The SEC issued its first fee rate advisory for the 2025 fiscal year. The bad news is that filing fees are going up for the third straight year, but the good news is that they’re rising at a much slower rate than they have during the past two fiscal years. For fiscal 2025, the SEC says that the filing fees will increase from $147.60 per million dollars to $153.10 per million dollars, effective October 1, 2024. That’s a 3.7% increase, but it’s a lot less than the 34% fee increase for fiscal 2024 and the 19% increase for fiscal 2023.
The fee rate advisory points out that the SEC doesn’t set filing fees arbitrarily:
The securities laws require the Commission to make annual adjustments to the rates for fees paid under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, which also adjusts the annual fee rates under Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Securities Act of 1934, as well as Rule 24f-2 under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Commission must set rates for the fees paid under Section 6(b) to levels that the Commission projects will generate collections equal to annual statutory target amounts.
The Commission’s projections are calculated using a methodology developed in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission determined the statutory target amount for fiscal year 2025 to be $864,721,147 by adjusting the fiscal year 2024 target collection amount of $839,771,535 for the rate of inflation.
Yesterday, the SEC approved several rule changes proposed by the PCAOB. The changes address auditors’ general responsibilities in conducting an audit, the use of technology assisted data analysis in audits, and auditor liability. This excerpt from the SEC’s press release summarizes the new rules:
The Commission approved the PCAOB’s new AS 1000, General Responsibilities of the Auditor in Conducting an Audit, along with related amendments to other PCAOB standards, to reaffirm, consolidate, and modernize the general principles and responsibilities of the auditor when conducting an audit. These standards cover such foundational topics as affirming the auditor’s duty to protect investors through the preparation and issuance of informative, accurate, and independent auditor’s reports; the exercise of due professional care, professional skepticism, and professional judgment when performing audits; and compliance with ethics and independence rules.
In addition, the Commission approved the PCAOB’s amendments to AS 1105, Audit Evidence, and AS 2301, The Auditor’s Response to the Risks of Material Misstatement, and conforming amendments, to address the use of technology-assisted data analysis in audit procedures. The amendments specify and clarify auditors’ responsibilities when the auditor uses such analytical tools in conducting audits.
Finally, the Commission approved the PCAOB’s amendment to Rule 3502, Responsibility Not to Knowingly or Recklessly Contribute to Violations, governing the liability of an associated person of a registered public accounting firm who directly and substantially contributes to that firm’s violations of the laws, rules, and standards that the PCAOB enforces. The amendments to Rule 3502 revise from recklessness to negligence the standard for an associated person’s contributory liability, while maintaining the requirement that to be held liable, an associated person must have contributed to the firm’s violation “directly and substantially.”
Commissioner Peirce issued a dissenting statement with respect to the changes to Rule 3502, and Commissioner Uyeda did as well. Both commissioners supported the other rule changes. PCAOB Chair Erica Williams issued her own statement in response to the SEC’s action.
We’ve blogged about these rule changes several times, and they’re not insignificant. Check out this blog for more on the new AS 1000, this blog for the implications of the amendment to Rule 3502, and this blog for information on the amendments to AS 1105 & AS 2301.
The Society for Corporate Governance & EY recently issued a report addressing the evolution of Disclosure Committees. The report updates their 2021 report, and this excerpt from the press release announcing the issuance of the report highlights some of the key findings:
– 60% of disclosure committees now regularly review cybersecurity risk and governance disclosures and nearly 40% now regularly review human capital disclosures, up from 32% and 13%, respectively, in our 2021 survey, likely reflecting increasing regulatory and stakeholder scrutiny and expectations.
– Nontraditional roles, such as the heads of Risk, Human Resources, and Information Security, are increasingly among the regular members of companies’ disclosure committees.
– Nearly half of respondents involve their disclosure committees in determining whether cyber incidents are material and require Form 8-K disclosure, while the balance look to another individual or group of individuals to make that determination.
This Bloomberg Law article reports that following the SCOTUS’s elimination of Chevron deference, GOP senators are redoubling their efforts to deep six the “Deep State.” This excerpt says that step one has been to bombard agencies with inquiries about how the decision will impact their work:
GOP lawmakers cheered the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision, arguing it will result in fewer burdensome regulations and give Congress more say in how laws are carried out. Their initial response to the ruling has been to overwhelm agencies with inquiries on the ruling’s impact on their day-to-day work.
To prepare for long-term change, 19 GOP senators last month formed a working group to examine how Congress should limit agency power and roll back regulations underpinned by Chevron. The senators themselves haven’t met as a group, but GOP staff from members’ offices and the Judiciary Committee are organizing subgroups and written to over 100 agencies, quizzing them on the decision’s impact in their ongoing rulemaking, civil enforcement actions, and adjudications.
The article says that Republican senators plan to propose more than a dozen bills targeting agency rulemaking, including legislation that would create a “separate regulatory office on Capitol Hill and expanding the statutory exceptions to the filibuster for agency rules.”
Yesterday, the SEC announced settled enforcement proceedings against Carl Icahn and Icahn Enterprises arising out of alleged failures to comply with disclosure requirements in Schedule 13D and Form 10-K applicable to pledging arrangements. Here’s an excerpt from the SEC’s press release:
According to the SEC’s orders, from at least December 31, 2018, through the present, Icahn, who is IEP’s controlling shareholder and Chairman of the board of directors of IEP’s general partner, pledged approximately 51 to 82 percent of IEP’s outstanding securities as collateral to secure personal margin loans worth billions of dollars under agreements with various lenders.
Notwithstanding Icahn’s various margin loan agreements and amendments, IEP failed to disclose Icahn’s pledges of IEP securities as required in its Form 10K until February 25, 2022. Icahn also failed to file amendments to Schedule 13D describing his personal margin loan agreements and amendments, which dated back to at least 2005, and failed to attach required guaranty agreements. Icahn’s failure to file the required amendments to Schedule 13D persisted until at least July 9, 2023.
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Icahn consented to an order to cease and desist from future violations of Section 13(d)(2) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13d-2(a) thereunder. He also agreed to pay a $500,000 civil money penalty. Icahn Enterprises also consented, on a neither admit nor deny basis, to an order to cease and desist from future violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13a-1 thereunder. The company also agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil money penalty.
Since this involves Carl Icahn, the SEC’s enforcement action has already garnered quite a bit of media attention. If you’re interested in more background on the SEC’s investigation, check out this Reuters’ article.
Last week’s departure of Chipotle CEO Brian Niccol to assume the CEO role at Starbucks is a high-profile example of how CEO transitions can come at you fast. It also illustrates the need for corporate succession plans to address the possibility of unexpected transitions. Meridian Compensation Partners recently published an article outlining its views on the three keys to successful CEO transition planning. This excerpt discusses the unexpected resignation scenario and the key components that should be incorporated into a succession plan to address it:
Resignation (or Medical Emergency): This scenario often comes with little warning. This is the area where the company’s emergency succession plan should come into effect immediately. This plan should address:
― Communication: Appropriate internal and external messaging.
― Interim CEO: Appointment of interim leadership (sometimes a qualified board member, an executive who can be a steady hand during a CEO search, but who does not aspire to the CEO role and in those rare ideal cases, an internal, ready now candidate).
― Open Incentive Cycles: Treatment of open cycles can be impacted by the circumstances that gave rise to the resignation balancing formal provisions with judgments around whether conservatism or magnanimity are best suited.
― Search Process: This should be based on both pre-existing internal candidates’ development plans and an “evergreen” list of external candidates.
The article also points out the need to address the retention risk among disappointed CEO candidates associated with selecting a new CEO through an internal promotion or an external hire, as well as the need for boards to understand market compensation and other key employment terms in advance of an external search or an internal promotion.
I’m excited to announce the launch of “Understanding Activism with John & J.T.” – a new podcast series available to members of TheCorporateCounsel.net and DealLawyers.com. Orrick’s J.T. Ho will be my co-host for these podcasts. Together with our guests, we’ll focus on key issues in shareholder activism and seek out insights from both the activist and management perspectives.
Our inaugural podcast features a discussion with Kyle Pinder of Morris Nichols on recent activist challenges to advance notice bylaws and the implications of the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Kellner v. AIM Immunotech. Check it out & stay tuned for future podcasts in the series!
I was sorry to see that Peter Marshall passed away last week at the ripe old age of 98. To me, he was sort of an avatar of the “Zoom Age”, since that now indispensable remote communications tool is basically an online version of his 1970s “Hollywood Squares” with all the fun removed. Speaking of Zoom, in this month’s issue of The Boardroom Insider, Ralph Ward offers some tips on how to improve online board sessions. Here’s an excerpt with a few of his suggestions:
– Online meeting platforms and board portals have been steadily adding to their suite of tech tools, and smart boards are making use of them for improved governance. The use of visuals in meetings opens up fresh ideas to communicate better. Example – most platforms allow real-time annotation and editing of documents… but are you fully using this? Consider the long-time headache of a board resolution that gets turned inside-out during discussion. Rather than a later surprise (or the secretary having to call a point of order) how about revising the text onscreen during discussion?
– Here’s another clever way meeting and reading can be combined with online gizmos. Everyone on the call has different audio tech, which means miking and speaker volume may not be the best. Also, as we’ve gently noted in the past, some older board members might not be hearing as well as they once did. Zoom and most other video meeting platforms offer real-time captioning of what’s being said. OK, the transcript may not be perfect — but how handy would it be to watch directors’ words at the bottom of the screen while they speak?
– Boards are experimenting with other online visual tools and aids as well. Too often, sharing of visuals has been one-way… look at this boardroom presentation or white board everybody. But remote members can also use screen sharing at their end to show items or info on their screens, or to draw or annotate on what’s being displayed (no doodling funny moustaches on a speaker, please).
Lots of good ideas in here, although in the spirit of bringing the Zoom experience closer to the Hollywood Squares experience, I respectfully dissent from Ralph’s “no doodling funny mustaches on a speaker” recommendation.
– A total of 112 new federal securities class action suits were filed in the first half of 2024. The bulk of these (106 cases) were standard cases containing alleged violations of Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12. If this pace continues, 2024 will see approximately 224 cases, roughly in line with 2023 levels.
– The electronic technology and technology services and the health technology and services sectors accounted for 54% of filings. However, suits in the finance sector declined by more than one-third to 11%.
– The most active jurisdictions were the Second and Ninth Circuits, which together accounted for approximately 60% of filings.
– A significant number of standard case filings included allegations related to missed earnings guidance (38%) and allegations related to misled future performance (32%). Cases with allegations related to accounting issues declined to 12%.
– AI-related suits have increased, while crypto- and SPAC-related filings have continued to decline.
– The first half of 2024 saw 100 cases resolved, split between 52 dismissals and 48 settlements. If this rate continues, the number of resolved cases in 2024 would exceed the 190 seen in 2023.
– Excluding settlements of $1 billion or more, average settlement values saw a decline by approximately 25% in 2024 H1 from 2023 to $26 million. Similarly, the median settlement value declined by 40% to $9 million.
Over on “The D&O Diary” blog, Kevin LaCroix has posted a deep dive on the NERA report. This excerpt notes that the aggregate value of settlements projects to a lower total than last year, but also points out some big-ticket settlements that may be finalized during the second half of 2024:
The aggregate settlement amount for the first six months of 2024 was $1.2 billion, which projects to a year-end total well below the inflation adjusted aggregate total of $4.0 billion for the full year 2023. However, the report notes that there are several large previously announced pending settlements for which settlement-approval hearings are scheduled in the second half of 2024, including Under Armour ($434 million), Alphabet ($350 million), Zoom Video Communications ($150 million), and Perrigo Company plc ($97 million). The report comments that “the aggregate settlement value in the second half of 2024 would be expected to exceed the $1.2 billion seen in the first half of 2024.”
We’ve posted the transcript for the recent DealLawyers.com webcast – “2024 DGCL Amendments: Implications & Unanswered Questions.” Our panelists – Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Steven Haas, Gibson Dunn’s Julia Lapitskaya & Morris Nichols’ Eric Klinger-Wilensky – provided their insights into this year’s controversial DGCL amendments. Topics addressed included the amendments’ implications for governance and acquisition agreements, the interplay between fiduciary duties and contractual obligations, and unanswered questions resulting from the amendments.
Here’s a snippet from Steve Haas’s thoughts on how the ability to include provisions for lost premium damages in merger may influence the drafting of specific performance language:
“Next drafting point, the final one under this ConEd, or Crispo category, is the issue of specific performance. Surely parties will continue to prefer specific performance as a remedy in a busted deal over monetary damages. The synopsis says that the statute is not intended to exclude any remedies that are otherwise available. With that said, merger agreements may want to expressly say that notwithstanding the company does have the right to seek loss premium damages, the parties still agree that monetary damages will be inadequate, and that the parties are entitled to seek specific performance. Maybe that’s a drafting nuance, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see more agreements acknowledge the damages section, but still saying very specifically that the parties are agreeing that specific performance is the chosen remedy.”
Members of DealLawyers.com can access the transcript of this program. If you are not a member of DealLawyers.com, email sales@ccrcorp.com to sign up today and get access to the full transcript – or sign up online.