Congress decides not to subject insiders of FPIs to Section 16—for now
Back in September, we learned about a provision in the then-proposed Senate bill, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, which would make insiders of foreign private issuers subject to Section 16 by eliminating the longstanding exemption for securities registered by FPIs set forth in Exchange Act Rule 3a12-3. (See this PubCo post.) While the provision was included in the Senate version of the bill, it was apparently not included in the final House version, which meant that the bill was sent to conference to resolve differences. Fortunately, the folks at Section16.net Blog, who ferreted out the provision originally, have been on top of this issue and now report that this provision was ultimately not included in the final bill: the Senate “receded,” as the conference report indicates. Whether this provision, or another one like it, reappears in another bill next year remains to be seen.
Happy holidays!
Senators urge SEC to propose human capital disclosure regulations “without further delay”
In August 2020, as part of an overhaul of Reg S-K, the SEC adopted a new requirement to discuss human capital, taking a principles-based approach. (See this PubCo post.) For the most part, the initial response to the new requirement was underwhelming; early subsequent reporting suggested that companies “capitalized on the fact that the new rule does not call for specific metrics,” as “[r]elatively few issuers provided meaningful numbers about their human capital, even when they had those numbers at hand.” (See this PubCo post.) However, recent studies have shown some expansion of disclosure, with one study showing that the number of companies disclosing their EEO-1 workforce diversity data “has more than tripled between 2021 and 2022, from 11% to 34%” and that nearly three-quarters of companies in the Russell 1000 disclose some form of race and ethnicity data. Headway, but apparently not enough to deter Corp Fin from moving forward with a proposal to enhance company disclosures regarding human capital management. Or is it? The SEC’s most recent reg-flex agenda shows a target date for a proposal of April 2024, but that date represents a delay from previous target dates of October 2022, April 2023 and October 2023. In February 2022, Senators Sherrod Brown and Mark Warner, the Chair and a member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, submitted a letter to SEC Chair Gary Gensler, calling on the SEC to include in its proposal a requirement that companies report about—not just employees—but also the number of workers who are not classified as full-time employees, including “gig” workers and other independent contractors. (See this PubCo post.) Now, perhaps triggered by the latest SEC agenda, the pair have once again submitted a letter to Gensler, this time to make known that they “were disappointed to see that the SEC’s recently released fall 2023 regulatory agenda suggests the release of a proposed rule on ‘Human Capital Management Disclosure’ is likely to be delayed.” In this second attempt, they pressed the SEC “to act expeditiously to bring an improved human capital management disclosure proposal to a vote before the full Commission.” Will this letter goad the SEC into taking action on this rulemaking?
Happy holidays!
SEC issues staff report on definition of accredited investor
On Friday, the SEC announced the issuance of a staff report on the accredited investor definition, a review that, as directed by Dodd-Frank, occurs every four years with the objective of assessing “whether the requirements of the definition should be adjusted or modified for the protection of investors, in the public interest, and in light of the economy.” As described in the report, this review is “focused on changes in the composition of the accredited investor pool since the definition was adopted; the extent to which accredited investors have the financial sophistication, ability to sustain the risk of loss of investment, and access to information that have traditionally been associated with an ability to fend for themselves; and accredited investor participation in the Regulation D market and the market for exempt offerings more generally.” The report examines the history of the accredited investor definition and changes in the economic landscape that might affect the composition of the pool of accredited investors and describes historical comments and recommendations for changes to the accredited investor definition. However, unlike the staff’s 2015 report (see this PubCo post), this report did not make any recommendations regarding changes to the definition and instead simply welcomed public input. Public comment may be particularly impactful this year given that, according to the SEC’s most recent reg-flex agenda, Corp Fin is considering recommending that the SEC propose amendments to Reg D, including updates to the accredited investor definition and to Form D, “to improve protections for investors.” The target date for a proposal is April 2024.
Corp Fin adds one more new CDI on Form 8-Ks for material cybersecurity incidents
A few days ago, Corp Fin issued three new CDIs relating to delays in reporting material cybersecurity incidents on Form 8-K. Those CDIs, together with the Department of Justice Material Cybersecurity Incident Delay Determinations, addressed questions related to the Attorney General’s determination—or not—that disclosure of the incident on Form 8-K would pose a substantial risk to national security or public safety. (See this PubCo post.) Yesterday afternoon, Corp Fin added a new CDI on a closely related topic—the impact of a DOJ consultation on a determination, for reporting purposes, about the materiality of the incident itself. As Corp Fin Director Erik Gerding observed in a speech yesterday on cybersecurity disclosure, the CDI was intended to ensure that companies are not deterred from consulting with the DOJ or other national security agencies. The new CDI can be found under the caption Exchange Act Forms, in Section 104B, Item 1.05 Material Cybersecurity Incidents. A summary is below, but the CDI number is linked to the CDI on the SEC website, so you can easily read the version in full.
Corp Fin issues new CDIs on delaying Form 8-Ks for material cybersecurity incidents
Corp Fin has just released some new CDIs, summarized below, relating to material cybersecurity incidents. As you know, in July, the SEC voted, three to two, to adopt final rules on cybersecurity disclosure, which includes a requirement for material incident reporting on Forms 8-K and 6-K. Compliance with the 8-K and 6-K incident disclosure requirements will be required for all companies other than smaller reporting companies beginning on December 18, 2023. SRCs will have an additional 180 days deferral. (See this PubCo post.) The new CDIs can all be found under the caption Exchange Act Forms, in a new Section 104B, Item 1.05 Material Cybersecurity Incidents. Summaries are below, but each CDI number is linked to the CDI on the SEC website, so you can easily read the version in full.
The CAQ has some ideas for improving audit committee disclosure
The Center for Audit Quality, working with Ideagen Audit Analytics, has just released a new edition of its annual Audit Committee Transparency Barometer, which, over the past ten years, has measured the robustness of audit committee disclosures in proxy statements among companies in the S&P Composite 1500. Why is that important? According to the CAQ, “numerous studies have identified a positive correlation between increased communication of audit committee oversight through disclosures in the proxy statement and increased audit quality.” Not to mention the interest of investors and other stakeholders in better disclosure. The bottom line, according to the CAQ, is that the level of voluntary transparency has continued to increase steadily in most core areas of audit committee responsibility, such as oversight of the external auditor, as well as in evolving areas, such as cybersecurity risk and ESG. But it could still stand some improvement. In light of the “current environment of economic uncertainty, geopolitical crises, and new ways of working,” the CAQ encourages audit committees to jettison boilerplate and “tell their story through tailored disclosures in the proxy statement…. For audit committees to enhance their disclosures, they should provide further discussion not just of what they do in their oversight of the external auditor but also how they do it.” In the Barometer, the CAQ offers some specific ideas on just how audit committees can improve their disclosure and enhance its utility.
SEC’s Fall 2023 Reg-Flex Agenda is out—climate disclosure rules delayed again
The SEC’s Fall 2023 Reg-Flex Agenda—according to the preamble, compiled as of August 22, 2023, reflecting “only the priorities of the Chair”—has now been posted. And it’s Groundhog Day again. All of the Corp Fin agenda items made an appearance before on the last agenda and, in most cases, several agendas before that. Do I hear a sigh of relief? Of course, the new agenda is a bit shorter than the Spring 2023 agenda, given the absence of regulations that have since been adopted, including cybersecurity risk governance (see this PubCo post) and modernization of beneficial ownership reporting (see this PubCo post). At first glance, the biggest surprise—if it’s on the mark, that is—is that the target date for final action on the SEC’s controversial climate disclosure proposal has been pushed out until April 2024. Keep in mind that it is only a target date, and the SEC sometimes acts well in advance of the target. For example, the cybersecurity proposal had a target date on the last agenda of October 2023, but final rules were adopted much earlier in July. I confess that my hunch was that we would see final rules before the end of this year, but adoption this year looks increasingly unlikely (especially given that the posted agenda for this week’s open meeting does not include climate). Not surprisingly, there’s nothing on the agenda about a reproposal of the likely-to-be vacated (?) share repurchase rules, although, at the date that the agenda was compiled, the possibility of vacatur was not yet known. (See this PubCo post.) Describing the new agenda, SEC Chair Gary Gensler observed that “[w]e are blessed with the largest, most sophisticated, and most innovative capital markets in the world. But we cannot take this for granted. Even a gold medalist must keep training. That’s why we’re updating our rules for the technology and business models of the 2020s. We’re updating our rules to promote the efficiency, integrity, and resiliency of the markets. We do so with an eye toward investors and issuers alike, to ensure the markets work for them and not the other way around.”
FASB issues final ASU requiring enhanced disclosure of segment expenses
The FASB has announced a final Accounting Standards Update designed to improve disclosures about public companies’ reportable segments, particularly disclosures about significant segment expenses—information that the FASB says investors frequently request. The ASU indicates that investors and others view segment information as “critically important in understanding a public entity’s different business activities. That information enables investors to better understand an entity’s overall performance and assists in assessing potential future cash flows.” According to FASB Chair Richard R. Jones, the “new segment reporting guidance is based on the FASB’s extensive outreach with stakeholders, including investors, who indicated that enhanced disclosures about a public company’s segment expenses would enable them to develop more decision-useful financial analyses….It will improve financial reporting by providing additional information about a public company’s significant segment expenses and more timely and detailed segment information reporting throughout the fiscal period.” Previously, at the proposal stage, Jones had referred to the ASU as the “FASB’s most significant change to segment reporting since 1997.” While the extent of new information will vary among entities, the FASB “expects that nearly all public entities will disclose new segment information under the amendments.” It’s worth pointing out here that the financial reporting changes could well lead to changes in MD&A disclosure. The ASU will apply to all public entities required to report segment information (under Topic 280). Compliance with the new guidance will be required starting in annual periods beginning after December 15, 2023.
You must be logged in to post a comment.