Securities Attorney Laura Anthony, Author at Reverse-Merger.com

State Distributed Ledger Technology and Blockchain Regulations

In a time of rapidly changing regulations and policies on all securities industry and corporate finance topics, and the development of distributed ledger technology (DLT or blockchain) and associated initial cryptocurrency offerings (ICO’s), I have never had so many topics in the queue to write about. With a once-a-week blog, I will just keep working through the list, reporting on all developments, some quicker than others. In this blog, I am circling back to DLT with a synopsis of state law developments and the Uniform Law Commission’s (ULC) approved Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Business Act (Uniform VCBA).

Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Business Act (Uniform VCBA)

On July 19, 2017, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) approved Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Business Act (Uniform VCBA) to be used as a model for states seeking to adopt such legislation. The VCBA is a money-transmitting or payment-processing-based legislation. The VCBA defines a money transmitter in an effort to provide clarity on what businesses are required to be licensed. The VCBA also provides an anti-money laundering (AML) framework that mirrors FinCEN requirements.

The VCBA focuses on control over the currency and transaction and requires licensing by any business that has the “power to execute unilaterally or prevent indefinitely a virtual currency transaction.” This definition is meant to distinguish virtual wallets that merely hold an individual’s virtual currency and process a transaction at the behest of such owner, without any additional powers.

Delaware

The Delaware Blockchain Initiative is the state’s program to welcome and encourage blockchain businesses and to establish regulatory clarity for their operations and the use of blockchain technology overall, including DLT.

The August 1, 2017 amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) Section 219, 224 and 232 will allow Delaware private companies to use DLT to maintain shareholder records, including authorized, issued, transferred, and redeemed shares, on a DLT system. As of now, the amendments to the DGCL are limited to private companies; however, the state of Delaware is in talks with the SEC related to implementing the technology for public companies.

DGCL Sections 219 and 224 have been amended to permit corporations to rely on a DLT as a stock ledger itself, potentially eliminating a separate transfer agent for private companies. Section 219(c) defines a “stock ledger” to include “one or more records administered by or on behalf of the corporation.” Section 224 provides that any records “administered by or on behalf of the corporation” could include “one or more distributed electronic networks for databases.”

A ledger must also: (i) be convertible into clearly legible paper form within a reasonable time; (ii) be able to be used to prepare the list of stockholders specified in Sections 219 and 220 (related to stockholder demands to inspect corporate books and records); (iii) must be able to record information and maintain records for various statute sections related to shareholdings, including those related to consideration for partly paid shares, the transfer of shares for collateral, pledged shares and voting trusts; and (iv) be able to records transfers of shares in compliance with the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code.

Delaware is currently working in collaboration with a private company, Symbiont, to put together “smart securities,” which are allegedly impossible to counterfeit. The ledger could be maintained by either a closed or open group of participants. The ledger and any transfers would be updated instantaneously, effectively allowing for T+0 settlement of trades.

Nevada

Preceding Delaware by a month, on June 5, 2017, Nevada’s governor signed Senate Bill 398 into law, confirming that blockchain records have legally binding status. Unlike Delaware, Nevada’s regulations do not amend its corporate statutes (i.e., Chapter 78, Nevada’s Private Corporation Law), but rather, similar to Arizona, amends Chapter 719, Nevada’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.

Nevada’s statute defines blockchain as an electronic record of transactions or other data which is: (i) uniformly ordered; (ii) redundantly maintained or processed by one or more computers or machines to guarantee the consistency or nonrepudiation of the recorded transactions or other data; and (iii) validated by the use of cryptography.

The Nevada statute prohibits local governments from imposing taxes or fees on the use of a blockchain; requiring a certificate, license or permit to use a blockchain; or imposing any other requirement related to the use of blockchain. Moreover, the Nevada statute provides “written” status to blockchain records. In particular, “if a law requires a record to be in writing, submission of a blockchain which electronically contains the record satisfies the law.”

Arizona

Prior to both Nevada and Delaware, in March 2017 Arizona passed House Bill 2417 into law, confirming the legal status of blockchain records. Like Nevada, Arizona gives smart contracts and blockchain signatures legal binding status. In addition, the Arizona statute confirms that a smart contract has legally binding status, as would any other legal form of contract. Also like Nevada, Arizona’s provision is an amendment to its electronic transactions statute and not its corporate governance provisions.

Arizona defines “blockchain technology” as “distributed ledger technology that uses a distributed decentralized, shared and replicated ledger, which may be public or private, permissioned or permissionless, or driven by tokenized crypto economics or tokenless. The data on the ledger is protected with cryptography, is immutable and auditable and provides an uncensored truth.”

Arizona defines a “smart contract” as “an event driven program, with state, that runs on a distributed decentralized, shared and replicated ledger and that can take custody over and instruct transfer of assets on that ledger.”

Vermont

Vermont defines “blockchain technology” as “a mathematically secured, chronological and decentralized consensus ledger or database, whether maintained via Internet interaction, peer-to-peer network, or otherwise.” The Vermont statute confirms that blockchain records will be considered regular business records and makes blockchain records admissible as evidence under the Vermont rules of evidence.

Miscellaneous Virtual Currency Provisions

Multiple states, including Connecticut, New York, Oregon and Tennessee, have enacted legislations defining virtual currency and requiring money transmitters or payment processors which exchange virtual currency for U.S. dollars, to be licensed. The New York statute (the BitLicense Regulation) has received a lot of pushback, with many claiming it is vague or overly difficult to comply with, causing many in the business to avoid New York jurisdiction.

Further Reading on DLT/Blockchain and ICO’s

For an introduction on distributed ledger technology, including a summary of FINRA’s Report on Distributed Ledger Technology and Implication of Blockchain for the Securities Industry, see HERE.

For a summary on a report on an investigation related to the DAO’s ICO, statements by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement related to the investigative report and the SEC’s Investor Bulletin on ICO’s, see HERE.

For a summary of SEC Chief Accountant Wesley R. Bricker’s statements on ICO’s and accounting implications, see HERE.

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
330 Clematis Street, Suite 217
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: 800-341-2684 – 561-514-0936
Fax: 561-514-0832
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
www.LegalAndCompliance.com
www.LawCast.com

Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.

This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.

« The Investment Adviser Advertising Rule The SEC’s 2017 Enforcement Priorities And Results »

The Investment Adviser Advertising Rule

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | December 27, 2017 Tags: Advertising Rule, C Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, Investment Adviser Advertising Rule, Rule 206(4)-1, The Investment Adviser Advertising Rule, the SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations

On September 14, 2017, the SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) issued a risk alert identifying the most frequent compliance violations to the investment adviser’s advertising rule.

The Advertising Rule

The “Advertising Rule” found in Rule 206(4)-1 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) prohibits an adviser from directly or indirectly publishing, circulating or distributing any advertisement that contains any untrue statement of material fact, or that is otherwise false or misleading. “Advertising” includes any “notice, circular, letter or other written communicated addressed to one or more persons or any notice or other announcement published or made by radio or television which offers (1) any analysis, report, or publication concerning securities, or which is to be used in making any determination as to when to buy or sell any security, or which security to buy or sell, or (2) any graph, chart, formula, or other device to be used in making any determination as to when to buy or sell any security, or which security to buy or sell, or (3) any other investment advisory service with regard to securities.”

The Advertising Rule specifically prohibits: (i) any advertisement that directly or indirectly refers to any testimonial concerning the adviser or any report or service rendered by the adviser; (ii) an adviser from advertising past specific recommendations that were profitable to any person; (iii) any advertisements claiming that any graph, chart or formula can by itself determine whether to buy or sell a security; and (iv) advertisements that offer purportedly free reports, analysis or services.

In addition to the Advertising Rule itself, guidance on adviser advertising can be found in SEC-issued guidance updates, opinions and no-action letters, and settled or adjudicated court and administrative proceedings.

Most Frequent Advertising Rule Violations

The OCIE risk alert identified the following most frequent violations of the Advertising Rule:

Misleading Performance Results. The OCIE often observed advertisements with misleading performance results. As an example, any advertisement of results that do not deduct the advisory fee from the presented performance, is deemed misleading. As another example, advertisements that compared results from a particular benchmark were often misleading as the parameters or strategies involved in the two comparisons were often materially different. Finally, hypothetical and back-tested performance results could be misleading where information on how returns were derived or other material information was not included.

Misleading One-on-One Presentations. An example of a misleading one-on-one presentation would be where the adviser advertised performance results gross of fees without necessarily additional material disclosures. Again, the mere failure to disclose that advisory fees had not been deducted from an advertisement would also be misleading.

Misleading Claim of Compliance with Voluntary Performance Standards. The OCIE staff observes cases in which an adviser claims compliance with voluntary performance standards, when in fact, they were not compliant.

Cherry-Picked Profitable Stock Selections. An advertisement that cherry-picks profitable stock selections without a balanced presentation, including disclosure related to unprofitable selections, is misleading.

Misleading Selection of Recommendations. The OCIE staff often finds adviser advertisements that include past specific investment recommendations in a misleading way. In the TCW Group no-action letter, the SEC specifically found that it was not misleading to include five or more best-performing holdings or stock picks, as long as an equal number of worst performers were also disclosed. Moreover, an adviser would have to also include other materially relevant information about its strategy. In the Franklin no-action letter, the SEC staff allowed advertisements including past specific performance results that used consistently applied, objective, non-performance based selection criteria, as long as the adviser included certain disclosures such as that the included results were not all results or all securities purchased or sold, and did not include profits related to specific recommendations. Many advisers fail to follow the guidance in these no-action letters.

Compliance Policies and Procedures. Many advisers do not have adequate compliance policies and procedures to prevent deficient advertising practices. Adequate procedures would include a process for reviewing and approving advertisement materials prior to publication or dissemination; determining parameters for inclusion in performance calculations; and confirming the accuracy of performance results.

OCIE Touting Initiative

In 2016 the OCIE launched a Touting Initiative to examine adviser advertisements that touted awards, ranking lists or professional designations and accolades in their marketing materials. Where an adviser includes third-party rankings or awards in their advertisements, they must include material facts related to the award or ranking, so as not to be misleading, including the date of the award, selection criteria, who created or gave the award or ranking, and whether the adviser paid to be included. Furthermore, the OCIE found that advisers sometimes obtained a ranking or award by providing false information in their application or nomination for the award in the first place. Finally, another commonly found touting violation involved improper client testimonials.

The Author

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

« SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Holds Final Meeting State Distributed Ledger Technology and Blockchain Regulations »

SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Holds Final Meeting

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | December 19, 2017 Tags: SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Holds Final Meeting

On September 13, 2017, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) held its final meeting and issued its final report. The Committee was organized by the SEC for a two-year term to provide advice on SEC rules, regulations and policies regarding “its mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitating capital formation” as related to “(i) capital raising by emerging privately held small businesses and publicly traded companies with less than $250 million in public market capitalization; (ii) trading in the securities of such businesses and companies; and (iii) public reporting and corporate governance requirements to which such businesses and companies are subject.”

As the two-year term is expiring, Congress has determined to establish an Exchange Act-mandated, perpetual committee to be named the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee. The SEC is also setting up a new Office of Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and is actively seeking to fill both the advocate and Committee positions.

The September 13, 2017 Advisory Committee meeting discussed: (i) the auditor attestation report under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (“SOX”); (ii) the proposed amendments to the definition of a “smaller reporting company”; (iii) amendments to the definition of an “accredited investor”; (iv) potential updates to modernize Securities Act Rule 701 of the Securities Act related to employee stock compensation from private companies; (v) finders in private placement transaction; (vi) disclosure of board diversity; and (vii) the creation of a new secondary market for accredited investors to trade small-cap equities.

Amendment to Smaller Reporting Company Definition

The Advisory Committee believes that public company disclosure requirements disproportionately burden smaller reporting companies. In July 2015 the Advisory Committee made specific recommendations to the SEC for changes to the definition of a “smaller reporting company” (see HERE). Under the current rules a “smaller reporting company” is defined as one that, among other things, has a public float of less than $75 million in common equity, or if unable to calculate the public float, has less than $50 million in annual revenues. Similarly, a company is considered a non-accelerated filer if it has a public float of less than $75 million as of the last day of the most recently completely second fiscal quarter. The Advisory Committee has made the following recommendations:

The SEC should revise the definition of “smaller reporting company” to include companies with a public float of up to $250 million. This will increase the class of companies benefiting from a broad range of benefits to smaller reporting companies, including (i) exemption from the pay ratio rule; (ii) exemption from the auditor attestation requirements; and (iii) exemption from providing a compensation discussion and analysis. I note that the SEC proposed rules conforming to this recommendation and in the most recent meeting urged the SEC to finalize the rule. For more on the SEC proposed rule change, see HERE.

The SEC should revise its rules to align disclosure requirements for smaller reporting companies with those for emerging-growth companies. These include (i) exemption from the requirement to conduct shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation and on the frequency of such votes; (ii) exemption from rules requiring mandatory audit firm rotation; (iii) exemption from pay versus performance disclosure; and (iv) allow compliance with new accounting standards on the date that private companies are required to comply. For more information on the differences between a smaller reporting company and an EGC, please see HERE.

The SEC should revise the definition of “accelerated filer” to include companies with a public float of $250 million or more but less than $700 million. As a result, the auditor attestation report under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act would no longer apply to companies with a public float between $75 million and $250 million.

As an aside, one of the recommendations flowing from the 2016 SEC Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation is that the definition of smaller reporting company and non-accelerated filer should be revised to include an issuer with a public float of less than $250 million or with annual revenues of less than $100 million, excluding large accelerated filers; and to extend the period of exemption from Sarbanes 404(b) for an additional five years for pre- or low-revenue companies after they cease to be emerging-growth companies.

Amendment to Definition of an Accredited Investor

Previously on June 19, 2016, and in early 2015, the Advisory Committee made specific recommendations for changes to the definition of an “accredited investor.” See here for my prior blog on the subject HERE. The Advisory Committee has reiterated its prior recommendations, including:

The core of prior recommendations remain the same with the added statement that “the overarching goal of any changes the Commission might consider should be to ‘do no harm’ to the private offering ecosystem.”

The SEC should not change the current financial thresholds in the definition except to adjust for inflation on a going-forward basis.

The definition should be expanded to take into account measure of non-financial sophistication, regardless of income or net worth, thereby expanding rather than contracting the pool of accredited investors.

“Simplicity and certainty are vital to the utility of any expanded definition of accredited investor. Accordingly, any non-financial criteria should be able to be ascertained with certainty”; and

The SEC should continue to gather data on this subject and, in particular, what “attributes best encompass those persons whose financial sophistication and ability to sustain the risk of loss of investment or ability to fend for themselves render the protections of the Securities Act’s registration process unnecessary.”

Amendment to Rule 701

The Advisory Committee heard presentations and made recommendations to the SEC to amend Rule 701. Rule 701 of the Securities Act provides an exemption from the registration requirements for the issuance of securities under written compensatory benefit plans. Rule 701 is a specialized exemption for private or non-reporting entities and may not be relied upon by companies that are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. The Rule 701 exemption is only available to the issuing company and may not be relied upon for the resale of securities, whether by an affiliate or non-affiliate.

Rule 701 exempts the offers and sales of securities under a written compensatory plan. The plan can provide for issuances to employees, directors, officers, general partners, trustees, or consultants and advisors. However, under the rule consultants and advisors may only receive securities under the exemption if: (i) they are a natural person (i.e., no entities); (ii) they provide bona fide services to the issuer, its parent or subsidiaries; and (iii) the services are not in connection with the offer or sale of securities in a capital-raising transaction, and do not directly or indirectly promote or maintain a market in the company’s securities.

Securities issued under Rule 701 are restricted securities for purposes of Rule 144; however, 90 days after a company becomes subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements, securities issued under a 701 plan become available for resale. In addition, non-affiliates may sell Rule 701 securities after the 90-day period without regard to the current public information or holding period requirements of Rule 144.

The amount of securities sold in reliance on Rule 701 may not exceed, in any 12-month period, the greater of: (i) $1,000,000; (ii) 15% of the total assets of the issuer; or (iii) 15% of the outstanding amount of the class of securities being offered and sold in reliance on the exemption. Rule 701 issuances do not integrate with the offer and sales of any other securities under the Securities Act, whether registered or exempt.

Rule 701(e) contains specific disclosure obligations scaled to the amount of securities sold. In particular, for all issuances under Rule 701 a company must provide a copy of the plan itself to the share recipient. Where the aggregate sales price or amount of securities sold during any consecutive 12-month period exceeds $5 million, the company must provide the following disclosures to investors within a reasonable period of time before the date of the sale: (i) a copy of the plan itself (ii) risk factors; (iii) financial statement as required under Regulation A; (iv) if the award is an option or warrant, the company must deliver disclosure before exercise or conversion; and (v) for deferred compensation, the company must deliver the disclosure to investors within a reasonable time before the date of the irrevocable election to defer is made.

The Advisory Committee made the following recommendations related to Rule 701:

Eliminate the Requirement that consultants be natural persons. The original limitation was intended to prevent Rule 701 from being used for capital-raising transactions; however, many smaller companies use outside employees or employee rental services that are run through entities. The Advisory Committee believes that this change will bring Rule 701 more in line with the realities of today’s business operations and that other provisions of the rule adequately address the prohibition against improper use of the Rule, such as for capital-raising transactions.

Remove the Rule 701 limits of the greater of: (i) $1,000,000; (ii) 15% of the total assets of the issuer; or (iii) 15% of the outstanding amount of the class of securities being offered and sold in reliance on the exemption. The Advisory Committee believes that the analysis required by these limits outweigh any benefits.

Increase the $5 million disclosure requirement cap to at least $10 million. Note that bills have now passed both the House and Senate that would increase the cap to $10 million and are expected to be signed by the President in the near future.

Exclude “material amendments” from the calculation of the limits in the Rule. Currently SEC CD&I on the Rule require repriced options to be counted as new grants or sales. However, it is argued that repricing merely keeps options within the intended use of the Rule, i.e., as compensation. Moreover, it is thought that companies avoid repricing when it would be beneficial, to avoid reaching the Rule limits.

Clarify the application of the Rule to Restricted Stock Units (RSU’s). RSU’s are not currently addressed in the Rule. It is recommended that they be treated the same as options. In addition, it is recommended that any disclosure obligations be triggered by exercise or settlement and not the grant itself. Note, however, that a CD&I does include RSU’s under Rule 701 and requires disclosure, and limit analysis, as of the date of grant.

Require disclosure only after the threshold has been exceeded. Currently, expanded disclosure must be provided to any person who receives securities under Rule 701 during the 12-month period in which the company sells securities under Rule 701 with a value over $5 million. As disclosure is required prior to a grant, a company could inadvertently fail to comply with the Rule when it did not properly predict it would reach the cap, or future amendments result in reaching the cap. This is another reason that amendments should be excluded from the cap calculation. Moreover, it was recommended that the disclosure requirements be simplified to require only a current balance sheet and income statement, and only requiring updates upon a material change or once a year.

Clarify timing and delivery requirements for disclosure documents. Currently disclosure is required to be delivered “a reasonable period of time prior to the sale.” It is recommended that disclosure be clearly allowed to be delivered at any time prior to the sale and that “access equals delivery” satisfy deliver requirements. Since Rule 701 only applies to private companies, companies sometimes do, and could be formally allowed to set up data rooms accessible to equity recipients. Note that on November 6, 2017, the SEC issued a new CD&I on the subject which specifically allows a company to implement cyber security safeguards when electronically transmitting or providing disclosure in accordance with Rule 701.

For more on Rule 701, see my blog HERE.

Private Placement Finders

In a repeated and ongoing theme, the Advisory Committee once again recommended that the SEC take action to provide regulatory certainty to finders in private placement transactions. The Advisory Committee has previously made recommendations to the SEC and sought regulatory action on May 15, 2017 and on September 23, 2015. In addition to a plea for any guidance and support, in 2015 the Advisory Committee had made the following specific recommendations:

The SEC take steps to clarify the current ambiguity in broker-dealer regulation by determining that persons that receive transaction-based compensation solely for providing names of or introductions to prospective investors are not subject to registration as a broker under the Exchange Act;

The SEC exempt intermediaries on a federal level that are actively involved in the discussions, negotiations and structuring, and solicitation of prospective investors for private financings as long as such intermediaries are registered on the state level;

The SEC spearhead a joint effort with the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) and FINRA to ensure coordinated state regulation and adoption of measured regulation that is transparent, responsive to the needs of small businesses for capital, proportional to the risks to which investors in such offerings are exposed, and capable of early implementation and ongoing enforcement; and

The SEC should take immediate steps to begin to address this set of issues incrementally instead of waiting for the development of a comprehensive solution.

For a review of my ongoing discussion on finder’s fees, see my blog HERE.

Board Diversity

The Advisory Committee believes that board diversity improves competitiveness and creates greater access to capital, more sustainable profits and better shareholder relationships. As such, the Advisory Committee recommends that the SEC amend its current very broad rule on board diversity disclosure to require companies to describe their policies with respect to diversity and to disclose the extent to which their boards are diverse. As with the current rule, the definition of diversity can be left to the company; however, disclosure should include information regarding race, gender and ethnicity.

Market Structure – Secondary Trading

The Advisory Committee recognizes that liquidity is an issue for smaller companies. The Advisory Committee advocates for a new U.S. equity market for the trading by accredited investors in smaller company securities. The Advisory Committee also advocates for federal law preemption over the secondary trading of Tier 2 Regulation A securities. Moreover, the Advisory Committee recommends that the SEC allow for smaller exchange-listed companies to voluntarily choose larger trading increments or tick sizes. It is thought that widening spreads from the current one-penny increments could provide economic incentives that would encourage the provision of trading support to the equity securities of small and mid-cap companies. More flexibility and larger tick sizes could also encourage IPO’s for small companies. For more on the SEC tick size pilot program, see HERE.

Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404(b)

The Advisory Committee has heard presentations on the Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404(b) requirement for an auditor attestation and report on management’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting. Among other things, Section 404(b) of SOX requires companies to include in their annual reports filed with the SEC, an accompanying auditor’s attestation report on the effectiveness of the company’s internal control over financial reporting. In other words, reporting companies must employ their auditor to audit and attest upon their financial internal control process, in addition to the financial statements themselves.

Section 404(b) has been a hot topic recently, with those already or soon to be required to comply almost unilaterally requesting relief, and those that benefit from its application, including accountants and auditors, almost unilaterally touting its benefits. The Financial Choice Act, which is not likely to pass in its complete form, includes a provision that would increase the Rule 404(b) compliance threshold from a $250 million public float to $500 million.

In one Advisory Committee presentation, a representative from a large accounting firm supported Section 404(b) and touted improvements in accounting quality. According to studies, companies that have control audits have fewer restatements, higher valuations and lower costs of debt.

However, in the second presentation by the CEO of a relatively small pre-revenue biotech company, the reality of the onerous cost and effort involved to comply with Section 404(b) was illustrated. The cost of 404(b) compliance took away from R&D, growth, and additional employees, and could add 1% or more to the company’s overall burn rate. That CEO advocated for an exemption from 404(b) for all companies with either a public float under $250 million or annual revenues under $100 million.

The Advisory Committee seems to agree that 404(b) is not necessary or helpful for smaller companies but did not make a specific recommendation as suggested by the biotech CEO. Rather, the Advisory Board has recommended a change in the definition of “accelerated filer” as noted above, which would include a higher threshold for Section 404(b) compliance.

The Author

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

« SEC Publishes Report on Access to Capital and Market Liquidity The Investment Adviser Advertising Rule »

SEC Publishes Report on Access to Capital and Market Liquidity

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | December 13, 2017 Tags: Access to Capital and Market Liquidity, Changes and Trends in Market Liquidity, Changes and Trends in Primary Issuance, SEC Publishes Report on Access to Capital and Market Liquidity

On August 8, 2017 the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) published a 315-page report describing trends in primary securities issuance and secondary market liquidity and assessing how those trends relate to impacts of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the Volcker Rule. The report examines the issuances of debt, equity and asset-backed securities and reviews liquidity in U.S. treasuries, corporate bonds, credit default swaps and bond funds. Included in the reports is a study of trends in unregistered offerings, including Regulation C and Regulation Crowdfunding.

This blog summarizes portions of the report that I think will be of interest to the small-cap marketplace.

Disclaimers and Considerations

The report begins with a level of disclaimers and the obvious issue of isolating the impact of particular rules, especially when multiple rules are being implemented in the same time period. Even without the DERA notes that noted trends and behaviors could have occurred absent rule changes or reforms. The financial crisis that resulted in the implementation of Dodd-Frank, necessarily resulted in changes in market trends in and of itself, as did post crisis changes other than Dodd-Frank such as much lower interest rates. Furthermore, observed changes could be a result of numerous other factors such as various regulations (besides the studies Dodd-Frank and JOBS Act), non-regulatory market structure changes and technological advances.

Moreover, five broad economic considerations shaped the DERA analysis. First, capital raising in primary markets and liquidity in secondary markets are inextricably intertwined. There is a direct correlation between the ability to exit investments on the secondary market and the inflow of new investments for primary issuances. Second, alternative credit risk products impact activity and liquidity in bond markets. Third, liquidity is an important characteristic of capital markets, impacting the ability of investors to execute trades of different sizes, quickly and at a low cost. Fourth, although large sample analysis is used to study the markets, this information may not reflect the behaviors of smaller market segments. For example, since the sample size and offering size for companies relying on the JOBS Act provisions is relatively small, and its time of use is relatively short, the DERA declines to reach conclusions regarding future trends related to these offerings. Fifth, regulations that affect one group over another, affect the ability to observe overall changes in market indicators and links to such regulations.

Changes and Trends in Primary Issuance

As I reiterate in many of my blogs, all offers and sales of securities must be either registered with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) or conducted under an exemption from registration. All offerings require disclosure to potential investors with registered offerings requiring detailed disclosures and financial information delineated by regulations, including Regulations S-K and S-X. Companies completing registered offerings become subject to ongoing reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). For more information on Exchange Act reporting requirements, see HERE.

One of the purposes of exempt offerings is to reduce the burden on companies during the capital-raising process and thereafter. Certainly not all companies can afford, nor should take on the expense of, a registered offering and ongoing SEC reporting requirements. Since exempt offerings require fewer disclosures and have far less regulatory oversight, they are subject to investor limitations, such as accreditation, and for some, offering limits. The investor protection provisions of the exemption claimed must be met to qualify for the exemption from registration.

The JOBS Act, enacted in 2012, was designed to promote registered and exempt offerings. The JOBS Act created emerging growth companies (EGC’s), expanded Rule 506 of Regulation D by creating Rule 506(c) allowing general solicitation and advertising in exempt offerings limited to accredited investors, amended Rule 144A to allow general solicitation and advertising, revamped Regulation A completely and created Regulation CF (Title III Crowdfunding). The DERA notes that these changes would be expected to have important effects on the amount of capital being raised and personally, I think that the changes have had a dramatic impact on primary issuances and especially for smaller companies.

As noted above, the DERA is reluctant to directly tie increases in primary market issuances to the JOBS Act because it involves relatively newer regulations (the provisions were enacted over time from 2012 through 2016), and smaller sample sizes for analysis, but the report can’t deny the uptick, noting the increase in activity around its implementation.

The DERA analyzed the primary issuance of debt, equity and asset-backed securities. The DERA reviewed changes in IPO’s, seasoned follow-on offerings, Regulation A and exempt offerings of debt and equity under Regulation D. Total capital formation from the signing of Dodd-Frank into law in 2010 through the end of 2016 was $20.20 trillion, of which $8.8 trillion was raised through registered offerings and the balance through private offerings. The DERA did not find a decrease in total primary market security issuances as a result of Dodd-Frank, though it did find that there was an increase around the implementation of the JOBS Act in 2012.

The DERA did note several trends, including that capital raised through initial public offerings (IPO’s) ebbs and flows over time, reaching highs in 1999, 2007 and 2014 and lows in 2003, 2008 and 2016. The number of small company IPO’s has increased in recent years. IPO’s of less than $30 million increased from 17% of total IPO’s to 22% following passage of the JOBS Act. Although I do not believe that emerging growth companies (EGC’s) are necessarily small companies, more than 75% of IPO’s were by EGC’s in 2016. The use of Regulation A also continues to increase.

In addition, private offerings have increased substantially over the years. The amount raised through private offerings in the period from 2012 through 2016 was more than 26% higher than the amount raised in registered offerings in the same time period.

Changes and Trends in Market Liquidity

The DERA found it more difficult to tie changes in market liquidity to regulatory reform, citing other factors such as the electronification of markets, changes in macroeconomic conditions, and post-crisis changes in dealer risk preferences as influencers.

The report focused on treasuries, corporate bonds, single-name credit default swaps and funds in its liquidity analysis, devoting 191 pages to these topics. A discussion of this areas is beyond the scope of this blog.

The DERA does state that it found no empirical evidence that U.S. Treasury market liquidity deteriorated after regulatory reforms. Trading activity in corporate bond markets has generally improved or remained flat. Furthermore, transaction costs have decreased over the years on whole. Dealers in corporate bond markets have reduced their capital commitment since 2007, which is consistent with the Volcker Rule.

The Author

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

« OTC Markets Group Establishes A Stock Promotion Policy SEC Advisory Committee On Small And Emerging Companies Holds Final Meeting »

OTC Markets Group Establishes A Stock Promotion Policy

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | December 5, 2017 Tags: OTC Markets, OTC Markets Group, OTC Markets Group Establishes A Stock Promotion Policy, Stock Promotion Policy

As OTC Markets Group continues to position itself as a respected venture trading platform, it has adopted a new stock promotion policy and best practices guidelines to improve investor transparency and address concerns over fraudulent or improper stock promotion campaigns. The stock promotion policy and best practices guidelines are designed to assist companies with responsible investor relations and to address problematic issues. Recognizing that fraudulent stock promotion is a systemic problem requiring an all-fronts effort by industry participants and regulators, the new policy focuses on transparency and disclosure of current information, and the correction of false statements or materially misleading information issued by third parties.

For several years, OTC Markets Group has been delineating companies with a skull-and-crossbones sign where they have raised concerns such as improper or misleading disclosures, spam campaigns, questionable stock promotion, investigation of fraudulent or other criminal activity, regulatory suspensions or disruptive corporate actions. While labeled with a skull and crossbones, a company that does not have current information or is not on the OTCQB or OTCQX will have its quote blocked on the OTC Markets website.

The new policy addresses: (i) publicly identifying securities being promoted; (ii) identifying fraudulent promotional campaigns; (iii) responsibilities of companies with promoted securities; (iv) the impact on OTCQX or OTCQB designations; (v) caveat emptor policy and stock promotion; and (vi) regulatory referrals. This blog summarizes both the new stock promotion policy and best practices guidelines.

OTC Markets Group Policy on Stock Promotion

The basic premise behind OTC Markets Group policy on stock promotion is the timely disclosure of material information, which includes the duty to dispel unfounded rumors, misinformation or false statements. Technology has increased the ability for companies, insiders and third parties to engage in improper and manipulative activities, including through spam campaigns, and anonymous social networks and message groups.

A company that is the subject of an active campaign or has a history of stock promotion may be denied an application for trading on the OTCQB or OTCQX. A company may be removed from the OTCQB or OTCQX, upon the sole discretion of OTC Markets Group, if it is involved in an active campaign involving misleading information or manipulative promotion. Furthermore, promotional activity of a shell company will result in the immediate removal from OTCQB (shells are not permitted on OTCQX). OTC Markets Group will continue to use the caveat emptor skull-and-crossbones designations as well. Where appropriate, OTC Markets Group will refer a company to the SEC, FINRA or other regulatory agency for investigation.

Paid promotions are often associated with pump-and-dump activities where a third party is attempting to pump the stock price to liquidate at inflated prices, following which the stock will inevitably go down. Improper and misleading promotional materials, which can often be in the form of e-mails, newsletters, social media outlets (such as message boards), press releases, videos, telephone calls, or direct mail, generally share the following common characteristics.

Failure to identify the sponsor of the promotion or if the promotion is paid for an anonymous third party

Information focuses on a company’s stock rather that its business;

Speculative language, including but not limited to grandiose claims and numbers related to the company’s business, industry, financial results or business developments;

Touting of performance or profit potential from trading in a company’s stock with unsupported or exaggerated statements, including related to stock price;

Making unreasonable claims related to a company’s performance;

Directly or indirectly promising specific future performance;

Providing little or no factual information about the company;

Urging immediate action to avoid missing out;

Failing to provide disclosures related to risks of an investment.

Although not included in OTC Markets’ list of common characteristics, another red flag is when there is a comparison between the company being promoted and a well-known successful or respected company.

OTC Markets Group monitors for paid promotional activity and reviews for anonymous promotions, connections to bad actors, and impacts on trading. Beginning in first quarter 2018, stocks associated with such promotional activity will be identified with a “risk flag” next to its symbol on the OTC Markets website.

OTC Markets Group may also request that a company that is subject to promotional activity issue a press release to: (i) identify promotional activity; (ii) confirm information in the promotion or identify misinformation; (iii) and/or disclose recent securities transactions by insiders and affiliates. Furthermore, OTC Markets group may request information from a company and/or its transfer agent related to transactions and request additional disclosures from the company related to share issuances, financing agreements and the identity of people or advisors associated with the transactions.

OTC Markets Group Best Practices Guidelines for Stock Promotion

As in its separate stock promotion policy, the OTC Markets Group best practices on stock promotion guidelines reiterate the core principle that the timely disclosure of material information is key, which includes the duty to dispel unfounded rumors, misinformation or false statements.

OTC Markets Group suggests that companies perform due diligence on investor relations firms and their principals prior to engaging services. This is advice I am constantly giving to my clients. Basic due diligence includes reviewing other represented clients and doing basic searches for regulatory issues or negative news. Companies should also be very clear on what services an investor relations firm will perform and what compensation will be paid for those services.

Very vague service descriptions often indicate an improper promotional campaign. OTC Markets Group also warns of red flags, including a request that payment be split among various individuals or groups.

A company that hires or sponsors investor relations is responsible for the content of communications made by that company and must ensure that all information is materially current and accurate. In addition, a company should retain editorial control and review all information before it is disseminated. Investor relations materials should not use language that makes assumptions, is speculative or misleading, or brazenly hypes the stock. Communications should not cover new material information that has not been previously disclosed, and should not extend beyond providing factual information to investors and shareholders.

The disclosures required by Section 17(b) must always be properly made, and OTC Markets Group specifically requires that any relationship between the investor relations individuals and entities and the company be fully disclosed.

Since third parties often engage in stock promotional activities without the knowledge or consent of a company, it is important for a company to know its investors, including the people behind any entities or investor groups. Investors that desire anonymity or utilize offshore entities raise a red flag. Furthermore, companies should be wary of shareholders that own significant control or investor groups that will qualify to remove restrictive legends on stock. Investor groups often change the name of their investment vehicle entity and, as such, due diligence should include prior entities.

OTC Markets Group warns against toxic or death spiral financing. Toxic or death spiral financing generally involves an investment in the form of a convertible promissory note or preferred stock that converts into common stock at a discount to market with no floor on the conversion price. As I have written about many times, there are quality investors and others that are not quality in the microcap space. The use of convertible instruments as a method to invest in public companies is perfectly legal and acceptable. However, like any other aspect of the securities marketplace, it can be abused. Further examples of abusive or improper activity could include: (i) backdating of notes or failure to provide the funding associated with the note; (ii) improper undisclosed affiliations between investors and the company or its officers and directors; (iii) manipulative trading practices; (iv) improper stock promotion; or (v) trading on insider information. Again, in choosing a transaction it is incumbent upon the company to conduct due diligence on the investor, including their reputation in the industry and trading history associated with other investments and conversions.

OTC Markets Group also warns of anonymous third-party promotions, noting that these promotions are a significant source of misleading and manipulative information. Any company-sponsored stock promotion must be disclosed, whether the company is involved directly or indirectly. The identity of a company’s investor relations firm must be disclosed on the company’s profile page on otcmarkets.com.

OTC Markets Group recommends that a company make a public announcement with the following information in the event it learns it is the subject of misleading or manipulative stock promotion.

A summary of the company’s understanding of the stock promotion, including how and when the company became aware of the campaign and a description of the promotion’s effect on the company’s trading activity;

Whether the content of the promotion is accurate or contains untrue or misleading information;

Conduct an inquiry of company management, officers and directors, to ascertain whether they are involved in the stock promotion and/or of have purchased or sold securities before, during or after the promotion;

Provide an up-to-date list of service providers who perform investor relations or similar services;

Disclose the issuance of convertible securities with variable rate or discount to market conversion rates. This disclosure should include details on the convertible instruments, including date, number of shares issued or issuable, price, conversion terms, and parties involved.

OTC Markets also suggests that all companies have insider trading policies, a policy which I support and suggest to my clients.

Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933

The federal securities laws also govern stock promotion activity. Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 is an antifraud provision which requires that any communications which “publish, give publicity to, or circulate any notice, circular, advertisement, newspaper, article, letter, investment service or communication” which describes a security, must disclose any consideration received or to be received either in the past, present or future, whether directly or indirectly by the issuer of such communication. Generally the disclosure must include: (i) the amount of consideration; (ii) from whom it is received, such as the company, a third-party shareholder or an underwriter and the individual persons behind any corporate entity involved; (iii) the nature of the consideration (for example, cash or stock, and if stock, whether restricted or unrestricted); and (iv) if consideration is paid by a third party other than the company whose securities are being promoted, the relationship between the company and the third party. Moreover, I recommend that companies ensure such communications include a disclosure as to whether the issuer of such communications owns stock which may be sold in any upmarket created by the communication.

The disclosure required by Section 17(b) must be included in each and every published document, including emails, message board postings and all other communications.

Further Reading on OTC Markets Group Rules

For a review of the OTCQB listing standards, see HERE . For a review of the OTCQX listing standards, see HERE. For a review of the OTC Pink standards, see HERE.

The Author

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

« SEC Statements On Cybersecurity – Part 2 SEC Publishes Report on Access to Capital and Market Liquidity »

SEC Statements On Cybersecurity – Part 2

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | November 28, 2017 Tags: Cyber Unit, Enforcement Initiatives, Retail Strategy Task Force, SEC Enforcement Initiatives, SEC Statements On Cybersecurity, The Cyber Unit, The Retail Strategy Task Force

On September 20, 2017, SEC Chair Jay Clayton issued a statement on cybersecurity that included the astonishing revelation that the SEC Edgar system had been hacked in 2016. Since the original statement, the SEC has confirmed that personal information on at least two individuals was obtained in the incident. Following Jay Clayton’s initial statement, on September 25, 2017, the SEC announced two new cyber-based enforcement initiatives targeting the protection of retail investors, including protection related to distributed ledger technology (DLT) and initial coin or cryptocurrency offerings (ICO’s).

The issue of cybersecurity is at the forefront for the SEC, and Jay Clayton is asking the House Committee on Financial Services to increase the SEC’s budget by $100 million to enhance the SEC’s cybersecurity efforts.

This is the second in a two-part blog series summarizing Jay Clayton’s statement, the SEC EDGAR hacking and the new initiatives. Part I of this blog, which outlined Chair Clayton’s statement on cybersecurity and the EDGAR hacking, can be read HERE . This second part in the series discusses the new cyber-based enforcement initiatives.

Previously I issued a blog outlining SEC guidance on the disclosure of cybersecurity matters, which can be read HERE.

Enforcement Initiatives

The SEC has established two new cybersecurity-related enforcement initiatives to address cyber-based threats and protect retail investors. The first is a creation of a Cyber Unit that will focus on targeting cyber-related misconduct. The second is the formation of a retail strategy task force that will focus on issues that directly affect retail investors.

Cyber Unit

The Cyber Unit will focus on:

Market manipulation schemes involving false information spread through electronic and social media

Hacking to obtain material nonpublic information in order to trade in advance of some announcement or event, or to manipulate the market for a particular security or group of securities

Violations involving distributed ledger technology (blockchain) and initial coin offerings (ICO’s)

Misconduct perpetrated using the dark web

Intrusions into retail brokerage accounts to conduct manipulative trading

Cyber-related threats to trading platforms and other critical market infrastructure

Chair Clayton formed the group with the goal of creating a cybersecurity working group to coordinate information sharing, risk monitoring, and incident response efforts throughout the agency. The Enforcement Division of the SEC has had to fast-track its expertise on matters related to cybersecurity including the advanced technologies that can be utilized. It is thought that this focused enforcement initiative will further the SEC’s abilities to detect, respond to, and pursue misconduct.

On October 26, 2017, Stephanie Avakian, Co-Director of the Division of Enforcement gave a speech where she addressed both initiatives. She addressed the obvious need for the Cyber Unit in today’s world of ever increasing cyber-related misconduct affecting the securities markets.

Expanding on the SEC’s list of areas of attention, Ms. Avakian indicates that the Cyber-Unit will also focus on cases involving failures by registered entities to take appropriate steps to safeguard information or ensure system integrity. The Cyber-Unit will work closely with the Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) in this area.

Further, the Cyber-Unit will review cases involving the failure by publicly reporting entities to properly report and disclose cyber related issues. The SEC has not yet brought a case in this space, but is expected to do so. The SEC expects companies’ to report cyber issues in risk factors and management discussion and analysis where appropriate and believes that the failure to do so could rise to a fraud issue under Rule 10b-5.

Retail Strategy Task Force

The Retail Strategy Task Force is planning to develop targeted initiatives to identify and pursue misconduct impacting retail investors. The retail investor arena is a broad playing field including everything from the sales of unsuitable structured products to micro-cap pump-and-dump schemes. The Task Force will rely heavily on technology and analytics to identify problems. The Task Force includes enforcement personnel from around the country.

In her October 26, 2017 speech, Enforcement Co-Director, Stephanie Avakian stated, “this group will look at the many ways that retail investors intersect with the securities markets and look for widespread misconduct.” In a time of tight budgets, the SEC is focused on thinking strategically to identify problems and find the most efficient way to pursue enforcement actions including, as mentioned, with technology. Data analytics can be used to identify data by groups such as by product, by investor type, by location, by sales or trading practice, or by fee. The SEC is even figuring out ways to use technology and data analytics to analyze the more than 16,000 tips it receives each year and integrate that data with other data points to identify issues.

Ms. Avakian gave specific examples of areas that the Retail Strategy Task Force will examine beyond the obvious Ponzi schemes and offering fraud, including:

Investment professionals steering customers to mutual fund share classes with higher fees, when lower-fee share classes of the same fund are available.

Abuses in wrap-fee accounts, including failing to disclose the additional costs of “trading away” or trading through unaffiliated brokers, and purchasing alternative products that generate additional fees.

Investors buying and holding products like inverse exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for long-term investment. These can be highly volatile products that are generally intended as a hedge against exposure to downward moving markets, and that face a long-term high risk of losing their principal. The SEC is increasingly seeing retail investors holding these products long-term, including in retirement accounts.

Problems in the sale of structured products to retail investors, including a failure to fully and clearly disclose fees, mark-ups, and other factors that can negatively impact returns; and

Abusive practices like churning and excessive trading that generate large commissions at the expense of the investor.

In addition to enforcement, the Retail Strategy Task Force will have an investor outreach and education component. In that regard, we can expect to see Investor Bulletins and other SEC investor communications generated from the Task Force’s findings and efforts.

The Author

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

« SEC Statements On Cybersecurity; An EDGAR Hacking – Part 1 OTC Markets Group Establishes A Stock Promotion Policy »

SEC Statements On Cybersecurity; An EDGAR Hacking – Part 1

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | November 21, 2017 Tags: Chair Clayton’s Statement on Cybersecurity and the EDGAR Hacking, EDGAR Hacking, Enforcement of the Federal Securities Laws, Management of Internal Cybersecurity Risks, ncorporation of Cybersecurity Considerations in the SEC’s Disclosure-Based and Supervisory Efforts, SEC Statements On Cybersecurity

This is the first in a two-part blog series summarizing Jay Clayton’s statement, the SEC EDGAR hacking and the new initiatives. My prior blog outlining SEC guidance on the disclosure of cybersecurity matters can be read HERE.

Chair Clayton’s Statement on Cybersecurity and the EDGAR Hacking

Upon taking office in May, 2017, Chair Clayton formed a senior-level cybersecurity working group to coordinate the sharing of information, risk monitoring and incident response efforts. Chair Clayton’s September 20, 2017 statement was part of the SEC’s ongoing initiatives and necessary to inform the public of the SEC’s own hacking incident. In addition to the revelation regarding the EDGAR hacking, Chair Jay Clayton’s statement emphasized the importance of cybersecurity to not only the SEC, but all market participants.

All market participants engage in data collection, storage, analysis, availability and protection to some extent, all of which are open to cybersecurity risks. Cyber attacks can be perpetrated by identity thieves, unscrupulous contractors and vendors, malicious employees, business competitors, prospective insider traders and market manipulators, hackers, terrorists, state-sponsored actors and others. Furthermore, the effects of attacks can be significant, including loss or exposure of consumer data, theft or exposure of intellectual property, investor losses resulting from the theft of funds, market value declines in companies’ subject to cyber attacks, and regulatory, reputational and litigation risks.

Cybersecurity efforts must include, in addition to assessment, prevention and mitigation, resilience and recovery. Chair Clayton’s statement provides detail on the SEC’s approach to cybersecurity, including: (i) the types of data they collect, hold and make publicly available; (ii) how the SEC manages cybersecurity risks and responds to cyber events; (iii) how the SEC incorporates cybersecurity considerations in their risk-based supervision of entities they regulate; (iv) how the SEC coordinates with other regulators to identify and mitigate cybersecurity risks; and (v) how the SEC uses its oversight and enforcement authorities, including to pursue cyber threats.

EDGAR Hacking

Before summarizing the other components of Chair Clayton’s statement, I will jump right to the topic that has gained national attention: EDGAR was hacked! Sometime in 2016, a software vulnerability in the test filing component of the EDGAR system was hacked. The opening was patched once discovered, but the hackers were able to obtain information through test filings that was used to make illicit trading gains. The hackers also obtained personal information, including names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers of at least two individuals. Chair Clayton was not informed of the hacking until August 2017.

The test filing system of EDGAR allows a company to make a non-public test filing of a registration statement or report (or any document that can be filed through the EDGAR system) to be sure the actual filing will be processed correctly. The test filing is usually made hours before the actual filing, but it can be made a day in advance. By having access to material information in filings prior to the marketplace, the hackers could trade on such information and make illegal profits.

When the SEC first announced the hacking on September 20, 2017, it stated that no personal information had been compromised but in a second press release issued on October 2, 2017, the SEC confirmed that forensic data analysis uncovered further depths to the intrusion. In the October 2 press release, Chair Clayton outlined efforts to review and remediate the 2016 hacking, including

A review of the 2016 EDGAR intrusion by the Office of Inspector General;

An investigation by the Division of Enforcement in the potential illicit trading resulting from the 2016 EDGAR intrusion (which seems to indicate that the perpetrator has been uncovered). Chair Clayton was first informed of the hacking in connection with this enforcement investigation;

A focused review and appropriate uplift of the EDGAR system with a concentration on cybersecurity matters, including its security systems, processes and controls. This review will include assessing the types of data that run through the EDGAR system and whether EDGAR is the appropriate mechanism to funnel such data;

A focused review and appropriate uplift of all systems that include the identification of sensitive data or personally identifiable information. This review will include assessing the types of data the SEC keeps and the related security systems, processes and control; and

The SEC’s internal review of the 2016 EDGAR hacking to determine, among other things, the procedures followed in response to the intrusion. This review is being overseen by the Office of the General Counsel and includes an interdisciplinary investigative team including outside technology consultants. Related to this, the SEC will enhance protocols for cybersecurity incidents.

In furtherance of this review and plan, Chair Clayton authorized the immediate hiring of additional staff and outside technology consultants to protect the security of the SEC’s network, systems and data.

Based on the SEC’s statements and testimony on the matter, there still remains a lot of secrecy surrounding the incident. For instance, the date or dates of the hacking have not been made public. The hacking was reported to the Department of Homeland Security, but the SEC commissioners were not notified. Moreover, the SEC has not revealed the type of information that was accessed nor which companies were affected.

Collection and Use of Data by the SEC

The SEC collects, stores and transmits data in three broad categories, including: (i) public facing data through the EDGAR system; (ii) non-public information including personally identifiable information related to supervisory and enforcement functions; and (iii) non-public information including personally identifiable information related to the SEC’s internal operations.

The first category involves data provided to the SEC by companies (such as public reports under the Exchange Act, and notices of private offerings on Form D) and investors (such as Section 13 and Section 16 filings). The second category includes data on companies, broker-dealers, investment advisors, investment companies, self-regulatory organizations (including FINRA), alternative trading systems, clearing agencies, credit rating agencies, municipal advisors and other market participants. The third category of data includes personnel records, internal investigations and data related to risk management and internal control processes.

Management of Internal Cybersecurity Risks

Notably, Chair Clayton begins this part of his statement by disclosing that the SEC is “the subject of frequent attempts by unauthorized actors to disrupt access to our public-facing systems, access our data, or otherwise cause damage to our technology infrastructure, including through the use of phishing, malware and other attack vectors.” As did occur with the EDGAR hacking, attackers stand to profit from information through trading activities, identity theft and a myriad of other improper uses of the illegally obtained information.

In addition to outside attacks, the SEC monitors for unauthorized actions by personnel. In 2014, an internal review uncovered that certain laptops with sensitive information could not be located. There have also been instances where SEC personnel have used non-secure personal email accounts to transmit nonpublic information. The SEC mitigates the internal risk by requiring all personnel to complete privacy and security training.

To protect against all of its cyber-related threats, the SEC employs an agency-wide cybersecurity detection, protection and prevention program. The program includes cybersecurity protocols and controls, network protections, system monitoring and detection processes, vendor risk management processes, and regular cybersecurity and privacy training for employees. However, in light of current and changing technological advancements, the SEC intends to step up its efforts overall. As mentioned earlier, in that regard, the SEC is seeking an increase in its annual budget, and a lift on its current hiring limitations.

Just as the SEC expects public companies to maintain internal controls, including from the top down, on cybersecurity matters, so the SEC has internal policies and procedures requiring senior management to maintain policies, and to coordinate with other offices and divisions with respect to cybersecurity efforts, including risk reporting and testing.

Although all offices have responsibilities, the SEC Office of Information Technology has overall management and responsibility for the agency’s cybersecurity. The SEC’s cybersecurity program is subject to review from internal and external independent auditors, including to ensure compliance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (“FISMA”).

The SEC also must report cybersecurity matters to outside agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Homeland Security, and has established information-sharing relationships with the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (“NCCIC”), the Financial and Banking Information Infrastructure Committee (“FBIIC”), and the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center (“FS-ISAC”).

Incorporation of Cybersecurity Considerations in the SEC’s Disclosure-Based and Supervisory Efforts

The SEC incorporates cybersecurity considerations in its disclosure and supervisory programs, including in the context of the Commission’s review of public company disclosures, its oversight of critical market technology infrastructure, and its oversight of other regulated entities, including broker-dealers, investment advisors and investment companies. Related to public company disclosures, Chair Clayton referred to the SEC guidance summarized HERE.

Related to the SEC’s oversight of market infrastructure, including regulation of exchanges and clearing agencies, the SEC adopted Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity in 2014. Regulation SCI was proposed and adopted to require key market participants to have comprehensive written policies and procedures to ensure the security and resilience of their technological systems, to ensure systems operate in compliance with federal securities laws, to provide for review and testing of such systems and to provide for notices and reports to the SEC. Key market participants generally include national securities exchanges and associations, significant alternative trading systems (such as OTC Markets, which has confirmed it is in compliance with the Regulation), clearing agencies, and plan processors. For a review of Regulation SCI, see HERE.

Furthermore, certain SEC rules and regulations governing broker-dealers, investment advisors and investment companies directly implicate information security practices. For example, Regulation S-P requires registered broker-dealers, investment companies and investment advisors to adopt written policies and procedures governing safeguards for the protection of customer information and records. Regulation S-ID requires these firms, to the extent they maintain certain types of covered accounts, to establish programs addressing how to identify, detect and respond to potential identity theft red flags.

Coordination with Other Governmental Entities

Effective cybersecurity programs require cooperation among government agencies. The SEC shares oversight responsibility on some matters with other agencies, including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Furthermore, the SEC often coordinates with other agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The SEC coordinates cybersecurity efforts with each of these agencies, and more.

Enforcement of the Federal Securities Laws

The SEC is committed to enforcing compliance with the cybersecurity disclosure obligations of reporting companies, and in enforcement proceedings against those that purse cyber threats. Part of these efforts include using advanced technology to monitor suspicious trading activity across companies, traders and geographic regions.

Chair Clayton sets out examples of enforcement actions, such as a case in 2016 against three traders for allegedly participating in a scheme to hack into two prominent New York-based law firms to steal information pertaining to clients that were considering mergers or acquisitions, which the hackers then used to trade. In another case, defendants allegedly hacked into newswire services to obtain non-public information about corporate earnings announcements. These are just two examples among dozens of cases.

The Author

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

« Guidance On New Exhibit Rules In SEC Filings SEC Statements On Cybersecurity – Part 2 »

Guidance On New Exhibit Rules In SEC Filings

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | November 14, 2017 Tags: ackground on the New Exhibit Rule, Guidance On New Exhibit Rules In SEC Filings, Item 601 Of Regulation S-K, Rule 102(d) of Regulation S-T, Rule 601(a)(2) of Regulation S-K, SEC, SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative, XBRL exhibits

On March 1, 2017, the SEC passed a final rule requiring companies to include hyperlinks to exhibits in filings made with the SEC. The amendments require any company filing registration statements or reports with the SEC to include a hyperlink to all exhibits listed on the exhibit list. In addition, because ASCII cannot support hyperlinks, the amendment also requires that all exhibits be filed in HTML format. The rule change was made to make it easier for investors and other market participants to find and access exhibits listed in current reports, but that were originally provided in previous filings. A summary of the rule can be read HERE.

The new Rule went into effect on September 1, 2017, provided however that non-accelerated filers and smaller reporting companies that submit filings in ASCII may delay compliance through September 1, 2018.

In addition to the filing of exhibits and schedules, Item 601 of Regulation S-K requires each company to include an exhibit index list that lists each exhibit included as part of the filing. The list is cumulative. For example, the company’s articles of incorporation are required to be included as an exhibit with every 10-Q and 10-K filing. Once an exhibit has been filed once, the company could historically incorporate by reference by including a footnote as to which filing the original exhibit can be found in. Unfortunately, I find that companies often will indicate that an exhibit has been previously filed, without giving a specific reference as to which filing or when, leaving an investor or reviewer to go fish. The SEC rightfully asserts that requiring companies to include hyperlinks from the exhibit index to the actual exhibits filed would allow much easier access to these filings.

The new rule requires companies to include a hyperlink to each filed exhibit on the exhibit index as required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K, for virtually all filings made with the SEC, including XBRL exhibits. An active hyperlink will now be required in all filings made under the Securities Act or Exchange Act, provided however that if the filing is a registration statement, the active hyperlinks need only be included in the version that becomes effective.

The new rule also amends Rule 102(d) of Regulation S-T and Rule 601(a)(2) of Regulation S-K to require the exhibit index to “appear before the required signatures in the registration statement or report.” Previously, an exhibit index was to “precede immediately the exhibits filed with such registration statement.” This requirement has raised a question as to whether a historical exhibit index would need to appear twice, both combined with the full cumulative list before the required signatures and before the exhibits themselves. In practice, many companies have indeed included two lists.

As learned from a blog written by the excellent CorporateCounsel.Net, a fellow practitioner has contacted the SEC, who in turn informally confirmed that it is permissible to combine the exhibit table with the exhibit index and only present one list of exhibits with hyperlinks. A separate exhibit index is not required.

Further Background on the New Exhibit Rule

On April 15, 2016, the SEC issued a 341-page concept release and request for public comment on sweeping changes to certain business and financial disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K (“S-K Concept Release”). The S-K Concept Release contained a discussion and request for comment on exhibit filing requirements. Item 601 of Regulation S-K specifies the exhibits that must be filed with registration statements and SEC reports. Item 601 requires the filing of certain material contracts, corporate documents, and other information as exhibits to registration statements and reports.

A particular area of discussion recently has been the need to file schedules to contracts. These schedules can be lengthy and lack materiality. Likewise, a recent area of discussion has been the necessity of filing an immaterial amendment to a material exhibit. The S-K Concept Release contains a lengthy discussion on exhibits, including drilling down on specific filing requirements. Many of the exhibit filing requirements are principle-based, including, for example, quantitative thresholds for contracts. Consistent with the rest of the S-K Concept Release, the SEC discusses whether these standards should be changed to a straight materiality approach. The SEC also discusses eliminating some exhibit filing requirements altogether, such as where the information is otherwise fleshed out in financial statements or other disclosures (for example, a list of subsidiaries).

Currently companies are allowed to reference exhibits filed in prior filings as opposed to refiling the exhibit with the SEC. The better practice has always been to include a specific reference to the filing, including the date of the filing, and where the original exhibit can be located. However, many companies do not do so, leaving the public to search through prior filings to find the listed exhibit. Moreover, as time goes by and companies switch counsel, some choose not to spend the time and funds to have new counsel update an exhibit list to include a full reference. The new rule will require them to do so. The rule amendment is limited to the presentation of the exhibit list and requires including a hyperlink to the actual filed exhibit.

Further Reading on the SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative

I have been keeping an ongoing summary of the SEC ongoing Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative. The following is a recap of such initiative and proposed and actual changes. Although the rate of changes has slowed down since the election and change in SEC control regime, I expect it to pick up again. In an upcoming blog, I will be writing about the SEC’s announced Regulatory Flex Agenda. The Agenda lists regulations the SEC expects to propose or finalize in the next 12 months. This year’s Agenda only incudes 33 rules (last year’s contained 62), at least 8 of which are related to disclosure requirements.

As discussed in this blog, on March 1, 2017, the SEC passed final rule amendments to Item 601 of Regulation S-K to require hyperlinks to exhibits in filings made with the SEC. The amendments require any company filing registration statements or reports with the SEC to include a hyperlink to all exhibits listed on the exhibit list. In addition, because ASCII cannot support hyperlinks, the amendment also requires that all exhibits be filed in HTML format.

On August 25, 2016, the SEC requested public comment on possible changes to the disclosure requirements in Subpart 400 of Regulation S-K. Subpart 400 encompasses disclosures related to management, certain security holders and corporate governance. See my blog on the request for comment HERE.

On July 13, 2016, the SEC issued a proposed rule change on Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X to amend disclosures that are redundant, duplicative, overlapping, outdated or superseded (S-K and S-X Amendments). See my blog on the proposed rule change HERE. This proposal is slated for action in this year’s SEC regulatory agenda.

That proposed rule change and request for comments followed the concept release and request for public comment on sweeping changes to certain business and financial disclosure requirements issued on April 15, 2016. See my two-part blog on the S-K Concept Release HERE and HERE.

As part of the same initiative, on June 27, 2016, the SEC issued proposed amendments to the definition of “Small Reporting Company” (see my blog HERE). The SEC also previously issued a release related to disclosure requirements for entities other than the reporting company itself, including subsidiaries, acquired businesses, issuers of guaranteed securities and affiliates. See my blog HERE. Both of these items are slated for action in this year’s SEC regulatory agenda.

As part of the ongoing Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative, in September 2015 the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies met and finalized its recommendation to the SEC regarding changes to the disclosure requirements for smaller publicly traded companies. For more information on that topic and for a discussion of the Reporting Requirements in general, see my blog HERE.

In March 2015 the American Bar Association submitted its second comment letter to the SEC making recommendations for changes to Regulation S-K. For more information on that topic, see my blog HERE.

In early December 2015 the FAST Act was passed into law. The FAST Act requires the SEC to adopt or amend rules to: (i) allow issuers to include a summary page to Form 10-K; and (ii) scale or eliminate duplicative, antiquated or unnecessary requirements for emerging-growth companies, accelerated filers, smaller reporting companies and other smaller issuers in Regulation S-K. The current Regulation S-K and S-X Amendments are part of this initiative. In addition, the SEC is required to conduct a study within one year on all Regulation S-K disclosure requirements to determine how best to amend and modernize the rules to reduce costs and burdens while still providing all material information. See my blog HERE. These items are all included in this year’s SEC regulatory agenda.

The Author

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

« Emerging Growth Companies Will Start To Grow Up SEC Statements On Cybersecurity; An EDGAR Hacking – Part 1 »

Emerging Growth Companies Will Start To Grow Up

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | November 7, 2017 Tags: Differences between EGC and Smaller Reporting Company Disclosure Requirements, Emerging Growth Companies Will Start To Grow Up

The first of emerging growth companies (“EGC’s”) will begin losing EGC status as the five-year anniversary of the creation of an EGC has now passed. Those companies that will lose status as a result of the passage of time are almost unilaterally not pleased with the impending change and concurrent increase in regulatory compliance.

Background

Title I of the JOBS Act, initially enacted on April 5, 2012, created a new category of issuer called an “emerging growth company” (“EGC”). An EGC is defined as a company with total annual gross revenues of less than $1,070,000,000 during its most recently completed fiscal year that first sells equity in a registered offering after December 8, 2011. An EGC loses its EGC status on the earlier of (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which it exceeds $1,070,000,000 in revenues; (ii) the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth year after its IPO (for example, if the issuer has a December 31 fiscal year-end and sells equity securities pursuant to an effective registration statement on November 2, 2012, it will cease to be an EGC on December 31, 2017); (iii) the date on which it has issued more than $1,070,000,000 in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period; or (iv) the date it becomes a large accelerated filer (i.e., its non-affiliated public float is valued at $700 million or more).

The primary benefits of an EGC include scaled-down disclosure requirements both in an IPO and periodic reporting, relief from the auditor attestation requirements in Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, confidential filings of registration statements, certain test-the-waters rights in IPO’s, and an ease on analyst communications and reports during the EGC IPO process.

Since the passage of the JOBS Act, the FAST Act provided additional benefits to an EGC, including the omission of certain historical financial statements in registration statements, a benefit that the SEC has now extended to all companies (see HERE). Moreover, the ability to file confidential registration statements has also been expanded to include all companies (see HERE).

Many but not all of the benefits available to an EGC are also available to a smaller reporting company. For a summary of the scaled disclosure available to an EGC as well as the differences in disclosure requirements between an EGC and a smaller reporting company, see HERE. In addition, I have included a chart at the end of this blog listing the differences in reporting requirements.

However, more than 85% of IPO’s since passage of the JOBS Act have been completed by EGC’s, a large percentage of which will not qualify as a smaller reporting company. Currently a smaller reporting company is defined as one that: (i) has a public float of less than $75 million as of the last day of their most recently completed second fiscal quarter; or (ii) a zero public float and annual revenues of less than $50 million during the most recently completed fiscal year for which audited financial statements are available.

In June 2016 the SEC published proposed amendments to the definition of a smaller reporting company to include companies with less than a $250 million public float as compared to the $75 million threshold in the current definition. In addition, if a company does not have an ascertainable public float, under the proposed amendment a smaller reporting company would be one with less than $100 million in annual revenues. Once considered a smaller reporting company, a company would maintain that status unless its float drops below $200 million or its annual revenues below $80 million. For more information see HERE.

This rule is listed as being in the final rule stage on the most recent SEC Regulatory Agenda, but it is unknown what changes will be included in such final rule. The June 2016 proposal specifically declined to amend the public float threshold qualifications for “accelerated filer” and “large accelerated filer,” while eliminating the exclusion for smaller reporting companies. As a result, under the current proposed rule change companies with $75 million or more in public float would still be subject to the accelerated filer rules, including shorter periods in which to file their periodic reports and the requirement to provide auditor attestation over internal controls under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Accordingly, a company that exits EGC status and does not qualify as a smaller reporting company will either be a non-accelerated filer, accelerated filer or large accelerated filer with the concurrent disclosure requirements. The following chart summaries the categories:

CATEGORY OF FILER

PUBLIC FLOAT¹ TO ENTER STATUS

REVNEUES² TO ENTER STATUS

CRITERIA TO EXIT STATUS

PUBLIC FLOAT TO RE-ENTER STATUS

REVENUES TO RE-ENTER STATUS

Emerging Growth Company (EGC)

N/A

<$1 billion

· Revenues >$1 billion

· 5^th anniversary of IPO³

· Non-convertible debt > $1 billion

· Float > $700 million

N/A

Smaller Reporting Company

<$75 million

<$50 million⁴

Float > $75 million

<$50 million

<$40 million

Non-Accelerated Filer

<$75 million

N/A

Float > $75 million

<$50 million

N/A

Accelerated Filer

>$75 million but <$700 million

N/A

Float <$75 million or > $700 Million

<$500 million but > $50 million

N/A

Large Accelerated Filer

>$700 Million

N/A

Float <$700 million

N/A

¹Public float is calculated as of the last business day of the company’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

²Revenues as reported in the company’s most recently completed fiscal year

³Ineligibility begins on last day of the fiscal year in which the 5th anniversary occurs.

⁴Revenue test applies only if public float is zero.

Real-world Impact

Under Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, companies are required to include in their annual reports on Form 10-K a report of management on the company‘s internal control over financial reporting (“ICFR”) that: (i) states management‘s responsibility for establishing and maintaining the internal control structure; and (ii) includes management‘s assessment of the effectiveness of the ICFR. Section 404(b) requires the independent auditor to attest to, and report on, management‘s assessment. Although a complete review of Section 404(b) is beyond the scope of this blog, in order to review, report on and attest to management’s ICFR, an auditor must, in essence, independently audit the ICFR.

A dearth of information and guidance is available on an auditor’s duties under Section 404(b), including PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5. Although many estimates exist, based on a high-level review, there is some consensus that the average annual cost of Section 404(b) compliance for a company with a public float between $75 and $250 million is in excess of $250,000 and sometimes much higher.

At a meeting of the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (“Advisory Committee”) on September 13, 2017, an executive of a biotechnology company that is losing EGC status and will not qualify as a smaller reporting company pled for relief. Of all the changes that his company will face, the auditor attestation requirements under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act loom large.

Sutro Biopharma CEO William Newell gave a presentation to the Advisory Committee advocating for the increase in the definition of a smaller reporting company, as proposed, but also continuing to exempt smaller reporting companies from Section 404(b) compliance. Sutro is pre-revenue, as are many bio-pharma companies. Companies that are pre-revenue, but that may have a large public float, currently are required to comply with Section 404(b) with funds that would otherwise be used for growth, including increased staffing.

Also, Sutro is currently private and cites burdensome compliance costs as a deterrent to accessing public markets. The SEC has publicly talked about the need to energize the U.S. IPO market, including in a speech by Chair Jay Clayton (see HERE) and one by Commissioner Michael Piwowar (see HERE). The topic has also been the subject of multiple press releases and a paper by NASDAQ that is the subject of a future blog.

There is some hope for these companies. The current SEC administration is supportive of capital-raising efforts and decreased, unnecessary regulation, for companies both large and small. The pending Financial Choice Act would increase the threshold for compliance with Section 404(b) to companies with a public float of $500 million or more. See HERE. The SEC Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation encourages both the change to the definition of smaller reporting company and increase in threshold for compliance with Section 404(b). See HERE.

Differences between EGC and Smaller Reporting Company Disclosure Requirements

The scaled-down disclosures for smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies include, among other items: (i) only 3 years of business description as opposed to 5; (ii) 2 years of financial statements as opposed to 3; (iii) elimination of certain line-item disclosures, such as certain graphs and selected financial data; and (iv) relief from the 404(b) auditor attestation requirements. However, although similar, there are differences between the scaled disclosure requirements for an emerging growth company vs. a smaller reporting company. In particular, the following chart summarizes these differences:

Scaled Disclosure Requirement

Emerging Growth Company

Smaller Reporting Company

Audited Financial Statements Required

· 2 years in a Securities Act registration statement for an IPO of common equity.

· 3 years in an IPO of debt securities.

· 3 years in an annual report or Exchange Act registration statement, unless the company is also an SRC.

· 2 years.

Description of Business (Item 101)

Standard disclosure requirements apply.

· Development of its business during the most recent three years, including:

o form and year of organization;

o bankruptcy proceedings;

o material reclassification, merger, sale or purchase of assets; and

o description of the business.

· Not required:

o seasonality;

o working capital practices;

o backlog; or

o government contracts.

· Names of principal suppliers.

· Royalty agreements or labor contracts.

· Need for government approval of principal products and services.

· Effect of existing or probable governmental regulations.

Market Price of and Dividends on the Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters (Item 201)

Standard disclosure requirements apply.

Not required to provide the stock performance graph.

Selected Financial Data (Item 301)

Not required to present selected financial data for any period prior to the earliest audited period presented in initial registration statement.

Not required.

Supplementary Financial Data (Item 302)

Not required until after IPO.

Not required.

MD&A (Item 303)

May limit discussion to those years for which audited financial statements are included.

· May limit discussion to those years for which audited financial statements are included.

· Not required to comply with contractual obligations table requirements in 303(a)(5).

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk (Item 305)

Standard disclosure requirements apply.

Not required, but related disclosure may be required in MD&A.

Extended Transition for Complying with New or Revised Accounting Standards

· May elect to defer compliance with new or revised financial accounting standards until a company that is not an “issuer”894 is required to comply with such standards.

· Any decision to forgo the extended transition period is irrevocable.

Standard disclosure requirements apply.

Internal Control over Financial Reporting (Item 308)

· Not required to provide attestation report of the registered public accounting firm.

· Not exempt from Item 308(a), but newly public company is not required to comply until it either has filed or has been required to file an annual report for the prior fiscal year.

Non-accelerated filers, a category that includes SRC’s, are not required to provide an attestation report of the registered public accounting firm.

Executive Compensation Disclosure (Item 402)

· Permitted to follow requirements for SRC’s.

· Exempt from principal executive officer pay ratio disclosure.

· 2 years of summary compensation table information, rather than 3.

· Limited to principal executive officer, two most highly compensated executive officers and up to two additional individuals no longer serving as executive officers at year-end.896

· Not required:

o compensation discussion and analysis;

o grants of plan-based awards table;

o option exercises and stock vested table;

o change in present value of pension benefits;

o CEO pay ratio;

o compensation policies as related to risk management; or

o pension benefits table.

· Description of retirement benefit plans.

Scaled Disclosure Requirement

Emerging Growth Company

Smaller Reporting Company

Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions (Item 404)

Standard disclosure requirements apply.

· Lower threshold to disclose related party transactions.

· Not required to disclose procedures for review, approval or ratification of related party transactions.

· Additional requirement to disclose certain controlling entities.

· Required to disclose related party transactions not only since the beginning of last fiscal year but also for the preceding fiscal year.

Corporate Governance (Item 407)

Standard disclosure requirements apply.

· Not required to disclose whether it has an audit committee financial expert until its second annual report following IPO.

· Exempt from requirements to disclose compensation committee interlocks and insider participation and to provide a compensation committee report.

Risk Factors (Item 503(c))

Standard disclosure requirements apply.

Not required in periodic reports.

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Item 503(d))

Required for the same number of years for which it provides selected financial data disclosures.

Not required.

The Author

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

« SEC Proposes Rules to Modernize and Simplify Disclosures Guidance On New Exhibit Rules In SEC Filings »

SEC Proposes Rules to Modernize and Simplify Disclosures

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | October 31, 2017 Tags: Fast Act, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Regulation S-K, Regulation S-X, SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative, SEC Proposes Rules to Modernize and Simplify Disclosures

On October 11, 2017, as part of the ongoing SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative, the SEC published proposed rule amendments to modernize and simplify disclosure requirements for public companies, investment advisers, and investment companies. The proposed rule amendments implement a mandate under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (“FAST Act”).

The FAST Act, passed in December 2015, contains two sections requiring the SEC to modernize and simplify the requirements in Regulation S-K. Section 72002 requires the SEC to amend Regulation S-K to “further scale or eliminate requirements… to reduce the burden on emerging growth companies, accelerated filers, smaller reporting companies, and other smaller issuers, while still providing all material information to investors.” In addition, the SEC was directed to “eliminate provisions… that are duplicative, overlapping, outdated or unnecessary.” In accordance with that requirement, On July 13, 2016, the SEC issued proposed rule change on Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X to amend disclosures that are redundant, duplicative, overlapping, outdated or superseded. See my blog on the proposed rule change HERE. This proposal is slated for action in this year’s SEC regulatory agenda.

Section 72003 required the SEC to conduct a study on Regulation S-K and, in that process, to consult with the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee (the “IAC”) and the Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “ACSEC”) and then to issue a report on the study findings, resulting in the report issued on November 23, 2016. Section 72003 specifically required that the report include: (i) the finding made in the required study; (ii) specific and detailed recommendations on modernizing and simplifying the requirements in Regulation S-K in a manner that reduces the costs and burdens on companies while still providing all material information; and (iii) specific and detailed recommendations on ways to improve the readability and navigability of disclosure documents and to reduce repetition and immaterial information. The proposed amendments seek to implement the various findings and recommendations in the November report.

As further discussed in this blog, the proposed amendments would: (i) revise forms to update, streamline and improve disclosures including eliminating risk factor examples in form instructions and revising the description of property requirement to emphasize a materiality threshold; (ii) eliminate certain requirements for undertakings in registration statements; (iii) amend exhibit filing requirements and related confidential treatment requests; (iv) amend Management Discussion and Analysis requirements to allow for more flexibility in discussing historical periods; and (v) incorporate more technology in filings through data tagging of items and hyperlinks.

Proposed Amendments

A. Description of Property (Item 102)

Item 102 requires disclosure of the location and general character of the principal plants, mines, and other materially important physical properties of the company and its subsidiaries.The instructions to Item 102 require the company to disclose information reasonable to inform investors as to the suitability, adequacy, productive capacity and utilization of facilities. The proposed amendment will emphasize materiality and require a company to disclose physical properties only to the extent that such properties are material to the company.

B. Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) (Item 303)

Item 303(a) requires a company to discuss their financial condition, changes in financial condition, and results of operations using year-to-year comparisons. The discussion is required to cover the period of the financial statements in the report (i.e., 2 years for smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies and 3 years for others). Where trend information is relevant, the discussion may include 5 years with a disclosure of selected financial data.

The proposed amendment would allow the company to eliminate the earliest year in its discussion as long as (1) the discussion is not material to an understanding of the current financial condition; and (ii) the company has filed a prior Form 10-K with an MD&A discussion of the omitted year. The proposed amendment will also eliminate the reference to a five-year look-back in the instructions, but rather a company will be able to use any presentation or information that it believes will enhance a reader’s understanding. The amendments will flow through to foreign private issuers as well with conforming changes to the instructions for Item 5 of Form 20-F.

C. Directors, Executive Officers, Promoters and Control Persons (Item 401)

Item 401 requires disclosure of identifying and background information about a company’s directors, executive officers, and significant employees. The proposed amendments will clarify the instructions to Item 401 to clarify that the information is not required to be duplicated in various parts of a Form 10-K and/or proxy statement, but need only appear once and may be incorporated by reference in other parts of the documents.

D. Compliance with Section 16(a) (Item 405)

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires officers, directors, and specified types of security holders to report their beneficial ownership of a company’s equity securities using forms prescribed by the SEC, such as an initial Form 3, amendments on Form 4 and annual Form 5. Item 405 requires the company to disclose each person who failed to timely file a Section 16 report during the most recent fiscal year or prior years. Section 16 reporting persons are required to deliver a copy of their reports to the company, though in practice, this is rarely done. The proposed amendments remove this requirement and allow the company to review EDGAR filings for compliance with Section 16(a).

In addition, the proposed amendment would eliminate the need to include the heading at all if there are no delinquencies to report, rather than include the heading with a statement such as “none” and remove the checkbox on the cover page of Form 10-K related to the disclosure. The proposed amendment includes several changes to make the instructions and title of this section conform to the SEC’s “plain English” requirements.

E. Corporate Governance (Item 407)

The proposed amendment will update the instructions and information required under Item 407 to remove reference to an obsolete audit standard and rather just refer broadly to applicable PCAOB and SEC requirements. EGC’s and smaller reporting companies are both exempted from the Item 407 requirements, and the proposed amendment clarifies the instruction language accordingly.

F. Outside Front Cover Page of the Prospectus (Item 501(b))

The proposed amendments are designed to streamline the front cover page of a prospectus and give a company flexibility in designing the page to tailor to their business and particular offering. The proposed changes include (i) eliminating instructions related to changing or clarifying a name that may be confused with a well-known company; (ii) allowing for a statement that the offering price will be determined by a particular method or formula that is more fully explained in the prospectus with a cross-reference to the page number; (iii) requiring the disclosure of the principal trading market and company symbol, even if such trading market is not a national exchange; and (iv) streamlining the “subject to completion” legend.

G. Risk Factors (Item 503(c))

A company is required to disclose the most significant factors that make an offering speculative or risky. Although the disclosure is intended to be principals-based, many examples are included in the instructions. The proposed amendments would move Item 503(c) to Subpart 100 to clarify that risk factors are also required in a Form 10 and Exchange Act periodic reports and not just offering-related disclosures. The proposed amendment would also eliminate the risk factor examples from the instructions.

H. Plan of Distribution (Item 508)

Item 508 requires disclosure about the plan of distribution for securities in an offering, including information about underwriters. The term “sub-underwriter” is referred to in the rule; however, it is not defined. The proposed rules will define a “sub-underwriter” as “a dealer that is participating as an underwriter in an offering by committing to purchase securities from a principal underwriter for the securities but is not itself in privity of contract with the issuer of the securities.”

I. Undertakings (Item 512)

Item 512 provides undertakings that a company must include in Part II of its registration statement, depending on the type of offering. The proposed amendments simplify the undertakings requirements and eliminate provisions that are duplicative because the requirement already exists, or that are obsolete due to changes in the law. For example, Items 512(d), 512(e) and 512(f) are all obsolete and should be eliminated. Item 512(c) related to unsold rights offerings that are then offered to the public, can be eliminated as other provisions of the law would require the company to update the (or complete a new) registration statement regardless.

J. Exhibits (Item 601)

The proposed amendment makes several changes to the exhibit filing requirements to streamline and reduce the volume of documents, many of which may not be material, which are required to be filed. The proposed amendments also make at least one addition to the exhibit requirements and in particular, a company must disclose a subsidiaries LEI number if one has been issued. For information on a LEI, see HERE.

The proposed amendment add exhibits related to Item 202 disclosures (registered capital stock, debt securities, warrants, rights, American Depository Receipts, and other securities) to Exchange Act periodic reports on Form 10-K and 10-Q. Such exhibits are currently only required in registration statements, Form 8-K and Schedule 14A.

The proposed amendment also clarifies that schedules and exhibits to exhibits need not be filed unless they are, in and of themselves, material to an investment decision. Although historically the SEC did not object to the omission of schedules and exhibits to exhibits with personally identifiable information, the rules generally require the filing of a confidential treatment request for most omissions. The proposed amendments allow a company to omit schedules and exhibits to exhibits as long as a brief description of the omitted documents is included. In addition, a copy of the omitted items must be provided if requested by the SEC, though a confidential treatment request could also be made at that time. Likewise the proposed amendments will allow a company to redact information that is both (i) not material, and (ii) competitively harmful if disclosed.

K. Incorporation by Reference

Currently rules related to incorporation by reference are spread among a variety of regulations, including Regulation S-K, Regulation C, Regulation 12B and numerous forms. The proposed amendments would revise Item 10(d), Rule 411, and a number of SEC forms to simplify and modernize these rules while still providing all material information. Rule 12b-23 is proposed to be rescinded. The amendments streamline the rules and further allow for incorporation by reference to eliminate duplicative disclosure. The proposed rules will require a hyperlink to information that is incorporated by reference if the information is available on EDGAR.

The proposed rules specifically do not add or change the rules related to cross-references or other incorporation within the financial statements to other disclosure items. There is a concern as to the impact on auditor review requirements if such links or changes are added.

L. Forms

The proposed amendments include several amendments to forms to conform with and implement all the changes in the rules.

M. XBRL

The proposed amendments would require all of the information on the cover pages of Form 10-K, Form 10-Q, Form 8-K, Form 20-F, and Form 40-F to be tagged in Inline XBRL in accordance with the EDGAR Filer Manual.

Further Reading on the FAST Act

I’ve blogged several times on the FAST Act since its initial passing on December 15, 2015. An initial discussion and summary of the FAST Act can be read HERE. A summary of the SEC guidance on the FAST Act as relates to savings and loan companies can be read HERE.

On January 13, 2016, the SEC issued interim final rules memorializing two provisions of the FAST Act. In particular, the SEC revised the instructions to Forms S-1 and F-1 to allow the omission of historical financial information and to allow smaller reporting companies to use forward incorporation by reference to update an effective S-1. A summary can be read HERE. On May 3, 2016, the SEC issued final amendments to revise the rules related to the thresholds for registrations, termination of registration, and suspension of reporting under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amendments mark the final rule making and implementation of all provisions under the JOBS Act, and implement further provisions under the FAST Act. A summary can be read HERE.

On August 17, 2017, the SEC issued guidance on financial statement requirements for confidential and public registration statement filings by both emerging growth companies (EGC) and non-emerging growth companies. The new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI’s) follow the SEC’s decision to permit all companies to submit draft registration statements, on a confidential basis. For a summary see HERE and HERE.

As required by Section 72003 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (the “FAST Act”), on November 23, 2016, the SEC issued a Report on Modernization and Simplification of Regulation S-K including detailed recommendations for changes. For a summary see HERE.

Further Background on SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative

I have been keeping an ongoing summary of the SEC ongoing Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative. The following is a recap of such initiative and proposed and actual changes.

On March 1, 2017, the SEC passed final rule amendments to Item 601 of Regulation S-K to require hyperlinks to exhibits in filings made with the SEC. The amendments require any company filing registration statements or reports with the SEC to include a hyperlink to all exhibits listed on the exhibit list. In addition, because ASCII cannot support hyperlinks, the amendment also requires that all exhibits be filed in HTML format. The new Rule goes into effect on September 1, 2017, provided however that non-accelerated filers and smaller reporting companies that submit filings in ASCII may delay compliance through September 1, 2018. See my blog HERE on the Item 601 rule changes.

On November 23, 2016, the SEC issued a Report on Modernization and Simplification of Regulation S-K as required by Section 72003 of the FAST Act. A summary of the report can be read HERE.

As part of the ongoing disclosure effectiveness intiiactive, in September 2015 the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies met and finalized its recommendation to the SEC regarding changes to the disclosure requirements for smaller publicly traded companies. For more information on that topic and for a discussion of the reporting requirements in general, see my blog HERE.

In March 2015 the American Bar Association submitted its second comment letter to the SEC making recommendations for changes to Regulation S-K. For more information on that topic, see my blog HERE.

The Author

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

« NASDAQ Issues Report Advocating for The U.S. Public Markets Emerging Growth Companies Will Start To Grow Up »