You searched for hedging - Securities Law Blog

SEC Rules For Disclosure Of Hedging Policies

March 12, 2019

In December 2018, the SEC approved final rules to require companies to disclose practices or policies regarding the ability of employees or directors to engage in certain hedging transactions, in proxy and information statements for the election of directors. The new rules implement Section 14(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act and will require the robust disclosure on hedging policies and practices including a description of any hedging transactions that are specifically permitted or disallowed. The proposed rules had initially been published on February 9, 2015 – see HERE.

Smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies must comply with the new disclosure requirements in their proxy and information statements during fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 2020. All other companies must comply in fiscal years beginning July 1, 2019. As foreign private issuers (FPI) are not subject to the proxy statement requirements under Section 14 of the Exchange Act,

Proposed Amendments To Disclosure Of Hedging Policies For Officers, Directors And Employees

February 17, 2015

On February 9, 2015, the SEC issued proposed rules that would increase corporate disclosure of company hedging policies for directors and employees in annual meeting proxy statements. The new rules are part of the ongoing rule-making requirements mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). In particular, the new rule would implement Section 14(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), which requires annual meeting proxy or consent solicitation statements to disclose whether employees or members of the board are permitted to purchase financial instruments, such as options, swaps, collars and the like, to hedge price decreases in the company securities.

The proposed rules regulate disclosure of company policy as opposed to directing the substance of that policy or the underlying hedging activities. In fact, the rule specifically does not require a company to prohibit a hedging transaction or otherwise adopt specific policies. The rule would require disclosure about whether directors, officers and

SEC Publishes New C&DI On Rule 10b5-1

September 12, 2023

On August 25, 2023, the SEC published five new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) on the recently effective Rule 10b5-1 amendments. The new rules were adopted on December 14, 2022 (see HERE) to enhance disclosure requirements and investor protections against insider trading. The amendments include updates to Rule 10b5-1(c)(1), which provides an affirmative defense to insider trading liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. This is the second time the SEC has published guidance on the rules having issued three C&DI in May – see HERE.

The rule amendments updated the conditions to satisfy the 10b5-1 affirmative defense, including adding cooling-off periods before trading can commence under a Rule 10b5-1 plan and a condition that all persons entering into a Rule 10b5-1 plan must act in good faith with respect to the plan. The amendments also require directors and officers to include representations in their plans certifying at the time of the adoption of

SEC Publishes Guidance On Rule 10b5-1 Amendments

July 5, 2023

On May 25, 2023, the SEC published three new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) on the recently effective Rule 10b5-1 amendments. The new rules were adopted on December 14, 2022 (see HERE) to enhance disclosure requirements and investor protections against insider trading. The amendments include updates to Rule 10b5-1(c)(1), which provides an affirmative defense to insider trading liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

The changes updated the conditions that must be met for the 10b5-1 affirmative defense, including adding cooling-off periods before trading can commence under a Rule 10b5-1 plan and a condition that all persons entering into a Rule 10b5-1 plan must act in good faith with respect to the plan. The amendments also require directors and officers to include representations in their plans certifying at the time of the adoption of a new or modified Rule 10b5-1 plan that: (i) they are not aware of any material nonpublic information about the issuer

SEC Continues It’s Crypto Focus

April 18, 2023

In the year and a half since Gary Gensler made it clear to the world that he intends to focus on the crypto “wild west” (see HERE) things have gone from bad to worse for the industry. Of course, it is not all the SEC’s extreme crypto scrutiny that is causing problems, but the very real crypto winter including the collapse of the FTX exchange and its FTX Future Fund, and the realization that the metaverse of tomorrow, will actually not be here until… tomorrow have all added to industry problems. Not to mention a slew of bankruptcy filings (FTX, Blockfi, Celsius and Voyager) and several other precarious financial positions (Blockchain.com, Coinbase, Crypto.com and Genesis, to name a few).

However, putting aside the crypto industry financial crisis, the U.S. regulators, including the SEC, FINRA and national exchanges, are scrutinizing any business with even a modicum of crypto focus to the point where it is almost impossible to move

SEC Adopts Amendments To Rule 10b5-1 Insider Trading Plans

January 24, 2023

On December 14, 2022, the SEC adopted amendments to Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to enhance disclosure requirements and investor protections against insider trading. The amendments include updates to Rule 10b5-1(c)(1), which provides an affirmative defense to insider trading liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The proposed rules were published in HERE. Although there is a statutory framework, the laws surrounding insider trading are largely based on judicial precedence and are difficult to navigate. The rule amendments are intended to provide clarity to the marketplace.

Since the adoption of Rule 10b5-1, courts, commentators, and members of Congress have expressed concern that the affirmative defense under Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i) has allowed traders to take advantage of the liability protections provided by the rule to opportunistically trade securities on the basis of material nonpublic information. Furthermore, some academic studies of Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangements have shown that corporate insiders trading pursuant to

Non-Fungible Tokens

March 15, 2022

This one has been on my list for a while and I’m finally ready to dive in – non-fungible tokens (NFTs). In July 2017, the world of digital assets and cryptocurrency literally became an overnight business sector for corporate and securities lawyers, shifting from the pure technology sector, when the SEC issued its Section 21(a) Report on the DAO investigation finding that a cryptocurrency is, in most cases, a security HERE. The SEC’s Section 21(a) Report relied on the analysis in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. to determine when a crypto is a security, building the guardrails to conclude that all, or almost all, cryptocurrencies at that time were/are indeed a security. For more on the Howey analysis, see HERE .

Later in June 2018, the SEC gave some relief to the crypto world by announcing that Bitcoin and Ether were likely decentralized enough as to no longer be considered a security, hedging on the conclusion as

SEC Proposes Amendments To Rule 10b5-1 Insider Trading Plans

January 11, 2022

As expected from the Spring 2021 Regulatory Agenda, on December 15, 2021, the SEC proposed amendments to Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to enhance disclosure requirements and investor protections against insider trading. Although there is a statutory framework, the laws surrounding insider trading are largely based on judicial precedence and are difficult to navigate. I last wrote about insider trading in 2014 (see HERE) but there have been many curves in the road since that time.

SEC Cracking Down on The Crypto Wild West and Other Digital Asset Updates

November 2, 2021

After a few years of relative dormancy, the SEC is once again targeting the flourishing cryptocurrency market. On August 3, 2021, SEC Chair Gary Gensler gave a speech to the Aspen Security Forum in which he referred to the cryptocurrency marketplace as the Wild West. Days later, the SEC filed its first case involving securities using DeFi technology and then a few days after that, reached a $10 million settlement with Poloniex for operating an unregistered digital asset exchange. Shortly after that, the SEC took aim at Coinbase’s planned crypto lending program causing the crypto giant to shelf the business model for the time being. SEC Commissioners are joining in, giving speeches in various forums focused on crypto and the regulatory environment.

Background

In July 2017, the world of digital assets and cryptocurrency literally became an overnight business sector for corporate and securities lawyers, shifting from the pure technology sector, when the SEC issued its Section 21(a) Report on

A Review of FINRA’s Corporate Finance Rule

October 5, 2021

As the strongest U.S. IPO market in decades continues unabated, it seems a good time to talk about underwriter’s compensation. FINRA Rule 5110 (Corporate Financing Rule – Underwriting Terms and Arrangements) governs the compensation that may be received by an underwriter in connection with a public offering.

Rule 5110 – The “Corporate Financing Rule”

Rule 5110 regulates underwriting compensation and prohibits unfair arrangements in connection with the public offerings of securities. The Rule prohibits member firms from participating in a public offering of securities if the underwriting terms and conditions, including compensation, are unfair as defined by FINRA. The Rule requires FINRA members to make filings with FINRA disclosing information about offerings they participate in, including the amount of all compensation to be received by the firm or its principals, and affiliations and relationships that could result in the existence of a conflict of interest. As more fully described herein, underwriter’s compensation is subject to lock-up provisions.

Filing Requirements

Digital Asset Securities – Progress For Broker Dealers

August 3, 2021

In December 2020, the SEC issued a statement and request for comment regarding the custody of digital asset securities by broker-dealers. The Statement and request for comment sets forth suggestions for complying with the Customer Protection Rule and lists certain requirements that a broker-dealer could comply with to ensure that it would not be subject to an enforcement proceeding for violation of the Customer Protection Rule.

Two months later, in February 2021, the SEC Division of Examinations issued a risk alert focused on digital asset securities. These statements were the first hitting head on the topic of digital asset custody since an August 2019 joint statement by the SEC and FINRA on the custody of digital assets (see HERE) and October 2019 joint statement by the SEC, FinCEN and the CFTC (see HERE).

The SEC and FINRA have been discussing issues of custody related to tokens and digital assets for years. For example, issues surrounding the custody

ESG Investing and Ratings

March 30, 2021

As I mentioned in the last blog in this series on ESG, back in September 2019, when I first wrote about environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters (see HERE), and through summer 2020 when the SEC led by Chair Jay Clayton was issuing warnings about making ESG metric induced investment decisions, I was certain ESG would remain outside the SEC’s regulatory focus.

Enter Chair Allison Herron Lee and in a slew of activity over the past few months, the SEC appointed a senior policy advisor for climate and ESG; the SEC Division of Corporation Finance (“Corp Fin”) announced it will scrutinize climate change disclosures; the SEC has formed an enforcement task force focused on climate and ESG issues; the Division of Examinations’ 2021 examination priorities included an introduction about how this year’s priorities have an “enhanced focus” on climate and ESG-related risks; almost every fund and major institutional investor has published statements on ESG initiatives; a Chief Sustainability

SEC Adopts Amendments To Management Discussion And Analysis

December 8, 2020

It has been a very busy year for SEC rule making, guidance, executive actions and all matters capital markets. Continuing its ongoing disclosure effectiveness initiative on November 19, 2020, the SEC adopted amendments to the disclosures in Item 303 of Regulation S-K – Management’s Discussion & Analysis of Financial Conditions and Operations (MD&A). The proposed rule had been released on January 30, 2020 (see HERE). Like all recent disclosure effectiveness rule amendments and proposals, the rule changes are meant to modernize and take a more principles-based approach to disclosure requirements. In addition, the rule changes are intended to reduce repetition and disclosure of information that is not material.

The new rules eliminate Item 301 – Selected Financial Data – and amend Items 302(a) – Supplementary Financial Information and Item 303 – MD&A. In particular, the final rules revise Item 302(a) to replace the current tabular disclosure with a principles-based approach and revise MD&A to: (i) to

SEC Adopts Amendments To Business Descriptions, Risk Factors And Legal Proceedings

November 3, 2020

Just eight months following the rule proposal (see HERE), on August 26, 2020, the SEC adopted final amendments to Item 101 – description of business, Item 103 – legal proceedings, and Item 105 – Risk Factors of Regulation S-K. The amendments make a more principles-based approach to business descriptions and risk factors, recognizing the significant changes in business models since the rule was adopted 30 years ago. The amendments to disclosures related to legal proceedings continue the current prescriptive approach. In addition, the rule changes are intended to improve the readability of disclosure documents, as well as discourage repetition and disclosure of information that is not material.

The Item 101 and Item 103 amendments only apply to domestic companies and foreign private issuer that elect to file using domestic company forms. The forms generally used by foreign private issuers (F-1, F-3, 20-F, etc.) do not have references to Items 101 and 103 of Regulation S-K but rather refer

Disclosures Related To COVID-19 – SEC Updates

June 30, 2020

Last week the SEC Office of the Chief Accountant (OCA) made a public statement on the importance of high-quality financial reporting for investors in light of Covid-19 on the same day that the Division of Corporation Finance issued an updated Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 9A on operations, liquidity, and capital resources disclosures related to the virus. Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 9A supplements the previously issued Topic No. 9 (see HERE) and follows the SEC’s virtual Investor Advisory Committee (“IAC”) meeting where investors testified as to additional information that should be relayed to the capital markets by public companies (see HERE).

OCA Statement on Financial Reporting

On April 3, 2020, the SEC Office of the Chief Accountant (OCA) made its first public statement on the importance of high-quality financial reporting for investors in light of Covid-19. At that time, many companies were in the process of preparing Q1 results and reports. Now that Q2 is coming to a

SEC Proposes Amendments To MD&A Disclosures

February 11, 2020

Continuing its disclosure effectiveness initiative, on January 30, 2020, the SEC proposed amendments to Management’s Discussion & Analysis of Financial Conditions and Operations (MD&A) required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K. In addition, to eliminate duplicative disclosures, the SEC also proposed to eliminate Item 301 – Selected Financial Data and Item 302 – Supplementary Financial Information. Like all recent disclosure effectiveness rule amendments and proposals, the rule changes are meant to modernize and take a more principles based approach to disclosure requirements. In addition, the proposed rule changes are intended to reduce repetition and disclosure of information that is not material.

On the same day the SEC issued an Interpretive Release on MD&A. A week earlier the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations on the subject.

Among the proposed changes, the new rule would add a new Item 303(a) to state the principal objectives of MD&A, replace the specific requirement to disclose off-balance-sheet arrangements with

SEC Proposes Amendments To Acquisitions And Dispositions Of Businesses

September 10, 2019

In May of this year, the SEC proposed amendments to the financial statements and other disclosure requirements related to the acquisitions and dispositions of businesses. In September 2015, the SEC issued a request for public comment related to disclosure requirements for entities other than the reporting company itself, including subsidiaries, acquired businesses, issuers of guaranteed securities and affiliates. See my blog HERE. Taking into account responses to portions of that request for comment, in the summer of 2018, the SEC adopted final rules to simplify the disclosure requirements applicable to registered debt offerings for guarantors and issuers of guaranteed securities, and for affiliates whose securities collateralize a company’s securities. See my blog HERE.

The SEC is now proposing amendments to Rules 3-05, 3-14, and Article 11 of Regulation S-X and adding new Rule 6-11. The amendments would also make several related conforming rule and form changes. Rule 3-05 was included in the September 2015 request for comment. Like

SEC Proposes Amendments To Regulation S-K

August 20, 2019

On August 8, 2019, the SEC canceled a public meeting which was slated to talk about proposed changes to disclosures related to business descriptions, legal proceedings and risk factors under Regulation S-K and instead, on the same day, issued proposed rule changes. The proposed changes continue the SEC’s ongoing disclosure effectiveness initiative. My ongoing running summary of proposed and implemented rule amendments, concept releases, reports and other relevant information related to disclosure changes can be found at the end of this blog.

The proposed changes take a more principles-based approach to business descriptions and risk factors, recognizing the significant changes in business models since the rule was adopted 30 years ago. The proposed amendments to disclosures related to legal proceedings continues the current prescriptive approach. In addition, the proposed rule changes are intended to improve the readability of disclosure documents, as well as discourage repetition and disclosure of information that is not material.

Item 101 – Description of Business

Item

Are Smart Contracts Enforceable

July 30, 2019

I’ve mentioned the term “smart contract” numerous times in my blogs related to blockchain and distributed ledger technology. It seems worth drilling down on what exactly a “smart contract” is and whether such a “contract” is enforceable as a legally binding contract. Smart contracts are generally computer code designed to automatically execute all or part of an agreement that is stored on a blockchain, such as the automatic transfer of assets upon the completion of specific programmed criteria. A smart contract may be the only agreement between parties, or it may be used to implement all or part of the provisions of a separate written contract.

Since a smart contract is programmed code, it will only perform each step or item of execution when the pre-programmed criteria has been completed. That is, if “x” occurs, then the code will automatically execute step “y.” Accordingly, all contractual actions must be capable of being completed within

FinCEN Guidance On Cryptocurrency

July 16, 2019

In May 2019, the Financial Crime Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a thirty-page comprehensive review of its regulations as pertains to convertible virtual currencies. Previously, in February 2018, FinCEN stated that it expects issuers of initial coin offerings (ICOs) to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), including its anti-money laundering (AML) and know your customer (KYC) requirements (see HERE).

In general, entities that are subject to the BSA must: (i) register with FinCEN as a money services business (MSB); (ii) prepare a written AML compliance program that is designed to mitigate risks, including AML risks, and to ensure compliance with all BSA requirements including the filing of suspicious activity reports (SAR) and currency transaction reports; (iii) keep records for certain types of transactions at specific thresholds; and (iv) obtain customer identification information sufficient to comply with the AML program and recordkeeping requirements.

Although the new guidance does not establish any new regulatory requirements, it is the first time

SEC Spring 2019 Regulatory Agenda

July 9, 2019

In May 2019, the SEC published its latest version of its semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking with the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is an executive office of the President, publishes a Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (“Agenda”) with actions that 60 departments, administrative agencies and commissions plan to issue in the near and long term. The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication.

Like the prior Agendas, the Spring 2019 Agenda is broken down by (i) “Prerule Stage”; (ii) Proposed Rule Stage; (iii) Final Rule Stage; and (iv) Long-term Actions. The Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that. The number of items to be completed in a 12-month time frame has increased again with 40 items as compared to 36 last

SEC Adopts Rules to Amend Regulation S-K

April 2, 2019

On March 20, 2019 the SEC adopted amendments to Regulation S-K as required by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (“FAST Act”). The proposed amendments were first published on October 11, 2017 (see HERE). A majority of the amendments were adopted as proposed. As part of the SEC’s ongoing Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative, the amendments are designed to modernize and simplify disclosure requirements for public companies, investment advisers, and investment companies. For a detailed list of actions that have been taken by the SEC as part of its Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative, see my summary at the end of this blog.

The FAST Act, passed in December 2015, contained two sections requiring the SEC to modernize and simplify the requirements in Regulation S-K. Section 72002 required the SEC to amend Regulation S-K to “further scale or eliminate requirements… to reduce the burden on emerging growth companies, accelerated filers, smaller reporting companies, and other smaller issuers, while still providing all material

SEC Fall 2018 Regulatory Agenda

November 27, 2018

In October 2018, the SEC posted its latest version of its semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking with the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is an executive office of the President, publishes a Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (“Agenda”) with actions that 60 departments, administrative agencies and commissions plan to issue in the near and long term. The Agenda is published twice a year.

Like the Spring 2018 Agenda, the fall Agenda is broken down by (i) “Prerule Stage”; (ii) Proposed Rule Stage; (iii) Final Rule Stage; and (iv) Long-term Actions. The Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that. The number of items to be completed in a 12-month time frame has jumped up with 36 items compared to 21 on the spring list.

Interestingly, following President Trump’s recent call to eliminate

SEC Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda

June 26, 2018

On May 9, 2018, the SEC posted its latest version of its semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking with the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. According to the preamble, information in the agenda was accurate as of March 13, 2018. On April 26, 2018, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton gave testimony before the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations regarding the SEC’s requested fiscal year 2019 budget. This blog will summarize the newest regulatory agenda and SEC upcoming budgetary requests.

Usually the agenda is separated into two categories: (i) Existing Proposed and Final Rule Stages; and (ii) Long-term Actions. The Spring 2018 agenda is broken down by (i) “Prerule Stage”; (ii) Proposed Rule Stage; (iii) Final Rule Stage; and (iv) Long-term Actions. The Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that. The number of items to be completed

The SEC’s 2018 Flex Regulatory Agenda

April 3, 2018

In December 2017, the SEC posted its latest version of its semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking with the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Prior to issuing the agenda, SEC Chair Jay Clayton had promised that the SEC’s regulatory agenda’s would be “more realistic” and he seems to have been true to his word.

The agenda is separated into two categories: (i) Existing Proposed and Final Rule Stages; and (ii) Long-term Actions. The Existing Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that. The semiannual list published in July 2017 only contained 33 legislative action items to be completed in a 12-month time frame, and the newest list is down to 26 items, whereas the prior fall 2016 list had 62 items.

The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is an executive office of the

SEC Announces Regulatory Agenda

September 12, 2017

In July 2017 the SEC posted its latest version of its semi-annual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking with the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The agenda is as interesting for what’s on it, as for what isn’t. The semi-annual list only contains 33 legislative action items that the SEC intends to propose or finalize in the next 12 months. The fall 2016 list contained 62 items. As further discussed in this blog, the list does not include proposals on executive compensation, or many other Dodd-Frank mandated rules.

In the preamble to the list it indicates that it was completed in March, when Michael Piwowar was acting Chair of the SEC. Chair Jay Clayton and now Commissioner Michael Piwowar have been publicly like-minded, with a goal of directing the SEC towards assisting in small and emerging business growth and capital raise activities, while remaining tough on fraud. A summary of Chair Clayton’s first public speech as head of

An Introduction To Distributed Ledger Technology (Blockchain Technology)

August 8, 2017

On July 13, 2017, FINRA held a Blockchain Symposium to assess the use of distributed ledger technology (DLT) in the financial industry, including the maintenance of shareholder and corporate records. DLT is commonly referred to as blockchain. The symposium included participation by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Federal Reserve Board and the SEC.

FINRA also published a report earlier in the year discussing the implications of DLT for the securities industry. Delaware, Nevada and Arizona have already passed statutes allowing for the use of DLT for corporate and shareholder records. This is the first in many blogs that will discuss DLT as this exciting new era of technology continues to unfold and impact the securities markets. In this blog I will discuss FINRA’s report published in January 2017 and in the next in the series, I will summarize the recent SEC investigative report on initial coin offerings and conclusion

Financial Choice Act 2.0 Has Made Progress

June 13, 2017

On June 8, 2017, the U.S. House of Representative passed the Financial Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs Act (the “Financial Choice Act 2.0” or the “Act”) by a vote of 283-186 along party lines. Only one Republican did not vote in favor of the Act. On May 4, 2017, the House Financial Services Committee voted to approve the Act. A prior version of the Act was adopted by the Financial Services Committee in September 2016 but never proceeded to the House for a vote.

The Financial Choice Act 2.0 is an extensive, extreme piece of legislation that would dismantle a large amount of the power of the SEC and strip the Dodd-Frank Act of many of its key provisions. The future of the Act is uncertain as it is unlikely to get through the Senate, although a rollback of Dodd-Frank remains a priority to the current administration. It is also possible that parts of the lengthy

The Financial Choice Act 2.0

March 28, 2017

On February 9, 2017, the Chair of the House Financial Services Committee issued a memo outlining changes to the Financial Choice Act, dubbing the newest version the Financial Choice Act 2.0. The memo was not intended for public distribution but found its way in any event, causing a great deal of anticipation as to the amended Act itself. The actual amended Act has not been released as of the date of this blog.

Introduction

As a reminder, the Financial Choice Act, which was passed by the House Financial Services Committee on September 13, 2016, is an extensive, extreme piece of legislation that would dismantle a large amount of the power of the SEC and strip the Dodd-Frank Act of many of its key provisions. As first written, it would not be feasible for the Act to pass into law, but it certainly illustrates the extreme views of members of the House on the state of current over-regulation.

Moreover,

SEC Issues Report On Accredited Investor Definition

January 12, 2016

On December 18, 2015, the SEC issued a 118-page report on the definition of “Accredited Investor” (the “Report”). The report follows the March 2015 SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) recommendations related to the definition. The SEC is reviewing the definition of “accredited investor” as directed by the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires that the SEC review the definition as relates to “natural persons” every four years to determine if it should be modified or adjusted.

The definition of “accredited investor” has not been comprehensively re-examined by regulators since its adoption in 1982; however, in 2011 the Dodd-Frank Act amended the definition to exclude a person’s primary residence from the net worth test of accreditation.

Although the Report contains detailed discussions on the various aspects of the definition of an accredited investor, the history of the different aspects of the definition, a discussion of different approaches taken in other U.S. regulations and in foreign

Mergers And Acquisitions; Appraisal Rights

November 10, 2015

Unless they are a party to the transaction itself, such as in the case of a share-for-share exchange agreement, shareholders of a company in a merger transaction generally have what is referred to as “dissenters” or “appraisal rights.” An appraisal right is the statutory right by shareholders that dissent to a particular transaction, to receive the fair value of their stock ownership. Generally such fair value may be determined in a judicial or court proceeding or by an independent valuation. Appraisal rights and valuations are the subject of extensive litigation in merger and acquisition transactions. As with all corporate law matters, the Delaware legislature and courts lead the way in setting standards and precedence.

Delaware Statutory Appraisal Rights

Although the details and appraisal rights process vary from state to state (often meaningfully), as with other state corporate law matters, Delaware is the leading statutory example and the Delaware Chancery Court is the leader in judicial precedence in this area of

SEC Proposes Broadening Of Broker-Dealer Registration Rules To Include Proprietary And High-Frequency Traders

May 12, 2015

On March 25, 2015, the SEC proposed rule amendments to require high-frequency and off-exchange traders to become members of FINRA. The amendments would increase regulatory oversight over these traders.

Over the years many active cross-market proprietary trading firms have emerged, many of which engage in high-frequency trading. These firms generally rely on the broad proprietary trading exemption in rule 15b9-1 to forgo membership with, and therefore regulatory oversight by, FINRA. The rule change is specifically designed to require these high-frequency traders to become members of FINRA and submit to its review and oversight.

The proposed rule change amends Rule 15b9-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) to narrow a current exemption from FINRA membership if the broker is a member of a national securities exchange, carries no customer accounts and has annual gross income of no more than $1,000 derived from sources other than the exchange to which they are a member. Currently, income

SEC Congressional Testimony- Part I

April 14, 2015

On three occasions recently representatives of the SEC have given testimony to Congress. On March 24, 2015, SEC Chair Mary Jo White testified on “Examining the SEC’s Agenda, Operations and FY 2016 Budget Request”; on March 19, 2015, Andrew Ceresny, Director of the SEC Division of Enforcement, testified to Congress on the “Oversight of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement”; and on March 10, 2015, Stephen Luparello, Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, testified on “Venture Exchanges and Small-Cap Companies.” In a series of blogs, I will summarize the three testimonies. This first blog in the series summarizes the testimony of Mary Jo White.

Mary Jo White Testimony

On March 24, 2015, SEC Chair Mary Jo White gave testimony before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services. The testimony was titled “Examining the SEC’s Agenda, Operations and FY 2016 Budget Request.” As can be gleaned from the title, Mary Jo White was giving testimony in support

An Overview of Regulation S – The Offshore Offering Exclusion

September 24, 2013

As I’ve repeated many times in blogs in the past, all offers, offers to sell, sales and offers to buy securities must be either registered or exempted from registration under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. Regulation S provides an exclusion from the Section 5 requirements for transactions that occur outside the United States. Both private and public securities offerings made outside the United States by U.S. Issuers are excluded from the registration requirements of Section 5 as long as all the requirements of Regulation S are met. Regulation S may also be relied upon by foreign issuers; however, this blog will concentrate on offerings by U.S. Issuers and affiliates.

Offshore Transactions

An offshore transaction is one in which (i) the offer is not made to a person in the U.S.; and (ii) Either (a) at the time the buy order is originated the buyer is outside the U.S. or the seller reasonably believes the buyer is outside

PIPE Transactions, Terms and Requirements

June 18, 2010

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

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

Search Results for: hedging

Contact Information

Recent Posts

Legal Resources

Tweets

DEVELOPED AND MANAGED BY

Featured On

Contact Author

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?