Tag: sec

強制仲裁条項は、もはやSECにとって問題ではなくなった

2025年9月17日、SEC（米国証券取引委員会）は従来の立場を転換し、企業の定款やその他の会社関係書類に強制仲裁条項が含まれていても、それ自体が登録届出書を有効と宣言するかどうかのSECの判断に影響を及ぼすものではないとする方針声明を発表した。

背景

SEC企業財務部（CorpFin）は、1933年証券法（「証券法」）および1934年証券取引法（「証券取引法」）に基づく提出書類を審査し、コメントを行っています。CorpFinによる審査の目的は、S-K規制およびS-X規制を含む連邦証券法に基づく開示要件、ならびに一般的な不正防止規定への準拠を確保することです。これらの要件はいずれも、誤解を招くことなく必要な開示を行うために重要な情報の開示を求めています。必要な開示の基準は、一般的に情報の重要性です。TSC Industries, Inc.対Northway, Inc.事件において、米国最高裁判所は、重要性を、合理的な投資家が入手可能な情報全体の中で、その総合的な情報構成を大幅に変更したと見なす可能性が相当に高い情報であると定義しました。

SECおよびCorpFinはいずれも、特定の取引の是非や、当該取引または企業が特定の投資家や市場全体にとって適切かどうかについて評価・判断を行うものではありません。審査の目的は、証券法に基づく開示要件への準拠を確保することにあります。その観点から、CorpFinは、特定の条項のメリットまたはデメリットに関して、より詳細なリスク要因の開示や明確な説明を求めることはありますが、開示の範囲を超えて、それらの是非自体を評価またはコメントする権限は有していません。ただし、SECは、特定の公的政策上の懸念に基づき、登録届出書を有効と宣言することを拒否する権限を有しています。

連邦証券法に基づく投資家の請求について仲裁を義務付ける強制仲裁条項を、定款や細則などのコーポレート・ガバナンス文書に盛り込むことについては、長年にわたり議論の的となってきました。強制仲裁条項は、株主に対し、裁判所で高額な証券集団訴訟を提起するのではなく、個別の証券請求について仲裁による解決を求めることができる点で、企業にとって有利な手段とされています。

これまでSECは、強制仲裁条項について、公的政策上の懸念を理由に問題視していることを示してきましたが、その際に用いてきた数少ない手段の一つが、登録届出書の効力発生の迅速化（アクセラレーション）を拒否することでした。SECは、公的政策上の懸念のみを理由として、登録届出書を有効と宣言するか否かについて無制限の裁量権を有しているわけではなく、連邦証券法に基づき権限を有する事項に限って判断することが求められています。SECが登録届出書を有効と宣言しない場合、企業は、20日間の経過後に登録届出書が自動的に有効となることを定める証券法第8条(a)に依拠せざるを得ません。本ブログの末尾に、証券法第8条(a)の概要を改めて整理した説明を掲載しています。

2025年9月17日、SECは公的政策に関する声明を発表し、発行体と投資家間の強制仲裁条項の存在は、証券法に基づく登録届出書の効力発生の迅速化（アクセラレーション）の判断に影響を与えないことを示しました。この方針変更は、連邦証券法が仲裁合意の執行を優先する連邦仲裁法（FAA）の方針に優先するものではないとする最近の最高裁判決や、連邦証券法が株主にクラスアクションでの請求権を保証するものではないとする判例を踏まえた結果です。

強制仲裁条項

前述のとおり、企業は、一般的な訴訟コストの削減やクラスアクション訴訟の回避手段として、投資家の請求に対する強制仲裁条項を好んで導入しています。連邦仲裁法（FAA）自体も、こうした契約条項について「有効で取り消し不能、かつ強制可能である」と明記しており、その効力を裏付けています。FAAの下では、仲裁条項は有効かつ強制可能な書面契約に含まれている必要がありますが、定款や細則は、企業とその役員、取締役、株主との間の有効かつ強制可能な契約として確立されていることが確立的な法理とされています。

こうした仲裁条項が普及するにつれて、多くの州が、定款や細則などの企業構成文書に強制仲裁条項を含めることを禁じる法律を制定し、多くの訴訟が発生しました。多くの場合、FAAが勝利し、裁判所は「強制仲裁合意の強制力を名前で直接的に、あるいは『仲裁の基本的属性に干渉する』などのより微妙な方法で制限する州法」は、FAAによって優先される可能性があると判断しました。

その後、SECは、連邦証券法がFAAに優先するかどうかを検討します。SECは以前、次の理由から、証券法がFAAに優先すると主張できると考えていました。(i) 発行体と投資家間の強制仲裁条項は、司法手続きの利用を妨げることにより、連邦証券法の権利放棄禁止規定に違反する可能性があること、(ii) そのような条項は、裁判所でのクラスアクション訴訟を妨げることにより、投資家が連邦証券法に基づく権利を保護するための個人訴訟を提起する能力を不当に制限する可能性があること、です。

しかし、最高裁判例を含む長年の判例を踏まえ、SECは現在、連邦証券法はFAAを優先するものではないと結論付けています。特に、権利放棄禁止規定やその他の連邦証券法の規定の文言のいずれにも、FAAが連邦証券法の請求には適用されないと明確に議会が意図したと解釈できる記述はありません。さらに、強制仲裁条項が一部の人々の連邦証券法に基づく私的請求の経済的動機を損なう可能性があるという理由だけで、FAAを上書きすることはできません。

判例などの分析に基づき、SECは、発行体と投資家間の強制仲裁条項の存在が、登録届出書の効力発生の迅速化の判断に影響しないと結論付けています。

SECは公的政策に関する声明の中で、「FAAが特定の発行体・投資家間の強制仲裁条項に適用されるかどうかは、委員会に施行権限が付与されていない連邦法と、当該条項を規律する州法その他の法域の独自の法律との交差点に関わる法的問題である」と指摘しています。つまり、仲裁条項の強制力の有無は、SECの権限の及ぶ範囲を超える事項であるということです。

第8条(a)の復習

証券法第8条(a)は、登録届出書およびその修正届出書の効力発生について規定しています。特に、この規定では、登録届出書は提出から20日後、またはSECが指定するそれ以前の日に自動的に効力を発生することとされています。第8条(b)は、登録届出書が「表面上、重大な点において不完全または不正確である」場合に、SECが第8条(a)に基づく効力発生を阻止する停止命令を発する権限を与えています。

実際には、企業は規則473(a)に基づき、登録届出書に「遅延修正」と呼ばれる文言を追加することで、第8条(a)の効力を回避しています。遅延修正の典型的な文言は、以下のようになります。

本予備目論見書に記載された情報は完全なものではなく、変更される可能性があります。当社は、証券取引委員会（SEC）に提出された登録届出書が効力を発生するまで、これらの証券を販売できません。本予備目論見書は、これらの証券を販売するための勧誘ではなく、また、当該販売が認められていない州やその他の法域においてこれらの証券を購入するための勧誘でもありません。

…そしてこの条項を盛り込むことで、第8条(a)の効力発生を回避することができます。その後、企業はSECとコメント・審査・修正のプロセスを経て、最終的にSECからコメントが解消されたことを通知されます。その後、企業はRule 461に基づき、登録届出書の効力発生の迅速化（アクセラレーション）をSECに申請する書簡を提出します。技術的には、この申請により、企業は「遅延修正」文言を削除し第8条(a)文言を追加した最終修正届出書を提出して20日間待つことなく、登録届出書の効力発生を加速させることが可能となります。

実務上、第8条(a)が使用されない理由は二つあります。第一に、企業およびその弁護士、監査人、引受人は、SECの審査を受けないことによる訴訟リスクがあまりにも大きいと考えていることです。もし登録届出書の開示内容に後に不備があると判明した場合、SECによる審査が通常行われていないことが、原告側弁護士の主張を補強する材料となります。

第二の理由は、20日後に効力を発生するS-1届出書には、価格情報を含め完全な内容が求められることです。従来のIPOやフォローオン・オファリングでは、企業は最終修正届出書に価格情報を記載するのは、効力発生日まで待ちます。これにより、企業は販売時点の市場状況を判断して最適な価格を設定することが可能となります。これは特に、引受人がIPOで企業の登録株式全てを買い取り、直ちに顧客やシンジケート・ブローカーに再販売する確定引受方式の取引において重要です。また、企業は効力発生前の通常10〜15日間に行われるロードショー中に得られるフィードバックをもとに、価格決定に反映させることもできます。

しかし、SECが登録届出書を有効と宣言しない場合、あるいは最近見られるように政府閉鎖などで宣言ができない場合には、リスクとリターンのバランスが変化し、第8条(a)が現実的な選択肢となります。

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

LAnthony@ALClaw.com

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。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC を Facebook、LinkedIn、YouTube、Pinterest、Twitter でフォローしてください。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLCは、本情報を教育目的の一般情報として提供しています。本情報は一般的な内容であり、法的助言を構成するものではありません。さらに、本情報の利用や送受信は、当事務所との弁護士–依頼者関係を成立させるものではありません。したがって、本情報を通じて当事務所と行ういかなる通信も、特権または機密として扱われることはありません。

© Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC

Mandatory Arbitration Provisions Are No Longer A Problem For The SEC

On September 17, 2025, the SEC reversed its previous position and issued a policy statement announcing that the presence of mandatory arbitration provisions in corporate documents, will not affect the SEC’s determination as to whether to declare registration statements effective.

Background

The SEC Division of Corporation Finance (CorpFin) reviews and comments upon filings made under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).  The purpose of a review by CorpFin is to ensure compliance with the disclosure requirements under the federal securities laws, including Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X, and the general anti-fraud provisions, all of which require disclosure of material information necessary to make required disclosures, not misleading. The standard for required disclosure is generally the materiality of the information. In TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court defined materiality as information that would have a substantial likelihood of being viewed by a reasonable investor as

ナスダック、小型株企業の上場を認めない裁量権限を拡大

ナスダックは2025年12月12日、申請企業が規定されたすべての上場要件を満たしている場合であっても、新規上場申請を裁量により却下できる権限を付与する提案を、米証券取引委員会（SEC）に提出した。これは、時価総額の小さい企業全般、特に日常的な株価操作に関与しているとみられるアジア拠点の外国民間発行体（FPI）について、上場および上場継続を認めないようにするナスダックの最近の一連の動きの一つである。

「提案」と称されてはいるものの、本件は即時に発効しており、現在上場申請の手続き中にあるすべての企業に適用される。

ナスダックの最近の取り組みには、以下が含まれます。(i) 中国を拠点とする企業に対する最低上場基準を引き上げる改正 (を参照）。(ii) 入札価格、公募浮動株式の時価総額、自己資本、利益、総資産／収益要件を含む数値上場要件のいずれかを下回り、かつ上場有価証券の時価総額（「MVLS」）が500万ドル未満となった企業について、取引停止および上場廃止を迅速化するための改正 ) を参照）。(iii) Nasdaq Capital MarketおよびNasdaq Global Marketにおける流動性に関する上場基準を改正し、純利益基準に基づいて上場する企業に適用される、制限のない公開保有株式の最低時価総額（「MVUPHS」）要件を500万ドルから1,500万ドルに引き上げるもの  (を参照）。(iv) 株価が0.10ドルの銘柄について、上場廃止を迅速化するための改正）。(v) MVUPHSについて、IPOによる調達資金によってのみ充足できるものとし、再販売のために登録された株式は算入できなくすることを求める改正  (を参照）。(vi) 2回目のコンプライアンス期間終了後も最低入札価格要件への適合を回復できなかった企業、ならびに過去1年間に株式併合が実施された有価証券について、上場廃止手続きを迅速化するための改正 (を参照）。(vii) 株式併合を用いて最低株価要件を満たすことについて、その結果として最小ラウンドロット保有者数や公開株式要件など、他のナスダック上場基準に適合しなくなる場合には、その利用を制限する規則変更  (を参照).

上場申請を裁量で拒否する権限を認める提案

ナスダック上場規則5101条

過去数か月間、SECは、ソーシャルメディアを通じて不特定の第三者が投資家に対して特定の有価証券の購入、保有、売却を推奨したことに基づく、証券の潜在的操作の疑いにより、11社の取引を停止した。つまり、これらの操作は不特定の第三者によって仕組まれたものであり、企業自体や企業関係者が当該計画に関連して起訴されたわけではない。ほぼすべての場合、対象となった企業は上場から1年未満であった。これらの企業は主にアジアで事業を展開しており、シンガポール（3社）、上海（1社）、香港（4社）、マレーシア（1社）、インドネシア（1社）、日本（1社）に拠点を置いている。

ナスダック上場規則5101条は、多数の具体的な上場規則の前文的規定であり、ナスダックが自らの市場の質と公的信頼を維持し、不正行為や操作行為を防止し、公正かつ衡平な取引原則を促進し、投資家および公益を保護するために、ナスダックでの有価証券の新規上場および継続上場に関して広範な裁量権を与えるものである。規則5101条には具体的に次のように記されている。「ナスダックは、その裁量により、新規上場を拒否したり、特定の有価証券の新規上場または継続上場に対して追加的またはより厳格な基準を適用したり、いかなる事象、状況、条件が存在する、または発生する場合であっても、ナスダックの判断において当該有価証券のナスダックでの新規上場または継続上場が望ましくない、または適当でないと判断される場合には、当該有価証券を一時停止または上場廃止することができる。ただし、当該有価証券がナスダックでの新規上場または継続上場のために列挙されたすべての基準を満たしている場合であっても同様である。」

IM-5101-1では、本規則を適用できる状況について非排他的に説明している。全体として、IM-5101-1は本規則の適用に関する主な四つの状況を示している：(i) 規制違反の経歴を持つ個人が会社に関与している場合；(ii) 会社が連邦破産法または同等の外国法の下で保護申請を行った場合；(iii) 会社の独立会計士が監査を要する財務諸表に対して免責意見を出した場合、あるいは財務諸表に必要な認証が含まれていない場合；(iv) 会社が企業統治違反の経歴を有している場合。

特に、ナスダック規則5101条およびその解釈指針IM-5101-1は、会社自体およびその関係者の特性に基づいている。ナスダック規則5101条は、非関連の第三者による企業の有価証券に影響を及ぼす可能性のある不正行為のために上場を拒否することは認めていない。実際、SECは、上場規則の範囲を超える上場拒否を取り消すこともあり得る。

ナスダックは現在、外部の第三者要因に基づき上場を拒否する権限を求めている。その要因には、以下が含まれる：(i) 一つ以上の第三者が企業の有価証券に影響を及ぼす不正行為を行う可能性；(ii) 類似の特性を持つ他の企業の取引パターン；(iii) 会社に関与するアドバイザー（監査人、引受会社、法律事務所、証券ブローカー、決済会社、その他の専門サービス提供者を含む）；(iv) 不正行為が発生した場合に、米国の規制当局や投資家が利用可能な救済手段に外国法が与える影響。

本提案を実施するために、ナスダックはIM-5101-3を採用することを提案している。これにより、ナスダックは規則5101に基づき、申請企業がすべての上場要件を満たしている場合であっても、当該有価証券が不正操作を受けやすくなる要因、すなわち、ナスダックやその他の規制当局が以前に上場した類似企業で確認した懸念に関連する要因、または会社のアドバイザー（監査人、引受会社、法律事務所、証券ブローカー、決済会社、その他の専門サービス提供者を含む）に関連する考慮事項に基づき、新規上場を拒否できる権限を与えるものである。

新しいIM-5103-3では、ナスダックが上場申請に関連して考慮できる非排他的な要因のリストが含まれることになる。これには、以下が含まれる：

• 会社の所在地に関する事項。これには、当該管轄区域における米国株主の法的救済の可用性、遮断法（blocking statutes）の有無、データプライバシー法および規制当局が会社に対して規則を執行する際に課題となる可能性のあるその他の外国法、当該管轄区域で包括的なデューデリジェンスを実施できる能力、ならびに当該管轄区域における規制当局の透明性が含まれる。
• 個人または団体が会社に実質的な影響力を行使しているかどうか、もしそうであれば、その個人または団体の所在地、当該管轄区域における米国株主の法的救済の可用性、ならびに上記(i)に挙げた外国管轄区域に関するすべての要因。
• 引受会社、ブローカー、決済会社の割当を確認し、当該サービス提供者が関与した過去の取引も考慮したうえで、IPO時および公募後の予想される公開株式数（public float）および株式分布の広がりが、十分な流動性や集中のリスクに関して懸念を生じさせるかどうか。
• 会社のアドバイザー（監査人、引受会社、法律事務所、証券ブローカー、決済会社、その他の専門サービス提供者）に関する問題。これには、当該アドバイザーが該当規制当局によるレビューを受けたかどうか、受けた場合はそのレビュー結果がどうであったかを含むが、これに限定されない要因が考慮される。
• 会社のアドバイザーが新規法人である場合、当該アドバイザーの主要関係者が、規制上の経歴を有する他の企業に関与していたかどうか。
• 会社のアドバイザーのいずれかが、過去の取引において、有価証券が懸念される取引パターンや変動の大きい取引の対象となったことがあるかどうか。
• 会社の経営陣および取締役会が、ナスダック規則や連邦証券法に基づく規制・報告要件を含む、米国公開会社の要件に関する経験または知識を有しているかどうか。
• 会社またはそのアドバイザーに関連するFINRA、SEC、その他の規制当局からの照会があるかどうか、また、それらの照会結果が記録に含まれる場合には、その結果。
• 会社が現在、または最近、継続企業に関する監査意見（going concern audit opinion）を受けているかどうか。また、受けている場合には、会社が継続企業として事業を継続する計画についてどのように考えているか。
• 会社の取締役会、経営陣、主要株主、またはアドバイザーの誠実性に関して懸念を生じさせるその他の要因があるかどうか。

この規則には評判面での影響力がある。ナスダックが規則5101に基づき上場を拒否する場合、会社は当該決定の受領およびその理由について、プレスリリースまたはその他のRegulation FDに準拠した方法で、4日以内に公表しなければならない。

新規提案規則は明確にそのようには記載していないものの、明らかに中国やアジア拠点の企業を対象としている。

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

LAnthony@ALClaw.com

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。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC を Facebook、LinkedIn、YouTube、Pinterest、Twitter でフォローしてください。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLCは、本情報を教育目的の一般情報として提供しています。本情報は一般的な内容であり、法的助言を構成するものではありません。さらに、本情報の利用や送受信は、当事務所との弁護士–依頼者関係を成立させるものではありません。したがって、本情報を通じて当事務所と行ういかなる通信も、特権または機密として扱われることはありません。

© Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis,

NASDAQ Expands Discretionary Authority To Block Listings For Small Cap Companies

On December 12, 2025, Nasdaq filed a proposal with the SEC to provide it with discretionary authority to refuse to deny initial listing applications, even where the applicant meets all stated listing requirements.  This is yet another recent move by Nasdaq to prevent the listing, and continued listing, of low market cap companies in general; and Asian based foreign private issuers (FPIs) in particular, thought to be engaging in routine stock manipulation.

Although the publication is referred to as a “proposal,” it is effective immediately and applies to all companies currently in the application process.

Other recent Nasdaq initiatives include: (i) amendments to increase minimum listing standards for China based companies (see HERE) ; (ii)  amendments to accelerate the suspension and delisting of a company that falls below any of the numeric listing requirements, including the bid price, market value of public float, equity, income and total assets/revenue requirements, and that has a Market Value of Listed Securities (“MVLS”)

SEC、外国私募発行体の定義に関する概念リリースを発表 ― 第2部

2025年6月、SEC（米国証券取引委員会）は、外国私募発行体（“FPI”）の定義についての概念リリースおよびコメント募集を公表しました。現在の定義、SECへの登録・報告制度、そしてFPIsに関連するNasdaqのコーポレートガバナンスについての解説は、私の3部構成のブログをご参照ください： および ; および; および.

FPI（外国私募発行体）は、米国の資本市場へアクセスする際に独自の課題に直面します。そのため長年にわたり、SECはFPIが自国のコーポレートガバナンス規則に従うことを認め、さらに開示制度についても一定の緩和措置を設けるなど、柔軟な規制対応を整えてきました。しかしSECは、過去数十年の間にFPIの構成が変化し、その多くがほぼ米国市場のみで取引されていることに気付きました。

つまり、現在の定義やFPI向けの措置が制定された当時、SECは、対象となる多くのFPIが自国で重要な開示義務やその他の規制要件の対象となり、また外国市場で取引されることを想定していました。ところが下記のとおり、現在のFPIの大半は、米国でのみ取引される中国系企業が多く、平均時価総額も低い傾向があります。SECは、このような状況では、既存の規則は当初想定していた効果をもはや発揮していないと考え、概念リリースおよびコメント募集を発行しました。

概念リリースに関する第1回のブログでは、FPIの現行の定義と規制枠組み、そしてFPIの構成に関するSECの一般的な見解を解説しています（参照）。本稿（第2回）では、SECによるFPI定義の再評価について取り上げます。

現行のFPI定義の確認

1933年証券法（改正を含む、以下「証券法」）および1934年証券取引法（改正を含む、以下「証券取引法」）の双方において、「外国私募発行体」（FPI）の定義が規定されています。一般に、企業がFPIの定義を満たさない場合、米国企業と同様の登録義務および報告義務が課されます。

FPI資格の有無は、本拠地国だけで決まるものではありません（なお、米国法人は、事業・資産・経営陣・子会社の所在地にかかわらず、FPIとなることはできません）。FPIとして認められるかどうかは、通常、以下の2つの基準によって判断されます。(i) 米国における株式保有の相対的割合 (ii) 米国における事業活動・取引関係の程度 。

多くの証券法上の定義と同様に、外国私募発行体の定義はまず「すべての外国発行体」を包括的に対象とした上で、そこから例外を除外する形で構成されています。具体的には、FPIとは、以下の条件に該当する外国発行体を除いたものを指します（既存の発行体の場合は会計年度第2四半期末時点、初めてSECに登録する場合は、証券法または証券取引法のいずれかに基づく最初の登録届出書の提出日から30日以内に判定）。

(i) 外国政府

(ii) 議決権付証券の50％超が米国居住者により直接または間接的に保有されている場合、さらに次のいずれかに該当すること：(a) 取締役または執行役員の過半数が米国市民または米国居住者であること、(b) 資産の50％超が米国内に所在すること、または (c) 主たる事業が米国にある。主たる事業所の所在地は、会社の主な事業分野または業務、取締役会および株主総会、本社、および最も影響力のある主要役員を考慮して決定されます。

つまり、外国企業の株主の過半数が米国内に所在しない場合、その企業はFPIとして適格となります。一方、名義株主の50％超が米国に所在する場合には、企業は役員・取締役、資産、事業活動の所在地について、さらに検討する必要があります。

FPI定義の再評価

FPIの多くが中国拠点の企業であることを踏まえ、SECは米国投資家に対する主なリスクとして、以下の点に注目しています。（i）不十分な開示および開示管理体制、（ii）本国での包括的規制の欠如、（iii）二次的な外国市場での取引規制の不在（これら企業の大半は米国市場のみで取引されているため）。なお、これらのリスクは中国拠点以外の企業にも見られますが、SECが長年にわたり中国拠点企業に特に懸念を示していることは明らかです（中国関連についてのナスダックによる最新の取り組みは、 および をご参照ください）。

SEC は FPI に関連するあらゆる事項についてパブリックコメントを求めていますが、特に定義および開示制度の変更の可能性に焦点を当てています。こうした変更の目的は、FPI が米国企業と同等、またはそれに匹敵する強固な規制および報告義務の対象となるようにすることです。概念リリースでは、いくつかの変更案（およびそれに対するコメント）を提示しており、その内容には次のような点が含まれます。

• FPIの定義を改正し、分岐テストを更新する。例えば、株主テストにおける米国人保有者の50％という既存の基準を引き下げ、より早期にビジネスコンタクト分析を行えるようにする。
• ビジネスコンタクトテストの既存基準を改訂し、新たな基準の追加や米国所在資産に関する既存基準の見直しを行う。
• FPIステータスを維持するため、最低限の外国取引量を求める外国取引量テストを追加する。例えば、改正後の定義では、FPIがFPIステータスの継続資格を判断するため、外国および米国での年間取引量を評価することが求められる。
• 各FPIに対し、(1) SECが発行体に対する強固な規制および監督の枠組みを有していると判断した法域に設立または本社を置くこと、ならびに(2) 当該証券規制および監督に修正や免除なく従うことを義務付ける。
• 選定された外国法域の発行体について、証券法登録および証券取引法に基づく定期報告に関して、相互承認制度を構築する。
• FPIに対し、外国証券当局がIOSCOの「協議・協力および情報交換に関する多国間覚書（MMoU）」または「強化版多国間覚書（EMMoU）」に署名した法域に設立または本社を置き、かつ当該署名当局の監督下にあることを証明することを義務付ける。

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

LAnthony@ALClaw.com

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。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC を Facebook、LinkedIn、YouTube、Pinterest、Twitter でフォローしてください。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLCは、本情報を教育目的の一般情報として提供しています。本情報は一般的な内容であり、法的助言を構成するものではありません。さらに、本情報の利用や送受信は、当事務所との弁護士–依頼者関係を成立させるものではありません。したがって、本情報を通じて当事務所と行ういかなる通信も、特権または機密として扱われることはありません。

© Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC

SEC Issues A Concept Release On The Definition Of Foreign Private Issuer – Part 2

In June 2025 the SEC published a concept release and request for comment on the definition of a foreign private issuer (“FPI”).  For a review of the current definition, information regarding SEC registration and reporting and Nasdaq corporate governance related to FPIs, see my three part blog HERE; HERE; and HERE.

FPI’s face unique challenges when accessing U.S. capital markets and as such over years the SEC has developed regulatory flexibilities allowing FPIs to follow the corporate governance rules of their home country and providing them with a modified disclosure regime.  However, the SEC has noticed that the composition of FPI’s has changed over the last few decades and that most FPI’s almost exclusively trade in the U.S.

That is, at the time the current definition and accommodations for FPIs was established, the SEC through that most eligible FPI’s would be subject to meaningful disclosure and other regulatory requirements in their home country jurisdictions and

SEC、外国私募発行体の定義に関する概念リリースを発表 ― 第1部

2025年6月、SEC（米国証券取引委員会）は、外国私募発行体（“FPI”）の定義についての概念リリースおよびコメント募集を公表しました。現在の定義、SECへの登録・報告制度、そしてFPIsに関連するNasdaqのコーポレートガバナンスについての解説は、私の3部構成のブログをご参照ください：HERE ; HERE; および.

FPI（外国私募発行体）は、米国の資本市場へアクセスする際に独自の課題に直面します。そのため長年にわたり、SECはFPIが自国のコーポレートガバナンス規則に従うことを認め、さらに開示制度についても一定の緩和措置を設けるなど、柔軟な規制対応を整えてきました。しかしSECは、過去数十年の間にFPIの構成が変化し、その多くがほぼ米国市場のみで取引されていることに気付きました。

つまり、現在の定義やFPI向けの措置が制定された当時、SECは、対象となる多くのFPIが自国で重要な開示義務やその他の規制要件の対象となり、また外国市場で取引されることを想定していました。ところが下記のとおり、現在のFPIの大半は、米国でのみ取引される中国系企業が多く、平均時価総額も低い傾向があります。SECは、このような状況では、既存の規則は当初想定していた効果をもはや発揮していないと考え、概念リリースおよびコメント募集を発行しました。

本稿（第1回）では、概念リリースに関連して、FPIの現行の定義および規制枠組み、そしてFPIの構成に関するSECの一般的な見解について解説します。次回のブログでは、SECによるFPIの定義の再評価について取り上げます。

FPIの現行の定義および規制枠組み

1933年証券法（改正を含む、以下「証券法」）および1934年証券取引法（改正を含む、以下「証券取引法」）の双方において、「外国私募発行体」（FPI）の定義が規定されています。一般に、企業がFPIの定義を満たさない場合、米国企業と同様の登録義務および報告義務が課されます。

FPI資格の有無は、本拠地国だけで決まるものではありません（なお、米国法人は、事業・資産・経営陣・子会社の所在地にかかわらず、FPIとなることはできません）。FPIとして認められるかどうかは、通常、以下の2つの基準によって判断されます。(i) 米国における株式保有の相対的割合 (ii) 米国における事業活動・取引関係の程度 。

多くの証券法上の定義と同様に、外国私募発行体の定義はまず「すべての外国発行体」を包括的に対象とした上で、そこから例外を除外する形で構成されています。具体的には、FPIとは、以下の条件に該当する外国発行体を除いたものを指します（既存の発行体の場合は会計年度第2四半期末時点、初めてSECに登録する場合は、証券法または証券取引法のいずれかに基づく最初の登録届出書の提出日から30日以内に判定）。

(i) 外国政府

(ii) 議決権付証券の50％超が米国居住者により直接または間接的に保有されている場合、さらに次のいずれかに該当すること：(a) 取締役または執行役員の過半数が米国市民または米国居住者であること、(b) 資産の50％超が米国内に所在すること、または (c) 主たる事業が米国にある。主たる事業所の所在地は、会社の主な事業分野または業務、取締役会および株主総会、本社、および最も影響力のある主要役員を考慮して決定されます。

つまり、外国企業の株主の過半数が米国内に所在しない場合、その企業はFPIとして適格となります。一方、名義株主の50％超が米国に所在する場合には、企業は役員・取締役、資産、事業活動の所在地について、さらに検討する必要があります。

店頭市場に関する証券取引法規則12g3-2(b)の免除が適用される場合を除き、FPIが米国の証券取引所またはOTC Marketsでの取引を希望する場合には、証券取引法第12条(b)または第12条(g)に基づき、証券クラスを登録する必要があります。また、FPIの全世界の資産および全世界／米国の株主数が一定基準（資産1,000万ドル以上、かつ総株主数2,000人以上、または非適格投資家500人以上かつ米国株主300人以上）に達した場合には、すでに第12条(b)に基づき登録していない限り、証券取引法第12条(g)に基づくSEC登録が義務付けられます。

FPIは登録後、定期的に報告書を提出する必要があります。年次報告書にはForm 20-Fが使用され、会計年度末から4か月以内に提出しなければなりません。四半期報告書の提出義務はありません。また、Form 6-Kは定期報告書として使用され、以下の情報を含みます。(i) Form 8-Kで提出が義務付けられている事項、(ii) 企業が所在国の法令に基づき公表した、または公表を義務付けられている情報、(iii) 米国または海外の証券取引所に提出した、または提出を義務付けられている情報。

SECへのあらゆる提出書類は英語で作成しなければなりません。文書や契約書を他の言語から翻訳する場合、翻訳が公平かつ正確であることを担保するための規則がSECにより定められています。

SECはFPIのみに適用される複数の規則を採用しており、提出書類の審査や登録・報告に関する問い合わせに対応するため、国際企業財務室（Office of International Corporate Finance）を設置しています。特に重要な点としては、以下のとおりです。

(i) FPIは、財務諸表の作成および表示にあたり、米国会計基準（U.S. GAAP）、国際財務報告基準（IFRS）、または自国の会計基準（ただしU.S. GAAPとの調整注記が必要）のいずれかを選択できます。使用する会計基準にかかわらず、監査法人はPCAOBへの登録が必要です。

(ii) FPIは、証券取引法第14条の委任状ルールの適用が免除されます。

(iii) FPIの内部者は、証券取引法第16条の報告義務および短期売買規制の適用が免除されます。ただし、第13条の規制には従う必要があります。第13条の詳細については および  および  を、また第16条については を参照してください。

(iv) FPIには四半期報告書の提出義務はありません（ただし、NasdaqおよびNYSEは、半期財務諸表をForm 6-Kで提出することを要求しています）。

(v) FPIの年次報告書の提出期限は、会計年度末から120日後となっています。

(vi) FPI は規制 FD の適用が免除されます (規制 FD の詳細については、 および  を参照してください)。

(vii) FPIは、登録届出書と報告届出書を別々のフォームで使用でき、四半期報告書の提出は義務付けられていません（例えば、登録届出書として様式F-1、年次報告書および定期報告書として様式20-Fおよび6-K）。さらに、登録届出書および報告書に関する開示規則では、Regulation S-KおよびS-Xの代替としてForm 20-Fの特定項目が参照されることが多く、FPIに適用される開示要件は一般的により緩やかです。

(viii) 開示義務がより緩やかな例としては、FPIには事業内容の説明に関して要求される具体的事項が少なく、役員報酬は総額で開示することが認められている場合があり、関連当事者取引の開示もはるかに容易です および);

(ixフォーム6-Kによる定期報告書は「提供（furnished）」されます（米国のフォーム8-Kは通常「提出（filed）」されます）（詳細については および) および) を参照してください）。

(x) FPIは、証券取引法第12条(g)に基づく登録要件について独自の免除規定（Rule 12g3-2(b)）があり、SECによる報告義務を負うことなくOTC Marketsで証券を取引することができます。

(xi) FPIは、NasdaqやNYSEなどの全米証券取引所で取引する場合、異なる企業統治（コーポレート・ガバナンス）要件の適用を受けます。

(xii) FPIはセイ・オン・ペイ規則の適用除外となります。セイ・オン・ペイの詳細については をご参照ください。

(xiii) FPIの財務諸表は、米国企業よりも「期限切れ（stale）」となるまでの期間が長く認められています。米国企業の財務諸表は135日で期限切れとなりますが、FPIの場合、IPOでは財務諸表は9か月以内、監査報告書は12か月以内である必要があります。追加登録届出書の場合、監査報告書は15か月以内であれば有効とされます。また、中間財務諸表については、米国企業が3か月分で足りるのに対し、FPIは少なくとも6か月分を対象とする必要があります。

(xiv) FPIの非GAAP財務指標は、一定の条件を満たす場合、Regulation Gの適用が免除されます（非GAAP報告の詳細は をご覧ください）。

(xv) FPIは、証券法に基づく登録届出書としてForm F-1、F-3、F-4（52）を提出することができ、これらのフォームは、それぞれ対応するForm S-1、S-3、S-4とは構造および開示要件が異なります。

(xvi) FPIは、Rules 801および802など、証券の募集および販売に関して追加の適用除外を有しています (を参照）。

(xvii) FPIは、証券取引法第15(d)条に基づく報告義務を終了させることができますが、米国企業（国内発行体）は、第15(d)条に基づく報告義務の提出を一時停止することしかできません。

SEC規則には、FPI向けのスケールされた開示要件はありません。つまり、企業規模にかかわらず、すべての企業が同じ情報を報告しなければなりません。スモール・レポーティング・カンパニー（SRC）やエマージング・グロース・カンパニー（EGC）に該当する可能性のあるFPIは、米国企業向けの通常の報告要件および登録・報告様式を使用し、それらの適用を受けるべきかどうかを検討する必要があります。

FPI人口の最近の動向

SECは最近、2003年から2023年までのForm 20-Fを提出しているFPIについて調査を実施しました（MJDSを利用するカナダ企業は除外されます）。この概要調査により、以下の点が明らかになりました。(i) FPIの総数は146社から967社へと増加したこと、(ii) 2023年に最も一般的な事業運営国は中国（ただし登記地はケイマン諸島）であり、2003年はカナダおよび英国であったこと、(iii) 中国系FPIの平均時価総額は全体平均よりも小さいこと。

また、SECは、米国で発生するグローバルな取引量に焦点を当て、2014年から2023年までを対象とした類似の調査も行いました。その結果、以下の点が判明しました。(i) FPIの株式のグローバルな取引は米国資本市場にますます集中しており、多くのFPIが株式をほぼ米国市場のみで取引していること、(ii) 米国のみで取引されるFPIは、時価総額がより小さい傾向にあること、(iii) 米国のみで取引されるFPIは、中国を拠点とする企業である傾向が強いこと。

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

LAnthony@ALClaw.com

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

SEC Issues A Concept Release On The Definition Of A Foreign Private Issuer – Part 1

In June 2025 the SEC published a concept release and request for comment on the definition of a foreign private issuer (“FPI”).  For a review of the current definition, information regarding SEC registration and reporting and Nasdaq corporate governance related to FPIs, see my three part blog here HERE; HERE; and HERE.

FPI’s face unique challenges when accessing U.S. capital markets and as such over years the SEC has developed regulatory flexibilities allowing FPIs to follow the corporate governance rules of their home country and providing them with a modified disclosure regime.  However, the SEC has noticed that the composition of FPI’s has changed over the last few decades and that most FPI’s almost exclusively trade in the U.S.

That is, at the time the current definition and accommodations for FPIs was established, the SEC through that most eligible FPI’s would be subject to meaningful disclosure and other regulatory requirements in their home country jurisdictions and

ナスダック、店頭取引SPACの上場基準の改正を提案

この改正では、上場廃止となったSPAC（特別買収目的会社）が事業統合に際し、「シーズニング・ルール（一定期間の上場実績を求める規定）」の適用を受けずに再上場できるようにすることが提案されている。今回の修正は、シーズニング・ルールによる意図しない影響を是正するとともに、新たなSPAC／デSPAC規則が提供する投資家保護の趣旨を尊重する内容となっている。

背景 ― シーズニング・ルールと新SPAC規則

ナスダック、NYSE（ニューヨーク証券取引所）、およびNYSEアメリカンは、いずれも「シーズニング・ルール」と呼ばれる上場基準を設けている。 このシーズニング・ルールは各取引所で文言に多少の違いはあるものの、基本的な内容はほぼ同一であり、以下のような趣旨を持つ（各取引所の規則を意訳）。

上場SPAC以外のシェルカンパニーとの逆合併によって設立された企業は、新規上場申請を行う資格を有し、その後、事業統合後の企業が新規上場申請の提出直前に以下の条件を満たしている場合にのみ、上場資格を得ることができます。

(i) SECまたはその他の監督当局に対し、当該取引に関する必要な情報（統合後企業の監査済み財務諸表を含む、いわゆる「スーパー8-K」）を提出した後、米国の店頭市場、他の国内証券取引所、または規制された外国取引所で少なくとも1年間取引実績を有していること。

(ii) リバース・マージャーの完了以降1年間、SECへの報告書を期限内に提出していること。

(iii) 事業統合完了後の企業の財務諸表について、少なくとも1会計年度分の監査済み年次報告書を提出していること。

(iv) 上場申請基準に適用される株価要件に相当する終値を一定期間維持していること。ただし、承認前直近60取引日のうち少なくとも30取引日間はその株価水準を満たしていなければならない。

このルールには、確定引受方式（firm commitment offering）による株式公開を実施し、純調達額が4,000万ドル以上となる企業に対する例外規定が含まれています。

シーズニング・ルールの目的は、企業が店頭（OTC）シェルとのリバース・マージャーを完了した後、引受証券会社を通じた資金調達やIPOを経ずに、直ちに国内証券取引所への上場（アップリスティング）を申請することを防ぐことにあります。このルールは、合併後の企業が市場での取引実績を有し、財務情報の信頼性が高まり、市場価格の安定性や適切なコーポレート・ガバナンスの履行実績を備えていることを確保することを目的としています。

上場SPACは本ルールの適用除外とされていますが、SPACブームの崩壊およびSPAC／デSPAC取引に関する新たな情報開示義務の強化を受けて、SPACが事業統合を完了するまでの期間が長期化しています。ナスダックの規則では、SPACは原則として36か月以内に事業統合（デSPAC）取引を完了しなければならず、期限内に完了できない場合は上場廃止となります。しかし、新たなSPAC／デSPAC規則の導入以降、多くのSPACが事業統合の完了を待つ間、一時的にOTCマーケットへ移行しており、こうしたSPACが、実質的に大規模なデSPAC取引を行い、新規則を遵守しているにもかかわらず、シーズニング・ルールの適用対象となるのかという疑問が生じています。

新しいSPAC／デSPAC規則は、デSPACに関連する情報開示および手続きを従来のIPOに合わせて整備し、IPOプロセスと同様の投資家保護を提供するものです。これには登録届出書（S-4／F-4）の提出が含まれ、シーズニング・ルールに関連する目的や懸念は事実上解消されます。 私のSPAC／デSPAC規則に関する10回シリーズのブログはこちらをご覧ください： を参照, を参照, を参照, を参照, を参照, を参照, を参照, を参照, を参照, & を参照

企業がシーズニング・ルールの対象となるかどうかの鍵は、リバース・マージャーの定義にあります。ナスダックは現在、リバース・マージャーを「営業会社が、直接的または間接的に、Exchange Actに基づく報告会社であるシェル・カンパニーとリバース・マージャー、株式交換、その他の方法で統合することにより、Exchange Act報告会社となる取引。ただし、IM-5101-2の要件を満たす上場企業による営業会社の取得、またはRule 5110(a)で規定される事業統合はリバース・マージャーに含まれない」と定義しています。IM-5101-2はSPACの上場要件を定めており、Rule 5110(a)は上場シェル以外の企業がリバース・マージャーを完了し支配権が変更される場合、株主承認および新規上場申請を求めています。リバース・マージャーにおけるシェル・カンパニーの定義の詳細については、こちらをご参照ください： を参照.

多くの上場廃止となったSPACは、事業統合（デSPAC）において「リバース・マージャー」の定義に該当しないように、統合後の企業を存続会社とする、三角合併などの構造、またはその他の法的手法を用いてシーズニング・ルールの技術的適用を回避する形で取引を組成してきました。こうしたデSPAC取引に対するルールの実効性の限界を理解したうえで、ナスダックは正当に、形式上の構造を認め、これらの企業が事業統合を完了した際に再上場できることを容認しています。

また、ナスダックの上場規則では、OTCマーケットからアップリスティングする企業は、上場直前30取引日の平均日次取引量（ADV）を最低2,000株以上維持することが求められています（「ADV要件」）。ただし、OTC企業が少なくとも500万ドルの確約引受方式による公募と併せて上場する場合には、ADV要件を満たす必要はありません。SPACは事業統合前の取引が薄く、また事業統合に確約引受方式による公募が含まれることは稀であるため、多くの上場廃止SPACはADV要件を満たすことに課題を抱えてきました。

提案されている新規則

ナスダックは、リバース・マージャーの定義を改正し、登録届出書（S-4／F-4）の効力発生日において、デSPAC取引に関連して上場するSPACを除外することを提案しています。また、ADV要件に関する上場規則についても、登録届出書（S-4／F-4）の効力発生日において、デSPAC取引に関連して上場する企業を除外する改正が提案されています。これらの変更により、OTC市場で取引されるSPACのデSPAC取引は、上場SPACによるデSPAC取引と同等に扱われることになります。

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

LAnthony@ALClaw.com

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。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC を Facebook、LinkedIn、YouTube、Pinterest、Twitter でフォローしてください。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLCは、本情報を教育目的の一般情報として提供しています。本情報は一般的な内容であり、法的助言を構成するものではありません。さらに、本情報の利用や送受信は、当事務所との弁護士–依頼者関係を成立させるものではありません。したがって、本情報を通じて当事務所と行ういかなる通信も、特権または機密として扱われることはありません。

© Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC

NASDAQ Proposes To Modify Listing Standards For OTC Traded SPACS

On August 22, 2025, Nasdaq proposed a modification to the listing rules to allow delisted SPAC’s to relist in conjunction with a business combination without being subject to the seasoning rule.  The amendment will correct a potential unintended consequence of the seasoning rule while giving credence to the investor protections offered by the new SPAC/de-SPAC rules.

Background – Seasoning Rule and New SPAC Rules

Nasdaq, NYSE and NYSE American, all have a listing standard known as the seasoning rule. The seasoning rule is substantially the same for each exchange and provides that (paraphrasing the rule which is written slightly differently for each exchange):

A company that is formed by a reverse merger with a shell company, other than a listed SPAC, will only be eligible to submit an application for initial listing and thereafter qualify to be listed if immediately preceding the filing of the initial listing application the post business combination company:

(i) Has traded

SEC、提出者ステータスの判定に関するCD&Iを公表

2025年8月27日、米国証券取引委員会（SEC）は、新たなコンプライアンスおよび情報開示に関する解釈指針（CD&I）を公表しました。本CD&Iは、発行体がスモーラー・レポーティング・カンパニー（小規模報告会社）の資格を喪失した後、いつアクセラレーテッド・ファイラーまたはラージ・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラーに該当するようになるかについての判断基準を示すものです。

新しいCD&I

新たに追加されたCD&I質問130.05では、次のように示されています。

質問： ある発行体は、規則12b-2に定義される「スモーラー・レポーティング・カンパニー（小規模報告会社）」のうち、パラグラフ(2)または(3)(iii)(B)の収益テストに基づき、小規模報告会社として扱われています。2025年度第2四半期の最終営業日に、当該発行体は毎年実施している小規模報告会社ステータスの判定を行い、その結果、もはや小規模報告会社の要件を満たしていないと判断しました。この場合、発行体が2025年度末にアクセラレーテッド・ファイラーまたはラージ・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラーのステータスを評価する際、当該発行体はアクセラレーテッド・ファイラーまたはラージ・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラーに該当することになりますか？

回答： いいえ。発行体が会計年度末時点でアクセラレーテッド・ファイラーまたはラージ・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラーに該当するかを判断する際には、他の要件とともに、規則12b-2に定義される「スモーラー・レポーティング・カンパニー（小規模報告会社）」のパラグラフ(2)または(3)(iii)(B)に定める収益テストの下で、「小規模報告会社としての要件を利用できるかどうか」を評価する必要があります。該当する定義は、規則12b-2における「アクセラレーテッド・ファイラー」のパラグラフ(1)(iv)および「ラージ・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラー」のパラグラフ(2)(iv)に記載されています。このケースでは、発行体は2025年度末まで、そして2026年度第1四半期のForm 10-Qの提出時までは、小規模報告会社としての要件を引き続き利用することができます（規則12b-2における「スモーラー・レポーティング・カンパニー」の定義のパラグラフ(3)(i)(C)を参照）。したがって、発行体は2025年度末時点では、「アクセラレーテッド・ファイラー」のパラグラフ(1)(iv)または「ラージ・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラー」のパラグラフ(2)(iv)の条件を満たしません。このため、発行体は2026年度に提出期限を迎える書類についてはノン・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラーとして扱われ、2026年度第1四半期のForm 10-Qからは小規模報告会社の要件を利用できなくなります。

提出者ステータスに関する詳細情報

SECの開示要件は、企業規模に応じて段階的に設定されています。SECは2002年に企業をノン・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラー、アクセラレーテッド・ファイラー、ラージ・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラーの3区分に分類し、2007年にはこれらの企業に対して規制負担を軽減する目的で「スモーラー・レポーティング・カンパニー（小規模報告会社）」という区分を導入しました。スモーラー・レポーティング・カンパニー、アクセラレーテッド・ファイラー、ラージ・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラーは、それぞれ定期報告書の提出期限が異なります。さらに、2012年には「エマージング・グロース・カンパニー（新興成長企業：EGC）」という新たな区分が導入され、小規模報告会社と同様に開示要件が緩和されています。ただし、EGCの定義には提出期限が含まれていないため、EGCは自社のファイラー区分（小規模報告会社、アクセラレーテッド・ファイラー、ラージ・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラー）を判断し、提出期限を特定する必要があります。

アクセラレーテッド・ファイラーおよびラージ・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラーは、SOX法（サーベンス・オクスリー法）第404条(b)の要件に基づき、独立監査人による経営陣の財務報告に係る内部統制（ICFR）の評価に関する証明および報告を受けることが義務付けられています。一方、ノン・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラーは第404条(b)の要件の対象外です。SOX法第404条(a)では、SEC報告義務のあるすべての企業が、規模や区分にかかわらず、財務報告に係る内部統制（ICFR）を確立・維持し、その有効性を経営陣が評価するとともに、当該評価に関するCEOおよびCFOの証明書を提出することが求められています。CEOおよびCFOの証明に関する詳細は、以下の記事をご参照ください：https://securities-law-blog.com/2014/08/26/ceo-cfo-certifications-forms-10-q-10-k/ .

「スモーラー・レポーティング・カンパニー（Smaller Reporting Company、略称SRC）」とは、以下のいずれかの条件を満たす企業を指します。(i) 公開持株額（パブリック・フロート）が2億5,000万ドル未満の企業、または(ii) 年間売上高が1億ドル未満で、かつ (x) 公開持株額がない、または (y) 公開持株額が7億ドル未満の企業です。公開持株額は、企業の会計年度第2四半期の最終営業日時点で算定され、年間売上高は、監査済み財務諸表が入手可能な直近の会計年度末日時点で判断されます。SRCステータスおよび2018年6月時点の段階的開示要件の一覧表などの詳細については、以下をご参照ください：https://securities-law-blog.com/2018/07/17/sec-amends-definition-of-a-smaller-reporting-company/?hilite=smaller+reporting.

「アクセラレーテッド・ファイラー（Accelerated Filer）」とは、以下の条件を満たす企業を指します。(i) 直近で完了した第2会計四半期の最終営業日時点において、非関係者が保有する議決権付きおよび議決権なし普通株式の世界全体での市場価値の合計が7,500万ドル以上7億ドル未満であること。(ii) 少なくとも過去12か月間、証券取引法（Exchange Act）の報告義務の対象であること。(iii) 証券取引法に基づく年次報告書を少なくとも1回提出していること。(iv) 売上高テストに基づくスモーラー・レポーティング・カンパニー（SRC）の要件を満たしていないこと（すなわち、年間売上高が1億ドル未満ではないこと）。

「ラージ・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラー（Large Accelerated Filer）」とは、以下の条件を満たす企業を指します。(i) 直近で完了した第2会計四半期の最終営業日時点において、非関係者が保有する議決権付きおよび議決権なし普通株式の世界全体での市場価値の合計が7億ドル以上であること。(ii) 少なくとも過去12か月間、証券取引法の報告義務の対象であること。(iii) 証券取引法に基づく年次報告書を少なくとも1回提出していること。(iv) 売上高テストに基づくスモーラー・レポーティング・カンパニー（SRC）の要件を満たしていないこと（すなわち、年間売上高が1億ドル未満ではないこと）。

アクセラレーテッド・ファイラーおよびラージ・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラーのステータス判定方法（該当区分への移行および該当区分からの除外を含む）に関する詳細については、以下をご参照ください：https://securities-law-blog.com/2020/07/14/sec-adopts-amendments-to-accelerated-and-large-accelerated-filer-definitions/?hilite=large+accelerated.

「エマージング・グロース・カンパニー（Emerging Growth Company、略称EGC）」とは、直近で完了した会計年度における年間総売上高が12億3,500万ドル未満の企業を指します。EGCは、以下のいずれかが先に発生した時点でそのステータスを失います。(i) 年間売上高が12億3,500万ドルを超えた会計年度の最終日。(ii) IPO後5年目の会計年度の最終日（例：発行会社の会計年度末が12月31日であり、2025年11月2日に有効な登録届出書に基づき株式を販売した場合、2030年12月31日にEGCステータスを喪失）。(iii) 直近3年間で10億ドルを超える非転換社債を発行した日。(iv) ラージ・アクセラレーテッド・ファイラーとなった日。EGCに関する詳細は以下をご参照ください：https://securities-law-blog.com/2017/11/07/emerging-growth-companies-will-start-grow/?hilite=emerging+growth.

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

LAnthony@ALClaw.com

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。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC を Facebook、LinkedIn、YouTube、Pinterest、Twitter でフォローしてください。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLCは、本情報を教育目的の一般情報として提供しています。本情報は一般的な内容であり、法的助言を構成するものではありません。さらに、本情報の利用や送受信は、当事務所との弁護士–依頼者関係を成立させるものではありません。したがって、本情報を通じて当事務所と行ういかなる通信も、特権または機密として扱われることはありません。

© Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC

SEC Publishes CD&I On Filer Status Determination

On August 27, 2025, the SEC published a new compliance and disclosure interpretation (CD&I) providing guidance on when an issuer may become an accelerated or large accelerated filer after losing its status as a smaller reporting company.

New CD&I

New CD&I question 130.05 provides:

Question: An issuer is a smaller reporting company under the revenue test in paragraph (2) or (3)(iii)(B) of the “smaller reporting company” definition in Rule 12b-2. On the last business day of its second fiscal quarter of 2025, the issuer conducts its annual determination of smaller reporting company status and determines that it no longer qualifies as a smaller reporting company. When the issuer assesses its accelerated filer or large accelerated filer status, as of the end of fiscal year 2025, will this issuer become an accelerated filer or large accelerated filer?

Answer: No. When determining its accelerated filer or large accelerated filer status as of the end of its fiscal year, the issuer must

SECが発表した、特定プロトコルのステーキング活動に関する声明

2025年5月29日、米国証券取引委員会（SEC）の企業金融部門（Division of Corporation Finance、略称CorpFin）は、特定のプロトコルにおけるステーキング活動に関する声明を発表しました。本声明では、パブリックかつパーミッションレスなネットワークのプログラム的機能と本質的に結びつく暗号資産のステーキングについて説明しています。これらの暗号資産は、当該ネットワークのコンセンサスメカニズムへの参加や、その報酬の取得、あるいはネットワークの技術運用・セキュリティ維持への使用、もしくは維持に対する報酬として得られるものです。声明中では、プルーフ・オブ・ステークを「PoS」、対象ネットワークを「PoSネットワーク」と表記しています。なお、SECは以前にプルーフ・オブ・ワーク（PoW）マイニング活動に関する類似の声明も発表しています。詳細は以下をご参照ください：

プロトコル・ステーキング

ネットワークは、仲介者への依存を減らすためにソフトウェア・プログラム（「プロトコル」）に依拠しており、このプログラムにより取引の検証やユーザーへの決済保証が提供されます。各プロトコルには「コンセンサスメカニズム」が組み込まれており、ネットワーク上の無関係なコンピュータ同士がデータや取引内容について合意できるようになっています。パブリックかつパーミッションレスなネットワークでは、ユーザーがネットワークの運用に参加でき、コンセンサスメカニズムに基づき新規取引の検証なども行うことが可能です。

プルーフ・オブ・ステーク（「PoS」）は、コンセンサスに参加する運営者（「ノードオペレーター」）がネットワークに価値を提供していることを保証する手法であり、場合によっては不正行為を行った場合にその価値を没収されることがあります。PoSネットワークでは、ノードオペレーターはネットワークの対象暗号資産（Covered Crypto Asset）をステークする必要があり、ネットワークの基盤ソフトウェアプロトコルにより、新規データブロックの検証およびネットワーク状態の更新をプログラム的に選ばれる仕組みになっています。ステーク中の暗号資産はロックされ、一定期間は移転できません。ノードオペレーターは以下の報酬を得ます：（i）新規発行された暗号資産、（ii）トランザクション手数料の一部（暗号資産で支払われる）、これは取引をネットワークに追加したい当事者から支払われます。

各ネットワークのプロトコルは異なり、ノードオペレーターの選定方法、ステークすべき暗号資産の量および期間、ステーク資産の保管方法、単独ステークかグループステークか、報酬の仕組みなどが異なります。ノードオペレーターがステーク資産をカストディアンに預ける場合、ノードオペレーターは所有権を保持し、カストディアンは当該資産を業務上使用したり、貸出、担保提供、再担保（リヘポテーション）したりすることはできません。

プロトコル・ステーキング活動に関するSECの見解

SECは、プロトコル・ステーキングは証券法（Securities Act）および証券取引法（Securities Exchange Act）に基づく証券の募集や販売には該当しないとしています。したがって、プロトコル・ステーキング活動に参加する者は、SECへの免許取得や登録義務を負う必要はありません。本声明の判断は、ハウィー・テスト（Howey Test）に基づくものです。特に、SECはプロトコル・ステーキングが、他者の起業的・経営的努力によって利益を得ることを期待して行う共通事業への資金投資には該当しないと考えています。

SEC声明で対象とされるプロトコル・ステーキング活動

SECの声明は、以下のプロトコル・ステーキング活動を対象としています。

• PoSネットワークにおける対象暗号資産のステーキング
• プロトコル・ステーキングプロセスに関与する第三者（第三者ノードオペレーター、バリデーター、カストディアン、デリゲート、ノミネーターなどの「サービス提供者」を含むがこれに限定されない）による活動、および報酬の獲得・分配に関わる役割
• 補助的サービスの提供（以下で詳述）

SECの声明で対象となるプロトコル・ステーキングは、以下のタイプに限られます：(i) ソロ・ステーキング、(ii) 第三者との直接的なセルフカストディアル・ステーキング、(iii) PoSネットワーク上でのカストディアル契約によるステーキング。

補助的サービス

許可される補助的サービスには、以下が含まれます：

• スラッシング補償 – サービス提供者が、スラッシングによる損失からステーキング利用者を補償または賠償するサービス
• 早期アンボンディング – サービス提供者が、ステーキング期間終了前に暗号資産を所有者に返還できるようにするサービス
• 報酬の支払いスケジュールや金額の変更 – サービス提供者が、ネットワークの定めるスケジュールとは異なる時期や金額で報酬を提供するサービス
• 対象暗号資産の集約 – サービス提供者が、複数のノードオペレーターの暗号資産を集約して、プロトコルのステーキング要件を満たすサービス

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

LAnthony@ALClaw.com

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。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC を Facebook、LinkedIn、YouTube、Pinterest、Twitter でフォローしてください。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLCは、本情報を教育目的の一般情報として提供しています。本情報は一般的な内容であり、法的助言を構成するものではありません。さらに、本情報の利用や送受信は、当事務所との弁護士–依頼者関係を成立させるものではありません。したがって、本情報を通じて当事務所と行ういかなる通信も、特権または機密として扱われることはありません。

© Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC

SEC Statement On Certain Protocol Staking Activities

On May 29, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance (“CorpFin”) issued a statement on certain protocol staking activities.  In Particular, the statement addresses the staking of crypto assets that are intrinsically linked to the programmatic functioning of a public, permissionless network, and are used to participate in and/or earned for participating in such network’s consensus mechanism or otherwise used to maintain and/or earned for maintaining the technological operation and security of such network.  The statement refers to proof-of-stake as “PoS” and the network as “PoS Networks.”  The SEC previously issued a similar statement on proof-of-work mining activities – see HERE.

Protocol Staking

Networks rely on software programming (“protocols”) to reduce reliance on intermediaries, and which programming verifies transactions and provides settlement assurance to its users.  Each protocol incorporates a “consensus mechanism” to enable unrelated computers on a network to agree on data and transactions on the network.  Public, permissionless networks allow users to

ナスダック、中国企業の上場基準の改正を提案

2025年9月3日、ナスダックは中国（香港・マカオを含む）を主な事業拠点とする企業向けに、追加の上場基準を採用することを提案しました。

背景

SECやナスダックを含む米国の資本市場規制当局は長年にわたり、中国企業への投資リスクについて声高に警告してきました。その主な理由は、不十分な情報開示や開示管理にあります。2020年12月には外国企業責任法（HFCA）が採択され、外資系発行体は、PCAOBが過去3年以内に特定の報告書を監査し、監査法人を検査できたことを証明することが義務付けられました。もしPCAOBが3年連続で企業の会計監査法人を検査できない場合、その企業の証券は国内証券取引所での取引が禁止されます。HFCAに関する私の3部構成のブログ記事は  を参照   および を参照。

HFCAにもかかわらず、SECは中国企業に関する開示内容の質、特に特定リスクに関して依然として懸念を示しています。2023年7月には、SECは市場関係者に対し、中国企業が登録届出書や定期報告書に含めるべき情報の種類を示すサンプルコメントレターを公開しました – を参照。それ以前の2022年末には、中国企業に関連する取引が一時的にナスダックの小型株IPO市場を事実上停止させる事態も発生しました – を参照。

しかし、これらの規制にもかかわらず、中国企業のIPO市場は勢いを失っていません。実際、2020年以降、中国企業による米国上場の動きは急増しており、2024年には過去最多となる企業数が上場を目指し、2025年もそのペースが継続しています。規制当局は、中国企業の米国株式市場へのアクセスが投資家や国家安全保障に与えるリスクについて依然として懸念を示しています。例えば、2025年5月には、23州の財務担当者がSECのアトキンス委員長に対し、中国企業の上場に関する懸念を指摘する書簡を送っています。

ナスダックも、中国に本社を置く、または主な事業を中国で運営する企業の取引に関して懸念を抱いています。例えば、ナスダック上場企業のうち中国企業は全体の10％未満に過ぎませんが、ナスダックがSECやFinraに照会する案件の約70％は、これらの中国企業に関連しています。

ナスダックは、これらの企業の証券に流動性が欠けていることを大きな問題点と考えています。中国企業がナスダックにIPO（新規株式公開）や小規模な株式公開を伴う事業統合を通じて上場する場合、発行株数や公開株式比率が低いと、市場の注目を集められず、十分な公開株数、投資家層、取引関心を形成できず、公正かつ秩序ある取引に必要な市場の厚みや流動性が確保されない可能性があります。具体的にはナスダックは次のように述べています。「その結果、証券は取引頻度が低く、価格変動が大きく、買値と売値の差（スプレッド）が広くなることがあり、その価格が真の市場価値を反映していない可能性があり、悪意ある行為者による操作の影響を受けやすくなります。このような場合、価格操作、インサイダー取引、コンプライアンスに関する規制当局の調査が妨げられることがあり、投資家保護や救済も制限される可能性があります。これは、米国当局が潜在的に操作的な取引活動に関与する企業や個人に対して訴訟や執行を行う際に直面する障害があるためであり、該当する場合は当該企業や内部関係者にも及びます。」

規則案

            IPOs

ナスダックは、中国を拠点とする企業がIPOを完了するためには、米国における確定引受けの公募で最低2,500万ドルの証券を発行することを求める規則を提案しています。ナスダックはまた、de-SPAC取引、直接上場、現在OTC市場や他のナショナル証券取引所で取引されている企業に対しても、同様の変更を採用することを提案しています。

ナスダックは新ルール5210(1)を提案しており、本社または設立が中国（香港・マカオを含む）にある企業、あるいは事業の主要運営がこれらの管轄地域で行われている企業に適用されます。企業の事業が特定の管轄地域で主要に運営されているとみなされる条件は以下の通りです：(i) 企業の帳簿および記録がその管轄地域に所在すること；(ii) 企業資産の少なくとも50％がその管轄地域に所在すること；(iii) 企業の収益の少なくとも50％がその管轄地域から得られること；(iv) 企業取締役の少なくとも50％がその管轄地域の市民であるか居住していること；(v) 企業役員の少なくとも50％がその管轄地域の市民であるか居住していること；(vi) 企業従業員の少なくとも50％がその管轄地域に所在すること；(vii) 企業がその管轄地域の市民である、居住している、または事業の本社、設立、主要運営がある個人や団体により支配されている、もしくは共通支配下にあること。

規則5210(1)は、中国企業が米国での確定引受け公募において、少なくとも2,500万ドルの総収入をもたらす最低額の証券を公開投資家に提供することを義務付けます。公開投資家には、役員、取締役、または10％以上の株式を保有する株主は含まれません。

提案規則には明記されていませんが、ナスダックの発表文では、中国投資家の参加状況や内部関係者による重要な所有権の保持も考慮されることが明示されています。

事業統合

ナスダックは、中国企業が事業統合を通じて上場を目指す場合にも同様の懸念を抱いています。事業統合は株式公開を伴わない場合があるため、ナスダックは新たな規則5210(1)(ii)の導入を提案しており、事業統合後の非制限公開株式の時価総額が少なくとも2,500万ドルであることが求められています。

直接上場

ナスダックは、新たな規則5210(1)(iii)を提案しています。この規則では、中国企業はナスダック・グローバル・セレクト・マーケット（NGS）の適用上場要件とIM-5315-1の追加要件、またはナスダック・グローバル・マーケット（NGM）の適用上場要件とIM-5405-1の追加要件をすべて満たすことが求められます。さらに、この新規則は、中国に拠点を置く企業が直接上場に関連してナスダック・キャピタル・マーケットに上場することを禁止します。

OTC市場からの上場およびNYSEからの移行

ナスダックは、OTC市場や他のナショナル証券取引所に初めて上場した中国企業が、短期間でナスダックに上場を移行する場合、IPOと同様に米国投資家にリスクをもたらす可能性があると考えています。そこで、ナスダックは新規則5210(1)(iv)を提案しており、OTC市場または他のナショナル証券取引所から上場を移行する中国企業は、ナスダックに上場する資格を得る前に、まず当該市場で少なくとも1年間取引されていることを求めています。さらに、これらの企業は非制限公開株式の時価総額が少なくとも2,500万ドルであることが要求されます。

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

LAnthony@ALClaw.com

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。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC を Facebook、LinkedIn、YouTube、Pinterest、Twitter でフォローしてください。

Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLCは、本情報を教育目的の一般情報として提供しています。本情報は一般的な内容であり、法的助言を構成するものではありません。さらに、本情報の利用や送受信は、当事務所との弁護士–依頼者関係を成立させるものではありません。したがって、本情報を通じて当事務所と行ういかなる通信も、特権または機密として扱われることはありません。

© Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis, PLLC

NASDAQ Proposes To Modify Listing Standards For China Based Companies

On September 3, 2025, Nasdaq proposed to adopt additional listing criteria for companies primarily operating in China, including Hong Kong and Macau.

Background

Over the years U.S. capital markets regulators, including the SEC and Nasdaq, have been vocal about the risks in investing in China based companies due to poor disclosures and disclosure controls.  In December 2020 the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (“HFCA”) was adopted requiring foreign-owned issuers to certify that the PCAOB has been able to audit specified reports and inspect their audit firm within the last three years.  If the PCAOB is unable to inspect the company’s public accounting firm for three consecutive years, the company’s securities are banned from trading on a national exchange.  For my three part blog on the HFCA see HERE; HERE and HERE.

Despite the HFCA, the SEC has remained concerned about the quality of disclosures, including specific risks, involved with China based companies.  Back in July 2023, the

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

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

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.

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

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,

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

SEC Publishes CD&I On Legal Proceeding Disclosures

On June 20, 2025, the SEC revised two, and withdrew one, CD&I related to disclosures on legal proceedings.

Revised CD&I 105.01 states:

Question: Are costs anticipated to be incurred under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. § 9601) (otherwise known as the “Superfund” law), pursuant to a remedial agreement entered into in the normal course of negotiation with the EPA, generally considered “sanctions” within Item 103(c)(3)(iii)?

Answer: No. Footnote 30 of Release No. 33-6835 (May 18, 1989) and the letter to Thomas A. Cole (Jan. 17, 1989) clarify that, while there are many ways a Superfund “potential monetary sanction” may be triggered, including the stipulated penalty clause in a remedial agreement, the costs anticipated to be incurred under Superfund, pursuant to a remedial agreement entered into in the normal course of negotiation with the EPA, generally are not “sanctions” within Item 103(c)(3)(iii).

Revised CD&I 105.03 states:

Question: Should a proceeding against an

SEC Publishes New CD&I On Schedule 13D-G

In October 2023, the SEC adopted final amendments to Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Exchange Act.  To review the final amendments see HERE and HERE.  In March 2025, the SEC published a few CD&I’s related to the new amendments (see HERE).

The amendments updated Sections 13(d), 13(g) and Regulation 13D-G to accelerate filing deadlines for both initial and amended reports; expand the timeframe within a business day in which filings may be timely made; clarify the Schedule 13D disclosure requirements with respect to derivative securities; and require that Schedule 13D and 13G filings be filed using XBRL.

On July 11, 2025, the SEC published 18 revised CD&Is on the filing of Schedules 13D and 13G.  Many of the changes are clean-up, clarification and updates to align the guidance with the October 2023 amendments.

Section 13(d)

Two of the revised CD&I address Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act.

Revised CD&Is 101.01 and 103.01 confirm that when a company

NYSE Amends Listing Standards For Foreign Private Issuers And Listing Fees For All Issuers

In April the NYSE amended its listing fees for all issuers and in May 2025, amended the standards for foreign private issuers to meet the exchange’s minimum stockholder distribution requirements.  The new rules were enacted a few weeks before the SEC published a concept release and request for comment related to foreign private issuers in general (which will be the subject of an upcoming blog).

NYSE Listed Company Rule 902.03 – Fees for Listed Equity Securities

Effective April 1, 2025, the NYSE amended Listed Company Rule 902.03 to reduce the listed company fees for the first five years following an initial listing.  The amended rule provides that a company that lists on the exchange will only be charged the initial listing fee plus an annual fee calculated on an adjusted basis for any subsequent issuance or other corporate action (“Limited Fee Exemption Period”).

During the Limited Fee Exemption Period, an eligible company will not be charged any other listing fees

SEC Withdraws 14 Rule Proposals

On June 12, 2025, the SEC withdrew fourteen (14) rule proposals, backtracking many Biden-era regulations including several in the environmental, social and governance (ESG) arena.  This move clears the slate for what should be a very different spring regulatory agenda, expected to be published in early July.  Each of these rules were discussed to some extent in my last Regulatory Agenda update – which can be reviewed here – HERE.

Withdrawn Rule Proposals

Shareholder Proposals – Rule 14a-8

The SEC has withdrawn certain proposed amendments Exchange Act Rule 14a-8.  The withdrawn rule proposal was first published in July 2022.  Rule 14a-8 allows a qualifying shareholder to submit proposals that, subject to substantive and procedural requirements, must be included in the company’s proxy materials for annual and special meetings, and provides a method for companies to either accept or attempt to exclude such proposals. The rule has been subject to many changes, including via updated Staff Legal Bulletins, over the

SEC Statement On Proof-Of-Work Mining Activities

On March 20, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance (“CorpFin”) issued a statement on certain proof-of-work mining activities.  Illustrating CorpFin’s evolving understanding of the digital world, the statement drills down to a very specific aspect of the crypto mining industry.

The CorpFin statement “addresses the mining of crypto assets that are intrinsically linked to the programmatic functioning of a public, permissionless network, and are used to participate in and/or earned for participating in such network’s consensus mechanism or otherwise used to maintain and/or earned for maintaining the technological operation and security of such network.” In the statement, CorpFin refers to these mined crypto assets as “Covered Crypto Assets” and the mining as “Protocol Mining.”

Protocol Mining

Networks utilizing Protocol Mining are governed by computer code eliminating the need for designated trusted intermediaries.  The programmed software enforces certain network rules, technical requirements, and rewards distributions.  Public, permissionless networks allow anyone to participate in the network’s operation, including the validation

SEC Withdraws Statement On Broker Dealer Custody Of Digital Asset Securities

On May 15, 2025, the SEC Division of Trading and Markets and Office and FINRA’s Office of General Counsel withdrew their joint statement on broker dealer custody of digital asset securities.  The original joint statement had been issued on July 8, 2019 (see HERE).  This original statement has oft been thought of as the reason that broker dealers have not (could not) adopt any broad ranging policies or procedures related to digital assets.

The withdrawal of the joint statement, together with the slew of other recent activity from the SEC related to digital assets, (see HERE for example) is an important step towards more widespread adoption of digital asset trading, allowing retail investors to aggregate their investments with their trusted broker dealer advisors.

Refresher On Original Joint Statement/Concerns

Broker-dealers that hold funds and securities must comply with Exchange Act Rule 15c3-3 (the “Customer Protection Rule”), which generally requires the broker to maintain physical possession or control over

New Guidance On Rule 14a-8 Shareholder Proposals And No Action Letter Process

On February 12, 2025, shortly after the inauguration, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance (“Corp Fin”) issued Staff Legal Bulletin 14M (“SLB 14M”) rescinding SLB 14L which had in turn rescinded prior SLBs 14I, 14J and 14K.  As an aside, SLB 14L was issued under then new Chair Gary Gensler in 2021 following Biden’s election, and the prior three SLB’s had been issued under then Chair Jay Clayton, following President Trump’s first election.  For more on SLB 14L see HERE.

New SLB 14M provides more of a middle ground to the prior 14L which had been designed to make it easier for environmental, social and governance (ESG) advocates to include their various proposals in company proxy materials.

Background – Rule 14a-8

The regulation of corporate law rests primarily within the power and authority of the states. However, for public companies, the federal government imposes various corporate law mandates including those related to matters of corporate governance. While state law

SEC Publishes CD&I On Mergers And Acquisitions, Form S-4 And Tender Offers

On March 6, 2025, the SEC published several updates to its compliance and disclosure interpretations (“CD&I”) related to mergers and acquisitions, Form S-4 and tender offers.

Rule 145(a)/Form S-4

Revised CD&Is 239.13 and 225.10 address the circumstances upon which seeking commitments for favorable votes, in advance of a merger/acquisition transaction, would be deemed an “offer or sale” of securities under Section 5, requiring either registration or an exemption from registration by the soliciting party.

Acquiring companies often seek management and principal shareholder commitments to vote in favor of a transaction as part of the negotiations associated with a merger/acquisition prior to soliciting such favorable votes from the shareholders at large such as by filing a Form S-4.  The SEC recognizes that by executing these agreements, those management and shareholders have made investment decisions, prior to the transaction being presented to non-affiliate shareholders, in violation of Rule 145(a).  However, the SEC also recognizes the legitimate reasons an acquiring company

SEC Publishes CD&I On Exempt Offerings; Accredited Investor Guidance – Part 2

On March 12, 2025, the SEC published several updates to its compliance and disclosure interpretations (“CD&I”) related to exempt offerings.  Two of the new C&DI clarify acceptable processes for verifying accredited investor status in a Rule 506(c) offering.  On the same day the SEC issued no-action relief providing further detail on affirming accredited investor status.  Part 1 of this blog series discussed the two rule 506(c) C&DI and no action letter – see HERE.   This Part 2 will continue a review of the remaining substantive CD&I.

Confidential Filing of Form 1-A

Modified CD&I question 182.01 confirms that when a confidentially filed Form 1-A is made public by choosing “Disseminate Draft Offering Statement” in the EDGAR database, it will have satisfied the requirements to make prior confidential information public.  The prior CD&I on this topic required an issuer to file, as an exhibit to its public Form 1-A, any related non-public correspondence.  The SEC will now undertake to make

SEC Publishes CD&I On Exempt Offerings; Accredited Investor Guidance – Part 1

On March 12, 2025, the SEC published twenty-four new or revised compliance and disclosure interpretations (“CD&I”) related to exempt offerings.  Two of the new C&DI clarify acceptable processes for verifying accredited investor status in a Rule 506(c) offering.  On the same day the SEC issued no-action relief providing further detail on affirming accredited investor status.  The new guidance should make the use of Rule 506(c) offerings much easier and more palatable.  This blog will address the C&DI directed to Rule 506(c) and the no-action letter, and Part 2 will unpack the rest.  I’ve included a refresher on Rule 506(c) at the end of this blog.

New C&DI

Question 256.35 asks “[I]f an issuer does not satisfy any of the verification safe harbors in Rule 506(c)(2)(ii), are there other methods an issuer can use that will satisfy the requirement to take reasonable steps to verify accredited investor status?”

Answering in the affirmative, the SEC confirms that the verification methods listed in

Crypto Industry Gets A Second Chance

The last time I substantively wrote about cryptocurrencies and the crypto industry was in April 2023, when the SEC was firmly hostile against the industry and a slew of negative events (FTX collapse, etc..) pretty well eliminated crypto as an active element in the capital markets (see HERE).  That has changed!

Here is a recap of the newly regenerated crypto capital markets initiatives:

Digital Asset Executive Order

On January 23, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order entitled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” supporting the growth of the digital asset industry in the U.S.  The order specifically:

• Protects and promotes the ability of individual citizens and private-sector entities to access and use open blockchain including the ability to develop and deploy software to participate in mining and validating crypto assets;
• Allow individual citizens and private-sector entities to self-custody digital assets;
• Promotes and protects the U.S. dollar through the development and growth of dollar backed stablecoins;

SEC Further Expands Ability To File Confidential Registration Statements

The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance has expanded the ability to file non-public confidential registration statements to include all registration statements.

In 2012, the JOBS Act created a path for emerging growth companies to file draft registration statements (DRS) on a confidential basis when completing an initial public offering.  In 2017 the Division of Corporation Finance expanded the DRS filing option to include all Section 12(b) Exchange Act registration statements (but not 12(g) registrations), all registration statements for initial public offerings, and follow on offerings completed within 12 months of an initial public offering, for all class of issuers.  See – HERE.

On March 3, 2025, the Division of Corporation Finance announced that it has further expanded the ability to utilize a DRS filing to include:

• Initial registrations under the Exchange Act, including both Sections 12(b) and 12(g) including Forms 8-A, 10, 20-F and 40-F;
• All Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) registration statements regardless of the amount of

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

SEC Chair Uyeda Talks SEC Priorities

Just a few weeks after SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce gave some insight into the SEC’s priorities (see HERE), acting SEC Chair Mark Uyeda got more granular on what we can expect under his regime.  Commissioner Uyeda drilled down on particular SEC goals while giving a speech at the Florida Bar’s Annual Federal Securities Institute and M&A Conference.

The overarching goal of the SEC over the next few years will be to foster innovation, job creation and economic growth by maintaining cost effective regulations throughout a business’s life cycle.  To accomplish these goals, the SEC intends to “return normalcy” to the SEC by being cognizant of its legal authority, policy priorities and enforcement initiatives, all of which have gone awry over the last few years.

Commissioner Uyeda highlights some of the actions already taken to facilitate these goals, including rescinding Staff Legal Bulletin 14 related to shareholder proposals and proxy statements (for more on Staff Legal Bulletin 14 see

Commissioner Peirce Gives A Sneak Peak At SEC Priorities

At the end of January 2025, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, who finally is not on an island alone within the SEC top brass, gave a speech at the Northwestern Securities Law Institute giving some insight into what we can expect from the SEC under the new administration.

Commissioner Peirce has been vocal over the years about her disdain for bringing political and social issues into SEC reporting and compliance management for public companies, however now, working with like-minded executives, she has solid ideas for a path forward.  First and foremost, a public company should have the goal of maximizing value for its shareholders as a group.  Unfortunately, in today’s world, public companies are often forced to answer to activists, non-shareholder “stakeholders” and the like, forcing executives to utilize company resources to further these groups (or individual’s) favorite cause.  Commissioner Peirce notes that “[D]irectors and executive officers serve shareholders and society best by keeping the companies they guide focused on

SEC’s Fall 2024 Flex Regulatory Agenda

The SEC has published its semi-annual Fall 2024 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) Proposed Rule Stage; (ii) Final Rule Stage; and (iii) 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 30, down from 34 on the Spring 2024 Agenda and 43 on the Fall 2023 Agenda.  Many in the industry believe the

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 5^th 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

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

NASDAQ Amends Rule 5210 – Listing Prerequisites

In March 2024, the Nasdaq Stock Market quietly amended Rule 5210 requiring that all lead underwriters on an IPO must be Nasdaq members or limited underwriting members as a prerequisite to applying for a listing.  The new rules also created the “limited underwriting member” class and accompanying rules applicable to the group and its associates including eligibility, application process and ongoing requirements.  Although the amendment garnered little attention at the time, now that it has become effective, it is loudly impacting the small cap IPO market.

Rule 5210 – Background

Nasdaq Rule 5210 sets forth the prerequisites for a company to apply for a Nasdaq listing.  Until October 2023, the Rule had 12 subparts with new Rule 5210(l) being added in October 2023 and new Rule 5210(m) being added in March 2024.  Rule 5210(l) requires that any company listing on Nasdaq comply with the recovery of erroneously awarded compensation (Clawback) rules.  For more on the Clawback rules see HERE. 

SEC Division Of Corporation Finance Statement On Disclosure Review

On June 24, 2024, Erik Gerding the Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance made a statement regarding the SEC’s state of disclosure review.  In fiscal year 2023 and continuing into 2024, the top areas of review and comment by the SEC were China-related matters, artificial intelligence, non-GAAP disclosures, management’s discussion and analysis, revenue recognition and financial statement presentation.  In addition, disruptions in the banking industry, cybersecurity risks, the impact of inflation and disclosure related to or as a result of newly adopted rules (such as pay versus performance) are gaining attention by SEC review teams.

The director’s statement gives some insight into the SEC’s focus and serves as a reminder to our clients and us practitioners alike to be sure we are staying abreast of the ever-changing capital markets environment.

China Related Disclosures

A few years ago, the SEC enacted the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act and approved rules implementing same (see HERE).   The SEC continues to

SEC Publishes More New C&DI On Cybersecurity Rules

On June 24, 2024 the SEC published five (5) new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DI) on cybersecurity incident disclosures supplementing the C&DI published in December 2023 (see HERE).

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 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 company.  An Item 1.05 Form 8-K is due within four business days following determination that a cybersecurity incident is material. Given the sensitive nature of cybersecurity crimes, the SEC has added a provision allowing an 8-K to be delayed if it is informed by the United States Attorney General, in writing, that immediate disclosure would pose a substantial risk to national security or

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

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 8

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 7

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

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 5

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.  Last week’s 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 4

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.  Last week’s 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.  This week’s blog will

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 3

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.  Last week’s 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.  This week’s blog will continue a review of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K.

New Subpart 1600 of Regulation S-K

The SEC has adopted new Subpart 1600 to

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 2

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.

In last week’s blog, I provided background on and a summary of the new rules – see HERE.  This week’s blog begins a granular discussion of the 581-page rule release and its vast implications to not only the SPAC market, but shell company reverse mergers in general.  This week in particular, I will begin coverage of new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K related to disclosures in SPAC IPO’s and de-SPAC transactions.

New Subpart 1600 of Regulation S-K

The SEC has adopted new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K to: (i) set forth disclosure obligations for

SEC Adopts Final Rules On SPACS, Shell Companies And The Use Of Projections – Part 1

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 SEC is specifically requiring enhanced disclosures with respect to compensation paid to sponsors, conflicts of interest, dilution, and the determination, if any, of the board of directors (or similar governing body) of a SPAC regarding whether a de-SPAC transaction is advisable and in the best interests of the SPAC and its shareholders.  The SEC has also adopted rules that deem any business combination transaction involving a reporting shell company, including a SPAC, to involve a sale of securities to the reporting shell company’s shareholders, and has amended several financial statement requirements applicable to transactions involving

Section 13 – Beneficial Shareholder Reporting Requirements – Part 1

Barely two weeks after the SEC charged six officers, directors and five percent (5%) or greater shareholders with failing to timely file reports, the SEC adopted final amendments to Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).  The amendments were first proposed in February, 2022 – see HERE.

The amendments update Sections 13(d), 13(g) and Regulation 13D-G to accelerate filing deadlines for both initial and amended reports; expand the timeframe within a business day in which filings may be timely made; clarify the Schedule 13D disclosure requirements with respect to derivative securities; and require that Schedule 13D and 13G filings be filed using XBRL.  I’ve included a chart of the amendments to Schedules 13D and 13G at the end of this blog.

The final rules do not adopt changes that had been proposed to clarify the circumstances under which two or more persons have formed a “group” that would be subject to beneficial ownership reporting

NYSE Amends Shareholder Approval Requirements In Private Securities Transactions Involving Substantial Shareholders

On December 26, 2023, the SEC approved an NYSE rule change to make it easier for listed companies to raise money from existing substantial shareholders.  In particular, the NYSE has amended Section 312.03(b) and 312.04 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual to modify the circumstances under which a listed company must obtain shareholder approval prior to the sale of securities below the Minimum Price to a substantial security holder.

Background

Section 312.03 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual lists the circumstances upon which shareholder approval must be obtained prior to the issuance of securities.  Pre-amendment Section 312.03(b)(i) requires shareholder approval prior to the issuance of common stock, or of securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock, in any transaction or series of related transactions, to a director, officer or substantial security holder of the company (each a “Related Party”) if the number of shares of common stock to be issued, or if the number of shares of common stock

SEC Issues Staff Report On Accredited Investor Definition

On December 15, 2023, the SEC issued a staff report on the accredited investor definition.  The report comes three years after the most recent amendments to the accredited investor definition (see HERE).

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) requires the SEC to review the accredited investor definition, as relates to natural persons, at least once every four years to determine whether the definition should be modified or adjusted.  The last two reports can be read HERE and HERE.

The current report focuses on the composition of the accredited investor demographic, including since the last definition amendments; the extent to which accredited investors have the financial sophistication, ability to sustain the risk of loss of investment, and access to information that have traditionally been associated with an ability to fend for themselves; and accredited investor participation in exempt offerings.

I’ve included the complete current accredited investor definition at the end of this blog.

Background

All

SEC Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda

On December 6, 2023, the SEC published its semi-annual Fall 2023 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) Proposed Rule Stage; (ii) Final Rule Stage; and (iii) 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 43, down from 55 on the Spring 2023 Agenda.

Fourteen items are included in the proposed rule stage, down

NASDAQ Amends Rules For Waivers To Code Of Conduct

On September 5, 2023, Nasdaq adopted amendments to Listing Rule 5610 and IM-5610 requiring listed companies to maintain a code of conduct and to disclose certain waivers.  This is also a good time to discuss the code of conduct/code of ethics requirements applicable to all companies subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) reporting requirements.

Code of Conduct/Code of Ethics

Section 406(c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) requires all companies that are subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements to disclose whether they have adopted a code of ethics that applies to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions.  If the company has not adopted such a code, it must explain why it has not done so.

SOX defines a code of ethics as written standards reasonably designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote: (i) honest and ethical conduct including related to conflicts of

SEC Suspends New Share Repurchase Disclosure Rules

In a win for conservatives, the recent amendments to the share repurchase rules are officially on hold.  Adopted on May 3, 2023 (see HERE) the new disclosure requirements would have taken effect for inclusion in the upcoming 10-K season.  Following a successful court challenge, on November 22, 2023, the SEC issued an order postponing the effective date of the new rules pending further SEC action.

Background

On May 3, 2023, the SEC adopted amendments to Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-18, which provides issuers and affiliates with a non-exclusive safe harbor from liability for market manipulation under Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) when issuers bid for or repurchase their common stock.

The SEC allows for limited methods that an issuer can utilize to show confidence in its own stock and assist in maintaining or increasing its stock price.  One of those methods is Exchange Act Rule

Nasdaq Adopts New Reverse Split Rule Change

On November 1, 2023, the SEC approved Nasdaq’s rule changes to the notification and disclosure requirements for reverse splits.  The new rules went effective immediately upon approval.  For the proposed rule changes see HERE.

Background

After the market highs of the second half of 2020 and all of 2021, we have all witnessed the general decline, including noticeably depressed valuations and market price, especially in the small cap space.  In 2022, Nasdaq processed 196 reverse stock splits, compared to 31 in 2021 and 94 in 2020. As of June 23, 2023, Nasdaq has processed 164 reverse stock splits, and projects significantly more throughout 2023. The majority of reverse splits are completed by companies that trade on the Nasdaq Capital Market tier of the exchange and are completing the split to maintain the minimum $1.00 bid price to avoid delisting.

In response to concerns by Nasdaq that market participants do not have enough visibility on these companies or their

SEC Adopts Revisions To The Privacy Act

On September 20, 2023, the SEC approved final revisions to the Privacy Act, governing the handling of personal information in the federal government (See HERE for a review of the proposed rules).  The revisions codify current practices for processing requests for information made by the public under the Privacy Act and result in an entire re-write of the current rules.  The SEC last updated the Privacy Act in 2011.

Background

The Privacy Act is the principal law governing the handling of personal information in the federal government, regulating the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies.  The Privacy Act also allows individuals to access information about them and provides a method to correct inaccurate records.

Final New Rules

The amended rules result in a complete rewrite of the Privacy Act to: (i) add a provision setting forth the process by which individuals may be provided with

SEC Proposes New EDGAR Rules

On September 13, 2023, the SEC proposed rule and form amendments to the EDGAR system dubbing the updates as EDGAR Next.  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 would require EDGAR filers to authorize identified individuals who would be responsible for managing the filers’ EDGAR accounts. Individuals acting on behalf of filers on EDGAR would need individual account credentials to access those EDGAR accounts and make filings. As part of the proposed rule changes, the SEC is making a beta software public for testing and feedback which software would eventually be used by filers if the proposed new rules are implemented.

The proposed rules would amend Rules 10 and 11 of Regulation S-T and amend Form ID.  Only the identified authorized individuals would be able to access a filer’s EDGAR account.  The authorized individual(s) need not be

SEC Publishes Sample Comment Letter Regarding XBRL Disclosure

Back in June, 2018, the SEC adopted the Inline XBRL requirements (see HERE) and since that time almost all new disclosure rules require either XBRL tagging or Inline XBRL.  In December 2022 a new law was passed requiring the SEC to “establish a program to improve the quality of the corporate financial data filed or furnished by issuers under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”),” causing the SEC to focus even more on XBRL use.  As a result, in September 2023, the SEC published a sample letter to companies regarding their XBRL disclosures.

The sample letter consists of six comments, which I have included in full below followed by a short commentary on the point.

1. Your filing does not include the required Inline XBRL presentation in accordance with Item 405 of Regulation S-T. Please file an amendment to the filing to include the required Inline XBRL presentation.

SEC Publishes New C&DI On Pay Versus Performance Rules

For the second time since the adoption of the pay versus performance rules (Pay vs. Performance) in August, 2022 (see HERE), the SEC has published guidance via new compliance and disclosure interpretations (“C&DI”).  The SEC previously published 15 C&DI on the subject in February 2023 – see HERE.

The Pay vs. Performance rules require companies to provide a tabular disclosure of specified executive compensation and financial performance measures for their five most recently completed fiscal years in any proxy or information statement filed under Section 14 of the Exchange Act. With respect to the measures of performance, a company is required to report its total shareholder return (TSR), the TSR of companies in the company’s peer group, its net income, and a financial performance measure chosen by the company itself. Using the information presented in the table, companies are required to describe the relationships between the executive compensation actually paid and each of the performance measures, as well

Nasdaq Listing Deficiencies And Delisting – Part 3

As 2022 and 2023 have continued to be extremely tough years for the capital markets many small cap companies find themselves failing to maintain the minimum continued listing requirements.  I’ve recently written about those continued listing requirements, see HERE, and Nasdaq’s proposed rule changes for reverse split notifications as companies struggle to maintain the $1.00 minimum bid price requirement, see HERE.

These blogs provide a perfect segue for a deep dive into the Nasdaq deficiency notice and delisting process.  In this first blog in the series, I provided an overview of deficiencies, deficiency notices, cure periods and compliance plans – see HERE.  In Part 2, I reviewed the hearing panel process – see HERE.  In this Part 3, I will review the appeals to the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council and delisting.  I note that the Nasdaq rules also contain administrative rules regarding the conduct of adjudicators and advisors and the adjudication process, which

Nasdaq Listing Deficiencies And Delisting – Part 1

As 2022 and 2023 have continued to be extremely tough years for the capital markets, many small-cap companies find themselves failing to maintain the minimum continued listing requirements.  I’ve recently written about those continued listing requirements – see HERE – and Nasdaq’s proposed rule changes for reverse split notifications as companies struggle to maintain the $1.00 minimum bid price requirement – see HERE.

These blogs provide a perfect segue for a deep dive into the Nasdaq deficiency notice and delisting process.  In this first blog in the series, I provide an overview of deficiencies, deficiency notices, cure periods and compliance plans.  In the Part 2, I will review the hearing panel process followed by appeals and ultimately delisting.

Overview – Deficiency Notices

When the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Department determines that a company does not meet a listing standard, it will immediately notify the company of the deficiency.  The notification will come in letter format, literally within a day

SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s Annual Congressional Testimony

On September 12, 2023, Gary Gensler gave his annual testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and then on September 27^th to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services (for a review of last year’s testimony see HERE).  Both appearances included the same prepared remarks followed by robust Q&A from the lawmakers.

This year Chair Gensler’s prepared remarks focused on: (i) rule amendments and updates; (ii) improving efficiency in equity markets; (iii) disclosure matters and related enforcement including related to cryptocurrency; and (iv) general updates on the SEC and capital markets.

Prepared Remarks

We shouldn’t expect the busy SEC rule making agenda to slow down any time soon.  Chair Gensler prioritizes updating rules for technology, business and market changes.  Although Gensler’s speech focuses on rule changes to make the markets more efficient and resilient and lower costs, the reality is that not all rule changes will accomplish

NYSE/NYSE American Continued Listing Requirements

Although I often write about initial listing standards, I realized that I have not yet blogged about the reduced ongoing listing standards for national exchanges. Last week I wrote about the Nasdaq continued listing requirements (see HERE) and this week I will cover the NYSE and NYSE American.  For a review of the initial listing requirements for the NYSE American see HERE.

NYSE American

The NYSE American prefaces it continued listing qualitative minimum standards with it high level discretionary authority.  The basis for continued listing is summed up in Section 1001 of the NYSE Company Guide as follows:

In considering whether a security warrants continued trading and/or listing on the Exchange, many factors are taken into account, such as the degree of investor interest in the company, its prospects for growth, the reputation of its management, the degree of commercial acceptance of its products, and whether its securities have suitable characteristics for auction market trading. Thus, any developments

SEC Publishes New Sample Comment Letter To China Based Companies

Continuing its concerns over the quality of disclosures from companies based in or with a majority of their operations in the People’s Republic of China, in July 2023, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance published yet another sample comment letter to China-based companies.

Back in April 2020, former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and a group of senior SEC and PCAOB officials issued a joint statement warning about the risks of investing in emerging markets, especially China, including companies from those markets that are accessing the U.S. capital markets (see HERE).  Before that, in December 2018, Chair Clayton, SEC Chief Accountant Wes Bricker and PCAOB Chairman William D. Duhnke III issued a similar cautionary statement, also focusing on China (see HERE).

The Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (“HFCA”) was adopted on December 18, 2020, requiring both the SEC and the PCAOB to adopt rules and procedures implementing its provisions.  The HFCA requires foreign-owned issuers to certify that the PCAOB

NASDAQ Proposes Reverse Split Rule Changes

In July Nasdaq filed a proposed rule change with the SEC to establish listing standards related to notification and disclosure requirements of reverse splits.  As of the writing of this blog, the proposed rule change has received only a single comment, which supported the change.

Background

After the market highs of the second half of 2020 and all of 2021, we have all witnessed the general decline, including noticeably depressed valuations and market price, especially in the small cap space.  In 2022, Nasdaq processed 196 reverse stock splits, compared to 31 in 2021 and 94 in 2020. As of June 23, 2023, Nasdaq has processed 164 reverse stock splits, and projects significantly more throughout 2023. In its rule proposal, Nasdaq notes that the majority of reverse splits are effectuated by smaller companies that do not have broad media or research coverage.  These companies generally trade on the Nasdaq Capital Market tier of the exchange and are completing reverse splits

SEC Publishes New C&DI On Rule 10b5-1

On August 25, 2023, the SEC published five new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) on the recently effective Rule 10b5-1 amendments.  The new rules were adopted on December 14, 2022 (see HERE) to enhance disclosure requirements and investor protections against insider trading.  The amendments include updates to Rule 10b5-1(c)(1), which provides an affirmative defense to insider trading liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. This is the second time the SEC has published guidance on the rules having issued three C&DI in May – see HERE.

The rule amendments updated the conditions to satisfy the 10b5-1 affirmative defense, including adding cooling-off periods before trading can commence under a Rule 10b5-1 plan and a condition that all persons entering into a Rule 10b5-1 plan must act in good faith with respect to the plan. The amendments also require directors and officers to include representations in their plans certifying at the time of the adoption of

SEC Adopts Final New Rules On Cybersecurity Disclosures

On July 26, 2023, the SEC adopted final new rules requiring disclosures for both domestic and foreign companies related to cybersecurity incidents, risk management, strategy and governance.  The proposed rules were published in March 2022 (see HERE).  In response to numerous comments, the final rules made several changes to the proposal, including narrowing the disclosures in both the Form 8-K/6-K and annual reports on Form 10-K and 20-F.

The final 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 company.  An Item 1.05 Form 8-K will be due within four business days following determination that a cybersecurity incident is material. Given the sensitive nature of cybersecurity crimes, the SEC has added a provision allowing an 8-K to be delayed if it is informed by the United States Attorney General, in writing, that immediate disclosure would pose a substantial

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

Regulation FD

In addition to the rules and regulations governing the numerous mandatory disclosure obligations under the federal securities laws, the SEC also has several rules governing a company’s obligations vis-a-vis voluntary disclosures.  I have written several times about the use of non-GAAP financial measures (see HERE and the imbedded links therein), but it has been several years (10!) since I wrote about the rules and regulations that form a part of Regulation Fair Disclosure (“Regulation FD”).

Regulation FD, comprised of Exchange Act Rules 100-103, was first adopted in the year 2000 in response to concerns about selective disclosure to certain market participants, including a practice of having private calls with analysts, institutional shareholders and traders.  Regulation FD requires a company to make public disclosure in advance of an intentional disclosure of material non-public information or immediately following an inadvertent disclosure of such material information.

Regulation FD Rules

Exchange Act Rule 100 mandates that whenever a company or any person acting

Furnish VS. Filed

Over the years I’ve noted that information required pursuant to various disclosure obligations, or new or amended rules, may be “furnished” versus “filed” with the SEC, but I realize in a “let’s get back to basics” moment, I have not yet (until now) provided a detailed explanation of what that means.  In summary, information that is “filed” with the SEC carries Section 18 liability, only “filed” information can be incorporated by reference into other filings, such as an S-3 registration statement, and only “filed” SEC reports affect S-3 eligibility.

Section 18

Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) imposes liability on any person that makes or causes to be made any statement in any application, report or document “filed” pursuant to the Exchange Act or any rule thereunder which statement was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made false or misleading with

SEC Spring 2023 Regulatory Agenda

On June 13, 2023, the SEC published its semiannual Spring 2023 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) “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 55, which is in-line with the average items under Gary Gensler’s regime (and much higher than

SEC Publishes Guidance On Rule 10b5-1 Amendments

On May 25, 2023, the SEC published three new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) on the recently effective Rule 10b5-1 amendments.  The new rules were adopted on December 14, 2022 (see HERE) to enhance disclosure requirements and investor protections against insider trading.  The amendments include updates to Rule 10b5-1(c)(1), which provides an affirmative defense to insider trading liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

The changes updated the conditions that must be met for the 10b5-1 affirmative defense, including adding cooling-off periods before trading can commence under a Rule 10b5-1 plan and a condition that all persons entering into a Rule 10b5-1 plan must act in good faith with respect to the plan. The amendments also require directors and officers to include representations in their plans certifying at the time of the adoption of a new or modified Rule 10b5-1 plan that: (i) they are not aware of any material nonpublic information about the issuer

SEC Adopts New Share Repurchase Disclosure Rules

On May 3, 2023, the SEC adopted amendments to Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-18, which provides issuers and affiliates with a non-exclusive safe harbor from liability for market manipulation under Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) when issuers bid for or repurchase their common stock.  The proposed rules were part of a broader SEC initiative aimed at market manipulation and insider trading, including the recently adopted amendments related to Rule 10b5-1 Insider Trading Plans (see HERE).

Following publishing the proposed rules, on December 7, 2022, the SEC re-opened the comment period for an additional 30 days after publication in the federal register.  The reason for re-opening the comment period was that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 added a corporate non-deductible excise tax equal to one percent of the fair market value of any stock of the corporation repurchased by such corporation during the taxable year (see

XBRL – Covered Forms

The last time I wrote about XBRL was related to the 2018 adoption of Inline XBRL which is now fully effective for all companies (see HERE).  Although I gave an overview of Inline XBRL, that blog did not cover exactly what SEC forms need to be edgarized using XBRL.   I’ll cover that now.

XBRL Requirements

XBRL requirements currently apply to operating companies that prepare their financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) or in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”).  Operating companies (as opposed to a new initial public offering) are required to submit financial statements and any applicable financial statement schedules in XBRL with certain Exchange Act reports and Securities Act registration statements. The 2018 adoption of inline XBRL allowed companies to embed XBRL data directly into an HTML document, eliminating the need to tag a copy of the information in a separate XBRL exhibit. Inline XBRL is both human-readable and machine-readable

SEC Issues Guidance On New Pay Versus Performance Disclosure Rules

On February 10, 2023, the SEC published 15 new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) related to the pay versus performance (“Pay vs. Performance”) disclosure rules which were, in turn, adopted in August, 2022 (see HERE) after seven years in the process.

The rules require companies to provide a table disclosing specified executive compensation and financial performance measures for their five most recently completed fiscal years in any proxy or information statement filed under Section 14 of the Exchange Act. With respect to the measures of performance, a company will be required to report its total shareholder return (TSR), the TSR of companies in the company’s peer group, its net income, and a financial performance measure chosen by the company itself. Using the information presented in the table, companies will be required to describe the relationships between the executive compensation actually paid and each of the performance measures, as well as the relationship between the company’s TSR and the

SEC To Shorten Settlement Cycle

On February 15, 2023, the SEC adopted final rules shortening the standard settlement cycle from two business days (T+2) to one business day (T+1).  A shorter settlement cycle will reduce the credit, market and liquidity risks in securities transactions.  The SEC previously shorted the standard cycle from three days (T+3) to T+2 in 2017 (see HERE) and at that time, and in speeches and rule making agendas since then, has consistently indicated efforts to move to T+1.

In addition to shortening the standard settlement cycle, the new rules also shorten the standard settlement cycle for firm commitment offerings priced after 4:30 p.m. from four business days (T+4) to T+2.   However, the rules do allow for underwriters and issuers to agree to an alternative settlement date, which is helpful in completing the numerous closing documents and processing steps that occur between the pricing and closing of deals.

The final rules will improve the processing of institutional trades by requiring

Nasdaq Amends Pricing Limitations Rules In A Direct Listing

The rules related to direct listings continue to evolve, with the latest Nasdaq rule change being approved on December 2, 2022, although their utilization has been slow to gain traction.  Despite the Exchange’s efforts to make the process more attractive and viable, based on a few articles on the subject, only 10 companies had gone public via direct listing as of December 31, 2021, and I could not find a single example of any others since that time.  Moreover, and certainly due to the elevated listing standards and arduous process, each of the companies have been much more mature such as Spotify, Slack, Palantir and Coinbase.

In any event, both Nasdaq and the NYSE continue with an “if we build it they will come” approach.  After multiple iterations with the SEC, both Nasdaq and the NYSE approved rules that allow a company to raise capital concurrently with a direct listing (see HERE).  The very handy Nasdaq Initial Listing Guide

SEC Issues Additional C&DI On Use Of Non-GAAP Measures

On December 13, 2022, the SEC issued seven new Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) related to the use of non-GAAP financial measures, the first new C&DI on the subject since 2018. Several of the new C&DI update or replace the language of prior existing C&DI.  The C&DI cover revenue recognition, misleading information and GAAP reconciliation, in some cases replacing a principles-based response with a more prescriptive approach.

The SEC permits companies to present non-GAAP financial measures in their public disclosures subject to compliance with Regulation G and Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K.  Regulation G and Item 10(e) require reconciliation to comparable GAAP numbers, the reasons for presenting the non-GAAP numbers, and govern the presentation format itself including requiring equal or greater prominence to the GAAP financial information.

GAAP continues to be and has consistently been criticized by the marketplace in general, with many institutional investors publicly denouncing the usefulness of the accounting standard.  Approximately 90% of companies provide

SEC Continues It’s Crypto Focus

In the year and a half since Gary Gensler made it clear to the world that he intends to focus on the crypto “wild west” (see HERE) things have gone from bad to worse for the industry.  Of course, it is not all the SEC’s extreme crypto scrutiny that is causing problems, but the very real crypto winter including the collapse of the FTX exchange and its FTX Future Fund, and the realization that the metaverse of tomorrow, will actually not be here until… tomorrow have all added to industry problems.   Not to mention a slew of bankruptcy filings (FTX, Blockfi, Celsius and Voyager) and several other precarious financial positions (Blockchain.com, Coinbase, Crypto.com and Genesis, to name a few).

However, putting aside the crypto industry financial crisis, the U.S. regulators, including the SEC, FINRA and national exchanges, are scrutinizing any business with even a modicum of crypto focus to the point where it is almost impossible to move

Guidance On Executive Compensation Clawback Rules; NYSE And Nasdaq Issue Proposed Rules

On October 26, 2022, the SEC adopted final rules on listing standards for the recovery of erroneously awarded incentive-based executive compensation (“Clawback Rules”) (see HERE).  The Clawback Rules implement Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Act and require that national securities exchanges require disclosure of policies regarding and mandating clawback of compensation under certain circumstances as a listing qualification. The proposed rules were first published in July 2015 (see HERE) and have moved around on the SEC semiannual regulatory agenda from proposed to long-term and back again for years.

The Clawback Rules add a check box to Forms 10-K, 20-F and 40-F to indicate whether the form includes the correction of an error in previously issued financial statements and a related recovery analysis.  Although the check box has already been added to the Forms, the new Clawback Rules are not effective until November 28, 2023.  As such, the SEC has issued guidance regarding compliance with the check box in

SEC Issues Additional Guidance Through New C&DI On The Use Of Universal Proxy Cards

On November 17, 2021, the SEC adopted final rules requiring parties in a contested election to use universal proxy cards that include all director nominees presented for election at a shareholder meeting (see HERE).  The original rules were proposed on October 16, 2016 (see HERE) with no activity until April, 2021, when the SEC re-opened a comment period (see HERE).

The rule adoption came with a flurry of rule amendments, proposals and guidance related to the proxy process, some of which reverses recent rules on the same subject, including amendments to the rules governing proxy advisory firms (see HERE) and additional proposed amendments to Rule 14a-8 governing shareholder proposals (see HERE).

The final rules require dissident shareholders and registrants to provide shareholders with a proxy card that includes the names of all registrant and dissident nominees. The rules apply to all non-exempt solicitations for contested elections other than those involving registered investment companies and business

M&A Broker Dealer Registration

On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed H.R. 2617, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (“Appropriations Act”) into law.  As sometimes happens in these voluminous bills, a nugget affecting our industry is buried.  After about 2,600 pages of text we get to Title V – Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales and Brokerage Simplification.  This short provision codifies into law the broker-dealer registration requirements for entities effecting securities transactions in connection with the sale of equity control in private operating businesses (“M&A Broker”).  Previously the industry has been relying on a no-action letter issued by the SEC Division of Trading and Markets on January 31, 2014, for liability protection involving these transactions (see HERE).

Background

Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) requires securities brokers to register with the SEC and Section 15(b) prescribes the manner of registration. Section 3(a)(4) of the Exchange Act defines a “broker” as “any person engaged in the business

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

SEC Adopts Amendments To Rule 10b5-1 Insider Trading Plans

On December 14, 2022, the SEC adopted amendments to Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to enhance disclosure requirements and investor protections against insider trading.  The amendments include updates to Rule 10b5-1(c)(1), which provides an affirmative defense to insider trading liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The proposed rules were published in HERE.  Although there is a statutory framework, the laws surrounding insider trading are largely based on judicial precedence and are difficult to navigate.  The rule amendments are intended to provide clarity to the marketplace.

Since the adoption of Rule 10b5-1, courts, commentators, and members of Congress have expressed concern that the affirmative defense under Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i) has allowed traders to take advantage of the liability protections provided by the rule to opportunistically trade securities on the basis of material nonpublic information. Furthermore, some academic studies of Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangements have shown that corporate insiders trading pursuant to

2022 Annual Report Of The Office Of The Advocate For Small Business Capital Formation

The Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation (“Office”) has published its Annual Report for fiscal year 2022 (“Report”).  The Report is delivered to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the U.S. Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives directly by the Office, without review or input from the SEC at large.

Background

The SEC’s Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation launched in January 2019 after being created by Congress pursuant to the Small Business Advocate Act of 2016 (see HERE).  The mission of the Office is to advocate for pragmatic solutions to accessing capital markets and business growth.

The Office has the following functions: (i) assist small businesses (privately held or public with a market cap of less than $250 million) and their investors in resolving problems with the SEC or self-regulatory organizations; (ii) identify and propose regulatory changes that would benefit small businesses

Report On The 41st Annual Small Business Forum

The Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation (“Office”) has delivered a report to Congress following the 41st annual small business forum (“Report”).  The Report includes recommendations of the Office and its annual forum participants.  The forum itself featured panelists and discussions on (i) empowering entrepreneurs, including tools for capital raising; (ii) hometown entrepreneurship including how entrepreneurs can thrive outside of capital raising hubs; (iii) new investor voices including how emerging fund managers are diversifying capital; and (iv) small-cap world including what to know and how to think ahead.

I’ve been writing about the forum for many years and have even attended a few times.  Each year the topics are similar, but the recommendations tend to transform over time.  Last year the topics included (i) navigating ways to raise early rounds; (ii) diligence including how savvy early-stage investors build diversified portfolios; (iii) tools for emerging and smaller funds and their managers; and (iv) perspectives on smaller public companies. 

Compliance Deadlines For Nasdaq Board Diversity Rules

On August 6, 2021, the SEC approved Nasdaq’s board diversity listing standards proposal.  Nasdaq Rule 5605(f) requires Nasdaq listed companies, subject to certain exceptions, to: (i) to have at least one director who self-identifies as a female, and (ii) have at least one director who self-identifies as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, two or more races or ethnicities, or as LGBTQ+, or (iii) explain why the company does not have at least two directors on its board who self-identify in the categories listed above.  The rule changes also made headlines in most major publications.  One of the most common themes in the press was the lack of inclusion of people with disabilities in the definition of an “underrepresented minority” for purposes of complying with the new rules.

The original rules had tiered compliance deadlines which Nasdaq (and practitioners) found confusing and unnecessarily complicated.  On December 14,

Human Capital Disclosures

In August 2020, the SEC adopted final amendments to Item 101 of Regulation S-K including adding a requirement for disclosures related to “human capital” (see HERE).  The new rule applies to Form 10-Ks and registration statements filed after November 8, 2020.  This blog will not only discuss how companies are navigating their human capital disclosures, but also the push to add more prescriptive disclosure requirements to the rules, which the SEC is considering.  Amendments to the rule are currently included on the SEC’s regulatory agenda although as of now, the SEC has not published a proposal.

Drill Down on Human Capital Disclosure

Item 101(c)(2) of Regulation S-K now requires that a company discuss, in its Form 10-K and in registration statements, the following information to the extent material to an understanding of the business: “[A] description of the registrant’s human capital resources, including the number of persons employed by the registrant, and any human capital measures or objectives that

Proposed Rules On Cybersecurity Disclosure

Earlier this year, the SEC published proposed rules on cybersecurity risk management, strategy, governance and incident disclosure by public companies.  Although the comment period has passed, a final rule has not yet been issued.  As of now, cybersecurity disclosures are encompassed within the general anti-fraud provisions including the requirement to disclose “such further material information, if any, as may be necessary to make the required statements, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading” as well SEC guidance last updated in 2018 (see HERE).

The proposed amendments would require, among other things, current reporting about material cybersecurity incidents and updates about previously reported cybersecurity incidents. The proposal also would require periodic reporting about a company’s policies and procedures to identify and manage cybersecurity risks; the company’s board of directors’ oversight of cybersecurity risk; and management’s role and expertise in assessing and managing cybersecurity risk and implementing cybersecurity policies and procedures. The proposal would further

Termination Of Registration Under Section 12 Of The Exchange Act

A public company with a class of securities registered under Section 12 or which is subject to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) must file Section 13 reports with the SEC (10-K, 10-Q and 8-K).  A company registers securities under Section 12 by filing an Exchange Act registration statement such as on Form 10, Form 20-F or Form 8-A.  A company becomes subject to Section 15(d) by filing a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) such as a Form S-1 or F-1.  The Section 15(d) reporting requirements are scaled down from the full Exchange Act reporting requirements for a company with a class of securities registered under Section 12.

I have previously written about suspending the duty to file reports under Section 15(d) and the related question of determining voluntary reporting status (see HERE).  This blog addresses the termination of registration under Section 12.

Terminating

SEC Adopts Final Executive Compensation Clawback Rules

One year after reopening the comment period, and seven years after first publishing proposed rules, on October 26, 2022, the SEC adopted final rules on listing standards for the recovery of erroneously awarded incentive-based executive compensation (“Clawback Rules”).  The Clawback Rules implement Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Act and require that national securities exchanges require disclosure of policies regarding and mandating clawback of compensation under certain circumstances as a listing qualification. The proposed rules were first published in July 2015 (see HERE) and have moved around on the SEC semiannual regulatory agenda from proposed to long-term and back again for years.

The final rules require a listed issuer to file the policy as an exhibit to its annual report and to include disclosures related to its recovery policy and recovery analysis where a recovery is triggered. New Exchange Act Rule 10D-1 directs national securities exchanges and associations to establish listing standards that require a listed company to: (i) adopt

SEC Proposed Changes To The Definition Of A “Dealer”

Following a continuous stream of litigation against small-cap and penny stock convertible debt lenders, the SEC has proposed some statutory changes to the definition of a “dealer” under the Exchange Act.  The SEC’s enforcement attack on convertible debt lenders began in 2017 and has been decried by industry participants as regulation by enforcement which, unfortunately, is not resulting in judicial orders or settlements offering clear guidance (see HERE).  Also, unfortunately, the proposed new rules, which were published in March 2022 and are likely to reach final rule stage this year, still do not help small-cap investors navigate the regulatory highway.

The rule is intended to require certain proprietary or principal traders and liquidity providers to register as either a dealer or government securities dealer as applicable.  The proposed rules would 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.

Proposed Rules

The SEC Drafts Strategic Plan For Fiscal Years 2022-2026

On August 24, 2022, the SEC released its draft strategic plan for the fiscal years 2022 to 2026 and sought public comment on same.  The three primary goals set forth in the plan include: (i) protecting working families against fraud, manipulation, and misconduct; (ii) developing and implementing a robust regulatory framework that keeps pace with evolving markets, business models, and technologies; and (iii) supporting a skilled workforce that is diverse, equitable, inclusive, and is fully equipped to advance agency objectives.

To achieve these goals, the SEC intends to use of market and industry data to prevent, detect, and prosecute improper behavior.  The SEC also seeks to modernize design, delivery, and content of disclosures to investors so they can access consistent, comparable, and material information while making investment decisions.

These statements are very broad, but even at face value, the different focus of the SEC as compared to the last plan published in 2018 is clear.  In 2018 the three primary

SEC Adopts Pay Versus Performance Disclosure Rules

Following seven years of “will they or won’t they,” on August 25, 2022, the SEC adopted final rules requiring information reflecting the relationship between executive compensation actually paid by a company and the company’s financial performance (“Pay vs. Performance”).  The rules were initially proposed in April 2015, and then languished for years (see HERE). On January 27, 2022, the SEC re-opened the comment period and expanded the proposal to include additional performance metrics (see HERE).

The SEC administration under Gary Gensler has been actively tackling compensation and insider trading related issues, including re-visiting executive compensation clawback rules (see HERE); publishing new guidance on disclosures and accounting for spring-loaded compensation awards (see HERE); proposing amendments to Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans (see HERE); and proposing new share repurchase program disclosure rules (see HERE).

The amendments require companies to provide a table disclosing specified executive compensation and financial performance measures for their five most recently completed

SEC Issues C&DI On The Use Of Proxy Cards

Days before the universal proxy compliance deadline, the SEC issued 3 new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DI) addressing issues raised by the new rules.

BACKGROUND

On November 17, 2021, the SEC adopted final rules requiring parties in a contested election to use universal proxy cards that include all director nominees presented for election at a shareholder meeting (see HERE).  The original rules were proposed on October 16, 2016 (see HERE) with no activity until April, 2021, when the SEC re-opened a comment period (see HERE).

The rule adoption came with a flurry of rule amendments, proposals and guidance related to the proxy process, some of which reverses recent rules on the same subject, including amendments to the rules governing proxy advisory firms (see HERE) and additional proposed amendments to Rule 14a-8 governing shareholder proposals (see HERE).

The final rules require dissident shareholders and registrants to provide shareholders with a proxy card that includes the

SEC Chair Gary Gensler Testifies To Senate Banking Committee

On September 15, 2022, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler gave his yearly testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs highlighting his priorities for the SEC.  This year Mr. Gensler kept his testimony extremely short, allowing more time for questions and answers.

Last year, Chair Gensler gave lengthy testimony on his four key priorities: (i) market structure; (ii) predictive data analytics; (iii) issuers and issuer disclosure (including SPACs); and (iv) funds and investment management (see HERE).

This year Gensler again focused on market structure as a priority, noting that many aspects of the national market system rules have not been updated since 2005.  Though not using the same topic subtitles as last year, SPACs, insider trading and investment funds remain top of list, as does crypto.  Other priorities include shorting the settlement cycle to T+1, increasing central clearing in the treasury markets (rules were recently proposed), cybersecurity, and private funds.

Repeating his mantra, Chair

Final Rules On The Foreign Companies Accountable Act; PCAOB Reached Deal WIth China And Hong Kong – Part III

The Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (“HFCA”) was adopted on December 18, 2020, requiring both the SEC and the PCAOB to adopt rules and procedures implementing its provisions.  The HFCA requires foreign-owned issuers to certify that the PCAOB has been able to audit specified reports and inspect their audit firm within the last three years.  If the PCAOB is unable to inspect the company’s public accounting firm for three consecutive years, the company’s securities are banned from trading on a national exchange.

As part of the HFCA’s implementation, on November 5, 2021, the SEC approved PCAOB Rule 6100 establishing a framework for the PCAOB’s determination that it is unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms located in foreign jurisdictions because of a position taken by an authority in that jurisdiction (see HERE) On December 2, 2021, the SEC adopted amendments to finalize rules implementing the submission and disclosure requirements in the HFCA (see HERE) and

Final Rules On The Foreign Companies Accountable Act; PCAOB Reached Deal WIth China And Hong Kong – Part II

The Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (“HFCA”) was adopted on December 18, 2020, requiring both the SEC and the PCAOB to adopt rules and procedures implementing its provisions.  The HFCA requires foreign-owned issuers to certify that the PCAOB has been able to audit specified reports and inspect their audit firm within the last three years.  If the PCAOB is unable to inspect the company’s public accounting firm for three consecutive years, the company’s securities are banned from trading on a national exchange.

As part of the HFCA’s implementation, on November 5, 2021, the SEC approved PCAOB Rule 6100 establishing a framework for the PCAOB’s determination that it is unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms located in foreign jurisdictions because of a position taken by an authority in that jurisdiction (see HERE.) On December 2, 2021, the SEC adopted amendments to finalize rules implementing the submission and disclosure requirements in the HFCA and published a sample

SEC Adopts Amendments To Rules Governing Proxy Advisory Firms

On July 13, 2022, the SEC adopted amendments to the rules governing proxy voting advice, in essence undoing material provisions in the new rules that had been adopted in July 2020.  The newest rules were proposed in November 2021 but had effectively been in place since June 2021 when SEC Chair Gary Gensler issued a statement making it clear that the SEC would not be enforcing the 2020 amendments to certain rules governing proxy advisory firms or the SEC guidance on those new rules.

The final rules rescind two of the rules adopted in 2020 and specifically, the conditions to the availability of two exemptions from the proxy rules’ information and filing requirements on which proxy voting advice businesses may rely. Those conditions require that: (i) companies that are the subject of proxy voting advice have such advice made available to them in a timely manner; and (ii) clients of proxy voting advice businesses are provided with a means of

SEC Proposes Amendments To The Shareholder Proposal Submission Process

On July 13, 2022, the SEC proposed amendments to Rule 14a-8 governing the process for including shareholder proposals in a company’s proxy statement.  The proposed amendment would narrow three of the provisions that a company can rely upon to exclude a shareholder proposal from its proxy statement including: (i) substantial implementation – i.e., the elements of the proposal have already been substantially implemented; (ii) duplication – the proposal substantially duplicates another proposal already submitted for the same meeting; and (iii) resubmission – the proposal substantially duplicates another proposal previously submitted for the same company’s prior shareholder meetings.

Background – Rule 14a-8

The regulation of corporate law rests primarily within the power and authority of the states. However, for public companies, the federal government imposes various corporate law mandates including those related to matters of corporate governance. While state law may dictate that shareholders have the right to elect directors, the minimum and maximum time allowed for notice of shareholder 

Report Of Government-Business Forum On Small Business Capital Formation

On July 28, 2022, the SEC released its report from the 41^st Annual Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation.  The report provides a summary of the forum proceedings, including the recommendations developed by participants for changes needed to the capital raising framework and the SEC’s responses to the recommendations.  The forum featured panelists and discussions on (i) empowering entrepreneurs with tools to navigate capital raising; (ii) hometown entrepreneurship, including how entrepreneurs can thrive outside of traditional capital raising hubs; (iii) how emerging fund managers are diversifying capital; and (iv) what to know and how to think ahead in the small cap world.  The forum had a focus on diversity, including panel speakers and discussion topics.  A clear message across the board is that women- and minority-owned businesses face the biggest challenges in the capital markets.

Background

The SEC’s Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation launched in January 2019 after being created by Congress pursuant

SEC Proposes Amendments To Beneficial Ownership Reporting Rules

On February 10, 2022, the SEC announced proposed rule amendments governing beneficial ownership reporting under Exchange Act Sections 13(d) and 13(g).  The proposed amendments would accelerate the filing deadlines for Schedules 13D beneficial ownership reports from 10 days to 5 calendar days and require that amendments be filed within one business day; generally accelerate the filing deadlines for Schedule 13G beneficial ownership reports (which differ based on the type of filer); extend the filing deadline to 10:00 p.m. EST; expand the application of Regulation 13D-G to certain derivative securities; clarify the circumstances under which two or more persons have formed a “group” that would be subject to beneficial ownership reporting obligations; provide new exemptions to permit certain persons to communicate and consult with one another, jointly engage issuers, and execute certain transactions without being subject to regulation as a “group;” and require that Schedules 13D and 13G be filed using XBRL.

Final rules have yet to be published, but the

The SEC Is Seeking An 8% Budget Increase

On May 17, 2022, SEC Chair Gary Gensler gave testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government U.S. House Appropriations Committee asking for an 8% budget increase for the SEC and outlining his priorities.  Although Chair Gensler expressed a desire to update rules for modern markets and technologies, his main focus is to “ensure that the SEC is adequately resourced so we can remain the cop on the beat.”  As the cyclical nature of the SEC continues, it seems we are moving back towards the era of “broken windows” shepherded in by former Chair Mary Jo White in 2013 and ended in 2017 by former Chair Jay Clayton.

Reminding us of the reach of our capital markets, Gensler points out that the SEC oversees 24 national securities exchanges, 99 alternative trading systems, nine credit rating agencies, seven active registered clearing agencies, five self-regulatory organizations and other external entities. They look after the accounting and auditing functions of

The SEC’S Spring 2022 Flex Regulatory Agenda

On June 22, 2022, the SEC published its semiannual regulatory 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.  As expected, the Spring 2022 Agenda (“Agenda”) met with criticism from Commissioner Hester M. Peirce.  Commissioner Peirce rips the newest 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.  I’ll include her comments throughout this blog.  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 be completed in a

SEC Proposed Mandatory Climate Disclosure Rules – Part 8

On March 21, 2022, the SEC proposed rules that would require publicly reporting companies to include certain climate-related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports.  Among other information, the new disclosures would require information about greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on a company’s business, results of operations, or financial condition, and certain climate-related financial statement metrics in a note to its audited financial statements.

The proposed rules are enormous in scope, complexity, and ramifications with a polarizing comment response largely along party lines.  The comment period ended June 17, 2022, after a relatively short, but necessary extension by the SEC.  Despite the controversy, there is no doubt that the rules, even if somewhat modified, will be passed and public companies need to start preparing now.  The recently published Reg Flex Agenda indicates we should see final rules in October 2022.  The rules will require compliance with extraordinarily granular

SEC Proposed Mandatory Climate Disclosure Rules – Part 7

On March 21, 2022, the SEC proposed rules that would require publicly reporting companies to include certain climate-related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports.  Among other information, the new disclosures would require information about greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on a company’s business, results of operations, or financial condition, and certain climate-related financial statement metrics in a note to its audited financial statements.

The proposed rules are enormous in scope, complexity, and ramifications with a polarizing comment response largely along party lines.  The comment period ended June 17, 2022, after a relatively short, but necessary extension by the SEC.  Despite the controversy, there is no doubt that the rules, even if somewhat modified, will be passed and public companies need to start preparing now.  The recently published Reg Flex Agenda indicates we should see final rules in October 2022.  The rules will require compliance with extraordinarily

SEC Proposed Mandatory Climate Disclosure Rules – Part 6

On March 21, 2022, the SEC proposed rules that would require publicly reporting companies to include certain climate-related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports.  Among other information, the new disclosures would require information about greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on a company’s business, results of operations, or financial condition, and certain climate-related financial statement metrics in a note to its audited financial statements.

The proposed rules are heady and complex (490-page rules release) presenting an enormous scope, complexity and ramifications.  As such, like the SPAC rules, I am breaking down the proposal in detail in a series of blogs.

In the first blog in this series, I provided some background and an introduction to the rules (see HERE).   The second provided a high-level summary of the proposed rules including the phase in compliance schedule (see HERE).  The third blog in the series discussed the

SEC Proposed Mandatory Climate Disclosure Rules – Part 5

On March 21, 2022, the SEC proposed rules that would require publicly reporting companies to include certain climate-related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports.  Among other information, the new disclosures would require information about greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on a company’s business, results of operations, or financial condition, and certain climate-related financial statement metrics in a note to its audited financial statements.  As a natural result of the new disclosure requirements, management of companies will be required to implement disclosure controls and procedures, including methodologies for identifying and assessing risks, and attest to their effectiveness.

The proposed rules, which are heady and complex, initially only allotted for a 39-day comment period.  Considering the size (490-page rules release), scope, complexity and ramifications, the marketplace pushed back on such a short window. On May 9, 2022, the SEC extended the comment period through June 17, 2022, and all

SEC Proposed Mandatory Climate Disclosure Rules – Part 4

On March 21, 2022, the SEC proposed rules that would require publicly reporting companies to include certain climate-related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports.  Among other information, the new disclosures would require information about greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on a company’s business, results of operations, or financial condition, and certain climate-related financial statement metrics in a note to its audited financial statements.

The proposed rules, which are heady and complex, initially only allotted for a 39-day comment period.  Considering the size (490-page rules release), scope, complexity and ramifications, the marketplace pushed back on such a short window. On May 9, 2022, the SEC extended the comment period through June 17, 2022, and all aspects of the industry are weighing in.  Other than the small but powerful group of environmental activists and institutional investors that influenced the proposed rule, the vast majority of the commenters believe the

SEC Proposed Mandatory Climate Disclosure Rules – Part 3

On March 21, 2022, the SEC proposed rules that would require publicly reporting companies to include certain climate-related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports.  Among other information, the new disclosures would require information about climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on a company’s business, results of operations, or financial condition, and certain climate-related financial statement metrics in a note to its audited financial statements.

The proposed rules would include a phase-in period for all registrants, with the compliance date dependent on the registrant’s filer status, and an additional phase-in period for Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions disclosure.

The proposed rules, which are heady and complex, initially only allotted for a 39-day comment period.  Considering the size (490-page rules release), scope, complexity and ramifications, the marketplace pushed back on such a short window. On May 9, 2022, the SEC extended the comment period through June 17, 2022, and all aspects of the industry are

SEC Proposed Mandatory Climate Disclosure Rules – Part 2

On March 21, 2022, the SEC proposed rules that would require publicly reporting companies to include certain climate-related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports.  Among other information, the new disclosures would require information about climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on a company’s business, results of operations, or financial condition, and certain climate-related financial statement metrics in a note to its audited financial statements.

The proposed rules would include a phase-in period for all registrants, with the compliance date dependent on the registrant’s filer status, and an additional phase-in period for Scope 3 emissions disclosure.

The proposed rules, which are heady and complex, initially only allotted for a 39-day comment period.  Considering the size (490-page rules release), scope, complexity and ramifications, the marketplace pushed back on such a short window. On May 9, 2022, the SEC extended the comment period through June 17, 2022.

In last week’s blog, I provided some background and

SEC Proposed Mandatory Climate Disclosure Rules – Part 1

On March 21, 2022, the SEC proposed rules that would require publicly reporting companies to include certain climate related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports.  Among other information, the new disclosures would require information about climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on a company’s business, results of operations, or financial condition, and certain climate-related financial statement metrics in a note to its audited financial statements.

The proposed rule changes would require a company to disclose information about (i) the company’s governance of climate-related risks and relevant risk management processes; (ii) how any climate-related risks identified by the company have had or are likely to have a material impact on its business and consolidated financial statements, including over the short, medium, or long term; (iii) how any identified climate-related risks have affected or are likely to affect the company’s strategy, business model, and outlook; and (iv) the impact of climate-related events (severe weather events

SEC Proposes New Rules For SPACs – Part 6

On March 30, 2022, the SEC proposed rules related to SPAC and de-SPAC transactions including significantly enhanced disclosure obligations including related to financial projections, 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, the SEC has proposed a new safe harbor under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (‘40 Act’) that would provide that a SPAC that satisfies the conditions of the proposed rule would not be an investment company and therefore would not be subject to regulation under the

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

SEC Proposes New Rules for SPACs- Part 4

On March 30, 2022, the SEC proposed rules enhancing disclosure requirements associated with SPAC initial public offerings (IPOs) and de-SPAC merger transactions; requiring that a private operating company be a co-registrant when a SPAC files an S-4 or F-4 registration statement associated with a business combination; requiring a re-determination of smaller reporting company status within four days following the consummation of a de-SPAC transaction; amending the definition of a “blank check company” to make the liability safe harbor in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for forward-looking statement such as projections, unavailable in filings by SPACs and other blank check companies; and deeming underwriters in a SPAC IPO to be underwriters in a de-SPAC transaction when certain conditions are met.

The proposed rules would require specialized disclosure with respect to compensation paid to sponsors, conflicts of interest, dilution and the fairness of business combination transactions.  Further disclosures will also be required in connection with the use of projections. 

SEC Proposes New Rules for SPACs- Part 3

On March 30, 2022, the SEC proposed rules enhancing disclosure requirements associated with SPAC initial public offerings (IPOs) and de-SPAC merger transactions; requiring that a private operating company be a co-registrant when a SPAC files an S-4 or F-4 registration statement associated with a business combination; requiring a re-determination of smaller reporting company status within four days following the consummation of a de-SPAC transaction; amending the definition of a “blank check company” to make the liability safe harbor in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for forward-looking statement such as projections, unavailable in filings by SPACs and other blank check companies; and deeming underwriters in a SPAC IPO to be underwriters in a de-SPAC transaction when certain conditions are met.

The proposed rules would require specialized disclosure with respect to compensation paid to sponsors, conflicts of interest, dilution and the fairness of business combination transactions.  Further disclosures will also be required in connection with the use of

SEC Proposes New SPAC Rules – Part 2

On March 30, 2022, the SEC proposed rules enhancing disclosure requirements associated with SPAC initial public offerings (IPOs) and de-SPAC merger transactions; requiring that a private operating company be a co-registrant when a SPAC files an S-4 or F-4 registration statement associated with a business combination; requiring a re-determination of smaller reporting company status within four days following the consummation of a de-SPAC transaction; amending the definition of a “blank check company” to make the liability safe harbor in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for forward-looking statement such as projections, unavailable in filings by SPACs and other blank check companies; and deeming underwriters in a SPAC IPO to be underwriters in a de-SPAC transaction when certain conditions are met.

The proposed rules would require specialized disclosure with respect to compensation paid to sponsors, conflicts of interest, dilution and the fairness of business combination transactions.  Further disclosures will also be required in connection with the use of projections. 

SEC Proposes New SPAC Rules – Part 1

As I wrote about last week, the SEC has had a very busy rule-making few weeks.  In addition to issuing six new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DI) for merger and acquisition transactions, most of which directly impact SPAC business organization transactions, it also proposed new rules on SPACs and all shell companies in a 372-page release. The new C&DI were the topic of last week’s blog (HERE) and in a multi-part blog series, I am delving into the proposed new SPAC rules.

On March 30, 2022, the SEC proposed rules enhancing disclosure requirements associated with SPAC initial public offerings (IPOs) and de-SPAC merger transactions; requiring that a private operating company be a co-registrant when a SPAC files an S-4 or F-4 registration statement associated with a business combination; requiring a re-determination of smaller reporting company status within four days following the consummation of a de-SPAC transaction; amending the definition of a “blank check company” to make the

SEC Issues New Mergers And Acquisitions Related C&DI

Last week was a very busy regulatory week for the SEC, including issuing six new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DI) for merger and acquisition transactions, most of which directly impact SPAC business organization transactions; proposed rules on SPACs’ shell companies and the use of financial projections; proposed rules to modify the definition of “dealer” for purposes of broker-dealer registration requirements; and a new accounting bulletin impacting the accounting treatment of cryptocurrencies by exchanges.  This blog will discuss the new C&DI.

Background

The rules related to disclosure obligations, including in Forms 8-K, S-4 registration statements and proxy materials, and the filing of exhibits associated with a material contract, including merger agreements, have evolved over the past few years (see here related to confidential treatment of material contracts – HERE).  In March 2021, the SEC issued a statement discussing certain legal specifics associated with a SPAC, including expressing concerns regarding disclosures associated with a de-SPAC transaction (i.e., a business

Regulation By Enforcement

The SEC is well known for, and often criticized for, its practice of regulation by enforcement.  In recent years the SEC has been more willing to regulate by enforcement, propounding novel and new interpretations to longstanding rules and regulations.  Market participants have taken notice, and offense.  Advocacy groups have been very vocal against the practice including the Financial Services Institute and Small Public Company Coalition (SPCC).

Although not limited to matters involving cryptocurrencies, blockchain and all things Web3, is the area that garners the most attention for the SEC’s enforcement-based guidance, probably because it is undeniably the topic that is in the most need of actual rule-based regulation.  Starting with the SEC’s 2017 Section 21(a) Report stemming from the enforcement action against the DAO, Slock.it (see HERE), almost all substantive regulatory prescription related to the world of crypto has come from enforcement actions.

Rather than heed the calls for rules and regulations over the years, the SEC has

The BSTX

On January 27, 2022, the SEC approved the country’s 17^th stock exchange, the first one of which will utilize blockchain technology.  The new BSTX is a subsidiary of the Boston BOX Exchange and is a joint venture with tZero, which is providing the blockchain technology.  The BSTX is expected to begin operations sometime after June 2022 and will initially only trade securities that first list directly on the BSTX.  Once listed on the BSTX, a security can dual trade on other exchanges.

To begin, the BSTX will trade traditional securities but intends to move into tokenized securities and intends to brand itself with the look and feel of a digital asset exchange as opposed to the more traditional Nasdaq look.  In December 2020, the SEC rejected the Exchange’s original plan to exclusively trade tokenized securities.  The BOX then filed new proposed rules in May 2021 which, after 3 amendments, were approved by the SEC on January 27^th.

SEC Proposes Rules Related To Securities Lending Market

In November 2021, the SEC proposed new Exchange Act Rule 10c-1, which would require lenders of securities to provide the material terms of securities lending transactions to a registered national securities association (RNSA), such as FINRA.  FINRA would then make the information publicly available.  The proposed rules are part of an initiative by the SEC and FINRA to increase public access to information on short positions and borrowing related to short positions.

Although the rule would definitely provide an improved level of transparency to market participants regarding short positions, it will also add a significant compliance burden to broker dealers and clearing agencies.

Consistent with recent SEC proposals, the comment period was only open for 30 days following publication in the federal registrar and as such comments closed January 7, 2022.

Background

Securities lending is the market practice by which securities are transferred temporarily from one party, a securities lender, to another, a securities borrower, for a fee.  Most

SEC ReOpens Comment Period For Pay Versus Performance

On January 27, 2022, the SEC re-opened the comment period on proposed rules under the Dodd-Frank Act requiring disclosure of information reflecting the relationship between executive compensation actually paid by a company and the company’s financial performance (“Pay vs. Performance”).  The rules were previously proposed in April 2015, and have languished since then (see HERE).  In addition to re-opening the comment period on the 2015 proposed rules, the SEC has expanded the proposal to include additional performance metrics.

The SEC administration under Gary Gensler has been actively tacking compensation and insider trading related issues recently including re-visiting executive compensation clawback rules (see HERE); publishing new guidance on disclosures and accounting for spring-loaded compensation awards (see HERE); proposing amendments to Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans (see HERE); and proposing new share repurchase program disclosure rules (see HERE).

Background

Section 953(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act added Section 14(i) to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934