Karl John Ege Senior Counsel

When enacted on April 5, 2012, Title II of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (JOBS Act) endeavored to lift the long-standing ban on general solicitation and advertising for private securities offerings under Rule 506 and Rule 144A, so long as the securities are sold only to accredited investors under Rule 506 or qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) under Rule 144A.

The SEC recently issued long-awaited proposed rules to remove existing general solicitation and advertising prohibitions for private offerings and sales of securities under Rule 506 and Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  These proposed rules implement Section 201(a) of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) enacted earlier this year.  The SEC's proposed amendments leave intact the existing ability of a company to conduct a Rule 506 offering (under Rule 506(b)) without engaging in general solicitation or advertising.

As forecast, on March 27 the U.S. House passed the Senate's amended version of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the JOBS Act), clearing the way for President Obama to sign the bill into law, which he is expected to do in the coming days.

The SEC recently announced that it will not seek a rehearing or Supreme Court review of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacating SEC Rule 14a-11 on proxy access, which would have required companies subject to the Exchange Act’s proxy rules to include in their proxy materials shareholder nominees for the board of directors in some circumstances.

On July 22, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its highly anticipated opinion in the challenge to SEC Rule 14a-11 brought by the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Rule 14a-11 would have required companies subject to the Exchange Act’s proxy rules to include in their proxy materials shareholder nominees for director who met specified conditions. In the strongly worded opinion, written by Judge Ginsburg, the court vacated Rule 14a-11, characterizing the SEC proxy access rule as “arbitrary and capricious” and stating that the SEC had failed “adequately to assess the economic effects” of Rule 14a-11. The court did not address the constitutional challenges raised by the plaintiffs under the First Amendment.