Category: Litigation
Will the SEC beat the clock on the Gensler agenda?
In an article in 2022, Politico reported that SEC Chair Gary “Gensler has come under fire for the pace of rulemaking coming out of the agency, with critics claiming that dissecting the flood of new proposals in such short periods of time is impractical. Gensler has pointed out that the number of proposals [is] largely on par with what former SEC chairs like Clayton have done. The latest proposals have just been more clustered than in the past, Gensler said.” That’s a response that I’m sure I’ve heard any number of times during Congressional hearings. Is that still the case? To find out, Bloomberg performed a count of SEC records from 2001 to 2023 to assess the extent of rulemaking in the first two years, four months and one week into the tenures of several of the SEC Chairs over that period who were confirmed to lead the SEC at the start of a new administration. The answer? Yes and no. According to Bloomberg, the “SEC under Chair Gary Gensler is issuing regulations at its slowest pace in decades for a new presidential administration,” having adopted just 22 final rules since his tenure began in 2021. By comparison, over the same periods, the SEC under Jay Clayton had adopted 25 final rules, under Mary Schapiro, 28 rules, and under Harvey Pitt, a whopping 34 rules (many implementing the SOX mandate). So were all the complaints about the tsunami of rulemaking just misguided? Not exactly. As Bloomberg notes, “[d]espite trailing his recent predecessors on final rules, Gensler’s proposal tally of 49 exceeds Clayton’s 28 and Pitt’s 48, but is less than Schapiro’s 65.” [Emphasis added.] For the agenda of the Gensler administration, that leaves quite a chasm at this point between rules that are final and rules that are just proposed. What might that mean for SEC priorities? Bloomberg takes a deep dive.
You might want to think twice before describing pending litigation as “without merit”
There’s definitely a lesson to be learned from this recent case from the Massachusetts Federal District Court, City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Firefighters’ Ret. Sys. v. Pegasystems Inc.: companies making public statements about pending litigation should be very cautious when characterizing their views on the merits or prospects of that litigation. There may well be occasions when describing litigation as “without merit” may be, well, merited. But companies should keep in mind that claiming that a complaint against the company is “without merit”—as companies often do—may just shake up a whole new hornets’ nest, as it did in this case. (Hat tip to The 10b-5 Daily.)
SEC finds Forms 12b-25 not up to snuff
Earlier this week, the SEC announced settled enforcement actions against five companies for deficient disclosure in Forms 12b-25 that they filed regarding late reports. Why? On the heels of filing those Forms 12b-25, the companies announced financial restatements or corrections that were not even alluded to in those late notification filings. Over two years ago, the SEC charged eight companies for similar violations detected through the use of data analytics in an initiative aimed at Form 12b-25 filings that were soon followed by announcements of financial restatements or corrections. (See this PubCo post.) Apparently, the SEC believes that companies are still flubbing this one and does not seem to consider these errors to be just harmless foot faults. In connection with the 2021 enforcement actions, the Associate Director of Enforcement hit on a central problem from the SEC’s perspective with deficiencies of this type: “In these cases, due to the companies’ failure to include required disclosure in their Form 12b-25, investors relying on the deficient Forms NT were kept in the dark regarding the unreliability of the company’s financial reporting or anticipated material changes in operating results.” These charges should serve as a reminder that completing the late notification is not, to borrow a phrase, a trivial pursuit and could necessitate substantial time and attention to provide the narrative and quantitative data that, depending on the circumstances, could be required.
In Fifth Circuit oral argument, SEC faces challenge to preserve 2022 changes to proxy advisor rules
In December last year, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas issued an 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. NAM’s complaint, filed in July last year, had asked 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 District Court begged to differ, and NAM appealed. This week, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on NAM’s appeal. Let’s just say that the Court didn’t appear to be particularly sympathetic to the SEC’s case, with Judge Edith Jones mocking the SEC’s concern with the purported burdens on proxy advisors as “pearl-clutching.”
Federal district court upholds forum selection provision for claims under Section 10(b)
You probably remember the 2020 major cyberattack—reportedly perpetrated by a foreign government—of SolarWinds, a Delaware public company that “provides software products used to monitor the health and performance of information-technology networks.” The hack of the company’s software systems affected thousands of clients, including several government agencies. After the company disclosed the cyberattack, its stock price plummeted. Litigation ensued. One of the cases, Sobel v. Thompson, brought in a Texas federal district court, was a derivative lawsuit in which the plaintiff stockholder claimed, on behalf of the company, that the company’s officers and directors failed to disclose known cybersecurity deficiencies in the company’s periodic and other reporting prior to the cyberattack—a case under Exchange Act Section 10(b). The defendants moved to dismiss the case on the basis of forum non conveniens. Why? Because the company’s charter included a forum-selection provision making the Delaware Chancery Court the exclusive forum for derivative litigation. The Court dismissed the case, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s contention that, in light of the federal courts’ exclusive jurisdiction over Exchange Act claims, enforcement of the charter provision would effectively preclude him from bringing his derivative Exchange Act claims in any forum. We have previously seen cases addressing enforcement of Delaware forum-selection clauses in the context of claims regarding allegedly false or misleading proxy statement disclosures under section 14(a), and there, the circuits are split. Per Alison Frankel’s piece in Reuters, this case may be novel in that it addresses the application of a forum-selection provision in the context of claims under Section 10(b). Will this case—and, should it be widely followed, others like it—effectively put the kibosh on derivative Section 10(b) claims?
Cooley Alert: Will SCOTUS’ affirmative action decision affect your company’s DEI policies?
Many questions have been raised about the direct and indirect impact of the SCOTUS decision in in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (decided with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al.), that using race as a factor in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. This excellent Cooley Alert, Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action in Education Ruling Leaves Employment Diversity Initiatives Untouched—for Now, from members of Cooley’s Employment Group, provides many of the answers.
Disney decision to speak out on issue of social significance within board’s business judgment
Boards and their advisors seeking to navigate the culture wars and their often conflicting pressures from a variety of stakeholders and outside groups may find some comfort and guidance in this recent decision from the Delaware Chancery Court in Simeone v. The Walt Disney Company. The case involved a books-and-records demand from a stockholder asserting a potential breach of fiduciary duty by Disney’s directors and officers in their determination to publicly oppose Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Originally, Disney was silent on the bill. However, following reproaches from employees and other creative partners, Disney’s board deliberated at a special meeting, and the company changed course and publicly criticized the bill. The Court declined to grant the plaintiff’s books-and-records request, concluding that the plaintiff had not provided a credible basis from which to infer wrongdoing and thus had not “demonstrated a proper purpose to inspect books and records.” Rather, the Court concluded, the Disney board had made a business decision to reverse course—“a decision that cannot provide a credible basis to suspect potential mismanagement irrespective of its outcome.” Under Delaware’s business judgment rule, directors have “significant discretion to guide corporate strategy—including on social and political issues.” Importantly, the Court confirmed that, in exercising its business judgment, a board may take into account the interests of non-stockholder corporate stakeholders where those interests are “rationally related” to building long-term value.
SEC Director of Enforcement talks cyber resilience
In remarks delivered in 2022 before the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law’s Annual Securities Regulation Institute, SEC Chair Gary Gensler reminded us that “cybersecurity is a team sport,” and that the private sector is often on the front lines. (See this PubCo post.) He might have said the same thing about cyber resilience—the topic of a Financial Times summit held last month and the subject of remarks delivered to that audience by Gurbir Grewal, the current SEC Director of Enforcement. What is cyber resilience? As defined by Grewal, it’s a concept that assumes that “breaches and cyber incidents are likely going to happen, and that firms must be prepared to respond appropriately when they do. In other words, it’s not a matter of if, but when.”
Commissioner Uyeda addresses shareholder proposal overload—is “private ordering” the answer?
On Wednesday, SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda spoke to the Society for Corporate Governance 2023 National Conference on the topic of shareholder proposals under rule 14a-8, a topic on which, historically, the commissioners’ energetic back-and-forth has been reflected in Corp Fin interpretations that have literally shifted back and forth. You might think these reversals are a new thing, but Uyeda reminds us about the goings-on in 2015, when Whole Foods was first permitted to exclude, as a conflicting proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(9), a proxy access proposal, only to have the staff reverse course shortly thereafter. (See this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) “Relying on the Commission’s rules, or its staff’s positions,” he later observes, “in this area is akin to building a sand castle on the beach. Any rule or interpretation, no matter how recently adopted, is at risk of being erased by the next wave.” However, Uyeda finds the reversals over the course of the last few years particularly problematic. In his view, the recent interpretative changes in SLB 14L have led to a surfeit of proposals the aggregate effect of which he finds to be “value-eroding.” He suggests some approaches to address the problem. Are we looking at a fundamental—some might say radical— reimagining of the shareholder proposal process?
You must be logged in to post a comment.