Tag: Chamber of Commerce

ESGLitigationSecurities

Chamber seeks to intervene in environmental group challenges to SEC climate disclosure rules

As you probably remember, the SEC’s climate disclosure rules were challenged not only by those contending that the rules went too far and that the SEC had no authority—think, for example, Liberty Energy, the State of Iowa and the Chamber of Commerce—but also by the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which claimed that the SEC did have the legal authority to adopt the rules but did not go far enough and left out some important information. All those cases have recently been consolidated in the Eighth Circuit.  Now, the Chamber of Commerce has moved for leave to intervene in the cases brought by the Sierra Club and the NRDC “to defend those portions of the final rule that refrained from imposing the additional disclosure requirements the environmental groups would have this Court require the SEC to impose.”  The Sierra Club, the motion contends, “intends to argue that the SEC should have required public companies to disclose not only their own greenhouse-gas emissions, but also the emissions from the ‘use of [their] products’ and across their ‘supply chains’”; that is, that the SEC failed to impose a requirement to disclose Scope 3 GHG emissions.

/ April 16, 2024
LitigationSecurities

It’s back to the future—or is it forward to the past?—on share repurchase disclosure

On December 19, a Fifth Circuit panel pulled the plug on the SEC’s Share Repurchase Disclosure Modernization rule, issuing an opinion vacating the rule.   On Friday last week, Corp Fin announced that, yes, the rule had been vacated and, in case you were wondering, “the disclosure requirements revert to those in effect prior to the Final Rule’s effective date.”  It remains to be seen whether the SEC will repropose new rules on this topic or has its hands full with other stuff—like climate disclosure—and so will just let this one lie.

/ February 12, 2024
ESGLitigationSecurities

The Chamber sues California over climate legislation

You remember California’s climate legislation signed into law just last year—Senate Bill 253, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, and Senate Bill 261, Greenhouse gases: climate-related financial risk? (See this PubCo post.) The U.S. and California Chambers of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation and others have just filed a new complaint against the California Air Resources Board challenging these two California laws. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief that the two laws are void because they violate the First Amendment, are precluded by federal law, and are invalid under the Constitution’s limitations on extraterritorial regulation, particularly under the dormant Commerce Clause.  The litigation also seeks injunctive relief to prevent CARB from taking any action to enforce these two laws.  These California laws have the potential to affect thousands of companies, including companies domiciled in other states, and many will be alert to see if these laws survive this legal action unscathed. To some extent, the litigation will also function as a dress rehearsal for the litigation that’s likely to surface when the SEC finally adopts its long-awaited climate disclosure rules. What does this litigation augur for the SEC’s anticipated climate disclosure rules?  While the dormant Commerce Clause is unlikely to play much of a role in a future challenge to the SEC’s expected climate disclosure regulations, the First Amendment claim is certainly one that we have seen used successfully in the past and are likely to see again. For example, it was raised in connection with challenges to Rule 14a-8 and to the stock repurchase rules, as well as at a recent House Financial Services subcommittee hearing on oversight of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure, where the contention that the proposal’s compelled speech would violate the First Amendment was a topic of discussion. (See this PubCo post.) Now, we’ll see how well it plays in federal court in California.

/ February 2, 2024
LitigationSecurities

Fifth Circuit pulls the plug on SEC’s final share repurchase rule

On October 31, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in Chamber of Commerce of the USA v. SEC, granting the Chamber’s petition for review of the SEC’s Share Repurchase Disclosure Modernization rule. The Court held that the “SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously, in violation of the APA, when it failed to respond to petitioners’ comments and failed to conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis.” However, recognizing that there was “at least a serious possibility that the agency will be able to substantiate its decision given an opportunity to do so,” the Court decided that, “short of vacating the rule,” it would put the rule on life support, allowing the SEC 30 days “to remedy the deficiencies in the rule,” and remanded the matter with directions to the SEC to correct the defects in the rule.  The three-judge panel, however, “retain[ed] jurisdiction to consider the decision that is made on remand.” The deadline was set at November 30, 2023. On November 22, the SEC announced that it had issued an order postponing the effective date of the Share Repurchase Disclosure Modernization rule.  As a result, the rule was stayed pending further SEC action. (See this PubCo post.) On the same date, the SEC filed a brief motion asking the Court for an extension of time to correct the defects. In its motion, the SEC said only that, “[s]ince the remand, the Commission’s staff has worked diligently to ascertain the steps necessary to comply with the Court’s remand order and has determined that doing so will require additional time.”  The SEC said in the motion that it would provide an update within 60 days on the status of its efforts. Not surprisingly, the Chamber opposed the motion. On November 26, the Court issued an Order, refusing to grant the extension, and on December 1, at the request of the Clerk of the Court, the SEC’s Office of General Counsel submitted a letter to the Court advising that the SEC would not be able to correct the defects by the Court-imposed deadline. (See this PubCo post, this PubCo post,  this PubCo post and this PubCo post.)  On December 7,  the Chamber filed a motion to vacate the SEC’s final share repurchase rule. As recounted by the Chamber, the SEC advised the Chamber that it took no position on the Chamber’s motion. Today, acting by a quorum (with one judge recused), the Court pulled the plug, issuing an opinion vacating the repurchase rule.  Will the SEC repropose a new repurchase rule?

/ December 19, 2023
LitigationSecurities

SEC concedes unable to correct defects in buyback rule

On October 31, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in Chamber of Commerce of the USA v. SEC, granting the Chamber’s petition for review of the SEC’s Share Repurchase Disclosure Modernization rule. The Court held that the “SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously, in violation of the APA, when it failed to respond to petitioners’ comments and failed to conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis.” However, recognizing that there was “at least a serious possibility that the agency will be able to substantiate its decision given an opportunity to do so,” the Court decided that, instead  of vacating the rule, it would allow the SEC 30 days “to remedy the deficiencies in the rule,”  and remanded the matter with directions to the SEC to correct the defects in the rule.  The three-judge panel, however, “retain[ed] jurisdiction to consider the decision that is made on remand.” The deadline was set at November 30, 2023. On November 22, the SEC announced that it had issued an order postponing the effective date of the Share Repurchase Disclosure Modernization rule.  As a result, the rule was stayed pending further SEC action. (See this PubCo post.) On the same date, the SEC filed a brief motion asking the Court for an extension of time to correct the defects. In its motion, the SEC said only that, “[s]ince the remand, the Commission’s staff has worked diligently to ascertain the steps necessary to comply with the Court’s remand order and has determined that doing so will require additional time.”  The SEC said in the motion that it would provide an update within 60 days on the status of its efforts. Not surprisingly, the Chamber opposed the motion. On November 26, the Court issued an Order, refusing to grant the extension. The question then was whether or not the SEC would still submit an analysis to the Court attempting to correct the defects by the court-imposed deadline. (See this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post.)  Now we have the answer.

/ December 1, 2023
Corporate GovernanceSecurities

Is the noose tightening around the shareholder proposal rules?

In remarks this week before the Chamber of Commerce, new SEC Chair Jay Clayton indicated that the SEC will be taking a hard look at the shareholder proposal rules. As reported in thedeal.com, Clayton advised that it is “very important to ask ourselves how much of a cost there is….how much costs should the quiet shareholder, the ordinary shareholder, bear for idiosyncratic interests of other [investors].” Clayton was certainly speaking to a receptive audience—the Chamber has also recently voiced criticism of the shareholder proposal process (see this PubCo post) and, on the same day as Clayton’s remarks, issued its own report proposing changes to staunch the flow of proposals  (discussed below).  As you may recall, in the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017, the House also proposed to raise the eligibility and resubmission thresholds for shareholder proposals to levels that would have effectively curtailed the  process altogether for all but the very largest holders.  Although that Act is currently foundering in the Senate, at the same Chamber presentation, Commissioner Michael Piwowar commented to reporters that the SEC could certainly act on its own without any impetus from Congress, observing that the “chairman sets the agenda, but I’m going to be meeting with folks at public companies to talk about their experiences with proxy season.” With both the House and the Chamber having weighed in, if the SEC now takes up the cause on its own,  the question is: just how far will it push?

/ July 28, 2017