(800) 341-2684

Call Toll Free

Contact us

Online Inquiries 24/7

Laura Anthony Esq

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

De-SPAC

ナスダック、中国企業の上場基準の改正を提案

2025年9月3日、ナスダックは中国(香港・マカオを含む)を主な事業拠点とする企業向けに、追加の上場基準を採用することを提案しました。

背景

SECやナスダックを含む米国の資本市場規制当局は長年にわたり、中国企業への投資リスクについて声高に警告してきました。その主な理由は、不十分な情報開示や開示管理にあります。2020年12月には外国企業責任法(HFCA)が採択され、外資系発行体は、PCAOBが過去3年以内に特定の報告書を監査し、監査法人を検査できたことを証明することが義務付けられました。もしPCAOBが3年連続で企業の会計監査法人を検査できない場合、その企業の証券は国内証券取引所での取引が禁止されます。HFCAに関する私の3部構成のブログ記事は  を参照   および を参照

HFCAにもかかわらず、SECは中国企業に関する開示内容の質、特に特定リスクに関して依然として懸念を示しています。2023年7月には、SECは市場関係者に対し、中国企業が登録届出書や定期報告書に含めるべき情報の種類を示すサンプルコメントレターを公開しました – を参照。それ以前の2022年末には、中国企業に関連する取引が一時的にナスダックの小型株IPO市場を事実上停止させる事態も発生しました – を参照

しかし、これらの規制にもかかわらず、中国企業のIPO市場は勢いを失っていません。実際、2020年以降、中国企業による米国上場の動きは急増しており、2024年には過去最多となる企業数が上場を目指し、2025年もそのペースが継続しています。規制当局は、中国企業の米国株式市場へのアクセスが投資家や国家安全保障に与えるリスクについて依然として懸念を示しています。例えば、2025年5月には、23州の財務担当者がSECのアトキンス委員長に対し、中国企業の上場に関する懸念を指摘する書簡を送っています。

ナスダックも、中国に本社を置く、または主な事業を中国で運営する企業の取引に関して懸念を抱いています。例えば、ナスダック上場企業のうち中国企業は全体の10%未満に過ぎませんが、ナスダックがSECやFinraに照会する案件の約70%は、これらの中国企業に関連しています。

ナスダックは、これらの企業の証券に流動性が欠けていることを大きな問題点と考えています。中国企業がナスダックにIPO(新規株式公開)や小規模な株式公開を伴う事業統合を通じて上場する場合、発行株数や公開株式比率が低いと、市場の注目を集められず、十分な公開株数、投資家層、取引関心を形成できず、公正かつ秩序ある取引に必要な市場の厚みや流動性が確保されない可能性があります。具体的にはナスダックは次のように述べています。「その結果、証券は取引頻度が低く、価格変動が大きく、買値と売値の差(スプレッド)が広くなることがあり、その価格が真の市場価値を反映していない可能性があり、悪意ある行為者による操作の影響を受けやすくなります。このような場合、価格操作、インサイダー取引、コンプライアンスに関する規制当局の調査が妨げられることがあり、投資家保護や救済も制限される可能性があります。これは、米国当局が潜在的に操作的な取引活動に関与する企業や個人に対して訴訟や執行を行う際に直面する障害があるためであり、該当する場合は当該企業や内部関係者にも及びます。」

規則案

            IPOs

ナスダックは、中国を拠点とする企業がIPOを完了するためには、米国における確定引受けの公募で最低2,500万ドルの証券を発行することを求める規則を提案しています。ナスダックはまた、de-SPAC取引、直接上場、現在OTC市場や他のナショナル証券取引所で取引されている企業に対しても、同様の変更を採用することを提案しています。

ナスダックは新ルール5210(1)を提案しており、本社または設立が中国(香港・マカオを含む)にある企業、あるいは事業の主要運営がこれらの管轄地域で行われている企業に適用されます。企業の事業が特定の管轄地域で主要に運営されているとみなされる条件は以下の通りです:(i) 企業の帳簿および記録がその管轄地域に所在すること;(ii) 企業資産の少なくとも50%がその管轄地域に所在すること;(iii) 企業の収益の少なくとも50%がその管轄地域から得られること;(iv) 企業取締役の少なくとも50%がその管轄地域の市民であるか居住していること;(v) 企業役員の少なくとも50%がその管轄地域の市民であるか居住していること;(vi) 企業従業員の少なくとも50%がその管轄地域に所在すること;(vii) 企業がその管轄地域の市民である、居住している、または事業の本社、設立、主要運営がある個人や団体により支配されている、もしくは共通支配下にあること。

規則5210(1)は、中国企業が米国での確定引受け公募において、少なくとも2,500万ドルの総収入をもたらす最低額の証券を公開投資家に提供することを義務付けます。公開投資家には、役員、取締役、または10%以上の株式を保有する株主は含まれません。

提案規則には明記されていませんが、ナスダックの発表文では、中国投資家の参加状況や内部関係者による重要な所有権の保持も考慮されることが明示されています。

事業統合

ナスダックは、中国企業が事業統合を通じて上場を目指す場合にも同様の懸念を抱いています。事業統合は株式公開を伴わない場合があるため、ナスダックは新たな規則5210(1)(ii)の導入を提案しており、事業統合後の非制限公開株式の時価総額が少なくとも2,500万ドルであることが求められています。

直接上場

ナスダックは、新たな規則5210(1)(iii)を提案しています。この規則では、中国企業はナスダック・グローバル・セレクト・マーケット(NGS)の適用上場要件とIM-5315-1の追加要件、またはナスダック・グローバル・マーケット(NGM)の適用上場要件とIM-5405-1の追加要件をすべて満たすことが求められます。さらに、この新規則は、中国に拠点を置く企業が直接上場に関連してナスダック・キャピタル・マーケットに上場することを禁止します。

OTC市場からの上場およびNYSEからの移行

ナスダックは、OTC市場や他のナショナル証券取引所に初めて上場した中国企業が、短期間でナスダックに上場を移行する場合、IPOと同様に米国投資家にリスクをもたらす可能性があると考えています。そこで、ナスダックは新規則5210(1)(iv)を提案しており、OTC市場または他のナショナル証券取引所から上場を移行する中国企業は、ナスダックに上場する資格を得る前に、まず当該市場で少なくとも1年間取引されていることを求めています。さらに、これらの企業は非制限公開株式の時価総額が少なくとも2,500万ドルであることが要求されます。

著者

ローラ・アンソニー弁護士

設立パートナー

アンソニー、リンダー&カコマノリス

企業法務および証券法務事務所

LAnthony@ALClaw.com

証券弁護士ローラ・アンソニー氏とその経験豊富な法律チームは、中小規模の非公開企業、上場企業、そして上場予定の非公開企業に対して継続的な企業顧問サービスを提供しています。ナスダックNYSEアメリカン、または店頭市場(例えばOTCQBOTCQX)で上場を目指す企業も対象です。20年以上にわたり、Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC(ALC)は、迅速でパーソナライズされた最先端の法的サービスをクライアントに提供してきました。当事務所の評判と人脈は、投資銀行、証券会社、機関投資家、その他の戦略的提携先への紹介など、クライアントにとって非常に貴重なリソースとなっています。当事務所の専門分野には、1933年証券法の募集・販売および登録要件の遵守(レギュレーションDおよびレギュレーションSに基づく私募取引、PIPE取引、証券トークン・オファリング、イニシャル・コイン・オファリングを含む)が含まれますが、これに限定されません。規制A/A+オファリング、S-1、S-3、S-8フォームの登録申請、S-4フォームによる合併登録、1934年証券取引法の遵守(フォーム10による登録、フォーム10-Q、10-K、8-Kおよび14C情報・14A委任状報告書)、あらゆる形態の株式公開取引、合併・買収(リバースマージャーおよびフォワードマージャーを含む)、ナスダックNYSEアメリカンを含む証券取引所のコーポレートガバナンス要件への申請および遵守、一般企業取引、一般契約および事業取引が含まれます。アンソニー氏と当事務所は、合併・買収取引において、買収対象企業と買収企業の双方を代理し、合併契約、株式交換契約、株式購入契約、資産購入契約、組織再編契約などの取引文書を作成します。ALC法務チームは、公開企業が連邦および州の証券法やSROs要件に準拠することを支援しており、15c2-11申請、社名変更、リバース・フォワードスプリット、本拠地変更などにも対応しています。アンソニー氏はまた、中堅・中小企業向けの業界ニュースのトップ情報源であるSecuritiesLawBlog.comの著者であり、企業財務に特化したポッドキャスト『LawCast.com: Corporate Finance in Focus』のプロデューサー兼ホストでもあります。当事務所は、ニューヨーク、ロサンゼルス、マイアミ、ボカラトン、ウェストパームビーチ、アトランタ、フェニックス、スコッツデール、シャーロット、シンシナティ、クリーブランド、ワシントンD.C.、デンバー、タンパ、デトロイト、ダラスなど、多くの主要都市でクライアントを代理しています。

アンソニー氏は、Crowdfunding Professional Association(CfPA)、パームビーチ郡弁護士会、フロリダ州弁護士会、アメリカ弁護士会(ABA)および連邦証券規制やプライベート・エクイティ・ベンチャーキャピタルに関するABA委員会など、さまざまな専門団体のメンバーです。パームビーチ郡およびマーティン郡のアメリカ赤十字社、スーザン・コーメン財団、オポチュニティ社(Opportunity, Inc.)、ニュー・ホープ・チャリティーズ、フォー・アーツ協会(Society of the Four Arts)、ノートン美術館、パームビーチ郡動物園協会、クラヴィス・パフォーミング・アーツ・センターなど、複数の地域社会慈善団体を支援しています。

アンソニー氏はフロリダ州立大学ロースクールを優秀な成績で卒業しており、1993年から弁護士として活動しています。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC にお問い合わせください。技術的な内容に関するご質問もいつでも歓迎いたします。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLCFacebookLinkedInYouTubePinterestTwitter でフォローしてください。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLCは、本情報を教育目的の一般情報として提供しています。本情報は一般的な内容であり、法的助言を構成するものではありません。さらに、本情報の利用や送受信は、当事務所との弁護士–依頼者関係を成立させるものではありません。したがって、本情報を通じて当事務所と行ういかなる通信も、特権または機密として扱われることはありません。

© Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC

 

 

 

NASDAQ Proposes To Modify Listing Standards For China Based Companies

On September 3, 2025, Nasdaq proposed to adopt additional listing criteria for companies primarily operating in China, including Hong Kong and Macau.

Background

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

Despite the HFCA, the SEC has remained concerned about the quality of disclosures, including specific risks, involved with China based companies.  Back in July 2023, the

SEC Publishes New CD&I On Compensation Clawbacks And De-SPAC C-Registrants

On April 11, 2025, the SEC published several updates to its compliance and disclosure interpretations (“CD&I”) related to compensation clawbacks and co-registrants in de-SPAC transactions.

De-SPAC Transactions

Under the new SPAC rules, a target company, or companies, are included as co-registrants on the S-4 (or other Securities Act registration statement) in association with the de-SPAC.  Under Exchange Act rules, upon effectiveness of the S-4, each of the target co-registrants become separately subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements.  New C&DI 253.03 confirms that the SEC will not object if each target co-registrant files a Form 15, as long as they are wholly owned by the combined company and the combined company remains current in its Exchange Act reporting requirements.

For a review of the new de-SPAC rules see here – Part 1 – HERE; Part 2 – HERE; Part 3 – HERE; Part 4 – HERE; Part 5 – HERE;

Delaware Reworks General Corporation Law

On March 25, 2025, Delaware enacted sweeping changes to the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) to provide certainty to key areas of Delaware corporate law.  The changes are expected to reduce the tide of redomestications to other states and reduce litigation risks for corporations and their boards of directors.  The key changes include new safe harbor protections for one or more directors, officers, or controlling shareholders/groups, from liability where they may not be independent in a transaction and changes to stockholders’ rights to inspect books and records.

Related Party Liability Protections

Section 144 of the DGCL relates to interested directors, officers and controlling stockholder transactions. In essence, Section 144 provides a safe harbor against liability claims for transactions between a corporation and its officers, directors, or controlling stockholders where conflicts, such as a financial interest, exist.  Section 144 prevents a transaction from being declared void or voidable solely due to the conflict of interest, as long as certain conditions

SEC Further Expands Ability To File Confidential Registration Statements

The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance has expanded the ability to file non-public confidential registration statements to include all registration statements.

In 2012, the JOBS Act created a path for emerging growth companies to file draft registration statements (DRS) on a confidential basis when completing an initial public offering.  In 2017 the Division of Corporation Finance expanded the DRS filing option to include all Section 12(b) Exchange Act registration statements (but not 12(g) registrations), all registration statements for initial public offerings, and follow on offerings completed within 12 months of an initial public offering, for all class of issuers.  See – HERE.

On March 3, 2025, the Division of Corporation Finance announced that it has further expanded the ability to utilize a DRS filing to include:

  • Initial registrations under the Exchange Act, including both Sections 12(b) and 12(g) including Forms 8-A, 10, 20-F and 40-F;
  • All Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) registration statements regardless of the amount of
Read More »

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACs, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 10

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

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

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

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

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

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 8

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

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

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 7

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

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

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

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

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

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 5

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

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

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 4

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

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

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 3

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

In the first blog in this series, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  Last week’s blog began a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release starting with partial coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions – see HERE.  This week’s blog will continue a review of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K.

New Subpart 1600 of Regulation S-K

The SEC has adopted new Subpart 1600 to

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 2

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

In last week’s blog, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  This week’s blog begins a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release and its vast implications to not only the SPAC market, but shell company reverse mergers in general.  This week in particular, I will begin coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions.

New Subpart 1600 of Regulation S-K

The SEC has adopted new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K to: (i) set forth disclosure obligations for

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 1

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

The SEC is specifically requiring enhanced disclosures with respect to compensation paid to sponsors, conflicts of interest, dilution, and the determination, if any, of the board of directors (or similar governing body) of a SPAC regarding whether a de-SPAC transaction is advisable and in the best interests of the SPAC and its shareholders.  The SEC has also adopted rules that deem any business combination transaction involving a reporting shell company, including a SPAC, to involve a sale of securities to the reporting shell company’s shareholders, and has amended several financial statement requirements applicable to transactions involving

SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s Annual Congressional Testimony

On September 12, 2023, Gary Gensler gave his annual testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and then on September 27th to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services (for a review of last year’s testimony see HERE).  Both appearances included the same prepared remarks followed by robust Q&A from the lawmakers.

This year Chair Gensler’s prepared remarks focused on: (i) rule amendments and updates; (ii) improving efficiency in equity markets; (iii) disclosure matters and related enforcement including related to cryptocurrency; and (iv) general updates on the SEC and capital markets.

Prepared Remarks

We shouldn’t expect the busy SEC rule making agenda to slow down any time soon.  Chair Gensler prioritizes updating rules for technology, business and market changes.  Although Gensler’s speech focuses on rule changes to make the markets more efficient and resilient and lower costs, the reality is that not all rule changes will accomplish

2023 Changes To Delaware Corporate Law

Each year the Delaware legislature passes several amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) which impact not only public and private companies incorporated in Delaware, but elsewhere, as many states follow the DGCL.  This year the most significant changes relate to reduced stockholder approval provisions.  Effective August 1, 2023, the DGCL has been amended to: (i) eliminating the need for stockholder approval for forward stock splits in certain cases; (ii) reducing the voting threshold for certain reverse stock splits or changes to authorized shares; (iii) allowing for the disposition of treasury stock for less than par value; (iv) simplifying the process for ratifying defective corporate actions; (v) simplify notices to stockholders following action taken by consent; (vi) expanding certain appraisal rights; and (vii) establishing “safe harbor” provisions from the stockholder approval requirement for certain dispositions of pledged assets.

Shareholder Voting Requirements for Certain Amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation – DGCL Section 242

One of the reasons Delaware

SEC Spring 2023 Regulatory Agenda

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

The Agenda is broken down by (i) “Pre-rule Stage”; (ii) Proposed Rule Stage; (iii) Final Rule Stage; and (iv) Long-term Actions.  The Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that.  The number of items to be completed in a 12-month time frame is 55, which is in-line with the average items under Gary Gensler’s regime (and much higher than

SPAC Director And Sponsor Fiduciary Obligations

A year following the Delaware Chancery Court’s decision in Multiplan Corp. Stockholders Litigation (f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp III), the court again issued an opinion supporting a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action against SPAC directors and sponsors and confirming that a de-SPAC transaction should be reviewed using the “entire fairness” standard.  In the January 2023 case of Delman v. Gigacquisitions3, LLC, et al. the Delaware Court denied a motion to dismiss by SPAC sponsors and directors, upholding their potential liability.  Interestingly, the Delman motion was in front of the same vice-chancellor as was Multiplan.  My blog on the Multiplan Corp. Stockholders Litigation (f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp III) case and its ramifications can be read HERE.

In addition to confirming the inherent conflict of interest of SPAC sponsors and directors, the cases will undoubtedly cause practitioners and market participants to implement new policies and procedures related to proxy statement disclosures, diligence, board discussions, financial valuations, capital raising

Class Voting in Delaware – The Saga Continues

Just a few weeks ago, I wrote about the Garfield v. Boxed, Inc. case in Delaware questioning whether Class A and Class B common stock in a SPAC structure were different series of a same class or different classes of stock requiring separate class voting in certain circumstances (see HERE).  The Delaware Chancery court in Garfield v. Boxed, found that in that particular case, the Class A and Class B were separate classes requiring a separate class vote to increase the total outstanding common stock as required by the Delaware General Corporate Law (DGCL) Section 242(b)(2).

Following the Garfield decision, there has been a run on the Chancery Court by post-business-combination SPACs seeking to ratify shareholder approvals obtained during the de-SPAC process, in reliance on DGCL Section 205.  Although the wording has varied, in essence each of the companies have asked the Chancery court to (i) validate and declare effective the company’s current certificate of incorporation

Class Voting In Delaware And The Impact On SPACs

In December 2022, the Delaware Chancery Court entered a ruling sending the SPAC world spiraling, for what seems like the 10th time in the last couple of years.  As is always the case in a SPAC (or at least 99% of the time), common stock is broken into two series, Class A and Class B.  The Class A common stock is issued to the public shareholders in the underwritten initial public offering and the Class B common stock is issued to the sponsor.  Upon closing a business combination transaction, the sponsor Class B common stock automatically converts into Class A common stock, leaving one Class of common stock.  Also, in the majority of SPAC transactions, the shareholder approval for the business combination transaction involves other changes to the charter documents for the SPAC, including a name change, and changes in authorized capital stock, etc.  The term “charter” in this blog refers to the certificate of incorporation and any amendments

Final Rules On The Foreign Companies Accountable Act; PCAOB Reached Deal WIth China And Hong Kong – Part II

The Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (“HFCA”) was adopted on December 18, 2020, requiring both the SEC and the PCAOB to adopt rules and procedures implementing its provisions.  The HFCA requires foreign-owned issuers to certify that the PCAOB has been able to audit specified reports and inspect their audit firm within the last three years.  If the PCAOB is unable to inspect the company’s public accounting firm for three consecutive years, the company’s securities are banned from trading on a national exchange.

As part of the HFCA’s implementation, on November 5, 2021, the SEC approved PCAOB Rule 6100 establishing a framework for the PCAOB’s determination that it is unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms located in foreign jurisdictions because of a position taken by an authority in that jurisdiction (see HERE.) On December 2, 2021, the SEC adopted amendments to finalize rules implementing the submission and disclosure requirements in the HFCA and published a sample

Final Rules On The Foreign Companies Accountable Act; PCAOB Reached Deal WIth China And Hong Kong – Part I

The Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (“HFCA”) was adopted on December 18, 2020, requiring both the SEC and the PCAOB to adopt rules and procedures implementing its provisions.  The HFCA requires foreign-owned issuers to certify that the PCAOB has been able to audit specified reports and inspect their audit firm within the last three years.  If the PCAOB is unable to inspect the company’s public accounting firm for three consecutive years, the company’s securities are banned from trading on a national exchange.

As part of the HFCA’s implementation, on November 5, 2021, the SEC approved PCAOB Rule 6100 establishing a framework for the PCAOB’s determination that it is unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms located in foreign jurisdictions because of a position taken by an authority in that jurisdiction (see HERE .) On December 2, 2021, the SEC adopted amendments to finalize rules implementing the submission and disclosure requirements in the HFCA and published a sample

SEC Proposes New Rules For SPACs – Part 6

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

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

SEC Proposes New Rules For SPACs – Part 5

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

In addition to proposing new rules for SPAC and de-SPAC transactions, the SEC is proposing new Securities Act Rule 145a that would deem all business combinations with an Exchange Act reporting shell to involve the sale of securities to the reporting shell company’s

SEC Proposes New Rules for SPACs- Part 4

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

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

SEC Proposes New Rules for SPACs- Part 3

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

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

SEC Proposes New SPAC Rules – Part 2

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

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

SEC Proposes New SPAC Rules – Part 1

As I wrote about last week, the SEC has had a very busy rule-making few weeks.  In addition to issuing six new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DI) for merger and acquisition transactions, most of which directly impact SPAC business organization transactions, it also proposed new rules on SPACs and all shell companies in a 372-page release. The new C&DI were the topic of last week’s blog (HERE) and in a multi-part blog series, I am delving into the proposed new SPAC rules.

On March 30, 2022, the SEC proposed rules enhancing disclosure requirements associated with SPAC initial public offerings (IPOs) and de-SPAC merger transactions; requiring that a private operating company be a co-registrant when a SPAC files an S-4 or F-4 registration statement associated with a business combination; requiring a re-determination of smaller reporting company status within four days following the consummation of a de-SPAC transaction; amending the definition of a “blank check company” to make the

Categories

Contact Author

Laura Anthony Esq

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?