1700 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, Suite 820

West Palm Beach, FL

(800) 341-2684

Call Toll Free

Contact us

Online Inquiries 24/7

Laura Anthony Esq

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

Blank Check Companies

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”).

Read More »

December 22, 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,

Read More »

December 1, 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

Read More »

September 29, 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

Read More »

July 14, 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

Read More »

June 23, 2015

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

Read More »

July 29, 2014

SEC Files Proceedings Against 19 S-1 Companies and Suspends Trading on 255 Shell Companies

A.  S-1 Proceedings

On February 3, 2014, the SEC initiated administrative proceedings against 19 companies that had filed S-1 registration statements.  The 19 registration statements were all filed with an approximate 2-month period around January 2013.  Each of the companies claimed to be an exploration-stage entity in the mining business without known reserves, and each claimed they had not yet begun actual mining.  The 19 entities used the same attorney, who is the subject of a separate SEC action filed in August 2013 alleging involvement in a pump-and-dump scheme.  Each of the entities was incorporated at around the same time using the same registered agent service.  The 19 S-1’s read substantially the same.

Importantly, each of the 19 S-1’s lists a separate officer, director and sole shareholder, and each claims that this person is the sole control person.  The SEC complains that contrary to the representations in the S-1, a separate single individual is the actual control person behind each

Read More »

February 4, 2014

SEC has Modified Policies on Offerings by Shell Companies

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 offerings using an S-1 registration statement and successfully obtained market maker support and a ticker symbol from FINRA and are trading.  As recently as 18 months ago, this was not possible.

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 blank-check company filing such registration statement deposit the securities being offered and proceeds of the offering into

Read More »

October 1, 2013

Rule 419 and Offerings by Shell or 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 blank check company filing such registration statement deposit the securities being offered and proceeds of the offering into an escrow or trust account pending the execution of an agreement for an acquisition or merger.

In addition, the registrant is required to file a post effective amendment to the registration statement containing the same information as found in a Form 10 registration statement, upon the execution of an agreement for such acquisition or merger. The rule provides procedures for the release of the offering funds in conjunction with the post effective acquisition or merger. The obligations to file post effective amendments are in addition to the obligations to file Forms 8-K to report both the entry into a material non-ordinary course agreement and the completion of the transaction. Rule 419 applies to

Read More »

January 5, 2010

Categories

Securities Law Blog
Linkedin-in Rss

Contact Information

Recent Posts

Legal Resources

Tweets

DEVELOPED AND MANAGED BY

Featured On

Apple Youtube Twitter
Apple Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in
  • Anthony L.G, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

Contact Author

Laura Anthony Esq

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?