SEC Adopts Final Rules on SPACs, Shell Companies and Projections

February 12, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

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.

  1. Enhanced Disclosures: The final rules require SPACs to provide detailed disclosures in their initial public offerings (IPOs) and de-SPAC transactions. These detailed disclosure requirements include comprehensive information about SPAC sponsors, their affiliates and promoters, including their experience organizing SPACs, compensatory arrangements and any potential conflicts of interest. In addition, expanded disclosure will be required related to the target company and to any potential circumstances that may result in dilution to an investor. These enhanced disclosures should provide investors with a clearer understanding of a SPAC’s structure, risks and potential benefits.
  2. Liability: The final rules require, in certain situations, the target company in a de-SPAC transaction to be a co-registrant with the SPAC and assume responsibility for the disclosures in the de-SPAC registration statement. This requirement will subject the target company’s directors and officers to potential Section 11 liability for material misstatements or omissions under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act).
  3. Shell Company Business Combinations: The final rules introduce Rule 145a, which deems any business combination involving a reporting shell company (including a SPAC) and another entity that is not a shell company as a sale of securities under the Securities Act. This means that such transactions will require Securities Act registration, unless an exemption is available. Additionally, the rules revise the financial statement requirements for transactions involving shell companies and private operating companies, aligning them with those applicable to traditional IPOs. These changes aim to enhance transparency and protect investors in shell company business combinations.
  4. Enhanced Projections Disclosure for SPACs and all SEC Filers: The final rules include amendments to the definition of “blank check company” to make the liability safe harbor in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) for forward-looking statements, such as projections, unavailable in filings by SPACs and certain other blank check companies. The rules also require heightened disclosure related to projections, including information about the material bases of the projections and material assumptions underlying the projections. The final rules also update and expand guidance on the use of projections in all SEC filings. These changes are intended to provide investors with more transparency and enable them to make informed investment decisions.

In addition to the above final rules, the SEC published an interpretation of the status of SPACs as “investment companies” under the Investment Company Act of 1940.  While the SEC stated that no one specific duration period is the sole determinant of the “investment company” for a SPAC, the duration of a SPAC that has assets and income that is substantially composed of securities (even government securities) and operates without completing a de-SPAC transaction with a target company is an indicator that the SPAC is an investment company.  A SPAC that operates beyond 12 or 18 months without a business combination “may be an investment company and these concerns increase as the departure from these timelines lengthens.”  Accordingly, a SPAC that that has failed to enter into an agreement with a target company beyond those deadlines “should reassess its status and analyze whether it has become an investment company.” 

The final rules will become effective 125 days after publication in the Federal Register. Market participants, including SPAC sponsors, investors and advisors, should familiarize themselves with these rules to ensure compliance and navigate the evolving regulatory landscape effectively.

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.