Change in NYSE and AMEX Listing Requirements For Companies Completing Reverse Mergers with Public Shell Companies
On November 8, 2011 the SEC granted an accelerated approval to a proposed rule change initiated by the NYSE AMEX, whereby the NYSE AMEX amended its rules so that a Company that goes public via a reverse merger with a shell company, must wait at least one year to apply for listing on the NYSE exchange. The NASDAQ exchange proposed, and presumably will have approved, a substantially similar rule. The complete rule change is available on the SEC website.
In response to recent reverse merger abuses, primarily involving accounting fraud related to Chinese company reverse mergers, in July, 2011, the NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ exchanges proposed more stringent listing requirements for companies seeking to become listed following a reverse merger with a shell company. The rule change prohibits a reverse merger company from applying to list until the combined entity had traded in the U.S. over the counter market, on another national securities exchange, or on a regulated foreign exchange, for at least one year following the filing of all required information about the reverse merger transaction, including audited financial statements. In addition, new rules require that the new reverse merger company has filed all its required reports for the one year period, including at least one annual report.
In addition, the new rule requires that the reverse merger company “maintain a closing stock price equal to the stock price requirement applicable to the initial listing standard under which the reverse merger company is qualifying to list for a sustained period of time, but in no event for less than 30 of the most recent 60 trading days prior to the filing of the initial listing application.”
The rule includes some exceptions for companies that complete a firm commitment offering resulting in net proceeds of at least $40 million dollars.
In addition to the specific additional listing requirements contained in the new rule, the Exchange may “in its discretion impose more stringent requirements than those set forth above if the Exchange believes it is warranted in the case of a particular reverse merger company based on, among other things, an inactive trading market in the reverse merger company’s securities, the existence of a low number of publicly held shares that are not subject to transfer restrictions, if the reverse merger company has not had a Securities Act registration statement or other filing subjected to a comprehensive review by the SEC, or if the reverse merger company has disclosed that it has material weaknesses in its internal controls which have been identified by management and/or the reverse merger company’s independent auditor and has not yet implemented an appropriate corrective action plan.”
In discussing and approving the new rules the SEC noted that the listing standards “provide the means for an exchange to screen issuers that seek to become listed, and to provide listed status only to those that are bona fide companies with sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest likely to generate depth and liquidity sufficient to promote fair and orderly markets.”
Theoretically, making it more difficult and expensive for reverse merger Companies to list on a major exchange will result in a massive resurgence of issuers seeking to trade on the OTCBB (OTCQB). When all is said and done, and no one has a crystal ball, the OTCBB and OTCQB may be the new home for even larger more established reverse merger companies simply because they are required to trade as such for twelve months before graduating to a larger exchange or because they fall short of listing requirements by so much as a single criteria.
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Rule 144 Seller’s Representation Letter Small-Cap Reverse Mergers Poised for a Comeback »
Rule 144 Seller’s Representation Letter
Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) Rule 144 sets forth certain requirements for the use of Section 4(1) for the resale of securities. Section 4(1) of the Securities Act provides an exemption for a transaction “by a person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.” “Issuer” and “dealer” have pretty straight forward meanings under the Securities Act but the term “underwriter” does not. Rule 144 provides a safe harbor from the definition of “underwriter”. If all the requirements for Rule 144 are met, the seller will not be deemed an underwriter and the purchaser will receive unrestricted securities.
Following the amendments to Rule 144 in 2008, a shareholder cannot simply have a legend removed from restricted shares following the holding period, but rather, must have a present intent to sell in order to have a legend removed. Moreover, following the revisions in 2008, Rule 144 is not available to shell companies, or former shell companies that are not current in their Exchange Act filing requirements. The requirements of Rule 144 must exist as of the date of sale.
Although not set out in the statute, all transfer agents and Issuers, and most clearing and brokerage firms, require an opinion of counsel as to the application of Rule 144 prior to removing the legend from securities and allowing their sale under Rule 144. An opinion letter is generally valid for ninety (90) days from the date of issuance. Accordingly, an attorney may issue an opinion and a transfer agent act to remove a restrictive legend, following which, the requirements of Rule 144 may no longer be valid (such as if a former shell company fails to file its quarterly report or ceases operations and becomes a shell, etc..)
In other words, attorneys, transfer agents and brokers must be certain that all of the conditions of Rule 144 are met prior to taking action to remove a restrictive legend, but only the Seller can ensure that all the conditions are present at the actual time of sale. In order to protect themselves in issuing opinion letters and removing legends, transfer agents and most attorneys now require a letter from the Seller making certain representations and affirmations regarding their eligibility to rely on Rule 144 in the sale of their securities. This letter is commonly referred to as a Seller’s Representation Letter.
The affirmations commonly required and contained in the Seller’s Representation Letter, are:
1. The Seller is the beneficial owner of the subject securities;
2. The Seller has been the beneficial owner of the subject securities for the required holding period (the holding period varies from six months to one year depending on whether the Issuing Company is subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended);
3. Confirmation that the Seller is not an affiliate of the Issuing Company and has not been an affiliate for at least 3 months, or that the Seller is an affiliate and is therefore subject to the Rule 144 volume restrictions on sales (drip rules);
4. Confirmation that the Seller is not an underwriter and is not selling the securities for the purpose of making a distribution for or on behalf of the Issuer;
5. Confirmation that the Seller is selling for his/her own account and not for the benefit of a third party, or the Issuer; and
6. Confirmation that the Seller is aware of the Rule 144 requirements and will sell only in accordance with such requirements, including the manner of sale requirements (through a broker).
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« SEC Staff Review of Super 8-K’s Change in NYSE and AMEX Listing Requirements For Companies Completing Reverse Mergers with Public Shell Companies »
SEC Staff Review of Super 8-K’s
On September 14, 2011 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Division of Corporate Finance issued disclosure guidance entitled “Staff Observations in the Review of Forms 8-K Filed to Report Reverse Mergers and Similar Transactions.” This blog is a summary of that guidance.
The SEC guidance is a summary of common SEC staff comments in response to Form 8-Ks filed following a reverse merger or similar transaction which results in a company ceasing to be a shell company (commonly referred to as a Super 8-K ). The SEC has discovered that filings often fail to provide all the necessary disclosures under Items 2.01, 5.01 and 9.01 of Form 8-K. Moreover, the SEC frequently asks companies to support their conclusion that they are not a shell company as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Item 2.01 of Form 8-K entitled, Completion of Acquisition or Disposition of Assets, generally requires a company to provide information following a transaction that is outside the ordinary course of business. The SEC reminds companies that an asset acquisition can result in a company no longer being a shell company in the same way that a business acquisition can. In the event that the asset acquisition results in the Company no longer being a shell company, all information required in a Form 10 Registration Statement, must be filed in a Super 8-K within four (4) days of the closing of the transaction. The SEC disclosure guidance states that “we frequently remind companies that Instruction 2 to Item 2.01 makes clear that the term “acquisition” includes every purchase, acquisition by lease, exchange, merger, consolidation, succession or other acquisition”. Moreover, when a company’s reverse merger or similar transaction includes an asset acquisition as defined in Item 2, then an Item 2.01 disclosure is also required.
Item 5.01 requires disclosures regarding a change of control. The SEC frequently reminds filers that they must include all the disclosures required by this Item when filing a Super 8-K.
Item 9.01 is the Financial Statements and Exhibits section of the Form 8-K. The SEC frequently reminds filers that they must include historical financial statements of the acquired private operating business. In particular, the Form 8-K must include two years of audited financial statements and unaudited, reviewed stub periods to the date of filing. In addition, a Company must include pro forma financial information accounting for the combined companies.
Furthermore, in addition to filing Form 10 information on the acquired company, a company must file Form 10 exhibits on the acquired company, such as significant contracts. If these documents are not in English (as is often seen with Chinese companies and corresponding reverse mergers), the exhibits must also include a translation into English.
The SEC also provided guidance on the Form 10 information disclosure required by a Super 8-K. The SEC indicated that it often requests that a filer enhance its discussion of its business operations under Item 101 of Regulation S-K to include additional information about the planned future operations of the now non-shell Company. In particular, the SEC likes to see clear disclosure on how a company generates or intends to generate revenue.
In a company’s management discussion and analysis provided pursuant to Item 3.03, the SEC often asks companies to identify any elements of historical income or loss that will discontinue as a result of the reverse merger or similar transaction.
In its discussion of directors and executive officers, the SEC often has to remind companies to include all of the information required on the new officers and directors and to discuss their respective experiences, qualifications, attributes and skills that resulted in them being in an executive position.
Finally, the SEC often issues comments requesting more extensive and detailed disclosure on executive compensation and related party transactions following a reverse merger or similar transaction.
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation (MD&A) Rule 144 Seller’s Representation Letter »
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation (MD&A)
Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operation, commonly referred to as MD&A is an integral parts of annual (Form 10-K) and quarterly (Form 10-Q) reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). MD&A is also included in registration statements filed under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Form 10) and Securities Act of 1933 (Form S-1). MD&A requires the most input and effort from officers and directors of a company and due to the many components of required information, often generates SEC review and comments. Item 303 of Regulation S-K sets forth the required content for MD&A.
A MD&A discussion for quarterly reports on Form 10-Q is abbreviated from the requirements for annual reports on Form 10-K and registration statements. Although quarterly reports must discuss each item enumerated below the discussion is expected to be more focused concentrating on the most relevant and material items. In addition, as with my other blogs, this discussion will be limited to the requirements for small public companies (i.e. those with revenues of less than $75 million).
The SEC has issued guidance and interpretation on MD&A, which is helpful in understanding its required content. Pursuant to the SEC, MD&A has three primary purposes. These are:
• to provide a narrative explanation of a company’s financial statements that enables investors to see the company through the eyes of management;
• to enhance the overall financial disclosure and provide the context within which financial information should be analyzed; and
• to provide information about the quality of, and potential variability of, a company’s earnings and cash flow, so that investors can ascertain the likelihood that past performance is indicative of future performance.
Management, and company counsel, should keep these purposes in mind in drafting and finalizing MD&A. The content should not be overly technical, but neither should it be a forum for marketing content. Now, onto the specific MD&A requirements as set forth in Item 303 of Regulation S-K.
In each annual report on Form 10-K, and registration statements on either Forms 10 or S-1, a company must discuss its financial condition, changes in financial condition and results of operations. In addition to the four areas of discussion listed below, a company must include any other relevant information within its knowledge, which information provides a better or more complete understanding of their finances and financial condition. The four areas of financial discussion include:
A company must identify any known trends or known demands, commitments, events or uncertainties that will result in or reasonably could result in an increase or decrease in liquidity. In addition, a company must identify sources and uses of liquidity and any known changes thereto. Explanations of the information provided is required. In layman terms, liquidity is a discussion of sources of cash and uses of cash, and factors that could change or impact either, both as reflected in the financial period covered by the subject report, and for the future. Although not all inclusive, the discussion, at a minimum, should address all items included in the statement of cash flows provided as part of the financial statements. This item, together with the second area of discussion, capital resources, are considered so important the SEC has issued an interpretive release addressing these two areas separately from the rest of MD&A.
A discussion of capital resources includes all material commitments for capital expenditures, the purpose and the source of funds for these commitments. This would include outstanding debts and obligations and simply put, where the money will come from to pay them. In addition, capital resources include a discussion of trends, favorable and unfavorable, that could impact capital resources. An obvious example would be a change in government regulation directly related to the company’s business.
Results of operations include four areas of discussion: (i) unusual or infrequent events that have impacted on a company’s financial condition. An example would be a discontinuance of a specific product line, or sale of company subsidiary. (ii) trends that could have an impact on sales or revenues or income in general, including trends impacting costs and expenses; (iii) a narrative discussion of increases or decreases in sale or revenues; and (iv)impact of inflation and other external financial conditions.
Off balance sheet arrangements have gained notoriety as a result of the recent economic turmoil caused by the mortgage scandal. An off balance sheet arrangement is any arrangement that could have an impact on a balance sheet, the most obvious example being a guarantee of a third party’s obligation. Accordingly, if a company has such an arrangement to report, they are required to provide a detailed analysis including the potential impact and relative importance of the arrangement.
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Form 10-Q – Quarterly Reports SEC Staff Review of Super 8-K’s »
Mergers and Acquisitions – Deal Protection Measures
Many clients ask me how to protect their interests while trying to negotiate a merger or acquisition. During the negotiation period both sides will inevitably incur a certain, acceptable, expenditure of time and expense, and will provide one and other with confidential information. Although a confidentiality agreement protects confidential information, it does not protect against unnecessarily wasting time and expense. Fortunately, there are other measures that can be enacted to safeguard against a flat-out waste of time and money.
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. Examples of a window shop provision may be that a party cannot solicit other similar transactions, but are 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 a reporting and disclosure requirement, which in and of itself could be detrimental to the deal.
Much different from either a no shop or window shop provision is a “go shop” provision. To address a board of directors fiduciary duty 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.
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. Example include prohibitions against selling off major assets, incurring extraordinary debts or liabilities, spinning of subsidiaries, hiring or firing management teams and the like.
Finally, many companies protect their interest by requiring significant stockholders to agree to lock-up agreements 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.
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Mergers and Acquisitions – Disclosure Matters Form 10-Q – Quarterly Reports »
Mergers and Acquisitions – Disclosure Matters
In a merger and 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.
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 when pre-definitive agreement disclosure may be necessary or mandated.
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. Further, 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.”
At first read it would seem 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, when 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, when 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.
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 and 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, break up 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 break-up fees or extra-ordinary exclusivity provisions are reportable.
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.
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.
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, etc…
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Mergers and Acquisitions
Mergers and AcquisitionsConfidentiality, Non-Disclosure Agreements
A confidentiality agreement or non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) is an agreement among the parties to a proposed transaction to keep information secret and in confidence. In the context of a merger and acquisition transaction, NDA’s are important for both the target and acquiring entities. It is critical that an NDA be signed prior to the exchange of any due diligence or embarking upon substantive transaction negotiations.
Protecting Trade Secrets
Generally in a merger and acquisition transaction, the target entity is a closely held private corporation. Accordingly it is critical for the target company to maintain the confidential nature of both its business information, and the fact that it is considering a going public transaction. During the due diligence process, the public acquiring company will be given access to non-public trade secrets, technology, business processes, customer lists, and material information regarding shareholders, debt and equity financing and financial statements.
Loose Lips Sink Ships
If this information were made public or used for any purpose other than to evaluate a potential business transaction, it could materially and adversely affect the value of the target company. Moreover, if a transaction doesn’t go through, a potential acquirer could misuse the information to compete with, or solicit customers or employees from the target company, without the protection of a NDA. Just the knowledge that a transaction is being considered could affect the target’s relationship with its current customers, suppliers and/or employees.
Generally, the public acquiring entity is subject to the disclosure requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and its information is already publicly available. However an NDA is still important to protect the public company. That is, if it became publicly known that acquirer was focusing on a particular target, other potential buyers may come to the table to compete.
Shielding Corporate Reputation, Controlling Rumors
Moreover, the acquirer’s business strategy regarding that particular acquisition would become publicly known prior to being legally required. If the acquirer changes its mind and the information was already public, investors may wonder as to why the transaction evaporated and subsequently lose confidence in both entities. An NDA can help protect against unnecessary market rumors and conjecture and potential exposure to insider trading liability. Obviously, an NDA should contain a strong obligation on the part of both parties to keep review information confidential.
Typically an NDA will permit the parties to disclose the information to its affiliates, advisors and key management on a “need to know” basis provided that each information recipient agree to the terms of the NDA.
Limitations of Non-Disclosure Agreements
An NDA only covers confidential information. That is, excluded is information that (i) is already in the possession of the recipient; or (ii) is or becomes available to the public (other than by a breach of the NDA). A properly drafted NDA will provide for procedures in the event a party is compelled, via subpoena or otherwise, to disclose information. Generally, the NDA will provide for an opportunity to learn of and fight the compelling document prior to disclosure.
Lastly, most NDA’s contain some sort of standstill or no shop provision. That is prior to expending time, money, attorney’s fees, other professional fees, etc., the parties will want assurance that the deal is not being shopped around for at least some period of time.
The Author
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Reverse Mergers, Acquisitions and Due Diligence Mergers and Acquisitions – Disclosure Matters »
Reverse Mergers, Acquisitions and Due Diligence
Due diligence refers to the legal, business and financial investigation of a business prior to entering into a reverse merger transaction. Although the due diligence process can vary depending on the nature of a transaction (a relatively small acquisition vs. a going public reverse merger)it is arguably the most important component of a transaction (or at least equal with documentation).
Reverse Mergers and Public Shells
In a reverse merger transaction involving a public shell acquiring a private operating business, the bulk of the due diligence will be by the acquiring shell on the target. Although some due diligence is also necessary on the public shell, as a Company subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act of 1934, most, if not all, pertinent information is publicly available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) EDGAR database. In the case where the public shell is a non-reporting entity, both sides to the transaction will need to complete extensive, in-depth due diligence on each other.
Analyzing Private Companies Going Public
This article focuses on due diligence by the public acquirer on the private target. At the outset, in addition to requesting copies of corporate records and documents, all contracts, asset chain of title documents, financial statements and the like, the securities attorney for the public acquirer should make themselves familiar with the target’s business, including an understanding of how they make money, what assets are important in revenues, who are their commercial partners and suppliers, and common off balance sheet and other hidden arrangements in that business. It is important to have a basic understanding of the business in order to effectively review the documents and information once supplied, to know what to ask for and to isolate potential future problems.
Addressing Post Closing Issues
In addition to determining whether the transaction as a whole is worth pursuing, proper due diligence will help in structuring the reverse merger transaction and preparing the proper documentation to prevent post closing issues (such as making sure all assignments of contracts are complete, or where an assignment isn’t possible, new contracts are prepared).
Public Records Search
In addition to creating due diligence lists of documents and information to be supplied, counsel for the public acquirer should perform separate checks for publicly available information. In today’s internet world, this part of the process has become dramatically easier. SEC legal counsel should be careful not to miss the basics, such as UCC lien searches, judgment searches, recorded property title and regulatory issues with any of the principals or participants involved in the deal.
The Author
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Reverse Merger Attorneys Mergers and AcquisitionsConfidentiality, Non-Disclosure Agreements »
Reverse Merger Attorneys
Many of the Chinese companies that go public in the United States do so via a Reverse Merger. The reverse merger methodology versus the traditional Initial Public Offering (IPO) is the preferred method used by the Chinese and their US-based legal and auditing advisors. Many of these Chinese companies believe, erroneously, that by utilizing the reverse merger process, they can avoid the in-depth disclosure requirements and scrutiny associated with an IPO. However, legally this is not the case.
The failure of Chinese company legal, accounting and market makers to understand the fundamental elements required of Foreign Corporations trading stock on US markets has led to numerous shareholder class action lawsuits, trading suspensions and enforcement actions against publicly traded Chinese companies.
Auditors and Market Makers Fall Short on Due Diligence
Many of the problems resulting from Chinese reverse mergers are due to the failure of corporate counsel, auditors and market makers to thoroughly complete due diligence on the company’s officers, directors, operations and financial statements. Under ordinary circumstances, when preparing SEC filings, legal and accounting professionals can rely on the representations of their clients. However, when the subject Company has opted NOT to list their securities on their country of origin exchange, additional measures must be taken to ensure transparency.
Verify, Then Verify Again
It is always advisable to “kick the tires” of the subject company (visit their facilities, confirm that copies of all agreements have been provided, etc.) but in the case of Chinese entities, it is doubly important (actually it is essential). When providing “going public” services to an operating Chinese business, one that is going public or already trades on the US markets, the key is to verify, verify, verify.
Moreso than in any other scenario, auditors, attorneys and market makers must act as gate keepers so as to keep their Chinese clients compliant with US securities laws. Obviously, due diligence can only go so far, no matter how thorough the evaluation process. In the end, ultimately, auditors, attorneys an market makers are in the unenviable position of relying, to one extent or another, on the documents and attestations provided to them by the officers of the subject company. Forged, fraudulent and outright fictitious corporate documents are becoming all too commonplace.
Further complicating the problems stemming from Chinese companies going public in the United States are the increasing number of subsequent capital raises comprised of domestic, US investors. Once trading on the OTCQB or NASDAQ, the now public entity has a myriad of financing options, to the chagrin of the unsuspecting investment public.
Some regard the Chinese stock market as essentially unregulated, therefore creating an attitude among some officers and directors that US Exchanges are just as forgiving in respect to compliance and overall transparency.
Other issues may stem from the language barrier. Some may even be a result of differences in cultural business practices. In any event, the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, requires that all sales of stock be via either a registration statement or legal exemption to registration. All registration statements require in-depth disclosure in accordance with the legal parameters set forth in Regulation S-K and accounting parameters set forth in Regulation S-X. US regulators and class action counsel have clearly set forth that these standards are not being met.
Failure of Corporate Governance
Also, the lack of corporate governance oversight has intensified the problem. In addition, there are significant accounting differences. Since China does not follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), confusing, and sometimes irreconcilable, financial statements are provided to domestic, PCAOB, auditing firms.
Hence, with a relatively lax regulatory stock market environment in China (as compared to stringent regulatory oversight in the United States), fundamentally different accounting and auditing procedures, and divergent societal and political structures the Chinese reverse merger debacle should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Civil Suits Against Chinese Companies Mount
Years of poor due diligence practices by US accounting, auditing and law firms has resulted in numerous shareholder class action lawsuits being filed against Chinese companies that have completed a reverse merger or RTO (Reverse Takeover) in the United States.
Because of the highly publicized problems of Chinese reverse merger fraud, some individuals incorrectly assert that the reverse merger process itself is somehow a dubious device used to gain access to domestic exchanges. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the majority of companies going public in the US are completed via a reverse merger, it stands to reason that that the majority of Chinese companies going public domestically will use the same process.
Chinese Stock Fraud is not Limited to Reverse Mergers
Class action law firms and the investment public are now discovering that Chinese stock fraud is not limited to reverse mergers. Chinese companies that have gone public via S-1 Registration Statements, full blown IPO’s, and alternative methods such as WestPark Capital’s unique WRASP ™ (Public Offering and a Share Exchange hybrid) program have collapsed under close scrutiny as well. Certain reverse mergers or RTO’s were simply the first to fall.
In conclusion the fact of the matter is that the reverse merger process is a legitimate cost-effective and completely legal method of going public and has been used by such companies as: Yahoo, Turner Broadcasting Systems, Occidental Petroleum, Berkshire Hathaway, Texas Instruments and Blockbuster Entertainment to name a few.
The Author
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Merger and Acquisitions, Part One – Structuring the Transaction Reverse Mergers, Acquisitions and Due Diligence »
Merger and Acquisitions, Part One – Structuring the Transaction
Mergers and acquisitions come in all sizes, financially speaking, but the sequence of events preceding the transaction is usually fixed. The same procedural points must be addressed regardless of the size of the subject Companies.
Confidentiality Agreement
Generally the first step in an M&A deal is executing a confidentiality agreement and letter of intent (LOI). These documents can be combined or separate. If the parties are exchanging information prior to reaching the letter of intent stage of a potential transaction, they should proceed with execution of a confidentiality agreement right away.
In addition to requiring that both parties keep information confidential, a confidentiality agreement sets forth important parameters on the use of information. For instance, a reporting entity may have disclosure obligations in association with the initial negotiations for a transaction, which would need to be exempted from the confidentiality provisions. Moreover, a confidentiality agreement may contain other provisions unrelated to confidentiality such as a prohibition against solicitation of customers or employees (non-competition) and other restrictive covenants. Standstill and exclusivity provisions may also be included, especially where the confidentiality agreement is separate from the letter of intent.
Letter of Intent (LOI)
Next is the letter of intent (“LOI”). An LOI is generally non-binding and spells out the broad parameters of the transaction. The LOI helps identify and resolve key issues in the negotiation process and hopefully narrows down outstanding issues prior to spending the time and money drafting the transaction contracts and supporting documents. Among other key points, the LOI may set the price or price range, the parameters of due diligence, necessary pre-deal recapitalizations, confidentiality, exclusivity, and time frames for completing each step in the process. It is always highly advisable that an LOI be executed.
The “Who Do” List
Along with an LOI, the parties attorney’s should prepare a “to do” list including a “who do” identification. Setting out a to do list and clarifying who is responsible for what documents and items will help move things along and avoid misunderstandings among the professionals representing the different parties to the transaction.
The next step in the transaction process is due diligence. Although generally the client is responsible for putting together due diligence items, the attorney should correlate and organize the items to ultimately save time and keep the items organized. Prior to exchanging documents the attorneys should be sure that a confidentiality agreement has been executed, either separately or as part of the LOI.
The Author
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Registering an IPO on Form S-1, Part Three Reverse Merger Attorneys »
A confidentiality agreement or non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) is an agreement among the parties to a proposed transaction to keep information secret and in confidence. In the context of a merger and acquisition transaction, NDA’s are important for both the target and acquiring entities. It is critical that an NDA be signed prior to the exchange of any due diligence or embarking upon substantive transaction negotiations.
Generally in a merger and acquisition transaction, the target entity is a closely held private corporation. Accordingly it is critical for the target company to maintain the confidential nature of both its business information, and the fact that it is considering a going public transaction. During the due diligence process, the public acquiring company will be given access to non-public trade secrets, technology, business processes, customer lists, and material information regarding shareholders, debt and equity financing and financial statements.
If this information were made public or used for any purpose other than to evaluate a potential business transaction, it could materially and adversely affect the value of the target company. Moreover, if a transaction doesn’t go through, a potential acquirer could misuse the information to compete with, or solicit customers or employees from the target company, without the protection of a NDA. Just the knowledge that a transaction is being considered could affect the target’s relationship with its current customers, suppliers and/or employees.
Generally, the public acquiring entity is subject to the disclosure requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and its information is already publicly available. However an NDA is still important to protect the public company. That is, if it became publicly known that acquirer was focusing on a particular target, other potential buyers may come to the table to compete.
Moreover, the acquirer’s business strategy regarding that particular acquisition would become publicly known prior to being legally required. If the acquirer changes its mind and the information was already public, investors may wonder as to why the transaction evaporated and subsequently lose confidence in both entities. An NDA can help protect against unnecessary market rumors and conjecture and potential exposure to insider trading liability. Obviously, an NDA should contain a strong obligation on the part of both parties to keep review information confidential.
Typically an NDA will permit the parties to disclose the information to its affiliates, advisors and key management on a “need to know” basis provided that each information recipient agree to the terms of the NDA.
An NDA only covers confidential information. That is, excluded is information that (i) is already in the possession of the recipient; or (ii) is or becomes available to the public (other than by a breach of the NDA). A properly drafted NDA will provide for procedures in the event a party is compelled, via subpoena or otherwise, to disclose information. Generally, the NDA will provide for an opportunity to learn of and fight the compelling document prior to disclosure.
Lastly, most NDA’s contain some sort of standstill or no shop provision. That is prior to expending time, money, attorney’s fees, other professional fees, etc., the parties will want assurance that the deal is not being shopped around for at least some period of time.
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Reverse Mergers, Acquisitions and Due Diligence Mergers and Acquisitions – Disclosure Matters »
Reverse Mergers, Acquisitions and Due Diligence
Due diligence refers to the legal, business and financial investigation of a business prior to entering into a reverse merger transaction. Although the due diligence process can vary depending on the nature of a transaction (a relatively small acquisition vs. a going public reverse merger)it is arguably the most important component of a transaction (or at least equal with documentation).
In a reverse merger transaction involving a public shell acquiring a private operating business, the bulk of the due diligence will be by the acquiring shell on the target. Although some due diligence is also necessary on the public shell, as a Company subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act of 1934, most, if not all, pertinent information is publicly available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) EDGAR database. In the case where the public shell is a non-reporting entity, both sides to the transaction will need to complete extensive, in-depth due diligence on each other.
This article focuses on due diligence by the public acquirer on the private target. At the outset, in addition to requesting copies of corporate records and documents, all contracts, asset chain of title documents, financial statements and the like, the securities attorney for the public acquirer should make themselves familiar with the target’s business, including an understanding of how they make money, what assets are important in revenues, who are their commercial partners and suppliers, and common off balance sheet and other hidden arrangements in that business. It is important to have a basic understanding of the business in order to effectively review the documents and information once supplied, to know what to ask for and to isolate potential future problems.
In addition to determining whether the transaction as a whole is worth pursuing, proper due diligence will help in structuring the reverse merger transaction and preparing the proper documentation to prevent post closing issues (such as making sure all assignments of contracts are complete, or where an assignment isn’t possible, new contracts are prepared).
In addition to creating due diligence lists of documents and information to be supplied, counsel for the public acquirer should perform separate checks for publicly available information. In today’s internet world, this part of the process has become dramatically easier. SEC legal counsel should be careful not to miss the basics, such as UCC lien searches, judgment searches, recorded property title and regulatory issues with any of the principals or participants involved in the deal.
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Reverse Merger Attorneys Mergers and Acquisitions
Reverse Merger Attorneys
Many of the Chinese companies that go public in the United States do so via a Reverse Merger. The reverse merger methodology versus the traditional Initial Public Offering (IPO) is the preferred method used by the Chinese and their US-based legal and auditing advisors. Many of these Chinese companies believe, erroneously, that by utilizing the reverse merger process, they can avoid the in-depth disclosure requirements and scrutiny associated with an IPO. However, legally this is not the case.
The failure of Chinese company legal, accounting and market makers to understand the fundamental elements required of Foreign Corporations trading stock on US markets has led to numerous shareholder class action lawsuits, trading suspensions and enforcement actions against publicly traded Chinese companies.
Many of the problems resulting from Chinese reverse mergers are due to the failure of corporate counsel, auditors and market makers to thoroughly complete due diligence on the company’s officers, directors, operations and financial statements. Under ordinary circumstances, when preparing SEC filings, legal and accounting professionals can rely on the representations of their clients. However, when the subject Company has opted NOT to list their securities on their country of origin exchange, additional measures must be taken to ensure transparency.
It is always advisable to “kick the tires” of the subject company (visit their facilities, confirm that copies of all agreements have been provided, etc.) but in the case of Chinese entities, it is doubly important (actually it is essential). When providing “going public” services to an operating Chinese business, one that is going public or already trades on the US markets, the key is to verify, verify, verify.
Moreso than in any other scenario, auditors, attorneys and market makers must act as gate keepers so as to keep their Chinese clients compliant with US securities laws. Obviously, due diligence can only go so far, no matter how thorough the evaluation process. In the end, ultimately, auditors, attorneys an market makers are in the unenviable position of relying, to one extent or another, on the documents and attestations provided to them by the officers of the subject company. Forged, fraudulent and outright fictitious corporate documents are becoming all too commonplace.
Further complicating the problems stemming from Chinese companies going public in the United States are the increasing number of subsequent capital raises comprised of domestic, US investors. Once trading on the OTCQB or NASDAQ, the now public entity has a myriad of financing options, to the chagrin of the unsuspecting investment public.
Some regard the Chinese stock market as essentially unregulated, therefore creating an attitude among some officers and directors that US Exchanges are just as forgiving in respect to compliance and overall transparency.
Other issues may stem from the language barrier. Some may even be a result of differences in cultural business practices. In any event, the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, requires that all sales of stock be via either a registration statement or legal exemption to registration. All registration statements require in-depth disclosure in accordance with the legal parameters set forth in Regulation S-K and accounting parameters set forth in Regulation S-X. US regulators and class action counsel have clearly set forth that these standards are not being met.
Also, the lack of corporate governance oversight has intensified the problem. In addition, there are significant accounting differences. Since China does not follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), confusing, and sometimes irreconcilable, financial statements are provided to domestic, PCAOB, auditing firms.
Hence, with a relatively lax regulatory stock market environment in China (as compared to stringent regulatory oversight in the United States), fundamentally different accounting and auditing procedures, and divergent societal and political structures the Chinese reverse merger debacle should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Years of poor due diligence practices by US accounting, auditing and law firms has resulted in numerous shareholder class action lawsuits being filed against Chinese companies that have completed a reverse merger or RTO (Reverse Takeover) in the United States.
Because of the highly publicized problems of Chinese reverse merger fraud, some individuals incorrectly assert that the reverse merger process itself is somehow a dubious device used to gain access to domestic exchanges. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the majority of companies going public in the US are completed via a reverse merger, it stands to reason that that the majority of Chinese companies going public domestically will use the same process.
Class action law firms and the investment public are now discovering that Chinese stock fraud is not limited to reverse mergers. Chinese companies that have gone public via S-1 Registration Statements, full blown IPO’s, and alternative methods such as WestPark Capital’s unique WRASP ™ (Public Offering and a Share Exchange hybrid) program have collapsed under close scrutiny as well. Certain reverse mergers or RTO’s were simply the first to fall.
In conclusion the fact of the matter is that the reverse merger process is a legitimate cost-effective and completely legal method of going public and has been used by such companies as: Yahoo, Turner Broadcasting Systems, Occidental Petroleum, Berkshire Hathaway, Texas Instruments and Blockbuster Entertainment to name a few.
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Merger and Acquisitions, Part One – Structuring the Transaction Reverse Mergers, Acquisitions and Due Diligence »
Merger and Acquisitions, Part One – Structuring the Transaction
Mergers and acquisitions come in all sizes, financially speaking, but the sequence of events preceding the transaction is usually fixed. The same procedural points must be addressed regardless of the size of the subject Companies.
Generally the first step in an M&A deal is executing a confidentiality agreement and letter of intent (LOI). These documents can be combined or separate. If the parties are exchanging information prior to reaching the letter of intent stage of a potential transaction, they should proceed with execution of a confidentiality agreement right away.
In addition to requiring that both parties keep information confidential, a confidentiality agreement sets forth important parameters on the use of information. For instance, a reporting entity may have disclosure obligations in association with the initial negotiations for a transaction, which would need to be exempted from the confidentiality provisions. Moreover, a confidentiality agreement may contain other provisions unrelated to confidentiality such as a prohibition against solicitation of customers or employees (non-competition) and other restrictive covenants. Standstill and exclusivity provisions may also be included, especially where the confidentiality agreement is separate from the letter of intent.
Next is the letter of intent (“LOI”). An LOI is generally non-binding and spells out the broad parameters of the transaction. The LOI helps identify and resolve key issues in the negotiation process and hopefully narrows down outstanding issues prior to spending the time and money drafting the transaction contracts and supporting documents. Among other key points, the LOI may set the price or price range, the parameters of due diligence, necessary pre-deal recapitalizations, confidentiality, exclusivity, and time frames for completing each step in the process. It is always highly advisable that an LOI be executed.
Along with an LOI, the parties attorney’s should prepare a “to do” list including a “who do” identification. Setting out a to do list and clarifying who is responsible for what documents and items will help move things along and avoid misunderstandings among the professionals representing the different parties to the transaction.
The next step in the transaction process is due diligence. Although generally the client is responsible for putting together due diligence items, the attorney should correlate and organize the items to ultimately save time and keep the items organized. Prior to exchanging documents the attorneys should be sure that a confidentiality agreement has been executed, either separately or as part of the LOI.
Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions
Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.
Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.
Contact Legal & Compliance LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.
« Registering an IPO on Form S-1, Part Three Reverse Merger Attorneys »