• 18Jun

    PIPE Transactions, Terms and Requirements

    SEC Law Firm No Comments

    A PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity) transaction is typically a private placement of equity or equity-linked securities by a public company to accredited investors that is followed by the registration of the resale of those securities with the SEC. Generally the securities are sold at a discount to market price. A traditional PIPE generally involves a fixed number of securities at a fixed price, with the closing conditioned only on the effectiveness of a resale registration statement. Any transaction that does not fall within this parameter is considered non-traditional and the structure can vary widely, including for example price variables (such as a death spiral), warrants and options, convertible securities and equity line transactions.

    Traditional PIPE Transactions

    In particular, a traditional PIPE is generally a set number of securities at a set price (which may be a discount to market at the time of close) and is conditioned only upon the effectiveness of a re-sale registration statement. A traditional PIPE where the price is a discount to market would differentiate from a non-traditional death spiral in that there would only be one closing in the traditional PIPE and there would be multiple closings with continued downward pressure on the stock price and a continued dilutive effect with a non-traditional death spiral. The transaction documents associated with a traditional PIPE are generally very straight forward and do not contain ongoing negative covenants relating to information rights, future financing or corporate governance.

    The terms of a non-traditional PIPE can vary widely but the basic requirements that the investment decision be completed in a private transaction prior to the filing of a registration statement and that the investor bear the risk of an investment are consistent.

    Re-Sale Registration Statements

    The SEC allows the filing of a re-sale registration statement for a PIPE if 1) the initial sale or placement of securities is conducted in a manner consistent with a private placement (no general solicitation or advertising and offerings made to accredited investors) and 2) the investors enter into definitive commitments which are only subject to the satisfaction of closing conditions outside the control of the investor, such as the effectiveness of a re-sale registration statement (that is, investor has made the investment decision and assumed the risk prior to the filing of the registration statement).

    Section 9 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, prevent the Investor from entering into hedging transactions (short sales and the like) from the time of entering into the PIPE transaction agreement through the effectiveness of the registration statement. In addition, Investors must be aware of insider trading rules (Section 10 of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated thereunder), throughout the period of the PIPE transaction. Moreover, the SEC has taken the position that an Investor that engages in short-selling prior to the final closing of PIPE and effectiveness of a registration statement, is engaging the unregistered sale of securities in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

    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!

    Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • 19Mar

    Form 10 Registration Statements

    SEC Law Firm No Comments

    A Form 10 Registration Statement is a registration statement used to register a class of securities pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). To explain a Form 10 registration statement, let’s start with what it isn’t. It is not used to register specific securities for sale or re-sale and does not change the transferability of any securities. That is, a Form 10 registration statement does not register a security for the purposes of Section 5[1] of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) . Following the effectiveness of a Form 10 registration statement, restricted securities remain restricted and free trading securities remain free trading.

    The Purpose of Form 10 Registration Statements

    Now onto what a Form 10 registration is. As indicated above a Form 10 registration statement is used to register a class of securities. Any Company with in excess of $10,000,000 in total assets and 750 or more record shareholders is required to file a Form 10 registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). In addition, any company, whether publicly held or not and with or without assets, may voluntarily file a Form 10 registration statement at any time. A Form 10 registration statement automatically becomes effective sixty (60) days following filing.

    Upon effectiveness the Company which filed the Form 10 registration statement is subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. That is, they must file annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and periodic reports on Form 8-K. In addition, such Company is then subject to the proxy rules in Section 14 of the Exchange Act, and ownership rules and reporting requirements in Sections 13 and 16 of the Exchange Act.

    What Makes a Company Public?

    Interestingly, even though a Company that files a Form 10 registration statement becomes subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, a Form 10 registration statement does not make a company public, and there is no pre-requisite that a company be public prior to filing a Form 10. A public company, by definition, has public shareholders. A Form 10 registration statement can be filed by an entity with a single shareholder. Moreover, regardless of the filing of a Form 10, a Company must satisfy other regulatory obligations to trade on either the over the counter market (PinkSheets or Bulletin Board) or on an exchange (AMEX; NASDAQ; etc.). A prerequisite to trading on either the over the counter market or an exchange, would be to have public shareholders holding freely tradeable shares. As explained in this article, a Form 10 does not impact upon this requirement.

    Following the changes in Securities Act Rule 144 in February 2009, a Form 10 registration statement has become an important avenue for many previously non-reporting entities. Technically Rule 144 provides a safe harbor from the definition of the term “underwriter” such that a selling shareholder may utilize the exemption contained in Section 4(1) of the
    Securities Act of 1933, as amended, to sell their restricted securities.

    Rule 144 and Form Registration Statements

    In layman terms, Rule 144, allows shareholders to sell their unregistered shares. However, Rule 144(i), as amended, provides in pertinent part that the Rule is unavailable for the use by shareholders of any company that is or was at any time previously, a shell company. A shell company is one with no or nominal operations and either no or nominal assets, assets consisting solely of cash and cash equivalents or assets consisting of any amount of cash and cash equivalents and nominal other assets.

    In order to use Rule 144, a Company must have ceased to be a shell company, be subject to the reporting requirements of section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; filed all reports and other materials required to be filed by section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as applicable, during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the issuer was required to file such reports and materials), other than Form 8-K reports; and have filed current “Form 10 information” with the Commission reflecting its status as an entity that is no longer a shell company, then those securities may be sold subject to the requirements of Rule 144 after one year has elapsed from the date that the issuer filed “Form 10 information” with the SEC.

    Evergreen Requirements

    In other words, if a non-reporting entity ever was a shell company, even ten years ago, one of the only ways its shareholders can avail themselves of Rule 144 is for that company to file a Form 10 registration statement and thereafter remain current in their Exchange Act reporting requirements. Note, that a company could comply with Rule 144(i) by the filing of an S-1 registration statement, which also contains “Form 10
    information.”

    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!

    [1] Section 5 of the Securities Act provides that it is unlawful to sell, offer to sell or offer to buy a security unless there is a registration statement in effect for such security, or a valid exemption exists.

    Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

  • 22Jan

    Rule 144 and the Evergreen Requirement Examined

    SEC Law Firm No Comments

    Technically Rule 144 provides a safe harbor from the definition of the term “underwriter” such that a selling shareholder may utilize the exemption contained in Section 4(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, to sell their restricted securities. In addition, Rule 144 is used to remove the restrictive legend from securities in advance of a sale. In layman terms, Rule 144, allows shareholders to either remove the restrictive legend or sell their unregistered shares.

    Rule 144(i), as amended, provides in pertinent part that the Rule is unavailable to issuers with no or nominal operations or no or nominal non-cash assets. That is the rule is unavailable for the use by shareholders of any company that is or was at any time previously, a shell company. A shell company is one with no or nominal operations and either no or nominal assets, assets consisting solely of cash and cash equivalents or assets consisting of any amount of cash and cash equivalents and nominal other assets.

    Form 10 Information

    In order to use Rule 144, a Company must have ceased to be a shell company, be subject to the reporting requirements of section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; filed all reports and other materials required to be filed by section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as applicable, during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the issuer was required to file such reports and materials), other than Form 8-K reports; and have filed current “Form 10 information” with the Commission reflecting its status as an entity that is no longer a shell company, then those securities may be sold subject to the requirements of Rule 144 after one year has elapsed from the date that the issuer filed “Form 10 information” with the SEC.

    The Evergreen Requirement

    Rule 144 now affects any company who was ever in its history a shell company by subjecting them to additional restrictions when investors sell unregistered stock under Rule 144. The new language in Rule 144(i) has been dubbed the “evergreen requirement”. The new Rule has the impact of punishing a company that was ever a shell in perpetuity and more importantly, its investors. Brian Breheny, deputy director of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s corporate finance division, referred to the so-called evergreen requirement in Rule 144(i) of the Securities Act, as an “unfortunate result” and said it was “probably not something that the commission intended.”

    Going Public and Reverse Mergers

    Under the so called “Evergreen Requirement”, a company that ever reported as a shell must be current in its filings with the SEC for 12 months before investors can sell unregistered shares. Here is the hitch. As a result, the restrictive legend can never be removed in advance of a sale. The rule affects all companies going public through a reverse merger or SPAC. Moreover, the Rule effects all companies that have ever been a shell, even if a reverse merger was completed decades ago. It paints a “scarlet letter” on all former shell companies, as this requirement continues literally forever – famous former shells like Blockbuster Entertainment, Texas Instruments and Berkshire Hathaway are now burdened by this restriction decades after their reverse mergers.

    So basically, you have to register the shares to get the legend removed. Practitioners have requested that the SEC either amend the Rule or issue additional guidance removing this requirement from Companies that were no longer shells at the time the Rule was enacted. So far no such changes have been made.

    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!

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 19Jan

    Compliance When Conducting Concurrent Private and Public Offerings

    SEC Law Firm No Comments

    The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) integration guidance in Securities Act Release No. 8828 (August 3, 2007) sets forth a framework for analyzing potential integration issues in the specific situation of concurrent private and public offerings. The guidance clarifies that, under appropriate circumstances, there can be a side-by-side private offering under Securities Act Rule 4(2) or the Securities Act Rule 506 safe harbor, with a registered public offering.

    Qualified Institutional Investors

    Previously it was thought that a private offering could only take place concurrently with a public offering if limited to qualified institutional investors (must have at least $100 million under management) and two or three additional large institutional accredited investors as set forth in the Black Box no action letter (June 26, 1990), or to an Issuer’s key officers and directors. In addition, many practitioners previously utilized the integration rule set forth in Securities Act Rule 502 in determining whether a private and public offering should be integrated. In Release No. 8828, the SEC clarified that Rule 502 provides the test to be used in determining whether two or more otherwise exempt offerings should be integrated. As a public offering is not an exempt offering this rule does not apply when determining the integration of concurrent private and public offerings.

    Solicitation of Investors

    The SEC guidance focuses on how the investors in the private offering are solicited and in particular, whether by the registration statement or through some other means that would not otherwise foreclose the use of the Section 4(2) exemption (for example, solicitation through general solicitation or advertising would prohibit the use of Section 4(2)). If the potential investors become interested in a private investment through the registration statement, then it is deemed that a general solicitation has occurred and Section 4(2) would not be available. However, if the investors become interested in the private offering through some other means, such as where there is a substantive pre-existing relationship with the Issuer, then Section 4(2) would be available for use.
    Moreover, an Issuer that completes a Section 4(2) private offering concurrently with a public offering may amend its registration statement to include the newly sold securities in its re-sale registration statement.

    Clarification of Concurrent Offerings

    The SEC also clarifies that in the specific situation of a concurrent private and public offering, only the guidance set forth in Release No. 8828 applies, and not the integration rules for exempt offerings set forth in Rule 502 or the integration rules relating to abandoned private and public offerings as set forth in Rule 155. In addition, an analysis under Release No. 8828 is factually specific and must be determined on a case by case basis.

    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!

    Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

  • 01Jan

    Rule 701 – Exemption for Offers and Sales to Employees of Non-Reporting Entities

    SEC Law Firm No Comments

    While the issuance of small numbers of shares as prizes or awards to employees may be made without Securities Act Registration, if such awards are tied to the achievement of specific goals (eg. sales goals) by individual employees, an offer or sale requiring registration may be involved. When tied to the achievement of specific goals, the share awards may constitute compensation for services performed or to be performed by the employees that would amount to a disposition of the shares for value and a “sale” of the shares to employees requiring either registration or an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933.

    Although many exemptions may be available for the issuance of securities to employees, Rule 701 provides an excellent exemption for non-reporting entities. In particular, Rule 701 is only available to issuers that are not subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act 1934. The beauty of Rule 701 is that ninety days after the Issuer becomes subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, securities issued under this Rule may be resold by persons who are not affiliates under Rule 144 without compliance with the current public information, holding period, amount or Form 144 requirements. That is, generally speaking, ninety days after an Issuer becomes reporting, Rule 701 issued securities may be freely sold. Regardless of whether an Issuer becomes reporting, resales may be made under any available exemption, or pursuant to registration.

    Compliance with Rule 701

    To comply with Rule 701, an Issuer must have a written compensatory benefit plan for the participation of its employees, director, general partners, trustees, officers, or consultants and advisors. Rule 701 is only available for consultants and advisors if: (i) they are natural persons; (ii) they provide bona fide services to the issuer; and (iii) the services are not in connection with the offer or sale of securities in a capital raising transaction, and do not directly or indirectly promote or maintain a market for the issuer’s securities. A copy of the plan must be delivered to all individuals receiving stock under the plan.

    The amount of securities sold in reliance on Rule 701 may not exceed, in any 12 month period, the greater of: (i) $1,000,000; (ii) 15% of the total assets of the issuer; or (iii) 15% of the outstanding amount of the class of securities being offered and sold in reliance on the exemption. Rule 701 issuances do not integrate with the offer and sales of any other securities under the Act whether registered or exempt.

    Antifraud Provisions Still Apply

    As with all other Securities Act registration exemptions, the issuer is still subject to the antifraud, civil liability and other provisions of the federal securities laws. Issuers and persons acting on their behalf have an obligation to provide all investors, including employees, with disclosure adequate to satisfy the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. In addition, Rule 701 is not available for plans or schemes to circumvent the purpose of the Rule, which is for compensatory purposes, and not to raise capital. Moreover, Rule 701 is not available to exempt any transaction that is in technical compliance with this section but is part of a plan or scheme to evade the registration provisions of the Securities Act. Finally, in addition to complying with Rule 701, the Issuer also must comply with any applicable state law relating to the issuance.

    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!

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 09Dec

    When Can Separate Issuer Offerings That Occur Within a Short Time Be Integrated?

    SEC Law Firm No Comments

    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!

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 23Nov

    10b5-1 Trading Plans and Material Non-Public Information

    SEC Law Firm No Comments

    As a safe harbor from insider trading liability, Rule 10b5-1 provides that a purchase or sale of securities will not be deemed to be on the basis of material nonpublic information if it is pursuant to a contract, instruction or plan that (i) was entered into before the person became aware of the information; (ii) specifies the amounts, prices, and dates for transactions under the plan (or includes a formula for determining them); and (iii) does not later allow the person to influence how, when or whether transactions will occur.

    Good Faith Practices When Establishing Trading Plans

    In addition, the plan must be entered into in good faith and not as part of a scheme to evade the insider trading laws. Particular care should be taken to avoid adopting or amending trading plans when in possession of material nonpublic information. On June 4, 2009, The SEC filed an insider trading complaint against Angelo Mozilo, the former CEO of Countrywide Financial although all complained of trades were within a 10b5-1 trading plan. The SEC alleges that Mr. Mozila had material nonpublic information about Countrywide’s deteriorating business when he instituted his trading plans. In addition, the SEC found it especially relevant that Mr. Mozila instituted four separate plans in a three month period and that trading began almost immediately in each plan, all while the Company was failing, a fact which was not public knowledge.

    Recent SEC Points of Guidance

    The SEC’s staff recently provided new guidance about Rule 10b5-1 plans in its Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations. The following is a brief discussion of the key points in the guidance.

    First, the SEC has made clear that delaying the commencement of sales until the release of nonpublic information may not legitimize the plan. The SEC takes the position that a person may not rely on a Rule 10b5-1 plan when he or she institutes a trading plan while aware of material non-public information, even if the plan is structured to delay all transactions until after the information becomes public.

    Second, the Rule 10b5-1 plan defense to insider trading is only available for plans that are entered into in good faith and not as part of a “plan or scheme to evade” insider trading laws. The SEC has stated that this requirement will be assessed in light of all relevant facts, specifically including the time period between canceling one trading plan and establishing a new one. It is advised that insiders observe a “cooling off” period between terminating and establishing trading plans.

    Finally, the new interpretations confirm that a corporate insider may transfer a long standing 10b5-1 plan to a new broker, if the broker that has been executing the plan’s transactions goes out of business, even if the insider knows of material nonpublic information at the time of transfer. Provided, however, the transfer must be timed to avoid any cancellation of transactions under the plan and the new broker must observe the plan’s original terms.

    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!

    Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • 17Nov

    Proper Use of S-8 Registration Statements

    SEC Law Firm No Comments

    A Form S-8 registration statement is popular with small business issuers because it becomes effective immediately upon filing and allows for incorporation by reference, two benefits not always available to smaller public companies. A Form S-8 registration statement can be used by Issuers to register securities to be offered to employees under certain employee benefit plans.

    To qualify to use an S-8 registration statement the Issuer must: (i) be subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; (ii) have filed all reports required to be filed during the preceding 12 months, or such shorter period of time that the Issuer has been subject to the reporting requirements; (iii) is not a shell company and has not been a shell company for at least 60 calendar days previously; and (iv) if it has been a shell company at any time previously, has filed current Form 10 information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) at least 60 days previously reflecting that it is no longer a shell company.

    S-8 Stock, Employees and Consultants

    An S-8 registration statement is used to register securities to be offered to employees under certain employee benefit plans. For purposes of an S-8 the term employee benefit plan means any written purchase, savings, option, bonus, appreciation, profit sharing, thrift, incentive, pension or similar plan or written compensation contract solely for employees, directors, general partners, trustees (where the registrant is a business trust), officers, or consultants or advisors.

    Form S-8 is available for the issuance of securities to consultants or advisors only if: (i) they are natural persons; (ii) they provide bona fide services to the registrant; and (iii) the services are not in connection with the offer or sale of securities in a capital raising transaction, and do not directly or indirectly promote or maintain a market in the Issuer’s securities. Accordingly, the SEC has taken the position that Form S-8 cannot be used to register an employee benefit plan that allows for the issuance of securities to unqualified consultants or advisors, even if the Issuer does not intend to issue such securities under the plan following registration.

    S-8 and Employee Benefit Options

    The Form S-8 is also available for the exercise of employee benefit plan options and the subsequent resale of the underlying securities by an employee’s family member who has acquired the options from the employee through a gift or a domestic relations order. The payment of compensation by the family member will disqualify the use of Form S-8. The S-8 registration is strictly for use by qualifying individuals. If an employee transfers options received under a benefit plan, to a non-employee other than a family member, such recipient may not use the S-8 registration to exercise the option and receive registered shares. Accordingly, upon exercise of the option, the third party would receive restricted, unregistered shares.

    Form S-8 and Bad Boy Provisions

    Form S-8 is also subject to the Securities Act of 1933 bad boy provisions. That is, any Issuer or any entity that at the time was a subsidiary of the issuer, that within the past three years “was convicted of any felony or misdemeanor described in paragraphs (i) through (iv) of [S]ection 15(b)(4)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” if ineligible to use Form S-8. The described wrongdoings include convictions which: (i) involves the purchase or sale of any security, the taking of a false oath, the making of a false report, bribery, perjury, burglary, any substantially equivalent activity however denominated by the laws of the relevant foreign government, or conspiracy to commit any such offense; (ii) arises out of the conduct of the business of a broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, government securities broker, government securities dealer, investment adviser, bank, insurance company, fiduciary, transfer agent, nationally recognized statistical rating organization, foreign person performing a function substantially equivalent to any of the above, or entity or person required to be registered under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) or any substantially equivalent foreign statute or regulation; (iii) involves the larceny, theft, robbery, extortion, forgery, counterfeiting, fraudulent concealment, embezzlement, fraudulent conversion, or misappropriation of funds, or securities, or substantially equivalent activity however denominated by the laws of the relevant foreign government; or (iv) involves the violation of section 152, 1341, 1342, or 1343 or chapter 25 or 47 of Title 18, or a violation of a substantially equivalent foreign statute.

    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!

    Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • 10Nov

    Responsibilities of Independent Directors Increases in Response to Sarbanes Oxley

    SEC Law Firm No Comments

    Serving as an independent director carries serious obligations and responsibilities.

    Following the passage of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), the role of independent directors has become that of securities monitor. They must be informed of developments within the company, ensure good processes for accurate disclosures and make reasonable efforts to assure that disclosures are adequate. Independent directors, like inside directors, should be fully aware of the company’s press releases, public statements and communications with security holders and sufficiently engaged and active to questions and correct inadequate disclosures.

    Disclosure and Transparency

    The basic premise of federal securities laws is disclosure and transparency. The theory behind this regulatory structure is that if a Company is forced to disclose information about particular transactions, plans or programs, the company and its officers and directors will take greater care in making business decisions. If a director knows or should know that his or her company’s statements concerning particular issues are inadequate or incomplete, he or she has an obligation to correct that failure.

    It is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) viewpoint that independent directors should play a significant role in the direction of a company’s affairs, particularly when they have relevant expertise, experience and sophistication. According to the SEC, independent directors must not only be familiar with their company’s communications to the public, but must also compare these communications with what they know to be the facts. Additionally, they are then responsible to follow up and practice vigilance in ensuring that communications are complete and accurate.

    Internal Systems Protect Company Operations

    All independent directors have an obligation to question employees or legal counsel as to the background of issues or the need for disclosure of specific information. If they are aware of specific non-disclosures, they must inquire into the situation. All independent directors should insist on internal systems so that they have regular and sufficient information about the company’s affairs. Moreover, directors who review, approve, or sign their company’s proxy statements and periodic reports must take steps to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the statements, or face personal regulatory liability for the failure to do so.

    The SEC has the power to bring actions against independent directors for misstatements or omissions in offering documents under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for fraud under Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or for aiding and abetting Company securities laws violations. SOX specifically authorizes the SEC to seek “any equitable relief that may be appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors.” The SEC often utilizes this power to pursue injunctive relief such as a prohibition to act as a public company director in the future, which reputational damage potential can act as a motivator.

    Although all directors have direct personal liability for statements made in a registration statement or other filing signed by such directors, Rule 176 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, provides a due diligence defense to such actions. To invoke the due diligence defense the defending director needs to be diligent and verify facts and statements.

    Better Compliance Limits Exposure

    Even though independent directors are not responsible for every single company statement or even all of the company’s securities compliance, certain directors may be well situated to achieve better compliance, such as members of the audit committee or directors who sign company filings. The SEC has indicated that it intends to utilize its powers to require directors to take their role as securities monitors seriously. To date, however, the SEC has pursued very few cases against independent directors, and most of such cases have been settled without fanfare and generally involve injunctive relief. Moreover, successful private litigation against independent directors is rare.

    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!

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 05Nov

    SEC Rule 144: Pledged Securities, Holding Periods and Subscriptions Agreements

    SEC Law Firm No Comments

    Securities which are bona fide pledged may be tacked to the holding period of the pledgor as long as the pledge has full recourse against the pledgor. Gifted securities may be tacked with the holding period of the donor. Securities transferred to a trust may be tacked with the holding period of the settlor. Likewise securities transferred to a 401(k) or other individual retirement account will tack to the original issuance date. Securities obtained by beneficiaries of an estate may be tacked with the holding period of the deceased.

    Securities acquired solely by the cashless exercise of an option or warrant are deemed to have been issued on the date of issuance of the underlying option or warrant; provided however, that the payment of any consideration, even a de minimus amount of cash, for the newly issued securities will restart the holding period. Accordingly, securities issued upon exercise of options or warrants in a stock option plan are deemed issued upon exercise of such option or warrant and not before.

    Subscription Agreements

    For purposes of Rule 144, shares acquired pursuant to anti-dilution rights attaching to restricted securities are restricted securities themselves, but their holding period dates back to the original placement of shares, not the exercise of the anti-dilution provisions. The holding period for restricted securities acquired pursuant to a subscription agreement begins at the time the agreement is accepted by the issuer, rather than the date it is signed by the purchaser or the date the shares are issued, assuming the full purchase price has been paid.

    When relying on Rule 144 for the resale of over the counter traded securities (Pink Sheets or Bulletin Board), sellers may only sell 1% of the outstanding securities of the issuer in every 90 day period. Calculations of volume restrictions based on trading volume are only available for the sale of exchange traded securities.

    The manner of sale requirements, require that securities sold in reliance on Rule 144 be sold only in broker’s transactions, directly with a market maker or in a riskless principal transactions. Moreover, the person selling the securities may not arrange for the solicitation of sale orders. The posting of a customer limit order is not considered a solicitation for purposes of this rule.

    Finally, and importantly, Issuers and sellers must be aware that Rule 144 is not available for the sale of securities initially issued by a shell company or any issuer that has at any time previously been a shell company unless all the requirements of Rule 144(i)(2) are met. These requirements include that the issuer no longer be a shell company, is subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act for 12 months following the time that it filed Form 10 information indicating it was no longer a shell company, and is current with all Exchange Act reporting requirements.

    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!

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries