Market Update: More From the SEC/others on 10b5-1 Plans

Jun 14, 2021

Reading Time : 2 min

Following Gensler’s remarks, the IAC hosted a panel discussion on 10b5-1 trading plans that included the perspective of academics and representatives of institutional investors and public corporations. Among other proposals, the panel discussed amending Form 4 so that Section 16 filers must disclose whether reportable trades were made pursuant to a 10b5-1 plan and, if so, certain information relating to the plan’s adoption and modification. The panel discussed the inclusion of similar information in Form 144 filings, which affiliates must file when disposing of shares under the Rule 144 safe harbor from Securities Act registration. One item on which the panel agreed was that Form 144 filings should be required to be filed electronically on the Commission’s EDGAR (“Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval”) database (currently Form 144 filings are only required to be mailed to the Commission, although some are filed on EDGAR). The panel also discussed proposals that would require a Form 8-K filing whenever insiders adopt, modify or otherwise cancel a 10b5-1 trading plan and a proposal that would require proxy statement disclosure regarding the number of shares held by directors and named executive officers that are subject to 10b5-1 trading plans.

Though not required, many insiders already disclose when trades are made pursuant to 10b5-1 plans, believing that such disclosure will offset any investor concerns that an insider’s transactions reflect his or her current views or concerns about the issuer’s business prospects. Additionally, when companies enter into share repurchase programs, they often disclose that the company may effect such repurchases pursuant to 10b5-1 trading plans.

However, requiring disclosure around the dates that companies and insiders enter into such plans would be a significant development, and the collateral consequences could limit the intended benefits to investors in having trades conducted pursuant to these plans, and the benefit of the Rule 10b5-1 safe harbor to companies and insiders. The Commission (and plaintiff’s attorneys) would certainly scrutinize such information and compare it to subsequent events, such as merger announcements, earnings releases and other material information. This increased exposure to liability could make companies and insiders reticent to use 10b5-1 trading plans out of fear of being second-guessed.

In addition, the panel discussed a four to six-month cooling off period before an insider could execute a trade under a 10b5-1 plan following its adoption (the same cooling off period was previously suggested by former Commission Chair John Clayton and more recently by current Chair Gensler, among others). While such proposals certainly address concerns that some insiders are not entering into 10b5-1 plans in good faith, they also limit the utility of the 10b5-1 safe harbor.

Any thoughtful discussion of 10b5-1 trading plans must temper the Commission’s goal of combatting fraud while also permitting companies and insiders to reap the benefits of the Rule 10b5-1 safe harbor. The evolution of this discussion will be important to many insiders who rely on 10b5-1 trading plans.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.