On August 23, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that effective October 1, 2021, the fees that public companies and other issuers pay to register their securities with the SEC will be set at $92.70 per million dollars of the proposed maximum aggregate offering price of the securities to be registered, a 15% reduction
David Venturella is an associate in the Corporate & Securities Practice Group. His practice focuses on mergers and acquisitions, securities laws compliance and disclosure, corporate governance, and capital markets transactions. David works with clients operating across a broad range of industries, including healthcare, behavioral health, home health and hospice, REITs, and restaurants.
Following the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) issuance of interpretive guidance regarding the disclosure of key performance indicators and metrics (KPIs) early last year, we’ve been tracking SEC comments in this area as the SEC fully incorporates the guidance into its disclosure review program. We’ve highlighted a few of the comment letters previously, but several recently issued comment letters caught our attention.
Spotting a KPI
Under the SEC’s KPI guidance, a KPI is one of the key variables through which management evaluates a company’s performance or status, disclosure of which would be material to investors. The SEC guidance states as follows:
“Some companies also disclose non-financial and financial metrics when describing the performance or the status of their business. Those metrics can vary significantly from company to company and industry to industry, depending on various facts and circumstances. For example, some of these metrics relate to external or macro-economic matters, some are company or industry specific, and some are a combination of external and internal information. Some companies voluntarily disclose specialized, company-specific sales metrics, such as same store sales or revenue per subscriber. Some companies also voluntarily disclose environmental metrics, including metrics regarding the observed effect of prior events on their operations.”
The guidance reminds companies that when including metrics in their disclosure companies should consider existing MD&A requirements as well as the extent to which an existing regulatory framework applies, such as GAAP or, for non-GAAP financial measures, Regulation G or Item 10 of Regulation S-K. Although the SEC guidance instructs companies to consider whether other regulatory disclosure frameworks apply, in practice the lines between a KPI metric and a non-GAAP financial measure can be blurred in some cases. And because of the SEC Staff’s laser focus on non-GAAP financial measure disclosures the past several years, it is easy to see how some companies may choose to err on the side of categorizing a metric as a non-GAAP financial measure when the metric falls in this blurred area.Continue Reading Are You Sure That Metric is a Non-GAAP Financial Measure? SEC’s Focus on Key Performance Indicators Continues
Earlier this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued interpretive guidance, effective February 25, 2020, regarding the disclosure of key performance indicators and metrics (KPIs) in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A), which we discussed in a previous blog post.
This guidance may not have been at the forefront of disclosure matters under consideration for many companies during the first quarter 2020 reporting cycle given the disclosure and other challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic at that time.
Reminders for Public Companies
With the passage of time and a greater sense of clarity on COVID-19 disclosure matters, some companies may use the second quarter 2020 financial reporting cycle as an opportunity to revisit, review and, to the extent necessary, revise their KPI disclosure to ensure alignment with SEC’s interpretative guidance issued during the first quarter 2020. As companies do so, they should ensure that KPIs and other operating metrics disclosed in the MD&A are appropriately considered. For example, to the extent a company identifies an operating metric as a KPI, the company should ensure that its disclosure aligns with the SEC’s interpretive guidance, which may include current and prior-year period comparative disclosure and analysis of factors contributing to year-over-year changes, to the extent material.Continue Reading Second Quarter Form 10-Q Disclosure Reminder: SEC Guidance on Key Performance Indicators
The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) recently issued interpretive guidance, effective February 25, 2020, regarding the disclosure of key performance indicators and metrics (KPIs) in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A).
While this guidance may not have been an area of significant focus for many companies in the recent periodic reporting cycle given that the effective date of this guidance was after the time that many calendar-year public companies filed their Annual Reports on Form 10-K, this guidance will need to be considered in connection with the preparation of upcoming Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q.
Overview of the Staff’s Recent Guidance Regarding KPIs in MD&As
The MD&A is generally required to contain discussion of a company’s financial condition, changes in financial condition, and results of operations. Also, according to Item 303(a) of Regulation S-K, the MD&A is also required to contain discussion of information not specifically referenced in the item that the company believes is necessary to an understanding of its financial condition, changes in financial condition, and results of operations. Instruction 1 to Item 303(a) also provides that the MD&A should include a discussion and analysis of other statistical data that in the company’s judgment enhances a reader’s understanding of MD&A.Continue Reading SEC Interpretive Guidance on Key Performance Indicators and Metrics in MD&A, and a Recent KPI Comment Letter
In a previous blog post, we described the steps some states have taken or are currently taking to permit or facilitate virtual shareholder meetings (i.e., “virtual-only” or “hybrid” meetings) in light of the numerous restrictions on travel and large gatherings resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The governors of California, Massachusetts and North Carolina subsequently issued executive orders that suspend the application of state law that would otherwise render a virtual annual meeting impractical or impossible.
On March 30, 2020, and effective for meetings that have already been scheduled or must occur before June 30, 2020, the governor of California issued an executive order suspending the application of California Corporations Code Sections 20 and 600, which require a corporation to obtain the consent of its shareholders before holding a virtual annual meeting.Continue Reading More States Temporarily Ease Restrictions on Virtual Annual Meetings
In a previous blog post, we discussed the availability of virtual shareholder meetings (i.e., “virtual-only” and “hybrid” meetings) as a potential alternative to the traditional in-person meeting during the 2020 proxy season in light of the public health and safety crisis posed by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (we also discussed virtual annual meeting guidance provided by the SEC in a subsequent blog post). In response to COVID-19, states such as Connecticut, Georgia, New Jersey and New York have taken steps to remove barriers to virtual annual meetings under existing state law. Continue reading to learn more about steps these states are taking.
Continue Reading States Remove Barriers to Virtual Annual Meetings in Light of COVID-19 Pandemic
In a previous blog post, we discussed the availability of virtual shareholder meetings (i.e., “virtual-only” and “hybrid” meetings) as a potential alternative to the traditional in-person meeting during the 2020 proxy season in light of the emerging public health and safety crisis posed by the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). The Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance and Division of Investment Management subsequently issued guidance for conducting virtual annual meetings under these unprecedented circumstances.
The Staff confirmed that if a company has already mailed and filed its proxy materials, the company can notify shareholders of a change in the date, time or location of the annual meeting without amending its definitive proxy materials or mailing additional soliciting materials if the company issues a press release announcing the change, files the announcement as definitive additional soliciting material on EDGAR, and takes all reasonable steps necessary to inform other interested parties in the proxy solicitation process (e.g., any proxy service providers and applicable national securities exchanges) of the change. These actions should be taken promptly after the decision to hold a virtual meeting is made and, in any case, sufficiently in advance of the annual meeting. Therefore, companies that have already filed and mailed their definitive proxy materials would not need to mail additional soliciting materials (including new proxy cards) solely to switch to a “virtual” or “hybrid” meeting if they follow the steps described above for announcing a change in the meeting date, time, or location.Continue Reading SEC Staff Provides Guidance for Conducting Virtual Meetings in Light of COVID-19 Pandemic
Across the globe, the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) is causing governments, companies, associations and colleges and universities to take unprecedented steps to address the spread and transmission of COVID-19. These steps include imposing restrictions on travel and public life; closing physical offices or campuses; canceling conferences, meetings and other scheduled group activities; restricting the size of gatherings; and encouraging or requiring employees and students to telecommute.
With increasing COVID-19 concerns in the United States and proxy season underway, public companies, including those that have already mailed proxy materials, may need to consider alternatives to conducting in-person shareholder meetings in light of the emerging public health crisis posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, companies should assess whether or not a virtual meeting format is a viable alternative to the customary in-person meeting. Virtual meetings are generally divided into the following two categories:
- Virtual-only meetings conducted solely using remote communication.
- Hybrid meetings conducted in-person with concurrent participation by remote communication.