Corporate Governance – Duane Morris on Capital Markets

March 22, 2022 by Darrick M. Mix

SEC Proposes Climate Disclosure Rules for Public Companies

On March 21, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed, in a 510-page release, rule changes that would require registrants to include certain climate-related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports, including information about climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on their business, results of operations, or financial condition, and certain climate-related financial statement metrics in audited financial statements. The required information about climate-related risks also would include disclosure of a registrant’s greenhouse gas emissions. The commissioners voted on party lines to approve the proposal on a three to one vote.

SEC Chair Gary Gensler commented that “if adopted, [the rule changes] would provide investors with consistent, comparable, and decision-useful information for making their investment decisions, and it would provide consistent and clear reporting obligations for issuers.” Mr. Gensler believes that the proposal would help issuers more efficiently and effectively disclose climate risks and meet investor demand and that “companies and investors alike would benefit from the clear rules of the road proposed in the release.”

Republican SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce voted against the proposal and issued a dissenting statement. “We are here laying the cornerstone of a new disclosure framework that will eventually rival our existing securities-disclosure framework in magnitude and cost, and probably outpace it in complexity,” Ms. Peirce said. She also warned that the proposed rules will enrich “the climate-industrial complex” while hurting investors, the economy and the SEC.

The proposed rule changes would require a registrant to disclose information about:

the registrant’s governance of climate-related risks and relevant risk management processes;
how any climate-related risks identified by the registrant have had or are likely to have a material impact on its business and consolidated financial statements, which may manifest over the short-, medium-, or long-term;
how any identified climate-related risks have affected or are likely to affect the registrant’s strategy, business model, and outlook; and
the impact of climate-related events (severe weather events and other natural conditions) and transition activities on the line items of a registrant’s consolidated financial statements, as well as on the financial estimates and assumptions used in the financial statements.

For registrants that already conduct scenario analysis, have developed transition plans, or publicly set climate-related targets or goals, the proposed amendments would require certain disclosures to enable investors to understand those aspects of the registrants’ climate risk management.

In what is likely to be a more burdensome and costly disclosure requirement, the proposed rules also would require a registrant to disclose information about its direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Scope 1), indirect emissions from purchased electricity or other forms of energy (Scope 2), and GHG emissions from upstream and downstream activities in its value chain (Scope 3). Disclosure of Scope 3 emissions would be mandatory only if output of GHG is material, or significant to investors, or if companies outline specific targets for them. According to the SEC, these proposals for GHG emissions disclosures would provide investors with decision-useful information to assess a registrant’s exposure to, and management of, climate-related risks, and in particular transition risks. Adding to the cost of these requirements, accelerated filers and large accelerated filers would be required to include an attestation report from an independent attestation service provider covering Scopes 1 and 2 emissions disclosures.

The proposing release will be open for public comment for a relatively short period of 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, or 60 days after the date of issuance and publication on sec.gov, whichever period is longer.

December 19, 2018 by Richard A. Silfen

SEC Adopts Final Rules for Disclosure of Hedging Policies

On December 18, 2018, the SEC approved final rules requiring companies to disclose their practices or policies with respect to hedging transactions by officers and other employees as well as directors. The final rules have not yet been published, but the SEC issued a press release (https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-291) describing the rule it adopted. The new rule implements Section 955 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

New Item 407(i) of Regulation S-K will require a company to disclose in proxy or information statements for the election of directors its practices or policies for officers and other employees, as well as directors, relating to:

purchasing securities or other financial instruments, or otherwise engaging in transactions,
that hedge or offset, or are designed to hedge or offset,
any decrease in the market value of equity securities granted as compensation or held, directly or indirectly, by the officer, other employee or director.

The new item has broad application for affiliated entities and will require disclosure of practices or policies on hedging activities with respect to equity securities of the company, any parent or subsidiary of the company or any subsidiary of any parent of the company.

Companies may either summarize their practices or policies for these types of hedging activities or, alternatively, disclose their practices or policies in full. If a company does not have a practice or policy with respect to hedging activities, it must disclose that fact or state that it permits hedging transactions generally.

Companies will be required to comply with the new disclosure requirements in proxy and information statements for the election of directors during fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 2019. “Smaller reporting companies” and “emerging growth companies” will have an additional year to comply with the new disclosure requirements. Companies that have adopted policies on hedging may opt to provide the additional disclosure during the 2019 proxy season.

August 10, 2016August 11, 2016 by Richard A. Silfen

First SEC Staff Comments on Recent Non-GAAP CDIs

As many of us have noticed, the first comment letters from the staff in the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, following Corp Fin’s recent issuance of new CDI guidance on the presentation of non-GAAP financial measures, have become available publicly. The comment letters shed additional useful light on Corp Fin’s views concerning non-GAAP presentations.

One of the comment letters sent to Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. on June 20, 2016, provides a particularly helpful glimpse into Corp Fin’s views about the use of non-GAAP information in the executive summary of MD&A. The staff’s letter includes the following comment in reference to MD&A in the registrant’s 2015 Form 10-K:

We note that in your executive summary you focus on key non-GAAP financial measures and not GAAP financial measures which may be inconsistent with the updated Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations issued on May 17, 2016 (specifically Question 102.10). We also note issues related to prominence within your earnings release filed on February 1, 2016. Please review this guidance when preparing your next earnings release.

Indeed, the executive summary portion of the MD&A – when initially conceptualized in the SEC’s 2003 release providing interpretive guidance in the preparation of MD&A – was supposed to include an overview to facilitate investor understanding. The overview was intended to reflect the most important matters on which management focuses in evaluating operating performance and financial condition. In particular, the overview was not supposed to be duplicative, but rather more of a “dashboard” providing investors insight in management’s operation and management of the business.

Looking back at the release to write this blog entry, I note references, with regard to Commission guidance on preparation of the MD&A overview, explaining that the presentation should inform investors about how the company earns revenues and income and generates cash, among other matters, but should not include boilerplate disclaimers and other generic language. The Commission even acknowledged that the overview “cannot disclose everything and should not be considered by itself in determining whether a company has made full disclosure.”

Many companies have presented in their MD&A overview those non-GAAP measures used by management to operate the business and otherwise manage the company. Where appropriate, references typically are made to the information appearing elsewhere in the document, presented to enable compliance with applicable rules and guidance for non-GAAP presentations. Interestingly, the staff, in its comment, questions the “prominence” of the non-GAAP presentation in the context of the earnings release (noting that the staff provides less specificity in the portion of its comment relating to the MD&A overview). This focus on prominence – to the extent the staff’s concerns relate to the MD&A overview – is worth further consideration in preparing MD&A disclosure. In this connection, query whether the staff – in questioning prominence – could be expressing a view that when management analyzes for investors the measures on which it focuses in managing the business, if management relies on non-GAAP measures, it necessarily must focus on (and explain) – with no less prominence – the corresponding GAAP measures.

December 15, 2014 by Darrick M. Mix

The Comverge Case: Fiduciary Duties and Break-up Fees in M&A

Our partner Richard Renck in Wilmington recently posted an entry on our Delaware Business Law Blog regarding the Comverge case decided last month by the Delaware Court of Chancery. Among other things, the Court’s opinion provides practitioners and clients with insight regarding break-up fees as well as a road map of how the Court of Chancery reviews challenges to third-party sale transactions, approved by a disinterested board, under the enhanced scrutiny of Revlon. Please see Richard’s post here.

January 30, 2012September 10, 2014 by John W. Kauffman

NYSE Further Narrows Broker Discretionary Voting: Potential Impact on a Company’s Proxy Season Planning

The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) once again has limited the ability of a broker to vote on proposals at shareholder meetings for which the broker has not received voting instructions from its customers. This narrowing follows recent rule amendments triggered by the Dodd-Frank Act prohibiting brokers from voting uninstructed shares in the election of directors and on proposals relating to executive compensation.

Continue reading “NYSE Further Narrows Broker Discretionary Voting: Potential Impact on a Company’s Proxy Season Planning”

January 20, 2012September 10, 2014 by Darrick M. Mix

Executive Compensation: Negative Say-on-Pay Vote Does Not Trump Board Authority

In an important battle in the ongoing executive compensation wars, last week a federal court in Oregon affirmed that directors of Oregon corporations are indeed protected by the business judgment rule in making executive compensation decisions. In ruling that the claim in Plumbers Local No. 137 Pension Fund v. Davis should be dismissed, the specifically declined to follow a recent controversial decision by an Ohio court allowing a say-on-pay lawsuit to proceed under similar circumstances.

Continue reading “Executive Compensation: Negative Say-on-Pay Vote Does Not Trump Board Authority”