Earlier this year, the SEC published a concept release to explore changing the eligibility criteria for Foreign Private Issuers. This Mayer Brown memo summarizes themes from comments submitted to-date:

• A very large number of letters argued that the SEC should narrowly tailor any changes to the specific problems it intends to solve, since broad based changes may have unintended and unwanted consequences. More specifically, some letters request narrowly tailored disclosure changes focusing only on issuers that have failed to provide robust disclosure necessary to ensure the protection of U.S. investors (i.e., making “targeted, incremental changes to existing disclosure requirements applicable to FPIs accessing the U.S. markets through registered offerings or as reporting issuers”).

• Other letters favored limited, specifically tailored changes to the FPI definition for other reasons, arguing that any changes should be made in a manner that considers the impact of the definition on other terms and rules under the federal securities laws, including Regulation S and Exchange Act Rule 12g3-2(b).

• Similarly, a number of commenters stated that the SEC should be wary of potential changes that are duplicative of or contrary to existing home requirements to which FPIs adhere, and understand that the additional burden and cost of navigating the two regimes could be significant, such that some issuers may choose to exit the U.S. markets.

• Many letters argued in favor of continued reporting in IFRS, either for FPIs or for all issuers. In the alternative, if foreign issuers that lose FPI status must report in U.S. GAAP, the SEC should provide guidance and a suitable transition period (several commenters suggested a minimum of two or three years). Concern about switching from IFRS to U.S. GAAP was the most commonly repeated idea across all letters.

• Some letters advocated requiring meaningful non-U.S. trading (e.g., ≤90% of global trading in the U.S.), potentially with de-minimis exclusions for bona fide dual-listings, and providing a safe harbor for issuers listed on a designated “major foreign exchange” or in jurisdictions assessed as robust. Interestingly, a number of other letters took the opposite approach, arguing that significant non-U.S. trading is not required or helpful in demonstrating meaningful regulation of a foreign issuer.

• A few letters asked the SEC to consider carve-outs or refined eligibility criteria that preserve
FPI status for companies with genuine foreign governance and infrastructure, regardless of shareholder geography or incorporation jurisdiction.

• A number of letters advocated for a requirement that a FPI be (i) incorporated or headquartered in a jurisdiction that the SEC has determined to have a robust regulatory and disclosure oversight framework and (ii) be subject to such securities regulations and oversight without modification or exemption. Other letters suggested that the SEC should avoid any approach requiring jurisdiction-specific judgments because developing the relevant assessment criteria would be a large undertaking and require constant monitoring, straining SEC resources, and would lead to unpredictability for non-U.S. companies that are reliant upon a given jurisdiction or exchange continuing to meet the SEC’s criteria to maintain their FPI status.

• At least one letter argued that meeting a required jurisdictional threshold alone is not sufficient, and the SEC should consider not just where a company is incorporated and headquartered but should also look holistically at where the company is from, including where its directors, officers and employees reside, where its assets are held, where it earns revenue, and the citizenship and residency of any controlling beneficial owners.

• A handful of other letters argued that, in the alternative to requiring that FPIs be subject to
certain named robust regulatory jurisdictions, the SEC should identify jurisdictions of incorporation that do not have securities regulations and oversight sufficient to protect U.S. investors. Companies from these jurisdictions could be subject to the same reporting obligations and rules as domestic issuers.

• A number of letters argued that the SEC should keep the current multijurisdictional disclosure system with Canada, or MJDS, unchanged, and explore mutual recognition pilots (e.g., EU, UK, Australia) where regulatory objectives demonstrably align.

The memo says there have been about 70 responses submitted so far – mostly from law firms, FPIs and industry groups. The SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee also discussed this topic at a meeting last week. In his remarks at the meeting, SEC Chair Paul Atkins noted:

Now, to be clear, the SEC welcomes foreign companies that seek to access the U.S. capital markets. I must emphasize that the concept release is not a signal that the SEC intends to disincentivize such firms from listing on U.S. exchanges. Rather, our goal is to better understand the impact on U.S. investors and the U.S. market resulting from significant changes to the population of foreign companies listed in the United States over the last two decades.

– Liz Dunshee