It’s a pattern we often see in boom-and-bust cycles—disputes rising in the period after a wave crests. SPAC deal volume hit an unprecedented high in 2021, but then slowed down in 2022 alongside IPOs. However, the fallout from the SPAC wave will continue to unfold this year, generating increased regulatory attention and a growing number of disputes.
Everything, everywhere, all at once, as a descriptor, captures the litigation and regulatory risks for the asset management industry in 2023. Every corner of the market faces greater risks than at any time since 2008. After years of breakneck growth fueled by low interest rates and a largely laissez faire regulatory regime, significant change is here.
Yesterday the SEC’s Division of Enforcement announced its Enforcement Results for Fiscal Year 2022, and there are a few key takeaways for fund managers.
We previously noted that SEC Chair Gary Gensler suggested the SEC would adopt new rules governing SPACs because, in his view, SPACs are very similar to initial public offerings but lack protections available to traditional IPO investors. And now, the SEC has taken concrete steps to treat “like cases alike”
Last year, we wrote, “The regulatory and litigation risks for private funds are greater than at any time since the financial crisis in 2008.” That statement is even more true today. The Wall Street Journal recently published separate front-page stories on an SEC initiative to oversee large private companies and the explosive growth of the private credit industry (suggesting a more active phase of regulatory oversight). Growth itself is not necessarily a risk, but disputes – and regulators – tend to follow capital.
Private funds are now an integral part of the global economy and, as a consequence, are affected by it. Currently, there are massive structural changes occurring simultaneously across industries and the economy as a whole. For example: cryptocurrencies could threaten legacy payment systems and currencies; the electrification of the auto industry may lead to obsolescence of the internal combustion engine; and climate change will increase the ESG groundswell. These changes are not merely disruptive; they are transformative.
Special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) have been one of the success stories of recent years. They have attracted huge volumes of investment as professional and retail parties invest through an initial public offering (IPO) in a ‘cash shell’ company with a mandate to find a suitable unlisted acquisition target. The
As a part of an ongoing litigation series in Bloomberg Law, Proskauer shifts focus to the rise of SPACs and associated risks. In this article, Mike Hackett, Timothy Mungovan, Todd Ohlms, Jonathan Weiss and David Heck discuss the issues and risks that are common to the SPAC process, as
As one of the first of an expected series of potential enforcement actions, the SEC has brought an enforcement action against a SPAC and its major participants, highlighting enhanced regulatory scrutiny of SPACs and underscoring the importance of following appropriate diligence and other practices in the de-SPAC process. Given the
Proskauer’s Asset Management Litigation partner Dorothy Murray recently authored an article on litigation risks of SPACs.
Dorothy details why the recent popularity of this latest incarnation of so-called “blank cheque” companies will inevitably lead to disputes, and the reasons are all connected to the very features that make SPACs so
The past year saw a burst in popularity of SPACs. More than half of companies that went public in 2020 did so using a SPAC on their way to raising over $80 billion in proceeds, and so far in 2021 SPAC offerings far outpace traditional IPOs. SPACs allow companies to go public with greater speed and with fewer hurdles than a traditional IPO. These innovations combined with unprecedented deal volume may signal an increased risk for disputes, especially where the SPAC process and structure can present unique pitfalls.
For example, SPACs must issue registration statements and proxies in advance of acquiring a target company, which require compliance with Sections 11 and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. But unlike in traditional IPOs, SPAC target companies may disclose projections of future performance before shareholders vote on whether to move forward with a merger, and failure to meet those projections could lead to litigation by shareholders or the SEC. The SEC has issued guidance on the types of disclosures that SPACs specifically should keep in mind, including disclosures pertaining to sponsors’, officers’ and directors’ financial incentives, prior SPAC experience, and conflicts of interest with other entities to which they owe fiduciary duties. SPACs also often raise money through PIPE (private offering in public equity) transactions, which allow for private investment on special terms, but those require separate disclosures and result in an additional set of shareholders who could later bring claims. By their nature, SPACs also present a number of other regulatory risks, including risks relating to MNPI, valuation, and conflicts of interest.