Amendments to New York’s Not-For-Profit Corporation Law are set to take effect on May 27. The amendments impact several provisions of The New York Nonprofit Revitalization Act (“NRA”), which imposed substantial governance requirements on nonprofits when it took effect in 2014. The amendments build greater flexibility into aspects of the NRA that were viewed as overly broad or prescriptive. Key elements of the amendments are summarized below. A redline showing the changes to the statutory language is available here. Nonprofits incorporated in New York, and other nonprofits that may be subject to the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law due to their activities, should take note of the amendments and consider whether changes to their governance practices and documents are appropriate. 1. Related party transactions. The NRA provides for enhanced board oversight of related party transactions. The amendments explicitly permit an authorized committee of the board to review and approve related party transactions, as an alternative to full board approval. They also codify exceptions to the definition of “related party transaction” that are based on guidance previously issued by the Charities Bureau of the New York Attorney General’s office (available here). These exceptions mean that immaterial or ordinary course transactions are no longer subject to the board/committee approval procedures under the NRA. Specifically, the exceptions cover: (a) transactions that are themselves “de minimis” or where the related party’s financial interest is de minimis, with the judgment of what is de minimis to be left to individual nonprofits based on factors such as size and budget; (b) transactions that “would not customarily be reviewed” by the board at “similar organizations in the ordinary course of business” and that are available to others on the same or similar terms; and (c) transactions where a related party receives a benefit as a result of being a member of a class that benefits from the nonprofit’s work, where the benefit is available to all similarly situated members of the class on the same terms. The amendments also create a defense to actions brought by the New York Attorney General challenging related party transactions. The defense allows nonprofits to take steps to ratify transactions that were not approved in accordance with the procedures in the NRA, and to enhance their mechanisms for complying with these procedures in the future, in order to limit the possibility of adverse actions against nonprofits for inadvertent or insignificant violations of the related party provisions. 2. Audit committee independence requirements. The amendments modify the definition of “independent director,” which applies to directors serving on the audit committee, by amending the standard on business relationships between a nonprofit and entities where directors (or their relatives) have relationships. Currently, this standard prohibits a director from being independent if the director is an employee of, or has a substantial financial interest in, an entity that does business with the nonprofit, if the amount of business exceeded the lesser of $25K or 2% of the other entity’s consolidated gross revenues in any of the last three fiscal years. The amendments provide tiered thresholds that are tied to the revenues of the other entity, as follows:
SEC Revises Cover Page of Exchange Act and Other Forms and Revises Other Rules Under JOBS Act
Today, new rules became effective that change the cover page of many forms filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The SEC has adopted technical amendments to conform certain rules and forms to self-executing provisions of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”). The SEC’s adopting release is available here. Although the rule changes were driven by the need to accommodate Emerging Growth Companies (“EGCs”) in the SEC’s reporting regime, the amendments affect the Securities Act registration forms and Exchange Act reporting forms used by all companies, even those that are not EGCs. The technical amendments apply to Forms S-1, S-3, S-4, S-8, S-11, F-1, F-3, F-4, 10, 8-K, 10-Q, 10-K, 20-F, 40-F and C.
SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance Suspends Enforcement of Certain Conflicts Minerals Requirements
It has been an eventful week for those following the conflict minerals rules in the news. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued final judgment in the long-running conflicts minerals litigation (detailed here) and, following a statement by Acting Chairman Piwowar, the Division of Corporation Finance has issued a blanket statement that it will not recommend enforcement of some of the most burdensome requirements of the rules (available here).
SEC Adopts Amendment Shortening Trade Settlement Cycle From T+3 to T+2 (potential implications)
The SEC has adopted an amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) of the Exchange Act (the Settlement Cycle Rule) shortening the standard settlement cycle for most broker-dealer transactions from three business days after the trade date (“T+3”) to two business days after the trade date (“T+2”). The compliance date for the amendment is September 5, 2017. The new requirement will prohibit broker-dealers from effecting or entering into a contract for the purchase or sale of a security (other than exempted securities, government securities, municipal securities, commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, and commercial bills) that provides for payment of funds and delivery of securities later than the second business day after the date of the contract, unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the parties at the time of the transaction.
Non-Voting Shares Make Their Public Debut and Generate Some Governance Concerns, but How Will Courts View the Structure When First Presented?
On March 1, 2017, Snap Inc. (“Snap” or the “Company”) – owner of the popular social media platform Snapchat – priced its highly anticipated initial public offering (“IPO”). With 200 million shares sold at $17 per share, the IPO raised approximately $3.4 billion for the Company. On their first trading day, Snap shares opened at $22.41 per share and peaked as high as $28.84 the following day. As of March 10, shares closed at $22.07, above its initial offering price, but below its opening trading price. As the largest IPO of any U.S.-based company since Facebook’s public offering in 2012, many investors’ primary focus here has been on the complete lack of voting privileges associated with the shares sold in the IPO.
SEC Adopts Requirements for Active Hyperlinks In Exhibit Indexes
The SEC has adopted final rules requiring an active hyperlink to each filed exhibit identified in the exhibit index of most Securities Act and Exchange Act registration statements and reports that are required to include exhibits under Item 601 of Regulation S-K. The rules become effective on September 1, 2017 (though the adopting release encourages early compliance), provided that smaller reporting companies and non-accelerated filers that submit filings in ASCII format need not comply with the rules until September 1, 2018. The new requirements will apply to Forms S-1, S-3, S-4, S-8, S-11, F-1, F-3, F-4, SF-1, SF-3, 10, 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, F-10, 20-F and 10-D (though the compliance date for Form 10-D will be announced at a later date). The requirement will not apply to other forms under the multi-jurisdictional disclosure system used by certain Canadian issuers or to Form 6-K, as exhibits and exhibit indexes are not required by those forms.
SEC Brings Enforcement Action for Deficient Disclosure of Financial Advisors’ Fee Arrangements
On February 14, 2017, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced the settlement of an enforcement action against CVR Energy, Inc. (“CVR” or the “Company”). The SEC brought action against the Company for its failure to disclose adequately the material terms of its fee arrangements with two investment banks in connection with the financial advisory services each bank provided to CVR during the pendency of a hostile tender offer launched by an activist. See CVR Energy, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 80039 (February 14, 2017).
Acting SEC Chair Piwowar Directs Staff to Reconsider Conflict Minerals Rule
On January 31, 2017, the SEC’s Acting Chairman, Michael Piwowar, issued a public statement (available here) that he has directed the Commission’s Staff to reconsider whether the Staff’s prior guidance on conflict minerals disclosures (previously published in April 2014 and available here) is still appropriate and evaluate whether additional relief may be appropriate.
Marblegate Case Overturned by Second Circuit Court of Appeals
In a case closely watched by companies and investors alike, on January 17, 2016, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York in Marblegate Asset Management vs. Education Management Corp. The District Court had held that a series of debt restructuring transactions by Education Management Corp. violated Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended. Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act provides that “the right of any holder of any indenture security to receive payment of the principal and interest on such indenture …shall not be impaired or affected without the consent of such holder.” Reading this provision broadly, the District Court found that a restructuring that released a parent guarantee and effectively stripped most of the assets from the issuer of the debt without the consent of each bondholder violated Section 316(b), even though the particular indenture for the bonds in question was not amended in connection with the restructuring. The District Court concluded that Section 316(b) protects a bondholder’s practical ability to receive payment even where the indenture was not explicitly modified. The District Court’s decision, together with another similar decision in the Southern District of New York in the case of Meehancombs Global Opportunities Funds, LP v. Caesers Entertainment Corp., caused significant concern among practitioners that these decisions significantly limited companies’ ability to enter into negotiated debt restructurings without consent of 100% of all indenture bondholders. Because the requirement of 100% approval gives bondholders significant negotiating leverage and creates a real risk of “holdouts,” such a requirement could effectively prevent many debt restructurings outside of a bankruptcy court.
SEC Staff Grants No-Action Request Concurring with Exclusion of Shareholder Proposal On Virtual-Only Annual Meetings
In recent years, an increasing number of companies have opted to hold annual shareholder meetings exclusively online. These annual meetings are commonly referred to as “virtual-only annual meetings”. In a decision critical for companies that currently hold or are contemplating switching to virtual-only annual meetings, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC Staff”) recently issued a no-action letter permitting a company to exclude a shareholder proposal that objected to virtual-only annual meetings. Specifically, the shareholder proposal requested that the company’s board adopt a policy to initiate or restore in-person annual meetings. The SEC Staff concurred that the proposal could be excluded under Rule 14a-8(i)(7) on the grounds that the decision whether to hold in-person annual meetings is related to the company’s ordinary business operations because the proposal “relates to the determination of whether to hold annual meetings in person.” The SEC Staff’s decision is not yet available on the SEC’s website.