Long Delay for JOBS Act Changes
Photo by Omar Parada

On January 14th, the House passed H.R. 37 “Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act.”  Although passed with some support from the Democrats (29 votes, which in these days of hyper-partisanship is practically a bipartisan bill), the White House issued a veto threat on January 12th because the bill also delays part of the Volker Rule effectiveness until July 21, 2019.  Thus, in its current form, it looks dead on arrival, but there are some interesting ideas that I support and will hopefully make it in a revised bill later in the term:

  • Delays the requirement for savings and loan holding companies to register under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to the same extent as bank holding companies (assets of $10 million and class of equity securities held of record by 2,000 or more persons).  Also allows deregistration for savings and loan holding companies when they have fewer than 1200 shareholders of record.  This seems fair and was likely an unintended distinction made when the JOBS Act passed.  Unfortunately, this innocuous bill was grouped with the Volker delay. 
  • Provides for an exemption from the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for certain business brokers.  The bill provides for some restrictions such as
    Continue Reading
Florida corporation pushing the envelope with restrictive bylaws?
Photo by Stuart Rankin

How to stop frivolous plaintiff lawsuits?  Since 2010, when Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery noted that “if boards of directors and stockholders believe that a particular forum would prove an efficient and value promoting locus for dispute resolution, then corporations are free to respond with charter provisions selecting an exclusive forum for intra-entity disputes,” many public companies have adopted bylaws provisions restricting frivolous derivative lawsuits.  As the ABA notes, these so called “forum selection bylaws” are extensions of the forum selection clauses that have long been upheld in contracts.

As anyone who has ever worked on a public merger well knows, within hours after a merger is announced, several plaintiff firms will announce an “investigation” and then file a derivative lawsuit (presumably based on the findings of their thorough “investigation”).  Of course, frivolous lawsuits aren’t limited to M&A transactions, but many of these lawsuits follow the same pattern.  As a result, public companies have had continued interest in restricting such lawsuits.  Forcing plaintiffs to sue in Delaware with a forum selection bylaw is one way to help restrict lawsuits.  But, more recently, some companies have become even more creative.  Here is a quick chronological summary of the movement to adopt restrictive bylaws:

  • March 2010 – Vice Chancellor Laster  of the Delaware Court of Chancery suggests
    Continue Reading

Nasdaq fees are ready for takeoffIn late August, Nasdaq announced changes to their annual listing fees.  Generally, the fees will increase effective January 1, 2015, but Nasdaq is also adopting an all-inclusive annual fee and eliminating its quarterly fees.  The new annual fee will now include fees related to listing additional shares, record-keeping changes, and substitution listing events.  The all-inclusive fee is optional for issuers until January 1, 2018 at which point it becomes mandatory.

Issuers have a choice to make.  Option #1 – An issuer can do nothing and continue to pay an annual fee as well as pay the quarterly fees to list additional shares.  Under this method, an issuer will experience increased 2015 fees ranging from 0% to 40% depending on how many shares an issuer has outstanding.  Generally, the largest increases are for issuers with less than 10 million shares outstanding (14% increase) and for issuers with more than 100 million shares outstanding (40% if there are between 100 and 125 million shares outstanding and 25% if there are more than 150 million shares outstanding).  Think of this option as the same as flying on an airplane.  You get a seat (usually), but if you want anything else you need to pay.

Option #2 – Elect to
Continue Reading

ISS trying to save its own neck?On Thursday, Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) announced the launch of a new data verification portal to be used for equity-based compensation plans that U.S. companies submit for approval by their shareholders.  This is a welcome change to ISS policy; although call me a cynic, but I believe this new policy has more to do with the SEC Staff’s recent interpretive guidance and less to do with actually improving their product.

Criticism of ISS (and the other proxy advisors) is nothing new.  Public companies have long complained about ISS’s conflicts of interest (ISS “grading” issuers’ corporate governance policies and then charging companies a subscription fee to learn how to improve their “grades”).  Further, ISS constantly churns their corporate governance policies (presumably) to keep their services relevant.  But, the biggest complaint from public companies occurs when ISS makes a recommendation based on erroneous data.  In fact, in a study from the Center on Executive Compensation, 17% of respondents reported erroneous analysis of long-term incentive plans and 15% of respondents reported that
Continue Reading

Congress to rescue public companies from proxy advisory firms?Who says Congress isn’t popular?  Well, Congress may become much more popular with public company executives if Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC) can make good on his recent promise to challenge the power of proxy advisory firms if the SEC doesn’t act.  In a recent keynote speech at an American Enterprise Institute conference on the role of proxy advisory firms in corporate governance, Rep. McHenry stated that proxy advisory firms are a significant issue on Capitol Hill.

As I have blogged about before, there are some real questions as to whether proxy advisory firms actually serve investors’ interests.  While ISS and Glass Lewis are entitled to create a business model based on providing services to institutional investors, there has been either a market or regulatory failure that has forced public companies to consider corporate governance policies promulgated by two unregulated proxy advisory firms before making business decisions.  Public companies should be making decisions based on what makes sense for their company and their shareholders and not based on trying to meet arbitrary policies of ISS or Glass Lewis (policies that seem to be continuously tweaked to keep the proxy advisory firms services relevant).  To be fair, ISS and Glass Lewis claim that their policies aren’t arbitrary at all, but rather their policies reflect their clients’ views.  Of course, for that to be the case, all of their institutional investor clients would need to have a monolithic view toward corporate governance.

Because institutional investors may own hundreds or even thousands of positions in public companies, institutional investors do not have the ability or the resources to research all of the issues facing each of those holdings.  That is where ISS and Glass Lewis step in to provide guidance to these institutional investors.  While some institutional investors have robust voting policies and attempt to make educated and informed voting decisions,
Continue Reading

Intrastate offering exemption
Photo by Jimmy Emerson

Last week, the SEC issued three new interpretations related to the so-called “intrastate offering exemption,” which is a registration exemption that facilitates the financing of local business operations.  An intrastate offering is exempt because it does not involve interstate commerce, and is therefore, outside the scope of the Securities Act.

We have received a few calls this week from startup companies who mistakenly believed that these new interpretations were creating a new registration exemption.  Largely, the mistaken belief is caused by the confusion stemming from some recent state law changes that allow for intrastate crowd funding.  While the new SEC interpretations were prompted by the recent state law changes, the intrastate offering exemption has been around since 1933, but for many reasons, it is not heavily relied upon.  And, despite the three new interpretations, we still advise against using the intrastate offering exemption.

What is this intrastate offering exemption?

The intrastate offering exemption is actually two separate exemptions, Section 3(a)(11) and a safe harbor Rule 147.  Although the two exemptions differ slightly, generally, if the (i) issuer is incorporated or organized in the same state in which it is offering securities; (2) a substantial portion of the issuer’s business occurs within that state; (3) each offeree and purchaser is a resident of the state; (4) the offering proceeds are used primarily within that state; and (5) the securities come to rest within that state, then your offering would be exempt from federal registration requirements.  The investors do not need to be accredited (unlike Regulation D offerings), there is no limitation on the manner of offering, there are no prescribed disclosures, there is no maximum amount that can be raised (unlike Rule 504, Rule 505, or Regulation A), and the shares are freely transferable to other residents of the state.  In other words, it is a fairly broad exemption that allows a lot of flexibility to issuers, especially to startup companies who need as much flexibility as possible when raising capital.

Ok, so what is such a problem with the intrastate offering exemption?

While there is lots of flexibility with the exemption, the intrastate offering exemption
Continue Reading

Intrastate offering exemption
Photo by Jimmy Emerson

Last week, the SEC issued three new interpretations related to the so-called “intrastate offering exemption,” which is a registration exemption that facilitates the financing of local business operations.  An intrastate offering is exempt because it does not involve interstate commerce, and is therefore, outside the scope of the Securities Act.

We have received a few calls this week from startup companies who mistakenly believed that these new interpretations were creating a new registration exemption.  Largely, the mistaken belief is caused by the confusion stemming from some recent state law changes that allow for intrastate crowd funding.  While the new SEC interpretations were prompted by the recent state law changes, the intrastate offering exemption has been around since 1933, but for many reasons, it is not heavily relied upon.  And, despite the three new interpretations, we still advise against using the intrastate offering exemption.

What is this intrastate offering exemption?

The intrastate offering exemption is actually two separate exemptions, Section 3(a)(11) and a safe harbor Rule 147.  Although the two exemptions differ slightly, generally, if the (i) issuer is incorporated or organized in the same state in which it is offering securities; (2) a substantial portion of the issuer’s business occurs within that state; (3) each offeree and purchaser is a resident of the state; (4) the offering proceeds are used primarily within that state; and (5) the securities come to rest within that state, then your offering would be exempt from federal registration requirements.  The investors do not need to be accredited (unlike Regulation D offerings), there is no limitation on the manner of offering, there are no prescribed disclosures, there is no maximum amount that can be raised (unlike Rule 504, Rule 505, or Regulation A), and the shares are freely transferable to other residents of the state.  In other words, it is a fairly broad exemption that allows a lot of flexibility to issuers, especially to startup companies who need as much flexibility as possible when raising capital.

Ok, so what is such a problem with the intrastate offering exemption?

While there is lots of flexibility with the exemption, the intrastate offering exemption
Continue Reading

Intrastate offering exemption
Photo by Jimmy Emerson

Last week, the SEC issued three new interpretations related to the so-called “intrastate offering exemption,” which is a registration exemption that facilitates the financing of local business operations.  An intrastate offering is exempt because it does not involve interstate commerce, and is therefore, outside the scope of the Securities Act.

We have received a few calls this week from startup companies who mistakenly believed that these new interpretations were creating a new registration exemption.  Largely, the mistaken belief is caused by the confusion stemming from some recent state law changes that allow for intrastate crowd funding.  While the new SEC interpretations were prompted by the recent state law changes, the intrastate offering exemption has been around since 1933, but for many reasons, it is not heavily relied upon.  And, despite the three new interpretations, we still advise against using the intrastate offering exemption.

What is this intrastate offering exemption?

The intrastate offering exemption is actually two separate exemptions, Section 3(a)(11) and a safe harbor Rule 147.  Although the two exemptions differ slightly, generally, if the (i) issuer is incorporated or organized in the same state in which it is offering securities; (2) a substantial portion of the issuer’s business occurs within that state; (3) each offeree and purchaser is a resident of the state; (4) the offering proceeds are used primarily within that state; and (5) the securities come to rest within that state, then your offering would be exempt from federal registration requirements.  The investors do not need to be accredited (unlike Regulation D offerings), there is no limitation on the manner of offering, there are no prescribed disclosures, there is no maximum amount that can be raised (unlike Rule 504, Rule 505, or Regulation A), and the shares are freely transferable to other residents of the state.  In other words, it is a fairly broad exemption that allows a lot of flexibility to issuers, especially to startup companies who need as much flexibility as possible when raising capital.

Ok, so what is such a problem with the intrastate offering exemption?

While there is lots of flexibility with the exemption, the intrastate offering exemption
Continue Reading

HR 3623 does not provide relief
The Great Flood of 1927 by Gil Cohen

In recent weeks, a bill has been reported out of the House Committee on Financial Services promising relief to companies going public.  While I applaud their intentions, this bill will not have much impact, and if anything, is a solution to problems that

SEC Staff issues interpretive advice on Rule 506 offeringsAs more and more companies take advantage of the SEC’s recent rule change allowing general solicitation and advertising in private offerings, lots of interpretative questions on how to apply the new rules have arisen.  Over the course of the last couple of months, the Staff at the SEC has provided some guidance on some of the more frequently asked questions.  To help our readers keep up, I have included the Staff’s advice below with my own commentary.

Question:  An issuer takes reasonable steps to verify the accredited investor status of a purchaser and forms a reasonable belief that the purchaser is an accredited investor at the time of the sale of securities.  Subsequent to the sale, it becomes known that the purchaser did not meet the financial or other criteria in the definition of “accredited investor” at the time of sale.  Assuming that the other conditions of Rule 506(c) were met, is the exemption available to the issuer for the offer and sale to the purchaser?

Answer:  Yes.  An issuer does not lose the ability to rely on Rule 506(c) for an offering if a person who does not meet the criteria for any category of accredited investor purchases securities in the offering, so long as the issuer took reasonable steps to verify that the purchaser was an accredited investor and had a reasonable belief that such purchaser was an accredited investor at the time of the sale of securities.  [Nov. 13, 2013]

My Take:  This interpretation should not be a surprise, but it is welcomed anyway.  Rule 506(c) offerings require issuers to take reasonable steps and to form a reasonable belief that each investor is accredited, but Rule 506(c) does not contain an absolute belief standard.  If an offering was to fail simply because an investor committed fraud on the issuer or an issuer relied on an erroneous third party verification of the investor’s accredited investor status, then it would make Rule 506(c) a very unpopular and hardly ever used exemption. 

Question:  An issuer intends to conduct an offering under Rule 506(c).  If all of the purchasers in the offering met the financial and other criteria to be accredited investors but the issuer did not take reasonable steps to verify the accredited investor status of these purchasers, may the issuer rely on the Rule 506(c) exemption?

Answer:  No.  The verification requirement in Rule 506(c) is separate from and independent of the requirement that sales be limited to accredited investors.  The verification requirement must be satisfied even if all purchasers happen to be accredited investors.  Under the principles-based method of verification, however, the determination of what constitutes reasonable steps to verify is an objective determination based on the particular facts and circumstances of each purchaser and transaction.  [Nov. 13, 2013]

My Take:  The Staff is taking a very
Continue Reading