The SEC recently approved amendments to Rule 302(b) of Regulation S-T, which governs the signing of “authentication documents” relating to typewritten signatures included in documents that are filed with the SEC electronically via EDGAR.  Current Rule 302(b) requires that, prior to or at the time of such a filing, each signatory manually sign a signature page (or other document) “authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting his or her signature that appears in typed form within the electronic filing.”  Rule 302(b), as amended, will for the first time allow a signatory to use an electronic signature (as an alternative to a manual signature) on any such authentication document, provided certain requirements are met, as described below.

Effective Date.  The amendments will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register.  Following approval of the amendments, however, the SEC staff issued a statement indicating that, in light of COVID-19 concerns, early reliance on and compliance with amended Rule 302(b) is permitted.

Attestation Document (New).  Before using an electronic signature in an authentication document for the first time, a signatory will be required to manually sign a document attesting that he or she agrees that the use of an electronic signature in any authentication document will be the legal equivalent of such individual’s manual signature.

Electronic Signature Procedures.  In connection with the amendments, the SEC updated the EDGAR Filer Manual to set out the procedures that are required to be followed before an electronic signature may be used in an authentication document.  The electronic signing

As covered in our blog post dated August 26, 2020, the SEC recently adopted amendments to Regulation S-K Items 101 (business description), 103 (legal proceedings), and 105 (risk factors) aimed at modernizing disclosure requirements.  The amended rules became effective on November 9, 2020.

The SEC Staff (the “Staff”) recently published three transitional FAQs addressing questions that have arisen regarding the amendments:

FAQ (1) – Applicability of Amended Items 101, 103 and 105 to Form S-3 Prospectus Supplements Filed on or after November 9, 2020.

• The Staff confirmed that because Form S-3 requires only incorporation by reference – and not express disclosure – under Items 101 and 103, a registrant is not required to comply with amended Items 101 and 103 when, on or after November 9, 2020, it files a prospectus supplement to a Form S-3 registration statement that became effective prior to November 9, 2020. The registrant also is not required to amend the Form 10-K that is incorporated by reference into the Form S-3 to comply with amended Items 101 and 103.
• The Staff noted that because Form S-3 requires that Item 105 disclosure be expressly included (i.e., the disclosure cannot be incorporated by reference), Securities Act Rule 401(a) would ordinarily require that the prospectus supplement comply with amended Item 105. The Staff indicated that it will not object, however, if the prospectus supplement is filed without amending the Form S-3 to comply with amended Item 105.  The registrant will, however, be required to comply with amended
  

Glass Lewis (“GL”) recently issued its 2020 Proxy Season Review (U.S.) (the “Report”) covering the U.S. 2020 Proxy Season (i.e., January 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020).  GL reported on certain 2020 shareholder voting trends and results, as well as certain of GL’s voting recommendations.  The statistics and information included below (1) cover only a portion of the Report and (2) refer to the U.S. 2020 Proxy Season and to the U.S. companies covered by GL, unless otherwise indicated.

Governance and Disclosure

• Boards are becoming increasingly younger; for example, for companies in the Russell 3000 Index (the “Russell 3000”), (1) the average age for new director nominees decreased to 54.8 years from 55.9 and 57.7 years in 2019 and 2018, respectively, and (2) the average age of all directors decreased to 61.2 years from 61.8 and 63.5 years in 2019 and 2018, respectively;
• For Russell 3000 companies, the average tenure of men on boards decreased slightly to 12.4 years from 12.9 years in 2019, while the average tenure of women on such boards increased more significantly to 7.2 years from 6.0 years in 2019;
• Approximately 13.2% of boards did not include women, which was reduced from 18.8% in 2019 and 26.2% in 2018;
• The number of women in board leadership positions at Russell 3000 companies has increased each year during the past three years; however, women are more likely to serve as committee chairs rather than as board chairs, vice chairs or lead directors; men hold approximately 94.5% of chair
  

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) recently adopted final amendments to the auditor independence requirements set forth in Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.  The SEC stated that the final amendments were based on recurring fact patterns that the SEC staff has observed over the years in which certain relationships and services triggered technical independence rule violations without necessarily impairing an auditor’s objectivity and impartiality.  These relationships either triggered non-substantive rule breaches or required potentially time-consuming audit committee review of non-substantive matters, thereby diverting time, attention, and other resources of audit clients, auditors, and audit committees from other investor protection efforts.

In the adopting release, the SEC stated that the amendments “…maintain the bedrock principle that auditors must be independent in fact and in appearance while…more effectively focusing the independence analysis on those relationships or services that are more likely to threaten an auditor’s objectivity and impartiality.”  The SEC anticipates that Rule 2-01, as amended, will make the auditor independence rules easier to apply and appropriately limit the situations in which auditors are not deemed to be independent.

The amendments include, among others:

• In connection with determining whether auditor independence exists in the context of initial public offerings, an amendment shortening the applicable look-back period to cover the immediately preceding fiscal year (rather than the period covered by the registration statement, which can be up to three years);
• In connection with identifying relationships that may preclude a finding of auditor independence, an amendment providing that a sister entity
  

As COVID-19 rages on, companies are again flocking to virtual annual meetings for the 2021 proxy season, but with one important difference:  the luxury of time.  Many companies are already exploring retention of virtual annual meeting providers and alternatives for video and real-time Q&A, as well as drafting fulsome disclosure about meeting logistics in their proxy materials to address concerns raised by investors, the SEC and others with respect to some pitfalls during the 2020 proxy season.

Service Providers and Technology.  For 2021, an issuer will have additional time to select an appropriate provider of a virtual meeting platform.  The most widely used vendor for hosting virtual meetings is Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., which reported that it hosted 1,494 virtual shareholder meetings during the first six months of 2020.  Other service providers, such as stock transfer agents, also provide such services.  A few companies have even arranged to facilitate the virtual component of an annual meeting via Zoom.

In 2020, some companies were caught off-guard by technology glitches.  For 2021, issuers should be in a position to anticipate technology issues and to put contingency plans in place to address them.  Issuers can follow best practices for virtual meetings by, for example, putting in place technical support lines for the duration of their meetings.

Format and Rules of Conduct (including Q&A).  Companies need to decide whether a meeting will be virtual-only, physical-only or a hybrid.  For any virtual component, they need to decide whether the access will be audio-only or

As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, public companies took action in response to the impact and potential impact of the pandemic on their businesses and the economy.  The actions often included temporary compensation reductions (voluntary and otherwise) for a company’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer and/or named executive officers (collectively, “NEOs”).

As would be expected, many companies reported these changes under Item 5.02(e) of Form 8-K, which is triggered when a company enters into, adopts or materially amends a material compensatory plan or arrangement with NEOs or in which they participate.  Some companies, however, reported the reductions under Item 7.01 or 8.01 of Form 8-K or, sometimes, in a stand-alone press release or not at all.  As we previously noted in March, companies that did not report the reductions under Item 5.02(e) likely were comfortable that, based on their specific facts and circumstances, the decreases were not material to the executives’ compensation arrangements or, in the case of voluntary compensation reductions where employment agreements were in place, perhaps by analogy to SEC C&DI 117.13, that Item 5.02(e) was not triggered.

As we move into the final quarter of 2020, and in view of developments following the initial compensation reductions relative to the continuing effects of the pandemic, a number of industries and companies have had relatively positive financial performance in the face of the pandemic, and may have a more favorable business outlook or simply better visibility into the effects of the pandemic.  As a result, some companies have

The SEC Division of Corporate Finance yesterday issued new Regulation S-K guidance, CD&I 219.05, to help public companies determine whether benefits provided to executive officers because of COVID-19 should be disclosed as perquisites or personal benefits for purposes of executive compensation proxy disclosures.  Consistent with Release 33-8732A, the guidance confirms that an item provided because of the COVID-19 pandemic is not a perquisite or personal benefit if it is “integrally and directly related to the performance of the executive’s duties,” which depends on the particular facts.

The CD&I states:  “In some cases, an item considered a perquisite or personal benefit when provided in the past may not be considered as such when provided as a result of COVID-19. For example, enhanced technology needed to make the NEO’s home his or her primary workplace upon imposition of local stay-at-home orders would generally not be a perquisite or personal benefit because of the integral and direct relationship to the performance of the executive’s duties. On the other hand, items such as new health-related or personal transportation benefits provided to address new risks arising because of COVID-19, if they are not integrally and directly related to the performance of the executive’s duties, may be perquisites or personal benefits even if the company would not have provided the benefit but for the COVID-19 pandemic, unless they are generally available to all employees.”

Perqs have been, and will continue to be, an area of SEC focus.  We urge companies to carefully give thought

We previously blogged about the myriad issues arising in connection with the botched announcement by Kodak of a potential $765 million loan from the federal government as part of its coronavirus response measures, as well as insider stock transactions preceding and immediately following the announcement.  Kodak’s board formed a special committee to conduct an internal investigation.  Akin Gump, retained by the special committee to conduct the investigation, last week delivered its report of over 70 pages of factual findings and legal analysis, concluding that there were no violations of law or company policy, but identifying corporate governance issues requiring attention and remediation.  The company has posted the report on its website.

As we previously blogged, on July 27 the internal public relations team at Kodak released an alert to local media that Kodak would be making a big announcement the following day concerning a major initiative between Kodak and the federal government.  Stories immediately started circulating on social media and the websites of local network affiliates. Kodak then contacted the recipients of the advisory to tell them it was meant only as background and was not intended for publication.  The formal announcement followed before the market open on July 28 when Kodak and the U.S. International Development Finance Corp (DFC) jointly announced a ”letter of interest” contemplating a $765 million loan to Kodak to launch a new pharmaceutical business. Although the press release made clear that this was only a letter of interest and the loan was subject