(800) 341-2684

Call Toll Free

Contact us

Online Inquiries 24/7

Laura Anthony Esq

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPAC)

テキサス証券取引所(TXSE)

2025年10月、SECは新たな全米証券取引所であるテキサス証券取引所(TXSE)を承認しました。TXSEは、ここ数十年でSECの承認を受けた初の完全統合型の全米証券取引所です。TXSEは、2026年にETP(上場取引型商品)およびSPACを含む企業の上場を開始する予定です。

TXSEはプレスリリースで、「業界でも最高水準の定量的基準を維持しつつ、上場および上場維持の負担を軽減することで、数十年にわたる米国の上場企業数の減少を反転させることを使命としている」と述べています。TXSEは、テキサス州が親ビジネス施策、企業本社(参照)、上場市場、そして現在では取引所運営に至るまで、ビジネス分野でのリーダーとなることを目指す統合的な取り組みの一環です。

TXSE上場プロセスと基準

NYSEやナスダックのように小規模発行体に対応する複数層の制度とは異なり、TXSEは中堅から大規模企業を対象とした単一層の取引所として運営されます。TXSEへの証券上場を希望する企業は、財務、流動性、コーポレートガバナンスなどの指定された最低上場要件を満たす必要があります。TXSEは上場プロセスに関して広範な裁量を有しており、技術的要件を満たしていても、投資家や公益を保護するために必要と判断される場合には申請を却下することがあります。上場後は、継続上場基準を満たす義務があります。

すべての初回上場申請企業は、正式な上場申請を行う前に、必須の非公開事前申請レビューを完了しなければなりません。この事前申請レビューは無料で提供され、TXSEによれば、プロセスの早期段階で問題を特定し、企業が本格的な上場手続きに投資する前により高い確実性を得られることを目的としています。

事前申請レビューの後、TXSEは有効期間9か月のクリアランスレターを発行します。企業がその期間内に上場を完了しない場合、事前申請プロセスを再度行う必要があります。TXSEは、新規上場(IPO)および既に他の全国証券取引所で取引されている企業のデュアル上場の両方を認めます。

TXSEに証券を上場するには、企業は以下を満たす必要があります:(a)一定の初回定量・定性要件、(b)一定の継続的定量・定性要件。初回上場の定量的基準は、継続上場基準よりも一般的に高く設定されており、上場前に企業が十分な成熟度に達していることを確認するのに役立ちます。

TXSEの上場基準(および継続上場基準)は、ナスダックの基準とほぼ同等です。

財務および流動性要件。 一般的に、企業は以下の基準を満たす必要があります。なお、TXSEは外国籍のプライベート発行体およびSPACに対して異なる基準を設けています。

 

要件 IPO上場  ダイレクト上場 他取引所からの移管
公開株式の時価総額 4,000万ドル 1億ドル 4,000万ドル
公開株式数 110万株 110万株 110万株
売買価格(株価) 4ドル 4ドル 4ドル
コーポレートガバナンス あり あり あり
単元株主数 400 400 400*
マーケットメイカー 4** 4** 4**

 

* 他取引所から移管する場合、企業は次のいずれかを満たすことで上場資格を得ることができます:総株主数2,200人かつ平均月間取引量10万株、または総株主数500人かつ平均月間取引量100万株。

** 企業は、以下のいずれかの条件を満たす場合、マーケットメイカー3社のみで上場することが可能です:(i) 過去3会計年度のうち直近2年度で年間収益100万ドル以上、株主持分1,500万ドル以上、公開株式の時価800万ドル以上;または (ii) 株主持分3,000万ドル以上、2年間の営業実績、公開株式の時価1,800万ドル以上。

加えて、企業は次のいずれかの財務基準を満たす必要があります:

収益テスト グローバル市場テスト 他取引所からの移管
過去3会計年度の合計税引前利益が1,000万ドルで、直近2会計年度それぞれで最低200万ドルを確保し、過去3年間すべてで利益が出ている場合;または、過去3会計年度の合計で少なくとも1,200万ドルを確保し、直近年度で最低500万ドル、次の直近年度で最低200万ドルを確保している場合。

 

新興成長企業(EGC)は、過去2会計年度の合計で1,000万ドル、かつ両年度で最低200万ドルを確保していれば上場資格を得ることができます。

2億ドルのグローバル時価総額 400万ドル

 

シーズニング規則

シーズニング規則は、公開企業のシェルとのリバースマージャーを完了した企業が、リバースマージャー取引に関するすべての必要書類(監査済み財務諸表を含む)を提出した後、合併後の企業が米国店頭市場、他の全国証券取引所、または規制された外国取引所で少なくとも1年間取引されるまで、上場申請を行うことを禁止しています。さらに、この規則では、新たなリバースマージャー企業が1年間の期間において、少なくとも1回の年次報告書を含め、すべての必要報告書を適時に提出していることも求められます。

加えて、シーズニング規則では、リバースマージャー企業が「上場資格を得るために適用される初回上場基準における株価要件を、持続的に維持すること。ただし、直近60取引日のうち少なくとも30取引日分は維持していること」が求められます。

この規則には、企業がファームコミットメント方式での公募を完了し、公開株式の最低時価総額(4,000万ドル)以上の純収益を得た場合の例外も含まれています。

コーポレートガバナンス要件

TXSEルールシリーズ16.300に定められた定量的要件を満たすことに加え、上場申請企業および既上場企業は、TXSEルールシリーズ16.400に記載された定性的要件を満たす必要があります。これらの要件には、取締役会に関する規則(監査委員会や、役員報酬および取締役指名プロセスの独立取締役による監督を含む)、誤って支払われた報酬の回収、行動規範、株主総会(委任状の勧誘および定足数を含む)、関連当事者取引のレビュー、株主承認(議決権を含む)などが含まれます。これらの規則の適用除外や段階的適用スケジュールについては、TXSEルール16.407に定められています。これらの規則は、ナスダックの規則とほぼ同等です。

申請および必要書類

クリアランスレターを受領した後、企業は正式な上場申請を行う必要があります。TXSEの申請パッケージには以下が含まれます:(i)銘柄予約フォーム、(ii)上場申請書(補足書類が必要)、(iii)上場契約書、(iv)コーポレートガバナンス証明書、(v)初回申請料(小切手または送金により支払い)、および(vi)ロゴ提出フォーム。すべての申請書類は、TXSEウェブサイトのリスティングセンターで入手可能です。

著者

ローラ・アンソニー弁護士

設立パートナー

アンソニー、リンダー&カコマノリス

企業法務および証券法務事務所

LAnthony@ALClaw.com

証券弁護士ローラ・アンソニー氏とその経験豊富な法律チームは、中小規模の非公開企業、上場企業、そして上場予定の非公開企業に対して継続的な企業顧問サービスを提供しています。ナスダックNYSEアメリカン、または店頭市場(例えばOTCQBOTCQX)で上場を目指す企業も対象です。20年以上にわたり、Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC(ALC)は、迅速でパーソナライズされた最先端の法的サービスをクライアントに提供してきました。当事務所の評判と人脈は、投資銀行、証券会社、機関投資家、その他の戦略的提携先への紹介など、クライアントにとって非常に貴重なリソースとなっています。当事務所の専門分野には、1933年証券法の募集・販売および登録要件の遵守(レギュレーションDおよびレギュレーションSに基づく私募取引、PIPE取引、証券トークン・オファリング、イニシャル・コイン・オファリングを含む)が含まれますが、これに限定されません。規制A/A+オファリング、S-1、S-3、S-8フォームの登録申請、S-4フォームによる合併登録、1934年証券取引法の遵守(フォーム10による登録、フォーム10-Q、10-K、8-Kおよび14C情報・14A委任状報告書)、あらゆる形態の株式公開取引、合併・買収(リバースマージャーおよびフォワードマージャーを含む)、ナスダックNYSEアメリカンを含む証券取引所のコーポレートガバナンス要件への申請および遵守、一般企業取引、一般契約および事業取引が含まれます。アンソニー氏と当事務所は、合併・買収取引において、買収対象企業と買収企業の双方を代理し、合併契約、株式交換契約、株式購入契約、資産購入契約、組織再編契約などの取引文書を作成します。ALC法務チームは、公開企業が連邦および州の証券法やSROs要件に準拠することを支援しており、15c2-11申請、社名変更、リバース・フォワードスプリット、本拠地変更などにも対応しています。アンソニー氏はまた、中堅・中小企業向けの業界ニュースのトップ情報源であるSecuritiesLawBlog.comの著者であり、企業財務に特化したポッドキャスト『LawCast.com: Corporate Finance in Focus』のプロデューサー兼ホストでもあります。当事務所は、ニューヨーク、ロサンゼルス、マイアミ、ボカラトン、ウェストパームビーチ、アトランタ、フェニックス、スコッツデール、シャーロット、シンシナティ、クリーブランド、ワシントンD.C.、デンバー、タンパ、デトロイト、ダラスなど、多くの主要都市でクライアントを代理しています。

アンソニー氏は、Crowdfunding Professional Association(CfPA)、パームビーチ郡弁護士会、フロリダ州弁護士会、アメリカ弁護士会(ABA)および連邦証券規制やプライベート・エクイティ・ベンチャーキャピタルに関するABA委員会など、さまざまな専門団体のメンバーです。パームビーチ郡およびマーティン郡のアメリカ赤十字社、スーザン・コーメン財団、オポチュニティ社(Opportunity, Inc.)、ニュー・ホープ・チャリティーズ、フォー・アーツ協会(Society of the Four Arts)、ノートン美術館、パームビーチ郡動物園協会、クラヴィス・パフォーミング・アーツ・センターなど、複数の地域社会慈善団体を支援しています。

アンソニー氏はフロリダ州立大学ロースクールを優秀な成績で卒業しており、1993年から弁護士として活動しています。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC にお問い合わせください。技術的な内容に関するご質問もいつでも歓迎いたします。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLCFacebookLinkedInYouTubePinterestTwitter でフォローしてください。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLCは、本情報を教育目的の一般情報として提供しています。本情報は一般的な内容であり、法的助言を構成するものではありません。さらに、本情報の利用や送受信は、当事務所との弁護士–依頼者関係を成立させるものではありません。したがって、本情報を通じて当事務所と行ういかなる通信も、特権または機密として扱われることはありません。

© Anthony, Linder &

The TXSE

In October 2025, the SEC approved the Texas Stock Exchange (“TXSE”), a new national securities exchange.  The TXSE is the first fully integrated national securities exchange to receive SEC approval in decades. The TXSE is expected to launch ETP and corporate listings, including SPACs in 2026.

In its press release the TXSE states that its “mission is to reverse the decades-long decline in the number of U.S. public companies by reducing the burden of going and staying public while maintaining some of the highest quantitative standards in the industry.”  The TXSE is part of an integrated push by Texas to be a leader in pro-business initiatives, corporate headquarters (see HERE), listings and now an exchange operator.

TXSE Listing Process and Criteria

Unlike NYSE and Nasdaq’s multi‑tier systems that accommodate smaller issuers, TXSE will operate as a single‑tier exchange targeting mid‑ to large‑cap companies. A company seeking to list securities on TXSE must meet minimum listing requirements, including specified financial,

ナスダック、上場維持要件として市場価値500万ドルの厳格な下限設定を提案

2026年1月13日、ナスダックはSEC(米国証券取引委員会)に規則変更案を提出しました。この変更案では、ナスダック・グローバル・マーケットおよびナスダック・キャピタル・マーケットに上場するすべての企業に対し、上場証券の時価総額を少なくとも500万ドル以上維持することを求める新たな継続上場要件が導入されます。

本提案は、ナスダックが過去数年にわたり着実かつ計画的に進めてきた、小規模上場企業に対する監督強化の一環です。ナスダックが存続可能性の基準を満たしていないと判断した発行体を、より迅速に市場から排除することを目的としています。

ナスダックの最近の取り組みには、(i) アドバイザーを含む企業関連の外部第三者の活動を理由に、ナスダックが裁量で上場を拒否できる権限を付与する規則改正(を参照)、(ii) 中国を拠点とする企業向けの最低上場基準を引き上げる改正(詳細は )、(iii) 入札価格、公募株式の時価総額、資本、収益、総資産/売上高などの数値上場基準のいずれかを下回り、かつ上場証券の市場価値(Market Value of Listed Securities、MVLS)が500万ドル未満となった企業の上場停止および上場廃止を加速する規則改正(詳細は)、(iv) ナスダック・キャピタル・マーケットおよびナスダック・グローバル・マーケットの流動性上場基準を改正し、純利益基準で上場する企業の制限なし公開株式(Market Value of Unrestricted Publicly Held Shares、MVUPHS)の最低時価総額要件を500万ドルから1,500万ドルに引き上げる規則改正(詳細は)、(v) 株価が0.10ドルの銘柄の上場廃止を加速する規則改正(詳細は)、(vi) 制限なし公開株式(Market Value of Unrestricted Publicly Held Shares、MVUPHS)の要件をIPOによる調達額のみで満たすこととし、再販登録された株式はもはや計算に含めない規則改正(詳細 は )、(vii) 二度目の是正期間終了後も最低株価要件を回復できなかった企業や、過去1年間に株式分割(リバース・スプリット)を実施した証券の上場廃止プロセスを加速する規則改正(詳細は)、および (viii) リバース・スプリットによって最低株価要件を満たす場合に、ラウンドロット保有者数や公開株式比率など他のナスダック上場基準に違反する恐れがある場合、その活用を制限する規則改正 (を参照)が含まれます。

今回の最新の提案もその流れを踏襲しており、いくつかの重要な点で、ナスダックの最低基準を下回った企業への対応をさらに加速させる内容となっています。

ナスダックの提案

ナスダックは、新たな上場規則5450(a)(3)および5550(a)(6)の導入を提案しています。これらの規則は、ナスダック・グローバル・マーケット(グローバル・セレクト・マーケットを含む)およびナスダック・キャピタル・マーケットにそれぞれ上場する企業に対し、上場証券の市場価値を最低500万ドル維持することを義務付けます。

上場証券の市場価値は、既存のNasdaq規則の定義に従い、統合終値に上場証券数を乗じて計算されます。

ナスダックは既に時価総額に基づく継続上場基準をいくつか設けていますが、今回の提案は、ナスダックが継続上場を不適切と判断する最低基準(ハードフロア)を設定する点で注目に値します。一般的に、上場の継続要件として上場証券の最低市場価値(ナスダック・キャピタル・マーケッツは3,500万ドル、ナスダック・グローバル・マーケッツは5,000万ドル)を維持することが求められるのは、「上場有価証券の時価総額基準」に依拠する証券のみです。企業がこれらの基準のいずれかを下回った場合、不遵守通知と十分な是正機会が与えられ、また、自己資本基準や純利益基準など、他の基準を満たしている場合は、それらの基準に移行することも可能です。この新規則は、上場廃止を加速させるハードフロアを追加するものです。ナスダックの継続上場要件については、 をご覧ください。

ナスダックはまた、規則5810を改正し、提案された新要件を満たさない企業の証券について、取引を停止し、即時に上場廃止とすることを提案しています。

即時停止および上場廃止 – 遵守期間なし

おそらく、この提案の最も重要な点は、500万ドルの基準値そのものではなく、その執行メカニズムでしょう。

提案された規則では、上場有価証券の時価総額が30営業日連続で500万ドルの基準を下回った企業は、直ちにスタッフによる上場廃止決定の対象となります。他の多くの継続的な上場不備とは異なり、遵守期間は設定されません。ナスダックは、上場廃止決定が出された時点で直ちに当該企業の証券の取引を停止します。ナスダックの上場不備と上場廃止プロセスに関する私の3部構成のブログ記事については、 をご覧ください 、をご覧くださいをご覧ください

ナスダックは、こうした企業に是正のための猶予期間を与えるべきだという考えを明確に否定しており、市場がこれほど低い評価を付けた場合、その問題は通常一時的なものではなく、合理的な期間内に解決される可能性は低いと述べています。

これは、ナスダックが、小規模で財務的に深刻な状況にある企業に対して長期の是正期間を認めることは、投資家保護や市場の質の向上という目的に資さないという見解をますます強く持つようになっていることを反映しています。

審問中の取引停止は認められない

この提案は、審問プロセスにも重大な変更をもたらします。

企業は引き続き、ナスダックの公聴会委員会にスタッフによる上場廃止決定を不服申し立てする権利を有するが、適時に公聴会を要請しても取引停止は延期されない。つまり、不服申し立てプロセスの間、ナスダックでの証券取引は停止されたままとなり、その間、取引は店頭市場で行われる場合がほとんどです。

ナスダックは、市場価値が低い証券の公正かつ秩序ある市場を維持することは困難であり、このような状況下では、不服申し立て中にナスダックでの取引を継続することは適切ではないと説明しています。

審問委員会の裁量権は厳しく制限されてい

今回の提案では、ヒアリング・パネルが審査において考慮できる範囲も大幅に制限されます。

改正後の規則では、ヒアリング・パネルが上場廃止決定を覆せるのは、ナスダックのスタッフが事実誤認をした場合、かつ企業が実際には500万ドルの基準を下回っていなかった場合に限られます。

パネルは、企業に是正のための追加時間を与えたり、違反発生後に基準を回復した事実を考慮したりすることはできません。

この制限は、ナスダックがすでにパネル裁量を制限している他のケース(特定のSPAC関連の失敗や事業統合後の上場基準違反など)と整合しています。

今後の展

この提案は、SECによる審査と一般からの意見募集の対象となりますが、ナスダックの最近の規則制定の流れや、他の取引所が行っている類似の対応とも整合しています。

企業、取締役会、およびアドバイザーは、今回の変更を単発のルール改正として捉えるのではなく、投資家の関心や取引の流動性、長期的な存続可能性を示す発行体を重視する方向への、ナスダック全体の市場調整の一環として認識するべきです。

問題に対処する最適なタイミングは常に、基準違反が発生する前であり、ナスダックのスタッフが結論に達した後ではありません。

著者

ローラ・アンソニー弁護士

設立パートナー

アンソニー、リンダー&カコマノリス

企業法務および証券法務事務所

LAnthony@ALClaw.com

証券弁護士ローラ・アンソニー氏とその経験豊富な法律チームは、中小規模の非公開企業、上場企業、そして上場予定の非公開企業に対して継続的な企業顧問サービスを提供しています。ナスダックNYSEアメリカン、または店頭市場(例えばOTCQBOTCQX)で上場を目指す企業も対象です。20年以上にわたり、Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC(ALC)は、迅速でパーソナライズされた最先端の法的サービスをクライアントに提供してきました。当事務所の評判と人脈は、投資銀行、証券会社、機関投資家、その他の戦略的提携先への紹介など、クライアントにとって非常に貴重なリソースとなっています。当事務所の専門分野には、1933年証券法の募集・販売および登録要件の遵守(レギュレーションDおよびレギュレーションSに基づく私募取引、PIPE取引、証券トークン・オファリング、イニシャル・コイン・オファリングを含む)が含まれますが、これに限定されません。規制A/A+オファリング、S-1、S-3、S-8フォームの登録申請、S-4フォームによる合併登録、1934年証券取引法の遵守(フォーム10による登録、フォーム10-Q、10-K、8-Kおよび14C情報・14A委任状報告書)、あらゆる形態の株式公開取引、合併・買収(リバースマージャーおよびフォワードマージャーを含む)、ナスダックNYSEアメリカンを含む証券取引所のコーポレートガバナンス要件への申請および遵守、一般企業取引、一般契約および事業取引が含まれます。アンソニー氏と当事務所は、合併・買収取引において、買収対象企業と買収企業の双方を代理し、合併契約、株式交換契約、株式購入契約、資産購入契約、組織再編契約などの取引文書を作成します。ALC法務チームは、公開企業が連邦および州の証券法やSROs要件に準拠することを支援しており、15c2-11申請、社名変更、リバース・フォワードスプリット、本拠地変更などにも対応しています。アンソニー氏はまた、中堅・中小企業向けの業界ニュースのトップ情報源であるSecuritiesLawBlog.comの著者であり、企業財務に特化したポッドキャスト『LawCast.com: Corporate Finance in Focus』のプロデューサー兼ホストでもあります。当事務所は、ニューヨーク、ロサンゼルス、マイアミ、ボカラトン、ウェストパームビーチ、アトランタ、フェニックス、スコッツデール、シャーロット、シンシナティ、クリーブランド、ワシントンD.C.、デンバー、タンパ、デトロイト、ダラスなど、多くの主要都市でクライアントを代理しています。

アンソニー氏は、Crowdfunding Professional Association(CfPA)、パームビーチ郡弁護士会、フロリダ州弁護士会、アメリカ弁護士会(ABA)および連邦証券規制やプライベート・エクイティ・ベンチャーキャピタルに関するABA委員会など、さまざまな専門団体のメンバーです。パームビーチ郡およびマーティン郡のアメリカ赤十字社、スーザン・コーメン財団、オポチュニティ社(Opportunity, Inc.)、ニュー・ホープ・チャリティーズ、フォー・アーツ協会(Society of the Four Arts)、ノートン美術館、パームビーチ郡動物園協会、クラヴィス・パフォーミング・アーツ・センターなど、複数の地域社会慈善団体を支援しています。

アンソニー氏はフロリダ州立大学ロースクールを優秀な成績で卒業しており、1993年から弁護士として活動しています。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC にお問い合わせください。技術的な内容に関するご質問もいつでも歓迎いたします。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLCFacebookLinkedInYouTubePinterest

NASDAQ Proposes A Hard $5 Million Market Value Floor For Continued Listing

On January 13, 2026, Nasdaq filed a proposed rule change with the SEC that would impose a new continued listing requirement requiring all Nasdaq Global Market and Nasdaq Capital Market companies to maintain a minimum Market Value of Listed Securities of at least $5 million.

This proposal is part of a steady and deliberate shift Nasdaq has been making over the past several years to tighten its oversight of smaller public companies and to more quickly remove from the market issuers that, in Nasdaq’s view, no longer meet baseline viability.

Other recent Nasdaq initiatives include: (i) an amendment to grant Nasdaq discretionary authority to deny listings based on activity by outside third parties associated with a company including advisors (see HERE); (ii) amendments to increase minimum listing standards for China based companies (see HERE) ; (iii)  amendments to accelerate the suspension and delisting of a company that falls below any of the numeric listing requirements, including the bid

SEC Publishes New CD&I On Compensation Clawbacks And De-SPAC C-Registrants

On April 11, 2025, the SEC published several updates to its compliance and disclosure interpretations (“CD&I”) related to compensation clawbacks and co-registrants in de-SPAC transactions.

De-SPAC Transactions

Under the new SPAC rules, a target company, or companies, are included as co-registrants on the S-4 (or other Securities Act registration statement) in association with the de-SPAC.  Under Exchange Act rules, upon effectiveness of the S-4, each of the target co-registrants become separately subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements.  New C&DI 253.03 confirms that the SEC will not object if each target co-registrant files a Form 15, as long as they are wholly owned by the combined company and the combined company remains current in its Exchange Act reporting requirements.

For a review of the new de-SPAC rules see here – Part 1 – HERE; Part 2 – HERE; Part 3 – HERE; Part 4 – HERE; Part 5 – HERE;

Delaware Reworks General Corporation Law

On March 25, 2025, Delaware enacted sweeping changes to the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) to provide certainty to key areas of Delaware corporate law.  The changes are expected to reduce the tide of redomestications to other states and reduce litigation risks for corporations and their boards of directors.  The key changes include new safe harbor protections for one or more directors, officers, or controlling shareholders/groups, from liability where they may not be independent in a transaction and changes to stockholders’ rights to inspect books and records.

Related Party Liability Protections

Section 144 of the DGCL relates to interested directors, officers and controlling stockholder transactions. In essence, Section 144 provides a safe harbor against liability claims for transactions between a corporation and its officers, directors, or controlling stockholders where conflicts, such as a financial interest, exist.  Section 144 prevents a transaction from being declared void or voidable solely due to the conflict of interest, as long as certain conditions

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACs, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 10

On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions.  The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs.  The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general.  The compliance date for the new rules is July 1, 2025.

In the first blog in this series, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  The second blog began a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release starting with partial coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions – see HERE.  The third blog in the series continued the summary of Subpart 1600 and in particular the new dilution disclosure requirements – see HERE.  Part 4 continued a

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACs, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 9

On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions.  The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs.  The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general.  The compliance date for the new rules is July 1, 2025.

In the first blog in this series, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  The second blog began a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release starting with partial coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions – see HERE.  The third blog in the series continued the summary of Subpart 1600 and in particular the new dilution disclosure requirements – see HERE.  Part 4 continued a review of

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 8

On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions.  The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs.  The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general.  The compliance date for the new rules is July 1, 2025.

In the first blog in this series, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  The second blog began a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release starting with partial coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions – see HERE.  The third blog in the series continued the summary of Subpart 1600 and in particular the new dilution disclosure requirements – see HERE.  Part 4 continued a

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 7

On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions.  The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs.  The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general.  The compliance date for the new rules is July 1, 2025.

In the first blog in this series, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  The second blog began a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release starting with partial coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions – see HERE.  The third blog in the series continued the summary of Subpart 1600 and in particular the new dilution disclosure requirements – see HERE.  Part 4 continued a review of

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 6

On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions.  The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs.  The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general.  The compliance date for the new rules is July 1, 2025.

In the first blog in this series, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  The second blog began a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release starting with partial coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions – see HERE.  The third blog in the series continued the summary of Subpart 1600 and in particular the new dilution disclosure requirements – see HERE.  Part 4 continued a review

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 5

On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions.  The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs.  The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general.  The compliance date for the new rules is July 1, 2025.

In the first blog in this series, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  Last week’s blog began a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release starting with partial coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions – see HERE.  The third blog in the series continued the summary of Subpart 1600 and in particular the new dilution disclosure requirements – see HERE.  Part 4 continued a

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 4

On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions.  The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs.  The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general.  The compliance date for the new rules is July 1, 2025.

In the first blog in this series, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  Last week’s blog began a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release starting with partial coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions – see HERE.  The third blog in the series continued the summary of Subpart 1600 and in particular the new dilution disclosure requirements – see HERE.  This week’s blog will

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 3

On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions.  The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs.  The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general.  The compliance date for the new rules is July 1, 2025.

In the first blog in this series, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  Last week’s blog began a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release starting with partial coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions – see HERE.  This week’s blog will continue a review of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K.

New Subpart 1600 of Regulation S-K

The SEC has adopted new Subpart 1600 to

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 2

On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions.  The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs.  The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general.

In last week’s blog, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  This week’s blog begins a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release and its vast implications to not only the SPAC market, but shell company reverse mergers in general.  This week in particular, I will begin coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions.

New Subpart 1600 of Regulation S-K

The SEC has adopted new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K to: (i) set forth disclosure obligations for

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 1

On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions.  The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs.  The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general.

The SEC is specifically requiring enhanced disclosures with respect to compensation paid to sponsors, conflicts of interest, dilution, and the determination, if any, of the board of directors (or similar governing body) of a SPAC regarding whether a de-SPAC transaction is advisable and in the best interests of the SPAC and its shareholders.  The SEC has also adopted rules that deem any business combination transaction involving a reporting shell company, including a SPAC, to involve a sale of securities to the reporting shell company’s shareholders, and has amended several financial statement requirements applicable to transactions involving

2023 Changes To Delaware Corporate Law

Each year the Delaware legislature passes several amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) which impact not only public and private companies incorporated in Delaware, but elsewhere, as many states follow the DGCL.  This year the most significant changes relate to reduced stockholder approval provisions.  Effective August 1, 2023, the DGCL has been amended to: (i) eliminating the need for stockholder approval for forward stock splits in certain cases; (ii) reducing the voting threshold for certain reverse stock splits or changes to authorized shares; (iii) allowing for the disposition of treasury stock for less than par value; (iv) simplifying the process for ratifying defective corporate actions; (v) simplify notices to stockholders following action taken by consent; (vi) expanding certain appraisal rights; and (vii) establishing “safe harbor” provisions from the stockholder approval requirement for certain dispositions of pledged assets.

Shareholder Voting Requirements for Certain Amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation – DGCL Section 242

One of the reasons Delaware

SEC Spring 2023 Regulatory Agenda

On June 13, 2023, the SEC published its semiannual Spring 2023 regulatory agenda (“Agenda”) and plans for rulemaking.  The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication.  Although items on the Agenda can move from one category to the next, be dropped off altogether, or new items pop up in any of the categories (including the final rule stage), the Agenda provides valuable insight into the SEC’s plans and the influence that comments can make on the rulemaking process.

The 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 is 55, which is in-line with the average items under Gary Gensler’s regime (and much higher than

SPAC Director And Sponsor Fiduciary Obligations

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

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

Class Voting In Delaware And The Impact On SPACs

In December 2022, the Delaware Chancery Court entered a ruling sending the SPAC world spiraling, for what seems like the 10th time in the last couple of years.  As is always the case in a SPAC (or at least 99% of the time), common stock is broken into two series, Class A and Class B.  The Class A common stock is issued to the public shareholders in the underwritten initial public offering and the Class B common stock is issued to the sponsor.  Upon closing a business combination transaction, the sponsor Class B common stock automatically converts into Class A common stock, leaving one Class of common stock.  Also, in the majority of SPAC transactions, the shareholder approval for the business combination transaction involves other changes to the charter documents for the SPAC, including a name change, and changes in authorized capital stock, etc.  The term “charter” in this blog refers to the certificate of incorporation and any amendments

2022 Annual Report Of The Office Of The Advocate For Small Business Capital Formation

The Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation (“Office”) has published its Annual Report for fiscal year 2022 (“Report”).  The Report is delivered to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the U.S. Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives directly by the Office, without review or input from the SEC at large.

Background

The SEC’s Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation launched in January 2019 after being created by Congress pursuant to the Small Business Advocate Act of 2016 (see HERE).  The mission of the Office is to advocate for pragmatic solutions to accessing capital markets and business growth.

The Office has the following functions: (i) assist small businesses (privately held or public with a market cap of less than $250 million) and their investors in resolving problems with the SEC or self-regulatory organizations; (ii) identify and propose regulatory changes that would benefit small businesses

Compliance Deadlines For Nasdaq Board Diversity Rules

On August 6, 2021, the SEC approved Nasdaq’s board diversity listing standards proposal.  Nasdaq Rule 5605(f) requires Nasdaq listed companies, subject to certain exceptions, to: (i) to have at least one director who self-identifies as a female, and (ii) have at least one director who self-identifies as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, two or more races or ethnicities, or as LGBTQ+, or (iii) explain why the company does not have at least two directors on its board who self-identify in the categories listed above.  The rule changes also made headlines in most major publications.  One of the most common themes in the press was the lack of inclusion of people with disabilities in the definition of an “underrepresented minority” for purposes of complying with the new rules.

The original rules had tiered compliance deadlines which Nasdaq (and practitioners) found confusing and unnecessarily complicated.  On December 14,

SEC Chair Gary Gensler Testifies To Senate Banking Committee

On September 15, 2022, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler gave his yearly testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs highlighting his priorities for the SEC.  This year Mr. Gensler kept his testimony extremely short, allowing more time for questions and answers.

Last year, Chair Gensler gave lengthy testimony on his four key priorities: (i) market structure; (ii) predictive data analytics; (iii) issuers and issuer disclosure (including SPACs); and (iv) funds and investment management (see HERE).

This year Gensler again focused on market structure as a priority, noting that many aspects of the national market system rules have not been updated since 2005.  Though not using the same topic subtitles as last year, SPACs, insider trading and investment funds remain top of list, as does crypto.  Other priorities include shorting the settlement cycle to T+1, increasing central clearing in the treasury markets (rules were recently proposed), cybersecurity, and private funds.

Repeating his mantra, Chair

SEC Proposes New Rules For SPACs – Part 6

On March 30, 2022, the SEC proposed rules related to SPAC and de-SPAC transactions including significantly enhanced disclosure obligations including related to financial projections, making a target company a co-registrant when a SPAC files an S-4 or F-4 registration statement associated with a business combination, and aligning de-SPAC transactions with initial public offering rules.  In addition, the SEC has also proposed rules that would deem any business combination transaction involving a reporting shell company, including but not limited to a SPAC, to involve a sale of securities to the reporting shell company’s shareholders.  The new rules would amend a number of financial statement requirements applicable to transactions involving shell companies.

In addition, the SEC has proposed a new safe harbor under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (‘40 Act’) that would provide that a SPAC that satisfies the conditions of the proposed rule would not be an investment company and therefore would not be subject to regulation under the

SEC Proposes New Rules For SPACs – Part 5

On March 30, 2022, the SEC proposed rules related to SPAC and de-SPAC transactions including significantly enhanced disclosure obligations, expanding the scope of deemed public offerings in these transactions, making a target company a co-registrant when a SPAC files an S-4 or F-4 registration statement associated with a business combination, and aligning de-SPAC transactions with initial public offering rules.  In addition, the SEC has also proposed rules that would deem any business combination transaction involving a reporting shell company, including but not limited to a SPAC, to involve a sale of securities to the reporting shell company’s shareholders.  The new rules would amend a number of financial statement requirements applicable to transactions involving shell companies.

In addition to proposing new rules for SPAC and de-SPAC transactions, the SEC is proposing new Securities Act Rule 145a that would deem all business combinations with an Exchange Act reporting shell to involve the sale of securities to the reporting shell company’s

SEC Proposes New Rules for SPACs- Part 4

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

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

SEC Proposes New Rules for SPACs- Part 3

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

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

SEC Proposes New SPAC Rules – Part 2

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

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

SEC Proposes New SPAC Rules – Part 1

As I wrote about last week, the SEC has had a very busy rule-making few weeks.  In addition to issuing six new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DI) for merger and acquisition transactions, most of which directly impact SPAC business organization transactions, it also proposed new rules on SPACs and all shell companies in a 372-page release. The new C&DI were the topic of last week’s blog (HERE) and in a multi-part blog series, I am delving into the proposed new SPAC rules.

On March 30, 2022, the SEC proposed rules enhancing disclosure requirements associated with SPAC initial public offerings (IPOs) and de-SPAC merger transactions; requiring that a private operating company be a co-registrant when a SPAC files an S-4 or F-4 registration statement associated with a business combination; requiring a re-determination of smaller reporting company status within four days following the consummation of a de-SPAC transaction; amending the definition of a “blank check company” to make the

SEC Issues New Mergers And Acquisitions Related C&DI

Last week was a very busy regulatory week for the SEC, including issuing six new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DI) for merger and acquisition transactions, most of which directly impact SPAC business organization transactions; proposed rules on SPACs’ shell companies and the use of financial projections; proposed rules to modify the definition of “dealer” for purposes of broker-dealer registration requirements; and a new accounting bulletin impacting the accounting treatment of cryptocurrencies by exchanges.  This blog will discuss the new C&DI.

Background

The rules related to disclosure obligations, including in Forms 8-K, S-4 registration statements and proxy materials, and the filing of exhibits associated with a material contract, including merger agreements, have evolved over the past few years (see here related to confidential treatment of material contracts – HERE).  In March 2021, the SEC issued a statement discussing certain legal specifics associated with a SPAC, including expressing concerns regarding disclosures associated with a de-SPAC transaction (i.e., a business

SEC Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda

In mid-December, the SEC published its semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking.  The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions contains the Regulatory Plans of 28 federal agencies and 68 federal agency regulatory agendas. The Fall 2021 Agenda (“Agenda”) met with criticism from Commissioner Hester M. Peirce and now former Commissioner Elad L. Roisman as failing to provide any items intended to facilitate capital formation – one of the main tenets of the SEC.  The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication.

The 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 jumped up to 52 items since Spring, which had only 45

SPAC Shareholder Litigation – First Fire

On January 3, 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit against a SPAC’s sponsor, its directors, and financial advisor claiming among items, breach of fiduciary duty.  The facts supporting the claim mirror common factual scenarios in SPAC and de-SPAC (acquisition transaction) transactions where the post SPAC public company has a decline in stock value.  As such, the case is being closely watched by SPAC sponsors and boards of directors.

Background on SPACs

special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) is a blank check company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, or other business combination transaction with an unidentified target. Generally, SPACs are formed by sponsors who believe that their experience and reputation will facilitate a successful business combination and public company. SPACs are often sponsored by investment banks together with a leader in a particular industry (manufacturing, healthcare, consumer goods, etc.) with the specific intended purpose of effecting

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
Read More »

SEC Approves Nasdaq Board Diversity Rule

On August 6, 2021, the SEC approved Nasdaq’s board diversity listing standards proposal.  Not surprisingly, the approval vote was divided with Commissioner Hester Peirce dissenting and Commissioner Elad Roisman dissenting in part.  On the same day as the approval, Chair Gary Gensler and Commissioners Peirce, Roisman and Allison Herren Lee and Caroline Crenshaw issued statements on the new Rules.

As more fully explained below, new Nasdaq Rule 5605(f) requires Nasdaq listed companies, subject to certain exceptions, to: (i) to have at least one director who self identifies as a female, and (ii) have at least one director who self-identifies as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, two or more races or ethnicities, or as LGBTQ+, or (iii) explain why the company does not have at least two directors on its board who self-identify in the categories listed above.  The rule changes also made headlines in most major

SPAC Nasdaq Listing Standards

I’ve written quite a bit about SPAC’s recently, but the last time I wrote about SPAC Nasdaq listing requirements, or any attempted changes thereto, was back in 2018 (see HERE).  Since that time, Nasdaq has a win and recently a loss in its ongoing efforts to attract SPAC listings.

Background on SPACs

Without reiterating my lengthy blogs on SPACs and SPAC structures (see, for example, HERE and HERE), a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) is a blank check company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, or other business combination transaction with an unidentified target. Generally, SPACs are formed by sponsors who believe that their experience and reputation will facilitate a successful business combination and public company.

The provisions of Rule 419 apply to every registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by a blank check company that is issuing securities which fall within the definition of

A Resolution For SPAC Warrant Accounting

On April 12, 2021, the SEC effectively chilled SPAC activity by announcing that it had examined warrant accounting in several SPACs and found that the warrants were being erroneously classified as an asset.  The SEC identified two accounting issues, one related to the private placement warrants and the other related to both the private placement and public warrants.  These companies were required to restate previously issued financial statements to reclassify warrants as liabilities, and the ripple effect began.  Overnight SPAC management teams, accountants and auditors were scrambling to determine if a restatement was required (in most cases it was) and in-process SPACs were put on hold or at least delayed while market participants tried to figure out the meaning of the SEC guidance and how to address it.

The timing of the statement was interesting as well; most calendar year end SPACs had just filed their Form 10-K for FYE 2020 requiring a slew of 8-Ks to disclose non-reliance on

Annual Report of Office of Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation

The Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation (“Office”) issued its 2020 Annual Report and it breaks down one of the strangest years in any of our lives, into facts and figures that continue to illustrate the resilience of the U.S. capital markets.  Although the report is for fiscal year end September 30, 2020, prior to much of the impact of Covid-19, the Office supplemented the Report with initial Covid-19 impact information.

Background on Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation

The SEC’s Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation launched in January 2019 after being created by Congress pursuant to the Small Business Advocate Act of 2016 (see HERE).  One of the core tenants of the Office is recognizing that small businesses are job creators, generators of economic opportunity and fundamental to the growth of the country, a drum I often beat.

The Office has the following functions: (i) assist small businesses

SPAC Transactions Continue Amid SEC Cautionary Statements

Since I wrote about the SPAC IPO boom in June 2020 (HERE), the trend has not waned.  However, as soon as celebrities like Jay-Z, Shaquille O’Neal, A-Rod and astronaut Scott Kelly jumped in, I knew the tide was shifting, and recent SEC alerts bring that to light.  To be clear, SPACs have been used as a method for going public for years and will continue to do so in the future.  In fact, I firmly believe that going public through a SPAC will continue and should continue to rival the traditional IPO.  With so much SPAC money available in the market right now (an estimated $88 billion raised in 2021 so far already exceeding the estimated $83.4 billion raised in all of 2020) and the Dow and S&P beating historical records, SPACs are an excellent option as an IPO alternative.

However, SPACs should not be viewed as the trendy investment of the day and both investors and

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

Forward Looking Statements Disclaimers

Forward-looking statements disclaimers appear in almost all things SEC and public company related from registration statements to reports filed in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act to press releases.  Like many disclaimers, they are usually looked past by readers, including at times by the attorneys reviewing or preparing the documents.  On many occasions we will have a new client come to the firm that has been using the same forward-looking statements disclaimer for years that has perpetually been cut and pasted into every document, and which would fail to provide the intended protections if ever tested.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

Many companies start a forward-looking statements disclaimer paragraph with the sentence “[I]nformation contained herein contains ‘forward looking statements’ within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 21E of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.”  Sections 27A and 21E, both created by the Private Securities Litigation

Rule Changes For OTCQB And OTCQX

Effective April 16, 2019, the OTC Markets has implemented rule changes for companies listed on the OTCQB.  Effective May 2, 2019, OTC Markets has implemented changes to the initial and continued quotation requirements for companies listed on the OTCQX.  This is the second set of amendments implemented this year.  Effective January 19, 2019, OTC Markets amended its rules to require all U.S.-incorporated OTCQB and OTCQX companies to provide verified share data through a transfer agent that participates in its Transfer Agent Verified Shares Program.  See my blog HERE, which includes an as of then up to date summary of the OTCQX initial and ongoing listing requirements.

OTCQX Amendments

The May 2019 OTCQX amendments: (i) add a 10% freely tradeable public float requirement; (ii) amend the SPAC qualifications to require a $20 million public float replacement the former $25 million net tangible asset requirement; (iii) adding that in the event that the company’s closing bid price falls below

Proposed SPAC Rule Changes

With the growing popularity of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), both the Nasdaq and NYSE have proposed rule changes that would make listings easier, although on June 1, 2018, the Nasdaq withdrew its proposal. SPACs raised more money last year than any year since the financial crisis. The SEC has been delaying action on the proposed rule changes, now pushing off a decision until at least August 2018.

A company that registers securities as a blank check company and whose securities are deemed a “penny stock” must comply with Rule 419 and thus are not eligible to trade. A brief discussion of Rule 419 is below. A “penny stock” is defined in Rule 3a51-1 of the Exchange Act and like many definitions in the securities laws, is inclusive of all securities other than those that satisfy certain delineated exceptions. The most common exceptions, and those that would be applicable to penny stocks for purpose of the SPAC, include: (i)

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)

A SPAC is a company organized to purchase one or more operating businesses and which generally intends to raise capital through an initial public offering (IPO), direct public offering (DPO) or private offering.

IPO’s, DPO’s and Rule 419

SPAC’s that engage in either an IPO or DPO are subject to Rule 419 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The provisions of Rule 419 apply to every registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, by a blank check company.  Rule 419 requires that the blank check company filing such registration statement deposit the securities being offered and proceeds of the offering, less reasonable offering expenses, into an escrow or trust account pending the execution of an agreement for an acquisition or merger.  In addition, the registrant is required to file a post effective amendment to the registration statement containing the same information as found in a Form 10 registration statement, upon the execution of an agreement for

Categories

Contact Author

Laura Anthony Esq

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?