Category: Corporate Governance
EDGAR Next begins March 24
In this new press release, Filer Transition to New and Improved EDGAR Begins March 24, the SEC provides references and links to “extensive guidance and resources” available to assist filers with EDGAR Next. According to the press release, the new EDGAR Filer Management dashboard will go live on March 24 on the SEC’s website, and filers can begin enrolling in “EDGAR Next.” Enrollment in EDGAR Next will remain open until December 19, 2025; however, to avoid interruption, the SEC advises filers to enroll no later than September 12, 2025. Here is the EDGAR Next webpage.
Happy International Women’s Day tomorrow March 8!!
Cooley Alert: Policy updates regarding board diversity and proxy season considerations
How to deal with the issue of board diversity has become quite the conundrum. After the killing of George Floyd, many companies enhanced and championed their policies and commitments to DEI. But recent changes to the legal and political landscape—there’s an understatement for you—have had repercussions. Consider, for example, the collective impact of the Fifth Circuit decision vacating the SEC’s order approving Nasdaq’s board diversity rules (see this PubCo post), the 2023 decision by SCOTUS effectively ending affirmative action based on race in higher education admissions (with political, if not yet legal, spillover into the corporate world), the new Administration’s executive orders intended to put the kibosh on DEI programs altogether (which have been, and are likely to continue to be, mired in litigation, see this Cooley Alert), along with the increasing volume of anti-DEI activism and political pressure, manifested in part in litigation and anti-DEI shareholder proposals. (And see this article in The Atlantic about the implications of the absence of consensus on the meaning of “DEI.”) As discussed in this new Cooley Alert, Board Diversity: Policy Updates and Considerations for Proxy Season, from our Capital Markets group, this fraught and shifting environment has compelled some proxy advisors and institutional investors to craft dramatically revised policies on board diversity that companies will need to consider this proxy season. As the Alert highlights, “[c]ompanies will need to make decisions about proxy statement disclosures amid ongoing uncertainty… while balancing competing stakeholder priorities.” Not to mention, to the extent that companies are faced with recalibrating their corporate commitments related to board diversity and DEI generally, obvious concerns with retaining authenticity and adhering to company values.
Sponsor of SB 21, controversial Delaware bill to amend corporate law, speaks out
In an exclusive interview with Law360, the Delaware legislator who was the primary sponsor of the proposed amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law that have fueled so much debate recently discusses the thinking behind the proposed legislation. As discussed in this PubCo post, in response to much chatter and speculation about companies changing their states of incorporation from Delaware to other states—in other words, concerns about Delaware’s valuable corporate franchise—the Delaware legislature introduced a bill that, if adopted, would effect “sweeping changes” to Delaware’s corporate law. The bill would offer a process for boards to invoke safe harbor protection from litigation over potentially conflicted transactions for directors and controlling stockholders. The bill would also address Delaware’s provisions related to books and records. The impact could be fundamental. But there has been substantial pushback—some of which is quoted in the referenced post—from critics of the bill. In the Law360 interview, Delaware Senate Majority Leader Bryan Townsend defends the bill, citing the “‘urgency of the moment.’” In his analysis, “‘[w]hat seems to be happening here is growing frustration out there in the marketplace as to what people believe to be a departure in predictability’ in Delaware’s courts, ‘at a time when other states are standing up alternative frameworks that people are seriously considering.’” Check out the article!
New Delaware bill would offer safe harbor for conflicted transactions—will it convince companies to stay put in Delaware?
As discussed earlier this month, there has been a lot of chatter and speculation recently about companies changing their states of incorporation from Delaware to other states. In an interview with Business Insider, the new Governor of Delaware acknowledged that the state remained a “‘competitive environment’” and that “his state needed to take challenge seriously,” including addressing “issues such as the balance of shareholder and management rights….I think within the coming weeks, you’re going to see some things rolled out that will help move our state forward and bring us into 2025 and beyond to make sure we’re protecting and growing the corporate franchise.” A new bill designed to take up that challenge in a significant way—Senate Bill 21—was introduced in Delaware on Monday and is awaiting consideration by the Judiciary Committee. In essence, the bill would offer a process for boards to invoke safe harbor protection from litigation over potentially conflicted transactions for directors and controlling stockholders. The bill would also address Delaware’s provisions related to books and records. The impact could be fundamental.
Cooley Alert: Delaware Supreme Court Holds Business Judgment Review Applies to TripAdvisor’s Decision to Reincorporate
There’s been a lot of noise in the media recently about some well-known companies deciding to change, or at least considering changing, their states of incorporation from Delaware to Texas, Nevada or another state. According to the WSJ, “[a]bout two-thirds of S&P 500 companies—regardless of where they are actually based—are incorporated in Delaware, largely because the tiny state has specialized courts that handle business matters and stacks of legal precedents for addressing disputes.” However, the WSJ continued, “[e]xecutives and controlling shareholders of public companies have long expressed frustration with the Delaware Court of Chancery, which has become home to a thriving shareholder plaintiffs’ bar.” To entice companies to reincorporate elsewhere, some states have made special efforts to establish “dedicated business courts, including four since 2019.” However, it remains to be seen whether, in the absence of Delaware’s legal expertise addressing business issues and the volume of important precedents that help to bolster predictability, these other states can match the influence of the Delaware courts. Nevertheless, in an interview with Business Insider, the new Governor of Delaware said that the state remained a “‘competitive environment’” and that “his state needed to take challenge seriously,” including addressing “issues such as the balance of shareholder and management rights….I think within the coming weeks, you’re going to see some things rolled out that will help move our state forward and bring us into 2025 and beyond to make sure we’re protecting and growing the corporate franchise….It certainly beats going to Vegas and rolling the dice.” As discussed in this excellent new Cooley Alert, Delaware Supreme Court Reverses Chancery Court, Holds Business Judgment Review Applicable to TripAdvisor’s Decision to Reincorporate in Nevada, from our Commercial Litigation Group and Securities Litigation + Enforcement Groups, the Delaware Supreme Court has just injected into the mix a new decision that could factor into the decision-making process for Delaware companies considering reincorporation in other states.
SEC charges “AI-washing” at Presto Automation
Is “-washing” the securities fraud equivalent of “-gate” for political scandals? First we had greenwashing, then diversity-washing, and now we have AI-washing—a topic that, as discussed in the SideBar below, SEC officials made a lot of noise about last year. And this recent action by the SEC certainly seems to allege just that—even though the SEC doesn’t actually use the term. In mid-January, the SEC announced “settled charges against Presto Automation Inc., a restaurant-technology company that was listed on the Nasdaq until September 2024, for making materially false and misleading statements about critical aspects of its flagship artificial intelligence (AI) product, Presto Voice. Presto Voice employs AI-assisted speech recognition technology to automate aspects of drive-thru order taking at quick-service restaurants.” However, as alleged in the Order, the AI technology used in the product was not developed by Presto—at least not until September 2022; rather, the company deployed speech recognition technology owned and operated by a third party. But, the SEC charged, Presto failed to disclose in its SEC filings that it used the third party’s AI technology, rather than its own, to power all of the Presto Voice units it deployed commercially during that time period. What’s more, once Presto did begin to use its own proprietary technology in the Presto Voice units, the SEC alleged, the company “misrepresented the capabilities of the product by claiming that it eliminated the need for human order taking.” Not the case, the SEC alleged; “substantial human involvement” was actually required. The SEC charged that Presto made materially misleading statements in violation of the Securities and Exchange Acts and failed to maintain adequate disclosure controls; however, in light of its financial condition and remedial actions, the SEC imposed only a cease-and-desist order and no civil money penalty.
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.