The Lebrecht Group Home
 
 
 
News
Title: TLG Congratulates YaFarm Technologies, Inc.
Congratulations to YaFarm Technologies, Inc. On Its Initial Public Listing
Title: TLG Congratulates Real Paper Displays, Inc.
Congratulations To Real Paper Displays, Inc. On Its Initial Public Listing
Title: TLG Selects Charitable Recipient
TLG Announces Recipient Of Charitable Contribution For Third Quarter 2007
Title: TLG Attorney Elected To Office
TLG Attorney Elected To Office In The Securities Law Section Of The Utah State Bar
Title: Third Time TLG Lawyer Named One Of America's Best
TLG Attorney Named One Of America's Best - Third Year In A Row
Title: TLG Lawyer Again One of America's Best
Brian A. Lebrecht Named One of America's Best Lawyers
Title: 2nd Time Orange Coast Magazine Features TLG Lawyer
2nd Time Orange Coast Magazine Featured OC's Best Lawyers
Title: Orange Coast Magazine Features TLG Lawyer
Orange Coast Magazine Featured OC's Best Lawyers
Title: TLG Relocates Offices
TLG Relocates Offices in Orange County and Salt Lake City


Message from the President
 
New Rule 144 and Non-Reporting Shells
The SEC's new Rule 144 has one particular effect that we want to try and explain.  The shareholders of a non-reporting issuer that was a shell in the past cannot avail themselves of Rule 144 unless the issuer becomes reporting (and other requirements).  It does not matter when the shareholders purchased there stock, or whether the issuer was a shell at the time the shareholders purchased their stock.  The SEC's position is that this has been the rule ever since the Worm/Wulff letter was published in 2000.  The SEC believes that by allowing shareholders in a company that was once a shell to sell after it has been reporting for a year, they have expanded the options available to those shareholders.  We have spoken to over a dozen attorney's on this very subject in the last two days, and not one of them read the Worm/Wulff letter that way.  Nonetheless, the liquidity options for shareholders in a non-reporting company, and the prospects of those companies being able to raise capital, seem to have disappeared.  More to come......
Posted by Brian A. Lebrecht, Esq. on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 14:18
"Public" Edgar v. "Private" Edgar
We learned recently from the SEC that there is a different Edgar system that is avaialable to the public than the system that is availalbe internally to SEC employees.  We learned this because we were conducting due diligence on a company that did not appear on the "public" edgar system, and so we assumed it had never filed a registration statement and was not a reporting company.  As it turns out, the company had filed a Form 10 back in 1999.  An SEC employee was able to look up the filing using the company's name and the file number, but we were not.  This presents a due diligence dilemna.  Has anybody else had this situation?
Posted by Brian A. Lebrecht, Esq. on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 17:26
California Tax Clearance Certificates
On September 29, 2006, AB 2341 was signed into law by the California Governor, eliminating the need for Tax Clearance Certificates in the dissolution of California corporations. In the past, these certificates have been a huge hassle that delayed the dissolution process, sometimes for years. In many cases, people elected to just let their corporations be administratively dissolved rather than voluntarily dissolve them because of this hassle.
Posted by Brian A. Lebrecht, Esq. on Friday, November 10, 2006 at 16:34
Rule 415 PIPE Financings

It has become common knowledge among those of us involved in PIPE financings that the SEC has recently changed its views with respect to these financings and Rule 415.  The issue is a fairly technical one, and centers around whether or not equityline or convertible debenture financings where the investor doesn't put up the money until after the registration statement is effective are primary or secondary offerings. 

Historically, these have been considered secondary offerings, and the registration statement covered the resale of the common stock by the investor into the public market.  Secondary offerings can be done pursuant to Rule 415.  However, recently, the SEC has indicated that they may consider these to be primary offerings in some cases.  The problem from a practioner's point of view is that there is no clear and definite guidance from the SEC.  The last we heard, and I am told by a fellow practioner that this was put in writing in the form of SEC comments to a registration statmeent, that if the number of shares being registered represents less than 20% of the issued and outstanding common stock of the issuer, then the SEC will consider it to be a secondary offering.  We know that registering a number of shares greater than the outstanding is going to be considered a primary offering.  Where is the line between 20% and 100%?  Stay tuned........

Update:  As of January 2007, we understand the threshhold to be 1/3 of the pre-transaction FLOAT, and we further are aware of no Rule 415 limitiation in a traditional resale of common stock purchased by investors in a private placement.

Posted by Brian A. Lebrecht, Esq. on Friday, September 15, 2006 at 17:19