Appeals Court Sets Aside Share Repurchase Disclosure Rule

The SEC could not meet a 30-day deadline to correct issues in the rule.

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday formally vacated the share repurchase rule that had been finalized by the Securities and Exchange Commission in May.

The rule required issuers to disclose their daily stock buybacks on a quarterly basis. The disclosures were to include the pricing and volume of the buybacks, as well as the rationale behind the buyback program. Additionally, the rule required issuers to disclose their policies regarding executives trading in company stock.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

According to the SEC, the rule was primarily intended to reduce information asymmetry between the companies issuing stock and investors; reduce opportunistic buybacks and insider trading; and improve price discovery. The disclosure regime under the rule would have made it more difficult for corporations to initiate a buyback program on the basis that their stock was undervalued. Similarly, the rule would have revealed if buyback programs were motivated by executive compensation schemes related to stock pricing.

The rule was challenged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in May. On October 31, three judges from the 5th Circuit ruled that the SEC had not done a proper cost-benefit analysis during the finalization of the rule. According to the ruling, the SEC did not adequately consider comments that suggested the SEC should study how often buybacks triggered executive bonuses, the impact of incentive compensation related to stock prices, and the economic benefit of reduced information asymmetry. As such, the appeals court found that the SEC’s adoption of the rule was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

The court gave the SEC 30 days to remedy the issues. When, on November 22, the SEC asked for an extension, the court refused. The SEC then filed a letter on December 1 stating it could not “correct the defects in the rule” on the court’s 30-day timeline. Accordingly, the 5th Circuit vacated the rule on December 19.

Jay Gould, a special counsel with Baker Botts LLC, explains that under the APA, a federal agency must consider the comments it receives. Adopting statements issued by the SEC generally explain how the commission considered the comments and which of the comments influenced changes between an initial proposal and a final rule and why other comments were not considered. If the SEC fails to do this, “the rulemaking is deemed arbitrary and capricious.”

If the SEC appealed the case to the Supreme Court, the SEC would likely lose, Gould says. Instead, the SEC will likely “go back to Square 1 and re-propose the rule.” The rule was vacated on procedural grounds but is otherwise “entirely consistent with the securities laws” and dealt with creating “orderly capital markets.” The SEC may be successful on a second try, but the process could take a year or longer, Gould says.

Absent the vacated rule, stock issuers must still disclose less-specific information about buybacks on forms 8-K and 10-Q, aggregated on a monthly basis, rather than a daily basis.

The SEC’s rule was part of a broader effort to reign in buybacks. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 implemented a 1% tax on buybacks, and some Democrats in Washington, including President Joe Biden, have suggested increasing that tax to 4%.

According to Standard & Poor’s, stock buybacks by companies in the S&P 500 are down this year. A report published Tuesday noted that “the 12-month September 2023 expenditure of $787.3 billion was down 19.8% from the $981.6 billion expenditure of September 2022” for buybacks among S&P 500 companies.

2023 Retirement Plan Litigation Highlights

Sean Duffy, investment & fiduciary consultant with Conrad Siegel, notes key cases and learnings from the year in 401(k) litigation.

Employers across the country sponsor more than 625,000 401(k) plans. Due to poor practices and a lack of oversight, lawsuits first targeted 401(k) plans about 15 years ago. Since then, lawsuits have continued and recently reached historic levels.

According to a recent article from Brach and Eichler LLC, from 2019 through mid-2022, more than 200 class action lawsuits were filed against 401(k) plans, fiduciaries and plan sponsors. Companies spent more than $150 million to settle those lawsuits.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

To provide plan fiduciaries with an update on recent litigation in the industry, below are some of the lawsuits we have been monitoring in the last few months.

Wehner v. Genentech Inc.

The plaintiff in Wehner v. Genentech Inc. alleged that the plan fiduciaries breached their duties by imposing recordkeeping, administrative and investment management fees that were too high. In addition, the plaintiff stated that investment funds included in the menu allegedly underperformed and had high fees.

After multiple rounds of motions to dismiss, the only claims that remained were the violation of duty for excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees and the failure of fiduciaries to monitor these fees. The claims regarding the investment performance and high investment fees were thrown out.

Lessons for plan advisers and sponsors

  • Have a process in place to review fund performance;
  • Follow the criteria outlined in your IPS; and
  • Document your committee’s decisions.

This suit has been settled for $250,000. 

Sean Duffy

Kohari et al v. Metlife Group Inc. 

A group of participants in this suit alleged that the fiduciaries selected proprietary funds for the plan’s investment menu that promoted their employers’ products and earned the employer additional profits. As noted in the suit, this went against fiduciary duties of selecting and monitoring investments in the best interests of plan participants.

The proprietary investments were said to be more expensive and of lower quality than other competitive options in the marketplace. 

Lessons for plan advisers and sponsors

  • Have clarity around fees and all the parties receiving compensation; and
  • If using proprietary funds, ensure they are in the best interest of participants and not being used because of a requirement or because pricing incentives are received.

This suit currently has a proposed settlement of $4.5 million. 

Anderson v. Advance Publications Inc. 

In this suit filed in August 2022, the plaintiff alleged the target-date funds (BlackRock) used in the retirement plan were performing significantly worse than many of the mutual fund alternatives offered by target-date-fund providers.

It also mentioned that the fiduciaries looked to be chasing low fees charged by BlackRock TDFs instead of considering their generated returns. In fact, there have been about a dozen other suits filed across the country with similar allegations against BlackRock’s target-date series.

Lessons for plan advisers and sponsors

  • Know what’s under the hood of your qualified default investment alternative; and
  • Review the universe of options periodically, because it’s ever changing.

These suits have not fared well in courts, with almost all dismissed. In this case, the participants dropped the suit.

McManus v. Clorox Co.

The participant/plaintiff who filed this suit alleged that the plan sponsor has:

  • Breached fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act;
  • Violated ERISA’s benefit of private interests’ provision; and
  • Engaged in self-dealing transactions.

The complaint indicated that the plan sponsor has acted wrongfully by using plan forfeitures of terminated participants to offset company contributions, rather than offsetting plan expenses. The suit acknowledged that the plan document gives the sponsor discretion regarding how plan forfeitures are used, but the plaintiff stated that such forfeitures have consistently been used to reduce the company contributions. 

The claim stated that the plan sponsors were not acting solely in the interest of plan participants, since they are consistently utilizing the forfeited funds to reduce their own future contributions to the plan. 

Lessons for plan advisers and sponsors

  • Make sure the plan document is being followed closely.

This suit is currently under litigation. 

Outlook

Historically, most 401(k) lawsuits have targeted high recordkeeping/administrative fees and poor investment performance. Over the past several years, they now seem to be targeting a wider range of areas. Managed accounts, target-date funds, proprietary fund usage and forfeiture usage have all been named in recent lawsuits.

We expect lawsuits to continue at a high pace over the next several years. This reinforces the need of a sound prudent process as plan fiduciaries and the assistance of an investment adviser to mitigate fiduciary risks involved with sponsoring a retirement plan.

This contribution is based on a piece posted by Conrad Siegel.

«