17 C.F.R. § 230.154

Delivery of prospectuses to investors at the same address

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Delivery of a single prospectus. If you must deliver a prospectus under the federal securities laws, for purposes of sections 5(b) and 2(a)(10) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 77e(b) and 77b(a)(10)) or § 240.15c2-8(b) of this chapter, you will be considered to have delivered a prospectus to investors who share an address if:

(1) You deliver a prospectus to the shared address;

(2) You address the prospectus to the investors as a group (for example, “ABC Fund [or Corporation] Shareholders,” “Jane Doe and Household,” “The Smith Family”) or to each of the investors individually (for example, “John Doe and Richard Jones”); and

(3) The investors consent in writing to delivery of one prospectus.

(b) Implied consent. You do not need to obtain written consent from an investor under paragraph (a)(3) of this section if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The investor has the same last name as the other investors, or you reasonably believe that the investors are members of the same family;

(2) You have sent the investor a notice at least 60 days before you begin to rely on this section concerning delivery of prospectuses to that investor. The notice must be a separate written statement and:

(i) State that only one prospectus will be delivered to the shared address unless you receive contrary instructions;

(ii) Include a toll-free telephone number or be accompanied by a reply form that is pre-addressed with postage provided, that the investor can use to notify you that he or she wishes to receive a separate prospectus;

(iii) State the duration of the consent;

(iv) Explain how an investor can revoke consent;

(v) State that you will begin sending individual copies to an investor within 30 days after you receive revocation of the investor's consent; and

(vi) Contain the following prominent statement, or similar clear and understandable statement, in bold-face type: “Important Notice Regarding Delivery of Shareholder Documents.” This statement also must appear on the envelope in which the notice is delivered. Alternatively, if the notice is delivered separately from other communications to investors, this statement may appear either on the notice or on the envelope in which the notice is delivered;

Note to paragraph (b)(2):

The notice should be written in plain English. See § 230.421(d)(2) of this chapter for a discussion of plain English principles.

(3) You have not received the reply form or other notification indicating that the investor wishes to continue to receive an individual copy of the prospectus, within 60 days after you sent the notice; and

(4) You deliver the prospectus to a post office box or to a residential street address. You can assume a street address is a residence unless you have information that indicates it is a business.

(c) Revocation of consent. If an investor, orally or in writing, revokes consent to delivery of one prospectus to a shared address (provided under paragraphs (a)(3) or (b) of this section), you must begin sending individual copies to that investor within 30 days after you receive the revocation. If the individual's consent concerns delivery of the prospectus of a registered open-end management investment company, at least once a year you must explain to investors who have consented how they can revoke their consent. The explanation must be reasonably designed to reach these investors.

(d) Definition of address. For purposes of this section, address means a street address, a post office box number, an electronic mail address, a facsimile telephone number, or other similar destination to which paper or electronic documents are delivered, unless otherwise provided in this section. If you have reason to believe that an address is the street address of a multi-unit building, the address must include the unit number.

[64 FR 62545, Nov. 16, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 65749, Nov. 2, 2000]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1968–1977 · leading case: Reliance Elec. Co. v. Emerson Elec. Co., 404 U.S. 418 (1972).
Reliance Elec. Co. v. Emerson Elec. Co., 404 U.S. 418 (1972). · cites it 2× “Rule 154, 17 CFR § 230.154 . But, "if a plan exists to effect a series of sales during successive 6 months' periods, such sales cannot be considered in the category of routine trades but must be deemed a distribution not exempted by the rule.”
Bolles v. Comm'r, 69 T.C. 342 (Tax Ct. 1977). · cites it 2× “As used in this paragraph the term " issuer" shall include, in addition to an issuer, any person directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by the issuer ↩ , or any person under direct or indirect common control with the issuer. [Emphasis supplied.] 5. The leakage…”
United States v. Louis E. Wolfson & Elkin B. Gerbert, 405 F.2d 779 (2d Cir. 1969). “Indeed, this is indicated by the definition of “brokers’ transaction” in 17 C.F.R. § 230.154 , commonly known as Rule 154 which provides : “(a) The term ‘brokers’ transaction’ in Section 4(4) of the act shall be deemed to include transactions by a broker acting as agent for the…”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Am. Beryllium & Oil Corp., 303 F. Supp. 912 (S.D.N.Y. 1969). “Sales of ABO were “substantial in relation to the number of shares or units of the security outstanding and the aggregate volume of trading in such security” and were well above the 1% exemption of Buie 154, 17 C.F.R. 230.154. These sales by Hesse and others therefore…”
Byrnes v. Faulkner, Dawkins & Sullivan, 413 F. Supp. 453 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). “Questions 8 and 10 were superseded by 17 C.F.R. § 230.154 . Under that regulation, a broker was deemed not to solicit an order when, in response to a quotation submitted by a dealer in the “sheets,” he inquired of that dealer as to his interest in purchasing.”
UNITED STATES of Am., Appellee, v. Forrest PARROTT & Donald Parrott, Appellants, 425 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1970). “Next, they make a similar claim as to the applicability of Rule 154, 17 C.F.R. § 230.154 , about which the charge simply instructed that this defense wás inapplicable.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp., 297 F. Supp. 470 (S.D.N.Y. 1968). “154, 17 C.F.R. § 230.154 . 4 . LaMorte’s term as President expired in June 1967.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.