
Trump Administration Executive Order (EO) Tracker
The UK Government is consulting on proposals to reform the UK’s prospectus regime. The proposals are published in response to Lord Hill’s UK Listing Review in which he recommends that, amongst other things, the Government carries out a “complete re-think” of the whole purpose of the prospectus in order to encourage efficient capital and debt raising and reduce unnecessary regulation. This alert considers the Government’s key proposals which look set to diverge significantly from the current prospectus rules in the EU.
Lord Hill’s UK Listing Review made a series of recommendations to the Government for the reform of the UK’s listing regime, one of which was to “completely re-think” the entire prospectus framework by going back to first principles and considering the purpose of a prospectus. In response, the Government has published a consultation “UK Prospectus Regime Review” (“Consultation Paper”) which proposes fundamental reforms to the current regime.
To focus the debate, the Consultation Paper invites comments on the following proposed statement of the purpose of a prospectus: “a document of record, available to the public free of charge, that provides potential investors with the information they need and that they can rely on to make an investment decision in a security.”
The key objectives of the consultation are:
The Government’s thinking can be broadly summarised as follows:
Therefore, the Consultation Paper is conceptual rather than detail-orientated – the day-to-day changes to the existing prospectus framework will be for the FCA to decide. The Consultation Paper does not address the timing of the provision of information to potential investors – a source of some friction in the market following the FCA’s 2018 IPO reforms aimed at accelerating the publication of registration documents and encouraging more unconnected pre-IPO research.
The Consultation Paper is based on the assumption that the existing continuing disclosure regime for publicly traded issuers should largely alleviate the need for prospectuses but does not consider whether any changes should be made to that regime. Equally, the Consultation Paper does not go into detail on the regulatory status of documentation that may replace approved prospectuses, for instance under the UK financial promotion regime.
The main proposals include:
The Government has considered the key elements of the public offering rules and its proposals include:
The Government has considered feedback that the existing prospectus framework discourages disclosures of forward-looking information compared to other regulated disclosure mechanisms (such as in the annual reports and regulatory announcements), which the Government attributes to the differing liability standard attaching to prospectuses.
Persons responsible for prospectuses must reasonably believe that statements made in prospectuses are true and not misleading and that omissions of information are properly made in order to avoid liability (the so-called negligence standard). In contrast, persons responsible for other regulated disclosures (including annual reports) are liable in respect of statements known by them to be untrue or misleading, or where they have been reckless as to whether a statement is untrue or misleading (the so-called recklessness or dishonesty standard).
The Consultation Paper proposes that the standard of liability for forward looking information in prospectuses should change from the negligence standard to the recklessness standard, provided that the relevant information is explicitly identified as forward looking and that the lower standard of liability applies to that information.
This reduction in liability would apply only in relation to statements in a prospectus which project or predict a future situation. It would not apply to statements of fact or to the working capital statement in a prospectus for equity offerings which would still be subject to the existing negligence standard.
The Consultation Paper seeks views on whether companies whose securities are traded on multilateral trading facilities (“MTFs”), which includes the London Stock Exchange's Alternative Investment Market (AIM), and, for non-equity securities, the International Securities Market (ISM), should either be permitted to make public offerings of their securities without preparing a prospectus (on the basis that the admission document or similar offering memorandum regarding their admission to the MTF should serve the same purpose) or whether such MTF admission documents should be treated as a form of prospectus, with the intention of bringing them within the scope of the prospectus liability regime.
The Government is interested in considering alternative obligations for companies making public offers of securities which are not to be admitted to any public market. This is especially relevant to crowd-funding, where the Government queries whether the existing EUR 8 million prospectus threshold has artificially distorted fund-raising.
The following options are proposed:
Options for addressing public offers made by overseas listed companies are also considered in the Consultation Paper, together with the overall merits of implementing a mechanism to permit public offerings into the UK by overseas companies. The options proposed are:
The Consultation Paper presents a valuable opportunity for market participants to voice their views on the current prospectus framework and contribute to replacement regime in the UK. It is also complemented by the publication of a series of consultations seeking to re-shape the UK’s capital markets landscape, including the simultaneous publication of the Government’s Wholesale Markets Review and FCA’s recent consultations on Primary Markets reform and SPACs. For more information on these consultations please see our alerts: A new dawn for the UK’s capital markets and FCA consults on SPACs.
The consultation closes on 24 September 2021. Any proposals to reform the current regime will require further Government consultation followed by legislation (if the proposals are taken forward), together with a corresponding FCA review and consultation on the more detailed rules.
For cross-border transactions, market participants will want to keep abreast of developments and in particular track how the UK prospectus rules diverge from the prospectus rules in the EU. It will also be important to monitor how the proposals around equivalence develop as, to date, the equivalence regime under the prospectus framework has been rarely, if ever, used in the UK or EU.
Authored by Jonathan Baird, Andrew Carey, Danette Antao and Isobel Wright.