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 current public information requirement is measured at the time of each sale of securities. That is, the Issuer, whether reporting or non-reporting, must satisfy the current public information requirements as set forth in Rule 144(c) at the time that each resale of securities is made in reliance on Rule 144. Most attorney opinion letters and Forms 144 cover a three month period and many Sellers sell securities over that three month period. However, the Seller (or person selling on behalf of Seller such as the broker dealer) is required to make a determination that current public information is available at the time of each sale.

Accordingly, if a reporting issuer does not file a required Q or K during this period, or 15c2-11 information lapses for a non-reporting issuer, sales must cease until the current public information requirement is again satisfied. Moreover, Sellers are taking a risk by selling during the 5-day or 15-day period following the filing of a Form 12b-25 because if the late report is not filed, such sales would not have been made in compliance with Rule 144. On the contrary, if the report is filed, the sales made after the filing of the 12b-25, still satisfy the current public information requirements.

Non-Reporting Issuers

For non-reporting issuers, the current public information requirement requires that information set forth in Rule 15c2-11 be publicly available and current. It is irrelevant that broker dealers may publish quotes on the securities or that the securities are piggy-back qualified. Although pinksheets.com is not affiliated with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the SEC has not commented on the Pink Sheets self-imposed reporting requirements and tiers of reporting information, in light of the fact that the Pink Sheets models its voluntary reporting requirements after Rule 15c2-11, attorneys and sellers of securities, should feel confident relying on the existence of current information on pinksheets.com to satisfy the current public information requirement of Rule 144.

In lieu of relying upon information posted on PinkSheets.com, a Seller desiring to rely on Rule 144 for the sale of securities of a non-reporting issuer, would need to ensure themselves that such 15c2-11 information was available and current by other means. These other means could include if such information was posted on the Issuers website, or such information was in the possession of the broker-dealer facilitating the sale.

Holding Periods

The holding period is determined as of the date of the proposed sale, provided however, that Rule 144 makes numerous specific provisions for the calculation of the holding period and enumerates specific instances when a holding period may be tacked onto the holding period of previously issued securities. In determining the holding period where the securities were paid with a promissory note, installment contract or other obligation to pay in the future, the holding period does not begin until payment has been made in full unless the promissory note or installment contract provides for full recourse against the purchaser of the securities, is secured by fair value collateral other than the securities purchased, and has been paid in full prior to the proposed Rule 144 sale date.

Securities acquired from the issuer as a dividend or pursuant to a stock split, reverse split or recapitalization shall be deemed to have acquired at the same time as the securities on which the dividend is paid or the securities surrendered in the recapitalization. If securities were acquired by the Issuer solely in exchange for other securities of the same issuer, such as in a 3(a)(9) transaction, the newly acquired securities are deemed to be acquired at the same time as the securities surrendered in the exchange or conversion.

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!

Without fanfare, publications, or other notice, in mid 2006, PIPE investors and the Issuers that utilized them noticed a big difference in the way that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) division of corporate finance reviewed and commented upon, resale registration statements. Although the SEC staff contended that its position on Rule 415 had not changed, there was, incontrovertibly, a dramatic impact felt by Issuers and PIPE investors.

For years, Issuers had relied upon Rule 415 in order to register the resale of shares issued in PIPE transactions (a “secondary offering”). Rule 415 governs the registration requirements for the sale of securities to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis, such as in the case of the take down or conversion of convertible debt and warrants. In the years prior to 2006, Issuers would register shares they sold in a PIPE transaction, which could represent in excess of 50% of their outstanding public float.

Convertible Debt and Subsequent Resale

In a typical convertible debt and/or warrant PIPE transaction, the exercise price to convert the debt or warrant was based on a discount to current market price. Accordingly, the PIPE investor would convert a small percentage of the debt or warrant into common shares and immediately sell those shares on the open market, thus forcing down the price of the stock. The PIPE investor would then convert another small percentage of the debt or warrant at a discount to the new lower market price and again immediately re-sell the shares, further depressing the market price. This process could continue infinitum until all of the debt or warrants had been converted leaving the Company’s stock price considerably lower than where it started. Thus the term “death spiral”.

The SEC recognized this pattern and the negative effect it had on the marketplace. Beginning in mid 2006, the SEC staff began tightening the availability of Rule 415 for secondary offerings, particularly where the number of shares being registered exceeded 30% of the Issuers public float. The SEC was able to do this without rule amendments or such by simply taking the position that the registration of in excess of 30% of the public float should be closely reviewed and possibly considered a primary offering and not a secondary offering at all. A primary offering is one where the securities are being sold by the Issuer (or in this case on behalf of the Issuer) as opposed to a third party, such as a PIPE investor.

Primary versus Secondary Offerings

The consequences of deeming an offering a primary offering as opposed to a secondary offering are two-fold. First, Rule 415, the rule that allows securities to be registered for sale on a delayed or continuous basis, is generally unavailable for primary offerings by small business issuers. Second, a primary offering requires that each of the investors named as a selling security holder be identified as an underwriter. Underwriter status exposes the named underwriter to full liability for any misstatements or omissions in that registration statement (subject to a due diligence defense). Most PIPE investors want to be just that, investors, not guarantors of the statements, or misstatements, of an Issuer.

Toxic Offerings

The SEC staff made it clear that its interpretation of Rule 415 was meant to curtail death spirals and other “toxic offerings” which tended to flood the market with penny stocks whose value continued to decline. The SEC’s efforts worked. Since mid 2006 the number of Rule 415 registered PIPE offerings declined dramatically. Prominent PIPE investors such as Cornell Capital and the Laurus Fund significantly decreased their investments in small business issuers.

Small business issuers found it considerably harder to attract PIPE and other speculative investors. In fact, it is the pressure from these small business issuers that has since prompted other changes in federal securities laws, such as the decreased holding period under Rule 144, and the use of registration exemptions to lure investors, such as Section 3(a)(9) and (10) of the Securities Act.

Reverse Merger Exceptions

It should be noted as well, that in the past year, the SEC staff is again routinely allowing the registration of securities in excess of 30% of the public float in cases where the registrant was a shell company and has just completed a reverse merger or other transaction that causes it to cease being a shell company. Presumably this has been to assist small business issuers attract investors following the depressive effects of the prohibition of the use of Rule 144 for companies that are or become shell companies.

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!