Search results for: regulation A+

Photo by Chad Cooper
Photo by Chad Cooper

Good, but not surprising, news for issuers considering a Regulation A+ offering. Back in May 2015, Massachusetts and Montana sued the SEC in an attempt to invalidate the Regulation A+ rules.  Montana had attempted to obtain an injunction to prevent the Regulation A+ rules from going into effect last June, but was denied.  Now, the DC Circuit has officially rejected the lawsuit brought by the two states.

As we have discussed, Regulation A+ is a vast improvement over the previous version of Regulation A.  The biggest improvement, state pre-emption, was the most controversial (from the states’ perspectives).  Because Regulation A is already a more burdensome exemption than Regulation D (private offerings) due to the need for SEC review and qualification, pre-empting state securities laws for Tier II offerings was a welcome improvement.  The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which represents the state securities regulators, was strongly against pre-emption.  NASAA is largely seen as the force behind the lawsuits by Montana and Massachusetts.

I will boil down the details of the lawsuit into a sound bite. The states argued that the SEC acted beyond its authority in enacting rules that pre-empted state securities laws.  The court disagreed and said that Congress, in passing the JOBS Act, pre-empted the state laws.

Massachusetts and Montana could appeal, but I doubt that they will. The validity of the states’ argument was not well grounded because the JOBS Act clearly states that the new Regulation A+ exemption would be a “covered security” – which means state law is pre-empted by federal law.

In any event, the conclusion of the lawsuit provides additional clarity for Regulation A+ offerings. We expect that Regulation A+ will become more widely used as bankers and issuers become more comfortable with the exemption.

Last shot for JOBS Act?
Photo by Ksionic

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act was enacted on April 5, 2012 with much fanfare and high expectations. The JOBS Act was designed, in part, to help “Emerging Growth Companies” (annual revenues less than $1 billion) gain greater access to growth capital while reducing regulatory restrictions, compliance requirements, and costs. The JOBS Act was welcomed by a business community which was just emerging from a brutal recession and starved for growth capital. The general reaction to the JOBS Act has been disappointment and a feeling that the JOBS Act has failed to live up to its advance billing. With the proposed Regulation A+ still to come, however, the JOBS Act may at last provide some real financing opportunities for private companies seeking growth capital. For background on the JOBS Act see our Emerging Growth Companies Task Force page.

There is no doubt that some good things have come out of the JOBS Act as its various rules have become effective. The elimination of the ban on general solicitation and advertising for some private offerings may prove very helpful to companies trying to find potential investors. The confidential filing of initial public offering documents (which allows a company to file IPO documents and work with the SEC on a confidential basis to resolve problems before the documents become public) has been extremely popular. The maximum number of shareholders that a private company can have before it must register and report as a public company has increased. This allows large private companies to stay private longer, avoiding the dilemma that Facebook and other companies faced. Finally, issuers of securities are now allowed to “test the waters” in some circumstances to determine potential investor interest in an offering before undertaking it. All of these are positive items, but they have not caused a significant increase in successful financing activity.

So what is Regulation A+ and why do we care? This proposed Regulation is one of the last major rulemaking proposals available under the JOBS Act. The SEC voted on December 18, 2013 to propose new rules under the existing Regulation A that would substantially increase the potential for substantial financing transactions conducted under Regulation A. While we haven’t seen the final rules and likely won’t see them for some time, these proposals have been much anticipated in the corporate finance community because of the Continue Reading Regulation A+: Last gasp of the JOBS Act

SEC gets an A+ for proposed Regulation A+ rulesOne of the most anticipated items from the JOBS Act enacted in April 2012 was the so-called Regulation  A+ –  a new and improved exemption that would allow issuers to raise up to $50 million in a 12-month period through a “mini-registration” process that is similar to that of rarely used Regulation A exemption. On December 18, 2013, the SEC issued its proposed rules which were mandated under Title IV of the JOBS Act.

The proposed rules would amend the current Regulation A to create two tiers of exempt offerings. Tier I would become the current Regulation A exemption, which maintains the $5 million offering limitation. Tier II would implement Regulation A+ and would permit offerings of up $50 million in any 12-month period.

Since its implementation years ago, Regulation A has not received widespread use, primarily because it did not provide for preemption of state securities laws and also had a relatively modest dollar limitation on the amount that could be raised. However, Regulation A+ (i.e., Tier II) promises to be a significant improvement over the old Regulation A because of the increased dollar limitation and the other benefits, including the potential preemption of state securities laws and regulations in certain circumstances.

All 387 pages of the proposed rules can be read on the SEC’s website, but a summary of these proposed rules are provided below for those not inclined read the entire release.

Issuer Eligibility

As proposed, Regulation A+ would be available only to United States and Canadian companies that have their principal place of business in the U.S. or Canada. Like the current Regulation A exemption, the Regulation A+ would not be available to certain types of issuers, such as companies that are already SEC reporting companies, registered investment companies and “blank-check companies.” However, under the currently proposed rules, shell companies may avail themselves of the Regulation A+ exemption so long as they are not blank-check companies.

Eligible Securities

The securities that may be offered under Regulation A are limited to equity securities, debt securities and debt  securities convertible into or exchangeable into equity interests, including any guarantees of such securities, but would exclude asset-backed securities.

Investor Limitations

As proposed, investors in a Tier II offering may acquire no more than Continue Reading The SEC gets an A+ with the proposed “Regulation A+” rules

Regulation A+, one of the most overlooked provisions of the JOBS Act, promises to be the best new way for private companies to raise money without the headaches of going public or the restrictions of private offerings.  As part of the JOBS Act, the SEC was tasked with creating a new offering exemption that has been dubbed “Regulation A+” due to its improvement upon the current Regulation A exemption.  The upgrades should take little-used Regulation A and transform it into the primary way for private companies to raise capital in the U.S.  In fact, I believe that Regulation A+ will end up having the opposite effect of the stated intent of the JOBS Act, which is to have more companies go public.  In contrast, Regulation A+ will allow smaller and mid-cap public companies to more easily raise capital without having to going public.  As noted in the recent GAO review of current Regulation A, investment banks that had stayed away from Regulation A offerings in the past because of the small offering maximum will now be attracted to the new exemption.

In the past, Regulation A has suffered from some serious limitations.  Particularly, the exemption only allows for $5 million to be raised in any 12-month period.  This amount is too small for many companies, given the offering costs.  In addition, the securities in Regulation A offerings do not qualify as “covered securities” under the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, which would have exempted them from state securities laws.  Thus, a Regulation A offering still has to comply with time consuming and expensive state “Blue Sky” law requirements.  Regulation A also requires SEC review of an issuer’s offering materials (generally, a scaled-down version of a full registration statement).  This offering statement, which includes a notification and a fairly extensive offering circular and exhibits, still requires a substantial outlay, despite being less expensive than a full registration statement.

So companies ultimately turn to other exemptions to raise capital.  The main exemption used is SEC Rule 506, which allows an unlimited amount to be raised, but places limits on solicitation, sales to non-accredited investors and resale (elimination of these solicitation limits are subject to current proposed rules).  With the creation of new Regulation A+, however, we should see the SEC throwing out the bad, and keeping the good, parts of Regulation A.  As a result, I believe Regulation A+ will overtake Rule 506 Continue Reading Regulation A+: Raise the capital you need without the hassle or expense

For the first time since 2015, the SEC has its full complement of five commissioners.  That’s a good thing.  And at least one new Commissioner – Robert Jackson – seems to have hit the ground running.  For example, he made a speech in San Francisco just the other day in which he expressed his disfavor of dual-class stock, suggesting that it would create “corporate royalty”. Specifically, because shareholders in at least some dual-class companies have no voting rights, leadership of the company could be passed down through the generations in perpetuity.

Commissioner Jackson is a smart man – I’ve seen him speak at a number of programs, and he’s demonstrated his intelligence as well as his telegenic appearance.  His use of the “corporate royalty” meme also shows that he’s witty, though don’t think we need to worry too much about CEO titles becoming hereditary.

What I do think we may need to worry about is where he goes with his concerns.  Specifically, the point of his speech is to suggest that exchanges adopt mandatory sunset provisions so that their dual-class structures would fade away over time.

Continue Reading Dual-class shares: marching toward merit regulation?

Photo by Patricia J. Lovelace © All rights reserved
Photo by Patricia J. Lovelace © All rights reserved

This week, the SEC published a series of new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (“CDIs”) related to the newly revised Regulation A, which became effective on June 19, 2015. While many of the new CDIs addressed procedural and interpretational issues under the new rules, there was an important development that could make Regulation A that much more useful for companies.

The positive news comes in the form of the SEC staff’s response to Question 182.07 which asks whether issuers would be able to use Regulation A in connection with merger or acquisition transactions that meet the criteria for Regulation A in lieu of registering the offering on an S-4 registration statement. Based on the SEC’s final adopting release, it did not appear that Regulation A would be available for use in these types of business combination transactions. However, the interpretation published yesterday clarifies that issuers may, in fact, use Regulation A in connection with mergers and acquisitions. The one exception is that Regulation A would not be available for business acquisition shelf transactions that are conducted on a delayed basis.

This is a very positive development for issuers that want to issue equity in connection with acquisitions of other companies, but do not wish to become a public reporting company under the Exchange Act. Previously, these issuers had very few Continue Reading More Positive Regulation A News

Section 108 of the Jump Start Our Business Startups Actrequired the

Study states more studies required - similar to a punt?
Photo by Duke University Archives

SEC to undertake a study of the disclosure requirements of Regulation S-K. Specifically, the statute mandated that the SEC shall:

conduct a review of its Regulation S-K to—

  1. comprehensively analyze the current registration requirements of such regulation; and
  2. determine how such requirements can be updated to modernize and simplify the registration process and reduce the costs and other burdens associated with these requirements for issuers who are emerging growth companies.

In addition, the JOBS Act required that the SEC report to Congress its specific recommendations on how to streamline the registration process in order to make it more efficient and less burdensome for prospective issuers who qualify as emerging growth companies.

That report was released not too long ago on December 20, 2013. However, it seems like the Commission elected to punt on the second part of the legislative mandate (i.e., to provide specifics), at least for now. Unfortunately, as is so often the case with governmental studies, the primary recommendation by the SEC Staff was to conduct further studies and investigations.  While disclosure reform is complex (and may be politically charged), further studies is not what investors or the capital markets need.  Too much money is spent on preparing duplicative and meaningless disclosures.

The report describes in great detail the history and evolution of the disclosure requirements contained in Regulation S-K – the primary source of disclosure requirements for registration statements and periodic reports filed by public companies with the SEC. All of this is well and good for government regulation historians and SEC buffs, but it provides nothing of real value to companies that are or may become subject to these rules and requirements. However, the report provides no real useful guidance to Congress (which may be the point if the SEC would rather control the reform process itself rather than have Congress control the process). Presumably, Congress had included this section in the JOBS Act for a specific purpose: Continue Reading 4th and 108, SEC elects to punt on Regulation S-K disclosure reform

What is the right balance between investors and issuers?On the same day that the SEC proposed rules that may make capital raising easier for companies by repealing the ban on general solicitation for private offerings, the SEC also proposed rules that may make it much more difficult to raise capital.  Why would they do this?  The repeal on the ban on general solicitation was required by the JOBS Act, but there is a lot of concern about fraud without the ban in place.  And while the SEC’s mission is to maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets and facilitate capital formation, the SEC has a third mission: to protect investors.

Here is a highlight (or a lowlight depending on your perspective) of what is being proposed:

  • Require the filing of a Form D at least 15 calendar days in advance of using any general solicitation (rather than the current requirement of 15 calendar days after the first sale of securities);
  • Require the filing of a “closing amendment” to Form D within 30 calendar days after the termination of an offering (there is no current requirement to file a final amendment);
  • Increase the amount of information gathered by Form D such as the number of investors in the offering and the type of general solicitation used in the offering;
  • Automatically disqualify an issuer from using Regulation D for one year if the issuer failed to file a Form D (currently no such harsh consequences);
  • Mandate certain legends on all written general solicitation materials; and
  • Require the filing of general solicitation materials with the SEC (temporary rule for two years)

Now, while these are still only proposed rules and the comment period continues through November 4, 2013, there has been a huge outcry from the startup community.  Critics of these proposed Continue Reading Proposed changes to Regulation D: Are these really so bad?

NetFlix Posting Causes SEC to Give GuidanceThe SEC tiptoed into the twenty-first century as the agency validated the use of social media sites in certain situations for disclosure of information by publicly traded companies. This social media disclosure is subject to some constraints, but it is a positive move for public companies, shareholders and potential investors who are social media users. 

The SEC demonstrated its resistance to the disclosure of information in a social media post at the end of 2012. As I discussed in a prior blog post, the SEC informed Netflix, Inc. and its CEO, Reed Hastings, that it might institute actions against them for violations of Regulation FD in connection with some information that Mr. Hastings had posted on his personal Facebook page. This Facebook post congratulated a Netflix marketing team for achieving a positive performance metric. The post was short and very specific, and it did not contain any other references or information. Netflix did not issue a press release and did not file a Form 8-K or any other disclosure document at that time regarding the information contained in this Facebook post. The company also did not post any information related to Mr. Hastings’ Facebook post on its website or on its corporate Facebook page. 

The SEC alleged that Mr. Hastings’ Facebook post may have violated Regulation FD, which generally requires a company to disclose material information to all investors at the same time, so that no investor is disadvantaged by learning about such information later. At the time of the post, Mr. Hastings had over 200,000 Facebook friends. His post was also picked up and published in blogs and news outlets. Mr. Hastings and Netflix expressed the view that the language contained in Mr. Hastings’ post was not selective disclosure because of the wide distribution of this information both through Mr. Hastings’ Facebook network and the republishing of this information by other social media and news outlets. They also took the position that the information disclosed was not material. Netflix eventually disclosed these events and the possible SEC actions in a Form 8-K filed on December 5, 2012, and Mr. Hastings commented on them on his personal Facebook page. 

The SEC then conducted an investigation of Mr. Hastings’ actions and their impact on Netflix and its investors. The results of this investigation were made public in Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:  Netflix, Inc., and Reed Hastings, Release No. 69279 (April 2, 2013) and a related SEC press release. In a somewhat surprising move, the SEC Continue Reading SEC relaxes restrictions on social media postings (but Regulation FD still applies)

Regulation FD EnforcementThis is the third part of our Securities Law 101 series.  Because capital raising is such a critical function for middle market companies, we designed this series to introduce their management teams to some of the fundamental concepts in securities law.  We hope that this series will prevent some of the most common mistakes management teams make.  We will periodically publish posts examining different aspects of securities law. 

In the wake of the SEC recommending an enforcement action against Netflix, Inc. and its CEO for social media postings that potentially violate Regulation FD, public companies must increasingly ensure that they understand, and comply with, their obligations under Regulation FD.

So what is Regulation FD?  Adopted by the SEC in 2000, Regulation FD (a/k/a Regulation Fair Disclosure) prohibits companies from selectively disclosing material nonpublic information to analysts, institutional investors, and others. Citing instances of selective disclosure to certain institutional investors and/or securities analysts and the resulting profits or avoidance of loss that come at the expense of those without knowledge of the disclosure, the SEC intended to promote full and fair disclosure of information by issuers.  

Under Regulation FD, when an issuer, or person acting on its behalf, discloses material nonpublic information to certain people (in general, securities market professionals and holders of the issuer’s securities who may well trade on the basis of the information), the issuer must publicly disclose that information.  Importantly, where a disclosure is intentional, the issuer must simultaneously make public disclosure of the nonpublic material information. However, where the disclosure is non-intentional, the issuer must “promptly” make public disclosure.  The required public disclosure may be made by filing or furnishing a Form 8-K, or by another method or combination of methods that is reasonably designed to effect broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information to the public such as press releases disseminated by a wire service. 

Regulation FD does not define what is considered “material,” but Continue Reading Securities Law 101 (Part III): Watch your mouth! Regulation FD’s impact on (selective) disclosure