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
China Based Companies Continue To Face US Capital Market Scrutiny
On March 24, 2021, the SEC adopted interim final amendments to implement the congressionally mandated submission and disclosure requirements of the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (HFCA Act). Following adoption of the HFCA, on July 30, 2021, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler issued a statement warning of risks associated with investing in companies based in China. Although the statement has a different angle, it joins the core continued concerns of the SEC top brass and Nasdaq expressed over the years.
In June 2020 Nasdaq published proposed rules which would make it more difficult for a company to list or continue to list based on the quality of its audit, which could have a direct effect on companies based in China (see HERE). In September 2020, the SEC instituted proceedings as to whether to approve or deny the proposed rule change. As of the date of this blog, the proposal has not been ruled upon by the SEC.
However, the
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
NYSE Annual Compliance Guidance Memo And Amended Rules
In January, NYSE Regulation sent out its yearly Compliance Guidance Memo to NYSE American listed companies. Although we are already halfway through the year, the annual letter has useful information that remains timely. As discussed in the Compliance Memo, the NYSE sought SEC approval to permanently change its shareholder approval rules in accordance with the temporary rules enacting to provide relief to listed companies during Covid. The SEC approved the amended rules on April 2, 2021.
Amendment to Shareholder Approval Rules
The SEC has approved NYSE rule changes to the shareholder approval requirements in Sections 312.03 and 312.04 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (“Manual”) and the Section 314 related party transaction requirements. The rule changes permanently align the rules with the temporary relief provided to listed companies during Covid (for more on the temporary relief, see HERE
Prior to the amendment, Section 312.03 of the Manual prohibited certain issuances to (i) directors, officers or substantial shareholders (related parties),
Nasdaq Board Diversity Proposal
Nasdaq has long been a proponent of environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures and initiatives, having published a guide for listed companies on the subject over six years ago (see HERE). In December 2020, Nasdaq took it a step further and proposed a rule which would require listed companies to have at least one woman on their boards, in addition to a director who is a racial minority or one who self-identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer. Companies that don’t meet the standard would be required to justify their decision to remain listed on Nasdaq. To help facilitate the proposed rule, Nasdaq has also proposed to offer a complimentary board recruiting solution. A final decision on the proposals is expected this summer.
The SEC recently extended the consideration period and will either approve or disapprove the proposal by August 8, 2021. The newest Regulatory Flex Agenda which was published last week and will be a topic
The MEMX
Although overshadowed by all things ESG and SPAC related, a new Wall Street backed national exchange, the Members Exchange (MEMX), launched in Q4 2020 with ambitions to rival the NYSE and Nasdaq. In the same month, the long-anticipated launch of the Silicon Valley backed Long-Term Stock Exchange (LTSE) came to fruition. The MEMX, founded as a lower cost alternative to Nasdaq and the NYSE, started small, initially only trading the securities of 7 large cap companies including Alphabet and Exxon Mobil, but has since opened to all exchange traded securities.
The MEMX was backed by Blackrock, Charles Schwab, Citadel, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan, E-Trade and Virtu, among others. These financial giants invested over $135 million into the platform and as such, have a vested interest in its success. They also have the power to direct significant trading activity onto the MEMX, where others will likely follow. In the 6 months since it went live,
ESG Disclosures – A Continued Discussion
In a series of blogs, I have been discussing the barrage of environmental, social and governance (ESG) related activity and focus by capital markets regulators and participants. Former SEC Chair Jay Clayton did not support overarching ESG disclosure requirements. However, new acting SEC Chair Allison Herron Lee has made a dramatic change in SEC policy, appointing a senior policy advisor for climate and ESG; the SEC Division of Corporation Finance (“Corp Fin”) announced it will scrutinize climate change disclosures; the SEC has formed an enforcement task force focused on climate and ESG issues; the Division of Examinations’ 2021 examination priorities included an introduction about how this year’s priorities have an “enhanced focus” on climate and ESG-related risks; almost every fund and major institutional investor has published statements on ESG initiatives; a Chief Sustainability Officer is a common c-suite position; independent auditors are being retained to attest on ESG disclosures; and enhanced ESG disclosure regulations are most assuredly forthcoming.
Finders – Part 2
Following the SEC’s proposed conditional exemption for finders (see HERE), the topic of finders has been front and center. New York has recently adopted a new finder’s exemption, joining California and Texas, who were early in creating exemptions for intra-state offerings. Also, a question that has arisen several times recently is whether an unregistered person can assist a U.S. company in capital raising transactions outside the U.S. under Regulation S. This blog, the second in a three-part series, will discuss finders in the Regulation S context.
Regulation S
It is very clear that a person residing in the U.S. must be licensed to act as a finder and receive transaction-based compensation, regardless of where the investor is located. The SEC sent a poignant reminder of that when, in December 2015, it filed a series of enforcement proceedings against U.S. immigration lawyers for violating the broker-dealer registration rules by accepting commissions in connection with introducing investors to projects relying
SEC Proposes Amendments To Rule 144
I’ve been at this for a long time and although some things do not change, the securities industry has been a roller coaster of change from rule amendments to guidance, to interpretation, and nuances big and small that can have tidal wave effects for market participants. On December 22, 2020, the SEC proposed amendments to Rule 144 which would eliminate tacking of a holding period upon the conversion or exchange of a market adjustable security that is not traded on a national securities exchange. The proposed rule also updates the Form 144 filing requirements to mandate electronic filings, eliminate the requirement to file a Form 144 with respect to sales of securities issued by companies that are not subject to Exchange Act reporting, and amend the Form 144 filing deadline to coincide with the Form 4 filing deadline.
The last amendments to Rule 144 were in 2008 reducing the holding periods to six months for reporting issuers and one year
Nasdaq Rule Amendments 2020
In addition to the temporary rule changes and relief that Nasdaq has provided this year for companies affected by Covid-19 (see HERE and HERE), the exchange has enacted various rule amendments with varying degrees of impact and materiality.
In particular, over the last year Nasdaq has amended its delisting process for low-priced securities, updated its definition of a family member for the purpose of determining director independence and has clarified the term “closing price” for purposes of the 20% rule. This blog discusses each of these amendments.
Delisting Process
In April 2020, the SEC approved Nasdaq rule changes to the delisting process for certain securities that fall below the minimum price for continued listing. The rule change modifies the delisting process for securities with a bid price at or below $0.10 for ten consecutive trading days during any bid-price compliance period and for securities that have had one or more reverse stock splits with a cumulative ratio of
