAR (litigation releases, admin proceedings)All covered persons
FINRA BrokerCheckRegistered broker-dealer personnel
SEC IAPDInvestment advisers
PACERFederal criminal and civil matters
State securities regulator databases (NASAA sites)State-licensed persons
GSA SAM (debarment)All covered persons

Calibrate depth to risk: deeper investigation for promoters, compensated solicitors, persons with regulatory friction, penny-stock backgrounds, or complex ownership chains. Refresh all searches shortly before sale if offering extends beyond initial diligence. Flag FCRA applicability if consumer reports are obtained.


Step 4: Classify Disqualifying Events

For each flagged item, produce a memo section covering:

  1. What happened — nature, issuing authority, date of order/conviction
  2. Lookback math — date of event to date of intended sale; within applicable period?
  3. Category match — quote the order/judgment text and map to a specific Rule 506(d)(1) category; do not paraphrase
  4. "Final order" analysis — for state regulatory actions, confirm finality from the document itself
  5. SRO analysis — confirm "associated with a member" status and that the sanction qualifies
  6. Pre-September 23, 2013 events — no disqualification, but mandatory Rule 506(e) disclosure to investors; frequent trap
  7. Conclusion — disqualifying / not disqualifying / requires attorney verification, with rationale

Step 5: Determine Remediation and Disclosure Pathways

ScenarioPath
Pre-Sept. 23, 2013 eventNo disqualification; draft Rule 506(e) investor disclosure
Event discovered, no prior knowledgeDocument reasonable-care record supporting Rule 506(d)(2)(iv) exception
SEC waiverAvailable but rare and slow; flag for attorney evaluation
Remove person from covered categoryEnd solicitation role; resign officer role before sale; restructure below 20% voting threshold — flag sham risk
Replace placement agentEngage FINRA-member with clean record; obtain their own 506(d) certifications for specific soliciting individuals
Change exemption strategyEvaluate Section 4(a)(2); analyze Blue Sky implications of losing §18(b)(4)(E) preemption

Rule 506(e) disclosure: Must be accurate, complete, and not misleading; review against §17(a) and Rule 10b-5 before delivery.

Post-closing caution: Remediation after sales may not cure past noncompliance. Evaluate rescission exposure and supplemental disclosure obligation.


Step 6: Produce Final Work Product

Deliver:

  1. Executive conclusion — (a) no disqualifying events identified; (b) potential event requiring remediation; or (c) disqualifying event — do not rely on Rule 506 absent waiver or restructure
  2. Covered persons register with basis for each inclusion/exclusion
  3. Diligence log — dates, databases searched, attached logs or vendor reports
  4. Per-item analysis for each flagged event
  5. Open items list — pending questionnaires, outstanding searches, unresolved classifications; state whether closing should be conditioned on completion
  6. Next steps with responsible owners (legal vs. company)

Mandatory Front Matter

At the top of every output, include:

  1. Assumptions Used — offering type, sale date, covered persons included/excluded, databases searched
  2. Open Items / Needed Inputs — pending questionnaires, outstanding searches, unresolved items

Cross-check any transaction document representations about 506(d) status against the diligence record. Do not permit a blanket "no bad actors" representation when diligence is incomplete or items are pending.


Checkpoint B: Post-Draft Alignment (Mandatory)

After delivering the initial review, ask:

  1. Are all covered persons accounted for, including specific individuals at the placement agent?
  2. Are there any pending questionnaire responses or outstanding searches?
  3. Should closing be conditioned on completion of any open diligence items?
  4. Does the transaction documentation need carve-outs for known issues in the 506(d) representation?

Quality Audit

Before finalizing, verify:

  • All Rule 506(d)(1) categories analyzed — no category skipped
  • Covered persons register includes specific individuals at broker-dealers, not just entities
  • Voting power calculated on voting basis (not equity %) with related-entity aggregation
  • All lookback periods verified against current rule text
  • Questionnaires require document production and update obligations
  • Independent verification covers all databases listed and is current as of expected sale date
  • Pre-September 23, 2013 events identified and Rule 506(e) disclosure drafted
  • Every flagged event analyzed against the actual order/judgment text
  • Remediation recommendations are operationally implementable
  • Assumptions and open items listed prominently
  • No fabricated CDI, no-action letter, or case law citations

Guidelines

  • Verify rule text first: Search 17 C.F.R. § 230.506(d) before finalizing — do not rely on cached lookback periods or category lists
  • No invented citations: Any CDI, no-action letter, or case law reference must include a verified URL or be marked [VERIFY]
  • Voting power ≠ equity: Always calculate 20% threshold on voting power; aggregate related-entity holdings
  • Participation is broad: Any officer with investor contact is likely a covered person; err toward inclusion
  • Questionnaires are evidence: A plaintiff will use a poorly drafted questionnaire against the issuer; signed certifications with document production are non-negotiable
  • Diligence currency: Searches must be current as of sale date; refresh if closing delayed
  • Blue Sky exposure: Loss of Rule 506 = loss of §18(b)(4)(E) preemption; California (§25102(f) [VERIFY]), New York, and Texas have aggressive state regimes
  • Privilege: Analysis memo can be privileged; questionnaires and certifications may be discoverable — draft accordingly
  • Conflicts: Monitor for conflicts where firm represents both issuer and a covered person disclosing wrongdoing (Model Rules 1.7, 1.13); separate counsel may be required
  • Anti-hallucination: Do not fabricate rule text, lookback periods, or CDI references. Verify against current regulations before finalizing
  • Attorney review required: All output requires review by licensed counsel before use in an offering, sharing with investors, or reliance for filings (Model Rules 1.1, 1.3, 5.3)

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

中国大陆地区法院类案快速检索与《案件检索报告》(DOCX)生成技能。以案件五项要点(案由/法律关系、争议焦点、关键事实、我方诉请与诉讼地位、请求权基础法条)为检索锚点,经一次四问确认即开工(其中**检索地域范围**与**裁判时间范围**为强制选择题,默认范围为「2021年1月1日以后裁判的浙江省范围内的法院案例」,用户点选默认后须回显该范围提示);按**请求权基础、法律关系、案件事实三要素**判定高匹配——用户**指定**检索特定结果的案例时结果相似度计入评分(四要素满分 10 分),用户**未指定**时结果相似度不作为高匹配考虑因素(三要素满分 8 分);r1 判定须**核对法条版本与时间效力**,援引已失效旧法条者不得给满分;以语义向量检索为主召回、精确结构检索为条件兜底,本地脚本加权打分后按「得分率 > 法院层级 > 审判程序 > 裁判日期」排序,并检测**同院同日同标题的重复入库**案件、疑似重复者不占入报名额;截取匹配度最高的 5–10 例类案,逐案调详情核验案号并摘录判词原文,最后直接输出含页脚页码的 DOCX 报告(默认保存至桌面)。全流程人工确认 1 次、检索类调用控制在 2 次召回 + ≤10 次详情以内,报告阶段检索冻结。未指定结果时三要素高匹配而结果相反者亦会入报(逐例标注结果方向),指定结果时结果相反者一律剔除;报告内以两处固定声明披露「未设不利先例定向检索路径」的局限。当用户要求「快速检索类似案例」「找几个正向案例」「快速版案例检索报告」「检索 5 到 10 个类案并出报告」「出一份类案检索报告 docx」时使用。需要四象限归位、反向案例定向检索、补充召回多轮迭代或 14 分制硬软条件精判时,应使用完整版技能「案例检索报告Plus」而非本技能。基于华宇元典法律数据 MCP。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

88查企业风险查询与分析工具 —— 专注于中国大陆企业的法务风险查询与分析,覆盖经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法案件等风险类型。支持公司名称、统一社会信用代码、companyId 三种输入方式,自动完成风险查询并输出结构化风险分析总结。 触发场景:仅当用户意图为查询企业风险/法务风险时触发。包括但不限于:企业风险查询、公司风险、经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法风险、风险扫描、风险评估、企业合规审查、风险报告、XX公司有什么风险、XX公司安全吗、XX公司有没有处罚、XX公司被执行过吗。 不触发场景:纯粹的企业信息查询(如查公司、搜企业、工商信息、注册资本、法人代表、股东结构、专利商标等)不应触发本技能,请使用其他 cha88 系列工具。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Manages Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition workflows — drafting notice topics with reasonable particularity, building examination outlines, defending designees, handling objections, and preserving binding admissions for summary judgment or trial. Use when drafting or responding to 30(b)(6) notices, selecting and preparing designees, building topic-by-topic outlines, or triaging scope and privilege disputes. Trigger keywords: 30(b)(6), corporate representative deposition, topic list, designee, notice analysis, deposition objections, corporate admissions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Guides taking and defending Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative depositions. Drafts topic lists with reasonable particularity, builds examination outlines for binding corporate admissions, analyzes noticed topics for objections, and prepares designees. Use when drafting 30(b)(6) notices, preparing corporate deposition topics, selecting or preparing designees, or defending corporate representative depositions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification submissions demonstrating substantial equivalence under 21 CFR Part 807. Supports Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated pathways. Use when preparing Class II medical device regulatory filings, substantial equivalence analyses, or FDA premarket submissions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts a recordable Abstract of Judgment to create a judgment lien on a debtor's real property. Extracts party names, monetary components, and judgment details from case documents, then applies jurisdiction-specific formatting and certification requirements. Use post-judgment in commercial litigation when enforcing monetary awards, perfecting judgment liens, or preparing lien filings with the county recorder.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

CSlawyer1985 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する