Tag: Form 8-K

Form 8-K: 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…

SEC、半期報告制度を提案

2026年5月5日、米国証券取引委員会（SEC）は、国内上場企業に対し、四半期報告から半期報告への移行を選択できるようにする、待望の規則案を発表しました。外国民間発行体は、この規則変更の影響を受けません。この提案は単なる技術的な調整ではなく、半世紀以上にわたり米国資本市場を支えてきた定期報告義務の根本的な見直しを意味するものです。

背景

現在の四半期報告制度は、主にフォーム10-Qを通じて運用されており、その起源は第二次世界大戦後の産業復興期にさかのぼります。当時の市場では、90日ごとの報告サイクルと比較的親和性の高い、安定的かつ予測可能な事業モデルを持つ製造業企業が中心を占めていました。しかし2026年現在、数兆ドル規模のテクノロジー大手から、収益化前のバイオテクノロジー企業に至るまで、上場企業の構成は大きく多様化しており、より柔軟で精緻なアプローチが求められています。この提案は、「一律適用」型の制度から脱却し、発行体がそれぞれの事業特性に応じて開示タイミングを選択できる柔軟な制度へ移行するという、実務重視の考え方を反映したものです。

技術的基盤：フォーム10-Sの創設

この移行の主な仕組みは、新しい提出手段であるフォーム10-Sの創設です。証券取引法の改正案、特に規則13a-13および15d-13の下では、セクション13(a)または15(d)の報告義務の対象となる企業は、フォーム10-Qによる3回の四半期報告書の代わりに、フォーム10-Sによる半期報告書を1回提出することで、中間報告要件を満たすことが認められます。

提出期限および提出者区分

この提案は、既存の定期報告の提出期限を踏襲することで、規模が大きく、システム上重要性の高い発行体における迅速な情報開示が維持されるようにしています。

提出者区分	フォーム10-S提出期限（上半期末からの経過日数）	年次フォーム10-K提出期限（事業年度末からの経過日数）
大規模加速提出会社	40日	60日
加速提出会社	40日	75日
非加速提出会社	45日	90日
小規模報告会社（SRC）	45日	90日

これらの期限は、S-3登録届出書の適格性を維持するために「最新かつ適時」の状態を保つための「明確なルール」であり、厳格に遵守する必要があります。S-3の適格性に関する詳細は、を参照してください。

技術的改正の詳細分析

この提案の核心は、Regulation S-KおよびRegulation S-Xに対する項目ごとの修正にあり、これにより「中間期間」が6か月の期間として再定義される点にあります。

Regulation S-K（非財務情報開示）に対する改正

Regulation S-Kについて、フォーム10-Sの半期サイクルに適合するよう、標準的な開示項目を調整することをSECは提案しています。

第I部：財務情報

項目1：財務諸表：登録企業は、直近6ヶ月間の財務諸表を、前年同期の6ヶ月間と比較した要約財務諸表を提出しなければなりません。
項目2：経営陣による経営成績の分析（項目303）：これが最も重要な変更点です。経営陣は、直近6ヶ月間の業績を、前年同期と比較して説明しなければなりません。SECは、企業は四半期ごとの比較を提供することは引き続き可能であるものの、必須ではなくなり、「短期主義」を軽減するために、年初来（YTD）の業績に重点を置くことを提案しています。
項目3：市場リスクに関する定量的および定性的な開示（項目305）：発行体は、直近6ヶ月間の市場リスク（金利、為替）に関する最新の分析を提供しなければなりません。これは、6ヶ月間の空白期間によってリスクプロファイルの大きな変化が隠蔽される可能性があるグローバル企業にとって特に重要です。
項目4：統制と手続き：経営陣は、開示統制および手続き（DCP）と財務報告に係る内部統制（ICFR）の有効性を、四半期ごとではなく6か月ごとに評価しなければならない。

第II部：その他の情報

項目1：訴訟手続き（項目103）：企業は、6ヶ月間の中間期間中に発生した訴訟手続きにおける重要な進展をすべて開示しなければなりません。
項目1A：リスク要因（項目105）：本提案では、前回の年次報告書以降に発生したすべての重要なリスクについて、包括的な更新を求めています。SECは、半期報告によって生じる「情報開示の空白期間」があるため、フォーム8-Kを用いてリスクの重要な変化をリアルタイムで開示することの重要性が高まっていると強調しています。
項目2：未登録株式売却および売却代金の使途：6ヶ月間に行われたすべての未登録株式売却について、表形式で開示する必要があります。
項目3：優先証券の債務不履行：半期期間中に発生した、支払不履行または30日以内に是正されないその他の重要な債務不履行について、開示する必要があります。
項目 6: 添付書類 (項目 601): この提案では、項目 601 の添付書類要件を、CEO および CFO による必須のセクション 302 および 906 の認証を含め、フォーム 10-S でカバーされる 6 か月の期間を反映するように変更します。

Regulation S-X（財務基盤）に対する改正

Regulation S-Xは財務諸表の様式および内容を規定するものであり、委員会は要約された半期財務諸表の表示を簡素化するため、規則10-01および8-03の修正を提案しています。

規則10-01(c)(2)：改正案では、四半期ごとの財務諸表の記載を任意としています。これにより、会計部門にとって大幅な簡素化が図られます。
監査人によるレビュー要件：提案では、独立した登録会計事務所が、PCAOB基準に従ってフォーム10-Sの中間財務諸表をレビューしなければならないという要件を維持しています。レビューの頻度は年1回（期末監査を除く）に減りますが、レビューの厳格さは変わりません。
規則3-12（陳腐化）：証券法と証券取引法の整合性を保つため、規則3-12は、登録届出書に記載される財務諸表の「経過期間」を調整するために改正される可能性があります。

資本市場およびディール実行への戦略的含意

シニア・ディール弁護士の観点から見ると、半期報告への移行は、取引のタイミングおよび情報の「陳腐化」に関する新たな変数をもたらすことになります。

引受募集における135日ルールの管理

SAS 72 / AU 634の下では、監査人はコンフォートレターにおいて、中間財務情報が135日以内である場合に限り「限定的保証」を提供することができます。半期報告制度の下では、企業はしばしば、直近のレビュー済み財務情報が135日を超過する「ブラックアウト期間」に直面することになります。ディールの実行可能性を維持するためには、Form 8-Kによる開示を伴う任意の四半期レビューによってこの期間をリセットする、あるいはシェルフ・テイクダウンのタイミングをより精緻に調整する必要が生じ得ます。

シェルフ登録および適格性

この提案は、フォーム10-Sを期限内に提出することで、Form S-3 Registration StatementおよびForm F-3 Registration Statementの適格性に関する「最新」要件を満たすことを確保するものです。しかし、義務付けられた報告書の提出間隔が長くなるため、Form 8-Kの「参照による将来への組み込み」が、シェルフ・プロスペクタスを重要な進展状況に合わせて最新の状態に保つための主要な手段となります。

コーポレート・ガバナンスおよびインサイダー取引コンプライアンス

6か月間の報告間隔は、重要な未公表情報（MNPI）が蓄積され得る「ダーク期間」を長期化させることになります。取締役会は、従来は四半期決算発表に連動して設計されてきたインサイダー取引規制および取引ウィンドウを再調整する必要があります。さらに、監査委員会は、半期ベースの監督体制および会議頻度を反映するため、委員会規程（チャーター）を修正する必要が生じる可能性があります。

ナショナル取引所の上場基準への影響

半期報告への移行には、SECの義務付けとナスダックおよびニューヨーク証券取引所の上場基準との慎重な調整が必要となる。従来、両取引所は上場継続資格の要として四半期報告を義務付けてきた。今回の提案は、これらの規則を調和させ、米国内の「標準的な」報告サイクルを、外国民間発行体（FPI）に既に認められている柔軟性と整合させることを目的としている。

定期開示要件の調和

現在、ナスダック規則5250(c)(1)およびニューヨーク証券取引所規則203.01では、上場企業はすべての「必要な定期財務報告書」を証券取引委員会（SEC）に期限内に提出することが義務付けられています。SECレベルでフォーム10-Qが任意提出となった場合、各取引所は内部規則を改定し、フォーム10-Sを「中間報告」要件を満たすものとして認める必要があります。

この調和プロセスは、既存のFPI（外国発行体）に関する枠組みに沿って進められると予想されます。例えば、ナスダック規則5250(c)(2)では、FPIが四半期報告書の代わりにフォーム6-Kを用いて半期ごとの未監査財務情報を提出することが既に認められています。同様に、ニューヨーク証券取引所は2016年にマニュアルを改訂し、FPIに対し半期ごとの財務情報の提供を義務付けました。これは、年1回のみの報告では現代の市場において頻度が低すぎることを認めたためです。今回の規則案は、各取引所がフォーム10-Sを準拠した報告手段として正式に採用することを条件として、この「国際基準」を国内発行体にも拡大するものです。

意思決定者のチェックリスト：移行の評価

取締役会にとって、半期報告への移行を選択する判断は、以下の要素に基づいて行われるべきです。

資金調達計画：135日ルールは、継続的な「シェルフ登録の機動性」を確保するために、実質的に四半期レビューを求めるものとなっています。
ステークホルダーの期待：市場が四半期データへの期待を「シグナル」として示している場合、半期報告への移行は流動性の低下につながる可能性があります。
オペレーションの成熟度：フォーム10-Qにおける期限管理のような「締切規律」がない状況でも、正確性を維持できる内部統制が整備されているかが重要です。
M&A対応力：買収側は最新かつレビュー済みの財務情報を求めるため、5か月間の「情報の空白期間」はデューデリジェンスの長期化につながる可能性があります。

結論：柔軟な環境における円滑な実行

半期報告への移行は、企業に対して長期戦略への集中を可能にし、事務的コストの削減をもたらす画期的な転換点です。しかし、「ディールメーカー」の視点では、この柔軟性は市場の信頼性およびディールの推進力を維持するために、より厳格な計画とForm 8-Kを通じたリアルタイムの情報開示を必要とすることを意味します。

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OTCQBやOTCQX）で上場を目指す企業も対象です。20年以上にわたり、Anthony,

On May 5, 2026, the SEC issued its much-anticipated proposed rule providing domestic public companies with the option to transition from a quarterly to a semi-annual reporting framework. Foreign Private Issuers are not impacted by the proposed rule change. This proposal is not merely a technical adjustment but a fundamental re-imagining of the periodic reporting obligations that have governed the American capital markets for over half a century.

Background

The current quarterly reporting regime, primarily executed through Form 10-Q, has its roots in the post-World War II industrial recovery period. At that time, the markets were dominated by manufacturing concerns with linear business models that aligned reasonably well with a 90-day reporting cycle. However, in 2026, the diversity of the public issuer base—ranging from trillion-dollar technology giants to pre-revenue biotechnology firms—demands a more nuanced approach. The proposal reflects a “deal maker” philosophy, moving away from the “one-size-fits-all” mandate toward a flexible, election-based model that allows issuers to

In this third installment of my series on Rule 144, I will begin discussing the various conditions for the use of the Rule, including the current public information requirement. In the first installment, I provided a high-level review of Rule 144 – see HERE and in the second, discussed definitions including the impactful “affiliate” definition – see HERE.

Conditions for Use of Rule 144

General

As set out in the first blog in this series, Rule 144 provides certain conditions that must be met by selling affiliates and selling non-affiliates which conditions vary depending on whether the Issuer of the securities is a reporting or non-reporting company and whether the Issuer or ever has been a shell company. The high-level Rule 144 requirements for non-affiliates include: (i) holding period; (ii) availability of current public information; and (iii) no shell status ineligibility. The high-level Rule 144 requirements for affiliates (i.e. holders of control securities) include: (i) holding

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;

On January 15, 2025, the SEC approved amendments to NYSE Listed Company Manual Rule 802.01C to allow for an accelerated delisting process where a listed company uses a reverse split to regain compliance with the bid price requirement for continued listing, but that as a result of the reverse split, the company falls below other listing standards, such as the minimum number of round lot holders, or minimum number of shares in the publicly held float. In October 2024, the SEC approved a similar rule change for Nasdaq – see HERE.

The SEC also approved amendments to Rule 802.01C such that: (i) if a listed company has effected a reverse stock split over the prior one-year period; or (ii) has effected one or more reverse stock splits over the prior two year period with a cumulative ratio of 200:1 or more, the company shall not be eligible for any compliance period and will face immediate suspension and delisting.

Background

On June 24, 2024 the SEC published five (5) new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DI) on cybersecurity incident disclosures supplementing the C&DI published in December 2023 (see HERE).

Cybersecurity

In July, 2023 the SEC adopted final new rules requiring disclosures for both domestic and foreign companies related to cybersecurity incidents, risk management, strategy and governance (see HERE for a review of the new rules).

The cybersecurity rules add new Item 1.05 to Form 8-K requiring disclosure of a material cybersecurity incident including the incident’s nature, scope, timing, and material impact or reasonably likely impact on the company. An Item 1.05 Form 8-K is due within four business days following determination that a cybersecurity incident is material. Given the sensitive nature of cybersecurity crimes, the SEC has added a provision allowing an 8-K to be delayed if it is informed by the United States Attorney General, in writing, that immediate disclosure would pose a substantial risk to national security or

The ability to utilize a shelf registration statement on Form F-3 or S-3 offers significant advantages to publicly traded companies. A Form F-3/S-3 allows for variably priced offerings – that is offerings made either at-the-market or at other than fixed prices. Only companies that are eligible for F-3/S-3 can complete primary (or indirect primary) offerings at prices other than a fixed price (for more on primary offerings see HERE).

I have previously written a detailed blog related to S-3 eligibility (see HERE) and although the requirements for an F-3 are substantially similar, there are some key differences due to the different regulatory framework applicable to foreign private issuers (“FPIs”) – i.e. “F Filers.” Like an S-3, F-3 eligibility is comprised of both registrant or company requirements and transaction requirements.

Moreover, like Form S-3, a Form F-3 specifies generally that the Form may not be used for an offering of asset-backed securities.

Registrant Requirements

Companies that meet the

In November 2023, Nasdaq added a new FAQ providing guidance on completing the electronic disclosure form to provide the required advance notice to Nasdaq’s MarketWatch Department when material non-public information is being announced, including news releases. I realized that while I have blogged about the Nasdaq notification requirements in general (see HERE), the recent changes to the Nasdaq reverse split rules, including MarketWatch notification (see HERE) and Nasdaq continued listing requirements (see HERE), I have not yet drilled down on the Nasdaq Rule 5250(b)(1) MarketWatch disclosure requirements, until now.

As an aside, Nasdaq Rule 5250 is a lengthy rule covering multiple facets of listed company obligations (including the reverse split and notification requirements and several of the corporate governance requirements in the blogs linked to above). This blog focuses on Rule 5250(b)(1) and its related IM discussions related to the disclosure of material non-public information.

Nasdaq Rule 5250(b)(1)

Nasdaq Rule 5250(b)(1) sets forth a listed company’s obligation

Updated Rule 10b5-1 adds conditions to the affirmative defense to insider trading. The Rule now has cooling-off periods before trading can commence under a Rule 10b5-1 plan and adds a condition that all persons entering into a Rule 10b5-1 plan must act in good faith with respect to the plan. The Rule also requires directors and officers to include representations in their plans certifying at the time of the adoption of a new or modified Rule 10b5-1 plan that: (i) they are not aware of any material nonpublic information about the issuer or its securities; and

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

On September 5, 2023, Nasdaq adopted amendments to Listing Rule 5610 and IM-5610 requiring listed companies to maintain a code of conduct and to disclose certain waivers. This is also a good time to discuss the code of conduct/code of ethics requirements applicable to all companies subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) reporting requirements.

Code of Conduct/Code of Ethics

Section 406(c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) requires all companies that are subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements to disclose whether they have adopted a code of ethics that applies to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions. If the company has not adopted such a code, it must explain why it has not done so.

SOX defines a code of ethics as written standards reasonably designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote: (i) honest and ethical conduct including related to conflicts of

On August 25, 2023, the SEC published five new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) on the recently effective Rule 10b5-1 amendments. The new rules were adopted on December 14, 2022 (see HERE) to enhance disclosure requirements and investor protections against insider trading. The amendments include updates to Rule 10b5-1(c)(1), which provides an affirmative defense to insider trading liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. This is the second time the SEC has published guidance on the rules having issued three C&DI in May – see HERE.

The rule amendments updated the conditions to satisfy the 10b5-1 affirmative defense, including adding cooling-off periods before trading can commence under a Rule 10b5-1 plan and a condition that all persons entering into a Rule 10b5-1 plan must act in good faith with respect to the plan. The amendments also require directors and officers to include representations in their plans certifying at the time of the adoption of

In addition to the rules and regulations governing the numerous mandatory disclosure obligations under the federal securities laws, the SEC also has several rules governing a company’s obligations vis-a-vis voluntary disclosures. I have written several times about the use of non-GAAP financial measures (see HERE and the imbedded links therein), but it has been several years (10!) since I wrote about the rules and regulations that form a part of Regulation Fair Disclosure (“Regulation FD”).

Regulation FD, comprised of Exchange Act Rules 100-103, was first adopted in the year 2000 in response to concerns about selective disclosure to certain market participants, including a practice of having private calls with analysts, institutional shareholders and traders. Regulation FD requires a company to make public disclosure in advance of an intentional disclosure of material non-public information or immediately following an inadvertent disclosure of such material information.

Regulation FD Rules

Exchange Act Rule 100 mandates that whenever a company or any person acting

Over the years I’ve noted that information required pursuant to various disclosure obligations, or new or amended rules, may be “furnished” versus “filed” with the SEC, but I realize in a “let’s get back to basics” moment, I have not yet (until now) provided a detailed explanation of what that means. In summary, information that is “filed” with the SEC carries Section 18 liability, only “filed” information can be incorporated by reference into other filings, such as an S-3 registration statement, and only “filed” SEC reports affect S-3 eligibility.

Section 18

Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) imposes liability on any person that makes or causes to be made any statement in any application, report or document “filed” pursuant to the Exchange Act or any rule thereunder which statement was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made false or misleading with

On May 25, 2023, the SEC published three new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) on the recently effective Rule 10b5-1 amendments. The new rules were adopted on December 14, 2022 (see HERE) to enhance disclosure requirements and investor protections against insider trading. The amendments include updates to Rule 10b5-1(c)(1), which provides an affirmative defense to insider trading liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

The changes updated the conditions that must be met for the 10b5-1 affirmative defense, including adding cooling-off periods before trading can commence under a Rule 10b5-1 plan and a condition that all persons entering into a Rule 10b5-1 plan must act in good faith with respect to the plan. The amendments also require directors and officers to include representations in their plans certifying at the time of the adoption of a new or modified Rule 10b5-1 plan that: (i) they are not aware of any material nonpublic information about the issuer

On December 14, 2022, the SEC adopted amendments to Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to enhance disclosure requirements and investor protections against insider trading. The amendments include updates to Rule 10b5-1(c)(1), which provides an affirmative defense to insider trading liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The proposed rules were published in HERE. Although there is a statutory framework, the laws surrounding insider trading are largely based on judicial precedence and are difficult to navigate. The rule amendments are intended to provide clarity to the marketplace.

Since the adoption of Rule 10b5-1, courts, commentators, and members of Congress have expressed concern that the affirmative defense under Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i) has allowed traders to take advantage of the liability protections provided by the rule to opportunistically trade securities on the basis of material nonpublic information. Furthermore, some academic studies of Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangements have shown that corporate insiders trading pursuant to

NASDAQ Issues Report Advocating for The U.S. Public Markets

Before SEC Commissioner Michael Piwowar’s May 16, 2017, speech at the SEC-NYU Dialogue on Securities Market Regulation regarding the U.S. IPO Market (see summary HERE), and SEC Chair Jay Clayton’s July 12, 2017, speech to the Economic Club of New York (see summary HERE), the topic of the U.S. IPO market had already gained significant market attention. Earlier this year, NASDAQ issued a paper titled “The Promise of Market Reform: Reigniting American’s Economic Engine” with its views and position on how to revitalize the U.S. equities and IPO market (the “NASDAQ Paper”). This blog summarizes the NASDAQ Paper.

The NASDAQ Paper begins with a statement by Adena Friedman, President and CEO of NASDAQ. The statement begins with a decidedly positive outlook, noting that “The U.S. equities markets exist to facilitate job creation and wealth creation for millions of people, ultimately driving economic growth for our country.” Ms. Friedman adds that “[E]xceptional market returns in recent years

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

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

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

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.

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 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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

SEC Proposes Rules for 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+. The proposed rules both add the new Section 3(b)(2) (i.e., Regulation A+) provisions and modify the existing Regulation A. This blog is limited to a discussion of the new Regulation A+.

Background

Title IV of the JOBS Act technically amends Section 3(b) of the Securities Act, which up to now has been a general provision allowing the SEC to fashion exemptions from registration, up to a total offering amount of $5,000,000. Regulation A is and has historically been an exemption created under the powers afforded the SEC by Section 3(b).

Technically speaking, Regulation D, Rule 504 and 505 offerings and Regulation A offerings are promulgated under Section 3(b), and Rule 506 is promulgated under Section 4(a)(2). This is important because federal law does not pre-empt state law for Section 3(b) offerings, but it does so for Section

Mergers and Acquisitions; Merger Documents Outlined

An Outline Of the Transaction

The Confidentiality Agreement

Generally the first step in an M&A deal is executing a confidentiality agreement and letter of intent. These documents can be combined or separate. If the parties are exchanging information prior to reaching the letter of intent stage of a potential transaction, a confidentiality agreement should be executed first.

In addition to requiring that both parties keep information confidential, a confidentiality agreement sets forth important parameters on the use of information. For instance, a reporting entity may have disclosure obligations in association with the initial negotiations for a transaction, which would need to be exempted from the confidentiality provisions. Moreover, a confidentiality agreement may contain other provisions unrelated to confidentiality such as a prohibition against

SEC Guidance On Social Media And Websites For Company Announcements And Communications- Part II

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. In the report the SEC stated that previously published guidance on the use of Company websites was applicable to the use of social media. Accordingly, in a series of blogs I am reviewing the SEC guidance on the use of company websites. This blog is Part II in the series.

Background

SEC Guidance On Social Media And Websites For Company Announcements And Communications- Part I

On April 2, 2013, 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. The report was issued following an investigation into a Facebook posting made by Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix. In the report the SEC stated that previously published guidance on the use of Company websites was applicable to the use of social media. Accordingly, a review of the SEC guidance on the use of company websites is in order.

Background

SEC Clears Social Media As An Acceptable Form For Company Announcements

On April 2, 2013, 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. The report was issued following an investigation into a Facebook posting made by Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix. The SEC declined to pursue an enforcement action against Mr. Hastings.

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 is designed to ensure that all investors are on an even playing field in terms of access to material information. Regulation FD ended the era of invitation-only conference calls between company management and a select group

Section 3(a)(9) Exchanges Evaluated

Section 3(a)(9) of the Securities Act of 1933, provides an exemption from the registration requirements for “[E]xcept with respect to a security exchanged in a case under title 11 of the United States Code, any security exchanged by the issuer with its existing security holders exclusively where no commission or other remuneration is paid or given directly or indirectly for soliciting such exchange.” Generally, in an exchange offer, the issuer offers to exchange new debt or equity securities for its outstanding debt or equity securities.

Since Section 3(a)(9) is a transactional exemption, the new securities issued are subject to the same restrictions on transferability, if any, of the old securities, and any subsequent transfer of the newly issued securities will require registration or another exemption from registration. However, since the new securities take on the character of the old securities, tacking of a holding period is generally permitted allowing for subsequent resales under Rule 144 (assuming all other conditions have

Transparency in the Financial Markets and the Materiality Standards

The disclosure requirements at the heart of the federal securities laws involve a delicate and complex balancing act. Too little information provides an inadequate basis for investment decisions; too much can muddle and diffuse disclosure and thereby lessen its usefulness. The legal concept of materiality provides the dividing line between what information companies must disclose, and must disclose correctly, and everything else. Materiality, however, is a highly judgmental standard, often colored by a variety of factual presumptions.

Transparency in Financial Markets

The guiding purpose of the many and complex disclosure provisions of the federal securities laws is to promote “transparency” in the financial markets. However, the task of winnowing out the irrelevant, redundant and trivial from the potentially meaningful material falls on corporate executives and their professional advisors in the creation of corporate disclosure, and on investment advisors, stock analysts and individual investors in its interpretation. The concept of materiality represents the dividing line between information reasonably likely to influence

Rule 144 and Pink Sheet Shells; Selling Shares Post Merger

One of the most common inquiries received by securities attorneys today involves Issuers wanting to know when they and their shareholders can sell their shares on the open market following a merger with a Pink Sheet shell. In many cases, the answer they get is not the answer they want; twelve months after the Pink Sheet Company becomes a fully reporting entity.

If a private entity has merged with a Pink Sheet shell under the assumption that they can avoid the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting requirements, this revelation is devastating. As a result of the amendments to Rule 144 and Rule 145, enacted in February, 2009, private companies that wish to go public on the Pink Sheets are advised to do so directly, and not through a reverse merger with a shell company.

Rule 144

Technically Rule 144 provides a safe harbor from the definition of the term “underwriter” such that a selling shareholder may utilize the exemption

Necessity of Background Searches on Officers and Directors as Part of Due Diligence Prior to a Reverse Merger or IPO

If you are a private company looking to go public on the OTCBB, securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel. Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

Many private companies go public either through a reverse merger with a public shell or initial public offering (IPO) process. A reverse merger allows a private company to go public by purchasing a controlling percentage of shares of a public shell company and merging the private company into the shell. An initial public offering is where the private company files a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission and once the registration statement is effective proceeds to sell stock either directly (a DPO) or more commonly through an underwriter.

It is very important that management of public shells and underwriters conduct a background check on the private company’s officers and directors prior to embarking

Contact Author

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?