Category: Compliance Bricks and Mortar

The Ins and Outs of CFIUS Filing

newman

The Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 applies to takeovers of U.S. businesses by non-U.S. persons. That law formalized the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to review foreign investments that could impair national security

Back in November, I was looking at how the new CFIUS regulations would affect real estate investors with significant foreign ownership. it seems clear the purchase of a building could be considered a purchase US business. The issue would be whether the tenants in the building are government tenants and how the ownership of the building could implicate national security.

William A. Newman, of Sullivan & Worcester LLP in New York, put together an article on process for making a CFIUS application filing: The Ins and Outs of CFIUS Filing. He does not paint a pretty picture. CFIUS has estimated that the average filing requires about 100 hours.

Mr. Newman also contributes to the USA Inbound Acquisitions & Investments Blog.

Previous Posts:

Madoff Hearing at the Senate Banking Committee

I will be covering today’s Senate Hearing (”Oversight of the SEC’s Failure to Identify the Bernard L. Madoff Ponzi Scheme and How to Improve SEC Performance“) along with several guest panelists via the interactive discussion below. Please visit this page today at 2:30 pm to join me, Bruce Carton of Securities Docket, Compliance Week editor Matt Kelly, and others as we follow the hearing – and bring your questions!

Rating Agencies and the First Amendment

s-and-P

Rating agencies have long argued that their ratings of securities are constitutionally protected opinions. Many people have pinned some of the responsibility for the financial markets meltdown on the rating agencies. It sure looks like they gave a fair number of these securities a high rating when they were actually toxic.

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank and King County, Washington decided to bring a class action because of their losses in a structured investment vehicle. They included the arranger, placement agent, the rating agencies, the administrator and others involved in the structuring of the securities issued by the structured investment vehicle. The plaintiffs included a full slate of claims against these parties.

The first decision in the law suit was a ruling on a motion to dismiss that was issued last week. U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled in this opinion that the investors in the structured investment vehicle containing mortgage-backed securities sufficiently alleged an actionable misstatement against the credit rating agencies and the investment bank that placed the rated notes.

Under typical circumstances, the First Amendment protects ratings agencies, unless there was actual malice. (See Compuware Corp. v. Moody’s Inv. Servs., Inc.., 499 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2007) [pdf.]) But are the ratings of securities that were distributed to a limited number of investors deserving of the same free-speech protection as more general ratings of corporate bonds that were widely disseminated? Judge Scheindlin said no and rejected the rating agencies’ First Amendment argument.

Judge Scheindlin also rejected the argument that the ratings are merely non-actionable opinions. “[A]n opinion may still be actionable if the speaker does not genuinely and reasonable believe it or if it is without basis in fact.”  Judge Scheindlin also found that the disclaimers in the offering materials are insufficient to protect the rating agencies from liability for promulgating misleading ratings.

This decision is only an early step in the litigation and has not imposed liability on the rating agencies. The plaintiffs will still need to prove the facts that they alleged in the initial pleadings.

But the ruling does open a door that was previously thought closed. The stock prices of McGraw-Hill, which owns Standard & Poor’s, fell 10%, and Moody’s Corp., parent of Moody’s Investors Service, fell 7.1% in New York Stock Exchange composite trading on Thursday.

Other plaintiffs are likely to use this decision to persuade other judges to open rating agencies up to potential liability. I’m sure that plaintiffs’ lawyers involved in subprime lawsuits are amending their complaints this morning.

References:

Blink and Compliance

blink

I am a little late to the game when it comes to reading some of Malcolm Gladwell’s books. Last week, while on vacation with the family, I managed to read Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking.

The book is about rapid cognition, the kind of thinking that happens in a blink of an eye. What is going on inside our heads when during rapid cognition? When are these quick judgments good and when are they not? What kinds of things can we do to make our powers of rapid cognition better?

The book left me with a bunch of little tidbits of information. Gladwell illustrates each of his points with interesting narratives. In the process he makes several insightful points about the nature of rapid human decision-making. Sometimes, over-thinking a problem results in bad decisions. Our first instincts are often correct, if we have a clear picture of what is happening and our perception.

But often that clarity is missing. One example is the difference in selecting elite musicians when the audition is conducted behind a screen, rather than in full view. In the past thirty years since screened auditions have become commonplace, the number of females in the top U.S. orchestras has increased five-fold. Even though the judges were not overtly discriminatory, their first impressions from seeing a woman, the color of her instrument and the way she played had an unconscious negative effect on the judges.

There are lessons in this book for compliance professionals.

Snap judgments are often correct when they come from clarity and experience. But they can also easily be corrupted. Be aware of the situation, the person you are dealing with and the environment around you.

Sometimes too much information can cloud your decision-making. Gladwell finds an example in how an emergency room should handle potential heart attack victims. Typically, doctors try to gather as much information as possible and then make an estimate of whether the chest pain is a heart attack. Instead, they found that three factors were key to determining if chest pain is a heart attack. By focusing on these three factors, the correct diagnosis rate rose from 75%-89% correct rate of diagnosis to 95%.

Experience is clearly the most important factor in developing a strong snap judgment and practice is key in developing that expertise.

42

42

In Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, 42 is the number from which all meaning  could be derived.

A group of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings demand to learn the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything from the supercomputer, Deep Thought. It takes Deep Thought 7.5 million years to compute and check the answer. The answer turns out to be 42. Unfortunately, The Ultimate Question itself is unknown.

Wolfram Alpha gives you that answer. Google gives you that answer. Bing does not give you that answer.

Are you asking the right questions? Do you know what to do with the answer?

Radical Transparency

air-new-zealand

The current buzzword in the markets is “transparency.” Companies want to be more transparent so investors, customers and partners can better understand the company. Some of this came from Enron, whose operations and financial statements were often called “opaque.”

With the growing Web 2.0 it is harder to get secrets as anyone with an internet connection can become a publisher. There are armies of “reporters” looking for the truth. Or at least saying what they believe, regardless of the factual basis.

Some companies are taking it further by making their operations and plans more open to the public. They are embracing web 2.0 to stay connected with their stakeholders. They are becoming more transparent. The Naked Corporation by Don Tapscott and David Ticoll offers an interesting perspective on this

Nobody sane strips down naked in front of their peers. Or maybe you do?

Air New Zealand’s current ad campaign is that they have “Nothing to Hide.” Maybe they took radical transparency too far?

Thanks to Mary Abraham of Above and Beyond KM for pointing out the Air Zealand videos: Why Are You Hiding?

References:

New Compliance and Disclosure Intepretations for Regulation FD

sec-seal

As part of the Updates to Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations, the SEC has published new compliance and disclosure intepretations for Regulation FD.

I found these CD&I’s particularly interesting in light of the SEC’s loss in the Cuban case. The SEC seems to be providing a better roadmap for disclosure of information.

Here are a few questions that caught my eye, with a snapshot of the answer. Go to the compliance and disclosure interpretations for Regulation FD for the full answer.

Question 101.03: Can an issuer ever review and comment on an analyst’s model privately without triggering Regulation FD’s disclosure requirements?

Answer: Yes. . .

Question 101.04: May an issuer provide material nonpublic information to analysts as long as the analysts expressly agree to maintain confidentiality until the information is public?

Answer: Yes.

Question 101.05: If an issuer gets an agreement to maintain material nonpublic information in confidence, must it also get the additional statement that the recipient agrees not to trade on the information in order to rely on the exclusion in Rule 100(b)(2)(ii) of Regulation FD?

Answer: No. An express agreement to maintain the information in confidence is sufficient. If a recipient of material nonpublic information subject to such a confidentiality agreement trades or advises others to trade, he or she could face insider trading liability.

Question 101.06: If an issuer wishes to rely on the confidentiality agreement exclusion of Regulation FD, is it sufficient to get an acknowledgment that the recipient of the material nonpublic information will not use the information in violation of the federal securities laws?

Answer: No. The recipient must expressly agree to keep the information confidential.

Question 101.09: Can an issuer disclose material nonpublic information to its employees (who may also be shareholders) without making public disclosure of the information?

Answer: Yes. Rule 100(b)(1) states that Regulation FD applies to disclosures made to “any person outside the issuer.” Regulation FD does not apply to communications of confidential information to employees of the issuer. An issuer’s officers, directors, and other employees are subject to duties of trust and confidence and face insider trading liability if they trade or tip.

Question 101.10: If an issuer has a policy that limits which senior officials are authorized to speak to persons enumerated in Rule 100(b)(1)(i) – (b)(1)(iv), will disclosures by senior officials not authorized to speak under the policy be subject to Regulation FD?

Answer: No. Selective disclosures of material nonpublic information by senior officials not authorized to speak to enumerated persons are made in breach of a duty of trust or confidence to the issuer and are not covered by Regulation FD. Such disclosures may, however, trigger liability under existing insider trading law.

Updates to Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations

sec-seal

The staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance has updated a bunch of Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations.

Here are a few questions that caught my eye, with a snapshot of the answer. Follow the question’s link for the complete answer.

There are many more new and revised questions under the Securities Act Sections, Rules and Forms, Regulation S-K, Exchange Act Sections, Section 16 and Regulation FD.

Securities Act Sections

Question 103.04: Where the offer and sale of convertible securities or warrants are being registered under the Securities Act, and such securities are convertible or exercisable within one year, must the underlying securities be registered at that time?

Answer: Yes. . . .

Question 139.28: Must offers and sales be suspended during the waiting period of a post-effective amendment to an effective registration statement?

Answer: Offers and sales must be suspended if the post-effective amendment is filed for the purpose of a Section 10(a)(3) amendment and the prospectus is already stale for Section 10(a)(3) purposes. . . .

Securities Act Rules

Question 212.05: Can a registration statement under Rule 415 be declared effective without an opinion of counsel as to the legality of the securities being issued when no immediate sales are contemplated?

Answer: No. However, . . .

Securities Act Forms

Question 130.14: The Item-by-Item instructions for Item 7 of Form D indicate that an issuer must enter the date of the first sale of securities in the offering if the issuer is filing a “new notice.” If an issuer is filing an amendment to a Form D filing, must the issuer provide current information about the date of first sale in the amendment?

Answer: Yes. Rule 503(a)(4) provides that an issuer that files an amendment must provide current information in response to all requirements of the form, regardless of why the amendment is filed. For example, if, in the original Form D, the issuer indicated that the first sale has “Yet to Occur” and if, by the time of the amendment, the date of first sale is known, then the issuer must disclose the actual date of first sale in the amendment.

Regulation FD

This is an all new collection of CD&’s for Regulation FD.

References:

Free and Law Firms

free the future of a radical price by Chris Anderson

I just finished reading Chris Anderson’s new book: Free: The Future of a Radical Price. Given that I am a lawyer, I kept thinking about how his concepts apply to law firms.

Let me say a few things up front.

First, this is an excellent book that will make you think about how these concepts apply to your business. For my prior employer, a large law firm I saw lots of trends in the book.

Second, I am part of an example that Chris uses to defend his hypothesis: GeekDad. Chris started GeekDad as the parenting blog for Wired magazine. The blog is led by Ken Denmead as editor who gets a nominal retainer. The rest of the contributors are unpaid volunteers writing for a magazine conglomerate that makes good money selling ads on GeekDad. I am one of those volunteer contributors. (You can see my name in the list of core contributors in right-hand column.)

Third, Chris does not take the position that everything should be free. He merely points out that more things now can be, thanks to the reduced costs of computer power, storage and networking.

Fourth, I paid for the book out of my own pocket. Free, the book is not free. Free, an abridged audio version is free online.

The Long Tail

Free is an extension of his previous book: The Long Tail. In that book he showed how the sale of large quantity of less popular titles can collectively sell as much as the few popular titles. You can make this work when you have cheap storage. Free takes the next step of what happens when your marginal production costs get close to zero.

There are many studies that show there is a big difference between something costing very little and something costing zero. Therefore you will attract a bigger audience if you round down. With electronic distribution, the marginal cost for adding the next customer is close to zero. So Chris says round down.

How Do You Make Money?

Chris outlines 50 different ways that you can make money even when you are giving away some of your product. Chris does not advocate giving away everything, just some of the things when the marginal cost is close to zero. One of the big distinctions is whether your product is atoms or bits. Atoms are expensive to produce and distribute. Bits are not.

He divides the idea of Free into four categories: cross-subsidies (give away the razor, sell the blade); advertising-supported services (from radio and television to websites); freemium (a small subset of users pay for a premium version of something, supporting a free version for the rest); and non-monetary markets (in which participants motivated by non-financial considerations develop things like Wikipedia and GeekDad).

Freemium is the model that Chris seems most in favor of. You give away a limited version of the product, but charge for the full version, add-ons and enhancements. SocialText just adopted that model for their wiki product: Free for 50. You can use a limited version of the product with up to fifty people at no charge. That freemium model got me using it.

Information is Expensive but Wants to be Free

Chris quotes Stewart Brand:

On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it’s so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.

What about law firms?

Let’s look at the most extreme examples, Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe‘s free business formation contracts and Wilson Sonsini’s Term Sheet Generator. There’s no cost to use the forms and no registration required to download them. Businesses can use them free. Other lawyers can use the forms as if they were their own and use them to serve their own clients. But the free product may help capture business. There are big segments of the legal market that can’t afford to hire these firms. Now, a business using these may be more likely to use the firm because some of the work has already been done. The firms could charge far less to review a completed form than if the firm were to begin the incorporation from scratch. It may offer them a competitive advantage if opposing counsel presents them with one of their own forms.

But those examples are new and few.

There is an incredibly common freemium model adopted by almost every law firm: Client Alerts.

When you had to mail these alerts there was a dollar cost associated with that distribution. To better phrase that, there was a stamp cost associated with distribution. Now distribution are costs are minimal. The costs are the same whether you email it to 500 people or 50,000 people. The same is true with viewing it on the law firm’s website.

I think it is quaint that some law firms still use the “client alert” label. I get more alerts from firms that do not represent me, than I do from the firms that do represent me.

Lawyers and their firms are giving away this valuable legal insight in the hopes that you will hire them to represent you in a matter related to the information in their publication. They use the publications to showcase their expertise, but in the process give away some of their substantive knowledge.

The book is worth reading. You should start thinking about how free may affect your business.

References:

He divides the idea of Free into four categories: cross-subsidies (give away the razor, sell the blade); advertising-supported services (from radio and television to websites); freemium (a small subset of users pay for a premium version of something, supporting a free version for the rest); and non-monetary markets (in which participants motivated by non-financial considerations develop things like Wikipedia and <a href=”http://www.wired.com/geekdad”>GeekDad</a>).