David C. Scileppi

Subscribe to David C. Scileppi via RSS

Pitfalls issuing securities to employeesThis is the fourth 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.

For startup companies, cash is almost always tight.  Despite the cash crunch, startups need to be able to attract qualified employees to get their business off the ground.  So, a question I get all the time from founders of startups is: Can’t I just give my employees some shares?  The answer, of course, is “yes, as long as there is an exemption from registration.”

So, what is this “exemption from registration”?

Well, as a reminder every time you issue securities the securities must be registered with the SEC and each state’s securities commission unless there is an exemption from registration.  When you are issuing securities to employees, the exemption that you would most likely rely on is “Rule 701.”  To be able to rely on Rule 701, you need to meet the following conditions:

Pitfalls issuing securities to employeesThis is the fourth 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.

For startup companies, cash is almost always tight.  Despite the cash crunch, startups need to be able to attract qualified employees to get their business off the ground.  So, a question I get all the time from founders of startups is: Can’t I just give my employees some shares?  The answer, of course, is “yes, as long as there is an exemption from registration.”

So, what is this “exemption from registration”?

Well, as a reminder every time you issue securities the securities must be registered with the SEC and each state’s securities commission unless there is an exemption from registration.  When you are issuing securities to employees, the exemption that you would most likely rely on is “Rule 701.”  To be able to rely on Rule 701, you need to meet the following conditions:

Businessman weary of overregulation by SECI understand that the SEC needs to balance having efficient markets and facilitating capital formation with the protection of investors, but sometimes erecting roadblocks with the intent of protecting investors is merely regulation for regulation’s sake.  On February 5, 2013, the Staff of the Division of Trading and Markets of the SEC provided guidance on Title II of the JOBS Act, specifically to help interpret the limited broker registration exemption.  While at first glance, these FAQs are not controversial, a broad interpretation by the Staff nearly eviscerates certain avenues for capital raises for small and emerging companies under Title II.  

To step back a minute, Title II of the JOBS Act exempts certain persons from having to register as a broker if that person merely “maintains a platform or mechanism” that brings together investors and issuers in a Rule 506 offering as long as the person “receives no compensation in connection with the purchase or sale of such security” and doesn’t have possession of customer funds.  Seemed simple enough.  The start-up community was excited about this exemption.  While many start-up companies struggle to raise capital after exhausting their friends and family, many people in the start-up community envisioned this to be a way for for-profit internet portals to develop where issuers could list their offering materials for a monthly subscription fee rather than a transaction-type fee. 

Unfortunately, the Staff has taken a very broad view (and in my opinion an unwarranted view) of the definition of “compensation.”  Question 6 in the FAQ states that in the Staff’s opinion, Congress did not limit the condition to transaction-based compensation (i.e., any compensation based on the actual sale of securities), but to any direct or indirect economic benefit.  Although I don’t think it is possible for anyone to ascertain what Congress’ intent is because the members all vote for different reasons, William Carlton in his Counselor@Law blog provides a nice synopsis of
Continue Reading SEC curtails JOBS Act broker registration exemption in recent FAQs

Resolutions by in-house counsel for 2013As we start 2013, I thought it would be fun to ask in-house counsel what their New Year’s resolutions were.  I wasn’t looking for the usual “go to the gym more/ lose weight/ get organized” type answers, but rather what corporate secretaries/ securities counsel would want to improve upon in 2013 in their professional lives.  I heard back from a variety of in-house counsel, some of whom wish to remain anonymous.  Many had similar types of goals for this year.  I want to thank Bob Lamm, Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Secretary at Pfizer Inc., and Stacey Geer, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel at Primerica, Inc., both of whom were especially helpful in coming up with this list.  Here are the top resolutions submitted by in-house counsel:

Refresh the board and committee self-evaluation process.  Now is a good time to refresh the board and committee self-evaluation process.  If your board and committees are like most, they may be “bored” with the process by now.  By asking the same questions every year, eventually the process becomes stale and the answers become predictable.  Rather than have the directors complete the same survey consider changing the questions, or better yet, having a third party facilitate the evaluation process.  Remember to set aside some time to discuss the evaluation because the discussion of the evaluation is the most important part of the process. 

Tweak your director orientation program.  A good director orientation program allows new board
Continue Reading Starting the New Year off right: In-house counsel disclose their New Year’s resolutions

Proxy advisory firms' influence over proxy votingAs we say “goodbye” to 2012 we say “hello” to another proxy season full of angst caused by the self-appointed czars of corporate governance, the proxy advisory firms.  Although ISS and Glass Lewis have been making voting recommendations for more than a decade, over the past two years their power over voting outcomes has increased.  When the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted in 2010 Congress was very clear that the Say-on-Pay votes were merely advisory and that directors would not be subjected to increased liability over a company’s executive compensation practice; however, the unintended consequence of Dodd-Frank was to strengthen the unregulated proxy advisory firm industry by allowing these firms to be the near-final arbiters of whether executive compensation should be approved by shareholders.  Failure to comply with the arbitrary guidelines of ISS or the often unknowable guidelines of Glass Lewis can cause a company the potential embarrassment of a “failed” Say-on-Pay vote regardless of whether the independent directors at the company, who painstakingly analyzed various metrics in deciding what to pay the executive officers, determined the compensation to be in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.  In fact, Matteo Tonello of the Conference Board suggests there is substantial evidence demonstrating that the proxy advisory firms have significant influence over the design of executive compensation programs, but no evidence that they have contributed at all to improved governance quality or increased shareholder value.

The SEC clairvoyantly expected a growing conflict between issuers and the proxy advisory firms when it
Continue Reading Are investors’ interests served by proxy advisory firms?

What has changed with JOBS ActAfter a flurry of news articles when the JOBS Act became law in April, the news cycle has been non-stop election coverage.  While we all look forward to the end of the political advertisements (especially us Floridians), I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the JOBS Act.  So, where are we now?  What has been enacted and what issues have been identified with the JOBS Act?  I look at each of the provisions of the JOBS Act below:

Title I – Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies (IPO On-Ramp)

Title I eases the path for companies going public by greatly reducing the regulatory burden for companies with less than $1 billion in revenue.  While I believe that regulatory relief is a great first step, Congress should have made much of the relief permanent for small- and mid-cap public companies.  But, I suppose we should take what we can get. 

One of the most used (maybe universally used) provision of Title I is the ability of an Emerging Growth Company (EGC) to submit its initial registration statement confidentially.  This allows a company that begins the IPO process to stop the process without having released its financial and other confidential information to the public or its competitors.  Beginning in October, the SEC streamlined the confidential submission process by moving from an email submission process to an Edgar submission process. 

One of the biggest complaints with the capital raising process for newly public companies and small- to mid-cap public companies in general is their inability to attract investors and establish a market for their securities.  Several provisions in the JOBS Act enhance the EGC’s ability to market its registered offerings.  For example, investment banks are now expressly permitted to publish or otherwise distribute research reports on an EGC at any time before, during, or after any offering, including an IPO.  Previously, research reports, particularly those by investment banks participating in the offering, had to wait at least 25 days after the offering (40 days if the underwriter served as a manager or co-manager).  Unfortunately, because of the risk of lawsuits, investment banks have not fully embraced this change.  The industry standard that has developed is to wait 25 days after the offering to publish reports.  Despite recent rule changes from FINRA, the investment banks’ regulator, the 25-day waiting period will likely persist for now.

And it was just a matter of time, but
Continue Reading Update on the JOBS Act: Where are we now?

compensation committeesIssuers listed on the NYSE or Nasdaq should pay close attention to the rules proposed by the exchanges last week because the proposed rules will impact compensation committees; however, the impact may be a “tale of two exchanges” because the impact is more significant to Nasdaq-listed companies.  As you may recall, Congress included several provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act to combat perceived public concerns over excessive executive compensation.  One provision, say-on-pay, has been implemented, but other more controversial provisions such as executive compensation clawbacks and executive compensation pay ratios have not been implemented.  Last week, the exchanges proposed rules to implement the independence requirements for compensation committees required under Dodd-Frank. 

As we have mentioned before, Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act does not infringe on traditional state corporation law by requiring an issuer to have a compensation committee or to have a compensation committee actually approve executive compensation.  Instead, it directs the exchanges to design and implement their interpretations of corporate governance best practices based on the parameters of Section 952.  The NYSE and Nasdaq proposed rules are different, and I highlight some of the most important aspects of each of the set of rules below.  In general, NYSE-listed companies are impacted significantly less than Nasdaq-listed companies.  

Director Independence  

The SEC rules implementing Section 952 require that the exchanges’ definition of independence consider relevant factors such as (i) the source of the director’s compensation, including any consulting, advisory, or other compensatory fees paid by the listed company and (ii) whether the director has an affiliate relationship with the company.  The two exchanges interpreted the SEC’s rules vastly different.  

The NYSE merely maintains its current definition of “independence” and requires the issuer to consider the two additional factors set out by the SEC.  In practice, it would be highly unlikely that the two additional factors set out by the SEC would impact a board’s assessment of a particular director’s independence.  

Nasdaq’s current definition of “independent director” remains in effect; however, Nasdaq has elected to overlay a separate independence
Continue Reading Proposed compensation committee independence rules will impact some issuers more than others

JOBS Act

Depending on your perspective, lifting the ban on general solicitation and advertising for private offerings is one of the most anticipated or feared provisions in the JOBS Act.  Consumer protection groups are aghast at the potential of fraud stemming from startup companies hawking their stock to unsophisticated investors.  Pro-business groups are ecstatic that someone finally had listened to their complaints about the trouble entrepreneurs have raising capital once they have exhausted their family and friends.  Well, after today’s Securities and Exchange Commission meeting, it looks like the pro-business groups got a further victory.  Or did they?

This morning, the Commission proposed rules to implement Section 201 of the JOBS Act to remove the prohibition on general solicitation and advertising in private offerings when all purchasers are accredited investors.  While removing a ban seems relatively simple, Congress instructed the Commission to write rules to “require the issuer to take reasonable steps to verify that purchasers of the securities are accredited investors, using such methods as determined by the Commission.”

What constitutes “reasonable steps” is the only difficult interpretation that the SEC had to make. There was some concern that the “reasonable steps” could be as harsh as requiring investors to prove their net worth through bank statements; however, the proposed rulemaking takes a much more flexible approach.  The proposed rules require issuers to make an objective determination based on certain factors:

  • The type of purchaser and the type of accredited investor that the purchaser claims to be;
  • The amount and type of information that the issuer has about the purchaser; and
  • The nature of the offering, including the manner in which the purchaser was solicited to participate in the offering and the terms of the offering such as the minimum investment amount.

The Commission didn’t set forth specific required verification methods because it felt a “one-size-fits-all” approach would be overly burdensome, impractical and ineffective.  At first glance this seems like a very issuer friendly approach. 
Continue Reading Elimination of ban on general solicitation and advertising may leave some questions unanswered

This is the first 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. 

Contrary to popular perceptions, securities law is not just for large corporations and conglomerates.  Too many start-up companies make the mistake of thinking securities law does not apply to them, though there is no de minimis exception to regulation. Practically, this means all entities, big and small, are required to comply with the applicable provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”).  Each state has its own securities laws with similar requirements.

The general principle of the 1933 Act is that every offer and sale of securities must be registered with the SEC unless an offering exemption exists.  You should keep in mind that a “security” is not limited to a share of stock either.  In fact, securities also include what are known as “investment contracts.”  Thus, courts have also applied the 1933 Act to interests bearing little resemblance to traditional securities transactions, including chinchillas, payphone packages, rare coins, live beavers, silver foxes, whiskey receipts, diamonds, and religious cults.

How is a beaver a security?  Back in 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court in a case called SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. created this test for an investment contract: (1) an investment of money; (2) with the expectation of profits; (3) in a common enterprise; (4) coming mainly from the efforts of others. Under this test, for example, limited partnerships are securities because investors invest money and expect a profit which comes in part from the efforts of others (here, the general partners exercising essential managerial efforts).

What do we mean by the investment of money?  Cash is not the only item that constitutes “money.” For example,
Continue Reading Securities Law 101 (Part I): Yes, securities law applies to you

Finally, we have had some recent bipartisanship in Congress.  The only problem, of course, is that the recent bipartisanship further burdened public companies with additional disclosure requirements.  As Broc Romanek noted in his blog last week, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 requiring public companies to disclose to the SEC its dealings with Iran. 

As we have been blogging about for nearly a year, Congress has picked up a bad habit of burdening public companies in advancing an agenda that has nothing to do with the protection of investors.  These so called “social disclosures” (many of which are really “political” – or politically motivated – disclosures) while arguably related to important issues, burden public companies with specific tasks to compile and disclose certain information.  These same burdens, however, are not placed on private companies.  Yet, Congressman Darrell Issa, the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has been demanding to know why there are fewer public companies today as compared to a decade ago. 

To be fair, I note that the House has recently passed (in bipartisan fashion) HR 4078, Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act, which would limit the ability of the SEC to add more regulatory burden on public companies, but given recent Congressional acts, HR 4078 appears more “Do as I say and not as I do.”  For example, Congress passed the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, which requires public companies to disclose in its Form 10-K if the company incurs a specific type of tax penalty from the IRS involving abusive or tax avoidance (shelter) transactions.  More recently, as everyone is keenly aware, laws have passed pertaining to conflict minerals, mine safety, and executive compensation pay ratios.  Laws that have been proposed, but have not passed (yet), include
Continue Reading You asked for it: Bipartisan agreement in congress