Going Public

Going Public Without An IPO

On April 3, 2018, Spotify made a big board splash by debuting on the NYSE without an IPO. Instead, Spotify filed a resale registration statement registering the securities already held by its existing shareholders. The process is referred to as a direct listing. As most of those shareholders had invested in Spotify in private offerings, they were rewarded with a true exit strategy and liquidity by becoming the company’s initial public float.

In order to complete the direct listing process, NYSE had to implement a rule change. NASDAQ already allows for direct listings, although it has historically been rarely used. To the contrary, a direct listing has often been used as a going public method on the OTC Markets and in the wake of Spotify, may gain in popularity on national exchanges as well.

As I will discuss below, there are some fundamental differences between the process for OTC Markets and for an exchange. In particular, when completing a direct

May 8, 2018

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

SEC Files Dozens of Charges for Violations of the Section 16 and Section 13 Corporate Insider Reporting Requirements

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

Introduction

On September 10, 2014, the SEC filed 28 separate actions against officers, directors and major shareholders and an additional 6 actions against reporting companies, all stemming from violations of the reporting requirements contained in Sections 13 and 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”). The SEC announced that it had created a task force to investigate violations using quantitative data sources and ranking algorithms to identify repetitive late filers. The SEC settled with all but one of the charged for a total of $2.6 million in penalties.

The actions against insiders and major shareholders were based on direct violations of their individual reporting requirements. The actions against reporting companies were for “contributing to” the violations. In these cases, the companies had contractually agreed to take on the responsibility of making the filings for their insiders, and had been delinquent in doing so.

Historically the SEC has rarely

September 15, 2014

Guide to Reverse Merger Transaction

What is a reverse merger? What is the process?

A reverse merger is the most common alternative to an initial public offering (IPO) or direct public offering (DPO) for a company seeking to go public. A “reverse merger” allows a privately held company to go public by acquiring a controlling interest in, and merging with, a public operating or public shell company. The SEC defines a “shell company” as a publically traded company with (1) no or nominal operations and (2) either no or nominal assets or assets consisting solely of any amount of cash and cash equivalents.

In a reverse merger process, the private operating company shareholders exchange their shares of the private company for either new or existing shares of the public company so that

March 18, 2014

The SEC Establishes Key Exemption to the Broker-Dealer Registration Requirements for M&A Brokers

On January 31, 2014, the SEC Division of Trading and Markets issued a no-action letter in favor of entities effecting securities transactions in connection with the sale of equity control of private operating businesses (“M&A Broker”). The SEC stated that it would not require broker-dealer registration for M&A Brokers arranging for the sale of private businesses, in accordance with the facts and circumstances set forth in the no action letter, as described below.

For many years the SEC has maintained a staunch view that any and all activities that could fall within the broker-dealer registration requirements set forth in Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), require registration. See also the SEC Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration (2008) on the SEC website.

In accordance with the SEC Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration, providing any of the following services may require the individual or entity to be registered as a broker-dealer:

“finders,” “business brokers,” and

February 18, 2014

Direct Public Offering or Reverse Merger; Know Your Best Option for Going Public

Introduction

For at least the last twelve months, I have received calls daily from companies wanting to go public. This interest in going public transactions signifies a big change from the few years prior.

Beginning in 2009, the small-cap and reverse merger, initial public offering (IPO) and direct public offering (DPO) markets diminished greatly. I can identify at least seven main reasons for the downfall of the going public transactions. Briefly, those reasons are: (1) the general state of the economy, plainly stated, was not good; (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 clearing penny stock with broker dealers and FINRA’s enforcement of broker-dealer and clearing house due diligence requirements related to penny stocks; (5) DTC scrutiny and difficulty in obtaining clearance following

January 21, 2014

Structuring The Private Placement Investment- Development Stage Or Start Up Company Valuation

The question:

As the economy has been gaining strength, so have the number of entrepreneurs seeking private equity investments through pre-packaged structured private placement offerings, and negotiated venture and angel capital sources. A question that arises almost daily in my practice is how to determine a valuation for a development stage or start-up venture. Determining a valuation is instrumental to answering the overriding questions of what percentage of a company is being sold and at what price.

The Answer:

For business entities with operating history, revenue, profit margins and the like, valuation is determined by mathematical calculations and established mathematically based matrixes. For a development stage or start-up venture, the necessary elements to complete a mathematical analysis simply do not exist.

In the case of a pre-packaged private placement offering for a development stage or start up venture, valuation is an arbitrary guess, a best estimate. In the case of a negotiated investment with a venture capital or angel

February 26, 2013

Why Rule 419 Companies May Revitalize the Small-Cap Market

Are Rule 419 Companies poised to be the next big thing in the small-cap sector?

Recently, the small-cap and reverse merger market has diminished substantially. Operating businesses are wary of completing reverse mergers, and PIPE investors are harder to come by. The reasons for this are easily identifiable.

First – The General State of the Economy

Simply stated, it’s not good.

Second – The Backlash from a Series of Fraud Allegations, SEC Enforcement Actions, and Trading Suspensions of Chinese Company’s Following Reverse Mergers

Chinese company reverse mergers dominated the shell company business for years; now there are none. Moreover, it is unlikely that this area will recover any time soon. The Chinese government and US regulators must reach agreement and a mutual understanding regarding PCAOB review of Chinese audits. Even then, it may take years for the stigma to fade.

Third – The Rule 144 Changes Enacted in 2008

As discussed in previous blogs Rule 144(i),

November 16, 2011

Direct Public Offerings And The Internet

In today’s financial environment, many Issuers are choosing to self underwrite their public offerings, commonly referred to as a Direct Public Offering (DPO). Moreover, as almost all potential investors have computers, many Issuers are choosing to utilize the Internet for such DPO’s. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has published rules for utilizing the Internet for an offering.

To comply with the SEC rules for electronic use, an Issuer must comply with the following minimum rules, among others:

An electronic prospectus must provide the same information as a paper written prospectus;
The Investor must elect to receive electronic delivery of the prospectus and must be provided with personal access codes to access electronic materials over the Internet;
The Investor must pre-qualify to receive the offering materials (such as being in a particular state, being accredited, etc.) prior to receiving access codes;
The Investor must be immediately notified of any amendments or changes in the offering documents; and
The Issuer must

June 16, 2010

Form 10 Registration Statements

A Form 10 Registration Statement is a registration statement used to register a class of securities pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). To explain a Form 10 registration statement, let’s start with what it isn’t. It is not used to register specific securities for sale or re-sale and does not change the transferability of any securities. That is, a Form 10 registration statement does not register a security for the purposes of Section 5[1] of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) . Following the effectiveness of a Form 10 registration statement, restricted securities remain restricted and free trading securities remain free trading.

The Purpose of Form 10 Registration Statements

Now onto what a Form 10 registration is. As indicated above a Form 10 registration statement is used to register a class of securities. Any Company with in excess of $10,000,000 in total assets and 750 or more record shareholders

March 19, 2010

1700 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, Suite 820

(800) 341-2684

Contact us

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

Going Public

Going Public Without An IPO

Going Public Transactions For Smaller Companies: Direct Public Offering And Reverse Merger

SEC Files Dozens of Charges for Violations of the Section 16 and Section 13 Corporate Insider Reporting Requirements

Guide to Reverse Merger Transaction

The SEC Establishes Key Exemption to the Broker-Dealer Registration Requirements for M&A Brokers

Direct Public Offering or Reverse Merger; Know Your Best Option for Going Public

Structuring The Private Placement Investment- Development Stage Or Start Up Company Valuation

Why Rule 419 Companies May Revitalize the Small-Cap Market

Direct Public Offerings And The Internet

Form 10 Registration Statements

Categories

Contact Information

Recent Posts

Court Overrules Nasdaq Board Diversity Rule

Court Strikes Down Recent Changes To Definition Of A Dealer

Understanding the Shareholder Meeting Timeline

Introducing The OTCID

Legal Resources

Tweets

DEVELOPED AND MANAGED BY

Featured On

Contact Author

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?