SEC transfer agent overhaul: A bright-line legend removal standard arrives with a heavier price tag

On September 1, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced¹ a proposed overhaul to modernize the rules applicable to registered transfer agents. The proposed rule, in full, would amend registration and reporting requirements for transfer agents, modernize the rules to reflect technological advances, establish new requirements related to risk management, and introduce two rules addressing restrictive legends.

One of these changes in particular, new proposed Rule 17ad-31, has implications beyond the transfer agent industry itself. The new rule would clarify exactly what is required of transfer agents before removing a restrictive legend or processing an unregistered transaction, trading today’s uneven, ad hoc practice for a defined national standard. The tradeoff is a compliance path that is considerably more document- and analysis-intensive than what most issuers and their counsel are used to, which is likely to push out timelines and raise costs on transactions that once moved quickly.

Background

Transfer agents sit at a choke point in the securities markets: they hold the official ownership records for issuers and facilitate the removal of restrictive legends on their securities. That gatekeeping function has operated for decades without a dedicated federal rulebook. The transfer agent rules currently on the books date to the late 1970s and early 1980s and have not been substantively revised since.

In the interim, legend removal has been governed by a mix of state commercial law, the terms of individual transfer agency agreements, informal industry norms, and the risk of an SEC enforcement action. The result has been inconsistent; some transfer agents demand a full Rule 144 opinion for every legend removal, while others require considerably less. 

Transfer Agent as Gatekeeper

Proposed Rule 17ad-31 would replace the current patchwork with a single federal standard for the placement and removal of restrictive legends from securities. As proposed, a transfer agent may not facilitate an “unregistered securities transaction” unless it has a reasonable basis to believe the transaction does not violate, or is not part of a chain of transactions that would violate, Section 5(a) of the Securities Act. This is a new, independent obligation on the transfer agent; it runs alongside, not in place of, the seller’s own existing burden to establish that an exemption applies. 

Separately, and for every issue it services, a transfer agent would be required to keep a current list of the issuer’s own employees who are authorized to give it instructions on legends, and refuse instructions from anyone off that list. Only issuer employees can be on the list, so counsel, underwriters, and paying agents who have historically given legend instructions on an issuer’s behalf will need another route to the transfer agent.

Non-Exclusive Safe Harbor

As long as the transfer agent is not aware of any circumstances suggesting a Section 5 problem, proposed Rule 17ad-31 offers a non-exclusive safe harbor² with two routes for establishing the required reasonable basis: 

• Route one is reliance on an opinion of counsel, who must not be an affiliate, officer, director, or employee of either the issuer or the holder. The opinion must name the specific documents reviewed, evaluate the availability of a specific registration exemption, and conclude that this particular transaction qualifies for it. A generic, conclusory “blanket” opinion will not do. 
• Route two lets the transfer agent reach its own conclusion instead of relying on outside counsel, provided the conclusion is documented in writing, approved by the transfer agent’s management, and supported by the same level of specificity the rule demands of an opinion: the exemption relied on, what was reviewed, and the facts that support the result.

Neither route is available if the transfer agent is sitting on a “red flag.” The proposing release lists examples: a trading suspension, an unusually concentrated float, a large reverse split, a shell company absorbing a private business, gaps in an issuer’s SEC filing history, an abrupt spike in trading in a thin, low-priced stock, documents that look altered or inconsistent, an issuer that has changed its name (or business) repeatedly, or the same attorney turning up across a string of similar transactions. A red flag does not end the transaction, but it does require the transfer agent to dig further before it can proceed.

The Real-World Tradeoff

For more than a decade, transfer agent industry associations have asked the SEC to provide bright-line rules regarding legend removal requests, arguing that the SEC has looked to transfer agents to play a gatekeeper role without providing the industry with clear guidance on how to fulfill it. That absence of guidance has, in some circumstances, resulted in inconsistent approaches to legend removals. By providing precise guidelines on what constitutes a reasonable-basis determination, the SEC’s codified safe harbor offers a target for transfer agents to aim for. 

While offering some of the requested clarity, the proposed safe harbor as proposed can be expected to lead to a significant increase in the time and expense required for legend removal requests. Many transfer agents today accept shorter opinions where the opinion giver is relying almost entirely on representations given by holders and brokers. However, the safe harbor’s opinion checklist would require considerably more detail in the opinion itself (naming the documents reviewed, walking through a specific exemption, and reaching a transaction-specific conclusion). 

This more detailed opinion, alone, is not a substantial additional burden. However, what would significantly increase the diligence burden is the requirement that transfer agents consider what could constitute a “red flag,” as discussed above. The proposed safe harbor cannot be met by simply ruling out the specific red flags enumerated by the SEC, but instead requires an opinion giver to have conducted a thorough investigation into a highly fact-dependent field of subtle distinctions and reached considered conclusions to identify problematic trades, which will dictate whether an opinion can be delivered. Compared to the shorter processes for delivering opinions today, the diligence gap is substantial. 

Proposed Rule 17ad-31 also defines “unregistered securities transaction” broadly to reach beyond legend removal alone and also includes an unregistered original issuance or a purchase, sale, or transfer by an affiliate, officer, or director. As a result, the same reasonable-basis analysis would extend to private placement closings, PIPE issuances, note conversions, warrant exercises, equity compensation deliveries, and affiliate transfers of every kind, many of which have never before required a transfer agent-facing legal opinion. Notably, note conversions and warrant exercises in particular are included in this list. These two actions historically have not been an area of concern for the SEC because any safeguards would have been applied to the initial issuance. By including these types of transactions within the scope of Rule 17ad-31, the SEC may be adding an additional layer of friction to these transactions. Equity compensation deliveries follow a similar pattern: equity compensation is largely regulated at the time of the initial issuance, and including it in the new rule’s coverage could make it somewhat more difficult for companies to align employee compensation with shareholders’ interests by tying compensation to future performance. 

Furthermore, because all of this diligence has to happen against a backdrop of shorter, T+1-aligned turnaround expectations elsewhere in the proposal, transactions that used to clear the transfer agent same-day will likely need opinion delivery and transfer agent sign-off built into the timeline well ahead of closing, especially for transactions most likely to trip a red flag. For transactions that contain buy-in provisions, such as many convertible instruments, holders have the right to seek reimbursement from the issuer if they are required to buy shares in the market due to the issuer’s inability to settle on time. If settlement timing is impacted by proposed Rule 17ad-31, companies will potentially bear these delay costs, including with respect to already-outstanding securities. And for certain hedge investors that rely on settlements of convertible securities to cover hedged positions, settlement timing uncertainty could impact the pricing of those convertible securities, resulting in reduced capital formation in conflict with the SEC’s current mandate.

The safe harbor’s opinion requirements apply only to transactions relying on a specific registration exemption, but due to the broad scope of transactions covered by proposed Rule 17ad-31, the safe harbor would not be available where the shares are being resold under a registration statement instead of an exemption. The transfer agent’s general reasonable-basis duty would still apply in that scenario, and the safe harbor is non-exclusive, so some other path to a reasonable basis presumably exists, but the proposal does not spell out what that path looks like, leaving these common transactions to be worked out case-by-case unless the final rule addresses it directly.

A final rule along the lines of proposed Rule 17ad-31 would likely give transfer agents, issuers, and counsel a common, defensible standard for legend removals in place of today’s practices, which have not previously had the benefit of any safe harbor status from the SEC. Such a rule would also make each individual removal slower and more expensive to clear, particularly where the safe harbor’s exemption-based framework does not map neatly onto the transaction at hand.

Practical Takeaways

While proposed Rule 17ad-31 is pending, issuers, transfer agents, and counsel should consider stress-testing their current opinion practice against the safe harbor and start planning for the additional diligence that will be needed. Transfer agents should work with issuer clients now to identify which employees will be authorized to instruct the transfer agent on legends, put internal controls around changes to that list, and rework any closing process that currently routes legend instructions through outside counsel.

Comments are due 60 days after Federal Register publication. Issuers with active shelf programs, heavy exempt-issuance volume (including equity compensation programs), or significant affiliate holdings should consider commenting on the scope of “unregistered securities transaction,” possible carve-outs for routine issuances, and the treatment of post-effectiveness legend removals under the safe harbor.

Heath DeJean (White & Case, Professional Support Lawyer, New York) contributed to the development of this publication

^{1 The SEC’s announcement of the proposed rule changes can be found here, along with the full proposing release, which contains a number of updates not discussed in this alert.}

^{2 See Proposed Rule 17ad-31(b).}

_{White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.}

_{This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.}

_{© 2026 White & Case LLP}