The ELEVATE Act of 2025 amends Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to (1) narrow the historical financial look‑back for ‘‘emerging growth companies’’ to two preceding years for one registration statement item, and (2) create a statutory route for any issuer to submit draft registration statements to the SEC for confidential, nonpublic staff review. The bill requires that the initial confidential submission and any amendments be publicly filed no later than 10 days before listing on a national securities exchange.
The statute also expressly shields information obtained under the new confidentiality pathway from public disclosure, treating it as exempt under FOIA (5 U.S.C. §552) and as ‘‘confidential information’’ for purposes of the Exchange Act’s confidentiality provisions. For compliance officers, in‑house counsel, and underwriters, the change alters the pre‑IPO playbook: issuers gain a formal, time‑limited privacy window to refine disclosure with SEC staff, while public investors receive required disclosures on a compressed timeline before exchange listing.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Section 12(b) to narrow the look‑back for a specified historical item for emerging growth companies to two preceding years, and adds a new clause permitting any issuer to submit draft registration statements to the SEC for confidential, nonpublic staff review before public filing. It mandates public filing of the initial confidential submission and all amendments not later than 10 days before listing on a national securities exchange.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include emerging growth companies planning offerings, any issuer contemplating an IPO or direct listing, SEC staff who will conduct nonpublic reviews, broker‑dealers and underwriters managing underwriting and due diligence timelines, and national securities exchanges enforcing listing triggers tied to public filings.
Why It Matters
By codifying confidential draft review and a firm 10‑day pre‑listing public‑file deadline, the bill shifts when and how disclosure is developed and shared. That alters information flows into the market, potentially accelerating listing decisions while concentrating public disclosure close to the trading start date — a material operational and regulatory change for capital‑markets participants.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The ELEVATE Act makes two practical changes to how issuers prepare and file registration statements under the Securities Exchange Act. First, for one registration requirement identified in Section 12(b)(1)(K), the bill limits the historical period an emerging growth company must cover to the two preceding years.
That reduces the amount of historical financial detail an EGC must present under that specific item, narrowing backward‑looking disclosure in at least one statutory spot.
Second, and more consequential operationally, the Act creates a statutory mechanism allowing any issuer to send a draft registration statement to the Securities and Exchange Commission for confidential, nonpublic review by Commission staff before making a public filing. The confidentiality window applies to the initial draft and all subsequent draft amendments; however, the law then requires that the initial confidential submission and every amendment be publicly filed no later than 10 days before the issuer lists on a national securities exchange.
In practice, that gives issuers a limited period to obtain SEC staff feedback privately while obliging near‑listing public transparency.The bill also sets explicit disclosure limits around materials provided in the confidential review. It instructs that the Commission ‘‘shall not be compelled to disclose’’ information obtained under this authority, indicates the provision fits within the FOIA subsection categorization for statutory exemptions, and declares that such information is ‘‘confidential information’’ under the Exchange Act’s confidentiality rules.
Those labels carry legal weight: they restrict third‑party access to pre‑filing materials and frame how the SEC must treat them in litigation or FOIA requests.Taken together, the statutory changes formalize a pre‑filing consultation pathway and shorten certain historical reporting for EGCs, while concentrating public disclosure nearer to listing. That combination will change timing for diligence, syndicate coordination, and investor access to offering documents.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Section 12(b)(1)(K) to limit the historical years required for that item to two preceding years for emerging growth companies.
Any issuer may submit a draft registration statement to the SEC for confidential, nonpublic staff review before public filing; this confidentiality applies to the initial submission and all amendments.
The law requires the initial confidential submission and every subsequent amendment to be publicly filed with the Commission not later than 10 days before listing on a national securities exchange.
The Act instructs that the Commission shall not be compelled to disclose information provided under this subsection and treats the provision as the kind of statute described in FOIA subsection 552(b)(3)(B), creating an explicit FOIA shield.
Information obtained under the confidential‑review authority is deemed ‘‘confidential information’’ for purposes of the Exchange Act’s Section 24 confidentiality protections.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act the stylized name ‘‘Encouraging Local Emerging Ventures and Economic Growth Act of 2025’’ (ELEVATE Act of 2025). This is a purely formal provision that organizes the statute under a single short title for citations and cross‑referencing; it creates no operative compliance obligations.
Two‑year look‑back for emerging growth companies
Modifies the phrasing in paragraph (1)(K) so that for an ‘‘emerging growth company’’ the referenced historical period is capped at the two preceding years. That is a narrow textual change targeted at one registration statement item; practitioners will need to identify which specific disclosure item (K) governs and adjust historical financial or narrative discussion accordingly when an issuer qualifies as an EGC.
Statutory confidential draft registration review with deadline
Adds a new subsection permitting any issuer to submit draft registration statements to the Commission for confidential, nonpublic staff review prior to public filing. The provision requires that the initial confidential submission and any amendments be publicly filed with the Commission no later than 10 days before the issuer lists on a national securities exchange. Operationally, this creates a time box: issuers can seek private staff comments early in the drafting process but must convert that work product into a public filing shortly before listing, compressing the public disclosure window and affecting coordination with exchanges and underwriters.
Express FOIA exemption and Exchange Act confidentiality designation
States that the Commission shall not be compelled to disclose information provided or obtained under the confidential‑review authority, and directs that the subsection be considered a statute described in FOIA §552(b)(3)(B). It further declares the information obtained to constitute ‘‘confidential information’’ for purposes of Section 24 of the Exchange Act. These classifications limit third‑party access to pre‑filing materials and will shape how staff handles requests and litigation over such records.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Emerging growth companies (EGCs) — they get a narrower look‑back for the specific 12(b)(1)(K) item, reducing some backward‑looking disclosure burdens and potential sensitivity around older financials.
- Any issuer contemplating an IPO or direct listing — they can obtain SEC staff feedback on draft documents privately, enabling iterative drafting without early public scrutiny or tipping market plans.
- Underwriters and deal counsel — confidential review allows more controlled remediation of disclosure issues before public scrutiny, potentially lowering reputational risk and smoothing syndicate due diligence.
Who Bears the Cost
- SEC staff and agency resources — confidential, nonpublic reviews will increase staff workload and require process and recordkeeping adjustments without providing immediate public signals about pending offerings.
- Public investors and research analysts — compressed public filing timelines (public disclosure only 10 days before listing) reduce time available for independent analysis and could limit orderly price discovery at IPO.
- Smaller market participants and competitors — reduced early public visibility into potential entrants or competitive moves while issuers exploit the private review window may disadvantage those relying on public filings for market intelligence.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between facilitating capital formation by giving issuers a private space to refine disclosure with SEC staff and preserving investor protections that rely on timely, public access to offering materials; accelerating listings through a compressed public‑filing window enhances issuer privacy and deal speed but risks depriving the market of sufficient time to assess risk and conduct independent due diligence.
The bill creates a clean statutory route for confidential draft review but leaves several operational details undefined. It does not specify process rules for how the SEC staff will manage confidential submissions, set any deadlines for staff comment, or require the staff to return comments within a particular timeframe.
Absent implementing rules or staff guidance, issuers and practitioners will confront uncertainty about how long nonpublic review will actually take and what level of engagement to expect from examiners.
The FOIA and Exchange Act confidentiality labels restrict public access to pre‑filing materials, but the statute does not define the contours of ‘‘confidential information’’ in this new context or how that classification will interact with whistleblower disclosures, enforcement investigations, or third‑party litigation that seeks discovery of pre‑filing communications. Those open questions create potential legal fights over the scope of non‑disclosure and whether certain information must later be produced to courts, regulators, or parties in enforcement matters.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.