SEC Adopts New Rule 163B to Permit “Test-the-Waters” Communications for All Issuers

Sep 30, 2019

Reading Time : 4 min

Investor Status

In general, a QIB is an institution that, acting for its own account or the accounts of other QIBs, in the aggregate, owns and invests on a discretionary basis at least $100 million in securities of unaffiliated issuers. An IAI is any institutional investor that is also an accredited investor (as defined in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D). Rule 163B permits communications with potential investors that are, or that the issuer reasonably believes to be, QIBs or IAIs. As noted in the adopting release, Rule 163B does not specify the steps that an issuer could or must take to establish a reasonable belief regarding investor status or require the issuer to verify investor status. Instead, the SEC believes that issuers should continue to rely on the methods that they currently use to establish a reasonable belief with respect to an investor’s status as a QIB or IAI pursuant to Rules 144A and 501(a) of the Securities Act.

Section 12(a)(2) Liability and Anti-Fraud Provisions Still Applicable

Section 5(c) of the Securities Act prohibits any written or oral offers prior to the filing of a registration statement. Once an issuer has filed a registration statement, Section 5(b)(1) of the Securities Act limits written offers to a “statutory prospectus” that conforms to the information requirements of Section 10 of the Securities Act. To provide issuers with flexibility to gauge market interest, Rule 163B exempts communications from Section 5(b)(1) and Section 5(c). However, because Rule 163B communications will still be considered “offers” as defined in Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act, such communications will be subject to liability under Section 12(a)(2) in addition to the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Application of the anti-fraud provisions and exposure to Section 12(a)(2) liability, along with limiting such communications to QIBs and IAIs, will mitigate investor protection concerns according to the SEC. Also, while not a condition to the availability of Rule 163B, the SEC did emphasize that information in a Rule 163B communication must not conflict with material information in the related registration statement. Based the SEC staff’s experience in reviewing test-the-waters material used by EGCs, the SEC notes that even if an issuer changes its capital raising strategy, modifies offering terms based on investor input or changes its messaging, material information about the issuer usually remains consistent, other than updates to reflect continuing operations and material changes that may develop during the time between the communication and filing. While recognizing that disclosure may change in order to reflect a change in circumstances or offering terms, the SEC highlights that information in the Rule 163B communication should not contain material misstatements or omission at the time the communication is made.

No Filing or Legend Requirements

In the adopting release, the SEC clarified that Rule 163B communications need not be filed with the SEC, which, if required, could “have a chilling effect on the usefulness of the rule” according to the SEC. Nor must Rule 163B communications include any specified legends. Additionally, the SEC clarified that a written communication used in reliance on Rule 163B would not constitute a free writing prospectus. The SEC did note, however, that, as is currently the practice of the SEC staff when reviewing offerings conducted by EGCs, the SEC or its staff could request that an issuer furnish any test-the-waters communication used in connection with an offering.

Rule 163B and Regulation FD

In its adopting release, the SEC cautioned that issuers subject to Regulation FD would need to consider whether any information in the test-the-waters communication would trigger any obligations under Regulation FD or whether an exception to Regulation FD would apply. In general, Regulation FD requires public disclosure of any material nonpublic information that has been selectively disclosed to certain securities market professionals or shareholders if the issuer has a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) or is required to file reports under Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Therefore, communications made under Rule 163B that also include material nonpublic information could be subject to Regulation FD unless an exception applies.

Test-the-Waters Communications and General Solicitation

According to the SEC, whether a test-the-waters communication would constitute a general solicitation depends on the facts and circumstances regarding the manner in which the communication is conducted. The SEC notes that an issuer can engage in test-the-waters communications under Rule 163B concurrently with communications related to a private offering if it conducts such communications in a manner that preserves the availability of both Rule 163B and any other exemption upon which it may otherwise rely. If an issuer wishes to pursue a private placement in lieu of a registered offering immediately after engaging in test-the-waters communications, the issuer should consider whether the test-the-waters communication was conducted in such a way as to constitute a general solicitation. If it was a general solicitation, then the issuer should consider whether the private offering exemption upon which the issuer is relying allows for general solicitation and, if not, whether the investors in the private placement were solicited by the test-the-waters communication or through some other means that does not foreclose the exemption.

Non-Exclusivity

Finally, because Rule 163B is a non-exclusive exemption, an issuer would be able to rely concurrently on other Securities Act communications rules or exemptions when determining how, when and what to communicate related to a contemplated securities offering. As noted above, however, any issuer should be mindful of complying with the conditions of any other exemption or rule if it decides to claim the availability of such other exemption or rule with respect to any communications that may be considered offers.

Effective Date

Rule 163B will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.