One of the year’s most anticipated IPOs was that of Casper Sleep, Inc., the direct-to-consumer mattress company that officially went public in February 2020. (Claire Roth, Bloomberg). Casper entered the market at $12 per share and closed its first day with shares trading at $13.50, not exactly the hottest start for one of Wall Street’s newest additions. (Id.) Since then, the mattress retailer now faces a lawsuit from its shareholders claiming that, among other things, Casper misled investors by claiming in its initial registration statement that its gross profit margins were improving. (Complaint, Lematta v. Casper Sleep, Inc., Docket No. 1:20-cv-02744 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2020)). In reality, as its first quarter filing states, the newly public company was subject to decreasing profit margins and a near 100% increase in net losses year over year. (Casper Sleep, Form 10-Q). The suit against one of Wall Street’s newest IPOs is set to continue its proceedings this fall.
Read MoreOn August 26, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) officially updated the definition of “accredited investors” under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”). (Press Release, SEC Modernizes the Accredited Investor Definition). The amendments greatly expand the threshold of determining whether an investor is accredited in Rule 215 and Rule 501(a) of the Securities Act, signaling a significant overhaul of the growing market for exempt offerings.
Read MoreTensions between the United States (“U.S.”) and China have been flaring up, and the COVID-19 pandemic has only made things worse. Now, Luckin Coffee, a Chinese owned entity traded on a U.S. exchange (NASDAQ:LK), added fuel to the fire with the recent discovery that senior executives fabricated as much as 2.2 billion yuan (approximately $310 million) in sales last year. (Fox, Business Insider). Such misrepresentation deceives investors and raises doubt around the adequacy of existing market regulation, supporting the argument for more stringent oversight. The Senate, Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and Nasdaq are in support of rule changes to restore faith in the marketplace and protect investors. The question remains: will the rule proposals provide greater investor protection or chill the free market?
Read MoreOn November 5, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 14a-8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), which governs the shareholder proposal process. The proposed amendments, which the SEC has said are meant to modernize the rules that have not been significantly updated since 1954 (SEC Press Release, SEC Proposes Amendments to Modernize Shareholder Proposal Rule), have the potential to limit activism by smaller shareholders.
Read MoreStarting in December, large companies will be able to gauge investor interest in their potential initial public offering (“IPO”) in the same way smaller companies already do. (Ramonas, Bloomberg Law). The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently voted 5-0 to adopt new regulations under Rule 163B of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), which extend the rule’s “test-the-waters” provisions from emerging growth companies to all companies considering an IPO. (Id.) The ability to gauge institutional investor interest in a potential IPO will help companies better tailor the size and terms of their offerings to the demand of the market and allow companies to avoid the costs of pursuing an IPO if the interest is simply not there.
Read MoreThe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and Bitqyck, Inc. and its founders, Bruce E. Bise and Samuel J. Mendez (collectively the “Defendants”) reached a $10.1 million dollar settlement following allegations that the Defendants violated various securities laws in selling investors unregistered digital tokens. (Andrew Ramonas, Bloomberg Law). The SEC’s complaint alleged the Defendants violated the antifraud provisions and the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and also separately violated the Exchange Act in running an unregistered securities exchange. (SEC Complaint). The settlement resulted in Bitqyck agreeing to pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty amounting to approximately $8.4 million, with Bise and Mendez individually paying approximately $890,000 and $850,000, respectively. (Andrew Ramonas, Bloomberg Law). As part of the settlement agreement, Defendants neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing in response to the SEC’s allegations. (Id.).
Read More