Articles Tagged with SEC

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould and Peter Chess

On January 18, 2012, the Office of Investment Adviser Regulation, part of the Division of Investment Management, issued a no-action letter (the “2012 Letter”) in response to a request for guidance from the American Bar Association’s Subcommittee on Hedge Funds on issues regarding the registration of certain investment advisers that are related to investment advisers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).  The 2012 Letter both reaffirms previous positions of the SEC and provides additional guidance, as discussed below.

Special Purpose Vehicles (“SPVs”).  In a December 8, 2005 letter, the SEC stated that it would not recommend enforcement action against a registered adviser and an SPV if the SPV did not separately register as an investment adviser, subject to conditions.  The 2012 Letter reaffirms this position.  The conditions in such a situation require that:

  • the investment adviser to a private fund establishes the SPV to act as the private fund’s general partner or managing member;
  • the SPV’s formation documents designate the investment adviser to manage the private fund’s assets;
  • all of the investment advisory activities of the SPV are subject to the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”); and
  • the registered adviser subjects the SPV, its employees and persons acting on its behalf to the registered adviser’s supervision and control and, therefore, the SPV, all of its employees and the persons acting on its behalf are “persons associated with” the registered adviser.

SPVs with Independent Directors.  The 2012 Letter states that an SPV that relies on the above conditions may also have “independent directors” and therefore would not be required to meet the uniformity of personnel requirement.

Groups of Related Advisers.  The 2012 Letter notes that for a variety of reasons, advisers to private funds may be part of a group of related advisers.  In some situations these advisers, although organized as separate legal entities, conduct a single advisory business because they, among other things, are subject to a unified compliance program and use the same or similar names.  The 2012 Letter states that a filing adviser and one or more relying advisers would be conducting a single advisory business and thus a single registration would be appropriate under the following circumstances:

  • The filing adviser and each relying adviser advise only private funds and separate account clients that are qualified clients and are otherwise eligible to invest in the private funds advised by the filing adviser or a relying adviser and whose accounts pursue investment objectives and strategies that are substantially similar or otherwise related to those private funds. 
  • Each relying adviser, its employees and the persons acting on its behalf are subject to the filing adviser’s supervision and control and, therefore, each relying adviser, its employees and the persons acting on its behalf are “persons associated with” the filing adviser. 
  • The filing adviser has its principal office and place of business in the United States and, therefore, all of the substantive provisions of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder apply to the filing adviser’s and each relying adviser’s dealings with each of its clients, regardless of whether any client or the filing adviser or relying adviser providing the advice is a United States person. 
  • The advisory activities of each relying adviser are subject to the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder, and each relying adviser is subject to examination by the SEC.
  • The filing adviser and each relying adviser operate under a single code of ethics and a single set of written policies and procedures, administered by a single chief compliance officer.
  • The filing adviser discloses in its Form ADV (Miscellaneous Section of Schedule D) that it and its relying advisers are together filing a single Form ADV in reliance on the 2012 Letter and identifies each relying adviser by completing a separate Section 1.B., Schedule D, of Form ADV for each relying adviser and identifying it as such by including the notation “(relying adviser).”
Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould and Peter Chess

In re-proposed custody rules, the California Department of Corporations (“DOC”) has reflected the most important aspects of the comment letter that Pillsbury provided on July 27, 2011, such that all transactions and short positions need not be disclosed in the quarterly account statements.  In general, the re-proposed custody rules define “custody,” and subject to certain limited exceptions, require that advisers with custody maintain the assets with a qualified custodian.  The re-proposed custody rules also specify details with regard to audits and require compliance by advisers with specific safeguards.   

The DOC also released proposed regulations that contain a successor to the private fund exemption, which are currently in the comment period.  Under the DOC’s proposed private adviser exemption, advisers would be eligible provided they: (i) have not violated securities laws; (ii) file periodic reports with the DOC; (iii) pay the existing investment adviser registration and renewal fees; and (iv) comply with additional safeguards when advising 3(c)(1) funds.  Additionally, under the proposed regulations, the exemption defines a private fund adviser as an investment adviser that provides advice only to qualifying private funds, which include 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) funds.  A grandfathering provision for private advisers is also included. 

The Massachusetts Securities Division released amendments similar to the DOC’s on January 18, 2012.  These amendments contain regulations that relate to the private fund exemption and custody requirements, among others.  The amendments, released after consideration of industry comments, make substantive changes to the definition of “institutional buyer,” re-propose a broadened private fund exemption that includes the introduction of a grandfathering provision, and propose requirements for advisers with discretion over, or custody of, client funds. 

The purpose of the Massachusetts amendments is to coordinate with the new rule adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Dodd-Frank Act.  Also included in the amendments is an exemption from state registration for advisers that provide advice solely to private funds that qualify as 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) funds.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould and Peter Chess

Managed Funds Association (“MFA”) submitted a comment letter (the “Letter”) to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on January 6, 2012 with a rulemaking petition requesting the SEC to amend Rule 502(c) of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933.  The Letter urges the SEC to exempt private funds from the ban on general solicitation and advertising under Regulation D.

Under the existing framework, hedge funds generally must avoid engaging in any “general solicitation” or “general advertising” in connection with offers and sales of their securities.  MFA believes that changes in the securities markets and regulations have rendered the restrictions of Regulation D, enacted 30 years ago, unnecessary and increasingly unclear in practice.  The Letter’s suggested changes would enhance the regulation of private fund offerings, promote investment, and enhance economic growth by:

  • Reducing the legal uncertainty resulting from the current regulation of private fund offerings conducted in reliance on Regulation D;
  • Increasing transparency of the hedge fund industry in a manner consistent with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and recent regulatory initiatives;
  • Facilitating capital formation and reducing administrative costs by allowing investors to more easily obtain information about private funds;
  • Maintaining strong investor protections and ensuring that only sophisticated investors are able to purchase interests in private funds; and
  • Reducing regulatory oversight costs and allowing the SEC staff to reallocate resources to other aspects of investor protection, including products offered and sold to retail investors.

If the MFA proposals were adopted, private funds would be able to engage in public communications and offering activity while remaining in compliance with Regulation D and the Investment Company Act of 1940.  It would also allow a wider audience to learn about the hedge fund industry, and help combat inaccurate information and misperceptions of the industry.  These misperceptions include the view of the industry as secretive, which creates an unwarranted negative inference by investors and regulators.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould, Ildiko Duckor and Peter Chess

On January 4, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a National Examination Risk Alert addressing investment adviser use of social media.  Investment advisers should have policies regarding the use of social media, and the SEC outlined specific factors that need to be addressed by these policies.  The SEC’s guidance could be particularly important given the “crowdfunding” legislation Congress is currently considering.

The January 4, 2012 National Examination Risk Alert (January Alert) states that investment advisers’ use of social media must comply with various provisions of the federal securities laws, including the antifraud provisions, the compliance provisions, and the recordkeeping provisions.  The January Alert stresses that particular attention with regard to the use of social media must be paid to third party content (if permitted) and the recordkeeping responsibilities. 

The January Alert provides staff observations of factors that an investment adviser may want to consider when evaluating a compliance policy for the use of social media.  These include, but are not limited to:

  • Usage Guidelines.  Investment advisers may provide guidance in their policies on the appropriate and inappropriate use of social media;
  • Monitoring.  Investment advisers may consider how to effectively monitor their social media sites or any use of third-party sites;
  • Content Standards.  May include clear guidelines and the prohibition of specific content or other content restrictions; and
  • Information Security.  Investment advisers may consider any information security risks posed by access to social media sites.  These could include dangers from hacking and other breaches of information security. 

Additionally, investment advisers that allow for third-party posting on their social media sites should consider having policies and procedures in place to address this.  Reasonable safeguards should be in place to avoid any violation of the federal securities laws.  Potential violations could result from the appearance of testimonials on a firm’s social media.  For example, the SEC staff believes that the use of social plug-ins such as the “like” button could be considered a testimonial under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Finally, the January Alert notes that investment advisers should consider reviewing their document retention policies so that the retaining of any required records generated by social media use complies with the federal securities laws.  This review could include addressing factors such as: determining what types of social media use create a required record; maintaining applicable communications in electronic or paper format; creating training programs to educate advisory personnel about recordkeeping; and, using third parties in order to keep proper records.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has echoed the January Alert in recent releases, such as Regulatory Notice 11-39 from August 2011.  This Notice provided guidance on social media websites for broker-dealers, and addressed recordkeeping and third-party sites, among other topics.  This Notice supplemented an earlier FINRA notice from January 2010 that provided guidance with regard to blogs and social networking websites. 

The SEC has also recently increased its focus on internet-related enforcement actions.  On January 4, 2012, the SEC charged an Illinois-based adviser with perpetrating a social media scam.  The alleged scam involved offering fictitious securities that were promoted by using LinkedIn.  This follows multiple enforcement actions from February 2011 for internet-related schemes, including boiler rooms and spam-email touted pump and dumps.

Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding is a method of capital formation where groups of people pool money, typically by use of very small individual contributions, in order to support the organizers that seek to accomplish a specific goal.

Congress has also been active in the realm of internet-related securities issues with its involvement in crowdfunding.  The House of Representative passed the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act (H.R. 2930) on November 3, 2011.  H.R. 2930 provides for registration exemptions for certain crowdfunded securities if the aggregate amount raised through the issuance is $1 million or less each year and each individual who invests in the securities does not invest, in any year, more than the lesser of $10,000 or 10 percent of the investor’s annual income.  Businesses could raise up to $2 million each year under the exemption if investors were provided with certain financial information.

The Senate currently is considering its own version of a crowdfunding bill, the Democratizing Access to Capital Act of 2011 (S. 1791).  S. 1791 provides for registration exemptions for certain crowdfunded securities if the aggregate amount raised through the issuance is $1 million or less each year and each individual who invests in the security does not invest more than $1,000.  The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs held hearings on December 1 and 14, 2011, regarding this legislation, but a vote on the bill has not yet occurred.

Reaction to the crowdfunding legislation has been mixed.  Supporters, such as Tim Johnson, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, feel that the legislation will provide easier access to capital for smaller businesses and startups, which will grow business and create new jobs.  Detractors, such as Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., in his testimony before the Committee, argue that S. 1791 could well be titled “The Boiler Room Legalization Act of 2011.”

The crowdfunding legislation and its developments promise to bring more scrutiny to the interplay of the federal securities laws and the internet.  Investment advisers, and other financial firms, should examine and ensure related policies and procedures are up to par.

Published on:

By

Written by Peter J. Chess

On November 30, 2011, FINRA and the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) released a National Exam Risk Alert on effective procedures and policies for broker-dealer branch inspections. This follows other recent guidance for broker-dealers regarding the Market Access Rule and reasonable investigations in Regulation D Offerings, in addition to recent FINRA sanctions against broker-dealers related to Regulation D Offerings.

Under Sections 15(b)(4)(E) and 15(b)(6)(A) of the Exchange Act, the SEC can impose sanctions on any firm or any person that fails to reasonably supervise someone subject to supervision that violates the federal securities laws. A broker-dealer can defend such a charge with a showing of effective procedures and policies designed to prevent and detect potential violations.

The National Exam Risk Alert jointly released on November 30 by FINRA and the OCIE (“November 30 Alert”) concerns broker-dealer branch inspections which are required by the Exchange Act and FINRA rules. Examination staff have observed that firms that execute these inspections well typically:

  • tailor the focus of branch exams to the business conducted in that branch and assess the risks specific to that business;
  • schedule the frequency and intensity of exams based on underlying risk;
  • engage in a significant percentage of unannounced exams selected based on both risk analysis and random selection;
  • deploy sufficiently senior branch office examiners to conduct the examinations; and
  • design procedures to avoid conflicts of interest with examiners.

The November 30 Alert also lists typical findings about firms with deficiencies in their inspection process, including the utilization of generic examination procedures for all branch offices; the use of novice or unseasoned branch office examiners; the performance of “check the box” inspections; and, the lack of adequate procedures and policies.

The November 30 Alert is the second such Alert released this quarter by the OCIE. On September 29, 2011, OCIE released a National Exam Risk Alert  (September 29 Alert) regarding the master/sub-account structure and potential risks of noncompliance for broker-dealers with the recently adopted Rule 15c3-5 (the Market Access Rule).

The Market Access Rule requires broker-dealers to have a system of risk management control and supervisory procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial, regulatory and other risks of the business activity associated with providing a customer or other person with market access. Deficiencies in risk management control and supervisory procedures raise significant regulatory concerns with respect to money laundering, insider trading, market manipulation, account intrusions, information security, unregistered broker-dealer activity, and excessive leverage.

Recent FINRA Enforcement Actions Against Broker-Dealers

On September 29, 2011, FINRA also announced it had sanctioned another eight firms and ten individuals and ordered restitution totaling more than $3.2 million due to violations related to private placements. FINRA previously announced similar sanctions against broker-dealers in April 2011, and the most recent announcement brings the total to ten firms and seventeen individuals sanctioned by FINRA since April for involvement in problematic private placements.

The sanctions stem from a variety of issues uncovered by FINRA related to firms selling private placement offerings, including the lack of a reasonable basis for recommending the offering; failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of the offering; failure to have adequate supervisory systems in place; failure to conduct adequate due diligence of offerings; lack of reasonable grounds regarding the suitability of the offering for customers; and, lack of reasonable grounds to allow registered representatives of firms to continue selling the offerings, despite numerous “red flags.”

These sanctions follow FINRA’s release of a Regulatory Notice in April 2010 (“April 2010 Notice”) regarding the obligation of broker-dealers to conduct reasonable investigations in Regulation D, or private placement, offerings. The April 2010 Notice provided guidance on many of the issues at the heart of the recent sanctions by FINRA related to private placements. The April 2010 Notice noted that broker-dealers had many requirements triggered by private placement offerings, including: a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation concerning the security and the issuer’s representations about it; a duty to possess reasonable grounds to recommend transactions that are suitable for the customer; and, other specific responsibilities that could be triggered based on specific factors with each transaction.

Published on:

By

Written by Ildiko Duckor

An entity that meets the definition of a “Large Trader” after October 3, 2011 must file its initial Form 13H with the SEC by December 1, 2011 to be assigned a large trader identification number (LTID).  The filing is done electronically through the SEC’s EDGAR system.  The LTID must be disclosed to registered broker-dealers effecting transactions on behalf of the Large Trader. 

If you as a general partner or investment adviser (including any entities or individuals over which you have control, e.g., the right to vote or direct the vote of 25% or more of a class of voting securities of an entity) have investment discretion over aggregate transactions in exchange-listed securities that equal or exceed the Identifying Activity Level of: (i) 2 million shares or $20 million during any calendar day or (ii) 20 million shares or $200 million during any calendar month, you may qualify as a Large Trader and may have to file a Form 13H. 

When calculating the “Identifying Activity Level:” (i) aggregate all transactions during the specified period (one day and/or one month) (ii) for all “NMS securities” (national market securities, generally (exchange-listed securities including equities and purchases and sales (but not exercises) of options) and (iii) exclude the specified transactions that are exempt from consideration (as listed in the below-linked documents). 

Form 13H filing is required to be filed annually with the SEC within 45 days after the end of a Large Trader’s full calendar year. 

A full text of the SEC Final Rule and Form 13H is available here.

Please contact the IFIM team for assistance.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould

On November 28, 2011, the SEC charged OMNI Investment Advisors, Inc. of Utah, Feltl & Company Inc. of Minneapolis and Asset Advisors LLC of Troy, Michigan for failing to adopt and implement compliance procedures designed to prevent securities law violations.

The three enforcement actions discussed below should send a clear signal to investment advisers that are already registered and have implemented written compliance policies and procedures, as well as those advisers that will need to register by February 15, 2012, that the SEC is serious about adviser compliance and is willing to make examples of those advisers that do not fully implement a tailored compliance program. 

All three investment advisers, including OMNI’s owner and chief compliance officer Gary R. Beynon, were found to be in violation of the “Compliance Rule” under Rule 206(4)-7 of the Investment Advisers Act and were separately ordered to pay penalty fees and institute a series of corrective measures to settle the SEC charges. 

OMNI and Beynon failed to adopt and implement written compliance policies and procedures, failed to establish, maintain and enforce a written code of ethics and failed to maintain and preserve certain books and records.  Under the settlement, Beynon agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty.  He also agreed to be permanently barred from acting within the securities industry in any compliance or supervisory capacity and from associating with any investment company.  In addition, as part of the settlement, OMNI agreed to provide a copy of the proceeding to all of its former clients between September 2008 and August 2011. 

Feltl & Company failed to adopt and implement written compliance policies and procedures for its growing advisory business.  It further neglected to adopt a code of ethics and collect the required securities disclosure reports from its staff.  Under the settlement, Feltl & Company agreed to pay a penalty of $50,000 and return more than $142,000 to certain advisory clients.  In addition, the firm will hire an independent consultant to review its compliance operations annually for two years, provide a copy of the SEC’s order to past, present and future clients, and prominently post a summary of the order on its website.

Asset Advisors failed to adopt and implement a compliance program.  Asset Advisors adopted policies and procedures after SEC examiners brought it to the firm’s attention, but never fully implemented them. Similarly, Asset Advisors only adopted a code of ethics at the behest of the SEC exam staff and then failed to adequately abide by the code. Under the settlement, Asset Advisors agreed to pay a $20,000 penalty, cease operations, de-register with the Commission, and with clients’ consent, move advisory accounts to a new firm with an established compliance program.

A full text of the SEC release and orders is available here.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould

On Wednesday, November 16, 2011, the SEC charged Morgan Stanley Investment Management (“MSIM”) with violating securities laws in a fee arrangement that costs a fund and its investors approximately $1.8 million in sub-adviser fees.

MSIM is the primary adviser to The Malaysia Fund (the “Fund”), a closed-end investment company that invests in equity securities of Malaysian companies.  AMMB Consultant Sendirian Berhad (“AMMB”) was an SEC registered adviser located in Malaysia.  AMMB is a wholly owned subsidiary of AM Bank Group, one of the largest banking groups in Malaysia.  Pursuant to a Research and Advisory Agreement entered into by the Fund with AMMB and MSIM in 1987, AMMB undertook to provide advice, research and assistance to MSIM for the benefit of the Fund.  Every year AMMB submitted a report to MSIM which MSIM provided to the Fund’s board of directors in its evaluation for the renewal of the advisory and sub-advisory agreements.  The board evaluated and approved AMMB’s sub-adviser agreement based on representations from MSIM that AMMB was providing advisory services to the Fund.  AMMB did not actually provide those advisory services.  MSIM also prepared and filed the Fund’s annual and semi-annual reports to investors that inaccurately represented AMMB’s services. 

The SEC found that “MSIM failed its duty to provide the fund’s board members with the information they needed to fulfill their significant responsibility of reviewing and approving the sub-adviser’s contract.”  In addition, MSIM did not adopt and implement policies and procedures governing the advisory contract renewal process and its oversight of AMMB.

According to the SEC’s order, MSIM willfully violated Section 15(c) and 34(b) of the Investment Company Act and Section 206(2) and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder. 

The SEC ordered MSIM to pay the Fund $1.845 million as reimbursement of the advisory fees the Fund paid to AMMB from 1987 to 2008.  MSIM was also ordered to pay $1.5 million penalty fee.  MSIM agreed to pay over $3.3 million to settle the SEC’s charges. 

A full text of the SEC release and order are available here.

Published on:

By

Written by John L. Nicholson

On October 13, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance released CF Disclosure Guidance: Topic No. 2 – Cybersecurity (the “Guidance”), which is intended to instruct companies on whether and how to disclose the impact of the risk and cost of cybersecurity incidents (both malicious and accidental) on a company.

This represents a reminder that companies should think about cybersecurity and data breach incidents when deciding how to fulfill their obligations under the SEC’s existing disclosure requirements.  Up to this point, the market’s focus has been on how U.S. law requires disclosure of data breaches affecting personal information of specific types. Other security incidents only became public knowledge because of unofficial disclosures or because of their effect (e.g., a denial of service attack).  Now, the SEC has made it clear that the risks associated with cyber incidents, the costs of mitigating those risks, and the consequences of a cyber incident may rise to the level of materiality that would require disclosure to investors and regulatory authorities.

MORE…

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould

On October 18, 2011, the SEC released a notice of FINRA’s filing of Proposed Rule 5123 (the “Proposed Rule”) which would require FINRA members and associated persons to: 1) provide to investors disclosure documents in connection with private placements prior to sale and 2) file with FINRA such disclosure documents within 15 days after the date of first sale and any subsequent amendments.  These proposed changes would significantly affect fund managers who offer or sell their funds that are exempt from registration pursuant to Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act through third party marketers, nearly all of which are required to be registered as broker-dealers.

Pre-sale requirement to provide disclosure documents to investors

The Proposed Rule would require FINRA members and associated persons that offer or sell private placements or participate in the preparation of private placement memoranda (“PPM”), term sheets or other disclosure documents in connection with such private placements, to provide such disclosure documents to investors prior to sale.  The disclosure documents must describe the anticipated use of offering proceeds, the amount and type of offering expenses, and the amount and type of offering compensation.  Much of this information is currently captured in the Form D filing that most fund managers file with the SEC, but under the Proposed Rule, would go directly to investors in connection with the sale of fund interests.

As a practical matter, this likely means increased scrutiny of hedge fund and other private fund offerings by FINRA, as well as the likelihood that third party marketers that sell on behalf of hedge funds may request greater or more enhanced indemnification from fund managers in the placement agency agreement between the third party marketer and the fund manager.  Accordingly, fund managers who use third party marketers to market their funds must keep their fund documents updated, taking into account all changes to fund strategies, material performance issues (to the extent applicable), regulatory changes and management personnel changes, to name a few.      

Post-sale requirement to notice file with FINRA

The Proposed Rule would also require each FINRA member and associated person to notice file with FINRA by filing the PPM, term sheet or other disclosure documents no later than 15 days after the date of first sale.  In addition, any amendments to such disclosure documents or disclosures required by the Proposed Rule would have to be filed no later than 15 days after such documents are provided to any investor or prospective investor.  To the extent these documents are provided to investors, they would also be subject to the strict liability standard of Rule 206(4)-8 under the Investment Advisers Act to which all fund managers are already subject.  Accordingly, fund managers must be careful to keep all of their documents current under the materiality standards of state and Federal securities laws.

Offerings Exempted from the Proposed Rule

The Proposed Rule would exempt several types of private placements including offerings sold only to any one or more of the following purchasers: 

  •  institutional accounts, as defined in NASD Rule 3110(c)(4);
  • qualified purchasers, as defined in Section 2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment Company Act;  (Accordingly, 3(c)(7) funds would be exempt from the Proposed Rule.)
  • qualified institutional buyers, as defined in Securities Act Rule 144A;
  • investment companies, as defined in Section 3 of the Investment Company Act;
  • an entity composed exclusively of qualified institutional buyers, as defined in Securities Act Rule 144A;
  • banks, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act; and
  • employees and affiliates of the issuer.

In addition, the Rule would exempt the following types of offerings:

  • offerings of exempted securities, as defined by Section 3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act;
  • offerings made pursuant to Securities Act Rule 144A or SEC Regulation S;
  • offerings of exempt securities with short term maturities under Section 3(a)(3) of the Securities Act;
  • offerings of subordinated loans under Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1, Appendix D;
  • offerings of “variable contracts” as defined in Rule 2320(b)(2);
  • offerings of modified guaranteed annuity contracts and modified guaranteed life insurance policies, as referenced in Rule 5110(b)(8)(E);
  • offerings of non-convertible debt or preferred securities by issuers that meet the eligibility criteria for incorporation by reference in Forms S-3 and F-3;
  • offerings of securities issued in conversions, stock splits and restructuring transactions that are executed by an already existing investor without the need for additional consideration or investments on the part of the investor;
  • offerings of securities of a commodity pool operated by a commodity pool operator as defined under Section 1a(11) of the Commodity Exchange Act; and
  • offerings filed with FINRA under Rules 2310, 5110, 5121 and 5122.

Confidential treatment

Documents and information filed with FINRA pursuant to the Proposed Rule would be given confidential treatment.  FINRA would use such documents and information solely for the purpose of determining compliance with FINRA rules or other applicable regulatory purposes.  In addition, FINRA would afford confidential treatment to any comment or similar letters by FINRA and thus could not be discoverable by a litigant through a legal action.

A full text of the SEC Notice and Proposed Rule is available here.