On January 11, 2011, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN"), again extended the Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA") Customer Identification Program ("CIP") no-action letter (initially issued in 2004) relating to broker-dealer reliance on SEC registered investment advisers ("RIAs"). As previously, the extension was granted at the request of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association ("SIFMA").
Delaware Chancery Court Upholds Airgas Poison Pill
On February 15, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an important opinion upholding the continued vitality of the poison pill as an appropriate defensive measure for companies faced with takeover proposals deemed inadequate by the target’s board of directors. Chancellor Chandler’s 158 page decision in Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. v. Airgas, Inc. C.A. No. 5249-CC (Del. Ch. 2011) held that the maintenance of a poison pill by the Airgas board of directors was a reasonable response to an all cash, non-coercive, $70 per share tender offer by market rival Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. Despite the fact that Air Products’ tender offer had been public for more than a year–during which time Air Products won a proxy contest to place three directors on Airgas’s staggered board–and that Airgas stockholders were sophisticated and well-informed, the Court concluded that the Airgas board "acted in good faith and in the honest belief" that the $70 per share offer was inadequate, and therefore did not breach a fiduciary duty by failing to redeem the company’s poison pill. The Court highlighted the fact that the independent directors appointed pursuant to Air Products’ successful proxy efforts "changed teams" once they were appointed to the Airgas board–that is, Air Products’ own nominees voted to maintain the poison pill that prevented the tender offer from going forward.
The SEC Begins to Part Ways with Credit Ratings Pursuant to Dodd-Frank Stricture
On February 9, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") proposed to amend the SEC’s rules to eliminate credit rating as one of the "transaction requirement" criteria by which an issuer can qualify for the short-form registration process, most notably under Forms S-3 and F-3. Originally proposed in 2008, similar amendments were the subject of extensive, largely negative, comments and were not adopted at that time. Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act now requires the SEC to replace any reference to or reliance upon credit ratings with an appropriate alternative standard of credit-worthiness, and the 2008 proposals have thus been resurrected. We expect the proposed amendments, if adopted, will have a relatively limited impact on most companies that are frequent issuers. The proposals will likely affect those issuers with no publicly held common equity that historically have relied upon their investment-grade credit rating to qualify for short-form registration.
SEC Adopts Say-on-Pay Rules
At an open meeting held on January 25, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) voted to approve rules to implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) relating to shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation (“say-on-pay”), shareholder advisory votes on the frequency of conducting say-on-pay votes (“say-on-frequency”) and shareholder advisory votes on compensation arrangements in connection with significant corporate transactions (“say-on-golden-parachutes”). The SEC did not address its proposed rules regarding disclosure by institutional investment managers of their votes on say-on-pay, say-on-frequency and say-on-golden-parachutes proposals but indicated at the open meeting that it will do so in the coming month. The final rules, adopted by a vote of 3 to 2, with Commissioners Casey and Paredes dissenting, were issued pursuant to Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
7th Annual Webcast Briefing on Challenges in Compliance and Corporate Governance
While compliance professionals struggle to balance developing, implementing and monitoring effective compliance programs with the reality of shrinking resources and budgets, the risks involved in non-compliance are higher than ever. Join our experienced securities law, corporate governance, white collar defense and investigations, and government contracts attorneys as they discuss practical approaches for avoiding potential pitfalls and developing strong compliance programs in today’s challenging environment.
The Dodd-Frank Act: Application of Heightened Bank-Like Supervision and Regulation to Systemically Significant Financial Companies
Enacted on July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Act") comprehensively reforms and restructures the U.S. financial regulatory system. As part of this effort, Title I of the Act establishes the new Financial Stability Oversight Council (the "Council"). The Council’s purposes include: (i) identifying risks and responding to emerging threats to the financial stability of the United States and its financial system; and (ii) promoting market discipline by ending government loss shielding of shareholders, creditors and counterparties (that is, eliminating the concept of "too big to fail").
2010 Year-End Securities Enforcement Update
I. Overview of 2010
The year 2010 has been a watershed year for securities enforcement. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act gave the SEC additional enforcement powers, while also bringing additional market participants under SEC registration and potentially elevating the standards of conduct for other securities professionals. At the same time, the SEC, working closely with criminal prosecutors, continued to pursue insider trading investigations based on recorded conversations and cooperating witnesses. In addition, the reorganization of the Enforcement Division into specialized units has started to yield enforcement actions in areas of priority. By all accounts, the heightened enforcement reflected this year will continue for the foreseeable future, putting a premium on the ability of in-house compliance programs to adapt to the changing regulatory landscape.
UK and European Remuneration Reform: Year in Review
In the past three years, international regulatory focus on remuneration has gripped the globe. The heart of the debate which arose in the context of remuneration structures in investment banking and their contribution to global financial crisis has extended past this into remuneration across a broad range of industries. This past year has seen a number of developments which have intensified in both the UK and Europe as we draw close to the year end. We look back at the year and consider where regulation and industry guidelines have emerged in the context of pay structures and recent developments in the area of transparency and taxation. We also provide a comprehensive review of the hugely anticipated new remuneration code[1] the final version of which was published by the Financial Services Authority last Friday.
SEC Proposes Disclosure Rules for Conflict Minerals, Mine Safety and Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers
On December 15, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") proposed rules to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act") relating to: (1) conflict minerals; (2) mine safety matters; and (3) resource extraction issuer payments to governments. Each of the proposed rules was approved by the SEC without questions. Comments on the proposed rules must be submitted to the SEC by January 31, 2011.
Delaware Supreme Court Reverses Court of Chancery Opinion Concerning Corporations with Staggered Boards
On November 23, 2010, in Airgas, Inc. v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., — A.3d —-, 2010 WL 4734305 (Del. Nov. 23, 2010), the Delaware Supreme Court reversed last month’s decision of the Court of Chancery, Airgas, Inc. v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., No. 5817-CC, 2010 WL 3960599 (Del. Ch. Oct. 8, 2010), regarding the scheduling of Airgas’s annual meeting and its potential effect on Airgas’s staggered board. The Supreme Court’s decision invalidates an amendment to Airgas’s bylaws backed by Air Products and holds that the "Annual Meeting Term Alternative" adopted by Airgas to define the length of its directors’ terms provides for a three-year term for each director.