Securities Offerings: Rule 163 and Testing the Waters

Andrew Thompson • September 21, 2023

Consider This Before Raising Money for Your Startup

In December 2019, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced a significant change to the landscape of capital markets, one that aimed to encourage capital formation and invigorate the public markets. This change came in the form of Rule 163B, which allows all registrants and their agents to "test the waters" with potential investors, both before and after filing a registration statement. This newfound flexibility represents a departure from the previous restrictions that limited such communications primarily to emerging growth companies (EGCs). So, what does "test the waters" mean, and how has Rule 163B reshaped the way companies approach securities offerings?


Test the Waters: A Dive into Rule 163B


Prior to the implementation of Rule 163B, corporations faced considerable challenges in gauging investor interest in a securities offering prior to submitting a registration statement with the SEC. It was difficult to reach out to potential investors during this vital pre-filing stage due to Section 5 of the Securities Act. The Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012, which introduced a new class of public corporations known as EGCs, changed the rules of the game. These EGCs were given the opportunity to "test the waters" both prior to and during the filing of registration statements, giving them an important resource for market analysis.

EGCs now have the option to submit draft registration statements in confidence for initial public offerings (IPOs) and certain follow-up offers. The registration process for was sped up by this private submission procedure.


Navigating the Waters with Rule 163B

Companies should bear in mind a few important aspects of Rule 163B as they use their newly acquired capacity to gauge investor interest:


1. Investor Type Restrictions: Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs), Institutional Accredited Investors (IAIs), and Investors Reasonably Believed to be QIBs or IAIs are the only investor types to whom communications are restricted under Rule 163B. Although the rule does not specify how to go about forming certain kinds of beliefs, it does provide latitude in selecting suitable techniques. Companies must also take reasonable measures to guard against test-the-waters information being shared with unqualified parties.


2. No Filing or Legends Needed: Test-the-waters communications do not have to be filed with the SEC or have any particular legends included, in contrast to some SEC communications. Nonetheless, if Division of Corporation Finance Staff members examine registration statements, they have the right to request these communications.


3. Responsibility: Under Securities Act Section 12(a)(2) and the federal securities laws' anti-fraud provisions, companies test-the-waters statements may expose them to liability. This emphasizes how crucial it is to treat these correspondences with the same attention to detail as securities filings.


4. Non-Exclusivity: Rule 163B is not exclusive, so businesses may utilize other Securities Act communication exemptions and regulations in addition to it. Although this flexibility has its limitations, each rule's requirements must be met in order to benefit from it.


5. Regulation FD: According to Regulation FD, which requires the public disclosure of important non-public information purposefully communicated to particular securities market professionals and shareholders, test-the-waters communications are not exempt from Rule 163B. Confidentiality agreements between QIBs and IAIs are recommended in order to manage this.


Closing Thoughts: Entering the New Capital Market Era



Because Rule 163B gives businesses the chance to "test the waters" with possible investors, it has completely changed the manner that corporations approach securities offerings. More enterprises are encouraged to explore accessing the public markets as a result of this regulation shift, which increases flexibility and lowers uncertainty. It is imperative that businesses exercise caution when navigating these waters, taking into account the limitations, liabilities, and compliance obligations associated with Rule 163B. Rule 163B represents a major turning point in the continuous endeavors to boost capital creation and the U.S. capital markets as the financial landscape changes.

By Admin March 22, 2025
Hernia mesh, a medical device used to repair hernias, has been associated with serious complications, causing significant pain and suffering for many individuals. If you or a loved one in Indiana has experienced adverse effects from hernia mesh, understanding your legal rights is crucial. This post explores the legal avenues available to those affected by hernia mesh complications in the Hoosier State. The Risks Associated with Hernia Mesh While designed to strengthen hernia repairs, certain hernia mesh products have been linked to: Infections: Mesh can become infected, leading to pain, swelling, and further complications. Chronic Pain: Many patients experience persistent pain after mesh implantation. Mesh Migration: The mesh can shift from its original position, causing damage to surrounding tissues and organs. Adhesions: The mesh can adhere to nearby organs, leading to complications and the need for corrective surgery. Mesh Failure: The mesh may fail to provide adequate support, resulting in hernia recurrence. Indiana Product Liability Law and Hernia Mesh Claims In Indiana, product liability law allows individuals to hold manufacturers accountable for defective medical devices. To pursue a hernia mesh claim, you must establish: Defective Design or Manufacturing: That the mesh was defectively designed or manufactured. Failure to Warn: That the manufacturer failed to adequately warn about the risks of complications. Causation: A direct link between the defective mesh and your injuries. Damages: The extent of your injuries and losses. Steps to Take for a Hernia Mesh Claim in Indiana Consult an Indiana Medical Device Attorney: Seek legal counsel from an attorney experienced in medical device litigation. Gather Medical Records: Collect all relevant medical records, including surgical reports, diagnoses, and treatment plans. Document Your Symptoms: Keep a detailed record of your symptoms and how they have impacted your life. Understand Indiana’s Statute of Limitations:
By Admin March 22, 2025
Roundup, a widely used herbicide containing glyphosate, has faced increasing scrutiny due to its potential link to cancer and other health issues. For Indiana residents who have been exposed to Roundup and suffered adverse effects, understanding your legal rights is essential. This post explores the legal avenues available to those affected by Roundup and other weedkillers in the Hoosier State. The Risks Associated with Roundup and Glyphosate Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, has been classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1 Exposure to glyphosate has been linked to: 1. www.abrinternationaljournal.org www.abrinternationaljournal.org Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Studies have shown a potential association between glyphosate exposure and an increased risk of this cancer. Kidney and Liver Damage: Long-term exposure may lead to damage to these vital organs. Reproductive Issues: Some research suggests potential impacts on reproductive health. Indiana Product Liability Law and Roundup Claims In Indiana, product liability law allows individuals to hold manufacturers accountable for defective products. To pursue a Roundup claim, you must establish: Defective Design or Failure to Warn: That the manufacturer failed to adequately warn users about the risks of glyphosate exposure. Causation: A direct link between your exposure to Roundup and your cancer or other health issues. Damages: The extent of your injuries and losses.
By Admin March 22, 2025
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) like Nexium and Prilosec have provided relief for millions suffering from acid reflux and related conditions. However, growing concerns about their long-term safety have surfaced, particularly regarding potential links to serious health issues. If you or a loved one in Indiana has experienced adverse effects from these medications, understanding your legal rights is crucial. This post aims to guide you through the complexities of Nexium and Prilosec claims within the Hoosier State. The Risks Associated with Nexium and Prilosec Nexium (esomeprazole) and Prilosec (omeprazole) work by reducing stomach acid production. While effective for short-term relief, prolonged use has been associated with several health risks: Kidney Disease: Studies suggest a potential link between long-term PPI use and chronic kidney disease, including kidney failure. Bone Fractures: PPIs can interfere with calcium absorption, increasing the risk of osteoporosis and fractures, particularly in older adults. Stomach Cancer: Some research indicates a possible association between prolonged PPI use and an increased risk of gastric cancer. Nutrient Deficiencies: Long-term use can lead to deficiencies in essential nutrients like magnesium and vitamin B12. Indiana Product Liability Law and PPI Claims In Indiana, product liability law holds manufacturers accountable for defective products that cause harm. To pursue a claim related to Nexium or Prilosec, you must demonstrate: Defective Design or Failure to Warn: That the manufacturer knew or should have known about the risks and failed to provide adequate warnings. Causation: A direct link between your use of the medication and your subsequent health issues. Damages: The extent of your injuries, including medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering.
More Posts