Exchange Act Registration & Going Public For Foreign Issuers

Foreign Issuers - Going Public Attorneys

Foreign companies going public in the United States must file a registration statement covering a class of securities pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) if the class of securities will be listed on a United States national securities exchange such as NASDAQ. A foreign private issuer must register a class of equity securities under the Exchange Act unless the exemption provided by Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b) is available. If the foreign private issuer has assets in excess of $10 million and the class of securities is held of record by either (i) 2,000 persons or (ii) 500 persons who are not AIs (in both cases, of whom at least 300 are residents in the United States). Read More

The Laws That Apply To Going Public & Being Public

Going Public Attorneys review a series of rules and regulations.

The first laws that apply to going public transactions are contained in the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). The Securities Act was followed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). Going Public attorneys must be familiar with both the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act. Both are the foundation of securities regulations, and have been amended to adopt to our changing markets.  in going public transactions where shares are registered with the SEC, the issuer must comply with the disclosures required by the Securities Act.

The Securities Act of 1933 l Form S-1 Regulation

The Securities Act is often called the “truth in securities” law. It has two basic objectives: to require that investors receive financial and other important information about securities being offered for sale, and to prohibit deceit, misrepresentation, and other fraud in the sale of securities. The Securities Act obligates issuers to file a registration statement for any shares they’re selling, or to avail themselves of an appropriate exemption from registration. When a company files a Securities Act registration statement such as a Form S-1, it must provide copious information about itself, its business plan, its risk factors, financial reports and more. Issuers filing a Securities Act registration statement are registering an offering, not a class of stock. Read More

When Can Public Companies Use Social Media? Going Public Lawyers

Going Public - Social Media - Securities Lawyer


Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

The use of social media is a growing concern with new exemptions that allow issuers to engage in general solicitation and advertising of their unregistered offerings. The Securities and Exchange Commission has made its position on the use of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter by public companies clear. The SEC has stated that social media may be used to report key information in compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure (Regulation FD), as long as investors are alerted to the specific social media that will be used to disseminate such information. Regulation FD requires that SEC reporting companies disseminate material information in a manner reasonably designed to get the information out to the general public broadly and non-exclusively.  Read More

Going Public: Pros and Cons- Going Public Lawyers

Going Public Lawyer

A Going Public Lawyer is an important part of the overall going public process.   A Going Public Lawyer in the beginning of the process assists the issuer in structuring its transaction the most time and cost effective way to obtain public company status.  Changes resulting from the JOBS Act, made going public transactions an appealing option for private companies seeking to raise capital. Rule 506(c) allows companies to conduct private placements prior to going public to offset their going public costs. In going public transactions, these privately placed shares are registered on Form S-1 and become the public float.  A Going Public Lawyer in a Rule 506 offering assists the issuer with verification of investors and filing its Form D.

One traditional method of going public remains an Initial Public Offering (“IPO”).  The  IPO is rarely used by small companies as most will not  meet the eligibility requirements to trade on a national securities exchange such as the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) Euronext, NASDAQ, or NYSE MKT. Moreover, the traditional IPO process involves locating an underwriter to sell the company’s offering something most small companies are not able to accomplish.   In an IPO, the Going Public Lawyer provides the legal opinion for the Form S-1 registration statement and transfer agent. Read More

Nicholas Lattanzio Charged in Hedge Fund Fraud

Hedge Fund Fraud - Going Public Attorney

On June 10, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had charged Nicholas Lattanzio, the manager of Black Diamond Capital Appreciation Fund for falsely promising small businesses that he would arrange project financing for them and generate substantial returns on money they invested in his fund.  According to the SEC’s complaint, Lattanzio told small business owners that they could withdraw their money if the promised project financing didn’t materialize. Lattanzio also allegedly claimed his hedge fund had as much as $800 million under management and a proven track record of producing double-digit returns.

Read More

OTC Markets Prepares For Regulation A+ – Going Public

Regulation A+ Attorneys

On March 25, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted amendments to Regulation A. The new rules, known as “Regulation A+,” update and expand the existing Regulation A, and are mandated by Title IV of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act passed in 2012. Regulation A+ is effective on June 19, 2015. The rule is expected to have a significant impact on the capital raising process for small companies by allowing issuers to raise up to $50 million without all of the requirements of a public offering but potentially providing many of the benefits. OTC Markets Group recently published proposed amendments to the OTCQB Standards to conform to the SEC’s recent amendments. The OTC Markets proposed rules are scheduled to become effective July 10, 2015.

Eligibility – Regulation A Offerings

The use of Regulation A+ is limited to companies organized in and with their principal place of business in the United States or Canada.  Regulation A is not be available to companies that: Read More

The SEC’s Pay Versus Performance Proposals

SEC's Pay v. Performance- Going Public Lawyer

The proposals require SEC reporting companies to disclose the relationship between compensation “actually paid” to their named executive officers and the company’s financial performance, measured as total shareholder return (TSR). The proposed disclosure would consist of a table reflecting compensation and TSR amounts including a discussion of the relationship between performance and the amounts paid to executive officers. Pay versus Performance Proposals.

Disclosure Table – Executive Compensation Amounts

The disclosure table would include:

  • the applicable year for which the information is presented,
  • the total compensation paid to the company’s principal executive officers as presented in the summary compensation table,
  • the compensation actually paid to the principal executive officers,
  • the average total compensation to the company’s other named executive officers as set forth in the summary compensation table,
  • the average total compensation actually paid to the other named executive officers,
  • the company’s TSR, and
  • for other than smaller reporting companies, the issuer must provide peer group TSR.

Read More

Who Can Conduct A Regulation A+ Offering? Going Public

Regulation A+ Offerings - Securities Lawyer

On March 25, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted amendments to Regulation A known as Regulation A+. Regulation A+ was adopted to facilitate capital-raising by smaller companies. Regulation A+ offerings cannot be undertaken by all companies or used to offer and sell all types of securities. This blog post addresses eligibility requirements of Regulation A+ offerings.

Securities Eligible For Regulation A+ Offerings

Only equity securities, including warrants, options, debt securities and debt securities convertible into or exchangeable for equity interests, can be offered and sold in Regulation A+ offerings. Read More

Raising Capital: Equity Offerings v. Debt Offerings

 

Raising Capital - Debt v Equity

Both private and public companies seeking to raise capital by selling securities, do so by offering either debt or equity securities to investors. Companies can also offer a combination of debt and equity through the sale of units comprised of common stock and a convertible note.

What is an Equity Offering?

A company selling equity is most often accomplished through the sale of common stock or membership interest for a limited liability company. In return for the investment, the investor receives a form of equity ownership of the Company typically represented by shares of stock. Read More

States Challenge Regulation A+ – Securities Offerings

Regulation A+

The recent amendments to Regulation A (often called Regulation A+) provide a manageable exemption for raising capital. The exemption can be used by both private and non-reporting trading companies such as OTC Pink listed issuers. Regulation A provides two tiers of securities offerings, with the filing obligations determined by the size of the offering.  For offerings up to $20 million, “Tier 1” allows companies to raise capital without audited financials. Tier 2 offerings allow an issuer to raise up to $50 million and audited financial statements must be provided. Read More

Why Stay Private? The Assault On Small Business

Small Business - SEC Enforcement

For many, the American Dream is about having the opportunity to create and own a business. Small businesses, often described as the backbone of our economy, employ one out of two workers in the United States. Once established, small companies seeking to develop and expand their business often do so by going public. Unfortunately, there are few safeguards in place to protect mom-and-pop companies seeking access to the public markets. More often than not, small business owners are not familiar with the capital markets and the regulations that apply to capital raising activity and the going public process, making them easy prey for reverse merger purveyors given “licenses to swindle” at their expense. Read More

SEC Freezes Profits From Avon Stock Manipulation Scheme

Avon Trading Scheme

On June 4, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced an emergency asset freeze of two U.S. brokerage accounts connected to schemes to manipulate the securities of Avon and other stocks, thwarting any ability for fraudsters to cash in on ill-gotten proceeds. According to the SEC complaint, it tracked a filing made on its EDGAR system about a false Avon tender offer to a foreign entity using an IP address located in Sofia, Bulgaria.

According to the SEC charges, a Bulgarian trader named Nedko Nedev controlled at least one of the two now-frozen brokerage accounts, and his account held a substantial position in Avon contracts-for-difference (CFDs) that had lost value in recent months.  The SEC charges allege that Nedko Nedev generated approximately $5,000 in excess profits by selling almost half of the account’s Avon CFDs at inflated prices after the EDGAR filing led to a 20-percent increase in the value of Avon stock on May 14. Read More

What is a Reverse Stock Split? Securities Lawyer 101

Reverse Stock Split

Securities Lawyer 101 Blog

Reverse stock splits are often used by public companies to reduce the amount of securities outstanding.  A reverse stock split can also be used by private companies in corporate restructurings.  Typically in a reverse split, a company reduces the number of its outstanding shares in proportion to the ratio of the reverse stock split so that each stockholder the same percentage of the company’s outstanding shares immediately prior to and after the reverse split.  If approved and effected, the reverse stock split will be realized simultaneously and in the same ratio for all of the company’s common stock. The reverse stock split will affect all holders of the company’s common stock uniformly and will not affect any stockholder’s percentage ownership interest in the company.  Unfortunately, there is typically no limit on the amount of shares a company may issue after a reverse split which would dilute investors.  The reverse split reduces the shares outstanding thereby facilitating the issuer’s ability to issue more shares. Immediately upon a reverse split becoming effective, issuers often commence issuing new shares and diluting investors.  Shares of issuers enacting reverse splits rarely hold the stock price seen upon effectiveness of the split.

Read More

BrokerCheck Announces PR Campaign

BrokerCheck - Securities Lawyer 101

On June 1, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it had launched a campaign promoting BrokerCheck (brokercheck.finra.org). BrokerCheck allows investors to access information about a broker’s employment history, certifications and licenses, as well as regulatory actions, violations or complaints made against them. BrokerCheck does not include information about all brokers registered with FINRA.  Additionally, some fraudster brokers have discovered they can avoid disclosure of negative information on BrokerCheck simply by changing their name. Read More

SEC Charges Four With Insider Trading Ahead of Secondary Offerings

SEC Charges

On June 3, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced insider trading charges against four individuals stealing confidential information from investment banks and their public company clients in order to trade in advance of secondary stock offerings.  The scheme allegedly involved at least 15 stocks and generated more than $4.4 million in illegal trading profits.

The SEC charges allege that a former day trader living in California, Steven Fishoff, schemed with two friends and his brother-in-law to pose as legitimate portfolio managers and induce investment bankers to bring them “over the wall” and share confidential information about an upcoming secondary offering.  After promising they wouldn’t disclose the nonpublic information to others or trade an issuer’s stock before an offering was announced, they violated the agreements and tipped each other about the upcoming offerings expected to inherently depress the price of the issuer’s stock.  Read More

Retired Teachers Scammed In Ponzi Scheme

Ponzi Scheme Attorneys

On June 1, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced it had brought charges in a Ponzi Scheme. According to the SEC Charges, the scheme was orchestrated by an investment adviser who took siphoned money from his investment fund and defrauded investors, including several local teachers and law enforcement officers.  The SEC complaint alleges that Phil Donnahue Williamson conducted a Ponzi scheme with money he raised for the Sterling Investment Fund, which purportedly invested in mortgages and properties in Florida and Georgia.  Read More

Boiler Rooms Booming In 2015

Boiler Rooms - Securities Lawyer 101

Over the past few weeks, we have had multiple requests from investors to review information they received after calls from boiler room sales persons. No doubt the increase in phone rooms has resulted from Rule 506(c) which allows generals solicitation of unregistered offerings if certain conditions are met, including that the issuer verify that all purchasers are “accredited investors”. Everyone who’s seen the movie “Boiler Room” is familiar with how these operations work; for once, the film makers had no need to exaggerate.  Real-life boiler rooms are run by unscrupulous con artists who hire cold callers to sell stocks and other securities to their naïve and unwary victims, using extremely high-pressure sales tactics.  Because of the large number of retirees in South Florida, its investors are prime targets for boiler room solicitations.

The classic boiler room is run by a broker-dealer that claims to be independent, specializing in stocks chosen by their “analysts,” who, they say, have conducted extensive due diligence on the issues.  In reality, the boiler room usually colludes with company management and/or insiders.  Often they own large blocks of stock obtained at very low prices; sometimes they paid nothing at all.  They will sell into their own promotion. Read More

Securities And Exchange Commission Announces Agenda

Securities and Exchange Commission Announcement

On May 28, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission released the agenda for its Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies meeting which is scheduled for June 3. The SEC’s meeting will focus on public company disclosure effectiveness, intrastate crowdfunding, venture exchanges, and the treatment of “finders.” The SEC Advisory Committee also is expected to vote on a recommendation to the SEC with respect to the “Section 4(a)(1½) exemption,” which would allow shareholders to resell securities sold in private placements. The SEC meeting will be held at the SEC’s headquarters, and is open to the general public.

For further information about this securities law blog post, please contact Brenda Hamilton, Securities Attorney at 101 Plaza Real S, Suite 202 N, Boca Raton, Florida, (561) 416-8956, by email at [email protected] or visit www.securitieslawyer101.com.   This securities law blog post is provided as a general informational service to clients and friends of Hamilton & Associates Law Group and should not be construed as, and does not constitute, legal and compliance advice on any specific matter, nor does this message create an attorney-client relationship. Please note that the prior results discussed herein do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Hamilton & Associates | Securities Lawyers
Brenda Hamilton, Securities Attorney
101 Plaza Real South, Suite 202 North
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone: (561) 416-8956
Facsimile: (561) 416-2855
www.SecuritiesLawyer101.com

Receiver Appointed in North Dakota Developments Ponzi Scheme

North Dakota Developments Is a Ponzi Scheme

We’ve so far written twice about North Dakota Developments (“NDD”), a real estate Ponzi scheme operated by Daniel J. Hogan and Robert L. Gavin.  In the course of the scam, Gavin and Hogan, who are United Kingdom citizens, relieved investors of more than $62 million.  The pair persuaded their victims, many of them elderly and vulnerable, to purchase interests in “units” at what are called “man camps”–workers’ housing—in properties to be built in the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota and Montana.

The interests purchased were not actual real estate, but securities.  The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) therefore had jurisdiction of them and of NDD and its managers Gavin and Hogan.  On May 5, 2015, it acted, obtaining a temporary restraining order against the company and the perpetrators.  Judge Daniel Hovland also ordered an asset freeze of the defendants’ bank accounts and those of other companies they controlled.  Read More

Douglas Parigian Pleads Guilty in Amateur Golfers Scheme

Douglas Parigian Pleads Guilty in Amature Golf Scheme

On May 13, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC”) announced that Douglas Parigian pled guilty to criminal charges of conspiracy and securities fraud for his role in an insider trading ring involving trading in the stock of American Superconductor Corporation. The criminal charges against Parigian arose out of the same fraudulent conduct alleged in an SEC action for securities fraud filed against Parigian and others in July 2014.

On July 9, 2014, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts indicted Parigian and another defendant, Eric McPhail, for conspiracy and securities fraud and, for Parigian only, lying to FBI agents. The U.S. Attorney charged that McPhail had a history, pattern and practice of sharing confidences with a senior executive at American Superconductor. Between 2009 and 2011, the senior executive provided McPhail with material, nonpublic information concerning the company’s quarterly earnings and other business activities (the “Inside Information”) with the understanding that it would be kept confidential. Read More

EDGAR Prepares For Regulation A+ – Going Public Attorneys

Regulation A+ - Going Public Attorneys

The SEC’s EDGAR system is being updated to prepare for Regulation A+. On April 23, 2015, the SEC adopted changes to Volume I and Volume II of the EDGAR Filer Manual. Revisions include:

  • The revisions to the SEC’s EDGAR filer manual reflect recent amendments to Regulation A to accept Regulation A forms including DOS, DOSLTR, 1-A, 1-A/A, 1-A POS, 1-A-W, 1-A-W/A, 253G1, 253G2, 253G3, 253G4, 1-K, 1-K/A, 1-SA, 1-U, 1-U/A, 1-Z, 1-Z/A, 1-Z-W and 1-Z-W/A.
  • Additionally, an issuer filing on EDGAR for the first time in a going public transaction can select a “Regulation A” offering option on their Form ID to reflect it is submitting the Form ID application for EDGAR access to file Regulation A draft offering statements. Forms submitted pursuant to Regulation A can be accessed at a “File Regulation A Forms” tab.
  • Issuers filing draft offering statements under Regulation A+  must prepare and submit their draft offering statements using EDGAR form types DOS and DOS/A, and must use the submission type Draft Offering Statement Letter (DOSLTR) to submit correspondence related to their draft offering statements.
  • Issuers which file confidential draft Regulation A offering statements can publicly file previously submitted drafts by selecting the “Disseminate Draft Offering Statement”  tab on the “File Regulation A Forms” page of the EDGAR website.

Read More

SEC Says North Dakota Developments Is A Ponzi Scheme

North Dakota Developmets Ponzi Scheme


On May 5, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) obtained a temporary restraining order against North Dakota Developments, LLC (“NDD”), Robert L. Gavin and Daniel J. Hogan in connection with an elaborate real estate development Ponzi scheme that defrauded vulnerable investors of millions of dollars.  In addition, Judge Daniel Hovland ordered a freeze order of the assets held by the defendants and a number of other companies controlled by them.

Read More

Morgan Stanley Fined $2 Million for Short Sale & Short Interest Reporting

Short Sale

On May 3, 2015, The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced it has fined Morgan Stanley & Co. $2 million for short sale and short interest reporting and rule violations that spanned a period of more than six years, and for failing to implement a supervisory system reasonably designed to detect and prevent such violations.

Thomas Gira, Executive Vice President, FINRA Market Regulation, said, “Short interest reporting continues to provide investors with important transparency into the level of short selling in a particular issue. Accordingly, it is imperative that this information be timely and accurately reported. Similarly, a fundamental requirement for compliance with the short sale rule is that firms properly track their short positions.” Read More

SEC Halts Advance Fee Scam Targeting Home Building Industry

Advance Fee Scam

On May 15, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced charges and an emergency asset freeze in an alleged advance fee scam involving bogus prime bank instruments. The SEC complaint was filed on  May 11, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  Advance fee scams solicit investors to make upfront payments before purported deals can go through, and perpetrators fool investors with official-sounding terminology to add an air of legitimacy to the investment programs.

According to the SEC’s complaint, which the Court unsealed yesterday at the SEC’s request, Thomas G. Ellis and Yasuo Oda, through their company, North Star Finance LLC, and Michael K. Martin and Sharon L. Salinas, through their companies, Capital Source Lending LLC and Capital Source Funding LLC, have collected approximately $5 million from defrauded investors since at least January 2013. Read More

Steven Palladino Pleads Guilty to Criminal Contempt for Violating SEC Orders

SEC Charges Steven Palladino
On May 14, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that, Steven Palladino pled guilty to 25 counts of criminal contempt charged by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts based on his repeated violations of court orders obtained by the Commission in its civil action filed in 2013 against Palladino and his Massachusetts-based company, Viking Financial Group, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). The SEC action charged that Defendants were operating a fraudulent Ponzi scheme. The court in the SEC action entered orders with certain preliminary relief beginning in April 2013, including an asset freeze against Defendants. The U.S. Attorney alleged in April 2014 that Palladino knowingly and willfully disobeyed court orders in the Commission’s action that froze all of Defendants’ assets and required that Defendants deposit all funds in their possession into a court-ordered escrow account. Based on his guilty plea to these contempt charges, Palladino, who is currently serving a prison sentence based on convictions in state court for the same conduct alleged in the SEC charges in its case, could face additional incarceration. Read More

Three SEC Stop Orders, One Mystery? Going Public Attorneys

SEC Stop Orders - Going Public Attorneys

On May 11, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) instituted administrative proceedings against two penny stock companies, Visual Acumen, Inc., and First Xeris Corp. (FXER).  The purpose of the actions was to establish grounds for imposing stop orders that would suspend registration of the companies’ stock.

First Xeris had filed a Form S-1 registration statement on April 22, 2013 to register an offering of 3 million common shares for a total of $39,000.  The registration statement was amended several times, and finally deemed effective on January 8, 2014.  Visual Acumen filed its own Form S-1 registration statement on February 5, 2014 to register an offering of 3 million common shares for a total of $33,000.  The registration statement was amended once, and became effective on May 9, 2014.  Read More

What is a Sponsoring Market Maker? Going Public Attorneys

Sponsoring Market Maker-Going Public Attorneys

 

The last step in a going public transaction is for the company to receive a stock trading or ticker symbol from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).  For a company to obtain its ticker symbol, a sponsoring market maker (“Sponsoring Market Maker”) must sponsor the company’s application and submit a Form 211 to FINRA on the issuer’s behalf.  Sponsoring Markets Makers have become one of the most important participants in the going public process when direct public offerings are used because they are the only ones who can apply for a ticker symbol. Read More

FINRA Halts Trading in Riviera Tool Company

Riviera Tool Trading Halted

Moving with unusual speed, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) halted trading in Riviera Tool Company (RIVT) after the closing bell on May 7, 2015.  The action was a U3 Extraordinary Event halt.  In a U3, “trading is halted because FINRA has determined that an extraordinary event has occurred or is ongoing that has had a material effect on the market for the OTC Equity Security or the security underlying an OTC ADR or has caused or has the potential to cause major disruption to the marketplace or significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process.”  The halt may remain in place for up to 10 days, and can be extended beyond that should FINRA find reason to do so.
Read More

Securities Lawyers Gone Wild – John Briner Criminally Charged

John Briner Charged - Going Public Attorney

The walls are closing in on former securities attorney John Briner.  In the past two months, he’s been criminally charged in the Provincial Court of British Columbia, sued by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), and disciplined by the Law Society of British Columbia.  Briner’s new problems follow on a series of enforcement actions brought against him by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in the United States.

John Briner’s troubles began in March 2006, when OTC Markets Group (then the Pink Sheets) added him to its Prohibited Attorney List.  The ban appears to have had to do with Briner’s role in a penny stock scam involving a company called Golden Apple Oil and Gas, Inc.  In September 2009, the SEC charged Golden Apple; Briner; Jay Budd, the company’s president; and Ethos Investments, Inc., a company controlled by Budd, with a number of securities violations.  Much earlier, in April 2006, the agency had issued a trading suspension of Golden Apple’s stock. Read More

Rule 144 Legal Opinions Q & A – Going Public Securities Lawyers

Rule 144 Attorneys, Form 144, Rule 144, Rule 144 opinion, Rule 144 legal Opinion, Rule 144 Legend, Rule 144 Legend Removal, Legend Removal, Rule 144 Legend Opinion, Legend Removal Opinion, Rule 144, Rule 144 legal opinion, Rule 144 legal Opinions, Rule 144 Legend opinion, Rule 144 Legend Removal, Legend Removal opinion, Tradability Opinion, Transfer Agent Opinion, Legal Opinion, Legend Removal, Rule 144 Legend Removal

The Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) requires the sale of a security to be registered under the Securities Act, unless the security or transaction qualifies for an exemption from registration. Rule 144 of the Securities Act provides a safe harbor that permits holders of “restricted securities” to resell their securities in the public market if specific conditions are met.

This Securities Lawyer 101 Series discusses the most common questions we receive about Rule 144’s Safe Harbor.

Q. What is Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”)? 

A. Section 5 of the Securities Act requires that all offers and sales of securities be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) or exempt from the registration requirements.

Q. What is the “safe harbor” provided by Rule 144? 

A. Rule 144 provides a safe harbor from the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act to certain holders of securities, if certain requirements are met.  The requirements of Rule 144 vary depending upon whether the holder of the shares is an affiliate or non-affiliate of the issuer. Read More