Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: July 27, 2017
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comIn an effort to boost capital formation, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently announced that it will accept voluntary draft registration statement submissions from all issuers for nonpublic review. The change went into effect on July 10, 2017.

The ability to keep filings confidential in the early stages of an initial public offering (IPO) was previously limited to emerging growth companies. Snap and Twitter are two well-known examples of companies that previously relied on the JOBS (Jumpstart Our Business Start-Ups) Act provision. According to the SEC, 1,350 confidential IPO filings have been submitted, as of March 31, 2017.
The SEC is hopeful that expanding the opportunity to all companies will encourage more companies to take the IPO plunge, given that the market has lagged in recent years. “We are striving for efficiency in our processes to encourage more companies to consider going public, which can result in more choices for investors, job creation and a stronger U.S. economy,” said new SEC Chair Walter J. Clayton.
For companies planning an IPO, the SEC advised that it will review a draft initial Securities Act registration statement and related revisions on a nonpublic basis provided that the issuer confirms in a cover letter to the nonpublic draft submission that it will publicly file its registration statement and nonpublic draft submissions at least 15 days prior to any road show or, in the absence of a road show, at least 15 days prior to the requested effective date of the registration statement. Moreover, the submitter of the information must comply with SEC’s Confidential Treatment Procedure under Rule 83.
The confidential submission process will be available for businesses pursuing a direct listing on a stock exchange without conducting an IPO. In those cases, the SEC will review a draft registration statement and related revisions on a nonpublic basis provided that the issuer confirms in a cover letter to the nonpublic draft submission that it will publicly file its registration statement and nonpublic draft submissions at least 15 days prior to the anticipated effective date of the registration statement for its listing on a national securities exchange.
Finally, the SEC will also accept draft registration statements submitted prior to the end of the twelfth month following the effective date of an issuer’s initial Securities Act registration statement or an issuer’s Exchange Act Section 12(b) registration statement for nonpublic review. The agency advises that an issuer submitting a draft registration statement for nonpublic review in these circumstances should confirm in its cover letter that it will publicly file its registration statement and nonpublic draft submission such that it is publicly available on the EDGAR system at least 48 hours prior to any requested effective time and date.
SEC staff comments may ultimately become public.
Filing initial draft registration statements confidentially allows companies to work out any issues with the SEC outside of the public spotlight. As highlighted by the SEC, the non-public review process also “reduces the potential for lengthy exposure to market fluctuations that can adversely affect the offering process and harm existing public shareholders.”
The ability to opt into the initial non-public review requires meeting certain technical requirements when filing and potential issuers should consult with legal counsel in seeking to do so.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Jeffrey Cassin, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!