PIPE Transactions Archives - Securities Law Blog

Who Is An Affiliate And Why Does It Matter – Primary VS Secondary Offering

The concept of affiliation resonates throughout the federal securities laws, including pertaining to both the Securities Act and Exchange Act rules, regulations and forms and Nasdaq and NYSE compliance. In this multipart series of blogs, I will unpack what the term “affiliate” means and its implications. This first blog in the series began with an analysis of the Securities Act definition of “affiliate” and the implications under Rule 144, Section 4(a)(7) and Form S-3 eligibility (see HERE). In this Part 2 of the series, I am delving into the meaty topic of a primary vs. secondary offering, which itself hinges on whether the offeror is an affiliate.

Secondary/Resale Offerings vs. Primary Offerings

A secondary offering is an offering made by or on behalf of bona fide selling shareholders and not by or on behalf of the registrant company. A secondary offering can only occur after a company is public. That is, even if a company goes public

August 15, 2023

SPAC Director And Sponsor Fiduciary Obligations

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

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

May 30, 2023

SEC Proposes New Rules for SPACs- Part 3

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

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

April 26, 2022

SEC Proposes New SPAC Rules – Part 2

April 19, 2022

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.

April 12, 2022

Regulation By Enforcement

The SEC is well known for, and often criticized for, its practice of regulation by enforcement. In recent years the SEC has been more willing to regulate by enforcement, propounding novel and new interpretations to longstanding rules and regulations. Market participants have taken notice, and offense. Advocacy groups have been very vocal against the practice including the Financial Services Institute and Small Public Company Coalition (SPCC).

Although not limited to matters involving cryptocurrencies, blockchain and all things Web3, is the area that garners the most attention for the SEC’s enforcement-based guidance, probably because it is undeniably the topic that is in the most need of actual rule-based regulation. Starting with the SEC’s 2017 Section 21(a) Report stemming from the enforcement action against the DAO, Slock.it (see HERE), almost all substantive regulatory prescription related to the world of crypto has come from enforcement actions.

Rather than heed the calls for rules and regulations over the years, the SEC has

March 29, 2022

SEC Proposes Amendments To Rule 144

I’ve been at this for a long time and although some things do not change, the securities industry has been a roller coaster of change from rule amendments to guidance, to interpretation, and nuances big and small that can have tidal wave effects for market participants. On December 22, 2020, the SEC proposed amendments to Rule 144 which would eliminate tacking of a holding period upon the conversion or exchange of a market adjustable security that is not traded on a national securities exchange. The proposed rule also updates the Form 144 filing requirements to mandate electronic filings, eliminate the requirement to file a Form 144 with respect to sales of securities issued by companies that are not subject to Exchange Act reporting, and amend the Form 144 filing deadline to coincide with the Form 4 filing deadline.

The last amendments to Rule 144 were in 2008 reducing the holding periods to six months for reporting issuers and one year

December 29, 2020

Disclosures Related To Covid-19 – What Investors Want To Know

I’ve written several times about the need for Covid-19 disclosures including public statements by Chair Clayton and William Hinman, the Director of the Division of Corporation Finance and the SEC Division of Corporation Finance Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 9 regarding the SEC’s current views on disclosures that companies should consider with respect to COVID-19. For my summary blog on the topic, see HERE.

As I’ve previously mentioned, my personal thought is that although there are many reasons why disclosure is important, it is especially important now to support investor confidence, activity in our markets and capital raising efforts. If investors are kept informed of the impact of COVID-19 on companies, see that these companies are continuing on and meeting their requirements and that the markets haven’t just fallen into Neverland, they will continue to invest through the trading of securities, and direct investments through PIPE transactions. Further on the broader economic level, transparency and information will bolster confidence on

June 2, 2020

Nasdaq Extends Direct Listings

The Nasdaq Stock Market currently has three tiers of listed companies: (1) The Nasdaq Global Select Market, (2) The Nasdaq Global Market, and (3) The Nasdaq Capital Market. Each tier has increasingly higher listing standards, with the Nasdaq Global Select Market having the highest initial listing standards and the Nasdaq Capital Markets being the entry-level tier for most micro- and small-cap issuers. For a review of the Nasdaq Capital Market listing requirements, see HERE as supplemented and amended HERE.

On December 3, 2019, the SEC approved amendments to the Nasdaq rules related to direct listings on the Nasdaq Global Market and Nasdaq Capital Market. As previously reported, on February 15, 2019, Nasdaq amended its direct listing process rules for listing on the Market Global Select Market (see HERE).

Interestingly, around the same time as the approval of the Nasdaq rule changes, the SEC rejected amendments proposed by the NYSE big board which would have allowed

February 4, 2020

Nasdaq Amends Its 20% Dilution Shareholder Approval Rule

Effective September 26, 2018, Nasdaq amended Rule 5635(d) to provide greater flexibility and certainty for companies to determine when a shareholder vote is necessary to approve a transaction that would result in the issuance of 20% or more of the outstanding common stock or 20% or more of outstanding voting power in a PIPE or similar private placement financing transaction. The amendment did not change the remainder of Rule 5635, which requires shareholder approval for transactions such as issuances involving an acquisition of stock or assets of another company, a change of control, or equity compensation that result in a 20% or greater dilution.

Generally, Rule 5635(d) requires Nasdaq-listed companies to obtain shareholder approval in private placement transactions involving the issuance of (i) common stock or securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock at a price less than the greater of book or market value which, together with sales by officers, directors or substantial shareholders of the company,

December 18, 2018

1700 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, Suite 820

(800) 341-2684

Contact us

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

PIPE Transactions

Who Is An Affiliate And Why Does It Matter – Primary VS Secondary Offering

SEC Proposes New Rules for SPACs- Part 3

SEC Proposes New SPAC Rules – Part 2

SEC Proposes New SPAC Rules – Part 1

Regulation By Enforcement

SEC Proposes Amendments To Rule 144

Nasdaq Extends Direct Listings

Nasdaq Amends Its 20% Dilution Shareholder Approval Rule

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?