All posts by George Wilson

CorpFin Staff to Respond in Writing to Shareholder Proposal Requests

On December 13, 2021, in this brief Announcement, the CorpFin staff stated they will return to the policy of issuing written responses to all shareholder no-action letter requests.  The Division’s response letters will be posted on their website.  In 2019, the Division implemented a policy of responding in writing only in limited instances and instead provided information in a chart on their webpage.  The Division expects to publish a similar chart at the end of the proxy season.

The policy change to respond to all written no-action requests in writing is effective from December 13, 2021, the publication date of the notice.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Cybersecurity Insights from Commissioner Roisman

On October 29, 2021, SEC Commissioner Elad L. Roisman delivered a speech to the Los Angeles County Bar titled “Cybersecurity: Meeting the Emerging Challenge.”  In this speech he addresses important cybersecurity matters, beginning with this introductory section – “Understanding that You May be a Victim.”

“Before I go further, it’s important to acknowledge a point that is sometimes overlooked in discussions about cybersecurity.  In the case of cyber-crimes, companies are the targets and victims.  The last thing a company wants is to suffer this kind of criminal and illegal attack.  But, today, the threat of a cyber-attack is so constant and significant for every market participant that it should be viewed as a substantial likelihood.

The SEC has imposed specific obligations on particular registrants relating to certain cybersecurity risks.  But it’s undeniable that our registrants, who have more general obligations under the securities laws—such as to serve the best interests of clients or to shareholders—also are accountable for taking measures to prevent and mitigate damage from these threats as part of their broader responsibilities.

Accordingly, it has become increasingly important for market participants to work with counsel and other experts on preparing for potential cyber-attacks before they happen—that is, devising a plan for monitoring for cyber threats, responding to potential breaches, and understanding when information must be reported outside the company and to whom.”

After this assertion that cyber-attack should be viewed as a risk with a “substantial likelihood” and that companies should take measures to address this risk, he discusses cybersecurity risk for a variety of entities that the SEC regulates, including exchanges, SRO’s, advisors, broker dealers and others.

In the section addressing public issuers, he reviews the SEC’s 2018 Release “Commission Statement and Guidance on Public Company Cybersecurity Disclosures.”  In a related footnote he mentions that the Division of Corporation Finance “blazed trail” for this release with Disclosure Guidance Topic 2.  He reminds issuers that disclosure requirements in areas including risk factors, description of the business and MD&A may create obligations to disclose cybersecurity-related matters.  He also mentions that the 2018 Release focuses on  the importance of disclosure controls and procedures.  (See this post for an enforcement case about cybersecurity-related disclosure controls and procedures.)

Commissioner Roisman also discusses internal accounting controls over cybersecurity risk, mentioning the SEC’s 2018 “21(a) Report” that focused on cases where companies had been victimized in cybersecurity-related fraud.  That report, which did not enforce against the victim companies, reminded companies that internal accounting controls should address these kinds of risks.

Commissioner Roisman notes that the SEC’s rulemaking agenda includes issuer cybersecurity matters, but that no formal rulemaking has taken place yet.  He provides these thoughts about possible rulemaking:

“But I will let you know some of the things that I would be looking for as I consider any additional rules in this area.  First, we need to define any new legal obligations clearly.  Second, we need to make sure that these obligations do not create inconsistencies with requirements established by our sister government agencies.  Third, we should recognize that some registrants have greater resources than others, and we should not try to set the resource requirements for an entity.  And finally, because issuers’ businesses vary, the cybersecurity-related risks they face also will vary, and therefore a principles-based rule would likely work best.”

Commissioner Roisman’s thoughts provide helpful insights that can lead to action steps as we address cybersecurity risk going forward.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

PLI’s InSecurities Podcast Explores 2021 SEC Enforcement Results

On November 18, 2021, the SEC issued a detailed Press Release reviewing Enforcement Division activity for 2021.  This Press Release, while a departure from the “glossy” annual report in previous years, provides significant information about the types of enforcement cases, sanctions and focus areas of the Division.  If you would like more insight into the Division’s activities, PLI’s InSecurities podcast, hosted by Chris Ekimoff and Kurt Wolfe, provides a deep dive discussion in this “Special Episode: The 2021 SEC Enforcement ‘Report,’” featuring Sarah Heaton Concannon, who recently left the Enforcement Division.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

A Message From the Chief Accountant – Auditor Independence

On October 26, 2021, SEC Acting Chief Accountant Paul Munter released a Statement titled “The Importance of High Quality Independent Audits and Effective Audit Committee Oversight to High Quality Financial Reporting to Investors.”  In the Statement, Mr. Munter focuses on the responsibilities of audit committees, management, and of course auditors, in assuring auditors are independent of clients.

He discusses the importance of auditor independence to our capital markets, the shared responsibility for auditor independence, and the importance of gatekeepers in this process, saying:

“The independence of the auditor, in both fact and appearance, is foundational to the credibility of the financial statements.   While sourcing a high quality independent auditor is a key responsibility of the audit committee,  compliance with auditor independence rules is a shared responsibility of the issuer, its audit committee, and the auditor.

As we near the twentieth anniversary of SOX, it is critical for all gatekeepers to continue to vigilantly maintain the independence of auditors, in both fact and appearance. In this regard, auditors and audit clients must carefully consider the scope of their audit and any permissible non-audit engagements that have been pre-approved by the audit committee to guard against impairments of independence. As part of this responsibility, all gatekeepers in the financial reporting ecosystem should be especially mindful of the nature and the scope of any other services provided by the independent auditor.”

The Statement highlights the four guiding principles in Regulation S-X behind the SEC’s auditor independence rules.  Regulation S-X Article 2.01 states:

“In considering this standard, the Commission looks in the first instance to whether a relationship or the provision of a service:

  • Creates a mutual or conflicting interest between the accountant and the audit client;
  • places the accountant in the position of auditing his or her own work
  • results in the accountant acting as management or an employee of the audit client; or
  • places the accountant in a position of being an advocate for the audit client.

These factors are general guidance only, and their application may depend on particular facts and circumstances.”

This auditor independence enforcement case involving an audit firm, three of the firm’s partners, and a public company’s former chief accounting officer, illustrates Mr. Munter’s key point that auditor independence is a shared responsibility of companies, audit committees and auditors.  In this case, the audit firm paid a penalty of $10 million, three partners in the firm paid penalties and were barred from SEC practice, and the former chief accounting officer of the company involved paid a fine and was barred from SEC practice.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

 

Yet Another Perks Enforcement Case!

As we have blogged about on previous occasions, the SEC Enforcement Division is actively watching for companies that fail to adequately disclose executive perks.  In a recent case against ProPetro Holding Corp., an oilfield services company, and its former CEO, the SEC underscored this point in their enforcement agenda.

The Press Release announcing this case states:

“The SEC’s order finds that Redman (the former CEO) caused ProPetro to incur $380,594 worth of personal and travel expenses unrelated to the performance of his duties as CEO. He also failed to disclose to company personnel that he had pledged all of his ProPetro stock in two private real estate transactions. During the same period, ProPetro failed to properly disclose $47,591 in additional, authorized perks it paid to Redman.”

As you can read in the related AAER, use of a company aircraft for personal trips and use of a company credit card for personal expenses were major parts of this case.

As is typical in these cases, ProPetro and Redman agreed to cease and desist from further violations, and the former CEO agreed to pay a $195,046 penalty. The order notes ProPetro’s significant cooperation with the agency’s investigation as well as its very extensive remedial efforts, including “hiring an entirely new management team with significant public company experience, hiring additional finance department personnel, installing several new directors, and developing new controls, policies, and procedures concerning perks.”  The company did not pay a penalty.

These steps go well beyond company actions and SEC’s sanctions in other cases, such as when Dow Chemical was required to hire an independent consultant to conduct a review of its policies, procedures, controls, and training relating to perks.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Making Liquidity and Capital Resources Disclosures Meaningful

Many MD&A liquidity and capital resources discussions try to explain changes in operating cash flows with opaque explanations, such as “our cash from operating activities decreased because of an increase in accounts receivable.”  Trying to unpack the logic behind this kind of statement to a non-accountant is almost impossible.  It is far more understandable to say, “our cash collections from customers decreased resulting in a decrease in cash flows from operating activities.”  The problem with this more understandable statement, which is essentially based on the direct method of preparing the statement of cash flows, is that reporting systems frequently do not provide the necessary information.

Finding the balance between convoluted statements about how changes in balance sheet accounts affect cash flows and the lack of information necessary to apply the direct method to the statement of cash flows is complex and frequently frustrating.

The SEC challenges companies on this issue when disclosure is unclear.  Here is an example where a company was called upon to clarify these kinds of disclosures in MD&A.

To begin, here is the company’s operating cash flows discussion:

Cash Flows

Operating Activities. Net cash provided by operating activities for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 was $306.3 million and $199.1 million, respectively. Cash provided by operations in 2019 and 2018 resulted from our net income adjusted for non-cash charges for share-based compensation, depreciation and amortization, timing of income tax and employee related payments and changes in other working capital. The significant increase in net cash from operating activities between 2018 and 2019 is primarily due to the higher net income and changes in working capital balances.

This disclosure triggered the following comment from the SEC:

Liquidity, Capital Resources, and Financial Position

Cash Flows

Operating Activities, page 51

Staff Comment:

It appears from the statement of cash flows changes in assets and liabilities, which include working capital items, between 2019 and 2018 of $101.6 million is the substantial cause of the $107.3 million, or 54%, increase in 2019 operating cash flows compared to 2018.  Please revise your disclosure to discuss the material items and the associated underlying factors contributing to the variance.  Refer to IV.B.1 of SEC Release No. 33-8350 for guidance.  Quantify any factors cited, pursuant to section 501.04 of the staff’s Codification of Financial Reporting.  Additionally, define what you consider to be your working capital.

And here is the company’s response, including example new disclosures:

The Company acknowledges the Staff’s comment and will include in its future Annual Reports on Form 10-K enhanced disclosure regarding the matters identified above substantially similar to the following:

Operating Activities.  Net cash provided by operating activities for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 was $306.3 million and $199.1 million, respectively.  Cash provided by operations increased $101.6 million from 2018 to 2019 as a result of changes in the Company’s working capital balances in 2018, resulting from the transaction with GCU.  The Company defines working capital as the assets and liabilities, other than cash, generated through the Company’s primary operating activities.  Changes in these balances are included in the changes in assets and liabilities presented in the consolidated statement of cash flows.  Additionally, for the year ended December 31, 2019 an increase in net income of $30.2 million was partially offset by decreases in non-cash reconciling items of $24.5 million over the prior year period.

Our working capital balances changed primarily due to the transaction with GCU on July 1, 2018, which resulted in operational changes that impacted cash flows of the Company in the second half of 2018.  Commencing July 1, 2018, the Company transitioned to an education services company and no longer has student receivables but records a receivable each month for education services provided to university partners. These changes, along with accrual of interest on the Secured Note receivable from GCU, resulted in a combined $59.3 million reduction in cash inflows from receivables in 2018.    Additionally, in 2018, accounts payable and accrued liabilities associated with our operations prior to the Transaction were settled, resulting in net cash outflows of $30.0 million.

The Company will provide similar disclosures for material fluctuations in operating cash flows in future filings.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

SEC Adopts Universal Proxy Rules and Proposes Proxy Advisor Changes

On November 17, 2021, the SEC took two proxy-related actions.  The Commission:

  1. Adopted a Final Rule that requires the use of universal proxy cards in contested director elections.
  2. Proposed rules that would rescind two 2020 rules applicable to proxy voting advice.

Universal Proxy Final Rule

In a 4 to 1 vote the Commission adopted a Final Rule that requires all parties in a contested director election to use a universal proxy card, that is, a card that includes all director nominees.  In the related Press ReleaseChair Gensler said:

“These amendments address concerns that shareholders voting by proxy cannot vote for a mix of dissident and registrant nominees in an election contest, as they could if voted in person SEC.  Today’s amendments will put these candidates on the same ballot. They will put investors voting in person and by proxy on equal footing. This is an important aspect of shareholder democracy.”

You can read more about the requirements for universal proxy cards and related procedural changes in this Fact Sheet and the related Final Rule.  The rules will be effective for contested director elections held after August 31, 2022.

Proxy Voting Advice Rules

The Commission voted to propose rules that would rescind two 2020 rules related to proxy voting advice.  The proposed rules would rescind, for proxy advisory firms, conditions to the availability of two exemptions from informational and filing requirements in the proxy rules.

According to the related Press Release:

“Investors and others have expressed concerns that these conditions will impose increased compliance costs on proxy voting advice businesses and impair the independence and timeliness of their proxy voting advice.”

You can read more in this Fact Sheet and the related Proposed Rule.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

SEC Proposes Updates to Electronic Filing Requirements and Modernizes Filing Fee Disclosure and Payments Methods

Electronic Filing Requirements

On November 4, 2021, in a unanimous vote, the SEC proposed two rules to:

  • Require electronic filing of certain documents that are currently filed in paper, and
  • Change selected filing to improve their readability.

You can read more about the proposals in this Fact Sheet.  According to the related Press Release:

“The amendments are intended to promote efficiency, transparency, and operational resiliency by modernizing the manner in which information is submitted to the Commission and disclosed. Furthermore, publicly filed electronic submissions would be more readily accessible to the public and would be available on our website in easily searchable formats, which benefits both investors and the broader public.”

Among the changes proposed are:

  • A company’s “glossy” annual report would have to be filed in pdf form. Current requirements are that the “glossy” annual report be available on a company’s webpage or furnished in paper form to the SEC.
  • The financial statements and notes in Form 11-K would have to be tagged with Inline XBRL.

You can find the proposed rules here.  Both will have a comment period of 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

 

Filing Fee Disclosure and Payment Methods

On October 13, 2021, in a unanimous vote, the SEC adopted a Final Rule that modernizes filing fee disclosure and payment methods.  According to the SEC’s Press Release:

“The amendments revise most fee-bearing forms, schedules, and related rules to require companies and funds to include all required information for filing fee calculation in a structured format. The amendments also add new options for Automated Clearing House (ACH) and debit and credit card payment of filing fees and eliminate infrequently used options for filing fee payment via paper checks and money orders.”

You can read more about the changes in this Fact Sheet.  The new rules will generally be effective on January 31, 2022.  Certain provisions have extended transition provisions.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Shareholder Proposals – CorpFin Issues Staff Legal Bulletin 14L

On November 3, 2021, CorpFin issued Shareholder Proposals: Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14L to provide information about Rule 14a-8 – Shareholder Proposals.  The new Staff Legal Bulletin, or SLB, rescinds old SLBs 14I, 14J and 14K.

The first section of the new SLB:

“outlines the Division’s views on Rule 14a-8(I)(7), the ordinary business exception, and Rule 14a-8(i)(5), the economic relevance exception.”

The discussion of these issues surrounds the significant social policy exception and micromanagement.

The SLB also republishes with some “primarily technical, conforming changes,” earlier SLB guidance about using graphics and images, and proof of ownership letters.

Lastly, the new SLB includes new guidance about using email for submission of proposals, delivery of notice of defects, and responses to those notices.

You can gain perspective about the changes in the SLB in this Statement from Chair Gary Gensler and this Statement from Commissioners Peirce and Roisman.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.

Sequential Quarterly Analysis in Interim MD&A – An Example

As we blogged about in this post, the SEC’s November 2020 MD&A Final Rule provides companies an option to present sequential quarterly analysis in interim MD&As.

If you would like to see an example of a company that has implemented sequential quarterly analysis, check out this Form 10-Q from Umpqua Holdings Corporation, a bank holding company in Portland, Oregon.  At the beginning of their MD&A you will find the required disclosures to make the transition to sequential quarterly analysis.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.