Yearly Archives: 2019

Updated Nasdaq Requirements for Direct Listings

Catherine M. Clarkin and Robert W. Downes are partners and James Shea, Jr. is special counsel at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. This post is based on a Sullivan & Cromwell memorandum by Ms. Clarkin, Mr. Downes, Mr. Shea, and Ekaterina Roze.

On February 14, 2019, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC filed notice with the Securities and Exchange Commission of a rule change to “amend and clarify certain aspects of the listing process for Direct Listings.” [1] The rule, which became effective upon filing, clarifies the conditions under which private companies can list on Nasdaq through a direct listing, rather than by raising new capital through a traditional initial public offering, and is substantially similar to the direct listing rule adopted by the New York Stock Exchange in February 2018. [2] Like the NYSE rule, the Nasdaq rule covers companies applying to list their securities on Nasdaq upon effectiveness of a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933 registering only the resale of securities sold in earlier private placements, and provides guidance on how Nasdaq calculates compliance with its initial listing standards for direct listings, including with respect to companies listing securities that do not have an established private placement market. The SEC is soliciting comments on the rule through March 15, 2019. [3]

READ MORE »

Is it Time for Corporate Political Spending Disclosure?

Cydney S. Posner is special counsel at Cooley LLP. This post is based on a Cooley memorandum by Ms. Posner. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending by Lucian Bebchuk and Robert J. Jackson Jr., (discussed on the Forum here); The Untenable Case for Keeping Investors in the Dark by Lucian Bebchuk, Robert J. Jackson Jr., James David Nelson, and Roberto Tallarita (discussed on the Forum here); Fiduciary Blind Spot: The Failure of Institutional Investors to Prevent the Illegitimate Use of Working Americans’ Savings for Corporate Political Spending by Leo E. Strine, Jr. (discussed on the Forum here); and Conservative Collision Course?: The Tension between Conservative Corporate Law Theory and Citizens United by Leo E. Strine Jr. and Nicholas Walter (discussed on the Forum here).

A new bill that has been introduced in the House, H.R. 1053, would direct the SEC to issue regs to require public companies to disclose political expenditures in their annual reports and on their websites. While the bill’s chances for passage in the House are reasonably good, that is not the case in the Senate. In the absence of legislation, some proponents of political spending disclosure have turned instead to private ordering, often through shareholder proposals. So far, those proposals have rarely won the day, perhaps in large part because of the absence of support from large institutional investors. But that notable absence has recently come in for criticism from an influential jurist, Delaware Chief Justice Leo Strine. Will it make a difference?
READ MORE »

Applying a Principles-Based Approach to Disclosing Complex, Uncertain and Evolving Risks

William H. Hinman is Director of the Division of Corporation Finance at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on his recent remarks at the 18th Annual Institute on Securities Regulation in Europe, available here. The views expressed in this post are those of Mr. Hinman and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.

Good morning. Thank you, John [White] for that kind introduction and to the Practicing Law Institute and Allen & Overy for hosting this event. I am pleased to be here with you today. [1]

Today [March 15, 2019] I would like to discuss how the U.S. securities disclosure requirements, which are largely principles-based, apply in areas where the disclosure topics may be complex, associated with uncertain risks and rapidly evolving. Sounds like Brexit might fit that description, and I don’t think I could come to London this week without spending some time discussing it. I realize that you all may be worn out on the subject, and the U.S. regulatory perspective on this topic may seem of secondary or tertiary interest to those of you living through these events. However, I would note that over half of the world’s largest companies [2] have their primary listing in the U.S. and a larger proportion trade and report in compliance with our requirements. Given that these companies typically have extensive international operations, including in the U.K. and EU, we have a keen interest in the quality of disclosure that is being provided by the many issuers for which Brexit may have a material impact.

READ MORE »

A Reminder About Corporate Crisis Communications

John F. SavareseDavid A. Katz, and Wayne M. Carlin are partners at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Savarese, Mr. Katz, Mr. Carlin, David B. Anders, and Marshall L. Miller.

In a case that should serve as a cautionary tale for all public companies responding to a public relations crisis, the DOJ and SEC today announced securities fraud settlements with Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., alleging that the company had made false and misleading statements in response to a damaging report about the company’s products aired on the “60 Minutes” television program. The company entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) with the DOJ, which included an agreed statement of facts, as well as a cease-and-desist order with the SEC. Lumber Liquidators will pay a total of $33 million in criminal fines, forfeiture and disgorgement.

READ MORE »

Do Firms Respond to Gender Pay Gap Transparency?

Margarita Tsoutsoura is the John and Dyan Smith Professor of Management and Family Business at the Cornell University SC Johnson College of Business. This post is based on a recent paper by Professor Tsoutsoura; Morten Bennedsen, the André and Rosalie Hoffmann Chaired Professor of Family Enterprise at INSEAD; Elena Simintzi, Assistant Professor of Finance at the University of North Carolina Kenan-Flagler Business School; and Daniel Wolfenzon, the Stefan H. Robock Professor of Finance and Economics at Columbia Business School. This post is based on their recent paper.

Gender pay disparities characterize labor markets in most developed countries. When a man earns 100 dollars, a woman earns 77 in the United States, 78.5 dollars in Germany, 79 dollars in the United Kingdom, and 83.8 on average across European Union countries according to Eurostat.

Recent proposals across many countries focus on pay transparency to promote equal pay. Government-mandated reporting of gender pay discrepancies has been a subject of much debate: Governments often propose transparency as a tool to encourage firms to reduce the wage gap between men and women. Unions and employee groups representing women also seem to believe that secrecy on pay contributes significantly to unequal pay for women. Opponents of pay transparency argue that disclosing gender pay comes as a challenge to firms as it lacks practical utility, increases administrative burden, and violates employee privacy. Until recently there has been no systematic evidence to support either side.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: March 8-15, 2019


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of March 8-15, 2019.


Letter on Stock Buybacks and Insiders’ Cashouts



Equity Market Structure 2019: Looking Back & Moving Forward



The Strategies of Anticompetitive Common Ownership




Behavioral Foundations of Corporate Culture



Pre-Litigation Demand and Director Committees


Beyond Beholden


Democratic Senators and the Buyback Boogeyman


SEC Enforcement Against Self-Reporting Token Issuer



2019 Lobbying Disclosure Resolutions

2019 Lobbying Disclosure Resolutions

Timothy Smith is Director of ESG Shareowner Engagement at Walden Asset Management and John Keenan is a Corporate Governance Analyst at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). This post is based on a joint Walden Asset Management and AFSCME memorandum by Mr. Smith and Mr. Keenan. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Untenable Case for Keeping Investors in the Dark by Lucian Bebchuk, Robert J. Jackson Jr., James David Nelson, and Roberto Tallarita (discussed on the Forum here) and Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending by Lucian Bebchuk and Robert J. Jackson Jr., (discussed on the Forum here).

Corporate lobbying disclosure remains a pressing shareholder proposal topic for 2019. A coalition of at least 70 investors have filed proposals at 33 companies asking for disclosure reports that include federal and state lobbying payments, payments to trade associations and social welfare groups used for lobbying and payments to any tax-exempt organization that writes and endorses model legislation. This year’s campaign highlights the theme of corporate political responsibility, with a focus on climate change lobbying.

Corporate lobbying affects all aspects of the economy, including issues ranging from climate change and drug prices to financial regulation, immigration and workers’ rights. Lobbying can provide decision-makers with valuable insights and data, but it can also lead to undue influence, unfair competition and regulatory capture. In addition, lobbying may channel companies’ funds and influence into highly controversial topics with the potential to cause reputational harm.

READ MORE »

Farewell to Fairness: Towards Retiring Delaware’s Entire Fairness Review

Amir Licht is Professor of Law at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya. This post is based on a recent paper by Professor Licht and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Fixing Freezeouts by Guhan Subramanian.

The entire fairness doctrine occupies a central place in Delaware’s accountability tools for corporate directors. In a standard formulation, it calls on directors to establish “to the court’s satisfaction that the transaction was the product of both fair dealing and fair price” (Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc.). As Professor Lawrence Hamermesh and Chief Justice Leo Strine, Jr. recently pointed out, this doctrine undergoes constant transformation:

Like all common law doctrines, the Delaware law defining the fiduciary duties of corporate directors has evolved, often rapidly, in the face of commercial change and experience. It will continue to do so…, while reserving a role for active judicial scrutiny in situations in which such objective decision makers are either absent or impaired, through lack of pertinent information or otherwise, from making a truly voluntary decision (emphasis added).

READ MORE »

SEC Enforcement Against Self-Reporting Token Issuer

Pamela L. Marcogliese and Matthew Solomon are partners and Alexander Janghorbani is senior attorney at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb memorandum by Ms. Marcogliese, Mr. Solomon, and Mr. Janghorbani, and Jim Wintering.

On February 20, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or “Commission”) issued a cease-and-desist order against Gladius Network LLC (“Gladius”) concerning its 2017 initial coin offering (“ICO”). The SEC found that the Gladius ICO violated the Securities Act of 1933’s (“Securities Act”) prohibition against the public offer or sale of any securities not made pursuant to either an effective registration statement on file with the SEC or under an exemption from registration. [1] While this is far from the first time that the SEC has found that a particular ICO token meets the definition of a “security” under the Securities Act, [2] this is notably the first action involving an ICO token issuer that self-reported its potential violation. Due to this, and Gladius’s cooperation throughout the investigation, the SEC stopped short of imposing any civil monetary penalties among its ordered remedial measures.

This resolution reflects a continued indication that where ICO token issuers cooperate with the Commission, the SEC may be more likely to tailor its remedial measures solely those designed to (a) bring the tokens into compliance with securities laws, and (b) protect investors against any losses caused by their purchase of the illegally offered, unregistered securities—a position that SEC officials have taken publicly. [3]

READ MORE »

Democratic Senators and the Buyback Boogeyman

Jesse Fried is the Dane Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Charles C.Y. Wang is the Glenn and Mary Jane Creamer Associate Professor of Business Administration. This post was authored by Professor Fried and Professor Wang. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Short-Termism and Capital Flows by Professor Fried and Professor Wang (discussed on the Forum here).

Last month, Senator Chuck Schumer, along with Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, declared they would introduce “bold” legislation to prohibit a public firm from repurchasing its own stock, unless the firm first invests in employees and communities, including paying workers at least $15 per hour and offering “decent” pension and health benefits. Welcome to Washington’s newest political ritual: Senators seeking to demonstrate their concern for workers by proposing bills that severely restrict—or even outlaw—buybacks. Unfortunately, these proposals appear motivated by misleading measures of corporate capital flows, as well as on a profound misunderstanding of how the U.S. economy works. If enacted, such bills could threaten not only the capital markets but the employees and communities the Senators claim to care about.

Leading Senate Democrats appear to believe that repurchases, when added to existing levels of dividends, harm workers and impair long-term investment by starving firms of needed capital. The Schumer-Sanders bill would join legislation introduced by Schumer and Senator Tammy Baldwin to give the Securities and Exchange Commission authority to reject buybacks that, in its judgment, hurt workers. It also would require boards to “certify” that a repurchase is in the “best long-term financial interest of the company.” Senator Baldwin has introduced another bill, co-sponsored by Senator (and presidential candidate) Elizabeth Warren that goes even further: It bans all open-market repurchases.

READ MORE »

Page 76 of 95
1 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 95