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

An Introduction To Distributed Ledger Technology (Blockchain Technology)

On July 13, 2017, FINRA held a Blockchain Symposium to assess the use of distributed ledger technology (DLT) in the financial industry, including the maintenance of shareholder and corporate records. DLT is commonly referred to as blockchain. The symposium included participation by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Federal Reserve Board and the SEC.

FINRA also published a report earlier in the year discussing the implications of DLT for the securities industry. Delaware, Nevada and Arizona have already passed statutes allowing for the use of DLT for corporate and shareholder records. This is the first in many blogs that will discuss DLT as this exciting new era of technology continues to unfold and impact the securities markets. In this blog I will discuss FINRA’s report published in January 2017 and in the next in the series, I will summarize the recent SEC investigative report on initial coin offerings and conclusion that cryptocurrencies and tokens are securities. In a follow-on blog, I will summarize the state blockchain legislation to date, including Delaware’s groundbreaking statute.

Blockchain is an openly distributed database which is used to continuously maintain a list of records, called blocks. Each new block is linked to prior blocks in such a way that data cannot be retroactively changed in a prior block without changing all blocks, which is virtually impossible. A DLT ledger is shared among a network of participants, instead of relying on a single central ledger.

Ultimately the blockchain technology could be used to maintain shareholder records in a secure immediate form as well as to process capital markets trades instantaneously. It is thought that stock ledgers and any transfers would be updated instantaneously, effectively allowing for T+0 settlement of trades without the need for intermediaries. A change of this magnitude is many years away as effective regulation and consideration on market impacts will take time. For more on trade settlements, see HERE.

The technology is already being utilized, most notably by the cryptocurrency industry. At least one industry leader, Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne’s t0 Technologies, has created a system that could form the basis for widely used blockchain technology which disrupts the capital market trading systems. I don’t expect quick changes to trading systems and settlement. Blockchain remains widely unregulated and without consensus from top financial regulators, any change to capital market structures will face roadblocks. However, I expect that the ability for public companies to maintain stock ledgers using DLT technology will be forthcoming very soon.

FINRA Report on Distributed Ledger Technology and Implications of Blockchain for the Securities Industry

On July 13, 2017, FINRA held a Blockchain Symposium to assess the use of distributed ledger technology (DLT) in the financial industry. The symposium followed FINRA’s January 2017 report on DLT and its implications for the securities industry. In recent years, over $1 billion has been invested by various market participants to explore the use of DLT in the financial services industry. Although the level and speed of disruption to current systems remains debated, it is universally agreed that DLT will be utilized in the securities industry. DLT has the potential to completely change business models and practices and as such, regulators realize the necessity to be actively engaged to prepare for the new regime. On a positive note, FINRA views DLT as having the potential to provide investors with greater access to services and transparency and to provide firms with increased operational efficiencies and enhanced risk management.

Many aspects of FINRA’s rules and areas of responsibilities can be impacted by DLT, including, for example, clearing arrangements (it is thought that DLT can eliminate middle-market participants involved in the clearing process), recordkeeping requirements, and trade and order reporting and processing. In addition, FINRA rules such as those related to financial condition, verification of assets, anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, supervision and surveillance, fees and commissions, payment to unregistered persons, customer confirmations, materiality impact on business operations, and business continuity plans also may to be impacted depending on the nature of the DLT application.

DLT is already being used in the securities markets in the form of initial cryptocurrency offerings (ICO’s) and in states that have passed corporate statutes allowing for the use of the technology to maintain corporate and shareholder records. On July 25, 2017, the SEC issued a report on an investigation related to an ICO by the DAO and statements by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement related to the investigative report. Although I will write an in-depth blog on the report and statements in the coming weeks, the SEC concluded that the fundamental tenets related to the definition of a security apply and that cryptocurrencies and tokens that fall within that definition are securities, subject to SEC regulations, regardless of the title or form they may take. For more on decoding what is a security, see HERE.

FINRA’s report on DLT is broken down into three sections including: (i) overview of distributed ledger technology; (ii) DLT securities industry applications and potential impact; and (iii) factors to consider when implementing DLT. FINRA also discussed regulatory requirements and potential changes related to DLT. I will summarize each section with my usual commentary and input.

Overview of Distributed Ledger Technology

DLT involves a distributed database maintained over a network of computers where information can be added by the network participants. Each added layer of information or data is referred to as a block. The network participants can share and retain identical cryptographically secured information and records.

DLT uses either a public or private network. A public network is open and accessible to anyone that joins, without restrictions. All data stored on a public network is visible to anyone on the network, although it is encrypted. A public network has no central authority and relies solely on the network participants to verify transactions and record data on the network. Algorithm and computational technology is used to protect the integrity of the data.

A private network is limited to individuals and entities that are granted access by a network operator. Access can be tiered with different entities being allowed differing levels of authority to transact and view data. In the financial services industry, it is likely that networks will be private.

The transactions and data on the network usually represent an underlying asset that may be digital assets, such as cryptosecurities and cryptocurrencies, or a representation of a hard asset stored offline (a token representing an interest in a gold bar, for example). Assets on a DLT network are cryptographically secured using public and private key combinations. The public key combination allows access to the network itself, and the private key is for access to the asset itself and is held by the asset holder or its agent.

A transaction may be initiated by any party on the network that holds assets on that network. When a transaction is initiated, it is verified using a predetermined process that can be either consensus-based or proof-of-work based, although new verification processes are being explored. In layman’s terms, the verification process is based on computer computations. The settlement of the transaction is occurs when verification is completed. Currently this can occur immediately or take a few hours.

Once verified, a transaction is “cryptographically hashed” and forms a permanent record on the DLT network. Records are time-stamped and displayed sequentially to all parties with network access. Currently, historical records cannot be edited or changed, though technology is being developed to change that.

DLT Securities Industry Applications and Potential Impact

Currently, market participants are experimenting with several uses of DLT within the market infrastructure and ecosystem. DLT can be used in specific markets, such as debt, equity and derivatives, and in specific market functions, such as clearing. Many discrete applications exist for the use of DLT, including, for example, clearing arrangements, recordkeeping requirements, and trade and order reporting and processing. In addition, DLT can impact financial condition recordkeeping and reporting, verification of assets, anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, supervision and surveillance, fees and commissions, payment to unregistered persons, customer confirmations, materiality impact on business operations, and business continuity plans.

The most common current use of DLT is related to private company equities. DLT can be used to track transfers, maintain shareholder records and for capitalization tables. Nasdaq has utilized DLT technology to complete and record a private securities transaction using its Nasdaq Linq blockchain ledger technology. The Nasdaq platform allows private companies to use DLT to record and track trading of private securities.

DLT will eventually be used for public company equities, but the regulatory aspects are behind the technology. However, Overstock’s Patrick Byrne has created and launched a private platform to allow for public trading of securities using blockchain, called t0 Technologies. The platform only currently trades Overstock’s digital shares, but as an SEC licensed alternative trading system (ATS), the foundation is in place for utilizing the platform to launch and trade public offerings of third-party securities.

The debt market also sees the benefit of DLT. The current average settlement time for the secondary trading of syndicated loans is approximately a month. The repurchase agreement marketplace is filled with inefficiencies, as is the trading market for corporate bonds. DLT could be used in all aspects of these markets. It is thought that DLT can also be used to automate the derivative marketplace and create greater transparency.

DLT technology is being worked on to create operational processes with the securities industry itself as well, including by creating central repositories of standardized reference data for various securities products, creating efficiencies for all participants. DLT can also centralize identity management functions, on a global scale.

In addition to the centralization of data, DLT can be used to process transactions by using overlaid software. For example, “smart contracts” can be created that would automatically execute agreed-upon terms in a contract based on certain triggering events. Smart contracts can be used for escrow arrangements, collateral management and corporate actions such as dividends and splits.

In addition to discrete areas, DLT can have market-wide impacts as well. One area that is gaining traction is the clearing process. Overstock’s platform is called t0 as a play on the widely used T+2 (formerly T+3) time for settlement. t0 references the immediate clearing and settlement of trades using DLT technology. However, despite the technological abilities, FINRA notes that it is unclear what the ideal settlement time would be for various segments of the securities market. Some market participants advocate for a netting and end-of-day settlement rather than a real-time contemporaneous process.

Real-time settlements would also impact short trading and other hedging transactions, including by market makers. On the positive side, it is thought that real-time settlement will reduce market risk, free up collateral and create overall efficiencies. As FINRA notes, it is likely that considerations related to settlement times will differ based on asset type, volume of transactions, liquidity requirements, impact on market makers and current market efficiencies.

Clearly DLT will increase market transparency. The basis of the technology is a series of blocks with a complete history available for view by network participants. Market participants and the investing public could be provided with access to relevant information on the network without the need to create a new reporting infrastructure. FINRA notes that regulators need to consider the benefits of such total transparency and the counter need to protect privacy, personally identifiable information and trading strategies. Also, consideration must be given to the need to ensure that material information available to a private network does not disadvantage the rest of the public.

DLT has the ability to alter or even eliminate the roles of intermediaries in the securities industry. The process of executing a trade as well as the subsequent settlement and clearing of such trade could be done directly between the issuing company and purchaser or third-party buyers and sellers. In addition, the need for market participants that effectuate transaction netting and maintenance of margin requirements could be reduced or eliminated.

The operational risks associated with the securities markets can be changed including sharing information over a network of multiple entities, the use of private and public keys to obtain access to assets, the use of smart contracts and other automated operations. The very nature of DLT as a shared network creates cybersecurity risks and the need for robust countermeasures.

Factors to Consider When Implementing DLT

As discussed, DLT applications have already impacted the securities industry. Many financial institutions have already established in-house or third-party research teams to build and test DLT networks and applications. FINRA’s report provides a good high-level summary of the obvious factors to consider with implementing DLT technology in capital markets, including governance, operational structure and network security.

Governance

A basis of DLT technology is that it is an open network with no centralized governing power or operator. FINRA notes that although there are benefits to this system, there are also issues, such as how to handle a large volume of transactions effectively. As a result, closed networks have started where participants are pre-vetted trusted parties. In the capital markets, questions will need to be answered related to the operation of the network and who has responsibility for what aspects—for example, who would decide governance and internal controls and procedures, who would enforce these governance rules, who would be responsible for day-to-day operations including addressing system failures or technical issues, how errors would be rectified and conflicts of interests addressed.

Operational Structure

Any DLT Network will need to consider its operational structure including a framework for: (i) network participant access and related onboarding and offboarding procedures; (ii) transaction validation; (iii) asset representation (such as shares of stock); and (iv) data and transparency requirements.

A network will need to establish criteria and procedures for establishing and maintaining participating members and determining their level of access. Controls and procedures will need to address: (i) criteria for participants to gain access to the network; (ii) a vetting and onboarding process including identity verification and user agreements; (iii) an offboarding process for both involuntary offboarding as a result of noncompliance and voluntary offboarding; (iv) monitoring and enforcement procedures for compliance with rules of conduct; (v) establishing various levels of access; and (vi) access for regulators.

Networks will need to determine a method for transaction validation. In the short history of blockchain, there have already been different methodologies. Validation could be consensus-based, single-node verifier or multiple-node verifier. Each method has pros and cons, and the specific algorithms and processes would need to be ferreted out.

On the topic of asset representation, networks will need to determine if the actual asset will be directly issued digitally (which only works for certain assets such as intangibles, stock or agreements representing ownership interests) or issued traditionally and be tokenized on the network. If tokenized, further thought must be given to security, handling loss or theft of the underlying asset, fractionalization issues, handling changes such as reverse or forward stock splits or conversions, and new issuances as some examples.

Likewise, thought must be given to the handling of cash on the network, including the settlement of transactions. In that regard, could tokens become a form of cash and if so, how would they ultimately be converted into established government currencies? Ownership in almost any asset could also be tokenized (such as diamonds, gold, precious metals, art, etc.), creating issues of custodianship and security for the underlying asset. Intangible assets would be relatively easy to tokenize. Fungible assets would be easier than non-fungible assets, with unique assets being the most difficult.

A network will need controls and processes related to data transparency including public or shared information versus private information.

Network Security

In addition to the security of the underlying asset, there are security concerns with the network itself. The issue is more complex due to the decentralized nature of, and global access and participants to, the network. A DLT Network must have security for external and internal risks while maintaining the privacy of personal information for network participants.

Network participants will need to consider: (i) how DLT fits within their current recordkeeping framework including maintenance and backup systems; (ii) cybersecurity issues, including hacking, phishing, malware and other forms of threats and program and testing requirements; (iii) updating written supervisory procedures and policy procedures; and (iv) business controls for identity and transaction verification and fraud prevention.

Regulatory Considerations

Broker-dealers are currently exploring issuing and trading securities, facilitating automated actions such as dividend payments and maintaining transaction records on a DLT network. These areas are regulated by both the SEC and FINRA. The FINRA report points out the potential for a “paradigm shift for several traditional processes in the securities industry through the development of new business models and new practices incorporating DLT” that requires regulatory attention.

I personally believe this shift will occur in a shorter period of time than some others predict. I can see a time in the not-too-distant future where the role of transfer agents is minimalized or completely changed to a reviewer of opinion letters for legend removals; the DTC will be drastically changed and much less powerful; there will no longer be a separation between clearing firms and introducing brokers and all trades will clear instantaneously (t+0).

The FINRA report specifically discusses some major areas of consideration including: (i) customer funds and securities; (ii)

Customer Funds and Securities

DLT will create new ways to hold customer funds and securities and thus custodial changes. Broker-dealers that hold funds and securities must generally comply with Exchange Act Rule 15c3-3, which generally requires the broker to maintain physical possession or control over the customer’s fully paid and excess margin securities. Where funds and securities are purely digital, such as cryptosecurities, consideration will need to be made over how they are accounted for and who has the obligation. In addition, certain activities and access levels could amount to “receiving, delivering, holding or controlling customer assets” such as having access to a private key code for a customer.

Also potentially implicated in this area are Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 related to net capital requirements, FINRA Rule 4160 on verification of assets and Exchange Act Rule 17a-13 related to quarterly security accounts.

Broker-Dealer Net Capital

Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 requires a firm to maintain a minimum level of net capital at all times. The FINRA Rule 4100 series sets forth the rules and requirements for complying with net capital requirements including calculations and which assets are allowable or non-allowable within those calculations. Regulations need to address how cryptosecurities, digital currency, and tokens in general will be accounted for, for purposes of net capital calculations.

Books and Records Requirements

Exchange Act Rule 17a-3 and 17a-4 and FINRA Rule 4511 regulate book and record requirements for broker-dealers. DLT allows books and records to be maintained on the network itself, though consideration must be made as to how this will comply with regulations, and what changes need to be made with the regulations to update for the new technology.

Clearance and Settlement

It is my view that DLT could have the biggest impact on clearance and settlement from a pure industry disruption viewpoint. FINRA notes, “Depending on how trade execution and settlement is ultimately structured, broker-dealers and other market participants may wish to consider whether any of their activities in the DLT environment meet the definition of a clearing agency and whether corresponding clearing agency registration requirements under Section 17A of the Exchange Act would be applicable.”

In addition, as mentioned, DLT could eliminate the distinction between introducing and clearing brokers and the corresponding carrying agreement rules.

Anti-Money Laundering and Customer Identification Programs

DLT allows for global and anonymous participation, and accordingly practices and regulations will need to address anti-money laundering (AML) and customer identification obligations (CIP). The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 requires controls and procedures to detect and prevent money laundering. FINRA Rule 3310 addresses AML obligations. For more on this topic, see HERE.

In addition, FINRA Rule 2090, the Know Your Customer (KYC) rule, requires firms to “use reasonable diligence, in regard to the opening and maintenance of every account, to know (and retain) the essential facts concerning every customer and concerning the authority of each person acting on behalf of such customer.” Technology is already being explored to centralize identity management functions such that once a customer identity is verified, the information can be shared with all network participants. Obviously this would greatly streamline processes for broker-dealers and customers alike.

It is likely that DLT technology will surpass regulatory changes in the AML/CIP/KYC sectors. The FINRA report notes that the current rules allow a firm to outsource functions to third parties, but not overall responsibility. Accordingly, a firm could utilize DLT technology for these functions now if they can fashion internal controls and procedures that comply with the ultimate rule responsibilities.

Customer Data Privacy

Broker-dealers have an obligation to protect personal customer information (Regulation S-P). The rules also require that a firm provide an annual notice to customers related to the protection, and sharing, of their personal information. DLT by nature will include customer information and transaction histories that will be available to network participants. Regulations, as well as internal controls and procedures, will need to adapt for DLT technology.

Trade and Order Reporting Requirements

FINRA regulates the trading and order reporting requirements for the over-the-counter (OTC Markets) and requires certain reports to a centralized Securities Information Processor for listed securities. DLT may be soon be used for the facilitation of OTC Markets equity transactions. This may involve tokenizing existing securities and trading on a different network. FINRA Rule 6100 Series (Quoting and Trading in NMS Stock), Rule 6400 Series (Quoting and Trading on OTC Equity Securities), Rule 4550 Series (Alternative Trading Systems) and Rule 5000 Series governing offering and trading standards and practices would all be implicated. I note that t0 Technologies has registered as an ATS.

Supervision and Surveillance

DLT networks will present new and unique challenges related to maintaining supervisory rules and procedures as well as surveillance systems themselves. This area includes the ability to review customer accounts and correct order errors. Like other areas of DLT technology, centralized systems available to all network participants are being developed that can perform some of these functions.

Fees and Commissions

Certain additional fees may be necessary for a DLT network, such as wallet management, key management and on-boarding, whereby other areas may reduce fees as centralization brings economies. In addition, consideration must be given to the payment of fees to third parties that are not registered broker-dealers but that provide DLT outsource functions.

Customer Confirmations and Account Statements

Exchange Act Rule 10b-10 requires firms to provide customers with certain records including trade confirmations and account statements. DLT technology will change the flow and availability of information.

Material Impact on Business Operations

NASD Rule 1017(a)(5) requires broker-dealers that undergo a material change in business operations to file a Continuing Membership Application (CMA) prior to implementing the material change. Many of the aspects of DLT technology may result in a material change and broker-dealers need to consider the need to file 1017 applications.

Business Continuity Plans

FINRA Rule 4370 requires broker-dealers to maintain business continuity plans. Firms must consider the impact of DLT technology on their plans and update accordingly.

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.

« SEC Chair Jay Clayton Discusses Direction Of SEC SEC Issues Report on Initial Coin Offerings (ICO’s) »

SEC Chair Jay Clayton Discusses Direction Of SEC

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | August 1, 2017 Tags: Chair Jay Clayton, Finra, SEC, SEC Chair Jay Clayton, SEC Chair Jay Clayton Discusses Direction Of SEC

In a much talked about speech to the Economic Club of New York on July 12, 2017, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton set forth his thoughts on SEC policy, including a list of guiding principles for his tenure. Chair Clayton’s underlying theme is the furtherance of opportunities and protection of Main Street investors, a welcome viewpoint from the securities markets’ top regulator. This was Chair Clayton’s first public speech in his new role and follows Commissioner Michael Piwowar’s recent remarks to the SEC-NYU Dialogue on Securities Market Regulation largely related to the U.S. IPO market. For a summary of Commissioner Piwowar’s speech, read HERE.

Guiding Principles

Chair Clayton outlined a list of eight guiding principles for the SEC.

#1: The SEC’s Mission is its touchstone

As described by Chair Clayton, the SEC has a three part mission: (i) to protect investors; (ii) to maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets, and (iii) to facilitate capital formation. Chair Clayton stresses that it is important to give each part of the three-part mission equal priority. For more information on the role and purpose of the SEC, see HERE.

#2: SEC Analysis Starts and ends with the long-term interests of the Main Street investor

According to Clayton, an assessment of whether the SEC is being true to its three-part mission requires an analysis of the long-term interests of the Main Street investors, including individual retirement accounts. This involves reviewing actions in light of the impact on investment opportunities, benefits and disclosure information for “Mr. and Mrs. 401(k).”

#3: The SEC’s historic approach to regulation is sound

As I’ve written about many times, disclosure and materiality have been at the center of the SEC’s historic regulatory approach. Chair Clayton reiterates that point. The SEC does not conduct merit reviews of filings and registration statements but rather focuses on whether the disclosures provided by a company provide potential investors and the marketplace with the information necessary to make an informed investment decision. For more information on disclosure requirements and recent initiatives, see HERE and HERE.

In addition to disclosure rules, the SEC places heightened responsibility on the individuals and people that actively participate in the securities markets. The SEC has made it a priority to review and pursue enforcement actions, where appropriate, against securities exchanges, clearing agencies, broker-dealers and investment advisors. In that regard, the SEC has historically and will continue to enforce antifraud provisions. Clayton states that “wholesale changes to the Commissions’ fundamental regulatory approach would not make sense.”

#4: Regulatory actions drive change, and change can have lasting effects

Under the fourth principle, Clayton continues to speak of the benefits of the disclosure-based system for public company capital markets. However, he does note that over time, new disclosure rules have been added on to the old, based on determinations beyond materiality, and that the SEC now needs to conduct a cumulative and not just incremental view of the disclosure rules and regulations.

Clayton specifically points to the much talked about decline in the number of IPO’s over the last two decades. He also points out that the median word count for SEC filings has more than doubled in over the same period, and that reports lack readability. Clayton points out, and I agree, that fewer small and medium-sized public companies affects the liquidity and trading for all public companies in that size range. A reduction of U.S. listed public companies is a serious issue for the U.S. economy and an improvement in this regard is a clear priority to the SEC.

For more on the SEC’s ongoing Disclosure Effectiveness program, see the further reading section at the end of this blog.

#5: As markets evolve, so must the SEC

Technology and innovation are constantly disrupting the way in which markets work and investors transact. Chair Clayton is well aware that the SEC must keep up with these changes and “strive to ensure that our rules and operations reflect the realities of our capital markets.” Clayton sees this as an opportunity to make improvements and efficiencies.

The SEC itself has utilized technology to improve its own systems, including through the use of algorithms and analytics to detect companies and individuals engaged in suspicious behavior. The SEC is adapting machine learning and artificial intelligence to new functions, including analyzing regulatory filings. On the other side, the SEC has to be aware of the costs involved with implementing these changes, versus the benefits derived.

#6: Effective rulemaking does not end with rule adoption

The SEC has developed robust processes for obtaining public input (comments) and performing economic analysis related to its rulemaking. Clayton is committed to ensuring that the SEC perform rigorous economic analysis in both the proposed and adoption stages of new rules. Clayton is aware of the principle of unintended consequences in rulemaking and is committed to ensuring that rules be reviewed retrospectively as well. Clayton states, “[W]e should listen to investors and others about where rules are, or are not, functioning as intended.”

Although Clayton does not get into specifics, certainly changes are necessary in the disclosure requirements, fiduciary rule, Dodd-Frank rollbacks (see HERE on the Financial Choice Act 2.0); finders’ fees (see HERE for more), eligibility for Regulation A+ (see HERE for more), and small business-venture capital marketplace.

#7: The costs of a rule now often include the cost of demonstrating compliance

Clayton states, “[R]ules are meant to be followed, and the public depends on regulators to make sure that happens. It is incumbent on the Commission to write rules so that those subject to them can ascertain how to comply and — now more than ever — how to demonstrate that compliance.” Vaguely worded rules end up with subpar compliance and enforcement. Clayton refers to the officer and director certifications required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the need to create a system of internal controls to support the ultimate words on the paper – which system can be hugely expensive.

I note that understanding rules and their application is one of the biggest hurdles in the small-cap industry, including where responsibility lies vis-à-vis different participants in the marketplace. For example, the responsibility of a company, transfer agent, introducing broker, and clearing broker in the chain of the issuance and ultimate trading of a security, continues to provide challenges for all participants. Often participants are left with an education and interpretation by enforcement process, rather than what would be a much more efficient system providing participants with the knowledge and tools to create compliance systems that prevent fraud and related issues and reduce the need for retrospective enforcement.

#8: Coordination is key

Clayton notes that “the SEC shares the financial services space with many other regulatory players charged with overseeing related or overlapping industries and market participants.” There are more than 15 U.S. federal regulatory bodies and over 50 state and territory regulators, plus the Department of Justice, state attorneys general, self-regulatory organizations (SRO – such as FINRA) and non-SRO standard-setting entities (for example, DTC) in the financial services sector. In addition, the SEC works with international regulators and markets cooperating with over 115 foreign jurisdictions.

Clayton specifically points to the regulations of over-the-counter derivatives – including security-based swaps for which the SEC shares regulatory functions with the CFTC (for more on this, see HERE). Clayton is committed to working with the CFTC to improve this particular area of financial regulation and reduce unnecessary complexity and costs.

In addition, cybersecurity is an important area requiring regulatory coordination. Information sharing is essential to address potential and respond to actual cyber threats.

Putting Principles into Practice

After laying out his eight principles for the SEC, Chair Clayton addressed some specific areas of SEC policy.

Enforcement and Examinations

Clayton is committed to deploying significant resources to enforcement against fraud and shady practices in areas where Main Street investors are most exposed, including affinity and micro-cap fraud. He indicates that the SEC is taking further steps to find and eliminate pump-and-dump scammers, those that victimize retirees, and cyber criminals. As a practitioner in the small- and micro-cap market space, I welcome and look forward to initiatives that work to reduce fraud, while still supporting the honest participants and the necessary small-business ecosystem.

Clayton also recognizes that the markets also have more sophisticated issues requiring enforcement attention related to market participants. The SEC is “committed to making our markets s fair, orderly, and efficient – and as liquid – as possible.” Although prior Commissioners and Chairs have made similar statements, the addition of “and as liquid” by this regime continues to illustrate a commitment to supporting business growth and not just enforcement.

Finally on this topic, Clayton stresses the importance of cybersecurity in today’s marketplace. Public companies have an obligation to disclose material information about cyber risks and cyber events (see HERE for more on this topic). However, cyber criminals, including entire nations, can have resources far beyond a single company, and companies should not be punished for being a victim where they are being responsible in face of cyber threats. To bring proportionality to the topic, Clayton points out that cyber threats go beyond capital markets but affect national security as well.

Capital Formation

Consistent with his pro-business attitude, Jay Clayton advocates enhancing the ability of “every American to participate in investment opportunities, including through public markets.” Of course, the flip side is the ability for businesses to raise money to grow and create jobs. Clayton is also consistent with the message that he and other Commissioners have been relaying that the U.S. public markets need to grow and become more attractive to businesses (without damaging the private marketplace).

As a first step, the SEC recently expanded the ability to file confidential registration statements for all Section 12(b) Exchange Act registration statements, initial public offerings (IPO’s) and for secondary or follow-on offerings made in the first year after a company becomes publicly reporting, to all companies. Previously only emerging growth companies (EGC’s) were allowed to file registration statements confidentially. For more on this, see my blog HERE. Clayton believes that allowing companies to submit sensitive information on a non-public basis for initial staff review, will make the going public process more attractive to earlier-stage entities.

As a last point on capital formation, Chair Clayton encourages companies to request waivers or modifications to the financial reporting requirements under Regulation S-X, where the particular disclosure or reporting is overly burdensome and not material to the total mix of information presented to investors.

Market Structure

Clayton suggests shifting the focus of the conversation on market structure to actions. He recommends proceeding with a pilot program to test how adjustments to the access fee cap under Rule 610 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 would affect equities trading. The pilot would provide the SEC with more data to assess the effects of access fees and rebates on market makers, pricing and liquidity. Clayton is open to that and further suggestions from the SEC’s Equity Market Structure Advisory Committee.

Clayton believes the SEC should broaden its review of market structure to also include the fixed-income markets, to provide stable investment options for retirees. In that regard the SEC is creating a Fixed Income Market Structure Advisory Committee.

Investment Advice and Disclosure to Investors

Chair Clayton addresses both the fiduciary rule and improving disclosures to investors. Related to the fiduciary rule, Clayton states that it is important for the SEC to bring clarity and consistency to the area. In that regard, in June the SEC issued a statement seeking public input and comment on standards of conduct for investment advisers and broker-dealers.

Related to disclosures, as with all other areas of disclosure, investment advisors must provide potential investors with easily accessible and meaningful information. Clayton refers to the SEC’s ongoing Disclosure Effectiveness initiative, the progress in which is summarized at the end of this blog.

Resources to Educate Investors

A priority for the SEC is to provide more information to investors through technology and other means.

Further Reading on Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative

I have been keeping an ongoing summary of the SEC’s ongoing Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative. The following is a recap of such initiative and proposed and actual changes. I note that we have not seen any regulatory changes since the election and new regime at the SEC, but certainly significant changes are expected in light of Chair Clayton’s, and the Commissioners’, publicly disclosed priorities.

On August 31, 2016, the SEC issued proposed amendments to Item 601 of Regulation S-K to require hyperlinks to exhibits in filings made with the SEC. The proposed amendments would 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 proposed amendment would also require that all exhibits be filed in HTML format. See my blog HERE on the Item 601 proposed changes.

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.

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.

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.

The Author

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

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

« SEC Expands Ability To File Confidential Registration Statements An Introduction To Distributed Ledger Technology (Blockchain Technology) »

SEC Expands Ability To File Confidential Registration Statements

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | July 25, 2017 Tags: SEC Expands Ability To File Confidential Registration Statements

On June 19, 2017, the SEC announced that the Division of Corporation Finance will permit all companies to submit draft registration statements, on a confidential basis. Confidential draft submissions will now be available for all Section 12(b) Exchange Act registration statements, initial public offerings (IPO’s) and for secondary or follow-on offerings made in the first year after a company becomes publicly reporting.

The SEC has adopted the change by staff prerogative and not a formal rule change. On June 29, 2017, the SEC issued guidance on the change via new FAQs. The new policy is effective July 10, 2017.

Title I of the JOBS Act initially allowed for confidential draft submissions of registration statements by emerging growth companies but did not include any other companies, such as smaller reporting companies. Regulation A+ as enacted on June 19, 2015, also allows for confidential submissions of an offering circular by companies completing their first Regulation A+ offering. The new policy does not change or limit the current process and procedures for confidential submissions by emerging growth (or Regulation A+) issuers.

In its press release, Director of the Division of Corporation Finance Bill Hinman stated, “[T]his is an important step in our efforts to foster capital formation, provide investment opportunities, and protect investors. This process makes it easier for more companies to enter and participate in our public company disclosure-based system.”

The SEC also considers this change as helpful in its efforts to improve the slow IPO market. SEC Chair Jay Clayton said, “By expanding a popular JOBS Act benefit to all companies, we hope that the next American success story will look to our public markets when they need access to affordable capital. We are striving for efficiency in our processes to encourage more companies to consider going public, which can result in more choices for investors, job creation, and a stronger U.S. economy.”

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”).The primary benefits of an EGC include scaled-down disclosure requirements both in an IPO and periodic reporting, 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. 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.

As a reminder, the definition of an EGC as first enacted on April 5, 2012, was a company with total annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion 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 billion 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 May 2, 2016, it will cease to be an EGC on December 31, 2021); (iii) the date on which it has issued more than $1 billion 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). EGC status is not available to asset-backed securities issuers (“ABS”) reporting under Regulation AB or investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended. However, business development companies (BDC’s) do qualify.

On March 31, 2017, the SEC made inflationary adjustments to the definition of an EGC by increasing the definition by $70,000. Accordingly, an EGC is now defined as a company with total gross revenues of less than $1,070,000,000.

Regulation A+ as enacted on June 19, 2015, also allows for confidential submissions of an offering circular by companies completing their first Regulation A+ offering. Confidential submissions under Regulation A allow an issuer to get the process under way while soliciting interest of investors using the “test-the-waters” provisions without negative publicity risk if it alters or withdraws the offering before qualification by the SEC. However, the confidential filing, SEC comments, and all amendments must be publicly filed as exhibits to the offering statement at least 15 calendar days before qualification.

New Policy Guidelines

Confidential submissions to the SEC are completed by choosing a “confidential” setting in the EDGAR system. The EDGAR filing manual has detailed instructions for filing confidential draft registration statements which instructions can be followed by all companies.

To satisfy the requirement to publicly file the previous confidential information, the company can file all prior confidential information as an exhibit to its non-confidential filing, or change the setting in the EDGAR system on its prior filings, from “confidential” to “public.” In the event the company chooses to change its EDGAR setting to “public,” it would not have to re-file all prior confidential material as an exhibit to a new filing.

A confidential registration statement is subject to the same rules related to content and financial statements as a public filing. For example, if the company would be able to omit historical financial statements pursuant to the provisions of Section 71003 of the FAST Act, they could also do so in the confidential submission. See HERE for more information on Section 71003.

Filing fees for registration are not due until a public registration statement is filed.

Securities Act Initial Public Offerings

The SEC will review draft registration statements and related revisions on a nonpublic basis if the company files a cover letter with the initial draft registration statement confirming that the company will file publicly file the registration statement and all nonpublic draft submissions at least 15 days prior to any road show, and in the absence of a road show, at least 15 days prior to the requested effective date of the registration statement.

Registration Under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act

A registration statement under Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is necessary to register a security for listing on a national securities exchange. A Form 10 is used to register securities under Section 12(b). It should be noted that a Form 10 is also used to register securities under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act. Section 12(g) requires registration under certain circumstances and also allows for voluntary registration. For more on Section 12(g), see HERE.

Securities Act Follow-on Offerings

The SEC will also accept confidential draft registration statements for follow-on offerings that are submitted prior to the end of the twelfth month following the effective date of the company’s initial Securities Act registration statement or Section 12(b) Exchange Act registration statement. In this case the company must submit a cover letter confirming that it was filing the registration statement and nonpublic draft submission at least 48 hours prior to any requested effective date.

In the case of a follow-on registration, the SEC will only allow a confidential submission of the first draft. Any subsequent amendments responding to SEC comments would need to be filed publicly. The company should also file the initial confidential filing, publicly, when it submits its first public filing of the registration statement.

Foreign Private Issuers

Foreign private issuers may follow the new guidance, may follow the process available to emerging growth companies (if they so qualify) or may elect the confidential review process only available to such foreign private issuers. In particular, the SEC allows the nonpublic submission of draft registration statements for foreign issuers if the foreign registrant is: (i) a foreign government registering its debt securities; (ii) a foreign private issuer that is listed or is concurrently listing its securities on a non-U.S. securities exchange; (iii) a foreign private issuer that is being privatized by a foreign government; or (iv) a foreign private issuer that can demonstrate that the public filing of an initial registration statement would conflict with the laws of an applicable foreign jurisdiction. Shell companies and blank-check companies may not utilize a confidential submission.

Rule 83 Confidentiality Request

If a company wants to keep certain information confidential, even after the required time to make such information public, it will need to submit two confidential requests, one as part of the registration review process and one when prior confidential filings are made public. During the confidential review process, the company should submit a request under Rule 83 in the same manner it would during a typical review of a registered offering. Once the company is required to make the prior filings “public” (15 days prior to qualification or effectiveness), the company would make a new request for confidential treatment under Rule 406 in the same manner other confidential treatment requests are submitted. In particular, for a confidential treatment request under Rules 83 and 406, a company must submit a redacted version of the document via EDGAR with the appropriate legend indicating that confidential treatment has been requested. Concurrently, the company must submit a full, unredacted paper version of the document to the SEC using the ordinary confidential treatment procedure (such filings are submitted via a designated fax line to a designated person to maintain confidentiality).

The Author

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

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

« SEC Chief Accountant Speaks On Financial Reporting SEC Chair Jay Clayton Discusses Direction Of SEC »

SEC Chief Accountant Speaks On Financial Reporting

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | July 11, 2017 Tags: GAAP, New GAAP Accounting Standards, PCAOB, SEC Chief Accountant Speaks On Financial Reporting

On June 8, 2017, the SEC Chief Accountant, Wesley R. Bricker, gave a speech before the 36th Annual SEC and Financial Reporting Institute Conference. The speech, which this blog summarizes, was titled “Advancing the Role of Credible Financial Reporting in the Capital Markets.” As usual, I’ve included commentary throughout.

Introduction and Role of the PCAOB

The speech begins with some general background comments and a discussion of the role of the PCAOB. Approximately half of Americans invest in the U.S. equity markets, either directly or through mutual funds and employer-sponsored retirement plans. The ability to judge the opportunities and risks and make investment choices depends on the quality of information available to the public and importantly, the quality of the accounting and auditing information. Mr. Bricker notes that “[T]he credibility of financial statements have a direct effect on a company’s cost of capital, which is reflected in the price that investors are willing to pay for the company’s securities.”

The quality of financial statements begins with the company’s internal accounting and audit committees; however, an audit by an independent accountant provides investor confidence in the financial statements themselves. Mr. Bricker notes the importance of having an independent auditor that is thorough in their review and testing of the financial statements to ensure that they are accurate and do not contain any misstatements. In order to ensure that this process works, both the profession itself and regulators must be actively involved.

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) has broad oversight and responsibility related to the audit and auditors of public companies and broker-dealers. The PCAOB sets accounting standards, completes registration and inspection of audit firms and has enforcement authority. The PCAOB inspection process includes a review of audit files and of internal controls and processes of audit firms. The reports are made public via Staff Inspection Briefs and individual inspection reports. Also, a list of registered qualified PCAOB auditors is readily available on the PCAOB website.

The PCAOB completes an annual review of current and emerging audit issues and publishes and sets audit standards and changes. The PCAOB also publishes guidance for auditors and the audit process. As an example, the PCAOB recently proposed a new standard for audit reports. The proposed new standard would require auditors to describe “critical audit matters” that are communicated to a company’s audit committee. Critical matters are those that relate to material financial statement entries or disclosures and require complex judgment. One of the purposes of the proposed change is to require the auditor to communicate to investors, via the audit report, those matters that were difficult or thought-provoking in the audit process and that the auditor believes an investor would want to know.

The proposal would also add information to the audit report related to the audit firm tenure, and the auditor’s role and responsibilities. Tenure can be an important factor in an audit, including an auditor’s experience and thus understanding of a company’s business and audit risks. The SEC has yet to approve the rule. If/when approved, the new rule would be implemented for large accelerated filers beginning mid-2019 and for all other companies starting in 2021. Mr. Bricker notes that this proposed change is significant as the audit report is the document in which the auditor itself communicates to the public and investors.

International Collaboration

Mr. Bricker then discusses international collaboration with foreign regulators and standard setters. He notes that “in today’s interconnected world economy, investors depend on high quality auditing and auditing standards around the world,” also noting that “U.S. investors routinely invest in companies based outside the United States and listed in non-U.S. jurisdictions to diversify their portfolio.”

Turning to some facts and figures, U.S. investors invested $9 trillion in foreign equity and long-term debt, including through mutual funds. Investment in domestic equity and long-term debt comes in at $61.4 trillion. This number continues to increase. During the week ending May 17, 2017, U.S. investors added $9.9 billion to U.S.-based mutual and exchange traded funds which invest abroad. This was the largest weekly increase since July 2015.

It is important for investors to be aware of the processes, regulations, regulators and governance in place related to audits and auditing standards outside of the U.S. Although Mr. Bricker continues on the importance of international audit standards, and trust in the audit process, he does not refer to any specific initiatives or guidelines in that regard.

New GAAP Accounting Standards; Revenue Recognition

Recently there have been several changes to accounting processes and several other proposed changes. One that will have a material impact is related to revenue recognition. As requested by investors, businesses and the marketplace, FASB and IASB recently adopted new revenue-recognition standards which will be implemented over the next three years. Mr. Bricker does not get into the details of the new revenue-recognition standard but emphasizes that the audit committee and auditors need to participate in and have an understanding of how the company is implementing the changes, including a flow through to internal controls and procedures.

The following is my very high-level summary of the impact on contracts from the complex new revenue recognition standards. The revenue recognition changes are designed to assist an investor in understanding the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts and customers. As revenue recognition is initially determined by the terms of a contract, it is important when drafting contracts to consider the financial statement impact. The new standard sets forth five steps to consider.

The first step is to identify the particular contract, which is an agreement between two or more parties that creates enforceable rights and obligations. The new standard requires that multiple contracts, between the same parties, entered into at or near the same time, must be combined and analyzed as one contract if (i) the contracts are negotiated as a package with a single commercial objective; (ii) the amount of consideration to be paid in one contract depends on the price or performance of the other contract; or (iii) the goods or services promised in the contracts are a single performance obligation.

The second step is to identify the performance obligations, which is a promise in a contract with a customer to transfer to the customer either: (i) a good or service (or bundle of goods or services) that is distinct; or (ii) a series of distinct goods or services that are substantially the same and that have the same pattern of transfer to the customer. A good or service is distinct if both of the following conditions are met: (i) the customer can benefit from the good or service either on its own or together with other resources that are readily available to the customer; and (ii) the entity’s promise to transfer the good or service to the customer is separately identifiable from other promises in the contract.

This step is vitally important as revenue is recognized when or as performance obligations are satisfied, and thus a contract must clearly identify those performance obligations. One blog I read gave a great example of where contract drafting can result in different revenue recognition—in particular, where a developer enters into a contract to build a completed building for a particular purpose for a customer. The contract may be written whereby parts of the delivered project have distinct and independent value, such as engineering, site clearance, construction, installation of equipment and finishing such that revenue is recognized upon delivery of these distinct elements. Contrarily the contract could be written such that the individual parts are not separately identifiable, but rather only the end product, such that revenue would not be recognized until such end product is provided.

The third step is determining the transaction price which is the amount of consideration to be paid in exchange for delivering the promised goods or services to a customer, excluding amounts collected on behalf of third parties. The two main considerations are: (i) variable consideration – if the consideration is variable, the company should estimate either the expected value or the most likely amount, depending on which will be the more likely; and (ii) constraining estimates of variable consideration – a company should include in the transaction price some or all of an estimate of variable consideration only to the extent it is probable that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognized will not occur when the uncertainty associated with the variable consideration is subsequently resolved.

Transaction price can also vary based on non-cash consideration, discounts, rebates, refunds, performance bonuses, penalties, contingent payments and the like. An example would be where a custom asset is being built and the price is contingent upon a delivery deadline, with a performance bonus for early delivery and penalties for later delivery. An additional complexity may be where the price is based on an independent appraisal at the time of delivery. Complex variables may prohibit revenue recognition until a contract is fully performed.

The fourth step is to allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract. This amount should reflect the amount a company would be entitled to in exchange for satisfying each performance obligation. To be able to recognize revenue based on allocation, the contract should clearly identify a particular distinct delivered good or service on a stand-alone selling-price basis. The allocation can be very complex and the amount of revenue recognized could end up differing from a stated value in a contract, which may be arbitrary.

The fifth step is to recognize revenue when or as the company satisfies a performance obligation by transferring a promised good or service to a customer. A good or service is transferred when or as the customer obtains control of that good or service. Where a good or service is transferred over time, revenue may be recognized if one of the following conditions is met: (i) the customer simultaneously receives and consumes the benefits provided by the company’s performance over time; (ii) the company’s performance creates or enhances an asset that the customer controls as it is being created or enhanced; or (iii) the company’s performance does not create an asset with an alternative use to that company, and the company has an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date (customized products or services).

Where performance and delivery are not over time, a company should consider the following as to when to recognize revenue: (i) the company has a present right to payment for the asset; (ii) the customer has legal title to the asset; (iii) the company has transferred physical possession of the asset; (iv) the customer has the significant risks and rewards of ownership of the asset; or (v) the customer has accepted the asset.

Also not included in Mr. Bricker’s speech is that some companies have chosen to adopt the new standards already, including Ford Motor Company, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Alphabet, First Solar and United Health Group. The MD&A for each of these companies contains a summary of the changes and how they impact their particular company and its financial statements.

Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Internal controls over financial reporting are controls designed to provide reasonable assurance that the company’s financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP. Internal controls provide the guidance and road map for management to effectively ensure timely and accurate financial reporting. All companies are required to maintain internal controls over financial reporting, whether or not such company is subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Mr. Bricker advocates the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) framework for assessing the effectiveness of internal controls. The Treadway Commission is the National Commission on Fraudulent Reporting and has long been accepted as providing acceptable guidance on internal controls over financial reporting, and processes for management to assess same.

Mr. Bricker does not get into the specifics of the COSO framework for evaluating internal controls. However, I am providing a brief summary. In 1992 COSO developed a model for evaluating internal controls which has become the widely recognized standard for which companies measure the effectiveness of their systems of internal controls. COSO defines internal control as “a process, effected by an entity’s board of directors, management and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance” of the achievement of objectives if the following categories: (i) effectiveness and efficiency of operations; (ii) reliability of financial reporting; and (iii) compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

From a very high level, COSO states that in an effective enterprise risk management (ERM) and effective internal control system, all of the following five components must be present:

A Control Environment – which includes: (i) integrity and ethical values; (ii) a commitment to competence; (iii) a strong board of directors and audit committee; (iv) management’s philosophy and operating style; (v) organizational structure; assignment of authority and responsibility; and (vi) human resource policies and procedures;
Risk Assessment – which includes: (i) company-wide objectives; (ii) process level objectives; (iii) risk identification and analysis; and (iv) managing change.
Control Activities – which includes: (i) policies and procedures; (ii) security (application and network); (iii) application change management; (iv) business continuity/backups; and (v) outsourcing.
Information and Communication – which includes (i) qualify of information; and (ii) effectiveness of communication; and
Monitoring – which includes: (i) ongoing monitoring; (ii) separate evaluations; and (iii) reporting deficiencies.

Strong internal controls not only detect and prevent material errors or fraud in financial reporting but also contribute to better accountability and information flows. In other words, internal controls over financial reporting assist a company in better management and potential profitability in addition to the important reporting and securities-law matters. Where a company must disclose a material weakness in its internal controls, investors will discount the price accordingly, especially at the institutional level. Moreover, where a company has reported a material weakness and plan of remediation, and then executes on such plan, the investor response is very positive, including a reduced cost of capital and improved operating performance.

Although not discussed by Bricker, both the NYSE and NASDAQ consider reported material weaknesses in internal controls when reviewing an application for listing on the exchange.

Auditor Independence

Public trust in financial reporting is maintained by protecting the independence of the outside auditor. A company’s audit committee plays an important role in overseeing and communicating with the outside auditor. Bricker states that in order for the system to be effective, the audit committee must “own the selection of the audit firm, make the final decision when it comes time to negotiate the audit fee, and oversee the auditor’s independence.”

As part of the independent auditor selection, the audit committee should be open to the possibility of circumstances that might require adjustments to prior-period financial statements. Mr. Bricker includes as examples the reporting of discontinued operations, a retrospective application of an adoption or change in accounting principle, or the correction of an error.

Reminders to the Audit Profession

Mr. Bricker points out that audit firms themselves are organizations with the inherent pressures that personnel of any organization can face. Audit firms themselves must monitor and have internal controls in place to ensure quality audits and audit relationships. One pressure that definitely can impact the quality of an audit is a deadline. Bricker points out that audit firms need to plan and allocate resources to ensure that there is time to address potential issues under the deadline of SEC filing requirements. I note that the biggest complaint my clients make about their auditors relates to issue spotting at the last minute and requested material changes to financial statements, such as revenue recognition, right before a filing is due, without the time to properly research and address the matter.

The Author

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

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

« The Payment Of Finders’ Fees- An Ongoing Discussion SEC Expands Ability To File Confidential Registration Statements »

The Payment Of Finders’ Fees- An Ongoing Discussion

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | July 5, 2017 Tags: Broker-Dealer Activity, broker-dealer registration requirements, Finders fees, Form 1-A, Private Placement Finders, SEC rules, The Payment Of Finders' Fees, The Payment Of Finders' Fees- An Ongoing Discussion

Introduction

As a recurring topic, I discuss exemptions to the broker-dealer registration requirements for entities and individuals that assist companies in fundraising and related services. I have previously discussed the no-action-letter-based exemption for M&A brokers, the exemptions for websites restricted to accredited investors and for crowdfunding portals as part of the JOBS Act and the statutory exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements found in Securities Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1, including for officers, directors and key employees of an issuer. I have also previously published a blog on the American Bar Association’s recommendations for the codification of an exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements for private placement finders. I’ve included links to each of these prior articles in the conclusion to this blog.

A related topic with a parallel analysis is the use of finders for investors and investor groups, an activity which has become prevalent in today’s marketplace. In that case the investor group utilizes the services of a finder to solicit issuers to sell securities (generally convertible notes) to the investment group. These finders may also solicit current shareholders or convertible note holders to sell such holdings to a new investor or investor group.

Most if not all small and emerging companies are in need of capital but are often too small or premature in their business development to attract the assistance of a banker or broker-dealer. In addition to regulatory and liability concerns, the amount of a capital raise by small and emerging companies is often small (less than $5 million) and accordingly, the potential commission for a broker-dealer is limited as compared to the time and risk associated with the transaction. Most small and middle market bankers have base-level criteria for acting as a placement agent in a deal, which includes the minimum amount of commission they would need to collect to become engaged. In addition, placement agents have liability for the representations of the issuing company and fiduciary obligations to investors.

As a result of the need for capital and need for assistance in raising the capital, together with the inability to attract licensed broker-dealer assistance, a sort of black market industry has developed, and it is a large industry. Neither the SEC, FINRA or state regulators have the resources to police this prevalent industry of finders. The fact is that there are thousands of unlicensed finders that operate openly, and even advertise their services, making it impossible for practitioners to convince small issuers that they should not utilize the services of these groups. As the saying goes, if everyone is doing it and doing it openly, it must be okay – but it is not okay.

As discussed further in this blog, I would recommend a regulatory framework that includes (i) limits on the total amount finders can introduce in a 12-month period; (ii) antifraud and basic disclosure requirements that match issuer responsibilities under registration exemptions; and (iii) bad-actor prohibitions and disclosures which also match issuer requirements under registration exemptions.

SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies’ Recommendations

The SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies (the “Advisory Committee”) has once again made recommendations to the SEC regarding the regulation of finders and other intermediaries in small business capital formation transactions. The Advisory Committee previously submitted recommendations to the SEC on September 23, 2015.

By way of reminder, the Advisory Committee was organized by the SEC 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.”

The newest recommendations of the Advisory Committee are almost in the form of a plea to the SEC to recognize this very important issue and take some action, any action. The entire recommendation of the Advisory Committee is that the SEC do as follows:

“The Commission take action in the near future to provide certainty in the context of finders and platforms involved in primary and secondary securities transactions. The range of potential options includes compliance or enforcement efforts, rulemaking, or coordination with the states. Even staff guidance such as Q&A’s as to what constitutes broker-dealer activity would be tremendously helpful.”

In support of its recommendations, the Advisory Committee noted that:

Identifying potential investors is one of the most difficult challenges for small businesses trying to raise capital;
There is significant uncertainty in the marketplace about what activities require broker-dealer registration. Companies that want to play by the rules struggle to know in what circumstances they can engage a “finder” or platform that is not registered as a broker-dealer.
For years, many interested parties have urged the SEC and its staff to take steps to address this ambiguity. As one recent example, in 2015, this Committee recommended that the Commission “take immediate intermediary steps to begin to address issues regarding the regulation of intermediaries in small business capital formation transactions….”; and
The Committee is disappointed that the SEC has not taken actions to help to address these concerns despite repeated and long-standing requests.

Previously, on September 23, 2015, the Advisory Committee made the following four 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.

At the time of its recommendations in 2015, the Advisory Committee noted that:

Small businesses account for the creation of two-thirds of all new jobs, and are the incubators of innovation, generating the majority of net new jobs in the last five years and continuing to add more jobs;

Early-stage capital for these small businesses is raised principally through private offerings that are exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 and state blue-sky laws;

More than 95% of private offerings rely on Rule 506 of Regulation D; however, less than 15% of those use a financial intermediary such as a broker-dealer. This is due in part to a lack of interest from registered broker-dealers given the legal costs and risk involved in undertaking a small transaction, ambiguities in the definition of “broker” and the danger of using unregistered finders. (For more on the topic of incentives for broker-dealers to work with smaller offerings, see my blog HERE)

As documented in the findings of an American Bar Association Business Law Section Task Force in 2005 and endorsed by the SEC Government Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation: (i) failure to address the regulatory issues surrounding finders and other private placement intermediaries impedes capital formation for smaller companies; (ii) the current broker-dealer registration system and FINRA membership process is a deterrent to meaningful oversight; (iii) appropriate regulation would enhance economic growth and job creation; and (iv) solutions are achievable through SEC leadership and coordination with FINRA and the states. For more on the ABA Task Force study, see my blog HERE.

The Advisory Committee is of the view that imposing only limited regulatory requirements, including appropriate investor protections and safeguards on private placement intermediaries with limited activities that do not hold customer funds or securities and deal only with accredited investors, would enhance capital formation and promote job creation.

The Broker-Dealer Placement Agent Dilemma

Broker-dealers lack an incentive to engage in small private capital-raising transactions. In addition to regulatory and liability concerns, the amount of a capital raise by small and emerging companies is often small (less than $5 million) and accordingly, the potential commission for a broker-dealer is limited as compared to the time and risk associated with the transaction. Most small and middle market bankers have base-level criteria for acting as a placement agent in a deal, which includes the minimum amount of commission they would need to collect to become engaged.

From a regulatory perspective, when acting as placement agent in a private offering, broker-dealers must consider FINRA filing rules, general know-your-customer and suitability requirements as well as statutory liability under Dodd-Frank and the SEC antifraud provisions. For more information on these rules, see HERE.

Even when a broker agrees to act as placement agent, it can often be difficult to locate investors for small companies. It would be helpful if unlicensed individuals could refer investors to such a broker-dealer, who would then ensure that proper disclosure has been made to the investor, and that the investment is suitable for such investor. However, FINRA Rule 2040 prohibits the payment of transaction-based compensation by member firms to unregistered persons. FINRA Rule 2040 expressly correlates with Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act (discussed below) and prohibits the payment of transaction-related compensation unless a person is licensed or properly exempt from such licensing.

Rule 2040 prohibits member firms from directly or indirectly paying any compensation, fees, concessions, discounts or commissions to:

any person that is not registered as a broker-dealer under SEA Section 15(a) but, by reason of receipt of any such payments and the activities related thereto, is required to be so registered under applicable federal securities laws and SEA rules and regulations; or

any appropriately registered associated person, unless such payment complies with all applicable federal securities laws, FINRA rules and SEA rules and regulations.

FINRA guidance on the Rule states that a member firm can (i) rely on published releases, no-action letters or interpretations from the SEC staff; (ii) seek SEC no-action relief; or (iii) obtain a legal opinion from an independent, reputable U.S. licensed attorney knowledgeable in the area. This list is not exclusive and FINRA specifically indicates that member firms can take any other reasonable inquiry or action in determining whether a transaction fee can be paid to an unlicensed person.

FINRA Rule 2040 specifically allows the payments of finders’ fees to unregistered foreign finders where the finder’s sole involvement is the initial referral to the member firm of non-U.S. customers and certain conditions are met, including but not limited to that (i) the person is not otherwise required to be registered as a broker-dealer in the U.S.; (ii) the compensation does not violate foreign law; (iii) the finder is a foreign national domiciled abroad; (iv) the customers are foreign nationals domiciled abroad; (v) the payment of the finder’s fee is disclosed to the customer; (vi) the customers provide written acknowledgment of receipt of the notice related to the payment of the fee; (vii) proper records regarding the payments are maintained; and (viii) each transaction confirm indicates that the finder’s fee is being paid.

Current Rules on Finders’ Fees

The SEC generally prohibits the payments of commissions or other transaction-based compensation to individuals or entities that assist in effecting transactions in securities, including a capital raise, unless that entity is a licensed broker-dealer. The SEC considers the registration of broker-dealers as vital to protecting prospective purchasers of securities and the marketplace as a whole and actively pursues and prosecutes unlicensed activity. The registration process is arduous, including, for example, background checks, fingerprinting of personnel, minimum financial requirements, membership to SRO’s and ongoing regulatory and compliance requirements. However, despite the SEC’s efforts, as mentioned in the introduction, a whole cottage industry of unlicensed finders has developed, simply overshadowing efforts by regulators.

Over the years, a “finder’s” exemption has been fleshed out, mainly through SEC no-action letters and some court opinions. Bottom line: an individual or entity can collect compensation for acting as a finder as long as the finder’s role is limited to making an introduction. The mere providing of names or an introduction without more has consistently been upheld as falling outside of the registration requirements. The less contact with the potential investor, the more likely the finder is not required to be licensed.

The finder may not participate in negotiations, structuring, document preparation or execution. Moreover, if such finder is “engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities,” they must be licensed. In most instances, a person that acts as a finder on multiple occasions will be deemed to be engaged in the business of effecting securities transactions, and needs to be licensed.

The SEC will also consider the compensation arrangement with transaction or success-based compensation weighing in favor of requiring registration. The compensation arrangement is often argued as the gating or deciding factor, with many commentators expressing that any success-based compensation requires registration. The reasoning is that transaction-based compensation encourages high-pressure sales tactics and other problematic behavior. However, the SEC itself has issued no-action letters supporting a finder where the fee was based on a percentage of the amount invested by the referred people (see Moana/Kauai Corp., SEC No-Action Letter, 1974).

More recently, the U.S. District court for the Middle District of Florida in SEC vs. Kramer found that compensation is just one of the many factual considerations and should not be given any “particular heavy emphasis” nor in itself result in a “significant indication of a person being engaged in the business of a broker.”

Where a person acts as a “consultant” providing such services as advising on offering structure, market and financial analysis, holding meetings with broker-dealers, preparing or supervising the preparation of business plans or offering documents, the SEC has consistently taken the position that registration is required if such consultant’s compensation is commission-, success- or transaction-based.

As pertains to finders that act on behalf of investors and investor groups, there is a lack of meaningful guidance. On a few occasions, the SEC has either denied no-action relief or concluded that registration was required. However, the same basic principles apply.

The federal laws related to broker-dealer registration do not pre-empt state law. Accordingly, a broker-dealer must be licensed by both the SEC and each state in which they conduct business. Likewise, an unlicensed individual relying on an exemption from broker-dealer registration, such as a finder, must assure themselves of the availability of both a federal and state exemption for their activities.

The Exchange Act – Broker-Dealer Registration Requirement

Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act requires any “broker” that makes use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to effect any transactions in, or to induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of, any security (other than an exempted security) to register with the SEC.

The text of Section 15(a)(1) – Registration of all persons utilizing exchange facilities to effect transactions is as follows:

(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any broker or dealer which is either a person other than a natural person or a natural person not associated with a broker or dealer which is a person other than a natural person (other than such a broker or dealer whose business is exclusively intrastate and who does not make use of any facility of a national securities exchange) to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to effect any transactions in, or to induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of, any security (other than an exempted security or commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, or commercial bills) unless such broker or dealer is registered in accordance with subsection (b) of this section.

Section 3(a)(4)(A) of the Exchange Act defines a “broker” as “any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others.”

From a legal perspective, determining whether a person must be registered requires an analysis of what it means to “effect any transactions in” and to “induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of any security.” It is precisely these two phrases that courts and commentators have attempted to flesh out, with inconsistent and uncertain results. As a securities attorney, I always advise to err on the conservative side where the activity is at all questionable.

The SEC’s Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration

Periodically, and most recently in April 2008, the SEC updates its Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration explaining in detail the rules and regulations regarding the requirement that individuals and entities that engage in raising money for companies must be licensed by the SEC as broker-dealers. On a daily basis, thousands of individuals and entities offer to raise money for companies as “finders” in return for a “finder’s fee.” Other than as narrowly set forth above, such agreements and transactions are prohibited and carry regulatory penalties for both the company utilizing the finders’ services, and the finders.

Each of the following individuals and businesses is required to be registered as a broker if they are receiving transaction-based compensation (i.e., a commission):

“finders,” “business brokers,” and other individuals or entities that engage in the following activities:

Finding investors or customers for, making referrals to, or splitting commissions with registered broker-dealers, investment companies (or mutual funds, including hedge funds) or other securities intermediaries;

Finding investment banking clients for registered broker-dealers;

Finding investors for “issuers” (entities issuing securities), even in a “consultant” capacity;

Engaging in, or finding investors for, venture capital or “angel” financings, including private placements;

Finding buyers and sellers of businesses (i.e., activities relating to mergers and acquisitions where securities are involved);

investment advisers and financial consultants;

persons that market real estate investment interests, such as tenancy-in-common interests, that are securities;

persons that act as “placement agents” for private placements of securities;

persons that effect securities transactions for the accounts of others for a fee, even when those other people are friends or family members;

persons that provide support services to registered broker-dealers; and

persons that act as “independent contractors,” but are not “associated persons” of a broker-dealer (for information on “associated persons,” see below).

Consequences for Violation

The SEC is authorized to seek civil penalties and injunctions for violations of the broker-dealer registration requirements. Egregious violations can be referred to the attorney general or Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

In addition to potential regulatory problems, using an unregistered person who does not qualify for either the statutory or another exemption to assist with the sale of securities may create a right of rescission in favor of the purchasers of those securities. That is a fancy way of saying they may ask for and receive their money back.

Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act, provides in pertinent part:

Every contract made in violation of any provision of this title or of any rule or regulation thereunder… the performance of which involves the violation of, or the continuance of any relationship or practice in violation of, any provision of this title or any rule or regulation thereunder, shall be void (1) as regards the rights of any person who, in violation of any such provision, rule or regulation, shall have made or engaged in the performance of any such contract…

In addition to providing a defense by the issuing company to paying the unlicensed person, the language can be interpreted as voiding the contract for the sale of the securities to investors introduced by the finder. The SEC interprets its rules and regulations very broadly, and so do the courts and state regulators. Under federal law the rescission right can be exercised until the later of three years from the date of issuance of the securities or one year from the date of discovery of the violation. Accordingly, for a period of at least three years, an issuer that has utilized an unlicensed finder could have a contingent liability on their books and as a disclosure item. The existence of this liability can deter potential investors and underwriters and create issues in any going public transaction.

In addition, SEC laws specifically require the disclosure of compensation and fees paid in connection with a capital raise. A failure to make such disclosure and to make it clearly and concisely is considered fraud under Section 10b-5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (see, for example, SEC vs. W.P. Carey & Co., SEC Litigation Release No. 20501). Fraud claims are generally brought against the issuing company and its participating officers and directors.

Moreover, most underwriters and serious investors require legal opinion letters at closing, in which the attorney for the company opines that all previously issued securities were issued legally and in accordance with state and federal securities laws and regulations. Obviously an attorney will not be able to issue such an opinion following the use of an unlicensed or non-exempted person. In addition to the legal ramifications themselves and even with full disclosure and the time for liability having passed, broker-dealers and underwriters may shy away from engaging in business transactions with an issuer with a history of overlooking or circumventing securities laws.

Historically, it was the person who had acted in an unlicensed capacity who faced the greatest regulatory liability; however, in the past ten years that has changed. The SEC now prosecutes issuers under Section 20(e) for aiding and abetting violations. The SEC has found it more effective and a better deterrent to prosecute the issuing company than an unlicensed person who is here today and gone tomorrow.

Conclusion

The payment of finders’ fees is a complex topic requiring careful legal analysis on a case-by-case and state-by-state basis. No agreements for the payment or receipt of such fees should be entered into or performed without seeking the advice of competent legal counsel.

I am a strong advocate for a regulatory framework that includes (i) limits on the total amount finders can introduce in a 12-month period; (ii) antifraud and basic disclosure requirements that match issuer responsibilities under registration exemptions; and (iii) bad-actor prohibitions and disclosures which also match issuer requirements under registration exemptions.

I would even advocate for a potential general securities industry exam for individuals as a precondition to acting as a finder, without related licensing requirements. For example, FINRA, together with the SEC Division of Trading and Markets, could fashion an exam similar to the new FINRA Securities Industry Essentials Exam (see HERE) for finders that are otherwise exempt from the full broker-dealer registration requirements.

For reference, prior blogs on the topic of the broker-dealer registration requirements include (i) the no-action-letter-based exemption for M&A brokers (ii) the exemptions for websites restricted to accredited investors and for crowdfunding portals as part of the JOBS Act; (iii) the statutory exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements found in Securities Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1, including for officers, directors and key employees of an issuer; and (iv) the American Bar Association’s recommendations for the codification of an exemption from the broker-dealer registration requirements for private placement finders.

The Author

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

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

« OTC Markets Amends Listing Standards For OTCQB To Allow Non-Reporting Issuers SEC Chief Accountant Speaks On Financial Reporting »

OTC Markets Amends Listing Standards For OTCQB To Allow Non-Reporting Issuers

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | June 27, 2017 Tags: Non-Reporting Issuers, OTC Markets, OTC Markets Amends Listing Standards For OTCQB, OTC Markets Amends Listing Standards For OTCQB To Allow Non-Reporting Issuers, OTCQB

Effective May 18, 2017, the OTC Markets has amended its qualification rules for the OTCQB to allow quotation by companies that follow its alternative reporting standard (“Alternative Reporting Standard”). OTC Markets aligned the new requirements with the existing OTCQX Alternative Reporting Standard requirements. In addition, the OTC Markets made clarifying amendments to its rules, amended the rules related to the timing of removal for delinquent filers, and revised the rules for international reporting companies.

Highlights of Changes

To qualify for the OTCQB using the Alternative Reporting Standard, a company must file audited financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP by a PCAOB qualified auditor, have a minimum bid price of $0.01, not be subject to bankruptcy or reorganization proceedings, and maintain corporate governance including (i) have a board of directors that includes a minimum of two independent directors, and (ii) have an audit committee comprised of a majority of independent directors.

The cure period for delinquent filings has been extended to 45 days from the prior 30-day period. However, the cure period for a bid price deficiency has been reduced in half to 90 days from the prior 180 days. Moreover, if a company’s closing bid price falls below $0.001 at any time for five consecutive days, the company will automatically be removed from the OTCQB.

The new rules clarify that a U.S. transfer agent is only required for U.S. and Canadian incorporated companies. However, international reporting companies must now file their reports with OTC Markets immediately after such filing with their primary international market.

The new rules clarify that the OTCQB annual fee is due 30 days prior to the beginning of each new annual service period. An OTCQB company must remain registered and in good standing in its state of incorporation.

The OTCQB has been recognized by most U.S. states as a “securities manual” for the purpose of the blue sky manual’s exemption. In order to qualify, companies must file reports with OTC Markets that meet the information requirements for the manual’s exemption in the state. The OTC Markets filings requirements are designed to ensure satisfaction of these requirements.

Finally, the new rules clarify that an OTCQB company is required to make timely disclosures of news releases and developments whether through an SEC form 8-K or press release with OTC Markets. A company must also act promptly to dispel unfounded rumors which result in unusual market activity or price variations.

Comprehensive Refresher on OTCQB, Including the New Amendments

The OTC Markets divide issuers into three (3) levels of quotation marketplaces: OTCQX, OTCQB and OTC Pink. The OTC Pink, which involves the highest-risk, highly speculative securities, is further divided into three tiers: Current Information, Limited Information and No Information. The OTCQB is considered the venture market tier designed for entrepreneurial and development-stage U.S. and international companies. To apply to the OTCQB, a company must submit a completed application and quotation agreement and pay the application fee.

Eligibility Requirements

To be eligible to be quoted on the OTCQB, all companies will be required to:

Meet a minimum closing bid price on OTC Markets of $.01 for each of the last 30 calendar days and as of the day the OTCQB application is approved;
In the event that there is no prior public market and a 15c2-11 application has been submitted to FINRA by a market maker, OTC Markets can waive the bid requirement at its sole discretion;
In the event that a company is a seasoned public issuer that completed a reverse stock split within 6 months prior to applying to the OTCQB, the company must have a post-reverse-split minimum bid price of $.01 at the close of business on each of the 5 consecutive trading days immediately before applying to the OTCQB;
In the event the company is moving to the OTCQB from the OTCQX, it must have a minimum closing bid price of $.01 for at least one (1) of the 30 calendar days immediately preceding;
Companies may not be subject to bankruptcy or reorganization proceedings the company’s application;
Either be subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and be current in such reporting obligations, be a Tier 2 Regulation A reporting company and be current in such reporting obligations, or, if an international issuer, be eligible to rely on the registration exemption found in Exchange Act Rule 12g-2(b) and be current and compliant in such requirements or be a bank current in its reporting obligations to its bank regulator, or be current in the OTC Markets Alternative Reporting Standards;
Have U.S. GAAP audited financials prepared by a PCAOB qualified auditor, including an audit opinion that is not adverse, disclaimed or qualified. International reporting companies may have audited financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS;
Be duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of each jurisdiction in which it is organized and does business;
Submit an application and pay an application and annual fee;
Maintain a current and accurate company profile on the OTC Markets website;
Use an SEC registered transfer agent and authorize the transfer agent to provide information to OTC Markets about the company’s securities, including but not limited to shares authorized, shares issued and outstanding, and share issuance history; and
Submit an OTCQB Annual Certification confirming the accuracy of the current company profile and providing information on officers, directors and controlling shareholders.
For companies that are relying on the Alternative Reporting Standard (i.e., not reporting to the SEC), meet minimum corporate governance requirements, including (i) have a board of directors that includes at least two independent directors; and (ii) have an audit committee comprised of a majority of independent directors. A company may request the ability to phase in compliance with this requirement if: (a) at least one member of the board of directors and audit committee are independent at the time of the application; and (b) at least two members of the board and a majority of the audit committee are independent within the later of 90 days after the company begins trading on the OTCQB or by the time of the company’s next annual meeting and in no event later than one year from joining the OTCQB.

All companies are required to post their initial disclosure on the OTC Markets website and make an initial certification. The initial disclosure includes:

Confirmation that the company is current in its SEC reporting obligations, whether subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements or Regulation A+ reporting requirements, and has filed all reports with the SEC, that all financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, and that the auditor opinion is not adverse, disclaimed or qualified;
Bank Reporting Companies must have filed all financial reported required to be filed with their banking regulator for the prior two years, including audited financial statements;
International Companies – (i) Companies subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements must be current in such reports; (ii) A company that is not an SEC Reporting company must be current and fully compliant in its obligations under Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b), if applicable, and shall have posted in English through the OTC Disclosure & News Service or an Integrated Newswire, the information required to be made publicly available pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b) for the preceding 24 months (or from inception if less than 24 months); and all financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and that the auditor opinion is not adverse, disclaimed or qualified;
Alternative Reporting Companies must have filed, through the OTC Disclosure and News Services, an information and disclosure statement meeting the requirements of the OTCQX and OTCQB disclosure guidelines; and
Verification that the company profile is current, complete and accurate.

In addition, all companies will be required to file an initial and annual certification on the OTC Markets website, signed by the CEO and/or CFO, stating:

The company’s reporting standing (i.e., whether SEC reporting, Regulation A+ reporting, Alternative Standards Reporting, bank reporting or international reporting) and briefly describing the registration status of the company;
If the company is an international company and relying on 12g3-2(b), that it is current in such obligations;
That the company is current in its reporting obligations to its regulator and that such information is available either on EDGAR or the OTC Markets website;
That the company profile on the OTC Markets website is current and complete and includes the total shares outstanding, authorized and in the public float as of that date;
That the company is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of each state or jurisdiction in which the company is organized and conducts business;
States the law firm and/or attorneys that assist the company in preparing its annual report or 10-K;
Identifies any third-party providers engaged by the company, its officers, directors or controlling shareholders, during the prior fiscal year and up to the date of the certification, to provide investor relations services, public relations services, stock promotion services or related services;
Confirms the total shares authorized, outstanding and in the public float as of that date; and
Names and shareholdings of all officers and directors and shareholders that beneficially own 5% or more of the total outstanding shares, including beneficial ownership of entity shareholders.

An application to OTCQB can be delayed or denied at OTC Markets’ sole discretion if they determine that admission would be likely to impair the reputation or integrity of OTC Markets group or be detrimental to the interests of investors.

Requirements for Bank Reporting Companies

Bank reporting companies must meet all the same requirements as all other OTCQB companies except for the SEC reporting requirements. Instead, bank reporting companies are required to post their previous two years’ and ongoing yearly disclosures that were and are filed with the company’s bank regulator, on the OTC Markets website.

International Companies

In addition to the same requirements for all issuers as set forth above, foreign issuers must be listed on a Qualified Foreign Exchange and be compliant with SEC Rule 12g3-2(b). Moreover, a foreign entity must submit a letter of introduction from a qualified OTCQB Sponsor which states that the OTCQB Sponsor has a reasonable belief that the company is in compliance with SEC Rule 12g3-2(b), is listed on a Qualified Foreign Exchange, and has posted required disclosure on the OTC Markets website. A foreign entity must post two years’ historical and ongoing quarterly and annual reports, in English, on the OTC Markets website which comply with SEC Rule 12g3-2(b). I am a qualified OTCQB Sponsor and assist multiple international companies with this process.

Application Review Process

OTC Markets will review all applications and may request additional information on any of the information submitted. In addition, OTC Markets can require that a company provide a further undertaking, such as submission of personal information forms for any executive officer, director or 5% or greater beneficial owner. OTC Markets can request that third parties provide confirmations or information as well. OTC Markets can, and likely will, conduct independent due diligence including through the review of publicly available information.

OTC Markets can deny an application if it determines, upon its sole and absolute discretion, that the admission of the company would be likely to impair the reputation or integrity of OTC Markets or be detrimental to the interests of investors.

Upon approval of an application, the company’s securities will be designated as OTCQB on the OTC Markets websites, market data products and broker-dealer platforms.

Ongoing Requirements

All companies are required to remain in compliance with the OTCQB standards, including the ongoing disclosure obligations;
S. OTCQB companies will be required to remain current and timely in their SEC reporting obligations, including either Exchange Act reports, Regulation A+ reports or Alternative Reporting Standard and including all audited financial statement requirements;
A foreign company that is not an SEC Reporting Company must remain current and fully compliant in its obligations under Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b), if applicable, and in any event shall, on an ongoing basis, post in English through the OTC Disclosure & News Service or an Integrated Newswire the information required to be made publicly available pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b);
Banks must remain current in their banking reporting requirements and file copies of their reports on the OTC Markets website no later than 45 days following the end of a quarter or 90 days following the end of the fiscal year;
All OTC Markets postings and reports must be filed within 45 days following the end of a quarter or 90 days following the end of the fiscal year for US Exchange Act issuers and Alternative Reporting Standard filers, as required by Regulation A+ for Regulation A+ reporting issuers, and immediately after their submission to their primary regulator for international companies; where applicable, file a notice of late filing allowing for 5 extra days on a quarterly report and 15 extra days on an annual or semiannual report;
All OTCQB companies will be required to post annual certifications on the OTC Markets website signed by either the CEO or CFO no later than 30 days following the company’s annual report due date;
All companies are required to comply with all federal, state, and international securities laws and must cooperate with all securities regulatory agencies;
Must pay the annual fee within 30 days of prior to the beginning of each new annual service period;
All companies must respond to OTC Markets inquiries and requests;
All companies must maintain an updated verified company profile on the OTC Markets website and must submit a Company Update Form at least once every six months;
OTCQB is a recognized securities manual for purposes of blue sky secondary market exceptions. A precondition to relying upon the manuals exemption is the maintenance of current updated disclosure information as required by OTC Markets;
All companies must make a press release and possibly other public disclosure (such as a Form 8-K) to inform the public of any news or information which might be reasonably expected to materially affect the market of its securities;
All companies must file interim disclosures in the event the company undergoes a reverse merger or change of control and make new updated certifications and disclosure related to the new business and control persons;
In the event that OTC Markets determines, upon its sole discretion, that a company is the subject of promotional activities that encourage trading, OTC Markets may require the company to provide additional public information related to shareholdings of officers, directors and control persons and confirmation of shares outstanding, and any share issuance in the prior two years. OTC Markets may also require submission of a Personal Information Form for any executive officer, director or 5%-or-greater shareholder.
Not be subject to bankruptcy or reorganization proceedings;
Be duly organized and in good standing under the laws of each jurisdiction in which the company is organized or does business;
Companies relying on the Alternative Reporting Standard must comply with the ongoing corporate governance requirements subject to a notice and one-year grace period if the company falls into noncompliance;
All OTCQB companies must meet the minimum bid price of $.01 per share at the close of business of at least one of the previous thirty (30) consecutive calendar days; in the event that the price falls below $.01, the company will begin a grace period of 90 calendar days to maintain a closing bid price of $.01 for ten consecutive trading days; and
Use an SEC registered transfer agent and authorize the transfer agent to provide information to OTC Markets about the company’s securities, including but not limited to shares authorized, shares issued and outstanding, and share issuance history.

Officers and directors of the company are responsible for compliance with the ongoing requirements and the content of all information. Entities that do not meet the requirements of either OTCQX or OTCQB will be quoted on the OTC Pink.

Fees

Newly applying entities must pay an initial application fee of $2,500, which fee is waived for existing OTCQB entities. All OTCQB companies will be required to pay an annual fee of $10,000. Fees are nonrefundable.

Removal/Suspension from OTCQB

A company may be removed from the OTCQB if, at any time, it fails to meet the eligibility and continued quotation requirements subject to a notice and opportunity to cure. Companies that are delinquent in filing and reporting requirements are subject to a 45-day cure period. Companies with a bid price deficiency shall have a 90-day cure period. However, in the event the company’s bid price falls below $0.001 at any time for five consecutive trading days, the company will be immediately removed from the OTCQB. All other deficiencies are subject to a 30-day cure period. OTC Markets may provide additional cure periods, but in no event may audited financial statements be older than 18 months.

In addition, OTC Markets Group may remove the company’s securities from trading on OTCQB immediately and at any time, without notice, if OTC Markets Group, upon its sole and absolute discretion, believes the continued inclusion of the company’s securities would impair the reputation or integrity of OTC Markets Group or be detrimental to the interests of investors.

In addition, OTC Markets can temporarily suspend trading on the OTCQB pending investigation or further due diligence review.

A company may voluntarily withdraw from the OTCQB with 24 hours’ notice.

The Author

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

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

« SEC Issues Additional Guidance on Regulation A+ The Payment Of Finders’ Fees- An Ongoing Discussion »

SEC Issues Additional Guidance on Regulation A+

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | June 20, 2017 Tags: CD&I Guidance, EGC, Form 1-A, Form 1-A Filings, Form 1-A Qualified, Regulation A Offering Circular, Regulation A+ Rules, Rule 506(c) Offering, Section 71003 of the FAST Act, test the waters” Rules, Tier 2 Regulation A Offering

On March 31, 2017, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued six new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) to provide guidance related to Regulation A/A+. Since the new Regulation A+ came into effect on June 19, 2015, its use has continued to steadily increase. In my practice it is the most popular method for a public offering under $50 million.

As an ongoing commentary on Regulation A+, following a discussion on the CD&I guidance, I have included practice tips, and thoughts on Regulation A+, and a summary of the Regulation A+ rules, including interpretations and guidance up to the date of this blog.

New CD&I Guidance

In the first of the new CD&I, the SEC clarifies the timing of the filing of a Form 8-A to register a class of securities under Section 12(b) or (g) of the Exchange Act. In particular, in order to be able to file a Form 8-A as part of the Regulation A+ process, in addition to utilizing Form S-1 format in the Regulation A+ offering circular, a company must file the Form 8-A concurrent with qualification of the offering circular. Registration under 12(g) occurs automatically; however, Registration under 12(b) requires that the applicable national securities exchange certify the registration within five calendar days. As with any SEC filings based on calendar days, where the fifth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday, the certification may be received on the next business day.

In the second new CD&I, the SEC confirms that a company may withdraw a Tier 2 Regulation A offering after qualification but prior to any sales or the filing of an annual report, by filing an exit report on Form 1-Z and thereafter be relieved of any further filing requirements.

The third new CD&I addresses the age of financial statements to be included in a Tier 2 offering circular. In particular, financial statements generally do not go stale for nine months, as opposed to 135 days for other filings under Regulation S-X. Interim financial statements should be for a period of six months following the date of the fiscal year-end.

In the fourth new CD&I, the SEC confirmed that a tax opinion is not required to be filed as an exhibit to Form 1-A, but a company may do so voluntarily.

In the fifth new CD&I, the SEC confirmed that it will not object if an auditor’s consent is not included as an exhibit to an annual report on Form 1-K, even if though the report contains audited financial statements. The report would still need to contain the auditor’s report, but a separate consent is not required.

Finally in the last of the new CD&I, the SEC confirms that the requirement under Industry Guide 5 that sales material be submitted to the SEC before use, does not apply to Regulation A offerings. Industry Guide 5 relates to registration statements relating to interests in real estate limited partnerships.

Refresher on CD&I Issued November 2016

In November 2016, the SEC issued three CD&I providing guidance on Regulation A. In the first, the SEC has clarified that where a company seeks to qualify an additional class of securities via post-qualification amendment to a previously qualified Form 1-A, Item 4 of Part I, which requires “Summary Information Regarding the Offering and Other Current or Proposed Offerings,” need only include information related to the new class of securities seeking qualification.

In a reminder that Regulation A+ is technically an exemption from the registration requirements under Section 5 of the Securities Act, the SEC confirmed that under Item 6 of Part I, requiring disclosure of unregistered securities issued or sold within the prior year, a company must disclose all securities issued or sold pursuant to Regulation A in the prior year.

Question 182.13 clarified the calculation of a 20% change in the price of the offering to determine the necessity of filing a post-qualification amendment which would be subject to SEC comment and review, versus a post-qualification supplement which would be effective immediately upon filing. In particular, Rule 253(b) provides that a change in price of no more than 20% of the qualified offering price, may be made by supplement and not require an amendment. An amendment is subject to a whole new review and comment period and must be declared qualified by the SEC. A supplement, on the other hand, is simply added to the already qualified Form 1-A, becoming qualified itself upon filing. The 20% variance can be either an increase or decrease in the offering price, but if it is an increase, it cannot result in an offering above the respective thresholds for Tier 1 ($20 million) or Tier 2 ($50 million).

In the third CD&I, the SEC confirmed that companies using Form 1-A benefit from Section 71003 of the FAST Act. In particular, the SEC interprets Section 71003 of the FAST Act to allow an emerging growth company (EGC) to omit financial information for historical periods if it reasonably believes that those financial statements will not be required at the time of the qualification of the Form 1-A, provided that the company file a pre-qualification amendment such that the Form 1-A qualified by the SEC contains all required up-to-date financial information. Interestingly, Section 71003 only refers to Forms S-1 and F-1 but the SEC has determined to allow an EGC the same benefit when filing a Form 1-A. Since financial statements for a new period would result in a material amendment to the Form 1-A, potential investors would need to be provided with a copy of such updated amendment prior to accepting funds and completing the sale of securities.

In addition, on June 23, 2015, the SEC updated its Division of Corporation Finance C&DI to provide guidance related to Regulation A/A+ by publishing 11 new questions and answers and deleting 2 from its forms C&DI which are no longer applicable under the new rules. The summary below includes that guidance.

Regulation A/A+ – Private or Public Offering?

The legal nuance that Regulation A/A+ is an “exempt” offering under Section 5 has caused confusion and the need for careful thought by practitioners and the SEC staff alike. So far, it appears that Regulation A/A+ is treated as a public offering in almost all respects except as related to the applicability of Securities Act Section 11 liability. Section 11 of the Securities Act provides a private cause of action in favor of purchasers of securities, against those involved in filing a false or misleading public offering registration statement. Any purchaser of securities, regardless of whether they bought directly from the company or secondarily in the aftermarket, can sue a company, its underwriters, and experts for damages where a false or misleading registration statement had been filed related to those securities. Regulation A is not considered a public offering for purposes of Section 11 liability.

Securities Act Section 12, which provides a private cause of action by a purchaser of securities directly against the seller of those securities, specifically imposes liability on any person offering or selling securities under Regulation A. The general antifraud provisions under Section 17 of the Securities Act, which apply to private and public offerings, of course apply to Regulation A/A+.

When considering integration, in addition to the discussion in the summary below, the SEC has now confirmed that a Regulation A/A+ offering can rely on Rule 152 such that a completed exempt offering, such as under Rule 506(b), will not integrate with a subsequent Regulation A filing. Under Rule 152, a securities transaction that at the time involves a private offering will not lose that status even if the issuer subsequently makes a public offering. The SEC has also issued guidance that Rule 152 applies to prevent integration between a completed 506(b) offering and a subsequent 506(c) offering, indicating that the important factor in the Rule 152 analysis is the ability to publicly solicit regardless of the filing of a registration statement.

Along the same lines, as Rule 506(c) is considered a public offering for this analysis, there would be nothing preventing a company from completing a Rule 506(c) offering either before, concurrently or after a Regulation A/A+ offering.

Regulation A/A+ is definitely used as a going public transaction and, as such, is very much a public offering. Securities sold in a Regulation A+ offering are not restricted and therefore are available to be used to create a secondary market and trade, such as on the OTC Markets or a national exchange.

Tier 2 issuers that have used the S-1 format for their Form 1-A filing will be permitted to file a Form 8-A to register under the Exchange Act and become subject to its reporting requirements and to register with a national exchange. A Form 8-A is a simple registration form used instead of a Form 10 for issuers that have already filed the substantive Form 10 information with the SEC. Upon filing a Form 8-A, the issuer will become subject to the full Exchange Act reporting obligations, and the scaled-down Regulation A+ reporting will automatically be suspended. A form 8-A can also be used as a short form registration to list on a national exchange under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act.

A Regulation A process is clearly the best choice for a company that desires to go public and raise less than $50 million. An initial or direct public offering on Form S-1 does not preempt state law. By choosing a Tier 2 Regulation A+ offering followed by a Form 8-A, the issuer can achieve the same result – i.e., become a fully reporting trading public company, without the added time and expense of complying with state blue sky laws. In addition to the state law preemption benefit, Regulation A provides relief from the strictly regulated public communications that exist in an S-1 offering.

Also, effective July 10, 2016, the OTCQB amended their rules to allow a Tier 2 reporting entity to qualify to apply for and trade on the OTCQB; however, unless the issuer has filed a Form 8-A or Form 10, they will not be considered “subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements” for purposes of benefiting from the shorter 6-month Rule 144 holding period.

Practice Tip on Registration Rights Contracts

In light of the fact that Regulation A/A+ is technically an exemption from the Section 5 registration requirements, it might not be included in contractual provisions related to registration rights. In particular, the typical language in a piggyback or demand registration right provision creates the possibility that the company could do an offering under Regulation A/A+ and take the position that the shareholder is not entitled to participate under the registration rights provision because it did not do a “registration.” As an advocate of avoiding ambiguity, practitioners should carefully review these contractual provisions and add language to include a Form 1-A under Regulation A/A+ if the intent is to be sure that the shareholder is covered. Likewise, if the intent is to exclude Regulation A/A+ offerings from the registration rights, that exclusion should be added to the language to avoid any dispute.

Refresher: The Final Rules – Summary of Regulation A+

I’ve written about Regulation A/A+ on numerous occasions, including detailing the history and intent of the rules. Title IV of the JOBS Act that was signed into law on April 5, 2012, set out the framework for the new Regulation A and required the SEC to adopt specific rules to implement the new provisions, which it did. The new rules quickly became known as Regulation A+ and came into effect on June 19, 2015. For a refresher on such history and intent, see my blog HERE. Importantly, as I point out in that blog and others I have written on the subject, Tier 2 of Regulation A preempts state blue sky law.

In addition to the federal government, every state has its own set of securities laws and securities regulators. Unless the federal law specifically “preempts” or overrules state law, every offer and sale of securities must comply with both the federal and the state law. There are 54 U.S. jurisdictions, including all 50 states and 4 territories, each with separate and different securities laws. Even in states that have identical statutes, the states’ interpretations or focuses under the statutes differ greatly. On top of that, each state has a filing fee and a review process that takes time to deal with. It’s difficult, time-consuming and expensive.

However, as I will discuss below, this does not include preemption of state law related to broker-dealer registration. Five states do not have “issuer exemptions” for public offerings such as a Regulation A offering.

Specifics of Regulation A+ – How Does it Work?

The new Regulation A+ divided Regulation A into two offering paths, referred to as Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 remains substantially the same as the old pre-JOBS Act Regulation A but with a higher offering limit and allowing for more marketing and testing the waters. A Tier 1 offering allows for sales of up to $20 million in any 12-month period. Since Tier 1 does not preempt state law, it is really only useful for offerings that are limited to one but no more than a small handful of states. Tier 1 does not require the company to include audited financial statements and does not have any ongoing SEC reporting requirements. Tier 1 will likely not be used for a going public transaction.

Both Tier I and Tier 2 offerings have minimum basic requirements, including issuer eligibility provisions and disclosure requirements. In addition to the affiliate resale restrictions, resales of securities by selling security holders are limited to no more than 30% of a total particular offering for all Regulation A+ offerings. For offerings up to $20 million, an issuer can elect to proceed under either Tier 1 or Tier 2. Both tiers will allow companies to submit draft offering statements for non-public SEC staff review before a public filing, permit continued use of solicitation materials after the filing of the offering statement and use the EDGAR system for filings.

Tier 2 allows a company to file an offering circular with the SEC to raise up $50 million in a 12-month period. Tier 2 pre-empts state blue sky law. A company may elect to either provide the disclosure in the new Form 1-A or the disclosure in a traditional Form S-1 when conducting a Tier 2 offering. The Form S-1 format is a precondition to being able to file a Form 8-A as discussed further in this summary. Either way, the SEC review process is a little shorter, and a company can market in a way that it cannot with a traditional IPO. Regulation A has specific company eligibility requirements, and there are investor qualifications and associated per-investor investment limits.

Also, the process is not inexpensive. Attorneys’ fees, accounting and audit fees and, of course, marketing expenses all add up. A company needs to be organized and ready before engaging in any offering process, and especially so for a public offering process. Even though a lot of attorneys, myself included, will provide a flat fee for the process, that flat fee is dependent on certain assumptions, including the level of organization of the company.

Eligibility Requirements

Regulation A+ is available to companies organized and operating in the United States and Canada. The following issuers are not eligible for a Regulation A+ offering:

Companies currently subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act;
Investment companies registered or required to be registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, including BDC’s;
Blank check companies, which are companies that have no specific business plan or purpose or whose business plan and purpose is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified target; however, shell companies are not prohibited, unless such shell company is also a blank check company. A shell company is a company that has no or nominal operations; and either no or nominal assets, assets consisting of cash and cash equivalents; or assets consisting of any amount of cash and cash equivalents and nominal other assets. Accordingly, a start-up business or minimally operating business may utilize Regulation A+;
Issuers seeking to offer and sell asset-backed securities or fractional undivided interests in oil, gas or other mineral rights;
Issuers that have been subject to any order of the SEC under Exchange Act Section 12(j) denying, suspending or revoking registration, entered within the past five years;
Issuers that became subject to Exchange Act reporting requirements, such as through a Tier 2 offering, and did not file required ongoing reports during the preceding two years; and
Issuers that are disqualified under the “bad actor” rules and, in particular, Rule 262 of Regulation A+.

A company will be considered to have its “principal place of business” in the U.S. or Canada for purposes of determination of Regulation A/A+ eligibility if its officers, partners, or managers primarily direct, control and coordinate the company’s activities from the U.S. or Canada, even if the actual operations are located outside those countries.

A company that was once subject to the Exchange Act reporting obligations but suspended such reporting obligations by filing a Form 15 is eligible to utilize Regulation A/A+. A company that voluntarily files reports under the Exchange Act is not “subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements” and therefore is eligible to rely on Regulation A/A+. A wholly owned subsidiary of an Exchange Act reporting company parent is eligible to complete a Regulation A/A+ offering as long as the parent reporting company is not a guarantor or co-issuer of the securities being issued.

Unfortunately, in what is clearly a legislative miss, companies that are already publicly reporting – that is, are already required to file reports with the SEC – are not eligible. OTC Markets has petitioned the SEC to eliminate this eligibility criteria, and pretty well everyone in the industry supports a change here, but for now it remains. One of the top recommendations by the SEC Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation has also been to expand Regulation A/A+ to allow reporting issuers to utilize the process. For more information on the OTC Markets petition and discussion of the reasons that a change is needed in this regard, see my blog HERE.

Regulation A/A+ can be used for business combination transactions, but is not available for shelf SPAC’s (special purpose acquisition companies).

Eligible Securities

Regulation A is limited to equity securities, including common and preferred stock and options, warrants and other rights convertible into equity securities, debt securities and debt securities convertible or exchangeable into equity securities, including guarantees. If convertible securities or warrants are offered that may be exchanged or exercised within one year of the offering statement qualification (or at the option of the issuer), the underlying securities must also be qualified and the value of such securities must be included in the aggregate offering value. Accordingly, the underlying securities will be included in determining the offering limits of $20 million and $50 million, respectively.

Asset-backed securities are not allowed to be offered in a Regulation A offering. REIT’s and other real estate-based entities may use Regulation A and provide information similar to that required by a Form S-11 registration statement.

General Solicitation and Advertising; Solicitation of Interest (“Testing the Waters”)

Other than the investment limits, anyone can invest in a Regulation A offering, but of course they have to know about it first – which brings us to marketing. All Regulation A offerings will be allowed to engage in general solicitation and advertising, at least according to the SEC. However, Tier 1 offerings will be required to review and comply with applicable state law related to such solicitation and advertising, including any prohibitions related to same.

Regulation A allows for prequalification solicitations of interest in an offering, commonly referred to as “testing the waters.” Issuers can use “test the waters” solicitation materials both before and after the initial filing of the offering statement and by any means. A company can use social media, Internet websites, television and radio, print advertisements, and anything they can think of. Marketing can be oral or in writing, with the only limitations being certain disclaimers and antifraud. Although a company can and should be creative in its presentation of information, there are laws in place with serious ramifications requiring truth in the marketing process. Investors should watch for red flags such as clearly unprovable statements of grandeur, obvious hype or any statement that sounds too good to be true – as they are probably are just that.

When using “test the waters” or prequalification marketing, a company must specifically state whether a registration statement has been filed and if one has been filed, provide a link to the filing. Also, the company must specifically state that no money is being solicited and that none will be accepted until after the registration statement is qualified with the SEC. Any investor indications of interest during this time are 100% non-binding – on both parties. That is, the potential investor has no obligation to make an investment when or if the offering is qualified with the SEC and the company has no obligation to file a registration statement or if one is already filed, to pursue its qualification. In fact, a company may decide that based on a poor response to its marketing efforts, it will abandon the offering until some future date or forever.

As such, solicitation material used before qualification of the offering circular must contain a legend stating that no money or consideration is being solicited and none will be accepted, no offer to buy securities can be accepted and any offer can be withdrawn before qualification, and a person’s indication of interest does not create a commitment to purchase securities.

For a complete discussion of Regulation A/A+ “test the waters” rules and requirements, see my blog HERE.

All solicitation material must be submitted to the SEC as an Exhibit under Part III of Form 1-A. This is a significant difference from S-1 filers, who are not required to file “test the waters” communications with the SEC.

A company can use Twitter and other social media that limit the number of characters in a communication, to test the waters as long as the company provides a hyperlink to the required disclaimers. In particular, a company can use a hyperlink to satisfy the disclosure and disclaimer requirements in Rule 255 as long as (i) the electronic communication is distributed through a platform that has technological limitations on the number of characters or amount of text that may be included in the communication; (ii) including the entire disclaimer and other required disclosures would exceed the character limit on that particular platform; and (iii) the communication has an active hyperlink to the required disclaimers and disclosures and, where possible, prominently conveys, through introductory language or otherwise, that important or required information is provided through the hyperlink.

Unlike the “testing of the waters” by emerging growth companies that are limited to QIB’s and accredited investors, a Regulation A+ company could reach out to retail and non-accredited investors. After the public filing but before SEC qualification, a company may use its preliminary offering circular to make written offers.

Of course, all “test the waters” materials are subject to the antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

Like registered offerings, ongoing regularly released factual business communications, not including information related to the offering of securities, will be allowed and will not be considered solicitation materials.

Continuous or Delayed Offerings

Continuous or delayed offerings (a form of a shelf offering) will be allowed only if the offering statement pertains to: (i) securities to be offered or sold solely by persons other than the issuer (however, note that under the rules this is limited to 30% of any offering); (ii) securities that are offered pursuant to a dividend or interest reinvestment plan or employee benefit plan; (iii) securities that are to be issued upon the exercise of outstanding options, warrants or rights; (iv) securities that are to be issued upon conversion of other outstanding securities; (v) securities that are pledged as collateral; or (vi) securities for which the offering will commence within two days of the offering statement qualification date, will be made on a continuous basis, will continue for a period of in excess of thirty days following the offering statement qualification date, and at the time of qualification are reasonably expected to be completed within two years of the qualification date. Under this last continuous offering section, issuers that are current in their Tier 2 reporting requirements may make continuous or delayed offerings for up to three years following qualification of the offering statement. Moreover, in the event a new qualification statement is filed for a new Regulation A offering, unsold securities from a prior qualification may be included, thus carrying those unsold securities forward for an additional three-year period.

Additional Tier 2 Requirements; Ability to List on an Exchange

In addition to the basic requirements that apply to all Regulation A offerings, Tier 2 offerings also require: (i) audited financial statements (though I note that state blue sky laws almost all require audited financial statements, so this federal distinction does not have a great deal of practical effect); (ii) ongoing reporting requirements including the filing of an annual and semiannual report and periodic reports for current information (Forms 1-K, 1-SA and 1-U, respectively); and (iii) a limitation on the number of securities non-accredited investors can purchase of no more than 10% of the greater of the investor’s annual income or net worth.

The investment limitations for non-accredited investors resulted from a compromise with state regulators that opposed the state law preemption for Tier 2 offerings. It is the obligation of the issuer to notify investors of these limitations. Issuers may rely on the investors’ representations as to accreditation (no separate verification is required) and investment limits.

An issuer may file a Form 8-A concurrently with the qualification of the Form 1-A, to register under the Exchange Act, and may make immediate application to a national securities exchange. A Form 8-A is a simple (generally 2-page) registration form used instead of a Form 10 for issuers that have already filed the substantive Form 10 information with the SEC (generally through an S-1). The Form 8-A will only be allowed if it is filed concurrently with the Form 1-A. That is, an issuer could not qualify a Form 1-A, wait a year or two, then file a Form 8-A. In that case, they would need to use the longer Form 10.

Where the securities will be listed on a national exchange, the accredited investor limitations will not apply. When the Form 8-A is for a registration with a national securities exchange under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act, the national exchange must certify the Form 8-A within five (5) business days of its filing.

Upon filing a Form 8-A, the issuer will become subject to the full Exchange Act reporting obligations, and the scaled-down Regulation A+ reporting will automatically be suspended.

An issuer that reports under Regulation A is not considered to be subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements and therefore its shareholders will be subject to the longer one-year holding period under Rule 144.

An issuer that reports under Regulation A may apply to trade on any of the three OTC Markets tiers of quotation (Pink, OTCQB or OTCQX).

Integration

The final rules include a limited-integration safe harbor such that offers and sales under Regulation A will not be integrated with prior or subsequent offers or sales that are (i) registered under the Securities Act; (ii) made under compensation plans relying on Rule 701; (iii) made under other employee benefit plans; (iv) made in reliance on Regulation S; (v) made more than six months following the completion of the Regulation A offering; or (vi) made in crowdfunding offerings exempt under Section 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act (Title III crowdfunding – i.e., Regulation CF).

The SEC has now confirmed that a Regulation A offering can rely on Rule 152 such that a completed exempt offering, such as under Rule 506(b), will not integrate with a subsequent Regulation A filing. Under Rule 152, a securities transaction that at the time involves a private offering will not lose that status even if the issuer subsequently makes a public offering. The SEC has also issued guidance that Rule 152 applies to prevent integration between a completed 506(b) offering and a subsequent 506(c) offering, indicating that the important factor in the Rule 152 analysis is the ability to publicly solicit regardless of the filing of a registration statement. As Rule 506(c) is considered a public offering for this analysis, there would be nothing preventing a company from completing a Rule 506(c) offering either before, concurrently or after a Regulation A/A+ offering.

In the absence of a clear exemption from integration, issuers would turn to the five-factor test. In particular, the determination of whether the Regulation A offering would integrate with one or more other offerings is a question of fact depending on the particular circumstances at hand. In particular, the following factors need to be considered in determining whether multiple offerings are integrated: (i) are the offerings part of a single plan of financing; (ii) do the offerings involve issuance of the same class of securities; (iii) are the offerings made at or about the same time; (iv) is the same type of consideration to be received; and (v) are the offerings made for the same general purpose.

Offering Statement – General

A company intending to conduct a Regulation A offering must file an offering circular with, and have it qualified by, the SEC. The offering circular will be filed with the SEC using the EDGAR database filing system. Prospective investors must be provided with the filed prequalified offering statement 48 hours prior to a sale of securities. Once qualified, investors must be provided with the final qualified offering circular. Like current registration statements, Regulation A rules provide for an “access equals delivery” model, whereby access to the offering statement via the Internet and EDGAR database will satisfy the delivery requirements.

There are no filing fees for the process. The offering statement is reviewed, commented upon and then declared “qualified” by the SEC with an issuance of a “notice of qualification.” The notice of qualification can be requested or will be issued by the SEC upon clearing comments. The SEC has been true to its word in that the review process has been substantially lighter than that normally associated with an S-1 or other Securities Act registration statement.

Issuers may file offering circular updates after qualification in lieu of post-qualification amendments similar to the filing of a post-effective prospectus for an S-1. To qualify additional securities, a post-qualification amendment must be used.

Offering Statement – Non-Public (Confidential) Submission

The rules permit an issuer to submit an offering statement to the SEC on a confidential basis. However, only companies that have not previously sold securities under a Regulation A or a Securities Act registration statement may submit the offering confidentially.

Confidential submissions will allow a Regulation A issuer to get the process under way while soliciting interest of investors using the “test the waters” provisions without negative publicity risk if it alters or withdraws the offering before qualification by the SEC. However, the confidential filing, SEC comments, and all amendments must be publicly filed as exhibits to the offering statement at least 15 calendar days before qualification.

Confidential submissions to the SEC are completed by choosing a “confidential” setting in the EDGAR system. To satisfy the requirement to publicly file the previous confidential information, the company can file all prior confidential information as an exhibit to its non-confidential filing, or change the setting in the EDGAR system on its prior filings, from “confidential” to “public.” In the event the company chooses to change its EDGAR setting to “public,” it would not have to re-file all prior confidential material as an exhibit to a new filing.

If a company wants to keep certain information confidential, even after the required time to make such information public, it will need to submit two confidential requests, one as part of the registration review process and one when prior confidential filings are made public. During the confidential Form 1-A review process, the company should submit a request under Rule 83 in the same manner it would during a typical review of a registered offering. Once the company is required to make the prior filings “public” (15 days prior to qualification), the company would make a new request for confidential treatment under Rule 406 in the same manner other confidential treatment requests are submitted. In particular, for a confidential treatment request under Rules 83 and 406, a company must submit a redacted version of the document via EDGAR with the appropriate legend indicating that confidential treatment has been requested. Concurrently, the company must submit a full, unredacted paper version of the document to the SEC using the ordinary confidential treatment procedure (such filings are submitted via a designated fax line to a designated person to maintain confidentiality).

Offering Statement – Form and Content

An offering statement is submitted on Form 1-A. Form 1-A consists of three parts: Part I – Notification, Part II – Offering Circular, and Part III – Exhibits. Part I calls for certain basic information about the issuer and the offering, and is primarily designed to confirm and determine eligibility for the use of the Form and a Regulation A offering in general. Part I includes issuer information; issuer eligibility; application of the bad-actor disqualification and disclosure; jurisdictions in which securities are to be offered; and unregistered securities issued or sold within one year. As Regulation A is legally an unregistered offering, all Regulation A securities sold within the prior year must be included in this section.

Part II is the offering circular and is similar to the prospectus in a registration statement. Part II requires disclosure of basic information about the issuer and the offering; material risks; dilution; plan of distribution; use of proceeds; description of the business operations; description of physical properties; discussion of financial condition and results of operations (MD&A); identification of and disclosure about directors, executives and key employees; executive compensation; beneficial security ownership information; related party transactions; description of offered securities; and two years of financial information.

The required information in Part 2 of Form 1-A is scaled down from the requirements in Regulation S-K applicable to Form S-1. Issuers can complete Part 2 by either following the Form 1-A disclosure format or by including the information required by Part I of Form S-1 or Form S-11 as applicable. Note that only issuers that elect to use the S-1 or S-11 format will be able to subsequently file an 8-A to register and become subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements.

Moreover, issuers that had previously completed a Regulation A offering and had thereafter been subject to and filed reports with the SEC under Tier 2 can incorporate by reference from these reports in future Regulation A offering circulars.

Form 1-A requires two years of financial information. All financial statements for Regulation A offerings must be prepared in accordance with GAAP. Financial statements of a Tier 1 issuer are not required to be audited unless the issuer has obtained an audit for other purposes. Audited financial statements are required for Tier 2 issuers. Audit firms for Tier 2 issuers must be independent and PCAOB-registered. An offering statement cannot be qualified if the date of the balance sheet is more than nine months prior to the date of qualification. Interim periods are only required for six-month intervals.

A recently created entity may choose to provide a balance sheet as of its inception date as long as that inception date is within nine months before the date of filing or qualification and the date of filing or qualification is not more than three months after the entity reached its first annual balance sheet date. The date of the most recent balance sheet determines which fiscal years, or period since existence for recently created entities, the statements of comprehensive income, cash flows and changes in stockholders’ equity must cover. When the balance sheet is dated as of inception, the statements of comprehensive income, cash flows and changes in stockholders’ equity will not be applicable.

Part III requires an exhibits index and a description of exhibits required to be filed as part of the offering statement.

Offering Price

All Regulation A+ offerings must be at a fixed price. That is, no offerings may be made “at the market” or for other than a fixed price.

Ongoing Reporting

Both Tier I and Tier 2 issuers must file summary information after the termination or completion of a Regulation A offering. A Tier I company must file certain information about the Regulation A offering, including information on sales and the termination of sales, on a Form 1-Z exit report no later than 30 calendar days after termination or completion of the offering. Tier I issuers do not have any ongoing reporting requirements.

Tier 2 companies are also required to file certain offering termination information and have the choice of using Form 1-Z or including the information in their first annual report on Form 1-K. In addition to the offering summary information, Tier 2 issuers are required to submit ongoing reports including: an annual report on Form 1-K, semiannual reports on Form 1-SA, current event reports on Form 1-U and notice of suspension of ongoing reporting obligations on Form 1-Z (all filed electronically on EDGAR).

A Tier 2 issuer may file an exit form 1-Z and relieve itself of any ongoing requirements if no securities have been sold under the Regulation A offering and the Form 1-Z is filed prior to the company’s first annual report on Form 1-K

The ongoing reporting for Tier 2 companies is less demanding than the reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act. In particular, there are fewer 1-K items and only the semiannual 1-SA (rather than the quarterly 10-Q) and fewer events triggering Form 1-U (compared to Form 8-K). Companies may also incorporate text by reference from previous filings.

The annual Form 1-K must be filed within 120 calendar days of fiscal year-end. The semiannual Form 1-SA must be filed within 90 calendar days after the end of the semiannual period. The current report on Form 1-U must be filed within 4 business days of the triggering event. Successor issuers, such as following a merger, must continue to file the ongoing reports.

The rules also provide for a suspension of reporting obligations for a Regulation A issuer that desires to suspend or terminate its reporting requirements.Termination is accomplished by filing a Form 1-Z and requires that a company be current over stated periods in its reporting, have fewer than 300 shareholders of record, and have no ongoing offers or sales in reliance on a Regulation A offering statement. Of course, a company may file a Form 10 to become subject to the full Exchange Act reporting requirements.

The ongoing reports will qualify as the type of information a market maker would need to support the filing of a 15c2-11 application. Accordingly, an issuer that completes a Tier 2 offering could proceed to engage a market maker to file a 15c2-11 application and trade on the OTC Markets. The OTC Markets allows Regulation A reporting companies to apply for any of its tiers of listing, including the Pink, OTCQB or OTCQX depending on which tier the company qualifies.

Freely Tradable Securities

Securities issued to non-affiliates in a Regulation A offering are freely tradable. Securities issued to affiliates in a Regulation A offering are subject to the affiliate resale restrictions in Rule 144, except for a holding period. The same resale restrictions for affiliates and non-affiliates apply to securities registered in a Form S-1.

However, since neither Tier 1 nor Tier 2 Regulation A+ issuers are subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements, the Rule 144 holding period for shareholders is the longer 12 months and such shareholders would not be able to rely on Rule 144 at all if the company has been a shell company at any time in its history. For more information on Rule 144 as relates to shell companies, see HERE.

Treatment under Section 12(g)

Exchange Act Section 12(g) requires that an issuer with total assets exceeding $10,000,000 and a class of equity securities held of record by either 2,000 persons or 500 persons who are not accredited, register with the SEC, generally on Form 10, and thereafter be subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act.

Regulation A exempts securities in a Tier 2 offering from the Section 12(g) registration requirements if the issuer meets all of the following conditions:

The issuer utilizes an SEC-registered transfer agent. Such transfer agent must be engaged at the time the company is relying on the exemption from Exchange Act registration;
The issuer remains subject to the Tier 2 reporting obligations;
The issuer is current in its Tier 2 reporting obligations, including the filing of an annual and semiannual report; and
The issuer has a public float of less than $75 million as of the last business day of its most recently completed semiannual period or, if no public float, had annual revenues of less than $50 million as of its most recently completed fiscal year-end.

Moreover, even if a Tier 2 issuer is not eligible for the Section 12(g) registration exemption as set forth above, that issuer will have a two-year transition period prior to being required to register under the Exchange Act, as long as during that two-year period, the issuer continues to file all of its ongoing Regulation A reports in a timely manner with the SEC.

State Law Preemption

Tier I offerings do not preempt state law and remain subject to state blue sky qualification. The SEC encourages Tier 1 issuers to utilize the NASAA-coordinated review program for Tier I blue sky compliance. For a brief discussion on the NASAA-coordinated review program, see my blog HERE. However, in practice, I do not think this program is being utilized; rather, when Tier 1 is being used, it is limited to just one or a very small number of states and companies are completing the blue sky process independently.

Tier 2 offerings are not subject to state law review or qualification – i.e., state law is preempted. Securities sold in Tier 2 offerings were specifically added to the NSMIA as federally covered securities. Federally covered securities are exempt from state registration and overview. Regulation A provides that “(b) Treatment as covered securities for purposes of NSMIA… Section 18(b)(4) of the Securities Act of 1933… is further amended by inserting… (D) a rule or regulation adopted pursuant to section 3(b)(2) and such security is (i) offered or sold on a national securities exchange; or (ii) offered or sold to a qualified purchaser, as defined by the Commission pursuant to paragraph (3) with respect to that purchase or sale.” For a discussion on the NSMIA, see my blogs HERE and HERE.

State securities registration and exemption requirements are only preempted as to the Tier 2 offering and securities purchased pursuant to the qualified Tier 2 for 1-A offering circular. Subsequent resales of such securities are not preempted.

State law preemption only applies to the securities offering itself and not to the person or persons who sell the securities. Unfortunately, not all states offer an issuer exemption for issuers that sell their own securities in public offerings such as a Regulation A offering. In particular, Arizona, Florida, Texas, New York and North Dakota require issuers to register with the state as issuer broker-dealers to qualify to sell securities directly. Each of these states has a short-form registration process in that regard. In addition, Alabama and Nevada require that the selling officers and directors of issuers register with the state.

Federally covered securities, including Tier 2 offered securities, are still subject to state antifraud provisions, and states may require certain notice filings. In addition, as with any covered securities, states maintain the authority to investigate and prosecute fraudulent securities transactions.

Broker-Dealer Placement

Broker-dealers acting as placement or marketing agents are required to comply with FINRA Rule 5110 regarding filing of underwriting compensation, for a Regulation A offering.

Further Thoughts

Although I am a big advocate of Regulation A, companies continue to learn that it is just a legal process with added benefits, such as active advertising and solicitation including through social media. There is no pool of funds to tap into; it is not a line of credit; it is just another process that companies can use to reach out to the investing public and try to convince them to buy stock in, or lend money to, their company.

As such, companies seeking to complete a Regulation A/A+ offering must consider the economics and real-world aspects of the offering. Key to a successful offering are a reasonable valuation and rational use of proceeds. A company should demonstrate value through its financial statements and disclosures and establish that the intended use of proceeds will result in moving the business plan ahead and hopefully create increased value for the shareholders. Investors want to know that their money is being put to the highest and best use to result in return on investment. Repayment of debt or cashing out of series A investors is generally not a saleable use of proceeds. Looking for $50 million for 30% of a pre-revenue start-up just isn’t going to do it! The company has to be prepared to show you, the investor, that it has a plan, management, vision and ability to carry out the business proposition it is selling.

From the investors’ perspective, these are risky investments by nature. Offering materials should be scrutinized. The SEC does not pass on the merits of an offering – only its disclosures. The fact that the registration statement has been qualified by the SEC has no bearing on the risk associated with or quality of the investment. That is for each investor to decide, either alone or with advisors, and requires really reviewing the offering materials and considering the viability of the business proposal. At the end of the day, the success of the business, and therefore the potential return on investment, requires the company to perform – to sell their widgets, keep ahead of the competition, and manage their business and growth successfully.

The Author

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

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

« Financial Choice Act 2.0 Has Made Progress OTC Markets Amends Listing Standards For OTCQB To Allow Non-Reporting Issuers »

Financial Choice Act 2.0 Has Made Progress

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | June 13, 2017 Tags: Financial Choice Act 2.0, The Financial Choice Act, Volcker Rule

On June 8, 2017, the U.S. House of Representative passed the Financial Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs Act (the “Financial Choice Act 2.0” or the “Act”) by a vote of 283-186 along party lines. Only one Republican did not vote in favor of the Act. On May 4, 2017, the House Financial Services Committee voted to approve the Act. A prior version of the Act was adopted by the Financial Services Committee in September 2016 but never proceeded to the House for a vote.

The Financial Choice Act 2.0 is an extensive, extreme piece of legislation that would dismantle a large amount of the power of the SEC and strip the Dodd-Frank Act of many of its key provisions. The future of the Act is uncertain as it is unlikely to get through the Senate, although a rollback of Dodd-Frank remains a priority to the current administration. It is also possible that parts of the lengthy Act could be bifurcated out and included in other Acts that ultimately are passed into law.

Introduction

The Executive Summary for the Financial Choice Act 2.0 as presented to the House lists the following seven key principles of the Act:

Taxpayer bailouts of financial institutions must end and no company can remain “too big to fail”;
Both Wall Street and Washington must be held accountable;
Simplicity must replace complexity, because complexity can be gamed by the well-connected and abused by the Washington powerful;
Economic growth must be revitalized through competitive, transparent, and innovative capital markets;
Every American, regardless of their circumstances, must have the opportunity to achieve financial independence;
Consumers must be vigorously protected from fraud and deception as well as the loss of economic liberty; and
Systemic risk must be managed in a market with profit and loss.

The Act focuses on dismantling Dodd-Frank, including the controversial Volcker Rule, which prohibits banks from engaging in proprietary trading; the U.S. Department of Labor fiduciary rule, which went into effect on June 9, 2017; and the “too big to fail” provisions allowing for federal government bailouts. Among many provisions directly impacting the authority of the SEC, the Act would strip the SEC of the power to use administrative proceedings as an enforcement tool.

Summary of Key Provisions

Executive Compensation

Many of the changes would repeal provisions related to executive compensation. Related to executive compensation, the Financial Choice Act would include:

Pay Ratio. The Act would repeal the section of Dodd-Frank which requires companies to disclose the pay ratio between CEO’s and the median employees. For a summary of the pay ratio rule, see my blog HERE. This rule is under scrutiny and attack separately and apart from the Financial Choice Act as well. On February 6, 2017, acting SEC Chair Michael Piwowar called for the SEC to conduct an expedited review of the rule for the purpose of reconsidering its implementation. It is highly likely that this rule will not be implemented as written, if at all.
Incentive-based Compensation. The Act would repeal provisions of Dodd-Frank that require enhanced disclosure related to incentive-based compensation by certain institutions.
Hedging. Proposal to repeal the section of Dodd-Frank which requires companies to disclose whether employees or directors can offset any increase in market value of the company’s equity grants as compensation.
Say on Pay. The Act will amend the Say on Pay rules such that the current advisory vote would only be necessary in years when there has been a material change to compensation arrangements, as opposed to the current requirement that a vote be held at least once every 3 years. For more information on the Say on Pay rules, see my blog HERE.
Clawback Rules. The Clawback rules would prohibit companies from listing on an exchange unless such company has policies allowing for the clawback of executive compensation under certain circumstances. This would be in the form of additional corporate governance requirements. For more information on the clawback rules, see my blog HERE. The Act will amend the clawback rules such that they will only apply to current and former executives that had “control or authority” over the company’s financial statements.

On the bank-specific side, the Act would eliminate bank prohibitions on capital distributions and limitations on mergers, consolidations, or acquisitions of assets or control to the extent that these limitations relate to capital or liquidity standards or concentrations of deposits or assets.

Key Provisions on Securities Laws

Key provisions directly impacting the federal securities laws and potentially my client base:

An increase in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) Rule 404(b) compliance threshold from $250 million public float to $500 million. Currently smaller reporting companies and emerging-growth companies are exempted from compliance with Rule 404(b). A “smaller reporting company” is currently defined in Securities Act rule 405, Exchange Act Rule 12b-2 and Item 10(f) of Regulation S-K, 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.

Interestingly, when the SEC proposed an increase in the threshold definition of “smaller reporting company” in June of last year from $75 million to $250 million, it specifically chose to concurrently amend the definition of an “accelerated filer” to eliminate the benefit of an exclusion from the SOX 404(b) requirements for companies with a float over $75 million. In particular, the SEC proposed to amend the definition of “accelerated filer” to eliminate an exclusion for smaller reporting companies such that a company could be a smaller reporting company but also an accelerated filer. The SEC noted in its rule release that it intended to be sure that companies with a float over $75 million, whether a smaller reporting company or not, would have to comply with SOX 404(b) and the accelerated filing schedule for quarterly and annual reports. See my blog HERE. If passed, the Financial Choice Act 2.0 would override the SEC’s current proposal on this point.

The Financial Choice Act 2.0 would increase the registration threshold requirements under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act for smaller companies. The Act 2.0 would also index the thresholds for inflation moving forward. In addition, the Act would eliminate the requirement to obtain ongoing accredited investor verifications for determining the Section 12(g) registration requirements. On May 1, 2016, the SEC amended Exchange Act Rules 12g-1 through 12g-4 and 12h-3 related to the procedures for termination of registration under Section 12(g) through the filing of a Form 15 and for suspension of reporting obligations under Section 15(d), to reflect the higher thresholds set by the JOBS Act. The SEC also made clarifying amendments to: (i) cross-reference the definition of “accredited investor” found in rule 501 of Regulation D, with the Section 12(g) registration requirements; (ii) add the date for making the registration determination (last day of fiscal year-end); and (iii) amend the definition of “held of record” to exclude persons who received shares under certain employee compensation plans. Under the rules, a company that is not a bank, bank holding company or savings-and-loan holding company is required to register under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act if, as of the last day of its most recent fiscal year-end, it has more than $10 million in assets and securities that are held of record by more than 2,000 persons, or 500 persons that are not accredited. As I discussed in this blog on the subject HERE identifying accredited investors for purposes of the registration, and deregistration, requirements could be problematic. Investors are not necessarily responsive to inquiries from a company and may balk at providing personal information, especially those that have purchased in the open market but then subsequently, for whatever reason, converted such ownership to certificate/book entry or otherwise “record ownership.”
The Financial Choice Act 2.0 would expand the coverage under Title 1 of the JOBS Act to allow all companies to engage in certain test-the-waters communications in an IPO process and to file registration statements on a confidential basis. Title 1 of the JOBS Act specifically only applies to emerging-growth companies (EGC’s). In particular, Section 105(c) of the JOBS Act provides an EGC with the flexibility to “test the waters” by engaging in oral or written communications with qualified institutional buyers (“QIB’s”) and institutional accredited investors (“IAI’s”) in order to gauge their interest in a proposed offering, whether prior to (irrespective of the 30-day safe harbor) or following the first filing of any registration statement, subject to the requirement that no security may be sold unless accompanied or preceded by a Section 10(a) prospectus. Generally, in order to be considered a QIB, you must own and invest $100 million of securities, and in order to be considered an IAI, you must have a minimum of $5 million in assets. For more information on test-the-waters communications by EGC’s, see my blog HERE.

The Financial Choice Act 2.0 will also expand the ability to file a registration statement on a confidential basis to all companies and not just EGC’s. Currently, an EGC may initiate the “initial public offering” (“IPO”) process by submitting its IPO registration statements confidentially to the SEC for nonpublic review by the SEC staff. A confidentially submitted registration statement is not deemed filed under the Securities Act and accordingly is not required to be signed by an officer or director of the issuer or include auditor consent. Signatures and auditor consent are required no later than 15 days prior to commencing a “road show.” If the EGC does not conduct a traditional road show, then the registration statements and confidential submissions must be publicly filed no later than 15 days prior to the anticipated effectiveness date of the registration statement. I note that the JOBS Act had originally set the number of days for submission of all information at 21 days and the FAST Act shortened that time period to 15 days.

A requirement that the SEC Chair conduct a study and issue a report on self-regulatory organizations, including recommendations to eliminate duplications and inefficiencies amongst the various organizations.
The Financial Choice Act 2.0 would increase the allowable offering amount for Tier 2 of Regulation A (i.e., Regulation A+) from $50 million to $75 million in any 12-month period. I often write about Regulation A/A+. For the most recent comprehensive article on the subject, see my blog HERE.
The Financial Choice Act 2.0 would prohibit the SEC from requiring the use of “universal proxies” in contested elections of directors. Pre-change in administration, on October 16, 2016, the SEC proposed a rule requiring the use of the use of universal proxy cards in connection with contested elections of directors. The proposed card would include the names of both the company and opposed nominees. The SEC also proposed amendments to the rules related to the disclosure of voting options and standards for the election of directors. My blog on the proposed rule can be read HERE.
An inflation update to the minimum thresholds for shareholders to be able to submit proposals for annual meetings. Currently Rule 14a-8 permits qualifying shareholders to submit matters for inclusion in the company’s proxy statement for consideration by the shareholders at the company’s annual meetings. Procedurally to submit a matter, among other qualifications, a shareholder must have continuously held a minimum of $2,000 in market value or 1% of the company’s securities entitled to vote on the subject proposal, for at least one year prior to the date the proposal is submitted and through the date of the annual meeting. For further reading on this rule, see HERE. The Financial Choice Act 2.0 would update the ownership requirement thresholds for inflation.
Delay the repeal of the Chevron doctrine for two years. Under the Chevron doctrine, a court must defer to an agency’s interpretation of statutes and rules. The Financial Choice Act called for the immediate repeal of this doctrine. The Act 2.0 would delay such repeal for two years.
Increase the limits on disclosure requirements for employee-issued securities under Rule 701 from $10 million as set forth in version 1.0 to $20 million with an inflation adjustment. 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“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. Currently, additional disclosures are required for issuance valued at $5 million or more in any 12-month period. For more information on Rule 701, see my blog HERE.
The Act seeks to shift enforcement and penalties away from companies and towards individual officers, directors and other offenders. The SEC would be required to conduct an economic analysis before enforcing civil penalties against a company, to ensure that the company itself benefited from the alleged wrongdoing. The intent is to prevent harm to innocent shareholders by penalizing a company for the wrongdoing of individuals. Likewise, the Act will increase the penalties that can be imposed against individuals by two and in some cases three times the current amounts where the penalties are tied to the defendant’s illegal profits. The Act would give the SEC new authority to impose sanctions equal to investor losses in cases involving “fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement” and increase the stakes for repeat offenders. Moreover, the Act will increase the maximum criminal fines for persons that engage in insider trading or other corrupt practices.
The Act would strip the SEC of the power to use administrative proceedings as an enforcement tool. The new law would permit a respondent to remove any administrative proceeding to a federal district court. Moreover, the Act would raise the SEC’s standard of proof in administrative proceedings from “preponderance of evidence” to the higher “clear and convincing” evidence of wrongdoing. For more on this topic, see HERE.
The Act would reduce the SEC’s enforcement power in other areas as well. The duration of both the SEC’s and CFTC’s subpoena power would be reduced. All investigations would be subject to a process for timely conclusion. Respondents would also be guaranteed access to commissioners at the Wells process stage (before a formal complaint). In addition, the Act would restrict the SEC’s ability to leverage settlement by threatening the company or individual with automatic disqualification from regulated activities. Instead, disqualification would now require a formal hearing. The SEC would also have to publish its enforcement manual, providing further transparency into filing decisions.
The Act would require that all fines collected by the PCAOB and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board be remitted to the Treasury for deficit reduction.

Too Big to Fail Bailouts

Related to bailouts, the Financial Choice Act 2.0 would, in summary:

Repeal the authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council to designate firms as systematically important financial institutions (i.e., “too big to fail”);
Repeal Title II of Dodd-Frank and replace it with new bankruptcy code provisions specifically designed to accommodate large, complex financial institutions. Title II of Dodd-Frank is the orderly liquidation authority, granting authority to the federal government to obtain receivership control over large financial institutions;
Repeal Title VIII of Dodd-Frank, which gives the Financial Stability Oversight Council access to the Federal Reserve discount window for systematically important financial institutions (i.e., gives the federal government the money to bail out financial institutions) as well as the authority to conduct examinations and enforcement related to risk management;
Restrict the Federal Reserve’s discount window lending to Bagehot’s dictum; and
Prohibit the use of the Exchange Stabilization fund to bail out financial firms or creditors.

Financial Regulator Accountability

Related to accountability from financial regulators, the Act would:

Make all financial regulatory agencies subject to the REINS Act related to appropriations and place all such agencies on an appropriations process subject to congressional control and oversight;
Require all financial regulators to conduct a detailed cost-benefit analysis for all proposed regulations to ensure that benefits outweigh costs (provisions analogous to this are already required, but this would be more extreme);
Increase transparency of financial regulations’ costs to state and local governments and private-sector entities;
Reauthorize the SEC for a period of 5 years with funding, structural and enforcement reforms (i.e., dismantle the current SEC and replace it with a watered-down version);
“Institute significant due-process reforms for every American who feels that they have been the victim of a government shakedown”;
Repeal the Chevron Deference doctrine. Under this doctrine, a court must defer to an agency’s interpretation of statues and rules;
Demand greater accountability and transparency from the Federal Reserve, both in its conduct of monetary policy and its prudential regulatory activity, by including the House-passed Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act;
Abolish the Office of Financial Research;
Require public notice and comment for any international standard-setting negotiation;
Prohibit the financial regulators and DOJ from using settlement agreements to require donations to non-victims;
Increase transparency and accountability in the Federal Reserve’s conduct of the supervisory stress tests while streamlining duplicative and overly burdensome components; and
Institute criminal penalties for leaks of sensitive, market-moving information related to the Federal Reserve’s stress-test and living-will processes.

Financial Institutions

The Act intends to create strongly capitalized, well-managed financial institutions by:

Providing an “off-ramp” from the post-Dodd-Frank supervisory regime and Basel III capital and liquidity standards for banking organizations that choose to maintain high levels of capital. Any banking organization that makes a qualifying capital election but fails to maintain the specified non-risk-weighted leverage ratio will lose its regulatory relief;
Exempting banking organizations that have made a qualifying capital election from any federal law, rule or regulation that provides limitations on mergers, consolidations, or acquisitions of assets or control, to the extent that the limitations relate to capital or liquidity standards or concentrations of deposits or assets; and
Exempting banking organizations that have made a qualifying capital election from any federal rule, law or regulation that permits a banking agency to consider risk “to the stability of the US banking or financial system” which was added to various federal banking laws by Section 604 of Dodd-Frank, when reviewing an application to consummate a transaction or commence an activity.

Miscellaneous Provisions

Under the heading “[U]leash opportunities for small businesses, innovators, and job creators by facilitating capital formation,” the Act would:

Repeal multiple sections of Dodd-Frank, including the Volker Rule (which restricts U.S. banks from making speculative investments, including proprietary trading, venture capital and merchant bank activities);
Repeal the SEC’s authority to either prospectively or retroactively eliminate or restrict securities arbitration;
Repeal Dodd-Frank’s non-material specialized disclosure; and
Incorporate more than two dozen committee- or House-passed capital formation bills, including H.R. 1090 – Retail Investor Protection Act (prohibiting certain restrictions on investment advisors), H.R. 1312 – Small Business Capital Formation Enhancement Act (requiring prompt SEC action on finding of the annual SEC government business forum), H.R. 79 – Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act (directing the SEC to amend Regulation D, expanding the allowable use of solicitation and advertising), and H.R. 910 – Fair Access to Investment Research Act (expanding exclusion of research reports from the definition of an offer for or to sell securities under the Securities Act).

The Act also contains numerous provisions related to small community financial institutions, as well as many provisions fundamentally changing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Dodd-Frank Budget Cuts

A few articles have indicated that President Trump’s fiscal 2018 budget proposal would include a restructure of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which was created by the Dodd-Frank Act. The purpose of the CFPB is to protect borrowers from predatory lending. The restructure would reduce the federal deficit by $145 million in the 2018 fiscal year. The CFPB has been under attack by the administration. Last year, a U.S. appeals court found that the CFPB structure violated the Constitution, a decision that is currently being appealed.

The SEC reserve fund, which was also created under Dodd-Frank, would also be eliminated. Currently the reserve fund is $50 million a year and is used by the SEC to overhaul its information technology, including upgrades to the EDGAR filing system and initiatives to police fraud and track equities trading patterns.

The remainder of the SEC budget would remain unchanged as it is considered deficit-neutral because the fees it collects from enforcement are matched by congressional funding.

Thoughts

In recent years we have seen the most dramatic changes in capital formation regulations and technological developments in the past 30 years, if not longer. Significant capital-formation changes include: (i) the creation of Rule 506(c), which came into effect on September 23, 2013, and allows for general solicitation and advertising in private offerings where the purchasers are limited to accredited investors; (ii) the overhaul of Regulation A, creating two tiers of offerings which came into effect on June 19, 2015, and allows for both pre-filing and post-filing marketing of an offering, called “testing the waters”; (iii) the addition of Section 5(d) of the Securities Act, which came into effect in April 2012, permitting emerging-growth companies to test the waters by engaging in pre- and post-filing communications with qualified institutional buyers or institutions that are accredited investors; and (iv) Title III crowdfunding, which came into effect on May 19, 2016, and allows for the use of Internet-based marketing and sales of securities offerings.

At the same time, we faced economic stagnation since the recession, a 7-year period of near-zero U.S. interest rates and negative interest rates in some foreign nations, nominal inflation and a near elimination of traditional bank financing for start-ups and emerging companies. If bank credit were available for small and emerging-growth companies, it would be inexpensive financing, but it is not and I do believe that Dodd-Frank and over-regulation are directly responsible for this particular problem.

In my practice, optimism and growth remain the buzzwords. My clients are universally enthusiastic about the state of the economy and business prospects as a whole. The consistent mantra of decreasing regulations is universally welcomed with a sense of relief. The SEC will not be immune to these changes, and we are just beginning to see what I believe will be an avalanche of positive change for small businesses and capital formation.

The Author

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

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

« FINRA Proposes Amendments To The Corporate Financing Rules SEC Issues Additional Guidance on Regulation A+ »

FINRA Proposes Amendments To The Corporate Financing Rules

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | June 6, 2017 Tags: FINRA Corporate Financing Rules, FINRA Proposes Amendments To The Corporate Financing Rules

On April 11, 2017, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released three regulatory notices requesting comment on rules related to corporate financing and capital formation. In particular, the regulatory notices propose changes to Rule 5110, which regulates underwriting compensation and prohibits unfair arrangements in connection with the public offerings of securities; Rules 2241 and 2242, which regulate equity and debt research analysts and research reports; and Rule 2310, which relates to public offerings of direct participation programs and unlisted REIT’s.

The proposed changes come as part of the FINRA360 initiative announced several months ago. Under the 360 initiative, FINRA has committed to a complete self-evaluation and improvement. As part of FINRA360, the regulator has requested public comment on the effectiveness and efficiency of its rules, operations and administrative processes governing broker-dealer activities related to the capital-raising process and their impact on capital formation.

Regulatory Notice 17-14 – Request for Comment on Rules Impacting Capital Formation

Regulatory Notice 17-14 is a request for comment on FINRA rules impacting capital formation. In its opening FINRA notes that the ability of small and large businesses to raise capital efficiently is critical to job creation and economic growth and that broker-dealers play a vital role in assisting in that process. FINRA members act as underwriters for public offerings, advisors on capital raising and corporate restructuring, placement agents for private offerings, funding portals and research analysts. Furthermore, there have been significant changes in the capital-raising processes, such as securities-based crowdfunding and Regulation A+ both initiated from the JOBS Act.

FINRA itself has made changes to modernize its regulations such as through the creation of the new Capital Acquisition Broker (CAB) and funding portal rules for brokers engaged in a limited range of fundraising activities. For more information on the CAB rules, see HERE. FINRA also seeks comments on changes that may be helpful in both the CAB and funding portal rules.

Below is a brief summary of some, but not all, the rules highlighted in FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-14.

Rules 2241 and 2242

The Regulatory Notice seeks comment on any FINRA rules that may impact capital formation, but highlights and summarizes certain rules that have significant impact on the process. For example, FINRA highlights Rule 2241 (Research Analysts and Research Reports) and Rule 2242 (Debt Research Analysts and Debt Research Reports), both of which are subject to a separate Regulatory Notice discussed in this blog.

Rule 2241 covers equity research reports and requires a separation between research and investment banking, regulates conflicts of interest and requires certain disclosures in reports and public appearances. In Regulatory Notice 17-16, FINRA proposes a safe harbor from Rule 2241 for eligible desk commentary prepared by sales and trading or principal trading personnel that may rise to the level of a research report.

Rule 2242 covers debt research reports and is similar to Rule 2241 with key differences reflecting the differences in trading of debt and equity.

Rule 2310

Rule 2310 addresses underwriting terms and arrangements in public offerings of direct participation programs (DPP’s) and unlisted real estate investment trusts (REIT’s). These investments tend to be complex and as such, the Rule regulates underwriter and placement agent compensation, requires due diligence and contains suitability guidelines.

The 5100 Series of Rules

The 5100 series of rules govern underwriting compensation and terms, underwriter conduct, conflicts of interest and related matters. Although there are nine rules in the 5100 Series, a few in particular most often affect the capital formation process.

Rule 5110 – Corporate Financing Rule – Underwriting Terms and Arrangements; Rule 5121 – Public Offerings of Securities with Conflicts of Interest

Rule 5110 regulates underwriting compensation and prohibits unfair arrangements in connection with the public offerings of securities. The Rule prohibits member firms from participating in a public offering of securities if the underwriting terms and conditions, including compensation, are unfair as defined by FINRA. The Rule requires FINRA members to make filings with FINRA disclosing information about offerings they participate in, including the amount of all compensation to be received by the firm or its principals, and affiliations and relationships that could result in the existence of a conflict of interest. In addition, the Rule limits certain compensation such as termination or tail fees and rights of first refusal and imposes lock-up restrictions related to the sale or transfer of securities received as compensation. The lock-up restrictions apply to a period beginning six months prior to the initial filing of a registration statement with the SEC and end 90 days following the effectiveness of the registration statement.

Where Rule 5110 requires the disclosure of affiliations, Rule 5121 goes further and prevents member firms from participating in offerings where certain conflicts of interest exist. Member firms are prohibited from participating in a public offering where certain conflicts exist, including where the issuer is controlled by or under common control with the FINRA member firm or its associated persons.

For more information on Rules 5110 and 5121, see HERE.

Rule 5122 – Private Placement of Securities Issued by Members; Rule 5123 – Private Placement of Securities

Subject to certain exceptions, such as where an offering is limited to accredited investors, Rule 5123 requires member firms to file a copy of the private placement memorandum, term sheet or other disclosure document with FINRA, for all offerings in which they sell securities, within 15 calendar days of the first sale. FINRA enacted the rule in an effort to further police the private placement market and to ensure that members participating in these private offerings conduct sufficient due diligence on the securities and their issuers.

Rule 5122 requires members that offer or sell their own securities to file the private placement memorandum, term sheet or other offering document at or prior to the first time the documents are provided to any prospective investor. Rule 5122 also establishes standards on disclosure and the use of private placement proceeds.

Rule 6432 – Compliance with Rule 15c2-11

Rule 6432 generally requires that, prior to initiating or resuming quotations in a non-exchange-listed security in a quotation medium, such as OTC Markets, a member firm must demonstrate compliance with Rule 6432 which, in turn, requires that the member firm has the information set forth in Securities Act Rule 15c2-11. Under Rule 6432, a member complies by filing a FINRA Form 211 at least three business days before the member’s quotation is published or displayed in the quotation medium. In reality the processing of the Form 211 application takes much longer than three days, and often several months. Moreover, the information and review conducted by FINRA in this process can be arduous.

Regulatory 17-15 – Request for Comment on Amendments to the Corporate Financing Rule

As discussed above, Rule 5110 is the corporate financing rule regulating underwriting compensation and prohibiting unfair arrangements in connection with the public offerings of securities. Under Rule 5110, a member firm is required to submit its underwriting or other arrangements associated with a public offering and obtain a no-objection letter from FINRA before they can proceed. FINRA proposes substantial changes to modernize, simplify and clarify its provisions.

The proposed amendments will clarify what is included in determining underwriter compensation. The Rule will eliminate a limit that prevents a member and its affiliates from acquiring more than 25% of a company’s stock and increase the fraction of shares sold in a private placement that a syndicate of investors can buy from 20 percent to 40 percent. Currently, underwriting compensation is defined to include a laundry list of items. The proposed amendment would define “underwriting compensation” to mean “any payment, right, interest, or benefit received or to be received by a participating member from any source for underwriting, allocation, distribution, advisory and other investment banking services in connection with a public offering.” Underwriting compensation would also include “finder fees and underwriter’s counsel fees, including expense reimbursements and securities.” The proposal would continue to provide two non-exhaustive lists of examples of payments or benefits that would be and would not be considered underwriting compensation.

The Rule would also allow members to use formulas other than those dictated by FINRA to calculate their underwriting compensation, extend certain filing deadlines, and clarify circumstances in which stock sale restrictions don’t apply.

The proposed Rule increases the filing deadline from one business day to three business days after the filing of the offering with the SEC. The Rule also reduces the number of documents that must be filed. Furthermore, if a member participating in the offering files with FINRA, other participating members will be not be required to do so.

The Rule governs all public offerings subject to exceptions. Moreover, certain offerings are not subject to the Rule, such as offerings exempt under Section 4(a)(1), 4(a)(2) or 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act.

Regulatory Notice 17-16 – Request for Comment on Proposed Safe Harbor from FINRA Equity and Debt Research Rules

As discussed above, Rule 2241 covers equity research reports and requires a separation between research and investment banking, regulates conflicts of interest and requires certain disclosures in reports and public appearances. Rule 2242 covers debt research reports and is similar to Rule 2241 with key differences reflecting the differences in trading of debt and equity.

FINRA proposes a safe harbor from Rule 2241 and 2242 for eligible desk commentary prepared by sales and trading or principal trading personnel that may rise to the level of a research report. In particular, the safe harbor would cover specified brief, written analysis distributed to eligible institutional investors that comes from sales and trading or principal trading personnel but that may rise to the level of a research report (i.e., desk commentary).

The Author

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

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

« FINRA Proposes New Registration And Examination Rules Financial Choice Act 2.0 Has Made Progress »

FINRA Proposes New Registration And Examination Rules

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | May 30, 2017 Tags: Finra, FINRA Exam Registration, FINRA Examination Rules, FINRA New Registration, FINRA Proposes New Registration And Examination Rules, SIE Exam

On March 8, 2017, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) filed a proposed rule change with the SEC to adopt amended registration rules and restructure the entry-level qualification examination for registered representatives. The new rules would also eliminate certain examination categories. FINRA is planning to implement the changes in two phases, with full implementation completed during the first half of 2017.

Securities Industry Essentials Exam

As part of the proposed amendments, FINRA introduced a new beginning-level examination called the Security Industry Essentials (SIE), which can be taken by individuals without sponsorship by a broker-dealer. The SIE would be a general-knowledge examination including fundamentals such as basic product knowledge, structure and functioning of the securities industry markets, regulatory agencies and their functions, and regulated and prohibited practices.

Under the proposed new rules, anyone desiring to work in the securities industry for a member firm would need to take the SIE. The SIE would also be open to anyone who desires to take it. When becoming employed by a member firm, a person would then need to take an additional exam associated with their particular job function (for example, series 7, 79 or 24). The new SIE exam would not change the requirement to pass tests associated with those additional licenses, or that such licenses expire if a person is not associated with a member firm for a two-year period. However, as discussed below, the proposed new rules add the ability to extend this two-year period in certain instances.

Currently, in order to qualify to take a registered representative examination to become licensed in the securities industry, a person must be employed and sponsored by a FINRA member broker-dealer. The intent of the SIE is to prequalify potential job applicants, saving member firms time and expense on vetting registered representatives and putting them through the examination process. A member firm will be able to view the SIE passing status and score on FINRA’s CRD system.

The proposed SIE is broken down into four categories: (i) “Knowledge of Capital Markets,” which focuses on topics such as types of markets and offerings, broker-dealers and depositories, and economic cycles; (ii) “Understanding Products and Their Risks,” which covers securities products at a high level as well as associated investment risks; (iii) “Understanding Trading, Customer Accounts and Prohibited Activities,” which focuses on accounts, orders, settlement and prohibited activities; and (iv) “Overview of the Regulatory Framework,” which encompasses topics such as SRO’s, registration requirements and specified conduct rules.

Individuals that have passed the SIE but not yet taken a specialized knowledge examination, would not be subject to continuing education requirements.

Individuals that are already licensed as of the effective date of the new SIE, will not need to take the exam and will be deemed to have passed such exam. The SIE qualification will remain valid for four years without the person being registered with a firm. However, other licenses, such as a Series 7, may lapse if a person is not associated with a member firm for a two-year period.

Although not discussed by FINRA, I see an opportunity to use the SIE for multiple purposes going forward as the securities laws and regulations continue to evolve. In particular, the SIE could be a factor in considering whether a person is accredited. The SIE could also be a factor in considering exemptions from the registration requirements for finders, a topic that continues to be at the forefront for regulators and practitioners alike. I will be writing about the subject of finders again very soon. In my view this is a topic that needs immediate attention. The fact is that regulators do not have the resources to police the finders industry, which has indeed become a full industry. Thousands of people operate as unlicensed finders, and their use has become accepted and commonplace in the small- and micro-cap industries. Clearly, the simple “it is not allowed” approach of regulators is not working. Unfortunately, without some parameters and workable regulation around this function, bad actors, inexperienced and completely unknowledgeable individuals hold themselves out as finders together with those that can abide by basic disclosure and antifraud provisions in the offer and sale of securities. Perhaps the SIE or a variation thereof could be used as part of a workable regulatory regime related to finders.

Extension of Time Prior to License Termination

Currently, if a registered person is not employed with a member firm for a period of two years, their securities license will lapse (except for the SIE) and they will need to retake a particular examination if they become re-employed by a member firm. The new rules allow this two-year period to be extended for up to seven years where a person is working for a non-FINRA member financial services affiliate.

That is, a person can maintain licensing for up to seven years while working for a non-FINRA member financial services affiliate of the member firm (such as a parent company) if the following conditions are met: (i) the person has been registered with a FINRA member for a total of five out of the past ten years, the most recent of which must be their current employer; (ii) when the person transitions to the affiliate, a Form U-5 must be filed notifying FINRA of the transition; (iii) the person must continue to satisfy continuing education requirements and have no pending or adverse regulatory matters; and (iv) the person must continuously work for the financial services affiliate.

If each of these qualifications is met, the person can re-register with a member firm for up to seven years without retaking a licensing examination.

Consolidated Examination Structure; Elimination of Exam Levels

Over time, the number of exams and licensing levels has expanded such that as of today, there are 16 exams with a considerable amount of content overlap and requirements for individuals to pass multiple exams to work in a given job function. There are 11 FINRA exams alone for a registered representative engaging in sales activities with investors, most of which focus on specific products, such as options or private securities.

The proposed consolidation and simplification of the examination process is the result of an effort to reduce redundancies and simplify the process, resulting in cost savings for all parties including FINRA, the member firm and representatives, and eliminating outdated examinations and materials.

A part of the consolidation and simplification is the introduction of the SIE discussed above, which will test on general securities knowledge, eliminating that portion of testing for specific specialized functions and duties of the registered representative. Under the proposed rules, a person would need to take the SIE as a precondition to taking a specialized knowledge examination. The SIE remains valid for a four-year period. Moreover, although a person is not required to be associated with a member firm to take the SIE, they will be required to be associated with and sponsored by a member firm to take the specialized knowledge exam.

The new specialized knowledge exams would eliminate questions on basic industry knowledge covered in the SIE. In addition, FINRA is proposing to reduce the current 16 exams to new exams covering: (i) investment company and variable contracts products representative (current Series 6); (ii) general securities representative (current Series 7); (iii) direct participation programs representative (current Series 22); (iv) equity trader (current Series 55); (v) investment banking representative (current Series 79); (vi) private securities offerings representative (current Series 82); (vii) research analyst (current Series 86 and 87); and (viii) operations professional (current Series 99).

In addition to consolidating certain exam levels, FINRA is proposing to eliminate the following exams: (i) option representative (Series 42); (ii) corporate securities representative and government securities representative and associated exams (Series 62 and 72); and (iii) order processing assistant (Series 11). FINRA is also considering eliminating the Series 17, 37 and 38, which deal with representatives who conduct cross-border foreign business with the U.K. and Canada.

Registration Amendments

Under current rules, FINRA limits individuals that can obtain a securities license, to those working in certain functions. Currently a person must be actively engaged in the securities or investment banking business of a firm in order to be licensed, subject to certain exceptions. Those exceptions include, for example, persons performing legal, compliance, internal-audit, back-office or similar functions and persons performing administrative functions for registered persons.

The new rules would eliminate the restrictions on these permissive registrations, and allow any employee of a member firm to take examinations and be licensed in any capacity which that firm’s membership with FINRA encompasses. For example, a person not actively engaged in investment banking could nevertheless take the Series 79, or a person not actively engaged in retail client management could take the Series 7. The new rules add supervisory responsibilities for the member firm related to persons holding licenses in areas for which they are not actively engaged.

Among other benefits, the intent of the new rules is to simplify the registration requirements and encourage individuals to cross-train within a member firm’s organization.

The Author

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

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

« Recommendations Of SEC Government-Business Forum On Small Business Capital Formation FINRA Proposes Amendments To The Corporate Financing Rules »