(800) 341-2684

Call Toll Free

Contact us

Online Inquiries 24/7

Laura Anthony Esq

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

EDGAR

外国企業の内部関係者の説明責任を確保する法律

2025年12月18日、トランプ大統領は2026会計年度の国防権限法に署名しました。この法律には、国防法案第8103条としてひっそりと盛り込まれた外国企業内部関係者の説明責任を確保する法(HFIAA)が含まれています。HFIAAは、1934年の証券取引法第16条(a)に基づくインサイダー報告義務を、外国民間発行体(FPI)の役員および取締役にまで拡大するもので、米国証券法における大きな変革をもたらします。

従来、米国国内証券取引所に上場している、または証券取引法第12条に基づいて登録されているFPIの取締役および役員は、証券取引法規則3a12-3に基づき、第16条(a)項に基づく報告義務が免除されていました(参照)。HFIAAはこの免除規定を撤廃し、特定のFPI内部関係者に対する報告義務を、米国国内発行体の内部関係者に長年適用されてきた報告義務と整合させます。

第16条(a)

証券取引法の第16条(a)は、企業の内部関係者による所有状況や取引をタイムリーに公開することで、透明性を高め、投資家を保護することを目的としています。第16条(a)の規定によれば:

  • 上場企業の株式クラスの10%超を保有する取締役、役員、実質的所有者は、インサイダーとなった際に初回の保有状況を開示するため、Form 3を提出する必要があります。
  • その後の保有状況の変化は、取引発生日から2営業日以内に Form 4で報告しなければなりません。
  • 一部の年次報告または繰延報告は、会計年度終了後45日以内に Form 5で提出されます。

HFIAA施行前は、FPIの証券が米国内で取引されていても、これらのインサイダー報告義務は免除されていました。

HFIAAによる主な変更点

第16条(a)報告義務がFPIの役員および取締役にも適用

2026年3月18日、つまりHFIAA施行から90日後より、FPIの役員および取締役は、米国発行体のインサイダーと同様に、第16条(a)に基づく実質保有および取引報告義務を遵守する必要があります。

  • 役員および取締役は、2026年3月18日までに Form 3 を提出し、FPIの登録株式に関する全ての実質保有状況を開示しなければなりません。
  • それ以降にインサイダーとなった者は、初回の Form 3 を10暦日以内に提出する必要があります。
  • 取引の報告は、通常、報告対象となる取引から2営業日以内に Form 4で行うことが求められます。
  • 年次報告または繰延報告は、Form 5で提出します。

範囲は以前の提案よりも狭い

HFIAAは第16条(a)を拡張するものの、従来の立法提案よりも対象範囲は狭くなっています:

  • 役員や取締役でないFPIの10%超の実質保有者は、第16条(a)の適用から引き続き免除されます。
  • FPIのインサイダーは、引き続き第16条(b)の空売り利益責任および第16条(c)の空売り制限の適用除外となります(空売り利益責任の詳細については、 をご覧ください)。

免除事項

HFIAAは、外国の法域の法律が「実質的に同様の」報告義務を課している場合、SECに対し、インサイダー、証券、または取引を第16条(a)項の要件から免除する権限を与えています。SECがこの権限をどのように行使するかは未知数であり、将来の規則制定に影響を与える可能性があります。

実務およびコンプライアンス上の考慮点

HFIAAの施行に伴い、FPIとその内部関係者は、以下の点を含め、長年の慣行の見直しを迫られます。(i) EDGAR Next提出資格 – FPIの取締役および役員は、2026年3月18日までにEDGAR Next提出資格を取得する必要があります。これらの資格の取得には時間がかかる場合があるため、早期の準備が不可欠です。(ii) 「役員」の資格要件を満たす者の特定 – 第16条の適用上、「役員」は証券取引法規則16a-1(f)で定義されており、従来の経営幹部レベルの役職に加え、主要な政策立案者も含まれます。FPIは、どの個人(潜在的な「委任による取締役」を含む)がこの定義を満たす可能性があるかを評価する必要があります。(iii) 内部報告および方針 – FPIは、第16条(a)の厳格な提出期限および電子提出要件を遵守するため、インサイダー取引に関する方針および内部報告手続きを更新する必要があります。

提出の遅延または不正確な場合、SECによる執行リスクが生じる可能性があるため、堅牢な内部統制が不可欠です。この点に関して、FPIは、セクション16報告書の継続的な提出を可能にするために、指定の担当者に限定的な委任状を付与することを検討すべきです。

本ブログでは、下記にコンプライアンスチェックリストも掲載しています。

投資家および市場への影響

HFIAAは、米国内で取引されるFPIの内部関係者が、米国国内発行体の内部関係者と同等の透明性基準を求められるようにすることで、米国投資家に公平な環境を提供することを目的としています。この変更は、外国のインサイダーが、開示が遅延、未完成、または免除される状況を利用して情報上の優位性を持つ可能性があるという長年の懸念に対応するものです。特に、外国の報告制度が米国基準と異なる場合に問題とされてきました。

結論

外国企業内部関係者の説明責任を確保する法(HFIAA)は、外国民間発行体(FPI)に対する第16条(a)インサイダー報告の大きな転換点となります。 2026年3月18日からの遵守が求められるため、FPIおよび該当する内部関係者は、報告義務の評価、必要なSEC提出資格の取得、内部システムの整備を今すぐ開始する必要があります。大口保有者やショートスイング利益責任の免除は、立法上のバランスを意図したものですが、この法律はより広い政策目的を示しています。すなわち、米国市場で取引されるすべての発行体に対して、透明性と説明責任を強化することです。

以下のチェックリストは、主要なコンプライアンス手順を示しています。

  1. 適用確認

☐ 会社が外国民間発行体(FPI)に該当することを確認
☐ 会社が以下のいずれかを有していることを確認:

  • 証券取引法第12条に基づき登録された株式、または
  • 米国のナショナル証券取引所に上場されている株式

☐ 個人が以下のいずれかに該当することを確認:

  • 取締役、または
  • Exchange Act Rule 16a-1(f)の定義に基づく役員(Officer)

注意:職位だけでは判断できません。規則16の定義では、方針決定権に重点が置かれています。

  1. 対象となる内部関係者の特定

☐ 以下の全員のリストを作成:

  • 取締役会メンバー
  • 執行役員
  • 方針決定機能を担う個人
  • 潜在的な「代理取締役」

☐ 関連会社や組織が代理取締役の問題を引き起こす可能性があるかを確認

☐ 役員や取締役でない10%超の実質保有者は、引き続き免除であることを確認

  1. 初回報告義務の設定(Form 3

☐ 施行日現在の既存の取締役および役員について:

  • 発行体の登録株式に関する全ての実質保有状況を報告するForm 3を作成

☐ 施行日以降に任命された新しい取締役や役員について:

  • 任命日から10暦日以内にForm 3を提出

☐ 実質保有ルールを確認:

  • 間接保有
  • 家族や支配下の組織
  • 株式報酬およびデリバティブ証券
  1. 継続的取引報告(Form 4)の準備

☐ 報告対象となる取引を特定する手続きを実施:

  • 公開市場での株式の売買
  • オプションの付与および行使
  • 制限付き株式の付与および権利確定
  • 贈与および譲渡
  • Rule 10b5-1プランに基づく取引

☐ Form 4提出の期限(2営業日)をスケジュール化

☐ 内部通知要件を整備し、内部関係者が取引を迅速にコンプライアンス担当者に報告できる体制を確立

  1. 年次および繰延報告(Form 5

☐ 繰延報告の対象となる取引を特定
☐ Form 5提出期限をスケジュール化:

  • 会計年度末から45日以内

☐ 年間を通じて見落とした取引がないかを確認

  1. EDGARおよび提出手続きの準備

☐ 対象となるすべての内部関係者がEDGAR Next資格を取得していることを確認
☐ 内部関係者が以下を保有していることを確認:

  • CIK番号
  • パスフレーズ
  • 適切な委任状(代理人が提出する場合)

☐ 最初の提出期限前に、提出プロセスをテスト

  1. 社内規程および内部統制の更新

☐ インサイダー取引規程を更新し、以下を反映:

  • 第16条(a)の報告義務
  • 提出期限の短縮

☐ 以下を策定または改訂:

  • 第16条コンプライアンス規程
  • 社内取引報告書フォーマット
  • 事前承認手続き(該当する場合)

☐ 取締役および役員に対して研修を実施:

  • 報告対象となる取引
Read More »

The Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable Act

On December 18, 2025, President Trump signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, which — buried in the defense bill as Section 8103 — includes the Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable Act (“HFIAA”). The HFIAA represents a major change in U.S. securities law by expanding insider reporting obligations under Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to officers and directors of foreign private issuers (“FPIs”).

Historically, directors and officers of FPIs listed on a U.S. national securities exchange or registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act were exempt from Section 16(a) reporting under Exchange Act Rule 3a12-3 (see https://securities-law-blog.com/2024/10/08/foreign-private-issuers-sec-registration-and-reporting-and-nasdaq-corporate-governance-part-1/). The HFIAA eliminates that exemption, aligning the reporting requirements for certain FPI insiders with those long applicable to insiders of U.S. domestic issuers.

Section 16(a)

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act is designed to provide timely public disclosure of ownership and transactions by corporate insiders to protect investors by increasing transparency. Under Section 16(a):

  • Directors,
Read More »

Rule 144 – A Deep Dive – Part 6 – Manner Of Sale & Form 144 Notice Filings

In this sixth and final installment of my series on Rule 144, I will continue discussing the various conditions for the use of the Rule covering manner of sale requirements and the filing of a Form 144 for affiliates.  In the first installment, I provided a high-level review of Rule 144 – see HERE ; in the second, I discussed definitions including the impactful “affiliate” definition – see HERE; in the third I reviewed the current public information requirements – see HERE;   in the fourth I covered holding periods – see HERE; and in the fifth I covered limitations on the amount of securities that can be sold – see HERE.

Conditions for Use of Rule 144

                General

Rule 144 provides certain conditions that must be met by selling affiliates and selling non-affiliates which conditions vary depending on whether the Issuer of the securities is a reporting or non-reporting company and whether the Issuer is

Rule 144 – A Deep Dive – Part 3 – Current Public Information

In this third installment of my series on Rule 144, I will begin discussing the various conditions for the use of the Rule, including the current public information requirement.  In the first installment, I provided a high-level review of Rule 144 – see HERE and in the second, discussed definitions including the impactful “affiliate” definition – see HERE.

Conditions for Use of Rule 144

                General

As set out in the first blog in this series, Rule 144 provides certain conditions that must be met by selling affiliates and selling non-affiliates which conditions vary depending on whether the Issuer of the securities is a reporting or non-reporting company and whether the Issuer or ever has been a shell company.  The high-level Rule 144 requirements for non-affiliates include: (i) holding period; (ii) availability of current public information; and (iii) no shell status ineligibility.  The high-level Rule 144 requirements for affiliates (i.e. holders of control securities) include: (i) holding

SEC Publishes CD&I On Exempt Offerings; Accredited Investor Guidance – Part 2

On March 12, 2025, the SEC published several updates to its compliance and disclosure interpretations (“CD&I”) related to exempt offerings.  Two of the new C&DI clarify acceptable processes for verifying accredited investor status in a Rule 506(c) offering.  On the same day the SEC issued no-action relief providing further detail on affirming accredited investor status.  Part 1 of this blog series discussed the two rule 506(c) C&DI and no action letter – see HERE.   This Part 2 will continue a review of the remaining substantive CD&I.

Confidential Filing of Form 1-A

Modified CD&I question 182.01 confirms that when a confidentially filed Form 1-A is made public by choosing “Disseminate Draft Offering Statement” in the EDGAR database, it will have satisfied the requirements to make prior confidential information public.  The prior CD&I on this topic required an issuer to file, as an exhibit to its public Form 1-A, any related non-public correspondence.  The SEC will now undertake to make

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 New EDGAR Rules

A year after publishing proposed rules, on September 27, 2024, the SEC adopted rule and form amendments to the EDGAR system dubbing the updates as EDGAR Next (for a review of the proposed rules see HERE).   The rule changes are meant to enhance security and improve access to the EDGAR system.  My view is that will accomplish the former and not the latter. The changes require EDGAR filers to authorize identified individuals who are responsible for managing the filers’ EDGAR accounts. Individuals acting on behalf of filers on EDGAR will need individual account credentials to access those EDGAR accounts and make filings.

The new rules amend Rules 10 and 11 of Regulation S-T and amend Form ID.  Only the identified authorized individuals will be able to access a filer’s EDGAR account.  The authorized individual(s) need not be an employee of the filer, but the filer needs to provide a notarized power of attorney to appoint someone.

Through the

SEC Proposes New EDGAR Rules

On September 13, 2023, the SEC proposed rule and form amendments to the EDGAR system dubbing the updates as EDGAR Next.  The rule changes are meant to enhance security and improve access to the EDGAR system.  My view is that will accomplish the former and not the latter. The changes would require EDGAR filers to authorize identified individuals who would be responsible for managing the filers’ EDGAR accounts. Individuals acting on behalf of filers on EDGAR would need individual account credentials to access those EDGAR accounts and make filings. As part of the proposed rule changes, the SEC is making a beta software public for testing and feedback which software would eventually be used by filers if the proposed new rules are implemented.

The proposed rules would amend Rules 10 and 11 of Regulation S-T and amend Form ID.  Only the identified authorized individuals would be able to access a filer’s EDGAR account.  The authorized individual(s) need not be

SEC Publishes Sample Comment Letter Regarding XBRL Disclosure

Back in June, 2018, the SEC adopted the Inline XBRL requirements (see HERE) and since that time almost all new disclosure rules require either XBRL tagging or Inline XBRL.  In December 2022 a new law was passed requiring the SEC to “establish a program to improve the quality of the corporate financial data filed or furnished by issuers under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”),” causing the SEC to focus even more on XBRL use.  As a result, in September 2023, the SEC published a sample letter to companies regarding their XBRL disclosures.

The sample letter consists of six comments, which I have included in full below followed by a short commentary on the point.

  1. Your filing does not include the required Inline XBRL presentation in accordance with Item 405 of Regulation S-T. Please file an amendment to the filing to include the required Inline XBRL presentation.
Read More »

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

Form 144 Must Now Be Filed Electronically

On June 3, 2022, the SEC adopted amendments to the EDGAR filing rules, including requiring the electronic filing of Form 144.  This is not something that I would normally blog about; however, as the change will directly impact securities counsel, it is worth a short explanation.  Also, since the original amendment to require the electronic filing of Form 144 was part of a proposed Rule 144 amendment that would have eliminated tacking in calculating the holding period for variable rate convertible instruments, it is definitely newsworthy.

Form 144

Rule 144 requires the filing of a Form 144 – Notice of Proposed Sale – by affiliates when the amount to be sold under Rule 144 by the affiliate during any three-month period exceeds 5,000 shares or units or has an aggregate sales price in excess of $50,000.  A person filing a Form 144 must have a bona fide intention to sell the securities referred to in the form within a

SEC Denies Expert Market – For Now

As the compliance date for the new 15c2-11 rules looms near, on August 2, 2021, in a very short statement, the SEC shot down any near-term hope for an OTC Markets operated “expert market.”  The SEC short statement indicated that a review of the proposed exemptive order that would allow the expert market is not on its agenda in the short term.  The SEC continued that “[A]ccordingly, on September 28, 2021, the compliance date for the amendments to Rule 15c2-11, we expect that broker-dealers will no longer be able to publish proprietary quotations for the securities of any issuer for which there is no current and publicly available information, unless an existing exception to Rule 15c2-11 applies.”

The statement acts as a great segue for a review as to just what those exceptions may be.  In addition, this blog will discuss the OTC Markets proposed expert market and finish with a broader refresher on the new 211 rules including the

SEC Final Rule Changes For Exempt Offerings – Part 4

On November 2, 2020, the SEC adopted final rule changes to harmonize, simplify and improve the exempt offering framework.  The new rules go into effect on March 14, 2021. The 388-page rule release provides a comprehensive overhaul to the exempt offering and integration rules worthy of in-depth discussion.  As such, like the proposed rules, I am breaking it down over a series of blogs with this fourth blog discussing the changes to Regulation A.  The first blog in the series discussed the new integration rules (see HERE).  The second blog in the series covered offering communications (see HERE).  The third blog focuses on amendments to Rule 504, Rule 506(b) and 506(c) of Regulation D (see HERE.

Background; Current Exemption Framework

The Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) requires that every offer and sale of securities either be registered with the SEC or exempt from registration.  Offering exemptions are found in Sections 3 and 4 of the

SEC Amendments To Rules Governing Proxy Advisory Firms

In a year of numerous regulatory amendments and proposals, Covid, newsworthy capital markets events, and endless related topics, and with only one blog a week, this one is a little behind, but with proxy season looming, it is timely nonetheless.  In July 2020, the SEC adopted controversial final amendments to the rules governing proxy advisory firms.  The proposed rules were published in November 2019 (see HERE).  The final rules modified the proposed rules quite a bit to add more flexibility for proxy advisory businesses in complying with the underlying objectives of the rules.

The final rules, together with the amendments to Rule 14a-8 governing shareholder proposals in the proxy process, which were adopted in September 2020 (see HERE), will see a change in the landscape of this year’s proxy season for the first time in decades.  However, certain aspects of the new rules are not required to be complied with until December 1, 2021.

The SEC has

Updated Guidance On Confidential Treatment In SEC filings

In March 2019, the SEC adopted amendments to Regulation S-K as required by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (“FAST Act”) (see HERE).  Among other changes, the amendments allow companies to redact confidential information from most exhibits without filing a confidential treatment request (“CTR”), including omitting schedules and exhibits to exhibits.  Likewise, the amendments allow a company to redact information that is both (i) not material, and (ii) competitively harmful if disclosed without the need for a confidential treatment request.  The enacted amendment only applies to material agreement exhibits under Item 601(b)(10) and not to other categories of exhibits, which would rarely contain competitively harmful information.

After the rule change, the SEC streamlined its procedures for granting CTR’s and for applying for extended confidential treatment on previously granted orders.  The amendments to the CTR process became effective April 2, 2019.  See HERE for a summary of confidential treatment requests.  In December 2019, the SEC issued new guidance on confidential

SEC Proposed Rule Changes For Exempt Offerings – Part 4

On March 4, 2020, the SEC published proposed rule changes to harmonize, simplify and improve the exempt offering framework.  The SEC had originally issued a concept release and request for public comment on the subject in June 2019 (see HERE). The proposed rule changes indicate that the SEC has been listening to capital markets participants and is supporting increased access to private offerings for both businesses and a larger class of investors.  Together with the proposed amendments to the accredited investor definition (see HERE), the new rules could have as much of an impact on the capital markets as the JOBS Act has had since its enactment in 2012.

The 341-page rule release provides a comprehensive overhaul to the exempt offering and integration rules worthy of in-depth discussion.  I have been breaking the information down into a series of blogs, with this fourth blog focusing on amendments to Regulation A other than integration and offering communications which

SPAC IPOs A Sign Of Impending M&A Opportunities

The last time I wrote about special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) in July 2018, I noted that SPACs had been growing in popularity, raising more money in 2017 than in any year since the last financial crisis (see HERE).  Not only has the trend continued, but the Covid-19 crisis, while temporarily dampening other aspects of the IPO market, has caused a definite uptick in the SPAC IPO world.

In April, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that SPACs are booming and that “[S]o far this year, these special-purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, have raised $6.5 billion, on pace for their biggest year ever, according to Dealogic. In April, 80% of all money raised for U.S. initial public offerings went to blank-check firms, compared with an average of 9% over the past decade.”

I’m not surprised.  Within weeks of Covid-19 reaching a global crisis and causing a shutdown of the U.S. economy, instead of my phone

Hester Peirce Proposal For Treatment Of Cryptocurrency

SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, nicknamed “Crypto Mom,” has made a proposal for the temporary deregulation of digital assets to advance innovation and allow for unimpeded decentralization of blockchain networks.   Ms. Peirce made the proposal in a speech on February 6, 2020.

The world of digital assets and cryptocurrency literally became an overnight business sector for corporate and securities lawyers, shifting from the pure technology sector with the SEC’s announcement that a cryptocurrency is a security in its Section 21(a) Report on the DAO investigation. Since then, there has been a multitude of enforcement proceedings, repeated disseminations of new guidance and many speeches by some of the top brass at the SEC, each evolving the regulatory landscape.  Although I wasn’t focused on digital assets before that, upon reading the DAO report, I wasn’t surprised.  It seemed clear to me that the capital raising efforts through cryptocurrencies were investment contracts within the meaning of SEC v.

SEC Fall 2019 Regulatory Agenda

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

Like the prior Agendas, the spring 2019 Agenda is broken down by (i) “Pre-rule Stage”; (ii) Proposed Rule Stage; (iii) Final Rule Stage; and (iv) Long-term Actions.  The Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that.  The number of items to be completed in a 12-month time frame has increased with 47 items as compared to 40 on the

SEC Adopts Rules to Amend Regulation S-K

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

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

SEC Adopts Amendments to Simplify Disclosure Requirements

In August the SEC voted to adopt amendments to certain disclosure requirements in Regulations S-K and S-X (the “S-K and S-X Amendments”) as well as conforming changes throughout the federal securities laws and related forms. The amendments are intended to simplify and update disclosure requirements that are redundant, duplicative, overlapping, outdated or superseded with the overriding goal of reducing compliance burdens on companies without reducing material information for investors. The new amendments finalize and adopt the proposed rules that had previously been issued on July 13, 2016. See my blog on the proposed rule change HERE. The final rule changes were substantially, but not entirely, as proposed.

The Regulation S-X and S-K 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. The proposing release also requested public comment on a number of disclosure requirements that overlap with, but require information incremental to, U.S. GAAP

SEC Strategic Plan

On June 19, 2018, the SEC published a draft Strategic Plan and requested public comment on the Plan. The Strategic Plan would guide the SEC’s priorities through fiscal year 2022. The Plan reiterates the theme of serving the interests of Main Street investors, but also recognizes the changing technological world with a priority of becoming more innovative, responsive and resilient to market developments and trends. The Plan also broadly focuses on improving SEC staff’s performance using data and analytics.

The Strategic Plan begins with a broad overview about the SEC itself, a topic I go back to and reiterate on occasion, such as HERE. The SEC’s mission has remained unchanged over the years, including to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. In addition, according to the Strategic Plan, the SEC:

  • Engages and interacts with the investing public directly on a daily basis through a variety of channels, including investor roundtables and education
Read More »

The SEC Has Issued New Guidance On Cybersecurity Disclosures

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

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

Introduction

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

SEC Statements On Cybersecurity – Part 2

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

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

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

SEC Statements On Cybersecurity; An EDGAR Hacking – Part 1

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

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

This is the first in a two-part blog series summarizing Jay Clayton’s statement, the SEC EDGAR hacking and the new initiatives. My prior blog outlining SEC guidance on the disclosure of cybersecurity matters can be read

SEC Proposes Rules To Modernize And Simplify Disclosures

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

The FAST Act, passed in December 2015, contains two sections requiring the SEC to modernize and simplify the requirements in Regulation S-K.  Section 72002 requires the SEC to amend Regulation S-K to “further scale or eliminate requirements… to reduce the burden on emerging growth companies, accelerated filers, smaller reporting companies, and other smaller issuers, while still providing all material information to investors.” In addition, the SEC was directed to “eliminate provisions… that are duplicative, overlapping, outdated or unnecessary.” In accordance with that requirement, On July 13, 2016, the SEC issued proposed rule change on Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X to amend disclosures that are redundant, duplicative, overlapping, outdated

SEC Expands Ability To File Confidential Registration Statements

Nominate Us For ABA Journal’s Top Blog- HERE

——————————————————————————————————

On June 19, 2017, the SEC announced that the Division of Corporation Finance will permit all companies to submit draft registration statements, on a confidential basis. Confidential draft submissions will now be available for all Section 12(b) Exchange Act registration statements, initial public offerings (IPO’s) and for secondary or follow-on offerings made in the first year after a company becomes publicly reporting.

The SEC has adopted the change by staff prerogative and not a formal rule change. On June 29, 2017, the SEC issued guidance on the change via new FAQs. The new policy is effective July 10, 2017.

Title I of the JOBS Act initially allowed for confidential draft submissions of registration statements by emerging growth companies but did not include any other companies, such as smaller reporting companies. Regulation A+ as enacted on June 19, 2015, also allows for confidential submissions of an offering circular by companies completing their

SEC Issues Final Rules Requiring Links To Exhibits

On March 1, 2017, the SEC passed a final rule requiring companies to include hyperlinks to exhibits in filings made with the SEC. The amendments 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 amendment also requires that all exhibits be filed in HTML format. The rule change was made to make it easier for investors and other market participants to find and access exhibits listed in current reports, but that were originally provided in previous filings.

The SEC first proposed the rule change on August 31, 2016, as discussed in my blog HERE. The new rule continues the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance’s ongoing Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative. I anticipate that this initiative will not only continue but gain traction in the coming years under the new administration as, hopefully, more duplicative, antiquated and immaterial requirements come

Categories

Contact Author

Laura Anthony Esq

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?