Bass, Berry & Sims invites you to join us for our 2nd Annual Corporate & Securities Counsel Public Company Forum.

Although we are unable to meet in-person due to ongoing concerns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, we are excited to host this year’s forum virtually.

This complimentary program will feature timely and practical guidance on the latest developments in corporate and securities matters impacting public company in-house counsel.

Panel and breakout discussion topics will include:

  • Financial reporting and disclosure considerations.
  • Insights from public company general counsel.
  • 2021 proxy season developments.
  • Restaurant & hospitality industry trends.
  • ESG considerations.

We are also pleased to welcome Myron T. Steele, former Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, as a featured speaker. Bass, Berry & Sims partner Leigh Walton will lead a fireside chat with former Chief Justice Steele about recent areas of focus for the Delaware judiciary, including COVID-19 related emergency orders, directors’ considerations for multiple stakeholder interests when discharging fiduciary duties, and corporate governance around ESG and diversity. Their discussion will also review the impact of federal elections on corporate law.

The program will take place on December 8, 2020, from 1:00-4:00PM CT and is intended for in-house counsel, public company finance and SEC reporting personnel, compliance officers, and other interested professionals.


Continue Reading [REGISTER NOW] Corporate & Securities Counsel Public Company Forum | December 8, 2020

Over the past eight months of this pandemic, we have all seen the rise of e-commerce as a vital necessity for most companies.  For many companies, e-commerce has significantly outperformed their existing sales channels and consumers have now become acclimated to a seamless “omnichannel” shopping experience where they can purchase online and wait for delivery or pick-up curbside or in the store. A recent WSJ article proclaims that the embrace of digital commerce is here to stay even after the pandemic.

In light of the surge in e-commerce activity, it makes sense that many companies are separately calling out their e-commerce sales and growth performance in their quarterly earnings calls, SEC filings and investor presentations.

Disaggregated Revenue Disclosure Requirement

As companies continue to focus on their sales channel disclosures, one potential sleeper issue could be the new revenue recognition standard’s requirement on disclosure of disaggregated revenues.  Under ASC 606-10-50-5, a public company must “disaggregate revenue recognized from contracts with customers into categories that depict how the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows are affected by economic factors.”


Continue Reading How a Surge in E-Commerce Sales Could Impact Financial Reporting; A Look at ASC 606 and Disaggregated Revenue

As we have previously discussed, on August 26, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted to adopt amendments to modernize the description of business (Item 101), legal proceedings (Item 103), and risk factor (Item 105) disclosures that registrants are required to make according to Regulation S-K. For a summary of the rules and practical takeaways, see our prior blog post here. The new rules will be effective on November 9, 2020. The amendments, particularly the revisions to Item 101 (description of business), reflect the SEC’s continued movement to a principles-based, registrant-specific approach to disclosure.

As stated in the SEC’s economic analysis in its adopting release, prescriptive requirements employ bright-line, quantitative or other thresholds to identify when disclosure is required or require registrants to disclose the same types of information. Principles-based requirements, on the other hand, provide registrants with the flexibility to determine (1) whether certain information is material, and (2) how to disclose such information.

As registrants transition to a more principles-based disclosure regime under new Item 101, it will be interesting to see how disclosures change, if at all. However, a recent SEC comment letter exchange may reveal one example of how companies that were previously required to include sensitive disclosures as a result of the prescriptive requirements (e.g., the names of material customers), might now be able to modify their disclosures in order to remove these sensitive areas, to the extent they deem such information immaterial to investors.


Continue Reading Recent SEC Comment Letter Reveals the Difference Between Prescriptive-Based and Principles-Based Rules

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

This is a continuation of our series addressing steps companies can take to protect themselves during government enforcement actions related to COVID-19. For more information, see our previous articles addressing corporate best practices and the health care industry.

COVID-19 has affected the financial conditions and operations of all public companies, most in a negative way but some in very positive ways. Regardless of the impact, all public companies must consider the anticipated scrutiny they will receive from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the possible risk they face from SEC Enforcement if they do not proceed with caution. While the rules and landscape may continue to evolve, it seems apparent at this point that SEC scrutiny related to COVID-19 is most relevant in the following ways.

1. SEC Enforcement’s role in monitoring relief funding. In a prior article, we discussed steps health care companies can take to protect themselves against government investigations related to COVID-19. But all companies that received relief funding must be careful.


Continue Reading How Public Companies Can Protect Against SEC Scrutiny Related to COVID-19

Subscribers to our blog know that we monitor EDGAR for new SEC comment letters and enjoy bringing attention to the more interesting ones.  In today’s blog post, we bring you three new SEC comment letter exchanges.

  • In the first, the SEC asks the registrant for more information related to a COVID-19-related adjustment in its non-GAAP financial measure.
  • The second involves the SEC questioning, and eventually disagreeing with, the registrant’s materiality analysis under Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 (SAB 99).
  • The third letter involves an offering document produced by South Korea.

SEC Staff Wants More Information about a COVID-19 Adjustment in Non-GAAP Net Income

We’ve previously blogged about COVID-19-related adjustments in connection with the presentation of non-GAAP financial measures, including the difficulty that some public companies may have in reasonably quantifying the extent to which incremental expenses were driven by the COVID-19 pandemic as opposed to other factors.
Continue Reading Recent SEC Comment Letters of Interest Regarding COVID-19 Adjustments, SAB 99 and South Korea

On August 26, the SEC voted to adopt amendments to modernize the description of business (Item 101), legal proceedings (Item 103), and risk factor disclosures (Item 105) that registrants are required to make pursuant to Regulation S-K.  The amendments reflect the SEC’s continued movement to a principles-based, registrant-specific approach to disclosure.

As detailed below, some of the changes are rather significant, particularly the changes to the business disclosures and the requirement to have a new risk factor summary section of no more than two pages if the risk factors exceed 15 pages.  As a result, we expect most companies will need to make revisions and updates to their existing disclosures, specifically in connection with their Annual Report on Form 10-K where Items 101 and 105 of S-K are triggered. The rules are effective 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

The following table briefly summarizes the final amendments.  We have presented some practical takeaways following the table.


Continue Reading Practical Takeaways on SEC Amended Disclosure Requirements for Business Description, Legal Proceedings and Risk Factors under Regulation S-K

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

Public companies designated as accelerated filers who are preparing their periodic reports for fiscal periods ending on or after June 15, 2020 (i.e., upcoming second quarter 10-Qs for many companies) will be required to comply with the SEC’s previously adopted Inline eXtensible Business Reporting Language (iXBRL) digital reporting guidelines. Per the SEC’s phase-in guidelines, filers will be required to comply beginning with their first Form 10-Q filed for a fiscal period ending on or after the applicable compliance date. Therefore, accelerated filers will need to comply with the new iXBRL rules in their next 10-Q, including cover page tagging and the new Exhibit 104 requirement. (These rules already took effect last year for large accelerated filers and except for accelerated filers as mentioned here, go into effect for all other filers for fiscal periods ending on or after June 15, 2021.)

Continue Reading Reminder for Accelerated Filers – Inline XBRL Rules Now Effective

A recent SEC comment letter contained an exchange in which the Staff, in connection with a 10-K review, reminded the registrant to give equal prominence to the comparable margins computed on a GAAP basis wherever EBITDA margin and adjusted EBITDA margin were disclosed.

As a reminder, in the SEC’s Adopting Release titled “Conditions for Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” (Release No. 33-8176), the SEC states, “An example of a ratio that would not be a non-GAAP financial measure would be a measure of operating margin that is calculated by dividing revenues into operating income, where both revenue and operating income are calculated in accordance with GAAP. Conversely, an example of a ratio that would be a non-GAAP financial measure would be a measure of operating margin that is calculated by dividing revenues into operating income, where either revenue or operating income, or both, were not calculated in accordance with GAAP.”

This comment exchange, which is repeated below for reference, is a helpful reminder to our blog readership that non-GAAP continues to a focus of the Staff and that a margin number which is itself derived from one or more adjusted numbers will itself be a non-GAAP financial measure in many cases.


Continue Reading EBITDA Margins Are Non-GAAP Measures Also