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

US Securities and Corporate Governance

COVID-19

Main Content

Buyers’ obligation to assume PPP debt hinges on need for SBA approval

The Small Business Administration recently published a procedural notice on changes of ownership for PPP borrowers. One specific area where we’ve seen confusion is whether the procedural notice requires a buyer to assume all of the PPP borrower’s obligations in an asset sale transaction. As discussed below, while the procedural notice does require the buyer to assume the PPP loan obligations in an asset sale in order to obtain the SBA’s prior approval, so long as the SBA’s prior approval is not required, then the parties remain free to structure the asset transaction in whatever manner makes economic sense for the parties, including leaving the PPP loan obligations with the seller.

Section 2.b. of the procedural notice indicates that, in connection with obtaining SBA pre-approval for a change of ownership, that SBA approval “will be conditioned on the purchasing entity assuming all of the PPP borrower’s obligations under the PPP loan, including responsibility for compliance with the PPP loan terms.” The procedural notice goes on to indicate that the purchase or sale agreement “must include appropriate language regarding the assumption of the PPP borrower’s obligations under the PPP loan by the purchasing person or entity, or a separate assumption agreement must be submitted to the SBA.” Accordingly, if SBA pre-approval is required in connection with a change of control structured as an asset sale, then it would be necessary to have the

Red flags for directors: SEC may take magnifying glass to disclosures involving significant judgments in COVID-19 era

In a fast-paced webinar, the Heartland NACD chapter recently explored the board’s role in SEC inquiries and discussed red flags for directors, as well as SEC trends and developments. Panelists included Terri Vaughan, a seasoned board leader; Lory Stone, an SEC enforcement attorney; and Terry Pritchard, an experienced securities litigator at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.

During a discussion of red flags that should draw directors’ attention, Ms. Stone noted that the SEC may take a magnifying glass to disclosures involving significant judgements and estimates, particularly in the current economic conditions.  She quoted her former colleague Steven Peikin, previous Co-Director of the Division of Enforcement, who stated in a speech at a recent securities enforcement forum:

Recognizing that the economic impacts of any downturn may vary across different industries and sectors, the [SEC’s Coronavirus] Steering Committee has developed a systematic process to review public filings from issuers in highly-impacted industries, with a focus on identifying disclosures that appear to be significantly out of step with others in the same industry. We are also looking for disclosures, impairments, or valuations that may attempt to disguise previously undisclosed problems or weaknesses as coronavirus-related.

Other red flags discussed during the webinar included:

  • Tips/hotline reports, which should be closely examined by the board;
  • “Domineering” CEOs who may have unchecked power;
  • Auditor resignations, which should prompt the board to understand the reason for the resignation;
  • Management shake-ups, with abrupt terminations or resignations;
  • Government investigations;
  • Financial restatements;
  • Practice changes in judgment areas (debt restructuring, revenue recognition practices);

When What Goes Down Comes Up – Reporting NEO Compensation Restoration

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

SEC Issues New COVID-19 Guidance: Health-Related or Personal Transportation Benefits May Be Perqs

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

SEC Staff Announces Temporary Procedures for Supplemental Materials and Rule 83 Confidential Treatment Requests

In light of health and safety concerns related to the pandemic, the SEC staff recently announced the availability of a temporary secure file transfer process for the submission of supplemental materials pursuant to Rule 418 under the Securities Act of 1933 or Rule 12b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information subject to Rule 83 confidential treatment requests (“CTRs”).

From time to time companies provide supplemental materials to the SEC staff, typically when responding to SEC comments.  Rule 418 provides broad authority to the SEC and its staff to request information concerning a company, its registration statement, the distribution of its securities and market or underwriter activities. Rule 12b-4 provides similar authority with respect to registration statements and periodic or other reports. Both rules require the SEC to return supplemental materials upon request, provided the request is made at the time they are furnished to the staff and return of the materials is consistent with the protection of investors and FOIA.  Rule 418 also requires that the materials not have been filed in electronic format.

SEC Rule 83 provides a procedure by which persons submitting information may include a CTR for portions of that information where no other confidential treatment process applies. Typically, this is utilized when companies provide responses to SEC staff comments.  Rule 83 generally requires the submission of the information covered by the CTR separately from that for which confidential treatment is not requested, appropriately marked as confidential, and accompanied by

Troubles Mount for Embattled Eastman Kodak

A proposed class action has been filed against Eastman Kodak alleging securities fraud in connection with certain events surrounding the government’s possible $765 million pharmaceutical development loan to Kodak.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who may have purchased Kodak stock between July 27 – when early word of a possible government-Kodak initiative was released – and August 7 – when the company announced the formation of an independent committee of the board of directors to conduct an internal investigation of the events surrounding the possible government loan.

Between those dates, the company released a flurry of information, Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to the SEC seeking an SEC investigation, the U.S. government tweeted that the loan would be halted pending resolution of wrongdoing allegations and there was extraordinary stock activity.  During that time, Kodak stock rose as high as $60 per share, up from about $2 per share the prior week.

The troubles seem to stem from an advisory sent by Kodak to media outlets in Rochester, New York, Kodak’s hometown, on Monday, July 27.  According to media reports, local reporters tweeted information on July 27 about an initiative between Kodak and the U.S. government in response to the coronavirus pandemic.  Those were followed by posted news stories on the websites of the local ABC and CBS affiliates.  Some of those tweets and stories were deleted when Kodak reached out to advise them that the advisory information was only for “background” and not publication. 

Q2 Reporting Trends: Few Jump on EBITDAC Bandwagon

Based on Q2 reporting to date, few companies opted to present non-GAAP financial measures using the new metric term “EBITDAC” (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, amortization – and COVID-19).  That is not surprising, given the concerns raised by credit rating agencies, the CFA Institute and U.S. creditors, among others, about the potential for EBITDAC to distort and misrepresent companies’ earnings.

Instead, many companies appeared to heed SEC advice, including CF Disclosure Guidance: Topic No. 9A, as described in our June 24, 2020 post, and CF Disclosure Guidance: Topic No. 9 as described in our April 2, 2020 post .  In addition to including discussions of COVID-19 business impacts in earnings releases, many included such discussions in MD&A in the Q2 Form 10-Q filed with the SEC.  Rather than disclosing the impact of COVID-19 as a non-GAAP financial measure, many presented traditional operating or statistical metrics while separately quantifying the effect of the pandemic, such as “Operating expenses increased 25% compared to the second quarter of 2019, 15% of which was due to COVID-19 supplies, cleaning and other incremental costs.”

While few companies used the EBITDAC label as noted above, some appeared to be using the concept without the label.  For example, some adjusted their adjusted EBITDA for COVID-19 expenses or presented gross margin without COVID-19 impacts.  Such COVID-19 adjustments may be more likely to draw SEC scrutiny during ordinary periodic filing reviews, especially when viewed in hindsight.  The staff has taken the position that “presenting a

Analysis of PPP Borrowers: Who Returned Funds?

Under the CARES Act, the U.S. Treasury and Small Business Administration established the Paycheck Protection Program, a forgivable loan program for small businesses.  While public companies were eligible to participate, on April 23, 2020, the U.S. Treasury published new guidance suggesting public company participants who could not demonstrate sufficient need could be subject to scrutiny unless they return the funds. We previously wrote about a framework for borrowers to analyze their certification risks.

Most public company recipients of Paycheck Protection Program loans have elected not to return the funds.  Based on a review of SEC filings and published SBA data, this post on Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s banking blog, BankBCLP.com, analyzes the statistics to see who returned Paycheck Protection Program loans.  Among the findings, 88% of public borrowers that received PPP loans elected to retain their PPP proceeds and 75% of borrowers approved for PPP loans of between $5 and $10 million did the same.

Read more here.

Repeating COVID-19 Risk Factor Updates in Your Second (and Third) Quarter 10-Qs

As previously noted, the SEC issued supplemental disclosure guidance near the end of the second quarter which, among other things, set forth dozens of questions for companies to consider as they assess and disclose the evolving impact of COVID-19 on their operations, liquidity and capital resources.

Many public companies with a December 31 fiscal year end included updated risk factors in their first quarter 10-Q filings, reflecting the uncertainties and adjusted risk profile in light of COVID-19.  Disclosure practices varied, with some companies including a small number of risk factors (or even a single risk factor) that updated previously disclosed risks in a global manner.  Other companies updated a small subset or suite of risk factors affected by COVID-19, and some may have updated all of their risk factor disclosure from the previous Form 10-K.

As companies assess their risk factor disclosure for the second (and third) quarters, it is important to consider that Item 1A of Part II of Form 10-Q requires disclosure of “any material changes from risk factors as previously disclosed in the registrant’s Form 10-K in response to Item 1A to Part 1 of Form 10-K.”  In other words, as a technical matter, companies don’t get the benefit in later quarters of relying on updates in previous 10-Q filings in the same fiscal year.  (Compare this requirement with, for example, the instruction to Part II, Item 1 as to Legal Proceedings, where disclosure in subsequent Form 10-Q filings in the same fiscal year are

80% of U.S. S&P 500 Companies Fail to Provide Guidance in Last Three Months

As U.S. public companies prepare to kick off the Q2 2020 financial reporting season, a clear trend is emerging, with 80% of S&P 500 companies refusing to provide earnings guidance during the last three months, according to a recent Bloomberg article.  That translates to more than 400 companies who failed to provide guidance to investors, with nearly all stating that they lack visibility because of COVID-19, based on a recent Seeking Alpha report.

For those companies that have issued guidance, Factset.com recently reported that during Q2 2020, 27 S&P 500 companies issued negative EPS guidance and 22 S&P 500 companies issued positive EPS guidance. Only 49 S&P 500 companies issued EPS guidance for Q2, which was well below the 5-year average of 106 for a quarter.

While the numbers and percentages reported above differ slightly, the trend toward withholding guidance is clear and understandable in the current environment.  The health and economic effects of COVID-19 remain uncertain and depend on the duration of the crisis.  Absent a vaccine for the virus, companies – particularly those in the consumer discretionary sector – grapple with how to profitably run a business where social distancing and avoidance of large crowds are the new norms.

On the other hand, the conservative position of failing to provide guidance seems at odds with investors’ desire for greater transparency and more insight into the range of potential outcomes and the ability of companies to manage through different scenarios during this period of pandemic and

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.