Securities Law

Non-Fungible Tokens

This one has been on my list for a while and I’m finally ready to dive in – non-fungible tokens (NFTs). In July 2017, the world of digital assets and cryptocurrency literally became an overnight business sector for corporate and securities lawyers, shifting from the pure technology sector, when the SEC issued its Section 21(a) Report on the DAO investigation finding that a cryptocurrency is, in most cases, a security HERE. The SEC’s Section 21(a) Report relied on the analysis in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. to determine when a crypto is a security, building the guardrails to conclude that all, or almost all, cryptocurrencies at that time were/are indeed a security. For more on the Howey analysis, see HERE .

Later in June 2018, the SEC gave some relief to the crypto world by announcing that Bitcoin and Ether were likely decentralized enough as to no longer be considered a security, hedging on the conclusion as

March 15, 2022

SEC Proposes Rules Related To Securities Lending Market

In November 2021, the SEC proposed new Exchange Act Rule 10c-1, which would require lenders of securities to provide the material terms of securities lending transactions to a registered national securities association (RNSA), such as FINRA. FINRA would then make the information publicly available. The proposed rules are part of an initiative by the SEC and FINRA to increase public access to information on short positions and borrowing related to short positions.

Although the rule would definitely provide an improved level of transparency to market participants regarding short positions, it will also add a significant compliance burden to broker dealers and clearing agencies.

Consistent with recent SEC proposals, the comment period was only open for 30 days following publication in the federal registrar and as such comments closed January 7, 2022.

Background

Securities lending is the market practice by which securities are transferred temporarily from one party, a securities lender, to another, a securities borrower, for a fee. Most

March 1, 2022

Public Market Listing Standards

One of the bankers that I work with often once asked me if I had written a blog with a side-by-side comparison of listing on Nasdaq vs. the OTC Markets and I realized I had not, so it went on the list and with the implementation of the new 15c2-11 rules, now seems a very good time to tackle the project. I’ve added NYSE American to the list as well.

Quantitative and Liquidity Listing Standards

Nasdaq Capital Markets

To list its securities on Nasdaq Capital Markets, a company is required to meet: (a) certain initial quantitative and qualitative requirements and (b) certain continuing quantitative and qualitative requirements. The quantitative listing thresholds for initial listing are generally higher than for continued listing, thus helping to ensure that companies have reached a sufficient level of maturity prior to listing. NASDAQ also requires listed companies to meet stringent corporate governance standards.

Requirements

Equity Standard

Market Value of

Listed Securities

Standard

Net

November 9, 2021

OTCQX And OTCQB Rule Changes

In September 2021, the OTCQB and OTCQX tiers of OTC Markets instituted amendments to their rules, to, among other things, align with the market changes resulting from amended Rule 15c2-11.

The OTC Markets divide issuers into three (3) levels of quotation marketplaces: OTCQX, OTCQB and OTC Pink Open Market. The OTC Pink Open Market, which involves the highest-risk, highly speculative securities, is further divided into three tiers: Current Information, Limited Information and No Information. Companies trading on the OTCQX, OTCQB and OTC Pink tiers of OTC Markets have the option of reporting directly to OTC Markets under its Alternative Reporting Standards. The Alternative Reporting Standards are more robust for the OTCQB and OTCQX in that they require audited financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and audited by a PCAOB qualified auditor in the same format as would be included in SEC registration statements and reports.

Companies that report to the SEC under Regulation A and foreign companies that

October 19, 2021

China Based Companies Continue To Face US Capital Market Scrutiny

On March 24, 2021, the SEC adopted interim final amendments to implement the congressionally mandated submission and disclosure requirements of the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (HFCA Act). Following adoption of the HFCA, on July 30, 2021, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler issued a statement warning of risks associated with investing in companies based in China. Although the statement has a different angle, it joins the core continued concerns of the SEC top brass and Nasdaq expressed over the years.

In June 2020 Nasdaq published proposed rules which would make it more difficult for a company to list or continue to list based on the quality of its audit, which could have a direct effect on companies based in China (see HERE). In September 2020, the SEC instituted proceedings as to whether to approve or deny the proposed rule change. As of the date of this blog, the proposal has not been ruled upon by the SEC.

However, the

August 31, 2021

SEC Re-Opens Comments On The Use Of Universal Proxy Cards

On April 16, 2021, the SEC voted to reopen the comment period on the proposed rules for the use of Universal proxy cards in all non-exempt solicitations for contested director elections. The original rules were proposed on October 16, 2016 (see HERE) with no activity since. However, it is not surprising that the comment period re-opened, and it is not as a result of the new administration. The SEC’s Spring and Fall 2020 semi-annual regulatory agendas and plans for rulemaking both included universal proxies as action items in the final rule stage. Prior to that, the topic had sat in the long-term action category for years.

In light of the several years since the original proposing release, change in corporate governance environment, proliferation of virtual shareholder meetings, and rule amendments related to proxy advisory firms (see HERE) and shareholder proposals in the proxy process (see HERE), the SEC believed it prudent to re-open a public comment period.

June 1, 2021

Section 12(g) Registration

Unlike a Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) registration statement, a Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) Section 12(g) registration statement does not register securities for sale or result in any particular securities becoming freely tradeable. Rather, an Exchange Act registration has the general effect of making a company subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements under Section 13 of that Act. Registration also subjects the company to the tender offer and proxy rules under Section 14 of the Act, its officers, directors and 10%-or-greater shareholders to the reporting requirements and short-term profit prohibitions under Section 16 of the Act and its 5%-or-greater shareholders to the reporting requirements under Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Act.

A company may voluntarily register under Section 12(g) at any time and, under certain circumstances, may also terminate such registration (see HERE).

In addition, unless an exemption is otherwise available, a company must register under Section 12(g), if as of the

April 20, 2021

ESG Matters – What a Difference A Year Makes

What a difference a year makes – or should I say – what a difference an administration makes! Back in September 2019, when I first wrote about environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters (see HERE), and through summer 2020 when the SEC led by Chair Jay Clayton was issuing warnings about making ESG metric induced investment decisions, I was certain ESG would remain outside the SEC’s disclosure based regulatory regime. Enter Chair Allison Herron Lee and in a slew of activity over the past few weeks, the SEC appointed a senior policy advisor for climate and ESG; the SEC Division of Corporation Finance (“Corp Fin”) announced it will scrutinize climate change disclosures; Corp Fin has called for public comment on ESG disclosures and suggested a framework for discussion on the matter; the SEC has formed an enforcement task force focused on climate and ESG issues; the Division of Examinations’ 2021 examination priorities included an introduction about how this year’s

March 23, 2021

SEC Issues Transitional FAQ On Regulation S-K Amendments

The recent amendments to Items 101, 103 and 105 of Regulation S-K (see HERE) went into effect on November 9, 2020, raising many questions as to the transition to the new requirements. In response to what I am sure were many inquiries to the Division of Corporation Finance, the SEC has issued three transitional FAQs.

The amendments made changes to Item 101 – description of business, Item 103 – legal proceedings, and Item 105 – Risk Factors of Regulation S-K.

FAQ – Form S-3 Prospectus Supplement

The first question relates to the impact on Form S-3 and in particular the current use of prospectus supplements for an S-3 that went into effect prior to November 9, 2020. In general, a Form S-3 is used as a shelf registration statement and a company files a prospectus supplement each time it takes shares down off that shelf (see HERE).

The prospectus supplement must meet the requirements of Securities Act Rule

November 24, 2020

A COVID IPO

On June 25, 2020, SEC Chair Jay Clayton gave testimony before the Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship and Capital Markets Subcommittee of the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services on the topic of capital markets and emergency lending in the Covid-19 era. The next day, on June 26, Chair Clayton, William Hinman, Director of the Division of Corporation Finance, Dalia Blass, Director of the Division of Investment Management and Brett Redfearn, Director of the Division of Trading and Markets issued a public statement on the same topic but expanded to include efforts to ensure the orderly function of U.S. capital markets.

Chair Clayton Testimony

Chair Clayton breaks down his testimony over five topics including: (i) market monitoring and regulatory coordination; (ii) guidance and targeted assistance and relief; (iii) investor protection, education and outreach efforts; (iv) ongoing mission-oriented work; and (v) the SEC’s fiscal-year 2021 budget request.

Market Monitoring and Regulatory Coordination

Despite the extraordinary volumes and volatility we have seen in the

August 25, 2020

SEC Spring 2020 Regulatory Agenda

In July 2020, the SEC published its latest version of its semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking with the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is an executive office of the President, publishes a Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (“Agenda”) with actions that 60 departments, administrative agencies and commissions plan to issue in the near and long term. The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication.

Like the prior Agendas, the spring 2020 Agenda is broken down by (i) “Pre-rule Stage”; (ii) Proposed Rule Stage; (iii) Final Rule Stage; and (iv) Long-term Actions. The Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that. The number of items to be completed in a 12-month time frame has decreased to 42 items as compared to 47 on the

August 18, 2020

SPAC IPOs A Sign Of Impending M&A Opportunities

The last time I wrote about special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) in July 2018, I noted that SPACs had been growing in popularity, raising more money in 2017 than in any year since the last financial crisis (see HERE). Not only has the trend continued, but the Covid-19 crisis, while temporarily dampening other aspects of the IPO market, has caused a definite uptick in the SPAC IPO world.

In April, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that SPACs are booming and that “[S]o far this year, these special-purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, have raised $6.5 billion, on pace for their biggest year ever, according to Dealogic. In April, 80% of all money raised for U.S. initial public offerings went to blank-check firms, compared with an average of 9% over the past decade.”

I’m not surprised. Within weeks of Covid-19 reaching a global crisis and causing a shutdown of the U.S. economy, instead of my phone

June 9, 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

SEC Proposed Rule Changes For Exempt Offerings – Part 1

On March 4, 2020, the SEC published proposed rule changes to harmonize, simplify and improve the exempt offering framework. The SEC had originally issued a concept release and request for public comment on the subject in June 2019 (see HERE). The proposed rule changes indicate that the SEC has been listening to capital markets participants and is supporting increased access to private offerings for both businesses and a larger class of investors. Together with the proposed amendments to the accredited investor definition (see HERE), the new rules could have as much of an impact on the capital markets as the JOBS Act has had since its enactment in 2012.

The June concept release sought public comments on: (i) whether the exemptive framework as a whole is effective for both companies and investors; (ii) ways to improve, harmonize and streamline the exemptions; (iii) whether there are gaps in the regulations making it difficult for smaller companies to raise capital;

March 17, 2020

Hester Peirce Proposal For Treatment Of Cryptocurrency

SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, nicknamed “Crypto Mom,” has made a proposal for the temporary deregulation of digital assets to advance innovation and allow for unimpeded decentralization of blockchain networks. Ms. Peirce made the proposal in a speech on February 6, 2020.

The world of digital assets and cryptocurrency literally became an overnight business sector for corporate and securities lawyers, shifting from the pure technology sector with the SEC’s announcement that a cryptocurrency is a security in its Section 21(a) Report on the DAO investigation. Since then, there has been a multitude of enforcement proceedings, repeated disseminations of new guidance and many speeches by some of the top brass at the SEC, each evolving the regulatory landscape. Although I wasn’t focused on digital assets before that, upon reading the DAO report, I wasn’t surprised. It seemed clear to me that the capital raising efforts through cryptocurrencies were investment contracts within the meaning of SEC v.

March 3, 2020

OTCQB And OTC Pink Rule Changes

In December 2019 the OTC Markets updated its Pink Disclosure Guidelines and Attorney Letter Agreement and Guidelines. The Pink disclosure guidelines and attorney letter apply to companies that elect to report directly to OTC Markets pursuant to its Alternative Reporting Standard. Furthermore, in January 2020 OTC Markets amended the OTCQB standards related to the disclosure of convertible debt and notification procedures for companies undergoing a change in control. The OTCQB also updated its criteria for determining independence of directors, and added additional transfer agent requirements for Canadian Companies.

February 18, 2020

SEC Proposes Amendments To MD&A Disclosures

Continuing its disclosure effectiveness initiative, on January 30, 2020, the SEC proposed amendments to Management’s Discussion & Analysis of Financial Conditions and Operations (MD&A) required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K. In addition, to eliminate duplicative disclosures, the SEC also proposed to eliminate Item 301 – Selected Financial Data and Item 302 – Supplementary Financial Information. Like all recent disclosure effectiveness rule amendments and proposals, the rule changes are meant to modernize and take a more principles based approach to disclosure requirements. In addition, the proposed rule changes are intended to reduce repetition and disclosure of information that is not material.

On the same day the SEC issued an Interpretive Release on MD&A. A week earlier the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations on the subject.

Among the proposed changes, the new rule would add a new Item 303(a) to state the principal objectives of MD&A, replace the specific requirement to disclose off-balance-sheet arrangements with

February 11, 2020

SEC Fall 2019 Regulatory Agenda

In late 2019, the SEC published its latest version of its semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking with the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is an executive office of the President, publishes a Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (“Agenda”) with actions that 60 departments, administrative agencies and commissions plan to issue in the near and long term. The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication.

Like the prior Agendas, the spring 2019 Agenda is broken down by (i) “Pre-rule Stage”; (ii) Proposed Rule Stage; (iii) Final Rule Stage; and (iv) Long-term Actions. The Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that. The number of items to be completed in a 12-month time frame has increased with 47 items as compared to 40 on the

January 28, 2020

OTCQX Rule Changes

Effective December 12, 2019, the OTC Markets has implemented changes to the initial and continued quotation requirements for companies listed on the OTCQX. The amendments (i) allow certain qualifying companies to use their regular securities counsel for a letter of introduction in place of an OTCQX sponsor; (ii) establish procedures for a company effecting a change of control; (iii) enhance corporate governance requirements, refine the definition of an “independent director,” and provide for a phase in for compliance with these new provisions; (iv) require Canadian companies to utilize a transfer agent participating in the Transfer Agent Verified Shares Program by April 1, 2020, and (iv) require U.S. companies to disclose all convertible debt. The last rule changes were implemented in May, 2019 – see HERE.

Amended Rules for U.S. Companies

OTC Sponsor

An SEC reporting company with a class of securities that has been publicly traded for at least one year may submit a written application to

December 31, 2019

Division of Enforcement 2019 Annual Report

As my firm does not practice in the enforcement arena, it is not an area I always write about, but this year I found a few trends that are interesting. In particular, just by following published enforcement matters on the SEC’s website, I’ve noticed a large uptick in actions to suspend the trading in, or otherwise take action against, micro- and small-cap companies, especially delinquent filers. I’ve also noticed a large uptick of actions against smaller public and private companies that use misleading means to raise capital from retail investors, and the concurrent use of unlicensed broker-dealers. Of course, there have always been a significant number of actions involving cryptocurrencies. In light of my own observations, I decided to review and report on the SEC’s view of its actions.

As an aside, before discussing the report, I note that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has raised concerns about the quality of record keeping and documentation maintained by the

December 24, 2019

Drill Down On NASDAQ Audit Committee Requirements

I’ve written several times about Nasdaq listing requirements including the general listing requirements (see HERE) and the significant listing standards changes enacted in August of this year (see HERE). This blog will drill down on audit committees which are part of the corporate governance requirements for listed companies. Nasdaq Rule 5605 delineates the requirements for a Board of Directors and committees. The Nasdaq rule complies with SEC Rule 10A-3 related to audit committees for companies listed on a national securities exchange.

SEC Rule 10A-3

SEC Rule 10A-3 requires that each national securities exchange have initial listing and ongoing qualification rules requiring each listed company to have an audit committee comprised of independent directors. Although the Nasdaq rules detail its independence requirements, the SEC rule requires that at a minimum an independent director cannot directly or indirectly accept any consulting, advisory or other compensation or be affiliated with the company or any of its subsidiaries. The prohibition against compensation

December 17, 2019

SEC Proposed Amendments To Rule Governing Proxy Advisory Firms

As anticipated on November 5, 2019, the SEC issued two highly controversial rule proposals. The first is to amend Exchange Act rules to regulate proxy advisors. The second is to amend Securities Exchange Act Rule 14a-8 to increase the ownership threshold requirements required for shareholders to submit and re-submit proposals to be included in a company’s proxy statement. For a review of my blog on the Rule 14a-8 proposed amendments, see HERE. The new proposed rules are very controversial, but overdue and necessary. I am in support of both rules.

The SEC has been considering the need for rule changes related to proxy advisors for years as retail investors increasingly invest through funds and investment advisors where the asset managers rely on the advice, services and reports of proxy voting advice businesses. It is estimated that between 70% and 80% of the market value of U.S. public companies is held by institutional investors, the majority of which use proxy

December 10, 2019

Nasdaq Board Independence Standards

Nasdaq Rule 5605 delineates the listing qualifications and requirements for a board of directors and committees, including the independence standards for board members. Nasdaq requires that a majority of the board of directors of a listed company be “independent” and further that all members of the audit, nominating and compensation committees be independent.

Under Rule 5605, an “independent director” means a person other than an executive officer or employee of a company or any individual having a relationship which, in the opinion of the company’s board of directors, would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director. In other words, the question of independence must ultimately be determined by the board of directors who must make an affirmative finding that a director is independent. However, the Nasdaq rules specify certain relationships that would disqualify a person from being considered independent. Stock ownership is not on the list and is not enough, without

December 3, 2019

A Drill Down On Rule 506 Of Regulation D

On June 18, 2019, the SEC issued a 211-page concept release and request for public comment on ways to simplify, harmonize, and improve the exempt (private) offering framework. The concept release seeks input on whether changes should be made to improve the consistency, accessibility, and effectiveness of the SEC’s exemptions for both companies and investors, including identifying potential overlap or gaps within the framework. See HERE for my blog on the release. As the topic of private exemptions becomes front and center, it is a good time to blog about the most commonly used of those exemptions, Rule 506.

Ever since the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (“NSMIA”) amended Section 18 of the Securities Act to pre-empt state blue sky review of specified securities and offerings including offerings made in reliance on Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act), the vast majority of private capital raises are completed relying on Rule

October 1, 2019

Nasdaq And NYSE MKT Voting Rights Rules

In a series of blogs, I detailed Nasdaq and NYSE American rules requiring listed companies to receive shareholder approval in particular instances, including prior to the issuance of certain securities. In particular, Nasdaq Rule 5635 sets forth the circumstances under which shareholder approval is required prior to an issuance of securities in connection with: (i) the acquisition of the stock or assets of another company (see HERE); (ii) equity-based compensation of officers, directors, employees or consultants (see HERE); (iii) a change of control (see HERE); and (iv) transactions other than public offerings (see HERE). NYSE American Company Guide Sections 711, 712 and 713 have substantially similar provisions.

Each of these rules necessarily interacts with the Exchanges’ rules and policies related to voting rights.

Nasdaq Rule 5640 provides that “[V]oting rights of existing Shareholders of publicly traded common stock registered under Section 12 of the Act cannot be disparately reduced or restricted through any corporate action or

August 13, 2019

NASDAQ Adopts New Listing Qualification Standards

Nasdaq has adopted new listing qualifications which were proposed in April 2019 (see HERE). The final rules were adopted with some modifications to prior proposals.

On July 5, 2019, the SEC approved a Nasdaq rule change to amend initial listing standards related to liquidity. For a review of the Nasdaq Capital Market’s current initial listing standards, see HERE and related to direct listings, see HERE. In particular, to help assure adequate liquidity for listed securities, Nasdaq revised its initial listing criteria to (i) exclude restricted securities from the Exchange’s calculations of a company’s publicly held shares, market value of publicly held shares and round lot holders; (ii) imposed a new requirement that at least 50% of a company’s round lot holders must each hold shares with a market value of at least $2,500; and (iii) adopt a new listing rule requiring a minimum average daily trading volume for OTC traded securities at the time of their listing.

July 23, 2019

FinCEN Guidance On Cryptocurrency

In May 2019, the Financial Crime Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a thirty-page comprehensive review of its regulations as pertains to convertible virtual currencies. Previously, in February 2018, FinCEN stated that it expects issuers of initial coin offerings (ICOs) to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), including its anti-money laundering (AML) and know your customer (KYC) requirements (see HERE).

In general, entities that are subject to the BSA must: (i) register with FinCEN as a money services business (MSB); (ii) prepare a written AML compliance program that is designed to mitigate risks, including AML risks, and to ensure compliance with all BSA requirements including the filing of suspicious activity reports (SAR) and currency transaction reports; (iii) keep records for certain types of transactions at specific thresholds; and (iv) obtain customer identification information sufficient to comply with the AML program and recordkeeping requirements.

Although the new guidance does not establish any new regulatory requirements, it is the first time

July 16, 2019

Nasdaq Direct Listing Rule Change

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. On April 26, 2019, Slack Technologies followed suit, filing a resale Form S-1 with an anticipated direct listing on to the NYSE.

Around this time last year, I published a blog on the direct listing process focusing on the differences between a direct listing onto a national exchange and one onto OTC Markets – see HERE. As the process seems to be gaining in popularity, on February 15, 2019 Nasdaq amended its direct listing process rules. This blog is focused on the Nasdaq direct

May 28, 2019

The Treasury Department Report To The President On Capital Markets

In October 2017, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued a report to President Trump entitled “A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities; Capital Markets” (the “Treasury Report”). The Treasury Report was issued in response to an executive order dated February 3, 2017. The executive order identified Core Principles and requested the Treasury Department to identify laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and record-keeping requirements, and other government policies that promote or inhibit federal regulation of the U.S. financial system in a manner consistent with the Core Principles. In response to its directive, the Treasury Department is issuing four reports; this one on capital markets discusses and makes specific recommendations related to the federal securities laws.

The Core Principles are:

Empower Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace, save for retirement, and build individual wealth;
Prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts;
Foster economic growth and vibrant financial markets through more rigorous regulatory impact analysis that addresses systemic risk

February 27, 2018

SEC Adopts The T+2 Trade Settlement Cycle

Introduction and brief summary of the rule

On March 22, 2017, the SEC adopted a rule amendment shortening the standard settlement cycle for broker-initiated trade settlements from three business days from the trade date (T+3) to two business days (T+2). The change is designed to help enhance efficiency and reduce risks, including credit, market and liquidity risks, associated with unsettled transactions in the marketplace.

Acting SEC Chair Michael Piwowar stated, “[A]s technology improves, new products emerge, and trading volumes grow, it is increasingly obvious that the outdated T+3 settlement cycle is no longer serving the best interests of the American people.” The SEC originally proposed the rule amendment on September 28, 2016. My blog on the proposal can be read HERE. In addition, for more information on the clearance and settlement process for U.S. capital markets, see HERE.

The change amends Rule 15c6-1(a) prohibiting a broker-dealer from effecting or entering into a contract for the purchase or sale

April 18, 2017

SEC Issues Final Rules Requiring Links To Exhibits

On March 1, 2017, the SEC passed a final rule requiring companies to include hyperlinks to exhibits in filings made with the SEC. The amendments require any company filing registration statements or reports with the SEC to include a hyperlink to all exhibits listed on the exhibit list. In addition, because ASCII cannot support hyperlinks, the amendment also requires that all exhibits be filed in HTML format. The rule change was made to make it easier for investors and other market participants to find and access exhibits listed in current reports, but that were originally provided in previous filings.

The SEC first proposed the rule change on August 31, 2016, as discussed in my blog HERE. The new rule continues the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance’s ongoing Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative. I anticipate that this initiative will not only continue but gain traction in the coming years under the new administration as, hopefully, more duplicative, antiquated and immaterial requirements come

April 11, 2017

What Does The SEC Do And What Is Its Purpose?

As I write about the myriad of constantly changing and progressing securities law-related policies, rules, regulations, guidance and issues, I am reminded that sometimes it is important to go back and explain certain key facts to lay a proper foundation for an understanding of the topics which layer on this foundation. In this blog, I am doing just that by explaining what the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is and its purpose. Most of information in this blog comes from the SEC website, which is an extremely useful resource for practitioners, issuers, investors and all market participants.

Introduction

The mission of the SEC is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitate capital formation. Although each mission should be a priority, the reality is that the focus of the SEC changes based on its Chair and Commissioners and political pressure. Outgoing Chair Mary Jo White viewed the SEC enforcement division and task of investor protection as her

February 14, 2017

SEC Proposes Shortening Trade Settlement

On September 28, 2016, the SEC proposed a rule amendment to shorten the standard broker-initiated trade settlement cycle from three business days from the trade date (T+3) to two business days (T+2). The change is designed to help reduce risks, including credit, market and liquidity risks, associated with unsettled transactions in the marketplace. Outgoing SEC Chair, Mary Jo White was quoted as saying that the change “is an important step to the SEC’s ongoing efforts to enhance the resiliency and efficiency of the U.S. clearance and settlement system.” I have previously written about the clearance and settlement process for U.S. capital markets, which can be reviewed HERE.

Background

DTC provides the depository and book entry settlement services for substantially all equity trading in the US. Over $600 billion in transactions are completed at DTC each day. Although all similar, the exact clearance and settlement process depends on the type of security being traded (stock, bond, etc.), the form the

December 27, 2016

SEC Eliminates The “Tandy Letter”

On October 5, 2016, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance (CorpFin) announced that, effective immediately, it would no longer require companies to include “Tandy” letter representations in comment letter response or registration acceleration requests addressed to the SEC.

Background

Beginning in the 1970s the SEC began to require an affirmative statement from the company acknowledging that the company cannot use the SEC’s comment process as a defense in any securities-related litigation. Named after the first company required to provide the affirmations, this language is referred to as a “Tandy” letter. By 2004 the “Tandy” letter was required in all comment letter responses to the SEC as well as registration acceleration requests. The “Tandy” portion of a response was required to be agreed to by the company itself, so if the response letter was on attorney letterhead, a signature line was required to be included for the company or the company could submit a separate letter. The Tandy language for an

December 20, 2016

House Passes Accelerated Access To Capital Act

On September 8, 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Accelerating Access to Capital Act. The passage of this Act continues a slew of legislative activity by the House to reduce regulation and facilitate capital formation for small businesses. Unlike many of the House bills that have been passed this year, this one gained national attention, including an article in the Wall Street Journal. Although the bill does not have a Senate sponsor and is not likely to gain one, the Executive Office has indicated it would veto the bill if it made it that far.

Earlier this year I wrote about 3 such bills, including: (i) H.R. 1675 – the Capital Markets Improvement Act of 2016, which has 5 smaller acts imbedded therein; (ii) H.R. 3784, establishing the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee within the SEC; and (iii) H.R. 2187, proposing an amendment to the definition of accredited investor. See

November 15, 2016

Florida Broker-Dealer Registration Exemption For M&A Brokers

Following the SEC’s lead, effective July 1, 2016, Florida has passed a statutory exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements for entities effecting securities transactions in connection with the sale of equity control in private operating businesses (“M&A Broker”). As discussed further below, the new Florida statute, together with the SEC M&A Broker exemption, may have paved the way for Florida residents to act as an M&A broker in reverse or forward merger transactions involving OTCQX-traded public companies without broker-dealer registration.

Florida has historically had stringent broker-dealer registration requirements in connection with the offer and sale of securities. Moreover, Florida does not always mirror the federal registration requirements or exemptions. For example, see my blog HERE detailing some state blue sky concerns when dealing with Florida, including the lack of an issuer exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements for public offerings.

However, in a move helpful to merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions in the state, Florida has now passed an M&A

October 25, 2016

House Continues To Push For Reduced Securities Regulation

House Appropriations Bill

The House continues its busy activity of passing legislation designed to reduce securities and market regulations. In early July, the House passed H.R. 2995, an appropriations bill for the federal budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1st. No further action has been taken. The 259-page bill, which is described as “making appropriations for financing services and general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes” (“House Appropriation Bill”), contains numerous provisions reducing or eliminating funding for key aspects of SEC enforcement and regulatory provisions.

Earlier this year, I wrote this BLOG about three House bills that will likely never be passed into law. The 3 bills include: (i) H.R. 1675 – the Capital Markets Improvement Act of 2016, which has 5 smaller acts imbedded therein; (ii) H.R. 3784, establishing the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee within the SEC; and (iii) H.R. 2187, proposing

October 4, 2016

SEC Proposes Amendments To Definition Of “Small Reporting Company”

On June 27, 2016, the SEC published proposed amendments to the definition of “smaller reporting company” as contained in Securities Act Rule 405, Exchange Act Rule 12b-2 and Item 10(f) of Regulation S-K. The amendments would expand the number of companies that qualify as a smaller reporting company and thus qualify for the scaled disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X. The rule change follows the SEC concept release and request for public comment on sweeping changes to the business and financial disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K. Throughout the SEC Concept Release, it referenced the scaled and different disclosure requirements for the different categories of company and affirmed that it was evaluating and considering changes to the eligibility criteria for each.

If the rule change is passed, the number of companies qualifying as a smaller reporting company will increase from 32% to 42% of all reporting companies.

The proposed rule change follows the SEC Advisory Committee on

July 12, 2016

Confidentially Marketed Public Offerings (CMPO)

Not surprisingly, I read the trades including all the basics, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The Street, The PIPEs Report, etc. A few years ago I started seeing the term “confidentially marketed public offerings” or “CMPO” on a regular basis. The weekly PIPEs Report breaks down offerings using a variety of metrics and in the past few years, the weekly number of completed CMPOs has grown in significance. CMPOs count for billions of dollars in capital raised each year.

CMPO Defined

A CMPO is a type of shelf offering registered on a Form S-3 that involves speedy takedowns when market opportunities present themselves (for example, on heavy volume). A CMPO is very flexible as each takedown is on negotiated terms with the particular investor or investor group. In particular, an effective S-3 shelf registration statement allows for takedowns at a discount to market price and other flexibility in the parameters of the offering such

July 5, 2016

OTC Markets Petitions The SEC To Expand Regulation A To Include SEC Reporting Companies

On June 6, OTC Markets filed a petition for rulemaking with the SEC requesting that the SEC amend Regulation A to expand the eligibility criteria to include all small issuers, including those that are subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) reporting requirements and to allow “at-the-market offerings.”

Background

On March 25, 2015, the SEC released final rules amending Regulation A. The new Regulation A creates two tiers of offerings. Tier I of Regulation A, which does not preempt state law, allows offerings of up to $20 million in a twelve-month period. Due to difficult blue sky compliance, Tier 1 is rarely used. Tier 2, which does preempt state law, allows a raise of up to $50 million. Issuers may elect to proceed under either Tier I or Tier 2 for offerings up to $20 million. The new rules went into effect on June 19, 2015 and have been gaining traction ever since. Since that time, the

June 28, 2016

A Comparison Of Nevada, Delaware And Florida Corporate Statutes

When forming a new entity, I am often asked the best state of domicile. Following a July 1, 2014 increase in Delaware franchise taxes, I am also often asked the best state to re-domicile or move to following an exit from Delaware. Delaware remains the gold standard; however, there has been a definite shift and Delaware is now not the “only standard.”

Part of the reason for the shift away from Delaware has been the increase in fees. Delaware calculates annual fees based on one of two methods: (i) the authorized share method; and (ii) the assume par value capital (asset value) method. For either method the annual fee is capped at $180,000.00. Even for small- and micro-cap business issuers, the annual fee often reaches the tens of thousands. For example, a company with 300,000,000 common shares authorized with a $.001 par value per share and 30,000,000 shares issued and outstanding and $20,000,000 in gross assets would pay $180,000.00 per

June 21, 2016

NYSE MKT Listing Requirements

This blog is the second in a two-part series explaining the listing requirements for the two small-cap national exchanges, NASDAQ and the NYSE MKT. The first one, discussing NASDAQ, can be read HERE.

General Information and Background on NYSE MKT

The NYSE MKT is the small- and micro-cap exchange level of the NYSE suite of marketplaces. The NYSE MKT was formerly the separate American Stock Exchange (AMEX). In 2008, the NYSE Euronext purchased the AMEX and in 2009 renamed the exchange the NYSE Amex Equities. In 2012 the exchange was renamed to the current NYSE MKT LLC. The NASDAQ and NYSE MKT are ultimately business operations vying for attention and competing to attract the best publicly traded companies and investor following. The NYSE MKT homepage touts the benefits of choosing this exchange over others, including “access to dedicated funding, advocacy, content and networking and the industry’s first small-cap services package.”

Although there are substantial similarities among the different exchanges,

June 14, 2016

SEC Issues New C&DI On Use Of Non-GAAP Measures; Regulation G – Part 2

On May 17, 2016, the SEC published 12 new Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) related to the use of non-GAAP financial measures by public companies. 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.

This is the second part in a two-part blog series on the use of non-GAAP financial information. In the first blog I summarized the new C&DI, and in this blog I am reviewing Regulation G and Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K. The first blog in the series can be read HERE.

Background

In the last couple of months SEC Chair Mary Jo White, SEC Deputy Chief Accountant Wesley Bricker, Chief Accountant James Schnurr and

June 7, 2016

OTC Markets Amends IPO Listing Standards for OTCQX

OTC Markets has unveiled changes to the quotations rule and standards for the OTCQX, which proposed changes are scheduled to become effective on June 13, 2016. The proposed amendments are intended to address and accommodate companies completing an IPO onto the OTCQX and which accordingly have no prior trading history. Such entities either would have a recently cleared Form 211 with FINRA or are completing the 211 application process through a market maker, at the time of their OTCQX application. The initial qualification changes apply to OTCQX Rules for U.S. Companies, U.S. Banks and International Companies.

The OTCQX previously amended its listing standards effective January 1, 2016 to increase the quantitative criteria for listing and to add additional qualitative requirements further aligning the OTCQX with a national stock exchange. To read my blog on the January 1, 2016 amendments see HERE.

The new amendments will (i) allow companies that meet the $5 bid price test to use unaudited, interim

May 31, 2016

SEC Issues New C&DI On Use Of Non-GAAP Measures; Regulation G – Part 1

On May 17, 2016, the SEC published 12 new Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) related to the use of non-GAAP financial measures by public companies. 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.

The new C&DI follows a period of controversy, press and speeches on the subject. In the last couple of months SEC Chair Mary Jo White, SEC Deputy Chief Accountant Wesley Bricker, Chief Accountant James Schnurr and Corp Fin Director Keith Higgins have all given speeches at various venues across the company admonishing public companies for their increased use of non-GAAP financial measures. Mary Jo White suggested new rule making may be on the horizon,

May 24, 2016

SEC Issues Concept Release On Regulation S-K; Part 2

On April 15, 2016, the SEC issued a 341-page concept release and request for public comment on sweeping changes to certain business and financial disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K (“S-K Concept Release”). This blog is the second part discussing that concept release. In Part I, which can be read HERE, I discussed the background and general concepts for which the SEC provides discussion and seeks comment. In this Part II, I will discuss the rules and recommendations made by the SEC and, in particular, those related to the 100, 200, 300, 500 and 700 series of Regulation S-K.

Background

The fundamental tenet of the federal securities laws is defined by one word: disclosure. In fact, the SEC neither reviews nor opines on the merits of any company or transaction, but only upon the appropriate disclosure, including risks, made by that company. However, excessive rote immaterial disclosure can dilute the material important information regarding that particular company and have the

May 17, 2016

SEC Issues Final Rules Implementing The JOBS Act And Rules On The FAST Act

On May 3, 2016, the SEC issued final amendments to revise the rules related to the thresholds for registrations, termination of registration, and suspension of reporting under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amendments mark the final rule making and implementation of all provisions under the JOBS Act, and implement further provisions under the FAST Act.

The amendments revise the Section 12(g) and 15(d) rules to reflect the new, higher shareholder thresholds for triggering registration requirements and for allowing the voluntary termination of registration or suspension of reporting obligations. The new rules also make similar changes related to banks, bank holding companies, and savings and loan companies.

Specifically, the SEC has amended Exchange Act Rules 12g-1 through 12g-4 and 12h-3 related to the procedures for termination of registration under Section 12(g) through the filing of a Form 15 and for suspension of reporting obligations under Section 15(d), to reflect the higher thresholds set by the

May 10, 2016

SEC Issues Concept Release On Regulation S-K; Part 1

This is the first blog in a two-part series on the S-K Concept Release. In this Part I, I will discuss the background and general concepts for which the SEC provides discussion and seeks comment. In Part II of the series I will discuss the rules and recommendations made by the SEC and, in particular, those

May 3, 2016

NASDAQ Listing Requirements

This blog is the first in a two-part series explaining the listing requirements for the two small-cap national exchanges, NASDAQ and the NYSE MKT, beginning with NASDAQ. In addition to often being asked about the listing requirements on NASDAQ and the NYSE MKT, I am asked about the benefits of trading on such an exchange. Accordingly, at the end of this blog I have included a discussion on such benefits.

The NASDAQ Stock Market

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. Keeping in line with the focus of my blogs and practice, this blog is focused on the NASDAQ Capital Market tier.

A company seeking

April 26, 2016

The U.S. Capital Markets Clearance And Settlement Process

Within the world of securities there are many sectors and facets to explore and understand. To be successful, a public company must have an active, liquid trading market. Accordingly, the trading markets themselves, including the settlement and clearing process in the US markets, is an important fundamental area of knowledge that every public company, potential public company, and advisor needs to comprehend. A basic understanding of the trading markets will help drive relationships with transfer agents, market makers, broker-dealers and financial public relations firms as well as provide the knowledge to improve relationships with shareholders. In addition, small pooled funds such as venture and hedge funds and family offices that invest in public markets will benefit from an understanding of the process.

This blog provides a historical foundation and summary of the clearance and settlement processes for US equities markets. In a future blog, I will drill down into specific trading, including short selling.

History and Background

The Paperwork Crisis

April 19, 2016

Regulation SCI

The SEC adopted Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity (Regulation SCI) on November 3, 2015 to improve regulatory standards and processes related to technology in the securities business including by financial services firms. Regulation SCI was originally proposed in March 2013. Security and standards related to technological processes, data storage and systems has been a top priority of the SEC over the last few years and continues to be so this year.

Background

Technology has transformed the securities industry over the last years both in the area of regulatory oversight such as through algorithms to spot trading anomalies that could indicate manipulation and/or insider trading issues, and for market participants through enhanced speed, capacity, efficiency and sophistication of trading abilities. Enhanced technology carries the corresponding risk of failures, disruptions and of course hacking/intrusions. Moreover, as U.S. securities market systems are interconnected; an issue with one entity or system can have widespread consequences for all market participants.

Regulation SCI was proposed and

April 12, 2016

Mergers And Acquisitions: Types Of Transactions

As merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions completed its most active year since the financial crisis, it is helpful to go back to basics. Activity has been prevalent in all market sectors, including large, mid and small cap and across all industries, including biotech, financial services, technology, consumer goods and services, food and beverage and healthcare, among others.

Although I’ve written about M&A transactions multiple times, this will be the first time I’ve given a broad overview of the forms that an M&A transaction can take.

Types of Mergers and Acquisitions

A merger or acquisition transaction is the combination of two companies into one resulting in either one corporate entity or a parent-holding and subsidiary company structure. Mergers can categorized by the competitive relationship between the parties and by the legal structure of the transaction. Related to competitive relationship, there are three types of mergers: horizontal, vertical and conglomerate. In a horizontal merger, one company acquires another that is in the

April 5, 2016

Responding To SEC Comments

Background

The SEC Division of Corporation Finance (CorpFin) reviews and comments upon filings made under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The purpose of a review by CorpFin is to ensure compliance with the disclosure requirements under the federal securities laws, including Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X, and to enhance such disclosures as to each particular issuer. CorpFin will also be cognizant of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws and may refer a matter to the Division of Enforcement where material concerns arise over the adequacy and accuracy of reported information or other securities law violations, including violations of the Section 5 registration requirements. CorpFin has an Office of Enforcement Liason in that regard.

CorpFin’s review and responsibilities can be described with one word: disclosure!

CorpFin selectively reviews filings, although generally all first-time filings, such as an S-1 for an initial public offering or Form 10 registration under

March 29, 2016

SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Reviews Capital Formation

On February 25, 2016, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) met and listened to three presentations on access to capital and private offerings. The three presentations were by Jeffrey E. Sohl, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Decision Science Director, Center For Venture Research at University of New Hampshire; Brian Knight, Associate Director of Financial Policy, Center for Financial Markets at the Milken Institute; and Scott Bauguess, Deputy Director, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis at the SEC. The presentations expound upon the recent SEC study on unregistered offerings (see blog HERE).

The presentations were designed to provide information to the Advisory Committee as they continue to explore recommendations to the SEC on various capital formation topics. This blog summarizes the 3 presentations.

March 22, 2016

House Passes More Securities Legislation

In what must be the most active period of securities legislation in recent history, the US House of Representatives has passed three more bills that would make changes to the federal securities laws. The three bills, which have not been passed into law as of yet, come in the wake of the Fixing American’s Surface Transportation Act (the “FAST Act”), which was signed into law on December 4, 2015.

The 3 bills include: (i) H.R. 1675 – the Capital Markets Improvement Act of 2016, which has 5 smaller acts imbedded therein; (ii) H.R. 3784, establishing the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee within the SEC; and (iii) H.R. 2187, proposing an amendment to the definition of accredited investor. None of the bills have been passed by the Senate as of yet.

Meanwhile, the SEC continues to finalize rulemaking under both the JOBS Act, which was passed into law on April 5,

March 15, 2016

SEC Gives Insight On 2016 Initiatives

SEC Chair Mary Jo White gave a speech at the annual mid-February SEC Speaks program and, as usual, gave some insight into the SEC’s focus in the coming year. This blog summarized Chair White’s speech and provides further insight and information on the topics she addresses.

Consistent with her prior messages, Chair White focuses on enforcement, stating that the SEC “needs to go beyond disclosure” in carrying out its mission. That mission, as articulated by Chair White, is the protection of investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation. In 2015 the SEC brought a record number of enforcement proceedings and secured an all-time high for penalty and disgorgement orders. The primary areas of focus included cybersecurity, market structure requirements, dark pools, microcap fraud, financial reporting failures, insider trading, disclosure deficiencies in municipal offerings and protection of retail investors and retiree savings. In 2016 the SEC intends to focus enforcement on financial reporting, market structure, and the

March 8, 2016

State Blue Sky Concerns; Florida and New York

I have often written about state blue sky compliance and issues in completing offerings that do not pre-empt state law, including Tier 1 of Regulation A+ and initial or direct public offerings on Form S-1. I’ve also often expressed my opinion that the SEC, together with FINRA, is best suited to govern most securities-related registrations and exemptions, including both for offerings and broker-dealer matters, and that the states should be more focused on state-specific registrations and exemptions (such as intrastate offerings) and investigation and enforcement with respect to fraud or deceit, or unlawful conduct.

Despite the SEC support for the NASAA-coordinated review program to simplify the state blue sky process for securities offerings, such as under Tier 1 of Regulation A+, only 43 states participate. I say “only” in this context because the holdouts – including, for example, Florida, New York, Arizona and Georgia – are extremely active states for small business development and private capital formation. Moreover, even

March 1, 2016

SEC Proposes Transfer Agent Rules

On December 22, 2015, the SEC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and concept release on proposed new requirements for transfer agents and requesting public comment. The transfer agent rules were adopted in 1977 and have remained essentially unchanged since that time. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) describes intended new and amended rules and seeks comments on same, but is not in fact that actual proposed rule release. The SEC indicates that following the comment process associated with this ANPR, it intends to propose actual new rules as soon as practicable.

To invoke thoughtful comment and response, the SEC summarized the history of the role of transfer agents within the securities clearing system as well as the current rules and proposed new rules. In addition, the SEC discusses and seeks comments on broader topics that may affect transfer agents and the securities system as a whole. This blog gives a high level review of the whole APNR

February 23, 2016

SEC’s Financial Disclosure Requirements For Sub-Entities Of Registered Companies

As required by the JOBS Act, in 2013 the SEC launched its Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative and has been examining disclosure requirements under Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X and methods to improve such requirements. In September 2015, the SEC issued a request for comment related to the Regulation S-X financial disclosure obligations for certain entities other than the reporting entity. In particular, the SEC is seeking comments on the current financial disclosure requirements for acquired businesses, subsidiaries not consolidated, 50% or less owned entities, issuers of guaranteed securities, and affiliates whose securities collateralize the reporting company’s securities.

It is important to note that the SEC release relates to general financial statement and reporting requirements, and not the modified reporting requirements for smaller reporting companies or emerging growth companies. In particular, Article 8 of Regulation S-X applies to smaller reporting companies and Article 3 to those that do not qualify for the reduced Article 8 requirements. The SEC discussion and request for

February 16, 2016

SEC Study On Unregistered Offerings

In October 2015, the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis issued a white paper study on unregistered securities offerings from 2009 through 2014 (the “Report”). The Report provides insight into what is working in the private placement market and has been on my radar as a blog since its release, but with so many pressing, timely topics to write about, I am only now getting to this one. The SEC Report is only through 2014; however, at the end of this blog, I have provided supplemental information from another source related to PIPE (private placements into public equity) transactions in 2015.

Private offerings are the largest segment of capital formation in the U.S. markets. In 2014 private offerings raised more than $2 trillion. The SEC study used information collected from Form D filings to provide insight into the offering characteristics, including types of issuers, investors and financial intermediaries that participate in offerings. The Report focuses on Regulation D offerings

February 9, 2016

SEC Issues Rules Implementing Certain Provisions Of The FAST Act

On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (the “FAST Act”) into law, which included many capital markets/securities-related bills. The FAST Act is being dubbed the JOBS Act 2.0 by many industry insiders. The FAST Act has an aggressive rulemaking timetable and some of its provisions became effective immediately upon signing the bill into law on December 4, 2015. Accordingly there has been a steady flow of new SEC guidance, and now implementing rules.

On January 13, 2016, the SEC issued interim final rules memorializing two provisions of the FAST Act. In particular, the SEC revised the instructions to Forms S-1 and F-1 to allow the omission of historical financial information and to allow smaller reporting companies to use forward incorporation by reference to update an effective S-1. This blog summarizes these rules.

On December 10, 2015, the SEC Division of Corporate Finance addressed the FAST Act by making an announcement with guidance and issuing

February 2, 2016

FINRA Proposes New Category Of Broker-Dealer For “Capital Acquisition Brokers”

In December, 2015, FINRA proposed rules for a whole new category of broker-dealer, called “Capital Acquisition Brokers” (“CABs”), which limit their business to corporate financing transactions. In February 2014 FINRA sought comment on the proposal, which at the time referred to a CAB as a limited corporate financing broker (LCFB). Following many comments that the LCFB rules did not have a significant impact on the regulatory burden for full member firms, the new rules modify the original LCFB proposal in more than just name. The new rules will take effect upon approval by the SEC and are currently open to public comments.

A CAB will generally be a broker-dealer that engages in M&A transactions, raising funds through private placements and evaluating strategic alternatives and that collects transaction based compensation for such activities. A CAB will not handle customer funds or securities, manage customer accounts or engage in market making or proprietary trading.

As with all FINRA rules, the proposed

January 26, 2016

The SEC Issues Guidance On The FAST Act As It Relates To Savings And Loan Companies

On December 10, 2015, the SEC Division of Corporate Finance addressed the FAST Act by making an announcement with guidance and issuing two new Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI). As the FAST Act is a transportation bill that rolled in securities law matters relatively quickly and then was signed into law even quicker, this was the first SEC acknowledgement and guidance on the subject.

My blog on the FAST Act and the first two C&DI on the Act can be read HERE.

On December 21, 2015, the SEC issued 4 additional C&DI on the FAST

January 19, 2016

SEC Issues Report On Accredited Investor Definition

On December 18, 2015, the SEC issued a 118-page report on the definition of “Accredited Investor” (the “Report”). The report follows the March 2015 SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) recommendations related to the definition. The SEC is reviewing the definition of “accredited investor” as directed by the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires that the SEC review the definition as relates to “natural persons” every four years to determine if it should be modified or adjusted.

The definition of “accredited investor” has not been comprehensively re-examined by regulators since its adoption in 1982; however, in 2011 the Dodd-Frank Act amended the definition to exclude a person’s primary residence from the net worth test of accreditation.

Although the Report contains detailed discussions on the various aspects of the definition of an accredited investor, the history of the different aspects of the definition, a discussion of different approaches taken in other U.S. regulations and in foreign

January 12, 2016

SEC Guidance On Proxy Presentation Of Certain Matters In The Merger And Acquisition Context

In late October the SEC issued its first updated Staff Legal Bulletin on shareholder proposals in years – Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H (“SLB 14H”). Please see my blog on SLB 14H HERE. On the same day the SEC published two new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DI”) related to the unbundling of matters presented for a vote to shareholders in merger and acquisition transactions. The new C&DI has in essence granted voting rights to target company shareholders, on acquiring company organizational documents, where none existed before and has in essence pre-empted state law on the issue.

Unbundling under Rule 14a-4(a)(3) in the M&A Context

Exchange Act Rule 14a-4 relates to the requirements for a proxy card general. Rule 14a-4(a) provides:

(a) The form of proxy:

(1) Shall indicate in bold-face type whether or not the proxy is solicited on behalf of the registrant’s board of directors or, if provided other than by a majority of the board

January 5, 2016

OTC Markets Amends Listing Standards For The OTCQX

OTC Markets has unveiled changes to the quotations rule and standards for the OTCQX, which changes become effective January 1, 2016. The amended listing standards increase the quantitative criteria for listing and add additional qualitative requirements continuing to align the OTCQX with standards associated with a national stock exchange. Companies already listed on the OTCQX as of December 31, 2015 will have until January 2017 to meet the new ongoing eligibility requirements.

As part of the rule changes, OTC Markets has renamed its U.S. Designated Advisor for Disclosure (DAD) to an OTCQX Advisor. All U.S. companies that are quoted on the OTCQX must have either an attorney or an Investment Bank OTCQX Advisor. A company may appoint a new OTCQX Advisor at any time, provided that the company retains an approved OTCQX Advisor at all times.

All International companies that are quoted on the OTCQX must have either an Attorney Principal American Liaison (“PAL”) or an Investment Bank PAL –

December 29, 2015

Title III Crowdfunding

As required by Title III of the JOBS Act, on October 30, 2015, the SEC has published the final crowdfunding rules. Regulation Crowdfunding has been long in the making, with the JOBS Act having been passed on April 5, 2012, and the first set of proposed crowdfunding rules having been published on October 23, 2013. The new rules will be effective 180 days after publication, but the forms for registering a funding portal with the SEC will be effective and available January 29, 2016.

The SEC has dubbed the new rules “Regulation Crowdfunding.” Regulation Crowdfunding provides the rules implementing Section 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) and the regulatory framework for registered funding portals and broker-dealers that companies are required to use as intermediaries in crowdfunding offerings. In addition, Regulation Crowdfunding exempts securities sold under Section 4(a)(g) from the mandatory registration requirements found in Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).

December 22, 2015

The Fast Act (Fixing American’s Surface Transportation Act)

On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing American’s Surface Transportation Act (the “FAST Act”) into law, which included many capital markets/securities-related bills. The FAST Act is being dubbed the JOBS Act 2.0 by many industry insiders. The FAST Act has an aggressive rulemaking timetable and some of its provisions became effective immediately upon signing the bill into law on December 4, 2015.

In July 2015, the Improving Access to Capital for Emerging Growth Companies Act (the “Improving EGC Act”) was approved by the House and referred to the Senate for further action. Since that time, this Act was bundled with several other securities-related bills into a transportation bill (really!) – i.e., the FAST Act.

In addition to the Improving EGC Act, the FAST Act incorporated the following securities-related acts: (i) the Disclosure Modernization and Simplifications Act (see my blog HERE ); (ii) the SBIC Advisers Relief Act; (iii) the Reforming Access for Investments in Startup Enterprises Act; (iv)

December 15, 2015

SEC Guidance on Shareholder Proposals and Procedural Requirements

In late October the SEC issued its first updated Staff Legal Bulletin on shareholder proposals in years – Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H (“SLB 14H”). The legal bulletin comes on the heels of the SEC’s announcement on January 16, 2015, that it would no longer respond to no-action letters seeking exclusion of shareholder proposals on the grounds that the proposal directly conflicts with one of the company’s own proposals to be submitted to shareholders and the same meeting, as further discussed herein. SLB 14H will only allow exclusion of a shareholder proposal if “a reasonable shareholder could not logically vote in favor of both proposals.” As a result of the restrictive language in SLB 14H, it is likely that the direct conflict standard will rarely be used as a basis for excluding shareholder proposals going forward. With the publication of SLB 14H, the SEC will once again entertain and review no-action requests under the “direct conflict” grounds for exclusion.

SLB

December 8, 2015

SEC Proposes Amendments Related To Intrastate And Regional Securities Offerings- Part II- Rules 504 And 505

On October 30, 2015, the SEC published proposed rule amendments to facilitate intrastate and regional securities offerings. The SEC has proposed amendments to Rule 147 to modernize the rule and accommodate adopted state intrastate crowdfunding provisions. In addition, the SEC has proposed amendments to Rule 504 of Regulation D to increase the aggregate offering amount from $1 million to $5 million and to add bad actor disqualifications from reliance on the rule. The SEC has also made technical amendments to Rule 505 of Regulation D.

In Part I of the blog, I discussed the Rule 147 amendment, and in this Part II will discuss the changes to Rules 504 and 505. I have never really written about either Rules 504 or 505 in the past, the simple reason being that they are rarely used exemptions. Perhaps with the current proposed changes, Rule 504 will have a new life. I do not think Rule 505 will gain favor, and in fact,

December 1, 2015

SEC Advisory Committee Recommendations Related To Finders

On September 23, 2015, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) met and finalized its recommendation to the SEC regarding the regulation of finders and other intermediaries in small business capital formation transactions. This is a topic I have written about often, including a recent comprehensive blog which can be read HERE.

By way of reminder, the Committee was organized by the SEC to provide advice on SEC rules, regulations and policies regarding “its mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitating capital formation” as related to “(i) capital raising by emerging privately held small businesses and publicly traded companies with less than $250 million in public market capitalization; (ii) trading in the securities of such businesses and companies; and (iii) public reporting and corporate governance requirements to which such businesses and companies are subject.”

The Advisory Committee made four recommendations related to the regulation of finders and other

November 24, 2015

SEC Proposes Amendments Related To Intrastate And Regional Securities Offerings- Part 1

On October 30, 2015, the SEC published proposed rule amendments to facilitate intrastate and regional securities offerings. This rule proposal comes following the September 23, 2015, Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) recommendation to the SEC regarding the modernization of the Rule 147 Intrastate offering exemption. The SEC has proposed amendments to Rule 147 to modernize the rule and accommodate adopted state intrastate crowdfunding provisions. The proposed amendment eliminates the restriction on offers and eases the issuer eligibility requirements, provided however the issuer must comply with the specific state securities laws. In addition, the SEC has proposed amendments to Rule 504 of Regulation D to increase the aggregate offering amount from $1 million to $5 million and to add bad actor disqualifications from reliance on the rule. Finally, the SEC has made technical amendments to Rule 505 of Regulation D.

In this Part I of the blog, I will discuss the Rule 147 amendment and in

November 17, 2015

Mergers And Acquisitions; Appraisal Rights

Unless they are a party to the transaction itself, such as in the case of a share-for-share exchange agreement, shareholders of a company in a merger transaction generally have what is referred to as “dissenters” or “appraisal rights.” An appraisal right is the statutory right by shareholders that dissent to a particular transaction, to receive the fair value of their stock ownership. Generally such fair value may be determined in a judicial or court proceeding or by an independent valuation. Appraisal rights and valuations are the subject of extensive litigation in merger and acquisition transactions. As with all corporate law matters, the Delaware legislature and courts lead the way in setting standards and precedence.

Delaware Statutory Appraisal Rights

Although the details and appraisal rights process vary from state to state (often meaningfully), as with other state corporate law matters, Delaware is the leading statutory example and the Delaware Chancery Court is the leader in judicial precedence in this area of

November 10, 2015

The Materiality Standard; NYSE Amends Rules; FASB Proposed Guidance

The recent increase in regulatory activity and marketplace discussion on the topic of disclosure has not been limited to the small business arena or small cap marketplace. Effective September 28, 2015, the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) amended its Rule 202.06 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, which governs the procedures that listed companies must follow for the release of material information. Also, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has issued two exposure drafts providing guidance and seeking comments on the use of materiality to help companies eliminate unnecessary disclosures in their financial statements and to determine what is “material” for inclusion in notes to the financial statements. Both exposure drafts solicit public comment on proposed amendments to the Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts published by FASB.

NYSE Rule 202.06 Amendment

As published in the federal register, the NYSE proposes to amend Section 202.06 of the Manual to “(i) expand the premarket hours during which listed companies are required to

November 3, 2015

SEC Small Business Advisory Committee Public Company Disclosure Recommendations

On September 23, 2015, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) met and finalized its recommendation to the SEC regarding changes to the disclosure requirements for smaller publicly traded companies.

The topic of disclosure requirements for smaller public companies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) has come to the forefront over the past year. In early December the House passed the Disclosure Modernization and

October 27, 2015

Mergers And Acquisitions – The Merger Transaction

Although I have written about document requirements in a merger transaction previously, with the recent booming M&A marketplace, it is worth revisiting. This blog only addresses friendly negotiated transactions achieved through share exchange or merger agreements. It does not address hostile takeovers.

A merger transaction can be structured as a straight acquisition with the acquiring company remaining in control, a reverse merger or a reverse triangular merger. In a reverse merger process, the target company shareholders exchange their shares for either new or existing shares of the public company so that at the end of the transaction, the shareholders of the target company own a majority of the acquiring public company and the target company has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the public company. The public company assumes the operations of the target company.

A reverse merger is often structured as a reverse triangular merger. In that case, the acquiring company forms a new subsidiary which merges with the

October 20, 2015

SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Recommends Modernizing Rule 147 for Intrastate Crowdfunding Offerings

On September 23, 2015, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) met and finalized its recommendation to the SEC regarding the modernization of the Rule 147 Intrastate offering exemption. The recommendations are focused on facilitating recently enacted and future state-based crowdfunding initiatives.

I have written about the Advisory Committee on numerous occasions, but by way of reminder, the Committee was organized by the SEC to provide advice on SEC rules, regulations and policies regarding “its mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitating capital formation” as related to “(i) capital raising by emerging privately held small businesses and publicly traded companies with less than $250 million in public market capitalization; (ii) trading in the securities of such businesses and companies; and (iii) public reporting and corporate governance requirements to which such businesses and companies are subject.”

In formulating its recommendations, the Advisory Committee gave specific consideration to the belief

October 13, 2015

Mergers And Acquisitions: Board of Director Responsibilities

I have written about mergers and acquisitions, including reverse mergers, extensively in the past, but as both traditional mergers and acquisitions and reverse mergers are a large part of my practice, it is a topic worth revisiting and drilling down on regularly. In fact over the past year, the M&A market has been booming with activity. A question that often arises involves the obligations of the board of directors during the merger process.

Board of Directors’ Fiduciary Duties in the Merger Process

State corporate law generally provides that the business and affairs of a corporation shall be managed under the direction of its board of directors. Members of the board of directors have a fiduciary relationship to the corporation, which requires that they act in the best interest of the corporation, as opposed to their own. Generally a court will not second-guess directors’ decisions as long as the board has conducted an appropriate process in reaching its decisions. This

October 6, 2015

SEC Footnote 32 and Sham S-1 Registration Statements

Over the past several years, many direct public offering (DPO) S-1 registration statements have been filed for either shell or development-stage companies, claiming an intent to pursue and develop a particular business, when in fact, the promoter intends to create a public vehicle to be used for reverse merger transactions. For purposes of this blog, I will refer to these S-1 registration statements the same way the SEC now does, as “sham registrations.” I prefer the term “sham registrations” as it better describes the process than the other used industry term of art, “footnote 32 shells.”

Footnote 32 is part of the Securities Offering Reform Act of 2005 (“Securities Offering Reform Act”). In the final rule release for the Securities Offering Reform Act, the SEC included a footnote (number 32) which states:

“We have become aware of a practice in which the promoter of a company and/or affiliates of the promoter appear to place assets or operations within

September 29, 2015

The Stronger Enforcement Of Civil Penalties Act; A Push For Higher SEC Penalties

In July a Democratic senator and a Republican senator together introduced the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act of 2015 (SEC Penalties Act), which would give the SEC the ability to levy much heftier penalties for securities fraud, and against recidivists. The Act was referred to the Senate Baking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee for review and further action. The proposed SEC Penalties Act would increase the limits on civil monetary penalties and directly link the size of the penalty to the scope of harm and associated investor losses, and substantially increase the penalties for repeat offenders.

Background: A Trend Towards Increased Enforcement

The SEC Penalties Act continues a trend to deter securities law violations through regulations and stronger enforcement including the SEC Broken Windows policy, increased Dodd-Frank whistleblower activity and reward payments, and increased bad actor prohibitions. See my prior blog on bad actor prohibitions HERE.

The SEC Broken Windows policy is one in which the SEC is

September 22, 2015

SEC Issues Investor Alert Warning That Fantasy Stock Trading Websites May Violate Securities Laws

At the end of June, the SEC Office of Investor Education and Advocacy issued an Investor Alert and reminded us all that the net of federal securities laws is far-reaching. The Investor Alert warns investors that fantasy stock trading and similar websites violate federal securities laws and, in particular, the “security-based swap” regulations enacted by the Dodd-Frank Act.

The SEC Investor Alert warns against websites that claim to offer a chance to make money from publicly traded or privately held companies without actually buying stock. Generally the sites are set up as a “fantasy” trading game or competition and involve a small entry fee with the chance to win a larger payment if you win the fantasy competition. The SEC has taken the position that these fantasy stock trading programs could potentially involve security-based swaps and implicate both the federal securities and commodities laws. The SEC has and is continuing to investigate the matter. The investigation has progressed enough that

September 15, 2015

SEC Has Adopted Final Pay Ratio Disclosure Rules

span style=”font-family: Calibri;”On August 5, 2015, the SEC published and adopted final pay ratio disclosure rules. The final rules are substantially the same as the proposed rules which were published in September 2013. The rules will require inclusion of the new disclosures in proxy materials, registration statements and annual reports beginning in the fiscal year starting on or after January 1, 2017.

The proposed new rules implement Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) by amending Item 402 of Regulation S-K. The recently proposed “pay vs. performance” rules, which I discussed in my blog HERE would also amend Item 402. As an Item 402 disclosure, the new pay ratio disclosure will also be the subject of the “say on pay” advisory vote. My blog on say on pay for smaller reporting companies can be read Here.

Interestingly, in the final published rules, the SEC makes a point of stating that

September 8, 2015

SEC Issues Guidance On General Solicitation And Advertising In Regulation D Offerings

Effective September, 2013, the SEC adopted final rules eliminating the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in Rules 506 and 144A offerings as required by Title II of the JOBS Act. The enactment of new 506(c) resulting in the elimination of the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in private offerings to accredited investors has been a slow but sure success. Trailblazers such as realtymogul.com, circleup.com, wefunder.com and seedinvest.com proved that the model can work, and the rest of the capital marketplace has taken notice. Recently, more established broker-dealers have begun their foray into the 506(c) marketplace with accredited investor-only crowdfunding websites accompanied by marketing and solicitation to draw investors.

The historical Rule 506 was renumbered to Rule 506(b) and issuers have the option of completing offerings under either Rule 506(b) or 506(c). Rule 506(b) allows offers and sales to an unlimited number of accredited investors and up to 35 unaccredited investors, provided however that if any unaccredited investors

September 1, 2015

Finders- The Facts Related To Broker-Dealer Registration Requirements

Introduction

As a recurring topic, I discuss exemptions to the broker-dealer registration requirements for entities and individuals that assist companies in fundraising and related services. I have previously discussed the no-action-letter-based exemption for M&A brokers, the exemptions for websites restricted to accredited investors and for crowdfunding portals as part of the JOBS Act and the statutory exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements found in Securities Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1, including for officers, directors and key employees of an issuer. I have also previously published a blog on the American Bar Association’s recommendations for the codification of an exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements for private placement finders. I’ve included links to each of these prior articles in the conclusion to this blog.

A related topic with a parallel analysis is the use of finders for investors and investor groups, an activity which has become prevalent in today’s marketplace. In that case the investor group utilizes the services of a finder

August 25, 2015

A Summary Of The 2015 Amendments To The Nevada Revised Statutes

Although the federal government and FINRA have become increasingly active in matters of corporate governance, the states still remain the primary authority and regulator of corporate law. The two most popular states for incorporation by business entities remain Nevada and Delaware, both of which offer corporations a degree of flexibility from a menu of reasonable alternatives that can be tailored to the companies’ business sectors, markets and corporate culture.

In 2015 the Nevada Legislature made several changes to the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) which impact public and private companies incorporated in Nevada. The changes go into effect on October 1, 2015. I begin this blog by reviewing the benefits offered by Nevada as a choice of state of incorporation and then follow with a summary of the 2015 amendments.

Nevada as a Choice of Corporate Domicile

Together with Delaware, Nevada is one of the most popular state choice for entity domicile. The following is a summary of the most

August 18, 2015

Delaware General Corporate Law Amended to Prohibit Fee-Shifting Clauses; Permit Forum Selection Provisions

Although the federal government and FINRA have become increasingly active in matters of corporate governance, the states still remain the primary authority and regulator of corporate law. State corporation law is generally based on the Delaware Model Act and offers corporations a degree of flexibility from a menu of reasonable alternatives that can be tailored to companies’ business sectors, markets and corporate culture. Moreover, state judiciaries review and rule upon corporate governance matters, considering the facts and circumstances of each case and setting factual precedence based on such individual circumstances.

On June 24, 2015, Delaware amended the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) to prohibit fee shifting provisions. The DGCL amendments also allow Delaware corporations to adopt exclusive (and non-exclusive) forum selection provisions in their corporate charters. The amendments went into effect August 1, 2015.

Fee Shifting Provisions

As a result of increasing shareholder activism and filed or threatened shareholder lawsuits, corporations have started adding provisions in their corporate charters (articles

August 11, 2015

SEC Proposed Executive Compensation Clawback Rules

On July 1, 2015, the SEC published the anticipated executive compensation clawback rules (“Clawback Rules”). The rules are in the comment period and will not be effective until the SEC publishes final rules. The proposed rules require national exchanges to enact rules and listing standards requiring exchange listed companies to adopt and enforce policies requiring the clawback of certain incentive-based compensation from current and former executive officers in the event of an accounting restatement.

In particular, the proposed rules implement Section 10D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) and as added by Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). Section 10D requires the SEC to adopt rules directing national exchanges to prohibit the listing of any security of an issuer that is not in compliance with Section 10D’s requirements for (i) disclosure of the company’s policy on incentive-based compensation that is based on financial statement results and (ii)

August 3, 2015

Intrastate Crowdfunding Legislation Has Passed in Florida

Florida Has Passed Intrastate Crowdfunding Legislation

As the country waits for the SEC to publish final Title III crowdfunding rules as required by the JOBS Act, states continue to enact and introduce state-specific crowdfunding legislation. As of today, it is unclear when the final federal rules will be released and passed into law though SEC Chair Mary Jo White has publicly stated on several occasions that it will be this year. 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 the final rules. Federal crowdfunding is coming, but it is a slow process.

Florida is the newest state to pass intrastate crowdfunding legislation. The new Florida Intrastate Crowdfunding Exemption takes effect October 1, 2015. As a Florida resident, I have a personal

July 28, 2015

SEC Issues Guidance On “Voting Power” For Purposes Of Bad Actor Rules

The SEC has published clarifying guidance and information on defining “voting equity securities” for purposes of the application of the bad actor rules under Rule 506 of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). The clarifying language was contained within the SEC’s March 25, 2015 release of the final rules amending and adopting Regulation A+.

Rules 262 and 505 of the Securities Act disqualify the use of offerings under Regulation A and Rule 505 of Regulation D if an issuer, its predecessor, or an affiliate of the issuer is considered a “bad actor” as defined by such rules. In particular, the rules disqualify the issuer if the specified covered person is subject to certain administrative orders, industry bars, an injunction involving certain securities law violations or certain specified criminal convictions. “Covered persons” under the rules extends to the issuer, predecessor, affiliate, directors, officers, general partners, 20% or greater beneficial owners, promoters, underwriters, persons

July 21, 2015

More On Regulation A/A+; Thoughts On The Practical Effects And New SEC Guidance

On March 25, 2015, the SEC released final rules amending Regulation A. The new rules are commonly referred to as Regulation A+. The existing Tier I Regulation A, which does not preempt state law, has been increased to $20 million and the new Tier 2, which does preempt state law, allows a raise of up to $50 million. Issuers may elect to proceed under either Tier I or Tier 2 for offerings up to $20 million. The new rules went into effect on June 19, 2015.

On June 23, 2015, the SEC updated its Division of Corporation Finance Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) to provide guidance related to Regulation A/A+. The SEC published 11 new C&DI’s and deleted 2 related to forms and in particular, related to paper filings and annotations which are no longer relevant or applicable.

Practical Effects of New Regulation A/A+

I believe, and the feedback I hear supports, that new Regulation A+ will be widely

July 14, 2015

OTC Markets Amends Listing Standards For OTCQB To Include Regulation A+ Issuers

OTC Markets has unveiled changes to the quotations rule and standards for the OTCQB, which changes become effective July 10, 2015. The OTC Markets rule amendments will allow a company to use its required Regulation A+ ongoing reporting requirements to satisfy the initial and ongoing OTCQB disclosure requirements.

Concurrently with this substantive amendment, OTCQB has made clarifying general amendments to its listing standards for all listed and prospective OTCQB companies. OTC Markets has invited comments on the proposed changes.

To summarize, the Regulation A related amendment to the OTCQB rules and regulations includes:

The addition of definitions for “Regulation A” and “Regulation A Reporting Company”
Initial Disclosure Obligations – a Regulation A Reporting Company can meet the OTCQB initial disclosure obligations by having filed all required reports on EDGAR, including annual audited financial statements;
OTCQB Certification – clarifying amendment to the OTCQB Certification including that a Regulation A Reporting Company is required to file periodic reports with the SEC under

July 7, 2015

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

The Section 4(a)(1) And 4(a)(1½) Exemption; Recommendations For An Amendment To Rule 144 Related To Shell Companies

What are the Section 4(a)(1) and Section 4(a)(1½) exemptions, and how do they work?

Section 4(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) provides an exemption for a transaction “by a person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.” Rule 144 provides a non-exclusive safe harbor for the sale of securities under Section 4(a)(1). In the event that Rule 144 is unavailable, a holder of securities may still rely upon Section 4(a)(1). Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act provides an exemption for sales by the issuer not involving a public offering. The issuer itself may not rely on Section 4(a)(1), and selling security holders may not rely on Section 4(a)(2).

Case law and the SEC unilaterally conclude that an affiliate (officer, director or greater than 10% shareholder) of the issuer may not rely on Section 4(a)(1) for the resale of securities. In particular, an affiliate is presumptively deemed an underwriter unless such affiliate meets the requirements for use of

June 23, 2015

SEC Has Approved A Two-Year Tick Size Pilot Program For Smaller Public Companies

On May 6, 2015 the SEC approved a two-year pilot program with FINRA and the national securities exchanges that will widen the minimum quoting and trading increments, commonly referred to as tick sizes, for the stocks of smaller public companies. The goal of the program is to study whether wider tick sizes improve the market quality and trading of these stocks.

The basic premise is that if a tick size is wider, the spread will be bigger, and thus market makers and underwriters will have the ability to earn a larger profit on trading. If market makers and underwriters can earn larger profits on trading, they will have incentive to make markets, support liquidity and issue research on smaller public companies. The other side of the coin is that larger spreads and more profit for the traders equates to increased costs to the investors whose accounts are being traded.

The tick size program includes companies that meet the following $3

June 16, 2015

Regulation A+; An In-Depth Overview

On March 31, 2015, I published a blog with a high-level summary of the new rules. In this blog, I will give a deeper review of the entire new Regulation and then in future installments will drill down on different aspects of the new rules as such become relevant to this new offering regime.

Background on Rules

On December 18, 2013, the SEC published proposed rules to implement Title

June 9, 2015

ABA Federal Regulation Of Securities Committee Makes Recommendations On Regulation S-K

On March 6, 2015, the Federal Regulation of Securities Committee (“Committee”) of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) submitted its second comment letter to the SEC making recommendations for changes to Regulation S-K. The Committee’s recommendations are aimed at improving the quality of business and financial information that must be disclosed in periodic reports and registration statements in accordance with Regulation S-K. I note that I am a member of the Committee, but not a member of the sub-committee that drafted the comment letter, nor did I have any input in regard to the comment letter.

The recommendations fall into four major categories: materiality; duplication; consolidation of existing interpretive and other guidance from the SEC; and obsolescence. The recommendations in the letter are based on themes articulated by the Division of Corporation Finance in a 2013 report to Congress mandated by the JOBS Act and subsequent speeches by the Division’s Director, Keith F. Higgins.

Materiality

The Committee’s letter recommends that

June 1, 2015

SEC Congressional Testimony – Part 3

On three occasions recently representatives of the SEC have given testimony to Congress. On March 24, 2015, SEC Chair Mary Jo White testified on “Examining the SEC’s Agenda, Operations and FY 2016 Budget Request”; on March 19, 2015, Andrew Ceresney, Director of the SEC Division of Enforcement, testified to Congress on the “Oversight of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement”; and on March 10, 2015, Stephen Luparello, Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, testified on “Venture Exchanges and Small-Cap Companies.” In a series of blogs, I will summarize the three testimonies.

In this last blog in the series I am summarizing the testimony of Stephen Luparello, Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, on “Venture Exchanges and Small-Cap Companies.” The topic of venture exchanges and small-cap companies is of particular importance to me and my clients – it is the world in which we participate.

On May 5, 2015, I published a blog introducing and discussing the

May 26, 2015

SEC Proposed Pay Versus Performance

On April 29, 2015, the SEC published the anticipated pay versus performance proposed rules. The rules are in the comment period and will not be effective until the SEC publishes final rules. Although timing is unclear, some commentators believe the new rules will be implemented as soon as the 2016 proxy season.

The proposed rules require companies to clearly and concisely disclose the relationship between executive compensation actually paid and the financial performance of the company, taking into account any change in the value of the shares of stock and dividends of the registrant and any distributions. The new proposed disclosure requirements will not apply to emerging growth companies or foreign private issuers. In addition, smaller public companies will have a scaled back disclosure requirement.

The proposed new rules implement Section 14(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) and as added by Section 953(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”)

May 19, 2015

SEC Proposes Broadening Of Broker-Dealer Registration Rules To Include Proprietary And High-Frequency Traders

On March 25, 2015, the SEC proposed rule amendments to require high-frequency and off-exchange traders to become members of FINRA. The amendments would increase regulatory oversight over these traders.

Over the years many active cross-market proprietary trading firms have emerged, many of which engage in high-frequency trading. These firms generally rely on the broad proprietary trading exemption in rule 15b9-1 to forgo membership with, and therefore regulatory oversight by, FINRA. The rule change is specifically designed to require these high-frequency traders to become members of FINRA and submit to its review and oversight.

The proposed rule change amends Rule 15b9-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) to narrow a current exemption from FINRA membership if the broker is a member of a national securities exchange, carries no customer accounts and has annual gross income of no more than $1,000 derived from sources other than the exchange to which they are a member. Currently, income

May 12, 2015

SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Explores Venture Exchanges, Private And Secondary Securities Trading and The NASAA Coordinated Review Program- Part I

The SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) was organized by the SEC to provide advice on SEC rules, regulations and policies regarding “its mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitating capital formation” as related to “(i) capital raising by emerging privately held small businesses and publicly traded companies with less than $250 million in public market capitalization; (ii) trading in the securities of such businesses and companies; and (iii) public reporting and corporate governance requirements to which such businesses and companies are subject.”

As previously written about, on March 4, 2015, the committee met and finalized its recommendation to the SEC regarding the definition of “accredited investor.” My blog on those recommendations can be read HERE. In addition to finalizing the accredited investor definition recommendation, at the March 4 meeting the Advisory Committee listened to presentations regarding and discussed several important and timely small business initiatives.

I’ve had the

May 5, 2015

SEC Congressional Testimony– Part II

SEC CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY – PART II

On three occasions recently, representatives of the SEC have given testimony to Congress. On March 24, 2015, SEC Chair Mary Jo White testified on “Examining the SEC’s Agenda, Operations and FY 2016 Budget Request”; on March 19, 2015, Andrew Ceresney, Director of the SEC Division of Enforcement, testified to Congress on the “Oversight of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement”; and on March 10, 2015, Stephen Luparello, Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, testified on “Venture Exchanges and Small-Cap Companies.” In a series of blogs, I will summarize the three testimonies.

In the first blog in the series, which can be read HERE, I summarized Mary Jo White’s testimony. This second blog in the series summarizes the testimony of Andrew Ceresney and in particular his words on the SEC’s enforcement focus for fiscal year 2016.

Andrew Ceresney, Director Division of Enforcement – Testimony to Congress

Mr. Ceresney began his testimony with a

April 28, 2015

SEC Division of Corporation Finance Issues Guidance On Bad Actor Waivers

Last month the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued guidance on the granting waivers for the bad actor disqualifications under Regulation A and Rules 505 and 506 of Regulation D.

The Dodd-Frank Act required the SEC to implement rules which disqualify certain Rule 506 offerings based on the individuals involved in the issuer and related parties. On July 10, 2013, the SEC adopted such rules by amending portions of Rules 501 and 506 of Regulation D, promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933. The new rules went into effect on September 23, 2013. The rule disqualifies the use of Rule 506 as a result of certain convictions, cease and desist orders, suspensions and bars (“disqualifying events”) that occur on or after September 23, 2013, and adds disclosure obligation in Rule 506(e) for disqualifying events that occurred prior to September 23, 2013.

On July 31, 2013, I summarized the final rules, which summary can be read HERE. On December 4,

April 21, 2015

SEC Congressional Testimony- Part I

On three occasions recently representatives of the SEC have given testimony to Congress. On March 24, 2015, SEC Chair Mary Jo White testified on “Examining the SEC’s Agenda, Operations and FY 2016 Budget Request”; on March 19, 2015, Andrew Ceresny, Director of the SEC Division of Enforcement, testified to Congress on the “Oversight of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement”; and on March 10, 2015, Stephen Luparello, Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, testified on “Venture Exchanges and Small-Cap Companies.” In a series of blogs, I will summarize the three testimonies. This first blog in the series summarizes the testimony of Mary Jo White.

Mary Jo White Testimony

On March 24, 2015, SEC Chair Mary Jo White gave testimony before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services. The testimony was titled “Examining the SEC’s Agenda, Operations and FY 2016 Budget Request.” As can be gleaned from the title, Mary Jo White was giving testimony in support

April 14, 2015

SEC Cracks Down On Confidentiality Agreements As Violating Whistleblower Rights And Protections

On April 1, 2015, the SEC announced its first filed, and settled, enforcement action against a company for using improperly restrictive language in confidentiality agreements as a method to stifle or retaliate against whistleblowers.

In recent months, the SEC has been issuing requests to companies for copies of confidentiality agreements, non-disclosure agreements, employment agreements, severance agreements and settlement agreements entered into with employees and former employees of the companies. The initiative specifically requests copies of documents since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) and, in particular, the provisions of the Dodd Frank-Act which grant awards and protections for whistleblowers.

In addition, the SEC has been asking for copies of company human resource policies, employee memos, training guides and any and all documents that discuss “whistleblowers” either directly or indirectly. According to a Wall Street Journal article on the subject, the SEC believes that corporations are retaliating against potential

April 7, 2015

SEC Has Published Final Rules Adopting Regulation A+

On March 25, 2015, the SEC pleasantly surprised the business community by releasing final rules amending Regulation A. The new rules are commonly referred to as Regulation A+. The existing Tier I Regulation A, which does not preempt state law, has been increased to $20 million and the new Tier II, which does preempt state law, allows a raise of up to $50 million. Issuers may elect to proceed under either Tier I or Tier II for offerings up to $20 million. As is becoming common in the industry, I will refer to the new rules, including both Tier I and Tier II offerings, as Regulation A+.

In its press release announcing the passage, SEC Chair Mary Jo White was quoted as saying, “These new rules provide an effective, workable path to raising capital that also provides strong investor protections. It is important for the Commission to continue to look for ways that our rules can facilitate capital raising

March 31, 2015

The New FINRA Broker Background Check Rule

On December 30, 2014, the SEC approved FINRA Rule 3110(e), which requires FINRA member firms to verify the information provided by or contained in a broker’s Form U-4 within 30 days of filing the form with FINRA. The Rule becomes effective on July 31, 2015. The Rule is intended to help verify background information on a broker, including publicly available information through the FINRA Broker-Check system and to prevent high-risk, recidivist brokers from moving from firm to firm and continuing questionable or outright improper conduct.

Background

One of FINRA’s 2015 Regulatory and Examination Priorities is addressing concerns about high-risk brokers and improving background checks and due diligence by member firms on prospective hires. The new Rule is part of FINRA’s initiative in this regard. FINRA is taking additional steps in this area as well, including a one-time background and financial check of all registered representatives, which checks will be completed by August 2015.

The SEC release discussing and approving the

March 24, 2015

SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies’ Recommendations On Accredited Investor Definition

On December 17, 2014 and again on March 4, 2015, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) met and finalized its recommendation to the SEC regarding the definition of “accredited investor.” The Advisory Committee unanimously approved the recommendation, which is decidedly pro small business and supportive of facilitating capital formation, and communicated such recommendation to the SEC in a letter dated March 9, 2015 (the “Letter”). The Letter contains a pragmatic discussion of the importance of small business capital formation, the importance of the “accredited investor” definition, and the lack of connection between the definition and fraud prevention.

As set forth in the Advisory Committee Letter, the committee was organized by the SEC to provide advice on SEC rules, regulations and policies regarding “its mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitating capital formation” as related to “(i) capital raising by emerging privately held small businesses and publicly traded companies

March 17, 2015

SEC Supports FINRA’s Rule 6490 Authority Over Corporate Actions

In two recent administrative decisions, the SEC has upheld FINRA’s broad authority under Rule 6490 to approve and effectuate corporate actions by public companies trading on the OTC Markets. One of FINRA’s mandates is to protect investors and maintain fair and orderly markets and like broker-dealers, it acts as a gatekeeper in the small-cap industry. FINRA exercises its powers though the direct regulation of its member broker-dealer firms, but also through its Office of Fraud Detection and Market Intelligence, which monitors the trading activity and press releases of issues in the marketplace and conducts related investigations. FINRA works with the SEC as a front line in the detection, investigation and assistance with the prosecution of issuers.

Recently, through its power under Rule 6490, as more fully explained below, FINRA has, with the support of the SEC, expanded its impact on the small-cap marketplace by conducting in-depth reviews of issuers in conjunction with the processing of corporate actions, and denying such

March 10, 2015

SEC Suspends Trading On 128 OTC Markets Companies

On March 2, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suspended the trading in 128 dormant shell companies trading on the OTC Link. The SEC suspended the trading in these shell companies because of questions regarding the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information concerning the companies’ operating status, if any.

The SEC notes in its release that OTC Markets had been unable to contact each of the issuers for more than one year. None of the subject issuers had filed any information or updated with either OTC Markets or the SEC in over a year. The SEC staff then independently attempted to contact the issuers and was able to contact 10 of the 128 companies and confirm from those ten that they had either ceased operations or gone private.

The trading suspensions are part of an SEC initiative tabbed Operation Shell-Expel by the SEC’s Microcap Fraud Working Group. As part of the initiative, the SEC Enforcement Division’s Office of

March 3, 2015

Shareholder Proposals And Procedural Requirements

Although in the small cap marketplace, proxy season really spreads all year, the majority of issuers hold annual meetings in connection with the issuance of their annual reports and the majority of issuers have a December 31 fiscal year end. Accordingly, in the coming months, public companies will be preparing their annual shareholder meeting notices and be dealing with the associated shareholder proposals.

The regulation of corporate law rests primarily within the power and authority of the states. However, for public companies, the federal government imposes various corporate law mandates including those related to matters of corporate governance. While state law may dictate that shareholders have the right to elect directors, the minimum and maximum time allowed for notice of shareholder meetings, and what matters may be properly considered by shareholders at annual meeting, Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and the rules promulgated thereunder, govern the proxy process itself for publicly reporting companies.

February 24, 2015

Proposed Amendments To Disclosure Of Hedging Policies For Officers, Directors And Employees

On February 9, 2015, the SEC issued proposed rules that would increase corporate disclosure of company hedging policies for directors and employees in annual meeting proxy statements. The new rules are part of the ongoing rule-making requirements mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). In particular, the new rule would implement Section 14(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), which requires annual meeting proxy or consent solicitation statements to disclose whether employees or members of the board are permitted to purchase financial instruments, such as options, swaps, collars and the like, to hedge price decreases in the company securities.

The proposed rules regulate disclosure of company policy as opposed to directing the substance of that policy or the underlying hedging activities. In fact, the rule specifically does not require a company to prohibit a hedging transaction or otherwise adopt specific policies. The rule would require disclosure about whether directors, officers and

February 17, 2015

OTC Markets Quotation Levels, Listing Requirements, and Comprehensive Pubco Criteria

OTC Markets divide issuers into three (3) levels of quotation marketplaces: OTCQX, OTCQB and OTC Pink. The OTC Pink, which involves the highest-risk, highly speculative securities, is further divided into three tiers: Current Information, Limited Information and No Information. This page provides a summary of the listing requirements for each level of quotation on OTC Markets.

OTCQX

The OTCQX divides its listing criteria between U.S. companies and International companies, though they are very similar. The OTCQX has two tiers of quotation for U.S. companies: (i) OTCQX U.S. Premier (also eligible to quote on a national exchange); and (ii) OTCQX U.S. and two tiers for International companies: (i) OTCQX International Premier; and (ii) OTCQX International. Quotation is available for American Depository Receipts (ADR’s) or foreign ordinary securities of companies traded on a Qualifying Foreign Stock Exchange, and an expedited application process is available for such companies.

Issuers on the OTCQX must meet specified eligibility requirements. Moreover, OTC Markets have the discretionary

February 10, 2015

Understanding The NSMIA And Navigating State Blue Sky Laws- Part II

The National Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (NSMIA)

Generally, an offering and/or sale of securities must be either registered or exempt from registration under both the federal Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and state securities laws. As a result of a lack of uniformity in state securities laws and associated burden on capital-raising transactions, on October 11, 1996, the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (“NSMIA”) was enacted into law.

The NSMIA amended Section 18 of the Securities Act to pre-empt state “blue sky” registration and review of specified securities and offerings. The preempted securities are called “covered securities.” The NSMIA also amended Section 15 of the Exchange Act to pre-empt the state’s authority over capital, custody, margin, financial responsibility, making and keeping records, bonding or financial or operational reporting requirements for brokers and dealers.

In Part I of this blog, I summarized the NSMIA pre-emption provisions. In this Part II, I discuss state blue sky laws.

February 3, 2015

Understanding The NSMIA And Navigating State Blue Sky Laws- Part I

National Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (NSMIA)

In this Part I, I summarize the NSMIA pre-emption provisions. Part II discusses state blue sky laws.

Section 18; Exemption from State Regulation of

January 27, 2015

SEC Announces Examination Priorities For 2015; Focus On Transfer Agents, Investment Advisers and Broker Dealers

On January 13, 2015, the SEC published its Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) priorities for 2015. The OCIE examines and reviews a wide variety of financial institutions, including investment advisers, investment companies, broker-dealers, transfer agents, clearing agencies and national securities exchanges.

The priorities this year have a primary focus on (i) protecting retail investors, especially those saving for retirement; (ii) assessing market-wide risks; and (iii) using data analytics to identify signs of potential illegal activity. In addition, the SEC will examine municipal advisers, proxy services, never-before-examined investment companies, fees and expenses in private equity and transfer agents.

Transfer agents and broker-dealers will be scrutinized for potential claims of engaging in or aiding and abetting pump-and-dump or market manipulation schemes.

The SEC shares its annual examination priorities as a heads-up and to encourage industry participants to conduct independent reviews and make efforts for increased compliance, prior to an SEC examination, investigation or potential enforcement proceeding. Moreover, the SEC chooses

January 20, 2015

SEC Rules – The Commission Publishes List of New Regulations for Review

The SEC has published its annual list of rules that are scheduled to be reviewed this year and to invite comment from the public as to whether these rules should be continued without change, amended or rescinded. The SEC is required to review rules each year that have a significant impact on small entities.

The current list includes 25 rules that were adopted by the SEC in 2003. I note that many of these rules were enacted as a follow-on to the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and in response to the then current financial crisis. Persons interested in submitting comments to the SEC regarding these rules can do so through the SEC website. I have ordered the list such that rules that most impact my clients appear first.

Below is a list of rules that will be reviewed this year for potential amendment and a brief summary of the existing rule.

Conditions for Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures –

January 13, 2015

SEC Issues Several Proposed Rule Changes Pertaining To JOBs Act

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

On December 18, 2014, the SEC published proposed rule amendments to implement portions of Title V and Title VI of the JOBS Act by amending rules promulgated under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). The proposed amendments will revise the Section 12(g) rules to reflect the new, higher shareholder thresholds for triggering registration requirements and for allowing the voluntary termination of registration or suspension of reporting obligations. The proposed rules also make similar changes related to banks, bank holding companies, and savings and loan companies.

The proposed rules establish the time for determining accredited status for purposes of calculating shareholders of record and the corresponding application of the registration and deregistration rules. In particular, the proposed rules set the last day of the fiscal year as the relevant calculation moment effectively imposing an obligation on issuers to obtain, and investors to give, updated representations following an initial

January 6, 2015

First Issuer Completes NASAA Coordinated Review For Regulation A Offering

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

The first issuer has completed the NASAA coordinated review process to qualify to sell securities in multiple states under Regulation A. As the first and only issuer to complete this process, the issuer (Groundfloor Finance, Inc.) took the time to write a comment letter to the SEC with respect to its Regulation A+ rulemaking and in particular to discuss its experience with the NASAA coordinated review process. The issuer’s comment letter was followed by a letter to SEC Chair Mary Jo White from the House Financial Services Committee requesting that the SEC study the NASAA Coordinated Review Program.

The Coordinated Review Process

The NASAA coordinated review process is well put together and seems to have a focus on both investor protection and supportive assistance for the issuer. An issuer elects to complete the coordinated review process by completing a Form CR-3b and submitting the application together with a copy of the completed Form

December 30, 2014

Will the Disclosure Modernization and Simplification Act of 2014 Simplify Reporting Requirements for ECG’s and Smaller Reporting Companies?

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

In early December the House passed the Disclosure Modernization and Simplification Act of 2014, which will now go to the Senate for action—or inaction, as the case may be.

The bill joins a string of legislative and political pressure on the SEC to review and modernize Regulation S-K to eliminate burdensome, unnecessary disclosure with the dual purpose of reducing the costs to the disclosing issuer and ensure readable, material information for the investing public.

The Disclosure Modernization and Simplification Act of 2014, if passed, would require the SEC to adopt or amend rules to: (i) allow issuers to include a summary page to Form 10-K; and (ii) scale or eliminate duplicative, antiquated or unnecessary requirements in Regulation S-K. In addition, the SEC would be required to conduct yet another study on all Regulation S-K disclosure requirements to determine how best to amend and modernize the rules to reduce costs and burdens while

December 23, 2014

Delaware General Corporate Law; 2014 Amendments Summarized

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

Although the federal government and FINRA have become increasingly active in matters of corporate governance, the states still remain the primary authority and regulator of corporate law. State corporation law is generally based on the Delaware Model Act and offers corporations a degree of flexibility from a menu of reasonable alternatives that can be tailored to companies’ business sectors, markets and corporate culture. Moreover, state judiciaries review and rule upon corporate governance matters, considering the facts and circumstances of each case and setting factual precedence based on such individual circumstances. In 2014 there were several changes to the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) which impact public and private companies incorporated in Delaware, and elsewhere, since most states follow the DGCL.

The 2014 amendments which became effective on August 1, 2014, address: (1) mergers under DGCL Section 251(h) permitting a merger without a stockholder vote following certain tender or exchange offers; (2) director and

December 9, 2014

Private Offering Rule Changes Since JOBS Act

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

As the end of 2014 approaches, I find myself reflecting on the significant successes and failures in the private offering arena since the enactment of the Jumpstart our Business Startups Act (“JOBS Act”) on April 5, 2012. Some provisions under the JOBS Act became law without further rule-making action on the part of the SEC; others took time to pass; and significantly, Title III Crowdfunding, the most anticipated change in capital market access, has completely stalled. This blog is a summary of the in-depth detailed blogs I’ve previously written on each of these topics with some added commentary.

506(c) – The Elimination of the Prohibition Against General Solicitation and Advertising in Private Offerings to Accredited Investors; Broker-Dealer Exemption for 506(c) Funding Websites

The enactment of new 506(c) resulting in the elimination of the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in private offerings to accredited investors has been a slow but sure success. Trailblazers

December 2, 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

Risk Factor Disclosures For Reporting Public Companies

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

A risk factor disclosure involves a discussion of circumstances, trends, or issues that may affect a company’s business, prospects, operating results, or financial condition. Risk factors must be disclosed in registration statements under the Securities Act and registration statements and reports under the Exchange Act. In addition, risk factors must be included in private offering documents where the exemption relied upon requires the delivery of a disclosure document, and is highly recommended even when such disclosure is not statutorily required.

The Importance of Risk Factors

Risk factors are one of the most often commented on sections of a registration statement. The careful crafting of pertinent risk factors can provide leeway for more robust discussion on business plans and future operations, and can satisfy a wide arrange of SEC concerns regarding existing financial and non-financial matters (such as potential default provisions in debt, dilution matters, inadvertent rule violations, etc.).

Although smaller reporting companies are

November 18, 2014

Penny Stock Rules And Broker Dealers

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

In last week’s blog regarding FINRA’s request to eliminate the OTC Bulletin Board quotation service (OTCBB) and to adopt rules relating to the quotation requirements for OTC equity services by inter-dealer quotation services, I touched upon the significance of penny stock rules related to the OTC marketplace. As further described herein, penny stocks are low-priced securities (under $5.00 per share) and are considered speculative and risky investments.

Penny stock rules focus on the activity of broker-dealers in effectuating trades in penny stocks. As a result of the risk associated with penny stock trading, Congress enacted the Securities Enforcement Remedies and Penny Stock Reform Act of 1990 (the “Penny Stock Act”) requiring the SEC to enact rules requiring brokers or dealers to provide disclosures to customers effecting trades in penny stocks. The rules prohibit broker-dealers from effecting transactions in penny stocks unless they comply with the requirements of Section 15(h) of the Securities Exchange

November 4, 2014

FINRA Seeks to Eliminate the OTCBB and Impose Regulations on the OTC Markets

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

On October 7, 2014, the SEC published a release instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve FINRA’s request to delete the rules related to, and the operations of, the OTC Bulletin Board quotation service. On June 27, 2014, FINRA quietly filed a proposed rule change with the SEC seeking to adopt rules relating to the quotation requirements for OTC equity services and to delete the rules relating to the OTCBB and thus cease its operations. Although the rule filing was published in the Federal Register, it garnered no attention in the small cap marketplace. Only one comment letter, from OTC Market Group, Inc. (“OTC Markets”) (i.e., the entity that owns and operates the inter-dealer quotation system known by its OTC Pink, OTCQB and OTCQX quotation tiers) was submitted in response to the filing.

The OTCBB has become increasingly irrelevant in the OTC marketplace for years. In October 2010, I wrote a blog titled

October 28, 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

Insider Trading- A Case Study

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include “tipping” such information, securities trading by the person “tipped,” and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information. Any and all persons that buy and sell stock may be subject to insider trading liability. This blog sets forth a particular hypothetical fact scenario and analyzes the associated insider trading implications.

Hypothetical Fact Pattern: Company X (the “Company”) sells shares to a group of 35 unaffiliated shareholders pursuant to an effective S-1 registration statement. These same 35 unaffiliated shareholders (the “Sellers”) sell their registered stock to a group of 35 unaffiliated purchasers (the Buyers”) in a private transaction (the “Transaction”). At or near the same time as the Transaction, the control block

October 7, 2014

The ECOS Matter; When Is A Reverse Split Effective?

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

In what was presumably an unintended consequence, the application of an SEC- approved FINRA regulation has resulted in a conflict between state and federal corporate law for a small publicly traded company.

On September 16, 2014, Ecolocap Solutions, Inc. (“ECOS”) filed a Form 8-K in which it disclosed that FINRA had refused to process its 1-for-2,000 reverse split. At the time of the FINRA refusal, ECOS had already received board and shareholder approval and had filed the necessary amended articles with the State of Nevada, legally effectuating the reverse split in accordance with state law. Moreover, ECOS is subject to the reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), and had filed a preliminary and then definitive 14C information statement with the SEC, reporting the shareholder approval of the split.

The ECOS 8-K attached a copy of the FINRA denial letter, which can be viewed HERE.

September 30, 2014

SEC Filed Actions Against 19 Firms and One Individual Trader for Violation of Rule 105 of Regulation M

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

On September 16, 2014, the SEC filed actions against 19 firms and one individual trade for short selling violations in advance of public stock offerings in violation of Rule 105 of Regulation M. The SEC has actively enforced Regulation M since its enactment in 1996. Regulation M is designed to prevent stock manipulation during public offerings and Rule 105 particularly prohibits short selling of stock within five business days of participating in an offering for the same stock. That is, you cannot short stock and cover your short by buying the same stock from the underwriter in a public offering. Rule 105 prevents downward pressure on a company’s stock price during the offering process.

The SEC’s current investigation found that 19 firms and one individual trader charged in these latest cases engaged in short selling of particular stocks shortly before they bought shares from an underwriter, broker, or dealer participating in a follow-on

September 23, 2014

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

OTCQX Listing and Quotation Eligibility and Requirements for International Companies

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

On May 23, 2014, OTC Markets Group, Inc., published its updated OTCQX Rules for International Companies version 6.7. This blog summarizes those rules. A complete copy of the rules is available on the OTC Link website, otcmarkets.com.

Background

The www.otcmarkets.com divides issuers into three (3) levels: OTCQX, OTCQB and OTC Pink.

The OTCQX has two tiers of quotation for U.S. companies: (i) OTCQX International Premier; and (ii) OTCQX International. International issuers on the OTCQX must meet specified eligibility requirements. Quotation is available for American Depository Receipts (ADR’s) or foreign ordinary securities of companies traded on a Qualifying Foreign Stock Exchange.

International issuers on the OTCQB must either be fully reporting and current in their SEC reporting obligations or qualify for the Rule 12g3-2(b) exemption from SEC registration for foreign private issuers. In addition, OTCQB entities must meet minimum price standards, file annual reports and pay annual fees, but do not undergo additional quality

September 8, 2014

Public Company and Affiliate Stock Buyback Rules; Rule 10b-18

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

The SEC allows for limited methods that an issuer can utilize to show confidence in its own stock and assist in maintaining or increasing its stock price. One of those methods is Rule 10b-18 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”). Exchange Act Rule 10b-18 provides issuers with a non-exclusive safe harbor from liability for market manipulation under Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act when issuers bid for or repurchase their common stock in the open market in accordance with the Rule’s manner, timing, price and volume conditions. Each of the four main conditions of Rule 10b-18 must be satisfied on each day that a repurchase is made.

Sections 9 and 10 of the Exchange Act are the general anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions under the Act. Section 9(a)(2) of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful for any person to, directly or indirectly, create

September 2, 2014

CEO and CFO Certifications for Forms 10-Q and 10-K

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

A public company with a class of securities registered under Section 12 or which is subject to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) must file reports with the SEC. The underlying basis of the reporting requirements is to keep shareholders and the markets informed on a regular basis in a transparent manner. Reports filed with the SEC can be viewed by the public on the SEC EDGAR website. The required reports include an annual Form 10-K, quarterly Form 10Q’s and current periodic Form 8-K as well as proxy reports and certain shareholder and affiliate reporting requirements.

These reports are signed by company officers and directors. Moreover, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) implemented a requirement that the company principal executive officer or officers and principal financial officer or officers execute certain personal certifications included with each Form 10-Q and 10-K. Certifications are not required on a

August 26, 2014

NASAA and US Senate Oppose State Law Pre-Emption in Proposed Regulation A+

On December 18, 2013, the SEC published proposed rules to implement Title IV of the JOBS Act, commonly referred to as Regulation A+. Since that time there has been very little activity towards the advancement of a final rule. The comment period closed March 24, 2014, and presumably the SEC is analyzing the information and deciding on the next reiteration.

NASAA

The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), a group whose members are comprised of state securities regulators, while supportive of the Regulation A+ concept as a whole, has been vocal of its opposition of the proposed state law pre-emption provisions.

Notably, on April 8, 2014, Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar, the NASAA liaison, gave a speech at the North American Securities Administrators Association commenting on the NASAA’s position. In the speech Mr. Aguilar praised the concept of the rule itself, including the two-tier structure, offering amount limits and importantly ongoing reporting requirements. He expressed agreement with many of the same

August 19, 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

The Sale of Unregistered Securities Must Satisfy Form 8-K Filing Requirements In a 3(a)(10) Transaction

Introduction and Background

Recently the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has been taking action against public reporting companies for the failure to file a Form 8-K upon the completion of a transaction exempt under Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). The SEC has served a Wells notice on numerous companies for the failure to file such Form 8-K without any prior communication with such companies. Since enforcement actions for the failure to file a Form 8-K are very rare, it is my view that the SEC is concerned with the 3(a)(10) transaction itself.

A Wells notice, often referred to as a Wells letter, is a notice delivered by the SEC to persons and entities under investigation providing the opportunity to such persons and entities to present their position to the SEC prior to the commencement of an enforcement proceeding. A Wells letter gives notice of the SEC’s intended charges and enforcement recommendation and

August 5, 2014

Direct Public Offerings by Shell Companies- Tread Carefully

We thank each and every one of our Securities-Law-Blog.com readers for your devotion and positive interaction. Without you, writing these blogs just wouldn’t be exciting. Nominate Securities Law Blog for this year’s ABA Journal Blawg 100 and keep the dynamic energy flowing. Our readers are our greatest strength. Click Here to nominate.
________________________________________

As I’ve written about previously, recently (albeit not officially) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has materially altered its position on offerings by shell companies that are not blank check companies. In particular, over the past year, numerous shell companies that are not also blank check companies have completed direct public offerings using a S-1 registration statement and successfully obtained market maker support and a ticker symbol from FINRA and are trading.

Rule 419 and Blank Check Companies

The provisions of Rule 419 apply to every registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by a blank check company. Rule 419 requires that the

July 29, 2014

SEC Extends Valuable Guidance to Determine and Verify Accredited Investors

On July 3, 2014, the SEC updated its Division of Corporation Finance Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations ) to provide guidance as to the determination and verification of accredited investor status for purposes of Rule 506 offering. The SEC published six new C&DI’s on the topic.

Background

Effective September 23, 2013, the SEC adopted final rules eliminating the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in Rules 506 and 144A offerings as required by Title II of the JOBS Act. For a complete discussion of the final rules, please see my blog Here.

Title II of the JOBS Act required the SEC to amend Rule 506 of Regulation D

July 15, 2014

Case Study of Online Funding as Related to Broker-Dealer Exemptions

Introduction

As a recurring topic, I am discussing exemptions to the broker-dealer registration requirements for entities and individuals that assist companies in fundraising and related services. On February 18th I published a blog about the new no-action-letter-based exemption for M&A brokers, the exemptions for websites restricted to accredited investors and for crowdfunding portals as part of the JOBS Act. Further on, I wrote on the statutory exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements found in Securities Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1, including for officers, directors and key employees of an issuer.

This blog addresses the statutory and related exemptions that affect, and would permit, the operation of a funding website, including the statutory exemption from broker-dealer registration enacted into law as part of the JOBS Act on April 5, 2012. This blog also includes an analysis of a fictional funding website.

Summary of Exemption from Broker-Dealer Registration Found in Title II of the JOBS Act

Title II of the JOBS Act created

July 7, 2014

Section 16 Insider Reporting and Potential Liability for Short-Swing Trading Practices

A public company with a class of securities registered under Section 12 or which is subject to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) must file reports with the SEC (“Reporting Requirements”). The required reports include an annual Form 10-K, quarterly Form 10Q’s and current periodic Form 8-K as well as proxy reports and certain shareholder and affiliate reporting requirements.

Last week, I wrote about the “certain shareholder” filing requirements under Sections 13d and 13g of the Exchange Act, Regulation 13D-G beneficial ownership reporting and related Schedules 13D and 13G. This blog is a summary of the “certain shareholder and affiliate” reporting and related requirements under Section 16 of the Exchange Act. In particular, all directors, executive officers and 10% stockholders (“Insiders”) of reporting companies are subject to the reporting and insider trading provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act. At the end of the blog is a reference chart related to the

June 30, 2014

SEC Chair Mary Jo White Speaks on Equity Market Structure

On June 5, 2014, Mary Jo White gave a speech at a conference on the topic of the structure of equity markets, the entire text of which is available on sec. gov. The speech was very high-level and broad-based with few specific initiative announcements. However, it does provide some insight into the direction of planned market structure initiatives and rule releases. This blog is a summary of her speech.

Ms. White began her speech by acknowledging that the SEC agrees with the basic premise that “investors and public companies benefit greatly from robust and resilient equity markets.”

Ms. White announced that she is recommending additional measures to “further promote market stability and fairness, enhance market transparency and disclosures, and build more effective markets for smaller companies.” In addition, she will request that the SEC create a new Market Structure Advisory Committee of experts to review specific initiatives and rule proposals.

Current Market Structure

As noted in Ms. White’s speech, today’s

June 16, 2014

FINRA Amends Rules 5110 and 5121 Related to Corporate Financing and Conflicts Of Interest

On April 28, 2014 and on May 7, 2014, the SEC approved the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) amendments to Rule 5110 (Corporate Financing Rule – Underwriting Terms and Arrangements) and 5121 (Public Offerings of Securities with Conflicts of Interest) in order to simplify and refine the scope of the rules. FINRA is the self-regulatory body that regulates and governs securities firms. All securities firms are required to be licensed broker-dealers and are required to be members of FINRA.

FINRA rules and regulations are subject to review and approval by the SEC. Section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires that FINRA rules be “designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in

June 3, 2014

What is A CUSIP and Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) Number?

CUSIP stands for Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures. A CUSIP number identifies securities, specifically U.S. and Canadian registered stocks, and U.S. government and municipal bonds. The CUSIP system—owned by the American Bankers Association and operated by Standard & Poor’s—facilitates the clearing and settlement process of securities by giving each such security a unique identifying number.

The CUSIP number consists of a combination of nine characters, both letters and numbers, which act as individual coding for the security—uniquely identifying the company or issuer and the type of security. The first six characters identify the issuer and are alphabetical; the seventh and eighth characters, which can be alphabetical or numerical, identify the type of issue; and the last digit is used as a check digit. A CUSIP number changes with each change in the security, including splits and name changes.

Whereas CUSIP identifies securities, a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) identifies issuers. An LEI is a new global standard identifier for

May 27, 2014

Exemption to Broker-Dealer Registration Requirements for Officers, Directors and Key Employees

The topic of using unlicensed persons to assist in fundraising activities is discussed almost daily in the small and microcap community. 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 on the SEC website.

In my blog on February 18th, 2014 I talked about the new no-action-letter-based exemption for M&A brokers, the exemptions for websites restricted to accredited investors and for crowdfunding portals as part of the JOBS Act. In this blog, I am focusing on the statutory exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements found in Securities Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1, including for officers, directors and key employees of an issuer.

Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1 – Persons Associated with an Issuer that are not Required to be Licensed as

May 20, 2014

Once Again, DTC Amends Proposed Procedures for Issuers Affected by Chills and Proposes Subsequent Rule Change

Background

On October 8, 2013, I published a blog and white paper providing background and information on the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) eligibility, chills and locks and the DTC’s then plans to propose new rules to specify procedures available to issuers when the DTC imposes or intends to impose chills or locks. On December 5, 2013, the DTC filed these proposed rules with the SEC and on December 18, 2013, the proposed rules were published and public comment invited thereon. Following the receipt of comments on February 10, 2014, and again on March 10, 2014, the DTC amended its proposed rule changes. This blog discusses those rule changes and the current status of the proposed rules.

The new rules provide significantly more clarity as to the rights of the DTC and issuers and the timing of the process. For a complete discussion on background and DTC basics such as eligibility and the evolving procedures in dealing with chills and locks,

May 13, 2014

Say-On-Pay for Smaller Reporting Companies

Effective April 4, 2011, the SEC adopted final rules implementing shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). Upon enactment smaller reporting companies were given a two-year exemption from the compliance requirements. Smaller reporting companies are defined as entities which, as of the last business day of their second fiscal quarter, have a public float of less than $75 million. Beginning in 2013, that exemption expired and now these smaller reporting companies are required to include say-on-pay voting. Although smaller reporting companies have been subject to the rules for a year now, I still encounter questions from the entities as to their obligations and requirements under the rules.

The say-on-pay rules were implemented by adding Section 14A, which requires companies to conduct a separate shareholder advisory vote to approve the compensation of executives, which pay is disclosed pursuant to Item 402 (the “say-on-pay” vote).

May 6, 2014

SEC Issues New Guidance on Use of Twitter and Other Social Media Communications

On April 21, 2014, the SEC updated its Division of Corporation Finance Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) to provide guidance as to the use of Twitter and other social media communications in conjunction with a public offering or business combination transaction.

Background

Previously, on April 2, 2013, in response to a Facebook post made by Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a report confirming that companies can use social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to make company announcements in compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure (Regulation FD) as long as investors are alerted as to which social media outlet is being used by the company.

Regulation FD requires that companies take steps to ensure that material information is disclosed to the general public in a fair and fully accessible manner such that the public as a whole has simultaneous access to the information. Regulation FD ended the era of invitation-only conference calls between company management

April 29, 2014

OTCQX Listing and Quotation Eligibility and Requirements for U.S. Companies

On February 13, 2014, OTC Markets Group, Inc., published its OTCQX Rules For U.S. Companies version 6.5. This blog summarizes those rules. A complete copy of the rules are available on the OTC Link website, otcmarkets.com.

Background

The www.otcmarkets.com divides issuers into three (3) levels: OTCQX, OTCQB and OTC Pink.

The OTCQX has two tiers of quotation for U.S. companies: (i) OTCQX U.S. Premier (also eligible to quote on a national exchange); and (ii) OTCQX U.S. issuers on the OTCQX must meet specified eligibility requirements, which interestingly do not include a requirement as to being subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) for OTCQX U.S. Moreover, OTC Markets has the discretionary authority to allow quotation to substantially capitalized acquisition entities that are analogous to SPAC’s.

Issuers on the OTCQB must be fully reporting and current in their SEC reporting obligations, meet minimum price standards, file annual reports and pay annual fees, but do

April 22, 2014

Public Company SEC Reporting Requirements

A public company with a class of securities registered under either Section 12 or which is subject to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) must file reports with the SEC (“Reporting Requirements”). The underlying basis of the Reporting Requirements is to keep shareholders and the markets informed on a regular basis in a transparent manner. Reports filed with the SEC can be viewed by the public on the SEC EDGAR website. The required reports include an annual Form 10-K, quarterly Form 10Q’s and current periodic Form 8-K as well as proxy reports and certain shareholder and affiliate reporting requirements.

A company becomes subject to the Reporting Requirements by filing an

April 15, 2014

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

Securities Law