Yesterday, I blogged about “initial coin offerings” – or ICOs – over on “The Mentor Blog.” The ink on that blog was barely dry when the SEC weighed in with its own thoughts – in the form of a Section 21(a) Report addressing the status of “digital assets” under the Securities Act.
Guess what? Despite claims that “coins” aren’t securities, the SEC sure thinks they can be. Here’s an excerpt from the SEC’s press release on the Report:
The SEC’s Report of Investigation found that tokens offered and sold by a “virtual” organization known as “The DAO” were securities and therefore subject to the federal securities laws. The Report confirms that issuers of distributed ledger or blockchain technology-based securities must register offers and sales of such securities unless a valid exemption applies. Those participating in unregistered offerings also may be liable for violations of the securities laws. Additionally, securities exchanges providing for trading in these securities must register unless they are exempt.”
Materiality: SEC’s Investor Advocate Tells FASB What It Thinks
I thought this recent letter from the SEC’s Office of the Investor Advocate on FASB’s proposal to change its definition of “materiality” was worth noting.
FASB proposes to conform its approach to financial statement materiality to the judicial definition of materiality that applies in other contexts. Right now, there’s a disconnect between the two standards. Instead of requiring that there be a “substantial likelihood” that information would be material, FASB’s Concept Statement No. 8 currently says information is material if “omitting it or misstating it could influence decisions” that users of financial statements make.
Business groups have applauded the proposed change, but many investor groups have panned it – and the Investor Advocate’s letter provides a fairly comprehensive overview of their objections. It also offers up a revised proposal that would have FASB return to its previous materiality definition – which was generally consistent with the legal concept of materiality – but heavily salt that definition with the “qualitative” considerations embodied in SAB 99.
Materiality: An Accounting Decision?
I can’t resist pointing to one section of the Investor Advocate’s letter to FASB that had me – and I think will have many other lawyers – rolling their eyes. Here’s one of the concerns investors have about the proposed change in FASB’s materiality standard:
The proposals would move decision-making on materiality from accountants to lawyers. The SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee, in a theme echoed by other investors, warned in its comment letter of the risk “that, by replacing the current, differentiated professional accounting standard with a case-law driven legal standard, close questions of judgment will ultimately devolve to lawyers rather than accountants.”
You’ve got to be kidding! If I had a dollar for every time an accountant said “well, it’s a materiality issue – and that’s a legal call,” I’d be sipping Margaritas on my private island beach. However, I do want to thank Investor Advocate for this comment – which I intend to laminate so I will be sure to have it to share with the next accountant who tries to artfully dodge the financial statement materiality bullet in this fashion.
Legislative efforts at governance & disclosure reform – such as the “Financial Choice Act” – have gotten a lot of attention this year. This Rivel Research study asked institutional investors what they thought of those efforts – and the short answer is “not much.”
North American & European institutional investors oppose major change in the US governance regulatory framework. Here are some of the study’s conclusions:
– Two-thirds (65%) believe a weakened SEC will have a negative effect on governance outcomes.
– A large plurality (43%) oppose efforts to pare back the Dodd-Frank Act. Only 18% support it. The rest are uncertain.
– There is widespread opposition (among two in three proxy voters) to rolling back the Act’s mandates for board diversity disclosure, political spending disclosure, & separation of Chair/CEO
– Even if Dodd-Frank is pared back, the vast majority of investors believe that companies should continue to honor/abide by the rules originally set forth within. In fact, many will be seeking expanded disclosure in many areas.
In the event that key governance & disclosure mandates are repealed, the study also says that companies should prepare for increased engagement – nearly half of the investors said they would ramp up their efforts to engage companies on governance matters. What’s more, 41% say they’ll be more inclined to support an activist if the rules are pared back.
Now that the House of Representatives has passed the Financial Choice Act, is Sarbanes-Oxley next on its “hit list”? This recent blog from Cooley’s Cydney Posner says a key part of it just might be. Here’s the intro:
What’s next for the House after taking on Dodd-Frank in the Financial CHOICE Act? Apparently, it’s time to revisit SOX. The Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment of the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing earlier this week entitled “The Cost of Being a Public Company in Light of Sarbanes-Oxley and the Federalization of Corporate Governance.”
During the hearing, all subcommittee members continued bemoaning the decline in IPOs and in public companies, with the majority of the subcommittee attributing the decline largely to regulatory overload. A number of the witnesses trained their sights on, among other things, the internal control auditor attestation requirement of SOX 404(b). Is auditor attestation, for all but the very largest companies, about to hit the dust?
Whistleblowers: $61 Million Reasons to Drop a Dime!
Holy Cow! I guess this isn’t signed, sealed & delivered just yet, but the SEC Staff is apparently recommending a $61 million award to 2 whistleblowers who played a role in a $267 million settlement with J.P. Morgan. Here’s an excerpt from an AdvisorHub article:
Two whistleblowers whose outing of JPMorgan Chase’s bias toward selling wealth customers in-house funds led to the bank’s $267 million settlement with the government will receive payments equal to 23% of the award, according to a “preliminary determination” letter by SEC claim-review staffers.
The letter, a copy of which whistleblower Johnny Burris provided to AdvisorHub and other publications, recommends that the regulator pay one whistleblower 18% of the award, or $48.1 million, while a second receive 5%, or $13.1 million. The SEC by policy does not name whistleblower award recipients, and Burris would not confirm whether he was one of the successful claimants.
The requests of four other claimants for an award were denied because their information did not contribute to the SEC’s examinations, corollary investigations or significantly affect its enforcement action against JPMorgan, according to the letter. The award would far top the previous record of $30 million, which the SEC announced in September 2014.
Normally – as I have blogged many times (here’s one) – the SEC’s Reg Flex Agendas tend to be “aspirational.” But perhaps this time is different.
As part of a federal agency-wide reveal of the new Administration’s plans for rulemaking, the SEC posted the latest version of its Reg Flex Agenda last week. This agency coordination is the Administration’s “unified agency regulatory agenda.”
This Reg Flex Agenda is notable for what it omits – get a load of what’s not on the list:
– Pay-for-performance
– Clawbacks
– Hedging
– Universal proxy
– Clawbacks of incentive compensation at financial institutions
Does this mean that the SEC doesn’t intend to ever proceed with adopting any of the outstanding Dodd-Frank rules that are still in the proposal stage? We don’t know. As this Cooley blog notes, the Preamble indicates that it reflects “only the priorities of the Acting Chairman [Michael Piwowar], and [does] not necessarily reflect the view and priorities of any individual Commissioner.” Since the information in the Reg Flex Agenda was accurate as of March 29th – and SEC Chair Jay Clayton wasn’t confirmed until May – it’s unknown how Chair Clayton feels about all this.
But it might be a sign – because as noted in this article from “The Hill”: “OMB said agencies for the first time will post a list of “inactive” rules to notify the public of regulations that are still being reviewed or considered.” Hat tip to Scott Kimpel of Hunton & Williams for the heads up!
This all doesn’t impact the implementation of the pay ratio rule – because that rule was already adopted a few years ago. It just had a delayed effectiveness date. So it would never show up on a Reg Flex Agenda unless there was rulemaking to delay or repeal it…which there is not…
Pay Ratio Conference: Discounted Rate Ends This Friday
Last chance to register at a reduced rate for our comprehensive “Pay Ratio & Proxy Disclosure Conference.” The discount expires this Friday, July 28th. New Corp Fin Deputy Director Rob Evans will open the event.
It doesn’t matter whether you can make it to DC – because the October 17-18th Conference is available to watch online by video webcast, live on those specific days or by video archive at your convenience. And in addition to the October Conference, you gain access to three pre-conference webcasts. And a set of “Model Pay Ratio Disclosures” in both PDF & Word format.
The first webcast was last week & that 75-minute audio archive is available now – a transcript of that program is coming soon. The second webcast is on August 15th; the third webcast is September 27th.
Register Now – Discount Ends This Friday: This is the only comprehensive conference devoted to pay ratio. Here’s the registration information for the “Pay Ratio & Proxy Disclosure Conference” to be held October 17-18th in Washington DC and via Live Nationwide Video Webcast. Here are the agendas – 20 panels over two days. Register by July 28th to take advantage of the 10% discount.
Exchange Act Filing Status: It’s That Time Again. . .
This Bass Berry blog reminds everybody that it’s time to check your filing status for 2018 Exchange Act reports:
While the determination of whether a company will qualify as an “accelerated filer” or “large accelerated filer” for 2018 will not take effect until the date your Form 10-K is filed for fiscal 2017 (or, if earlier, your 10-K due date), the determination of your public float is calculated as of the last business day of the most recently completed second fiscal quarter, or June 30 for companies with a calendar fiscal year.
It looks like investors used their votes to send a message to some directors during this year’s proxy season – and it wasn’t “keep up the good work.” This excerpt from a recent Bloomberg article explains:
Shareholders have withheld 20 percent or more of their votes for 102 directors at S&P 500 companies so far this year, the most in seven years, according to ISS Corporate Solutions, a consulting firm specializing in corporate governance. While largely symbolic, the votes at companies such as Wells Fargo and Exxon Mobil are recognized as signals of displeasure and put pressure on boards to engage.
“Institutional investors are becoming more actively involved in communicating displeasure through their votes,”said Peter Kimball, head of advisory and client services at the consulting firm, a unit of Institutional Shareholder Services. “Voting against directors at large-cap S&P 500 companies is a way for an institution to send a signal to other, smaller companies about the actions that they don’t like. That feedback trickles down.”
We’ve previously blogged about Blackrock & State Street’s increasing assertiveness when it comes to pushing for board action on their priorities – and their greater willingness to use their voting clout to send a message to boards that aren’t responsive. The results from this proxy season suggest that other institutions may be taking the same approach.
Boards: What Do Proxy Advisors Want in a New Director?
I’m trying not to take this personally, but according to this recent “Directors & Boards” article, I’m everything that proxy advisors don’t want when it comes to new director candidates – “male, pale & stale.” So who do proxy advisors want instead of me? Here’s the article’s answer:
If proxy advisors – the firms that provide public company research and guidance to large investors – were writing a personal ad for the perfect board director it would probably go a bit like this:
Looking for diverse director with integrity who enjoys face-to-face communication with investors.
That profile is based on new report from “The Conference Board” called “Just What is a Director’s Job?” The report was the product of a roundtable of more than 50 proxy advisors, including ISS & Glass Lewis. The description of the proxy advisors’ “dream date” highlights not merely the growing importance of board diversity, but also the central position that shareholder engagement plays in their views about what makes a good corporate director.
Secret Societies: The Illuminati, Knights Templar & “The Big Four”?
Pretty interesting stuff in this European Parliament group study on the “opacity” of the organizational structure of the Big Four accounting firms. According to the study, nobody knows how many offices the Big Four have, exactly where they’re located, how many people work for them, or how their ownership is structured. Why so secretive? The study says that the Big Four have their reasons:
We suggest that the structure adopted by the Big Four firms of accountants, which at one level suggests the existence of a globally integrated firm and at another suggests that they are actually made up of numerous separate legal entities that are not under common ownership but which are only bound by contractual arrangements to operate common standards under a common name, has been adopted because it:
– Reduces their regulatory cost and risk;
– Ring-fences their legal risk;
– Protects their clients from regulatory enquiries;
– Delivers opacity on the actual scale of their operations and the rewards flowing from them.
The study was released by a left-leaning group of members who serve on the European Parliament’s Panama Papers inquiry committee. Anyway, who knew that your mild-mannered independent registered public accounting firm was playing such an integral role in bringing about the “New World Order”?
Speaking at the Heritage Foundation earlier this week, SEC Commissioner Mike Piwowar said that the SEC might be receptive to requests by IPO companies to include mandatory arbitration clauses in their charters. Here’s an excerpt from this Reuters article:
A key U.S. securities regulator on Monday voiced support for possibly allowing companies to tuck language into their initial public offering paperwork that would force shareholders to resolve claims through arbitration rather than in court. “For shareholder lawsuits, companies can come to us to ask for relief to put in mandatory arbitration into their charters,” said Michael Piwowar, a Republican member of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “I would encourage companies to come and talk to us about that.”
Mandatory arbitration bylaws got a lot of attention a few years back when Carlyle Group tried to install one in its IPO – although it ultimately backed off. The SEC Staff has historically said that these clauses were contrary to public policy & potentially inconsistent with the anti-waiver provisions of Section 14 of the Securities Act & Section 29(a) of the Exchange Act – so a shift in policy here would be big news.
IPOs: GOP Wants a Smoother Ride
Efforts to encourage IPOs are a big part of the SEC’s agenda. According to this MarketWatch report, Congressional Republicans are on-board as well – they believe that current rules discourage IPOs & deprive retail investors of a chance at the “lottery tickets” those deals represent.
SEC Commissioner Nominee: Hester Peirce to Get Another At-Bat
This WSJ article reports that President Trump plans to nominate former Senate aide Hester Peirce to fill the vacant Republican slot on the SEC (here’s a White House press release – this press release indicates the nomination was sent to the Senate yesterday).
If that name sounds familiar, it’s because President Obama nominated her to serve as a Commissioner in 2015 – but the full Senate never acted on her nomination, as we blogged about numerous times (here’s one of those blogs).
Yesterday, the SEC posted its updated “Edgar Filer Manual” – Broc blogged about it coming last week. The updated version of the Manual includes instructions on how to comply with the new requirement to link to exhibits (see Section 5.4.2. on pages 5-50 – 5-52) – which will go into effect on September 1st for the larger companies (non-accelerated filers & smaller reporting companies that submit filings in ASCII don’t need to comply until a year later).
Let’s just say the instructions are a wee bit on the technical side. For instance, here’s the summary on “using HTML styles to indicate the location of exhibit links and the summary section”:
To indicate where in the document an exhibit hyperlink is located, in your HTML document enter the text “<a style=”-sec-extract:exhibit” ” before the web address and the text “</a>” after the exhibit name. See Section 5.4.2.2 for instructions on creating hyperlinks to exhibits in HTML documents.
To indicate where in the document the Summary is located, in your HTML document enter the text “<p style=”-sec-extract:summary”>” before the Summary and enter the text “</p>” after the Summary.
This is followed by a discussion of the “detailed steps” required to accomplish whatever the task I just described is – but trust me, you do NOT want to read the detailed steps. Send this one right to the HTML wizards.
At some point, Corp Fin will likely issue a set of FAQs – or some other form of guidance – as we hear there are a lot of open questions that folks are wondering about. For example, how does one link to an exhibit in a 30-year old registration statement that was filed as one gigantic ASCII file? The only available “link” would be to the filing as a whole.
New Accounting Standards: CAQ’s Tips on SAB 74 Disclosure
Several new accounting standards are being rolled out over the next few years – so this recent “Center for Audit Quality” alert reviewing disclosure obligations about new accounting standards under SAB 74 seems pretty timely.
The CAQ alert points out that even in situations where a new accounting standard is not expected to significantly impact the face of the financial statements, new footnote disclosures may still represent a significant change that companies need to address.
Along the same lines, it’s worth noting that this MarketWatch article cites recent comments from an SEC accounting fellow to the effect that even though a new accounting standard may not have a material effect on a company’s financial statements, that doesn’t mean that disclosures about that new standard won’t be material.
Transcript: “Flash Numbers in Offerings”
We have posted the transcript for our popular webcast: “Flash Numbers in Offerings.”
SEC Chair Jay Clayton’s recent speech at the “Economic Club of New York” has received a lot of attention – it was his first as Chair – but this remark seems to have been overlooked:
My last point on capital formation is a reminder. There are circumstances in which the Commission’s reporting rules may require publicly traded companies to make disclosures that are burdensome to generate, but may not be material to the total mix of information available to investors. Under Rule 3-13 of Regulation S-X, issuers can request modifications to their financial reporting requirements in these situations. I want to encourage companies to consider whether such modifications may be helpful in connection with their capital raising activities and assure you that SEC staff is placing a high priority on responding with timely guidance.
I don’t want to read too much into this – but it’s the third time in the past month or so that Rule 3-13 waiver requests have been mentioned in Corp Fin guidance or in comments by senior SEC Staffers.
In addition to Jay’s remarks, this Deloitte memo notes that Corp Fin’s Chief Accountant – Mark Kronforst – discussed waiver requests at a recent conference, and “urged companies to discuss their facts and circumstances” with the Staff. The Staff’s willingness to consider these waiver requests was also recently noted in Corp Fin’s announcement that all IPO filers would be permitted to submit confidential draft registration statements.
There’s no suggestion in any of these comments that it’s somehow “open season” on Reg S-X’s requirements. Still, I think it’s fair to say that the SEC Chair is sending a message that Corp Fin is more open to dialogue about Rule 3-13 waivers than some might assume.
Revenue Recognition: FASB’s “Gift” to Retailers
Over at “MarketWatch,” Francine McKenna recently pointed out that implementation of FASB’s new revenue recognition standard could turn out to be a big gift to the bottom lines of some major retailers. That’s because the new standard would change the way retailers recognize revenue from the unredeemed portion of company-issued gift cards.
This is known as “breakage revenue” – and companies have been recognizing it under various scenarios based on their own redemption experience. Under the new rule, companies will be required to spread breakage revenue over a gift card’s expected redemption period. That’s good news for many retailers:
Most companies will be able to accelerate breakage revenue rather than holding on to it until the likelihood anyone cashes in the balance becomes remote or until the card expires. The accounting change will affect everyone who issues gift cards, from classic bricks-and-mortar grocery and fashion retailers to restaurants to Amazon and other online stores.
Tomorrow’s Webcast: “FCPA Considerations in M&A”
Tune in tomorrow for the DealLawyers.com webcast – “FCPA Considerations in M&A” – to hear Richards Kibbes’ Audrey Ingram, K&L Gates’ Vince Martinez and Schulte Roth’s Gary Stein discuss how to take the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws into account during M&A activities.
Yesterday, Corp Fin announced that it would extend eligibility for confidential review of draft registration statements to all IPO issuers – not just emerging growth companies as permitted under the JOBS Act. In addition to IPOs, the initial filing of a registration statement for follow-on offerings within 12 months after an IPO will also be eligible for confidential review. Companies registering securities for the first time under the Exchange Act will also have the ability to have their registration statements reviewed confidentially, such as spin transactions. This new position commences July 10th.
The press release accompanying the announcement notes that permitting all new issuers to do so “will provide companies with more flexibility to plan their offering.” Corp Fin says that this initiative is part of its “ongoing efforts to facilitate capital formation.” The position should create a significant movement towards more draft filings going into the SEC. We’ll see how many offerings make it to market this year – but this is a big change in the review process that should create some momentum. We understand more position changes can be expected as facilitating the offering process is a priority for Chair Jay Clayton and Corp Fin Director Bill Hinman.
Happy 241st Birthday, America! I hope everybody has a great holiday & celebrates in style – personally, I’m planning to follow the bird’s lead.
We romanticize our nation’s founding, but in doing so, we sometimes forget what a roll of the dice it was. During a time that’s high in partisan invective and low in common decency, that’s not a bad thing to keep in mind.
The 4th of July gives us a good reason to pause for a moment & remember that, in the end, we’re all in this thing together. As Ben Franklin put it when the Declaration of Independence was signed – “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”
This Skadden memo discusses Stadnick v. Vivint Solar, a recent 2nd Circuit decision addressing when financial information about an incomplete quarter needs to be disclosed in a prospectus.
Most courts that have confronted this issue have followed the 1st Circuit’s 1996 decision in Shaw v. Digital Equipment, and require disclosure when the information suggests that the quarter will be an “extreme departure” from prior results. But as this excerpt notes, the 2nd Circuit took a different approach:
The Second Circuit declined to adopt Shaw’s “extreme departure” standard, adhering instead to the materiality test it articulated in DeMaria v. Andersen, 318 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2003). Under DeMaria, a duty to disclose interim financial information arises “if a reasonable investor would view the omission as ‘significantly alter[ing] the ‘total mix’ of information made available.’”
Instead, the Second Circuit analyzed the omissions holistically in light of the total mix of available information. The Second Circuit concluded that when viewed in the context of the registration statement’s extensive disclosures on Vivint’s six prior quarters and unique business, Vivint’s third quarter results were consistent with past performance and “the successful implementation of its business model.”
The 2nd Circuit also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the company’s failure to address certain regulatory risks in its MD&A violated Item 303’s “known trends” disclosure requirement. In doing so, it pointed to the company’s risk factor disclosure, which in the Court’s view provided investors with ample warning of the regulatory issues in question.
Securities Act Claims: Do States Still Have Jurisdiction?
I recently blogged about the growth in Section 11 lawsuits in state courts – with California, in particular, emerging as a favorite venue for these actions. Now this Shearman & Sterling blog reports that the Acting Solicitor General is asking the US Supreme Court to review whether state courts still have jurisdiction over these suits:
On May 23, 2017, the Acting Solicitor General filed a brief on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae urging the Supreme Court to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari in Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439, to resolve confusion in lower courts as to whether the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) divests state courts of jurisdiction over cases that allege only claims under the Securities Act of 1933.
The issue has been a significant one. California state courts in particular have become a forum of choice for plaintiffs asserting claims under the Securities Act, and procedural bars on interlocutory review of decisions denying motions to dismiss or remand have precluded significant appellate review.
The Supreme Court had invited the government to weigh-in last fall. The Acting Solicitor General’s brief urged the Supreme Court to hold that SLUSA doesn’t divests state courts of jurisdiction – but renders Securities Act cases removable to federal court.
The Supreme Court granted cert earlier this week. Check out this ‘D&O Diary’ blog for more details on the case.
The blog points out that there are some pretty interesting provisions in the legislation, including a section forbidding a federal court from certifiying a class action in which the named plaintiff is “a present or former client” of class counsel. As this excerpt notes, that’s pretty radical stuff:
As skeptical as we may be about some of the securities class action lawsuits brought against public companies, it’s very unusual to take the position that plaintiffs cannot choose counsel they’ve worked with in the past to represent them.
It’s particularly unusual given that institutional investors and others are not naïve entities unable to protect their own interests. Many of the plaintiffs being represented in securities class action litigation are large, sophisticated institutional investors.
This McGuire Woods blog says that this statute faces fairly long odds – it has a long list of opponents & PredictGov gives it only a 21% chance of passing. But the last time Republicans controlled the White House & both branches of Congress saw the most recent round of reforms enacted – so the time may be ripe for this kind of legislation.
Earlier this month, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement entered a cease & desist order against the former CEO & CFO of UTi Worldwide, a multinational freight forwarding company. The proceeding involved alleged failures to comply with S-K Item 303’s requirement to disclose in the MD&A section any “known trends and uncertainties” that are “reasonably likely” to impact a company’s liquidity.
UTi experienced delays in billing resulting from a new operating system. This resulted in a hit to cash flow, and came at a time when the company was also struggling to comply with its debt covenants. The 10-Q for the relevant period didn’t address the billing problems and their cash flow impact. When UTi subsequently disclosed that it blew its debt covenants due to liquidity issues resulting from the billing problems, its stock cratered – and Enforcement came knocking.
This Cleary Gottlieb blog reviews the proceeding & the “known trends” requirement. Here’s an excerpt discussing the SEC’s views about when known trends disclosure is required:
Regulation S-K Item 303 requires the “disclosure of a trend, demand, commitment, event or uncertainty…unless a company is able to conclude either that it is not reasonably likely that the trend, uncertainty or other event will occur or come to fruition, or that a material effect on the company’s liquidity, capital resources or results of operations is not reasonably likely to occur.” As the SEC noted in the Order, the “reasonably likely” standard is a lower standard than “more likely than not.”
What the SEC did not discuss, but what is equally important for companies that need to comply with the disclosure requirements to understand, is the probability floor for when this forward-looking disclosure is required. The good news is that the “reasonably likely” standard is a higher probability threshold than if a material effect is “reasonably possible” (which is the standard for the disclosure of contingent liabilities under ASC 450, Contingencies, and which would require disclosure in the event the likelihood of a “material effect is higher than remote”.
This Drinker Biddle blog notes that the case is the most recent example of the SEC’s increasing willingness to bring financial reporting & accounting actions that aren’t premised on financial statement materiality, and don’t involve fraud-based allegations.
Enforcement: SEC Stakes a Claim to Anti-Money Laundering Violations
This Ballard Spahr memo reviews recent cases where the SEC has used a new enforcement tool – the Bank Secrecy Act & its anti-money laundering (AML) regulations – against financial institutions. While violations of these actions has traditionally been addressed by other regulators, this excerpt says that the SEC appears ready to flex its muscle more frequently in this area:
This most recent complaint filed by the SEC is not an isolated event, but rather part of a trend. Earlier this year, another broker dealer was charged in a similar civil enforcement action with failing to file SARs. These enforcement actions – and others – are consistent with the public pronouncements of the former SEC Enforcement Director, who has stated that the SEC Broker Dealer Task Force must “pursue standalone BSA violations to send a clear message about the need for compliance.”
The memo compares the SEC’s decision to stake a claim in the AML arena to its decision to pursue FCPA cases – a statute that historically had been addressed by other agencies, but where the SEC now has an established role.
FCPA: Many Derivative Actions Filed, But Few Make the Cut
Over on the ‘D&O Diary,’ Kevin LaCroix recently blogged about the fate of many derivative actions that follow on the heels of the announcement of an FCPA violation. Qualcomm announced a high-profile FCPA settlement with the SEC in March 2016, and a derivative action was filed shortly thereafter in Delaware Chancery Court. This case, like most other FCPA-based derivative claims, didn’t make the cut:
As I have observed in the past (for example), while plaintiffs’ lawyers frequently are quick to file follow-on civil suits in the wake of an FCPA investigation or enforcement action, in many instances these suits are unsuccessful as the suits often fail to clear the initial pleading hurdles. As was the case here, a frequent basis on which these suits are dismissed is the failure to establish demand futility. To be sure, there are FCPA follow-on actions that survive motions to dismiss (as discussed for example), but in many other instances the cases do not survive.
The blog notes that despite their poor track record, plaintiffs keep trying – which since the underlying FCPA cases are often based on significant misconduct, isn’t really surprising.
