Bass, Berry & Sims

Subscribe to Bass, Berry & Sims's Posts

Generally speaking, the federal securities laws were drafted with the purpose of limiting the kind and amount of pre-offering publicity permitted in registered public offerings. Pursuant to Section 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, it is unlawful to offer to sell or offer to buy any security unless a registration statement has been filed. The term “offer” is defined and interpreted very broadly, with the effect that any pre-filing publicity constitutes gun jumping if it cannot be justified on the grounds that it was made for a permissible purpose, such as regularly released factual business information. As demonstrated by a recent SEC Staff comment letter repeated below, the Staff continues to consider gun jumping rules in connection with its filing reviews.

Evolution of Gun Jumping Laws

The rules related to gun jumping have evolved over time, and in 2005 the SEC substantially modernized many of the offering communication rules in its Securities Offering Reform release. Other recent updates to the offering communication rules include the following examples from the JOBS Act of 2012 and related SEC rules:

  • No Quiet Period in Regulation A+ Offerings: An issuer may “test the waters” with all potential investors before and after the filing of the offering statement to determine whether there is any interest in the contemplated securities offering, subject to certain conditions.
  • Limited Quiet Period for Emerging Growth Companies (EGCs): EGCs may “test the waters” with certain institutional investors before and after filing a registration statement to determine whether such investors might have an interest in the contemplated securities offering.
  • Rule 506(c) Private Placements Permit General Solicitation: Issuers may broadly solicit and generally advertise an offering, provided that all purchasers in the offering are accredited investors, the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify purchasers’ accredited investor status, and certain other conditions in Regulation D are satisfied.

Continue Reading The Rumors of the Death of Gun Jumping Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

In monitoring SEC comment letters, we came across this SEC comment letter recently made public.  While we acknowledge the term “pro forma” is often used by registrants when adjusting their GAAP results to provide additional meaningful information to investors, this comment by the Staff serves as a reminder to registrants that the Staff generally dislikes non-GAAP measures titled as “pro forma” when the information is not presented in compliance with the pro forma rules in Article 11 of Regulation S-X.  In this situation, the registrant agreed to delete the words “pro forma” and instead use the words “as adjusted.”
Continue Reading SEC Staff Says Avoid Titling Non-GAAP Measures with “Pro Forma” Unless S-X Article 11 Compliant

On August 17, the SEC adopted amendments intended to simplify and update the disclosure of information to investors and reduce compliance burdens for companies without significantly altering the total mix of information available to investors.  The amendments are effective 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

The amendments eliminate certain:

  • Redundant and duplicative requirements, which require substantially similar disclosures as GAAP, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) or other SEC disclosure requirements.
  • Overlapping requirements, which are related to, but not the same as GAAP, IFRS or other SEC disclosure requirements.
  • Outdated requirements, which have become obsolete as a result of the passage of time or changes in the regulatory, business or technological environment.
  • Superseded requirements, which are inconsistent with recent legislation, more recently updated SEC disclosure requirements, or more recently updated GAAP.

Continue Reading SEC Adopts Amendments to Simplify and Update Disclosure Requirements

On July 24, the SEC proposed amendments to Rule 3-10 of Regulation S-X for guarantors and issuers of guaranteed securities registered or being registered, as well as the financial disclosure requirements in Rule 3-16 of Regulation S-X for affiliates whose securities collateralize securities registered or being registered.  Here is the proposing release.  The proposed changes are intended to provide investors with material information given the specific facts and circumstances, make the disclosures easier to understand, and reduce the costs and burdens to registrants.  The proposal will be subject to a 60-day public comment period.
Continue Reading SEC Proposes to Simplify Guarantor and Pledgor Disclosures in Registered Debt Offerings

The most recent edition of The Business Lawyer, published by the ABA’s Business Law Section, includes its Annual Review of Federal Securities Regulation prepared by its Subcommittee on Annual Review from the Committee on Federal Regulation of Securities. The Review outlines significant developments in federal securities law and regulation in 2017. The Review is…

The SEC recently adopted Inline eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) rules for operating companies and funds, which are intended to improve the quality and accessibility of XBRL data.  While more detail about the rules and the related phase-in period can be found here, our readers that prepare Form 10-Qs should know that the rules…

On June 28, the SEC adopted regulations that could reduce the reporting burden on middle market public companies. In summary, the SEC adopted amendments to the smaller reporting company (SRC) definition to increase the thresholds for eligibility. Under the amendments, companies with a public float of less than $250 million will qualify as SRCs (up from $75 million). The SEC estimates that about 1,000 additional companies will now be eligible for scaled disclosure as a result of the rule amendments. We expect these amendments may also help companies that have undertaken their IPO in the last five years as they roll off emerging growth company eligibility because of the passage of time.
Continue Reading SEC Adopts Rules that Could Ease Disclosure Burden on Middle Market Public Companies

On July 2, the SEC announced that The Dow Chemical Company agreed to settle charges related to the company’s inadequate perquisites disclosure in SEC filings by paying a civil penalty in the amount of $1.75 million, hiring an independent consultant to evaluate and recommend changes to the company’s policies and procedures relating to perquisites disclosure, and implementing such changes.

The SEC’s order finds that from 2011 through 2015, Dow did not ensure that approximately $3 million in executive perquisites were adequately evaluated and disclosed as “other compensation” in the Compensation Discussion & Analysis (CD&A) section of its annual proxy statements. These authorized but undisclosed perquisites included personal use of the Dow aircraft and other expenses.Continue Reading Recent SEC Enforcement Action Reminds Companies that Perquisite Disclosure Does Not Hinge on Business Purpose

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a Valentine’s Day notice to public companies yesterday that the SEC will be holding an open meeting on Wednesday, February 21, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. EST to consider, among other things, “whether to approve the issuance of an interpretive release to provide guidance to assist public companies in preparing disclosures about cybersecurity risks and incidents.”
Continue Reading SEC Calendars Open Meeting to Consider Issuing an Interpretive Release on Cybersecurity Disclosures

From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network
From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.