Free Writing Prospectus
I’m finding a lot of good segues recently – flowing from my discussion on the definition and implications of shell company status in a reverse merger (see HERE) is the topic of a free writing prospectus (“FWP”). In particular, what is a free writing prospectus, when and how is it used, and what companies are eligible for its use.
Communications during a registered offering are strictly regulated, including communications before the filing of a registration statement, after filing and before effectiveness, and after effectiveness – for more on communications during the offering process see HERE. An FWP is a written communication other than the prospectus filed with the SEC, used to make offers, or to market an offering.
An FWP is one of the few writings, beyond the prospectus itself, that may be used to market an offering. However, its use is limited to eligible companies, or in securities law parlance – those that are not ineligible. Accordingly,
F-3 Eligibility
The ability to utilize a shelf registration statement on Form F-3 or S-3 offers significant advantages to publicly traded companies. A Form F-3/S-3 allows for variably priced offerings – that is offerings made either at-the-market or at other than fixed prices. Only companies that are eligible for F-3/S-3 can complete primary (or indirect primary) offerings at prices other than a fixed price (for more on primary offerings see HERE).
I have previously written a detailed blog related to S-3 eligibility (see HERE) and although the requirements for an F-3 are substantially similar, there are some key differences due to the different regulatory framework applicable to foreign private issuers (“FPIs”) – i.e. “F Filers.” Like an S-3, F-3 eligibility is comprised of both registrant or company requirements and transaction requirements.
Moreover, like Form S-3, a Form F-3 specifies generally that the Form may not be used for an offering of asset-backed securities.
Registrant Requirements
Companies that meet the
Supreme Court Decides MD&A Case
It is not often that the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on the specific disclosure requirements under the federal securities laws, but in the case of Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., they had occasion to do so in the context of a Rule 10b-5 fraud claim.
Macquarie owned a subsidiary that operates terminals to store bulk liquid commodities including No. 6 fuel oil. In 2016 the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization formally adopted IMO 2020, a regulation capping the sulfur content of fuel oil used in shipping. In the ensuing years, Macquarie did not discuss IMO 2020 in its public offering documents or SEC periodic reports. In February 2018, however, Macquarie announced a drop in the amount of storage contracted for use by its subsidiary due in part to the decline in the No. 6 fuel oil market. Macquarie’s stock price fell 41%.
Plaintiff Moab Partners sued Macquarie and various officers alleging, among other things, that
SEC Updates Guidance On Confidential Treatment Requests
For the first time since December 2019, the SEC has updated its guidance on the process associated with submitting a confidential treatment request (“CTR”). The March 2019 guidance update was triggered by the passing of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (“FAST Act”) which allows companies to redact confidential information from most material agreement exhibits without filing a CTR, including omitting schedules and exhibits to exhibits. The FAST Act also allows a company to redact information in material agreements that is both (i) not material, and (ii) competitively harmful if disclosed without the need for a CTR. For a discussion on the December 2019 guidance see HERE. At the end of this blog, I include a refresher on the streamlined, self-executing rules for omitting confidential information from material contract exhibits to SEC filings.
The latest updated guidance flows through the process in general, so the below discussion includes all such updates.
Confidential Treatment Requests Under Rules 406
SEC Publishes New C&DI On Filing Fee Table And Inline XBRL
Back in fourth quarter 2023, the SEC published several new compliance and disclosure interpretations on various topics including cyber incident disclosure, proxy and information statements, the inclusion of securities in the filing fee exhibit, and Inline XBRL. This blog is the last in a series of three covering the plethora of new C&DI.
Related to the filing fee table:
Question 239.02 and 240.17 – A well-known seasoned issuer registers securities on an automatic shelf registration statement and elects to defer payment of filing fees pursuant to Rule 456(b). The issuer subsequently files a prospectus supplement in connection with a pay-as-you-go deferred fee payment under Rules 456(b) and 457(r) that includes the required filing fee exhibit. Must the filing fee exhibit’s Table 1 list all the securities listed in the initial filing of the related registration statement or is Table 1 permitted to list only the securities being offered by the prospectus supplement as to which the fees are
SEC Publishes New C&DI On Proxy Rules
Back in fourth quarter 2023, the SEC published several new compliance and disclosure interpretations on various topics including cyber incident disclosure, proxy and information statements, the inclusion of securities in the filing fee exhibit, and Inline XBRL. As my blog topic list tends to be very long, I am finally getting to this and will cover the various new C&DI topics over the next few weeks.
Proxy Rules
The federal proxy rules can be found in Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and the rules promulgated thereunder. The rules apply to any company which has securities registered under Section 12 of the Act. Section 14 of the Exchange Act and its rules govern the timing and content of information provided to shareholders in connection with annual and special meetings with a goal of providing shareholders meaningful information to make informed decisions, and a valuable method to allow them to participate in the shareholder voting
SEC Publishes New C&DI On Cybersecurity Rules
Back in fourth quarter 2023, the SEC published several new compliance and disclosure interpretations on various topics including cyber incident disclosure, proxy and information statements, the inclusion of securities in the filing fee exhibit, and Inline XBRL. As my blog topic list tends to be very long, I am finally getting to this and will cover the various new C&DI topics over the next few weeks.
Cybersecurity
In July, 2023 the SEC adopted final new rules requiring disclosures for both domestic and foreign companies related to cybersecurity incidents, risk management, strategy and governance (see HERE for a review of the new rules). The SEC has published three new C&DI directly related to the Form 8-K reporting requirements and ability to delay reports based on national security concerns.
The cybersecurity rules add new Item 1.05 to Form 8-K requiring disclosure of a material cybersecurity incident including the incident’s nature, scope, timing, and material impact or reasonably likely impact on the
SEC Adopts Changes To The Definition Of A “Dealer”
Two years after proposing rule changes (see HERE) the SEC has adopted final new rules amending the definition of a “dealer” under the Exchange Act. Although the rule change comes after years of a continuous stream of litigation against small-cap and penny stock convertible debt lenders, the new rules specifically fail to provide regulatory clarity to this sector of the marketplace.
The amendments are 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 amend 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. The enhancement, however, is as to large proprietary traders and government securities dealers, leaving small cap traders to continue with rule making through judicial precedence.
Background
Although the amended rules are not limited to participants in the U.S. Treasury markets,
SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACs, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 10
On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions. The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs. The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general. The compliance date for the new rules is July 1, 2025.
In the first blog in this series, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE. The second blog began a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release starting with partial coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions – see HERE. The third blog in the series continued the summary of Subpart 1600 and in particular the new dilution disclosure requirements – see HERE. Part 4 continued a
SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACs, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 9
On January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules enhancing disclosure obligations for SPAC IPOs and subsequent de-SPAC business combination transactions. The rules are designed to more closely align the required disclosures and legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs. The new rules spread beyond SPACs to shell companies and blank check companies in general. The compliance date for the new rules is July 1, 2025.
In the first blog in this series, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE. The second blog began a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release starting with partial coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions – see HERE. The third blog in the series continued the summary of Subpart 1600 and in particular the new dilution disclosure requirements – see HERE. Part 4 continued a review of
