Tag: Investor Advisory Committee

SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee recommends SEC action on §11 liability after Slack. How likely is it?

In a meeting last year of the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee, the Committee heard from a panel regarding the continued viability—or rather, lack thereof—of §11 liability following SCOTUS’s decision in  Slack Technologies v. Pirani.  Slack, as you know, limited §11 liability in direct listings—and, perhaps increasingly, in the context of other offerings as well—given the difficulty of tracing shares to the defective registration statement in direct listings, where both registered and preexisting unregistered shares may be sold at the same time. The presenting panel made a strong pitch for SEC intervention to facilitate tracing and restore §11 liability, ultimately advocating that the Committee make recommendations to the SEC to solve this problem. (See this PubCo post.) Two subcommittees have now crafted a recommendation, and at the recent meeting of the Committee on March 6, there was a brief discussion of that proposal. In the end, the Committee voted in favor of submitting the recommendation to the SEC, with one abstention and one negative vote. 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. But will the new Administration be receptive to recommendations to facilitate the restoration of §11 liability? From the comments of Commissioner Hester Peirce, it doesn’t sound that way.

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.

Will the SEC intercede in the battle over fee-shifting bylaws?

“The first trickle through a leak in the dam” that eventually causes the dam to collapse is how Professor John Coffee characterized the adoption of fee-shifting bylaw or charter provisions by 24 companies since May of this year. The “dam” here is the practice of private enforcement, as a supplement […]