Securities Exchanges

Subscribe to Securities Exchanges via RSS

compensation committeesIssuers listed on the NYSE or Nasdaq should pay close attention to the rules proposed by the exchanges last week because the proposed rules will impact compensation committees; however, the impact may be a “tale of two exchanges” because the impact is more significant to Nasdaq-listed companies.  As you may recall, Congress included several provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act to combat perceived public concerns over excessive executive compensation.  One provision, say-on-pay, has been implemented, but other more controversial provisions such as executive compensation clawbacks and executive compensation pay ratios have not been implemented.  Last week, the exchanges proposed rules to implement the independence requirements for compensation committees required under Dodd-Frank. 

As we have mentioned before, Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act does not infringe on traditional state corporation law by requiring an issuer to have a compensation committee or to have a compensation committee actually approve executive compensation.  Instead, it directs the exchanges to design and implement their interpretations of corporate governance best practices based on the parameters of Section 952.  The NYSE and Nasdaq proposed rules are different, and I highlight some of the most important aspects of each of the set of rules below.  In general, NYSE-listed companies are impacted significantly less than Nasdaq-listed companies.  

Director Independence  

The SEC rules implementing Section 952 require that the exchanges’ definition of independence consider relevant factors such as (i) the source of the director’s compensation, including any consulting, advisory, or other compensatory fees paid by the listed company and (ii) whether the director has an affiliate relationship with the company.  The two exchanges interpreted the SEC’s rules vastly different.  

The NYSE merely maintains its current definition of “independence” and requires the issuer to consider the two additional factors set out by the SEC.  In practice, it would be highly unlikely that the two additional factors set out by the SEC would impact a board’s assessment of a particular director’s independence.  

Nasdaq’s current definition of “independent director” remains in effect; however, Nasdaq has elected to overlay a separate independence
Continue Reading Proposed compensation committee independence rules will impact some issuers more than others

Coke vs. Pepsi.  Apple vs. Microsoft.  Energizer vs. Duracell.  All are great brand rivalries.  Today we look at one of the biggest rivalries in the capital markets space: NYSE vs. Nasdaq.  And ever since the Nasdaq debacle with the Facebook IPO, the rivalry has only intensified. 

Companies going public face lots of decisions including where to list their shares.  Ever since the dot-com craze of the late 1990s, the rivalry between the NYSE and Nasdaq has been fierce.  Each exchange attempts to woo each other’s clients to switch their listing.  In fact, some big names have changed exchanges over the past year.  Texas Instruments and Viacom switched from the NYSE to Nasdaq in 2011.  Earlier this year, TD Ameritrade left Nasdaq for the Big Board, but Nasdaq countered by poaching Kraft.  Nasdaq (with its history of winning the listings of technology companies) and the NYSE have been fighting hand-to-hand in the technology company space with Groupon and Zynga choosing Nasdaq and LinkedIn and Pandora going with the NYSE.  So is one exchange better than the other?  This post will examine some of the most important factors you should consider in making your decision.

Historic Differences.  The NYSE started operating in 1792 while Nasdaq started up in 1971.  The 200 year head start by the NYSE led to a couple of differences initially, but these changes have largely disappeared over the past decade.  Nasdaq has no physical trading floor; it is 100% electronic.  Because the NYSE operated without the assistance of computers for the bulk of its existence, it has a physical trading floor; however, since 2007 virtually all NYSE stock can be traded electronically.  One of the other major differences went away in 2008 when the SEC began allowing Nasdaq-listed companies to have one-, two- or three-letter ticker symbols.  Historically, all Nasdaq-listed companies needed to have a four letter trading symbol.  (Zillow was the first Nasdaq-listed company to take a one-letter trading symbol, “Z.”)  The ticker change followed Nasdaq’s conversion from an interdealer quotation system to a licensed national exchange in 2006, which from an issuer’s perspective, had little to no effect other than to further legitimize the then 35-year old “upstart” Nasdaq.

Branding and Marketing.  The biggest difference between the two exchanges is the public’s perception of the exchanges.  Nasdaq with its upstart image and all electronic trading platform has attracted more technology-based companies, many of which did not qualify to list on the NYSE when they originally went public.  The Big Board, on the o
Continue Reading Where to list: NYSE or Nasdaq?

Compensation committees remain on the hot seat.  Stemming from the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC has adopted rules directing each national securities exchange to require companies with listed equity securities to comply with new compensation committee and compensation advisor requirements. Among other things, these new rules require national securities exchanges to implement listing standards that require :

  • each member of a listed company’s compensation committee to be an “independent” director;
  • the issuer to consider relevant factors (to be determined by the national securities exchange) including, but not limited to, the source of compensation of a member of the compensation committee member and whether a compensation committee member is “affiliated” with the issuer, subsidiary of the issuer, or an affiliate of the subsidiary;
  • an issuer’s compensation committee to have the authority and responsibility to retain compensation advisers and consider the independence of compensation advisers; and
  • require issuers to include specified disclosure about the use of compensation consultants and any related conflicts of interest in the proxy materials for their annual shareholders’ meetings.

As we noted when these rules were originally proposed, the SEC has not infringed on the traditional rights of states to define corporate law because these new rules do not require an issuer to have a compensation committee.  Rather, the new rules require that the independence rules be applied to committees performing functions typically performed by a compensation committee regardless of the name of the committee (compensation committee, human resource committee, etc.).  Under the final rules, the SEC has broadened the independence requirement to apply also to the members of the listed issuer’s board of directors who, in the absence of a compensation committee, oversee executive compensation matters.

The final definition of “independence” for a compensation committee will largely depend on the final rules of each national
Continue Reading Are your compensation committee members independent?

When someone refers to a company as being “publicly traded” we normally understand that to mean that it has sold shares to the public through an initial public offering (or “IPO”) and is listed on a national securities exchange (like the NYSE or Nasdaq) and makes periodic filings with the SEC. However, some smaller companies that are not listed on a national exchange and that have never filed any documents with the SEC are coming to find out that they may in fact be “publicly traded” and may not even realize it. Moreover, being classified as “publicly traded,” under certain circumstances, can impose requirements on the company to provide notice for certain corporate events and pay associated fees.

Rule 10b-17 and FINRA Rule 6490

Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”) is one of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act and imposes liability on persons engaged in the use of “manipulative or deceptive devices or contrivances”  in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. Pursuant to its rule making authority, the SEC has enacted a number of rules (the most well-known of which is Rule 10b-5) which regulate these manipulative and deceptive devices and contrivances in order to protect investors.

Less well-known among these rules is Rule 10b-17 which relates to untimely announcements of record dates. Specifically, Rule 10b-17 states that failure by an issuer of a class of securities publicly traded to give 10-days’ prior notice to FINRA of the establishment of record dates relating to dividends, distributions, stock splits, or rights or other subscription offerings, constitutes a “manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” for Section 10(b) purposes.

FINRA Rule 6490 (effective as of September 27, 2010) codified the Rule 10b-17 notification requirements and requires issuers subject to the rule to pay the applicable fees in connection with their submission of the required notice. Most notably, notifications which are late can trigger a late fee of up to $5,000.

Our company is privately-held so why should we care?

At first glance, the rules above seem to only apply to companies who have securities which are publicly traded. In fact, the rule
Continue Reading Your company may be ‘publicly traded’ without your knowledge – and there may be a price to pay

Pursuant to Section 417 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC’s Division of Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation is undertaking two current studies involving short selling. The first study focuses on the state of short selling on national securities exchanges and in the over-the-counter markets. 

The SEC is seeking comments to complete its second study involving…

Last Wednesday, the SEC proposed new rules required by Section 952 of Dodd-Frank Act.  Under the proposal, each national securities exchange will be required to adopt new listing standards to prohibit the listing of any issuer that is not in compliance with the exchange’s independence requirements for compensation committees.  While compensation committees will need to be comprised entirely of independent directors, each national securities exchange will need to define independence for itself taking into consideration two factors: (1) the source of compensation of a Board member, including any consulting, advisory, or other compensatory fee paid by the issuer to the Board member, and (2) whether a Board member is affiliated with the issuer.  It is important to note that, in passing the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress did not infringe on the traditional role of states in defining corporate law.  There is neither a requirement to actually have a compensation committee nor a requirement for a compensation committee to approve executive compensation.  Any such requirements would be set forth by the national securities exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange currently requires.

The independence requirements, as proposed, would be applicable to any committee of the Board that oversees executive compensation, whether or not the committee is formally designated as a “compensation committee.”  While this particular requirement of the proposed rules is an attempt to prevent issuers from evading the independence requirements by renaming the
Continue Reading National Securities Exchanges to Adopt New Listing Standards to Ensure Independence of Compensation Committees