Court Overrules Nasdaq Board Diversity Rule
The court has come to the rescue once again! On December 11, 2024, the 5th Circuit held that the SEC exceeded its authority in approving Nasdaq’s board diversity rule finding the rule was far removed from the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act’s regulatory regime. Rumor has it that the Nasdaq does not intend to appeal, meaning the board diversity rule may be DOA.
Background
On August 6, 2021, the SEC approved Nasdaq’s board diversity listing standards proposal adding new listing Rule 5606(a) (see HERE).
Nasdaq Rule 5606(a) requires Nasdaq listed companies to publicly disclose, in an aggregated form, to the extent permitted by law (for example, some foreign countries may prohibit such disclosure), information on the voluntary self-identified gender and racial characteristics and LGBTQ+ status of the company’s board of directors as part of the ongoing corporate governance listing requirements. Each company must provide an annual Board Diversity Matrix disclosure, including: (i) the total number of directors;
Court Strikes Down Recent Changes To Definition Of A Dealer
In a big win for hedge funds and the crypto industry, on November 21, 2024, a Texas federal judge overturned the recent SEC rule that expanded the definition of “dealer” under the Exchange Act. For a review of the final rule see HERE.
The amendments were intended to require certain proprietary or principal traders and liquidity providers to register as either a dealer or government securities dealer as applicable. The rules amended Exchange Act Rules 5a5-4 and 3a44-2 to enhance the definition of “as part of a regular business” in Sections 3(a)(5) and 3(a)(44) of the Exchange Act.
In a legal challenge, the Crypto Freedom Alliance of Texas and Blockchain Association sued the SEC claiming that the rule amendments radically expanded the definition of a “dealer” in a way that could encompass digital asset industry participants (and hedge funds) that do not engage in any conduct resembling “dealing” as that term has ever been
Introducing The OTCID
OTC Markets has announced the launch of a new market tier. Effective July 2025, Pink Current will become the OTCID, a basic reporting market requiring companies to meet minimal current information disclosures and provide management certifications. OTC Markets will still maintain the Pink Limited and Expert Market tiers for companies that do not qualify for the OTCID. OTC Markets has not yet published all of the requirements for the OTCID, but I suspect they will be similar to the existing Pink Current, with the addition of the management certifications.
I support the change and new branding opportunity. OTC Markets have struggled in recent years, primarily as a result of an inability for OTC Markets traded companies to obtain institutional financing or underwriter/placement agent banker support. Forever the optimist, the change could be just what is needed to revitalize the OTC Markets as a venture market place for U.S. micro-cap companies.
OTCID
Currently, the OTC Markets divides issuers into
SEC Adopts New EDGAR Rules
A year after publishing proposed rules, on September 27, 2024, the SEC adopted rule and form amendments to the EDGAR system dubbing the updates as EDGAR Next (for a review of the proposed rules see HERE). The rule changes are meant to enhance security and improve access to the EDGAR system. My view is that will accomplish the former and not the latter. The changes require EDGAR filers to authorize identified individuals who are responsible for managing the filers’ EDGAR accounts. Individuals acting on behalf of filers on EDGAR will need individual account credentials to access those EDGAR accounts and make filings.
The new rules amend Rules 10 and 11 of Regulation S-T and amend Form ID. Only the identified authorized individuals will be able to access a filer’s EDGAR account. The authorized individual(s) need not be an employee of the filer, but the filer needs to provide a notarized power of attorney to appoint someone.
Through the
Foreign Private Issuers – SEC Registration And Reporting And Nasdaq Corporate Governance – Part 1
Although many years ago I wrote a high-level review of foreign private issuer (FPI) registration and ongoing disclosure obligations, I have not drilled down on the subject until now. While I’m at it, in the multi part blog series, I will cover the Nasdaq corporate governance requirements for listed FPIs.
Definition of a Foreign Private Issuer
Both the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) contain definitions of a “foreign private issuer” (“FPI). Generally, if a company does not meet the definition of an FPI, it is subject to the same registration and reporting requirements as any U.S. company.
The determination of FPI status is not just dependent on the country of domicile, though a U.S. company can never qualify regardless of the location of its operations, assets, management and subsidiaries. There are generally two tests of qualification as a foreign private issuer, as follows:
Related Party Transactions – Foreign Private Issuers
About a year ago, the SEC brought several enforcement proceedings targeting shortcomings in related party transactions disclosures, including by Lyft. The action provides a reminder that Item 404(a) is broadly construed and reminded me that related party transactions are a topic worthy of blogging about. Last week I published a blog on related party transaction disclosures for domestic companies (see HERE) and this week covers foreign private issuers (FPIs).
Item 404 of Regulation S-K sets forth the related party disclosure obligations for domestic companies that must be included in various periodic reports and registration statements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and in registration statements under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”). Foreign private issuers can comply with Item 404 by providing the information required by Item 7.B of Form 20-F plus any additional information required by its home.
Item 7.B of Form 20-F
General Disclosure
Item 7.B of Form 20-F requires certain disclosure
Related Party Transactions – Domestic Companies
About a year ago, the SEC brought several enforcement proceedings targeting shortcomings in related party transactions disclosures, including by Lyft. The action provides a reminder that Item 404(a) is broadly construed to require a description of transactions since the beginning of the registrant’s last fiscal year in excess of $120,000 in which it was or is to be a participant, and in which a related person had or will have a direct or indirect material interest. When the cases came out, I added related party transactions to my (very long) list of topics worthy of a blog and now is the time.
Item 404 of Regulation S-K sets forth the related party disclosure obligations for domestic companies that must be included in various periodic reports and registration statements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and in registration statements under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”). Foreign private issuers can comply with Item 404 by providing the
Terminating Reporting Obligations In An Abandoned IPO
It has been a tough few years for small cap (and all) initial public offerings (IPOs). Although I have been seeing a small up-tick in priced deals recently, we are not yet near the highs of 2020 – 2022. Among the various challenges facing IPO issuers, lengthy Nasdaq/NYSE review periods and trouble building out sufficient allocations have been especially difficult resulting in a lengthier IPO process than expected.
An increased IPO timeline adds significant expense to the process. A registration statement cannot go effective with stale financial statement. Financial statements for domestic issuers go stale every 135 days requiring either a new quarterly review or annual audit and an amended registration statement. Likewise, financial statements for foreign private issuers (FPIs) go stale every nine months. When an issuer is nearing the end date for financial statements, and it appears that a closing of an IPO may be imminent, they sometimes choose to go effective and rely on Rule 430A.
NYSE Approves Change To Delist Companies That Change Primary Business
On July 24, 2024, the SEC approved an NYSE rule change to allow for the delisting of companies that change their primary business.
NYSE Continued Listing Standards
As I wrote about in October 2023, the NYSE continued listing requirements as set forth in the Listed Company Manual section 802.01 include (pre-rule change) (see HERE):
- Distribution of Capital Stock: (i) total stockholders of 400; or (ii) total stockholders of 1,200 and an average monthly trading volume of less than 100,000 shares; or (iii) total non-affiliated publicly held shares of 600,000.
- Market Value: (i) average global market capitalization of less than $50 mil and stockholders equity is less than $50 mil for 30 consecutive trading days.
- Disposal of Assets – Reduction of Operations: The NYSE will consider a suspension or delisting if: (i) the company has sold or otherwise disposed of its principal operating assets or has ceased to be an operating company or has discontinued a substantial portion of its
Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron Deference
In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a decades old judicial precedent that provided guidance as to when judges could defer to a federal agencies’ interpretation of a law. The original precedent derived from the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave deference to federal agencies’ interpretations of a law over the judicial system. Although Chevron applied to all federal agencies, in light of a slew of recent litigation by and against the SEC related to rule making and interpretations (for example related to who is a “dealer” – see HERE) I decided to cover it in a blog.
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (“Chevron”) held that a government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations if its interpretation is reasonable. In other words, if
