SEC Shortens Tender Offer Period for Issuers of Nonconvertible Debt

Feb 2, 2015

Reading Time : 3 min

As indicated in this recent no-action letter (which supersedes the prior no-action letters), the SEC Staff will not recommend any enforcement action against an offeror that conducts a tender offer for any nonconvertible debt securities for a period of only five business days if certain conditions are met. Importantly, the type of nonconvertible debt securities that may qualify for the shortened five-business-day period is not restricted on the basis of any particular rating assigned by a credit rating agency, so issuers of high-yield debt securities and investment-grade debt securities will both be able to benefit on the same terms and conditions. Included in the specified conditions are the following:

  • The securities must be nonconvertible debt securities.
  • The tender offer must be made by the issuer of the subject debt securities, a directly or indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of such issuer, or a parent company that directly or indirectly owns 100 percent of the capital stock of such issuer.
  • The tender offer must be open to all record and beneficial owners of such debt securities (subject to certain requirements with respect to __________ (QIBs) and/or non-U.S. persons as defined under Reg S).
  • The tender offer must be announced via a press release through a widely disseminated news or wire service.
  • The tender offer must be for any and all debt securities, not a partial tender offer.
  • The consideration offered must be cash and/or nonconvertible debt securities that are identical in all material respects to the securities being tendered (other than with respect to maturity date, interest payment and record dates, redemption provisions and interest rate), but the new debt securities must be cash-pay interest and have a longer weighted average life to maturity.
  • The consideration in the tender offer cannot be financed with proceeds from any new indebtedness that is contractually or structurally senior (whether by way of lien priority or changes to obligors).
  • The tender offer may not be made in connection with a solicitation of consents to amend the indenture or the subject debt securities.
  • The tender offer may not be made if a default or event of default exists under the indenture for the subject debt securities or under any other indenture or material credit agreement to which the issuer is a party. The issuer must not be subject to bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, must not have commenced a solicitation of consents for a “prepackaged” bankruptcy proceeding and must not have had its board authorize discussions with any creditors for a consensual out-of-court restructuring of the issuer’s outstanding debt.
  • Within 10 business days prior to the commencement of the tender offer, the issuer has not made a public announcement or closed any purchase, sale or transfer of a material business or amount of assets that would require pro forma financial information pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation S-X (whether or not the issuer is an SEC filer).
  • The issuer must provide for certain withdrawal rights (even though withdrawal rights are not statutorily required under Rule 14e-1).
  • The tender offer must be open for at least (i) five business days from and including the date of the announcement of any change in the consideration offered and (ii) three business days from and including the date of the announcement of any material change in the offer (other than a change in the consideration offered).

Debt tender offers are often used to refinance high-interest-rate debt securities with a new issue of lower-interest-rate debt securities. During favorable market conditions, issuers may also use debt tender offers to refinance short-term debt securities with debt securities having a longer maturity. A shorter offering period is important for these types of refinancing transactions because it lessens potential exposure to changing market conditions. Also, the ability to refinance quickly helps issuers avoid having to pay “double interest”—interest on both the newly issued debt and the outstanding debt that has yet to be purchased in the tender offer.

In practice, we expect that the shorter five-business-day offering window will be a benefit that healthy issuers of high-yield debt securities will take advantage of when refinancing their debt. However, we expect that issuers of high-yield debt securities that are trading at or near distressed levels will be unlikely or unwilling to satisfy the conditions for the shorter five-business-day tender offer period.

The SEC will continue to monitor developments in tender and exchange offers for nonconvertible debt securities and may reconsider its position in the no-action letter.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.