(800) 341-2684

Call Toll Free

Contact us

Online Inquiries 24/7

Laura Anthony Esq

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

SEC

NYSE Approves Change To Delist Companies That Change Primary Business

On July 24, 2024, the SEC approved an NYSE rule change to allow for the delisting of companies that change their primary business.

NYSE Continued Listing Standards

As I wrote about in October 2023, the NYSE continued listing requirements as set forth in the Listed Company Manual section 802.01 include (pre-rule change) (see HERE):

  • Distribution of Capital Stock: (i) total stockholders of 400; or (ii) total stockholders of 1,200 and an average monthly trading volume of less than 100,000 shares; or (iii) total non-affiliated publicly held shares of 600,000.
  • Market Value: (i) average global market capitalization of less than $50 mil and stockholders equity is less than $50 mil for 30 consecutive trading days.
  • Disposal of Assets – Reduction of Operations: The NYSE will consider a suspension or delisting if: (i) the company has sold or otherwise disposed of its principal operating assets or has ceased to be an operating company or has discontinued a substantial portion of its
Read More »

Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron Deference

In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a decades old judicial precedent that provided guidance as to when judges could defer to a federal agencies’ interpretation of a law.  The original precedent derived from the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave deference to federal agencies’ interpretations of a law over the judicial system.  Although Chevron applied to all federal agencies, in light of a slew of recent litigation by and against the SEC related to rule making and interpretations (for example related to who is a “dealer” – see HERE) I decided to cover it in a blog.

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (“Chevron”) held that a government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations if its interpretation is reasonable.  In other words, if

Commissioner Uyeda’s Statement On Dealer Litigation

On August 19, 2024, SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda published a statement regarding one of the numerous defendants in SEC initiated enforcement proceedings claiming unlicensed dealer activity.  The statement resonates with the sentiments of most of my colleagues, peers and clients.

Background

In November 2017 the SEC shocked the industry when it filed an action against Microcap Equity Group, LLC and its principal alleging that its investing activity required licensing as a dealer under Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act.  Since that time, the SEC has filed numerous additional cases with the sole allegation being that the investor acted as an unregistered dealer.  In each case, the investor entity purchased convertible promissory notes from micro-cap OTC Markets issuers (or other existing note holders), which, after the applicable Rule 144 holding period, were converted into shares of common stock and sold on the open market.  As the securities were generally low priced, the conversions resulted in large quantities of additional

SEC Division Of Corporation Finance Statement On Disclosure Review

On June 24, 2024, Erik Gerding the Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance made a statement regarding the SEC’s state of disclosure review.  In fiscal year 2023 and continuing into 2024, the top areas of review and comment by the SEC were China-related matters, artificial intelligence, non-GAAP disclosures, management’s discussion and analysis, revenue recognition and financial statement presentation.  In addition, disruptions in the banking industry, cybersecurity risks, the impact of inflation and disclosure related to or as a result of newly adopted rules (such as pay versus performance) are gaining attention by SEC review teams.

The director’s statement gives some insight into the SEC’s focus and serves as a reminder to our clients and us practitioners alike to be sure we are staying abreast of the ever-changing capital markets environment.

China Related Disclosures

A few years ago, the SEC enacted the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act and approved rules implementing same (see HERE).   The SEC continues to

SEC Publishes More New C&DI On Cybersecurity Rules

On June 24, 2024 the SEC published five (5) new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DI) on cybersecurity incident disclosures supplementing the C&DI published in December 2023 (see HERE).

Cybersecurity

In July, 2023 the SEC adopted final new rules requiring disclosures for both domestic and foreign companies related to cybersecurity incidents, risk management, strategy and governance (see HERE for a review of the new rules).

The cybersecurity rules add new Item 1.05 to Form 8-K requiring disclosure of a material cybersecurity incident including the incident’s nature, scope, timing, and material impact or reasonably likely impact on the company.  An Item 1.05 Form 8-K is due within four business days following determination that a cybersecurity incident is material. Given the sensitive nature of cybersecurity crimes, the SEC has added a provision allowing an 8-K to be delayed if it is informed by the United States Attorney General, in writing, that immediate disclosure would pose a substantial risk to national security or

Free Writing Prospectus

I’m finding a lot of good segues recently – flowing from my discussion on the definition and implications of shell company status in a reverse merger (see HERE) is the topic of a free writing prospectus (“FWP”).  In particular, what is a free writing prospectus, when and how is it used, and what companies are eligible for its use.

Communications during a registered offering are strictly regulated, including communications before the filing of a registration statement, after filing and before effectiveness, and after effectiveness – for more on communications during the offering process see HERE.  An FWP is a written communication other than the prospectus filed with the SEC, used to make offers, or to market an offering.

An FWP is one of the few writings, beyond the prospectus itself, that may be used to market an offering.  However, its use is limited to eligible companies, or in securities law parlance – those that are not ineligible.  Accordingly,

F-3 Eligibility

The ability to utilize a shelf registration statement on Form F-3 or S-3 offers significant advantages to publicly traded companies.  A Form F-3/S-3 allows for variably priced offerings – that is offerings made either at-the-market or at other than fixed prices.  Only companies that are eligible for F-3/S-3 can complete primary (or indirect primary) offerings at prices other than a fixed price (for more on primary offerings see HERE).

I have previously written a detailed blog related to S-3 eligibility (see HERE) and although the requirements for an F-3 are substantially similar, there are some key differences due to the different regulatory framework applicable to foreign private issuers (“FPIs”) – i.e. “F Filers.” Like an S-3, F-3 eligibility is comprised of both registrant or company requirements and transaction requirements.

Moreover, like Form S-3, a Form F-3 specifies generally that the Form may not be used for an offering of asset-backed securities.

Registrant Requirements

Companies that meet the

Supreme Court Decides MD&A Case

It is not often that the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on the specific disclosure requirements under the federal securities laws, but in the case of Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., they had occasion to do so in the context of a Rule 10b-5 fraud claim.

Macquarie owned a subsidiary that operates terminals to store bulk liquid commodities including No. 6 fuel oil.  In 2016 the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization formally adopted IMO 2020, a regulation capping the sulfur content of fuel oil used in shipping.  In the ensuing years, Macquarie did not discuss IMO 2020 in its public offering documents or SEC periodic reports.  In February 2018, however, Macquarie announced a drop in the amount of storage contracted for use by its subsidiary due in part to the decline in the No. 6 fuel oil market. Macquarie’s stock price fell 41%.

Plaintiff Moab Partners sued Macquarie and various officers alleging, among other things, that

SEC Updates Guidance On Confidential Treatment Requests

For the first time since December 2019, the SEC has updated its guidance on the process associated with submitting a confidential treatment request (“CTR”).  The March 2019 guidance update was triggered by the passing of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (“FAST Act”) which allows companies to redact confidential information from most material agreement exhibits without filing a CTR, including omitting schedules and exhibits to exhibits.  The FAST Act also allows a company to redact information in material agreements that is both (i) not material, and (ii) competitively harmful if disclosed without the need for a CTR.  For a discussion on the December 2019 guidance see HERE.  At the end of this blog, I include a refresher on the streamlined, self-executing rules for omitting confidential information from material contract exhibits to SEC filings.

The latest updated guidance flows through the process in general, so the below discussion includes all such updates.   

Confidential Treatment Requests Under Rules 406

Categories

Contact Author

Laura Anthony Esq

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?