Category: Corporate Disclosures


SEC: Here Is When Loss Contingencies Must Be Disclosed and Reserved

Posted on October 2nd, by in Corporate Disclosures, Enforcement, Settlements. Comments Off on SEC: Here Is When Loss Contingencies Must Be Disclosed and Reserved

When confronted with government inquiries, public companies commonly grapple with the issue of when events have escalated to the point that they are subject to disclosure obligations—or, further yet, require recognition as a loss reserve in the financial statements. Is one or both of these requirements triggered when the government initially informs the company of the inquiry’s existence? When the magnitude and frequency of the government’s informational requests provide reasonable notice of a full-blown investigation? When the government rejects the company’s efforts to discontinue the investigation? Or when the government and company commence settlement discussions? While the seminal moment when each of these obligations solidifies can be quite fact-specific, the Division of Enforcement provided its own guidepost last week as to when disclosure and loss recognition become necessary.


The SEC Files Another Litigated Disclosure Case – With More Violations

Posted on September 11th, by and in Conflict of Interest, Corporate Disclosures, Disclosures, Enforcement, OCIE, SCSD Initiative, SEC. Comments Off on The SEC Files Another Litigated Disclosure Case – With More Violations

On August 29, 2019, the SEC filed a complaint against a registered investment adviser alleging failures to disclose four categories of conflicts of interest and seeking disgorgement of $10 million in undisclosed compensation. This litigated action was filed within a month of the SEC filing a litigated complaint against another firm alleging failing to disclose material conflicts of interest related to revenue sharing, despite that advisory firm having self-reported pursuant to the SEC’s Share Class Selection Disclosure Initiative (“SCSD Initiative”).

Based on these litigated actions (and despite the SCSD Initiative being over 18 months old), the SEC’s Division of Enforcement continues to focus its investigative and litigation resources on “Main Street” and to aggressively pursue registered investment advisory firms for disclosure violations involving actual or potential conflicts of interest.

In this most recent litigated action, not surprisingly, the SEC’s allegations with respect … Read More »


The Final Reg BI Package: What to Know and What’s Next

Posted on June 14th, by in Conflict of Interest, Corporate Disclosures, Enforcement, Investment Advisers, SEC. Comments Off on The Final Reg BI Package: What to Know and What’s Next

To nobody’s great surprise, on June 5, the SEC approved the “Reg BI Package,” which includes a series of new standards governing the fiduciary responsibilities of broker-dealers and investment advisers. The approved items consisted of the Regulation Best Interest – Standard of Conduct for Broker-Dealers; Form CRS Relationship Summary; Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers; and Interpretation of “Solely Incidental,” all of which seem likely to have considerable impact on the industry going forward.


Good Disclosure of Bad Internal Controls Is Not Enough

Posted on February 14th, by in Corporate Disclosures, Enforcement, Settlements. Comments Off on Good Disclosure of Bad Internal Controls Is Not Enough

On January 29, the SEC announced settled charges with four public companies for failing to maintain adequate internal control over financial reporting (ICFR). According to the respective orders, each of these companies repeatedly disclosed material weaknesses involving “certain high-risk areas of their financial statement presentation” over numerous annual reporting periods. Yet, despite these public acknowledgments, the SEC alleged that these companies took “months, or years, to remediate their material weaknesses,” even after being contacted by the SEC. In addition to cease-and-desist orders, the SEC levied monetary penalties against each company ranging from $35,000 to $200,000.

In announcing these settlements, the SEC emphasized that these proceedings were predicated on the registrants’ unreasonable delays in remediating the disclosed internal control deficiencies, rather than the disclosures themselves. Melissa Hodgman, an Associate Director in the SEC’s Enforcement Division, stated in the press release accompanying … Read More »


Department of Justice Announces Important Revisions to the Yates Memo

Posted on December 12th, by and in Cooperation, Corporate Disclosures, DOJ, Self-Reporting. Comments Off on Department of Justice Announces Important Revisions to the Yates Memo

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recently announced significant changes to the Department of Justice’s corporate enforcement policy regarding individual accountability, previously announced in the 2015 Yates Memo. The revised policy no longer requires companies who are the target of DOJ investigations to identify all parties involved in potential misconduct before they can be eligible to receive any cooperation credit. This alert examines the updated policy, which should provide companies with greater flexibility in conducting investigations and negotiating dispositions with DOJ in both criminal and civil cases.

Read the full alert.


MD&A-Related Claims against Corporate Execs Reinforce Recent SEC Enforcement Trends

Posted on June 22nd, by in Accountants, Corporate Disclosures, Enforcement, Individual Liability, Settlements. Comments Off on MD&A-Related Claims against Corporate Execs Reinforce Recent SEC Enforcement Trends

A June 15, 2017 settlement with two former executives of a publicly-traded, multinational freight forwarding and logistics company provides the most recent example of two emerging SEC enforcement initiatives in financial reporting and accounting-based actions that we spotlighted recently – a non-reliance on financial statement materiality and an absence of fraud-based allegations. Exchange Act Rel. No. 80947 (Jun. 15, 2017). According to the SEC, Eric W. Kirchner and Richard G. Rodick, the former chief executive officer and chief financial officer of UTi Worldwide, Inc. (“UTi”), purportedly were responsible for inadequate Management’s Discussion & Analysis (“MD&A”) disclosures in a Form 10-Q that UTi issued during fiscal year 2013. Without admitting or denying the findings, both agreed to settle purported violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-13, and 13a-14, thereunder, and to pay a $40,000 civil penalty.

According … Read More »


Recent Charges Against China-Based Companies Demonstrate SEC’s Efforts to Bring More Financial Fraud Cases

Posted on April 23rd, by and in Corporate Disclosures, Financial Fraud, SEC Guidance. Comments Off on Recent Charges Against China-Based Companies Demonstrate SEC’s Efforts to Bring More Financial Fraud Cases

SEC Chair Mary Jo White and Enforcement Director Andrew Ceresney have repeatedly said that financial fraud would be a priority of the SEC’s enforcement program. Two recent cases involving companies with China-based operations may signal a new trend in this area.

On March 11, 2014, the SEC charged animal feed company AgFeed Industries Inc. in a massive accounting fraud scheme. According to the SEC, four company officials–executive chairman Songyan Li, CEO Junhong Xiong, CFO Selina Jin, and controller Shaobo Ouyang–engaged in several tactics to artificially inflate revenue, including creating fake invoices for sales that did not occur and misrepresenting the weight of hogs which resulted in falsely amplified revenues. The SEC alleged that to perpetuate the scheme, the executives kept two sets of company books–an “outside” set that the company provided to its auditors and an “inside” real set that contained … Read More »


D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Ruling on Conflict Minerals

Posted on April 22nd, by and in Appellate Decision, Corporate Disclosures, Dodd-Frank. Comments Off on D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Ruling on Conflict Minerals

On April 14, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in the conflicts minerals case, National Association of Manufacturers, et al., v. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court of Appeals upheld most aspects of the statute and the rule, but found that the statute and rule violate the First Amendment “to the extent that the statute and rule require regulated entities to report to the Commission and to state on their website that any of their products have not been found to be ‘DRC conflict free.’” The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. As of this time, there is no reprieve for issuers from the requirement to file a Form SD or conflict minerals report with the … Read More »




From the Blog:

The SEC’s SCSD Initiative Second Wave and the Applicability of the President’s Recent Executive Order

On September 30, 2019, the SEC ordered an additional 16 self-reporting investment advisory firms to pay nearly $10 million in disgorgement. Some have referred...

SEC: Here Is When Loss Contingencies Must Be Disclosed and Reserved

When confronted with government inquiries, public companies commonly grapple with the issue of when events have escalated to the point that they are subject...

SEC Settles Charges of Auditor Independence Violations for $8 Million

The SEC announced settlements with an auditing firm (the “Firm”) and one of its partners relating to violations of certain auditor independence rules involving...