On February 21 the SEC issued a  “Commission Statement and Guidance on Public Company Cybersecurity Disclosures”. The Release contains new guidelines and requirements regarding public companies’ disclosure responsibilities for cybersecurity situations. No new rules or regulations have been issued at this point, but the Release contains some valuable guidance. It is also clear that cybersecurity is a hot button for the SEC and for Chair Clayton, and I believe that cybersecurity disclosure issues will be subject to more rigorous scrutiny going forward. All public companies should carefully review the Release and evaluate their disclosure obligations in connection with cybersecurity.

The Release updates the SEC’s position on cybersecurity. The SEC’s previous guidance in this area was primarily a Corporation Finance Division Release issued in 2011 that did not contain specific disclosure requirements. The cybersecurity landscape has changed radically since then. The substantial increases in the number and severity of cybersecurity incidents, coupled with the growing dependence of businesses on cyber systems and the associated problems that arise in a cybersecurity incident, have clearly convinced the SEC that additional disclosure is required. Continue Reading SEC issues guidance on cybersecurity disclosure obligations (and more)

Photo by Allen

Now that “An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018” (the official name of the 2017 tax reform act – fitting for a “simplification” of the tax code!) has passed, issuers are faced with reviewing the impact of the tax reform act on its balance sheet, specifically deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities.

For those of us who have ignored those lines on the balance sheet, here is a quick primer: US GAAP and the US tax code have different requirements as to when to recognize income and expenses. These timing differences result in either deferred tax assets or deferred tax liabilities. In other words, if the US tax code requires recognition of income this year, but GAAP does not recognize the income yet, an issuer will need to pay the tax on the income now (the government doesn’t like to wait for its money). That’s an asset from a GAAP perspective – the issuer essentially “prepaid” income taxes that weren’t yet due as far as GAAP is concerned. From a GAAP perspective, that deferred tax asset will be used to offset GAAP tax expense in future years. The opposite is true with respect to deferred tax liabilities.

When the corporate tax rate changes (in this case, from a maximum of 35% to a maximum of 21%) the deferred tax assets aren’t as valuable anymore because the issuer won’t be subject to as much tax as it originally thought. Therefore, the tax asset needs to be written down to some lower value. That write down hits the bottom line and will have a significant adverse impact on the issuer’s quarterly results. Again, for those issuers “lucky” enough to have had significant deferred tax liabilities, those issuers will have significant gains in the quarter caused by, in essence (by lowering the tax rate), the US government partially forgiving the payment of those accrued tax obligations.

Issuers over the past week have begun to provide guidance as to what they expect the effect of the tax cut to be for their deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities.  However, there is no black and white rule requiring disclosure in this case.  While Item 2.06 (Material Impairments) of Form 8-K may initially have been of some concern for those issuers who need to write off tax assets, Corp Fin put those concerns to rest when issuing a new CD&I last week (Question 110.02). Consequently, it comes down to anti-fraud concerns as to when and what to disclose.  Continue Reading Tax cut implications – what and when to disclose


With Chair Jay Clayton and Corp Fin Director Bill Hinman now in office for several months, the SEC seems to be gaining traction in a number of areas of interest to
public companies.

Pay Ratio Disclosures

As we noted in a Gunster E-Alert, on September 21, the SEC issued interpretations to assist companies in preparing the pay ratio disclosures called for under Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K.  The consensus (with which we agree) is that the interpretations will make it much easier for companies to prepare their ratios and related disclosures and hopefully to reduce litigation exposure associated with those disclosures.

Continue Reading Your tax dollars at work (at the SEC)

back-to-school-954572_1280My last post was a re-posting of Adam Epstein’s great piece on the importance of the proxy statement.  I promised that I would follow up on Adam’s thoughts with some recommendations of my own.  Here goes.


  • Manage your proxy statement “real estate” to maximize user-friendliness and create an optimal flow: Think about where things go.  For example, if your company is owned largely by institutions (and perhaps even if it’s not), should you lead off with an endless Q&A about the annual meeting and voting, discussing such exciting topics as the difference between record and beneficial ownership and how to change your vote?  Some of it is required, but consider taking out what’s not required and moving what is required to the back of the book.
  • Use executive summaries: Investors like them, and even the SEC has more or less endorsed their use. Think of it this way – whatever you think of ISS, it does a great job of summarizing your key disclosures, albeit not with your company’s best interests in mind.  Why pass up an opportunity to convey your key disclosures with those interests in mind?

Continue Reading Required reading (Part 2)

board-1848717_1280Those of you who know me have probably heard me sing the praises of Adam Epstein.  Adam was trained as a lawyer, has been an investor, and now advises small-cap companies on matters like board composition and disclosure.  IMHO, Adam is brilliant, and his insights need to be read, absorbed and acted on.

Adam has given me permission to copy one of his recent writings here.  It was originally posted on NASDAQ MarketINSITE.  His writing addresses how important it is for small-caps to get their proxy disclosures right.  My only quibble with it is that it’s not only true for small-caps; it’s equally true for any company that seeks to get favorable votes from institutional investors.  On the subject of singing (see above), I’ve been singing this song for a long time to minimal effect, but I’m hopeful that great advocacy from people like Adam will once again prove that justice delayed isn’t always justice denied.  By the way – Adam has written a book on the importance to small companies of getting the right board members.  I don’t often read books of that type, but Adam’s is a gem.

Here’s the posting:

Considering that 78 percent of activist campaigns were waged in companies with market capitalizations below $2 billion in 2016 (according to Activist Insight), it’s incumbent upon small-cap companies to communicate clearly about issues investors care most about. Notwithstanding the fact that proxy statements address many of those issues (e.g., board composition, compensation, etc.), too many small-cap boards outsource responsibility for drafting and refining proxy statements. That’s a mistake.

Consider a few suggestions in this regard from a buy-side perspective.

Board composition. Proxies provide an invaluable opportunity for companies to clearly answer a top-of-mind concern for seasoned investors: does a company have fulsome, objective, value-added governance, or is its board primarily composed of the CEO’s friends (i.e., oversight “lite”)? The most effective proxies set forth how the backgrounds of each board member map to a company’s key strategic imperatives, key enterprise risks, and key stakeholders and customers. An inability to succinctly explain why a company has the right people in the boardroom should serve as a warning to the board that it might be time to refresh its directors.

Compensation. Most small-cap investors aren’t compensation consultants or human resource experts; it’s unwise to draft a Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) as if they were. Investors principally want to understand how officer and director compensation is aligned with strategic value drivers, particularly for companies that are performing poorly and/or compensating richly when compared to peers. Rather than just repeating last year’s CD&A, boards should spend time each year simplifying and clarifying key investor takeaways.

Storytelling. A proxy statement is a legal document, but great proxies tell a cohesive story about: (1) a company’s values, strategic imperatives and ownership; (2) who the company is run and governed by; and (3) how and why officers and directors are appropriately compensated (among other things). Why would a company expend material time and money perfecting its storytelling to customers, and then outsource a great chance to communicate directly with investors to service providers who can’t possibly know the story as well as those inside the company?

Plain English. When proxy statements are formulaic and lawyerly, savvy small-cap investors often think two things: (1) the company doesn’t value the opportunity to communicate transparently with shareholders; and/or (2) the company is trying to hide something. Most small-cap investors aren’t lawyers, and few captivating tales have ever been written in “legalese.” So if your proxy statement doesn’t tell a compelling story that virtually any investor can understand… consider starting over again.

In addition to selling goods and services, public companies also sell stock. And whether it’s to passive, active, current, or prospective investors, it’s hard to successfully sell stock when investors don’t sufficiently understand what they’re buying.

Thanks, Adam (and NASDAQ MarketINSITE).  I’ll be writing a bit more on this topic in the coming weeks.


U.S. National Archives
U.S. National Archives

If you have ever had to search for an exhibit originally filed with the SEC years ago, you know it can take forever, particularly when the exhibit consists of an original document that has been amended several times, each amendment having been separately filed.

You will soon have to search no more, because the SEC is about to make it easier for you.  On March 1, the SEC adopted a final rule requiring public companies to include a hyperlink to each exhibit listed in the exhibit index to all filings subject to Item 601 of SEC Regulation S-K.  The rule will take effect on September 1 for most companies.  (“Smaller reporting companies” and companies that are neither “large accelerated filers” nor “accelerated filers” and that submit filings in ASCII get a one-year reprieve.)

Continue Reading The missing (hyper) link

Internet Archive Book Images
Internet Archive Book Images

As noted in a recent post, the future of SEC regulation – and perhaps even of the SEC itself – is uncertain in the wake of Donald Trump’s election.  However, the SEC Staff, a smart, decent and hardworking group, continues to stick to its knitting despite the turmoil.

The most recent example of the Staff’s diligence is a “Report on Modernization and Simplification of Regulation S-K – As Required by Section 72003 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act”.  The Report was issued on Thanksgiving Eve, and it’s no turkey.  Don’t be put off by the incredibly long title or by the fact that SEC regulations have nothing to do with Surface Transportation.  The Report provides a good summary of some actions impacting Reg S-K that have been taken to date, and the Staff’s recommendations for actions down the road (assuming there is a road).

Here are some of the highlights of things that may be on the come: Continue Reading SEC Staff’s Thanksgiving Gift: No Turkey

6650058825_a23c5c0d35_qIn the midst of the chaos of the presidential election, vicious attacks from Senator Warren, and goodness knows what else, the SEC continues to crank out requests for comment, rules and interpretations.

It’s the latter category that has attracted our attention lately, as the Staff has focused on some technical matters that securities counsel have been pondering for a while.

401(k) plans with a self-directed “brokerage window”

First, in September, the SEC published updated Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations, including one on 401(k) plans that feature a so-called “brokerage window”.  It’s been generally assumed that if a plan does not include an employer stock fund in which employee funds can be invested, Securities Act registration is not required.  This CDI says “maybe not” – if the plan (a) permits employer and employee contributions to be invested through a self-directed “brokerage window”, and (b) the plan does not prohibit investments in employer stock through the window, registration may be required.

Continue Reading The SEC Keeps On Keeping On

3003307653_f29d6e3b0c_zIf you’ve been reading our posts (and probably even if you haven’t), you should know by now that the SEC has launched a “disclosure effectiveness” initiative and has already taken actions to make some disclosures more “effective”.  One such action was the publication of a 341-page “concept” release asking hundreds of questions about whether and how to address a wide range of disclosure issues.  More recently, the SEC has proposed rule changes that would eliminate some particularly pesky disclosure burdens.

Continue Reading Moving Rapidly into the 90s

Photo by Ryan Smith
Photo by Ryan Smith

On July 14, the SEC Staff published a new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation clarifying when an investor who may not be entirely passive may nonetheless remain eligible to file a beneficial ownership report on Schedule 13G rather than Schedule 13D.  Anyone who has tried to dance on the head of that pin will be relieved, particularly given the far greater disclosure burdens associated with the latter filing.

All other things being equal, the rules specify that a shareholder may file on the less burdensome Schedule 13G only if it acquired or is holding the subject equity securities with neither the purpose nor effect of changing or influencing control of the issuer.  However, the rules are not clear as to whether some actions (or an intent to engage in those actions) may make the 13G unavailable.

Continue Reading To 13G or not to 13G