Climate Disclosure Rules On The Way Out
On February 11, 2025 SEC Chairman Mark T. Uyeda issued a statement on the Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosure for Investors rule (“Climate Disclosure Rule”) adopted by the SEC on March 6, 2024 and later stayed as a result of ongoing litigation.
Commissioner Uyeda reiterated both he and Commissioner Peirce’s consistent view that the current disclosure rules are sufficient to cover any material climate related disclosures. Furthermore, the Climate Disclosure Rule lacks statutory authority, SEC expertise and goes beyond the SEC’s arena of capital market regulation.
Commissioner Uyeda points out (and I whole-heartedly agree) that the Climate Disclosure Rule would require a large volume of financially immaterial information overstepping the SEC’s authority.
The Rule is currently preparing for oral argument in front of the Eighth Circuit based on briefs submitted by the prior administration. Commissioner Uyeda has instructed the SEC litigation team to inform the Court that the SEC’s previously submitted briefs do not reflect the SEC’s
NASDAQ Finalizes Amendments To Accelerate Delisting Process
On January 17, 2025 the SEC approved Nasdaq’s rule change to accelerate the delisting process for companies that fail to regain compliance with the minimum bid price requirements following a second compliance period and for securities that have had a reverse stock split over the prior one-year period. The final rule was passed as last submitted by Nasdaq, though in between the SEC required substantial additional analysis delaying the process on 3 occassions.
These rule changes follow other recent rule changes meant to reduce the number of ultra micro-cap companies trading on the national exchange and tighten up compliance for those that do meet the standards. In October 2024, Nasdaq amended Rule 5810(c)(3)(A) to allow for an accelerated delisting process where a listed company uses a reverse split to regain compliance with the bid price requirement for continued listing, but that as a result of the reverse split, the company falls below other listing standards, such as the minimum
SEC Enforcement Actions For Late Form D Filings
In a first, the SEC settled three enforcement actions on December 20, 2024, for failing to timely file a Form D in connection with private offerings. The three companies included one private fund and two private operating businesses.
The SEC enforcement actions were solely related to a violation of Rule 503 (as described below) and did not include any charges of fraud or other nefarious activity. As a result of the settlements each of these companies are prohibited from relying on Regulation D in the future, unless specifically granted a waiver by the SEC.
In its release, the SEC stated that the SEC relies on Form D filings to assess the scope of the Regulation D market and whether the market is balancing the need for investor protection and the furtherance of capital formation, especially for smaller businesses. The SEC also relies on Form D to monitor compliance with the requirements of Regulation D. Likewise, state regulators rely on
Court Issues Nationwide Injunction on Corporate Transparency Act
On December 3, 2024, in what was not at all surprising, a Texas court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement and staying the compliance date of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). The Court found that the CTA is unconstitutional as outside of Congress’s power.
A full discussion of the CTA is included below. The Texas court found that the CTA represents a federal attempt to monitor companies created under state law and eliminates the corporate anonymity feature designed by states charged with regulating corporate formation – both in violation of the U.S. Constitution and its explicit separation of powers.
The court’s opinion is strongly written, determining that the government could not justify the constitutionality of the law, regardless of every attempt. In particular, the Plaintiff’s contend that CTA violates: (i) the Ninth and Tenth Amendments by intruding on State’s rights; (ii) the First Amendment by compelling speech and burdening individuals’ rights of association; and (iii) the Fourth Amendment by
Registration Statement Undertakings
Every four years we go through a regulatory dead zone as the SEC prepares for a change in administration with new priorities, new interpretations, and a whole new rulemaking agenda, including the potential unwinding of the prior administration’s rules. While waiting for the significant changes to come, I’ll continue to dive into the endless detailed topics of disclosure and other requirements of the federal securities laws. This week I’ll cover the ongoing requirements associated with an effective registration statement – known as “Undertakings.”
Every registration statement filed pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), whether by a domestic company or foreign private issuer (“FPI”) requires the registrant to include a statement as to certain affirmative undertakings by such company. Item 512 of Regulation S-K sets forth the undertakings, and registration statements on Forms S-1, S-3, F-1 and F-3 must include all items set forth in Item 512. Registration Statements on Form S-8 need only include the undertakings in
Internet Availability of Proxy Materials
A few weeks ago, I wrote about shareholder meeting timelines, which included a brief discussion as to how a company can increase, or decrease, a meeting timeline by delivering proxy materials by making them available on the internet – see HERE. This week I am going to drill down on Rule 14a-16 including disclosure obligation and technical requirements for utilizing “Internet Availability of Proxy Materials.”
Rule 14a-16 – Internet Availability of Proxy Materials
Rule 14a-16 governs a company’s ability to make proxy materials available over the internet, as opposed to printing and mailing, which can be expensive and time consuming. Rule 14a-16 provides that when a company is making proxy materials available over the internet, it must mail a notice to all security holders a minimum of 40 calendar days before the meeting, or if there is no meeting, before the consents or authorizations may be used to affect the consented upon corporate action.
Companies may not
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
