Tag: SEC rulemaking


A Conversation with SEC Chair Mary Jo White

Mary Jo White is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The following post is based on Chair White’s recent interview at the Keynote Session of the 43rd Annual Securities Regulation Institute, available here. The views expressed in this post are those of Chair White and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

SEC Chair Mary Jo White participated in a Q&A session with Steven Bochner, Chair of the Securities Regulation Institute. The Q&A was part of Northwestern University School of Law’s 43rd Annual Securities Regulation Institute. The event was held in San Diego, California. This transcript was edited for clarity.

Steven Bochner: It is my great honor to introduce the Alan Levenson keynote speaker and I’m going to read her resume, even though I know most of it by heart, because it’s a long, impressive resume and we’re honored to have you here, Chair White.

READ MORE »

SEC Proposal on Resource Extraction Payments

Nicolas Grabar and Sandra L. Flow are partners in the New York office of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb memorandum. The complete publication, including footnotes and Annex, is available here.

On December 11, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) issued a proposed rule (the “Proposed Rule”) on disclosure of resource extraction payments, more than two years after a federal court vacated a prior version of the rule. The Proposed Rule is similar in many ways to the Commission’s original rule, adopted in August 2012 (the “2012 Rule”)—in large part because the Commission is implementing a detailed congressional directive contained in Section 1504 of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. However, in addition to addressing the deficiencies the court found in the original rulemaking, the Commission has made other notable changes to reflect global developments in transparency for resource extraction payments, particularly in the European Union and Canada.

READ MORE »

2016 Proxy Season: Engagement, Transparency, Proxy Access

Howard B. Dicker is a partner in the Public Company Advisory Group of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. This post is based on a Weil publication; the complete publication, including footnotes and appendix, is available here. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Lucian Bebchuk’s The Case for Shareholder Access to the Ballot and The Myth of the Shareholder Franchise (discussed on the Forum here), and Private Ordering and the Proxy Access Debate by Lucian Bebchuk and Scott Hirst (discussed on the Forum here).

While shareholders have a wide spectrum of views on corporate objectives, the time horizon for realizing these objectives and environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, there is an emerging consensus that—regardless of size, industry or profitability—public companies must achieve greater accountability to their shareholders, through engagement and transparency, than ever before. Corporate engagement and transparency now take two forms: direct dialogue, increasingly involving directors, and enhanced proxy statement and other public disclosure that sheds light on the company’s strategy and the performance of its board, board committees and management, demonstrates responsiveness to shareholder ESG concerns, and justifies the composition of the board in light of the company’s present needs. Throughout this post, we offer practical suggestions about “what to do now” to meet shareholder expectations about engagement and transparency and to address a host of other new developments for the 2016 proxy season.

READ MORE »

Crowdfunding and the Digital Shareholder

Andrew A. Schwartz is an Associate Professor at University of Colorado Law School. This post is based on Professor Schwartz’s recent article published in The Minnesota Law Review, available here.

After several years of delay, Internet-based securities crowdfunding is finally poised to go live this year thanks to the SEC’s recent issuance of Regulation Crowdfunding. Through crowdfunding, people of modest means will for the first time be legally authorized to make investments that are currently offered exclusively to “accredited” (wealthy) investors. This democratization of entrepreneurial finance sounds great in theory, but will it work in practice? Will non-accredited investors really buy unregistered securities in speculative startups, over the Internet, with only the barest form of disclosure? The conventional wisdom among most legal scholars is, basically, no. In their view, securities crowdfunding is doomed to failure for myriad reasons, including fraud, [1] costs, [2] dilution, [3] adverse selection, [4] opportunism, [5] and more. [6]

READ MORE »

U.S. Uncleared Swap Margin, Capital, and Segregation Rules

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 visual memorandum; the complete publication, including charts, is available here.

U.S. prudential regulators (the OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, FCA and FHFA) and the CFTC have finalized uncleared swap margin, capital and segregation requirements (the “PR rules,” and “CFTC rules,” respectively, and the “final rules,” collectively).* The PR rules apply to swap entities that are prudentially regulated by a U.S. prudential regulator (“PR CSEs”). The CFTC rules apply to swap entities that are regulated by the CFTC and that are not prudentially regulated (“CFTC CSEs”). In this memorandum, “covered swap entities” refers to PR CSEs and CFTC CSEs, together.

READ MORE »

Proposed Rule on Registered Funds’ Use of Derivatives

David C. Sullivan is partner in the Investment Management practice at Ropes & Gray LLP. This post is based on a Ropes & Gray publication by Mr. Sullivan, Tim Diggins, George Raine and Sarah Clinton.

On December 11, 2015, the SEC issued its long-anticipated release (the “Release”) proposing Rule 18f-4 (“the “Proposed Rule”) under the 1940 Act regarding the use of derivatives and certain related instruments by registered investment companies (collectively, “funds”). The stated objective of the Release is to “address the investor protection purposes and concerns underlying section 18 [of the 1940 Act] and to provide an updated and more comprehensive approach to the regulation of funds’ use of derivatives” in light of the increased participation by funds in today’s large and complex derivatives markets.

We provide an executive summary of the Proposed Rule and other aspects of the Release below and, in the Appendix of the complete publication, we discuss the Proposed Rule in more detail.

READ MORE »

FAST Act Amendments to the U.S. Securities Laws

Nicolas Grabar is a partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP focusing on international capital markets and securities regulation. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb publication by Mr. Grabar, Les Silverman, and Andrea M. Basham.

On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (the “FAST Act”), which, among other legislation in its 1300+ pages, includes several bills designed to facilitate the offer and sale of securities. In this post we focus on two of those bills. The first provides additional accommodations related to the SEC registration process for emerging growth companies (“EGCs”), a category of issuer established by the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”) in 2012. The second creates a non-exclusive safe harbor under Section 4 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) for resales of securities that meet the conditions of the safe harbor.

READ MORE »

Resource Extraction Payments

Nicolas Grabar and Sandra L. Flow are partners in the New York office of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb memorandum by Mr. Grabar, Ms. Flow, Nina E. Bell, and Daniel Chor.

On December 11, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a proposed rule on disclosure of resource extraction payments, over two years after a federal court vacated a prior version of the rule. The new proposal is similar in many ways to the SEC’s original rule, adopted in August 2012—in large part because the SEC is implementing a detailed congressional directive contained in Section 1504 of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. However, in addition to addressing the deficiencies the court found in the original rulemaking, the SEC has made other notable changes to reflect global developments in transparency for resource extraction payments, particularly in the European Union and Canada.

READ MORE »

SEC Guidance on Unbundling in M&A Context

Nicholas O’Keefe is a partner in the Corporate Department at Kaye Scholer LLP. This post is based on a Kaye Scholer memorandum authored by Mr. O’Keefe. The complete publication, including Annex, is available here. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance about bundling includes Bundling and Entrenchment by Lucian Bebchuk and Ehud Kamar (discussed on the Forum here).

On October 27, 2015, the SEC issued new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (the 2015 C&DIs) regarding unbundling of votes in the M&A context. The 2015 C&DIs address the circumstances under which either a target or an acquiror in an M&A transaction must present unbundled shareholder proposals in its proxy statement relating to provisions in the organizational documents of the public company that results from the deal. The 2015 C&DIs replace SEC guidance given in the September 2004 Interim Supplement to Publicly Available Telephone Interpretations (the 2004 Guidance). According to public statements of the SEC, and contrary to perceptions created by the news media, [1] the 2015 C&DIs represent a slight change from, and clarification to, the 2004 Guidance. The following is a brief overview of the unbundling rules, a summary of key differences between the 2015 C&DIs and the 2004 Guidance, and some observations about the practical implications of the changes.

READ MORE »

FAST Act: Capital Formation Changes and Reduced Disclosure Burdens

Stacy J. Kanter is co-head of the global Corporate Finance practice at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on a Skadden alert by Ms. Kanter, David J. Goldschmidt, Michael J. Zeidel, and Brian V. Breheny.

On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), which, despite its name, contains several new provisions designed to facilitate capital formation and reduce disclosure burdens imposed on companies under the federal securities laws. The provisions build upon the 2012 Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act), which created a new category of issuers called “emerging growth companies” (EGCs) [1] and sought to encourage EGCs to go public in the United States. [2] The FAST Act provisions, which were first introduced in a package of bills often called “JOBS Act 2.0,” are the culmination of a continuing congressional effort to increase initial public offerings (IPOs) by EGCs, reduce the burdens on smaller companies seeking to conduct registered offerings and provide trading liquidity for securities of private companies.

While some of the new provisions require rulemaking by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) before they are effective, other provisions of the FAST Act amend the Securities Act itself and therefore are effective, with an immediate effect on current offerings.

READ MORE »