首页> 外文期刊>The Business Lawyer >Exchange Act Rule 14e-1 Opinions for Debt Tender Offers
【24h】

Exchange Act Rule 14e-1 Opinions for Debt Tender Offers

机译:《交换法》第14e-1条对债务要约收购的意见

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

This report addresses legal opinions regarding the application of Rule 14e-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") to tender offers for non-convertible debt securities ("debt tender offers"). Rule 14e-1 was adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") pursuant to its authority in section 14(e) of the Exchange Act by "rules and regulations[, to] define, and prescribe means reasonably designed to prevent, such acts and practices as are fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative." When debt tender offers are structured to be consistent with the literal requirements of Rule 14e-1, the Rule 14e-1 opinion is straightforward. On the other hand, when debt tender offers are structured in ways that raise questions as to their consistency with those requirements (which is often the case), the Rule 14e-1 opinion raises issues for counsel that typically are not present in other types of opinions. In these circumstances, counsel delivering the opinion may rely on no-action letters, interpretive positions, and other forms of guidance provided by the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance and its staff (the "Staff"), and should consider including appropriate language in the opinion to inform the recipient about counsel's reliance on such guidance. To the extent that relevant Staff guidance is unavailable, counsel delivering the opinion should consider including appropriate language in the opinion to inform the recipient of the absence of relevant guidance.
机译:本报告涉及有关根据1934年《证券交易法》(“交易法”)第14e-1条对不可转换债务证券的要约要约(“债务要约要约”)的法律意见。美国证券交易委员会(“ SEC”)根据其在《交易法》第14(e)条中的授权,通过“规则和规定[,]定义和规定了合理设计用于防止欺诈,欺骗或操纵性的行为和作法。”如果将要约收购要约的结构与规则14e-1的字面要求相一致,则规则14e-1的意见很简单。另一方面,当债务要约要约的结构引起人们对其要求与要求的一致性的质疑(通常是这种情况)时,《上市规则》第14e-1条的意见就为律师提供了其他类型的律师通常没有的问题意见。在这种情况下,发表意见的律师可能会根据SEC的公司财务部及其工作人员(以下简称“工作人员”)提供的不采取行动的信函,解释性立场和其他形式的指导,并应考虑在其中包括适当的语言。告知受助者律师对此类指导的依赖的意见。如果没有相关的工作人员指导,发表意见的律师应考虑在意见中包括适当的语言,以告知接受者缺少相关的指导。

著录项

  • 来源
    《The Business Lawyer》 |2017年第4期|1047-1055|共9页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 02:37:42

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号