Month: April 2024
Cooley Alert: FTC bans noncompetes
The Federal Trade Commission has just voted, three to two, to prohibit post-employment noncompete agreements, with some limited exceptions. The ban will take effect 120 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. Why the ban? As discussed in this terrific new Cooley Alert, FTC Passes Sweeping Noncompete Ban, from our Labor and Employment group, the FTC noted that it views non-competes as “unfair method[s] of competition” that “restrict the freedom of American workers, suppress wages, and stifle new business and innovation.” The Alert indicates that the rule has an expansive application: in its definition of noncompetes, the rules sweeps in “certain provisions that are commonly thought to constitute alternatives to noncompetes.” In addition, the rule “broadly applies to noncompete agreements affecting virtually all workers—including employees, independent contractors, externs, interns, volunteers, apprentices or sole proprietors.” Under the rule, employers are required to “issue notices informing affected employees about the cessation of noncompete agreements.”
SEC and NAM appeal decision holding 2020 proxy advisor rule amendments unlawful
You probably remember the saga about the SEC’s rules regarding proxy advisory firms? Back in 2019, the SEC issued interpretive guidance that proxy advisory firms’ vote recommendations were, in the view of the SEC, “solicitations” under the proxy rules and subject to the anti-fraud provisions of Rule 14a-9. (See this PubCo post.) That guidance led ISS to sue the SEC and then-SEC Chair Jay Clayton. SEC rules codifying that interpretation were adopted in 2020. ISS amended its complaint, contending that the interpretation in the release and the subsequent rules were unlawful for a number of reasons, including that the SEC’s determination that providing proxy advice is a “solicitation” was contrary to law, that the SEC failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and that the views expressed in the release were arbitrary and capricious. The National Association of Manufacturers, which favored the 2020 amendments, intervened on the side of the SEC (and also became a defendant). Over four years later, in February 2024, the DC District Court held that the SEC’s rules regarding proxy advisory firms were invalid, stating that the “SEC acted contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority when it amended the proxy rules’ definition of ‘solicit’ and ‘solicitation’ to include proxy voting advice for a fee.” (See this PubCo post.) Now, both NAM and the SEC have filed notices of appeal with the DC Circuit.
Change primary business focus? NYSE proposes to allow immediate delisting
The NYSE has filed a proposed rule change with the SEC that would allow the NYSE to commence immediate suspension and delisting procedures for a listed company if that company has “changed its primary business focus to a new area of business that is substantially different from the business it was engaged in at the time of its original listing or which was immaterial to its operations at the time of its original listing.” Comments on the proposal are due 21 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Cooley Alert—US Supreme Court: Pure Omissions Not Actionable Under Rule 10b-5(b)
Earlier this month, SCOTUS unanimously decided Macquarie Infrastructure Corp v. Moab Partners, holding that a pure omission of information required to be disclosed—in this case required in MD&A under Item 303—cannot form the basis of a private securities fraud action under Rule 10b-5(b). The Court was clear: “Pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b–5(b).” To be actionable under Rule 10b-5(b), the Court said, the omission must render an affirmative statement materially misleading. According to the Court, a “pure omission occurs when a speaker says nothing, in circumstances that do not give any particular meaning to that silence.” Actionable “[h]alf-truths, on the other hand, are ‘representations that state the truth only so far as it goes, while omitting critical qualifying information’…….In other words, the difference between a pure omission and a half-truth is the difference between a child not telling his parents he ate a whole cake and telling them he had dessert.” As discussed in this new Cooley Alert, US Supreme Court: Pure Omissions Not Actionable Under Rule 10b-5(b), from our Securities Litigation + Enforcement and Public Companies groups, the “decision emphasizes the importance of assessing whether statements could be construed as being misleading by omission.”
Strine highlights the importance of the “not-sexy” process of board minutes
In an article in the Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, “Minutes Are Worth the Minutes: Good Documentation Practices Improve Board Deliberations and Reduce Regulatory and Litigation Risk,” former Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, Leo Strine, discusses—convincingly—the importance of good “corporate minuting and documentation processes.” (See also this post presented on The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.) Strine acknowledges upfront that the topic is “decidedly not sexy,” and “the favorite task of no one involved in the process.” Drafting minutes, he suggests, is the “equivalent of eating your least favorite vegetable, either you do it hastily, as infrequently as you can, or, if you can get away with it, not at all.” (Perhaps the leitmotif of this piece might be Strine’s evident hostility to vegetables. Later, he characterizes minutes as “the spinach that must be eaten.”) But, in his view, it is an “unquestionably essential, corporate governance task.” He contends that good quality minutes can reduce litigation risk. And he brings us the receipts, highlighting numerous Delaware cases “where the quality of these practices has determined the outcome of motions and cases,” underscoring the “importance of quality and timely documentation of board decision-making, the material benefits of doing things right, and the considerable downside of sloppy, tardy practices.” But that’s not all. He also invests the documentation process with a larger purpose: he contends that an effective process of crafting and reviewing minutes by the board, together with its counsel and advisors, can serve as an integral part of the board’s deliberative process in arriving at a sound decision based on its considered business judgment. With both of these benefits in mind, the article identifies several effective and efficient practices. Strine offers a lot of wise counsel that readers may want to heed.
Is the SEC’s case against SolarWinds counterproductive?
You remember the 2020 SolarWinds hack, perhaps one of the worst cyberattacks in history? As described by NPR in 2021, the hack was “believed to be directed by the Russian intelligence service, the SVR,” which used a “routine software update to slip malicious code into Orion’s software and then used it as a vehicle for a massive cyberattack against America.” It was estimated that 18,000 customers were affected, including some very well-known companies and about a dozen government agencies including the Treasury, Justice and Energy departments, the Pentagon and, ironically, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security. The SEC filed a complaint against SolarWinds and its Chief Information Security Officer, Timothy G. Brown, charging ‘fraud and internal control failures relating to allegedly known cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities.” The gist of the complaint, as alleged by the SEC, is that many red flags emerged and incidents occurred, well known among company employees, that should have spurred the company and its CISO to take action to address serious cyber vulnerabilities, including vulnerabilities related to the company’s “crown jewel” assets. Instead, the SEC charged, the CISO “failed to resolve the issues or, at times, sufficiently raise them further within the company.” (See this PubCo post.) As discussed in this blogpost, Fatal Flaws in SEC’s Amended Complaint Against SolarWinds, from our White Collar Defense and Investigations group, this case has developed into a very high-stakes contest.
CAQ’s 2024 audit committee practices report discusses priorities and practices
The Center for Audit Quality has released its 2024 “Audit Committee Practices Report: Common Threads Across Audit Committees.” The report highlights the top five audit committee priorities identified by committee members in a survey from CAQ and discusses practices to improve effectiveness and other observations. Interspersed throughout the report are recommendations and advice from the CAQ. What was identified by respondents as the “most important topic, risk, or issue” for their audit committees in the next 12 months? Not financial reporting or financial audits—core responsibilities for the audit committee—as you might expect. Nope, it was cybersecurity. According to the CAQ report, the scope of audit committee responsibilities “continues to expand beyond the traditional remit of financial reporting and internal controls, internal and external audit, and ethics and compliance programs. Topics like cybersecurity, artificial intelligence (AI), and climate are now regularly showing up on many audit committee agendas, especially when it’s a matter of complying with regulatory disclosure requirements.” Audit committee members and their advisors may want to check out the report.
Chamber seeks to intervene in environmental group challenges to SEC climate disclosure rules
As you probably remember, the SEC’s climate disclosure rules were challenged not only by those contending that the rules went too far and that the SEC had no authority—think, for example, Liberty Energy, the State of Iowa and the Chamber of Commerce—but also by the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which claimed that the SEC did have the legal authority to adopt the rules but did not go far enough and left out some important information. All those cases have recently been consolidated in the Eighth Circuit. Now, the Chamber of Commerce has moved for leave to intervene in the cases brought by the Sierra Club and the NRDC “to defend those portions of the final rule that refrained from imposing the additional disclosure requirements the environmental groups would have this Court require the SEC to impose.” The Sierra Club, the motion contends, “intends to argue that the SEC should have required public companies to disclose not only their own greenhouse-gas emissions, but also the emissions from the ‘use of [their] products’ and across their ‘supply chains’”; that is, that the SEC failed to impose a requirement to disclose Scope 3 GHG emissions.
Delaware Supreme Court applies MFW framework to other conflicted transactions
In In re Match Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, the Delaware Supreme Court answered some important questions about the standard of review applicable to conflicted transactions under Delaware law. The first question relates to the application of the model used in Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp., commonly referred to as the “MFW framework.” In that 2014 case, the Delaware Supreme Court held that, instead of the more stringent “entire fairness” standard of review that would ordinarily apply in the context of mergers between a controlling stockholder and its corporate subsidiary, the business judgment standard of review should govern “where the merger is conditioned ab initio upon both the approval of an independent, adequately-empowered Special Committee that fulfills its duty of care; and the uncoerced, informed vote of a majority of the minority stockholders.” The question remained, however, whether, in the context of conflicted controlling stockholder transactions that do not involve freeze-out mergers, MFW may be applied to invoke the business judgment rule. And in a related question, can the business judgment rule be applied if the “defendant shows either approval by an independent special committee or approval by an uncoerced, fully informed, unaffiliated stockholder vote,” but not both? In addition, the Court addressed the question of whether all members of an “independent special committee” must be “independent” to satisfy the requirements of MFW.
Another House hearing on climate disclosure rules?
Yesterday, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing entitled “Beyond Scope: How the SEC’s Climate Rule Threatens American Markets.” Since, as one of the committee members observed, this is their sixth hearing on the SEC and twelfth on climate change, there was a lot of the same old, same old—just from different witnesses. (One Committee member called this topic a “manufactured culture war” that the Committee is relitigating; why was the Committee wasting time on this topic when they should be dealing with the problems in housing?) At the hearing, we heard familiar statements to the effect of: the SEC is just pandering to political interest groups; the rules require “extensive and granular” disclosure of information that many do not view to be material; the rules are outside the SEC’s authority and an instance of “mission creep”; this is an attempt by the Biden administration to use regulation to force on the public the climate agenda that it was unable to get through Congress; the costs will be burdensome especially for smaller companies and will result in higher costs and fewer public companies. Or: investors have been demanding this information; voluntary disclosure is inconsistent, unreliable and not comparable; and many companies will already need to comply with the more rigorous rules of the EU and California anyway, so the cost will not be as great as some fear; the SEC acted completely within its wheelhouse. Sound familiar? But there were some highlights, so let’s hit those.
You must be logged in to post a comment.