All posts by Cydney Posner

Where will the fate of the SEC’s final climate rules be determined?

As discussed in these PubCo posts from Monday and Saturday, on March 15, in a one-sentence order, the Fifth Circuit granted a motion by Liberty Energy Inc. and Nomad Proppant Services LLC for an administrative stay of the SEC final climate disclosure rules. That case was just one of nine filed (so far) challenging the SEC’s rules in six different circuits, with seven petitioners contending that the SEC went too far and had no authority to issue the rules and two affirming the SEC’s authority and contending that, in rolling back the proposal, the SEC has “fallen short of its statutory mandate to protect investors.” As previously noted, the longevity of the Fifth Circuit stay, as well as the ultimate outcome of litigation about the rules, could well be determined by another court that is designated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to hear the multiple pending challenges to the rules on a consolidated basis.  How does that work?  This article in Bloomberg does some explaining. 

Final SEC climate disclosure rules [UPDATED]— Part III Financial Information

On March 6,  the SEC adopted final rules “to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures by public companies and in public offerings.” Even though, in the final rules, the SEC scaled back significantly on the proposal—including putting the kibosh on the controversial mandate for Scope 3 GHG emissions reporting and requiring disclosure of Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 GHG emissions on a phased-in basis only by accelerated and large accelerated filers and only when those emissions are material—all kinds of litigation immediately ensued. In one of those cases, a petition for review of the final rule was filed on March 6 in the Fifth Circuit by Liberty Energy Inc. and Nomad Proppant Services LLC, followed on March 8 by a motion asking the Court to issue an administrative stay and a stay pending review of the rule. As discussed in this PubCo post, on March 15, in a one-sentence order, the Fifth Circuit granted Petitioners’ motion for an administrative stay. How long this pause will continue is anyone’s guess; its longevity may well be determined by another court designated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to hear the multiple pending challenges to the rules, to which SEC alludes in its response. But, given that the stay is temporary, below is Part III of a revision and update of my earlier post on the climate disclosure rules. Part III addresses “Financial Statement Effects.”

Fifth Circuit grants motion for administrative stay of SEC final climate disclosure rules

Is it pencils down already? As has previously been reported, a number of groups have filed petitions in different circuits requesting review of the SEC’s final climate disclosure rules. On March 6, the date of adoption of the final rules, one group, Liberty Energy Inc. and Nomad Proppant Services LLC, petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review of the final rule.  On March 8, Petitioners filed a motion asking the Court to issue an administrative stay and a stay pending review of the rule. Yesterday, in a one-sentence order, the Court granted Petitioners’ motion for an administrative stay.

Final SEC climate disclosure rules [UPDATED]—Part II GHG emissions and attestation

Last week the SEC adopted final rules “to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures by public companies and in public offerings.” The disclosure, which will be included in registration statements and annual reports, will draw, in part, on disclosures provided for under the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Importantly, in response to public feedback, the SEC has jettisoned the mandate for Scope 3 GHG emissions reporting; the final rules require disclosure of Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 GHG emissions on a phased-in basis only by accelerated and large accelerated filers and only when those emissions are material.  Companies will also be allowed more time to file their emissions disclosures.  This post is Part II of a revision and update of my earlier post on the climate disclosure rules, which described the background of these rules, various changes from the proposal in the final rules that were identified in the adopting release, and the Commissioners’ statements at the open meeting at which the rules were adopted. Part I covered various aspects of the proposal other than the sections on GHG emissions disclosure and attestation and financial statement information.  This post addresses GHG emissions disclosure and attestation.  Financial statement information will hopefully be covered in separate subsequent post.

Final SEC climate disclosure rules [UPDATED Part I]

Last week, by a vote of three to two, the SEC adopted final rules “to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures by public companies and in public offerings.” The disclosure, which will be included in registration statements and annual reports, will draw, in part, on disclosures provided for under the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. The new rules will require public companies to disclose information about the material climate-related risks, companies’ governance, risk management and any material climate-related targets or goals, as well as disclosure of the financial statement effects, such as costs and losses, of severe weather events and other natural conditions. Importantly, as widely rumored, in response to public feedback, the SEC has jettisoned the mandate for Scope 3 GHG emissions reporting;  the final rules require disclosure of Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 GHG emissions on a phased-in basis only by accelerated and large accelerated filers when those emissions are material.  Companies will also be allowed more time to file their emissions disclosures.  The final rules provide for several phase-ins, as well as for some safe harbors. Although, in response to comments, the SEC made a serious effort to add materiality qualifiers—there are at least 1,003 references to “material” or “materiality,” but then, the release is 886 pages—and to eliminate many of the prescriptive granular requirements, don’t fear or celebrate (depending on your point of view) yet: there are still plenty of prescriptive granular requirements.  The SEC insists that, in adopting the rules, its intent was not to effect a specific climate result or to shift governance behaviors—the word “agnostic” appears at least five times in the adopting release.  Law 360 reports that three lawsuits have been filed against the rulemaking and at least two have been threatened—by the Chamber of Commerce and the Sierra Club.

New Cooley Alert: SEC Adopts Climate Reporting Requirements

As we reported yesterday in this PubCo post, the SEC has just adopted new rules on climate disclosure, issuing an 866-page adopting release.  The new rules will require public companies to disclose information about the material climate-related risks, companies’ governance, risk management and any material climate-related targets or goals, as well as disclosure of the financial statement effects, such as costs and losses, of severe weather events and other natural conditions. The new rules also eliminate the proposed mandate for Scope 3 GHG emissions reporting;  the final rules require disclosure of Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 GHG emissions on a phased-in basis only by accelerated and large accelerated filers when those emissions are material.

SEC dials back final climate disclosure rules

We’ve been trying to read the tea leaves for two years now, speculating about where the SEC’s final climate disclosure rules might land, especially as criticism about the proposal from the corporate sphere and from Congress intensified, and snippets about the contents of the final rule leaked to the press.  This conjecture is now at an end: yesterday, by a vote of three to two, the SEC adopted final rules “to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures by public companies and in public offerings.”  If you tuned in to the SEC’s open meeting yesterday—with over two hours devoted to the climate rules—you didn’t see a lot of happy faces. The dissenters (Commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda) thought the rule was unnecessary and went too far and Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw thought the final rule didn’t go far enough, but was barely acceptable as a “floor” for disclosure. Only SEC Chair Gary Gensler and Commissioner Jaime Lizárraga seemed to think that the balance was about right. Apparently, a coalition of attorneys general from ten states isn’t very happy either. Law 360 is reporting that the group immediately petitioned the Eleventh Circuit to review the new climate rules. (See the SideBar below.)

The disclosure, which will be included in registration statements and annual reports, will draw, in part, on disclosures provided for under the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. The new rules will require public companies to disclose information about the material climate-related risks, companies’ governance, risk management and any material climate-related targets or goals, as well as disclosure of the financial statement effects, such as costs and losses, of severe weather events and other natural conditions. Importantly, as widely rumored, in response to public feedback, the SEC has jettisoned the mandate for Scope 3 GHG emissions reporting;  the final rules require disclosure of Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 GHG emissions on a phased-in basis only by accelerated and large accelerated filers when those emissions are material.  Companies will also be allowed more time to file their emissions disclosures. Attestation will also be phased in. According to Gensler,

“Our federal securities laws lay out a basic bargain. Investors get to decide which risks they want to take so long as companies raising money from the public make what President Franklin Roosevelt called ‘complete and truthful disclosure,’….Over the last 90 years, the SEC has updated, from time to time, the disclosure requirements underlying that basic bargain and, when necessary, provided guidance with respect to those disclosure requirements….These final rules build on past requirements by mandating material climate risk disclosures by public companies and in public offerings. The rules will provide investors with consistent, comparable, and decision-useful information, and issuers with clear reporting requirements. Further, they will provide specificity on what companies must disclose, which will produce more useful information than what investors see today. They will also require that climate risk disclosures be included in a company’s SEC filings, such as annual reports and registration statements rather than on company websites, which will help make them more reliable.”

Another scoop about expected SEC climate disclosure rules

Since many of you may, like me, be having the vapors waiting for the SEC to finally divulge the new climate disclosure rules, I thought I’d share this latest scoop from Reuters. According to Reuters, not only is the SEC dropping the mandatory Scope 3 requirement, it is also moderating the requirements for disclosure of Scopes 1 and 2.

Another EV manufacturer charged for material misrepresentation to investors

It’s almost as if someone put a hex on electric vehicle manufacturers that went public through de-SPACs.  In 2022, SEC Enforcement charged Nikola Corporation, an aspiring manufacturer of low- or zero-emission semi-trucks, alleging that Nikola “defrauded investors by misleading them about its products, technical advancements, and commercial prospects,” leading to a $125 million settlement.  (See this PubCo post.) Then we had a twofer—settled actions against two manufacturers of electric vehicles for misleading investors. In the first case, Hyzon Motors Inc., a maker of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles, was charged with misleading investors about the status of Hyzon’s products, business relationships and vehicle sales, agreeing to pay a civil penalty of $25 million. Then, the predecessor to Spruce Power Holding Corporation, XL Fleet, which provided fleet hybrid electrical vehicles, was alleged to have misled investors about its sales pipeline and revenue projections.  As the successor, Spruce agreed to pay a civil penalty of $11 million. (See this PubCo post.) But that’s not the end of it.  Now we have charges against Lordstown Motors Corp., a manufacturer of electric vehicles focused on the commercial fleet market, for “misleading investors about the sales prospects of Lordstown’s flagship electric pickup truck, the Endurance.”  Lordstown went public through a de-SPAC transaction in 2020 and filed for bankruptcy in 2023. As a result of this action, Lordstown agreed to a cease-and-desist order and disgorgement of $25.5 million.

Climate disclosure rules officially slated for March 6 open meeting

Consideration of the SEC’s long anticipated climate disclosure rules—the “Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors”—is finally on the SEC’s open meeting agenda for March 6. There have been lots of rumors about the timing and the contents of the final rule, so now we’ll actually have the opportunity to see what the SEC has settled on. (For discussions of the substance of the proposal, see this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) Stay tuned.