• 04Aug

  An Introduction to Promissory Notes

  Securities Law Firm No Comments

  A promissory note is a written promise by a person, persons or entity to pay a specific amount of money (called “principal”) to another, usually to include a specified amount of interest on the unpaid principal amount.  In addition, a promissory note will include the basic specifics of the debt, including full names of both debtor and creditor and an address for making payments.  The specified time of payment may be written as: a) whenever there is a demand, b) on a specific date, c) in installments with or without the interest included in each installment, d) installments with a final larger amount (balloon payment).   In the event that the written note does not include language specifying the time of payment, the law assumes it is payable on demand by the creditor.

  Terms of Payment

  A promissory note may contain other terms such as the right of the promisee to order payment be made to another person, security or collateral, conversion into stock or other equity, penalties for late payments, a provision for attorney’s fees and costs if there is a legal action to collect, the right to collect payment in full upon certain facts (such as the sale of collateral or a default in the note obligations.

  There are legal limitations to the amount of interest which may be charged. When the amount due on the note, including interest and penalties (if any) is paid, the note must be cancelled and surrendered to the person(s) who signed it. The requirements of how a promissory note must be signed are governed by state law and vary from state to state. Some states require that a promissory note by witnessed, others require that it be notarized and some do not require witnessing or a notary.  Notes often contain enforcement provisions, such as notice requirements, jurisdiction and venue.

  The note is signed by the person borrowing the money. The note is then kept by the person lending the money as evidence of the loan and the repayment agreement (with a copy usually provided to the borrower).  It is recommended that the debtor sign in blue ink so that there can be no confusion as to which document is the original (and thus enforceable) note.

  Liens as Security

  In some cases, a promissory note is used when a loan is made for the purchase of real property. When this type of loan is made, the person lending the money often takes a mortgage on the property. That is, the borrower agrees (through a written document that is recorded with the local recorder’s office) that the lender has an interest or lien on the property until such time as the loan is repaid in full. If the loan is not paid in full, the mortgage holder can file a lawsuit, usually called a foreclosure, seeking to have the property sold and the proceeds generated from that sale paid to the lender to satisfy or pay off the loan.

  In cases where a loan is used for the purchase of specific personal property (i.e. property that is not land or real estate), a similar type of document can be used to secure the loan or to specify collateral for the repayment of the loan. A security interest can be obtained in the property that is purchased with the borrowed money – this is referred to as a purchase money security interest. If property other than the property purchased with the money is offered as collateral or security on the loan, this type of security is referred to as a non-purchase money security interest. The document that identifies these types of security interest is called a Security Agreement. This document sets forth the details on the type of collateral, location, and how the collateral is handled should the borrower not repay the loan as agreed.

  Personal Guarantees

  Some promissory notes provide for personal guarantees – if the person borrowing the money is a corporation or is an individual that does not appear to have a solid financial base, another individual will be required to sign the guarantee, thereby promising the lender to pay the loan if the borrower does not. These provisions are enforceable and will bind the person signing the guarantee in the same manner as the person who signed the note.

  Unless specifically prohibited in the language of the note, a promissory note is assignable by the lender.  That is, the lender can sell or assign the note to a third party who the borrower must then repay.  However, a promissory note is never assignable by the borrower, without the express written consent and approval of the lender.  Moreover, convertible promissory notes are generally not assignable unless the third party meets specific criteria.

  This is because a convertible promissory note is generally an investment decision (i.e. it can be converted into equity) and the exemption relied upon by the borrower may be limited to the lender meeting certain eligibility.  For example, generally lenders in a convertible promissory note must be accredited and not be disqualified from participating in stock offerings, such as by having a penny stock bar.

  The Author

  Attorney Laura Anthony,
  Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
  Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

  Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (”Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (”Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

  Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

  Tags: Conversion into Stock, Convertible Debentures, convertible debt, going public, OTCBB, OTCQB, Promissory Notes, SEC Law Firm, securities attorney

• 06May

  Merger and Acquisitions – Board of Director Obligations, Part 4

  SEC Law Firm No Comments

  This article continues my series on obligations (and rights and responsibilities) of the board of directors during a merger and acquisition transaction. The last in the series discussed a director’s duty of loyalty. This blog continues that discussion, focusing on the duty in particular fact circumstances.

  Balancing Common and Preferred Shares

  A common question I am asked by directors is how to balance the interest of two competing classes of stock (such as common and preferred). In such a case, the entire fairness standard of reviewing a corporate transaction (discussed in last blog) will not automatically be invoked, but first the court will utilize the business judgment rule. Accordingly, a director who is not conflicted and who otherwise takes all measures required (in-depth involvement in the process, review of all documents, advice of outside professionals, seeking highest price for all classes of stock) will be protected from liability.

  Directors’ Financial Motivation

  Delaware courts have emphasized that involvement by disinterested, independent directors increases the probability that a board’s decisions will receive the benefits of the business judgment rule and helps a board justify its action under the more stringent standards of review such as the entire fairness standard. Independence is determined by all the facts and circumstances, however, a director is definitely not independent where they have a personal financial interest in the decision or if they have domination or motive other than the merits of the transaction. Simply stated, the greater the degree of independence the greater the protection. Many companies hire special committees of outside professionals to review and recommend course of action on a transaction as added protection.

  Duty of Loyalty

  In some circumstances the duty of loyalty requires that a director make a business opportunity available to the corporation before the director may pursue the opportunity personally. Whether such an opportunity must first be offered to the corporation will depend on the following factors: (i) the circumstances in which the director became aware of the opportunity; (ii) the significance of the opportunity to the corporation and the degree of interest of the corporation in the opportunity; (iii) whether the opportunity relates to the corporation’s existing or contemplated business; and (iv) whether there is a reasonable basis for the corporation to expect that the director should make the opportunity available to the corporation.

  The Author

  Attorney Laura Anthony,
  Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
  Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

  Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (”Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (”Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

  Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

  Tags: Corporate Transaction, Duty of Loyalty, Go Public, going public, Merger and Acquisition, Reverse Mergers, SEC Law Firm, securities attorney

• 04May

  Merger and Acquisitions – Board of Director Obligations, Part 3

  SEC Law Firm No Comments

  This article continues my series on obligations (and rights and responsibilities) of the board of directors during a merger and/or acquisition transaction. The first in the series detailed the directors’ basic duties of care, loyalty and disclosure. The second discussed the availability of indemnification and/or exculpation and the importance of acting in good faith. This third blog in the series will take a more in-depth look at a directors’ duty of loyalty in a merger and acquisition transaction.

  Duty of Loyalty

  The duty of loyalty demands that there be no conflict between the director’s duty to the company and their own self-interest. A director breaches that duty when he appropriates a corporate asset or opportunity or uses his corporate office to promote, advance or effectuate a transaction between the corporation and himself or a related party which isn’t entirely fair to the corporation.

  Business Judgment Rule

  The business judgment rule will not protect a director where there is a violation of the duty of loyalty. Moreover, a director cannot rely on either exculpation or indemnification for a violation of the duty of loyalty but they may be able to rely on these protections for a violation of the duty of care, or even the sub duty of good faith. Accordingly in McPadden v. Sidhu, 964 A.2d 1262 (Del. Ch. 2008) the court found gross negligence but not a breach of the duty of loyalty where the director accepted a price at the lowest end of the valuation range, did not ensure a thorough sale process and was not actively involved in negotiations and other aspect of the sale. As there was no violation of the duty of loyalty, the case was dismissed in reliance on an exculpation provision in the Certificate of Incorporation.

  Delaware General Corporate Law

  Some states, including Delaware, statutorily codify the duty of loyalty, or at least the impact on certain transactions. Delaware’s General Corporations Law Section 144 provides that a contract or transaction in which a director has interest is not void or voidable if: (i) a director discloses any personal interest in a timely matter; (ii) a majority of the shareholders approve the transaction after being aware of the director’s involvement; or (iii) the transaction is entirely fair to the corporation and was approved by the disinterested board members.

  The third element listed by the Delaware statute has become the crux of review by courts. That is, where a director is interested, the transaction must be entirely fair to the corporation (not just the part dealing with the director). In determining whether a transaction is fair, courts consider both the process (i.e. fair dealing) and the price of the transaction. Moreover, courts looks at all aspects of the transaction and the transaction as a whole in determining fairness, not just the portion or portions of the transaction involving a conflict with the director. The entire fairness standard can be a difficult hurdle and is often used by minority shareholders to challenge a transaction where there is a potential breach of loyalty and where such minority shareholders do not think the transaction is fair to them or where controlling shareholders have received a premium.

  Informing Shareholders

  To protect a transaction involving an interested director, it is vital that all directors take a very active role in the merger or acquisition transaction; that the interested director inform both the directors, and ultimately shareholders, of the conflict; that the transaction resemble an arm’s length transaction; that it be entirely fair; that negotiations are diligent and active and that the advice and counsel of independent third parties, including attorneys and accountants, be actively sought

  The Author

  Attorney Laura Anthony,
  Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
  Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

  Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (”Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (”Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

  Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

  Tags: Business Judgment Rule, Fiduciary Duty, Go Public, going public, Merger and Acquisition, Reverse Mergers, SEC Law Firm, securities attorney

• 29Apr

  Merger and Acquisitions – Board of Director Obligations, Part 2

  SEC Law Firm No Comments

  This blog continues my series on obligations (and rights and responsibilities) of the board of directors during a merger and/or acquisition transaction. The first in the series went over the directors basic duties of care, loyalty and disclosure.

  Indemnification of Corporate Officers

  Many states’ corporate laws allow entities to include provisions in their corporate charters allowing for the exculpation and/or indemnification of directors. Exculpation refers to a complete elimination of liability whereas indemnification allows for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by an officer or director.

  Delaware, for example, allows for the inclusion of a provision in the certificate of incorporation eliminating personal liability for directors in stockholder actions for breaches of fiduciary duty, except for breaches of the duty of loyalty that result in personal benefit for the director to the detriment of the shareholders. Indemnification generally is only available where the director has acted in good faith. Exculpation is generally only available to directors whereas indemnification is available to both officers and directors.

  Operating In Good Faith

  To demonstrate that a director acted in good faith, the director must meet the same general test of showing that they met their duties of care, loyalty and disclosure. The best way to do this is to be fully informed and to participate in the process, whether that process involves a merger or acquisition or some other corporate transaction. Courts will consider facts such as attendance at meetings; the number and frequency of meetings; knowledge of the subject matter; time spent deliberating; advice and counsel sought by third party experts; requests for information from management; requests for and review of documents and contracts).

  Fiduciary Duty and Best Efforts

  In advising the board of directors, counsel should stress that the director be actively involved in the business decision making process, review the documents and files, ask questions and become fully informed. The higher the level of diligence, the greater the level of protection.

  It is not important whether the decision ultimately turns out to be good or bad. Hindsight is 20/20. The significant factor, in seeking protection (via the business judgment rule, and through exculpation and indemnification) is that best efforts are made. Of course, directors should be careful to document their diligence.

  The Author

  Attorney Laura Anthony,
  Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
  Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

  Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (”Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (”Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

  Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

  Tags: Business Judgment Rule, Fiduciary Duty, Go Public, going public, Merger and Acquisition, Reverse Mergers, SEC Law Firm, securities attorney

• 21Apr

  Merger and Acquisitions – Board of Director Obligations, Part 1

  SEC Law Firm No Comments

  State corporate law generally provides that the business and affairs of a corporation shall be managed under the direction of its board of directors. Members of the board of directors have a fiduciary relationship to the corporation, which requires that they act in the best interest of the corporation, as opposed to their own. As such, directors owe a corporation a duty of loyalty, honesty and good faith. Generally a court will not second-guess directors’ decisions as long as the board has conducted an appropriate process in reaching its decision. This is referred to as the “business judgment rule”.

  Mergers and Acquisitions

  However, in certain instances, such as in a merger and acquisition transaction, where a board may have a conflict of interest (i.e. get the most money for the corporation and its shareholders vs. getting the most for themselves via either cash or job security), the board of directors actions face a higher level of scrutiny. This is referred to as “enhanced scrutiny business judgment rule.” The same standards apply to officers of a corporation.

  Fiduciary Duties

  A director’s fiduciary duties to a corporation include the duty of care, duty of loyalty and a duty of disclosure. In short the duty of care requires the director to perform their duty with the same care a reasonable person would use, to further the best interest of the corporation and to exercise good faith, under the facts and circumstances of that particular corporation. The duty of loyalty requires that there be no conflict between duty and self interest. The duty of disclosure requires the director to provide complete and materially accurate information to a corporation.

  Determining Negligence

  In the seminal case of Smith vs. Van Gorkom, 488 A.2d 858 (Del. 1985), the Court found that the board was grossly negligent where it approved the sale of the company after only a few hours of deliberation, failed to inform itself of the Chairman’s role and benefits in the sale and did not seek the advice of outside counsel. Similarly in Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 634 A.2d 345 (Del. 1993) found that the board was negligent in approving the sale of a company where it did not search for real alternatives, did not attempt to find a better offer and had insufficient knowledge of the terms of the proposed merger agreement.

  On the other hand, the court in In re CompuCom Sys., Inc. Shareholders Litigation., 2005 Del. Ch. LEXIS 145 (Del. Ch. Sept. 29, 2005) upheld the board of directors business judgment even though the transaction price per share was less than market value as the board showed it was adequately informed, acted rationally and sought better deals.

  The Author

  Attorney Laura Anthony,
  Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
  Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

  Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (”Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (”Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

  Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

  Tags: Business Judgment Rule, Fiduciary Duty, going public, Merger and Acquisition, SEC Law Firm, securities attorney

• 23Feb

  Back To Basics – IPO Or Not To IPO?

  Reverse Mergers No Comments

  Initial Public Offerings (IPO’s) are on the rise once again. I have potential clients calling me daily interested in going public through an IPO, most have little or no prior knowledge of the public company arena – so back to basics. An IPO is an initial public offering of securities. Prior to proceeding with an IPO, an Issuer should consider the advantages, disadvantages and alternatives.

  The advantages of an IPO include:

  • Access to capital
  • Liquidity of stock
  • Public image and prestige; and
  • Ability to attract and retain better personnel

  The disadvantages of an IPO include:

  • Expense – both of the initial transaction and ongoing compliance;
  • Public disclosure of business information – public companies are required to be transparent which can give private competitors an edge;
  • Limitations on long term strategic decisions
  • Civil and criminal liability of executive officers and directors; and
  • Takeover danger

  The alternatives to an IPO for an Issuer seeking capital include:

  • A Section 4(2) and/or Regulation D private offering;
  • Section 3(11) Intrastate offering;
  • Regulation A registered offering;
  • Other private financing such as a venture capital or angel investor; or
  • Conventional financing such as bank loans and receivable factoring.

  Alternatives to an IPO for an Issuer seeking to go public include:

  • Merger or reverse merger with a public shell

  Securities Attorney Laura Anthony

  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: going public, initial public offering, IPO, regulation d, Reverse Mergers, SEC Law Firm, securities attorney

• 13Dec

  New FINRA Rules For Corporate Actions

  SEC Law Firm No Comments

  Effective September 27, 2010, the SEC has approved new FINRA Rule 6490 (Processing of Company Related Actions). Rule 6490 requires that corporations whose securities are trading on the over the counter market (OTCQX, OTCQB, OTCBB or PinkSheets) timely notify FINRA of certain corporate actions, such as dividends, forward or reverse splits, rights or subscription offerings, and name changes. The Rule grants FINRA discretionary power when processing documents related to the announcements, and implements fees for these services.

  FINRA and the OTCBB

  FINRA (the Financial Industry National Regulatory Authority) operates the OTC Bulletin Board and processes corporate actions for changes such as splits and name changes. FINRA also issues trading symbols to over the counter (non-exchange) traded issuers and maintains a symbols database for issuers. When processing by FINRA of a corporate action is complete, FINRA notifies the OTC marketplace of such changes and actions, such as repricing securities following a forward or reverse split, or issuing a new trading symbol following a name change or merger.

  Historically, FINRA’s role has been largely ministerial with limited jurisdiction to impose informational or other requirements, and no power to reject requested changes. However, the SEC began to express concern that certain parties were using FINRA to assist in fraudulent activities, such as usurping the corporate identity of publicly traded entities by either reinstating an entity with no authority or creating new entities with the same name as the public entity. Accordingly, Rule 6490 was created.

  FINRA and Issuer Actions

  The Rule codifies FINRA’s authority to conduct in-depth reviews of company related actions and allows the staff discretion not to process such actions where the information or forms are incomplete or when certain indicators of potential fraud exist. The staff now has broad discretion to ask for additional documents and evidence to support and verify the accuracy of submitted information.

  Factors that may be considered by FINRA to deny an application for a change are limited to: (1) FINRA staff reasonably believes the forms and provided documentation is not complete or accurate; (2) a reporting issuer is not current with its reporting obligations; (3) FINRA has actual knowledge that the Company or Company related parties are the subject of a pending investigation by a regulatory body or have been adjudicated against adversely; (4) a government authority or regulatory has informed FINRA that the company related action may be potentially related to fraud or pose a threat to public investors; or (5) there is significant uncertainty in the settlement clearance process for that security.

  FINRA and Processing Fees

  In addition, the new Rule allows FINRA to charge fees to issuers for processing these corporate actions. In furtherance of the Rule and its new duties, FINRA has created certain forms and information requirements for Issuers to complete and submit. In addition to information forms which must be completed by the Issuers, FINRA now requires notarized and verified background corporate records, board and shareholder resolutions, proof of change of control (including resignations and appointments for all changes in officers and directors) and attorney opinion letters. All requests must be accompanies with the newly imposed fees. The new FINRA fees range from $200 for a timely notice to $5,000 for a late notice (with $1,000 and $2,000 in between fees), and a $4,000 fee to appeal an adverse decision.

  Securities Attorney Laura Anthony

  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: FINRA Rule 6490, going public, OTCBB, OTCQB, OTCQX, pink sheets, Reverse Mergers, SEC Law Firm, securities attorney

• 09Dec

  Has The OTCBB Been Replaced By The OTCQX And OTCQB?

  Securities Law Firm No Comments

  Over the past few years, the historical “PinkSheets” has undergone some major changes, starting with the creation of certain “tiers” of issuers and culminating in its newly refurbished website and new URL www.otcmarkets.com. Where the term “PinkSheets” used to denote an over the counter quotation system using the website www.pinksheets.com it now simply refers to the lower tier of entities that trade on the over the counter market. In fact the URL www.pinksheets.com no longer exists with users being redirected to the new www.otcmarkets.com.

  Three Levels of Reporting

  The new www.otcmarkets.com divides issuers into three (3) levels: OTCQX; OTCQB and PinkSheets. The new website also provides quotes for the OTCBB but it seems this is just more as a comfort or segue until the industry gets used to the idea that the “bulletin board” is no more. The OTCBB has no particular listing or quotation requirements other than that the issuer be subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and be current in their reports. As noted below this is the exact same requirement for issuers on the OTCQB.

  OTCQX

  Issuers on the OTCQX must be fully reporting and current in their reporting obligations with the SEC and also undergo a quality review by industry professionals. Issuers on the OTCQB must be fully reporting and current in their reporting obligations with the SEC but do not undergo additional quality review. Issuers on the PinkSheets are not required to be reporting with the SEC. However, such issuers are then further qualified based on the level of voluntary information provided to the www.otcmarkets.com. Issuers with no information are denoted by a skull and crossbones, where Issuers with information analogous to that contained in a 15c2-11 application, are denoted with a “current information” symbol and those in between by a “limited information” symbol.

  SEC and FINRA Reporting Requirements

  Although the entire over the counter market is regulated by the SEC and FINRA, both www.otcmarkets.com and www.otcbb.com are now privately owned and merely serve as quotation mediums. Moreover, www.otcmarkets.com is more user friendly and up to date than www.otcbb.com. In fact, FINRA just sold www.otcbb.com and its trademark to an independent third party, in an effort to remove itself from operating the over the counter market to overseeing the market and being its primary regulator. So if all over the counter quotes can be found at www.otcmarkets.com and companies trading on the OTCQB have the exact same standards as the OTCBB, and FINRA is no longer directly associated with the OTCBB; where does that leave the OTCBB? I believe as an acronym which will soon find itself antiquated.

  Securities Attorney Laura Anthony

  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: going public, OTC markets, OTCBB, OTCQB, OTCQX, pink sheets, Reverse Mergers, SEC Law Firm, SEC reporting requirements, securities attorney

• 13Aug

  Dodd-Frank Act Changes Definition Of Accredited Investor Effective Immediately

  Securities Attorneys No Comments

  On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). After many revisions, the final Dodd-Frank Act has only minor effects on securities Issuers and their investors. The primary change, which takes effect immediately, is a modification to the definition of “accredited investor” contained in the Securities Act of 1933. In particular: (i) as it relates to natural persons, the $1,000,000 net worth standard must now be calculated excluding the value of the primary residence of such natural person; and (2) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been mandated to review the entire accredited investor definition within four (4) years and make appropriate changes within that time, without additional act of Congress.

  Increased Net Worth Requirements

  This change effectively increases the net worth requirements for investors, whose largest asset is often their primary residence. Although the SEC has not yet issued any guidance or other information on the change, it is anticipated that investors will also be allowed to exclude the value of any mortgages or other debt secured by the primary residence in calculating their net worth.

  Regulation D

  Under Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, the disclosure requirements for offerings made strictly to accredited investors are less comprehensive, and accordingly less expensive, than offerings which include non-accredited investors. Moreover, the increased disclosure requirements are applicable if even one non-accredited investor is offered the investment, regardless of whether they subsequent accept the offer and become an investor. In addition to detailed disclosure requirements related to the business, its financial history and the control persons background, offerings made to non-accredited investors must include financial statements, which in most cases must be audited.

  Dodd-Frank Act

  In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act has eliminated many exemptions from the requirement to be registered as a financial advisor. In particular, the previous “private advisor” exemption has been eliminated. The private advisor exemption allowed advisors to avoid SEC registration if they did not advise a business development company, had fewer than fifteen (15) clients and did not hold themselves out to the public as an investment advisor. The elimination of the private advisor exemption becomes effective July 21, 2011.

  Securities Attorney Laura Anthony

  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: accredited investor requirements, Dodd-Frank Act, going public, Reverse Mergers, SEC Law Firm, securities attorney, Wall Street reform

• 05Aug

  Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)

  Reverse Mergers No Comments

  A SPAC is a company organized to purchase one or more operating businesses and which generally intends to raise capital through an initial public offering (IPO), direct public offering (DPO) or private offering.

  IPO’s, DPO’s and Rule 419

  SPAC’s that engage in either an IPO or DPO are subject to Rule 419 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The provisions of Rule 419 apply to every registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, by a blank check company.  Rule 419 requires that the blank check company filing such registration statement deposit the securities being offered and proceeds of the offering, less reasonable offering expenses, into an escrow or trust account pending the execution of an agreement for an acquisition or merger.  In addition, the registrant is required to file a post effective amendment to the registration statement containing the same information as found in a Form 10 registration statement, upon the execution of an agreement for such acquisition or merger.  The rule provides procedures for the release of the offering funds in conjunction with the post effective acquisition or merger.

  Dissenting Shareholders

  However, if an acquisition or other business combination is not completed within 18-24 months, the investor funds must be returned. Moreover, the SEC generally takes the position that the fair market value of the acquisition must be at least 60%-80% of the escrowed funds from the raise. Proposed business combinations must be approved by the shareholders as well and dissenting shareholders can convert their shares into a pro-rata portion of the escrow balance.

  If the post IPO SPAC shares are listed on an exchange, they are “federally covered” and the Issuer is not subject to state blue sky laws. However, if the SPAC shares are listed on the over the counter bulletin board, they are not federally covered and the Issuer must comply with individual state blue sky laws, which can be cumbersome.

  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: form 10 registration statement, going public, Reverse Mergers, Rule 419, SEC Law Firm, securities attorney, SPAC's, special purpose acquisition companies

« Previous Entries