Monthly Archives: November 2024

SEC Enforcement – FY24 Review: Key Themes and End-of-Year Actions

Adam Aderton and A. Kristina Littman are Partners, and Erik Holmvik is an Associate, at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. This post is based on their Willkie memorandum.

The 2024 fiscal year (“FY24”) for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) concluded with a deluge of year-end actions. Over the past year, we saw increased use of enforcement sweeps, significant changes in administrative law doctrine, and a continued willingness by the SEC to advance novel theories, often in litigated actions. In this alert, we analyze these key themes from FY24 and summarize several notable actions from August and September, including:

  • An Exchange Act settlement indicating tolerance of trading BTC and ETH;
  • An enforcement action against a former FTX auditor;
  • A director charged for undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • The first custody rule action against a crypto-focused investment adviser;
  • An action against a prominent asset manager arising from longstanding disclosure failures;
  • An action arising from an adviser’s obtaining MNPI through an ad hoc creditors committee;
  • An enforcement action against the operator of a crypto lending product; and
  • The approval of a PCAOB rule amendment lowering scienter thresholds for associated person liability.

READ MORE »

Listing Migration: A Conflicted Path to Value Creation

Ali Saribas is a Partner, Andrew Brady is a Director, and Chinguun Nyambat is an Associate at SquareWell Partners. This post is based on SquareWell’s “Transatlantic Listing Migration: A Conflicted Path to Value Creation” study.

SquareWell Partners (“SquareWell”) conducted an in-depth study of primary listing changes and the dismantling of dual-listed company (“DLC”) structures, examining precedents across global markets. This analysis separates cases driven by activist investors from those initiated by companies, highlighting unique motivations and outcomes in each. With activist-driven listing changes expected to become a central campaign theme in the coming year, this post focuses on activist-led precedents, offering strategic insights into this emerging trend. SquareWell concludes with key questions for the market to consider regarding the future of this development.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: November 22-28, 2024


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of November 22-28, 2024


Fortune 1000 Say-on-Pay: An Analysis of Shareholder Engagement in Response to Adverse Votes


Policy Survey 2024: ESG Issues


SEC Enforcement Heats up on Key Public Company Topics



SPAC Litigation Continues to Churn in the Belly of the Chancery Beast


Missing MOMs: Freezeouts in the New Doctrinal Regime and the MOOM Alternative


Policy Survey 2024: Responsiveness to Shareholder Opposition


Recent SEC Enforcement Actions Emphasize Importance of Robust Disclosure Controls



Sink or Swim? How governance provided a winning formula for 2021 IPOs


Sink or Swim? How governance provided a winning formula for 2021 IPOs

Zsombor Péli is a Research Manager, Rachit Gupta is the Head of Global Data & Research, and Yuxuan Zhao is a Data Analyst at Diligent Market Intelligence. This post is based on their Diligent memorandum.

Executive summary

Market cap growth

Our analysis of the 2021 IPO cohort revealed a strong positive correlation between longer CEO tenure and market cap growth, underscoring the importance of experienced leadership in driving performance.

“Say on pay” approval

At their latest AGM, the group of 2021 IPO companies we analyzed had the highest approval rate for “say on pay” proposals, with 93.93% of votes in favor, compared to lower figures for the Russell 3000 and S&P 500. However, proxy advisor recommendations were lower, around 65%, due to non-standard compensation arrangements for these newly public companies.

Financial performance

A sample of our selected group of companies demonstrated improving financial metrics post-IPO. Their average earnings per share (EPS) improved from -$1.96 in 2021 to -$0.33 in 2023, signalling a gradual move toward profitability. Additionally, these companies showed relatively stable earnings compared to broader market indices, although market cap growth was generally lower than the Russell 3000.

Return on capital

Elevated board independence, controlled company status, and higher realized CEO pay among the 2021 IPO companies in our study positively influenced the average return on capital over the last three years, highlighting the value of balanced governance structures in optimizing capital allocation.

Key facts about the cohort

Record IPO activity in 2021: The U.S. market witnessed a record-breaking year for IPOs in 2021, with 1,026 companies raising over $100 billion. This surge was driven by low interest rates, ample liquidity and growing retail investor participation. While nontraditional IPOs, mostly special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) comprised almost 70% of the new listings, the rate of traditional IPOs also increased sharply. Subsequent years saw a decrease in listings due to the 2021 boom and tightening financial conditions. The analysis in this paper focuses on traditional IPOs to identify trends that may be more relevant in the future.

READ MORE »

Balancing the Scales: The Critical Role of Risk Mitigators in Executive Compensation

Subodh Mishra is Global Head of Communications at ISS STOXX. This post is based on an ISS-Corporate memorandum by Christian Darmanin, Senior Associate; Henry Mbom, Vice President; and Samantha Greenwald, Associate with the Compensation & Governance Advisory group at ISS-Corporate.

Equity awards are the primary compensation vehicle for U.S. executives, comprising 71 percent of total CEO compensation for S&P 500 CEOs and 60 percent for Russell 3000 (excluding S&P 500). As compensation committees seek to maintain alignment of executive and shareholder interest, the use of risk mitigators in equity grants has increased over the past five years. This paper analyzes key equity compensation risk mitigating practices such as clawback policies, stock ownership guidelines, holding period requirements, and anti-hedging and pledging policies, which enhance accountability over pay and ensure that executives bear similar risks as shareholders.

READ MORE »

Recent SEC Enforcement Actions Emphasize Importance of Robust Disclosure Controls

Anita B. Bandy, Raquel Fox, and William E. Ridgway are Partners at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on their Skadden memorandum.

On October 22, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced enforcement actions against several technology companies for making materially misleading disclosures regarding cybersecurity risks and intrusions. One company was also charged with disclosure controls violations.

The enforcement actions reinforce that companies should:

  • Carefully consider updating disclosures in the wake of cybersecurity incidents, particularly when a company’s risk profile changes as a result of an incident.
  • Maintain policies and procedures to facilitate prompt escalation of cybersecurity incidents to disclosure decision-makers.
  • Understand the SEC’s view of materiality and avoid minimizing cybersecurity incidents in disclosures.

The charges against the companies are the result of the SEC’s investigation of public companies potentially impacted by the SolarWinds’ Orion software vulnerability and other related activity. The penalties in the enforcement actions range from $990,000 to $4 million.

Notably, two SEC commissioners issued another strong dissenting statement to these actions. We anticipate that a new SEC administration will take a different approach to cyber-related enforcement actions.

READ MORE »

Policy Survey 2024: Responsiveness to Shareholder Opposition

Dimitri Zagoroff is Senior Editor at Glass, Lewis & Co. This post is based on a Glass Lewis’ 2024 Policy Survey by Mr. Zagoroff, Brianna Castro, Courteney Keatinge, Chris Rushton, Eric Shostal, and Maria Vu.

This post provides an overview of a section of Glass Lewis’ 2024 Policy Survey, conducted to inform their annual “benchmark” policy guideline updates.

Board Response to Failed Advisory Proposal

Investors and non-investors expressed very different expectations for how a board should respond when an advisory management proposal does not receive majority support. The most popular answer among investors was that the board should generally refrain from the requested action (41.1%, vs 9.0% among non-investors). As one Canadian investor put it:

“Why put it to shareholder opinion if you aren’t going to follow their views?”

Other investors took a more balanced view:

“This would depend on the ask and the level of shareholder opposition.” (U.S. investor)

“In some cases, not proceeding may be impractical. For example, refusing to pay a CEO their new salary or trying to clawback bonuses will destabilize the business and may result in legal action against the company. But a majority vote against should still send a clear message to the Board that it must take action on the main issues raised.” (U.S. investor) READ MORE »

Missing MOMs: Freezeouts in the New Doctrinal Regime and the MOOM Alternative

Fernán Restrepo is an Assistant Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, and Guhan Subramanian is the Joseph H. Flom Professor of Law and Business at Harvard Law School and the H. Douglas Weaver Professor of Business Law at Harvard Business School. This post is based on their recent paper.

Freezeouts (that is, transactions in which a controlling shareholder buys out the minority shareholders) pose a significant conflict of interest because the controller stands on both sides of the transaction: as a buyer and as the party who dominates the seller. As a result, Delaware courts subject freezeouts to “entire fairness” review, an enhanced form of judicial review that enables courts to engage in a de novo review of the substantive terms of the transaction (Weinberger v. UOP, 457 A.2d 701, 711 (Del. 1983)). Delaware has also promoted the use of procedural protections by relaxing entire fairness review if the controlling shareholder conditions the transaction on approval by a special committee of independent directors (“SC approval”) and approval from a majority-of-the-minority shares (a “MOM condition”). If these two conditions are met, the standard of judicial review shifts from entire fairness to deferential business judgment review, under which a court will not second guess the terms of the transaction except in very exceptional circumstances (In re MFW Shareholders Litigation, 67 A.3d 496, 500 (Del. Ch. May 29, 2013); Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014)).

READ MORE »

SPAC Litigation Continues to Churn in the Belly of the Chancery Beast

Heather Benzmiller Sultanian is a Partner and Aleena Tariq is an Associate at Sidley Austin LLP. This post is based on their Sidley memorandum, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

As this blog has consistently observed, although the well of SPAC mergers substantially dried up a few years ago, the wave of lawsuits stemming from those de-SPAC mergers has not abated. In the latest decision addressing claims for breach of fiduciary duty arising from a de-SPAC merger, Solak v. Mountain Crest Capital LLC, Vice Chancellor Glasscock bemoaned “the bulge of SPAC carcasses [that] continues to be digested in equity.” Yet, despite acknowledging that the allegations were not strong and hewed “close to the line between an adequate and an inadequate claim,” he allowed the claims to proceed past a motion to dismiss.

In January 2021, a SPAC called Mountain Crest Acquisition Corporation (“MCAD”) completed an IPO; three months later, it announced that it had entered into a merger agreement with Better Therapeutics. MCAD then issued a proxy recommending that shareholders approve the merger and informing them of their right to redeem their shares.

READ MORE »

Shareholder Proposals on Nature: Resurgence and New Frameworks

Subodh Mishra is Global Head of Communications at ISS STOXX. This post is based on an ISS-Corporate memorandum by Kosmas Papadopoulos, Head of Sustainability Advisory for the Americas at ISS-Corporate.

Corporate impacts and dependencies related to nature have garnered considerable attention in recent years, with growing interest also reflected in shareholder proposal campaigns focused on nature-related issues. The landmark 2022 COP 15 summit that established the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the launch of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) in 2021, and the inclusion of Biodiversity and Ecosystems as key reporting standard under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) per the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are among the key drivers for the reframing of the discussion around nature and renewed interest in environmental impacts and relevant disclosures.

With the 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 16) currently underway, ISS-Corporate reviewed nature-themed shareholder proposals during the past decade to identify key trends and developments related to nature in corporate shareholder engagements.

READ MORE »

Page 1 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6