Securities Attorneys - Reverse-Merger.com

SEC Study On Unregistered Offerings

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | February 9, 2016 Tags: SEC, Unregistered Offerings

In October 2015, the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis issued a white paper study on unregistered securities offerings from 2009 through 2014 (the “Report”). The Report provides insight into what is working in the private placement market and has been on my radar as a blog since its release, but with so many pressing, timely topics to write about, I am only now getting to this one. The SEC Report is only through 2014; however, at the end of this blog, I have provided supplemental information from another source related to PIPE (private placements into public equity) transactions in 2015.

Private offerings are the largest segment of capital formation in the U.S. markets. In 2014 private offerings raised more than $2 trillion. The SEC study used information collected from Form D filings to provide insight into the offering characteristics, including types of issuers, investors and financial intermediaries that participate in offerings. The Report focuses on Regulation D offerings and in particular Rules 504, 505, 506(b) and 506(c).

A summary of the main findings in the Report includes:

In 2014, there were 33,429 Regulation D offerings reported on Form D filings, accounting for more than $1.3 trillion raised.

Issuers in non-financial industries reported raising $133 billion in 2014. Among financial issuers, hedge funds raised $388 billion, private equity funds raised $316 billion and non-pooled investment funds (such as banks, insurance companies and investment banks) raised $375 billion.

Foreign issuers accounted for 20% of the 2014 total. Most foreign issuers are based on Canada, the Cayman Islands or Israel.

Rule 506 accounts for 99% of all private offerings. Rule 506 was used 97% of the time for offerings below the Rule 504 and 505 limits, showing that Rule 506 is preferred regardless of the amount of the offering (I believe this is firmly as a result of the state law pre-emption in a 506 offering).

Since the effectiveness of Rule 506(c) on September 23, 2013, allowing for general solicitation and advertising, only a small portion of raises – i.e., 2% of the total or $33 billion – relied on this exemption.

Capital raised through private markets correlates with the strength of public markets. The strength of the private market is closely tied to the health of the public market.

The median offer size of non-financial issuers is less than $2 million, indicating that small businesses rely on private, unregistered offerings the most.

Approximately 301,000 investors participated in Regulation D offerings during 2014. A large majority of these investors participated in offerings by non-financial issuers (presumably because financial issuers relied on a small number of institutional investors). Non-accredited investors participated in only 10% of the offerings.

Background on private offerings

All offers and sales of securities must be either registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) or made in reliance on an available exemption from registration. Public offerings generally must always be registered (with the exception of a Rule 506(c) offering) and private offerings can generally be completed in reliance on an exemption. The private offering rules have various investor restrictions (limits on sales to unaccredited investors), information requirements and/or offering limits to balance the competing directives of the SEC to assist with capital formation and protect investors.

The exemptions for private offerings are found in Sections 3 and 4 of the Securities Act. In particular, most private offerings are governed by Sections 4(a)(2), 3(b) and 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act. Rules 506(b) and 506(c) of Regulation D, Regulation S and 144A provide safe harbors under Section 4(a)(2). Section 3(b) provides the authority for Rules 504 and 505 of Regulation D. Section 3(a)(11) provides statutory authority for intrastate offerings.

Even after the JOBS Act, private offerings remain the biggest source of capital formation for small and emerging companies, which companies are the largest source for creating new jobs, driving innovation and accelerating economic growth. At $1.3 trillion raised in 2014, private offerings represented more than what was raised in public equity and debt offerings combined.

From 2009 – 2014, there were more than 64,000 offerings by small businesses with a median offer size of less than $2 million. Only 21% of private offerings reported using a financial intermediary such as a broker-dealer. For those that did use such a placement agent, the average commission size was 5%.

Although the Report was issued in October 2015, it only examines the private offering market through 2014. The Report indicates that the vast majority of offerings are completed under Rule 506(b) with Rule 506(c) being only a very small percentage.

The analysis in the Report takes into consideration factors that may affect an issuer’s choice of private offering exemption, including pre-emption of state securities laws, ability to advertise, ability to sell to non-accredited investors, limits on amount of capital raise, geographical constraints, and levels of required disclosure. The Report is organized by discussions on the overall private offering market; capital formation in the market for Regulation D offerings and characteristics of market participants. This blog maintains that order of discussion.

The size of the private offerings market

The SEC Report does not give complete information on the size of the private offerings market. The information in the Report is based on Form D filings, which does not necessarily include offerings relying on straight Section 4(a)(2) or Regulation S as neither of these require a Form D filing. Moreover, many issuers that rely on Regulation D neglect to file a Form D and accordingly, the market size is somewhat larger than as stated in the SEC report.

In 2014 registered offerings accounted for $1.35 trillion compared to $2.1 trillion raised in private offerings. As reported by the SEC, Regulation D and Rule 144A are the most common offering methods, being primarily equity and Rule 144A being primarily debt. The Report includes comparative information on registered offerings as well. During the years 2009-2014, registered debt offerings far outweighed equity offerings.

The number of private offerings per year also far outweighs the number of registered offerings, though this is to be expected. A private offering can be completed far quicker and with greater frequency than a public offering that is subject to SEC filings, comment process and effectiveness procedures. As Regulation D is commonly used by smaller entities, it follows that there are significantly more of such offerings at smaller dollar values. Rule 144A, on the other hand, usually involves institutional investors at a much higher dollar amount and lower frequency. For instance, there were approximately 33,429 Regulation D offerings in 2014 compared to 1,534 Rule 144A offerings in the same year. In 2014 there were 1,176 registered public equity offerings and 1,576 registered public debt offerings.

The Report gives comparable information for each year from 2009 through 2014 as well. As a summary, 2010 was a very big year in the offering marketplace (both private and public), skewing the results somewhat, but other than that, the number of all offerings has increased year over year since 2009.

The Regulation D market

The Regulation D market is comprised of Rules 504 and 505 promulgated under Section 3(b) of the Securities Act and Rules 506(b) and 506(c), both of which are safe harbors under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act. Again, the SEC Report is only based on Form D filings and, accordingly, is subject to deviation for offerings that did not file and/or inaccurate or incomplete information reported by issuers.

Both the number of and dollar value of Regulation D offerings has been increasing from 2009 through 2014. For instance, there were 13,764 reported Regulation D offerings in 2009 and 22,004 in 2014. The total amount sold in 2009 was $595 billion and in 2014 was $1,332 billion. Interestingly, the average offering size was larger in 2009 at $36 million than in 2014 at $24 million.

The SEC Report discussed the cyclicality of offerings as well. Although it is well documented that public markets are cyclical and depend on such factors as business cycle, investor sentiment and time varying information asymmetry, comparable information is not available for the private offering markets. Just based on Form D filings, the SEC Report considers whether there is support for the theory that companies rely on private markets when public markets are in distress, such as during a recession. There is not. In fact, rather it appears that the private offering market increases during strong public markets and decreases during weak public markets. The health of the private offering market correlates with the health of the public market.

As noted in the Report, “there is a strong, positive correlation of the incidence of new Regulation D offerings with the economic condition of the public markets. In particular the level of Regulation D offering activity closely follows the level of the S&P 500 index.” From 2009-2014 there has been an increase in Regulation D offering activity consistent with the steady increase in the S&P 500.

The Regulation D marketplace for non-financial issuers generally comprises equity offerings as opposed to debt offerings, which are more common in the public market. Moreover, equity is usually indicative of new money and capital whereas debt is often used as a refinancing tool for existing debt. Financial issuers generally use Rule 144A and such offerings are generally debt. In other words, small businesses looking to grow with new capital rely on Regulation D equity offerings.

Rule 506 of Regulation D continues to be the most common exemption. Since 2009, 95% of private offerings are completed under Rule 506. It is clear to me, and the SEC, that the reason for this is that Rule 506 pre-empts state law, avoiding state registration and other arduous blue sky process. The SEC points out that depending on state law, Rule 504 and 505 offerings can be sold to non-accredited investors and, under Rule 504, can be freely tradeable. Despite this benefit, issuers clearly find the state law pre-emption as a more important deciding factor and are willing to accept the restrictions under Rule 506 as a trade-off (i.e., either accredited only or a limit of 35 unaccredited, restricted securities, no general solicitation or advertising under 506(b) and added accredited verification under 506(c), etc.).

From September 23, 2013, the date of enactment, through December 31, 2014, a total of 2,117 Rule 506(c) offerings were reported on Form D by a total of 1,911 issuers (some issuers had multiple offerings). During this time a total of $32.5 billion was reported as being raised. As a comparison, during the same time period there were 24,500 Rule 506(b) offerings that raised $821.3 billion. Moreover, even after the enactment of Rule 506(c), the number of new 506(b) offerings continues to increase and vastly outpace the number of new Rule 506(c) offerings.

I am not surprised by this information as I think that the 506(c) marketplace has taken its time to find its place in the private offering market as a whole, and continues to do so. From my own experience it is clear that accredited investors do not just look at a website and send money! Offerings are sold, not bought, and the advertising and marketing is good for lead generation, ease of information flow, and general exposure, but does not cause a sophisticated investor to part with their money without more. Even though the accredited verification process has become easier with services such as Crowdcheck, it is clear that issuers, placement agents, and the investing public still prefer the old-fashioned Rule 506(b) and avoiding the accredited verification process. See, for example, my blog HERE discussing new SEC guidance and the Citizen VC no action letter.

I still strongly believe in the benefits of Rule 506(c) and its viability. The SEC Report does as well, pointing out that issuers will become more comfortable with market practices, accredited investor verification procedures, and methods of advertising and solicitation over time.

During this same time period there continues to be a decline in the use of Rules 504 and 505. For example, there were only 544 Rule 504 offerings and 289 Rule 505 offerings in 2014. The SEC Report contains quite a bit of comparative information on Rules 504 and 505 for those interested in further information. As I’ve previously written about, the SEC has proposed new amendments for Rules 504 and 505 which may increase their use, though I do not expect a big impact. My blog on these proposed rules can be read HERE.

Both foreign issuers and public companies rely on Regulation D. For example, 20% of all Regulation D offerings from 2009-2014 were completed by foreign issuers. Public issuers are active in PIPE transactions as well, with 13% of Regulation D offerings being completed by public companies. At the end of this blog I have a section with 2015 data on the PIPE market from other sources.

Regulation D market participants

Pooled investment funds such as hedge funds, venture capital and private equity funds represent the largest business category, by amount raised, utilizing Regulation D. From 2009-2014 pooled investment funds raised $4.8 trillion as compared to $905 billion by non-funds. Non-funds, however, use Rule 506(c) more than pooled funds, representing 75% of those offerings. Moreover, non-funds account for a much higher percentage of total offerings by number of offerings, representing 60% of all new Form D filings.

Companies completing Rule 506(c) offerings usually check the “other,” “other technology,” “other real estate,” “oil and gas,” or “commercial” industry boxes of their Form D filings. Counting all non-funds using all Regulation D offerings, the industries in order of most often used are banking, technology, real estate, health care and energy. Interestingly, the number of offerings by banking entities and manufacturing industries have both decreased during the study period. There has been a big uptick in real estate offerings in 2013 and 2014, which makes sense in light of the improved real estate market since 2008.

The median offering size for these non-fund issuers is $1 million compared to $11 million for hedge funds and $30 million for private equity funds. As mentioned above, this information indicates that small businesses are utilizing Regulation D, which the Report finds is consistent with the regulatory objectives.

The majority of issuers decline to disclose revenue and of those that did, most disclosed less than $1 million. This is consistent with the findings that Regulation D is widely used by small businesses. Beyond that, I can’t find a lot of meaning in that information, other than that smaller issuers are most likely to file a Form D without the assistance of counsel, and counsel usually recommends not disclosing revenue.

The Form D’s do show that a majority (67%) of companies that file a Form D are less than 3 years old. This is true for both fund and non-fund entities. I note that this is consistent with the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies’ consistent message that new entities are the most in need of methods to raise capital and secondarily that those same new entities create the most new jobs.

Most U.S. companies that file Form D’s have their principal place of business in California and New York with Texas, Florida and Massachusetts following. These are also the most common states of investor location. Most investors are accredited.

Less than a fifth of all issuers reported repeat offerings but 25% of non-fund issuers had repeat offerings. Form D filings do not tell of the success of an offering; however, 31% of issuers had raised 100% of their offering at the time they filed the Form D, which is typical of PIPE transactions offerings with a small handful of investors.

Form D’s will also not tell the final investor count or breakdown, but compiling Form D information shows that only 300,000 investors participated in Regulation D offerings in 2014 and only 110,000 in non-financial issuers. That seems to be a very small number of investors overall and clearly shows the importance of properly packaging an offering and presenting it to the right audience.

Only 21% of offerings for the period 2009-2014 used a placement agent, with a decrease in their use in 2014 compared to 2009-2013. Issuers in non-financial industries paid an average of 6% commission and in financial industries, an average of 1.4%. This is likely because the size of the offering is much larger and number of investors much smaller in the financial industry. On average, higher fees are paid for Rule 506(c) offerings than 506(b), which makes sense in light of additional work (verification of accreditation) and risk associated with advertising.

2015 PIPE Market

A PIPE is a private placement into public equity, or in other words, a private placement by a public company. According to PrivateRaise, a private placement data service, PIPE’s raised $89.97 billion in 2015, up 14.8% from 2014. The amount was spread over approximately 1,000 offerings.

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 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.

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.

« SEC Issues Rules Implementing Certain Provisions Of The FAST Act SEC’s Financial Disclosure Requirements For Sub-Entities Of Registered Companies »

SEC Issues Rules Implementing Certain Provisions Of The FAST Act

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | February 2, 2016 Tags: Fast Act, SEC, The Fast Act

On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (the “FAST Act”) into law, which included many capital markets/securities-related bills. The FAST Act is being dubbed the JOBS Act 2.0 by many industry insiders. The FAST Act has an aggressive rulemaking timetable and some of its provisions became effective immediately upon signing the bill into law on December 4, 2015. Accordingly there has been a steady flow of new SEC guidance, and now implementing rules.

On January 13, 2016, the SEC issued interim final rules memorializing two provisions of the FAST Act. In particular, the SEC revised the instructions to Forms S-1 and F-1 to allow the omission of historical financial information and to allow smaller reporting companies to use forward incorporation by reference to update an effective S-1. This blog summarizes these rules.

On December 10, 2015, the SEC Division of Corporate Finance addressed the FAST Act by making an announcement with guidance and issuing two new Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI). My blog on the FAST Act and the first two C&DI on the Act can be read HERE. On December 21, 2015, the SEC issued 4 additional C&DI on the FAST Act. Each of the new C&DI addresses the FAST Act’s impact on Section 12(g) and Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act as related to savings and loan companies. My blog on this guidance can be read HERE.

The Amendments – an Overview

Form S-1 is the general form for the registration of securities under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) and Form F-1 is the corresponding form for foreign private issuers.

Section 71003 of the FAST Act

Section 71003 of the FAST Act allows an emerging growth company (“EGC”) that is filing a registration statement under either Form S-1 or F-1 to omit financial information for historical periods that would otherwise be required to be included, if it reasonably believes the omitted information will not be included in the final effective registration statement used in the offering, and if such final effective registration statement includes all up-to-date financial information that is required as of the offering date. This provision automatically went into effect 30 days after enactment of the FAST Act. As directed by the FAST Act, the SEC has now revised the instructions to Forms S-1 and F-1 to reflect the new law.

The Section 71003 provisions do not allow for the omission of stub period financial statements if that stub period will ultimately be included in a longer stub period or year-end audit before the registration statement goes effective. In a C&DI, the SEC clarified that the FAST Act only allows the exclusion of historical information that will no longer be included in the final effective offering. The C&DI clarifies that “Interim financial information ‘relates’ to both the interim period and to any longer period (either interim or annual) into which it has been or will be included.” For example, an issuer could not omit first-quarter financial information if that first quarter will ultimately be included as part of a second- or third-quarter stub period or year-end audit.

An SEC C&DI has clarified that Section 71003 allows for the exclusion of financial statements for entities other than the issuer if those financial statements will not be included in the final effective registration statement. For example, if the EGC has acquired a business, it may omit that acquired business’ historical financial information as well. In a C&DI, the SEC confirms that: “Section 71003 of the FAST Act is not by its terms limited to financial statements of the issuer. Thus, the issuer could omit financial statements of, for example, an acquired business required by Rule 3-05 of Regulation S-X if the issuer reasonably believes those financial statements will not be required at the time of the offering. This situation could occur when an issuer updates its registration statement to include its 2015 annual financial statements prior to the offering and, after that update, the acquired business has been part of the issuer’s financial statements for a sufficient amount of time to obviate the need for separate financial statements.”

As a reminder, an EGC is defined as an issuer with less than $1 billion in total annual gross revenues during its most recently completed fiscal year. If an issuer qualifies as an EGC on the first day of its fiscal year, it maintains that status until the earliest of the last day of the fiscal year of the issuer during which it has total annual gross revenues of $1 billion or more; the last day of its fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the first sale of its common equity securities pursuant to an effective registration statement; the date on which the issuer has, during the previous 3-year period, issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt; or the date on which the issuer is deemed to be a “large accelerated filer.”

Section 84001 of the FAST Act

Section 84001 of the FAST Act requires the SEC to revise Form S-1 to permit smaller reporting companies to incorporate by reference, into an effective registration statement, any documents filed by the issuer following the effective date of such registration statement. That is, Section 84001 allows forward incorporation by reference. At first, I thought this would be a significant change, as currently smaller reporting companies are specifically prohibited from incorporating by reference and must prepare and file a post-effective amendment to keep a resale “shelf” registration current, which can be expensive. However, the SEC rule release includes eligibility requirements, including a prohibition for use by penny stock issuers, which will greatly limit the use of forward incorporation by reference, significantly reducing the overall impact of this change.

As a reminder, a “smaller reporting company” is defined as an issuer that had a public float of less than $75 million as of the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter or had annual revenues of less than $50 million during the most recently completed fiscal year for which audited financial statements are available.

As directed by the FAST Act, the SEC has now revised Item 12 of Form S-1 to reflect the changes and to include eligibility requirements for an issuer to be able to avail itself of the new provisions. That is, there are currently eligibility requirements for an issuer to be able to use historical incorporation by reference in a Form S-1. The new rules do not alter these existing eligibility requirements and rather attach the existing eligibility requirements related to historical incorporation by reference to the ability to be able to utilize the new provisions, allowing forward incorporation by reference.

The instructions to Form S-1 include the eligibility requirements to use historical, and now forward, incorporation by reference and include:

The company must be subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act (not a voluntary filer);

The company must have filed all reports and other materials required by the Exchange Act during the prior 12 months (or such shorter period that such company was reporting);

The company must have filed an annual report for its most recently completed fiscal year;

The company may not currently be, and during the past 3 years neither the company nor any of its predecessors were, (i) a blank check company; (ii) a shell company; (iii) have offered a penny stock;

The company cannot be registering an offering for a business combination transaction; and

The company must make its reports filed under the Exchange Act that are incorporated by reference, available on its website, and include a disclosure of such availability that it will provide such document upon request.

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com

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.

« FINRA Proposes New Category Of Broker-Dealer For “Capital Acquisition Brokers” SEC Study On Unregistered Offerings »

FINRA Proposes New Category Of Broker-Dealer For “Capital Acquisition Brokers”

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | January 26, 2016 Tags: Broker Dealer, CAB

In December, 2015, FINRA proposed rules for a whole new category of broker-dealer, called “Capital Acquisition Brokers” (“CABs”), which limit their business to corporate financing transactions. In February 2014 FINRA sought comment on the proposal, which at the time referred to a CAB as a limited corporate financing broker (LCFB). Following many comments that the LCFB rules did not have a significant impact on the regulatory burden for full member firms, the new rules modify the original LCFB proposal in more than just name. The new rules will take effect upon approval by the SEC and are currently open to public comments.

A CAB will generally be a broker-dealer that engages in M&A transactions, raising funds through private placements and evaluating strategic alternatives and that collects transaction based compensation for such activities. A CAB will not handle customer funds or securities, manage customer accounts or engage in market making or proprietary trading.

As with all FINRA rules, the proposed CAB rules are designed to comply with Section 15A of the Exchange Act related to FINRA rules and, in particular, that such rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principals of trade, and in general to protect investors and the public interest.

What is a Capital Acquisition Broker (“CAB”)?

There are currently FINRA registered firms which limit their activities to advising on mergers and acquisitions, advising on raising debt and equity capital in private placements or advising on strategic and financial alternatives. Generally these firms register as a broker because they may receive transaction-based compensation as part of their services. However, they do not engage in typical broker-dealer activities, including carrying or acting as an introducing broker for customer accounts, accepting orders to purchase or sell securities either as principal or agent, exercising investment discretion over customer accounts or engaging in proprietary trading or market-making activities.

The proposed new rules will create a new category of broker-dealer called a Capital Acquisition Broker (“CAB”). A CAB will have its own set of FINRA rules but will be subject to the current FINRA bylaws and will be required to be a FINRA member. FINRA estimates there are approximately 750 current member firms that would qualify as a CAB and that could immediately take advantage of the new rules.

FINRA is also hopeful that current firms that engage in the type of business that a CAB would, but that are not registered as they do not accept transaction-based compensation, would reconsider and register as a CAB with the new rules. In that regard, FINRA’s goal would be to increase its regulatory oversight in the industry as a whole. I think that on the one hand, many in the industry are looking for more precision in their allowable business activities and compensation structures, but on the other hand, the costs, regulatory burden, and a distrust of regulatory organizations will be a deterrent to registration. It is likely that businesses that firmly act within the purview of a CAB but for the transactional compensation and that intend to continue or expand in such business, will consider registration if they believe they are “leaving money on the table” as a result of not being registered. Of course, such a determination would include a cost-benefit analysis, including the application fees and ongoing legal and compliance costs of registration. In that regard, the industry, like all industries, is very small at its core. If firms register as a CAB and find the process and ongoing compliance reasonable, not overly burdensome and ultimately profitable, word will get out and others will follow suit. The contrary will happen as well if the program does not meet these business objectives.

A CAB will be defined as a broker that solely engages in one or more of the following activities:

Advising an issuer on its securities offerings or other capital-raising activities;

Advising a company regarding its purchase or sale of a business or assets or regarding a corporation restructuring, including going private transactions, divestitures and mergers;

Advising a company regarding its selection of an investment banker;

Assisting an issuer in the preparation of offering materials;

Providing fairness opinions, valuation services, expert testimony, litigation support, and negotiation and structuring services;

Qualifying, identifying, soliciting or acting as a placement agent or finder with respect to institutional investors in respect to the purchase or sale of unregistered securities (see below for the FINRA definition of institutional investor, which is much different and has a much higher standard than an accredited investor);

Effecting securities transactions solely in connection with the transfer of ownership and control of a privately held company through the purchase, sale, exchange, issuance, repurchase, or redemption of, or a business combination involving, securities or assets of the company, to a buyer that will actively operate the company, in accordance with the SEC rules, rule interpretations and no action letters. For more information on this, see my blog HERE regarding the SEC no action letter granting a broker registration exemption for certain M&A transactions.

Since placing securities in private offerings is limited to institutional investors, that definition is also very important. Moreover, FINRA considered but rejected the idea of including solicitation of accredited investors in the allowable CAB activities. Under the proposed CAB Rules, an institutional investor is defined to include any:

Bank, savings and loan association, insurance company or registered investment company;

Government entity or subdivision thereof;

Employee benefit plan that meets the requirements of Sections 403(b) or 457 of the Internal Revenue Code and that has a minimum of 100 participants;

Qualified employee plans as defined in Section 3(a)(12)(C) of the Exchange Act and that have a minimum of 100 participants;

Any person (whether a natural person, corporation, partnership, trust, family office or otherwise) with total assets of at least $50 million;

Persons acting solely on behalf of any such institutional investor; and

Any person meeting the definition of a “qualified purchaser” as defined in Section 2(a)(51) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (i.e., any natural person that owns at least $5 million in investments; family offices with at least $5 million in investments; trusts with at least $5 million in investments; any person acting on their own or as a representative with discretionary authority, that owns at least $25 million in investments).

A CAB will not include any broker that does any of the following:

Carries or acts as an introducing broker with respect to customer accounts;Holds or handles customers’ funds or securities;

Accepts orders from customers to purchase or sell securities either as principal or agent for the customer;

Has investment discretion on behalf of any customer;

Produces research for the investing public;

Engages in proprietary trading or market making;

Participates in or maintains an online platform in connection with offerings of unregistered securities pursuant to Regulation Crowdfunding or Regulation A under the Securities Act (interesting that FINRA would include Regulation A in this, as currently no license is required at all to maintain such a platform – only platforms for Regulation Crowdfunding require such a license).

Application; Associated Person Registration; Supervision

A CAB firm will generally be subject to the current member application rules and will follow the same procedures for membership as any other FINRA applicant with four main differences. In particular: (i) the application has to state that the applicant will solely operate as a CAB; (ii) the FINRA review will consider whether the proposed activities are limited to CAB activities; (iii) FINRA has set out procedures for an existing member to change to a CAB; and (iv) FINRA has set out procedures for a CAB to change its status to regular full-service FINRA member firm.

The CAB rules also set out registration and qualification of principals and representatives, which incorporate by reference to existing NASD rules, including the registration and examination requirements for principals and registered representatives. CAB firm principals and representatives would be subject to the same registration, qualification examination and continuing education requirements as principals and representatives of other FINRA firms. CABs will also be subject to current rules regarding Operations Professional registration.

CABs would have a limited set of supervisory rules, although they will need to certify a chief compliance officer and have a written anti-money laundering (AML) program. In particular, the CAB rules model some, but not all, of current FINRA Rule 3110 related to supervision. CABs will be able to create their own supervisory procedures tailored to their business model. CABs will not be required to hold annual compliance meetings with their staff. CABs are also not subject to the Rule 3110 requirements for principals to review all investment banking transactions or prohibiting supervisors from supervising their own activities.

CABs would be subject to FINRA Rules 3220 – Influencing or Rewarding Employees of Others, Rule 3240 – Borrowing form or Lending to Customers, and Rule 3270 – Outside Activities of Registered Persons.

Conduct Rules for CABs

The proposed CAB rules include a streamlined set of conduct rules. This is a brief summary of some of the conduct rules related to CABs. CABs would be subject to current rules on Standards of Commercial Honor and Principals of Trade (Rule 2010); Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices (Rule 2020); Payments to Unregistered Persons (Rule 2040); Transactions Involving FINRA Employees (Rule 2070); Rules 2080 and 2081 regarding expungement of customer disputes; and the FINRA arbitration requirements in Rules 2263 and 2268. CABs will also be subject to know-your-customer and suitability obligations similar to current FINRA rules for full-service member firms, and likewise will be subject to the FINRA exception to that rule for institutional investors. CABs will be subject to abbreviated rules governing communications with the public and, of course, prohibitions against false and misleading statements.

CABs are specifically not subject to FINRA rules related to transactions not within the purview of allowable CAB activities. For example, CABs are not subject to FINRA Rule 2121 related to fair prices and commissions. Rule 2121 requires a fair price for buy or sell transactions where a member firm acts as principal and a fair commission or service charge where a firm acts as an agent in a transaction. Although a CAB could act as an agent in a buy or sell transaction where a counter-party is an institutional investor or where it arranges securities transactions in connection with the transfer of ownership and control of a privately held company to a buyer that will actively operate the company, in accordance with the SEC rules, rule interpretations and no action letters on such M&A deals, FINRA believes these transactions are outside the standard securities transactions that typically raise issues under Rule 2121.

Financial and Operational Rules for CABs

CABs would be subject to a streamlined set of financial and operational obligations. CABs would be subject to certain existing FINRA rules including, for example, audit requirement, maintenance of books and records, preparation of FOCUS reports and similar matters.

CABs would also have net capital requirements and be subject to suspension for non-compliance. CABs will be subject to the current net capital requirements set out by Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1.

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com

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.

« The SEC Issues Guidance On The FAST Act As It Relates To Savings And Loan Companies SEC Issues Rules Implementing Certain Provisions Of The FAST Act »

The SEC Issues Guidance On The FAST Act As It Relates To Savings And Loan Companies

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | January 19, 2016 Tags: SEC, The Fast Act

On December 10, 2015, the SEC Division of Corporate Finance addressed the FAST Act by making an announcement with guidance and issuing two new Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI). As the FAST Act is a transportation bill that rolled in securities law matters relatively quickly and then was signed into law even quicker, this was the first SEC acknowledgement and guidance on the subject.

My blog on the FAST Act and the first two C&DI on the Act can be read HERE.

On December 21, 2015, the SEC issued 4 additional C&DI on the FAST Act. Each of the new C&DI addresses the FAST Act’s impact on Section 12(g) and Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.

Section 85001 of the FAST Act amends Section 12(g) and Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act such that savings and loan holding companies are treated similar to banks for purposes of the registration, termination of registration and suspension of reporting obligations under the Exchange Act.

In particular, the FAST Act amends Section 12(g) and Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act as follows:

Savings and loan holding companies, as such term is defined in Section 10 of the Home Owners’ Loan Act, will have a Section 12(g) registration obligation as of any fiscal year-end after December 4, 2015, with respect to a class of equity security held of record by 2,000 or more persons.

The holders of record threshold for Section 12(g) deregistration for savings and loan holding companies has been increased from 300 to 1,200 persons.

The holders of record threshold for the suspension of reporting under Section 15(d) for savings and loan holding companies has been increased from 300 to 1,200 persons.

The new guidance explains the timing of the new provisions. The SEC clarifies:

Under Section 12(g)(1)(B), a savings and loan holding company will have a Section 12(g) registration obligation if, as of any fiscal year-end after December 4, 2015, it has total assets of more than $10 million and a class of equity security held of record by 2,000 or more persons. We consider that the effect of this provision is to eliminate, for savings and loan holding companies, any Section 12(g) registration obligation with respect to a class of equity security as of a fiscal year-end on or before December 4, 2015. Therefore, if a savings and loan holding company has filed an Exchange Act registration statement and the registration statement is not yet effective, then it may withdraw the registration statement. If a savings and loan holding company has registered a class of equity security under Section 12(g), it would need to continue that registration unless it is eligible to deregister under Section 12(g) or current rules.

Similarly as relates to the termination of registration:

If the class of equity security is held of record by less than 1,200 persons, the savings and loan holding company may file a Form 15 to terminate the Section 12(g) registration of that class. Until rule amendments are made to reflect the change to Section 12(g)(4), the savings and loan holding company should include an explanatory note in its Form 15 indicating that it is relying on Exchange Act Section 12(g)(4) to terminate its duty to file reports with respect to that class of equity security.

Pursuant to Section 12(g)(4), the Section 12(g) registration will be terminated 90 days after the savings and loan holding company files a Form 15. Until that date of termination, the savings and loan holding company is required to file all reports required by Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 14 and 16.

Alternatively, a savings and loan holding company could rely on Exchange Act Rule 12g-4, which permits the immediate suspension of Section 13(a) reporting obligations upon filing a Form 15, if it meets the requirements of that rule. Note that Rule 12g-4 has not yet been amended to incorporate the new 1,200 holder deregistration threshold.

Finally, as relates to the suspension of reporting obligations:

In general, the Section 15(d) reporting obligation is suspended if, and for so long as, the issuer has a class of security registered under Section 12. When an issuer terminates Section 12 registration, it must address any Section 15(d) obligation that would apply once the Section 15(d) suspension is lifted.

For the current fiscal year, a savings and loan holding company can suspend its obligation to file reports under Section 15(d) with respect to a class of security that was sold pursuant to a Securities Act registration statement and that was held of record by less than 1,200 persons as of the first day of the current fiscal year. Such suspension would be deemed to have occurred as of the beginning of the fiscal year in accordance with Section 15(d) (as amended by the FAST Act). If, during the current fiscal year, a savings and loan holding company has a registration statement that becomes effective or is updated pursuant to Securities Act Section 10(a)(3), then it will have a Section 15(d) reporting obligation for the current fiscal year.

If a savings and loan holding company with a class of security held of record by less than 1,200 persons as of the first day of the current fiscal year has a registration statement that was updated during the current fiscal year pursuant to Securities Act Section 10(a)(3), but under which no sales have been made during the current fiscal year, the savings and loan holding company may suspend its Section 15(d) reporting obligation consistent with the guidance in Staff Legal Bulletin No. 18 (March 20, 2010) and GlenRose Instruments Inc. (July 16, 2012).

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com

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.

« SEC Issues Report On Accredited Investor Definition FINRA Proposes New Category Of Broker-Dealer For “Capital Acquisition Brokers” »

SEC Issues Report On Accredited Investor Definition

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | January 12, 2016 Tags: Accedited Investor, accredited investor definition, SEC

On December 18, 2015, the SEC issued a 118-page report on the definition of “Accredited Investor” (the “Report”). The report follows the March 2015 SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) recommendations related to the definition. The SEC is reviewing the definition of “accredited investor” as directed by the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires that the SEC review the definition as relates to “natural persons” every four years to determine if it should be modified or adjusted.

The definition of “accredited investor” has not been comprehensively re-examined by regulators since its adoption in 1982; however, in 2011 the Dodd-Frank Act amended the definition to exclude a person’s primary residence from the net worth test of accreditation.

Although the Report contains detailed discussions on the various aspects of the definition of an accredited investor, the history of the different aspects of the definition, a discussion of different approaches taken in other U.S. regulations and in foreign jurisdictions and an in-depth discussion on the reasoning behind its recommendations, the actual recommendations are only conceptual and broad-based and do not contain specifics. Accordingly, we will need to wait for a future proposed rule release to see what, if any, of the recommendations will be implemented and to what degree. This blog provides a broad summary of the Report.

Background

All offers and sales of securities must either be registered with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) or be subject to an available exemption to registration. The ultimate purpose of registration is to provide investors and potential investors with full and fair disclosure to make an informed investment decision. The SEC does not pass on the merits of a particular deal or business model, only its disclosure. In setting up the registration and exemption requirements, Congress and the SEC recognize that not all investors need public registration protection and not all situations have a practical need for registration – thus the registration exemptions in Sections 3 and 4 of the Securities Act and the rules promulgated thereunder. Exempted offerings carry additional risks in that the level of required investor disclosure is much less than in a registered offering, the SEC does not review the offering documents, and there are no federal ongoing disclosure or reporting requirements.

Regulation D provides the most commonly used transactional exemptions to registration. The SEC notes in its Report that $1.3 trillion was raised under Regulation D in 2014 alone. The definition of “accredited investor” provides the backbone to the Regulation D exemptions and is “intended to encompass those persons whose financial sophistication and ability to sustain the risk of loss of investment or ability to fend for themselves render the protections of the Securities Act’s registration process unnecessary.”

In addition to investor protection, the SEC also has a mandate to assist businesses with capital formation and the definition of “accredited investor” must walk the line between these goals. An overly restrictive definition will damage the ability of businesses to access private capital, and an overly broad definition would be contrary to the SEC’s investor protection goals.

Qualifying as an accredited investor makes the difference between being able to participate in an exempt offering or not, and the ability for an issuer to rely on an exemption or not, and accordingly is a very important component of the securities regulations. For example, some exemptions like Rule 506(c) are limited to accredited investors only. Rules 505 and 506(b) limit offers and sales to no more than 35 unaccredited investors. Many state law exemptions limit offers and sales of securities based on the status of an investor as accredited or not.

An issuer’s required disclosure is also tied into whether investors and potential investors are accredited. For example, under Rules 505 and 506(b) issuers must provide certain delineated financial and non-financial disclosures if an offering will be made to any non-accredited investors.

The Current Definition of “Accredited Investor”

An “Accredited investor” is defined as any person who comes within any of the following categories:

Any bank as defined in section 3(a)(2) of the Act, or any savings and loan association or other institution as defined in section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Act, whether acting in its individual or fiduciary capacity; any broker or dealer registered pursuant to section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; any insurance company as defined in section 2(a)(13) of the Act; any investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 or a business development company as defined in section 2(a)(48) of that Act; any Small Business Investment Company licensed by the U.S. Small Business Administration under section 301(c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958; any plan established and maintained by a state, its political subdivisions, or any agency or instrumentality of a state or its political subdivisions, for the benefit of its employees, if such plan has total assets in excess of $5,000,000; any employee benefit plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 if the investment decision is made by a plan fiduciary, as defined in section 3(21) of such act, which is either a bank, savings and loan association, insurance company, or registered investment adviser, or if the employee benefit plan has total assets in excess of $5,000,000 or, if a self-directed plan, with investment decisions made solely by persons that are accredited investors;

Any private business development company as defined in section 202(a)(22) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940;

Any organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, corporation, Massachusetts or similar business trust, or partnership, not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities offered, with total assets in excess of $5,000,000;

Any director, executive officer, or general partner of the issuer of the securities being offered or sold, or any director, executive officer, or general partner of a general partner of that issuer;

Any natural person whose individual net worth, or joint net worth with that person’s spouse, at the time of his or her purchase exceeds $1,000,000, not including their principal residence;

Any natural person who had an individual income in excess of $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with that person’s spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of those years and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year;

Any trust, with total assets in excess of $5,000,000, not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities offered, whose purchase is directed by a sophisticated person as described in Rule 506(b)(2)(ii); and

Any entity in which all of the equity owners are accredited investors.

The SEC Report contains an interesting table comparing the regulatory approach to determining the status of investors that are not in need of certain investor protections. I’m reproducing the entire table as appears in the Report:

Standard	Financial Threshold for Natural Persons	Regulatory Purpose
Accredited Investor(Securities Act Rule 501(a))	$200,000 in income$300,000 in joint income $1 million in net worth, excluding the value of a primary residence	Exemption from Securities Act registration for offers and sales to accredited investors
Qualified Client(Advisers Act Rule 205-3)	$1 million in assets under management with an investment adviser$2 million in net worth, excluding the value of a primary residence Subject to inflation adjustment every 5 years	Exemption from Advisers Act’s prohibition on charging performance fees to clients
Qualified Purchaser(Investment Company Act Section 2(a)(51)(A))	$5 million in investments	Exemption from Investment Company Act registration for sales to qualified purchasers
Qualified Investor(Exchange Act Section 3(a)(54))	$10 million in asset-backed securities and loan participations$25 million in other investments	Exemption from broker-dealer registration for banks that sell certain securities to qualified investors
Eligible Contract Participant(Commodity Exchange Act Section 1a(18))	$10 million in investments$5 million in investments if hedging	Eligible contract participants are able to engage in certain derivatives and swaps transactions

The SEC Report discusses the different approaches and their respective histories. The Report also considers the approach taken by different countries including Australia, Canada, the EU, Israel, Singapore and the United Kingdom. The SEC considered these different approaches in making its recommendations. Although a synopsis of these discussions is beyond the scope of this blog, it does provide for interesting reading and insight into the regulatory regime.

SEC Recommendations Related to the Accredited Investor Definition

The Report considered numerous different approaches and potential changes and contains discussion supporting each element in determining an accredited investor and the recommended changes. The Report discusses the numerous different proposals considered, the input of commenters, the challenges that will be associated with each of its recommendations and the reasoning behind such recommendations. However, notably absent from the Report are specific recommendations associated with the broad concepts.

The SEC staff recommends a complete revision to the definition of accredited investor and in particular makes the following recommendations:

Leave the current income and net worth thresholds in place, subject to investment limitations;

Create new, additional inflation-adjusted income and net worth thresholds that are not subject to investment limitations;

Index all financial thresholds for inflation on a going-forward basis;

Permit spousal equivalents to pool their finances for purposes of qualifying as accredited investors;

Add a new qualification for individuals based on measures of sophistication including parameters considering the person’s (i) amount of investments; (ii) professional credentials; (iii) experience investing in exempt offerings; and (iv) status as a knowledgeable employee of a private fund for investments in the employer’s fund. In addition, the SEC recommends permitting individuals who pass an accredited investor examination to qualify as an accredited investor.

Revise the definition as it applies to entities by replacing the $5 million assets test with a $5 million investments test and including all entities rather than the specifically enumerated types of entities; and

Grandfather issuers’ existing investors that are accredited investors under the current definition with respect to future offerings of their securities.

I agree with each of the proposed conceptual changes and in particular the addition of the sophistication qualifications; however, until actual proposals are made that include specifics, such as the specific investment limitations, specific criteria to establish sophistication and specific proposed adjustments, I remain as unspecific in my opinion as the SEC is in its recommendations!

Leaving a strict bright line financial test, without the additional sophistication test, is too restrictive to meet the goal of assisting businesses in accessing capital. According to the SEC Report, in 2013, only 10.1% of U.S. households qualified as accredited investors and adjusting the financial tests for inflation will drop that percent to 3.6%.

The SEC staff points out that there is currently no definition of the term “income” and very limited guidance on the matter. The recommendations do not offer further guidance or suggest any changes. From a practitioner’s perspective, we generally go by the individual’s tax return.

The SEC Report also discussed the net worth calculation. The only asset excluded from the calculation is the person’s primary residence. Many commenters have suggested changes such as the exclusion of retirement assets. The SEC rightfully points out the numerous problems with this approach including, but certainly not limited to, the obvious impact of discouraging retirement investments or encouraging the withdrawal of retirement funds to participate in private investments. Moreover, the Advisory Committee previously pointed out, and the SEC Report acknowledges, that “retirement assets” refer to a tax treatment and not a class of assets, and can be anything from an IRA to racehorses, to bitcoins, to real estate and anything in between. Retirement assets are not classified based on risk and are not somehow risk-protected. Many of the most experienced, wealthiest investors have the majority of their portfolio in assets that receive “retirement assets” tax treatment, and there is no justification for excluding tax-protected accounts from the accredited definition.

I also like the reasoning behind adding investment limitations at certain thresholds and removing them at higher thresholds. Currently the income and net worth tests are absolute. An investor with a $999,999 net worth cannot invest and an investor with a $1,000,000 can invest an unlimited amount. Permitting all individuals that with a level of financial sophistication to be deemed accredited and invest in private offering subject to caps based on net worth or income, will greatly expand the pool of potential investors and be consistent with the need to protect investors.

The SEC Reports suggests a few methods of implementing investment limitations but does not make a specific, precise proposal. The SEC Report suggests examples of limitations such as: (i) an even percentage application across all investors (this approach is rejected); (ii) a gradual increase in investment limitation which limitation is eventually eliminated based on net worth and/or income; and (iii) either separately or in conjunction with other limitations, adding a per issuer limitation.

The SEC Staff recommendations in the Report are consistent with the Advisory Committee’s recommendations made to the SEC in March 2015. In particular, the Advisory Committee made four recommendations related to the definition of “accredited investor”:

(1) That if any change is made to the definition of “accredited investor,” such change should “have the effect of expanding, not contracting, the pool of accredited investors.” For example, they recommended that the definition include investors that satisfy a sophistication test that is not tied to income or net worth. In addition, the Advisory Committee recommended that that tax treatment of assets be excluded from any net worth calculation.

(2) That the SEC take into account the effect of inflation and adjust the accredited investor thresholds in accordance with the consumer price index.

(3) “Rather than attempting to protect investors by raising the accredited investor thresholds or excluding certain asset classes from the calculation to determine accredited investor… the Commission should focus on enhanced enforcement efforts and increased investor education” and

(4) The SEC should continue to gather data on the subject.

Additional History and Further Background

The vast majority of the SEC’s 118-page report provides a history of the Securities Act registration and exemption provisions and the role of the accredited investor definition. The SEC provides the background of the Section 4(a)(2) exemption and a summary of SEC vs. Ralston Purina Co., the leading Supreme Court case interpreting the provision. I’ve previously covered some of this history in my blogs HERE and HERE (written prior to renumbering 4(2) to 4(a)(2)). The following blog HERE on obstacles in depositing penny stocks also provides insight into the exemptions and investor qualifications and as such is beneficial ancillary reading with this blog.

The Advisory Committee Letter to the SEC in March 2015 contained a list of practical facts and realities related to small business and emerging company capital formation in support of its recommendations that I found informative and so am re-publishing. In particular:

Smaller and emerging companies are “critical to the economic well-being of the United States,” generating the majority of net new jobs in the last five years and continuing to add more jobs;

Rule 506 of Regulation D is the most widely used private offering exemption, resulting in $1 trillion of raised capital in 2013;

Most early-stage, venture capital and angel investments are made in reliance on Rule 506;

Other than Rule 506(b), which allows up to 35 unaccredited investors (when certain disclosures and financial information are provided), all investors in Rule 506 offerings must be accredited;

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC to review the accredited investor definition to determine whether it “should be adjusted or modified for the protection of investors, in the public interest, and in light of the economy”;

There are groups and commentators that advocate increasing the thresholds in the accredited investor definition to prevent fraud against investors. However, the SEC is not of “any substantial evidence suggesting that the current definition of accredited investor has contributed to the ability of fraudsters to commit fraud or has resulted in greater exposure for potential victims.” In addition, “the connection between fraud and the current accredited investor thresholds seems tenuous at best”;

Some groups and commentators advocate excluding “retirement assets” from the calculation of net worth. The Advisory Committee rightfully and logically points out that “retirement assets” refer to a tax treatment and not a class of assets, and can be anything from an IRA to racehorses, to bitcoins, to real estate and anything in between. Retirement assets are not classified based on risk and are not somehow risk-protected. Many of the most experienced, wealthiest investors have the majority of their portfolio in assets that receive “retirement assets” tax treatment, and there is no justification for excluding tax-protected accounts from the accredited definition; and

There is little or no evidence to suggest that the existing definition of accredited investor has led to widespread fraud or other harm to investors; rather, there is substantial evidence that the current definition works.

The Advisory Committee concluded that if the income and net worth thresholds are increased, it “will materially decrease the pool of capital available for smaller businesses.” It continued by stating that such a change “would have a disparate impact on those areas having a lower cost of living, which areas often coincide with regions of lower venture capital activity.”

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com

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.

« SEC Guidance On Proxy Presentation Of Certain Matters In The Merger And Acquisition Context The SEC Issues Guidance On The FAST Act As It Relates To Savings And Loan Companies »

SEC Proposes Amendments Related To Intrastate And Regional Securities Offerings- Part 1

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | November 17, 2015 Tags: LawCast Network

On October 30, 2015, the SEC published proposed rule amendments to facilitate intrastate and regional securities offerings. This rule proposal comes following the September 23, 2015, Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) recommendation to the SEC regarding the modernization of the Rule 147 Intrastate offering exemption. The SEC has proposed amendments to Rule 147 to modernize the rule and accommodate adopted state intrastate crowdfunding provisions. The proposed amendment eliminates the restriction on offers and eases the issuer eligibility requirements, provided however the issuer must comply with the specific state securities laws. In addition, the SEC has proposed amendments to Rule 504 of Regulation D to increase the aggregate offering amount from $1 million to $5 million and to add bad actor disqualifications from reliance on the rule. Finally, the SEC has made technical amendments to Rule 505 of Regulation D.

In this Part I of the blog, I will discuss the Rule 147 amendment and in Part II, I will discuss the changes to Rules 504 and 505.

Background on Rule 147 and Rationale for Amendments

Both the federal government and individual states regulate securities, with the federal provisions often preempting state law. When federal provisions do not preempt state law, both federal and state law must be complied with. On the federal level, every issuance of a security must either be registered under Section 5 of the Securities Act, or exempt from registration. Section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act) provides an exemption from the registration requirements of Section 5 for “[A]ny security which is a part of an issue offered and sold only to persons resident within a single State or Territory, where the issuer of such security is a person resident and doing business within or, if a corporation, incorporated by and doing business within, such State or Territory.” Section 3(a)(11) is often referred to as the Intrastate Exemption.

Rule 147 as it exists is a safe harbor promulgated under Section 3(a)(11) and provides further details on the application of the Intrastate Exemption. Neither Section 3(a)(11) nor Rule 147 preempt state law. That is, an issuer relying on Section 3(a)(11) and Rule 147 would still need to comply with all state laws related to the offer and sale of securities.

Rule 147 was adopted in 1974 and has not been updated since that time. Rule 147 has limitations that simply do not comport with today’s world. For example, the rule does not allow offers to out-of-state residents at all. Most website advertisements related to an offering are considered offers and if same are viewable by out-of-state residents, as they naturally would be, they would violate the rule.

Also, the current Rule 147 requires that an issuer be incorporated in the state in which the offering occurs. In today’s world, many companies incorporate in Nevada or Delaware (or other states) for valid business reasons even though all of their operations, income and revenue may be located in a different state. Moreover, the current Rule 147 requires that at least 80% of a company’s revenues, assets and use of proceeds be within the state in which the offering is conducted. Many issuers find meeting all three thresholds to be unduly burdensome.

The topic of intrastate offerings has gained interest in the marketplace since the passage of the JOBS Act in 2012 and the passage of numerous state-specific crowdfunding provisions. It is believed that in the near future a majority of states will have passed state-specific crowdfunding statutes. However, the current statutory requirements in Section 3(a)(11) and regulatory requirements in Rule 147 make it difficult for issuers to take advantage of these new state crowdfunding provisions.

Recently the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies made recommendations to the SEC related to amendments to the Rule 147 Intrastate offering exemption. The Advisory Committee made the following specific recommendations to modernize Rule 147:

Allow for offers made in reliance on Rule 147 to be viewed by out-of-state residents but require that all sales be made only to residents of the state in which the issuer has its main offices;

Remove the need to use percentage thresholds for any type of issue eligibility requirements and evaluate whether alternative criteria should be used for determining the necessary nexus between the issuer and the state where all sales occur; and

Eliminate the requirement that the issuer be incorporated or organized in the same state where all sales occur.

Considering the Advisory Committee’s recommendations, as well as those of other market participants, the SEC has published proposed Rule 147 amendments related to intrastate offerings, and Rule 504 related to intrastate and regional offerings.

The proposed rule changes generally: (i) eliminate the offer restrictions while continuing to require that sales be made only to residents of the issuer’s state; (ii) redefine “intrastate offering” to ease some issuer eligibility requirements; (iii) limit the availability of the Rule 147 exemption to offerings that are either registered or exempt at the state level and which offerings are limited to no more than $5 million; (iv) amend Rule 504 to increase the aggregate offering amount from $1 million to $5 million and to add bad actor disqualifications from reliance on the rule; and (v) make technical conforming amendments to Rule 505.

Proposed Rule Amendments

The proposed amendments to Rule 147 will allow an issuer to engage in any form of general solicitation or general advertising, including the use of publicly accessible websites, to offer and sell its securities, so long as all sales occur within the same state or territory in which the issuer’s principal place of business is located. Moreover, the offering must be either registered or exempt in the state in which all of the purchasers are resident, and the state registration or exemption provision must limit the amount of securities an issuer may sell to no more than $5 million in a twelve-month period. Furthermore, the state statue must impose an investment limitation on investors. The proposed amendments define an issuer’s principal place of business as the location in which the officers, partners, or managers of the issuer primarily direct, control and coordinate the activities of the issuer and further require the issuer to satisfy at least one of four threshold requirements that would help ensure the in-state nature of the issuer’s business.

Interestingly, by amending Rule 147 to allow issuers that are not incorporated in a particular state to participate in intrastate offerings, the rule will no longer comply with the statutory provisions of Section 3(a)(11). Rather than amend Section 3(a)(11), the SEC is relying on its general authority under Section 28 of the Securities Act and making Rule 147 a stand-alone intrastate offering exemption that would no longer be a safe harbor or promulgated under Section 3(a)(11).

Section 3(a)(11) will remain a separate exemption for companies that wish to rely on its provisions, though practically speaking, I believe it will likely be rarely used, if ever.

In its rule release, the SEC points out that if the new rule is adopted in its proposed form, most states will need to amend their current intrastate offering exemptions to fully avail themselves of the new rule. In doing so, the states would be free to impose additional requirements or restrictions as deemed necessary or appropriate to facilitate local capital formation and investor protection.

Amendment to “Offer” Restrictions

Currently Rule 147 does not allow offers to out-of-state residents at all. Most website advertisements related to an offering are considered offers and if same are viewable by out-of-state residents, as they naturally would be, they would violate the rule. One of the main concepts behind crowdfunding is the ability to use the internet and social media to solicit the crowd for an investment. Accordingly, state regulators and practitioners were concerned that internet advertisements made in accordance with state crowdfunding provisions would violate Rule 147.

To help alleviate the problem, the SEC issued guidance in its Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI’s) addressing the ability to advertise using the internet or social media in a state crowdfunding offering; however, the “offer” restriction remained.

Rule 147 as amended requires issuers to limit sales to in-state residents but no longer limits offers to in-state residents. Amended Rule 147 will permit issuers to engage in general solicitation and advertising without restriction, including offers to sell securities using any form of mass media and publicly available websites, so long as all sales of securities are limited to residents of the state in which the issuer has its principal place of business and which state’s intrastate registration or exemption provisions the issuer is relying upon. As offers are not limited but sales are, all solicitation and offer materials will need to include prominent disclosures stating that sales may only be made to residents of a particular state.

Determining Whether an Issuer is a “Resident” of, and Doing Business in, a Particular State

Rule 147 currently provides that an issuer shall be deemed to be a resident of the state in which: (i) it is incorporated or organized, if it is an entity requiring incorporation or organization; (ii) its principal office is located, if it is an entity not requiring incorporation or organization; or (iii) his or her principal residence is located, if an individual.

This provision is problematic in today’s corporate world, where many entities decide to incorporate in a particular state, such as Nevada or Delaware, for valid business purposes, even though all of their operations and offices may be located in a different state. The SEC agrees that the state of entity formation should not affect the ability of an issuer to be considered a “resident” for purposes of an intrastate offering exemption at the federal level.

Accordingly, the proposed rule amendment eliminates the requirement related to state of incorporation while continuing to require that an issuer have its principal place of business in the offering state. In addition, the issuer must satisfy at least one of a list of four other requirements meant to satisfy the residence requirement. In particular, the issuer will need to meet one of the three 80% thresholds or the new majority-of-employees threshold test.

Under the current Rule 147, an issuer shall be deemed to be doing business within a state if the issuer meets ALL of the following requirements: (i) the issuer, together with its subsidiaries, derived at least 80% of its gross revenues in the most recent fiscal year or most recent six-month period from that state, whichever is closer in time to the offering; (ii) the issuer had 80% of its assets located in that state in the most recent semiannual fiscal year; and (iii) the issuer intends to use and uses at least 80% of the net proceeds from the intrastate offering in connection with the operation of a business or of real property, the purchase of real property located in, or the rendering of services in that state. In addition, under the current rule, the principal office of the issuer must be located within that state.

The new rule retains the three 80% threshold tests and even adds a fourth threshold based on the location of a majority of the issuer’s employees. Presumably a majority is satisfied by a greater than 50% determination. However, instead of having to comply with all of the threshold tests, the issuer need only comply with one of the four tests, in addition to maintaining its principal place of business in the state.

The amended Rule 147 further simplifies the “doing business in” standard by only requiring that the issuer’s principal place of business be in the subject state regardless of where its principal office is located. An issuer’s “principal place of business” will be defined as the “location from which the officers, partners or managers of the issuer primarily direct, control and coordinate the activities of the issuer.” Issuers will be required to either register the offering in the state where all the purchasers are located or rely on a state registration exemption that limits the amount of the offering to no more than $5 million in any 12-month period and imposes investment limitations on investors. I note that concurrent with the proposed Rule 147 rule release, the SEC has proposed to increase the offering limit under Rule 504 to $5 million, allowing Rule 147 and Rule 504 to work together as an Intrastate Offering Exemption.

As discussed below, securities will need to “come to rest” in the hands of purchasers before resales will be allowed. Similarly, if an issuer changes its principal place of business to a new state, it would not be able to conduct an intrastate offering in reliance on Rule 147 in the new state until the securities sold in the prior state had “come to rest” in the hands of the purchasers. The “come to rest” period, both for resales and for second intrastate offerings, shall be a period of 9 months.

As with all provisions of the new Rule 147, in passing their own intrastate offering exemption, a state could impose additional requirements for use in their particular state.

Determining Whether the Investors and Potential Investors are Residents of a Particular State

Currently under Rule 147, all offers, offers to sell, offers for sale and sales of securities in an intrastate-exempted offering must be made to residents of the state in which the offering is conducted. For the purpose of determining the residence of an offeree or purchaser: (i) a corporation, partnership, trust or other form of business organization shall be deemed to be a resident of a state if, at the time of the offer and sale, it has its principal office within such state; (ii) an individual shall be deemed to be a resident of a state if, at the time of the offer and sale, his or her principal residence is within that state; and (iii) a corporation partnership, trust or other form of business organization formed specifically to take part in an intrastate offering will not be resident of the state unless all of its beneficial owners are residents of that state.

The new proposed rule adds a qualifier such that if the issuer reasonably believes that the investor is a resident of the applicable state, the standard will be satisfied. The reasonable belief standard is consistent with other provisions in Regulation D including Rule 506(c) as the accreditation of an investor. In shifting the responsibility to require a reasonable belief as to residency, the SEC is eliminating the current requirement that the investor provide a written representation as to residency. The view is that a self-attestation from an investor, without more, is not enough to create a reasonable belief and so that technical requirement would not add to the rule, and in fact could deter as it would allow issuers to believe that they could rely on such written statement.

The SEC provides examples of proof of residency. For individuals, proof may be an established relationship with the issuer, documentation as to home address and utility or related bills, tax returns, driver’s license and identification cards. The residency of an entity purchaser would be the location where, at the time of the sale, the entity has its principal place of business, which, like the issuer, is where “the officers, partners or managers of the issuer primarily direct, control and coordinate the activities of the [investor].”

Resale Restrictions

Even though securities issued relying on the Intrastate Exemption are not restricted securities for purposes of Rule 144, current Rule 147(e) prohibits the resale of any such securities for a period of nine months except for resales made in the same state as the Intrastate Offering. Market makers or dealers desiring to quote such securities after the nine-month period must comply with all of the requirements of Rule 15c2-11 regarding current public information. Moreover, Rule 147 specifically requires the placing of a legend on any securities issued in an intrastate offering setting forth the resale restrictions. Currently, in the case of an allowable in-state resale, the purchaser must provide written representations supporting their state of residence.

The proposed new Rule 147 provides that for a period of nine months from the date of sale to a particular purchaser, any resale by that purchaser may be made only to persons resident with the state of the offering. Accordingly resales out of state may only be made after the nine-month holding period. To ensure enforcement, an issuer must place a legend on the securities and stop transfer instructions to the transfer agent.

Avoiding Integration While Using the Intrastate Exemption

The determination of whether two or more offerings could be integrated is a question of fact depending on the particular circumstances at hand. Rule 502(a) and SEC Release 33-4434 set forth the factors to be considered in determining whether two or more offerings may be integrated. In particular, the following factors need to be considered in determining whether multiple offerings are integrated: (i) are the offerings part of a single plan of financing; (ii) do the offerings involve issuance of the same class of securities; (iii) are the offerings made at or about the same time; (iv) is the same type of consideration to be received; and (v) are the offerings made for the same general purpose.

Current Rule 147(b)(2) provides an integration safe harbor. That is, offerings made under Section 3 or Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act or pursuant to a registration statement will not be integrated with an Intrastate Exemption offering if such offerings take place six months prior to the beginning or six months following the end of the Intrastate Exemption offering. To rely on this safe harbor, during the six-month periods, an issuer may not make any offers or sales of securities of the same class as those offering in the intrastate offering. Rule 147(b)(2) is merely a safe harbor. Issuers and practitioners may still conduct their own analysis in accordance with the five-factor test enumerated above.

The proposed new Rule 147 amends the current integration safe harbor to be consistent with the new Regulation A/A+ safe harbor. In particular, under the proposed rule, offers and sales under Rule 147 would not be integrated with: (i) prior offers or sales of securities; or (ii) subsequent offers or sales of securities that are (a) registered under the Securities Act; (b) conducted under Regulation A; (c) exempt under Rule 701 or made pursuant to an employee benefit plan; (d) exempt under Regulation S; (e) exempt under Section 4(a)(6) – i.e., Title III Crowdfunding; or (f) made more than six months after the completion of the offering. The rule maintains that it is just a safe harbor and that issuers may still conduct their own analysis in accordance with the five-factor test.

Disclosure/Legend Requirements

Current Rule 147 requires written disclosure on resale limitations and requires that stop transfer instructions be given to the issuer’s transfer agent. The new rule retains the requirement but provides more definitive instruction. In particular, a written disclosure would need to be given to each offeree and purchaser at the time of any offer or sale. However, the disclosure can be given in the same manner as the offer for an offeree (i.e., could be verbal) but must be in writing as to a purchaser.

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 OTC issuers as well as private companies going public on the over-the-counter market, such as the OTCBB, OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served as the “Big Firm Alternative.” Clients receive fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expenses associated with “partner-heavy” securities law firms. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, registration statements, including Forms 10, S-1, S-8 and S-4, compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, 14C Information Statements and 14A Proxy Statements, going public transactions, mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, private placements, PIPE transactions, Regulation A offerings, and crowdfunding. 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 producer and host of LawCast, 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.

« Mergers And Acquisitions; Appraisal Rights SEC Advisory Committee Recommendations Related To Finders »

Mergers And Acquisitions – The Merger Transaction

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | October 20, 2015 Tags: Mergers and Acquisitions, the merger transaction

Although I have written about document requirements in a merger transaction previously, with the recent booming M&A marketplace, it is worth revisiting. This blog only addresses friendly negotiated transactions achieved through share exchange or merger agreements. It does not address hostile takeovers.

A merger transaction can be structured as a straight acquisition with the acquiring company remaining in control, a reverse merger or a reverse triangular merger. In a reverse merger process, the target company shareholders exchange their shares for either new or existing shares of the public company so that at the end of the transaction, the shareholders of the target company own a majority of the acquiring public company and the target company has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the public company. The public company assumes the operations of the target company.

A reverse merger is often structured as a reverse triangular merger. In that case, the acquiring company forms a new subsidiary which merges with the target company. The primary benefits of the reverse triangular merger include the ease of shareholder consent and certain perceived tax benefits. The specific form of the transaction should be determined considering the relevant tax, accounting and business objectives of the overall transaction.

An Outline of the Transaction Documents

The Confidentiality Agreement

Generally the first step in an M&A deal is executing a confidentiality agreement and letter of intent. 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, a confidentiality agreement should be executed first.

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.

The Letter of Intent

A letter of intent (“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 associated with conducting due diligence and 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. Along with an LOI, the parties’ attorneys prepare a transaction checklist which includes a “to do” list along with the “who do” identification.

Many clients ask me how to protect their interests while trying to negotiate a merger or acquisition. During the negotiation period, both sides will incur time and expense, and will provide the other with confidential information. The way to protect confidential information is through a confidentiality agreement, but that does not protect against wasted time and expense. Many other protections can be used to avoid wasted time and expense.

Many, if not all, letters of intent contain some sort of exclusivity provision. In deal terminology, these exclusivity provisions are referred to as “no shop” or “window shop” provisions. A “no shop” provision prevents one or both parties from entering into any discussions or negotiations with a third party that could negatively affect the potential transaction, for a specific period of time. That period of time may be set in calendar time, such as sixty days, or based on conditions, such as completion of an environmental study, or a combination of both.

A “window shop” provision allows for some level of third-party negotiation or inquiry. An example of a window shop provision may be that a party cannot solicit other similar transactions but is not prohibited from hearing out an unsolicited proposal. A window shop provision may also allow the board of directors of a party to shop for a better deal, while giving a right of first refusal if such better deal is indeed received. Window shop provisions generally provide for notice and disclosure of potential “better deals” and either matching or topping rights.

Generally, both no shop and window shop provisions provide for a termination fee or other detriment for early termination. The size of the termination fee varies; however, drafters of a letter of intent should be cognizant that if the fee is substantial, it likely triggers an SEC reporting and disclosure requirement, which in and of itself could be detrimental to the deal.

Much different from a no shop or window shop provision is a “go shop” provision. To address a board of directors’ fiduciary duty and, in some instances, to maximize dollar value for its shareholders, a potential acquirer may request that the target “go shop” for a better deal up front to avoid wasted time and expense. A go shop provision is more controlled than an auction and allows both target and acquiring entities to test the market prior to expending resources. A go shop provision is common where it is evident that the board of directors’ “Revlon Duties” have been triggered.

Another common deal protection is a standstill agreement. A standstill agreement prevents a party from making business changes outside of the ordinary course, during the negotiation period. Examples include prohibitions against selling off major assets, incurring extraordinary debts or liabilities, spinning off subsidiaries, hiring or firing management teams and the like.

Finally, many companies protect their interests by requiring significant stockholders to agree to lock-ups pending a deal closure. Some lock-ups require that the stockholder agree that they will vote their shares in favor of the deal as well as not transfer or divest themselves of such shares.

The Merger Agreement

In a nutshell, the Merger Agreement sets out the financial terms of the transaction and legal rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the transaction. It provides the buyer with a detailed description of the business being purchased and provides for rights and remedies in the event that this description proves to be materially inaccurate. The Merger Agreement sets forth closing procedures, preconditions to closing and post-closing obligations, and sets out representations and warranties by all parties and the rights and remedies if these representations and warranties are inaccurate.

The main components of the Merger Agreement and a brief description of each are as follows:

Representations and Warranties – Representations and warranties generally provide the buyer and seller with a snapshot of facts as of the closing date. From the seller the facts are generally related to the business itself, such as that the seller has title to the assets, there are no undisclosed liabilities, there is no pending litigation or adversarial situation likely to result in litigation, taxes are paid and there are no issues with employees. From the buyer the facts are generally related to legal capacity, authority and ability to enter into a binding contract. The seller also represents and warrants its legal ability to enter into the agreement. Both parties represent as to the accuracy of public filings, financial statements, material contract, tax matters and organization and structure of the entity.

Covenants – Covenants generally govern the parties’ actions for a period prior to and following closing. An example of a covenant is that a seller must continue to operate the business in the ordinary course and maintain assets pending closing and, if there are post-closing payouts that the seller continues likewise. All covenants require good faith in completion.

Conditions – Conditions generally refer to pre-closing conditions such as shareholder and board of director approvals, that certain third-party consents are obtained and proper documents are signed. Generally for public companies these conditions include the filing of appropriate shareholder proxy or information statements under Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and complying with shareholder appraisal rights provisions. Closing conditions usually include the payment of the compensation by the buyer. Generally, if all conditions precedent are not met, the parties can cancel the transaction.

Indemnification/remedies – Indemnification and remedies provide the rights and remedies of the parties in the event of a breach of the agreement, including a material inaccuracy in the representations and warranties or in the event of an unforeseen third-party claim related to either the agreement or the business.

Deal Protections – Like the LOI, the merger agreement itself will contain deal protection terms. These deal protection terms can include no shop or window shop provisions, requirements as to business operations by the parties prior to the closing; breakup fees; voting agreements and the like.

Schedules – Schedules generally provide the meat of what the seller is purchasing, such as a complete list of customers and contracts, all equity holders, individual creditors and terms of the obligations. The schedules provide the details.

In the event that the parties have not previously entered into a letter of intent or confidentiality agreement providing for due diligence review, the Merger Agreement may contain due diligence provisions. Likewise, the agreement may contain no shop provisions, breakup fees, non-compete and confidentiality provisions if not previously agreed to separately.

Disclosure Matters

In a merger or acquisition transaction, there are three basic steps that could invoke the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws: (i) the negotiation period or pre-definitive agreement period; (ii) the definitive agreement; and (iii) closing.

(i) Negotiation Period (Pre-Definitive Agreement)

Generally speaking, the federal securities laws do not require the disclosure of a potential merger or acquisition until such time as the transaction has been reduced to a definitive agreement. Companies and individuals with information regarding non-public merger or acquisition transactions should be mindful of the rules and regulations preventing insider trading on such information. However, there are at least three cases where pre-definitive agreement disclosure may be necessary or mandated.

The first would be in the Management, Discussion and Analysis section of a company’s quarterly or annual report on Form 10-Q or 10-K, respectively. Item 303 of Regulation S-K, which governs the disclosure requirement for Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, requires, as part of this disclosure, that the registrant identify any known trends or any known demands, commitments, events or uncertainties that will result in, or that are reasonably likely to result in, the registrant’s liquidity increasing or decreasing in any material way. Furthermore, descriptions of known material trends in the registrant’s capital resources and expected changes in the mix and cost of such resources are required. Disclosure of known trends or uncertainties that the registrant reasonably expects will have a material impact on net sales, revenues, or income from continuing operations is also required. Finally, the Instructions to Item 303 state that MD&A “shall focus specifically on material events and uncertainties known to management that would cause reported financial information not to be necessarily indicative of future operating results or of future financial condition.”

It seems pretty clear that a potential merger or acquisition would fit firmly within the required MD&A discussion. However, realizing that disclosure of such negotiations and inclusion of such information could, and often would, jeopardize completing the transaction at all, the SEC has provided guidance. In SEC Release No. 33-6835 (1989), the SEC eliminated uncertainty regarding disclosure of preliminary merger negotiations by confirming that it did not intend for Item 303 to apply, and has not applied, and does not apply to preliminary merger negotiations. In general, the SEC’s recognition that companies have an interest in preserving the confidentiality of such negotiations is clearest in the context of a company’s continuous reporting obligations under the Exchange Act, where disclosure on Form 8-K of acquisitions or dispositions of assets not in the ordinary course of business is triggered by completion of the transaction (more on this below). Clearly, this is a perfect example and illustration of the importance of having competent legal counsel assist in interpreting and unraveling the numerous and complicated securities laws disclosure requirements.

In contrast, where a company registers securities for sale under the Securities Act, the SEC requires disclosure of material probable acquisitions and dispositions of businesses, including the financial statements of the business to be acquired or sold. Where the proceeds from the sale of the securities being registered are to be used to finance an acquisition of a business, the registration statement must disclose the intended use of proceeds. Again, accommodating the need for confidentiality of negotiations, registrants are specifically permitted not to disclose in registration statements the identity of the parties and the nature of the business sought if the acquisition is not yet probable and the board of directors determines that the acquisition would be jeopardized. Although beyond the scope of this blog, many merger and/or acquisition transactions require registration under Form S-4.

Accordingly, where disclosure is not otherwise required and has not otherwise been made, the MD&A need not contain a discussion of the impact of such negotiations where, in the company’s view, inclusion of such information would jeopardize completion of the transaction. Where disclosure is otherwise required or has otherwise been made by or on behalf of the company, the interests in avoiding premature disclosure no longer exist. In such case, the negotiations would be subject to the same disclosure standards under Item 303 as any other known trend, demand, commitment, event or uncertainty.

The second would be in Form 8-K, Item 1.01 Entry into A Material Definitive Agreement. Yes, this is in the correct category; the material definitive agreement referred to here is a letter of intent or confidentiality agreement. Item 1.01 of Form 8-K requires a company to disclose the entry into a material definitive agreement outside of the ordinary course of business. A “material definitive agreement” is defined as “an agreement that provides for obligations that are material to and enforceable against the registrant or rights that are material to the registrant and enforceable by the registrant against one or more other parties to the agreement, in each case whether or not subject to conditions.” Agreements relating to a merger or acquisition are outside the ordinary course of business. Moreover, although most letters of intent are non-binding by their terms, many include certain binding provisions such as confidentiality provisions, non-compete or non-circumvent provisions, no shop and exclusivity provisions, due diligence provisions, breakup fees and the like. On its face, it appears that a letter of intent would fall within the disclosure requirements in Item 1.01.

Once again, the SEC has offered interpretative guidance. In its final rule release no. 33-8400, the SEC, recognizing that disclosure of letters of intent could result in destroying the underlying transaction as well as create unnecessary market speculation, specifically eliminated the requirement that non-binding letters of intent be disclosed. Moreover, the SEC has taken the position that the binding provisions of the letter, such as non-disclosure and confidentiality, are not necessarily “material” and thus do not require disclosure. However, it is important that legal counsel assist the company in drafting the letter, or in interpreting an existing letter to determine if the binding provisions reach the “materiality” standard and thus become reportable. For example, generally large breakup fees or extraordinary exclusivity provisions are reportable.

The third would be in response to a Regulation FD issue. Regulation FD or fair disclosure prevents selective disclosure of non-public information. Originally Regulation FD was enacted to prevent companies from selectively providing information to fund managers, big brokerage firms and other “large players” in advance of providing the same information to the investment public at large. Regulation FD requires that in the event of an unintentional selective disclosure of insider information, the company take measures to immediately make the disclosure to the public at large through both a Form 8-K and press release.

(ii) The Definitive Agreement

The definitive agreement is disclosable in all aspects. In addition to inclusion in Form 10-Q and 10-K, a definitive agreement must be disclosed in Form 8-K within four (4) days of signing in accordance with Item 1.01 as described above. Moreover, following the entry of a definitive agreement, completion of conditions, such as a shareholder vote, will require in-depth disclosures regarding the potential target company, including their financial statements.

(iii) The Closing

The Closing is disclosable in all aspects, as is the definitive agreement. Moreover, in addition to item 1.01, the Closing may require disclosures under several or even most of the Items in Form 8-K, such as Item 2.01 – Completion of disposal or acquisition of Assets; Item 3.02 – Unregistered sale of securities; Item 4.01 – Changes in Certifying Accountant; Item 5.01 Change in Control; Item 5.06 – Change in Shell Status, etc.

Due Diligence in a Merger Transaction

Due diligence refers to the legal, business and financial investigation of a business prior to entering into a 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).

At the outset, in addition to requesting copies of corporate records and documents, all contracts, asset chains of title documents, financial statements and the like, due diligence includes becoming 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 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 parties should perform separate checks for publicly available information. In today’s internet world, this part of the process has become dramatically easier. 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 players involved in the deal, including any bad actor issues that could be problematic going forward.

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com

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.

« SEC Footnote 32 and Sham S-1 Registration Statements SEC Small Business Advisory Committee Public Company Disclosure Recommendations »

SEC Footnote 32 and Sham S-1 Registration Statements

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | September 20, 2015 Tags: s-1 registration statement, sec footnote 32

Over the past several years, many direct public offering (DPO) S-1 registration statements have been filed for either shell or development-stage companies, claiming an intent to pursue and develop a particular business, when in fact, the promoter intends to create a public vehicle to be used for reverse merger transactions. For purposes of this blog, I will refer to these S-1 registration statements the same way the SEC now does, as “sham registrations.” I prefer the term “sham registrations” as it better describes the process than the other used industry term of art, “footnote 32 shells .”

Footnote 32 is part of the Securities Offering Reform Act of 2005 (“Securities Offering Reform Act”). In the final rule release for the Securities Offering Reform Act, the SEC included a footnote (number 32) which states:

“We have become aware of a practice in which the promoter of a company and/or affiliates of the promoter appear to place assets or operations within an entity with the intent of causing that entity to fall outside of the definition of blank check companies in Securities Act Rule 419. The promoter will then seek a business combination transaction for the company, with the assets or operations being returned to the promoter or affiliate upon the completion of that business combination transaction.

It is likely that similar schemes will be undertaken with the intention of evading the definition of shell company that we are adopting today. In our view, when promoters (or their affiliates) of a company that would otherwise be a shell company place assets or operations in that company and those assets or operations are returned to the promoter or to its affiliates (or an agreement is made to return those assets or operations to the promoter or its affiliates) before, upon completion of, or shortly after a business combination transaction by that company, those assets or operations would be considered ‘nominal’ for purposes of the definition of shell company.”

An entity created for the purposes of entering into a merger or acquisition transaction with an as of yet unidentified target, is called a “blank check company.” All registrations by blank check companies are required to comply with Rule 419 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Further down in this blog, I have included a discussion of Rule 419, which requires that funds raised and securities sold be held in escrow until a merger or acquisition transaction is completed. An entity relying on Rule 419 would not receive a trading symbol or be able to apply for DTC eligibility until after it completes a merger or acquisition transaction.

A public vehicle with a trading symbol and DTC eligibility has greater value for a target asset or company, and accordingly, some unscrupulous industry players file sham registrations in an effort to avoid Rule 419.

As discussed further below, a shell company is one with no or nominal assets and operations. Although a DPO may legally be completed by a company that meets the definition of a “shell company,” a public vehicle which is not and never was a shell company is more valuable to a reverse merger or acquisition target. In particular, as I have written about many times, companies that are or ever were a “shell company” face prohibitions and ongoing limitations related to the use of Rule 144 (for further discussion on Rule 144 related to shell companies see my blog HERE. As with avoiding Rule 419, some unscrupulous industry players file sham registrations in an effort to avoid shell status.

Sham registrations have become increasingly prevalent with the newly public company being offered for sale and for use in reverse merger transactions. In a typical sham registration, 99.9% of the total issued and outstanding shares are offered for sale. Typically the company has a single (or possibly two) owner(s) of the control block and a single (or possibly two) person(s) serving in all officer and director roles. There are usually approximately 30 “free trading” shareholders offering to sell their shares as registered freely tradable shares, to a new group of shareholders associated with the reverse merger target. Generally, the only shares not offered in the transfer are a small number that have been deposited into DTC as part of the DTC application process.

From a legal perspective, the person(s) filing the sham registration is violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, which is the counterpart to Rule 10(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Section 17(a) prohibits, in conjunction with the offer or sale of securities: (i) the use of any device, scheme or artifice to defraud; or (ii) obtaining money or property using any untrue statement related to, or any omission of, a material fact; or (iii) engaging in any transaction, practice or course of business that would operate as a fraud or deceit on the purchaser. That is, the person(s) filing the sham registration are aware that there is no present intent to pursue the disclosed business, but rather the intent is to sell the public entity to a new business or group. In addition, the participants violate Rule 10(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act recordkeeping and internal control provisions.

Moreover, those involved would be liable for similar state securities law violations. In addition to an action by both the SEC and state regulatory agencies, the public company would be liable for civil actions against purchasers of securities. As with any securities fraud violation, egregious cases can be referred to the Department of Justice or State Attorney for criminal action.

Until now, the SEC has only taken action against the promoter, individual or group behind the sham registration and not the third-party reverse merger target, which has generally been a real business that has innocently purchased one of these public entities to be used in a reverse merger transaction. However, I believe that is about to change. These sham registration public companies are so blatant and easy to identify that a third party can no longer claim innocence in its purchase or use.

I believe the SEC is going to begin imposing trading suspensions and/or registration revocations against the public companies after a purchaser has taken over with a valid operating business. Industry insiders are aware that the SEC is taking action to prevent any active trading market from developing from these vehicles, and it is my belief that the SEC is gearing up to file an example-setting case that will include the purchaser of one of these sham public vehicles. The risk to the sham public vehicle purchaser goes beyond a trading suspension or registration revocation, and could include aiding and abetting liability for the sham registration itself.

Action to Prevent Active Trading Market

As I’ve blogged about many times, the SEC views broker-dealers as gatekeepers in the compliance with federal securities fraud. For more on this topic, see my blog HERE about the ongoing issues of depositing penny stocks with broker-dealers.

In the past few weeks, regulators have imposed a barrier to the deposit of securities purchased from a participant in a sham registration or issued by a company involved in a sham registration. Although I do not have a copy of the memo, based on a source, the SEC has provided certain penny stock broker-dealers with a memo outlining red flags indicating that a company may have been involved in a “sham registration” and warning against the deposit and offer of sale of shares issued by such company.

Sham registration red flags include:

A company formed immediately preceding filing a registration statement and commencing its public offering;

Proposed business consisting of actual activities in a described line of business, without concrete expenditures, contracts, operating assets, or other indicia of actual operations in that business;

A relatively small S-1 registered public offering—e.g., $40,000;

The registration statement prepared by legal counsel who has a history of several similar registration statements with similar business and offering profiles as set forth above;

Low costs of offering, including legal fees—e.g., $3,500 for the entire organization, audit, and SEC registration work;

Cash invested to organize and launch the offering but not enough to conduct substantial activities in the proposed business;

The entire offering sold offshore—e.g., Ukraine;

No actual business conducted after the offering to employ the offering proceeds in the proposed business;

A significant portion of the stock sold in the registered public offering sold back into the United States to U.S. residents, frequently at prices equal to, at a slight premium to, or a low multiple of the public offering price;

The terms, prices, and closing of the sale at the same terms or even closed through a common escrow stock back into the United States. The offshore “registered” stock flowing back into the US through some orchestrated mechanism (in some cases a single escrow closed simultaneously with, and contingent upon, the closing of the reverse merger) so that all or a substantial amount of the publicly sold stock passes to persons aware of or acting in concert with the group controlling the reverse merger company;

A reverse merger with an operating business in which the owners of the operating business take over management, acquire a substantial majority of the outstanding stock, and undertake only the business of the acquired enterprise, abandoning the proposed business activities initially described in the prospectus;

Without respect to when the stock was first DTC eligible, when it first obtained a trading symbol, or the date on which the public offering was completed, material public trading in the company’s securities does not commence with material volume until the reverse merger. Typically the stock sold in the offshore public offering is not traded in any public market that develops. Instead, the trading market is prepared to launch with DTC eligibility and trading symbol in place for trading to commence when the reverse merger is complete, using stock that has been acquired by US persons from the offshore initial purchasers in the registered offering; and

Stock acquired by US purchasers from the offshore investors now being presented for resale.

The SEC warns broker-dealers that even when the legitimacy of the current business is not an issue, any trading market established after a sham registration is at issue and that the fundamental free tradability of such shares is problematic. As a result, some broker-dealers are simply refusing to deposit and resell securities issued in companies with indicia of a sham registration.

Examples of SEC Enforcement Actions

On April 16, 2015, the SEC filed an action against 10 individuals involved in a scheme to manufacture at least 22 public companies without relying on Rule 419 or properly disclosing shell company status (the “McKelvey Case”). The number of provisions in which the SEC claimed violations, and therefore sought relief, included a full laundry list of any and all possible actions. The language in the McKelvey case was also much stronger than in prior actions filed by the SEC for similar violations.

On February 3, 2014, the SEC initiated administrative proceedings against 19 companies that had filed S-1 registration statements. The 19 registration statements were all filed within an approximate 2-month period around January 2013. Each of the companies claimed to be an exploration-stage entity in the mining business without known reserves, and each claimed that they had not yet begun actual mining. Each of the 19 entities used the same attorney. Each of the entities was incorporated at around the same time using the same registered agent service. Each of the 19 S-1’s read substantially the same.

Importantly, each of the 19 S-1’s lists a separate officer, director and sole shareholder, and each claims that this person is the sole control person. The SEC complains that contrary to the representations in the S-1, a separate single individual was the actual control person behind each of these 19 entities and that person is acting through straw individuals, as he is subject to a penny stock bar and other SEC injunctive orders which would prevent him from legally participating in these S-1 filings. In addition, the SEC alleges that the claims of a mining business were false. The SEC believes that the S-1’s were filed to create public companies to be used for either reverse merger transactions or worse, pump-and-dump schemes.

The SEC played hardball with this group, as well. An S-1 generally contains language that it may be amended or modified (or even withdrawn) until it is declared effective by the SEC. A pre-effective S-1 is not deemed filed by the SEC or a final prospectus for Section 5 of the Securities Act. Upon initiation of the SEC investigation, all 19 S-1 filers attempted to withdraw their S-1 registration statements. The SEC suggested that each withdraw their requests to withdraw the S-1 and cooperate fully with the investigation. The entities did not comply. Accordingly, in addition to claims related to the filing of false statements in the S-1, the SEC has also alleged that “Respondent’s seeking to withdraw its Registration Statement constitutes a failure to cooperate with, refusal to permit, and obstruction of the staff’s examination under Section 8(e) of the Securities Act.”

Separately on January 15, 2015, the SEC filed an action against the individual behind each of the sham registrations, the attorney and the auditing firm for “a scheme to create sham public shell companies.”

Sham registrations are not new, just more prevalent. In September 2012, the SEC filed an action against a group of promoters for creating 15 sham public companies. One-off actions are consistently being filed, as well.

Rule 419 and Blank Check Companies

The provisions of Rule 419 apply to every registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by a blank check company. Rule 419 requires that the blank check company filing such registration statement deposit the securities being offered and proceeds of the offering into an escrow or trust account pending the execution of an agreement for an acquisition or merger.

In addition, the registrant is required to file a post-effective amendment to the registration statement containing the same information as found in a Form 10 registration statement, upon the execution of an agreement for such acquisition or merger. The rule provides procedures for the release of the offering funds in conjunction with the post-effective acquisition or merger. The obligations to file post-effective amendments are in addition to the obligations to file Forms 8-K to report both the entry into a material non-ordinary course agreement and the completion of the transaction. Rule 419 applies to both primary and resale or secondary offerings.

Within five (5) days of filing a post-effective amendment setting forth the proposed terms of an acquisition, the company must notify each investor whose shares are in escrow. Each investor then has no fewer than 20 and no greater than 45 business days to notify the company in writing if they elect to remain an investor. A failure to reply indicates that the person has elected not to remain an investor. As all investors are allotted this second opportunity to determine to remain an investor, acquisition agreements should be conditioned upon enough funds remaining in escrow to close the transaction.

The definition of “blank check company” as set forth in Rule 419 of the Securities Act is a company that:

Is a development-stage company that has no specific business plan or purpose or has indicated that its business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies, or other entity or person; and

Is issuing “penny stock,” as defined in Rule 3a51-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Shell Companies

The definition of “shell company” as set forth in Rule 405 of the Securities Act (and Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) means a company that has:

No or nominal operations; and

Either:

No or nominal assets;

Assets consisting solely of cash and cash equivalents; or

Assets consisting of any amount of cash and cash equivalents and nominal other assets.

Clearly the definitions are different. Although a shell company could also be a blank check company, it could be a development-stage company or start-up organization or an entity with a specific business plan but nominal operations. Until recently, however, the SEC has firmly held the position that Rule 419 applies equally to shell and development-stage companies.

In fact, the SEC Staff Observations in the Review of Smaller Reporting Company IPO’s published by the SEC Division of Corporate Finance contain the following comments:

“Rule 419 applies to any registered offering of securities of a blank check company where the securities fall within the definition of a penny stock under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. We frequently reviewed registration statements of recently established development stage companies with a history of losses and an expectation of continuing losses and limited operations. These companies often stated that they may expand current operations through acquisitions of other businesses without specifying what kind of business or what kind of company. In other cases, the stage of a company’s development, when considered in relation to the surrounding facts and circumstances, may raise questions regarding the company’s disclosed business plan. We generally asked companies like these to review Rule 419 of Regulation C. We asked these companies either to revise their disclosure throughout the registration statement to comply with the disclosure and procedural requirements of Rule 419 or to provide us with an explanation of why Rule 419 did not apply.”

The SEC will now allow a shell company, as long as it is not also a blank check company, to embark on an offering using an S-1 registration statement without the necessity to comply with Rule 419. As noted above, an entity can be a shell company, but not a blank check company, as long as it has a specific business purpose and plan and is taking steps to move that plan forward, such as a start-up or development-stage entity.

Conclusion

I regularly caution reverse merger clients against companies that appear in violation of footnote 32 or appear to have originated via a sham registration. However, I continue to believe in reverse merger transactions, DPO’s for legitimate companies in all stages of their development and the overall small business public marketplace.

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com

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 and Google Play.

« Finders- The Facts Related To Broker-Dealer Registration Requirements Mergers And Acquisitions – The Merger Transaction »

Finders- The Facts Related To Broker-Dealer Registration Requirements

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | August 21, 2015 Tags: broker-dealer registration statements, Finders fees, Florida Corporate Statutes

Introduction

As a recurring topic, I discuss exemptions to the broker-dealer registration requirements for entities and individuals that assist companies in fundraising and related services. I have previously discussed the no-action-letter-based exemption for M&A brokers, the exemptions for websites restricted to accredited investors and for crowdfunding portals as part of the JOBS Act and the statutory exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements found in Securities Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1, including for officers, directors and key employees of an issuer. I have also previously published a blog on the American Bar Association’s recommendations for the codification of an exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements for private placement finders. I’ve included links to each of these prior articles in the conclusion to this blog.

A related topic with a parallel analysis is the use of finders for investors and investor groups, an activity which has become prevalent in today’s marketplace. In that case the investor group utilizes the services of a finder to solicit issuers to sell securities (generally convertible notes) to the investment group. These finders may also solicit current shareholders or convertible note holders to sell such holdings to a new investor or investor group.

Most if not all small and emerging companies are in need of capital but are often too small or premature in their business development to attract the assistance of a banker or broker-dealer. In addition to regulatory and liability concerns, the amount of a capital raise by small and emerging companies is often small (less than $5 million) and accordingly, the potential commission for a broker-dealer is limited. Most small and middle market bankers have base-level criteria for acting as a placement agent in a deal, which includes the minimum amount of commission they would need to collect to become engaged.

Effective on July 1, 2013, FINRA updated the private placement form that firms must file with FINRA when acting as a placement agent for the private placement of securities. The updated form drills down on due diligence conducted by the firm in an effort to ensure heightened compliance procedures related to acting as a placement agent for private offerings. This information requirement adds a level of complexity and possible deterrent to broker-dealers when considering acting as a placement agent for a small private offering.

Effective August 24, 2015, FINRA has updated Rule 2040 “Payments to Unregistered Persons” governing the payment of transaction-based compensation by member firms to unregistered persons. FINRA Rule 2040 expressly correlates with Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) as described below and prohibits the payment of transaction-related compensation unless a person is licensed or properly exempt from such licensing.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act has potentially increased liability for secondary participants through two provisions. These two provisions, which added Sections 9(a)(4) and 9(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, dramatically change the liability exposure of intermediaries in the sale of securities, such as broker-dealers. In particular, Section 9(a)(4) of the 1934 Act makes it unlawful for any broker, dealer or other person selling or offering to sell (or purchasing or offering to purchase) any security other than a government security, “to make. . . for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security, . . . any statement which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made, false or misleading with respect to any material fact, and which that person knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading.” Previously, Section 9 of the 1934 Act applied only to securities traded on an exchange. Now it applies to any securities, excluding government securities—another change that was part of the Dodd-Frank Act. In other words, a broker-dealer can be liable for untrue statements or omissions in offering documents, including private placements and offering advertisements. Dodd-Frank also added Section 9(f) to the 1934 Act, which says that anyone who “willingly participates” in an act or transaction in violation of Section 9(a) above is liable to the person who bought the security.

FINRA scrutiny, together with the potential liability, have acted as a disincentive to broker-dealers to assist small companies in capital-raising efforts. Although the ability to advertise under 506(c) and the rise of 506(c) funding web portals has helped improve the private placement market somewhat, on a practical level, the assistance of finders often marks the difference between a successful or failed offering by a small or emerging company.

The SEC and state regulators recognize this reality and continue to explore the topic. FINRA had proposed rules for a Limited Corporate Financing Broker which would offer a license for private placement finders that do not engage in full broker-dealer services such as managing retail accounts. The proposed rule as written met with opposition as being too similar to full registration and too arduous with ongoing requirements. The comment period on the proposed rule expired April 28, 2014 without further action.

At their June 3, 2015 meeting, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) explored the topic of “finders,” including listening to a presentation by a firm on the subject.

Current Rules on Finder’s Fees

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) generally prohibits the payments of commissions or other transaction-based compensation to individuals or entities that assist in effecting transactions in securities, including a capital raise, unless that entity is a licensed broker-dealer. The SEC considers the registration of broker-dealers as vital to protecting prospective purchasers of securities and the marketplace as a whole and actively pursues and prosecutes unlicensed activity. The registration process is arduous, including, for example, background checks, fingerprinting of personnel, minimum financial requirements, membership to SRO’s and ongoing regulatory and compliance requirements.

Over the years, a “finder’s” exemption has been fleshed out, mainly through SEC no-action letters and some court opinions. Bottom line, an individual or entity can collect compensation for acting as a finder as long as the finder’s role is limited to making an introduction. The mere providing of names or an introduction without more has consistently been upheld as falling outside of the registration requirements. The less contact with the potential investor, the more likely the finder is not required to be licensed.

The finder may not participate in negotiations, structuring or document preparation or execution. Moreover, if such finder is “engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities,” they must be licensed. In most instances, a person that acts as a finder on multiple occasions will be deemed to be engaged in the business of effecting securities transactions, and needs to be licensed.

The SEC will also consider the compensation arrangement with transaction or success-based compensation weighing in favor of requiring registration. The compensation arrangement is often argued as the gating or deciding factor, with many commentators expressing that any success-based compensation requires registration. The reasoning is that transaction-based compensation encourages high-pressure sales tactics and other problematic behavior. However, the SEC itself has issued no-action letters supporting a finder where the fee was based on a percentage of the amount invested by the referred people (see Moana/Kauai Corp., SEC No-Action Letter, 1974).

More recently, the U.S. District court for the Middle District of Florida in SEC vs. Kramer found that compensation is just one of the many factual considerations and should not be given any “particular heavy emphasis” nor in itself result in a “significant indication of a person being engaged in the business of a broker.”

Where a person acts as a “consultant” providing such services as advising on offering structure, market and financial analysis, holding meetings with broker-dealers, preparing or supervising the preparation of business plans or offering documents, the SEC has consistently taken the position that registration is required if such consultant’s compensation is commission-, success- or transaction-based.

As pertains to finders that act on behalf of investors and investor groups, there is a lack of meaningful guidance. On a few occasions, the SEC has either denied no-action relief or concluded registration was required. However, the same basic principles apply, and it is my belief that as long as the finders limit their activity to providing names and/or introductions, without more, they are exempt from registration.

The federal laws related to broker-dealer registration do not pre-empt state law. Accordingly, a broker-dealer must be licensed by both the SEC and each state in which they conduct business. Likewise, an unlicensed individual relying on an exemption from broker-dealer registration, such as a finder, must assure themselves of the availability of both a federal and state exemption for their activities.

The Exchange Act – Broker-Dealer Registration Requirement

Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act requires any “broker” that makes use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to effect any transactions in, or to induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of, any security (other than an exempted security) to register with the Commission.

The text of Section 15(a)(1) – Registration of all persons utilizing exchange facilities to effect transactions is as follows:

(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any broker or dealer which is either a person other than a natural person or a natural person not associated with a broker or dealer which is a person other than a natural person (other than such a broker or dealer whose business is exclusively intrastate and who does not make use of any facility of a national securities exchange) to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to effect any transactions in, or to induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of, any security (other than an exempted security or commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, or commercial bills) unless such broker or dealer is registered in accordance with subsection (b) of this section.

Section 3(a)(4)(A) of the Exchange Act defines a “broker” as “any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others.”

From a legal perspective, determining whether a person must be registered requires an analysis of what it means to “effect any transactions in” and to “induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of any security.” It is precisely these two phrases that courts and commentators have attempted to flush out, with inconsistent and uncertain results. As a securities attorney, I always advise to err on the conservative side where the activity is at all questionable.

FINRA Rule 2040

Rule 2040 prohibits member firms from directly or indirectly paying any compensation, fees, concessions, discounts or commissions to:

(1) any person that is not registered as a broker-dealer under SEA Section 15(a) but, by reason of receipt of any such payments and the activities related thereto, is required to be so registered under applicable federal securities laws and SEA rules and regulations; or

(2) any appropriately registered associated person, unless such payment complies with all applicable federal securities laws, FINRA rules and SEA rules and regulations.

FINRA guidance on the Rule states that a member firm can (i) rely on published releases, no-action letters or interpretations from the SEC staff; (ii) seek SEC no-action relief; or (iii) obtain a legal opinion from an independent, reputable U.S. licensed attorney knowledgeable in the area. This list is not exclusive and FINRA specifically indicates that member firms can take any other reasonable inquiry or action in determining whether a transaction fee can be paid to an unlicensed person.

FINRA Rule 2040 specifically allows the payments of finder’s fees to unregistered foreign finders where the finder’s sole involvement is the initial referral to the member firm of non-U.S. customers and certain conditions are met, including but not limited to that (i) the person is not otherwise required to be registered as a broker-dealer in the U.S.; (ii) the compensation does not violate foreign law; (iii) the finder is a foreign national domiciled abroad; (iv) the customers are foreign nationals domiciled abroad; (v) the payment of the finder’s fee is disclosed to the customer; (vi) the customers provide written acknowledgment of receipt of the notice related to the payment of the fee; (vii) proper records regarding the payments are maintained; and (viii) each transaction confirm indicates that the finder’s fee is being paid.

SEC Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration

Periodically, and most recently in April 2008, the SEC updates its Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration explaining in detail the rules and regulations regarding the requirement that individuals and entities that engage in raising money for companies must be licensed by the SEC as broker-dealers. On a daily basis, hundreds if not thousands of individuals and entities offer to raise money for companies as “finders” in return for a “finder’s fee.” Other than as narrowly set forth above, such agreements and transactions are prohibited and carry regulatory penalties for both the company utilizing the finder’s services, and the finders.

Each of the following individuals and businesses is required to be registered as a broker if they are receiving transaction-based compensation (i.e., a commission):

“finders,” “business brokers,” and other individuals or entities that engage in the following activities:

Finding investors or customers for, making referrals to, or splitting commissions with registered broker-dealers, investment companies (or mutual funds, including hedge funds) or other securities intermediaries;

Finding investment banking clients for registered broker-dealers;

Finding investors for “issuers” (entities issuing securities), even in a “consultant” capacity;

Engaging in, or finding investors for, venture capital or “angel” financings, including private placements;

Finding buyers and sellers of businesses (i.e., activities relating to mergers and acquisitions where securities are involved);

investment advisers and financial consultants;

persons that market real estate investment interests, such as tenancy-in-common interests, that are securities;

persons that act as “placement agents” for private placements of securities;

persons that effect securities transactions for the account of others for a fee, even when those other people are friends or family members;

persons that provide support services to registered broker-dealers; and

persons that act as “independent contractors,” but are not “associated persons” of a broker-dealer (for information on “associated persons,” see below).

SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies is Exploring the Topic

At the June 3, 2015, meeting of the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”), the Advisory Committee explored the topic of “finders” including listening to a presentation by Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick (“SLK”) on the topic. I am hopeful that they will continue to investigate this important area affecting small and emerging growth companies and fashion a recommendation to the SEC.

The presentation to the Advisory Committee began with basic background on the importance of small and emerging companies to the U.S. economy and the facts related to reliance on private and exempt offerings of securities to fund these enterprises. SLK, citing a 2012 report by Vlad Ivanov and Scott Bauguess, notes that in 2011 the estimated amount of private capital raises in Regulation D exempt offerings was more than $1 trillion, about equal to the amount raised in public offerings in the same year. Citing a presentation by Rachita Gullapalli to the Advisory Committee on December 17, 2014, SLK states that in the 12-month period from September 23, 2013 (the day 506(c) was enacted into law) through September 22, 2014, there were nearly 15,000 new Regulation D offerings, 99% of which were completed under Rule 506. Citing a white paper available on the SEC website, SLK notes that only 13% of Regulation D offerings between 2009 and 2012 reported using a financial intermediary such as a broker-dealer or finder.

The presentation continued with a recitation of the current state of the law and historical efforts for change, including the American Bar Association’s position and efforts and M&A transaction carve-out, both of which I had previously written about.

SLK concluded with a recommendation for statutory exemption for private placement finders. SLK recommends, and I agree, that the exemption should be self-executing and include appropriate restrictions, including bad actor prohibitions.

State Law; The Florida Trap

Florida, however, gives us a reminder of the necessity to be extremely careful and mindful of state law ramifications. Florida Statute §475.41 specifically states that a contract by an unlicensed broker to sell or to negotiate the purchase or sale of a business for compensation is invalid and in particular:

No contract for a commission or compensation for any act or service enumerated in §475.01(3) is valid unless the broker or sales associate has complied with this chapter in regards to issuance and renewal of the license at the time the act or service was performed.

Fla. Stat.§475.01(3) defines “operating” as a broker as meaning “the commission of one or more acts described in this chapter as operating as a broker.” “Broker” is defined broadly in Fla. Stat.§475.01(1)(a) and includes, among other things:

… a person who, for another, and for compensation or valuable consideration directly or indirectly paid or promised, expressly or impliedly, or with an intent to collect or receive compensation or valuable consideration therefore… sells… or negotiate[s] the sale, exchange, purchase, or rental of business enterprises or business opportunities… or who advertises or holds out to the public by any oral or printed solicitation or representation that she or he is engaged in the business of appraising, auctioning, buying, selling, exchanging, leasing or renting business enterprises or business opportunities… or who directs or assists in the procuring of prospects or negotiation or closing of any transaction which does, or is calculated to, result in a sale, exchange, or leasing thereof, and who receives, expects, or is promised any compensation or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly… (emphasis added)

Relying on these provisions, Florida courts and arbitration panels have found consulting and finder arrangements related to mergers and acquisitions and other corporate finance transactions that would otherwise not require federal broker-dealer registration, to be unlawful.

In addition to the conflict with federal law, the Florida statute is particularly troubling for practitioners as it is not included in the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act found in chapter 517 of Florida Statutes. Florida Statute §517.12 is the state equivalent to Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act requiring broker-dealer registration. Like the Exchange Act, §517.12 requires registration as a broker or dealer for the sale or offer of any securities.

Section 475, on the other hand, is the Florida statute governing “Real Estate Brokers, Sales Associates, Schools and Appraisers.” Section 517 gives no reference to Section 475 and vice versa. Other than through research of case law, a practitioner would have no reason to research laws governing real estate transactions in association with business mergers and acquisitions and the payment of related finders’ fees.

The Florida provisions remind us of the complexities associated with providing advice and guidance to clients related to the payment of finders’ fees, and the necessity to seek competent legal counsel before agreeing to pay, or accept, such a fee.

Consequences for Violation

Other than the discussion above related to Florida law, I am not addressing the varied state law consequences in this blog.

The SEC is authorized to seek civil penalties and injunctions for violations of the broker-dealer registration requirements. Egregious violations can be referred to the attorney general or Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

In addition to potential regulatory problems, using an unregistered person who does not qualify for either the statutory or another exemption to assist with the sale of securities may create a right of rescission in favor of the purchasers of those securities. That is a fancy way of saying they may ask for and receive their money back.

Section 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), provides in pertinent part:

Every contract made in violation of any provision of this title or of any rule or regulation thereunder… the performance of which involves the violation of, or the continuance of any relationship or practice in violation of, any provision of this title or any rule or regulation thereunder, shall be void (1) as regards the rights of any person who, in violation of any such provision, rule or regulation, shall have made or engaged in the performance of any such contract…

In addition to providing a defense by the issuing company to paying the unlicensed person, the language can be interpreted as voiding the contract for the sale of the securities to investors introduced by the finder. The SEC interprets its rules and regulations very broadly, and accordingly so do the courts and state regulators. Under federal law the rescission right can be exercised until the later of three years from the date of issuance of the securities or one year from the date of discovery of the violation. Accordingly, for a period of at least three years, an issuer that has utilized an unlicensed finder has a contingent liability on their books and as a disclosure item. The existence of this liability can deter potential investors and underwriters and create issues in any going public transaction.

In addition, SEC laws specifically require the disclosure of compensation and fees paid in connection with a capital raise. A failure to make such disclosure and to make it clearly and concisely is considered fraud under Section 10b-5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (see, for example, SEC vs. W.P. Carey & Co., SEC Litigation Release No. 20501). Fraud claims are generally brought against the issuing company and its participating officers and directors.

Moreover, most underwriters and serious investors require legal opinion letters at closing, in which the attorney for the company opines that all previously issued securities were issued legally and in accordance with state and federal securities laws and regulations. Obviously an attorney will not be able to issue such an opinion following the use of an unlicensed or non-exempted person. In addition to the legal ramifications themselves and even with full disclosure and the time for liability having passed, broker-dealers and underwriters may shy away from engaging in business transactions with an issuer with a history of overlooking or circumventing securities laws.

Historically, it was the person who had acted in an unlicensed capacity who faced the greatest regulatory liability; however, in the past ten years that has changed. The SEC now prosecutes issuers under Section 20(e) for aiding and abetting violations. The SEC has found it more effective and a better deterrent to prosecute the issuing company than an unlicensed person who is here today and gone tomorrow.

The violations often go beyond the unlicensed broker-dealer issue. Persons who do not comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements for assisting in fundraising generally engage in inappropriate solicitation of investors, generous representations and the like in efforts to raise money and earn a commission and therefore face claims for securities fraud.

Conclusion

The payment of finder’s fees is a complex topic requiring careful legal analysis on a case-by-case and state-by-state basis. No agreements for the payment or receipt of such fees should be entered into or performed without seeking the advice of competent legal counsel.

For reference, prior blogs on the topic of the broker-dealer registration requirements include (i) the no-action-letter-based exemption for M&A brokers http://securities-law-blog.com/2014/02/18/broker-dealer/ (ii) the exemptions for websites restricted to accredited investors and for crowdfunding portals as part of the JOBS Act http://securities-law-blog.com/2014/07/07/broker-dealer-exemption-funding-websites-including-case-study/; (iii) the statutory exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements found in Securities Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1, including for officers, directors and key employees of an issuer http://securities-law-blog.com/2014/05/20/broker-dealer-registration-requirements/; and (iv) the American Bar Association’s recommendations for the codification of an exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements for private placement finders http://securities-law-blog.com/2013/01/03/the-aba-pushes-to-allow-for-the-payment-of-finders-fees/.

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com

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.

« Delaware General Corporate Law Amended to Prohibit Fee-Shifting Clauses; Permit Forum Selection Provisions SEC Footnote 32 and Sham S-1 Registration Statements »

SEC Proposed Executive Compensation Clawback Rules

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | August 3, 2015

On July 1, 2015 , the SEC published the anticipated executive compensation clawback rules (“Clawback Rules”). The rules are in the comment period and will not be effective until the SEC publishes final rules. The proposed rules require national exchanges to enact rules and listing standards requiring exchange listed companies to adopt and enforce policies requiring the clawback of certain incentive-based compensation from current and former executive officers in the event of an accounting restatement.

In particular, the proposed rules implement Section 10D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) and as added by Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). Section 10D requires the SEC to adopt rules directing national exchanges to prohibit the listing of any security of an issuer that is not in compliance with Section 10D’s requirements for (i) disclosure of the company’s policy on incentive-based compensation that is based on financial statement results and (ii) recovery of incentive-based compensation in the event of an accounting restatement due to the company’s material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement and which recovery is in an amount that is the excess between the compensation paid and what would have been received under the restated financial statements, without regard to any taxes paid.

In other words, the Clawback Rules require the recovery of executive compensation following an accounting restatement, which compensation would not have been paid under the restated financial statements. Indemnification or insurance reimbursement would be prohibited.

There are currently existing rules which require the recovery of executive compensation and disclosure of such policies. In particular, Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) requires the CEO and CFO to reimburse the company for any bonus or other incentive-based or equity compensation for the prior 12 months, and any profits received from the sale of securities in that time period, if a company is required to prepare a restatement as a result of the misconduct related to financial reporting. The Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) required by Item 402(b) requires an explanation of “all material elements of the registrant’s compensation of the named executive officers” and requires general discussions of performance including disclosure of any bonus structures and performance-based compensation and company policies and decisions regarding the adjustment or recovery of awards and payments to such named executive officers.

In addition to requiring companies to adopt written policies and procedures and to disclose same, the new Clawback Rules remove fault from the consideration of recovery, broaden the effected executives to include all named executive officers and extend the existing look-back period.

Definition of Incentive-Based Compensation

“Incentive-based compensation” would be defined as any compensation that is granted, earned or vested based wholly or in part upon the attainment of a financial reporting measure, which includes measures presented in an issuer’s financial statements, as well as stock price and total shareholder return. Salaries and bonuses not tied to financial performance are not included in the recovery rules.

The Clawback Rules require the recovery of “incentive-based compensation (including stock options awarded as compensation)” that is received, based on the erroneous data, in “excess of what would have been paid to the executive officer under the accounting restatement.” The amounts recovered are determined without regard to any taxes paid.

Issuers and Securities Subject to the Clawback Rules

The Clawback Rules apply to all listed issuers and all securities, with limited exceptions. The proposed rules’ limited exemptions include security future products, standardized options and the securities of certain registered investment companies.

Restatements Triggering Application of Recovery Policy

The Clawback Rules require issuers to adopt and comply with policies that require recovery “in the event that the issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance of the issuer with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws.” The SEC includes any error that is material to the financial statements as “material noncompliance”. Accordingly, the Clawback Rules provide that issuers adopt and comply with a written policy providing that in the event the issuer is required to prepare a restatement to correct an error that is material to previously issued financial statements, the obligation to prepare the restatement would trigger application of the recovery policy.

The SEC clarifies that the following changes to financial statements would not trigger the recovery policy: (i) the retrospective application of a change in accounting policy; (ii) retrospective revision to a reportable division due to a company’s internal reorganization; (iii) retrospective reclassification due to a discontinued operation; (iv) retrospective application of a change in reporting entity such as from a reorganization or change in control; (v) retrospective adjustment to provisional amounts in connection with a prior business combination; or (vi) retrospective revision for stock splits.

Applicable Date and Time Period

The Clawback Rules would require the recovery of incentive-based compensation during the three fiscal years preceding the date on which the company is required to prepare an accounting restatement. The date on which the company is required to prepare an accounting restatement is the earlier of (i) the date the board of directors or officers of the company, if board authorization is not required, conclude that the company’s previously issued financial statements contain a material error; or (ii) the date a court, regulator or other legally authorized body directs the company to restate its previously issued financial statements to correct a material error.

Executive Officers Subject to Recovery Policy

The SEC has proposed a broad definition for “executive officers” subject to clawback that is modeled after the definition used in the regulations implementing the short-swing profit rules set forth in Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. “Executive officers” subject to the Clawback Rules would include a listed company’s president, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer, any vice president in charge of a principal business unit, division or function, and any other person who performs a policy making function for the company, and would apply to both current and former executive officers during the three years preceding the date of the required restatement.

Determination of Recovery Obligation

The Clawback Rules require the recovery of executive compensation following an accounting restatement, which compensation would not have been paid under the restated financial statements. Indemnification or insurance reimbursement would be prohibited. The recovery, as proposed, is bright line and not based on “fault” or other subjective measures. Executive officers would be required to return incentive-based compensation regardless of misconduct or responsibility for the accounting errors. Indemnification or insurance reimbursement would be prohibited.

Board Discretion Regarding Whether to Seek Recovery

The Clawback Rules as proposed allow a board of directors’ discretion to determine not to pursue recovery in certain instances, such as when it would be impracticable or impose undue costs on the company or its shareholders or would violate home country law.

Disclosure Requirements

A company listed on any national exchange is required to file its clawback policy as an exhibit to its annual report on Form 10-K. Moreover, in the event of a restatement and necessary clawback efforts, the company must disclose its recovery efforts in its proxy statement, including the aggregate dollar amount of excess incentive-based compensation attributable to the restatement and the aggregate dollar amount of incentive-based compensation that remained outstanding at the end of the last completed fiscal year. Both Form 10-K and Schedule 14A will be amended to include the disclosure and exhibit requirements.

Compliance with Recovery Policy

Under the proposed Clawback Rules, a company would be subject to delisting if it does not (i) adopt a compensation recovery policy that complies with the rules; (ii) disclose the policy in accordance with the rules, including XBRL tagging; and (iii) comply with its written compensation recovery policy.

Transition and Timing

The Clawback Rules would require that each national exchange propose new listing standards implementing the rules no later than 90 days following SEC publication of final rules; that such standards take effect no later than one year following SEC publication of final rules; and that each company adopt the recovery policy required by the rules no later than 60 days following the date on which the exchanges’ rules become effective.

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com

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.

« OTC Markets Comments on Proposed SEC Rules Regarding Amendments to Regulation D, Form D and Rule 156 Delaware General Corporate Law Amended to Prohibit Fee-Shifting Clauses; Permit Forum Selection Provisions »