BCLP – US Securities and Corporate Governance – Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

US Securities and Corporate Governance

Other Posts

Main Content

COVID-19 Business Risk Management: Addressing Supply Chain Risks

As public companies continue to manage vulnerabilities attendant to the global pandemic and its widespread economic consequences, counter-party risk assessments and careful management of those risks can be critical.  We previously blogged about a series of ongoing posts from our restructuring and special situations team relating to general and customer counter-party risk management during this time.  Most recently, the team provided its assessment of managing supply chain risks.

Our special situations team explores the need for vigilance with respect to the health and resilience of a company’s supply chain, especially for critical suppliers and those for which replacements are limited or nonexistent.  The team discusses some of the insolvency law issues attendant to suppliers and supply agreements; it also provides several risk mitigation strategies to help ensure continuity of supply and reasonableness of ongoing counter-party terms and conditions.  The team recommends companies engage in a fulsome assessment of all suppliers; consider supply chain diversification; and establish contingency plans for any suppliers who seem at risk.   The importance of knowing a company’s leverage and using it appropriately is discussed, as are practical issues pertaining to supplier possession of a company’s inventory or equipment.

While a company cannot control all of what is happening to its customers and suppliers, it can be fully cognizant of its counter-party risk assessments and implement strategies where appropriate to mitigate those risks.  When it comes time to report results for the quarter and the year, companies who have taken the time to take

SEC Issues More COVID-19 Disclosure Guidance as Quarter End Approaches

On June 23, 2019, both the Division of Corporation Finance and the Office of the Chief Accountant issued additional statements to public companies and their stakeholders about the importance of “high-quality” financial reporting and the need for focused analysis and disclosures in the context of the principles-based disclosure system.

The Division of Corporation Finance issued CF Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 9A, a supplement to Topic No. 9 issued near the close of the first quarter of this year (see our prior blog post on Topic No. 9 here).  The new guidance states that the Division is monitoring how companies are addressing COVID-19 related disclosures and encourages public companies to provide meaningful disclosures of the current and expected impact of COVID-19 through the eyes of management.  The key topics covered by the guidance are the effects of the pandemic on a company’s operations, liquidity and capital resources; the short and long-term impact of any federal relief received under the CARES Act; and the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

The staff acknowledges that companies are making many operational changes as a result of the pandemic – from converting to telework to modifying supply chain and customer contracts, and now converting to the return to the workplace and business reopenings.  The guidance says that companies need to consider whether any or all of those changes “would be material to an investment or voting decision” and disclose accordingly.  The staff takes a similar tack with respect to the

COVID-19 Business Risk Management: Addressing Counter-Party Risk

June 11, 2020

Categories

As public companies continue to manage vulnerabilities attendant to the global pandemic and its widespread economic consequences, counter-party risk assessments and careful management of those risks can be critical.  In a series of ongoing posts to our Retail Law blog, our restructuring and special situations team provides a useful paradigm for analysis and action.  The points made in this series are equally applicable to companies in many other industries.

Our special situations team discusses the importance of getting the finance and legal functions of the business on the same page as the sourcing and sales functions.  As they point out, to be effective with mitigation, all parts of the business need to quickly align in terms of identifying the level of risk each counterparty poses to the business (and how that counterparty’s inability to pay or deliver goods/services will impact the overall business).  In doing so, companies will be better able to allocate scarce resources to counterparties that pose the greatest degree of near-term risk while carefully watching future performance through the same filtered lens.  To help think about the analysis, the team has created a Heat Grid for Triaging Counter-Party Risk that can serve as a one-page resource.

Companies should look both at their customers and their suppliers in assessing risk and addressing mitigation measures.  The point is to be intentional about better assessing particular customer or supplier risk, putting processes in place

Frustrations Emerge Over Lack of Clear ESG Disclosure Standards Among Patchwork of Providers

Fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be sharpening some investors’ focus on ESG (Environmental, Social or Governance) matters, as evidenced by the SEC Investor Advisory Committee’s recent recommendation that the SEC mandate disclosure of “material, decision-useful, ESG factors” as relevant to each company.

The desire for more clarity around ESG disclosure is understandable.  More than a dozen non-profit and for-profit ESG data providers have emerged in this complex, booming market, according to a May 28, 2020 webinar of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board and the Society for Corporate Governance.  The data providers generally fall into four distinct groups:  (1) providers who publish guidance for voluntary ESG disclosure, often with company feedback; (2) providers who request data from companies using questionnaires and then based on the answers issue reports or ESG ratings; (3) providers who compile publicly available ESG data about companies and issue ESG ratings based only on that publicly available information; and (4) providers who create assessments of companies based on public and/or private information to sell to investors.

Under the current patchwork, a public company can be the subject of an ESG assessment without knowledge that it occurred or an opportunity to give input or correct misperceptions, particularly in situations where the company has very limited ESG disclosures because ESG issues were not deemed material and not required to be disclosed under SEC rules.  For public companies trying to navigate the maze of ESG issues and disclosures, frustration can easily emerge.  The different ESG assessment

PPP Loan Recipients: And Now Liability Risks under the False Claims Act?

Borrowers under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), particularly those public companies who received more than $2 million, are juggling a lot these days.  Watching the ever shifting positions of the SBA with respect to eligibility, carefully applying loan proceeds, properly applying for loan forgiveness, preparing for SBA loan reviews, coordinating with existing lenders and other stakeholders, making required current and quarterly disclosures, and attending to liquidity and business continuation risks would seem too much for most mortals.  Now, those who monitor and advise with respect to fraud risk warn that an emerging significant risk to PPP loan recipients is the False Claims Act (FCA) – and more particularly, being the target of a private whistleblower who initiates a qui tam suit alleging fraud in connection with a PPP loan.

In a recent two-part series, we explored issues related to PPP loans and the FCA and provided guidance on mitigating fraud allegation risks.  The FCA imposes civil liability on individuals and companies that defraud the federal government.  In addition, many states also have their own FCA laws.  The FCA provides for the recovery of the funds fraudulently obtained, damages up to triple the amount of those funds, and potentially high monetary penalties for each false claim submitted.  The aggregate potential liability far exceeds the amount initially received from the government.  And because this is a civil liability, the standard for proving fraud under the FCA is significantly less than under a criminal statute.  The standard under the FCA is

New PPP Loan Forgiveness and Loan Review Interim Final Rules: SBA May Review Any PPP Loan, Regardless of Size, Concerning Forgiveness, Use of Proceeds and Eligibility

The SBA released a set of interim final rules to provide additional guidance and clarity to borrowers and lenders both for loan forgiveness and for SBA loan review procedures under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).  The loan forgiveness interim final rule supplements the guidance provided by the actual PPP loan forgiveness application previously published by the SBA, providing timing information and allocating responsibilities as between the lender and the borrower.  The SBA loan review procedures interim final rule sheds little additional light on what borrowers should expect, but does provide additional guidance for lenders with respect to their role in the review process.

With respect to the SBA review process, the interim final rule makes clear that the SBA may choose to review any PPP loan, regardless of size, concerning not only forgiveness amounts and use of proceeds, but also eligibility in the first instance.  The SBA previously announced a safe harbor of sorts for any borrower of less than $2 million regarding the “necessity” certification.  The SBA included in its Frequently Asked Questions FAQ #46 that “[a]ny borrower that, together with its affiliates, received PPP loans with an original principal amount of less than $2 million will be deemed to have made the required certification concerning the necessity of the loan request in good faith.”  No mention was made of this safe harbor, or the related statement in FAQ #46 that if a borrower repays a PPP loan after a determination by the SBA that

SBA Releases PPP Loan Forgiveness Application – Still Awaiting Promised Guidance and Regulations

The SBA and Treasury published the much anticipated PPP loan forgiveness application late last Friday evening.  The application itself provides more guidance than contained in the existing FAQs and regulations relating to use of PPP loan proceeds and eligibility for forgiveness and includes new certifications.  Absent from the form is any requirement to address the necessity of the loan or to report revenue levels, profitability or other evidence of the impact of the economic uncertainty brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In its press release announcing release of the form, Treasury and the SBA stated that the form and its instructions reflected measures designed to reduce compliance burdens and simplify the process for borrowers.  Those measures relate primarily to calculation of payroll costs and step-by-step instructions to calculate eligibility for loan forgiveness.  In addition, the form provides that eligible non-payroll costs (so long as not in excess of 25% of the total forgiveness amount) can include payments of interest on any business mortgage obligation (real or personal property) incurred before February 15, 2020; business rent or lease payments on leases in effect prior to February 15, 2020; and covered utility payments so long as for services that began before February 15, 2020.  For a more thorough discussion of the guidance provided by the application form, see our analysis here.

Interestingly, if the borrower and its affiliates received PPP loans in excess of $2 million, the borrower must “check the box”.  We assume this is to flag those

Temporary SEC rules ease Regulation Crowdfunding to address urgent COVID-19 capital needs

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) recently adopted temporary final rules to Regulation Crowdfunding to address companies’ urgent COVID-19 capital needs.  The temporary rules provide tailored, conditional relief to established smaller companies from certain Regulation Crowdfunding requirements relating to the timing of the offering and the availability of financial statements required to be included in issuers’ offering materials.  For example, the temporary rules provide an exemption from certain financial statement review requirements for issuers offering $250,000 or less in securities in reliance on Regulation Crowdfunding within a 12-month period.

The SEC included the following table summarizing the existing Regulation Crowdfunding and changes resulting from the temporary rules:

  Regulation Crowdfunding Temporary Rule Amendments Eligibility The offering exemption is not available to:

·       Non-U.S. issuers;

·       Issuers that are required to file reports under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

·       Investment companies;

·       Blank check companies;

·       Issuers that are disqualified under Regulation Crowdfunding’s

disqualification rules;

·       Issuers that have failed to

file the annual reports

required under Regulation Crowdfunding during the

two years immediately

preceding the filing of the offering statement In addition to the existing eligibility criteria, issuers wishing to rely on the temporary rule amendments must also meeting the following criteria:

·       The issuer cannot have been organized and cannot have been operating less than six  months prior to the

commencement of the offering; and

·       An issuer that has sold

securities in a Regulation

Crowdfunding offering in the past,

Virtual annual meeting glitches impact shareholder participation

Because of the rapid shift from in-person to virtual annual meetings mandated by COVID-19 health and safety concerns, many companies held first-time virtual-only meetings, with both management and shareholders exploring the process in real time.  Not surprising, reports of virtual meeting glitches soon began to emerge.

Twenty minutes into the virtual-only annual meeting of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, shareholder John Chevedden was presenting his shareholder proposal (to allow shareholders to vote on bylaw and charter amendments) when the microphone cut out.  Chevedden filed a shareholder alert with the SEC requesting that the polls be reopened so Goodyear shareholders can vote based on the full text of his proposal presentation.  So far, no word from Goodyear on Chevedden’s allegation that management cut off the microphone.

Earlier this week, the Council of Institutional Investors (CII) sent to a letter to the SEC Investor Advisory Committee expressing concern about some virtual-only annual meetings early in the 2020 proxy season, citing anecdotal reports of problems including:

  • Shareholders struggling to log into meetings, in part due to control number snafus;
  • Inability to ask questions in some cases if the shareholder voted in advance by proxy;
  • Shareholders unable to ask questions during the meeting;
  • Possible cherry-picking of questions asked by shareholders and lack of transparency on questions asked by shareholders; and
  • Confusion on channels for shareholder participation, with shareholder proposal proponents required to use a different line than that used for general shareholders.

The CII urged public companies to mitigate the

SEC Approves Additional NYSE Continued Listing Compliance Relief

— New NYSE Relief Proposal Tracks SEC-Approved Nasdaq Temporary Rule

The SEC approved yet another temporary measure related to the continued listing rules of the New York Stock Exchange on April 21, 2020.  This time, the NYSE sought and received immediate effectiveness of a proposed rule change to assist listed companies who may fall out of compliance with the $50 million market capitalization and $1.00 price continued listing requirements by providing a tolling period through June 30, 2020.  The NYSE originally sought SEC approval to suspend these requirements until June 30, 2020, citing the unprecedented market declines resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, but the proposal was rejected.

Companies that fail to maintain either of these NYSE continued listing standards are typically notified by the Exchange of their noncompliance and then must promptly issue a press release and file any required Form 8-K.  Listed companies have up to 18 months to regain compliance with the $50 million market capitalization requirement and up to 6 months to regain compliance with the $1.00 trading price standard under the existing rules.   Under the temporary rule, the Exchange will continue to notify listed companies of any noncompliance, companies will still be required to issue a press release and file the required Form 8-K, but the cure periods will be tolled until June 30, 2020, meaning that the 18-month or 6-month cure period will be calculated as beginning on July 1, 2020.

The Exchange still intends to attach a “.BC” indicator to those noncompliant

The attorneys of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.