Corp Fin issues new and revised Securities Act CDIs—primarily Reg A and Reg D
Corp Fin has just issued a slew of new and revised CDIs regarding the Securities Act and related rule and forms—primarily Reg A and Reg D. Some are updates that relate back to the 2020 amendments designed to harmonize and simplify the patchwork universe of private offering exemptions. (See this PubCo post.) There are also a few CDIs related to Reg Crowdfunding. And, in a burst of housekeeping, Corp Fin has also withdrawn a number of mostly ancient CDIs. The highlights here are two new CDIs under Rule 502: New Question 256.35 and New Question 256.36. CDI 256.35 outlines factors that should be used—and how they should be used—in applying a reasonableness standard to assess accredited investor status. CDI 256.36 reflects a new no-action letter describing how, in a high minimum investment offering, an issuer could reasonably conclude that reasonable steps have been taken to verify accredited investor status—new guidance that is expected to simplify the private offering process. The CDIs are summarized below and, for revised CDIs, a ink to the prior version is included.
Cooley Alert: Impacts for US Companies of the Proposed EU Omnibus Package
Here’s a recent Cooley Alert that some companies may be delighted—or at least relieved—to read: Impacts for US Companies of the Proposed EU Omnibus Package, from Cooley’s international ESG and sustainability advisory team. As you may know, the EU has adopted a plethora of legislation related to sustainability—the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the EU Taxonomy Regulation, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), to name some—and many of them are applicable to US companies that meet the reporting threshold. Some US companies have already begun preparing for compliance. But, as discussed in the Alert, perhaps that won’t be necessary just yet.
Shadow SEC argues for retention of SEC independence
At the end of last year, in this post on the CLS Blue Sky Blog, two leading authorities on securities law, Professors John C. Coffee, Jr. and Joel Seligman, made some predictions about SEC regulation under the new Administration. (See this PubCo post.) In light of their concerns about the potential changes to the SEC under the new Administration, they announced their intent to form a “Shadow SEC,” composed of acknowledged experts in securities regulation, intended to encourage debate through the presentation of “cogent and factual arguments”: “Such a shadow body—more scholarly than political—might frame issues in fuller detail and offer less drastic alternatives.” Although “[c]larity and objectivity will not always win,” they suggested, “sometimes they might. That is enough to justify the effort.” In Shadow SEC: The Value of an Independent SEC, the Shadow SEC takes on the February 18 Executive Order, which sought to rein in the independence of “independent” federal regulatory agencies, such as the SEC, by ensuring that they all operate under the President’s authority and supervision. (See this PubCo post.) Not surprisingly, they had some concerns.
SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee recommends SEC action on §11 liability after Slack. How likely is it?
In a meeting last year of the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee, the Committee heard from a panel regarding the continued viability—or rather, lack thereof—of §11 liability following SCOTUS’s decision in Slack Technologies v. Pirani. Slack, as you know, limited §11 liability in direct listings—and, perhaps increasingly, in the context of other offerings as well—given the difficulty of tracing shares to the defective registration statement in direct listings, where both registered and preexisting unregistered shares may be sold at the same time. The presenting panel made a strong pitch for SEC intervention to facilitate tracing and restore §11 liability, ultimately advocating that the Committee make recommendations to the SEC to solve this problem. (See this PubCo post.) Two subcommittees have now crafted a recommendation, and at the recent meeting of the Committee on March 6, there was a brief discussion of that proposal. In the end, the Committee voted in favor of submitting the recommendation to the SEC, with one abstention and one negative vote. Recommendations from SEC advisory committees often hold some sway with the staff and the commissioners, so it’s worth paying attention to the outcome here. But will the new Administration be receptive to recommendations to facilitate the restoration of §11 liability? From the comments of Commissioner Hester Peirce, it doesn’t sound that way.
EDGAR Next begins March 24
In this new press release, Filer Transition to New and Improved EDGAR Begins March 24, the SEC provides references and links to “extensive guidance and resources” available to assist filers with EDGAR Next. According to the press release, the new EDGAR Filer Management dashboard will go live on March 24 on the SEC’s website, and filers can begin enrolling in “EDGAR Next.” Enrollment in EDGAR Next will remain open until December 19, 2025; however, to avoid interruption, the SEC advises filers to enroll no later than September 12, 2025. Here is the EDGAR Next webpage.
Happy International Women’s Day tomorrow March 8!!
New CDIs related to M&A
Corp Fin has just posted some new CDIs related to M&A transactions, more specifically, a revised CDI related to Form S-4 and lock-up agreements and a new group of CDIs related primarily to material changes in tender offers. The CDIs are summarized below.
Are meme coins securities? Corp Fin says no
Last week, Corp Fin issued a new statement providing its views on whether “meme coins” were securities or, if offered and sold, involved securities transactions. Meme coins are more like collectibles, the staff explained, with “limited or no use or functionality.” What’s more, Corp Fin concluded, “transactions in the types of meme coins described in this statement[] do not involve the offer and sale of securities under the federal securities laws.” But application of the staff’s guidance here might be trickier than it may appear at first glance: a footnote indicates that Corp Fin’s “view is not dispositive of whether a specific meme coin itself is a security or whether it is offered and sold as part of an investment contract, which is a security. A definitive determination requires analyzing the specific facts relating to the meme coin and the manner in which it is offered and sold.” According to Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw in her response statement, the staff guidance provided “an incomplete, unsupported view of the law to suggest that an entire product category is outside the bounds of SEC jurisdiction.”
Note that the SEC has announced that its Crypto Task Force will host a series of roundtables to discuss key areas of interest in the regulation of crypto assets, with the first event beginning on March 21.
Corp Fin expands opportunities for nonpublic review of draft registration statements
Yesterday, the SEC announced that Corp Fin was “further facilitating capital formation by enhancing the accommodations available to companies for nonpublic review of draft registration statements.” You might recall that, in 2012, the JOBS Act permitted Emerging Growth Companies to initiate the IPO process by submitting their IPO registration statements confidentially to the SEC for nonpublic review by the SEC staff. The confidential process was intended to allow an EGC to defer the public disclosure of sensitive or competitive information until it was almost ready to market the offering—and potentially to avoid the public disclosure altogether if it ultimately decided not to proceed with the offering. The process was a hit, and, in 2017, Corp Fin extended that benefit to companies that were not EGCs, allowing them, for the first time, to submit confidential draft registration statements for IPOs, as well as for most offerings made in the first year after going public. The new enhanced accommodations, announced yesterday, will “expand the types of forms eligible to be submitted as draft registration statements for nonpublic review and permit reporting companies to submit draft registration statements for nonpublic review regardless of how much time has passed since their initial public offering. In addition, companies will have added flexibility to start the review process earlier by omitting certain underwriter disclosures from their initial submissions.” According to Cicely LaMothe, Acting Director of Corp Fin, “[o]ver the years, staff have observed companies seeking to raise capital are taking advantage of the nonpublic review process when available. Expanding these popular accommodations will provide new and existing companies greater flexibility to explore and plan public offerings….These enhanced accommodations will further support capital formation while retaining investor protections available to purchasers in public offerings.”
Cooley Alert: Policy updates regarding board diversity and proxy season considerations
How to deal with the issue of board diversity has become quite the conundrum. After the killing of George Floyd, many companies enhanced and championed their policies and commitments to DEI. But recent changes to the legal and political landscape—there’s an understatement for you—have had repercussions. Consider, for example, the collective impact of the Fifth Circuit decision vacating the SEC’s order approving Nasdaq’s board diversity rules (see this PubCo post), the 2023 decision by SCOTUS effectively ending affirmative action based on race in higher education admissions (with political, if not yet legal, spillover into the corporate world), the new Administration’s executive orders intended to put the kibosh on DEI programs altogether (which have been, and are likely to continue to be, mired in litigation, see this Cooley Alert), along with the increasing volume of anti-DEI activism and political pressure, manifested in part in litigation and anti-DEI shareholder proposals. (And see this article in The Atlantic about the implications of the absence of consensus on the meaning of “DEI.”) As discussed in this new Cooley Alert, Board Diversity: Policy Updates and Considerations for Proxy Season, from our Capital Markets group, this fraught and shifting environment has compelled some proxy advisors and institutional investors to craft dramatically revised policies on board diversity that companies will need to consider this proxy season. As the Alert highlights, “[c]ompanies will need to make decisions about proxy statement disclosures amid ongoing uncertainty… while balancing competing stakeholder priorities.” Not to mention, to the extent that companies are faced with recalibrating their corporate commitments related to board diversity and DEI generally, obvious concerns with retaining authenticity and adhering to company values.
Sponsor of SB 21, controversial Delaware bill to amend corporate law, speaks out
In an exclusive interview with Law360, the Delaware legislator who was the primary sponsor of the proposed amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law that have fueled so much debate recently discusses the thinking behind the proposed legislation. As discussed in this PubCo post, in response to much chatter and speculation about companies changing their states of incorporation from Delaware to other states—in other words, concerns about Delaware’s valuable corporate franchise—the Delaware legislature introduced a bill that, if adopted, would effect “sweeping changes” to Delaware’s corporate law. The bill would offer a process for boards to invoke safe harbor protection from litigation over potentially conflicted transactions for directors and controlling stockholders. The bill would also address Delaware’s provisions related to books and records. The impact could be fundamental. But there has been substantial pushback—some of which is quoted in the referenced post—from critics of the bill. In the Law360 interview, Delaware Senate Majority Leader Bryan Townsend defends the bill, citing the “‘urgency of the moment.’” In his analysis, “‘[w]hat seems to be happening here is growing frustration out there in the marketplace as to what people believe to be a departure in predictability’ in Delaware’s courts, ‘at a time when other states are standing up alternative frameworks that people are seriously considering.’” Check out the article!
You must be logged in to post a comment.