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 Proposed Rule Changes For Exempt Offerings – Part 2
On March 4, 2020, the SEC published proposed rule changes to harmonize, simplify and improve the exempt offering framework. The SEC had originally issued a concept release and request for public comment on the subject in June 2019 (see HERE). The proposed rule changes indicate that the SEC has been listening to capital markets participants and is supporting increased access to private offerings for both businesses and a larger class of investors. Together with the proposed amendments to the accredited investor definition (see HERE), the new rules could have as much of an impact on the capital markets as the JOBS Act has had since its enactment in 2012.
The 341-page rule release provides a comprehensive overhaul to the exempt offering and integration rules worthy of in-depth discussion. As such, I will break it down over a series of blogs, with the second blog in the series which focuses on offering communications, the new demo day exemption, and
What Is A Security? The Howey Test And Reves Test
ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100
——————————————————————————————————
Sometimes it’s good to go back to basics. In my blogs I often refer to the registration and exemption requirements in the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Section 5 of the Securities Act makes it unlawful to offer or sell any security unless a registration statement is in effect as to that security or there is an available exemption from registration. Similarly, I often refer to the broker-dealer registration requirements. To be a “broker” or “dealer,” a person must be engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities.
In today’s small cap world corporate finance transactions often take the form of a convertible note and/or options and warrants, the conversion of which relies on Section 3(a)(9) of the Securities Act. Section 3(a)(9) is an exemption available for the exchange of one security for another (such as a convertible note for common stock). Likewise, Rule 144(d)(3)(i) allows the tacking of
Exemption to Broker-Dealer Registration Requirements for Officers, Directors and Key Employees
The topic of using unlicensed persons to assist in fundraising activities is discussed almost daily in the small and microcap community. For many years the SEC has maintained a staunch view that any and all activities that could fall within the broker-dealer registration requirements set forth in Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), require registration. See also the SEC Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration on the SEC website.
In my blog on February 18th, 2014 I talked about the new no-action-letter-based exemption for M&A brokers, the exemptions for websites restricted to accredited investors and for crowdfunding portals as part of the JOBS Act. In this blog, I am focusing on the statutory exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements found in Securities Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1, including for officers, directors and key employees of an issuer.
Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1 – Persons Associated with an Issuer that are not Required to be Licensed as
Section 3(a)(9) Exchanges Evaluated
Section 3(a)(9) of the Securities Act of 1933, provides an exemption from the registration requirements for “[E]xcept with respect to a security exchanged in a case under title 11 of the United States Code, any security exchanged by the issuer with its existing security holders exclusively where no commission or other remuneration is paid or given directly or indirectly for soliciting such exchange.” Generally, in an exchange offer, the issuer offers to exchange new debt or equity securities for its outstanding debt or equity securities.
Since Section 3(a)(9) is a transactional exemption, the new securities issued are subject to the same restrictions on transferability, if any, of the old securities, and any subsequent transfer of the newly issued securities will require registration or another exemption from registration. However, since the new securities take on the character of the old securities, tacking of a holding period is generally permitted allowing for subsequent resales under Rule 144 (assuming all other conditions have
SEC Rule 144: Current Public Information and Reporting Requirements
The current public information requirement is measured at the time of each sale of securities. That is, the Issuer, whether reporting or non-reporting, must satisfy the current public information requirements as set forth in Rule 144(c) at the time that each resale of securities is made in reliance on Rule 144. Most attorney opinion letters and Forms 144 cover a three month period and many Sellers sell securities over that three month period. However, the Seller (or person selling on behalf of Seller such as the broker dealer) is required to make a determination that current public information is available at the time of each sale.
Accordingly, if a reporting issuer does not file a required Q or K during this period, or 15c2-11 information lapses for a non-reporting issuer, sales must cease until the current public information requirement is again satisfied. Moreover, Sellers are taking a risk by selling during the 5-day or 15-day period following the filing of
The Demise of the Death Spiral – SEC Interpretation of Rule 415
Without fanfare, publications, or other notice, in mid 2006, PIPE investors and the Issuers that utilized them noticed a big difference in the way that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) division of corporate finance reviewed and commented upon, resale registration statements. Although the SEC staff contended that its position on Rule 415 had not changed, there was, incontrovertibly, a dramatic impact felt by Issuers and PIPE investors.
For years, Issuers had relied upon Rule 415 in order to register the resale of shares issued in PIPE transactions (a “secondary offering”). Rule 415 governs the registration requirements for the sale of securities to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis, such as in the case of the take down or conversion of convertible debt and warrants. In the years prior to 2006, Issuers would register shares they sold in a PIPE transaction, which could represent in excess of 50% of their outstanding public float.
Convertible Debt and Subsequent Resale
