Regulatory: Revisiting hedging and pledging policies
Over the past few years, there has been considerable focus on policies addressing the hedging and pledging of securities by public company employees, executives and directors.
September 26, 2012 at 03:38 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Over the past few years, there has been considerable focus on policies addressing the hedging and pledging of securities by public company employees, executives and directors. In particular, significant market volatility has brought to light some key issues arising from the pledging of company securities by employees, executives and directors of public companies, including concerns as to whether an individual's interests remain aligned with shareholders through his pledging of equity awards or other shares owned to secure loans. Similar concerns exist with regard to hedging and monetization arrangements, where employees, executives or directors may seek to continue to own company securities obtained through the company's benefit plans or otherwise, but without the full risks and rewards of ownership.
Background on hedging and pledging transactions
Hedging or monetization transactions can be accomplished through a number of possible mechanisms, including, but not limited to, through the use of financial instruments such as exchange funds, prepaid variable forwards, equity swaps, puts, calls, collars, forwards and other derivative instruments, or through the establishment of a short position in the company's securities. In addition, individuals may seek to secure loans by pledging the company's stock as collateral for the loan, including through the use of traditional margin accounts with a broker. Because securities held in a margin account as collateral for a margin loan may be sold by the broker without the customer's consent if the customer fails to meet a margin call, and securities pledged (or hypothecated) as collateral for a loan may be sold in foreclosure if the borrower defaults on the loan, significant concerns exist when the margin sale or foreclosure sale may occur at a time when the pledger is aware of material nonpublic information or otherwise is not permitted to trade in the company's securities. The company may also face potentially adverse public perceptions when employees, executives and directors engage in these types of transactions.
Regulatory developments
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 directed the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to adopt rules requiring disclosure of whether any employee or director is permitted to purchase financial instruments that are designed to hedge or offset any decrease in the market value of equity securities granted as compensation or held directly or indirectly by the employee or director. While the SEC has not yet proposed or adopted rules implementing this directive, public companies have recently felt pressure from institutional investors and proxy advisory firms to disclose the company's policies about hedging and monetization transactions. Meanwhile, the SEC first required disclosure of shares pledged by the highest-paid executive officers and the company's directors beginning in 2006, focusing additional attention on these arrangements in the context of a company's overall corporate governance and compensation policies and practices.
Adopting or revisiting policies
The increasing level of disclosure, the heightened investor scrutiny and the consideration accorded by proxy advisory firms has caused many public companies to adopt policies about hedging, monetization or pledging transactions, or revisit existing policies to consider whether the scope or coverage of such policies should be changed. The options that companies have pursued include:
- prohibiting hedging, monetization and/or pledging transactions for executive officers and directors, or perhaps even for all employees and directors;
- subjecting hedging, monetization and/or pledging transactions to a pre-approval process;
- restricting the types of hedging, monetization and/or pledging transactions that may be undertaken; or
- permitting hedging, monetization or pledging transactions without any specific policy on their use.
The variation in approaches reflects how situations differ substantially from company to company and from individual to individual. In some cases, hedging, monetization or pledging transactions may serve legitimate tax planning or other purposes, thereby making a complete prohibition on such transactions unworkable. For this reason, some companies have chosen to address the situation though a pre-clearance process, which provides compliance personnel within the organization the ability to carefully analyze a transaction before an individual proceeds with it. Other companies may choose to restrict only certain types of transactions, particularly ones in which it is perceived that the risks to the company and the participating individuals may be high.
Another key area of consideration is the extent of coverage for these policies. The Dodd-Frank Act disclosure requirement will seek disclosure with respect policies concerning all employees and directors, while in many cases companies have adopted policies that are specifically limited to the company's executive officers and directors. Companies are concerned that adopting policies broadly applicable to all employees and directors may be difficult to communicate and enforce.
Some companies have also sought to extend prohibitions to other types of short-term or speculative transactions, such as trading in exchange traded puts and calls on the company's securities, or short-term trading transactions (i.e., buying and selling the company's securities within six months).
Location of policies
Very often, policies with regard to hedging, monetization or pledging are included in a company's insider-trading policy. Some companies have adopted standalone policies addressing some or all of these topics, and others have incorporated these concepts into the company's code of conduct, stock ownership guidelines and corporate governance guidelines.
Conclusion
With the advent of advisory votes on executive compensation and increased disclosure regarding a wide variety of hot-button issues for shareholders, we will continue to see public companies adopting or revisiting their policies concerning hedging, monetization and/or pledging transactions.
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 AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
AT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
Trending Stories
- 1Can The Threat of a Bar Complaint Be a Settlement Tool?
- 2Sentencing Commission Addresses Inconsistent Definitions of “Loss”
- 3What Are Forbidden Sexual Relations With Clients?
- 4AEDI Takeaways: Demystifying Hype, Changing Caselaw & Harvey’s CEO Talks State of Industry
- 5New England Law | Boston Announces New Dean
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