Section 5

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,

July 23, 2024

SEC Adopts New Rule To Expand Testing The Waters For All Companies

The SEC has adopted final rules allowing all issuers to test the waters prior to the effectiveness of a registration statement in a public offering. The proposed rules were published in February of this year (see HERE). The final rules are largely the same as proposed. The rule change is designed to encourage more companies to go public. Although it will help in this regard, a much larger expansion of testing the waters, allowing unlimited testing the waters (subject to anti-fraud of course) for all registered offerings under $50 million, would go far to improve the floundering small cap IPO market.

Prior to the rule change, only emerging growth companies (“EGCs”) (or companies engaging in a Regulation A offering) could test the waters in advance of a public offering of securities. The proposal implements a new Securities Act Rule 163B. For an in-depth analysis of testing the waters and communications during an offering process, see my two-part blog HERE

October 15, 2019

Testing the Waters for All Issuers

As anticipated, on February 19, 2019 the SEC voted to propose an expansion of the ability to “test the waters” prior to the effectiveness of a registration statement in a public offering, to all companies. Currently only emerging growth companies (“EGCs”) (or companies engaging in a Regulation A offering) can test the waters in advance of a public offering of securities. The proposal would implement a new Securities Act Rule 163B. For an in-depth analysis of testing the waters and communications during an offering process, see my two-part blog HERE and HERE. The SEC proposal is open for public comment for a sixty (60)-day period.

Historically all offers to sell registered securities prior to the effectiveness of the filed registration statement have been strictly regulated and restricted. The public offering process is divided into three periods: (1) the pre-filing period, (2) the waiting or pre-effective period, and (3) the post-effective period. Communications made by the company during

March 5, 2019

SEC Issues New C&DI On Rule 701

On June 23, 2016, the SEC issued seven new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DI”) related to Rule 701 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). On October 19, 2016, the SEC issued an additional three C&DI. The majority of the new C&DI focus on the effect on Rule 701 issuances following a merger or acquisition and clarify financial statement requirements under Rule 701. Two of the new C&DI address restricted stock awards including the disclosure requirements are triggered and when the holding period begins under Rule 144.

Rule 701 – Exemption for Offers and Sales to Employees of Non-Reporting Entities

Rule 701 of the Securities Act provides an exemption from the registration requirements for the issuance of securities under written compensatory benefit plans. Rule 701 is a specialized exemption for private or non-reporting entities and may not be relied upon by companies that are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as

November 1, 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

SEC Sanctions BITCOIN Exchange Operator-A Case Study In Basic Registration And Exemption Requirements

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

On December 8, 2014, the SEC settled charges against a creative, but ill informed, entrepreneur for acting as an unlicensed broker-dealer and for violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Ethan Burnside and his company, BTC Trading Corp., operated two online enterprises, BTC Virtual Stock Exchange and LTC-Global Virtual Stock Exchange, that traded securities using virtual currencies, bitcoin or litecoin. Neither of these exchanges were registered as broker-dealers or stock exchanges. In addition, Burnside and his company conducted separate transactions in which he offered investors the opportunity to use virtual currencies to buy or sell shares in the LTC-Global exchange itself and a separate litecoin mining venture he owned and operated. These offerings were not registered with the SEC as required under the federal securities laws.

According to the SEC release on the matter, “the exchanges provided account holders the ability to use bitcoin or litecoin to buy,

December 16, 2014

What Is A Security? The Howey Test And Reves Test

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

Sometimes it’s good to go back to basics. In my blogs I often refer to the registration and exemption requirements in the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Section 5 of the Securities Act makes it unlawful to offer or sell any security unless a registration statement is in effect as to that security or there is an available exemption from registration. Similarly, I often refer to the broker-dealer registration requirements. To be a “broker” or “dealer,” a person must be engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities.

In today’s small cap world corporate finance transactions often take the form of a convertible note and/or options and warrants, the conversion of which relies on Section 3(a)(9) of the Securities Act. Section 3(a)(9) is an exemption available for the exchange of one security for another (such as a convertible note for common stock). Likewise, Rule 144(d)(3)(i) allows the tacking of

November 25, 2014

SEC Issues Advertising Guidance Related to State-Specific Crowdfunding

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

As required by Title III of the JOBS Act, on October 23, 2013, the SEC published proposed crowdfunding rules. The SEC has dubbed the new rules “Regulation Crowdfunding.” The entire 584-page text of the rule release is available on the SEC website. As of today, it is unclear when final rules will be released and passed into law and what changes those final rules will have from the proposed rules. Moreover, upon passage of the final rules, there will be a period of ramping-up time in which crowdfunding portals complete the process of registering with the SEC, becoming members of FINRA and completing the necessary steps to ensure that their portal operates in compliance with those final rules. Federal crowdfunding is coming, but it is a slow process.

In the meantime, several states have either enacted or introduced state-specific crowdfunding legislation.

Federal Authority for State Crowdfunding Legislation

Both the federal government

October 21, 2014

Depositing Penny Stocks with Brokers Creates Obstacles; SEC Charges E*Trade with Section 5 Violation

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

Introduction

On October 9, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed an enforcement action against E*Trade Securities and E*Trade Capital Markets for selling billions of shares of unregistered and otherwise restricted penny stocks for their customers. The SEC found that the firms processed the sales on behalf of three customers while ignoring red flags that the offerings being conducted were in violation of the federal securities laws in that the shares were neither registered nor subject to an available exemption from registration. E*Trade Securities and E*Trade Capital Markets settled the enforcement proceeding by agreeing to pay a total of $2.5 million in disgorgement and penalties.

The SEC press release on the matter quoted Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, as saying, “Broker-dealers serve an important gatekeeping function that helps prevent microcap fraud by taking measures to ensure that unregistered shares don’t reach the market if the registration rules

October 14, 2014

Corporate Communications During the Public Offering Process; Avoid Gun Jumping

The public offering process is divided into three periods: (1) the quiet or pre-filing period, (2) the waiting or pre-effective period, and (3) the post-effective period. Communications made by the company during any of these three periods may, depending on the mode and content, result in violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). Communication related violations of Section 5 are often referred to as “gun jumping.” All forms of communication could create “gun jumping” issues (e.g., press releases, interviews, and use of social media). “Gun jumping” refers to written or oral offers of securities made before the filing of the registration statement and written offers made after the filing of the registration statement other than by means of a prospectus that meet the requirements of Section 10 of the Securities Act, a free writing prospectus or a communication falling within one of the several safe harbors from the gun-jumping provisions.

Section 5(a) of

August 12, 2014

1700 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, Suite 820

(800) 341-2684

Contact us

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

Section 5

Free Writing Prospectus

SEC Adopts New Rule To Expand Testing The Waters For All Companies

Testing the Waters for All Issuers

SEC Issues New C&DI On Rule 701

Testing The Waters; Regulation A+ And S-1 Public Offerings – Part 2

SEC Sanctions BITCOIN Exchange Operator-A Case Study In Basic Registration And Exemption Requirements

What Is A Security? The Howey Test And Reves Test

SEC Issues Advertising Guidance Related to State-Specific Crowdfunding

Depositing Penny Stocks with Brokers Creates Obstacles; SEC Charges E*Trade with Section 5 Violation

Corporate Communications During the Public Offering Process; Avoid Gun Jumping

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?