INSURANCE REINSURANCE 2021: A SPAC Odyssey As their profile rises, so does regulators’ scrutiny of their investment activities. How might that change the D&O claims and coverage landscape? September 20, 2021 By Erin McGinn Directors & Officers Liability Claims Specialist, AXA XL Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) are not newcomers in the investment arena. They have been active since the 1990s, but their activities have gained a higher profile in this era of enthusiastic startups that become overnight financial sensations. As investors clamor to grab the reins of the next “unicorn” (a privately held company with a valuation of $1 billion or more), SPACs have attracted increased interest — from investors and investment regulators. SPACs are investment entities formed to provide the market with an alternative mechanism for privately held companies to become publicly traded. The SPAC owners, known as sponsors, raise capital in an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the SPAC for the sole purpose of using such funds to acquire a privately held company at a later date in a targeted industry. In fact, these prospective shareholders don’t even know how their money will be invested — SPACs are not permitted to have any potential targets in mind. This is why SPACs are known as “blank check companies,” because their purpose is not to have those details, but rather to identify candidates for acquisition that have the potential for future growth after the SPAC has its IPO and money is available for use. Typically, once the SPAC has identified a target and attracted enough investment to finance the deal, the acquired company is absorbed into the SPAC, with the privately held entity as a surviving, public company. This process is known as a “DeSPAC Transaction” and the resulting public entity is known as the “DeSPAC Entity.” The advantage to the private company is that it is able to become a publicly traded entity while facing less administrative and reporting hurdles than those imposed in a traditional IPO scenario. Increased velocity — and volatility The streamlined process eliminates many of the steps that companies must take to go public if they follow the traditional course. Those steps include filings of a high volume of financial statements and issuance of disclosures (to the SEC and to prospective shareholders) of risks and liabilities. Conversely, since the private company is simply being purchased by the SPAC and not having its own IPO, the SPAC follows guidelines imposed in connection with mergers, which brings with it a reduced volume of required disclosures. The process is comparatively fast, simple, and painless. That, in turn, makes SPACs attractive to investors whose tolerance for risk exceeds their patience with the customary pace of bringing a company public. However, one risk inherent to the process is that the investors in the SPAC — the potential future shareholders in the newly public company — will have a different relationship with the target company than the SPAC sponsors have. For shareholders of the DeSPAC Entity, the return on investment depends on the DeSPAC Entity’s long-term performance. For sponsors, the reward is successful conclusion of the DeSPAC Transaction, upon which they typically are given roles on the board of directors of the DeSPAC Entity and a 20% ownership interest in it. This has the potential to create a serious conflict of interest risk between sponsors and shareholders and to generate claims, many of which in recent times have emerged from shareholder contentions that the SPAC sponsors were unconcerned with the target company’s ability to hit its financial targets post-DeSPAC Transaction. ...One risk inherent to the process is that the investors in the SPAC — the potential future shareholders in the newly public company — will have a different relationship with the target company than the SPAC sponsors have. A raised profile — and rising SEC scrutiny To some extent, the risk of those claims is baked into the DeSPAC process because the sponsors are generally not bound to adherence to standard SEC regulations regarding forward-looking statements. As SPACs gain prominence, there is growing awareness of, and concern about, that disclosure gap and, by extension, the possibility that coverage for the SPAC and subsequent DeSPAC Entity may need to evolve with changing regulatory stances on that point. The initial repercussions have already begun. Earlier in 2021, the SEC issued a warning to SPACs that any perceived lack of scrutiny on disclosures made in connection with the DeSPAC Transaction was misplaced. Further, the SEC also released a statement regarding accounting and reporting requirements for warrants issued by the SPAC during the DeSPAC Transaction requiring them to be treated as a liability rather than an equity. That act alone was sufficient to cause a significant stall in SPAC transactions during spring 2021 — and put the sector on notice that it might be required to overhaul its practices. Monitoring current and future baskets of liability For now, there are three primary points during the DeSPAC process creating exposure to D&O claims – the initial cash raise by the SPAC, the merger/DeSPAC Transaction and the operation of the newly created public company. It appears the biggest potential risk arises once the DeSPAC Transaction is complete and the private company is officially a publicly traded company. That’s when shareholders get their first unvarnished look at whether the company has the capacity to live up to the future projections on which the investment was sold. There have already been cases in which the company is unable to live up to those expectations and possibly never had the ability to do so. Claims filed on that basis can be expensive because they not only could involve initial and secondary investors in a securities class action lawsuit but also could invite government scrutiny. While actions have not escalated to this point yet, the repercussions could extend to bankruptcy filing of the DeSPAC Entity. The announcement by the SPAC that it has found a target company to purchase involves a common and frequently seen claims scenario. Once the SPAC identifies an acquisition target and announces it to the public, the shareholders must vote on in favor of (or against) the transaction. This opens the door to claims from both sides: those who support the deal’s approval and those who oppose it. They may contend that the SPAC paid too much — or too little — for the company, that the disclosures were inadequate, or that the sponsors were embroiled in conflicts of interest. Individually, these claims have not caused significant expenses or settlements to date. But they constitute the highest volume of claims, and just on that basis they have the potential to do cumulative damage to the insurance industry if not carefully managed. Learning to navigate a changing landscape From an insurance perspective, the key point to remember is that once the SPAC absorbs the acquired company, it becomes a new entity that requires its own coverage. Policies therefore must contemplate that transaction and the point at which the coverage will need to be revised to reflect the circumstances and needs of the new DeSPAC Entity and the SPAC. But there are even greater challenges in unknowns such as how courts will rule in various jurisdictions at crucial points in the litigation or how the SEC may alter its stance on regulating SPACs. This is therefore a space that requires vigilant ongoing monitoring to ensure that policies keep pace with shifts in the legal and regulatory landscape. For now, constant communication with underwriters, brokers and our current and future insureds will be the best strategy to ensure each insured, at each point during the DeSPAC process is purchasing the coverage it needs to protect against claims by shareholders or governmental entities. To contact the author of this story, please complete the below form First Name Last Name Country Select your Country Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bolivia Bonaire, Sint Eustatius & Saba Bosnia & Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile China Christmas Island Cocos Islands Colombia Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of Congo Denmark Djbouti Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern and Antarctic Lands Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea - Equatorial Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Luxembourg Macau Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Nambia Nauru Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Republic of Congo Republic of Guinea Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saipan San Marino Sao Tome & Principe Saudia Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands South Africa South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka St. Barthelemy St. Kitts & Nevis St. Lucia St. Martin (French) St. Pierre & Miquelon St. Vincent & the Grenadines Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks & Caicos Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vietnam Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (US) Wallis and Futuna Zambia Zimbabwe Email Address CONTACT AUTHOR Subscribe Fast Fast Forward More Articles By Industry By Product By Region Quick Links PRODUCT Directors And Officers (D&O) PRODUCT FAMILY $name INDUSTRY Professional Services SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Related Resources FAST FAST FORWARD The D&O Diversity Push April 13, 2021 Social unrest in 2020 has pushed organizations to consider the effectiveness of their diversity programs. Yet what may not be in the... READ MORE FAST FAST FORWARD Opportunities amid crises: A RIMScast with Joe Tocco October 27, 2020 Learn how AXA XL continued to serve clients remotely and, in the process, found more opportunities to develop closer relationships with their clients... READ MORE FAST FAST FORWARD Let’s Talk: What’s the deal? February 03, 2020 With experience analyzing, advising on and underwriting mergers, acquisitions and other corporate transactions, Michael McGowan has seen up close... READ MORE Global Asset Protection Services, LLC, and its affiliates (“AXA XL Risk Consulting”) provides risk assessment reports and other loss prevention services, as requested. This document shall not be construed as indicating the existence or availability under any policy of coverage for any particular type of loss or damage. AXA XL Risk. We specifically disclaim any warranty or representation that compliance with any advice or recommendation in any publication will make a facility or operation safe or healthful, or put it in compliance with any standard, code, law, rule or regulation. Save where expressly agreed in writing, AXA XL Risk Consulting and its related and affiliated companies disclaim all liability for loss or damage suffered by any party arising out of or in connection with this publication, including indirect or consequential loss or damage, howsoever arising. Any party who chooses to rely in any way on the contents of this document does so at their own risk. US- and Canada-Issued Insurance Policies In the US, the AXA XL insurance companies are: AXA Insurance Company, Catlin Insurance Company, Inc., Greenwich Insurance Company, Indian Harbor Insurance Company, XL Insurance America, Inc., XL Specialty Insurance Company and T.H.E. Insurance Company. In Canada, coverages are underwritten by XL Specialty Insurance Company - Canadian Branch and AXA Insurance Company - Canadian branch. Coverages may also be underwritten by Lloyd’s Syndicate #2003. Coverages underwritten by Lloyd’s Syndicate #2003 are placed on behalf of the member of Syndicate #2003 by Catlin Canada Inc. Lloyd’s ratings are independent of AXA XL. US domiciled insurance policies can be written by the following AXA XL surplus lines insurers: XL Catlin Insurance Company UK Limited, Syndicates managed by Catlin Underwriting Agencies Limited and Indian Harbor Insurance Company. Enquires from US residents should be directed to a local insurance agent or broker permitted to write business in the relevant state. FOLLOW AXA XL: QUICK ACCESS Search Portal Login Contact Us AXA XL About AXA XL Media Center Investors Careers OTHER LANGUAGE SITES China - Chinese (中文) English Legal Notices | Privacy Notices | Cookie Policy | UK Modern Slavery Act Statement | © 2019 AXA SA or its affiliates. AXA XL is the P &C and specialty risk division of AXA. THIS AXA WEBSITE USES COOKIES AXA XL, as a controller, uses cookies to provide its services, improve user experience, measure audience engagement, and interact with users’ social network accounts among others. Some of these cookies are optional and we won't set optional cookies unless you enable them by clicking the "ACCEPT ALL" button. You can disable these cookies at any time via the "How to manage your cookie settings" section in our cookie policy. FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE COOKIE POLICY PRIVACY NOTICE ACCEPT ALL REFUSE ALL COOKIE SETTINGS