In a joint press release issued on January 15, 2014, five federal agencies indicated their approval of an interim final rule to permit banking entities to retain interests in collateralized debt obligations backed primarily by trust preferred securities (“TruPS CDOs”). These interests would have otherwise been prohibited
Did you know that banks can go public and trade on Nasdaq and not have to file reports on the SEC’s EDGAR filing system? Well, they can, but it may not be such a good thing. You get this result when a bank goes public without a holding company. These banks are instead required to register with their primary federal regulator (i.e., the FDIC, the Federal Reserve or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) and these regulators do not use the SEC’s EDGAR filing system. So no EDGAR filings are required for these banks.
The problem is that EDGAR helps public companies satisfy SEC and other requirements. For example, the national exchanges have listing requirements that are in addition to the reporting requirements of the SEC and the bank regulators. To comply, listed banks and bank holding companies must, on or before the applicable due date, file copies of all reports and other documents filed with the SEC or their appropriate regulatory authority. For listed bank holding companies, compliance with these requirements is easy because they file on EDGAR, which provides public access and download capabilities at no cost. Due to electronic links with the EDGAR system, most national exchanges generally provide that their filing requirements are considered fulfilled if the bank holding company files a required report or document with the SEC on EDGAR. This is the result for the vast majority of publicly traded banks in the U.S. According to the Federal Reserve, currently, about 84% of commercial banks in the U.S. are part of a bank holding company, and in addition, only a limited few publicly traded banks don’t have holding companies.
But what about banks that do not have holding companies? These banks can still go public by registering with their primary federal bank regulator, but they don’t get the benefit of the EDGAR system. Instead, the bank regulatory authorities have their own filing requirements and the banks must comply with these rules to maintain their good standing as a public company. Where does this leave these publicly traded banks when it comes to their Nasdaq or national exchange filing requirements? The answer is that these banks must still comply with the reporting requirements of Nasdaq or the national exchanges by undertaking an alternative filing process. For example, the Nasdaq requires these banks to provide it with three paper copies of the applicable filing. So there are more filings involved and more room for error.
Another problem with not using the EDGAR system is that
Continue Reading Publicly Traded Banks Illustrate the Side Benefits of EDGAR
With the costs of compliance on the rise, we are seeing some significant consolidation in the banking industry, particularly among community banks. In a recent article on www.bankdirector.com, Rick Maroney writes that although bank M&A has been tepid thus far in 2013, some key drivers of M&A activity are starting to emerge and he predicts that we are likely to see increased merger and consolidation activity in the industry as smaller banks need to grow to remain viable. Additionally, the heightened regulatory capital requirements that are expected to be adopted as a result the Basel III accord may be an additional driver of consolidation in the banking sector.
In these merger transactions, it is fairly common for acquiring institutions to offer its common stock to target shareholders as part of the consideration to be paid. Depending on the organizational structure of the acquiring institution, there are a few options for offering stock to target shareholders as merger consideration. If the acquiror is a bank with a holding company structure, the stock portion of the merger consideration is almost always common stock of the holding company. The most significant issue when offering bank holding company stock is that the transaction must either (i) be registered on an S-4 registration statement, which involves substantial time and cost for the acquiror and would subject the acquiror to periodic reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or (ii) alternatively, the holding company stock must be issued pursuant to an exemption from registration (typically the Rule 506 safe-harbor for the Section 4(a)(2) private offering exemption). Many smaller banks, to the extent possible, will attempt to avoid registering the transaction due to the high costs and rely on an exemption to registration. If an acquiror considers privately placing holding company securities in a merger transaction, there are a number of considerations to address, some of which may be slightly alleviated by the recent changes under the JOBS Act as described in Kobi Kasitel’s recent blog post regarding stock issuances in M&A transactions after the JOBS Act.
For state-chartered banks regulated by the FDIC that do not have a holding company, the issuance of bank stock in connection with an acquisition may, at first glance, appear simpler. Under section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, securities issued or guaranteed by a bank are exempt securities and may be issued
Continue Reading The FDIC should consider updating its outdated statement of policy on bank stock offerings
When managing investments and strategies for personal financial goals, retail investors often seek guidance from their investment advisers, and on an increasing basis, from their broker-dealers. Broker-dealers and investment advisers are regulated extensively, but the regulatory requirements differ. Broker-dealers and investment advisers are also subject to different standards under federal law when providing investment advice about securities.
The Investment Advisers Act of 1940 regulates specified financial professions, including financial planners, money managers, and investment consultants. Under the Advisers Act, an investment adviser is any person who, for compensation, is engaged in a business of providing advice to others or issuing reports or analyses regarding securities. With regard to the required standard of care applied to investment advisers when providing advice to their clients, applicable case law requires a fiduciary standard which, essentially, requires that the advisor put the client’s interests first, ahead of his or her own interest.
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and its implementing rules comprise the most central regulatory apparatus for broker-dealers. The Exchange Act defines a broker as a “person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others,” while a dealer is a “person engaged in the business of buying and selling securities for his own account.” In comparison to the fiduciary obligation of an investment advisor, broker-dealers currently have a less stringent “suitability standard” that requires that investment products they sell fit an investor’s financial needs and risk profile.
Under the Investment Advisers Act, registered broker-dealers are excluded from its terms so long as
Continue Reading Uniform fiduciary standard for broker-dealers and investment advisers? Proceed with caution!
With newer methods to communicate and interact with the so-called social network popping up on almost a daily basis, securities regulators have been giving more and more attention to social media and how companies and certain regulated professionals are employing it. As we discussed in a previous blog, the SEC has signed off on public companies utilizing social media for disclosure purposes, provided that, among other things, companies disclose to investors the types of social media outlets they will employ for such purposes. The SEC has issued guidance on the use of social media by public companies for Regulation FD and other disclosure purposes, which can be found in this SEC Press Release and in the SEC’s report on its investigation of the Facebook postings made by Netflix’s CEO.
Now it appears that social media is gaining the attention of FINRA as well, the primary self-regulatory organization for registered broker-dealers. As reported in a recent article on CNN, FINRA wants state privacy laws to provide exemptions for registered broker-dealer firms that would permit such firms to access Facebook and other social media accounts of their associated persons (i.e., stockbrokers). Because of the prominence and proliferation of Facebook and the personal or sensitive nature of the information contained on an individual’s Facebook page and other social media accounts, state legislatures have proactively enacted legislation that prevent or restrict companies from monitoring employees through social media. According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, six states enacted legislation in 2012 that prohibits employers from requesting or requiring an employee, student or applicant to disclose a user name or password for a personal social media account.
FINRA is concerned, however, that prohibiting access to employee social media accounts may affect a registered broker-dealer’s ability to fully comply with its mandated supervisory duties under federal laws and regulations. For example, registered broker-dealers are required to maintain copies of all “business communications” as discussed in guidance issued by FINRA in Regulatory Notice 11-39. Under Rule 17a-4(b)(4) of the Exchange Act, “business communication” includes “[o]riginals of all communications received and copies of all communications sent (and any approvals thereof) by the member, broker or dealer (including inter-office memoranda and communications) relating to its business as such, including all communications which are subject to rules of a self-regulatory organization of which the member, broker or dealer is a member regarding communications with the public.” Thus, if a stockbroker is using social media to
Continue Reading Social media and brokers: FINRA wants broker-dealers to be “friends” with their employees
This is the second part of our Securities Law 101 series. Because capital raising is such a critical function for emerging start-up 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 of start-up companies make. We will periodically publish posts examining different aspects of securities law.
So your company would like to raise money? These days it seems like every company is in need of more capital, even banks that are in the business of lending their funds out to others. Whether your business needs new funding for growth, or more funding to meet regulatory capital requirements, or your company has not been able to secure that loan the business needs, there are a lot of reasons to consider a private placement. Here, we will explore the use of the private placement to raise funds and the recent changes in securities laws that make this a better alternative than it was before.
We all know that there are many ways to raise money out there (and sales of stock through crowdfunding isn’t one of them yet), but one typical way would be to sell equity in your company to private investors. All securities offerings must be registered unless an exemption exists. Therefore, these deals are generally set up as private placements exempt from registration under SEC Rule 506, which allows an unlimited amount of money to be raised from an unlimited number of accredited investors (and up to 35 non-accredited investors). Accredited investors are those individuals whose joint net worth with their spouse is at least $1 million, excluding the value of any equity in personal residences but including any mortgage debt to the extent it exceeds the fair market value of the residences. The term also includes individuals with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years, or joint income with their spouse exceeding $300,000 in each of those years, plus a reasonable expectation of reaching these income levels in the current year. There are also other types of accredited investors such as companies with total assets in excess of $5 million. Consequently, there are several categories of accredited investors out there that can potentially help with funding.
We recommend limiting the offer of securities in a private offering to only accredited investors. The reason for this is that
Continue Reading Securities Law 101 (Part II): Avoiding the pitfalls in a private placement
Just when it appeared that small banks and their holding companies could simply go private or “go dark” under the new rules in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, legacy rules are significantly slowing the process for some. Under the JOBS Act, banks and bank holding companies may now go dark if they
Bowing to industry pressure, FINRA has adopted vastly scaled back private placement requirements under FINRA Rule 5123. Originally proposed in October 2011, the proposed rule was highly controversial because it significantly infringed on the capital raising process. In particular, the originally proposed rules would require each offering to have an offering document, which must include
With the passing of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, the thresholds for whether a company must be public changed dramatically. This is particularly true for smaller banks and bank holding companies.
The prior rule required registration with the SEC if the institution reached 500 or more holders of a single class of
The SEC Division of Corporate Finance recently issued guidance to smaller financial institutions concerning Management’s Discussion and Analysis and accounting policy disclosures. The guidance can be found in CF Disclosure Guidance: Topic No. 5, dated April 20, 2012 and amounts to rules to follow for future filings that should not be ignored.
The Division