Category: Litigation
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?
En banc Fifth Circuit puts the kibosh on the Nasdaq board diversity rules
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) 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 this 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 was dominated by rule skeptics. (See this PubCo post.) Yesterday, the Court issued its opinion in Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC. No surprise there—the majority of the Court held that the Nasdaq diversity rules “cannot be squared with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.” The surprise was that the vote on the Fifth Circuit was nine to eight. 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 that the new Administration would do so?
Below is a very quick paragraph to alert you to the decision. I plan to write a much longer post on the case (including the dissent) in the next day or so. Stay tuned for the update.
Profs share predictions for securities regulation under next Administration—and their response
In this post on the CLS Blue Sky Blog, two leading authorities on securities law, Professors John C. Coffee, Jr. and Joel Seligman, take a crack at prognosticating about SEC regulation—and even the SEC itself—under the next Administration. They contend that, with a new Republican majority on the Commission, including the new Chair, together with Republican majorities in Congress, the SEC will be in a position to “revise a broad range of statutory, rule, and enforcement policies of the Commission.” What’s more, the new Department of Government Efficiency—which they suggest, may not be entirely, um, open-minded when it comes to the SEC—could certainly put a major crimp in the resources available for the SEC’s budget. (They note the irony “that the SEC makes a large profit for the U.S. government, and in fiscal 2024, it obtained a record-high level of fines and sanctions (approximately $8.2 billion). Shrink its budget and you likely shrink that recovery.”) In their view, the SEC is “probably the most successful and effective of the New Deal administrative agencies, one that has helped preserve the integrity of our capitalist system,” but they fear that it may be handicapped in continuing to do so under the next Administration. With that in mind, they pre-announce their intent to “encourage a more informed debate by forming a ‘Shadow SEC,’ composed of acknowledged experts in securities regulation.” Let’s look at some of the potential legislation and rulemaking changes that they speculate might be in store for the SEC and public company disclosure.
SEC charges biopharma with misleading investors about status of INDs
The SEC has announced that it filed settled charges against Kiromic BioPharma and two of its executives for alleged failure to disclose in its public statements and filings, including in its public offering prospectus, material information about its investigational new drug applications filed with the FDA for two of its drug candidates—the only two product candidates in the company’s pipeline. What was that omitted information? That the FDA had placed both of its INDs on clinical hold, meaning that the proposed clinical investigations could not proceed until the company first corrected the deficiencies cited by the FDA. Instead of disclosing in its prospectus that the INDs had actually been placed on clinical hold, the company included a risk factor describing the “hypothetical risk of a clinical hold and the potential negative consequences” on the company’s business. In light of the company’s voluntary self-reporting, remediation and other proactive cooperation, there was no civil penalty for the company, but two executives, the then-CEO and then-CFO, agreed to pay civil penalties of $125,000 and $20,000. According to the Director of the SEC’s Fort Worth Regional Office, the resolution of these cases strikes “the right balance between holding Kiromic’s then-two most senior officers responsible for Kiromic’s disclosure failures while also crediting Kiromic for its voluntary self-report, remediation, proactively instituting remedial measures, and providing meaningful cooperation to the staff.”
Will SCOTUS revive the nondelegation doctrine? Cert. granted in Consumers’ Research v. FCC
When SCOTUS granted cert. in SEC v. Jarkesy, the case challenging the constitutionality of the SEC’s administrative enforcement proceedings, one of the questions presented was whether the statute granting authority to the SEC to elect to use ALJs violated the nondelegation doctrine. Jarkesy had contended that, in adopting the provision in Dodd-Frank permitting the use of ALJs but providing no guidance on the issue, “Congress has delegated to the SEC what would be legislative power absent a guiding intelligible principle” in violation of that doctrine. Had SCOTUS gone that route, commentators suggested, the case had the potential to be enormously significant in limiting the power of the SEC and other federal agencies beyond the question of ALJs. A column in the NYT discussing Jarkesy explained that, if “embraced in its entirety, the nondelegation doctrine could spell the end of agency power as we know it, turning the clock back to before the New Deal.” And in Bloomberg, Matt Levine wrote that, while the ”nondelegation doctrine has not had a lot of wins in the Supreme Court in the last 90 years….it’s back now: There is revived interest in it at the Supreme Court.” Had Jarkesy won the nondelegation argument, that could have meant “that all of the SEC’s rulemaking (and every other regulatory agency’s rulemaking) is suspect, that every policy decision that the SEC makes is unconstitutional. Much of US securities law would need to be thrown out, or perhaps rewritten by Congress if they ever got around to it. Stuff like the SEC’s climate rules would be dead forever.” In his view, “the Supreme Court does have several justices who would love to revive the nondelegation doctrine in a way that really would undermine most of securities regulation.” That didn’t happen in Jarkesy; SCOTUS studiously avoided addressing the issue, its looming presence in the lower court decision notwithstanding. But the nondelegation doctrine has again reared its head, this time in Consumers’ Research v. FCC out of the Fifth Circuit. In late November, SCOTUS granted cert. in that case (and consolidated it with another case, SHLB Coalition v. Consumers’ Research, that presented similar questions). All three of the questions presented in the cert. petition relate to the nondelegation doctrine (although another was added by SCOTUS itself). With this case now on the docket, will SCOTUS continue its shellacking of the administrative state? (See this PubCo post, this PubCo post, this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) And add another big wrinkle: how will the new Administration approach this case and this question? While, historically, according to Bloomberg, the “solicitor general typically defends federal statutes and programs regardless of party affiliation,” there is no assurance that the new Administration will follow historical practice. Indeed, according to this article in Law.com, with a new administration, “[f]lipping positions at the Supreme Court has become a common trend of incoming U.S. solicitors general, even if it tends to irk the justices themselves.”
In appeal, NAM insists “solicitation” includes proxy voting advice
Back in February, in ISS v. SEC, the D.C. Federal District Court vacated the SEC’s 2020 rule that advice from proxy advisory firms was a “solicitation” under the proxy rules. Both the SEC and National Association of Manufacturers filed notices of appeal in that case, but then the SEC mysteriously dropped out of that contest: both the SEC and Gensler moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeal. Why? That remains a mystery: the SEC did not provide any reason. The SEC’s dismissal did not, however, impact NAM’s separate appeal as Intervenor-Appellant, except that NAM became the sole appellant in the case. In a statement to Bloomberg at the time, a NAM representative said that NAM was “surprised and extremely disappointed that the SEC has chosen not to exercise its authority to defend America’s world-leading capital markets from the outsized and completely unregulated authority of proxy advisory firms.” Now, NAM has filed its brief in the case.
Happy Thanksgiving!
SEC charges UPS with failure to take goodwill impairment charge require by GAAP
Last week, the SEC announced settled charges against United Parcel Service Inc. for failing to take an appropriate goodwill impairment charge for a poorly performing business unit, thus materially misrepresenting its earnings. As alleged by the SEC, instead of calculating the write-down based on the price UPS expected to receive to sell its Freight business unit—as required under GAAP—UPS relied on a valuation prepared by an outside consultant, but “without giving the consultant information necessary to conduct a fair valuation of the business.” According to the Associate Director of Enforcement, “[g]oodwill balances provide investors with valuable insight into whether companies are successfully operating the businesses they own….Therefore, it is essential for companies to prepare reliable fair value estimates and impair goodwill when required. UPS fell short of these obligations, repeatedly ignoring its own well-founded sale price estimates for Freight in favor of unreliable third-party valuations.” UPS was charged with making material representations in its reporting, as well as violations of the book and records, internal accounting controls, and disclosure controls provisions of the Exchange Act and related rules. UPS agreed to adopt training requirements for certain officers, directors and employees, retain an independent compliance consultant and pay a $45 million civil penalty.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Just in time for Thanksgiving, SEC charges Elanco with undisclosed stuffing—channel stuffing, that is
In this settled action, In the Matter of Elanco Animal Health, Inc., Elanco, a manufacturer and seller of animal health products, such as flea and tick medications, was charged with “failure to disclose material information concerning its sales practices that rendered statements it made about its revenue growth misleading.” As alleged by the SEC, “Elanco would entice distributors to make end-of-quarter purchases in excess of then-existing customer demand by offering them incentives such as rebates and extended payment terms. These incentives allowed Elanco to improve its revenue each quarter, but caused distributors to purchase products ahead of end-user demand. Without these Incentivized Sales, Elanco would have missed its internal revenue and core growth targets in each quarter in 2019.” Essentially, we’re talking here about channel stuffing. As the practice continued, it contributed over the period to “channel inventory increasing by over $100 million in gross value…during 2019, creating a build-up of excess inventory at distributors and a reasonably likely risk of a decrease in revenue and revenue growth in future periods. But, for each quarter during the Relevant Period, Elanco failed to disclose the significant impact of its Quarter-End Incentivized Sales and the reasonably likely risk that these sales practices could have a negative impact on revenue in future quarters.” The SEC charged that these disclosure failures rendered the positive statements that Elanco made about revenue materially misleading. And let’s not forget the disclosure controls violations. In settling the action, Elanco agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $15 million.
You must be logged in to post a comment.