- Services
- Lawyers
- Locations
- News & Events
- Publications
- About
- Careers
August 5, 2008
On August 1, 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released updated guidance on the use of company web sites. The guidance becomes effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.
The guidance explains when the information posted on a company web site will be considered "public," thus avoiding issues under Regulation FD with respect to any subsequent selective disclosure of the information. If a company meets the tests below, then subsequent selective disclosure of the information posted on the company web site will not trigger Regulation FD because such information, even if material, will be "public." The guidance clarifies that information on a company web site is "public" when:
While the tests above require a facts-and-circumstances analysis, a company should consider the following list of non-exclusive factors in evaluating whether its web site is a recognized channel of distribution and whether the information is sufficiently disseminated:
A waiting period that may be considered reasonable also depends on the circumstances of dissemination, including:
Once a selective disclosure is made, Regulation FD requires distribution of the information to the public - simultaneously, in the case of an intentional disclosure, or promptly, in the case of an unintentional disclosure. Companies have typically satisfied this requirement by filing or furnishing a Form 8-K, but Rule 101(e) of Regulation FD has always provided that alternative methods of disclosure in lieu of an 8-K might be acceptable "if reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information to the public." When the SEC adopted Regulation FD in 2000, it did not expressly endorse web site disclosure as an adequate alternative to an 8-K filing. The new guidance now clarifies that posting the information on the company web site may be a sufficient method of disclosure, at least "for some companies in certain circumstances."
For purposes of determining whether web site disclosure will constitute adequate disclosure for Regulation FD purposes, the guidance directs companies to the factors described above in the analysis of whether the web site is a recognized channel of distribution and whether the information is sufficiently disseminated. Additionally, companies must also consider their web sites' capabilities to meet simultaneous or prompt timing requirements for public disclosure once a selective disclosure occurs.
The guidance clarifies that companies that maintain previously posted materials or statements on their web sites will not be deemed to reissue or republish such information for purposes of the securities laws' antifraud provisions just because such information remains accessible to the public. Of course, the affirmative restatement or reissuance of such a statement may create a duty to update the statement so that it is accurate as of the date it is restated or reissued.
When it is not apparent that the posted information speaks as of an earlier date, companies should:
Under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, a company may be liable for third-party information to which it hyperlinks from its web site when such information can be attributable to the company. As the SEC has previously explained, third-party information is attributable to the company if the company has (1) involved itself in the preparation of the information or (2) explicitly or implicitly endorsed or approved the information. In determining whether the company adopted or endorsed the hyperlinked information, companies should consider the following, non-exhaustive list of factors:
In context of the securities laws' antifraud provisions, the guidance provides a few techniques for proper use of summary information. Companies should consider:
The guidance clarifies that the antifraud provisions apply to statements made by a company, or by a person acting on the company's behalf, in blogs and electronic shareholder forums. However, the company is not responsible for third parties' statements on a web site sponsored by the company and is not obligated to correct misstatements in such statements. The guidance also confirms that the company cannot require investors to waive protections under the federal securities laws as a condition to entering or participating in blogs or forums.
The guidance reiterates that the antifraud provisions in Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 apply to company statements made on the Internet in the same way such provisions would apply to any other statement made by, or attributable to, the company. The guidance goes on to apply these principles to several specific categories of web site information.
Pursuant to the guidance, information on company web sites is not generally subject to "disclosure controls and procedures" rules under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. An exception exists when a company satisfies its Exchange Act obligations by posting information on its web site instead of filing the information with the SEC (e.g., posting waivers to the company's code of ethics on the web site).
Finally, the guidance clarifies that the information generally does not have to be in a "printer-friendly" format unless the "printer-friendly" standard is imposed by other rules (e.g., proxy rules for the notice and access model).
Based on SEC Release No. 34-58288 (August 1, 2008), available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2008/34-58288.pdf.
Please contact Thomas A. Aldrich, Joseph M. Rigot, or J. Shane Starkey or any member of our Corporate Transactions & Securities practice group for more information.
This advisory may be reproduced, in whole or in part, with the prior permission of Thompson Hine LLP and acknowledgement of its source and copyright. This publication is intended to inform clients about legal matters of current interest. It is not intended as legal advice. Readers should not act upon the information contained in it without professional counsel. This document may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
Last modified: August 5, 2008
Comments to: info@thompsonhine.com