An IPO Without The SEC
On January 23, 2019, biotechnology company Gossamer Bio, Inc., filed an amended S-1 pricing its $230 million initial public offering, taking advantage of a rarely used SEC Rule that will allow the S-1 to go effective, and the IPO to be completed, 20 days from filing, without action by the SEC. Since the government shutdown, several companies have opted to proceed with the effectiveness of a registration statement for a follow-on offering without SEC review or approval, but this marks the first full IPO, and certainly the first of any significant size. The Gossamer IPO is being underwritten by Bank of America Merrill Lynch, SVB Leerink, Barclays and Evercore ISI. On January 24, 2019, Nasdaq issued five FAQ addressing their position on listing companies utilizing Section 8(a). Although the SEC has recommenced full operations as of today, there has non-the-less been a transformation in the methods used to access capital markets, and the use of 8(a) is just another small step in a new direction.
Section 8(a) of the Securities Act
Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) provides for the effectiveness of registration statements and amendments. In particular, the statute provides that a registration statement shall automatically go effective on the 20th day after its filing or such earlier date as the SEC may determine. Section 8(b) gives the SEC the power to issue a stop order to prevent a registration statement from going effective in accordance under Section 8(a) if the registration statement is “on its face incomplete or inaccurate in any material respect.”
In practice, companies avoid the Section 8(a) effectiveness by adding language to their registration statements known as the “delaying amendment.” The typical language for a delaying amendment is similar to the following:
The information in this preliminary prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We may not sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is effective. This preliminary prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and it is not soliciting an offer to buy these securities in any state or other jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not permitted.
… and with that provision, Section 8(a) is avoided. A company then goes through a comment, review and amendment process with the SEC which ultimately results in the SEC informing the company that it has cleared comments. A company then files a letter with the SEC, relying on another rule (Rule 461) requesting that the registration statement become effective. Technically the request is that the SEC accelerate the effectiveness of the registration statement so that a company does not have to file a final amendment removing the “delaying amendment” language and adding Section 8(a) language and then waiting 20 days for the registration statement to go effective.
The reasons that Section 8(a) is not used in practice are twofold. The first is that a company and its attorneys, auditors and underwriters believe that there is too much risk of litigation associated with forgoing SEC review. If the registration statement disclosures are later shown to have shortcomings, the unusual lack of SEC review adds fuel to the plaintiff’s lawyer’s claims. However, the SEC does not conduct a merit review, but rather just reviews to determine if the disclosures comply with the rules and regulations. Not only does the SEC not pass on whether a deal is good or bad, but making a statement to the contrary is a criminal offense and Item 501 of Regulation S-K specifically requires a disclaimer on the subject with suggested language, to wit:
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of these securities or passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of this prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.
It seems that if a company has competent counsel and the underwriter has competent counsel, they can together review the disclosures to determine if they are accurate and complete. Moreover, the fact is that if the stock price goes way down, the company is likely to face an investor lawsuit anyway, regardless of what the SEC reviews or doesn’t review. Besides, risk factors are designed to warn investors of potential issues, and Gossamer did so with its newest SEC filing adding the following risk factor:
As a result of the shutdown of the federal government, we have determined to rely on Section 8(a) of the Securities Act to cause the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part to become effective automatically. Our reliance on Section 8(a) could result in a number of adverse consequences, including the potential for a need for us to file a post-effective amendment and distribute an updated prospectus to investors, or a stop order issued preventing use of the registration statement, and a corresponding substantial stock price decline, litigation, reputational harm or other negative results.
The registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part is expected to become automatically effective by operation of Section 8(a) of the Securities Act on the 20th calendar day after the most recent amendment of the registration statement filed with the SEC, in lieu of the SEC declaring the registration statement effective following the completion of its review. Although our reliance on Section 8(a) does not relieve us and other parties from the responsibility for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure set forth in the registration statement and for ensuring that the registration statement complies with applicable requirements, use of Section 8(a) poses a risk that, after the date of this prospectus, we may be required to file a post-effective amendment to the registration statement and distribute an updated prospectus to investors, or otherwise abandon this offering, if changes to the information in this prospectus are required, or if a stop order under Section 8(d) of the Securities Act prevents continued use of the registration statement. These or similar events could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline substantially, result in securities class action or other litigation, and subject us to significant monetary damages, reputational harm and other negative results.
The second is that the S-1, which will go effective after 20 days, must be totally complete, including pricing information. In a traditional IPO or follow-on offering, the company does not file the final amendment with pricing information until the day it goes effective. This allows a company to judge the market at the moment of sale to choose the best price, which is especially important in a firm commitment underwritten deal where the underwriter buys all the company’s registered stock in the IPO and immediately resells it to customers and syndicated broker-dealers. A company also may get feedback during its roadshow, which typically occurs in the 10-15 days prior to effectiveness that affects pricing decisions.
Interestingly, Gossamer has decided to ignore these market factors and let the world know its believed value up front. I’m actually not surprised at all. This is just another way that capital markets are shifting. There has been a recent rise in different methods of going public including direct public listings without an IPO (see HERE).
Nasdaq FAQ
On January 24, 2019, Nasdaq issued five FAQ addressing the listing of new companies during the government shutdown and the impact on already listed companies. Nasdaq will list companies that had cleared comments, but whose registration statement had not yet been declared effective at the time of the shutdown. Likewise if a company has substantially cleared comments, Nasdaq is willing to proceed with the listing under certain circumstances. In particular, the company will have had to clearly address the outstanding comments and Nasdaq will require a representation from the company’s counsel and auditor that they believe all disclosure and accounting comments have been fully addressed. Nasdaq will not list a company that has not yet received SEC comments or that first filed for its IPO during the shutdown. Gossamer announced that it has applied for the Nasdaq Global Select Market and so it will likely amend its S-1 to allow SEC review.
Nasdaq will also allow certain up-listings from the OTC Markets to proceed as long as the company satisfies the listing requirement. In particular, if the company only needs to file a registration statement under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), such as a Form 10 or Form 8-A, Nasdaq will allow it to continue. Keep in mind a registration statement under the Exchange Act does not involve the offer or sale of any securities. However, if the up-listing involves an offering and the filing of a registration statement under the Securities Act, Nasdaq will review the application the same as a new IPO. That is, if the company has already cleared or substantially cleared comments, they may continue, if not, they will need to complete the SEC review process.
If a company is already listed on Nasdaq, they may proceed with a follow-on offering without SEC review.
Although the SEC is again operational, they will be backlogged, so presumably Nasdaq is still willing to proceed with certain companies without SEC action. Companies that have already filed a registration statement without the delaying amendment and with the appropriate Section 8(a) amendment will likely proceed. For those that had one or two unsubstantial comments left, they will need to assess which route will be the quickest, wait for the SEC to review the final comments or file a new fully completed registration using Section 8(a). Of course, Nasdaq may issue updated FAQ altering their position on accepting these applications.
Continued Shifting Capital Markets
The rise of decentralized platforms and imminent change in how the capital markets function as a whole and the role of intermediaries in the process has opened the market’s view to relying less on the SEC’s input in their disclosures. tZero is scheduled to launch its security token platform this week, introducing a new way in which securities, or fractional ownership interests in a company, can be bought and sold. tZero is starting with launching its own securities tokens on the platform but will soon open up to third-party companies and reportedly already has applications from over 60 companies. tZero may be the first to launch, but it will not be the only and soon we will have independent markets competing with Nasdaq and the NYSE. Moreover, the securities token markets will have sectors for private company markets and public company markets, blurring the current private equity silo with public trading.
Much more significantly, though, is that this is the first step in a retooling and complete change in how the clearing and settlement of securities functions (for more on the current clearing and settlement, see HERE and HERE). The new blockchain technology will allow for instantaneous clearing and settlement, a big change from the current t+2 and sometimes t+3 settlement of today (thus the name tZero). Notably, blockchain eliminates the need for a trusted intermediary, thus opening up the question as to the future role of DTC and its custodial arm, Cede & Co.
No regulator, the SEC or FINRA included, is ready for a complete disruption of the capital markets system, but they have been thinking about it for a while. FINRA published a report on the implications of blockchain for the securities industry back in January 2017 (see HERE). Furthermore, the SEC has reportedly told tZero, and presumably others following in their lead, that they will allow incremental changes in the market system.
This is a small concession considering that they will have no choice as the proverbial train has left the station. tZero is launching a joint venture with Boston Options Exchange, which is one of 12 SEC-listed security exchanges which together comprise the National Market System network. The joint venture seeks to launch a marketplace able to deal in both public securities and digital tokens. Nasdaq Financial Framework, a software company owned by the exchange, just closed a $20 million Series B funding round into Symbiont which is working to “give Nasdaq the ability to originate a financial instrument and the smart contract to custody it on a blockchain, to allow trading to occur with their matching engine, to allow surveillance to occur across the network using Nasdaq technology and then to perform settlement on a blockchain.”
Meanwhile, the SEC is clearly not against forgoing the comment and review process and relying on Section 8(a). As it was shutting down, the SEC posted an FAQ on its website reminding companies that they can proceed to rely on Section 8(a) to effectuate their registration statements, and even providing the exact language that needs to be included in order to accomplish this. In particular: “This registration statement shall hereafter become effective in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.” Even with the re-opening of the SEC, CorpFin will be exponentially backlogged compared to the time it was shutdown. It will be interesting to see how the SEC handles the workload – perhaps in addition to simply foregoing comments on many filings, the SEC will continue to support the use of 8(a) on others, especially follow-on offerings completed for a company that has had a full review in the last few years.
« The Treasury Department Report To The President On FinTech And Innovation Updated Disclosures for Mining Companies »