Recent SEC Actions to Update, Streamline and Improve Disclosure Requirements
To date the SEC has adopted amendments to Regulation S-K that are intended to improve the readability and navigability of disclosure documents and discourage repetition and the disclosure of immaterial information. In his Real Estate Securities column, Peter Fass summarizes these changes.
August 28, 2019 at 12:00 PM
6 minute read
The SEC is required pursuant to legislation passed by Congress in December 2015 to conduct a review of Regulation S-K. Regulation S-K is the prescribed regulation under the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act) that lays out the reporting requirements for various SEC filing used by public companies including real estate companies.
To date the SEC has adopted amendments to Regulation S-K (Final Rules) that are intended to improve the readability and navigability of disclosure documents and discourage repetition and the disclosure of immaterial information. Among the changes, the amendments allow registrants to (1) choose how to present historical periods in Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A); (2) omit confidential information from most exhibits without filing a Confidential Treatment Request; and omit filing as an exhibit any document incorporated by reference, so long as a hyperlink is provided for such documents.
Below is a summary of these changes and some additional technical changes.
MD&A. Instruction 1 to Item 303(a) of Regulation S-K currently provides that, generally, a company's MD&A should address the three-year period covered by the financial statements and either use year-to-year comparisons or another format that, in the company's judgment, enhances a reader's understanding. The Instruction also states that, where trend information is relevant, reference to the five-year selected financial data may be necessary.
The Final Rules now provide that the discussion of the earliest year may be omitted from MD&A if the company has included such discussion in a prior filing on EDGAR and includes a statement identifying the location in the prior filing. Further, the reference to the five-year selected financial data in Instruction 1 is eliminated because Item 303(a)(3)(ii) already requires disclosure of known trends and uncertainties. The Final Rules simplify Instruction 1 emphasizing that companies may use any presentation that, in the company's judgment, would enhance a reader's understanding of the disclosures.
Confidential Treatment. The Final Rules allow companies to redact confidential information from material contracts filed under Item 601(b)(10) of Regulation S-K where such information is both (1) not material and (2) would likely cause competitive harm to the registrant if publicly disclosed, without simultaneously submitting a confidential treatment request to the SEC. If the SEC staff requests, the company must promptly provide an unredacted paper copy of the exhibit along with the company's materiality and competitive harm analyses. The changes reduce the current burden companies incur in preparing and processing confidentiality request while at the time providing all material information to investors. If after a selective SEC staff review a company's analyses does not support its redactions, the SEC staff may request that the company file an amendment that includes some, or all, of the previously redacted information.
Exhibits. The Final Rules expand to all exhibits filed under Item 601 of Regulation S-K the current accommodation that permits companies to omit immaterial schedules and attachments to acquisition agreements. The Final Rules provide that companies are required to provide with each filed exhibit a list that briefly identifies the contents of omitted schedules and attachments and, upon SEC staff request, furnish a copy of any omitted schedules or attachments.
Trading Symbols and XBRL. Some of the amendments require additional disclosure or incorporation of new technology. For example, under the Final Rules, the cover pages of Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K will be revised to require the disclosure of the trading symbol and title for each class of a company's registered securities and the name of each exchange on which the company's securities are registered. In addition, all information on the cover pages of these forms must be tagged in Inline XBRL. (Inline XBRL is a format that allows SEC filers to embed XBRL data directly into a HTML document so that SEC filers need only prepare one Inline XBRL document.)
The SEC proposed amendments to modernize the Description of Business, Legal Proceeding and Risk Factors in Regulation S-K. The Regulation S-K amendments revise Items 101(a) (description of the general development of the business), 101(c) (narrative description of the business), and 105 (risk factors) emphasizing a more principles-based approach because businesses differ in terms of which aspects of these disclosures are material to them. The flexible approach, as opposed to prescriptive requirements, may elicit more relevant disclosures about these items. The amendment of Item 103 (legal proceedings) continues the current approach because that requirement depends less on the specific characteristics of registrants.
The proposed amendment of Item 101(a):
- makes it largely principles-based by providing a non-exclusive list of the types of information that may need to disclose, and requiring disclosure of a topic only to the extent such information is material to an understanding of the general development of a registrant's business;
- includes as a listed disclosure topic, to the extent material to an understanding of the registrant's business, transactions and events that affect or may affect the company's operations, including material changes to a registrant's previously disclosed business strategy;
- eliminates a timeframe for this disclosure; and
- permits in filings made after an initial filing, providing only updates of the general development of the business that focuses on material developments in the reporting period, and with an active hyperlink to the registrant's most recent filing that, together with the update, contains the full discussion of the general development of the registrant's business.
The amendment of Item 101(c):
- clarifies and expands the principles-based approach, by including disclosure topics drawn from a subset of the topics currently contained in Item 101(c);
- includes, as a disclosure topic, human capital resources, including any human capital measures or objectives that management focuses on in managing the business, to the extent such disclosures are material to an understanding of the registrant's business (i.e., depending on the nature of the registrant's business and workforce, measures or objectives that address the attraction, development, and retention of personnel); and
- refocuses the regulatory compliance requirement by including material government regulations, not just environmental provisions, as a topic.
The amendment of Item 103:
- states that the required information about material legal proceedings may be provided by including hyperlinks or cross-references to legal proceedings disclosure located elsewhere in the document in an effort to encourage registrants to avoid duplicative disclosure; and
- revise the $100,000 threshold for disclosure of environmental proceedings to which the government is a party to $300,000.
The amendment of Item 105
- requires summary risk factor disclosure if the risk factor section exceeds 15 pages;
- refines the principles-based approach by changing the disclosure standard from the "most significant" factors to the "material" factors required to be disclosed; and
- requires risk factors to be organized under relevant headings, with any risk factors that may generally apply to an investment in securities disclosed at the end of the risk factor section under a separate caption.
Peter M. Fass is a partner at Proskauer Rose.
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
© 2025 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 All'You Became a Corrupt Politician': Judge Gives Prison Time to Former Sen. Robert Menendez for Corruption Conviction
5 minute readFederal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Plan Suit
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 2Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 3Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 4Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
- 5Zoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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