The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is strengthening its approach to merger control as it prepares for its new status as a global enforcer with expanded jurisdiction.

Following the UK’s departure from the EU on 31 January 2020, the UK entered a transition period due to end on 31 December 2020.  EU competition law continues to apply in the UK until the transition period ends (and to mergers notified to the European Commission before the end of that period), meaning that the European Commission continues to have exclusive jurisdiction over transactions with an EU dimension, including those impacting UK markets.

Please click here to read the full alert memorandum.

Partially overturning a decision of the High Court, the Court of Appeal held on 18 February 2020 that a company is able to withhold privileged material when responding to a notice from the Financial Reporting Council (the “FRC”) requiring the production of documents in connection with an FRC investigation[1]. The decision has broad implications for the ambit of privilege during regulatory investigations.

The FRC (the UK regulator for auditors, accountants and actuaries) is currently conducting an investigation into Grant Thornton and one of its employees, in relation to its audit of Sports Direct International Plc (“Sports Direct”) for the year ending April 2016. In April 2017, the FRC (pursuant to its powers under the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016 (“SATCAR”)) notified Sports Direct that it was required to disclose emails and their attachments which: (i) relate to the audit, (ii) are held by one or more of five identified custodians, (iii) are dated within certain specified date ranges, and (iv) are responsive to one or more of 27 different specified search terms. Sports Direct provided approximately 2,000 documents to the FRC in response, but withheld 40 documents on the grounds of privilege (these documents were emails and attachments sent to or by Sports Direct’s legal advisers, either internal or external). The FRC applied to Court to force disclosure of the withheld documents. Continue Reading UK Court of Appeal Finds That Privilege Affords Protection Against Regulators’ Requests for Documents Unless Overriden by Statute

On January 27, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) issued examination observations related to cybersecurity and operational resiliency practices (“Examination Observations”). The observations highlight a set of best practices by market participants in the following areas:  (1) governance and risk management, (2) access rights and controls, (3) data loss prevention, (4) mobile security, (5) incident response and resiliency, (6) vendor management and (7) training and awareness.  Cybersecurity has been a key priority for OCIE since 2012.  Since then, it has published eight cybersecurity-related risk alerts, including an April 2019 alert addressing mobile security. OCIE has perennially included cybersecurity practices as part of its examination priorities (“Examination Priorities”) and listed all but mobile security as “particular focus areas” in the “information security” priority for 2020.  Continue Reading OCIE Cybersecurity and Resiliency Observations and Best Practices

Last week the Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Clayton and Commissioners Lee and Peirce each issued statements on climate-related disclosures in SEC filings. The statements were prompted by the concurrent SEC’s proposal to amend the MD&A rules and evidence some debate within the SEC on this topic, which has attracted considerable recent attention among investors, companies and regulators. The outcome for companies is generally the status quo, as the SEC chose not to include specific requirements on climate change or other environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure in the amendments to MD&A it proposed yesterday.

To read the full alert memorandum, please click here.

Yesterday the Securities and Exchange Commission took two significant actions relating to the MD&A disclosures in annual and quarterly reports of public companies.

First, it proposed amendments to MD&A requirements that would, if adopted, make significant and long-overdue improvements to a central disclosure requirement of the U.S. securities laws. Second, it issued guidance on the presentation of performance metrics in MD&A, which will take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

For our memo on the proposed MD&A amendments, click here.

For our memo on the performance metrics guidance, click here.

Insider trading law has remained a subject of significant debate and attention, including with a recent Second Circuit decision addressing the use of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 (wire fraud) and 1348 (securities fraud) in insider trading cases[1] and a new insider trading bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in December by an overwhelming majority.  Yesterday, a blue ribbon task force headed by Preet Bharara, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, published a report studying the history and current state of insider trading law and proposing reforms that would bring greater clarity and certainty to the law. Continue Reading Task Force Led By Preet Bharara and Cleary Gottlieb’s Joon H. Kim Issues Report Recommending Reforms to Insider Trading Law

The following post was originally included as part of our recently published memorandum “Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2020”.

SEC Disclosure and Reporting Developments

Recently, the US Securities and Exchange Commission continued to move forward with a number of disclosure effectiveness and simplification initiatives, the details of which are available in our Disclosure Simplification Tracker.

Although many of these changes are administrative in nature, collectively they represent an ongoing shift toward principles-based disclosure. In the coming year, we expect that the practical limits of principles-based disclosure will be tested as the SEC moves to implement its August 2019 proposal for the simplification of the narrative description of the business and risk factor items, and attempts to tackle simplification of the MD&A section, which they have included on their Fall 2019 regulatory short-term agenda.

While we expect these changes will give wider latitude for companies to customize their disclosures, the impact may be less than expected because they will do little to address the underlying legal judgments about litigation and reputational risk management that have shaped the form of current disclosure practices.

To read the full post, please click here.

For a PDF of the full memorandum, please click here.

The following post was originally included as part of our recently published memorandum “Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2020”.

Enforcement of anti-bribery, sanctions and money laundering laws remains a top priority for US authorities. In 2019, the US Department of Justice and civil regulators issued new or updated policies aimed at increasing incentives for self-reporting by companies. Different agencies also provided additional guidance about compliance programs, including the role of officers and directors in supervising compliance programs.

To read the full post, please click here.

For a PDF of the full memorandum, please click here.

The Second Circuit has made it easier for federal prosecutors to bring insider-trading cases.  In United States v. Blaszczak, decided on December 30, 2019, the Court held that the personal-benefit test—a judge-made rule that the government must prove a tipper expected to receive some benefit in exchange for disclosing confidential information—does not apply to insider‑trading prosecutions brought under certain federal criminal fraud statutes.  The Blaszczak decision thus opens the door to insider-trading prosecutions where a “personal benefit” would be difficult or impossible to prove.  The decision contained another notable holding:  a government agency’s confidential regulatory information can constitute “property,” such that its misappropriation can be the basis for an insider-trading prosecution under the criminal fraud statutes.  This holding—which triggered a dissent by one of the panel members—could facilitate insider‑trading prosecutions involving so-called “political intelligence” consultants, like Blaszczak, who collect and analyze information concerning government agency activity that can be used in making securities trading decisions.

Please click here to read the full alert memorandum.

On January 7, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) released its 2020 Examination Priorities (“2020 Priorities”).  While at first blush the themes appear consistent with and predictable from their 2019 priorities, on closer read OCIE has provided some new insights and some unexpected focus areas.  The themes for the 2020 Priorities are:  retail investors, information security, financial technology (“Fintech”) and innovation (including digital assets and electronic investment advice), several areas covering registered investment advisers and investment companies, anti-money laundering, market infrastructure (clearing agencies, national securities exchanges, alternative trading systems, transfer agents), and oversight of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board programs and policies.  OCIE also stressed the challenges it faced in light of last year’s government shutdown and resource constraints, as the Division of Enforcement did in its 2019 Annual Report (see our analysis here), and the challenges in examining non-U.S. advisers due to limits that foreign data protection and privacy laws may place on cross-border information transfers.  In this post, we analyze the highlights in and our takeaways from the 2020 Priorities. Continue Reading From the Expected to the Surprises: Highlights of SEC OCIE’s 2020 Priorities