(800) 341-2684

Call Toll Free

Contact us

Online Inquiries 24/7

Laura Anthony Esq

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

Search Results for: risk factors

Risk Factor Disclosures For Reporting Public Companies 

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

 A risk factor disclosure involves a discussion of circumstances, trends, or issues that may affect a company’s business, prospects, operating results, or financial condition.  Risk factors must be disclosed in registration statements under the Securities Act and registration statements and reports under the Exchange Act.  In addition, risk factors must be included in private offering documents where the exemption relied upon requires the delivery of a disclosure document, and is highly recommended even when such disclosure is not statutorily required.

The Importance of Risk Factors

Risk factors are one of the most often commented on sections of a registration statement.  The careful crafting of pertinent risk factors can provide leeway for more robust discussion on business plans and future operations, and can satisfy a wide arrange of SEC concerns regarding existing financial and non-financial matters (such as potential default provisions in debt, dilution matters, inadvertent rule violations, etc.).

Although smaller reporting companies are

Anthony L.G., PLLC Securities Law Firm

Disclosure Considerations Related To The Conflict In The Ukraine

In addition to being a tragedy, the Russian attack on the Ukraine has disrupted businesses around the world, caused a spike in oil prices and raised disclosure issues for public companies as we are firmly in 10-K and proxy season..  In addition to the obvious disruption of business in both the Ukraine and Russia, the U.S. and many other European countries have imposed significant sanctions against Russia that may also impact companies and U.S. capital market participants.  No fewer than three of my clients have been directly affected by the conflict from the extreme of having to close an entire division to the less impactful certain non-collectability of receivables.

Disclosure requirements will depend upon the specific facts and circumstances of a particular company, but key areas that may need attention are risk factors, description of business and management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A).

Risk Factors

In August 2020, the SEC adopted final amendments to Item 105 – Risk Factors

Mandatory Arbitration Provisions Are No Longer A Problem For The SEC

On September 17, 2025, the SEC reversed its previous position and issued a policy statement announcing that the presence of mandatory arbitration provisions in corporate documents, will not affect the SEC’s determination as to whether to declare registration statements effective.

Background

The SEC Division of Corporation Finance (CorpFin) reviews and comments upon filings made under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).  The purpose of a review by CorpFin is to ensure compliance with the disclosure requirements under the federal securities laws, including Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X, and the general anti-fraud provisions, all of which require disclosure of material information necessary to make required disclosures, not misleading. The standard for required disclosure is generally the materiality of the information. In TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court defined materiality as information that would have a substantial likelihood of being viewed by a reasonable investor as

Disclosures On Offerings And Registrations Of Securities In The Crypto Asset Markets

On April 10, 2025, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance (“CorpFin”) issued a statement on disclosurs in offerings and registrations of securities in the crypto asset markets.  This is the third statement issued by CorpFin on various topics dealing with cryptocurrencies and digital assets in a matter of weeks.  For a review of CorpFin’s statement on certain proof of work mining activities see HERE and on stablecoins, see HERE.

The statement is meant to give guidance related to specific disclosure topics when either registering crypto assets or when filing a registration statement for an issuer in the crypto asset business.  The guidance cuts across all Regulation S-K disclosures whether in a Securities Act form (S-1; F-1; etc..) or an Exchange Act form (10-K; 20-F etc..).

Description of Business – Item 101 of Regulation S-K

Item 101 of Regulation S-K – Description of Business – requires an issuer to provide detailed background information material to understanding the general development

SEC Division Of Corporation Finance Statement On Disclosure Review

On June 24, 2024, Erik Gerding the Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance made a statement regarding the SEC’s state of disclosure review.  In fiscal year 2023 and continuing into 2024, the top areas of review and comment by the SEC were China-related matters, artificial intelligence, non-GAAP disclosures, management’s discussion and analysis, revenue recognition and financial statement presentation.  In addition, disruptions in the banking industry, cybersecurity risks, the impact of inflation and disclosure related to or as a result of newly adopted rules (such as pay versus performance) are gaining attention by SEC review teams.

The director’s statement gives some insight into the SEC’s focus and serves as a reminder to our clients and us practitioners alike to be sure we are staying abreast of the ever-changing capital markets environment.

China Related Disclosures

A few years ago, the SEC enacted the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act and approved rules implementing same (see HERE).   The SEC continues to

SEC Continues It’s Crypto Focus

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

Proposed Rules On Cybersecurity Disclosure

Earlier this year, the SEC published proposed rules on cybersecurity risk management, strategy, governance and incident disclosure by public companies.  Although the comment period has passed, a final rule has not yet been issued.  As of now, cybersecurity disclosures are encompassed within the general anti-fraud provisions including the requirement to disclose “such further material information, if any, as may be necessary to make the required statements, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading” as well SEC guidance last updated in 2018 (see HERE).

The proposed amendments would require, among other things, current reporting about material cybersecurity incidents and updates about previously reported cybersecurity incidents. The proposal also would require periodic reporting about a company’s policies and procedures to identify and manage cybersecurity risks; the company’s board of directors’ oversight of cybersecurity risk; and management’s role and expertise in assessing and managing cybersecurity risk and implementing cybersecurity policies and procedures. The proposal would further

Small-Cap IPO Volatility – The China Connection

Less than two months after the PCAOB and the China Securities Regulatory Commission and Ministry of Finance signed a Statement of Protocol reaching a tentative deal to allow the PCAOB to fully inspect and investigate registered public accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and Hong Kong, Nasdaq effectively halted all small-cap IPOs with a China connection.  This time, the issue is not audit-related.

During the week of September 19, one of our clients had a deal ready to be priced and begin trading on Nasdaq.  We had thought we cleared all comments when a call came from our Nasdaq reviewer – all small-cap IPOs were being temporarily halted while the Exchange investigated recent volatility.  The same day, an article came out on Bloomberg reporting on 2200% price swings (up and then steeply back down) on recent IPOs involving companies with ties to China – a repeat of similar volatility in the late ’80’s and early ’90’s despite three decades of

A Resolution For SPAC Warrant Accounting

On April 12, 2021, the SEC effectively chilled SPAC activity by announcing that it had examined warrant accounting in several SPACs and found that the warrants were being erroneously classified as an asset.  The SEC identified two accounting issues, one related to the private placement warrants and the other related to both the private placement and public warrants.  These companies were required to restate previously issued financial statements to reclassify warrants as liabilities, and the ripple effect began.  Overnight SPAC management teams, accountants and auditors were scrambling to determine if a restatement was required (in most cases it was) and in-process SPACs were put on hold or at least delayed while market participants tried to figure out the meaning of the SEC guidance and how to address it.

The timing of the statement was interesting as well; most calendar year end SPACs had just filed their Form 10-K for FYE 2020 requiring a slew of 8-Ks to disclose non-reliance on

SEC Fall 2020 Regulatory Agenda

The SEC’s latest version of its semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking has been published in the federal register.  The Fall 2020 Agenda (“Agenda”) is current through October 2020.  The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions contains the Regulatory Plans of 28 federal agencies and 68 federal agency regulatory agendas. The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication.

Like the prior Agendas, the Fall 2020 Agenda is broken down by (i) “Pre-rule 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 is down to 32 items.  The Spring Agenda had 42 and the Fall 2019 had 47 on the list.

Items on the Agenda can move from one category to

Annual Report of Office of Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation

The Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation (“Office”) issued its 2020 Annual Report and it breaks down one of the strangest years in any of our lives, into facts and figures that continue to illustrate the resilience of the U.S. capital markets.  Although the report is for fiscal year end September 30, 2020, prior to much of the impact of Covid-19, the Office supplemented the Report with initial Covid-19 impact information.

Background on Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation

The SEC’s Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation launched in January 2019 after being created by Congress pursuant to the Small Business Advocate Act of 2016 (see HERE).  One of the core tenants of the Office is recognizing that small businesses are job creators, generators of economic opportunity and fundamental to the growth of the country, a drum I often beat.

The Office has the following functions: (i) assist small businesses

SEC Adopts Amendments To Management Discussion And Analysis

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 Issues Transitional FAQ On Regulation S-K Amendments

The recent amendments to Items 101, 103 and 105 of Regulation S-K (see HERE) went into effect on November 9, 2020, raising many questions as to the transition to the new requirements.  In response to what I am sure were many inquiries to the Division of Corporation Finance, the SEC has issued three transitional FAQs.

The amendments made changes to Item 101 – description of business, Item 103 – legal proceedings, and Item 105 – Risk Factors of Regulation S-K.

FAQ – Form S-3 Prospectus Supplement

The first question relates to the impact on Form S-3 and in particular the current use of prospectus supplements for an S-3 that went into effect prior to November 9, 2020.  In general, a Form S-3 is used as a shelf registration statement and a company files a prospectus supplement each time it takes shares down off that shelf (see HERE).

The prospectus supplement must meet the requirements of Securities Act Rule

Covid-19 Disclosures – Not Just Speculation Anymore

Now that the market can review and dissect two quarters of Covid-related disclosures and reporting companies are gearing up for third-quarter reporting, Covid disclosures are no longer pure speculation.  Following the two official guidelines released by the SEC (Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 9A which supplemented the previously issued Topic No. 9), a new CD&I issued on Covid-19 executive employment benefits, and numerous unofficial statements and speeches on the topic, the investment community and reporting companies are navigating the areas that require the most attention and thoughtful disclosure.  Not surprisingly, the areas requiring the greatest consideration are management, discussion and analysis (including human capital disclosures and forecasting), risk factors, and internal controls over financial reporting.

Covid-19 “Benefits” – SEC Issues New C&DI

On September 21, 2020, the SEC issued a new compliance and disclosure interpretation (C&DI) related to the reporting of compensation perks or benefits.  In particular, the SEC stated that:

In reporting compensation for periods affected by Covid-19,

A Covid IPO: The Virtual Roadshow

Although many aspects of an IPO are unaffected by a pandemic, assuming the capital markets continue to have an appetite for public offerings, the grueling road show has gone virtual, and it may be here to stay.  An old-fashioned road show involved an intense travel schedule and expensive setup.  The new virtual road show can be completed in half the time and a fraction of the price, and interestingly, the IPO’s that have been completed since March 2020, have all priced their deals at the midpoint or higher of their ranges.  The lack of face-to-face presentations is not hurting the deals.

I tend to believe the world has changed forever.  However, fluidity of memory and a capacity to adapt are fundamental human traits and we have and will adapt our business style to adjust to a world where germs are a real enemy and getting sick doesn’t just mean a day or two out of the office.   There has been

SEC Spring 2020 Regulatory Agenda

In July 2020, 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 2020 Agenda is broken down by (i) “Pre-rule 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 decreased to 42 items as compared to 47 on the

SEC Further Comments On Emerging Markets

On April 21, 2020, the SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and a group of senior SEC and PCAOB officials issued a joint statement warning about the risks of investing in emerging markets, especially China, including companies from those markets that are accessing the U.S. capital markets.  On July 9, 2020, the SEC held an Emerging Markets Roundtable where Chair Clayton reiterated his concerns about emerging market investment risks.  Previously, in December 2018, Chair Clayton, SEC Chief Accountant Wes Bricker and PCAOB Chairman William D. Duhnke III issued a similar cautionary statement, also focusing on China (see HERE).

SEC and PCAOB Joint Statement

On April 21, 2020, SEC Chair Clayton, SEC Chief Accountant Sagar Teotia, SEC Division of Corporation Finance Director William Hinman, SEC Division of Investment Management Director Dalia Blass, and PCAOB Chairman William D. Duhnke III issued a joint public statement warning of the significant disclosure, financial and reporting risks of investing in emerging markets, and the limited remedies

Disclosures Related To COVID-19

The SEC has been reiterating the need for robust disclosures related to the impact of COVID-19 on publicly reporting companies.  In the last few weeks I have written about some of the guidance issued by the SEC including Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 9.  Since that time the SEC has continued to issue guidance in the form of public statements.  This blog will summarize the SEC guidance and statements on disclosures up to date, and include a sample risk factor for inclusion in SEC reports.

Public Statement by Chair Jay Clayton and Director of the Division of Corporation Finance, William Hinman

On April 8, 2020, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and William Hinman, the Director of the Division of Corporation Finance, issued a joint public statement on the importance of disclosure during the COVID-19 crisis.

Before I get into summarizing the statement, my personal thought is that although there are many reasons why disclosure is important, including the basic premise that the

Relief For Persons Affected By The Coronavirus

Last week I published a blog summarizing the relief granted by the SEC for public companies and capital markets participants impacted by the coronavirus (Covid-19) (see HERE).  Just as Covid-19 rapidly evolves, so have the regulators response.  The SEC has now expanded the relief and issued guidance on public company disclosures related to Covid-19.

While we work to complete the usual filings while in quarantine, a new conversation is starting to develop at a rapid pace.  That is, the conversation of opportunity and the accelerating of a more technologically driven economy than ever before.  Businesses and service providers must stay nimble and ready to serve the ever changing needs of entrepreneurs and the capital markets – I know we are!

Extension in SEC Reporting Filing Deadlines

On March 25, 2020, the SEC extended its prior conditional relief order such that periodic filings that would have been due from between March 1 and July 1, 2020 can avail themselves of

SEC Fall 2019 Regulatory Agenda

In late 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) “Pre-rule 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 with 47 items as compared to 40 on the

SEC Proposes Amendments To Acquisitions And Dispositions Of Businesses

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

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

SEC Spring 2019 Regulatory Agenda

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

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

An IPO Without The SEC

On January 23, 2019, biotechnology company Gossamer Bio, Inc., filed an amended S-1 pricing its $230 million initial public offering, taking advantage of a rarely used SEC Rule that will allow the S-1 to go effective, and the IPO to be completed, 20 days from filing, without action by the SEC.  Since the government shutdown, several companies have opted to proceed with the effectiveness of a registration statement for a follow-on offering without SEC review or approval, but this marks the first full IPO, and certainly the first of any significant size. The Gossamer IPO is being underwritten by Bank of America Merrill Lynch, SVB Leerink, Barclays and Evercore ISI. On January 24, 2019, Nasdaq issued five FAQ addressing their position on listing companies utilizing Section 8(a).  Although the SEC has recommenced full operations as of today, there has non-the-less been a transformation in the methods used to access capital markets, and the use of 8(a) is just

Financial Statement Disclosure Relief Under Rule 3-13

Rule 3-13 of Regulation S-X allows a company to request relief from the SEC from the financial statement disclosure requirements if they believe that the financial information is burdensome and would result in disclosure of information that goes beyond what is material to investors. Consistent with the ongoing message of open communication and cooperation, the current SEC regime has been actively encouraging companies to avail themselves of this relief and has updated the CorpFin Financial Reporting Manual to include contact information for staff members that can assist.

As part of its ongoing disclosure effectiveness initiative, the SEC is also considering amendments to the financial statement disclosure process and the publication of further staff guidance. In addition to advancing disclosure changes, allowing for relief from financial statement requirements could help encourage smaller companies to access public markets, an ongoing goal of the SEC and other financial regulators. For a review of the October 2017 Treasury Department report to President Trump, including

SEC Amends Rule 701 And Issues A Concept Release On Rule 701 And Form S-8 – Part I

On May 24, 2018, President Trump signed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”) into law. Section 507 of the Act directed the SEC to increase the threshold under Rule 701 of the Securities Act, for providing additional disclosures to employees from aggregate sales of $5,000,000 during any 12-month period to $10,000,000. In addition, the threshold is to be inflation-adjusted every five years. The Act required that the amendment be completed within 60 days and on July 18, 2018, the SEC complied and published the amendments. The amendments were effective immediately upon publication in the federal register.

On the same day, the SEC issued a concept release on potential further amendments to both Rule 701 and SEC Form S-8. The SEC is seeking public comment on ways to modernize the rules related to compensatory plans acknowledging the significant changes in both types of compensatory offerings and workforce composition in the past few decades.

This

SEC Amends Definition of “A Smaller Reporting Company”

On June 28, 2018, the SEC adopted the much-anticipated amendments to the definition of a “smaller reporting company” as contained in Securities Act Rule 405, Exchange Act Rule 12b-2 and Item 10(f) of Regulation S-K. The amendments come almost two years to the day since the initial publication of proposed rule changes (see HERE).

Among other benefits, it is hoped that the change will help encourage smaller companies to access US public markets. The amendment expands the number of companies that qualify as a smaller reporting company (SRC) and thus qualify for the scaled disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X. The SEC estimates that an additional 966 companies will be eligible for SRC status in the first year under the new definition.

As proposed, and as recommended by various market participants, the new definition of a SRC will now include companies with less than a $250 million public float as compared to the $75 million

The SEC Has Provided Guidance On Ether and Bitcoin, Sort Of

On June 14, 2018, William Hinman, the Director of the SEC Division of Corporation Finance, gave a speech at Yahoo Finance’s All Markets Summit in which he made two huge revelations for the crypto marketplace. The first is that he believes a cryptocurrency issued in a securities offering could later be purchased and sold in transactions not subject to the securities laws. The second is that Ether and Bitcoin are not currently securities. Also, for the first time, Hinman gives the marketplace guidance on how to structure a token or coin such that it might not be a security.

While this gives the marketplace much-needed guidance on the topic, a speech by an executive with the SEC has no legal force. As a result, the blogs and press responding to Mr. Hinman’s speech have been mixed. Personally, I think it is a significant advancement in the regulatory uncertainty surrounding the crypto space and a signal that more constructive guidance

ABA Comment Letter On Disclosures Under Regulation S-K

In December 2017, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) submitted its fourth comment letter to the SEC related to the financial and business disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K.  Like the SEC’s ongoing Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative, the ABA has a Disclosure Effectiveness Working Group as part of its Federal Regulation of Securities Committee (of which I am a member) and its Law and Accounting Committee.

The ABA comment letter begins with a general discussion of the materiality concept, which is the underlying basis of disclosure, and then provides input on various specific areas of disclosure under Regulation S-K.  The ABA comment letter specifically responded to the SEC concept release and request for public comment on sweeping changes to certain business and financial disclosure requirements issued on April 15, 2016.  See my two-part blog on the S-K Concept Release HERE  and HERE.

I’ve been writing about Regulation S-K and the SEC Disclosure Initiative since at least early 2015.  Although consistently a

The Division of Corporation Finance’s Disclosure Review And Comment Process

Those that regularly read my blog know that I sometimes like to go back to basics. This blog will revisit and discuss the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance (“CorpFin”) comment and review process. Back in March 2016, I wrote about the SEC comment and review process, including a description of the internal review process, review levels and breakup of industry sector reviewers. That blog can be read HERE.  Since that time, the SEC has eliminated the Tandy Letter requirement. See HERE. Furthermore, on March 22, 2018, CorpFin updated its “Filing Review Process” page on the SEC website.

At the end of each calendar year, the big four accounting firms generally publish studies on CorpFin’s Comment Priorities. Their studies, and other recent publications, uniformly found that the number of comments, especially in a registration process, has dramatically declined.  I have noticed this trend as well in my practice.

Also consistent in reports is a list of recent

The SEC Has Issued New Guidance On Cybersecurity Disclosures

On February 20, 2018, the SEC issued new interpretative guidance on public company disclosures related to cybersecurity risks and incidents. In addition to addressing public company disclosures, the new guidance reminds companies of the importance of maintaining disclosure controls and procedures to address cyber-risks and incidents and reminds insiders that trading while having non-public information related to cyber-matters could violate federal insider-trading laws.

The prior SEC guidance on the topic was dated, having been issued on October 13, 2011. For a review of this prior guidance, see HERE. The new guidance is not dramatically different from the 2011 guidance.

Introduction

The topic of cybersecurity has been in the forefront in recent years, with the SEC issuing a series of statements and creating two new cyber-based enforcement initiatives targeting the protection of retail investors, including protection related to distributed ledger technology (DLT) and initial coin or cryptocurrency offerings (ICO’s). Moreover, the SEC has asked the House Committee on Financial

SEC and NASAA Statements on ICOs and More Enforcement Proceedings

The message from the SEC is very clear: participants in initial coin offerings (ICO’s) and cryptocurrencies in general need to comply with the federal securities laws or they will be the subject of enforcement proceedings. This message spreads beyond companies and entities issuing cryptocurrencies, also including securities lawyers, accountants, consultants and secondary trading platforms. Moreover, the SEC is not the only watchdog. State securities regulators and the plaintiffs’ bar are both taking aim at the crypto marketplace. Several class actions have been filed recently against companies that have completed ICO’s.

After a period of silence, on July 25, 2017, the SEC issued a Section 21(a) Report on an investigation and related activities by the DAO, with concurrent statements by both the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement. On the same day, the SEC issued an Investor Bulletin related to ICO’s. For more on the Section 21(a) Report, statements and investor bulletin, see HERE. Since that time,

SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Holds Final Meeting

On September 13, 2017, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) held its final meeting and issued its final report. The Committee was organized by the SEC for a two-year term to provide advice on SEC rules, regulations and policies regarding “its mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitating capital formation” as related to “(i) capital raising by emerging privately held small businesses and publicly traded companies with less than $250 million in public market capitalization; (ii) trading in the securities of such businesses and companies; and (iii) public reporting and corporate governance requirements to which such businesses and companies are subject.”

As the two-year term is expiring, Congress has determined to establish an Exchange Act-mandated, perpetual committee to be named the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee. The SEC is also setting up a new Office of Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and is actively seeking to

SEC Statements On Cybersecurity – Part 2

On September 20, 2017, SEC Chair Jay Clayton issued a statement on cybersecurity that included the astonishing revelation that the SEC Edgar system had been hacked in 2016. Since the original statement, the SEC has confirmed that personal information on at least two individuals was obtained in the incident. Following Jay Clayton’s initial statement, on September 25, 2017, the SEC announced two new cyber-based enforcement initiatives targeting the protection of retail investors, including protection related to distributed ledger technology (DLT) and initial coin or cryptocurrency offerings (ICO’s).

The issue of cybersecurity is at the forefront for the SEC, and Jay Clayton is asking the House Committee on Financial Services to increase the SEC’s budget by $100 million to enhance the SEC’s cybersecurity efforts.

This is the second in a two-part blog series summarizing Jay Clayton’s statement, the SEC EDGAR hacking and the new initiatives. Part I of this blog, which outlined Chair Clayton’s statement on cybersecurity and the EDGAR

Emerging Growth Companies Will Start To Grow Up

The first of emerging growth companies (“EGC’s”) will begin losing EGC status as the five-year anniversary of the creation of an EGC has now passed. Those companies that will lose status as a result of the passage of time are almost unilaterally not pleased with the impending change and concurrent increase in regulatory compliance.

Background

Title I of the JOBS Act, initially enacted on April 5, 2012, created a new category of issuer called an “emerging growth company” (“EGC”).  An EGC is defined as a company with total annual gross revenues of less than $1,070,000,000 during its most recently completed fiscal year that first sells equity in a registered offering after December 8, 2011. An EGC loses its EGC status on the earlier of (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which it exceeds $1,070,000,000 in revenues; (ii) the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth year after its IPO (for example, if the issuer has

SEC Proposes Rules To Modernize And Simplify Disclosures

On October 11, 2017, as part of the ongoing SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative, the SEC published proposed rule amendments to modernize and simplify disclosure requirements for public companies, investment advisers, and investment companies. The proposed rule amendments implement a mandate under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (“FAST Act”).

The FAST Act, passed in December 2015, contains two sections requiring the SEC to modernize and simplify the requirements in Regulation S-K.  Section 72002 requires 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 information to investors.” In addition, the SEC was directed to “eliminate provisions… that are duplicative, overlapping, outdated or unnecessary.” In accordance with that requirement, On July 13, 2016, the SEC issued proposed rule change on Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X to amend disclosures that are redundant, duplicative, overlapping, outdated

SEC Eliminates The “Tandy Letter”

On October 5, 2016, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance (CorpFin) announced that, effective immediately, it would no longer require companies to include “Tandy” letter representations in comment letter response or registration acceleration requests addressed to the SEC.

Background

Beginning in the 1970s the SEC began to require an affirmative statement from the company acknowledging that the company cannot use the SEC’s comment process as a defense in any securities-related litigation. Named after the first company required to provide the affirmations, this language is referred to as a “Tandy” letter. By 2004 the “Tandy” letter was required in all comment letter responses to the SEC as well as registration acceleration requests. The “Tandy” portion of a response was required to be agreed to by the company itself, so if the response letter was on attorney letterhead, a signature line was required to be included for the company or the company could submit a separate letter. The Tandy language for an

Yahoo Hacking Scandal And Obligations Related To Cybersecurity

On September 26, 2016, Senator Mark R. Warner (D-VA), a member of the Senate Intelligence and Banking Committees and cofounder of the bipartisan Senate Cybersecurity Caucus, wrote a letter to the SEC requesting that they investigate whether Yahoo, Inc., fulfilled its disclosure obligations under the federal securities laws related to a security breach that affected more than 500 million accounts.  Senator Warner also requested that the SEC re-examine its guidance and requirements related to the disclosure of cybersecurity matters in general.

The letter was precipitated by a September 22, 2016, 8-K and press release issued by Yahoo disclosing the theft of certain user account information that occurred in late 2014. The press release referred to a “recent investigation” confirming the theft of user account information associated with at least 500 million accounts that was stolen in late 2014. Just 13 days prior to the 8-K and press release, on September 9, 2016, Yahoo filed a preliminary 14A filing with

SEC Issues New C&DI On Rule 701

On June 23, 2016, the SEC issued seven new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DI”) related to Rule 701 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). On October 19, 2016, the SEC issued an additional three C&DI. The majority of the new C&DI focus on the effect on Rule 701 issuances following a merger or acquisition and clarify financial statement requirements under Rule 701. Two of the new C&DI address restricted stock awards including the disclosure requirements are triggered and when the holding period begins under Rule 144.

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

Rule 701 of the Securities Act provides an exemption from the registration requirements for the issuance of securities under written compensatory benefit plans. Rule 701 is a specialized exemption for private or non-reporting entities and may not be relied upon by companies that are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as

FinCEN Updates Due Diligence Rules

On May 11, 2016, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued new final rules under the Bank Secrecy Act requiring financing institutions, including brokerage firms, to adopt additional anti-money laundering (AML) procedures that include specific due diligence and ongoing monitoring requirements related to customer risk profiles and customer information.  In addition, the new rules require financial institutions to collect and verify information about beneficial owners and control person of legal entity customers.

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) specifically requires brokerage firms to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act.  FinCEN provides minimum rules.  Brokerage firms are also required to comply with AML rules established by FINRA, including FINRA Rule 3310.  The purpose of the AML rules is to help detect and report suspicious activity including the predicate offenses to money laundering and terrorist financing, such as securities fraud and market manipulation. FINRA also provides a template to assist small firms in establishing and complying with AML procedures. As

Smaller Reporting Companies vs. Emerging Growth Companies

The topic of reporting requirements and distinctions between various categories of reporting companies has been prevalent over the past couple of years as regulators and industry insiders examine changes to the reporting requirements for all companies, and qualifications for the various categories of scaled disclosure requirements. As I’ve written about these developments, I have noticed inconsistencies in the treatment of smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies in ways that are likely the result of poor drafting or unintended consequences. This blog summarizes two of these inconsistencies.

As a reminder, a smaller reporting company is currently defined as a company that has a public float of less than $75 million in common equity as of the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter, or if a public float of zero, has less than $50 million in annual revenues as of its most recently completed fiscal year-end. I note that on June 27, 2016, the SEC issued

SEC Proposes Amendments To Definition Of “Small Reporting Company”

On June 27, 2016, the SEC published proposed amendments to the definition of “smaller reporting company” as contained in Securities Act Rule 405, Exchange Act Rule 12b-2 and Item 10(f) of Regulation S-K.  The amendments would expand the number of companies that qualify as a smaller reporting company and thus qualify for the scaled disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X.  The rule change follows the SEC concept release and request for public comment on sweeping changes to the business and financial disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K.  Throughout the SEC Concept Release, it referenced the scaled and different disclosure requirements for the different categories of company and affirmed that it was evaluating and considering changes to the eligibility criteria for each.

If the rule change is passed, the number of companies qualifying as a smaller reporting company will increase from 32% to 42% of all reporting companies.

The proposed rule change follows the SEC Advisory Committee on

SEC Issues Concept Release On Regulation S-K; Part 2

On April 15, 2016, the SEC issued a 341-page concept release and request for public comment on sweeping changes to certain business and financial disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K (“S-K Concept Release”).  This blog is the second part discussing that concept release.  In Part I, which can be read HERE, I discussed the background and general concepts for which the SEC provides discussion and seeks comment.  In this Part II, I will discuss the rules and recommendations made by the SEC and, in particular, those related to the 100, 200, 300, 500 and 700 series of Regulation S-K.

Background

The fundamental tenet of the federal securities laws is defined by one word: disclosure.  In fact, the SEC neither reviews nor opines on the merits of any company or transaction, but only upon the appropriate disclosure, including risks, made by that company.  However, excessive rote immaterial disclosure can dilute the material important information regarding that particular company and have the

SEC Issues Concept Release On Regulation S-K; Part 1

On April 15, 2016, the SEC issued a 341-page concept release and request for public comment on sweeping changes to certain business and financial disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K (“S-K Concept Release”).  This blog is the first part in a series discussing that concept release.  The S-K Concept Release is part of the SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative mandated by the JOBS Act.

The fundamental tenet of the federal securities laws is defined by one word: disclosure.  In fact, the SEC neither reviews nor opines on the merits of any company or transaction, but only upon the appropriate disclosure, including risks, made by that company.

This is the first blog in a two-part series on the S-K Concept Release.  In this Part I, I will discuss the background and general concepts for which the SEC provides discussion and seeks comment.  In Part II of the series I will discuss the rules and recommendations made by the SEC and, in particular, those

Responding To SEC Comments

Background

The SEC Division of Corporation Finance (CorpFin) reviews and comments upon filings made under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The purpose of a review by CorpFin is to ensure compliance with the disclosure requirements under the federal securities laws, including Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X, and to enhance such disclosures as to each particular issuer. CorpFin will also be cognizant of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws and may refer a matter to the Division of Enforcement where material concerns arise over the adequacy and accuracy of reported information or other securities law violations, including violations of the Section 5 registration requirements. CorpFin has an Office of Enforcement Liason in that regard.

CorpFin’s review and responsibilities can be described with one word: disclosure!

CorpFin selectively reviews filings, although generally all first-time filings, such as an S-1 for an initial public offering or Form 10 registration under

House Passes More Securities Legislation

In what must be the most active period of securities legislation in recent history, the US House of Representatives has passed three more bills that would make changes to the federal securities laws. The three bills, which have not been passed into law as of yet, come in the wake of the Fixing American’s Surface Transportation Act (the “FAST Act”), which was signed into law on December 4, 2015.

The 3 bills include: (i) H.R. 1675 – the Capital Markets Improvement Act of 2016, which has 5 smaller acts imbedded therein; (ii) H.R. 3784, establishing the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee within the SEC; and (iii) H.R. 2187, proposing an amendment to the definition of accredited investor. None of the bills have been passed by the Senate as of yet.

Meanwhile, the SEC continues to finalize rulemaking under both the JOBS Act, which was passed into law on April 5,

Title III Crowdfunding

As required by Title III of the JOBS Act, on October 30, 2015, the SEC has published the final crowdfunding rules.  Regulation Crowdfunding has been long in the making, with the JOBS Act having been passed on April 5, 2012, and the first set of proposed crowdfunding rules having been published on October 23, 2013.  The new rules will be effective 180 days after publication, but the forms for registering a funding portal with the SEC will be effective and available January 29, 2016.

The SEC has dubbed the new rules “Regulation Crowdfunding.” Regulation Crowdfunding provides the rules implementing Section 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) and the regulatory framework for registered funding portals and broker-dealers that companies are required to use as intermediaries in crowdfunding offerings.  In addition, Regulation Crowdfunding exempts securities sold under Section 4(a)(g) from the mandatory registration requirements found in Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).

Intrastate Crowdfunding Legislation Has Passed in Florida

Florida Has Passed Intrastate Crowdfunding Legislation

As the country waits for the SEC to publish final Title III crowdfunding rules as required by the JOBS Act, states continue to enact and introduce state-specific crowdfunding legislation.   As of today, it is unclear when the final federal rules will be released and passed into law though SEC Chair Mary Jo White has publicly stated on several occasions that it will be this year.  Upon passage of the final rules, there will be a period of ramping up time in which crowdfunding portals complete the process of registering with the SEC, becoming members of FINRA and completing the necessary steps to ensure that their portal operates in compliance with the final rules.  Federal crowdfunding is coming, but it is a slow process.

Florida is the newest state to pass intrastate crowdfunding legislation.  The new Florida Intrastate Crowdfunding Exemption takes effect October 1, 2015. As a Florida resident, I have a personal

ABA Federal Regulation Of Securities Committee Makes Recommendations On Regulation S-K

On March 6, 2015, the Federal Regulation of Securities Committee (“Committee”) of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) submitted its second comment letter to the SEC making recommendations for changes to Regulation S-K.  The Committee’s recommendations are aimed at improving the quality of business and financial information that must be disclosed in periodic reports and registration statements in accordance with Regulation S-K.  I note that I am a member of the Committee, but not a member of the sub-committee that drafted the comment letter, nor did I have any input in regard to the comment letter.

The recommendations fall into four major categories: materiality; duplication; consolidation of existing interpretive and other guidance from the SEC; and obsolescence.  The recommendations in the letter are based on themes articulated by the Division of Corporation Finance in a 2013 report to Congress mandated by the JOBS Act and subsequent speeches by the Division’s Director, Keith F. Higgins.

Materiality

The Committee’s letter recommends that

Delaware General Corporate Law; 2014 Amendments Summarized

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

Although the federal government and FINRA have become increasingly active in matters of corporate governance, the states still remain the primary authority and regulator of corporate law.  State corporation law is generally based on the Delaware Model Act and offers corporations a degree of flexibility from a menu of reasonable alternatives that can be tailored to companies’ business sectors, markets and corporate culture.  Moreover, state judiciaries review and rule upon corporate governance matters, considering the facts and circumstances of each case and setting factual precedence based on such individual circumstances.  In 2014 there were several changes to the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) which impact public and private companies incorporated in Delaware, and elsewhere, since most states follow the DGCL.

The 2014 amendments which became effective on August 1, 2014, address: (1) mergers under DGCL Section 251(h) permitting a merger without a stockholder vote following certain tender or exchange offers; (2) director and

The DPO Process Including Form S-1 Registration Statement Requirements

One of the methods of going public is directly through a public offering.  In today’s financial environment, many Issuers are choosing to self-underwrite their public offerings, commonly referred to as a Direct Public Offering (DPO).  Management of companies considering a going public transaction have a desire to understand the required disclosures and content of a registration statement.  This blog provides that information.

Pursuant to Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”), it is unlawful to “offer” or “sell” securities without a valid effective registration statement unless an exemption is available.  Companies desiring to offer and sell securities to the public with the intention of creating a public market or going public must file with the SEC and provide prospective investors with a registration statement containing all material information concerning the company and the securities offered.  Currently all domestic Issuers must use either form S-1 or S-3.  Form S-3 is limited to larger filers with

Proposed Crowdfunding Rules – Part III

As required by Title III of the JOBS Act, on October 23, 2013, the SEC has published proposed crowdfunding rules.  The SEC has dubbed the new rules “Regulation Crowdfunding.” The entire text of the rule release is available on the SEC website.  In a series of blogs, I am summarizing the lengthy rule release.  This Part III in my series continues a discussion of the in-depth disclosure requirements for Issuers for use in their offering statements.  Part IV will discuss financial disclosure obligations.

Summary Breakdown of Proposed New Rules – Requirements on Issuers

Disclosure Requirements

Pursuant to the CROWDFUND Act as set forth in the JOBS Act, an Issuer who offers or sells securities in a crowdfunding offering must file with the SEC and provide investors and the funding intermediary (whether a funding portal or broker-dealer) and make available to potential investors:

(a) The name, legal status, physical address, and website address of the Issuer (discussed in Part II of

How To Bring A Delinquent Exchange Act Reporting Company Current

SEC Delinquent Filers Program

In 2004 the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) instituted the Delinquent Filers Program and created the Delinquent Filers Branch as part of its Division of Enforcement.  The Delinquent Filers Branch was instituted to encourage publicly traded companies that are delinquent in the filing of their required periodic reports (Forms 10-K and 10-Q) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to provide investors with accurate financial information upon which to make informed investment decisions. The securities registrations of issuers that fail to make their required periodic filings are subject to suspension or revocation by the SEC and other enforcement proceedings.

Since it was instituted, the SEC Delinquent Filers Branch has suspended the trading and/or revoked the registration of hundreds of companies, often in sweeps of large groups of filers in a single day.  Generally, a delinquent filer would receive a letter from the SEC giving the Company 10 days in which to make the

CROWDFUNDING FROM A TO Z

As the expected deadline for the SEC to publish rules and regulations enacting the Crowdfunding Act (Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act)) grows nearer, it is a good time for a complete overview of crowdfunding.  New Sections 4(6) and 4A of the Securities Act of 1933 codify the crowdfunding exemption and its various requirements as to Issuers and intermediaries.  The SEC is in the process of drafting the underlying rules and regulations which will implement these new statutory provisions.

A. WHAT IS CROWDFUNDING?

The Crowdfunding Act amends Section 4 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) to create a new exemption to the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act.  The new exemption allows Issuers to solicit “crowds” to sell up to $1 million in securities as long as no individual investment exceeds certain threshold amounts.

The threshold amount sold to any single investor cannot exceed (a) the greater of $2,000

Crowdfunding Requirements For Issuers

On April 5, 2012 President Obama signed the JOBS Act into law. Part of the JOBS Act is the Crowdfunding Act, the full title of which is the “Capital Raising Online While Deterring Fraud and Unethical Non-Disclosure Act of 2012”. The Crowdfunding Act, creates a new exemption to the registration requirements under a newly designated Section 4(6) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The new crowdfunding exemption allows Issuers to raise up to $1 million in a twelve month period, as long as no individual investment exceeds certain threshold amounts.  The threshold amount sold to any single investor, cannot exceed (a) the greater of $2,000 or 5% of the annual income or net worth of such investor, if their annual income or next worth is less and $100,000; and (b) 10% of the annual income or net worth of such investor, not to exceed a maximum $100,000, if their annual income or net worth is more than $100,000. 

NASDAQ Proposes New Authority To Delist Companies Following An SEC Trading Suspension

On March 3, 2026, Nasdaq filed a proposed rule change with the SEC that would grant the Exchange the authority to de-list a company following an SEC trading suspension.  This proposal is part of a steady and deliberate shift Nasdaq has been making over the past several years to tighten its oversight of smaller public companies and to more quickly remove companies from the market that, in Nasdaq’s view, no longer meet baseline viability.

Updating my running tally, other recent Nasdaq initiatives include: (i) proposed amendments that would impose a new continued listing requirement requiring all Nasdaq Global Market and Nasdaq Capital Market companies to maintain a minimum Market Value of Listed Securities of at least $5 million (see HERE); (ii) an amendment to grant Nasdaq discretionary authority to deny listings based on activity by outside third parties associated with a company including advisors (see HERE); (iii) amendments to increase minimum listing standards for China based companies

SEC Cross Border Task Force To Combat Fraud

On September 5, 2025, the SEC announced a Cross-Border Task Force targeting fraud risks in foreign-based companies accessing U.S. markets, with China explicitly named as a high-risk jurisdiction. The SEC’s Task Force represents another regulatory development targeting concerns about pervasive fraud involving China based issuers.

Background

Over the years U.S. capital markets regulators, including the SEC and Nasdaq, have been vocal about the risks in investing in China based companies due to poor disclosures and disclosure controls.  In December 2020 the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (“HFCA”) was adopted requiring foreign-owned issuers to certify that the PCAOB has been able to audit specified reports and inspect their audit firm within the last three years.  If the PCAOB is unable to inspect the company’s public accounting firm for three consecutive years, the company’s securities are banned from trading on a national exchange.  For my three part blog on the HFCA see HERE; HERE; and HERE.

Despite the 

Court Strikes Down Recent Changes To Definition Of A Dealer

In a big win for hedge funds and the crypto industry, on November 21, 2024, a Texas federal judge overturned the recent SEC rule that expanded the definition of “dealer” under the Exchange Act.  For a review of the final rule see HERE.

The amendments were intended to require certain proprietary or principal traders and liquidity providers to register as either a dealer or government securities dealer as applicable.  The rules amended Exchange Act Rules 5a5-4 and 3a44-2 to enhance the definition of “as part of a regular business” in Sections 3(a)(5) and 3(a)(44) of the Exchange Act.

In a legal challenge, the Crypto Freedom Alliance of Texas and Blockchain Association sued the SEC claiming that the rule amendments radically expanded the definition of a “dealer” in a way that could encompass digital asset industry participants (and hedge funds) that do not engage in any conduct resembling “dealing” as that term has ever been

SEC Publishes More New C&DI On Cybersecurity Rules

On June 24, 2024 the SEC published five (5) new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DI) on cybersecurity incident disclosures supplementing the C&DI published in December 2023 (see HERE).

Cybersecurity

In July, 2023 the SEC adopted final new rules requiring disclosures for both domestic and foreign companies related to cybersecurity incidents, risk management, strategy and governance (see HERE for a review of the new rules).

The cybersecurity rules add new Item 1.05 to Form 8-K requiring disclosure of a material cybersecurity incident including the incident’s nature, scope, timing, and material impact or reasonably likely impact on the company.  An Item 1.05 Form 8-K is due within four business days following determination that a cybersecurity incident is material. Given the sensitive nature of cybersecurity crimes, the SEC has added a provision allowing an 8-K to be delayed if it is informed by the United States Attorney General, in writing, that immediate disclosure would pose a substantial risk to national security or

SEC Adopts Changes To The Definition Of A “Dealer”

Two years after proposing rule changes (see HERE) the SEC has adopted final new rules amending the definition of a “dealer” under the Exchange Act.  Although the rule change comes after years of a continuous stream of litigation against small-cap and penny stock convertible debt lenders, the new rules specifically fail to provide regulatory clarity to this sector of the marketplace.

The amendments are intended to require certain proprietary or principal traders and liquidity providers to register as either a dealer or government securities dealer as applicable.  The rules amend Exchange Act Rules 5a5-4 and 3a44-2 to enhance the definition of “as part of a regular business” in Sections 3(a)(5) and 3(a)(44) of the Exchange Act.  The enhancement, however, is as to large proprietary traders and government securities dealers, leaving small cap traders to continue with rule making through judicial precedence.

Background

Although the amended rules are not limited to participants in the U.S. Treasury markets,

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACs, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 9

On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions.  The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs.  The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general.  The compliance date for the new rules is July 1, 2025.

In the first blog in this series, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  The second blog began a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release starting with partial coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions – see HERE.  The third blog in the series continued the summary of Subpart 1600 and in particular the new dilution disclosure requirements – see HERE.  Part 4 continued a review of

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 6

On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions.  The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs.  The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general.  The compliance date for the new rules is July 1, 2025.

In the first blog in this series, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  The second blog began a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release starting with partial coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions – see HERE.  The third blog in the series continued the summary of Subpart 1600 and in particular the new dilution disclosure requirements – see HERE.  Part 4 continued a review

SEC Adopts Final New Rules On Cybersecurity Disclosures

On July 26, 2023, the SEC adopted final new rules requiring disclosures for both domestic and foreign companies related to cybersecurity incidents, risk management, strategy and governance.  The proposed rules were published in March 2022 (see HERE).  In response to numerous comments, the final rules made several changes to the proposal, including narrowing the disclosures in both the Form 8-K/6-K and annual reports on Form 10-K and 20-F.

The final rules add new Item 1.05 to Form 8-K requiring disclosure of a material cybersecurity incident including the incident’s nature, scope, timing, and material impact or reasonably likely impact on the company.  An Item 1.05 Form 8-K will be due within four business days following determination that a cybersecurity incident is material. Given the sensitive nature of cybersecurity crimes, the SEC has added a provision allowing an 8-K to be delayed if it is informed by the United States Attorney General, in writing, that immediate disclosure would pose a substantial

Who Is An Affiliate And Why Does It Matter – Primary VS Secondary Offering

The concept of affiliation resonates throughout the federal securities laws, including pertaining to both the Securities Act and Exchange Act rules, regulations and forms and Nasdaq and NYSE compliance.  In this multipart series of blogs, I will unpack what the term “affiliate” means and its implications.  This first blog in the series began with an analysis of the Securities Act definition of “affiliate” and the implications under Rule 144, Section 4(a)(7) and Form S-3 eligibility (see HERE).  In this Part 2 of the series, I am delving into the meaty topic of a primary vs. secondary offering, which itself hinges on whether the offeror is an affiliate.

Secondary/Resale Offerings vs. Primary Offerings

A secondary offering is an offering made by or on behalf of bona fide selling shareholders and not by or on behalf of the registrant company.  A secondary offering can only occur after a company is public.  That is, even if a company goes public

SEC Spring 2023 Regulatory Agenda

On June 13, 2023, the SEC published its semiannual Spring 2023 regulatory agenda (“Agenda”) and plans for rulemaking.  The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication.  Although items on the Agenda can move from one category to the next, be dropped off altogether, or new items pop up in any of the categories (including the final rule stage), the Agenda provides valuable insight into the SEC’s plans and the influence that comments can make on the rulemaking process.

The Agenda is broken down by (i) “Pre-rule 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 is 55, which is in-line with the average items under Gary Gensler’s regime (and much higher than

Human Capital Disclosures

In August 2020, the SEC adopted final amendments to Item 101 of Regulation S-K including adding a requirement for disclosures related to “human capital” (see HERE).  The new rule applies to Form 10-Ks and registration statements filed after November 8, 2020.  This blog will not only discuss how companies are navigating their human capital disclosures, but also the push to add more prescriptive disclosure requirements to the rules, which the SEC is considering.  Amendments to the rule are currently included on the SEC’s regulatory agenda although as of now, the SEC has not published a proposal.

Drill Down on Human Capital Disclosure

Item 101(c)(2) of Regulation S-K now requires that a company discuss, in its Form 10-K and in registration statements, the following information to the extent material to an understanding of the business: “[A] description of the registrant’s human capital resources, including the number of persons employed by the registrant, and any human capital measures or objectives that

The SEC Drafts Strategic Plan For Fiscal Years 2022-2026

On August 24, 2022, the SEC released its draft strategic plan for the fiscal years 2022 to 2026 and sought public comment on same.  The three primary goals set forth in the plan include: (i) protecting working families against fraud, manipulation, and misconduct; (ii) developing and implementing a robust regulatory framework that keeps pace with evolving markets, business models, and technologies; and (iii) supporting a skilled workforce that is diverse, equitable, inclusive, and is fully equipped to advance agency objectives.

To achieve these goals, the SEC intends to use of market and industry data to prevent, detect, and prosecute improper behavior.  The SEC also seeks to modernize design, delivery, and content of disclosures to investors so they can access consistent, comparable, and material information while making investment decisions.

These statements are very broad, but even at face value, the different focus of the SEC as compared to the last plan published in 2018 is clear.  In 2018 the three primary

The SEC’S Spring 2022 Flex Regulatory Agenda

On June 22, 2022, the SEC published its semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking.  The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions contains the Regulatory Plans of 28 federal agencies and 68 federal agency regulatory agendas.  As expected, the Spring 2022 Agenda (“Agenda”) met with criticism from Commissioner Hester M. Peirce.  Commissioner Peirce rips the newest Agenda as being disconnected with the SEC’s core mission and as being focused on special interest groups instead of a broad range of market participants.  I’ll include her comments throughout this blog.  The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication.

The Agenda is broken down by (i) “Pre-rule 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

SEC Proposes New Rules For SPACs – Part 6

On March 30, 2022, the SEC proposed rules related to SPAC and de-SPAC transactions including significantly enhanced disclosure obligations including related to financial projections, making a target company a co-registrant when a SPAC files an S-4 or F-4 registration statement associated with a business combination, and aligning de-SPAC transactions with initial public offering rules.  In addition, the SEC has also proposed rules that would deem any business combination transaction involving a reporting shell company, including but not limited to a SPAC, to involve a sale of securities to the reporting shell company’s shareholders.  The new rules would amend a number of financial statement requirements applicable to transactions involving shell companies.

In addition, the SEC has proposed a new safe harbor under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (‘40 Act’) that would provide that a SPAC that satisfies the conditions of the proposed rule would not be an investment company and therefore would not be subject to regulation under the

SEC Proposes New Rules for SPACs- Part 4

On March 30, 2022, the SEC proposed rules enhancing disclosure requirements associated with SPAC initial public offerings (IPOs) and de-SPAC merger transactions; requiring that a private operating company be a co-registrant when a SPAC files an S-4 or F-4 registration statement associated with a business combination; requiring a re-determination of smaller reporting company status within four days following the consummation of a de-SPAC transaction; amending the definition of a “blank check company” to make the liability safe harbor in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for forward-looking statement such as projections, unavailable in filings by SPACs and other blank check companies; and deeming underwriters in a SPAC IPO to be underwriters in a de-SPAC transaction when certain conditions are met.

The proposed rules would require specialized disclosure with respect to compensation paid to sponsors, conflicts of interest, dilution and the fairness of business combination transactions.  Further disclosures will also be required in connection with the use of projections. 

SEC Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda

In mid-December, the SEC published its semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking.  The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions contains the Regulatory Plans of 28 federal agencies and 68 federal agency regulatory agendas. The Fall 2021 Agenda (“Agenda”) met with criticism from Commissioner Hester M. Peirce and now former Commissioner Elad L. Roisman as failing to provide any items intended to facilitate capital formation – one of the main tenets of the SEC.  The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication.

The Agenda is broken down by (i) “Pre-rule 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 jumped up to 52 items since Spring, which had only 45

SPAC Shareholder Litigation – First Fire

On January 3, 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit against a SPAC’s sponsor, its directors, and financial advisor claiming among items, breach of fiduciary duty.  The facts supporting the claim mirror common factual scenarios in SPAC and de-SPAC (acquisition transaction) transactions where the post SPAC public company has a decline in stock value.  As such, the case is being closely watched by SPAC sponsors and boards of directors.

Background on SPACs

special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) is a blank check company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, or other business combination transaction with an unidentified target. Generally, SPACs are formed by sponsors who believe that their experience and reputation will facilitate a successful business combination and public company. SPACs are often sponsored by investment banks together with a leader in a particular industry (manufacturing, healthcare, consumer goods, etc.) with the specific intended purpose of effecting

Update On Nasdaq And NYSE Direct Listings

The rules related to direct listings continue to evolve as this method of going public continues to gain in popularity.  The last time I wrote about direct listings was in September 2020, shortly after the SEC approved, then stayed its approval, of the NYSE’s direct listing rules that allow companies to sell newly issued primary shares on its own behalf into the opening trade in a direct listing process (see HERE). Since that time, both the NYSE and Nasdaq proposed rules to allow for a direct listing with a capital raise have been approved by the SEC.

The Nasdaq Stock Market  has three tiers of listed companies: (1) The Nasdaq Global Select Market, (2) The Nasdaq Global Market, and (3) The Nasdaq Capital Market.  Each tier has increasingly higher listing standards, with the Nasdaq Global Select Market having the highest initial listing standards and the Nasdaq Capital Markets being the entry-level tier for most micro- and small-cap issuers. 

SEC Chair Gary Gensler Testifies To Congress

On September 14, 2021, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler gave testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs highlighting the priorities of the SEC under his rule.  After giving the obligatory opening statements on the size and impact of the U.S. capital markets, Gensler broke down the SEC agenda into four topics including market structure, predictive data analytics, issuers and issuer disclosure and funds and investment management.

Market Structure

Chair Gensler began his speech market structure by talking about the U.S. Treasury Market, which I found interesting mainly because I do not recall any speech or testimony by recent SEC chairpersons that focused on the topic (albeit I haven’t read them all, but I’ve read a lot!).  During Covid, the Treasury Market suffered from liquidity issues prompting the SEC to consider rule and process changes, including those related to clearing, that could make the Treasury Markets more resilient and competitive.  The SEC is also considering Treasury trading

China Based Companies Continue To Face US Capital Market Scrutiny

On March 24, 2021, the SEC adopted interim final amendments to implement the congressionally mandated submission and disclosure requirements of the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (HFCA Act).  Following adoption of the HFCA, on July 30, 2021, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler issued a statement warning of risks associated with investing in companies based in China.  Although the statement has a different angle, it joins the core continued concerns of the SEC top brass and Nasdaq expressed over the years.

In June 2020 Nasdaq published proposed rules which would make it more difficult for a company to list or continue to list based on the quality of its audit, which could have a direct effect on companies based in China (see HERE).  In September 2020, the SEC instituted proceedings as to whether to approve or deny the proposed rule change.  As of the date of this blog, the proposal has not been ruled upon by the SEC.

However, the

SEC Spring 2021 Regulatory Agenda

The first version of the SEC’s semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking under the current administration has been published in the federal register.  The Spring 2021 Agenda (“Agenda”) is current through April 2021 and contains many notable pivots from the previous SEC regime’s focus.  The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions contains the Regulatory Plans of 28 federal agencies and 68 federal agency regulatory agendas. The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication.

The Agenda is broken down by (i) “Pre-rule 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 jumped up to 45 items since Fall, which had only 32 items.  Some of the new items are a revisit

OTC Markets; Rule 144; The SPCC

Small public companies are in trouble and they need help now!  Once in a while there is a perfect storm forming that can only result in widespread damage and that time is now for small public companies, especially those that trade on the OTC Markets.  The trains on track to collide include a combination of (i) the impending amended Rule 15c2-11 compliance deadline (which alone would be and is a clear positive); (ii) the proposed Rule 144 rule changes to eliminate tacking upon the conversion of market adjustable securities; (iii) the SEC onslaught of litigation against micro-cap convertible note investors claiming unlicensed dealer activity; (iv) the OTC Markets new across the board unwillingness to allow companies to move from the Pink to the QB if they have outstanding convertible debt; and (v) the SEC’s unwillingness to recognize the OTC Pink as a trading market and its implications on re-sale registration statements.

Any one of these factors alone would not

New CDI On Mining Company Disclosures

In the 4th quarter of 2018, the SEC finalized amendments to the disclosure requirements for mining companies under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).  See HERE.   In addition to providing better information to investors about a company’s mining properties, the amendments were intended to more closely align the SEC rules with industry and global regulatory practices and standards as set out in by the Committee for Reserves International Reporting Standards (CRIRSCO).  The amendments rescinded Industry Guide 7 and consolidated the disclosure requirements for registrants with material mining operations in a new subpart of Regulation S-K.

The final amendments require companies with mining operations to disclose information concerning their mineral resources and mineral reserves.  Disclosures on mineral resource estimates were previously only allowed in limited circumstances.  The rule amendments provided for a two-year transition period with compliance beginning in the first fiscal year on or after January 1, 2021.

NYSE Continues To Struggle With Direct Listing Rule Changes

Late last year, around the same time that the SEC approved Nasdaq rule changes related to direct listings on the Nasdaq Global Market and Nasdaq Capital Market (see HERE), the SEC rejected proposed amendments by the NYSE big board which would allow a company to issue new shares and directly raise capital in conjunction with a direct listing process.  Nasdaq had previously updated its direct listing rules for listing on the Market Global Select Market (see HERE).

The NYSE did not give up and in August of this year, after two more proposed amendments, the SEC finally approved new NYSE direct listing rules that allow companies to sell newly issued primary shares on its own behalf into the opening trade in a direct listing process.  However, after receiving a notice of intent to petition to prevent the rule change, the SEC has stayed the approval until further notice.  Still pushing forward, on September 4, the NYSE filed

Nasdaq Proposed Rule Changes To Its Discretionary Listing And Continued Listing Standards

On April 21, 2020, the SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and a group of senior SEC and PCAOB officials issued a joint statement warning about the risks of investing in emerging markets, especially China, including companies from those markets that are accessing the U.S. capital markets (see HERE).  Previously, in December 2018, Chair Clayton, SEC Chief Accountant Wes Bricker and PCAOB Chairman William D. Duhnke III issued a similar cautionary statement, also focusing on China (see HERE).

Following the public statements, in June 2020, Nasdaq issued new proposed rules which would make it more difficult for a company to list or continue to list based on the quality of its audit, which could have a direct effect on companies based in China.

Nasdaq Proposed Rule Changes

On June 2, 2020, the Nasdaq Stock Market filed a proposed rule change to amend IM-5101-1, the rule which allows Nasdaq to use its discretionary authority to deny listing or continued listing

NASDAQ Provides Additional Relief To Shareholder Approval Requirements For Companies Affected By Covid-19

Nasdaq has provided additional relief to listed companies through temporary rule 5636T easing shareholder approval requirements for the issuance of shares in a capital raise.  The rule was effective May 4, 2020 and will continue through and including June 30, 2020.  The purpose of the rule change is to give listed companies affected by Covid-19 quicker access to much-needed capital.

Temporary Rule 5636T is limited to the transactions and shareholder approval requirements specifically stated in the rule.  If shareholder approval is required based on another rule, such as a change of control, or another Nasdaq rule is implicated, those other rules will need to be complied with prior to an issuance of securities.

The Nasdaq shareholder approval rules generally require companies to obtain approval from shareholders prior to issuing securities in connection with: (i) certain acquisitions of the stock or assets of another company (see HERE); (ii) equity-based compensation of officers, directors, employees or consultants (see HERE); (iii)

SEC Publishes FAQ On COVID-19 Effect On S-3 Registration Statements

The SEC has issued FAQ on Covid-19 issues, including the impact on S-3 shelf registration statements.  The SEC issued 4 questions and answers consisting of one question related to disclosure and three questions related to S-3 shelf registrations.

SEC FAQ

Disclosure

Confirming prior guidance, the SEC FAQ sets forth the required disclosures in the Form 8-K or 6-K filed by a company to take advantage of a Covid-19 extension for the filing of periodic reports.  In particular, in the Form 8-K or Form 6-K, the company must disclose (i) that it is relying on the COVID-19 Order (for more information on the Order, see HERE); (ii) a brief description of the reasons why the company could not file the subject report, schedule or form on a timely basis; (iii) the estimated date by which the report, schedule or form is expected to be filed; and (iv) a company-specific risk factor or factors explaining the impact, if material, of

SEC Small Business Advocate Releases First Annual Report

The SEC’s Office of Small Business Advocate launched in January 2019 after being created by Congress pursuant to the Small Business Advocate Act of 2016 (see HERE).  One of the core tenants of the Office is recognizing that small businesses are job creators, generators of economic opportunity and fundamental to the growth of the country, a drum I often beat.  The Office recently issued its first annual report (“Annual Report”).

The Office has the following functions: (i) assist small businesses (privately held or public with a market cap of less than $250 million) and their investors in resolving problems with the SEC or self-regulatory organizations; (ii) identify and propose regulatory changes that would benefit small businesses and their investors; (iii) identify problems small businesses have in securing capital; (iv) analyzing the potential impact of regulatory changes on small businesses and their investors; (v) conducting outreach programs; (vi) identify unique challenges for minority-owned businesses; and (vii) consult with the Investor

Nasdaq Extends Direct Listings

The Nasdaq Stock Market currently has three tiers of listed companies: (1) The Nasdaq Global Select Market, (2) The Nasdaq Global Market, and (3) The Nasdaq Capital Market. Each tier has increasingly higher listing standards, with the Nasdaq Global Select Market having the highest initial listing standards and the Nasdaq Capital Markets being the entry-level tier for most micro- and small-cap issuers.  For a review of the Nasdaq Capital Market listing requirements, see HERE as supplemented and amended HERE.

On December 3, 2019, the SEC approved amendments to the Nasdaq rules related to direct listings on the Nasdaq Global Market and Nasdaq Capital Market. As previously reported, on February 15, 2019, Nasdaq amended its direct listing process rules for listing on the Market Global Select Market (see HERE).

Interestingly, around the same time as the approval of the Nasdaq rule changes, the SEC rejected amendments proposed by the NYSE big board which would have allowed

SEC Solicits Input To Improve Markets For Thinly Traded Securities

On October 17, 2019, the SEC made a statement inviting stock exchanges and market participants to submit “innovative proposals designed to improve the secondary market structure for exchange listed equity securities that trade in lower volumes, commonly referred to as ‘thinly traded securities.’” On the same day the SEC issued a staff background paper on the subject.  The SEC is not asking for input on how a company can better promote its stock and gain investor awareness, but rather how the capital market system, including trading rules and regulations, can be amended or improved to benefit thinly traded securities.

The staff background paper cites many statistics on the number of thinly traded securities, which they define as trading less than 100,000 shares daily.  It also refers to the U.S. Department of the Treasury report entitled “A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities; Capital Markets” – see HERE for a summary of the report.  As a result of

A Drill Down On Rule 506 Of Regulation D

On June 18, 2019, the SEC issued a 211-page concept release and request for public comment on ways to simplify, harmonize, and improve the exempt (private) offering framework.  The concept release seeks input on whether changes should be made to improve the consistency, accessibility, and effectiveness of the SEC’s exemptions for both companies and investors, including identifying potential overlap or gaps within the framework.  See HERE for my blog on the release.  As the topic of private exemptions becomes front and center, it is a good time to blog about the most commonly used of those exemptions, Rule 506.

Ever since the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (“NSMIA”) amended Section 18 of the Securities Act to pre-empt state blue sky review of specified securities and offerings including offerings made in reliance on Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act), the vast majority of private capital raises are completed relying on Rule

Forward Looking Statements Disclaimers

Forward-looking statements disclaimers appear in almost all things SEC and public company related from registration statements to reports filed in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act to press releases.  Like many disclaimers, they are usually looked past by readers, including at times by the attorneys reviewing or preparing the documents.  On many occasions we will have a new client come to the firm that has been using the same forward-looking statements disclaimer for years that has perpetually been cut and pasted into every document, and which would fail to provide the intended protections if ever tested.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

Many companies start a forward-looking statements disclaimer paragraph with the sentence “[I]nformation contained herein contains ‘forward looking statements’ within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 21E of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.”  Sections 27A and 21E, both created by the Private Securities Litigation

Structuring The Private Placement Or Venture Deal – Part 1

Back in 2013 I wrote a series of blogs about preparing for and then structuring a private placement or venture deal.  In today’s world where public markets are more difficult to access for smaller companies, it is a topic worth revisiting.  There are three primary aspects to the private placement or venture capital arena.  The first is getting dressed for the ball – i.e., preparing a company to be viewed and assessed by investors including the due diligence process; the second is determining valuation or deciding to avoid a determination through convertible instruments; and the third is structuring and documenting the deal itself.

In this two-part blog series I will discuss each of these aspects.  This first part addresses pre-deal considerations including valuation considerations.  Part two will address structuring and documenting the deal.

Although structuring a private placement and negotiating with a venture capital group are very different, the underlying mechanics of investments are universal.  In a venture capital

Nasdaq Direct Listing Rule Change

On April 3, 2018, Spotify made a big board splash by debuting on the NYSE without an IPO. Instead, Spotify filed a resale registration statement registering the securities already held by its existing shareholders. The process is referred to as a direct listing.  As most of those shareholders had invested in Spotify in private offerings, they were rewarded with a true exit strategy and liquidity by becoming the company’s initial public float.  On April 26, 2019, Slack Technologies followed suit, filing a resale Form S-1 with an anticipated direct listing on to the NYSE.

Around this time last year, I published a blog on the direct listing process focusing on the differences between a direct listing onto a national exchange and one onto OTC Markets – see HERE. As the process seems to be gaining in popularity, on February 15, 2019 Nasdaq amended its direct listing process rules. This blog is focused on the Nasdaq direct

The 20% Rule – Private Placements

Nasdaq and the NYSE American both have rules requiring listed companies to receive shareholder approval prior to issuing twenty percent (20%) or more of the outstanding securities in a transaction other than a public offering at a price less than the Minimum Price, as defined in the rule. Nasdaq Rule 5635 sets forth the circumstances under which shareholder approval is required prior to an issuance of securities in connection with: (i) the acquisition of the stock or assets of another company (see HERE); (ii) equity-based compensation of officers, directors, employees or consultants (see HERE); (iii) a change of control (see HERE); and (iv) transactions other than public offerings. NYSE American Company Guide Sections 711, 712 a 713 have substantially similar provisions.

Nasdaq and the NYSE recently amended their rules related to issuances in a private placement to provide greater flexibility and certainty for companies to determine when a shareholder vote is necessary to approve a transaction that

Mergers And Acquisitions; Board Of Directors Responsibilities – Delaware

Recently the Delaware Chancery Court rejected an interested executive’s defense of a breach of fiduciary duty claim, reminding us of the importance of making full and accurate disclosures when seeking shareholder approval for a merger or acquisition transaction. In particular, in the case of In re Xura, Inc. Stockholder Litigation the Delaware Chancery Court denied a motion to dismiss brought against a merger target company’s CEO, alleging that he had orchestrated the company’s sale to a particular bidder based on his self-interest in the outcome of the transaction.

The CEO argued that his actions should have been judged by the deferential business judgement rule and not a higher entire fairness standard because the transaction was approved by a majority of the disinterested shareholders. The CEO relied on the 2015 Delaware Supreme Court case of Corwin v. KKR Financing Holdings which held that a transaction that would be subject to enhanced scrutiny would instead be reviewed under the deferential business judgment

NASDAQ And NYSE American Shareholder Approval Requirements– Change Of Control

Nasdaq and the NYSE American both have rules requiring listed companies to receive shareholder approval prior to issuing securities in an amount of 20% or more of their outstanding common stock or voting power or prior to completing transactions which will result in a change of control of the company.  Nasdaq Rule 5635 sets forth the circumstances under which shareholder approval is required prior to an issuance of securities in connection with: (i) the acquisition of the stock or assets of another company; (ii) equity-based compensation of officers, directors, employees or consultants; (iii) a change of control; and (iv) transactions other than public offerings (see HERE related to Rule 5635(d)).  NYSE American Company Guide Sections 711, 712 and 713 have substantially similar provisions.

In a series of blogs I will detail these rules and related interpretative guidance.  In the first blog in this series I detailed the 20% Rule related to acquisitions, and its cohort, the Acquisition Rule.  In this

The 20% Rule- Acquisitions

Nasdaq and the NYSE American both have “20% Rules” requiring listed companies to receive shareholder approval prior to issuing unregistered securities in an amount of 20% or more of their outstanding common stock or voting power. Nasdaq Rule 5635 sets forth the circumstances under which shareholder approval is required prior to an issuance of securities in connection with: (i) the acquisition of the stock or assets of another company; (ii) equity-based compensation of officers, directors, employees or consultants; (iii) a change of control; and (iv) transactions other than public offerings (see HERE related to Rule 5635(d)). NYSE American Company Guide Sections 711, 712 and 713 have substantially similar provisions.

In a series of blogs I will detail these rules and related interpretative guidance. Many other Exchange Rules interplay with the 20% Rules; for example, the Exchanges generally require a Listing of Additional Securities (LAS) form submittal at least 15 days prior to the issuance of securities in the same transactions

The Under $300 Million Market Cap Class

Depending on whom you ask, a public company with less than $300 million market cap could be considered a micro-cap company, a penny stock (unless their share price is over $5.00), a lower middle market company or even middle market.  Divestopedia defines “lower middle market” as “the lower end of the middle market segment of the economy, as measured in terms of annual revenue of the firms. Firms with an annual revenue in the range of $5 million to $50 million are grouped under the lower middle market category.”  Wikipedia defines “middle market” as “companies larger than small businesses but smaller than big businesses that account for the middle third of the U.S. economy’s revenue. Each of these companies earns an annual revenue of between $100 million and $3 billion.” In a speech to the Greater Cleveland Middle Market Forum, SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson, Jr. defined a middle market company as those with trailing twelve-month sales of $50 million

Updated Disclosures for Mining Companies

In the 4th quarter of 2018, the SEC finalized amendments to the disclosure requirements for mining companies under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The proposed rule amendments were originally published in June 2016.  In addition to providing better information to investors about a company’s mining properties, the amendments are intended to more closely align the SEC rules with current industry and global regulatory practices and standards as set out in by the Committee for Reserves International Reporting Standards (CRIRSCO). In addition, the amendments rescind Industry Guide 7 and consolidate the disclosure requirements for registrants with material mining operations in a new subpart of Regulation S-K.

The final amendments require companies with mining operations to disclose information concerning their mineral resources and mineral reserves.  Disclosures on mineral resource estimates were previously only allowed in limited circumstances. The rule amendments provide for a two-year transition period with compliance beginning in

Securities Token Or Not? A Case Study – Part II

This is the second part in my three-part series laying out fact patterns and discussing whether a specific digital asset is a security, a utility, currency, commodity or some other digital asset. Although the first and easy answer is that if a digital asset is being issued today, it is most assuredly a security upon issuance that needs to comply with the federal securities laws, the answer is not always that straightforward for digital assets that have been in the marketplace for a period of time, such as Bitcoin and Ether, or for new digital assets that are carefully being constructed to fall outside the purview of a securitized token.

In the first part of this series, we examined the Oldie Token and, under the fact pattern presented, was able to determine that the Oldie Token was not a security. Part 1 can be read HERE. In this part we will examine the Functional Token, which has not

SEC Continues to Review, And Delay, Crypto Funds

On January 18, 2018, the SEC issued a letter to the Investment Company Institute and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) explaining why the SEC could not approve a cryptocurrency-related exchange traded fund (ETF) or mutual fund. The letter, authored by SEC Division of Investment Management director Dalia Blass, explains the SEC’s reservations and concerns about approving a crypto-related mutual fund or ETF. The letter advised against seeking registration of funds that invest heavily in cryptocurrency-related products until the raised questions and concerns can be properly addressed.

The SEC letter comes a year after the SEC rejected a proposal by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, famously linked to the founding of Facebook, to create a bitcoin-tracking ETF. Since that time the SEC has privately rejected several similar requests. Many in the industry appreciate the SEC letter as it offers specific guidance and concrete issues to be addressed as the march towards the eventual approval of a crypto-related fund

Going Public Without An IPO

On April 3, 2018, Spotify made a big board splash by debuting on the NYSE without an IPO. Instead, Spotify filed a resale registration statement registering the securities already held by its existing shareholders. The process is referred to as a direct listing. As most of those shareholders had invested in Spotify in private offerings, they were rewarded with a true exit strategy and liquidity by becoming the company’s initial public float.

In order to complete the direct listing process, NYSE had to implement a rule change. NASDAQ already allows for direct listings, although it has historically been rarely used. To the contrary, a direct listing has often been used as a going public method on the OTC Markets and in the wake of Spotify, may gain in popularity on national exchanges as well.

As I will discuss below, there are some fundamental differences between the process for OTC Markets and for an exchange. In particular, when completing a direct

Regulation A+ Continues To Grow

The new Regulation A/A+, which went into effect on June 19, 2015, is now three years old and continues to develop and gain market acceptance. In addition to ongoing guidance from the SEC, the experience of practitioners and the marketplace continue to develop in the area. Nine companies are now listed on national exchanges, having completed Regulation A+ IPO’s, and several more trade on OTC Markets. The NYSE even includes a page on its website related to Regulation A+ IPO’s.  As further discussed herein, most of the exchange traded companies have gone down in value from their IPO offering price, which I and other practitioners attribute to the lack of firm commitment offerings and the accompanying overallotment (greenshoe) option.

On March 15, 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+ Improvement Act, increasing the Regulation A+ Tier 2 limit from $50 million to $75 million in a 12-month period.  In September 2017 the House

OTC Markets Issues Comment Letters On FINRA Rules 6432 And 5250; The 15c2-11 Rules

January 8, 2018, OTC Markets Group, Inc. (“OTC Markets”) submitted a comment letter to FINRA related to FINRA Rule 6432.  Rule 6432 requires that a market maker or broker-dealer have the information specified in Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11 before making a quotation in a security on the over-the-counter market. Although I summarize the salient points of the OTC Markets comment letter, I encourage those interested to read the entire letter, which contains an in-depth analysis and comprehensive arguments to support its position. On February 8, 2018, OTC Markets submitted a second comment letter to FINRA, this one related to FINRA Rule 5250.  Rule 5250 prohibits companies from compensating market makers in connection with the preparation and filing of a Form 211 application.

Rule 6432 – Compliance with the Information Requirements of SEA Rule 15c2-11

Subject to certain exceptions, including the “piggyback exception” discussed below, Rule 6432 requires that all broker-dealers have and maintain certain information on a

The Treasury Department Report To The President On Capital Markets

In October 2017, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued a report to President Trump entitled “A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities; Capital Markets” (the “Treasury Report”). The Treasury Report was issued in response to an executive order dated February 3, 2017. The executive order identified Core Principles and requested the Treasury Department to identify laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and record-keeping requirements, and other government policies that promote or inhibit federal regulation of the U.S. financial system in a manner consistent with the Core Principles. In response to its directive, the Treasury Department is issuing four reports; this one on capital markets discusses and makes specific recommendations related to the federal securities laws.

The Core Principles are:

  1. Empower Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace, save for retirement, and build individual wealth;
  2. Prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts;
  3. Foster economic growth and vibrant financial markets through more rigorous regulatory impact analysis that addresses systemic risk
Read More »

SEC Publishes Report on Access to Capital and Market Liquidity

On August 8, 2017 the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) published a 315-page report describing trends in primary securities issuance and secondary market liquidity and assessing how those trends relate to impacts of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the Volcker Rule. The report examines the issuances of debt, equity and asset-backed securities and reviews liquidity in U.S. treasuries, corporate bonds, credit default swaps and bond funds. Included in the reports is a study of trends in unregistered offerings, including Regulation C and Regulation Crowdfunding.

This blog summarizes portions of the report that I think will be of interest to the small-cap marketplace.

Disclaimers and Considerations

The report begins with a level of disclaimers and the obvious issue of isolating the impact of particular rules, especially when multiple rules are being implemented in the same time period. Even without the DERA notes that noted trends and behaviors could have occurred absent rule changes or reforms. The financial crisis

Updates On Regulation A+

On September 14, 2017, the SEC issued three new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) to provide guidance related to the filing of a Form 8-A in conjunction with a Tier 2 Regulation A offering. The new guidance addresses the timing of financial statements and subsequent reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).

Furthermore, earlier in September, the House passed the Improving Access to Capital Act, which would allow companies subject to the reporting requirements under the Exchange Act to use Regulation A, a change the entire marketplace is advocating for.

As I do with each blog on Regulation A, I have included an ongoing commentary, practice tips, and thoughts on Regulation A+, and a summary of the Regulation A+ rules, including interpretations and guidance up to the date of this blog.

New CD&I Guidance

As a reminder, Tier 2 issuers that have used the S-1 format for their Form 1-A filing are permitted

FINRA Issues New Guidance On Communications With The Public, Including Social Media

In April 2017 FINRA issued Regulatory Notice 17-18 providing additional guidance on the use of social media and digital communications by member firms and persons associated with member firms. The guidance specifically relates to FINRA Rule 2210 – Communications with the Public, and supplements previously issued guidance in Regulatory Notices 10-06 and 11-39, published in 2011. The new guidance is in the form of FAQ’s and concentrates on the areas of recordkeeping, third-party posts and hyperlinks to third-party sites.

I have previously written about the SEC’s guidance on social media use by companies, including as a method for communications with investors and the public. The most recent blog is HERE and includes hyperlinks to prior blogs, including a three-part summary of the SEC Guidance on Social Media and Websites for Company Announcements and Communications.

Brief Overview of Rule 2210

FINRA Rule 2210 governs communications by FINRA member firms and associated persons, including: (i) institutional communications – including any written or

An Introduction To Distributed Ledger Technology (Blockchain Technology)

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

SEC Issues Additional Guidance on Regulation A+

On March 31, 2017, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued six new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) to provide guidance related to Regulation A/A+. Since the new Regulation A+ came into effect on June 19, 2015, its use has continued to steadily increase. In my practice it is the most popular method for a public offering under $50 million.

As an ongoing commentary on Regulation A+, following a discussion on the CD&I guidance, I have included practice tips, and thoughts on Regulation A+, and a summary of the Regulation A+ rules, including interpretations and guidance up to the date of this blog.

New CD&I Guidance

In the first of the new CD&I, the SEC clarifies the timing of the filing of a Form 8-A to register a class of securities under Section 12(b) or (g) of the Exchange Act.  In particular, in order to be able to file a Form 8-A as part of the Regulation A+

SEC Announces Examination Priorities For 2017

On January 12, 2017, the SEC announced its Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) priorities for 2017. The OCIE examines and reviews a wide variety of financial institutions, including investment advisors, investment companies, broker-dealers, transfer agents, clearing agencies and national securities exchanges. The OCIE examination goals are to promote compliance, prevent fraud, identify risk and inform policy.

The priorities this year have a primary focus on (i) protecting retail investors, especially those saving for retirement; (ii) assessing market-wide risks; and (iii) new forms of technology, including automated investments advice.

The SEC shares its annual examination priorities as a heads-up and to encourage industry participants to conduct independent reviews and make efforts for increased compliance, prior to an SEC examination, investigation or potential enforcement proceeding. Moreover, the SEC chooses its priority list in conjunction with discussions with all divisions of the SEC and other market regulators and identifies what it believes are the areas that present heightened risk to investors

The SEC Has Issued New C&DI Guidance On Regulation A+

On November 17, 2016, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued three new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) to provide guidance related to Regulation A/A+. Since the new Regulation A+ came into effect on June 19, 2015, its use has continued to steadily increase.  In my practice alone I am noticing a large uptick in broker-dealer-placed Regulation A+ offerings, and recently, institutional investor interest.

Following a discussion on the CD&I guidance, I have included some interesting statistics, practice tips, and thoughts on Regulation A+, and a refresher summary of the Regulation A+ rules.

New CD&I Guidance

In the first of the new CD&I, the SEC has clarified that where a company seeks to qualify an additional class of securities via post-qualification amendment to a previously qualified Form 1-A, Item 4 of Part I, which requires “Summary Information Regarding the Offering and Other Current or Proposed Offerings,” need only include information related to the new class of securities seeking

A Comparison Of Nevada, Delaware And Florida Corporate Statutes

When forming a new entity, I am often asked the best state of domicile.  Following a July 1, 2014 increase in Delaware franchise taxes, I am also often asked the best state to re-domicile or move to following an exit from Delaware.   Delaware remains the gold standard; however, there has been a definite shift and Delaware is now not the “only standard.”

Part of the reason for the shift away from Delaware has been the increase in fees.  Delaware calculates annual fees based on one of two methods: (i) the authorized share method; and (ii) the assume par value capital (asset value) method.  For either method the annual fee is capped at $180,000.00.   Even for small- and micro-cap business issuers, the annual fee often reaches the tens of thousands.  For example, a company with 300,000,000 common shares authorized with a $.001 par value per share and 30,000,000 shares issued and outstanding and $20,000,000 in gross assets would pay $180,000.00 per

SEC Issues New C&DI On Use Of Non-GAAP Measures; Regulation G – Part 1

On May 17, 2016, the SEC published 12 new Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) related to the use of non-GAAP financial measures by public companies.  The SEC permits companies to present non-GAAP financial measures in their public disclosures subject to compliance with Regulation G and item 10(e) of Regulation S-K.  Regulation G and Item 10(e) require reconciliation to comparable GAAP numbers, the reasons for presenting the non-GAAP numbers and govern the presentation format itself including requiring equal or greater prominence to the GAAP financial information.

The new C&DI follows a period of controversy, press and speeches on the subject.  In the last couple of months SEC Chair Mary Jo White, SEC Deputy Chief Accountant Wesley Bricker, Chief Accountant James Schnurr and Corp Fin Director Keith Higgins have all given speeches at various venues across the company admonishing public companies for their increased use of non-GAAP financial measures.  Mary Jo White suggested new rule making may be on the horizon,

SEC Study On Unregistered Offerings

In October 2015, the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis issued a white paper study on unregistered securities offerings from 2009 through 2014 (the “Report”). The Report provides insight into what is working in the private placement market and has been on my radar as a blog since its release, but with so many pressing, timely topics to write about, I am only now getting to this one. The SEC Report is only through 2014; however, at the end of this blog, I have provided supplemental information from another source related to PIPE (private placements into public equity) transactions in 2015.

Private offerings are the largest segment of capital formation in the U.S. markets. In 2014 private offerings raised more than $2 trillion. The SEC study used information collected from Form D filings to provide insight into the offering characteristics, including types of issuers, investors and financial intermediaries that participate in offerings. The Report focuses on Regulation D offerings

Mergers And Acquisitions; Appraisal Rights

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

Mergers And Acquisitions: Board of Director Responsibilities

I have written about mergers and acquisitions, including reverse mergers, extensively in the past, but as both traditional mergers and acquisitions and reverse mergers are a large part of my practice, it is a topic worth revisiting and drilling down on regularly.  In fact over the past year, the M&A market has been booming with activity.  A question that often arises involves the obligations of the board of directors during the merger process. 

Board of Directors’ Fiduciary Duties in the Merger Process

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.  Generally a court will not second-guess directors’ decisions as long as the board has conducted an appropriate process in reaching its decisions. This

More On Regulation A/A+; Thoughts On The Practical Effects And New SEC Guidance

On March 25, 2015, the SEC released final rules amending Regulation A. The new rules are commonly referred to as Regulation A+.  The existing Tier I Regulation A, which does not preempt state law, has been increased to $20 million and the new Tier 2, which does preempt state law, allows a raise of up to $50 million.  Issuers may elect to proceed under either Tier I or Tier 2 for offerings up to $20 million.  The new rules went into effect on June 19, 2015.

On June 23, 2015, the SEC updated its Division of Corporation Finance Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) to provide guidance related to Regulation A/A+.  The SEC published 11 new C&DI’s and deleted 2 related to forms and in particular, related to paper filings and annotations which are no longer relevant or applicable. 

Practical Effects of New Regulation A/A+

I believe, and the feedback I hear supports, that new Regulation A+ will be widely

The Section 4(a)(1) And 4(a)(1½) Exemption; Recommendations For An Amendment To Rule 144 Related To Shell Companies

What are the Section 4(a)(1) and Section 4(a)(1½) exemptions, and how do they work?

Section 4(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) provides an exemption for a transaction “by a person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.”  Rule 144 provides a non-exclusive safe harbor for the sale of securities under Section 4(a)(1). In the event that Rule 144 is unavailable, a holder of securities may still rely upon Section 4(a)(1).  Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act provides an exemption for sales by the issuer not involving a public offering.  The issuer itself may not rely on Section 4(a)(1), and selling security holders may not rely on Section 4(a)(2).

Case law and the SEC unilaterally conclude that an affiliate (officer, director or greater than 10% shareholder) of the issuer may not rely on Section 4(a)(1) for the resale of securities.  In particular, an affiliate is presumptively deemed an underwriter unless such affiliate meets the requirements for use of

Regulation A+; An In-Depth Overview

On March 25, 2015, the SEC released final rules amending Regulation A. The new rules are commonly referred to as Regulation A+.  The existing Tier I Regulation A, which does not preempt state law, has been increased to $20 million and the new Tier 2, which does preempt state law, allows a raise of up to $50 million.  Issuers may elect to proceed under either Tier I or Tier 2 for offerings up to $20 million.  The new rules are expected to be effective on or near June 19, 2015.

On March 31, 2015, I published a blog with a high-level summary of the new rules.  In this blog, I will give a deeper review of the entire new Regulation and then in future installments will drill down on different aspects of the new rules as such become relevant to this new offering regime. 

Background on Rules

On December 18, 2013, the SEC published proposed rules to implement Title

SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Explores Venture Exchanges, Private And Secondary Securities Trading and The NASAA Coordinated Review Program- Part I

The SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) was organized by the SEC to provide advice on SEC rules, regulations and policies regarding “its mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitating capital formation” as related to “(i) capital raising by emerging privately held small businesses and publicly traded companies with less than $250 million in public market capitalization; (ii) trading in the securities of such businesses and companies; and (iii) public reporting and corporate governance requirements to which such businesses and companies are subject.”

As previously written about, on March 4, 2015, the committee met and finalized its recommendation to the SEC regarding the definition of “accredited investor.”  My blog on those recommendations can be read HERE.  In addition to finalizing the accredited investor definition recommendation, at the March 4 meeting the Advisory Committee listened to presentations regarding and discussed several important and timely small business initiatives.

I’ve had the

SEC Congressional Testimony- Part I

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

SEC Supports FINRA’s Rule 6490 Authority Over Corporate Actions

In two recent administrative decisions, the SEC has upheld FINRA’s broad authority under Rule 6490 to approve and effectuate corporate actions by public companies trading on the OTC Markets.  One of FINRA’s mandates is to protect investors and maintain fair and orderly markets and like broker-dealers, it acts as a gatekeeper in the small-cap industry.  FINRA exercises its powers though the direct regulation of its member broker-dealer firms, but also through its Office of Fraud Detection and Market Intelligence, which monitors the trading activity and press releases of issues in the marketplace and conducts related investigations.  FINRA works with the SEC as a front line in the detection, investigation and assistance with the prosecution of issuers. 

Recently, through its power under Rule 6490, as more fully explained below, FINRA has, with the support of the SEC, expanded its impact on the small-cap marketplace by conducting in-depth reviews of issuers in conjunction with the processing of corporate actions, and denying such

SEC Announces Examination Priorities For 2015; Focus On Transfer Agents, Investment Advisers and Broker Dealers

On January 13, 2015, the SEC published its Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) priorities for 2015.  The OCIE examines and reviews a wide variety of financial institutions, including investment advisers, investment companies, broker-dealers, transfer agents, clearing agencies and national securities exchanges. 

The priorities this year have a primary focus on (i) protecting retail investors, especially those saving for retirement; (ii) assessing market-wide risks; and (iii) using data analytics to identify signs of potential illegal activity.  In addition, the SEC will examine municipal advisers, proxy services, never-before-examined investment companies, fees and expenses in private equity and transfer agents. 

Transfer agents and broker-dealers will be scrutinized for potential claims of engaging in or aiding and abetting pump-and-dump or market manipulation schemes.

The SEC shares its annual examination priorities as a heads-up and to encourage industry participants to conduct independent reviews and make efforts for increased compliance, prior to an SEC examination, investigation or potential enforcement proceeding.  Moreover, the SEC chooses

PCAOB Amends Auditing Standards For Related-Party And Significant, Unusual Transactions

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

 On October 21, 2014, the SEC approved amendments to certain auditing standards that impact small cap companies that maintain GAAP compliant audits and file reports with the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).  The SEC Order approved proposed rule changes that had been submitted to by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”) regarding the auditing standards for related party transactions and the standards regarding significant unusual transactions. 

The amended rules apply to all SEC audits including those for broker-dealers and go into effect for the audits for fiscal year ends beginning on or after December 15, 2014.

Related Party Transactions

The SEC has approved new Auditing Standard No. 18 (AU No. 18) setting forth guidance and procedures for auditors to use in identifying and evaluating related party transactions.  AU No. 18 is intended to strengthen requirements for identifying, assessing and responding to the risks of material misstatement

SEC Filed Actions Against 19 Firms and One Individual Trader for Violation of Rule 105 of Regulation M

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

On September 16, 2014, the SEC filed actions against 19 firms and one individual trade for short selling violations in advance of public stock offerings in violation of Rule 105 of Regulation M.  The SEC has actively enforced Regulation M since its enactment in 1996.   Regulation M is designed to prevent stock manipulation during public offerings and Rule 105 particularly prohibits short selling of stock within five business days of participating in an offering for the same stock.  That is, you cannot short stock and cover your short by buying the same stock from the underwriter in a public offering.  Rule 105 prevents downward pressure on a company’s stock price during the offering process.

The SEC’s current investigation found that 19 firms and one individual trader charged in these latest cases engaged in short selling of particular stocks shortly before they bought shares from an underwriter, broker, or dealer participating in a follow-on

An Overview of MD&A

Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operation, commonly referred to as MD&A, is an integral part of annual (Form 10-K) and quarterly (Form 10-Q) reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  MD&A is also included in registration statements filed under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Form 10) and Securities Act of 1933 (Form S-1).  MD&A requires the most input and effort from officers and directors of a company and, due to the many components of required information, often generates SEC review and comments.  Item 303 of Regulation S-K sets forth the required content for MD&A.   This discussion will be limited to the requirements for small public companies (i.e., those with revenues of less than $75 million).

A MD&A discussion for quarterly reports on Form 10-Q is abbreviated from the requirements for annual reports on Form 10-K and registration statements and should concentrate on updating and supplementing the annual report discussion.  Although

Guide to Reverse Merger Transaction

What is a reverse merger?  What is the process?

A reverse merger is the most common alternative to an initial public offering (IPO) or direct public offering (DPO) for a company seeking to go public.  A “reverse merger” allows a privately held company to go public by acquiring a controlling interest in, and merging with, a public operating or public shell company.  The SEC defines a “shell company” as a publically traded company with (1) no or nominal operations and (2) either no or nominal assets or assets consisting solely of any amount of cash and cash equivalents.

In a reverse merger process, the private operating company shareholders exchange their shares of the private company for either new or existing shares of the public company so that

Crowdfunding Using Intrastate Offerings and Rule 147 – Is Florida Next?

As required by Title III of the JOBS Act, on October 23, 2013, the SEC published proposed crowdfunding rules.  The SEC has dubbed the new rules “Regulation Crowdfunding.” The entire 584-page text of the rule release is available on the SEC website. The proposed rules invite public comment on many points and have indeed resulted in such comments.  As of today, it is unclear when final rules will be released and passed into law and what changes those final rules will have from the proposed rules.  Moreover, upon passage of the final rules, there will be a period of ramping up time in which crowdfunding portals complete the process of registering with the SEC, becoming members of FINRA and completing the necessary steps to ensure that their portal operates in compliance with those final rules.  Federal crowdfunding it coming, but it is a slow process.

In the meantime, many states have recently either enacted or introduced state-specific crowdfunding

SEC Guidance On Social Media And Websites For Company Announcements And Communications- Part III

On April 2, 2013, in response to a Facebook post made by Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a report confirming that companies can use social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to make company announcements in compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure (Regulation FD) as long as investors are alerted as to which social media outlet is being used by the company. In the report the SEC stated that previously published guidance on the use of Company websites was applicable to the use of social media. Accordingly, in a series of blogs I am reviewing the SEC guidance on the use of company websites. This blog is Part III in the series.

Background

Regulation FD requires that companies take steps to ensure that material information is disclosed to the general public in a fair and fully accessible manner such that the public as a whole has simultaneous access to the information. Regulation ended the era

An In-Depth Review of Private Placements Under Section 4(2)

Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 provides that the registration requirements of Section 5 do not apply to “transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering.” The definition of an “issuer” is pretty straightforward as found in Section 2(a)(4) and includes, “the person who issues or proposes to issue” a security and is understood to mean the entity that originally sells the securities. However, not so straightforward is what constitutes a “public offering,” which term is not defined in the Securities Act. In reliance on Section 4(2) the SEC enacted Rule 506 as part of Regulation D.

Rule 506 as a Safe Harbor Provision

Rule 506 is a Safe Harbor. In other words, if all the conditions of Rule 506 are met, you can rest assured that the conditions of Section 4(2) have been satisfied. However, Section 4(2) can be satisfied as a standalone exemption separate from Rule 506. The importance of the distinction between Section 4(2)

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

The integration doctrine prevents issuers from circumventing the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1934 by determining whether two or more securities offerings are really one offering that does not qualify as an exempt offering, or an exempt offering is really part of a registered public offering.

Securities Act Release No. 33-4552 (November 6, 1962) sets forth a five factor test that is used as a guideline in determining whether the separate offerings of an issuer that occur within a short time of one another will be integrated. These same factors are set forth in the Note to Rule 502(a) of Regulation D, which factors address whether the offerings:

  1. are part of a single plan of financing;
  2. involve the issuance of the same class of securities (convertible securities, warrants, and other
  3. derivative instruments generally are deemed to be the same class as the underlying security unless the terms of the primary security prohibit exercises until at least the one
Read More »

Contact Author

Laura Anthony Esq

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?