Tag: SPAC’s

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

SEC Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda

In mid-December, 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. The Fall 2021 Agenda (“Agenda”) met with criticism from Commissioner Hester M. Peirce and now former Commissioner Elad L. Roisman as failing to provide any items intended to facilitate capital formation – one of the main tenets of the SEC.  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 12-month time frame jumped up to 52 items since Spring, which had only 45

Public Market Listing Standards

One of the bankers that I work with often once asked me if I had written a blog with a side-by-side comparison of listing on Nasdaq vs. the OTC Markets and I realized I had not, so it went on the list and with the implementation of the new 15c2-11 rules, now seems a very good time to tackle the project.  I’ve added NYSE American to the list as well.

Quantitative and Liquidity Listing Standards

Nasdaq Capital Markets

To list its securities on Nasdaq Capital Markets, a company is required to meet: (a) certain initial quantitative and qualitative requirements and (b) certain continuing quantitative and qualitative requirements.  The quantitative listing thresholds for initial listing are generally higher than for continued listing, thus helping to ensure that companies have reached a sufficient level of maturity prior to listing.  NASDAQ also requires listed companies to meet stringent corporate governance standards.

OTCQX And OTCQB Rule Changes

In September 2021, the OTCQB and OTCQX tiers of OTC Markets instituted amendments to their rules, to, among other things, align with the market changes resulting from amended Rule 15c2-11.

The OTC Markets divide issuers into three (3) levels of quotation marketplaces: OTCQX, OTCQB and OTC Pink Open Market. The OTC Pink Open Market, which involves the highest-risk, highly speculative securities, is further divided into three tiers: Current Information, Limited Information and No Information. Companies trading on the OTCQX, OTCQB and OTC Pink tiers of OTC Markets have the option of reporting directly to OTC Markets under its Alternative Reporting Standards.  The Alternative Reporting Standards are more robust for the OTCQB and OTCQX in that they require audited financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and audited by a PCAOB qualified auditor in the same format as would be included in SEC registration statements and reports.

Companies that report to the SEC under Regulation A and foreign companies that

SEC Chair Gary Gensler Testifies To Congress

On September 14, 2021, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler gave testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs highlighting the priorities of the SEC under his rule.  After giving the obligatory opening statements on the size and impact of the U.S. capital markets, Gensler broke down the SEC agenda into four topics including market structure, predictive data analytics, issuers and issuer disclosure and funds and investment management.

Market Structure

Chair Gensler began his speech market structure by talking about the U.S. Treasury Market, which I found interesting mainly because I do not recall any speech or testimony by recent SEC chairpersons that focused on the topic (albeit I haven’t read them all, but I’ve read a lot!).  During Covid, the Treasury Market suffered from liquidity issues prompting the SEC to consider rule and process changes, including those related to clearing, that could make the Treasury Markets more resilient and competitive.  The SEC is also considering Treasury trading

SPAC Nasdaq Listing Standards

I’ve written quite a bit about SPAC’s recently, but the last time I wrote about SPAC Nasdaq listing requirements, or any attempted changes thereto, was back in 2018 (see HERE).  Since that time, Nasdaq has a win and recently a loss in its ongoing efforts to attract SPAC listings.

Background on SPACs

Without reiterating my lengthy blogs on SPACs and SPAC structures (see, for example, HERE and HERE), a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) is a blank check company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, or other business combination transaction with an unidentified target. Generally, SPACs are formed by sponsors who believe that their experience and reputation will facilitate a successful business combination and public company.

The provisions of Rule 419 apply to every registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by a blank check company that is issuing securities which fall within the definition of

A Resolution For SPAC Warrant Accounting

On April 12, 2021, the SEC effectively chilled SPAC activity by announcing that it had examined warrant accounting in several SPACs and found that the warrants were being erroneously classified as an asset.  The SEC identified two accounting issues, one related to the private placement warrants and the other related to both the private placement and public warrants.  These companies were required to restate previously issued financial statements to reclassify warrants as liabilities, and the ripple effect began.  Overnight SPAC management teams, accountants and auditors were scrambling to determine if a restatement was required (in most cases it was) and in-process SPACs were put on hold or at least delayed while market participants tried to figure out the meaning of the SEC guidance and how to address it.

The timing of the statement was interesting as well; most calendar year end SPACs had just filed their Form 10-K for FYE 2020 requiring a slew of 8-Ks to disclose non-reliance on

Annual Report of Office of Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation

The Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation (“Office”) issued its 2020 Annual Report and it breaks down one of the strangest years in any of our lives, into facts and figures that continue to illustrate the resilience of the U.S. capital markets.  Although the report is for fiscal year end September 30, 2020, prior to much of the impact of Covid-19, the Office supplemented the Report with initial Covid-19 impact information.

Background on Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation

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).  One of the core tenants of the Office is recognizing that small businesses are job creators, generators of economic opportunity and fundamental to the growth of the country, a drum I often beat.

The Office has the following functions: (i) assist small businesses

SPAC IPOs A Sign Of Impending M&A Opportunities

The last time I wrote about special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) in July 2018, I noted that SPACs had been growing in popularity, raising more money in 2017 than in any year since the last financial crisis (see HERE).  Not only has the trend continued, but the Covid-19 crisis, while temporarily dampening other aspects of the IPO market, has caused a definite uptick in the SPAC IPO world.

In April, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that SPACs are booming and that “[S]o far this year, these special-purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, have raised $6.5 billion, on pace for their biggest year ever, according to Dealogic. In April, 80% of all money raised for U.S. initial public offerings went to blank-check firms, compared with an average of 9% over the past decade.”

I’m not surprised.  Within weeks of Covid-19 reaching a global crisis and causing a shutdown of the U.S. economy, instead of my phone