SEC files complaint against Elon Musk alleging violation of Section 13(d)
On Tuesday, the SEC filed a complaint in the D.C. federal district court alleging that Elon Musk ignored the Section 13(d) beneficial ownership reporting deadline when, in March 2022, he acquired more than 5% of outstanding Twitter shares. Because Musk failed to timely file the report with the SEC, the SEC alleged, he was able to continue to make purchases of Twitter common stock at artificially low prices, allowing him to underpay for the shares by at least $150 million Hmmm. Think this case will be pursued after the SEC comes under new management?
McMahon takes a bump
On Friday, the SEC announced settled charges against Vince McMahon, founder, controlling shareholder and former Executive Chair and CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, for “knowingly circumventing WWE’s internal accounting controls,” making false or misleading statements to WWE’s auditor, and causing “WWE’s violations of the reporting and books and records provisions of the Exchange Act.” The SEC alleged that McMahon signed two settlement agreements relating to claims of sexual misconduct (as the WSJ framed it), one in 2019 and one in 2022, on behalf of himself and WWE but failed to disclose the existence of the agreements to “WWE’s Board of Directors, legal department, accountants, financial reporting personnel, or auditor.” Oops. The SEC charged that this omission “circumvented WWE’s system of internal accounting controls and caused material misstatements in WWE’s 2018 and 2021 financial statements,” leading WWE ultimately to issue financial restatements. McMahon agreed to pay a $400,000 civil penalty and to reimburse WWE just over $1.3 million pursuant to SOX 304(a), the SOX clawback provision. According to the Associate Regional Director in the SEC’s New York Regional Office, “[c]ompany executives cannot enter into material agreements on behalf of the company they serve and withhold that information from the company’s control functions and auditor.” (Even if—or maybe especially if—it involves hush money.)
SEC charges Entergy with violation of internal accounting controls requirements
At the end of last year, the SEC announced settled charges against Entergy Corporation, a Louisiana-based utility company with shares traded on the NYSE, for failure to maintain internal accounting controls adequate to ensure that its surplus materials and supplies were accurately recorded on its books and financial statements in accordance with GAAP. The case represents yet another example where the charged misconduct related only to ineffective controls, without any associated charges of fraud. According to Sanjay Wadhwa, Acting SEC Enforcement Director, “internal accounting controls serve as a front-line defense in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of financial statements….Investors rely on public companies, such as Entergy, to ensure that adequate internal accounting controls are in place. We allege that Entergy failed to fulfill its obligation in this regard.” Entergy agreed to pay a civil penalty of $12 million. Rumor has it that we’re likely not going to see a lot more of these “controls-only” types of Enforcement actions once the SEC comes under new management.
Cooley Alert—Climate and Sustainability Regulations: 2024 End-of-Year Review
Just because we’re highly likely to see a monkey wrench thrown into the current SEC’s efforts to adopt regulations on climate and sustainability (see this PubCo post and this PubCo post) doesn’t mean that we won’t be seeing a lot of activity in connection with state and international ESG requirements, along with voluntary reporting standards and various stakeholder policies, that will affect many US and other companies in this new year. This new Cooley Alert, Climate and Sustainability Regulations: 2024 End-of-Year Review, from our Public Companies and ESG and Sustainability Advisory groups, provides a rundown of developments regarding current key climate and sustainability regulations, such as the California climate statutes and the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, and the scoop on significant stakeholder developments as of the end of 2024. The Alert also highlights “critical areas of focus for the year ahead.” If your company may be subject to any climate or sustainability frameworks—whether mandatory or voluntary—this is a comprehensive Cooley Alert that you need to read!
Cooley Alert: Should the SEC Revisit Executive Security Perquisite Disclosure?
You might want to look at this recent Cooley Alert, Should SEC Revisit Executive Security Perquisite Disclosure?, from our Public Companies and Compensation and Benefits Groups. Following the alarming murder of an insurance company CEO recently, the need for protection and security for CEOs and other executives is now high on the agenda, as are questions about how these items should be reported. Under the guidance set forth in the SEC’s 2006 release, an “item is not a perquisite or personal benefit if it is integrally and directly related to the performance of the executive’s duties. Otherwise, an item is a perquisite or personal benefit if it confers a direct or indirect benefit that has a personal aspect, without regard to whether it may be provided for some business reason or for the convenience of the company, unless it is generally available on a non-discriminatory basis to all employees.” According to the release, the “concept of a benefit that is ‘integrally and directly related’ to job performance is a narrow one.” But, the Alert contends, maybe that approach should be revisited.
Corp Fin announcement regarding acceleration requests—TODAY
Corp Fin has announced that, presumably in light of the imminent government shutdown, if you want Corp Fin to “consider a request for acceleration of the effective date of a pending registration statement or qualification of a pending offering statement to today, December 20, 2024,” you should “contact a staff member identified in the letter you received. Alternatively, you may contact the Disclosure Review Program’s main number at (202) 551-2076.” After 5:30 p.m. today, the Corp Fin “will not be in a position to act upon any such requests until the SEC receives appropriations to fund its operations.”
Nasdaq proposes to modify initial listing requirements for liquidity
Nasdaq is proposing a rule change to modify the initial listing requirements related to liquidity. More specifically, Nasdaq is proposing to change Listing Rules 5405 and 5505 to require that a company seeking to list on the Nasdaq Global Market or Nasdaq Capital Market in connection with an IPO or uplist to Nasdaq from the OTC in connection with a public offering “satisfy the applicable minimum Market Value of Unrestricted Publicly Held Shares (“MVUPHS”) requirement solely from the proceeds of the offering.” That would mean that previously issued shares registered for resale would no longer be counted as unrestricted publicly held shares in the calculation of MVUPHS. Comments on the proposal are being solicited.
Happy Holidays!
SEC charges Becton Dickinson with misleading investors about regulatory risks and product sales
The SEC has announced settled charges against Becton, Dickinson and Company, a medical device manufacturer known as BD listed on the NYSE, for “repeatedly misleading investors about risks associated with its continued sales of its Alaris infusion pump and for overstating its income by failing to record the costs of fixing multiple software flaws with the pump.” In essence, the company failed to disclose that it needed, but did not have, FDA clearance for certain changes to the software for its Alaris product, sales of which contributed about 10% of BD’s profits. Without those changes, the product was potentially harmful to patients. “Rather than inform investors that these issues heightened the risk that the FDA would limit BD’s ability to continue selling Alaris,” the SEC charged, “BD made misleading statements in its periodic reports about its regulatory risks.” BD agreed to pay a $175 million civil penalty. Companies in the life sciences should take note that this is yet another recent Enforcement action aimed at a life science company’s alleged misleading statements, including hypothetical or generic risks, regarding regulatory (FDA) status; in charges announced earlier this month against Kiromic BioPharma, the SEC alleged that Kiromic had failed to disclose that the FDA had placed both of its INDs on clinical hold. (See this PubCo post.) According to Sanjay Wadhwa, Acting Director of SEC Enforcement, “BD repeatedly painted a misleading picture of its Alaris infusion pump for investors and then doubled down by keeping them in the dark when the device’s issues came to a head with the FDA in late 2019….Public companies have a fundamental duty to accurately disclose material business risks and should expect to be held accountable when they fall short in that regard.”
Happy Holidays!
What might the FASB be looking at for 2025?
In the last couple of months of 2024, the FASB issued some “invitations to comment” intended to allow FASB stakeholders to express their views on whether or not the FASB should pursue the projects identified. It could well turn out that these ITCs offer a preview of topics that the FASB might be taking up in 2025. What’s more, two of these projects have the potential to be somewhat contentious: accounting for intangibles, such as brand recognition, copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade names, customer relationships and customer lists, and key performance indicators. In an interview with the WSJ, FASB Chair Rich Jones observed that “[y]ou’re seeing us really explore what, depending on the direction those projects take, could be a very significant shift in financial reporting.”