Last week, the WSJ reported that the SEC is investigating the circumstances around Eastman Kodak’s announcement of a $765 million government loan to make COVID-19 pharmaceuticals at its US factories (which is now apparently on hold due to the probe). As a case study in “what not to do,” this is a pretty good one. Don’t:
1. Grant options the day before a positive announcement – especially if the options can be immediately exercised, and even if the recipients say they won’t sell the shares
2. Allow insiders to buy or sell shares while in discussions about a material deal
3. Share unembargoed press releases with media outlets before the company’s official announcement
As we see time and time again with insider trading allegations around big corporate news events, even if trading activity is consistent with prior transactions, the optics are terrible. Several members of Congress sent this letter to SEC Chair Jay Clayton to request an investigation into the Kodak transactions – as did Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in her own letter.
Senator Warren’s letter also calls attention to the Reg FD implications of non-intentional disclosure of material nonpublic information. The alleged problem here was that Kodak sent a news advisory to media outlets a day before its official announcement. The WSJ confirmed that the company didn’t provide any embargo instructions to prevent the press from sharing the info.
I don’t think that you could call what happened a “leak,” given the info was intentionally released – but at any rate, shares spiked as the news trickled out, and arguably not everyone had access to the same information. For example, investment firm “bots” had a big advantage as they crawled the web. Instead of immediately making its own announcement, Kodak asked the reporters to remove their articles. However, that may have been an incomplete solution since some stories had already been captured by screen shots, social posts and search engines.
Don’t let this happen to you. Read our “Reg FD Handbook” for more guidance on how embargoes can protect you from a violation. And if you’re a “Reg FD junkie” – as many of us are – check out the podcast series that our very own Dave Lynn has been curating for the SEC Historical Society, to celebrate the 20th anniversary of its adoption.
Remote Work: Questions Audit Committee Chairs Are Asking
The risks of remote work are top of mind for audit committee chairs right now, according to this PCAOB memo. Here are some questions they’re discussing with their auditors (also see this Cooley blog – and my blog last month about disclosure controls):
1. Will additional time be needed to get the audit work done remotely?
2. What complexity does working remotely add to the audit?
3. Will working remotely affect productivity of audit engagement team members?
4. If so, does the audit plan need to be updated, and do fees need to be revisited?
5. Has remote work affected the company’s ICFR? If so:
– Is the auditor including new controls in their assessment, or evaluating changes to existing ones?
– Has the auditor identified any concerns with respect to segregation of duties?
6. If a review of the issuer’s interim financial information has been completed already, are there any lessons learned that can be applied to the year-end audit?
7. Are there any technology enhancements or collaborative tools that should be considered to support longer-term remote work?Has the auditor assessed potential risks of material misstatement related to cybersecurity, and how does the auditor plan to respond to those risks?
Transcript: “Coronavirus: Next Steps For Disclosure & Governance”
We have posted the transcript for our recent webcast: “Coronavirus: Next Steps For Disclosure & Governance.”
In this 30-minute podcast, Dave Lynn welcomes a series of eminent guests to remember his great friend and “Radio Show” co-host Marty Dunn, who died on June 15, 2020 (here’s Dave’s written tribute). Topics include:
Although the social media sphere is quick to characterize this year’s parade of horribles as an “Act of God,” that characterization may be more difficult for companies that want to call off their contractual obligations. If you’re negotiating a contract right now and want to preserve an “out” for an inability to perform, check out this Vinson & Elkins memo for drafting tips (and for more resources, see the “Contractual Performance” memos that we’re posting in our “COVID-19” Practice Area):
Looking ahead, parties seeking to boost the chances that their inability to perform will be excused should specifically reference the COVID-19 pandemic on the list of events that would qualify as force majeure. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic should be identified as unforeseeable and unpredictable. The reason: in many states, even if an event is specifically listed, courts require that a party claiming force majeure demonstrate that the event was not foreseeable.
The blog also recommends asking these four questions if you’re on the receiving end of a force majeure notice and want to continue to enforce performance:
1. Is the pandemic covered by the force majeure clause?
2. If so, is the activity that is not being performed as promised something that actually is being prevented by the covered event?
3. Is there a specific exclusion in the force majeure clause for that performance?
4. What are the notice requirements — was the notice sent within the specified deadline?
Cybersecurity Oversight: What Boards Are Doing
This article from Melissa Krasnow of VLP Law Group looks at recent NACD benchmarking in the cyber-risk oversight of public versus private company boards. Among other things:
– Public and private company boards engaged in the same top seven and the bottom cyber−risk oversight practices over the past year, with differences in terms of percentages
– Over 60% of public companies scheduled cyber risk at least once on the board agenda over the last year, versus over 40% of private companies
In addition, the “Private Company Governance Survey” – which was published in May 2020, about five months after the “Public Company Governance Survey” was published in December 2019 – alludes to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cybersecurity: “The surge of remote workers in the first quarter of 2020 may expose companies to a new set of risks.” This impact continues beyond the first quarter of 2020 and affects both public and private companies.
At an open meeting yesterday, the SEC adopted amendments to its proxy solicitation rules, which are intended to give companies a more meaningful opportunity to review and respond to proxy advisors’ voting recommendations, ensure that proxy advisor clients have access to those responses prior to the meeting, and require the advisory firms to disclose potential conflicts of interest. The rules were adopted by a 3-1 vote, with Commissioner Allison Herren Lee issuing this dissenting statement. CII also issued a statement expressing disappointment with the rules.
– “Solicitation” Includes Proxy Advice for a Fee: Consistent with the Commission’s longstanding view, the changes amend the definition of “solicitation” in Exchange Act Rule 14a-1(l) to specify that it includes proxy voting advice, with certain exceptions.
– New Conditions for Exempt Solicitations: Under amendments to Rules 14a-2(b)(1) & 14a-2(b)(3), in order for proxy voting advice businesses to rely on the exemptions from information and filing requirements (which are essential for them to be able to carry out their business), they must satisfy the conditions of new Rule 14a-2(b)(9), including disclosure of conflicts of interest and adoption & disclosure of policies that allow for companies to review & respond to the voting recommendations. New Rule 14a-2(b)(9) also establishes non-exclusive safe harbors that will allow proxy advisors to meet the conditions.
– Application of Antifraud Rule to Proxy Advice: The amendments modify Rule 14a-9 to include examples of when the failure to disclose certain material information in proxy voting advice could, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances, be considered misleading within the meaning of the rule. These examples include material information about the proxy voting advice business’s methodology, sources of information, or conflicts of interest.
It is worth noting that the “registrant review” provisions of the final rule are less demanding that those that were originally proposed. That original proposal would have obligated advisors to provide companies with a copy of their advice in order to permit them to identify errors or other problems with the analysis in advance of their release, and would have also required proxy advisors to provide the company with a final report no later than two business days prior to its dissemination to their clients.
The amendments will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, but affected proxy voting advice businesses subject to the final rules are not required to comply with the Rule 14a-2(b)(9) amendments until December 1, 2021. At least that’s the plan – ISS has a pending lawsuit against the SEC challenging the agency’s ability to regulate it. The parties agreed to stay the lawsuit until the SEC adopted final rules. Now that the rules are in place, the real fight may be just beginning.
Proxy Advisors: SEC Supplements Guidance for Investment Advisers
Also yesterday, the SEC supplemented its 2019 guidance to investment advisers about their proxy voting responsibilities, and the steps they could take to demonstrate that they’re making voting decisions in a client’s best interest. As noted in Cydney Posner’s blog, that guidance:
“recommended that investment advisers satisfy their own fiduciary duties of care and loyalty and obligations to act in their clients’ best interests, in part, through careful oversight of proxy advisory firms (i.e., investment adviser as ‘enforcer’), such as by monitoring and analyzing the methodology and processes of proxy advisory firms, including their processes for engagement with companies and procedures to address errors.”
The supplemental guidance addresses how investment advisers should consider company responses to proxy advisor voting recommendations. This includes circumstances in which the investment adviser utilizes a proxy advisory firm’s electronic vote management system that “pre-populates” the adviser’s ballots with suggested voting recommendations or for voting execution services (so-called “robo-voting”). It also addresses their disclosure obligations and client consent requirements when using automated voting services. Here’s an excerpt:
An investment adviser should consider, for example, whether its policies and procedures address circumstances where the investment adviser has become aware that an issuer intends to file or has filed additional soliciting materials with the Commission after the investment adviser has received the proxy advisory firm’s voting recommendation but before the submission deadline. In such cases, if an issuer files such additional information sufficiently in advance of the submission deadline and such information would reasonably be expected to affect the investment adviser’s voting determination, the investment adviser would likely need to consider such information prior to exercising voting authority in order to demonstrate that it is voting in its client’s best interest.
Proxy Advisors: “Best Practices” Get New Oversight
Last week, the “Best Practices Principles Group” for shareholder voting research announced the appointment of an oversight committee to monitor the Principles that govern proxy advisor signatures, including ISS, Glass Lewis and Minerva Analytics. I most recently blogged about the BPPG last year when they updated the best practices from their original 2014 iteration. The international board includes:
– Six institutional investor representatives – including Amy Borrus of CII
– Three public company representatives – including Hope Mehlman of Regions Financial
– Two independent academic representatives
Among other responsibilities, the oversight board will conduct an annual review of the public reporting of each BPPG Signatory and present that information publicly. Congrats to Amy, Hope and the other members for being involved in this initiative.
A recent 12-page Moody’s report says that the Covid-19 pandemic has increased the likelihood that ESG will affect credit ratings over the long term – i.e., beyond 12-18 months from now. The report puts these trends into three buckets: risk preparedness for global risks, social considerations related to healthcare access & economic inequality, and a shift from shareholder primacy to stakeholder needs. Specifically, it predicts that in addition to the “usual suspects” of governments, companies in the healthcare industry and carbon-intensive companies, all sectors have the potential for greater scrutiny of these areas:
After Corp Fin supplemented its Covid-19 disclosure guidance last month to suggest what information companies should be considering for pandemic-related disclosure, we have been hearing from members grappling with their quarterly disclosure controls processes for their upcoming reports. To capture reportable events throughout the business, some are relying on questionnaires – like this one that we’ve posted in Word.
In our webcast last week – “Coronavirus: Next Steps For Disclosure & Governance” – Keir Gumbs also emphasized that companies should be thinking about how the “work from home” environment is affecting internal controls and disclosure controls. In addition to the topics covered in Corp Fin’s guidance, this Deloitte blog suggests thinking about these potential issues (also see this Freshfields blog):
– Store or facility closures
– Loss of customers or customer traffic
– The impact on distributors
– Supply chain interruptions
– Production delays or limitations
– The impact on human capital
– Regulatory changes
– The risk of loss on significant contracts
Quick Poll: Are You Reviewing Your Disclosure Controls?
When the BRT made the shift last year from “shareholder primacy,” many wondered what type of action the signatories would take to demonstrate a commitment to stakeholders. Earlier this year, Lynn blogged that 85% of those signatories published a sustainability report – and over half had adopted one or more sustainable development goals.
But this 67-page analysis, from two profs at the London School of Economics & Columbia Business School, suggests the “stakeholder” cynics might be right. Not only did the BRT statement have little impact on signatories’ stock prices at the time it was announced, the data that the professors reviewed showed that relative to industry peers, signatories to last year’s BRT statement:
– Commit environmental and labor-related compliance violations more often (and pay more in compliance penalties)
– Have higher market shares (and thus may face more scrutiny in future M&A transactions)
– Spend more on lobbying policymakers
– Report lower stock returns alphas and worse operating margins
– Have higher paid CEOs
The professors also looked at stocks in the largest ESG ETF and ESG mutual fund and found found “barely any correlation” between the included companies and federal environmental & labor compliance violations. That’s despite large asset managers emphasizing that ESG and sustainability issues are used by them in screening or otherwise evaluating investments, or affect their voting. The professors also question whether ESG scores from third-party vendors accurately reflect ESG behavior.
The professors do acknowledge that their data is not very demonstrative of “governance” factors and is more focused on “E&S” – and one might wonder whether the size of the signatories had an outsized impact on some of these findings. But the results are sobering and suggest that investors who are focused on these issues likely need to do more of their own verification. As if you didn’t have enough surveys already…
Podcast: The Minority Corporate Counsel Association
A few weeks ago, I blogged on “The Mentor Blog” about specific things we all can do to help retain Black lawyers, as the stats are showing that “diversity” efforts to-date aren’t moving the needle and probably need to focus more on equity & inclusion. I continued that conversation in this 30-minute podcast with Jean Lee, who is the CEO & President of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association.
In this podcast, Jean discusses the work that the MCCA has been doing – and why it’s important to have diverse corporate lawyers. Conversation topics include:
– How MCCA assists its members in recruiting, retaining & promoting women and diverse attorneys
– How approaches to improving diversity & inclusion may vary by group
– The business case for diversity
– What types of corporations & law firms are involved with MCCA
– Ways that individuals can advance diversity, equity & inclusion in their day-to-day professional lives
July-August Issue: Deal Lawyers Print Newsletter
This July-August Issue of the Deal Lawyers print newsletter was just posted – & also sent to the printer (try a no-risk trial). It includes articles on:
– M&A Transactions & PPP Eligibility and Forgiveness Considerations
– Strategic Acquisitions of Distressed Companies in the COVID-19 Environment
– Due Diligence: “That Deal Sounds Too Good to Be True”
Remember that – as a “thank you” to those that subscribe to both DealLawyers.com & our Deal Lawyers print newsletter – we are making all issues of the Deal Lawyers print newsletter available online. There is a big blue tab called “Back Issues” near the top of DealLawyers.com – 2nd from the end of the row of tabs. This tab leads to all of our issues, including the most recent one.
And a bonus is that even if only one person in your firm is a subscriber to the Deal Lawyers print newsletter, anyone who has access to DealLawyers.com will be able to gain access to the Deal Lawyers print newsletter. For example, if your firm has a firmwide license to DealLawyers.com – and only one person subscribes to the print newsletter – everybody in your firm will be able to access the online issues of the print newsletter. That is real value. Here are FAQs about the Deal Lawyers print newsletter including how to access the issues online.
This blog from Doug Chia is getting a lot of traction. In it, he argues that calls for a focus on long-term “corporate purpose” – along with this year’s pandemic, market volatility and social unrest – are signs that it’s time to realign board committees in a stakeholder-driven way. Here’s an excerpt:
For the past 18 years, the committee structure for public company boards has been dictated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the related rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Those rules and regulations essentially mandated all public company boards to have the “big three” committees: audit, compensation, and nominating. Some boards also created (or already had) other specific committees for oversight of finance, risk, public affairs, technology, and sustainability, just to name a few.
However, the big three committees largely address matters that directly relate to the interests of the company’s shareholders with the other three stakeholders being indirect beneficiaries. This required structure was appropriately coming out of the corporate failures of the early 2000s and fitting when maximizing shareholder value was still seen as the end-all, be-all. However, it may not be well-suited to a new era when boards are committing to place firm value in the context of a broader set of constituencies.
In an ideal world (where the current big three committees are not required), rethinking a board’s committees would start with a blank slate. The board would write down each of its annual agenda items, both those discussed by the full board and those covered in committee. It would then map each item to one or more of the four key stakeholders. Based on that exercise, the board would assign each item to one or more of four new stakeholder-focused committees and/or the full board, and it would adopt charters for each reflecting the end result. One of the many outcomes of creating committees this way would look like this:
Customers Committee: Focus on sales of products and services, go-to-market strategy, customer satisfaction, product safety, R&D, and innovation.
Employees Committee: Focus on the company’s overall workforce, health and benefits, compensation, labor relations, diversity and inclusion, talent development, recruitment and retention, training, employee engagement, and corporate culture.
Communities Committee: Focus on regulation, legal, compliance, tax, government affairs, public policy, sustainability, corporate social responsibility, philanthropy, community relations, and corporate reputation.
Shareholders Committee: Focus on financial and non-financial reporting, ESG disclosure, corporate finance, M&A, capital allocation, enterprise risk management, corporate governance, board composition, investor relations, and shareholder engagement.
Doug points out that this isn’t a completely new concept, as companies often establish and dissolve committees based on their current circumstances. As I’ve blogged on CompensationStandards.com, there also have been growing calls to broaden the mandate of compensation committees to cover employee issues. Re-examining the board’s structure would require close attention to board composition and committee charters – which some view as an additional benefit and an opportunity to more closely align the board with strategy & culture.
ESG: GAO Sums Up Disclosure Dilemmas
The Government Accountability Office has issued a 62-page report on ESG disclosures – why investors want them, what public companies are doing, and the advantages & disadvantage of voluntary vs. mandatory disclosure regimes. The report itself doesn’t give much info that people in this space don’t already know – investors want ESG info, companies are working hard to provide it, there are gaps & inconsistencies in company disclosures due to the lack of standardized and prescriptive disclosure rules, and competing disclosure regimes pose important trade-offs.
One interesting tidbit – which may become relevant as investors & companies increase their focus on equity and resiliency going forward – is that companies seem to have come around to at least providing narrative cybersecurity information after the SEC’s emphasis on that issue for many years, but data about human rights and health & safety is harder to come by:
As shown in figure 2, we identified disclosures on six or more of the eight ESG factors for 30 of the 32 companies in our sample and identified 19 companies that disclosed information on all eight factors. All selected companies disclosed at least some information on factors related to board accountability and resource management. In contrast, we identified the fewest companies disclosing on human rights and occupational health and safety factors.
With regard to the 33 more-specific ESG topic disclosures we examined, 23 of 32 companies disclosed on more than half of them. The topics companies disclosed most frequently were related to governance of the board of directors and addressing data security risks. Conversely, based on disclosures we identified, we found that companies less frequently reported information on topics related to the number of self-identified human rights violations and the number of data security incidents.
In addition, we found that companies most frequently disclosed information on narrative topics and less frequently disclosed information on quantitative topics. There are several reasons why a company may not have disclosed information on a specific ESG topic, including that the topic is not relevant to its business operations or material.
Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), who had requested this report back in 2018, is now calling on the SEC to establish an ESG task force to consider requiring disclosure of “quantifiable and comparable” metrics. He seized on the GAO’s finding that even quantifiable metrics like carbon dioxide emissions are reported differently from company to company. As Lynn blogged last week – and as noted in this Wachtell Lipton memo – some standard-setters are starting to collaborate, which may help clarify reporting frameworks for companies & investors alike.
Quick Poll: Are “Stakeholder Committees” the Next Big Thing?
Did you know that Thomas Jefferson had only 17 days to write the Declaration of Independence? I admit feeling conflicted that we still celebrate someone who turned out to be so pro-slavery in his older years, but I also find it impressive that young TJ met that deadline.
Beware EDGAR Technical Issues
It’s not the news I want to be bringing as we head into a holiday weekend, but it’s time to end the silent suffering of those who’ve attempted filings this week. With end-of-period equity awards triggering Form 4s, that’s a lot of people!
After a day of headaches on Monday, the SEC’s EDGAR Filer Communications circulated an email late that evening reporting the issues experienced at 4:30pm – right as many were trying to make filings – had been resolved (there had been no notice earlier in the day that an issue was occurring, and there were a lot of frustrated people attempting filings and questioning whether their filing agent was to blame). The “EDGAR News & Announcements” page offers this relief:
The SEC will automatically date as June 29, 2020 all filings made between 5:30 p.m. ET and 10:30 p.m. ET on June 29, 2020. For other filing date adjustments, please contact Filer Support at 202-551-8900 option 3.
However, Monday’s email also warned that filers could continue to experience technical problems with their custom codes. That happened yesterday, with a notice in the morning that EDGAR was experiencing technical difficulties and a notice in the afternoon that EDGAR would be down for a short amount of time for technical repair.
Kudos to the SEC for making real-time announcements yesterday and for keeping the “EDGAR News & Announcements” page updated – you should visit that page and follow the posted instructions if you’re having problems. Fingers crossed that the issue is now fully resolved!
Late last year, we were tracking the saga of the NYSE’s “direct listing” proposal for primary offerings. A lot has happened since then, and you’d be forgiven if you assumed that going public without the benefit of a traditionally marketed & placed IPO was no longer a very attractive option. But the NYSE hasn’t given up hope that we’ll return to better times. Last week, they filed the third version of a proposed rule change that would permit companies to raise money in a “direct listing.”
As this Davis Polk memo explains, this version of the proposal gives more detail about the mechanics of a direct listing – but it would also make this path available to fewer companies:
The NYSE’s current proposal eliminates the 90-day grace period that was previously proposed for the minimum holder requirement. As a result, both primary and secondary direct listings would continue to be subject to the requirement to have 400 shareholders at the time of initial listing.This requirement will continue to preclude many private companies from pursuing a direct listing because they do not having the required number of round lot holders.
Unlike the prior proposals, this version also provides more granular detail around the auction process for a primary direct listing. Significantly, the auction process would require that the company disclose a price range and the number of shares to be sold in the SEC registration statement for a primary direct listing, and would require that the opening auction price be within the disclosed price range. For purposes of the opening auction, the company would be required to submit a limit order for the number of shares that it wishes to sell, with the limit set at the bottom end of the price range. The proposed rule changes would not allow the company’s limit order to be cancelled or modified, and the limit order would need to be executed in full in order to conduct the primary direct listing
Suspending Preferred Dividends? Your Form S-3 Might Be At Risk
As some companies look to suspend dividend payments due to economic fallout from the pandemic, here’s a reminder from a recent Mayer Brown blog:
In order to remain eligible to use a Form S-3 registration statement, among other requirements, neither the issuer nor any of its consolidated or unconsolidated subsidiaries shall have failed to pay any dividend on its preferred stock since the end of the last fiscal year for which audited financial statements are included in the registration statement (General Instruction I.A.4 of Form S-3). The reference to materiality in the instruction does not apply to the failure to declare dividends on preferred stock.
A declared but unpaid dividend on preferred stock would disqualify an issuer from using Form S-3, as would the existence of accrued and unpaid dividends on cumulative preferred stock. The issuer also would be disqualified from using Form S-3 even if it has a history of accumulating such dividends for three quarters before paying them at the end of each year.
The blog notes a few ins & outs of this analysis – including that eligibility remains intact if a board doesn’t declare a dividend on non-cumulative preferred stock, or if the terms of the debt permit deferred payments and the deferral isn’t a default, since no liability arises under the terms of the stock. Also, even if a dividend payment on cumulative preferred stock was missed, a company can continue to use an already effective Form S-3 registration statement so long as there is no need to update the registration statement.
Secured Notes Offerings: Covid-19 Trends
In these desperate times, more companies are turning to secured notes to keep them afloat – and it’s not a terrible option, given current pricing and the possibility that other loans will be unaffected. This 3-page Cleary Gottlieb memo discusses current trends to consider – including disclosure, timing, covenants, collateral & intercreditor issues, call protection and reporting. Here’s an excerpt:
A common trend for these new secured notes offerings has been a five-year maturity, with two years of call protection, resulting in a much shorter tenor than the usual seven- to eight-year maturity for secured notes. This trend for a shorter tenor offers more flexibility to the issuer for refinancing if circumstances improve but still provides noteholders with more call protection than would be typical for a credit facility.
One feature in pre-crisis secured notesofferings, a 10% per annum call right at 103% for the first years after the offering (or if shorter, during the non-call period), appears to have fallen away in these recent secured notes deals.
Amidst the pandemic, the “corporate purpose” debate continues – a few say it’s even intensified, given some companies’ need to prioritize long-term viability & employee well-being over dividend payments or other capital allocation decisions that would benefit shareholders. A recent Wachtell Lipton memo defines “purpose” as:
The purpose of a corporation is to conduct a lawful, ethical, profitable and sustainable business in order to create value over the long-term, which requires consideration of the stakeholders that are critical to its success (shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, creditors and communities), as determined by the corporation and the board of directors using its business judgment and with regular engagement with shareholders, who are essential partners in supporting the corporation’s pursuit of this mission.
In response to Wachtell’s positions, Skadden published this memo – which argues that shareholder primacy is still the name of the game. And practically speaking, companies’ ability to accommodate non-shareholder stakeholders is likely to turn on shareholder preferences.
That’s why this recent SquareWell Partners survey – of investors who collectively manage over $22 trillion in assets – is a worthwhile read. It covers whether “corporate purpose” is relevant to investors, who they believe should be responsible for delivering it, how it should be measured and how investors intend to hold companies responsible for putting it into practice. Here are a few key takeaways (also see this Harvard Law School blog):
1. 93% of shareholders believe that purpose is a necessary grounding for a successful long-term strategy
2. Nearly half of the participating investors suggested that they expect the company’s purpose to be in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals
3. 86% expect firms to report on the delivery of purpose – with 75% emphasizing the need for KPIs
4. Most investors suggest that the company’s purpose has a dedicated section within their annual report (or equivalent document) closely followed by a formal statement from the board addressing the company’s purpose
5. Investors will look to see if there is consistent disclosure regarding the implementation of the purpose, stakeholder concerns, employee turnover, etc. to evaluate whether the company’s purpose is effective
6. Only one-third of participating investors expect to have a vote on a company’s purpose but almost two-thirds are engaging with companies on the topic
7. Whilst a quarter of the participating investors suggested that they will not oppose any agenda items if they are not satisfied with a company’s purpose, investors will most likely target the election of board members (including the board chair), discharge (where possible), etc.
Proxy Advisors & Shareholder Proposals: SEC’s Investor Advocate Still Wants a Proposal “Do-Over”
Way back in January, Lynn blogged on our “Proxy Season Blog” that the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee recommended to the Commission that it revise and re-propose its rules on proxy advisors & shareholder proposal submission thresholds. Earlier this week, the SEC’s “Office of the Investor Advocate” – which is a member of the Investor Advisory Committee – reiterated that recommendation in its “Report on Objectives for Fiscal Year 2021.”
The Investor Advocate’s report on objectives is due by June 30th each year and relates to the government fiscal year that begins October 1st. It goes directly to Congress without any review or comment by the Commission or Staff. The report has this to say about proxy plumbing:
Much of the concern expressed by investors has centered on the economic analysis in the rulemakings. For example, the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee submitted a recommendation to the Commission that it revise and repropose the rules, citing a number of ways in which the proposing releases failed to meet the SEC’s published guidance for conducting economic analyses.
The recommendation also noted that there are well-known problems with respect to so-called “proxy plumbing,” or the processes by which shares are voted and counted, and suggested that the Commission should prioritize efforts to address those concerns. In other words, before addressing concerns of the business community about the advice investors seek, the Commission should ensure that investors’ votes are actually counted.
In addition, the Investor Advocate includes in its 2021 policy agenda “corporate disclosure and investor protection in registered & exempt offerings” – calling for:
– Improved “human capital management” disclosure, possibly going beyond the “principles-based” approach that the Commission proposed last August
– Attention to “machine readable” disclosures outside of financials – noting that prior “disclosure effectiveness” changes have catered to investors who are manually accessing & analyzing info, but more & more investors are now using digital processes
– Consideration of whether the expansion of registration exemptions undermines public markets and ignores the value of registered offerings & public disclosure
The report also includes a special 3-page overview of the impact of Covid-19 on investors – highlighting eroding confidence of individual investors in stocks & mutual funds as beneficial long-term investments.
Our July Eminders is Posted!
We have posted the July issue of our complimentary monthly email newsletter. Sign up today to receive it by simply entering your email address!
D&O insurance premiums jumped somewhere between 44% and 104% in the first quarter of this year, compared with last year. That’s according to survey data from Aon & Marsh cited in this WSJ article. The cause of the increase is the ever-expanding specter of securities litigation, including event-specific litigation and suits over emerging ESG issues, which Lynn blogged in January would be likely to influence rates.
The latest threat? Covid-19 reopening decisions. Lynn blogged last week on “The Mentor Blog” about what boards need to consider to manage reopening risks – if boards get it wrong, they’ll not only be facing remorse over upended lives and a struggling workforce, they’ll also become a litigation target. Some believe that rates will more than double in the wake of the pandemic, according to this “Business Insurance” article. The WSJ reports that on top of tough decisions about the business, companies are having to decide whether to change deductibles, policy limits or insurance budget. Here’s an excerpt:
According to Aon, no primary policies that renewed in the first quarter with the same limits and deductibles fetched a lower price. To contain the increases, nearly half of the clients changed their deductibles or policy limits, and sometimes both.
In a June 10 report, A.M. Best Co. said a spike in litigation caused by specific events, such as cyberattacks, the #MeToo movement and wildfires, was driving the increases. Companies also face potential litigation over “emerging exposures” such as Environmental, Social and Governance, or ESG, issues and climate change, it says.
Exchange Act reporting is a key factor in reigning in premiums and reducing risk. According to the Journal and insurance companies, some companies also are setting up captive insurance companies in places like Singapore or Bermuda – as wholly owned subsidiaries that provide insurance to the sponsoring company alone.
Earnings Guidance: Most Important for Smaller Companies?
In this recent 6-minute interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin, Barry Diller – Chair of Expedia and IAC – takes a pretty firm stance against giving earnings guidance, and says the companies he oversees will no longer be providing granular predictions of the near-term future. This CFO.com article argues that guidance isn’t a waste of management’s time and outlines ways in which the practice can benefit companies – especially smaller companies. Here are some high points:
1. Volatility: Stocks are valued on expectations of future performance. Companies that give guidance help narrow the standard deviation of those expectations, and their words and numbers carry weight because they have the most information about their future. Volatility is less of an issue for widely-followed mega-caps, which have a “crowdsourced consensus on future value that can make guidance unnecessary.”
2. Visibility: For smaller companies, guidance is an important tool to enhance visibility on the Street. It makes analysts’ and investors’ jobs easier and shows management can deliver, which builds their credibility — the most valuable non-monetary asset on Wall Street.
3. Vulnerability: Companies that give guidance take the lead in shaping investor perception about future potential. Those that don’t leave a “consensus” opinion to a handful of research analysts who don’t have full perspective on the issuer’s culture, plans, and opportunities. Worse yet, management is nonetheless still held accountable by the market for hitting that consensus.
“All-Purpose” Securities Law Disclosure: Are We Reaching the Breaking Point?
As demands mount for “stakeholder”-oriented disclosure – and as the SEC faces understandable backlash about whether that type of disclosure is useful to investors – there’s a growing contingent suggesting that shoehorning extra info into an investor-focused disclosure scheme is a lot like two-in-one shampoo & conditioner: it simply doesn’t work. This article from Tulane Law prof Ann Lipton discusses whether the SEC has been a victim of “mission creep” – and why now’s the time to look at other avenues for required “stakeholder” disclosure. Here’s an excerpt:
The assumption — stated or unstated — that all public disclosure must necessarily run through the securities laws has distorted the discourse for decades. Academics, regulators, and advocates have conflated the interests of investor and stakeholder audiences, to the detriment of both. There has been little, if any, discussion of the informational needs of the general public, or when and whether businesses should operate under a duty of public transparency. At the same time, advocates for myriad causes try to flood the securities disclosure system with information relevant to their own idiosyncratic interests, overburdening the SEC and making it more difficult for investor audiences to interpret the information they are given.
How would this type of system work? Ann looks at the EU system “both as a model and a point of contrast” – and suggests that stakeholder disclosure would apply to these categories:
– Financial information – including issues pertaining to tax payments, anticorruption measures, and antitrust compliance
– Corporate governance
– Environmental impact
– Labor relationships – including diversity, working conditions, and pay practices
To minimize burdens on business, the initial system could focus on information that has already been compiled internally, such as reports that companies are already required to file with government agencies, or financial and governance information likely to be on hand. Doing so would spare companies the additional burdens of data gathering, and would go a long way toward standardization.
To be clear, this isn’t a call to “abolish” the SEC. Rather, it would emphasize the SEC’s focus on investors and use other ways to provide complementary info. However, we could see some ripple effects in SEC rules if something like this came to fruition, and it could expand the scope of work for people in our community, since we’re already involved with disclosure.
