Audit Committees – NYSE American
Like Nasdaq, I’ve written several times about the NYSE American listing requirements including the general listing requirements (see HERE) and annual compliance guidelines (see HERE). As an aside, although the Nasdaq recently enacted significant changes to its initial listing standards, the NYSE American has not done the same and no such changes are currently anticipated. I suspect that the NYSE American will see a large uptick in new company applicants as a result.
I recently drilled down on audit committee requirements and director independence standards for Nasdaq and in this and the next blog, I will do the same for the NYSE American. As required by SEC Rule 10A-3, all exchange listed companies are required to have an audit committee consisting of independent directors. NYSE American Company Guide Rule 803 delineates the requirements independent directors and audit committees. Rule 803 complies with SEC Rule 10A-3 related to audit committees for companies listed on a national securities exchange.
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
NYSE Continues To Struggle With Direct Listing Rule Changes
Late last year, around the same time that the SEC approved Nasdaq rule changes related to direct listings on the Nasdaq Global Market and Nasdaq Capital Market (see HERE), the SEC rejected proposed amendments by the NYSE big board which would allow a company to issue new shares and directly raise capital in conjunction with a direct listing process. Nasdaq had previously updated its direct listing rules for listing on the Market Global Select Market (see HERE).
The NYSE did not give up and in August of this year, after two more proposed amendments, the SEC finally approved new NYSE direct listing rules that allow companies to sell newly issued primary shares on its own behalf into the opening trade in a direct listing process. However, after receiving a notice of intent to petition to prevent the rule change, the SEC has stayed the approval until further notice. Still pushing forward, on September 4, the NYSE filed
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
NYSE, Nasdaq And OTC Markets Offer Relief For Listed Companies Due To COVID-19
In addition to the SEC, the various trading markets, including the Nasdaq, NYSE and OTC Markets are providing relief to trading companies that are facing unprecedented challenges as a result of the worldwide COVID-19 crisis.
NYSE
The NYSE has taken a more formal approach to relief for listed companies. On March 20, 2020 and again on April 6, 2020 the NYSE filed a notice and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule changes to provide relief from the continued listing market cap requirements and certain shareholder approval requirements.
Recognizing the extremely high level of market volatility as a result of the COVID-19 crisis, the NYSE has temporarily suspended until June 30, 2020 its continued listing requirement that companies must maintain an average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period of at least $15 million. Likewise, the NYSE is suspending the requirement that a listed company maintain a minimum trading price of $1.00 or more over a consecutive 30-trading-day period,
Nasdaq Board Independence Standards
Nasdaq Rule 5605 delineates the listing qualifications and requirements for a board of directors and committees, including the independence standards for board members. Nasdaq requires that a majority of the board of directors of a listed company be “independent” and further that all members of the audit, nominating and compensation committees be independent.
Under Rule 5605, an “independent director” means a person other than an executive officer or employee of a company or any individual having a relationship which, in the opinion of the company’s board of directors, would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director. In other words, the question of independence must ultimately be determined by the board of directors who must make an affirmative finding that a director is independent. However, the Nasdaq rules specify certain relationships that would disqualify a person from being considered independent. Stock ownership is not on the list and is not enough, without
Nasdaq Direct Listing Rule Change
On April 3, 2018, Spotify made a big board splash by debuting on the NYSE without an IPO. Instead, Spotify filed a resale registration statement registering the securities already held by its existing shareholders. The process is referred to as a direct listing. As most of those shareholders had invested in Spotify in private offerings, they were rewarded with a true exit strategy and liquidity by becoming the company’s initial public float. On April 26, 2019, Slack Technologies followed suit, filing a resale Form S-1 with an anticipated direct listing on to the NYSE.
Around this time last year, I published a blog on the direct listing process focusing on the differences between a direct listing onto a national exchange and one onto OTC Markets – see HERE. As the process seems to be gaining in popularity, on February 15, 2019 Nasdaq amended its direct listing process rules. This blog is focused on the Nasdaq direct
NYSE American Compliance Guidance MEMO
In January, NYSE Regulation sent out its yearly Compliance Guidance Memo to NYSE American listed companies. The annual letter updates companies on any rule changes from the year and reminds companies of items the NYSE deems important enough to warrant such a reminder.
The only new item in this year’s letter relates to advance notice of stock dividends and distributions. Effective February 1, 2018, the NYSE requires listed companies to provide ten minutes’ advance notice to the exchange of any announcement with respect to a dividend or stock distribution, whether the announcement is during or outside exchange traded hours. This change is consistent with other NYSE and Nasdaq rules which generally require notifications of announcements, including press releases, that could impact trading, at least 10 minutes prior to such notification.
The NYSE letter also provides a list of important reminders to all exchange listed companies, starting with the requirement to provide a timely alert of all material news. Part 4
SEC Cautionary Statement on Audits of Public Companies Operating in China
Eight years following the crash of the Chinese reverse merger boom and a slew of SEC enforcement proceedings, the SEC is once again concerned with the financial reporting by U.S. listed companies with operations based in China. In December 2018, the SEC issued a cautionary public statement from SEC Chair Jay Clayton, SEC Chief Accountant Wes Bricker and PCAOB Chairman William D. Duhnke III entitled “Statement on the Vital Role of Audit Quality and Regulatory Access to Audit and Other Information Internationally – Discussion of Current Information Access Challenges with Respect to U.S.-listed Companies with Significant Operations in China.”
Just reading the title reminded me of the boom in China-based reverse mergers around 2009-2010 followed by the trading halts or delistings of at least 50 companies in 2011 and 2012. In the summer of 2010, the SEC launched an initiative to determine whether certain companies with foreign operations—including those that were the product of reverse mergers—were accurately reporting their
