SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee discusses tracing in §11 litigation and shareholder proposals—will they recommend SEC action?
Last week, at the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee meeting, the Committee discussed two topics described as “pain points” for investors: tracing in §11 litigation and shareholder proposals. In the discussion of §11 and tracing issues, the presenting panel made a strong pitch for SEC intervention to facilitate tracing and restore §11 liability following Slack Technologies v. Pirani. The panel advocated that the Committee make recommendations to the SEC to solve this problem. With regard to shareholder proposals, the Committee considered whether the current regulatory framework appropriately protected investors’ ability to submit shareholder proposals or did it result in an overload of shareholder proposals? Was Exxon v. Arjuna a reflection of exasperation experienced by many companies? No clear consensus view emerged other than the desire for a balanced approach and a stable set of rules. Recommendations from SEC advisory committees often hold some sway with the staff and the commissioners, so it’s worth paying attention to the outcome here.
PCAOB spotlight on auditor independence outlines considerations for audit committees
The PCAOB has released a new Spotlight on auditor independence, which provides observations from PCAOB inspections regarding independence issues and identifies considerations for both auditors and audit committees. Auditor independence has, for years, been a major focus of the SEC’s Office of the Chief Accountant, and current Chief Accountant Paul Munter has addressed the issue in a number of statements, characterizing auditor independence as a concept that is “foundational to the credibility of the financial statements.” (See, for example, this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) But auditor independence is not just an issue for auditors. It’s important for companies to keep in mind that violations of the auditor independence rules can have serious consequences not only for the audit firm, but also for the company as the audit client. For example, an independence violation may cause the auditor to withdraw the firm’s audit report, requiring the audit client to have a re-audit by another audit firm. What’s more, auditor independence violations can sometimes even result in charges against the company; for example, Lordstown Motors was charged with several Exchange Act violations in connection with misrepresentations and failures to include financial statements audited by independent auditors required in current and periodic reports. Munter has long recognized that the responsibility to monitor independence is a shared one: “[w]hile sourcing a high quality independent auditor is a key responsibility of the audit committee, compliance with auditor independence rules is a shared responsibility of the issuer, its audit committee, and the auditor.” As a result, in most cases, inquiry into the topic of auditor independence should certainly be a recurring menu item on the audit committee’s plate. Fortunately, the Spotlight offers advice, not only for auditors, but fortunately, also for audit committee members.
ICYMI—Say goodbye to the SEC’s Climate and ESG Task Force
In case it escaped your notice a few months back—as it did mine—Bloomberg is now reporting that the SEC has “quietly disbanded” its Enforcement Division’s Climate and ESG Task Force. You remember the task force? Back in 2021, when Allison Herren Lee was Acting Chair of the SEC, she directed the staff of Corp Fin to “enhance its focus on climate-related disclosure in public company filings.” Shortly thereafter, the SEC announced that the new climate focus would not be limited to Corp Fin—the SEC had created a new Climate and ESG Task Force in the Division of Enforcement. While the initial focus of the Task Force was to identify any material gaps or misstatements in issuers’ disclosure of climate risks under then-existing rules, the remit of the Task Force went beyond climate to address other ESG issues. Lee said that the Task Force was designed to bolster the efforts of the SEC as a whole in addressing climate risk and sustainability, which were “critical issues for the investing public and our capital markets.” (See this PubCo post.) Now, an SEC spokesperson has advised Bloomberg that it has “shut down its Enforcement Division’s Climate and ESG Task Force within the past few months.”
Update to FAQs regarding de-SPACs and submission of draft registration statements
The 2012 JOBS Act permitted Emerging Growth Companies to initiate the IPO process by submitting their IPO registration statements confidentially to the SEC for nonpublic review by the SEC staff. The confidential process was intended to allow an EGC to defer the public disclosure of sensitive or competitive information until it was almost ready to market the offering—and potentially to avoid the public disclosure altogether if it ultimately decided not to proceed with the offering. In 2017, Corp Fin extended that benefit to companies that were not EGCs, allowing them, for the first time, to submit confidential draft registration statements for IPOs, as well as for most offerings made in the first year after going public. (See this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post) This week, Corp Fin posted newly updated FAQs regarding voluntary submissions of DRS for nonpublic review under the expanded procedures. Unfortunately, unlike its practice with CDIs, Corp Fin does not identify which FAQs have been changed—hint, hint—but it appears that the one notable change was to the last FAQ regarding de-SPACs in light of new EDGAR release 24.3.
SEC charges Zymergen for “unsupported hype” in its IPO
The SEC has announced settled charges against Zymergen, which, prior to its recent bankruptcy and ultimate liquidation, was a biotech “focused on the manufacture of novel materials, including optical films used in electronic screens.” The SEC charged that, in its $530 million IPO in 2021, Zymergen misled “IPO investors about its overall market potential, revenue prospects, and customer pipeline for its only commercially available product, an electronics film named Hyaline.” According to the Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office, “[p]re-revenue and early-stage companies that seek to tap the capital markets must do so with reasonable estimates of their market potential….Today’s order finds that Zymergen failed to satisfy this obligation when it misled investors with what amounted to unsupported hype.” The company agreed to pay a civil penalty of $30 million. In the meantime, Bloomberg reports that a federal district court has recently allowed claims by Zymergen investors to proceed against several VC funds (along with the company, the board, the underwriters, etc). The investors contended that, among other things, the levers provided in the company’s governing documents allowed the VC funds to “control[] the company in the lead-up to its initial public offering” and claimed that they were “responsible for misleading IPO papers before the biological manufacturing company imploded.”
Keurig settles SEC “greenwashing” charges
According to a 2023 survey discussed in Global Executives Say Greenwashing Remains Rife in the WSJ, executives think greenwashing is widespread: almost “three-quarters of executives said most organizations in their industry would be caught greenwashing if they were investigated thoroughly.” Moreover, almost “60% say their own organization is overstating its sustainability methods.” However, the article suggested, although some companies may be intentionally overstating their progress, for the most part, the greenwashing is more benign: companies set their sustainability goals but didn’t have a “concrete plan” to achieve them or reliable data to measure them. According to the survey, 85% of executives believe that “customers and clients are becoming more vocal about their preference for engaging with sustainable brands,” creating more impetus for sustainability initiatives. By the same token, these external influences also create more pressure for greenwashing. The article reports that the risks related to greenwashing are increasing, with the threat of potential “crackdowns.” (See this PubCo post.) Last week, the SEC charged Keurig Dr Pepper with making inaccurate statements in its Forms 10-K for fiscal 2019 and 2020 regarding the recyclability of its K-Cup beverage pods used to make coffee and other beverages in Keurig’s single-serve brewing systems. According to the Associate Director of the SEC’s Boston Regional Office, “Public companies must ensure that the reports they file with the SEC are complete and accurate….When a company speaks to an issue in its annual report, they are required to provide information necessary for investors to get the full picture on that issue so that investors can make educated investment decisions.” To settle the SEC’s charges, Keurig agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty. Commissioner Hester Peirce had a few words to say in dissent.
What’s going on with the SEC’s proxy advisor rules?
Shall we catch up on some of the recent developments regarding the SEC’s proxy advisor rules? First, let’s take a look at what’s happening with the appeal of the opinion of the D.C. Federal District Court in ISS v. SEC, which, in February of this year, vacated the SEC’s 2020 rule that advice from proxy advisory firms was a “solicitation” under the proxy rules. Both the SEC and National Association of Manufacturers had filed notices of appeal in that case, but the SEC has mysteriously dropped out of that contest. Then, with regard to the separate ongoing litigation over the 2022 amendments to the proxy advisor rules—which reversed some of the key provisions in the 2020 rules—a new decision has been rendered by a three-judge panel of the 6th circuit, U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. SEC, upholding the 2022 amendments, thus creating a split with the recent decision of the 5th Circuit, National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC, on the same issue.
In an Enforcement sweep, SEC charges seven companies with violations of whistleblower rule
On Monday, the SEC announced an Enforcement sweep involving settled charges against seven companies for violation of the whistleblower statute and rule. The charges stemmed from provisions that the SEC claimed impeded whistleblowers from reporting potential misconduct to the SEC contained in employment, separation and an array of other agreements. In some instances, according to the Orders, the provisions expressly stated that they did not preclude employees from filing an administrative charge or participating in whistleblower programs, but instead involved only a waiver of their rights to recover a monetary award for participating in an investigation by a government agency. At least one of the companies sought to qualify the waiver of the recovery right by adding “[t]o the extent permitted by law.” But, to no avail. In none of these cases was the SEC aware of actions by the charged company to enforce the waiver provisions or instances in which the affected employees declined to speak with the SEC about potential violations of securities laws. Nonetheless, the SEC viewed these agreements as creating impediments to participation in the SEC whistleblower program. The companies agreed to pay civil penalties of just over $3 million in the aggregate, revised their internal agreement forms and notified affected employees. According to the Director of the SEC’s Denver Regional Office, the “SEC’s whistleblower program strengthens market integrity by providing protection and incentives for those who come forward and report potential violations of the securities laws….According to the SEC’s orders, among other things, these companies required employees to waive their right to possible whistleblower monetary awards. This severely impedes would-be whistleblowers from reporting potential securities law violations to the SEC.” Reuters reported that a representative of TransUnion, one of the companies charged, characterized the “SEC’s engagement on this matter” as an example of “what good regulatory supervision can look like.”
At open meeting, SEC approves new PCAOB quality control standard
Yesterday, the SEC approved, by a vote of three to two, a new PCAOB quality control standard, QC 1000, A Firm’s System of Quality Control, and related amendments to its standards, rules and forms. According to the press release, the new standard
“establishes an integrated, risk-based quality control standard that will require all registered public accounting firms to identify specific risks to their practice and design a quality control system that includes appropriate responses to guard against those risks. Registered firms that perform engagements under PCAOB standards will be required to implement and operate the QC system. The new quality control standard focuses on an audit firm’s accountability and continuous improvement of its audit practice and will require an annual evaluation of the firm’s QC system and related reporting to the PCAOB, certified by key firm personnel. In addition, firms that annually issue audit reports for more than 100 issuers will be required to establish an external quality control function (EQCF) composed of one or more persons who can exercise independent judgment related to the firm’s QC system.”
According to SEC Chief Accountant, Paul Munter, “[e]ffective QC systems provide critical investor protections by driving continuous improvement in firms’ audit quality in support of the issuance of informative, accurate, and independent audit reports….QC 1000 is an integrated risk-based QC standard that strikes an appropriate balance that can be applied by firms of varying sizes and complexities along with a set of mandates tailored to the size of the firms’ audit practices, which should assure that QC systems are designed, implemented, and operated with an appropriate level of rigor.” SEC Chair Gary Gensler pointed out that the “auditing profession has changed in the 21st century, and the Amendments we are considering today are long overdue. To put in context how important it is to update the quality control standards, the PCAOB found that 46 percent—nearly half—of the auditing engagements it reviewed in 2023 fell short of obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence.” The two dissenters primarily took issue with, in their view, the too-brief time allotted by the SEC to the process of refining the standard, the requirement that every PCAOB-registered firm design a compliant QC system—even if they are not required to implement it—and the failure to address adequately commenters’ concerns about the new EQCF. QC 1000 and related amendments will take effect on December 15, 2025.
You must be logged in to post a comment.