An Unexpected Free Cash Flow Comment from the SEC Staff

It is surprising how much attention free cash flow continues to generate in SEC disclosures. After all, it’s been used for decades as a non-GAAP financial measure. In fact, back in 2003, the SEC’s non-GAAP financial measure FAQs stated that companies should be “cautious” when using it, noting that it does not have a uniform definition and might inappropriately imply that it represents residual cash flow available for discretionary expenditures. Fast forward to the much-scrutinized 2016 non-GAAP financial measures C&DIs, which essentially repeated the old free cash flow FAQ, though now companies need only be “aware” of, rather than “cautious” about, the absence of a uniform definition. This softer language presumably reflects the staff’s general softening toward non-GAAP measures, which it now sees as helpful disclosure so long as it’s done properly. Then unexpectedly (at least to me), Monsanto Company received the following comment in a February letter that appears to have resulted from the staff’s routine review of Monsanto’s Form 10-K: “We note you define free cash flow as the total of net cash provided or required by operating activities and net cash provided or required by investing activities. Pursuant to Question No. 102.07 of the Staff’s Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DIs”) on Non-GAAP Financial Measures, issued May 17, 2016, please advise of your consideration given to redefining this measure or its computation as the typical calculation of free cash flow (i.e., cash flows from operating activities less capital expenditures). Please provide us with any proposed revisions to your disclosure of free cash flow to be included in future filings.” The comment seems inconsistent with the staff’s position...

Virtual Coins are ‘Securities’ After All

On July 25, the SEC issued a Rule 21(a) investigative report concluding that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. No, wait, that’s not right. The report actually concluded that tokens offered by an unincorporated “virtual organization” known as The DAO (presumably short for “decentralized autonomous organization”) in what is known as an “initial coin offering” (ICO) were securities and, therefore, are subject to the federal securities laws. Despite loads of cool-sounding techno-jargon in The DAO’s marketing materials and multiple breathless articles by mainstream media touting ICOs as the next big thing, the SEC had no trouble slotting The DAO tokens into the U.S. Supreme Court’s 71-year-old Howey definition of a “security,” which should come as no surprise to anyone. What’s going on? ICO’s have sprung out of nowhere in the past couple of years to rival traditional venture capital in the amount of funds raised for early stage technology projects. In fact, Shawn Langlois, social media editor of MarketWatch, said in a recent column that “the total crypto market cap now stands at a whopping $87 billion.” Basically, promotors sell virtual coins in ICOs in exchange for U.S. currency or some other form of virtual currency (for example, bitcoin or ether). The ICO proceeds are then ostensibly used to fund development of the company’s digital platform, software or other technology project. The virtual coins typically can be resold in a secondary market on virtual currency exchanges. Not surprisingly, the SEC says in its related Investor Bulletin that “some promoters … may lead buyers of the virtual coins … to expect a return for their...

Insider Trading: Five Reminders From the SEC Division of Enforcement

A recent litigation release from the SEC Division of Enforcement, though seemingly unremarkable, highlights five basic principles that sometimes slip off a company’s insider trading compliance radar. The SEC’s complaints. According to the SEC’s complaints against two former employees and the spouse of a former employee of Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which develops and markets drugs to treat cancer: The husband of an Ariad employee traded Ariad stock before company announcements about the safety profile and FDA approval status of Ariad’s only FDA-approved drug and after his wife learned of material non-public information related to Ariad’s dealings with the FDA. The husband also advised a friend to trade Ariad stock on the basis of non-public information learned from his wife, enabling the friend to obtain profits of $4,188.00. Ariad’s former Senior Director of Pharmacovigilance and Risk Management sold Ariad stock after she had attended meetings with the FDA and had learned of a forthcoming FDA decision to require Ariad to include a safety warning on its product label, thereby avoiding $9,420.00 in losses. Ariad’s former Associate Director of Pharmacovigilance and Risk Management alerted certain of her relatives one day before Ariad publicly announced a pause in all clinical trials for its FDA-approved drug. By selling in advance of Ariad’s announcement, her relatives avoided $2,888.10 in losses. The SEC’s complaints charged each defendant with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and sought various injunctions, disgorgements with interest, and civil penalties. The five reminders. First: The SEC remains vigilant against insider trading of all shapes and sizes. For example, consider that: Ariad was relatively...

What’s Happening with Pay Ratio Disclosures?

Well, we’re more than half-way through the year, Independence Day has come and gone, the 2018 proxy season is closer than it used to be, and we still don’t know whether pay ratio disclosures will go away. A brief background. Dodd-Frank Act Section 953(b) requires that the SEC amend Item 402 of Regulation S-K to mandate pay ratio disclosures. In 2015, the SEC dutifully adopted the mandated rules, which state that all companies required to provide executive compensation disclosure under Item 402(c) of Regulation S-K must provide new executive compensation disclosure regarding: the median of annual total compensation of all employees, the annual total compensation of the CEO, and the ratio of those two amounts. The new rules, which are complex and involve much time-consuming preparation, require companies to report the pay ratio disclosure for their first fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2017. This means that, for calendar-year companies, the new disclosures are required in 2018 proxy statements. Companies generally reacted with an initial howl of outrage over the perceived arbitrary uselessness of these disclosures, observed that the implementation date was nearly three years away, and then studiously ignored the issue, hoping that in the meantime Section 953(b) would be modified or repealed. Yet, as 2017 rounded into view, the Division of Corporation Finance issued guidance regarding some of the rule’s vaguer points, seemingly in part to remind companies that the rule was still out there and that much work was required to comply with its provisions. But just as companies reluctantly began to gear up (or to think about gearing up) to collect the necessary compensation...

What Lawyers Should Know About the New Auditor’s Report Revisions

After more than six years of deliberations, it looks like the revised auditor’s report is about to become reality. On June 1, the PCAOB adopted a new auditing standard that substantially modifies the long-familiar content of that venerable report. Now the SEC must consider and act on the PCAOB’s recommendation, a process that typically involves another public comment period. What’s changing? CAM disclosure. The biggest change will be communication in the report by the auditors of “critical audit matters” applicable to the current period covered by the report. CAMs are defined as: “any matter … that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and involved especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgments.” The new standard notes that the determination of a CAM is principles-based, though it also provides a non-exclusive list of factors for the auditor to consider in its determination. The PCAOB emphasizes that this disclosure should be client-specific and should not be boilerplate. CAMs will be described in a separate section of the auditor’s report. The auditor must identify the CAM, describe the principal considerations that led the auditor to determine it was a CAM, describe how the CAM was addressed in the audit and reference the accounts or disclosures related to the CAM. In the unlikely event that a report contains no CAMs, it must affirmatively so state. Emerging growth companies and employee stock purchase, savings and similar plans are excluded from the CAM disclosure requirements. Additional changes. The modified auditor’s report also must: State the year the...