Category: Corporate Governance
SEC staff offers relief regarding manual signature retention requirements for electronic filings in light of COVID-19
The staff of various SEC divisions, including Corp Fin, has just issued a new Statement Regarding Rule 302(b) of Regulation S-T in Light of COVID-19 Concerns. The statement offers some relief in connection with “the authentication document retention requirements under Rule 302(b) [of Reg S-T] in light of health, transportation, and other logistical issues raised by the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).”
SEC Division of Enforcement emphasizes need for market integrity in context of COVID-19 pandemic
Today, the Co-Directors of the SEC Division of Enforcement, Stephanie Avakian and Steven Peikin, issued a brief cautionary statement regarding market integrity in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. The statement acknowledged the unprecedented impact of COVID-19 on the securities markets and emphasized the importance of “maintaining market integrity and following corporate controls and procedures.”
Delaware Supreme court upholds facial validity of exclusive federal forum provisions
Yesterday, in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi (pronounced Shabacookie!), the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously held that charter provisions designating the federal courts as the exclusive forum for ’33 Act claims are “facially valid,” thereby reversing the decision of the Chancery Court, which had invalidated the provisions in the charters of three Delaware companies. The Chancery Court had previously invalidated the exclusive federal forum provisions (FFPs) at issue in the case because, among other reasons, Delaware’s enabling statute (Section 102(b)(1))—which provides general authority for non-mandatory charter provisions—was, in the lower court’s view, inherently limited to “internal affairs” and FFPs were “external” matters. On de novo review, the Delaware Supreme Court rejected this analysis. It characterized FFPs as intra-corporate matters, located in a new territory—the “outer band” between internal and external matters—which fell within the statutory scope of Section 102(b)(1) and are, therefore, valid on their face. Given the substantial benefits of an FFP in the event of ’33 Act litigation (which includes Section 11 claims), companies that do not have an FFP in their charters or bylaws, whether as a result of uncertainty about the validity of FFPs or otherwise—may want to revisit the issue.
SEC adopts carve-out from the auditor attestation requirement of SOX 404(b) for low-revenue companies
On March 12, the SEC voted (by a vote of three to one, with Commissioner Allison Lee dissenting) to approve amendments to the accelerated filer and large accelerated filer definitions to provide a narrow carve-out for companies that qualify as smaller reporting companies (SRCs) and reported less than $100 million in annual revenues in the most recent fiscal year for which audited financial statements were available. Most significantly, under the final amendments, companies qualifying for the carve-out will no longer be subject to the SOX 404(b) requirement to have an auditor attestation report on internal control over financial reporting (ICFR), a requirement that applies to accelerated and large accelerated filers. In adopting these amendments, the SEC said that the amendments will “more appropriately tailor the types of issuers that are included in the definitions, thereby reducing unnecessary burdens and compliance costs for certain smaller issuers while maintaining investor protections. The amendments are consistent with the Commission’s and Congress’s historical practice of providing scaled disclosure and other accommodations to reduce unnecessary burdens for new and smaller issuers.” The new rules will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Guidance provides regulatory flexibility regarding annual meetings
Today, in light of the spread of COVID-19, the SEC announced new Corp Fin staff guidance regarding annual meetings. Because of limitations on the ability to hold in-person annual meetings as a result of health and travel concerns, the staff guidance “provides regulatory flexibility to companies seeking to change the date and location of the meetings and use new technologies, such as ‘virtual’ shareholder meetings that avoid the need for in-person shareholder attendance, while at the same time ensuring that shareholders and other market participants are informed of any changes.”
From “Who’s Who to who’s he”—should a former CEO stay on the board?
Should a CEO that retires or otherwise steps down from his or her position remain on the board as Chair or, as seems to be a recent trend, even as Executive Chair? That’s the question discussed in this article from Fortune. Probably, we can all think of examples of former CEOs who, for one reason or another, don’t entirely cut their ties, and instead become board members or executive chairs. Sometimes it’s strictly to assist in the transition on a short-term basis; sometimes it’s because stepping away created a “psychological crisis” for the former top dog: “They’re leaving behind power, fame, income, even their identity—as one ex-CEO put it, ‘You’re going from Who’s Who to who’s he?’” In any event, suggested the author, it’s typically a call for the board to make, taking into account this question: will the appointment be for the benefit of the shareholders or the former CEO?
New report on California board gender diversity mandate
As required by SB 826, California’s board gender diversity law, the California Secretary of State has posted its March 2020 report on the status of compliance with the new law. The report combines information gathered in the July 2019 report (see this PubCo post) with data for the additional six-month period of July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. The report counts 625 publicly held corporations that identified principal executive offices in California in their 2019 10-Ks, but indicates that only 330 of these “impacted corporations” had filed a 2019 California Publicly Traded Corporate Disclosure Statement, which would reflect their compliance with the board gender diversity requirement. Of the 330 companies that had filed, 282 reported that they were in compliance with the board gender diversity mandate.
How do the largest fund families vote on shareholder proposals related to ESG?
In 2019, investor support for shareholder proposals related to environmental, social and governance matters reached a record average high of 29%, according to Morningstar. And that doesn’t take into account the number of climate-related proposals that were withdrawn after successful negotiation—a number that exceeded the number of climate proposals that actually went to a vote. In this report, Morningstar analyzes the level of proxy voting support by 52 of the largest fund families for ESG-related shareholder proposals in 2019 and over the five years from 2015 to 2019. Although Morningstar finds substantial increases in average support over the last five years, five of the largest fund families, including BlackRock, voted against over 88% of ESG-related proposals, enough to prevent many of these proposals from achieving majority support. But, in 2020, with BlackRock having joined Climate Action 100+— reportedly “the world’s largest group of investors by assets pressuring companies to act on climate change”—and having announced that it was putting “sustainability at the center of [BlackRock’s] investment approach,” the question is whether that voting strategy is about to change?
SEC charges company for failure to disclose material trends
The SEC has just settled an action against Diageo PLC, a producer of liquor, wine and beer, for failure to disclose known trends and uncertainties. Diageo’s omission resulted in materially misleading disclosures regarding its financial results and material inflation of key performance indicators—organic net sales growth and organic operating profit growth. It’s worth noting that the SEC has not been reluctant to take enforcement action against companies that have misled investors by inflating KPIs, such as subscriber counts, revenue-per-subscriber, number of vehicles sold monthly, net new customers added, backlog and now organic net sales growth and organic operating profit growth. These types of metrics—typically outside of the financial statements—are metrics on which investors and analysts often rely to assess performance, and companies have been held to account if their presentations are materially inaccurate or misleading or the related controls are inadequate.
SSGA offers roadmap for board oversight of ESG; may vote against directors of ESG “laggards”
It’s not just BlackRock’s CEO that has words for companies. Cyrus Taraporevala, the CEO of State Street Global Advisers, another large asset manager, has recently sent his own letter to company boards cautioning that SSGA’s engagement on sustainability this year will also include the possibility of a proxy vote against directors “to press companies that are falling behind and failing to engage.” While directors can play a vital role in catalyzing action on ESG matters, SSGA recognizes that, in many ways, our understanding of ESG is still in its early stages, making board oversight of ESG something of a challenge. To help demystify sustainability for directors, SSGA has developed a framework intended to provide a roadmap for boards—where to begin—in conducting oversight of sustainability as a strategic and operational issue.
You must be logged in to post a comment.