Category: Securities

EY offers new analysis of cybersecurity disclosures

In this report, EY discusses an analysis it conducted of voluntary cybersecurity-related disclosures in the 10-Ks and proxy statements of Fortune 100 companies (79 companies that had filed as of September 1, 2018).  The analysis notes that, not only are regulators focused on cybersecurity risk management and disclosure, but investors consider cybersecurity risk management as critical to the board’s risk oversight responsibilities and boards are increasingly engaged on the topic. The analysis found a wide variation in the depth and nature of the disclosures.

Do we still need to post XBRL data files on our website?

Now that it’s time for 10-Q filings, questions have been raised about the timing of some of the Inline XBRL-related changes. (See this Cooley Alert and this PubCo post.)

SEC amends disclosure rules for mining companies

The SEC has adopted new rule amendments to modernize disclosures by mining companies. 

Glass Lewis posts 2019 proxy and shareholder initiative guidelines

Proxy advisor Glass Lewis has posted its 2019 Proxy Guidelines and 2019 Guidelines Regarding Shareholder Initiatives.  One of the more striking points is that GL indicates that it may, albeit in limited circumstances, recommend against the members of the nominating/governance committee simply for successfully requesting no-action relief from the SEC to exclude (and presumably excluding) a shareholder proposal, where GL views the exclusion to have been detrimental to shareholders. GL’s new guidance includes the following updates:

CII petitions NYSE and Nasdaq regarding multi-class share structures

The Council of Institutional Investors has announced that it has filed petitions with the NYSE and Nasdaq requesting that each exchange amend its listing standards to address the issue of multi-class capital structures (i.e., share structures that have unequal voting rights for different classes of common stock).  As requested by the petition, the amendment would require that, going forward, companies seeking to list with multi-class share structures include provisions in their governing documents that would sunset the unequal voting at seven years following an IPO and return the structure to “one-share, one-vote” structures, “subject to extension by additional terms of no more than seven years each, by vote of a majority of outstanding shares of each share class, voting separately, on a one-share, one-vote basis.” According to CII, unequal voting rights impair the ability of shareholders “to hold executives and directors accountable.” But companies contend that these measures are being adopted for a valid reason: to protect the company from unwanted interventions by hedge-fund activists with short-term goals and perspectives. Accordingly, the debate has centered around whether these measures are a legitimate effort to protect companies from the pressures of short-termism exerted by hedge-fund activists and others or are a mechanism that causes shareholders to cede power without providing accountability.  Of course, the answer depends on where you sit.

New SLB 14J on shareholder proposals revisits the economic relevance and ordinary business exclusions

Corp Fin has just released a new staff legal bulletin on shareholder proposals—we’re up to 14J—that once again examines the exclusions under Rules 14a-8(i)(5), the “economic relevance” exception, and 14a-8(i)(7), the “ordinary business” exception. Notably, these rules were also the subject of SLB 14I.  More specifically, the new SLB provides guidance with regard to the following:

the nature of the board analysis the staff would find most “helpful” in evaluating a no-action request to exclude a shareholder proposal,
“micromanagement” as a basis for exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(7) and
the application of Rule 14a-8(i)(7) to exclude proposals related to senior executive and/or director compensation matters.

Corp Fin staff issues new CDIs regarding cross-border exemptions

The staff of Corp Fin have posted a revised set of CDIs interpreting the cross-border exemptions. The new CDIs replace the 17-year old interpretations that were contained in Section II of the July 2001 Interim Supplement to the antediluvian Telephone Interpretations Manual. (You may even have a copy in a three-hole binder somewhere.) Some of the CDIs reflect only technical revisions, some are substantive and some are entirely new interps.