Category: Corporate Governance
After dam collapse, SEC alleges false safety claims in sustainability reports and SEC filings
As described in this press release, the SEC has filed a complaint against Vale S.A., a publicly traded (NYSE) Brazilian mining company and one of the world’s largest iron ore producers, charging that it made “false and misleading claims about the safety of its dams prior to the January 2019 collapse of its Brumadinho dam. The collapse killed 270 people, caused immeasurable environmental and social harm, and led to a loss of more than $4 billion in Vale’s market capitalization.” The SEC alleged that Vale “fraudulently assured investors that the company adhered to the ‘strictest international practices’ in evaluating dam safety and that 100 percent of its dams were certified to be in stable condition.” Significantly, these statements were contained, not just in Vale’s SEC filings, but also, in large part, in its sustainability reports. According to Gurbir Grewal, Director of Enforcement, “[m]any investors rely on ESG disclosures like those contained in Vale’s annual Sustainability Reports and other public filings to make informed investment decisions….By allegedly manipulating those disclosures, Vale compounded the social and environmental harm caused by the Brumadinho dam’s tragic collapse and undermined investors’ ability to evaluate the risks posed by Vale’s securities.” Notably, the press release refers to the SEC’s Climate and ESG Task Force formed last year in the Division of Enforcement “with a mandate to identify material gaps or misstatements in issuers’ ESG disclosures, like the false and misleading claims made by Vale.” The SEC’s charges arising out of this horrific accident are a version of “event-driven” securities litigation—brought this time, not by shareholders, but by the SEC.
Raiding the cookie jar—“part of the art of the close”?
In this Order, the SEC brought settled charges against Rollins, Inc., a termite and pest control company—think “Orkin”—and its former CFO for earnings management. In essence, the SEC alleged that the company adjusted the amounts in several of its corporate reserves, without support or documentation, to bump up its EPS so that its EPS would meet analysts’ consensus EPS estimates for two quarters. The company would otherwise have missed those consensus estimates by a penny in each quarter. The SEC charged the company with securities fraud under the Securities Act, financial reporting violations under the Exchange Act and failure to maintain adequate internal accounting controls and imposed a civil penalty of $8 million. The CFO was also charged with similar violations and ordered to pay a civil penalty of $100,000. According to Gurbir Grewal, Director of Enforcement, “[t]his is the fourth action and the highest penalty to date against an issuer in connection with the Division of Enforcement’s highly successful and continuing EPS Initiative, which uses data analytics to uncover hard-to-detect accounting and disclosure violations by public companies….The SEC staff’s ever-increasing sophistication with data made today’s action possible and underscores that we will continue to pursue public companies that lack adequate accounting controls and engage in improper earnings management practices.”
PCAOB talks to audit committee chairs about auditor oversight in 2021
Since 2019, as part of its strategy of enhancing transparency and accessibility through proactive stakeholder engagement, the PCAOB has been engaging with audit committee chairs at U.S. public companies that have had audits inspected by the PCAOB during the year. The PCAOB staff continued this outreach to audit committee chairs during 2021, engaging in conversations with over 240 audit committee chairs. The results are discussed in this new report. The discussions involved required communications between the auditor with the audit committee and discussions outside of required communications, auditor strengths and weaknesses, PCAOB inspection reports, quality control, use of technology and matters outside of the financial statements. The PCAOB believes that the audit committee’s oversight of the auditor and the audit process is a critical job. Accordingly, “engaged and informed audit committees can be a force for elevating audit quality to the benefit of investors and our capital markets broadly.”
Audit Analytics reports on cybersecurity disclosure
These days, with our government warning regularly about the likelihood of breaches in cybersecurity, concerns about cyber threats have only multiplied. Introducing the SEC’s new proposal for cybersecurity disclosure in March (see this PubCo post), SEC Corp Fin Director Renee Jones said that, in today’s digitally connected world, cyber threats and incidents pose an ongoing and escalating threat to public companies and their shareholders. In light of the pandemic-driven trend to work from home and, even more seriously, the potential impact of horrific global events, cybersecurity risk is affecting just about all reporting companies, she continued. While threats have increased in number and complexity, Jones said, currently, company disclosure about cybersecurity is not always decision-useful and is often inconsistent, not timely and sometimes hard for investors to locate. What’s more, some material incidents may not be reported at all. Audit Analytics has just posted a new report regarding trends in cybersecurity incident disclosures. The report indicates that, in 2021, there was a 44% increase in the number of breaches disclosed, from 131 in 2020 to 188 in 2021, the most breaches disclosed in a single year since 2011. And, since 2011, the number of cybersecurity incidents disclosed annually has increased nearly 600%. Interestingly, however, in 2021, only 43% of cybersecurity incidents were disclosed in SEC filings, the report said.
Board diversity statute for “underrepresented communities” held unconstitutional under California’s equal protection provisions
On April 1, the L.A. County Superior Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in Crest v. Padilla, the taxpayer litigation challenging AB 979, California’s board diversity statute for “underrepresented communities.” (See this PubCo post.) Unfortunately, at the time, only a minute order was released, which did not offer any explanation of the Court’s reasoning. Now, a new 24-page Court Order, which provides the Court’s reasoning, has been made available, and, in it, the Court concludes that the statute, Corporations Code § 301.4, violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution on its face. Why? Because, in the Court’s view, § 301.4 treats similarly situated individuals differently based on suspect racial and other categories that are not justified by a compelling interest, nor is the statute narrowly tailored to address the interests identified. Will this case have a spillover effect on the decision currently pending of plaintiffs’ taxpayer challenge to California’s board gender diversity statute, SB 826? According to Reuters, the California State Senator who authored SB 826 said that “the case involved a ‘very different set of facts and distinctly different legal issues.’”
What’s happening with corporate political spending disclosure?
I have to admit I was surprised to read that, in the new $1.5 trillion budget bill, Congress has once again prohibited the SEC from using any funds for political spending disclosure regulation. But there it is—Section 633—in black and white: “None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used by the Securities and Exchange Commission to finalize, issue, or implement any rule, regulation, or order regarding the disclosure of political contributions, contributions to tax exempt organizations, or dues paid to trade associations.” That means that, for now anyway, private ordering—through shareholder proposals at individual companies and other forms of stakeholder pressure, including humiliation—will continue to be the pressure point for disclosure of corporate political contributions. Those proposals have grown increasingly successful in the last couple of years. And, notably, it appears that the focus of many proposals has shifted recently, with more emphasis on apparent conflicts between stated company policies and values and the beneficiaries of those political contributions.
Court grants summary judgment to plaintiffs challenging California’s board diversity statute for “underrepresented communities”
As you may recall, SB 826, the California board gender diversity statute, is not the only California board diversity statute facing legal challenges. In 2020, AB 979, California’s board diversity statute for “underrepresented communities,” patterned after the board gender diversity statute, was signed into law, and it too has been facing legal challenges—in fact litigation brought by the same plaintiffs on the same legal basis. (See this PubCo post.) Framed as a “taxpayer suit” much like Crest v. Padilla I, the sequel, Crest v. Padilla II, sought to enjoin Alex Padilla, the then-California Secretary of State, from expending taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources to enforce or implement the law and a judgment declaring the diversity mandate to be unlawful in violation of the California constitution. As Crest v. Padilla I is awaiting a court decision following a bench trial (see this PubCo post), what’s happening in the sequel? After a hearing on motions by both parties for summary judgment in March, the Los Angeles Superior Court took the matter under submission and, on April Fool’s Day, the Court issued its order. But it was no joke—the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The state has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the decision. In a statement, the president of Judicial Watch, which represented the plaintiffs, said that “[t]his historic California court decision declared unconstitutional one of the most blatant and significant attacks in the modern era on constitutional prohibitions against discrimination.”
SEC proposes new rules on climate disclosure [UPDATED—PART II—GHG emissions]
[This post is Part II of a revision and update of my earlier post that primarily reflects the contents of the proposing release. Part I (here) covered the background of the proposal and described the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure framework, including disclosure of climate-related risks, governance, risk management, targets and goals, financial statement metrics and general aspects of the proposal. This post covers GHG emissions disclosure and attestation.]
So, what are the GHG emissions for a mega roll of Charmin Ultra Soft toilet paper? That was the question I asked to open this PubCo post. According to this article in the WSJ, the answer was 771 grams, a calculation performed by the Natural Resources Defense Council. But how did they figure that out? How public companies could be required to calculate and report on their GHG emissions is one of the major issues addressed by the SEC in its proposal on climate-related disclosure regulation issued last week. The proposal was designed to require disclosure of “consistent, comparable, and reliable—and therefore decision-useful—information to investors to enable them to make informed judgments about the impact of climate-related risks on current and potential investments.” Drawing on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the proposal would, in addition to the disclosure mandate discussed in Part I of this Update, require disclosure of a company’s Scopes 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions, and, for larger companies, Scope 3 GHG emissions if material (or included in the company’s emissions reduction target), with a phased-in attestation requirement for Scopes 1 and 2 data for large accelerated filers and accelerated filers. The disclosure would be included in registration statements and periodic reports in the section captioned “Climate-Related Disclosure.” At 510 pages, the proposal is certainly thoughtful, comprehensive and stunningly detailed—some might say overwhelmingly so. If adopted, it would certainly require a substantial undertaking for many companies to get their arms around the extensive and granular requirements and comply with the proposal’s mandates. How companies would manage this enormous effort remains to be seen.
SEC (finally) proposes new rules on climate disclosure [UPDATED—PART I]
[This post is Part I of a revision and update of my earlier post primarily reflecting the contents of the proposing release. This post covers background and describes various aspects of the proposal other than the sections on GHG emissions disclosure and attestation, which will be covered in a separate post early next week.]
The SEC describes it modestly as a proposal to “enhance and standardize registrants’ climate-related disclosures for investors.” The WSJ called it “the biggest potential expansion in corporate disclosure since the creation of the Depression-era rules over financial disclosures that underpin modern corporate statements,” and Fortune said it “could be the biggest change to corporate disclosures in the U.S. in decades.” But now you can judge for yourself, after the SEC voted earlier this week, three to one, to propose new rules on climate disclosure regulation. The proposal was designed to require disclosure of “consistent, comparable, and reliable—and therefore decision-useful—information to investors to enable them to make informed judgments about the impact of climate-related risks on current and potential investments.” The proposal would require public companies to disclose information about climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on their businesses, results of operations or financial condition, as well as information about the effect of climate risk on companies’ governance, risk management and strategy. The disclosure, which would be included in registration statements and periodic reports, would draw, in part, on disclosures provided for under the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Compliance would be phased in, with reporting for large accelerated filers due in 2024 (assuming an—optimistic—effective date at the end of this year). The proposal would also mandate disclosure of a company’s Scopes 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions, and, for larger companies, Scope 3 GHG emissions if material (or included in the company’s emissions reduction target), with a phased-in attestation requirement for Scopes 1 and 2 data for large accelerated filers and accelerated filers. The proposal would also require disclosure of certain climate-related financial metrics in a note to the audited financial statements. At 510 pages, the proposal is certainly thoughtful, comprehensive and stunningly detailed—some might say overwhelmingly so. If adopted, it would surely require a substantial undertaking for many companies to get their arms around the extensive and granular requirements and comply with the proposal’s mandates. How companies would manage this enormous effort remains to be seen.
Corp Fin posts sample comments related to Ukraine disclosure
Corp Fin has posted a sample comment letter to companies about potential disclosure obligations arising out of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the international response to it and related supply chain issues. Corp Fin wants companies to provide more “detailed disclosure, to the extent material or otherwise required,” about the direct or indirect impact on their businesses of their exposure to or business relationships with Russia, Belarus or Ukraine, any goods or services sourced in those countries and supply chain disruption. The letter provides a useful resource to help companies think through how their businesses have been or may be affectedCorp Fin has posted a sample comment letter to companies about potential disclosure obligations arising out of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the international response to it and related supply chain issues. Corp Fin wants companies to provide more “detailed disclosure, to the extent material or otherwise required,” about the direct or indirect impact on their businesses of their exposure to or business relationships with Russia, Belarus or Ukraine, any goods or services sourced in those countries and supply chain disruption. The letter provides a useful resource to help companies think through how their businesses have been or may be affected, even if they don’t have operations in Russia or Ukraine.