Every few years, we survey developments in whistleblower policies & procedures (we’ve conducted several surveys in this area). Here’s the results from our latest one:
1. Over the last year, when it comes to our whistleblower policy, our company:
– Has changed existing policies to address the latest whistleblower developments – 6%
– Hasn’t yet, but intends to change existing policies within the next year – 6%
– Not sure yet if will change existing policies – 53%
– Has decided not to change existing policies – 35%
2. The board committee charged with consideration of the SEC’s whistleblower rules is:
– Has provided incentives for whistleblowers to report internally first – 6%
– Hasn’t yet, but intends to provide incentives for whistleblowers to report internally first – 6%
– Has decided to not provide incentives for whistleblowers to report internally first – 88%
4. Our company:
– Has created a system to alert employees of the benefits of reporting internally (eg. sign updated employee handbook, fill out compliance questionnaires) – 31%
– Hasn’t yet, but intends to create a system to alert employees of the benefits of reporting internally – 6%
– Has decided not to create a system to alert employees of the benefits of reporting internally – 63%
5. Since the SEC adopted its whistleblower rules, our company has had:
– More whistleblower claims reported internally – 6%
– Same number of whistleblower claims reported internally – 94%
– Fewer whistleblower claims reported internally – 0%
Please take a moment to participate anonymously in these surveys:
This “Audit Analytics” blog takes a look at macro trends in 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K comment letters. The average number of days to resolve comments has dropped significantly over the last seven years – from 86 days in 2010 to only 44 days last year.
The total number of comment letters has also steadily declined during that time period. This decrease is due in part to the declining number of public companies – but it also results from Corp Fin’s more recent principles-based approach to comments and a big drop-off in Regulation G-related comments during the last year. Don’t get too carried away with non-GAAP, though – the number of 8-K comment letters on this subject is still well above the low-water mark.
A View on Professors as Expert Witnesses
In this podcast, Professor J.W. Verret discusses Veritas Financial Analytics – the only expert witness firm operated by professors – and more:
– What’s it like being a professor?
– What type of dealings do you have with Congress?
– Why should professors run an expert witness firm?
– How does Veritas Financial Analytics differ from other expert witness firms?
On Friday, Corp Fin posted this “Small Entity Compliance Guide” – which summarizes the recent amendments to the smaller reporting company thresholds & clarifies when newly-eligible companies can transition to scaled disclosure. For a summary, see this blog from Cooley’s Cydney Posner. Here are a few key points:
– Companies determine SRC status annually as of the last business day of their second fiscal quarter. If a company doesn’t qualify under the “public float” test, it would then determine whether it qualified based on annual revenues in its most recent fiscal year completed before the last business day of the second fiscal quarter.
– A company that’s newly qualified as an SRC can elect to use scaled disclosure beginning with the second quarter Form 10-Q. A company must reflect its SRC status in its Form 10-Q for the first fiscal quarter of the next year.
– For purposes of the first determination of SRC status after the September 10th effective date of the new rules, companies will qualify if they meet the revised definition as of the last business day of their most recently-completed second fiscal quarter. Companies can use scaled disclosure in their next current or periodic report due after September 10th (or filed on or after September 10th, in the case of transactional filings without a due date). The guidance has a handy chart that shows when companies with various fiscal year ends can transition.
More on “Who Administers Political Spending Policies?”
We’ve blogged a couple of times about political spending oversight – and the risk that candidates who have received company contributions might end up supporting positions that conflict with the company’s position. For an activist’s view on these risks – and recommended board policies & procedures – check out the Center for Political Accountability’s recently-issued 36-page report.
Recently, Climate Action 100+ – a coalition that includes 225 investors with $26 trillion in assets under management – announced that it’s adding 61 companies to its focus list, bringing the total to 161 companies worldwide. They’re selecting companies based on these criteria:
– Reported & modeled greenhouse emissions data (including emissions associated with the use of their products)
– Materiality to investor signatory portfolios
– Significance of their opportunities to drive the clean energy transition
Since December, 18% of focus companies officially support or have committed to implement recommendations from the ‘Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures’ and 22% have set or committed to set a target for reducing their emissions beyond 2030.
We’re feeling pretty lucky around here. Karla Bos reached out to us after reading “The ‘Nina Flax’ Files” – to let us know that she too is a list-maker. Here’s Part I of Karla’s “list of lists” (let Karla know what you think – my personal favorite is #2):
I’ve always been a list-maker, thanks to my parents – family to-do lists for the weekend (equal parts work & play, as I recall, something I’m striving to return to) and lists of summer chores by the day (including the much-despised yardwork, yet ironically I now enjoy it, go figure). But I didn’t fully appreciate until I read Nina’s lists how much I enjoy and rely on lists myself and what they must reveal about me. So I was inspired to make my own “list of lists” – sans my multiple shopping lists – and to make my own versions of many of Nina’s excellent lists:
1. Why Making Lists Keeps Me Sane
2. Why I Look Forward To The Women’s 100 Every Year
3. Multiple To-Do Lists (each with a strategic physical location in addition to electronic reminders): Multi-Week Personal To Do List, Today’s Personal To-Do List, Today’s Business Success (Aka Must-Do) List, Upcoming Personal/Family Appointments
4. Things I Didn’t Realize Were So Hard for Companies When I Was on the Investor Side
5. Things Companies Don’t Understand About the Investors That Vote Their Proxies
6. Ways My Acting School Training Helps Me In Business Every Day
7. What I Learned From Living In a Small Town, a Big City, the Woods & the Desert
8. Things I Do For My Job That Add Value (But Aren’t Billable)
9. What Working From Home Has Taught Me
10. Ways That Companies Inadvertently Offend Their Investors
11. 10 Things (Or More) I Accomplish Before 8:30 am Every Workday
12. Activities I Do/Should Be Doing Every Day To Counteract Too Much Sitting At a Desk
NASAA Proposes “Blue Sky” Updates
NASAA has proposed two rules that would make overdue updates to the ancient “manual exemption” – which is available for secondary resales when companies make certain information publicly available. The proposed rules would encourage states to:
1. Replace “S&P’s Corporation Records” with the OTC website as an information source for the manual exemption and
2. Provide an exemption for companies that have conducted a “Tier 2” Regulation A offering and are current in their ongoing reporting requirements
Is it just me, or do these changes seem overdue? The SEC adopted the Reg A+ changes over 3 years ago – and S&P discontinued their records service in 2016. You’d have thought something would have come along sooner. Comments are due by August 20th. Hat-tip to Latham’s Paul Dudek for bringing this to our attention.
Reduced Rates End Next Week: Our “Pay Ratio & Proxy Disclosure Conference”
There’s been a lot of buzz this year about voluntary exempt solicitations – increasingly, these notices are being used to publicize shareholder views on proposals and other topics. Broc blogged about John Chevedden’s first “Notice of Exempt Solicitation” in March – and earlier this week I noted on our “Proxy Season Blog” that it may become a year-round practice. Yesterday, Corp Fin issued two new Proxy Rules CDIs that confirm that voluntary exempt solicitations are okay – if it’s clear who is making the filing.
– Question 126.06 says that the Staff will not object to a voluntary submission of such a notice, provided that the written soliciting material is submitted under the cover of Notice of Exempt Solicitation as described in CDI 126.07 and such cover notice clearly states that the notice is being provided on a voluntary basis. Doing so will make it clear to investors the nature of the submission and that it is being made on behalf of a soliciting party who does not beneficially own more than $5 million of the class of subject securities.
– Question 126.07 says that the Rule 14a-103 information required by Rule 14a-6(g)(1) – e.g. the filer’s name & address – must be presented in an Edgar submission before the written soliciting materials, including any logo or other graphics used by the soliciting party. To the extent that the notice itself is being used as a means of solicitation, the failure to present the Rule 14a-103 information in this manner may, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances, be misleading within the meaning of Exchange Act Rule 14a-9. This requirement applies regardless of whether the filing is voluntary or to satisfy the requirements of Rule 14a-6(g)(1).
For more background & commentary, visit this Gibson Dunn blog. Here’s an excerpt:
While these new CDIs provide helpful guidance on the use of voluntary Notices of Exempt Solicitations, the CDIs may not go far enough to address potential abuses that increasingly are arising when the EDGAR system is used as a platform for disseminating a filer’s views. For example, C&DI Question 126.06 does not expressly require that the filer represent that it is in fact a shareholder.
Absent further guidance from or review and comment on such filings by the Staff, the process allows anyone with EDGAR codes to submit filings unrelated (or only tangentially related) to a proposal, or to set forth disparaging or inflammatory views, subject only to the Rule 14a-9 standard governing false and misleading statements. For example, John Chevedden, who as of July 31 has filed 21 of these filings in 2018, filed a Notice of Exempt Solicitation at Netflix a week after the company’s annual meeting, which contained only a vague and confusing voting recommendation at the very end, and instead was devoted largely to criticizing the company’s decision to hold a virtual annual meeting. However, the Staff has informally indicated that companies should contact them if they believe the PX14A6G process is being abused, and the new interpretations hopefully indicate that the Staff will be more proactive in reviewing and possibly commenting on such filings.
“Passive” Investors: Causing a Rise in Activism?
We’ve blogged a few times about the misnomer of “passive” investors. But whatever we call them, the capital flow to these firms continues to increase. And this “Rivel Research” study indicates that these firms are exercising more & more influence – particularly when it comes to engagement on corporate governance & executive pay. Some active managers aren’t happy about that, because they think their passive counterparts make uninformed decisions that adversely impact stocks that the active funds are mandated to hold.
So what’s an active manager to do? Maybe they write a 17-page client letter to say they’re still better at picking stocks, as described in this WSJ article. Maybe they call them communists. Or maybe, they move away from simply picking stocks and into the potentially more lucrative field of campaigning for stock-enhancing changes – which could also minimize the impact of the passive engagement that they find problematic. This WSJ article credits passive investing with the hot activist environment and increasing involvement of first-time activists.
For tips on communicating with “passive” investors (and active investors that bifurcate the engagement & voting teams), check out this article from Ron Schneider of Donnelley Financial Solutions. He points out that they’re more likely to rely on the proxy statement than IR blasts – so there’s an increasing benefit in providing voluntary proxy disclosure on things like strategy & ESG issues. And as Broc has blogged – it’s best to do this in a thoroughly-bookmarked online document.
Our August Eminders is Posted!
We’ve posted the August issue of our complimentary monthly email newsletter. Sign up today to receive it by simply inputting your email address!
Yesterday, the SEC announced that it will hold a “proxy process” roundtable this fall. The date & agenda are TBD – but Chair Clayton is asking Corp Fin to reconsider the voting process, retail shareholder participation, shareholder proposals, proxy advisors, technology & universal proxy cards.
This isn’t the first time the SEC has tackled “proxy plumbing.” It issued its first concept release on this topic back in 2010 (see our “Proxy Plumbing” Practice Area). That effort didn’t result in much rule-making – maybe the SEC’s initiatives will be less controversial this time.
ISS Policy Survey: Auditor & Director Track Records, Gender Diversity & More
Yesterday, ISS opened its “Annual Policy Survey” – like last year, it consists of two parts:
1. Governance Principles Survey – 10 questions on high-profile topics. This year’s questions relate to auditor independence & quality, audit committee evaluations, impact of past & present director track records at other companies, board gender diversity and the “one-share, one-vote” principle. This part of the survey will close on August 24th.
2. Policy Application Survey – More expansive portion that can be accessed at the end of the initial survey, allowing respondents to drill down on key issues by region. This part of the survey closes September 21st. According to this Weil blog, the key issues for the Americas region include excessive non-executive director compensation, independent chair proposals, share ownership requirements for binding bylaw amendments and pay-for-performance metrics.
As always, this is the first step for ISS as it formulates its 2019 voting policies. In addition to the two-part survey, ISS will gather input via regionally-based, topic-specific roundtables & calls and a comment period on the final proposed changes to the policies.
Company Prevails Over Disputed Advance Notice Bylaw
A recent advance notice bylaw dispute is a reminder that there’s usually room for interpretation. Check out the intro from Ning Chiu’s blog:
HomeStreet received a 133-page notice the day before the advance notice deadline in its bylaws, alerting the company that Blue Lion intended to nominate two directors and submit two proposals – seeking annual elections and a binding resolution for an independent chairman.
Less than a week later, the company announced that the notice was deficient – attaching a five-page letter to a Form 8-K that it sent to the shareholder. The letter stated that the notice provided by the shareholder failed to meet several of the bylaw’s disclosure requirements, including providing information related to the holder of shares that would be disclosed in a proxy statement governing a solicitation as well as deficiencies in the D&O questionnaires returned by the shareholders’ nominees. Since the deadline had passed, declared the company, the company intended to disregard the nominations and the proposals for the meeting.
As you might guess – Blue Lion didn’t just accept this and walk away. In their view, the notice materially complied with the bylaw. They responded in a 34-page letter – and they took it to court. In this instance, the company prevailed.
According to this Sidley blog, since HomeStreet’s bylaw had been in place since the company’s IPO & was previously-disclosed, the court found that the company hadn’t taken any defensive measures. So, it rejected the argument that Delaware’s “enhanced scrutiny” test should apply. Broc recently blogged about a New York case with a different outcome…
At its open meeting yesterday, the SEC voted to issue a 36-page concept release that seeks input on expanding and simplifying Form S-8 & Rule 701. Among other points, the release asks whether:
– Rule 701 & Form S-8 accommodations should extend to “gig economy” relationships – and what parameters should apply
– Form S-8 requirements should be revised to ease compliance issues that arise when plan sales exceed the number of shares registered
– The SEC should permit all of a company’s plans to be registered on a single registration statement
– Companies would benefit from a “pay-as-you-go” or periodic fee structure for Form S-8
– Rule 701 should be extended to reporting companies – eliminating the need for Form S-8
– The SEC should amend the disclosure content & timing requirements of Rule 701(e)
This blog from Cooley’s Cydney Posner notes that much of the discussion at the open meeting and in the concept release relates to whether or not liberalizing the equity compensation rules would create incentives for companies to “go public and stay public” (here’s Commissioner Stein’s statement and here’s Commissioner Peirce’s statement).
SEC Raises Rule 701 Disclosure Threshold
Yesterday, the SEC announced that it had unanimously approved an amendment to Rule 701(e). Non-reporting companies that issue equity compensation won’t have to provide financial statements, risk factors and other disclosures to participants until they’ve sold an aggregate of $10 million in securities during a 12-month period. Previously, that threshold was $5 million.
As John blogged a couple months ago, this amendment was a result of the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief & Consumer Protection Act.” The amendment will become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register – and companies that have already started an offering in the current 12-month period will be able to apply the new threshold.
House Passes “Jobs Act 3.0”
The “Jobs & Investor Confidence Act of 2018” has now passed the House – by a vote of 406-4 – according to this announcement from the House Financial Services Committee. Among other things, the 32 pieces of legislation that comprise the bill would:
– Require the SEC to analyze the costs & benefits of the use of Form 10-Q by emerging growth companies and consider the use of alternative formats for quarterly reporting for EGCs.
– Direct the SEC to consider amendments to Rule 10b5-1 that would, among other things: limit insiders’ ability to use overlapping plans, establish a mandatory delay between the adoption of the plan and execution of the first trade, limit the frequency of plan amendments, require companies and insiders to file plans and amendments with the SEC, and impose board oversight requirements.
– Require companies with multi-class share structures to make certain proxy statement disclosures about shareholders’ voting power.
– Allow emerging growth companies with less than $50 million average annual gross revenue to opt out of auditor attestation requirements beyond the typical 5-year period.
– Amend the definition of “accredited investor” to include people with education or job experience that would allow them to evaluate investments.
– Expand to all public companies the “testing the waters” and confidential submission process for registration statements in an IPO or a follow-on offering within one year of an IPO.
– Allow venture exchanges to register with the SEC, as a trading venue for small & emerging companies.
– Direct the SEC & FINRA to study the direct and indirect costs for small & medium-sized companies to undertake public offerings.
Here’s something I blogged yesterday on CompensationStandards.com: This Forbes op-ed notes that a few “pace-setting companies” now link executive bonuses to diversity objectives – and makes the case for more companies to follow suit. Here’s an excerpt:
If an objective is important, then the company should ensure (1) its employees know about it and (2) that their performance in meeting this goal will be measured along with the company’s other core values and targets. Fostering greater diversity and preventing harassment and discrimination is more than simply the right thing to do on a broader societal level. Indeed, a business case exists for these initiatives. According to research by McKinsey & Company, achieving these goals correlates with concrete financial improvement.
At Alphabet, a recent shareholder proposal to link executive pay to diversity received about 9% of the vote. The company’s statement in opposition (pg. 66) noted that the CEO receives a base salary of only $1 per year and isn’t paid based on performance – so it argued that a rule like this would have little impact. And at Nike, a similar proposal was withdrawn after the company agreed to meet quarterly to discuss diversity.
Restatements: 17-Year Low
Recently, Audit Analytics released its annual report on restatement trends: “2017 Financial Restatements: A Seventeen Year Comparison.” The aggregate number of restatements fell to 553 last year – the lowest in 17 years. The number of restatements was about 18% lower than in 2016 – and as we blogged at the time on “The Mentor Blog” – that was a previous low. Here’s an interesting detail from Cydney Posner’s blog (also see this Compliance Week article):
The review distinguishes between “reissuance restatements” (meaning that, as the title suggests, the financials are withdrawn and cannot be relied on—necessitating the filing of an 8-K — and new financials are issued) and “revision restatements” (where the errors are just corrected and explanatory notes included). It’s not hard to guess which type of restatement is preferred by most companies; not surprisingly, the report indicates that around 77% of restatements were of the “revision” persuasion. Reissuance restatements have declined each year for the past 10 years. The number of revision restatements has also declined. And 168 restatements had no impact on earnings.
FYI: Conference Hotel Nearly Sold Out
As always happens this time of year, our Conference Hotel – the San Diego Marriott Marquis – is nearly sold out. Reserve your room online or by calling 877.622.3056. Be sure to mention the NASPP conference or Executive Compensation Conference or Proxy Disclosure Conference. If you have any difficulty securing a room, please contact us at 925.685.9271.
This Locke Lord memo highlights that all 50 states now have data breach notification laws, and several states have recently amended their laws (including Delaware). Most states require companies to notify the state attorney general or regulator of a breach, in addition to the affected individuals – and a growing number outline how companies should handle data security. Meanwhile, This D&O Diary blog & NYT article discuss California’s new “GDPR-like” privacy law, to take effect in 2020 – which also heightens liability exposure for companies.
And for public companies, there’s a really important corollary to these laws, which often gets lost in the shuffle – information from state notices can find its way to the market even if you don’t file a Form 8-K. SEC Commissioner Robert Jackson has noted that this presents an arbitrage opportunity – and may weigh in favor of proactive, voluntary disclosure.
See our “Cybersecurity” Practice Area for the latest info – including this handy chart from Perkins Coie and this Cleary Gottlieb memo for key US & EU notice requirements. And as I previously blogged on “The Mentor Blog,” Reed Smith also has an app to help parse state law notice requirements…
Cybersecurity Committees: On the Rise
This Kral Ussery memo summarizes the growing trend of standalone cybersecurity committees. Although most companies still assign cybersecurity oversight to the audit committee due to that committee’s involvement with SEC disclosure, audit committees have growing workloads and cybersecurity is an increasingly demanding topic. The memo identifies ten companies that have standing cybersecurity committees – five of which were created in the last year.
Tomorrow’s Webcast: “Retaining Key Employees in a Deal”
Tune in tomorrow for the DealLawyers.com webcast – “Retaining Key Employees in a Deal” to hear Morgan Lewis’ Jeanie Cogill, Andrews Kurth Kenyon’s Tony Eppert, & Proskauer’s Josh Miller discuss the latest developments on compensation strategies to retain key employees in M&A transactions.
Tune in tomorrow for the webcast – “Insider Trading Policies & Rule 10b5-1 Plans” – to hear Weil Gotshal’s Howard Dicker, Hogan Lovells’ Alan Dye, Dorsey & Whitney’s Cam Hoang and Cooley’s Nancy Wojtas talk about the nuts & bolts – and the latest developments – for insider trading policies and Rule 10b5-1 plans. We recently updated our “Insider Trading Policies Handbook” – which includes a model policy.
2. Issuing a concept release on Rule 701 & Form S-8
3. Proposing changes to Rule 3-10 & Rule 3-16 of Regulation S-X (there was a request for comment on this back in 2015).
Jobs Act 3.0: Coming Soon?
According to this statement, the House Financial Services Committee has approved eight bills as part of “Jobs Act 3.0.” This Steve Quinlivan blog calls out that six of the bills were sponsored by Democrats – and it doesn’t sound like legislation will happen any time soon…
Yesterday, the SEC announced that it adopted amendments to expand the number of “smaller reporting companies” that qualify for scaled disclosure. Here’s the 105-page adopting release – and we’re posting memos in our “Smaller Reporting Companies” Practice Area (also see this blog from Cooley’s Cydney Posner & this blog from Dorsey’s Cam Hoang). These are the key points:
– Companies with a public float of less than $250 million will qualify as SRCs.
– A company with no public float or with a public float of less than $700 million will qualify as a SRC if it had annual revenues of less than $100 million during its most recently completed fiscal year.
– A company that determines that it does not qualify as a SRC under the above thresholds will remain unqualified until it determines that it meets one or more lower qualification thresholds. The subsequent qualification thresholds, set forth in the release, are set at 80% of the initial qualification thresholds.
– Rule 3-05(b)(2)(iv) of Regulation S-X is amended to increase the net revenue threshold in that rule from $50 million to $100 million, so that more companies may be able to omit dated financial statements of acquired businesses.
– The final amendments preserve the application of the current thresholds contained in the “accelerated filer” and “large accelerated filer” definitions in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2. As a result, companies with $75 million or more of public float that qualify as SRCs will remain subject to the requirements that apply to accelerated filers, including the timing of the filing of periodic reports and the requirement that accelerated filers provide the auditor’s attestation of management’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting required by Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
That last point was emphasized during the SEC’s open meeting (here’s Commissioner Stein’s Statement – and here’s Commissioner Piwowar’s Statement). Corp Fin has begun to formulate recommendations to the Commission for possible additional changes to the “accelerated filer” definition that, if adopted, would have the effect of reducing the number of companies that qualify as accelerated filers (and are subject to auditor attestation requirements). Some – but not all – believe this would promote capital formation by reducing compliance costs for those companies.
SEC Adopts Inline XBRL
Yesterday, with Commissioner Peirce dissenting, the SEC announced amendments to require the use of Inline XBRL for financial statement information. This means that companies will embed XBRL data directly into Edgar filings instead of posting separate files – and the new data will be readable by both humans & machines. The amendments also eliminate the requirements for companies to post XBRL data on their websites.
There’s no change to the categories of filers or scope of disclosures subject to XBRL requirements. Here’s the 143-page adopting release – also see this Cooley blog.
There’s a phase-in period to comply:
– Large accelerated filers that use U.S. GAAP will be required to comply beginning with fiscal periods ending on or after June 15, 2019.
– Accelerated filers that use U.S. GAAP will be required to comply beginning with fiscal periods ending on or after June 15, 2020.
– All other filers will be required to comply beginning with fiscal periods ending on or after June 15, 2021.
– Filers will be required to comply beginning with their first Form 10-Q filed for a fiscal period ending on or after the applicable compliance date.
SEC Proposes Changes to Whistleblower Program
In March, John blogged about the largest whistleblower award to-date – and noted that the SEC has awarded more than $262 million to 53 whistleblowers since the program’s inception in 2012.
Yesterday, the SEC proposed amendments to its whistleblower program. The amendments will allow awards based on deferred prosecution & non-prosecution agreements and clarify the requirements for anti-retaliation protection, among other things. There’s also a controversial proposal to cap award amounts. Here’s the SEC’s announcement & fact sheet. The comment period will remain open for 60 days following publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register.
