New SEC Guidelines on Investments and SPACs

On March 30, 2022, the U.S. Securities and Trade Fee (SEC) permitted, by a 3-to-1 vote, a 372-page proposal of quite a few guidelines relating to disclosures and procedural necessities for particular goal acquisition corporations (SPACs). SEC Chair Gary Gensler said that their goal was to impose lots of the laws relevant to conventional preliminary public choices (IPOs) on SPACs, stating that SPAC buyers “deserve the protections they obtain from conventional IPOs, with respect to info asymmetries, fraud, and conflicts, and relating to disclosure, advertising practices, gatekeepers, and issuers.”1

If these sweeping laws are applied as proposed, they might considerably have an effect on capital markets practices for each issuers and underwriters, and open up new avenues for regulatory enforcement and extra non-public securities litigation. Even earlier than these proposed laws, SPACs have been already being sued nearly twice as a lot as conventional IPOs, with 32 SPAC securities class actions filed in 2021, a greater than sixfold improve in comparison with 2020.2 As well as, the SEC had beforehand introduced varied enforcement actions in opposition to members in SPAC transactions. The proposed guidelines are open for public remark by way of at the least Might 31, 2022, and entities and underwriters working within the SPAC house might want to take into account whether or not and the way to reply to the SEC’s proposal.


SPACs are shell corporations that increase funds by way of an underwritten IPO with the purpose of buying a yet-to-be-identified working firm. As soon as the SPAC identifies the goal firm, it completes a enterprise mixture (the “de-SPAC” transaction) leading to a mixed public firm.

Though SPACs have existed for many years, they solely grew to become more and more in style over the past a number of years, as evidenced by the quantity of capital raised by SPACs doubling from $80 billion in 2020 to greater than $160 billion in 2021. Proponents of SPACs have cited their capital formation flexibility and nimbleness in bringing new corporations to market, as referenced in SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce’s assertion opposing the proposed guidelines: “SPACs introduced many new corporations into our public markets—a welcome pattern after many years of decline within the variety of public corporations.”3 Then again, critics of SPACs have argued they disproportionately profit insiders and lack enough disclosures,4 and the SEC has been signaling some sort of new forthcoming guidelines. Roughly a 12 months in the past, the appearing director of the Division of Company Finance issued an announcement saying SEC employees was “persevering with to look fastidiously” at filings by SPACs and their targets, and that “[a]ny easy declare about lowered legal responsibility publicity for SPAC members is overstated at finest, and doubtlessly significantly deceptive at worst.”5 The proposed guidelines are the end result of that effort.

Whereas a few of the proposed guidelines mirror present finest practices, others might current a “sq. peg/spherical gap” facet, as they seem to combine and match completely different ideas of potential legal responsibility beneath the 1933 Securities Act (‘33 Act) and the 1934 Securities Trade Act (‘34 Act). This asymmetry arises most clearly in reference to projections of future efficiency. Whereas in a conventional IPO ruled by the ’33 Act, corporations usually don’t provide projections of future efficiency, within the merger context ruled by the ’34 Act, a SPAC board’s evaluation of projections of the mixed firm is important each to satisfying the board’s fiduciary duties and to making sure an knowledgeable shareholder vote.

The Proposed Guidelines

The SEC’s proposed guidelines would have an effect on SPAC IPOs and de-SPAC transactions within the following methods:

The proposed guidelines would revise the necessities for goal firm monetary statements in de-SPAC transactions to place them in the identical place as a conventional IPO. Basically, this may profit goal corporations that qualify as smaller reporting corporations or rising development corporations.

The SEC’s proposal, open for public remark by way of at the least Might 31, 2022, represents a considerable effort by the company to impose important controls on the SPAC market.

Jason T. Simon and Alex Linhardt additionally contributed to this text.


1 “Statement on Proposal on Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs), Shell Companies, and Projections” (Mar. 30, 2022).

2 “Securities Class Action Filings: 2021 Year in Review,” Cornerstone Analysis (Feb. 2, 2022).

3 “Damning and Deeming: Dissenting Statement on Shell Companies, Projections, and SPACs Proposal” (March 30, 2022).

4 See, e.g., “A Sober Look at SPACs,” Harvard Regulation College Discussion board on Company Governance (Nov. 19, 2020).

5 “SPACs, IPOs, and Liability Risk Under the Securities Laws” (April 8, 2021).

6 Securities and Exchange Commission’s Proposed Rules for Special Purpose Acquisition Companies, Shell Companies, and Projections (Mar. 30, 2022), p. 250.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
Nationwide Regulation Evaluation, Quantity XII, Quantity 122

Next Post

SEC Proposes New Cybersecurity Guidelines for Monetary Providers

Proposed new policies from the Securities and Change Fee (SEC) might spell adjustments for the way monetary companies corporations deal with cybersecurity. On Feb. 9, the SEC voted to suggest cybersecurity danger administration insurance policies for registered funding advisers, registered funding corporations and enterprise growth corporations (funds). Subsequent, the proposal […]
SEC Proposes New Cybersecurity Rules for Financial Services