Over The Counter Bulletin Board Archives

An In-Depth Review of Private Placements Under Section 4(2)

Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 provides that the registration requirements of Section 5 do not apply to “transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering.” The definition of an “issuer” is pretty straightforward as found in Section 2(a)(4) and includes, “the person who issues or proposes to issue” a security and is understood to mean the entity that originally sells the securities. However, not so straightforward is what constitutes a “public offering,” which term is not defined in the Securities Act. In reliance on Section 4(2) the SEC enacted Rule 506 as part of Regulation D.

Rule 506 as a Safe Harbor Provision

Rule 506 is a Safe Harbor. In other words, if all the conditions of Rule 506 are met, you can rest assured that the conditions of Section 4(2) have been satisfied. However, Section 4(2) can be satisfied as a standalone exemption separate from Rule 506. The importance of the distinction between Section 4(2)

Equity Line Financing Examined

In a typical “equity line” financing arrangement, an investor and an Issuer enter into a written agreement whereby the Issuer has the right to “put” its securities to the investor. That is, the Issuer has the right to tell the investor when to buy securities from the Issuer over a set period of time and the investor has no right to decline to purchase the securities (or a limited right to decline). Generally the dollar value of the equity line is set in the written agreement, but the number of securities varies based on a formula tied to the market price of the securities at the time of each “put”.

Similar to PIPE Transactions

Most equity line financing arrangements are similar to a PIPE (private investment into public entity) transaction such that the Issuer relies on the private placement exemption from registration to sell the securities under the equity line and then files a registration statement for the re-sale of

Rule 419 and Offerings by Shell or Blank Check Companies

The provisions of Rule 419 apply to every registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, 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 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 such acquisition or merger. The rule provides procedures for the release of the offering funds in conjunction with the post effective acquisition or merger. The obligations to file post effective amendments are in addition to the obligations to file Forms 8-K to report both the entry into a material non-ordinary course agreement and the completion of the transaction. Rule 419 applies to

A Comprehensive Analysis of Section 5

Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, contains the basic registration requirements for all offerings and rules of securities. Section 5(a) provides that “unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, it shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly:

…to sell such security through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise; or
…to transmit through the mails or in interstate commerce any such security for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale”

Section 5(b) provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person directly or indirectly:

…to transmit through the mails or in interstate commerce, any prospectus relating to a security with respect to which a registration has been filed…., unless such prospectus meets the requirements of Section 10; or
…to transmit through the mails or in interstate commerce any such security for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale, unless accompanied or preceded by a

When Can Separate Issuer Offerings That Occur Within a Short Time Be Integrated?

The integration doctrine prevents issuers from circumventing the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1934 by determining whether two or more securities offerings are really one offering that does not qualify as an exempt offering, or an exempt offering is really part of a registered public offering.

Securities Act Release No. 33-4552 (November 6, 1962) sets forth a five factor test that is used as a guideline in determining whether the separate offerings of an issuer that occur within a short time of one another will be integrated. These same factors are set forth in the Note to Rule 502(a) of Regulation D, which factors address whether the offerings:

are part of a single plan of financing;
involve the issuance of the same class of securities (convertible securities, warrants, and other
derivative instruments generally are deemed to be the same class as the underlying security unless the terms of the primary security prohibit exercises until at least the one

Regulation A and Rule 504

Section 3(b) of the Securities Act gives the SEC authority to exempt from registration certain offerings where the securities to be offered involve relatively small dollar amounts. Under this provision, the SEC has adopted Regulation A, a conditional ex-emption for certain public offerings not exceeding $5 million in any 12-month period. An offering statement (consisting of a notification, offering circular, and exhibits) must be filed with the SEC Regional Office in the region where the company’s principal business activities are conducted. Although Regulation A is technically an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act, it is often referred to as a “short form” of registration since the offering circular (similar in content to a prospectus) must be sup-plied to each purchaser and the securities issued are freely tradeable in an aftermarket.

The principal advantages of Regulation A offerings, as opposed to full registration on Form S-1, SB-1 or SB-2, are:

Required financial statements are simpler and need not

SEC Stock Buyback Rules Examined

SEC Rule 10b-18 provides issuers with a safe harbor from liability for market manipulation under Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act when issuers bid for or repurchase their common stock in the market in accordance with the Rule’s manner, timing, price and volume conditions. Each of the conditions of Rule 10b-18 must be satisfied on each day that a repurchase is made.

Rule 10b-18

The material portions of Rule 10b-18 are as follows:

Definition. A “Rule 10b-18 purchase” is generally defined as a purchase or any bid or limit order of an issuer’s common stock by or for the issuer or any of the issuer’s affiliated purchasers.

To be able to rely on Rule 10b-18 in make repurchases, the following four (4) conditions must be met.

Time of Purchase. The Rule restricts issuers from making repurchases that constitute the opening transaction in the security on a trading day, or

Responsibilities of Independent Directors Increases in Response to Sarbanes Oxley

Serving as an independent director carries serious obligations and responsibilities.

Following the passage of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), the role of independent directors has become that of securities monitor. They must be informed of developments within the company, ensure good processes for accurate disclosures and make reasonable efforts to assure that disclosures are adequate. Independent directors, like inside directors, should be fully aware of the company’s press releases, public statements and communications with security holders and sufficiently engaged and active to questions and correct inadequate disclosures.

Disclosure and Transparency

The basic premise of federal securities laws is disclosure and transparency. The theory behind this regulatory structure is that if a Company is forced to disclose information about particular transactions, plans or programs, the company and its officers and directors will take greater care in making business decisions. If a director knows or should know that his or her company’s statements concerning particular issues are inadequate or incomplete,

Securities Law Update: Intrastate Offerings Section 3(a)(11) and Rule 147 Examined

Section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act) provides an exemption from the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act for “[A]ny security which is a part of an issue offered and sold only to persons resident within a single State or Territory, where the issuer of such security is a person resident and doing business within or, if a corporation, incorporated by and doing business within, such State or Territory.” (“Intrastate Exemption”) Rule 147 promulgated under the Securities Act provides for further application of the Intrastate Exemption.

Rule 147, Issuers and Corporate Counsel

In addition to complying with Rule 147, Issuers and their counsel need to be cognizant of and comply with applicable state securities laws regulating intrastate offerings. The Intrastate Exemption is only available for bona fide local offerings. That is, the Issuer must be a resident of, and doing business, within the state in which all offers and sales are made

SEC Rule 144: Pledged Securities, Holding Periods and Subscriptions Agreements

Securities which are bona fide pledged may be tacked to the holding period of the pledgor as long as the pledge has full recourse against the pledgor. Gifted securities may be tacked with the holding period of the donor. Securities transferred to a trust may be tacked with the holding period of the settlor. Likewise securities transferred to a 401(k) or other individual retirement account will tack to the original issuance date. Securities obtained by beneficiaries of an estate may be tacked with the holding period of the deceased.

Securities acquired solely by the cashless exercise of an option or warrant are deemed to have been issued on the date of issuance of the underlying option or warrant; provided however, that the payment of any consideration, even a de minimus amount of cash, for the newly issued securities will restart the holding period. Accordingly, securities issued upon exercise of options or warrants in a stock option plan are deemed issued

SEC Rule 145 – Registration and Resale Requirements For Securities Issued in Merger, Consolidation or Acquisition

ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100

——————————————————————————————————

Rule 145 addresses the registration and resale requirements for securities issued in a merger, consolidation, acquisition of assets or reclassification of securities. Rule 145 sets forth the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) view that an offer, offer to sell, offer for sale or sale occurs when there is submitted to security holders a plan or agreement pursuant to which such security holders are asked to vote on an exchange of their existing securities for new securities in a merger, consolidation, acquisition of assets or reclassification of securities transaction. Offers, offers to sell, offers for sale or sales all require registration pursuant to Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act) unless an exemption to such registration is available.

Securities Registration Required

Accordingly, unless an exemption is otherwise available, Rule 145 requires that the following transactions require registration if security holders vote on such transaction (i) reclassifications of securities which

SEC Rule 144: Current Public Information and Reporting Requirements

The current public information requirement is measured at the time of each sale of securities. That is, the Issuer, whether reporting or non-reporting, must satisfy the current public information requirements as set forth in Rule 144(c) at the time that each resale of securities is made in reliance on Rule 144. Most attorney opinion letters and Forms 144 cover a three month period and many Sellers sell securities over that three month period. However, the Seller (or person selling on behalf of Seller such as the broker dealer) is required to make a determination that current public information is available at the time of each sale.

Accordingly, if a reporting issuer does not file a required Q or K during this period, or 15c2-11 information lapses for a non-reporting issuer, sales must cease until the current public information requirement is again satisfied. Moreover, Sellers are taking a risk by selling during the 5-day or 15-day period following the filing of

SEC Rule 144: Resale Conditions and Exempt Transactions

There are many questions regarding the application of Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) Rule 144 for the resale of securities. Section 4(1) of the Securities Act provides an exemption for a transaction “by a person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.” Therefore, an understanding of the term “underwriter” is important in determining whether or not the Section 4(1) exemption from registration is available for the sale of the securities. Rule 144 provides a safe harbor from the definition of “underwriter”. If all the requirements for Rule 144 are met, the seller will not be deemed an underwriter and the purchaser will receive unrestricted securities.

As Rule 144 only addresses the resale of restricted securities, the rule first defines “restricted securities”. Restricted securities include: (i) securities acquired directly or indirectly from the Issuer, of from an affiliate of the Issuer (affiliate includes spouses and family members living in the same household), in a transaction or chain of transactions not

Contracting Away Fiduciary Obligations In Delaware LLCs And Limited Partnerships

Delaware corporate and alternative entity law has long been the model for other states in drafting statutes and for practitioners in advising clients and preparing limited partnership agreements and limited liability company membership agreements.

In 2005 the Delaware legislature amended its Limited Liability Company Act and Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act to provide drafters of LP and LLC agreements with broad flexibility to modify default fiduciary duties. Both Acts now provide that default fiduciary obligations mat be restricted or eliminated, provided that the implied covenant of fair dealing and good faith may not be eliminated. Many states have followed suit.

Delaware Corporate Law

Under Delaware law, the purpose of the implied covenant of fair dealing and good faith is to enforce the reasonable expectations of parties to a contract where situations arise that are not expressly contemplated and provided for in the language of the contract itself. Although the covenant of good faith and fair dealing itself cannot be waived,

Securities Attorneys Must Self-Regulate to Avoid Potential Insider Trading Pitfalls

Attorneys who accept stock as compensation from public companies need to be aware of a vigilant regarding their insider trading obligations. Before analyzing the dynamics of proper compliance in stock compensation scenarios, it is assumed that the stock received by the attorney was issued pursuant to a registration statement or valid exemption and is being resold also pursuant to a registration statement or valid exemption to registration.

Insider Trading

Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include “tipping” such information, securities trading by the person “tipped,” and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information. Securities attorneys are in a unique position as they are often privy to material, non-public information regarding their public company clients.

The SEC prohibits insider trading in Rules 10b-5, 10b5-1 and 10b5-2 or

The Federalism of State Corporate Law

Historically the regulation of corporate law has been firmly within the power and authority of the states. However, over the past few decades the federal government has become increasingly active in matters of corporate governance. Typically this occurs in waves as a response to periods of scandal in specific business sectors or in the financial markets. Traditionally, when the federal government intervenes in these situations, they enact regulation either directly or indirectly by imposing upon state corporate regulations.

Specifically, the predominant method of federal regulation of corporate governance is through the enactment of mandatory terms that either reverse or preempt state laws on the same point. The most recently prominent example is the passing of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX).

Sarbanes Oxley (SOX)

SOX regulates corporate governance in five matters: (i) SOX prevents corporations from engaging the same accounting firm to provide both audit and specified non-audit services; (ii) SOX requires that audit committees of listed companies be

Five Essential Conditions for Unregistered Spin-Offs

A spin-off occurs when a parent company distributes shares of a subsidiary to the parent company’s shareholders such that the subsidiary separates from the parent and is no longer a subsidiary. In Staff Legal Bulletin No. 4, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) explains how and under what circumstances a spin-off can be completed without the necessity of filing a registration statement.

In particular, the subsidiary shares (the shares distributed to the parent company shareholders) do not need to be registered if the following five conditions are met: (i) the parent shareholders do not provide consideration for the spun-off shares; (ii) the spin-off is pro-rata to the parent shareholders; (iii) the parent provides adequate information about the spin-off and the subsidiary to its shareholders and to the trading markets; (iv) the parent has a valid business purpose for the spin-off; and (v) if the parent spins-off restricted securities, it has held those securities for at least one year. Below is

The Demise of the Death Spiral – SEC Interpretation of Rule 415

Without fanfare, publications, or other notice, in mid 2006, PIPE investors and the Issuers that utilized them noticed a big difference in the way that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) division of corporate finance reviewed and commented upon, resale registration statements. Although the SEC staff contended that its position on Rule 415 had not changed, there was, incontrovertibly, a dramatic impact felt by Issuers and PIPE investors.

For years, Issuers had relied upon Rule 415 in order to register the resale of shares issued in PIPE transactions (a “secondary offering”). Rule 415 governs the registration requirements for the sale of securities to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis, such as in the case of the take down or conversion of convertible debt and warrants. In the years prior to 2006, Issuers would register shares they sold in a PIPE transaction, which could represent in excess of 50% of their outstanding public float.

Convertible Debt and Subsequent Resale

The Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) Provides Guidance Regarding Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933

Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) is an exemption from the Securities Act registration requirements for the offers and sales of securities by Issuers. The exemption provides that “[E]xcept as hereinafter expressly provided, the provisions of this title [the Securities Act] shall not apply to any of the following classes of securities….(10) Except with respect to a security exchanged in a case under title 11 of the United States Code, any security which is issued in exchange for one or more bona fide outstanding securities, claims or property interests, or partly in such exchange and partly for cash, where the terms and conditions of such issuance and exchange are approved, after a hearing upon the fairness of such terms and conditions at which all persons to whom it is proposed to issue securities in such exchange shall have the right to appear, by any court, or by any official or agency of the United

Elements Constituting “Solicitation” Such that a 14A Proxy Solicitation is Required Instead of a 14C Information Statement Under the Section 14 Proxy Rules of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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.

Companies with securities registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) are subject to the Exchange Act proxy rules found in Section 14 and the rules promulgated thereunder. The proxy rules govern the disclosure in materials used to solicit shareholders’ votes in annual or special meetings held for the election of directors and the approval of other corporate action.

The information contained in proxy materials must be filed with the SEC in advance of any solicitation to ensure compliance with the disclosure rules. Solicitations, whether by management or shareholder groups, must disclose all important facts concerning the issues on which holders are asked to vote. The disclosure information filed with

New FINRA Requirements for Corporate Actions Require More Thorough Documentation on Behalf of Issuers

As of December 1, 2008, the Financial Industry Regulation Authority (FINRA) began a new policy for effectuating corporate actions for OTCBB quoted and traded securities (securities quoted and traded on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board and the PinkSheets). Corporate actions include anything that would require notification to FINRA and the issuance of a new trading symbol, such as a name change, reverse or forward stock split.

Prior to the initiation of the new procedures, Issuers making corporate changes were only required to submit a short cover letter explaining the action and providing the new CUSIP number. In addition, they were required to submit a copy of the documents evidencing the corporate action, including board

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

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

Potential Impact of Rule SEC Release #34-60515 Regarding Proposal to Extend Regulation NMS Coverage to OTC Securities

FINRA, in August of 2009, filed Release No. 34-60515 with the SEC. FINRA proposes to extend certain NMS protections to quoting and trading in the OTC market for equity securities.

In summary:

Restrictions on sub-penny quoting;
Prohibitions on locked or crossed markets;
Implementation of caps on access fees;
Requirements of transparency of customer limit orders.

FINRA’s goals, part of broadly anticipated changes in financial systems, are proposed as part of efforts to both modernize and achieve higher “quality” in the OTC marketplace.

1. Sub-Penny Quote Restrictions

FINRA addresses both issues of modernization and higher quality by proposing to restrict sub-penny quoting in conjunction with removing the requirement that ATS’s include non-subscriber access fees within its quote. Restricting sub-penny quoting may help prevent the practice of “stepping ahead” of displayed limit orders by trivial amounts.

The proposal will most effect small businesses whose securities trade for under $1.00. Under FINRA’s proposal, market participants will be able to quote in increments ranging

Examination of Rule 144 and Potential Interpretations

The SEC revised Rule 144, effective February 15, 2008. Section 144 rules are used to ascertain if a company falls into an exemption from registration, because of non-underwriter status. But if securities, or the transaction, are registered as required, 144 doesn’t apply. The revisions aimed to reduce previous limits on resale of restricted securities by reporting companies. Unfortunately, a certain amount of ambiguity has also crept in.

The Rule had clearly required a one-year holding period. But included in the new Rule 144(i) is the following: (paraphrased) “if a company has ever been a shell company[1], past or present, then the company must be current on its periodic SEC filings for twelve months following the time it ceases to be a shell, before 144 is available.”

For non-affiliates of non-reporting companies, the one year holding period requirement remains.

Rule 144 thus allows non-affiliates of a reporting company to resell restricted securities after a six-month holding period,

OTCBB Reporting Requirements Enable Successful Reverse Mergers

Companies subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (amended to the “Exchange Act”), without current business operations, and trading on the NASDAQ Over the Counter Bulletin Board (“OTCBB”), commonly known as Bulletin Board Shells, have become the vehicle of choice for private companies seeking to go public through a reverse merger.

Although the domestic economy has slowed, reverse mergers still flourish, and Chinese-based companies in particular have taken the lead in reverse mergers with Bulletin Board Shells. As old sectors slow, new sectors such as biofuels, health supplements, and agricultural science have risen to lead the charge into the public arena.

SEC Reporting Requirements Make Due Diligence Practical

Bulletin Board Shells have become the vehicle of choice for private companies seeking public status. This is due in part to increasing industry pressure for public companies to maintain total disclosure of their financial condition and operations.

Bulletin Board Shells and OTCBB Companies must prepare and file

Market Makers Rely on Due Diligence in Reverse Mergers

Following approval of the 15c2-11 application by FINRA, and the consistent quotation of a company’s securities, market makers may “piggy back” on the approved and completed 15c2-11. In short, a market maker may quote the share price of the Bulletin Board Shell while relying on the due diligence of other market makers and the company’s current SEC filings.

Although highly technical, the due diligence process can be completed quickly and thoroughly by an experienced securities attorney; the key is knowing where to look and what to look for. For example:

All articles and amendments are ordered from the company’s state of domicile and reviewed for procedural correctness and historical understanding.
DTC (the Depository Trust Company) is contacted to confirm the company is in a transferable status.
In addition to financial statement review, using several proprietary online search services, the firm conducts comprehensive debt and litigation searches to identify any miscellaneous debts as well as pending or past litigation.
A tax

Reverse Mergers Hinge on Due Diligence and Cleaning Up Public Shells

When a publicly traded company “goes dark” and becomes delinquent in its filing requirements, it generally becomes a public shell and is no longer quoted on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). However, with the assistance of an experienced securities attorney, the shell company can be restored so that a merger candidate can be introduced.

Some of the specific details that constitute the clean-up process include:

Reinstating the Company’s corporate charter and paying franchise taxes to the Company’s state of domicile, if necessary
Working with a PCOAB (Public Company Oversight Accounting Board) auditor to update all necessary financial statements and audits
Holding a shareholder meeting for purposes of electing directors and amending articles of incorporation and bylaws as necessary
Updating the Company’s articles of incorporation and bylaws to ensure they suit the needs of the successor Company
Conducting reverse splits of the Company’s outstanding shares of common stock in order to decrease the size of the outstanding common

Contact Information

Recent Posts

Legal Resources

Tweets

DEVELOPED AND MANAGED BY

Featured On

Contact Author

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?