The latest issue of The Corporate Counsel has been sent to the printer. It is also available now online to members of TheCorporateCounsel.net who subscribe to the electronic format. The issue includes the following article:
– Time Is Up for Resource Extraction Issuers: Our Last-Minute FAQs
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, the SEC’s resource extraction issuer disclosure requirements require Form SD filings by September 26 for calendar year-end companies that are subject to these new requirements. Here are a few of the FAQs from the latest issue of The Corporate Counsel:
Will the SEC revisit the latest resource extraction issuer payment disclosure requirements?
In the time since the SEC adopted the latest rule and form amendments requiring the disclosure of payments by resource extraction issuers, an item has been included in the Regulatory Flexibility Act Agenda which references the resource extraction issuer disclosure rules. The more detailed description of the line-item states: “The Division is considering recommending that the Commission review the rules under section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act to determine if additional amendments might be appropriate.” In the Spring 2024 Reg Flex Agenda, the action is categorized in the proposed rule stage and projects a date for the proposal of April 2025, well after the date when Form SD filings are first required. At this point, all hope is lost that any changes will be made or a delay in the deadline will be adopted prior to the September 2024 Form SD filing deadline for calendar year-end companies.
When is the first Form SD required to be filed?
In the 2020 rulemaking, the SEC adopted a two-year transition period which specified that a resource extraction issuer will be required to comply with Rule 13q-1 and Form SD for fiscal years ending no earlier than two years after the effective date of the final rules. The final rules became effective on March 16, 2021, with initial Form SD filings due no later than 270 calendar days after the end of an issuer’s next completed fiscal year. Therefore, the deadline for companies with a fiscal year ended December 31, 2023 is September 26, 2024. While the example provided in the Adopting Release specifically referred to September 30, 2024 as the initial due date for a company with a fiscal year-end of December 31, 2023, the September 26, 2024 date is the actual due date for the Form SD under the transition provisions.
There is nothing in the rule that would facilitate combining the Form SD for conflict minerals disclosure with the Form SD for payments made by resource extraction issuers, given that they have different filing deadlines (the Form SD for conflict minerals disclosure is due on May 31 for the prior calendar year).
What happens if the Form SD is not timely filed?
The failure to timely file a Form SD pursuant to Exchange Act Section 13(q) does not cause a company to lose its eligibility to utilize Form S-3. As noted in Question 115.04 of the Securities Act Forms CDIs, in determining eligibility for use of Form S-3, the requirement that the company has filed in a timely manner all reports and materials required to be filed during the prior 12 calendar months refers only to Exchange Act Section 13(a) or 15(d) reports and Exchange Act Section 14(a) and 14(c) materials. Further, a report that is deemed to be “furnished” and not “filed” does not impact a company’s Form S-3 eligibility, as noted in Securities Act Forms CDI Question 115.07. As noted above, a Form SD disclosing payments made by resource extraction issuers is required to be furnished under Exchange Act Section 13(q), therefore the failure to timely file does not impact a company’s Form S-3 eligibility. It is conceivable, although perhaps unlikely, that the SEC could bring an enforcement action against a company for a failure to file a Form SD under Section 13(q). It is also possible that the Staff of the Division of Corporation Finance could utilize the comment process to ask a company why it has not filed a Form SD to disclose payments by resource extraction issuers.
Please email sales@ccrcorp.com to subscribe to this essential resource if you are not already receiving the important updates we provide in The Corporate Counsel newsletter.
The extraordinary developments with generative AI over the past year and a half have created challenges for all types of companies, as they seek to have their public disclosures keep up with the pace of change and avoid regulatory scrutiny. This recent Alston & Bird alert does a nice job of surveying those disclosure challenges and describing the SEC filing, SEC Enforcement and shareholder litigation trends. The alert notes:
While the SEC’s focus on AI disclosures will likely encourage an increasing number of companies to disclose AI-related risks, issuers have already started incorporating relevant risk disclosures into their annual Form 10-K filings, with over 40% of S&P 500 companies including such disclosures in their 2023 Forms 10-K and mentions of AI during earnings calls rising by 77% (subscription req’d) in the fourth quarter of 2023.
Additionally, our qualitative analysis of AI-related risk disclosures in fiscal year 2023 Forms 10-K issued by Fortune 100 companies reveals several notable emerging trends. For example, we found that 46% of Fortune 100 companies included AI-related risk disclosures in their Forms 10-K and that such disclosures fall broadly into five buckets: (1) cybersecurity risk; (2) regulatory risk; (3) ethical and reputational risk; (4) operational risk; and (5) competition risk. These risk disclosures were not limited to a certain industry or sector, with a broad range of public companies making risk disclosures that fall into one or more of these buckets.
The SEC’s two recent enforcement actions involving AI are summarized, and the alert notes that, in recent years, private securities litigation has targeted issuers with AI-related claims. The alert ends with these key takeaways for public companies:
Although AI-related disclosures have become a new target in securities enforcement and litigation, companies and their counsel can take proactive steps to protect against future liability.
– Companies should ensure that disclosure counsel understands how the business uses and plans to use AI, and that the business understands the importance of consulting with legal counsel before making public representations about the company’s use of AI.
– Companies should also be aware that even general “puffery” remarks about the company’s use of AI may be scrutinized by the SEC or private plaintiffs, particularly in the context of “AI washing.”
– Public companies should remain aware of continuing SEC guidance, even in the form of SEC remarks, about crafting AI-related disclosures and should consider those remarks when determining how to approach such disclosures.
– Companies should consider whether and how to educate their boards of directors regarding the company’s use of AI (as well as AI use by competitors, significant vendors, and large customers, as applicable) and the related risks and benefits of such use, including with respect to the company’s disclosure obligations.
– Companies should take a broad and deep view of the potential risks posed by AI technologies and consider whether and how to best disclose such risks.
– Financial firms in particular should ensure that their policies and procedures and record-keeping requirements comply with the latest SEC guidance.
As the SEC Staff noted earlier this year, this topic will continue to be a focus at the SEC, and companies should continue to monitor their disclosure obligations in this rapidly changing space.
I must admit, I have not dipped my toes into the generative AI waters yet. I like to tell myself that I am not some sort of Luddite who is opposed to embracing new technologies, but in reality there are some Luddite tendencies at work. Perhaps the thing I fear the most is that somehow generative AI will replace what I both love and hate most about my job: staring at a blank Word document on my computer and trying to come up with something interesting to say to fill the space. And then there is the part about the generative AI robots coming for my job itself, but I remain hopeful that is not imminent.
As everyone tries to figure out how best to deploy generative AI in their work lives, we now have some helpful guidance from the Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association, which recently published Formal Opinion 512, providing guidance on the ethical use of generative AI tools by legal professionals. This Debevoise & Plimpton blog notes:
On July 29, 2024, the Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) published Formal Opinion 512, providing guidance on the ethical use of generative AI tools by legal professionals (the “Opinion”). The Opinion is the latest of several similar ethical guidelines published by various state courts and bar ethics committees, including the September 2023 guidance from the Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct for the State Bar of California (“COPRAC”), the January 2024 Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1, the January 2024 New Jersey Supreme Court Notice to the Bar, and the April 2024 Report and Recommendation of the New York State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence. We have previously written about the COPRAC guidance and key takeaways for professional firms’ use of AI. To date, no state courts, bar ethics committees, or other advisory bodies on legal practice have chosen to amend or create new ethical rules for generative AI—instead, all such bodies have chosen to extend existing rules to use of this new technology.
Although the Opinion is intended to assist lawyers with upholding their ethical and professional responsibility obligations when using generative AI in legal practice, the guidance is also instructive for the responsible use of generative AI outside of the legal profession.
The Opinion addresses six different ethical considerations outlined in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including competence, confidentiality, communication, candor, supervisory responsibilities and fees. This Opinion is definitely a must read for any legal professional who is using generative AI in their daily practice.
Side Note: As you might have guessed, the image used in the Debevoise & Plimpton blog is the stuff of my nightmares!
While one can easily envision a dystopian world in the not-to-distant future where generative AI robots provide us with our continuing legal education, at the moment we should celebrate the fact that we are hosting old-fashioned, in-person Conferences coming up on October 14th & 15th in San Francisco. The panels at our Conferences will be staffed with real-live people, and you definitely will not want to miss what they have to say!
If you can’t make it to the Conferences in person, we also offer a virtual option. Ask your AI assistant to register you today by visiting our online store or by calling us at 800-737-1271.
There is a good reason everyone hates Mondays. Sometimes, bad stuff happens on Mondays, and yesterday was just one of those days. Yesterday, the S&P 500 index fell 3%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 1,034 points and the Nasdaq dropped 3.4%. Disturbingly, the Nikkei Stock Average in Japan suffered its worst one-day drop since the crash after 1987’s infamous Black Monday. It was as if everyone showed up on Monday and collectively decided that things were not looking as rosy on Monday as they had been on Friday. I was completely oblivious to the market tumult, driving for 12 hours from Southeast Georgia to get out of the path of Hurricane Debby. It was jarring to look at my phone late in the day and see the news of the Wall Street rout that seemingly came out of the blue. At least things were looking more positive as of early this morning. Maybe it was just a Monday thing.
One thing that has always fascinated me about financial markets is the inevitable rhythm of the markets over time. For example, anyone who has practiced in capital markets generally knows that you do not want to price an IPO in the last few weeks of August, because traders and investors tend to go on vacation and market trading thins out. The same concepts apply around holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas, as the human elements of the markets are revealed to a certain extent. Over the years, I have noted how this conventional wisdom has faded to some extent, as markets have become more global and people tend to work from anywhere. Ultimately, these rhythms may be rendered completely obsolete when the AI robots take over trading and investment banking, and perhaps we will be better off without the all too human element of the markets. Until that time, we are still subject to the risk that all of those humans driving the markets will come into work on any given Monday and decide to sell, sending the indices plummeting. And then, the next day, because it is a Tuesday, deciding that maybe things were not so bad after all.
Last week, Corp Fin posted three new CDIs related to asset-backed securities. This Mayer Brown alert notes:
C&DI 103.01 SECURITIZATION PARTICIPANT – INFORMATION PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ON EDGAR
This C&DI provides guidance on when affiliates and subsidiaries may be considered “securitization participants” under Rule 192. Here, staff confirms that merely having access to, or receiving, information that is publicly available on EDGAR, by itself, does not result in the affiliate or subsidiary being a securitization participant under paragraph (ii)(B) of the “securitization participant” definition in Rule 192(c). This is consistent with prior public statements made by SEC staff. For more insight into Rule 192, please see Conflict Resolution: The SEC Adopts Final Rule 192 (Conflicts of Interest in Securitization Transactions).
C&DI 112.01 FORM ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SECURITIZATIONS
This C&DI provides guidance on the proper registration statement forms for offering of securities that are backed by securitization property which includes the right to assess and collect certain special charges on customers’ public utility bills (“public utility securitizations”). Here, staff confirms that (1) Form SF-1 is the proper registration statement form and (2) Form 10-K, Form 8-K, and Form 10-D are the appropriate forms for periodic reporting for public utility securitizations regardless of whether they are structured as stand-alone trusts or “series trusts” (where multiple series of unrelated securities are issued by a single issuing entity). Staff also states that, because public utility securitizations structured as series trusts are Exchange Act ABS, series trust issuers should refrain from making statements in their filings that they are not asset-backed issuers or that their securities are not asset-backed securities, as such statements would not be accurate.
C&DI 301.04 ITEM 1101(C) – SINGLE ASSET SECURITIZATIONS
This C&DI provides guidance that a security that is supported by the cash flow of a single asset satisfies the requirement in Item 1101(c)(1) of Regulation AB that an asset-backed security be primarily serviced by the cash flows of a discrete “pool” of receivables or other financial assets. Staff notes that the term “pool” in Item 1101(c)(1) of Regulation AB does not require more than one asset and instead refers to the general absence of active pool management. Issuers should note that this C&DI does not change the requirements of other rules and regulations, such as Rule 140 or Rule 190 under the Securities Act of 1933, or the disclosure requirements of Regulation AB, including, for example, Item 1112 (Significant obligors of pool assets).
I have not spent much time working with asset-backed securities in private practice, but I was in the Corp Fin office that handled asset-backed securities back in the 1990s, and I really enjoyed the “square peg, round hole” aspect of how we used the comment process and interpretations to create the disclosure regime for asset-backed securities in the time before Regulation AB was adopted as the comprehensive regulation framework for asset-backed securities offerings. I can distinctly remember being handed a stack of comments that we typically issued on asset-backed offerings and sent off to review a registration statement. There is nothing quite like learning by doing! In any event, we have certainly come a long way in the SEC’s approach to the unique aspects of this market.
As Meredith recently noted in The Proxy Season Blog, ISS recently announced an “updated and enhanced” version of its Cyber Risk Score. The announcement notes that the new version of the Cyber Risk Score “takes advantage of a richer collection of cyber incident exemplar data” so that “organizations that score 300 are 32 times more likely to suffer a significant breach incident over the subsequent twelve-month period than organizations scoring 850.” The announcement highlights these newly added metrics:
A newly added Cyber Risk Decile metric provides further insight into relative risk, as measured by the score, in the context of industry-relevant peer groupings. Additionally, new Component Scores describe the relative impact of underlying technical measurements on the ISS Cyber Risk Score for any given firm across five different categories of risk exposure, including Internet Presence, Infrastructure, Software Services, Endpoint Security, and Website Construction. … The score is packaged with other details and explanatory tools that help users interpret and action the score for multiple use-cases, including investment portfolio risk assessment, investment stewardship, and issuer engagement.
The Cyber Risk Score appears in ISS Benchmark Research and Voting reports of the S&P 600 and Russell 3000.
Last week, ISS launched its Annual Benchmark Policy Survey and development process, inviting companies, investors, corporate directors and other stakeholders to respond to a series of questions, then using those responses to inform the annual policy development process. In its release announcing the survey, ISS notes:
This year’s survey begins by seeking feedback on several topics specific to the U.S. market, including poison pills and executive compensation. The survey then moves on to elicit views with regard to EMEA markets. Questions cover general share issuances in France, virtual meetings and auditor rotation topics throughout Continental Europe, and cumulative voting for the election of directors in Middle Eastern and North African markets. Finally, the survey invites views on global environmental and social topics, specifically the disclosure of Scope 3 GHG emissions targets and workforce diversity.
More specifically, with respect to the US market, ISS asks a series of questions regarding the adoption of poison pills to inform its voting guidance, including;
– Is the adoption by a board of a short-term poison pill to defend against an activist campaign acceptable?
– Should pre-revenue or other early-stage companies be entitled to greater leeway than mature companies when it comes to the adoption of a short-term poison pill?
– Is it ever acceptable for a board to set the trigger of a short-term poison pill below 15 percent?
– Some companies have adopted a two-tier trigger threshold, with a higher trigger for passive investors (13G filers). Do you consider this to be a mitigating factor for a low trigger?
– How important is it that a poison pill include a “qualifying offer clause”, giving shareholders the ability to bypass the pill in the event of an offer that is deemed beneficial?
On the topic of executive compensation, ISS focuses its questions on, among other things, the relevance of the ratio of performance-based to time-based equity awards as a focal point of ISS’ qualitative review in the pay-for-performance analysis (given growing investor skepticism about performance equity practices), whether discretionary annual incentive programs are problematic and what approach ISS should take when compensation is tied to profits from managed funds.
The Annual Benchmark Policy Survey will close at 5:00 pm Eastern time on September 5, 2024.
Glass Lewis recently launched its own annual policy survey process to gather input for developing 2025 proxy voting guidelines. Glass Lewis first launched its annual policy survey process last year, and is now continuing the practice as we go into the next proxy season. Glass Lewis accepts responses from all Glass Lewis clients and industry participants. In the announcement of its policy survey on its website, Glass Lewis notes:
Glass Lewis has always been committed to better understanding how investors and companies view corporate governance and ESG topics. To ensure we capture broad market feedback as a part of our annual policy-setting process, you are invited to participate in our 2024 Policy Survey.
Your views and feedback will inform our understanding of evolving market sentiment on key governance and stewardship topics, ensure our 2025 Benchmark Voting Policy Guidelines are comprehensive, and enable us to provide more meaningful analysis.
After processing the feedback, Glass Lewis will share a summary of the survey results first with clients and then make it available on our website. Soon thereafter, we will publish our 2025 Benchmark Voting Policy Guidelines. Please note we will not identify individuals or organizations participating in the survey when we publish the results.
The Glass Lewis survey is wide ranging, asking questions about related party transactions, the use and oversight of generative AI, the board’s oversight of cybersecurity risks, director expertise, several compensation topics, responses to investor dissent, shareholder rights issues, stewardship and engagement, and a variety of ESG matters
The survey is open until Friday, August 30 at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time.
You can catch up on all of the latest developments with the proxy advisory firms by attending our “2024 Proxy Disclosure & 21st Annual Executive Compensation Conferences,” which are taking place on October 14th & 15th in San Francisco. For example, our “21st Annual Executive Compensation Conference” will feature a panel titled “Navigating ISS and Glass Lewis” with Ning Chiu from Davis Polk, Rachel Hedrick from ISS and Krishna Shah from Glass Lewis. Be sure to check out all of our great speakers and action-packed agenda!
If you can’t make it to the Conferences in person, we also offer a virtual option so you won’t miss out on the practical takeaways that our speakers will share. You can register now by visiting our online store or by calling us at 800-737-1271.