login-customizer domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131The post The Confidentially Marketed Public Offering for the Smaller Reporting Company appeared first on The National Law Forum.
]]>A Confidentially Marketed Public Offering (“CMPO”) is an offering of securities registered on a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 where securities are taken “off the shelf” and sold when favorable market opportunities arise, such as an increase in the issuer’s price and trading volume resulting from positive news pertaining to the issuer. In a CMPO, an underwriter will confidentially contact a select group of institutional investors to gauge their interest in an offering by the issuer, without divulging the name of the issuer. If an institutional investor indicates its firm interest in a potential offering and agrees not to trade in the issuer’s securities until either the CMPO is completed or abandoned, the institutional investor will be “brought over the wall” and informed on a confidential basis of the name of the issuer and provided with other offering materials. The offering materials made available to investors are typically limited to the issuer’s public filings, and do not include material non-public information (“MNPI”). By avoiding the disclosure of MNPI, the issuer mitigates the risk of being required to publicly disclose the MNPI in the event the offering is terminated. Once brought over the wall, the issuer, underwriter and institutional investors will negotiate the terms of the offering, including the price (which is usually a discount to the market price) and size of the offering. Once the offering terms are determined, the issuer turns the confidentially marketed offering into a public offering by filing a prospectus supplement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and issuing a press release informing the public of the offering. Typically, this occurs after the close of markets. Once public, the underwriters then market the offering broadly to other investors, typically overnight, which is necessary for the offering to be a “public” offering as defined by NASDAQ and the NYSE (as discussed further below). Customarily, before markets open on the next trading day, the issuer informs the market of the final terms of the offering, including the sale price of the securities to the public, the underwriting discount per share and the proceeds of the offering to the issuer, by issuing a press release and filing a prospectus supplement and Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC. The offering then closes and shares are delivered to investors and funds to the issuer, typically two or three trading days later.
To be eligible to conduct a CMPO, an issuer needs to have an effective registration statement on Form S-3, and is therefore only available to companies that satisfy the criteria to use such form. For issuers that have an aggregate market value of voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the issuer (“public float”) of $75M or more, the issuer can offer the full amount of securities remaining available for issuance under the registration statement. Issuers that have a public float of less than $75M will be subject to the “baby shelf rules”. In a CMPO, issuers subject to the baby shelf rules can offer up to one-third of their public float, less amounts sold under the baby shelf rules in the trailing twelve month period prior to the offering. To determine the public float, the issuer may look back sixty days from the date of the offering, and select the highest of the last sales prices or the average of the bid and ask prices on the exchange where the issuer’s stock is listed. For an issuer subject to the baby shelf rules, the amount of capital that the issuer can raise will continually fluctuate based on the issuer’s trading price.
The public offering period of a CMPO must be structured to satisfy the applicable NASDAQ or New York Stock Exchange criteria for a “public offering”. In the event that the criteria are not satisfied, rules requiring advance shareholder approval for private placements where the offering could equal 20% or more of the pre-offering outstanding shares may be implicated. Moreover, a sale of securities in a transaction other than a public offering at a discount to the market value of the stock to insiders of the issuer is considered a form of equity compensation and requires stockholder approval. Nasdaq also requires issuers to file a “listing of additional shares” in connection with a CMPO.
There are a number of advantages of a CMPO compared to a traditional public offering, including the following:
Disadvantages of conducting a CMPO include:
This article is for general information only and may not be relied upon as legal advice. Any company exploring the possibility of a CMPO should engage directly with legal counsel.
The post The Confidentially Marketed Public Offering for the Smaller Reporting Company appeared first on The National Law Forum.
]]>The post Oops: NASDAQ Seeks to Correct a 2009 Error Re: ADR Listing Requirements appeared first on The National Law Forum.
]]>“ADRs” are American Depository Receipts. They have a long history in the U.S. capital markets, having been invented by J.P. Morgan in 1927 to facilitate access to the American stock market by Selfridges, an iconic British department store organized and managed by an American expatriate as the second-largest (after Harrod’s) department store in the UK in 1909 (and featured in a BBC TV series of that name about both the store and Mr. Selfridge). ADRs are depository receipts issued by an American bank when the underlying securities are deposited in a foreign depository bank. There are some interesting complexities about ADR’s depending on whether the ADR is a Level 1 ADR, or whether it is a Level 2 Sponsored ADR, which requires filing a separate registration statement with the SEC. And then there are Level 3 ADRs that require the foreign company to not only file a Form F-1 with the SEC but to adhere either to U.S. GAAP accounting standards OR IFRS as published in the IASB. The April 7 NASDAQ Proposal does not directly impact any of these ADR complexities.
Listing requirements are just that: the conditions a company must meet in order to have its securities traded on NASDAQ. NASDAQ has three market tiers: the Global Select Market, the Global Market, and the Capital Market. The Capital Market is the trading tier with the least stringent requirements for listing. The NASDAQ Global Market requires that the companies seeking to list on it must have some international attributes and substantially higher financial and governance features. The NASDAQ has the most rigorous listing requirements and is the tier for leading international companies.
Until 2009, NASDAQ required that at least 400,000 ADRs be issued in order to be listed on any of the three NASDAQ tiers, insure that there would be sufficient liquidity and “depth in the market” to support public trading. Then in 2009, as part of a “housekeeping,” NASDAQ moved the listing requirements for ADRs on the Global Market AND the Global Select Market to a new section of NASDAQ listing requirements that had NO minimum number of ADRs in order to be listed on those tiers. Ironically, the least restricted trading tier RETAINED the 400,000 ADR requirement. Recently, someone at NASDAQ noticed the disparity. Fortunately, NO issue with fewer than 400,000 ADRs has been listed on either the Global Select or Global Market tiers in the 12 years since 2009. Now, NASDAQ seeks to reimpose the 400,000 minimum ADR requirement for ALL NASDAQ tiers. As this proposed change to the listing requirements is a simple reinstatement of a condition accidentally omitted in the 2009 “housekeeping,” and as no present listing will be adversely affected, NASDAQ requested, and the SEC granted, a waiver of the normal 30-day period before a change might take effect.
While, as Alexander Pope wrote: “To err is human, to forgive, divine;” to correct may even be better.
©2021 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved
The post Oops: NASDAQ Seeks to Correct a 2009 Error Re: ADR Listing Requirements appeared first on The National Law Forum.
]]>The post Nasdaq Makes Preparations to Shorten Settlement Cycle for Securities Transactions from T+3 to T+2 appeared first on The National Law Forum.
]]>
In connection with the industry-led initiative to shorten the settlement cycle for transactions in U.S. equities and other securities from trade date plus three business days (T+3) to trade date plus two business days (T+2), the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) has preliminarily identified certain rules that establish or reference a T+3 settlement cycle, including rules that establish the ex-dividend date for distributions by Nasdaq-listed companies.
In order to implement a T+2 settlement cycle, Nasdaq would modifyRule 11140(b)(1) to provide that the “ex-dividend date” will generally be the first business day before the record date. The ex-dividend date is the date on which a security is traded without the right to receive a dividend or distribution that has been declared by a listed issuer.
The following Nasdaq rules would also be impacted by this amendment:
Rule 2830 (Investment Company Securities, incorporated by reference from NASD Rule 2830)
Rule 11150(a) (Transactions “ex-interest” in bonds which are dealt in “flat”)
Rules 11210(c) and (d) (Confirmations)
Rule 11320(b) and 11320(c) (Dates of delivery)
Rule 11620 (Computation of interest)
Nasdaq anticipates filing rule amendments to accommodate the new T+2 settlement cycle later in 2016, and fully implementing T+2 settlement in the third quarter of 2017. Interested parties can submit comments prior to September 30, 2016.
© 2016 Jones Walker LLP
The post Nasdaq Makes Preparations to Shorten Settlement Cycle for Securities Transactions from T+3 to T+2 appeared first on The National Law Forum.
]]>