• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Securities Regulation and Corporate Governance Monitor

  • Home
  • About
  • Editors
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • About
  • Editors
  • Topics
  • Subscribe

Securities Regulation

SEC Corp Fin Staff Issues “Bad Actor” Rule Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations

December 6, 2013 | Posted by Peter Wardle Topic(s): Dodd Frank; JOBS Act; Securities Regulation

On December 4, 2013, the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) providing guidance on rules recently adopted by the SEC that prohibit certain felons and other “bad actors” from participating in private securities offerings that rely on Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act).  The rule generally applies to the issuer, certain third parties that participate in the offering, and certain controlling persons, officers and affiliates of the issuer and such third parties (covered persons).

Read More

SEC Corp Fin Staff Issues General Solicitation Interpretations Under the JOBS Act

November 15, 2013 | Posted by James J. Moloney; Andrew L. Fabens Topic(s): JOBS Act; Securities Regulation

On November 13, 2013, the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) providing guidance on recent rule amendments lifting the ban on general solicitation in securities offerings made pursuant to Rule 506(c) of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Rule 144A under the Securities Act, as mandated by the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act). 

Read More

SEC Proposes Crowdfunding Rules

October 24, 2013 | Posted by Andrew L. Fabens; James J. Moloney Topic(s): JOBS Act; Securities Regulation

Yesterday, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) held an open meeting to approve the release of proposed crowdfunding rules implementing Title III of the 2012 Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”).  Once the SEC adopts final implementing rules, the crowdfunding exemption contained in Section 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) will allow U.S. private companies (primarily startups and small businesses) to raise up to $1 million in any 12-month period from pools of small investors without registration under the Securities Act.  The fundraising will be required to be conducted through a registered intermediary—either a registered broker or an online “funding portal.”   While the SEC missed the December 31, 2012 deadline to adopt implementing rules, it now appears to be moving ahead full speed with the proposed rulemaking.

Read More

Private Placement of Publicly Traded Equity Securities as Consideration in an M&A Transaction after the JOBS Act

October 3, 2013 | Posted by Robert B. Little; James J. Moloney Topic(s): JOBS Act; Securities Regulation

In April 2012, we wrote here about the potential future impact of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (“JOBS Act”) on M&A transactions in which an acquirer seeks to issue its privately placed equity securities as consideration in an acquisition.  Our discussion at the time focused on the conditions of Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and, in particular, the tension faced by issuers that are required to determine the offerees’ status as “accredited investors” or as otherwise suitable to evaluate the potential investment.  We noted that such issuers have historically been prohibited from using any form of “general solicitation” when offering securities in such transactions.  Subsequently, in July 2013, the SEC adopted final rules (effective September 23, 2013) to eliminate the absolute prohibition against general solicitation in securities offerings conducted pursuant to Rule 506, as required by Section 201(a) of the JOBS Act (Gibson Dunn’s summary and analysis of the rules may be found here).  The following discussion updates our earlier post to address the legal and practical effects of these new rules for M&A transactions that include a private placement component.

Read More

SEC Staff Grants Request to Exclude Rule 14a-8 Shareholder Proposal Regarding Repayment of Student Loans

October 2, 2013 | Posted by Ronald O. Mueller; Elizabeth A. Ising Topic(s): Corporate Governance; Securities Regulation

Gibson Dunn successfully represented DeVry Inc. in obtaining no-action relief from the SEC staff (the “Staff”) for the exclusion of a shareholder proposal requesting that DeVry “annually report to shareholders on the expected ability of students at Company-owned institutions to repay their student loans.”  The shareholder proposal, which was submitted by the New York City Comptroller’s Office on behalf of several New York City pension funds, specified particular quantitative and other information to be included in the requested report. DeVry’s no-action request argued that DeVry could exclude the shareholder proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(7) as relating to DeVry’s ordinary business operations because the proposal implicated decisions concerning product quality.  The no-action request identified shareholder proposal precedents relating to the quality of products or services in other industries (such as beverages and banking) and pointed out that, similar to those precedents, the proposal at issue was focused on the quality of DeVry’s educational services.  In a response letter dated September 6, 2013, the Staff concurred that the shareholder proposal could be excluded, noting that “the proposal focuses primarily on information the company should provide regarding the quality of its educational services” and that “[p]roposals that concern product quality are generally excludable under rule 14a-8(i)(7).” The Staff’s decision to grant DeVry’s no-action request is notable because the Staff had denied a no-action request earlier this year regarding an identical shareholder proposal submitted to another company.  The earlier no-action request had also asserted that the proposal was excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(7), but its reasoning focused on the proposal’s infringement of the company’s risk assessment practices and compliance with laws rather than on how the proposal implicated the quality of the company’s products or services.  The Staff’s concurrence with DeVry’s no-action request highlights the importance of identifying the appropriate issue that may support exclusion of a shareholder proposal, exploring and addressing any precedents and clearly articulating the reasons for which the proposal implicates a particular basis for exclusion.

Read More

SEC Proposes Rules Regarding Internal Pay Ratio Disclosure

September 18, 2013 | Posted by Elizabeth A. Ising; Ronald O. Mueller Topic(s): Compensation Committee; Dodd Frank; Executive Compensation; Securities Regulation

The SEC today held an open meeting and voted, 3-2, to approve the issuance of proposed rules to implement the internal pay ratio disclosure requirement in Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”).  SEC Chair Mary Jo White and Commissioners Kara Stein and Luis Aguilar voted to propose the rules and Commissioners Daniel Gallagher and Michael Piwowar dissented.  Statements made by the Commissioners today regarding the proposal are on the SEC website and available here.  The comment period for the SEC’s proposed rules will be 60 days after the proposing release is published in the Federal Register; the proposing release is on the SEC website and available here.

Read More

NGOs Release Report on Expectations for Conflict Minerals Reporting

September 10, 2013 | Posted by James J. Moloney; Ronald O. Mueller Topic(s): Dodd Frank; Securities Regulation

On September 5, 2013, a white paper titled, “Expectations for Companies’ Conflict Minerals Reporting,” was released by two NGOs dedicated to human rights issues, the Enough Project and the Responsible Sourcing Network, describing in detail the expectations and suggestions of certain sustainable and responsible investors, or SRIs, and nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, for the content of Form SD filings and Conflict Minerals Reports expected to be filed with the SEC next year.  The two groups make a number of suggestions that far-exceed the literal requirements of the SEC’s conflict minerals rules.  The paper, which is available at www.enoughproject.org/files/Expectations-for-Companies-Conflict-Minerals-Reporting.pdf, suggests that issuers disclose, among other things:

Read More

Are Changes to the Audit Report on the Horizon? PCAOB Issues Two Significant Proposals

August 13, 2013 | Posted by Michael Scanlon Topic(s): Audit Committee; Corporate Governance; Securities Regulation

Today, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) proposed for public comment two audit standards that, if adopted, would significantly change the audit report model, and dramatically expand the auditor’s responsibilities in reporting on management’s disclosures outside the financial statements.  PCAOB Chairman Doty remarked that the proposed standards – running to almost 300 pages – mark a “watershed moment” for auditing in the United States.

Read More

U.S. District Court Upholds SEC’s Conflict Minerals Rules

July 24, 2013 | Posted by Ronald O. Mueller; James J. Moloney Topic(s): Corporate Governance; Dodd Frank; Securities Regulation

Yesterday, Judge Robert Wilkins of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision granting the SEC’s motion for summary judgment in a suit challenging the SEC’s conflict minerals rules, which were mandated under the Dodd-Frank Act and issued by the SEC on August 22, 2012.  As a result, the conflict minerals rules remain in effect as adopted by the SEC.  The parties have not yet indicated whether they will appeal the decision. The National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable had challenged the rules in October 2012, arguing that the rules are arbitrary and capricious and impose undue costs on companies in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and compel speech in violation of the First Amendment by requiring companies to make misleading disclosures suggesting that their products promote violence and human rights abuses. Rejecting the petitioners’ arguments, the court found that various aspects of the conflict minerals provision in the Dodd-Frank Act were ambiguous, and it gave deference to the SEC’s judgments, including its determination not to adopt a de minimis exception and to include within the scope of the rules issuers that “contract to manufacture” products containing conflict minerals.  In regard to the First Amendment argument, the court gave deference to Congress in light of the foreign affairs aspect of the Dodd-Frank conflict minerals provision.  The district court’s opinion is available at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0635-37.

Read More

Removal of General Solicitation Ban, Bad Actor Disqualification Rules to Become Effective September 23, 2013; Comment Period on Related Proposed Amendments Also to End September 23, 2013

July 24, 2013 | Posted by Andrew L. Fabens; Stewart McDowell; Peter Wardle Topic(s): Dodd Frank; Investment Act/Investment Advisors Act; JOBS Act; Securities Regulation

The Commission’s final rules to remove the ban on general solicitation and general advertising in offerings pursuant to Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act, and to disqualify felons and certain other “bad actors” from participating in offerings pursuant to Rule 506, were published in the Federal Register today.  As a consequence, the final rules will become effective on September 23, 2013.

Read More
  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 20
  • Page 21
  • Page 22
  • Page 23
  • Page 24
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 34
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Topics

Audit Committee

Capital Markets

Compensation Committee

Corporate Governance

Disclosure

Dodd Frank

Environmental/Climate Change

ESG

EU Regulation

Executive Compensation

FCPA

Financial Statements

Human Capital Management

India Regulation

Investment Act/Investment Advisors Act

IPOs

JOBS Act

M&A

Miscellaneous

Private Placements

Proxy Access

Proxy Statements and Annual Meetings

Registered Securities Offerings

Registration Statements

Say on Pay

Securities Regulation

Shareholder Proposals

UK Regulation

Underwriters and Agents

Whistleblower Rules

Editors

Lauren M. Assaf-Holmes

J. Alan Bannister

Aaron K. Briggs

Michael Collins

Boris Dolgonos

Mellissa Campbell Duru

Andrew L. Fabens

Sean C. Feller

Tull Florey

Gina Hancock

Krista P. Hanvey

Hillary H. Holmes

Elizabeth A. Ising

Thomas J. Kim

David Korvin

Stella Kwak

Brian J. Lane

Ari Lanin

Julia Lapitskaya

Robert B. Little

Cynthia M. Mabry

Stewart McDowell

Gregory Merz

James J. Moloney

Ronald O. Mueller

Michael K. Murphy

Ekaterina (Kate) Napalkova

Michael Scanlon

Eric Scarazzo

Gerry Spedale

Michael A. Titera

Harrison Tucker

Peter Wardle

David C. Ware

Robyn Zolman

Lori Zyskowski

Useful Links

  • Gibson Dunn Website
  • Society for Corporate Governance
  • Institutional Shareholder Services
  • New York Stock Exchange
  • NASDAQ
  • SEC
  • Conference Board’s Center for Corporate Governance
  • Glass Lewis & Co., Inc.
  • TheCorporateCounsel.net
  • CompensationStandards.com
  • Romeo & Dye’s Section 16.net
  • Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Securities Regulation
  • National Association of Corporate Directors
  • Columbia Law Blue Sky Blog
  • COVID-19 Resources for Public Companies
  • ESG Resources for Public Companies

Archives

Subscribe to Updates
RSS Feed
  • Privacy Statement
  • Cookie Notice
  • Contact Us
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved.