SEC Regulations Committee November 27, 2018 — Joint Meeting with SEC Staff
HIGHLIGHTS
NOTICE: The Center for Audit Quality (CAQ) SEC Regulations Committee and
its International Practices Task Force (the Task Force or IPTF) meet
periodically with the staff of the SEC to discuss emerging financial reporting
issues relating to SEC rules and regulations. The purpose of the following
highlights is to summarize the issues discussed at the meetings. These
highlights have not been considered or acted on by senior technical committees
of the AICPA and do not represent an official position of the AICPA or the CAQ.
As with all other documents issued by the CAQ, these highlights are not
authoritative and users are urged to refer directly to applicable authoritative
pronouncements for the text of the technical literature. These highlights do not
purport to be applicable or sufficient to the circumstances of any work
performed by practitioners.
They are not intended to be a substitute for professional judgment applied by
practitioners. These highlights were prepared by a representative of CAQ who
attended the meeting and do not purport to be a transcript of the matters
discussed. The views attributed to the SEC staff are informal views of one or
more of the staff members present, do not constitute an official statement of
the views of the Commission or of the staff of the Commission and should not be
relied upon as authoritative. Users are urged to refer directly to applicable
authoritative pronouncements for the text of the technical literature.
As available on this website, highlights of Joint Meetings of the SEC Regulations
Committee and its International Practices Task Force and the SEC staff are not
updated for the subsequent issuance of technical pronouncements or positions
taken by the SEC staff, nor are they deleted when they are superseded by the
issuance of subsequent highlights or authoritative accounting or auditing
literature. As a result, the information, commentary or guidance contained
herein may not be current or accurate and the CAQ is under no obligation to
update such information. Readers are therefore urged to refer to current
authoritative or source material.
I. Attendance
Task Force Members
|
Observers
|
Guests
|
---|---|---|
Steven Jacobs, Chair (EY)
DJ Gannon, Vice-Chair (Deloitte)
Greg Bakeis (PwC)
Rich Davisson (RSM-US)
Jonathan Guthart (KPMG)
Kathleen Malone (Deloitte)
Alan Millings (EY)
Victor Oliveira (EY)
Ignacio Perez Zaldivar (Deloitte)
Scott Ruggiero (Grant Thornton)
Guilaine Saroul (PwC)
|
Craig Olinger (SEC staff)
Tom Collens (SEC staff)
Jill Davis (SEC staff)
Dana Hartz (SEC staff)
Tom Kluck (SEC staff) via teleconference
Kyle Moffatt (SEC staff)
Annette Schumacher Barr (CAQ staff)
|
Timothy Kviz (BDO)
Polia Nair (EY)
David Oldham (KPMG)
|
II. Audit reports required for Canadian MJDS on Form 40-F
Canadian foreign private issuers (FPIs) filing under the Multijurisdictional
Disclosure System (MJDS) continue to follow primarily Canadian disclosure
requirements and certain incremental reporting requirements specified by the
SEC, such as obtaining Internal Control Over Financial Reporting (ICFR) audits
integrated with their annual financial statement audits, in specified
circumstances. As it relates to the audit of the financial statements, Canadian
FPIs are allowed to obtain and file audit reports on their annual financial
statements with the SEC either in accordance with Canadian Auditing Standards
(CAS) or US PCAOB standards, with the exception of insurance companies and
banks, which are required by the Canadian federal regulators to obtain and file
audit reports in accordance with CAS. In addition, Canada is adopting the new
International Auditing Standards (ISAs) audit reporting standard in 2018.
General Instruction B(3) to Form 40-F specifies the following Form 40-F
disclosure obligations for Canadian FPIs for their annual reporting with the SEC:
Registrants reporting pursuant to 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act
should file under cover of this Form the annual information form
required under Canadian law and the Registrant’s audited annual
financial statements and accompanying management’s discussion and
analysis.
The Instruction further requires that:
All other information material to an investment decision that a
Registrant (i) makes or is required to make public pursuant to the law
of the jurisdiction of its domicile, (ii) files or is required to file
with a stock exchange on which its securities are traded or (iii)
distributes or is required to distribute to its securityholders shall be
furnished by Registrants under cover of Form 6-K.
In Canada, the Annual Information Form (AIF) does not require inclusion or
incorporation of either the audit report or the annual financial statements.
Instead, it requires information that describes the company, its operations and
prospects, risks and other external factors. The AIF is filed in Canada
separately from the audited financial statements. The requirement in Canada for
audited financial statements requires that a reporting issuer must file annual
financial statements on the System for Electronic Document Analysis and
Retrieval (SEDAR) and that those statements must be “audited.” Auditors of
Canadian reporting issuers that are also SEC issuers are permitted to use either
CAS or PCAOB auditing standards for the financial statement audit. If an issuer
obtains both a CAS and PCAOB audit report, there is nothing explicit in the
Canadian regulations that require both audit reports to be included in the
“audited annual financial statements” captioned filing on SEDAR.
The Task Force asked the staff if existing Canadian issuers that are required to
or choose to obtain and file on SEDAR audit reports in accordance with CAS, in
addition to the required report issued in accordance with PCAOB standards, are
also required to file such CAS audit reports on their Form 40-F.
In deference to Canadian laws which permit an issuer to satisfy the Canadian
securities laws by using either CAS or PCAOB auditing standards, the staff
indicated that if a PCAOB audit report was filed with the audited financial
statements on SEDAR for an issuer and an additional audit report was filed under
CAS, either accompanying such financial statements or separately, to satisfy
other regulators, only the PCAOB report would be required to be filed on Form
40-F. The CAS audit report would be required to be furnished on Form 6-K as
other material information.
The SEC staff did not address whether a company listed in Canada that has
historically only obtained a CAS audit report would be able to replace that
report with a PCAOB audit report when filing an initial registration statement
on Form 40-F. Companies in this scenario should consider discussing their fact
patterns with the SEC staff.
III. Application of Rule 2-01(f)(5)(iii) to a non-public or confidential submission
Rule 2-01(f)(5)(iii) of Regulation S-X states that “For audits of the financial
statements of FPIs, the ‘audit and professional engagement period’ does not
include periods ended prior to the first day of the last fiscal year before the
FPI first filed, or was required to file, a registration statement or report
with the Commission…”
The Task Force asked the staff for their views on how to apply Rule
2-01(f)(5)(iii) in the context of a confidential or non-public submission of an
initial registration statement by an FPI. Specifically, the Task Force asked if
the professional engagement period begins on the first day of the fiscal year
preceding the confidential submission or preceding the first public filing. For
example, if a calendar-year emerging growth company FPI is submitting a
confidential or nonpublic draft registration statement in 2018 with financial
statements only for the year-ended 2017 (as permitted by the Division of
Corporation Finance processing accommodation ) but expects to first publicly
file that registration statement in 2019 with financial statements for the
year-ended 2018 as well, would the auditor of the FPI only need to be SEC and
PCAOB independent for the 2018 and subsequent year financial statements?
The staff indicated that it would not consider a confidential submission to be
“filed or required to be filed, In the specific fact pattern discussed, and
similarly if a non-emerging growth company initially submitted two years of
financial statements instead of three years (as permitted by the Division of
Corporation Finance expanded draft processing accommodation), they would view
the professional engagement period as beginning on the first day of the year
preceding the 2019 filing (i.e., the professional engagement period begins on
January 1, 2018) Also, per Rule 2-05(f)(5)(iii) the audit firm would be required
to be independent with respect to the FPI in accordance with home country
independence standards in all prior periods covered by the registration
statement or report.
The Task Force and SEC staff discussed how and whether reliance on Rule
2-01(f)(5)(iii) should be disclosed in the submission or communicated to the SEC
staff. The SEC staff highlighted that FPIs submitting draft registration
statements that do not yet include financial statements covering the
“professional engagement period” (i.e., they do not include financial statements
for any periods in which the auditor was required to be independent under SEC
and PCAOB rules) are strongly encouraged to inform the staff in advance of their
submission. In addition, an audit firm is required to follow PCAOB Rule
3526.
IV. Application of FRM 6230.1 and 6230.2 to certain prospectus supplements of FPIs
FRM 6230.1 states (in part) that takedowns from existing shelf registration
statements may not commence, and continuous offerings must be suspended, during
periods when the financial statements are not current. FRM 6230.2 states (in
part) that the requirement for current financial statements includes all
required financial statements, including those required under S-X 3-05, 3-09,
etc. However, the staff may consider requests for relief in circumstances where
this would result in the need to provide financial statements of other entities
more current than those that would be provided by a similarly situated domestic
registrant.
The Task Force noted that this guidance was discussed in the September 27, 2004 IPTF Meeting, at which time the staff
indicated that “once the registration statement is effective, financial
statements of a subsequently acquired business would only be required in a
delayed or continuous offering if the company concludes that the acquisition
represents a fundamental change” consistent with the guidance in FRM 2045.31 which explicitly refers to domestic registrants.
The Task Force asked the staff for its position regarding the application of this
guidance to an FPI doing a takedown from an effective shelf registration
statement when the FPI either: (a) makes an acquisition for which financial
statements were not required at the date of effectiveness of the registration
statement or (b) includes financial statements of the acquiree that were
required at the date of effectiveness but that would be needed to be updated if
a new registration statement were to be filed. The staff confirmed its view from
the 2004 IPTF meeting that acquisitions made subsequent to effectiveness of the
registration statement do not need to be assessed for a takedown, except in
those situations where the company concludes that the acquisition represents a
fundamental change. However, the staff noted that financial statements for
significant acquisitions that were required to be included in the registration
statement at effectiveness would have to be current for purposes of a takedown.
The staff pointed to Item 512(a)(4) of Regulation S-K which contains a specific
requirement for FPIs to update their own and their significant acquiree
financial statements at the start of any delayed offering or throughout a
continuous offering (e.g., a shelf takedown).
V. Audit reports for abbreviated financial statements of non-issuers
The Task Force and staff discussed alternative presentations for non-issuer
financial statements and the reporting thereon. The staff indicated that in
certain non-issuer circumstances, it has accepted, on a pre-clearance basis,
abbreviated special purpose financial statements that are based upon and in
reference to International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the IASB
(IFRS/IASB) without reconciliation even if such financial statements do not
fully comply with International Accounting Standard 1 Presentation of
Financial Statements. For example, an issuer and its auditor may report
that the financial statements are “based upon the recognition and measurement
principles of IFRS/IASB” or the “principles of IFRS/IASB relevant to such
financial statements.”
The SEC staff acknowledged that it may be open to other variations of special
purposes financial statements based upon and with reference to, but not fully
compliant with, IFRS/IASB if needed to satisfy SEC rules and regulations to
include financial statements of a non-issuer. Registrants looking to present
such financial statements are encouraged to discuss their specific facts and
circumstances with the staff prior to submission.
VI. Monitoring inflation in certain countries
The summary of inflation data collected by the members of the IPTF can be found
on the CAQ website at https://www.thecaq.org/resources/publications.
VII. Next meeting
The next meeting of the Task Force has been set for May 21, 2019.
Footnotes
1
FRM 2045.3 states (in part) that after effectiveness a domestic
registrant has no specific obligation to update the prospectus except as
stipulated by 1933 Act Section 10(a)(3) and S-K 512(a) with respect to
any fundamental change.