Tag: SEC Division of Enforcement
SEC Enforcement sweep picks up multiple companies and insiders with late filings under Section 16 and 13(d), (g) and (f)
Can we call it a year-end tradition yet? It’s almost the end of the SEC’s fiscal year, and, as it did last year around this time, the SEC has just announced a big Enforcement sweep of multiple companies and some individuals—23 in total—for failing to timely file Section 16(a) short-swing trading reports (Forms 3, 4 and 5) and Schedules 13D and G (reports by beneficial owners of more than 5%) on a timely basis. Two public companies were charged with failing to make filings on behalf of insiders after having volunteered to do so, and then failing to report the delinquencies in their own filings, as required by Reg S-K Item 405. Surprisingly, the sweep also captured a public company that was charged with failure to timely file Forms 13F—reports that institutional investment managers are required to file regarding certain large securities holdings. The SEC used data analytics to identify those charged in the sweep. The penalties aggregated over $3.8 million and ranged from $10,000 to $750,000. According to the Associate Regional Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, “[t]o make informed investment decisions, shareholders rely on, among other things, timely reports about insider holdings and transactions and changes in potential controlling interests….Today’s actions are a reminder to large investors that they must commit necessary resources to ensure these reports are filed on time.” It appears that the SEC is continuing to send messages that late filings are not ok…and lots of late filings are really not ok. It’s also clear that the SEC views companies that do volunteer to make filings on behalf of their insiders—a common practice—and that don’t follow through to be potentially contributing to their insiders’ filing failures; the SEC will hold the companies responsible if the insiders’ filings are not timely.
ICYMI—Say goodbye to the SEC’s Climate and ESG Task Force
In case it escaped your notice a few months back—as it did mine—Bloomberg is now reporting that the SEC has “quietly disbanded” its Enforcement Division’s Climate and ESG Task Force. You remember the task force? Back in 2021, when Allison Herren Lee was Acting Chair of the SEC, she directed the staff of Corp Fin to “enhance its focus on climate-related disclosure in public company filings.” Shortly thereafter, the SEC announced that the new climate focus would not be limited to Corp Fin—the SEC had created a new Climate and ESG Task Force in the Division of Enforcement. While the initial focus of the Task Force was to identify any material gaps or misstatements in issuers’ disclosure of climate risks under then-existing rules, the remit of the Task Force went beyond climate to address other ESG issues. Lee said that the Task Force was designed to bolster the efforts of the SEC as a whole in addressing climate risk and sustainability, which were “critical issues for the investing public and our capital markets.” (See this PubCo post.) Now, an SEC spokesperson has advised Bloomberg that it has “shut down its Enforcement Division’s Climate and ESG Task Force within the past few months.”
Keurig settles SEC “greenwashing” charges
According to a 2023 survey discussed in Global Executives Say Greenwashing Remains Rife in the WSJ, executives think greenwashing is widespread: almost “three-quarters of executives said most organizations in their industry would be caught greenwashing if they were investigated thoroughly.” Moreover, almost “60% say their own organization is overstating its sustainability methods.” However, the article suggested, although some companies may be intentionally overstating their progress, for the most part, the greenwashing is more benign: companies set their sustainability goals but didn’t have a “concrete plan” to achieve them or reliable data to measure them. According to the survey, 85% of executives believe that “customers and clients are becoming more vocal about their preference for engaging with sustainable brands,” creating more impetus for sustainability initiatives. By the same token, these external influences also create more pressure for greenwashing. The article reports that the risks related to greenwashing are increasing, with the threat of potential “crackdowns.” (See this PubCo post.) Last week, the SEC charged Keurig Dr Pepper with making inaccurate statements in its Forms 10-K for fiscal 2019 and 2020 regarding the recyclability of its K-Cup beverage pods used to make coffee and other beverages in Keurig’s single-serve brewing systems. According to the Associate Director of the SEC’s Boston Regional Office, “Public companies must ensure that the reports they file with the SEC are complete and accurate….When a company speaks to an issue in its annual report, they are required to provide information necessary for investors to get the full picture on that issue so that investors can make educated investment decisions.” To settle the SEC’s charges, Keurig agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty. Commissioner Hester Peirce had a few words to say in dissent.
In an Enforcement sweep, SEC charges seven companies with violations of whistleblower rule
On Monday, the SEC announced an Enforcement sweep involving settled charges against seven companies for violation of the whistleblower statute and rule. The charges stemmed from provisions that the SEC claimed impeded whistleblowers from reporting potential misconduct to the SEC contained in employment, separation and an array of other agreements. In some instances, according to the Orders, the provisions expressly stated that they did not preclude employees from filing an administrative charge or participating in whistleblower programs, but instead involved only a waiver of their rights to recover a monetary award for participating in an investigation by a government agency. At least one of the companies sought to qualify the waiver of the recovery right by adding “[t]o the extent permitted by law.” But, to no avail. In none of these cases was the SEC aware of actions by the charged company to enforce the waiver provisions or instances in which the affected employees declined to speak with the SEC about potential violations of securities laws. Nonetheless, the SEC viewed these agreements as creating impediments to participation in the SEC whistleblower program. The companies agreed to pay civil penalties of just over $3 million in the aggregate, revised their internal agreement forms and notified affected employees. According to the Director of the SEC’s Denver Regional Office, the “SEC’s whistleblower program strengthens market integrity by providing protection and incentives for those who come forward and report potential violations of the securities laws….According to the SEC’s orders, among other things, these companies required employees to waive their right to possible whistleblower monetary awards. This severely impedes would-be whistleblowers from reporting potential securities law violations to the SEC.” Reuters reported that a representative of TransUnion, one of the companies charged, characterized the “SEC’s engagement on this matter” as an example of “what good regulatory supervision can look like.”
SEC charges Ideanomics for misleading revenue guidance
As discussed in this press release, the SEC has announced Orders settling charges against Ideanomics, Inc., its current CEO and former CFO, as well as its former Chair and CEO, for alleged misleading statements about the company’s financial performance between 2017 and 2019. There were multiple alleged fraudulent acts, but featured most prominently was an allegation that the Company and the former Chair/CEO reported 2017 revenue guidance that ended up being well off the mark, “despite numerous known issues indicating that the company would miss this guidance by a wide margin.” The Company later reported 2017 revenues that were less than half of the amount represented to the public in its guidance. According to the Associate Director of Enforcement, as the SEC alleged, “Ideanomics and its executives defrauded investors, including by misstating its financial statements and failing to disclose material information to investors….The investing public must be able to trust the accuracy of a company’s disclosures, and we will hold accountable executives who abuse that trust by engaging in fraud.”
SEC charges RR Donnelley with control failures related to cybersecurity incident
In this June Order, SEC Enforcement brought settled charges against R.R. Donnelley & Sons, a “global provider of business communications services and marketing solutions,” for control failures: more specifically, a failure to maintain adequate disclosure controls and procedures related to cybersecurity incidents and alerts and a failure to devise and maintain adequate internal accounting controls—more specifically, “a system of cybersecurity-related internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that access to RRD’s assets—its information technology systems and networks, which contained sensitive business and client data—was permitted only with management’s authorization.” RRD agreed to pay over $2.1 million to settle the charges. Interestingly, in a Statement, SEC Commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda decried the SEC’s use of “Section 13(b)(2)(B)’s internal accounting controls provision as a Swiss Army Statute to compel issuers to adopt policies and procedures the Commission believes prudent,” not to mention its “decision to stretch the law to punish a company that was the victim of a cyberattack.”
Are boards overseeing AI?
Is there a hotter topic in the business world than AI? AI offers major opportunities for progress and productivity gains, but substantial risks as well. According to FactSet, 179 companies in the S&P 500 used the term “AI” during their earnings call for the fourth quarter of 2023, well above the 5-year average of 73. Among these companies, “the average number of times ‘AI’ was mentioned on their earnings calls was 13, while the median number of times ‘AI’ was mentioned on their earnings calls was 5. The term ‘AI’ was mentioned more than 50 times on the earnings calls of nine S&P 500 companies.” Similarly, Bloomberg reports that “[a]t least 203, or 41%, of the S&P 500 companies mentioned AI in their most recent 10-K report, Bloomberg Law’s review found. That’s up from 35% in 2022 and 28% in 2021. A majority of the disclosures focused on the risks of the technology, while others focused on its benefit to their business.” One of the many challenges that AI presents is on the corporate governance front, in particular board oversight, a topic addressed in this recent paper from ISS, AI Governance Appears on Corporate Radar. For the paper, ISS examined discussions of board oversight and director AI skills in proxy statements filed by S&P 500 companies from September 2022 through September 2023 to “assess how boards may evolve to manage and oversee this new area of potential risks and opportunities.”
Auditor problems are not just auditor problems
On Friday, SEC Enforcement charged audit firm BF Borgers CPA PC and its owner, Benjamin F. Borgers, with “massive fraud” involving “deliberate and systemic failures” to comply with PCAOB standards in auditing and reviewing financial statements incorporated into more than 1,500 SEC filings from January 2021 through June 2023. The charges also included “falsely representing to their clients that the firm’s work would comply with PCAOB standards; fabricating audit documentation to make it appear that the firm’s work did comply with PCAOB standards; and falsely stating in audit reports included in more than 500 public company SEC filings that the firm’s audits complied with PCAOB standards.” In settlement, the audit firm agreed to pay a $12 million civil penalty, and Benjamin Borgers agreed to pay a $2 million civil penalty, along with censures, cease-and-desists and permanent suspensions from appearing and practicing before the SEC as accountants. According to SEC Enforcement Director Gurbir S. Grewal,
“Ben Borgers and his audit firm, BF Borgers, were responsible for one of the largest wholesale failures by gatekeepers in our financial markets….As a result of their fraudulent conduct, they not only put investors and markets at risk by causing public companies to incorporate noncompliant audits and reviews into more than 1,500 filings with the Commission, but also undermined trust and confidence in our markets. Because investors rely on the audited financial statements of public companies when making their investment decisions, the accountants and accounting firms that audit those statements play a critical role in our financial markets. Borgers and his firm completely abandoned that role, but thanks to the painstaking work of the SEC staff, Borgers and his sham audit mill have been permanently shut down.”
This case has received an unusual amount of press—for an audit firm that many have never even heard of before—because Borgers was the auditor for the social media company of a certain former president. (See, e.g., the NYT, CNBC, CBS News) But, as we’ve often seen in other contexts, such as auditor independence (see, e.g., this PubCo post), this case also illustrates the importance for companies to keep in mind that these types of violations may have serious consequences not only for the audit firm, but also for the audit clients. In fact, in this case, the staff of Corp Fin and the Office of Chief Accountant issued this Staff Statement on Issuer Disclosure and Reporting Obligations in Light of Rule 102(e) Order against BF Borgers CPA PC.
Is the SEC’s case against SolarWinds counterproductive?
You remember the 2020 SolarWinds hack, perhaps one of the worst cyberattacks in history? As described by NPR in 2021, the hack was “believed to be directed by the Russian intelligence service, the SVR,” which used a “routine software update to slip malicious code into Orion’s software and then used it as a vehicle for a massive cyberattack against America.” It was estimated that 18,000 customers were affected, including some very well-known companies and about a dozen government agencies including the Treasury, Justice and Energy departments, the Pentagon and, ironically, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security. The SEC filed a complaint against SolarWinds and its Chief Information Security Officer, Timothy G. Brown, charging ‘fraud and internal control failures relating to allegedly known cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities.” The gist of the complaint, as alleged by the SEC, is that many red flags emerged and incidents occurred, well known among company employees, that should have spurred the company and its CISO to take action to address serious cyber vulnerabilities, including vulnerabilities related to the company’s “crown jewel” assets. Instead, the SEC charged, the CISO “failed to resolve the issues or, at times, sufficiently raise them further within the company.” (See this PubCo post.) As discussed in this blogpost, Fatal Flaws in SEC’s Amended Complaint Against SolarWinds, from our White Collar Defense and Investigations group, this case has developed into a very high-stakes contest.
Was it SPAC week? SEC charges SPAC with misleading statements
Perfectly calibrated to slap an exclamation point on last Wednesday’s 581-page SPAC release (see this PubCo post), this new SEC Order, posted the following day, reflects settled charges against Northern Star Investment Corp. II, a SPAC, for misleading statements in its SEC filings in connection with its SPAC IPO and failed de-SPAC transaction. In the SPAC release, the SEC noted concerns from commentators regarding the adequacy of the disclosures provided to investors in SPAC IPOs and de-SPAC transactions. In this case, the SEC charged that Northern Star stated in its SEC filings that, prior to filing its S-1 for its IPO, it had had no substantive discussions with any potential target; in reality, however, Northern Star had had several discussions with the ultimate target regarding a potential SPAC business combination. According to the Director of the SEC’s Philadelphia Regional Office, “Northern Star’s failure to disclose discussions with its merger target kept investors in the dark about its future plans, information that would have been important in deciding whether to invest in this SPAC….Given that the purpose of a SPAC is to identify and acquire an operating business, SPACs should be transparent about any pre-IPO discussions with potential acquisition targets.” Northern Star was ordered to pay a civil money penalty of $1.5 million for violation of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act.
You must be logged in to post a comment.