Category Archives: Hot Topic

A Pay Versus Performance Template from Gary M. Brown of Nelson Mullins

The SEC’s Dodd-Frank “pay versus performance” final rule raised a number of overall and detailed implementation questions.  To help companies as they build these disclosures, Gary M. Brown of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, and a frequent SEC Institute workshop leader, has built a very helpful implementation template.  You can find the template here.

In addition, on January 5, 2023, Mr. Brown and SEC Institute Director George M. Wilson will present a One-Hour Briefing,  Finished Business – The SEC’s New Pay Versus Performance and Clawback Rules, to provide insights and guidance for companies as they implement these complex new requirements.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

PCAOB Previews 2021 Inspection Observations

On December 8, 2022, the PCAOB issued a report titled “Staff Update and Preview of 2021 Inspection Observations”.  The report shows an increase in the number of audits with deficiencies at audit firms inspected in 2021.  The report indicates that many of the areas that have historically been the source of audit deficiencies continue to be problematic.  These include ICFR audit areas such as testing controls with a review element and identifying controls to test, and financial statement audit areas such as revenue recognition and inventory.  In addition, deficiencies related to the reporting of critical audit matters increased in 2021 inspections.

You can read more in this News Release and the staff report.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

CorpFin Updates Non-GAAP Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations

On December 13, 2022, just in time for the holidays, CorpFin updated several non-GAAP measure Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations.  You can find the CorpFin announcement here and the updated C&DIs here.  C&DI Questions 100.01, 100.04 – 100.06, and 102.10(a)(b)(c) were updated.  All companies that use non-GAAP measures should review these updates.

As an example, the old language of C&DI 100.01 read:

Question 100.01

Question: Can certain adjustments, although not explicitly prohibited, result in a non-GAAP measure that is misleading?

Answer: Yes. Certain adjustments may violate Rule 100(b) of Regulation G because they cause the presentation of the non-GAAP measure to be misleading. For example, presenting a performance measure that excludes normal, recurring, cash operating expenses necessary to operate a registrant’s business could be misleading. [May 17, 2016]

The update expands the discussion of what might make an adjustment misleading.  The changed language is in bold below:

Question 100.01

Question: Can certain adjustments, although not explicitly prohibited, result in a non-GAAP measure that is misleading?

Answer: Yes. Certain adjustments may violate Rule 100(b) of Regulation G because they cause the presentation of the non-GAAP measure to be misleading. Whether or not an adjustment results in a misleading non-GAAP measure depends on a company’s individual facts and circumstances.

Presenting a non-GAAP performance measure that excludes normal, recurring, cash operating expenses necessary to operate a registrant’s business is one example of a measure that could be misleading.

When evaluating what is a normal, operating expense, the staff considers the nature and effect of the non-GAAP adjustment and how it relates to the company’s operations, revenue generating activities, business strategy, industry and regulatory environment.

The staff would view an operating expense that occurs repeatedly or occasionally, including at irregular intervals, as recurring. [December 13, 2022]

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

SEC Enforcement Division Announces Fiscal Year 2022 Results

On November 15, 2022, the SEC Enforcement Division issued a press release announcing its fiscal year 2022 results.  As it did last year, the Commission again used this simpler release rather than a glossy annual report.  Highlights for the year include:

    • Money ordered in SEC actions in f/y 2022 actions totaled $6.439 billion, a significant increase over $3.852 billion for f/y 2021,
    • The Division filed 760 enforcement actions in 2022, an increase of 9 percent over the prior year, and
    • Actions included 169 “follow-on” cases to bar or suspend individuals.

You can read more details, including the SEC’s focus on individual accountability, along with commentary by SEC Chair Gary Gensler in this Press Release and accompanying addendum.

If you would like to hear a deeper discussion of the Enforcement Division’s report, you can check out this episode of our inSecurities Podcast where co-hosts Chris Ekimoff and Kurt Wolfe delve into the report with a number of experts and former inSecurities guests.  And, if you would like a deeper dive into accounting-related enforcement issues and the role of the Enforcement Division’s Chief Accountant, check out this episode of inSecurities where Chris and Kurt discuss these issues along with the auditor’s responsibility for identifying fraud with Matt Jacques, a former Chief Accountant for the SEC’s Enforcement Division.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

FASB Exposure Draft Addresses Joint Venture Formation 

Accounting for joint venture formation has never been formally addressed in the accounting literature.  As a result, the complexities of accounting for contributed assets and services and related issues have created diversity in practice.  Some joint ventures account for contributed assets at fair value while others have carried over the historical cost of the entities contributing the assets.

To address these issues, on October 27, 2022, the FASB issued a Proposed Accounting Standards Update titled “Business Combinations—Joint Venture Formations (Subtopic 805-60).”  The proposed ASU would require joint ventures as defined in the codification to apply the principles of business combination accounting to the formation process.  This would result in most assets and liabilities being measured at fair value, with certain exceptions that are consistent with existing exceptions in the business combination accounting guidance.  One important note, while the term “joint venture” is used to describe many types of entities, the definition of joint venture in the codification is narrow and would not include many entities colloquially referred to as joint ventures:

Corporate Joint Venture

A corporation owned and operated by a small group of entities (the joint venturers) as a separate and specific business or project for the mutual benefit of the members of the group. A government may also be a member of the group. The purpose of a corporate joint venture frequently is to share risks and rewards in developing a new market, product or technology; to combine complementary technological knowledge; or to pool resources in developing production or other facilities. A corporate joint venture also usually provides an arrangement under which each joint venturer may participate, directly or indirectly, in the overall management of the joint venture. Joint venturers thus have an interest or relationship other than as passive investors. An entity that is a subsidiary of one of the joint venturers is not a corporate joint venture. The ownership of a corporate joint venture seldom changes, and its stock is usually not traded publicly. A noncontrolling interest held by public ownership, however, does not preclude a corporation from being a corporate joint venture.

While the proposed ASU would not apply to all entities referred to as joint ventures, for entities that meet this definition the proposed ASU would hopefully reduce diversity in practice.

The FASB asks that comments be submitted by December 27, 2022.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

When Is a 10b5-1 Trading Plan Not a 10b5-1 Trading Plan?

How company executives and others use Rule 10b5-1 trading plans has created controversy and in fact been the subject of SEC rule making.  A recent indication that the SEC Enforcement Division is scrutinizing these plans is this September 21, 2022, Press Release announcing an enforcement action against two executives of Cheetah Mobil related to the use of a 10b5-1 plan.

The case centers on this provision of Rule 10b5-1:

Affirmative defenses.

(1)

(i) Subject to paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, a person’s purchase or sale is not “on the basis of” material nonpublic information if the person making the purchase or sale demonstrates that:

(A) Before becoming aware of the information, the person had:

(1) Entered into a binding contract to purchase or sell the security,

(2) Instructed another person to purchase or sell the security for the instructing person’s account, or

(3) Adopted a written plan for trading securities;

According to the SEC Order:

“At both the time they established the March Trading Plan and when they sold Cheetah Mobile securities pursuant to it, Sheng Fu and Ming Xu knew about the material negative trend in revenues from the Advertising Partner relationship. Sheng Fu and Ming Xu knew or recklessly disregarded that this information was material and nonpublic. Moreover, because both Sheng Fu and Ming Xu were aware of this material nonpublic information when they created the March Trading Plan, the March Trading Plan did not comport with the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b5-1.”

Both officers paid civil money penalties and agreed to several conditions to trading in Cheetah Mobile’s securities, including requirements that they provide notice to an independent third party about any trading activity and any new 10b5-1 plans, to observe a 120-day “cooling off” period before trading under any new 10b5-1 plan, and to only have one such plan at any time.  These requirements will sound familiar if you have read the SEC’s proposed rule.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

FASB Moves Its Crypto Asset Project Forward

When the FASB added Accounting for and Disclosure of Crypto Assets to its technical agenda, investors, auditors, preparers, regulators and other constituents were glad that the Board would address the complex and challenging accounting issues presented by crypto assets.  At its October 12, 2022 meeting, as you can read in this Tentative Board Decisions report, the FASB addressed perhaps the most complex issue surrounding crypto assets, measurement basis. 

Most believe that crypto assets fall into the current accounting framework for indefinite-lived intangible assets.  Many of the FASB’s constituents believe the historical cost with impairment testing approach provided in this model does not communicate the most relevant information about crypto assets.  It would appear that the FASB agrees.  The Board reached a tentative conclusion that crypto assets should be carried at fair value with gains and losses included in comprehensive income.  Many would agree that this is a much more reasonable and relevant approach for these kinds of volatile assets.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

SEC Charges VMware in “Reverse” Channel Stuffing Case

We have blogged about many SEC “pull forward” enforcement cases.  They all involve companies that “pull forward” orders scheduled for future periods to the current period to meet sales forecasts and expectations. (Check out this post for several example cases).  As the volume of these cases shows, “pull forwards” are a common way companies can try to mask revenue shortfalls.  Interestingly, in almost all these cases, there is no financial statement revenue recognition misstatement.  Goods are shipped and revenue is recognized in the proper period.  Most of these cases focus on companies not disclosing the impact of related management practices, including price reductions, extended payment terms and the potential impact on future period revenues.

In an interesting twist on this practice, on September 12, 2022, the SEC charged VMware with “managing” its backlog to move orders from current quarters to future quarters, the mirror image of a “pull forward.”  According to the SEC’s Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release, this allowed VMware to meet revenue forecasts and related analysts’ expectations during a period where its business slowed relative to projections and its sales mix was shifting from a point in time license model to a revenue recognition over time subscription model.

The basis for this case is failing to disclose to investors how VMware “managed” its backlog.  Revenue was not misstated.  The case includes disclosures in Exchange Act reports, earnings calls and earnings releases. According to the AAER:

“Beginning with its Form 10-Q filed for Q1 FY19, VMware began disclosing in its filings that ‘[t]he amount and composition of [VMware’s] backlog will fluctuate period to period, and backlog is managed based upon multiple considerations, including product and geography,’ but the disclosure omitted material information regarding the discretionary nature of VMware’s backlog, the extent to which VMware controlled the amount of its backlog, and how backlog was used to manage the timing of the company’s recognition of total and license revenue. In actuality, VMware’s backlog practices during the relevant period were controlled for the purpose of determining in which quarters revenue would be recognized and had the effect of obscuring the company’s financial results and avoiding revenue shortfalls versus company financial guidance and analysts’ estimates in at least three quarters during FY20, as well as full-year FY20.”

The AAER focuses on disclosure:

“In making public statements regarding its backlog, VMware omitted material information regarding the extent to which the company controlled its quarter-end total and license backlog numbers through its use of discretionary holds, and the extent to which it used backlog to control the timing of revenue recognition generally. The managed backlog disclosure did not convey to investors the material information that backlog was used by VMware to manage the timing of revenue recognition based upon factors such as the company’s financial guidance and  analysts’ estimates. This information was necessary in order to make VMware’s statements regarding its backlog, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.”

In key parts of the AAER, the SEC addresses materiality:

“VMware’s statements and omissions regarding its quarterly revenue and revenue growth, without disclosing the impact that the company’s discretionary backlog practices and revenue management had on reported revenue, materially concealed a substantial FY20 slowing in the company’s recognized revenue growth versus expectations. Reasonable investors would have considered the foregoing information to have been important in deciding whether to purchase VMware securities during the relevant period.”

“In addition, this was important information to analysts, who began questioning VMware’s backlog ‘drawdown’ following the company’s Q1 earnings call and continued to question the continual reductions in quarter-end backlog numbers throughout the remainder of the fiscal year. VMware recognized the materiality of the issue when preparing its Q&A scripts.”

VMware paid an $8,000,000 fine.  The company did not admit or deny the SEC’s findings.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.

SEC Amends Whistleblower Rules

On August 26, 2022, the SEC amended its whistleblower program rules to incentivize whistleblower tips. As you can read in the related Press Release, the changes “allow the Commission to pay whistleblowers for their information and assistance in connection with non-SEC actions in additional circumstances” and “affirms the Commission’s authority to consider the dollar amount of a potential award for the limited purpose of increasing an award but not to lower an award.”

You can read more about the changes in the related Fact Sheet and final rule.

To date, the whistleblower program has paid out over $1.3 billion to 281 individuals.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

The SEC’s Proposed Climate-Related Disclosures: Post Nine – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Attestation Requirements

In the first post in this series, we overviewed the three main areas addressed in the SEC’s Proposed Rule for climate-related disclosures:

  • Governance, strategy, risk and related disclosures outside the financial statements
  • Greenhouse gas emission disclosures and attestation requirements
  • Financial statement disclosures

As you may have heard and can read about in this Press Release, the comment period for this proposal ended June 17, 2022.

Subsequent posts in this series have addressed proposed disclosures for:

This post explores the proposed attestation requirements for greenhouse gas emission disclosures.  As a reminder, greenhouse gas disclosures would be required for all companies in their annual reports on Forms 10-K and 20-F, with updates on Forms 10-Q and 6-K.  Smaller reporting companies would not be subject to the Scope 3 disclosure requirements.  The related attestation requirements would apply to accelerated and large accelerated filers.  The attestation requirements fall into the following categories:

  • Attestation
  • Attestation provider
  • Attestation report requirements
  • Additional disclosures
  • Voluntary attestation reporting

Attestation

For companies that are accelerated or large accelerated filers and are required to disclose Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions the proposed rule would require an attestation report for those disclosures.  The specific requirements concerning the provider of the attestation report and the form of the report are described below.

The attestation requirement would not apply to the first year that Scope 1 and Scope 2 disclosures are required.  For the second and third years where Scope 1 and Scope 2 disclosures are provided, an attestation report providing “limited assurance” would be required.  For the fourth and following years a “reasonable assurance” report would be required.

The attestation report would be prepared using standards that are:

  • Publicly available at no cost;
  • Established by a body or group that has followed due process procedures; and
  • Broadly distributed for public comment.

A limited assurance report for years two and three would include words to the effect that “nothing came to their attention” of the attestation report provider that the information presented was not prepared in accordance with a chosen set of standards.  The process and procedures underlying this limited assurance report would be based on those standards.

If you would like to see an example of limited assurance on ESG information check out page 77 of Coke’s ESG report.  The last paragraph has the limited assurance report, which includes this language:

“Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the Schedule of Selected Sustainability Indicators for the year ended December 31, 2020, in order for it to be in accordance with the Criteria.”

In subsequent years when a reasonable assurance report would be required the provider would do more work and their report would say words to the effect that “in their opinion” the information presented has been prepared in accordance with the chosen set of standards.  This would be more like the report companies receive on their financial statements:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of The Coca-Cola Company and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, shareowners’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2021, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2021, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

If a company provides voluntary assurance before the required transition date, it must comply with the requirements described below.

Attestation provider

The attestation report must be provided by a “GHG emissions attestation provider.”  The proposed rule provides a list of required characteristics that make a person or firm a “GHG emissions attestation provider.”  The list includes criteria to determine if a provider is an “expert” in GHG emissions by virtue of possessing significant experience and sufficient competence and capabilities and to determine if the person or firm is independent.  You can read more in the details of proposed S-K Item 1505 below.

Attestation report requirements

The attestation report would be included in the proposed “Climate-Related Disclosure” section in the filing.  The form and content of the report would follow the reporting standards in the standards used by the attestation provider.  The proposed rule includes a lengthy list of minimum requirements for the report including identification of the standards used, the level of assurance provided and a statement about independence.

Additional disclosures

In addition to the attestation report, disclosures would include:

  • Whether the attestation provider has a relevant license from any relevant licensing or accreditation body;
  • If applicable, identification of the licensing or accreditation body;
  • Whether the attestation provider is a member in good standing of the licensing or accreditation body;
  • Whether the attestation engagement is subject to any oversight inspection program(s);
  • If applicable which oversight inspection program(s);
  • Whether the attestation provider is subject to record-keeping requirements; and
  • If applicable, identify the record-keeping requirements and the duration of those requirements.

Voluntary attestation reporting

If a company that is not required to provide an attestation report does in fact provide such a report it must make several disclosures, including the identity of the provider, the standards used, the level of attestation, any relationship with the attestation provider and whether the provider is subject to an oversight program.

Summary

The complexity of the attestation process and the related costs have been the subject of comments in the SEC’s rulemaking process.  Our next post will explore the proposed S-X financial statement disclosure requirements.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

For reference here is proposed S-K Item 1505.

1505 Attestation of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions disclosure.

(a) Attestation.

(1) A registrant that is required to provide Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions disclosure pursuant to § 229.1504 and that is an accelerated filer or a large accelerated filer must include an attestation report covering such disclosure in the relevant filing. For filings made by an accelerated filer or a large accelerated filer for the second and third fiscal years after the compliance date for § 229.1504, the attestation engagement must, at a minimum, be at a limited assurance level and cover the registrant’s Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions disclosure. For filings made by an accelerated filer or large accelerated filer for the fourth fiscal year after the compliance date for § 229.1504 and thereafter, the attestation engagement must be at a reasonable assurance level and, at a minimum, cover the registrant’s Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions disclosures.

(2) Any attestation report required under this section must be provided pursuant to standards that are publicly available at no cost and are established by a body or group that has followed due process procedures, including the broad distribution of the framework for public comment. An accelerated filer or a large accelerated filer obtaining voluntary assurance prior to the first required fiscal year must comply with subparagraph (e) of this section. Voluntary assurance obtained by an accelerated filer or a large accelerated filer thereafter must follow the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section and must use the same attestation standard as the required assurance over Scope 1 and Scope 2.

(b) GHG emissions attestation provider. The GHG emissions attestation report required by paragraph (a) of this section must be prepared and signed by a GHG emissions attestation provider. A GHG emissions attestation provider means a person or a firm that has all of the following characteristics:

(1) Is an expert in GHG emissions by virtue of having significant experience in measuring, analyzing, reporting, or attesting to GHG emissions. Significant experience means having sufficient competence and capabilities necessary to:

(i) Perform engagements in accordance with professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements; and

(ii) Enable the service provider to issue reports that are appropriate under the circumstances.

(2) Is independent with respect to the registrant, and any of its affiliates, for whom it is providing the attestation report, during the attestation and professional engagement period.

(i) A GHG emissions attestation provider is not independent if such attestation provider is not, or a reasonable investor with knowledge of all relevant facts and circumstances would conclude that such attestation provider is not, capable of exercising objective and impartial judgment on all issues encompassed within the attestation provider’s engagement.

(ii) In determining whether a GHG emissions attestation provider is independent, the Commission will consider:

(A) Whether a relationship or the provision of a service creates a mutual or conflicting interest between the attestation provider and the registrant (or any of its affiliates), places the attestation provider in the position of attesting such attestation provider’s own work, results in the attestation provider acting as management or an employee of the registrant (or any of its affiliates), or places the attestation provider in a position of being an advocate for the registrant (or any of its affiliates); and

(B) All relevant circumstances, including all financial or other relationships between the attestation provider and the registrant (or any of its affiliates), and not just those relating to reports filed with the Commission.

(iii) The term “affiliates” as used in this section has the meaning provided in 17 CFR 210.2-01, except that references to “audit” are deemed to be references to the attestation services provided pursuant to this section.

(iv) The term “attestation and professional engagement period” as used in this section means both:

(A) The period covered by the attestation report; and

(B) The period of the engagement to attest to the registrant’s GHG emissions or to prepare a report filed with the Commission (“the professional engagement period”). The professional engagement period begins when the GHG attestation service provider either signs an initial engagement letter (or other agreement to attest a registrant’s GHG emissions) or begins attest procedures, whichever is earlier.

(c) Attestation report requirements. The GHG emissions attestation report required by paragraph (a) of this section must be included in the separately captioned “Climate-Related Disclosure” section in the filing. The form and content of the attestation report must follow the requirements set forth by the attestation standard (or standards) used by the GHG emissions attestation provider. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at a minimum the report must include the following:

(1) An identification or description of the subject matter or assertion being reported on, including the point in time or period of time to which the measurement or evaluation of the subject matter or assertion relates;

(2) An identification of the criteria against which the subject matter was measured or evaluated;

(3) A statement that identifies the level of assurance provided and describes the nature of the engagement;

(4) A statement that identifies the attestation standard (or standards) used;

(5) A statement that describes the registrant’s responsibility to report on the subject matter or assertion being reported on;

(6) A statement that describes the attestation provider’s responsibilities in connection with the preparation of the attestation report;

(7) A statement that the attestation provider is independent, as required by paragraph (a) of this section;

(8) For a limited assurance engagement, a description of the work performed as a basis for the attestation provider’s conclusion;

(9) A statement that describes significant inherent limitations, if any, associated with the measurement or evaluation of the subject matter against the criteria;

(10) The GHG emissions attestation provider’s conclusion or opinion, based on the applicable attestation standard(s) used;

(11) The signature of the attestation provider (whether by an individual or a person signing on behalf of the attestation provider’s firm);

(12) The city and state where the attestation report has been issued; and

(13) The date of the report.

(d) Additional disclosures by the registrant. In addition to including the GHG emissions attestation report required by paragraph (a) of this section, a large accelerated filer and an accelerated filer must disclose the following information within the separately captioned “Climate-Related Disclosure” section in the filing, after requesting relevant information from any GHG emissions attestation provider as necessary:

(1) Whether the attestation provider has a license from any licensing or accreditation body to provide assurance, and if so, identify the licensing or accreditation body, and whether the attestation provider is a member in good standing of that licensing or accreditation body;

(2) Whether the GHG emissions attestation engagement is subject to any oversight inspection program, and if so, which program (or programs); and

(3) Whether the attestation provider is subject to record-keeping requirements with respect to the work performed for the GHG emissions attestation engagement and, if so, identify the record-keeping requirements and the duration of those requirements.

(e) Disclosure of voluntary attestation. A registrant that is not required to include a GHG emissions attestation report pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must disclose within the separately captioned “Climate-Related Disclosure” section in the filing the following information if the registrant’s GHG emissions disclosures were subject to third-party attestation or verification:

(1) Identify the provider of such attestation or verification;

(2) Describe the attestation or verification standard used;

(3) Describe the level and scope of attestation or verification provided;

(4) Briefly describe the results of the attestation or verification;

(5) Disclose whether the third-party service provider has any other business relationships with or has provided any other professional services to the registrant that may lead to an impairment of the service provider’s independence with respect to the registrant; and

(6) Disclose any oversight inspection program to which the service provider is subject (e.g., the AICPA’s peer review program).