The SPAC Cycle: From Blank Check Boom to Regulatory Reset

Executive Summary#

The Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC), a financial instrument with origins dating back decades, experienced an unprecedented surge in popularity between 2020 and 2021, fundamentally altering the landscape of capital markets before collapsing under the weight of its own structural flaws and a shifting macroeconomic environment. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the SPAC phenomenon, examining the mechanics of the original model, the factors that fueled its meteoric rise, the systemic issues that precipitated its crash, and the transformative impact of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) 2024 rule changes, which have ushered in a new era colloquially known as "SPAC 2.0."

The original SPAC model, or "SPAC 1.0," offered private companies a faster and seemingly more certain path to the public markets than a traditional Initial Public Offering (IPO). Its key features included a fixed $10.00 share price, a trust account to protect initial investors' capital, and, crucially, a regulatory framework that permitted the use of forward-looking financial projections to market deals. However, this structure was underpinned by a profound misalignment of incentives. Sponsors, the management teams who form SPACs, received a disproportionate 20% equity stake (the "promote") for a nominal investment, creating a powerful incentive to complete any acquisition within their typical two-year timeframe, regardless of the target's quality or valuation. This, combined with significant share dilution from warrants and fees, created a system where sophisticated initial public offering investors could achieve near risk-free returns while post-merger shareholders, often including retail investors, bore the brunt of the vehicle's inherent costs and poor subsequent performance.

The 2020-2021 boom was a perfect storm of zero-interest-rate policy, massive pandemic-era liquidity injections, and speculative market euphoria. SPACs became the preferred vehicle for high-growth, often pre-revenue, companies in trendy sectors like electric vehicles and technology. The involvement of celebrity sponsors amplified the media hype, drawing in a wave of retail capital. At its peak in 2021, the SPAC market raised over $162 billion, accounting for more than half of all U.S. IPOs.

The subsequent crash was as swift as the ascent. A combination of rising interest rates, which punished speculative growth assets, and a dismal record of post-merger underperformance shattered investor confidence. Redemption rates soared, deals faltered, and the market was flooded with "zombie SPACs" unable to find a viable target. The collapse exposed the model's fundamental weaknesses: the dilutive cost structure and the perverse incentives of the sponsor promote.

In response, the SEC enacted a comprehensive set of rules in January 2024, effectively creating "SPAC 2.0." These rules aim to restore parity between de-SPAC transactions and traditional IPOs. The most critical changes include making the target company a "co-registrant" with full liability for disclosure accuracy, eliminating the legal safe harbor for forward-looking projections, and mandating clear, prominent disclosures on sponsor compensation, conflicts of interest, and shareholder dilution.

This new regulatory framework fundamentally alters the risk-reward calculus for all participants. For retail investors, SPAC 2.0 offers significantly enhanced protection through transparency, providing them with the quality of information necessary to make more informed decisions. However, the underlying economic risks of dilution and misaligned sponsor incentives, while now disclosed, are not eliminated. For the market at large, the SPAC cycle serves as a powerful barometer of investor sentiment. The boom signaled a period of peak euphoria and speculative excess, while its crash was a leading indicator of a broader shift to a "risk-off" environment. The current, more disciplined SPAC 2.0 market reflects a new phase of caution and a renewed focus on fundamental value. The SPAC is unlikely to disappear, but its future lies not as a revolutionary force, but as a regulated, niche financial tool for high-quality companies in a more discerning capital market.

Section I: The Anatomy of the Original SPAC (SPAC 1.0)#

To comprehend the dramatic rise and fall of the Special Purpose Acquisition Company, it is essential to first dissect the architecture of the vehicle that dominated the 2020-2021 boom. This "SPAC 1.0" model was a complex financial product, engineered with specific features that made it a compelling, yet ultimately flawed, alternative to the traditional Initial Public Offering (IPO). Its structure, participants, and incentive mechanisms created a unique ecosystem that prioritized speed and deal certainty, often at the expense of long-term value creation for post-merger shareholders.

1.1 The Blank Check Proposition: Core Mechanics and Lifecycle#

At its core, a SPAC is a publicly traded shell corporation with no commercial operations.¹ It is formed for the sole purpose of raising capital through an IPO to acquire or merge with an existing private company, thereby taking that company public.² Because the SPAC has no operating history and typically no specified acquisition target at the time of its IPO, it is often referred to as a "blank check company".²

The lifecycle of a SPAC follows a distinct, two-stage process:

1. The SPAC IPO: The process begins when a sponsor team forms the SPAC and takes it public. In its IPO, the SPAC offers "units" to investors, almost universally priced at a par value of $10.00 per unit.³ Each unit is a composite security, typically consisting of one share of common stock and a fraction of a warrant-such as one-half or one-third of a warrant-which gives the holder the right to purchase an additional share in the future at a fixed price.⁶ The gross proceeds from this IPO are placed into a segregated trust account, where they are invested in low-risk, short-term U.S. government securities.² These funds are legally ringfenced and can only be used for two primary purposes: to fund a future business combination or to be returned to the public shareholders upon liquidation or redemption.⁹

2. The De-SPAC Transaction: Following its IPO, the SPAC's management team has a finite period, typically 18 to 24 months, to identify a suitable private company and complete a merger. This process is known as the "de-SPAC" transaction.⁷ Once a definitive merger agreement is announced, it is presented to the SPAC's public shareholders for approval. A critical feature of the structure is the shareholder redemption right. Public shareholders are given the option to "redeem" their shares in exchange for their pro-rata portion of the cash held in the trust account (approximately $10.00 per share plus accrued interest), regardless of whether they vote for or against the proposed merger.¹ This redemption feature acts as a capital-back guarantee, providing significant downside protection for those who invested in the SPAC's IPO.¹¹ If the SPAC fails to complete a de-SPAC transaction within its allotted timeframe, it is forced to liquidate, and the funds in the trust are returned to the public shareholders.⁷

1.2 Key Participants and Their Roles: Sponsors, IPO Investors, and PIPE Financiers#

The SPAC ecosystem is composed of three distinct groups of participants, each with different roles and motivations:

• The Sponsor: The sponsor is the management team, experienced executive, or investment group that establishes the SPAC, provides the initial seed capital to cover underwriting fees and operating expenses, and leads the search for an acquisition target.⁶ In the SPAC 1.0 era, the reputation, industry expertise, and deal-sourcing network of the sponsor team were the primary-and often only-assets being marketed to investors during the SPAC's IPO.¹¹

• IPO Investors: The initial investors who purchase units in the SPAC's IPO are predominantly institutional, with hedge funds being the most significant participants.⁵ Their investment is characterized by low risk due to the combination of the cash-backed trust account and the redemption right, which effectively creates a floor value for their shares at the $10.00 IPO price.

• PIPE Investors: Given the high likelihood of redemptions by IPO investors, many de-SPAC transactions require additional capital to meet minimum cash conditions and fund the combined company's growth. This capital is often raised through a Private Investment in Public Equity (PIPE) financing. PIPE investors are typically large, sophisticated institutional funds that are invited to invest in the deal concurrently with the merger announcement.⁶ Their participation serves a dual purpose: it provides certainty of capital to close the deal, backstopping any cash shortfall from redemptions, and it serves as an important signal of institutional validation for the target company's valuation and prospects.¹²

1.3 The Incentive Structure: Analyzing the Sponsor "Promote" and Warrants#

The economic structure of SPAC 1.0 was defined by incentives that were heavily skewed in favor of sponsors and IPO investors, creating a system rife with conflicts of interest. The two key components of this structure were the sponsor "promote" and warrants.

• The Sponsor "Promote": The primary compensation for the sponsor is a unique equity stake known as the "promote" or "founder shares." For a nominal capital investment (often just $25,000 to cover initial expenses), the sponsor receives founder shares equivalent to 25% of the shares sold in the IPO. This structure results in the sponsor owning 20% of the total outstanding shares of the SPAC post-IPO.⁷ This arrangement creates a profound misalignment of incentives. Because the sponsor's cost basis is effectively zero, they are positioned to realize a substantial financial gain even if the merged company's stock price falls significantly below the $10.00 IPO price. This creates immense pressure to complete > any deal within the two-year window, as a failure to do so results in the liquidation of the SPAC and the forfeiture of the entire promote. This dynamic incentivizes deal completion over deal quality.¹³

• Warrants: Warrants add another layer of complexity, compensation, and dilution. Public warrants, issued as part of the IPO units, provide an additional "kicker" or upside potential for IPO investors. Founder warrants are often purchased by the sponsor to fund the SPAC's working capital. Both types of warrants grant the holder the right to purchase a share at a fixed price (typically $11.50) at a future date.⁶ While they serve to attract capital, they also create a significant "overhang" of potential future dilution that must be absorbed by the post-merger company's shareholders.⁵

The architecture of the SPAC 1.0 model was not merely an alternative path to public markets; it was a sophisticated financial product engineered to provide a near risk-free arbitrage opportunity for its initial institutional investors while systematically transferring risk to subsequent shareholders. The combination of the $10.00 cash-backed redemption right and the "free" detachable warrant created a "heads I win, tails I don't lose" proposition for hedge funds and other IPO participants.² They could invest with the security of a money-back guarantee, exit via redemption if they disliked the proposed merger, and still retain the warrants, which held speculative upside value. This predictable behavior of high redemptions by sophisticated investors was a known feature, not an unforeseen flaw. The consequences of this capital flight, compounded by the massive dilution from the sponsor's 20% promote, were borne almost entirely by the shareholders who did not or could not redeem-a group that disproportionately included less-informed retail investors who entered the stock after the merger was announced and the initial hype had been generated. By design, the model facilitated a transfer of risk from sophisticated early-stage participants to less-sophisticated, later-stage market participants.

1.4 The Allure for Private Companies: Why the SPAC Route Eclipsed the Traditional IPO#

For private companies, particularly those in high-growth or speculative industries, the SPAC 1.0 model offered several compelling advantages over the arduous and uncertain traditional IPO process:

• Speed and Certainty: The de-SPAC merger process could be completed in as little as three to six months, a stark contrast to the 12 to 18 months (or longer) required for a traditional IPO.⁷ This speed was highly attractive for companies looking to capitalize on favorable market windows.

• Valuation Negotiation: In a SPAC transaction, the target company negotiates its valuation directly and privately with a single entity-the SPAC sponsor. This allows for a fixed, upfront valuation, insulating the company from the market volatility and pricing uncertainty inherent in a traditional IPO roadshow, where the final price is subject to investor demand.⁸

• Use of Forward-Looking Projections: Perhaps the most significant advantage was the ability to market the transaction to investors using forward-looking financial projections, such as revenue and profitability forecasts. This was possible because a de-SPAC is legally structured as a merger, which historically benefited from a "safe harbor" for forward-looking statements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). Traditional IPOs, in contrast, are generally restricted to presenting historical financial data in their prospectuses to avoid liability.⁵ This feature was especially appealing for pre-revenue or early-stage companies in sectors like electric vehicles, biotechnology, and financial technology, as it allowed them to sell investors on a compelling future growth story rather than a proven track record.¹⁸

Section II: The Great SPAC Boom (2020-2021): A Perfect Financial Storm#

The transformation of SPACs from a niche financial instrument into a dominant force in capital markets during 2020 and 2021 was not an isolated event. It was the product of a unique and powerful confluence of macroeconomic conditions, extreme market sentiment, and speculative fervor that created a perfect environment for such a vehicle to thrive.

2.1 Macroeconomic Tailwinds: The Role of Zero-Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP) and Pandemic Liquidity#

The primary catalyst for the SPAC boom was the extraordinary macroeconomic environment forged in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the economic shutdown, central banks globally, led by the U.S. Federal Reserve, slashed interest rates to near zero and unleashed unprecedented levels of monetary stimulus. This, combined with massive fiscal support programs, flooded the financial system with liquidity.²¹

This environment of Zero-Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP) had a profound effect on investor behavior. With yields on safe assets like government bonds and savings accounts rendered negligible, investors were compelled to move further out on the risk spectrum in a desperate "search for yield".¹⁸ The sheer volume of capital seeking returns created immense demand for riskier assets, including equities and alternative investment vehicles. SPACs, which offered the potential for high-growth, equity-like returns, became an ideal destination for this wave of liquidity.¹⁸

2.2 Market Sentiment and Speculative Fervor: Chasing Growth in a Low-Growth World#

Concurrent with the flood of liquidity was a dramatic shift in market psychology. After a brief but sharp crash in March 2020, equity markets staged a powerful rebound, led by technology and other high-growth sectors.¹⁸ This recovery ignited a wave of intense investor optimism and risk appetite.

SPACs served as a perfect conduit for this speculative energy. They provided a streamlined gateway for both institutional and a new generation of retail investors to gain early-stage exposure to the most popular and narrative-driven investment themes of the era, such as electric vehicles (EVs), space exploration, fintech, and green technology.¹⁸ The story of Lucid Motors, which merged with the SPAC Churchill Capital Corp IV, is emblematic of this period. The deal announcement sparked massive speculation, with the SPAC's stock price soaring over 500% before the merger was even confirmed, driven by the narrative that Lucid could be the "next Tesla".¹⁸

This speculative fervor was amplified by the rise of celebrity sponsors and high-profile financiers, who lent their names and reputations to new SPACs. The involvement of well-known figures from sports, politics, and finance-such as Shaquille O'Neal, Paul Ryan, Chamath Palihapitiya, and Bill Ackman-generated enormous media attention and drew retail investors into the market, often based on hype rather than fundamental analysis.¹⁰ Academic research has since confirmed this link, demonstrating a strong positive correlation between SPAC market share and broad equity market sentiment, which suggests that SPACs flourish in periods of high optimism and speculative behavior.²³

The SPAC boom was, therefore, not just a financial trend but a cultural phenomenon. It reflected a market cycle peak where traditional valuation metrics were often disregarded in favor of compelling narratives about future disruption. The ability of SPACs to market deals using forward-looking projections was perfectly suited to this environment, as it allowed them to sell investors a story about the future rather than a record of past performance.⁸ The involvement of celebrity sponsors further cemented this dynamic, shifting the investment thesis away from financial due diligence and towards a reliance on personality and social proof-a classic indicator of a market top.

2.3 Statistical Overview of the Boom#

The scale of the SPAC boom was staggering, eclipsing all prior periods of activity. The data illustrates a market that grew exponentially in a very short period:

• Issuance Volume: The number of SPAC IPOs skyrocketed from 59 in 2019 to 248 in 2020, and then more than doubled again to a record 613 in 2021.⁴

• Capital Raised: The proceeds raised through SPAC IPOs surged in tandem, from $13 billion in 2019 to $83 billion in 2020, before reaching an astonishing peak of $162.5 billion in 2021.⁴

• Market Dominance: At the height of the frenzy in the first quarter of 2021, SPACs became the primary vehicle for companies going public in the U.S., accounting for 72% of the number of IPOs and raising nearly $100 billion, which represented over two-thirds of the total value of all U.S. IPOs during that period.¹⁷

Section III: The Inevitable Crash: Deconstructing the Failure#

The SPAC market's collapse was as dramatic as its ascent. Beginning in mid-2021 and accelerating through 2022, the speculative bubble burst, wiping out hundreds of billions of dollars in market value and leaving a trail of underperforming companies and disillusioned investors. The crash was not a random market event but the direct and predictable consequence of the structural flaws inherent in the SPAC 1.0 model colliding with a rapidly changing macroeconomic and regulatory landscape.

3.1 A Record of Systemic Underperformance#

The most glaring evidence of the SPAC model's failure was its abysmal post-merger performance. As a class, de-SPAC companies systematically failed to create value for their public shareholders. The empirical data is unequivocal:

• Negative Returns: Academic studies analyzing the performance of SPACs that merged during the boom period found overwhelmingly negative returns. One analysis of SPACs from 2019 and 2020 documented mean returns of negative 12.3% over six months and negative 34.9% over twelve months following their merger announcements.¹³

• Deep Value Destruction: The performance of later cohorts was even worse. Mergers completed in 2021 and 2022 lost an average of 67% and 59% of their value, respectively, when compared to their nominal $10.00 de-SPAC price.¹⁴ By December 1, 2022, the average share price for the entire cohort of SPACs that had merged between July 2020 and December 2021 had plummeted to just $3.85.²⁶

• Underperformance vs. Benchmarks: This value destruction was not simply a function of a weakening market. Post-merger SPACs significantly underperformed traditional IPOs and broad market indices. The average de-SPAC from the boom period underperformed the average traditional IPO by 26%, the Nasdaq by 44%, and the Russell 2000 by 51%.²⁶ This poor performance has been a consistent finding across numerous studies, regardless of the sample period.²⁷

3.2 The Redemption Problem and Capital Shortfalls#

As the poor performance data became widely known and market sentiment began to turn, the SPAC model's Achilles' heel-the shareholder redemption right-was exposed. Sophisticated institutional investors, who had entered SPAC IPOs for the low-risk arbitrage opportunity, began exercising their redemption rights en masse to reclaim their capital before the mergers were completed.

Redemption rates, which had been manageable in early 2021, skyrocketed. Average monthly redemption rates jumped from a range of 7%-43% in the first half of 2021 to 43%-67% in the second half.²⁸ In several high-profile deals, redemptions were even more extreme. When the digital media company Buzzfeed went public via a SPAC, nearly 95% of the SPAC's public shares were redeemed, leaving the trust account almost empty and crippling the deal's capitalization.²⁸ This trend created a crisis of deal certainty, as target companies could no longer be sure how much cash, if any, a SPAC would bring to the merger. This forced a greater reliance on dilutive and often expensive PIPE financing to salvage transactions, further eroding value for public shareholders.²⁹

3.3 Structural Flaws Exposed: Misaligned Incentives and Extreme Dilution#

The market downturn stripped away the veneer of speculative hype and laid bare the fundamental structural flaws at the heart of the SPAC 1.0 model.

• The Sponsor Promote's Perverse Incentive: The 20% sponsor promote was widely identified as a primary driver of poor deal quality. With a near-zero cost basis, sponsors were incentivized to complete any deal, even a suboptimal one, to secure their massive equity stake. They stood to make millions even if the post-merger stock price collapsed, a clear conflict with the interests of public shareholders who required share price appreciation to profit.¹³ The two-year deadline to find a target exacerbated this pressure, creating an incentive to rush due diligence and overpay for assets.¹⁷

• The Crushing Weight of Dilution: The crash forced the market to confront the opaque but severe dilution embedded in the SPAC structure. The combination of the 20% sponsor promote, underwriting fees paid from the trust, and the dilutive effect of outstanding warrants meant that the cash value backing each public share at the time of a merger was far less than the nominal $10.00 price. One comprehensive study found that for the median SPAC transaction, a share that investors paid $10.00 for was backed by only $6.67 in net cash at the time of the merger.¹⁷ Another analysis of the 2019-2020 cohort found a mean net cash per share of just $4.10.³⁰ This inherent and massive dilution was a predictable and primary cause of the consistently poor post-merger returns, as the public market eventually repriced the shares to reflect their true, lower underlying equity value.²⁶

3.4 The Tide Turns: Rising Rates, Regulatory Scrutiny, and Investor Sentiment Shift#

The final nails in the coffin for the SPAC boom came from external forces that reversed the very conditions that had enabled its rise.

• Monetary Policy Reversal: As global inflation surged in 2021 and 2022, central banks pivoted aggressively from stimulus to tightening. The prospect and reality of rising interest rates fundamentally altered the investment landscape. Capital fled from speculative, high-growth, and cash-flow-negative companies-the exact profile of the typical SPAC target. As the cost of capital rose, safer investments with predictable cash flows became more attractive, starving the SPAC market of the speculative capital it needed to survive.¹⁸

• Increased Regulatory Scrutiny: The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, alarmed by the speculative frenzy and mounting investor losses, dramatically increased its scrutiny of the SPAC market. The SEC began issuing new disclosure guidance and extending the review periods for SPAC filings, raising pointed questions about conflicts of interest, the use of projections, and inadequate transparency.¹⁴ This regulatory pressure slowed the pace of deals, increased costs, and signaled to the market that the era of light-touch oversight was over.

• Collapse of Investor Confidence: The combination of dismal performance, rising rates, and regulatory headwinds led to a complete collapse in investor sentiment. Many high-profile de-SPAC companies failed to meet their own wildly optimistic projections just months after their mergers, shattering their credibility.²⁰ The market narrative shifted from euphoria to deep skepticism, and the flow of capital into new SPAC IPOs slowed to a trickle, leading to a wave of SPAC liquidations.²⁰

The SPAC crash was not a "black swan" event; it was the logical and predictable unraveling of a flawed system. The model's core structure was dilutive by design, with its costs systematically exceeding the capital raised on a per-share basis.²⁶ This dilution was a hidden tax borne by non-redeeming shareholders.³⁰ The zero-interest-rate environment temporarily masked this fatal flaw by fueling a speculative appetite that allowed even heavily diluted stocks to trade at a premium based on narrative and hype.¹⁷ When interest rates began to rise, the concept of a "cost of capital" re-entered the market's vocabulary, forcing investors to discount distant and often hypothetical future cash flows more heavily.²⁰ At that point, the underlying dilutive mathematics could no longer be ignored. The market repriced these assets based on their weak fundamentals and high structural costs, leading to the inevitable crash. The collapse was, in effect, a delayed but necessary pricing-in of the structural costs that had been present from the very beginning.

Section IV: The Regulatory Response and the Dawn of SPAC 2.0#

In the wake of the SPAC market's collapse and the significant investor losses that ensued, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission undertook a comprehensive review of the regulatory framework governing these vehicles. This process culminated on January 24, 2024, with the adoption of a sweeping set of final rules designed to fundamentally reshape the SPAC landscape. These new regulations, which effectively created what is now known as "SPAC 2.0," aim to close the regulatory loopholes that fueled the boom by aligning the legal and disclosure standards for de-SPAC transactions with those of traditional IPOs.

4.1 The SEC Intervenes: An Overview of the January 2024 Final Rules#

The SEC's intervention was a direct response to the systemic issues that had become apparent during the boom and bust cycle. The stated goal of the new rules is to enhance investor protection by directly addressing the information asymmetries, misleading information, and pervasive conflicts of interest that were characteristic of the SPAC 1.0 model.³¹ The rules represent a holistic overhaul, impacting everything from liability and disclosure to financial reporting and the use of projections.³⁵

4.2 Leveling the Playing Field: Aligning De-SPACs with Traditional IPOs#

The central tenet of the SEC's reform is the principle that a de-SPAC transaction is, in substance, the "going public" event for the private target company. Therefore, it should be subject to the same rigorous standards as a traditional IPO. The new rules achieve this alignment through several key mechanisms:

• Target as Co-Registrant: The most impactful change is the new requirement that the private operating company being acquired must be treated as a "co-registrant" on the registration statement (e.g., Form S-4 or F-4) filed for the de-SPAC transaction.³² This is a profound shift. Under the old regime, only the SPAC shell company was the primary registrant. Now, the target company and its directors and principal officers must also sign the registration statement. This subjects them to strict liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for any material misstatements or omissions in the document.³⁴ This directly mirrors the liability framework faced by a company and its management when conducting a traditional IPO.

• Financial Statement Alignment: The rules harmonize the financial statement requirements for target companies with those in a traditional IPO. This includes mandating that the target's financial statements be audited to the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), which are more rigorous than the standards for private companies.⁷

• Minimum Dissemination Period: To ensure investors have sufficient time to analyze the complex details of a proposed merger, the new rules mandate a minimum dissemination period of 20 calendar days for prospectuses and proxy or information statements filed in connection with a de-SPAC transaction.³⁴

4.3 Key Pillars of the New Framework: Liability, Disclosure, and Projections#

The SPAC 2.0 framework is built on three pillars designed to increase accountability and transparency.

• Expanded Liability: The co-registrant rule is the cornerstone of the new liability regime. Beyond this, the SEC also issued guidance clarifying that it will interpret the statutory term "underwriter" broadly in the context of de-SPAC transactions. This suggests that other parties involved in facilitating the deal, such as financial advisors or PIPE placement agents, could potentially be deemed underwriters and face corresponding liability, depending on the specific facts and circumstances of their involvement.³⁸

• Enhanced Disclosure (New Subpart 1600 of Regulation S-K): The rules introduce a new, dedicated section of Regulation S-K (Subpart 1600) that codifies extensive and specific disclosure requirements for SPACs. These mandates are designed to make the economics of the transaction transparent to investors.³³ Key requirements include:

  • Sponsor Compensation and Conflicts of Interest: SPACs must now provide granular detail about the sponsor's compensation, their background and experience, the terms of any lock-up agreements, and a thorough discussion of any actual or potential material conflicts of interest. This includes the inherent conflict arising from the sponsor's incentive to complete a deal to realize their promote.³¹

  • Dilution: The rules require clear, standardized, and prominent disclosure of all potential sources of shareholder dilution. This information, covering the impact of the sponsor promote, warrants, PIPE financing, and underwriting fees, must be presented on the prospectus cover page and in the summary, often in an easy-to-understand tabular format.⁴⁰

• Removal of Projections Safe Harbor: In a move that strikes at the heart of the SPAC 1.0 marketing strategy, the final rules amend the definition of a "blank check company" under the PSLRA. The effect of this change is to make the statutory safe harbor for forward-looking statements unavailable for SPACs.³⁴ This eliminates one of the key regulatory advantages SPACs held over traditional IPOs. Companies and their management are now exposed to a significantly higher liability risk for presenting overly optimistic or unsubstantiated financial projections to investors, forcing them to adopt the same cautious and well-supported approach to forecasts as is required in an IPO.

The SEC's new rules are not merely a series of incremental adjustments; they represent a fundamental re-characterization of the de-SPAC transaction. The SPAC 1.0 model was built upon the legal fiction that a de-SPAC was a merger between two public entities, which afforded it a lighter regulatory touch.¹⁷ The SEC has now formally recognized the economic substance of the transaction: the de-SPAC is the moment that the private operating company effectively goes public and offers its securities to the public market.³⁴ By making the target a co-registrant with Section 11 liability and removing the projections safe harbor, the new rules compel all parties to treat the transaction with the legal gravity and rigorous due diligence of a traditional IPO.³⁴ This is not just about providing more disclosure; it is about fundamentally shifting the burden of liability risk away from public investors and back onto the dealmakers-the target company, its management, the sponsor, and other gatekeepers. This shift decisively closes the regulatory loophole that was a primary engine of the SPAC boom.

Section V: Comparative Analysis: SPAC 1.0 vs. SPAC 2.0#

The SEC's 2024 rule changes have created a clear demarcation between the previous SPAC regime and the new, more stringent environment. A direct, feature-by-feature comparison illuminates the profound nature of this transformation, highlighting how the regulatory overhaul addresses the specific weaknesses that led to the market's previous excesses and subsequent collapse. The following table provides a consolidated view of the evolution from SPAC 1.0 to SPAC 2.0.

5.1 Central Comparative Table#

The table below serves as the centerpiece of this comparative analysis, offering an at-a-glance summary of the most critical changes. It contrasts the key structural and regulatory features of the pre-2024 model with the post-2024 framework, providing analysis on the primary impact and rationale behind each reform.

Table 1: The Evolution from SPAC 1.0 to SPAC 2.0

The comparative analysis makes it clear that SPAC 2.0 is not a mere iteration of the previous model but a fundamental reconstruction. The changes collectively shift the de-SPAC transaction from a merger-like process with lighter oversight to an IPO-equivalent event in both legal substance and regulatory expectation. The elimination of key advantages-namely, reduced liability and the safe harbor for projections-fundamentally alters the strategic calculation for private companies considering the SPAC route. The new framework prioritizes investor protection and market integrity over the speed and regulatory ease that defined the SPAC 1.0 era.

Section VI: Implications for the Retail Investor in the SPAC 2.0 Era#

The comprehensive regulatory overhaul that created SPAC 2.0 was driven in large part by concerns over the substantial losses incurred by retail investors during the boom and bust cycle.⁴ The new framework is designed to provide this group with significantly greater protection. However, while the rules create a more transparent and accountable market, they do not eliminate the inherent risks of investing in newly public companies. Understanding the balance between these new protections and the persistent dangers is crucial for any retail investor considering the SPAC market today.

6.1 A More Informed Decision: How Enhanced Transparency Empowers Investors#

The cornerstone of the new investor protection regime is enhanced transparency. The SEC's rules are designed to arm retail investors with clearer, more accessible, and more reliable information, allowing them to make better-informed decisions.

• Clarity on Core Risks: The new rules mandate prominent, plain-English disclosures on the most critical risks of a SPAC investment: dilution and conflicts of interest.⁴ By requiring this information on the prospectus cover page and in the summary, often in a standardized tabular format, the rules ensure that investors can no longer easily overlook the true economic costs of the transaction.

• More Reliable Information: By making the target company and its leadership directly liable for the accuracy of disclosures, the new rules provide investors with greater assurance that the information presented about the underlying business is credible.³⁸ This directly confronts the concern that the SPAC 1.0 model was used by lower-quality or less-prepared companies to evade the rigorous scrutiny of a traditional IPO.²³

• More Realistic Projections: The elimination of the PSLRA safe harbor for forward-looking statements is a critical protection against hype. Companies and sponsors now face significant legal risk for presenting unsubstantiated or overly optimistic projections. This should result in more sober, realistic, and well-supported forecasts, reducing the danger of investors being lured into a deal based on a baseless growth narrative.³⁵

6.2 Persistent Dangers: Why Dilution and Sponsor Incentives Remain Key Risks#

It is critical to recognize that the new rules mandate disclosure of the SPAC model's structural issues; they do not prohibit them. The fundamental economic structure that creates risks for post-merger shareholders still exists, even if it is now more transparent.

• Dilution is Disclosed, Not Eliminated: The sponsor promote and the warrant overhang remain core features of the SPAC structure. Retail investors must still be able to read and interpret the new, complex dilution tables to understand that a $10.00 share price does not equate to $10.00 of underlying equity value in the merged company.³⁰ The economic cost of dilution is still borne by the non-redeeming shareholders.

• Sponsor Incentives Remain Skewed: While the liability risks for sponsors have increased, the fundamental incentive to complete a deal within the allotted timeframe to realize the value of the promote remains a powerful motivator. The potential for a massive return on a nominal initial investment can still create a conflict of interest that may not always align with the long-term best interests of public shareholders.⁴⁹

The SEC's approach is a clear reflection of its mandate. It seeks to protect investors not by banning potentially risky instruments, but by ensuring they are armed with the same quality and quantity of material information that is available in more traditional offerings like an IPO. The core problem for retail investors in the SPAC 1.0 era was one of profound information asymmetry; they were often buying into complex deals where the true economics were opaque and the risks were obscured.⁴⁶ The new rules directly attack this asymmetry. This shifts the paradigm from "investor beware of what you don't know" to "investor beware of what is now clearly disclosed." This represents a significant enhancement of theoretical investor protection. However, it does not, and cannot, eliminate the risk of making a poor investment. The ultimate protection lies in the availability of information, not in a guarantee of the underlying asset's quality. The SPAC 2.0 market will therefore remain a high-risk arena, but one where the risks are presented more honestly.

6.3 A Framework for Evaluation: Key Due diligence for the New SPAC Market#

For retail investors navigating the SPAC 2.0 landscape, the enhanced disclosures provide the tools for more effective due diligence. A disciplined evaluation framework should focus on several key questions:

1. Who is the sponsor? The quality and track record of the sponsor team remain paramount. Investors should scrutinize their industry expertise, their history of value creation, and their past performance with other SPACs, if any.¹¹

2. What is the true dilution? Investors must move beyond the $10.00 share price and carefully analyze the new dilution tables in the prospectus. Calculating the pro-forma ownership structure after accounting for the sponsor promote, warrants, fees, and any PIPE financing is essential to understanding the real value of a share.

3. Is the target company "public ready"? The new rules force a higher degree of readiness, but investors should still assess the target's fundamentals. Does it have a mature business model, audited financials, strong corporate governance, and robust internal controls?.⁷

4. Are the projections credible? Now that the safe harbor is gone, the projections presented should be subject to intense scrutiny. Are the underlying assumptions reasonable and clearly articulated? How do they compare to the historical performance of the company and its peers?

Section VII: SPACs as a Market Cycle Barometer#

The dramatic boom-and-bust cycle of the SPAC market offers more than just a case study in financial engineering; it serves as a powerful real-time barometer of broader market sentiment, risk appetite, and the prevailing macroeconomic regime. By observing the evolution of the SPAC, one can gain valuable perspective on the different phases of the market cycle.

7.1 Reading the Tea Leaves: The SPAC Boom as a Signal of Peak Euphoria#

The proliferation of SPACs is strongly and positively correlated with periods of high investor sentiment, speculative behavior, and frothy equity markets.⁴ The 2020-2021 boom was a textbook example of this relationship, exhibiting all the classic signs of a late-stage bull market, or what some termed an "everything bubble".⁴

The market's willingness to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into hundreds of "blank check" companies, often with no assets beyond the reputation of their celebrity or financial-world sponsors, was a clear indicator of excess liquidity and a dangerously low premium being placed on traditional due diligence.⁵³ This phenomenon is characteristic of a market top, where investor behavior is driven more by fear of missing out (FOMO) and narrative appeal than by fundamental analysis. The SPAC, with its ability to market speculative future growth stories, was the perfect instrument for this euphoric phase.

7.2 The Crash as a Harbinger: A Leading Indicator of the Risk-Off Shift#

Significantly, the SPAC market began to crumble in late 2021 and early 2022, before the broader market downturn took full hold.²² The IPOX SPAC Index, a benchmark for the sector, fell sharply while major indices like the S&P 500 were still near their highs.

In this respect, the SPAC crash acted as a "canary in the coal mine" for the wider market. As the most speculative and structurally fragile corner of the equity market, it was the first to succumb to the changing macroeconomic winds. The collapse signaled a major rotation in investor sentiment, away from high-risk, long-duration growth assets and towards quality, value, and safety, presaging the broader bear market that would follow as the era of easy money definitively came to an end.²⁰

7.3 The State of Play: What SPAC 2.0 Suggests About the Current Market Phase#

The emergence of the more sober, regulated, and structurally demanding SPAC 2.0 model is reflective of the new market reality that has taken hold post-crash. This new phase is defined by a higher cost of capital, a lower tolerance for speculative risk, and a renewed emphasis on fundamentals.

The SPAC 2.0 framework, which demands higher-quality targets, greater accountability from sponsors, and IPO-level due diligence, is a product designed for a market that prioritizes a plausible path to profitability over a compelling but unproven narrative.¹⁴ The drastically lower volume of SPAC IPOs since the crash-falling from 613 in 2021 to just 86 in 2022 and 31 in 2023-is a clear sign that the speculative froth has been drained from the system.⁴ The current market is one of caution, discipline, and selectivity.

The lifecycle of the SPAC thus provides a microcosm of the broader market's journey. The first phase, the SPAC 1.0 boom, was the market's response to the demand for high-risk assets created by zero interest rates; it was the supply of speculative vehicles to meet speculative demand.¹⁸ The second phase, the crash, was the market's violent reaction to the removal of that stimulus; as the demand for speculative assets evaporated with the onset of rate hikes, the most speculative vehicle was the first to collapse.²⁰ The third and current phase, the emergence of SPAC 2.0, reflects a market that is now operating with a higher baseline cost of capital. In this environment, investors demand transparency, accountability, and fundamentals. The regulated, IPO-aligned SPAC 2.0 is the new supply designed to meet this more discerning demand.¹⁴ Therefore, the state of the SPAC market can be viewed as a real-time indicator of where we are in the market cycle. A resurgence of high-volume, speculative SPAC activity would signal a return to a "risk-on" environment, while the current low-volume, quality-focused market confirms that we remain in a more cautious, fundamentally-driven phase.

Conclusion: The Future of the SPAC#

The journey of the Special Purpose Acquisition Company through a period of unprecedented boom, a devastating bust, and a fundamental regulatory reset provides a compelling narrative about the dynamics of modern capital markets. The analysis presented in this report leads to a clear conclusion: the era of the SPAC as a speculative, market-dominating phenomenon is over. Its future, if it is to have one, lies in a more modest and disciplined role.

8.1 A Niche, Not a Revolution: The Likely Role of SPACs Post-Regulation#

The SEC's 2024 rules have effectively eliminated the key regulatory arbitrage advantages that made SPACs so attractive to a wide range of private companies during the boom. The increased liability exposure for target companies and their management, coupled with the removal of the safe harbor for financial projections, means that the de-SPAC process is no longer a significantly easier or less risky path to the public markets than a traditional IPO.⁵⁶

As a result, SPACs are likely to revert to being a niche financial product. They will be best suited for a narrow subset of high-quality, mature, and "public-ready" private companies that have a specific strategic reason to prefer the merger structure over a traditional IPO. For example, a company in a complex industry might value the ability to partner with a sponsor who brings deep sector expertise, or a company might prioritize the valuation certainty that comes from negotiating with a single party. However, the "go-public-quick" appeal for speculative, early-stage, or less-prepared companies has been largely extinguished.

8.2 Final Assessment: Will SPAC 2.0 Foster Higher-Quality Deals or Stifle the Market?#

The new regulatory framework will act as a powerful filter on the SPAC market. The heightened disclosure requirements, legal burdens, and due diligence expectations will naturally deter lower-quality sponsors and less-viable target companies. This is likely to lead to a significantly smaller number of de-SPAC transactions but a higher average quality of the companies that do come to market.¹⁴

The ultimate viability of the SPAC 2.0 model will depend on its ability to deliver on this promise of quality. The central challenge for the market is to prove that the remaining structural advantages of a SPAC-such as speed and valuation certainty-are sufficient to justify the inherent costs and complexity of the vehicle in this new, high-scrutiny environment. To rebuild the trust that was shattered during the crash, the next generation of SPACs must successfully bring well-vetted, fundamentally sound companies to the public market that perform well for their post-merger investors over the long term.

The SPAC is a tool, and like any tool, its value is determined by how it is used. The speculative gold rush of 2020-2021 demonstrated the immense potential for misuse. The regulatory reset of 2024 has attempted to impose discipline and accountability. The future of the SPAC now rests on its ability to evolve from a symbol of speculative excess into a legitimate, albeit specialized, instrument for responsible capital formation.

Works cited#

1. What You Need to Know About SPACs - Updated Investor Bulletin, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/what-you

2. SPACs explained - Fidelity Investments, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/SPACs

3. www.investopedia.com, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/spac.asp#:~:text=A%20special%20purpose%20acquisition%20company%20(SPAC)%20is%20formed%20to%20raise,value%20of%20%2410%20per%20share.

4. Special-purpose acquisition company - Wikipedia, accessed October 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special-purpose_acquisition_company

5. An Overview of SPACs and the 2020-2021 SPAC Surge by Laura Eun-hae Moon A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University Honors Col, accessed October 5, 2025, https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/w3763f68h

6. Special Purpose Acquisition Companies: An Introduction, accessed October 5, 2025, https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/07/06/special-purpose-acquisition-companies-an-introduction/

7. How special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) work - PwC, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/deals/library/spac-merger.html

8. The pros, cons and incentives behind the SPAC-craze sweeping markets - Schroders, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.schroders.com/en-us/us/institutional/insights/the-pros-cons-and-incentives-behind-the-spac-craze-sweeping-markets/

9. SPACs 2.0, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/mi/en/documents/general/research-analysis/SPACs.pdf

10. Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) Explained: Examples and Risks, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/spac.asp

11. The Year of the SPAC | Insights - Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2021/01/2021-insights/corporate/the-year-of-the-spac

12. SPAC 2.0 update, accessed October 5, 2025, https://cdn.ihsmarkit.com/www/pdf/0421/SPAC-Market-Update-April-2021.pdf

13. The Great SPAC Scam: Why They're Terrible for Investors - Mergers & Inquisitions, accessed October 5, 2025, https://mergersandinquisitions.com/great-spac-scam/

14. The Rise and Fall of SPACs: A Comprehensive Analysis - Certuity, accessed October 5, 2025, https://certuity.com/insights/what-happened-to-spacs/

15. SPAC IPO: Background and Policy Issues | Congress.gov, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF11655/IF11655.2.pdf

16. The rise of the special purpose acquisition company - News & insight, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2020/the-rise-of-the-special-purpose-acquisition-company/

17. SPACs: Beyond exuberance, back to reality - Amundi Research Center, accessed October 5, 2025, https://research-center.amundi.com/files/nuxeo/dl/991cf745-f19d-4154-a963-7ba186157aae?inline=

18. The Rise and Fall of SPACs in 2020-2021 - Faces Online, accessed October 5, 2025, https://faces-online.nl/en/the-rise-and-fall-of-spacs-in-2020-2021/

19. SPAC Procedural Issues & Risks - Proskauer, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.proskauer.com/uploads/spac-procedural-issues-and-risks

20. SPAC Market Outlook | Russell Investments, accessed October 5, 2025, https://russellinvestments.com/us/blog/state-of-spac-market

21. Backed by SPACs, IPOs hit new heights in 2021 | White & Case LLP, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/backed-spacs-ipos-hit-new-heights-2021

22. SPACs: Lessons from a boom and bust cycle (2020-2024) - Trainy, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.trainy.co/en/blog/spac-crash

23. Segmented Going-Public Markets and the Demand for SPACs - Harvard University, accessed October 5, 2025, https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/angelama/files/bai_ma_zheng_sep2021.pdf

24. The Evolution of the SPAC - Nasdaq, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/the-evolution-of-the-spac

25. SPAC Market Update: Who turned on the lights? | Valuation Research Corp., accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.valuationresearch.com/insights/spac-market-update-who-turned-on-the-lights/

26. Was the SPAC Crash Predictable? - Yale Journal on Regulation, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.yalejreg.com/bulletin/was-the-spac-crash-predictable/

27. Post-Merger Performance of SPACs Versus Traditional IPOs: Evidence from a Matched Sample Framework - Aaltodoc, accessed October 5, 2025, https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstreams/73280133-a8bb-4a93-bd8d-ce21300508d4/download

28. 2021 SPACs Rise in Popularity Explained | Meridian Consulting, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.meridiancp.com/insights/the-aftermath-of-the-2021-spac-frenzy/

29. As SPAC Boom Subsides, Some De-SPACed Companies Seek Chapter 11 Protection, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2023/04/quarterly-insights/as-spac-boom-subsides

30. A Sober Look at SPACs | Stanford Law School, accessed October 5, 2025, https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022-01-24-A-Sober-Look-At-SPACs-Yale-Journal-on-Regulation.pdf

31. SEC Publishes Final Rule for SPAC Transactions, Bringing Much-Needed Clarity and Certainty to Rules for Capital Raising | Advisories | Arnold & Porter, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/advisories/2024/02/sec-publishes-final-rule-for-spac-transactions

32. SEC Adopts Tougher Rules for SPACs - Thomson Reuters tax, accessed October 5, 2025, https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news/sec-adopts-tougher-rules-for-spacs/

33. SEC Adopts New SPAC and de-SPAC Rules - Dentons, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2024/january/29/sec-adopts-new-spac-and-de-spac-rules

34. A Summary and Early Analysis of SEC Final SPAC Rules | Insights - Holland & Knight, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/02/a-summary-and-early-analysis-of-sec-final-spac-rules

35. SEC ADOPTS RULES TO ENHANCE ... - Clifford Chance, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2024/02/sec-adopts-rules-to-enhance-protections-for-spac-investors.pdf

36. SEC finalizes SPAC rules - KPMG International, accessed October 5, 2025, https://kpmg.com/us/en/frv/reference-library/2024/sec-finalizes-spac-rules.html

37. SEC Adopts Final Rules on SPACs, Shell Companies and Projections - Akin Gump, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/blogs/ag-deal-diary/sec-adopts-final-rules-on-spacs-shell-companies-and-projections

38. SEC Adopts Long-Anticipated Rules for SPACs, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/sec-spacs-final-rules.html

39. Impact of New SEC Disclosure Rules on Special Purpose Acquisition Companies, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.cpajournal.com/2025/05/12/impact-of-new-sec-disclosure-rules-on-special-purpose-acquisition-companies-2/

40. SEC Adopts Long-Awaited SPAC Rules - Paul Hastings LLP, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.paulhastings.com/insights/client-alerts/sec-adopts-long-awaited-spac-rules

41. SEC Adopts Final Rules Affecting SPACs and De-SPACs and ..., accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2024/01/sec-adopts-final-rules-affecting-spacs-and-despacs

42. 9 Key Takeaways from the SEC's New SPAC Rules - A Fresh Take, accessed October 5, 2025, https://blog.freshfields.us/post/102iyr5/9-key-takeaways-from-the-secs-new-spac-rules

43. SEC Adopts Final Rules Affecting SPACs and De-SPACs and Provides Related Guidance, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2024/01/sec-adopts-final-rules-affecting-spacs-and-despacs/sec_adopts_final_rules_affecting_spacs_and_despacs_and_provides_related_guidance.pdf?rev=2a989291d1ec433c82ae2d183ea76702

44. The IPO is broken: How SPACS are redefining the road to going public | Global law firm, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/78e804ee/the-ipo-is-broken-how-spacs-are-redefining-the-road-to-going-public

45. The SEC Amends Policy on Economic Projections, and Issues Final Rules and Additional Guidance for SPACs and Shell Companies | News & Resources | Dorsey, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/client-alerts/2024/2/sec-amends-spac-policy

46. Nothing But The Facts: Retail Investors and Special Purpose Acquisition Companies - Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, accessed October 5, 2025, https://capmktsreg.org/nothing-but-the-facts-retail-investors-and-special-purpose-acquisition-companies/

47. Do the Securities Laws Actually Protect Investors (And How)? Lessons from SPACs, accessed October 5, 2025, https://wustllawreview.org/2024/04/18/do-the-securities-laws-actually-protect-investors-and-how-lessons-from-spacs/

48. Why so many companies are choosing SPACs over IPOs - KPMG International, accessed October 5, 2025, https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2022/why-choosing-spac-over-ipo.html

49. Aligning Incentives: Finding a Better Way Forward with Special Purpose Acquisition Companies | The University of Chicago Business Law Review, accessed October 5, 2025, https://businesslawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/aligning-incentives-finding-better-way-forward-special-purpose-acquisition-companies

50. The Incentives of SPAC Sponsors - SEC.gov, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-13-22/s71322-20156792-324947.pdf

51. Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) market overview - U.S. Bank, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.usbank.com/investing/financial-perspectives/market-news/is-the-landscape-changing-in-the-spac-market.html

52. Main Causes of IPO & SPAC Failures & Tips to Avoid - Bridgepoint Consulting, accessed October 5, 2025, https://bridgepointconsulting.com/insights/ipo-spac-difference-failures-causes-tips-preparation-success/

53. SPACs: Market Trends and Litigation Considerations - Analysis Group, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.analysisgroup.com/Insights/ag-feature/spacs-market-trends-and-litigation-considerations/

54. SPACs and the Macroeconomy: An empirical examination of real interest rates' impact on SPACs - Sacred Heart University, accessed October 5, 2025, https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=wcob_theses

55. SPACs 2.0: Should Companies Consider the SPAC Route to Go Public? - r2 Advisors, accessed October 5, 2025, http://www.r2advisors.com/assets/files/r2_Insights_SPAC%202.0_vSept2025.pdf

56. Under New SEC Regulations, SPACs Will Become a Relic of History, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.theracetothebottom.org/rttb/2024/4/24/under-new-sec-regulations-spacs-will-become-a-relic-of-history