SEC Proposes Rules for Regulation A+

Dec 20, 2013

Reading Time : 3 min

Limitations. Regulation A would be limited to specified types of issuers and securities. The following issuers would be prohibited from using Regulation A: issuers organized outside of the United States or Canada, reporting companies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), investment companies, issuers offering fractional oil and gas interests or similar mineral rights, companies subject to deregistration orders under the Exchange Act, issuers that have failed to file required filings under Regulation A in the two years prior to the offering and companies subject to a bad boy disqualification. Although not expressly mentioned in the text of the rules, private funds would also be excluded from relying on Regulation A because they are prohibited from making public offerings. Regulation A would also only be able to be used for offerings of equity securities, debt securities, convertible debt securities and guarantees thereof, but not for asset-backed issuances. Regulation A offerings would not be integrated with offerings pursuant to compensatory benefit plans under Rule 701, pursuant to Regulation S, made in reliance on the proposed crowdfunding rules or made more than six months after the completion of the Regulation A offering.

Offering Statements. Both tiers of offerings would require an offering statement to be filed with the SEC for review and comment. As with current Regulation A, an offering statement under proposed Regulation A would include an offering circular, which would include an abbreviated version of the disclosure provided in the prospectus in a registered public offering, along with other Regulation A-specific information.

The SEC review and comment process would, however, be modernized to correspond to the process for registered public offerings, including permitting the submission of draft offering statements for review by the staff and testing the waters solicitation materials. Offering statements would also be electronically filed, and the communications process relating to a Regulation A offering would be updated to match the SEC’s offering reform adopted in 2005. For Tier 2 offerings, the financial statements included in the offering circular would be required to be audited in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States or, if the issuer is Canadian, International Financial Reporting Standards, but the auditor would not be required to be registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

Investing Limits. Investors in Tier 2 offerings would be limited to purchasing no more than 10 percent of the greater of the investor’s annual income or net worth.

On-Going Reporting. Issuers who sell securities in a Tier 2 offering would be required to file reports with the SEC. Annual reports on new Form 1-K would update the information in the offering statement and would be required to be filed within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year. Semi-annual reports on Form 1-SA would include management discussion and analysis, financial statements and limited other information and would be required to be filed within 90 days after the end of the semi-annual period covered by the report. Current reports on Form 1-U would be similar to a Form 8-K filed by a public issuer, but would relate to a more limited number of trigger events. Those current reports would be required to be filed within four business days after most trigger events.

The duty to file reports would be suspended while an issuer that has sold securities under Regulation A becomes a public reporting company under the Exchange Act because it either has a class of securities registered under that act or it has sold securities pursuant to a registration statement. As with public companies, the obligation to file may also be suspended when the class of securities sold under Regulation A is held of record by fewer than 300 persons.

Preemption of State Securities Regulator Review. As proposed, purchasers of securities in a Tier 2 offering would be “qualified purchasers,” and, therefore, the Tier 2 offering would be exempt from the authority of state securities authorities under Section 18 of the Securities Act. State regulators have, however, argued that they should still be involved in the process out of anti-fraud concerns and that the securities regulators could create a coordinated review system. The SEC is considering their views and has asked for public comment.

Share This Insight

Categories

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.