FEBRUARY

2005
 

 

SEC ADOPTS REGULATION SHO TO REGULATE
SHORT SALES

On January 3, 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted Regulation SHO which regulates short selling. Regulation SHO was enacted to deter abusive “naked” short selling, which occurs where a person sells a security without owning or even having access to the security necessary to make delivery. This is to be distinguished from legal short selling, where the seller may not own the securities sold but does have access to or ability to borrow the securities and therefore make delivery. Although short selling can provide market liquidity and pricing efficiency, naked short selling may cause a number of negative market impacts, particularly when a large unfulfilled delivery obligation exists at the clearing agency where the trades are settled. In order to reduce the negative consequences of naked short selling, Regulation SHO:

1.   imposes new locate requirements on broker-dealers before selling and imposes delivery or close-out requirements on broker-dealers for securities in which a substantial number of instances of failure-to-deliver have occurred;

2.   adopts new order-marking requirements;

3.   creates a pilot program and temporarily suspends the operation of the “tick” test for certain securities;

4.   defers consideration of the uniform bid test of proposed Rule 201;

5.   defines ownership of certain securities for the purposes of determining delivery and close-our requirements; and

6.   eliminates the shelf offering exception to prohibit the use of offering shares to cover short sales effected prior to the pricing of a shelf offering.

Locate and Close-Out Requirement: Rule 203 of Regulation SHO requires all broker-dealers to “locate” securities available for borrowing before executing a short sale in any equity security. The rule prohibits a broker-dealer from executing a short sale for its own account or for the account of another person, unless the broker-dealer or person, as applicable, borrowed the security or entered into an arrangement to borrow the security or has “reasonable grounds” to believe that it could borrow the security so that it can be delivered on the date that delivery is due. The locate requirement must be made and documented in writing prior to making the trade, regardless of whether the short position could be closed out by purchasing securities that same day.

The SEC has provided three exceptions to the locate requirement. First, when a broker-dealer exerts a short sale for another broker-dealer, only the first broker-dealer must fulfill the locate requirement. Second, the locate requirement is extended to 35 days in circumstances where the broker-dealer effects the sale of a security that is not expected to be available on the delivery date, such as a security tendered for conversion or a resale of a restricted security pursuant to Rule 144 of the Securities Act of 1933. Third, market makers are exempt from the locate requirement where the short sale is effected in connection with bona fide market making activities. The SEC has commented that the following activities do not constitute bona fide market making:

1.   activity that is related to speculative selling strategies of the broker-dealer and is disproportionate to the broker-dealer’s usual market making patterns or practices;

2.   activity whereby the market maker posts continually at or near the best offer but does not also post at or near the best bid; or

3.   transactions whereby the market maker enters into an arrangement with another broker-dealer or customer to use the market maker’s exception to avoid compliance with the locate requirement.

Rule 203(a) sets out the delivery requirements for “long” sales. If a broker-dealer knows or ought reasonably to know that a sale of an equity security is marked long, the broker-dealer must make delivery when due and cannot use borrowed securities to do so. The SEC has noted, however, that it may be unreasonable for a broker-dealer to treat the sale as “long” where the customer has repeatedly failed to deliver the security by the settlement date.

Rule 203 of Regulation SHO imposes requirements aimed at “threshold securities” where there is evidence of significant settlement failures. A threshold security means an equity security for which there is an aggregate fail-to-deliver position for five consecutive settlement days at a registered clearing agency of 10,000 shares or more per security, where the level of fails is equal to at least one half of one percent of the issuer’s total securities outstanding and the security is included on a list published by a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) such as the NASD. For example, one-half of one percent (0.005) of 1,000,000 shares outstanding is 5,000 shares. The list of threshold securities will be published daily by the SRO on which the security is listed or bears surveillance responsibility.

Rule 203(b)(3) requires a market maker or broker-dealer, to close out any fail-to-deliver position in a threshold security that has remained open for 10 consecutive days after the settlement date (13 days in total) by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity. If the participant does not close out the position, Rule 203(b)(3)(iii) states that the market maker is prohibited from effecting further short sales in the threshold security until it borrows, or arranges to borrow, the security to close out the fail-to-deliver position.

Order Marking: Regulation SHO adopts marking requirements for all sell orders, requiring all equity securities to be marked as either “long”, “short” or “exempt short”. Exempt short refers to short sales permitted under an exemption.

Ownership: In order to determine when a security is owned for the purposes of the delivery and close-out rules of Regulation SHO, the SEC has defined ownership of unconditional sales contracts, securities underlying futures products and aggregation units.

Additionally, Rule 200 incorporates the short sale definition in Rule 3b-3 and includes the standard for determining whether the seller has a “net long position”, hence ownership, in a security. The seller of an equity security must aggregate all of its positions in the security across all accounts. The SEC, however, incorporated its no-action position into Rule 200(f) which allows registered broker-dealers to calculate their “net-long” or “net-short” positions within defined “aggregation” units instead of on a firm-wide basis, subject to certain requirements. The aggregation unit exception is not extended to non-broker dealers as such entities are not subject to regulatory oversight.

If you have any questions about Regulation SHO, contact any member of Clark Wilson LLP’s Corporate Finance/ Securities Law Group.

 

ISSUERS CAN'T OBSTRUCT CLEARING AGENCY TO PREVENT NAKED SHORTS

 

On December 7, 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted a new rule under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) that stops reporting issuers from trying to prevent depositories or “clearing agencies” from holding their securities. Specifically, the rule prohibits registered transfer agents from effecting any transfer of any equity security registered under Section 12 or any equity security of a reporting issuer under the Exchange Act if such security is subject to any restriction to or from a securities intermediary. Under this new rule, the term “securities intermediary” is defined as a clearing agency registered under Section 17A of the Exchange Act or a person, including a bank, broker, or dealer, that in the ordinary course of its business maintains securities accounts for others. The primary purpose of this new rule is to promote the integrity and efficiency of the securities clearance and settlement system in the United States.

Section 17A of the Exchange Act mandated the establishment of a national system for clearance and settlement of securities transactions. The SEC was given authority under Section 17A to promulgate rules to regulate clearing agencies, transfer agents, as well as other participants in the national system for clearance and settlement of securities transactions. Recognizing that the use of securities certificates to transfer registered ownership decreases efficiency and safety in the capital market, the SEC has established the current system to minimize the physical movement of securities certificates in connection with the settlement among brokers and dealers.

To facilitate the clearance and settlement of securities transactions, securities held by a securities intermediary on behalf of its customers or another securities intermediary are commonly registered in the name of the securities intermediary or in its nominee name, which makes the securities intermediary the registered owner. This is often referred to as holding a security in “street name.” Holding securities in street name at a securities depository facilitates the transfer of negotiable certificates and obviates manually processed paperwork and physical delivery of certificates. Registered clearing agencies acting as securities depositories help to centralize and automate the settlement of securities, in part by reducing the physical movement of securities traded using book-entry movements. On occasion, other types of securities intermediaries, such as broker-dealers or banks, may perform similar functions by holding a certificate registered in its name but held on behalf of its customers.

The use of securities depositories in order to minimize the physical movement in connection with the settlement for securities traded in the public market is essential to the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. Restrictions on ownership of publicly traded securities by securities intermediaries would result in many inefficiencies and risks. Restrictions on intermediary ownership also deny investors the ability to use a securities intermediary to hold their securities and to efficiently and safely clear and settle their securities transactions by book-entry movements.

The SEC notes that a small but growing number of issuers have restricted or indicated their intention to restrict ownership of their securities by prohibiting their transfer agents from acknowledging ownership of shares registered in securities intermediaries, such as the Depository Trust Company (the “DTC”), the largest securities depository in the world. Most of these issuers also require that their securities be represented in certificate form. Such restrictions, sometimes referred to as “custody-only trading”, require transactions in these securities to be manually cleared, settled, and transferred on a transaction-by-transaction basis. Issuers imposing these restrictions frequently state that they are imposing ownership or transfer restrictions on their securities to protect their shareholders and their share price from ‘‘naked’’ short selling. These issuers believe that requiring all securities to be in certificated form and precluding ownership by certain securities intermediaries forces broker-dealers to deliver certificates on each transaction and eliminates the ability of naked short sellers to maintain a naked short sale position.

A number of these issuers indicated that they had adopted or would adopt restrictions pursuant to state corporation laws, to prohibit ownership of their securities by a depository, securities intermediaries, or both. Issuers’ actions to implement the restrictions caused numerous clearance and settlement problems. Some of these issuers refused to recognize positions that had been registered in the name of DTC’s nominee or in the name of broker-dealers before the adoption of the restriction and refused to transfer (or allow their transfer agent to transfer) stock to the name of any entity or person that the issuer believed was not the ultimate beneficial owner. Where issuers refused to recognize ownership positions registered in the name of securities intermediaries, the broker-dealers and banks were forced individually to negotiate a solution directly with the issuer.

If securities intermediaries are precluded from having securities registered in their names, the securities intermediaries’ ability to hold and move securities is severely limited. As a result, trading and clearance and settlement efficiency suffers, and costs and risks increase. While it is understood that restrictions on transfer to intermediaries reflect issuer attempts to address what they believe to be illegal naked short selling, the SEC does not believe that naked short selling concerns should be addressed by restrictions on transferability of securities that trade in the public markets. Accordingly, the SEC adopted the new Rule 17Ad-20 to prohibit transfer agents from transferring any equity security registered under Section 12 or any equity security that subjects an issuer to reporting under Section 15(d) of the Act if such security is subject to any restriction or prohibition on transfer to or from a securities intermediary. To provide sufficient notice and opportunity for issuers to remove restrictions from securities if they so choose, the SEC has provided for a compliance date of March 7, 2005.

 

CLARK WILSON LLP'S CORPORATE FINANCE/
SECURITIES LAW GROUP

Clark Wilson LLP’s Corporate Finance/ Securities Law Group assists companies listed on Canadian and U.S. stock exchanges and over-the-counter trading markets, including NASDAQ, Amex, TSX and the OTC Bulletin Board. Our attorneys are qualified to practice in various Canadian and United States jurisdictions. We are experienced in Canadian, United States and cross-border transactions; U.S. and Canadian regulatory filing and SEC registrations; reverse takeovers; and mergers and acquisitions. For more information, contact Bernard Pinsky or any member of our Corporate Finance/ Securities Law Group.

 

ADD/REMOVE FROM MAILING LIST

If you would like to be added or removed from this mailing service, please send requests to webmaster@cwilson.com, including Securities Law Bulletin in your subject line.





Bernard Pinsky
Tel. 604.643.3153
E. bip@cwilson.com

Admitted to practice law in:

British Columbia
California



Herb Ono
Tel. 604.643.3140
E. hio@cwilson.com

Admitted to practice law in:

British Columbia
Ontario
California



Virgil Hlus
Tel. 604.891.7707
E. vzh@cwilson.com

Admitted to practice law in:

British Columbia
California



Bill Macdonald
Tel. 604.643.3118
E. wlm@cwilson.com

Admitted to practice law in:

British Columbia
New York



Ethan Minsky
Tel. 604.643.3151
E. epm@cwilson.com

Admitted to practice law in:

British Columbia
Florida
Virginia
District of Columbia



Grant Wong
Tel. 604.643.3178
E. gyw@cwilson.com

Admitted to practice law in:

British Columbia
New York



Larry Yen
Tel. 604.891.7717
E. lky@cwilson.com

Admitted to practice law in:

British Columbia
Washington State



Cam McTavish
Tel. 604.891.7731
E. czm@cwilson.com

Admitted to practice law in:

British Columbia



Alon Segev
Tel. 604.891.7749
E. asz@cwilson.com

Admitted to practice law in:

British Columbia

 

Barristers & Solicitors
Patent & Trade-Mark Agents

800 - 885 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC  Canada  V6C 3H1
Tel. 604.687.5700
Fax. 604.687.6314

Questions or Comments?

For more information on any article contained in this issue of Clark Wilson LLP’s Securities Law Bulletin or on any Corporate Finance or Securities matter, please contact any member of our Corporate Finance / Securities Group.

Articles may be reproduced with a credit stating "Reproduced from Clark Wilson LLP's Securities Law Bulletin". Please forward a copy of any reproduced article to "Marketing" at Clark Wilson LLP.



Corporate Finance / Securities  Practice Group Members
Lawyer Direct Telephone
& Email Info
Bernard Pinsky T. 604.643.3153
bip@cwilson.com
Herb Ono T. 604.643.3140
hio@cwilson.com
Virgil Hlus T. 604.891.7707
vzh@cwilson.com
Bill Macdonald T. 604.643.3118
wlm@cwilson.com
Ethan Minsky T. 604.643.3151
epm@cwilson.com
Grant Wong T. 604.643.3178
gyw@cwilson.com
Larry Yen T. 604.891.7715
lky@cwilson.com
Cam McTavish T. 604.891.7731
czm@cwilson.com
Alon Segev T. 604.891.7749
azs@cwilson.com
   
Clark Wilson LLP's Securities Law Bulletin is published periodically by the Corporate Finance / Securities Practice Group at
Clark Wilson LLP. The information contained in this newsletter should not be treated by readers as legal advice and ought not to be
relied on without detailded legal counsel being sought. Editor: Bernard Pinsky © 2005, Clark Wilson LLP. All Rights Reserved.