Regulatory: Happy anniversary Regulation FD
When Regulation Fair Disclosure (FD) was adopted in August 2000, many public companies adopted policies addressing the permissible manner of communications with analysts and the investment community.
September 12, 2012 at 07:26 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
When Regulation Fair Disclosure (FD) was adopted in August 2000, many public companies adopted policies addressing the permissible manner of communications with analysts and the investment community. Now, 12 years later, it is critically important for public companies to revisit their policies, or adopt a new policy if none exists.
Lessons from the SEC's enforcement of Regulation FD
Under Regulation FD, whenever a company, or persons acting on its behalf, discloses material non-public information to securities professionals and investors, the company must make public disclosure of that same information. The SEC adopted Regulation FD in response to the perceived problem of selective disclosure of material non-public information to analysts, institutional investors and others.
Over the past 12 years, the SEC has brought more than a dozen enforcement actions against companies and individuals for Regulation FD violations. It is evident from the SEC's actions that private meetings with analysts or institutional investors are particularly fraught with risk from a Regulation FD perspective and as a result, public companies must ensure that their policies employ special precautions whenever such meetings take place.
With the variability of financial results driven by recent economic conditions, executive officers of public companies have increasingly found themselves in situations where they risk violating Regulation FD by providing selective disclosure with respect to prior earnings guidance. Analysts and investors often press for information about management's comfort with prior earnings guidance, particularly in circumstances where there is a substantial level of uncertainty about future results. As a result, companies should consider whether it is prudent to implement a “no comment” policy regarding confirmation of prior guidance, particularly in those situations where there is a heightened risk for selective disclosure regarding the prior guidance, such as when the timing of the confirmation of guidance or the context in which the confirmation is made conveys additional material information.
Perhaps most importantly, the SEC's recent enforcement actions have emphasized the importance of having an effective Regulation FD policy in place, along with the training and updating that is necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the policy in preventing potential Regulation FD violations.
Key elements of an effective Regulation FD policy
A Regulation FD policy should address, in a comprehensive manner, the procedures for dealing with situations where a potential Regulation FD violation could occur. Key provisions of an effective Regulation FD policy include:
- Control of the flow of material non-public information outside of an organization by substantially limiting the number of officers, directors or employees that are authorized to speak publicly on behalf of the company, as well as establishing a “central clearinghouse” for the information by appointing a compliance officer for the purposes of the policy.
- Recognition (both as part of the Regulation FD policy and as an aspect of the overall disclosure controls and procedures) that disclosure of material information is required only in situations where an affirmative disclosure obligation exists. This could arise, for example, as a result of a duty to comply with specific SEC and securities exchange disclosure requirements, disclose material information before trading in the company's own securities, correct inaccurate prior statements, speak truthfully and not mislead once a statement of material fact is made, comply with Regulation FD because of an inadvertent disclosure of material non-public information or update previous statements made about new developments under certain circumstances.
- Pre-approval of presentations to analysts or investors, no matter what the forum, by the compliance officer. Any requests for information, comments or interviews made to officers, directors or employees should likewise be presented for consideration by the compliance officer (subject to some limited exceptions for normal course communications).
- Limitations on communication with analysts, so that earnings guidance and other sensitive information is not provided to securities analysts, unless the guidance is provided strictly in accordance with the Regulation FD policy, and that any review of analyst reports, if permitted, is limited to historical items and similar factual matters.
- Limitations on the use of social media, including blogs, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other similar outlets, to the extent that communications through these channels may be inconsistent with the Regulation FD policy.
- Ongoing monitoring of unusual trading activity, analyst and investor communications, and market rumors to determine if any corrective disclosure is necessary.
- Ongoing training, so that the policy can be effectively communicated to officers, directors and employees in order for them to fully understand the application of the policy and the potential consequences for noncompliance.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Policy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readThe FTC's Rebecca Slaughter Wants Fair Competition, and a Good Night's Sleep
Trending Stories
- 1Monmouth Couty Bench May Soon Have a New Superior Court Judge
- 2Fate of Ethics Panel—and Cuomo Book Deal Probe—Is in Top Court's Hands as January Arguments Approach
- 3How a Second Trump Presidency Could Shape IP
- 4Pa. Firms Set to Finish Year Strong, Thanks to Demand Uptick, Shorter Collections Cycle
- 5It's Not About You: Lessons of the Mock Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250