Tag: compelled commercial speech

Gensler talks about AI (and a bit about climate)

Yesterday, in remarks at Yale Law School, SEC Chair Gary Gensler talked about the opportunities and challenges of AI.  According to Gensler, while AI “opens up tremendous opportunities for humanity,” it “also raises a host of issues that aren’t new but are accentuated by it. First, AI models’ decisions and outcomes are often unexplainable. Second, AI also may make biased decisions because the outcomes of its algorithms may be based on data reflecting historical biases. Third, the ability of these predictive models to predict doesn’t mean they are always accurate. If you’ve used it to draft a paper or find citations, beware, because it can hallucinate.” In his remarks, Gensler also addressed the potential for systemic risk and fraud. But, in the end, he struck a more positive note, concluding that the role of the SEC involves both “allowing for issuers and investors to benefit from the great potential of AI while also ensuring that we guard against the inherent risks.”

Fifth Circuit grants Chamber’s petition for review of buyback rule—will the Court ultimately vacate the rule?

In May this year, the SEC adopted final rules intended to modernize and improve disclosure regarding company stock repurchases. The rule requires quarterly reporting of detailed quantitative information on daily repurchase activity and revises and expands the narrative requirements, including disclosure regarding the rationale for the buyback. (See this PubCo post.) It didn’t take long for the Chamber to object.  Just over a week following adoption, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with two Texas co-plaintiffs, submitted a petition to the Fifth Circuit for review of the final rule. Petitioners made three arguments: that “(1) the rationale-disclosure requirement violates the First Amendment by impermissibly compelling their speech; (2) the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting the final rule by not considering their comments or conducting a proper cost benefit analysis; and (3) the SEC did not provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment.”   On Halloween, the three-judge panel issued its opinion. The Court granted the petition, holding that the SEC violated the Administrative Procedure Act. But the Court did not vacate the rule—not yet anyway. Instead, the Court remanded the rule back to the SEC for 30 days to attempt to repair the analytical defects. Will the SEC adequately repair the defects? Will the Court ultimately vacate the rule? That all remains to be seen.

It’s not over till it’s over: Petition filed for rehearing en banc on Nasdaq board diversity rule

As discussed in this PubCo post, on October 18, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied the petitions filed by the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment and the National Center for Public Policy Research challenging the SEC’s final order approving the Nasdaq listing rules regarding board diversity and disclosure. The new listing rules adopted a “comply or explain” mandate for board diversity for most listed companies and required companies listed on Nasdaq’s U.S. exchange to publicly disclose “consistent, transparent diversity statistics” regarding the composition of their boards.  (See this PubCo post.)  Given that, by repute, the Fifth Circuit is the circuit of choice for advocates of conservative causes, the decision to deny the petition may have taken some by surprise—unless, that is, they were aware, as discussed in the WSJ and Reuters, that the three judges on this panel happened to all be appointed by Democrats.  Yesterday, the Petitioners filed a petition requesting a rehearing en banc by the Fifth Circuit, where Republican presidents have appointed 12 of the 16 active judges.  Not that politics has anything to do with it, of course.

NAM seeks to challenge Rule 14a-8 regulatory process for shareholder proposals

You might recall that this past proxy season witnessed a significant number of shareholder proposals related to ESG—from both sides of the aisle. (See this PubCo post.)  One of those proposals was submitted by the National Center for Public Policy Research to The Kroger Co., which operates supermarkets, regarding the omission of consideration of “viewpoint” and “ideology” from its equal employment opportunity policy. Kroger sought to exclude the proposal as “ordinary business” under Rule 14a-8(i)(7), and Corp Fin concurred. After Corp Fin and the SEC refused reconsideration of the decision, the NCPPR petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review. Now, the National Association of Manufacturers has requested, and been granted, leave to intervene in the case, claiming that neither the federal securities laws nor the First Amendment allows the SEC to use Rule 14a-8 to compel companies to speak about contentious political or social issues, such as abortion, climate change, diversity or gun control, that are “unrelated to its core business or the creation of shareholder value.”  That is, NAM isn’t just arguing about Corp Fin’s greenlighting of the exclusion of NCPPR’s proposal—in fact, NAM agrees that “Kroger should not be forced to include petitioners’ policy proposal in Kroger’s proxy statement.”  Rather, NAM is upping the ante considerably by challenging whether the SEC has any business “dictat[ing] the content of public company proxy ballots and the topics on which shareholders are required to cast votes.”  According to NAM’s Chief Legal Officer, “[m]anufacturers are facing an onslaught of activists seeking to hijack the proxy ballot to advance narrow political agendas, and the SEC has become a willing partner in the effort. The corporate proxy ballot is not the appropriate venue for policy decisions better made by America’s elected representatives, and manufacturers are regularly caught in the middle as activists on the left and the right bring fights from the political arena into the boardroom.”

Chamber sues SEC over share repurchase rules

On Friday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced that, together with the Texas Association of Business and the Longview Chamber of Commerce, it had filed litigation in the Fifth Circuit against the SEC to prevent implementation of the SEC’s new rulemaking about stock buybacks (see this PubCo post). According to the press release, the lawsuit challenges the SEC’s rule under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution: the SEC’s “mandatory disclosure requirements not only risk the public airing of important managerial decisions but also compel speech in violation of the First Amendment.”  The Chamber has been openly hinting at this course of action (see this press release), so it’s not much of a surprise. The initial filing is in the form of a  petition, simply asking the court to review  the order of the SEC approving the final rule, Share Repurchase Disclosure Modernization, entered on May 3, 2023.

Corp Fin provides relief on conflict minerals in light of final judgment in National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC

by Cydney Posner Today, in light of the entry of final judgment by the D.C. District Court in National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC, Corp Fin issued an Updated Statement on the Effect of the Court of Appeals Decision on the Conflict Minerals Rule that provides substantial relief to companies subject to […]

No petition for cert in Natl Assoc. of Manufacturers v. SEC, the conflict minerals case

by Cydney Posner No reason to keep checking the SCOTUS website for the SEC’s cert petition in Natl Assoc. of Manufacturers v. SEC, the conflict minerals case. According to this letter from Attorney General Loretta Lynch to House Speaker Paul Ryan (courtesy of thecorporatecounsel.net blog), “[a]lthough the Commission defended the constitutionality of […]

U.S. Chamber of Commerce won’t challenge pay-ratio rules — at least for now — and will focus instead on conflict minerals challenge

by Cydney Posner The WSJ is reporting that, contrary to all expectations (including my own), “the U.S. Chamber of Commerce isn’t planning to mount a legal challenge to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s pay ratio rule.”

Is a lot more at stake in the conflict minerals case than the conflict minerals disclosure rules?

by Cydney Posner An amicus brief filed in the conflict minerals case, National Association of Manufacturers, Inc. v. SEC, was submitted this week by a group of anti-smoking  and other organizations dedicated to protecting public health: Truth Initiative, Public Health Law Center, National Association of County and City Health Officials, […]

Three-judge panel of D.C. Circuit again holds that mandatory disclosure requirement of conflict minerals rule violates First Amendment

by Cydney Posner In November 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the petitions of the SEC and Amnesty International for panel rehearing in connection with the conflict minerals case, National Association of Manufacturers, Inc. v. SEC. Today, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, by a vote of two […]