The inaugural post on Goodwin’s new Public Company Advisory Blog shares some helpful tools on navigating the legal and practical aspects of the earnings release process. This 18-page Earnings Release Compliance Guide provides an overview of the legal issues that companies need to keep in mind when preparing their earnings releases, as well as guidance on dealing with potential problem areas. For example, this excerpt addresses the use of KPIs:
– Review key performance measures/indicators (KPIs) for consistency across quarters and other disclosure documents.
– KPIs are used by management to manage or evaluate the performance of the business. Certain KPIs may not meet the definition of a non-GAAP financial measure and thus may not be subject to Regulation G or Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K. Nevertheless, you need to consider what additional information may be necessary to provide adequate context for an investor to understand the KPI metric presented. In this regard, the SEC generally expects the following disclosures to accompany any KPI metric:
– a clear definition of the metric and how it is calculated,
– a statement indicating the reasons why the metric provides useful information to investors, and
– a statement indicating how management uses the metric in managing or monitoring the performance of the business
This publication is accompanied by a 6-page Earnings Release Compliance Checklist that provides a bullet-point summary of many of the topics covered in more depth in the Guide.
This Woodruff Sawyer blog lays out 20 questions that a prospective director should ask before agreeing to join a corporate board. Each question is accompanied by an explanation of why it’s important. Here’s an example:
What skill sets are represented on the board?
A diversity of skills and experience among board members is one of the best ways to ensure that the board can address unexpected issues. Does the board you are considering have this? If everyone on a board has a similar background—everyone has a technical or finance background, for instance—the board is less likely to be able to proactively identify new risks or recognize innovative solutions and strategies.
Consider, too, the advantage of having at least one board member who has the skill set to be the director who will deal with difficult legal situations, such as an internal investigation or thorny litigation. A board that has no one capable of making independent legal judgments is a board that is at risk for blindly agreeing to do whatever outside counsel tells them to do.
I’ve previously blogged about some of the uncertainties involved in how to account for digital assets. In light of those uncertainties & Bitcoin’s volatility, it’s not surprising that companies with investments in Bitcoin or other digital assets might want to present non-GAAP financial data that backs out the impact of swings in the value of those assets on their financial results.
Yeah, well good luck with that, because the Corp Fin Staff apparently is having none of it. Here’s an excerpt from this Bloomberg Tax article detailing the back & forth between the Staff and MicroStrategy on that company’s unsuccessful efforts to back out Bitcoin from its non-GAAP income statement:
For the quarter ending Sept. 30, 2021, MicroStrategy reported a net loss of $36.1 million. Adding back in its share-based compensation expense and the impairment of its digital assets made the company’s unofficial, or non-GAAP, income flip to $18.6 million, its filing shows. MicroStrategy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The company told the SEC it used non-GAAP measures to give investors a fuller picture of its finances. If the company only showed declines in value, it would give “an incomplete assessment” of its Bitcoin holdings that would be “less meaningful to management or investors” in light of the company’s strategy to acquire and hold Bitcoin. “We further believe that the inclusion of bitcoin non-cash impairment losses may otherwise distract from our investors’ analysis of the operating results of our enterprise software analytics business,” the company wrote.
The SEC disagreed. In a letter dated Dec. 3, the market regulator told MicroStrategy it objected to the adjustment and told the company to remove it from future filings. In its Dec. 16 response, MicroStrategy said it would comply.
Speaking of Bitcoin, as a very bitter Cleveland Browns fan, I admit that this report brightened my day just a little.
On Friday, Corp Fin & IM announced that companies should no longer provide paper “courtesy copies” of filings unless the Staff requests them. This announcement is one of those things that really dates me – because I remember when what we called “courtesy packages” were absolutely de rigueur.
As I recall, there were always multiple courtesy packages for Securities Act filings – one for the legal reviewer, one for the accountant, and usually one for the branch chief – and they always included clean & marked copies of your filing, a copy of your comment response letter, and any new or revised exhibits.
Back in the paper filing days, you usually provided courtesy packages with each amendment to your registration statement in order to help expedite the review process. But in the days before Rule 430A*, they actually played a critical role in getting a registration statement declared effective before the market opened. That’s because you had to get the filing package into the reviewer’s hands as soon possible after you dropped the filing package off at the SEC file desk so that they could see the pricing information, verify any changes made in response to last minute comments, and declare your registration statement effective.
Over time, as the SEC moved from paper to electronic filings, I’d still offer to Fed Ex courtesy packages to the reviewer. The usual response was along the lines of “We aren’t supposed to ask for courtesy copies, but that would be really helpful.” Now, the Staff says you shouldn’t provide courtesy copies unless they ask for them. . . Jeez, am I really getting sentimental about courtesy packages! It sure looks like it.
*Yes, there really was a time before Rule 430A when you had to drop pricing information into a pre-effective amendment that you hand delivered to the SEC first thing in the morning on the day you wanted to start trading your IPO. But that was almost 35 years ago, which is why this particular old man called out William Butler Yeats – not Cormac McCarthy & the Coen Brothers – in the title of this blog.
The January – February issue of the Deal Lawyers newsletter was just posted and sent to the printer. Articles include:
– Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Advance Waiver of Statutory Appraisal Rights
– SPACs and the Implications for D&O Insurance
– Purchase Price Adjustments in Technology Deals
Remember that, as a “thank you” to those that subscribe to both DealLawyers.com & our Deal Lawyers 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 – 4th 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 newsletter, anyone who has access to DealLawyers.com will be able to gain access to the 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 newsletter including how to access the issues online.
As if you needed another sign that life isn’t “back to normal” quite yet, Corp Fin has once again updated its guidance for conducting shareholder meetings in light of COVID-19 concerns. The section on “presentation of shareholder proposals” now encourages issuers to continue to provide shareholder proponents or their representatives with the ability to present their proposals through alternative means, such as by phone, during the 2022 proxy season.
We blogged about the original guidance way back in March 2020, as well as updates that the Staff made in April 2020. The guidance was also updated last year in regards to the 2021 proxy season. It would have been great to share this new update with my blog yesterday on annual meeting formats, but oddly Corp Fin’s announcement didn’t arrive in our inboxes until mid-morning yesterday. Based on the poll I ran yesterday, it’s looking like many meetings will continue to be “virtual only” this year – but don’t rule out the outdoor “foam party” option, which is making a strong showing of 7% of votes (more than hybrid!).
The NYSE has sent its “annual compliance guide” to listed companies to remind them of their obligations on a variety of topics and summarize developments since last year. The letter points out these two changes:
On April 2, 2021, the SEC approved changes to the NYSE’s shareholder approval rules. The changes eliminated related party limitations and bona fide private financing requirements in Listed Company Manual Section 312.03 for market price cash transactions. (Approval Order Amendment No. 1 to Sections 312.03 and 312.04) The related party transaction rules in Section 314.00 were also clarified in connection with this and a subsequent amendment on August 26, 2021. (Approval Order Amendment to Section 314.00)
On November 19, 2021, the SEC approved changes to NYSE’s policy on how abstentions are treated in votes cast on matters requiring shareholder approval. Issuers now must calculate the votes cast in accordance with their own governing documents and any applicable state law. (Approval OrderAmendment to Section 312.07)
The NYSE’s annual letter is a good resource to have on hand – all the NYSE email and telephone number contact information is provided and the letter explains when and how listed companies should contact the exchange for various matters. For links to NYSE resources, as well as memos & analysis on NYSE compliance issues, visit our “NYSE Guidance” Practice Area.
This is something that won’t come around again: Bonhams announced that it is running a “single owner” online auction for items from the personal library of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, which runs until Thursday, January 27th. Here’s the full catalogue. Highlights include:
• Ginsburg’s personal copy of the 1957-58 Harvard Law Review, the year that she was a member, heavily annotated by her. Estimate: $2,500 – 3,500.
• Ginsburg’s personal copies of the Reports on the 1978 Equal Rights Amendment Extension Hearings before the House and Senate subcommittees. Estimate: $600 – 900.
• Offprints of Ginsburg’s own articles, including “Women in the Federal Judiciary” (1995), inscribed by Ginsburg to Senator Nancy Kassebaum. Estimate: $800 – 1200. A Sandra Day O’Connor legal article “They Often Are Half Obscure: The Rights of the Individual and the Legacy of Oliver Wendell Holmes” (1992), a presentation copy from the Justice to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just days before her nomination, and subsequently quoted from in her nomination acceptance speech. Estimate: $800 – 1200.
• Toni Morrison’s Beloved inscribed by the author to Ruth and Martin Ginsburg. Estimate: $300 – 500.
• Books relating to important cases adjudicated by Ginsburg, including Citizens United (Estimate: $200 -300), Bush v. Gore (Estimate: $400 – 600), and Lilly Ledbetter’s fair pay lawsuit (Estimate: $250 – 350), all inscribed to Ginsburg. A deluxe copy of Antonin Scalia’s Reading Law, warmly inscribed to Ginsburg. Estimate: $600 – 900.
• Ginsburg’s copy of her book, My Own Words, with her personal bookplate. Estimate: $1000 – 2000.
Here’s another write-up about the auction from “The Art Newspaper” that includes a pic of the inside cover page of the first edition of Gloria Steinem’s My Life on the Road, inscribed “To Dearest Ruth” and signed by Steinem. The pic is the closest I’ll ever get to seeing that inscription, but it could be yours for the right price. Hat-tip to Cooley’s Cydney Posner (self-declared “auction junkie”) for alerting us all to this very unique opportunity!
State Street Global Advisors announced on Wednesday of this week that President & CEO Cyrus Taraporevala, age 54, is planning to retire later this year. He’ll remain in his role through the completion of the search for his successor and the transition process.
The announcement came only one week after Taraporevala sent SSGA’s annual letter to portfolio companies that set forth 2022 priorities. This Bloomberg article says that State Street CEO Ron O’Hanley does not expect any broad strategic change in connection with this change to SSGA leadership.
SSGA’s investment management pre-tax earnings grew by 67% during Taraporevala’s tenure. Its assets under management are up to $4.1 trillion, a nearly 50% increase from when Taraporevala was appointed SSGA’s President & CEO in late 2017.
Several in-house people I’ve spoken with have said that having to plan a hybrid annual shareholder meeting would be the “worst of both worlds.” This format requires planning two simultaneous events and fretting about both in-person and technical mishaps. At the same time, some shareholders have grown to enjoy the easier attendance format for virtual meetings – while others still prefer the option of in-person interaction with directors. Some state corporate laws also require companies to conduct meetings in person, versus virtual-only.
There are signs that the meeting format is going to be a point of contention. A few months ago, I blogged on our members-only “Proxy Season Blog” that a majority of the voting power at Cracker Barrel had approved a shareholder proposal requesting the company to ensure it would hold its annual meeting in whole or in part through virtual means. This was after Corp Fin denied no-action relief to exclude the proposal on the basis of “ordinary business” in light of public health issues and technological advancements.
Now, as I mentioned earlier this week, Vanguard has added a section to its 2022 voting policies to address its stance on the topic. Here’s more detail – from page 18:
Hybrid/virtual meetings. A fund will generally support proposals seeking to conduct “hybrid” meetings (in which shareholders can attend a meeting of the company in person or elect to participate online). A fund may vote for proposals to conduct “virtual-only” meetings (held entirely through online participation with no corresponding physical meeting). To date, data show that virtual meetings can be an effective way to increase shareholder participation and reduce costs. Virtual meetings should not curtail rights — e.g., by limiting the ability for shareholders to ask questions. A fund will consider support if:
– Meeting procedures and requirements are disclosed ahead of a meeting;
– A formal process is in place to allow shareholders to submit questions to the board;
– Real-time video footage is available and attendees can call into the meeting or send a recorded message; and
– Shareholder rights are not unreasonably curtailed.
Vanguard’s move suggests that it anticipates more proposals on this topic, although it doesn’t specifically say that this policy is limited to proposals from shareholders. The conditions for support are factors that appear to be under management’s control.
