Category: Accounting and Auditing
Center for Audit Quality comes to the rescue for audit committees tasked with AI oversight
In this 2023 article in Fortune, a survey of 2,800 managers and executives conducted by management consulting firm Aon showed that business leaders “weren’t very concerned about AI….Not only is AI not the top risk that they cited for their companies, it didn’t even make the top 20. AI ranked as the 49th biggest threat for businesses.” Has “the threat of AI been overhyped,” Aon asked, or could it be that the “survey participants might be getting it wrong”? If they were, it wasn’t for long. Fast forward less than a year, and another Fortune article, citing a report from research firm Arize AI, revealed that 281 of the Fortune 500 companies cited AI as a risk, representing “56.2% of the companies and a 473.5% increase from the prior year, when just 49 companies flagged AI risks. ‘If annual reports of the Fortune 500 make one thing clear, it’s that the impact of generative AI is being felt across a wide array of industries—even those not yet embracing the technology,’ the report said.” This widespread recognition of the potential risks of genAI will likely compel companies to focus their attention on risk oversight, and that will almost certainly entail oversight by the audit committee. To assist audit committees in that process, the Center for Audit Quality has released a new resource—an excellent new report, Audit Committee Oversight in the Age of Generative AI.
Are companies getting the clawback checkboxes right?
As you know, in 2022, the SEC adopted a new clawback rule, Exchange Act Rule 10D-1, which directed the national securities exchanges to establish listing standards requiring listed issuers to adopt and comply with a clawback policy and to provide disclosure about the policy and its implementation. Under the rules, the clawback policy had to provide that, in the event the listed issuer was required to prepare an accounting restatement—including not just “reissuance,” or “Big R,” restatements, but also “revision” or “little r” restatements—the issuer must recover the incentive-based compensation that was erroneously paid to its current or former executive officers based on the misstated financial reporting measure. The recovery policy had to apply to incentive compensation received during the three completed fiscal years immediately preceding the date that the company was required to prepare a restatement. (See this PubCo post.) The clawback rules added a requirement to include new checkboxes on the cover pages of Form 10-K, Form 20-F and Form 40-F to indicate separately (a) whether the financial statements of the issuer included in the filing reflect correction of errors to previously issued financial statements, and (b) whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the issuer’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period. (See this PubCo post.) It’s worth noting here that the first box, which applies to correction of any errors in the financial statements filed, is broader in scope than the second, which applies if the restatements needed a potential clawback analysis, even if no actual recovery was required. Apparently, there hasn’t been much action for the second box. In this article, Bloomberg reports on a study by research firm Nonlinear Analytics LLC, which showed that of “the 205 companies that reported accounting corrections in their annual financial statements so far this year, just 29—less than 15%—said they reviewed the error to see if they needed to force a compensation clawback,” i.e., reported that they performed a potential recovery analysis. And, only two of the companies that performed an analysis ended up clawing back any executive bonuses.
SEC approves new PCAOB proposals
Yesterday, the SEC held an open meeting to consider a number of PCAOB proposals addressing the “general responsibilities of an auditor conducting an audit as well as technology-assisted analysis and contributory liability rule for associated persons.” In his opening remarks, SEC Chair Gary Gensler put this initiative in the historic context of the adoption of SOX in 2002, which led to the establishment of the PCAOB as “an independent watchdog over the audits of public companies and registered broker-dealers and their auditors. The Enron crisis revealed a key problem: the quality of auditing standards. Candidly, the relationships between issuers and auditors, between standard-setters and auditing firms, were too clubby.” Auditing standards were set by the AICPA, which meant that, in effect, the “profession was writing its own rules. That’s an inherent conflict. To correct course, the PCAOB was tasked with setting enhanced auditing standards. For practical purposes, Congress permitted the newly established PCAOB to carry over existing AICPA standards on an interim basis. The expectation was that the Board would produce a more appropriate set of standards going forward.” Although these standards “were already decades-old when the Board adopted them in 2003,” before now, the PCAOB had adopted only seven new standards—“42 of these 49 so-called ‘interim standards’ remained in public company audit practice.” Yesterday, the SEC approved a proposed rule amendment and two proposals for new and updated audit standards adopted by the PCAOB: an amendment to PCAOB Rule 3502 governing contributory liability (approved three to two); AS 1000, regarding the general responsibilities of the auditor in conducting an audit (approved unanimously), and AS 1105 and AS 2301, amendments related to aspects of designing and performing audit procedures that involve technology-assisted analysis of information in electronic form (approved unanimously). According to the press release, Gensler said that he was “pleased that the PCAOB is fulfilling its obligations under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act by updating its standards and rules regarding the practice of auditing….I’m proud to support the PCAOB’s proposed changes to instill greater trust among investors and issuers in our markets.”
SEC charges Ideanomics for misleading revenue guidance
As discussed in this press release, the SEC has announced Orders settling charges against Ideanomics, Inc., its current CEO and former CFO, as well as its former Chair and CEO, for alleged misleading statements about the company’s financial performance between 2017 and 2019. There were multiple alleged fraudulent acts, but featured most prominently was an allegation that the Company and the former Chair/CEO reported 2017 revenue guidance that ended up being well off the mark, “despite numerous known issues indicating that the company would miss this guidance by a wide margin.” The Company later reported 2017 revenues that were less than half of the amount represented to the public in its guidance. According to the Associate Director of Enforcement, as the SEC alleged, “Ideanomics and its executives defrauded investors, including by misstating its financial statements and failing to disclose material information to investors….The investing public must be able to trust the accuracy of a company’s disclosures, and we will hold accountable executives who abuse that trust by engaging in fraud.”
Do companies adopt clawback policies exceeding minimum SEC requirements?
In 2022, after seven years of marinating on the SEC’s long-term agenda, the SEC adopted rules to implement Section 954 of Dodd-Frank, the clawback provision. The rules directed the national securities exchanges to establish listing standards requiring listed issuers to adopt and comply with a clawback policy and to provide disclosure about the policy and its implementation. Under the rules, the clawback policy was required to provide that, in the event the listed issuer was required to prepare an accounting restatement—including not just “reissuance,” or “Big R,” restatements, but also “revision” or “little r” restatements—the issuer must recover the incentive-based compensation that was erroneously paid to its current or former executive officers based on the misstated financial reporting measure. (See this PubCo post.) The requirements have been in effect for a bit now. But how did companies respond? Did they stick to the script? Or, after examining their own “governance philosophies,” did companies amp up the rules to actually expand the scope of their clawback policies? This piece from consultant FW Cook reporting on their study of large cap companies showed that “80% maintain an expanded clawback policy that goes beyond the SEC requirements.”
SEC charges RR Donnelley with control failures related to cybersecurity incident
In this June Order, SEC Enforcement brought settled charges against R.R. Donnelley & Sons, a “global provider of business communications services and marketing solutions,” for control failures: more specifically, a failure to maintain adequate disclosure controls and procedures related to cybersecurity incidents and alerts and a failure to devise and maintain adequate internal accounting controls—more specifically, “a system of cybersecurity-related internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that access to RRD’s assets—its information technology systems and networks, which contained sensitive business and client data—was permitted only with management’s authorization.” RRD agreed to pay over $2.1 million to settle the charges. Interestingly, in a Statement, SEC Commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda decried the SEC’s use of “Section 13(b)(2)(B)’s internal accounting controls provision as a Swiss Army Statute to compel issuers to adopt policies and procedures the Commission believes prudent,” not to mention its “decision to stretch the law to punish a company that was the victim of a cyberattack.”
Munter and Gerding discuss the need for additional disclosures under IFRS 19
The director of Corp Fin, Erik Gerding, and the SEC Chief Accountant, Paul Munter, have issued a new “Statement on the Application of IFRS 19, Subsidiaries without Public Accountability: Disclosures, in Filings with the SEC.” IFRS 19 permits reporting company subsidiaries “that do not have public accountability” to provide reduced disclosures […]
SEC Chief Accountant issues statement on tone at the top
In this statement, SEC Chief Accountant Paul Munter discusses the importance of setting the tone at the top. According to Munter, “academic research has ‘long stressed the crucial role that tone at the top, set by leadership, plays in influencing firm culture and how it is ultimately reflected in the actions and behaviors of [auditors].’ The tone at the top of an audit firm determines whether the culture is focused on delivering high-quality audits or is a profit-center chasing the short-term bottom line, and whether ‘top management extols the important role audits play in the capital markets’ or acts as if audits are little more than compliance ‘commodities.’” Although he talks in terms of auditors, some of Munter’s recommendations may prove useful for companies in establishing their own ethics environments and tone at the top.
Auditor problems are not just auditor problems
On Friday, SEC Enforcement charged audit firm BF Borgers CPA PC and its owner, Benjamin F. Borgers, with “massive fraud” involving “deliberate and systemic failures” to comply with PCAOB standards in auditing and reviewing financial statements incorporated into more than 1,500 SEC filings from January 2021 through June 2023. The charges also included “falsely representing to their clients that the firm’s work would comply with PCAOB standards; fabricating audit documentation to make it appear that the firm’s work did comply with PCAOB standards; and falsely stating in audit reports included in more than 500 public company SEC filings that the firm’s audits complied with PCAOB standards.” In settlement, the audit firm agreed to pay a $12 million civil penalty, and Benjamin Borgers agreed to pay a $2 million civil penalty, along with censures, cease-and-desists and permanent suspensions from appearing and practicing before the SEC as accountants. According to SEC Enforcement Director Gurbir S. Grewal,
“Ben Borgers and his audit firm, BF Borgers, were responsible for one of the largest wholesale failures by gatekeepers in our financial markets….As a result of their fraudulent conduct, they not only put investors and markets at risk by causing public companies to incorporate noncompliant audits and reviews into more than 1,500 filings with the Commission, but also undermined trust and confidence in our markets. Because investors rely on the audited financial statements of public companies when making their investment decisions, the accountants and accounting firms that audit those statements play a critical role in our financial markets. Borgers and his firm completely abandoned that role, but thanks to the painstaking work of the SEC staff, Borgers and his sham audit mill have been permanently shut down.”
This case has received an unusual amount of press—for an audit firm that many have never even heard of before—because Borgers was the auditor for the social media company of a certain former president. (See, e.g., the NYT, CNBC, CBS News) But, as we’ve often seen in other contexts, such as auditor independence (see, e.g., this PubCo post), this case also illustrates the importance for companies to keep in mind that these types of violations may have serious consequences not only for the audit firm, but also for the audit clients. In fact, in this case, the staff of Corp Fin and the Office of Chief Accountant issued this Staff Statement on Issuer Disclosure and Reporting Obligations in Light of Rule 102(e) Order against BF Borgers CPA PC.
Cooley Alert: Proposed Regulations on Stock Buyback Excise Tax
In April, the Treasury Department and the IRS published proposed regs on the 1% excise tax on stock buybacks imposed under the Inflation Reduction Act. As discussed in this comprehensive Cooley Alert, IRS Publishes Proposed Regulations on Stock Buyback Excise Tax, from our Comp & Benefits and Tax groups, the proposed regs take an expansive approach, applying the excise tax to transactions not typically considered stock buybacks, including redemptions and transactions that are economically similar to redemptions, such as exchanges of target stock in acquisitive reorganizations and other economically similar transactions. The Alert cautions that “companies may have excise tax liability or tax return filing obligations in myriad circumstances.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.