In this article, accounting firm Deloitte observes that boards and managements often experience “denial” when the topic of fraud risk arises—no one wants to feel that the trust they place in their own employees is actually misplaced. Still, fraud risk is one topic that typically finds its way onto the agendas of audit committees. Deloitte advises that, with the current attention to ESG and in anticipation of new rulemaking from the SEC on disclosure related to climate, human capital and other ESG-related topics (see this PubCo post), “fraud risk in this area should be top of mind for audit committees and a focal point in fraud risk assessments overseen by the audit committee.” While audit committees focus primarily on financial statement fraud risk, Deloitte suggests that audit committees should consider expanding their attention to fraud risk related to ESG, an area that is “not governed by the same types of controls present in financial reporting processes,” and, therefore, may be more susceptible to manipulation. In their oversight capacity, audit committees have a role to play, Deloitte suggests, by engaging with “management, including internal audit, fraud risk specialists, and independent auditors to understand the extent to which fraud risk is being considered and mitigated.”
SEC settles charges with McDonald’s and former CEO over deficient disclosures; two commissioners dissent
Inappropriate relationships with employees have landed a number of CEOs and other executives in hot water in the last few years, especially as the MeToo movement gained momentum. But these aren’t necessarily just employment issues, nor are they always limited to problems for the perpetrator. The SEC has just announced settled charges against McDonald’s and its former CEO, Stephen Easterbrook, arising out of the termination of Easterbrook “for exercising poor judgment and engaging in an inappropriate personal relationship with a McDonald’s employee in violation of company policy.” The SEC alleged that Easterbrook made “false and misleading statements to investors about the circumstances leading to his termination in November 2019.” But how was McDonald’s alleged to have violated the securities laws? The SEC charged that McDonald’s disclosures related to Easterbrook’s separation agreement were deficient in failing to disclose that the company “exercised discretion in terminating Easterbrook ‘without cause,’” allowing Easterbrook to “retain substantial equity compensation.” The SEC’s Director of Enforcement asserted that, “[w]hen corporate officers corrupt internal processes to manage their personal reputations or line their own pockets, they breach their fundamental duties to shareholders, who are entitled to transparency and fair dealing from executives….By allegedly concealing the extent of his misconduct during the company’s internal investigation, Easterbrook broke that trust with—and ultimately misled—shareholders.” According to the Associate Director of Enforcement, “[p]ublic issuers, like McDonalds’s, are required to disclose and explain all material elements of their CEO’s compensation, including factors regarding any separation agreements….Today’s order finds that McDonald’s failed to disclose that the company exercised discretion in treating Easterbrook’s termination as without cause in conjunction with the execution of a separation agreement valued at more than $40 million.” As reported by the WSJ, “[i]n a statement Monday, McDonald’s said, ‘The SEC’s order reinforces what we have previously said: McDonald’s held Steve Easterbrook accountable for his misconduct. We fired him, and then sued him upon learning that he lied about his behavior.’” Commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda dissented from the Order, contending that the SEC’s interpretation of the disclosure rule was beyond the rule’s scope.
Is it ok for an agency to change its mind? The Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas seems to think so—at least if the agency’s decision is “reasonable and reasonably explained.” So says this Order granting summary judgment to the SEC and Chair Gary Gensler and denying summary judgment to the National Association of Manufacturers and the Natural Gas Services Group in the litigation surrounding the SEC’s adoption in 2022 of amendments to the rules regarding proxy advisory firms, such as ISS and Glass Lewis. Those 2022 rules reversed some of the key controversial provisions governing proxy voting advice that were adopted by the SEC in July 2020 and favored by NAM. In July of this year, NAM filed a complaint asking that the 2022 rules be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act and declared unlawful and void, and, in September, NAM filed its motion for summary judgment, characterizing the case as “a study in capricious agency action.” The Court begged to differ. But, no surprise, we haven’t heard the last of this matter—NAM has already filed its notice of appeal.
Yesterday, the SEC announced that it had settled charges against AT&T for alleged violations of Reg FD for $6.25 million, an amount that it characterized as a “record penalty”—the “largest ever in a Reg FD case.” The case involved allegations of one-on-one disclosures by three company executives of AT&T’s “projected and actual financial results” to a number of Wall Street research analysts in violation of Reg FD and Exchange Act 13(a). (See this PubCo post.) The three executives agreed to pay $25,000 each to settle charges. After the federal district court for the SDNY denied summary judgment for both sides in September (see this PubCo post), the case appeared to be on its way to trial, but that was headed off by this new settlement. According to Gurbir Grewal, Director of Enforcement, the “actions allegedly taken by AT&T executives to avoid falling short of analysts’ projections are precisely the type of conduct Regulation FD was designed to prevent….Compliance with Regulation FD ensures that issuers publicly disclose material information to the entire market and not just to select analysts.”
You may recall that, earlier this year, two Los Angeles Superior Courts struck down as unconstitutional two California laws mandating that boards of public companies achieve specified levels of board diversity and enjoined implementation and enforcement of the legislation. Those injunctions, however, were temporarily lifted as the state appealed. Now, the appeals court has vacated those temporary stays. What does it mean for the diversity legislation?
As the SEC mulls its 10b5-1 proposal (see this PubCo post), neither its Enforcement Division nor the DOJ are waiting around to see what happens. According to Bloomberg, they are using data analytics “in a sweeping examination of preplanned equity sales by C-suite officials.” The question is whether executives “been gaming prearranged stock-sale programs designed to thwart the possibility of insider trading”? Of course, there have been countless studies and “exposés” of alleged 10b5-1 abuse over the years, the most recent being this front-page analysis of trading by insiders under Rule 10b5-1 plans in the WSJ (see this PubCo post). While these concerns have been percolating for quite some time, no legislation or rules have yet been adopted (although several bills have been introduced and the SEC proposed new regs at the end of 2021). Bloomberg reports that these investigations by Enforcement and the DOJ are consistent with the recent “tougher line on long-standing Wall Street trading practices during the Biden era. Federal officials requested information from executives early this year, said one person. They’re now preparing to bring multiple cases, said two other people.”
The SEC has announced its fiscal 2022 Enforcement stats, which hit new records. According to the press release, during the year, the SEC filed 760 total enforcement actions, representing a 9% increase over the prior year. That total included 462 new, or “stand-alone,” enforcement actions, which “ran the gamut of conduct, from ‘first-of-their-kind’ actions to cases charging traditional securities law violations.” The SEC also recovered a record $6.4 billion in civil penalties, disgorgement and pre-judgment interest in SEC actions, an increase of 68% from $3.8 billion in the prior year. Civil penalties, at $4.2 billion, were also the highest on record. The press release emphasized that the increase in penalties is intended to “deter future misconduct and enhance public accountability.” In a number of cases, the SEC “recalibrated penalties for certain violations, included prophylactic remedies, and required admissions where appropriate” to make “clear that the fines were not just a cost of doing business.” According to Director of Enforcement Gurbir Grewal, the SEC doesn’t “expect to break these records and set new ones each year because we expect behaviors to change. We expect compliance.” Interestingly, disgorgement, at $2.2 billion, declined 6% from last year. As reported by the WSJ, Grewal, speaking at a recent conference, highlighted the fact that the SEC imposed more penalties than disgorgements, which, in his view, “demonstrated that ‘the potential consequences of violating the law are significantly greater than the potential rewards.’… He added that the SEC ordered more than twice as much in disgorgements as it did in penalties for the five fiscal years before the last one. ‘So while disgorgement was slightly down from the prior year…it is the first time that the amount ordered to be paid in penalties has been double the amount ordered to be paid in disgorgement,’ he said. ‘The increased penalty-to-disgorgement ratio nonetheless demonstrates that the risk-reward calculation is not what it was even a few years ago.’”
Here’s a big scoop from Bloomberg: the “SEC is months away from finalizing expansive new climate disclosure requirements as the agency juggles investor demands for more transparency, tech glitches and a tough Republican legal threat.” Are you really surprised though? That was a substantial, complex undertaking that elicited thousands of comments and a lot of pressure from opponents and proponents. Then, in July, came another challenge, as SCOTUS handed down West Virginia v EPA, which, although not directly addressing the SEC’s climate proposal, sure seemed to put a bull’s eye on it. (See this PubCo post.) Not to mention the SEC’s technical glitch, which led to a reopening of the comment period for a couple of weeks until November 1. (See this PubCo post.) That alone would have been enough to smoke the October target date set in the most recent SEC agenda. (See this PubCo post.) But what is real timeframe? Well, who knows. According to Bloomberg, SEC Chair Gary “Gensler has declined to give a timeline for finishing the climate regulations in recent public appearances, repeatedly pointing to thousands of comments that still need to be reviewed.” Bloomberg also reports that SEC “officials in private conversations have given no indication they’ll finish the rules this year, according to several people in contact with the agency.”
SEC charges Compass Minerals with disclosure violations resulting from “deficient disclosure process”
Toward the end of last month, the SEC announced settled charges against Compass Minerals International, Inc., for alleged disclosure violations that were “the consequence of a deficient disclosure process.” In the Order, the SEC alleged that Compass misrepresented the impact of a technology upgrade at its Goderich mine—the world’s largest underground salt mine—which the company had claimed would lead to cost savings, but actually led to increased costs and below-expectation results. Central to the case, however, was the purported failure of the company’s disclosure controls that resulted in the misleading statements: “statements to investors were not reviewed by personnel who were sufficiently knowledgeable about both Compass’s operations and its disclosure obligations.” The company was also charged with failing to disclose the potential financial risks arising out of the company’s contamination of a river in Brazil with excessive discharges of mercury, a failure the SEC also attributed to inadequate disclosure controls. According to Melissa Hodgman, Associate Director of the Division of Enforcement, “[w]hat companies say to investors must be consistent with what they know. Yet Compass repeatedly made public statements that did not jibe with the facts on—or under—the ground at Goderich….By misleading investors about mining costs in Canada and failing to analyze the potential financial consequences of its environmental contamination in Brazil, Compass fell far short of what the federal securities laws require.” Compass agreed to pay $12 million to settle the charges.
NAM celebrates victory over SEC on non-enforcement of proxy advisory firm rules—what did it really win?
Last week, in an action by the National Association of Manufacturers against the SEC and Chair Gary Gensler, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas held that the SEC violated the Administrative Procedure Act when, in June 2021, Corp Fin stated that it would not recommend enforcement of the 2020 proxy advisory firm rules while those rules were under reconsideration. In 2022, however, the SEC formally adopted new amendments to the 2020 rules reversing some of the key provisions and, at the same time, rescinding Corp Fin’s non-enforcement statement. You might think that the adoption of the new 2022 rules and rescission of the non-enforcement statement would make NAM’s suit moot? At least, that’s what the SEC seemed to think when it moved to dismiss NAM’s complaint in August 2022, contending that the relief NAM sought would now be “meaningless.” But, in mid-September, the Court denied the SEC’s motion—citing West Virginia v. EPA—and late last week, the same Court granted NAM’s summary judgment motion for declaratory and injunctive relief: the SEC’s “suspension” of the rules was vacated because it violated the APA, and the SEC was enjoined from refusing to acknowledge or recognize the 2020 rule’s compliance date. NAM declared victory. But was it a hollow victory? Not according to NAM.