
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: January 14, 2021

Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.com
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently proposed amendments to Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933 and its related Form 144 filing requirements. The proposal seeks to revise the holding period determination for securities acquired upon the conversion or exchange of certain “market-adjustable securities” to reduce the risk of unregistered distributions in connection with sales of those securities.
“Today’s proposed amendments modernize, clarify and strengthen Rule 144, including to ensure that holders of market-adjustable securities are assuming the economic risks of their investment rather than acting as a conduit for an unregistered sale of securities to the public on behalf of an issuer,” SEC Chairman Jay Clayton said in a press statement. “In addition, the proposed shift to electronic filing of Form 144 provides a necessary update to reflect today’s markets, particularly given the benefits – and the feasibility – of electronic filing our experience over the past nine months has demonstrated.”
The SEC’s Proposed Rule would amend Rule 144(d)(3)(ii) to eliminate “tacking” for securities acquired upon the conversion or exchange of the market-adjustable securities of an issuer that does not have a class of securities listed, or approved to be listed, on a national securities exchange. As the SEC explains in its Rule Proposal, the application of the “tacking” provisions of Rule 144 to market-adjustable securities “undermines one of the key premises of Rule 144, which is that holding securities at risk for an appropriate period of time prior to resale can demonstrate that the seller did not purchase the securities with a view to distribution and, therefore, is not an underwriter for the purpose of Securities Act Section 4(a)(1).” The Rule Proposal maintains that amending the Rule 144 holding period for the securities received on conversion or exchange of market-adjustable securities so that it will not commence until the time the underlying securities are acquired would “help maintain the effectiveness of this key aspect of the Rule 144 safe harbor.”
Under the proposed amendment, the holding period for the underlying securities, either six months for securities issued by a reporting company or one year for securities issued by a non-reporting company, would not begin until the conversion or exchange of the market-adjustable securities. The change would apply only to market-adjustable securities transactions in which:
The proposed amendments to the filing requirements for Forms 4, 5, and 144 aim to update and streamline those requirements. Accordingly, the SEC is proposing to:
According to the SEC, it plans to make an online fillable Form 144 available to simplify electronic filing and to streamline the electronic filing of Forms 4 and 144 reporting the same sale of an issuer’s securities. Under the proposal, there would be a six-month transition period to give Form 144 paper filers who would be first-time electronic filers sufficient time to apply for codes to make filings on EDGAR.
In its Rule 144 Rule Proposal, the SEC appears to be making a belated (by a decade or more) effort to curtail notorious hedge fund dumping of small market public company convertible securities. Smaller public companies in need of raising capital have too often found themselves in the grasp of stock manipulators dumping their shares willy-nilly after obtaining the shares at a discount from the trading price, leading to depressed stock prices — known as death-spiral financings. By imposing a new six-month holding period from conversion for market-adjusted conversions of those securities, the SEC is seeking to deter death spiral financings, which have previously resulted in many small companies’ stocks trading at far below even a penny per share.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss these issues further,
please contact Dan Brecher or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

High-profile founder litigation is more than just a media spectacle. For startup founders, these cases underscore the legal and structural risks that can arise when rapid growth outpaces formal oversight. While launching a new company can be both an exciting and deeply rewarding endeavor, founders must be mindful that it also comes with significant risks. […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Every New Jersey company should periodically evaluate its governance framework. Strong corporate governance protects directors and officers, builds investor confidence, reduces litigation exposure, and positions a company for sustainable growth. The first quarter of the year is a great time to evaluate your corporate governance practices and perform any routine maintenance needed to keep that […]
Author: Ken Hollenbeck

Being served with a lawsuit is one of the most stressful legal events a business or individual can face. Whether the claim involves a contract dispute, an employment matter, an intellectual property issue, or another legal challenge, the actions you take in the first few days can significantly shape the outcome of your case. Acting […]
Author: Robert E. Levy

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) continue to gain momentum as we move through 2026. After enduring a significant contraction following the 2021 boom and the regulatory scrutiny that followed, SPAC activity rebounded sharply in 2025 and now carries forward into 2026 with real momentum. The SPAC resurgence reflects broader improvements in both market conditions and the […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Compliance programs are no longer judged by how they look on paper, but by how they function in the real world. Compliance monitoring is the ongoing process of reviewing, testing, and evaluating whether policies, procedures, and controls are being followed—and whether they are actually working. What Is Compliance Monitoring? In today’s heightened regulatory environment, compliance […]
Author: Dan Brecher

New Jersey personal guaranty liability is a critical issue for business owners who regularly sign contracts on behalf of their companies. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision provides valuable guidance on when a business owner can be held personally responsible for a company’s debt. Under the Court’s decision in Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. […]
Author: Charles H. Friedrich
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!