TheCorporateCounsel.net

July 13, 2010

What the Dodd-Frank Act Means for the Regulators? 243 Rulemakings and 67 Studies

Congress is back from vacation. As noted this article, the Senate is close to getting the 60 votes needed to get past a potential Republican filibuster and get the Dodd-Frank Act to President Obama for enactment. For every day there is a delay, it will be that much harder for the SEC to adopt rules timely ahead of the 2011 proxy season.

How much rulemaking can we expect? According to the nifty chart on page ii of this Davis Polk summary of the Dodd-Frank Act (a memo that preceded this WSJ article), a total of 11 regulators are committed to make 243 rulemakings, 67 studies and 22 new periodic reports under the Act. The SEC itself will be required to conduct 95 of those rulemakings, 17 studies and 5 new periodic reports. Ouch…

We continue to post oodles of Dodd-Frank memos in our “Dodd-Frank Act” Practice Area, including these slides from Davis Polk.

One member astutely observed how changes were being made to the Dodd-Frank Act when Congress was last in session two weeks ago – in the midst of which, the House passed the Act. The member posed the question – which version of the Act did the House actually vote upon? And if there were subsequent changes to the Act, will the House need to vote again? I don’t know the answers to these – anyone out there know?

Webcast: Evolving Insider Trading Policy and 10b5-1 Plan Practices

Tune in tomorrow for the webcast – “Evolving Insider Trading Policy and 10b5-1 Plan Practices” – to hear Alan Dye of Hogan Lovells LLP and Section16.net, Dave Lynn of TheCorporateCounsel.net and Morrison & Foerster, Sue Morgan of Perkins Coie and Ron Mueller of Gibson Dunn discuss the nuts and bolts of the latest developments related to insider trading policies and Rule 10b5-1 plans practices and procedures.

PCAOB Staff Alert: Work of Other Auditors or Engaging Outside Assistants

Yesterday, the PCAOB issued Staff Audit Practice Alert #6 prompted by observations from PCAOB inspections that some US-based firms issuing audit reports based on work performed by others outside the US are not properly applying PCAOB standards.

Two examples in the PCAOB’s Alert relate to Chinese issuers, which is notable given that I hear that Chinese companies registered in the Caribbean are the single largest group of foreign companies piling into the US capital markets lately. The Alert raises a question as to how regulators (SEC, PCAOB or state boards of accountancy) can discipline auditors in situations such as those described the Alert given the difficulty of asserting jurisdictions in these cross-border scenarios…

- Broc Romanek