SEC Staff Issues Guidance Regarding 144A and Regulation S

Dec 19, 2016

Reading Time : 6 min

Calculating $100 Million Threshold under Rule 144A

Rule 144A(a)(1)(i) defines a QIB by listing several types of entities that, acting for their own account or the accounts of other QIBs, own and invest on a discretionary basis at least $100 million in securities of non-affiliate issuers in the aggregate. In its latest C&DIs, the SEC staff clarifies what securities are included for the purposes of calculating the $100 million threshold.

According to the SEC staff, when calculating the $100 million threshold under Rule 144A(a)(i), an entity may include:

  • securities that the issuer has purchased and continued to hold on margin (so long as they are not subject to a repurchase agreement) (C&DI 138.05); and
  • securities that the entity owns but has loaned out to borrowers (C&DI 138.06);

However, when calculating the $100 million threshold under Rule 144A(a)(i), an entity may not include:

  • securities that it has borrowed (C&DI 138.07); or
  • short positions in securities that it has established (C&DI 138.08).

Also, for an investment company that is not registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, it may not aggregate investments by other funds that may be part of the non-registered investment company’s family of funds in the manner described under Rule 144A(a)(1)(iv). According to the SEC staff, only registered investment companies may use the aggregation method permitted under Rule 144A(1)(iv). (C&DI 138.09)

Finally, when determining its status as a QIB under Rule 144A, Rule 144A(a)(1)(v) provides that an entity will be deemed a QIB if all of its equity owners are QIBs. According to the SEC Staff, when the entity is a limited partnership, the limited partners are the equity owners. The general partner does not need to be considered in determining whether a limited partnership is a QIB so long as the QIB is not also a limited partner. (C&DI 138.10)

Regulation S

Regulation S, which was promulgated under the Securities Act, provides a safe harbor for certain types of public and private offerings by both U.S. and foreign issuers that are made outside of the U.S. so that they are not required to be registered under Section 5 of the Securities Act. In general, in order to rely on Regulation S, offers and sales must be made in an “offshore transaction” and there cannot be any “directed selling efforts” with respect to the securities (e.g., activities that could be expected to condition the market in the U.S. for any of the securities being offered in an offering relying on the Regulation S safe harbor).

Definition of U.S. Person

Whether the Regulation S conditions are met depends in part on the definition of “U.S. persons,” which is defined in Rule 902(k)(1) of Regulation S. Any natural person resident in the United States is a U.S. person according to Rule 902(k)(1)(i) of Regulation S. In C&DI 276.01, the SEC staff clarified that a person that has permanent resident status in the U.S. (a so-called Green Card holder) is presumed to be a U.S. resident for purposes of Regulation S. However, if a person is not a Green Card holder, the SEC staff indicates that an issuer must decide what criteria it will use to determine residency and apply such factors consistently without changing them to achieve a desired result. Examples of such factors would include, according to the SEC staff, tax residency, nationality, mailing address, physical presence, the location of a significant portion of an individual’s financial and legal relationships, or immigration status.

The European Union May be a “Single Country” for Purposes of Category 1 Transactions

Rule 903 of Regulation S distinguishes among three categories of transactions based on the type of securities being offered, whether the issuer is domestic or foreign, whether the issuer is a reporting issuer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and whether there is “substantial U.S. market interest” in the securities being offered. Category 1 transactions are those where the securities being offered are least likely to enter the U.S. The only restrictions here are that the transaction is made in an “offshore transaction” and that there are no “directed selling efforts” in the U.S. One type of offering that is eligible to qualify as a Category 1 transaction is “[a]n offering of securities of a foreign issuer that is directed into a single country other than the United States to the residents thereof that is made in accordance with the local laws and customary practices and documentation of such country.” See Rule 903(b)(1)(ii)(A) of Regulation S.

The SEC staff confirmed that an issuer may rely on Rule 903(b)(1)(ii) of Regulation S for an offering of securities in more than one country that is part of the European Union (C&DI 277.02). As the SEC Staff pointed out in C&DI 277.02, Regulation S was adopted before the integration of the capital markets within the European Union. Given the level of integration resulting from the application of EU-wide laws and regulations relating to prospectuses, transparency, trading and other matters, the SEC Staff takes the position that issuers may rely on Rule 903(b)(1)(ii) to the extent that the local laws and customary practices and documentation are those of the European Union (as opposed to those of a single country within the European Union).

Also, for the reasons discussed above, the SEC staff confirmed that an issuer may rely on Rule 903(b)(1)(iv)—which allows certain securities offered to employees to be considered Category 1 transactions under Regulation S—for an offering of securities to employees if the laws, customary practices and documentation are those of the European Union rather just a “single” country other than the U.S. (C&DI 277.03).

Relying on Category 2 Guidance for Category 3 Transactions

The SEC staff confirmed that issuers conducting Category 3 transactions can rely on Category 2 guidance to establish that an offer and sale is not made to a U.S. person or for the account or benefit of a U.S. person (C&DI 277.04). In adopting Regulation S, the SEC stated that persons relying on the second issuer safe harbor (now referred to as Category 2) must “ensure (by whatever means they choose) that any non-distributor to whom they sell securities is a non-U.S. person and is not purchasing for the account or benefit of a U.S. person.” In Securities Act Release No. 6863 (April 24, 1990), the SEC noted that the “safe harbor protection would not be available where offers and sales were made nominally to non-U.S. persons to evade the restrictions.” In C&DI 277.04, the SEC Staff confirmed the applicability of this guidance to Category 3 transactions.

Electronic Certifications and Agreements Permitted

Regulation S requires certain certifications and agreements to be made in order to comply with its conditions. For instance, a Category 3 transaction requires that the purchaser make certain certifications and make certain agreements with respect to the reselling of the offered securities. Also, an offer or sale of warrants under Category 2 or 3 transactions requires each person exercising a warrant to give certain written certifications with respect to such person’s status as a U.S. person. The SEC Staff confirmed that such certifications and agreements can be made electronically (C&DI 277.05). Any electronic procedures used by issuers and distributors to obtain such certifications and agreements may be implemented by third parties. Furthermore, according to the SEC staff, issuers and distributors may rely on electronic procedures to the same extent and in the same manner as when certifications and agreements are obtained in paper.

Applicability of Rule 903(b)(4) when Parent of Issuer is Guarantor of Debt Securities

Rule 903(b)(4) of Regulation S provides that in offerings of debt securities fully and unconditionally guaranteed as to principal and interest by the parent of the issuer of the debt securities, only the requirements of Rule 903(b) that apply to the offer and sale of the guarantee must be satisfied with respect to the offer and sale of the guaranteed debt securities. The SEC staff clarified that Rule 903(b)(4) also applies to offerings of debt securities that are guaranteed by subsidiaries of a parent company guarantor or parent company issuer (C&DI 277.06).  Accordingly, when the parent company is the issuer (or co-issuer) of debt securities and one or more subsidiaries is a guarantor or when the parent company is a guarantor and there are one or more subsidiaries that are also guarantors, as long as the payment obligation of the parent company is full and unconditional, then, in each case, Rule 903(b)(4) applies.

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

© 2025 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.