Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, contains the basic registration requirements for all offerings and rules of securities. Section 5(a) provides that “unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, it shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly:

(1) …to sell such security through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise; or
(2) …to transmit through the mails or in interstate commerce any such security for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale”

Section 5(b) provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person directly or indirectly:

(1) …to transmit through the mails or in interstate commerce, any prospectus relating to a security with respect to which a registration has been filed…., unless such prospectus meets the requirements of Section 10; or
(2) …to transmit through the mails or in interstate commerce any such security for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale, unless accompanied or preceded by a prospectus that meets the requirements of subsection (a) of Section 10”

Section 5(c) provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, … to offer to sell or to offer to buy through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise any security, unless a registration statement has been filed as to such security…”
In order to understand just what Section 5 covers, one must look to the definitions contained in

Section 2. Section 2 defines a “sale” to include “every contract of sale or disposition of a security, or an interest in a security, for value.” An “offer to sell” and “offer for sale” are defined to include “every attempt to offer or dispose of, or solicitation of an offer to buy, a security or an interest in a security, for value.” Finally, a “security” is defined to include, among other items, any “note, stock, bond, debenture or evidence of indebtedness; any investment contract (including real estate for investment); any security future, put, call, straddle or option on a security; any fractional undivided interest in oil, gas or other mineral rights; any certificate of deposit; and any group or index of securities.”

Literally read, Section 5 of the Securities Act applies to every sale of every security by every person, with a security including almost anything. Literally read, Section 5 requires a registration statement to be filed before any offer to sell a security could be made. Obviously, the business world could not function within such strict confines and accordingly congress enacted Sections 3 and 4 of the Securities Act to provide exemptions to the strict and all encompassing confines of Section 5.

However, the business world does have to operate within and understand that Section 5 is all encompassing and that only if a transaction falls within a specifically enumerated exemption in Sections 3 or 4 or the rules and regulations of the SEC, can the requirements of Section 5 be avoided.

Accordingly, prior to entering into business discussions which could be interpreted as falling under Section 5 of the Securities Act, it is important to consult with and retain the services of experienced securities counsel.

Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

Section 3(a)(9) of the Securities Act of 1933, provides an exemption from the registration requirements for “[E]xcept with respect to a security exchanged in a case under title 11 of the United States Code, any security exchanged by the issuer with its existing security holders exclusively where no commission or other remuneration is paid or given directly or indirectly for soliciting such exchange.” Generally, in an exchange offer, the issuer offers to exchange new debt or equity securities for its outstanding debt or equity securities.

Since Section 3(a)(9) is a transactional exemption, the new securities issued are subject to the same restrictions on transferability, if any, of the old securities, and any subsequent transfer of the newly issued securities will require registration or another exemption from registration. However, since the new securities take on the character of the old securities, tacking of a holding period is generally permitted allowing for subsequent resales under Rule 144 (assuming all other conditions have been satisfied for use of such rule).

Section 3(a)(9) Exchanges Surge in Popularity

Section 3(a)(9) exchanges have recently gained in popularity as public companies attempt to manage liabilities and clean up their balance sheets in the face of a down economy. Section 3(a)(9) exchanges can be used to reduce interest payments or accruals (by exchanging high rate debt for lower rate or by exchanging accrued interest or preferred payments for equity); reduce or eliminate outstanding debt (by exchanging debt for equity) and to modify the terms of existing securities (for example, modifying conversion ratios and redemption provisions).

The advantages of a Section 3(a)(9) exchange include: (i) can be completed quickly as there is no registration required; (ii) are flexible (an issuer can retire partial or entire liabilities); (iii) minimal costs; and (iv) often can be accomplished largely tax free for debt holders. The disadvantages include: (i) the new securities may be restricted depending on the status of the old securities offered in exchange or the availability of Rule 144 tacking of a holding period; and (ii) no commissions or other compensation can be paid, such as to a broker or investment banker.

Four Criteria of Section 3(a)(9)

The four main requirements of Section 3(a)(9) are as follows: (i) same Issuer – the issuer of the old securities being surrendered must be the same as the issuer of the new securities; (ii) no additional consideration from the security holder; (iii) offer must be made exclusively with existing security holders; and (iv) no commission or compensation may be paid for soliciting the exchange.

Section 3(a)(9) exempts any securities exchange by the issuer with its security holders. This means that the new securities being issued and the securities that are being surrendered must be from the same issuer. The “same issuer” can at times be a successor issuer. The SEC has taken the position that where an Issuer has fully and unconditionally assumed the obligations of the debt securities of another issuer, the subsequent exchange of that debt by the successor issuer qualifies as a Section 3(a)(9) exchange. Presumably the successor issuer has become the “issuer” by fully and unconditionally assuming the obligation.

Parent Company and Subsidiary Considered Two Separate Issuers

A parent and subsidiary are generally considered two separate issuers. Accordingly, if a subsidiary proposes to exchange debt that is guaranteed by the parent, for debt that is not guaranteed by the parent , the exchange would not qualify under Section 3(a)(9). However, the SEC has granted no-action relief for parent/subsidiary exchange transactions in particular fact circumstances.

The prohibition against paying commission or other compensation for the solicitation of an exchange, does not include the payment of administrative or ministerial fees solely for document preparation, mailing or legal opinions.

Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

The integration doctrine prevents issuers from circumventing the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1934 by determining whether two or more securities offerings are really one offering that does not qualify as an exempt offering, or an exempt offering is really part of a registered public offering.

Securities Act Release No. 33-4552 (November 6, 1962) sets forth a five factor test that is used as a guideline in determining whether the separate offerings of an issuer that occur within a short time of one another will be integrated. These same factors are set forth in the Note to Rule 502(a) of Regulation D, which factors address whether the offerings:

1. are part of a single plan of financing;
2. involve the issuance of the same class of securities (convertible securities, warrants, and other
3. derivative instruments generally are deemed to be the same class as the underlying security unless the terms of the primary security prohibit exercises until at least the one year anniversary date);
4. are made at or about the same time;
5. involve the same type of consideration is to be received; and
6. are made for the same general purpose.

Rule 502(a) provides for a six-month (soon to be 90 days) safe harbor wherein multiple private offerings that are conducted at least six (6) months apart will not be integrated. In addition, a private offering that is conducted at least six (6) months before or after a registered or exempt public offering will not be integrated with the public offering. Fortunately, effective February 4, 2008, the SEC changed the length of integration safe harbor from six (6) months to ninety (90) days.

In addition, Rule 155 sets forth a safe harbor for abandoned private and public offerings (Release No. 33-7943, effective March 7, 2001). Generally, the rule creates safe harbors to allow: (i) a public offering immediately following an abandoned private offering and (ii) a private offering thirty (30) days after an abandoned public offering, without integrating the public and private offerings in either situation. These safe harbors provide issuers with more flexibility to react to volatile capital market conditions.

Rule 155 does not replace, but rather supplements, the five factor test that will be used whenever the safe harbor is inapplicable. For example, the five-factor test, rather than Rule 155, would apply when evaluating whether two or more private offerings should be integrated with each other. Moreover, Rule 155 recognizes only Sections 4(2) and 4(6) and Rule 506 offerings as exempt offerings. Finally, Rule 155 is not available for shelf registration statements.

Concurrent Private and Registered Offerings in PIPE Transactions

The primary legal consideration in any PIPE (private investment in public entity) investment is ensuring that the issuer takes all steps necessary to make the investment a valid private placement. The issuer must conduct the PIPE offering in a manner that does not involve any general solicitation or advertisement. In this context, an issuer that had considered a public offering and filed a registration statement with the SEC may be deemed to have engaged in a general solicitation for the offering, and the issuer would have to completely abandon that offering by withdrawing the registration statement for a period of time before engaging in the PIPE transaction.

SEC Rule 155

Rule 155 does not alter the position taken by the SEC staff in its no-action letters to Black Box Inc. and Squadron, Ellenoff, Pleasant & Lehrer. In these letters, the staff indicated that it would not integrate a registered offering and a concurrent unregistered offering made only to Qualified Institutional Buyers (as defined by Rule 144A under the 1933 Act) and no more than two or three large accredited institutional investors.

Given that a PIPE transaction inherently involves a private placement of securities and a subsequent public offering, the PIPE transaction has higher integration risks. To ensure that the PIPE transaction is respected as two separate transactions, the initial private placement must be “complete” prior to filing of any registration statement for the underlying securities. In the standard PIPE transaction, meeting this requirement normally does not pose a problem since the registration statement is filed following the closing of the PIPE transaction.

Private Placement Completion

The SEC will consider a private placement complete if: (a) all of the purchasers have fully paid the purchase price for the securities in the private offering, or (b ) each purchaser is irrevocably obligated to purchase a set number of securities, the purchase price is fixed and the transaction cannot be renegotiated.

The SEC has permitted concurrent registered and private offerings to be made under the conditions set forth in its Black Box and other related “no action” letters (described above). A “Black Box PIPE” would be undertaken, for example, during a period when the company has on file an effective resale or shelf registration statement. In such situations, the SEC requires that the private offering be made only to: (a) persons who are qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) as defined in Rule 144A(a) under the Securities Act, and/or (b) no more than two or three large institutional accredited investors.

Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

Section 3(b) of the Securities Act gives the SEC authority to exempt from registration certain offerings where the securities to be offered involve relatively small dollar amounts. Under this provision, the SEC has adopted Regulation A, a conditional ex-emption for certain public offerings not exceeding $5 million in any 12-month period. An offering statement (consisting of a notification, offering circular, and exhibits) must be filed with the SEC Regional Office in the region where the company’s principal business activities are conducted. Although Regulation A is technically an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act, it is often referred to as a “short form” of registration since the offering circular (similar in content to a prospectus) must be sup-plied to each purchaser and the securities issued are freely tradeable in an aftermarket.

The principal advantages of Regulation A offerings, as opposed to full registration on Form S-1, SB-1 or SB-2, are:

1. Required financial statements are simpler and need not be audited; and
2. There are no periodic SEC reporting requirements (other than sales reports fol-lowing the sale of the securities) unless the issuer has more than $10 million in total assets and more than 500 shareholders.

Regulation A and Offering Circulars

There are three permitted offering circular formats under Regulation A, one of which is a simplified question-and answer document. This style of disclosure is useful to potential investors and may offer significant benefits to the issuer in the time expended and the costs of preparation.

All types of companies which are not reporting under the Exchange Act may use Regu-lation A, except “blank check” companies and investment companies registered or re-quired to be registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

In most cases, Regulation A may also be used by shareholders for the resale of up to $1.5 million of securities.

“Test The Waters” Provision

Regulation A includes a provision which allows an issuer to “test the waters” to deter-mine whether or not there is any investor interest in its securities before the filing of a complete offering document. Thus, an issuer may publish factual information about its business or proposed business before incurring a full range of legal, accounting and other costs, in order to gauge potential investor interest in a possible securities offering; however, the provision specifically provides that no money may be solicited or accepted until an offering statement has been qualified by the Commission, and prescribed offer-ing materials have been delivered to potential investors.

Rule 504

Rule 504 of Regulation D provides an exemption for the offer and sale of up to $1,000,000 of securities in a 12-month period. The issuer may use this exemption so long as it is not a blank check company and is not subject to Exchange Act reporting re-quirements. Like the other Regulation D exemptions, in general the issuer may not use public solicitation or advertising to market the securities and purchasers receive “re-stricted” securities. However, an issuer can use this exemption for a public offering of its securities and investors will receive freely tradable securities under certain specific cir-cumstances.

Filing of Form D

There are no periodic SEC reporting requirements (other than filing Form D) unless the Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels pri-vate and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

SEC Rule 10b-18 provides issuers with a safe harbor from liability for market manipulation under Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act when issuers bid for or repurchase their common stock in the market in accordance with the Rule’s manner, timing, price and volume conditions. Each of the conditions of Rule 10b-18 must be satisfied on each day that a repurchase is made.

Rule 10b-18

The material portions of Rule 10b-18 are as follows:

Definition. A “Rule 10b-18 purchase” is generally defined as a purchase or any bid or limit order of an issuer’s common stock by or for the issuer or any of the issuer’s affiliated purchasers.

To be able to rely on Rule 10b-18 in make repurchases, the following four (4) conditions must be met.

1. Time of Purchase. The Rule restricts issuers from making repurchases that constitute the opening transaction in the security on a trading day, or that occur during the last 30 minutes before the scheduled close of trading. However, the limitations on purchases at the close vary depending on the average daily trading volume (”ADTV”) and public float. Issuers with more liquid securities (i.e. issuers with an ADTV of $1 mil-lion or more and a public float value of $150 million or more) would be restricted from bidding for or purchasing their securities during any of the following periods: (1) in the 10 minutes before the scheduled close of the regular trading session in the principal market for the security; (2) the 10 minutes before the scheduled close of the regular trading session in the market where the purchase is made; and (3) after the termination of the period in which last sales prices are reported in the consolidated system.
2. Price of Purchases. The purchase price cannot exceed the higher of the highest independent bid or the last independent transaction price.
3. Volume of Purchases. The Rule limits the amount of securities an issuer may repurchase on the market on a single day to 25% of the four-week average daily trading volume in its shares (that is, the average daily trading volume during the four calendar weeks prior to the week in which the 10b-18 purchase is to be made). However, issuers are permitted to make one block purchase of its common stock per week outside of the volume restrictions. Issuers have to include block purchases in applying the 25% vol-ume limitation. However, issuers would also be permitted to include block purchases in calculating the ADTV for their securities, thereby increasing the amount of stock able to be purchased within the safe harbor. The Rule defines a “block” as a quantity of stock that (1) has a purchase price of $200,000 or more, (2) is at least 5,000 shares and has a purchase price of at least $50,000, or (3) is at least 20 round lots of the security and totals 150% or more of the ADTV of that security. As an alternative to the 25% vol-ume limitation, issuers are allowed purchase up to a daily aggregate amount of 500 shares regardless of the ADTV of the security. Thus, an issuer’s purchases, on any single day, may not exceed the higher of 25% of the ADTV for the issuer’s security or a daily aggregate amount of 500 shares.
4. Manner. The Rule requires an issuer to use only one broker or dealer (per day) to bid for or purchase its common stock.

Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels pri-vate and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!