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 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
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 Re-Opens Comments On The Use Of Universal Proxy Cards
On April 16, 2021, the SEC voted to reopen the comment period on the proposed rules for the use of Universal proxy cards in all non-exempt solicitations for contested director elections. The original rules were proposed on October 16, 2016 (see HERE) with no activity since. However, it is not surprising that the comment period re-opened, and it is not as a result of the new administration. The SEC’s Spring and Fall 2020 semi-annual regulatory agendas and plans for rulemaking both included universal proxies as action items in the final rule stage. Prior to that, the topic had sat in the long-term action category for years.
In light of the several years since the original proposing release, change in corporate governance environment, proliferation of virtual shareholder meetings, and rule amendments related to proxy advisory firms (see HERE) and shareholder proposals in the proxy process (see HERE), the SEC believed it prudent to re-open a public comment period.
What Does The SEC Do And What Is Its Purpose?
As I write about the myriad of constantly changing and progressing securities law-related policies, rules, regulations, guidance and issues, I am reminded that sometimes it is important to go back and explain certain key facts to lay a proper foundation for an understanding of the topics which layer on this foundation. In this blog, I am doing just that by explaining what the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is and its purpose. Most of information in this blog comes from the SEC website, which is an extremely useful resource for practitioners, issuers, investors and all market participants.
Introduction
The mission of the SEC is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitate capital formation. Although each mission should be a priority, the reality is that the focus of the SEC changes based on its Chair and Commissioners and political pressure. Outgoing Chair Mary Jo White viewed the SEC enforcement division and task of investor protection as her
SEC Proposed Executive Compensation Clawback Rules
On July 1, 2015, the SEC published the anticipated executive compensation clawback rules (“Clawback Rules”). The rules are in the comment period and will not be effective until the SEC publishes final rules. The proposed rules require national exchanges to enact rules and listing standards requiring exchange listed companies to adopt and enforce policies requiring the clawback of certain incentive-based compensation from current and former executive officers in the event of an accounting restatement.
In particular, the proposed rules implement Section 10D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) and as added by Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). Section 10D requires the SEC to adopt rules directing national exchanges to prohibit the listing of any security of an issuer that is not in compliance with Section 10D’s requirements for (i) disclosure of the company’s policy on incentive-based compensation that is based on financial statement results and (ii)
Proposed Amendments To Disclosure Of Hedging Policies For Officers, Directors And Employees
On February 9, 2015, the SEC issued proposed rules that would increase corporate disclosure of company hedging policies for directors and employees in annual meeting proxy statements. The new rules are part of the ongoing rule-making requirements mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). In particular, the new rule would implement Section 14(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), which requires annual meeting proxy or consent solicitation statements to disclose whether employees or members of the board are permitted to purchase financial instruments, such as options, swaps, collars and the like, to hedge price decreases in the company securities.
The proposed rules regulate disclosure of company policy as opposed to directing the substance of that policy or the underlying hedging activities. In fact, the rule specifically does not require a company to prohibit a hedging transaction or otherwise adopt specific policies. The rule would require disclosure about whether directors, officers and
The ECOS Matter; When Is A Reverse Split Effective?
ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100
——————————————————————————————————
In what was presumably an unintended consequence, the application of an SEC- approved FINRA regulation has resulted in a conflict between state and federal corporate law for a small publicly traded company.
On September 16, 2014, Ecolocap Solutions, Inc. (“ECOS”) filed a Form 8-K in which it disclosed that FINRA had refused to process its 1-for-2,000 reverse split. At the time of the FINRA refusal, ECOS had already received board and shareholder approval and had filed the necessary amended articles with the State of Nevada, legally effectuating the reverse split in accordance with state law. Moreover, ECOS is subject to the reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), and had filed a preliminary and then definitive 14C information statement with the SEC, reporting the shareholder approval of the split.
The ECOS 8-K attached a copy of the FINRA denial letter, which can be viewed HERE.
SEC Filed Actions Against 19 Firms and One Individual Trader for Violation of Rule 105 of Regulation M
ABA Journal’s 10th Annual Blawg 100
——————————————————————————————————
On September 16, 2014, the SEC filed actions against 19 firms and one individual trade for short selling violations in advance of public stock offerings in violation of Rule 105 of Regulation M. The SEC has actively enforced Regulation M since its enactment in 1996. Regulation M is designed to prevent stock manipulation during public offerings and Rule 105 particularly prohibits short selling of stock within five business days of participating in an offering for the same stock. That is, you cannot short stock and cover your short by buying the same stock from the underwriter in a public offering. Rule 105 prevents downward pressure on a company’s stock price during the offering process.
The SEC’s current investigation found that 19 firms and one individual trader charged in these latest cases engaged in short selling of particular stocks shortly before they bought shares from an underwriter, broker, or dealer participating in a follow-on
SEC Proposes Rules for Regulation A+
On December 18, 2013, the SEC published proposed rules to implement Title IV of the JOBS Act, commonly referred to as Regulation A+. The proposed rules both add the new Section 3(b)(2) (i.e., Regulation A+) provisions and modify the existing Regulation A. This blog is limited to a discussion of the new Regulation A+.
Background
Title IV of the JOBS Act technically amends Section 3(b) of the Securities Act, which up to now has been a general provision allowing the SEC to fashion exemptions from registration, up to a total offering amount of $5,000,000. Regulation A is and has historically been an exemption created under the powers afforded the SEC by Section 3(b).
Technically speaking, Regulation D, Rule 504 and 505 offerings and Regulation A offerings are promulgated under Section 3(b), and Rule 506 is promulgated under Section 4(a)(2). This is important because federal law does not pre-empt state law for Section 3(b) offerings, but it does so for Section
The SEC Establishes Key Exemption to the Broker-Dealer Registration Requirements for M&A Brokers
On January 31, 2014, the SEC Division of Trading and Markets issued a no-action letter in favor of entities effecting securities transactions in connection with the sale of equity control of private operating businesses (“M&A Broker”). The SEC stated that it would not require broker-dealer registration for M&A Brokers arranging for the sale of private businesses, in accordance with the facts and circumstances set forth in the no action letter, as described below.
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 (2008) on the SEC website.
In accordance with the SEC Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration, providing any of the following services may require the individual or entity to be registered as a broker-dealer:
- “finders,” “business brokers,” and
A Basic Overview of Rule 144
The Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) Rule 144 sets forth certain requirements for the use of Section 4(1) for the resale of securities. Section 4(1) of the Securities Act provides an exemption for a transaction “by a person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.” The terms “Issuer” and “dealer” have pretty straightforward meanings under the Securities Act, but the term “underwriter” does not. Rule 144 provides a safe harbor from the definition of “underwriter.” If all the requirements for Rule 144 are met, the seller will not be deemed an underwriter and the purchaser will receive unrestricted securities.
Although not set out in the statute, all transfer agents and Issuers, along with most clearing and brokerage firms, require an opinion of
Direct Public Offering or Reverse Merger; Know Your Best Option for Going Public
Introduction
For at least the last twelve months, I have received calls daily from companies wanting to go public. This interest in going public transactions signifies a big change from the few years prior.
Beginning in 2009, the small-cap and reverse merger, initial public offering (IPO) and direct public offering (DPO) markets diminished greatly. I can identify at least seven main reasons for the downfall of the going public transactions. Briefly, those reasons are: (1) the general state of the economy, plainly stated, was not good; (2) backlash from a series of fraud allegations, SEC enforcement actions, and trading suspensions of Chinese companies following reverse mergers; (3) the 2008 Rule 144 amendments including the prohibition of use of the rule for shell company and former shell company shareholders; (4) problems clearing penny stock with broker dealers and FINRA’s enforcement of broker-dealer and clearing house due diligence requirements related to penny stocks; (5) DTC scrutiny and difficulty in obtaining clearance following
Proposed Crowdfunding Rules – Part II
As required by Title III of the JOBS Act, on October 23, 2013, the SEC has published proposed crowdfunding rules. The SEC has dubbed the new rules “Regulation Crowdfunding.” The entire text of the rule release is available on the SEC website.
Background
Crowdfunding generally is where an entity or individual raises funds by seeking small contributions from a large number of people. The crowdfunder sets a goal amount to be raised from the crowd with the funds to be used for a specific business purpose. In addition, a crowdfunding campaign allows the crowd to communicate with each other, thus adding the benefit of the “wisdom of the crowd.” Small businesses can particularly benefit from crowdfunding as they are not limited by
Proposed Crowdfunding Rules – Part I
As required by Title III of the JOBS Act, on October 23, 2013, the SEC has published proposed crowdfunding rules. The SEC has dubbed the new rules “Regulation Crowdfunding.” The entire text of the rule release is available on the SEC website.
Background
Crowdfunding generally is where an entity or individual raises funds by seeking small contributions from a large number of people. The crowdfunder sets a goal amount to be raised from the crowd with the funds to be used for a specific business purpose. In addition, a crowdfunding campaign allows the crowd to communicate with each other, thus adding the benefit of the “wisdom of the crowd.” Small businesses can particularly benefit from crowdfunding as they are not limited by restrictions on general solicitation and advertising or purchaser qualification requirements.
Title III of the JOBS Act, called the Crowdfund Act, amends Section 4 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act), adding new Section 4(a)(6) to
Board of Directors Obligations as Applied to Mergers and Acquisitions
State corporate law generally provides that the business and affairs of a corporation shall be managed under the direction of its board of directors. Members of the board of directors have a fiduciary relationship to the corporation, which requires that they act in the best interest of the corporation, as opposed to their own. Generally a court will not second-guess directors’ decisions as long as the board has conducted an appropriate process in reaching its decision. This is referred to as the “business judgment rule.” However, in certain instances, such as in a merger and acquisition transaction, where a board may have a conflict of interest (i.e., get the most money for the corporation and its shareholders vs. getting the most for themselves via either cash or job security), the board of directors’ actions face a higher level of scrutiny. This is referred to as “enhanced scrutiny business judgment rule.” The same standards apply to officers of a
14C Information Statement Requirements for a Pre-Merger Recapitalization
Background on 14C Information Statements
All companies with securities registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (i.e., through the filing of a Form 10 or Form 8-A) are subject to the Exchange Act proxy requirements found in Section 14 and the rules promulgated thereunder. The proxy rules govern the disclosure in materials used to solicit shareholders’ votes in annual or special meetings held for the approval of any corporate action requiring shareholder approval. The information contained in proxy materials must be filed with the SEC in advance of any solicitation to ensure compliance with the disclosure rules.
Solicitations, whether by management or shareholder groups, must disclose all important facts concerning the issues on which shareholders are asked to vote. The disclosure information filed with the SEC and ultimately provided to the shareholders is enumerated in SEC Schedules 14A.
Where a shareholder vote is not being solicited, such as when a Company has obtained shareholder approval through written
The OTCQX And OTCQB Are Finally Recognized As “Established Public Markets” By The SEC
Back in October 2010 I wrote a blog titled “Has the OTCBB been replaced by the OTCQX and OTCQB”; at the time and up until May 16, 2013, my opinion was “yes” with one big caveat. Prior to May 16, 2013, all three tiers of the OTC Link were considered “pinksheets” by the SEC staff. Prior to May 16, 2013, the OTC Link was not considered a market and therefore: (1) there could be no at-the-market pricing of securities registered for resale by an Issuer on behalf of its selling shareholders; and (2) there could be no equity lines or similar financing transactions and no registration of underlying convertible equities which are priced based on a formula tied to the trading price (usually a discount to market), for OTC Link quoted securities.
On May 16, 2013, the SEC updated their Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations confirming that the OTCQB and OTCQX marketplaces are now considered public marketplaces for purposes of establishing
An Overview of Exemptions for Hedge Fund Advisors: Exemptions for Advisors to Venture Capital Funds, Private Fund Advisers with Less Than $150 Million in Assets Under Management, and Foreign Private Advisers – Part II
As the delayed JOBS Act rule changes become imminent, our firm has noticed a spike in inquiries related to small hedge funds and feeder funds.The JOBS Act is not the only recent congressional act to change the landscape of hedge funds; the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) made significant changes as well.
In particular, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the oft relied upon exemption from registration for private hedge fund advisors for those advisors with fewer than 15 clients.While eliminating the private advisor exemption, Dodd-Frank created three new exemptions, which are the operable hedge fund advisor exemptions today.These exemptions are for:
(1) Advisors solely to venture capital funds;
(2) Advisors solely to private funds with less than $150 million in assets under management in the U.S.; and
(3) Certain foreign advisers without a place of business in the U.S.
Moreover, the Dodd-Frank Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010 (the “Advisers Act“) imposed
An Update On Dealing With The DTC Following The SEC’s Ruling On International Power Group, Ltd.
Background
Back in October and November of 2011, I wrote a series of blogs regarding DTC eligibility for OTC (over-the-counter) Issuers. OTC Issuers include all companies, whose securities trade on the over-the-counter market, including the OTCBB, OTCQB and pinksheets. Many OTC Issuers have faced a “DTC chill” without understanding what it is, let alone how to correct the problem. In technical terms, a DTC chill is the suspension of certain DTC services with respect to an Issuer’s securities. Those services can be book-entry clearing and settlement services, deposit services or withdrawal services. A chill can pertain to one or all of these services. In the case of a chill on all services, the term of art is a “global lock.”
I have previously blogged on how to become DTC-eligible. From the DTC perspective, a chill does not change the eligibility status of an Issuer’s securities, just what services the DTC will offer for those securities. So while
SEC Issues Guidance on Registration and Deregistration Under Jobs Act
On April 5, 2012 President Obama signed the JOBS Act into law. Some of the rules went into effect immediately, such as the ability of an Emerging Growth Company to file a registration statement and seek confidential treatment during the review process. For this process the EGC would avail itself of the new Securities Act Section 6(e). The SEC issued, albeit limited, guidance on this process for EGC’s yesterday, April 10, 2012.
SEC Guidance on the JOBS Act
On April 11, 2012, the SEC issued guidance on the JOBS Act amendments to Section 12(g) and Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act). The full text of this guidance, and the guidance issued on new Section 6(e) is available on the SEC website.
The JOBS Act amends Section 12(g) and Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act as to threshold shareholder requirements and registration and deregistration requirements for banks and bank holding companies. This blog
