SEC - Reverse-Merger.com

SEC Issues Report on Initial Coin Offerings (ICO’s)

On July 25, 2017, the SEC issued a report on an investigation related to an initial coin offering (ICO) by the DAO and statements by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement related to the investigative report (the “Report”). On the same day, the SEC issued an Investor Bulletin related to ICO’s. Offers and sales of digital coins, cryptocurrencies or tokens using distributed ledger technology (DLT) or blockchain have become widely known as ICO’s. For an introduction on DLT and blockchain, see HERE.

The basis of the report is that offers and sales of digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, are subject to the federal (and state) securities laws. From the highest level, the nature of a digital asset must be examined to determine if it meets the definition of a security using established principles (see HERE). In addition, all offers and sales of securities must either be registered with the SEC or there must be an available exemption from such registration. This statement applies to cryptocurrency securities in the same manner it applies to all other securities. In addition, participants in ICO’s are subject to federal securities laws to the same extent they are in other securities offerings, including broker-dealer registration requirements. Securities exchanges providing for trading must register unless an exemption applies.

Despite the SEC findings, it declined to pursue an enforcement action but rather used the opportunity to inform the public on its views and, in particular, that “the federal securities laws apply to those who offer and sell securities in the United States, regardless whether the issuing entity is a traditional company or a decentralized autonomous organization, regardless whether those securities are purchased using U.S. dollars or virtual currencies, and regardless whether they are distributed in certificated form or through distributed ledger technology.”

In the press release announcing the investigative findings, SEC Chair Jay Clayton stated, “[T]he SEC is studying the effects of distributed ledger and other innovative technologies and encourages market participants to engage with us. We seek to foster innovative and beneficial ways to raise capital, while ensuring – first and foremost – that investors and our markets are protected.”

This is not the first time the SEC has addressed registration and exemption requirements associated with cryptocurrencies. There have been several other cases. For example, in December 2014 the SEC settled charges against BTC Virtual Stock Exchange and LTC Global Virtual Stock Exchange related to violations of both the broker-dealer registration requirements and the securities offer and sale registration requirements. For more information on that case, see HERE.

This blog will summarize the SEC Report of Investigation, statements by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement and the Investor Bulletin on Initial Coin Offerings.

SEC Report of Investigation on an ICO

On July 25, 2017, the SEC issued its Report on an investigation into an ICO and related activities by the DAO, an unincorporated entity, Slock.it UG (“Slock.it”), a German corporation, and various principals and participants. As mentioned earlier, although the report provides a platform for which the SEC can educate the marketplace, it did not pursue enforcement actions against the targets of the investigation.

The “DAO” stands for a decentralized autonomous organization, or a virtual network embodied in computer code on a on a DLT or blockchain. The DAO was created by Slock.it to sell tokens to investors, which proceeds would be used to fund for-profit projects. The token holders would share in the profits and, as such, had an expectation of a return on investment. The DAO tokens were also transferable and available for secondary trading on different web-based platforms. After the ICO, but before projects were funded, the DAO was hacked and approximately one-third of its assets stolen. Fortunately the DAO was able to come up with a plan that caused the return of ETGH raised from the DAO back to their original Ethereum address and thus return investments to the original investors.

The SEC opened an investigation as to whether the offer and sale of the DAO Tokens invoked federal securities laws, whether the DAO Tokens were securities and whether the platforms for the secondary trading of the Tokens required registration as a securities exchange. The answer to each of these questions, under the facts and circumstances presented, was in the affirmative. Since the DAO had not yet commenced operations, the SEC did not review whether the DAO was acting as an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940, but noted that had they begun operations, such an analysis would have been appropriate.

The Report begins with the conclusion. Whether or not a particular transaction involves the offer and sale of a security depends on an analysis of the facts and circumstances, regardless of terminology or technology used or employed. All persons or entities that use a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO Entity), DLT or other blockchain-based technology as a means to raise capital in the U.S. are subject to the U.S. federal securities laws. All securities offered and sold in the U.S. must be registered or must qualify for an exemption from registration. Moreover, any entities or platforms that allow for the secondary trading of securities must either be registered as a national securities exchange or operate pursuant to a registration exemption. The automation of functions, computer code, smart contracts, and decentralization does not change the obligations under the federal securities laws.

Background and Facts

In a one-month period from April 30, 2016, through May 28, 2016, the DAO offered and sold 1.15 billion DAO Tokens in exchange for 12 million Ether (“ETH”) valued at approximately $150 million USD. ETH is a virtual currency. The Financial Action Task Force defines a “virtual currency” as:

a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded and functions as: (1) a medium of exchange; and/or (2) a unit of account; and/or (3) a store of value, but does not have legal tender status (i.e., when tendered to a creditor, is a valid and legal offer of payment) in any jurisdiction. It is not issued or guaranteed by any jurisdiction, and fulfils the above functions only by agreement within the community of users of the virtual currency. Virtual currency is distinguished from fiat currency (a.k.a. “real currency,” “real money,” or “national currency”), which is the coin and paper money of a country that is designated as its legal tender; circulates; and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the issuing country. It is distinct from e-money, which is a digital representation of fiat currency used to electronically transfer value denominated in fiat currency.

The DAO itself was created by the founders of Slock.it as a type of alternative corporation with all corporate functions and governance automated using blockchain and smart contracts. The DAO was the “first generation” of its kind. Participants sent in ETH in exchange for DAO Tokens. DAO Token holders could vote on projects to be used with the DAO assets (ETH, which could be exchanged for fiat currency and other physical or digital assets) and participate in rewards such as profit distributions and dividends. The entire DAO was intended to be autonomous such that project proposals were in the form of smart contracts and voting administered by computer code. The DAO code was launched on the Ethereum blockchain.

The DAO promoted itself through a website which described its purpose (“[T]o blaze a new path in business for the betterment of its members, existing simultaneously nowhere and everywhere and operating solely with the steadfast iron will of unstoppable code”), how it operated, its source code, and a link to buy the DAO Tokens. The DAO was also promoted through media attention and numerous social media channels.

Anyone was eligible to purchase DAO Tokens as long as they paid in ETH and there were no limitations on the number of DAO Tokens offered for sale or the number that could be purchased by any purchaser. There were no parameters set on the accreditation or sophistication level of a purchaser. Anyone with ETH and an ETH blockchain address could participate. All ETH from DAO Token sales were aggregated in the DAO’s Ethereum blockchain address.

Only DAO Token holders could submit proposed projects in which the DAO might participate, and each proposal would have to involve a smart contract and comply with the preset DAO Token holders voting code. Projects would be approved by a majority vote of DAO Token holders. Before being submitted for a vote, projects were to be reviewed by human curators. Although beyond the scope of this blog, there appeared to be many issues with the system, including the programming for voting.

The DAO Tokens were unrestricted and there were several platforms that allowed for the immediate secondary trading of the DAO Tokens. The secondary market trading platforms were registered with the Federal Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) as Money Services Businesses. For more on FinCEN, see HERE. The DAO Tokens were in fact actively traded on various platforms.

SEC Regulatory Analysis

Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) requires the registration of all offers and sales of securities unless there is an available exemption. The registration provisions are based on “full and fair disclosure” of all material information for an investor to make an informed investment decision, including detailed information about the issuer’s financial condition, identity and background of management and the price and amount of securities to be offered.

Section 5 of the Securities Act, like many provisions in the securities laws, is written in the inclusive, such that all offers and sales are covered unless an exemption is available pursuant to statute or case law. Section 5 states that “unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, it is unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to engage in the offer or sale of securities in interstate commerce.” A violation of Section 5 does not require intent.

The SEC begins its analysis of the DAO Tokens by reference to the definitions of a security found in both Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act and Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act. Both definitions include the term “investment contract,” which has been famously defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. For an in-depth discussion on the definition of a security in SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946) (the “Howey Test”), see HERE.

Under the Howey Test, whether an investment instrument is a security requires a substance-over-form analysis. The Howey Test defines an investment contract as follows:

“… an investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party…. Such a definition… permits the fulfillment of the statutory purpose of compelling full and fair disclosure relative to the issuance of the many types of instruments that in our commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of a security…. It embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits.”

Applying the Howey Test, courts have interpreted a security to include such diverse items as citrus groves, warehouse receipts, chinchillas, minks, diamonds, bullion, pay phones, real estate and equipment, and condominium units, when they were offered or sold under circumstances involving the investment of money and an expectation of a return through the efforts of others.

Applying the Howey Test to the DAO Tokens, the SEC notes that “money” need not include cash, but rather can be anything of value. A contribution of ETH is an investment as considered by the Howey Test. Investors in the DAO were investing in a common enterprise with the expectation of profits, including dividends and increased value. The SEC also found that the profits were to be derived from the efforts of others, including Slock.it, its founders and the DAO curators.

In its analysis of whether the DAO was a security, the SEC spent the most discussion on the “from the efforts of others” factor. Presumably this is because the DAO was established as an autonomous organization with participants voting on all projects. However, the Slock.it team, through its curators, and management of the DAO website and participation in online forums, “led investors to believe that they could be relied on to provide the significant managerial efforts required to make the DAO a success.” Moreover, in fact, the curators and Slock.it team did exercise significant control over proposals and operations of the DAO and were responsible for stopping the hacking attack and coming up with a plan to rectify the situation.

The SEC also noted that the DAO Token holders voting rights were limited. The DAO Token holders could only vote within the rules (code) established by the Slock.it management team. The SEC points to case law related to multi-level marketing schemes which were securities despite the labor put forth by the investors because the promoter dictated the terms and controlled the scheme itself. The SEC stated that “[T]he voting rights afforded DAO Token holders did not provide them with meaningful control over the enterprise, because (1) DAO Token holders’ ability to vote for contracts was a largely perfunctory one; and (2) DAO Token holders were widely dispersed and limited in their ability to communicate with one another.” Furthermore, the SEC questioned the level of disclosure on projects, believing that such disclosure was not “full and fair” such as to allow an informed investment decision.

Upon concluding that the DAO Tokens were securities, the SEC also concluded that the DAO needed to register their issuance, or satisfy a registration exemption, regardless of whether the DAO was incorporated or an unincorporated organization. Issuers, like securities, are broadly defined to include any sponsor or organization that is primarily responsible for the success or failure of the venture. Participants in an offering are also subject to Section 5 obligations and liability. Accordingly, this included the Slock.it founders and principals.

The secondary trading platforms also required registration, or the availability of an exemption, under the federal securities laws. Section 5 of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful for any broker, dealer or exchange to directly or indirectly affect any transaction in a security or report such transaction unless the exchange is registered as a national exchange or exempted from such registration. Section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act defines an “exchange” as “any organization, association, or group of persons, whether incorporated or unincorporated, which constitutes, maintains, or provides a market place or facilities for bringing together purchasers and sellers of securities or for otherwise performing with respect to securities the functions commonly performed by a stock exchange as that term is generally understood …”

The functions of a stock exchange generally include: (i) bringing together orders for securities of multiple buyers and sellers; and (ii) using established, non-discretionary methods under which such orders interact with each other, and the buyers and sellers entering such orders agree to the terms of the trade. A frequent exemption to the definition of an exchange is an Alternative Trading System (ATS) that complies with Regulation ATS. Regulation ATS requires, among others, registration as a broker-dealer. The OTC Markets is an ATS, as is t0 Technologies. The platforms that traded the DAO Tokens fit within the definition of an exchange and did not satisfy any available registration exemptions.

Statement by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement on the Report of Investigation on the DAO

On the same day that the SEC issued its investigative Report, the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement issued a statement on the Report. Off the top I notice that the SEC, under Chair Jay Clayton, Commissioner Michael Piwowar and the numerous new executive members, has a decidedly more positive attitude towards business and capital raising overall, than the prior regime. I also notice, through review of enforcement proceedings, that the new regime has not been deterred at all from its mission to detect and prosecute fraud, including micro-cap and penny-stock-related schemes.

To begin its statement, the Divisions noted that DLT, blockchain and other emerging technologies have the potential to influence and improve capital markets and the financial services industry. The Divisions “welcome and encourage the appropriate use of technology to facilitate capital formation and provide investors with new investment opportunities,” and are “hopeful that innovation in this area will facilitate fair and efficient capital raisings for small businesses.” However, new technologies also offer new opportunities for misconduct and abuse.

The Divisions reiterate the SEC Report’s assertion that an offer and sale of securities must comply with the federal securities laws and that determining whether a particular investment opportunity involves a security involves a facts and circumstances analysis, including economic realities and underlying structure, regardless of the terminology or technology used.

Noting that the SEC Report had found that the DAO Tokens were securities, the Divisions caution sponsors and other participants in offerings of digital or other novel forms of value to consider whether they involve a security and thus their obligations under the federal securities laws, including registration or meeting the qualifications for a registration exemption. Market participants that operate a web or other platform that facilitates transactions in securities must also consider whether they need to be registered as a broker-dealer or an exchange, or if there is an available exemption.

Although the Divisions statement does not mention it, keeping in line with the fundamental view that basic securities laws apply, a web platform that meets the criteria set out in Section 4(b) of the Securities Act, as created by the JOBS Act, should qualify for a broker-dealer exemption when hosting digital coin or token offerings. See HERE for details on this exemption.

Furthermore, the Divisions caution that sponsors and other market participants should consider whether their business model results in an entity that needs to be registered as an investment company and whether anyone providing advice about an investment in the security could be an investment advisor.

The Divisions also caution against bad actors and fraud, again using the same principles and tenets that have always applied to economies. Investors should watch for red flags, including deals that sound too good to be true, promises of high returns with little or no risk, high-pressure sales tactics, and working with unregistered or unlicensed persons.

A fundamental message that I always try to deliver is that anyone engaging in any activity that could invoke the securities laws, should consult with competent securities counsel. The Divisions statement relays the same message, and in particular, that “market participants who are employing new technologies to form investment vehicles or distribute investment opportunities to consult with securities counsel to aid in their analysis of these issues.” The SEC staff also encourages direct communication with the SEC and has set up an email address for communications related to these matters.

Investor Bulletin on Initial Coin Offerings

In addition to its Report and statement of the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement, on July 25, 2017, the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy issued an Investor Bulletin on Initial Coin Offerings (ICO’s). The Investor Bulletin is written in a simple format and helps to inform the public on the basics of ICO’s.

As noted throughout this blog, virtual coins or tokens are created using DLT or blockchain and can be sold in exchange for other virtual coins (such as Bitcoin or Ethereum) or for fiat currency such as U.S. dollars. Generally tokens sold entitle the purchaser to some return on investment or participation in a project and also may be resold or traded on secondary markets, such as virtual currency exchanges. The Investor Bulletin informs the public that these virtual coin or token offerings can invoke the federal securities laws.

The Investor Bulletin provides some basic information on blockchain and virtual currencies. In particular, taken from the Investor Bulletin:

What is a blockchain?

A blockchain is an electronic distributed ledger or list of entries – much like a stock ledger – that is maintained by various participants in a network of computers. Blockchains use cryptography to process and verify transactions on the ledger, providing comfort to users and potential users of the blockchain that entries are secure. Some examples of blockchain are the Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains, which are used to create and track transactions in Bitcoin and Ether, respectively.

What is a virtual currency or virtual token or coin?

A virtual currency is a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded and functions as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value. Virtual tokens or coins may represent other rights, as well. Accordingly, in certain cases, the tokens or coins will be securities and may not be lawfully sold without registration with the SEC or pursuant to an exemption from registration.

What is a virtual currency exchange?

A virtual currency exchange is a person or entity that exchanges virtual currency for fiat currency, funds, or other forms of virtual currency. Virtual currency exchanges typically charge fees for these services. Secondary market trading of virtual tokens or coins may also occur on an exchange. These exchanges may not be registered securities exchanges or alternative trading systems regulated under the federal securities laws. Accordingly, in purchasing and selling virtual coins and tokens, you may not have the same protections that would apply in the case of stocks listed on an exchange.

Who issues virtual tokens or coins?

Virtual tokens or coins may be issued by a virtual organization or other capital-raising entity. A virtual organization is an organization embodied in computer code and executed on a distributed ledger or blockchain. The code, often called a “smart contract,” serves to automate certain functions of the organization, which may include the issuance of certain virtual coins or tokens. The DAO, which was a decentralized autonomous organization, is an example of a virtual organization.

The Investor Bulletin continues with warnings to potential investors, including to be aware that the federal securities laws require either registration or an exemption from registration for an offer and sale of securities. The Investor Bulletin points potential investors to the EDGAR database to find registration statements, and reminds investors that exemptions usually are limited to accredited investors.

Further, the Investor Bulletin discusses disclosure obligations and sets forth key information that an investor should be informed of, such as use of proceeds, management and business plans.

The Investor Bulletin points out that even if there has been a fraud or theft, their rights may be limited do to the nature of ICO’s in general, including that they can be autonomous, the inability to trace money, the international scope of offerings, that there is no central controlling authority and that there is no method to freeze or secure virtual currency. Finally, the Investor Bulletin points to the usual red flags, including “guaranteed” high returns or low risk, unsolicited offers, sounds too good to be true, buying pressure, no net worth or other investor requirements and unlicensed sellers.

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.

« An Introduction To Distributed Ledger Technology (Blockchain Technology) FINRA Issues New Guidance On Communications With The Public, Including Social Media »

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 »

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 »

SEC Issues Whitepaper On Title III Crowdfunding

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | May 9, 2017 Tags: Crowdfunding Offerings, Regulation Crowdfunding, SPV Structure, Title III of the JOBS Act

On February 28, 2017, the SEC released a white paper on Regulation Crowdfunding, which law went into effect on May 16, 2016. Regulation Crowdfunding had been long in the making, with the JOBS Act having been passed on April 5, 2012, and the first set of proposed crowdfunding rules having been published on October 23, 2013. Regulation Crowdfunding provides the rules implementing Section 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act). For a summary of Regulation Crowdfunding, see my blog HERE.

From the time the SEC published the final Regulation Crowdfunding rules and regulations on October 30, 2015, the regulatory framework has met with wide criticism. The most commonly repeated issues with the current structure include: (i) the $1 million annual minimum is too low to adequately meet small-business funding needs; (ii) companies cannot “test the waters” in advance of or at the initial stages of an offering; and (iii) companies cannot currently use a Special Purchase Vehicle (SPV) in a crowdfunding offering.

To address the feedback and offer a resolution, on March 23, 2016, North Carolina Representative Patrick McHenry introduced HR 4855, aptly titled the “Fix Crowdfunding Act.” The Fix Crowdfunding Act would increase the annual funding limit from $1 million to $5 million. The Act would also allow for the use of special purpose vehicles (SPV’s) in the fundraising process. It is thought that an SPV structure helps protect the smaller investors by allowing them to pool funds together with larger investors in an entity that offers separate protections than the offering company itself. Finally, the Fix Crowdfunding Act adds “test the waters” provisions allowing companies to communicate with potential investors and gauge interest before spending significant time and expense on the offering process. The Fix Crowdfunding Act passed the House on July 5, 2016, but there has been no further action.

Background

Crowdfunding generally is where an entity or individual raises funds by seeking small contributions from a large number of people. The crowdfunder sets a goal amount to be raised from the crowd, with the funds to be used for a specific business purpose. In addition, a crowdfunding campaign allows the crowd to communicate with each other, thus adding the benefit of the “wisdom of the crowd.” Small businesses can particularly benefit from crowdfunding as they are not limited by purchaser qualification requirements and, subject to the rules, can engage in general solicitation and advertising. It is intended that crowdfunding offerings will be relatively low-cost and easy to implement; however, the general consensus is that that particular goal falls short.

Title III of the JOBS Act amended Section 4 of the Securities Act, adding Section 4(a)(6) to create a new exemption to the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act. Effective May 16, 2016, Regulation Crowdfunding, implementing Section 4(a)(6), became effective.

Regulation Crowdfunding allows companies to solicit “crowds” to sell up to $1 million in securities in any 12-month period as long as no individual investment exceeds certain threshold amounts. Regulation Crowdfunding limits investment amounts per investor for all crowdfunding offerings by all issuers in any 12-month period as follows: (a) if either annual income or net worth is less than $100,000, the investment limitation is the greater of $2,000 or 5% of the lesser of annual income or net worth; or (b) if both annual income and net worth are equal to or greater than $100,000, the investment limitation is 10% of the lesser of annual income or net worth. In addition, the final rule provides an overall investment limitation of $100,000 for any investor in any 12-month period. Significantly, the investment limitations apply across all crowdfunding issuers during any 12-month period.

Regulation Crowdfunding requires that all crowdfunding offerings be conducted through an intermediary that is a broker-dealer or funding portal that is registered with the SEC and a member of FINRA. All offerings must be conducted through the intermediary’s Internet-based platform. Securities sold in a crowdfunding offering are generally restricted for one year.

In offerings over $100,000, financial statements must be reviewed by an independent accountant and in offerings over $500,000 audited financial statements must be provided, provided however that audits are not required for a first-time offering.

In addition, Regulation Crowdfunding requires that companies and intermediaries provide certain information to investors, potential investors and the SEC prior to making an investment. The offering disclosure document is on Form C. Companies must also provide the SEC and investors with a closing report on Form C-U and an annual report on Form C-AR following the offering.

The registered intermediary has certain requirements designed to reduce fraud. Among others, the intermediary is responsible for filing the Form C with the SEC, must provide communication channels to allow discussion of the offerings on its platform, must disclose compensation received by the intermediary, and must provide educational materials to investors.

The ability to utilize crowdfunding is subject to bad boy restrictions and other disqualifying events. All crowdfunding issuers must be United States entities. Crowdfunding issuers cannot be subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or an investment company as defined by the Investment Company Act of 1940.

The SEC White Paper

The SEC white paper reviewed crowdfunding offerings from the date of inception of Regulation Crowdfunding on May 16, 2016, through December 31, 2016. During that time there were 163 offerings by 156 companies seeking to raise a total of $18 million. The average offering sought $110,000 but allowed over-subscriptions, generally up to the total $1 million statutory limit. The average offering closed in 4 to 5 months.

Since first-time issuers are not required to file audited financial statements, many set maximum offering limits at the total allowed $1 million mark. As repeat issuers enter the market, the average size of maximum offering amount may decrease to avoid audit expenses.

Of the offerings, approximately $10 million was raised, by 33 issuers, with the average amount raised being $290,000. However, some of these offerings remained open on December 31, 2016, so this number would likely be higher today.

For offerings initiated in 2016, 24 were withdrawn by companies or associated with an intermediary whose FINRA membership was terminated and funding portal registration withdrawn, seeking a total of $2.3 million based on the target amount.

Most offerings solicited in all states. The most popular type of securities was equity, including both common and preferred, followed by simple agreements for future equity (SAFE’s) and debt.

The most popular state of incorporation was Delaware, and the most popular location of the business was California, followed by Texas and New York. Most issuers have been pre-revenue start-ups or development-stage companies, with the median company having under $50,000 in assets, under $5,000 in cash, $10,000 in debt, no revenues and 3 employees. The average issuer had 5 employees, assets of $327,000 and cash of $64,000. However, many companies were growing. The median growth from the prior fiscal year was 15%, and median sales growth was 80%.

Some of the companies also did prior, concurrent or subsequent Regulation D (15%) or Regulation A (3%) offerings. None of the issuers had previously been listed on an exchange or subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements.

As of December 31, 2016, 21 funding portals have registered with the SEC and FINRA. One funding portal had its FINRA membership terminated and withdrew its SEC registration. In addition, 8 broker-dealers have conducted crowdfunding offerings. The average funding portal fee is 5%, though broker-dealers averaged at 7.7%.

The SEC acknowledges that the initial results are probably not indicative of what the crowdfunding market will look like as it matures. In particular, companies, investors and the intermediaries will gain experience and learn from mistakes as time goes on. Moreover, it is likely that the number of intermediaries will grow and some may be industry-specific or concentrate on specific demographics.

Click Here To Print- PDF Printout SEC Issues Whitepaper On Title III Crowdfunding

The Author

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

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

« The Senate Banking Committee Passes Several Pro-Business Bills Road Shows »

SEC Completes Inflation Adjustment Under Titles I And III Of The Jobs Act; Adopts Technical Amendments

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | April 25, 2017 Tags: Definition of Emerging Growth Company, Regulation Crowdfunding Amendments, Scaled Disclosure in Registration Forms and Periodic Reports, SEC Completes Inflation Adjustment Under Titles I And III Of The Jobs Act, SEC dopts Technical Amendments, Title I of the JOBS Act, Title III of the JOBS Act

On March 31, 2017, the SEC adopted several technical amendments to rules and forms under both the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to conform with Title I of the JOBS Act. On the same day, the SEC made inflationary adjustments to provisions under Title I and Title III of the JOBS Act by amending the definition of the term “emerging growth company” and the dollar amounts in Regulation Crowdfunding.

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 to 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 enacted on April 5, 2012 (i.e., not including the new inflationary adjustment discussed in this blog) is 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.

The provisions of Title I of the JOBS Act were self-executing and automatically became effective on April 5, 2012. Although the SEC has passed several rules and made numerous form amendments to conform to the JOBS Act provisions, several of the rules and forms under the Securities Act, Exchange Act, periodic and current reports forms, Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X did not reflect the JOBS Act provisions.

The statutory definition of an EGC, as reflected in Securities Act Section 2(a)(10) and Exchange Act Section 3(a)(80), require the SEC to make an adjustment to index to inflation the annual gross revenue amount used to determine an EGC, every five years.

Likewise, Title III of the JOBS Act, which set the statutory groundwork for Regulation Crowdfunding, requires an inflationary adjustment to the dollar figures in Regulation Crowdfunding every five years. On March 31, 2017, the SEC did so for the first time.

Inflation Adjustments

Definition of “Emerging Growth Company”

The JOBS Act amended Section 2(a)(19) of the Securities Act and Section 3(a)(80) of the Exchange Act to define an “emerging growth company” to mean a company with total annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion, as adjusted for inflation every 5 years, during its most recently completed fiscal year that first sells equity in a registered offering after December 8, 2011.

The SEC is now making its first inflationary increase to the definition. The inflation increase is $70,000. Accordingly, an EGC is now defined as a company with total gross revenues of less than $1,070,000,000.

Regulation Crowdfunding Amendments

Title III of the JOBS Act, enacted in April 2012, amended the Securities Act to add Section 4(a)(6) to provide an exemption for crowdfunding offerings. Regulation Crowdfunding went into effect on May 16, 2016. For a summary of the provisions, see HERE. The Securities Act requires that the amounts set forth in Regulation Crowdfunding be adjusted by the SEC for inflation not less than once every five years. The SEC is now making its first inflationary increase by amending Rules 100 and 201(t) of Regulation Crowdfunding and Securities Act Form C. The inflation increase is $70,000.

The new offering amount and investment limits are as follows:

The new financial statement requirement thresholds are as follows:

Technical Amendments to Rules and Forms

Scaled Disclosure in Registration Forms and Periodic Reports

Section 102(b)(1) of the JOBS Act amended Section 7(a) of the Securities Act to provide that (1) an EGC is permitted to present only two years of audited financial statements in its IPO registration statement, and (2) in any Securities Act registration statement other than its IPO registration statement, an EGC need not present selected financial data under Item 301 of Regulation S-K for any period prior to the earliest audited period presented in its IPO registration statement. However, Item 301 and Rule 3-02 of Regulation S-X and Form 20-F had not been amended for these changes and, until now, contained conflicting requirements. In particular, such rules and forms only addressed reduced disclosure requirements for smaller reporting companies and not address the JOBS Act rules related to EGC’s. The SEC is now amending Item 301 and Rule 3-02 of Regulation S-X and Form 20-F to conform with Section 7(a) of the Securities Act.

Section 102(b)(2) of the JOBS Act amended Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act to provide that an EGC need not present selected financial data in an Exchange Act registration statement or periodic report for any period prior to the earliest audited period presented in the EGC’s first effective registration statement under either the Exchange Act or Securities Act. The SEC is now amending Item 301 of Regulation S-X to conform with Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.

Likewise, the SEC is amending Item 303 of Regulation S-K related to management discussion and analyses (MD&A) such that a disclosure needs only to be provided for the periods of the financial statements included in the EGC’s IPO registration statement.

Auditor Attestation; Section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley

Section 103 amended Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to exempt EGC’s from the need to provide an auditor attestation on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the EGC’s internal controls over financial reporting. Compliance with Section 404(b) is very expensive, with the average cost being in the $2 million range. To conform with SEC rules and forms to amended Section 404(b), the SEC has amended Article 2-02 of Regulation S-X, Item 308 of Regulation S-K, and Forms 20-F and 40-F to specify that the auditor of an EGC does not need to attest to, and report on, management’s report on internal control over financial reporting and that management does not need to include the auditor’s attestation report in an annual report required by Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act.

Executive Compensation Disclosure and Shareholder Advisory Vote

Section 102(c) of the JOBS Act provides that an EGC need only provide the same executive compensation disclosure as a smaller reporting company. The smaller reporting company executive compensation disclosures are delineated in Items 402(m)-(r) of Regulation S-K. The SEC is amending Item 402 to specify that these scaled disclosures also apply to EGC’s.

Exchange Act Rule 14a-21 requires companies to conduct shareholder advisory votes on say-on-pay, say-on-frequency and golden parachute compensation arrangements with any “named executive officers.” Item 102(a) of the JOBS Act amended Section 14A(e) of the Exchange Act to exempt EGC’s from these requirements. The SEC is amending Exchange Act Rule 14a-21 and Item 402(t) and Instruction 1 to Item 1011(b) of Regulation S-K to conform with this statutory exemption. For more on say-on-pay, say-on-frequency and golden parachute compensation disclosures, see HERE.

Foreign Private Issuers

The definition of an emerging growth company is not dependent on whether the company is domestic or qualifies as a foreign private issuer. A foreign private issuer that qualifies as an EGC may avail itself of the scaled disclosures to the same extent as domestic companies. The SEC is now amending Form 20-F to conform its disclosure requirements with those available to an EGC.

“Check Box” Notice of EGC Status and Compliance with New or Revised Accounting Standards

Section 102(b) of the JOBS Act amended Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act and Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act such that an EGC is not required to comply with new or revised financial accounting standards until private companies are also required to comply with those standards. An EGC can, however, choose to comply with such new or revised accounting standards but must do so on the next report or registration statement and notify the SEC of its choice. The election is irrevocable. To provide a method to inform the SEC of its choice, the SEC is adding a “check box” to Securities Act Forms S-1, S-3, S-4, S-8, S-11, F-1, F-3 and F-4 and Exchange Act Forms 10, 8-K, 10-Q, 10–K, 20–F and 40-F.

Click Here To Print- PDF Printout SEC Completes Inflation Adjustment Under Titles I And III Of The Jobs Act; Adopts Technical Amendments

The Author

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

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

« SEC Adopts The T+2 Trade Settlement Cycle The Senate Banking Committee Passes Several Pro-Business Bills »

SEC Adopts The T+2 Trade Settlement Cycle

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | April 18, 2017 Tags: Conforming Stock Exchange Rule Amendments, DTC, DTC Process, Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1, SEC Adopts The T+2 Trade Settlement Cycle, T+2 amendment, T+4 settlement cycle

Introduction and brief summary of the rule

On March 22, 2017, the SEC adopted a rule amendment shortening the standard settlement cycle for broker-initiated trade settlements from three business days from the trade date (T+3) to two business days (T+2). The change is designed to help enhance efficiency and reduce risks, including credit, market and liquidity risks, associated with unsettled transactions in the marketplace.

Acting SEC Chair Michael Piwowar stated, “[A]s technology improves, new products emerge, and trading volumes grow, it is increasingly obvious that the outdated T+3 settlement cycle is no longer serving the best interests of the American people.” The SEC originally proposed the rule amendment on September 28, 2016. My blog on the proposal can be read HERE. In addition, for more information on the clearance and settlement process for U.S. capital markets, see HERE.

The change amends Rule 15c6-1(a) prohibiting a broker-dealer from effecting or entering into a contract for the purchase or sale of a security that provides for payment of funds and delivery of securities later than T+2, unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the parties at the time of the transaction. This means that when an investor buys a security, the brokerage firm must receive payment from the investor no later than two business days after the trade is executed. Also, when an investor sells a security, the investor must deliver the investor’s security to the brokerage firm no later than two business days after the sale.

The rule does not apply to private exempt transactions such as private placements. The rule also allows a managing underwriter and issuer to agree to a trade settlement cycle other than T+2 as long as the agreement is express and reached at the time of the transaction. Firm commitment offerings are also exempted. In particular, Rule 15c6-1(c) allows registered firm commitment underwritten transactions that price after 4:30 p.m. ET to use a T+3 or T+4 settlement cycle.

The reduction of the settlement cycle to T+2 will also assist in aligning global clearing of securities as many markets, including the United Kingdom and many European countries, are already on the T+2 schedule.

Compliance with the new rules is effective on September 5, 2017.

Background

DTC provides the depository and book entry settlement services for substantially all equity trading in the US. Over $600 billion in transactions are completed at DTC each day. Although all similar, the exact clearance and settlement process depends on the type of security being traded (stock, bond, etc.), the form the security takes (paper or electronic), how the security is owned (registered or beneficial), the market or exchange traded on (OTC Markets, NASDAQ…) and the entities and institutions involved.

All securities trades involve a legally binding contract. In general, the “clearing” of those trades involves implementing the terms of the contract, including ensuring processing to the correct buyer and seller in the correct security and correct amount and at the correct price and date. This process is effectuated electronically.

“Settlement” refers to the fulfillment of the contract through the exchanging of funds and delivery of the securities. In 1993, Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1 was adopted, requiring that settlement occur three business days after the trade date, commonly referred to as “T+3.” Delivery occurs electronically by making an adjusting book entry as to entitlement. One brokerage account is debited and another is credited at the DTC level and a corresponding entry is made at each brokerage firm involved in the transaction. DTC only tracks the securities entitlement of its participating members, while the individual brokerage firms track the holdings in their customer accounts. Technology, of course, plays an important role in the process and ability to efficiently manage settlements.

There may be two brokerage firms between DTC and the customer account holder. Brokerage firms that are direct members with DTC are referred to as “clearing brokers.” Many brokerage firms make arrangements with these DTC members (clearing brokers) to clear the securities on their behalf. Those firms are referred to as “introducing brokers.” A clearing broker will directly route an order through the national exchange or OTC Market, whereas an introducing broker will route the order to a clearing broker, who then routes the order through the exchange or OTC Market.

The Dodd-Frank Act added a definition of, and responsibilities associated with, a “financial market utility” or FMU. Clearing brokers are FMU’s. FMU’s provide the actual functions associated with clearing trades through the DTC system. As part of that process, a division of DTC, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), becomes the buyer and seller of each contract, netting out and settling all brokerage transactions each day, making one adjusting entry per day. The net entry debits or credits the brokerage firm’s account as necessary. When one of the counterparties in the process does not fulfill its settlement obligations by delivering the securities, there is a “failure to deliver.” Overall, failures to deliver are less than 1% of all transactions.

Likewise, a cash account is maintained for each brokerage firm, which is netted and debited and/or credited each day. These accounts can be in the billions. Clearing firms can either settle each day or carry their open account forward until the next business day. Because all transactions are netted out, 99% of all trade obligations do not require the exchange of money, which helps reduce some risk. NSCC’s role in this process is referred to as a central counterparty or CCP. This process is continuous.

Looking at the process from the top down, the CCP carries the risk that the clearing firm (or FMU) will not have the financial resources to perform its obligations. In turn, the clearing firms have risks from their customers, including introducing brokers, who in turn ultimately have risks from the individual account holders. The risks are compounded by changing values of the securities being traded, during the settlement process. The faster a trade settles, the lower the cumulative risk at each level of the process.

This is a very simplified high-level description of the process. Technically, the roles of DTC and its subsidiaries, CEDE and NSCC, as well as clearing agencies and introducing brokers involve a complex set of regulations, with different definitions, obligations and roles for the different hats the entities wear depending on the type of security being traded (stock, bond, etc.), how the security is owned (registered or beneficial), the form the security takes (paper or electronic), the market or exchange traded on (OTC Markets, NASDAQ…) and the entities and institutions involved (retail or institutional).

Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1

Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1 prohibits a broker-dealer from effecting or entering into a contract for the purchase or sale of a security, subject to certain exemptions, that provides for the payment of the funds or delivery of the securities later than the third business day after the contract (i.e., trade) date unless expressly agreed upon by both parties at the time of the transaction. The rule amendment shortens this time period to two business days.

Exempted securities include government and municipal securities, insurance products, commercial paper, limited partnership units that are not listed on an exchange or automated quotations system (OTC Markets), and sales in a firm commitment underwritten offering that are priced after market close. Firm commitment offerings can rely on an extended T+4 settlement cycle. The new rule does not amend the exemptions or the settlement cycle for firm commitment underwritten offerings.

One of the SEC’s roles is to enhance the resilience and efficiency of the clearance and settlement process such that the system itself does not add to, but rather subtracts from, the risks associated with trading in securities. To further this goal the SEC has amended Rule 15a6-1(a) to shorten the settlement cycle to T+2. The SEC believes this change will reduce various risks in the marketplace, including: (i) the credit risk that one party will be unable to fulfill its delivery obligations (of either cash or the securities) on the settlement date; and (ii) the market risk that the value of the securities will change between the trade and settlement such as to result in a loss to one of the parties.

To drill down further on the summary of the settlement and clearing process described in the background section of this blog, the following is a high-level description of what happens following the execution of a trade. When a trade is submitted to an exchange or alternative trading system (such as OTC Markets), it is matched with a counterparty. That is, a buy order is electronically matched to a sell order. As long as there is a match, the trade is locked in and sent to NSCC.

On the trade date (T), NSCC validates the trade data and communicates receipt of the transaction. At that moment the parties are legally committed to complete the trade. Before the new amendment, at midnight on the first day (T+1), NSCC substitutes itself as the legal buyer and legal seller. Technically, the first buy/sell contract is replaced by two new contracts, one between NSCC and the buyer and the other between NSCC and the seller. The NSCC substitution will now occur at the point of trade comparison and validation.

Historically, on the second day (T+2), NSCC would issue a trade summary report to its members which summarizes all securities and cash to be settled that day, and show the net positions for each. NSCC also sends an electronic instruction to DTC to process the net security and cash settlements. This will now occur on T+1. Finally, on the third day (T+3), DTC process the electronic settlement by transferring cash and securities between the broker-dealer accounts and the broker-dealers, in turn, put the securities and/or cash in their customer accounts. With implementation of the rule change, this final step will be completed on the second day (T+2).

Although institutional trading is similar, there are unique aspects and there can be additional participants. For example, an institution may have a custodian of its securities in addition to its broker, may use a matching provider and may avail itself of different netting and settling processes within the brokerage and DTC systems. Although the detailed process may differ, ultimately both retail and institutional trades will now fully settle in the new T+2 timeline.

As mentioned, the length of the settlement cycle impacts the exposure to credit, market and liquidity risks for the participants. The participants, including NSCC, take measures to reduce these risks, including by requiring funds to be kept on deposit by clearing and brokerage firms effecting such participants’ liquidity. Even then, however, all participants are exposed to market risk during the settlement process, including a decline in value of the traded securities and the risk that such decline could exceed the broker’s capital deposit or result in a failure to deliver.

A reduction in risks would reduce the necessity to mitigate such risk, including reducing the funds that must be kept on deposit by participants. It is undisputed that reducing the settlement cycle reduces these risks. Firms may pass these benefits on to other market participants, including retail investors in the form of reduced margin charges. Also, obviously if funds are tied up for three days pending a settlement of a transaction, whether you are the retail investor or clearing agency, there is a lack of available liquidity to participate in other transactions during that time.

The SEC also believes that shortening the standard settlement cycle will promote technological innovation and changes in market infrastrucutres and operations, incentivizing market participants to make work further to make the markets more efficient.

The rule amendment requires the SEC to conduct a study no later than September 5, 2020, on the impact of the T+2 amendment and the potential impact of further reducing the trade settlement cycle to T+1.

Conforming Stock Exchange Rule Amendments

On February 10, 2017, the SEC approved rulemaking proposals submitted separately by the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Stock Market and the NYSE MKT that will conform stock exchange rules to the amendments to Rule 15c6-1, with the amendments to become operative concurrently with the SEC compliance date.

Click Here To Print- PDF Printout SEC Adopts The T+2 Trade Settlement Cycle

The Author

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

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

« SEC Issues Final Rules Requiring Links To Exhibits SEC Completes Inflation Adjustment Under Titles I And III Of The Jobs Act; Adopts Technical Amendments »

SEC Issues Final Rules Requiring Links To Exhibits

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | April 11, 2017 Tags: EDGAR filings, EDGAR system, Item 601 Of Regulation S-K, Regulation S-K, SEC Advisory Committee, SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies, SEC Issues Final Rules Requiring Links To Exhibits, Small Reporting Company

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

The SEC first proposed the rule change on August 31, 2016, as discussed in my blog HERE. The new rule continues the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance’s ongoing Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative. I anticipate that this initiative will not only continue but gain traction in the coming years under the new administration as, hopefully, more duplicative, antiquated and immaterial requirements come under scrutiny. At the end of this blog, I include an up-to-date summary of the proposals and request for comment related to the ongoing Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative.

Background

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

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

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

Rule Amendments

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

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

Currently exhibits may be filed in the EDGAR system in either ASCII or HTML format. HTML format allows for hyperlinks to another place within the same document or to a separate document. ASCII does not support such hyperlinks. Over the years HTML has become the standard used for EDGAR filings, with 99% of filings in 2015 using HTML. The rule amendment will now prohibit the use of ASCII for exhibits and require only HTML with the newly required hyperlinks.

In addition, the rule changes include conforming changes to Rule 105 of Regulation S-T. Rule 105 sets forth the limitations and liabilities for the use of hyperlinks. Rule 105 allows hyperlinks to other documents within the same filing or previously filed documents on EDGAR but prohibits hyperlinks to sites, locations, or documents outside the EDGAR system.

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

Further Background

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. However, I note that with the recent election, and the GOP sweeping control of both the House and Senate, it is unclear what the future of these initiatives holds.

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.

Click Here To Print- PDF Printout SEC Issues Final Rules Requiring Links To Exhibits

The Author

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

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

« The Acting SEC Chair Has Trimmed Enforcement’s Subpoena Power SEC Adopts The T+2 Trade Settlement Cycle »

The Acting SEC Chair Has Trimmed Enforcement’s Subpoena Power

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | April 4, 2017 Tags: Potential Additional Changes with Enforcement and SEC Policy, SEC Chair Michael Piwowar, SEC enforcement staff, The Acting SEC Chair Has Trimmed Enforcement’s Subpoena Power

In early February 2017, acting SEC Chair Michael Piwowar revoked the subpoena authority from approximately 20 senior SEC enforcement staff. The change leaves the Director of the Division of Enforcement as the sole person with the authority to approve a formal order of investigation and issue subpoenas. Historically, the staff did not have subpoena power; however, in 2009 then Chair Mary Shapiro granted the staff the power, in the wake of the Bernie Madoff scandal. Chair Shapiro deemed the policy to relate solely to internal SEC procedures and, as such, passed the delegation of power without formal notice or opportunity for public comment.

This is the beginning of what I expect will be many, many changes within the SEC as the new administration changes the focus of the agency from Mary Jo White’s broken windows policies to supporting capital formation. The mission of the SEC is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitate capital formation. Although each mission should be a priority, the reality is that the focus of the SEC changes based on its Chair and Commissioners and political pressure. Mary Jo White viewed the SEC enforcement division and the task of investor protection as her top priority. Mike Piwowar and presumably Jay Clayton are shifting the top priority to capital formation.

Acting Chair Piwowar has been a vocal critic of both the staff subpoena power and the manner in which the power was created since its inception. He has also been a vocal critic of the SEC’s investigative power, believing it has too much power and too little oversight.

Mr. Piwowar made a speech in 2013 to the LA County Bar, being very clear about his views on the SEC and its operations. At the time, he talked about enforcement and that investigations should be focused on evidence of wrongdoing, to wit: lying, cheating and stealing. He stated that the SEC must only concern itself with “the facts known to them and the reasonable inferences from those facts” and cautioning that a Commissioner “should never suggest, vote for, or participate in an investigation aimed at a particular individual for reasons of animus, prejudice, or vindictiveness.” In that regard, he recognizes that “the mere existence of an investigation – even without taking any subsequent enforcement action – carries with it the power to defame and destroy.”

Piwowar then went on to specifically address the process for the issuance of a formal order of investigation, which brings with it the power to subpoena witnesses, documents and testimony. He stated, “Historically, formal orders have been approved by the Commission. This process usually required the staff to prepare a memorandum for the Commission containing a summary of the case and any possible violations, and recommending issuance of the order. Although it was rare, if ever, for the Commission to deny a request for a formal order, the process brought forth a certain level of focus and review from not only the Division of Enforcement, but also staff in the Office of the General Counsel as well as the other divisions, such as Corporation Finance, Trading and Markets, and Investment Management.” Piwowar continued, “[B]ut in a significant departure from past practice, in August 2009, the Commission delegated the authority to issue formal orders to the Director of Enforcement, on the grounds that such delegation would expedite the investigative process by reducing the time and paperwork previously associated with obtaining Commission authorization prior to issuing subpoenas.”

Moreover, clearly this change made formal orders much easier to obtain, as evidenced by the fact that the issuance of these orders doubled in the years following. Mr. Piwowar stated, “[t]he delegation of authority for approval of formal orders was deemed by the Commission to relate solely to agency organization, procedure, and practice, and therefore not subject to the notice and comment process under the Administrative Procedure Act. The mere fact that we can institute certain rules without obtaining comment from the public does not necessarily mean that we should. Given the significant ramifications for persons who are on the receiving end of a subpoena issued pursuant to a formal order, we should make sure that public comment is allowed on any review of the formal order process.”

It is no surprise, then, that Piwowar remanded this provision as soon as he was in a position to do so.

Potential Additional Changes with Enforcement and SEC Policy

Incoming SEC Chair Jay Clayton is largely thought to be pro-business and likely sympathetic to large financial institutions. Moreover, the SEC still must appoint additional Commissioners and a new Director of Enforcement. The individuals that fill these roles will undoubtedly greatly influence policy.

Mr. Clayton has made public comments criticizing the Dodd-Frank Act for over-regulating the financial services industry. As such, I would expect to see changes in Dodd-Frank and a lack of interest in enforcing some provisions while they remain.

Clayton has also publicly criticized the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) as putting U.S. businesses at a huge disadvantage against competitors not subject to this law, such as those domiciled in other countries. Clayton specifically stated that U.S. companies were disproportionately affected by a “virtually stand-alone approach to deterring foreign corruption” that “places significant costs on companies subject to the FCPA as compared to their competitors that are not.” Trump also spoke against the FCPA. Accordingly, it is very likely that enforcement of FCPA violations will take a low priority going forward.

Another area in which Clayton will not likely focus is enforcement of whistleblower retaliation cases. Over the past few years the SEC has vigorously pursued enforcement proceedings against companies thought to retaliate against or even chill whistleblower activity. The SEC has even taken action against contract provisions in employment or severance agreements that could be deemed to prevent or impede whistleblower activity. For more on this topic, see my blog HERE. Likewise, the Financial Choice Act 2.0 contains provisions reducing the availability of whistleblower awards.

On February 3, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order entitled “Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System.” The order set forth seven principles for regulating the financial system, including:

(a) empower Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace, save for retirement, and build individual wealth;

(b) prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts;

(c) foster economic growth and vibrant financial markets through more rigorous regulatory impact analysis that addresses systemic risk and market failures, such as moral hazard and information asymmetry;

(d) enable American companies to be competitive with foreign firms in domestic and foreign markets;

(e) advance American interests in international financial regulatory negotiations and meetings;

(f) make regulation efficient, effective and appropriately tailored; and

(g) restore public accountability within federal financial regulatory agencies and rationalize the federal financial regulatory framework.

The executive order, although general, certainly is very telling in regard to the philosophy of this administration, including that which is related to over-regulation and enforcement by the SEC.

Administrative Proceedings

The SEC Penalties Act, as written in its beginning form, treats administrative court and federal court proceedings equally. However, the administrative court process is not an equal forum and, based on a barrage of negative attacks, including lawsuits, appeals and media coverage, requires review and attention. An analysis by The Wall Street Journal in 2015 indicated that in the last five years, the SEC has won 90% of cases brought in its own administrative courts but only 69% of cases brought in federal court. Part of the disparity could be that the SEC chooses to settle or drop “losing” claims, but that still leaves a large discrepancy.

Moreover, the Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in 2010, for the first time granted the SEC the authority to impose civil penalties in administrative proceedings against any person the SEC claims violated the securities laws, regardless of whether that person or firm is in the securities business. In other words, Dodd-Frank opened the doors for the SEC’s own administrative proceedings to be just another forum for the pursuit of any securities law violations. Common sense tells us that this change, seven years ago, directly relates to the uproar in the defensive bar.

Over the past years a slew of cases have been filed challenging the SEC’s power in administrative actions and the administrative process. With little fanfare or public announcement, the SEC under Jay Clayton may cut back dramatically on the use of administrative proceedings, quietly ending or at least greatly reducing this battle until more formal policy changes are brought.

Click Here To Print- PDF Printout The Acting SEC Chair Has Trimmed Enforcement’s Subpoena Power

The Author

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

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

« The Financial Choice Act 2.0 SEC Issues Final Rules Requiring Links To Exhibits »