Succession is not just a great TV show
Succession—it’s not just a great TV show. (And when does the new season start?) As this article in Corporate Board Member contends, selecting the next CEO “is often the single most important decision a board will make, yet between a quarter and a third of companies don’t have a succession plan in place—and even those who do often get it wrong.” Survey data in this post from Russell Reynolds Associates revealed that, even in the face of the pandemic, over 60% of responding directors “stated that their board had not reviewed or updated the succession plan for the CEO and other key executives in light of the health risks posed by the COVID-19 crisis.” Moreover, 70% of the largest companies (annual revenue of $10 billion and over) had not reviewed the CEO succession plan. The post reports that the need to replace a poor CEO selection has been estimated to lead “to a loss of $1.7 billion in shareholder value in addition to a loss of organizational confidence and momentum.” Not a good look. Why does this happen? According to an article from PwC, it’s often because “just having the conversation is difficult.”
SEC’s Asset Management Advisory Committee considers ESG recommendations
On Friday, the SEC’s Asset Management Advisory Committee met to discuss various matters, including possible recommendations to the SEC regarding—what else?—ESG. The latest version of subcommittee draft recommendations do not advocate a change from the current materiality disclosure requirements. Rather, they support adoption of mandatory standards to guide those materiality requirements, standards that take a “parsimonious” approach with a limited number of material metrics by industry—not exactly the “comprehensive” direction that the SEC appears to be headed, at least at the moment. Although the recommendations address investment product disclosure, the focus at the meeting was primarily on company ESG disclosure as the necessary predicate to investment product disclosure. Accordingly, the Committee heard from a panel of issuer representatives, who expressed a variety of views, but on the whole, appeared to advocate a cautious approach.
Senators introduce bill to mandate political spending disclosure and shareholder authorization
The events of January 6 heightened sensitivity to any dissonance or conflict between a company’s public statements or announced core values and its political contributions. In the aftermath, a number of companies determined to pause or discontinue some or all political donations, but the clamor for disclosure regarding corporate political spending has continued. To that end, Senators Chris Van Hollen and Robert Menendez have reintroduced the Shareholder Protection Act of 2021 to mandate not only political spending disclosure, but also shareholder votes to authorize corporate political spending. According to the press release, “[s]ome public companies’ decision to suspend or reevaluate further political donations is an acknowledgment that political donations can significantly affect a company’s reputation and financial health. Without public disclosure of political contributions, shareholders are left in the dark about decisions that may affect a company’s bottom-line, and in the case of the January 6th insurrection, decisions to support organizations and campaigns that may have advocated stopping the certification of a free and fair election.”
What’s happening with the Nasdaq board diversity proposal?
You probably remember that, late last year, Nasdaq filed with the SEC a proposal for new listing rules regarding board diversity and disclosure. The new listing rules would adopt a “comply or explain” mandate for board diversity for most listed companies and require companies listed on Nasdaq’s U.S. exchange to publicly disclose “consistent, transparent diversity statistics” regarding the composition of their boards. The proposal received a substantial number of comments, many of which were favorable and some of which were highly critical. For those of you who expected a speedy approval of this proposal by the SEC, you may need to reset your expectations.
Acting SEC Chair Lee discusses a new direction for the SEC on ESG
Elections have consequences, as they say, and one of those consequences is new leadership at the SEC who bring with them a markedly different agenda. In remarks yesterday to the Center for American Progress, entitled A Climate for Change: Meeting Investor Demand for Climate and ESG Information at the SEC, Acting SEC Chair Allison Lee provided important insights into where the SEC is headed with regard to environmental, social and governance issues. As Lee confirmed in the introduction to her speech, “no single issue has been more pressing for [her] than ensuring that the SEC is fully engaged in confronting the risks and opportunities that climate and ESG pose for investors, our financial system, and our economy.” Investors are not getting the information they need, and that’s why the SEC has “begun to take critical steps toward a comprehensive ESG disclosure framework.” In addition, she has directed Corp Fin to revisit the shareholder proposal process and is also considering whether the SEC should establish a dedicated ESG standard setter. According to Lee, “climate and ESG are front and center for the SEC.”
California posts new report on board gender diversity—what does it tell us?
On March 1, the new California Secretary of State, Dr. Shirley N. Weber (who replaced Alex Padilla, newly appointed Senator) issued the Secretary’s 2021 report required by SB 826, California’s board gender diversity law, on the status of compliance with the law. The report counts 647 publicly held corporations that identified principal executive offices in California in their 2020 10-Ks, and indicates that 318 of these “impacted corporations” had filed a 2020 California Publicly Traded Corporate Disclosure Statement, which would reflect their compliance with the board gender diversity requirement (slightly fewer than the 330 filed last year). Of the 318 companies that had filed, 311 reported that they were in compliance with the board gender diversity mandate, slightly more than the 282 reported last year, but still less than half of the companies subject to the law. (See this PubCo post.) But is that data from the report really meaningful?
Should the SEC change its approach to financial penalties?
On Tuesday, SEC Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw spoke to the Council of Institutional Investors. Her presentation, Moving Forward Together—Enforcement for Everyone, concerned “the central role enforcement plays in fulfilling our mission, how investors and markets benefit, and how a decision made 15 years ago has taken us off course.” In her view, the SEC should revisit its approach to assessing financial penalties and should not be reluctant to impose appropriately tailored penalties that effectively deter misconduct, irrespective of the impact on the wrongdoer’s shareholders. Is this a sign of things to come?
Corp Fin again amends guidance on extensions of confidential treatment orders
Corp Fin has once again amended Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 7, Confidential Treatment Applications Submitted Pursuant to Rules 406 and 24b-2, to modify—slightly—the alternatives available for companies with confidential treatment orders that are about to expire. The guidance was last amended in September 2020 (see this PubCo post), but apparently needed another revamp. The guidance addresses procedures for CTRs that were submitted, not under the new streamlined approach adopted in 2019 (see this PubCo post), but rather under the old traditional process that continues in use to a limited extent.
The Shareholder Commons offers a new approach to ESG activism
Environmental, social and governance activism continues to adopt new approaches. One of the latest is from The Shareholder Commons, a non-profit organization founded by CEO Rick Alexander—you might recognize the name from B-Lab and Morris Nichols in Delaware—that uses “shareholder activism, thought leadership, and policy advocacy to catalyze systems-first investing and create a level playing field for sustainable competition.” In essence, TSC seeks to shift the focus from the impact of a company’s activities and conduct on its own financial performance to “systemic portfolio risk,” the impact of the company’s activities and conduct on society, the environment and the wider economy as a whole, which would affect most investment portfolios. In particular, the group has helped with submission of a number of shareholder proposals that address issues in its sweet spot—influencing corporate behavior regarding social and environmental systems that affect the economy as a whole. This season, the proposals have advocated conversion to public benefit corporations (see this PubCo post), disclosure of reports on the external public health costs created by the subject company’s retail food business, studies on the external costs resulting from underwriting of multi-class equity offerings, and reports on the external social costs (e.g., inequality) created by the company’s compensation policy. Earlier this year, TSC, working with a long-term shareholder, submitted a shareholder proposal to Yum! Brands, asking the company to disclose a study on “the external environmental and public health costs created by the use of antibiotics in the supply chain of [the] company… and the manner in which such costs affect the vast majority of its shareholders who rely on a healthy stock market.” TSC has just announced that it has withdrawn its proposal because Yum! has agreed to “provide comprehensive reporting on the systemic effects of the use of antibiotics in its supply chain by the end of 2021.”
SEC charges AT&T and executives with Reg FD violations
On Friday of last week, the SEC announced that it had filed a complaint charging AT&T, Inc. and three of its Investor Relations executives with violations of Reg FD as a result of one-on-one disclosures of AT&T’s “projected and actual financial results” to a number of Wall Street research analysts by the three executives. In March 2016, the SEC alleges, AT&T learned that, as a result of a “steeper-than-expected decline in smartphone sales,” AT&T’s first quarter revenues would fall short of analysts’ estimates by over a $1 billion. The three IR executives were then asked to contact the analysts whose estimates were too high to “walk” them down. This case illustrates the tightrope that IR personnel walk when talking one-on-one with analysts in the context of Reg FD.
You must be logged in to post a comment.