June 26, 2022

Volume XII, Number 177

Advertisement
Advertisement

June 24, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 23, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Banks Set to Abandon SPAC Market as SEC Proposes New Rules

Though the final rules will not be expected until the end of this year, according to Bloomberg, major banks are leaving the SPAC market. Some have has paused IPOs of new SPACs, others have ended involvement with SPACs they previously took public, and yet others are ending relationships with current SPAC clients.

The proposed rules are open for public comment until the later of May 31, 2022 or the date that is 30 days after their official publication in the Federal Register.

Introduction

On March 30, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) proposed a sweeping set of rules governing special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) and SPACs’ subsequent purchase of a target (de-SPACs). The proposed rules would expand the list of activities that can be considered as underwriting activities, such as financial advisor in a de-SPAC, placement agent in a related private investment in public equity (PIPE), etc.

As noted by SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, the proposed rules are intended to align the treatment of SPACs with the treatment of traditional initial public offerings (IPOs), as well as to provide greater transparency and protections to investors.

Enhanced Disclosure Requirements

The proposed rules would require disclosure regarding, among other things: (1) SPAC sponsors’ identity and information; (2) potential material conflicts of interest; (3) potential dilution in connection with SPAC IPOs and de-SPAC transactions; (4) additional information on target companies and de-SPAC transactions, including the fairness of de-SPAC transactions; and (5) additional information on projections of future economic performance. Many of the disclosure requirements are based on existing rules and guidance. It is notable that the private operating company (i.e., the target company) would now be a co-registrant when a SPAC files a registration statement on Form S-4 or Form F-4 for a de-SPAC, which would impose Section 11 liability on the target company.

Conforming de-SPAC Transactions and SPAC IPOs to Traditional IPOs

The proposed rules would impose obligations applicable to traditional IPOs on SPAC IOSs and de-SPAC transactions. The proposed rules would treat a de-SPAC transaction as a sale of securities that would require the filing of a registration statement. This will be accomplished in several aspects.

First, forward-looking statements, such as projections, are within the liability safe harbor provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the PSLRA) in certain situations. One major advantage currently enjoyed by SPACs is the ability to use projections, while traditional IPOs cannot. The amendment of the definition of “blank check company” would make the safe harbor unavailable for forward-looking statements provided in connection with a de-SPAC transaction. By increasing the exposure to potential liability of SPAC sponsors in connection with the use of projections in marketing materials and disclosures relating to SPAC IPOs, de-SPAC transactions, and related financings (including PIPEs), there would be a massive undercut to the advantage of these offering structures.

Second, the proposed rules would require a re-determination of smaller reporting company status within four days following the consummation of a de-SPAC transaction. This would make the lighter, less onerous, scaled disclosure requirements available to smaller reporting companies unavailable to some surviving entities.

Third, the proposed rules would require that disclosure documents filed in connection with a de-SPAC transaction be distributed to shareholders within 20 days.

PIPE Purchaser to Statutory Underwriter

If the proposed rules are accepted, it is possible that the SEC will consider purchasers in a PIPE to be statutory underwriters in a subsequent de-SPAC transaction. Such classification would subject participants in the SPAC ecosystem, who had been previously able to avoid such exposure, to onerous underwriter liability. In order to mitigate exposure, and avail themselves of certain defenses, PIPE purchasers may need to engage in burdensome due diligence on the target, increasing the cost associated with such investments.

Other Aspects

The proposed rules also address the status of SPACs as “investment companies” under the Investment Company Act. If the proposal is adopted, a SPAC that fully complies with the rule’s conditions would not need to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. The proposed rules also address business combinations involving shell companies.

© 2022 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 143
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

David A. Lopez-Kurtz Finance Attorney Dinsmore Cincinnati
Associate

David focuses his practice on corporate and securities matters with an emphasis on private and public securities transactions, compliance, and disclosure obligations. He also represents both large and small companies on all aspects of business formation, fundraising, commercial contracts, mergers and acquisitions, and regulatory compliance.

He represents clients in the digital currency and blockchain ecosystem, working as outside general counsel and drawing on the firm’s national platform and comprehensive range of capabilities as he advises on...

513-977-8328
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement