SEC Streamlines Options For Expiring Confidential Treatment Orders – Corporate/Commercial Law

Bizar Male

United States:

SEC Streamlines Options For Expiring Confidential Treatment Orders

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on

On March 9, 2021, the Corporation Finance Division of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) updated its guidance in Disclosure Topic No. 7 for preserving
confidential treatment of exhibits redacted pursuant to an SEC
confidential treatment order (CTO) that is about to expire.

CTOs are becoming more rare. Most companies obtain confidential
treatment without a CTO by filing redacted copies of the exhibits
in accordance with Regulation S-K Item 601(b)(10)(iv), which allows
companies to redact immaterial, competitively harmful information
without submitting an explanation in advance to the SEC staff
(subject to legending and other requirements, as well as possible
future SEC review). For exhibits not covered by Item 601(b) (such
as Schedule 13D and Regulation M-A Item 1016 exhibits) filers must
obtain a CTO from the SEC.

The prior revision to Disclosure Topic No. 7 (issued September
9, 2020) was significant in that, among other options for
preserving confidential treatment, it announced that the staff
would permit filers to transition certain CTOs to Item 601(b)
treatment (if applicable), even before the CTO had expired.
However, availability of certain options depended on whether the
CTO had been issued more than three years before. See our prior blog post.

The revised Disclosure Topic No. 7 simplifies the prior guidance
by using October 15, 2017 (rather than the three-year lookback) as
a reference point in evaluating the three options for expiring

(1) If the contract remains material and the information
confidential, renew the CTO using a short form application (if the CTO was
initially issued after October 15, 2017) or filing a new, complete
application (if the CTO was initially issued on or before October
15, 2017).

(2) If the CTO was initially issued on or before October 15,
2017, and the contract continues to be material, transition to
compliance with Item 601(b), if applicable.

(3) If the contract is material but no longer confidential,
refile the exhibit without redactions.

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider
comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the
“Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are:
Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited
liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown
International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in
England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC
303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown
JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia;
and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with
which Mayer Brown is associated. “Mayer Brown” and the
Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in
their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2020. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights

Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal
issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a
comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not
intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific
legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters
discussed herein.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Corporate/Commercial Law from United States

A SPAC Primer

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Nary a day goes by when we do not get an inquiry about SPACs.

Next Post

Could This Watch Company's Legal Battle Change Trademark Law Forever?

March 16, 2021 15+ min read This story appears in the March 2021 issue of Entrepreneur. Subscribe » Vortic is a watch company. But in 2015, that description was overly generous. It was more like two guys working out of a storage closet with $40,000 from a Kickstarter. To make […]