On July 26, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted final rules requiring U.S. public companies to disclose material cybersecurity incidents on Form 8-K and, on an annual basis, disclose material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on Form 10-K. The final rules also require foreign private issuers to make comparable disclosures on Forms 6-K and 20-F.
Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.
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:
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.
On September 23, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted the amendments to its shareholder proposal rule, which governs the process for a shareholder to have a proposal included in the company’s proxy statement for consideration by all shareholders. Typical shareholder proposals include recommendations that a company or its board of directors take specified actions. The amendments are designed to promote engagement between the company and the proponent, raise eligibility thresholds for shorter-term investors and further restrict repeat proposals garnering minimal support.
To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm’s website.
On August 26, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted final rules amending the definitions of “accredited investor” and “qualified institutional buyer” (QIB). The purpose of the amendments is to identify more effectively institutional and individual investors that have sufficient knowledge and expertise to participate in investment opportunities without investor protections provided by registration under the Securities Act of 1933.
The final amendments will be published in the Federal Register soon and become effective 60 days after publication.
To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.
Today, final amendments to the definitions of “accelerated filer” and “large accelerated filer” under Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 became effective. The SEC adopted the final rule implementing the amendments on March 12, 2020.
The amendments are designed to reduce the number of issuers that qualify as accelerated and large accelerated filers, thereby promoting capital formation for certain smaller reporting companies by reducing compliance costs while still maintaining investor protections.
For additional information regarding the amendments, please visit the firm website.
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:
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.
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court held, 9-0, in the case of Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers that the term “whistleblower” under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act does not include individuals who report violations of securities laws internally to their companies but not to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
In Digital Realty Trust, Paul Somers sued his former employer, Digital Realty Trust, alleging that his employment was terminated because he reported certain suspected securities laws violations to Digital Realty Trust’s senior management and that such termination constituted an unlawful retaliation against a whistleblower under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Court held in favor of Digital Realty Trust, stating that the whistleblower anti-retaliation provision under the Dodd-Frank Act does not protect individuals who have reported alleged misconduct internally to their employer, but not to the SEC.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court focused on the actual text of the anti-retaliation provision of the Dodd-Frank Act as well as the Dodd-Frank Act’s purpose. The Court noted that the Dodd-Frank Act defines a “whistleblower” as “any individual who provides…information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission, in a manner established, by rule or regulation, by the Commission.” Further, the Court stated that the purpose of the Dodd-Frank Act was to aid the SEC’s enforcement efforts by motivating people who know of securities law violations to tell the SEC.
The Court’s ruling overturned the Ninth Circuit’s March 2017 ruling and resolved a split between the Ninth and Fifth Circuits. In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit found that Mr. Somers was entitled to protection under Dodd-Frank Act. In July 2013, the Fifth Circuit ruled in the case of Asadi v. G.E. Energy that whistleblowers must take their complaints to the SEC to be eligible for protection under the Dodd-Frank Act.
On April 7, 2017, the SEC Division of Corporate Finance issued updated guidance regarding the SEC’s conflict minerals rules, stating that, in light of uncertainties regarding how the SEC will resolve issues relating to its conflict mineral rules, the SEC will not recommend enforcement action with respect to a company – even if it is subject to Item 1.01(c) of Form SD – to comply with the disclosure obligations under the SEC’s conflict minerals rules by only including in its Form SD the disclosures required by Items 1.01(a) and (b) of Form SD.
The SEC was prompted to update its guidance by the April 3, 2017 final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in National Association of Manufacturers, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission,[1] in which the court held that the provisions of Item 1.01(c) of Form SD that require companies to report to the SEC and state on their websites that a product has “not been found to be ‘DRC conflict free’” violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Continue reading “SEC Issues Updated Guidance Regarding Conflict Mineral Rules”
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.
A “books and records” action brought by New York’s comptroller to determine how Qualcomm Incorporated “is spending corporate funds in the political arena” may create a precedent for shareholders seeking to force corporate disclosure of political contributions.
The suit was brought last week in Delaware Chancery Court by Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli as trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, a shareholder of Qualcomm. The complaint cites to recent studies concluding that “corporate political spending is negatively correlated with enterprise value” and may indicate “more widespread control and governance deficiencies.”
