OTC Markets Archives - Reverse-Merger.com

OTC Markets; Rule 144; The SPCC

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | June 11, 2021 Tags: OTC Markets, Rule 144, The SPCC

Small public companies are in trouble and they need help now! Once in a while there is a perfect storm forming that can only result in widespread damage and that time is now for small public companies, especially those that trade on the OTC Markets. The trains on track to collide include a combination of (i) the impending amended Rule 15c2-11 compliance deadline (which alone would be and is a clear positive); (ii) the proposed Rule 144 rule changes to eliminate tacking upon the conversion of market adjustable securities; (iii) the SEC onslaught of litigation against micro-cap convertible note investors claiming unlicensed dealer activity; (iv) the OTC Markets new across the board unwillingness to allow companies to move from the Pink to the QB if they have outstanding convertible debt; and (v) the SEC’s unwillingness to recognize the OTC Pink as a trading market and its implications on re-sale registration statements.

Any one of these factors alone would not be catastrophic, and in the case of the 211 overhaul, is extremely beneficial. However, putting together all of these elements will inevitably result in the complete failure of many small public companies and unfortunately, a disproportionate number of those companies will be operated by woman and minorities.

Of course, I am not the only one that realizes this. In late 2020 a group of market participants including small public companies, investors, law firms, and advocates formed the Small Public Company Coalition (SPCC) as a first-in-kind, high-level properly organized advocate and lobbying group to bring the issues in front of those that can make a difference including the SEC and Congress.

The SPCC is a member-driven, federal advocacy coalition consisting of participants in the micro-cap space. The SPCC is the real deal with active involvement from the brightest at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, an international law firm with over 1,400 lawyers, and organized lobbying efforts led by Polaris Consulting, a top 10 lobbying firm in D.C. The team at Gibson, Dunn wrote an excellent comment letter response to the SEC proposed changes to Rule 144 that was signed by over 60 market participants and includes a complete economic impact analysis prepared by James Overdahl, Ph.D, who is the former Chief Economist for both the SEC and the CFTC. The SPCC has also been actively meeting with groups at the SEC and in Congress in support of the cause. For more information on the SPCC see www.thespcc.com or reach out to info@thespcc.com.

15c2-11 Compliance

On September 26, 2020, the SEC adopted final rules amending Securities Exchange Act (“Exchange Act”) Rule 15c2-11. From a high level, the amended rule will require that a company have current and publicly available information as a precondition for a broker-dealer to either initiate or continue to quote its securities; will narrow reliance on certain of the rules exceptions, including the piggyback exception; will add new exceptions for lower risk securities; and add the ability of OTC Markets itself to confirm that the requirements of Rule 15c2-11 or an exception have been met, and allow for broker-dealers to rely on that confirmation. The new rule will not require OTC Markets to submit a Form 211 application or otherwise have FINRA review its determination that a broker-dealer can quote a security, prior to the quotation by a broker-dealer. For a detailed summary of the new rules, see HERE.

Compliance with the majority of the rule’s requirements, including that all quoted companies have current information in order to remain 211 eligible, is slated for September 28, 2021. For companies that are Alternatively Reporting or intend to be Alternatively Reporting to OTC Markets, the ability to upload information requires access to the OTC Markets OTCIQ system. A company must apply to OTC Markets in order to gain access to the OTCIQ system (and thus publish current information on OTC Markets). If a company has been inactive for a period of time, or if a company goes through a change of control, a new OTCIQ application must be submitted.

Access to the OTCIQ system is the first barrier to entry for companies that wish to publish current information in compliance with the 211 rules, using the Alternative Reporting Standard. OTC Markets is inundated with such applications and has publicly announced that if an application is not submitted before June 30, 2021, it will not be processed in time to allow a company to access the system to upload current information prior to the September 28th deadline. Upon submitting an application, the current processing time is approximately 12 weeks.

Unlike obtaining EDGAR filing codes from the SEC, access to the OTCIQ system involves a merit review. The application itself requires the disclosure of all officers, directors and 5% or greater shareholders and the submittal of a background check authorization form for each. If there is negative history, either actual or reputational, related to any of the people listed on the form, OTC Markets has the authority to, and will likely, deny the application. In addition, if a company’s stock has been the subject of volatility in recent months (as so many have – see my blog on Gary Gensler’s recent speech on the subject including social media influencing stock prices – HERE), OTC Markets can, and has routinely been, denying the OTCIQ application.

I applaud the efforts to clean up the micro-cap markets but have issue with the discretionary and arbitrary nature of the review and decision-making process. The SEC has clearly defined bad actor rules, which include a shareholder ownership threshold of 20% and does not include a person’s “reputation.” For a detail of the bad actor rules, see HERE. Small and micro-cap companies often go through changes of control including both organic changes and reverse acquisitions. In fact, the new 211 rules give shell companies an 18-month runway to complete an acquisition. As I discuss below, I understand that OTC Markets is in a unique position to witness micro-cap fraud and the dealings of those that give penny stocks a bad name. I also understand that they are trying to find a balance between allowing access and protection of investors and the reputation of the marketplace itself. However, I would advocate for a more prescriptive test that mirrors the SEC bad actor rules with discretionary power only in extreme circumstances.

I am reminded of FINRA’s similar arbitrary use of Rule 6490 back in 2013-2015. Rule 6490 allows FINRA to deny a corporate action (such as name change, reverse split, etc.) if, among other reasons, “FINRA has actual knowledge that the issuer, associated persons, officers, directors, transfer agent, legal adviser, promoters or other persons connected to the issuer or the SEA Rule 10b-17 Action or Other Company-Related Action are the subject of a pending, adjudicated or settled regulatory action or investigation by a federal, state or foreign regulatory agency, or a self-regulatory organization; or a civil or criminal action related to fraud or securities laws violations; (4) a state, federal or foreign authority or self-regulatory organization has provided information to FINRA, or FINRA otherwise has actual knowledge indicating that the issuer, associated persons, officers, directors, transfer agent, legal adviser, promoters or other persons connected with the issuer or the SEA Rule 10b-17 Action or Other Company-Related Action may be potentially involved in fraudulent activities related to the securities markets and/or pose a threat to public investors.”

For a period of time, FINRA was relying on “may be potentially involved in fraudulent activities related to the securities markets and/or pose a threat to public investors” to deny corporate actions to companies that had any relationship, no matter how far removed, with a person that FINRA deemed a threat, regardless of any actual legal proceedings. See HERE for more information. Several issuers litigated FINRA’s seemingly expansive and arbitrary use of the rule to deny corporate actions. Although the SEC sided with FINRA and upheld their authority, FINRA adjusted their policy moving forward.

FINRA will still deny a corporate action if there is an actual bad actor involved in the company, and even if there is a significant shareholder or investor, whether debt or equity, that is the subject of a pending SEC or other regulatory proceeding but now the results of a review can be anticipated. FINRA considers actual filed legal proceedings and will even provide a company with an opportunity to explain the circumstances and provide exculpatory information. FINRA no longer considers unsubstantiated anonymous internet trolls in its review process. I hope OTC Markets goes the same route.

I also hope that OTC Markets changes its policy of penalizing a company’s ability to provide current public information, because of recent stock volatility and/or internet chat activity. In January 2021 the equity markets saw unprecedented volatility fueled in part by the use of trading apps such as Robinhood and TD Ameritrade and chat rooms such as on Reddit. Many exchange traded middle market companies, such as GameStop and AMC Theaters, were affected as were multiple OTC Markets entities, many of which lacked current public information. In February 2021 the SEC suspended the trading of several OTC Markets companies as result of social media triggered trading volatility without corresponding public information. Of course, this was a valid response.

However, I do not understand OTC Markets denying the ability to provide current information as a result of third-party social media activity or trading volatility (especially when the whole market was experiencing trading volatility). As OTC Markets pointed out in its comment letter response to the proposed 15c2-11 rules and in its application to the SEC for the formation of an expert market, there are companies that trade without current public information that are legitimate businesses. There are also many companies that are now motivated to provide current information as a result of the impending 211 compliance date. They should be allowed to do so, regardless of trading activity.

I note that if any of these companies have engaged in improper stock promotion, pump and dump activity, providing fraudulent or inaccurate public information or misinformation, there are numerous remedies available. The OTC Markets can tag the company with a caveat emptor designation and the SEC can initiate a trading suspension and subsequent enforcement action.

Even once an application for filing code access is granted, all information must be reviewed by OTC Markets prior to receiving current information status or confirmation of 15c2-11 eligibility. Absent actual identifiable bad actors, this seems the best gateway for OTC Markets to exercise its gatekeeper role. Also, in that gatekeeper role, OTC Markets should follow its stated position in its comment letter to the SEC in response to the 211 rule changes and make the review process more objective and efficient. OTC Markets should not review the merits of the information itself. The goal should be to ensure the markets have the information mandated by Rule 15c2-11, that such information is publicly available for the investing community, and that an issuer has the responsibility for the accuracy of the information.

Proposed Rule 144 Rule Changes

On December 22, 2020, the SEC proposed amendments to Rule 144 which would eliminate tacking of a holding period upon the conversion or exchange of a market adjustable security that is not traded on a national securities exchange. Market adjustable securities usually take the form of convertible notes which have become a very popular and common form of financing for micro- and small-cap public companies over the past decade or so but have been under attack in recent years. The reasoning for the attacks range from the dilutive effect of the financing (yes, it’s dilutive); to labeling all market adjustable security investors and lenders as predatory sharks swimming in a sea of innocent guppies; to the SEC’s claim that serial lenders are acting as unlicensed dealers; to no articulated reason at all.

When the rule was first proposed and I blogged about it (see HERE), I saw the rule as adding some clarity to an opaque attack by market participants against a category of investors. In other words, I saw it as adding boundaries to what was otherwise just discrimination. Now I think it is a reactive, under-educated, excessive regulatory response to a perceived issue, fraught with unintended consequences. The hardest hit group from the fallout of this rule will be woman- and minority-majority-owned businesses.

In a standard convertible note structure, an investor lends money in the form of a convertible promissory note. Generally, the note can either be repaid in cash, or if not repaid, can be converted into securities of the issuer. Since Rule 144 allows for tacking of the holding period as long as the convertible note is outstanding for the requisite holding period, the investor would be able to sell the underlying securities into the public market immediately upon conversion. The notes generally convert at a discount to market price so if the converted securities are sold quickly, it appears that a profit is built in. The selling pressure from the converted shares has a tendency to push down the stock price of the issuer. On the flip side, because of the market adjustable feature, the lender can usually offer a lower interest rate and better terms.

The notes also generally have an equity blocker (usually 4.99%) such that the holder is prohibited from owning more than a certain percentage of the company at any given time to ensure they will never be deemed an affiliate and will not have to file ownership reports under either Sections 13 or 16 of the Exchange Act (for more on Sections 13 and 16, see HERE). As a result, there is the potential for a note holder to require multiple conversions each at 4.99% of the outstanding company stock in order to satisfy the debt. Each conversion would be at a discount to the market price with the market price being lower each time as a result of the selling pressure. This can result in a large increase in the number of outstanding shares and a decrease in the share price. Over the years, this type of financing has often been referred to as “toxic.”

Extreme dilution is only possible in companies that do not trade on a national securities exchange. Both the NYSE and Nasdaq have provisions that prohibit the issuance of more than 20% of total outstanding shares, at a discount to a minimum price, without prior shareholder approval. For more on the 20% Rule, see HERE. In addition to protecting the shareholders from dilution, the 20% Rule is a built-in blocker against distributions and as such, the SEC proposed Ruel 144 change only includes securities of an issuer that does not have a class of securities listed, or approved to be listed, on a national securities exchange.

Although on first look it sounds like these transactions are risk-free for the investor and that the proposed legislation makes perfect sense – they are not and it does not. Putting aside the fact that not even the SEC could enunciate the problem they are trying to fix (the SEC does not even mention extreme dilution), and only provided a few sentences on the economic impact of the rule (i.e., the impact is “unclear”), a further review makes it obvious the rule doesn’t make sense.

It isn’t all profits and using dollars to light cigars for adjustable security investors. First, Rule 144 itself creates some hurdles. In particular, in order to rely on the shorter six-month holding period for reporting companies, the company must be current in its reporting obligations. Also, if the company was formerly a shell company, it must always remain current in its reporting obligations to rely on Rule 144. If a company becomes delinquent, the investor can no longer convert its debt and oftentimes the company does not have the cash to pay back the obligation. Further, over the years it has become increasingly difficult to deposit the securities of penny stock issuers. Regardless of whether Rule 144 requires current information, most brokerage firms will not accept the deposit of securities of a company without current information, and many law firms, including mine, will not render an opinion for the securities of those dark companies.

There are market risks as well. If a company has very low volume and/or an extremely low price, market adjustment will not save the day for the investor. Also, conversion is generally based on a formula over the days prior to the conversion. There is no guarantee that the price will not drop in the time it takes to convert and deposit securities. Of course, there is the time value of money. No matter what, an investor is in for 6 months and would have foregone options on how to put the money to better use.

The problems with the proposed rule go deeper. I urge everyone to read the Comments of the SPCC in response to the rule, the response letter by Michael A. Adelstein, Partner at Kelley, Drye & Warren, LLP and the numerous, almost across the board, comments in opposition to the proposed rule. Whereas the SEC proposed rule contains almost no economic analysis whatsoever, the SPCC’s 187-page response contains an in-depth economic analysis by James Overdahl, Ph.D, who is the former Chief Economist for both the SEC and the . The results are grim, especially for development stage companies with limited capital and revenue.

It is quite possible that the rule’s implementation will bankrupt hundreds of small public companies. As the SEC notes, unlisted small public companies often have one source, and only one source, of quick affordable capital and that is market adjustable convertible securities. Eliminating this source of financing will likely drive these companies out of business (eliminating jobs and investment funds at the same time). As it is undeniably harder for woman and minorities to raise money, especially from traditional sources, they will be the hardest hit. (See my summary of the Annual Report of Office of Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation – HERE.)

The SEC comment letter focuses on the grievous consequences to small businesses as well as the legal legislative issues with the proposed rule (arbitrary and capricious, etc.). The letter also contains an excellent history of Rule 144 including citing the numerous reasons the SEC amended the rule in 1997 to codify the long-standing practice of allowing tacking to the original issue date of a convertible note upon conversion to securities. Likewise, the comment letter contains a thoughtful dissertation that convertible notes are not overly dilutive but rather provide an affordable valuable form of financing and support the SEC’s mission of promoting access to capital for small companies.

Michael A. Adelstein’s comment response letter takes a more analytic approach with a broader market view discussing the different types of issues and investors and even propounding alternative language to the proposed rule. The fact is that the issuers targeted by the proposed rule change are generally not S-3 eligible, cannot rely on the National Securities Market Improvements Act for registrations (i.e., they must comply with state blue sky laws which are arduous) and generally have smaller floats limiting the amount that could be sold in a re-sale registration statement (because it would be considered an indirect primary offering). For these companies’ private placements of public equity or debt (i.e., a PIPE) is the only potential source of meaningful capital. If the company properly uses the capital obtained in PIPE transactions, they will grow out of the need for market-adjustable securities and will move on to registered and underwritten offerings.

Moreover, the SEC does not even consider the impact on small exchange traded companies. If an exchange traded company is struggling financially, under the new rules, it is unlikely that an investor will provide market adjustable convertible sources of capital for fear the company will be delisted and they will lose the ability to tack onto the holding period. As Mr. Adelstein notes, “[A] market-adjustable security can save entire businesses and thousands of jobs, as well as some or all of the value of investments already made into such businesses.”

Likewise, the SEC focuses only on convertible notes, disregarding the multiple types of market adjustable convertible securities which will also be impacted such as floaters, amorts, resets, forced convertibles and default convertibles. Mr. Adelstein’s comment letter contains an excellent discussion of these different types of instruments and provisions, but the most important point is it is not a one-size-fits-all investment. The SEC must at least consider the use of these different instruments and what impact a broad swipe of the pen can have.

Similarly, not all investors are the same. The SEC lumps together all market-adjustable security investors as pump-and-dump offenders out to take advantage of the marketplace. This simply isn’t true. There are some bad actors, but in my experience the majority are sophisticated investors looking to establish a long-term funding relationship with a client. The dumpers earn a reputation as such very quickly and are not sought after for further investments. I don’t mean to say the good ones are purely altruistic, but it just makes good business sense to establish long-term relationships and trade wisely to support growth. Fundamentals count. It is costly from an administrative perspective (accounting, deposit fees, opinion letters, brokerage fees, etc.) to manage multiple small investments. Also, the profit ratio for small investments is significantly lower than for larger ones. A company that utilizes capital properly and continues to grow will have a higher sustained stock price, more volume and more access to a diverse portfolio of capital only rounding out with market adjustable securities. A sophisticated investor will not just dump but will wait for good news and market changes, trading strategically. In this case, all investors make a larger return on investment dollars and are invited back to participate in future opportunities with even higher potential ROI’s and growth opportunities (every company is a small company in the beginning).

Considering the dramatic negative impact, the proposed rule will have on small and micro-cap companies, it seems obvious that there are many, less intrusive ways in which to approach the perceived problem. The SEC could require shareholder approval for any market adjustable convertible security issuance that could result in 20% or greater dilution, mirroring the current Exchange rules for all public companies. The SEC could also allow for tacking where, in fact, the securities were not issued at a discount to market regardless of market adjustable provisions in the security.

SEC Unlicensed Dealer Litigation

Prior to proposing the amendment to Rule 144, the SEC launched a different attack on investors/lenders of market adjustable securities. In November 2017 the SEC shocked the industry when it filed an action against Microcap Equity Group, LLC and its principal alleging that its investing activity required licensing as a dealer under Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. Since that time, the SEC has filed approximately four more cases with the sole allegation being that the investor acted as an unregistered dealer. I am aware of several other entities that are under investigation for the same activity, which will likely result in enforcement actions.

The SEC certainly knew of the proliferation of convertible note and other market adjustable securities financings over the years. Rule 415 governs the registration requirements for the sale of securities to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis, such as in the case of the take down or conversion of convertible debt and warrants. In 2006 the SEC issued guidance on Rule 415 that the rule would not be available for re-sale registration statements where in excess of 30% of the company’s float was being registered for re-sale. The SEC indicated it would view such registrations as indirect primary offerings, that could not be priced at the market. The SEC action was in direct response to the proliferation of market adjustable equity line of credit financings during that time. Although there were a few large investors that did the majority of the financings, the SEC did not raise the dealer issue.

As mentioned before the Rule 144, 1997 amendment which specifically allowed tacking of the conversion holding period, spoke in depth as to this kind of financing. Likewise, the 2008 amendments that reduced the holding periods to six months and one year also addressed convertible financing and added a provision to clarify that tacking is also allowed upon the exercise of options and warrants where there is a cashless exercise feature. Again, the SEC did not raise an issue that the most prolific investors could be acting as an unlicensed dealer. To the contrary, the SEC recognized the importance of this type of financing.

On September 26, 2016, and again on the 27th, the SEC brought enforcement actions against issuers for the failure to file 8-K’s associated with corporate finance transactions and in particular PIPE transactions involving the issuance of convertible debt, preferred equity, warrants and similar instruments. Prior to the announcement of these actions, I had been hearing rumors in the industry that the SEC has issued “hundreds” of subpoenas (likely an exaggeration) to issuers related to PIPE transactions and to determine 8-K filing deficiencies. See HERE for my blog at the time. The SEC did not mention any potential violations by the investors themselves.

Nothing in the prior SEC rule making, interpretive guidance, or enforcement actions foresaw the current dealer litigation issue. The SEC litigation put a chill on convertible note investing and has left the entire world of hedge funds, family offices, day traders, and serial PIPE investors wondering if they can rely on previously issued SEC guidance and practice on the dealer question. So far, the SEC has only filed actions for unlicensed dealer activity against investors that invest specifically using convertible notes in penny stock issuers. Although there is a long-standing legal premise that a dealer in a thing must buy and sell the same thing (a car parts dealer is not an auto dealer, an icemaker is not a water dealer, etc.), there is nothing in the broker-dealer regulatory regime or guidance that limits broker-dealer registration requirements based on the form of the security being bought, sold or traded or the size of the issuer.

Specifically, there is no precedent for the theory that if you trade in convertible notes instead of open market securities, private placements instead of registered deals, bonds instead of stock, or warrants instead of preferred stock, etc., you either must be licensed as a dealer or are exempt. Likewise, there is nothing in the broker dealer regime that suggests that if you invest in penny stock issuers vs. middle market or exchange traded entities you need to be licensed as a dealer. Again, the entire community that serially invests or trades in public companies is in a state of regulatory uncertainty and the capital flow to small- and micro-cap companies has diminished accordingly. Although the SEC has had some wins in the litigations, the issue is far from settled.

Importantly, the dealer litigation, together with the proposed Rule 144 rule changes, makes it that much harder for small and developing public companies to obtain financing to execute on their business plans, support job growth and support the U.S. economy.

OTC Markets QB Standards

I mentioned above that most of the comment letter responses to the proposed Rule 144 amendments were in opposition to the rule change. One that was not, is OTC Markets itself. In supporting the proposed rule change, OTC Markets merely suggested that it not discriminate against OTC Markets securities, but rather that the new rule should apply across the board to both OTC Markets and Exchange traded issuers.

OTC Markets is in a unique position to witness the red flags of micro-cap fraud and has valiantly been engaged in an uphill battle to combat that fraud, and earn the respect of the SEC, FINRA and other regulators. To its credit, it has done an amazing job. Nothing is more illustrative of that than the complete dichotomy between the December 16, 2016 SEC White Paper on penny stocks which disregarded OTC Markets as a viable marketplace and showed a complete disinterest in it or its efforts to create a venture market (see HERE) and the new 15c2-11 rule release which hands over the power to determine compliance with the rule to OTC Markets itself.

Moreover, in the years prior to the 2016 White Paper and certainly since, the OTC Markets has consistently implemented new rule and policy changes, all in an effort to deter micro-cap fraud and create a respected market. They have and are succeeding.

But I don’t agree with everything. In recent years, OTC Markets has taken a stance against convertible note lenders and the issuers that rely on their financing. Effective October 1, 2020, OTC Markets formally updated its QB rules to add that it may “[R]efuse the application for any reason, including but not limited to stock promotion, dilution risk, and use of ‘toxic’ financiers if it determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that the admission of the Company’s securities for trading on OTCQB, would be likely to impair the reputation or integrity of OTC Markets Group or be detrimental to the interests of investors.”

This would be fair enough if, like FINRA, it only denied an application if one of the investors or participants was a bad actor under the SEC rules, or had actual proceedings filed against it. Rather, though, OTC Markets has taken it one step further and has been denying the majority of QB applications where the applicant has convertible securities on the books.

In the past few months, this has become a big topic of conversation among market participants. In addition to clients and potential clients, other attorneys, broker-dealers and transfer agents have reached out to me to discuss insight or guidance. Is one convertible instrument enough to deny a QB application? Is three too many? Why are applications being denied even when the convertible instruments are not market adjustable? Will shareholder approval of the financings solve the problem? What if the total amount of potential dilution is less than 20%? 10% or even 5%?

Yesterday, on June 7, 2021, OTC Markets published some guidance on dilution risk associated with an OTCQB or OTCQX application. OTC Markets is focusing on:

Whether an issuer has recent or currently outstanding convertible notes with conversion features that provide significant discounts to the current market price and whether such notes are held by company officers, directors and control persons;
Whether an issuer has other classes of outstanding securities that are convertible into common stock at largely discounted rates and are not held by officers or directors;
A capital table and/or “toxic financing” structure that will substantially reorganize the share ownership of the company;
Whether an issuer has had a history of substantial increases in the amount of its outstanding shares;
Whether an issuer has had a history of multiple or large reverse stock splits; and
Whether an issuer has engaged lenders that have been the subjects of regulatory actions regarding “toxic financing” and related concerns.

The OTC Markets guidance indicates that an application can be renewed if a company takes corrective measures including enhancing corporate governance, providing additional disclosure, changing capital structure or adding protections for minority investors.

Although we appreciate all guidance, it is still opaque. It comes down to effectively identifying and solving a problem. The guidance indicates “substantial discount to market” but in my experience, even convertible notes at a fixed conversion price have been problematic. I know OTC Markets wants to allow listings on the QB and QX and is also trying to be a good steward and fiduciary to the marketplace. It is clear that we are in a period of transition.

In addition to the existence of convertible debt, like the OTCIQ application, OTC Markets has been doing a deep-dive merit review on all companies that apply to the QB and has been quick to deny an application, often without articulating the reasons or in perfunctory emails with a high-level reason that has been the source of some frustration for applicants.

Trading on the QB is not merely for optics. It has a definitive regulatory and capital raising impact.

The OTC Pink is not a Recognized Marketplace

A company that trades on the OTC Pink market may not rely on Rule 415 to file a re-sale registration statement whereby the selling shareholders can sell securities into the market at market price. That is, all registration statements, whether re-sale, primary or indirect primary, must be at a fixed price unless the issuer is trading on the OTCQB or higher.

Rule 415 sets forth the requirements for engaging in a delayed offering or offering on a continuous basis. Under Rule 415 a re-sale offering may be made on a delayed or continuous basis other than at a fixed price (i.e., it may be priced at the market). It is axiomatic that for a security to be sold at market price, there must be a market. There was a time when the SEC refused to recognize any of the tiers of OTC Markets, as a “market” for purposes of at-the-market offerings. On May 16, 2013, the SEC issued a C&DI recognizing the OTCQB and OTCQX as market for purposes of filing and pricing a re-sale registration statement.

However, OTC Pink is still not a recognized market. As there is no actual rule that identifies what is a market for purposes of Rule 415, the SEC has looked to Item 501(b)(3) of Regulation S-K. Item 501 provides the requirements for disclosing the offering price of securities on the forepart of a registration statement and outside front cover page of a prospectus. Item 501 requires that either a fixed price be disclosed or a formula or other method to determine the offering price based on market price. The SEC uses this rule to require a fixed price where a company trades on the OTC Pink since there is no identifiable “market” to tie a price too.

In light of the SEC dealer litigation and proposed Rule 144 amendments, many companies are engaging with investors for registered offerings. Even though the SEC is a proponent of exempt offerings (thus the redo of the entire exempt offering structure in November 2020), it seems that encouraging companies to register offerings will reduce micro-cap fraud and should be supported by OTC Markets. However, in order to properly utilize registration statements for capital market financing transactions, a company must trade on the OTCQB or better. A company’s added difficulty in being accepted to trade on the QB is just another notch on the tightening noose of OTC Markets companies.

« SEC Re-Opens Comments On The Use Of Universal Proxy Cards SEC Announces It Will Not Enforce Amended Rules Governing Proxy Advisors »

The OTCQB Has Added Additional Quantitative Listing Standards

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | August 14, 2018 Tags: OTC Markets, OTCQB, The OTCQB Has Added Additional Quantitative Listing Standards

On May 20, 2018, the OTC Markets Group published the OTCQB Standards version 3.0 incorporating amendments to the OTCQB initial and ongoing listing standards to add further quantitative shareholder and public float requirements. The new standards went into effect on May 20, 2018 for new listing applications. Existing OTCQB traded companies have until May 20, 2020 to comply with the new requirements.

The amended listing standards now require that an applicant company:

Have at least 50 beneficial shareholders holding at least one round lot (100 shares) each;
Have a freely tradeable public float of at least 10% of the total issued and outstanding shares of the tradeable class of securities. OTC Markets may allow an exemption from this requirement for companies with a public float above 5% of total issued and outstanding and whose market value of public float is above $2 million or for a company that has a separate class of securities trading on a national exchange. Any exemption must be applied for in writing and will be granted at OTC Markets Group’s sole and absolute discretion.

Previously in October 2017, OTC Markets amended its OTCQB rules to increase the annual listing fee from $10,000 to $12,000. Prior to that on July 31, 2017, the OTC Markets Group enacted amendments to the OTCQB standards related to the processing and reporting of change in control events. For a review of the change of control standards, see HERE.

A review of OTCQB Listing Standards

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

Eligibility Requirements

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

Meet a minimum closing bid price on OTC Markets of $0.01 for each of the last 30 calendar days and as of the day the OTCQB application is approved;
In the event that there is no prior public market and a 15c2-11 application has recently been approved by FINRA allowing a quotation at $0.01 or greater, or if the company is traded on a Qualified Foreign Exchange at a price greater than $0.01, OTC Markets can waive the bid requirement at its sole discretion. In this case, the company’s stock must trade above the $0.01 for each of the 30 calendar days immediately subsequent to the company first being quoted on the OTCQB;
Have at least 50 beneficial shareholders, each owning at least 100 shares;
Have a freely tradeable public float of at least 10% of the total shares issued and outstanding of the class of security to be traded on the OTCQB. OTC Markets may allow an exemption from this requirement for companies with a public float above 5% of total issued and outstanding and whose market value of public float is above $2 million or for a company that has a separate class of securities trading on a national exchange. Any exemption must be applied for in writing and will be granted at OTC Markets Group’s sole and absolute discretion;
Have current disclosure by meeting one of the following: (a) being subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and be current in such reporting obligations; (b) being a Regulation A reporting company and be current in such reporting obligations; (c) if an international issuer, be eligible to rely on the registration exemption found in Exchange Act Rule 12g-2(b) and be current and compliant in such requirements; (d) be a bank current in its reporting obligations to its bank regulator; or (e) be current in the OTC Markets Alternative Reporting Standards;
Have U.S. GAAP audited financials prepared by a PCAOB qualified auditor, including an audit opinion that is not adverse, disclaimed or qualified. International reporting companies or companies trading on a qualified foreign exchange may have audited financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS. Regulation A reporting companies are exempt from the requirement that the initial audits be prepared by a PCAOB auditor; however, subsequent financial statements are required to have a PCAOPB audit;
Be duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of each jurisdiction in which it is organized and does business;
Not be subject to any bankruptcy or reorganization proceedings;
Submit an application and pay an application and annual fee;
Maintain a current and accurate company profile on the OTC Markets website;
Use an SEC registered transfer agent and authorize the transfer agent to provide information to OTC Markets about the company’s securities, including but not limited to shares authorized, shares issued and outstanding, and share issuance history; and
Submit an OTCQB Annual Certification confirming the accuracy of the current company profile and providing information on officers, directors and controlling shareholders.
For companies that are relying on the Alternative Reporting Standard (i.e., not reporting to the SEC), meet minimum corporate governance requirements, including (i) have a board of directors that includes at least two independent directors; and (ii) have an audit committee comprised of a majority of independent directors. A company may request the ability to phase in compliance with this requirement if: (a) at least one member of the board of directors and audit committee are independent at the time of the application; and (b) at least two members of the board and a majority of the audit committee are independent within the later of 90 days after the company begins trading on the OTCQB or by the time of the company’s next annual meeting and in no event later than one year from joining the OTCQB.

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

Confirmation that the company is current in its SEC reporting obligations, whether subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements or Regulation A reporting requirements, and has filed all reports with the SEC on the EDGAR system that all financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, and that the auditor opinion is not adverse, disclaimed or qualified;
Bank Reporting Companies must have filed all financial reports required to be filed with their banking regulator for the prior two years, including audited financial statements;
International Companies – (i) Companies subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements must be current in such reports; (ii) A company that is not an SEC Reporting company must be current and fully compliant in its obligations under Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b), if applicable, and shall have posted in English through the OTC Disclosure & News Service or an Integrated Newswire, the information required to be made publicly available pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b) for the preceding 24 months (or from inception if less than 24 months); and all financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and that the auditor opinion is not adverse, disclaimed or qualified;
Alternative Reporting Companies must have filed, through the OTC Disclosure and News Services, an information and disclosure statement meeting the requirements of the OTCQX and OTCQB disclosure guidelines. If the company was an SEC Reporting Company immediately prior to joining OTCQB and has a current 10-K or 20-F on file with the SEC, or was a Regulation A Reporting Company immediately prior to joining OTCQB and has a current 1-K on file with the SEC, the company is not required to file an information statement through the OTC Disclosure & News Service, but subsequent to joining OTCQB must file all annual, quarterly, interim and current reports required pursuant to the OTCQX and OTCQB Disclosure Guidelines; and
Verified Company Profile – verification that the company profile is current, complete and accurate.

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

The company’s reporting standing (i.e., whether SEC reporting, Regulation A reporting, Alternative Standards Reporting, bank reporting or international reporting) and briefly describing the registration status or the applicable exemption from SEC registration of the company;
If the company is an international company and relying on 12g3-2(b), that it is current in such obligations;
That the company is current in its reporting obligations as of the most recent fiscal year end and any subsequent reporting periods and that such information has been filed either on EDGAR or the OTC Disclosure & News Service, as applicable;
That the company profile on the OTC Markets website is current and complete and includes the total shares outstanding, authorized and in the public float as of that date;
The number of beneficial shareholders holding at least 100 shares and the number of shares in the public float as of the least practicable date;
That the company is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of each state or jurisdiction in which the company is organized and conducts business;
Identifies the law firm and/or attorneys that assist the company in preparing its annual report or 10-K. Include the firm and attorney name if outside counsel, or name and title if internal counsel. If no attorney assisted in putting together the disclosure, the company must identify the person or persons who prepared the disclosure and their relationship to the company;
Identifies any third-party providers engaged by the company, its officers, directors or controlling shareholders, during the prior fiscal year and up to the date of the certification, to provide investor relations services, public relations services, stock promotion services or related services;
Names and shareholdings of all officers and directors and shareholders that beneficially own 5% or more of the total outstanding shares, including beneficial ownership of entity shareholders.

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

Requirements for Bank Reporting Companies

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

International Companies

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

Application Review Process

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

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

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

Ongoing Requirements

All companies are required to remain in compliance with the OTCQB standards, including the ongoing disclosure obligations;
S. OTCQB companies will be required to remain current and timely in their SEC reporting obligations, including either Exchange Act reports, Regulation A+ reports or Alternative Reporting Standard and including all audited financial statement requirements;
A foreign company that is not an SEC Reporting Company must remain current and fully compliant in its obligations under Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b), if applicable, and in any event shall, on an ongoing basis, post in English through the OTC Disclosure & News Service or an Integrated Newswire the information required to be made publicly available pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b);
Audited financial statements must be prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP or, for international reporting companies or alternative reporting companies listed on a qualified foreign exchange, IFRS and all must contain an audit opinion that is not adverse, disclaimed or qualified. Audits must be completed by a PCAOB qualified auditor.
Banks must remain current in their banking reporting requirements and file copies of their reports on the OTC Markets website no later than 45 days following the end of a quarter or 90 days following the end of the fiscal year;
All OTC Markets postings and reports must be filed within 45 days following the end of a quarter or 90 days following the end of the fiscal year for US Exchange Act issuers and Alternative Reporting Standard filers, as required by Regulation A+ for Regulation A+ reporting issuers, and immediately after their submission to their primary regulator for international companies; where applicable, file a notice of late filing allowing for 5 extra days on a quarterly report and 15 extra days on an annual or semiannual report;
All OTCQB companies will be required to post annual certifications on the OTC Markets website signed by either the CEO or CFO no later than 30 days following the company’s annual report due date;
All companies are required to comply with all federal, state, and international securities laws and must cooperate with all securities regulatory agencies;
Must pay the annual fee within 30 days of prior to the beginning of each new annual service period;
All companies must respond to OTC Markets inquiries and requests;
All companies must maintain an updated verified company profile on the OTC Markets website and must submit a Company Update Form at least once every six months;
OTCQB is a recognized securities manual for purposes of blue sky secondary market exceptions. A precondition to relying upon the manual’s exemption is the maintenance of current updated disclosure information as required by OTC Markets;
All companies must make a press release and possibly other public disclosure (such as a Form 8-K) to inform the public of any news or information which might be reasonably expected to materially affect the market of its securities;
An OTCQB company must act promptly to dispel unfounded rumors which result in unusual market activity or price variations;
All companies must file interim disclosures in the event the company undergoes a reverse merger or change of control and make new updated certifications and disclosure related to the new business and control persons;
All OTCQB companies are subject to the OTC Markets Stock Promotion Policy, as such policy may be amended from time to time. In the event that OTC Markets determines, upon its sole discretion, that a company is the subject of promotional activities that encourage trading, OTC Markets may require the company to provide additional public information related to shareholdings of officers, directors and control persons and confirmation of shares outstanding, and any share issuance in the prior two years. OTC Markets may also require submission of a Personal Information Form for any executive officer, director or 5%-or-greater shareholder;
OTCQB companies must quickly issue press releases to the public to disclose any news or information which might reasonably be expected to materially affect the market for its securities.
Not be subject to bankruptcy or reorganization proceedings;
Be duly organized and in good standing under the laws of each jurisdiction in which the company is organized or does business;
Have at least 50 beneficial shareholders, each owning at least 100 shares;
Have a freely tradeable public float of at least 10% of the total shares issued and outstanding of the class of security to be traded on the OTCQB. OTC Markets may allow an exemption from this requirement for companies with a public float above 5% of total issued and outstanding and whose market value of public float is above $2 million or for a company that has a separate class of securities trading on a national exchange. Any exemption must be applied for in writing and will be granted at OTC Markets Group’s sole and absolute discretion;
Companies relying on the Alternative Reporting Standard must comply with the ongoing corporate governance requirements subject to a notice and one-year grace period if the company falls into noncompliance;
All OTCQB companies must meet the minimum bid price of $.01 per share at the close of business of at least one of the previous thirty (30) consecutive calendar days; in the event that the price falls below $.01, the company will begin a grace period of 90 calendar days to maintain a closing bid price of $.01 for ten consecutive trading days; and
Use an SEC registered transfer agent and authorize the transfer agent to provide information to OTC Markets about the company’s securities, including but not limited to shares authorized, shares issued and outstanding, and share issuance history.

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

Procedures for Change in Control Events

A “change in control event” is defined to mean a transaction resulting in: (i) a change in the majority ownership or effective control of a company; (ii) material changes to the company’s management team or board of directors; or (iii) in conjunction with either of the above, a material change in the nature of the company’s business operations.

Under Section 2.4, a company will be responsible for notifying OTC Markets upon the completion of a transaction resulting in a change of control. Regardless of notification, OTC Markets may also make a discretionary determination that a change of control event has occurred.

Upon a change of control event, a company will be required to submit a OTCQB Change in Control Notification together with a new OTCQB Application and application fee ($2,500) within 20 calendar days. OTC Markets will review the notice and application and may request additional information. The failure to respond or fully comply with such requests may result in removal from the OTCQB.

Furthermore, immediately following a change in control event, a company would be required to file a new OTCQB Certification and updated company profile page.

Fees

Newly applying entities must pay an initial application fee of $2,500, which fee is waived for existing OTCQB entities. All OTCQB companies will be required to pay an annual fee of $12,000. Companies may opt to make two semiannual installments of $6,500. Fees are nonrefundable.

Removal/Suspension from OTCQB

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

Companies are granted a cure period of 30 calendar days for failure to maintain the minimum ongoing beneficial shareholder amount and public float requirements. A company may apply in writing to OTC Markets Group for an extension of the 30-day cure period by submitting a plan to cure the deficiency, which extension may be granted by OTC Markets Group in its sole and absolute discretion.

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

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

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

The Author

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

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

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

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

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

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

« SEC Issues Additional C&DI On Use Of Non-GAAP Measures SEC Adopts Inline XBRL »

OTC Markets Makes Several Regulatory Recommendations

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | May 15, 2018 Tags: OTC Markets, OTC Markets Makes Several Regulatory Recommendations

On March 8, 2018, Cromwell Coulson, CEO of OTC Markets Group, made a presentation to the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee (“IAC”) as part of a panel on “Discussion of Regulatory Approaches to Combat Retail Investor Fraud.” During the meeting, Mr. Coulson discussed the most serious market risks and presented a list of 14 OTC Market’s regulatory recommendations to improve disclosure and combat these market risks.

A review of OTC Markets website on April 24, 2018 shows 10,469 traded securities, $1.1 billion volume, 7.2 billion share volume and 174,268 trades. In his remarks to the IAC, Mr. Coulson points out that 98% of the traded dollar volume of companies on OTC Markets make current information available. Echoing the SEC’s “Main Street investor” focus, he states that “[W]e have many stocks on our markets that are completely appropriate to be part of a diversified, long term, investment portfolio, of a main street investor; we also have speculative securities that are only appropriate for risk tolerant trader.”

However, certainly the trading in all equity securities, and especially small-cap securities, has risk. Mr. Coulson identifies what he believes are the three biggest risks to retain investors. In particular: (i) manipulative online promotion, including fraudulent and misleading information; (ii) share dilution, including through equity line financings, toxic convertible instruments and illegal share distributions; and (iii) bad actors, with a suggestion to allow for a speedy trading freeze to prevent ongoing frauds. I note that in its recent comment letters to FINRA related to the 15c2-11 process, OTC Markets suggested that it be given the power to institute short-term trading halts in response to improper activity and/or a lack of proper disclosure (see).

As part of OTC Markets’ recently adopted stock promotion policy and best practices guidelines to improve investor transparency (see HERE), OTC Markets conducted an investigative initiative to track promotion activities. Coulson indicates that data reveals that 70% of dollar volume of securities impacted by promotional activities are listed and trade on national exchanges. Moreover, promoted securities usually have significant share dilution and are rarely suspended by the SEC. Although OTC Markets stock promotion policies are helpful, Mr. Coulson suggests that regulatory modernization is also needed to require increased disclosure of online paid stock promotion and the people behind such promotions.

Coulson also addressed the issue of short selling. Internet-based forums, especially anonymous forums that are used for stock manipulation, misinformation and fraudulent promotions, proclaim that short selling in small-cap securities is rampant and the cause of downward pricing pressure. The reality is that short selling in small-cap securities is generally minimal due to the high cost of borrow interest and coverage requirements. Most short selling is small companies is completed by market makers with a requirement to close out within 2 days. Coulson actually suggests that in addition to greater transparency and reporting of short selling activity, regulatory changes should be made to encourage heathy short selling and price stabilization efforts by market makers.

Another topic of concern and interest involves the illegal issuance of securities and affiliate trading. Coulson suggests transparency and information can help this issue. In particular, Coulson advocates for increasing the role of transfer agents as record keepers. I note that he did not use the words “gate keepers” and it is unclear from the transcript if that implication was there. On December 22, 2015, the SEC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and concept release on proposed new requirements for transfer agents and requesting public comment. See HERE. No further action has been taken since that time, and rules related to transfer agents have been moved from the SEC short-term agenda to long-term actions.

Also to further transparency related to illegal issuances and affiliate trading, Coulson suggests ending anonymous Objecting Beneficial Owner (OBO) accounts for affiliates of issuers. Likewise, Coulson suggests adding a reporting requirement similar to Forms 3, 4 and 5 under Section 16 for non-SEC reporting companies. For more on Section 16, see HERE.

To help combat fraud and provide a deterrent to bad actors, Coulson supports increased cooperation and communication between market operators, such as OTC Markets, and regulators. Using the analogy of real-time monitoring for credit card fraud, Coulson suggests real-time monitoring and responses by market operators to red flags and indicia of fraud. In order to make preventative responses feasible, there would have to be a system to allow for a relatively quick investigation and re-onboarding of trading for affected companies.

Coulson notes that much of the fraud in smaller public company trading emanates from unregulated intermediaries that have acquired shares in the private financing markets and are seeking to stimulate investor buying interest, so they can sell their shares. Although Coulson does not talk about regulating finders as a response to this problem, he does talk about stimulating financing options for smaller companies. I am a champion of a workable regulatory regime for finders and, as such, cannot pass this opportunity to raise the issue. For more on the current state of the law and my views, see HERE.

To stimulate financing options, Coulson suggests allowing SEC reporting companies to utilize Regulation A+ and increasing shelf registration options. I’ve written many times about my support for an amendment to Regulation A+ to allow SEC reporting companies to complete offerings. For more on Regulation A+ in general, see HERE and particularly related to the OTC Markets comment letter and arguments for allowing reporting companies to be eligible to use the offering, see HERE.

Coulson completed his presentation by talking about another topic that has been oft debated and for which I have strong opinions, and that is venture exchanges. The OTC Markets has worked hard to position itself as a venture exchange, but unfortunately has not received legislative support. In fact, OTC Markets does not always receive due regard at all from the SEC and Wall Street. Back in December 2016, the SEC issued a white paper on penny stocks in which it inaccurately, albeit implicitly, lumped all OTC Markets securities together as penny stocks and as providing limited disclosure. See HERE. To the contrary, one of the requirements to trade on the OTCQX tier of OTC Markets is that the security not be a penny stock. See HERE. Both the OTCQB and OTCQX require fairly robust disclosure, including audited financial statements. OTC Markets also has a flag which appears on a company’s quote page to identify if a particular security is exempt from the definition of a penny stock.

Mr. Coulson points out that in 2017, 61 companies graduated from the OTC Markets to a national exchange, illustrating the venture function of OTC Markets. Furthermore, realizing the need for legislation, Coulson states that any venture legislation should follow the European SME growth market model, be disclosure-driven, and include exchanges and ATS’s that already serve smaller companies (such as OTC Markets). For more on the importance of venture exchanges and specifics on how they should operate, see HERE.

Coulson rightfully adds, “[E]xchange listing is not a clear solution to solving the problems at hand. We need a more holistic approach, focusing on better investor information, rather than the hard-and-fast assertion that every exchange-traded security is safe, while all other securities are risky.”

Complete List of OTC Markets Regulatory Recommendations

The following is the full list of the 14 regulatory recommendations by OTC Markets.

Increase Paid Promoter Disclosure – OTC Markets recommends amending Securities Act Section 17(b) to require additional disclosures related to paid stock promotion and the people involved in such promotions. For more on stock promotion and Section 17(b), see HERE.
Provide More Disclosures from Affiliates, Insiders and Institutions – As discussed above, OTC Markets suggests limiting anonymous Objecting Beneficial Owner accounts for affiliates. Moreover, insider and affiliate trading should be reported by all publicly traded companies and not just those subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements. The reporting requirements should be similar to those under Section 16 for reporting companies. OTC Markets also suggests expanding Exchange Act Section 13(f) to OTC traded securities, requiring institutional investment managers to disclosure their holdings in all publicly traded securities, including short positions.
Improve Share Issuance Compliance – OTC Markets suggest that transfer agent regulations be modernized to provide broker-dealers with reliable information on the issuance, ownership and transfer history of shares.

4, Enable More Real-time SEC Enforcement – Interdealer quotation systems (IDQS) (like OTC Markets) should monitor ongoing disclosure by companies and have the ability to monitor and label late or deficient disclosures (such as OTC Markets does now). Furthermore, the SEC should work with these market operators to take quick action where there are indications of fraud, including with trading halts and suspensions.

Short Sale Reform – Require the timely disclosure of short sale positions and of aggregate industry activity. Also, allow more market maker short selling activity by amending Regulation SHO to extend the close-out time for short positions in OTC equity securities to 6 days as is current allowed for exchange traded securities.
Allow SEC Reporting Companies to Use Regulation A+ – See discussion above. In addition, in September 2017 the House passed the Improving Access to Capital Act, which would allow companies subject to the reporting requirements under the Exchange Act to use Regulation A.
Allow Companies to Sell Shares Directly into the Market – Allow companies that trade on an exchange or an established public market to easily sell their shares directly in the market.
Facilitate Competition in Venture Exchange Legislation – A monopoly venture exchange should be avoided. As discussed above, any venture legislation should follow the European SME growth market model, be disclosure-driven, and include exchanges and ATS’s that already serve smaller companies (such as OTC Markets).
Adopt Investor Suitability Standards Based on Experience and Risk Tolerance – Broker-dealers should be allowed to establish risk profiles based on trading experience and overall risk tolerance. Similar to this suggestion, I would suggest a modification to the accredited investor definition in line with the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies’ prior recommendations, including expanding the definition to take into account trading experience. See HERE.
Allow Payments for Market Making – FINRA Rule 5210 should be amended to allow broker-dealers to be compensated for out-of-pocket expenses associated with preparing and submitting a Form 211 to FINRA. For more, see HERE.
Bring Back the Federal Reserve OTC Margin List – Non-penny stock OTC securities should be marginable. OTC Markets suggests two possible solutions: (i) give the SEC, rather than the Federal Reserve Board, oversight of margin eligibility, or (ii) the margin list that was historically published by the Federal Reserve under Regulation T should be reinstated to make margin-eligible all non-penny stocks that are actively traded on “established public markets.”
Allow Small Companies to Effectively Provide Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) – IRS regulations limit the ability for non-exchange traded companies to effectively offer ESOP’s to employees. The definition of an “established securities market” contained in IRS regulations should be updated to include securities quoted on OTC Markets Group’s OTCQX and OTCQB markets.
Allow Trading Venues to Review and/or Submit FINRA Form 211 Filings – Currently only market makers may submit a Form 211 to FINRA. Trading venues registered with the SEC and FINRA should also be allowed to do so. For more on this, see HERE.
Update the SEC Definition of Penny Stocks (Exchange Act Rule 3a51-1) – Currently, biotech and other research-heavy companies may not meet the net tangible assets exemption (Subsection (g)(1)) from the definition of a penny stock. The review standard for net tangible assets (Subsection (g)(3)) should be updated to take into account interim capital raises for these types of companies. For more on the penny stock rules, see HERE.

The Author

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

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

« Going Public Without An IPO SEC Continues to Review, And Delay, Crypto Funds »

OTC Markets Group Establishes A Stock Promotion Policy

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

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

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

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

OTC Markets Group Policy on Stock Promotion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making unreasonable claims related to a company’s performance;

Directly or indirectly promising specific future performance;

Providing little or no factual information about the company;

Urging immediate action to avoid missing out;

Failing to provide disclosures related to risks of an investment.

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

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

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

OTC Markets Group Best Practices Guidelines for Stock Promotion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933

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

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

Further Reading on OTC Markets Group Rules

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

The Author

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

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

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

OTCQB Sets New Requirements For Change Of Control Events

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | September 5, 2017 Tags: Change Of Control Events, OTC Markets, OTCQB, OTCQB Sets New Requirements For Change Of Control Events

On June 30, 2017, the OTC Markets Group published amendments to the OTCQB standards related to the processing and reporting of change in control events. The new rules went into effect on July 31, 2017.

OTC Markets has been initiating a series of changes related to the OTCQB including amending the qualification requirements to allow quotation by companies that follow its alternative reporting standard (“Alternative Reporting Standard”) which went effective on May 18, 2017. For a review of the new qualification changes, see my blog HERE.

Highlights of Changes

The OTCQB has added a new Section 2.4 to the OTCQB Standards published by OTC Markets. The OTCQB Standards include a comprehensive summary of admission and eligibility requirements, application processes, initial and ongoing disclosure requirements, continued eligibility requirements, fees and removal processes.

Section 2 of the OTCQB Standards set forth the continued OTCQB Eligibility requirements, and includes the new Section 2.4 related to change in control events.

Upon a change of control event a company will be required to submit a OTCQB Change in Control Notification together with a new OTCQB Application and application fee ($2,500) within 20 calendar days. OTC Markets will review the notice and application and may request additional information. The failure to respond or fully comply with such requests may result in removal from the OTCQB.

Furthermore, immediately following a change in control event, a company would be required to file a new OTCQB Certification and updated company profile page.

I note that under the current Section 2.2(7)(d), a company is already required to make certain filings and disclosures to OTC Markets upon a change of control. In particular, all companies must file interim disclosures in the event the company undergoes a reverse merger or change of control and make new updated certifications and disclosure related to the new business and control persons.

Refresher on OTCQB Standards

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

Eligibility Requirements

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

Meet a minimum closing bid price on OTC Markets of $.01 for each of the last 30 calendar days and as of the day the OTCQB application is approved;

In the event that there is no prior public market and a 15c2-11 application has been submitted to FINRA by a market maker, OTC Markets can waive the bid requirement at its sole discretion;

In the event that a company is a seasoned public issuer that completed a reverse stock split within 6 months prior to applying to the OTCQB, the company must have a post-reverse-split minimum bid price of $.01 at the close of business on each of the 5 consecutive trading days immediately before applying to the OTCQB;

In the event the company is moving to the OTCQB from the OTCQX, it must have a minimum closing bid price of $.01 for at least one (1) of the 30 calendar days immediately preceding;

Companies may not be subject to bankruptcy or reorganization proceedings immediately preceding the company’s application;

Either be subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and be current in such reporting obligations, be a Tier 2 Regulation A reporting company and be current in such reporting obligations, or, if an international issuer, be eligible to rely on the registration exemption found in Exchange Act Rule 12g-2(b) and be current and compliant in such requirements or be a bank current in its reporting obligations to its bank regulator, or be current in the OTC Markets Alternative Reporting Standards;

Have U.S. GAAP audited financials prepared by a PCAOB qualified auditor, including an audit opinion that is not adverse, disclaimed or qualified. International reporting companies may have audited financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS;

Be duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of each jurisdiction in which it is organized and does business;

Submit an application and pay an application and annual fee;

Maintain a current and accurate company profile on the OTC Markets website;

Use an SEC registered transfer agent and authorize the transfer agent to provide information to OTC Markets about the company’s securities, including but not limited to shares authorized, shares issued and outstanding, and share issuance history; and

Submit an OTCQB Annual Certification confirming the accuracy of the current company profile and providing information on officers, directors and controlling shareholders.

For companies that are relying on the Alternative Reporting Standard (i.e., not reporting to the SEC), meet minimum corporate governance requirements, including (i) have a board of directors that includes at least two independent directors; and (ii) have an audit committee comprised of a majority of independent directors. A company may request the ability to phase in compliance with this requirement if: (a) at least one member of the board of directors and audit committee are independent at the time of the application; and (b) at least two members of the board and a majority of the audit committee are independent within the later of 90 days after the company begins trading on the OTCQB or by the time of the company’s next annual meeting and in no event later than one year from joining the OTCQB.

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

Confirmation that the company is current in its SEC reporting obligations, whether subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements or Regulation A+ reporting requirements, and has filed all reports with the SEC, that all financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, and that the auditor opinion is not adverse, disclaimed or qualified;

Bank Reporting Companies must have filed all financial reports required to be filed with their banking regulator for the prior two years, including audited financial statements;

International Companies – (i) Companies subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements must be current in such reports; (ii) A company that is not an SEC Reporting company must be current and fully compliant in its obligations under Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b), if applicable, and shall have posted in English through the OTC Disclosure & News Service or an Integrated Newswire, the information required to be made publicly available pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b) for the preceding 24 months (or from inception if less than 24 months); and all financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and that the auditor opinion is not adverse, disclaimed or qualified;

Alternative Reporting Companies must have filed, through the OTC Disclosure and News Services, an information and disclosure statement meeting the requirements of the OTCQX and OTCQB disclosure guidelines; and

Verification that the company profile is current, complete and accurate.

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

The company’s reporting standing (i.e., whether SEC reporting, Regulation A+ reporting, Alternative Standards Reporting, bank reporting or international reporting) and briefly describing the registration status of the company;

If the company is an international company and relying on 12g3-2(b), that it is current in such obligations;

That the company is current in its reporting obligations to its regulator and that such information is available either on EDGAR or the OTC Markets website;

That the company profile on the OTC Markets website is current and complete and includes the total shares outstanding, authorized and in the public float as of that date;

That the company is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of each state or jurisdiction in which the company is organized and conducts business;

States the law firm and/or attorneys that assist the company in preparing its annual report or 10-K;

Identifies any third-party providers engaged by the company, its officers, directors or controlling shareholders, during the prior fiscal year and up to the date of the certification, to provide investor relations services, public relations services, stock promotion services or related services;

Confirms the total shares authorized, outstanding and in the public float as of that date; and

Names and shareholdings of all officers and directors and shareholders that beneficially own 5% or more of the total outstanding shares, including beneficial ownership of entity shareholders.

Requirements for Bank Reporting Companies

International Companies

Application Review Process

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

Ongoing Requirements

All companies are required to remain in compliance with the OTCQB standards, including the ongoing disclosure obligations;

S. OTCQB companies will be required to remain current and timely in their SEC reporting obligations, including either Exchange Act reports, Regulation A+ reports or Alternative Reporting Standard and including all audited financial statement requirements;

A foreign company that is not an SEC Reporting Company must remain current and fully compliant in its obligations under Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b), if applicable, and in any event shall, on an ongoing basis, post in English through the OTC Disclosure & News Service or an Integrated Newswire the information required to be made publicly available pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b);

Banks must remain current in their banking reporting requirements and file copies of their reports on the OTC Markets website no later than 45 days following the end of a quarter or 90 days following the end of the fiscal year;

All OTC Markets postings and reports must be filed within 45 days following the end of a quarter or 90 days following the end of the fiscal year for US Exchange Act issuers and Alternative Reporting Standard filers, as required by Regulation A+ for Regulation A+ reporting issuers, and immediately after their submission to their primary regulator for international companies; where applicable, file a notice of late filing allowing for 5 extra days on a quarterly report and 15 extra days on an annual or semiannual report;

All OTCQB companies will be required to post annual certifications on the OTC Markets website signed by either the CEO or CFO no later than 30 days following the company’s annual report due date;

All companies are required to comply with all federal, state, and international securities laws and must cooperate with all securities regulatory agencies;

Must pay the annual fee within 30 days of prior to the beginning of each new annual service period;

All companies must respond to OTC Markets inquiries and requests;

All companies must maintain an updated verified company profile on the OTC Markets website and must submit a Company Update Form at least once every six months;

OTCQB is a recognized securities manual for purposes of blue sky secondary market exceptions. A precondition to relying upon the manuals exemption is the maintenance of current updated disclosure information as required by OTC Markets;

All companies must make a press release and possibly other public disclosure (such as a Form 8-K) to inform the public of any news or information which might be reasonably expected to materially affect the market of its securities;

All companies must file interim disclosures in the event the company undergoes a reverse merger or change of control and make new updated certifications and disclosure related to the new business and control persons;

In the event that OTC Markets determines, upon its sole discretion, that a company is the subject of promotional activities that encourage trading, OYC Markets may require the company to provide additional public information related to shareholdings of officers, directors and control persons and confirmation of shares outstanding, and any share issuance in the prior two years. OTC Markets may also require submission of a Personal Information Form for any executive officer, director or 5%-or-greater shareholder.

Not be subject to bankruptcy or reorganization proceedings;

Be duly organized and in good standing under the laws of each jurisdiction in which the company is organized or does business;

Companies relying on the Alternative Reporting Standard must comply with the ongoing corporate governance requirements subject to a notice and one-year grace period if the company falls into noncompliance;

All OTCQB companies must meet the minimum bid price of $.01 per share at the close of business of at least one of the previous thirty (30) consecutive calendar days; in the event that the price falls below $.01, the company will begin a grace period of 90 calendar days to maintain a closing bid price of $.01 for ten consecutive trading days; and

Fees

Removal/Suspension from OTCQB

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

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

The Author

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

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

« FINRA Issues New Guidance On Communications With The Public, Including Social Media SEC Announces Regulatory Agenda »

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

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

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

Highlights of Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comprehensive Refresher on OTCQB, Including the New Amendments

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

Eligibility Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requirements for Bank Reporting Companies

International Companies

Application Review Process

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

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

Ongoing Requirements

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

Fees

Removal/Suspension from OTCQB

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

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

The Author

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

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

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

Recommendations Of SEC Government-Business Forum On Small Business Capital Formation

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | May 23, 2017 Tags: ATS Registration, Blue Sky Pre-Emption, Finra, Form S-3, NASAA, Non-GAAP Accounting Standards, OTC Markets, Regulation A, Regulation CF, Regulation S-K, Rule 144, Rule 147, Rule 147A, Rule 15C2-11, Rule 504, Rule 506(b) Offerings, SEC, SEC Advisory Committee, SEC Office of Small Business Policy, SEC Rule 15c2-11, Section 4(a)(2), Small Business Capital Formation, Smaller Reporting Companies

In early April, the SEC Office of Small Business Policy published the 2016 Final Report on the SEC Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation, a forum I had the honor of attending and participating in. As required by the Small Business Investment Incentive Act of 1980, each year the SEC holds a forum focused on small business capital formation. The goal of the forum is to develop recommendations for government and private action to eliminate or reduce impediments to small business capital formation.

The forum is taken seriously by the SEC and its participants, including the NASAA, and leading small business and professional organizations. The forum began with short speeches by each of the SEC commissioners and a panel discussion, following which attendees, including myself, worked in breakout sessions to drill down on specific issues and suggest changes to rules and regulations to help support small business capital formation, as well as the related, secondary trading markets. In particular, the three breakout groups were on exempt securities offerings; smaller reporting companies; and the secondary market for securities of small businesses.

Each breakout group is given the opportunity to make recommendations. The recommendations were refined and voted upon by the forum participants in the few months following the forum and have now been released by the SEC in a report containing all 15 final recommendations. In the process, the participants ranked the recommendations by whether it is likely the SEC will give high, medium, low or no priority to each recommendation.

Recommendations often gain traction. For example, the forum first recommended reducing the Rule 144 holding period for Exchange Act reporting companies to six months, a rule which was passed in 2008. Last year the forum recommended increasing the financial thresholds for the smaller reporting company definition, and the SEC did indeed propose a change following that recommendation. See my blog HERE for more information on the proposed change. Also last year the forum recommended changes to Rule 147 and 504, which recommendations were considered in the SEC’s rule changes that followed. See my blog HERE for information on the new Rule 147A and Rule 147 and 504 changes.

Forum Recommendations

The following is a list of the recommendations listed in order or priority. The priority was determined by a poll of all participants and is intended to provide guidance to the SEC as to the importance and urgency assigned to each recommendation. I have included my comments and commentary with the recommendations.

As recommended by the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies, the SEC should (a) maintain the monetary thresholds for accredited investors; and (b) expand the categories of qualification for accredited investor status based on various types of sophistication, such as education, experience or training, including, but not limited to, persons with FINRA licenses, CPA or CFA designations, or management positions with issuers. My blog on the Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies’ recommendations can be read HERE. Also, to read on the SEC’s report on the accredited investor definition, see HERE.
The definition of smaller reporting company and non-accelerated filer should be revised to include an issuer with a public float of less than $250 million or with annual revenues of less than $100 million, excluding large accelerated filers; and to extend the period of exemption from Sarbanes 404(b) for an additional five years for pre- or low-revenue companies after they cease to be emerging-growth companies. See my blog HERE for more information on the current proposed change to the definition of smaller reporting company and HERE related to the distinctions between a smaller reporting company and an emerging-growth company.
Lead a joint effort with NASAA and FINRA to implement a private placement broker category including developing a workable timeline and plan to regulate and allow for “finders” and limited intermediary registration, regulation and exemptions. I think this topic is vitally important. The issue of finders has been at the forefront of small business capital formation during the 20+ years I have been practicing securities law. The topic is often explored by regulators; see, for example, the SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies recommendations HERE and a more comprehensive review of the topic HERE which includes a summary of the American Bar Association’s recommendations.

Despite all these efforts, it has been very hard to gain any traction in this area. Part of the reason is that it would take a joint effort by FINRA, the NASAA and both the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Trading and Markets within the SEC. This area needs attention. The fact is that thousands of people act as unlicensed finders—an activity that, although it remains illegal, is commonplace in the industry. In other words, by failing to address and regulate finders in a workable and meaningful fashion, the SEC and regulators perpetuate an unregulated fringe industry that attracts bad actors equally with the good and results in improper activity such as misrepresentations in the fundraising process equally with the honest efforts. However, practitioners, including myself, remain committed to affecting changes, including by providing regulators with reasoned recommendations.

The SEC should adopt rules that pre-empt state registration for all primary and secondary trading of securities qualified under Regulation A/Tier 2, and all other securities registered with the SEC. I have been a vocal proponent of state blue sky pre-emption, including related to the secondary trading of securities. Currently, such secondary trading is usually achieved through the Manual’s Exemption, which is not recognized by all states. There is a lack of uniformity in the secondary trading market that continues to negatively impact small business issuers. For more on this topic, see my two-part blog HERE and HERE.
Regulation A should be amended to: (i) pre-empt state blue sky regulation for all secondary sales of Tier 2 securities (included in the 4th recommendation above); (ii) allow companies registered under the Exchange Act, including at least business development companies, emerging-growth companies and smaller reporting companies, to utilize Regulation A (see my blog on this topic, including a discussion of a proposed rule change submitted by OTC Markets, HERE ); and (iii) provide a clearer definition of what constitutes “testing-the-waters materials” and permissible media activities.
Simplify disclosure requirements and costs for smaller reporting companies and emerging-growth companies with a principles-based approach to Regulation S-K, eliminating information that is not material, reducing or eliminating non-securities-related disclosures with a political or social purpose (such as pay ratio, conflict minerals, etc.), making XBRL compliance optional and harmonizing rules for emerging-growth companies with smaller reporting companies. For more on the ongoing efforts to revise Regulation S-K, including in manners addressed in this recommendation, see HERE and for more information on the differences between emerging-growth companies and smaller reporting companies, see HERE.
Mandate comparable disclosure by short sellers or market makers holding short positions that apply to long investors, such as through the use of a short selling report on Schedule 13D.
The SEC should provide scaled public disclosure requirements, including the use of non-GAAP accounting standards that would constitute adequate current information for entities whose securities will be traded on secondary markets. This recommendation came from the secondary market for securities of small businesses breakout group. I was part of the smaller reporting companies breakout group, so I did not hear the specific discussion on this recommendation. However, I do note that Rule 144 does provide for a definition of adequate current public information for companies that are not subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements. In particular, Rule 144 provides that adequate current public information would include the information required by SEC Rule 15c2-11 and OTC Markets specifically models its alternative reporting disclosure requirements to satisfy the disclosures required by Rule 15c2-11.
The eligibility requirements for the use of Form S-3 should be revised to include all reporting companies. For more on the use of Form S-3, see my blog HERE.
The SEC should clarify the relationship of exempt offerings in which general solicitation is not permitted, such as in Section 4(a)(2) and Rule 506(b) offerings, with Rule 506(c) offerings involving general solicitation in the following ways: (i) the facts and circumstances analysis regarding whether general solicitation is attributable to purchasers in an exempt offering should apply equally to offerings that allow general solicitation as to those that do not (such that even if an offering is labeled 506(c), if in fact no general solicitation is used, it can be treated as a 506(b); and (ii) to clarify that Rule 152 applies to Rule 506(c) so that an issuer using Rule 506(c) may subsequently engage in a registered public offering without adversely affecting the Rule 506(c) exemption. I note that within days of the forum, the SEC did indeed issue guidance on the use of Rule 152 as applies to Rule 506(c) offerings, at least as relates to an lternative trading systemintegration analysis between 506(b) and 506(c) offerings. See my blog HERE.
The SEC should amend Regulation ATS to allow for the resale of unregistered securities including those traded pursuant to Rule 144 and 144A and issued pursuant to Sections 4(a)(2), 4(a)(6) and 4(a)(7) and Rules 504 and 506.
The SEC should permit an ATS to file a 15c2-11 with FINRA and review the FINRA process to make sure that there is no undue burden on applicants and issuers. An ATS is an “alternative trading system.” The OTC Markets’ trading platform is an ATS. This recommendation would allow OTC Markets to directly file 15c2-11 applications on behalf of companies. A 15c2-11 application is the application submitted to FINRA to obtain a trading symbol and allow market makers to quote the securities of companies that trade on an ATS, such as the OTC Markets. Today, only market makers seeking to quote the trading in securities can submit the application. Also today, the application process can be difficult and lack clear guidance or timelines for the market makers and companies involved. This process definitely needs attention and this recommendation would be an excellent start.
Regulation CF should be amended to (i) permit the usage of special-purpose vehicles so that many small investors may be grouped together into one entity which then makes a single investment in a company raising capital under Regulation CF; and (ii) harmonize the Regulation CF advertising rules to avoid traps in situations where an issuer advertises or engages in general solicitations under Regulation A or Rule 506(c) and then converts to or from a Regulation CF offering.
The SEC should provide greater clarity on when trading activities require ATS registration, and when an entity or technology platform needs to a funding portal, broker-dealer, ATS and/or exchange in order to “be engaged in the business” of secondary trading transactions.
Reduce the Rule 144 holding period to 3 months for reporting companies. I fully support this recommendation.

The Author

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

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

« Road Shows FINRA Proposes New Registration And Examination Rules »

The SEC Has Issued New Guidance Related To Foreign Private Issuers

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | March 14, 2017 Tags: American Depository Receipts, American Depository Receipts (ADRs), C&DI Related to use of Form 20-F, Definition of Foreign Private Issuer, F-series registration statement, Foreign Private Issuers, Form 20-F annual report, Form 6-K, India as an Emerging Market, OTC Markets, Qualified Foreign Exchange, Refresher Overview for Foreign Private Issuers, SEC

On December 8, 2016, the SEC issued 35 new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DI) including five related to the use of Form 20-F by foreign private issuers and seven related to the definition of a foreign private issuer.

C&DI Related to use of Form 20-F

In the first of the five new C&DI, the SEC confirms that under certain circumstances the subsidiary of a foreign private issuer may use an F-series registration statement to register securities that are guaranteed by the parent company, even if the subsidiary itself does not qualify as a foreign private issuer. In addition, the subsidiary may use Form 20-F for its annual report. To qualify, the parent and subsidiary must file consolidated financial statements or be eligible to present narrative disclosure under Rule 3-10 of Regulation S-X.

Likewise in the second of the new C&DI, the SEC confirms that an F-series registration statement may be used to register securities to be issued by the parent and guaranteed by the subsidiary. When a parent foreign private issuer issues securities guaranteed or co-issued by one or more subsidiaries that do not themselves qualify as a foreign private issuer, the parent and subsidiary may use an F-series registration statement when they are eligible to present condensed consolidating financial information or narrative disclosure.

In the third C&DI the SEC clarifies the deadline for filing a Form 20-F annual report. In particular, the Form 20-F is due 4 months to the day from the end of a company’s fiscal year-end. For example, if a company’s fiscal year-end is February 20, the Form 20-F due date would be June 20.

In the fourth C&DI, the SEC confirms that a wholly owned subsidiary can omit certain information from its Form 20-F annual report in the same manner that a wholly owned subsidiary of a U.S. company can omit information in its Form 10-K. The subsidiary would need to include a prominent statement on its cover page that it meets the requirements to and is providing reduced disclosure.

The requirements to be able to provide reduced disclosure, for both 20-F and 10-K filers, include: (i) all of the company’s equity securities are owned, either directly or indirectly, by a single entity which is subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”); (ii) such parent entity is current in its reporting requirements; (iii) the parent company specifically names the subsidiary in its description of its business; (iv) during the preceding 36 calendar months and any subsequent period of days, there has not been any material default in the payment of principal, interest or any other material default with respect to any indebtedness of the parent or its subsidiaries; and (v) there has not been any material default in the payment of rentals under material long-term leases.

The disclosure that may be omitted by a qualifying subsidiary includes: (i) selected financial data; (ii) operating and financial review prospects; (iii) the list of subsidiaries exhibit; (iv) information required by Item 6.A, Directors and Senior Management, Item 6.B, Compensation, 6.D, Employees, Item 6.E, Share Ownership, Item 7, Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions, Item 16A, Audit Committee Financial Expert, and Item 16B, Code of Ethics; and (v) Item 4 Information on the company as long as such information is included in the parent company’s filings.

In the final new C&DI, the SEC confirms that a foreign private issuer may incorporate by reference into a Form 20-F annual report information that had previously been filed with the SEC in another report, such as a Form 6-K.

C&DI Related to Definition of Foreign Private Issuer

The first of the new guidance on the definition of a foreign private issuer relates to determining whether 50% or more of a company’s outstanding securities are directly or indirectly owned by U.S. residents when a company has multiple classes of voting stock with different voting rights. In such a case a company may either (i) calculate voting power on a combined basis; or (ii) make a determination based on the number of voting securities. A company must apply its methodology on a consistent basis.

The second C&DI provides guidance on determining whether an individual is a U.S. resident. In particular, the SEC confirms that a permanent residence with a green card would be considered a U.S. resident. A company may also consider any relevant facts including tax residency, nationality, mailing address, physical presence, the location of a significant portion of their financial and legal relationships and immigration status. The application of facts must be consistently applied to all shareholders.

The third C&DI clarifies the determination of citizenship and residency of directors and officers. A company must consider the citizenship and residency of all individual directors and officers separately and not count them as a single group. In the fourth C&DI, the SEC addresses the determination where a company has two boards of directors. In that case, the company should examine the board that most closely undertakes functions that U.S.-style boards of directors would. Where such determination cannot be made or where both boards provide these functions, both boards should be aggregated and citizenship and residency examined for both.

In the fifth C&DI the SEC confirms that a company can use the geographic segment information in its balance sheet to determine if more than 50% of its assets are located outside the U.S. A company may also use any other reasonable methodology as long as it is used consistently.

In the sixth C&DI the SEC provides guidance for determining whether a business is principally administered in the U.S. As with the theme of the other guidance, the SEC gives the company guidance to exercise reasonable discretion consistently. A company must assess the location from which its officers, partners, or managers primarily direct, control and coordinate the company business and activities.

In the seventh new C&DI the SEC confirms that holding meetings of shareholders or the board of directors on occasion, will not necessarily result in a conclusion that the company is principally administered in the U.S.

In another new C&DI the SEC confirms that all securities-trading markets in countries that are part of the European Union may be considered a single foreign jurisdiction for purposes of applying the trading market definition for purposes of determining the trading of foreign securities.

Refresher Overview for Foreign Private Issuers

Definition of Foreign Private Issuer

Both the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) contain definitions of a “foreign private issuer.” Generally, if a company does not meet the definition of a foreign private issuer, it is subject to the same registration and reporting requirements as any U.S. company.

The determination of foreign private issuer status is not just dependent on the country of domicile, though a U.S. company can never qualify regardless of the location of its operations, assets, management and subsidiaries. There are generally two tests of qualification as a foreign private issuer, as follows: (i) relative degree of U.S. share ownership; and (ii) level of U.S. business contacts.

As with many securities law definitions, the overall definition of foreign private issuer starts with an all-encompassing “any foreign issuer” and then carves out exceptions from there. In particular, a foreign private issuer is any foreign issuer, except one that meets the following as of the last day of its second fiscal quarter:

(i) a foreign government;

(ii) more than 50% of its voting securities are directly or indirectly held by U.S. residents; and any of the following: (a) the majority of the executive officers or directors are U.S. citizens or residents; (b) more than 50% of the assets are in the U.S.; or (c) the principal business is in the U.S. Principal business location is determined by considering the company’s principal business segments or operations, its board and shareholder meetings, its headquarters, and its most influential key executives.

That is, if less than 50% of a foreign company’s shareholders are located in the U.S., it qualifies as a foreign private issuer. If more than 50% of the record shareholders are in the U.S., the company must further consider the location of its officers and directors, assets and business operations.

Registration and Ongoing Reporting Obligations

Like U.S. companies, when a foreign company desires to sell securities to U.S. investors, such offers and sales must either be registered or there must be an available Securities Act exemption from registration. The registration and exemption rules available to foreign private issuers are the same as those for U.S. domestic companies, including, for example, Regulation D (with the primarily used Rules 506(b) and 506(c)) and Regulation S) and resale restrictions and exemptions such as under Section 4(a)(1) and Rule 144.

When offers and sales are registered, the foreign company becomes subject to ongoing reporting requirements. Subject to the exemption under Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b) discussed at the end of this blog, when a foreign company desires to trade on a U.S. exchange or the OTC Markets, it must register a class of securities under either Section 12(b) or 12(g) of the Exchange Act. Likewise, when a foreign company’s worldwide assets and worldwide/U.S. shareholder base reaches a certain level ($10 million in assets; total shareholders of 2,000 or greater or 500 unaccredited with U.S. shareholders being 300 or more), it is required to register with the SEC under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act.

The SEC has adopted several rules applicable only to foreign private issuers and maintains an Office of International Corporate Finance to review filings and assist in registration and reporting questions. Of particular significance:

(i) Foreign private issuers may prepare financial statements using either US GAAP; International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”); or home country accounting standards with a reconciliation to US GAAP;

(ii) Foreign private issuers are exempt from the Section 14 proxy rules;

(iii) Insiders of foreign private issuers are exempt from the Section 16 reporting requirements and short swing trading prohibitions; however, they must comply with Section 13 (for a review of Sections 13 and 16, see my blog HERE);

(iv) Foreign private issuers are exempt from Regulation FD;

(v) Foreign private issuers may use separate registration and reporting forms and are not required to file quarterly reports (for example, Form F-1 registration statement and Forms 20-F and 6-K for annual and periodic reports); and

(vi) Foreign private issuers have a separate exemption from the Section 12(g) registration requirements (Rule 12g3-2(b)) allowing the trading of securities on the OTC Markets without being subject to the SEC reporting requirement.

Although a foreign private issuer may voluntarily register and report using the same forms and rules applicable to U.S. issuers, they may also opt to use special forms and rules specifically designed for and only available to foreign companies. Form 20-F is the primary disclosure document and Exchange Act registration form for foreign private issuers and is analogous to both an annual report on Form 10-K and an Exchange Act registration statement on Form 10. A Form F-1 is the general registration form for the offer and sale of securities under the Securities Act and, like Form S-1, is the form to be used when the company does not qualify for the use of any other registration form.

A Form F-3 is analogous to a Form S-3. A Form F-3 allows incorporation by reference of an annual and other SEC reports. To qualify to use a Form F-3, the foreign company must, among other requirements that are substantially similar to S-3, have been subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements for at least 12 months and have filed all reports in a timely manner during that time. The company must have filed at least one annual report on Form 20-F. A Form F-4 is used for business combinations and exchange offers, and a Form F-6 is used for American Depository Receipts (ADR). Also, under certain circumstances, a foreign private issuer can submit a registration statement on a confidential basis.

Once registered, a foreign private issuer must file periodic reports. A Form 20-F is used for an annual report and is due within four months of fiscal year-end. Quarterly reports are not required. A Form 6-K is used for periodic reports and captures: (i) the information that would be required to be filed in a Form 8-K; (ii) information the company makes or is required to make public under the laws of its country of domicile; and (iii) information it files or is required to file with a U.S. and foreign stock exchange.

As noted above, a foreign private issuer may elect to use either U.S. GAAP; International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”); or home country accounting standards with a reconciliation to U.S. GAAP in the preparation and presentation of its financial statements. Regardless of the accounting standard used, the audit firm must be registered with the PCAOB.

All filings with the SEC must be made in English. Where a document or contract is being translated from a different language, the SEC has rules to ensure that the translation is fair and accurate.

The SEC rules do not have scaled disclosure requirements for foreign private issuers. That is, all companies, regardless of size, must report the same information. A foreign private issuer that would qualify as a smaller reporting company or emerging growth company should consider whether it should use and be subject to the regular U.S. reporting requirements and registration and reporting forms. The company should also consider that no foreign private issuer is required to provide a Compensation Discussion & Analysis (CD&I). If the foreign company opts to be subject to the regular U.S. reporting requirements, it must also use U.S. GAAP for its financial statements. For further discussions on general reporting requirements and rules related to smaller reporting and emerging growth companies, see my blogs HERE and HERE and related to ongoing proposed changes HERE, which includes multiple related links under the “further background” subsection.

Deregistration

The deregistration rules for a foreign private issuer are different from those for domestic companies. A foreign private issuer may deregister if: (i) the average daily volume of trading of its securities in the U.S. for a recent 12-month period is less than 5% of the worldwide average daily trading volume; or (ii) the company has fewer than 300 shareholders worldwide. In addition, the company must: (i) have been reporting for at least one year and have filed at least one annual report and be current in all reports; (ii) must not have registered securities for sale in the last 12 months; and (iii) must have maintained a listing of securities in its primary trading markets for at least 12 months prior to deregistration.

American Depository Receipts (ADRs)

An ADR is a certificate that evidences ownership of American Depository Shares (ADS) which, in turn, reflect a specified interest in a foreign company’s shares. Technically the ADR is a certificate reflecting ownership of an ADS, but in practice market participants just use the term ADR to reflect both. An ADR trades in U.S. dollars and clears through the U.S. DTC, thus avoiding foreign currency issuers. ADR’s are issued by a U.S. bank which, in turn, either directly or indirectly through a relationship with a foreign custodian bank, holds a deposit of the underlying foreign company’s shares. ADR securities must either be subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements or be exempt under Rule 12g3-2(b). ADR’s are always registered on Form F-6.

OTC Markets

OTC Markets allows for the listing and trading of foreign entities on the OTCQX and OTCQB that do not meet the definition of a foreign private issuer as long as such company has its securities listed on a Qualifying Foreign Stock Exchange for a minimum of the preceding 40 calendar days subject to OTC Markets’ ability to waive such requirement upon application. If the company does not meet the definition of foreign private issuer, it still must fully comply with Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b). For details on the OTCQX listing requirements for international companies, see my blog HERE and for listing requirements for OTCQB companies, including international issuers, see HERE.

India as an Emerging Market

India is widely considered the world’s fastest-growing major economy. The small- and micro-cap industry has been eyeing India as an emerging market for the U.S. public marketplace for several years now. In my practice alone, I have been approached by several groups that see the U.S. public markets as offering incredible potential to the exploding Indian start-up and emerging growth sector. Taking advantage of this opportunity, however, was stifled by strict Indian laws prohibiting or limiting foreign investment into Indian companies. In June 2016, the Indian government announced new rules allowing for foreign direct investments into Indian-owned and -domiciled companies, opening up the country to foreign investment, including by U.S. shareholders.

The new rules allow for up to 100% foreign investment in certain sectors. U.S. investors who already invest heavily in Indian-based defense, aviation, pharmaceutical and technology companies will see even greater opportunity in these sectors, which will now allow up to 100% foreign investment. Although certain sectors, including defense, will still require advance government approval for foreign investment, most sectors will receive automatic approval. U.S. public companies will now be free to invest in and acquire Indian-based subsidiaries. Likewise, more India-based companies will be able to trade on U.S. public markets, attracting U.S. shareholders and the benefits of market liquidity and public company valuations.

Indian companies are slowly starting to take advantage of reverse-merger transactions with U.S. public companies. In July 2016, online travel agency Yatra Online, Inc., entered into a reverse-merger agreement with Terrapin 3 Acquisition Corp, a U.S. SPAC. The transaction is expected to close in October 2016. Yatra is structured under a U.S. holding company with operations in India though an India-domiciled subsidiary.

Last year Vidocon d2h became the first India-based company to go public via reverse merger when it completed a reverse merger with a U.S. NASDAQ SPAC. In January, 2016 Bangalore-based Strand Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. became the second India-based reverse merger when it went public in the U.S. in a transaction with a NASDAQ company.

In addition, U.S.-based public companies, venture capital and private equity firms, and hedge funds and family offices have been investing heavily in the Indian start-up and emerging growth boom. Yatra and Strand Life had both received several rounds of U.S. private funding before entering into their reverse merger agreements. NASDAQ-listed firm Ctrip.com International recently invested $180 million into another India-based online travel company, MakeMyTrip.

India’s Mumbai/Bombay Stock Exchange is already a Qualified Foreign Exchange for purposes of meeting the standards to trade on the U.S. OTCQX International. For details on all OTCQX listing requirements, including for international companies, see my blog HERE and related directly to international companies including Rule 12g3-2(b), see HERE. At least 5 companies currently trade on the OTCQX, with their principal market being in India.

Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b)

Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b) permits foreign private issuers to have their equity securities traded on the U.S. over-the-counter market without registration under Section 12 of the Exchange Act (and therefore without being subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements). The rule is automatic for foreign issuers that meet its requirements. A foreign issuer may not rely on the rule if it is otherwise subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements.

The rule provides that an issuer is not required to be subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements if:

the issuer currently maintains a listing of its securities on one or more exchanges in a foreign jurisdiction which is the primary trading market for such securities; and
the issuer has published, in English, on its website or through an electronic information delivery system generally available to the public in its primary trading market (such as the OTC Market Group website), information that, since the first day of its most recently completed fiscal year, it (a) has made public or been required to make public pursuant to the laws of its country of domicile; (b) has filed or been required to file with the principal stock exchange in its primary trading market and which has been made public by that exchange; and (c) has distributed or been required to distribute to its security holders.

Primary Trading Market means that at least 55 percent of the trading in the subject class of securities on a worldwide basis took place in, on or through the facilities of a securities market or markets in a single foreign jurisdiction or in no more than two foreign jurisdictions during the issuer’s most recently completed fiscal year.

In order to maintain the Rule 12g3-2(b) exemption, the issuer must continue to publish the required information on an ongoing basis and for each fiscal year. The information required to be published electronically is information that is material to an investment decision regarding the subject securities, such as information concerning:

(i) Results of operations or financial condition;

(ii) Changes in business;

(iii) Acquisitions or dispositions of assets;

(iv) The issuance, redemption or acquisition of securities;

(v) Changes in management or control;

(vi) The granting of options or the payment of other remuneration to directors or officers; and

(vii) Transactions with directors, officers or principal security holders.

At a minimum, a foreign private issuer shall electronically publish English translations of the following documents:

(i) Its annual report, including or accompanied by annual financial statements;

(ii) Interim reports that include financial statements;

(iii) Press releases; and

(iv) All other communications and documents distributed directly to security holders of each class of securities to which the exemption relates.

Click Here To Print- PDF Printout The SEC Has Issued New Guidance Related To Foreign Private Issuers

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com

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

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

« SEC Announces Examination Priorities For 2017 SEC Completes Inflation Adjustment To Civil Penalties »

SEC Issues White Paper On Penny Stock Risks

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | February 21, 2017 Tags: micro-cap, OTC Markets, OTC Pink, OTCBB, OTCQB, OTCQX, SEC

On December 16, 2016, the SEC announced several new settled enforcement proceedings against market participants including issuers, attorneys and a transfer agent, related to penny stock fraud. On the same day the SEC issued a new white paper detailing the risks associated with investing in penny stocks. This blog summarizes the SEC white paper.

As I have written about on numerous occasions, the prevention of micro-cap fraud is and will always be a primary focus of the SEC and other securities regulators. In fact, the SEC will go to great lengths to investigate and ultimately prosecute micro-cap fraud. See my blog HERE regarding the recent somewhat scandalous case involving Guy Gentile.

Introduction

The SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis published a white paper on the risks and consequences of investing in stocks quoted in the micro-cap markets versus those listed on a national securities exchange. The paper reviewed 1.8 million trades by more than 200,000 investors and concludes that returns on investment in the micro-cap markets tend to be negative with the returns and risk worsening for less transparent companies or those involved in improper promotional campaigns.

The white paper notes that the incidence of and amount of negative returns, as well as alleged market manipulation increase with the fewer disclosure-related requirements associated with the company. The white paper, on the whole, is very negative towards OTC Markets securities. However, off the top, I think the white paper is skewed unfairly against OTC Markets securities when it should target those lower-tier securities that do not provide disclosures to the public.

This blog will summarize the white paper, including many of its facts and figures, but will find issue with its framework. The white paper does not give fair distinction to the higher OTCQX tier of OTC Markets. In fact, “OTCQX” only appears twice in the entire white paper, both in a footnote that purports to list the OTCQX requirements, but fails to mention the quantitative requirements, including that the security not be a penny stock as defined by the federal securities laws. The shortened “QX” does appear 13 times in the white paper, providing some factual and statistical information such as market size and trading patterns, but again, ignores the meaningful distinction related to the penny stock definition. For a review of the OTCQX tier of OTC Markets and its listing requirements, see my blog HERE.

It is axiomatic that the vast majority of new jobs are created by small and emerging companies and that these companies are critical to the economic well being of the United States. See, for example, my blog on the SEC report on the definition of accredited investor HERE and its study on private placements HERE.

According to both Bloomberg and Forbes, 8 out of 10 new businesses fail within 18 months and that number jumps to 96% in the first 10 years. However, despite that failure rate, it is indisputable that we need entrepreneurs to continue forming new businesses and access supportive capital, to have a healthy economy.

Likewise, it is axiomatic to all micro-cap market participants that those companies that fail to provide meaningful disclosure to the public, are more likely to result in investment losses. Those companies are also more likely to engage in market manipulation and other securities law violations. However, those companies that do provide meaningful disclosure to the public, whether through SEC reporting or alternatively to the OTC Markets, and especially those companies that trade on the OTCQX, are the very small and emerging companies that are necessary and vital to our healthy economy. They may be the 8 out of 10 or the 96%, but some will also be the 2 out of 10 and 4% – and all are necessary.

Also, the fact is that bank financing is not readily available for these companies, and they have no choice but to try to access capital through the public. That public wants an exit strategy and that exit strategy tends to be the public markets. Where the companies are small and immature in their business life cycle, the OTC Markets provide that secondary trading market. In discussing this aspect of the economies of these small public companies, they are more positively referred to by the SEC as “venture” companies and the trading market as a “venture exchange” (see my blog HERE).

Many times when a company ceases to provide disclosure or information to the public and remains dark for a period of time, its business operations have failed, it has gone private, or otherwise has been abandoned. These companies continue to trade, and sometimes with high volume with no public information. The SEC makes an effort to eliminate these companies through its Operation Shell-Expel (see HERE), but unfortunately many remain and new ones are added all the time as the 8-out-of-10 cycle continues.

Although all penny stocks are risky, and are undeniably the highest-risk investments, grouping all OTC Markets into the white paper, in the fashion that the SEC has done, strikes me as fundamentally unfair. Throughout my summary of the SEC White Paper, I provide thoughts and commentary.

SEC White Paper

The SEC White Paper begins with an introduction on some high-level differences between an exchange traded security and one on the OTC Markets. One of the biggest distinctions is that the majority of ownership and trading of an exchange listed security is by institutional investors, whereas the majority of ownership and trading on the OTC Markets is by individuals. The SEC points out that institutions tend to be more proactive in research and shareholder activism, creating a check on corporate governance. As an aside, these institutions are also more sophisticated and able to assert greater influence and power over a company than an individual small shareholder.

The SEC quickly highlights the negative literature on OTC Markets securities, including that they have poor liquidity, generate negative and volatile returns and are often subject to market manipulation, including by the dissemination of false and misleading information. Although OTC securities offer the opportunity to invest in early-stage companies that may grow to be larger successful ones, the number that do exceed is small (such as the 2 out of 10 in my summary above).

One portion of the white paper’s information I find interesting is that despite the risks, OTC Markets continue to grow and investor demands for these stocks continues to rise. The SEC offers two hypotheses for this. The first is that OTC investors are simply gambling for the big return, just as they do with the lottery. The second is that OTC Markets investors simply make bad investment decisions. However, the report does admit that little is known about the characteristics of OTC investors and that this is likely the first comprehensive study trying to determine those demographics. Personally, I also think that many OTC Markets investors are day traders and that although a particular stock may go down over time, those day traders are taking advantage of the small intraday price changes to make a profit.

The SEC reviewed 1.8 million trades by more than 200,000 investors and concludes that returns on investment in the micro-cap markets tend to be negative, with the returns and risk worsening for less transparent companies or those involved in improper promotional campaigns, and are also worse for elderly and retired investors and those with lower levels of income and education. The SEC white paper purports to be the first study of its kind that examines investor outcomes around stock promotions and level of disclosure.

I would suggest that the exact same results (i.e., lower returns on less transparent investments and those engaged in improper promotional campaigns and lower returns for the elderly and lower income and education demographic) would be found for any investments in any studied market and are not unique to OTC Markets securities. To be clear, I don’t think the correlation is necessarily improper activity, though that could be the case especially when looking at some stock promotions. Companies that provide less disclosure may have less capital and financial resources to further their business plan and, as such, are far riskier investments. Also, companies that provide less disclosure may be less interested in furthering the public aspect of their business. Even if the underlying business is sound, if they are not providing public disclosure, the stock price and liquidity are unlikely to reflect the underlying business, which could result in poor investor returns.

The SEC white paper continues with a three-part discussion: (i) OTC Market structure and size; (ii) review of academic literature; and (iii) analysis of OTC investor demographics and outcomes.

OTC Market Structure and Size

The SEC white paper describes the basic makeup of OTC Markets including its three tiers of OTC Pink, OTCQB and OTCQX. I’ve written about these market tiers many times. For a review of the three tiers, see my blog HERE, though I note that both the OTCQB and OTCQX have updated their listing standards since that blog was written. The OTC Pink remains unchanged. For the most current listing standards on the OTCQX see HERE and for the OTCQB see HERE.

The SEC white paper also references the OTCBB, which technically still exists, but has fewer than 400 listed securities and does not have a readily accessible quote page.

The SEC white paper has a lot of information on the market size and its growth over the years. Without getting into a lot of facts and figures, I note that the OTC Markets grew by 47% from 2012 through 2015, with $238 billion of trading in 2015. There are approximately 10,000 securities quoted on OTC Markets, as compared to approximately 2,700 on NASDAQ, of which only approximately 675 are micro-cap companies.

The OTC Markets monthly newsletter gives a complete review and breakdown of the size of OTC Markets. For the one month of December 31, 2016, the following is the number of traded securities and volume:

Monthly Trade Summary – December 2016

Market Designations	Number of Securities*	Monthly $ Volume	Monthly $ Volume per Security	2016 $ Volume*

OTCQX	461	$3,844,835,942	$8,340,208	$36,847,879,435
OTCQB	933	$3,249,939,872	$3,483,322	$13,638,584,206
Pink	8,234	$14,648,939,577	$1,779,079	$142,411,521,245
Total	9,628	$21,743,715,392	$2,258,383	$192,897,984,887

Literature Review

The SEC white paper continues with a summary of recent academic research and analysis including on OTC Markets securities’ liquidity, returns, market manipulation, transition to an exchange and investor participation.

Liquidity refers to the ability of shareholders to quickly buy and sell securities near the market price without substantial price impact. Where there is a lack of liquidity, it is difficult to sell. Also, low-volume stocks tend to have wider price fluctuations and bid-ask spreads, and are more expensive for dealers to hold in inventory. OTC Markets securities are less liquid than those listed on a national exchange such as the NYSE MKT or NASDAQ. Research also shows that there tends to be lower liquidity with less transparency and disclosure. None of this is surprising, though many of us that work in the OTC Markets space have seen the anomaly of a company with no information, and likely no underlying business or management, trading on heavy volume.

The returns on OTC Markets securities are also very different than exchange traded securities. Returns on OTC Markets are often negative, volatile and skewed (the lottery factor). Where the majority of trades have negative returns, there is the incidence of extremely high, lottery-like returns on some of the securities. This, again, is not surprising. OTC Markets-traded companies tend to be smaller companies and thus would naturally have a smaller market capitalization and smaller returns as well as the potential for larger upside.

Again, returns on companies that provide less transparency and public information tend to be lower. Interestingly, another hypothesis as to why returns are lower is the short-sale constraints on OTC Market securities. Many OTC Market securities are ineligible for margin (and thus short sales), and locating shares for borrow can be challenging. Those that are margin-eligible usually have a very high carry interest and per-share transaction cost for short sales. The argument is that short sales create an equilibrium and thus help reflect a truer stock price such that the stock will be less vulnerable to negative price adjustments. However, unfortunately, sophisticated traders can open offshore accounts that will allow for short selling of OTC Market securities, opening those same securities up to manipulation by those investors.

OTC Markets securities are relatively often the target of market manipulation, including outright fraudulent disclosures and pump-and-dump schemes. Generally these schemes are conducted in the trading of those companies that are less transparent in disclosures. A market manipulation scheme can involve the dissemination of false information followed by taking advantage of the price changes that result. The scheme can be perpetrated by the company and its insiders, or by unaffiliated investors. Examples include spam and email campaigns, rumors and false information in Internet chat rooms or forums, and false “analyst reports.” Research shows these schemes are effective – that is, the price increases while the stock is being touted and falls when the campaign is over.

Obviously not all increases in stock prices are a result of improper behavior. OTC Markets stocks react to legitimate news and growth as well. In fact, the majority of extreme increases in trading price and volume are the result of changes in company fundamentals and not market manipulation. Moreover, not investor relations and stock promotion is perfectly legal and can be completely legitimate. It is when false or misleading information is being disseminated, or targeted marketing aimed at vulnerable investor groups is used, that it is problematic. The key is recognizing the difference, which generally involves transparency from companies that provide steady, consistent disclosure with apparent credible information.

Many OTC investors are hoping to “bet” on the company that will grow and move to an exchange where it is likely the stock price will increase substantially, as will liquidity. The SEC white paper gives dismal statistics on the rates of graduation. However, it does note that the rate of movement to an exchange is much higher for OTCQX or OTCQB (9%) than OTC Pink companies (less than 1%). The SEC white paper also suggests that companies that graduate to an exchange from the OTC Markets underperform those companies that go public onto an exchange in the first instance.

The last area that the SEC white paper discusses in this section is investor participation and, in particular, why that investor participation continues to grow year over year. The SEC white paper gives two hypotheses, the first being that investors are drawn by the opportunity for lottery-like payoff and the second is that investors are “duped about the stock return probabilities.” Although this sounds harsh, the white paper is not actually referring to market manipulation, but rather suggests that all OTC investors, including the most sophisticated, make poor estimates on return probabilities. No reason for this is offered.

Studies show that although investors frequently lose small investments in OTC stocks, they also occasionally receive an extremely large return. As such, the SEC white paper suggests that these investors are really just gamblers. I’m sure that oftentimes is correct.

Data Analysis and Investor Demographics

The Division of Economic and Risk Analysis studied a sampling of trades for specific securities and time periods which included information on the issuer, trade and investor. The purpose of the review was to determine a relationship between investor returns on the one hand and stock promotions, company transparency and investor demographics on the other hand. However, the information used for the analysis is admittedly biased in that such information was taken from the SEC enforcement files for the year 2014. Since one or more parties to the trades were the subject of enforcement proceedings, this information would not be indicative of the usual OTC company.

The SEC white paper comes to the conclusion that there is a positive correlation between losses and market manipulation and lack of transparency. As discussed above, this is not surprising and is actually quite logical. The white paper also found a positive correlation between losses and elderly, lower-income and poorly educated investors.

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com

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

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

« What Does The SEC Do And What Is Its Purpose? The SEC Has Proposed The Use Of Universal Proxy Cards »

OTC Markets Petitions The SEC To Expand Regulation A To Include SEC Reporting Companies

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | June 28, 2016 Tags: OTC Markets, OTC Markets Listing Requirements, OTCQB, OTCQX, Regulation A, Regulation a SEC, SEC, SEC Regulation A, SEC Reporting Companies

On June 6, OTC Markets filed a petition for rulemaking with the SEC requesting that the SEC amend Regulation A to expand the eligibility criteria to include all small issuers, including those that are subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) reporting requirements and to allow “at-the-market offerings.”

Background

On March 25, 2015, the SEC released final rules amending Regulation A. The new Regulation A creates two tiers of offerings. Tier I of Regulation A, which does not preempt state law, allows offerings of up to $20 million in a twelve-month period. Due to difficult blue sky compliance, Tier 1 is rarely used. Tier 2, which does preempt state law, allows a raise of up to $50 million. Issuers may elect to proceed under either Tier I or Tier 2 for offerings up to $20 million. The new rules went into effect on June 19, 2015 and have been gaining traction ever since. Since that time, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance has issued periodic Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) to provide guidance related to Regulation A. I have previously written several articles on Regulation A and the C&DI. For a good review and summary, please see my blog HERE.

From inception, a Regulation A company could apply for a listing on the OTC Markets OTCQX Tier assuming it meets the qualifications. Elio Motors trades on the OTCQX. For a review of such qualifications, see my blog HERE. Unlike the OTCQX, generally a company that is not subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements did not qualify for the OTCQB; however, effective July 10, the OTCQB has amended their rules to allow a Tier 2 reporting entity to qualify to apply for and trade on the OTCQB. My blog on the OTCQB rules related to Regulation A can be read HERE.

Whether trading on the OTCQX or OTCQB, keep in mind that 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. For a short overview of Rule 144, see HERE.

Regulation A Eligibility – Reporting Issuers

As enacted, Regulation A is available to companies organized and operating in the United States and Canada. The following issuers are not be 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+.

Although companies subject to the reporting requirement have been disqualified from day one, the SEC quickly issued guidance clarifying that Regulation A may be used by many existing “reporting entities” either because they voluntarily report (generally because they never filed a Form 8-A or Form 10 after an S-1 registration statement and the initial required reporting period has passed) or through a wholly owned subsidiary resulting in a complete or partial spin-off.

The SEC specifically provided that 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. The determination of eligibility is made at the time of the offering. Moreover, 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. In addition, a wholly owned subsidiary of an Exchange Act reporting company parent is eligible to complete a Regulation A+ offering as long as the parent reporting company is not a guarantor or co-issuer of the securities being issued.

Related to small business issuers, the current rules create an unfair distinction. A company trading on the OTC Markets that voluntarily reports to the SEC would be eligible, whereas a company that may be substantially similar but is required to file reports would be ineligible to utilize Regulation A+.

On June 6, 2016, OTC Markets filed a petition for rulemaking with the SEC requesting that the SEC amend Regulation A+ to expand the eligibility criteria to include all small issuers, including those that are subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements and to allow “at-the-market offerings.”

The OTC Markets petition is concise and to the point. When Congress passed the JOBS Act, it left the particulars of Regulation A+ rulemaking to the SEC with only the following mandates:

The aggregate offering amount of all securities sold within a 12-month period shall not exceed $50,000,000;
The securities may be offered and sold publicly;
The securities shall not be restricted securities within the meaning of the federal securities laws;
The civil liability provisions under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act shall apply to any person offering or selling Regulation A securities;
The issuer may solicit interest in the offering prior to filing any offering statement, on such terms and condition as the SEC may prescribe in the public interest and protecting investors;
The SEC shall require the issuer to file annual audited financial statements; and
Such other terms and conditions as the SEC shall determine are necessary in the public interest and protecting investors.

The JOBS Act itself did not prohibit or limit the use of Regulation A+ for reporting companies, and accordingly, that decision is within the SEC rulemaking discretion. In fact, throughout the JOBS Act and in particular in Title IV related to Regulation A+, Congress refers to expanding capital formation for “small issues” under $50 million with the goal of increasing capital to all small companies.

The SEC reasoning for excluding reporting companies in the first place is weak at best. In particular, the SEC excluded reporting issuers because the prior Regulation A rules, which were admittedly rarely used and ineffective at assisting in small business capital formation, contained the exclusion. That is, when revamping Regulation A+ as mandated by the JOBS Act, the SEC just didn’t change that provision.

The OTC Markets points out that the Regulation A+ rules as enacted offer more protections for non-accredited investors than a fully registered S-1 or S-3 offering. In particular, there are no investor limitations for unaccredited purchasers in an S-1 or S-3 offering, whereas a Regulation A+ offering limits investments by unaccredited investors to no more than 10% of the greater of the investor’s annual income or net worth. In addition, a traditional S-1 or S-3 does not have any limitations or prohibitions related to bad actor disqualifications, whereas Regulation A+ does prohibit use by “bad actors.”

The OTC Markets petition also contains a good discussion on the costs associated with an S-1 or S-3 offering, including added costs of state blue sky law compliance. State blue sky preemption is one of the cornerstones of Tier 2 Regulation A+ offerings that benefit issuers. Moreover, generally only much larger issuers are S-3 eligible and thus S-3 is not considered a “small company” capital formation tool. Similarly, private offerings under Regulation D are not registered and so do not offer the same level of investor protections. These offerings also result in restricted securities and thus less investor incentive to participate.

In addition to the obvious benefit to small and emerging company capital formation of allowing small reporting companies to utilize Regulation A+, there is also an added potential benefit to the capital markets as a whole. OTC Markets opines that the flow of freely tradable securities into the marketplace for existing public companies could have a positive uptick on the liquidity and overall growth and vitality of venture markets. Regulation A+ could have the benefit of pushing forward the much needed venture market for the secondary trading of securities of early-stage, small and emerging growth companies. OTC Markets points out that it could and should be that venture market.

The OTC Markets petition contains a pointed discussion on the market benefits, including noting that “Regulation A+ allows smaller companies, traditionally lacking the backing of bulge bracket investment banks and the large base of institutional ownership needed to fund ongoing research coverage, to reach out to a broader pool of potential investors through ‘testing the waters’ provisions and the efficient economical reach of the Internet and social media. Emerging companies can use Regulation A+ online offerings to tap into large numbers of individual investors and efficiently target smaller institutions. Allowing fully SEC reporting companies the same ability to leverage technology and transparency to reach potential investors would be expected to provide a ready source of growth capital, and, equally important, an increase in liquidity in the secondary market.”

Interestingly, OTC argues that opening up Regulation A+ to small reporting companies may reduce or minimize the use of toxic financing options which carry substantial dilution and downward pricing pressure on company stock. Moreover, allowing small reporting companies to utilize Regulation A+ may raise the interest in these offerings for investment banks.

Finally, in order to make Regulation A+ the most useful for reporting companies, OTC Markets requests that the SEC also amend the rules to allow “at-the-market” offerings. Currently all Regulation A+ offerings must be priced. In the case of a security that is already trading, the ability to price accurately is difficult and the inability to adjust such pricing in response to fluctuating market conditions can impede the success of the offering.

Further Thoughts

From my perspective, Regulation A has become the most popular method of fundraising and private-to-public transactions for small business issuers. Although as of the date of this blog, only one issuer, Elio Motors, Inc., has received a trading symbol and actively trades, many others are in the works and I think we will see an opening of the floodgates. As Tier 2 requires audited financial statements, the preparation process can take months and the placement of an offering can also take months.

A traditional IPO is completed using an underwriter on a “firm commitment” basis where the underwriter buys all the company’s securities on the first day of the IPO and proceeds to resell them. No Regulation A offerings have yet been completed in a firm commitment underwritten offering. To the contrary, current Regulation A offerings are either self-placed by the issuing company, or completed with the assistance of a broker-dealer placement agent on a best efforts basis. This placement process can take several months to complete. Accordingly, many issuers have not closed out their offerings as of yet and therefore have not reached the point of eligibility to apply for a trade symbol. My office alone has over half a dozen Regulation A offerings in the works.

Tier 2 offerings in particular present a much-needed opportunity for smaller companies to go public without the added time and expense of state blue sky compliance but with added investor qualifications. Tier 2 offerings preempt state blue sky laws. To compromise with opponents to the state blue sky preemption, the SEC included investor qualifications for Tier 2 offerings. In particular, Tier 2 offerings have a limitation on the amount of securities non-accredited investors can purchase of no more than 10% of the greater of the investor’s annual income or net worth. It is the obligation of the issuer to notify investors of these limitations. Issuers may rely on the investors’ representations as to accreditation and investment limits with no added verification.

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. 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. With the filing of a Form 8-A, the issuer can apply to trade on a national exchange.

This marks a huge change and opportunity for companies that wish to go public directly 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. The other consideration would be the added investor qualifications, but if the issuer meets the requirements for and lists on a national exchange, the added investor qualifications no longer apply.

The SEC has a well published mission of “protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitating capital formation.” Regulation A+ offers significant investor protections in that a form of registration statement is filed with the SEC and subject to a review and comment process. In addition, Regulation A+ allows for pre- and post-filing marketing using the Internet, social media, presentations and the like, provided all such materials are filed with the SEC and subject to review and comment. This process provides significant investor protections, including a permanent record of disclosures made during the offering process. Regulation A+ also provides a streamlined, affordable registration process with access to an expanded pool of investors, thus facilitating capital formation.

To the contrary, private offering documents are not filed or reviewed with the SEC and the process and level of disclosure are far less regulated. Public offerings using Form S-1 limit offering communications, and those communications are not necessarily filed or reviewed by the SEC. The Form S-1 process does not allow for broad Internet, crowd or social media marketing. A Form S-1 process also does not preempt state law and accordingly has significant added costs for a company. A Form S-1 works best for larger issuers with strong underwriter and institutional support. Regulation A+ provides the best method of registered capital formation for small companies, including those that are already subject to the SEC reporting requirements.

As was understood in passing the JOBS Act in 2012, the transparent Regulation A+ process is a preferred method of capital raising for small businesses, especially companies already subject to the reporting requirements who have audited financial statements readily available and processes in place for meeting SEC reporting and review requirements.

When the SEC issued the Regulation A+ rules on March 25, 2015, it issued a press release in which SEC Chair Mary Jo White was quoted as saying, “These new rules provide an effective, workable path to raising capital that also provides strong investor protections. It is important for the Commission to continue to look for ways that our rules can facilitate capital raising by smaller companies.” Allowing small reporting companies to partake in Regulation A+ meets all the mandates of the JOBS Act while concurrently satisfying the SEC goal of providing investor protections, and I am a strong advocate in support of a rule change in that regard.

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com

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

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

Download our mobile app at iTunes.

« A Comparison Of Nevada, Delaware And Florida Corporate Statutes Confidentially Marketed Public Offerings (CMPO) »