1700 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, Suite 820

West Palm Beach, FL

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

Laura Anthony

Home » Archives for Laura Anthony » Page 4

SEC Modernizes Intrastate Crowdfunding; Amending Rules 147 And 504; Creating New Rule 147A

On October 26, 2016, the SEC passed new rules to modernize intrastate and regional securities offerings. The final new rules amend Rule 147 to reform the rules and allow companies to continue to offer securities under Section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”). In addition, the SEC has created a new Rule 147A to accommodate adopted state intrastate crowdfunding provisions. New Rule 147A allows intrastate offerings to access out-of-state residents and companies that are incorporated out of state, but that conduct business in the state in which the offering is being conducted. In addition, the SEC has amended Rule 504 of Regulation D to increase the aggregate offering amount from $1 million to $5 million and to add bad-actor disqualifications from reliance on the rule. Finally, the SEC has repealed the rarely used and now redundant Rule 505 of Regulation D.

Amended Rule 147 and new Rule 147A will take effect on April 20, 2017. Amended Rule

November 29, 2016

SEC Has Approved FINRA’s New Category Of Broker-Dealer For “Capital Acquisition Brokers”

On August 18, 2016, the SEC approved FINRA’s rules implementing a new category of broker-dealer called “Capital Acquisition Brokers” (“CABs”), which limit their business to corporate financing transactions. FINRA first published proposed rules on CABs in December 2015. My blog on the proposed rules can be read HERE. In March and again in June 2016, FINRA published amendments to the proposed rules. The final rules enact the December proposed rules as modified by the subsequent amendments.

A CAB will generally be a broker-dealer that engages in M&A transactions, raising funds through private placements and evaluating strategic alternatives and that collects transaction-based compensation for such activities. A CAB will not handle customer funds or securities, manage customer accounts or engage in market making or proprietary trading.

Description of Capital Acquisition Broker (“CAB”)

There are currently FINRA-registered firms which limit their activities to advising on mergers and acquisitions, advising on raising debt and equity capital in private placements or advising on

November 22, 2016

House Passes Accelerated Access To Capital Act

On September 8, 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Accelerating Access to Capital Act. The passage of this Act continues a slew of legislative activity by the House to reduce regulation and facilitate capital formation for small businesses. Unlike many of the House bills that have been passed this year, this one gained national attention, including an article in the Wall Street Journal. Although the bill does not have a Senate sponsor and is not likely to gain one, the Executive Office has indicated it would veto the bill if it made it that far.

Earlier this year I wrote about 3 such bills, including: (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. See

November 15, 2016

Changes In India’s Laws Related To Foreign Direct Investments- A U.S. Opportunity; Brief Overview For Foreign Private Issuers

In June 2016, the Indian government announced new rules allowing for foreign direct investments into Indian owned and domiciled companies. The new rules continue a trend in laws supporting India as an open world economy. A large portion of the U.S. public marketplace is actually the trading of securities of foreign owned or held businesses. Foreign businesses may register and trade directly on U.S. public markets as foreign private issuers, or they may operate as partial or wholly owned subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies that in turn quote and trade on either the OTC Markets or a U.S. exchange.

Brief Overview for Foreign Private Issuers

Definition of Foreign Private Issuer

Both the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) contain definitions of a “foreign private issuer.” Generally, if a company does not meet the definition of a foreign private issuer, it is subject to the same registration and

November 8, 2016

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

November 1, 2016

Florida Broker-Dealer Registration Exemption For M&A Brokers

Following the SEC’s lead, effective July 1, 2016, Florida has passed a statutory exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements for entities effecting securities transactions in connection with the sale of equity control in private operating businesses (“M&A Broker”). As discussed further below, the new Florida statute, together with the SEC M&A Broker exemption, may have paved the way for Florida residents to act as an M&A broker in reverse or forward merger transactions involving OTCQX-traded public companies without broker-dealer registration.

Florida has historically had stringent broker-dealer registration requirements in connection with the offer and sale of securities. Moreover, Florida does not always mirror the federal registration requirements or exemptions. For example, see my blog HERE detailing some state blue sky concerns when dealing with Florida, including the lack of an issuer exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements for public offerings.

However, in a move helpful to merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions in the state, Florida has now passed an M&A

October 25, 2016

SEC Announces Enforcement Results For Fiscal Year-End 2016

On October 11, 2016, the SEC announced its enforcement results for fiscal year-end September 30, 2016 (FYE 2016). In FYE 2016 the SEC filed a record 868 enforcement actions, including against companies and executives for reporting violations, misconduct by companies and gatekeepers, fraud actions and more resulting in judgments and orders totaling more than $4 billion in disgorgement and penalties.

The actions also included a record number of enforcement proceedings against investment advisors and investment companies, a trend I expect to continue in the coming year as the SEC continues to crack down on the failure to adequately disclose all fees associated with investments into and operations of funds, as well as related party transactions.

Consistent with prior speeches and messaging, SEC Chair Mary Jo White made the following quote in the release announcing the enforcement results: “By every measure the enforcement program continues to be a resounding success holding executives, companies and market participants accountable for their illegal actions.

October 18, 2016

NASDAQ Requires Disclosure Of Third-Party Director Compensation

On July 1, 2016, the SEC approved NASDAQ’s new rule requiring listed companies to publicly disclose compensation or other payments by third parties to members of or nominees to the board of directors. The new rule, which went into effect in early August, is being dubbed the “Golden Leash Disclosure Rule.”

The Golden Leash Disclosure Rule

New NASDAQ Rule 5250(b)(3) requires each listed company to publicly disclose the material terms of all agreements or other arrangements between any director or director nominee and any other person or entity relating to compensation or any other payment in connection with the person’s position as director or candidacy as director. The disclosure does not include regular compensation from the company itself for director services. The disclosure must be included in any proxy or information statement issued under Regulation 14C or 14A for a shareholder’s meeting at which directors will be elected. A company can also include the disclosure on its website.

There are

October 11, 2016

House Continues To Push For Reduced Securities Regulation

House Appropriations Bill

The House continues its busy activity of passing legislation designed to reduce securities and market regulations. In early July, the House passed H.R. 2995, an appropriations bill for the federal budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1st. No further action has been taken. The 259-page bill, which is described as “making appropriations for financing services and general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes” (“House Appropriation Bill”), contains numerous provisions reducing or eliminating funding for key aspects of SEC enforcement and regulatory provisions.

Earlier this year, I wrote this BLOG about three House bills that will likely never be passed into law. 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

October 4, 2016

SEC Whistleblower Awards Pass $100 Million As It Continues To Crack Down On Confidentiality Provisions In Employment Agreements

The SEC has proudly announced that including a $22 million award on August 30, 2016, its whistleblower awards have surpassed $100 million. The news comes in the wake of two recent SEC enforcement proceedings against companies based on confidentiality and waiver language in employee severance agreements. Like two prior similar actions, the SEC has taken the position that restrictive language in confidentiality, waiver or settlement agreements with employees violates the anti-whistleblower rules adopted under Dodd-Frank.

Background – The Dodd-Frank Act Whistleblower Statute

The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in July 2010, added Section 21F, “Whistleblower Incentives and Protection,” to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). As stated in the original rule release, the purpose of the rule was “to encourage whistleblowers to report possible violations of the securities laws by providing financial incentives, prohibiting employment related retaliation, and providing various confidentiality guarantees.” Upon enactment of Section 21F, the SEC established the Office of the Whistleblower and created the SEC Whistleblower

September 27, 2016

SEC Issues Proposed Amendments To Item 601 Of Regulation S-K Related To Exhibits

On August 31, 2016, the SEC issued proposed amendments to Item 601 of Regulation S-K to require hyperlinks to exhibits in filings made with the SEC. The proposed amendments would require any company filing registration statements or reports with the SEC to include a hyperlink to all exhibits listed on the exhibit list. In addition, because ASCII cannot support hyperlinks, the proposed amendment would also require that all exhibits be filed in HTML format.

This newest proposed rule change to Regulation S-K is part of the SEC Division of Corporation Finance’s Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative. At the end of this blog, I include an up-to-date summary of the proposals and request for comment related to the ongoing Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative.

Background

September 20, 2016

SEC Requests Comment On Changes To Subpart 400 To Regulation S-K

On August 25, 2016, the SEC requested public comment on possible changes to the disclosure requirements in Subpart 400 of Regulation S-K. Subpart 400 encompasses disclosures related to management, certain security holders and corporate governance. The request for comment is part of the ongoing SEC Division of Corporation Finance’s Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative and as required by Section 72003 of the FAST Act.

Background

The topic of disclosure requirements under Regulations S-K and S-X as pertains to financial statements and disclosures made in reports and registration statements filed under the Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) has come to the forefront over the past couple of years. The purpose of the Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative is to assess whether the business and financial disclosure requirements continue to provide the information investors need to make informed investment and voting decisions.

Regulation S-K, as amended over the years, was adopted as part of a uniform disclosure initiative

September 13, 2016

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

September 6, 2016

DTC Again Proposes Procedures For Issuers Subject To Chills And Locks

On June 3, 2016, the DTC filed a new set of proposed rules to specify procedures available to issuers when the DTC imposes or intends to impose chills or locks. The issue of persistent and increasing chills and global locks which once dominated many discussions related to the small- and micro-cap space has dwindled in the last year or two. The new proposed rule release explains the change in DTC procedures and mindset related to its function in combating the deposit and trading of ineligible securities.

Background

August 30, 2016

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

August 23, 2016

SEC Continues Efforts To Prevent Microcap Fraud

As I’ve written about numerous times in the past, a primary agenda of the SEC and FINRA is to prevent small- and micro-cap fraud. On March 23, 2016, the SEC charged Guy Gentile with penny stock fraud. The SEC complaint, as well as numerous industry articles and a blog by Mr. Gentile himself, reveal in-depth efforts by the SEC together with FINRA and the FBI and DOJ to remove recidivist and bad actors from the micro-cap system. While the methods used by the regulators have been the subject of heated debates and articles, the message and result remain that the SEC is committed to its efforts to deter securities law violations.

Although small- and micro-cap fraud has always been an important area of concern and enforcement by the SEC since the financial crisis of 2008, it has increasingly been a focus. Regulators have amplified their efforts through regulations and stronger enforcement, including the SEC Broken Windows policy, increased Dodd-Frank whistleblower

August 16, 2016

SEC Issues Proposed Regulation S-K And S-X Amendments

On July 13, 2016, the SEC issued a 318-page proposed rule change on Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X to amend disclosures that are redundant, duplicative, overlapping, outdated or superseded (S-K and S-X Amendments). The proposed rule changes follow the 341-page 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.

The proposed S-K and S-X Amendments are intended to facilitate the disclosure of information to investors while simplifying compliance efforts by companies. The proposed S-K and S-X Amendments come as a result of the Division of Corporation Finance’s Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative and as required by Section 72002 of the FAST Act. Prior to the issuance of these S-K and S-X Amendments, on June 27, 2016, as part of the same initiative, the SEC issued proposed amendments to the definition of “Small Reporting Company” (see

August 9, 2016

SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Issues Further Recommendations On Accredited Investor Definition

On July 19, 2016, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) met and drafted its recommendations and response to the SEC report on the definition of accredited investor. The subject of changes to the definition of accredited investor has been debated in a series of reports, recommendations, proposals and comment letters since early 2015.

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

At the July 19 meeting, the Advisory Committee finalized a draft of a letter

August 2, 2016

Testing The Waters; Regulation A+ And S-1 Public Offerings – Part 2

The JOBS Act enacted in 2012 made the most dramatic changes to the landscape for the marketing and selling of both private and public offerings since the enactment of the Securities Act of 1933. These significant changes include: (i) the creation of Rule 506(c), which came into effect on September 23, 2013, and allows for general solicitation and advertising in private offerings where the purchasers are limited to accredited investors; (ii) the overhaul of Regulation A, creating two tiers of offerings which came into effect on June 19, 2015, and allows for both pre-filing and post-filing marketing of an offering, called “testing the waters”; (iii) the addition of Section 5(d) of the Securities Act, which came into effect in April 2012, permitting emerging growth companies to test the waters by engaging in pre- and post-filing communications with qualified institutional buyers or institutions that are accredited investors; and (iv) Title III crowdfunding, which came into effect May 19, 2016, and allows

July 26, 2016

Testing The Waters; Regulation A+ And S-1 Public Offerings – Part 1

The JOBS Act enacted in 2012 made the most dramatic changes to the landscape for the marketing and selling of both private and public offerings since the enactment of the Securities Act of 1933. These significant changes include: (i) the creation of Rule 506(c), which came into effect on September 23, 2013 and allows for general solicitation and advertising in private offerings where the purchasers are limited to accredited investors; (ii) the overhaul of Regulation A creating two tiers of offerings, which came into effect on June 19, 2015 and allows for both pre-filing and post-filing marketing of an offering, called “testing the waters”; (iii) the addition of Section 5(d) of the Securities Act, which came into effect in April 2012, permitting emerging growth companies to test the waters by engaging in pre- and post-filing communications with qualified institutional buyers or institutions that are accredited investors; and (iv) Title III crowdfunding, which came into effect May 19, 2016 and allows

July 19, 2016

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

July 12, 2016

Confidentially Marketed Public Offerings (CMPO)

Not surprisingly, I read the trades including all the basics, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The Street, The PIPEs Report, etc. A few years ago I started seeing the term “confidentially marketed public offerings” or “CMPO” on a regular basis. The weekly PIPEs Report breaks down offerings using a variety of metrics and in the past few years, the weekly number of completed CMPOs has grown in significance. CMPOs count for billions of dollars in capital raised each year.

CMPO Defined

A CMPO is a type of shelf offering registered on a Form S-3 that involves speedy takedowns when market opportunities present themselves (for example, on heavy volume). A CMPO is very flexible as each takedown is on negotiated terms with the particular investor or investor group. In particular, an effective S-3 shelf registration statement allows for takedowns at a discount to market price and other flexibility in the parameters of the offering such

July 5, 2016

OTC Markets Petitions The SEC To Expand Regulation A To Include SEC Reporting Companies

On June 6, OTC Markets filed a petition for rulemaking with the SEC requesting that the SEC amend Regulation A to expand the eligibility criteria to include all small issuers, including those that are subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) reporting requirements and to allow “at-the-market offerings.”

Background

On March 25, 2015, the SEC released final rules amending Regulation A. The new Regulation A creates two tiers of offerings. Tier I of Regulation A, which does not preempt state law, allows offerings of up to $20 million in a twelve-month period. Due to difficult blue sky compliance, Tier 1 is rarely used. 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 and have been gaining traction ever since. Since that time, the

June 28, 2016

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

June 21, 2016

NYSE MKT Listing Requirements

This blog is the second in a two-part series explaining the listing requirements for the two small-cap national exchanges, NASDAQ and the NYSE MKT. The first one, discussing NASDAQ, can be read HERE.

General Information and Background on NYSE MKT

The NYSE MKT is the small- and micro-cap exchange level of the NYSE suite of marketplaces. The NYSE MKT was formerly the separate American Stock Exchange (AMEX). In 2008, the NYSE Euronext purchased the AMEX and in 2009 renamed the exchange the NYSE Amex Equities. In 2012 the exchange was renamed to the current NYSE MKT LLC. The NASDAQ and NYSE MKT are ultimately business operations vying for attention and competing to attract the best publicly traded companies and investor following. The NYSE MKT homepage touts the benefits of choosing this exchange over others, including “access to dedicated funding, advocacy, content and networking and the industry’s first small-cap services package.”

Although there are substantial similarities among the different exchanges,

June 14, 2016

SEC Issues New C&DI On Use Of Non-GAAP Measures; Regulation G – Part 2

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.

This is the second part in a two-part blog series on the use of non-GAAP financial information. In the first blog I summarized the new C&DI, and in this blog I am reviewing Regulation G and Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K. The first blog in the series can be read HERE.

Background

In the last couple of months SEC Chair Mary Jo White, SEC Deputy Chief Accountant Wesley Bricker, Chief Accountant James Schnurr and

June 7, 2016

OTC Markets Amends IPO Listing Standards for OTCQX

OTC Markets has unveiled changes to the quotations rule and standards for the OTCQX, which proposed changes are scheduled to become effective on June 13, 2016. The proposed amendments are intended to address and accommodate companies completing an IPO onto the OTCQX and which accordingly have no prior trading history. Such entities either would have a recently cleared Form 211 with FINRA or are completing the 211 application process through a market maker, at the time of their OTCQX application. The initial qualification changes apply to OTCQX Rules for U.S. Companies, U.S. Banks and International Companies.

The OTCQX previously amended its listing standards effective January 1, 2016 to increase the quantitative criteria for listing and to add additional qualitative requirements further aligning the OTCQX with a national stock exchange. To read my blog on the January 1, 2016 amendments see HERE.

The new amendments will (i) allow companies that meet the $5 bid price test to use unaudited, interim

May 31, 2016

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,

May 24, 2016

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

May 17, 2016

SEC Issues Final Rules Implementing The JOBS Act And Rules On The FAST Act

On May 3, 2016, the SEC issued final amendments to revise the rules related to the thresholds for registrations, termination of registration, and suspension of reporting under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amendments mark the final rule making and implementation of all provisions under the JOBS Act, and implement further provisions under the FAST Act.

The amendments revise the Section 12(g) and 15(d) rules to reflect the new, higher shareholder thresholds for triggering registration requirements and for allowing the voluntary termination of registration or suspension of reporting obligations. The new rules also make similar changes related to banks, bank holding companies, and savings and loan companies.

Specifically, the SEC has amended Exchange Act Rules 12g-1 through 12g-4 and 12h-3 related to the procedures for termination of registration under Section 12(g) through the filing of a Form 15 and for suspension of reporting obligations under Section 15(d), to reflect the higher thresholds set by the

May 10, 2016

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

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

May 3, 2016

NASDAQ Listing Requirements

This blog is the first in a two-part series explaining the listing requirements for the two small-cap national exchanges, NASDAQ and the NYSE MKT, beginning with NASDAQ. In addition to often being asked about the listing requirements on NASDAQ and the NYSE MKT, I am asked about the benefits of trading on such an exchange. Accordingly, at the end of this blog I have included a discussion on such benefits.

The NASDAQ Stock Market

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. Keeping in line with the focus of my blogs and practice, this blog is focused on the NASDAQ Capital Market tier.

A company seeking

April 26, 2016

The U.S. Capital Markets Clearance And Settlement Process

Within the world of securities there are many sectors and facets to explore and understand. To be successful, a public company must have an active, liquid trading market. Accordingly, the trading markets themselves, including the settlement and clearing process in the US markets, is an important fundamental area of knowledge that every public company, potential public company, and advisor needs to comprehend. A basic understanding of the trading markets will help drive relationships with transfer agents, market makers, broker-dealers and financial public relations firms as well as provide the knowledge to improve relationships with shareholders. In addition, small pooled funds such as venture and hedge funds and family offices that invest in public markets will benefit from an understanding of the process.

This blog provides a historical foundation and summary of the clearance and settlement processes for US equities markets. In a future blog, I will drill down into specific trading, including short selling.

History and Background

The Paperwork Crisis

April 19, 2016

Regulation SCI

The SEC adopted Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity (Regulation SCI) on November 3, 2015 to improve regulatory standards and processes related to technology in the securities business including by financial services firms. Regulation SCI was originally proposed in March 2013. Security and standards related to technological processes, data storage and systems has been a top priority of the SEC over the last few years and continues to be so this year.

Background

Technology has transformed the securities industry over the last years both in the area of regulatory oversight such as through algorithms to spot trading anomalies that could indicate manipulation and/or insider trading issues, and for market participants through enhanced speed, capacity, efficiency and sophistication of trading abilities. Enhanced technology carries the corresponding risk of failures, disruptions and of course hacking/intrusions. Moreover, as U.S. securities market systems are interconnected; an issue with one entity or system can have widespread consequences for all market participants.

Regulation SCI was proposed and

April 12, 2016

Mergers And Acquisitions: Types Of Transactions

As merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions completed its most active year since the financial crisis, it is helpful to go back to basics. Activity has been prevalent in all market sectors, including large, mid and small cap and across all industries, including biotech, financial services, technology, consumer goods and services, food and beverage and healthcare, among others.

Although I’ve written about M&A transactions multiple times, this will be the first time I’ve given a broad overview of the forms that an M&A transaction can take.

Types of Mergers and Acquisitions

A merger or acquisition transaction is the combination of two companies into one resulting in either one corporate entity or a parent-holding and subsidiary company structure. Mergers can categorized by the competitive relationship between the parties and by the legal structure of the transaction. Related to competitive relationship, there are three types of mergers: horizontal, vertical and conglomerate. In a horizontal merger, one company acquires another that is in the

April 5, 2016

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

March 29, 2016

SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Reviews Capital Formation

On February 25, 2016, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) met and listened to three presentations on access to capital and private offerings. The three presentations were by Jeffrey E. Sohl, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Decision Science Director, Center For Venture Research at University of New Hampshire; Brian Knight, Associate Director of Financial Policy, Center for Financial Markets at the Milken Institute; and Scott Bauguess, Deputy Director, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis at the SEC. The presentations expound upon the recent SEC study on unregistered offerings (see blog HERE).

The presentations were designed to provide information to the Advisory Committee as they continue to explore recommendations to the SEC on various capital formation topics. This blog summarizes the 3 presentations.

March 22, 2016

Top 4 Reasons Why 2016 is the Year of Crowdfunding Automation

2016 is the year when online automation revolution in equities and securities of private companies will take place.

American tech firms such as FundAmerica CrowdValley and WealthForge are already leading the way in streamlining the automation process. Most importantly, these processes are in compliance with the online requirements of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), as well as the Jumpstart Our Business Startup (JOBS) Act.

These online automations allow entrepreneurs, platforms and investors to verify accredited investors online. They will also be able to streamline deal flows, due diligence, the digital signing of documents, automated payments, and much more. Furthermore, dozens of broker-dealers and payment players have already started to create solutions to automate the progression of private deals.

Online automation is a revolution that will cause a positive shift in the crowdfunding industry in 2016. Here are some of the changes we will see in 2016 as a result of online automations:

1. New

March 18, 2016

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,

March 15, 2016

Will Pre-funded Deals Strategy cause a shift in Real Estate Crowdfunding?

Real estate crowdfunding platforms are increasingly shifting towards pre-funded deals to increase their market share and deal flow. Pre-funded deals occur when a crowdfunding platform gives a real estate developer who needs capital right way a loan guarantee without having to first take the risk of raising the entire loan amount from online investors. According to the 2015 TRN Real Estate Crowdfunding Report, crowdfunding platforms are opting for this strategy to meet the needs of developers who need to raise capital quickly in order to close lucrative deals in a short amount of time. In such situations, pre-funded deals come in handy because raising funds online can take longer – usually a few weeks or even months. While pre-funded deals enable real estate developers fast funding, it also benefits investors who get returns faster because deals with developers are closed prior to the commencement of the fundraising process online.

Financing Requirements

The challenge with the innovative idea of funding

March 11, 2016

SEC Gives Insight On 2016 Initiatives

SEC Chair Mary Jo White gave a speech at the annual mid-February SEC Speaks program and, as usual, gave some insight into the SEC’s focus in the coming year. This blog summarized Chair White’s speech and provides further insight and information on the topics she addresses.

Consistent with her prior messages, Chair White focuses on enforcement, stating that the SEC “needs to go beyond disclosure” in carrying out its mission. That mission, as articulated by Chair White, is the protection of investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation. In 2015 the SEC brought a record number of enforcement proceedings and secured an all-time high for penalty and disgorgement orders. The primary areas of focus included cybersecurity, market structure requirements, dark pools, microcap fraud, financial reporting failures, insider trading, disclosure deficiencies in municipal offerings and protection of retail investors and retiree savings. In 2016 the SEC intends to focus enforcement on financial reporting, market structure, and the

March 8, 2016

StartEngine launches as a Regulation A+ Crowdfunding Equity platform

StartEngine Crowdfunding Inc, a leading technology accelerator in Los Angeles that provides tech startups with mentorship and resources, officially launch Friday, 19th June 2015. StartEngine is set to offer users real crowdfunding. Founded in 2011, StartEngine focuses on media and digital technology market. By 2014, this company had invested in 57 new businesses and looks forward to helping thousands of entrepreneurs realize the American Dream.

The launch of StartEngine crowdfunding engine comes just a few months after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved changes to Regulation A+ as required by the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act or JOBS Act’s Title IV rules that allow entrepreneurs to raise a maximum of 50 million dollars in capital through crowdfunding. These changes are often referred to as “Regulation A+.” According to Ron Miller, CEO at StartEngine, ‘Investing through crowdfunding is one of the greatest entrepreneurship advancement happening in our generation and we are happy to be part of this revolution.

March 7, 2016

State Blue Sky Concerns; Florida and New York

I have often written about state blue sky compliance and issues in completing offerings that do not pre-empt state law, including Tier 1 of Regulation A+ and initial or direct public offerings on Form S-1. I’ve also often expressed my opinion that the SEC, together with FINRA, is best suited to govern most securities-related registrations and exemptions, including both for offerings and broker-dealer matters, and that the states should be more focused on state-specific registrations and exemptions (such as intrastate offerings) and investigation and enforcement with respect to fraud or deceit, or unlawful conduct.

Despite the SEC support for the NASAA-coordinated review program to simplify the state blue sky process for securities offerings, such as under Tier 1 of Regulation A+, only 43 states participate. I say “only” in this context because the holdouts – including, for example, Florida, New York, Arizona and Georgia – are extremely active states for small business development and private capital formation. Moreover, even

March 1, 2016

SEC Proposes Transfer Agent Rules

On December 22, 2015, the SEC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and concept release on proposed new requirements for transfer agents and requesting public comment. The transfer agent rules were adopted in 1977 and have remained essentially unchanged since that time. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) describes intended new and amended rules and seeks comments on same, but is not in fact that actual proposed rule release. The SEC indicates that following the comment process associated with this ANPR, it intends to propose actual new rules as soon as practicable.

To invoke thoughtful comment and response, the SEC summarized the history of the role of transfer agents within the securities clearing system as well as the current rules and proposed new rules. In addition, the SEC discusses and seeks comments on broader topics that may affect transfer agents and the securities system as a whole. This blog gives a high level review of the whole APNR

February 23, 2016

SEC’s Financial Disclosure Requirements For Sub-Entities Of Registered Companies

As required by the JOBS Act, in 2013 the SEC launched its Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative and has been examining disclosure requirements under Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X and methods to improve such requirements. In September 2015, the SEC issued a request for comment related to the Regulation S-X financial disclosure obligations for certain entities other than the reporting entity. In particular, the SEC is seeking comments on the current financial disclosure requirements for acquired businesses, subsidiaries not consolidated, 50% or less owned entities, issuers of guaranteed securities, and affiliates whose securities collateralize the reporting company’s securities.

It is important to note that the SEC release relates to general financial statement and reporting requirements, and not the modified reporting requirements for smaller reporting companies or emerging growth companies. In particular, Article 8 of Regulation S-X applies to smaller reporting companies and Article 3 to those that do not qualify for the reduced Article 8 requirements. The SEC discussion and request for

February 16, 2016

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

February 9, 2016

SEC Issues Rules Implementing Certain Provisions Of The FAST Act

On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (the “FAST Act”) into law, which included many capital markets/securities-related bills. The FAST Act is being dubbed the JOBS Act 2.0 by many industry insiders. The FAST Act has an aggressive rulemaking timetable and some of its provisions became effective immediately upon signing the bill into law on December 4, 2015. Accordingly there has been a steady flow of new SEC guidance, and now implementing rules.

On January 13, 2016, the SEC issued interim final rules memorializing two provisions of the FAST Act. In particular, the SEC revised the instructions to Forms S-1 and F-1 to allow the omission of historical financial information and to allow smaller reporting companies to use forward incorporation by reference to update an effective S-1. This blog summarizes these rules.

On December 10, 2015, the SEC Division of Corporate Finance addressed the FAST Act by making an announcement with guidance and issuing

February 2, 2016

FINRA Proposes New Category Of Broker-Dealer For “Capital Acquisition Brokers”

In December, 2015, FINRA proposed rules for a whole new category of broker-dealer, called “Capital Acquisition Brokers” (“CABs”), which limit their business to corporate financing transactions. In February 2014 FINRA sought comment on the proposal, which at the time referred to a CAB as a limited corporate financing broker (LCFB). Following many comments that the LCFB rules did not have a significant impact on the regulatory burden for full member firms, the new rules modify the original LCFB proposal in more than just name. The new rules will take effect upon approval by the SEC and are currently open to public comments.

A CAB will generally be a broker-dealer that engages in M&A transactions, raising funds through private placements and evaluating strategic alternatives and that collects transaction based compensation for such activities. A CAB will not handle customer funds or securities, manage customer accounts or engage in market making or proprietary trading.

As with all FINRA rules, the proposed

January 26, 2016

The SEC Issues Guidance On The FAST Act As It Relates To Savings And Loan Companies

On December 10, 2015, the SEC Division of Corporate Finance addressed the FAST Act by making an announcement with guidance and issuing two new Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI). As the FAST Act is a transportation bill that rolled in securities law matters relatively quickly and then was signed into law even quicker, this was the first SEC acknowledgement and guidance on the subject.

My blog on the FAST Act and the first two C&DI on the Act can be read HERE.

On December 21, 2015, the SEC issued 4 additional C&DI on the FAST

January 19, 2016

SEC Issues Report On Accredited Investor Definition

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

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

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

January 12, 2016

SEC Guidance On Proxy Presentation Of Certain Matters In The Merger And Acquisition Context

In late October the SEC issued its first updated Staff Legal Bulletin on shareholder proposals in years – Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H (“SLB 14H”). Please see my blog on SLB 14H HERE. On the same day the SEC published two new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DI”) related to the unbundling of matters presented for a vote to shareholders in merger and acquisition transactions. The new C&DI has in essence granted voting rights to target company shareholders, on acquiring company organizational documents, where none existed before and has in essence pre-empted state law on the issue.

Unbundling under Rule 14a-4(a)(3) in the M&A Context

Exchange Act Rule 14a-4 relates to the requirements for a proxy card general. Rule 14a-4(a) provides:

(a) The form of proxy:

(1) Shall indicate in bold-face type whether or not the proxy is solicited on behalf of the registrant’s board of directors or, if provided other than by a majority of the board

January 5, 2016

OTC Markets Amends Listing Standards For The OTCQX

OTC Markets has unveiled changes to the quotations rule and standards for the OTCQX, which changes become effective January 1, 2016. The amended listing standards increase the quantitative criteria for listing and add additional qualitative requirements continuing to align the OTCQX with standards associated with a national stock exchange. Companies already listed on the OTCQX as of December 31, 2015 will have until January 2017 to meet the new ongoing eligibility requirements.

As part of the rule changes, OTC Markets has renamed its U.S. Designated Advisor for Disclosure (DAD) to an OTCQX Advisor. All U.S. companies that are quoted on the OTCQX must have either an attorney or an Investment Bank OTCQX Advisor. A company may appoint a new OTCQX Advisor at any time, provided that the company retains an approved OTCQX Advisor at all times.

All International companies that are quoted on the OTCQX must have either an Attorney Principal American Liaison (“PAL”) or an Investment Bank PAL –

December 29, 2015

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”).

December 22, 2015

The Fast Act (Fixing American’s Surface Transportation Act)

On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing American’s Surface Transportation Act (the “FAST Act”) into law, which included many capital markets/securities-related bills. The FAST Act is being dubbed the JOBS Act 2.0 by many industry insiders. The FAST Act has an aggressive rulemaking timetable and some of its provisions became effective immediately upon signing the bill into law on December 4, 2015.

In July 2015, the Improving Access to Capital for Emerging Growth Companies Act (the “Improving EGC Act”) was approved by the House and referred to the Senate for further action. Since that time, this Act was bundled with several other securities-related bills into a transportation bill (really!) – i.e., the FAST Act.

In addition to the Improving EGC Act, the FAST Act incorporated the following securities-related acts: (i) the Disclosure Modernization and Simplifications Act (see my blog HERE ); (ii) the SBIC Advisers Relief Act; (iii) the Reforming Access for Investments in Startup Enterprises Act; (iv)

December 15, 2015

SEC Guidance on Shareholder Proposals and Procedural Requirements

In late October the SEC issued its first updated Staff Legal Bulletin on shareholder proposals in years – Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H (“SLB 14H”). The legal bulletin comes on the heels of the SEC’s announcement on January 16, 2015, that it would no longer respond to no-action letters seeking exclusion of shareholder proposals on the grounds that the proposal directly conflicts with one of the company’s own proposals to be submitted to shareholders and the same meeting, as further discussed herein. SLB 14H will only allow exclusion of a shareholder proposal if “a reasonable shareholder could not logically vote in favor of both proposals.” As a result of the restrictive language in SLB 14H, it is likely that the direct conflict standard will rarely be used as a basis for excluding shareholder proposals going forward. With the publication of SLB 14H, the SEC will once again entertain and review no-action requests under the “direct conflict” grounds for exclusion.

SLB

December 8, 2015

SEC Proposes Amendments Related To Intrastate And Regional Securities Offerings- Part II- Rules 504 And 505

On October 30, 2015, the SEC published proposed rule amendments to facilitate intrastate and regional securities offerings. The SEC has proposed amendments to Rule 147 to modernize the rule and accommodate adopted state intrastate crowdfunding provisions. In addition, the SEC has proposed amendments to Rule 504 of Regulation D to increase the aggregate offering amount from $1 million to $5 million and to add bad actor disqualifications from reliance on the rule. The SEC has also made technical amendments to Rule 505 of Regulation D.

In Part I of the blog, I discussed the Rule 147 amendment, and in this Part II will discuss the changes to Rules 504 and 505. I have never really written about either Rules 504 or 505 in the past, the simple reason being that they are rarely used exemptions. Perhaps with the current proposed changes, Rule 504 will have a new life. I do not think Rule 505 will gain favor, and in fact,

December 1, 2015

SEC Advisory Committee Recommendations Related To Finders

On September 23, 2015, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) met and finalized its recommendation to the SEC regarding the regulation of finders and other intermediaries in small business capital formation transactions. This is a topic I have written about often, including a recent comprehensive blog which can be read HERE.

By way of reminder, the 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.”

The Advisory Committee made four recommendations related to the regulation of finders and other

November 24, 2015

SEC Proposes Amendments Related To Intrastate And Regional Securities Offerings- Part 1

On October 30, 2015, the SEC published proposed rule amendments to facilitate intrastate and regional securities offerings. This rule proposal comes following the September 23, 2015, Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) recommendation to the SEC regarding the modernization of the Rule 147 Intrastate offering exemption. The SEC has proposed amendments to Rule 147 to modernize the rule and accommodate adopted state intrastate crowdfunding provisions. The proposed amendment eliminates the restriction on offers and eases the issuer eligibility requirements, provided however the issuer must comply with the specific state securities laws. In addition, the SEC has proposed amendments to Rule 504 of Regulation D to increase the aggregate offering amount from $1 million to $5 million and to add bad actor disqualifications from reliance on the rule. Finally, the SEC has made technical amendments to Rule 505 of Regulation D.

In this Part I of the blog, I will discuss the Rule 147 amendment and in

November 17, 2015

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

November 10, 2015

The Materiality Standard; NYSE Amends Rules; FASB Proposed Guidance

The recent increase in regulatory activity and marketplace discussion on the topic of disclosure has not been limited to the small business arena or small cap marketplace. Effective September 28, 2015, the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) amended its Rule 202.06 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, which governs the procedures that listed companies must follow for the release of material information. Also, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has issued two exposure drafts providing guidance and seeking comments on the use of materiality to help companies eliminate unnecessary disclosures in their financial statements and to determine what is “material” for inclusion in notes to the financial statements. Both exposure drafts solicit public comment on proposed amendments to the Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts published by FASB.

NYSE Rule 202.06 Amendment

As published in the federal register, the NYSE proposes to amend Section 202.06 of the Manual to “(i) expand the premarket hours during which listed companies are required to

November 3, 2015

SEC Small Business Advisory Committee Public Company Disclosure Recommendations

On September 23, 2015, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) met and finalized its recommendation to the SEC regarding changes to the disclosure requirements for smaller publicly traded companies.

The topic of disclosure requirements for smaller public companies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) has come to the forefront over the past year. In early December the House passed the Disclosure Modernization and

October 27, 2015

Mergers And Acquisitions – The Merger Transaction

Although I have written about document requirements in a merger transaction previously, with the recent booming M&A marketplace, it is worth revisiting. This blog only addresses friendly negotiated transactions achieved through share exchange or merger agreements. It does not address hostile takeovers.

A merger transaction can be structured as a straight acquisition with the acquiring company remaining in control, a reverse merger or a reverse triangular merger. In a reverse merger process, the target company shareholders exchange their shares for either new or existing shares of the public company so that at the end of the transaction, the shareholders of the target company own a majority of the acquiring public company and the target company has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the public company. The public company assumes the operations of the target company.

A reverse merger is often structured as a reverse triangular merger. In that case, the acquiring company forms a new subsidiary which merges with the

October 20, 2015

SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Recommends Modernizing Rule 147 for Intrastate Crowdfunding Offerings

On September 23, 2015, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) met and finalized its recommendation to the SEC regarding the modernization of the Rule 147 Intrastate offering exemption. The recommendations are focused on facilitating recently enacted and future state-based crowdfunding initiatives.

I have written about the Advisory Committee on numerous occasions, but by way of reminder, the 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.”

In formulating its recommendations, the Advisory Committee gave specific consideration to the belief

October 13, 2015

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

October 6, 2015

SEC Footnote 32 and Sham S-1 Registration Statements

Over the past several years, many direct public offering (DPO) S-1 registration statements have been filed for either shell or development-stage companies, claiming an intent to pursue and develop a particular business, when in fact, the promoter intends to create a public vehicle to be used for reverse merger transactions. For purposes of this blog, I will refer to these S-1 registration statements the same way the SEC now does, as “sham registrations.” I prefer the term “sham registrations” as it better describes the process than the other used industry term of art, “footnote 32 shells.”

Footnote 32 is part of the Securities Offering Reform Act of 2005 (“Securities Offering Reform Act”). In the final rule release for the Securities Offering Reform Act, the SEC included a footnote (number 32) which states:

“We have become aware of a practice in which the promoter of a company and/or affiliates of the promoter appear to place assets or operations within

September 29, 2015

The Stronger Enforcement Of Civil Penalties Act; A Push For Higher SEC Penalties

In July a Democratic senator and a Republican senator together introduced the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act of 2015 (SEC Penalties Act), which would give the SEC the ability to levy much heftier penalties for securities fraud, and against recidivists. The Act was referred to the Senate Baking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee for review and further action. The proposed SEC Penalties Act would increase the limits on civil monetary penalties and directly link the size of the penalty to the scope of harm and associated investor losses, and substantially increase the penalties for repeat offenders.

Background: A Trend Towards Increased Enforcement

The SEC Penalties Act continues a trend to deter securities law violations through regulations and stronger enforcement including the SEC Broken Windows policy, increased Dodd-Frank whistleblower activity and reward payments, and increased bad actor prohibitions. See my prior blog on bad actor prohibitions HERE.

The SEC Broken Windows policy is one in which the SEC is

September 22, 2015

SEC Issues Investor Alert Warning That Fantasy Stock Trading Websites May Violate Securities Laws

At the end of June, the SEC Office of Investor Education and Advocacy issued an Investor Alert and reminded us all that the net of federal securities laws is far-reaching. The Investor Alert warns investors that fantasy stock trading and similar websites violate federal securities laws and, in particular, the “security-based swap” regulations enacted by the Dodd-Frank Act.

The SEC Investor Alert warns against websites that claim to offer a chance to make money from publicly traded or privately held companies without actually buying stock. Generally the sites are set up as a “fantasy” trading game or competition and involve a small entry fee with the chance to win a larger payment if you win the fantasy competition. The SEC has taken the position that these fantasy stock trading programs could potentially involve security-based swaps and implicate both the federal securities and commodities laws. The SEC has and is continuing to investigate the matter. The investigation has progressed enough that

September 15, 2015

SEC Has Adopted Final Pay Ratio Disclosure Rules

span style=”font-family: Calibri;”On August 5, 2015, the SEC published and adopted final pay ratio disclosure rules. The final rules are substantially the same as the proposed rules which were published in September 2013. The rules will require inclusion of the new disclosures in proxy materials, registration statements and annual reports beginning in the fiscal year starting on or after January 1, 2017.

The proposed new rules implement Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) by amending Item 402 of Regulation S-K. The recently proposed “pay vs. performance” rules, which I discussed in my blog HERE would also amend Item 402. As an Item 402 disclosure, the new pay ratio disclosure will also be the subject of the “say on pay” advisory vote. My blog on say on pay for smaller reporting companies can be read Here.

Interestingly, in the final published rules, the SEC makes a point of stating that

September 8, 2015

SEC Issues Guidance On General Solicitation And Advertising In Regulation D Offerings

Effective September, 2013, the SEC adopted final rules eliminating the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in Rules 506 and 144A offerings as required by Title II of the JOBS Act. The enactment of new 506(c) resulting in the elimination of the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in private offerings to accredited investors has been a slow but sure success. Trailblazers such as realtymogul.com, circleup.com, wefunder.com and seedinvest.com proved that the model can work, and the rest of the capital marketplace has taken notice. Recently, more established broker-dealers have begun their foray into the 506(c) marketplace with accredited investor-only crowdfunding websites accompanied by marketing and solicitation to draw investors.

The historical Rule 506 was renumbered to Rule 506(b) and issuers have the option of completing offerings under either Rule 506(b) or 506(c). Rule 506(b) allows offers and sales to an unlimited number of accredited investors and up to 35 unaccredited investors, provided however that if any unaccredited investors

September 1, 2015

Finders- The Facts Related To Broker-Dealer Registration Requirements

Introduction

As a recurring topic, I discuss exemptions to the broker-dealer registration requirements for entities and individuals that assist companies in fundraising and related services. I have previously discussed the no-action-letter-based exemption for M&A brokers, the exemptions for websites restricted to accredited investors and for crowdfunding portals as part of the JOBS Act and the statutory exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements found in Securities Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1, including for officers, directors and key employees of an issuer. I have also previously published a blog on the American Bar Association’s recommendations for the codification of an exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements for private placement finders. I’ve included links to each of these prior articles in the conclusion to this blog.

A related topic with a parallel analysis is the use of finders for investors and investor groups, an activity which has become prevalent in today’s marketplace. In that case the investor group utilizes the services of a finder

August 25, 2015

A Summary Of The 2015 Amendments To The Nevada Revised Statutes

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. The two most popular states for incorporation by business entities remain Nevada and Delaware, both of which offer corporations a degree of flexibility from a menu of reasonable alternatives that can be tailored to the companies’ business sectors, markets and corporate culture.

In 2015 the Nevada Legislature made several changes to the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) which impact public and private companies incorporated in Nevada. The changes go into effect on October 1, 2015. I begin this blog by reviewing the benefits offered by Nevada as a choice of state of incorporation and then follow with a summary of the 2015 amendments.

Nevada as a Choice of Corporate Domicile

Together with Delaware, Nevada is one of the most popular state choice for entity domicile. The following is a summary of the most

August 18, 2015

Delaware General Corporate Law Amended to Prohibit Fee-Shifting Clauses; Permit Forum Selection Provisions

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.

On June 24, 2015, Delaware amended the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) to prohibit fee shifting provisions. The DGCL amendments also allow Delaware corporations to adopt exclusive (and non-exclusive) forum selection provisions in their corporate charters. The amendments went into effect August 1, 2015.

Fee Shifting Provisions

As a result of increasing shareholder activism and filed or threatened shareholder lawsuits, corporations have started adding provisions in their corporate charters (articles

August 11, 2015

SEC Proposed Executive Compensation Clawback Rules

On July 1, 2015, the SEC published the anticipated executive compensation clawback rules (“Clawback Rules”). The rules are in the comment period and will not be effective until the SEC publishes final rules. The proposed rules require national exchanges to enact rules and listing standards requiring exchange listed companies to adopt and enforce policies requiring the clawback of certain incentive-based compensation from current and former executive officers in the event of an accounting restatement.

In particular, the proposed rules implement Section 10D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) and as added by Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). Section 10D requires the SEC to adopt rules directing national exchanges to prohibit the listing of any security of an issuer that is not in compliance with Section 10D’s requirements for (i) disclosure of the company’s policy on incentive-based compensation that is based on financial statement results and (ii)

August 3, 2015

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

July 28, 2015

SEC Issues Guidance On “Voting Power” For Purposes Of Bad Actor Rules

The SEC has published clarifying guidance and information on defining “voting equity securities” for purposes of the application of the bad actor rules under Rule 506 of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). The clarifying language was contained within the SEC’s March 25, 2015 release of the final rules amending and adopting Regulation A+.

Rules 262 and 505 of the Securities Act disqualify the use of offerings under Regulation A and Rule 505 of Regulation D if an issuer, its predecessor, or an affiliate of the issuer is considered a “bad actor” as defined by such rules. In particular, the rules disqualify the issuer if the specified covered person is subject to certain administrative orders, industry bars, an injunction involving certain securities law violations or certain specified criminal convictions. “Covered persons” under the rules extends to the issuer, predecessor, affiliate, directors, officers, general partners, 20% or greater beneficial owners, promoters, underwriters, persons

July 21, 2015

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

July 14, 2015

OTC Markets Amends Listing Standards For OTCQB To Include Regulation A+ Issuers

OTC Markets has unveiled changes to the quotations rule and standards for the OTCQB, which changes become effective July 10, 2015. The OTC Markets rule amendments will allow a company to use its required Regulation A+ ongoing reporting requirements to satisfy the initial and ongoing OTCQB disclosure requirements.

Concurrently with this substantive amendment, OTCQB has made clarifying general amendments to its listing standards for all listed and prospective OTCQB companies. OTC Markets has invited comments on the proposed changes.

To summarize, the Regulation A related amendment to the OTCQB rules and regulations includes:

The addition of definitions for “Regulation A” and “Regulation A Reporting Company”
Initial Disclosure Obligations – a Regulation A Reporting Company can meet the OTCQB initial disclosure obligations by having filed all required reports on EDGAR, including annual audited financial statements;
OTCQB Certification – clarifying amendment to the OTCQB Certification including that a Regulation A Reporting Company is required to file periodic reports with the SEC under

July 7, 2015

Going Public Transactions For Smaller Companies: Direct Public Offering And Reverse Merger

Introduction

One of the largest areas of my firms practice involves going public transactions. I have written extensively on the various going public methods, including IPO/DPOs and reverse mergers. The topic never loses relevancy, and those considering a transaction always ask about the differences between, and advantages and disadvantages of, both reverse mergers and direct and initial public offerings. This blog is an updated new edition of past articles on the topic.

Over the past decade the small-cap reverse merger, initial public offering (IPO) and direct public offering (DPO) markets diminished greatly. The decline was a result of both regulatory changes and economic changes. In particular, briefly, those reasons were: (1) the recent Great Recession; (2) backlash from a series of fraud allegations, SEC enforcement actions, and trading suspensions of Chinese companies following reverse mergers; (3) the 2008 Rule 144 amendments, including the prohibition of use of the rule for shell company and former shell company shareholders; (4) problems

June 30, 2015

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

June 23, 2015

SEC Has Approved A Two-Year Tick Size Pilot Program For Smaller Public Companies

On May 6, 2015 the SEC approved a two-year pilot program with FINRA and the national securities exchanges that will widen the minimum quoting and trading increments, commonly referred to as tick sizes, for the stocks of smaller public companies. The goal of the program is to study whether wider tick sizes improve the market quality and trading of these stocks.

The basic premise is that if a tick size is wider, the spread will be bigger, and thus market makers and underwriters will have the ability to earn a larger profit on trading. If market makers and underwriters can earn larger profits on trading, they will have incentive to make markets, support liquidity and issue research on smaller public companies. The other side of the coin is that larger spreads and more profit for the traders equates to increased costs to the investors whose accounts are being traded.

The tick size program includes companies that meet the following $3

June 16, 2015

Regulation A+; An In-Depth Overview

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

June 9, 2015

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

June 1, 2015

SEC Congressional Testimony – Part 3

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 Ceresney, 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.

In this last blog in the series I am summarizing the testimony of Stephen Luparello, Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, on “Venture Exchanges and Small-Cap Companies.” The topic of venture exchanges and small-cap companies is of particular importance to me and my clients – it is the world in which we participate.

On May 5, 2015, I published a blog introducing and discussing the

May 26, 2015

SEC Proposed Pay Versus Performance

On April 29, 2015, the SEC published the anticipated pay versus performance proposed rules. The rules are in the comment period and will not be effective until the SEC publishes final rules. Although timing is unclear, some commentators believe the new rules will be implemented as soon as the 2016 proxy season.

The proposed rules require companies to clearly and concisely disclose the relationship between executive compensation actually paid and the financial performance of the company, taking into account any change in the value of the shares of stock and dividends of the registrant and any distributions. The new proposed disclosure requirements will not apply to emerging growth companies or foreign private issuers. In addition, smaller public companies will have a scaled back disclosure requirement.

The proposed new rules implement Section 14(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) and as added by Section 953(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”)

May 19, 2015

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

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

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

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

May 12, 2015

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

May 5, 2015

SEC Congressional Testimony– Part II

SEC CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY – PART II

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 Ceresney, 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.

In the first blog in the series, which can be read HERE, I summarized Mary Jo White’s testimony. This second blog in the series summarizes the testimony of Andrew Ceresney and in particular his words on the SEC’s enforcement focus for fiscal year 2016.

Andrew Ceresney, Director Division of Enforcement – Testimony to Congress

Mr. Ceresney began his testimony with a

April 28, 2015

SEC Division of Corporation Finance Issues Guidance On Bad Actor Waivers

Last month the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued guidance on the granting waivers for the bad actor disqualifications under Regulation A and Rules 505 and 506 of Regulation D.

The Dodd-Frank Act required the SEC to implement rules which disqualify certain Rule 506 offerings based on the individuals involved in the issuer and related parties. On July 10, 2013, the SEC adopted such rules by amending portions of Rules 501 and 506 of Regulation D, promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933. The new rules went into effect on September 23, 2013. The rule disqualifies the use of Rule 506 as a result of certain convictions, cease and desist orders, suspensions and bars (“disqualifying events”) that occur on or after September 23, 2013, and adds disclosure obligation in Rule 506(e) for disqualifying events that occurred prior to September 23, 2013.

On July 31, 2013, I summarized the final rules, which summary can be read HERE. On December 4,

April 21, 2015

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

April 14, 2015

SEC Cracks Down On Confidentiality Agreements As Violating Whistleblower Rights And Protections

On April 1, 2015, the SEC announced its first filed, and settled, enforcement action against a company for using improperly restrictive language in confidentiality agreements as a method to stifle or retaliate against whistleblowers.

In recent months, the SEC has been issuing requests to companies for copies of confidentiality agreements, non-disclosure agreements, employment agreements, severance agreements and settlement agreements entered into with employees and former employees of the companies. The initiative specifically requests copies of documents since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) and, in particular, the provisions of the Dodd Frank-Act which grant awards and protections for whistleblowers.

In addition, the SEC has been asking for copies of company human resource policies, employee memos, training guides and any and all documents that discuss “whistleblowers” either directly or indirectly. According to a Wall Street Journal article on the subject, the SEC believes that corporations are retaliating against potential

April 7, 2015

SEC Has Published Final Rules Adopting Regulation A+

On March 25, 2015, the SEC pleasantly surprised the business community by releasing 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 II, which does preempt state law, allows a raise of up to $50 million. Issuers may elect to proceed under either Tier I or Tier II for offerings up to $20 million. As is becoming common in the industry, I will refer to the new rules, including both Tier I and Tier II offerings, as Regulation A+.

In its press release announcing the passage, SEC Chair Mary Jo White was quoted as saying, “These new rules provide an effective, workable path to raising capital that also provides strong investor protections. It is important for the Commission to continue to look for ways that our rules can facilitate capital raising

March 31, 2015

The New FINRA Broker Background Check Rule

On December 30, 2014, the SEC approved FINRA Rule 3110(e), which requires FINRA member firms to verify the information provided by or contained in a broker’s Form U-4 within 30 days of filing the form with FINRA. The Rule becomes effective on July 31, 2015. The Rule is intended to help verify background information on a broker, including publicly available information through the FINRA Broker-Check system and to prevent high-risk, recidivist brokers from moving from firm to firm and continuing questionable or outright improper conduct.

Background

One of FINRA’s 2015 Regulatory and Examination Priorities is addressing concerns about high-risk brokers and improving background checks and due diligence by member firms on prospective hires. The new Rule is part of FINRA’s initiative in this regard. FINRA is taking additional steps in this area as well, including a one-time background and financial check of all registered representatives, which checks will be completed by August 2015.

The SEC release discussing and approving the

March 24, 2015

SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies’ Recommendations On Accredited Investor Definition

On December 17, 2014 and again on March 4, 2015, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) met and finalized its recommendation to the SEC regarding the definition of “accredited investor.” The Advisory Committee unanimously approved the recommendation, which is decidedly pro small business and supportive of facilitating capital formation, and communicated such recommendation to the SEC in a letter dated March 9, 2015 (the “Letter”). The Letter contains a pragmatic discussion of the importance of small business capital formation, the importance of the “accredited investor” definition, and the lack of connection between the definition and fraud prevention.

As set forth in the Advisory Committee Letter, the 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

March 17, 2015

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

March 10, 2015

SEC Suspends Trading On 128 OTC Markets Companies

On March 2, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suspended the trading in 128 dormant shell companies trading on the OTC Link. The SEC suspended the trading in these shell companies because of questions regarding the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information concerning the companies’ operating status, if any.

The SEC notes in its release that OTC Markets had been unable to contact each of the issuers for more than one year. None of the subject issuers had filed any information or updated with either OTC Markets or the SEC in over a year. The SEC staff then independently attempted to contact the issuers and was able to contact 10 of the 128 companies and confirm from those ten that they had either ceased operations or gone private.

The trading suspensions are part of an SEC initiative tabbed Operation Shell-Expel by the SEC’s Microcap Fraud Working Group. As part of the initiative, the SEC Enforcement Division’s Office of

March 3, 2015

Shareholder Proposals And Procedural Requirements

Although in the small cap marketplace, proxy season really spreads all year, the majority of issuers hold annual meetings in connection with the issuance of their annual reports and the majority of issuers have a December 31 fiscal year end. Accordingly, in the coming months, public companies will be preparing their annual shareholder meeting notices and be dealing with the associated shareholder proposals.

The regulation of corporate law rests primarily within the power and authority of the states. However, for public companies, the federal government imposes various corporate law mandates including those related to matters of corporate governance. While state law may dictate that shareholders have the right to elect directors, the minimum and maximum time allowed for notice of shareholder meetings, and what matters may be properly considered by shareholders at annual meeting, Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and the rules promulgated thereunder, govern the proxy process itself for publicly reporting companies.

February 24, 2015

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

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

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

February 17, 2015

OTC Markets Quotation Levels, Listing Requirements, and Comprehensive Pubco Criteria

OTC Markets divide issuers into three (3) levels of quotation marketplaces: OTCQX, OTCQB and OTC Pink. The OTC Pink, which involves the highest-risk, highly speculative securities, is further divided into three tiers: Current Information, Limited Information and No Information. This page provides a summary of the listing requirements for each level of quotation on OTC Markets.

OTCQX

The OTCQX divides its listing criteria between U.S. companies and International companies, though they are very similar. The OTCQX has two tiers of quotation for U.S. companies: (i) OTCQX U.S. Premier (also eligible to quote on a national exchange); and (ii) OTCQX U.S. and two tiers for International companies: (i) OTCQX International Premier; and (ii) OTCQX International. Quotation is available for American Depository Receipts (ADR’s) or foreign ordinary securities of companies traded on a Qualifying Foreign Stock Exchange, and an expedited application process is available for such companies.

Issuers on the OTCQX must meet specified eligibility requirements. Moreover, OTC Markets have the discretionary

February 10, 2015

Understanding The NSMIA And Navigating State Blue Sky Laws- Part II

The National Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (NSMIA)

Generally, an offering and/or sale of securities must be either registered or exempt from registration under both the federal Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and state securities laws. As a result of a lack of uniformity in state securities laws and associated burden on capital-raising transactions, on October 11, 1996, the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (“NSMIA”) was enacted into law.

The NSMIA amended Section 18 of the Securities Act to pre-empt state “blue sky” registration and review of specified securities and offerings. The preempted securities are called “covered securities.” The NSMIA also amended Section 15 of the Exchange Act to pre-empt the state’s authority over capital, custody, margin, financial responsibility, making and keeping records, bonding or financial or operational reporting requirements for brokers and dealers.

In Part I of this blog, I summarized the NSMIA pre-emption provisions. In this Part II, I discuss state blue sky laws.

February 3, 2015

Understanding The NSMIA And Navigating State Blue Sky Laws- Part I

National Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (NSMIA)

In this Part I, I summarize the NSMIA pre-emption provisions. Part II discusses state blue sky laws.

Section 18; Exemption from State Regulation of

January 27, 2015

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

January 20, 2015

SEC Rules – The Commission Publishes List of New Regulations for Review

The SEC has published its annual list of rules that are scheduled to be reviewed this year and to invite comment from the public as to whether these rules should be continued without change, amended or rescinded. The SEC is required to review rules each year that have a significant impact on small entities.

The current list includes 25 rules that were adopted by the SEC in 2003. I note that many of these rules were enacted as a follow-on to the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and in response to the then current financial crisis. Persons interested in submitting comments to the SEC regarding these rules can do so through the SEC website. I have ordered the list such that rules that most impact my clients appear first.

Below is a list of rules that will be reviewed this year for potential amendment and a brief summary of the existing rule.

Conditions for Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures –

January 13, 2015

SEC Issues Several Proposed Rule Changes Pertaining To JOBs Act

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

On December 18, 2014, the SEC published proposed rule amendments to implement portions of Title V and Title VI of the JOBS Act by amending rules promulgated under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). The proposed amendments will revise the Section 12(g) rules to reflect the new, higher shareholder thresholds for triggering registration requirements and for allowing the voluntary termination of registration or suspension of reporting obligations. The proposed rules also make similar changes related to banks, bank holding companies, and savings and loan companies.

The proposed rules establish the time for determining accredited status for purposes of calculating shareholders of record and the corresponding application of the registration and deregistration rules. In particular, the proposed rules set the last day of the fiscal year as the relevant calculation moment effectively imposing an obligation on issuers to obtain, and investors to give, updated representations following an initial

January 6, 2015

First Issuer Completes NASAA Coordinated Review For Regulation A Offering

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

The first issuer has completed the NASAA coordinated review process to qualify to sell securities in multiple states under Regulation A. As the first and only issuer to complete this process, the issuer (Groundfloor Finance, Inc.) took the time to write a comment letter to the SEC with respect to its Regulation A+ rulemaking and in particular to discuss its experience with the NASAA coordinated review process. The issuer’s comment letter was followed by a letter to SEC Chair Mary Jo White from the House Financial Services Committee requesting that the SEC study the NASAA Coordinated Review Program.

The Coordinated Review Process

The NASAA coordinated review process is well put together and seems to have a focus on both investor protection and supportive assistance for the issuer. An issuer elects to complete the coordinated review process by completing a Form CR-3b and submitting the application together with a copy of the completed Form

December 30, 2014

Will the Disclosure Modernization and Simplification Act of 2014 Simplify Reporting Requirements for ECG’s and Smaller Reporting Companies?

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

In early December the House passed the Disclosure Modernization and Simplification Act of 2014, which will now go to the Senate for action—or inaction, as the case may be.

The bill joins a string of legislative and political pressure on the SEC to review and modernize Regulation S-K to eliminate burdensome, unnecessary disclosure with the dual purpose of reducing the costs to the disclosing issuer and ensure readable, material information for the investing public.

The Disclosure Modernization and Simplification Act of 2014, if passed, would require the SEC to adopt or amend rules to: (i) allow issuers to include a summary page to Form 10-K; and (ii) scale or eliminate duplicative, antiquated or unnecessary requirements in Regulation S-K. In addition, the SEC would be required to conduct yet another study on all Regulation S-K disclosure requirements to determine how best to amend and modernize the rules to reduce costs and burdens while

December 23, 2014

SEC Sanctions BITCOIN Exchange Operator-A Case Study In Basic Registration And Exemption Requirements

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

On December 8, 2014, the SEC settled charges against a creative, but ill informed, entrepreneur for acting as an unlicensed broker-dealer and for violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Ethan Burnside and his company, BTC Trading Corp., operated two online enterprises, BTC Virtual Stock Exchange and LTC-Global Virtual Stock Exchange, that traded securities using virtual currencies, bitcoin or litecoin. Neither of these exchanges were registered as broker-dealers or stock exchanges. In addition, Burnside and his company conducted separate transactions in which he offered investors the opportunity to use virtual currencies to buy or sell shares in the LTC-Global exchange itself and a separate litecoin mining venture he owned and operated. These offerings were not registered with the SEC as required under the federal securities laws.

According to the SEC release on the matter, “the exchanges provided account holders the ability to use bitcoin or litecoin to buy,

December 16, 2014

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

December 9, 2014

Private Offering Rule Changes Since JOBS Act

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

As the end of 2014 approaches, I find myself reflecting on the significant successes and failures in the private offering arena since the enactment of the Jumpstart our Business Startups Act (“JOBS Act”) on April 5, 2012. Some provisions under the JOBS Act became law without further rule-making action on the part of the SEC; others took time to pass; and significantly, Title III Crowdfunding, the most anticipated change in capital market access, has completely stalled. This blog is a summary of the in-depth detailed blogs I’ve previously written on each of these topics with some added commentary.

506(c) – The Elimination of the Prohibition Against General Solicitation and Advertising in Private Offerings to Accredited Investors; Broker-Dealer Exemption for 506(c) Funding Websites

The enactment of new 506(c) resulting in the elimination of the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in private offerings to accredited investors has been a slow but sure success. Trailblazers

December 2, 2014

What Is A Security? The Howey Test And Reves Test

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

Sometimes it’s good to go back to basics. In my blogs I often refer to the registration and exemption requirements in the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Section 5 of the Securities Act makes it unlawful to offer or sell any security unless a registration statement is in effect as to that security or there is an available exemption from registration. Similarly, I often refer to the broker-dealer registration requirements. To be a “broker” or “dealer,” a person must be engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities.

In today’s small cap world corporate finance transactions often take the form of a convertible note and/or options and warrants, the conversion of which relies on Section 3(a)(9) of the Securities Act. Section 3(a)(9) is an exemption available for the exchange of one security for another (such as a convertible note for common stock). Likewise, Rule 144(d)(3)(i) allows the tacking of

November 25, 2014

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

November 18, 2014

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

November 11, 2014

Penny Stock Rules And Broker Dealers

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

In last week’s blog regarding FINRA’s request to eliminate the OTC Bulletin Board quotation service (OTCBB) and to adopt rules relating to the quotation requirements for OTC equity services by inter-dealer quotation services, I touched upon the significance of penny stock rules related to the OTC marketplace. As further described herein, penny stocks are low-priced securities (under $5.00 per share) and are considered speculative and risky investments.

Penny stock rules focus on the activity of broker-dealers in effectuating trades in penny stocks. As a result of the risk associated with penny stock trading, Congress enacted the Securities Enforcement Remedies and Penny Stock Reform Act of 1990 (the “Penny Stock Act”) requiring the SEC to enact rules requiring brokers or dealers to provide disclosures to customers effecting trades in penny stocks. The rules prohibit broker-dealers from effecting transactions in penny stocks unless they comply with the requirements of Section 15(h) of the Securities Exchange

November 4, 2014

FINRA Seeks to Eliminate the OTCBB and Impose Regulations on the OTC Markets

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

On October 7, 2014, the SEC published a release instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve FINRA’s request to delete the rules related to, and the operations of, the OTC Bulletin Board quotation service. On June 27, 2014, FINRA quietly filed a proposed rule change with the SEC seeking to adopt rules relating to the quotation requirements for OTC equity services and to delete the rules relating to the OTCBB and thus cease its operations. Although the rule filing was published in the Federal Register, it garnered no attention in the small cap marketplace. Only one comment letter, from OTC Market Group, Inc. (“OTC Markets”) (i.e., the entity that owns and operates the inter-dealer quotation system known by its OTC Pink, OTCQB and OTCQX quotation tiers) was submitted in response to the filing.

The OTCBB has become increasingly irrelevant in the OTC marketplace for years. In October 2010, I wrote a blog titled

October 28, 2014

SEC Issues Advertising Guidance Related to State-Specific Crowdfunding

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

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. 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 is coming, but it is a slow process.

In the meantime, several states have either enacted or introduced state-specific crowdfunding legislation.

Federal Authority for State Crowdfunding Legislation

Both the federal government

October 21, 2014

Depositing Penny Stocks with Brokers Creates Obstacles; SEC Charges E*Trade with Section 5 Violation

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

Introduction

On October 9, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed an enforcement action against E*Trade Securities and E*Trade Capital Markets for selling billions of shares of unregistered and otherwise restricted penny stocks for their customers. The SEC found that the firms processed the sales on behalf of three customers while ignoring red flags that the offerings being conducted were in violation of the federal securities laws in that the shares were neither registered nor subject to an available exemption from registration. E*Trade Securities and E*Trade Capital Markets settled the enforcement proceeding by agreeing to pay a total of $2.5 million in disgorgement and penalties.

The SEC press release on the matter quoted Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, as saying, “Broker-dealers serve an important gatekeeping function that helps prevent microcap fraud by taking measures to ensure that unregistered shares don’t reach the market if the registration rules

October 14, 2014

Insider Trading- A Case Study

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include “tipping” such information, securities trading by the person “tipped,” and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information. Any and all persons that buy and sell stock may be subject to insider trading liability. This blog sets forth a particular hypothetical fact scenario and analyzes the associated insider trading implications.

Hypothetical Fact Pattern: Company X (the “Company”) sells shares to a group of 35 unaffiliated shareholders pursuant to an effective S-1 registration statement. These same 35 unaffiliated shareholders (the “Sellers”) sell their registered stock to a group of 35 unaffiliated purchasers (the Buyers”) in a private transaction (the “Transaction”). At or near the same time as the Transaction, the control block

October 7, 2014

The ECOS Matter; When Is A Reverse Split Effective?

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

In what was presumably an unintended consequence, the application of an SEC- approved FINRA regulation has resulted in a conflict between state and federal corporate law for a small publicly traded company.

On September 16, 2014, Ecolocap Solutions, Inc. (“ECOS”) filed a Form 8-K in which it disclosed that FINRA had refused to process its 1-for-2,000 reverse split. At the time of the FINRA refusal, ECOS had already received board and shareholder approval and had filed the necessary amended articles with the State of Nevada, legally effectuating the reverse split in accordance with state law. Moreover, ECOS is subject to the reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), and had filed a preliminary and then definitive 14C information statement with the SEC, reporting the shareholder approval of the split.

The ECOS 8-K attached a copy of the FINRA denial letter, which can be viewed HERE.

September 30, 2014

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

September 23, 2014

SEC Files Dozens of Charges for Violations of the Section 16 and Section 13 Corporate Insider Reporting Requirements

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

Introduction

On September 10, 2014, the SEC filed 28 separate actions against officers, directors and major shareholders and an additional 6 actions against reporting companies, all stemming from violations of the reporting requirements contained in Sections 13 and 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”). The SEC announced that it had created a task force to investigate violations using quantitative data sources and ranking algorithms to identify repetitive late filers. The SEC settled with all but one of the charged for a total of $2.6 million in penalties.

The actions against insiders and major shareholders were based on direct violations of their individual reporting requirements. The actions against reporting companies were for “contributing to” the violations. In these cases, the companies had contractually agreed to take on the responsibility of making the filings for their insiders, and had been delinquent in doing so.

Historically the SEC has rarely

September 15, 2014

OTCQX Listing and Quotation Eligibility and Requirements for International Companies

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

On May 23, 2014, OTC Markets Group, Inc., published its updated OTCQX Rules for International Companies version 6.7. This blog summarizes those rules. A complete copy of the rules is available on the OTC Link website, otcmarkets.com.

Background

The www.otcmarkets.com divides issuers into three (3) levels: OTCQX, OTCQB and OTC Pink.

The OTCQX has two tiers of quotation for U.S. companies: (i) OTCQX International Premier; and (ii) OTCQX International. International issuers on the OTCQX must meet specified eligibility requirements. Quotation is available for American Depository Receipts (ADR’s) or foreign ordinary securities of companies traded on a Qualifying Foreign Stock Exchange.

International issuers on the OTCQB must either be fully reporting and current in their SEC reporting obligations or qualify for the Rule 12g3-2(b) exemption from SEC registration for foreign private issuers. In addition, OTCQB entities must meet minimum price standards, file annual reports and pay annual fees, but do not undergo additional quality

September 8, 2014

Public Company and Affiliate Stock Buyback Rules; Rule 10b-18

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

The SEC allows for limited methods that an issuer can utilize to show confidence in its own stock and assist in maintaining or increasing its stock price. One of those methods is Rule 10b-18 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”). Exchange Act Rule 10b-18 provides issuers with a non-exclusive safe harbor from liability for market manipulation under Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act when issuers bid for or repurchase their common stock in the open market in accordance with the Rule’s manner, timing, price and volume conditions. Each of the four main conditions of Rule 10b-18 must be satisfied on each day that a repurchase is made.

Sections 9 and 10 of the Exchange Act are the general anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions under the Act. Section 9(a)(2) of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful for any person to, directly or indirectly, create

September 2, 2014

CEO and CFO Certifications for Forms 10-Q and 10-K

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

A public company with a class of securities registered under Section 12 or which is subject to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) must file reports with the SEC. The underlying basis of the reporting requirements is to keep shareholders and the markets informed on a regular basis in a transparent manner. Reports filed with the SEC can be viewed by the public on the SEC EDGAR website. The required reports include an annual Form 10-K, quarterly Form 10Q’s and current periodic Form 8-K as well as proxy reports and certain shareholder and affiliate reporting requirements.

These reports are signed by company officers and directors. Moreover, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) implemented a requirement that the company principal executive officer or officers and principal financial officer or officers execute certain personal certifications included with each Form 10-Q and 10-K. Certifications are not required on a

August 26, 2014

NASAA and US Senate Oppose State Law Pre-Emption in Proposed Regulation A+

On December 18, 2013, the SEC published proposed rules to implement Title IV of the JOBS Act, commonly referred to as Regulation A+. Since that time there has been very little activity towards the advancement of a final rule. The comment period closed March 24, 2014, and presumably the SEC is analyzing the information and deciding on the next reiteration.

NASAA

The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), a group whose members are comprised of state securities regulators, while supportive of the Regulation A+ concept as a whole, has been vocal of its opposition of the proposed state law pre-emption provisions.

Notably, on April 8, 2014, Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar, the NASAA liaison, gave a speech at the North American Securities Administrators Association commenting on the NASAA’s position. In the speech Mr. Aguilar praised the concept of the rule itself, including the two-tier structure, offering amount limits and importantly ongoing reporting requirements. He expressed agreement with many of the same

August 19, 2014

Corporate Communications During the Public Offering Process; Avoid Gun Jumping

The public offering process is divided into three periods: (1) the quiet or pre-filing period, (2) the waiting or pre-effective period, and (3) the post-effective period. Communications made by the company during any of these three periods may, depending on the mode and content, result in violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). Communication related violations of Section 5 are often referred to as “gun jumping.” All forms of communication could create “gun jumping” issues (e.g., press releases, interviews, and use of social media). “Gun jumping” refers to written or oral offers of securities made before the filing of the registration statement and written offers made after the filing of the registration statement other than by means of a prospectus that meet the requirements of Section 10 of the Securities Act, a free writing prospectus or a communication falling within one of the several safe harbors from the gun-jumping provisions.

Section 5(a) of

August 12, 2014

The Sale of Unregistered Securities Must Satisfy Form 8-K Filing Requirements In a 3(a)(10) Transaction

Introduction and Background

Recently the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has been taking action against public reporting companies for the failure to file a Form 8-K upon the completion of a transaction exempt under Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). The SEC has served a Wells notice on numerous companies for the failure to file such Form 8-K without any prior communication with such companies. Since enforcement actions for the failure to file a Form 8-K are very rare, it is my view that the SEC is concerned with the 3(a)(10) transaction itself.

A Wells notice, often referred to as a Wells letter, is a notice delivered by the SEC to persons and entities under investigation providing the opportunity to such persons and entities to present their position to the SEC prior to the commencement of an enforcement proceeding. A Wells letter gives notice of the SEC’s intended charges and enforcement recommendation and

August 5, 2014

Direct Public Offerings by Shell Companies- Tread Carefully

We thank each and every one of our Securities-Law-Blog.com readers for your devotion and positive interaction. Without you, writing these blogs just wouldn’t be exciting. Nominate Securities Law Blog for this year’s ABA Journal Blawg 100 and keep the dynamic energy flowing. Our readers are our greatest strength. Click Here to nominate.
________________________________________

As I’ve written about previously, recently (albeit not officially) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has materially altered its position on offerings by shell companies that are not blank check companies. In particular, over the past year, numerous shell companies that are not also blank check companies have completed direct public offerings using a S-1 registration statement and successfully obtained market maker support and a ticker symbol from FINRA and are trading.

Rule 419 and Blank Check Companies

The provisions of Rule 419 apply to every registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by a blank check company. Rule 419 requires that the

July 29, 2014

Completing A Name Change Without Shareholder Approval

Make Laura Anthony’s Blog Site #1
Click Icon Below and Vote NOW

Generally a name change is completed through an amendment to a company’s articles of incorporation. Moreover, amendments to articles of incorporation generally require shareholder consent, which can be time-consuming and expensive and become even more so if the company is subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

All companies with securities registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (i.e., through the filing of a Form 10 or Form 8-A) are subject to the Exchange Act proxy requirements found in Section 14 and the rules promulgated thereunder. The proxy rules govern the disclosure in materials used to solicit shareholders’ votes in annual or special meetings held for the approval of any corporate action requiring shareholder approval. The information contained in proxy materials must be filed with the SEC in advance of any solicitation to ensure compliance with the disclosure

July 22, 2014

SEC Extends Valuable Guidance to Determine and Verify Accredited Investors

On July 3, 2014, the SEC updated its Division of Corporation Finance Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations ) to provide guidance as to the determination and verification of accredited investor status for purposes of Rule 506 offering. The SEC published six new C&DI’s on the topic.

Background

Effective September 23, 2013, the SEC adopted final rules eliminating the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in Rules 506 and 144A offerings as required by Title II of the JOBS Act. For a complete discussion of the final rules, please see my blog Here.

Title II of the JOBS Act required the SEC to amend Rule 506 of Regulation D

July 15, 2014

Case Study of Online Funding as Related to Broker-Dealer Exemptions

Introduction

As a recurring topic, I am discussing exemptions to the broker-dealer registration requirements for entities and individuals that assist companies in fundraising and related services. On February 18th I published a blog about the new no-action-letter-based exemption for M&A brokers, the exemptions for websites restricted to accredited investors and for crowdfunding portals as part of the JOBS Act. Further on, I wrote on the statutory exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements found in Securities Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1, including for officers, directors and key employees of an issuer.

This blog addresses the statutory and related exemptions that affect, and would permit, the operation of a funding website, including the statutory exemption from broker-dealer registration enacted into law as part of the JOBS Act on April 5, 2012. This blog also includes an analysis of a fictional funding website.

Summary of Exemption from Broker-Dealer Registration Found in Title II of the JOBS Act

Title II of the JOBS Act created

July 7, 2014

Section 16 Insider Reporting and Potential Liability for Short-Swing Trading Practices

A public company with a class of securities registered under Section 12 or which is subject to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) must file reports with the SEC (“Reporting Requirements”). The required reports include an annual Form 10-K, quarterly Form 10Q’s and current periodic Form 8-K as well as proxy reports and certain shareholder and affiliate reporting requirements.

Last week, I wrote about the “certain shareholder” filing requirements under Sections 13d and 13g of the Exchange Act, Regulation 13D-G beneficial ownership reporting and related Schedules 13D and 13G. This blog is a summary of the “certain shareholder and affiliate” reporting and related requirements under Section 16 of the Exchange Act. In particular, all directors, executive officers and 10% stockholders (“Insiders”) of reporting companies are subject to the reporting and insider trading provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act. At the end of the blog is a reference chart related to the

June 30, 2014

Schedule 13D and 13G Filing Requirements for Public Company Shareholders

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

————————————————————————————————-

A public company with a class of securities registered under Section 12 or which is subject to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) must file reports with the SEC (“Reporting Requirements”). The underlying basis of the Reporting Requirements is to keep shareholders and the markets informed on a regular basis in a transparent manner. Reports filed with the SEC can be viewed by the public on the SEC EDGAR website. The required reports include an annual Form 10-K, quarterly Form 10Q’s and current periodic Form 8-K as well as proxy reports and certain shareholder and affiliate reporting requirements.

This blog discusses the “certain shareholder” filing requirements under Sections 13d and 13g of the Exchange Act, Regulation 13D-G beneficial ownership reporting and related Schedules 13D and 13G. This blog is a summary of the large body of rules and interpretations related to Sections 13d and 13g,

June 24, 2014

SEC Chair Mary Jo White Speaks on Equity Market Structure

On June 5, 2014, Mary Jo White gave a speech at a conference on the topic of the structure of equity markets, the entire text of which is available on sec. gov. The speech was very high-level and broad-based with few specific initiative announcements. However, it does provide some insight into the direction of planned market structure initiatives and rule releases. This blog is a summary of her speech.

Ms. White began her speech by acknowledging that the SEC agrees with the basic premise that “investors and public companies benefit greatly from robust and resilient equity markets.”

Ms. White announced that she is recommending additional measures to “further promote market stability and fairness, enhance market transparency and disclosures, and build more effective markets for smaller companies.” In addition, she will request that the SEC create a new Market Structure Advisory Committee of experts to review specific initiatives and rule proposals.

Current Market Structure

As noted in Ms. White’s speech, today’s

June 16, 2014

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

June 10, 2014

FINRA Amends Rules 5110 and 5121 Related to Corporate Financing and Conflicts Of Interest

On April 28, 2014 and on May 7, 2014, the SEC approved the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) amendments to Rule 5110 (Corporate Financing Rule – Underwriting Terms and Arrangements) and 5121 (Public Offerings of Securities with Conflicts of Interest) in order to simplify and refine the scope of the rules. FINRA is the self-regulatory body that regulates and governs securities firms. All securities firms are required to be licensed broker-dealers and are required to be members of FINRA.

FINRA rules and regulations are subject to review and approval by the SEC. Section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires that FINRA rules be “designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in

June 3, 2014

What is A CUSIP and Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) Number?

CUSIP stands for Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures. A CUSIP number identifies securities, specifically U.S. and Canadian registered stocks, and U.S. government and municipal bonds. The CUSIP system—owned by the American Bankers Association and operated by Standard & Poor’s—facilitates the clearing and settlement process of securities by giving each such security a unique identifying number.

The CUSIP number consists of a combination of nine characters, both letters and numbers, which act as individual coding for the security—uniquely identifying the company or issuer and the type of security. The first six characters identify the issuer and are alphabetical; the seventh and eighth characters, which can be alphabetical or numerical, identify the type of issue; and the last digit is used as a check digit. A CUSIP number changes with each change in the security, including splits and name changes.

Whereas CUSIP identifies securities, a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) identifies issuers. An LEI is a new global standard identifier for

May 27, 2014

Exemption to Broker-Dealer Registration Requirements for Officers, Directors and Key Employees

The topic of using unlicensed persons to assist in fundraising activities is discussed almost daily in the small and microcap community. For many years the SEC has maintained a staunch view that any and all activities that could fall within the broker-dealer registration requirements set forth in Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), require registration. See also the SEC Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration on the SEC website.

In my blog on February 18th, 2014 I talked about the new no-action-letter-based exemption for M&A brokers, the exemptions for websites restricted to accredited investors and for crowdfunding portals as part of the JOBS Act. In this blog, I am focusing on the statutory exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements found in Securities Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1, including for officers, directors and key employees of an issuer.

Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1 – Persons Associated with an Issuer that are not Required to be Licensed as

May 20, 2014

Once Again, DTC Amends Proposed Procedures for Issuers Affected by Chills and Proposes Subsequent Rule Change

Background

On October 8, 2013, I published a blog and white paper providing background and information on the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) eligibility, chills and locks and the DTC’s then plans to propose new rules to specify procedures available to issuers when the DTC imposes or intends to impose chills or locks. On December 5, 2013, the DTC filed these proposed rules with the SEC and on December 18, 2013, the proposed rules were published and public comment invited thereon. Following the receipt of comments on February 10, 2014, and again on March 10, 2014, the DTC amended its proposed rule changes. This blog discusses those rule changes and the current status of the proposed rules.

The new rules provide significantly more clarity as to the rights of the DTC and issuers and the timing of the process. For a complete discussion on background and DTC basics such as eligibility and the evolving procedures in dealing with chills and locks,

May 13, 2014

Say-On-Pay for Smaller Reporting Companies

Effective April 4, 2011, the SEC adopted final rules implementing shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). Upon enactment smaller reporting companies were given a two-year exemption from the compliance requirements. Smaller reporting companies are defined as entities which, as of the last business day of their second fiscal quarter, have a public float of less than $75 million. Beginning in 2013, that exemption expired and now these smaller reporting companies are required to include say-on-pay voting. Although smaller reporting companies have been subject to the rules for a year now, I still encounter questions from the entities as to their obligations and requirements under the rules.

The say-on-pay rules were implemented by adding Section 14A, which requires companies to conduct a separate shareholder advisory vote to approve the compensation of executives, which pay is disclosed pursuant to Item 402 (the “say-on-pay” vote).

May 6, 2014

SEC Issues New Guidance on Use of Twitter and Other Social Media Communications

On April 21, 2014, the SEC updated its Division of Corporation Finance Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) to provide guidance as to the use of Twitter and other social media communications in conjunction with a public offering or business combination transaction.

Background

Previously, 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.

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 FD ended the era of invitation-only conference calls between company management

April 29, 2014

OTCQX Listing and Quotation Eligibility and Requirements for U.S. Companies

On February 13, 2014, OTC Markets Group, Inc., published its OTCQX Rules For U.S. Companies version 6.5. This blog summarizes those rules. A complete copy of the rules are available on the OTC Link website, otcmarkets.com.

Background

The www.otcmarkets.com divides issuers into three (3) levels: OTCQX, OTCQB and OTC Pink.

The OTCQX has two tiers of quotation for U.S. companies: (i) OTCQX U.S. Premier (also eligible to quote on a national exchange); and (ii) OTCQX U.S. issuers on the OTCQX must meet specified eligibility requirements, which interestingly do not include a requirement as to being subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) for OTCQX U.S. Moreover, OTC Markets has the discretionary authority to allow quotation to substantially capitalized acquisition entities that are analogous to SPAC’s.

Issuers on the OTCQB must be fully reporting and current in their SEC reporting obligations, meet minimum price standards, file annual reports and pay annual fees, but do

April 22, 2014

Public Company SEC Reporting Requirements

A public company with a class of securities registered under either Section 12 or which is subject to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) must file reports with the SEC (“Reporting Requirements”). The underlying basis of the Reporting Requirements is to keep shareholders and the markets informed on a regular basis in a transparent manner. Reports filed with the SEC can be viewed by the public on the SEC EDGAR website. The required reports include an annual Form 10-K, quarterly Form 10Q’s and current periodic Form 8-K as well as proxy reports and certain shareholder and affiliate reporting requirements.

A company becomes subject to the Reporting Requirements by filing an

April 15, 2014

Concurrent Public and Private Offerings

Background

Conducting concurrent private and public offerings has historically been very tricky and limited, mainly as a result of the SEC’s position that the filing of an S-1 registration statement and unlimited ability to view such registration statement on the SEC EDGAR database in and of itself acted as a general solicitation and advertisement negating the availability of most private placement exemptions. In addition to the impediment of finding a private exemption to rely on, concurrent private and public offerings raised concerns of gun jumping by offering securities for sale prior to the filing of a registration statement, as prohibited by Section 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. However, with the enactment of the JOBS Act including its Rule 506(c) allowing general solicitation and advertising in an exempt offering, rules allowing the confidential submittal of registration statements for emerging growth companies (EGC) and rules permitting testing the waters communications prior to and after the filing of a

April 8, 2014

OTC Markets has Modified its OTCQB Eligibility Criteria Effective May 1, 2014

OTC Markets has unveiled changes to be quoted on the OTCQB, which changes become effective May 1, 2014. The OTC Markets changes are designed to attract venture investors to provide more information to investors and to improve such information with Real-Time Level 2 quotes. The OTC Markets press and informational releases related to the change concentrate on the push to create a successful venture-stage marketplace by removing underperforming companies.

Background

The www.otcmarkets.com divides issuers into three (3) levels: OTCQX, OTCQB and OTC Pink.

Issuers on the OTCQX must be fully reporting and current in their reporting obligations with the SEC and also undergo a quality review by industry professionals. Issuers on the OTCQB must be fully reporting and current in their reporting

April 1, 2014

The NASDAQ Private Market

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, NASDAQ surprised the small-cap and investment community when it announced it is acquiring Sharepost’s private company market place (PCMP) exchange and rebranding it. On March 5, 2014, NASDAQ officially launched the NASDAQ Private Market (“NPM”) a new marketplace for private companies. A PCMP is a trading platform, such as SharePost or SecondMarket, that provides a marketplace for illiquid restricted securities, such as private company securities, 144 stock, debt instruments, warrants, and the like or alternative assets. It is on a PCMP that pre-IPO Facebook, Groupon and LinkedIn received their trading start.

The official NASDAQ press release announcing the launch of the NPM states that the NPM will “provide qualifying private companies the tools and resources to efficiently

March 25, 2014

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

March 18, 2014

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

March 11, 2014

Understanding Section 3(a)(9) Exchanges and Conversions as Related to Convertible Promissory Notes

As an attorney specializing in the representation of companies and investment funds in the micro, small and mid cap arena, we work on corporate financing transactions involving convertible debt almost daily. These transactions provide a tremendous amount of benefit to these small cap companies, in that they obtain cash today that will be repaid with common stock tomorrow. Financing using convertible instruments that are repaid with stock is one of the many reasons an entity may choose to go public. However, the financing comes at a price including both dilution to existing stockholders and likely a reduced stock price resulting from the selling pressure when the debt is converted. Of course, all financing has pros and cons and public entities need to consider

March 4, 2014

SEC Proposes Rules for Regulation A+

On December 18, 2013, the SEC published proposed rules to implement Title IV of the JOBS Act, commonly referred to as Regulation A+. The proposed rules both add the new Section 3(b)(2) (i.e., Regulation A+) provisions and modify the existing Regulation A. This blog is limited to a discussion of the new Regulation A+.

Background

Title IV of the JOBS Act technically amends Section 3(b) of the Securities Act, which up to now has been a general provision allowing the SEC to fashion exemptions from registration, up to a total offering amount of $5,000,000. Regulation A is and has historically been an exemption created under the powers afforded the SEC by Section 3(b).

Technically speaking, Regulation D, Rule 504 and 505 offerings and Regulation A offerings are promulgated under Section 3(b), and Rule 506 is promulgated under Section 4(a)(2). This is important because federal law does not pre-empt state law for Section 3(b) offerings, but it does so for Section

February 25, 2014

The SEC Establishes Key Exemption to the Broker-Dealer Registration Requirements for M&A Brokers

On January 31, 2014, the SEC Division of Trading and Markets issued a no-action letter in favor of entities effecting securities transactions in connection with the sale of equity control of private operating businesses (“M&A Broker”). The SEC stated that it would not require broker-dealer registration for M&A Brokers arranging for the sale of private businesses, in accordance with the facts and circumstances set forth in the no action letter, as described below.

For many years the SEC has maintained a staunch view that any and all activities that could fall within the broker-dealer registration requirements set forth in Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), require registration. See also the SEC Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration (2008) on the SEC website.

In accordance with the SEC Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration, providing any of the following services may require the individual or entity to be registered as a broker-dealer:

“finders,” “business brokers,” and

February 18, 2014

A Basic Overview of Rule 144

The Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) Rule 144 sets forth certain requirements for the use of Section 4(1) for the resale of securities. Section 4(1) of the Securities Act provides an exemption for a transaction “by a person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.” The terms “Issuer” and “dealer” have pretty straightforward meanings under the Securities Act, but the term “underwriter” does not. Rule 144 provides a safe harbor from the definition of “underwriter.” If all the requirements for Rule 144 are met, the seller will not be deemed an underwriter and the purchaser will receive unrestricted securities.

Although not set out in the statute, all transfer agents and Issuers, along with most clearing and brokerage firms, require an opinion of

February 11, 2014

Recent News

SEC Modernizes Intrastate Crowdfunding; Amending Rules 147 And 504; Creating New Rule 147A

November 29, 2016

Amended Rule 147 and new Rule 147A will take effect on April 20, 2017. Amended Rule