The SEC & SPACs
Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) are all the rage, and they are only increasing in popularity. In 2018, 46 SPACs completed IPOs; in 2019, there were 59; in 2020, there were 248; and in the just first six months of 2021, there were 329 IPOs completed by SPACs. This surge has brought on some scrutiny from the SEC regarding SPACs and SPAC transactions.
The Space SPAC Blunder
Earlier this year, Stable Road, a Special Purpose Acquisition Company, agreed to merge with Momentus Inc., a private, early-stage space exploration company. Momentus’s CEO alone stood to make $200 million from this SPAC transaction. However, just last week, the SEC charged the company, its space exploration acquisition target (Momentus), and both companies’ executives with making misleading comments. Apparently, Momentus’s CEO, Kokorich, claimed that the company had successfully tested its technology in space, when, in fact, its only in-space test had failed. Additionally, the parties misrepresented national security concerns about Kokorich that precluded the company from receiving government contracts.
The SEC’s Chairman Gary Gensler has stated that “this case illustrates risks inherent to SPAC transactions, as those who stand to earn significant profits from a SPAC merger may conduct inadequate due diligence and mislead investors.”
While this crackdown by the SEC may be the first of its kind, we doubt it will be there last. As of July 13, many banks, including big names like Citigroup, Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs, have received requests for information from the SEC regarding the SPAC transactions they’ve been involved in. This combined with The SEC’s public statements this year lead one to believe this may be the quiet before the storm hits.
April – Due Diligence Implications
In April of this Year, the SEC published a public statement that foreshadowed many of the conflicts that Stable Road and Momentus brought to light. The statement focused on the legal liability that comes with disclosures in a SPAC transaction. Over the last year or so, one of the benefits of SPAC transactions touted by many is the decreased securities law liability it brings with it. This information was erroneous, and it was one of the things that eventually brought the attention of the SEC (obviously, if enough people poke the bear, it will strike back).
While SPAC transactions have their benefits, including a streamlined process, streamlined processes do not mean less scrutiny – in fact, it now may mean greater scrutiny. While the SEC’s April statement did not provide any new information or developments regarding the rules and regulations that govern securities trading, it did clearly weave together the laws and regulations that one faces in a SPAC transaction. It also showed the position the SEC takes on SPACs.
The SEC’s parting advice in its public statement was this:
Companies,their executives, and their shareholders should understand the limits of any alleged liability difference between SPACs and conventional IPOs (it’s probably not as different as you think);
Those considering SPAC transactions should get greater clarity on the scope of the safe harbor provisions they think they can take advantage of through a SPAC;
Forward-looking information that is often promoted during SPAC transactions can be valuable, but it is also untested, speculative, and misleading (even fraudulent), so executives and investors should be careful; and
The SEC intends to focus its efforts and protections on the De-SPAC process, not the SPAC’s initial IPO.
May – Investor Protection
The SEC provided a bulletin in May of this year detailing the information and questions investors should be aware of before putting their money in a SPAC, followed by meetings in which the SEC stated that they are devoting the agency’s resources to creating investor protections in this area. While this bulletin was focused on providing the investors with guidance, there is still some advice companies can glean from it:
Be careful what you say. One thing made clear in both April’s statement and this one is that what you say to shareholders and investors matters. Whether it is in your prospectus, your reports, or in meetings, make sure you are not misleading – even unintentionally.
Take your responsibility seriously. The decisions you make in this transaction will have far-reaching effects, both to others now and yourself in the future. Understand what both of those effects will be before you make decisions.
Know that your investors may be suspicious. At many points in this bulletin, and in April’s statement, the SEC made pointed remarks that a SPACs sponsors (i.e. founders) may not have the investor’s best interests at heart. With the growing scrutiny from the SEC and its public statements, there is a good chance your investors will be as suspicious and scrutinous of you as the SEC.
What Does All This Scrutiny Mean for SPACs?
It may be easy to assume that all this ammo pointed at SPAC transactions means the death of the SPAC, but this is unlikely. Reverse mergers, the close cousin of the SPAC, were also under fire from the SEC and others in the industry not so long ago, and yet you will still see many reverse mergers today.
What all of this does mean is that those considering a SPAC transaction need to be careful who they consult with (make sure they know what they are doing), take their responsibilities seriously, and don’t use a SPAC as an easy answer but because it is truly the best structure for your company and the transaction.
SPAC transactions are still, and will continue to be, a great vehicle for the right company to go public. If you are considering a SPAC or another transaction and are unsure how best to proceed, reach out to our offices today.