The Advisors' Blog

In a speech delivered last week at the Texas A&M Corporate Law Symposium, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins provided some details about the kind of disclosure reforms he wants the agency to pursue. A significant portion of the speech addressed executive compensation disclosure reform. Here’s what John shared on that point on TheCorporateCounsel.net last week:

Chairman Atkins said that the three principles driving the SEC’s efforts to reform executive comp disclosures were rationalizing, simplifying and modernizing the rules governing those disclosure requirements. In terms of rationalizing the rules, he said that materiality should be the SEC’s “north star,” and stated that the current requirement to provide detailed compensation information for up to seven people isn’t consistent with that objective. He said that he agreed with commenters who said that the number of executives for whom compensation info is required should be reconsidered, and that the level of disclosure should be calibrated with its cost.

Chairman Atkins singled out the PvP disclosure rules when discussing the need to simplify compensation disclosures. He said that SEC disclosure requirements should be “intelligible by a reasonable investor and practical for a company to comply [with], without the need for a cottage industry of ultra specialized consultants,” and that the current PvP disclosure rules flunked this test.

With respect to the need to modernize comp disclosures, the Chairman called out the current treatment of executive security arrangements as a “perk.” He pointed out that we live in a different world than the one 20 years ago when the SEC decided that executive security arrangements were not “integrally and directly related to job requirements,” and that the SEC’s rules needed to keep up with modern business realities.

Some of his commentary on Regulation S-K more generally is also relevant to this audience. John continues:

Chairman Atkins called out “disclose or comply” line items that indirectly compel companies to toe the line on specific governance practices by forcing them into awkward disclosures if they don’t. He cited some of Item 407’s requirements, such as the need for a company without a nominating or compensation committee to explain why that structure is appropriate, as examples of this kind of “shaming disclosure.”

Chairman Atkins characterized these requirements as an “attempt to indirectly regulate, or set expectations for, matters of corporate governance.” He said that absent a Congressional mandate, it wasn’t the SEC’s role to enforce evolving “best practice” governance standards through disclosure requirements.

Chairman Atkins also cited provisions of Reg S-K that forced companies to comply with impractical disclosure requirements, such as the need to track down beneficial ownership information for NEOs who departed during the prior year in order to complete the current year’s beneficial ownership table in the proxy statement required by Item 403. He also cited the broad definition of “immediate family members” used in Item 404’s related party transactions disclosure requirements as imposing potentially impractical obligations on public companies.

– Meredith Ervine