Compliance with the changes to Reg S-K’s financial disclosure rules doesn’t become mandatory until August 9th, but companies are permitted to early adopt the changes on a line item-by-line item basis as of the February 10th effective date. One of those changes eliminates Item 301 of S-K and its requirement to include selected financial data in a company’s 10-K filing. If you’re still trying to decide what to do about selected financial data in your 10-K, Jenner & Block has some help for you.
The firm surveyed 100 Form10-K filings made after the February 10th effective date of the rules by large accelerated filers & accelerated filers to see what companies were doing about selected financial data disclosure. This excerpt summarizes the survey’s findings:
Approximately 40% of the Sample Eliminated Item 301 Disclosure: On the balance, we found that companies were slightly more likely to include the selected financial data than to omit such information based on the sample we reviewed.
– 61 companies within the sample included the selected financial data in the Form 10-K
– 39 companies within the sample omitted the selected financial data in the Form 10-K
No Distinct Patterns within the Sample: We did not detect any concrete patterns with respect to industry or company size. Companies of all industries and sizes elected to include and omit the selected financial data.
For Companies that Early Adopted, Use of Disclosure Varied: Some companies elected to explain why the information was omitted, some omitted the item entirely from the Form 10-K, and some used “Reserved” or similar disclosure.
On this last point, I think that if you’re going to eliminate Item 301 disclosure, the better approach from a technical standpoint is to continue to include the caption “Item 6 – Selected Financial Data” in the 10-K. Here’s why – Item 6 is still included in Form 10-K, and Rule 12b-13 says that an Exchange Act report “report shall contain the numbers and captions of all items of the appropriate form. . .” It also says that unless the form provides otherwise, “if any item is inapplicable or the answer thereto is in the negative, an appropriate statement to that effect shall be made.”
So, while I doubt very much anybody will end up in SEC prison for just omitting Item 6 in its entirety, Rule 12b-13 indicates that you should continue to include it in your 10-K along with an appropriate statement about why you’re not disclosing the selected financial data that it calls for. Looking for an example? Check out Zillow Group’s 10-K.
Delaware Chancery: “You Do NOT Have the Right to Remain Silent. . .”
The last 12 months have certainly lent themselves to TV binge-watching. While most people binged on shows like “Tiger King” or “The Queen’s Gambit,” I took the road less traveled and binged on “Dragnet” reruns. Yeah, I know that’s a pretty eccentric choice, but I simply can’t get enough of Sergeant Joe Friday & his partners.
Sure, the acting’s wooden & the world view’s problematic, but the 1950s version of the show just may be TV’s greatest example of the film noir style. The preachy 1960s version wasn’t nearly as good as its predecessor, and was often absurdly campy, but whatever its faults, Dragnet remains the seminal police procedural. Like Jack Webb or loathe him, he’s an auteur, and you don’t get “Hill Street Blues,” “NYPD Blue,” “Law & Order” – or even “LA Confidential” – without him.
By now, you’re probably asking yourself – “Okay, how is this goofy boomer going to tie his odd Dragnet obsession into something corporate law related?” Well, hold my beer. . .
Back in the 1950s, Joe and his partners (of whom Frank Smith was indisputably the greatest) didn’t have to worry about niceties like Miranda warnings. That changed in the swingin’ 60s, and although you could always hear the edge in their voices when they did it, Joe & Bill Gannon never failed to advise a perp that he had “the right to remain silent.”
Now, unlike the perps Joe & Bill sent to San Quentin at the end of every show, a corporation doesn’t have a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. That’s because of something known as the “collective entity doctrine,” and a recent decision from – of all places – the Delaware Chancery Court makes it clear that’s the case even if you’re dealing with a single owner entity. The case involved a discovery dispute in which one of the parties, a single-member LLC, asserted the 5th Amendment in response to a document production request. Vice Chancellor Laster said no deal:
The overwhelming weight of federal decisions from the courts of appeals recognizes that the collective entity doctrine applies with equal force to a single-person entity. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held that “the sole shareholder of a one-man corporation has no ‘act of production privilege’ under the [F]ifth[A]mendment to resist turnover of corporate documents.” The court explained that the choice to incorporate brings with it “all the attendant benefits and responsibilities of being a corporation,” including the responsibility “to produce and authenticate records of the corporation . . . .”
I just know that Joe Friday and Bill Gannon would have loved working a white collar beat. Dum-de-dum-dum. . .
Tomorrow’s Webcast: “Your CD&A – A Deep Dive on Pandemic Disclosures”
Tune in tomorrow for the CompensationStandards.com webcast – “Your CD&A: A Deep Dive on Pandemic Disclosures” – to hear Mike Kesner of Pay Governance, Hugo Dubovoy of W.W. Grainger and Cam Hoang of Dorsey discuss how to use your CD&A to tell your story and maintain high say-on-pay support, trends and investor expectations for COVID-related pay decisions, addressing “red flags” through storytelling, linking your CD&A to your broader ESG and human capital initiatives and ensuring consistency between your CD&A and minutes.
If you attend the live version of this 60-minute program, CLE credit will be available! You just need to submit your state and license number and complete the prompts during the program.
Members of CompensationStandards.com are able to attend this critical webcast at no charge. If not yet a member, subscribe now to get access to this program and our other practical resources. The webcast cost for non-members is $595. You can renew or sign up online – or by fax or mail via this order form. If you need assistance, send us an email at info@ccrcorp.com – or call us at 800.737.1271.
A recent Olshan blog discussing what activists might expect from a Gary Gensler led SEC raised the possibility that Section 13(d) reform just might find its way on to the SEC’s agenda. This excerpt explains these efforts might garner bipartisan support:
At the CFTC, Mr. Gensler demonstrated an ability to balance progressive political pressures with competing industry interests. Should he take a similarly pragmatic approach if confirmed to lead the SEC, one of the areas where a coalition can be brokered between different interest groups is reform of Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act. Adopted in 1968 as part of the Williams Act, Section 13(d) instituted a rigorous beneficial ownership disclosure regime that requires stockholders to promptly notify issuers if they accumulate significant stock positions.
Ever since, corporations and their advisors have agitated for increasingly stringent investor reporting obligations. Likewise, progressives skeptical of hedge funds and activism in general have also trained their sights on parts of Section 13(d). As a testament to the appeal of this sentiment to both the business community and progressives, legislation (the “Brokaw Act”) was introduced in the Senate in 2017 to intensify oversight of activist hedge funds through Section 13(d) reform by Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and former Senator David Perdue (R-GA), each a member of the peripheral wing of their respective party.
The blog suggests that in addition to potentially shortening the reporting window, the SEC’s efforts could include expanding the definition of “beneficial ownership” to include derivative instruments that are not subject to settlement in the underlying security.
Rule 10b5-1 Plans: Glass Lewis Offers Up “Best Practices”
Rule 10b5-1 plans are one of the “great divides” between those of us who are lawyers for public companies and literally everyone else who follows public company issues. Most of us are borderline paranoid about crossing the t’s & dotting the i’s to make sure these plans provide the protection they’re supposed to provide (we even have an 87-page handbook devoted to that!). Most of them think these plans are a total scam – and point to the windfalls reaped by execs at Pfizer & Moderna for trades under 10b5-1 plans that seemed particularly well-timed to coincide with positive Covid-19 vaccine news.
That divide is one reason why I was kind of surprised by a recent Glass Lewis blog offering up some thoughts on “best practices” for 10b5-1 plans. These include typical suggestions like “cooling off” periods & public disclosure – but as this excerpt notes, the ultimate goal of these and other best practices is to provide transparency about the plan and its implications:
Other forms of best practice include avoiding the use of multiple, overlapping plans, avoiding short-term plans (most plans are six months to two years) and avoiding making changes to existing plans. All of these best practices help simplify the flow of publicly available information and present a clear way for insider trading rules to be followed. They help to avoid situations where executives are put into the spotlight, as was the case for Pfizer and Moderna – and ensure that when things do go public, the market has the information it needs to put things in context.
Now, since the blog’s title is “Operation Warp Pay,” I expected this discussion of best practices to be followed by a smackdown of the trading by the execs of these pharma companies. Surprisingly, that wasn’t the case. While the media reaction to Pfizer & Moderna’s 10b5-1 trading plans suggest that more could have been done on the transparency front, Glass Lewis concludes that the trades were essentially benign examples of lawful transactions under Rule 10b5-1.
Market Mania: History Doesn’t Repeat Itself, But It Often Rhymes
Have you ever heard of the Piggly Wiggly short squeeze? This FT.com article tells the story of the last time individual investors & Wall Street went toe-to-toe over a stock. It happened nearly a century ago, but it shows that Mark Twain was right when he said that “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” (In case FT puts this behind their pay wall, this Of Dollars & Data blog also recounts the tale).
Also, check out Bruce Brumberg’s interview with former SEC enforcement lawyer John Reed Stark for a discussion of some of the legal issues involved in last week’s shenanigans.
According to an SBA press release, the agency has forgiven over $100 billion in PPP loans as of January 12, 2021, and has approved forgiveness for nearly 85% of the applications that it has received. That’s great, but what should you do if your client is in the other 15%? This Dorsey & Whitney memo says that a borrower’s only recourse is the SBA appeals process, and this excerpt says that it should expect an uphill battle:
The only appeal process allowed by law is set out in the SBA regulations found at 13 CFR § 134.1204, et seq. The decision on the appeal will be made by an administrative law judge (ALJ) who will review the petition filed by the borrower, the response of the SBA, and the “record,” that is the documentation submitted by the borrower and the SBA. However, in order to obtain a reversal of the denial of loan forgiveness, the borrower must convince the ALJ that “the SBA loan review decision was based on clear error of fact or law.” 13 CFR § 134.1212.
That is very difficult to prove because courts have ruled that “clear error of fact or law” means that “although there is evidence to support [the decision], the [administrative law judge] . . . is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of California, Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. California, 508 U.S. 602, 622, 113 S. Ct. 2264, 124 L. Ed. 2d 539 (1993); see also, PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2004). All of that means that thorough preparation and diligent prosecution of the appeal is absolutely necessary.
The memo reviews the appeals process, including deadlines and the matters that must be addressed in an appeal petition. The most important part of the process to keep in mind is that deadlines are very tight – an appeal must be perfected within 30 days of the SBA’s final decision on forgiveness, and it is applied rigidly. That means that even if a company expects that its forgiveness application will be approved, it needs to prepare to move quickly in case it receives an unpleasant surprise.
PPP Loans: Unforgiven? You May Be Eligible for a Tax Credit
If your client is not successful in obtaining loan forgiveness from the SBA, all is not lost! The IRS says that it may be eligible for a consolation prize in the form of a tax credit:
Under section 206(c) of the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020, an employer that is eligible for the employee retention credit (ERC) can claim the ERC even if the employer has received a Small Business Interruption Loan under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The eligible employer can claim the ERC on any qualified wages that are not counted as payroll costs in obtaining PPP loan forgiveness. Any wages that could count toward eligibility for the ERC or PPP loan forgiveness can be applied to either of these two programs, but not both.
If you received a PPP loan and included wages paid in the 2nd and/or 3rd quarter of 2020 as payroll costs in support of an application to obtain forgiveness of the loan (rather than claiming ERC for those wages), and your request for forgiveness was denied, you can claim the ERC related to those qualified wages on your 4th quarter 2020 Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return.
This recent “Accounting Today” article provides additional details on the tax credit, which is limited to the 4th quarter of 2020.
PPP Loans: Fraudulent? Now You’re REALLY Unforgiven
The DOJ recently announced its first civil fraud settlement associated with a PPP loan. The case involved a company called Slidebelts & its CEO Brigham Taylor, and centered on allegations that the company falsely represented that wasn’t bankrupt on PPP loan applications. Here’s an excerpt from this Troutman Pepper memo that describes the terms of the settlement:
The settlement agreement states that Slidebelts and Taylor are liable to the United States for nearly $4.2 million in damages and penalties for violating the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) and the False Claims Act. Because of the compromised financial condition of Slidebelts and Taylor, DOJ agreed to accept a settlement amount of $100,000 in exchange for releasing Slidebelts and Taylor from liability for these civil claims. The settlement agreement did not, however, release Slidebelts and Taylor from any liability under the Internal Revenue Code, criminal liability, or any other administrative liability or enforcement right not specifically released in the agreement.
The memo points out that DOJ can seek maximum penalties of approximately $2 million per violation under FIRREA and $23,000 per violation, plus triple damages, under the FCA. What’s more, both incentivize whistleblower actions. That means that borrowers need to monitor compliance closely and ensure that their internal reporting system addresses potential violations of PPP loan requirements.
Whenever a new disclosure requirement becomes effective, one of the first things people ask is – “what are other companies doing to comply with it?” This Willis Towers Watson memo provides some insight into that by reviewing the content of early 10-K filings containing human capital management disclosure. The memo’s analysis breaks down the disclosures into two categories – descriptions of human capital resources & initiatives and disclosure of data reflecting human capital metrics. Here’s an excerpt on what companies are saying about their resources & initiatives:
Most companies included the descriptions “employee development and training” and “diversity initiatives and strategies.” This is not surprising given the societal focus on these issues during 2020. A cursory review of larger companies in our sample indicates these disclosures were leveraged from existing public statements, such as proxies and environmental, social and governance (ESG) reports.
Among the companies disclosing diversity initiatives and strategies as descriptions, two thirds enhanced their disclosure with representation metrics. Only a handful of companies disclosed concrete gender and racial diversity goals (e.g., increase the representation of both women and ethnically diverse talent by at least one percentage point year over year). We expect that more companies will continue to enhance their internal reporting processes and develop and publicize actual goals in these areas; therefore, an uptick in their prevalence as metrics disclosed in future filings is likely.
Almost every disclosure also included at least one human capital metric. Workforce profiles were the most common of these, with the total number of employees disclosed being most prevalent metric. Information about the total number of employees appeared in 94% of filings. That isn’t surprising, since that kind of disclosure was previously required in 10-K filings.
What is a little surprising is that this was the only metric to appear in a majority of the 10-K filings reviewed. Gender representation and diversity & inclusion were the next most popular metrics, and appeared in 44% and 38% of filings, respectively. Other metrics discussed in some filings included union representation, training, and employee turnover or retention rates.
Human Capital Management Disclosure: What Do Investors Want?
As companies work through how to comply with the SEC’s new “principles based” human capital disclosure requirement, they also may want to consider this recent FEI article, which says that investors are looking for companies to address three things:
As we approach the Q4 2020 earnings cycle and 2021 proxy season, investors will be focused on three specific aspects of HCM: 1) employee health and safety amid the precipitous increase in COVID-19 cases; 2) diversity and inclusion given a spate of decrees, proposals and actions by the State of California, ISS, NASDAQ, Business Roundtable and OneTen; and 3) training and development amid the acceleration of Industry 4.0, IoT, digital, and automation.
The article recommends specific actions that companies should take in preparing to satisfy their new disclosure obligations. These include ensuring that a board committee (typically the Comp Committee or a dedicated ESG Committee, if one exists) oversees human capital management, evaluating its processes & systems for monitoring and updating publicly disclosed human capital metrics, and assessing whether those metrics are still the most relevant for managing the business and changing or updating them as needed.
Audit Committees: Financial Reporting Disclosure & Control Tips
Just in time for everybody’s upcoming round of audit committee meetings, here’s a Weil memo with 21 tips for audit committees drawn from recent SEC rule changes, guidance, enforcement cases and Staff comment letters. Now, you might be tempted to write off a memo promising “tips” as likely to be pretty facile, but that would be a big mistake with this one – it’s a 21-page deep dive that’s definitely worth spending some time with on your own & sharing with your audit committee.
During the initial lockdown last spring, my wife & I became enamored with bird watching. We hung several different feeders in our back yard and spent a lot of time on our porch watching all sorts of cool birds. Yes, we party hard here in the Cleveland suburbs!
Anyway, we’ve attracted a real menagerie. We’ve kept the feeding going during the winter & have seen some new arrivals, all of which were more than welcome – that is, until the European starlings showed up. I’ve quickly learned to hate these guys. They travel in large flocks, poop everywhere and bully all the other birds off the feeders. We’re trying to get rid of them, but it looks like it’s going to take some effort.
Nobody invited the starlings to the party, and now they’re why the other birds can’t have nice things. Their presence at our bird feeders made me think of last week’s stock market shenanigans involving GameStop, AMC and a handful of other “stonks.” My annoyance at this situation is similar to my annoyance with the starlings in my back yard. After all, nobody invited people who treat the stock market like a casino to the party, and they’re a big reason why a lot of companies & stakeholders can’t have nice things.
The only thing is, like a lot of other people, I’m not exactly sure who the starlings are in this scenario. Are they the “Eat the Rich” crowd from Reddit – or are they the billion dollar hedge funds that publicly paraded their short positions & ended up being taken down by the Internet’s sans-culottes? Maybe the starlings are the trading apps, the clunky way Wall Street clears trades, or even Donald Trump supporters? Perhaps the answer is “all of the above.”
It’s going to take me a while to sort this out in my own head. Based on the recent joint statement that the SEC commissioners issued on the situation, it looks like it’s going to take the agency some time as well. This whole thing is far from simple – check out this NYT article to get a sense of the challenges that the SEC faces here. So for now, I guess all we can do is just sit back & enjoy the memes and the free chicken tenders.
SEC Makes Some Interesting Appointments
The SEC announced yesterday that HLS professor John Coates has been appointed to serve as Acting Director of Corp Fin. It’s an interesting appointment – the head of Corp Fin has traditionally been a practitioner, while Coates is a long-time academic. Of course, he’s also a former Wachtell M&A lawyer, so it’s not like he doesn’t know his way around a deal.
The SEC also announced the appointment of Satyam Khanna as Senior Policy Advisor for Climate and ESG. Khanna previously served as counsel to former commissioner Robert Jackson. In his new role, Khanna will “advise the agency on environmental, social, and governance matters and advance related new initiatives across its offices and divisions.” His appointment is another signal that ESG issues and rulemaking projects are likely to feature prominently on the SEC’s agenda.
Transcript: “Streamlined MD&A and Financial Disclosures – Early Considerations”
We have posted the transcript for the recent webcast – “Streamlined MD&A and Financial Disclosures: Early Considerations.”
Last week, the World Economic Forum announced that 61 companies signed-on the organization’s “Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics,” a set of ESG metrics and disclosures that measure long-term enterprise value creation for corporate stakeholders. The metrics are intended to serve as “a set of universal, comparable disclosures focused on people, planet, prosperity and governance that companies can report on, regardless of industry or region.” This excerpt from the WEF’s announcement provides more details:
The Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics, drawn from existing voluntary standards, offer a core set of 21 universal, comparable disclosures focused on people, planet, prosperity and principles of governance that are considered most critical for business, society and the planet, and that companies can report on regardless of industry or region. They strengthen the ability of companies and investors to benchmark progress on sustainability matters, thereby improving decision-making and enhancing transparency and accountability regarding the shared and sustainable value companies create.
The Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics document is 97 pages long, and contains plenty of the kind of pious, self-congratulatory corporate gobbledygook you’d expect to find in something like this. However, the core metrics are summarized in a three page chart beginning on page 8 of the document – and a review of that chart should give you a pretty good handle on them.
Companies that have signed on to the core metrics include Dow, Unilever, Nestlé, Bank of America, Credit Suisse, Sony & all of the Big 4 accounting firms (which helped develop the metrics). The signatories have committed to reflect the core metrics in their corporate reporting and to publicly support the effort to develop uniform ESG metrics.
We’ve previously blogged about the growing demand among investors and other constituencies for standardized sustainability disclosures, and this announcement represents a milestone in that process. Now, we’ll have to see what these disclosures look like and whether the WEF’s metrics continue to gain traction.
Tomorrow’s Webcast: “Shareholder Proponents Speak: 14a-8 Fallout & Other Initiatives”
Tune in tomorrow for the webcast – “Shareholder Proponents Speak: 14a-8 Fallout & Other Initiatives” – to hear As You Sow’s Andy Behar, Trillium Asset Management’s Jonas Kron, CorpGov.net’s Jim McRitchie, and the NYC Comptroller’s Yumi Narita discuss what changes they expect in light of the recent changes to Rule 14a-8 and other initiatives on the horizon.
Our February E-Minders is Posted
We have posted the February issue of our complimentary monthly email newsletter. Sign up today to receive it by simply entering your email address!
There are few topics that make my eyes glaze over more quickly than anything related to XBRL. But in a recent FEI article, former SEC Chief Accountant Wes Bricker says that companies and audit committees need to pay closer attention to the quality of their efforts to comply with XBRL tagging requirements:
While more regulators have been requiring XBRL in recent years, its use hasn’t been without challenges: for instance, errors, inconsistent tagging of the same information across companies or mis-tagging tags are ongoing issues. And there are even technology companies that have emerged over the past few years that mine XBRL-public filings, remedy the problematic data and then sell the corrected data back to those that use XBRL data (including back to companies themselves).
While any errors in financial reporting or other processes is cause for concern across the market because of its corrosive impact on confidence over time, with XBRL errors there’s also a potential corrosive effect for individual companies, such as potential negative impacts to stock price, credit ratings, and even reputation.
The article notes that errors are difficult to scrub from the Internet, even following a corrective amendment – and the consequences can be significant. Reporting errors caused by XBRL issues could pose reputational risks, which can be compounded if tagging inaccuracies are overlooked and carried forward into future periods. Faulty XBRL data also could bring about errors in rating agencies’ models – which in a worst case scenario could result in a lower credit rating and higher borrowing costs.
Despite these stakes, the XBRL tagging error rate is high. According to this Toppan Merrill blog discussing the article, 34% of September 10-K & 10-Q filings reportedly contained tagging errors. That blog also points filers to the US XBRL Data Quality Committee’s website, which provides a free service permitting companies to check their filings.
Wes Bricker’s article recommends actions that companies and audit committees should take to enhance the XBRL process, including enhanced education and training of staff in corporate accounting, finance, treasury, and investor relations. The article didn’t mention the need to loop in the legal department or outside counsel – which is good, because my eyes glazed over about three paragraphs ago. But as Liz blogged last month, if SEC commissioner Allison Herron Lee gets her way, we all may have to force ourselves to pay closer attention to XBRL tagging issues.
Insider Trading: Capitalizing On Cyber Breaches
In a recent Institutional Investor article, the authors of a new study suggest that there’s been quite a bit of insider trading during the period immediately following a breach. The study looked at options trading during the period between the time a cyber attack was experienced and when it was disclosed – and it reached some interesting conclusions:
We observed bearish call and hedging put strategies increasing prior to the official breach announcements. These effects were most significant for out-of-the-money, at-the-money, and in-the-money put options, which typically have the highest liquidity. Additionally, we found a spike in investors buying insurance against a stock crashing right before that company told the world it had been hacked.
An increase in deep out-of-the-money trades indicates that informed investors expect negative news in the future. We also saw that the options trading activity before a firm’s breach disclosure was related to the negative abnormal stock returns the firm experienced after the disclosure. Thus the pre-disclosure trading activity was consistent with informed investors profiting from or buying insurance against a stock crashing right before the company told the world it had been hacked.
The good news is that the authors found that the amount of potential insider trading around cyber breaches has declined over the past decade, which they attribute to increased scrutiny of breaches and greater awareness of trading around them before official announcements.
Private Offering Simplification Rules: We Have An Effective Date
The SEC’s recent amendments simplifying the regulation of private offerings were published in the Federal Register yesterday, and will become effective on March 15, 2021. We’ve just scheduled a webcast for February 17th to help you get up to speed on the new regime. Be sure to tune in!
Last week’s attack on the Capitol – I still can’t believe I’m writing those words – has prompted many companies to hit pause on their political contributions. Initially, corporate donors targeted Republican lawmakers who objected to the certification of President-Elect Biden’s victory, but many have at least temporarily halted all political contributions.
Critics have suggested that these actions are merely symbolic, and that companies will jump back into the political game once the news cycle moves on to something else. I have no doubt that they’ll be back, but it’s just possible that last week’s attack may represent a turning point when it comes to how companies approach political spending. Why? Well, this pause isn’t occurring in a vacuum, and it may help accelerate some existing and emerging trends:
– Institutional investors and companies are under increasing pressure to align their political spending with their stated priorities & to disclose more information about that spending. Ironically, on the day of the attack, Liz’s lead blog was all about BlackRock’s efforts to urge greater transparency among the companies in which it invests when it comes to corporate political activities.
– The results of the latest CPA-Zicklin survey indicate that companies themselves are continuing to become more transparent about & accountable for their political spending.
– Activist investors increasingly look for ESG hooks to expand their base of investor support for their campaigns. In an increasingly divided and volatile environment, a company’s political spending may prove to be low hanging fruit for activists.
It also looks like political spending disclosure will be a priority issue for the SEC under the Biden Administration. The SEC will need a little help from Congress if the agency intends to act on disclosure rules. As I blogged last month, Congress recently continued the bipartisan tradition of stealthily prohibiting the SEC from using any of its funding to adopt political spending disclosure rules.
Why Don’t Ex-SEC Enforcement Lawyers Join the Plaintiffs’ Bar?
This week’s announcements of the departure of the SEC’s Chief Accountant & its Acting Director of Enforcement are a reminder that a change in presidential administrations always results in an exodus of senior SEC Staff to positions in the private sector. The SEC’s senior accountants usually find their way to the Big 4 in some capacity, while many former SEC enforcement lawyers end up with positions in private law firms. However, few former SEC lawyers opt to work for firms on the plaintiffs’ side, despite the potentially lucrative nature of that work.
Michele Leder (aka footnoted.com) recently tweeted about a study that explores why that’s the case. This ProMarket blog from the study’s author suggests that the reasons are likely more complex than the simplistic “quid pro quo” explanation that usually has been put forth by academics:
While traditional academic analysis of the “revolving door” focuses on evidence of a material quid pro quo — for instance, an enforcement attorney who receives an offer of lucrative private sector employment in exchange for going “easy” on that target while she’s in government — more recent work has acknowledged that government officials may come to internalize industry preferences as a result of softer mechanisms and influences.
The rapidly revolving door between the SEC and the defense bar, and the close contact SEC attorneys have with defense-side attorneys throughout investigations and enforcement actions, give SEC attorneys ample exposure to the defense bar’s characteristic skepticism and hostility towards securities class actions and the lawyers who pursue those cases. By contrast, SEC attorneys are unlikely to have any direct contact with plaintiffs’ attorneys, even when there is a parallel private lawsuit against a company they are pursuing.
Interestingly, there is one area on the plaintiffs’ side that former SEC enforcement lawyers have apparently embraced – representing whistleblowers. The blog notes that whistleblower cases differ from traditional plaintiffs’ work in that they are oriented around the SEC itself, and permit former Staff members to leverage their unique government expertise and connections for a competitive advantage.
Yesterday, I blogged about the effective date & mandatory compliance date for the SEC’s new MD&A and financial disclosure rules. Unfortunately, there appears to be a bit of confusion within the U.S. government about when companies will be required to comply with the new rules. The version of the adopting release for the rules published in the Federal Register (p. 2109) says that the mandatory compliance date is August 9, 2021, while the updated version at the SEC’s website (p. 104) says the compliance date is September 8, 2021.
The version originally published by the SEC said that the mandatory compliance date would be 210 days after publication of the rules in the Federal Register, which gets you to August 9th. The September 8th date is 210 days after the effective date of the rules. Well, at least we have some time to sort this out – although I think the Federal Register version controls.
Update: August 9th it is! The SEC has revised the version of the adopting release on its website to conform to the Federal Register.
SEC Solicits Comment on NYSE Shareholder Approval Proposal
Last month, the NYSE submitted proposed amendments to its shareholder approval rules. On December 28th, the SEC issued a notice soliciting public comment on the proposed rule change. Here’s the intro from this Mayer Brown blog:
On December 16, 2020, the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) filed a proposed rule change to certain of its shareholder approval requirements, which would bring the NYSE’s shareholder approval rules into closer alignment with those of Nasdaq. Last year, the NYSE temporarily waived certain requirements under Section 312 in order to provide listed companies with greater flexibility to raise capital during the COVID-19 crisis (the NYSE has proposed to extend these temporary waivers through March 31, 2021). The NYSE’s proposed rule change includes amendments that are identical to such waivers.
The blog also provides details on other aspects of the rule proposal. The NYSE’s temporary waiver of certain requirements under Section 312 was initially issued back in April 2020. It was originally scheduled to expire in June 2020, but was subsequently extended to the end of the year & recently extended again until March 31, 2021. The comment period on the rule proposal expires 21 days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register – or maybe September 8th, I don’t know. . .
Tomorrow’s Webcast: Glass Lewis Dialogue – Forecast for the 2021 Proxy Season
Tune in tomorrow for the webcast – “Glass Lewis Dialogue: Forecast for the 2021 Proxy Season” – to hear Courteney Keatinge of Glass Lewis, Ning Chiu of Davis Polk and Bob Lamm of Gunster discuss what to expect with the new proxy adviser rules, investors’ focus on diversity and other ESG issues, virtual meetings and other pandemic-related developments.
Earlier this week over on “The Proxy Season Blog”, Liz blogged about State Street’s efforts to ratchet up the pressure on boards to address diversity issues, which makes this webcast even more timely!
The calendar says it’s 2021, but the distressing events in Washington last week suggest that the 2020 dumpster fire continues to rage on unabated. This Bryan Cave blog says that as much as we’d all like to put 2020 in the rear-view mirror, boards should factor the year’s lessons into the topics they discuss during upcoming board evaluations. Here are some suggested supplemental discussion topics prepared with the annus horribilis in mind:
– All board members have sufficient technology capabilities, IT infrastructure and cybersecurity protections to effectively access board materials, prepare for and participate in board meetings in the virtual environment.
– Board members pay sufficient attention to environmental and social consequences and potential risks resulting from the company’s activities.
– Board members are able to clearly and effectively communicate with each other and with management in the virtual environment, enabling them to fulfill their responsibilities and make rapid and significant decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
– All board members, regardless of their gender, race or ethnicity, feel that their voices are heard and their contributions are respected and valued.
The blog suggests several additional topics for consideration in the self-evaluation process. It says that expanding the process to cover these topics will assist boards in learning from the events of 2020 & in taking appropriate actions to adapt to the pandemic and address the other areas of heightened investor concern that arose last year.
SEC Enforcement: Ripple’s “Takin’ It To The Tweets. . .”
I think the last time I blogged about the fraught relationship between the crypto folks & SEC Enforcement, I reviewed how Kik Interactive got clobbered by a federal judge after it actively courted an enforcement proceeding. Daring the SEC to bring an enforcement action is something that I have a hard time understanding, but then again, I have a hard time understanding quite a few things about the digital asset evangelists.
The latest situation to befuddle me involves Ripple Labs, which recently found itself the target of the customary SEC enforcement action alleging that its $1.3 billion unregistered offering of digital assets violated Section 5 of the Securities Act. Being crypto folks, Ripple’s management went out and did a very crypto thing in response to the SEC’s allegations. Instead of just issuing the standard press release indicating that the company intended to vigorously contest the SEC’s claims, Ripple opted to take to social media, where its CEO Brad Garlinghouse posted a 10 tweet thread addressing “5 key questions” raised by the proceeding. Not to be outdone, Ripple’s GC weighed-in with a brief thread of his own addressing the lawsuit.
Admittedly, this isn’t functionally all that much different from addressing a major piece of litigation or an SEC enforcement action in an investor call. But one of the benefits of the more traditional approach is that you avoid the baggage that comes along with the “rage as a service” platform known as Twitter – such as being on the receiving end of a grenade like this in your mentions:
Ouch! That’ll leave a mark.
MD&A & Financial Disclosures: Effective Date of the New Rules
One of our members pointed out in our Q&A Forum that the SEC’s amendments to the MD&A and financial disclosure rules were published in the Federal Register on Monday. The rules will be effective February 10, 2021 – and early compliance is permitted for filings made after that date, so long as the company provides disclosure responsive to an amended item in its entirety. However, companies are not required to comply with the new rules until the first fiscal year ending on or after August 9, 2021 (210 days after the Federal Register publication date).
Since the clock is now ticking, be sure to check out today’s webcast on the new rules!
