new paradigms in investor liquidity: private and “off
TRANSCRIPT
NEW PARADIGMS IN INVESTOR LIQUIDITY: PRIVATE AND “OFF-MARKET” RESALES OF SECURITIES UNDER RULE 144 AND
BEYOND
By Brian Korn and David P. Russo*
July 2013
I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2
II. Securities Act Registration Requirement and Exemptions ................................................. 3
III. Rule 144: Resales of Restricted and Control Securities – Overview................................. 4
IV. Rule 144: Resales by Affiliates.......................................................................................... 6 A. General .................................................................................................................... 6 B. Definition of “Affiliate” and “Control” under Rule 144 ........................................ 7 C. Rule 144 Regulatory Intent and Requirements – Overview ................................... 8 D. Restricted and Control Securities.......................................................................... 10 E. Applicability of Rule 144...................................................................................... 10 F. Conditions for Affiliate Resales ............................................................................ 11
1. Condition 1: Holding Period .................................................................... 11 2. Condition 2: Issuer Information. .............................................................. 12 3. Condition 3: Manner of Sale. ................................................................... 13 4. Condition 4: Volume Limitation. ............................................................. 13 5. Condition 5: Resale Notice and Timing................................................... 14
V. Rule 144: Resales by Non-Affiliates ............................................................................... 15 A. General .................................................................................................................. 15 B. Definition of Restricted Security. ......................................................................... 15 C. Conditions for Non-Affiliate Resales ................................................................... 16 D. Tacking Issues ....................................................................................................... 17 E. Removal of Restrictive Legends ........................................................................... 18
VI. Section 4(a)(1½) Resales .................................................................................................. 19 A. Overview ............................................................................................................... 19 B. Requirements ........................................................................................................ 20
VII. Block Trades ..................................................................................................................... 20 A. Overview and Types of Block Trades .................................................................. 20 B. Rule 144A Resales ................................................................................................ 21 C. Regulation S Resales............................................................................................. 22
* BRIAN KORN is Of Counsel in Pepper Hamilton LLP’s New York and California offices and DAVID P. RUSSO is
an associate in the New York office. They are members of the firm’s Corporate and Securities Practice Group,
representing issuers, underwriters and shareholders in capital markets transactions. Their e-mail addresses are
[email protected] and [email protected].
#18152777 v4
1. Overview ................................................................................................... 22 2. Requirements ............................................................................................ 23 3. Extraterritorial Securities Liability ........................................................... 24
VIII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 26 I. INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, a paradigm shift has been occurring in the capital markets that has
opened a new panoply of options for security holders desiring liquidity. The convergence of the
Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) 2005 Securities Offering Reforms, most
notably the automatically – and permanently – effective shelf registration by well-known
seasoned issuers, the 2008 shortening of holding periods required by SEC Rule 144, the
proliferation of alternative trading platforms and the direct engagement of mutual funds, hedge
funds, private equity funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and other large market players with
distribution portals has enabled shareholders, their brokers and investment banks to be more
creative and efficient than ever before in obtaining liquidity for investors.
Traditionally, there were two dominant scenarios for an investor holding exempt,
restricted or control securities who wished to sell some or all of his or her position: either the
securities were, or could be registered, or he or she would wait a year from the time of
acquisition and rely on Rule 144 for resale into the market. In contrast, evolving practice and
law now feature more accelerated and diverse avenues for reselling restricted or control
securities than the largely binary choice of the past.
For registered securities, the convenience of automatic shelf registrations (providing for
both primary offerings and secondary sales) facilitates liquidity more than ever before.1 For
exempt securities, resales through the private placement format and the now-accepted
“Section 4(a)(1½)” offer an alternative to Rule 144, including Rule 144A2 institutional resales
and Regulation S offshore trades. “Free stock blocks” and other block trade formats have also
been developed for investors, while “dark pools” of liquidity3 via the sale of a large holding of
1 Securities Act Rule 415. 2 Securities Act Rule 144A. 3 The term “dark pool” generally refers to trading activity in publicly listed securities, typically but not exclusively
in large blocks, apart from the open public market. Dark pools were originally developed to prevent brokers from
front-running trade orders from large institutions.
-2-
securities to a small number of hedge funds offer an alternative for investors and broker-dealers
to avoid the disruptive potential (and possible liability) such resales could bring if executed on
the open market. With respect to the use of dark pools or the “upstairs market,” market
participants must maintain a difficult balance between transactions that risk characterization as
offering an unfair advantage to a small group of buyers and sales that run counter to the
obligation to maintain an orderly market. At the same time, Rule 144 remains an important tool
for investors, investment banks and their counsel, particularly since the revisions to the rule
effective in 2008 which now provide for an accelerated timetable for resales of restricted
securities (six months for securities of reporting companies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the “Exchange Act” or “1934 Act”)).4
II. SECURITIES ACT REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT AND EXEMPTIONS
Under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act” or “1933 Act”), securities may be
legally offered for sale, or sold, only if covered by an effective registration statement filed with
the SEC5 and, generally, accompanied by a prospectus, or pursuant to an exemption from the
registration requirement under Sections 3 or 4 of the act. By imposing registration and
concomitant disclosure requirements, Congress sought to protect prospective investors by
ensuring the availability of information regarding the issuer and its business. With respect to
securities not required to be registered, the 1933 Act describes “exempted securities” in
Section 3. Section 3(a) includes securities issued by federal, state or local authorities, securities
of certain financial institutions, insurance policies and annuities, and bankruptcy securities.
Section 3(b)(1) contains the “Small Issues Exemptive Authority” for issues of up to $5 million
underlying Regulation A, while Section 3(b)(2), inserted by the Jumpstart Our Business Startups
Act of 2012, or “JOBS Act,” allows the SEC to enact a new alternative for issuances of up to $50
million, commonly referred to as “Regulation A+.” Also of note, Section 3(a)(9) exempts
exchanges of securities by an issuer with its existing securityholders.
Section 4 lays out “exempted transactions” under which securities may be issued without
registration. Section 4(a)(1) exempts “transactions by any person other than an issuer,
underwriter, or dealer,” permitting holders of securities to undertake “routine trading” in the
4 See infra Part IV.F.1. 5 Securities Act § 5.
-3-
secondary market so long as they are not engaged in a “distribution” of securities,6 which would
result in their being deemed “underwriters” under the statutory definition.7 As noted below in
Part IV.C, investors seek to avoid conduct that could contribute to their being deemed an
“underwriter,” lest they risk violation of Section 5 (absent registration or an exemption). This
potential is magnified by the fact that the 1933 Act’s definition of “underwriter” encompasses
not only persons who purchase from an issuer but also those who purchase from an affiliate or
control person of the issuer.
Section 4(a)(2), the “issuers’ exemption” or “private placement exemption,” allows
companies to issue and sell securities to investors without registration or the use of a prospectus
to the extent not constituting a “public offering.” Nonetheless, the complexity of ascertaining the
boundaries of a transaction “not involving any public offering” has prompted the SEC’s
establishment of safe harbors such as Regulation D.8 Finally, Sections 4(a)(3)-(4) exempt
certain broker and dealer transactions, respectively, Section 4(a)(5) permits small offerings made
solely to accredited investors and Section 4(a)(6), added by the JOBS Act, sets out the
framework for exempt crowdfunding transactions.
III. RULE 144: RESALES OF RESTRICTED AND CONTROL SECURITIES –
OVERVIEW
Rule 144 under the Securities Act, first adopted in 1972, establishes a safe harbor
providing liquidity primarily to directors, officers, large shareholders and other affiliates of
issuers, as well as investors in securities acquired in exempt offerings. Through its direct and
indirect effects on exempt and restricted securities and their issuers’ access to financing, the rule
6 SEC v. Holschuh, 694 F.2d 130, 137-38 (7th Cir. 1982). While “distribution” is undefined in the Securities Act, it
is generally understood as including any sale or resale that approximates a public offering. 7 “The term ‘underwriter’ means any person who has purchased from an issuer [or affiliate] with a view to, or offers
or sells for an issuer in connection with, the distribution of any security, or participates or has a direct or indirect
participation in any such undertaking, or participates or has a participation in the direct or indirect underwriting of
any such undertaking. . . .” Securities Act § 2(a)(11). The definition excludes agents or brokers whose “interest is
limited to a commission from an underwriter or dealer not in excess of the usual and customary distributors' or
sellers' commission.” Id. 8 Rule 506 under Regulation D was issued pursuant to the authority of Section 4(a)(2) of the 1933 Act, while Rules
504 and 505 were enacted under Section 3(b)(1). Rule 506 permits raising of capital in an unlimited amount, while
issues under Rules 504 and 505 are capped at $1 million and $5 million, respectively.
-4-
is something of an unsung cornerstone in the federal securities laws and the integrated scheme of
regulation that forms the backdrop for capital formation in the United States. By mandating,
among other things, the length of time investors must hold securities issued under most exempt
offerings (representing a significant proportion of financing activity in the United States9), Rule
144 affects the desirability of investing in such offerings in the eyes of individuals and financial
institutions and, thus, the ease with which businesses large and small can raise funds for growth
or operations through private transactions.10 Key among the factors affecting the desirability of
such financing techniques is the illiquidity discount that investors generally demand due to the
securities’ restricted status.11
These issues shape the opportunity costs associated with public and private forms of
financing,12 thus helping to determine the demand for exempt transactions, such as those under
Regulation D and Rule 144A, and overall capital formation levels across the country. Rule 144
also affects the financial position of myriad individuals and institutions by determining how soon
they can turn securities into cash so as to reallocate their investment dollars where they will
obtain the greatest return or make consumption decisions that, in turn, stimulate other sectors of
the economy.
The evolution of the rule over time marks a trend of increasing liberalization of the
holding period requirement, enhancing investor liquidity and indirectly promoting private
9 See, e.g., VLAD IVANOV AND SCOTT BAUGUESS, SEC, DIV. OF RISK, STRATEGY, & FIN. INNOVATION, CAPITAL
RAISING IN THE U.S.: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF UNREGISTERED OFFERINGS USING THE REGULATION D EXEMPTION
(2012), available at http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec/acsec103111_analysis-reg-d-offering.pdf. 10 See generally, James D. Cox et. al., SECURITIES REGULATION: CASES AND MATERIALS (6TH ED. 2009) (“Rule 144 is widely viewed as one of the Commission’s most successful undertakings.”).
11 As the SEC stated in its release adopting changes to Rule 144 that took effect in 2008, “Investors, suppliers, or
employees who are restricted from selling securities and who cannot hedge their positions are generally exposed to
more risk than those who are not subject to such limitations, and generally require higher compensation (or a larger
discount with respect to the securities) for this risk.” Rel. No. 33-8869 (2007) (hereinafter “2008 Adopting
Release”). 12 Such costs include not only advisor and filing fees associated with a public offering, but also the significant
reporting obligations and less tangible but no less material effects of operating a business under continual public
investor and analyst observation, including pressures on short-term earnings.
-5-
issuances.13 Adopted in 1972, Rule 144 initially required that security holders wait two years
before reselling restricted securities (subject to limitations), and permitted resales with no
limitations only after three years.14 Changes enacted in 1997 established one- and two-year
holding periods for restricted and unrestricted resales, respectively.15 Subsequently, in the
amendments effective in 2008, the SEC authorized certain resales after a period as brief as six
months.16 Moreover, in shortening the timeframe before resale, the amended Rule 144 may act
to reduce investors’ need to require registration rights provisions as a sweetener in executing
financing transactions, though registration rights have still remained common in practice.
Rule 144 is also unique in the securities laws in that it allows securities to change
character from restricted to unrestricted without undergoing SEC registration. In most contexts,
a buyer receives securities with the same level of restriction as the seller. However, in sales
under Rule 144, a restricted security in the hands of the seller can transform into an unrestricted
security in the hands of the buyer. This “hocus pocus” mechanism has captivated the
imagination of investors since the rule’s adoption. But the 2008 amendments that reduce the
required holding period to a very short period really served to drive home the magical quality of
Rule 144 and have taken much of the investor headaches away from purchasing restricted
securities.
IV. RULE 144: RESALES BY AFFILIATES
A. General
To explore the current Rule 144 and its application in practice, let us examine a
hypothetical resale of securities by an affiliate of the issuer. Sheila Smith, a director of Acme,
Inc., holds 20,000 shares of common stock of Acme, Inc., a 1934 Act reporting company whose
shares trade on NASDAQ. If Smith decides to sell some or all of her Acme stock, what options
are available to her?
13 For an additional discussion of the effects of the liberalization of the holding period and other regulatory
requirements relevant to the resale of privately-issued securities, see William K. Sjostrom, Jr., Berle IV: The Future
of Financial and Securities Markets: The Fourth Annual Symposium of the Adolf A. Berle, Jr. Center on
Corporations, Law & Society: Rebalancing Private Placement Regulation, 36 SEATTLE UNIV. L. R. 1143 (2013). 14 See 2008 Adopting Release. 15 Id. 16 Id.
-6-
Several possibilities may be applicable. First, Smith may be able to sell them
immediately in the public market (subject to restrictions on transactions by “control” persons), if
the shares were freely tradable when she acquired them. For example, she may have bought
them in an ordinary market purchase, or the shares may have been registered for resale by Acme
using Form S-1, S-3, S-8 or S-11. Under such a scenario, Smith could order her stockbroker to
sell the shares in the open market, or, if necessary, she could pursue a “free stock block” trade
(essentially a distribution of freely tradable shares using the special selling efforts of a bank’s
syndicate desk). Second, if Smith’s securities are not covered by an effective registration
statement or are “control” securities, Smith could still attempt to rely on the Section 4(a)(1)
statutory exemption – especially if she has held the securities for a lengthy period of time – or
Section 4(a)(1½) (further examined in Part VI below). A third option is Rule 144, while a fourth
could be Rule 144A. Rule 144A permits resales to “qualified institutional investors” (more
particularly described below in Part VII.B below). In this case, Rule 144A is probably not
available because Smith’s shares are likely of the same class as Acme’s listed securities, thereby
running afoul of the “fungibility” restriction under that rule.17 (Furthermore, although not
applicable in this case, as Acme is publicly listed, Regulation A, intended for small issues,
permits resales of securities by affiliates without full-scale registration under Section 5.
However, such resales are limited to an aggregate maximum of $1.5 million by all selling
holders.18)
B. Definition of “Affiliate” and “Control” under Rule 144
In considering such possible avenues for resale, at least two significant factors must be
considered. First, as a director, is Smith an “affiliate,” making her shares “control securities”
and subjecting Smith’s resale efforts to the Rule 144 requirements for affiliates of an issuer? The
rule defines “affiliate” of an issuer as any person that “directly, or indirectly through one or more
intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, such issuer.”19
The question next becomes whether Smith “controls” the issuer (either individually or as part of
a “control group”). It should be noted that affiliate status – and, therefore, “control” – is a
factual determination and the SEC generally declines to provide interpretive assistance in
17 See infra Part VII.B. 18 Securities Act Rule 251(b). 19 Rule 144(a)(1). This definition is substantively identical to the definition of “affiliate” in Rule 405.
-7-
particular cases.20 Factors the SEC has indicated as relevant to the determination of “control”
include an individual’s status as a director, officer or 10% shareholder21 though none of these
alone is dispositive.22 Moreover, a person claiming an exemption as a non-affiliate bears the
burden of proof on the issue.23 For purposes of the hypothetical, let us assume Smith’s status as
director confers on her sufficient control of Acme to deem her an affiliate.
Second, independent of the determination of whether Smith is an affiliate, if Smith
received her securities pursuant to a Form S-8 registration statement by Acme, an additional
issue remains. Form S-8 permits reporting companies to register securities for issuance to
directors, employees and others under certain benefit plans. However, resales of securities
acquired by officers, directors, etc. pursuant to a Form S-8 registration statement is permissible
only if specifically authorized in the registration statement. For the sake of this hypothetical, let
us assume Acme specifically provided for resales in the Form S-8 and Smith’s securities are
freely tradable, other than any restrictions arising due to her status as an affiliate.
C. Rule 144 Regulatory Intent and Requirements – Overview
As titles go, Rule 144’s says it all: “Persons deemed not to be engaged in a distribution
and therefore not underwriters.” By relying on the rule, a reseller will be shielded from being
deemed an “underwriter” under the 1933 Act and will be permitted to freely sell securities
20 “Affiliate or control status [under the 1933 Act] . . . is an area involving factual questions which the staff is not in
a position to resolve.” SEC Rel. No. 33-6253 (1980). First General Resources Company (SEC No-Action Letter
1988) '88-'89 CCH Dec. P 78,836 (“The Division has historically declined to express any view on the affiliation of
any person to an issuer of securities on the ground that the question is a matter of fact best determined by the parties
and their advisors.”). 21 American-Standard (SEC No-Action Letter 1972), '72-'73 CCH Dec. P 79,071. 22 Id. Moreover, the significance of these factors is heightened by the fact that directors, officers and holders of over
10% of any registered class of any equity security of an issuer must file statements disclosing the total ownership of
equity securities in the issuer under Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act. At the same time, an additional factor for
consideration as to “control” with respect to shareholders is that, at least in the context of audit committee
membership, Rule 10A-3(e)(1)(ii) under the 1934 Act sets forth a safe harbor that a person who beneficially owns
10% or less of any class of voting equity securities of the issuer is not in “control” of the issuer. Concurrently with
adopting the 1997 changes to Rule 144, the SEC also made proposals for additional modifications to the rule,
including adopting a “bright-line” test for the definition of “affiliate,” Rel. No. 33-7391 (1997), but, as the 2008
Adopting Release notes, the SEC took no further action to adopt such proposals. 23 American-Standard (SEC No-Action Letter 1972), '72-'73 CCH Dec. P 79,071.
-8-
without registration pursuant to the Section 4(a)(1) exemption applicable to persons other than
issuers, underwriters and dealers, while the issuer likewise obtains assurance that its initial
private placement is not placed in jeopardy. What is more, upon satisfaction of the relevant
conditions, persons purchasing from affiliates or non-affiliates who resell securities under Rule
144 receive non-restricted, freely tradable securities (except where a purchaser is him- or herself
an affiliate or has been such within the past three months).24 Finally, the conditions required to
be satisfied to obtain the benefit of the rule differ for affiliates and non-affiliates: in outline,
affiliate resales must fulfill holding period, issuer information, manner of sale, volume and filing
requirements, while non-affiliate resales effectively need only comply with the holding period
condition.25
The rule thus furthers the intent of Section 5 of the Securities Act and SEC and judicial
interpretation thereof restricting “distributions” of securities while endorsing “routine trading” of
securities already issued and in the hands of investors.26 However, as the SEC indicates in its
preliminary notes to Rule 144, the unclear boundary separating the conduct of investors engaging
in trading and those who “act as links in a chain of transactions through which securities move
from an issuer to the public” (and thus are to be deemed “underwriters”) had formerly resulted in
uncertainty in the market, necessitating a clear safe harbor.27 Rule 144 is non-exclusive,28 hence
resellers may still rely on Section 4(a)(1), Section 4(a)(1½) or other avenues.29 (Moreover, in
24 Rule 144 (preliminary note); SEC, Div. of Corp. Fin., Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations: Securities Act
Rules § 530.07 (Jan. 26, 2009) (hereinafter “Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations”). 25 Rule 144(b). 26 SEC v. Holschuh, 694 F.2d 130, 137-38 (7th Cir. 1982). 27 Rule 144 (preliminary note). The direct impetus for SEC’s proposal (and eventual adoption) of Rule 144 was a
1969 study dubbed the Wheat Report, whose drafting was directed by Commissioner Francis Wheat. See Halloran,
Michael J. "The Public Disposition of Restricted Securities and of Securities Held by Controlling Persons—The
Wheat Report, SEC Proposed Rule 144 and the Search for Certainty," 45 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 665, 666 (1971). The
authors of the report advocated the replacement of subject tests governing the resale of privately-acquired securities
with objective ones, such that the purchaser's "‘inner thoughts’ would no longer be a factor in a later attempt to
ascertain his ‘investment intent.’” Hugh L. Sowards, Private Placements and Secondary Transactions: The Wheat
Report Proposals for Reform, 1970 DUKE L. J. 515, 517. 28 Rule 144 (preliminary note). 29 Nevertheless, market participants should remain mindful of the SEC’s statement in the 1972 release originally
adopting Rule 144: “persons who offer or sell restricted securities without complying with Rule 144 are hereby put
-9-
connection with a tender offer, compliance with Rule 144 is not required in order to tender
restricted securities so long as the tendering holder otherwise complies with the Securities Act.)30
D. Restricted and Control Securities
Rule 144 governs the public resale of two categories of securities: restricted and control
securities.31 “Restricted securities” are acquired directly or indirectly from the issuer or an
affiliate of the issuer, generally in connection with a private transfer or sale.32 “Control
securities” refer to any securities of the issuer held or acquired by an affiliate of the issuer,
regardless of how they are acquired (including in the open market).33 A security held by an
affiliate is inherently a “control security” and, to the extent it falls within the definition in Rule
144(a)(3), such security may be both a control and restricted security.34 On the other hand, if an
affiliate meeting the threshold for “control” acquires unrestricted securities from a non-affiliate
in the open market, the affiliate will be deemed to hold “control” securities, but not “restricted”
securities.35
E. Applicability of Rule 144
Rule 144 is an exemption for any security holder other than the issuer of the securities,36
and may be used in domestic or non-U.S. markets.37 However, with the exception of “business
combination related shell companies” and “asset-backed issuers,” the rule is not available for
securities of shell companies or of any entity formerly a shell company unless issued at least one
on notice by the Commission that in view of the broad remedial purposes of the Act and of public policy which
strongly supports registration they will have a substantial burden of proof in establishing that an exemption from
registration is available for such offers or sales and that such persons and the brokers and other persons who
participate in the transactions do so at their risk.” Rel. No. 33-5223 (1972). 30 Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 128.05 (Jan. 26, 2009). 31 See 2008 Adopting Release. 32 See infra Part V.B. 33 The 2008 Adopting Release acknowledges that although the term not defined in Rule 144, this is the typical
definition of control securities (citing the 1997 release in which the SEC proposed additional reforms to Rule 144,
Rel. No. 33-7391 (1997)). See also American-Standard (SEC No-Action Letter 1972), '72-'73 CCH Dec. P 79,071. 34 See 2008 Adopting Release. 35 Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 529.02 (Jan. 26, 2009). 36 Id. at § 128.01 (Jan. 26, 2009). 37 Id. at § 528.02 (Jan. 26, 2009). However, “[a]ny arrangement to return the restricted securities to U.S. markets
may indicate . . . an evasive scheme to avoid registration, which would invalidate any safe harbor claim.” Id.
-10-
year following such a company’s filing of Form 10 information and certain reporting
requirements are satisfied.38 Any provision in Rule 144 governing the resale of securities by a
person also applies to the relatives or spouse of such person (or relative of such spouse) who
share the “same home” as the security holder and any trust, estate, corporation or organization
(other than the issuer) of which 10% or more is owned by the security holder (alone or with
relatives or spouse).39 In general, provisions applicable to affiliates of the issuer also apply to
any person who had been an affiliate within the preceding 90-day period.
F. Conditions for Affiliate Resales
1. Condition 1: Holding Period
With respect to the minimum period for which affiliates must hold securities before being
able to resell pursuant to Rule 144, if shares are merely “control” securities and not restricted, no
holding period would apply40 (such as in the case of Smith’s registered securities) or for
securities obtained on the open market or privately-issued securities under certain bonus plans.41
For restricted securities in the hand of an affiliate, the mandatory time before resale is 6 months
if the issuer has been a 1934 Act reporting company for at least 90 days, or 1 year for non-
reporting company issuers42 (in either case, the public information condition43 must be
independently satisfied).
In connection with calculating an investor’s holding period, it is necessary to ascertain
when the period precisely begins. As a general principle, the SEC has interpreted “date of
acquisition” to indicate the time that full risk of economic loss was assumed by the transferee.44
38 Rule 144(i). Certain short sales and securities granted to an underwriter as compensation for services in
connection with a registered public offering (with exceptions) are also ineligible. Compliance & Disclosure
Interpretations § 528.03-04 (Jan. 26, 2009). 39 Rule 144(a)(2). 40 Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 529.02 (Jan. 26, 2009). 41 SEC Rel. 33-6188 (1980). Securities sold on behalf of an estate or a beneficiary thereof (if neither is an affiliate
of the issuer) are also exempt from the minimum holding period, even where the decedent was an affiliate,
Rule 144(d)(3)(vii), except securities acquired by the estate after the death occurred (e.g., through the exercise of an
option), Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 132.04 (Jan. 26, 2009). 42 Rule 144(d)(1). 43 See infra Part IV.F.2. 44 See, e.g., Rel. 33-6099 (1979) (Question 23).
-11-
If acquired by outright purchase, the holding period commences upon payment in full by the
acquiror.45 When securities are purchased under a subscription agreement, the acquisition date
will be the date on which the subscription agreement is accepted by the issuer (and not
necessarily the date of transfer or execution of the agreement), provided the full purchase price
has been paid.46 With respect to securities obtained pursuant to an option, the holding period
begins upon the exercise of the option, including payment.47 Additionally, subsequent
acquisition of additional securities of the same class does not alter the holding period with
respect to securities already held by the investor.48 Lastly, as the SEC noted in its release
adopting Rule 144, "Certain securities acquired in connection with, or as a result of ownership or
acquisition of, other securities, are deemed to have been acquired when such other securities
were acquired.” The Commission, characteristically, expresses in twenty-nine words what is
commonly understood by practitioners in a single term, “tacking” (this crucial concept will be
more fully explored below in Part V.D below).
2. Condition 2: Issuer Information.
Rule 144 also imposes a public information requirement, mandating that if the issuer of
the securities to be resold is a 1934 Act reporting company, its periodic reports and required
Interactive Data Files must be current for the preceding 12 months.49 For non-reporting
company issuers, certain specified company information must be publicly available.50 It should
be noted that, for reporting issuers, the condition is that reports have been filed for 12 months,
45 Rule 144(d)(1)(iii). Consideration in the form of promissory notes, other obligations or installment contracts is
deemed full payment only to the extent there exists a full right of recourse against the purchaser of the securities, the
obligation is secured by collateral (other than the securities purchased) with a fair market value at least equal to the
purchase price, and such obligation is discharged by payment in full prior to the resale of the securities. Id. at (d)(2). 46 Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 132.07 (Jan. 26, 2009). Restricted securities issued under an
employee benefit plan are deemed “acquired” when the securities are allocated to the account of an individual plan
participant, even if the securities vest on a future date. SEC Rel. 33-6099 (1979) (Question 22). By contrast, the
time of vesting is deemed the date of acquisition for securities granted pursuant to an individually negotiated
employment agreement. Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 532.06 (Jan. 26, 2009). 47 Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 132.11 (Jan. 26, 2009). 48 See, e.g., id. § 532.09 (Jan. 26, 2009). 49 Rule 144(c)(1). 50 Rule 144(c)(2).
-12-
without technically mandating that they be “timely” filed (a requirement most often used for
Form S-3/F-3 eligibility purposes).
3. Condition 3: Manner of Sale.
For equity (but not debt) securities, Rule 144 transactions must be executed by one of
three designated methods.51 The permissible approaches are (i) “brokers’ transactions” pursuant
to Section 4(a)(4) of the Securities Act, (ii) sales to or through a market maker52 or (iii) “riskless
principal” transactions.53 In any such trade, the security holder and its representatives may
neither solicit or arrange for the solicitation of orders for the purchase of the security nor make
any payment in connection with the resale other than to the broker or dealer who executes the
sale.54 In Rule 144 deals, investment banks will act as “agents” in the sale and not as
underwriters. Such transactions need not be filed with FINRA as a distribution pursuant to
FINRA Rule 5190.
4. Condition 4: Volume Limitation.
During any rolling three-month period, resales by an affiliate of the issuer are subject to a
volume limit (excluding from such calculation resales by an affiliate of registered securities and
those sold in exempt transactions or under Regulation A or S).55 During the period, resales by an
affiliate such as Smith may not exceed the greatest of the following:56
(i) 1% of the outstanding securities of same class as the securities being sold, or
(ii) for listed securities (not those traded over-the-counter), the average weekly trading
volume, excluding public offerings by the issuer,57 during four calendar weeks prior to
the filing of the Form 14458 (or the order or execution date of the trade, if no filing is
51 Rule 144(f)(3)(ii). Securities sold on behalf of an estate or a beneficiary thereof (if neither is an affiliate of the
issuer) are also exempt from manner of sale requirements. Id. at (f)(3)(i). 52 Defined in Exchange Act § 3(a)(38). 53 Rule 144(f)(1). 54 Rule 144(f)(2). 55 Rule 144(e)(3)(vii). 56 Rule 144(e)(1). However, the volume limitation does not apply to estates and estate beneficiaries which are not
affiliates of the issuer. Note to Rule 144(d)(3)(vi). 57 Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 133.05 (Jan. 26, 2009). 58 “[T]he ‘four calendar weeks preceding the filing of notice’ . . . are the four weeks preceding the week in which the
[Form 144] is transmitted for filing . . . .” Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 133.06 (Jan. 26, 2009).
-13-
required), as reported (a) on national securities exchanges or an automated quotation
system of a registered securities association, or (b) under an effective transaction
reporting plan/national market system plan.59
However, for securities classified as debt securities under the Rule 144 (which includes non-
participatory preferred stock and asset-backed securities), the applicable limit during the three-
month window is 10% of sales of securities of the same tranche or class.60
Sales by affiliates of the seller or certain others, such as pledgees (e.g., financial
institution to which investors have made a collateral assignment of securities), may be
aggregated in computing the permitted amount. For example, as suggested above,61 sales by a
spouse or relatives of the primary reseller who live in the same household as the “primary”
reseller will be combined to determine whether total resales are within the limit. Similarly, sales
by two or more affiliates of the issuer or other persons who “agree to act in concert” to resell
securities will be aggregated.62 Moreover, in some cases, sales are aggregated when analyzing
the volume limit as it applies to certain parties but not others: for example, a donor must
aggregate its sales with those of all donees for six months or one year (depending on the issuer’s
status), while each donee’s sales aggregate only with those of its donor.63 Additionally, for
volume limit purposes, convertible securities are computed as if they had been converted
whenever the underlying securities are also sold in the same three-month period as the
convertibles.64
5. Condition 5: Resale Notice and Timing.
Finally, affiliates of the issuer reselling under the rule must file with the SEC a notice of
the intended sale on Form 144 concurrently with the broker order or execution directly through a
market maker.65 The form may be provided via paper filing or EDGAR and, if applicable, the
59 Defined in Securities Act Regulation NMS. 60 Rule 144(e)(2). 61 See supra Part IV.E. 62 Rule 144(e)(3)(vi). 63 Rule 144(e)(3)(iii). 64 Rule 144(e)(3)(i). However, where warrants are traded separately from the underlying security, sales are likewise
computed separately under the rule. Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 533.06 (Jan. 26, 2009). 65 Rule 144(h)(1).
-14-
reseller must also forward a copy to the relevant exchange.66 However, Form 144 is required
only for sales representing, in any-three month period, over 5,000 shares or other units or over
$50,000 in aggregate price.67 Additionally, following any filing of Form 144, the resale should
be consummated within a “reasonable time” (generally understood to be three months),
reflecting a “bona fide intention” to resell as required at the time of filing.68
V. RULE 144: RESALES BY NON-AFFILIATES
A. General
To further understand the many types of investors and situations to which Rule 144 is
applicable, we now consider a hypothetical resale of securities by a non-affiliate of the issuer. A
real estate developer named Steve Lynn sells a Nevada hotel to a real estate investment trust
(“REIT”) in exchange for one million common shares of the REIT in a private transaction. The
REIT’s common shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange. Lynn’s shares are not covered
by an effective registration statement and he does not have demand registration rights. If Lynn
decides to sell some or all of his shares of the REIT, what are his choices?
For sales of restricted securities by a non-affiliate, possibilities include taking advantage
of piggyback registration rights – if parties holding demand rights opt to exercise them – the
Section 4(a)(1) statutory exemption, Section 4(a)(1½) or Rule 144. Much as was the case for
Sheila Smith’s securities, use of Rule 144A to sell to a “qualified institutional buyer” would most
likely be foreclosed under that provision’s fungibility rules.69
B. Definition of Restricted Security.
The threshold question in connection with the resale of securities by a non-affiliate of the
issuer is to determine whether, in fact, the securities he or she holds are restricted. “Restricted”
securities are defined in Rule 144 as those acquired “directly or indirectly from the issuer [or] an
affiliate . . . in [one or more transactions] . . . not involving any public offering,” and also include
those acquired under: 70
66 Id. 67 Rule 144(h)(2). 68 Id. No amendment to Form 144 is needed if a holder does not sell the securities referred to in the form,
Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 136.01 (Jan. 26, 2009), but an amendment should be filed upon a change
in broker, id. § 136.06 (Jan. 26, 2009). 69 See infra Part VII.B. 70 Rule 144(a).
-15-
• Regulation D (except Rule 504);
• Rule 144A;
• private placements (including Section 4(a)(1½) and Section 4(a)(2)) and other
non-public transactions (even open-market securities “acquired by an affiliate and
then transferred in a non-public transaction to another person[,] . . . become
restricted”71)
• private issuances under stock-based compensation plans (e.g., Rule 701);
• Regulation S (at least as to equity securities of U.S. issuers);
• Section 4(a)(6) crowdfunding; and
• Rule 801 and 802 transactions, both of which involve foreign private issuers.72
Securities received pursuant to approved bankruptcy plan under Section 1145(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code are not restricted securities73 (though other bankruptcy securities may be74) nor
will be securities issued under the “Regulation A+” exemption to be enacted by the SEC.75
Additionally, certain spin-offs not required to be registered pursuant to Staff Legal Bulletin No. 4
also do not result in restricted securities.76 Assuming Lynn received his securities in a private
transaction from the REIT, the shares would be restricted.
C. Conditions for Non-Affiliate Resales
Resales by non-affiliates under Rule 144 are considerably more streamlined than those by
affiliates of the issuer. In essence, for non-affiliates who have not had affiliate status within the
past 90 days, the only Rule 144 requirement is the holding period. The rule thus offers the
majority of investors a simplified pathway to being able to sell restricted securities in six months
(for reporting issuers who are current on their periodic reports) or one year otherwise. Under
Rule 144, non-affiliates need not concern themselves with filing forms or comparing the amount
of their sales to the float or trading volume, or even the restrictions as to sales through brokers
71 Rel. 33-6099 (1979) (Question 9(a)). 72 For additional examples, see, e.g., Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 132.08 (Jan. 26, 2009), Compliance
& Disclosure Interpretations § 528.08 (Jan. 26, 2009) and Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 529.05 (Jan.
26, 2009). 73 Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 128.03 (Jan. 26, 2009). 74 Id. at § 528.05 (Jan. 26, 2009). 75 Securities Act § 3(b)(2)(C). 76 SEC, Div. of Corp. Fin., Staff Legal Bulletin No. 4 (CF) (Sept. 16, 1997).
-16-
and the like. Upon an aggregate of one year after acquisition (including tacking), non-affiliates’
previously restricted securities can be resold freely with no limitations and in an unlimited
amount.
D. Tacking Issues
Non-affiliates are frequently in a position to take advantage of the tacking principles of
Rule 144, under which a non-affiliate holder (who has been such for at least three months) can
amass the requisite minimum time enabling it to resell its securities by combining its period of
ownership with the period accrued by one or more previous holders from the time each prior
party acquired the securities. Significantly, tacking is not permitted in the context of a purchase
of restricted securities from an affiliate of the issuer,77 but is permitted for gifts of securities from
an affiliate78 and for trusts, estates and beneficiaries of an affiliate.79 Securities received in a
cashless conversion or exchange80 or cashless exercise of warrants/options81 are generally
deemed acquired when the initial securities were acquired. The same principle of tracing the
date of acquisition of the original underlying securities generally applies for stock
splits/dividends82 and securities acquired pursuant to anti-dilution rights.83
Moreover, tacking as to securities of the predecessor issuer is also allowed in connection
with certain holding company reorganizations.84 Pledgees can tack on to their pledgors’ holding
period when such pledgees sell the pledged securities upon a default by the borrower, except if
the securities were pledged without recourse and the pledgor was the borrower under the
77 See Rule 144(a)(3)(i). 78 Rule 144(d)(3)(v). 79 Rule 144(d)(3)(vi)-(vii). 80 Rule 144(d)(3)(ii). Where the securities surrendered in the conversion or exchange did not provide for cashless
exercise at the time of acquisition, but the holder subsequently provides consideration in connection with an
amendment permitting such cashless exercise, then the securities received are deemed to have been acquired at time
of such amendment. Note to Rule 144(d)(3)(x). A functionally identical rule applies to amendments permitting
cashless exercise of warrants and options under Note 1 to Rule 144(d)(3)(x). 81 144(d)(3)(x). Even a de minimis cash payment in connection with a warrant exercise bars the exercise from being
deemed cashless, however. Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 132.13 (Jan. 26, 2009). 82 Rule 144(d)(3)(i). 83 Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations § 132.06 (Jan. 26, 2009). 84 Rule 144(d)(3)(ix).
-17-
obligation in question.85 Additionally, persons receiving restricted securities in a spin-off may
tack on to the parent’s holding period, provided the parent is a closely-held investment entity.86
E. Removal of Restrictive Legends
An additional concern for investors and issuers is the placement and removal of
restrictive legends on securities. Such warning statements are commonly placed on restricted
shares or bonds advising that any resale or transfer of the security requires registration or an
exemption from registration; such legends are rarely inserted on control securities. Legended
securities are not eligible for The Depository Trust Company’s clearing system and usually have
their own Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures number (commonly
referred to as a “CUSIP” number).
Transfer agents will typically remove such a legend upon an opinion of issuer’s counsel
that the resale is exempt from Rule 144 holding period, notice and manner of sale requirements
(and sometimes a concurrence letter from the company).87 This process also generally requires
certifications from the reseller, as well as the agent in some cases. Except where removal is
requested by a non-affiliate holder in connection with a specific proposed resale, prudent practice
suggests retaining legends on security certificates for one full year, even for securities of a
reporting issuers, which would otherwise eligible for resale after six months assuming the Rule
144 conditions are met. Such an issuer could become delinquent in its filings, thus eliminating
eligibility for resale at the six-month mark. Finally, it is instructive to note the SEC’s statement
in an online publication for investors: “If a dispute arises about whether a restrictive legend can
be removed, the SEC will not intervene. Removal of a legend is a matter solely in the discretion
of the issuer of the securities. State law, not federal law, covers disputes about the removal of
legends.”88
85 Rule 144(d)(3)(iv). 86 See SEC, Div. of Corp. Fin., supra note 76. The securities are not required to be registered if the parent has held
them for at least two years and the spin-off satisfies the additional conditions in Staff Legal Bulletin No. 4. Id. 87 As the SEC states, “Under the amendments that we are adopting, we do not object if issuers remove restrictive
legends from securities held by non-affiliates after all of the applicable conditions in Rule 144 are satisfied.” 2008
Adopting Release n.65. 88 SEC, Rule 144: Selling Restricted and Control Securities, http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/rule144.htm (last
updated Jan. 16, 2013). See also 2008 Adopting Release n.65.
-18-
Legend removal can sometimes be compared to “herding cats” and holders who are keen
to sell shares quickly should manage expectations, as the process involves back and middle
office processes within transfer agents and broker-dealers. Rarely can a legend be removed and
shares are free to trade on a same-day basis.
VI. SECTION 4(A)(1½) RESALES
A. Overview
Similar to Harry Potter’s “Platform 9¾” at London’s King’s Cross Station, Section
“4(a)(1½)” – formerly “4(1½)” – is a largely practitioner-created exemption acknowledged by
courts89 and the SEC90 that serves as one of the primary alternatives to Rule 144 for resales of
restricted and control securities. Section 4(a)(1½) transactions are non-public resales by
affiliates and non-affiliates (without the use of an underwriter), as enabled by Section 4(a)(1),
generally on same basis as an initial private placement by an issuer under Section 4(a)(2). The
technique can thus be understood as an attempt to incorporate the concepts underlying both
statutory exemptions, though technically centered on Section 4(a)(1), as it is a tool for secondary
sales and generally not for issuers. Nonetheless, the SEC offers little guidance on the specific
parameters of the statutory exemptions or 4(a)(1½), resulting in a residual uncertainty in any use
of this practitioner-crafted procedure. The critical focus is the avoidance of a “distribution” –
which would void eligibility for Section 4(a)(1) – necessitating what is essentially private
placement by the holder.91
Further resales of restricted securities are generally restricted,92 usually entailing the
placement of restrictive legends.93 As compared with Rule 144 resales to non-affiliates, the
89 See, e.g., U.S. v. Lindo, 18 F. 3d 353 (6th Cir. 1994). 90 Rel. No. 33-6188 n.178 (1980) (“‘Section 4(1-1/2)’ . . . is a hybrid exemption not specifically provided for in the
1933 Act but clearly within its intended purpose . . . so long as some of the established criteria [under] Section 4(1)
and Section 4[(2) . . . are satisfied.”). 91 The Supreme Court in Ralston Purina provided fundamental principles for analyzing whether an offering is
“public” or “private” under the 1933 Act, holding: “[T]he applicability of [Section 4(2)] should turn on whether the
particular class of persons affected needs the protection of the Act. An offering to those who are shown to be able to
fend for themselves is a transaction ‘not involving any public offering.’” SEC v. Ralston Purina Co., 346 U.S. 119,
125 (1953). 92 See, e.g., SEC No-Action Letter, Bank of New Hampshire Corp., Mar. 4, 1981.
-19-
restricted status of the securities purchasers receive may lessen the attractiveness of Section
4(a)(1½) sales. At the same time, the potential drawback is partially offset by the absence of a
strict volume limitation or a publicly accessible filing (Form 144). Section 4(a)(1½) is
predominantly used for sales (i) by affiliates looking to exceed the volume restrictions of
Rule 144, (ii) among institutional investors of restricted securities, and (iii) to institutional (not
individual) accredited investors alongside a Rule 144A offering, certain other secondary
offerings and certain primary offerings by foreign private issuers.
B. Requirements
Section 4(a)(1½) resales largely track Section 4(a)(2)/Regulation D practice. Features
ordinarily include a limited number of purchasers, disclosure similar in scope to that required for
a public offering, prohibition on general solicitation/advertising (the JOBS Act reforms do not
expressly address the Section 4(a)(1½) technique), a right of the issuer to obtain closing opinions
from purchasers and a minimum denomination restriction for sale/transfer. This being the case,
Section 4(a)(1½) is intended for use with purchasers of high wealth and sophistication. Key
documentation in Section 4(a)(1½) deals includes express disclosure of the non-registered status
of the securities to investors as well as certifications by purchasers as to investor suitability and
intent (note that broker-dealers must still follow FINRA suitability rules pursuant to FINRA Rule
2111). Generally a purchaser will furnish a “big boy” letter which states that the purchaser is
knowledgeable about investments of the kind he or she is making, that the purchaser has done all
due diligence required by him or her to make an intelligent investment decision, that investments
can and often do lose value and that the purchaser is prepared to lose money on the investment.
Unlike other private placement approaches, the issuer is generally not involved and there are no
issuer representations and warranties or indemnification obligations.
VII. BLOCK TRADES
A. Overview and Types of Block Trades
Three types of “block trades” for large volumes of equity securities distributions are
generally in use. The first is a sale by an issuer of registered securities or a holder undertaking a
large secondary distribution of the same. Such a trade can be a traditional underwritten offering
on an accelerated timetable or, often, a “bought deal” with multiple banks bidding as
93 The presence of the “indicia of private placements” is important to satisfying the Section 4(a)(1½) principles. See
Lindo, 18 F. 3d 353 at 358. See also SEC v. Cavanagh, 1 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
-20-
underwriters to pre-purchase the entire block or issuance at an agreed (discounted) price without
performing a standard “book building” process, thus offering committed proceeds to the seller.
Such transactions often consist of “takedowns” of shelf-registered securities. Second is the “free
stock block” transaction involving the sale of freely-tradable shares by an investor. Due to the
large quantity of securities involved, such a sale often requires “special selling efforts” by the
investor’s brokers. These transactions may be booked as a distribution by the selling firm to
avoid FINRA trade reporting requirements. Cynical bankers often refer to these transactions as
“non-league table blocks,” because the major investment bank league table compilers do not
count these transactions in the tables, despite being booked as distributions.
Finally, unregistered or restricted securities are also frequently traded in a block format.
The most common vehicles for such resales are Rules 144 or 144A, Section 4(a)(1½) and
Regulation S. For secondary block trades of unregistered securities, generally no offering
document is employed, resulting in time and cost advantages. Likewise, representations and
warranties and covenants in the purchase agreement are usually limited (generally addressing
good title of seller, no require consents and no preemptive rights). In Rule 144A and Regulation
S transactions, since investment banks act as principal in many cases, scrutiny of the issuer by
the underwriter/selling bank will likely be high. For similar reasons of risk management, such
offerings are typically limited to highly sophisticated institutional investors on the condition that
they acknowledge their non-reliance on the seller. Many of these trades are done in single
purchase, “desk-to-desk” crossings among banks and investment firms.
As an additional factor, although Section 4(a)(1½), Rule 144A or Regulation S require
investors to minimize publicity, resellers – especially affiliates – should consider possible
obligations arising under other provisions. Investment advisers and brokers may need to file
acquisition and ownership reports under Section 13 of the 1934 Act (in addition to the reporting
obligations for beneficial owners of registered equity securities on Schedule 13D or 13G).
Similarly, Section 16 requires designated insiders and 10% stockholders to disclose their
holdings of shares of the issuer and to comply with short-swing profit rules.
B. Rule 144A Resales
Following on our review of Rule 144 and Section 4(a)(1½) above, which are also
applicable to block trades, we briefly explore Rule 144A and Regulation S. Rule 144A is a non-
-21-
exclusive safe harbor under the Section 4(a)(1) exemption94 facilitating the resale of private
placements if made to a class of investors termed “qualified institutional buyers” (“QIBs”).95 A
QIB is generally an institution holding or managing at least $100 million of investment securities
of non-affiliates.96 To rely on the rule, the seller must not be the issuer of the securities97 and
must “reasonably believe” all offerees and buyers are QIBs; reliance on certain compiled lists or
manuals of QIBs is permissible under certain conditions.98
Further requirements of Rule 144A are that (i) the seller must take “reasonable steps” to
inform buyers of the its reliance on Rule 144A to transact in unregistered securities99 and (ii) for
non-reporting issuers, buyers must be given the right to obtain certain “reasonably current”
prospectus-like issuer information at or before the sale.100 Additionally, securities sold under the
rule must not be fungible with (of the same class as) securities offered by the issuer on a national
securities exchange or automated inter-dealer quotation system.101 However, this fungibility
restriction is measured by whether securities of the issuer were traded on an exchange at the
time of issuance of the reseller’s shares (or bonds), thus allowing resales of “founders’ shares”
acquired prior to the company’s listing.102
C. Regulation S Resales
1. Overview
Regulation S consists of two non-exclusive safe harbors from registration for securities
sold outside the United States. The first is primarily an issuer safe harbor,103 while the second
permits immediate resale of securities – typically of non-U.S. issuers – by persons other than the
94 Rule 144A(b). Rule 144A(c) also permits sales by dealers under the Securities Act § 4(a)(3) exemption. 95 Rule 144A(d)(1). 96 Rule 144A(a)(1). 97 Rule 144A(b). 98 Rule 144A(d)(1). The JOBS Act directs the SEC to revise Rule 144A to allow solicitation and offers to persons
other than QIBs so long as the seller reasonably believes the actual purchasers to be QIBs. Pub. L. No. 112-106 §
201(a)(2), 126 Stat. 306, 314 (2012). See proposed amendment in Rel. No. 33-9354 (2012). 99 Rule 144A(d)(2). 100 Rule 144A(d)(4)(i). 101 Rule 144A(d)(3)(i). Convertible securities or warrants must bear at least a 10% conversion or exercise premium,
respectively, to avoid the fungibility limitation. Id. 102 Id. 103 Securities Act Rule 903.
-22-
issuer, a distributor or affiliates thereof (except for any officer or director who is an affiliate only
due to holding such office).104 Resales may be of securities initially issued in an offshore
transaction or a private placement in the United States. It should be noted that the scope of
eligible persons who may rely on the rule excludes some intending resellers who are affiliated to
a greater extent than solely serving as director or officer.
2. Requirements
Resales under Regulation S must satisfy two central requirements. First, the offer or sale
must be made in an “offshore transaction,”105 which consists of two elements:106 (i) no offers
may be made to persons in the United States; and (ii) either
(a) at the time of originating its order, the buyer must be outside the United States (or the
seller must reasonably so believe); or
(b) the sale must occur in or through a “designated offshore securities market”107 and the
seller (or its agents) must not be aware of any preexisting arrangement with a buyer in the
United States for purchase of the securities.
Second, no “directed selling efforts” may be made in the United States by the seller or its
affiliates to condition the market there for the relevant securities.108 Moreover, where an officer
or director of the issuer or a distributor (if deemed an “affiliate” only by virtue of holding such
104 Securities Act Rule 904. 105 See Rule 904(a)(1). Note that “[o]ffers made in the United States in connection with contemporaneous registered
offerings or offerings exempt from registration will not preclude reliance on the safe harbors.” SEC Rel. No. 33-
6863 n.36 (1990). 106 See Securities Act Rule 902(h)(1). A selling dealer may not knowingly makes sales to a “U.S. person” prior to
the expiration of the distribution compliance periods described below. Rule 904(b)(1)(i). Moreover, prior to the
expiration of the distribution compliance period, if the purchaser is also a dealer or is receiving a selling concession,
the selling dealer must send a confirmation stating that the securities may be offered and sold during such period
only pursuant to registration or an exemption (including Regulation S). Id. at (b)(1)(ii). 107 These include exchanges in Africa (Egypt and South Africa), Asia-Pacific (Australia, Hong Kong, Japan,
Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Turkey), Europe (Austria, Belgium, Channel Islands, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) and North and South America (Bermuda, Canada, Mexico, Peru and
Panama). See LOSS, SELIGMAN AND PAREDES, SECURITIES REGULATION § 2-E-3 n.172 (2012). 108 Securities Act Rule 904(a)(2).
-23-
position) is reselling Regulation S securities, he or she may not pay an agent or broker
remuneration beyond the “usual and customary” commission.109
After the expiration of the relevant distribution compliance period, subsequent resales of
Regulation S securities (whether in the U.S. or overseas) are, in general, not restricted,110 except
for equity securities of U.S. issuers,111 though these may be resold in reliance on Rule 144. (The
distribution compliance period is 40 days for Category 2 offerings and Category 3 debt offerings;
as to Category 3 equity offerings, it is six months for reporting company securities and one year
otherwise.112) However, parties who intend, at the time of their purchase of securities overseas
from an affiliate of the issuer, to widely resell Regulation S securities into the United States
subsequent to the compliance period may be deemed statutory underwriters in light of their
“view to . . . distribution”113 at the time of acquisition.
3. Extraterritorial Securities Liability
Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 are ambiguous as to the extent to which the
prohibition on fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of “any security registered on a
national securities exchange or any security not so registered” applies to conduct or transactions
outside the United States or to securities listed or traded abroad.114 For decades, federal district
and appeals courts applied some form of “conduct” or “effects” tests to find applicability of the
securities laws where certain links to the United States exist. Since the Supreme Court’s
decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank,115 however, the prevailing test is a transaction-
based one centering on whether “the purchase or sale is made in the United States, or involves a
109 Rule 402(b)(2). 110 Rel. No. 33-6863 (1990). 111 Rel. No. 33-7505 (1998) (adopting Rule 905). 112 Rule 903(b)(2)-(3). There is no distribution compliance period for Category 1 securities. Rule 144(b)(1). The
criteria for distinguishing the three categories are set forth in Rule 903(b). 113 Securities Act § 2(a)(11). 114 Both provisions govern transactions involving the instrumentalities of “interstate commerce” (defined as “trade,
commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between any foreign country and any
State, or between any State and any place or ship outside thereof.” Exchange Act § 3(a)(17). 115 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010).
-24-
security listed on a domestic exchange.”116 In consequence, persons transacting in securities
outside the United States would seem to be protected from liability in “foreign-cubed” cases like
Morrison (foreign investor, foreign-issued securities and overseas transaction) and, according to
at least one district court, “foreign-squared” cases (U.S. investor, foreign-issued securities and
overseas transaction).117
The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-
Frank”) amended the 1933 Act, 1934 Act and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 in an attempt
to give federal courts certain “[e]xtraterritorial [j]urisdiction.”118 Courts may hear anti-fraud
suits by the SEC or federal government alleging (i) “conduct within the United States that
constitutes significant steps in furtherance of [a] violation,” even if the transaction occurs abroad
or involves only non-U.S. investors or (ii) conduct abroad with “foreseeable substantial effect
within the United States.”119 This language approximates the “conduct and effects tests”
squarely rejected by the Supreme Court, seemingly overriding Morrison for the purposes of
government enforcement actions. However, the Morrison court explained that its ruling was
predicated on the substantive scope of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and not on jurisdictional
issues.120 Therefore, while the question remains open absent federal court rulings on Dodd-
Frank’s extraterritoriality provisions, the amendments may not have the impact Congress appears
to have intended,121 although some commentators suggest courts could theoretically give effect
116 Id. at 2886. Even where some relevant fraudulent conduct occurs in the United States, this would not seem to
bring an extraterritorial transaction into the purview of the 1934 Act. See id. at 2884 (“[t]he focus of the Exchange
Act is not the place where the deception originated, but upon the purchases and sales of securities in the United
States”). 117 Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Group et al., 729 F. Supp. 2d 620 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). 118 Pub. L. 111-203 § 929P(b), 124 Stat. 1376, 1864 (2010) (per section captions). 119 Id. 120 130 S. Ct. at 2877. 121 Dodd-Frank does not address the substantive scope of the securities liability provisions at issue and “accordingly
does not expand the territorial scope of the government’s enforcement powers at all.” George T. Conway III
(Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz), Extraterritoriality After Dodd-Frank, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL FORUM ON
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL REGULATION (Aug. 5, 2010, 8:58 AM),
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/08/05/extraterritoriality-after-dodd-frank/. See also Genevieve Beyea,
Morrison v. National Australia Bank and the Future of Extraterritorial Application of the U.S. Securities Laws, 72
-25-
to the purported expansion in jurisdiction for policy-based or other reasons.122 Those engaging
in securities transactions abroad (especially if in reliance on SEC safe harbors such as
Regulation S) will need to wait for judicial interpretation or clarifying legislation before there
can be fuller certainty.
VIII. CONCLUSION
While the rule may sometimes be overlooked as more in the nature of a technical or
ancillary rule, the SEC’s progressive relaxation of the holding period requirement, extensive
fact-based and situation-based hypothetical interpretations by the SEC Staff, and other reforms
of Rule 144 have allowed the provision to contribute, in no small way, to overall corporate
financing activity in the United States and even overseas. Without tools such as Rule 144
permitting certain and relatively prompt resale of restricted securities, the feasibility of private
capital raising efforts would be sharply diminished, as investors would hesitate to provide funds
in exchange for illiquid investments. By authorizing “outside the box” investor resale, measures
such as Rule 144, Rule 144A, Section 4(a)(1½) and Regulation S facilitate exempt issuances of
debt and equity by U.S. and non-U.S. businesses. In this sense, they may indirectly stimulate
private avenues of financing as compared with the use of public exchanges and the cost burden
on issuers, shareholders and perhaps the economy as a whole, due to the higher advisor, filing,
exchange, reporting and other expenditures (and, arguably, often exaggerated focus on short-
term earnings and share price) associated with registration and listing.
The accessibility of such exemptions for a variety of types of resales, including the
burgeoning area of block trades and “dark” liquidity, provide a greater number of options than
ever before. In the latter approach, investors and financial intermediaries tread a fine line
between pursuing non-open market deals that may risk market fragmentation and even the
OHIO ST. L. J. 537, 571 (2011) (“While Congress's intent . . . was clearly to preserve the conduct and effects tests,
the language . . . as drafted does not actually do so.”) 122 See, e.g., Marco Ventoruzzo, Like Moths to a Flame? International Securities Litigation After Morrison:
Correcting the Supreme Court's "Transactional Test", 52 VA. J. INT'L L. 405, 440 (2012). See also Richard W.
Painter, The Dodd-Frank Extraterritorial Provision: Was it Effective, Needed, or Sufficient?, 1 HARV. BUS. L. REV.,
195, 208 (2011) (depending on the reasoning they apply, courts could “be forced to find that Section 929P was
‘stillborn’ in that it conferred jurisdiction that could not be used for anything substantive—in cases without a U.S.
securities transaction—until a further statute were enacted. Whether a federal court will so hold, despite the very
likely congressional intent to the contrary, remains to be seen.”)
-26-
appearance of privileging a small number of funds or institutions and transactions that could
disrupt markets and could unnecessarily disadvantage issuers where large volumes of securities
are attempted to be resold at the market. Nevertheless, securities holders, banks and broker-
dealers today face an expanded range of choices for resale of restricted and control securities,
which should tend to promote overall market liquidity and investor enthusiasm and contribute to
the long-term solvency and growth of issuers.
It is certain that the creativity of market professionals will continue along this course and
“create” or “discover” ever more efficient methods of investor liquidity as this paradigm expands
even further.
-27-