Corporate Communicator - 2018 Annual Meeting Season

Snell & Wilmer

Dear clients and friends,

We present our traditional year-end issue of Snell & Wilmer’s Corporate Communicator to help you prepare for the upcoming annual report and proxy season. This issue highlights SEC reporting and corporate governance considerations that will be important this annual meeting season as well as in the upcoming year.

During 2018, members of our Corporate & Securities Group will continue to publish the Corporate Communicator, host business presentations, participate in seminars that address key issues of concern to our clients, and sponsor conferences and other key events. First on the calendar is our Tenth Annual Proxy Season Update, which will be held in our Phoenix office on January 11, 2018. Finally, we are pleased to present our 2017 Tombstone, which highlights selected deals that Snell & Wilmer’s Corporate & Securities group helped clients close during the year.

As always, we appreciate your relationship with Snell & Wilmer, and we look forward to helping you make 2018 a successful year.

Very truly yours,

Snell & Wilmer
Corporate & Securities Group


Pay Ratio Disclosure

Status: Pay ratio disclosure requirements go into effect for 2018 proxy statements; SEC issued interpretive guidance; Division of Corporate Finance issued additional guidance and revised Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs); Financial CHOICE Act was passed by House in June 2017, but no action in Senate to date.

Summary: With the Financial CHOICE Act, which sought to repeal or modify pay ratio disclosure, along with other Dodd-Frank Act laws stalled in the Senate, barring any last-minute, surprise developments, most public companies will need to disclose the ratio of their principal executive officer’s compensation to the median employee’s compensation in their 2018 proxy statements. To assist companies with this requirement, the SEC issued interpretive guidance on calculating the pay ratio disclosure, including how to use reasonable estimates, assumptions and methodologies, statistical samplings, and internal records, as well as when to use widely recognized tests to determine independent contractor status. Concurrently, Corporate Finance staff provided additional guidance on how to use statistical sampling and other reasonable methods to identify the median employee’s compensation and revised its previously issued C&DIs on pay ratio disclosure.

Other SEC Rulemaking, Including Dodd-Frank

Status: Dodd-Frank executive compensation-related proposals, as well as many other proposed rules, removed from SEC regulatory agenda for the next 12 months; effectively stalled.

Summary: With the SEC’s removal from its regulatory agenda to the SEC’s long-term agenda (which are items that the SEC does not expect to resolve within the next 12 months) of a number of Dodd-Frank Act rules, including rules on clawbacks, pay versus performance disclosure, and hedging disclosure, along with other rules relating to universal proxy and security-based swaps, these rules are on hold indefinitely.

Conflict Minerals

Status: Conflict minerals rule still in limbo; Corporate Finance staff issues no-action guidance.

Summary: The Corporate Finance staff issued a public statement in April 2017 indicating that it would not recommend enforcement action to the Commission if a company does not file disclosure under Item 1.01(c) of Form SD after the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals issued a final judgment on April 3, 2017 reaffirming its prior holding that a portion of the conflict minerals rule violates the First Amendment and remanding the rule back to the SEC.

FAST Act Modernization and Simplification of Regulation S-K Proposed Rules

Status: Proposed rules issued October 2017; comment period expires January 2, 2018.

Summary: The proposed rules implement a mandate under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act to modernize and simplify certain disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K and related rules and forms. The amendments proposed seek to update, streamline, or otherwise improve the disclosure framework and include, among others, proposed changes to:

  • implement a materiality threshold for description of property disclosure (Item 102);
  • allow for flexibility in discussing historical periods in Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Item 303);
  • eliminate the requirement that reporting persons furnish Section 16 reports to registrant and allow registrants to rely on electronically filed Section 16 reports (Item 405);
  • eliminate certain undertakings in registration statements that are duplicative of other rules or that have become unnecessary over time (Item 512); and
  • ease exhibit filing requirements for material agreements and the necessity of preparing confidential treatment requests for sensitive information in material agreements (Item 601).

Other Miscellaneous SEC-related Reminders

The following are brief reminders relating to other miscellaneous SEC developments that will affect companies in 2018:

  • must now hyperlink exhibits;
  • addition of checkbox for emerging growth company (EGC) language on cover page of several forms (e.g., Forms 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K);
  • threshold to qualify as EGC adjusted for inflation to $1,070,000,000; and
  • maximum amount allowed to be sold under Regulation Crowdfunding adjusted for inflation up to $1,070,000.

NYSE & Nasdaq Updates

  • The NYSE amended its rules to require that listed companies provide notice to the NYSE at least 10 minutes before making any public announcement with respect to a dividend or stock distribution when the notice is given outside of trading hours (in addition to during trading hours, which was already the case prior to this amendment). Though approved by the SEC, the amendment’s effectiveness is delayed until February 1, 2018 or such earlier date that the NYSE notifies listed companies that the new rule will go into effect.
  • On December 4, 2017, the SEC approved a proposed amendment from the NYSE that prohibits the issuance by listed companies of material news after market close until the earlier of five minutes after the official closing of trading or the publication of a company’s official closing price, except when necessary to comply with Regulation FD following a non-intentional disclosure.
  • In July 2017, Nasdaq issued a solicitation for comments regarding proposed changes to its 20% rule in relation to a private offering. The proposed changes relate to the price at which stock is sold in a private offering and the approval requirements for a private offering. The comment period has ended but no changes have been effected.


2017 Proxy Season Review

Below is a summary of notable developments and trends relating to the 2017 U.S. annual meeting proxy season:

Continued decrease in overall number of shareholder proposals. Shareholder proposals that went to a vote decreased significantly in 2017 compared to 2016, reflecting a trend of fewer shareholder proposals being submitted since 2015. In addition, the number of SEC no-action requests to exclude shareholder proposals increased from 245 in 2016 to 288 in 2017. The SEC ultimately granted 78% of the 2017 no-action requests that were not withdrawn, which was the highest level in at least four years.

Higher success rate and stronger support for proxy access adoption proposals. In 2017, there were fewer proposals relating to the initial adoption of proxy access provisions submitted and voted on compared to 2016. This is primarily due to the increased number of companies that have already adopted proxy access in recent years. However, of the proposals that were voted on in 2017, the average support and percentage that received majority votes were higher than in 2016. In contrast, none of the “fix-it” proposals, which are designed to amend previously adopted proxy access provisions, passed in 2017.

Board diversity proposals gaining traction. Board diversity continues to remain an important high-profile topic, and some institutional investors are seeking to improve gender and racial diversity on boards. While the number of board diversity proposals submitted in 2017 only increased slightly from 2016, the average support for those that reached a vote increased by approximately 3%. Furthermore, of the record number of proposals submitted in 2017, many were withdrawn after the companies agreed to improve diversity efforts.

Increased focus on environmental proposals. The number of environmental proposals submitted in 2017 increased over the prior year and reflected an increase in average support in 2017. The most common environmental proposal topic pertained to climate change, with three climate change proposals having obtained majority votes for the first time. These particular proposals dealt with the business impact of the Paris Agreement’s two degree Celsius limit on global warming, which generally saw a significant increase in average support compared to 2016.

Support for “say-on-pay” proposals remained strong with an overwhelming trend towards annual voting. Say-on-pay proposals continued to demonstrate strong support shown in prior years with average support in excess of 90%. In addition, 2017 marked the six-year anniversary of the first “say-on-frequency” advisory vote held in 2011. The vast majority of companies holding their second say-on-frequency vote recommended holding annual say-on-pay votes, which were overwhelmingly approved by shareholders.

Virtual annual meeting-related proposals omitted from ballots. With an increasing number of companies choosing to hold exclusively virtual annual shareholder meetings, some shareholders have continued to criticize such virtual meetings as limiting their ability to directly engage and communicate with boards and management. In 2017, there were a few shareholder proposals (compared to none in 2015 and 2016) requesting that companies holding virtual-only annual meetings adopt a corporate governance policy to reinstate in-person annual meetings. All of these proposals were excluded based on ordinary business or technical grounds.

Proxy Advisors—Voting Guideline Updates

As is the case each year around this time, Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”) and Glass, Lewis & Co. (“Glass Lewis”) both recently updated their proxy voting guidelines for the 2018 proxy season.


The following is a summary of ISS’ key policy updates applicable to U. S. companies:

Non-Employee Director Pay. Beginning in 2019, ISS will recommend against board or committee members who are responsible for approving or setting non-employee director (“NED”) compensation where there are two or more consecutive years of excessive NED pay compared to their peer companies without mitigating factors.

Poison Pills. ISS will recommend against all board nominees, every year, at companies that maintain a long-term poison pill, which is a poison pill with a term greater than one year that has not been approved by shareholders. With respect to short-term poison pills, ISS will evaluate its recommendations on a case-by-case basis and, under the updated policy, will focus more on the rationale for adopting the poison pill than on the company’s governance track record.

Gender Pay Gap. ISS adopted a new policy relating to shareholder proposals for reports or policies relating to potential gender pay gaps. Under the new policy, proposals will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis on the following factors:

  • the company’s current policies and disclosures related to both its diversity and inclusion policies and practices;
  • the company’s compensation philosophy and use of fair and equitable compensation practices;
  • whether the company has been the subject of recent controversies, litigation or regulatory actions related to gender pay gap issues; and
  • whether the company’s reporting regarding gender pay gap policies or initiatives lags its peers.


The following is a summary of Glass Lewis’s key policy updates applicable to U. S. companies:

Board Gender Diversity. Consistent with prior years, Glass Lewis will review board composition and may note as a concern boards that Glass Lewis believes lack representation of diverse director candidates, including if there are no female directors. Beginning in 2019, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the nominating committee chair of a board that has no female directors. Depending on other factors, Glass Lewis may also extend the “vote against” recommendation to all members of the nominating committee. However, in making its recommendations, Glass Lewis will look closely at the disclosures of a company’s diversity considerations and may refrain from a “vote against” recommendation for companies that are (i) outside of the Russell 3000, (ii) have provided sufficient rational for not having any female board members, or (iii) have disclosed a plan to address lack of diversity on the board.

Dual-Class Voting Structures. In its summary of governance positions, Glass Lewis has added a discussion of its view that dual-class voting structures are not typically in the best interests of common shareholders. In connection with newly public companies, Glass Lewis generally believes that newly public companies should be provided sufficient time to fully comply with marketplace listing requirements and meet basic governance standards, but will consider recommending that shareholders vote against members of the governance committee or the directors that served at the time of adoption of governing documents that Glass Lewis believes severely restricted shareholder rights indefinitely. Glass Lewis updated its policy to include the presence of dual-class voting structures as an additional factor in making its determination whether shareholders’ rights were severely restricted indefinitely.

Board Responsiveness. Glass Lewis updated its policy to provide that the board generally has an imperative to respond to shareholder dissent from a proposal at an annual meeting where more than 20% of the votes cast were contrary to management's recommendation (down from 25%).

Virtual Shareholder Meeting. Glass Lewis added discussion of its position that virtual-only meetings have the potential to curb the ability of a company’s shareholders to meaningfully communicate with the company’s management. In 2018, holding a virtual-only meeting will only be a factor in Glass Lewis’s evaluation of a company’s governance profile. Beginning in 2019, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against members of the governance committee of a board where the board is planning to hold a virtual-only shareholder meeting and the company does not provide robust disclosure in its proxy statement that assures shareholders that they will be afforded the same rights and opportunities to participate as they would at an in-person meeting.

CEO Pay Ratio. With respect to the CEO Pay Ratio disclosure required beginning in 2018, Glass Lewis will display the pay ratio as a data point in its “Proxy Papers,” as available. At this time, the CEO pay ratio will not be a determinative factor in Glass Lewis’s voting recommendations.


Below is a summary of other notable developments and key items to consider for the 2018 U.S. annual meeting proxy season:

Proxy Access. Proxy access is likely to be another hot issue in the 2018 proxy season. At this point, as more and more companies move towards the market-standard approach of a “3-3-20” model, those companies that have not adopted an access bylaw run a reasonable risk of a negative proxy advisor recommendation or an activist “access” campaign. In addition, even those who have adopted the 3-3-20 market-standard model may receive a “fix-it” proposal to go beyond this market standard.

Governance Concerns. A number of governance issues will also likely be front-and-center in the upcoming proxy season, with off-market or overly restrictive models triggering a higher risk of withhold vote recommendations or “just vote no” campaigns. Governance concerns that would be particularly likely to lead to a negative campaign include:

  • lack of director independence;
  • board actions that reduce shareholder rights;
  • lack of a formal nominating committee;
  • bylaws that do not permit amendment by shareholders;
  • failing to respond to shareholder concerns; and
  • poison pills.

Dual Class Stock. Companies with multi-class capital structures in which the classes have unequal voting rights will continue to come under scrutiny this year. In November, Twenty-First Century Fox Inc. narrowly defeated a shareholder proposal calling for the company to eliminate its dual-class structure. In fact, a majority of the shares not controlled by the Murdoch Family (the controlling shareholder) voted in favor of the proposal, suggesting there is strong public shareholder support to scrap dual class voting structures.

Director Overboarding, Tenure and Diversity. Directors who sit on a large number of boards, boards that lack diversity (race, gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, skills, background and experience), and companies that lack processes to refresh board composition periodically may find themselves in the spotlight this proxy season. Related to that, in September, the New York City Comptroller’s Office announced its “Boardroom Accountability Project 2.0.” With respect to a number of companies in which the New York City Pension Funds own shares, the Comptroller is asking the companies to disclose a director “skills and experience matrix.” The matrix is intended to assist investors evaluate the suitability of candidates and adequacy of the board composition as a whole. The model skills matrix can be found on the Comptroller’s website by clicking here.

Environmental and Social Proposal Trends. The 2017 proxy season saw an uptick in environmental and social shareholder proposals, and that trend is expected to continue through the 2018 proxy season. This trend has been driven by a select few “socially responsible” investors, with climate change, diversity in the workplace, political spending, and pay disparity at the center of many of the campaigns. Proactive shareholder engagement continues to be the best defense to an activist campaign.

Messaging Pay Ratio Disclosures. While the SEC’s pay ratio rules emphasize that the disclosure should be “brief,” effective messaging of the ratio, both internally and externally, is important to minimize potential negative reactions by employees and shareholders. If a company’s ratio is positive (relative to its peers), the messaging is fairly easy. If it is negative, consider adding disclosure highlighting the unique value added by the company’s CEO, and highlighting how CEO compensation is tied to company objectives. It’s also critical to not neglect the fallout from the new disclosure among the company’s workforce. Many companies are considering launching internal campaigns to educate their workforce on their individual compensation model to get ahead of the curve and limit the chances of employees misinterpreting the pay ratio disclosure when it is eventually publicly disclosed.

Equity Compensation Plan Approval Considerations. While a substantial majority of equity compensation plans and amendments were approved in 2017 as in years past, several such plan proposals continue to fail each year and it tends to be harder to receive advisory firm support for equity compensation plan proposals than it is to obtain shareholder approval (in 2017, according to ISS, average equity plan support was 89%, while ISS supported only 70% of equity plan proposals it evaluated). High shareholder value transfer (essentially a measure of plan cost calculated by taking the total value of equity grants divided by market capitalization) continues to be a red flag for investors, and therefore should be assessed carefully by companies before putting a plan to shareholder vote.


New Revenue Recognition Standard. The Financial Accounting Standards Board’s new revenue recognition standard is now in place and is effective for public companies for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017. For calendar year end companies, they must begin applying the new standard on January 1, 2018. The SEC is expecting companies to provide robust transition disclosures in their 2017 annual reports explaining to investors the anticipated effects of the new standard, including the method of adoption, a comparison to the current standard as it pertains to the company’s existing revenue recognition policy and the expected quantitative and qualitative impacts upon adoption.

New Independent Audit Report Standard. In October 2017, the SEC approved the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s (PCAOB) new audit report standard. The new standard is intended to make the auditor’s report more informative by requiring new information be provided about “critical audit matters.”

A critical audit matter as defined by the new standard as any matter that arises from the audit of the financial statements that was communicated, or required to be communicated, to the audit committee that (i) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (ii) involves especially challenging, subjective or complex judgment. The new standard provides a nonexclusive list of factors the auditor should consider when determining whether a matter involves especially challenging, subjective or complex judgment.

For each critical audit matter identified, the auditor must describe the principal considerations that led the auditor to determine that the matter was a critical audit matter, describe how it was addressed in the audit, and refer to relevant financial accounts and disclosures that related to the critical audit matter. If the auditor determines there are no critical audit matters, that finding must be disclosed in the audit report. It is noted that the PCAOB has indicated that it expects the auditor will determine there is at least one critical audit matter.

In addition to the disclosures about critical audit matters, the new standard requires several other changes to the audit report, including disclosure of the auditor’s tenure with the company. The new audit report standard is effective for audits of fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2017, except for the provisions relating to disclosures about critical audit matters, which are effective for audits of fiscal years ending on or after June 20, 2019 (for larger accelerated filers) and on or after December 15, 2020 for all other filers.

The End of the SEC’s “Broken Windows” Policy? As we have written about previously, in 2013, then SEC Chair Mary Jo White gave a speech in which she signaled the SEC’s intention to implement the “broken windows” theory of enforcement made famous long ago in New York City by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Chair White stated: “The theory is that when a window is broken and someone fixes it – it is a sign that disorder will not be tolerated. But, when a broken window is not fixed, it ‘is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.’”[1] Subsequent to this speech, the SEC brought a series of enforcement actions involving securities law reporting and similar violations that most commentators agreed resulted in little financial harm, if any, to investors. Nevertheless, the SEC publicly advertised that these actions were intended to send a message and get companies, executives and other reporting persons to take compliance seriously. The SEC recently indicated it may be pivoting away from its broken windows policy. In remarks at the October 2017 Enforcement Forum, Co-Director Peikin indicated that the Division of Enforcement is likely to de-emphasize extensive industry-wide sweeps or enforcement actions based on technical violations of the federal securities laws. We believe this change in policy reflects SEC Commissioner Piwowar’s prior public statements criticizing the broken windows policy because “if every rule is a priority, then no rule is a priority.”[2]

SEC Comment Letter Trends. During the 12 months ended June 30, 2017, the most common comment area by the SEC was non-GAAP financial measures.[3] This is not surprising as this period follows almost exactly the 12 months following the SEC’s issuance of new and revised C&DIs covering non-GAAP measures in May 2016. These C&DIs reflect the SEC’s renewed emphasis on scrutinizing the use of non-GAAP financial measures in SEC filings and other investor communications. According to Ernst & Young, other common comment areas include MD&A, fair value measurements, segment reporting and revenue recognition.[4] Moving into 2018, we speculate that the frequency of SEC comments related to non-GAAP financial measures will wane as it appears generally the SEC’s message has been received. Nevertheless, as companies introduce new or modified non-GAAP disclosures, they should remain mindful of the SEC’s guidance as it remains a hot button topic with the SEC Staff. In our experience, we note that comments about segment reporting remain common. We have also observed that the SEC Staff continues to issue comments about the statement of cash flows and related MD&A discussion. Although the statement of cash flows and related MD&A disclosures often take a back seat in the Form 10-K preparation process, companies should be aware that from the perspective of the SEC, and investors for that matter, they are important.

Trend Disclosure in MD&A—Recent Developments. Regulation S-K, Item 303 requires companies to disclose any “known trends or any known demands, commitments, events or uncertainties” that will result or that are “reasonably likely” to impact a company’s liquidity. Similarly, Item 303 calls for disclosure of any known trends or uncertainties that have had or that the company “reasonably expects will have” a material favorable or unfavorable impact on revenue or income.

In June 2017, the SEC brought cease and desist proceedings against the CEO and CFO of UTi Worldwide Inc. (“UTi”) for violating the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to adequately include in its MD&A a discussion about liquidity challenges facing UTi. UTi, a freight forwarding logistics company, provided significant cash outlays for transportation costs, customs, duties, taxes and other expenses on behalf of its customers and then subsequently invoiced its customers for reimbursement of such advances. UTi had implemented a new operating system and experienced significant delays in billing customers for its charges as well as the outlays made on customers’ behalf, resulting in higher than usual unbilled receivables. As a result of these billing delays, UTi experienced liquidity problems throughout much of 2013 that necessitated it obtaining waivers for debt covenant violations. After filing its third quarter Form 10-Q on December 13, 2013, UTi disclosed on Form 8-K (in late February 2014) the extent of its liquidity problems, including higher than normal receivables and weaker cash collections. UTi further disclosed on this Form 8-K that (i) it was unlikely to be in compliance with its debt covenants for the fourth quarter (ended January 31, 2014), (ii) it planned to offer $350 million of convertible notes and $175 million of preference shares to address its liquidity concerns and (iii) its auditor had amended the audit opinion to include a statement that there was a significant concern about UTi’s ability to continue as a going concern.

UTi’s Form 10-Q filed on December 13 failed to discuss the higher than normal unbilled receivables and related liquidity problems. The Form 10-Q included brief mention that cash used in operations had increased due to “an increase in trade receivables and other current assets . . .”[5] The SEC, citing its prior interpretative guidance, stated “disclosure of a trend, demand, commitment, event or uncertainty is required unless a company is able to conclude either that it is not reasonably likely that the trend, uncertainty or other event will occur or come to fruition, or that a material effect on the company’s liquidity, capital resources or results of operations is not reasonably likely to occur.”[6] The SEC further declared that the “Commission has explained that the ‘reasonably likely’ standard for disclosures mandated by Item 303 is lower than ‘more likely than not.’”[7]

Companies should be mindful of the required trend disclosure requirements not only because of possible criticism from the SEC, but plaintiffs as well. In a May 2017 Southern District Court of New York decision, in a partial denial to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit, the court found that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that the defendant company should have disclosed its increased tax liabilities under Regulation S-K Item 303.[8] The defendant company Inovalon derived significant revenues from customers located in New York. As a result of higher city and state tax rates in New York, Inovalon experienced an increase in its effective tax rate from 39% to 43%. Plaintiffs alleged that Inovalon failed to disclose timely the tax increases and related adverse impact on its operating results. Interestingly, the court found that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that Inovalon had knowledge of the tax increases (i.e., the “known” trend or uncertainty) as a result of Inovalon merely receiving a “client alert” from its accounting firm Deloitte & Touche about the pending tax rate increases.[9]


[1] Mary Jo White, Remarks at the Securities Enforcement Forum (Oct. 9, 2013)[back]

[2] Michael S. Piwowar, Remarks to the Securities Enforcement Forum (Oct. 14, 2014). [back]

[3] See Ernst & Young LLP, SEC Comments and Trends, An Analysis of Current Reporting Issues (Sept. 2017). [back]

[4] See Id[back]

[5] Securities Act Release No. 80947 (June 15, 2017). [back]

[6] Id. (citing Release 33-8550 (Dec. 19, 2003) (emphasis in Release)).[back]

[7] Id[back]

[8] Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., U.S.D.C. SDNY (May 23, 2017). [back]

[9] Id. At 15-16.  [back]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Snell & Wilmer | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Snell & Wilmer

Snell & Wilmer on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at:

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.