Securities and Exchange Commission
- [Release No. 34-91904; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2021-007]
I. Introduction
On February 1, 2021, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) [1] and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,[2] a proposed rule change to adopt additional initial listing criteria for companies primarily operating in jurisdictions that do not provide the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) with the ability to inspect public accounting firms. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 16, 2021.[3] On March 26, 2021, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,[4] the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.[5] This order institutes proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act [6] to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange states that the Exchange's rules, in addition to federal securities laws, require that a company's financial statements included in its initial registration statement or annual report be audited by an independent public accountant that is registered with the PCAOB.[7] According to the Exchange, the Exchange and investors rely on the work of auditors to provide reasonable assurances that the financial statements provided by a company are free of material misstatements, and on the PCAOB's critical role in overseeing the quality of the auditor's work.[8] The Exchange states its belief that accurate financial statement disclosure is critical for investors to make informed investment decisions.[9]
The Exchange states that the former Chairman and former Chief Accountant of the Commission and the Chairman of the PCAOB have raised concerns that national barriers on access to information can impede effective regulatory oversight of U.S.-listed companies with operations in certain countries, including the PCAOB's inability to inspect the audit work and practices of auditors in those countries.[10] The Exchange states that similar concerns have been expressed by members of Congress, the State Department, and the President's Working Group on Financial Markets.[11] The Exchange states that it shares these concerns and believes the lack of transparency from certain markets raises concerns about the accuracy of disclosures, accountability, and access to information, particularly when a company is based in a jurisdiction that does not provide the PCAOB with access to conduct inspections of public accounting firms that audit Nasdaq-listed companies (“Restrictive Market”).[12]
The Exchange further states that such concerns can be compounded when a company from a Restrictive Market lists on the Exchange through an initial public offering (“IPO”) or a business combination with a small offering size or a low public float percentage because such companies may not attract market attention and develop sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest to provide the depth and liquidity necessary to promote fair and orderly trading.[13] According to the Exchange, such securities may trade infrequently, in a more volatile manner and with a wider bid-ask spread, all of which may result in trading at a price that may not ( printed page 27660) reflect their true market value.[14] Furthermore, the Exchange states that less liquid securities may be more susceptible to price manipulation and that, in particular, the risk of price manipulation due to insider trading is more acute with respect to a company that principally administers its business in a Restrictive Market (“Restrictive Market Company”), particularly if a company's financial statements contain undetected material misstatements due to error or fraud and the PCAOB is unable to inspect the company's auditor to determine if it complied with PCAOB and Commission rules and professional standards in connection with its performance of audits.[15] The Exchange states that risk to investors in such cases may be compounded because regulatory investigations into price manipulation, insider trading, and compliance concerns may be impeded and investor protections and remedies may be limited in such cases due to obstacles encountered by U.S. authorities in bringing or enforcing actions against the companies and insiders.[16]
Nasdaq states that it believes the U.S. capital markets can provide Restrictive Market Companies with access to additional capital to fund ground-breaking research and technological advancements and that such companies provide U.S. investors with opportunities to diversify their portfolio by providing exposure to Restrictive Markets.[17] However, Nasdaq further states that it believes that Restrictive Market Companies present unique potential risks to U.S. investors due to restrictions on the PCAOB's ability to inspect the audit work and practices of auditors in those countries, which create concerns about the accuracy of disclosures, accountability, and access to information.[18] Nasdaq states that it believes its proposal will reduce trading volatility and price manipulation and help to ensure that Restrictive Market Companies have sufficient investor base and public float to support fair and orderly trading on the Exchange.[19]
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt a definition of “Restrictive Market” [20] and to apply additional initial listing requirements to a Restrictive Market Company listing on the Exchange in connection with an IPO or a business combination.[21] The Exchange also proposes to prohibit a Restrictive Market Company from listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market in connection with a Direct Listing,[22] but to allow a Restrictive Market Company to list on the Nasdaq Global Select Market or Nasdaq Global Market in connection with a Direct Listing, provided that such company meets all applicable initial listing requirements for such market.
A. Definition of Restrictive Market
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new definition of Restrictive Market in Nasdaq Rule 5005(a)(37).[23] As proposed, a Restrictive Market will be defined as a jurisdiction that does not provide the PCAOB with access to conduct inspections of public accounting firms that audit Nasdaq-listed companies.[24] Under the proposed rule, Nasdaq will consider a company's business to be principally administered in a Restrictive Market if: (i) The company's books and records are located in that jurisdiction; (ii) at least 50% of the company's assets are located in such jurisdiction; or (iii) at least 50% of the company's revenues are derived fromsuch jurisdiction.[25]
B. Minimum Offering Size or Public Float Percentage Requirement for an IPO
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Nasdaq Rule 5210(k)(i) to require a Restrictive Market Company listing its Primary Equity Security [26] on Nasdaq in connection with its IPO to offer a minimum amount of securities in a Firm Commitment Offering [27] in the U.S. to Public Holders [28] that (i) will result in gross proceeds to the Company of at least $25 million or (ii) will represent at least 25% of the Company's post-offering Market Value of Listed Securities,[29] whichever is lower. A Restrictive Market Company listing on the Exchange in connection with an IPO that is subject to the proposed rule would also need to comply with all other applicable listing requirements. [30] ( printed page 27661) The Exchange states that it believes this proposed listing requirement for Restrictive Market Companies conducting an IPO will provide greater support for the company's price, as determined through the offering, and will help assure there will be sufficient liquidity, U.S. investor interest, and distribution to support price discovery once the security is listed.[31] In addition, the Exchange states that the proposal will help ensure that Restrictive Market Companies seeking to list on the Exchange have sufficient investor base and public float to support fair and orderly trading on the Exchange.[32]
The Exchange further states that it has observed that Restrictive Market Companies listing on Nasdaq in connection with an IPO with an offering size below $25 million or public float ratio below 25% have a high rate of compliance concerns.[33] The Exchange states that it believes the proposed listing requirement for Restrictive Market Companies conducting an IPO will mitigate such compliance concerns.[34]
C. Minimum Market Value of Unrestricted Publicly Held Shares Requirement for a Business Combination
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Nasdaq Rule 5210(k)(ii) to require a Company that is conducting a business combination, as described in Nasdaq Rule 5110(a) [35] or IM-5101-2,[36] with a Restrictive Market Company to have a minimum Market Value of Unrestricted Publicly Held Shares [37] following the business combination equal to the lesser of (i) $25 million or (ii) 25% of post-business combination entity's Market Value of Listed Securities. A Restrictive Market Company subject to the proposed rule would also need to comply with all other applicable listing requirements.[38]
The Exchange states that it believes that a business combination as described in Nasdaq Rule 5110(a) or IM-5101-2 involving a Restrictive Market Company presents similar risks to U.S. investors as an IPO of a Restrictive Market Company, and therefore, Nasdaq believes it is appropriate to apply similar thresholds to post-business combination entities to ensure that a company listing through a business combination would have satisfied equivalent standards that apply to an IPO.[39] The Exchange further states that it believes that the proposed listing requirement for post-business ( printed page 27662) combination entities would help to provide an additional assurance that there are sufficient freely tradable shares and investor interest to support fair and orderly trading on the Exchange when the target company principally administers its business in a Restrictive Market.[40]
D. Direct Listings of Restrictive Market Companies
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Nasdaq Rule 5210(k)(iii) to provide that a Restrictive Market Company that is listing its Primary Equity Security on Nasdaq in connection with a Direct Listing, as defined in Nasdaq Rule IM-5315-1,[41] would be permitted to list on: (i) The Nasdaq Global Select Market, provided that the Company meets all applicable listing requirements for the Nasdaq Global Select Market and the additional requirements of Nasdaq Rule IM-5315-1, or (ii) the Nasdaq Global Market, provided that the Company meets all applicable listing requirements for the Nasdaq Global Market and the additional requirements of Nasdaq Rule IM-5405-1.[42] On the other hand, proposed Nasdaq Rule 5210(k)(iii) would provide that a Restrictive Market Company would not be permitted to list on the Nasdaq Capital Market in connection with a Direct Listing, notwithstanding the fact that the Company may meet the applicable initial listing requirements for the Nasdaq Capital Market and the additional requirements in Nasdaq Rule IM-5505-1.[43]
The Exchange's rules currently set forth initial listing requirements for companies listing on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, Nasdaq Global Market, and Nasdaq Capital Market,[44] and additional listing requirements for Companies conducting a Direct Listing on such markets.[45] The Exchange states that it believes it is appropriate to permit Restrictive Market Companies to list through a Direct Listing on the Nasdaq Global Select Market or Nasdaq Global Market because such companies would be subject to the additional listing requirements set forth in Nasdaq Rule IM-5315-1 or IM-5405-1, respectively.[46] On the other hand, the Exchange states that it does not believe that the additional requirements for Direct Listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market, set forth in Nasdaq Rule IM-5501-1, are sufficient to overcome concerns regarding sufficient liquidity and investor interest to support fair and orderly trading on the Exchange with respect to Restrictive Market Companies.[47]
III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-NASDAQ-2021-007 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act [48] to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposal. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments on the proposed rule change to inform the Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,[49] the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposal's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be “designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,” and “to protect investors and the public interest.” [50]
As discussed above, the Exchange is proposing to apply additional initial listing requirements to a Restrictive Market Company listing on the Exchange in connection with an IPO or a business combination and to prohibit a Restrictive Market Company from listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market in connection with a Direct Listing. The Commission has received one comment letter regarding the proposed rule change [51] and a response to comments from the Exchange.[52] Given the comment letter received and the recently filed response from the Exchange, the Commission is seeking additional public comment on the proposed rule change in order to determine whether it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Commission notes that, under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory organization ['SRO'] that proposed the rule change.” [53] The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,[54] and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may result in the Commission not having sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the applicable rule and regulations.[55]
IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.[56]
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by June 11, 2021. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by June 25, 2021.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice,[57] in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
- Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
- Send an email torule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-007 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
- Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-007. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website ( http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-007 and should be submitted on or before June 11, 2021. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by June 25, 2021.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.[58]
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.