Securities

The Consequences of a Late Filing

by Vanessa Schoenthaler on March 4, 2011

Exchange Act Report Filing DeadlinesNobody likes a late filer, especially not if the filing is a quarterly report and the reason its late is because of an accounting issue.

A recent academic study, out of the University of Southern California and New York University, examines the Capital Market Consequences of Filing Late 10-Qs and 10-Ks and finds, as you might have guessed, that capital markets react negatively when a company files a late quarterly or annual report. In addition, and perhaps less intuitively, the study finds that capital markets react more negatively in response to the filing of late quarterly reports than to the filing of late annual reports, and even more so when accounting issues are cited as the reason for the delay. The authors postulate that this is because quarterly reports require less disclosure and are unaudited, and so markets perceive accounting issues associated with the filing of late quarterly reports as more significant than accounting issues associated with the filing of late annual reports.

The study uses change in share price to measure market reaction and observes late filers for a period of eight months following their notice of late filing. In the short term, companies experience an immediate negative reaction when they announce a late filing and a significantly more negative reaction if they miss the Securities Exchange Act Rule 12b-25 filing grace period. Interestingly, companies continue to experience share price declines for several months following a late filing, except when accounting issues are the reason for the delay, because, the authors suggest, investors are better able to interpret and immediately react to accounting-related information.

Beyond the capital market consequences of a late filing, there are a host of other issues to consider:

Filing Deadlines

By way of review, a public company is required to file its quarterly and annual reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission within a certain number of days following a fiscal period’s end:

Quarterly (Form 10-Q) and Annual (Form 10-K) Report Filing DeadlinesNote: these deadlines only apply to domestic companies, foreign private issuers are subject to a different set of filing requirements. For example, they currently have to file annual reports (on a Form 20-F) within 6 months following a fiscal year’s end. However, beginning with fiscal years ending on or after December 11, 2011, this deadline will be pushed up to within 4 months following a fiscal year’s end. Foreign private issuers also have an obligation to file current reports (on a Form 6-K) “promptly” after certain information is made public in accordance with the laws of their own jurisdictions.

Securities Law Consequences of a Late Filing

Exchange Act Rule 12b-25 provides that if a company cannot timely file all, or any portion, of a quarterly or annual report then within one business day after the report’s due date the company must file a Notification of Late Filing (on a Form 12b-25) stating the reason why.*

Rule 12b-25 also provides that if the report could not have been filed by its due date without unreasonable effort or expense, then it may still be deemed to have been timely filed if the company:

  • timely files its Notification of Late filing; and
  • files the late report within the applicable grace period (no later than 5 calendar days in the case of a quarterly report, and no later than 15 calendar days in the case of an annual report, regardless of the company’s filer status).

This is an important detail because if a company has not timely filed all of its Exchange Act filings (with the exception of certain filings required to be made on a Form 8-K) it will lose the ability to file a short form registration statement on Form S-3 (or Form F-3 in the case of a foreign private issuer) for at least a period of 12 months. This will in turn limit the company’s ability to conduct certain types of registered securities offerings.

In addition, until the late report is filed the company will also lose its ability to file a Form S-8 registration statement and its Rule 144 eligibility. Form S-8 is a short form registration statement used for offering securities under an employee benefit plan, and Rule 144 covers unregistered public resales of restricted and control securities. These are temporary consequences, however, because neither Form S-8 nor Rule 144 require that a company’s reports be timely filed, only that they are filed.

As for any currently effective registration statement, a company’s ability continue to rely on that registration statement prior to filing a late report will depend on whether the prospectus and anti-fraud provision of the Securities Act are satisfied, the late filing notwithstanding.

Securities Exchange Consequences of a Late Filing

Where a company’s securities are listed or quoted will also effect what happens when a filing is late.

In the case of a NYSE-listed company, the NYSE Listed Company Manual (Section 802.01E) sets forth a series of procedures that are triggered if a company files a late annual report.

In the case of an AMEX or Nasdaq-listed company, both the AMEX Company Guide (in Section 1101) and Nasdaq Stock Market Rules (in Rule 5250(c)(1)) require that a company file with the exchange copies of reports filed with the Commission on or before their filing deadline. Late filings will result in a company’s receipt of a notice of failure to meet the exchange’s continued listing requirements, which must be disclosed on a Form 8-K, and will require a company to submit a plan for regaining compliance with those requirements. In each case, if a company fails to regain compliance with the exchange’s continued listing requirements, its securities may be suspended from trading or delisted.

In the case of a company with securities quoted in an over the counter market, like the OTC Bulletin Board, there are no listing requirements. However broker-dealers participating in the OTC Bulletin Board markets are members, and governed by the rules, of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).  FINRA Rule 6530(e) prohibits members from quoting the securities of a company that has failed to timely file a required report three times in any 2-year period, or that has had its securities removed from the OTC Bulletin Board quotation service twice in a 2-year period for failing to file a required report within 30 days of the filing deadline. Once a company’s securities are prohibited from being quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board the company must timely file all required reports for a period of one year before it can regain eligibility.

Other Consequences of a Late Filing

Late filings occur for all kinds of reasons and under certain circumstances may simply be unavoidable. In addition to these general capital market, securities law and securities exchange consequences, late filers also need to be aware of and consider company-specific consequences, such as whether a late filing will trigger an event of default or violate any other contractual covenants.

________________________

* In gathering and investigating data for their Capital Market’s study, the authors communicated with Wayne Carnall, Chief Accountant of  the Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance, regarding discrepancies in the number of reported late filings that appeared in different data sources.  The authors noted that Mr. Carnall “suggested that it is very rare for late filers not to file [a Form 12b-25], and that he would be very interested in knowing of any … ” non-filers they were able to identify.

3 comments

Last week the Securities and Exchange Commission issued proposed amendments to conform the definition of accredited investor to the requirements of Section 413(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As amended, the definition would read:

Any natural person whose individual net worth, or joint net worth with that person’s spouse, at the time of purchase, exceeds $1,000,000, excluding the value of the primary residence of such natural person, calculated by subtracting from the estimated fair market value of the property the amount of debt secured by the property, up to the estimated fair market value of the property.

An interesting tidbit from the footnotes of the proposing release: in fiscal year 2010 the Commission received 17,593 initial Form D filings, of those 16,856, or 96%, claimed an exemption that relies on the definition of an accredited investor.

The Commission is soliciting comments on a number of aspects of the new definition, which are due on or before March 11, 2011. Of particular note, at the Commission’s January 25, 2011 open meeting, both Commissioners Casey and Paredes expressed interested in hearing comments on whether the amended definition should “grandfather” existing investors who were accredited at the time of their initial investment, but who may no longer be accredited under the new definition, to allow those investors to make follow-on investments.

An Extension of Comment Periods

On Friday the Commission announced that it was extending the comment period for its proposed rules on disclosures related to conflict minerals, mine safety and payments made in connection with resource extractions through March 2, 2011. The original comment period was set to expire on January 31, 2011. The extension is being issued in response to several requests for additional time to “allow for the collection of information and improve the quality of responses” by interested persons. Each of the extending releases, available here, here and here, references a representative sample of letters that have made a request for additional time.

The Cost of Implementing Dodd-Frank

Also on Friday Representatives Randy Neugebauer, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Spencer Bachus, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, issued a joint letter to the Commission, and several other federal agencies, seeking information regarding the estimated costs associated with implementing and executing the Dodd-Frank Act. The Commission has until February 10, 2011 to respond.

(Download File)

The Commission continues to suffer from budgetary constraints and is currently operating on the basis of a continuing resolution that temporarily extends its fiscal year 2010 budget through March 4, 2011. As a result, the Commission has been forced to scale back or delay a number of Dodd-Frank initiatives, among other things.

1 comment

Would You Recognize Insider Information If You Heard It?

by Vanessa Schoenthaler on December 7, 2010

Take this nifty little quiz in Fortune and find out: Are You an Insider?

Be the first to comment

Is the Self-Published Earnings Release Really a Threat to Transparency?

This New York Times DealBook piece seems to thinks so.

To add a little context: This past April, rather than issue its traditional earnings release, Google, Inc. issued a media advisory announcing the availability of its first quarter earnings and directing readers to its own investor relations website.  Google also indicated in the advisory that future earnings releases would be made available exclusively through its investor relations website, as opposed to being disseminated through a newswire service.

Google’s not the only company, or even the first, to move away from newswire services.  Other examples include Expedia, Inc., Marathon Oil Corporation, SVB Financial Group, and, most recently, Microsoft, which announced on October 27 that it would be publishing its earnings release through its own investor relations website.

This seemingly growing trend was brought about, in part, by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s August 2008 release of interpretive guidance on the use of company websites.

The DealBook piece offers up an interesting perspective on the trend, arguing that:

In an age of high-frequency trading when every millisecond counts — even in after-hours trading — the move toward companies’ distributing earnings and other market-moving information via their Web sites rather than through wider distribution channels raises some serious questions about transparency. …

If every company were to release all of its market-moving news only on its Web site, investors would have to traipse around the Internet in search of the market-moving information.

The premise seems to be that the Commission has “bungled its disclosure rules” by issuing some “vaguely worded guidance” (i.e., the August 2008 interpretive guidance) that permits a company to release important information through its website, rather than through a traditional newswire service, thus allowing “some savvy investors an edge while potentially putting the rest of us at a disadvantage” and “rais[ing] some serious questions about transparency” .

I must be missing something here.  Last I checked, information published through a company’s website was accessible to all investors simultaneously.   Not to mention that with the aid of push technologies like RSS and email blasts it’s only necessary for an investor to visit a company’s website once in order sign up for and receive up-to-the-minute alerts and news releases.

If transparency and parity of access to information are truly the concerns, then I don’t see how this trend can be viewed as a negative. Actually, if the analysis set out in this IR Web Report piece remains accurate–that individual investors, whether by the nature of newswire distribution or internet data transmission, receive news releases anywhere from a few seconds to several minutes after professional investors–then this trend may actually place more of us on the same information plane as those savvy investors with which DealBook seems so concerned.

As a separate point, the piece also focuses on the time between the publication of Microsoft’s earnings release and the posting of its Form 8-K on the Commission’s EDGAR website (a period of 13 minutes), and goes on to state that companies are supposed to file their Form 8-Ks with the Commission “before, or at least simultaneously with, the publication of an earnings report”.  This isn’t exactly correct, at least not with respect to an earnings release.

As a general matter, Regulation FD requires that when a company discloses material, non-public information to certain enumerated persons it must, in the case of an intentional disclosure, simultaneously disclose that information publicly.  This public disclosure requirement can be satisfied either by filing a Form 8-K or by any other method reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information to the public.  In its August 2008 interpretive guidance the Commission discusses, among other things, the circumstances under which material, non-public information disseminated through a company’s website would be considered public for purposes of Regulation FD, concluding that:

[W]e now believe that technology has evolved and the use of the Internet has grown such that, for some companies in certain circumstances, posting of the information on the company’s web site, in and of itself, may be a sufficient method [reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information to the public] .

In the cases of an earnings release, however, a company must file a Form 8-K–there is no alternative method of public disclosure available–and has four business days within which to do so.

So, assuming for a moment that by publishing its earnings release through its own website, Microsoft satisfied the public disclosure requirement of Regulation FD, then as far as the federal securities laws are concerned the company had four business days to file its Form 8-K.  Determining whether publication of its earnings release through its own website actually satisfied Regulation FD would require a further analysis of whether its website is a recognized channel of distribution and whether publishing information through its website disseminates that information in a manner that makes it available to the securities marketplace in general … we’ll leave that one for another post.

1 comment

Lessons from Facebook and Zynga’s Exorbitant Share Transfer Fees

by Vanessa Schoenthaler on October 26, 2010

Did you catch this recent Businessweek article?  Facebook and Zynga, two of the most popular social networking sites on the web, and already touted by some as two of the most highly anticipated IPOs of 2012 or possibly 2013, are now charging fees of between $2,500 and $6,000 for share transfers.

Why so much?  The Businessweek piece cites two possible reasons:

  • the companies are passing on the administrative costs of complying with applicable securities laws; and
  • they are trying to avoid Exchange Act registration.

At least in the case of Facebook, and most likely for Zynga too, I think the latter explanation is the true motivation.

Companies with an excess of $10 million in assets and a class of equity securities held of record by 500 or more persons are required to register that class of equity securities under the Exchange Act and comply with applicable reporting requirements, such as the filing of periodic reports.

Both Facebook and Zynga have already surpassed the asset requirement and, with the recent surge in secondary markets for illiquid assets, like SecondMarket and SharesPost.com, they really can’t afford to take a passive position on the 500 persons of record requirement, not if they intend to push out the possibility of an IPO until 2012 or beyond.

Increasingly, it looks as if Facebook and Zynga are actively trying to limit their shareholder bases, but did they move soon enough and will they be able to effectively hold back the growing secondary market for their securities?

This past April Facebook put into place an insider trading policy that prohibits current employees from selling shares unless the company opens a trading windows; Zynga has contemplated a similar insider trading policy.  Prior to that, some time in late 2007 or early 2008, Facebook stopped issuing employee stock options, switching instead to restricted stock units.

A restricted stock unit is essentially a promise to deliver shares of stock in the future, subject to the satisfaction of any vesting requirements.  In the case of Facebook, holders of restricted stock units will not receive their vested shares until the company undergoes a change in control, such as an acquisition or an IPO.  In a 2008 no-action letter request to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Facebook was granted relief from Exchange Act registration requirements with respect to its issuance of the restricted stock units.  The grant was based, in part, on Facebook’s representation to the Commission that the restricted stock units have been specifically designed to preclude any transfer or trading from taking place.

While the issuance of restricted stock units and the new insider trading policy may have effectively curbed sales by current employees, former employees are still capable of selling their shares in the secondary markets.  Hence the recent imposition of steep transfer fees, if Facebook and Zynga can’t prevent former employees and subsequent transferees from selling shares altogether, at least they can make it cost prohibitive for them to do so in small blocks, which will not only impede the development of a liquid market but also further check the expansion of their shareholder bases.

If that doesn’t work?  There’s not too much else Facebook and Zynga can do, other than maybe buying back their own shares, which is not generally the best use of a late-stage startup/early growth company’s funds, or arranging for a third-party buyer (as Facebook has done in the past).

What can other companies learn from this?  I think most clearly, that we need better planning.  The environment for growth companies has definitely changed.  This is partly because of the current state of economic affairs–it’s taking much longer to find an appropriate exit–and partly because of regulatory changes that have led to the development of unanticipated markets.  It’s important that companies not be forced to prematurely IPO, but at the same time it’s important to offer employees meaningful incentives.  Restricted stock units seem to have helped Facebook find that balance, but they’re operating on the basis of a no-action letter and they’re likely to IPO or otherwise exit in a reasonable enough time frame to keep employees engaged. So where does that leave the rest of us?

which can’t be sold or transferred and for which employees won’t receive the underlying shares of until

6 comments

The New Proxy Access Rules Are On Hold … For Now

by Vanessa Schoenthaler on October 4, 2010

Last week the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable announced the filing of a joint lawsuit challenging the Securities and Exchange Commission’s adoption of proxy access Rule 14a-11. The groups also filed a motion requesting that the Commission stay the effect of the Rule pending resolution of the suit.

Today the Commission did just that; staying not only the effect of Rule 14a-11, but also of the amendments to Rule 14a-8. The groups’ motion didn’t actually request a stay of the effect of the amendments to Rule 14a-8, but the Commission reasoned that the amendments, “designed to complement” Rule 14a-11, were so “intertwined” that allowing them to become effective while staying Rule 14a-11 could potentially be confusing.

At this point the Commission and the groups will file a joint motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit requesting an expedited review of the suit.  However, as reported by Bloomberg, the Commission doesn’t expect the suit to be resolved until “late spring”.  So, even if the Commission prevails, it now looks like the new proxy access rules will not affect most issuers before the 2012 proxy season.

1 comment

The Battle for Proxy Access Isn’t Over Yet

by Vanessa Schoenthaler on September 30, 2010

Yesterday the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable announced the filing of a joint lawsuit challenging the Securities and Exchange Commission’s adoption of proxy access Rule 14a-11 as, among other things, arbitrary and capricious and in excess of the Commission’s authority.  In a joint press release, members of the Chamber of Commerce assert that:

The SEC’s proxy access rule empowers unions and other special interests at the expense of the vast majority of retail shareholders … [and] will give small groups of special interest activist investors significant leverage over a business’ activities. …  The SEC failed to engage in evidence-based rulemaking, and we intend to hold the SEC to its statutory obligation to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis.

The groups also filed a motion requesting that the Commission stay Rule 14a-11, including its November 15, 2010 effective date, pending resolution of the suit.  The Commission has until October 5, 2010 to respond, but in a preliminary statement, as reported by Bloomberg News, a spokesman for the Commission stated that:

We believe that the commission’s proxy-access rules are both lawful and in the best interests of the public and shareholders. The commission will, of course, carefully consider and timely respond to the motion for a stay.

So, unless and until the Commission or the Court of Appeals stays the effective date, if you mailed your proxy materials out on or after March 15, 2010 you should continue to anticipate Rule 14a-11 affecting your 2011 proxy season.  Also of note, the motion is not seeking a stay of the amendments to Rule 14a-8 so, regardless of its outcome, those amendments will be effective on November 15, 2010.

2 comments

The SEC’s New Proxy Access Rule is Set to Take Effect

by Vanessa Schoenthaler on September 16, 2010

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s new proxy access rule was published in the Federal Register today.  The rule is effective on November 15, 2010 for all companies except smaller reporting companies, which have a three-year deferral.  That means if you mailed your proxy materials out on or before March 14, 2010, the 2011 window for shareholder submissions will have already lapsed by the November 15, 2010 effective date (with November 14, 2010 being the 120th calendar day before the one year anniversary of a March 14, 2010 mailing date) and the rule will not effect you until the 2012 proxy season.  If you mailed your proxy materials out on or after March 15, 2010 the rule will affect your 2011 proxy season (although for companies that mailed their proxy materials out between March 15, 2010 and April 12, 2010, the 2011 window for shareholder submissions will vary in length between 1 and 29 days, rather than the full 30 days prescribed in the new rule).

Be the first to comment

SEC Adopts New Proxy Access Rule

by Vanessa Schoenthaler on August 26, 2010

Yesterday the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted Exchange Act Rule 14a-11, a new proxy access rule requiring public companies to include the director nominees of certain shareholders in their proxy materials.

The new rule is effective for all companies except smaller reporting companies 60 days after its publication in the federal register.  The rule is effective for smaller reporting companies after a three year deferral period.  The rule does not effect foreign private issuers, which are exempt from the Exchange Act proxy rules altogether.

Under the new rule a company is required to include a shareholder’s director nominee in its proxy materials if the nominating shareholder:

  • owns a minimum of 3% of the total voting power of the company’s securities (groups of shareholders can aggregate their shares to meet this minimum threshold);
  • has held the minimum number of shares for at least three years;
  • certifies that they will continue to hold the minimum number of shares through the date of the shareholder meeting; and
  • certifies that they are not holding the shares for purposes of effecting a change in control or to gain a number of board seats in excess of the maximum permitted under the rule.

A nominating shareholder must provide notice to the Commission and the company of their director nominees between 150 and 120 days before the date on which the company’s proxy materials were mailed the year before.  To be eligible, a shareholder nominee must meet the requirements of applicable federal, state and foreign laws and the national securities exchange or association rules.

The new rule also limits the number of shareholder nominees to the greater of one nominee or up to 25% of the total number of board seats.  If more shareholder nominees are put forth than seats are available, only the nominees of the shareholder or shareholder group with the largest percentage of qualifying voting power must be included in the company’s proxy materials.

The Commission also amended Exchange Act Rule 14a-8(i)(8) to allow shareholders to propose amendments to a company’s governing documents that would establish procedures for the inclusion of shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy materials.

The Commission’s full adopting release (all 451 pages) is available here.

of their intent to have a director nominee included in a company’s annual proxy materials between 150 and 120 days before the date on which the prior year’s proxy materials were mailed

3 comments

New York Revises its Power of Attorney Laws … Again

by Vanessa Schoenthaler on August 16, 2010

In September of 2009 New York substantially revised its power of attorney laws.  These revisions were meant to address abuse in financial and estate planning matters, but also ended up raising a series of questions regarding their effect on business and securities transactions that took place in New York State.

In response New York has again revised it’s power of attorney laws, effective September 12, 2010, but retroactively effective as of September 1, 2009.  The most recent revisions (available here) exclude a large number of transactions from the form and signature requirements of the September 2009 revisions.  Some of the exclusions that you may find most relevant include powers of attorney:

  • given to or for the benefit of a creditor in connection with a loan or other credit transaction;
  • given to facilitate transfer or disposition of securities or other assets;
  • given as a proxy or other delegation to exercise voting or management rights;
  • created on a form prescribed by a governmental agency;
  • authorizing a third party to prepare, execute, deliver, submit and/or file a document or instrument with a governmental agency (such as a power of attorney used to file a report or registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission);
  • authorizing a financial institution and its employees to take action with respect to a principal’s account;
  • given by an individual seeking to become a director, officer, shareholder, employee, partner, limited partner, member, unit owner or manager of a legal or commercial entity in their capacity as such; or
  • contained in a partnership or LLC operating agreement, a declaration of trust or other agreement or instrument governing the internal affairs of an entity authorizing a person to take lawful action relating to such entity.

For a complete list of all of the powers of attorney excluded from the revised law see Section 1501-C of New York’s General Obligations Law.

Be the first to comment