New Delaware bill would offer safe harbor for conflicted transactions—will it convince companies to stay put in Delaware?
As discussed earlier this month, there has been a lot of chatter and speculation recently about companies changing their states of incorporation from Delaware to other states. In an interview with Business Insider, the new Governor of Delaware acknowledged that the state remained a “‘competitive environment’” and that “his state needed to take challenge seriously,” including addressing “issues such as the balance of shareholder and management rights….I think within the coming weeks, you’re going to see some things rolled out that will help move our state forward and bring us into 2025 and beyond to make sure we’re protecting and growing the corporate franchise.” A new bill designed to take up that challenge in a significant way—Senate Bill 153—was introduced in Delaware on Monday and is awaiting consideration by the Judiciary Committee. In essence, the bill would offer a process for boards to invoke safe harbor protection from litigation over potentially conflicted transactions for directors and controlling stockholders. The bill would also address Delaware’s provisions related to books and records. The impact could be fundamental.
Corp Fin does a one-eighty on shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8
In June 2023, then-Commissioner Mark Uyeda (currently, Acting Chair) spoke to the Society for Corporate Governance 2023 National Conference on the topic of shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8. Alluding to the frequent reversals in interpretations of Rule 14a-8, he said that “[r]elying on the Commission’s rules, or its staff’s positions in this area is akin to building a sand castle on the beach. Any rule or interpretation, no matter how recently adopted, is at risk of being erased by the next wave.” No matter that Uyeda is now at the helm, that “next wave” tradition is continuing with the issuance by Corp Fin last week of new Staff Legal Bulletin 14M, which rescinds the prior Administration’s interpretation in SLB 14L and does an about-face on interpretations of two Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposal exclusions. Turnabout is fair play? (See this Pubco post.) The new SLB revises Corp Fin’s views on the scope and application of Rule 14a-8(i)(5), the economic relevance exception, and Rule 14a-8(i)(7), the ordinary business exception. The effect of new SLB 14M is to reverse some of the interpretations of “economic relevance,” “micromanagement” and “significant social policy” imposed under now rescinded SLB 14L, which had reversed interpretations of those same issues by rescinding Clayton-era SLBs 14I, 14J and 14K. Got it? Grounding its revised approach in the historical antecedents of 1998 and earlier SEC releases—as did now rescinded SLB 14L—Corp Fin takes the position that, under new SLB 14M, “where relevant to the arguments raised to the staff by companies and proponents, the staff will consider whether a proposal is otherwise significantly related to a particular company’s business, in the case of Rule 14a-8(i)(5), or focuses on a significant policy issue that has a sufficient nexus to a particular company, in the case of Rule 14a-8(i)(7).” Moreover, the new approach will involve, as a “key factor in the analysis of shareholder proposals that raise significant policy issues,” a “‘case-by-case’ consideration of a particular company’s facts and circumstances.” Where SLB 14L made exclusion of shareholder proposals—particularly proposals related to environmental and social issues—more of a challenge for companies, new SLB 14M is expected to provide a framework for exclusion of proposals that will likely be more accommodating for companies. Companies will certainly welcome the revamp.
Corp fin posts two new CDIs on Schedules 13D and 13G
Corp Fin has posted two new CDIs regarding filing of Schedules 13D and 13G under Exchange Act Sections 13(d) and 13(g) and related Rule 13d-1. The new CDIs address issues related to determining, for purposes of eligibility to file a Schedule 13G, whether the shareholder acquired the securities with the purpose or effect of changing or influencing control of the issuer. One of the CDIs suggests that, in the context of Schedule 13G eligibility, the process of shareholder engagement with management might be trickier to navigate than perhaps originally contemplated.
Acting SEC Chair seeks a pause in SEC climate disclosure rule litigation
Yesterday, Acting SEC Chair Mark Uyeda issued a statement advising that he is requesting that the Court presiding over the SEC’s climate disclosure rule litigation not “schedule the case for argument” in order to allow time for the SEC to rethink its position. As you may know, a number of challenges to the climate disclosure rule were consolidated as State of Iowa v. SEC in the Eighth Circuit, where briefs in the case have been filed. However, for reasons explained in the Statement, Uyeda believes that the “rule is deeply flawed and could inflict significant harm on the capital markets and our economy.” As such, he said, the positions taken in the SEC’s briefs defending the SEC’s adoption of the rule are not reflective of his views. He believes that these views, particularly his concern that the SEC had no authority to adopt the rule, together with “the recent change in the composition of the Commission, and the recent Presidential Memorandum regarding a Regulatory Freeze, bear on the conduct of this litigation.” As a result, he maintains that “the Court and the parties should be notified of these changes.” Accordingly, he has directed the SEC staff to “notify the Court of the changed circumstances and request that the Court not schedule the case for argument to provide time for the Commission to deliberate and determine the appropriate next steps in these cases. The Commission will promptly notify the Court of its determination about its positions in the litigation.” Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw voiced her dissent, contending that what has really changed here has been “politics and not substance.” Does Uyeda’s move sound the death knell for the SEC’s climate disclosure rule?
Cooley Alert: Delaware Supreme Court Holds Business Judgment Review Applies to TripAdvisor’s Decision to Reincorporate
There’s been a lot of noise in the media recently about some well-known companies deciding to change, or at least considering changing, their states of incorporation from Delaware to Texas, Nevada or another state. According to the WSJ, “[a]bout two-thirds of S&P 500 companies—regardless of where they are actually based—are incorporated in Delaware, largely because the tiny state has specialized courts that handle business matters and stacks of legal precedents for addressing disputes.” However, the WSJ continued, “[e]xecutives and controlling shareholders of public companies have long expressed frustration with the Delaware Court of Chancery, which has become home to a thriving shareholder plaintiffs’ bar.” To entice companies to reincorporate elsewhere, some states have made special efforts to establish “dedicated business courts, including four since 2019.” However, it remains to be seen whether, in the absence of Delaware’s legal expertise addressing business issues and the volume of important precedents that help to bolster predictability, these other states can match the influence of the Delaware courts. Nevertheless, in an interview with Business Insider, the new Governor of Delaware said that the state remained a “‘competitive environment’” and that “his state needed to take challenge seriously,” including addressing “issues such as the balance of shareholder and management rights….I think within the coming weeks, you’re going to see some things rolled out that will help move our state forward and bring us into 2025 and beyond to make sure we’re protecting and growing the corporate franchise….It certainly beats going to Vegas and rolling the dice.” As discussed in this excellent new Cooley Alert, Delaware Supreme Court Reverses Chancery Court, Holds Business Judgment Review Applicable to TripAdvisor’s Decision to Reincorporate in Nevada, from our Commercial Litigation Group and Securities Litigation + Enforcement Groups, the Delaware Supreme Court has just injected into the mix a new decision that could factor into the decision-making process for Delaware companies considering reincorporation in other states.
In Chamber of Commerce v. CARB, Federal District Court dismisses two claims challenging California’s climate disclosure laws
As we’ve pointed out before, given the prevailing views on climate disclosure among folks in the new Administration, including the nominee for SEC Chair—and all that portends for the SEC’s climate disclosure regulation—the States may, in many ways, take on much larger significance. Case in point: California’s climate disclosure laws and the ongoing litigation challenges there. In January last year, the U.S. and California Chambers of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation and others filed a complaint (and in February, an amended complaint) against two executives of the California Air Resources Board and the California Attorney General challenging these two California laws. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief that the two laws are void because they violate the First Amendment, are precluded under the Supremacy Clause by the Clean Air Act, and are invalid under the Constitution’s limitations on extraterritorial regulation, particularly under the dormant Commerce Clause. The litigation also seeks injunctive relief to prevent CARB from taking any action to enforce these two laws. (See this PubCo post.) California then filed a motion to dismiss the second and third causes of action in the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Rule 12b-1) and failure to state a claim (Rule 12b-6). Interestingly, however, the motion did not seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim (except as to the Attorney General, whom the motion sought to exclude altogether on the basis of sovereign immunity), even though California asserted that Plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge was “legally flawed.” Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment on the First Amendment claim, and California moved to deny that motion or to defer it, enabling the parties to conduct discovery. In November of last year, in this Order, the Federal District Court for the Central District of California denied Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss as to that first claim (violation of the First Amendment) and granted California’s motion to deny or defer the motion for summary judgment. (See this PubCo post.) Now, in Chamber of Commerce v. California Air Resources Board, the Court has issued an Order granting California’s motion to dismiss and dismissing Plaintiffs’ second and third causes of action under the Supremacy Clause and dormant Commerce Clause (as invalid extraterritorial regulation). Stay tuned.
Under the new Administration, will Enforcement have a lighter touch?
Reuters is reporting exclusively that, according to its sources, under the new Administration, some Enforcement staff at the SEC “have been told they need to seek permission from the politically appointed leadership before formally launching probes,” marking a “change in procedure that could slow down investigations.” According to Reuters, some Enforcement staff have recently “been told that they will need to seek the Commission’s approval for all formal orders of investigation, which are required to issue subpoenas for testimony or documents.” Previously, Reuters reported, authority to formally launch investigations had been delegated to Enforcement directors or other senior staff, including even supervising attorneys; during the first term of the current Administration, the “SEC required approval by its two enforcement [co-]directors to formally launch probes.” However, the article indicates, Enforcement staff may still conduct informal investigations, including requesting information. The article indicates that Reuters was unable to determine whether these new instructions were the result of a formal SEC vote to “revoke the delegation of that authority, or who ordered the change.” Reuters suggested that “the change does not necessarily mean fewer investigations will be launched, but it means the Commissioners are taking more control over enforcement earlier in the process.” Reuters speculates that the move might reflect an effort to end the “weaponization” of government. Or, perhaps this move might also presage a “lighter touch” by SEC Enforcement under the new Administration?
SEC charges “AI-washing” at Presto Automation
Is “-washing” the securities fraud equivalent of “-gate” for political scandals? First we had greenwashing, then diversity-washing, and now we have AI-washing—a topic that, as discussed in the SideBar below, SEC officials made a lot of noise about last year. And this recent action by the SEC certainly seems to allege just that—even though the SEC doesn’t actually use the term. In mid-January, the SEC announced “settled charges against Presto Automation Inc., a restaurant-technology company that was listed on the Nasdaq until September 2024, for making materially false and misleading statements about critical aspects of its flagship artificial intelligence (AI) product, Presto Voice. Presto Voice employs AI-assisted speech recognition technology to automate aspects of drive-thru order taking at quick-service restaurants.” However, as alleged in the Order, the AI technology used in the product was not developed by Presto—at least not until September 2022; rather, the company deployed speech recognition technology owned and operated by a third party. But, the SEC charged, Presto failed to disclose in its SEC filings that it used the third party’s AI technology, rather than its own, to power all of the Presto Voice units it deployed commercially during that time period. What’s more, once Presto did begin to use its own proprietary technology in the Presto Voice units, the SEC alleged, the company “misrepresented the capabilities of the product by claiming that it eliminated the need for human order taking.” Not the case, the SEC alleged; “substantial human involvement” was actually required. The SEC charged that Presto made materially misleading statements in violation of the Securities and Exchange Acts and failed to maintain adequate disclosure controls; however, in light of its financial condition and remedial actions, the SEC imposed only a cease-and-desist order and no civil money penalty.
You must be logged in to post a comment.