Popular Topics
All Topics
- "Gun Jumping"
- "Test-the-Waters" communications
- 2016 SEC Agenda
- ABL
- Accelerated Filer
- Accelerated filers
- Access to Capital and Market Liquidity Report
- Accounting
- Accredited investor
- Advance Notice Bylaws
- Airbnb
- Alternative Trading Systems
- Annual meeting
- Annual reports
- ASC Topic 740
- Asset Management
- asset-based loan
- ATS
- Auction IPOs
- Audit committee
- Auditor attestation
- Authentication document
- BlackRock
- Blank-check companies
- Blockchain
- blue sky
- Board committees
- Board Diversity
- Board independence
- Board of Directors
- Boilerplate
- Boilerplate in securities documents
- borrower
- Broker-dealer
- Broker-dealer registration
- Broker-dealers
- Calculation of Registration Fee
- California
- California Assembly Bill 979
- Capital formation
- capital markets
- Capital raising
- CEO letters
- Certified B corporation
- Chair Mary Jo White
- Chairman’s letters
- Chairperson’s letters
- Climate Change
- coal companies
- coal company IPOs
- coal miners
- coal mining
- collateral
- Columbia Law School
- Commencement of an offering
- Compensation sharing
- Compensatory offerings
- Compensatory sales
- Compensatory securities
- Compensatory securities offerings and sales
- Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation 110.02
- conditions precedent
- conference
- Confidential filings
- Confidential information
- Confidential treatment
- Confidentiality agreements
- coronavirus
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Corporate social responsibility
- Corporate social responsibility: CSR
- Corporate Stock-Givaway Program
- covenants
- COVID-19
- credit agreement
- Crowdfunding
- CSR
- Cyber breach
- cyber incident
- Cyber risk
- Cyber-attack
- cybersecurity
- DAO
- December 31 Fiscal year end
- Decimalization
- Definition of a Security
- Delaware corporate law
- Delaware Law
- Delaying amendment
- Description of Business
- Designer stock
- Digital Advertising
- Digital securities
- Direct listings
- Direct marketing programs
- Direct response marketing
- Director Nominees
- Director Questionnaire
- Directors
- Disclosure
- Disclosure and Reporting
- Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative
- Disclosure Obligations
- Disclosure Regime
- Disclosure regulation
- Disclosure Requirements
- Disclosure Rules
- Disclosure simplification
- Disclosure updates and simplification release
- Diversity
- Dodd Frank
- Dodd-Frank Act
- Domino's Piece of the Pie Rewards
- Domino's Pizza
- Donald Trump
- Dual Class Shares
- Dual-class Capitalization
- Dual-Class Common Stock
- Dual-class shareholder voting
- Due diligence
- earnings guidance
- Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
- EDGAR Filing Manual
- EGC
- Electronic signatures
- Emerging growth companies
- Emerging Growth Company
- engagement letter
- environment, social and governance
- Equity Market Structure
- ESG
- event of default
- events of default
- Exchange Act
- Exchange Act Rule 12b-2
- Exchange listing
- Exchanges
- executive compensation
- Exempt offerings
- Exempt securities offerings
- Exhibits to Registration Statement
- FAST Act
- FDA
- Female
- Fictitious regulators
- Filing review comments
- financial forecasts
- Financial intermediaries
- Financial sophistication
- Financial statements
- Financing Alternatives
- Finders
- Finders exception
- Finders exemption
- FINRA
- First-day pop
- Five-factor test
- Form 10-K
- Form 10-Q
- Form D
- Form S-1
- Form S-3
- Form S-4
- Founder’s letters
- Fraudulent activities
- Free Stock
- Free Stock Offerings
- FTC
- General Motors Co.
- General solicitation
- Glass Lewis
- Golden Leashes
- Greenlight Capital, Inc.
- Hart-Scott-Rodino
- HSR Act
- Impersonators of genuine firms
- Incorporation by reference
- Indications of Interest
- Influencer Marketing
- Information asymmetry
- Initial coin offering
- Initial listing requirements
- Initial public offerings
- Insider Trading
- Integration
- interest
- Interest rate system
- Interest rates
- Intrastate offerings
- Investment banking
- Investment Company Act
- Investor Advisory Committee
- Investor Alert
- IPO
- IPO disclosure
- IPO drawbacks
- IPO pricing
- IPOs
- ISS
- Item 101
- Item 103
- Item 103 of Regulation S-K
- Item 105
- Item 401 of Regulation S-K
- Item 501(b)(7)
- Item 601(b)(24) of Regulation S-K
- James Mackintosh
- JOBS Act
- Ken Langone
- Large Accelerated Filer
- Larry Fink’s 2019 letter to CEOs
- Legal proceedings
- lender
- LGBTQ+
- LIBOR
- line of credit
- loan agreement
- Loan Agreements
- Loan transactions
- Loans
- Loyalty Programs
- Lyft, Inc.
- MAE
- Management
- management disclosure and analysis
- Management; Executive officers and directors
- Mark Cuban
- Material contract exhibits
- Material nonpublic information
- MD&A
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Modernization
- Multi-Class Shares
- NASDAQ
- Nasdaq Independence Rules
- Nasdaq Listing Rules
- Nomination Letter
- Non-accelerated Filer
- Non-GAAP Financial Measures
- NSMIA
- NYSE
- Offering fees
- Offering statement on Form 1-A
- Offering statement on Form C
- Ordinary Course Covenant
- OTC
- OTC Market Group
- OTC Pink
- OTC quoted companies
- OTCQB
- Paid-for Research
- pandemic
- Pay Ratio Disclosure
- Pay Ratio Rule
- perfection certificate
- Periodic reports
- Perpetual dual-class stock
- Power of Attorney
- Prescriptive-based disclosure
- Primary issuances
- Principal Executive Offices
- Principles-based disclosure
- Private Equity
- Private fund knowledgeable employees
- Private placements
- Prof. John C. Coffee, Jr.
- Proposed Rule 5605(f)
- Prospectuses
- proxy advisory firms
- Proxy Contests
- Proxy fights
- Proxy materials
- Proxy statement
- Proxy voting
- Public benefit corporation
- Public Companies
- Public company acquisitions
- Public Float
- Public M&A
- Public offerings
- Purpose & Profit
- Purpose of the corporation
- Qualified institutional buyer
- Reference interest rates
- Reg S-K
- Registered offerings
- Registration Filing Fee
- Registration statement
- Registration statements
- Regulation A activity
- Regulation A+
- Regulation Crowdfunding
- Regulation D
- Regulation FD
- Regulation of finders
- Regulation S
- Regulation S-K
- Regulation S-K Item 10(f)(1)
- Regulation S-T
- Regulations S-K
- Regulatory Entrepreneurship
- Release No. 34-90112
- Reporting Category
- representations
- resource extraction antigraft rule
- restricted stock
- Reverse mergers
- revolver
- Rights offerings
- Risk Factors
- Rule 10b-5
- Rule 10b5-1 plan
- Rule 144A
- Rule 14a-4
- Rule 163B under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 21F-17
- Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- Rule 253(f)
- Rule 302(b)
- Rule 4(a)(2) offering
- Rule 406 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 473 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 483 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 506(b)
- Rule 506(c)
- Rule 701
- S&P Dow Jones
- Safe Harbor
- SAFEs
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act §404(b)
- Say-on-Pay Frequency Vote
- SEC
- SEC approval of offerings
- SEC Comments
- SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson Jr.
- SEC disclosure
- SEC disgorgement
- SEC Division of Economics and Risk Analysis
- SEC Filing Deadlines
- SEC Filing Reviews
- SEC Form 10
- SEC Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
- SEC Release No. 33-10591
- SEC Report of Investigation
- SEC Rule 152
- SEC shutdown
- Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
- Section 21F
- Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
- securities
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Securities Act
- Securities Act of 1933
- Securities Act Rule 257
- Securities Act Rule 405
- Securities Act Section 17(b)
- Securities Exchange Act
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- Securities litigation
- Securities offerings
- securities transactions
- Severance Agreements
- Sexual harassment
- Sexual misconduct
- Shareholder Activism
- shareholder activists
- Shareholder nominations
- Shareholder rights
- Shareholder voting
- Shareholder Voting Rights
- Signatures in Registration Statement
- Simple Agreement for Future Equity
- Small business
- Small-cap
- Small-cap Companies
- Small-cap Issuers
- Smaller reporting companies
- Smaller reporting company
- Snap IPO
- Social Capital Hedosophia
- Social Media
- Social Media Marketing
- SOFR
- SPAC
- SPAC's
- Special Purpose Acquisition Company
- Special situations
- Spin-offs
- Sponsorship
- Spotify
- SRC
- Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 118
- Staleness date
- Startups
- State securities laws
- stock options
- Stock Ownership Guidelines
- Stock Promotion Schemes
- Strategic spin-offs
- Sunset provisions
- Supreme Court
- Sustainability
- Switch, Inc.
- T+2
- Targeted stocks
- Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Tech IPOs
- Tech M&A
- Tech unicorns
- term loan
- term sheet
- Termination or Completion of an offering
- The CLS Blue Sky Blog
- The Wall Street Journal
- Third Party Payments
- Tick Pilot
- Tick Size
- Tick Size Pilot Program
- Tick Sizes
- Token sales
- Tracking stocks
- Trade Settlement
- Trading
- trading platforms
- Transaction-based compensation
- U.S. dollar LIBOR
- U.S. federal income tax reform
- Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Underrepresented Minority
- Underwriting allocations
- Underwriting fees
- Undisclosed Fees
- Unequal Voting Rights
- Universal proxy ballots
- Unregistered finders
- Unregistered offerings
- Unregistered Soliciting Entities
- Uplisting
- US Supreme Court
- Use of boilerplate
- venture capital
- venture capital investors
- venture capital terms
- Venture exchanges
- Verification of accredited status
- Virtual currency
- voting control
- voting power
- warranties
- Whistleblower Program
- Whistleblowers
- “Tandy” Representations
- “Testing the Waters”
Recent Posts
- Leadership Change at the SEC: What Activists Could Expect from Gary Gensler and the Biden Administration
- Delaware Chancery Court Provides Important Guidance on COVID-19’s Impact on a Buyer’s Obligation to Close:
- New York State Updates State Securities Regulations
- Nasdaq Proposes New Listing Rules Related to Board Diversity
- SEC Adopts Amendments to Permit the Use of Electronic Signatures for SEC Filings
- The SEC Rebuilds the Integration Principles Guiding Concurrent Private and Public Offerings of Securities
- The SEC Proposes a Safe Harbor for Permissible Capital-Raising Activities by Unregistered Finders
- SEC Issues 100th Whistleblower Award Just Days after Adopting Amendments to Whistleblower Program
- SEC Reduces Registration Filing Fee Beginning in October 2020
- The SEC Amends Regulation S-K Disclosure Rules to Empower Companies to Determine What and How Much Disclosure is Appropriate for Shareholders and Investors
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
Contact Us
(212) 451-2300
www.olshanlaw.com
Eye-Opening Study on the Use of Boilerplate in IPO Prospectuses Highlights the Real Costs to Issuers and Investors
Prof. McClane’s extensive 20-year study of IPOs finds that, although boilerplate - as a substitute for specific disclosure and costly information gathering - may be an efficient (and perhaps strategically vague) means by which to make disclosure, efficiency comes at a high price to IPO issuers due to information-related costs such as underpricing and securities litigation.
The Vanderbilt Law Review recently published an interesting and slightly quirky article “Boilerplate and the Impact of Disclosure in Securities Dealmaking” by Jeremy McClane, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law (see 72 Vand. L. Rev. 191 (2019)). Prof. McClane studied the impact of boilerplate – defined as language that is copied from one deal to the next – contained in SEC initial public offering filings on issuers, investors, bankers and lawyers during the period from 1996 to 2015. His quantitative analysis through computerized language processing techniques found that the overall level of boilerplate in the typical IPO registration statement was considerable. On average, the prospectuses across the entire time period shared approximately 47% identical content to other recent industry deals and, as to individual sections within the prospectuses, they shared approximately 32% identical content for risk factors, 34% for management’s discussion and analysis, 23% for use of proceeds and 15% for the business description. And, over this time period, the level of boilerplate grew steadily, despite some pullback following the SEC’s plain English rules in 1998, but only to rise again in 2003 following the enactment of new disclosure requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
For IPO issuers, the expected impact from the use of boilerplate in terms of lower advisory costs (i.e., legal fees, underwriters’ discount and auditing fees), quicker timing of deal completion and fewer number of SEC comments proved not to be at all certain. While the data supported the assumption that higher levels of boilerplate were associated with lower legal fees (it was found that each additional 10% of boilerplate in a document was associated with legal fees that were lower by approximately $46,000 to $84,000), there was no statistically significant association between boilerplate and auditor fees, or the underwriters’ discount, even though auditors and underwriters might also contribute to boilerplate use either directly through participation in drafting or indirectly by engaging in less due diligence and necessitating less modification of precedent. Interestingly, according to the study, the data showed that the quality and experience of the issuer’s law firm (as well as the managing underwriter) was apparently not associated with the amount of boilerplate used.
The data also found no statistically significant association between the use of boilerplate and the speed at which a deal was completed (from the time the issuer filed the registration statement and the effective date of the offering), despite the assumption that “cutting and pasting” is faster than drafting and editing nonstandard disclosure language. The data also revealed a lack of any discernable relationship between the number or extent of amendments to the prospectus and the amount of boilerplate used. Further, despite the fact that the SEC flags boilerplate language for comments, the overall amount of boilerplate in a prospectus bore no statistically significant relationship to the number of comment letters or comments given by the SEC.
For investors, Prof. McClane associated boilerplate with “information asymmetry,” suggesting that boilerplate tends to hinder investors from becoming informed about issuers or that its mere presence signals lower quality information about an issuer, making it harder for investors or the market to determine the “true” value of a company’s shares. As a result, Prof. McClane identifies an implicit issuer/investor “bargaining” relationship between boilerplate disclosure in the preliminary prospectus and the final pricing of an offering, noting:
An issuer (and perhaps more importantly, its underwriters) can invest in conducting due diligence and set the price accordingly, or it can simply set a low price and effectively pay off the initial investors to do their own research on the company. Less due diligence would result in less specific disclosure and more boilerplate borrowed from other deals, while reliance on book building would be marked by more price revision as the issuer and its investment banks set the intial price low to induce initial investors to do their own research.
Greater use of generic boilerplate disclosures may also fail to protect issuers, and in some cases their underwriter and auditors, from liability if they are too generic to be considered meaningful (see Dingee v. Wayfair Inc., No. 15cv6941 (DLC), 2016 WL 3017401 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2016). According to the study, the data indicated that more boilerplate in certain sections of the prospectus, such as risk factors, use of proceeds and management’s discussion and analysis, generally related to more litigation. The analysis showed that a 10% greater level of boilerplate was associated with between a 1.5% and 4% increase in the liklihood that an issuer will be subject to IPO-related class action securities litigation.
Due to the underpricing of offerings below what the market would have borne and the higher litigation risks and related legal fees and settlement costs, as noted above, Prof. McClane associated boilerplate with higher costs to issuers by as much as $5 to $6 million in the market on average for each additional 10% of their disclosure that consists of rote recitations.
For lawyers and bankers who draft IPO disclosure, the results of Prof. McClane’s study are a bit unsettling. Typically, issuer’s counsel begins preparing the offering prospectus with recent deals from within the same industry or that have been underwritten by the same underwriter and, in some generic sections, frequently tailors the language only in relatively minor ways (such as in the risk factors section, for example, which is commonly perceived anyway as “lawyers’ boilerplate”). For smaller issuers, counsel may wish to be more efficient in order to conserve on legal fees which are often capped by liberal use of boilerplate disclosure that has already passed SEC scrutiny, has been tested on the market and utilizes keywords to comply with the SEC’s broad and complex disclosure rules, instead of “reinventing the wheel.”
As Prof. McClane suggests, however, the expansive use of boilerplate may simply cover up a lack of careful due diligence of the company by its lawyers and underwriters by passing on boilerplate disclosure without critical revision, or reflect reticence to disclose harmful information, and ultimately prove to be a poor value proposition for the issuer. Prof. McClane also posits that there is a human tendency to gravitate toward the status quo and precedent, as dealmakers may fear straying from the template provided by other successful deals. With this analysis, lawyers will be better able to recognize the unintended consequences and tradeoffs from the overuse of boilerplate disclosure, and the SEC will be better able to identify areas for disclosure reform.