The Chamber and NCPPR file brief challenging SEC climate disclosure rule
As you probably recall, on March 6, the SEC adopted final rules “to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures by public companies and in public offerings.” (See this PubCo post, this PubCo post, this PubCo post, and this PubCo post.) Even though, in the final rules, the SEC scaled back significantly on the proposal—including putting the kibosh on the controversial mandate for Scope 3 GHG emissions reporting and requiring disclosure of Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 GHG emissions on a phased-in basis only by accelerated and large accelerated filers and only when those emissions are material—all kinds of litigation immediately ensued. Those cases were then consolidated in the Eighth Circuit (see this PubCo post) and, in April, the SEC determined to exercise its discretion to stay the final climate disclosure rules “pending the completion of judicial review of the consolidated Eighth Circuit petitions.” There are currently nine consolidated cases—with two petitioners, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, having voluntarily exited the litigation (see this PubCo post), and a new petition having just been filed by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a familiar presence in various cases, such as the legal challenges to the Nasdaq board diversity rules (see this PubCo post), state and corporate DEI initiatives (see this PubCo post and this PubCo post), and litigation over shareholder proposals (see this PubCo post). Petitioners have recently begun to submit briefing. One that has been made available is the brief that was filed on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Texas Association of Business, Longview Chamber of Commerce and the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Court calls a halt to Exxon case against Arjuna
In January, ExxonMobil filed a lawsuit against Arjuna Capital, LLC and Follow This, the two proponents of a climate-related shareholder proposal submitted to Exxon, seeking a declaratory judgment that it may exclude their proposal from its 2024 annual meeting proxy statement. Then, the two proponents notified Exxon that they had withdrawn their proposal and promised not to refile; therefore, they said, the case was moot. But Exxon refused to withdraw its complaint because it believed that there was still a critical live controversy for the Court to resolve. And the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed—at least as to Arjuna. While the Court dismissed the case against Follow This, an association organized in the Netherlands, for lack of personal jurisdiction, it allowed the case against Arjuna to proceed on the basis of both subject matter and personal jurisdiction, citing precedent that “a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.” (For background on this case, see this PubCo post.) According to the Court, the “voluntary-cessation doctrine requires more than platitudes to render a case moot;…to moot Exxon’s claim, Defendants must show that it is ‘absolutely clear’ the relevant conduct ‘could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” But the argument continued, even after the decision was rendered, as Arjuna continued to submit letters to Exxon in which Arjuna “unconditionally and irrevocably covenant[ed] to refrain henceforth from submitting any proposal for consideration by Exxon shareholders relating to GHG or climate change,” and Exxon continued to contend that the letters were not enough. (See this PubCo post.) Finally, yesterday, after a hearing on the matter, the Court called a halt, issuing an Order that Exxon’s claim was moot and dismissing the action without prejudice. But not before the Court got in a few digs at Arjuna, activism and even at the SEC.
Controversial Delaware legislation breezes through Delaware Senate
Controversy notwithstanding, the proposed amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law in Senate Bill 313 have reportedly “sailed through” the Delaware Senate and are scheduled to move to the Delaware House this week. (See, e.g., this article in Bloomberg.) The proposed amendments were largely designed to address the outcome of the decision in West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Moelis & Company, which invalidated portions of a stockholder agreement relinquishing to a founding stockholder control over certain corporate governance matters, a decision that many practitioners viewed as inconsistent with current market practice. But, as discussed in this PubCo post, those proposed amendments have turned out to be highly contentious: a number of academics and jurists, including Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick in a seven-page letter to the Delaware State Bar Committee, raised objections to the haste and timing (prior to adjudication of an appeal by the Delaware Supreme Court) of the legislation. Adding even more fuel to the fire was a letter submitted to the Delaware legislature, posted on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, by a group of over 50 law professors in opposition to the amendments, along with these separate posts by noted academics on the HLS Forum and on the CLS Blue Sky blog, with this lonely post in favor. (See this PubCo post.)
What does the Nasdaq board diversity data tell us?
As you know, the Nasdaq board diversity disclosure requirements might be in jeopardy at the moment, as we await the decision of the en banc Fifth Circuit following oral argument in Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment and National Center for Public Policy Research v. SEC. As noted in this PubCo post, the discussion at oral argument seemed to be dominated by rule skeptics. Notwithstanding the possibility that the rules might be overturned—or perhaps because they might be—the folks at Bloomberg Law have used the opportunity to analyze some of the data from those disclosures, offering a glimpse into the current state of corporate board diversity among the over 4,000 Nasdaq-listed companies. What is the bottom line? The authors found that “companies have diversified their boards in part by predominantly hiring white women—meeting the rule’s gender-based requirements—but falling short when it comes to other demographics.”
Commissioner Uyeda calls for development of guiding principles for foreign company disclosure requirements
Are the regulations applicable to foreign companies in for a reassessment? You might draw that conclusion from reading the remarks from SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda at the Harvard Law School Program on International Financial Systems, 2024 U.S.-China Symposium last week. Uyeda observes that, from its earliest days, the SEC has “recognized the unique nature of foreign companies accessing the U.S. capital markets, and its rules have afforded different treatment to foreign companies,” such as different forms for registration and reporting. But more recently, the SEC has applied several of its rules equally to domestic and foreign companies, an approach that, in Uyeda’s view, is inconsistent and suffers from the absence of a “clearly articulated regulatory philosophy.” He advises that the SEC should step back and undertake a more comprehensive review with a view toward the development of guiding principles—a “philosophy for when disclosure by foreign companies should be equivalent to disclosure by U.S. companies.” In particular, he advocates that the SEC reexamine the definition of “foreign private issuer”: while a test based on ownership and management may have made sense in 1983, does it still “reflect the realities of today’s global capital markets, corporate structures, and business practices”?
Chancellor McCormick, law professors weigh in on controversy over proposed DGCL amendments
Last month, this PubCo post discussed the recent controversy over proposed amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law. As noted in the post, the Council of the Corporation Law Section of the Delaware State Bar Association proposes amendments annually, but some of the amendments proposed this year, submitted as Senate Bill 313 to the Delaware General Assembly, have elicited a substantial amount of pushback. The controversy has revolved largely around proposed amendments designed to address the outcome of the decision in West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Moelis & Company, which many practitioners viewed as inconsistent with current market practice. Then, a letter on this topic, dated April 12, surfaced (hat tip to Law 360) from Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick to the Delaware State Bar Committee. Adding even more fuel to the fire is a letter submitted to the Delaware legislature, just posted on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, by a group of over 50 law professors in opposition to the amendments.
What happened with no-action requests this proxy season?
According to “SEC No Action Statistics to May 1, 2024” from the Shareholder Rights Group, this proxy season, the SEC staff “has nearly doubled the number of exclusions” of shareholder proposals compared with 2023; that is, relative to the prior year, the staff has issued almost twice the number of letters indicating that it would not recommend enforcement action if the company excluded the proposal from its proxy statement. While that surge reflects primarily a “sharp increase” in the number of requests for no-action filed by companies, importantly, the article indicates that it also reflects an increase in the relative proportion of no-action requests granted. From November 1, 2023 to May 1, 2024, the article reports, the SEC has granted company requests for no-action regarding shareholder proposals about 68% of the time (excluding requests withdrawn), compared with 56% at the same point last year. Notably, the article reports, that percentage (68%) is fairly comparable to the average exclusion rate (69%) during the prior administration (2017 to 2020). Since the issuance of SLB 14L in 2021, the staff has come in for criticism for applying a revised approach to evaluating no-action requests that some market participants considered perhaps a bit too generous to proponents of proposals, leading to an excess of overly prescriptive proposals presented at shareholder meetings. As the article suggests, has this criticism led to a moderation of that approach?
NRDC and Sierra Club seek exit from SEC climate disclosure litigation
You might recall that the litigation over the SEC’s climate disclosure rules (see, e.g., this PubCo post) was not limited to those, like the Chamber of Commerce, Liberty Energy and the State of Iowa, challenging the SEC’s authority to adopt the rules, but also included some environmental groups—the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council—which affirmed the SEC’s authority, but contended that, in rolling back the proposal, the SEC had “fallen short of its statutory mandate to protect investors.” In particular, they were disturbed by the removal in the final rules of requirements to disclose Scope 3 emissions. (See this PubCo post.) Now, both the NRDC and the Sierra Club have moved to voluntarily dismiss their petitions for review..
Fix your data tagging!
In this announcement, the SEC’s Office of Structured Disclosure advises that many of us have been tagging our basic and diluted earnings-per-share data incorrectly. The announcement indicates that this data should be tagged using GAAP Financial Reporting taxonomy elements “us-gaap:EarningsPerShareBasic” and “us-gaap:EarningsPerShareDiluted.” That’s true even where the numbers for basic and diluted EPS are the same number and are presented only once on the face of the income statement. In that case, the company “should tag that amount twice using both tags.” Why is this important? Because, according to the announcement, “[i]ncorrect tagging for EPS would negatively impact the usability of the data.” For example, in the case where the company tags the data only once, either the basic or diluted EPS information would be lost.
Exxon persists in battle against Arjuna
When we last checked in on the ExxonMobil litigation against Arjuna Capital, LLC and Follow This—in which Exxon sought a declaratory judgment that it may exclude the two defendants’ proposal from its 2024 annual meeting proxy statement—the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas had just dismissed the case against Follow This, an association organized in the Netherlands, for lack of personal jurisdiction, but allowed the case against Arjuna to proceed on the basis of both subject matter and personal jurisdiction. (For background on this case, see this PubCo post.) The two proponents had contended that, because Arjuna and Follow This had withdrawn their proposal and promised not to refile, there was no live case or controversy. As a result, they asserted, Exxon’s claim was moot, and the Court had no subject matter jurisdiction. However, the court held that Exxon had the “winning argument,” citing precedent that “a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.” According to the court, the “voluntary-cessation doctrine requires more than platitudes to render a case moot;…to moot Exxon’s claim, Defendants must show that it is ‘absolutely clear’ the relevant conduct ‘could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” After the decision was rendered, Arjuna submitted a letter to Exxon in which Arjuna “unconditionally and irrevocably covenants to refrain henceforth from submitting any proposal for consideration by Exxon shareholders relating to GHG or climate change.” End of story? Not quite.
You must be logged in to post a comment.