Category: Corporate Governance
Commissioner Peirce offers her prescription for a “path back to normal”
This week, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce delivered the keynote address at the Northwestern Securities Regulation Institute in San Diego. Her theme: that public companies are “confronting a symptom of a larger societal malady—importing politics and contentious social issues into everything we do.” According to Peirce, the “SEC, so-called stakeholders, and the burgeoning industry of advisers, consultants, accountants, and attorneys peddling their costly wares to public companies, sometimes with the agreement of corporate executives, drag companies into social and political melees. Their efforts, an insidious form of rent-seeking, are often quite convincingly disguised in a cloak of ethics and morality.” In her remarks, she proposed seven steps toward regaining what, in her view, was the “path back to normal.” A harbinger of what is to come in the next four years?
In case there was any doubt, SEC approves Nasdaq proposal to remove Board diversity rules
In August 2021, the SEC approved a Nasdaq proposal for new listing rules regarding board diversity and disclosure. The new listing rules adopted a “comply or explain” mandate for board diversity for most listed companies and required companies listed on Nasdaq’s U.S. exchange to publicly disclose “consistent, transparent diversity statistics” regarding the composition of their boards. (See this PubCo post.) A court challenge to these rules quickly materialized: the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment and, later, the National Center for Public Policy Research petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the SEC’s final order approving the Nasdaq rule. (See this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) In December last year, the en banc Fifth Circuit issued its opinion in Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC vacating the SEC’s order approving Nasdaq’s board diversity proposal by a vote of nine to eight. According to an article in Bloomberg Law, following the decision, a “Nasdaq representative said the exchange disagreed with the court’s decision, but doesn’t plan to appeal the ruling. An SEC spokesperson said the agency is ‘reviewing the decision and will determine next steps as appropriate.’” (That, of course, was prior to the last election.) That question is now moot: Nasdaq filed a proposal with the SEC seeking to remove from the Nasdaq rules the relevant board diversity provisions to reflect “a Federal court’s vacatur of the Commission’s order of August 6, 2021, approving rules related to Board diversity disclosures. Nasdaq has requested that the Commission waive the operative delay to allow the proposed rule change to become effective on February 4, 2025.” And, this past Friday, the SEC declared the proposal to be immediately effective. Just in case anyone was unsure about the status of the board diversity rules, the effect of the proposal will be to “clarify Nasdaq’s rules by aligning them with the court’s decision.”
SEC approves NYSE proposal to limit the use of reverse stock splits to regain compliance with price criteria
In October last year, the NYSE proposed, like Nasdaq, to take on the challenge of repeated reverse stock splits by limiting the circumstances under which a listed company could use a reverse stock split to regain compliance with the minimum price criteria. The NYSE subsequently filed a couple of amendments to the proposal, and, while comments are still being solicited, the SEC has now approved the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
McMahon takes a bump
On Friday, the SEC announced settled charges against Vince McMahon, founder, controlling shareholder and former Executive Chair and CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, for “knowingly circumventing WWE’s internal accounting controls,” making false or misleading statements to WWE’s auditor, and causing “WWE’s violations of the reporting and books and records provisions of the Exchange Act.” The SEC alleged that McMahon signed two settlement agreements relating to claims of sexual misconduct (as the WSJ framed it), one in 2019 and one in 2022, on behalf of himself and WWE but failed to disclose the existence of the agreements to “WWE’s Board of Directors, legal department, accountants, financial reporting personnel, or auditor.” Oops. The SEC charged that this omission “circumvented WWE’s system of internal accounting controls and caused material misstatements in WWE’s 2018 and 2021 financial statements,” leading WWE ultimately to issue financial restatements. McMahon agreed to pay a $400,000 civil penalty and to reimburse WWE just over $1.3 million pursuant to SOX 304(a), the SOX clawback provision. According to the Associate Regional Director in the SEC’s New York Regional Office, “[c]ompany executives cannot enter into material agreements on behalf of the company they serve and withhold that information from the company’s control functions and auditor.” (Even if—or maybe especially if—it involves hush money.)
SEC charges Entergy with violation of internal accounting controls requirements
At the end of last year, the SEC announced settled charges against Entergy Corporation, a Louisiana-based utility company with shares traded on the NYSE, for failure to maintain internal accounting controls adequate to ensure that its surplus materials and supplies were accurately recorded on its books and financial statements in accordance with GAAP. The case represents yet another example where the charged misconduct related only to ineffective controls, without any associated charges of fraud. According to Sanjay Wadhwa, Acting SEC Enforcement Director, “internal accounting controls serve as a front-line defense in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of financial statements….Investors rely on public companies, such as Entergy, to ensure that adequate internal accounting controls are in place. We allege that Entergy failed to fulfill its obligation in this regard.” Entergy agreed to pay a civil penalty of $12 million. Rumor has it that we’re likely not going to see a lot more of these “controls-only” types of Enforcement actions once the SEC comes under new management.
Cooley Alert—Climate and Sustainability Regulations: 2024 End-of-Year Review
Just because we’re highly likely to see a monkey wrench thrown into the current SEC’s efforts to adopt regulations on climate and sustainability (see this PubCo post and this PubCo post) doesn’t mean that we won’t be seeing a lot of activity in connection with state and international ESG requirements, along with voluntary reporting standards and various stakeholder policies, that will affect many US and other companies in this new year. This new Cooley Alert, Climate and Sustainability Regulations: 2024 End-of-Year Review, from our Public Companies and ESG and Sustainability Advisory groups, provides a rundown of developments regarding current key climate and sustainability regulations, such as the California climate statutes and the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, and the scoop on significant stakeholder developments as of the end of 2024. The Alert also highlights “critical areas of focus for the year ahead.” If your company may be subject to any climate or sustainability frameworks—whether mandatory or voluntary—this is a comprehensive Cooley Alert that you need to read!
Cooley Alert: Should the SEC Revisit Executive Security Perquisite Disclosure?
You might want to look at this recent Cooley Alert, Should SEC Revisit Executive Security Perquisite Disclosure?, from our Public Companies and Compensation and Benefits Groups. Following the alarming murder of an insurance company CEO recently, the need for protection and security for CEOs and other executives is now high on the agenda, as are questions about how these items should be reported. Under the guidance set forth in the SEC’s 2006 release, an “item is not a perquisite or personal benefit if it is integrally and directly related to the performance of the executive’s duties. Otherwise, an item is a perquisite or personal benefit if it confers a direct or indirect benefit that has a personal aspect, without regard to whether it may be provided for some business reason or for the convenience of the company, unless it is generally available on a non-discriminatory basis to all employees.” According to the release, the “concept of a benefit that is ‘integrally and directly related’ to job performance is a narrow one.” But, the Alert contends, maybe that approach should be revisited.
SEC charges Becton Dickinson with misleading investors about regulatory risks and product sales
The SEC has announced settled charges against Becton, Dickinson and Company, a medical device manufacturer known as BD listed on the NYSE, for “repeatedly misleading investors about risks associated with its continued sales of its Alaris infusion pump and for overstating its income by failing to record the costs of fixing multiple software flaws with the pump.” In essence, the company failed to disclose that it needed, but did not have, FDA clearance for certain changes to the software for its Alaris product, sales of which contributed about 10% of BD’s profits. Without those changes, the product was potentially harmful to patients. “Rather than inform investors that these issues heightened the risk that the FDA would limit BD’s ability to continue selling Alaris,” the SEC charged, “BD made misleading statements in its periodic reports about its regulatory risks.” BD agreed to pay a $175 million civil penalty. Companies in the life sciences should take note that this is yet another recent Enforcement action aimed at a life science company’s alleged misleading statements, including hypothetical or generic risks, regarding regulatory (FDA) status; in charges announced earlier this month against Kiromic BioPharma, the SEC alleged that Kiromic had failed to disclose that the FDA had placed both of its INDs on clinical hold. (See this PubCo post.) According to Sanjay Wadhwa, Acting Director of SEC Enforcement, “BD repeatedly painted a misleading picture of its Alaris infusion pump for investors and then doubled down by keeping them in the dark when the device’s issues came to a head with the FDA in late 2019….Public companies have a fundamental duty to accurately disclose material business risks and should expect to be held accountable when they fall short in that regard.”
Happy Holidays!
SEC Enforcement charges Express for failure to disclose CEO perks
The SEC has announced settled charges against Express, Inc., a multi-brand American fashion retailer formerly listed on the NYSE, for failing to disclose over a three-year period almost $1 million in perks provided to its now former CEO. What were those perks? About a half of that amount was attributable to the perk that seems to trip up so many companies (and flashing favorite target of SEC Enforcement): use of company-owned or -leased aircraft and other travel expenses for personal purposes. The SEC also charged that the company “did not have adequate controls, policies, or procedures in place to effectively identify and analyze potential compensation for disclosure.” However, the SEC did not impose civil penalties on the company, which filed for bankruptcy, in light of its cooperation. According to Sanjay Wadhwa, the Acting Director of Enforcement, “[p]ublic companies have a duty to comply with their disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation, including perks and personal benefits, so that investors can make educated investment decisions….Here, although Express fell short in carrying out its obligation, the Commission declined to impose a civil penalty based, in part, on the company’s self-report, cooperation with the staff’s investigation, and remedial efforts.”
UPDATED—en banc Fifth Circuit puts the kibosh on the Nasdaq board diversity rules
(This post updates my post of December 12 to add further discussion of the decision.)
In August 2021, the SEC approved a Nasdaq proposal for new listing rules regarding board diversity and disclosure, accompanied by a proposal to provide free access to a board recruiting service. The new listing rules adopted a “comply or explain” mandate for board diversity for most listed companies and required companies listed on Nasdaq’s U.S. exchange to publicly disclose “consistent, transparent diversity statistics” regarding the composition of their boards. (See this PubCo post.) It didn’t take long for a court challenge to these rules to materialize: the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment and, later, the National Center for Public Policy Research petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—the Alliance has its principal place of business in Texas—for review of the SEC’s final order approving the Nasdaq rule. (See this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) (Reuters points out that the same pair of challengers “led the successful U.S. Supreme Court challenge against race-conscious college admissions policies.” In October 2023, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied those petitions, in effect upholding Nasdaq’s board diversity listing rules. Given that, by repute, the Fifth Circuit is the circuit of choice for advocates of conservative causes, the decision to deny the petition may have taken some by surprise—unless, that is, they were aware, as discussed in the WSJ and Reuters, that the three judges on that panel happened to all be appointed by Democrats. Petitioners then filed a petition requesting a rehearing en banc by the Fifth Circuit, where Republican presidents have appointed 12 of the 16 active judges. (See this PubCo post.) Not that politics has anything to do with it, of course. That petition for rehearing en banc was granted, vacating the opinion of the lower court. In May, the en banc court heard oral argument, with a discussion dominated by rule skeptics. (See this PubCo post.) Last week, the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, issued its opinion in Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC, vacating the SEC’s order approving Nasdaq’s board diversity proposal. No surprise there—the surprise was that the vote by the Fifth Circuit was nine to eight. The majority of the Court applied a strict interpretation—some might call it pinched—of the purposes of the Exchange Act to hold that the Nasdaq board diversity rules “cannot be squared with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,” and, therefore, the SEC had no business approving them. Ironically, the dissent also contended that the SEC’s authority was limited—that its statutory authority to disapprove a rule proposed by Nasdaq, cast by the dissent as a “private entity” engaged in private ordering, was constrained by the Exchange Act. In effect, the dissent contended, the majority was advocating that the agency intrude more on this exercise in private ordering. According to Bloomberg Law, a “Nasdaq representative said the exchange disagreed with the court’s decision, but doesn’t plan to appeal the ruling. An SEC spokesperson said the agency is ‘reviewing the decision and will determine next steps as appropriate.’” But if Nasdaq doesn’t appeal, how likely is it that the new Administration would do so?
You must be logged in to post a comment.