ORDER A REPORT
SECURE FILE UPLOAD

Commercial transactions due diligence is a comprehensive review performed before completing a business deal to verify financial accuracy, evaluate legal exposure, assess operational strength, and confirm the true value of the transaction. This process typically involves analyzing financial statements, tax filings, contracts, litigation risks, intellectual property, HR matters, technology systems, and overall market position.

Legal authorities note that due diligence in commercial transactions generally includes:

  • Financial assessment — reviewing financial statements, tax returns, cash‑flow performance, and liabilities.
  • Legal review — examining contracts, agreements, intellectual property rights, and regulatory compliance.
  • Operational evaluation — analyzing business processes, internal systems, and technology readiness.
  • HR review — assessing employment policies, workforce structure, and potential labor issues.
  • Market and competitive analysis — understanding industry conditions, customer base, and competitive risks.

FindLaw explains that due diligence ensures both parties fully understand the transaction, validates legal compliance, and typically occurs before a deal is finalized. This includes reviewing income statements, financial records, tax data, assets, and key legal documents to prepare a complete due diligence report.

Additional legal commentary emphasizes that commercial due diligence helps identify risks, verify representations, determine valuation accuracy, and support post‑transaction integration planning.

FINRA has some common sense advice for avoiding investment scams

  1. Guarantees: Be suspect of anyone who guarantees that an investment will perform a certain way. All investments carry some degree of risk.
  2. Unregistered products: Many investment scams involve unlicensed individuals selling unregistered securities, ranging from stocks, bonds, notes, hedge funds, oil or gas deals, or fictitious instruments, such as prime bank investments.
  3. Overly consistent returns: Any investment that consistently goes up month after month, or that provides remarkably steady returns regardless of market conditions, should raise suspicions, especially during turbulent times. Even the most stable investments can experience hiccups once in a while.
  4. Complex strategies: Avoid anyone who credits a highly complex investing technique for unusual success. Legitimate professionals should be able to explain clearly what they are doing. It is critical that you fully understand any investment that you are considering, including what it is, what the risks are and how the investment makes money.
  5. Missing documentation: If someone tries to sell you a security with no documentation, such as a no prospectus in the case of a stock or mutual fund, and no offering circular in the case of a bond, he/she may be selling unregistered securities. The same is true of stocks without stock symbols.
  6. Account discrepancies: Unauthorized trades, missing funds or other problems with your account statements could be the result of a genuine error or they could indicate churning or fraud. Keep an eye on account statements to ensure that activity is consistent with your instructions, and know who holds your assets. For instance, is the investment adviser also the custodian? Or is there an independent third-party custodian? It can be easier for fraud to occur if an adviser is also the custodian of the assets and keeper of the accounts.
March 28th, 2014|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , |

Identity theft remains on top of FTC’s national complaints list

Identity theft continues to top the FTC’s national ranking of consumer complaints, with American consumers reported as losing over $1.6 billion to overall fraud in 2013, according to its annual report released last month. The FTC received more than two million complaints overall, of which 290,056 or 14%, involved identity theft. Thirty percent of these were tax or wage-related, which continues to be the largest category within identity theft complaints. Debt collection followed identity theft with 204,644 or 10% of total complaints, and banking and lending was number three with 152,707 or 7%.

Florida was noted as the state with the highest per capita rate of reported identity theft and fraud complaints, followed by Georgia and California for identity theft complaints, and Nevada and Georgia for fraud and other complaints.

March 28th, 2014|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , |

SEC defines “compensated solicitor” and “participation” under bad actor Rule 506(d)

As we reported previously, on September 23, 2013, new Rules 506(d) and (e) of Regulation D under the Securities Act and changes to Form D (“Bad Actor Rules”) went into effect, making all Rule 506 offerings subject to certain disqualification, disclosure and certification requirements.

In this blog, we want to bring to your attention the SEC’s compliance and disclosure interpretations (“C&DIs”) issued December 4, 2013, which, among other provisions, define what constitutes a “compensated solicitor” and “participation” in an offering, in case the SEC’s expanded guidance warrants an assessment of your particular services, especially if you are a professional advisor.

The CD&Is define “compensated solicitors” as “all persons who have been or will be paid, directly or indirectly, remuneration for solicitation of purchasers, regardless of whether they are, or are required to be, registered under Exchange Act Section 15(a)(1) or are associated persons of registered broker-dealers.”

According to the CD&Is, “participation in an offering is not limited to the solicitation of investors, and includes involvement in due diligence activities or the preparation of offering materials (including analyst reports used to solicit investors), providing structuring or other advice to the issuer in connection with the offering, and communicating with the issuer, prospective investors or other participants about the offering. To constitute ‘participation,’ such activities must be more than transitory or incidental–administrative functions, such as opening brokerage accounts, wiring funds, and bookkeeping activities, would generally not be deemed to be deemed as ‘participating’ in the offering.”

January 23rd, 2014|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , |

Justice Department collected more than $8 billion in civil and criminal cases in 2013

 

Attorney General Eric Holder announced on January 9, 2014 that the Justice Department collected at least $8 billion in civil and criminal actions in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2013. The statistics indicate that in FY 2013, approximately $5.9 billion was collected by the department’s litigating divisions and the U.S. Attorneys’ offices in individually and jointly handled civil actions. The largest civil collections were from affirmative civil enforcement cases, in which the United States recovered money lost to fraud or other misconduct and collected fines imposed on individuals and/or corporations for violations of federal health, safety, civil rights or environmental laws.

January 23rd, 2014|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , |

Proposed Regulation A rules have bad actor disqualification similar to Rule 506(d)

On December 2, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled that a combined disclosure and authorization form that contained a liability waiver which the employer gave to a group of former job applicants violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA.”) The court determined that a significant portion of the 1,800 individuals in this class action are entitled to willful damages under the FCRA and could each receive the greater of his/her actual damages or $1,000 plus attorneys’ fees.

This is a second published decision to hold that liability waivers invalidate the disclosure requirements under the FCRA. The first ruling rendered in January 2012 in the U.S. District Court in Maryland found that “both the statutory text and FTC advisory opinions indicate that an employer violates the FCRA by including a liability release in a disclosure document.” Thus far, only the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina disagreed, deciding in August 2012 that the liability waiver included in the defendant employer’s combined disclosure and authorization form was kept sufficiently distinct from the disclosure language so as not to render it ineffective.    

January 17th, 2014|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , |

Stricter Volcker Rule final; banking entities have until July 21, 2015 to conform

On December 10, 2013, five federal agencies approved the regulation known as the Volker Rule which introduces a variety of guidelines to limit risk-taking by banks with federally insured deposits. The Federal Reserve Board announced that banking entities covered by section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act will be required to fully conform their activities and investments by July 21, 2015. The compliance requirements will vary based on the size of the entity and the scope of activities conducted.

The rule prohibits insured depository institutions and any company affiliated with an insured depository institution from engaging in short-term proprietary trading of certain securities, derivatives, and other financial instruments for the firm’s own account, subject to certain exemptions, including market making and risk-mitigating hedging. It also imposes limits on banking entities’ investments in, and other relationships with, hedge funds and private equity funds.

December 10th, 2013|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , |

Scrutiny of predictive scoring products is on the FTC’s agenda in 2014

According to the Federal Trade Commission (‘the “FTC”) and media reports, companies are using predictive scoring for a variety of purposes, ranging from identity verification and fraud prevention to marketing and advertising. The scores, are touted to predict, for example, the likelihood that a person has committed identity fraud or that a certain transaction will result in fraud; the credit risk associated with mortgage loan applications; whether contacting a consumer by mail or phone will lead to successful debt collection; or whether sending a catalog to a certain address will result in an in-store or online purchase.

Consumers are largely unaware of these scores, and have little or no access to the underlying data. As a result, predictive scoring products raise a variety of privacy concerns and questions that the FTC intends to explore. Among the issues, are what consumer protections exist or should be provided, and whether certain scores are considered eligibility determinants that fall under the ambit of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

December 9th, 2013|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: |

SEC’s whistleblower program gains momentum

 

On November 15, 2013, the SEC released its third annual Whistleblower Report to Congress. According to the report, In the fiscal year 2013, the SEC paid four major awards, one of which was for over $14 million for information leading to an enforcement action that recovered substantial investor funds. Three other payments totaling $832k were made for information regarding a bogus hedge fund.

The report states that the number of complaints and tips increased from 3,001 in the 2012 fiscal year to 3,238 in 2013. The three most common complaints or tips were about corporate disclosures and financials, offerings fraud, and manipulation.  The number of FCPA-related tips also rose, from 115 to 149.

December 9th, 2013|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , |

Remedying Rule 506 “bad actor” disqualification through reasonable care

The SEC’s Rule 506 “bad actor” amendments went into effect September 23, 2013. As we reported previously, these amendments add Rule 506(d) to implement Regulation 926 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Under the rule, securities offerings involving certain “felons and other ‘bad actors'” are disqualified from the Rule 506 exemption unless the disqualification is waived or remedied through a “reasonable care” exception. (See Securities Act Release No. 9414, 78 Fed. Reg. 44,729; July 24, 2013).

The rule’s long list of disqualifying events – and an even longer list of covered persons – is raising consternation as issuers and practitioners come to grips with the challenges of compliance. A disqualification due to the presence of “bad actors” can be catastrophic, resulting in the loss of the exemption altogether, spilling into regulatory actions, litigation, and reputational issues. And any impediment to raising capital is likely to scare away investors.

The rule provides an exception from disqualification if the issuer is able to demonstrate that it did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known that a covered person with a disqualifying event participated in the offering. The SEC has not prescribed specific steps to establish reasonable care; however, it has indicated that the concept includes a factual inquiry in view of the particular facts and circumstances and other offering participants. Despite the procedural ambiguity, the message is clear that is not enough to show that the issuer was unaware of the disqualifying event – the issuer must establish that in exercising “reasonable care,” could not have known that a disqualification existed.

In anticipation of this ruling, SI has been including “disqualifying event” searches in many of its reports for over two years. Now that the ruling has gone into effect, SI also offers a specialized factual inquiry service to help our clients evidence “reasonable care” under the highest standards. For information, please contact Dave Lazar at 440-423-1157 or e-mail dlazar@scherzer.co or Jessica Staheli at 818-227-2598 or e-mail jstaheli@scherzer.co.

October 29th, 2013|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , , |

Tenant screening laws update: passing background check costs to the applicants

The states of Washington and Oregon recently enacted laws in connection with tenant screening. Among the provisions in both Washington’s RCW §59.18.257 and Oregon’s OAS §90.295, is that the entire cost of the background check can be charged to the applicant, if the screening is performed by a consumer reporting agency (“CRA”). However, if the landlord conducts the background check, it may not charge in excess of the customary fees of the CRAs in its geographical area.

Notably, California’s Civil Code §1950.6(b) provides that a landlord cannot charge (or pass-through) to the applicant more than $30 for a background check. This application screening fee may be adjusted annually by the landlord or its agent commensurate with an increase in the Consumer Price Index. (The current adjusted amount is $41.50.)

September 12th, 2013|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top