E-Minders January 2020


In This Issue:

E-Minders is our monthly e-mail newsletter containing the latest developments and practical guidance for corporate & securities law practitioners.

We view TheCorporateCounsel.net as the gathering place for the community and encourage those who may not yet be members to take advantage of a "No Risk Trial to see what you are missing. Here are "12 Good Reasons" to try us now.

You can subscribe below to receive a complimentary E-Minders newsletter - even if you aren't a member TheCorporateCounsel.net. Our hope is that once you get to know us, you will understand the true value of joining our community. Note that members of TheCorporateCounsel.net should sign up below for E-Minders too, as you won't automatically receive it by being a member (since we may not have your email address).

It's Done: 2020 Executive Compensation Disclosure Treatise: We wrapped up Lynn, Borges & Romanek's "2020 Executive Compensation Disclosure Treatise" —and it's printed. With heightened attention being paid to executive & director pay—and with new hedging disclosure rules upon us, the 2020 Edition is critical for the upcoming proxy season. Here's the "Detailed Table of Contents" listing the topics so you can get a sense of the Treatise's practical nature. Order a hard copy on CompensationStandards.com. All of the chapters have also been posted in our "Treatise Portal" on CompensationStandards.com.

It's Done! 2020 Edition of Romanek & Dunshee's "Proxy Season Disclosure Treatise": Broc Romanek & Liz Dunshee have wrapped up the 2020 Edition of: Romanek & Dunshee's "Proxy Season Disclosure Treatise." This definitive guidance on proxy season disclosure comes in at over 1850 pages and spans 33 chapters - carefully organized for easy navigation. Here's the "Detailed Table of Contents" listing the topics so you can get a sense of the Treatise's practical nature. Order on TheCorporateCounsel.net.

It's Done! 2020 Edition of Romanek & Dunshee's "In-House Essentials Treatise": Broc Romanek & Liz Dunshee have wrapped up the 2020 Edition of the definitive guidance on securities law for the in-house lawyer: Romanek & Dunshee's "In-House Essentials Treatise." With over 1900 pages - spanning 21 chapters - you will need this practical guidance for the challenges ahead. Here's the "Detailed Table of Contents" listing the topics so you can get a sense of the Treatise's practical nature. Order on TheCorporateCounsel.net.

Over 300 Checklists: Dunshee & Romanek's "Corporate Governance Treatise": If you're looking for "A to Z" practical guidance, you need Dunshee & Romanek's "Corporate Governance Treatise." The "Detailed Table of Contents" is posted on TheCorporateCounsel.net listing the topics so you can get a sense of the variety of topics covered. With over 1700 pages—including over 300 checklists—this tome is the definition of being practical. You can return it any time within the first year and get a full refund if you don't find it of value. Order on TheCorporateCounsel.net today!

Our Latest Resource: Jenkins' "Practical M&A Treatise": Based on his 30+ years of deal work, John Jenkins has just completed the "Practical M&A Treatise." Spanning 604 pages, John writes in a practical style — using stories & examples to make even the most complex deal stuff easy-to-understand. Here's the "Detailed Table of Contents" listing the topics so that you can see for yourself.

It's now "hot off the press," so you can order it today. And for your convenience, we're offering it as either a hard-copy print book — or as just an online version. So there are two different ways to order the "Practical M&A Treatise":

  1. Order the hard-copy of the "Practical M&A Treatise"
  2. Order the online version of the "Practical M&A Treatise

"101 Pro Tips — Career Advice for the Ages" Paperback! If you're working with junior associates, now's the time to get them off on the right foot. Read — or share — career insight from Broc Romanek & John Jenkins by ordering their paperback — "101 Pro Tips — Career Advice for the Ages". Here's the "Table of Contents." It's free for members of TheCorporateCounsel.net (but it does cost $20 in shipping & handling).

This book is designed for fairly young lawyers — both in law firms and in companies. It's written in an "easy to read" style, complete with some stories & anecdotes to make it interesting. This is a unique offering in our field — and we're pretty happy about how it came out. Members can request it now.

Our New "In-House Accelerator": If you're relatively new to being in-house - or you want to gain that perspective - take advantage of our new "In-House Accelerator." This online - and offline - training program is free for members of TheCorporateCounsel.net. In addition to the "In-House Accelerator" paperback (paperback consists of 216 FAQs; here's the "Table of Contents"), there is a series of podcasts & other comprehensive materials covering these four areas:

1. Corporate Governance
2. Proxy Season
3. '34 Act Reporting
4. Other

"Deal Tales" - A Three Volume Set! Education by entertainment! This “Deal Tales” series of three paperback books teaches the kind of things that you won't learn at conferences, nor in treatises or firm memos. Here's the "Table of Contents" for each volume rolled into one. With the set containing over 600 pages, John Jenkins - a 30-year vet of the deal world - brings his humorous M&A stories to bear. Order "Deal Tales" today!

Upcoming Webcasts on TheCorporateCounsel.net: Join us on January 16th for the webcast - "Pat McGurn's Forecast for 2020 Proxy Season" - when Davis Polk's Ning Chiu and Gunster's Bob Lamm join Pat McGurn of ISS to recap what transpired during the 2019 proxy season - and predict what to expect for 2020.

And join us on January 21st for the webcast - "Deciphering 'Corporate Purpose" - to hear Morrow's John Wilcox, Freshfields Bruckhaus' Pam Marcogliese and Morris Nichols' Tricia Vella discuss the debate over "shareholder primacy" - including what it means for directors' fiduciary duties and disclosure.

And join us on February 5th for the webcast - "Conflict Minerals: Tackling Your Next Form SD" - to hear our own Dave Lynn of Morrison & Foerster, Ropes & Gray's Michael Littenberg, Lawrence Heim of the Responsible Minerals Initiative and Deloitte's Christine Robinson discuss what you should now be considering as you prepare this year's Form SD.

And join us on February 19th for the webcast - "Audit Committees in Action: The Latest Developments" - to hear Deloitte's Consuelo Hitchcock, EY's Josh Jones and Gibson Dunn's Mike Scanlon discuss recent SEC, FASB & PCAOB guidance impacting audit committees, evolving practices for audit committee charters, agendas and meetings and how the audit committee should manage its relationship with the independent auditor.

And join us on March 10th for the webcast - "Conduct of the Annual Meeting" - to hear McDonald's Jennifer Card, Independent Inspector of Elections Carl Hagberg, GE's Brandon Smith and JELD-WEN's Juliet Sy Pate talk about annual meeting logistics, dealing with the media, preparing officers & directors, rules of conduct, disruptive shareholders, tabulation issues and meeting post-mortems.

There is no cost for these webcasts if you are a member of TheCorporateCounsel.net. If you are not a member, take advantage of our no-risk trial to access the programs. You can sign up for this no-risk trial online, send us an email at info@ccrcorp.com - or call us at 800.737.1271.

Upcoming Webcast on CompensationStandards.com: Join us on January 9th for the webcast - "The Latest: Your Upcoming Proxy Disclosures" - to hear Mark Borges of Compensia, Alan Dye of Hogan Lovells and Section16.net, Dave Lynn of TheCorporateCounsel.net and Morrison & Foerster and Ron Mueller of Gibson Dunn discuss all the latest guidance - including the latest SEC positions - about how to use your executive & director pay disclosure to improve voting outcomes and protect your board, as well as how to handle the most difficult ongoing issues that many of us face.

And join us on February 12th for the webcast - "Tying 'ESG' to Executive Pay" - to hear Aon's Dave Eaton, Mercer's Peter Schloth, and Willis Towers Watson's Steve Seelig discuss how to handle the growing demands - and challenges - to including ESG metrics in executive compensation plans.

No registration is necessary - and there is no cost - for these webcasts for CompensationStandards.com members. If you are not a member, take advantage of our no-risk trial to access the programs. You can sign up online, send us an email at info@ccrcorp.com - or call us at 800.737.1271.

Upcoming Webcasts on DealLawyers.com: Join us on January 23rd for the webcast - "Cybersecurity Due Diligence in M&A" - to hear Jeff Dodd of Hunter Andrews, Sten-Erik Hoidal of Fredrikson & Byron and Jamie Ramsey of Calfee Halter discuss how to approach cybersecurity due diligence, and how to address and mitigate cybersecurity risks in M&A transactions.

And join us on March 24th for the webcast - "Activist Profiles & Playbooks" - to hear Joele Frank's Anne Chapman, Okapi Partners' Bruce Goldfarb, Spotlight Advisors' Damien Park and Abernathy MacGregor's Patrick Tucker discuss lessons from the 2019 activist campaigns, expectations from activists in the 2020 proxy season and how activism differs for large and small cap companies.

No registration is necessary - and there is no cost - for these webcasts for DealLawyers.com members. If you are not a member, take advantage of our no-risk trial to access the programs. You can sign up online, send us an email at info@ccrcorp.com - or call us at 800.737.1271.

Upcoming Webcast on Section16.net: Join us on January 22nd for the webcast - "2020 Section 16 Changes with Alan Dye" - to hear Alan Dye of Section16.net and Hogan Lovells discuss the most recent updates on Section 16, including the impact of recent rule changes, the status of cases challenging the Rule 16b-3 exemption for tax withholding, how to keep your compliance program up-to-date and developments with the Section 16(b) plaintiffs' bar.

There is no charge for this program if you are a member of Section16.net for 2020, and no advance registration is required. If you are not a member, take advantage of our no-risk trial to access the program. Non-members can also email info@ccrcorp.com - or call us at 800.737.1271 - to inquire about registration options for this program.


Corp Fin's New "Disclosure Guidance": International IP & Tech Risks

Right before the holidays, Corp Fin added to its "CF Disclosure Guidance Topic" series with two new topics. "Topic No. 8: Intellectual Property & Technology Risks Associated with International Business Operations" explains the Staff's views on what companies should consider disclosing about their reliance on technology & intangible assets if they conduct business in places that don't have robust IP laws - and where that disclosure would appear. Here's an excerpt:

Although there is no specific line-item requirement under the federal securities laws to disclose information related to the compromise (or potential compromise) of technology, data or intellectual property, the Commission has made clear that its disclosure requirements apply to a broad range of evolving business risks in the absence of specific requirements. In addition, a number of existing rules or regulations could require disclosure regarding the actual theft or compromise of technology, data or intellectual property if it pertains to assets or intangibles that are material to a company's business prospects. For example, disclosure may be necessary in management's discussion and analysis, the business section, legal proceedings, disclosure controls and procedures, and/or financial statements.

The guidance includes examples of risks that might arise from business relationships - e.g. idiosyncratic license terms that favor the other party or compromise the company's control over proprietary info, regulatory requirements that require companies to store data locally or use local services or technology. It also includes a laundry list of questions companies should ask themselves to assess risks. We'll be posting memos in our "Cybersecurity" Practice Area.


Corp Fin's New "Disclosure Guidance": Confidential Treatment Requests

RIP, Staff Legal Bulletins No. 1 and 1A. Corp Fin's new "CF Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 7: Confidential Treatment Applications Under Rules 406 & 24b-2" supersedes that guidance. It addresses how and what to provide when submitting a "traditional" confidential treatment request - i.e. outside of the accommodations from earlier this year that now allow companies to simply redact immaterial confidential information from exhibits. The new disclosure guidance also applies to filings where traditional CTRs remain the only available method to protect private information - e.g. Schedule 13D or exhibits required by Item 1016 of Reg M-A.

After filing the exhibit on Edgar with redactions that show where confidential info is omitted, here's what companies now need to do for written applications (we'll be posting memos in our "Confidential Treatment Requests" Practice Area):

  1. Provide one unredacted copy of the contract required to be filed with the Commission with the confidential portions of the document identified;
     
  2. Identify the Freedom of Information Act[6] exemption it is relying on to object to the public release of the information and provide an analysis of how that exemption applies to the omitted information. Often, this is the exemption provided by Section 552(b)(4)[7] of the FOIA, which protects "commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential." If this is the case, the Supreme Court's decision in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S.Ct. 2356 (2019) addresses the definition of confidential and may be helpful in providing this analysis;
     
  3. Justify the time period for which confidential treatment is sought;
     
  4. Explain, in detail, why, based on the applicant's specific facts and circumstances, disclosure of the information is unnecessary for the protection of investors. This generally is encompassed in a materiality discussion, addressed below;
     
  5. Provide written consent to the furnishing of the confidential information to other government agencies, offices or bodies and to the Congress;
     
  6. Identify each exchange, if any, with which the material is filed (required in applications under Rule 24b-2 relating to Exchange Act filings only); and
     
  7. Provide the name, address and telephone number of the person with whom the Division should communicate and direct all issued notices and orders.

SEC Proposes Expanded "Accredited Investors" Def'n

As anticipated, the SEC voted to propose amendments to the definition of "accredited investors." The proposed amendment, issued upon a 3-2 vote, will allow more investors to participate in private offerings by adding more natural persons that will qualify based on their professional knowledge, experience or certifications. Interestingly, the proposal contemplates that these categories could be established by the SEC by order, rather than the rule itself - which would allow the SEC to establish the criteria in the future without notice & comment. Also, the proposed amendments expand the list of entities that may qualify as accredited investors.

During the summer, Liz blogged about the SEC's concept release that included discussion of the accredited investor definition. As the concept release generated a flurry of comment letters, it's hard to say whether this proposal will please everyone. As this Cooley blog notes, the statements of dissent from Commissioners Rob Jackson and Allison Lee - compared to the statements of support from Commissioners Hester Peirce and Elad Roisman - highlight the differences in views that exist about the fundamental purposes of the securities laws.

The proposal doesn't raise the income and wealth thresholds that have existed since 1982 or suggest adjustments for inflation in the future. This WSJ article says that the lack of an inflation adjustment has contributed to the current number of qualifying households rising over time - from 1.3 million in 1983 to 16 million this year. And among the 69 questions that the SEC specifically requests people to comment on is whether the standards should be tied to geographic reasons to account for potentially lower costs of living.

We'll be posting memos in our "Accredited Investor" Practice Area to help everyone stay up to date with the latest on the proposed changes.


SEC Proposes Expanding QIB Def'n

As mentioned in the press release about the proposed expansion of the "accredited investor" definition, the SEC also proposed expanding the definition of "qualified institutional buyers" under Rule 144A. The expanded definition would add LLCs and RBICs (Rural Business Investment Companies) to the types of entities eligible for QIB status if they meet the securities owned and investment threshold in the definition. There's also a new 'catch-all' category that would permit institutional accredited investors under Rule 501(a), of an entity type not already included in the QIB definition, to qualify as QIBs when they satisfy the $100 million threshold.

We'll post memos in our "Rule 144A" Practice Area as they come in.


SEC Proposes "Modernization" of Auditor Independence Rules

In late December, the SEC announced proposed amendments to Rule 2-01 of Reg S-X that would "modernize" the auditor independence rules and codify Staff consultations - which have been influencing how the rules are interpreted since they were adopted in 2000 and last amended in 2003. If adopted, the proposed amendments would:

- Amend the definitions of affiliate of the audit client, in Rule 2-01(f)(4), and Investment Company Complex, in Rule 2-01(f)(14), to address certain affiliate relationships, including entities under common control

- Amend the definition of the audit and professional engagement period, specifically Rule 2-01(f)(5)(iii), to shorten the look-back period, for domestic first time filers in assessing compliance with the independence requirements

- Amend Rule 2-01(c)(1)(ii)(A)(1) and (E) to add certain student loans and de minimis consumer loans to the categorical exclusions from independence-impairing lending relationships

- Amend Rule 2-01(c)(3) to replace the reference to "substantial stockholders" in the business relationship rule with the concept of beneficial owners with significant influence

- Replace the outdated transition and grandfathering provision in Rule 2-01(e) with a new Rule 2-01(e) to introduce a transition framework to address inadvertent independence violations that only arise as a result of merger and acquisition transactions

- Make certain miscellaneous updates

The announcement runs through a couple of hypos that show how the proposal would address interpretive issues that have been popping up. As always, there'll be a 60-day comment period that runs from when the proposing release is published in the Federal Register. Also see the summary in this Cooley blog...


SEC Proposes New Mining Disclosure Rules

Keeping step with the fast-approaching year-end rush, the SEC also voted to propose rules requiring mining companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments or the U.S. government for the commercial development of oil, natural gas or minerals.

The Commission is statutorily obligated to issue a rule in this area. And, as outlined in the SEC press release about the proposed rules and in Broc's blog back a couple of years ago, the path to these new proposed rules has been anything but smooth. Here's an excerpt from the SEC press release:

The Commission first adopted rules in this area in 2012, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ("Dodd-Frank Act"). The 2012 rules were vacated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Commission then adopted new rules in 2016, which were disapproved by a joint resolution of Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.


Concurrent "Smaller Reporting" & "Accelerated Filer" Status: Handy Chart

When the SEC raised the "smaller reporting company" threshold to $250 million last year, one point of contention was that it didn't make an analogous change to the "accelerated filer" definition. So as confirmed in a set of CDIs from Corp Fin, a company can now be both a "smaller reporting company" and an "accelerated filer." And although the SEC proposed amendments to both the "accelerated filer" and "large accelerated filer" definitions earlier this year, the proposed rules haven't been adopted and there would still be some overlap between the filer categories.

Our members have asked a lot of questions about this over the last year. It's hard to parse through all the rules! We were happy to see that this Ackerman memo lays out a chart for those companies that find themselves navigating this dual status.

For each Item of Reg S-K that applies to periodic reports, the chart compares general disclosure requirements to the rules that apply to smaller reporting companies - and shows whether or not "dual status" companies can take advantage of scaled disclosure accommodations. The memo also highlights that companies holding "dual status" need to comply with accelerated filer filing deadlines - i.e. 75 days after year end for their Form 10-K and 40 days after quarter end for their Form 10-Qs. Don't forget about our "Disclosure Deadlines" Handbook if you're looking for more in-depth info.


Direct Listings: NYSE Files Revised Proposal!

In early December, we blogged that the SEC had rejected the NYSE's proposed rule change to permit companies to sell newly issued primary shares via a direct listing - only 10 days after the exchange had submitted it. The SEC hasn't made any public statements about why it rejected the proposal, so we still don't know for sure whether it was because the Commission is fundamentally opposed to direct listings, believes that rulemaking is required, or if there was just something it wanted the NYSE to tweak. But the NYSE signaled that it would continue working on this initiative, and it's now submitted this revised proposal. As this Davis Polk memo explains, it's pretty similar to the original:

The new rule change proposal is substantially similar to the proposal the NYSE filed in November, except that issuers can meet the NYSE's market value requirement by selling $100 million of shares (rather than $250 million under the initial proposal). Consistent with the initial proposal, the revised rule change proposal would provide the same flexibility for an issuer to sell newly issued primary shares into the opening auction in a direct listing, and would also delay the requirement that an issuer have 400 round lot holders at the time of listing until 90 trading days after the direct listing (subject to meeting certain conditions).

Stay tuned as to whether this revision addresses the SEC's concerns. As Broc blogged when the original proposal was submitted, some are worried about investor protection issues for listings that occur outside of the traditional IPO process - but others note that there are a number of misconceptions about direct listings, including that a direct listing is even a "capital-raising" activity (see more from this Fenwick & West piece). We're continuing to post memos in our "Direct Listings" Practice Area.


How "Direct Listings" Work

As we blogged earlier, the NYSE proposal to allow "direct listings" for primary offerings has been revised and is back on the table, and it's led to a lot of chatter and head-scratching about how exactly this path would work. This 12-page memo from Gibson Dunn is a good up-to-date resource that outlines benefits, issues to consider and current rules that apply. The memo has a nice tabular overview of the various listing standards so that you can compare different alternatives (as Liz also blogged recently, Nasdaq now has a rule that allows secondary direct listings on its Global Select, Global and Capital Markets).

At this point, we still don't know why the SEC rejected the first NYSE proposal - was it something that the NYSE adequately addressed in its revised proposal, or does the SEC think there's a fundamental problem with primary direct listings, for investor protection or other reasons? Stay tuned, we'll be blogging more on this topic as it develops.


Direct Listings: Nasdaq's "Resale" Rule Extended to Its Global & Capital Markets

In early December, the SEC approved this recent Nasdaq proposal that will allow "resale" direct listings on the Nasdaq Global Market and the Nasdaq Capital Market - an extension of an already-existing rule that allows these types of direct listings on the Nasdaq Global Select Market.

This Wilson Sonsini memo summarizes the final rule - and explains how the valuation parameters for companies listing shares on Nasdaq's Global and Capital Markets differ slightly from what applies to the Nasdaq Global Select Market.


Nasdaq Proposal: Excluding Restricted Shares from "Publicly Held" Calculation

The exchanges have been busy. In November, Nasdaq filed this rule proposal that would require listed companies to provide Nasdaq with info about the number of their non-affiliate shares that are subject to trading restrictions - e.g. due to lockups or standstills, private offering restrictions, etc. - if the exchange observes unusual trading activity that implies limited liquidity.

Under the proposed rule, Nasdaq could also halt trading in connection with the request and could require companies with inadequate "unrestricted public float" to adopt a plan to increase the number of unrestricted shares. Nasdaq already has a similar rule for initial listings, but this would extend the concept to continued listing rules.

The SEC posted the rule for comment in mid-December, so we likely won't know for at least a couple of months whether this rule will be approved in current form or at all.


Reg Flex Agenda: Clawback Re-Proposal Coming Next Year?

Recently, the SEC published its latest Reg Flex Agenda - both the "Active" agenda and the "Long-Term Actions" agenda (combined, they are also known as the "Unified Agenda"). When it comes to rulemaking that might be proposed over the next year, it was interesting to see that clawbacks made the list! But pay-for-performance did not. The near-term agenda includes:

  1. Auditor independence (April '20)
     
  2. Clawbacks (September '20; this would be a second proposal - the first one was back in '15)
     
  3. Earnings releases/quarterly reports (September '20; the SEC "requested comments" in January - the next step would be an actual rule proposal)
     
  4. Accredited investor definition (September '20...though Bloomberg reported that a proposal could be coming soon).

Two years ago, the Reg Flex Agenda was changed so that it came in two flavors: "Existing Proposed & Final Rule Stages" (together known as "Active") - and "Long-Term Actions." That has now been slightly changed so that there are three categories - "Pre-Rule Stage" (only one item in this category); "Proposed Rule Stage"; and "Final Rule Stage" - in the "Active" bucket.

Note that there have been a number of proposals issued by the SEC in recent months and those are listed under the "Proposed Rule Stage" rather than the "Final Rule Stage" like other proposed rulemakings - perhaps because the comment periods for those more recent proposals are still open...


Audit Committee Role & Reminders: Statement from SEC & Corp Fin

This statement from SEC Chair Jay Clayton, Chief Accountant Sagar Teotia and Corp Fin Director Bill Hinman was issued in late December to remind audit committees of their oversight responsibilities in financial reporting - and to remind companies that audit committees need adequate resources & support to fulfill their obligations. Here's an excerpt:

- Non-GAAP Measures - Non-GAAP measures and other metrics used to gauge company performance, when used appropriately in combination with GAAP measures, can provide decision-useful information to investors on the company's performance from management's perspective. It is important that audit committees understand whether—and how and why—management uses non-GAAP measures and performance metrics, and how those measures are used in addition to GAAP financial statements in the company's financial reporting and in connection with internal decision making. We encourage audit committees to be actively engaged in the review and presentation of non-GAAP measures and metrics to understand how management uses them to evaluate performance, whether they are consistently prepared and presented from period to period and the company's related policies and disclosure controls and procedures.

- Reference Rate Reform (LIBOR) - The expected discontinuation of LIBOR could have a significant impact on financial markets and may present a material risk for many companies. The risks associated with this discontinuation and transition will be exacerbated if the work necessary to effect an orderly transition to an alternative reference rate, a process often referred to as reference rate reform, is not completed in a timely manner. We encourage audit committees to understand management's plan to identify and address the risks associated with reference rate reform, and specifically, the impact on accounting and financial reporting and any related issues associated with financial products and contracts that reference LIBOR.

- Critical Audit Matters - Beginning in 2019, certain public companies' auditors are required to communicate critical audit matters (CAMs) in the auditor's report. While the independent auditor is solely responsible for writing and communicating CAMs, we encourage audit committees to engage in a substantive dialogue with the auditor regarding the audit and expected CAMs to understand the nature of each CAM, the auditor's basis for the determination of each CAM and how each CAM is expected to be described in the auditor's report. In short, we would expect that the discussion of the CAM in the auditor's report will capture and be consistent with the auditor-audit committee dialogue regarding the relevant matter. We encourage audit committees to continue their efforts to understand the new standard and remain engaged with auditors in the implementation process.


SEC Calls Foul on "Earnings Management"

You likely saw this November WSJ article, detailing an SEC investigation into one company's end-of-quarter "earnings management" practices - e.g. leaning on customers to take early deliveries and rerouting products to book sales. The company says "everyone's doing it" - and according to a McKinsey survey described in this Cleary blog, that's not too much of an exaggeration:

Lest anyone think the SEC's focus on "pulling in" revenues is an issue of limited relevance, note that approximately 27% of US public companies provide quarterly guidance, and evidence of widespread earnings management is not merely anecdotal. A broad survey by McKinsey reveals that, when facing a quarterly earnings miss, 61% of companies without a self-identified "long-term culture" would take some action to close the gap between guided and actual earnings, with 47% opting to "pull-in" sales. 71% of those companies would decrease discretionary spending (e.g., spending on R&D or advertising), 55% would delay starting a new project, even if some value would be sacrificed, and 34% would delay taking an accounting charge.

But the widespread nature of these practices doesn't make the SEC more amenable to them - e.g. they imposed a $5.5 million fine and a cease-and-desist order in a recent enforcement action involving similar maneuvers. The blog notes:

The use of any of these techniques, if resulting in the obfuscation of a "known trend or uncertainty . . . that may have an unfavorable impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing operations," would presumably be equally objectionable to the SEC.

Accordingly, for those companies that are still providing earnings guidance, it would be prudent to make sure that your disclosure committee is having frank and frequent discussions with management about exactly what, if any, earnings management tools are being used, whether these tools fit squarely within the company's revenue recognition policies, whether the company's auditors are aware of the scope and persistence of these practices, and, most importantly, whether the use of the tools is, intentionally or not, masking a trend of declining sales, a declining market share, declining margins, or other significant uncertainties.


Earnings Releases: Better Late Than Wrong

Here's a cautionary tale from a recent SEC Enforcement settlement - as reported in this Stinson blog:

In response to investor pressure to issue an earnings release within the same time frame as prior years, the company announced its 2017 year-end financial results on March 8th and furnished its earnings release on Form 8-K. The company issued the earnings release despite the departure of senior finance and accounting managers, pervasive ERP implementation and internal control issues, and a seven-week delay in the filing of its third quarter 2017 Form 10-Q.

According to the SEC, the earnings release materially misstated, among other things, the company's earnings for 2017.

On March 19th, the company filed a Form 8-K with the Commission disclosing that it expected its 2017 Financial Results to differ from what had been reported in the March 8th earnings release. The company's shares declined over eight percent that day.

The company settled with the SEC for $250,000. The pain of dealing with an Enforcement action - and the loss of credibility - was likely an even greater punishment...


Insider Trading Reform: Could 2020 Be the Year?

In early December, the House passed the "Insider Trading Prohibition Act" by a vote of 410-13. John blogged about the bill back in June when it passed out of the House Financial Services Committee - it would broadly describe "wrongful" trading or communication of material non-public information by tying it to:

(A) theft, bribery, misrepresentation, or espionage (through electronic or other means);

(B) a violation of any Federal law protecting computer data or the intellectual property or privacy of computer users;

(C) conversion, misappropriation, or other unauthorized and deceptive taking of such information; or

(D) a breach of any fiduciary duty, a breach of a confidentiality agreement, a breach of contract, or a breach of any other personal or other relationship of trust and confidence.

The legislation would also require only that a defendant was aware or recklessly disregarded that the inside information was wrongfully obtained - rather than specific knowledge of how it was obtained or whether there was a "personal benefit" involved. It also leaves open the possibility that 10b5-1 transactions could be exempt from insider trading prosecution. Mostly, though, it pretty closely tracks current case law.

So what are the odds that this bill will become law? It appears to have "bipartisan" support - but it's also been floating around in some form since 2015 and hasn't made it to the finish line yet. The repetition certainly makes it easier to come up with headlines - we copied this headline from a 2017 write-up by John.


Conference Calendar


What's New on Our Websites

Among other new additions, during the last month we have posted:

  • A new podcast series - "Women Governance Gurus" - that Liz has been hosting with Courtney Kamlet of Gilbarco Veeder-Root. So far, these illustrious guests have joined Liz & Courtney to talk about their careers in the corporate governance field - and what they see on the horizon:

    The following memos & insights:


    People: Who's Doing What & Where

    TheCorporateCounsel.net Bids Farewell to Broc Romanek: Our veteran, well-loved Editor, Broc Romanek, departed on December 31st to pursue his "Epic Time of Yes." As John blogged, "If you seek his monument, look around you."

    To build on Broc's extraordinary efforts to create community and incredibly practical resources, Liz Dunshee has been named Managing Editor, after training closely with Broc for several years as part of his succession plan. Along with our other well-respected experts, Dave Lynn and John Jenkins will also continue to provide their insights with enhanced roles as Senior Editors.

    Paul Munter Appointed as Deputy Chief Accountant in Office of the Chief Accountant: The SEC announced in December that Paul Munter was appointed as Deputy Chief Accountant. Munter is a former KPMG partner and will lead the office's activities on international matters.

    John Vanosdall Appointed as Deputy Chief Accountant in SEC's Office of the Chief Accountant: The SEC also announced in December that John Vanosdall was appointed as Deputy Chief Accountant. Vanosdall was a partner at PwC and will lead the activities of the office's accounting group.


    Your Input, Please

    Please let us know what you like - and don't like - so we can tailor TheCorporateCounsel.net to be more of a hands-on resource for you and your colleagues.

    Because we view TheCorporateCounsel.net as a "community" site, let us know if you would like to contribute content to our site. E-mail comments, suggestions and other input to liz@thecorporatecounsel.net.

    How to Receive this E-minders E-Newsletter Each Month

    If you are not yet a member of TheCorporateCounsel.net, we encourage you to take advantage of the special offer and enter a no-risk trial, particularly with all of the changes we will all be facing in the months ahead. Email us at info@ccrcorp.com or call us at 800-737-1271 for more information.

    You also have our permission - and indeed are encouraged - to forward this issue of E-Minders to anyone that might not yet benefit from it. In the alternative, you can sign them up to receive E-minders each month by going to https://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/E-minders/listmanager.asp - then, input an email address, check the box to receive it each month and click "Submit."

    Current members of TheCorporateCounsel.net receive this newsletter as one of their benefits of being part of the community if we have their email address. You can provide your email address to liz@thecorporatecounsel.net or sign up on the web page as noted above.

    To no longer receive these E-Minders newsletters, go to https://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/E-minders/listmanager.asp, input your email address, check the box to no longer receive it and click "Submit."

    (c) 2020 Executive Press.

    This email newsletter is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Executive Press is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional services. Publication of this newsletter is not intended to create, and the information contained herein does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Do not act or rely upon the information and advice given in this publication without seeking the services of competent professional counsel. You may decline to receive further email solicitations from us by sending an email to info@ccrcorp.com or contacting us at CCRcorp, 7600 N. Capital of Texas Hwy, Building B, Suite 120, Austin, TX 78731.