Governance & Compliance Insider

At the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “Commission”) open meeting on December 18, 2019, the Commissioners approved proposed amendments to the definition of “accredited investor” under Regulation D under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “U.S. Securities Act”) and the definition of a “qualified institutional buyer” in Rule 144A under the U.S. Securities Act. Commissioners Robert Jackson and Allison Lee both dissented on the proposal. The statements of the commissioners on the proposed rules showcased significant disagreement between them on the role of the Commission and the fundamental purposes of the federal securities laws. Commissioner Jackson’s public statement was titled Statement on Reducing Investor Protections around Private Markets and highlighted his belief that the new release does not take the Commission’s role in protecting investors seriously. Commissioner Lee also noted her concern regarding the one-sided nature of the proposed rules which seek to expand the pool of available investors without adequately considering an adjustment in the income and wealth thresholds. The amendments to the definition of “accredited investor” are meant to provide more opportunity for main street investors to participate in private capital markets by including a greater number of institutional and individual investors that have the knowledge and expertise to participate in private capital markets. The proposed amendments add new categories of natural persons and entities that qualify as accredited investors. Specifically, the proposed amendments would: add new categories of natural persons that may qualify as accredited investors based on certain professional certifications or designations or other credentials or their status as a private fund’s “knowledgeable employee;” expand the list of entities that may qualify as accredited investors and allow entities meeting an investments test to qualify; add family offices with at least $5 million in assets under management and their family clients; and add the term “spousal equivalent” to the definition. Changes are also proposed to the “qualified institutional buyer” definition to include limited liability companies, RBICs, and any institutional accredited investor not already listed in Rule 144A when they meet the existing threshold of $100 million in securities owned and invested. For more information on the proposed amendments, see our recent eUpdate here.

At the SEC's open meeting yesterday (November 5, 2019), the Commissioners approved two new proposed rules in their ongoing efforts to modernize proxy solicitation and shareholder proxy access, as follows: (1) amendments to certain procedural requirements, including ownership requirements, documentation requirements, meetings to discuss proposals and limitations on the number of proposals submitted, and resubmission thresholds for shareholder proposals, and (2) amendments to proxy rules conditioning the availability of certain existing exemptions from the information and filing requirements of the proxy rules for proxy voting advice businesses upon compliance with additional disclosure and procedural requirements. Comments on the proposals are due on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. For more information on the proposed rules, see our recent eUpdate available here: dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/client-alerts/2019/11/sec-adopts-proposed-rules-requirements.

Yesterday the SEC announced the agenda for its upcoming open meeting to be held on Tuesday, November 5 at 10:00 a.m. EST. All SEC open meetings are webcast and a hyperlink to the webcast will be posted to www.sec.gov shortly before the start of a meeting. The SEC has indicated that the agenda, in part, will focus on “continued efforts to facilitate constructive shareholder engagement and enhance transparency, improve disclosures, and increase confidence in the proxy process.” We expect to provide further analysis following the open meeting and on any proposals once they are published. More information about the specific agenda items for the open meeting can be found in our eUpdate here:  dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/client-alerts/2019/10/sec-to-discuss-proxy-adviser-regulation.

  The SEC posted a notice yesterday addressing EDGAR technical difficulties which may impact filers’ ability to make timely submissions.  For those issuers who, due to technical difficulties, are unable to furnish or file earnings information on Form 8-K within 48 hours before the earnings conference call, the staff will adjust the receipt date of such Form 8-K so that it will be deemed furnished or filed at the time the issuer first attempted to submit such report.  Earnings information is furnished or filed in accordance with Item 2.02 of Form 8-K.  This adjustment enables issuers to qualify for an exemption under Item 2.02, as long as they meet the other enumerated conditions.  If they qualify for the exemption, issuers do not need to disclose any further information based on oral communication from the subsequent earnings conference call (such as a transcript of the call), even if additional material nonpublic information about the completed earnings period is disclosed on the call. This is welcome relief for issuers who would otherwise need to furnish or file transcripts or other materials from the earnings conference call, as well as post these materials on their websites, in order to comply with the requirements of Item 2.02 and Regulation FD.    

The SEC has proposed rule amendments to automate filing fee calculations and payment processing.  If the rules are adopted, filing fees would be paid via Automated Clearing House (ACH) and would no longer be payable via checks and money order.  Each fee table and the accompanying notes would include all information required for the fee calculation tagged in inline XBRL.  Currently, information required for the fee calculation is optional but often footnoted by companies, and filers manually calculate the fee, which may then be subject to review by the SEC staff.  The new system is intended to reduce errors and provide certainty to filers on the correctness of the fee paid, since EDGAR would compute the filing fee from inputs and validate information provided by the filer.   In the event of incorrectly submitted information, filers would receive a warning and the staff would follow up, but the filing would not be suspended. The SEC is soliciting comments on the proposed rule amendments, due within 60 days after the amendments' publication in the Federal Register.    

For SEC reporting companies providing financial statements covering three years in a filing, discussion about the earliest of the three years may be omitted from the MD&A if such discussion was already included in the company's prior filings on EDGAR, provided that the company provides a statement that identifies the location in the prior filing where the omitted discussion may be found.  See our summary of the SEC's FAST Act amendments, including to Item 303 of Regulation S-K, here. According to notes on a joint meeting this summer between the SEC staff and the Center for Audit Quality (CAQ), the SEC staff confirmed that the amendment does not change the standard that applies to all MD&As, which is to provide such other information that the company believes to be necessary to understanding its financial condition, changes in financial condition and results of operations. As a result, the notes continue, where there has been a retrospective change in financial statements in either of the earliest two years covered in the filing (eg, due to accounting errors, retrospective adoption of new accounting principles, segment changes, discontinued operations or changes in the reporting entity), the company should assess whether the previously filed disclosure (that it is considering omitting and referencing) still provides the information necessary to understand the company's financial condition, changes in financial condition and results of operations.

In connection with its efforts to modernize the regulatory framework, the SEC announced a new rule that provides all issuers with the flexibility provided by the JOBS Act to use "test-the-waters" communications with institutional investors about potential IPOs and other registered offering to better gauge market interest.  Previously, test-the-waters communications were only available to emerging growth companies. Securities Act Rule 163B will permit any issuer to engage in oral or written communications with potential investors that are, or that they reasonably believed to be, qualified institutional buyers ("QIBs") and institutional accredited investors ("IAIs") either prior to or following the filing of a registration statement, to determine whether such investors might have an interest in a contemplated registered securities offering. A QIB generally is a specified institution that, acting for its own account or the accounts of other QIBs, in the aggregate, owns and invests on a discretionary basis at least $100 million in securities of unaffiliated issuers.  An IAI is any institutional investor that is also an accredited investor, as defined in paragraph (a) of Rule 501 of Regulation D. The staff intentionally does not specify the steps that an issuer could or must take to establish a reasonable belief that the intended recipients of test-the-water communications are QIBs or IAIs, with the stated goal of providing issuers with the flexibility to use methods that are cost-effective but appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of each contemplated offering and each potential investor.  In the adopting release, the staff states that issuers should continue to rely on the methods that they currently use to establish a reasonable belief with respect to an investor’s status as a QIB or IAI pursuant to Rule 144A and Rule 501(a) of the Securities Act.   Under the rule: There are no filing or legending requirements.  A written communication would not constitute a free writing prospectus, which is subject to filing requirements. The communications are deemed “offers” subject to Section 12(a)(2) liability in addition to the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws.  The information provided must not conflict with material information in the related registration statement, and furthermore, the staff may request that the issuer furnish any test-the-waters communication. Issuers subject to Regulation FD will need to consider whether any information in a test-the-waters communication would trigger disclosure obligations under Regulation FD or whether an exemption under Regulation FD would apply.  Regulation FD requires public disclosure of any material nonpublic information that has been selectively disclosed to certain securities market professionals or shareholders. Where an issuer wishes to pursue a private placement in lieu of a registered offering immediately after engaging in test-the-waters communications, the issuer should consider whether the test-the-waters communication was conducted in such a way as to constitute a general solicitation that could disqualify the issuer from completing a private placement   The staff noted that limiting communications to financially sophisticated investors, the applicability of anti-fraud provisions and Regulation FD, and the investors' ultimate receipt of a prospectus will mitigate investor protection concerns. The rule will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Overview Earlier this month, the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance announced that its staff may respond orally instead of in writing to some shareholder proposal no-action requests, beginning with the 2019-2020 proxy season.   Furthermore, the staff may now more frequently decline to state a view on the no-action request, whereas in the past, it had typically concurred or disagreed with a company's asserted basis for exclusion. As background, companies submit no-action requests in order to exclude shareholder proposals from their annual meeting proxy statements.  When these requests are granted under Rule 14a-8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), the staff will not recommend that the SEC take enforcement action in response to the exclusion of a shareholder proposal.  Over the last proxy season (since October 1, 2018), more than 230 no-action requests were submitted to the SEC for review..  Transitioning to oral responses is intended to make the process more efficient for the staff in light of the large volume of requests.  The staff still intends to issue a response letter where it believes doing so would provide value, such as more broadly applicable guidance about complying with Rule 14a-8. The SEC’s announcement lacked a number of important details and leaves much to speculation. It remains to be seen how frequently the staff will issue oral versus written determinations.  In remarks before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in July, Director of the Division of Corporation Finance Bill Hinman had commented that under an updated process, requests based on difficult topics, such as the ordinary business exclusion, would likely continue to receive responses from the staff.  In the announcement, the staff reiterates that board analysis is often useful for requests on the basis of the ordinary business or economic relevance exceptions. Whether the staff responds orally or in writing, it will inform the proponent and the company of its position, which may be that the staff concurs, disagrees or declines to state a view, with respect to the company’s asserted basis for exclusion. As discussed below, in light of the revised no-action process, it becomes more important for companies to designate an appropriate and prepared representative to receive the staff's call and to keep a careful record of the discussion. For more discussion on the SEC's announcement, see the Observations and Recommendations below, and register for our upcoming webinar, Shareholder Proposals: Strategies and Tactics. Observations and Recommendations There will be more flexibility for staff, but likely less information publicly available. Until now, companies and proponents have been able to review a complete database of the staff's responses, which have all been issued in written form, to discern trends, and to observe consistencies as well as inconsistencies in the determinations.  Under the updated process, it is not clear whether the staff will provides public access to its oral responses.  SEC Rule 81 only provides for public access to the staff's written communications in connection with no-action requests, as soon as practicable after the response has been sent or given.  If their oral responses are not made public, and if they have more flexibility to decline to state a view, the staff will also have more latitude to make case-by-case determinations under less scrutiny. Faster responses to no-action requests?  In keeping with the staff's commitment to a more efficient process, oral versus written responses may facilitate more prompt turnaround on no-action requests, though the staff has made no such commitment. The staff likely will not provide information in calls beyond what is stipulated in the announcement. In each case, the staff will communicate their determination with respect to the asserted basis for exclusion, to both the company and the proponent.  However, we do not expect additional substantive information to be communicated verbally.  The staff will avoid conflicting messages, or unnecessarily prejudicing either party, for example, by providing one party with more detail or nuance than has been received by the other party.  Furthermore, the staff is unlikely to entertain additional requests, such as requests for reconsideration, on a call.  This approach would be aligned with the spirit of previous guidance.  In SLB 14B, the staff stated that "In order to ensure that the staff's process is fair to all parties, we base our determinations on the written materials provided to us. While we will respond to telephone questions from the company or the shareholder proponent regarding the status of a request, we do not discuss the substantive nature of any specific no-action request with either the company or the shareholder proponent. Therefore, we request that any additional information that the company or the shareholder proponent would like to provide be submitted to us and the other party in writing." Written no-action letters may contain more guidance, and they will receive more scrutiny.  Currently, the staff will often issue a determination with little or no explanation for why they concur or disagree with the bases cited in the no-action request.  Since the staff has now specified that written letters will now be issued where they may provide "broadly applicable guidance," we expect that the letters will contain more substantive guidance than they have in the past. Companies will need to carefully assess alternatives if the staff declines to state a view on any particular request.  Negotiated withdrawals may become even more attractive. The announcement confirms that if the staff declines to state a view on any particular request, the interested parties should not interpret that position as indicating that the proposal must be included. In such circumstances, the staff is not taking a position on the merits of the arguments made, and the company may have a valid legal basis to exclude the proposal under Rule 14a-8. As an alternative,  the parties may seek formal, binding adjudication on the merits of the issue in court—an option that has always been available but rarely pursued. It is unclear how frequently the staff will decline to take a view on a no-action request.  There are certain bases for exclusion that may more readily invite this position.  For example, where companies cite a violation of law as a basis for exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(2), the staff may be more likely to defer to rulings by courts, the SEC or other state or federal authorities, as the staff largely did in their response to Johnson & Johnson regarding a proposal for the adoption of mandatory arbitration bylaws, discussed here. Without a definitive staff determination, and faced with the unappealing prospect of litigation, parties may accelerate the already existing trend towards negotiated withdrawals on a broad range of shareholder proposals.  In the absence of a withdrawal, the company still has the option either to exclude the proposal without a staff concurrence, which carries some risk of potential litigation, or present it for a shareholder vote. Will companies exclude shareholder proposals without staff concurrence? Some commentators posit that the staff’s refusal to state a view will provide companies with more latitude to exclude proposals, but it appears that investor and proxy advisory firm pressure will discourage companies from unilaterally excluding proposals.  While it is the exception rather than the rule that proponents have resorted to litigation in the past to challenge the exclusion of a shareholder proposal, coalitions of investors are finding that the influence and the resources to do so in order to pressure companies into settlement.  Furthermore, institutional investors and proxy advisory firms may take a dim view of a company's unilateral determination to exclude a proposal.  Under their existing voting policies, ISS and Glass Lewis may recommend votes against directors of companies that exclude proposals without a no-action determination or court order, though these policies may be modified in light of the staff's expanded ability to decline to state a view. Will there be more shareholder proposals submitted and voted on? The staff's potential refusal to take a view creates greater uncertainty around the no-action process. The absence of a complete written record of the staff’s position on no-action letter request during a proxy season will make it more difficult to assess the probability of success going forward. This lack of transparency may deter companies from making requests, particularly where they are not confident that there is a firm basis for exclusion.  As a result, the announcement may encourage a greater number and a greater variety of shareholder proposals to be submitted, and once submitted, to be voted on instead of excluded. Designate an appropriate and prepared representative and keep a record on conversations with the staff. In light of the revised no-action process, companies should designate an appropriate and prepared representative to receive the staff's calls.  This representative should be an individual who is generally familiar with the no-action process and with the specific request at issue, such as the general counsel, the corporate secretary or outside counsel.   If the staff does not concur with the company's position, the company likely will not be able to make requests on the call, but will continue to be able to make subsequent, written requests for reconsideration. The representative should be provided with guidelines for conducting the call and asking appropriate questions in order to obtain as much clarity as possible. The company should also create a record of its written and oral communications with the staff.  The record will provide a basis for a report to the board and the company's decision-makers with regard to current and future shareholder proposals.  

As we previously noted, in February, the SEC proposed expanding its “test-the-waters” accommodation from emerging growth companies (EGCs) only to all issuers via a new Rule 163B and related amendments. This accommodation would enable all issuers to engage in “test-the-waters” communications with certain institutional investors regarding a contemplated registered securities offering prior to, or following the filing of a registration statement related to such offering. These communications would be exempt from restrictions under Section 5 of the Securities Act on written and oral offers before or after filing a registration statement. The accommodation would be limited to communications with qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) and institutional accredited investors (IAIs). The proposal is part of SEC Chairman Jay Clayton’s well-publicized initiative to encourage more issuers to consider entering the public equity markets. The proposal builds on a popular similar provision of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) that had also previously been limited to EGCs but now allows all issuers to make non-public filings with the SEC during their initial stages of becoming a public company. The “test-the-waters” reform is intended to provide a broader range of issuers with the “[enhanced] ability to conduct successful public securities offerings and lower their cost of capital, and ultimately to provide investors with more opportunities to invest in public companies,” according to Chairman Clayton. The overwhelming majority of the comment letters received during the 60-day comment period agreed that the new proposal would accomplish this intention, with a common theme being that it provided a good balance of encouraging greater participation in the public markets while still adequately protecting investors. One comment letter, however, sounded some ominous warning bells. Better Markets argued that this reform would create “a dangerous loophole” through which unsophisticated investors could slip, since the proposed rule would allow self-certification of QIB or IAI status by a simple check of a box. In addition, the rule would allow issuers to communicate with QIBs and IAIs of their own choosing. Better Markets worries that this would create further information asymmetry between a “selected subset of investors that are in the know” and other investors who may be similarly qualified but only learn about the offering once it is made public because they can’t afford the underwriters and other intermediaries of the former group.

The SEC proposed amendments that would revise the definitions of “accelerated filer” and “large accelerated filer.” These proposed revisions follow amendments adopted by the SEC on June 28, 2018, that expanded the smaller reporting company (SRC) definition and so brought some issuers under both the definitions of an accelerated filer and an SRC. As a result of last year’s amendments, some SRCs must have an independent outside auditor attest to their internal control over financial reporting. See our previous discussion of the prior amendments here. The new proposed amendments seek to realign the definitions of accelerated filers and SRCs and would eliminate the requirement of smaller issuers to obtain such independent attestation. In this way, the SEC aims to reduce the cost of compliance of lower-revenue reporting companies and impose upon them more efficient, tailored regulatory requirements without significantly affecting the ability of investors to make informed investment decisions. Under the proposed amendments: an issuer that is eligible to be an SRC and had no revenues or annual revenues of less than $100 million in the most recent fiscal year for which audited financial statements are available would be excluded from the accelerated and large accelerated filer definitions; the transition thresholds for accelerated and large accelerated filers becoming a non-accelerated filer would be increased from $50 million to $60 million and for exiting large accelerated filer status from $500 million to $560 million; and a revenue test would be added to the transition thresholds for exiting both accelerated and large accelerated filer status. The proposal is subject to a 60-day public comment period. Additional information is available in the SEC’s press release regarding the proposed new amendments here: sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-68.

In the United States, the process by which shareholders submit proposals to be voted on at a company’s annual meeting has long been a mechanism used to promote often obscure special interests and social issues. In recent years, however, as environmental, social and governance (ESG) topics have become more mainstream, the market has seen a surge in this type of proposal. In 2018, Russell 3000 companies received a record 144 proposals requesting action on social and environmental issues, making this category larger than any other. In a recent article, The Wall Street Journal reported that the increase in support for ESG-related proposals has risen from “middle single digits from 2000 until 2008 to 24% in 2018.” Another record. As we draw closer to the end of the 2019 proxy season, it is clear that the momentum in this area continues. New Fronts in Environmental Proposals In the same article, the WSJ reported on a new front involving proposals focusing on plastic waste, a trend we previously noted in our March chemical industry update. The WSJ further noted that most of the companies that had received the proposal about plastic waste agreed to implement the request in order to avoid including it in their proxy statements. Proposals are often withdrawn when companies and proponents reach a compromise approach. This is a tactic that has risen in popularity in recent years as ESG topics have garnered more support from the broader shareholder base. In another article, the WSJ highlighted this trend, explaining that about 49% of environment-related shareholder proposals were withdrawn last year, compared with 33% two years prior and that “roughly 45% of shareholder proposals related to social issues, including income inequality, political-spending disclosure and animal testing, were withdrawn last year, up from 34% two years earlier.” Another development involves proposals related to climate change. This category itself is not new, and in fact these proposals have dominated in recent years, even gaining majority approval in some cases. This year, however, some companies found a degree of success via the no-action letter process. At least two companies obtained permission from the SEC to exclude a proposal that (if passed) would have required them to disclose how their operations align with the greenhouse gas reduction targets under the Paris Climate Accord. The SEC explained in one of the no-action letters: “the Proposal would micromanage the Company by seeking to impose specific methods for implementing complex policies in place of the ongoing judgments of management as overseen by its board of directors.” This success, however, is limited. The SEC declined to issue no-action letters on other types of climate change proposals, and more carefully crafted proposals are likely to survive review next year. The Future of ESG-related Shareholder Proposals The SEC announced last fall it was conducting a review of the proxy system. The shareholder proposal process was included as one of the areas due for an overhaul. While it remains unclear what form changes may take, it is possible the SEC will issue guidance after this proxy season. Proposed rulemaking could also follow. One anticipated rule change would be to raise the stock ownership threshold required for submitting a shareholder proposal (currently, a de minimis $2,000 in shares). Another would be to increase resubmission thresholds. Such steps will certainly make a dent in the number of overall proposals, particularly from shareholders who don’t have a financially meaningful stake in a company. However, many ESG proposals—such as the new ones about plastic waste—are backed by non-governmental organizations who either have meaningful resources themselves or who partner with larger shareholders. As such, absent some broader change to the shareholder proposal process (such as expanding the bases on which companies can seek to exclude proposals), we don’t expect the popularity of ESG-related shareholder proposals to diminish anytime soon.

The SEC recently finalized amendments to its regulations to modernize and simplify disclosure requirements for public companies, investment advisors and investment companies, consistent with the Commission’s mandate under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The SEC subsequently released an additional announcement on the amendments to the confidential treatment request requirements. More information on the amendments relevant to public companies, including markups of the Form 10-K, 10-Q, and 8-K cover pages, can be found in our recent eUpdate here: dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/client-alerts/2019/04/sec-fast-act-amendments.

The SEC proposed a new rule and related amendments that would expand the "test-the-waters" accommodation—currently available to emerging growth companies—to all issuers, including investment company issuers. Proposed Securities Act Rule 163B, if adopted, would significantly enhance an issuer’s ability to cost-effectively assess the demand for and valuation of its securities, and also provide insights into the structural components for the offering that are important to investors. The proposed Rule 163B would permit any issuer, or any person authorized to act on its behalf, to engage in oral or written communications with potential investors that are, or are reasonably believed to be, qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) or institutional accredited investors (IAIs), either prior to or following the filing of a registration statement, to determine whether such investors might have an interest in a contemplated registered securities offering. The proposed rule would be non-exclusive and an issuer could rely on other Securities Act communications rules or exemptions when determining what to communicate regarding a contemplated securities offering. Under the proposed rule: there would be no filing or legending requirements for test-the-waters communications; test-the-waters communications may not conflict with material information in the related registration statement; issuers subject to Regulation FD would need to consider whether any information in a test-the-waters communication would trigger disclosure obligations under Regulation FD or whether an exemption under Regulation FD would apply; and although the new rule would exempt test-the-waters communications from the gun-jumping provisions of Section 5, such communications would still be considered “offers” under the Securities Act subject to Section 12(a)(2) liability and the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The proposal is subject to a 60-day public comment period. Additional information is available in the SEC’s press release regarding the proposed new rule here: sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-14.

You are invited to join us on February 26, 2019, at 11 am PT/2 pm ET, for a webinar discussing the SEC’s new mining disclosure rules. On October 31, 2018, the SEC adopted final rules effecting a complete overhaul of the technical disclosure requirements applicable to companies engaged in material mining operations, including royalties. Upon effectiveness in 2021, the new rules will replace the SEC’s decades-old guidelines, set forth in Industry Guide 7. The new rules will bring the U.S. reporting regime closer to global reporting standards, and will apply to all SEC reporting companies except those that report exclusively under the Canada-U.S. MJDS system. We will be providing an overview of the new rules, and how U.S. domestic, Canadian, other foreign, and even MJDS filers will be affected. The registration page and details about CLE/CPD credit are available here: dorsey.com/newsresources/events/event/2019/02/understanding-the-secs-new-mining-disclosure-rules. A written discussion of the SEC’s new mining disclosure rules (in Q&A format) is available here: dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/client-alerts/2019/02/new-mining-disclosure-rules-2019.

On February 6, 2019, the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance released Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (identical Questions 116.11 and 133.13) advising companies on how they should disclose directors' self-identified specific diversity characteristics (such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or cultural background) in proxy statements. In brief, Corp Fin would expect the company's discussion of directors' experience, qualifications, attributes or skills pursuant to Item 401(e) of Regulation S-K to identify these self-identified diversity characteristics to the extent that they were considered by the nominating committee, and the individual director consented to the disclosure of those characteristics. Similarly, in these circumstances, the description of how a board implements any policies it follows with regard to the consideration of diversity in identifying director nominees under Item 407(c)(2)(vi) should include a discussion of how the company considers self-identified diversity attributes. With board diversity at an increasing premium, and an expanding definition of diversity, self-identified diversity is likely to become a more frequent practice during the director recruitment and nomination process.  Particularly in ambiguous circumstances, those companies that rely on self-identification without a more thoughtful examination of a director candidate's historic affiliations and their engagement in the claimed communities, and without consideration of the diversity of thought or perspective that the candidate is ultimately expected to contribute, will do so at their own hazard and at the candidate's hazard, as suggested by Elizabeth Warren's unfortunate claim to Native American ancestry based on 1/64 to 1/1024 ancestry and the ensuing backlash.

The 10-K and proxy season begins in a little over a month for companies with calendar fiscal year-ends.  The following governance and disclosure developments should be considered in the course of preparing these filings. For additional background, see our presentation and supplemental materials for Preparing for the 2019 SEC Reporting Season. Proxy Statement Impact of the government shutdown: During the government shut down, the SEC is operating with a skeleton staff, with no capacity for reviewing preliminary proxy statements or no-action requests. Companies that need to file preliminary proxy materials should continue to file them in accordance with Rule 14a-6(a) of the Exchange Act, at least ten calendar days prior to the date the definitive materials are first sent or given to shareholders.  If companies are not advised by SEC staff within that period that there will be a review, they should proceed with the definitive filing and distribution of proxy materials. While the Division of Corporation Finance has not discussed how no-action requests for shareholder proposals will be handled during the government shutdown, companies should continue to make the submission required by Rule 14a-8(j) via email if they intend to exclude a shareholder proposal.  Given that companies must submit no-action requests no later than 80 calendar days before filing definitive proxy statements, it is likely that the SEC staff will have a chance to review and respond to submissions under Rule 14a-8 once the shutdown ends.  If the current shutdown is still in effect at the time that the proxy statement is filed, a company would have to decide whether it has a basis to exclude the proposal without the benefit of a no-action letter. See this update and this update on the shutdown’s impact on capital markets regulation and this 19-firm memo prepared during the last shutdown. Gender diversity voting policies:  For meetings held after January 1, 2019, Glass Lewis will generally recommend votes against nominating committee chairs (and potentially other nominating committee members) on boards with no female directors.  ISS will do so for meetings held on or after February 1, 2020.  Mitigating circumstances disclosed in the proxy statement may influence their recommendations. Rapidly evolving disclosure of environmental and social programs:  More companies are dedicating sections of their proxy statements to describing these initiatives, or referring to applicable disclosure on their websites or in their responsibility reports, while being careful not to incorporate by reference these materials into their filings. Expanding duties for compensation committees: These committees are overseeing broader issues of human capital management beyond director and executive officer compensation, sometimes in response to allegations of sexual harassment and other misconduct, followed by investor questions.  Semler Brossy reports that one-third of DJIA (Dow Jones Industrial Average) 30 companies have a board compensation committee with broader responsibilities, e.g., leadership development and/or other HR areas - many of which signal their breadth in their name, such as Talent & Development Committee or Human Resources Committee. Updated tax policy discussions in the CD&A: Companies historically may have disclosed that they use best efforts to obtain tax deductions for executive compensation above the $1 million cap under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.  Since the exemption for performance-based compensation has been eliminated under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, with limited grandfathering for compensation payable pursuant to a written binding contract in effect on November 2, 2017, this disclosure now should be updated. CEO pay ratio in year two: Companies may keep the median employee from last year, unless there were significant changes to (i) the employee population, (ii) employee compensation arrangements or (iii) the original median employee’s circumstances, so that the company reasonably believes its pay ratio disclosure would significantly change.  In cases (i) and (ii), the median employee should be re-identified.  In case (iii), the company may use another employee whose compensation is substantially similar to the original median employee based on the compensation measure used to select the original employee.  If the same median employee is used, briefly disclose the basis for the reasonable belief. Say-on-frequency for smaller reporting companies: A non-binding say-on-frequency vote is due for those companies that had their last vote in 2013, including most smaller reporting companies.  Shareholders may cast an advisory vote on whether to hold the advisory vote on executive compensation ("say-on-pay") every year, every two years or every three years.  Per Rule 14a-21 of the Exchange Act, include (i) a statement that the vote concerning the frequency of the say-on-pay vote is being provided as required pursuant to Section 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; (ii) a description of the general effect of the say-on-frequency vote, such as whether it is non-binding; and (iii) the current frequency of the say-on-pay vote and when the next say-on-pay vote will occur.  Emerging growth companies ("EGCs") are exempted from say-on-pay and say-on-frequency votes.  The SEC also expanded the definition of "smaller reporting company" this year.  See discussion below. Guidance for equity compensation plan proposals: The SEC updated its guidance related to equity compensation plan proposals, see Section 161 of the Proxy Rules and Schedules 14A/14C C&DIs.  Among the clarifications provided: Companies should be prepared to disclose all material terms of a plan, even when the proposal is for an amendment of an existing plan.  Furthermore, a New Plan Benefits Table (listing benefits or amounts that will be received by each of the named executive officers and certain groups under the proposed plan) will only be called for if the plan is: (i) a plan with set benefits or amounts (e.g., director option plans); or (ii) one under which some grants or awards have already been made subject to shareholder approval. Annual Report on Form 10-K Disclosure simplification:  As a result of the SEC’s Disclosure Update and Simplification rulemaking, certain 10-K disclosure can be eliminated, because the information is  outdated or duplicative of information already included in the financial statements in accordance with GAAP or in the MD&A when material to the business. Part I, Item 1, Business: Companies are no longer required to disclose: three years of segment level financial information, amounts spent on R&D financial information by geographic area risks associated with foreign operations and a segment’s dependence on foreign operations facts indicating why performance in certain geographic areas may not be indicative of current or future operations (but consider for the MD&A) reference to the SEC’s Public Reference Room, physical address and phone number (but disclose the SEC website, a statement that SEC filings are available there, and the company’s website) Part II, Item 5, Market for Registrant’s Common Equity: Companies are no longer required to disclose: high and low sales prices for common equity traded over the last two fiscal years (but disclose trading symbols for each class of common equity traded) frequency and amount of cash dividends declared restrictions that currently or are likely to materially limit a company’s ability to pay dividends on its common equity (including restrictions on subsidiaries to transfer funds) Part II, Item 7, MD&A: Companies should discuss changes in financial condition and results of operations based on geographic area, if they are material to an understanding of the business. Part IV, Item 15, Exhibits: Companies are no longer required to provide a ratio of earnings to fixed charges as an exhibit. Update those risk factors:  Not only should companies consider new and emerging risks, they should review the status of existing risks.  An abstract discussion may not be sufficient if an existing risk has materialized.  Earlier this year, as reported here, Altaba (formerly Yahoo! Inc.) agreed to pay a $35 million penalty to settle charges that it misled investors by failing to disclose one of the world’s largest data breaches thus far.  Among its violations, Yahoo's post-breach disclosure in quarterly and annual reports was too general, stating that the company faced only the risk of, and negative effects that might flow from, data breaches.  The company failed to disclose the actual breach or its potential business impact and legal implications. Continue to mind the GAAP: In a recent SEC cease-and-decease order discussed here, ADT was fined $100,000 for failing to give “equal or greater prominence” to the most directly comparable GAAP measures in accordance with Item 10 of Regulation S-K.  The company highlighted non-GAAP measures in the headlines and bullets summaries of two earnings releases, without disclosing the GAAP measures until later in the earnings releases. Leasing and revenue recognition accounting standards: Public entities besides EGCs must adopt the leasing accounting standard (FASB ASC Topic 842) for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim reporting periods within that reporting period.  For calendar year-end companies, they will adopt the standard on a modified retrospective basis on January 1, 2019, with an initial application date of January 1, 2017.   Section 11200 of the SEC Financial Reporting Manual clarifies that filing a registration statement with an earlier comparative period (eg, January 1, 2016) does not change the date of initial application. Last year, public entities adopted the revenue recognition accounting standard (FASB ASC Topic 606) for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods within that period.  SEC Chief Accountant Wes Bricker has indicated that revenue recognition disclosure will be a top issue for comment this season, and the SEC staff has encouraged companies to refine and supplement their annual disclosures included in subsequent quarterly filings. Areas of judgment, such as identification of performance obligations and the application of principal vs. agent guidance have been the most frequently discussed topics in consultations with the Office of the Chief Accountant.   Section 11100 of the SEC Financial Reporting Manual addresses certain disclosure issues related to the adoption of ASC 606.  For instance, for companies that adopted ASC 606 using the full retrospective approach, they do not need to apply the standard when reporting selected financial data in the 10-K for periods prior to those periods that are retroactively adjusted, but they must provide information regarding comparability of data presented pursuant to Instruction 2 to the Item 301. Updates to the 10-K cover page were made in connection with rulemaking for smaller reporting companies and inline XBRL reporting (see our Preparing for the Proxy Season presentation for a markup). No delivery of hard copies of proxy materials to the NYSE, if the hard copies have been filed in EDGAR.  Nasdaq had abolished this requirement earlier. More companies qualify as “Smaller Reporting Companies:” During 2018, as discussed here, the SEC expanded the definition of “smaller reporting company” to include (i) those companies with public float of less than $250 million as of the last business day of their second fiscal quarter, and (ii) those companies with less than $100 million of annual revenues and either no public float or public float of less than $700 million.  As a result, additional companies now qualify to provide scaled disclosure in this year’s Form 10-K and proxy statement.  If and until the SEC makes corresponding amendments to the definitions of “accelerated and “non-accelerated” filers, smaller reporting companies with public float of $75 million or more will continue to be accelerated filers that must comply with shorter filing deadlines and provide an auditor’s attestation of management’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting required under Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 404(b). And coming up for future 10-Qs and 10-Ks: Effective for quarters beginning after November 5, 2018 (which means Q1 2019 for calendar companies), amended Rules 8-03(a)(5) and 10-01(a)(7) under Regulation S-X require quarterly (vs annual) analysis of changes in stockholders’ equity and the amount of dividends per share for each class of shares for “the current and comparative year-to-date [interim] periods, with subtotals for each interim period.”   These changes were adopted as part of the Disclosure Update and Simplification rulemaking discussed above. A discussion of critical audit matters, which are related to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements, and involved especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment, will be included in audit reports for fiscal years ending on or after June 30, 2019 for large accelerated filers and in audit reports for fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2020 for all other companies to which these requirements apply.  The new requirement does not apply to emerging growth companies. Inline XBRL, which allows filers to embed financial data into the body of an SEC filing, rather than attaching the data as an exhibit, must be implemented as early as fiscal periods ending on or after June 15, 2019 for large accelerated filers; fiscal periods ending on or after June 15, 2020 for accelerated filers and fiscal periods ending on or after June 15, 2021 for all other filers. And coming up for future proxy statements: Effective for proxy statements filed during fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 2019 (July 1, 2020 for smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies), companies must describe any practices or policies that they have adopted regarding the ability of employees, officers or directors to engage in hedging transactions.  Companies may either disclose the full policy, or a "fair and accurate" summary of the policy.  Summaries must include the categories of persons and the categories of transactions specifically permitted or disallowed.  Companies that have not adopted hedging policies must disclose that fact or state that hedging transactions are permitted.

On January 10, 2019, the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission updated its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about how to handle certain filing matters during the U.S. government shutdown, which is now entering its fourth week. (See, sec.gov/page/corpfin-section-landing.) The staff revised questions 4 and 5 and added new questions 6 and 9. Question 4 was revised to emphasize that Rule 430A is only available to add pricing information to registration statements declared effective prior to the government shutdown (i.e., by December 26, 2018). Issuers whose registration statements were not declared effective before the shutdown are not eligible to use Rule 430A. Question 5 was revised to specify the “magic words” that must be included in an amendment to a registration statement to remove the delaying amendment language and start the 20-day clock to take the registration statement effective. The amendment must include the statement: “This registration statement shall hereafter become effective in accordance with the provisions of section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.” Registrants who amended their registration statements to remove the delaying amendment without including the “magic words” will need to file amendments to add them. New question 6 adds clarity for registrants who have unresolved staff comments on their filings and wish to amend their registration statements to remove the delaying amendment. The staff stated that registrants could nevertheless remove the delaying amendment, but reiterated that responsibility for complete and accurate disclosure lies with the registrant and others involved in the preparation of the registration statement. Finally, new question 9 indicates that issuers may request relief under Rule 3-13 of Regulation S-X, which provides that the SEC may permit the omission of one or more of the financial statements required by Regulation S-X or the filing of appropriate substitute financial statements “where consistent with the protection of investors.” During the shutdown, however, such requests must relate to a demonstrable emergency and the protection of a significant property interest. Whether Rule 3-13 proves useful as a practical matter during the shutdown remains to be seen. Below are (1) the revised text of questions 4 and 5 with new language shown in blue text, and (2) the text of the new questions 6 and 9. Question Answer 4.  If my registration statement was declared effective prior to the shutdown (my effective date was December 26, 2018 or earlier) what happens if I don’t price my offering within the 15-day time period provided in Rule 430A?       Because your registration statement was declared effective prior to the shutdown, you are eligible to use Rule 430A and you may file post-effective amendments, as necessary, under Rule 462(c) to restart the 15-business-day period so that, at the time of pricing you will be able to include the pricing information in a 424(b) prospectus supplement. Post-effective amendments filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) are effective upon filing. Alternately, at the time of pricing, you could file a post-effective amendment under Rule 462(c), prior to the time confirmations are sent or given, to include the information omitted under Rule 430A. NOTE: You cannot rely on Rule 462(c), however, to include the pricing information if the post-effective amendment includes substantive changes from, or additions to, the prospectus in the effective registration statement. 5.  Now that the shutdown is in effect, can I file an amendment to my current registration statement to remove the delaying amendment so my registration statement will be effective in 20 days?                   Yes. If you choose to remove the delaying amendment, your registration statement will not become effective until 20 days have passed. If the SEC’s operational status does not change and you wish to further delay the effective date of your registration statement, you may file another pre-effective amendment during the 20-day period. The registration statement would not become effective until 20 days after the latest pre-effective amendment that does not include a delaying amendment. If the SEC’s operating status changes to operational and your registration statement is not yet effective, we would consider a request to accelerate to an earlier date. We may ask you to amend the registration statement to include the delaying amendment. NOTE: Simply omitting the delaying amendment from an amendment will not begin the 20-day period. [Emphasis added.] A company that intends to remove the delaying amendment must amend its registration statement to include the following language provided by Rule 473(b) - “This registration statement shall hereafter become effective in accordance with the provisions of section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.” It must also amend to include all information required by the form, including the price of the securities it will sell. Rule 430A is not available in the absence of a delaying amendment because Rule 430A is only available with respect to registration statements that are declared effective by the Commission or the staff. 6.  Can I amend to remove the delaying amendment while I have outstanding, unresolved staff comments on my filings?   Yes. As in all situations, responsibility for complete and accurate disclosure lies with the company and others involved in the preparation of a company’s filings. If you amend your filing to remove the delaying amendment and our operating status changes prior to your effective date, we may ask you to amend your filing to include the delaying amendment so that we may work with you to resolve outstanding comments. 9.  Will the Division consider a request for emergency relief under Rule 3-13 of Regulation S-X?           During a lapse in appropriations, the Division’s activities are limited. The Anti-deficiency Act generally prohibits agencies from continued operation in the absence of appropriations, but contains exceptions, one of which is for emergencies involving the protection of property. Thus, an agency may act where there is some reasonable likelihood that the protection of property would be compromised, in some significant degree, by delay in the performance of the function in question. In an emergency where Rule 3-13 may provide relief for registrants, the Division may grant an application where consistent with the limitations discussed below [sic]. Submit requests to CFEmergency@sec.gov and describe the emergency and the significant property interest to be protected.   More information about the SEC's plan of operations and the effect on securities offerings, public company reporting, investment companies, and securities markets during the government shutdown can be found in our prior blog post here: governancecomplianceinsider.com/u-s-government-shutdown-impacts-sec-operations-edgar-and-other-filings-enforcement-and-regulatory-activities/, and also on Dorsey's website here: dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/client-alerts/2019/01/government-shutdown-limits-sec-operations.  

In response to the U.S. government shutdown that began on December 22, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and its Divisions of Corporation Finance and Investment Management published public guidance regarding the impacts on their operations. Although electronic filings will continue to be accepted in many cases, as described below, nearly all SEC operations, including the review and processing of filings and enforcement and regulatory functions, will be curtailed. Issuers and practitioners should make contingency plans to address the effects upon ongoing or planned securities offerings, filings, and requests for interpretive guidance, among other things. SEC operational status: Government shutdown impact The SEC published its operations plan under a lapse in appropriations and government shutdown (Securities and Exchange Commission, Operations Plan Under a Lapse in Appropriations and Government Shutdown, https://www.sec.gov/files/sec-plan-of-operations-during-lapse-in-appropriations-2018.pdf), which went into effect on December 27, 2018. During the shutdown, the SEC will have limited operations and limited staff. The SEC will retain only an extremely limited number of excepted staff members available to respond to emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property, including law enforcement. Of the approximately 4,400 staff employees, fewer than 300 excepted staff remain in service during the shutdown. In summary, during the shutdown, while SEC systems will continue to accept various electronic filings and submissions, the SEC staff will discontinue: processing and approvals of ‘33 Act filings and registrations, including review and acceleration of effectiveness of registration statements; ongoing enforcement litigation, except for emergency enforcement matters; all non-emergency rulemaking, interpretive advice, and no-action letters; processing new and pending exemptive relief applications; approving applications for registration by investment advisers; processing proposed self-regulatory organization (SRO) rule changes, including NYSE and Nasdaq rule changes; responding to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act, absent compelling need; responding to tips, complaints, or referrals, although limited staff will attempt to respond to certain critical matters, including allegations of ongoing fraud and misconduct; and responding to complaints, questions, or requests for information. In addition, while the SEC will continue to accept comment letters, the SEC anticipates that there will be delays in posting them to the SEC website. The public reference room will be closed. EDGAR Filings and Rulemaking.  The shutdown will not affect the ability to submit EDGAR filings. Additionally, SEC personnel will be able to process requests for EDGAR access codes and password resets and answer questions about fee-bearing EDGAR filings and other emergency questions regarding EDGAR submissions. The Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets, and the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, however, will not process filings, provide non-emergency interpretive advice, issue no-action letters, or conduct any other normal Division and Office activities. The SEC will discontinue all non-emergency rulemaking and processing new or pending applications for exemptive relief. New or pending registration statements and applications for exemptive relief will not be processed regardless of the status of any review of those filings. The Division of Corporation Finance also published a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), discussed below, regarding Issuers’ options with respect to new and ongoing securities offerings during the shutdown. Division of Corporation Finance FAQs.  The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance (CorpFin) has posted on its website additional guidance regarding the impact of the shutdown (See, https://www.sec.gov/page/corpfin-section-landing). A limited number of CorpFin staff members are available during the shutdown to answer questions relating to fee calculations for EDGAR filings, but will not generally be available to respond to other questions. Issuers and their representatives seeking assistance in calculating a filing fee for a filing during the shutdown should submit their requests to CFEmergency@sec.gov. CorpFin also provided a series of FAQs containing guidance with respect to ongoing and new offerings of securities during the shutdown: If a company with an effective registration statement determines it must update the information in its prospectus before commencing its offering, it should not go forward with the offering without updating the prospectus. The company must decide whether it can update the prospectus without filing a post-effective amendment because the staff will not be in a position to declare that amendment effective. Similarly, a company with a previously qualified Form 1-A that must be updated should not go forward with its offering before updating its offering statement. The staff will not be in a position to qualify a post-qualification amendment filed on EDGAR. If a company does not price its offering within the 15-day time period provided in Rule 430A, the CorpFin FAQs indicate the company may file post-effective amendments under Rule 462(c), which are automatically effective upon filing, to restart the 15-business-day period so that, at the time of pricing, the registrant will be able to include pricing information in a 424(b) prospectus supplement. As an alternative, at the time of pricing, the registrant could file a post-effective amendment under Rule 462(c), prior to the time confirmations are sent or given, to include the information omitted under Rule 430A. Registrants should note, however, that a Rule 462(c) post-effective amendment may not include substantive changes or additions to the prospectus in the registration statement at the time it became effective. The CorpFin FAQs indicate that a registrant may file an amendment to a current registration statement to remove the delaying amendment, in which case the registration statement will be effective in 20 days. The CorpFin staff notes, however, that if the SEC’s operating status changes to operational and the registration statement is not yet effective, the staff will consider a request to accelerate to an earlier date or ask the registrant to amend the registration statement to include the delaying amendment. Companies considering this approach should be aware that Rule 430A is not available in the absence of a delaying amendment. As a result, when a company amends a registration statement to remove the delaying amendment, the registration statement and prospectus must also be amended to include all information required by the applicable form, including the price of the securities being offered. A registrant may also file a new registration statement without a delaying amendment during the shutdown. Again, however, the CorpFin staff notes that, if the SEC’s operating status changes during the 20-day period prior to effectiveness, the staff may ask the registrant to amend the document to include a delaying amendment. Investment Adviser Registration Depository (IARD) system.  The SEC’s IARD system will continue to accept filings, including amendments to Form ADV, Form ADV-W, and Form ADV-E filings, but the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations will not approve applications for registration by investment advisers and the Division of Investment Management will not provide interpretive advice regarding the Advisers Act, rules or forms or consider applications for exemptive relief under the Advisers Act. As a result, new or pending investment adviser applications will not be processed. Division of Investment Management FAQs.  The SEC’s Investment Management (IM) also posted additional guidance regarding the impact of the shutdown (See, https://www.sec.gov/investment-management). Investment companies can continue to make filings on EDGAR during the shutdown, but the IM staff will not be available to respond to any questions about pending matters, other than answering questions relating to fee calculations for EDGAR filings. The IM guidance notes that a significant percentage of investment companies’ filings, including post-effective amendments to registration statements, become effective automatically either immediately upon filing or following the passage of a certain number of days. These filings will continue to become effective automatically in accordance with the applicable rules. The IM staff will follow the procedures established by Corp Fin, described above, with regard to the acceleration of initial registration statements and other types of filings made by registered investment companies during the federal government shutdown. Questions relating to calculating filing fees should be directed to IMEmergency@sec.gov. Central Registration Depository (CRD) and Transfer Agent Registration Systems.  The CRD system, used for broker-dealer licensing and registration, will continue to accept filings, but the Division of Trading and Markets and the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations will not review pending filings, consider new or pending applications or registrations, provide interpretive advice, or issue no-action letters. In addition, the staff will not be available to conduct any other normal Division and Office activities. Electronic Form Filing System (EFFS).  The EFFS will continue to accept submissions by self-regulatory organizations (SROs), but any SRO proposed rule change submitted through EFFS during the shutdown will have as its filing date the next business day after the shutdown has ended and SEC opens for regular business. Days that the SEC is operating under its shutdown plan (i.e. while the lapse in appropriations continues) will not constitute “business days” under Section 19 of the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder. Enforcement/Litigation.  The Division of Enforcement will have only a limited staff, and ongoing litigation, examinations, and investigative work will be suspended, except for limited emergency enforcement matters, including temporary restraining orders and/or investigative steps necessary to protect public and private property, monitoring the SEC’s “tips, complaints, and referrals” system and web-based investor complaint system, and process referrals from SROs and others to identify matters that are emergencies and take follow-up steps relating to such emergencies. The SEC also will continue Market Watch activities and continue to monitor market technology operations and any broker-dealers reported as being in financial distress. Money market fund surveillance and monitoring will also continue. The staff will also continue monitoring any international market developments that might affect the United States. Emergency Contacts.  Page 16 of the SEC’s shutdown plan contains a list of emergency contact telephone numbers and email addresses to reach an extremely limited number of Commission staff members in each office and division who are available to respond to emergency situations.

The SEC issued a request for comment on the nature and timing of disclosures that reporting companies must provide in quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, including when the requirements overlap with earnings releases furnished on Form 8-K.  Comments will be due within 90 days of publication of this request in the Federal register.  Comments may be submitted through the SEC's Internet comment form on its website or to rule-comments@sec.gov, referencing File Number S7-26-18. The Commission's request frames four broad issues for consideration (paraphrased below), with more specific questions listed under each issue: whether there are benefits to investors of having a separate quarterly report and earnings release, and reasons for variations and overlapping content between the two documents, the impact on investors when the earnings release is published before, after or concurrently with the quarterly report, whether earnings releases can be used to satisfy the core financial disclosure requirements of Form 10-Q, with the Form 10-Q supplementing or incorporating by reference the earnings release, and the merits of semi-annual vs quarterly interim reporting. The SEC's request follows an August tweet by President Trump, announcing that he had asked the Commission to study the termination of quarterly reporting in favor of semi-annual reporting, and SEC Chair Jay Clayton's remarks in November that the matter was under consideration. Observers are generally skeptical that the SEC will transition to less frequent reporting, given expectations of underwriters and investors and the current incorporation of periodic reports into registration statements.  However, the Commission has expressed its interest in exploring ways to promote efficiency in periodic reporting by reducing unnecessary duplication in the information that public companies disclose.  Furthermore, the SEC is seeking comment on how the existing system, alone or in combination with other factors, may foster an overly short-term focus by managers and other market participants. In particular, the SEC is considering streamlining the Form 10-Q and providing issuers with the option to provide quarterly reporting information in earnings releases to satisfy the core disclosure requirements of Form 10-Q.  In streamlining the Form 10-Q, the SEC has indicated that it may consider rescinding the Regulation S-X requirement that interim financial statements be reviewed by an auditor, US GAAP prescriptions on the form and content of interim financial statements, and Form 10-Q certifications by the CEO and CFO.  This approach would be similar to streamlined reporting requirements for foreign private issuers, which file annual reports, but not quarterly reports, and then furnish current reports on Form 6-K to the extent that the issuer must disclose material information about changes in the business. Would the Commission concurrently implement more stringent disclosure standards for earnings releases?  These releases  are currently "furnished" rather than "filed," meaning that they are not automatically incorporated by reference into registration statements or subject to liability under Sections 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, though they are still subject to anti-fraud provisions under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A decision to streamline quarterly reports and emphasize earnings releases, if is part of a broader emphasis on more current reporting, would be on-trend with investors' general appetite for information on a closer to real-time basis, similar to their experience with news and other types of information communicated through social media and Internet channels.  However, the importance and necessity of proper internal controls and disclosure controls, and the time required to perform those controls, will prevent real-time reporting without further technological advances.    

The SEC adopted new rules today that will require disclosure of a company’s hedging policies in proxy statements or information statements relating to the election of directors. The new rules are set forth in new Item 407(i) of Regulation S-K and require a company to describe any practices or policies it has adopted regarding the ability of its employees, officers or directors to engage in hedging transactions. The disclosure requirements can be satisfied by providing a “fair and accurate summary” of the hedging practices or policies, or by disclosing the practices or policies in full. If a summary is provided, it must include (i) the categories of persons covered by the policy or practice and (ii) the categories of hedging transactions that are specifically permitted or specifically disallowed. However, if a company has not established a hedging policy or practice it must disclosure that fact or state that hedging transactions are permitted. The rules do not require that companies prohibit or limit hedging transactions, or that companies adopt a policy relating to hedging. However, we expect that most companies will amend their current policies to address hedging if it is not already covered in existing policies. Implementation Dates: Except for “smaller reporting companies” and “emerging growth companies”, the new disclosure rules apply for proxy statements or information statements filed during fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 2019. For “smaller reporting companies” and “emerging growth companies”, the rules apply for proxy statements or information statements filed during fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 2020. Foreign private issuers will not be subject to the new disclosure requirements.

On August 17th, the SEC adopted amendments updating and simplifying disclosure rules.  See our prior summaries here and here.  The rules have finally been posted today in the Federal Register, which makes them effective November 5, 2018.    Among the amendments is the extension of a previously annual requirement to interim periods, to present a statement of changes in shareholders’ equity and to disclose the amount of dividends per share for each class of shares (vs common shares only) (either in a separate statement or a footnote)(see revised Rules 8-03(a)(5) and 10-01(a)(7) of Regulation S-X).  In guidance previously issued by the staff in CD&I 105.09, the staff indicated that it would not object if the filer’s first presentation of the changes in shareholders’ equity is included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter that begins after the effective date of the amendments, which is November 5, 2018. As a result, a December 31 fiscal year-end filer could omit this disclosure from its Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2018, and a filer with a June 30 fiscal year-end could omit this disclosure from its Form 10-Q for the periods ended September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2018.  However, the new disclosure must be included in the first Form 10-Q covering the period that begins after November 5, 2018.  For example, for filers with a June 30 or December 31 fiscal year-end, the Form 10-Q filed for the quarter ended March 31, 2019 must include the new disclosure.    

In August, the SEC adopted amendments updating and simplifying disclosure rules. See our prior summary here. Notable amendments included: the extension of a previously annual requirement to interim periods, to present a statement of changes in shareholders' equity and to disclose the amount of dividends per share for each class of shares (vs common shares only) (either in a separate statement or a footnote)(revised Rules 8-03(a)(5) and 10-01(a)(7) of Regulation S-X); the elimination of requirements to disclose pro forma information on business combinations in quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, because similar disclosure may be found in Form 8-K filings; the elimination of requirements in business descriptions to disclose financial information broken out by segment (Item 101(b) of Regulation S-K) and geography (Item 101(d)(2)), risks associated with, and dependence of a segment on, foreign operations (Item 101(d)(3)), and amounts spent on R&D (Item 101(c)(1)), because similar discussions may be found in the financial statement footnotes and/or the MD&A, when material; and the elimination of exhibits setting forth the computation of any ratio of earnings to fixed charges disclosed in an SEC report (Items 503(d) and 601(b)(12) of Regulation S-K), because US GAAP already requires the disclosure of components of the ratio. On www.thecorporatecounsel.net, Broc Romanek had blogged that it was unclear when the new rules become effective. The SEC staff has released C&DI 105.09 confirming that the amendments are effective for all filings made 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, which for calendar year-end reporting companies, may include their Form 10-Qs for the third quarter of 2018, if the final rule is published soon. However, in light of the proximity of the anticipated effective date to the filing deadline, the staff will not object if companies first present the statement of changes in shareholders' equity (first bullet above) in the Form 10-Q for the quarter that begins after the effective date, ie, for the first quarter of 2019 for calendar year-end reporting companies.

In order to facilitate discussion on the role of proxy advisory firms at the upcoming Roundtable on the Proxy Process, which is scheduled for November 2018, the SEC staff has determined to withdraw two no action letters that provided comfort to investment advisers in relying on proxy advisory firm recommendations: In Egan-Jones Proxy Services (May 27, 2004), the staff had confirmed that by voting based on the recommendations of an independent proxy advisory firm, an investment adviser could demonstrate the absence of a conflict of interest, and the fulfillment of fiduciary duties, provided that the investment adviser should first ascertain, among other things, whether the proxy advisory firm "(a) has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues and (b) can make such recommendations in an impartial manner and in the best interests of the adviser's clients." In Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (September 15, 2004), the staff had confirmed that investment advisers should evaluate the independence of proxy advisory firms based on the facts and circumstances, and that a number of ways include a thorough review of the firm's conflict procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation; case-by-case evaluation of the proxy advisory firm's relationship with issuers; or other means to ensure the integrity of the firm. The withdrawal of these no action letters opens up for discussion, and creates uncertainty around, the circumstances in which investors may rely on proxy advisory firm recommendations and when a firm may be considered independent.  The withdrawal is the latest development in the call for additional rulemaking around proxy advisory firms.  Last December, the House passed the Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act of 2017, which would require proxy advisory firms to register with the SEC, disclose potential conflicts of interest and codes of ethics and publicize methodologies for formulating proxy recommendations.  Then earlier this year, six members of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent letters to ISS and Glass Lewis requesting information regarding their eligibility for exemption from proxy rules, accuracy of reporting and potential conflicts of interest. The SEC staff has not to date signaled any changes to its guidance in Staff Legal Bulletin No.20, which among other topics, addresses considerations that an investment adviser may wish to take when it retains a proxy advisory firm, an investment adviser's ongoing duty to oversee a proxy advisory firm that it retains, and an investment adviser's duties to ascertain the material accuracy of the facts upon which a firm's recommendations are based. The impact of proxy advisory firms' recommendations on institutional investor voting is debated.  A study by Choi, Fisch and Kahan (2010) found that proxy advisory firms have modest influence on voting outcomes, with an estimate that ISS recommendations shift 6%-10% of investor voting.  Similarly, a survey by Rivel (2016) found that only 7% of institutional investors say that proxy advisory firms are the "most influential" contributors to their policies, and that generally established best practices are the primary source of their voting policies and decisions.  A study by McCahery, Sautner, and Starks (2016) of 143 institutional investors concluded that they rely on the advice of proxy advisory firms to complement their decision making, rather than relying on them exclusively. However, investor voting decisions often are highly correlated with proxy advisory firm recommendations.  According to a report published by the Manhattan Institute in May 2018, a sample of voting records for 713 institutional investors in 2017 showed that they are significantly likely to vote in accordance with proxy advisory firm recommendations across a broad spectrum of governance issues.  For example, 95% of institutional investors vote in favor of a say on pay proposal when ISS recommends for it, while only 68% vote in favor when ISS is opposed. This correlation may suggest that proxy advisory firms have more influence than institutional investors appreciate or acknowledge.  It may also indicate that governance practitioners form a community, whether they work for investors or proxy advisory firms, and that they develop and are influenced by a common set of trends and "best practices," resulting in investor voting policies that synch with ISS or Glass Lewis voting policies.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced last Friday that it has adopted amendments to certain disclosure requirements that have become duplicative, overlapping, or outdated in light of other Commission disclosure requirements, US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), or changes in the information environment.   These amendments were originally proposed in 2016, in order to implement provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.   While a more complete summary of the changes is provided below, notable amendments include: the elimination of requirements for pro forma information on business combinations in interim filings, because similar disclosure may be found in Form 8-K filings; and the elimination of requirements for financial information broken out by segment and geography in a business description contained in SEC reports and registration statements, because similar discussions may be found in the financial statement footnotes and/or the MD&A, when these topics are material to an understanding of the business. Overall, the amendments are not intended to alter the mix of information available to investors in SEC reports and registration statements.  As a result, companies should take care to cross-reference applicable overlapping disclosure and to continue to disclose segment and geographically-specific information in other parts of their filings, including in the risk factors and the MD&A, to the extent that the discussion is material to an understanding of the business. Where there are redundant and overlapping disclosure requirements from SEC rules and GAAP standards established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the amendments attempt to reduce issuers' compliance burden.  The SEC has referred certain proposed amendments to FASB for their consideration in making consistent changes to future GAAP standards, and commentators have encouraged both agencies  to continue to coordinate on their reporting standards. Multiple categories of issuers will be impacted by the amendments.  Specifically: Regulation S-K amendments relate to domestic issuers and foreign private issuers that choose to file on domestic forms. Regulation S-X amendments relate to domestic issuers and foreign private issuers that report under US GAAP or reconcile to US GAAP. Certain amendments affect asset-backed issuers, Regulation A issuers and companies regulated under the Investment Company Act. The amendments will be effective 30 days from publication in the Federal Register.  Furthermore, the SEC staff has been directed to review the amendments' impact on disclosure and capital formation within five years and to report back to the Commission.       Here are highlights of the SEC rules that have been eliminated or streamlined: Overlapping requirements, which are related to, but not the same as GAAP, IFRS, or other Commission disclosure requirements.  Disclosure requirements that convey similar information, or that are incremental but no longer useful, have been deleted, while incremental, overlapping requirements have been integrated with other SEC rules.  Notable disclosure requirements that have been deleted include: (1) derivative accounting policies under Rule 4-08(n) of Regulation S-X, which are already addressed in financial statement footnotes under US GAAP, except for the requirement to disclose where in the statement of cash flows the effect of derivative financial instruments is reported; (2) amounts spent on research and development activities in the business description, in accordance with Item 101(c) of Regulation S-K, since this information will remain in the financial statement footnotes and the MD&A, when material; (3) dilution from the amount of common equity subject to outstanding options, warrants, or convertible securities, when the class of common equity has no established US public trading market, which must be disclosed in Form S-1 or Form 10 under Item 201(a)(2)(i) of Regulation S-K; (4) historical and pro forma ratios of earnings to fixed charges for issuers that register debt securities or preference securities, and an exhibit setting forth the computation of any ratio of earnings to fixed charges disclosed in an SEC report, required by Regulation S-K; (5) pro forma financial information in interim filings for business combinations, in accordance with Rule 8-03 and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X, because US GAAP and Item 9.01 of Form 8-K result in similar disclosure; (6) financial information about segments in the business description, pursuant to Item 101(b) of Regulation S-K, which will continue to be available in the footnotes to the financial statements and the MD&A, when material; (7) financial information by geographic area, pursuant to Item 101(d) of Regulation S-K, which will continue to be available in the footnotes to the financial statements and the MD&A, when material; and (8) information on the seasonality of the business in interim reports, pursuant to Instruction 5 to Item 303(b) of Regulation S-K, which will continue to be available in the MD&A, when available. Outdated requirements, which have become obsolete as a result of the passage of time or changes in the regulatory, business, or technological environment.  In addition to eliminating outdated transition disclosure requirements, the Commission amended rules that have become outdated due to changes in the regulatory, business and technological environment.  These amendments are described in detail starting on page 101 of the adopting release.  (1) With regard to market price disclosure required under Item 201(a)(1) of Regulation S-K and Item 9.A.4 of Form 20-F, issuers whose common equity is traded in an established public trading market will only be required to disclose the trading symbol, instead of sale or bid prices, of their stock.  (2) Domestic and foreign private issuers may delete requirements to identify the Public Reference Room and its physical address and phone number in their reports and registration statements, since investors now use the Internet to access filings.  (3) Furthermore, all issuers will be required disclose their Internet address if they have one.  (4) Foreign private issuers will no longer be required to disclose exchange rate data when financial statements are prepared in a foreign currency in Form 20-F, since exchange rate information is readily available free on a number of websites. Redundant and duplicative requirements, which require substantially similar disclosures as GAAP, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), or other Commission disclosure requirements.  These amendments are summarized in a series of tables starting on page 29 of the adopting release.  While they will not substantially change disclosure, they are intended to alleviate confusion and inconsistency by  eliminating redundant and duplicative disclosure requirements, including Regulation S-X requirements on: the consolidation of financial statements, disclosure of significant changes in debt obligations, income tax rate reconciliation, title and amount of securities subject to warrants, rights and convertible instruments, identification of related party transactions, material contingencies in interim financial statements, presentation and computation of earnings per share, disclosure specific to insurance companies and bank holding companies, reasons for changes in accounting principles in an interim period, examples of interim period adjustments, common control transactions disclosed in interim financial statements, the disclosure of discontinued operations in interim financial statements, and incorporation by reference into Form 10-Q of reports furnished to security holders. Superseded requirements, which are inconsistent with recent legislation, more recently updated Commission disclosure requirements, or more recently updated GAAP.  The SEC adopted a series of amendments to reflect more recently updated US GAAP requirements or more recently updated Commission disclosure requirements.  These amendments are described starting on page 108 of the adopting release and include: (1) elimination of a requirement under Rule 3-15(a)(1) of Regulation S-X that REITs separately present all gains and losses on the sale of properties outside of continuing operations in the income statement, which was inconsistent with a US GAAP requirement that only applies to discontinued operations; (2) elimination of certain Regulation S-X requirements related to consolidation of financial statements that were inconsistent with US GAAP provisions related to difference in fiscal periods, the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and intercompany transactions; (3) elimination of certain Regulation S-X requirements for development stage companies; (4) removal of certain Regulation S-X requirements for insurance companies that conflicted with US GAAP; (5) elimination of references to "extraordinary items" in SEC rules and forms, consistent with US GAAP; and (6) replacement of references to "generally accepted auditing standards" (GAAS) with PCAOB standards.      

The SEC held a very busy open meeting yesterday, voting on the following final and proposed rules: Adoption of amendments to modernize the definition of “smaller reporting company,” which was established in 2008.  See our previous discussion of the amendments.   Adoption of amendments to require the use of the Inline XBRL format in certain filings, which were proposed in 2017 and have been under study for many years. The amendments require the use of the Inline eXtensible Business Reporting Language (“XBRL”) format for the submission of operating company financial statement information and fund risk/return summary information and make related changes.  Inline XBRL involves embedding XBRL data directly into the filing so that the disclosure document is both human-readable and machine-readable. Phase-in for operating companies: 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. The requirement for operating companies and funds to post XBRL data on their websites will be eliminated upon the effective date of the amendments. A proposal that would permit certain exchange-traded funds to operate without first obtaining a fund-specific exemptive order from the Commission, which is a process that has not changed since the first ETF was approved in 1992.    Adoption of amendments related to disclosures of liquidity risk management for open-end funds, which were proposed earlier this year.    A proposal to amend rules that govern the Commission’s whistleblower program.  It has been seven years since these rules were adopted. The Commission is seeking public comment and data on a broad range of issues relating to the whistleblower program, and will then consider further action on the proposal, which includes provisions: Allowing awards based on deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements entered into by the DOJ or a state AG in a criminal case, or a settlement agreement entered into by the Commission. Providing the Commission with flexibility to increase awards on smaller actions, while decreasing larger awards.  In the Wall Street Journal, Stephen Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblower Center, criticized the proposal, saying that scaling back payouts is tantamount to "killing the goose that lays the golden egg."  The Commission would have discretion to increase awards that could yield a payout of less than $2 million , and establish awards for enforcement actions that do not currently qualify as covered actions because they do not meet the more than $1 million threshold requirement.  Meanwhile, the Commission would have discretion to reduce larger awards, though in no event would awards be adjusted below $30 million, and awards would still be subject to the 10% statutory minimum. The SEC's related Fact Sheet notes that 40% of funds paid out by the Commission to whistleblowers have been paid out in only three awards. Eliminating potential double recoveries under the current definition of "related action." Modifying Rule 21F-2 to comport with the Supreme Court's holding in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, where the Court held that whistleblower provisions of the Exchange Act require that a person report a possible securities law violation to the Commission in order to qualify for protection against employment retaliation under that Rule. Increasing the efficiency of the claims review process. Clarifying and enhancing certain policies and procedures and issuing interpretive guidance to help clarify the meaning of "independent analysis" as that term is defined in Exchange Act Rule 21F-4 and utilized in award applications. An archived webcast of the meeting will be available on sec.gov

The SEC announced that it has voted to amend the definition of "smaller reporting company," or "SRC," expanding the population of companies that qualify for a range of scaled (reduced) disclosure requirements. The rules will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Examples of scaled disclosure include that SRCs, in their annual reports on Form 10-K, are not obligated to include risk factors, and selected and supplementary financial data. They may include only two years of income statements (vs three years) and a comparison of two years (vs three years) of financial results. In their proxy statements, SRCs are not required to include a CD&A, CEO pay ratio and certain executive compensation tables. They may include fewer NEOs, and only two years of compensation in the Summary Compensation Table. Under the new definition, companies with a public float of less than $250 million (vs $75 million) will qualify as SRCs. A company with no public float or with a public float of less than $700 million will also qualify as an SRC if it had annual revenues of less than $100 million (vs $50 million) during its most recently completed fiscal year. Commission staff estimates that 966 additional companies will be eligible for SRC status in the first year under the new definition. The SEC released the following summary of the amendments to the definition of an SRC:   Criteria Previous SRC Definition Revised SRC Definition Public Float Public float of less than $75 million Public float of less than $250 million Revenues Less than $50 million of annual revenues and no public float Less than $100 million of annual revenues and no public float, or public float of less than $700 million For purposes of determining whether or not it is an SRC, a reporting issuer (vs. a non-reporting issuer filing its first registration statement) must measure its public float annually, on the last trading day of the second fiscal quarter of the previous fiscal year. Qualifying issuers are then eligible to use scaled disclosure rules for the first quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal year following the determination. Newly eligible SRCs may "early adopt" those rules for the quarterly report immediately following the determination. Once a company fails to qualify as an SRC, it may continue to report under SRC disclosure requirements through the end of that fiscal year. However, in order to re-qualify as an SRC, the company must meet more stringent qualification thresholds. The subsequent qualification thresholds, set forth in the table below, are set at 80% of the initial qualification thresholds in the table above. Criteria Previous SRC Definition Revised SRC Definition Public Float Public float of less than $50 million Public float of less than $250 million Revenues Less than $40 million of annual revenues and no public float Less than $80 million of annual revenues, if it previously had $100 million or more of annual revenues; and Less than $560 million of public float, if it previously had $700 million or more of public float. It is worth noting that a company may qualify as an SRC, but still be an accelerated filer. The amendments do not change the threshold in the “accelerated filer” definition that requires, among other things, that filers provide the auditor’s attestation of management’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting. However, the SEC staff has begun to formulate recommendations to the Commission for possible additional changes to the “accelerated filer” definition to reduce the number of companies that qualify as accelerated filers. In addition to amendments to the definition of "smaller reporting company," the SEC also adopted amendments to Rule 3-05(b)(2)(iv) of Regulation S-X, in order to increase the net revenue threshold in that rule from $50 million to $100 million. As a result, companies may omit financial statements of businesses acquired or to be acquired for the earliest of the three fiscal years otherwise required by Rule 3-05 if the net revenues of that business are less than $100 million.

Earlier this week, Dorsey hosted a webinar panel presentation on the SEC’s recent guidance on cybersecurity disclosures and policies. The webinar provided a detailed walk-through of the SEC’s guidance, including issues related to enhanced disclosure, insider trading, and Reg FD policies. The panel also discussed the impact of the SEC’s guidance within the changing landscape of cybersecurity and current developments in shareholder litigation, SEC enforcement actions, and other regulatory and legislative initiatives such as the GDPR. The Equifax data breach is used as a case study to illustrate how the SEC’s guidance might play out in this broader context. The webinar recording and presentation materials are available on our website at www.dorsey.com/newsresources/events/videos/2018/06/seminar-playback-sec-guidance-on-cybersecurity.

Last month, over 35% of General Electric Co.’s shareholders voted against ratification of KPMG LLC as GE’s auditor. This high level of opposition (for some context, last year’s votes against KPMG were at a mere 5.7%) comes in the wake of GE’s recent accounting issues and criticism from proxy-advisory firms. More specifically, the SEC is currently investigating some of GE’s accounting practices, including its need for increased reserves in its insurance operations and its revenue recognition accounting for long-term service agreements. KPMG, which has been GE’s auditor for 109 years, didn’t catch any of these issues. While GE’s 109-year relationship with KPMG may seem unusual, in the context of large U.S. companies, a relationship spanning 50 years or more is relatively common and, as many will argue, beneficial. Long tenures mean that the auditors have deep institutional knowledge of the company and are potentially more cost-effective, since auditor changes consume significant resources as the new auditor is getting up to speed. Auditor tenure has been the subject of rulemaking by regulatory bodies here and abroad: In June 2017, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) finalized a new standard requiring that auditor’s reports disclose the length of the relationship between the company and its auditor. This new standard, which is applicable to audits conducted after December 15, 2017, was adopted amidst concerns that lengthy auditor tenures could mean greater tolerance of “creative” accounting and susceptibility to turning a blind eye to management issues. Proponents of the new standard claimed that disclosing tenure length was an important data point for investor consideration. Back in 2011, the PCAOB issued a concept release that broached the topic of mandatory audit firm rotation due to independence concerns, but after significant pushback from both auditors and companies, the topic was tabled. In the European Union, a mandatory audit firm rotation requirement has been in place since 2014: public companies must rotate auditing firms every 10 years, with the potential for an additional 10 years provided a competitive bidding process is conducted. Last Wednesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a proposing release to “refocus the analysis [of] whether an auditor is independent when the auditor has a lending relationship with certain shareholders of an audit client.” The release shows that the SEC is once again thinking about auditor independence, and its call for comments on whether the SEC should “make other changes to our auditor independence rules” could lead to some interesting discussion in the coming months.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") announced Tuesday that Altaba, the entity formerly known as Yahoo! Inc., has agreed to pay a $35 million penalty to settle charges that it misled investors by failing to disclose one of the world’s largest data breaches in which hackers stole personal data relating to hundreds of millions of user accounts. According to the SEC’s order, within days of the December 2014 intrusion, Yahoo’s information security team learned that Russian hackers had stolen what the security team referred to internally as the company’s “crown jewels”: usernames, email addresses, phone numbers, birthdates, encrypted passwords, and security questions and answers for hundreds of millions of user accounts.  Although information relating to the breach was reported to members of Yahoo’s senior management and legal department, Yahoo failed to properly investigate the circumstances of the breach and to adequately consider whether the breach needed to be disclosed to investors.  The fact of the breach was not disclosed to the investing public until more than two years later, when in 2016 Yahoo was in the process of closing the acquisition of its operating business by Verizon Communications, Inc. In the order, the SEC finds that Yahoo's post-breach disclosure in quarterly and annual reports was too general, stating that the company faced only the risk of, and negative effects that might flow from, data breaches.  The company failed to disclose the actual breach or its potential business impact and legal implications. In addition to deficiencies in Yahoo's disclosure to investors, the SEC’s order found that Yahoo did not share information regarding the breach with its auditors or outside counsel in order to assess the company’s disclosure obligations in its public filings. Finally, the SEC’s order found that Yahoo failed to maintain disclosure controls and procedures designed to ensure that reports from Yahoo’s information security team concerning cyber breaches, or the risk of such breaches, were properly and timely assessed for potential disclosure. In its Statement and Guidance on Public Company Cybersecurity Disclosures, released earlier this year, the SEC reiterates that public companies are required to disclose material risks and incidents, including those related to cybersecurity, in their current and periodic reports.  The SEC encourages companies to continue to use current reports to disclose material cybersecurity-related information promptly as this practice reduces the risk of selective disclosure.  Furthermore, beyond requirements explicitly found in SEC regulations, companies are also required to disclose material information and revisit previous disclosure, especially during a cybersecurity investigation, as may be necessary to ensure the company’s filings are not misleading.  Notably, perhaps in recognition of how rapidly the scope of a breach may evolve, the SEC provides that companies “have a duty to correct prior disclosures that the company determines were untrue at the time it was made, or a duty to update a disclosure that becomes materially inaccurate after it is made.”  See our earlier memo for a summary of the SEC's guidance. In evaluating the range of potential disclosure for quarterly and annual reports, companies should consider that cybersecurity breaches or the risk of such breaches may trigger disclosure in the Management's Discussion and Analysis, if the breach presents a material event, trend or uncertainty that has had or is reasonably likely to have a material effect on results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.  Furthermore, financial statements may need to reflect costs incurred, insurance proceeds and contingent liabilities resulting from claims.  A cybersecurity breach may also need to be addressed in the description of business, discussion of legal proceedings and effectiveness of internal controls and disclosure controls and procedures. Even before the next quarterly or annual report, companies should consider whether the information available on the cybersecurity breach is material and should be communicated to investors in a current report in order to reduce the risk of selective disclosure in violation of Regulation FD.  If material information on a cybersecurity breach is not publicly disclosed in a current report, companies should consider whether it is appropriate to impose an event-specific blackout on trading in the company's stock, in accordance with applicable insider trading policies.  Determining the population of employees and other individuals who know, or in hindsight should have known, about the breach, and who should be subject to the event-specific blackout, deserves careful consideration, as demonstrated by the Equifax experience, where high-ranking executives traded in the company's stock after a cybersecurity breach was discovered but before it was announced.