Rule 15C2-11 Archives - Reverse-Merger.com

OTC Markets Issues Comment Letters On FINRA Rules 6432 And 5250; The 15c2-11 Rules

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | March 20, 2018 Tags: FINRA Rule 5250, FINRA Rule 6432, Form S-1, Rule 15C2-11, Rule 6432

January 8, 2018, OTC Markets Group, Inc. (“OTC Markets”) submitted a comment letter to FINRA related to FINRA Rule 6432. Rule 6432 requires that a market maker or broker-dealer have the information specified in Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11 before making a quotation in a security on the over-the-counter market. Although I summarize the salient points of the OTC Markets comment letter, I encourage those interested to read the entire letter, which contains an in-depth analysis and comprehensive arguments to support its position. On February 8, 2018, OTC Markets submitted a second comment letter to FINRA, this one related to FINRA Rule 5250. Rule 5250 prohibits companies from compensating market makers in connection with the preparation and filing of a Form 211 application.

Rule 6432 – Compliance with the Information Requirements of SEA Rule 15c2-11

Subject to certain exceptions, including the “piggyback exception” discussed below, Rule 6432 requires that all broker-dealers have and maintain certain information on a non-exchange traded company security prior to resuming or initiating a quotation of that security. Generally, a non-exchange traded security is quoted on the OTC Markets. Compliance with the rule is demonstrated by filing a Form 211 with FINRA. Although the rule requires that the Form 211 be filed at least three days prior to initiating a quotation, in reality FINRA reviews and comments on the filing in a back-and-forth process that can take several weeks or even months.

The specific information required to be maintained by the broker-dealer is delineated in Securities Exchange Act (“Securities Act”) Rule 15c2-11. The core principle behind Rule 15c2-11 is that adequate current information be available when a security enters the marketplace. The information required by the Rule includes either: (i) a prospectus filed under the Securities Act of 1933, such as a Form S-1, which went effective less than 90 days prior; (ii) a qualified Regulation A offering circular that was qualified less than 40 days prior; (iii) the company’s most recent annual reported filed under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act or under Regulation A and quarterly reports to date; (iv) information published pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) for foreign issuers (see HERE); or (v) specified information that is similar to what would be included in items (i) through (iv).

In addition, Rule 6432 requires the submittal of specified information about the security being quoted (for example, common stock, an ADR or warrant), the quotation medium (for example, OTCQB) and if priced, the basis upon which the price was determined.

Rule 6432 requires a certification confirming that the member broker-dealer has not accepted any payment or other consideration in connection with the submittal of the Form 211 application as prohibited by Rule 5250.

Rule 15c2-11(f)(2) allows a member firm to quote or process an unsolicited order on behalf of a customer without compliance with the information requirements. In such case, the member must document the name of the customer, date and time of the unsolicited order and identifying information on the security.

Rule 5250 – Payments for Market Making

Rule 5250 specifically prohibits a market maker from accepting any payments or other consideration, directly or indirectly, in association or connection with publishing a quotation, acting as a market maker or submitting an application in connection therewith. In other words, a market maker cannot accept any consideration whatsoever for preparing and submitting a Form 211 application with FINRA.

However, the fact is that putting together the information required by the Form 211 and responding to FINRA comments takes administrative time and effort, and I would advocate that a broker-dealer should be able to accept some form of compensation to cover this internal expense. Moreover, the Form 211 process has changed over time, becoming much more arduous for the submitting market maker. I remember when a Form 211 could actually be submitted three days prior to a quotation and based on the market maker’s assertion that they were in possession of the required information, the Form was processed, oftentimes in 24 hours.

Today, a Form 211 goes through an extensive review, comment and response process similar to an SEC review of a filing. The comment and review process is completed when FINRA either clears the Form 211 or refuses to clear the Form. The market maker is required to provide FINRA with a copy of all information and documents in their possession, and FINRA reviews the information and challenges the market maker’s position that the information is adequate. This process takes weeks at a minimum and oftentimes much longer.

Since a market maker cannot even cover their internal costs for this labor-intensive process, fewer market makers are willing to engage in the process at all.

The “Piggyback” Exception

The 15c2-11 piggyback exception provides that if an OTC Markets security has been quoted during the past 30 calendar days, and during those 30 days the security was quoted on at least 12 days without more than a four-consecutive-day break in quotation, then a broker-dealer may “piggyback” off of prior broker-dealer information. In other words, once an initial Form 211 has been filed and approved by FINRA by a market maker and the stock quoted for 30 days by that market maker, subsequent broker-dealers can quote the stock and make markets without resubmitting information to FINRA. The piggyback exception lasts in perpetuity as long as a stock continues to be quoted.

As a result of the piggyback exception, the current information required by Rule 15c2-11 may only actually be available in the marketplace at the time of the Form 211 application and not years later while the security continues to trade.

The OTC Markets Comment Letter on Rule 6432

The opening paragraph of OTC Markets’ comment letter sets the tone for the entire letter, stating, “[W]e continue to believe that the cumbersome operational processes around Rule 6432, and the related Rule 15c2-11… under the… Exchange Act, unnecessarily impede capital formation by small issuers.” They continue, and I agree, that the process creates an unnecessary difficulty on smaller companies seeking to access public markets in the U.S.

OTC Markets suggests that the recent boom in ICO’s is a natural response to the difficulties with navigating the capital and secondary markets for smaller companies, including the Form 211 process, DTC eligibility, depositing non-exchange traded securities (see HERE, which factors have only intensified since publication of that blog), and market liquidity. A re-working of Rule 6432 and the interaction with the 45-year-old Rule 15c2-11 would help improve the marketplace dramatically.

Rule 15c2-11 was enacted in 1970 to ensure that proper information was available prior to quoting a security in an effort to prevent microcap fraud. At the time of enactment of the rule, the Internet was not available for access to information. The premise of the rule was to require broker-dealers, who would be quoting the securities, to maintain information and provide that information to investors upon request. Rule 6432 requires FINRA member firms to comply with Rule 15c2-11 by filing a Form 211 with FINRA. In reality, a broker-dealer never provides the information to investors, FINRA does not make or require the information to be made public, and the broker-dealer never updates information, even after years and years. Moreover, since enactment of the rules, the Internet has created a whole new disclosure possibility and OTC Markets itself has enacted disclosure requirements, processes and procedures.

The current system does not satisfy the intended goals or legislative intent and is unnecessarily cumbersome at the beginning of a company’s quotation life with no follow-through. OTC Markets proposes the following changes to Rule 6432 and its administration:

(i) Make the Form 211 review process more objective and efficient. FINRA’s role should be changed from a subjective gatekeeper to an objective administrator, only ensuring that the market maker has the required information. FINRA should not review the merits of the information itself. Furthermore, FINRA should be bound by the three-day requirement set forth in Rule 15c2-11 such that a market maker can proceed with a quote (and receive a ticker symbol where necessary) within the mandated three days. The goal should be to ensure a market maker has 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.

I agree with this suggestion. FINRA can adequately address its gatekeeper role in its annual or biannual audit and review of member firms. Moreover, if FINRA believes that a member firm has violated its requirements under Rule 6432, as a self-regulatory organization, it has the authority and ability to institute an investigation into such member firm. By performing subjective reviews of the information itself and merits of such information, FINRA is asserting substantive control over issuers for which it lacks jurisdiction and for which such issuer has no due process rights or recourse. The same overreaching of authority relates to Rule 6490 and the processing of corporate actions. See HERE. The SEC itself, who has direct jurisdiction over a company, does not review the merits of a company’s operations, business model or capital structure, but rather only the proper disclosure of same such that an investor can make an informed decision. FINRA, who does not have direct jurisdiction or governing authority over a company, has found a way to exert subjective influence, without due process, or even published rules or information as to the criteria used in their subjective analysis.

(ii) Form 211 materials should be made public and issuers should be liable for any misrepresentations. Currently, Form 211 materials are not publicly available. Making the information publicly available would further the clear objective of SEC Rule 15c2-11.

In practice, as part of its review process, FINRA not only requests additional information, but often material non-public information, which is not only beyond the scope of Rule 15c2-11, but which information has no reasonable expectation of being made public. Clearly, if information is important for the marketplace and investors to make informed investment decisions, it should be required by the rules and should be publicly available.

(iii) Outsource Form 211 processes to IDQS’s. A broker-dealer should file a Form 211 directly with the interdealer quotation system (IDQS) on which it plans to quote the security. The IDQS should review such information for completeness and submit the package to FINRA within the three-day rule time frame. Also, FINRA member IDQS’s should be allowed to submit their own Form 211 application for issuers that meet certain lower risk criteria, such as those already trading on a Qualified Foreign Exchange.

(iv) Allow IDQS’s to monitor ongoing disclosure and institute trading halts. FINRA member IDQS’s should be responsible for developing a system that ensures ongoing disclosure of Rule 15c2-11 information for quoted securities, including the power to respond to indications of fraud and institute trading halts.

This seems so obvious to me. Where FINRA exercises subjective merit reviews of initial Form 211 applications, it then takes no action whatsoever to ensure ongoing current information. I have seen stocks trade large volumes that have been completely dark or devoid of current information for years. By allowing an IDQS to require ongoing public information by an issuer for the privilege of having market makers make markets, the SEC and FINRA would add a layer of gatekeeping responsibility that does not exist today. Separately, I note that OTC Markets does have a system and regime that responds to certain issues, such as improper stock promotion (see HERE), but has no power to institute a trading halt.

(v) Allow broker-dealer compensation for Form 211 filing. See more discussion on this topic below. I agree that allowing compensation for a Form 211 filing is not only advisable but if structured properly, has no downside. The compensation can be capped and subject to specific disclosure and reasonableness rules, including compliance with Section 17(b) of the Securities Act (see HERE).

(vi) Allow multiple market makers to quote a security after a Form 211 is cleared. This would replace the current rules of only allowing one market maker to quote a security for the first 30 days. Moreover, I would go further and suggest that the piggyback exception only be allowed if there is publicly available current information.

Encouraging Capital Markets

Following its discussion on the rules and suggested changes, the OTC Markets comment letter turns to the need to encourage secondary trading of securities as an important aspect of encouraging capital formation for smaller companies as a whole. Investors are much more likely to participate in capital raising if they have an exit strategy such as a liquid secondary marketplace where they can reasonably deposit and re-sell freely tradeable securities.

The costs and burdens of being public on a national exchange are a huge disincentive for smaller companies. The decline in the US IPO markets is a constant discussion by SEC top brass, other regulators and politicians (for example, see HERE and HERE). As the OTC Markets comment letter points out, a small company seeking to raise $10 million to finance a promising new software, is in no position to shoulder the costs and burdens of a national exchange listing, but is also stifled by the inability to properly access liquidity for its investors on IDQS’s such as OTC Markets due to antiquated and improperly administered rules such as Rule 6432.

In fact, as of today OTC Markets is the only viable operating secondary marketplace for the trading of non-exchange traded public securities. OTC Markets is comprised of three tiers: the OTCQX; the OTCQB and the Pink Open Market. For a review of the OTCQX standards, see HERE. For a review of the OTCQB standards, see HERE. For more information on the Pink Open Market, see HERE.

By implementing OTC Markets suggested changes to Rule 6432 and its implementation and administration, more small companies would access public markets, better information would be made available to investors and the marketplace, and secondary market liquidity would improve.

The OTC Markets Comment Letter on Rule 5250

On February 8, 2018, OTC Markets group submitted a second comment letter to FINRA related to Exchange Act 15c2-11 and its implementation by FINRA. The second letter directly addresses Rule 5250, which prohibits a market maker from accepting any payments or other consideration, directly or indirectly, in association or connection with publishing a quotation, acting as a market maker or submitting an application in connection therewith.

As discussed above, a Form 211 goes through an extensive review, comment and response process similar to an SEC review of a filing. The comment and review process is completed when FINRA either clears the Form 211 or refuses to clear the Form. The market maker is required to provide FINRA with a copy of all information and documents in their possession, and FINRA reviews the information for completeness but also the merits of the information using undisclosed subjective standards. In response to comments, a market maker must work with a company to provide information, which can often involve material non-public information that is not, and may never be, made public. The process takes weeks at a minimum and oftentimes much longer.

As a basic premise for the market maker, it must conduct adequate due diligence on the company and properly gather and analyze information prior to submittal to FINRA. The process can be labor-intensive for the market maker.

Furthermore, part of the process involves the market maker’s analysis and backup for the requested pricing of the security in its initial quotation. When a company goes public on a national exchange, a market maker is not restricted from charging for its investment banking services, including the part of the service that involves a valuation and determination of initial offering price. The process of determination valuation for an initial quote on the OTC Markets is substantially similar. The inability to charge for such service acts as a disincentive for a market maker to give adequate thought and attention to the process.

Since a market maker cannot even cover their internal costs for this labor-intensive process, fewer market makers are willing to engage in the process at all. Moreover, market makers have no incentive to engage with issuers in completing due diligence or creating on ongoing relationship which ensures access to information, that is made public to the investing community. In addition to assisting investors and the market place in making informed decisions, market maker/company engagement will help detect red flags and indicia of fraud, facilitating the purpose of the rules and benefiting the markets as a whole.

A responsible rule could be put into place that allows a market maker to charge for their services and encourages productive engagement and communication between a market maker and their client company. The rule should require public disclosure of a market makers fee (as well as the application itself as discussed above). In addition, market makers should be allowed to receive reimbursements for actual out-of-pocket expenses associated with preparing and filing a Form 211. Again, this amount should be fully disclosed to the investment community.

The Author

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

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

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

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

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

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

« The 2017 SEC Government-Business Forum On Small Business Capital Formation The SEC Has Issued New Guidance On Cybersecurity Disclosures »

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 »

How Does My Company Go Public?

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | May 8, 2014 Tags: DPO, DTC Eligibility, Form 10, Public Shell, Public Shells, Reverse Merger, Rule 144, Rule 15C2-11, Small Cap Market

Introduction

For at least the last twelve months, I have received calls daily from companies wanting to go public. This interest in going public transactions signifies a big change from the few years prior.

Beginning in 2009, the small-cap and reverse merger, initial public offering (IPO) and direct public offering (DPO) markets diminished greatly. I can identify at least seven main reasons for the downfall of the going public transactions. Briefly, those reasons are: (1) the general state of the economy, plainly stated, was not good; (2) backlash from a series of fraud allegations, SEC enforcement actions, and trading suspensions of Chinese companies following reverse mergers; (3) the 2008 Rule 144 amendments including the prohibition of use of the rule for shell company and former shell company shareholders; (4) problems clearing penny stock with broker dealers and FINRA’s enforcement of broker-dealer and clearing house due diligence requirements related to penny stocks; (5) DTC scrutiny and difficulty in obtaining clearance following a reverse merger or other corporate restructuring and significantly DTC chills and locks; (6) increasing costs of reporting requirements, including the relatively new XBRL requirements; and (7) the updated listing requirements imposed by NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ and twelve-month waiting period prior to qualifying for listing following a reverse merger.

However, despite these issues, the fact is that going public is and remains the best way to access capital markets. Public companies will always be able to attract a PIPE investor, equity line or similar financing (the costs and quality of these financing opportunities is beyond the scope of this blog). For cash-poor companies, the use of a trading valuable stock is the only alternative for short-term growth and acquisitions. At least in the USA, the stock market, day traders, public market activity and the interest in capital markets will never go away; they will just evolve to meet ever-changing demand and regulations.

What is a reverse merger? What is the process?

A reverse merger is the most common alternative to an initial public offering (IPO) or direct public offering (DPO) for a company seeking to go public. A “reverse merger” allows a privately held company to go public by acquiring a controlling interest in, and merging with, a public operating or public shell company. The SEC defines a “shell company” as a publically traded company with (1) no or nominal operations and (2) either no or nominal assets or assets consisting solely of any amount of cash and cash equivalents.

In a reverse merger process, the private operating company shareholders exchange their shares of the private company for either new or existing shares of the public company so that at the end of the transaction, the shareholders of the private operating company own a majority of the public company and the private operating company has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the public company. The public company assumes the operations of the private operating company. At the closing, the private operating company has gone public by acquiring a controlling interest in a public company and having the public company assume operations of the operating entity.

A reverse merger is often structured as a reverse triangular merger. In that case, the public shell forms a new subsidiary which the new subsidiary merges with the private operating business. At the closing the private company shareholders exchange their ownership for shares in the public company, and the private operating business becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of the public company. The primary benefit of the reverse triangular merger is the ease of shareholder consent. That is because the sole shareholder of the acquisition subsidiary is the public company; the directors of the public company can approve the transaction on behalf of the acquiring subsidiary, avoiding the necessity of meeting the proxy requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Like any transaction involving the sale of securities, the issuance of securities to the private company shareholders must either be registered under Section 5 of the Securities Act or use an available exemption from registration. Generally, shell companies rely on Section 4(a)(2) or Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act for such exemption.

The primary advantage of a reverse merger is that it can be completed very quickly. As long as the private entity has its “ducks in a row,” a reverse merger can be completed as quickly as the attorneys can complete the paperwork. Having your “ducks in a row” includes having completed audited financial statements for the prior two fiscal years and quarters up to date (or from inception if the company is less than two years old), and having the information that will be necessary to file with the SEC readily available. The SEC requires that a public company file Form 10 type information on the private entity within four days of completing the reverse merger transaction (a super 8-K). Upon completion of the reverse merger transaction and filing of the Form 10 information, the once private company is now public. The reverse merger transaction itself is not a capital-raising transaction, and accordingly, most private entities complete a capital-raising transaction (such as a PIPE) simultaneously with or immediately following the reverse merger, but it is certainly not required. In addition, many Companies engage in capital restructuring (such as a reverse split) and a name change either prior to or immediately following a reverse merger, but again, it is not required.

There are several disadvantages of a reverse merger. The primary disadvantage is the restriction on the use of Rule 144 where the public company is or ever has been a shell company. Rule 144 is unavailable for the use by shareholders of any company that is or was at any time previously a shell company unless certain conditions are met. In order to use Rule 144, a company must have ceased to be a shell company; be subject to the reporting requirements of section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; filed all reports and other materials required to be filed by section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as applicable, during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Issuer was required to file such reports and materials), other than Form 8-K reports; and have filed current “Form 10 information” with the Commission reflecting its status as an entity that is no longer a shell company, then those securities may be sold subject to the requirements of Rule 144 after one year has elapsed from the date that the Issuer filed “Form 10 information” with the SEC.

Rule 144 now affects any company who was ever in its history a shell company by subjecting them to additional restrictions when investors sell unregistered stock under Rule 144. The new language in Rule 144(i) has been dubbed the “evergreen requirement.” Under the so-called “evergreen requirement,” a company that ever reported as a shell must be current in its filings with the SEC and have been current for the preceding 12 months before investors can sell unregistered shares.

The second biggest disadvantage concerns undisclosed liabilities, lawsuits or other issues with the public shell. Accordingly, due diligence is an important aspect of the reverse merger process, even when dealing with a fully reporting current public shell. The third primary disadvantage is that the reverse merger is not a capital-raising transaction (whereas an IPO or DPO is). An entity in need of capital will still be in need of capital following a reverse merger, although generally, capital raising transactions are much easier to access once public. The fourth disadvantage is immediate cost. The private entity generally must pay for the public shell with cash, equity or a combination of both. However, it should be noted that an IPO or DPO is also costly.

Finally, whether an entity seeks to go public through a reverse merger or an IPO, they will be subject to several, and ongoing, time-sensitive filings with the SEC and will thereafter be subject to the disclosure and reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

What is a Direct Public Offering? What is the process?

One of the methods of going public is directly through a public offering. In today’s financial environment, many Issuers are choosing to self-underwrite their public offerings, commonly referred to as a Direct Public Offering (DPO). An IPO, on the other hand, is a public offering underwritten by a broker-dealer (underwriter). As a very first step, an Issuer and their counsel will need to complete a legal audit and any necessary corporate cleanup to prepare the company for a going public transaction. This step includes, but is not limited to, a review of all articles and amendments, the current capitalization and share structure and all outstanding securities; a review of all convertible instruments including options, warrants and debt; and the completion of any necessary amendments or changes to the current structure and instruments. All past issuances will need to be reviewed to ensure prior compliance with securities laws. Moreover, all existing contracts and obligations will need to be reviewed including employment agreements, internal structure agreements, and all third-party agreements.

Once the due diligence and corporate cleanup are complete, the Issuer is ready to move forward with an offering. Companies desiring to offer and sell securities to the public with the intention of creating a public market or going public must file with the SEC and provide prospective investors with a registration statement containing all material information concerning the company and the securities offered. Such registration statement is generally on Form S-1. For a detailed discussion of the S-1 contents, please see my white paper here. The average time to complete, file and clear comments on an S-1 registration statement is 90-120 days. Upon clearing comments, the S-1 will be declared effective by the SEC.

Following the effectiveness of the S-1, the Issuer is free to sell securities to the public. The method of completing a transaction is generally the same as in a private offering. (i) the Issuer delivers a copy of the effective S-1 to a potential investor, which delivery can be accomplished via a link to the effective registration statement on the SEC EDGAR website together with a subscription agreement; (ii) the investor completes the subscription agreement and returns it to the Issuer with the funds to purchase the securities; and (iii) the Issuer orders the shares from the transfer agent to be delivered directly to the investor. If the Issuer arranges in advances, shares can be delivered to the investors via electronic transfer or DWAC directly to the investors brokerage account.

Once the Issuer has completed the sale process under the S-1 – either because all registered shares have been sold, the time of effectiveness of the S-1 has elapsed, or the Issuer decides to close out the offering – a market maker files a 15c2-11 application on behalf of the Issuer to obtain a trading symbol and begin trading either on the over-the-counter market (such as OTCQB). The market maker will also assist the Issuer in applying for DTC eligibility.

A DPO can also be completed by completing a private offering prior to the filing of the S-1 registration statement and then filing the S-1 registration statement to register those shares for resale. In such case, the steps remain primarily the same except that the sales by the company are completing prior to the S-1 and a the 15c2-11 can be filed immediately following effectiveness of the S-1 registration statement.

Basic differences in DPO vs. Reverse Merger Process

Why DPO:

As opposed to a reverse merger, a company completing a DPO does not have to worry about potential carry-forward liability issues from the public shell.

A company completing a DPO does not have to wait 12 months to apply to the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or other exchange and if qualified, may go public directly onto an exchange.

A DPO is a money-raising transaction (either pre S-1 in a private offering or as part of the S-1 process). A reverse merger does not raise money for the going public entity unless a separate money-raising transaction is concurrently completed.

As long as the company completing the DPO has more than nominal operations (i.e., it is not a very early-stage start-up with little more than a business plan), it will not be considered a shell company and will not be subject to the various rules affecting entities that are or ever have been a shell company. To the contrary, many public entities completing a reverse merger are or were shells.

A DPO is less expensive than a reverse merger. The total cost of a DPO is approximately and generally $100,000-$150,000 all in. The cost of a reverse merger includes the price of the public vehicle, which can range from $250,000-$500,000. Accordingly, the total cost of a reverse merger is approximately and generally $350,000-$650,000 all in. Deals can be made where the cost of the public shell is paid in equity in the post-reverse merger entity instead of or in addition to cash, but either way, the public vehicle is being paid for. NOTE: These are approximate costs. Many factors can change the cost of the transactions.

Why Reverse Merger

Raising money is difficult and much more so in the pre-public stages. In a reverse merger, the public company shareholders become shareholders of the operating business and no capital raising transaction needs to be completed to complete the process.

A reverse merger can be much quicker than a DPO.

Raising money in a public company is much easier than in a private company pre going public. A reverse merger can be completed quickly, and thereafter the now public company can raise money.

Reverse Mergers and DPO’s are both excellent methods for going public

As I see it, the evolution in the markets and regulations have created new opportunities, including the opportunity for a revived, better reverse merger market and a revived, better DPO market. A reverse merger remains the quickest way for a company to go public, and a DPO remains the cleanest way for a company to go public. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and either may be the right choice for a going public transaction depending on the facts, circumstances and business needs.

The increased difficulties in general and scrutiny by regulators may be just what the industry needed to weed out the unscrupulous players and invigorate this business model. Shell companies necessarily require greater due diligence up front, if for no other reasons than to ensure DTC eligibility and broker dealer tradability, prevent future regulatory issues, and ensure that no “bad boys” are part of the deal or were ever involved in the shell. Increased due diligence will result in fewer post-merger issues.

The over-the-counter market has regained credibility and supports higher stock prices, especially since exchanges are forcing companies to trade there for a longer period of time before becoming eligible to move up. Resale registration statements, and thus disclosure, may increase to combat the Rule 144 prohibitions. We have already seen greater disclosure by non-reporting entities trading on otcmarkets.com.

The bottom line is that issues and setbacks for going public transactions since 2008 have primed the pump and created the perfect conditions for a revitalized, better reverse merger and DPO market beginning in 2014.

The Author

Attorney Laura Anthony

Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC

Securities, Reverse Merger and Corporate Attorneys

Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size OTC issuers as well as private companies going public on the over-the-counter market, such as the OTCBB, OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Ms. Anthony has structured her securities law practice as the “Big Firm Alternative.” Clients receive fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expenses associated with “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

Ms. Anthony’s focus includes, but is not limited to, registration statements, including Forms 10, S-1, S-8 and S-4, compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, 14C Information Statements and 14A Proxy Statements, going public transactions, mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, private placements, PIPE transactions, Regulation A offerings, and crowdfunding. Moreover, Ms. Anthony 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 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.

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

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

Download our mobile app at iTunes and Google Play.

« Mergers and Acquisitions; Merger Documents Outlined Reverse Merger Attorney »

The End Of An Era; The OTCBB Has Been Replaced By The OTCQB

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | March 17, 2011 Tags: Going Public, OTC BB, OTC Markets, OTCBB, OTCQB, Rule 15C2-11, SEC Law Firm, Securities Attorney

A few months ago I wrote an article predicting that the new “OTC Markets,” formerly known as the Pink Sheets, and it’s OTCQX and OTCQB quotation tiers were replacing the antiquated, formerly FINRA-run OTCBB. Current events add further evidence to this view. Recently, more than 1000 Companies which were trading on both the OTCBB and OTCQB were delisted from the OTCBB and now trade exclusively on the OTCQB tier of the OTC Markets. These entities are quickly becoming known by their new moniker, OTCQB Companies.

The Investment Banking firm of Rodman & Renshaw acquired the OTCBB from FINRA last year.

An OTCBB By Any Other Name

For more than a year leading up to this large scale, mass delistment, it has been impossible to decipher between an OTCBB Company and a Reporting Pink Sheet Company when viewing the OTC Markets website. Both entities appeared under the heading of “OTCQB.” It was essential to reference other source material in order to make the distinction.

The now privately owned and operated OTCBB quietly delisted approximately 1,000 fully reporting and current, public companies from its quotation medium, initially citing “failure to comply with Rule 15c2-11”. Subsequent delistments cited “Ineligible for quotation on OTCBB due to quoting inactivity under SEC Rule 15c2-11.”

Delistments Means Little to Nothing

Most, if not all, of these companies did not receive notice of their “delisting”. Moreover, most, if not all, of these companies still do not know that they are no longer OTCBB quoted companies. In fact, the change has had little if no impact on these companies and will likely not have future impact. Each of these companies continue to be quoted on the OTCQB on the website for OTC Markets.

Issuer Reporting Obligations

Issuers on the OTCQB must be fully reporting and current in their reporting obligations with the SEC. Although the entire Over the Counter is regulated by the SEC and FINRA, the OTC Markets and the OTCBB are both now privately owned and merely serve as quotation mediums. However, and most importantly, the OTC Markets is more user friendly and factually up to date and accurate than the website for the OTCBB. So, if all Over the Counter quotes can be found at www.otcmarkets.com and companies trading on the OTCQB have the exact same standards as the OTCBB, and FINRA is no longer directly associated with the OTCBB, is there any reason for the OTCBB to even exist?

The fact sheet on www.otcmarkets.com has this to say regarding OTCQB quoted securities:

“With over 94% of all market maker quotes in OTC securities published on OTC Markets Group’s platform vs. 6% on the FINRA BB, it is important that OTC Markets Group provide a separate designation to identify OTC-traded companies that are U.S. registered and reporting. OTC Markets Group has launched the OTCQBtm marketplace to help investors easily identify SEC reporting companies and regulated banks that are current with their disclosure obligations.”

In summary, the curtains have closed on the OTCBB in name only and its business as usual for the new OTCQB.

The Author

Attorney Laura Anthony,
Founding Partner, Legal & Compliance, LLC
Securities, Reverse Mergers, Corporate Transactions

Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size public Companies as well as private Companies intending to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), now known as the OTCQB. For more than a decade Ms. Anthony has dedicated her securities law practice towards being “the big firm alternative.” Clients receive fast and efficient cutting-edge legal service without the inherent delays and unnecessary expense of “partner-heavy” securities law firms.

Ms. Anthony’s focus includes but is not limited to compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”) including Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K and the proxy requirements of Section 14. In addition, Ms. Anthony prepares private placement memorandums, registration statements under both the Exchange Act and Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”). Moreover, Ms. Anthony represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse and forward mergers, including preparation of deal documents such as Merger Agreements, Stock Purchase Agreements, Asset Purchase Agreements and Reorganization Agreements. Ms. Anthony prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of the Exchange Act, state law and FINRA for corporate changes such as name changes, reverse and forward splits and change of domicile.

Contact Legal & Compliance. LLC for a free initial consultation or second opinion on an existing matter.

Alternatives To Going Public – Private Company Financing Options »