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.
Best use case
bad-actor-disqualification-review is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
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.
Teams using bad-actor-disqualification-review should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/bad-actor-disqualification-review/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How bad-actor-disqualification-review Compares
| Feature / Agent | bad-actor-disqualification-review | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
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.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# 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. | Category | Rule Ref | Persons/Entities | Basis for Inclusion | |---|---|---|---| | Issuer + affiliated/predecessor issuers | 506(d)(1)(i) | | | | Directors and executive officers | 506(d)(1)(ii) | | Rule 405 "executive officer" definition | | Other officers participating in the offering | 506(d)(1)(ii) | | Participation = road shows, investor comms, preparing materials; err toward inclusion | | General partners / managing members | 506(d)(1)(iii) | | Read operating agreement; title alone insufficient in DE LLCs | | 20%+ voting equity holders | 506(d)(1)(iv) | | Voting power, not equity %; aggregate holdings under common control | | Promoters | 506(d)(1)(v) | | Rule 405 definition | | Compensated solicitors | 506(d)(1)(vi) | | Direct or indirect remuneration for solicitation | | GPs/directors/EOs/MMs of compensated solicitors | 506(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.]** | Category | Lookback | Key Notes | |---|---|---| | Criminal convictions — securities, false SEC filings, securities-business conduct | 10 years | Include guilty pleas and nolo contendere | | Court injunctions/restraining orders — same subjects | 5 years [VERIFY] | Final orders only | | Final orders — state securities/banking/insurance/federal banking/NCUA | 10 years | Bars 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 §5 | 5 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 orders | 5 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. | Database | Scope | |---|---| | SEC EDGAR (litigation releases, admin proceedings) | All covered persons | | FINRA BrokerCheck | Registered broker-dealer personnel | | SEC IAPD | Investment advisers | | PACER | Federal 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 | Scenario | Path | |---|---| | Pre-Sept. 23, 2013 event | No disqualification; draft Rule 506(e) investor disclosure | | Event discovered, no prior knowledge | Document reasonable-care record supporting Rule 506(d)(2)(iv) exception | | SEC waiver | Available but rare and slow; flag for attorney evaluation | | Remove person from covered category | End solicitation role; resign officer role before sale; restructure below 20% voting threshold — flag sham risk | | Replace placement agent | Engage FINRA-member with clean record; obtain their own 506(d) certifications for specific soliciting individuals | | Change exemption strategy | Evaluate 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)
Related Skills
reviewing-treatment-protocols
Evaluates NCCN guideline-concordant treatment plans with evidence levels and alternatives. Use when reviewing cancer treatment plans, checking NCCN compliance, or evaluating treatment options.
reviewing-prior-comparisons
Structures comparison with prior imaging studies to identify interval changes and trends. Use when comparing imaging studies, identifying interval changes, or tracking disease progression.
reviewing-medication-safety
Identifies high-alert medication risks with ISMP guidelines and safety barriers. Use when reviewing high-risk medications, implementing safety checks, or preventing medication errors.
reviewing-biosimilar-interchangeability
Evaluates biosimilar products for therapeutic interchange with clinical evidence review. Use when evaluating biosimilars, planning therapeutic switches, or analyzing biosimilar evidence.
performing-quality-assurance-reviews
Structures radiology peer review and quality assurance with discrepancy classification. Use when conducting peer review, classifying discrepancies, or documenting QA findings.
conducting-mortality-reviews
Structures mortality case reviews with root cause analysis and system improvement recommendations. Use when conducting M&M reviews, analyzing adverse outcomes, or documenting mortality cases.
conducting-morbidity-mortality-reviews
Structures surgical M&M conference presentations with case analysis and system improvement recommendations. Use when presenting M&M cases, analyzing surgical outcomes, or documenting quality improvement.
conducting-literature-reviews-systematic
Performs systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines with search strategy documentation. Use when conducting systematic reviews, documenting search strategies, or performing PRISMA analyses.
subcontractor-agreement
Drafts enforceable U.S. subcontractor agreements governing general contractor/subcontractor relationships for construction and service projects. Covers scope of work, payment and retainage, insurance and bonding, indemnification, schedule compliance, termination, and dispute resolution with state-specific compliance. Use when drafting subcontracts, subcontractor agreements, construction service agreements, or contractor engagement documents.
promo-materials-review-policy
Drafts an internal Promotional Materials Review Policy for life sciences and pharmaceutical companies under FDA oversight. Covers promotional review committee structure, fair balance requirements, substantiation standards, off-label prohibitions, recordkeeping, training, and auditing. Use when creating FDA promotional compliance governance frameworks, pharma advertising policies, or promotional review committee charters.
merit-review
Analyzes state merit review for non-covered securities offerings, applying NASAA Statements of Policy to cheap stock, promoter equity investment, voting rights, and promoter compensation. Produces examiner-ready comment responses with cap table analysis and negotiation strategy. Use when filing Reg A, Rule 504, intrastate, or direct public offerings in merit review states, responding to Blue Sky examiner comments, structuring offerings to avoid conditioning, or analyzing NASAA SOPs. Also trigger on cheap stock analysis, promoter equity tests, unequal voting rights review, state examiner correspondence, or phrases like "merit review issues" or "the state examiner sent comments."
labeling-compliance-review
Conducts FDA labeling compliance reviews for drugs, foods, dietary supplements, and medical devices. Analyzes principal display panels and information panels against FDCA, 21 CFR, and FDA guidance to identify misbranding risks, claims violations, and mandatory disclosure gaps. Use when reviewing product labels, auditing FDA compliance, assessing labeling risk, or preparing for FDA submission.