The Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance William Hinman gave a speech in which he discussed whether a digital asset originally offered as a security can become something other than a security over time. The speech provided some of the most important considerations to date for analysis of blockchain token transactions under US securities law.
The Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule has recently been rendered unenforceable following a recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision. In an article published by the Society for Human Resource Management, McDermott partner Brian Tiemann weighs in on what this means for plan sponsors. “As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, the suitability standard is effectively restored” for advising plan participants on investments, distributions and rollovers, Tiemann observed. He also points out that advisors may want to revise service agreements with plan fiduciaries to clarify the scope of advice that fiduciaries will provide participants.
Originally published by the Society for Human Resource Management, May 2018.
Offering employer stock in a 401(k) plan investment lineup can seem like a win-win situation. It can enable employees to become company owners—real, skin-in-the-game, participants in their employer’s economic future—through a simple deferral election. The U.S. Supreme Court has even recognized the value of employer stock funds, confirming that Congress sought to encourage their creation through provisions and standards contained in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).
However, in the wake of a series of high-profile employee lawsuits seeking recovery against Enron, Lehman Brothers, and other employers for losses from 401(k) investments in employer stock, such funds can—almost as easily—seem a recipe for disaster. This article examines the quandary that employer stock funds pose for plan sponsors, who must navigate ERISA’s careful balance of (1) ensuring fair and prompt enforcement of employee rights under employer-provided retirement plans while (2) encouraging employer creation of these plans.
Originally published in Bloomberg Law, May 25, 2017
Large fines have recently been imposed against public companies due to using confidentiality provisions that violate whistleblower provisions under federal securities law. Many standard confidentiality clauses in employment agreements, severance agreements, release agreements, non-compete agreements and other employment related agreements will violate these whistleblower provisions. Recently, the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations at the US Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it is actively reviewing these agreements to determine if there are possible securities law violations.
This webinar will address the whistleblower provisions relevant to employment related agreements, the recent SEC enforcement actions, the compliance issues raised by typical confidentiality clauses and actions for employers to consider for existing and future employment related agreements.
On-demand presentation link available here.
MP4 downloadable link available here.
Executive compensation, corporate governance, shareholder engagement and other rule changes and rulemakings for public companies are highlighted in the 2016 Proxy Season Checklist. The list discusses important developments that will affect the upcoming and future proxy seasons, and offers suggestions on how to prepare for them.
In yet another divisive 3-2 vote along party lines, on August 6, 2015, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted final rules requiring public companies (other than emerging-growth companies, smaller reporting companies and foreign private issuers) to disclose the ratio of the compensation of its chief executive officer to the median compensation of its employees (CEO Pay Ratio). The new rules were mandated under Section 953(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
On April 29, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), by a three-to-two vote, proposed new rules that would prescribe new mandatory pay-versus-performance disclosure. The proposed rule would include specific information showing the relationship between executive compensation “actually paid” and financial performance of the registrant. The proposed rule, issue under Section 953(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), would add a new Item 402(v) to Regulation S-K.
The key take-away is that covered insurers would not be allowed to use their existing pay for performance disclosure approaches to meet the requirements under the proposed rule. Instead, if the proposed rule is finalized in its current form, covered insurers would be required to include a new “Pay Versus Performance” table. Covered insurers would also be required to provide a “clear description” of the relationship between certain data elements included in the new table.
The proposed rule is “designed, in part, to enhance comparability across registrants. . .” perhaps in connection with shareholders’ “Say on Pay” votes. However, commissioners differed on the usefulness of the information that would be provided by the proposed rule, and the final vote was divided along political lines–similar to how the commissioners voted on the CEO Pay Ratio proposal.
On April 22, 2015, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it had awarded $1.4 million–$1.6 million to a compliance officer-turned-whistleblower who aided the SEC in an enforcement action against the officer’s employer. This marks the second time an employee with an internal audit or compliance function—who does not typically qualify under whistleblower rules—received an award under the SEC’s whistleblower program dictated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Much attention has been given to recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed rulemaking under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd Frank Act) that would require disclosure of chief executive officer pay ratios and a new pay-for-performance table. But there’s another proposed rule that could cause significant headaches for public companies during the 2016 proxy season. As we previously reported, the SEC has proposed rules that would require disclosure of what categories of transactions are – and are not – allowed under issuer hedging policies. These rules would implement Section 955 of the Dodd-Frank Act. We believe that this issue has not received significant attention because most public companies already have hedging policies. What’s not appreciated is that the scope of the proposed rules is quite broad and could cover many common investment transactions that would not be a hedge under many public company hedging policies. For example, purchasing the stock of other issuers could be a hedge under the proposed rules. If the proposed rules are implemented in their current form, public companies could be forced to choose between (i) disclosing that some forms of hedging are allowed under their hedging policies, thereby risking adverse voting recommendations from proxy advisory services (such as ISS and Glass-Lewis, at least under current voting guidelines) or (ii) modifying existing hedging polices to limit investment approaches used to diversify concentrated stock positions, which would complicate compliance oversight of hedging policies and lead to changes by executives in their investment strategies, including potentially more sales of issuer stock under 10b5-1 programs. McDermott Will & Emery has submitted comments urging the SEC to clarify and narrow the scope of hedging transactions that would be covered as part of the final rules – click here for a copy of the comment letter. We recommend that public companies keep in mind the need to review existing hedging polices in light of what the SEC adopts as final rules on hedging policy disclosures, which could be finalized by early this fall.
On April 29, 2015, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted three-to-two to propose new rules that would prescribe a mandatory pay versus performance disclosure.
Subscribe
