Continuing a Company from One Country to Another Country Without U.S. Registration or Exemption Triggers Shareholder Rescission Rights

Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Contact

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

In Canada it’s considered no big deal to ask shareholders to approve a continuance or redomicile of a company from one province to another, or between Canadian provincial and federal jurisdictions. That’s also largely true from a U.S. securities perspective, but only because the continuance is being made within the same country. If a continuance or redomicile is made from one country to a different country, it’s a completely different story. Canadian counsel and their clients are sometimes surprised to hear that if a company continues from Canada to another country, or if a company continues into Canada, the failure to comply with U.S. securities laws may subject the company to rescission rights by all U.S. securityholders.

The SEC takes the position that if a company subject to the jurisdiction of one country asks its shareholders to approve a continuance or redomicile into another country, the transaction involves the offer and sale of securities by the continued company to all of the existing shareholders. Under Section 5 of the U.S. Securities Act, these offers and sales must be made pursuant to an effective registration statement, filed and cleared with the SEC, unless an exemption is available. Regulation S may exempt the sales to persons outside the U.S. For U.S. securityholders, certain exemptions such as Section 3(a)(10) or Rule 802 may be available, but these exemptions require U.S. legal and structuring advice during the course of the transaction, because they require specific procedures, disclosures and filings that cannot be completed after the fact. Other, less demanding, exemptions may not be available if the company is publicly traded.

If no exemption is complied with or available, then generally speaking, all U.S. securityholders will have an automatic right of rescission under the U.S. Securities Act for a period of one year. For a public company, this can raise meaningful disclosure considerations even if no U.S. securityholder makes a claim. The company may also be subject to enforcement actions by U.S. securities regulators.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dorsey & Whitney LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Contact
more
less

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.