Always Evolving and Adapting

Insider Lock-Up Agreements

Strategic legal analysis of lock-up agreements in public offerings and business combinations. Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis provides expert guidance on insider restrictions, de-SPAC compliance, and the impact of SEC CDI 139.29 and 139.30 on deal structuring.

Lock-Up Agreements: Strategic Restrictions on Liquidity and Market Stability

In the lifecycle of a public company, lock-up agreements serve as a critical mechanism for maintaining market stability and aligning the interests of insiders with those of the broader shareholder base. Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis provides sophisticated counsel on the drafting and negotiation of these instruments, ensuring that they satisfy the requirements of underwriters, exchange listing standards, and the federal securities laws. Our approach focuses on the strategic balance between providing liquidity for founders and early investors and protecting the public market from undue volatility.

The Fundamentals of Lock-Up Agreements

A lock-up agreement is a contractual arrangement that prohibits certain shareholders—typically directors, executive officers, and significant pre-IPO investors—from selling their shares for a specified period following a liquidity event. While not mandated by federal statute, these agreements are almost universally required by underwriters in an Initial Public Offering (IPO) and by the constituent parties in a business combination or de-SPAC transaction.

Purpose and Typical Provisions

The primary objective of a lock-up is to prevent a “flooding” of the market immediately following a public transition, which could result in significant downward pressure on the stock price. By restricting insider sales, the company provides the market with a “seasoning” period to establish a stable trading price based on public performance rather than insider sentiment.

Typical provisions in these agreements include:

Duration: In a traditional IPO, the standard lock-up period is 180 days. In business combinations and de-SPAC transactions, these periods often extend from six months to one year, sometimes with sophisticated early release triggers based on the stock’s market performance or specific corporate milestones.
Scope of Restriction: These agreements generally prohibit the sale, transfer, pledge, or hedging of the restricted securities, including common stock and any derivatives (options, warrants, or convertible notes).
Exceptions: Standard carve-outs usually allow for transfers to family trusts for estate planning purposes, charitable donations, or transfers to affiliates, provided the recipient agrees to be bound by the same lock-up restrictions.

Early Release Triggers: Mechanisms for Accelerated Liquidity

Modern lock-up agreements, particularly in the de-SPAC and business combination space, frequently incorporate “early release” triggers. These provisions allow restricted shareholders to gain liquidity before the expiration of the primary lock-up period if certain market-based conditions are met. This structure rewards long-term performance and provides a “safety valve” for insiders if the stock demonstrates sustained strength.

Price-Performance Triggers (VWAP Milestones)

The most common form of early release is tied to the Volume Weighted Average Price (VWAP) of the company’s common stock. These triggers are designed to ensure that insiders can only exit early if the public market has already absorbed the company’s story and driven the price above a specific premium.

Examples include:

The “20-out-of-30” Rule: Shares may be released from lock-up if the VWAP equals or exceeds a set price (e.g., $12.00 or 120% of the IPO price) for any 20 trading days within a 30-trading day period.
Staggered Price Tiers: A lock-up may release 33% of the shares at a $12.00 price trigger, 33% at $15.00, and the remainder at $18.00, ensuring a disciplined entry of insider shares into the float.

Time-Based Staggered Releases

Rather than a single “cliff” expiration at 180 days or one year, a staggered release schedule provides for periodic liquidity. This approach reduces the “overhang” risk—the market’s fear of a massive sell-off on a single date.

Example: 25% of the shares are released every 90 days following the closing, effectively creating a one-year “tapered” lock-up.

Event-Based Accelerators

Specific corporate events can also trigger the early termination of lock-up restrictions.

Secondary Offerings: If the company conducts an underwritten secondary offering, the lock-up is often waived for all signatories to the extent the underwriter permits them to participate in the offering.
Change of Control: Almost all lock-up agreements include a provision that the restrictions terminate immediately upon a “Change of Control” (e.g., a merger, sale of all assets, or tender offer) where all shareholders have the right to exchange their shares for cash or other consideration.

Lock-Up Agreements in Business Combinations and de-SPAC Transactions

In the context of a business combination registered on Form S-4 or F-4 (including de-SPAC transactions), lock-up agreements are a fundamental component of the deal architecture. Unlike a traditional IPO where the underwriter drives the terms, lock-ups in a merger are negotiated between the public acquirer and the private target.

These agreements are typically executed as part of the “support” or “voting” agreements provided by key target shareholders and the SPAC sponsor at the time the merger agreement is signed. They are essential for demonstrating to the market—and to potential PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity) investors—that the leadership team is committed to the long-term success of the combined entity.

SEC Regulatory Guidance: Analysis of CDI 139.29 and 139.30

In January 2026, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued critical updates to its Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (CDIs) regarding the interplay between lock-up/voting agreements and the registration process on Form S-4 or F-4. These interpretations clarify whether the entry into such agreements constitutes an “investment decision” that would preclude the registration of the transaction.

SEC CDI Question 139.29: Registration of Securities in a Business Combination

Question 139.29 addresses whether an issuer may register the offer and sale of securities in a business combination on Form S-4 or F-4 if the target shareholders have already entered into lock-up or voting agreements.

The SEC clarified that the entry into these agreements by “key” or “accredited” investors does not constitute a “sale” or “offer to sell” that would require registration prior to the signing of the agreement. This allows the issuer to include the securities issued to these shareholders in the S-4 or F-4 registration statement, provided that:

The agreements are entered into only with executive officers, directors, affiliates, and significant shareholders of the target;
The agreements are limited to a relatively small number of persons (typically a pool of key insiders rather than a broad segment of the shareholder base); and
The persons entering into the agreements own, in the aggregate, less than 100% of the voting securities of the target company.

In addition to these three core prongs, the SEC staff generally requires that the formal vote or written consent of the shareholders—including those who signed the support agreements—takes place only after the registration statement on Form S-4 or F-4 has been declared effective. Furthermore, the voting or lock-up agreements should be entered into concurrently with the execution of the definitive merger or reorganization agreement.

While CDI 139.29 is silent on the specific amount and form of consideration, the safe harbor is generally predicated on the signatories receiving the same consideration as the other target shareholders. If insiders receive different or additional consideration (such as a “side” payment or a different class of security), the SEC may view their participation as a separate private placement that cannot be registered on the same Form S-4 or F-4, potentially requiring a separate resale registration analysis under CDI 139.30.

The rationale for the “less than 100%” requirement and the post-effectiveness vote is foundational to the Securities Act. If 100% of the voting power has already committed to the transaction and the vote is taken privately, the “investment decision” is deemed completed in a private setting. In such a case, there is no “offer” left to register with the public, and the transaction must be treated as a completed private placement followed by a resale registration. By ensuring at least some portion of the voting securities remains “uncommitted” and delaying the formal vote, the issuer preserves the ability to conduct a registered public offering.

SEC CDI Question 139.30: Resale Registration and Private Placements

Question 139.30 further clarifies the registration of the resale of shares by those who have entered into such agreements. It confirms that if the issuance to the target shareholders was a valid private placement, the issuer may register the resale of those shares on a separate registration statement (such as a Form S-1 or F-1) even if the shareholders are already bound by a lock-up agreement. This guidance ensures that the technical existence of a lock-up does not impede the company’s ability to satisfy its registration rights obligations once the lock-up period expires.

Leak-Out Provisions: Managing Gradual Liquidity

A leak-out provision is a strategic variation of a lock-up that allows for a controlled and gradual release of shares into the market rather than a binary “cliff” expiration. Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis often recommends leak-out structures in business combinations and de-SPAC transactions to manage shareholder expectations while preserving institutional investor confidence in the stock’s stability.

Technical Mechanics and Volume Limitations

Leak-out provisions typically restrict the amount of stock a shareholder can sell over a specific timeframe (daily, weekly, or monthly). These restrictions are often expressed through one of the following formulas:

Percentage of Average Daily Trading Volume (ADTV): The shareholder may be restricted to selling no more than a certain percentage (e.g., 5% to 10%) of the ADTV for the preceding 20 or 30 trading days. This ensures that the sell-side pressure remains proportional to the market’s existing depth.
Tiered Percentage Release: The agreement may allow for the release of fixed percentages of the total held shares at staggered intervals (e.g., 25% after 90 days, 25% after 180 days, and the remainder after one year).
Price-Triggered Release: Some leak-outs include “accelerators” that allow for increased selling volume if the stock maintains a minimum closing price for a specified number of consecutive trading days.

Interplay with Rule 144

It is critical for insiders to understand that leak-out provisions are contractual mandates that exist independently of the regulatory requirements of Rule 144. While Rule 144(e) imposes its own volume limitations on affiliates (the greater of 1% of the outstanding shares or the average weekly trading volume over the preceding four weeks), a leak-out agreement is frequently more restrictive.

In practice, the shareholder must comply with whichever restriction is more stringent at the time of sale. We assist clients in drafting these provisions to ensure they do not inadvertently create “control person” issues or conflict with the issuer’s internal insider trading policies.

Strategic Impact on Deal Structuring

Understanding these interpretations and mechanics is vital for executive leadership and boards during the early stages of merger negotiations. Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis assists clients in identifying “key” shareholders and structuring support agreements that comply with the CDI 139.29 safe harbor, thereby avoiding the risk of a “busted” private placement or the inability to register the transaction on Form S-4/F-4.

The inclusion of leak-out provisions serves as a “market-friendly” signal, demonstrating that significant holders are not seeking an immediate exit upon the expiration of the initial lock-up. This gradual liquidity approach is particularly favored by institutional investors and PIPE participants who are focused on long-term value creation.

Authority Through Technical Depth

Our expertise in the mechanics of lock-up agreements and the nuances of SEC interpretations is grounded in years of professional analysis. We invite executive leadership to explore our extensive library of insights at our corporate website and our specialized blog site, www.securitieslawblog.com, for detailed discussions on the evolution of de-SPAC regulations and insider trading policies.

Schedule an Executive Strategy Consultation

Navigating the transition to public markets requires a proactive approach to liquidity management and regulatory compliance. Anthony, Linder & Cacomanolis invites you to engage in a high-level strategy consultation to discuss your lock-up and registration strategies.

Schedule an executive strategy consultation with our senior partners to discuss your lock-up agreement needs by calling 877-541-3263 or visiting our contact page.