(800) 341-2684

Call Toll Free

Contact us

Online Inquiries 24/7

Laura Anthony Esq

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

Initial Public Offerings (IPOs)

SEC Adopts Amendments To Accelerated And Large Accelerated Filer Definitions

In March, 2020 the SEC adopted amendments to the definitions of an “accelerated filer” and “large accelerated filer.”  The amendments were adopted largely as proposed in May 2019 (see HERE).

A company that is classified as an accelerated or large accelerated filer is subject to, among other things, the requirement that its outside auditor attest to, and report on, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) as required by Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).  The JOBS Act exempted emerging growth companies (EGCs) from this requirement.  Moreover, historically the definition of a smaller reporting company (SRC) was set such that an SRC could never be an accelerated or large accelerated filer, and as such would never be subject to Section 404(b) of SOX.

In June 2018, the SEC amended the definition of an SRC to include companies with less than a $250 million public float (increased

SPAC IPOs A Sign Of Impending M&A Opportunities

The last time I wrote about special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) in July 2018, I noted that SPACs had been growing in popularity, raising more money in 2017 than in any year since the last financial crisis (see HERE).  Not only has the trend continued, but the Covid-19 crisis, while temporarily dampening other aspects of the IPO market, has caused a definite uptick in the SPAC IPO world.

In April, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that SPACs are booming and that “[S]o far this year, these special-purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, have raised $6.5 billion, on pace for their biggest year ever, according to Dealogic. In April, 80% of all money raised for U.S. initial public offerings went to blank-check firms, compared with an average of 9% over the past decade.”

I’m not surprised.  Within weeks of Covid-19 reaching a global crisis and causing a shutdown of the U.S. economy, instead of my phone

SEC Proposes Additional Disclosures For Resource Extraction Companies

In December 2019, the SEC proposed rules that would require resource extraction companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments or the U.S. federal government for the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals.  The proposed rules have an interesting history.  In 2012 the SEC adopted similar disclosure rules that were ultimately vacated by the U.S. District Court.  In 2016 the SEC adopted new rules which were disapproved by a joint resolution of Congress.  However, the statutory mandate in the Dodd-Frank Act requiring the SEC to adopt these rules requiring the disclosure remains in place and as such, the SEC is now taking its third pass at it.

The proposed rules would require domestic and foreign resource extraction companies to file a Form SD on an annual basis that includes information about payments related to the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals that are made to a foreign government or the U.S. federal government.

Proposed Rule 

The

Nasdaq Extends Direct Listings

The Nasdaq Stock Market currently has three tiers of listed companies: (1) The Nasdaq Global Select Market, (2) The Nasdaq Global Market, and (3) The Nasdaq Capital Market. Each tier has increasingly higher listing standards, with the Nasdaq Global Select Market having the highest initial listing standards and the Nasdaq Capital Markets being the entry-level tier for most micro- and small-cap issuers.  For a review of the Nasdaq Capital Market listing requirements, see HERE as supplemented and amended HERE.

On December 3, 2019, the SEC approved amendments to the Nasdaq rules related to direct listings on the Nasdaq Global Market and Nasdaq Capital Market. As previously reported, on February 15, 2019, Nasdaq amended its direct listing process rules for listing on the Market Global Select Market (see HERE).

Interestingly, around the same time as the approval of the Nasdaq rule changes, the SEC rejected amendments proposed by the NYSE big board which would have allowed

Division of Enforcement 2019 Annual Report

As my firm does not practice in the enforcement arena, it is not an area I always write about, but this year I found a few trends that are interesting.  In particular, just by following published enforcement matters on the SEC’s website, I’ve noticed a large uptick in actions to suspend the trading in, or otherwise take action against, micro- and small-cap companies, especially delinquent filers.  I’ve also noticed a large uptick of actions against smaller public and private companies that use misleading means to raise capital from retail investors, and the concurrent use of unlicensed broker-dealers.  Of course, there have always been a significant number of actions involving cryptocurrencies. In light of my own observations, I decided to review and report on the SEC’s view of its actions.

As an aside, before discussing the report, I note that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has raised concerns about the quality of record keeping and documentation maintained by the

Drill Down On NASDAQ Audit Committee Requirements

I’ve written several times about Nasdaq listing requirements including the general listing requirements (see HERE) and the significant listing standards changes enacted in August of this year (see HERE).  This blog will drill down on audit committees which are part of the corporate governance requirements for listed companies.  Nasdaq Rule 5605 delineates the requirements for a Board of Directors and committees.  The Nasdaq rule complies with SEC Rule 10A-3 related to audit committees for companies listed on a national securities exchange.

SEC Rule 10A-3

SEC Rule 10A-3 requires that each national securities exchange have initial listing and ongoing qualification rules requiring each listed company to have an audit committee comprised of independent directors.  Although the Nasdaq rules detail its independence requirements, the SEC rule requires that at a minimum an independent director cannot directly or indirectly accept any consulting, advisory or other compensation or be affiliated with the company or any of its subsidiaries.  The prohibition against compensation

Nasdaq Direct Listing Rule Change

On April 3, 2018, Spotify made a big board splash by debuting on the NYSE without an IPO. Instead, Spotify filed a resale registration statement registering the securities already held by its existing shareholders. The process is referred to as a direct listing.  As most of those shareholders had invested in Spotify in private offerings, they were rewarded with a true exit strategy and liquidity by becoming the company’s initial public float.  On April 26, 2019, Slack Technologies followed suit, filing a resale Form S-1 with an anticipated direct listing on to the NYSE.

Around this time last year, I published a blog on the direct listing process focusing on the differences between a direct listing onto a national exchange and one onto OTC Markets – see HERE. As the process seems to be gaining in popularity, on February 15, 2019 Nasdaq amended its direct listing process rules. This blog is focused on the Nasdaq direct

An IPO Without The SEC

On January 23, 2019, biotechnology company Gossamer Bio, Inc., filed an amended S-1 pricing its $230 million initial public offering, taking advantage of a rarely used SEC Rule that will allow the S-1 to go effective, and the IPO to be completed, 20 days from filing, without action by the SEC.  Since the government shutdown, several companies have opted to proceed with the effectiveness of a registration statement for a follow-on offering without SEC review or approval, but this marks the first full IPO, and certainly the first of any significant size. The Gossamer IPO is being underwritten by Bank of America Merrill Lynch, SVB Leerink, Barclays and Evercore ISI. On January 24, 2019, Nasdaq issued five FAQ addressing their position on listing companies utilizing Section 8(a).  Although the SEC has recommenced full operations as of today, there has non-the-less been a transformation in the methods used to access capital markets, and the use of 8(a) is just

Shifting Capital Markets; Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Exits the Penny Stock Business

There is a strange dichotomy building in the capital markets and what some are calling a clearing firm crisis. At the same time that the world of penny stocks and low-priced securities is on shaky ground with regulators and market participants, the U.S. is trying to regenerate the IPO marketplace, and a whole world of cryptocurrency investments and global trading continues to flourish. However, the IPO market cannot flourish for small companies if stockholders cannot clear their securities and sell into a secondary market. Recently, penny stocks have experienced a one-two punch that leaves me, and many of my colleagues, wondering how the marketplace will respond and evolve. Furthermore, as the inevitable birth of securities tokens and an actual licensed operational securities token exchange looms on the near-term horizon, it is clear we are at the precipice of experiencing fundamental changes in the capital markets.

Background on Penny Stocks

Penny stocks and low-priced securities have always been considered speculative and

Proposed SPAC Rule Changes

With the growing popularity of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), both the Nasdaq and NYSE have proposed rule changes that would make listings easier, although on June 1, 2018, the Nasdaq withdrew its proposal. SPACs raised more money last year than any year since the financial crisis. The SEC has been delaying action on the proposed rule changes, now pushing off a decision until at least August 2018.

A company that registers securities as a blank check company and whose securities are deemed a “penny stock” must comply with Rule 419 and thus are not eligible to trade. A brief discussion of Rule 419 is below. A “penny stock” is defined in Rule 3a51-1 of the Exchange Act and like many definitions in the securities laws, is inclusive of all securities other than those that satisfy certain delineated exceptions. The most common exceptions, and those that would be applicable to penny stocks for purpose of the SPAC, include: (i)

Categories

Contact Author

Laura Anthony Esq

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?