Securities Offering Reform

Federal RegisterAug 3, 2005

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 200, 228, 229, 230, 239, 240, 243, 249, and 274

[Release Nos. 33-8591; 34-52056; IC-26993; FR-75, International Series Release No. 1294 and File No. S7-38-04]

RIN 3235-AI11

Securities Offering Reform

AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Securities and Exchange Commission is adopting rules that will modify and advance significantly the registration, communications, and offering processes under the Securities Act of 1933. Today's rules will eliminate unnecessary and outmoded restrictions on offerings. In addition, the rules will provide more timely investment information to investors without mandating delays in the offering process that we believe would be inconsistent with the needs of issuers for timely access to capital. The rules also will continue our long-term efforts toward integrating disclosure and processes under the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The rules will further these goals by addressing communications related to registered securities offerings, delivery of information to investors, and procedural aspects of the offering and capital formation processes.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

December 1, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy M. Starr, Daniel Horwood, or Anne Nguyen, at (202) 551-3200, in the Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 or, with respect to questions regarding investment companies, Kieran Brown in the Division of Investment Management, at (202) 551-6784.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

We are amending Rule 30-1

of the Administrative Practice and Procedure, Item 512

of Regulation S-B,

Item 512

of Regulation S-K,

and Rules 134, 137, 138, 139, 153, 158, 174, 401, 405, 408, 412, 413, 415, 418, 424, 426, 430A, 439, 456, 457, 462, 473, 497, and 902

and eliminating Rule 434

under the Securities Act.

We are adding Rules 159, 159A, 163, 163A, 164, 168, 169, 172, 173, 430B, 430C, and 433 under the Securities Act. We are amending Forms S-1, S-3, S-4, F-1, F-3, and F-4 and eliminating Forms S-2 and F-2

under the Securities Act; amending Rule 100

of Regulation FD

and Rule 14a-2

under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

amending Forms 10, 10-K, 10-Q, 10-KSB, and 20-F

under the Exchange Act; and amending Form N-2

under the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act of 1940.

17 CFR 200.30-1.

17 CFR 228.512.

17 CFR 228.10

et seq.

17 CFR 229.512.

17 CFR 229.10

et seq.

17 CFR 230.134; 17 CFR 230.137; 17 CFR 230.138; 17 CFR 230.139; 17 CFR 230.153; 17 CFR 230.158; 17 CFR 230.174; 17 CFR 230.401; 17 CFR 230.405; 17 CFR 230.408; 17 CFR 230.412; 17 CFR 230.413; 17 CFR 230.415; 17 CFR 230.418; 17 CFR 230.424; 17 CFR 230.426; 17 CFR 230.430A; 17 CFR 230.439; 17 CFR 230.456; 17 CFR 230.457; 17 CFR 230.462; 17 CFR 230.473; 17 CFR 230.497; and 17 CFR 230.902.

17 CFR 230.434.

15 U.S.C. 77a

et seq.

17 CFR 239.11; 17 CFR 239.13; 17 CFR 239.25; 17 CFR 239.31; 17 CFR 239.33; 17 CFR 239.34; 17 CFR 239.12; and 17 CFR 239.32.

17 CFR 243.100.

17 CFR 243.100 through 243.103.

17 CFR 240.14a-2.

15 U.S.C. 78a

et seq.

17 CFR 249.210; 17 CFR 249.308a; 17 CFR 249.310; 17 CFR 249.310b; and 17 CFR 249.220f.

17 CFR 239.14 and 17 CFR 274.11a-1.

15 U.S.C. 80a-1

et seq.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

A. Overview

B. Background

1. Advances in Technology

2. Exchange Act Reporting Standards

II. Well-Known Seasoned Issuers; Other Categories of Issuers

A. Well-Known Seasoned Issuers

1. Definition of Well-Known Seasoned Issuer

a. Market Capitalization Threshold

b. Registered Offerings of Non-Convertible Securities Threshold

2. Timing of Determination of Well-Known Seasoned Issuer Status

3. Well-Known Seasoned Issuers' Securities Offerings

4. Comments Regarding the Definition of Well-Known Seasoned Issuer

B. Other Categories of Issuers

III. Communications Rules

A. Communications Requirements Prior to Today's Rules and Amendments

B. Need for Modernization of Communications Requirements

1. General

2. Definition of Written Communication

a. “Written Communication” and “Graphic Communication”

b. Comments Regarding Proposals

C. Overview of Communications Rules

D. Communications Rules

1. Permitted Continuation of Ongoing Communications During an Offering

a. Overview

b. Exception for Regularly Released Factual Business and Forward-Looking Information—Available to Reporting Issuers

i. Factual Business Information

(A) Scope of the Safe Harbor

(B) Comments on the Scope of the Safe Harbor

ii. Forward-Looking Information

(A) Scope of the Safe Harbor

iii. Conditions of Safe Harbor in Rule 168

(A) “By or on Behalf of” the Issuer

(1) Definition

(2) Comments on Definition

(B) Regularly Released Information

(1) Regularly Released Condition

(2) Comments on Regularly Released Condition

(1) Scope of Exclusion

(2) Comments on Exclusion

c. Exception for Regularly Released Factual Business Information—Available to Non-Reporting Issuers

i. Scope of the Safe Harbor

ii. Comments on the Safe Harbor

2. Other Permitted Communications Prior To Filing a Registration Statement

a. 30-Day Bright-line Exclusion From the Prohibition on Offers Prior To Filing a Registration Statement—All Issuers

i. Scope of Exclusion

ii. Comments on 30-Day Bright-line Exclusion

b. Permitted Pre-Filing Offers for Well-Known Seasoned Issuers

i. Overview

ii. Exemption for Pre-Filing Offers

iii. Comments on Exemption for Pre-Filing Offers

3. Relaxation of Restrictions on Written Offering-Related Communications

a. Rule 134

i. Expansion of Permitted Information

ii. Section 10 Prospectus Requirement

iii. Changes to Required Information

b. Permissible Use of Free Writing Prospectuses

i. Overview

ii. Definition of Free Writing Prospectus

(A) Scope of Definition

(B) Comments on Definition

iii. Permitted Use of a Free Writing Prospectus After the Filing of a Registration Statement Under Rule 433

(A) Overview

(B) Issuer Eligibility

(1) Comments on Ineligible Issuer Definition

(1) Prospectus Delivery or Availability

(a) Prospectus Delivery Conditions for Non-Reporting Issuers and Unseasoned Issuers

(b) Prospectus Availability Condition for Seasoned Issuers and Well-Known Seasoned Issuers

(2) Information in a Free Writing Prospectus

(a) Information Conditions

(b) Amendment to Rule 408

(i) Discussion

(ii) Cure for Unintentional or Immaterial Failure to Include a Legend

(iii) Impermissible Legends or Disclaimers

(3) Filing Conditions

(a) General Conditions

(i) Scope of General Conditions

(ii) Conditions Specific to Final Terms of the Securities or Offering

(iii) Asset-Backed Issuers

(iv) Comments on Filing Condition

(b) Immaterial or Unintentional Failures to File

(i) Scope of Cure Provision

(ii) Comments on Cure Provision

(4) Record Retention Condition

(a) Discussion

(b) Immaterial or Unintentional Failure To Retain a Free Writing Prospectus

(D) Road Shows

(1) Definition of Electronic Road Show

(2) Treatment of Electronic Road Shows

(3) Comments on Electronic Road Shows

(E) Treatment of Communications on Web Sites and Other Electronics Issues

(1) General

(2) Historical Information on an Issuer Web Site

(3) Comments on Treatment of Communications on Web Sites and Other Electronics Issues

(F) Media Publications or Broadcasts

(1) Overview

(2) Application of Rule 164 and Rule 433 to Media Publications

(a) Prospectus Delivery or Availability

(i) Where Media Publications Are Prepared or Consideration Paid by Issuer or Offering Participant

(ii) Unaffiliated Media Publications

(b) Filing

(3) Responses to Comments on Treatment of Media Publications

(G) Liability Issues Affecting Free Writing Prospectuses

(1) General

(2) Filed Free Writing Prospectus Not Part of Registration Statement

(3) Cross-Liability Issues

c. Interaction of New Communications Rules with Regulation FD

i. Amendments to Regulation FD

ii. Comments on Amendments to Regulation FD

4. Use of Research Reports

a. Current Regulatory Treatment of Research Reports

b. Amendments to Exemptions for Research

i. Definition of Research Report

(A) Definition

(B) Comments on Definition of Research Report

ii. Rule 137

iii. Rule 138

(A) Amendments to Rule 138

(B) Comments on Rule 138 Amendments

iv. Rule 139

(A) Issuer-Specific Reports

(1) Amendments Regarding Issuer-Specific Reports

(2) Comments on Issuer-Specific Reports

(B) Industry-Related Reports

(1) Amendments Regarding Industry-Related Reports

(2) Comments on Industry-Related Reports

v. Rule 139a

vi. Research Report Amendments in Connection With Regulation S and Rule 144A Offerings

vii. Research and Proxy Solicitations

IV. Liability Issues

A. Information Conveyed by the Time of Sale for Purposes of Section 12(a)(2) and Section 17(a)(2) Liability

1. Interpretation and Rule

2. Comments and Guidance Regarding Our Interpretation and Rule 159

a. The Section 12(a)(2) and Section 17(a)(2) Analysis of the Information Conveyed

b. Determination of Time of Sale

c. Termination of Old Contract and Creation or Reformation of a New Contract

3. Rule 412 and Rule 430B

4. Relationship of Section 12(a)(2) and Section 17(a)(2) Interpretation and Rule 159 to Section 11 Liability

B. Issuer as Seller

C. Due Diligence Interpretation

V. Securities Act Registration Rules and Amendments

A. Overview

B. Procedural Rules

1. Procedural Changes Regarding Shelf Offerings

a. Overview

b. Information in a Prospectus

i. Mechanics

(A) Rule 430B

(B) Means for Providing Information

(1) Scope of Provision

(2) Comments on Identification of Selling Security Holders

ii. Information Deemed Part of Registration Statement

iii. Date of Inclusion of Prospectus Supplements in Registration Statements and New Effective Dates of Registration Statements

(A) Scope of Provisions

(B) New Effective Dates for Section 11 Purposes

iv. Amendments to Rule 415

(A) Elimination of Limitation on Amount of Securities Registered

(1) Revised Provisions

(2) Comments on Elimination of Limitation on Amount of Securities Registered

(B) Immediate Takedowns From a Shelf Registration Statement Filed Under Rule 415(a)(1)(x)

v. Rule 424 Amendments

vi. Elimination of Rule 434

vii. Issuer Undertakings

(A) Treatment of Information in Prospectus Supplements

(B) Prospectus Supplements Deemed Part of a Registration Statement and New Effective Dates

c. Changes to Form S-3 and Form F-3

2. Automatic Shelf Registration for Well-Known Seasoned Issuers

a. Overview

i. Rule Changes

ii. Comments on Automatic Shelf Registration

b. Automatic Shelf Registration Mechanics

i. Eligibility

ii. Information in a Registration Statement

(A) Information That May be Omitted From the Base Prospectus

(B) Mechanics for Including Information

(D) Pay-as-You-Go Registration Fees

(1) Pay-as-You-Go Fee Rules

(2) Comments on Pay-as-You-Go Fees

(E) Registration Under Securities Act Sections 5 and 6

(F) Immediate Effectiveness

(G) Duration

3. Unseasoned Issuers and Non-Reporting Issuers

a. Overview

b. Amendments to Form S-1 and Form F-1—Expanded Use of Incorporation by Reference

i. Eligibility

ii. Procedural Requirements

iii. Comments on Form S-1 and Form F-1 Amendments

c. Elimination of Form S-2 and Form F-2

VI. Prospectus Delivery Reforms

A. Current Prospectus Delivery Requirements

B. Prospectus Delivery Revisions

1. Access Equals Delivery

a. Rule 172

(i) Scope of Rule

(ii) Comments on Rule 172

b. Exceptions to the Rule

c. Notification

(i) Rule 173

(ii) Comments on Rule 173

2. Written Confirmations and Notices of Allocations

3. Transactions Taking Place on an Exchange or Through a Registered Trading Facility—Rule 153

4. Aftermarket Prospectus Delivery—Rule 174

VII. Additional Exchange Act Disclosure Provisions

A. Risk Factor Disclosure

1. Scope of Requirement

2. Comments on Risk Factor Disclosure Requirement

B. Disclosure of Unresolved Staff Comments

1. Disclosure Requirement

2. Comments on Disclosure of Outstanding Comments

C. Disclosure of Status as Voluntary Filer Under the Exchange Act

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

A. Background

B. Summary of Information Collections

C. Summary of Comment Letters on the PRA Analysis

D. Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Estimates

1. Exchange Act Periodic Reports and Registration Statements

2. Communications and Prospectus Delivery

3. Securities Act Registration Statements

IX. Cost Benefit Analysis

A. Background

B. Summary of Rules

1. Communications

2. Securities Act Registration Rules

3. Prospectus Delivery

4. Exchange Act Reports

C. Comments on the Proposals

D. Benefits

1. Increased Information Flow

2. Investor Protection

3. Facilitating Capital Formation

4. Reduced Regulatory Uncertainty

5. Lower Costs

E. Costs

1. Compliance Costs

2. Potential for Increased Liability

3. Other Potential Costs

X. Consideration of Burden on Competition and Promotion of Efficiency, Competition and Capital Formation

XI. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

A. Reasons for and Objectives of the Rules and Amendments

B. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comment

C. Small Entities Subject to the Rules

D. Reporting, Recordkeping and Other Compliance Requirements

E. Agency Action To Minimize Effect on Small Entities

XII. Statutory Authority—Text of the Rules and Amendments

I. Introduction

A. Overview

On November 3, 2004, we issued proposed rule and form changes under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act that would modernize the securities offering and communication processes while maintaining protection of investors under the Securities Act.

We received over 130 comment letters on the proposals.

While a large number of letters focused on only one area of the proposals,

a significant number of the other letters addressed many aspects of the proposals. In general, commenters strongly supported the proposals and their objectives. A number of commenters believed that the proposals struck the appropriate balance between improving the capital formation process and modernizing offering communications, while preserving investor protection and avoiding unnecessary impediments to the capital formation process. As with other rulemakings, including those of the magnitude that the proposals represented, commenters provided many thoughtful comments and useful suggestions. We are adopting the rules and amendments as proposed with certain modifications to address a number of points that commenters raised.

Securities Offering Reform

, Release No. 33-8501 (Nov. 3, 2004) [69 FR 67392] (“Proposing Release”).

The public comments we received are available for inspection in our Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549 in File No. S7-38-04, or may be viewed at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s73804.shtml.

A large number of commenters submitted comments that addressed only issues regarding electronic road shows. See,

e.g.

, letters from Robert Alpert; E. Price Ambler; Kenneth Arnot; Richard Barrera; Lisa Baudot; Thomas Bengtsson; Barry Bruner; Harold Candland; Nikita Chitnis; Herbert Chung; Rick Dowdle; Pat Gilbert; Ira Ginsburg; Naval Goel; Bernard Krieg; Francis Lanio; Jimmy Liu; Marvin Lutz; Peter Martin; Craig Millar; Piers Monckton; NetRoadshow Inc. (“NetRoadshow”); F. Thomas O'Halloran, Paul J. Rasplicka; Kim Redding; Eric Ribner; David Schumacher, Andre Shih; Susquehanna International Group, LLP (“SIG”); Steve Smart-O'Connor; Bob Smith, Forrest Tempel; Chris Wallis; and Adam White.

The rules we are adopting today continue the evolution of the offering process under the Securities Act that began as far back as 1966, when Milton Cohen noted the anomaly of the structure of the disclosure rules under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act and suggested the integration of the requirements under the two statutes.

Mr. Cohen's article was followed by a 1969 study led by Commissioner Francis Wheat

and the Commission's Advisory Committee on Corporate Disclosure in 1977.

These studies eventually led to the Commission's adoption of the integrated disclosure system, short-form registration under the Securities Act, and Securities Act Rule 415 permitting shelf registration of continuous offerings and delayed offerings.

Milton H. Cohen,

Truth in Securities Revisited

, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1340 (1966). (“It is my thesis that the combined disclosure requirements of these statutes would have been quite different if the 1933 and 1934 Acts * * * had been enacted in opposite order, or had been enacted as a single, integrated statute—that is, if the starting point had been a statutory scheme of continuous disclosures covering issuers of actively traded securities and the question of special disclosures in connection with public offerings had then been faced in this setting. Accordingly, it is my plea that there now be created a new coordinated disclosure system having as its basis the continuous disclosure system of the 1934 Act and treating the ‘1933 Act’ disclosure needs on this foundation.”)

See

Disclosure to Investors—A Reappraisal of Federal Administrative Policies under the '33 and '34 Acts

, Policy Study (the “Wheat Report”),

www.sechistorical.org/museum/Museum_Papers/museum_Papers_Chron.php#1960

(Mar. 27, 1969).

See Report of the Advisory Committee on Corporate Disclosure, Cmte. Print 95-29, House Cmte. On Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 95th Cong., 1st. Sess., Nov. 3, 1977 (Nov. 3, 1977). In addition, beginning in 1968, the American Law Institute (“ALI”) began its work on a Federal Securities Code, which was approved in 1978 by the ALI membership. The ALI Federal Securities Code included company registration as a central component. See American L. Inst., Federal Securities Code (1980).

See

Adoption of Integrated Disclosure System

, Release No. 33-6383 (Mar. 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380] (“Integrated Disclosure Release”):

Delayed or Continuous Offering and Sale of Securities

, Release No. 33-6423 (Sept. 2, 1982) [47 FR 39799]; and

Shelf Registration

, Release No. 33-6499 (Nov. 17, 1983) [48 FR 52889].

The Commission's attention to the offering and communications processes under the Securities Act continued more recently. In particular, in March 1996, members of the Commission staff delivered the Report of the Task Force on Disclosure Simplification to the Commission.

It recommended a number of areas where simplification and modernization of the registration and offering process could be accomplished. In July 1996, the Advisory Committee on the Capital Formation and Regulatory Processes delivered its report to the Commission.

Its principal recommendation was that the Securities Act registration and disclosure processes be more directly tied to the philosophy and structure of the Exchange Act through the adoption of a system of “company registration.” Under company registration, the focus of Securities Act and Exchange Act registration and disclosure would move from transactions to issuers, and corollary steps would be taken to provide for disclosure and registration of individual offerings within the company registration framework.

Report of the Task Force on Disclosure Simplification

, available at

www.sec.gov/news/studies/smpl.htm

(Mar. 5, 1996).

Report of the Advisory Committee on the Capital Formation and Regulatory Process

(the “Advisory Committee Report”), available at

www.sec.gov/news/studies/capform.htm

(July 24, 1996).

Promptly after the Advisory Committee on the Capital Formation and Regulatory Processes delivered its report, the Commission issued a concept release regarding regulation of the securities offering process.

The release sought input on a number of significant issues, including:

Securities Act Concepts and Their Effects on Capital Formation

, Release No. 33-7314 (July 25, 1996) [61 FR 40044] (the “1996 Concept Release”).

• Whether the concept of company registration should be pursued;

• Whether other methods of increasing the integration of Securities Act and Exchange Act disclosure and other processes should be considered;

• Whether existing or further reliance on Exchange Act filings should be accompanied by enhancements to Exchange Act reporting;

• Whether companies make information about their public securities offerings available to investors in an appropriate and timely manner, including:

○ At what point in the offering process delivery of, or access to, information should be assured in connection with registered offerings under the Securities Act and whether current requirements ensure timely delivery of information to the secondary market in connection with such offerings;

○ Whether prospectus supplements in shelf offerings should be made part of the registration statement;

○ Whether and, if so, in what circumstances electronic access should replace actual delivery of information in connection with offerings registered under the Securities Act; and

○ Whether restrictions on written offers under the Securities Act should be liberalized and what liability standards should attach to such communications;

• Whether adjustments to the roles and responsibilities of traditional “gatekeepers” in the Securities Act offering process, such as underwriters and accountants, should be made in light of increases in the speed of and other evolutions in the offering process;

• Whether changes should be made to address evolution in the relationships between the public and private offering processes, including:

○ Whether changes in Rules 144A

and 144

under the Securities Act should be considered; and

17 CFR 230.144A.

17 CFR 230.144.

○ Whether there should be any relaxation in our prohibition against general solicitations of interest or offers in unregistered private offerings; and

• Whether the review process of issuer filings under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act by the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance should be modified to limit the impact of the process on access to capital markets, at least for some category of large seasoned issuers.

In addition, the 1996 Concept Release sought input on a number of items suggested for consideration by the Task Force on Disclosure Simplification, including the following: Allowing smaller issuers that have been reporting for one year to make delayed offerings (without altering the disclosure requirements or permitting forward incorporation by reference); eliminating “at-the-market” offering restrictions; allowing universal shelf registration for secondary offerings; allowing issuers and majority-owned subsidiaries to be named as possible issuers on a shelf registration (without designating the issuer until takedown); allowing reallocation of securities on a shelf registration statement by post-effective amendment; allowing registration by seasoned issuers without any specification of the classes registered; and allowing seasoned issuers to pay registration fees at the time of the takedown.

In 1998, the Commission proposed new rules under the Securities Act that were intended to modernize the securities offering process.

As we recognized in the Proposing Release, much of the comment in response to the 1998 proposals suggested that the system of regulating capital formation in the registered offering market provides a number of advantages that should be considered carefully and retained if we are to make other changes.

See

The Regulation of Securities Offerings

, Release No. 33-7606A (Nov. 13, 1998 [63 FR 67174] (the “1998 proposals”). The Commission proposed these new rules after it was granted general exemptive authority under the Securities Act. The National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (NSMIA) (Pub. L. 104-290, 110 Stat. 3416 (Oct. 11, 1996)) provided the Commission with general authority to adopt exemptive rules under the Securities Act to the extent that such exemptive action is “necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors.” See Securities Act Section 28 [15 U.S.C. 77z-3].

The rules we are adopting today are focused primarily on constructive, incremental changes in our regulatory structure and the offering process rather than the introduction of a far-reaching new system, as we believe that we can best achieve further integration of Securities Act and Exchange Act disclosure and processes by making adjustments in the current integrated disclosure and shelf registration systems. Further, consistent with our belief that investors and the securities markets will benefit from greater permissible communications by issuers while retaining appropriate liability for these communications, we have sought to address the need for timeliness of information for investors by building on existing statutory provisions and processes without mandating delays in the offering process that we believe would be inconsistent with the needs of issuers for timely access to the securities markets and capital.

We are adopting the proposed revisions to the registration, communications, and offering processes for registered transactions under the Securities Act with certain modifications. We believe the rules we are adopting, while limited in scope, properly address the areas that are in need of modernization. The adopted rules involve three main areas:

• Communications related to registered securities offerings;

• Registration and other procedures in the offering and capital formation processes; and

• Delivery of information to investors, including delivery through access and notice, and timeliness of that delivery.

Today's rules reflect our view that revisions to the Securities Act registration and offering procedures are appropriate in light of significant developments in the offering and capital formation procedures and can provide enhanced protection of investors under the statute. We believe that the rule changes we adopt today will:

• Facilitate greater availability of information to investors and the market with regard to all issuers;

• Eliminate barriers to open communications that have been made increasingly outmoded by technological advances;

• Reflect the increased importance of electronic dissemination of information, including the use of the Internet;

• Make the capital formation process more efficient; and

• Define more clearly both the information and the timeliness of the availability of information against which a seller's statements are evaluated for liability purposes.

The rules we are adopting today reflect certain modifications from the proposals to address important points commenters raised. The modifications to the proposals include the following:

• The definitions of graphic communication and written communication (including as to road shows) exclude live, in real-time communications to a live audience that are transmitted graphically;

• The free writing prospectus rules address “cross-liability” concerns among offering participants arising from the use of free writing prospectuses;

• The free writing prospectus rules clarify the filing conditions applicable to media publications, descriptions of the final terms of securities and offerings, and electronic and other road shows, and modify the record retention provisions;

• The shelf registration rules address issues regarding the liability of officers, directors, and accountants and other experts arising from the new effective dates triggered by the filing of prospectus supplements;

• The definition of ineligible issuer more closely conforms the definition to other ineligibility provisions in the Securities Act;

• The rule permitting specified written notices that are not prospectuses narrows the types of information for which a preliminary prospectus will have to include a price range as a condition;

• The definition of well-known seasoned issuer enables issuers to include all registered non-convertible securities, other than common equity, issued for cash in measuring the amount of registered fixed income securities over the prior three years; and

• The prospectus delivery rule addresses concerns about potential underwriter liability due to an issuer's failure to timely file its final prospectus.

We also have endeavored to provide more guidance to market participants regarding our interpretation of the liability provisions of Securities Act Sections 12(a)(2) and 17(a)(2).

15 U.S.C. 77

(a)(2) and 15 U.S.C. 77q(a)(2).

B. Background

1. Advances in Technology

As we noted in the Proposing Release, significant technological advances over the last three decades have increased both the market's demand for more timely corporate disclosure and the ability of issuers to capture, process, and disseminate this information. Computers, sophisticated financial software, electronic mail, teleconferencing, videoconferencing, webcasting, and other technologies available today have replaced, to a large extent, paper, pencils, typewriters, adding machines, carbon paper, paper mail, travel, and face-to-face meetings relied on previously. The rules we are adopting today seek to recognize the integral role that technology plays in timely informing the markets and investors about important corporate information and developments.

2. Exchange Act Reporting Standards

The role that a public issuer's Exchange Act reports play in investment decision making is a key component of the rules we are adopting today. Congress recognized that the ongoing dissemination of accurate information by issuers about themselves and their securities is essential to the effective operation of the trading markets. The Exchange Act and underlying rules have established a system of continuing disclosure about issuers that have offered securities to the public, or that have securities that are listed on a national securities exchange or are broadly held by the public. The Exchange Act rules require public issuers to make periodic disclosures at annual and quarterly intervals, with other important information reported on a more current basis. The Exchange Act specifically provides for current disclosure to maintain the timeliness and adequacy of information disclosed by issuers, and we have significantly expanded our current disclosure requirements consistent with the provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

that “[e]ach issuer reporting under Section 13(a) or 15(d) * * * disclose to the public on a rapid and current basis such additional information concerning material changes in the financial condition or operations of the issuer * * * as the Commission determines * * * is necessary or useful for the protection of investors and in the public interest.”

Pub. L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745 (2002).

See Section 409 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which added Section 13(l) to the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(l)). See also

Additional Form 8-K Disclosure Requirements and Acceleration of Filing Date

, Release No. 33-8400 (Mar. 16, 2004) [69 FR 15594] and

Additional Form 8-K Disclosure Requirements and Acceleration of Filing Date; Correction

, Release No. 33-8400A (Aug. 4, 2004) [69 FR 48370] (“Form 8-K Releases”).

A public issuer's Exchange Act record provides the basic source of information to the market and to potential purchasers regarding the issuer and its management, business, financial condition, and prospects. Because an issuer's Exchange Act reports and other publicly available information form the basis for the market's evaluation of the issuer and the pricing of its securities, investors in the secondary market use that information in making their investment decisions. Similarly, during a securities offering in which an issuer uses a short-form registration statement, an issuer's Exchange Act record is very often the most significant part of the information about the issuer in the registration statement.

With the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and our recent rulemaking and interpretive actions, we have enhanced significantly the disclosure included in issuers' Exchange Act filings and accelerated the filing deadlines for many issuers. The following are examples of recent regulatory actions that have improved the delivery of timely, high-quality information to the securities markets by issuers under the Exchange Act:

• Requiring the establishment of disclosure controls and procedures;

See Certification of Disclosure in Companies' Quarterly and Annual Reports

, Release No. 33-8124 (Aug. 28, 2002) [67 FR 57276] (“Certification Release”).

• Requiring a public issuer's top management to certify the content of periodic reports and highlight their responsibilities for and evaluation of the issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting;

See

Management's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic Reports,

Release No. 33-8238 (June 5, 2003) [68 FR 36636]; Certification Release, note 34.

• Modifying the approach to current disclosure by increasing significantly the types of events that must be reported on a current basis and shortening the time for filing current reports;

See Form 8-K Releases, note 33.

• Approving listing standard changes intended to improve corporate governance and enhance the role of the audit committee of the issuer's board of directors with regard to financial reporting and auditor independence;

and

See

Standards Relating to Listed Company Audit Committees

, Release No. 33-8220 (Apr. 9, 2003) [68 FR 18788].

• Providing further interpretive guidance regarding the content and understandability of Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A)—a disclosure item we believe is at the core of a reporting issuer's periodic reports.

See

Commission Guidance Regarding Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

, Release No. 33-8350 (Dec. 19, 2003) [68 FR 75056] (the “2003 MD&A Release”).

Many of the recent changes to the Exchange Act reporting framework provide greater rigor to the process that issuers must follow in preparing their financial statements and Exchange Act reports. Senior management now must certify the material adequacy of the content of periodic Exchange Act reports. Moreover, issuers, with the involvement of senior management, now must implement and evaluate disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting. Further, we believe the heightened role of an issuer's board of directors and its audit committee provides a structure that can contribute to improved Exchange Act reports.

As we recognized in the Proposing Release, the 1996 Concept Release and the 1998 proposals also considered the role of enhanced Exchange Act reporting as an important corollary to reform of the offering process under the Securities Act.

We believe that the enhancements to Exchange Act reporting described above enable us to rely on these reports to a greater degree in adopting our rules to reform the securities offering process.

Enhanced Exchange Act reporting also was central to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. See note 25.

II. Well-Known Seasoned Issuers; Other Categories of Issuers

A. Well-Known Seasoned Issuers

We are modifying the framework for communications in connection with public offerings for all issuers and the framework of the registration process for most issuers that report under the Exchange Act. As we explained in the Proposing Release, we believe that the most far-reaching revisions of our communications rules and registration processes should be considered for issuers that have a reporting history under the Exchange Act and are presumptively the most widely followed in the marketplace.

Today's rules will provide a class of well-known seasoned issuers greater flexibility in registering their securities offerings under a more streamlined registration process known as automatic shelf registration. Under the automatic shelf registration process, eligible well-known

seasoned issuers can register, on a more flexible basis than is currently the case, offerings of different types of securities using Form S-3 or Form F-3 registration statements that are effective upon filing. See discussion in Section V.B.2. below under “Automatic Shelf Registration for Well-Known Seasoned Issuers.”

Today, the largest issuers are followed by sophisticated institutional and retail investors, members of the financial press, and numerous sell-side and buy-side analysts that actively seek new information on a continual basis. Unlike smaller or less mature issuers, large seasoned public issuers tend to have a more regular dialogue with investors and market participants through the press and other media. The communications of these well-known seasoned issuers are subject to scrutiny by investors, the financial press, analysts, and others who evaluate disclosure when it is made.

1. Definition of Well-Known Seasoned Issuer

We are adding a new category of issuer—a “well-known seasoned issuer”—that will be permitted to benefit to the greatest degree from the modifications to our rules we are adopting today regarding communications and the registration processes.

We are defining a well-known seasoned issuer as an issuer that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) the Exchange Act and satisfies the following requirements as of the date on which its status as a well-known seasoned issuer is determined:

Except for expanding eligibility for certain majority-owned subsidiaries, as discussed below, we are not changing the existing eligibility standards for the use of Form S-3 and Form F-3.

• The issuer must meet the registrant requirements of Form S-3 or Form F-3;

Through the form requirements, the definition requires that a well-known seasoned issuer be current and timely in its Exchange Act reporting obligations.

• The issuer either:

○ As of a date within 60 days of its eligibility determination date must have a worldwide market value of its outstanding voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or more; or

○ As of a date within 60 days of its eligibility determination date, must have issued in the last three years, at least $1 billion aggregate principal amount of non-convertible securities, other than common equity,

in primary offerings for cash, not exchange, registered under the Securities Act;

and

“Common equity” is defined in Securities Act Rule 405 as “any class of common stock, or an equivalent interest, including but not limited to a unit of beneficial interest in a trust or a limited partnership interest.”

As we discuss below, these issuers generally are limited in the types of securities they may register on an automatic shelf registration statement as a well-known seasoned issuer. See Section II.A.3 below under “Well-Known Seasoned Issuers Securities Offerings.”

• The issuer must not be an ineligible issuer.

See definition of “ineligible issuer” added to Securities Act Rule 405 and discussed in Section III.D.3 below under “Issuer Eligibility.” Further, an issuer will not meet the definition of well-known seasoned issuer if it is an asset-backed issuer (as defined in Item 1101(b) of Regulation AB [17 CFR 229.1101(b)], an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, or a business development company. Business development companies are a category of closed-end investment companies that are not required to register under the Investment Company Act. See Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(48)].

If it does not itself meet the conditions for eligibility as a well-known seasoned issuer, a majority-owned subsidiary of a well-known seasoned issuer will nonetheless be a well-known seasoned issuer in connection with the offer and sale of its own securities if:

• The securities are non-convertible securities, other than common equity, and the parent of the majority-owned subsidiary is a well-known seasoned issuer and fully and unconditionally guarantees those securities;

Whether a guarantee is full and unconditional is analyzed under the same principles as those used under Rule 3-10 of Regulation S-X [17 CFR 210.3-10] and Exchange Act Rule 12h-5 [17 CFR 240.12h-5]. In addition, the guarantee may only be of securities that have a limited duration and are not perpetual. This analysis is not different from the current analysis under Form S-3 or Form F-3 for registered guaranteed securities.

• The securities are guarantees of non-convertible securities, other than common equity, of (1) its well-known seasoned issuer parent or (2) another majority-owned subsidiary where those non-convertible securities are fully and unconditionally guaranteed by the well-known seasoned issuer parent;

See amendments to Securities Act Rule 405. Unless the majority-owned subsidiary itself meets the eligibility conditions for a well-known seasoned issuer, it may, of course, only register securities as a well-known seasoned issuer on its parent's automatic shelf registration statement.

• The majority-owned subsidiary is offering non-convertible investment grade securities.

These offerings would be required to meet the conditions of General Instruction I.B.2 of Form S-3 or Form F-3.

Overall, the issuers that will meet our thresholds for well-known seasoned issuers are the most active issuers in the U.S. public capital markets. In 2004, those issuers, which represented approximately 30% of listed issuers, accounted for about 95% of U.S. equity market capitalization. They have accounted for more than 96% of the total debt raised in registered offerings over the past eight years by issuers listed on a major exchange or equity market. These issuers, accordingly, represent the most significant amount of capital raised and traded in the United States. As a result of the active participation of these issuers in the markets and, among other things, the wide following of these issuers by market participants, the media, and institutional investors, we believe that it is appropriate to provide communications and registration flexibilities to these well-known seasoned issuers beyond that provided to other issuers, including other seasoned issuers.

a. Market Capitalization Threshold

As we discussed in the Proposing Release, we believe that non-affiliate equity market capitalization, or “public float,” of a reporting issuer can be used as a proxy for whether the issuer has a demonstrated market following.

We are adopting as a threshold a public float of $700 million or more. We have used market capitalization as a proxy for public float in evaluating this threshold and its implications.

Public float also is one of the key determinants for eligibility for current short-form registration on Form S-3 or Form F-3.

To determine whether an issuer meets the $700 million threshold under the definition, the issuer will calculate its public float in the same manner that it calculates its public float for purposes of determining Form S-3 or F-3 eligibility.

We have revised the definition from the proposal to clarify that the non-affiliate equity market capitalization is determined on a worldwide basis, as it historically has been for purposes of eligibility to use Form F-3. In addition, for purposes of calculating public float of a non-U.S. issuer to determine eligibility as a well-known seasoned issuer and eligibility to use Form S-3 or F-3, we interpret

“common equity” as defined in Securities Act Rule 405 as including a class of participating voting or non-voting preferred stock of a foreign issuer where the issuance of the preferred stock results from requirements of the applicable foreign jurisdiction or market and where the class of preferred stock has liquidation or dividend preferences and other terms that cause it to be the substantial economic equivalent of a class of common stock.

The determination of public float is based on a public trading market. This is the same requirement in General Instruction I.B.1 of Form S-3 and Form F-3 that a registrant have a $75 million market value and in the definition of accelerated filer in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2 [17 CFR 240.12b2]. Therefore, an entity with $700 million of common equity securities outstanding but not trading in any public trading market would not be a well-known seasoned issuer based on market capitalization. See

Simplification of Registration Procedures for Primary Securities Offerings

, Release No. 33-6964 (Oct. 29, 1982) [57 FR 48970];

Simplification of Registration Procedures for Primary Securities Offerings

, Release No. 33-6943 (July 22, 1992) [57 FR 32461] (proposing release); Integrated Disclosure Release, note ; and

Reproposal of Comprehensive Revision to System for Registration of Securities Offerings

, Release No. 33-6331 (Aug. 18, 1981) [46 FR 41902].

To evaluate the implications of a $700 million public float threshold, staff in our Office of Economic Analysis (“OEA”) obtained data on the 12,551 registered offerings that were conducted from 1997 to 2004 by 2,875 issuers that had public equity outstanding and were listed on a major exchange or equity market.

Of these offerings, 9,164 were debt offerings that raised proceeds of $1,927 billion, and 3,387 were equity offerings that raised proceeds of $567 billion. The average issuer conducted 4.2 debt offerings and 1.1 equity offerings per calendar year, although as many as 209 debt offerings have been conducted by a single issuer within a calendar year.

OEA compiled and analyzed the supporting data for the public float (using market capitalization) and outstanding debt thresholds.

OEA also analyzed data on the financial market conditions under which these offerings were made. High levels of analyst coverage, institutional ownership, and trading volume are useful indicators of the scrutiny that an issuer receives from the market, although no one statistic can fully capture the extent to which an issuer is followed by the market.

Issuers with market capitalization in excess of $700 million that conducted offerings from 1997 to 2004 typically had an average of 12 analysts following them prior to the offering.

This includes only sell-side analysts and is, we believe, a conservative indicator of analyst scrutiny. Institutional investors accounted for an average of 52% of equity ownership prior to offerings by issuers with market capitalization above $700 million. Those issuers had an average daily trading volume of nearly $52 million prior to offerings in this period and accounted for the following percentages of capital raised:

See,

e.g.

, Harrison Hong, Terrence Lim, and Jeremy C. Stein,

Bad News Travels Slowly: Size, Analyst Coverage and the Profitability of Momentum Strategies

, 55 Journal of Finance 265 (2000); Robert C. Merton,

A Simple Model of Capital Market Equilibrium with Incomplete Information

, 42 Journal of Finance 483 (1987).

Issuers with a market capitalization of between $75 million and $200 million, in most cases, have between zero to five analysts following them, with approximately 50% having zero to two analysts following them.

Because the methodology includes only listed issuers, it excludes debt-only issuers (including companies that will be well-known seasoned issuers), including those that are subsidiaries of companies with listed public equity but that are not themselves listed.

Offering Proceeds, by Issuer Capitalization Primary Seasoned Offerings, 1997-2004 *

[$Billions (%) Proceeds from Offerings, by Issuer Capitalization]

Market Capitalization of Issuers

>$700mm

>$0 (All Issuers)

Equity

$396 (70%)

$567 (100%)

Debt

1,849 (96%)

1,927 (100%)

Total

2,245 (90%)

2,494 (100%)

* Source: OEA estimates using Center for Research in Securities Prices at the University of Chicago and Securities Data Corporation data.

b. Registered Offerings of Non-Convertible Securities Threshold

Issuers that do not meet the public equity float test will be considered well-known seasoned issuers if they have issued for cash more than an aggregate of $1 billion in non-convertible securities, other than common equity, through registered primary offerings over the prior three years. These issuers also will have to satisfy the other conditions of the well-known seasoned issuer definition, such as the form eligibility requirement.

In determining compliance with this threshold:

• Issuers may aggregate the amount of non-convertible securities, other than common equity, issued in registered primary offerings during the prior three years;

• Issuers may include only such non-convertible securities that were issued in registered primary offerings for cash—they may not include registered exchange offers in this aggregation; and

• Parent company issuers only may include in their calculation the principal amount of their full and unconditional guarantees, within the meaning of Rule 3-10 of Regulation S-X,

of non-convertible securities, other than common equity, of their majority-owned subsidiaries issued in registered primary offerings for cash during the three-year period.

17 CFR 210.3-10.

The aggregate principal amount of non-convertible securities that may be counted toward the $1 billion issuance threshold may have been issued in any registered primary offering for cash, on any form (other than Form S-4 or Form F-4). Those non-convertible securities need not be investment grade securities to be included in the calculation. In calculating the $1 billion amount, issuers generally may include the principal amount of any debt and the greater of liquidation preference or par value of any non-convertible preferred stock that were issued in primary registered offerings for cash.

Some commenters asked for clarification on how to value certain types of debt issuances, such as debt issuances involving original issue discount or debt issued in foreign currency denominations. See,

e.g.

, letters from the American Bar Association (“ABA”) and the New York State Bar Association (“NYSBA”). We have not made any modifications to the definition in response to these comments. Issuers should use the same calculation that they use to determine the dollar amount of securities that they are registering for purposes of determining their filing fees under Securities Act Rule 457.

Issuers may not include the principal amount of securities that were offered in registered exchange offers by the issuer when determining compliance with the $1 billion non-convertible securities threshold. A substantial portion of these offerings involve registered exchange offers of substantially identical securities for securities that were sold in private offerings. In those cases, the original sale to investors in the private offering, relying upon, for example, the exemptions of Securities Act Section 4(2)

and Rule 144A, is not registered and is not carried out under the Securities Act's disclosure or liability standards. Moreover, in the subsequent registered exchange offers purchasers may not be able, in certain cases, to avail themselves effectively of the remedies otherwise available to purchasers in registered offerings for cash. While these exchange offers are permitted in some circumstances, the policy preference for registered offerings, in conjunction with the streamlining of the registration process we provide today, lead us to conclude that such exchange offers should not count towards the $1 billion threshold.

15 U.S.C. 77d(2).

OEA analyzed statistics on issuers that did not meet the $700 million public equity threshold. OEA found that very few issuers that had public common equity but did not meet the $700 million public float threshold would meet the $1 billion non-convertible securities threshold. However, OEA also found that a number of issuers without any public common equity would meet the $1 billion threshold. Based on OEA's analysis, from 1997 to 2004 the issuers of fixed

income securities that did not have outstanding public common equity but met the $1 billion threshold accounted for 16.7% of all of the issuers without public common equity that issued public debt, but accounted for 65% of total debt and preferred stock issued by all of such issuers. None of the debt offerings of issuers meeting the threshold was rated below investment grade, and 86% of their debt offerings were rated A or higher by a nationally recognized security rating organization (an “NRSRO”). This group of issuers also on average had 19 basis points lower yield spread for their issues relative to issuers without public common equity that had issued less than $1 billion of fixed income securities in the past three years. We believe that this lower yield spread reflects lower default risk (higher ratings) and higher liquidity and transparency of the issuers.

See Gordon J. Alexander, William F. Sharpe, and Jeffrey V. Bailey,

Fundamentals of Investments

(2001 ed.) at 530.

2. Timing of Determination of Well-Known Seasoned Issuer Status

Whether an issuer satisfies the eligibility requirements for being a well-known seasoned issuer generally will be determined on an approximately annual basis. We revised the timing of determination of status as a well-known seasoned issuer in response to comments.

As adopted, the definition uses the 60-day window period used in Form S-3 and Form F-3 and provides that the eligibility determination will be made as of the later of the time of filing of the issuer's most recent shelf registration statement or the time of its most recent amendment (by post-effective amendment, incorporated Exchange Act report, or form of prospectus) to a shelf registration statement for purposes of complying with Securities Act Section 10(a)(3).

In the event that the issuer has not filed a shelf registration statement or amended a shelf registration statement for purposes of complying with Securities Act Section 10(a)(3) for sixteen months, the determination date will be the time of filing of the issuer's most recent annual report on Form 10-K or Form 20-F. If the issuer does not accomplish its Section 10(a)(3) update or file its annual report when due, the due date will become the date of determination and, because the issuer will be neither timely nor current in its reporting obligations under the Exchange Act at that time, it will cease to be a well-known seasoned issuer. It can of course become a well-known seasoned issuer again in the future if and when it meets applicable requirements.

See,

e.g.

, letters from Alston & Bird LLP (“Alston”); Davis Polk & Wardwell (“Davis Polk”); Ernst & Young LLP (“E&Y”); and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (“NYCBA”).

See 15 U.S.C. 77j(a)(3). Under Form S-3 and Form F-3, the Section 10(a)(3) update need not be made through a post-effective amendment. Rather, under these Forms, the Section 10(a)(3) update generally occurs when the issuer files its annual report on Form 10-K or Form 20-F containing the issuer's audited financial statements for its most recently completed fiscal year by the due date of such annual report.

A well-known seasoned issuer may not be an ineligible issuer on the date of determination of well-known seasoned issuer status. The date of determination of whether an issuer is an ineligible issuer for these purposes is the same date as that used for other purposes in determining the issuer's status as a well-known seasoned issuer.

3. Well-Known Seasoned Issuers' Securities Offerings

An issuer that meets the definition of well-known seasoned issuer based on the $700 million public float threshold can use an automatic shelf registration statement, as discussed below, to register any offering of securities, other than those for business combination transactions.

An issuer that meets the definition of well-known seasoned issuer based on the amount of registered non-convertible security issuances in the prior three years also may register any such offering for cash using automatic shelf registration if it is eligible to register a primary offering of its securities on Form S-3 or Form F-3 pursuant to General Instruction I.B.1. of such forms.

An issuer that meets the definition of well-known seasoned issuer based on the amount of registered non-convertible security issuances in the prior three years but is not eligible to register a primary offering of securities on Form S-3 or Form F-3 pursuant to General Instruction I.B.1 of such forms may use automatic shelf registration to register only offerings for cash of non-convertible securities, other than common equity, whether or not investment grade.

Under the Rule, business combination transactions are those defined in Rule 165(f)(1) [17 CFR 230.165(f)(1)]. Rule 165(f)(1) defines a business combination transaction to mean any transaction specified in Rule 145(a) [17 CFR 230.145(a)] or exchange offer.

We believe that an eligible well-known seasoned issuer that can otherwise use Form S-3 or Form F-3 for registered primary offerings because it has a $75 million public float should not have to use two different registration statements for its securities offerings for cash.

4. Comments Regarding the Definition of Well-Known Seasoned Issuer

Commenters generally supported the addition of a class of well-known seasoned issuers who will benefit the most from the new rules.

Most of the comments related to the threshold for eligibility based on public equity float, the definition of “debt security” for purposes of the debt threshold calculation, the inclusion of securities issued in exchange offers, the frequency of eligibility determinations, and the inclusion or exclusion of Schedule B issuers, voluntary issuers, and asset-backed issuers.

A number of commenters also suggested that the timing of the eligibility determination for well-known seasoned issuers be revised.

See,

e.g.

, letters from Alston; The Bond Market Association (“TBMA”); Citigroup Global Corporate & Investment Bank (“Citigroup”); LaSalle Broker-Dealer Services Division of ABN-AMRO Financial Services, Inc. (“LaSalle”); NYSBA; and Reuters America LLC (“Reuters”).

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; the American Bar Association comment letter on asset-backed securities (“ABA-ABS”); Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (“Cleary”); Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson (“Fried Frank”); the International Bar Association (“IBA”); the Securities Industry Association (“SIA”); and TBMA.

See,

e.g.

, letters from Alston; Davis Polk; E & Y; NYCBA; and TBMA.

Some commenters expressed the view that the $700 million threshold was too high, while others thought additional eligibility conditions should be included.

None of the commenters provided any empirical data supporting their views to modify the thresholds. Other commenters suggested alternative ways to measure whether an issuer should be considered a well-known seasoned issuer, including average daily trading volume or institutional ownership measures.

Many commenters requested that we clarify that the public float used in the calculation be the company's worldwide public float.

A number of commenters on the definition requested that we direct the staff to reconsider the bases for the thresholds in two to three years.

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; the American Institute for Certified Public Accountants (“AICPA”); BDO Seidman, LLP (“BDO Seidman”); Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”); E & Y; Fried Frank; the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“NAREIT”); NYSBA; Reuters; Sullivan & Cromwell (“S&C”); and Students in Professor Samuel C. Thompson's Investment Banking Class, UCLA School of Law (“UCLA”).

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; Brinson Patrick Securities Corporation (“Brinson Patrick”); and S&C.

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; Alston; Cleary; Fried Frank; IBA; NYSBA; and S&C.

See,

e.g.

, letters from NYCBA; SIA; and UCLA.

Commenters on the debt threshold were most concerned about the types of

securities included in the calculation and whether it was appropriate to include only debt issued in registered offerings.

Some commenters requested that the debt calculation be based on a broader category of fixed income securities including debt securities and non-convertible preferred securities.

Commenters suggested that non-investment grade debt be included in the calculation.

These commenters also suggested that securities issued in exchange offers, such as “Exxon Capital” exchange offers, be included in the debt calculation. Some commenters suggested that the debt calculation be based on all debt and non-convertible preferred stock sold, whether or not in registered offerings.

Finally, some commenters requested that issuers meeting the well-known seasoned issuer definition based on their debt offerings be allowed to use the automatic shelf registration procedure for registering offerings of equity securities as well as debt securities.

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; Alston; Cleary; Davis Polk; S&C; and TBMA.

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; Alston; Cleary; the Society of Corporate Secretaries & Governance Professionals (“SCSGP”); the Southern Company (“Southern”); and TBMA.

See,

e.g.

, letters from Alston; Davis Polk; the NYCBA; S&C; and TBMA.

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; Alston; Fried Frank; IBA; and TBMA.

See,

e.g.

, letters from Alston; Fried Frank; and TBMA.

We have retained the $700 million public float threshold and the $1 billion debt threshold. As the discussion above reflects, in reaching our determination to use the $700 million public float amount, we considered trading volume, institutional ownership, and market capitalization.

In response to comments, we have clarified that the basis for determining the public float calculation is worldwide public float of voting and non-voting common equity. In response to comments,

we also are providing an interpretation, as set forth above, regarding the inclusion in the calculation of certain participating preferred stock of non-U.S. issuers that is substantially economically equivalent to common equity.

See letters from Cleary and Shearman & Sterling (“Shearman”).

While we are not revising the dollar amount of the thresholds for public equity float or for issued debt, the definition as adopted addresses a number of the other issues that commenters raised. For example, we have expanded the $1 billion debt threshold to include any non-convertible security, other than common equity, that has been issued in a registered offering for cash during the prior three years.

Further, the offering of the security included in the calculation could have been registered on any form (other than Form S-4 or Form F-4) and the security need not be investment grade. In addition, a parent issuer may count the aggregate amount of its registered full and unconditional guarantees of non-convertible securities, other than common equity, of its majority-owned subsidiaries issued for cash during the three-year period.

We have not expanded the non-convertible security threshold to include the amount of securities issued in unregistered offerings or in exchange offers.

While we have not changed the dollar amounts of the thresholds, we do agree with commenters that it would be appropriate to revisit the thresholds in a few years. We, therefore, are directing the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance and OEA to undertake a study in three years after full implementation of the rules to evaluate the operation of the definition we adopt today and any material changes in the data upon which the thresholds are based and report back to us and recommend any potential changes to the thresholds based on such new data.

Although some commenters had suggested expanding the categories of eligible issuers beyond those contained in the proposed definition,

and others suggested narrowing the categories of eligible issuers or otherwise imposing more stringent eligibility conditions,

we have adopted the definition as proposed in that regard. As a result, well-known seasoned issuer status is not available to voluntary filers, asset-backed issuers, or Schedule B issuers.

Voluntary filers are not required to file reports under the Exchange Act, and we believe that such issuers should be required to register under the Exchange Act, and thus become subject to all of the results of registration for all purposes, if they wish to avail themselves of the benefits of reporting issuer, seasoned issuer, or well-known seasoned issuer status.

For Schedule B issuers, we expect that the staff will continue to consider disclosure and other shelf issues affecting Schedule B issuers in the same manner that they do today. Finally, we have recently adopted rules and regulations covering the offering of and reporting by asset-backed issuers.

This new regulatory structure is not yet fully operational. The advantages of a reporting history under the Exchange Act that influenced our decision to create the well-known seasoned issuer category are essentially absent for asset-backed issuers.

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; ABA-ABS; Allied Capital Corporation (“Allied”); IBA; and TBMA.

See,

e.g.

, letters from AICPA; BDO Seidman; Deloitte; and E&Y.

As noted above, the definition of well-known seasoned issuer explicitly excludes investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and business development companies.

As later discussed and consistent with our proposal, an issuer not subject to the reporting requirements of Exchange Act Section 13 or Section 15(d), but filing Exchange Act reports voluntarily, will not be a well-known seasoned issuer or a seasoned issuer. In addition, because voluntary filers are not required to report, they will not be treated as reporting issuers, for example, for purposes of Rule 138, Rule 168, or Rule 433.

See

Asset-Backed Securities

, Release No. 33-8518 (Dec. 22, 2004) [70 FR 1506] (the “Asset-Backed Securities Adopting Release”).

Commenters wanted market participants to have greater certainty that issuers were eligible as well-known seasoned issuers.

We have modified the timing for determination of well-known seasoned issuer status to provide more certainty. We have provided generally for an approximately annual determination of well-known seasoned issuer status. We also are adopting a change to Form 10-K and Form 20-F that will modify the cover page of those forms to include a check box for issuers to indicate if they are considered well-known seasoned issuers at the time of the filing of the Form 10-K or Form 20-F.

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA-ABS; American Securitization Forum (“ASF”); and Richard Hall.

B. Other Categories of Issuers

We also are using existing categories of issuers, including seasoned issuers, unseasoned Exchange Act reporting issuers, and non-reporting issuers, in the new rules regarding communications and the registration process. A seasoned issuer is an issuer that is eligible to use Form S-3 or Form F-3 to register primary offerings of securities pursuant to General Instruction I.B.1 of such Forms or is registering securities in reliance on General Instruction I.B.2, I.B.5, or I.C. of Form S-3 or General Instruction I.A.5 or I.B.2 of Form F-3.

Majority-owned subsidiaries registering offerings of their securities on Form S-3 or Form F-3 pursuant to General Instruction I.C. of Form S-3 or I.A.5. of Form F-3 also are considered seasoned issuers.

As commenters requested, we are clarifying that issuers of asset-backed securities

eligible for registration on Form S-3 also are considered seasoned issuers.

See Form S-3 and Form F-3.

We are expanding the majority-owned subsidiary eligibility in Form S-3 and Form F-3 to allow majority-owned subsidiaries to use the forms under the same circumstances in which majority-owned subsidiaries may be well-known seasoned issuers. For example, see General Instruction I.C. to Form S-3.

Asset-backed securities (as defined in Item 1101 of Regulation AB [17 CFR 229.1101]) may be offered and sold on Form S-3 if the issuer meets the requirements of General Instruction I.A.4 of Form S-3 and the transaction meets the requirements of General Instruction I.B.5 of such Form, including that the asset-backed securities are investment grade.

An unseasoned issuer is an issuer that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, but does not satisfy the requirements of Form S-3 or Form F-3 for a primary offering of its securities. A non-reporting issuer is an issuer that is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, regardless of whether it is filing such reports voluntarily.

A number of commenters suggested that the rules treat voluntary filers as seasoned issuers even though they are not required to file reports pursuant to Exchange Act Section 13 or Section 15(d).

As we note above with respect to eligibility for well-known seasoned issuer status, voluntary filers are not required to file reports under the Exchange Act, and we believe that such issuers should be required to register under the Exchange Act if they wish to avail themselves of the benefits accorded seasoned issuers under the rules we are adopting today.

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; Alston; Fried Frank; and TBMA.

III. Communications Rules

A. Communications Requirements Prior to Today's Rules and Amendments

The Securities Act restricts the types of offering communications that issuers or other parties subject to the Act's provisions (such as underwriters) may use during a registered public offering. The nature of the restrictions depends on the period during which the communications are to occur. The restrictions do not depend on the accuracy of the information contained in the communication. Before the registration statement is filed, all offers, in whatever form, are prohibited.

Between the filing of the registration statement and its effectiveness, offers made in writing (including by e-mail or Internet), by radio, or by television are limited to a “statutory prospectus” that conforms to the information requirements of Securities Act Section 10.

As a result, the only written material that is permitted in connection with the offering of the securities during the period between filing and effectiveness of a registration statement is a preliminary prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10, which must be filed with us. Even after the registration statement is declared effective, offering participants still may make written offers only through a statutory prospectus, except that they may use additional written offering materials if a final prospectus that meets the requirements of Securities Act Section 10(a) is sent or given prior to or with those materials.

Violations of these restrictions generally are referred to as “gun jumping,” and we use the term “gun-jumping provisions” in this release to describe the statutory provisions of the Securities Act that set forth these restrictions.

See Securities Act Section 5(c) [15 U.S.C. 77e(c)]. Securities Act Section 2(a)(3) [15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(3)] defines “offer” as any attempt or offer to dispose of, or solicitation of an offer to buy, a security or interest in a security, for value. The term “offer” has been interpreted broadly and goes beyond the common law concept of an offer. See

Diskin

Lomasney & Co.

, 452 F.2d 871 (2d. Cir. 1971);

SEC

Cavanaugh

, 1 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). The Commission has explained that “the publication of information and publicity efforts, made in advance of a proposed financing which have the effect of conditioning the public mind or arousing public interest in the issuer or in its securities constitutes an offer * * *.”

Guidelines for the Release of Information by Issuers Whose Securities are in Registration

, Release No. 33-5180 (Aug. 16, 1971) [36 FR 16506].

See Securities Act Section 5(b)(1) [15 U.S.C. 77e(b)(1)] and Securities Act Section 10 [15 U.S.C.77j].

See Securities Act Section 2(a)(10) [15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(10)] and Section 5(b)(1).

B. Need for Modernization of Communications Requirements

1. General

As we noted in the Proposing Release, the gun-jumping provisions of the Securities Act were enacted at a time when the means of communications were limited and restricting communications (without regard to accuracy) to the statutory prospectus appropriately balanced available communications and investor protection. The gun-jumping provisions were designed to make the statutorily mandated prospectus the primary means for investors to obtain information regarding a registered securities offering.

The capital markets, in the United States and around the world, have changed very significantly since those limitations were enacted. Today, issuers engage in all types of communications on an ongoing basis, including, importantly, communications mandated or encouraged by our rules under the Exchange Act, rules or listing standards of national securities exchanges, and comparable requirements in foreign jurisdictions. Modern communications technology, including the Internet, provides a powerful, versatile, and cost-effective medium to communicate quickly and broadly.

The changes in the Exchange Act disclosure regime and the tremendous growth in communications technology are resulting in more information being provided to the market on a more non-discriminatory, current, and ongoing basis. Thus, while investor protection remains a paramount interest, the gun-jumping provisions of the Securities Act impose substantial and increasingly unworkable restrictions on many communications that would be beneficial to investors and markets and would be consistent with investor protection.

For example, the Internet provides a medium through which to deliver electronic documents, to broadcast radio and television programs, to issue press releases or print advertisements, to conduct telephone or videoconferences with investors, prospective investors, and other parties, and to send personal e-mails.

The following factors, combined with the advances in technology described above, lead us to believe that investors and the market will benefit from access to greater permissible communications where protection for investors is maintained through the appropriate Securities Act liability standards for materially deficient disclosures in prospectuses and oral communications:

• Much of our recent rulemaking is intended to encourage reporting issuers to provide additional materially accurate and complete information to the market on a more current basis.

The Securities Act's constraints on communications during an offering, however, have caused issuers to be concerned about the treatment of their ongoing communications and whether, if they are engaged or will soon be engaged in capital raising, their customary disclosures will be considered an impermissible offer of securities;

Other recent rulemaking initiatives addressing disclosure issues include those referenced in notes 33 through 38 and those contained in

Disclosure Regarding Nominating Committee Functions and Communications Between Security Holders and Boards of Directors

, Release No. 33-8340 (Nov. 24, 2003) [68 FR 66992]; and

Disclosure in Management's Discussion and Analysis About Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Aggregate Contractual Obligations

, Release No. 34-47264 (Jan. 28, 2003) [68 FR 5982] (the “Off-Balance Sheet Disclosure Release”).

See,

e.g.

letter from the American Bar Association Committee on Federal Regulation of Securities to the Director of the Division of Corporation Finance, Aug. 22, 2001 (available at

www.abanet.org

); comment letters in File No. S7-30-98 from Gerald S. Backman, et. al.; Fried Frank; Service Employees International Union Master Trust; and S&C. See also Edward F. Greene and Linda C. Quinn, “Building on the International Convergence of the Global Markets: a Model for Securities Law Reform,” presented at

A Major Issues Conference: Securities Regulation in the

Global Internet Economy

, Washington, D.C., Nov. 14-15, 2001 (available at

www.law.northwestern.edu

• The multiplicity of means of communication has led us to recognize that restricting written offers to a statutory prospectus inhibits desirable methods of timely communication of information;

• There are many more offerings of increasingly complex securities where written communications, such as detailed descriptions of securities and offerings, would enhance significantly the offering process for the benefit of investors;

and

For example, we and the staff have already recognized the usefulness of descriptions of securities and related materials in offerings of asset-backed securities. See the Asset-Backed Securities Adopting Release, note 82.

• The continuing trends towards globalization of securities markets and multinationalization of issuers and offerings and corresponding increase in information and information requirements increase the need for a regulatory framework that accommodates more flexible communications.

As we discussed in the Proposing Release, in view of the many recent changes to the Exchange Act reporting system that are designed to produce more timely and extensive disclosures and greater scrutiny of, and confidence in, those reports, it is appropriate at this time to adopt communications and offering reforms.

We have considered communications reform in other contexts for a number of years. With our adoption of the communications reforms for business combination transactions in 1999, we reduced the regulation of offers and brought the regulatory structure closer to the practices in those offerings while ensuring continued investor protection. See

Regulation of Takeovers and Security Holder Communications

, Release No. 33-7760 (Oct. 22, 1999) [64 FR 61408] (the “Regulation M-A Release”). We recently have adopted communications reforms for asset-backed securities offerings as well. See the Asset-Backed Securities Adopting Release, note 82.

2. Definition of Written Communication

a. “Written Communication” and “Graphic Communication”

As a starting point for reform, we are defining all methods of communication, other than oral communications, as written communications for purposes of the Securities Act. While we have addressed the issue of electronic communications in a number of different contexts, at this time we are adopting rules making it clear that all electronic communications (other than telephone and other live, in real-time communications to a live audience, as discussed below) are graphic and, therefore, written communications for purposes of the Securities Act. In this manner, we intend to encompass new technologies. Accordingly, we are adopting new definitions of “graphic communication” and “written communication” to promote consistent understanding of what constitutes such a communication in view of the technological developments since the enactment of the Securities Act and to significantly reduce remaining uncertainty regarding the permitted means for delivery of information under the Securities Act.

We are adopting the proposed revisions to the definition of “graphic communication” with some modifications. As adopted, the definition of “graphic communication” includes any form of electronic media, such as audiotapes, videotapes, facsimiles, CD-ROM, electronic mail, Internet web sites, and computers, computer networks, and other forms of computer data compilation.

The forms of media that are described in the definition encompass the forms of media that are addressed in our interpretive guidance on the use of electronic media. See,

e.g.

, Use of Electronic Media, Release No. 33-7856 (Apr. 28, 2000) [65 FR 25843] (the “2000 Electronics Release”). In recognition of continuing developments in technology, the forms of electronic media described in the definition are intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.

The definition of graphic communication does not include a communication that, at the time of the communication, originates live, in real-time, to a live audience and does not originate in recorded form or otherwise as a graphic communication.

Any such communication is not a graphic communication even if it is transmitted through a means of graphic communication. A basic concept of the definition we adopt today is that communications that are graphic communications when they are transmitted are treated as graphic communications under the definition and communications that are live, in real-time communications to a live audience when they are transmitted are not treated as graphic communications. We believe that live, in real-time communications to a live audience, including those transmitted by graphic means, have less of the permanence of communications that originate in graphic form or that appear on the printed page. Accordingly, we believe that the distinctions in the definitions we are adopting today are appropriate updatings of the Securities Act's distinctions between oral and written communications.

Written communications will not include individual telephone voice mail messages from live telephone calls but will include broadly disseminated or “blast” voice mail messages, including those that originate in graphic form. The latter is included in the definition because we believe they are not to a live audience and therefore more closely resemble graphic communications than oral communications.

As adopted, “written communication” means any communication that is written, printed, or television or radio broadcast (regardless of the transmission means), or a graphic communication. All communications that fall outside the definition are oral communications, including for purposes of Securities Act Section 12(a)(2). It also excludes live telephone calls (through whatever means by which they are transmitted, including the Internet) and, as discussed above, other live, in real-time communications to a live audience transmitted by graphic means. The definition as adopted clarifies that television or radio broadcasts will be covered regardless of the transmission means.

We thus make a clearer distinction between communications that are broadcast and those that are graphic communications. We have clarified that a television or radio broadcast in Securities Act Section 2(a)(10) and in our definition of written communication encompasses all radio or television broadcasts, regardless of the means of transmission of the signals. For example, a cable television show will be considered a television broadcast that is a written communication, and a television show or radio program that may be seen or heard through the Internet on a computer will also be considered a television or radio broadcast that is a written communication. A communication may fall outside the definition of graphic communication because it originates live, in real-time to a live audience but such communication (for example, a live business news program broadcast by traditional means or on cable) may be a television or radio broadcast. On the other hand, a live, in real-time communication that is transmitted by graphic means to a live audience would be an oral communication. Given the potentially unlimited and uncontrolled nature of dissemination of broadcast communications and the language of the Securities Act, we believe that this is an appropriate distinction.

The following are examples of the application of these definitions:

• A live telephone call is not a written communication;

• A live telephone call that is recorded by the recipient is not a written communication;

• E-mails, facsimiles, and electronic postings on web sites, by their nature,

originate in graphic form and, therefore, are graphic communications;

• A live, in-person road show to a live audience is not a written communication;

• A live, in real-time road show to a live audience that is transmitted graphically is not a graphic communication;

• A live, in real-time road show to a live audience that is transmitted to an “overflow room” is not a graphic communication;

• A webcast or video conference that originates live and in real-time at the time of transmission and is transmitted through video conferencing facilities or is webcast in real-time to a live audience is not a graphic communication;

• The ability of a member of the audience to record a webcast or video conference that is presented live and in real-time to a live audience would not affect the status of that webcast or video conference;

• A live telephone call or video or webcast conference that is recorded by or on behalf of the originating party or parties and then transmitted, or is otherwise transmitted other than live and in real-time, will be a graphic communication and therefore a written communication;

• A live telephone call or video or webcast conference that is recorded by the recipient and then re-transmitted by the recipient is a graphic communication by the recipient when it is re-transmitted; and

• An interview with an issuer's chief executive officer conducted live as part of a television program is a written communication regardless of how the television signal is transmitted (whether over the airwaves, or through cable, satellite, or Internet) and regardless of how it is received by the recipient (whether a television set or a computer).

With respect to road shows, as explained below, we also have added a Note to Rule 433 that states that a communication that is provided or transmitted simultaneously with a road show and is provided or transmitted in a manner designed to make the communication available only as part of the road show and not subsequently is deemed to be part of the road show.

b. Comments Regarding Proposals

Commenters raised several questions about the proposed definitions, particularly as the definitions affected live audio transmissions, live telephone calls, and live road shows transmitted over the Internet.

Commenters were concerned that the definitions of written communication and graphic communication did not explicitly address the treatment of live telephone calls, regardless of the medium of transmission, although the Proposing Release provided that live telephone calls (other than blast voice mails) would not be considered written communications.

See,

e.g.

, letters from Citigroup; Cleary; Davis Polk; S&C; and SIA.

See,

e.g.

, letters from Citigroup; Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (“Merrill Lynch”); S&C; and SIA.

We believe that the modifications that we made to the definitions of graphic communication and written communication will address commenters' issues regarding live, in real-time communications, including telephone calls, conference calls, videocasts, and live webcasts.

C. Overview of Communications Rules

Today, we are adopting rules that relate to the following:

• Regularly released factual business information;

• Regularly released forward-looking information;

• Communications made more than 30 days before filing a registration statement;

• Communications by well-known seasoned issuers during the 30 days before filing a registration statement;

• Written communications made in accordance with the safe harbor in Securities Act Rule 134; and

• Written communications (other than a statutory prospectus) by any eligible issuer after filing a registration statement.

The following table provides a brief overview of the operation of the new and amended rules. While the table clearly does not include the level of detail necessary to explain the rules, we have included it to help readers in understanding the basic scope of the new communications scheme.

Could it be an “offer” as defined in Section 2(a)(3)?

Is it a “prospectus” as defined in Section 2(a)(10)?

Is it a prohibited pre-filing offer for purposes of

Section 5(c)?

Is it a prohibited

prospectus for purposes of Section 5(b)(1)?

Regularly Released Factual Business Information

Yes

Rule defines it as not an offer for Section 5(c) purposes

Section 5(b)(1) relates only to “prospectuses”—it is not applicable.

Regularly Released Forward-Looking Information

Yes

Rule defines it as not an offer for Section 5(c) purposes

Section 5(b)(1) relates only to “prospectuses”—it is not applicable.

Communications Made More than 30 Days Before Filing of Registration Statement

Yes

Possibly, based on facts and circumstances

Rule defines it as not an offer for Section 5(c) purposes

Section 5(b)(1) does not apply in the pre-filing period—it is not applicable.

Well-Known Seasoned Issuers—Oral Offers Made Within 30 Days of Filing of Registration Statement

Yes

Is exempted from prohibition of Section 5(c)

Section 5(b)(1) does not apply in the pre-filing period—it is not applicable.

Well-Known Seasoned Issuers—Written Offers Made Within 30 Days of Filing of Registration Statement

Yes

Yes. It also is a free-writing prospectus

Is exempted from prohibition of Section 5(c)

Section 5(b)(1) does not apply in the pre-filing period—it is not applicable.

Well-Known Seasoned Issuers—Free Writing Prospectuses Used Before Filing of Registration Statement

Yes

Is exempted from prohibition of Section 5(c)

Section 5(b)(1) does not apply in the pre-filing period—it is not applicable.

Identifying Statements in Accordance with Rule 134

Yes

Section 5(c) is not applicable, as Rule 134 relates only to the period after the filing of a registration statement

Section 5(b)(1) relates only to “prospectuses”—it is not applicable.

All Eligible Issuers—Free Writing Prospectuses Used After Filing of Registration Statement

Yes

Section 5(c) is not applicable, as it does not apply in the post-filing period

Section 5(b)(1) will be satisfied, as the free writing prospectus will be a permitted Section 10(b) prospectus.

The communications rules we are adopting recognize the value of ongoing communications as well as the importance of avoiding unnecessary restrictions on offers during a registered offering. In particular, the new and revised rules will eliminate requirements that can interrupt unnecessarily an issuer's normal and routine communications into the market while an issuer is engaging in a securities offering, and will enhance the ability of issuers and other offering participants to make written offers outside the statutory prospectus.

The new and revised rules we are adopting establish a communications framework that, in some cases, will operate along a spectrum based on the type of issuer, its reporting history, and its equity market capitalization or recent issuances of fixed income securities. Thus, under the rules we are adopting, eligible well-known seasoned issuers will have freedom generally from the gun-jumping provisions to communicate at any time, including by means of a written offer other than a statutory prospectus. Varying levels of restrictions will apply to other categories of issuers. We believe these distinctions are appropriate because the market has more familiarity with large, more seasoned issuers and, as a result of the ongoing market following of their activities, including the role of market participants and the media, these issuers' communications have less potential for conditioning the market for the issuers' securities to be sold in a registered offering. Disclosure obligations and practices outside the offering process, including under the Exchange Act, also determine the scope of communications flexibility the rules give to issuers and other offering participants.

100

See,

e.g.

, Regulation FD, Regulation G [17 CFR 244.100

et seq.

], and Form 8-K [17 CFR 249.308].

The cumulative effect of the rules under the gun-jumping provisions is the following:

• Well-known seasoned issuers are permitted to engage at any time in oral and written communications, including use at any time of a free writing prospectus,

101

subject to enumerated conditions (including, in specified cases, filing with us).

102

101

A “free writing prospectus” is defined in Securities Act Rule 405. This definition is discussed in Section III.D.3 below under “Definition of Free Writing Prospectus.”

102

See Rule 163.

• All reporting issuers are permitted, at any time, to continue to publish regularly released factual business information and forward-looking information.

103

See Rule 168. Certain asset-backed issuers and non-reporting foreign private issuers also will be able to rely on the Rule.

• Non-reporting issuers are permitted, at any time, to continue to publish regularly released factual business information that is intended for use by persons other than in their capacity as investors or potential investors.

104

See Rule 169.

• Communications by issuers more than 30 days before filing a registration statement are not prohibited offers so long as they do not reference a securities offering that is or will be the subject of a registration statement.

105

See Rule 163A.

• All issuers and offering participants are permitted to use free writing prospectuses after the filing of the registration statement, subject to enumerated conditions (including, in specified cases, filing with us).

106

See Rules 164 and 433.

• A broader category of routine communications regarding issuers, offerings, and procedural matters, such as communications about the schedule for an offering or about account-opening procedures, are excluded from the definition of “prospectus.”

107

See amendments to Securities Act Rule 134.

• The exemptions for research reports are expanded.

108

See amendments to Securities Act Rules 137, 138, and 139.

As discussed below, a number of these rules include conditions of eligibility. Most of the new and amended rules, for example, are not available to blank check companies, penny stock issuers, or shell companies.

109

We have adopted rules that contain a definition of shell company. See

Use of Form S-8, Form 8-K, and Form 20-F by Shell Companies

, Release No. 33-8587 (July 15, 2005) (“Shell Company Release”). For purposes of the rules we are adopting today, we have excluded business combination related shell companies from the restrictions otherwise applicable to shell companies. Therefore, all references to shell companies in this release excludes business combination related shell companies.

The rules we are adopting today ensure that appropriate liability standards are maintained. For example, all free writing prospectuses have liability under the same provisions as apply today to oral offers and statutory prospectuses.

110

Written communications not constituting prospectuses will not be subject to disclosure liability applicable to prospectuses

111

under Securities Act Section 12(a)(2). This result will not affect their status for liability purposes under other provisions of the federal

securities laws, including the anti-fraud provisions.

112

110

These liability provisions include Securities Act Section 12(a)(2) and 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. 78j(b)], and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 [17 CFR 240.10b-5].

111

See Securities Act Section 2(a)(10) and Rule 134.

112

See,

e.g.

, Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5.

D. Communications Rules

1. Permitted Continuation of Ongoing Communications During an Offering

a. Overview

We are adopting substantially as proposed two separate, non-exclusive safe harbors from the gun-jumping provisions for continuing ongoing business communications. The first safe harbor permits a reporting issuer's continued publication or dissemination of regularly released factual business and forward-looking information at any time, including around the time of a registered offering.

113

The second safe harbor permits a non-reporting issuer's continued publication or dissemination of regularly released factual business information that is intended for use by persons other than in their capacity as investors or potential investors.

114

The safe harbors are not exclusive and do not create a presumption that any communication that falls outside the safe harbor is an offer. Accordingly, reliance on one of the safe harbors does not affect the availability of any other exemption or exclusion under the Securities Act. Further, attempted compliance with one of the safe harbors does not act as an exclusive election. For example, attempted reliance on one of the exemptive rules or exclusions we adopt today will not preclude reliance on another available exemption or exclusion. In particular, it will not preclude reliance on the argument that under general securities law principles and our earlier interpretive guidance the communication in question is not an offer under Securities Act Section 2(a)(3).

113

See Rule 168.

114

See Rule 169.

Investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and business development companies are ineligible to use the safe harbors for factual business information and forward-looking information. These issuers are subject to a separate framework governing communications with investors.

115

See,

e.g.

, Securities Act Rules 156, 482, and 498 [17 CFR 230.156; 17 CFR 230.482; 17 CFR 230.498]; Investment Company Act Rule 34b-1 [17 CFR 270.34b-1].

b. Exception for Regularly Released Factual Business and Forward-Looking Information—Available to Reporting Issuers

We are adopting substantially as proposed the safe harbor for reporting issuers, as well as asset-backed issuers and certain non-reporting foreign private issuers, from the gun-jumping provisions for continued publication or dissemination of communications of regularly released factual business and forward-looking information.

116

This safe harbor is a “use” safe harbor in that it applies to communications of factual business and forward-looking information that have been regularly released in the ordinary course by or on behalf of a reporting issuer.

117

116

The safe harbor also covers communications that incorporate regularly released factual business or forward-looking information.

117

See Rule 168.

Commenters supported the proposed safe harbor with certain suggested changes to its scope.

118

Commenters suggested that the safe harbor should be available to voluntary filers, non-reporting foreign private issuers, asset-backed issuers, registered investment companies, and business development companies.

119

As adopted, the rule is available to non-reporting foreign private issuers meeting certain conditions and to asset-backed issuers (and to a depositor, sponsor, servicer, or affiliated depositor, whether or not the issuer) with regard to registered offerings of asset-backed securities.

120

We believe that non-reporting foreign private issuers qualifying under the safe harbors, like reporting issuers in the United States, are providing information to the markets even though they are not reporting companies in the United States. Similarly, asset-backed issuers and issuers that are affiliated depositors provide and are encouraged to provide information on an ongoing basis in a manner consistent with that covered by Rule 168. The reference to depositors, sponsors, servicers, and affiliated depositors, whether or not the issuer, is intended to permit communication of information regarding pre-existing transactions or asset pools within the safe harbor where its conditions are satisfied.

118

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; Cleary; Davis Polk; Fried Frank; NYSBA; and SCSGP.

119

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; ABA-ABS; Allied; Alston; the Commercial Mortgage Securities Association (“CMSA”); Davis Polk; Fried Frank; Richard Hall; NYCBA; NYSBA; and S&C.

120

The eligibility conditions for non-reporting foreign private issuers will be the same as the eligibility conditions for such issuers contained in Securities Act Rules 138 and 139 as we are amending them today.

As we note above, voluntary filers are not required to report under the Exchange Act and therefore do not fall within Rule 168. Voluntary filers will have available to them the safe harbor for non-reporting issuers in new Rule 169.

121

We also note above that registered investment companies and business development companies are subject to a separate framework governing communications with investors, and we believe that it would be more appropriate to consider investment company issues in the context of a broader reconsideration of this separate framework.

121

These issuers may, of course, continue to rely on existing Commission interpretations concerning ongoing business disclosures. See the discussion at note 122 below regarding the interpretive releases on factual business information.

i. Factual Business Information

(A) Scope of the Safe Harbor

We believe it is important to provide increased certainty regarding when the gun-jumping provisions will be inapplicable to the continuing ongoing communication of specified factual business information. We are adopting Securities Act Rule 168, which provides a non-exclusive safe harbor that such a communication is not an impermissible prospectus and does not violate the prohibition on pre-filing offers.

122

We want to encourage reporting issuers and other issuers eligible to rely on the safe harbor to continue to provide this information. For purposes of Rule 168,

factual business information is defined as:

123

122

Rule 168 is a safe harbor from the definition of “prospectus” in Securities Act Section 2(a)(10) and, therefore, prevents the application of the prohibition in Securities Act Section 5(b)(1) on the use of a prospectus that is not a statutory prospectus. The Rule also is a safe harbor from the prohibitions on pre-filing “offers” in Securities Act Section 5(c).

In general, as we recognized many years ago, ordinary factual business communications that an issuer regularly releases are not considered an offer of securities. See,

e.g.

, the guidelines contained in the 2000 Electronics Release, note 96 at Section II.B.2;

Guidelines for the Release of Information by Issuers Whose Securities are in Registration

, Release No. 33-5180 (Aug. 16, 1971) [36 FR 16506];

Publication of Information Prior to or After the Filing and Effective Date of a Registration Statement Under the Securities Act of 1933

, Release No. 33-5009 (Oct. 7, 1969) [34 FR 16870];

Offers and Sales by Underwriters and Dealers

, Release No. 33-4697 (May 28, 1964) [29 FR 7317]; and

Publication of Information Prior to or After the Effective Date of a Registration Statement

, Release No. 33-3844 (Oct. 8, 1957) [22 FR 8359]. The non-exclusive safe harbors we are adopting today will not affect in any way the Securities Act analysis regarding ordinary course business communications that are not within the safe harbors and we have made that clear in the Preliminary Note to the Rule. Such communications will not be presumed to be offers, and whether they are offers will depend on the facts and circumstances.

123

Under the Rule as adopted, regularly released factual business information does not include the release of information about the registered offering or the release of information as part of the offering activities in the registered offering.

• Factual information about the issuer, its business or financial developments, or other aspects of its business;

• Advertisements of, or other information about, the issuer's products or services; and

• Dividend notices.

This information includes without limitation in each case such factual business information contained in reports or materials filed with, furnished to, or submitted to us pursuant to the Exchange Act.

124

As we discuss below, some commenters expressed concern about the treatment of information contained in Exchange Act reports at the time they are originally filed with, furnished to, or submitted to us. See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA and Fried Frank. We believe this modification will make clear that all covered information within Exchange Act filings will be covered by the safe harbor.

Factual business information that reporting issuers release or disseminate will continue to be subject to the provisions of Regulation FD, Regulation G, Item 10 of Regulation S-K and Regulation S-B [17 CFR 229.10

et seq.

and 17 CFR 228.10

et seq.

], and Item 2.02 of Form 8-K.

(B) Comments on the Scope of the Safe Harbor

Some commenters suggested broadening the categories of factual business information,

125

including the suggestion that only offering-related information be excluded from the definition of factual business information.

126

We are adopting the definition of factual business information that in substantive respects is substantially as proposed. The simplification of the definition in the Rule as adopted does not narrow the information included in the definition. We believe that the purpose of the safe harbor is to permit reporting issuers to continue their ordinary course factual business communications, not to define when an offer is considered to occur in all cases. As we have noted, whether or not a communication that is outside the safe harbor would be an offer is a facts and circumstances determination.

125

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA and SCSGP.

126

See,

e.g.

, letters from Davis Polk and SCSGP.

We have modified the definition from the proposal to make clear that factual business information may be communicated within the safe harbor by including it in any report or material filed with, furnished to, or submitted to us. The other conditions of the safe harbor, for example, the “regularly released,” condition of course also must be satisfied. In addition, in response to commenters' concerns, we have made clear in a preliminary note that the safe harbor addresses use and relates to a communication, and, therefore, that another communication of the information in an offering-related manner will not affect the ability to rely on the safe harbor for the protected communication.

ii. Forward-Looking Information

(A) Scope of the Safe Harbor

As we stated in the Proposing Release, our view of the value of forward-looking information in the market has evolved through the years. Through the 1970's we were most concerned with the potentially misleading effect that forward-looking information could have on investors.

127

Since the 1980's, we have encouraged issuers to disclose forward-looking information and, in some situations (such as the disclosures in MD&A), required them to do so.

128

The existing safe harbors for the content of forward-looking statements are designed to encourage the provision of forward-looking information.

129

127

Until the 1970's, the Commission prohibited disclosure of forward-looking information in any disclosure document. In 1979, the Commission adopted a safe harbor for release of forward-looking information. See

Statement by the Commission on the Disclosure of Projections of Future Economic Performance

, Release No. 33-5362 (Feb. 2, 1973) [38 FR 7220];

Safe Harbor Rule for Projections

, Release No. 33-6084 (June 25, 1979) [44 FR 38810]. See also, the Wheat Report, note 21, at 94.

128

See Item 303 of Regulation S-K and Regulation S-B [17 CFR 229.303 and 17 CFR 228.303]. In our 2003 MD&A Release discussed at note 38, we issued interpretive guidance on MD&A which stated:

In addressing prospective financial condition and operating performance, there are circumstances, particularly regarding known material trends and uncertainties, where forward-looking information is required to be disclosed. We also encourage companies to discuss prospective matters and include forward-looking information in circumstances where that information may not be required, but will provide useful material information for investors that promotes understanding * * *

[M]aterial forward-looking information regarding known material trends and uncertainties is required to be disclosed as part of the required discussion of those matters and the analysis of their effects. In addition, forward-looking information is required in connection with the disclosure in MD&A regarding off-balance sheet arrangements.

129

See Securities Act Section 27A [15 U.S.C. 77z-2] and Securities Act Rule 175 [17 CFR 230.175]. Section 27A provides a safe harbor for certain forward-looking statements. See also, the Off-Balance Sheet Disclosure Release at note 92 (stating that any forward-looking information required pursuant to the off-balance sheet arrangement disclosure in Items 303(a)(4) and (a)(5) of Regulation S-K and Regulation S-B would be subject to the statutory safe harbor contained in Sections 27A of the Securities Act and 21E of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78u-5]). Rule 175 provides a limited safe harbor for the content of forward-looking statements contained in documents filed with us, including in registration statements and periodic reports.

Where an issuer regularly releases forward-looking information in the ordinary course, we indicated in the Proposing Release that we believe that the purpose of such communication is to keep the market informed about the issuer and its future prospects and, thus, the continued release or dissemination of this information in the ordinary course is not for the purpose of offering securities or conditioning the market for new issuances of the issuer's securities. Many issuers disclose earnings forecasts and other forward-looking information publicly to provide more information to the markets and to enable them to continue to have discussions to which Regulation FD applies. We do not believe that it is beneficial to investors or the markets to force reporting issuers to suspend their ordinary course communications of regularly released information that they would otherwise choose to make because they are raising capital in a registered offering.

We are adopting the definition substantially as proposed to provide for the use of such a communication a safe harbor from being an impermissible prospectus and from violating the prohibitions on pre-filing offers. As adopted, the safe harbor in Rule 168 will apply to the release or dissemination of communications containing some or all of the following forward-looking information if the release or dissemination satisfies the other conditions of the Rule:

130

The listed categories of forward-looking information in the safe harbor are essentially the same categories of statements that are defined as forward-looking statements under the safe harbor in Securities Act Section 27A(i)(1) [15 U.S.C. 77z-2(i)(1)]. The safe harbor covering the release or dissemination is available for the regular release of earnings expectations and guidance information. Rule 168 provides a safe harbor for the use of such information, not the content of the communication. An issuer's communications of forward-looking information made in reliance on the safe harbor will still have to satisfy the conditions of Securities Act Section 27A if the issuer wishes to rely on the statutory safe harbor for the content of the information.

The comments on the definition of forward-looking information related primarily to the interplay between such information and the exclusion of offering-related information from the scope of the safe harbor and the way in which newer issuers would establish a history of regular release of such information. See letter from ABA.

• Projections of the issuer's revenues, income (loss), earnings (loss) per share, capital expenditures, dividends, capital structure, or other financial items;

• Statements about the issuer management's plans and objectives for future operations, including plans or objectives relating to the products or services of the issuer;

• Statements about the issuer's future economic performance, including statements of the type contemplated by MD&A described in Item 303 of Regulation S-K and Regulation S-B, or Item 5 of Form 20-F; and

• Assumptions underlying or relating to any of the foregoing information.

As with factual business information, we have clarified that any such information may be communicated by including it in a report filed with, or furnished to, or submitted to us. The safe harbor for forward-looking information also addresses “use,” and the preliminary note discussed above applies.

iii. Conditions of Safe Harbor in Rule 168

(A) “By or on Behalf of” the Issuer

(1) Definition

Under the Rule as adopted, factual business and forward-looking information will be considered released or disseminated by or on behalf of an issuer if the issuer or an agent or a representative of the issuer, other than an offering participant who is an underwriter or dealer, authorizes or approves the release or dissemination of the communication before it is made.

131

Satisfaction of this condition is separate from the “regularly released” condition. The safe harbor is not available for information released in a manner intended to circumvent either the conditions to use or the permitted manner of use of the information.

131

We are using a similar definition as contained in Securities Act Rule 146 [17 CFR 230.146].

As we note above, for asset-backed securities offerings, the safe harbor is available to asset-backed issuers, depositors, affiliated depositors, sponsors, and servicers. We have included a provision regarding communication by or on behalf of such persons.

(2) Comments on Definition

Commenters supported the concept of “by or on behalf of” the issuer.

132

Commenters also supported placing the definition of the term in a single rule, rather than a separate definition in each safe harbor.

133

Some commenters suggested further clarifications of the definition, such as identifying the persons authorized or approved to speak on behalf of the issuer, eliminating any issuer responsibility for communications by unauthorized persons, and providing that the communication either be authorized or approved but not both.

134

132

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; Cleary; S&C; and William J. Williams, Jr.

133

See

Id.

134

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; Alston; Cleary; Davis Polk; and S&C.

We have considered these suggestions carefully and have made some revisions to the definition of “by or on behalf of” the issuer. We have determined not to provide a single definition, instead including an appropriate definition in each relevant rule. We also have not taken the suggestions that the Rule provide that issuers are responsible only for communications made by authorized or approved speakers. The circumstances under which issuers are responsible for the acts of individuals may be determined in accordance with principles not addressed in today's rules. In addition, we have not defined further who may be considered an agent or representative of the issuer, other than to specifically exclude offering participants who are underwriters and dealers. The definition could cover legitimate representatives or agents of the issuer such as, for example, advertising agencies and public relations companies who normally release or disseminate product advertising or promotional communications containing such information on behalf of an issuer. We also have modified the definition to provide that the communication does not have to be both approved and authorized for it to be considered to be made by or on behalf of the issuer.

A few commenters suggested that the Rule not include the preliminary note that contains the “scheme to evade” language because they believed it would cause uncertainty about the ability to rely on the safe harbors.

135

The preliminary note to the Rule is substantially the same preliminary note contained in a significant number of exemptions under the Securities Act upon which market participants have relied and we are adopting the Rule with the preliminary note regarding the “scheme to evade” language as proposed.

136

135

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA and William J. Williams, Jr.

136

See,

e.g.

, Regulation D [17 CFR 230.501

et seq.

] and Rule 155 [17 CFR 230.155].

(B) Regularly Released Information

(1) Regularly Released Condition

As we discussed in the Proposing Release, the purpose of the safe harbor is to enable a reporting issuer to continue its past ordinary course practice of releasing or disseminating publicly factual business and forward-looking information. Communications of both factual business information and forward-looking information must satisfy the same conditions regarding regular release.

We are adopting the regularly released condition substantially as proposed. Under Rule 168, information will be considered regularly released or disseminated if the issuer has previously released or disseminated the same type of information in the ordinary course of its business, and the release or dissemination is consistent in material respects in timing, manner, and form with the issuer's similar past release or dissemination of such information.

137

The method of releasing or disseminating the information, thus, also must be consistent in material respects with prior practice. These conditions seek to ensure that the information is not being released to condition the market for the registered offering of the issuer's securities.

137

In the case of asset-backed issuers, the regularly released requirement will be tested against the previous communications of those persons included in the Rule's provisions, taken together.

While the Rule does not establish or require any minimum time period to satisfy the regularly released element, the safe harbor requires the issuer to have some track record of releasing the particular type of information. One prior release or dissemination could establish this track record. Issuers should consider the frequency and regularity with which they have released the same type of information. For example, an issuer's release of new types of financial information or projections just before or during a registered offering will likely prevent a conclusion that the issuer regularly released that type of forward-looking or financial information in the ordinary course of its business.

(2) Comments on Regularly Released Condition

Commenters on the regularly released condition suggested that we further clarify the concept of regularly released information by elaborating on the meaning of timing, manner, and form.

138

Some of these commenters were concerned about the availability of the safe harbor for non-scheduled releases of information and information distributed using new or different technologies.

139

Other commenters on this point, however, desired greater flexibility with no definition of “ordinary course.”

140

138

See,

e.g.

, letters from Davis Polk; the Investment Company Institute (“ICI”); and TBMA.

139

See

Id.

140

Some commenters also expressed concern about offshore communications. See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA and Fried Frank. Communications that are considered not to be offers because they are made offshore and meet other criteria we have previously discussed would be treated in the same manner as they are today. See

Statement of the

Commission Regarding Use of Internet Web Sites to Offer Securities, Solicit Securities Transactions or Advertise Investment Services Offshore

, Release No. 33-7516 (Mar. 27, 1998) [63 FR 14806];

Offshore Press Conferences, Meetings with Company Representatives Conducted Offshore and Press-Related Materials Released Offshore

, Release No. 33-7470 (Oct. 17, 1997) [62 FR 53948].

We have not changed the “regularly released” language from the proposal because we do not believe that a bright-line test of “regularly released” is appropriate. We believe that it is more appropriate to provide issuers the flexibility to use the means and timing they believe is appropriate for their ongoing business communications. We would note, however, that there are circumstances in which communications made outside a predetermined schedule or not at regular intervals would be covered by the safe harbor. The Rule is not intended to cover only scheduled releases of information but also could cover communications, such as product advertising and product release information or earnings guidance changes, that are made on an unscheduled or episodic basis, provided that the issuer has previously provided such communications containing factual business and forward-looking information in that manner. Thus, for unscheduled or episodic releases, the nature of the event triggering the communication would be taken into account in determining whether the regularly released condition is satisfied. For example, if an issuer only gives guidance upon the occurrence of certain types of developments, a release of guidance when a materially similar event occurs could be materially consistent, even if not done at regular intervals. As another example, if an issuer launches a product only episodically, disclosure or advertising of a product launch still could be materially consistent.

Merely using new or different technologies will not be necessarily inconsistent in material respects under the conditions of the Rule. An issuer will have to determine whether its use of new or different technologies to release information falls within the safe harbor, including whether the release or dissemination is consistent in material respects with how the issuer is already releasing or disseminating its communications containing factual business or forward-looking information using analogous methods. For example, whether the new or different technology makes a material difference in terms of the breadth of dissemination to investors or other reach of the communication to investors is relevant in determining whether the manner or form is consistent in material respects.

(1) Scope of Exclusion

We are adopting as proposed the exclusion from the safe harbor of any information about the registered offering itself. Publication of information about a registered offering outside the registration statement or a prospectus is limited to statements allowed under other exemptions or exclusions, including Rule 134 and Rule 135.

141

See 17 CFR 230.135. Our other rules address communications in the offering context. For example, we are amending Rule 134 to increase the amount of communication allowed under that rule about a registered offering without it being considered a prospectus.

As we discussed in the Proposing Release, because the safe harbor is a “use” exemption intended to facilitate continued release or dissemination of regularly released ordinary course factual business and forward-looking communications, it also excludes the release of that information as part of the offering activities in the registered offering. For example, while the safe harbor could be available for factual business information contained in an Exchange Act report at the time it is initially filed, the safe harbor will not be available for the distribution of that information to investors or potential investors as part of offering activities, such as incorporation by reference into a prospectus that is part of a registration statement, disclosure at a road show, or disclosure in a free writing prospectus. As another example, as permitted by the “regularly released” condition, an issuer could rely on the safe harbor for the publication of an earnings release consistent with past practice, including the posting of and maintaining the release on an issuer's web site, whether or not located in a separate section of the web site for historical information. The distribution of that earnings release, however, as part of the marketing activities to potential investors will be outside the scope of the safe harbor.

(2) Comments on Exclusion

Commenters requested further clarification that release of a communication containing information in reliance on the safe harbor will not be affected by release of the same information in offering-related communications.

142

We have made clear in a preliminary note in the adopted Rule that the release of communications containing information outside the safe harbor will not affect the availability of the safe harbor for any other release or dissemination of a communication containing the same information that is (or was) within the scope of the safe harbor.

142

See,

e.g.

, letters from Fried Frank and SCSGP.

Some commenters requested that we define “offering-related” or “part of the offering activities.”

143

We decline to do so. An issuer must determine, based upon the particular facts and circumstances, whether or not a communication contains information about the registered offering or is being used as part of the offering activities.

143

See,

e.g.

, letters from Davis Polk and SCSGP.

Certain commenters requested that we clarify the impact Rule 168 and Rule 169 (as discussed below) would have on our guidance regarding the filing requirement for ordinary or routine business communications that refer to a business combination transaction in a non-substantive way.

144

We believe that guidance is unaffected by the adoption of the safe harbors of Rule 168 and Rule 169, regardless of whether the communication falls within the scope of such safe harbors or our other interpretive guidance regarding ongoing factual and business communications.

145

144

See, e.g., letters from ABA; Alston; and S&C.

145

See the Regulation M-A Release, note 95, at footnote 45.

c. Exception for Regularly Released Factual Business Information—Available to Non-Reporting Issuers

i. Scope of the Safe Harbor

We are adopting substantially as proposed a non-exclusive safe harbor from the gun-jumping provisions for regularly released factual business information that, unlike Rule 168, is available to all eligible issuers, including non-reporting issuers.

146

The Rule provides a non-exclusive safe harbor for the issuer's release or dissemination of regularly released ordinary course factual business information intended for use by persons other than in their capacity as investors or potential investors, such as customers and suppliers.

147

Under the safe harbor, a non-reporting issuer's release or dissemination of factual business

information that satisfies the conditions of the Rule would not be an impermissible prospectus and would not violate the prohibition on pre-filing offers.

148

As we noted in the Proposing Release, because a condition of the safe harbor involves the manner and timing of the communication, the same issuer employees or agents who historically have been responsible for providing the information for intended use by customers and suppliers must communicate the information provided in reliance on this safe harbor.

146

See Rule 169. Because Rule 168 is available to reporting issuers and some non-reporting issuers (including asset-backed issuers and certain non-reporting foreign private issuers), the principal practical relevance of Rule 169 is to other non-reporting issuers.

147

The fact that a customer also may be a potential investor in the issuer's securities or that the information may be received by other persons will not affect the availability of the safe harbor if the conditions are otherwise satisfied. For purposes of the safe harbor, the communication must be intended for use by an audience that is other than an investor audience.

148

Rule 169 is a safe harbor from the definition of “prospectus” in Securities Act Section 2(a)(10) and therefore disapplies the prohibition in Securities Act Section 5(b)(1) on the use of a prospectus that is not a statutory prospectus. The Rule also is a safe harbor from the prohibitions on pre-filing “offers” in Securities Act Section 5(c).

Under the safe harbor, factual business information is defined as:

• Factual information about the issuer, its business or financial developments, or other aspects of its business; and

• Advertisements of, or other information about, the issuer's products or services.

149

We have not included dividend notices within the definition because the communications covered by the Rule are those intended for use by persons other than in their capacity as investors or potential investors.

As with the safe harbor for reporting issuers, the safe harbor requires that the information be regularly released in the ordinary course of business, released or disseminated by or on behalf of the issuer, and not include information about the registered offering or information released or disseminated as part of the offering activities in the registered offering. We have made the same modifications to these conditions and to the preliminary note to Rule 169 as in new Rule 168 for reporting issuers.

As we discussed in the Proposing Release, because non-reporting issuers generally are not releasing information in connection with securities market activities, we believe it is appropriate to limit the scope of the safe harbor to the specified regularly released ordinary course factual business information.

150

Further, we are not adopting a safe harbor for forward-looking information for non-reporting issuers because of the lack of such information or history for these issuers in the marketplace. In those circumstances, we believe that the potential for abuse in permitting a safe harbor for the continued release of forward-looking information as a way to condition the market for the issuer's securities outweighs the legitimate utility to the issuer of the safe harbor.

150

These issuers will still be able to rely on our interpretive positions for the release of factual business information. See note 122. In addition, these issuers may still be able to rely on Securities Act Rules 134 and 135 and new Securities Act Rules 163A and 164.

ii. Comments on the Safe Harbor

Commenters supported the proposed safe harbor and suggested certain expansions and clarifications.

151

Commenters wanted us to clarify that information that was directed to customers, suppliers, etc., would be covered by the safe harbor even if the information became available to other persons, including investors or potential investors.

152

As we discuss above, the Rule is aimed at assuring that the communication is intended for use by an audience that is other than an investor audience, not at ensuring that the communication is not received by or available to an investor or potential investor. We have modified the Rule to clarify this point. For example, a widely disseminated communication (such as a press release) intended for use by a non-investor audience and otherwise meeting the conditions of the safe harbor will not lose protection if it is available to or received by investors or potential investors.

151

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; NYCBA; NYSBA; and Reuters.

152

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA and NYSBA.

We had requested comment in the Proposing Release as to whether the safe harbor also should cover forward-looking information and whether the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in Securities Act Section 27A should be extended to initial public offerings. We further requested comment on whether we should require projections or other forward-looking information to be included in initial public offering registration statements. In response, some commenters supported extending the Section 27A safe harbor for forward-looking statements to initial public offerings but did not support requiring projections to be included in registration statements.

153

Some commenters were concerned that, because of the relatively untested nature of companies engaging in initial public offerings, there was limited basis to assess the reasonableness of assumptions underlying the projections about the issuer's business.

154

We appreciate commenters' input on these points and, in light of the fact that these companies are generally untested, as commenters noted, we have determined not to include forward-looking statements in the Rule 169 safe harbor we are adopting today or to extend the safe harbor for forward-looking statements in Securities Act Section 27A to initial public offerings.

153

See,

e.g.

, letters from AICPA; E & Y; KPMG LLP (“KPMG”); and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”).

154

See,

e.g.

, letters from AICPA and E & Y.

2. Other Permitted Communications Prior to Filing a Registration Statement

Beyond the continuing ongoing release of information discussed above, there is an increased amount of information disseminated to the market about issuers, including through the Internet. We believe that the availability of this information should be encouraged, subject to appropriate standards of liability. At times when the risk of conditioning the market for a securities offering is sufficiently remote, it is important to provide issuers with greater certainty that the release of information will not be considered an impermissible offer under the Securities Act. Such an approach will avoid hindering issuer communications except where necessary for investor protection. We are, therefore, adopting rules that clarify the Securities Act application to communications that might not fall within the safe harbors for regularly released factual business and forward-looking information.

a. 30-Day Bright-Line Exclusion From the Prohibition on Offers Prior to Filing a Registration Statement—All Issuers

i. Scope of Exclusion

We are adopting, substantially as proposed, Rule 163A to provide all issuers a bright-line time period, ending 30 days prior to filing a registration statement, during which issuers may communicate without risk of violating the gun-jumping provisions. Such communications will be excluded from the definition of offer for purposes of Securities Act Section 5(c).

155

As we noted in the Proposing Release, a bright-line test will provide greater certainty in the offering process and avoid unnecessary limitations on issuer

communications more than 30 days prior to the filing of the registration statement. Further, we believe that the 30-day timeframe adequately assures that these communications will not condition the market for a securities offering by providing a sufficient time period to cool any interest in the offering that might arise from the communication.

156

155

While communications made in reliance on the Rule could, depending on the particular facts, be an “offer” as defined in Securities Act Section 2(a)(3), the Rule provides that the communication is not an “offer” for purposes of Securities Act Section 5(c).

See

Rule 163A.

As Rule 163A provides a safe harbor from the application of Securities Act Section 5(c), it necessarily applies only prior to the filing of a registration statement. This exclusion will thus not apply to issuers offering securities off a shelf registration statement on file, whether or not effective, as to which the prohibition in Section 5(c) does not apply to the offering of the securities covered by such shelf registration statement.

See also Harold Bloomenthal and Samuel Wolff,

Emerging Trends in Securities Laws

[2003-2004 ed.], “Securities Act Reform—Déjà Vu All Over Again,” Commissioner Roel C. Campos (the “Campos Article”) at § 1:28.

156

We chose a 30-day timeframe because it is consistent with the timeframe in Securities Act Rule 155 regarding integration of abandoned offerings and Securities Act Rule 254 regarding pre-filing solicitations of interest in Regulation A offerings [17 CFR 230.254].

As adopted, the 30-day bright-line exclusion from the gun-jumping provisions is subject to the following conditions:

• A communication made in reliance on the Rule cannot reference a securities offering that is or will be the subject of a registration statement;

157

Securities Act Rule 155, relating to integration of abandoned offerings, permits issuers to register a securities offering immediately following the abandonment of a private offering made to accredited or sophisticated persons and not involving general solicitation and general advertising. The 30-day exclusion, on the other hand, applies to public communications made prior to a registered offering. Because Rule 155 treats any private offers made in the abandoned private offering as not part of the subsequent registered offering, issuers relying on Rule 155 in connection with a subsequently registered offering would continue to rely on Rule 155 and need not rely on the 30-day bright-line exclusion for public communications before a registration statement is filed.

• A communication made in reliance on the Rule will have to be made “by or on behalf of the issuer”; and

• The issuer will have to take reasonable steps within its control to prevent further distribution or publication of the communication during the 30-day period immediately before the issuer files the registration statement.

We have made minor revisions to the Rule from the proposals. We have made clear that the exemption is non-exclusive. In addition, we have revised the definition of “by or on behalf of” the issuer in the same manner as in Rules 168 and 169 to explicitly exclude offering participants who are underwriters or dealers from being considered agents or representatives of the issuer for purposes of the Rule. We have narrowed the restriction on references to securities offerings to apply to a securities offering that is or will be the subject of a registration statement.

The Rule is designed to preclude issuers and offering participants from circumventing the registration requirements of the Securities Act. Because the Rule does not permit information about a securities offering that is or will be the subject of a registration statement, the communications made in reliance on the Rule are less likely to be used to condition the market for the issuer's securities. In addition, the communications are still subject to provisions addressing deficient disclosure, including the anti-fraud provisions.

158

Finally, the safe harbor is available only for communications made by or on behalf of the issuer so that other potential offering participants cannot use the exemption. Communications within the scope of Rule 163A made prior to the 30 days before filing are protected by the safe harbor. Communications made during the 30 days before the filing are outside the safe harbor. Because of these factors and the bright-line nature of the Rule, we have eliminated the proposed preliminary note that indicated that the exemption was not available for schemes to evade the registration requirements of the Securities Act because we do not believe it is necessary.

158

Communications made in reliance on Rule 163A safe harbor also would not be made in connection with a registered securities offering for purposes of the exclusion in Regulation FD. See Rule 100(b)(2)(iv) of Regulation FD.

The 30-day bright-line exclusion is not available for enumerated categories of offerings and for specified issuers that pose the greatest risk of abuse of that exclusion. Specifically, Rule 163A is not available to communications made in connection with:

• Offerings by a blank check company;

• Offerings by a shell company; or

• Offerings of penny stock by an issuer.

159

See Securities Act Rule 419(a)(2) [17 CFR 230.419(a)(2)], Exchange Act Rule 3a51-1 [17 CFR 240.3a51-1], and amendments to Rule 405 defining “shell” company.

See

the Shell Company Release, note 109. The Rule also excludes issuers who were or any of whose predecessors in the prior three years were blank check companies, shell companies (other than business combination related shell companies), or issuers that issued penny stock. Other than for well-known seasoned issuers, Rule 163A also excludes offerings registered on Form S-8 [17 CFR 239.16b].

The Rule as adopted also excludes communications regarding business combination transactions from being able to rely on the exclusion, as those communications are regulated separately.

160

The Rule also is not available for communications regarding offerings made by a registered investment company or a business development company.

160

See the Regulation M-A Release, note 95. The Rule excludes any business combination transaction, including an exchange offer.

ii. Comments on 30-day Bright-Line Exclusion

Commenters expressed strong support for the Rule and suggested certain expansions and clarifications.

161

Some commenters wanted the Rule to provide an exemption from the definition of offer for all purposes under the Securities Act.

162

We do not believe that it is appropriate to exclude from the definition of offer for all purposes any communications occurring more than 30 days from the date of filing the registration statement. The Rule contains no content restriction, other than a prohibition against referencing a securities offering that is or will be the subject of a registration statement. The intent of the Rule is to provide certainty that an issuer will not be considered to be “gun jumping” by engaging in communications more than 30 days before it files its registration statement, not to provide certainty that it will not be liable for material disclosure deficiencies in its communications.

163

161

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; Davis Polk; Fried Frank; IBA; ICI; NYCBA; NYSBA; and Reuters.

162

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; Alston; Cleary; and NYSBA.

163

Commenters also asked that we clarify further that information released during the 30 days before the registration statement filing in reliance on another exemption would not affect the ability of the issuer to rely on the 30-day safe harbor. See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; Alston; Cleary; Fried Frank; and TBMA. We have clarified that the Rule is a non-exclusive safe harbor and issuers can rely on other available exemptions, exclusions, or safe harbors from the gun-jumping provisions for the communications. Conversely, reliance on other safe harbors, exemptions, and exclusions during the 30-day period does not preclude reliance on the 30-day safe harbor.

Commenters also suggested that we provide more guidance as to what actions will constitute “reasonable steps within the issuer's control,” particularly with respect to information posted on web sites prior to 30 days before the filing of the registration statement.

164

The “reasonable steps” condition is already contained in Rule 165 for business combination transactions. We do not believe that it is appropriate to provide bright lines as to when an issuer will be considered to have taken reasonable steps within its control to prevent further dissemination of the communication.

165

As to the treatment

of information posted on an issuer's web site, we do not expect that an issuer will necessarily remove the information from the Web site and, provided that the information is appropriately dated, otherwise identified as historical material, and not referred to as part of the offering activities, we will not object to an issuer maintaining the information on the Web site.

164

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA; Alston; Cleary; and Fried Frank.

165

The Rule as adopted limits the exclusion to issuers. While we do not expect an issuer to be able to control the republication or accessing of previously published press releases, we expect issuers and persons acting on their behalf to be able to control their own involvement in any subsequent redistribution or publication and, therefore, believe that it is an appropriate condition to the ability to

rely on the exclusion. For example, if an issuer or its representative gives an interview to the press prior to the 30-day period, it will not be able to rely on the exclusion if the interview is published during the 30-day period. We have addressed the same issues in the context of free writing prospectuses discussed below.

Commenters also suggested that registered investment companies and business development companies should be permitted to rely on Rule 163A.

166

We are not adopting this suggestion because we believe that it would be more appropriate to consider changes to our requirements as they apply to registered investment companies and business development companies in the context of a broader reconsideration of the separate framework applicable to such issuers.

166

See letters from ABA; Allied; and Fried Frank.

b. Permitted Pre-Filing Offers for Well-Known Seasoned Issuers

i. Overview

The rules we are adopting today, when taken together, provide exemptions generally from the applicability of the gun-jumping provisions for eligible well-known seasoned issuers. The safe harbors for regularly released factual business and forward-looking information and the exemption from the prohibition on offers for purposes of Securities Act Section 5(c) for communications more than 30 days prior to filing of a registration statement are available to well-known seasoned issuers. In addition, as discussed below, the broadened exemption for routine offering-related communications and the availability of an exemption for eligible issuers from the gun-jumping provisions for free writing prospectuses, in both cases after filing of a registration statement, also are available to well-known seasoned issuers. However, because the gun-jumping provisions prohibit all offers—written or oral—before the filing of a registration statement, we believe well-known seasoned issuers could be unnecessarily constrained in their capital formation activities.

167

See Securities Act Section 5(c).

ii. Exemption for Pre-Filing Offers

To address communications made in the 30 days prior to filing a registration statement that are not otherwise excluded from the gun-jumping provisions and to complete the set of rules permitting all communications by well-known seasoned issuers under the gun-jumping provisions, we are adopting essentially as proposed an exemption from the prohibition on offers before the filing of a registration statement for offers made by or on behalf of eligible well-known seasoned issuers.

168

The exemption permits these issuers to engage in unrestricted oral and written offers before a registration statement is filed without violating the gun-jumping provisions. These communications, while exempt from the gun-jumping provisions, are still considered offers and subject to liability standards applicable to such offers.

169

The exemption is available only for communications made “by or on behalf of” the issuer.

170

Moreover, any communication for which disclosure is required under Securities Act Section 17(b) will be deemed to be a communication that is an offer for purposes of the Rule and, if written, the communication will be a free writing prospectus of the issuer.

171

As with the other exemptions, exclusions, and safe harbor rules we are adopting today, we have made clear that the exemption is non-exclusive.

168

See Rule 163. The exemption is not available to communications involving registered business combination transactions or communications in offerings by registered investment companies or business development companies.

169

Any written offer will be a prospectus under Securities Act Section 2(a)(10) relating to a public offering of the securities to be covered by the registration statement to be filed. All oral communications that are offers and all prospectuses will be subject to liability under Securities Act Section 12(a)(2). The communications also will be subject to other provisions addressing deficient disclosure, including Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b), and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5.

Communications made in reliance on the Rule also will not be considered to be in connection with a registered securities offering for purposes of the exclusion from Regulation FD. See Rule 100(b)(2)(iv) of Regulation FD.

The Rule is different from Securities Act Rule 254. Securities Act Rule 254 permits solicitations of interest in Regulation A offerings provided the conditions of the rule, including pre-use submission of the materials to the Commission, are satisfied, and does not treat the materials as prospectuses. Rule 163 does not require pre-filing of the communications and written offers will be prospectuses.

170

In addition, as with the other exemptions and safe harbors that are available only to the issuer, the definition of by or on behalf of the issuer explicitly excludes offering participants who are underwriters or dealers.

171

See Rule 163(d). Securities Act Section 17(b) [15 U.S.C. 77q(b)] generally requires persons who make statements describing an issuer's securities to disclose the receipt (and the amount) of consideration given, directly or indirectly, by an issuer, underwriter, or dealer in exchange for making the statements.

We also have modified the Rule to eliminate the preliminary note regarding the unavailability of the exemption if it is part of a scheme to avoid or evade the requirements of the gun-jumping provisions. We have not included this preliminary note in the adopted Rule because we believe that the Rule provides an exemption for the communication from the gun-jumping provisions only for well-known seasoned issuers and because the disclosure liability and anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws continue to apply.

In view of the automatic shelf registration process we describe below, we expect that well-known seasoned issuers usually will have a registration statement on file that it can use for any of its registered offerings. Consequently, it generally will be unusual for these issuers to make offers prior to the filing of a registration statement;

172

however, we have provided this exemption from the prohibition on pre-filing offers to liberalize communications for these issuers to the appropriate extent. A written offer made by or on behalf of a well-known seasoned issuer under the exemption will, however, meet our definition of “free writing prospectus” and will need to include a legend and be filed promptly by the issuer when and if the issuer files its registration statement.

173

We also have provided in the Rule as adopted that filing is not required if the communication has previously been filed with or furnished to us (for example pursuant to Regulation FD on Form 8-K). The Rule as adopted also provides that filing is not required if filing would not be required under Rule 433 regarding free

writing prospectuses, discussed below, if the communication was a free writing prospectus used after filing of the registration statement. Finally, the filing conditions of Rule 163 will be satisfied if the filing conditions of Rule 433 (other than timing of filing) are satisfied. As a result, for example, the accommodations provided in Rule 433 regarding media publications that are free writing prospectuses also will apply under Rule 163.

174

172

See the discussion in Section V.B.2 below under “Automatic Shelf Registration for Well-Known Seasoned Issuers,” with regard to the availability of an “automatic shelf” registration process for these issuers.

173

The legend is similar to the one we are providing as a condition for free writing prospectuses used after a registration statement is filed. We have made minor modifications to the legend, including eliminating issuer-specific language and references to risk factors. We also have provided that the legend may include an e-mail address and web site where the prospectus can be requested or is available. See the discussion in Section III.D.3 below under “Legend Condition” with regard to the conditions for use of a “free writing prospectus.” Under Rule 163 and Rule 433, all issuer free writing prospectuses must be filed unless exempt from the filing condition. Under Rule 163 as adopted, free writing prospectuses must be filed only if the issuer files a registration statement or amendment to the registration statement covering the securities offered by the free writing prospectus.

174

For example, the issuer could satisfy its filing condition under Rule 163 for a media publication for which an issuer could file an interview transcript under Rule 433 by similarly filing such a transcript, as described below.

Any written communication used in reliance on this exemption will be subject to the same provisions applicable to free writing prospectuses used after a registration statement is filed with regard to the ability to “cure” a failure to meet the legend or filing condition in reliance on our rules governing free writing prospectuses discussed below.

175

See discussion in Section III.D.3 below under “Cure for Unintentional or Immaterial Failure to Include a Legend” and “Unintentional Failures to File” regarding Rules 164 and 433 with respect to the cure provisions.

iii. Comments on Exemption for Pre-Filing Offers

Commenters broadly supported the proposed exemption for pre-filing offers by well-known seasoned issuers.

176

One commenter thought the exemptions should be expanded to cover all seasoned issuers, not just well-known seasoned issuers.

177

Some commenters suggested that the filing condition for free writing prospectuses apply only when and if the registration statement is filed.

178

In addition, commenters wanted clarification that the availability of the exemption does not depend on the issuer filing the free writing prospectus within a particular time frame.

179

Finally, commenters requested clarification that media publications, as with other free writing prospectuses, do not need to be filed until the registration statement is filed.

180

One commenter also suggested that Regulation FD should not apply to offering-related information communicated in reliance on the exemption.

181

176

See,

e.g.,

letters from ABA, Cleary; NYSBA, S&C: SIA; and TBMA.

177

See letter from ABA.

178

See,

e.g.

, letters from Fried Frank and NYSBA.

179

See,

e.g.

, letters from ABA and Davis Polk.

180

See,

e.g.

, letters from Davis Polk and NYSBA.

181

See letter from ABA.

We believe it is appropriate at this time to limit the exemption for pre-filing offers to well-known seasoned issuers only and not expand the benefits to all seasoned issuers. The level of following of well-known seasoned issuers by market participants lessens our concerns that these issuers, in general, will use the exemption to evade the registration requirements of the Securities Act. Accordingly, we are limiting this exemption to well-known seasoned issuers.

We have not made any revisions to the provisions of Rule 163 regarding the applicability of Regulation FD to offering-related information. Well-known seasoned issuers thus must comply with the provisions of Regulation FD with regard to communications made p

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.