Form S-1

SEC、外国私募発行体の定義に関する概念リリースを発表 ― 第1部

2025年6月、SEC（米国証券取引委員会）は、外国私募発行体（“FPI”）の定義についての概念リリースおよびコメント募集を公表しました。現在の定義、SECへの登録・報告制度、そしてFPIsに関連するNasdaqのコーポレートガバナンスについての解説は、私の3部構成のブログをご参照ください：HERE ; HERE; および.

FPI（外国私募発行体）は、米国の資本市場へアクセスする際に独自の課題に直面します。そのため長年にわたり、SECはFPIが自国のコーポレートガバナンス規則に従うことを認め、さらに開示制度についても一定の緩和措置を設けるなど、柔軟な規制対応を整えてきました。しかしSECは、過去数十年の間にFPIの構成が変化し、その多くがほぼ米国市場のみで取引されていることに気付きました。

つまり、現在の定義やFPI向けの措置が制定された当時、SECは、対象となる多くのFPIが自国で重要な開示義務やその他の規制要件の対象となり、また外国市場で取引されることを想定していました。ところが下記のとおり、現在のFPIの大半は、米国でのみ取引される中国系企業が多く、平均時価総額も低い傾向があります。SECは、このような状況では、既存の規則は当初想定していた効果をもはや発揮していないと考え、概念リリースおよびコメント募集を発行しました。

本稿（第1回）では、概念リリースに関連して、FPIの現行の定義および規制枠組み、そしてFPIの構成に関するSECの一般的な見解について解説します。次回のブログでは、SECによるFPIの定義の再評価について取り上げます。

FPIの現行の定義および規制枠組み

1933年証券法（改正を含む、以下「証券法」）および1934年証券取引法（改正を含む、以下「証券取引法」）の双方において、「外国私募発行体」（FPI）の定義が規定されています。一般に、企業がFPIの定義を満たさない場合、米国企業と同様の登録義務および報告義務が課されます。

FPI資格の有無は、本拠地国だけで決まるものではありません（なお、米国法人は、事業・資産・経営陣・子会社の所在地にかかわらず、FPIとなることはできません）。FPIとして認められるかどうかは、通常、以下の2つの基準によって判断されます。(i) 米国における株式保有の相対的割合 (ii) 米国における事業活動・取引関係の程度。

多くの証券法上の定義と同様に、外国私募発行体の定義はまず「すべての外国発行体」を包括的に対象とした上で、そこから例外を除外する形で構成されています。具体的には、FPIとは、以下の条件に該当する外国発行体を除いたものを指します（既存の発行体の場合は会計年度第2四半期末時点、初めてSECに登録する場合は、証券法または証券取引法のいずれかに基づく最初の登録届出書の提出日から30日以内に判定）。

(i) 外国政府

(ii) 議決権付証券の50％超が米国居住者により直接または間接的に保有されている場合、さらに次のいずれかに該当すること：(a) 取締役または執行役員の過半数が米国市民または米国居住者であること、(b) 資産の50％超が米国内に所在すること、または (c) 主たる事業が米国にある。主たる事業所の所在地は、会社の主な事業分野または業務、取締役会および株主総会、本社、および最も影響力のある主要役員を考慮して決定されます。

つまり、外国企業の株主の過半数が米国内に所在しない場合、その企業はFPIとして適格となります。一方、名義株主の50％超が米国に所在する場合には、企業は役員・取締役、資産、事業活動の所在地について、さらに検討する必要があります。

店頭市場に関する証券取引法規則12g3-2(b)の免除が適用される場合を除き、FPIが米国の証券取引所またはOTC Marketsでの取引を希望する場合には、証券取引法第12条(b)または第12条(g)に基づき、証券クラスを登録する必要があります。また、FPIの全世界の資産および全世界／米国の株主数が一定基準（資産1,000万ドル以上、かつ総株主数2,000人以上、または非適格投資家500人以上かつ米国株主300人以上）に達した場合には、すでに第12条(b)に基づき登録していない限り、証券取引法第12条(g)に基づくSEC登録が義務付けられます。

FPIは登録後、定期的に報告書を提出する必要があります。年次報告書にはForm 20-Fが使用され、会計年度末から4か月以内に提出しなければなりません。四半期報告書の提出義務はありません。また、Form 6-Kは定期報告書として使用され、以下の情報を含みます。(i) Form 8-Kで提出が義務付けられている事項、(ii) 企業が所在国の法令に基づき公表した、または公表を義務付けられている情報、(iii) 米国または海外の証券取引所に提出した、または提出を義務付けられている情報。

SECへのあらゆる提出書類は英語で作成しなければなりません。文書や契約書を他の言語から翻訳する場合、翻訳が公平かつ正確であることを担保するための規則がSECにより定められています。

SECはFPIのみに適用される複数の規則を採用しており、提出書類の審査や登録・報告に関する問い合わせに対応するため、国際企業財務室（Office of International Corporate Finance）を設置しています。特に重要な点としては、以下のとおりです。

(i) FPIは、財務諸表の作成および表示にあたり、米国会計基準（U.S. GAAP）、国際財務報告基準（IFRS）、または自国の会計基準（ただしU.S. GAAPとの調整注記が必要）のいずれかを選択できます。使用する会計基準にかかわらず、監査法人はPCAOBへの登録が必要です。

(ii) FPIは、証券取引法第14条の委任状ルールの適用が免除されます。

(iii) FPIの内部者は、証券取引法第16条の報告義務および短期売買規制の適用が免除されます。ただし、第13条の規制には従う必要があります。第13条の詳細についてはおよびおよびを、また第16条についてはを参照してください。

(iv) FPIには四半期報告書の提出義務はありません（ただし、NasdaqおよびNYSEは、半期財務諸表をForm 6-Kで提出することを要求しています）。

(v) FPIの年次報告書の提出期限は、会計年度末から120日後となっています。

(vi) FPI は規制 FD の適用が免除されます (規制 FD の詳細については、およびを参照してください)。

(vii) FPIは、登録届出書と報告届出書を別々のフォームで使用でき、四半期報告書の提出は義務付けられていません（例えば、登録届出書として様式F-1、年次報告書および定期報告書として様式20-Fおよび6-K）。さらに、登録届出書および報告書に関する開示規則では、Regulation S-KおよびS-Xの代替としてForm 20-Fの特定項目が参照されることが多く、FPIに適用される開示要件は一般的により緩やかです。

(viii) 開示義務がより緩やかな例としては、FPIには事業内容の説明に関して要求される具体的事項が少なく、役員報酬は総額で開示することが認められている場合があり、関連当事者取引の開示もはるかに容易ですおよび );

(ixフォーム6-Kによる定期報告書は「提供（furnished）」されます（米国のフォーム8-Kは通常「提出（filed）」されます）（詳細についてはおよび) および ) を参照してください）。

(x) FPIは、証券取引法第12条(g)に基づく登録要件について独自の免除規定（Rule 12g3-2(b)）があり、SECによる報告義務を負うことなくOTC Marketsで証券を取引することができます。

(xi) FPIは、NasdaqやNYSEなどの全米証券取引所で取引する場合、異なる企業統治（コーポレート・ガバナンス）要件の適用を受けます。

(xii) FPIはセイ・オン・ペイ規則の適用除外となります。セイ・オン・ペイの詳細についてはをご参照ください。

(xiii) FPIの財務諸表は、米国企業よりも「期限切れ（stale）」となるまでの期間が長く認められています。米国企業の財務諸表は135日で期限切れとなりますが、FPIの場合、IPOでは財務諸表は9か月以内、監査報告書は12か月以内である必要があります。追加登録届出書の場合、監査報告書は15か月以内であれば有効とされます。また、中間財務諸表については、米国企業が3か月分で足りるのに対し、FPIは少なくとも6か月分を対象とする必要があります。

(xiv) FPIの非GAAP財務指標は、一定の条件を満たす場合、Regulation Gの適用が免除されます（非GAAP報告の詳細はをご覧ください）。

(xv) FPIは、証券法に基づく登録届出書としてForm F-1、F-3、F-4（52）を提出することができ、これらのフォームは、それぞれ対応するForm S-1、S-3、S-4とは構造および開示要件が異なります。

(xvi) FPIは、Rules 801および802など、証券の募集および販売に関して追加の適用除外を有しています (を参照）。

(xvii) FPIは、証券取引法第15(d)条に基づく報告義務を終了させることができますが、米国企業（国内発行体）は、第15(d)条に基づく報告義務の提出を一時停止することしかできません。

SEC規則には、FPI向けのスケールされた開示要件はありません。つまり、企業規模にかかわらず、すべての企業が同じ情報を報告しなければなりません。スモール・レポーティング・カンパニー（SRC）やエマージング・グロース・カンパニー（EGC）に該当する可能性のあるFPIは、米国企業向けの通常の報告要件および登録・報告様式を使用し、それらの適用を受けるべきかどうかを検討する必要があります。

FPI人口の最近の動向

SECは最近、2003年から2023年までのForm 20-Fを提出しているFPIについて調査を実施しました（MJDSを利用するカナダ企業は除外されます）。この概要調査により、以下の点が明らかになりました。(i) FPIの総数は146社から967社へと増加したこと、(ii) 2023年に最も一般的な事業運営国は中国（ただし登記地はケイマン諸島）であり、2003年はカナダおよび英国であったこと、(iii) 中国系FPIの平均時価総額は全体平均よりも小さいこと。

また、SECは、米国で発生するグローバルな取引量に焦点を当て、2014年から2023年までを対象とした類似の調査も行いました。その結果、以下の点が判明しました。(i) FPIの株式のグローバルな取引は米国資本市場にますます集中しており、多くのFPIが株式をほぼ米国市場のみで取引していること、(ii) 米国のみで取引されるFPIは、時価総額がより小さい傾向にあること、(iii) 米国のみで取引されるFPIは、中国を拠点とする企業である傾向が強いこと。

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OTCQBやOTCQX）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）、ナスダックや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

November 25, 2025

SEC Issues A Concept Release On The Definition Of A Foreign Private Issuer – Part 1

In June 2025 the SEC published a concept release and request for comment on the definition of a foreign private issuer (“FPI”). For a review of the current definition, information regarding SEC registration and reporting and Nasdaq corporate governance related to FPIs, see my three part blog here HERE; HERE; and HERE.

FPI’s face unique challenges when accessing U.S. capital markets and as such over years the SEC has developed regulatory flexibilities allowing FPIs to follow the corporate governance rules of their home country and providing them with a modified disclosure regime. However, the SEC has noticed that the composition of FPI’s has changed over the last few decades and that most FPI’s almost exclusively trade in the U.S.

That is, at the time the current definition and accommodations for FPIs was established, the SEC through that most eligible FPI’s would be subject to meaningful disclosure and other regulatory requirements in their home country jurisdictions and

November 25, 2025

SEC Officials Talk Tokenization

On May 12, 2025, SEC Chair Paul S. Atkins and Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda gave speeches at the crypto task force roundtable on tokenization.

Chair Atkins Speech

Techology is advancing such that securities are increasingly being moved from traditional databases (ledgers with the transfer agent, etc..) to blockchain based ledger systems. Atkins likens this change to the historical music industry which morphed from analog vinyl records to cassettes to digital software. The change in the music industry allowed streaming and an entirely new system of developing and listening to music.

Atkins notes that just as digitization revolutionized the music industry, the digitization (i.e. tokenization) of securities has the potential to “remodel aspects of the securities market by enabling entirely new methods of issuing, trading, owning, and using securities.” For example, the new technology will make the issuance of dividends (especially recurring dividends) automatic, allow for the trading of previously illiquid assets, and allow for the creation of new

July 8, 2025

Registration Statement Undertakings

Every four years we go through a regulatory dead zone as the SEC prepares for a change in administration with new priorities, new interpretations, and a whole new rulemaking agenda, including the potential unwinding of the prior administration’s rules. While waiting for the significant changes to come, I’ll continue to dive into the endless detailed topics of disclosure and other requirements of the federal securities laws. This week I’ll cover the ongoing requirements associated with an effective registration statement – known as “Undertakings.”

Every registration statement filed pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), whether by a domestic company or foreign private issuer (“FPI”) requires the registrant to include a statement as to certain affirmative undertakings by such company. Item 512 of Regulation S-K sets forth the undertakings, and registration statements on Forms S-1, S-3, F-1 and F-3 must include all items set forth in Item 512. Registration Statements on Form S-8 need only include the undertakings in

December 31, 2024

Termination Of Registration Under Section 12 Of The Exchange Act

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 Section 13 reports with the SEC (10-K, 10-Q and 8-K). A company registers securities under Section 12 by filing an Exchange Act registration statement such as on Form 10, Form 20-F or Form 8-A. A company becomes subject to Section 15(d) by filing a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) such as a Form S-1 or F-1. The Section 15(d) reporting requirements are scaled down from the full Exchange Act reporting requirements for a company with a class of securities registered under Section 12.

I have previously written about suspending the duty to file reports under Section 15(d) and the related question of determining voluntary reporting status (see HERE). This blog addresses the termination of registration under Section 12.

Terminating

November 22, 2022

SEC Issues New Mergers And Acquisitions Related C&DI

Last week was a very busy regulatory week for the SEC, including issuing six new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DI) for merger and acquisition transactions, most of which directly impact SPAC business organization transactions; proposed rules on SPACs’ shell companies and the use of financial projections; proposed rules to modify the definition of “dealer” for purposes of broker-dealer registration requirements; and a new accounting bulletin impacting the accounting treatment of cryptocurrencies by exchanges. This blog will discuss the new C&DI.

Background

The rules related to disclosure obligations, including in Forms 8-K, S-4 registration statements and proxy materials, and the filing of exhibits associated with a material contract, including merger agreements, have evolved over the past few years (see here related to confidential treatment of material contracts – HERE). In March 2021, the SEC issued a statement discussing certain legal specifics associated with a SPAC, including expressing concerns regarding disclosures associated with a de-SPAC transaction (i.e., a business

April 5, 2022

A Review of FINRA’s Corporate Finance Rule

As the strongest U.S. IPO market in decades continues unabated, it seems a good time to talk about underwriter’s compensation. FINRA Rule 5110 (Corporate Financing Rule – Underwriting Terms and Arrangements) governs the compensation that may be received by an underwriter in connection with a public offering.

Rule 5110 – The “Corporate Financing Rule”

Rule 5110 regulates underwriting compensation and prohibits unfair arrangements in connection with the public offerings of securities. The Rule prohibits member firms from participating in a public offering of securities if the underwriting terms and conditions, including compensation, are unfair as defined by FINRA. The Rule requires FINRA members to make filings with FINRA disclosing information about offerings they participate in, including the amount of all compensation to be received by the firm or its principals, and affiliations and relationships that could result in the existence of a conflict of interest. As more fully described herein, underwriter’s compensation is subject to lock-up provisions.

Filing Requirements

October 5, 2021

Section 12(g) Registration

Unlike a Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) registration statement, a Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) Section 12(g) registration statement does not register securities for sale or result in any particular securities becoming freely tradeable. Rather, an Exchange Act registration has the general effect of making a company subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements under Section 13 of that Act. Registration also subjects the company to the tender offer and proxy rules under Section 14 of the Act, its officers, directors and 10%-or-greater shareholders to the reporting requirements and short-term profit prohibitions under Section 16 of the Act and its 5%-or-greater shareholders to the reporting requirements under Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Act.

A company may voluntarily register under Section 12(g) at any time and, under certain circumstances, may also terminate such registration (see HERE).

In addition, unless an exemption is otherwise available, a company must register under Section 12(g), if as of the

April 20, 2021

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

February 23, 2021

NYSE Continues To Struggle With Direct Listing Rule Changes

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

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

September 15, 2020

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

June 9, 2020

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.

March 3, 2020

Terminating Section 15(d) Reporting; Determining Voluntary Reporting Status

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 Section 13 reports with the SEC (10-K, 10-Q and 8-K). A company becomes subject to Section 15(d) by filing a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) such as a Form S-1. A company registers securities under Section 12 by filing an Exchange Act registration statement such as on Form 10, Form 20-F or Form 8-A.

The Section 15(d) reporting requirements are scaled down from the Exchange Act reporting requirements for a company with a class of securities registered under Section 12. In particular, a company that is only subject to Section 15(d) need only comply with the Section 13 reporting obligations and need not comply with the federal proxy rules and third-party tender offer rules in Section 14, the officer/director and

January 21, 2020

Incorporation By Reference

During lulls in the very active rule changes and blog-worthy news coming from the SEC and related regulators, it is great to step back and write about basics that affect SEC attorneys and market participants on a daily basis. In the realm of securities laws, the concept of “incorporation by reference” is simple enough – information from another document, registration statement or filing is included in a current document, registration statement or filing by referring to the other without repeating its contents. Similarly, “forward incorporation by reference” means that a document is automatically updated with information contained in a future SEC filing.

Although the concepts are relatively straight forward, their application is complex with differing rules for different classes of companies (such as an emerging growth company, smaller reporting company, or well-known seasoned issuer) and different filings such as a registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) or a periodic report filed under the Securities

October 29, 2019

An IPO Without The SEC

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

January 29, 2019

SEC Solicits Comment On Earnings Releases And Quarterly Reports

On December 18, 2018, the SEC published a request for comment soliciting input on the nature, content, and timing of earnings releases and quarterly reports made by reporting companies. The comment period remains open for 90 days from publication. The request is not surprising as earnings releases and quarterly reports were included in the pre-rule stage in the Fall 2018 SEC semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking.

The request for comment seek input on how the SEC can reduce burdens on publicly reporting companies associated with quarterly reports while maintaining disclosure effectiveness and investor protections. The SEC also seeks comment on how the existing reporting system, earnings releases and earnings guidance may foster an overly short-term focus by companies and market participants. In addition, the SEC is looking for input on how to make the reporting process less cumbersome to investors, such as by having to compare an earnings release and Form 10-Q for differences.

This has been a

January 15, 2019

SEC Fall 2018 Regulatory Agenda

In October 2018, the SEC posted 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.

Like the Spring 2018 Agenda, the fall Agenda is broken down by (i) “Prerule Stage”; (ii) Proposed Rule Stage; (iii) Final Rule Stage; and (iv) Long-term Actions. The Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that. The number of items to be completed in a 12-month time frame has jumped up with 36 items compared to 21 on the spring list.

Interestingly, following President Trump’s recent call to eliminate

November 27, 2018

Proposed SPAC Rule Changes

With the growing popularity of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), both the Nasdaq and NYSE have proposed rule changes that would make listings easier, although on June 1, 2018, the Nasdaq withdrew its proposal. SPACs raised more money last year than any year since the financial crisis. The SEC has been delaying action on the proposed rule changes, now pushing off a decision until at least August 2018.

A company that registers securities as a blank check company and whose securities are deemed a “penny stock” must comply with Rule 419 and thus are not eligible to trade. A brief discussion of Rule 419 is below. A “penny stock” is defined in Rule 3a51-1 of the Exchange Act and like many definitions in the securities laws, is inclusive of all securities other than those that satisfy certain delineated exceptions. The most common exceptions, and those that would be applicable to penny stocks for purpose of the SPAC, include: (i)

July 24, 2018

SEC Amends Definition of “A Smaller Reporting Company”

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

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

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

July 17, 2018

SEC Provides Regulatory Relief To Hurricane Victims

On September 28, 2017, the SEC announced interim final temporary rules (“Exemptive Order”) to provide relief to publicly trading companies, investment companies, accountants, transfer agents, municipal advisors and others affected the Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria. In addition to the interim rules, the SEC urges others not covered by the relief but affected in their ability to provide information to the SEC or shareholders to contact the SEC to seek relief on a case-by-case basis.

Interim Final Temporary Rules

Generally the due date for Exchange Act reports for companies relying on the Exemptive Order shall be October 10, 2017 for those affected by Hurricane Harvey, October 19, 2017 for those affected by Hurricane Irma, and November 2, 2017 for those affected by Hurricane Irma. As such, companies with such extended due dates may also file an additional extension on Form 12b-25 on those dates, and benefit from an additional five days for a Form 10-Q and 15 days for a

October 3, 2017

The SEC Provides Further Guidance On Financial Statement Requirements In Registration Statements

On August 17, 2017, the SEC issued guidance on financial statement requirements for confidential and public registration statement filings by both emerging growth companies (EGC) and non-emerging growth companies. The new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI’s) follow the SEC’s decision to permit all companies to submit draft registration statements, on a confidential basis (see HERE). The newest guidance is in accord with the SEC’s announced policy to take active measures to promote the U.S. IPO market and small business capital-raise initiatives.

Earlier in the summer, the SEC expanded the JOBS Act benefit available to emerging growth companies, to be able to file confidential draft registration statements, to all companies. Confidential draft submissions are now 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.

Title I of the JOBS Act initially allowed for confidential draft submissions of registration

September 26, 2017

SEC Issues Additional Guidance on Regulation A+

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

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

New CD&I Guidance

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

June 20, 2017

What Does The SEC Do And What Is Its Purpose?

As I write about the myriad of constantly changing and progressing securities law-related policies, rules, regulations, guidance and issues, I am reminded that sometimes it is important to go back and explain certain key facts to lay a proper foundation for an understanding of the topics which layer on this foundation. In this blog, I am doing just that by explaining what the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is and its purpose. Most of information in this blog comes from the SEC website, which is an extremely useful resource for practitioners, issuers, investors and all market participants.

Introduction

The mission of the SEC is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitate capital formation. Although each mission should be a priority, the reality is that the focus of the SEC changes based on its Chair and Commissioners and political pressure. Outgoing Chair Mary Jo White viewed the SEC enforcement division and task of investor protection as her

February 14, 2017

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

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

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

New CD&I Guidance

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

January 24, 2017

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

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

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

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 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

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 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

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

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

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

February 4, 2014

The DPO Process Including Form S-1 Registration Statement Requirements

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

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

January 7, 2014

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

Form S-1

Categories

Contact Author

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?