(800) 341-2684

Call Toll Free

Contact us

Online Inquiries 24/7

Laura Anthony Esq

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

Securities Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

Categories

Contact Author

Laura Anthony Esq

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?