Latest Updates /  Capital Markets

As part of the Israel Security Authority’s (ISA) measures to relax certain existing regulations, it has promulgated the Securities Order (Amendment to the First Addendum to the Law) regarding the definition of a “classified investor.” This amendment will come into effect on March 25, 2016.

As part of the globalization of the Israeli capital market, the Financial Committee of the Israeli Knesset recently approved the Joint Investment Trust Regulations (Offer of Units of a Foreign Fund), according to which managers of foreign mutual funds may offer their funds to the Israeli public.

The social phenomena of crowdfunding, adopted by high-tech startups as an alternative means to raise funds, was previously limited in Israel by Israel’s Securities Law. Section 15 of the law dictates that any offer or sale of shares to the public (i.e. to more than 35 potential investors) requires the issuance of a prospectus approved by the Securities Authority; a timely and costly endeavor, rendering crowdfunding prohibitive in Israel.

The Economics Department of the Tel-Aviv – Jaffa District Court is continuing to issue precedent rulings, and this time, in relation to the interpretation of section 46.B. of the Securities Law, 5728 – 1968. Discussions had been underway for some time between Mylan N.V., a foreign public company traded on the NASDAQ, and Perrigo Company Plc., a foreign company traded on the New York Stock Exchange and on the Tel-Aviv Stock Exchange, relating to Mylan’s potential acquisition of Perrigo’s shares. After these discussions failed to mature into a transaction, Mylan announced in the United States its firm intention of publishing a tender offer for Perrigo’s shares, despite the fact that Perrigo’s board of directors had rejected the offer (i.e., a hostile takeover).

Recently, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that constitutes a precedent: loan agreements which an entrepreneur offered to public investors are tantamount to “securities,” and therefore, require the publication of a prospectus, pursuant to the provisions of the Securities Law.

As part of the series of reliefs that the Israel Securities Authority is promoting in order to ease the regulatory burden applied to entities under its supervision, a number of amendments to the Securities Regulations (Periodic and Immediate Reports), 5730 – 1970  were promulgated in the Official Gazette recently.

As part of its endeavor to streamline public reporting and ease some of the regulatory burden imposed on publicly listed companies, the Israeli Securities Authority (ISA) this week introduced an amendment to the Securities Regulations governing periodic and immediate reports. The amendment deals with a number of issues, including reporting on agreement negotiations and the companies’ right to delay public reporting.

A few weeks ago, a new law came into effect in the United States that made significant changes to how small companies can raise money.  The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (better known by its nickname, the “JOBS Act”) aims to ease the process for startups to seek investments, with a potentially dramatic effect. Now, two years after the JOBS Act became law, we can look back and see just what effect these changes have had on the process of taking startups through initial public offerings (IPOs), and how this affects Israeli startups.

Recently, Judge Ruth Ronen of the Economic Department of the Tel-Aviv District Court handed down a ruling which related to an issue which is pertinent to virtually every publicly listed company.   When do negotiations reach a point of becoming material information, thereby constituting inside information? The background to this case was that Africa Israel Industries had published a tender offer in 2012 for the purchase of shares in Negev Ceramics, without publicly disclosing that negotiations were being conducted with Olympia, a Canadian company. The Administration Enforcement Committee (established under the Securities Law) had ruled that the publishing of the tender coupled with lack of disclosure constituted insider information. Judge Ronen presided over the appeal against this ruling.   Judge Ronen ruled that the negotiations had indeed reached the point of becoming material information. Her decision was based on the application of the materiality/magnitude test, which weights the probability of the event occurring against the anticipated impact of the event on the company. It is not difficult to see the logic in the assumption that the fact that negotiations are underway might be material information and that therefore, whoever executes transactions with securities while in possession of such information is considered as having made use of insider information. However, it appears that the ISA’s Administrative Enforcement Committee was prepared to go even further and expressed the opinion that the same materiality test for the purpose of ascertaining abuse of insider information should be used for the purpose of ascertaining the application of a reporting obligation. The Committee’s position may be interpreted as deciding that, when negotiations reach the point of becoming material, the Company must issue an appropriate immediate report. Judge Ronen decided that it was unwarranted to examine the correlation between abuse of insider information and a corporation’s general disclosure obligation, within the scope of the petition. However, the critical question remains: Should every public company assume that it is obliged to publish an immediate report every time it conducts negotiations and they reach the level of becoming “material”? Firstly, one must consider whether such a requirement is reasonable and feasible. One must keep in mind two salient points: There is never certainty that negotiations, whether or not material, will eventually lead to an agreement and; the very disclosure that negotiations are underway could thwart the transaction or adversely affect its conditions. Secondly, since negotiations are often a dynamic, lengthy process, it is unreasonable to expect public companies to repetitively perform analyses during the course of negotiations in order to ascertain whether, at any given stage, the correlation between the probability of a successful conclusion of the negotiations and the anticipated impact of the current draft of the agreement, has reached a level of “materiality” that dictates the publication of an immediate report. Even if the conclusion had been that it would be advisable and wise to oblige public companies to publish immediate reports about negotiations, considering the implications and possible repercussions, such an obligation should be clearly and unequivocally defined. For example, the Securities Law prescribes specific provisions regarding insider information. Furthermore, the Securities Regulations include express provisions regarding the imposition of reporting obligations, and require the reporting of any transaction for the purchase of a “material asset.” The Regulations enable the company’s board of directors to delay the reporting under particular circumstances, but do not allow a company to delay reporting in any instance of securities being offered pursuant to a prospectus. In other words, there are circumstances when information about material negotiations must be published: before the execution of a transaction with securities, before the publishing of a tender offer and before the publication of a prospectus, and in relation to purchases of material assets. However, one should not deduce from this that there is a sweeping obligation to publish an immediate report about negotiations, and certainly, it would be advisable to carefully analyze all relevant considerations, such as reasonability and the appropriate legal source before imposing such an obligation.