If you’re a trend chaser, forget about canned booze or intermittent fasting – all the cool kids are now getting their own stock exchange. This Axios article discusses The Members Exchange, or MEMX, which is backed by the likes of Goldman Sachs, BofA & Morgan Stanley. It’s expected to go live this summer & compete with the NYSE and Nasdaq based on lower fees.
Meanwhile, not to be outdone by Wall Street’s brahmins, Silicon Valley bigwigs are backing the Long Term Stock Exchange, or LTSE. We’ve blogged about this one before, but according to this Marker article, the LTSE’s backers include Andreessen Horowitz, Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, & AOL founder Steve Case. CEO Eric Ries & his backers have big ambitions for the exchange:
When it launches — sometime late in the first quarter of this year, Ries hopes — the LTSE will be the 14th U.S. exchange registered for trading securities, but only the third active exchange that is approved for both trading and listing of public companies. That means, instead of IPO’ing on the NYSE or Nasdaq, companies will now have the option of listing shares, aka “going public,” on the LTSE.
DFS: New York’s New Regulatory King Kong?
Armed with the formidable Martin Act, the NY Attorney General’s office has long been one the most powerful state regulators in the country – but this WilmerHale memo says that if legislation introduced by NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo is enacted, the AG won’t be The Empire State’s only regulatory colossus:
In legislative language accompanying his proposed budget, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo proposes to significantly expand the powers of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS), the state’s banking and insurance regulator. The Governor’s proposal would enlarge the department’s mission beyond banking and insurance oversight, transforming DFS into perhaps the most powerful state regulator in the nation, with new and broad jurisdiction and substantial enforcement powers over consumer products and services, business to business arrangements, and securities and investment advice.
Though significant in its scope, the Cuomo proposal is in many respects unsurprising. The Governor created DFS in 2011 upon merging the state’s Banking Department and Insurance Department; he initially sought to give DFS powers under the Martin Act, the state’s broad “blue sky” securities statute, but the Legislature declined to do so. Governor Cuomo has, however, expanded DFS’s jurisdiction in other ways in the years since its creation, including by granting it powers to police the state’s student loan servicing industry.
Among other things, the proposal would amend New York’s Financial Services Law to add securities to the definition of “financial product or service” and give DFS the power to regulate the provision of investment advice. As a result, the memo says that the proposal would effectively make DFS another securities regulator. There are a number of other provisions that would enhance DFS’s power to protect consumers, and would also grant DFS jurisdiction over fraud or misconduct in business-to-business transactions.
Lease Accounting Impact: Holy Cow!
We’ve blogged several times in recent years about the implementation of the new FASB lease accounting standard. Now that the standard’s in place for public companies, a recent article from “Accounting Today” says that the balance sheet impact has been staggering:
The new lease accounting standard caused lease liabilities for the average company to increase a whopping 1,475%, skyrocketing from $4.4 million before the transition to $68.9 million post transition, as operating leases were recorded on the balance sheet for the first time, according to a new study.
The study, from the lease accounting software provider LeaseQuery, analyzed more than 400 companies in its customer base and found that the increase was particularly striking in certain industries, such as financial services, where the amount of the average lease liability increased 6,070%. Similarly, in the health care industry, average lease liability liabilities went up 1,817 %, in the restaurant industry 1,743%, in the energy industry 1,542%, in retail 1,012%, and in manufacturing 495%.
Not surprisingly, the article says that companies found the transition to the new standard more difficult and more time consuming than they initially thought. Feedback from public companies prompted FASB to delay the new standard’s application to private companies in order to give them an extra year to get their act together.
With everybody’s 401(k) plan smarting from the stock market’s belated realization that the coronavirus epidemic was actually a thing, this Nelson Mullins memo seems particularly timely. It takes a deep dive into the potential disclosure issues that the ongoing outbreak may raise for public companies. As this excerpt demonstrates, the memo is a great resource for issue spotting:
The impact of CV may have repercussions on a number of disclosure areas, including liquidity and capital resources, sources and uses of funds, gross and net revenues in the short, medium and long term, and other economic and noneconomic, personal and ESG considerations. Enhanced or additional risk factor disclosure related to CV pursuant to Regulation S-K Item 105 may be needed if it is or becomes one of the most significant factors that make an investment in the company or any offering speculative or risky.
Since SEC disclosure is increasingly principles-based, even if there is not a rule specifically dealing with a situation that a company may find itself in related to CV, the principles of full and fair disclosure apply. Companies should be mindful that their planning for uncertainties that may arise as a result of CV and their response to events as they unfold may be material to an investment decision, and should plan accordingly.
Consider other situations where disclosure of material nonpublic information may be necessary, such as if senior management or boards become impaired and are unable to serve or whether a “material adverse change” in “prospects” has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur. Business interruption insurance policies may be triggered. “Act of God” provisions may be applicable. Contract disputes may occur over CV related matters. Professionals should review and update insider trading policies, blackout periods and trading activity monitoring in light of new information related to CV.
As if that wasn’t enough, the memo also addresses a variety of other legal issues that may arise as a result of the outbreak, including potential labor and employment law, privacy, and even cybersecurity considerations.
Coronavirus: Implications for Contracts
It really is difficult to get your arms around the sweeping legal & business implications of the coronavirus epidemic. This Cleary Gottlieb memo picks up on one of the topics alluded to in the Nelson Mullins memo – the potential inability of companies to perform their contractual obligations due to the impact of the epidemic on supply chains. This excerpt addresses the potential availability of the “force majeure” clause to provide relief from contractual liability:
Force majeure clauses seek to define circumstances beyond the parties’ control which can render performance of a contract substantially more onerous or impossible, and which may suspend, defer or release the duty to perform without liability. They can take a variety of forms but most list a number of specific events (as well as more general ‘catchall’ wording to make clear the preceding list is not exhaustive) which may constitute a “Force Majeure Event” and excuse or delay performance, or permit the cancellation of the contract.
Matters such as war, riots, invasion, famine, civil commotion, extreme weather, floods, strikes, fire, and government action (i.e. serious intervening events that are outside the control of ordinary commercial counterparties) are typically included within the scope of Force Majeure Events.
The memo reviews how courts in the U.K., the U.S. & France have interpreted these clauses, and also discusses how common law doctrines of frustration and impossibility of performance may come into play in situations involving U.K. or U.S. contracts. It also touches on the right of parties to contracts entered into after October 1, 2016 under French civil law right to renegotiate those contracts based on a change in circumstances.
EU Blacklists The Cayman Islands & My Wife’s Book Club Gets Skunked
All this coronavirus stuff has made this morning’s blog pretty depressing, so I want to close on a lighter note. My wife is part of a neighborhood book club. Last week, it was hosted by a woman who lives across the street. At one point in the evening, she let one of the family dogs – “Hank” – outside. Hank is a very good boy, but he’s about as smart as you’d think a dog named Hank might be. So, he quickly ended up on the losing end of an encounter with a skunk.
Being a dog, Hank promptly retreated back into the house, whereupon he shared his “Eau de Pepe le Pew” with all the book club members in attendance. Regrettably, all of those women, including my beloved, returned home to their spouses reeking of skunk. As the neighborhood Facebook page lit up with late night tips on how to launder skunk out of clothing, it dawned on me that I live in a sitcom.
It’s at times like these when I fantasize of escaping from my suburban Ohio sitcom life – this week’s episode written & directed by Larry David – to an exotic location like The Cayman Islands. So, it kind of bummed me out to learn that according to this Debevoise memo, the EU just added my fantasy island to its “tax blacklist.” The memo discusses the implications of this action, which are most relevant for investment funds.
Okay, so that’s probably not real relevant to most of you, but I was just looking for an excuse to tell you about the skunking of the Wyndgate Farms book club. Have a good day, everybody!
Well, it didn’t take long for the Division of Enforcement to focus everybody’s attention on the SEC’s recent guidance on the use of key performance indicators in MD&A, did it? This Fried Frank memo focuses on how that guidance may influence the use of ESG metrics in MD&A. While the guidance itself only references ESG metrics in a footnote, this excerpt says that what it had to say about them is consistent with recommendations of some well-known sustainability frameworks:
Although the Metrics Guidance is largely silent with respect to ESG metrics as a specific category, it does note that some companies “voluntarily disclose environmental metrics, including metrics regarding the observed effect of prior events on their operations.” In a footnote, the Metrics Guidance provides examples of metrics to which the guidance is intended to apply, which include a number of ESG metrics, such as total energy consumed, percentage breakdown of workforce, voluntary and/or involuntary employee turnover rate and data security breaches.
While the Metrics Guidance addresses ESG metrics only via footnote, it is consistent with the recommendations in certain voluntary sustainability frameworks that require both qualitative and quantitative disclosure associated with ESG metrics. For example, SASB’s Conceptual Framework notes that sustainability metrics should be accompanied by “a narrative description of any material factors necessary to ensure completeness, accuracy, and comparability of the data reported.”
In addition, the TCFD recommendations note that reporting companies should provide metrics on climate-related risks for historical periods to allow for trend analysis and, where not apparent, should provide a description of the methodologies used to calculate the climate metrics. Similarly, both SASB and TCFD emphasize the importance of having effective disclosure controls and governance, as well as verifying ESG data (by third-party auditors, if possible).
As the memo also points out, many companies have been criticized by stakeholders for using ESG metrics that aren’t “easily comparable, decision-useful, and verifiable.” The new guidance on MD&A key performance indicators heightens the stakes for these ESG disclosures, and companies that don’t respond appropriately may face a bigger downside than complaints about “greenwashing.”
ESG: Building Value Through Good Disclosure
This Latham memo says that companies have an opportunity to build value through their ESG initiatives & disclosure. The memo says that clear and transparent ESG disclosures can “build trust and demonstrate the company’s thoughtful management of ESG risks and opportunities.” This excerpt offers some specific suggestions for preparing ESG disclosures:
– Companies should take steps to ensure the consistency of disclosures in financial and sustainability reports.
– Even if information is included in the sustainability report, ESG information should be included in financial reports if material and called for by the regulations underpinning the disclosure documents.
– Information disclosed in sustainability reports is subject to the antifraud provisions of the securities laws even if not filed with the SEC. The information in companies’ sustainability reports should be scrutinized and verified to ensure its accuracy and completeness as if it were filed with the SEC.
– Companies should explain the importance of the ESG factors in their disclosures to help the reader to understand why the information is meaningful to the company and how it fits within the company’s strategy.
In today’s environment, I don’t think companies that want to address their ESG performance have any alternative to real transparency. The audience for ESG disclosures is increasingly sophisticated & extremely skeptical, so the historically preferred alternative of having the marketing department “put lipstick on the pig” when it comes to describing corporate ESG performance is likely to get you clobbered.
Transcript: “Conflict Minerals – Tackling Your Next Form SD”
We have posted the transcript for our recent webcast: “Conflict Minerals – Tackling Your Next Form SD.”
It’s hard to know for sure whether astroturfing is part of the SEC comment letter process. Last fall, John blogged about the flurry of comment letters received at the SEC on the S-K Modernization Proposal and the potential that some would assert this resulted from an astroturf campaign. And Broc blogged last fall about the “fishy” comment letters submitted to the SEC ahead of its proposed rulemaking on proxy advisors.
Congressional leaders are apparently taking the notion of astroturfing seriously and a recent blog from Jim Hamilton summarizes a hearing held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Financial Services Committee on alleged astroturfing of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) process for submitting comment letters on agency rulemaking – and as a reason for the hearing, the subcommittee cited reports of astroturfing relating to proposals by several agencies, one being the SEC.
Jim Hamilton’s blog provides an interesting read of the back and forth testimony about possible solutions to concerns about astroturfing. Here’s an excerpt:
Beth Simone Noveck, a professor from New York University, testified that the notice and comment period on proposed federal regulations is sometimes referred to as the “notice and spam” period due to the volume of duplicate comment letters agencies receive. She recommended that the agencies use readily available tools to address voluminous, duplicative, and fake comments. These include machine learning to summarize voluminous comments, “de-duplication” software to remove identical comments, and filtering software to sift out “the real and the relevant.”
Others, including Steven Balla, a professor from George Washington University, and Ranking Member Barr recommended Congress focus its attention on fake comment letters not mass comments.
Ranking Member Barr questioned whether the APA should be amended to standardize the comment letter collection process as it currently allows agencies discretion for determining how they collect and post comment letters. A GAO representative noted that a 2019 GAO study recommended certain agencies clearly disclose how they post comments and associated identity information, including the SEC, and the SEC has implemented these recommendations. The SEC issued a memorandum reflecting the SEC’s internal policies for posting duplicate comments and associated identity information and added a disclaimer on the SEC’s main comment posting page.
Possible solutions aside, it doesn’t sound like the Subcommittee settled on any immediate actions and it’s unclear if there are any next steps.
SEC Extends Comment Period for NYSE Direct Listing Proposal
In December, we were tracking the NYSE Direct Listing proposal, which the SEC rejected soon after the exchange submitted it, and then right on the heels of the rejection, the exchange submitted a revised proposal. Since then, nothing but crickets…until last week, likely because the comment period was set to expire. Last Thursday, the SEC issued this notice extending the comment period for the revised proposal, which will now close on March 29th. The notice says the SEC received 8 letters with comments and it needs more time to consider the proposed rule and comments.
Might be early to jump to conclusions but judging solely on the low count of comments so far, it doesn’t sound like astroturfing is going on here.
January-February Issue of “The Corporate Counsel”
We recently mailed the January-February issue of “The Corporate Counsel” print newsletter (try a no-risk trial). The topics include:
1. Annual Season Items
– Time for a Risk Factor Tune-Up?
– Getting Back to Basics
– Rooting Out Hypothetical Risk Factor Disclosure
– Brexit – What’s Next?
– LIBOR Transition
– IP and Technology Risks Associated with International Business Operations
– Tariffs and Trade
– World Health Concerns
– Data Privacy
2. Omitting Third Year Comparisons from MD&A: The Staff Weighs In
3. More on MD&A: The Commission’s Interpretive Release on KPIs and Metrics
4. A Brave New World for Confidential Treatment: Asking for Forgiveness Instead of Permission
– A New Streamlined Confidential Treatment Process Dawns
– Self-Executing Rules
– Staff Review of Exhibits
– New Streamlined Extension Confidential Treatment Request Procedures
– Enter the Supremes: The Impact of Argus Leader
– The SEC’s New Confidential Treatment Request Guidance
It looks like the SEC didn’t waste much time in finding its big company poster child for key performance indicators (KPI). Yesterday, the SEC issued a press release announcing an enforcement proceeding where it brought charges against Diageo plc for disclosure failures. The enforcement proceeding is right on the heels of the SEC’s KPI interpretive release that John blogged about just a couple of weeks ago. Here’s the crux of what the SEC had to say:
According to the SEC’s order, employees at Diageo North America (DNA), Diageo’s largest and most profitable subsidiary, pressured distributors to buy products in excess of demand in order to meet internal sales targets in the face of declining market conditions. The resulting increase in shipments enabled Diageo to meet performance targets and to report higher growth in key performance indicators that were closely followed by investors and analysts. The order finds that Diageo failed to disclose the trends that resulted from shipping products in excess of demand, the positive impact the overshipping had on sales and profits, and the negative impact that the unnecessary increase in inventory would have on future growth. The order further finds that investors were instead left with the misleading impression that Diageo and DNA were able to achieve growth in certain key performance indicators through normal customer demand for Diageo’s products.
Without admitting or denying the findings in the SEC’s order, Diageo agreed to cease and desist from further violations and to pay a $5 million penalty.
You can find memos about the SEC’s KPI interpretive release posted in our “MD&A” Practice Area.
SEC Public Statement on Coronavirus
Yesterday, the SEC issued a public statement on the effects of the coronavirus on financial reporting. In late January, John blogged about Chairman’s Clayton’s statement addressing disclosure implications from the coronavirus outbreak.
Yesterday’s statement said SEC Chairman Clayton, Corp Fin Director Hinman, SEC Chief Accountant Teotia and PCAOB Chairman Duhnke met with the leaders from the Big 4 audit firms to continue discussions around difficulties in conducting audits in China and other emerging markets. In these discussions, they also discussed the “potential exposure of companies to the effects of the coronavirus and the impact that exposure could have on financial disclosures and audit quality, including, for example, audit firm access to information and company personnel.” Here’s an excerpt from the SEC’s statement:
The coronavirus effects on any particular company may be difficult to assess or predict, because actual effects may depend on factors beyond the control and knowledge of issuers. However, how issuers plan and respond to the events as they unfold can be material to an investment decision, and we urge issuers to work with their audit committees and auditors to ensure that their financial reporting, auditing and review processes are as robust as practicable in light of the circumstances in meeting the applicable requirements.
Specifically, we emphasized: (1) the need to consider potential disclosure of subsequent events in the notes to the financial statements in accordance with guidance included in Accounting Standards Codification 855, Subsequent Eventsand (2) our general policy to grant appropriate relief from filing deadlines in situations where, in light of circumstances beyond the control of the issuer, filings cannot be completed on time with appropriate review and attention. In addition, if issuers have questions regarding the reporting of matters related to the potential effects of the coronavirus, including potential subsequent event disclosure, we welcome engagement on these matters.
The SEC’s statement says that companies are encouraged to contact the SEC regarding any need for relief or guidance.
PCAOB Conversations with Audit Committee Chairs
The PCAOB recently issued a report that summarizes information gathered from conversations with nearly 400 audit committee chairs. The conversations were primarily focused on audit quality and provide insight on a variety of topics including audit committee perspectives of the auditor, new auditing and accounting standards and technology and innovation. Here’s an excerpt about what audit committees are saying works well:
– Reviewing other audit firms’ inspections reports to see if there are any lessons learned or questions about potentially similar issues that could be discussed with your auditor
– Conducting an assessment – on at least an annual basis – of the engagement team and audit, including discussions around what went well and what could be improved
– Using outside consultants or experts to educate the audit committee on new or complex accounting standards
The report also provides an overview of PCAOB 2019 inspections and touches on how the PCAOB selects audits for inspection, what an inspection entails and what happens when a deficiency is identified.
Responding to SEC comment letters can be tricky, so it’s always nice to read tips from Corp Fin on how to make the response process more efficient. This Deloitte memo summarizes Staff comments at a recent AICPA conference, which were aimed at helping companies respond to comment letters. Here’s an excerpt:
– Provide the Staff with contact e-mail addresses for the responding company and its outside counsel
– Before providing courtesy paper copies, ask the reviewer if copies are needed or will be used.
– Clearly and directly address the issues raised in the comments.
– Share views on materiality with the Staff early in the process to increase overall efficiency
– Don’t assume that the SEC has accepted an item solely because it has been reported similarly in another company’s filing
– When calling the Staff with an interpretive or procedural question, don’t assume that the Staff has all the facts. Responding companies should do the appropriate research, provide sufficient background information, and present an analysis that points to relevant authoritative literature
– Communicate the intended use of novel transactions up front
– Call the Staff to discuss or get clarification on a Staff comment
Also, don’t forget that members have access to our Handbook on the “SEC Comment Letter Process” – a 39-page guide to help you through responses.
Change to Nasdaq Definition of “Family Member” Approved
Last week, the SEC issued an order granting accelerated approval of Nasdaq’s amended proposal to change the definition of a “family member” for purposes of determining director independence under Nasdaq’s Listing Rules. Under the new definition:
“Family Member” for purposes of determining whether a director is independent under Nasdaq Rule 5605(a)(2) means a person’s spouse, parents, children, siblings, mothers and fathers-in-law, sons and daughters-in-law, brothers and sisters-in-law, and anyone (other than domestic employees) who shares such person’s home. As stated by Nasdaq, the purpose of the proposed rule change is to exclude domestic employees who share the director’s home, and stepchildren who do not share the director’s home, from the types of relationships that always preclude a finding that a director is independent.
This Cooley blog from Cydney Posner discusses more of the details as the new definition leaves the board to determine whether stepchildren not residing at home with the director still have a relationship with the director that could interfere with the director’s exercise of independent judgment.
More on “Cyber Response Plan Testing”
Yesterday, I blogged about the importance of testing a cyber response plan. Another great planning tool is reviewing and analyzing a real life example of how another company handled disclosure and response to a data breach.
Thanks to Jay Knight at Bass, Berry & Sims for sending along this blog that does just that – it walks through Chegg, Inc.’s disclosure and response to a 2018 data incident. The blog includes the back and forth between Chegg, Inc. and Corp Fin as they worked through the comment letter process. It’s a quick, helpful read – topics covered in the exchange between Chegg, Inc. and Corp Fin include:
When it comes to “cyber response plans,” the planning stage is a lot more useful if it’s actually been tested. A blog discussing the recently issued SEC OCIE Cybersecurity and Resiliency Observations says if you’re not practicing what to do when you experience a cyber attack, you’re not being realistic about your chances of effectively responding to it.
Although the SEC OCIE observations are primarily directed toward broker-dealers and investment advisors, the recommendations seem worthwhile for any company, one being testing and monitoring:
Establishing comprehensive testing and monitoring to validate the effectiveness of cybersecurity policies and procedures on a regular and frequent basis. Testing and monitoring can be informed based on cyber threat intelligence.
It also recommends testing the incident response plan and potential recovery times, using a variety of methods including tabletop exercises. If an incident occurs, implement the plan and assess the response after the incident to determine whether any changes are necessary.
This recent blog from McGuireWoods is helpful because it summarizes how to run an effective tabletop exercise to test your response plan. Here’s a few recommendations:
– Objectives – set ground rules for the exercise, who speaks first, is there a budget for the response, level of detail to be provided, determine the focus of the exercise – detection, containment, etc.
– Evaluation – think about how to evaluate the exercise, identify a note-taker during the exercise, detail the evaluation process
– Full participation – ensure key participants coordinated their responses, ensure contractual partners are included, determine who has authority to resolve disagreements
– An experienced facilitator – bringing in an experienced facilitator can help ensure all areas have a voice and that the exercise stays on track so the result is measurable
Tips for Improving Data Privacy Provisions
Besides testing your cyber response plan, another thing to consider is the data privacy provision in contracts. I recently came across this memo in CFO.com that provides 8 tips for improving data privacy provisions in contracts. Most of us can think of a few service provider arrangements at our companies that we know house sensitive customer or employee data. The last thing we want is for that service provider to experience a data breach and soon we are pulled into the crisis with them.
Improving data privacy provisions of these contracts can boost risk management efforts – here’s an excerpt from the memo with some of the tips:
– Synch the indemnification and limited liability provisions – no need to have a great indemnification provision if it’s all wiped away by a limited liability provision that says the vendor’s liability is limited to some small dollar amount
– Avoid early termination fees – especially important if you’ve already been working with the vendor in certain capacities, early termination as a result of a data breach seems reasonable and it’s hard to see what costs the vendor would have a right to recover
– Vendor should agree to comply with all applicable data privacy and security laws – with rapidly changing laws, the vendor may not want to do so but stressing that you don’t accept carve outs for this is necessary – how do you explain to the board that you have a vendor that doesn’t agree to abide by all applicable laws?
Tomorrow’s Webcast: “Audit Committees in Action – The Latest Developments”
Tune in tomorrow for the webcast – “Audit Committees in Action: The Latest Developments” – to hear Deloitte’s Consuelo Hitchcock, EY’s Josh Jones and Gibson Dunn’s Mike Scanlon discuss recent SEC, FASB & PCAOB guidance impacting audit committees, evolving practices for audit committee charters, agendas and meetings and how the audit committee should manage its relationship with the independent auditor.
Last month, I blogged about the first 10-K filing to include a coronavirus risk factor. As concerns about the virus’s economic impact have continued to grow, a total of 26 companies have included a risk factor or, in some cases, MD&A disclosure about the virus in their 10-K filings. This Audit Analytics blog reviews those disclosures. Here’s an excerpt:
While the economic effects of the Wuhan coronavirus are still unknown, it makes sense that the majority of references to the disease have been included in the Risk Factors section of a company’s 10-K. Most of the language seen thus far discusses the uncertainty of the disease’s effects on global macroeconomic conditions, production capabilities, and decreases in international travel; this is similar language used surrounding other risk factors such as political unrest, natural disasters, and terrorism.
However, some companies have discussed the impact of the coronavirus in the Management’s Discussion & Analysis (MD&A) section of the 10-K, indicating that some companies expect to experience significant effects. For example, Carnival Corp [CCL] disclosed in their MD&A that the travel restrictions as a result of the outbreak could have a material impact on financial performance:
Fiscal Year 2020 Coronavirus Risk
In response to the ongoing coronavirus outbreak, China has implemented travel restrictions. As a result, we have suspended cruise operations from Chinese ports between January 25th and February 4th, canceling nine cruises. We also expect that travel restrictions will result in cancellations from Chinese fly-cruise guests booked on cruises embarking in ports outside China… If the travel restrictions in China continue until the end of February, we estimate that this will further impact our financial performance by an additional $0.05 to $0.06 per share… If these travel restrictions continue for an extended period of time, they could have a material impact on our financial performance.
Other companies that have mentioned coronavirus in the MD&A section include Mondelez International, Inc. [MDLZ], Mettler-Toledo International, Inc. [MTD], and Las Vegas Sands Corp. [LVS].
If you’re looking for disclosure precedent (who isn’t?), the blog names all 26 companies that have included 10-K disclosure about the coronavirus to date. And to demonstrate that there’s nothing new under the sun, the blog also includes a chart with the number of companies that included 10-K disclosure about other recent international public health emergencies.
Board Recruitment: Want Diverse Candidates? Climb Down the Org Chart
This Bloomberg BusinessWeek article says that companies looking to enhance the gender diversity of their boards would be wise to look further down the org chart than has traditionally been the case when looking for potential directors. That’s because while many big companies are reining in CEO participation in outside boards, some are actively encouraging less senior execs to obtain board positions:
Outside corporate board gigs are a classic perk of being a chief executive officer. The side jobs offer extra pay, as well as a way to network—perhaps for the next big job. But all those top bosses filling up directors’ seats has a predictable effect. Since CEOs are an overwhelmingly white, male bunch, they tend to reinforce the lack of diversity on corporate boards.
That makes a push by Marriott International Inc. to get lower-level executives to join boards a bigger deal than it might seem. CEO Arne Sorenson says his aim is to give the hotel company’s rising stars valuable experience. Incidentally, though, of the five who have found board positions, three are women and one is a black man. The same trend is showing up at other large U.S. companies. Among the 10 companies with the most employees serving on other boards, the executives with directorships are overwhelmingly women or people of color, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
The article points out that while Marriott’s effort to promote board participation doesn’t have a diversity goal, executives who aren’t white males are more in demand for board slots.
Transcript: “Cybersecurity Due Diligence in M&A”
We have posted the transcript for our recent DealLawyers.com webcast: “Cybersecurity Due Diligence in M&A.”
A recent paper from Stanford’s Rock Center notes that while most insider trading policies are designed to prevent violations of law, companies need to ask whether their existing insider trading policies need to cover more ground in order to be consistent with good governance practices. Here’s an excerpt:
Despite procedures designed to ensure compliance with applicable rules, news media and the public tend to be suspicious of large-scale executive stock sales.7 This is particularly the case when a sale occurs prior to significant negative news that drives down the stock price.
Public suspicion is exacerbated by inconsistent and nontransparent corporate practices—such as, lack of communication around why the sale was made, whether the general counsel approved the trade in advance, and whether the trade was the result of a 10b5-1 plan—and differing opinions about what constitutes “material” nonpublic information. Thus, an executive stock sale might pass the legal test but fail the “smell test” employed by the general public. A well-designed ITP lessens the likelihood of such a scenario.
The paper reviews 4 real-life vignettes involving insider transactions that, if not illegal, sure didn’t look very good. It raises a number of governance issues, like why companies don’t always make their insider trading policies public, mandate the use of 10b5-1 plans by senior execs or require pre-approval of all trades by the general counsel?
Shareholder Proposals: Be Careful What You Wish For?
Carl Hagberg, who has probably forgotten more about the proxy voting and annual meeting process than most of us will ever know, recently submitted a comment letter on the SEC’s proposed changes to Rule 14a-8. In addition to some colorful language about the release itself – which he calls “ponderously long, dense and maddeningly-meandering” – he contends that the current system is working reasonably well. He also claims that the proposals don’t address the ability of shareholders to use “proxies” to make proposals on their behalf, which he views as the biggest problem under the current regime.
Your mileage may vary when it comes to Carl’s arguments, but you should definitely read his letter because he knows a lot about this stuff & his letter’s kind of fun. But regardless of whether you agree with his arguments, he raises a good point about the potential unintended consequences of the proposed changes:
My most important takeaway, however, from a “common sense perspective,” is to note yet another tried and true old-saw: “Beware of what you wish for.” I guarantee that higher hurdles, if enacted, will result in institutional investors casting way more Yes-Votes for shareholder proposals than they otherwise would – simply to give proponents a decent shot at a three-year trial-run in the polls.
Quick Poll: Your Take on The 14a-8 Proposals
Carl recognizes that not everybody will agree with his take, so he suggested that we take a poll of our readers. My response was “Why not?” And so, because polls are an easy third blog, here we go – please take part in this anonymous poll.
Well, we thought that the comment process for the SEC’s proposed proxy advisor regulations was going to be a free-for-all, and it hasn’t disappointed. Lynn blogged last week about some investor comments, but representatives of other constituencies also weighed in.
Insightful comments from advocates for the proposed rules include this letter from the Society for Corporate Governance, which, among other things, highlighted the reports of its members concerning the prevalence of errors in proxy advisor reports. Leading pro-regulation advocate Bernard Sharfman also submitted a comment letter analyzing the implications of the “collective action problem” in shareholder voting that he contends is central to understanding the need for proxy advisor regulation.
On the other side of the ledger, Glass Lewis weighed in with concerns about the paperwork burdens associated with both complying with the proposed rules & satisfying the conditions for exemptions from them. This Olshan letter on the rule’s potential implications for proxy contests is also worth checking out.
And if you’re looking for “fair & balanced,” then check out this debate on proxy advisor regulation between U of Chicago B-School Prof. Steven Kaplan & ValueEdge Advisors’ Nell Minow.
And The Ridiculous . . .
On the other hand, there’s also been some commentary on the proposed rules that can most charitably be described as propaganda. Take this video, for example. Among other things, it blames proxy advisory firms for submitting climate change, abortion, gun control & other shareholder proposals on their “ultra left wing political agenda.”
There are all sorts of agenda-driven shareholder proposals – and not just from the left. One of my beefs about the proxy advisor industry is that it’s set up to cater to the “shareholders good, management bad” worldview of the investors who subscribe to them. But dreaming up lefty shareholder proposals isn’t part of what proxy advisors do.
Proxy advisors are business to make money, and that means giving their customers what they want – and their customers want to have the last word at the companies in which they invest.
How Did Proxy Advisor Regulation Get to Be Left v. Right?
The fundamental sales pitch in the video is that proxy advisor regulation is a political, “liberals v. conservatives” issue. While the video gets a lot wrong, it appears to have that part right. With the exception of a few prominent Republicans associated with activist hedge funds, this really does seem to have devolved into a left v. right issue.
I guess the short answer to the question of why proxy advisor regulation became a political litmus test is that it’s America in 2020 and everything is polarized. But what’s kind of interesting to me is how the sides align in this particular debate. Think about it – how is it “conservative” to restrict how capital providers use their advisors? How is it “liberal” to champion an unfettered free market for capital providers who continue to insist that their interests trump those of other constituencies, like workers?
Maybe I’m just trying to justify my own idiosyncratic position on this issue. I consider myself slightly left-of-center on many issues, but I absolutely agree that proxy advisors should be regulated. I don’t know, but perhaps the cause of the odd “left v. right” split here is the governance paradigm that views corporations as analogous to nation-states, and the presumption among progressive types that since that’s the case, shareholder democracy is a moral imperative. From my perspective, that’s a highly debatable proposition.
My own view is that the separation of ownership from control that characterizes the Berle & Means corporation is a feature, not a bug. I think that control of the world’s largest business enterprises by corporate managers is fundamentally less dangerous to society than putting them in the hands of an ever smaller number of institutions holding an ever increasing share of the world’s wealth. Managers are just greedy, so their agenda is pretty transparent. I don’t feel the same way about the agenda of public pension funds & giant asset managers.
