Category: Securities

Should we get rid of EPS?

Much has been written about the problems associated with the prevalence of short-term thinking in corporate America. As noted in a post from The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, an academic study revealed that “three quarters of senior American corporate officials would not make an investment that would benefit a company over the long run if it would derail even one quarterly earnings report.”  (See this PubCo post and this article in The Atlantic.)  Apparently, that was no joke. As reported in Forbes, for the first six months of 2018, companies in the S&P 500 spent $367 billion on stock buybacks—which can drive increases in quarterly EPS without increasing the underlying long-term economic value of the company—while capex totaled only $317 billion.  ls there a way to engineer a course correction?

IPO mix and match?

You might want to take a look at this interesting column from Bloomberg’s Matt Levine, talking about some recent developments in the IPO market.  Apparently, a second company is contemplating conducting an IPO through a direct listing, a listing process run outside of the conventional underwritten offering in which the company files with the SEC to allow certain of its outstanding shares to be sold directly into the market, without the traditional help from the underwriters in marketing the deal. Although the company does not raise any funds itself, it becomes a public company and provides a market in which shares may sold by selling shareholders at prevailing market prices. The process may be particularly appealing to companies that are very well known and well funded, but want to trade publicly, since the costs of going public are generally lower and the process can be somewhat quicker than a traditional IPO.

Cooley Alert: SEC Adopts Final Hedging Disclosure Rules

If you’re looking for some entertaining reading, look no further!  It’s the Cooley Alert version of The Big Short: SEC Adopts Final Hedging Disclosure Rules. Why wait for the movie adaptation when you can read the Alert now?

SEC enforcement action for violation of non-GAAP “equal or greater” prominence requirement

n case you were questioning whether the SEC continues (assuming it reopens at some point) to address the inappropriate use of non-GAAP financial measures with the same level of gravity as in prior years, you might take note of this recent (cusp of SEC shutdown) enforcement action against ADT.  In the proceeding, the SEC sought a cease-and-desist order, alleging that the company violated the non-GAAP disclosure requirements. Interestingly, however, the allegations did not involve any of the more thorny issues regarding individually tailored recognition measures that the SEC sometimes considers misleading, but rather the more prosaic “equal or greater prominence” requirements.

SEC shutdown update; Corp Fin shutdown FAQs

Happy holidays and happy new year everyone!

Here’s the latest from the SEC:

In the event of a federal government shutdown, the SEC will follow the agency’s plan, which contemplates focusing on “market integrity and investor protection.” Starting Thursday, December 27, the SEC “will have only an extremely limited number of staff members available to respond to emergency situations involving market integrity and investor protection, including law enforcement. In addition, certain Commission systems, including EDGAR, will be operating. Additional information is available from the Division of Corporation Finance and the Division of Investment Management.”  Corp Fin  has provided some FAQs (summarized below) that may be helpful for those in the registration process or contemplating offerings.

SEC adopts final hedging disclosure rules

On Tuesday, the SEC finally dredged up the 2015 proposal to implement section 955 of Dodd-Frank regarding hedging disclosure in proxy statements and, without an open meeting, voted—yes finally—to adopt it. Section 955 mandated disclosure about the ability of a company’s employees or directors to hedge or offset any decrease in the market value of equity securities granted as compensation to, or held directly or indirectly by, an employee or director.  According to the legislative history, the purpose was to “allow shareholders to know if executives are allowed to purchase financial instruments to effectively avoid compensation restrictions that they hold stock long-term, so that they will receive their compensation even in the case that their firm does not perform.” The final rules were adopted “along the lines proposed,” but with some modifications.

Delaware Chancery invalidates exclusive federal forum provisions

In March 2018, in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, SCOTUS held that state courts continue to have concurrent jurisdiction over class actions alleging only ’33 Act violations by private plaintiffs and that defendants cannot remove actions filed in state court to federal court.  (See this PubCo post.) Both before and especially after Cyan, to avoid state court litigation of ’33 Act claims (and forum shopping by plaintiffs for the most favorable state court forum), many companies adopted “exclusive forum” provisions in their charters or bylaws that designated the federal courts as the exclusive forum for litigation under the ’33 Act. Delaware law expressly permits the adoption of charter or bylaw provisions that designate Delaware as the exclusive forum for adjudicating “internal corporate claims,” i.e., claims, including derivative claims, that are based on a violation of a duty by a current or former director or officer or stockholder or as to which the corporation law confers jurisdiction on the Court of Chancery.   However, federal securities class actions are not expressly included. (See this PubCo post.)

The enforceability of “exclusive federal forum” provisions was then challenged in the Delaware courts in a case seeking a declaratory judgment to invalidate the provisions included in the Delaware Certificates of Incorporation of three companies. And, after Cyan, that Delaware case took on much greater significance. A decision in that case, Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg, has now been rendered by the Delaware Chancery Court. On cross-motions for summary judgment, Vice Chancellor Laster held that all three of the exclusive federal forum provisions at issue  in that case were invalid.