Bass, Berry & Sims attorneys Kevin Douglas, Eric Knox and Sehrish Siddiqui were co-presenters alongside Stephanie Bignon, Assistant General Counsel, Delta Air Lines and Priya Galante, Vice President, Assistant General Counsel & Assistant Secretary, AutoZone at the Society for Corporate Governance’s Southeastern Chapter webinar earlier this month.
This program, titled, “Preparing for the Upcoming Proxy
Over the last few weeks, we have seen a flurry of activity concerning diversity in the boardroom. The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (Nasdaq) proposed to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a new diversity rule and proxy advisory firms Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis each announced expanded diversity proxy voting guidelines. These developments continue a trend of increased investor focus on board diversity.
Nasdaq filed a proposal this week that, if approved by the SEC (subject to certain exceptions), would ultimately require boards of Nasdaq-listed companies to have at least two diverse directors, consisting of at least one director whose self-identified gender is female and at least one director who self-identifies as either an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+ (in each case as defined in the proposal).
If approved by the SEC, all Nasdaq-listed companies would be required to disclose certain statistical information regarding the diversity of their boards within one year of approval by the SEC (the Effective Date) and have at least one diverse director within two years of the Effective Date. Additionally, companies listed on the Nasdaq Global Select or Global Market tiers would be required to have at least two diverse directors within four years of the Effective Date and companies listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market would have to meet the same requirement within five years of the Effective Date. Companies failing to meet applicable requirements would have to provide to Nasdaq an explanation of their non-compliance. According to Nasdaq’s study, currently, more than 75% of its listed companies would not meet the requirements set forth under the proposed rule.Continue Reading Focus on Boardroom Diversity Intensifies
On November 17, in response to a formal rulemaking petition that garnered support from nearly 100 public companies, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending Regulation S-T and the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval system (EDGAR) Filer Manual to permit the use of electronic signatures when electronically filing documents with the SEC. The amendments will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register, though the SEC indicated in its November 20 Statement that it will not take enforcement action against issuers who elect to comply with the amendments before their effectiveness so long as signatories comply with the new requirements.
Rule 302(b) of Regulation S-T, as amended, will permit a signatory to an electronic filing to electronically sign the document, provided that the signatory follows certain procedures and the electronic signature meets certain requirements specified in the EDGAR Filer Manual. Under those requirements, the electronic signing process must, at a minimum do the following:
On September 23, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved amendments, originally proposed in November 2019 and discussed in a prior blog post, to Rule 14a-8, which governs the process for a shareholder to have its proposal included in a company’s proxy statement.
The amendments to Rule 14a-8 are intended to “modernize and enhance the efficiency and integrity of the shareholder-proposal process for the benefit of all shareholders, including to help ensure that a shareholder-proponent has demonstrated a meaningful ‘economic stake or investment interest’ in a company before the shareholder may draw on company resources to require the inclusion of a proposal in the company’s proxy statement, and before the shareholder may use the company’s proxy statement to command the attention of the other shareholders to consider and vote on the proposal.”
Set forth below is a chart comparing the key amendments. Practical considerations regarding the amendments follow.Continue Reading SEC Adopts Amendments to Shareholder Proposal Requirements, Modestly Raising Thresholds
Following up on our prior blog post regarding first quarter COVID-19 risk factor disclosure considerations and our prior blog post regarding second quarter COVID-19 risk factor disclosure considerations, we surveyed the risk factor disclosures of 75 calendar year-end NYSE- and Nasdaq-listed companies included in Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q (Form 10-Qs) filed for the first and second quarters of 2020.
Of the companies surveyed, we found that 96%, or 72 of the companies surveyed, included standalone risk factors related to COVID-19 (the average number of COVID-19 risk factors was approximately 1.16). None of the companies surveyed included an additional standalone COVID-19 risk factor in the second quarter Form 10-Q that was not in the first quarter Form 10-Q. Approximately 63%, or 47 of the companies surveyed, updated their COVID-19 risk factor disclosure from their first quarter 2020 Form 10-Q in their second quarter 2020 Form 10-Q.
The three companies that did not include a standalone COVID-19 risk factor disclosure during their first or second quarter 2020 Form 10-Q did include language indicating that COVID-19 could exacerbate or heighten the risk factors that were previously included in their 2019 Annual Report on Form 10-K. A small portion of the companies we surveyed repeated the risk factor disclosure from their first quarter Form 10-Q verbatim in their second quarter Form 10-Q. However, most of the companies that did not update their first quarter Form 10-Q COVID-19 risk factor disclosure in their second quarter Form 10-Q incorporated their first quarter Form 10-Q risk factor disclosure by reference.Continue Reading Updated Risk Factors in Response to COVID-19
As public companies continue to navigate the ongoing economic upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, opportunistic activist investors may find the resulting economic conditions conducive to accumulating significant ownership positions, agitating for changes in corporate strategy and management, and pursuing public activist campaigns. Although the number of overt activist campaigns were down during the primary 2020 proxy season, as the annual meeting season for most public companies took place during the initial months of the pandemic lockdown, the third and fourth quarters generally tend to see an increase in activist activity as hedge funds make initial preparations for the following year’s proxy season. Given these circumstances, this is an opportune time for public companies to make preparations by reviewing and evaluating their defensive profiles.
The following summarizes most of the common defensive mechanisms that companies utilize when faced with activist campaigns, hostile takeover attempts, and other attempts to influence corporate policy in ways that may not be in the best interest of all shareholders. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to defensive measures, an evaluation of the existing defensive profile of the company is a critical first step. In our experience advising on behalf of companies and their boards of directors, an analysis of the corporation’s defenses under its organizational documents and applicable law is usually undertaken and summarized for the board in connection with a defensive profile review.
Section 228(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) generally provides that, unless restricted by the certificate of incorporation, the requisite stockholders needed to approve an action may do so by written consent instead of a meeting—including actions to elect new directors or to approve a takeover proposal. Limiting stockholder action by written consent is particularly important for companies with large blocks of its common stock concentrated among one or several large stockholders, including holdings by large institutional holders, which could otherwise take swift action by written consent and without holding a stockholder meeting.Continue Reading A Practical Guide to Evaluating a Company’s Defensive Profile
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.
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
In case you missed it, we discussed virtual annual meetings at our recent Public Company Town Hall Webinar: Securities Law Guidance for First Quarter Reporting Season. Access the recording here.
Among the numerous considerations related to upcoming annual stockholder meetings being hosted solely using remote (virtual) communication as a result of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, one question that several clients and colleagues have raised is whether management must host a “live” question and answer (Q&A) session on the webcast or whether stockholders must submit their questions in advance (i.e., no “real-time” submission of questions at the meeting).
Based on our survey of company practices in the Fortune 100 (as discussed further below), most companies in our survey are allowing shareholders to ask questions during the virtual annual meeting, with 58% permitting stockholders to submit questions only during the virtual annual meeting and another 32% also permitting stockholders to submit questions in advance of the virtual annual meeting.
Continue Reading Q&A at Virtual Stockholder Meetings: A Review of Latest Trends
As calendar-year public companies are beginning to prepare their Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Form 10-Q) for their first quarter, the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the related societal and economic impact continues to evolve. One important item that companies will need to consider as part of their Form 10-Q preparation is whether any new (or expanded) risk factors relating to COVID-19 should be included in their Form 10-Q.
Form 10-Q requires companies to disclose any material changes to the risk factors that were included in their Annual Report on Form 10-K (Form 10-K). Absent merger and acquisition activity or other material developments, it is not unusual for companies to determine no material changes have occurred since their Form 10-K was filed (and as a result no new risk factor disclosure is required).
However, given the significant impact of COVID-19 on businesses so far this year, we expect most companies will update their existing risk factor disclosure. Investors and other stakeholders are paying particular attention to COVID-19 disclosures, and the risks that COVID-19 poses to a company may not always be obvious to such stakeholders absent robust disclosure.Continue Reading Reevaluating Risk Factors in Response to COVID-19
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