Tag: Securities Regulation


Making Executive Compensation More Accountable

Luis A. Aguilar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Aguilar’s remarks at a recent open meeting of the SEC; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Aguilar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance about CEO pay includes Paying for Long-Term Performance (discussed on the Forum here) and the book Pay without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation, both by Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried.

When it comes to compensation, Americans believe you should earn your money. They also believe, just as strongly, that you should not keep what you did not earn. It’s fundamental to our values. However, when companies have to restate their financial statements because they violated applicable reporting requirements, their executives may not be required to reimburse any incentive-based compensation that was erroneously paid. In other words, they get to keep what they never should have received in the first place.

And, quite often, we are talking about very large amounts. In today’s corporate world, many executives are earning eye-catching sums. Much of the increase in executive compensation is commonly attributed to the impact of incentive-based compensation, including equity and other performance-based compensation plans.

Incentive-based compensation plans are intended to align the interests of company managers and shareholders. However, when a company is required to issue a restatement, and when its executives have been paid compensation based on inflated financial results, this alignment disappears. In such cases, it is only fair that these erroneously awarded payments be recovered.

READ MORE »

SEC Proposes More Frequent and Detailed Fund Holdings Disclosure

John M. Loder is partner and co-head of the Investment Management practice group at Ropes & Gray LLP. This post is based on a Ropes & Gray Alert.

On May 20, 2015, the SEC proposed new and amended rules and forms (the “Proposals”) that, if adopted, will significantly broaden the type and scope of information reported by registered investment companies. The Proposals, which are summarized below, fall into five categories:

  • New Form N-PORT, which would require registered investment companies to report detailed information about their monthly portfolio holdings and risk metrics to the SEC using a prescribed XML data format.
  • New Rule 30e-3, which would permit registered investment companies to transmit periodic reports to their shareholders by making the reports and quarterly portfolio information accessible online.
  • New Form N-CEN, which would require registered investment companies to report census-type information to the SEC annually, using a prescribed XML data format.
  • Elimination of Forms N-Q and N-SAR, as well as amendments of certain other rules and forms.
  • Amendments to Regulation S-X, which would require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements consistent with Form N-PORT.

READ MORE »

A Threefold Cord—Working Together to Meet the Pervasive Challenge of Cyber-Crime

Luis A. Aguilar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Aguilar’s recent address at SINET Innovation Summit 2015; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Aguilar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

Cybersecurity is an issue of profound importance in today’s technology-driven world. What was once a problem only for IT professionals is now a fact of life for all of us. I say “us” because, as you may know, hackers breached a government database a few weeks ago and stole the personal information of roughly four million government employees, which may well include me.

There’s hardly a day that goes by that we don’t hear of some new cyberattack. These incidents are clear illustrations of how the internet has become an integral part of our professional and personal lives. And while the benefits have been enormous, so, too, have the risks.

READ MORE »

Congress Should Let the SEC Do its Job

Lucian Bebchuk is Professor of Law, Economics, and Finance at Harvard Law School. Robert J. Jackson, Jr. is Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. Bebchuk and Jackson served as co-chairs of the Committee on Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending, which filed a rulemaking petition requesting that the SEC require all public companies to disclose their political spending. Bebchuk and Jackson are also co-authors of Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending, published in the Georgetown Law Journal. A series of posts in which Bebchuk and Jackson respond to objections to an SEC rule requiring disclosure of corporate political spending is available here. All posts related to the SEC rulemaking petition on disclosure of political spending are available here.

Last week, the House Appropriations Committee included in its 2016 appropriations bill for financial services agencies a provision that would prevent the SEC from developing rules that would require public companies to disclose their political spending. Although this provision is unlikely to become law, its adoption is regrettable. In our view, Congress should let the SEC do its job and use its expert judgment—free of political pressures in any direction—to determine what information should be disclosed to public-company investors.

In July 2011, we co-chaired a committee of ten corporate and securities law academics that petitioned the SEC to develop rules requiring public companies to disclose their political spending. The SEC has now received over 1.2 million comments on the proposal—more than any rulemaking petition in the SEC’s history. As we have explained in previous posts on the Forum, the case for rules requiring disclosure of corporate spending is compelling. Unfortunately, Chairman Mary Jo White has faced significant political pressure not to develop such rules, and the Commission has so far chosen to delay consideration of rules in this area.

As we explained in earlier posts on the Forum (see, for example, posts here and here), we view this delay as regrettable in light of the compelling arguments in favor of disclosure and the breadth of support that the petition has received. Furthermore, as we explain in detail in our article Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending, an analysis of the full range of objections that opponents of transparency have raised makes clear that these opponents have failed to provide a convincing basis for keeping corporate political spending below investors’ radar screen.

We agree with the bipartisan group of three former SEC Commissioners who just last month referred to the SEC’s inaction on the petition as “inexplicable.” At a minimum, the broad support and compelling arguments in favor of disclosure of corporate spending on politics make clear that the Commission should move promptly to consider the petition on the merits. Unfortunately, last week’s move by the Appropriations Committee reflects another attempt to avoid consideration of the rulemaking petition on its merits. Members of Congress should not try to prevent the SEC from even considering the substantive merits of the petition.

While corporate political spending is an issue that politicians are naturally interested in, our petition focuses on whether investors should receive information regarding political spending at the companies they own. That is an issue that falls squarely within the SEC’s mandate and expertise. Regardless of their views on corporate political spending, Congressmen of all stripes should avoid interfering with the Commission’s rulemaking processes. We urge them to allow the SEC to do its job.

SEC Re-Proposes Rules on Arranging, Negotiating or Executing Security-Based Swaps

Annette Nazareth is a partner in the Financial Institutions Group at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, and a former commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The following post is based on a Davis Polk client memorandum; the complete publication, including appendices, is available here.

On May 13, 2015, the SEC published proposed amendments and re-proposed rules on the application of certain Title VII requirements to cross-border security-based swap activities of non-U.S. persons based on U.S. conduct. The proposed rules would modify numerous prior SEC proposals and final rules, including the May 2013 proposed rules on the cross-border application of security-based swap regulations, the August 2014 final cross-border definitions and de minimis rules and the March 2015 reporting final rules. [1]

Notably, the proposed rules would:

READ MORE »

Regulation A+ Takes Effect

Thomas J. Kim is a partner at Sidley Austin LLP. This post is based on a Sidley Austin publication authored by Mr. Kim, Craig E. Chapman, and John J. Sabl.

On June 19, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recently adopted rule amendments to Regulation A under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act)—colloquially known as “Regulation A+”—took effect. Regulation A is intended to ease the burden of Securities Act registration for small public offerings. These rule amendments, among other things, increase the amount of capital that can be raised in Regulation A offerings from $5 million to $50 million over a 12-month period.

The extent to which Regulation A+ will result in issuers and other market participants actually using Regulation A to raise capital will depend on a number of factors—including how it compares to other methods for raising capital, how the SEC Staff will administer the offering process and the market’s acceptance of Regulation A-compliant offering materials.
READ MORE »

Volcker Rule: Agencies Release New Guidance

Whitney A. Chatterjee is partner at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. This post is based on a Sullivan & Cromwell publication authored by Ms. Chatterjee, C. Andrew Gerlach, Eric M. Diamond, and Ken Li; the complete publication, including Appendix, is available here.

[June 12, 2015], the staffs of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (collectively, the “Agencies”) provided two important additions to their existing list of Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) addressing the implementation of section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”), commonly known as the “Volcker Rule.”

The Volcker Rule imposes broad prohibitions on proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring private equity funds, hedge funds and certain other investment vehicles (“covered funds”) by “banking entities” and their affiliates. The Volcker Rule, as implemented by the final rule issued by the Agencies (the “Final Rule”), provides exclusions from the definition of covered fund for certain foreign public funds and joint ventures.

READ MORE »

Failing to Advance Diversity and Inclusion

Luis A. Aguilar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Aguilar’s recent public statement; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Aguilar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

Today [June 9, 2015], the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to take meaningful steps to advance diversity and inclusion in the financial services industry, as required by Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Accordingly, I have no choice but to dissent from the Final Interagency Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards for Assessing the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the Agencies (the “Final Policy Statement”) that was issued today by the SEC and a number of other financial regulators.

The financial services industry has a long history of failing to promote diversity in its workforce. The industry has consistently failed to recruit and retain a diverse workforce over the years, and the need is particularly acute at the executive and senior management levels. This lack of diversity has persisted despite the mounting evidence that diversity makes the American workforce more creative, more diligent, and more productive—and, thus, makes U.S. companies more profitable.

READ MORE »

The SEC’s Current Views on Private Equity

Alfred O. Rose and Randall W. Bodner are partners at Ropes & Gray LLP. This post is based on a Ropes & Gray publication.

As a follow-up to last year’s “Spreading Sunshine in Private Equity” speech, in which then-OCIE Director Andrew Bowden stated that the SEC had found that more than half of the funds examined by OCIE had allocated expenses and collected fees inappropriately and identified “lack of transparency” as a pervasive issue in the private equity industry, Marc Wyatt delivered a speech on May 13, 2015, reflecting on progress in the past year as well as identifying likely areas of scrutiny the private equity industry will face in the future. Although the speech has been widely reported, we wanted to highlight particular areas of interest. In this post, we examine the key takeaways from the speech, and outline best practices for the private equity industry going forward.

READ MORE »

SEC Proposes Amendments to Form ADV & Investment Advisers Act

Jessica Forbes is a partner in the Corporate Practice at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. This post is based on a Fried Frank memorandum by Ms. Forbes and Stacey Song.

On May 20, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) published for comment proposed amendments to Form ADV and certain rules promulgated under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”). [1] The proposed amendments to Form ADV relate to Part 1A, which, although available on the SEC’s website, is not required to be delivered to clients. The SEC proposes to (1) require investment advisers to provide additional information on their Form ADV Part 1A, including information about their separately managed account (“SMA”) business; (2) incorporate a method for private fund adviser entities operating a single advisory business to register using a single Form ADV; (3) require investment advisers to maintain records that demonstrate performance calculations or rates of return in any written communications, and maintain originals of all written communications received and copies of written communications sent related to the performance or rate of return of all managed accounts or securities recommendations; and (4) make clarifying, technical, and other amendments to Form ADV and Advisers Act rules.

READ MORE »

  • Subscribe

  • Cosponsored By:

  • Supported By:

  • Programs Faculty & Senior Fellows

    Lucian Bebchuk
    Alon Brav
    Robert Charles Clark
    John Coates
    Alma Cohen
    Stephen M. Davis
    Allen Ferrell
    Jesse Fried
    Oliver Hart
    Ben W. Heineman, Jr.
    Scott Hirst
    Howell Jackson
    Robert J. Jackson, Jr.
    Wei Jiang
    Reinier Kraakman
    Robert Pozen
    Mark Ramseyer
    Mark Roe
    Robert Sitkoff
    Holger Spamann
    Guhan Subramanian

  • Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board

    William Ackman
    Peter Atkins
    Joseph Bachelder
    John Bader
    Allison Bennington
    Richard Breeden
    Daniel Burch
    Richard Climan
    Jesse Cohn
    Isaac Corré
    Scott Davis
    John Finley
    Daniel Fischel
    Stephen Fraidin
    Byron Georgiou
    Larry Hamdan
    Carl Icahn
    David Millstone
    Theodore Mirvis
    James Morphy
    Toby Myerson
    Barry Rosenstein
    Paul Rowe
    Rodman Ward