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 disclosure requirements at the heart of the federal securities laws involve a delicate and complex balancing act. Too little information provides an inadequate basis for investment decisions; too much can muddle and diffuse disclosure and thereby lessen its usefulness. The legal concept of materiality provides the dividing line between what information companies must disclose, and must disclose correctly, and everything else. Materiality, however, is a highly judgmental standard, often colored by a variety of factual presumptions.

Transparency in Financial Markets

The guiding purpose of the many and complex disclosure provisions of the federal securities laws is to promote “transparency” in the financial markets. However, the task of winnowing out the irrelevant, redundant and trivial from the potentially meaningful material falls on corporate executives and their professional advisors in the creation of corporate disclosure, and on investment advisors, stock analysts and individual investors in its interpretation. The concept of materiality represents the dividing line between information reasonably likely to influence investment decisions and everything else. However, materiality is a notoriously elusive, ever changing and unpredictable concept.

Only those misstatements and omissions that are material violate many provisions of the securities laws, including the bedrock provisions requiring accurate financial reporting. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court set the standard for a materiality evaluation, which standard remains today. In TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., the Supreme Court held that information should be deemed material if there exists a substantial likelihood that it would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the total mix of information available to the public.

All Facts Must be Considered

Despite this standard, the concept remains fact driven and difficult to apply. There are no numeric thresholds to establish materiality, and market reaction is inconsistent and not always available. Ultimately professionals and company management must consider all facts and circumstances available to them on any given day to determine the materiality of a given disclosure in light of the standard established by the Supreme Court in TSC Industries.

Generally, professionals and company management must look in the first instance at specific disclosure guidelines set out in the federal securities rules and regulations (such as Regulations S-X and S-K and Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K). Secondly, professionals and company management must consider all facts presently affecting the Company. For instance, a specific disclosure may be highly relevant in light of current economic conditions and of little importance in a different economic climate. Ethical issues are generally not considered material, unless specifically required by statute (such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).

Selective Disclosure Prohibited

The SEC has issued further guidance on materiality in Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 (SAB 99). Although SAB 99 is meant to clarify some materiality issues, many practitioners find that it confuses rather than clarifies. For the most part SAB 99 simply reiterates that materiality cannot be defined by law or standards but must be determined anew for each fact and disclosure issue.

In determining materiality practitioners should keep in mind Regulation FD which prohibits the selective disclosure of material information. That is, Regulation FD requires that if material information is to be disclosed, it must be disclosed to the entire market, either through a press release or Form 8-K or both, and not selectively, such as to certain analysts or market professionals.

Professionals and company management should also consider that the SEC has consistently pushed for greater and more complete disclosures. Accordingly, it is better to err on the side of disclosure than against it.

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!

One of the most common inquiries received by securities attorneys today involves Issuers wanting to know when they and their shareholders can sell their shares on the open market following a merger with a Pink Sheet shell. In many cases, the answer they get is not the answer they want; twelve months after the Pink Sheet Company becomes a fully reporting entity.

If a private entity has merged with a Pink Sheet shell under the assumption that they can avoid the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting requirements, this revelation is devastating. As a result of the amendments to Rule 144 and Rule 145, enacted in February, 2009, private companies that wish to go public on the Pink Sheets are advised to do so directly, and not through a reverse merger with a shell company.

Rule 144

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 layman terms, Rule 144, allows shareholders to sell their unregistered shares. When a private entity merges with a Pink Sheet shell, the shareholders of the private entity receive restricted shares. Historically, other than registration, Rule 144 provided the only method for such shareholders to sell their shares on the open market. The February 2009 amendment eliminated this ability.

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.

When a Shell is No Longer a Shell

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.

Lastly, Rule 145, which is the rule that addresses the issuance of securities in mergers, consolidations and reclassifications, was amended to provide an analogous provision.

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!

If you are a private company looking to go public on the OTCBB, securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel. Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

Many private companies go public either through a reverse merger with a public shell or initial public offering (IPO) process. A reverse merger allows a private company to go public by purchasing a controlling percentage of shares of a public shell company and merging the private company into the shell. An initial public offering is where the private company files a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission and once the registration statement is effective proceeds to sell stock either directly (a DPO) or more commonly through an underwriter.

It is very important that management of public shells and underwriters conduct a background check on the private company’s officers and directors prior to embarking on any transaction that will result in a private company becoming public. While a reverse merger saves on the costs associated with going public, private companies must be weary of the intentions of the officers and directors associated with the takeover.

Within four days of completing a reverse merger of with a shell public company, the company must file a form 8-K which contains all the information that is required in a Form 10 registration statement. Such information includes Regulation S-K Items 401 and 404. This same information must be included in a registration statement filed to conduct an IPO.

Regulation S-K Item 401 requires public companies to provide detailed information regarding its directors, executive officers, significant employees, promoters and control persons, including, but not limited to, the following:

• Name, age and positions with the company
• Family relationships among directors, executive officers, significant employees, promoters and control persons
• Detailed background, business experience and employment for the last five years
• Directorships in other public companies;
• Involvement in any of the following legal proceedings in the past five years:
  1. Any personal or corporate bankruptcy proceedings;
  2. A conviction in a criminal proceeding or being named the subject of a pending criminal proceeding;
  3. Being subject to an order, judgment or decree permanently or temporarily enjoining or permanently or temporarily barring the person from acting as a broker, associated person; investment adviser, underwriter, dealer, affiliated person, director or employee in any way related to the securities or banking business; engagement in any securities related activities or violating any state or federal securities laws;
  4. Being found by a court to have violated any state or federal securities or commodities laws;

Regulation S-K Item 404 requires public companies to provide detailed information regarding transaction by and among related persons including transactions by and among the company and any of its directors, executive officers, significant employees, promoters and control persons. Moreover, Item 404 requires detailed information regarding how such transactions were reviewed, approved and ratified.

Clearly it is important for all parties to know well in advance the disclosures that will be required regarding its directors, executive officers, significant employees, promoters and control persons. Moreover, it is important for both public shell companies and underwriters to conduct independent background checks as individuals may not always be forthcoming regarding disclosures such as prior securities law issues and criminal convictions.

It is generally the responsibility of corporate legal counsel to conduct, or assist in completing, these background searches. The foundation of the due diligence process, and the success of the potential reverse merger or IPO itself, depends upon the meticulousness and accuracy of these various background checks.

Attorney Laura Anthony is a Florida securities attorney and the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Florida corporate and securities attorneys of Legal & Compliance offer specialized legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals throughout the country. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!