Companies commonly supplement their reported earnings under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) with non-GAAP financial measures that they believe more accurately reflect their results of operations or financial position or that are commonly used by investors to evaluate performance. A non-GAAP financial measure is a numerical measure of a company’s historical or future financial performance, financial position or cash flows that includes or excludes amounts from the most directly comparable GAAP measure. Non-GAAP financial measures are used by companies to bridge the divide between corporate reporting that is standardized under GAAP and reporting that is tailored to a particular industry or circumstance.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) permits companies to present non-GAAP financial measures in their public disclosures as well as registration statements filed under the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and periodic reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), subject to compliance with Regulation G and Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K (Item 10(e)). These regulations were adopted to ensure that investors are provided with financial information that is fulsome and not misleading.

…continue reading: Disclosure of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

Early Lessons from the 2013 Proxy Season

As Skadden monitors the initial weeks of the 2013 proxy season, we are seeing the following preliminary trends:

Vote Results

Of the first 279 companies of the Russell 3000 to report the results of say-on-pay proposals, approximately:

• 72 percent have passed with over 90 percent support;
• 22 percent have passed with between 70.1 percent and 90 percent support;
• 4 percent have passed with between 50 percent and 70 percent support; and
• 2 percent (six companies) obtained less than 50 percent support.

…continue reading: Emerging Say-on-Pay Trends and Litigation Developments

On April 22, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced its first non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with a company in a matter involving alleged violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). [1] The SEC entered into the agreement with Ralph Lauren Corporation (Lauren), resolving allegations that Lauren violated the FCPA when its Argentine subsidiary allegedly paid bribes to government and customs officials to improperly secure the importation of Lauren’s products into Argentina. The NPA in this case resulted from Lauren’s prompt self-reporting and extensive cooperation. Prior to the Lauren NPA, the SEC seemed to provide limited credit to public companies for cooperation in FCPA investigations.
Time will tell whether the Lauren NPA is a harbinger of a new approach.

…continue reading: SEC Announces First Non-Prosecution Agreement in an FCPA Matter

In late 2012, The Wall Street Journal published a number of articles that analyzed the trading practices of certain public company executives, in many cases under trading plans that were entered into in accordance with the affirmative defense provisions adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. [1] The trades examined in the Journal articles were called into question because they were sizable and were reported to have occurred shortly before company news updates. The articles also compared returns by executives who traded irregularly against those who followed a consistent pattern, and concluded that irregular trading resulted in greater gains. These articles have reignited interest in “best practices” for Rule 10b5-1 trading plans.

The Council of Institutional Investors (CII), a group of pension funds that oversees more than $3 trillion in assets, has picked up on the issue of potential misuse of Rule 10b5-1 trading plans and submitted a rulemaking petition to the SEC requesting interpretive guidance or amendments to Rule 10b5-1. [2] CII recommends that the SEC:

…continue reading: Getting Back to Basics with Rule 10b5-1 Trading Plans

In recent months, a number of companies have repurchased or announced plans to repurchase their shares. Management and boards of directors overseeing companies with significant cash stockpiles yet finding fewer mechanisms to boost earnings may soon need to decide whether or not a share repurchase is the most productive use of their cash. This post addresses the questions surrounding share repurchases that companies should consider as they evaluate the advantages, disadvantages, legal implications and strategic considerations of share repurchases.

Overview

What are the ways a company can repurchase its shares?

There are four principal ways a company can repurchase its shares, all of which are discussed below:

(1) open market purchases;

(2) issuer tender offers;

(3) privately-negotiated repurchases; and

(4) structural programs, including accelerated share repurchase programs.

Most share repurchases are effected over time through open market purchases. These are often referred to as share repurchase programs or plans.

…continue reading: Questions Surrounding Share Repurchases

Gabelli v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, No. 11-1274 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013)

In a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the five-year limitations period that governs SEC enforcement actions begins to run when the alleged fraud is complete. The Court reversed the Second Circuit on the issue, which had held that the discovery rule applied in cases where the defendant allegedly committed fraud. The SEC alleged that two mutual fund managers allowed one of the fund’s investors to engage in market timing in the fund in exchange for an investment in a separate hedge fund, but the SEC filed the action more than five years after the conduct was alleged to have taken place. The Court explained that limitations periods ordinarily begin to run upon a party’s injury, but in cases of fraud — when the injury itself is concealed — courts have developed the discovery rule to protect individuals, who are after all not required to be in a constant state of investigation. That rationale however does not apply to the SEC, whose mission is to investigate (and prevent) fraud and which has statutory authority to demand detailed records, including those extra-judicial subpoenas. Therefore, the Court concluded the discovery rule does not apply to the SEC.

Click here to view the opinion.

On February 27, 2013, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds that a securities fraud plaintiff alleging fraud on the market need not establish the materiality of an alleged fraudulent statement in order to obtain class certification. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy dissented.

The particular questions presented by the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari were whether, in a misrepresentation case under SEC Rule 10b-5, a securities fraud plaintiff alleging fraud on the market must establish materiality of the misstatements in order to obtain class certification and whether, in such a case, the district court must allow the defendant to present evidence rebutting the applicability of the fraud-on-the-market theory before certifying a plaintiff class based on that theory.

…continue reading: Supreme Court Rules on Proof of Materiality for Class Certification

Starting in February 2013, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (the “Threat Reduction Act”) will impose new reporting requirements on U.S. domestic and foreign companies that are required to file reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). In particular, Section 219 of the Threat Reduction Act added new Section 13(r) to the Exchange Act. Under Section 13(r), Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Annual Reports on Form 20-F and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed pursuant to Exchange Act Section 13(a) must include disclosure of contracts, transactions and “dealings” with Iranian and other entities. Section 13(r) is effective beginning with reports with a due date after February 6, 2013.

The Staff of the Division of Corporation Finance of the SEC (the “SEC Staff”) has provided helpful guidance on implementation of these new requirements in Exchange Act Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations Questions 147.01-147.07 (available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/exchangeactsections-interps.htm). However, many questions remain, and the following questions and answers represent the consensus views of the undersigned law firms.

None of the firms subscribing to this report intends thereby to give legal advice to any person. The undersigned firms recommend that counsel be consulted with respect to matters addressed in this report. The answers below may need to be modified based upon unique facts and circumstances.

…continue reading: Section 13(r) Disclosure Guidance for Public Companies

Nine months have passed since the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the JOBS Act), a package of legislative measures intended to ease regulatory burdens on smaller companies and facilitate public and private capital formation, was signed into law. While certain portions of the JOBS Act have yet to be implemented pending SEC rulemaking, the provisions related to IPOs have been effective since enactment. These provisions seek to encourage companies with less than $1 billion in annual revenue to pursue an IPO by codifying a number of changes to the IPO process and establishing a transitional “on-ramp” that provides for scaled-down public disclosures for a new category of issuers termed emerging growth companies (EGCs).

Using nine-month data from the final prospectuses of 53 EGCs that successfully completed underwritten IPOs with gross proceeds of at least $75 million between April 5, 2012, and December 15, 2012, below is a summary of a number of developing market practices for EGC IPOs and certain related interpretative guidance issued by the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Staff and SEC, respectively).

…continue reading: The JOBS Act: Lessons from the First Nine Months

At the beginning of the first Obama administration, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or the Commission) was an agency on the ropes, with some knowledgeable observers even speculating that it might not survive the revision to the financial regulatory apparatus that was anticipated in the wake of the financial crisis. Although the agency has been the subject of fierce criticism and controversy regarding a variety of issues during the last four years, it has indeed survived and, by many measures, been reinvigorated. It announced that last year it brought 734 enforcement actions, nearly equaling the record number of 735 in 2011, and that it obtained more than $3 billion in financial remedies.

As the second term of the Obama administration begins, the SEC is experiencing a profound leadership transition, with the departures of agency Chair Mary Schapiro; Director of Enforcement Robert Khuzami; its general counsel; the director of Corporation Finance; and the director of Trading and Markets. Such widespread turnover at the Commission and among its senior staff will have a significant impact on the priorities and direction of the agency. Although eventually a new chair may be named to the Commission, for now Elisse Walter, who was elevated from commissioner to chair on Ms. Schapiro’s departure, is moving forward to grapple with the pressing issues on the Commission’s agenda. She also is re-populating the senior staff ranks, having recently named a new general counsel.

At this moment of transition, we assess several of the initiatives that marked Director Khuzami’s tenure at the SEC and that are likely to continue to influence enforcement activity. We also reflect on several pressing issues that may be prominent on the SEC’s enforcement agenda during the second Obama term.

…continue reading: SEC Enforcement in the Second Term of the Obama Administration