Tag: SEC

False telephone communications—not just the IRS….

You, like me, may have been the recipient of many, many, many calls from various persons claiming to be from the IRS and threatening you with imprisonment.  We all know that the IRS doesn’t make those types of calls and we ignore them. Apparently, some of those folks have now shifted agencies claiming to represent the SEC. This could be a little trickier.

SEC Chair confirms mandatory shareholder arbitration provisions and dual-class share structures not near-term priorities

Last week, at a meeting of the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee, SEC Chair Jay Clayton delivered an opening statement, part of which addressed two governance topics of recent debate. One of the topics—dual-class share structures—was on the Committee’s agenda, while the other—mandatory shareholder arbitration provisions—was not.  In both cases, Clayton’s mission was to explain “why they are not on my list of near-term priorities.”

SEC approves amendments to NYSE Manual largely eliminating requirement to deliver to NYSE hard copies of proxy materials

On March 1, the SEC approved the NYSE’s proposal to largely eliminate the requirement to provide hard copies of proxy materials to the NYSE. Prior to approval of the amendment, listed companies were required to provide hard copies of proxy materials to the NYSE under Section 204.00(B) and Section 402.01 of the NYSE Manual. Notwithstanding the requirements of Rule 14a-6(b) to deliver hard copies to the applicable exchange (from which the NYSE has obtained no-action relief), the amendment to Section 402.01 provides that listed companies will not be required to provide hard copies of proxy materials to the NYSE, so long as they are included in their entirety in an SEC filing available on EDGAR.

New SEC guidance on cybersecurity disclosure

Yesterday, the SEC announced that it had adopted—without the scheduled open meeting, which was abruptly cancelled with only a cryptic statement—long-awaited new guidance on cybersecurity disclosure. The guidance addresses disclosure obligations under existing laws and regulations, cybersecurity policies and procedures, disclosure controls and procedures, insider trading prohibitions and Reg FD and selective disclosure prohibitions in the context of cybersecurity.  The new guidance builds on Corp Fin’s 2011 guidance on this topic (see this Cooley News Brief), adding in particular new discussions of policies and insider trading.   While the guidance was adopted unanimously, some of the Commissioners were not exactly enthused about it, viewing it as largely repetitive of the 2011 guidance—and hardly more compelling. Anticlimactic? See if you agree.

Mandatory shareholder arbitration provisions for IPOs? SEC Chair says “not on my list”

Depending on your point of view, you may have experienced either heart palpitations or increased serotonin levels when you heard, back in July 2017, that SEC Commissioner Michael Piwowar had, in a speech before the Heritage Foundation, advised that the SEC was open to the idea of allowing companies contemplating IPOs to include mandatory shareholder arbitration provisions in corporate charters. As reported, Piwowar “encouraged” companies undertaking IPOs to “come to us to ask for relief to put in mandatory arbitration into their charters.”   (See this PubCo post.) As discussed in this PubCo post, at the same time, in Senate testimony, SEC Chair Jay Clayton, asked by Senator Sherrod Brown about  Piwowar’s comments, responded that, while he recognized the importance of the ability of shareholders to go to court, he would not “prejudge” the issue. According to some commentators at the time, to the extent that these views appeared to indicate a significant shift in SEC policy on mandatory arbitration, they could portend “the beginning of the end of securities fraud class actions.” Then, in January of this year, the rumors about mandatory arbitration resurfaced in a Bloomberg article, which cited “three people familiar with the matter” for the proposition that the SEC is “laying the groundwork” for this “possible policy shift.” But in recent Senate testimony, Clayton reportedly put the kibosh on these signals.

Want a preview of pay-ratio disclosure? Equilar releases pay-ratio survey data

Equilar has just released the results of an anonymous survey of public companies, with 356 respondents, which asked these companies to indicate the CEO-employee pay ratios they anticipated reporting in their 2018 proxy statements.  As you would expect, there was a lot of variation among companies based on industry, market cap, revenue, workforce size and geography. In addition,  because the rule provided significant flexibility in how companies could identify the median employee and in how they calculate his or her total annual compensation, variations in company methodology likely had a significant impact on the results. These variations in the data underscore the soundness of the SEC’s view, expressed at the time it adopted the pay-ratio rule, that the rule was “designed to allow shareholders to better understand and assess a particular [company’s] compensation practices and pay ratio disclosures rather than to facilitate a comparison of this information from one [company] to another”; “the primary benefit” of the pay-ratio disclosure, according to the SEC, was to provide shareholders with a “company-specific metric” that can be used to evaluate CEO compensation within the context of that company. 

SEC-NYU Dialogue on Securities Markets focuses on shareholder engagement

While the topic of last week’s fourth SEC-NYU Dialogue on Securities Markets was shareholder engagement—focusing on the roles of institutional and activist investors—  the real hot topic was the recent letter to CEOs from BlackRock’s Laurence Fink, which was at least mentioned on every panel. (See this PubCo post.)