SEC Proposes Regulation Crypto Assets: Chartering A Clear Capital-Raising And Exit Framework For Token Issuers – Part 2
On August 18, 2026, the SEC took its most historic step toward modernizing digital market rules by proposing Regulation Crypto Assets. This landmark proposal establishes a purpose-built federal pathway for token fundraising transactions and a conditional exit from investment contract status. By shifting from a policy of regulation by enforcement to a codified set of exemptions and safe harbors, the SEC has provided clear parameters that public company boards, founders, and advisers need to structure compliant offerings.
The proposed new rules, titled “Regulation Crypto Assets” : (i) establishes a startup registration exemption for certain offers, sales, and other distributions of covered investment contracts during a period of up to four years permitting offerings up to $5 million over that rolling four-year period; (ii) creates a registration exemption that would permit up to $75 million during each 12 month period, modeled in large part after Regulation A, including with a two tier system; (iii) creates a safe harbor Read More »
SEC、Regulation Crypto Assetsを提案：トークン発行者の資金調達とイグジットに向けた明確な枠組みを構築 ― パート2
2026年8月18日、米国証券取引委員会（SEC）は、「Regulation Crypto Assets」を提案し、デジタル市場規制の近代化に向けて、これまでで最も歴史的な一歩を踏み出しました。この画期的な提案は、トークンによる資金調達取引のために特別に設計された連邦レベルの枠組みを確立するとともに、一定の条件の下で投資契約としての地位から離脱するための道筋を示すものです。SECは、「エンフォースメントによる規制」から、成文化された免除規定およびセーフハーバーへと方針を転換することで、上場企業の取締役会、創業者、アドバイザーが法令に準拠した募集を組成するために必要な明確な基準を示しました。
「Regulation Crypto Assets」と題する規則案は、以下の内容を定めています。(i) 対象となる投資契約の一定の募集、販売その他の分配について、最長4年間にわたり適用され、そのローリング方式による4年間で最大500万ドルまでの募集を認めるスタートアップ向け登録免除を設けること、(ii) Regulation Aを大幅に参考にした2段階の制度を含め、各12か月間に最大7,500万ドルまでの募集を認める登録免除を創設すること、(iii) 「証券」の定義における「投資契約」への該当性についてセーフハーバーを設けること、ならびに (iv) 証券法第18条に基づく州法の適用除外規定が、Regulation Crypto Assetsに基づく募集および販売ならびに一定の流通市場取引にも適用されるよう、「適格購入者」を定義することです。
ポール・S・アトキンス委員長は、この新たな規則体系を、イノベーションを米国内に呼び戻し、米国における資本形成を活性化するための重要な仕組みと位置付けました。SECは、デジタルトークンに旧来のS-1登録要件を適用するのではなく、基盤となるブロックチェーン資産と、その分配に伴う投資契約とを区別する、原則ベースの規制制度を提案しています。この待望の変更により、発行者には法的に明確な道筋が示される一方、個人の投資額に厳格な上限を設けることで、個人投資家の保護も図られます。
パート1では、2025年3月にSECと米商品先物取引委員会（CFTC）が共同で公表した暗号資産の分類に関するガイダンスを含む背景について詳しく解説しました。また、パート1では、Regulation Crypto Assetsに基づく登録免除の概要についても説明しています。詳細はこちらをご覧ください：。本シリーズのパート2では、統合に関する事項、流通市場での取引、州法の適用除外など、新たな免除規定の実務面についてさらに詳しく解説します。
開示要件
Regulation Crypto Assetsの規則103では、開示は原則に基づいて行うことが明確に定められていますが、同規則は、スタートアップ向け免除と資金調達向け免除の双方について、一定の開示要件も定めています。Regulation Crypto Assetsに基づいて提供される情報は、発行者、対象となる暗号資産、および関連する暗号資産ネットワークまたは関連する暗号資産アプリケーションに応じて適切に調整し、専門用語や業界特有の用語に過度に依存することなく、明確かつ簡潔で理解しやすい表現で提示する必要があります。また、提供される情報では、発行者、対象となる暗号資産、および関連する暗号資産ネットワークまたは関連する暗号資産アプリケーションの現在の開発段階を明らかにするとともに、将来を見据えた開発計画や今後の開発計画について明確に区別して記載する必要があります。
具体的には、開示事項を以下の項目に整理することが提案されています。(i) 対象となる投資契約、(ii) 募集、(iii) 対象となる暗号資産、(iv) 経営陣、関係者および利益相反、(v) 関連する暗号資産ネットワーク／アプリケーションおよび開発計画、(vi) セキュリティおよびソースコード、(vii) 対象となる暗号資産の経済的仕組みおよび配分、(viii) ガバナンス、(ix) 対象となる暗号資産のエコシステム、ならびに (x) リスク要因です。
投資契約セーフハーバー：SECの管轄から離脱するための明確な道筋
Regulation Crypto Assets規則案の中で、法的に最も重要かつ革新的な要素は、一定の条件を満たしたトークンについて、証券としての取扱いを終了できる条件付きセーフハーバーです。約10年にわたり、トークン発行者は、デジタル資産が当初の法的分類を恒久的に維持するという硬直的な考え方の下で対応を迫られ、流通市場取引には規制上の不確実性が常につきまとってきました。新たなセーフハーバーは、連邦証券規制の適用対象から離脱するための明確かつ客観的な道筋を示すものです。
規則150に基づき、発行者は、投資家に約束したすべての「不可欠な経営上の取り組み」を完了するか、恒久的に停止した時点で、そのトークンを「投資契約」の定義から外すことができます。これは、基盤となるブロックチェーンネットワークが十分な分散化を達成した場合、または創設チームが開発に関する約束を履行した場合に該当します。このセーフハーバーの適用を受けるためには、発行者はEDGARシステムを通じてForm TRを提出する必要があります。Form TRには、ネットワークが自律的に機能していること、および投資家が資産価値について創設グループの経営上の取り組みにもはや依存していないことを示す、詳細な証明および裏付けとなる分析を記載する必要があります。
不可欠な経営上の取り組みと、ローンチ後の維持管理との区別は極めて重要です。2026年の解釈指針によれば、開発上のマイルストーン、資金調達、スケジュールに関する具体的な表明は、不可欠な経営上の取り組みに該当します。一方、ローンチ後の維持管理、セキュリティパッチの適用、または通常のネットワーク機能の強化はこれに該当しません。
Form TRがSECによって適格と認められると、そのトークンは、証券法または証券取引所法のいずれにおいても、投資契約の対象ではなくなったものとみなされます。この移行により、トークンは事実上SECの管轄から外れ、デジタル・コモディティまたはユーティリティ・ツールとして流通市場のプラットフォームで自由に取引できるようになります。
特に重要なのは、この規則案が、当初の募集とその後の流通市場取引の双方について、州レベルのブルースカイ法の適用除外も定めている点です。この適用除外により、これまで米国のデジタル資産市場を分断する要因となってきた、州ごとに異なる登録手続きに伴う高額なコストや負担が解消されます。なお、この特別な規制枠組みは、暗号資産に関する「対象となる投資契約」にのみ適用される点に留意する必要があります。従来型の株式や社債をトークン化したものについては、引き続き従来の証券規制が全面的に適用されます。さらに、GENIUS法に基づいて定義される決済用ステーブルコインは、独自の連邦規制制度の対象となるため、この枠組みから明確に除外されています。
統合
Regulation Crypto Assetsでは、規則152に定める一般的な統合基準が適用されます。規則152のセーフハーバー規定の概要については、こちらをご覧ください：。また、今回の規則案では規則152も改正し、Regulation Crypto Assetsに基づく免除を利用した募集が、いつ開始されたとみなされ、いつ終了または完了したとみなされるかを明確化することが提案されています。
トークン募集と従来の免除制度の調和：Regulation DとRegulation Sの併用
Regulation Crypto Assetsは、排他的なセーフハーバーではありません。Regulation Dの規則506(b)および(c)に基づく従来の私募や、Regulation Sの枠組みに基づく米国外での分配は、引き続き主要な資金調達手段として非常に有用です。しかし、従来の免除制度には大きな規制上の負担が伴います。これらの制度に基づいて発行された証券は、規則144に基づく「制限付証券」となり、1年間の強制的なロックアップ期間が課されるため、流動性のある流通市場の形成が妨げられます。さらに、Regulation Dは流通市場での取引について州レベルのブルースカイ法に基づく登録義務を排除しないため、市場参加者は州ごとに異なる複雑な規則に対応しなければなりません。これに対し、Regulation Crypto Assets規則案では、証券法第18条(b)(3)に基づく「適格購入者」の定義が設けられています。この定義により、当初の募集とその後の流通市場での取引の双方について、州レベルの登録義務が適用除外となります。新たな免除制度に基づいて発行されるトークンは制限付証券に該当しないため、発行後直ちに自由に譲渡することができ、ネットワーク効果の形成を促進する上で重要な役割を果たします。これにより、企業の取締役会は、これらの免除制度を段階的に組み合わせて活用することができます。発行者は、まず500万ドルのスタートアップ向けセーフハーバーを利用して開発を開始し、その後、Form 1-CRYPTOを用いたTier 2の資金調達募集へ移行し、最終的には不可欠な経営上の取り組みが終了した時点で、証券としての地位から完全に離脱することができます。別の方法として、発行者は、機関投資家からの資金調達ラウンドにはRegulation Dに基づく私募を利用する一方、規則案の暗号資産に関する枠組みを活用して、譲渡制限のないユーティリティトークンをネットワーク参加者に直接分配することもできます。
ブルースカイ法の適用除外と流通市場インフラ
取引プラットフォームやブローカー・ディーラーにとって、Regulation Crypto Assets規則案は、流通市場の流動性を高める強力な仕組みを導入するものです。1933年証券法第18条(b)(3)の改正案に基づき、SECは、これらの取引を「適格購入者」を対象とする「対象証券」と定義しています。この定義により、当初の募集とその後の流通市場取引の双方について、州レベルの登録および適格性審査要件が事実上適用除外となります。この連邦法による適用除外は大きな節目となるもので、これまでデジタル資産の分配を分断してきた、州ごとに異なる複雑なブルースカイ法上の届出制度を解消するものです。
さらに、この規則案は、代替取引システム（ATS）が証券と従来型とは異なる資産の双方について流通市場での取引を促進し、統合された流動性プールを形成することを奨励することで、市場構造の効率化を図っています。デジタル・コモディティとトークン化された投資契約を単一の取引執行の場で取り扱うことにより、ATSはプロフェッショナル水準の市場効率性を実現することができます。ただし、今回の規則案が対象としていない事項を正確に理解することも重要です。SECは、この規則案において、流通市場プラットフォームが証券取引所法に基づき、ブローカー・ディーラー、代替取引プラットフォーム、または全国証券取引所として登録する必要があるかどうかについては判断していないことを明記しています。その代わり、SECは、ブローカー・ディーラーおよび取引所の登録に関するこれらの問題を、2026年の規制アジェンダにおける別個の規則制定に委ねています。さらに、この枠組みは1940年投資顧問法に基づくいかなる規則も変更するものではないため、登録業者に適用されるカストディおよびマーケティングに関するコンプライアンス要件に変更はありません。
実務上のリスク：ガンジャンピング、悪質行為者規則、UCC第8編
経営幹部やプロジェクト開発者にとって、Regulation Crypto Assets規則案は、早期かつ綿密な計画を必要とする重大な実務上のリスクをもたらします。まず、スタートアップ向け免除におけるガンジャンピングのリスクには、特に注意が必要です。この免除は、EDGARでForm NORを提出した後に行われる取引のみを保護対象としているため、提出前に一般向けのマーケティングや情報発信を行うと、セーフハーバーの適用を受けられなくなる可能性があります。トークンの有用性について時期尚早に投稿したり、プレゼンテーションで説明したりした場合、それが免除対象外の募集とみなされ、キャンペーン全体について証券の取消しに伴う賠償責任が生じる可能性があります。
次に、規則104案の悪質行為者に関する規定には、Regulation Aの規則262に定める失格基準が取り入れられています。規則の発効日前の行為によって、発行者が自動的に失格となるわけではありませんが、チームは販売前に、そのような事由をすべて各購入者に書面で開示しなければなりません。このデューデリジェンスを適切に実施しなければ、十分な注意を払っていない当事者にとって思わぬ落とし穴となる可能性があります。悪質行為者に関する規則の詳細については、こちらをご覧ください：。
最後に、トークン発行者は、その技術設計を州レベルのコーポレート・ガバナンスおよび統一商事法典（UCC）第8編に適合させる必要があります。連邦法によってブルースカイ法の適用が除外される場合であっても、所有権の移転を法的に有効なものとするためには、オンチェーン台帳上の記録が各州の法令に基づいて法的拘束力を有するものでなければなりません。
リレーションシップ・パートナー向けアドバイス：新たなライフサイクル規制への対応
上場企業の取締役会やデジタル資産分野のイノベーターに助言する主要なリレーションシップ・パートナーとして、私は、Regulation Crypto Assets規則案の枠組みが極めて大きな構造的機会をもたらすと考えています。SECは、エンフォースメント主導のモデルから、ライフサイクルに沿った規制上の道筋へと移行することで、初期段階の資金調達から証券としての地位から完全に離脱するまでの明確な道筋を示しています。この機会を適切かつ法令に準拠し、効率的に活用するためには、企業経営陣は4つの戦略的な取り組みを実行する必要があります。
第一に、ガンジャンピング違反を防止するため、提出前の情報発信を厳格に管理する体制を構築することです。Form NORを提出する前は、一般向けのプレゼンテーション、ホワイトペーパー、ソーシャルメディア上の発言など、すべての対外的な情報発信を法律顧問が厳格に監督する必要があります。
第二に、規則104に基づく書面による開示要件の対象となり得る悪質行為者に関する事由がないかを確認するため、開発チームについて徹底した経歴調査を実施することです。
第三に、有効かつ法的拘束力のある権利移転を確保するため、基盤となる分散型台帳のアーキテクチャが統一商事法典（UCC）第8編および州レベルの法人登録制度に適合していることを確認することです。
最後に、自社の商品やサービスに直接影響する規定に関して意見を表明するため、60日間のパブリックコメント期間中にSECへ積極的に意見を提出することです。当事務所では、クライアントの戦略的利益を保護するため、当事務所と緊密に連携し、個別に調整した意見書を作成することを推奨しています。こうした積極的な取り組みは、私が2025年6月17日付のブログ（こちらからご覧いただけます）で初めて取り上げたデジタル資産の開示に関する基本原則をさらに発展させ、現代の資本市場において法令に準拠した道筋を確立するものです。
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
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, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC（ALC）は、迅速でパーソナライズされた最先端の法的サービスをクライアントに提供してきました。当事務所の評判と人脈は、投資銀行、証券会社、機関投資家、その他の戦略的提携先への紹介など、クライアントにとって非常に貴重なリソースとなっています。当事務所の専門分野には、1933年証券法の募集・販売および登録要件の遵守（レギュレーションDおよびレギュレーションSに基づく私募取引、PIPE取引、証券トークン・オファリング、イニシャル・コイン・オファリングを含む）が含まれますが、これに限定されません。規制A/A+オファリング、S-1、S-3、S-8フォームの登録申請、S-4フォームによる合併登録、1934年証券取引法の遵守（フォーム10による登録、フォーム10-Q、10-K、8-Kおよび14C情報・14A委任状報告書）、あらゆる形態の株式公開取引、合併・買収（リバースマージャーおよびフォワードマージャーを含む）、ナスダックやNYSEアメリカンを含む証券取引所のコーポレートガバナンス要件への申請および遵守、一般企業取引、一般契約および事業取引が含まれます。アンソニー氏と当事務所は、合併・買収取引において、買収対象企業と買収企業の双方を代理し、合併契約、株式交換契約、株式購入契約、資産購入契約、組織再編契約などの取引文書を作成します。ALC法務チームは、公開企業が連邦および州の証券法やSROs要件に準拠することを支援しており、15c2-11申請、社名変更、リバース・フォワードスプリット、本拠地変更などにも対応しています。アンソニー氏はまた、中堅・中小企業向けの業界ニュースのトップ情報源であるSecuritiesLawBlog.comの著者であり、企業財務に特化したポッドキャスト『LawCast.com: Corporate Finance in Focus』のプロデューサー兼ホストでもあります。当事務所は、ニューヨーク、ロサンゼルス、マイアミ、ボカラトン、ウェストパームビーチ、アトランタ、フェニックス、スコッツデール、シャーロット、シンシナティ、クリーブランド、ワシントンD.C.、デンバー、タンパ、デトロイト、ダラスなど、多くの主要都市でクライアントを代理しています。
アンソニー氏は、Crowdfunding Professional Association（CfPA）、パームビーチ郡弁護士会、フロリダ州弁護士会、アメリカ弁護士会（ABA）および連邦証券規制やプライベート・エクイティ・ベンチャーキャピタルに関するABA委員会など、さまざまな専門団体のメンバーです。パームビーチ郡およびマーティン郡のアメリカ赤十字社、スーザン・コーメン財団、オポチュニティ社（Opportunity, Inc.）、ニュー・ホープ・チャリティーズ、フォー・アーツ協会（Society of the Four Arts）、ノートン美術館、パームビーチ郡動物園協会、クラヴィス・パフォーミング・アーツ・センターなど、複数の地域社会慈善団体を支援しています。
アンソニー氏はフロリダ州立大学ロースクールを優秀な成績で卒業しており、1993年から弁護士として活動しています。
Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC にお問い合わせください。技術的な内容に関するご質問もいつでも歓迎いたします。
The SEC’S 2026 Regulatory Agenda
The SEC has published its 2026 regulatory agenda (“Agenda”) and plans for rulemaking. The Agenda was historically published twice a year but beginning last year, has only been published once. For several years I have blogged about each publication. Although items on the Agenda can move from one category to the next, be dropped off altogether, or new items pop up in any of the categories (including the final rule stage), the Agenda provides valuable insight into the SEC’s plans and the influence that comments can make on the rulemaking process.
The Agenda is broken down by (i) Prerule Stage; (ii) Proposed Rule Stage; (iii) Final Rule Stage; and (iv) Long-term Actions. The Prerule, Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that. This year’s Agenda, firmly reflects the current administration’s commitment to crypto technology, improving the IPO market and refining public company compliance to ease burdens. Read More »
SECの2026年規制アジェンダ
SECは2026年の規制アジェンダ（以下「アジェンダ」）および今後の規則制定計画を公表しました。アジェンダは従来、年2回公表されていましたが、昨年からは年1回の公表となっています。私はここ数年、アジェンダが公表されるたびに、その内容についてブログで取り上げてきました。アジェンダに掲載された項目は、ある段階から別の段階へ移行することもあれば、完全に削除されることもあります。また、最終規則段階を含むいずれの段階にも、新たな項目が追加される可能性があります。それでも、アジェンダはSECの今後の方針を知るうえで貴重な手掛かりとなるほか、パブリックコメントが規則制定プロセスにどのような影響を及ぼし得るかを理解するうえでも有用です。
アジェンダは、（i）規則制定前の段階、（ii）規則案の段階、（iii）最終規則の段階、（iv）長期的な措置の4つに分類されています。規則制定前の段階、規則案の段階、最終規則の段階にある項目は、今後12カ月以内の完了を目指すものとされ、長期的な措置はそれより先に実施されるものを指します。今年のアジェンダは、暗号資産技術への取り組み、IPO市場の改善、そして上場企業のコンプライアンス体制を見直して負担を軽減するという現政権の姿勢を明確に反映しています。
規則制定前の段階
規則制定前の段階には、2つの項目のみが含まれています。いずれも昨年の規則制定前の項目として掲載されていたものです。具体的には、（i）資産担保証券の登録・開示制度の改善、（ii）統合監査証跡の継続的な有効性の評価です。資産担保証券の登録・開示制度の改善について、SECは、住宅ローン担保証券を含む資産担保証券の登録募集を促進するとともに、証券化市場をさらに改善するため、規制の変更案についてパブリックコメントを募集することを検討しています。統合監査証跡の継続的な有効性の評価については、SECは、統合監査証跡（CAT）の設計や機能、収集する情報の範囲などを含め、そのあり方を包括的に見直すため、パブリックコメントを募集することを検討しています。これは、明確に定められた規制上の目的を維持しつつ、継続的なコストやデータセキュリティ上の懸念に対応するため、CATの変更の可能性を検討することを目的としています。
規則案の段階
規則案の段階には36項目が含まれており、昨年のアジェンダの18項目から大幅に増加しています。今回初めてアジェンダに加わり、規則案の項目として掲載されたものの一つが、以前から注目されていた半期報告制度です。SECは2026年5月、米国国内の上場企業が自主的に半期報告制度へ移行できるようにする規則案を公表しました。規則案の詳細については、をご覧ください。また、今回新たに加わった項目として、役員報酬の開示制度改革があります。SECは、役員報酬の開示要件を合理化するため、レギュレーションS-Kの第402項の改正を勧告することを検討しています。さらに、連邦証券法に基づく情報の電子交付を可能にする、最近公表された規則案も今回のアジェンダに新たに加わりました。この規則案については近くブログで取り上げる予定ですが、資本市場関係者からは、「ようやく実現した」と歓迎する声が上がっています。
「ファインダー」も、長年にわたりアジェンダに掲載されたり、そこから外れたりしてきましたが、今回、規則案の項目として再びアジェンダに加わりました。SECは、証券取引所法第15条(a)の適用上、「ファインダー」の規制上の位置付けに関する規則案を検討しています。SECは実際、2020年にも規則案を公表しています。詳細については、をご覧ください。ただし、この規則案はその後立ち消えとなりました。今回は、ぜひ前進することを期待したいところです。
今回のアジェンダには、個人投資家の非公開市場への投資機会を拡大するための提案も新たに加わりました。SECは、1940年投資顧問法および1940年投資会社法に基づく既存規則の改正、または新たな規則の制定を検討しています。これは、登録投資会社を通じた個人投資家の非公開市場への投資をより促進するとともに、投資顧問会社がより広範な顧客層に対して成功報酬を請求できるようにすることを目的としています。また、関連会社を証券貸借代理人とする取決めも新たに加わりました。SECは、一定の条件の下で、登録投資会社が関連会社である証券貸借代理人を利用して証券を貸し出し、当該代理人が証券貸借取引から得られる収益の一部を報酬として受け取ることを認める新たな適用除外規則を、1940年投資会社法に基づいて制定することを検討しています。今回初めてアジェンダに掲載された項目としては、一定のSEC登録済みプライベートファンド投資顧問会社に提出が義務付けられている秘密報告書であるフォームPFの改正案があります。この改正は、特定されたコンプライアンス上の負担に対応することを目的としています。また、1940年投資顧問法に基づく規則206(4)-5の改正案も新たに加わりました。同規則は、投資顧問会社による「ペイ・トゥ・プレイ」と呼ばれる慣行を禁止するもので、今回の改正案は、特定されたコンプライアンス上の負担に対応することを目的としています。
さらに新たに加わった項目として、金融機関の破綻処理に関連する取引があります。SECは、金融機関の破綻処理手続きに関連して行われる取引について、明確性を確保するための規則改正を提案することを検討しています。また、1940年投資顧問法に基づく規則204-2の改正案もアジェンダに新たに加わりました。同規則は、投資顧問会社に一定の記録の作成・保存を義務付けるものです。今回の改正案では、電子通信に関する規制の適用範囲を適切に定めるとともに、特定されたコンプライアンス上の負担に対応し、同規則の制定後に生じた技術の進展も反映することが検討されています。
今回のアジェンダには、気候関連開示規則を正式に撤回するための規則案も新たに加わりました。同規則はすでに事実上廃止された状態にありますが、SECはその撤回を正式な手続きとして明確化することを提案しています。
また、規則案の段階には、セーフハーバーを利用できるケースを「増やす」ことを目的とした規則144の改正案も引き続き含まれています。現時点では、どのようなケースを追加するのかについて、それ以上の情報は公表されていません。さらに、規則案の段階には、暗号資産の募集および販売に関する規則も引き続き含まれています。これには、一定の適用除外やセーフハーバーを設けることや、暗号資産に関する規制の枠組みを明確化することなどが含まれる可能性があります。
規則案の段階から規則制定前の段階へと分類が変更された後、再び規則案の段階に戻された項目として、外国民間発行体の規制制度の見直しがあります。これには、外国民間発行体としての適格要件や報告義務の変更などが含まれます。SECによる外国民間発行体の定義に関するコンセプト・リリースおよび意見募集について取り上げた私の2回にわたるブログ記事は、以下からご覧いただけます。 および および
規則案の項目には、引き続き、新興成長企業（EGC）に対する各種の負担軽減措置の拡充と、報告会社の提出者区分の簡素化に関する項目も含まれています。SECは、EGCに適用される負担軽減措置を拡充するとともに、提出者区分を合理化し、分類を簡素化することでコンプライアンス上の負担を軽減することを検討しています。改正案では、（i）最も小規模な上場企業について、年次報告書その他の定期報告書の提出期限を延長すること、（ii）大規模早期提出会社の定義における時価総額の基準を7億ドルから20億ドルに引き上げ、IPO後に同区分に該当するまでの期間を12カ月から60カ月に延長すること、（iii）大規模早期提出会社に該当しないすべての上場企業を非早期提出会社に再分類し、現在は小規模報告会社および新興成長企業にのみ認められている開示要件の緩和措置その他の負担軽減措置のほぼすべてを適用すること、（iv）すべての非早期提出会社をサーベンス・オクスリー法第404条(b)の遵守義務から免除すること、が提案されています。この規則案の改正について取り上げた私のブログ記事は、以下からご覧いただけます.
規則案の項目には、引き続き、登録募集制度の改革も含まれています。これには、コンプライアンス上の負担を軽減し、資本調達を促進するためのシェルフ登録制度の改正案が含まれています。シェルフ登録届出書とは、フォームS-3またはF-3で提出される登録届出書であり、上場企業が資本を調達するうえで最も重要な手段の一つです。この登録募集制度を大きく変える可能性のある規則案について取り上げた私の4回にわたるブログ記事は、以下からご覧いただけます。 および;および; および; および.
規則案の項目には、引き続き、適用除外募集制度の見直しも含まれています。SEC Read More »
Tally Of NYSE American Recent Rule Changes And Proposals
The regulatory environment for small-cap and micro-cap issuers listed on national securities exchanges has been undergoing significant adjustments in the past couple of years. Like Nasdaq, recent changes to the NYSE American Company Guide (the “Company Guide”), as well as current proposals still on the table, have signaled a decisive shift toward upticking the size and quality of newly listed companies and allowing for the quick removal of thinly capitalized and low-priced issuers. Last week, I published a recap of the recent Nasdaq rule changes and proposals. This blog will summarize the recent NYSE American changes and proposals.
Many of the below changes relate to NYSE American’s initial listing standards. For a review of pre-rule change listing standards, see HERE.
Amended NYSE Listed Company Manual Section 101 – Market Value of Publicly Held Shares Can Only be Satisfied on the Basis of Unrestricted Publicly Held Shares
In April 2026, the NYSE American amended NYSE Listed Company Manual Read More »
NYSE Americanの最近の規則改正・規則改正案の一覧
ここ数年、全米証券取引所に上場する小型株および超小型株（マイクロキャップ）発行会社を取り巻く規制環境は、大きな見直しが進められています。ナスダックと同様に、NYSE American Company Guide（以下「Company Guide」）の最近の規則改正や、現在も検討が続いている規則改正案は、新規上場企業の規模および質の向上を図るとともに、資本規模が小さく株価の低い発行会社を迅速に上場廃止できるようにする方向への明確な方針転換を示しています。私は先週、最近のナスダックにおける規則改正および規則改正案を総括した記事を公開しました。本稿では、NYSE Americanにおける最近の規則改正および規則改正案について概説します。
以下で取り上げる改正の多くは、NYSE Americanの新規上場基準に関するものです。規則改正前の上場基準については、 をご参照ください。
NYSE上場会社マニュアル第101条の改正 ― 公開保有株式の時価総額要件は、譲渡制限のない公開保有株式に基づいてのみ充足可能
2026年4月、NYSE AmericanはNYSE上場会社マニュアル第101条を改正し、上場要件を変更しました。これにより、企業は公開保有株式の時価総額要件を、譲渡制限のない公開保有株式のみに基づいて充足することができるようになりました。この変更を実施するため、取引所は「譲渡制限付き証券」、「公開保有株式」、「譲渡制限のない証券」および「譲渡制限のない公開保有株式」について新たな定義を追加しました。第101条の目的上、取引所は「譲渡制限付き証券」を、理由の如何を問わず再販売制限の対象となるあらゆる証券と定義しています。これには、以下のものが含まれますが、これらに限定されません。(1) 私募またはRegulation Dに基づく募集などの未登録募集において、発行会社または発行会社の関連会社から直接または間接的に取得された証券、(2) 従業員向け株式給付制度を通じて、または専門的サービスの報酬として取得された証券、(3) Regulation Sに基づき取得され、米国内で再販売することができない証券、(4) ロックアップ契約または同様の契約上の制限の対象となる証券、または (5) Rule 144に基づき「譲渡制限付き証券」とみなされる証券です。取引所は「公開保有株式」を、役員、取締役、または発行済み株式総数の10％超を実質的に保有する者が直接または間接的に保有していない株式と定義しています。公開保有株式を算定する際の実質保有の判断は、証券取引法Rule 13d-3に従って行われます。取引所は「譲渡制限のない証券」を、譲渡制限付き証券ではない証券と定義しています。また、取引所は「譲渡制限のない公開保有株式」を、譲渡制限のない証券に該当する公開保有株式と定義しています。
NYSE上場会社マニュアル第101条の改正 ― 譲渡制限のない公開保有株式の時価総額要件は、新規募集による調達資金のみによって充足可能
2026年4月、NYSE AmericanはNYSE上場会社マニュアル第101条を改正し、上場要件を変更しました。これにより、IPOに関連して上場する企業（ADRを登録する外国民間発行体を含む）は、初回上場時における譲渡制限のない公開保有株式の時価総額要件（適用される初回上場基準に応じて1,500万ドル、1,500万ドル、1,500万ドルまたは2,000万ドル）を、募集による調達資金のみによって満たさなければならなくなりました。従来は、再販売目的で登録された既発行株式を、この算定における譲渡制限のない公開保有株式として算入することができましたが、今後は算入できなくなります。
NYSE上場会社マニュアル第101条の改正 ― 公開保有株式の時価総額は1,500万ドル以上であることが必要
2026年4月、NYSE AmericanはNYSE上場会社マニュアル第101条を改正し、上場要件を変更しました。これにより、初回上場基準1に基づいて申請する企業は、譲渡制限のない公開保有株式の時価総額を1,500万ドル（上記のとおり、新規募集による調達資金に基づく金額）確保する必要があり、従来の300万ドルから引き上げられました。初回上場基準2、初回上場基準3、および初回上場基準4では、発行会社はそれぞれ1,500万ドル、1,500万ドル、および2,000万ドルの公開保有株式の時価総額を有することが求められます。
NYSE上場会社マニュアル第102条の改正 ― 公開保有株式数は20万株以上を維持することが必要
2026年4月、NYSE AmericanはNYSE上場会社マニュアル第102条を改正し、公開保有株式数が20万株未満となった上場会社は、上場廃止手続の対象となることを定めました。公開保有株式とは、役員、取締役、または発行済み株式総数の10％超を実質的に保有する者が直接または間接的に保有していない株式と定義されています。
NYSE上場会社マニュアル第1003条の改正 ― 公開保有株式の保有者総数は300人以上を維持することが必要
2026年4月、NYSE AmericanはNYSE上場会社マニュアル第1003条を改正し、公開保有株式の保有者総数が300人未満となった場合に上場廃止の対象となることを定めました。従来、企業は単に総株主数を300人以上に維持することが求められていました。新たな基準では、役員、取締役、または発行済み株式総数の10％超を実質的に保有する者は除外されます。
NYSE上場会社マニュアル第1003条の改正 ― 公開保有株式の合計時価総額は100万ドル以上を維持することが必要
2026年4月、NYSE AmericanはNYSE上場会社マニュアル第1003条を改正し、公開保有株式の合計時価総額が90日間連続して100万ドル未満となった場合には、上場廃止手続の対象となることを定めました。従来、100万ドルという最低基準は、新たに定義されたより厳格な「公開保有株式」ではなく、公開株式全体を基礎として算定されていました。
NYSE上場会社マニュアル第102条の改正 ― 初回上場時の最低株価を4.00ドルに引き上げ
2026年4月、NYSE AmericanはNYSE上場会社マニュアル第102条を改正し、いずれかの初回上場基準に基づいて上場を申請する企業は、1株当たり4.00ドルの株価を有することを求められるようになりました。従来の基準では、初回上場基準1、2、および3の場合は1株当たり3.00ドル、初回上場基準4の場合は1株当たり2.00ドルでした。
上場市場変更時における時価総額および株価要件の改正
2026年4月、NYSE Americanは初回上場基準3および初回上場基準4を改正し、OTC Marketsからの上場市場変更または他の取引所からの移転によって上場する既存の公開会社について、以下の総時価総額要件を満たすことを定めました。(i) 初回上場基準3では5,000万ドル、(ii) 初回上場基準4では、(x) 総時価総額7,500万ドル、または (y) 直近会計年度、もしくは直近3会計年度のうち2会計年度において、総資産および総収益がそれぞれ7,500万ドルであることのいずれかを満たす必要があります。適用される要件は、上場申請前の90連続取引日にわたって満たされている必要があり、同じ期間において、提案された1株当たり4ドルの株価要件も満たさなければなりません。
初回上場基準2の改正 ― 株主資本要件を500万ドルに引き上げ
2026年4月、NYSE Americanは上場基準2における株主資本要件を400万ドルから500万ドルに引き上げました。
NYSE上場会社マニュアル規則802.01Cの改正 ― 逆株式分割によりその他の不適合が生じた場合の上場廃止手続の迅速化
2025年1月、NYSE AmericanはNYSE上場会社マニュアル規則802.01Cを改正し、上場会社が継続上場のための最低入札価格要件への適合を回復する目的で逆株式分割を実施したものの、その結果、最低ラウンドロット保有者数や公開流通株式数など、その他の上場基準を下回った場合に、迅速な上場廃止手続を適用できるようにしました。
最終規則の詳細については、 をご参照ください。
NYSE上場会社マニュアル規則802.01Cの改正 ― 逆株式分割後の不適合に対する上場廃止手続の迅速化
2025年1月、NYSE AmericanはNYSE上場会社マニュアル規則802.01Cを改正し、上場会社が最低入札価格要件に不適合となり、かつ、(i) 過去1年間に逆株式分割を実施している場合、または (ii) 過去2年間に1回以上の逆株式分割を実施し、その累積分割比率が200対1以上である場合に、迅速な上場廃止手続を適用できるようにしました。この場合、当該会社は適合期間の対象とはならず、直ちに取引停止および上場廃止の対象となります。
最終規則の詳細については、をご参照ください。
NYSE上場会社マニュアル規則802.01の改正 ― 主たる事業を変更した企業の上場廃止を認める規定
2024年7月、NYSE AmericanはNYSE上場会社マニュアル規則802.01を改正し、主たる事業を変更した企業の上場廃止を認める規定を導入しました。この改正により、NYSEは、その裁量により、上場会社が当初の上場時点で従事していなかった、または当初の上場時点では事業運営において重要性を有していなかった新たな事業分野へ主たる事業の焦点を変更した場合、当該上場会社を直ちに取引停止および上場廃止の対象とすることができるようになりました。
新規則の下では、主たる事業の焦点を変更する企業は、その変更について速やかに書面でNYSEへ通知しなければなりません。その後、NYSEは継続上場に関する審査を実施し、上場廃止措置を講じる可能性があります。継続上場審査では、当該企業が当初の上場時点で変更後の事業に従事していた場合に、NYSEが初回上場を承認していたかどうかが判断の中心となります。また、この審査では、定量的な基準よりも、上場適格性に関する質的な側面が重視されます。NYSEは、企業の経営陣、取締役会、議決権、所有構造、および財務構造の変更など、その他の要素も考慮します。改正規則の詳細については、 をご参照ください。
第1003条および第1009条の改正案 ― 時価総額500万ドル未満の企業に対する自動上場廃止
NYSE Americanは、NYSE American Company Guide第1003条および第1009条を改正し、NYSE Americanに上場する企業に対して、少なくとも500万ドルの時価総額を維持することを義務付けることを提案しています。提案された規則では、企業の平均時価総額が30営業日連続して500万ドルを下回った場合、直ちに取引停止となり、上場廃止手続が開始されることになります。
提案された規則変更の改正案3の詳細については、 をご参照ください。
第1003条および第1009条の改正案 ― いずれかの取引日に終値が0.25ドル未満となった企業の自動上場廃止
NYSE Americanは、NYSE American Company Guide第1003条および第1009条を改正し、いずれかの取引日において証券の1株当たり終値が0.25ドル未満（以下「最低取引価格」）となった場合、取引所が直ちに取引を停止し、上場廃止手続を開始することを明確化することを提案しています。取引所は、Company Guide第1003(f)(v)において、最低取引価格を下回って取引を終えた証券は、Company Guide第1009条に基づく適合回復計画を提出する権利を有しないことを明記することを提案しています。取引所は、第1003(f)(v)における最低取引価格要件（およびこれに関連する第1009条の変更）を2026年10月1日付で施行することを提案しています。提案された規則変更の詳細については、 をご参照ください。
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
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 Read More »
SEC Spring 2025 Regulatory Agenda
The SEC has published its semi-annual Spring 2025 regulatory agenda (“Agenda”) and plans for rulemaking. The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication. Although items on the Agenda can move from one category to the next, be dropped off altogether, or new items pop up in any of the categories (including the final rule stage), the Agenda provides valuable insight into the SEC’s plans and the influence that comments can make on the rulemaking process.
The Agenda is broken down by (i) Prerule Stage; (ii) Proposed Rule Stage; (iii) Final Rule Stage; and (iv) Long-term Actions. The Prerule, Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that. In what is the shortest Agenda I have seen, the number of items to be completed in a 12-month time frame is 23, down from 30 on the Fall 2024 Agenda Read More »
Rule 144 – A Deep Dive – Part 6 – Manner Of Sale & Form 144 Notice Filings
In this sixth and final installment of my series on Rule 144, I will continue discussing the various conditions for the use of the Rule covering manner of sale requirements and the filing of a Form 144 for affiliates. In the first installment, I provided a high-level review of Rule 144 – see HERE ; in the second, I discussed definitions including the impactful “affiliate” definition – see HERE; in the third I reviewed the current public information requirements – see HERE; in the fourth I covered holding periods – see HERE; and in the fifth I covered limitations on the amount of securities that can be sold – see HERE.
Conditions for Use of Rule 144
General
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 is Read More »
Rule 144 – A Deep Dive – Part 5 – Limitations On Amount Of Securities Sold
In this fifth installment of my series on Rule 144, I will continue discussing the various conditions for the use of the Rule, covering limitations on the amount of securities that may be sold. In the first installment, I provided a high-level review of Rule 144 – see HERE ; in the second, I discussed definitions including the impactful “affiliate” definition – see HERE; in the third I reviewed the current public information requirements – see HERE; and in the fourth I covered holding periods – see HERE.
Conditions for Use of Rule 144
General
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 is 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 Read More »
Rule 144 – A Deep Dive – Part 4 – Holding Period
In this fourth installment of my series on Rule 144, I will continue discussing the various conditions for the use of the Rule, including the meaty holding period requirements. In the first installment, I provided a high-level review of Rule 144 – see HERE; in the second, I discussed definitions including the impactful “affiliate” definition – see HERE; and in the third I reviewed the current public information requirements – see HERE.
Conditions for Use of Rule 144
General
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 is 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. Read More »
Rule 144 – A Deep Dive – Part 3 – Current Public Information
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 Read More »
Rule 144 – A Deep Dive – Part 2 – Definitions
Last week I published a high-level review of Rule 144 – see HERE. This week, I will begin the deep dive discussion of the numerous intricacies of this very important rule, starting with definitions.
Rule 144 Definitions
Rule 144 only has four definitions, but there is a lot to discuss on each of these definitions.
Affiliate
Rule 144 sets forth different conditions for sellers that are “affiliates” or a person that has been an affiliate in the past 90 days then for those that are non-affiliates. Sales by affiliates always require that a company have current public information, are subject to volume limitations (the drip rules), are subject to manner of sale requirements (sales must be made through a broker-dealer) and require the filing of a Form 144. Sales by non-affiliates only require current public information when effectuated after six months but prior to a one year holding period and are never subject to the volume limitations, Read More »
Rule 144 – A Deep Dive – Part 1
It has been ten years since I summarized Rule 144 (see HERE), and at that time it was a very high level overview, not a deep dive into the numerous intricacies of the rules application. Rule 144 is likely the most oft used rule by founders, private investors, early investors, affiliates and insiders, and merger/reverse merger participants, and as such deserves some focus.
I will start this blog series with a high-level overview of Rule 144 and then unpack the numerous individual requirements in the following editions.
Rule 144 – Basic Overview
As I repeat again and again, every offer or sale of securities must either be registered or have an available exemption from registration. Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) sets forth certain requirements for the use of Section 4(a)(1) for the sale of restricted or control securities by an existing shareholder. Control securities are those securities held by an affiliate of Read More »
Widespread “Dealer” Litigation Is Almost Over!
In August 2024, then SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda made a public statement against the rampant enforcement proceedings against small cap investors claiming violations of the dealer registration requirements (see HERE). Fast forward to today, now Chair of the SEC, Mr. Uyeda, is sticking by his contentions and finally, after eight long years of numerous enforcement proceedings, is directing the SEC to roll back its position.
What Happened
This week, the SEC enforcement division entered into two joint motions halting ongoing litigation claiming violations of the dealer registration rules. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered an order in the case involving Auctus Fund Management staying the case while the parties wrap up an agreement to end the litigation. Under the agreement Auctus will not seek attorney fees from the government or pursue a review of the enforcement action.
In the filing, Auctus said “[T]he parties have reached an agreement in principle to dismiss this Read More »
Commissioner Uyeda’s Statement On Dealer Litigation
On August 19, 2024, SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda published a statement regarding one of the numerous defendants in SEC initiated enforcement proceedings claiming unlicensed dealer activity. The statement resonates with the sentiments of most of my colleagues, peers and clients.
Background
In November 2017 the SEC shocked the industry when it filed an action against Microcap Equity Group, LLC and its principal alleging that its investing activity required licensing as a dealer under Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. Since that time, the SEC has filed numerous additional cases with the sole allegation being that the investor acted as an unregistered dealer. In each case, the investor entity purchased convertible promissory notes from micro-cap OTC Markets issuers (or other existing note holders), which, after the applicable Rule 144 holding period, were converted into shares of common stock and sold on the open market. As the securities were generally low priced, the conversions resulted in large quantities of additional Read More »
Who Is An Affiliate And Why Does It Matter – Primary VS Secondary Offering
The concept of affiliation resonates throughout the federal securities laws, including pertaining to both the Securities Act and Exchange Act rules, regulations and forms and Nasdaq and NYSE compliance. In this multipart series of blogs, I will unpack what the term “affiliate” means and its implications. This first blog in the series began with an analysis of the Securities Act definition of “affiliate” and the implications under Rule 144, Section 4(a)(7) and Form S-3 eligibility (see HERE). In this Part 2 of the series, I am delving into the meaty topic of a primary vs. secondary offering, which itself hinges on whether the offeror is an affiliate.
Secondary/Resale Offerings vs. Primary Offerings
A secondary offering is an offering made by or on behalf of bona fide selling shareholders and not by or on behalf of the registrant company. A secondary offering can only occur after a company is public. That is, even if a company goes public Read More »
The 211 Rules And Shell Companies
In September 2020, the SEC adopted a complete overhaul of the 15c2-11 rules, the new rules of which went into effect on September 28, 2021. From a very high level, the new 211 rules: (i) require that information about the company and the security be current and publicly available in order to initiate or continue to quote a security; (ii) limit certain exceptions to the rule including the piggyback exception where a company’s information becomes unavailable to the public or is no longer current; (iii) limit certain exceptions to the rule including the piggyback exception where a company becomes and remains a shell company for a period of 18 months; (iv) reduce regulatory burdens to quote securities that may be less susceptible to potential fraud and manipulation; (v) allow OTC Markets itself to evaluate and confirm eligibility to rely on the rule; and (vi) streamline the rule and eliminate obsolete provisions. For an in-depth discussion on the 15c2-11 rules, Read More »
SEC Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda
On January 4, 2023, the SEC published its semiannual Fall 2022 regulatory agenda (“Agenda”) and plans for rulemaking. The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions contains the Regulatory Plans of 28 federal agencies and 68 federal agency regulatory agendas. My favorite Commissioner, Hester M. Peirce, was quiet about the agenda, not issuing a public statement this time. Upon publication of the Spring 2022 Agenda, Commissioner Peirce ripped the Agenda as being disconnected with the SEC’s core mission and as being focused on special interest groups instead of a broad range of market participants. The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication.
The Agenda is broken down by (i) “Pre-rule Stage”; (ii) Proposed Rule Stage; (iii) Final Rule Stage; and (iv) Long-term Actions. The Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that. The number of items to Read More »
SEC Proposes New Rules For SPACs – Part 5
On March 30, 2022, the SEC proposed rules related to SPAC and de-SPAC transactions including significantly enhanced disclosure obligations, expanding the scope of deemed public offerings in these transactions, making a target company a co-registrant when a SPAC files an S-4 or F-4 registration statement associated with a business combination, and aligning de-SPAC transactions with initial public offering rules. In addition, the SEC has also proposed rules that would deem any business combination transaction involving a reporting shell company, including but not limited to a SPAC, to involve a sale of securities to the reporting shell company’s shareholders. The new rules would amend a number of financial statement requirements applicable to transactions involving shell companies.
In addition to proposing new rules for SPAC and de-SPAC transactions, the SEC is proposing new Securities Act Rule 145a that would deem all business combinations with an Exchange Act reporting shell to involve the sale of securities to the reporting shell company’s Read More »
OTC Markets; Rule 144; The SPCC
Small public companies are in trouble and they need help now! Once in a while there is a perfect storm forming that can only result in widespread damage and that time is now for small public companies, especially those that trade on the OTC Markets. The trains on track to collide include a combination of (i) the impending amended Rule 15c2-11 compliance deadline (which alone would be and is a clear positive); (ii) the proposed Rule 144 rule changes to eliminate tacking upon the conversion of market adjustable securities; (iii) the SEC onslaught of litigation against micro-cap convertible note investors claiming unlicensed dealer activity; (iv) the OTC Markets new across the board unwillingness to allow companies to move from the Pink to the QB if they have outstanding convertible debt; and (v) the SEC’s unwillingness to recognize the OTC Pink as a trading market and its implications on re-sale registration statements.
Any one of these factors alone would not Read More »
SEC Fall 2020 Regulatory Agenda
The SEC’s latest version of its semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking has been published in the federal register. The Fall 2020 Agenda (“Agenda”) is current through October 2020. The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions contains the Regulatory Plans of 28 federal agencies and 68 federal agency regulatory agendas. The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication.
Like the prior Agendas, the Fall 2020 Agenda is broken down by (i) “Pre-rule Stage”; (ii) Proposed Rule Stage; (iii) Final Rule Stage; and (iv) Long-term Actions. The Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that. The number of items to be completed in a 12-month time frame is down to 32 items. The Spring Agenda had 42 and the Fall 2019 had 47 on the list.
Items on the Agenda can move from one category to Read More »
Section 12(g) Registration
Unlike a Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) registration statement, a Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) Section 12(g) registration statement does not register securities for sale or result in any particular securities becoming freely tradeable. Rather, an Exchange Act registration has the general effect of making a company subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements under Section 13 of that Act. Registration also subjects the company to the tender offer and proxy rules under Section 14 of the Act, its officers, directors and 10%-or-greater shareholders to the reporting requirements and short-term profit prohibitions under Section 16 of the Act and its 5%-or-greater shareholders to the reporting requirements under Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Act.
A company may voluntarily register under Section 12(g) at any time and, under certain circumstances, may also terminate such registration (see HERE).
In addition, unless an exemption is otherwise available, a company must register under Section 12(g), if as of the Read More »
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 Read More »
The 2017 SEC Government-Business Forum On Small Business Capital Formation Final Report
The SEC has published the final report and recommendations of the 2017 annual Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation (the “Forum”). As required by the Small Business Investment Incentive Act of 1980, each year the SEC holds a forum focused on small business capital formation. The goal of the forum is to develop recommendations for government and private action to eliminate or reduce impediments to small business capital formation. I previously summarized the opening remarks of the SEC Commissioners. See HERE.
The forum is taken seriously by the SEC and its participants, including the NASAA, and leading small business and professional organizations. Recommendations often gain traction. For example, the forum first recommended reducing the Rule 144 holding period for Exchange Act reporting companies to six months, a rule which was passed in 2008. In 2015 the forum recommended increasing the financial thresholds for the smaller reporting company definition, and the SEC did indeed propose a change Read More »
SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Holds Final Meeting
On September 13, 2017, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) held its final meeting and issued its final report. The Committee was organized by the SEC for a two-year term 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.”
As the two-year term is expiring, Congress has determined to establish an Exchange Act-mandated, perpetual committee to be named the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee. The SEC is also setting up a new Office of Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and is actively seeking to Read More »
Recommendations Of SEC Government-Business Forum On Small Business Capital Formation
In early April, the SEC Office of Small Business Policy published the 2016 Final Report on the SEC Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation, a forum I had the honor of attending and participating in. As required by the Small Business Investment Incentive Act of 1980, each year the SEC holds a forum focused on small business capital formation. The goal of the forum is to develop recommendations for government and private action to eliminate or reduce impediments to small business capital formation.
The forum is taken seriously by the SEC and its participants, including the NASAA, and leading small business and professional organizations. The forum began with short speeches by each of the SEC commissioners and a panel discussion, following which attendees, including myself, worked in breakout sessions to drill down on specific issues and suggest changes to rules and regulations to help support small business capital formation, as well as the related, secondary trading markets. In Read More »
SEC Issues New C&DI On Rule 701
On June 23, 2016, the SEC issued seven new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DI”) related to Rule 701 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). On October 19, 2016, the SEC issued an additional three C&DI. The majority of the new C&DI focus on the effect on Rule 701 issuances following a merger or acquisition and clarify financial statement requirements under Rule 701. Two of the new C&DI address restricted stock awards including the disclosure requirements are triggered and when the holding period begins under Rule 144.
Rule 701 – Exemption for Offers and Sales to Employees of Non-Reporting Entities
Rule 701 of the Securities Act provides an exemption from the registration requirements for the issuance of securities under written compensatory benefit plans. Rule 701 is a specialized exemption for private or non-reporting entities and may not be relied upon by companies that are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as Read More »
House Passes More Securities Legislation
In what must be the most active period of securities legislation in recent history, the US House of Representatives has passed three more bills that would make changes to the federal securities laws. The three bills, which have not been passed into law as of yet, come in the wake of the Fixing American’s Surface Transportation Act (the “FAST Act”), which was signed into law on December 4, 2015.
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 an amendment to the definition of accredited investor. None of the bills have been passed by the Senate as of yet.
Meanwhile, the SEC continues to finalize rulemaking under both the JOBS Act, which was passed into law on April 5, Read More »
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 Read More »
SEC Issues Guidance On General Solicitation And Advertising In Regulation D Offerings
Effective September, 2013, the SEC adopted final rules eliminating the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in Rules 506 and 144A offerings as required by Title II of the JOBS Act. The enactment of new 506(c) resulting in the elimination of the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in private offerings to accredited investors has been a slow but sure success. Trailblazers such as realtymogul.com, circleup.com, wefunder.com and seedinvest.com proved that the model can work, and the rest of the capital marketplace has taken notice. Recently, more established broker-dealers have begun their foray into the 506(c) marketplace with accredited investor-only crowdfunding websites accompanied by marketing and solicitation to draw investors.
The historical Rule 506 was renumbered to Rule 506(b) and issuers have the option of completing offerings under either Rule 506(b) or 506(c). Rule 506(b) allows offers and sales to an unlimited number of accredited investors and up to 35 unaccredited investors, provided however that if any unaccredited investors Read More »
Going Public Transactions For Smaller Companies: Direct Public Offering And Reverse Merger
Introduction
One of the largest areas of my firms practice involves going public transactions. I have written extensively on the various going public methods, including IPO/DPOs and reverse mergers. The topic never loses relevancy, and those considering a transaction always ask about the differences between, and advantages and disadvantages of, both reverse mergers and direct and initial public offerings. This blog is an updated new edition of past articles on the topic.
Over the past decade the small-cap reverse merger, initial public offering (IPO) and direct public offering (DPO) markets diminished greatly. The decline was a result of both regulatory changes and economic changes. In particular, briefly, those reasons were: (1) the recent Great Recession; (2) backlash from a series of fraud allegations, SEC enforcement actions, and trading suspensions of Chinese companies following reverse mergers; (3) the 2008 Rule 144 amendments, including the prohibition of use of the rule for shell company and former shell company shareholders; (4) problems Read More »
The Section 4(a)(1) And 4(a)(1½) Exemption; Recommendations For An Amendment To Rule 144 Related To Shell Companies
What are the Section 4(a)(1) and Section 4(a)(1½) exemptions, and how do they work?
Section 4(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) provides an exemption for a transaction “by a person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.” Rule 144 provides a non-exclusive safe harbor for the sale of securities under Section 4(a)(1). In the event that Rule 144 is unavailable, a holder of securities may still rely upon Section 4(a)(1). Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act provides an exemption for sales by the issuer not involving a public offering. The issuer itself may not rely on Section 4(a)(1), and selling security holders may not rely on Section 4(a)(2).
Case law and the SEC unilaterally conclude that an affiliate (officer, director or greater than 10% shareholder) of the issuer may not rely on Section 4(a)(1) for the resale of securities. In particular, an affiliate is presumptively deemed an underwriter unless such affiliate meets the requirements for use of Read More »
First Issuer Completes NASAA Coordinated Review For Regulation A Offering
ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100
——————————————————————————————————
The first issuer has completed the NASAA coordinated review process to qualify to sell securities in multiple states under Regulation A. As the first and only issuer to complete this process, the issuer (Groundfloor Finance, Inc.) took the time to write a comment letter to the SEC with respect to its Regulation A+ rulemaking and in particular to discuss its experience with the NASAA coordinated review process. The issuer’s comment letter was followed by a letter to SEC Chair Mary Jo White from the House Financial Services Committee requesting that the SEC study the NASAA Coordinated Review Program.
The Coordinated Review Process
The NASAA coordinated review process is well put together and seems to have a focus on both investor protection and supportive assistance for the issuer. An issuer elects to complete the coordinated review process by completing a Form CR-3b and submitting the application together with a copy of the completed Form Read More »
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 Read More »
Depositing Penny Stocks with Brokers Creates Obstacles; SEC Charges E*Trade with Section 5 Violation
ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100
——————————————————————————————————
Introduction
On October 9, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed an enforcement action against E*Trade Securities and E*Trade Capital Markets for selling billions of shares of unregistered and otherwise restricted penny stocks for their customers. The SEC found that the firms processed the sales on behalf of three customers while ignoring red flags that the offerings being conducted were in violation of the federal securities laws in that the shares were neither registered nor subject to an available exemption from registration. E*Trade Securities and E*Trade Capital Markets settled the enforcement proceeding by agreeing to pay a total of $2.5 million in disgorgement and penalties.
The SEC press release on the matter quoted Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, as saying, “Broker-dealers serve an important gatekeeping function that helps prevent microcap fraud by taking measures to ensure that unregistered shares don’t reach the market if the registration rules Read More »
SEC Filed Actions Against 19 Firms and One Individual Trader for Violation of Rule 105 of Regulation M
ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100
——————————————————————————————————
On September 16, 2014, the SEC filed actions against 19 firms and one individual trade for short selling violations in advance of public stock offerings in violation of Rule 105 of Regulation M. The SEC has actively enforced Regulation M since its enactment in 1996. Regulation M is designed to prevent stock manipulation during public offerings and Rule 105 particularly prohibits short selling of stock within five business days of participating in an offering for the same stock. That is, you cannot short stock and cover your short by buying the same stock from the underwriter in a public offering. Rule 105 prevents downward pressure on a company’s stock price during the offering process.
The SEC’s current investigation found that 19 firms and one individual trader charged in these latest cases engaged in short selling of particular stocks shortly before they bought shares from an underwriter, broker, or dealer participating in a follow-on Read More »
Direct Public Offerings by Shell Companies- Tread Carefully
We thank each and every one of our Securities-Law-Blog.com readers for your devotion and positive interaction. Without you, writing these blogs just wouldn’t be exciting. Nominate Securities Law Blog for this year’s ABA Journal Blawg 100 and keep the dynamic energy flowing. Our readers are our greatest strength. Click Here to nominate.
________________________________________
As I’ve written about previously, recently (albeit not officially) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has materially altered its position on offerings by shell companies that are not blank check companies. In particular, over the past year, numerous shell companies that are not also blank check companies have completed direct public offerings using a S-1 registration statement and successfully obtained market maker support and a ticker symbol from FINRA and are trading.
Rule 419 and 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 Read More »
What is A CUSIP and Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) Number?
CUSIP stands for Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures. A CUSIP number identifies securities, specifically U.S. and Canadian registered stocks, and U.S. government and municipal bonds. The CUSIP system—owned by the American Bankers Association and operated by Standard & Poor’s—facilitates the clearing and settlement process of securities by giving each such security a unique identifying number.
The CUSIP number consists of a combination of nine characters, both letters and numbers, which act as individual coding for the security—uniquely identifying the company or issuer and the type of security. The first six characters identify the issuer and are alphabetical; the seventh and eighth characters, which can be alphabetical or numerical, identify the type of issue; and the last digit is used as a check digit. A CUSIP number changes with each change in the security, including splits and name changes.
Whereas CUSIP identifies securities, a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) identifies issuers. An LEI is a new global standard identifier for Read More »
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 Read More »
Concurrent Public and Private Offerings
Background
Conducting concurrent private and public offerings has historically been very tricky and limited, mainly as a result of the SEC’s position that the filing of an S-1 registration statement and unlimited ability to view such registration statement on the SEC EDGAR database in and of itself acted as a general solicitation and advertisement negating the availability of most private placement exemptions. In addition to the impediment of finding a private exemption to rely on, concurrent private and public offerings raised concerns of gun jumping by offering securities for sale prior to the filing of a registration statement, as prohibited by Section 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. However, with the enactment of the JOBS Act including its Rule 506(c) allowing general solicitation and advertising in an exempt offering, rules allowing the confidential submittal of registration statements for emerging growth companies (EGC) and rules permitting testing the waters communications prior to and after the filing of a Read More »
Crowdfunding Using Intrastate Offerings and Rule 147 – Is Florida Next?
As required by Title III of the JOBS Act, on October 23, 2013, the SEC published proposed crowdfunding rules. The SEC has dubbed the new rules “Regulation Crowdfunding.” The entire 584-page text of the rule release is available on the SEC website. The proposed rules invite public comment on many points and have indeed resulted in such comments. As of today, it is unclear when final rules will be released and passed into law and what changes those final rules will have from the proposed rules. Moreover, upon passage of the final rules, there will be a period of ramping up time in which crowdfunding portals complete the process of registering with the SEC, becoming members of FINRA and completing the necessary steps to ensure that their portal operates in compliance with those final rules. Federal crowdfunding it coming, but it is a slow process.
In the meantime, many states have recently either enacted or introduced state-specific crowdfunding Read More »
Understanding Section 3(a)(9) Exchanges and Conversions as Related to Convertible Promissory Notes
As an attorney specializing in the representation of companies and investment funds in the micro, small and mid cap arena, we work on corporate financing transactions involving convertible debt almost daily. These transactions provide a tremendous amount of benefit to these small cap companies, in that they obtain cash today that will be repaid with common stock tomorrow. Financing using convertible instruments that are repaid with stock is one of the many reasons an entity may choose to go public. However, the financing comes at a price including both dilution to existing stockholders and likely a reduced stock price resulting from the selling pressure when the debt is converted. Of course, all financing has pros and cons and public entities need to consider Read More »
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 Read More »
The SEC Establishes Key Exemption to the Broker-Dealer Registration Requirements for M&A Brokers
On January 31, 2014, the SEC Division of Trading and Markets issued a no-action letter in favor of entities effecting securities transactions in connection with the sale of equity control of private operating businesses (“M&A Broker”). The SEC stated that it would not require broker-dealer registration for M&A Brokers arranging for the sale of private businesses, in accordance with the facts and circumstances set forth in the no action letter, as described below.
For many years the SEC has maintained a staunch view that any and all activities that could fall within the broker-dealer registration requirements set forth in Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), require registration. See also the SEC Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration (2008) on the SEC website.
In accordance with the SEC Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration, providing any of the following services may require the individual or entity to be registered as a broker-dealer:
- “finders,” “business brokers,” and
A Basic Overview of Rule 144
The Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) Rule 144 sets forth certain requirements for the use of Section 4(1) 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.” The terms “Issuer” and “dealer” have pretty straightforward meanings under the Securities Act, but the term “underwriter” does not. 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.
Although not set out in the statute, all transfer agents and Issuers, along with most clearing and brokerage firms, require an opinion of Read More »
SEC Files Proceedings Against 19 S-1 Companies and Suspends Trading on 255 Shell Companies
A. S-1 Proceedings
On February 3, 2014, the SEC initiated administrative proceedings against 19 companies that had filed S-1 registration statements. The 19 registration statements were all filed with an approximate 2-month period around January 2013. Each of the companies claimed to be an exploration-stage entity in the mining business without known reserves, and each claimed they had not yet begun actual mining. The 19 entities used the same attorney, who is the subject of a separate SEC action filed in August 2013 alleging involvement in a pump-and-dump scheme. Each of the entities was incorporated at around the same time using the same registered agent service. The 19 S-1’s read substantially the same.
Importantly, each of the 19 S-1’s lists a separate officer, director and sole shareholder, and each claims that this person is the sole control person. The SEC complains that contrary to the representations in the S-1, a separate single individual is the actual control person behind each Read More »
DTC Has Published Proposed Rules Related To Chills and Locks
Background
On October 8, 2013, I published a blog and white paper providing background and information on the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) eligibility, chills and locks and the DTC’s then plans to propose new rules to specify procedures available to Issuers when the DTC imposes or intends to impose chills or locks. On December 5, 2013, DTC filed these proposed rules with the SEC and on December 18, 2013, the proposed rules were published and public comment invited thereon (“Rule Release”). For background on DTC basics such as eligibility and the evolving procedures in dealing with chills and locks, please see my prior blog here .
The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) is a central securities depository in the U.S. which was originally created as a central holding and clearing system to handle the flow of trading securities and the problems with moving physical certificates among trading parties. The DTC is regulated by the SEC, the Federal Reserve System and the Read More »
Direct Public Offering or Reverse Merger; Know Your Best Option for Going Public
Introduction
For at least the last twelve months, I have received calls daily from companies wanting to go public. This interest in going public transactions signifies a big change from the few years prior.
Beginning in 2009, the small-cap and reverse merger, initial public offering (IPO) and direct public offering (DPO) markets diminished greatly. I can identify at least seven main reasons for the downfall of the going public transactions. Briefly, those reasons are: (1) the general state of the economy, plainly stated, was not good; (2) backlash from a series of fraud allegations, SEC enforcement actions, and trading suspensions of Chinese companies following reverse mergers; (3) the 2008 Rule 144 amendments including the prohibition of use of the rule for shell company and former shell company shareholders; (4) problems clearing penny stock with broker dealers and FINRA’s enforcement of broker-dealer and clearing house due diligence requirements related to penny stocks; (5) DTC scrutiny and difficulty in obtaining clearance following Read More »
How to Complete an Unregistered Spin-Off
A spin-off is 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. The distribution normally takes the form of a dividend by the parent corporation. 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) Read More »
OTC Markets Comments on Proposed SEC Rules Regarding Amendments to Regulation D, Form D and Rule 156
On July 10, 2013, the SEC issued proposed rules further amending Regulation D, Form D and Rule 156. On September 23, 2013 the OTC Markets Group published a letter responding to the SEC’s request for comments on the proposed rules. The entire OTC Markets comment letter is available on both the OTC Markets website and the SEC website. The OTC Markets Group, through OTC Link, owns and operates OTC Markets and its quotation platforms including OTCQX, OTCQB and pink sheets.
Summary of Proposed Rule Changes
The proposed amendments will (i) require the filing of a Form D to be made before the Issuer engages in any general solicitation or advertising in a Rule 506(c) offering and require the filing of a closing Read More »
DTC Unveils Procedures and Plans for a Rule Change that Applies to Issuers Affected By Chills and Locks
Background
Back in October and November of 2011, I wrote a series of blogs regarding DTC eligibility for OTC (over-the-counter) Issuers. A key eligibility criterion is that the securities that were distributed in accordance with Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 do not have transfer restrictions and are freely tradable. To meet this criterion, the securities must have been issued pursuant to an effective registration statement or valid exemption thereto. I have followed that series with various blogs regarding DTC chills and the evolving process to first learn the cause of the chill and second, to reach a resolution.
The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) is a central securities depository in the U.S. which was originally created Read More »
New SEC Rules Have Eliminated the Prohibition Against General Solicitation and Advertising in Rules 506 and 144A Offerings
In a historic 4-1 vote on July 10, 2013, the SEC has adopted final rules eliminating the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising in Rules 506 and 144A offerings as required by Title II of the JOBS Act. On the same day, the SEC adopted amendments to Rule 506 to disqualify “felons and bad actors” from participating in Rule 506 offerings. This blog discusses the rules eliminating the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising. A separate blog will discuss the felon and bad actor disqualifications.
The SEC has also adopted modifications to Form D to require Issuers to specify if they are conducting an offering that permits general solicitation and advertising and to change the required time of filing the Form D for Read More »
Section 3(a)(10) Debt Conversions in a Shell Company Pre-Reverse Merger
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 “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 States, or by any State or Territorial banking or insurance commission or other governmental authority expressly authorized by law to grant such Read More »
How To Bring A Delinquent Exchange Act Reporting Company Current
SEC Delinquent Filers Program
In 2004 the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) instituted the Delinquent Filers Program and created the Delinquent Filers Branch as part of its Division of Enforcement. The Delinquent Filers Branch was instituted to encourage publicly traded companies that are delinquent in the filing of their required periodic reports (Forms 10-K and 10-Q) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to provide investors with accurate financial information upon which to make informed investment decisions. The securities registrations of issuers that fail to make their required periodic filings are subject to suspension or revocation by the SEC and other enforcement proceedings.
Since it was instituted, the SEC Delinquent Filers Branch has suspended the trading and/or revoked the registration of hundreds of companies, often in sweeps of large groups of filers in a single day. Generally, a delinquent filer would receive a letter from the SEC giving the Company 10 days in which to make the Read More »
CROWDFUNDING FROM A TO Z
As the expected deadline for the SEC to publish rules and regulations enacting the Crowdfunding Act (Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act)) grows nearer, it is a good time for a complete overview of crowdfunding. New Sections 4(6) and 4A of the Securities Act of 1933 codify the crowdfunding exemption and its various requirements as to Issuers and intermediaries. The SEC is in the process of drafting the underlying rules and regulations which will implement these new statutory provisions.
A. WHAT IS CROWDFUNDING?
The Crowdfunding Act amends Section 4 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) to create a new exemption to the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act. The new exemption allows Issuers to solicit “crowds” to sell up to $1 million in securities as long as no individual investment exceeds certain threshold amounts.
The threshold amount sold to any single investor cannot exceed (a) the greater of $2,000 Read More »
Q2 By The Numbers – An Analysis of Market
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%. Read More »
Form 10 Registration Statements
A Form 10 Registration Statement is a registration statement used to register a class of securities pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). To explain a Form 10 registration statement, let’s start with what it isn’t. It is not used to register specific securities for sale or re-sale and does not change the transferability of any securities. That is, a Form 10 registration statement does not register a security for the purposes of Section 5[1] of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) . Following the effectiveness of a Form 10 registration statement, restricted securities remain restricted and free trading securities remain free trading.
The Purpose of Form 10 Registration Statements
Now onto what a Form 10 registration is. As indicated above a Form 10 registration statement is used to register a class of securities. Any Company with in excess of $10,000,000 in total assets and 750 or more record shareholders Read More »
Rule 144 and the Evergreen Requirement Examined
Technically Rule 144 provides a safe harbor from the definition of the term “underwriter” such that a selling shareholder may utilize the exemption contained in Section 4(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, to sell their restricted securities. In addition, Rule 144 is used to remove the restrictive legend from securities in advance of a sale. In layman terms, Rule 144, allows shareholders to either remove the restrictive legend or sell their unregistered shares.
Rule 144(i), as amended, provides in pertinent part that the Rule is unavailable to issuers with no or nominal operations or no or nominal non-cash assets. That is the rule is unavailable for the use by shareholders of any company that is or was at any time previously, a shell company. A shell company is one with no or nominal operations and either no or nominal assets, assets consisting solely of cash and cash equivalents or assets consisting of any amount of cash and Read More »
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
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 Read More »
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 Read More »
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 Read More »
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 Read More »
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 Read More »
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 Read More »
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 Read More »
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 Read More »
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, Read More »
