The first of emerging growth companies (“EGC’s”) will begin losing EGC status as the five-year anniversary of the creation of an EGC has now passed. Those companies that will lose status as a result of the passage of time are almost unilaterally not pleased with the impending change and concurrent increase in regulatory compliance.
Title I of the JOBS Act, initially enacted on April 5, 2012, created a new category of issuer called an “emerging growth company” (“EGC”). An EGC is defined as a company with total annual gross revenues of less than $1,070,000,000 during its most recently completed fiscal year that first sells equity in a registered offering after December 8, 2011. An EGC loses its EGC status on the earlier of (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which it exceeds $1,070,000,000 in revenues; (ii) the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth year after its IPO (for example, if the issuer has
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
The topic of reporting requirements and distinctions between various categories of reporting companies has been prevalent over the past couple of years as regulators and industry insiders examine changes to the reporting requirements for all companies, and qualifications for the various categories of scaled disclosure requirements. As I’ve written about these developments, I have noticed inconsistencies in the treatment of smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies in ways that are likely the result of poor drafting or unintended consequences. This blog summarizes two of these inconsistencies.
As a reminder, a smaller reporting company is currently defined as a company that has a public float of less than $75 million in common equity as of the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter, or if a public float of zero, has less than $50 million in annual revenues as of its most recently completed fiscal year-end. I note that on June 27, 2016, the SEC issued
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.
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
On April 5, 2012, President Obama signed the Jumpstart our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) into law. The JOBS Act was passed on a bipartisan basis by overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. The Act seeks to remove impediments to raising capital for emerging growth public companies by relaxing disclosure, governance and accounting requirements, easing the restrictions on analyst communications and analyst participation in the public offering process, and permitting companies to “test the waters” for public offerings. The following is an in-depth review of Title I of the JOBS Act related to Emerging Growth Companies.
Introduction – What is an Emerging Growth Company?
The JOBS Act created a new category of company: an “Emerging Growth Company” (EGC). An EGC is defined as a company with annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion that first sells equity in a registered offering after December 8, 2011. In addition, an EGC loses its EGC status on the earlier
First, I’d like to give credit to The DealFlow Report which was my initial source for the numerical factual information in this blog.
The Numbers and Facts
Q2 reflects the uncertainty that goes along with an election year and the concerns over tax increases (or decreases) that go along with election years. There also remains the ongoing worry over European markets. In short, it is a time of change and uncertainty. Moreover, according to Adam Lyon, a managing director and co-head of private capital at Conaccord Genuity, the small cap financing market, “is probably in for the usual seasonal fluctuations: a tough summer followed by a pick-up in late August and September.” I note that my law firm has seen this trend consistently for the past decade.
According to data from Dealogic, the number of IPO’s dropped by 41.4% in Q2, however, mainly as a result of the facebook IPO, the dollar value of those IPO’s rose by 56.4%.