SEC Proposes Expanding Testing The Waters For All Companies
As anticipated, on February 19, 2019 the SEC voted to propose an expansion of the ability to “test the waters” prior to the effectiveness of a registration statement in a public offering, to all companies. Currently only emerging growth companies (“EGCs”) (or companies engaging in a Regulation A offering) can test the waters in advance of a public offering of securities. The proposal would implement a new Securities Act Rule 163B. For an in-depth analysis of testing the waters and communications during an offering process, see my two-part blog HERE and HERE. The SEC proposal is open for public comment for a sixty (60)-day period.
Historically all offers to sell registered securities prior to the effectiveness of the filed registration statement have been strictly regulated and restricted. The public offering process is divided into three periods: (1) the pre-filing period, (2) the waiting or pre-effective period, and (3) the post-effective period. Communications made by the company during any of these three periods may, depending on the mode and content, result in violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). Communication-related violations of Section 5 during the pre-filing and pre-effectiveness periods are often referred to as “gun jumping.”
All forms of communication could create “gun-jumping” issues (e.g., press releases, interviews, and use of social media). “Gun jumping” refers to written or oral offers of securities made before the filing of the registration statement and written offers made after the filing of the registration statement other than by means of a prospectus that meet the requirements of Section 10 of the Securities Act, a free writing prospectus or a communication falling within one of the several safe harbors from the gun-jumping provisions.
In April 2012, the JOBS Act established a new process and disclosures for public offerings by a new class of companies – i.e., emerging growth companies (“EGCs.”) An EGC is defined as a company with total annual gross revenues of less than $1.07 billion during its most recently completed fiscal year that first sells equity in a registered offering after December 8, 2011. In particular, Section 5(d) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) allows EGCs to test the waters by engaging in communications with certain qualified investors. The SEC proposal would create a new Securities Act Rule 163B allowing all companies intending to file, or who have filed, a registration statement.
Permitting companies to test the waters is intended to provide increased flexibility to such issuers with respect to their communications about contemplated registered securities offerings, as well as a cost-effective means for evaluating market interest before incurring the costs associated with such an offering. Since the enactment of the JOBS Act, 87% of all IPOs have been by EGCs, leaving non-EGC companies at a disadvantage where specific rules favor EGC status.
The current proposal is consistent with other SEC actions to extend benefits afforded to EGCs to other issuers. That is, in June, 2017, the SEC expanded the ability to file confidential registration statements, previously only available to EGCs, to all companies – see HERE.
Section 5(d) of the Securities Act – Testing the Waters; Proposed New Rule 163B
Section 5(d) of the Securities Act provides an EGC with the flexibility to “test the waters” by engaging in oral or written communications with qualified institutional buyers (“QIBs”) and institutional accredited investors (“IAIs”) in order to gauge their interest in a proposed offering, whether prior to or following the first filing of any registration statement, subject to the requirement that no security may be sold unless accompanied or preceded by a Section 10(a) prospectus. Generally, in order to be considered a QIB, you must own and invest $100 million of securities, and in order to be considered an IAI, you must have a minimum of $5 million in assets.
Under the current rules, “well-known seasoned issuers,” or WKSIs, can engage in similar test-the-waters communications, but smaller reporting companies that do not otherwise qualify as an EGC cannot.
An EGC may utilize the test-the-waters provision with respect to any registered offerings that it conducts while qualifying for EGC status. Test-the-waters communications can be oral or written. An EGC may also engage in test-the-waters communications with QIBs and institutional accredited investors in connection with exchange offers and mergers. When doing so, an EGC would still be required to make filings under Sections 13 and 14 of the Exchange Act for pre-commencement tender offer communications and proxy soliciting materials in connection with a business combination transaction.
There are no form or content restrictions on these communications, and there is no requirement to file written communications with the SEC. During the first year or two following enactment of the JOBS Act, the SEC staff regularly asked to see any written test-the-waters materials during the course of the registration statement review process, but eventually these requests ceased. The SEC staff maintains the right to ask to review test-the-waters, or any, communications made by a company during the S-1 review process.
The new SEC proposal would expand the test-the-waters provisions currently available to EGCs, to all companies. In particular, proposed Securities Act Rule 163B would permit any issuer, including investment companies, or any person authorized to act on its behalf, to engage in oral or written communications with potential investors that are, or are reasonably believed to be, QIBs or IAIs, either prior to or following the filing of a registration statement, to determine whether such investors might have an interest in a contemplated registered securities offering. The proposed rule would be non-exclusive, and an issuer could rely on other Securities Act communications rules or exemptions when determining how, when, and what to communicate related to a contemplated securities offering.
The proposed rule would not require a filing with the SEC or any particular legend on the communications. Like other communications during a registration process, the test-the-waters communications must be consistent with and cannot conflict with the information in a related registration statement.
Companies that are subject to Regulation FD will need to be cognizant of whether any information in a test-the-waters communication would trigger a disclosure obligation under Regulation FD and make the required disclosure accordingly. As a reminder, Regulation FD requires that companies take steps to ensure that material information is disclosed to the general public in a fair and fully accessible manner such that the public as a whole has simultaneous access to the information. Regulation FD requires the filing of a Form 8-K immediately prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the information. Where information is accidentally released, the filing must be made immediately after the release and on the same calendar day.
It is important to note that anti-fraud provisions, such as Section 12(a)(2) and 10(b), still apply to such communications.
Thoughts on the Proposal
The SEC believes that by allowing more test-the-waters communications, companies will be encouraged to participate in public markets which, in turn, promotes more investment opportunities for more investors and improves transparency and resiliency in the marketplace. Furthermore, added communication can enhance the ability of issuers to conduct successful offerings and lower the cost of capital. I agree, but it is not enough. Although the proposal is certainly welcome, and I’m sure will pass through the comment process and be enacted by the SEC, I would advocate for a rule amendment that not only expands test-the-waters communications for all issuers but that broadens the category of potential investor that could be the subject of such communications, to include all accredited investors.
In its proposal release, the SEC notes that the 2015 modernization of Regulation A, which allows companies to test the waters with all potential investors, without restriction as to the type of investors, has helped modernize the Securities Act communication rules. I have trouble understanding why the SEC is comfortable with the unfettered Regulation A test-the-waters communications, but is limiting offerings registered under the Securities Act to qualified institutional buyers (“QIBs”) and institutional accredited investors (“IAIs”). Certainly the potential total investor loss is limited in a Regulation A offering (with the high end maxing out at $50 million for a Tier 2 offering) and Regulation A communications require specified disclaimers and filing with the SEC, but I still find it to be a disconnect.
In the proposal, on several occasions, the SEC points out that QIBs and IAIs are sophisticated and do not need the protections of the Securities Act. I believe that the current change is in line with a conservative “incremental change” approach. A next-step middle ground could be to require any test-the-waters communications that are made available to potential investors that are not QIBs or IAIs to contain a specified legend and be filed with the SEC. That way, a company embarking on an offering could decide if it wants to take on the filing liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act or limit its test-the-waters communications to QIBs and IAIs.
« NYSE American Compliance Guidance MEMO SEC Rules For Disclosure Of Hedging Policies »
Road Shows
Introduction; Definitions
We often hear the words “road show” associated with a securities offering. A road show is simply a series of presentations made by company management to key members of buy-side market participants such as broker-dealers that may participate in the syndication of an offering, and institutional investor groups and money managers that may invest into an offering. A road show is designed to provide these market participants with more information about the issuer and the offering and a chance to meet and assess management, including their presentation skills and competence in a Q&A setting. Investors often place a high level of importance on road show meetings and as such, a well-run road show can make the difference as to the level of success of an offering.
A road show usually involves an intensive period of multiple meetings and presentations in a number of different cities over a one-to-two-week period. Although road shows are generally live, they can be by teleconference, or electronic using prepared written presentation materials. In today’s Internet world, road shows are often recorded from a live presentation and made available publicly for a period of time. The meetings and presentations can vary in length and depth depending on the size and importance of the particular audience. During the road show, the underwriters are building a book of interest which will help determine the pricing for the offering.
A company can also conduct a “non-deal road show” for the purpose of driving interest in the company and its stock, where no particular offering is planned.
Unless it is a non-deal road show, the road show involves an offer of securities. “Offers” of securities are very broadly defined. Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act defines “offer to sell,” “offer for sale,” or “offer” to include “every attempt or offer to dispose of, or solicitation of an offer to buy, a security or interest in a security, for value.”
The timing and manner of all offers of securities are regulated, and especially so in registered offerings. All issuers that have filed a registration statement are permitted to make oral offers of their securities, but only certain types of written offers are allowed. Written offers must comply with Section 10 of the Securities Act, including a requirement that a prospectus meeting the information requirements in Section 10(a) be delivered at the time of or prior to the offer. In addition, certain eligible issuers may provide supplemental written information and graphic communications not otherwise included in the prospectus filed with the SEC (i.e., a free writing prospectus) as part of an offer of securities. All of these oral and written communication rules are implicated in the road show process and must be considered when planning and completing the road show.
A road show is generally timed to be completed in the last few weeks before a registration statement goes effective or a Regulation A offering circular becomes qualified. In a registered offering, Section 5(c) prohibits offers prior to the filing of the registration statement and as such, the road show would never commence pre-filing. Regulation A is not a registered offering for purposes of Section 5(c), but for practical purposes, a Regulation A road show also commences right before SEC qualification. Rule 163 provides an exception to the pre-filing offer rules only available to well-known seasoned issuers (very big companies), which is not discussed in this blog.
For a private offering, the road show occurs once the offering documents are completed. An Emerging Growth Company (EGC) that has filed its registration statement on a confidential basis must make the initial filing and all confidentially submitted amendments public a minimum of 15 days prior to starting the road show.
A road show is subject to the test-the-waters and pre-effective communication rules. For a review of testing the waters in a registered offering, see HERE and for Regulation A offerings, see HERE.
A road show is specifically regulated under Rule 433 of the Securities Act and the free writing prospectus rules. Securities Act Rule 433(h)(4) defines a road show as an offer, other than a statutory prospectus, that “contains a presentation regarding an offering by one or more of the members of the issuer’s management ….. and includes discussion of one or more of the issuer, such management, and the securities being offered.”
The SEC definition of road show includes the language “other than a statutory prospectus.” The statutory prospectus is one that meets the requirements of Section 10(a) of the Securities Act and is generally the filed final prospectus that contains the disclosures outlined in the particular offering form being used (for example, Form S-1 or 1-A) and including disclosures delineated in Regulations S-K and S-X.
In general, if the information being presented in a road show is nothing more than what is already included in the prospectus filed with the SEC, there are no particular SEC filing requirements. On the other hand, if the information is written and goes beyond the statutory prospectus, it may be considered a “free writing prospectus” and be subject to specific eligibility requirements for use, form and content and SEC filing requirements all as set forth in Rule 433 and discussed herein.
Rule 405 of the Securities Act defines a free writing prospectus (“FWP”) as “any written communication as defined in this section that constitutes an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy the securities relating to a registered offering that is used after the registration statement in respect of the offering is filed… and is made by means other than (i) a prospectus satisfying the requirements of Section 10(a) of the Act…; (2) a written communication used in reliance on Rule 167 and Rule 426 (note that both rules relate to offerings by asset backed issuers); or (3) a written communication that constitutes an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy such securities that falls within the exception from the definition of prospectus in clause (a) of Section 2(a)(10) of the Act.” Section 2(a)(10)(a) in turn exempts written communications that are provided after a registration statement goes effective with the SEC as long as the effective registration statement is provided to the recipient prior to or at the same time.
Types of Road Shows; Oral/Live vs. Written; Free Writing Prospectus (FWP) Requirements
The rules distinguish between a “live” vs. a “written” road show communication, with one being an “oral offer” and more freely allowed and the other being a “written offer” and more strictly regulated. In addition, the rules differentiate requirements based on whether a road show is for a registered or private offering and, if a registered offering, whether such offering is an initial public offering (IPO) involving common or convertible equity.
Where a road show communication is purely oral, it is not an FWP and thus there are no specific SEC filing requirements (though see the discussion on Regulation FD below). Where an oral communication implicates Regulation FD, a Form 8-K would need to be filed regardless of whether the communication is during a road show or in any other forum.
Although road shows are generally live and specifically designed to constitute oral offers, they can also be electronic using prepared written presentation materials. Both live and electronic road shows may be available for replay electronically over the Internet.
Live road shows include: (i) a live, in-person presentation to a live, in-person audience; (ii) a live, real-time presentation to a live audience or simultaneous multiple audiences transmitted electronically; (iii) a concurrent live presentation and real-time electronic transmittal of such presentation; (iv) a webcast or video conference that originates live and is transmitted in real time; (v) a live telephone conversation, even if it is recorded; and (vi) the slide deck or other presentation materials used during the road show unless investors are allowed to print or take copies of the information.
The explanatory note to Rule 433(d)(8) states: “A communication that is provided or transmitted simultaneously with a road show and is provided or transmitted in a manner designed to make the communication available only as part of the road show and not separately is deemed to be part of the road show. Therefore, if the road show is not a written communication, such a simultaneous communication (even if it would otherwise be a graphic communication or other written communication) is also deemed not to be written.”
Accordingly, road show slides and video clips are not considered to be written offers as long as copies are not left behind. Even handouts are not written offers so long as they are collected at the end of the presentation. If they are left behind, however, they become a free writing prospectus (FWP) and are subject to Securities Act Rules 164 and 433, including a requirement that the materials be filed with the SEC.
A video recording of the road show meeting will not need to be filed as an FWP so long as it is available on the Internet to everyone and covers the same ground as the live road show. Such video road shows are considered a “bona fide electronic road show.” Rule 433(h)(5) defines a “bona fide electronic road show” as a road show “that is a written communication transmitted by graphic means that contains a presentation by one or more officers of an issuer or other persons in an issuer’s management….” It is permissible to have multiple versions of a bona fide electronic road show as long as all versions are available to an unrestricted audience. For example, different members of management may record different presentations and, although access must be unrestricted, management may record versions that are more retail investor facing or institutional investor facing.
On the other hand, a FWP would include any written communication that could constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy securities subject to a registration statement that is used after the filing of a registration statement and before its effectiveness. A FWP is a supplemental writing that is not part of the filed registration statement. If the writing is simply a repetition of information contained in the filed registration statement, it may be used without regard to the separate FWP rule.
Rule 405 of the Securities Act defines a written communication as any communication that is “written, printed, a radio or television broadcast or a graphic communication.” A graphic communication includes “all forms of electronic media, including but not limited to, audiotapes, videotapes, facsimiles, CD Rom, electronic mail, internet websites, substantially similar messages widely distributed (rather than individually distributed) on telephone answering or voice mail systems, computers, computer networks and other forms of computer data compilation.” Basically, for purposes of rules related to FWP’s, all communications that can be reduced to writing are considered a written communication. Accordingly, radio and TV interviews, other than those published by unaffiliated and uncompensated media, would be considered a FWP and subject to the SEC use and filing rules.
Electronic road shows that do not originate live and in real time are considered written communications and FWP’s. Once it is determined that a road show includes a FWP, unless an exemption applies, an SEC filing is required. As mentioned, bona fide electronic road shows, although technically a FWP, are not required to be filed with the SEC. In addition, Rule 433 only requires the filing of a FWP for an IPO of common or convertible equity.
A non-exempted FWP must be filed with the SEC, using Form 8-K, no later than the date of first use. An after-hours filing will satisfy this requirement as long as it is on the same calendar day. Moreover, all FWP’s must be filed with the SEC, whether distributed by the registrant or another offering participant and whether such distribution was intentional or unintentional.
The use of a FWP has specific eligibility requirements. A FWP may not be used by any issuer that is “ineligible” for such use. The following entities are ineligible to use a free writing prospectus: (i) companies that are or were in the past three years a blank-check company; (ii) companies that are or were in the past three years a shell company; (iii) penny-stock issuers; (iv) companies that conducted a penny-stock offering within the past three years; (v) business development companies; (vi) companies that are delinquent in their Exchange Act reporting requirements; (vii) limited partnerships that are engaged in an offering that is not a firm commitment offering; and (viii) companies that have filed or have been forced into bankruptcy in the last three years.
Small- and micro-cap issuers will rarely be eligible to use a free writing prospectus. Accordingly, small and micro-cap companies generally are limited to live road shows involving oral offers not constituting a FWP.
Moreover, underwriters generally require specific representations and warranties and indemnification related to FWP’s regardless of whether they are required to be filed with the SEC.
Content
The road show presentation usually covers key aspects of the offering itself, including the reasons for the offering and use of proceeds. In addition, management will also cover important aspects of their business and growth plans, industry trends, competition and the market for their products or services. An important aspect of the road show is the question-and-answer period or Q&A, though obviously this is only included in live interactive road shows. It is common for materials to include drilled-down information that is provided on a higher level in the prospectus as well as theory and thoughts behind business plans and management goals.
The preparation of the road show content is usually a collaborative effort between the company, underwriters and legal counsel. Although the road show begins much later in the process, since its content is derived from the registration statement, ideally the planning begins at the same time as the registration statement drafting. Also, slides, PowerPoint presentations and other presentation materials should be carefully prepared to get the most out of their effectiveness.
The lawyer generally reviews all materials for compliance with the rules related to offering communications as well as potential liability for the representations themselves. Part of the compliance review is ensuring that no statements conflict with or provide a material change to the information in the filed offering prospectus; that could be deemed materially misleading by content or omission; and compliance with Regulation FD if applicable.
Also from a technical legal perspective, all road show materials should contain a disclaimer for forward-looking statements, and that disclaimer should be read in live or prerecorded road show presentations. Where the road show content includes a FWP, it is required to contain a legend indicating that a prospectus has been filed, where it can be read (a hyperlink can satisfy this requirement), and advising prospectus investors to read the prospectus.
Under Rule 433(b)(2), the FWP for a non-reporting or unseasoned company must be accompanied with or preceded by the prospectus filed with the SEC. The delivery requirement can be satisfied by providing a hyperlink to the filed prospectus on the EDGAR database.
Road show materials, even those that are also a FWP, generally are not subject to liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act. Section 11 provides a private cause of action in favor of purchasers of securities, against those involved in filing a false or misleading public offering registration statement. Road-show materials, including FWPs, are not a part of the registration statement, but rather are supplemental materials. Section 12 liability, however, does apply to road-show materials. Section 12 provides liability against the seller of securities for material misstatements or omissions in connection with that sale, whether oral or in writing.
Follow-on Offerings and Regulation FD
Regulation FD requires that companies subject to the SEC reporting requirements take steps to ensure that material information is disclosed to the general public in a fair and fully accessible manner such that the public as a whole has simultaneous access to the information. Consequently, Regulation FD would be implicated in connection with communications in a road show for a follow-on offering by a company already subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements. Regulation FD excludes communications (i) to a person who owes the issuer a duty of trust or confidence, such as legal counsel and financial advisors; (ii) communications to any person who expressly agrees to maintain the information in confidence; and (iii) communications in connection with certain offerings of securities registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (this exemption does not include registered shelf offerings).
Where a road show is being conducted by a company subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements, counsel should ensure that that the presentation either does not include material non-public information or that the information is simultaneously disclosed to the public in a Form 8-K. As a backstop where Regulation FD applies, the company should also consider having all road-show attendees sign a confidentiality agreement.
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
330 Clematis Street, Suite 217
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: 800-341-2684 – 561-514-0936
Fax: 561-514-0832
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
www.LegalAndCompliance.com
www.LawCast.com
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.
Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.
Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2017
« SEC Issues Whitepaper On Title III Crowdfunding Recommendations Of SEC Government-Business Forum On Small Business Capital Formation »
Smaller Reporting Companies vs. Emerging Growth Companies
The topic of reporting requirements and distinctions between various categories of reporting companies has been prevalent over the past couple of years as regulators and industry insiders examine changes to the reporting requirements for all companies, and qualifications for the various categories of scaled disclosure requirements. As I’ve written about these developments, I have noticed inconsistencies in the treatment of smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies in ways that are likely the result of poor drafting or unintended consequences. This blog summarizes two of these inconsistencies.
As a reminder, a smaller reporting company is currently defined as a company that has a public float of less than $75 million in common equity as of the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter, or if a public float of zero, has less than $50 million in annual revenues as of its most recently completed fiscal year-end. I note that on June 27, 2016, the SEC issued a proposed rule to change that definition. The SEC proposes to amend the definition of a smaller reporting company to include companies with less than a $250 million public float as compared to the $75 million threshold in the current definition. In addition, if a company does not have an ascertainable public float, a smaller reporting company would be one with less than $100 million in annual revenues, as compared to the current threshold of less than $50 million. Once considered a smaller reporting company, a company would maintain that status unless its float drops below $200 million or its annual revenues drop below $80 million.
An emerging growth company (“EGC”) is defined as a company with total annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion during its most recently completed fiscal year that first sells equity in a registered offering after December 8, 2011. An EGC loses its EGC status on the earlier of (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which it exceeds $1 billion in revenues; (ii) the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth year after its IPO (for example, if the issuer has a December 31 fiscal year-end and sells equity securities pursuant to an effective registration statement on May 2, 2016, it will cease to be an EGC on December 31, 2021); (iii) the date on which it has issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period; or (iv) the date it becomes a large accelerated filer (i.e., its non-affiliated public float is valued at $700 million or more). EGC status is not available to asset-backed securities issuers (“ABS”) reporting under Regulation AB or investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended. However, business development companies (BDC’s) do qualify.
The Fast Act
The FAST Act, passed into law on December 4, 2015, amended Form S-1 to allow for forward incorporation by reference by smaller reporting companies. A smaller reporting company may now incorporate any documents filed by the company, following the effective date of a registration statement, into such effective registration statement. In what was probably unintended in the drafting, the FAST Act changes only include smaller reporting companies and not emerging growth companies. Generally, forward incorporation by reference requires that the company be S-3 eligible. The FAST Act change has created an anomaly whereby a smaller reporting company can utilize forward incorporation by reference but an EGC could not unless it was also S-3 eligible.
Testing the Waters in an IPO
Test-the-waters communications involve solicitations of indications of interest for an offering prior to the effectiveness of a registration statement. Where Regulation A freely allows, and even encourages, test-the-waters communications, the standard IPO process using a Form S-1 still strictly limits pre-effectiveness solicitations of interest and offering communications overall. Section 5(a) of the Securities Act prohibits the sale of securities before the registration statement is deemed effective. Communications made by the company during an IPO process, depending on the mode and content, result in violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). Communication-related violations of Section 5 during the pre-filing and pre-effectiveness periods are often referred to as “gun jumping.”
In April 2012, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”) was enacted, which, in part, established a new process and disclosures for public offerings by EGC’s.
Section 105(c) of the JOBS Act provides an EGC with the flexibility to “test the waters” by engaging in oral or written communications with qualified institutional buyers (“QIB’s”) and institutional accredited investors (“IAI’s”) in order to gauge their interest in a proposed offering, whether prior to (irrespective of the 30-day safe harbor) or following the first filing of any registration statement, subject to the requirement that no security may be sold unless accompanied or preceded by a Section 10(a) prospectus. Generally, in order to be considered a QIB, you must own and invest $100 million of securities, and in order to be considered an IAI, you must have a minimum of $5 million in assets. For a more complete discussion on the test-the-waters provisions available to EGC’s, see my blog HERE.
Section 105(c) is not available for smaller reporting companies. Where a smaller reporting company is not also an EGC, it cannot engage in Section 105(c) test-the-waters communications made available under the JOBS Act. This is clearly a legislative miss. The JOBS Act is intended to create capital-raising opportunities for small companies. Although I understand that the thought was to assist EGC’s in the IPO process, the fact is that many smaller reporting companies engage in a series of follow-on public offerings before reaching a size and level of maturity where they no longer need the assistance of rules and laws designed to encourage capital in smaller companies. Ironically, by that point, these companies will be able to engage in additional communications only available to eligible larger issues, such as free writing prospectus and Rule 163 communications.
Refresher on Regulation S-K and S-X Differences for Smaller Reporting Companies and EGC’s
The scaled-down disclosures for smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies include, among other items: (i) only 3 years of business description as opposed to 5; (ii) 2 years of financial statements as opposed to 3; (iii) elimination of certain line item disclosures such as certain graphs and selected financial data; and (iv) relief from the 404(b) auditor attestation requirements. However, although similar, there are differences between the scaled disclosure requirements for an emerging growth company vs. a smaller reporting company. In particular, the following chart summarizes these differences:
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host ofLawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.
Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.
Download our mobile app at iTunes.
Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2016
« SEC Continues Efforts To Prevent Microcap Fraud DTC Again Proposes Procedures For Issuers Subject To Chills And Locks »
Testing The Waters; Regulation A+ And S-1 Public Offerings – Part 2
The JOBS Act enacted in 2012 made the most dramatic changes to the landscape for the marketing and selling of both private and public offerings since the enactment of the Securities Act of 1933. These significant changes include: (i) the creation of Rule 506(c), which came into effect on September 23, 2013, and allows for general solicitation and advertising in private offerings where the purchasers are limited to accredited investors; (ii) the overhaul of Regulation A, creating two tiers of offerings which came into effect on June 19, 2015, and allows for both pre-filing and post-filing marketing of an offering, called “testing the waters”; (iii) the addition of Section 5(d) of the Securities Act, which came into effect in April 2012, permitting emerging growth companies to test the waters by engaging in pre- and post-filing communications with qualified institutional buyers or institutions that are accredited investors; and (iv) Title III crowdfunding, which came into effect May 19, 2016, and allows for the use of Internet-based marketing and sales of securities offerings.
This is the second in a two-part blog on testing the waters. In the first in the series, I discussed test-the-waters marketing of Regulation A/A+ offerings. That blog can be read HERE. In this second part, I am discussing testing the waters in the standard IPO process including under Section 5(d) for public offerings by emerging growth companies.
Test The Waters– Transactions Using S-1
Historically all offers to sell registered securities prior to the effectiveness of the filed registration statement have been strictly regulated and restricted. The public offering process is divided into three periods: (1) the pre-filing period, (2) the waiting or pre-effective period, and (3) the post-effective period. Communications made by the company during any of these three periods may, depending on the mode and content, result in violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). Communication-related violations of Section 5 during the pre-filing and pre-effectiveness periods are often referred to as “gun jumping.”
All forms of communication could create “gun-jumping” issues (e.g., press releases, interviews, and use of social media). “Gun jumping” refers to written or oral offers of securities made before the filing of the registration statement and written offers made after the filing of the registration statement other than by means of a prospectus that meet the requirements of Section 10 of the Securities Act, a free writing prospectus or a communication falling within one of the several safe harbors from the gun-jumping provisions.
“Offers” of securities are very broadly defined. Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act define “offer to sell,” “offer for sale,” or “offer” to include “every attempt or offer to dispose of, or solicitation of an offer to buy, a security or interest in a security, for value.” The definition specifically excludes discussions and negotiations between a company and an underwriter or underwriters. The Section 2(a)(3) definition of an offer also specifically excludes research reports by broker-dealers, which provision was added by the JOBS Act and is touched on below.
In 2005, in order to modernize the offering process, the SEC adopted the “Securities Offering Reform,” which included adding a number of communication safe harbors from enforcement of Section 5, as discussed in more detail below. The JOBS Act added additional provisions allowing for test-the-waters communications by emerging growth companies during the offering process.
Test-the-waters communications involve solicitations of indications of interest for an offering prior to the effectiveness of a registration statement. Where Regulation A freely allows, and even encourages, test-the-waters communications, the standard IPO process using a Form S-1 still strictly limits pre-effectiveness solicitations of interest and offering communications overall. As with Regulation A, indications of interest as a result of test-the-waters communications are non-binding. Section 5(a) of the Securities Act prohibits the sale of securities before the registration statement is deemed effective.
Test The Waters communications during the pre-filing period
The pre-filing period is that time frame between the decision to proceed with a public offering and the actual filing of a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. During this period, a potential registrant is in the “quiet period” and is subject to restrictions on public disclosure relating to the offering. The pre-filing period begins when the company, and the underwriters where applicable, agree to proceed with a public offering.
Statements made within 30 days of filing a registration statement that could be considered an attempt to pre-sell the public offering may be considered an illegal prospectus, resulting in a Section 5 “gun-jumping” violation, if no exception or safe harbor applies. This might result in liability for violating securities laws, the SEC’s delaying of the public offering, and/or requiring prospectus disclosures of these potential securities law violations. Press interviews, participation in investment banker-sponsored conferences, and new advertising campaigns are generally discouraged during this period.
Section 5(c) of the Securities Act generally prohibits oral and written offers of a security before a registration statement is filed, which encompasses the quiet and pre-filing period. There are, however, many exceptions and safe harbor rules to this general prohibition.
Section 105(c) of the JOBS Act – “Test The Waters” by an Emerging Growth Company:
In April 2012, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”) was enacted, which, in part, established a new process and disclosures for public offerings by a new class of companies referred to as “emerging growth companies” or “EGCs.” An EGC is defined as a company with total annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion during its most recently completed fiscal year that first sells equity in a registered offering after December 8, 2011.
Section 105(c) of the JOBS Act provides an EGC with the flexibility to “test the waters” by engaging in oral or written communications with qualified institutional buyers (“QIBs”) and institutional accredited investors (“IAIs”) in order to gauge their interest in a proposed offering, whether prior to (irrespective of the 30-day safe harbor) or following the first filing of any registration statement, subject to the requirement that no security may be sold unless accompanied or preceded by a Section 10(a) prospectus. Generally, in order to be considered a QIB, you must own and invest $100 million of securities, and in order to be considered an IAI, you must have a minimum of $5 million in assets.
As an EGC would not have filed any documents or requests with the SEC at this stage, it will be up to the EGC to determine whether it qualifies as an EGC prior to commencing test-the-waters communications. Under the rules, “well-known seasoned issuers,” or WKSIs, can engage in similar test-the-waters communications, but smaller reporting companies that do not otherwise qualify as an EGC cannot.
An EGC may utilize the testing-the-waters provision with respect to any registered offerings that it conducts while qualifying for EGC status. Test-the-waters communications can be oral or written. An EGC may also engage in test-the-waters communications with QIBs and institutional accredited investors in connection with exchange offers and mergers. When doing so, an EGC would still be required to make filings under Sections 13 and 14 of the Exchange Act for pre-commencement tender offer communications and proxy soliciting materials in connection with a business combination transaction.
There are no form or content restrictions on these communications, and there is no requirement to file written communications with the SEC. During the first year or two following enactment of the JOBS Act, the SEC staff regularly asked to see any written test-the-waters materials during the course of the registration statement review process, but eventually these requests ceased. The SEC staff maintains the right to ask to review test-the-waters, or any, communications made by a company during the S-1 review process. For more information on the SEC review process and responding the SEC comments in general, see my blog HERE.
In practice the marketing of an IPO offering generally begins during the waiting period after the filing of the S-1 with the SEC and generally not until the two to three weeks prior to the effectiveness of the registration and launching of the offering itself. However, an EGC can make test-the-waters communications even before filing the registration statement. It is important to note that anti-fraud provisions, such as Section 12(a)(2) and 10(b), still apply to such communications.
Exception for Research Reports
Section 105(a) of the JOBS Act amended Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act to eliminate restrictions on publishing analyst research and communications while IPOs are under way. Under prior law, research reports by analysts, especially those participating in an underwriting of securities of the subject company, could be deemed to be “offers” of those securities under the Securities Act and, as result, could not be issued prior to completion of an offering. Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act as amended by Section 105(a) of the JOBS Act provides that publication or distribution by a broker or dealer of a research report about an EGC that is the subject of a proposed public offering of its securities does not constitute an offer of securities, even if the broker or dealer that publishes the research is participating or will participate as an underwriter in the offering. Moreover, the term “research” is defined broadly as any information, opinion or recommendation about a company and includes oral as well as written and electronic communications. This research need not be accompanied by a full prospectus and need not provide information “reasonably sufficient upon which to base an investment decision.” The research need not even be consistent with the prospectus, if there is one. In other words, research providers are free to say just about anything they wish about an IPO candidate, limited only by the general anti-fraud rules.
Section 105(b) of the JOBS Act eliminates existing restrictions on publishing research following an IPO or around the time the IPO lockup period expires or is released. Currently, under SEC and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) rules, underwriters of an IPO cannot publish research for 25 days after the offering (40 days if they served as a manager or co-manager), and managers or co-managers cannot publish research within 15 days prior to or after the release or expiration of the IPO lockup agreements (so-called “booster shot” reports). The Act requires FINRA and the SEC to eliminate these restrictions with respect to EGCs. As a result, any research analyst will be able to publish at any time after an EGC IPO, including immediately after the offering. On October 11, 2012, FINRA amended its rules to conform with the requirements under Section 105(b) of the JOBS Act. In particular, it amended NASD Rule 2711 to eliminate all quiet periods.
Rule 135 Safe Harbor
Rule 135 allows for the publication of a limited announcement of a proposed public offering before the filing of the registration statement. The Rule 135 notice is often referred to as a “tombstone” ad. Such tombstone notice is limited to: (i) the name of the company; (ii) the title, amount, and basic terms of the securities; (iii) the amount to be offered by any selling shareholders; (iv) the anticipated timing of the offering; (v) a brief statement of the manner and purpose of offering, without naming the underwriters; (vi) whether the offering is directed to a particular class of purchaser (such as accredited only); and (vii) state and federal legends as required by law (including that it is not an “offer”). If the “tombstone” notice complies with the above Rule 135 requirements, the notice will not be treated as an “offer.”
A Rule 135 communication must contain a disclaimer/legend “to the effect that it does not constitute an offer of any securities for sale.” Sample legends include:
This announcement is being made pursuant to and in accordance with Rule 135 under the Securities Act of 1933. As required by Rule 135, this press release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy securities, and shall not constitute an offer, solicitation or sale in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of that jurisdiction.
Rule 135 can be effective as a test-the-waters tool. Responses to a publication, or lack thereof, can provide valuable information regarding the public interest in a particular planned public offering. A Rule 135announcement can only be made before a registration statement is filed. Following the filing, the appropriate announcement would be under Rule 134 as discussed below.
Test The Waters Communications during the Post-filing, Pre-effectiveness Period
The waiting or pre-effective period is that time frame between the filing date and the effective date of the registration statement. During this period, the company may generally make oral offers, but may not enter into binding agreements to sell the offered security.
The pre-effective period is the period during which, among other things, the company begins marketing the offering, through real-time oral offers, including calls to potential investors. Section 5(b)(1) of the Securities Act prohibits written offers other than by means of a prospectus that meets the requirements of Section 10 of the Securities Act. An S-1 meets such requirements. Such bans are designed to prohibit inappropriate marketing, conditioning or “hyping” of the security before all investors have access to publicly available information about the company so that they can make informed investment decisions.
Oral communications are allowed following the filing of a registration statement, subject to the anti-fraud provisions.
Other than a free writing prospectus for qualified companies and test-the-waters communications by an EGC satisfying the requirements of Section 5(d) of the Securities Act (i.e., Rule 105(c) of the JOBS Act), the only written sales material that may be distributed by the company during this period is the preliminary prospectus, which must satisfy specified SEC requirements. While binding commitments cannot be made during this period, the underwriters will receive indications of interest from potential purchasers, indicating the price they would be willing to pay and the number of shares they would purchase.
During this period, key management personnel generally will make a series of presentations covering the company’s business and industry, market opportunities and financial matters to the investment community. The underwriters will use these presentations as an opportunity to ask questions and establish their due diligence. This presentation period is commonly referred to as the “road show” and generally is conducted in the two-to-three-week period immediately prior to the effectiveness of the registration statement and ability to complete sales of the securities.
As with other offering periods, many exemptions and safe harbors exist to allow for communications during the pre-effective waiting period.
Section 105(c) of the JOBS Act – “Test The Waters” by an EGC:
Section 105 of the JOBS Act is also available during the post-filing, pre-effective waiting period.
Rule 134 Written Solicitation of Interest:
Rule 134 permits the company to communicate limited factual information about the offering after the Section 10 prospectus is filed (i.e., an S-1). Rule 134 communications are not deemed to be either prospectuses or free writing prospectuses. Rule 134 communications may only be made after a registration statement has been filed with the SEC. The allowable content of a Rule 134 communication is similar to that of a Rule 135 communication; however, a Rule 135 communication is just a notice of a proposed registered offering, whereas a Rule 134 communication relates to a filed registration statement for a particular offering.
A Rule 134 communication may include one or more of the following information: (i) factual information about the legal identity and business location of the company including name, address, phone number, web address, e-mail address, principal office location, investor relations contact information, country or state of location or organization and similar information; (ii) the title and amount of securities offered, which can include a designation such as “preferred,” “convertible” or “secured”; (iii) a brief statement of the general type of business of the company; (iv) the price of the security, if known; (v) a brief description of the intended use of proceeds; (vi) the type of underwriting (self, firm commitment or best efforts); (vii) names of underwriters and other offering participants; (viii) schedule and timing of the offering, including road show dates, times and locations; (ix) legal opinions as to specified tax treatment; (x) the names of selling security holders; (xi) names of exchanges or other markets where the security currently trades, and (x) the ticker symbol.
The communications must contain the prescribed legend, be preceded or accompanied by a Section 10 prospectus, and state where the statutory prospectus can be obtained. The required legend is as follows:
A registration statement relating to these securities has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission but has not yet become effective. These securities may not be sold nor may offers to buy be accepted prior to the time the registration statement becomes effective.
Subject to limited exceptions, the following should also be included:
No offer to buy the securities can be accepted and no part of the purchase price can be received until the registration statement has become effective, and any such offer may be withdrawn or revoked, without obligation or commitment of any kind, at any time prior to notice of its acceptance given after the effective date.
Free Writing Prospectus
A free writing prospectus would include any written communication that could constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy securities subject to a registration statement that is used after the filing of a registration statement and before its effectiveness. A free writing prospectus is a supplemental writing that is not part of the filed registration statement. If the writing is simply a repetition of information contained in the filed registration statement, it may be used without regard to the separate free writing prospectus rule.
For purposes of rules related to free writing prospectuses, all communications that can be reduced to writing are considered a written communication. Accordingly, radio and TV interviews, other than those published or given to unaffiliated and uncompensated media, would be considered a free writing prospectus and subject to the SEC use and filing rules.
All free writing prospectuses must contain a specific notice legend as set forth in Rule 433 of the Securities Act. A free writing prospectus must be filed with the SEC, using Form 8-K, no later than the date of first use. An after-hours filing will satisfy this requirement as long as it is the same calendar day. Moreover, all free writing prospectuses must be filed with the SEC, whether distributed by the registrant or another offering participant and whether such distribution was intentional or unintentional.
A free writing prospectus may not be used by any issuer that is “ineligible” for such use. The following entities are ineligible to use a free writing prospectus: (i) companies that are or were in the past three years a blank check company; (ii) companies that are or were in the past three years a shell company; (iii) penny stock issuers; (iv) companies that conducted a penny stock offering within the past three years; (v) business development companies; (vi) companies that are delinquent in their Exchange Act reporting requirements; (vii) limited partnerships that are engaged in an offering that is not a firm commitment offering; and (viii) companies that have filed or have been forced into bankruptcy in the last three years.
Small- and micro-cap issuers will rarely be eligible to use a free writing prospectus.
Live Road Shows
A road show is regulated under Rule 433 of the Securities Act and the free writing prospectus rules. Written road show materials may be considered free writing prospectus and must be filed with the SEC, and may only be used by companies eligible to use a free writing prospectus. As mentioned, if the writing is simply a repetition of the information contained in the filed registration statement, it is not considered a free writing prospectus and may be used by all companies that have filed a registration statement with the SEC. Accordingly, written materials used in a road show by any company that is not eligible to use a free writing prospectus (such as most small- and micro-cap companies) are strictly limited to the contents of the registration statement itself.
Oral communications in a live road show are exempt from the free writing prospectus requirements under Rule 433 and accordingly may be used by all companies with a filed registration statement (not before).
“Live road shows” include: (i) a live, in-person presentation to a live, in-person audience; (ii) a live, real-time presentation to a live audience transmitted electronically; (iii) a concurrent live and presentation and real-time electronic transmittal of such presentation; (iv) a webcast or video conference that originates live and is transmitted in real time; and (v) the slide deck or other presentation materials used during the road show as unless investors are allowed to print or take copies of the information.
Smaller Reporting Company Dilemma
The opportunities for a smaller reporting company to engage in marketing, test-the-waters, and other pre-effective communications related to a public offering are limited. A “smaller reporting company” is defined as one that, among other things, has a public float of less than $75 million in common equity, or if unable to calculate the public float, has less than $50 million in annual revenues. As described above, an “emerging growth company” is one with total annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion during its most recently completed fiscal year that first sells equity in a registered offering after December 8, 2011. At times a company will qualify as both a smaller reporting company and an emerging growth company, but not always.
A smaller “reporting” company is, by definition, a company subject to the “reporting” requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Companies that are subject to the Exchange Act do not qualify to use Regulation A. Accordingly, a smaller reporting company cannot avail itself of the broad allowable pre-offering test-the-waters communications allowed in a Regulation A public offering. I do note that some smaller reporting companies are voluntary filers. That is, they voluntarily file reports with the SEC and are not actually subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements. These companies can complete a Regulation A public offering.
Where a smaller reporting company is not also an EGC, it cannot engage in Section 105(c) test-the-waters communications made available under the JOBS Act. This is clearly a legislative miss. The JOBS Act is intended to create capital raising opportunities for small companies. Although I understand that the thought was to assist EGC’s in the IPO process, the fact is that many smaller reporting companies engage in a series of follow-on public offerings before reaching a size and level of maturity where they no longer need the assistance of rules and laws designed to encourage capital in smaller companies. Ironically, by that point, these companies will be able to engage in additional communications only available to eligible larger issues, such as free writing prospectus and Rule 163 communications. Rule 163 communications are only available to well-known, seasoned issuers (big companies) and have not been addressed in this blog.
Many of these smaller reporting companies trade on the OTC Markets, which, despite continued and ongoing best efforts, face liquidity issues and need extra legislative support in conducting offerings just as the legislature clearly realizes an EGC’s needs. For a good refresher on liquidity issues for small companies, see my blog HERE.
That leaves a copy of the actual filed registration statement, Rules 134 and 135 for written communications and live road shows for smaller reporting companies engaging in initial and follow-on public offerings.
Smaller reporting companies are usually better off engaging in a Rule 506(c) advertised private offering than a registered public offering from a marketing perspective. This likely unintended consequence seems a dichotomy to the SEC objective of preferring registration and its accompanying complete disclosure in the issuance of securities.
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host ofLawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.
Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.
Download our mobile app at iTunes.
Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2016
« Testing The Waters; Regulation A+ And S-1 Public Offerings – Part 1 SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Issues Further Recommendations On Accredited Investor Definition »