SEC Revisits Proposed Rule on Recovery of Erroneously Awarded Exec Compensation
The SEC re-opens the comment period for proposed rule on listing standards for recovery of erroneously awarded compensation with a bonus post-script on pay for performance final rules.
September 12, 2022 at 11:48 AM
7 minute read
Introduction
On June 8, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reopened the comment period for the "clawback" rule proposed in July 2015 to strengthen the disclosures and standards for recovery of erroneously awarded compensation by publicly listed companies (proposed rule). According to SEC Chair Gary Gensler, the proposed rule provides companies with an "opportunity to strengthen the transparency and quality of corporate financial statements as well as the accountability of corporate executives to their investors." This article will provide a brief summary of the proposed rule and other SEC guidance with respect to executive compensation clawbacks.
Proposed Rule on Listing Standards for Recovery of Erroneously Awarded Compensation
The proposed rule seeks to amend certain rules and forms to implement Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, as amended (Dodd-Frank Act), which added Section 10D to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and create new Rule 10D-1 of the Exchange Act. Under Section 10D(a) of the Exchange Act, national securities exchanges are instructed to prohibit the listing of a company's securities if they are not in adherence with the requirements of Section 10D(b) of the Exchange Act. Section 10D(b) of the Exchange Act requires companies to disclose their policies on incentive-based compensation as based on their financial information; and in the event of material noncompliance with financial reporting requirements, to prepare an accounting restatement to correct the errors and recover from any "current or former executive officers who received incentive based compensation (including stock options awarded as compensation) during the three-year period preceding the date the [company] is required to prepare the accounting restatement, based on the erroneous data, in excess of what would have been paid to the executive officer under the accounting restatement."
The proposed rule would supplement the guidance on recovery of executive compensation provided in Section 10D(a)-(b) of the Exchange Act as well as Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K and Regulation 304 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 by creating Rule 10D-1 that sets forth listing standards requiring listed companies to adopt, disclose and comply with "written policies for recovery of incentive based compensation" consistent with such guidance. A company's failure to comply with the listing standards proposed in Rule 10D-1 could result in the company being de-listed from the national securities exchange.
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 AllAs Nonequity Tiers Give Greater 'Compensation Flexibility,' Other Law Firms Will Likely Follow Wilmer
5 minute readConvicted Phila. Attorney Explains Misappropriation From Firm in Fight Against Disbarment
4 minute readTrial Firms Starting to Match or Exceed Big Law Salary, Bonus Scales for Associates
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Lawyers: Meet Your New Partner
- 2What Will It Mean in California if New Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation Passes?
- 3Longtime AOC Director Glenn Grant to Step Down, Assignment Judge to Take Over
- 4Elon Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Stokes Chatter Between Lawyers and Clients
- 5Courts Demonstrate Growing Willingness to Sanction Courtroom Misuse of AI
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