Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Trap for the unwary: you still need to renew confidential treatment requests filed under the old rules

By Ryan Rourke Reed on April 16, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
trap-300x138.jpg

A confidential treatment order for information redacted from an exhibit is about to expire. Under SEC rules that took effect last week (see our prior blog posts here  and here), public companies can now redact the same type of information without prior SEC review, so the company doesn’t have to do anything, right?

Wrong.  The SEC has confirmed that its new rules for the redaction of confidential information from certain exhibits do not automatically extend orders for confidential treatment granted under the traditional application process.

Consistent with prior practice, a company wishing to request an extension of a previously granted confidential treatment order must:

  • submit an extension application (including supporting arguments) before the original confidential treatment order expires;
  • represent that (a) none of the confidential information has been disclosed, (b) disclosure of the information will cause substantial competitive harm to the company, and (c) disclosure of the confidential information is not necessary for protection of investors;
  • specify the duration of the extension request; and
  • include with the application copies of the original order granting confidential treatment, the original application for confidential treatment (including any amendments), the unredacted agreement marked to show confidential portions, and the redacted agreement, as originally filed on EDGAR.

Because confidential treatment orders granted under the traditional application process required submission of the unredacted exhibit as well as detailed substantive arguments about the proposed redactions, the application and related materials are in the SEC’s possession and are therefore subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act after those orders expire.  (Under the new rules, the redacted information is not provided to the SEC until requested.)  The SEC has advised that, in order to maintain the confidential treatment of prior applications and related materials, companies must use the traditional process for extension requests.

While the new rules promise to make the CTR process more efficient, companies should monitor the expiration dates of orders granted under the traditional application process and continue to allow sufficient time to prepare extension applications.

  • Posted in:
    Business and Commercial
  • Blog:
    IPO, Then What?
  • Organization:
    Foley Hoag LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo