Although many aspects of an IPO are unaffected by a pandemic, assuming the capital markets continue to have an appetite for public offerings, the grueling road show has gone virtual, and it may be here to stay. An old-fashioned road show involved an intense travel schedule and expensive setup. The new virtual road show can be completed in half the time and a fraction of the price, and interestingly, the IPO’s that have been completed since March 2020, have all priced their deals at the midpoint or higher of their ranges. The lack of face-to-face presentations is not hurting the deals.
I tend to believe the world has changed forever. However, fluidity of memory and a capacity to adapt are fundamental human traits and we have and will adapt our business style to adjust to a world where germs are a real enemy and getting sick doesn’t just mean a day or two out of the office. There has been
The topic of reporting requirements and distinctions between various categories of reporting companies has been prevalent over the past couple of years as regulators and industry insiders examine changes to the reporting requirements for all companies, and qualifications for the various categories of scaled disclosure requirements. As I’ve written about these developments, I have noticed inconsistencies in the treatment of smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies in ways that are likely the result of poor drafting or unintended consequences. This blog summarizes two of these inconsistencies.
As a reminder, a smaller reporting company is currently defined as a company that has a public float of less than $75 million in common equity as of the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter, or if a public float of zero, has less than $50 million in annual revenues as of its most recently completed fiscal year-end. I note that on June 27, 2016, the SEC issued