Change in NYSE and AMEX Listing Requirements For Companies Completing Reverse Mergers with Public Shell Companies
On November 8, 2011 the SEC granted an accelerated approval to a proposed rule change initiated by the NYSE AMEX, whereby the NYSE AMEX amended its rules so that a Company that goes public via a reverse merger with a shell company, must wait at least one year to apply for listing on the NYSE exchange. The NASDAQ exchange proposed, and presumably will have approved, a substantially similar rule. The complete rule change is available on the SEC website.
In response to recent reverse merger abuses, primarily involving accounting fraud related to Chinese company reverse mergers, in July, 2011, the NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ exchanges proposed more stringent listing requirements for companies seeking to become listed following a reverse merger with a shell company. The rule change prohibits a reverse merger company from applying to list until the combined entity had traded in the U.S. over the counter market, on another national securities exchange, or on a regulated foreign exchange, for at least one year following the filing of all required information about the reverse merger transaction, including audited financial statements. In addition, new rules require that the new reverse merger company has filed all its required reports for the one year period, including at least one annual report.
In addition, the new rule requires that the reverse merger company “maintain a closing stock price equal to the stock price requirement applicable to the initial listing standard under which the reverse merger company is qualifying to list for a sustained period of time, but in no event for less than 30 of the most recent 60 trading days prior to the filing of the initial listing application.”
The rule includes some exceptions for companies that complete a firm commitment offering resulting in net proceeds of at least $40 million dollars.
In addition to the specific additional listing requirements contained in the new rule, the Exchange may “in its discretion impose more stringent requirements than those set forth above if the Exchange believes it is warranted in the case of a particular reverse merger company based on, among other things, an inactive trading market in the reverse merger company’s securities, the existence of a low number of publicly held shares that are not subject to transfer restrictions, if the reverse merger company has not had a Securities Act registration statement or other filing subjected to a comprehensive review by the SEC, or if the reverse merger company has disclosed that it has material weaknesses in its internal controls which have been identified by management and/or the reverse merger company’s independent auditor and has not yet implemented an appropriate corrective action plan.”
In discussing and approving the new rules the SEC noted that the listing standards “provide the means for an exchange to screen issuers that seek to become listed, and to provide listed status only to those that are bona fide companies with sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest likely to generate depth and liquidity sufficient to promote fair and orderly markets.”
Theoretically, making it more difficult and expensive for reverse merger Companies to list on a major exchange will result in a massive resurgence of issuers seeking to trade on the OTCBB (OTCQB). When all is said and done, and no one has a crystal ball, the OTCBB and OTCQB may be the new home for even larger more established reverse merger companies simply because they are required to trade as such for twelve months before graduating to a larger exchange or because they fall short of listing requirements by so much as a single criteria.
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Rule 144 Seller’s Representation Letter Small-Cap Reverse Mergers Poised for a Comeback »
Mergers and AcquisitionsConfidentiality, Non-Disclosure Agreements
A confidentiality agreement or non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) is an agreement among the parties to a proposed transaction to keep information secret and in confidence. In the context of a merger and acquisition transaction, NDA’s are important for both the target and acquiring entities. It is critical that an NDA be signed prior to the exchange of any due diligence or embarking upon substantive transaction negotiations.
Protecting Trade Secrets
Generally in a merger and acquisition transaction, the target entity is a closely held private corporation. Accordingly it is critical for the target company to maintain the confidential nature of both its business information, and the fact that it is considering a going public transaction. During the due diligence process, the public acquiring company will be given access to non-public trade secrets, technology, business processes, customer lists, and material information regarding shareholders, debt and equity financing and financial statements.
Loose Lips Sink Ships
If this information were made public or used for any purpose other than to evaluate a potential business transaction, it could materially and adversely affect the value of the target company. Moreover, if a transaction doesn’t go through, a potential acquirer could misuse the information to compete with, or solicit customers or employees from the target company, without the protection of a NDA. Just the knowledge that a transaction is being considered could affect the target’s relationship with its current customers, suppliers and/or employees.
Generally, the public acquiring entity is subject to the disclosure requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and its information is already publicly available. However an NDA is still important to protect the public company. That is, if it became publicly known that acquirer was focusing on a particular target, other potential buyers may come to the table to compete.
Shielding Corporate Reputation, Controlling Rumors
Moreover, the acquirer’s business strategy regarding that particular acquisition would become publicly known prior to being legally required. If the acquirer changes its mind and the information was already public, investors may wonder as to why the transaction evaporated and subsequently lose confidence in both entities. An NDA can help protect against unnecessary market rumors and conjecture and potential exposure to insider trading liability. Obviously, an NDA should contain a strong obligation on the part of both parties to keep review information confidential.
Typically an NDA will permit the parties to disclose the information to its affiliates, advisors and key management on a “need to know” basis provided that each information recipient agree to the terms of the NDA.
Limitations of Non-Disclosure Agreements
An NDA only covers confidential information. That is, excluded is information that (i) is already in the possession of the recipient; or (ii) is or becomes available to the public (other than by a breach of the NDA). A properly drafted NDA will provide for procedures in the event a party is compelled, via subpoena or otherwise, to disclose information. Generally, the NDA will provide for an opportunity to learn of and fight the compelling document prior to disclosure.
Lastly, most NDA’s contain some sort of standstill or no shop provision. That is prior to expending time, money, attorney’s fees, other professional fees, etc., the parties will want assurance that the deal is not being shopped around for at least some period of time.
The Author
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Reverse Mergers, Acquisitions and Due Diligence Mergers and Acquisitions – Disclosure Matters »
Reverse Mergers, Acquisitions and Due Diligence
Due diligence refers to the legal, business and financial investigation of a business prior to entering into a reverse merger transaction. Although the due diligence process can vary depending on the nature of a transaction (a relatively small acquisition vs. a going public reverse merger)it is arguably the most important component of a transaction (or at least equal with documentation).
Reverse Mergers and Public Shells
In a reverse merger transaction involving a public shell acquiring a private operating business, the bulk of the due diligence will be by the acquiring shell on the target. Although some due diligence is also necessary on the public shell, as a Company subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act of 1934, most, if not all, pertinent information is publicly available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) EDGAR database. In the case where the public shell is a non-reporting entity, both sides to the transaction will need to complete extensive, in-depth due diligence on each other.
Analyzing Private Companies Going Public
This article focuses on due diligence by the public acquirer on the private target. At the outset, in addition to requesting copies of corporate records and documents, all contracts, asset chain of title documents, financial statements and the like, the securities attorney for the public acquirer should make themselves familiar with the target’s business, including an understanding of how they make money, what assets are important in revenues, who are their commercial partners and suppliers, and common off balance sheet and other hidden arrangements in that business. It is important to have a basic understanding of the business in order to effectively review the documents and information once supplied, to know what to ask for and to isolate potential future problems.
Addressing Post Closing Issues
In addition to determining whether the transaction as a whole is worth pursuing, proper due diligence will help in structuring the reverse merger transaction and preparing the proper documentation to prevent post closing issues (such as making sure all assignments of contracts are complete, or where an assignment isn’t possible, new contracts are prepared).
Public Records Search
In addition to creating due diligence lists of documents and information to be supplied, counsel for the public acquirer should perform separate checks for publicly available information. In today’s internet world, this part of the process has become dramatically easier. SEC legal counsel should be careful not to miss the basics, such as UCC lien searches, judgment searches, recorded property title and regulatory issues with any of the principals or participants involved in the deal.
The Author
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Reverse Merger Attorneys Mergers and AcquisitionsConfidentiality, Non-Disclosure Agreements »
Reverse Merger Attorneys
Many of the Chinese companies that go public in the United States do so via a Reverse Merger. The reverse merger methodology versus the traditional Initial Public Offering (IPO) is the preferred method used by the Chinese and their US-based legal and auditing advisors. Many of these Chinese companies believe, erroneously, that by utilizing the reverse merger process, they can avoid the in-depth disclosure requirements and scrutiny associated with an IPO. However, legally this is not the case.
The failure of Chinese company legal, accounting and market makers to understand the fundamental elements required of Foreign Corporations trading stock on US markets has led to numerous shareholder class action lawsuits, trading suspensions and enforcement actions against publicly traded Chinese companies.
Auditors and Market Makers Fall Short on Due Diligence
Many of the problems resulting from Chinese reverse mergers are due to the failure of corporate counsel, auditors and market makers to thoroughly complete due diligence on the company’s officers, directors, operations and financial statements. Under ordinary circumstances, when preparing SEC filings, legal and accounting professionals can rely on the representations of their clients. However, when the subject Company has opted NOT to list their securities on their country of origin exchange, additional measures must be taken to ensure transparency.
Verify, Then Verify Again
It is always advisable to “kick the tires” of the subject company (visit their facilities, confirm that copies of all agreements have been provided, etc.) but in the case of Chinese entities, it is doubly important (actually it is essential). When providing “going public” services to an operating Chinese business, one that is going public or already trades on the US markets, the key is to verify, verify, verify.
Moreso than in any other scenario, auditors, attorneys and market makers must act as gate keepers so as to keep their Chinese clients compliant with US securities laws. Obviously, due diligence can only go so far, no matter how thorough the evaluation process. In the end, ultimately, auditors, attorneys an market makers are in the unenviable position of relying, to one extent or another, on the documents and attestations provided to them by the officers of the subject company. Forged, fraudulent and outright fictitious corporate documents are becoming all too commonplace.
Further complicating the problems stemming from Chinese companies going public in the United States are the increasing number of subsequent capital raises comprised of domestic, US investors. Once trading on the OTCQB or NASDAQ, the now public entity has a myriad of financing options, to the chagrin of the unsuspecting investment public.
Some regard the Chinese stock market as essentially unregulated, therefore creating an attitude among some officers and directors that US Exchanges are just as forgiving in respect to compliance and overall transparency.
Other issues may stem from the language barrier. Some may even be a result of differences in cultural business practices. In any event, the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, requires that all sales of stock be via either a registration statement or legal exemption to registration. All registration statements require in-depth disclosure in accordance with the legal parameters set forth in Regulation S-K and accounting parameters set forth in Regulation S-X. US regulators and class action counsel have clearly set forth that these standards are not being met.
Failure of Corporate Governance
Also, the lack of corporate governance oversight has intensified the problem. In addition, there are significant accounting differences. Since China does not follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), confusing, and sometimes irreconcilable, financial statements are provided to domestic, PCAOB, auditing firms.
Hence, with a relatively lax regulatory stock market environment in China (as compared to stringent regulatory oversight in the United States), fundamentally different accounting and auditing procedures, and divergent societal and political structures the Chinese reverse merger debacle should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Civil Suits Against Chinese Companies Mount
Years of poor due diligence practices by US accounting, auditing and law firms has resulted in numerous shareholder class action lawsuits being filed against Chinese companies that have completed a reverse merger or RTO (Reverse Takeover) in the United States.
Because of the highly publicized problems of Chinese reverse merger fraud, some individuals incorrectly assert that the reverse merger process itself is somehow a dubious device used to gain access to domestic exchanges. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the majority of companies going public in the US are completed via a reverse merger, it stands to reason that that the majority of Chinese companies going public domestically will use the same process.
Chinese Stock Fraud is not Limited to Reverse Mergers
Class action law firms and the investment public are now discovering that Chinese stock fraud is not limited to reverse mergers. Chinese companies that have gone public via S-1 Registration Statements, full blown IPO’s, and alternative methods such as WestPark Capital’s unique WRASP ™ (Public Offering and a Share Exchange hybrid) program have collapsed under close scrutiny as well. Certain reverse mergers or RTO’s were simply the first to fall.
In conclusion the fact of the matter is that the reverse merger process is a legitimate cost-effective and completely legal method of going public and has been used by such companies as: Yahoo, Turner Broadcasting Systems, Occidental Petroleum, Berkshire Hathaway, Texas Instruments and Blockbuster Entertainment to name a few.
The Author
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Merger and Acquisitions, Part One – Structuring the Transaction Reverse Mergers, Acquisitions and Due Diligence »
Merger and Acquisitions, Part One – Structuring the Transaction
Mergers and acquisitions come in all sizes, financially speaking, but the sequence of events preceding the transaction is usually fixed. The same procedural points must be addressed regardless of the size of the subject Companies.
Confidentiality Agreement
Generally the first step in an M&A deal is executing a confidentiality agreement and letter of intent (LOI). These documents can be combined or separate. If the parties are exchanging information prior to reaching the letter of intent stage of a potential transaction, they should proceed with execution of a confidentiality agreement right away.
In addition to requiring that both parties keep information confidential, a confidentiality agreement sets forth important parameters on the use of information. For instance, a reporting entity may have disclosure obligations in association with the initial negotiations for a transaction, which would need to be exempted from the confidentiality provisions. Moreover, a confidentiality agreement may contain other provisions unrelated to confidentiality such as a prohibition against solicitation of customers or employees (non-competition) and other restrictive covenants. Standstill and exclusivity provisions may also be included, especially where the confidentiality agreement is separate from the letter of intent.
Letter of Intent (LOI)
Next is the letter of intent (“LOI”). An LOI is generally non-binding and spells out the broad parameters of the transaction. The LOI helps identify and resolve key issues in the negotiation process and hopefully narrows down outstanding issues prior to spending the time and money drafting the transaction contracts and supporting documents. Among other key points, the LOI may set the price or price range, the parameters of due diligence, necessary pre-deal recapitalizations, confidentiality, exclusivity, and time frames for completing each step in the process. It is always highly advisable that an LOI be executed.
The “Who Do” List
Along with an LOI, the parties attorney’s should prepare a “to do” list including a “who do” identification. Setting out a to do list and clarifying who is responsible for what documents and items will help move things along and avoid misunderstandings among the professionals representing the different parties to the transaction.
The next step in the transaction process is due diligence. Although generally the client is responsible for putting together due diligence items, the attorney should correlate and organize the items to ultimately save time and keep the items organized. Prior to exchanging documents the attorneys should be sure that a confidentiality agreement has been executed, either separately or as part of the LOI.
The Author
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Registering an IPO on Form S-1, Part Three Reverse Merger Attorneys »
Performing Due Diligence on Subject Companies During Reverse Mergers
Due diligence is a critical component of structuring any business transaction. In a reverse merger scenario there are two sides to the due diligence equation. There is the due diligence performed by the private company merging with the public shell (“Public Shell”) and there is the performance by the shell company of due diligence on the private company (“Private Company”).
Successful Reverse Mergers
In order to successfully complete a reverse merger it is essential for the Public Shell to perform appropriate financial, legal, corporate, market, and management due diligence on the private company merging with the Public Shell. At the most basic level the Public Shell needs to satisfy itself that the Private Company has all information completed and ready to file its Super 8-K within 4 days of completing the merger, including having audited financial statements prepared by a PCAOB licensed auditor.
As far as due diligence is concerned, particularly from a functionality standpoint, understanding management’s reasons for going public, as well as knowing the extent of their knowledge regarding public company operations, is critical to success and timeliness. Investors typically do not invest in the horse, but rather the jockey.
Reporting Requirements
Post merger, the once private company will need to file quarterly, annual and periodic reports pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and must have the internal controls in place to ensure compliance with these reporting requirements. Hence, determining beforehand the qualifications of management is invaluable to ensuring a successful post merger operation.
Due Diligence Questions
Essential questions to be answered during the personal interview phase are set forth in the reporting requirements enumerated in Items 401 through 404 of Regulation S-K. From a fundamental business perspective, these Items will help current and future shareholders determine:
1. Is management competent?
2. How many years of experience in the industry do they possess?
3. Has management been successful in running the operation to date?
4. Does management understand the difference between running a private company verses the rigorous legal, investor relations and accounting demands of a public company?
5. Are there any legal roadblocks to future offerings or extremely detrimental disclosure items (i.e. bad boy provisions)?
Furthermore, the shell company’s due diligence should gain insight as to the ability of the private company, through management and/or hired professionals, to address and remain compliant with: Sarbanes Oxley, GAAP, Exchange Act reporting requirements, including yearly 10-K’s, quarterly 10-Q’s and periodic 8-K’s, Investor Relations, internal controls, Annual Report filings and annual meeting, as well as other basics concerning the general daily operational factors of a public company.
Review Corporate Books and Records
At the corporate level of the due diligence process the public shell needs to review basic corporate records to determine that the Private Company is in legal corporate good standing and has maintained adequate books and records.
Legal due diligence encompasses such things as ensuring loans by insiders have been documented, extensions on outstanding obligations have been memorialized and documented, title to ownership of assets (including intellectual property and real estate) is in the corporate name and if not, proper linking documents (such as a lease agreement or assignment) have been prepared and executed. Does the Private Company rely on a distribution network? Make sure it’s in writing. In short, legal due diligence involves crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s and is part and parcel with the auditor’s job.
Identifying Potential Legal Issues
In addition to the personal matters there also exist the typical concerns of pending or anticipated litigation issues. These issues include, but are not limited to, product liability; hazardous waste; real estate liens; employment discrimination suits; other environmental concerns and other legal issues that could have a “material” negative impact in the future.
As stated, where relevant to the particular private company, environmental issues are an extremely important legal due diligence point. Environmental laws and the gaining power of the Environmental Protection Agency make this a critical factor. Failure to ensure that appropriate Phase I and Phase II environmental reports are in order could lead to expensive future cleanup and litigation costs. Furthermore, it is suggested that any potential future liability be signed off on by the appropriate agency or authority.
Now to the most important due diligence matter: financial due diligence. If the target entity does not have or cannot obtain completed audited financial statements, prepared by a PCAOB qualified auditor in accordance with GAAP, there exists no rationale to move forward with the merger.
Audited Financial Statements
Financial due diligence is the key element in the due diligence process. The Public Shell Company should be meticulous in reviewing the financials, margins, inventory and equipment lists of the private company going public. In addition there may be patents, intellectual property and employee compensation agreements that need to be reviewed. The Public Shell should be comfortable with the footnotes as well as the line item financial statements.
Unforeseen Merger Issues
It must be understood that there are always going to be some sort of issues. However, the Public Shell Company’s objective is to address significant material issues via the due diligence process. By doing so the Shell Company enhances the probability of a successful reverse merger.
In summary, the due diligence process is designed to uncover material facts that may adversely impact the transaction. The process is not designed to destroy the deal but moreso to address key issues in order to strengthen the transaction and protect shareholders. Inversely, properly completed due diligence on the Public Shell Company to be acquired ensures that the merging Private Company reaps the benefits of a viable public entity by which to grow and enhance shareholder value.
Comprehensive, detailed and meticulous due diligence creates a foundation of integrity, authenticity and transparency on which a strong, operating public company can be built. The due diligence process can be time consuming, but it is most easily completed when all parties involved operate reasonably and professional cooperation is maintained throughout the due diligence process.
The Author
Attorney Laura Anthony
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance, LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Potential Liabilities In The IPO Process– Part III OTCQB and OTCQX Compared and Contrasted »
A confidentiality agreement or non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) is an agreement among the parties to a proposed transaction to keep information secret and in confidence. In the context of a merger and acquisition transaction, NDA’s are important for both the target and acquiring entities. It is critical that an NDA be signed prior to the exchange of any due diligence or embarking upon substantive transaction negotiations.
Generally in a merger and acquisition transaction, the target entity is a closely held private corporation. Accordingly it is critical for the target company to maintain the confidential nature of both its business information, and the fact that it is considering a going public transaction. During the due diligence process, the public acquiring company will be given access to non-public trade secrets, technology, business processes, customer lists, and material information regarding shareholders, debt and equity financing and financial statements.
If this information were made public or used for any purpose other than to evaluate a potential business transaction, it could materially and adversely affect the value of the target company. Moreover, if a transaction doesn’t go through, a potential acquirer could misuse the information to compete with, or solicit customers or employees from the target company, without the protection of a NDA. Just the knowledge that a transaction is being considered could affect the target’s relationship with its current customers, suppliers and/or employees.
Generally, the public acquiring entity is subject to the disclosure requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and its information is already publicly available. However an NDA is still important to protect the public company. That is, if it became publicly known that acquirer was focusing on a particular target, other potential buyers may come to the table to compete.
Moreover, the acquirer’s business strategy regarding that particular acquisition would become publicly known prior to being legally required. If the acquirer changes its mind and the information was already public, investors may wonder as to why the transaction evaporated and subsequently lose confidence in both entities. An NDA can help protect against unnecessary market rumors and conjecture and potential exposure to insider trading liability. Obviously, an NDA should contain a strong obligation on the part of both parties to keep review information confidential.
Typically an NDA will permit the parties to disclose the information to its affiliates, advisors and key management on a “need to know” basis provided that each information recipient agree to the terms of the NDA.
An NDA only covers confidential information. That is, excluded is information that (i) is already in the possession of the recipient; or (ii) is or becomes available to the public (other than by a breach of the NDA). A properly drafted NDA will provide for procedures in the event a party is compelled, via subpoena or otherwise, to disclose information. Generally, the NDA will provide for an opportunity to learn of and fight the compelling document prior to disclosure.
Lastly, most NDA’s contain some sort of standstill or no shop provision. That is prior to expending time, money, attorney’s fees, other professional fees, etc., the parties will want assurance that the deal is not being shopped around for at least some period of time.
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Reverse Mergers, Acquisitions and Due Diligence Mergers and Acquisitions – Disclosure Matters »
Reverse Mergers, Acquisitions and Due Diligence
Due diligence refers to the legal, business and financial investigation of a business prior to entering into a reverse merger transaction. Although the due diligence process can vary depending on the nature of a transaction (a relatively small acquisition vs. a going public reverse merger)it is arguably the most important component of a transaction (or at least equal with documentation).
In a reverse merger transaction involving a public shell acquiring a private operating business, the bulk of the due diligence will be by the acquiring shell on the target. Although some due diligence is also necessary on the public shell, as a Company subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act of 1934, most, if not all, pertinent information is publicly available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) EDGAR database. In the case where the public shell is a non-reporting entity, both sides to the transaction will need to complete extensive, in-depth due diligence on each other.
This article focuses on due diligence by the public acquirer on the private target. At the outset, in addition to requesting copies of corporate records and documents, all contracts, asset chain of title documents, financial statements and the like, the securities attorney for the public acquirer should make themselves familiar with the target’s business, including an understanding of how they make money, what assets are important in revenues, who are their commercial partners and suppliers, and common off balance sheet and other hidden arrangements in that business. It is important to have a basic understanding of the business in order to effectively review the documents and information once supplied, to know what to ask for and to isolate potential future problems.
In addition to determining whether the transaction as a whole is worth pursuing, proper due diligence will help in structuring the reverse merger transaction and preparing the proper documentation to prevent post closing issues (such as making sure all assignments of contracts are complete, or where an assignment isn’t possible, new contracts are prepared).
In addition to creating due diligence lists of documents and information to be supplied, counsel for the public acquirer should perform separate checks for publicly available information. In today’s internet world, this part of the process has become dramatically easier. SEC legal counsel should be careful not to miss the basics, such as UCC lien searches, judgment searches, recorded property title and regulatory issues with any of the principals or participants involved in the deal.
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Reverse Merger Attorneys Mergers and Acquisitions
Reverse Merger Attorneys
Many of the Chinese companies that go public in the United States do so via a Reverse Merger. The reverse merger methodology versus the traditional Initial Public Offering (IPO) is the preferred method used by the Chinese and their US-based legal and auditing advisors. Many of these Chinese companies believe, erroneously, that by utilizing the reverse merger process, they can avoid the in-depth disclosure requirements and scrutiny associated with an IPO. However, legally this is not the case.
The failure of Chinese company legal, accounting and market makers to understand the fundamental elements required of Foreign Corporations trading stock on US markets has led to numerous shareholder class action lawsuits, trading suspensions and enforcement actions against publicly traded Chinese companies.
Many of the problems resulting from Chinese reverse mergers are due to the failure of corporate counsel, auditors and market makers to thoroughly complete due diligence on the company’s officers, directors, operations and financial statements. Under ordinary circumstances, when preparing SEC filings, legal and accounting professionals can rely on the representations of their clients. However, when the subject Company has opted NOT to list their securities on their country of origin exchange, additional measures must be taken to ensure transparency.
It is always advisable to “kick the tires” of the subject company (visit their facilities, confirm that copies of all agreements have been provided, etc.) but in the case of Chinese entities, it is doubly important (actually it is essential). When providing “going public” services to an operating Chinese business, one that is going public or already trades on the US markets, the key is to verify, verify, verify.
Moreso than in any other scenario, auditors, attorneys and market makers must act as gate keepers so as to keep their Chinese clients compliant with US securities laws. Obviously, due diligence can only go so far, no matter how thorough the evaluation process. In the end, ultimately, auditors, attorneys an market makers are in the unenviable position of relying, to one extent or another, on the documents and attestations provided to them by the officers of the subject company. Forged, fraudulent and outright fictitious corporate documents are becoming all too commonplace.
Further complicating the problems stemming from Chinese companies going public in the United States are the increasing number of subsequent capital raises comprised of domestic, US investors. Once trading on the OTCQB or NASDAQ, the now public entity has a myriad of financing options, to the chagrin of the unsuspecting investment public.
Some regard the Chinese stock market as essentially unregulated, therefore creating an attitude among some officers and directors that US Exchanges are just as forgiving in respect to compliance and overall transparency.
Other issues may stem from the language barrier. Some may even be a result of differences in cultural business practices. In any event, the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, requires that all sales of stock be via either a registration statement or legal exemption to registration. All registration statements require in-depth disclosure in accordance with the legal parameters set forth in Regulation S-K and accounting parameters set forth in Regulation S-X. US regulators and class action counsel have clearly set forth that these standards are not being met.
Also, the lack of corporate governance oversight has intensified the problem. In addition, there are significant accounting differences. Since China does not follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), confusing, and sometimes irreconcilable, financial statements are provided to domestic, PCAOB, auditing firms.
Hence, with a relatively lax regulatory stock market environment in China (as compared to stringent regulatory oversight in the United States), fundamentally different accounting and auditing procedures, and divergent societal and political structures the Chinese reverse merger debacle should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Years of poor due diligence practices by US accounting, auditing and law firms has resulted in numerous shareholder class action lawsuits being filed against Chinese companies that have completed a reverse merger or RTO (Reverse Takeover) in the United States.
Because of the highly publicized problems of Chinese reverse merger fraud, some individuals incorrectly assert that the reverse merger process itself is somehow a dubious device used to gain access to domestic exchanges. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the majority of companies going public in the US are completed via a reverse merger, it stands to reason that that the majority of Chinese companies going public domestically will use the same process.
Class action law firms and the investment public are now discovering that Chinese stock fraud is not limited to reverse mergers. Chinese companies that have gone public via S-1 Registration Statements, full blown IPO’s, and alternative methods such as WestPark Capital’s unique WRASP ™ (Public Offering and a Share Exchange hybrid) program have collapsed under close scrutiny as well. Certain reverse mergers or RTO’s were simply the first to fall.
In conclusion the fact of the matter is that the reverse merger process is a legitimate cost-effective and completely legal method of going public and has been used by such companies as: Yahoo, Turner Broadcasting Systems, Occidental Petroleum, Berkshire Hathaway, Texas Instruments and Blockbuster Entertainment to name a few.
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Merger and Acquisitions, Part One – Structuring the Transaction Reverse Mergers, Acquisitions and Due Diligence »
Merger and Acquisitions, Part One – Structuring the Transaction
Mergers and acquisitions come in all sizes, financially speaking, but the sequence of events preceding the transaction is usually fixed. The same procedural points must be addressed regardless of the size of the subject Companies.
Generally the first step in an M&A deal is executing a confidentiality agreement and letter of intent (LOI). These documents can be combined or separate. If the parties are exchanging information prior to reaching the letter of intent stage of a potential transaction, they should proceed with execution of a confidentiality agreement right away.
In addition to requiring that both parties keep information confidential, a confidentiality agreement sets forth important parameters on the use of information. For instance, a reporting entity may have disclosure obligations in association with the initial negotiations for a transaction, which would need to be exempted from the confidentiality provisions. Moreover, a confidentiality agreement may contain other provisions unrelated to confidentiality such as a prohibition against solicitation of customers or employees (non-competition) and other restrictive covenants. Standstill and exclusivity provisions may also be included, especially where the confidentiality agreement is separate from the letter of intent.
Next is the letter of intent (“LOI”). An LOI is generally non-binding and spells out the broad parameters of the transaction. The LOI helps identify and resolve key issues in the negotiation process and hopefully narrows down outstanding issues prior to spending the time and money drafting the transaction contracts and supporting documents. Among other key points, the LOI may set the price or price range, the parameters of due diligence, necessary pre-deal recapitalizations, confidentiality, exclusivity, and time frames for completing each step in the process. It is always highly advisable that an LOI be executed.
Along with an LOI, the parties attorney’s should prepare a “to do” list including a “who do” identification. Setting out a to do list and clarifying who is responsible for what documents and items will help move things along and avoid misunderstandings among the professionals representing the different parties to the transaction.
The next step in the transaction process is due diligence. Although generally the client is responsible for putting together due diligence items, the attorney should correlate and organize the items to ultimately save time and keep the items organized. Prior to exchanging documents the attorneys should be sure that a confidentiality agreement has been executed, either separately or as part of the LOI.
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Registering an IPO on Form S-1, Part Three Reverse Merger Attorneys »
Performing Due Diligence on Subject Companies During Reverse Mergers
Due diligence is a critical component of structuring any business transaction. In a reverse merger scenario there are two sides to the due diligence equation. There is the due diligence performed by the private company merging with the public shell (“Public Shell”) and there is the performance by the shell company of due diligence on the private company (“Private Company”).
In order to successfully complete a reverse merger it is essential for the Public Shell to perform appropriate financial, legal, corporate, market, and management due diligence on the private company merging with the Public Shell. At the most basic level the Public Shell needs to satisfy itself that the Private Company has all information completed and ready to file its Super 8-K within 4 days of completing the merger, including having audited financial statements prepared by a PCAOB licensed auditor.
As far as due diligence is concerned, particularly from a functionality standpoint, understanding management’s reasons for going public, as well as knowing the extent of their knowledge regarding public company operations, is critical to success and timeliness. Investors typically do not invest in the horse, but rather the jockey.
Post merger, the once private company will need to file quarterly, annual and periodic reports pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and must have the internal controls in place to ensure compliance with these reporting requirements. Hence, determining beforehand the qualifications of management is invaluable to ensuring a successful post merger operation.
Essential questions to be answered during the personal interview phase are set forth in the reporting requirements enumerated in Items 401 through 404 of Regulation S-K. From a fundamental business perspective, these Items will help current and future shareholders determine:
1. Is management competent?
2. How many years of experience in the industry do they possess?
3. Has management been successful in running the operation to date?
4. Does management understand the difference between running a private company verses the rigorous legal, investor relations and accounting demands of a public company?
5. Are there any legal roadblocks to future offerings or extremely detrimental disclosure items (i.e. bad boy provisions)?
Furthermore, the shell company’s due diligence should gain insight as to the ability of the private company, through management and/or hired professionals, to address and remain compliant with: Sarbanes Oxley, GAAP, Exchange Act reporting requirements, including yearly 10-K’s, quarterly 10-Q’s and periodic 8-K’s, Investor Relations, internal controls, Annual Report filings and annual meeting, as well as other basics concerning the general daily operational factors of a public company.
At the corporate level of the due diligence process the public shell needs to review basic corporate records to determine that the Private Company is in legal corporate good standing and has maintained adequate books and records.
Legal due diligence encompasses such things as ensuring loans by insiders have been documented, extensions on outstanding obligations have been memorialized and documented, title to ownership of assets (including intellectual property and real estate) is in the corporate name and if not, proper linking documents (such as a lease agreement or assignment) have been prepared and executed. Does the Private Company rely on a distribution network? Make sure it’s in writing. In short, legal due diligence involves crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s and is part and parcel with the auditor’s job.
In addition to the personal matters there also exist the typical concerns of pending or anticipated litigation issues. These issues include, but are not limited to, product liability; hazardous waste; real estate liens; employment discrimination suits; other environmental concerns and other legal issues that could have a “material” negative impact in the future.
As stated, where relevant to the particular private company, environmental issues are an extremely important legal due diligence point. Environmental laws and the gaining power of the Environmental Protection Agency make this a critical factor. Failure to ensure that appropriate Phase I and Phase II environmental reports are in order could lead to expensive future cleanup and litigation costs. Furthermore, it is suggested that any potential future liability be signed off on by the appropriate agency or authority.
Now to the most important due diligence matter: financial due diligence. If the target entity does not have or cannot obtain completed audited financial statements, prepared by a PCAOB qualified auditor in accordance with GAAP, there exists no rationale to move forward with the merger.
Financial due diligence is the key element in the due diligence process. The Public Shell Company should be meticulous in reviewing the financials, margins, inventory and equipment lists of the private company going public. In addition there may be patents, intellectual property and employee compensation agreements that need to be reviewed. The Public Shell should be comfortable with the footnotes as well as the line item financial statements.
It must be understood that there are always going to be some sort of issues. However, the Public Shell Company’s objective is to address significant material issues via the due diligence process. By doing so the Shell Company enhances the probability of a successful reverse merger.
In summary, the due diligence process is designed to uncover material facts that may adversely impact the transaction. The process is not designed to destroy the deal but moreso to address key issues in order to strengthen the transaction and protect shareholders. Inversely, properly completed due diligence on the Public Shell Company to be acquired ensures that the merging Private Company reaps the benefits of a viable public entity by which to grow and enhance shareholder value.
Comprehensive, detailed and meticulous due diligence creates a foundation of integrity, authenticity and transparency on which a strong, operating public company can be built. The due diligence process can be time consuming, but it is most easily completed when all parties involved operate reasonably and professional cooperation is maintained throughout the due diligence process.
Attorney Laura Anthony
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance, LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Potential Liabilities In The IPO Process– Part III OTCQB and OTCQX Compared and Contrasted »