With so many companies moving to virtual meetings, one of the issues that’s become front & center is how shareholder Q&A sessions should be handled. This Bass Berry blog provides some insight into how companies have addressed that issue. The authors surveyed Fortune 100 public companies that filed their proxy statements after March 1, including those that opted for a virtual meeting after filing definitive materials. Of the companies surveyed:
– 6% are permitting stockholders to submit questions only in advance.
– 58% are permitting stockholders to submit questions only at the meeting.
– 32% are permitting stockholders to submit questions both in advance and at the meeting.
– 4% do not clearly address their Q&A in the proxy materials the style of their Q&A sessions couldn’t be determined.
The survey found a few outliers. One company chose to limit in-person attendance to a handful of officers and employees who will deliver proxy votes. Shareholders were encouraged to present questions to financial journalists listed in the company’s annual report, who will choose questions that they consider the most interesting and important. The survey doesn’t identify the company, and I want to respect its privacy as well – so all I can tell you is that its initials are “Berkshire Hathaway.”
The survey identified two other companies that are not permitting live Q&A. One required shareholders to submit questions up to three days in advance, while the other is requiring stockholders to submit their questions in advance only through a portal on the company’s website.
I haven’t seen any survey data on how companies that are holding virtual meetings are dealing with shareholder proposals, but I can tell you that the folks at ValueEdge Advisors are not happy with the way AT&T has chosen to handle them at its virtual meeting.
Listing Standards: NYSE Joins Nasdaq in Providing Relief From Price-Based Standards
Earlier this week, I blogged about Nasdaq’s rule change providing extended compliance periods for companies that fail to meet its minimum bid price & global market cap continued listing standards. On Tuesday, the NYSE received the SEC’s sign-off on a rule change providing similar relief to its listed companies. This excerpt from a recent Locke Lord blog provides the details:
NYSE-listed companies now have additional time to cure a deficiency if their stock has closed under $1.00 for 30 consecutive trading days. Now, days between April 21, 2020 and June 30, 2020 will not be counted toward the normal 6-month compliance period. Compliance periods will recommence on July 1, 2020 from the point at which they were suspended on April 21.
Listed companies will also have additional time if their average global market capitalization has fallen under $50 million for 30 consecutive trading days at a time when their stockholders’ equity is also under $50 million. These companies would normally have a maximum 18 months to cure the deficiency. These compliance periods are similarly suspended until July 1, 2020.
The exchanges have cut listed companies a lot of slack during the current market turmoil, but the news for troubled companies isn’t all good on the listing front. The blog also notes that Nasdaq adopted rules on the same day that actually shorten compliance periods for particularly distressed companies.
Jackpot! Whistleblower Hits for $27 Million
Well, in the midst of this colossal mess, I guess it’s nice to know that somebody had a good month. Last Thursday, the SEC announced that it had awarded a whistleblower who alerted it to misconduct a whopping $27 million. The SEC’s order lauded the whistleblower’s efforts to “repeatedly and strenuously” raise concerns about the misconduct internally. The SEC followed this up with a $5 million whistleblower award earlier this week. When it rains, it pours.
Yesterday, SEC Chair Jay Clayton and a group of senior SEC & PCAOB officials issued a joint statement warning about the risks posed by “emerging market” investments. While the statement addresses all emerging markets, it focuses on the 500 lb. gorilla of those markets – China. Here’s an excerpt from the introduction:
Over the past several decades, the portfolios of U.S. investors have become increasingly exposed to companies that are based in emerging markets or that otherwise have significant operations in emerging markets. This exposure includes investments in both U.S. issuers and foreign private issuers (“FPIs”) that are based in emerging markets or have significant operations in emerging markets. During this time, China has grown to be the largest emerging market economy and the world’s second largest economy.
The SEC’s mission is threefold: protect our investors, preserve market integrity and facilitate capital formation. Ensuring that investors and other market participants have access to high-quality, reliable disclosure, including financial reporting, is at the core of our efforts to promote each of those objectives. This commitment to high-quality disclosure standards—including meaningful, principled oversight and enforcement—has long been a focus of the SEC and, since its inception, the PCAOB.
Our ability to promote and enforce these standards in emerging markets is limited and is significantly dependent on the actions of local authorities—which, in turn, are constrained by national policy considerations in those countries. As a result, in many emerging markets, including China, there is substantially greater risk that disclosures will be incomplete or misleading and, in the event of investor harm, substantially less access to recourse, in comparison to U.S. domestic companies. This significant asymmetry holds true even though disclosures, price quotes and other investor-oriented information often are presented in substantially the same form as for U.S. domestic companies.
The statement details risks and related considerations specific to “issuers, auditors, index providers & financial professionals.” These include concerns about the quality of financial information, the PCAOB’s continuing inability to inspect workpapers in China, the limited ability of U.S. authorities to bring enforcement actions in emerging markets, the limited rights & remedies available to shareholders, and the failure of passive investment strategies to account for these risks.
The statement also addresses concerns about disclosure, and emphasizes the importance of robust risk factor disclosure for companies with operations in emerging markets:
In light of both the significance and company-specific nature of the risks discussed in this statement, we expect issuers to present these risks prominently, in plain English and discuss them with specificity. Issuers based in emerging markets should consider providing a U.S. domestic investor-oriented comparative discussion of matters such as (1) how the company has met the applicable financial reporting and disclosure obligations, including those related to DCP and ICFR and (2) regulatory enforcement and investor-oriented remedies, including as a practical matter, in the event of a material disclosure violation or fraud or other financial misconduct more generally.
The statement was issued jointly by Chair Clayton, PCAOB Chair Bill Dunkhe, SEC Chief Accountant Sagar Teotia, and the Directors of Corp Fin & IM. With that kind of firepower mustered behind the statement, I think it’s fair to say that they aren’t fooling around here. Public companies based in China or with significant operations there should take a hard look at their risk factor disclosures, because it seems likely that they will be scrutinized closely by the Staff the next time their filings are pulled for review.
Covid-19 Crisis: Companies Adopt Emergency Bylaws to Ensure Board Operations
With all of the disruptions resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, many companies are looking at board and management continuity issues, and some companies have opted to adopt an emergency bylaw to help address these issues. This recent Simpson Thacher memo discusses Section 110 of the DGCL, which allows companies to adopt emergency bylaws and sets forth what may be included in them. Among other things, these bylaws may permit companies to expand the class of persons who may call a board or committee meeting, and relax notice and quorum requirements for such a meeting.
Yesterday, Mastercard filed an Item 5.03 8-k announcing that its board had adopted an emergency bylaw, which provides that:
– a Board or committee meeting may be called by any director or officer by any feasible means, and notice of the meeting may be provided only to the directors that can be feasibly reached and by any feasible means; and
– the director(s) in attendance at the meeting shall constitute a quorum and may appoint one or more of the present directors to any standing or temporary committee as they deem necessary and appropriate
Mastercard isn’t the only company that has adopted an emergency bylaw in recent weeks. John Bean Technologies also adopted a similar provision, and other companies have long had emergency provisions in their own bylaws (see this Jack In The Box filing from 2005). If your bylaws don’t contain an emergency provision, now may be a good time to consider adopting one.
Transcript: “Activist Profiles & Playbooks”
We have posted the transcript for the recent DealLawyers.com webcast: “Activist Profiles & Playbooks.”
The Covid-19 crisis has created a number of challenges for public companies, and one of the potentially most significant is maintaining appropriate internal control over financial reporting. Crisis-related ICFR issues include managing newly remote workforces, the novel and often unfamiliar financial reporting issues created by the crisis, and – for companies receiving government assistance – the need to implement restrictions on executive comp, share repurchases and dividends, among other things.
This Hunton Andrews Kurth memo reviews the legal framework applicable to these issues, and offers insights on how to address them. Here’s an excerpt:
We recommend that companies begin to assess their existing disclosure and internal controls by taking stock of what has changed in the current financial reporting environment. Unique or novel accounting issues should be carefully analyzed, and expert advice sought when internal resources are insufficient.
Potential and actual disruptions to a company’s supply chain, customer base, operations, processes and workforce should be weighed when evaluating the operating effectiveness of legacy controls. As part of this process, companies should also assess any potential deficiencies in review-type internal controls and the ability of individuals to perform control duties in light of shelter-in-place orders and other company specific remote-work protocols.
Based on this assessment, companies should determine whether existing controls are sufficient to prepare financial statements and disclosure documents at the reasonable assurance level. If a legacy control cannot be performed as previously designed, companies should determine what new controls may be necessary to reduce the risk of errors and fraud. In doing so, they should ensure that any changes in design address both the original risks of material misstatement as well as any new risks. We anticipate regular dialogue with counsel, the auditors and audit committees on these topics.
The memo also says that public companies, particularly those receiving government assistance, should expect heightened scrutiny from the “media, putative whistleblowers, agency inspectors general, consumer watchdog groups, members of Congress and other political figures.” In this environment, the best way for companies to protect themselves is by maintaining a robust control environment and responding nimbly to changes in business circumstances that may require adjustments to those controls.
Covid-19 Crisis: Chart of Governmental Actions
If you represent a client with operations in multiple states, Faegre Drinker’s interactive chart of the various federal, state and local government orders associated with the Covid-19 crisis is a really handy resource. If you click on an individual state, you’ll be taken to a page that contains links to that state’s legislative and executive orders relating to Covid-19, as well as to orders issued by major municipalities within that state. It appears to be updated on a daily basis, so you’ll probably want to bookmark it.
Transcript: “The Top Compensation Consultants Speak”
We have posted the transcript for the recent CompensationStandards.com webcast: “The Top Compensation Consultants Speak.”
Management teams and their advisors always have plenty to think about when preparing for any quarter’s financial reporting, but when it comes to this one, well. . . like they say on “Rick & Morty” – “Wubba lubba dub dub!” If you’re waist deep in this process, you should take a look at this Weil memo, which provides in-depth checklists addressing issues to think about when preparing this quarter’s earnings release & Form 10-Q. Here’s an excerpt:
At the risk of stating the painfully obvious, the just-completed quarter has not been “normal” for public companies by any stretch of the imagination. As they turn from addressing complex operational matters and mitigation efforts to disclosure decision-making, corporate management, audit committees and boards are grappling with such questions as: Should the earnings release and conference call be delayed to give the company more time to come to grips with any number of novel or complex accounting issues generated by the “perfect storm” of the COVID-19 pandemic, global economic turmoil, and the rapid-fire pace of federal and state legislative and regulatory responses?
If it has not already done so, should the company withdraw or otherwise modify earnings guidance made early in Q1? What is the impact on the company of the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and its regulatory progeny? Will the company need to recognize impairments? And finally, given the uncertainty about when and how the economy will reopen and whether certain industries will undergo lasting structural change, the ultimate question: what insight can be given into what the future may hold for the company?
The checklists addresses these and other disclosure issues and includes a discussion of the relevant SEC and/or staff-level disclosure guidance that has been provided during the Covid-19 crisis. The checklists identify key action items and conclude with suggestions about “what to do now” in navigating this quarter’s disclosure challenges.
Listing Standards: Nasdaq Provides Temporary Relief from Price-Based Standards
On Friday, the SEC approved an immediately effective Nasdaq rule change that would allow listed companies more time to return to compliance with price-based continued listing standards, which relate to the minimum bid price and market value of publicly held shares. Here’s an excerpt from this Steve Quinlivan blog with a summary of the rule:
Under the approved rule Nasdaq will permit companies that are out of compliance with the Price-based Requirements additional time to regain compliance by tolling the compliance periods through and including June 30, 2020. However, throughout the tolling period, Nasdaq will continue to monitor these requirements and companies will continue to be notified about new instances of non-compliance with the Price-based Requirements in accordance with existing Nasdaq rules. Companies that are notified about non-compliance are required by Nasdaq rules to make a public announcement disclosing receipt of the notification by filing a Form 8-K, where required by SEC rules, or by issuing a press release.
Starting on July 1, 2020, companies will receive the balance of any pending compliance period in effect at the start of the tolling period to come back into compliance with the applicable requirement. Similarly, companies that were in the delisting hearings process would return to that process at the same stage they were in when the tolling period began. Companies that are newly identified as non-compliant during the tolling period will have 180 days to regain compliance, beginning on July 1, 2020.
According to this Reuters article, the NYSE has proposed to provide similar relief from its own price-based continued listing standards, but its initial proposal was rejected. The Exchange was reportedly “in talks” with the SEC about the rule proposal, but that was two weeks ago – and I haven’t seen anything more on this since then.
Cheat Sheet: Covid-19 Quick Reference
I’m a sucker for “cheat sheets” that I can use to get up to speed quickly & fake my way through a conference call, and Simpson Thacher’s 37-page “Covid-19 Quick Reference Guide” fits the bill when it comes to the Covid-19 crisis. It provides a bullet-point overview of securities, corporate, M&A, commercial finance and other considerations associated with the crisis, and also provides an overview of the CARES Act and other governmental responses.
Have you ever watched a community access cable show? “Wayne’s World” will always be the definitive parody of these programs, but some of them are very creative. For instance, my local community access channel used to air something called “The Half Hour Show,” which involved two guys sitting in lawn chairs parked at a different local spot each week. The camera was placed behind them, so you never saw their faces. They just sat in their lawn chairs and watched the world go by for 30 minutes without saying a word. It was a post-modern masterpiece – and people loved it!
Another one of my community access favorites was a program in which some guy pointed a camera at his TV and showed a Madden video game simulation of the upcoming week’s Cleveland Browns game. I liked that show because unlike in real life, the Browns sometimes won.
Shows like these demonstrate that you don’t need a big budget or slick production values to provide quality programming – and it turns out that some of our fellow home-bound colleagues have taken that message to heart. In fact, we’ve heard from a couple of firms whose lawyers who are hosting educational video webcasts from their homes.
As you might expect, these webcasts focus on the corporate & securities law issues raised by the Covid-19 crisis, and offer a user-friendly alternative to the avalanche of client memos on these topics that everyone’s been receiving. Here’s a series of informative Covid-19 FAQ videos straight from the home offices of Perkins Coie’s Jason Day & his colleagues, and here’s the first in a series of Covid-19 videocasts from Fenwick & West’s corporate group. Technically, Fenwick’s videos originate from its “public tech company virtual situation room” – but it looks a lot like the living rooms of members of the corporate group.
Both sets of videos are well worth checking out, although I do think they could use some lawn chairs.
Covid-19 Crisis Disclosure: What About Earnings Guidance?
One of the many issues that companies are grappling with as a result of the Covid-19 crisis is what to do about earnings guidance. This Bass Berry blog addresses that issue, along with other high-level considerations for first quarter earnings releases. Here’s an excerpt:
For companies that previously issued 2020 guidance which remains in place, a gating issue is the extent to which the registrant believes that it can continue to project (with a reasonable basis) its 2020 forecasted results, taking into account the COVID-19 pandemic (which pandemic itself has a broad range of best-case and worse-case reasonable scenarios from a public health and economic perspective).
The issue of whether a registrant has a reasonable basis to potentially continue guidance will differ by industry, with companies in certain industries whose business (at least in the short term) has been so fundamentally harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic likely concluding that there is no practical ability to continue to provide guidance until there is greater macroeconomic certainty, while companies in other industries may have a closer judgment call.
Overall, we expect that a significant number of registrants, across a wide range of industries, will elect to withdraw guidance based on a determination that the uncertainties associated with COVID-19 are so significant that it is not practicable and/or advisable to continue to provide guidance.
The blog says that the negative market reaction typically associated with withdrawing guidance “may be more muted” in the current release cycle, if for no other reason than so many companies are likely to do it. The blog also suggests that companies opting to continue to provide guidance provide a broader range due to the uncertainties associated with the outcome of the crisis, and accompany that guidance with extensive caveats and detailed disclosure of assumptions about how the Covid-19 crisis will play out.
Risk Factors: Tips on Covid-19 Updating
If you’re preparing your first Covid-19 crisis SEC filing, I recommend that you take a peek at this WilmerHale memo on updating risk factor disclosure to address the pandemic. It’s short, specific and practical.
Yesterday, SEC Chair Jay Clayton and Corp Fin Director Bill Hinman issued a joint statement urging companies “to provide as much information as is practicable regarding their current financial and operating status, as well as their future operational and financial planning” in light of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The statement covers a lot of ground, but this excerpt is probably the key takeaway for companies preparing for their upcoming Q1 earnings releases & analyst calls:
Speaking for ourselves, and recognizing the challenges inherent in our request, we urge our public companies, in their earnings releases and analyst calls, as well as in subsequent communications to the marketplace, to provide as much information as is practicable regarding their current operating status and their future operating plans under various COVID-19-related mitigation conditions. Detailed discussions of current liquidity positions and expected financial resource needs would be particularly helpful to our investors and markets.
Beyond the income statement and the balance sheet effects, we recognize that COVID-19 may significantly impact operations, including as a result of company efforts to protect worker health and well-being and customer safety. The impact of company actions and policies in this area may be of material interest to investors, and we encourage disclosures that address that interest.
In addition, companies and financial institutions may be receiving financial assistance under the CARES Act or other similar COVID-19 related federal and state programs. Such assistance may take various forms and is intended to mitigate COVID-19 effects for companies and their workers. If these or other types of financial assistance have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to have a material future effect upon, financial condition or results of operations, the affected companies should provide disclosure of the nature, amounts and effects of such assistance.
Throughout the statement, Clayton & Hinman repeatedly encourage companies to make forward-looking statements about a wide variety of topics related to their Covid-19 responses:
This quarter, earnings statements and calls will not be routine. In many cases, historical information may be substantially less relevant. Investors and analysts are thirsting to know where companies stand today and, importantly, how they have adjusted, and expect to adjust in the future, their operational and financial affairs to most effectively work through the COVID-19 health crisis.
For a lot of companies, the call for voluntary forward-looking disclosure about these and other matters is likely to be a big ask – even with assurances that “good faith attempts to provide appropriately framed forward-looking information” won’t be second guessed by the SEC. Their businesses have just been hit by the financial equivalent of a nuclear bomb. My guess is that most of them are going to have a tough enough time just trying to work through the forward-looking “known trends” disclosure they’re required to make in MD&A.
We’d all like some clarity about how companies “expect to adjust their operational and financial affairs to most effectively work through the Covid-19 health crisis.” In fact, I’d wager that nobody would like to know the answer to that question more than the boards and management teams who are trying to figure it out for their own companies. But, in the short term, I doubt that many companies will be able to provide a lot of meaningful disclosure in this area – and I’m not at all sure that it’s in their best interests to try.
Corp Fin Updates Annual Meeting Guidance (And I Get Scooped by Lynn)
I want to republish something that Lynn blogged yesterday over on the “Proxy Season Blog” – and there’s a backstory to this one. For some reason, the announcement of Corp Fin’s tweak to its annual meeting guidance didn’t arrive in our inboxes until after I published yesterday’s blog. Lynn was sharp-eyed enough to catch the story from other sources and break the news in her blog while I was busy eating a pop-tart or something. I’m sure she’ll lord this over me until my dying day, because that’s exactly what I’d do to her if the shoe was on the other foot. Anyway, here’s what she had to say:
Yesterday, Corp Fin issued an announcement providing updated guidance for conducting shareholder meetings in light of COVID-19 concerns. We blogged about Corp Fin’s original guidance back when it was issued in mid-March. Yesterday’s announcement addresses delays in printing and mailing of full-set proxy materials – allowing limited relief to companies that shift to furnishing proxy materials via the notice-only method of delivery. Corp Fin’s announcement also clarifies that its previous guidance regarding changes to the date, time and location of annual meetings also applies to special meetings.
The announcement says Corp Fin’s update about furnishing proxy materials stems from the impact of COVID-19 on some proxy service providers and transfer agents. The Staff understands some companies are concerned about being able to send notice of electronic availability of proxy materials at least 40 calendar days before the meeting so it’s allowing flexibility as long as shareholders receive proxy materials sufficiently in advance of the meeting and the company announces the change. Here’s an excerpt from the guidance:
The staff encourages issuers affected by printing and mailing delays caused by COVID-19 to use all reasonable efforts to achieve this goal without putting the health or safety of anyone involved at risk. In some cases, this may mean delaying a meeting in accordance with state law requirements and the procedures described above, if necessary, in order to provide materials on a timely basis. In circumstances where delays are unavoidable due to COVID-19 related difficulties, the staff would not object to an issuer using the “notice-only” delivery option in a manner that, while not meeting all aspects of the notice and timing requirements of Rule 14a-16, will nonetheless provide shareholders with proxy materials sufficiently in advance of the meeting to review these materials and exercise their voting rights under state law in an informed manner and so long as the issuer announces the change in the delivery method by following the steps described above for announcing a change in the meeting date, time, or location. Affected issuers and intermediaries also should continue to use their best efforts to send paper copies of proxy materials and annual reports to requesting shareholders, even if such deliveries would be delayed.
Issuers and other affected parties are encouraged to contact the staff to discuss any other concerns resulting from any late filings caused by delays in the printing and mailing of proxy materials.
Business Development Companies: SEC Adopts Rules Streamlining Registration Process
Yesterday, the SEC announced the adoption of rule amendments to streamline the offering process for business development companies and registered closed-end funds. In essence, the rules are intended to put these companies on the same footing as operating companies when it comes to the registration process. I know that this almost goes without saying at this point, but the vote was along partisan lines, with Commissioner Allison Herren Lee submitting a dissenting statement.
The Covid-19 crisis has taken a big bite out of the market caps of a whole lot of NYSE & Nasdaq listed companies, and this Weil blog says that the exchanges are responding to the market’s volatility & the other strains on listed companies resulting from the crisis. Here’s the intro:
In light of U.S. and global equities markets declines resulting from the continued spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19), the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) has temporarily suspended the application of one of its continued listing rules, which requires that listed companies maintain an average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period of at least $15 million (Market Capitalization Standard).
In addition, the Nasdaq Stock Market (Nasdaq) issued an information memorandum on March 23, 2020, indicating that Nasdaq is closely monitoring the impact of COVID-19 and the resultant market volatility of the securities of its listed companies, and providing Nasdaq-listed companies with guidance in a number of areas.
The memo says that although Nasdaq hasn’t suspended any of its listing requirements, its information memo provides guidance to listed companies in several areas. For instance, Nasdaq will consider COVID-19’s impact in its review of requests for financial viability exceptions to Rule 5635, which requires shareholder approval for the issuance of securities in certain enumerated circumstances. Nasdaq’s information memo also says that companies eligible for the 45-day filing extension provided in the SEC’s March 5 and March 20 orders won’t be deemed deficient under Rule 5620 if they take advantage of the extension.
On Monday, the SEC also approved the NYSE’s temporary waiver of Rule 312.03’s shareholder approval requirements for certain share issuances to related parties and its easing of the rule’s conditions to the “bona fide private financing” exemption to the shareholder approval requirements for private placements involving more than 20% of the outstanding shares. See this Cydney Posner blog for more details.
Paycheck Protection Program: Free Money? Don’t Bank On It
If you’re in a law firm, chances are pretty good that you’ve spent a fair amount of time during the past week getting clients up to speed on the requirements for Paycheck Protection Progam loans. For businesses that qualify and can comply with the program’s conditions, loans made under the program may indeed turn out to be “free money.” But this Forbes article from Bruce Brumberg points out that this program isn’t a risk-free proposition:
In a business-law alert, the law firm Quarles & Brady explains the following (in this and the followed quotations I have bolded part of the text for emphasis). “The PPP application requires the applicant to make a number of certifications, including: ‘Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the applicant.’ The SBA has not provided any definition or color about the nature or extent of the required impact to operations that would make the loan request ‘necessary to support ongoing operations,’ which has both applicants and lenders skittish about making or accepting the certifications.”
In a similar client alert, the law firm Venable points out: “Borrowers must certify on the application that ‘current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.’ There is little guidance as to what exactly this means.”
In its commentary on the program, the law firm Ropes & Gray goes so far as to warn about possible legal exposure under the False Claims Act (FCA): “Already, news and opinion articles are addressing (and Members of Congress are saying) that there will be significant oversight over funds distributed through PPP. Private individuals have also made clear that they intend to exercise their rights under the Freedom of Information Act to identify the recipients of PPP loans with a view to identifying those who, in their view, were not the intended beneficiaries of the program.
So, while the program may provide a real lifeline for many borrowers, companies need to understand that there are uncertainties that could come back to bite them – and that, as always, a little healthy skepticism is appropriate when somebody says “we’re from the government, and we’re here to help.”
SEC’s Private Offering Proposal: Chart of Proposed Changes to Registration Alternatives
Approximately 25 years one month ago, the SEC proposed amendments to simplify & harmonize the framework for exempt offerings. If you’ve worked on private offerings, chances are you’re familiar with the very helpful “Chart of Alternatives to Registration” that Stan Keller, Jean Harris & Rich Leisner put together. Well, Stan has recently published a new chart reflecting the SEC’s proposed changes to those alternatives. Check it out!
Yesterday, Corp Fin issued a new CDI addressing the application of the SEC’s conditional exemptive order extending by up to 45 days the due date for SEC filings by companies affected by the Covid-19 crisis to Part III of Form 10-K. Companies often incorporate Part III information into Form 10-K by reference to their definitive proxy materials. In order to do that, companies have file those definitive proxy materials within 120 days of their fiscal year end. If they can’t make that deadline, they need to amend their Form 10-K to include the Part III information.
How do the rules surrounding the inclusion of Part III information work for companies that want to rely on the SEC’s exemptive order? That’s the issue that the new Exchange Act Forms CDI #104.18 addresses:
Question: Form 10-K allows Part III information to be incorporated by reference from a registrant’s definitive proxy or information statement, or, under certain circumstances, filed as an amendment to the Form 10-K, not later than 120 days after the end of the related fiscal year. May a registrant that is unable to file the Part III information by the 120-day deadline avail itself of the relief provided by the COVID-19 Order (Release No. 34-88465 (March 25, 2020)) for the filing of the Part III information?
Answer: Yes, as long as the 120-day deadline falls within the relief period specified in the Order and the registrant meets the conditions of the Order.
– A registrant that timely filed its annual report on Form 10-K without relying on the COVID-19 Order should furnish a Form 8-K with the disclosures required in the Order by the 120-day deadline. The registrant would then need to provide the Part III information within 45 days of the 120-day deadline by including it in a Form 10-K/A or definitive proxy or information statement.
– A registrant may invoke the COVID-19 Order with respect to both the Form 10-K and the Part III information by furnishing a single Form 8-K by the original deadline for the Form 10-K that provides the disclosures required by the Order, indicates that the registrant will incorporate the Part III information by reference and provides the estimated date by which the Part III information will be filed. The Part III information must then be filed no later than 45 days following the 120-day deadline.
– A registrant that properly invoked the COVID-19 Order with respect to its Form 10-K by furnishing a Form 8-K but was silent on its ability to timely file Part III information may (1) include the Part III information in its Form 10-K filed within 45 days of the original Form 10-K deadline, or (2) furnish a second Form 8-K with the disclosures required in the Order by the original 120-day deadline and then file the Part III information no later than 45 days following the 120-day deadline by including it in a Form 10-K/A or definitive proxy or information statement. [April 6, 2020]
The CDI’s bottom line appears to be that, while the hoops that particular companies have to jump through may vary, companies taking advantage of the extension will be able to apply it to the Part III deadline as well.
Virtual Meetings: Delaware Gov.’s Order Resolves Notice Issues
Due to ambiguities in statutory language, companies switching from physical to virtual annual meetings have been uncertain about whether merely following the SEC’s guidance on communicating the change would be sufficient under state corporate law, or whether a new mail or email notice was necessary. Yesterday, Delaware Gov. John Carney issued an order in effect providing that compliance by a public company with the SEC’s guidance would be regarded as sufficient notice under Delaware law:
If, as a result of the public health threat caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States, the board of directors wishes to change a meeting currently noticed for a physical location to a meeting conducted solely by remote communication, it may notify stockholders of the change solely by a document publicly filed by the corporation with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 13, § 14 or § 15(d) of such Act and a press release, which shall be promptly posted on the corporation’s website after release;
The order provides a similar accommodation for adjournment of meetings originally scheduled for a physical location. Hat-tip to @DougChia for flagging the order yesterday evening.
Virtual Meetings: California’s Gov. Gives Temporary Sign-Off – But Is It Legal?
Late last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an order providing similar relief for California companies. The order temporarily exempts California-charted companies from the need to obtain consent from all shareholders to a virtual meeting, and also eases notice requirements for companies that switch from physical to virtual meetings.
However, this recent blog from Keith Bishop suggests that there’s some uncertainty about whether the Gov. has the authority to issue such an order:
The fly in the ointment (see Ecclesiastes 10:1) is that the Governor may not have the statutory authority to suspend these requirements. As I pointed out in this post, the Emergency Services Act gives the Governor the authority to suspend only two types of statutes: “regulatory statutes” or “statutes prescribing the procedure for the conduct of state business”. “Regulatory statute” is not defined and no one can say with certitude that the statutes purportedly suspended by the Governor are regulatory statutes.
As a result, Keith says that corporations opt for virtual only meetings based on the Governor’s order will be assuming some risk that actions taken at those meetings may be later invalidated. He suggests that lawyers may need to take that into account if asked to render “due authorization” opinions for actions taken at those meetings,
On Friday, SEC Chief Accountant Sagar Teotia issued a statement stressing the importance of high-quality financial reporting during the Covid-19 crisis. Many companies are struggling with the reporting implications of Covid-19, and the statement acknowledges that the current environment requires a number of difficult judgment calls:
We recognize that the accounting and financial reporting implications of COVID-19 may require companies to make significant judgments and estimates. Certain judgments and estimates can be challenging in an environment of uncertainty. As we have stated for a number of years, OCA has consistently not objected to well-reasoned judgments that entities have made, and we will continue to apply this perspective.
Teotia’s statement highlights some of the areas that may involve significant judgments and estimates, including fair value and impairments; leases; debt modifications or restructurings; hedging; revenue recognition; income taxes; going concern; subsequent events; and adoption of new accounting standards (e.g., the new credit losses standard). It goes on to emphasize the importance of required disclosures about judgments & estimates involving these and other issues.
The statement also says that financial institutions availing themselves of certain provisions of the CARES Act that allow them to avoid compliance with FASB pronouncements on accounting for credit losses & troubled debt restructurings during the period of the Covid-19 emergency will be regarded by the SEC as being in compliance with GAAP.
Cydney Posner’s recent blog about the Chief Accountant’s statement has a sidebar pointing out that while the new credit losses standard applies to any business that extends credit to customers, only financial institutions are exempt from compliance under the CARES Act – and those other businesses are going to face some significant compliance challenges during the current crisis.
PCAOB: “The Audit Ain’t Over ‘Til It’s Over”
The PCAOB also chimed in last week with a reminder to auditors that, in the current environment, they need to make sure that they keep their eyes on the ball until their audit is completed:
As part of the evaluation of whether sufficient appropriate audit evidence has been obtained, auditors are required to evaluate the appropriateness of their initial risk assessments. In light of the economic effects of the COVID-19 crisis, new risks may emerge, or the assessments of previously identified risks may need to be revisited because the expected magnitude and likelihood of misstatement has changed.
Changing incentives or increased pressures on management, especially when taken together with changes in internal controls or increased ability for management override of controls, may result in new risks of material misstatement due to fraud or changes to the auditor’s previous assessment of risks of material misstatement due to fraud. Similarly, increased pressure on, and changes in, management processes, systems, and controls may give rise to increased risk of error. Initial responses to assessed risks may not be adequate given the revised risk assessments, or planned procedures may not be practical or possible to perform under current circumstances.
The PCAOB says that auditors may need to reassess previous risk assessments for some areas of the financial statements in light of COVID-19. It also includes a laundry list of areas of the financial statements where evaluating presentation & surrounding disclosures are going to be very difficult for auditors. It probably won’t surprise you to learn that the PCAOB’s list largely overlaps with Sagar Teotia’s list of aspects of the financial statements that involve significant judgment calls.
Transcript: “Tying ‘ESG’ to Executive Pay”
We have posted the transcript for the recent CompensationStandards.com webcast: “Tying ‘ESG’ to Executive Pay.”
Late Wednesday, the Senate unanimously passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This Tax Foundation blog provides a detailed summary of the Senate bill, which is scheduled to go to the House for a final vote this morning. It’s expected to pass overwhelmingly, but passage might be delayed because one member is apparently asking the question, “what would Ayn Rand do?”
Although I suppose it’s conceivable that the House might try to tinker with the bill at the last minute, it seems unlikely that, with a Democratic majority, it would mess with one of the key conditions that the Senate bill imposes on companies seeking federal aid. As this excerpt from the blog points out, if a company wants taxpayer money, it can forget about doing stock buybacks for a while:
The bill provides $454 billion in emergency lending to businesses, states, and cities through the U.S. Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund. Additionally, this includes $25 billion in lending for airlines, $4 billion in lending for air cargo firms, and $17 billion in lending for firms deemed critical to U.S. national security. Firms taking loans must not engage in stock buybacks for the duration of the loan plus one year and must retain at least 90 percent of its employment level as of March 24, 2020.
In case you’re wondering, dividends are also off the table for these companies for that same period of time. The loans also impose not terribly onerous limits on compensation and severance pay, and will be subject to oversight by Congress & a special inspector general.
Buybacks: Are Airlines Supposed to be Treated Differently?
Nobody is likely to shed any crocodile tears over companies receiving yet another federal bailout being prohibited from this type of financial engineering, but as I read through the bill, I noticed something interesting. Airlines have been the poster children for the buyback ban, and whether or not that’s the rationale, the language of the buyback restriction that applies to airlines & related entities is different than the language of the restriction that applies to companies getting money under the Treasury-backed Fed program.
Here’s the language of Section 4003(c)(3)(A)(ii)(I) (page 518) that applies to recipients of the Fed’s largesse. It requires them to agree that:
Until the date 12 months after the date on which the direct loan is no longer outstanding, not to repurchase an equity security that is listed on a national securities exchange of the eligible business or any parent company of the eligible business while the direct loan is outstanding, except to the extent required under a contractual obligation that is in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act;
Here’s the language of Section 4003(c)(2)(E) of the bill (page 516) that applies to the airlines. It requires them to agree that:
Until the date 12 months after the date the loan or loan guarantee is no longer outstanding, neither the eligible business nor any affiliate of the eligible business may purchase an equity security that is listed on a national securities exchange of the eligible business or any parent company of the eligible business, except to the extent required under a contractual obligation in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act
Similar language appears in Section 4114 of the bill, which deals with payroll support for air carrier employees. I took a quick look, and it appears that while the term “affiliate” is defined for at least one part of the CARES Act, it’s undefined in this particular part. So, it seems that without further clarification, the highlighted language might well be construed to prohibit airline officers and directors from purchasing shares of their own company’s stock. As I mentioned, there are limits on comp that apply to recipients of the bailout (Section 4004), but is that what is intended?
Since it’s so sweeping & came together so fast, I’m sure that the CARES Act is full of little interpretive grenades like this one – which means that Congress hasn’t forgotten to take care of America’s lawyers as it prepares to fire its cash bazooka.
That reminds me of an old adage that I once saw on a coffee mug: “Every business has its own best season. That is why they say that June is the best month of the year for preachers. Lawyers have the other eleven.”
Undisclosed SEC Investigations & Company Performance
Francine McKenna recently posted an article on her website that discusses some SEC investigations that weren’t disclosed for quite some time after they were initiated. Although she acknowledges that companies aren’t generally obligated to disclose investigations, she cites some new research that says there’s a negative correlation between undisclosed investigations and company performance, and notes that the researchers suggest that could give insiders a trading advantage:
Undisclosed investigations, if investors knew about them, could help explain the subsequent economically meaningful declines in firm performance and increased share price volatility the researchers say occurs. Because the investigations are secret, the performance declines are slow and gradual, and are not quickly reflected in share prices. That suggests, the researchers write, that insiders who know the details of the investigation have a substantial information edge.
My own experience with SEC investigations has been that when companies are subject to them and opt not to make public disclosure, they usually close the trading window for those in the loop at some point fairly early in the process (usually when an informal investigation becomes formal, if not sooner). The research Francine cites suggests that it would prudent for any company that’s the subject of an SEC investigation that it hasn’t disclosed to take the same approach.
