SEC Staff Issues Guidance on Definition of Foreign Private Issuer

Dec 12, 2016

Reading Time : 4 min

Definition of an FPI

Both Rule 405 of the Securities Act and Rule 3b-4(c) of the Exchange Act define an FPI as an issuer organized outside of the United States that meets one of two tests—the Shareholder Test or the Business Contacts Test. Under the Shareholder Test, a non-U.S. issuer will qualify as an FPI if 50 percent or less of its outstanding voting securities are held of record by U.S. residents. In general, voting securities are those that entitle the holders to vote for the election of directors at the time of such determination. If more than 50 percent of a non-U.S. issuer’s securities are held of record by U.S. residents, then, to qualify as an FPI, the issuer must pass the Business Contacts Test. To qualify under the Business Contacts Test, (i) the majority of the non-U.S. issuer’s executive officers or directors must be non-U.S. citizens or residents, (ii) no more than 50 percent of its assets can be located in the United States, and (iii) its business must be administered principally outside of the U.S.

In these latest C&DIs, the SEC Staff provided the following clarifications regarding both the Shareholder Test and the Business Contacts Test:

Shareholder Test

  • Multiple Classes of Voting Stock (C&DI 110.02 and C&DI 203.17): When an issuer has multiple classes of voting stock outstanding with different voting rights, according to the SEC Staff, the issuer may use one of two methods for purposes of calculating the level of U.S. ownership under the Shareholder Test. One method is for the issuer to determine whether more than 50 percent of the voting power of all classes of outstanding securities on a combined basis is directly or indirectly owned of record by residents of the United States. The second method is for an issuer to make the determination based on the total number of voting securities outstanding on a combined basis without regard to the voting power of those securities. Importantly, the methodology selected by the issuer must be applied on a consistent basis.
  • Shareholder Status as U.S. Resident (C&DI 110.03 and C&DI 203.18): According to the SEC Staff, an individual that has permanent resident status in the United States (e.g., a green card holder) is presumed to be a United States resident. Other individuals can still be U.S. residents for the purpose of the Shareholder Test, but the issuer must decide what criteria it will consistently apply to determine the residency status of its shareholders. The criteria cannot be manipulated to achieve a particular result.  Factors an issuer might consider include tax residency, nationality, mailing address, physical presence, location of a significant portion of the individual’s financial and legal relationships, or immigration status.

Business Contacts Test

  • Separate Determinations for Executive Officers and Directors (C&DI 110.04 and C&DI 203.19): In determining whether a majority of an issuer’s executive officers or directors are U.S. citizens or residents for purposes of the Business Contacts Test, it is the SEC Staff’s view that the determination must be made separately for each group. Effectively, an issuer must make four determinations: (1) the citizenship status of executive officers, (2) the residency status of executive officers, (3) the citizenship status of directors and (4) the residency status of directors.
  • Two Boards of Directors (C&DI 110.05 and C&DI 203.20): When an issuer with two boards of directors is applying the Business Contacts Test, the SEC Staff takes the position that the issuer must make the determination of whether the majority of directors are U.S. citizens or residents by examining the composition of the board that performs the functions most closely related to those undertaken by a U.S.-style board of directors. Importantly, if those functions are divided between both boards, then the issuer may aggregate the members of the boards for purposes of calculating the percentage of U.S. citizens or residents under the Business Contacts Test.
  • Location of Assets (C&DI 110.06 and C&DI 203.21): According to the SEC Staff, when determining the location of assets for purposes of the Business Contacts Test, an issuer may use the geographic segment information determined in the preparation of its financial statements. The SEC Staff also takes the position that any other reasonable methodology would be acceptable to assess the location and amount of an issuer’s assets so long as such methodology is applied consistently. The SEC Staff, however, does not provide examples of other methodologies that it would consider to be reasonable.
  • Principal Location of Administration of Business (C&DI 110.07 and C&DI 203.22): When determining whether an issuer’s business is administered principally in the United States, the SEC Staff acknowledges that there is no single factor or group of factors that is determinative. According to the SEC Staff, the issuer must assess, on a consolidated basis, the location from which its officers, partners or managers primarily direct, control and coordinate the issuer’s activities.
  • Shareholder Meetings and Board Meetings (C&DI 110.08 and C&DI 203.23): The SEC Staff provides guidance that holding an annual or special meeting of shareholders or occasional meetings of the issuer’s board of directors in the United States would not necessarily lead to the determination that an issuer’s business is administered principally in the United States. This determination is consistent with the SEC Staff’s guidance under C&DI 110.07 and C&DI 203.22 (discussed above) that no single factor or group of factors is determinative when analyzing whether an issuer is principally administered in the United States. 

Share This Insight

Categories

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.