Yesterday, Judge Robert Wilkins of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision granting the SEC’s motion for summary judgment in a suit challenging the SEC’s conflict minerals rules, which were mandated under the Dodd-Frank Act and issued by the SEC on August 22, 2012. As a result, the conflict minerals rules remain in effect as adopted by the SEC. The parties have not yet indicated whether they will appeal the decision. The National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable had challenged the rules in October 2012, arguing that the rules are arbitrary and capricious and impose undue costs on companies in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and compel speech in violation of the First Amendment by requiring companies to make misleading disclosures suggesting that their products promote violence and human rights abuses. Rejecting the petitioners’ arguments, the court found that various aspects of the conflict minerals provision in the Dodd-Frank Act were ambiguous, and it gave deference to the SEC’s judgments, including its determination not to adopt a de minimis exception and to include within the scope of the rules issuers that “contract to manufacture” products containing conflict minerals. In regard to the First Amendment argument, the court gave deference to Congress in light of the foreign affairs aspect of the Dodd-Frank conflict minerals provision. The district court’s opinion is available at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0635-37.
Topic: Corporate Governance
Guidance on Compensation Committees’ Assessment of Adviser Independence
As discussed in our April 26, 2013 posting on the Gibson Dunn Securities Regulation and Corporate Governance Monitor, under recently amended NYSE Rule 303A.05 and NASDAQ Rule 5605(d), board compensation committees cannot select or receive advice from a compensation consultant, legal counsel or other adviser without first taking into consideration that adviser’s independence, including consideration of the factors enumerated in the rules. As compensation committees and their advisers are preparing for the July 1 effective date of these new listing standards, three observations are important:
July 1, 2013 Deadline Approaches for Updates to Compensation Committee Charters
By July 1, 2013, companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and NASDAQ Stock Market (“NASDAQ”) must comply with new listing standards relating to compensation committees and their responsibilities and authority with respect to outside advisers. In view of the upcoming deadline, listed companies should review and update their compensation committee charters to provide the committee with these responsibilities and authority. In addition, compensation committees will need to assess the independence of their advisers in the coming months so they can receive advice from them after July 1.
Three Recent Surveys Provide Insights On Corporate Governance
Since January, three new surveys have become available that provide insights on corporate governance practices at public companies. The surveys, which are released annually, are from Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”), The Conference Board, Inc. (in collaboration with NASDAQ OMX and NYSE Euronext), and Deloitte LLP (in collaboration with the Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals). These surveys can be a useful tool for companies seeking to benchmark their board practices against those of their peer companies.
Proposed Amendments to DGCL Section 251 Increasing Attractiveness of Tender Offer Structure
The Delaware State bar recently proposed an amendment to Section 251 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) to add new subparagraph (h) that would greatly enhance the appeal of the tender offer over a one-step merger structure.
SEC Issues Guidance on Disseminating Corporate Information Through Social Media
Today the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) issued a report of investigation under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 providing guidance to public companies on the application of Regulation FD and SEC interpretive guidance to corporate disclosures made through social media. The report [1] clarifies that public companies under certain circumstances may disseminate material, nonpublic information via social media in compliance with Regulation FD if investors previously have been alerted that the specific social media will be used to disseminate such information.
SEC Staff Explains Analysis For Assessing Vague Shareholder Proposals Under Rule 14a 8(i)(3)
During the 2012 proxy season, the SEC staff concurred that a number of high profile shareholder proposals could be excluded from company proxy statements because various key terms in the proposals were not adequately defined or explained within the text of the proposal and supporting statement. See e.g., WellPoint, Inc. (SEIU Master Trust) (avail. Feb. 24, 2012, recon. denied Mar. 27, 2012) (concurring with exclusion of an independent chair proposal that referred to the New York Stock Exchange standard of independence without defining it because “neither shareholders nor the company would be able to determine with any reasonable certainty exactly what actions or measures the proposal requires”); Textron Inc. (avail. Mar. 7, 2012) (arguing that a reference to the Rule 14a-8 eligibility requirements in a proxy access shareholder proposal was vague and indefinite, although the staff ultimately concurred with the exclusion of the shareholder proposal on other grounds); Dell Inc. (avail. Mar. 30, 2012) (concurring with the exclusion of a similar proxy access shareholder proposal because the proposal’s reference to the Rule 14a-8 eligibility requirements was vague and indefinite). While these no-action letters reflected long-standing SEC staff precedent, in the current proxy season, there has continued to be a large number of no-action requests arguing that various terms in shareholder proposals are undefined or vague and therefore excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(3).
Senate Banking Committee Holds Hearing on Nomination of Mary Jo White to Chair SEC
The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs held a hearing today on the nomination of Mary Jo White to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Senators showed high support for White’s nomination and, contrary to expectation, asked few tough questions about her ties to Wall Street banks arising from her work at the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and other potential conflicts of interest.
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Significant Decisions Involving Securities Law Matters
On February 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued opinions in two significant securities law cases, Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 568 U.S. ___ (2013) and Amgen Inc., v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, 568 U.S. ___ (2013). In the Gabelli decision the Court addressed the ability of the government to bring civil enforcement actions seeking civil penalties where the alleged fraudulent conduct occurred outside the five-year statute of limitations period. In the Amgen decision the Court addressed the class certification pleading requirements in security holder class action suits.
SEC Petitioned for Rulemaking to Accelerate 13F Filing Deadline
Last week, the NYSE Euronext, the Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals, and the National Investor Relations Institute submitted a joint petition (available here) to the SEC, requesting that the Commission amend the beneficial ownership reporting rules under Section 13(f) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Fund managers subject to the 13(f) reporting requirements currently have until 45 days after the last day of each calendar quarter to file their Form 13F; the petition suggests that the time period be shortened to two business days.