
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: April 26, 2022

Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.com
The SEC is willing to put what it perceives to be a needed damper on the recent explosion of SPAC offerings that reversed what had been a long-term trend away from IPO’s and new company listings on the American exchanges. The newly proposed rules for SPAC IPO’s, de-SPAC disclosure practices and broadened liabilities, if enacted as proposed, will likely lead to meaningful changes in how these offerings and transactions are structured, disclosed and, when a failure occurs, in who gets sued. Investment bankers see this as an effort to increase their duties and potential liabilities. The success in capital raising through SPAC offerings creating a ready pool of cash for worthy companies that might otherwise have sought an IPO is now the focus for greater regulation, given the examples of excess and the perceived need to protect retail investors.
On March 30, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed new rules for initial public offerings by special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), as well as business combinations involving SPACs and private operating companies. The new rules, which are intended to enhance investor protection, establish new disclosure requirements for SPACs; align the legal requirements for business combination transactions involving shell companies with those of traditional IPOs; amend the SEC’s guidance regarding the use of projections in SEC filings; and create a new safe harbor for SPACs under the Investment Company Act.
The SEC rule proposal reflects the rapid growth of the SPAC market, as well as the SEC’s concerns that investor protection is lacking. “Ultimately, I think it’s important to consider the economic drivers of SPACs. Functionally, the SPAC target IPO is being used as an alternative means to conduct an IPO,” SEC Chair Gary Gensler said in a press statement. “Thus, investors deserve the protections they receive from traditional IPOs, with respect to information asymmetries, fraud, and conflicts, and when it comes to disclosure, marketing practices, gatekeepers, and issuers.”
The changes that the SEC is proposing are significant and would greatly increase the compliance burdens associated with SPAC IPOs, as well as mergers between publicly-traded SPACs and private operating companies (known as “de-SPAC transactions”). Below are some of the most notable proposed changes:
New Disclosure Requirements for SPAC IPOs and De-SPAC Transactions
The SEC is proposing to add new Subpart 1600 to Regulation S-K to set forth specialized disclosure requirements applicable to SPACs regarding the sponsor, potential conflicts of interest, and dilution, and to require certain disclosures on the prospectus cover page and in the prospectus summary. Proposed Subpart 1600 would also require enhanced disclosure for de-SPAC transactions, including a fairness determination requirement.
The SEC is also proposing:
Alignment of De-SPAC Transactions With IPOs
Citing that it is likely that a significant proportion of companies in the coming years that enter the U.S. public securities markets will do so through de-SPAC transactions, the SEC is looking to align de-SPAC transactions with IPOs. The proposed rules applicable to business combination transactions involving shell companies, including SPACs, would:
Use of Projections in SEC Filings
According to the SEC, the surge in SPAC IPOs has renewed concerns about the use of projections, particularly with respect to business combination transactions in which projections about private operating companies may lack a reasonable basis. The proposed amendments to Item 10(b) of Regulation S-K would expand and update the SEC’s guidance on the presentation of projections of future economic performance in SEC filings to allow investors to better assess the reliability of the projections and whether they have a reasonable basis. The SEC is proposing additional disclosure requirements to allow investors to better assess the basis of projections when they are used in SPAC business combination transactions.
New Safe Harbor for SPACs Under the Investment Company Act of 1940
The SEC is proposing a new safe harbor under the Investment Company Act of 1940 that would provide that a SPAC that satisfies the conditions of the proposed rule would not be an investment company and therefore would not be subject to regulation under the Act. The proposed conditions include, among other things, that a SPAC must:
While a SPAC would not be required to rely on the proposed rule, the proposed conditions are intended to align with the structures and practices that the SEC preliminarily believes would distinguish a SPAC that is likely to raise serious questions as to its status as an investment company from one that does not.
The public comment period will remain open for 60 days following publication of the proposing release on the SEC’s website (May 31, 2022) or 30 days following publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register, whichever period is longer. Given the extent of the changes proposed by the SEC, as well as its impact on the SPAC market, the agency is likely to be flooded with comments. The SEC will take the comments it receives into account when drafting its final rules, which may take time. We encourage impacted entities to check back for updates. It is hoped that, as a result of input received during the public comment period, the resultant rule changes will allow for a continued increase in this bedrock of the capitalist economy: investment in new and growing businesses.
If you have questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, 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.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
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!