(800) 341-2684

Call Toll Free

Contact us

Online Inquiries 24/7

Laura Anthony Esq

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

Form S-4

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  、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

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

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;

SEC Publishes CD&I On Mergers And Acquisitions, Form S-4 And Tender Offers

On March 6, 2025, the SEC published several updates to its compliance and disclosure interpretations (“CD&I”) related to mergers and acquisitions, Form S-4 and tender offers.

Rule 145(a)/Form S-4

Revised CD&Is 239.13 and 225.10 address the circumstances upon which seeking commitments for favorable votes, in advance of a merger/acquisition transaction, would be deemed an “offer or sale” of securities under Section 5, requiring either registration or an exemption from registration by the soliciting party.

Acquiring companies often seek management and principal shareholder commitments to vote in favor of a transaction as part of the negotiations associated with a merger/acquisition prior to soliciting such favorable votes from the shareholders at large such as by filing a Form S-4.  The SEC recognizes that by executing these agreements, those management and shareholders have made investment decisions, prior to the transaction being presented to non-affiliate shareholders, in violation of Rule 145(a).  However, the SEC also recognizes the legitimate reasons an acquiring company

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 »

Furnish VS. Filed

Over the years I’ve noted that information required pursuant to various disclosure obligations, or new or amended rules, may be “furnished” versus “filed” with the SEC, but I realize in a “let’s get back to basics” moment, I have not yet (until now) provided a detailed explanation of what that means.  In summary, information that is “filed” with the SEC carries Section 18 liability, only “filed” information can be incorporated by reference into other filings, such as an S-3 registration statement, and only “filed” SEC reports affect S-3 eligibility.

Section 18

Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) imposes liability on any person that makes or causes to be made any statement in any application, report or document “filed” pursuant to the Exchange Act or any rule thereunder which statement was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made false or misleading with

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 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

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

SEC Amends Rule 701 And Issues A Concept Release On Rule 701 And Form S-8 – Part II

On May 24, 2018, President Trump signed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”) into law. Section 507 of the Act directed the SEC to increase the threshold under Rule 701 of the Securities Act, for providing additional disclosures to employees from aggregate sales of $5,000,000 during any 12-month period to $10,000,000. In addition, the threshold is to be inflation-adjusted every five years. The Act required that the amendment be completed within 60 days and on July 18, 2018, the SEC complied and published the amendments. The amendments were effective immediately upon publication in the federal register.

On the same day, the SEC issued a concept release on potential further amendments to both Rule 701 and SEC Form S-8. The SEC is seeking public comment on ways to modernize the rules related to compensatory plans acknowledging the significant changes in both types of compensatory offerings and workforce composition in the past few decades.

Part I

SEC Amends Rule 701 And Issues A Concept Release On Rule 701 And Form S-8 – Part I

On May 24, 2018, President Trump signed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”) into law. Section 507 of the Act directed the SEC to increase the threshold under Rule 701 of the Securities Act, for providing additional disclosures to employees from aggregate sales of $5,000,000 during any 12-month period to $10,000,000. In addition, the threshold is to be inflation-adjusted every five years. The Act required that the amendment be completed within 60 days and on July 18, 2018, the SEC complied and published the amendments. The amendments were effective immediately upon publication in the federal register.

On the same day, the SEC issued a concept release on potential further amendments to both Rule 701 and SEC Form S-8. The SEC is seeking public comment on ways to modernize the rules related to compensatory plans acknowledging the significant changes in both types of compensatory offerings and workforce composition in the past few decades.

This

SEC Issues Additional C&DI On Use Of Non-GAAP Measures

On April 4, 2018, the SEC issued two new Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) related to the use of non-GAAP financial measures by public companies in connection with business combinations. The two new C&DI follow two other C&DI which were issued on October 17, 2017 (see HERE).

The SEC permits companies to present non-GAAP financial measures in their public disclosures subject to compliance with Regulation G and Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K. Regulation G and Item 10(e) require reconciliation to comparable GAAP numbers, the reasons for presenting the non-GAAP numbers, and govern the presentation format itself including requiring equal or greater prominence to the GAAP financial information.

My prior two-part blog series on non-GAAP financial measures, Regulation G and Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K can be read HERE  and HERE.

GAAP continues to be and has consistently been criticized by the marketplace in general, with many institutional investors publicly denouncing the usefulness of the accounting standard. Approximately

The 2017 SEC Government-Business Forum On Small Business Capital Formation Final Report

The SEC has published the final report and recommendations of the 2017 annual Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation (the “Forum”). As required by the Small Business Investment Incentive Act of 1980, each year the SEC holds a forum focused on small business capital formation.  The goal of the forum is to develop recommendations for government and private action to eliminate or reduce impediments to small business capital formation.  I previously summarized the opening remarks of the SEC Commissioners. See HERE.

The forum is taken seriously by the SEC and its participants, including the NASAA, and leading small business and professional organizations.  Recommendations often gain traction. For example, the forum first recommended reducing the Rule 144 holding period for Exchange Act reporting companies to six months, a rule which was passed in 2008. In 2015 the forum recommended increasing the financial thresholds for the smaller reporting company definition, and the SEC did indeed propose a change

Online Platforms Trading Cryptocurrencies; Continued Uncertainty In Crypto Space

I have been writing often about the cryptocurrency marketplace and the SEC and other regulators’ statements and concerns about compliance with the federal securities laws. On July 25, 2017, the SEC issued a Section 21(a) Report on an investigation related to an initial coin offering (ICO) by the DAO, concluding that the ICO was a securities offering.  In that Report the SEC stated that securities exchanges providing for trading must register unless an exemption applies. In its numerous statements on cryptocurrencies since then, the SEC has consistently reminded the public that exchanges that trade securities, including cryptocurrencies that are securities, must be licensed by the SEC.

The SEC has also stated that as of today, no such licensed securities cryptocurrency exchange exists. However, a few CFTC regulated exchanges have now listed bitcoin futures products and, in doing so, engaged in lengthy conversations with the CFTC, ultimately agreeing to implement risk mitigation and oversight measures, heightened margin requirements, and added

The 2017 SEC Government-Business Forum On Small Business Capital Formation

On November 30, 2017, the SEC held its annual Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation (the “Forum”). It will be several months until the final report with recommendations from the forum is published, but the opening remarks from SEC Chair Jay Clayton and Commissioners Kara Stein and Michael Piwowar provide ongoing and consistent guidance as to the current focus of the SEC. For a review of the recommendations by last year’s forum, see HERE.

As expected, the topics of cryptocurrency and ICO’s were front and center at the Forum. In his opening remarks at the Forum, Division of Corporation Finance Director William Hinman confirmed that the SEC believes that ICO’s generally involve securities offerings and that the securities laws must be complied with. Hinman continued that the SEC is providing guidance through enforcement and public statements on the topic.

As with other statements and speeches, the SEC hedges by pointing out the validity of an ICO as

Categories

Contact Author

Laura Anthony Esq

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?