Category Archives: SEC News

SEC Updates Shareholder Proposal Guidance

On February 12, 2025, the SEC issued Staff Legal Bulletin 14M, addressing several matters related to the shareholder proposal process.  Staff Legal Bulletin 14M rescinds SLB 14L and addresses the scope and application of certain parts of Rule 14a-8, including the economic relevance exclusion in Rule 14a-8(i)(5), the ordinary business exclusion in Rule 14a-8(i)(7), and issues of micromanagement.  It presents the SEC’s current views on several other issues, including proof of ownership letters and the use of email. It also includes a section of frequently asked questions.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Commissioner Peirce Addresses Potential Regulatory Directions

On January 27, 2025, SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce delivered the Alan B. Levenson Keynote Address at the Northwestern Securities Regulation Institute.  Continuing her practice of devising engaging titles for her speeches, these remarks are titled Sheep in the SteepShe begins with a description of how the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep “navigate the treacherous alpine terrains of their habitat.”  She then compares “the bighorn—making their way in a terrain that is steep, varied, and fraught with danger, including predators, avalanches, and disease” to “public companies navigating the hazardous regulatory, political, and societal landscape of today.”

Commissioner Peirce suggests seven steps to “offer a path toward more level, predictable terrain” for public companies.  Each of the seven steps, along with her thoughtful discussion behind each step, make for interesting reading.  Her step six is particularly relevant for professionals involved in public company reporting:

“A sixth step in bringing companies back to normal is for the Commission staff in our Division of Corporation Finance and Office of the Chief Accountant to re-double efforts to provide guidance to companies about the many disclosure issues that arise in the normal course of business. In the registration statement review process, staff should communicate early and often so new and seasoned issuers alike can have increased confidence in offering timelines. Of course, engagement on timing alone is not enough. The Commission also should encourage the expert staff to engage with public companies and their lawyers and accountants on difficult questions about the application of new and existing rules. This engagement should be dynamic and interactive, not formulaic. Commission staff time is well spent on these fundamental functions of a disclosure regulator, which in recent years have languished due to other Commission priorities.”

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Acting SEC Chairman Uyeda Statement on Climate-Related Disclosure Rules

On February 11, 2025, Acting SEC Chairman Mark T. Uyeda issued a Statement announcing that he has directed the SEC staff to request that the Eighth Circuit not schedule arguments for the consolidated litigation challenging the SEC’s climate-related disclosure rules.  According to the Statement this will “provide time for the Commission to deliberate and determine the appropriate next steps in these cases.”

You can read more, including concerns about the lack of statutory authority for the Commission to promulgate these rules, in the Statement.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Enforcement Division 2024 Results

On November 22, 2024, the SEC published a summary of the Enforcement Division’s fiscal-year 2024 results.  As it has in prior years, the results were published in a Press Release and accompanying Addendum where you can find all the details about types and numbers of cases.

In fiscal year 2024 the Division filed 583 total enforcement actions, a 26 percent decline from 2023.  The 583 total actions included 431 “stand-alone” actions and 93 “follow-on” administrative proceedings to bar or suspend individuals.

Continuing its focus on gatekeepers, during 2024 the SEC obtained 124 officer and director bars.

The SEC obtained orders for $8.2 billion in financial remedies in 2024, the highest amount in SEC history.

If you would like to get in in-depth perspective on the report, you can listen to our InSecurities podcast episode in which hosts Chris Ekimoff and Kurt Wolfe discuss the results with former SEC Enforcement Director Gurbir Grewal.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

CorpFin Updates SPAC Co-Registrant Details in FAQs for Voluntary Submission of Draft Registration Statements

On September 16, 2024, CorpFin updated its FAQs for companies that submit draft registration statements for nonpublic review. The JOBS Act provided this nonpublic review process for Emerging Growth Companies, and in 2017 CorpFin announced it would provide a nonpublic review option for many other companies.  The current update to the related FAQs makes a change for SPAC transactions.

The SECs Final Rules for SPACs created a requirement for companies acquired by a SPAC to be a co-registrant in a de-SPAC transaction registration statement.  The update addresses when a co-registrant’s CIK and related information should be included in the EDGAR process:

(19) Question:

If a registrant uses the confidential submission process to submit a draft registration statement in connection with a de-SPAC transaction, when should it include any co-registrant’s CIK and related submission information in the EDGAR Filing Interface?

Answer:

In EDGAR Release 24.3, EDGAR was enhanced to allow co-registrants on draft registration statement submissions. See Section 7.2.1 Accessing the EDGARLink Online Submission of the EDGAR Filer Manual. The primary registrant must include the co-registrant’s CIK and related submission information in EDGAR when it submits the draft registration statement. See Section 7.3.3.1 Entering Submission Information of the EDGAR Filer Manual. The draft registration statement must also contain the information required by the applicable registration statement form, including required information about the target company. Co-registrants do not need to separately submit the draft registration statements or related correspondence in EDGAR.

One interesting aspect of these FAQs is that finding them is a bit of a treasure hunt.  Beyond the “What’s New” notice on September 16, this Announcement, most recently updated on June 24, 2020, has a link to the FAQs.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.

A Regulation FD Double Down – DraftKings

Back in April 2013, the SEC issued a Report of Investigation addressing dissemination of information via social media channels.  The report focused on a Netflix CEO’s use of social media to disclose information relevant to investors without previously telling investors that information would be released via social media.  In the report the SEC announced that social media disclosure of information was likely not public disclosure for purposes of Regulation FD, unless investors had previously been alerted that specific social media channels would be used to disseminate information to the public.

Unfortunately, on July 27, 2023, DraftKings’ public relations firm posted information about “really strong growth” on the personal X and LinkedIn accounts of the company’s CEO.  The company had not provided prior notice that social media accounts would be used to make information public.  DraftKings’ management instructed the public relations firm to remove the posts soon after they were published.  Given that the social media posts provided previously non-public information about growth and that the information was likely material, this was probably an inadvertent selective disclosure.

Regulation FD describes two types of selective disclosure, intentional and non-intentional.  Each type has a separate required time frame to make information public.  From Regulation FD:

(a) Whenever an issuer, or any person acting on its behalf, discloses any material nonpublic information regarding that issuer or its securities to any person described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the issuer shall make public disclosure of that information as provided in § 243.101(e):

(1) Simultaneously, in the case of an intentional disclosure; and

(2) Promptly, in the case of a non-intentional disclosure.

The term “promptly” is defined in the rule:

Promptly. “Promptly” means as soon as reasonably practicable (but in no event after the later of 24 hours or the commencement of the next day’s trading on the New York Stock Exchange) after a senior official of the issuer (or, in the case of a closed-end investment company, a senior official of the issuer’s investment adviser) learns that there has been a non-intentional disclosure by the issuer or person acting on behalf of the issuer of information that the senior official knows, or is reckless in not knowing, is both material and nonpublic.

If in fact the social media posts were non-intentional disclosures, “prompt” disclosure would have been appropriate.  Unfortunately, DraftKings did not make this information public until they did their regular earnings release seven days later.

The company entered into a cease-and-desist order and paid a civil money penalty of $200,000.

You can find more details, including discussion of the materiality of the information, how DraftKings’ policies related to the disclosures, and the impact of DraftKings’ cooperation during the investigation, in the SEC’s Press Release and the related Order.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Cybersecurity Event Disclosures – New C&DIs and an Announcement Addressing Selective Disclosure Concerns

On June 24, 2024, CorpFin issued five new C&DIs addressing cybersecurity incident reporting on Form 8-K Item 1.05.  The C&DIs focus on situations where a company has experienced an attack such as a ransomware attack.  For example, C&DI 104B.05 states that if a company experiences an attack and makes a ransomware payment before a materiality determination is made, it must still make a materiality determination, and if the incident is material report it on Form 8-K Item 1.05.  New C&DI 104B.07 states that if insurance provides a recovery of all or a substantial portion of the payment, a materiality assessment based on both quantitative and qualitative considerations must still be made. And C&DI 104B.08 makes the point that the size of a ransomware payment is not the only factor in making a materiality determination.  Qualitative aspects such as potential reputational harm could make a cybersecurity incident material even in breaches where the financial impact is relatively small.

In another cybersecurity event disclosure development, on June 20, 2024, Erik Gerding, CorpFin Division Director, issued an Announcement titled “Selective Disclosure of Information Regarding Cybersecurity Incidents.”  In the Announcement Mr. Gerding states:

“Apparently, some companies are under the impression that if they experience a material cybersecurity incident, the Commission’s new rules prohibit them from discussing that incident beyond what was included in the Item 1.05 Form 8-K disclosing the incident.  That is not the case.”

Mr. Gerding notes that:

“Nothing in Item 1.05 prohibits a company from privately discussing a material cybersecurity incident with other parties or from providing information about the incident to such parties beyond what was included in an Item 1.05 Form 8-K.”

The Announcement then summarizes various concerns companies may have surrounding how Regulation FD may apply to disclosures to third parties such as vendors, customers or other companies that could be impacted by a similar incident.  After a brief review of applicable Regulation FD considerations, he then explores ways to avoid selective disclosure concerns, including a reminder that Regulation FD applies only to certain parties outside a company and that the use of confidentiality agreements can mitigate selective disclosure concerns.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

inSecurities Podcast Explores Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

Recent U.S Supreme Court decisions have addressed how the SEC can use its administrative court processes for fraud cases and ended the Chevron doctrine, which had created a presumption that courts must rely on an agency’s interpretations of ambiguous statutes.  In this episode of the inSecurities podcast, hosts Chris Ekimoff and Kurt Wolfe provide an understandable, inciteful and thorough discussion of the issues in both these areas and how the Court’s decisions may affect practice.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

CorpFin Director Provides Review Program Update

On June 24, 2024, Corporation Finance Director Eric Gerding gave an Announcement titled “The State of Disclosure Review,” and stated that “[t]his is part of an initiative to be more transparent and communicate with the marketplace about what is going on in the Disclosure Review Program.”

In his remarks Mr. Gerding describes the objectives of the review program and provides an overview of the review process.  He notes that approximately 3,300 companies were reviewed in 2023.  He enumerates frequent comment areas including China-related matters, non-GAAP measures, MD&A, revenue recognition, and financial statement presentation.  He also discusses disclosure priorities including artificial intelligence, disclosures by China-based companies, and commercial real estate as well as how CorpFin will address recently issued rules.

The announcement provides a very thorough and comprehensive discussion that will inform all professionals in the reporting process about the priorities and approach of the filing review process.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.