Happy new year! To complete the year- and term-end surge, just before Christmas, the Corp Fin staff issued CF Disclosure Guidance: Topic No. 11 regarding disclosure considerations for special purpose acquisition companies in connection with their IPOs and subsequent business combinations, often referred to as de-SPAC transactions. As usual, the staff provides some great questions to consider when crafting disclosure.
Yesterday, Corp Fin posted CF Disclosure Guidance: Topic No. 10, Disclosure Considerations for China-Based Issuers, which provides guidance regarding disclosure considerations for companies based in or with the majority of their operations in the People’s Republic of China (China-based Issuers). You might recall that, in August, the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, which includes Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin, Fed Chair Jerome H. Powell, SEC Chair Jay Clayton and CFTC Chair Heath P. Tarbert, issued a Report on Protecting United States Investors from Significant Risks from Chinese Companies, which made a number of recommendations, among them that regulators should require enhanced and prominent issuer disclosures of the risks of investing in China-based Issuers and should issue interpretive guidance to clarify these disclosure requirements and increase awareness of the risks of investing in these companies. (See this PubCo post.) This guidance appears designed to implement that recommendation. The clear implication of the guidance is that China-based Issuers need to consider beefing up their risk factor and related disclosures; in outlining risks and posing questions to consider, the guidance provides a great starting point.
Today, the SEC staff issued a revised Statement regarding the extension, for an indeterminate period, of temporary relief related to authentication document retention requirements under Rule 302(b) of Reg S-T in light of light of public health and safety concerns regarding COVID-19. This staff Statement is temporary and remains in effect until the staff provides public notice that it no longer will be in effect; that notice will be published at least two weeks before the announced termination date. Nothing new there. But what is new is that the Statement indicates that the staff will not recommend enforcement action if filers take advantage of the new electronic signature rules even before the effective date of those rules.
Today, Corp Fin posted a few new FAQs regarding the transition to the new amendments to Reg S-K Items 101, 103 and 105, which are designed to modernize the disclosure requirements related to the descriptions of business, legal proceedings and risk factors (see this PubCo post). Those new rule amendments will become effective November 9.
Corp Fin has amended Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 7, Confidential Treatment Applications Submitted Pursuant to Rules 406 and 24b-2, to modify the alternatives available for companies with confidential treatment orders that are about to expire. The guidance—which, as always, is just that and not intended to be binding—addresses procedures for CTRs that were submitted, not under the new streamlined approach adopted last year (see this PubCo post), but rather under the old traditional approach that still lives but is now rarely used. Under the prior guidance, when a CT order obtained under the traditional process was about to expire, companies could use a short-form application for extensions, but they were not permitted to transition to the streamlined new process by simply filing the redacted exhibit on EDGAR following the streamlined procedures. However, under the new amended guidance, transition to the new streamlined approach is now one of the permitted alternatives.
It’s well known that COVID-19 provided an unanticipated shock to the economy as a consequence of what economist Paul Krugman termed the “economic equivalent of a medically induced coma.” As a result, many companies were compelled to disclose historic performance that was, to put it mildly, at odds with their expectations of a few months prior, with little insight about the shape of future performance. In this paper, The Spread of COVID-19 Disclosure, from the Corporate Governance Research Initiative at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, the authors looked at how companies responded to this situation, examining the levels of transparency that companies provided in the “widely uncertain” setting of COVID-19.
For those interested in a summary and update of the SEC’s and its staff’s targeted relief to address COVID-19, you may want to look at this updated statement issued today by SEC Chair Jay Clayton and the Directors of Corp Fin, Investment Management and Trading and Markets. The statement summarizes the current temporary relief and indicates the staff’s views on whether the relief should be extended or otherwise adjusted: “It is clear that the need for certain relief remains, such as relief to ensure continued remote operations and to provide flexibility in light of continued market volatility. Other forms of current relief, however, are unlikely to be extended.”
Yesterday, the staff of Corp Fin issued Disclosure Guidance: Topic No. 9A, which supplements CF Topic No. 9 with additional views of the staff regarding disclosures related to operations, liquidity and capital resources that companies should consider as a consequence of business and market disruptions resulting from COVID-19. You might recall that, in March, the staff issued CF Topic No. 9, which offered the staff’s views regarding disclosure considerations, trading on material inside information and reporting financial results in the context of COVID-19 and related uncertainties. (See this PubCo post.) As with the original guidance, the new supplemental guidance includes a valuable series of questions designed to help companies assess, and to stimulate effective disclosure regarding, the impact of COVID-19, in advance of the close of the June quarter. As always these days, the guidance makes clear that it represents only the views of the staff, is not binding and has no legal force or effect.
Is EBITDAC a thing? Yes, according to the FT. This article describes the use of a new non-GAAP metric: “earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, amortisation—and coronavirus.” Applying the new metric, a few companies have actually added back profits they contend they would have earned but for the mandatory lockdowns resulting from COVID-19. Hmmm. While, according to the article, the add-back has “bemused some observers,” it does raise the question: how should companies employ non-GAAP financial measures (NGFMs) in the context of COVID-19? How should audit committees conduct oversight of the use of NGFMs that have been adjusted for coronavirus-related effects? Auditors weigh in.