Category: Litigation
New Delaware bill would offer safe harbor for conflicted transactions—will it convince companies to stay put in Delaware?
As discussed earlier this month, there has been a lot of chatter and speculation recently about companies changing their states of incorporation from Delaware to other states. In an interview with Business Insider, the new Governor of Delaware acknowledged that the state remained a “‘competitive environment’” and that “his state needed to take challenge seriously,” including addressing “issues such as the balance of shareholder and management rights….I think within the coming weeks, you’re going to see some things rolled out that will help move our state forward and bring us into 2025 and beyond to make sure we’re protecting and growing the corporate franchise.” A new bill designed to take up that challenge in a significant way—Senate Bill 21—was introduced in Delaware on Monday and is awaiting consideration by the Judiciary Committee. In essence, the bill would offer a process for boards to invoke safe harbor protection from litigation over potentially conflicted transactions for directors and controlling stockholders. The bill would also address Delaware’s provisions related to books and records. The impact could be fundamental.
Acting SEC Chair seeks a pause in SEC climate disclosure rule litigation
Yesterday, Acting SEC Chair Mark Uyeda issued a statement advising that he is requesting that the Court presiding over the SEC’s climate disclosure rule litigation not “schedule the case for argument” in order to allow time for the SEC to rethink its position. As you may know, a number of challenges to the climate disclosure rule were consolidated as State of Iowa v. SEC in the Eighth Circuit, where briefs in the case have been filed. However, for reasons explained in the Statement, Uyeda believes that the “rule is deeply flawed and could inflict significant harm on the capital markets and our economy.” As such, he said, the positions taken in the SEC’s briefs defending the SEC’s adoption of the rule are not reflective of his views. He believes that these views, particularly his concern that the SEC had no authority to adopt the rule, together with “the recent change in the composition of the Commission, and the recent Presidential Memorandum regarding a Regulatory Freeze, bear on the conduct of this litigation.” As a result, he maintains that “the Court and the parties should be notified of these changes.” Accordingly, he has directed the SEC staff to “notify the Court of the changed circumstances and request that the Court not schedule the case for argument to provide time for the Commission to deliberate and determine the appropriate next steps in these cases. The Commission will promptly notify the Court of its determination about its positions in the litigation.” Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw voiced her dissent, contending that what has really changed here has been “politics and not substance.” Does Uyeda’s move sound the death knell for the SEC’s climate disclosure rule?
Cooley Alert: Delaware Supreme Court Holds Business Judgment Review Applies to TripAdvisor’s Decision to Reincorporate
There’s been a lot of noise in the media recently about some well-known companies deciding to change, or at least considering changing, their states of incorporation from Delaware to Texas, Nevada or another state. According to the WSJ, “[a]bout two-thirds of S&P 500 companies—regardless of where they are actually based—are incorporated in Delaware, largely because the tiny state has specialized courts that handle business matters and stacks of legal precedents for addressing disputes.” However, the WSJ continued, “[e]xecutives and controlling shareholders of public companies have long expressed frustration with the Delaware Court of Chancery, which has become home to a thriving shareholder plaintiffs’ bar.” To entice companies to reincorporate elsewhere, some states have made special efforts to establish “dedicated business courts, including four since 2019.” However, it remains to be seen whether, in the absence of Delaware’s legal expertise addressing business issues and the volume of important precedents that help to bolster predictability, these other states can match the influence of the Delaware courts. Nevertheless, in an interview with Business Insider, the new Governor of Delaware said that the state remained a “‘competitive environment’” and that “his state needed to take challenge seriously,” including addressing “issues such as the balance of shareholder and management rights….I think within the coming weeks, you’re going to see some things rolled out that will help move our state forward and bring us into 2025 and beyond to make sure we’re protecting and growing the corporate franchise….It certainly beats going to Vegas and rolling the dice.” As discussed in this excellent new Cooley Alert, Delaware Supreme Court Reverses Chancery Court, Holds Business Judgment Review Applicable to TripAdvisor’s Decision to Reincorporate in Nevada, from our Commercial Litigation Group and Securities Litigation + Enforcement Groups, the Delaware Supreme Court has just injected into the mix a new decision that could factor into the decision-making process for Delaware companies considering reincorporation in other states.
In Chamber of Commerce v. CARB, Federal District Court dismisses two claims challenging California’s climate disclosure laws
As we’ve pointed out before, given the prevailing views on climate disclosure among folks in the new Administration, including the nominee for SEC Chair—and all that portends for the SEC’s climate disclosure regulation—the States may, in many ways, take on much larger significance. Case in point: California’s climate disclosure laws and the ongoing litigation challenges there. In January last year, the U.S. and California Chambers of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation and others filed a complaint (and in February, an amended complaint) against two executives of the California Air Resources Board and the California Attorney General challenging these two California laws. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief that the two laws are void because they violate the First Amendment, are precluded under the Supremacy Clause by the Clean Air Act, and are invalid under the Constitution’s limitations on extraterritorial regulation, particularly under the dormant Commerce Clause. The litigation also seeks injunctive relief to prevent CARB from taking any action to enforce these two laws. (See this PubCo post.) California then filed a motion to dismiss the second and third causes of action in the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Rule 12b-1) and failure to state a claim (Rule 12b-6). Interestingly, however, the motion did not seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim (except as to the Attorney General, whom the motion sought to exclude altogether on the basis of sovereign immunity), even though California asserted that Plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge was “legally flawed.” Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment on the First Amendment claim, and California moved to deny that motion or to defer it, enabling the parties to conduct discovery. In November of last year, in this Order, the Federal District Court for the Central District of California denied Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss as to that first claim (violation of the First Amendment) and granted California’s motion to deny or defer the motion for summary judgment. (See this PubCo post.) Now, in Chamber of Commerce v. California Air Resources Board, the Court has issued an Order granting California’s motion to dismiss and dismissing Plaintiffs’ second and third causes of action under the Supremacy Clause and dormant Commerce Clause (as invalid extraterritorial regulation). Stay tuned.
Under the new Administration, will Enforcement have a lighter touch?
Reuters is reporting exclusively that, according to its sources, under the new Administration, some Enforcement staff at the SEC “have been told they need to seek permission from the politically appointed leadership before formally launching probes,” marking a “change in procedure that could slow down investigations.” According to Reuters, some Enforcement staff have recently “been told that they will need to seek the Commission’s approval for all formal orders of investigation, which are required to issue subpoenas for testimony or documents.” Previously, Reuters reported, authority to formally launch investigations had been delegated to Enforcement directors or other senior staff, including even supervising attorneys; during the first term of the current Administration, the “SEC required approval by its two enforcement [co-]directors to formally launch probes.” However, the article indicates, Enforcement staff may still conduct informal investigations, including requesting information. The article indicates that Reuters was unable to determine whether these new instructions were the result of a formal SEC vote to “revoke the delegation of that authority, or who ordered the change.” Reuters suggested that “the change does not necessarily mean fewer investigations will be launched, but it means the Commissioners are taking more control over enforcement earlier in the process.” Reuters speculates that the move might reflect an effort to end the “weaponization” of government. Or, perhaps this move might also presage a “lighter touch” by SEC Enforcement under the new Administration?
SEC charges “AI-washing” at Presto Automation
Is “-washing” the securities fraud equivalent of “-gate” for political scandals? First we had greenwashing, then diversity-washing, and now we have AI-washing—a topic that, as discussed in the SideBar below, SEC officials made a lot of noise about last year. And this recent action by the SEC certainly seems to allege just that—even though the SEC doesn’t actually use the term. In mid-January, the SEC announced “settled charges against Presto Automation Inc., a restaurant-technology company that was listed on the Nasdaq until September 2024, for making materially false and misleading statements about critical aspects of its flagship artificial intelligence (AI) product, Presto Voice. Presto Voice employs AI-assisted speech recognition technology to automate aspects of drive-thru order taking at quick-service restaurants.” However, as alleged in the Order, the AI technology used in the product was not developed by Presto—at least not until September 2022; rather, the company deployed speech recognition technology owned and operated by a third party. But, the SEC charged, Presto failed to disclose in its SEC filings that it used the third party’s AI technology, rather than its own, to power all of the Presto Voice units it deployed commercially during that time period. What’s more, once Presto did begin to use its own proprietary technology in the Presto Voice units, the SEC alleged, the company “misrepresented the capabilities of the product by claiming that it eliminated the need for human order taking.” Not the case, the SEC alleged; “substantial human involvement” was actually required. The SEC charged that Presto made materially misleading statements in violation of the Securities and Exchange Acts and failed to maintain adequate disclosure controls; however, in light of its financial condition and remedial actions, the SEC imposed only a cease-and-desist order and no civil money penalty.
Commissioner Peirce offers her prescription for a “path back to normal”
This week, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce delivered the keynote address at the Northwestern Securities Regulation Institute in San Diego. Her theme: that public companies are “confronting a symptom of a larger societal malady—importing politics and contentious social issues into everything we do.” According to Peirce, the “SEC, so-called stakeholders, and the burgeoning industry of advisers, consultants, accountants, and attorneys peddling their costly wares to public companies, sometimes with the agreement of corporate executives, drag companies into social and political melees. Their efforts, an insidious form of rent-seeking, are often quite convincingly disguised in a cloak of ethics and morality.” In her remarks, she proposed seven steps toward regaining what, in her view, was the “path back to normal.” A harbinger of what is to come in the next four years?
In case there was any doubt, SEC approves Nasdaq proposal to remove Board diversity rules
In August 2021, the SEC approved a Nasdaq proposal for new listing rules regarding board diversity and disclosure. 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.) A court challenge to these rules quickly materialized: the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment and, later, the National Center for Public Policy Research petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the SEC’s final order approving the Nasdaq rule. (See this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) In December last year, the en banc Fifth Circuit issued its opinion in Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC vacating the SEC’s order approving Nasdaq’s board diversity proposal by a vote of nine to eight. According to an article in Bloomberg Law, following the decision, 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.’” (That, of course, was prior to the last election.) That question is now moot: Nasdaq filed a proposal with the SEC seeking to remove from the Nasdaq rules the relevant board diversity provisions to reflect “a Federal court’s vacatur of the Commission’s order of August 6, 2021, approving rules related to Board diversity disclosures. Nasdaq has requested that the Commission waive the operative delay to allow the proposed rule change to become effective on February 4, 2025.” And, this past Friday, the SEC declared the proposal to be immediately effective. Just in case anyone was unsure about the status of the board diversity rules, the effect of the proposal will be to “clarify Nasdaq’s rules by aligning them with the court’s decision.”
SEC charges Celsius Holdings with improper accounting for stock awards and disclosure control failures
In this settled action—part of a slew of SEC Enforcement cases reported out in the last days before the change in Administration—the SEC alleged that Celsius Holdings, Inc. engaged in improper accounting for stock-based compensation expenses when the company modified the terms of stock awards for six departing employees and retiring board members, but failed to re-value them as required under GAAP. As a result, the SEC alleged, in periodic and current reports, Celsius’ financial statements were materially inaccurate and misleading. The SEC charged that Celsius violated the reporting, books and records, internal accounting controls and disclosure controls and procedures provisions. Celsius has agreed to pay $3 million to settle the charges.
You must be logged in to post a comment.