Document ID: SEC-2011-1754-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NYSE Amex LLC
Posted Date: 2011-11-15T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70790-70795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29440]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65710; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice and Order 
Granting Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by 
Amendment No. 2, Amending Section 101 of the NYSE Amex Company Guide To 
Adopt Additional Listing Requirements for Companies Applying To List 
After Consummation of a ``Reverse Merger'' With a Shell Company, 
November 8, 2011

I. Introduction

    On July 22, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or ``Exchange'') 
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), 
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change 
adopting additional listing requirements for a company that has become 
an Act reporting company by combining with a public shell, whether 
through a reverse merger, exchange offer, or otherwise (a ``Reverse 
Merger''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the 
Federal Register on August 10, 2011.\3\ On September 21, 2011, the 
Commission extended the time period in which to either approve the 
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute 
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 
disapproved to November 8, 2011.\4\ The Commission received two comment 
letters on the proposal.\5\ NYSE Amex filed

[[Page 70791]]

Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on November 4, 2011, which 
was later withdrawn.\6\ NYSE Amex filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed 
rule change on November 8, 2011.\7\ This order approves the proposed 
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65033 (August 4, 
2011), 76 FR 49522 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65369 (September 21, 
2011), 76 FR 59763 (September 27, 2011).
    \5\ See Letter from David Feldman, Partner, Richardson and Patel 
LLP dated August 29, 2011 (``Feldman Letter'') and Letter to 
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from WestPark Capital, 
Inc. dated August 31, 2011 (``WestPark Letter''). In addition, the 
Commission received five comment letters on a substantially similar 
proposal by Nasdaq, three of which were filed by parties that did 
not specifically comment on the NYSE Amex filing. (See Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 64633 (June 8, 2011), 76 FR 34781 (June 14, 
2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-073)). The comment letters received on the 
Nasdaq filing, for which a counterpart was not received on the NYSE 
Amex filing are: Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 
Commission, from Locke Lord LLP dated October 17, 2011 (``Locke Lord 
Letter''); Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, 
from James N. Baxter, Chairman and General Counsel, New York Global 
Group dated October 17, 2011 (``New York Global Group Letter''); and 
Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from David A. 
Donohoe, Jr., Donohoe Advisory Associates LLC dated October 18, 2011 
(``Donohoe Letter''). Two of the comment letters submitted on the 
Nasdaq filing specifically referenced this proposal by NYSE Amex. 
However, the Commission believes all of the filings submitted on the 
Nasdaq filing are applicable to this filing. Since the comment 
letters received on the Nasdaq filing either specifically reference 
the NYSE Amex filing, or discuss issues directly related to this 
filing, the Commission has included them in its discussions of this 
filing.
    \6\ Amendment No. 1, dated November 4, 2011, was withdrawn on 
November 8, 2011.
    \7\ See Amendment No. 2, dated November 8, 2011. Amendment No. 2 
replaces Amendment No. 1 in its entirety. In Amendment No. 2, NYSE 
Amex made several changes to the proposed rule change. The changes 
proposed by NYSE Amex include: (i) Amending the proposed price 
requirement to make is applicable for a sustained period of time, 
but in no event for less than 30 of the most recent 60 trading days; 
(ii) added a new exception from certain requirements contained in 
the rule for companies that conducted their reverse merger a 
substantial length of time before applying to list; and (iii) other 
additional changes to clarify the rule and harmonize it with a 
similar proposal by Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Original Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to adopt more stringent listing requirements 
for companies that become public through a Reverse Merger, to address 
significant regulatory concerns including accounting fraud allegations 
that have arisen with respect to Reverse Merger companies. In its 
filing, the Exchange noted that the Commission has taken direct action 
against Reverse Merger companies. In addition, the Exchange noted that 
the Commission has suspended trading in, and revoked the securities 
registration of, a number of Reverse Merger companies.\8\ The Exchange 
also stated that the Commission recently brought an enforcement 
proceeding against an audit firm relating to its work for Reverse 
Merger companies \9\ and issued a bulletin on the risks of investing in 
Reverse Merger companies, noting potential market and regulatory risks 
related to investing in such companies.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Letter from Mary L. Schapiro to Hon. Patrick T. McHenry, 
dated April 27, 2011 (``Schapiro Letter''), at pages 3-4.
    \9\ See Schapiro Letter at page 4.
    \10\ See ``Investor Bulletin: Reverse Mergers'' 2011-123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the concerns noted above, the Exchange proposed to 
adopt additional listing requirements for Reverse Merger companies.\11\ 
Specifically, NYSE Amex proposed to prohibit a Reverse Merger company 
from applying to list until the combined entity has traded in the U.S. 
over-the-counter market, on another national securities exchange, or on 
a regulated foreign exchange, for at least one year following the 
filing of all required information about the Reverse Merger 
transaction, including audited financial statements, with the 
Commission. The Reverse Merger company would also be required to timely 
file with the Commission all required reports since the consummation of 
the Reverse Merger, including the filing of at least one annual report 
containing audited financial statements for a full fiscal year 
commencing on a date after the date of filing with the Commission of 
all required information about the Reverse Merger transaction and 
satisfying the one-year trading requirement. Further, NYSE Amex 
proposed to require that the Reverse Merger company maintain on both an 
absolute and an average basis for a sustained period a minimum stock 
price equal to the stock price requirement applicable to the initial 
listing standard under which the Reverse Merger company is qualifying 
to list. Finally, the Exchange proposed an exception from the 
requirements of the rule if the Reverse Merger company is listing in 
connection with an initial firm commitment underwritten public offering 
where the proceeds to the company will be at least $40 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In addition to the specific additional listing requirements 
contained in the proposal, the Exchange included language in the 
proposed rule that states that the Exchange may ``in its discretion 
impose more stringent requirements than those set forth above if the 
Exchange believes it is warranted in the case of a particular 
Reverse Merger Company based on, among other things, an inactive 
trading market in the Reverse Merger Company's securities, the 
existence of a low number of publicly held shares that are not 
subject to transfer restrictions, if the Reverse Merger Company has 
not had a Securities Act registration statement or other filing 
subjected to a comprehensive review by the Commission, or if the 
Reverse Merger Company has disclosed that it has material weaknesses 
in its internal controls which have been identified by management 
and/or the Reverse Merger Company's independent auditor and has not 
yet implemented an appropriate corrective action plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Summary

    As stated previously, the Commission received two comment letters 
on the proposal.\12\ However, a related proposal by Nasdaq received 
five comment letters.\13\ The Commission is treating the thee comment 
letters submitted on the Nasdaq filing, for which a comparable letter 
was not submitted on the NYSE Amex filing, as also being applicable to 
the NYSE Amex filing since the NYSE Amex and Nasdaq filings address the 
same substantive issues.\14\ Two of the commenters objected broadly to 
the proposed additional listing requirements for Reverse Merger 
companies,\15\ while three commenters suggested discrete changes to the 
proposal.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Feldman Letter and WestPark Letter.
    \13\ As is stated above in note 5, two of the comment letters 
submitted on the Nasdaq proposal are substantially similar to 
comment letters received on the NYSE Amex proposal. See Feldman 
Letter and WestPark Letter. Three of the comment letters submitted 
on the Nasdaq proposal were not also submitted on the NYSE Amex 
proposal. See Locke Lord Letter; New York Global Group Letter; and 
Donohoe Letter. Two of the comment letters submitted on the Nasdaq 
filing specifically reference the NYSE Amex filing. See Locke Lord 
Letter and Donohoe Letter.
    \14\ In instituting disapproval proceedings for the Nasdaq 
proposal, the Commission stated that the NYSE and NYSE Amex had 
filed similar proposals designed to address the same concerns as the 
Nasdaq proposal.
    \15\ See Feldman Letter and New York Global Group Letter.
    \16\ See WestPark Letter; Donohoe Letter; and Locke Lord Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter who objected broadly to NYSE Amex's proposal 
expressed the view that it could have a ``chilling effect of 
discouraging exciting growth companies from pursuing all available 
techniques to obtain the benefits of a public listed stock and greater 
access to capital.'' \17\ The commenter further noted, in response to 
Nasdaq's justifications for the proposed rule change, that virtually 
all of the suggestions of wrongdoing involve Chinese companies that 
completed reverse mergers, but that a number of other Chinese companies 
that completed full traditional initial public offerings face the very 
same allegations, so that focusing on the manner in which these 
companies went public may not be appropriate. Rather than imposing a 
seasoning requirement, the commenter suggests the Exchange review 
regulatory histories and financial arrangements with promoters, and 
refrain from listing companies where the issues are great. In any 
event, the commenter recommends an exception from the seasoning 
requirement for a company coming to the Exchange with a firm commitment 
underwritten public offering. In addition, the commenter expressed 
concern that the requirement to maintain a $4 trading price for 30 days

[[Page 70792]]

prior to the listing application is unfair, and unrealistic to expect 
companies to achieve in the over-the-counter markets, and suggested it 
be eliminated.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Feldman Letter.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other commenter that objected broadly to the proposal believed 
that the proposal would harm capital formation and hinder small 
companies' access to the capital markets.\19\ The commenter expressed 
the view that no objective research or hard data has been published 
that supports the notion that Reverse Merger companies bear additional 
scrutiny, and that the Commission should not approve the proposal until 
an independent and comprehensive study concludes that (i) Exchange 
listed reverse merger companies tend to fail more often than IPO 
companies, thus necessitating the additional scrutiny, (ii) the 
proposed six to twelve month ``seasoning'' for reverse merger companies 
will indeed deter corporate frauds, and (iii) the exchanges do not 
already have sufficient rules in place to discourage corporate frauds 
in both reverse merger and IPO companies.\20\ Based on its research, 
the commenter believes that more Chinese companies have been delisted 
that have gone public through an IPO than through a Reverse Merger, and 
that they were delisted more than three years after they became public, 
which is well beyond the seasoning period.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See New York Global Group Letter.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A third commenter expressed support for the proposed rule change's 
objective to protect investors from potential accounting fraud, 
manipulative trading, abusive practices or other inappropriate behavior 
on the part of companies, promoters and others.\22\ The commenter, 
however, recommended that, in order to avoid unnecessary burdens on 
smaller capitalization issuers, the proposed rule change be modified to 
exclude Form 10 share exchange transactions from the reverse merger 
definition, or provide an exception for a reverse merger company 
listing in connection with a firm commitment underwritten public 
offering.\23\ This commenter also recommended that NYSE Amex consider 
requiring companies listing on the Exchange to engage a recognized 
independent diligence firm to conduct a forensic audit and issue a 
forensic diligence report prior to approval of the listing 
application.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See WestPark Letter.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter, while it did not believe the Exchange had 
presented a sufficient rationale or data to support the need for a 
Reverse Merger seasoning period, agreed that a reasonable seasoning 
period for Reverse Merger companies could be beneficial, and was of the 
view that the six-month seasoning period proposed by Nasdaq was 
preferable to the one-year seasoning period proposed by NYSE and NYSE 
Amex.\25\ The commenter also believed that Nasdaq's proposed 
requirement that a Reverse Merger company maintain the requisite stock 
price for at least 30 of the 60 trading days immediately preceding the 
filing of the listing application was lacking because, among other 
things, it would not apply to the period during which the listing 
application was under review.\26\ In addition, this commenter expressed 
support for an underwritten public offering exception, regardless of 
size, from the proposed rule's additional listing requirement.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Donohoe Letter.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A fifth commenter also expressed the view that there should be an 
exception where the securities issued in the Reverse Merger were 
registered with the Commission, so that the additional listing 
standards would be directed toward those transactions that have not 
been subjected to full Commission review.\28\ This commenter also 
suggested that, if a Reverse Merger company is controlled by a non-U.S. 
person, the control person should be required to execute a consent to 
service of process in the U.S.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Locke Lord Letter.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. NYSE Amex Amendment No. 2 and Response to Comments

    In Amendment No. 2, NYSE Amex proposed several changes to more 
effectively align its proposal with that of Nasdaq. NYSE Amex amended 
its proposal to require that a Reverse Merger company ``maintain a 
closing stock price equal to the stock price requirement applicable to 
the initial listing standard under which the Reverse Merger Company is 
qualifying to list for a sustained period of time, but in no event for 
less than 30 of the most recent 60 trading days prior to the filing of 
the initial listing application'' and prior to listing. In addition, 
NYSE Amex amended the requirement that a Reverse Merger company provide 
all required reports to clarify that such reports must include ``all 
required'' audited financial statements.
    Amendment No. 2 also proposes a new exception to the Reverse Merger 
rules and clarifies that all other listing requirements are applicable 
to all Reverse Merger companies, even those Reverse Merger companies 
that can take advantage of either of the two exceptions being proposed 
under the new rules. As noted above, as proposed, the rule provides 
that a Reverse Merger company would not be subject to the requirements 
of the rule if, in connection with the listing, it completes a firm 
commitment underwritten public offering where the proceeds to the 
company will be at least $40 million and the offering is occurring 
subsequent to or concurrently with the Reverse Merger. Amendment No. 2 
additionally proposes that the Reverse Merger company would not be 
subject to the requirement that it maintain a closing stock price equal 
to the stock price requirement applicable to the initial listing 
standard under which the Reverse Merger company is qualifying to list 
for at least 30 of the most recent 60 days prior to each of the filing 
of the initial listing application and the date of the Reverse Merger 
company's listing, if it has satisfied the one-year trading requirement 
and has filed at least four annual reports with the Commission which 
each contain all required audited financial statements for a full 
fiscal year commencing after filing the required information.\30\ The 
amended rule language states that a Reverse Merger company must comply 
with all applicable listing requirements. Applicable listing standards 
include, but are not limited to, the corporate governance requirements 
set forth in Chapter 8 of the NYSE Amex Company Guide (``Guide'') and 
the applicable distribution, stock price and market value requirements 
of Sections 102(a) and 102(b) of the Guide. In either case, the 
language makes clear that companies that fall under the exceptions must 
also comply with all other listing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Amendment No. 2 also proposes that, to be eligible for this 
exception, such companies be required to (i) Comply with the stock 
price requirement of Section 102(b) of the Guide at the time of the 
filing of the initial listing application and the date of the 
Reverse Merger company's listing and (ii) not be delinquent in its 
filing obligations with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NYSE Amex made several technical changes in Amendment No. 
2, including those to conform its language more closely to that of the 
Nasdaq proposal.
    On November 7, 2011, NYSE Amex responded to the comments received 
on

[[Page 70793]]

the proposal.\31\ One commenter expressed concern, in commenting on the 
similar NYSE proposal, that the proposal might not provide investors 
with sufficient protections in relation to listed Reverse Merger 
companies and noted and welcomed the NYSE's ability to exercise its 
discretion to apply additional or more stringent criteria to a Reverse 
Merger company. In response, NYSE Amex noted that the same discretion 
is included in the NYSE Amex proposal. The NYSE Amex further noted that 
it does not believe that it is necessary at this time to adopt any 
additional general requirements for all companies that would be 
considered for listing under the proposed rules. The Exchange also 
stated that the proposed approach, in its belief, strikes an 
appropriate balance by providing discretionary authority to the 
Exchange to apply additional or more stringent criteria,\32\ while also 
providing transparency as to the factors that would prompt the 
imposition of such criteria. NYSE Amex believes that it is appropriate 
to apply those new requirements for a period of time, while closely 
monitoring the performance of Reverse Merger companies that list under 
the new rules. If at any time it becomes apparent that there are 
significant continuing investor protection or regulatory concerns 
associated with the listing of Reverse Merger companies, NYSE Amex will 
consider the desirability of adopting additional more stringent 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Email from John Carey, Chief Counsel, NYSE Regulation 
Inc., to Sharon Lawson, Senior Special Counsel, Commission and David 
Michehl, Special Counsel, Commission dated November 7, 2011.
    \32\ See supra, note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Amex noted that the Commission received two negative comment 
letters in relation to its filing. Both commenters supported the 
proposed rule's exception for Reverse Merger companies listing in 
conjunction with an underwritten public offering, but argued that the 
transaction size requirement should either be eliminated from the 
proposal or set at a far lower level. The Exchange believes that the 
substantial offering size requirement provides a significant regulatory 
benefit. One of the commenters argued that the requirement that a 
Reverse Merger Company must trade in another market for at least a year 
prior to listing is unnecessary. As noted in the filing, significant 
regulatory concerns have arisen with respect to a number of reverse 
merger companies in recent times. NYSE Amex believes that a 
``seasoning'' period prior to listing should provide greater assurance 
that the company's operations and financial reporting are reliable, and 
will also provide time for its independent auditor to detect any 
potential irregularities, as well as for the company to identify and 
implement enhancements to address any internal control weaknesses. The 
seasoning period will also provide time for regulatory and market 
scrutiny of the company, and for any concerns that would preclude 
listing eligibility to be identified. NYSE Amex believes that the 
elimination of the one year trading requirement would significantly 
weaken the value of the seasoning period in that less scrutiny would 
generally be present. The other commenter argued that the rule should 
not apply to a Reverse Merger company which resulted from a merger 
between an operating company and a new shell company with no prior 
business operations. Based on the Exchange's experience with the 
listing of Reverse Merger companies, the Exchange believes that it is 
appropriate to apply the proposed rules to all Reverse Merger 
companies, regardless of whether the shell company into which the 
operating company merged had ever had any previous business operations.

V. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing and whether Amendment No. 2 is 
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the 
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-55 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-55. This 
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more 
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all 
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, 
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that 
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating 
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, 
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance 
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site 
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on 
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies 
of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the 
principal office of NYSE Amex. All comments received will be posted 
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying 
information from submissions. You should submit only information that 
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to 
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-55, and should be submitted on or before 
December 6, 2011.

VI. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change, as 
modified by Amendment No. 2, and finds that it is consistent with the 
requirements of the Act and the rule and regulations thereunder 
applicable to a national securities exchange,\33\ and, in particular, 
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\34\ which, among other things, requires 
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent 
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and 
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination 
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing 
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in 
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a 
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to 
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has 
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, 
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The development and enforcement of meaningful listing standards for 
an exchange is of substantial importance to financial markets and the 
investing public. Among other things, listing standards provide the 
means for an exchange to screen issuers that seek to become listed, and 
to provide listed status only to those that are bona fide companies 
with sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest 
likely to generate depth and liquidity sufficient to promote fair and 
orderly

[[Page 70794]]

markets. Meaningful listing standards also are important given investor 
expectations regarding the nature of securities that have achieved an 
exchange listing, and the role of an exchange in overseeing its market 
and assuring compliance with its listing standards.
    NYSE Amex proposed to make more rigorous its listing standards for 
Reverse Merger companies, given the significant regulatory concerns, 
including accounting fraud allegations, that have recently arisen with 
respect to these companies. As noted above, Nasdaq and NYSE filed 
similar proposals for the same reasons.\35\ Among other things, the 
proposals seek to improve the reliability of the reported financial 
results of Reverse Merger companies by requiring a pre-listing 
``seasoning period'' during which the post-merger public company would 
have produced financial and other information in connection with its 
required Commission filings. The proposals also seek to address 
concerns that some might attempt to meet the minimum price test 
required for exchange listing through a quick manipulative scheme in 
the securities of a Reverse Merger company, by requiring that minimum 
price to be sustained for a meaningful period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64633 (June 8, 
2011), 76 FR 34781 (June 14, 2011) and Securities Exchange Act 
Release No. 65034 (August 4, 2011), 76 FR 49513 (August 10, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes the proposed one-year seasoning requirement 
for Reverse Merger companies that seek to list on the Exchange is 
reasonably designed to address concerns that the potential for 
accounting fraud and other regulatory issues is more pronounced for 
this type of issuer. As discussed above, these additional listing 
requirements will assure that a Reverse Merger company has produced and 
has filed with the Commission at least one full year of all required 
audited financial statements following the Reverse Merger transaction 
before it is eligible to list on NYSE Amex. The Reverse Merger company 
also must have filed all required Commission reports since the 
consummation of the Reverse Merger, which should help assure that 
material information about the issuer has been filed with the 
Commission and that the issuer has a demonstrated track record of 
meeting its Commission filing and disclosure obligations. In addition, 
the requirement that the Reverse Merger company has traded for at least 
one year in the over-the-counter market or on another exchange could 
make it more likely that analysts have followed the company for a 
sufficient period of time to provide an additional check on the 
validity of the financial and other information made available to the 
public.
    Although certain commenters expressed concern that the proposal 
might inhibit capital formation and access by small companies to the 
markets, the Commission notes that the enhanced listing standards apply 
only to the relatively small group of Reverse Merger companies--where 
there have been numerous instances of fraud and other violations of the 
federal securities laws--and merely requires those entities to wait 
until their first annual audited financial statements are produced 
before they become eligible to apply for listing on the Exchange. While 
fraud and other illegal activity may occur with other types of issuers, 
as noted by certain commenters, the Commission does not believe this 
should preclude NYSE Amex from taking reasonable steps to address these 
concerns with Reverse Merger companies.
    The Commission also believes the proposed requirement for a Reverse 
Merger company to maintain the specified minimum share price for a 
sustained period, and for at least 30 of the most recent 60 trading 
days, prior to the date of the initial listing application and the date 
of listing, is reasonably designed to address concerns that the 
potential for manipulation of the security to meet the minimum price 
requirements is more pronounced for this type of issuer. By requiring 
that minimum price to be maintained for a meaningful period of time, 
the proposal should make it more difficult for a manipulative scheme to 
be successfully used to meet the Exchange's minimum share price 
requirements.
    In addition, the Commission believes that the proposed exceptions 
to the enhanced listing requirements for Reverse Merger companies that 
(1) Complete a substantial firm commitment underwritten public offering 
in connection with its listing,\36\ or (2) have filed at least four 
annual reports containing all required audited financial statements 
with the Commission following the filing of all required information 
about the Reverse Merger transaction, and satisfying the one-year 
trading requirement, reasonably accommodate issuers that may present a 
lower risk of fraud or other illegal activity. The Commission believes 
it is reasonable for the Exchange to conclude that, although formed 
through a Reverse Merger, an issuer that (1) Undergoes the due 
diligence and vetting required in connection with a sizeable 
underwritten public offering, or (2) has prepared and filed with the 
Commission four years of all required audited financial statements 
following the Reverse Merger, presents less risk and warrants the same 
treatment as issuers that were not formed through a Reverse Merger. 
Nevertheless, the Commission expects the Exchange to monitor any 
issuers that qualify for these exceptions and, if fraud or other abuses 
are detected, to propose appropriate changes to its listing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The Commission notes that several commenters supported an 
exception for issuers with underwritten public offerings. See 
WestPark Letter; Donohoe Letter; and Locke Lord Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that certain commenters suggested the Exchange 
impose specific additional requirements on Reverse Merger companies 
that seek an exchange listing, such as the completion of an independent 
forensic diligence report on the issuer, the execution of a consent to 
service of process in the U.S. by foreign controlling persons, and 
additional more stringent standards in addition to the proposed 
seasoning period. Although there may be merit in these or other 
potential ways to enhance listing standards for Reverse Merger 
companies, the Commission believes that the additional listing 
standards proposed by the Exchange should help prevent fraud and 
manipulation, protect investors and the public interest, and are 
otherwise consistent with the Act.
    The Commission also notes that several of the changes proposed by 
the Exchange in Amendment No. 2 were clarifying in nature and designed 
to make its proposal consistent with the proposals submitted by Nasdaq 
and NYSE.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that NYSE 
Amex's proposal will further the purposes of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 
by, among other things, helping prevent fraud and manipulation 
associated with Reverse Merger companies, and protecting investors and 
the public interest.
    The Commission also finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) 
of the Act,\37\ for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by 
Amendment No. 2, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of 
notice in the Federal Register. As noted above, the changes made in 
Amendment No. 2 harmonize the proposed rule change with similar 
proposals by Nasdaq and NYSE that have been subject to public comment, 
in addition to providing clarifying language consistent with the

[[Page 70795]]

intent of the original rule proposal. In addition, the Commission 
believes it is in the public interest for NYSE Amex to begin applying 
its enhanced listing standards as soon as practicable, in light of the 
serious concerns that have arisen with respect to the listing of 
Reverse Merger companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Conclusion

    It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-55), as amended, be, 
and hereby is, approved, on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29440 Filed 11-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P