While monitoring SEC comment letters, we recently came across the batch of SEC comment letters issued to Uber Technologies, Inc. in connection with its IPO registration statement that was declared effective on May 9, 2019.  The company’s response letters (with SEC comments repeated as is customary) are available below:

Presented below are five interesting takeaways from the letters that may have general application:


Continue Reading

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently awarded $3 million to joint whistleblowers despite concluding that the whistleblowers did not satisfy the technical eligibility requirements for receiving an award. See SEC Exchange Act Release No. 86010. The SEC Whistleblower Program has ramped up significantly the past few years, with record numbers of complaints being filed

I am excited to be co-presenting a webcast titled, “Navigating Corp Fin’s Comment Process,” with Era Anagnosti, Partner, White & Case LLP and Karen Garnett, Partner, Proskauer Rose LLP. This panel of former Senior SEC Staffers will explain the process by which the SEC Staff issues comments – step-by-step – as well as provide their

Last month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) held its annual SEC Speaks Conference in Washington, D.C. We have summarized several significant insights conveyed by SEC Staff that are instructive for counsel handling investigations by the SEC’s Enforcement Division.

Continue reading to learn more about:

  • Herrera and Waiver of Work Product Protections
  • Further Insight on

Note: We updated this post (originally posted last week) to add a new frequently asked question about expanded hyperlinking. 

The questions and answers below address certain interpretive issues on the SEC’s new hyperlink requirements effective May 2, 2019. For more on the SEC’s amendments, see our previous post that details the rule changes.

FAQ #1

Question:  The new rules will require registrants to include an active hyperlink to information incorporated by reference into a registration statement or report if such information is publicly available on EDGAR “at the time the registration statement or form is filed.”

How does this new requirement apply to information incorporated by reference from one item to another within the same filing? 


Continue Reading

There have certainly been many developments in securities claims jurisdiction in the past several years, particularly in the area of “exclusive forum” provisions contained in charters or bylaws. Exclusive forum provisions typically provide that a certain court (e.g., the Delaware Court of Chancery) is the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of litigation involving the company. These provisions are often tested in the courts, especially when they seem to be in conflict with controlling precedent.  For example, in 2018 in Cyan v. Beaver Cty. Empls. Ret. Fund, the United States Supreme Court concluded that federal law did not bar state courts from adjudicating class actions alleging only claims under the 1933 Act, and it also prohibited the removal of such class actions from state to federal court.

Following Cyan, several Delaware companies attempted to avoid litigating 1933 Act class actions in state court by adopting charter-based federal forum provisions, which required stockholders to file any claim under the 1933 Act in federal court. Those efforts to circumvent the consequence of Cyan, however, failed when in a December 2018 case (Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg), the Delaware Court of Chancery rejected use of these federal forum provisions. The court reasoned that Delaware corporations could only adopt forum-selection provisions for “internal-affairs claims.” According to the Delaware Court of Chancery, “a 1933 Act claim is external to the corporation.” Therefore, because 1933 Act claims are external to Delaware corporations, charter provisions requiring a federal forum for 1933 Act class actions brought by corporation shareholders were invalid under Delaware law.

Notwithstanding the above related to the 1933 Act class actions, federal courts continue to have “exclusive jurisdiction” to hear claims brought under the 1934 Act as a result of Section 27(a) of that law.


Continue Reading

On March 20, 2019, nearly a year and a half after proposing them, the SEC adopted amendments to disclosure requirements for reporting companies, as mandated by the 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (the “FAST Act”).  The amendments are a part of an ongoing effort by the SEC to simplify and modernize disclosure obligations.  According to the SEC’s press release, the amendments are expected “to benefit investors by eliminating outdated and unnecessary disclosure and making it easier for them to access and analyze material information.”

Among many other items, the amendments address the following topics:

  • Greater Flexibility When Filing Under Item 601 of Regulation S-K
    • Omission of Immaterial Schedules and Exhibits—The amendments revise Item 601 of Regulation S-K to expand the ability of registrants to omit immaterial schedules and similar attachments to required exhibits, which previously was only available to schedules and exhibits to acquisitions agreements being filed under Item 601(b)(2).


Continue Reading

This week the SEC proposed to expand the “test-the-waters” accommodation—currently available to emerging growth companies (EGCs)—to all issuers, including investment company issuers. The proposed rule and related amendments under the Securities Act of 1933 would enable all issuers (and its authorized representatives, including underwriters) to engage in test-the-waters communications with certain institutional investors regarding a contemplated registered securities offering prior to, or following, the filing of a registration statement related to such offering. These communications would be exempt from restrictions imposed by Section 5 of the Securities Act on written and oral offers prior to or after filing a registration statement and would be limited to qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) and institutional accredited investors (IAIs).

In the SEC’s press release announcing the action, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton said, “Extending the test-the-waters reform to a broader range of issuers is designed to enhance their ability to conduct successful public securities offerings and lower their cost of capital, and ultimately to provide investors with more opportunities to invest in public companies.”  Chairman Clayton added, “I have seen first-hand how the modernization reforms of the JOBS Act have helped companies and investors. The proposed rules would allow companies to more effectively consult with investors and better identify information that is important to them in advance of a public offering.”

Under proposed Securities Act Rule 163B:


Continue Reading

In response to the mandate of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission recently issued final rule amendments permitting companies reporting under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act to offer securities pursuant to the registration exemption Regulation A. Previously, offerings pursuant to Regulation A were expressly limited to non-reporting companies. The rule amendments also provide that, so long as the reporting company is current in its Exchange Act periodic reports, the reporting company has no additional periodic reporting obligations under Regulation A. These amendments became effective on January 31, 2019, upon publication in the Federal Register.

Continue Reading