Report on Review of Disclosure Requirements in Regulation S-K

As Required by Section 108 of the 

Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act 

This is a report by the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Commission 

has expressed no view regarding the analysis, findings or conclusions contained herein.

_____________________________

December 2013
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 1

A. CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE ............................................................................................................................. 1

B. SCOPE OF THE REVIEW...................................................................................................................................... 2

II. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND OF DISCLOSURE RULES .................................................................. 8

III. REVIEW OF DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS IN REGULATION S-K................................................ 30

A. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE REGISTRANT’S BUSINESS AND OPERATIONS ............................................ 32

B. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE REGISTRANT’S FINANCIAL CONDITION .................................................... 38

C. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO MANAGEMENT, SECURITY HOLDERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ........... 51

D. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES ...................................................................... 69

E. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO RISK AND RISK MANAGEMENT ....................................................................... 74

F. SPECIALIZED DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 79

G. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO SECURITIES OFFERINGS................................................................................... 83

H. OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED RELATING TO DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ................................................... 92

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................................. 92

A. OVERVIEW OF POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................. 92

B. POTENTIAL AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY........................................................................................................ 97

C. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................. 104
1

REPORT ON REVIEW OF DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATION S-K

As Required by Section 108 of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act

I. Introduction

A. Congressional Mandate

On April 5, 2012, Congress passed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS 

Act”)1. Section 108 of the JOBS Act requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 

“Commission”) to conduct, within 180 days of enactment of the JOBS Act, a review of 

Regulation S-K to determine how such requirements can be updated to modernize and simplify 

the registration process. Specifically, Section 108 provides as follows:

(a) Review. — The Securities and Exchange Commission shall conduct a review of its 

Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.10 et seq.) to —

(1) comprehensively analyze the current registration requirements of such regulation; 

and

(2) determine how such requirements can be updated to modernize and simplify the 

registration process and reduce the costs and other burdens associated with these 

requirements for issuers who are emerging growth companies. 

(b) Report. — Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this title, the Commission 

shall transmit to Congress a report of the review conducted under subsection (a). The 

report shall include the specific recommendations of the Commission on how to 

streamline the registration process in order to make it more efficient and less 

 

1 Pub. L. No. 112-106, [126 Stat. 306] (2012).
2

burdensome for the Commission and for prospective issuers who are emerging growth 

companies. 

B. Scope of the Review

The staff of the Commission has conducted a review of the Regulation S-K disclosure 

requirements and prepared this report pursuant to Section 108 of the JOBS Act.2 Title I of the 

JOBS Act created a new category of issuer called an “emerging growth company,” which is 

defined as a company that had not completed its first registered sale of common equity securities

on or before December 8, 2011 and has total annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion during 

its most recently completed fiscal year.3 Among other things, emerging growth companies can 

take advantage of a variety of scaled disclosure and other accommodations, including exemptions 

from or modifications to certain Regulation S-K disclosure requirements, as discussed in more 

detail in Section III of this report.

4

 These scaled requirements for emerging growth companies 

 2 The staff notes the specific mandate to analyze the “registration requirements” of Regulation S-K. As 

Regulation S-K does not contain registration requirements, the staff undertook a review of Regulation S-K’s 

disclosure requirements and provides recommendations on how to approach modernizing and simplifying 

those requirements. 

3 See JOBS Act Section 101; Securities Act of 1933 Section 2(a)(19) [15 USC 77b(a)(19)]; Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 Section 3(a)(80) [15 USC 78c(a)(80)]. A company retains its status as an emerging 

growth company until the earliest of the following: 

• the last day of its fiscal year during which its total annual gross revenues are $1 billion or more; 

• the date it is deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the Commission’s rules; 

• the date on which it has issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt in the previous three years; 

or 

• the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the first registered sale of common 

equity securities of the issuer.

4 The scaled requirements for emerging growth companies were effective upon enactment without the need 

for rulemaking by the Commission. Title I of the JOBS Act is based on a recommendation of the IPO Task 

Force in its October 2011 report presented to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The IPO Task Force 

developed from a working group formed at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Access to Capital 

Conference in March 2011. See IPO Task Force, Rebuilding the IPO On-Ramp: Putting Emerging Growth 

Companies and the Job Market Back on the Road to Growth (Oct. 20, 2011), available at

http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec/rebuilding_the_ipo_on-ramp.pdf.
3

were based in part on the scaled disclosure system applicable to smaller reporting companies.

5

According to the IPO Task Force, these revisions were expected to reduce internal and external 

compliance costs for emerging growth companies by 30% to 50%.

6

 Section 108 of the JOBS Act

directs the Commission to comprehensively analyze Regulation S-K to find additional ways for 

the requirements to be updated to modernize and simplify the registration process and reduce the 

costs and other burdens of the disclosure requirements for emerging growth companies. 

To identify areas of Regulation S-K that may be appropriate for simplification or 

modernization as they relate to emerging growth companies as specified in Section 108 of the 

JOBS Act, the staff concluded that it would be important to first understand and consider the 

history of all the provisions in Regulation S-K. The staff also concluded that a full review of 

Regulation S-K would be appropriate since there may be simplifications, modernizations, 

revisions or eliminations that would be suitable for all issuers. In addition, and as discussed 

below, the staff recognized the limitations of conducting a review that did not look at the 

disclosure regime as a whole. The disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K have an impact on 

the costs and burdens of conducting registered offerings, including IPOs by emerging growth 

companies, but also have an impact on the ongoing compliance burden associated with public 

company status. A review of all requirements of Regulation S-K would have a benefit for issuers 

beyond the period that they may qualify for emerging growth company status. Therefore, in 

 5 See IPO Task Force, Rebuilding the IPO On-Ramp: Putting Emerging Growth Companies and the Job 

Market Back on the Road to Growth (Oct. 20, 2011), at 19, available at

http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec/rebuilding_the_ipo_on-ramp.pdf. (“While helpful for companies 

with market capitalizations of less than $75 million, the existing small company regulations do not provide 

relief for most companies considering an IPO, including high-growth, venture-backed companies that 

generate significant job growth....These companies go public in order to finance their growth and typically 

raise between $50 million and $150 million dollars to do so. While still far smaller and with fewer resources 

than larger companies, they must adhere to the same rules that the very largest companies do and therefore 

bear compliance costs disproportionate to their size.”) 

6 Id. 
4

conducting its review of the requirements of Regulation S-K, the staff evaluated the requirements 

for public companies generally, as a first step towards addressing Section 108’s focus on the 

impact of the requirements on issuers who are emerging growth companies. In this regard, the 

staff’s review is intended to facilitate the improvement of disclosure requirements applicable to 

companies at all stages in their development, not only for companies that qualify as emerging 

growth companies. 

The staff reviewed, among other things, Regulation S-K, Commission releases and

comment letters on Commission regulatory actions pertaining to Regulation S-K. In addition, the 

Commission has provided the opportunity for the public to comment generally on regulatory 

initiatives to be undertaken in response to the JOBS Act.7

 The public comments that were

submitted regarding the Section 108 study are discussed in Section III of this report. 

In light of the focus of the mandate in Section 108, the staff’s review of line-item 

disclosure requirements did not include two subparts of Regulation S-K — Regulation AB and 

Regulation M-A — that were adopted relatively recently and are carefully tailored and relevant to 

specific types of registrants or transactions. Regulation AB, which was adopted in 2004, sets 

forth the basis for disclosure in both registration statements under the Securities Act of 1933 (the 

“Securities Act”) and reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) for 

asset-backed securities.8 Under Regulation AB, asset-backed securities issuers are subject to a 

 7 See Public Comments on SEC Regulatory Initiatives Under the JOBS Act, available at

http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/jobsactcomments.shtml. 

8 See Asset-Backed Securities, Release No. 33-8518 (Dec. 22, 2004) [70 FR 1506], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8518.htm. In addition, the staff recently undertook a comprehensive 

review of Regulation AB and the Commission issued a proposal in April 2010 to revise several aspects of 

that regulation. See Asset-Backed Securities, Release No. 33-9117 (Apr. 7, 2010) [75 FR 23328], available

at http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2010/33-9117.pdf. In July 2011, the Commission revised and reproposed certain asset-backed securities rules that were initially proposed in April 2010 in light of 

provisions added by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and comments 

received on the April 2010 proposals. See Re-proposal of Shelf Eligibility Conditions for Asset-Backed 
5

separate disclosure and reporting regime that is designed to address their particular structure and 

operations.9 Regulation M-A, which was adopted in 1999, sets forth the disclosure requirements 

for business combination transactions.

10 Regulation M-A was adopted to simplify and integrate 

the disclosure requirements for tender offers, going-private transactions and other extraordinary 

transactions in one central location within the Commission’s regulations.

11 In addition, the staff’s 

review did not encompass the disclosure requirements for foreign private issuers.12 

The disclosure requirements of Regulation S-K are closely intertwined with other 

requirements under the Commission’s rules and forms that were not included in the staff’s review, 

such as the disclosure requirements contained in the forms for periodic and current reports, the 

rules relating to disclosure format and presentation and the regulations governing the process of 

registration under the Securities Act.13 Likewise, Regulation S-X14 establishes disclosure 

 

Securities and Other Additional Requests for Comment, Release No. 33-9244 (July 26, 2011 ) [76 FR 

47948], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2011/33-9244.pdf.

9 Among other changes, the 2004 rules updated and clarified the Securities Act registration requirements for 

asset-backed securities offerings, consolidated and codified interpretive positions to allow modified 

Exchange Act reporting that is more tailored and relevant to asset-backed securities and provided tailored 

disclosure guidance and requirements for Securities Act and Exchange Act filings involving asset-backed 

securities.

10 See Regulation of Takeovers and Security Holder Communications, Release No. 33-7760 (Oct. 22, 1999) 

[64 FR 61408], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7760.htm#seciii. 

11 Id. These rule amendments also significantly liberalized the communications rules in connection with 

business combination transactions.

12 The Commission has adopted separate disclosure requirements relating to foreign private issuers which 

cover many of the same matters as set forth in Regulation S-K. Form 20-F [17 CFR 249.220f] is the 

combined registration statement and annual report form for foreign private issuers under the Exchange Act. 

It also sets forth disclosure requirements for registration statements filed by foreign private issuers under the 

Securities Act. The disclosure requirements in Form 20-F are based on international disclosure standards 

endorsed by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). See International 

Disclosure Standards, Release No. 33-7745 (Sept. 28, 1999) [64 FR 53900], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-41936.htm. 

Some requirements and instructions of Regulation S-K refer to foreign private issuers; these have been 

included in the review set forth in Section III. 

13 17 CFR 230.401-230.498. As noted in Part IV below, Regulation S-K also contains several items that relate 

to technical requirements for the content and presentation of registration statements and prospectuses. Such 

items are not a focus of the staff’s current review. See text accompanying notes 81 - 85.
6

requirements related to the form and content of, and requirements for, financial statements 

included in a filing and requires that domestic issuer financial statements filed with the 

Commission be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles 

(“GAAP”),

15 and U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) also establishes 

requirements for disclosure to be presented in the notes to the financial statements of a domestic 

issuer. The staff’s review did not encompass a review of disclosure requirements developed 

through interpretations in Commission releases and staff interpretations and guidance. The staff’s 

review also did not look at whether there are factors external to the Commission’s rules that may 

have contributed to the length and complexity of company filings and the costs of compliance, 

such as Commission enforcement actions and judicial opinions. 

As discussed in detail below, the Commission has undertaken several initiatives over the 

years to review and update its disclosure and registration requirements, ranging from targeted 

revisions of certain rules to comprehensive reviews of its rules and regulations. Certain disclosure 

items have been updated and reviewed relatively frequently, while others have changed little since 

they were first put in place after the enactment of the Securities Act. The staff believes that a 

comprehensive inventory of the Commission’s disclosure regulations that identifies the origin and 

purpose of existing disclosure requirements and sets forth the history of updates to those 

 14 17 CFR part 210.

15 Regulation S-X requires that financial statements filed with the Commission be prepared in accordance with 

generally accepted accounting principles. See Rule 4-01(a) of Regulation S-X. 

The Commission has recognized the financial accounting and reporting standards of The Financial

Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) as “generally accepted” for purposes of the federal securities 

laws, unless the Commission directs otherwise. See Commission Statement of Policy Reaffirming the Status 

of the FASB as a Designated Private-Sector Standard Setter, Release No. 33-8221 (April 25, 2003) [68 FR 

23333]. 

Under Rule 4-01(a) of Regulation S-X, foreign private issuers may use U.S. GAAP, International Financial 

Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, or a comprehensive body of 

accounting principles other than U.S. GAAP accompanied by a reconciliation to U.S. GAAP. 
7

requirements is an essential first step in formulating recommendations with respect to 

modernizing and simplifying disclosure. The staff is not aware of a single source that presents a 

clear picture of the scope, frequency and purpose of past revisions to the disclosure requirements.

In light of this, the staff determined to structure the study as follows:

The study first presents the regulatory history of the integrated disclosure system and 

Regulation S-K as well as an overview of prior Commission initiatives to review and modernize 

disclosure requirements. This overview includes initiatives to adapt the disclosure regime to 

changes in technology and changing trends in communications. Next, the study presents a 

detailed review of the disclosure items in Regulation S-K, the Industry Guides,

16 and related rules 

and forms and summarizes input received from commenters on Section 108 of the JOBS Act. 

Finally, the study concludes with a discussion of staff recommendations for the Commission’s 

consideration as potential next steps, including an outline of economic principles to consider and 

preliminary conclusions that can be drawn from the staff’s review of the disclosure requirements. 

 16 From time to time, beginning in 1962, the Commission has published guides for the preparation and filing of 

registration statements and periodic reports, representing the policies and disclosure standards followed by 

the Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance in order to assist issuers in the preparation of their 

registration statements and reports. See Acceleration of Registration Statements, Release No. 33-4475 

(April 26, 1962) [27 FR 3990]. By 1979, there were 63 guides for the preparation and filing of registration 

statements and five guides for the preparation and filing of periodic reports. This report refers to these 

historical guides interchangeably as “the guides” or “the guides for the preparation of registration statements 

and reports” or identifies a particular guide by its number. The five guides that applied only to periodic 

reports are identified in this report as “Exchange Act Guides.” 

As described in detail in Section III below, over time, some of these Guides were codified as requirements in 

Regulation S-K, some were eliminated and those that pertained to specific industries were included in the 

list of industry guides in Items 801 and 802 of Regulation S-K but were not codified as rules. See

Rescission of Guides and Redesignation of Industry Guides, Release No. 33-6384 (Mar. 3, 1982) [47 FR 

11476], at 11476 (“The list of industry guides has been moved into Regulation S-K, which serves as the 

central repository of disclosure requirements under the Securities Act and Exchange Act, in order to more 

effectively put registrants on notice of their existence. These guides remain as an expression of the policies 

and practices of the Division of Corporation Finance and their status is unaffected by this change.”) 

Although they have not been codified as Commission requirements, the industry guides listed in Items 801 

and 802 (the “Industry Guides”) have been included in the review summarized in this report. 
8

II. Summary and Background of Disclosure Rules

Regulation S-K sets forth requirements for disclosure (other than financial statement 

disclosure) under both the Securities Act and the Exchange Act and is applicable to both public 

offerings and ongoing reporting requirements.17 It is a key part of the Commission’s “integrated 

disclosure system,” which was created in 1982 following many years of analysis of the disclosure 

rules under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.18 Under the integrated disclosure system, 

most registration and reporting forms under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act refer to 

Regulation S-K for many of their substantive disclosure requirements.19 

Prior to the adoption of the integrated disclosure system, separate disclosure regimes 

applied to Securities Act registration statements and Exchange Act periodic reporting, which 

often resulted in overlapping and duplicative requirements. The Securities Act requires that a 

registration statement under that Act contain the information specified in Schedule A,20 but the 

Commission may exercise its rulemaking authority to prescribe additional information or may 

permit prescribed information to be omitted as it deems necessary or appropriate in the public 

interest or for the protection of investors.21 The Commission has exercised this broad authority 

 17 As specified in Item 10(a) [17 CFR 229.10], Regulation S-K states the requirements for the content of the 

non-financial statement portions of registration statements under the Securities Act and various filings under 

the Exchange Act to the extent provided in the relevant forms. 

18 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure System, Release No. 33-6383 (Mar. 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380].

19 For example, Form S-1, the basic registration form under the Securities Act, and Form 10-K, the annual 

reporting form under the Exchange Act, each require registrants to provide a description of their business in 

accordance with the requirements of Item 101 of Regulation S-K. 

20 Schedule A requires issuers to provide information such as: general information about the company, its 

business and capital structure; information about the directors, principal officers, promoters and 10%

stockholders and remuneration of officers and directors; information about the offering, including the 

purposes of the offering and use of proceeds, the offering expenses, estimated net proceeds, the proposed 

public offering price and underwriters’ commissions or discounts; financial statements of the issuer and of 

any business to be acquired through the proceeds of the issue; and copies of agreements made with 

underwriters, opinions of counsel on legality of the issue, material contracts, the issuer’s organizational 

documents and agreements or indentures affecting any securities offered.

21 Securities Act Section 7 [15 USC 77g].
9

over the years to promulgate various registration forms and disclosure requirements. As 

discussed in detail below, many of the disclosure requirements contained in Regulation S-K today 

originated in Schedule A and in the specialized registration statement forms developed by the 

Commission over the years to adapt the Schedule A requirements to specific circumstances.

22 

In 1966, Milton Cohen, in an influential article, suggested the integration of the 

requirements under the two statutes.23 Cohen’s suggestion of a coordinated disclosure system was 

echoed in the Commission’s 1969 Disclosure Policy Study led by Commissioner Francis Wheat 

(often referred to as the Wheat Report).24 The Wheat Report recommended expansion of the 

availability of Form S-7, which was the first streamlined registration form adopted by the 

Commission, and greater coordination of the disclosure requirements of the Securities Act and 

Exchange Act. 

The Commission’s Advisory Committee on Corporate Disclosure issued a report in 1977 

that recommended that the Commission adopt a single integrated disclosure system; specifically a 

single form that would replace all registration forms and periodic reporting forms then in 

 22 Since early in its history, the Commission has created registration forms tailored to elicit information from 

different types of market participants and transactions. For example, in 1941, the Commission adopted 

Form S-3 for use by mining companies in the promotional stage (rescinded 1981), and in 1953, Form S-8 

was adopted for use by stock purchase plans. In 1954, Form S-9 was adopted for registration of high grade 

debt securities (rescinded 1976). In 1967, the Commission adopted Form S-7, for the first time allowing 

streamlined registration for certain reporting companies (rescinded 1982). In 1979, the Commission adopted 

Form S-18 for use by smaller issuers (rescinded in 1992). Several other forms have been adopted and 

repealed over time. The current structure for domestic companies comprises Form S-1, the basic registration 

form, Form S-3, a short form registration statement for certain reporting companies, Form S-4 for 

registration of securities issued in business combination transactions and other exchange offers, Form S-6 

for securities of certain unit investment trusts, Form S-8 for securities offered to employees under certain 

plans and Form S-11 for securities of certain real estate companies.

23 See Milton H. Cohen, Truth in Securities Revisited, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1340 (1966). 

24 See Disclosure to Investors – A Reappraisal of Federal Administrative Policies under the ’33 and ‘34 Acts, 

Policy Study, available at

www.sechistorical.org/museum/Museum_Papers/museum_Papers_Chron.php#1960 (Mar. 27, 1969).
10

existence and that would set forth all Commission-established general disclosure requirements.25 

After this report was issued, the Commission adopted the first version of Regulation S-K, which 

included two items – Item 1, Description of Business (now Item 101) and Item 2, Description of 

Property (now Item 102).26 This marked the first time that the principal disclosure items were 

made uniform for both registration statements and periodic reports. Over time, and as discussed 

in detail below, additional disclosure items were added to Regulation S-K,

27 and it was expanded 

and reorganized in 1982 as the repository for the uniform non-financial statement disclosure 

requirements of documents filed with the Commission under the Securities Act and the Exchange 

Act.28 

 25 See Report of the Advisory Committee on Corporate Disclosure, Cmte. Print 95-29, House Cmte. On 

Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 95th Cong., 1st. Sess (Nov. 3, 1977).

26 See Adoption of Disclosure Regulation and Amendments of Disclosure Forms and Rules, Release No. 33-

5893 (Dec. 23, 1977) [42 FR 65554].

27 In 1978, additional disclosure requirements were moved from Securities Act and Exchange Act forms and 

reconciled into uniform disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K. These requirements were: Item 3, 

Directors and Officers (now Item 401), Item 4 Management Remuneration and Transactions (now Item 

402), Item 5 Legal Proceedings (now Item 103) and Item 6 Principal Security Holders and Security Holdings 

of Management (now Item 403). See Uniform and Integrated Reporting Requirements: Directors and 

Officers, Management Remuneration, Legal Proceedings, Principal Security Holders and Security Holdings 

of Management, Release No. 33-5949 (July 28, 1978) [43 FR 34402]. 

In 1980, five more disclosure requirements were moved from Securities Act and Exchange Act forms and 

reconciled into uniform disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K. See Amendments Regarding Exhibit 

Requirements Release No. 33-6230 (Aug. 27, 1980) [45 FR 58822] (adopting Item 7, Exhibits (now Item 

601)); Amendments to Annual Report Form, Related Forms, Rules, Regulations and Guides; Integration of 

Securities Act Disclosure Systems, Release No. 33-6231 (Sept. 2, 1980) [45 FR 63630] (adopting Item 9 

Market Price of the Registrant’s Securities and Related Security Holder Matters (now Item 201), Item 10 

Selected Financial Data (now Item 301) and Item 11 Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial 

Condition and Results of Operations (now Item 303)); and General Revision of Regulation S-X, Release No. 

33-6233 (Sept. 2, 1980) [45 FR 63660] (adopting Item 12 Supplementary Financial Information (now Item 

302)). 

28 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure System, Release No. 33-6383 (Mar. 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380]. As part 

of this process, some of the item requirements were revised or reorganized in minor ways; the adopting 

release notes, however, that certain items (Items 101, 102, 103, 302, 401, 402 and 403) were expected to be 

the subject of a future “sunset” review and therefore major changes were not considered. At the same time, 

the Commission authorized the rescission of the Division of Corporation Finance guides for the preparation 

and filing of registration statements and reports under the Securities Act and Exchange Act, other than those 

setting forth disclosure guidelines applicable to specific industries. The guides relating to procedural matters 

were incorporated into Regulation C and the General Rules under the Securities Act and Exchange Act, the 

guides related to disclosure requirements were incorporated into Regulation S-K and the guides calling for 
11

As the Commission stated at the time the integrated disclosure system was adopted, the 

“goal of the Commission’s integrated disclosure program has been to revise or eliminate 

overlapping or unnecessary disclosure and dissemination requirements wherever possible, thereby 

reducing burdens on registrants while at the same time ensuring that security holders, investors 

and the marketplace have been provided with meaningful nonduplicative information upon which 

to base investment decisions.”29 Set forth below is a chronological overview of several of the 

relevant revisions, studies and reviews that have been undertaken in the past. Many initiatives 

have focused on the Commission’s disclosure requirements, while others have focused on the 

process of securities offerings and company reporting under the Commission’s rules. In addition 

to the Commission’s own initiatives, certain modifications or additions to Regulation S-K have 

been mandated by legislative changes, some of the most significant of which are also discussed 

below.

Simplified Reporting for Small Issuers. 

In 1979, the Commission, in recognition of the difficulties small businesses were facing in 

accessing the public capital markets, adopted on an experimental basis a simplified registration 

form, Form S-18, for use by issuers that were not already subject to reporting obligations with the 

Commission and that were seeking to register securities for sale to the public for cash not 

exceeding an aggregate offering price of $5 million.30 The Form S-18 adopting release notes 

 industry-specific disclosure were redesignated as “industry guides” and listed in Items 801 and 802 of 

Regulation S-K. See Rescission of Guides and Redesignation of Industry Guides, Release No. 33-6384 

(Mar. 3, 1982) [47 FR 11476]. See also note 16, supra.

29 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure System, Release No. 33-6383 (Mar. 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380].

30 See Simplified Registration and Reporting Requirements for Small Issuers, Release No. 33-6049 (April 3, 

1979) [44 FR 21562]. The offering ceiling was raised to $7.5 million in 1983. See Revisions to Optional 

Form S-18, Release No. 33-6489 (Sept. 23, 1983) [48 FR 45386].

When the Commission proposed Form 18 and corresponding amendments to the Form 10-K financial 

statement requirements, the Commission simultaneously announced its intention to hold a series of public 
12

“[t]he rationale behind ... the amendments adopted today is that an issuer not subject to the 

reporting requirements of the Commission at the time the registration statement is filed under the 

Securities Act may, consistent with the protection of investors, raise a limited amount of capital 

without immediately incurring the full range of disclosure and reporting requirements imposed 

upon other issuers. These procedures are intended to facilitate the process by which a small 

business, over a period of time, might raise a limited amount of capital publicly and then come 

into full compliance with the periodic reporting requirements imposed upon other issuers, thereby 

gaining a broader access to the capital markets without being impeded by the immediate burdens 

confronting many small, non-reporting issuer[s].” The disclosure items included in Form S-18 

were generally consistent with the corresponding items in Form S-1, the general registration form, 

but Form S-18 called for narrative disclosure that was less extensive than that required by Form 

S-1. For example, unlike Form S-1, Form S-18 did not require a five-year comparative summary 

of operations, detailed disclosure about lines of business, or, if the offering would not result in a 

material change in the issuer’s capital structure, disclosure about capitalization. In addition, Form 

S-18 allowed issuers to file, as part of the registration statement, audited consolidated statements 

 hearings about a variety of issues relating to small businesses’ access to capital. See Examination of the 

Effects of Rules and Regulations on the Ability of Small Businesses to Raise Capital and the Impact on 

Small Businesses of Disclosure Requirements Under the Securities Acts, Release No. 33-5914 (Mar. 6, 

1978) [43 FR 10876]. The Commission held 21 days of hearings and considered the comments at the 

hearings and in the public comment record on the proposal in its final rules. See Simplified Registration and 

Reporting Requirements for Small Issuers, Release No. 33-6049 (April 3, 1979) [44 FR 21562]. As 

described in both the proposing and adopting release, the simplified registration and reporting requirements 

of Form 18 were “in the nature of an experiment.” See Simplified Registration and Reporting Requirements 

for Small Issuers, Release No. 33-5915 (Mar. 6, 1978) [43 FR 10887] and Simplified Registration and 

Reporting Requirements for Small Issuers, Release No. 33-6049 (April 3, 1979) [44 FR 21562]. After a 

period of a year or more of monitoring its use, the Commission intended to “determine whether the form 

functioned as an effective means for small issuers to raised limited amounts of capital through a registered 

public offering...whether the form should be retained, and if so, whether the conditions for its availability 

should be revised.” Id. Following that review, and in response to a recommendation of the SEC 

Government Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation (Final Report, November 1982), the 

Commission raised the offering ceiling in 1983. See Revisions to Optional Form S-18, Release No. 33-6489 

(Sept. 23, 1983) [48 FR 45386]. 
13

of income, source and application of funds, and other stockholders’ equity for two fiscal years 

instead of the three years of such financial statements required by Form S-1. These financial 

statements were required to be prepared in accordance with GAAP, but the other requirements of 

Regulation S-X did not apply. 

Introduction of the Electronic Disclosure System.

When the integrated disclosure system was introduced, corporate disclosure and offering 

documents were submitted to the Commission and made available to investors and market 

participants exclusively in paper form. The Commission first began to develop an electronic 

disclosure system in the early 1980s,31 and since that time has been continually enhancing and 

modernizing electronic access to filings, as well as requiring more filings to be made

electronically rather than in paper form. 

Today, registrants generally must make their Commission filings electronically through 

the EDGAR system,32 and the Commission provides free access to EDGAR on a real-time basis 

through the Commission’s web site.33 In addition to ongoing efforts to improve EDGAR, the 

Commission has required companies to provide financial information on EDGAR in interactive 

data files, in order to make financial information easier for investors to analyze, as well as to help 

 31 The pilot program for the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval (“EDGAR”) was established in 

1983 pursuant to a Congressional mandate, and the system was fully implemented, effective January 30, 

1995. The pilot program utilized technology available at the time — documents were submitted to and 

accepted by the Commission using three different media: computer diskettes, magnetic tapes and direct 

transmission over telephone lines using modems. For a summary of the development of EDGAR, see the 

staff’s report, “Electronic Filing and the EDGAR System: A Regulatory Overview,” (Oct. 3, 2006), 

available at http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/regoverview.htm.

32 A limited number of forms continue to be required or permitted to be filed in paper. For example, the 

Commission requires paper filing of Form 1-A [17 CFR 239.90] and permits paper filing of Form 144 [17 

CFR 239.144]. 

33 Real-time access to filings was initiated on May 30, 2002; previously, there was a delay of at least 24 hours 

before filings appeared on the Commission’s website. See Press Release dated May 30, 2002, available at

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2002-75.htm.
14

automate regulatory filings and business information processing.34 The Commission also uses 

interactive data in its own analytics, to improve its understanding of the functioning of the market 

and the impact of regulation.35

Regulation S-B. 

In 1992, the Commission adopted an integrated disclosure system tailored specifically to 

small business issuers.

36 Under this integrated system, issuers that met the definition of small 

business issuer37 were eligible to use specialized forms under the Securities Act and Exchange Act 

that referenced disclosure requirements located in a newly-created Regulation S-B.38 Regulation 

 34 See Interactive Data to Improve Financial Reporting, Release No. 33-9002 (Jan. 30, 2009) [74 FR 6776]

available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2009/33-9002.pdf. See also Commission Guidance on the Use of 

Company Web Sites, Release No. 34-58288 (Aug. 1, 2008), available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2008/34-58288.pdf. 

Companies create interactive data files by defining – or “tagging” – their financial statements using elements 

and labels from a standard list of interactive data tags. Data tagging provides a format for enhancing 

financial and other reporting data using electronic formats such as eXtensible Mark-Up Language (XML) 

and its derivatives, such as eXtensive Business Reporting Language (XBRL). General information 

concerning interactive data is available on the Commission’s web site at 

http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl.shtml. See also XBRL Voluntary Financial Reporting Program on the 

EDGAR System, Release No. 33-8529 (Feb. 3, 2005) [70 FR 6556]; and Extension of Interactive Data 

Voluntary Reporting Program on the EDGAR System to Include Mutual Fund Risk/Return Summary 

Information, Release No. 33-8823 (July 11, 2007) [72 FR 39290]. 

Initiatives regarding interactive data, such as XBRL, are outside the scope of the review described in this 

report. 

35 For an example of the use of interactive data by Commission staff, see Electronic Filing and Revision of 

Form D, Release No. 33-8891 (Feb. 6, 2008) [73 FR 10592], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/33-8891.pdf.

36 See Small Business Initiatives, Release No. 33-6949 (July 30, 1992) [57 FR 36442], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/6949.txt.

37 At the time Regulation S-B was adopted, small business issuers were defined as companies with annual 

revenues of less than $25 million whose voting stock did not have a public float of $25 million or more. As 

discussed below, in 2007 the Commission established a category of “smaller reporting companies,” for

which the primary determinant for eligibility is that the company has less than $75 million in public float.

38 The new forms created in connection with the adoption of an integrated registration, reporting and 

qualification system for small business issuers were a new Securities Act registration form, Form SB-2 and 

new Exchange Act Forms 10-SB, 10-KSB and 10-QSB to satisfy registration, annual and quarterly reporting 

obligations under that statute, respectively. Form SB-2 was the designated Securities Act registration form 

for small business issuers and had no dollar limit for offerings. See Small Business Initiatives, Release No. 

33-6949 (July 30, 1992) [57 FR 36442], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/6949.txt. 

The Commission subsequently adopted an additional Securities Act registration form, Form SB-1, which 
15

S-B provided for simplified disclosure requirements for these issuers and was intended to reduce 

compliance costs and improve ability of start-ups and other small businesses to obtain financing 

through the public markets. 

The narrative disclosure requirements of Regulation S-B generally paralleled those in 

Regulation S-K at the time, although where such requirements had been simplified or not required 

by Form S-18, Regulation S-B generally tracked the substantive disclosure requirements of Form 

S-18. With the adoption of Form SB-2, a new registration form for small business issuers, Form 

S-18 was repealed. The financial information required by Regulation S-B was substantially the 

same as that required by Form S-18, with an added component to address interim financial 

statement requirements. Consistent with the Form S-18 requirements, Regulation S-B did not 

require disclosure equivalent to Regulation S-K Item 301 (selected financial data) or Regulation 

S-K Item 302 (supplementary financial information). Among the items that were simplified for 

small business issuers were Item 101(a) (description of business), which permitted small business 

issuers to disclose three years of business development instead of five years as required for larger 

issuers, and Item 402 (executive compensation), which permitted small business issuers to 

provide disclosure based upon Form S-18’s more limited requirements as opposed to Item 402 of 

Regulation S-K.

39 As discussed below, Regulation S-B’s scaled disclosure requirements have 

subsequently been incorporated into Regulation S-K (retaining the scaled requirements)40 and the 

specialized small business issuer forms have been rescinded.

 

permitted transitional small business issuers to register securities under the Securities Act using the 

Regulation A model of disclosure with two years of audited financial statements. See Additional Small 

Business Initiatives, Release No. 33-6996 (April 28, 1993) [58 FR 26509], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-9669.txt.

39 See Small Business Initiatives, Release No. 33-6949 (July 30, 1992) [57 FR 36442], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/6949.txt. 

40 Item 10(f) of Regulation S-K describes the application to smaller reporting companies of the item 
16

Task Force on Disclosure Simplification. 

The Task Force on Disclosure Simplification, comprising staff from across the 

Commission, was formed in 1995 to “review rules and forms affecting capital formation, with a 

view toward streamlining, simplifying, and modernizing the overall regulatory scheme without 

compromising or diminishing important investor protections.”41 In March 1996, members of the 

Commission staff delivered the Report of the Task Force on Disclosure Simplification to the 

Commission. It recommended a number of areas where simplification and modernization of the 

registration and offering process could be accomplished. The Task Force made several 

recommendations relating to changes to Regulation S-K, including recommendations to:

• Streamline Item 101’s disclosure requirements relating to the description of the 

registrant’s business by eliminating duplication of quantitative information provided in the 

financial statements;

• Revise Item 102 relating to the description of property to elicit more meaningful and 

material disclosure;

• Limit the scope of Item 507, relating to securities offered for the account of a company’s 

individual security holders, so that a company only would have to disclose information 

regarding certain of its selling affiliates and significant beneficial owners rather than all of 

its selling security holders; and

• Modernize the existing Industry Guides, consider adopting additional industry-specific 

disclosure rules and relocate all such guides and rules within Regulation S-K.

In 1996 and 1997, the Commission adopted rule changes and eliminated several forms and rules 

based on many of the Task Force’s recommendations.42

 

requirements of Regulation S-K and lists the scaled disclosure requirements available to smaller reporting 

companies. 

41 Report of the Task Force on Disclosure Simplification, available at www.sec.gov/news/studies/smpl.htm 

(Mar. 5, 1996).

42 See Phase One Recommendations of Task Force on Disclosure Simplification, Release No. 33-7300 (May 

31, 1996) [61 FR 30397], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7300.txt (eliminating 44 rules and 

four forms determined to be no longer necessary or appropriate in the public interest for the protection of 

investors and adopting other minor rule changes); Phase Two Recommendations of Task Force on 

Disclosure Simplification, Release No. 33-7431 (July 18, 1997) [62 FR 43581], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-38850.txt and http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-38850a.txt (rescinding 
17

Report of the Advisory Committee on the Capital Formation and Regulatory Processes. 

In 1995, the Commission also chartered the Advisory Committee on the Capital Formation 

and Regulatory Processes to provide advice to the Commission on, among other things, the 

regulatory process and the disclosure and reporting requirements relating to public offerings of 

securities. The members of the Advisory Committee included representatives of investment 

banks, securities lawyers, accountants and academics. In 1996, the Advisory Committee issued 

its report and recommendations.

43 Although the Advisory Committee’s primary recommendation 

was that the Commission further the integrated disclosure system by implementing a system 

based on “company registration,”44 the report also recommended specific changes to disclosure 

requirements, including requiring management certifications to the Commission of Forms 10-K, 

10-Q and 8-K, enhancements to current reports on Form 8-K and requiring risk factor disclosure 

to be provided in annual reports on Form 10-K.

 

two forms and one rule, and adopting and amending rules to eliminate unnecessary requirements and to 

streamline the disclosure process). The changes to Regulation S-K included eliminating a requirement in 

Item 501(b) of Regulation S-K that registrants provide a cross-reference sheet immediately following the 

facing page of the prospectus showing the location of the information required to be included in response to 

the items in the form, eliminating the red ink requirement in Item 501(c)(8) of Regulation S-K that had been 

applicable to the prospectus caption “Subject to Completion” and related legend, and eliminating four 

infrequently used items from the list of required exhibits in Item 601(b). The recommended changes to 

Items 101, 102 and 507 of Regulation S-K, described above in the accompanying text, were not 

implemented. 

43 See Report of The Advisory Committee on the Capital Formation and Regulatory Processes (July 24, 1996), 

available at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/capform.htm.

44 Generally, as envisioned by the Advisory Committee, under a company registration system, an issuer would, 

on a one-time basis, file a registration statement (deemed effective immediately) that includes information 

similar to that currently provided in an initial short-form shelf registration statement. This registration 

statement could then be used for all types of securities and all offerings. All current and future Exchange 

Act reports would be incorporated by reference into that registration statement, and around the time of an 

offering, transactional and updating disclosures would be filed with the Commission and incorporated into 

the registration statement. See Securities Act Concepts and Their Effects on Capital Formation, Release No. 

33-7314 (July 25, 1996) [61 FR 40044], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/33-7314.txt.
18

Securities Act Concept Release. 

In 1996, after receiving the reports of the Task Force on Disclosure Simplification and of 

the Advisory Committee on the Capital Formation and Regulatory Processes, the Commission 

issued a concept release regarding regulation of the securities offering process.45 The release 

sought input on a number of significant issues, including whether the concept of company 

registration should be pursued, whether other methods of increasing the integration of Securities 

Act and Exchange Act disclosure and other processes should be considered and whether existing 

or further reliance on Exchange Act filings should be accompanied by enhancements to Exchange 

Act reporting. Many of the issues raised in the concept release were revisited in the 

Commission’s 1998 proposals to modernize the securities offering process,46 and in the 

Commission’s 2005 Securities Offering Reform rulemaking, which are both discussed below.

47

Plain English Initiative. 

In 1996, in an effort to improve the clarity and utility of disclosure documents, the 

Division of Corporation Finance started a pilot program for public companies willing to file 

documents under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act written in plain English. Following that 

experience, in 1998 the Commission adopted new rules requiring issuers to write certain sections 

of prospectuses in plain English and gave specific guidance on how to make prospectuses clear, 

 45 See Securities Act Concepts and Their Effects on Capital Formation, Release No. 33-7314 (July 25, 1996) 

[61 FR 40044], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/33-7314.txt.

46 See The Regulation of Securities Offerings, Release No. 33-7606A (Nov. 13, 1998) [63 FR 67174], 

available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/337606a1.txt; 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/337606a2.txt; and http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/337606a3.txt.

47 See Securities Offering Reform, Release No. 33-8591 (July 19, 2005) [70 FR 44722], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8591.pdf.
19

concise and understandable, and Commission staff prepared a handbook with practical tips on 

how to prepare plain English documents.48 

1998 Securities Act Rule Proposals.

In 1998, the Commission proposed new rules under the Securities Act that were intended 

to modernize the securities offering process to recognize the evolution of the securities markets 

and securities products since the Securities Act’s adoption.49 The release proposed to replace most 

existing registration statement forms with two basic forms and would have provided large 

seasoned issuers with flexibility to craft disclosure about offerings, allowed the most seasoned 

issuers to control the timing of filing and effectiveness of offering registration statements, eased 

restrictions on communications around offerings and placed increased emphasis on Exchange Act 

reporting. Although the underlying premise of the proposals was supported by commenters at the 

time, most commenters indicated dissatisfaction with a number of the specifics in the 1998 

proposals. Final rules were not adopted. 

Guidance on the Use of Electronic Media.

The Commission first published guidance on the use of electronic media to deliver 

information to investors in 1995.50 This guidance focused on electronic delivery of prospectuses, 

annual reports to security holders and proxy solicitation materials under the Securities Act, the 

 48 See Plain English Disclosure, Release No. 33-7497 (Jan. 28, 1998) [63 FR 6370], available at 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7497.txt. 

49 See The Regulation of Securities Offerings, Release No. 33-7606A (Nov. 13, 1998) [63 FR 67174], 

available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/337606a1.txt; 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/337606a2.txt; and http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/337606a3.txt.

50 See Use of Electronic Media for Delivery Purposes, Release No. 33-7233 (Oct. 6, 1995) [60 FR 53458], 

available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7233.txt. Earlier that year, the Commission’s staff had 

provided its first guidance to brokers on how they could deliver prospectuses electronically, which laid the 

groundwork for the Commission’s future interpretive releases on the use of electronic media for the delivery 

of materials to investors. See Brown & Wood SEC No-Action Letter (pub. avail. Feb 17, 1995).
20

Exchange Act and the Investment Company Act of 1940.51 Next, in 1996, the Commission 

published guidance on the electronic delivery of required information by broker-dealers 

(including municipal securities dealers) and transfer agents under the Exchange Act and 

investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,52 and provided additional 

examples supplementing the 1995 guidance.53 In 1999, the Commission addressed the use of 

electronic media in the context of offshore sales of securities and investment services,54 and crossborder tender offers.55 In 2000, the Commission acknowledged the significant impact that the 

internet, by facilitating rapid and widespread information dissemination, had on capital raising 

techniques, public company communications and business operations and the structure of the 

securities industry and provided guidance on the application of the federal securities laws to 

electronic media for issuers of all types.56 In doing so, the Commission considered the significant 

benefits that investors could gain from the increased use of electronic media, as well as the 

potential for electronic media, as instruments of inexpensive mass communication, to be used to 

defraud the investing public.

 51 15 U.S.C. §§ 80a-1 – 80a-64. 

52 15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-1 – 80a-64.

53 See Use of Electronic Media by Broker-Dealers, Transfer Agents, and Investment Advisers for the Delivery 

of Information; Additional Examples Under the Securities Act of 1993, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 

and Investment Company Act of 1940, Release No. 33-7288 (May 9, 1996) [61 FR 24644], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7288.txt.

54 See Statement of the Commission Regarding Use of Internet Web Sites to Offer Securities, Solicit Securities 

Transactions or Advertise Investment Services Offshore, Release No. 33-7516 (Mar. 23, 1998) [63 FR 

14806], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7516.htm.

55 See Cross-Border Tender and Exchange Offers, Business Combinations and Rights Offerings, Release No. 

33-7759, Section II.G Internet Disclosure, (Oct. 22, 1999) [64 FR 61382] available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7759.htm.

56 See Use of Electronic Media, Release No. 33-7856 (April 28, 2000) [65 FR 25843], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/34-42728.htm. 
21

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) mandated a number of changes

to improve the responsibility of public companies for their financial disclosures. The SarbanesOxley Act required the Commission to take several rulemaking actions in order to implement its 

provisions, many of which resulted in changes to Regulation S-K’s disclosure requirements. For 

example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act required the Commission to adopt rules requiring chief 

executive officers and chief financial officers of registrants to certify financial and other 

information in their companies’ quarterly and annual reports.57 As a part of this, the Commission 

added Items 307 and 308 to Regulation S-K, requiring certain disclosures related to disclosure 

controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to be made in periodic 

 57 The Commission had proposed certification requirements prior to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act mandate. In 

1977, the Report of the Advisory Committee on Corporate Disclosure to the Securities and Exchange 

Commission, which led to the establishment of the integrated disclosure system, first advanced the idea of 

requiring senior executives to review the Exchange Act reports filed on behalf of the company they manage. 

This recommendation was based on the Advisory Committee’s finding that the disclosures made in 

Exchange Act reports tended to be of a lesser quality than the disclosures made in Securities Act filings. 

In 1980, the Commission amended Form 10-K to require that the annual report be signed on behalf of a 

company by the company’s principal executive officer, its principal financial officer, its controller or 

principal accounting officer and by at least the majority of the board of directors, based on the expectation 

that corporate officers and directors would pay more attention to the disclosures made and would participate 

more fully in the preparation of the reports if they had to sign them. See Amendments to Annual Report 

Form, Related Forms, Rules, Regulations, and Guides; Integration of Securities Act Disclosure Systems, 

Release No. 34-17114 (Sept. 2, 1980) [45 FR 63630]. 

The 1998 release proposing reform of the Securities Act offering process also proposed revisions to the 

signature sections of registration statements and periodic reports to mandate that the persons required to sign 

them certify that they had read them and that they knew of no untrue statement of a material fact or omission 

of a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which 

they were made, not misleading. While some commenters supported the proposal, a larger number opposed 

it, asserting that the requirement would impose unreasonable administrative burdens and expose corporate 

officers to increased liability. See The Regulation of Securities Offerings, Release No. 33-7606A (Nov. 13, 

1998) [63 FR 67174], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/337606a1.txt; 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/337606a2.txt; and http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/337606a3.txt. 

In June 2002, before the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Commission proposed new certification 

requirements for annual and quarterly reports, and proposed to require companies to maintain procedures to 

provide reasonable assurance that the company is able to collect, process and disclose the information 

required in its annual, quarterly and current reports. See Certification of Disclosure in Companies’ 

Quarterly and Annual Reports, Release No. 34-46079 (June 14, 2002) [67 FR 41877], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/34-46079.htm. 
22

reports that contain certifications.58 Other Regulation S-K changes resulting from the SarbanesOxley Act include the adoption of Item 406, which implemented the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 

requirement that companies disclose whether they have a code of ethics for their CEO, CFO and 

senior accounting personnel,59 amendments to Item 303 to implement the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 

requirement that companies disclose all material off-balance sheet transactions,60 and the addition 

of a requirement to Item 401, which implemented the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requirement that 

companies disclose information about financial experts serving on their audit committees.61 In 

addition, the Commission adopted amendments to the disclosure requirements for current reports 

 58 See Certification of Disclosure in Companies’ Quarterly and Annual Reports, Release No. 33-8124 (Aug. 

29, 2002) [67 FR 57276], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8124.htm; Management’s Report on 

Internal Control over Financial Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic 

Reporting, Release No. 33-8238 (June 5, 2003) [68 FR 36636], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8238.htm. 

Before the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Commission twice proposed an internal control report 

requirement. See Disclosure Required by Sections 404, 406 and 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,

Release No. 33-8138 (Oct. 22, 2002) [67 FR 66208], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/33-

8138.htm. First, in 1979, following the enactment of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), the 

Commission proposed internal controls reporting by management and an assessment by accountants, 

intended to implement the internal accounting controls requirements in the FCPA. Some commenters 

criticized the proposal for its close correlation to the FCPA requirements and for the scope and content of 

the management report, while others noted significant private-sector initiatives that had been undertaken on 

these issues. See Statement of Management on Internal Accounting Control, Release No. 34-15772 (April 

30, 1979) [44 FR 26702]. The Commission formally withdrew the proposal in 1980. See Statement of 

Management on Internal Accounting Control, Release No. 34-16877 (June 6, 1980) [45 FR 40134]. In 

1988, following the recommendations of the Treadway Commission, the Commission again proposed rules 

that would have required a report of management’s responsibilities with respect to financial reporting, 

including its responsibilities for the company’s internal control system, and an assessment of the 

effectiveness of that system. While a majority of commenters generally supported the proposal, several 

noted that private sector organizations were working to develop standards for reporting on the effectiveness 

of internal controls. See Report of Management’s Responsibilities, Release No. 34-25925 (July 19, 1988)

[53 FR 28009]. 

59 See Disclosure Required by Sections 406 and 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Release No. 33-8177 

(Jan. 23, 2003) [68 FR 15353], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8177.htm. 

60 See Disclosure in Management’s Discussion and Analysis About Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and 

Aggregate Contractual Obligations, Release No. 33-8182 (Jan. 28, 2003) [68 FR 5982], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8182.htm. 

61 See Disclosure Required by Sections 406 and 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Release No. 33-8177 

(Jan. 23, 2003) [68 FR 15353], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8177.htm. Section 407 

directed the Commission to adopt rules (1) requiring a company to disclose whether its audit committee 

includes at least one member who is a financial expert and (2) defining the term “financial expert.”
23

on Form 8-K to address the mandate under Section 409 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for disclosure 

“on a rapid and current basis” of material information regarding changes in a company’s financial 

condition or operations.

62

Securities Offering Reform. 

In 2005, the Commission adopted rules modifying the registration, communications and 

offering processes under the Securities Act.63 The rule changes continued the Commission’s 

efforts toward integrating disclosure and processes under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act 

by addressing communications related to registered securities offerings, delivery of information to 

investors and procedural aspects of the offering and capital formation processes.

In addition, the Commission sought to recognize the role that technology plays in timely 

informing the market and investors about important corporate information and developments.64 

Accordingly, the rule changes contemplated and accommodated the use of communications 

technology to communicate with investors. The 2005 reforms also encouraged electronic and 

 62 See Additional Form 8-K Disclosure Requirements and Acceleration of Filing Date, Release No. 33-8400 

(Mar. 16, 2004) [69 FR 15594] (expanded the number of reportable events and shortened the filing deadline 

for many events to four business days after the occurrence of a triggering event), available at 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8400.htm. The Commission originally proposed the amendments in June 

2002, before the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The final rules added eight new disclosure items, 

transferred two items from other periodic report forms and expanded two items.

The eight new disclosure items include: entry into a material non-ordinary course agreement; termination of 

a material non-ordinary course agreement; creation of a material direct financial obligation or a material 

obligation under an off-balance sheet arrangement; triggering events that accelerate or increase a material 

direct financial obligation or a material obligation under an off-balance sheet arrangement; material costs 

associated with exit or disposal activities; material impairments; notice of delisting or failure to satisfy a 

continued listing rule or standard; transfer of listing; and non-reliance on previously issued financial 

statements or a related audit report or completed interim review (restatements). The two disclosure items 

transferred, in part, from the periodic reports are disclosure of unregistered sales of equity securities and 

material modifications to rights of security holders. The amendments expanded the requirements for 

departure of directors or principal officers, election of directors or appointment of principal officers and 

amendments to articles of incorporation and bylaws and change in fiscal year.

63 See Securities Offering Reform, Release No. 33-8591 (July 19, 2005) [70 FR 44722], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8591.pdf. 

64 See Securities Offering Reform, Release No. 33-8591 (July 19, 2005) [70 FR 44722], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8591.pdf. 
24

web-based solutions for the delivery of information to investors, such as the introduction of an 

“access-equals-delivery” model and the use of hyperlinks in written offers to meet the 

“accompanied or preceded by a prospectus” standard.

Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies. 

The Commission chartered the Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies in 

2005 to assess the regulatory system for smaller companies and make recommendations to the 

Commission for changes.65 The Advisory Committee was composed of representatives of small 

and mid-sized issuers in a variety of industries, investors, legal and accounting professionals, 

investment banking and venture capital professionals and academics. In 2006, the Advisory 

Committee published its recommendations, which included several recommendations relating to 

scaling disclosure and financial reporting requirements for smaller companies.66 Specifically, 

among other things, the Advisory Committee recommended that the Commission:

• establish a new system of scaled or proportional securities regulation for smaller public 

companies;

67

• incorporate the scaled disclosure accommodations (then available to small business issuers 

under Regulation S-B) into Regulation S-K, make them available to all “microcap 

companies” and cease prescribing separate specialized disclosure forms for smaller 

companies; and

• incorporate the primary scaled financial statement accommodations available to small 

business issuers under Regulation S-B into Regulation S-K or Regulation S-X and make 

them available to all “microcap companies” and “smallcap companies.”

 65 The Advisory Committee’s Final Report, as well as webcasts, transcripts and copies of materials distributed 

in connection with all of the Advisory Committee’s meetings, are available at 

http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acspc.shtml.

66 See Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies to the U.S. Securities and 

Exchange Commission (April 23, 2006), available at http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acspc/acspcfinalreport.pdf. 

67 In its recommendations, the Advisory Committee refers to “smaller public companies” to mean public 

companies with equity capitalizations of approximately $787 million or less; companies with equity 

capitalizations between approximately $128 million and $787 million generally would qualify as “smallcap 

companies” and companies with equity capitalizations below approximately $128 million generally would 

qualify as “microcap companies.” See id. 
25

Smaller Reporting Company Regulatory Relief and Simplification. 

In 2007, the Commission adopted amendments intended to provide regulatory relief for 

smaller companies reporting under its rules, including changes to Regulation S-K that moved the 

scaled disclosure requirements for smaller companies from Regulation S-B into Regulation S-K. 68 

Several of the 2007 amendments had their genesis in the recommendations made by the Advisory 

Committee on Smaller Public Companies in 2006, discussed above. These rules expanded the 

number of smaller companies eligible to use scaled disclosure by establishing a category of 

“smaller reporting companies,” for which the primary determinant for eligibility is that the 

company has less than $75 million in public float (i.e. the aggregate market value of the issuer’s 

outstanding voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates). When a company is 

unable to calculate public float, however, such as if it has no common equity outstanding or no 

market price for its outstanding common equity exists at the time of the determination, the 

standard is less than $50 million in revenue in the last fiscal year. The 2007 amendments 

simplified the disclosure and reporting requirements for smaller companies by moving Regulation 

S-B’s scaled disclosure items into Regulation S-K (and Regulation S-X, as applicable), 

eliminating the SB forms and permitting smaller reporting companies to comply with the scaled 

disclosure requirements on an item-by-item basis. 

 68 See Smaller Reporting Company Regulatory Relief and Simplification, Release No. 33-8876 (Dec. 19, 

2007) [73 FR 934], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/33-8876.pdf. In 2007, the Commission 

also adopted rules that liberalized the eligibility requirements for certain short-form registration statements. 

See Revisions to the Eligibility Requirements for Primary Securities Offerings on Forms S-3 and F-3, 

Release No. 33-8878 (Dec. 19 , 2007) [72 FR 73534], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/finaI/2007/33-

8878.pdf.
26

Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting. 

In 2007, the Commission established the Advisory Committee on Improvements to 

Financial Reporting (frequently called the “CIFiR Committee”) to examine the U.S. financial 

reporting system with the goal of reducing unnecessary complexity and making financial 

information more useful and understandable for investors. The CIFiR Committee was composed 

of representatives of issuers and investors, legal, accounting and investment professionals, 

banking regulators, credit rating agencies, broker-dealers and proponents of interactive data. As 

its focus was on financial reporting, the CIFiR Committee did not recommend specific changes to 

Regulation S-K. Several of its recommendations, however, were directed at increasing the 

usefulness of information in periodic reports.

69 The CIFiR Committee recommended requiring a 

short executive summary at the beginning of a company’s annual and quarterly reports that would

concisely describe the most important themes and significant matters from managements’ 

perspective, along with an index identifying where investors could find more detailed information 

on particular subjects. In addition, it recommended updating the Commission’s interpretive 

guidance on the use of electronic media in order to promote greater use of corporate websites for 

the dissemination of information on a company’s financial performance. The CIFiR Committee 

also recommended requiring the filing of interactive data-tagged financial statements with 

periodic reports. 

 69 See Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting to the United States 

Securities and Exchange Commission (Aug. 1, 2008), available at

http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oca/acifr/acifr-finalreport.pdf. In addition, the CIFiR Committee

advocated a joint process between the FASB and the Commission to develop a disclosure framework that 

would eliminate redundancies and provide a single source of disclosure guidance across all financial 

reporting standards. Its other recommendations focused on enhancing the accounting standards-setting 

process, improving the substantive design of new accounting standards, delineating authoritative interpretive 

guidance and clarifying guidance on financial statements and accounting judgments. 
27

Guidance on the Use of Websites.

In 2008, the Commission published guidance on the use of company websites, in order to 

promote the use of company websites as a means for companies to communicate and provide 

information to investors under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.70 The guidance focused 

on the following areas: (1) when information posted on a company website is “public” for 

purposes of the applicability of Regulation FD,

71 (2) company liability for information on 

company websites, including previously posted information, hyperlinks to third-party 

information, summary information and the content of interactive web sites, (3) the types of 

controls and procedures advisable with respect to such information and (4) the format of 

information presented, with the focus on readability not printability.

21st Century Disclosure Initiative. 

In 2008, the Commission announced an agency-wide initiative, with the goal of preparing 

a plan for future action to modernize the Commission’s disclosure system. The Initiative’s report, 

issued in 2009, recommended that the Commission design and implement a new disclosure 

system in which interactive data would replace plain-text disclosure documents, while retaining 

the substantive content and filing schedule of the current system.72

 70 See Commission Guidance on the Use of Company Web Sites, Release No. 34-58288 (Aug. 1, 2008), 

available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2008/34-58288.pdf. As noted above, this guidance was 

prompted in part by a recommendation by the CIFiR Committee. See Progress Report of the SEC Advisory 

Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting, Release No. 33-8896 (Feb. 14, 2008) (“CIFiR Progress 

Report”), available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2008/33-8896.pdf. 

More recently, in April 2013, in connection with an investigation of the use of social media to announce 

operational metrics, the Commission provided guidance to issuers regarding how its 2008 guidance and 

Regulation FD apply to disclosure made through social media channels. See Report of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, Release No. 34-69279 (Apr. 2, 2013), available at

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-69279.pdf.

71 17 CFR §243.100 et seq.

72 See 21st Century Disclosure Initiative: Staff Report, Toward Greater Transparency: Modernizing the 

Securities and Exchange Commission’s Disclosure System (Jan. 2009), available at
28

The Dodd-Frank Act. 

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank 

Act”), enacted in 2010, made significant changes in the regulatory landscape for the Commission 

and tasked the Commission with writing a large number of new rules and conducting several 

studies and reports.73 In addition to provisions relating to derivatives regulation, clearance and 

settlement activities, registration of private fund advisers, credit rating agency regulation, reforms 

to the asset-backed securitization process, and many others, the Dodd-Frank Act includes an array 

of corporate governance, executive compensation and specialized disclosure provisions that have 

an impact on the requirements of Regulation S-K. 

The requirements currently in place include disclosure under Item 402 of Regulation S-K 

of an issuer’s consideration of the “say-on-pay” vote required by Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank 

Act,74 disclosure under Item 407 of Regulation S-K relating to issuers’ compensation committees 

and the use of compensation consultants required by Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act,

75 and 

disclosure under new Item 104 of Regulation S-K of mine safety matters required by Section 

1503 of the Dodd-Frank Act.76 The Commission also is required by the Dodd-Frank Act to adopt 

 http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/disclosureinitiative/report.pdf. The Commission adopted rules requiring 

companies to provide financial statement information in the XBRL interactive data format in 2009. See 

Interactive Data to Improve Financial Reporting, Release No. 33-9002 (Jan. 30, 2009) [74 FR 6776], 

available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2009/33-9002.pdf.

73 Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, H.R. 4173. 

74 See Shareholder Approval of Executive Compensation and Golden Parachute Compensation, Release No. 

33-9178 (Jan. 25, 2011) [76 FR 6010], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2011/33-9178.pdf.

75 See Listing Standards for Compensation Committees, Release No. 33-9330 (June 20, 2012) [77 FR 38421], 

available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/33-9330.pdf.

76 See Mine Safety Disclosure, Release No. 33-9286 (Dec. 21, 2011) [76 FR 81761], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2011/33-9286.pdf. 

In addition, in August 2012, as mandated by Sections 1502 and 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the 

Commission adopted new rules and forms for the disclosure of certain payments by resource extraction 

issuers and for information about the use of conflict minerals. These disclosure requirements are not part of 
29

several additional rules related to corporate governance and executive compensation that either 

are required to be, or may be, included in Regulation S-K, such as new disclosure requirements 

about executive compensation and company performance under Dodd-Frank Act Section 953(a) 

and chief executive officer pay ratios under Dodd-Frank Act Section 953(b).

77

Other Recent Initiatives. 

The Commission’s Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies,78 which was 

formed in 2011, has had several discussions at public meetings since its formation about the 

Commission’s disclosure requirements and in February 2013 voted to make recommendations to 

the Commission with respect to scaling certain disclosure requirements for small to mid-size

public companies.79 

 Regulation S-K. See Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers, Release No. 34-67717 (Aug. 

22, 2012) [77 FR 56365], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/34-67717.pdf and Conflict 

Minerals, Release No. 34-67716 (Aug. 22, 2012) [77 FR 56273], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/34-67716.pdf. The resource extraction issuer disclosure rules have

been vacated and remanded by the District Court for the District of Columbia (see American Petroleum 

Institute v. SEC, Civ. A. No. 12-1688, 2013 WL 3307114, (D.D.C. Jul. 2, 2013) and the conflict minerals 

rule remains the subject of ongoing litigation (see National Ass’n of Mfrs. v. SEC, Civ. A. No. 12-cv-635, 

2013 WL 3803918 (D.D.C. Jul. 23, 2013). 

Similarly, in August 2012, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, Pub.L. No. 112-

158, was enacted, which requires issuers to provide disclosure in their annual and quarterly reports filed with 

the Commission about certain business activities relating to Iran. This requirement was self-executing and 

therefore the disclosure requirement is not part of Regulation S-K.

77 See Pay Ratio Disclosure, Release No. 33-9452 (Sept. 18, 2013) [78 FR 60559], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml.

78 The Advisory Committee’s objective is to provide the Commission with advice on its rules, regulations, and 

policies as they relate to capital raising by emerging privately held small businesses and publicly traded 

companies with less than $250 million in public market capitalization through securities offerings, including 

private and limited offerings and initial and other public offerings, trading in the securities of emerging 

companies and smaller public companies, and public reporting and corporate governance requirements of 

emerging companies and smaller public companies. 

79 The Advisory Committee’s February 2013 recommendations, as well as transcripts and copies of materials 

distributed in connection with all of the Advisory Committee’s meetings, are available at 

http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec.shtml. 

In particular, the Advisory Committee recommended that the Commission revise its smaller reporting 

company rules to incorporate the exemptions applicable to emerging growth companies, exempt smaller 

reporting companies from requirements to provide interactive data in connection with periodic reports and 

revise the exhibit requirements in Item 601 to permit the omission of immaterial schedules and attachments 
30

III. Review of Disclosure Requirements in Regulation S-K

This section provides a summary of the staff’s review of the disclosure items in 

Regulation S-K. For each item, the summary notes general background information about the 

adoption of the requirement and the origins of particular disclosure requirements where they predate, in some form, their inclusion in Regulation S-K. The summary also provides a brief 

description of the significant substantive amendments to the disclosure requirements and, where 

applicable, summarizes the recommendations submitted by commenters through the 

Commission’s website. The items have been grouped into topical categories in order to provide 

an overview of the current disclosure framework. The topical categories, however, differ from 

the current headings in Regulation S-K to provide a better understanding of the substantive areas 

that are covered by current rules as well as the substantive areas that might be addressed in future 

recommendations for disclosure reform.

80 

As noted above, in implementing the integrated disclosure system, the Commission 

included in Regulation S-K various requirements that had been instructions to the registration 

statement and periodic reporting forms and rules. Accordingly, several items in Regulation S-K 

relate to requirements for the contents and presentation of registration statements and 

prospectuses, including the following:

 

to material contracts. 

80 For example, requirements for risk factor disclosure are currently set forth under Subpart 229.500 –

Registration Statement and Prospectus Provisions. This report, however, discusses the risk factor 

requirements of Item 503(c) under a heading entitled “Requirements Relating to Risk and Risk 

Management.” 

The staff acknowledges, moreover, that some items or portions of Regulation S-K item requirements may 

fall into more than one topical category (e.g., some provisions in management’s discussion and analysis of 

financial condition and results of operations (“MD&A”) under Item 303, such as liquidity and capital 

resources, off-balance sheet arrangements or tabular disclosure of contractual obligations, could have been 

grouped together with provisions relating to risk and risk management). The categories used in this report 

are intended to provide a conceptual structure to the review of disclosure requirements and are not intended 

to have any interpretive or substantive effect with respect to current requirements. 
31

• Item 10 – General81

• Item 501 – Forepart of the Registration Statement and Outside Front Cover Page of 

Prospectus

• Item 502 – Inside Front and Outside Back Cover Pages of Prospectus

• Item 503 (a) and (b) – Prospectus Summary and Address82

• Item 510 – Disclosure of Commission Position on Indemnification for Securities Act 

Liabilities83

• Item 512 – Undertakings.84

In addition, Item 601 (Exhibits) sets forth the requirements for exhibits to registration statements 

and periodic reports.85 We have excluded these requirements from the summary below in order to 

 81 Item 10, formerly Item 1, was adopted as part of the original Regulation S-K in order to set forth the rules 

for application of the regulation. See Release No. 33-5893 (Dec. 23, 1977). In 1982, the Commission added 

its policy on the use of securities ratings in filings. See Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 

11380]. In 1995, in connection with comprehensive revisions to the Commission’s Rule of Practice, former 

Rule 24 concerning incorporation by reference was moved from the Rules of Practice into Item 10. See

Rules of Practice, Release No. 34-35833 (June 9, 1995) [60 FR 32737]. In 2003, the Commission adopted 

amendments to add requirements regarding the use of non-GAAP financial measures in filings. See

Conditions for Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures, Release No. 33-8176 (Jan. 6, 2003) [68 FR 4820]. 

In 2007, Item 10 was amended to add the scaled disclosure requirements from former Regulation S-B. See

Smaller Reporting Company Regulatory Relief and Simplification, Release No. 33-8876 (Dec. 19, 2007) [73 

FR 934]. 

82 A requirement for the registrant’s address and telephone number to be included in the prospectus (not only 

in a related registration statement) was originally published as an interpretive guide in 1970. See Definitive 

Guide Relating to Disclosure in Prospectus of Registrant’s Business Address and Telephone Number, 

Release No. 33-5102 (Nov. 12, 1970) [35 FR 17990]. This was in response to complaints received from 

investors and state regulatory agencies that had been “unable to communicate conveniently with registrants 

because that information had not been given.” See The Commission’s Annual Report for 1971 available at

http://www.sec.gov/about/annual_report/1971.pdf.

83 This requirement for disclosure about the Commission’s position on indemnification was adopted in its 

current form as part of the expansion and reorganization of Regulation S-K in 1982. See Adoption of 

Integrated Disclosure, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380]. It was based on a provision 

added in 1968 to the guides. See Guide 46 in Guides for Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements 

Release No. 33-4936 (Dec. 9, 1968) [33 FR 18617]. See also note 16, supra. The original disclosure 

requirements relating to indemnification of directors and officers were included in Form S-1 in 1947, in 

order to codify disclosure practice at the time. See Miscellaneous Amendments, Release No. 33-3186 (Jan. 

8, 1947) [12 FR 224]. 

84 A requirement for the disclosure of undertakings to file periodic reports was first added to Form A-2 in 

1937. See Amendment No. 30 to Form A-2, Release No. 33-1345 (March 26, 1937) [2 FR 604].

85 The requirement for the filing of copies of various documents as exhibits to the registration statement arises 

from the provisions in Schedule A of the Securities Act. Paragraphs (28) through (31) require the filing of 

underwriting agreements, opinions of counsel as to the validity of the shares and legality of the offering, 

material contracts, corporate charter documents, and agreements or indentures affecting the offered 

securities. Over time, additional requirements for exhibits were adopted as part of the forms for registration 
32

focus on the requirements that call for registrants to prepare detailed, company-specific 

disclosures because we believe that those are the requirements that would benefit most from a 

review of the policy goals and historical context of current rules.

86

A. Requirements Relating to the Registrant’s Business and Operations 

Item 101 – Description of Business 

General background. This requirement is derived from Schedule A of the Securities Act, 

which requires a description of the general character of the business actually transacted or to be 

transacted by the issuer.87 Requirements similar to Item 101(a) (General development of 

business) and (c) (Narrative description of business) were included in the earliest forms of 

registration statements and annual reports adopted by the Commission.88 In 1947, the 

 

statements and periodic reports. In the late 1970s, in connection with the implementation of an integrated 

disclosure system, the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance conducted a review of the exhibit 

requirements contained in the various forms under the Securities Act and Exchange Act. An exhibit 

requirement, similar to existing Item 601, was added to Regulation S-K in 1980, which standardized the 

filing requirements for exhibits and eliminated 13 exhibit requirements that were deemed to be of limited 

interest to investors and the Commission. See Release No. 33-6230 (Aug. 27, 1980) [45 FR 58822]. 

86 Concerns have been raised about some of these areas, in particular, the exhibit requirements. See February 

2013 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Smaller and Emerging Companies, supra note 79, 

Letter from Daniel J. Winnike, Fenwick West LLP et al., dated June 19, 2012 (“Silicon Valley Letter”), 

available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/jobs-title-i/reviewreg-sk/reviewreg-sk-1.pdf and Letter from 

Mike Liles, dated April 10, 2013 (“Letter from Mike Liles”)(endorsing the recommendations in the Silicon 

Valley Letter), available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/jobs-title-i/reviewreg-sk/reviewregsk-4.pdf.

As discussed below under the heading “Potential Areas for Further Study,” the staff believes these 

requirements, including the exhibit requirements, relating to filings under the Securities Act and Exchange 

Act should be reviewed in connection with a reassessment of the presentation of non-financial statement 

information contained in offering documents and periodic reports. 

87 See Schedule A, paragraph (8).

88 See, e.g., Items 5 and 6 of Form A-2 adopted in 1935, which required registrants “to outline briefly the 

general character of the business done and intended to be done by the registrant and its subsidiaries” and 

“the general development of the business for the preceding five years.” See Release No. 33-276 (Jan. 14, 

1935) [not published in the Federal Register]. In addition, Items 3 through 5 of Form A-1, adopted in 1933, 

required registrants to briefly describe the “character of business done or intended to be done,” disclose a list 

of states where the issuer owned property and was qualified to do business, and the length of time the 

registrant had been engaged in its business. See Release No. 33-5 (July 6, 1933). 

Form A-1 was the first form adopted under the Securities Act and was designed to be generally applicable. 

Form A-1 generally consisted of the requirements in Schedule A of the Securities Act, with additional detail 
33

Commission adopted requirements in Form S-1 that required a description of the relative 

importance of a registrant’s materially important lines of business and required, where material, a 

brief description of the general competitive conditions in the industry.

89 In 1951, the Commission

adopted amendments to Form S-1 that required a description of the relative importance of each 

product or service (or class of similar products or services) that contributed 15% or more to the 

gross volume of business for the fiscal year.90 In 1969, the Commission adopted amendments to 

Form S-1 that required, for companies engaged in more than one line of business, separate 

reporting of the percentage of total sales and revenue or loss for each line of business that 

contributed 10% or more to total sales and revenues or income.

91 In 1973, pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,92 additional disclosure regarding compliance with 

environmental laws was added to the description of business disclosure requirements in Form S-1 

and Forms 10 and 10-K.93 Also in 1973, following its investigation of the hot issues markets,

94

 

on financial data requirements. Later in 1933, several specialized forms were adopted for certain types of 

securities, such as certificates of deposit and voting trust certificates, and certain types of transactions, such 

as exchange offers and securities issued pursuant to a plan of reorganization. See Harold H. Neff, Securities 

Registration Forms, 51 Harv. L. Rev. 1354 (1937-1938). 

Form A-1 was deemed impracticable for use by older, more seasoned issuers, and in the first year following 

the enactment of the statute only four seasoned companies had used the form. To address these concerns, 

Form A-2 was adopted in 1935 with specific requirements for seasoned issuers, emphasizing disclosure 

relating to the operations during the periods for which financial statements were required rather than 

requirements relating to the company’s history and formation. See id.

89 See Miscellaneous Amendments, Release No. 33-3186 (Jan. 8, 1947) [12 FR 224].

90 See Form S-1 For Registration of Securities, Release No. 3429 (Nov. 1, 1951) [16 FR 11635]. 

91 See Adoption of Amendments to Forms S-1, S-7 and 10, Release No. 33-4988 (July 14, 1969) [34 FR 

12176]. It has been suggested that line of business reporting arose, in part, in response to a wave of merger 

activity in the early 1960s, which focused attention from anti-trust advocates and investors on issues relating 

to conglomerates, generally, and the transparency of the profitability of segments in a diversified enterprise. 

See, e.g., A.A. Sommer, Jr., SEC “Line of Business” Reporting Requirements, 44 St. John’s L. Rev. 926 

(1969-1970). 

92 Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. 

93 See Disclosure with Respect to Compliance with Environmental Requirements and Other Matters, Release 

No. 33-5386 (April 10, 1973) [38 FR 12100]. 

94 See Public Investigation in the Matter of Hot Issues Securities Market (hearings), File No. 4-148; see also
34

the Commission adopted several new disclosure requirements, including information about the 

status of the development of new products, more detailed information about the competitive 

conditions and position of the issuer in the industry in which it operates and, for certain 

development stage companies, a description of their plans of operation.95 In 1976, the 

Commission adopted an amendment to Form S-1 to require disclosure about capital expenditures 

relating to environmental compliance.96 As first adopted in 1977, Regulation S-K required a 

description of the general development of the business, financial information about the industry 

segments,97 a narrative description of the business and financial information about foreign and 

domestic operations and export sales.98 These requirements were similar to paragraphs (a) 

through (d) of current Item 101. 

 “Hot Issues” Securities Markets, Release No. 33-5204 (Oct. 21, 1971) [36 FR 21229] and Hot Issues, 

Release No. 33-5274 (July 26, 1972) [37 FR 16005]. The term hot issues markets refers to markets in which 

new issues of securities experience substantial price increases in the aftermarket. 

95 See New Ventures, Meaningful Disclosure, Release No. 33-5395 (June 1, 1973) [38 FR 17202]. The 

adopting release notes that, in making investment decisions, venture capitalists and underwriters generally 

obtain specific information from companies about their competitive position and the methods of competition 

in their respective industries, and accordingly, the new requirements would provide that type of information 

to investors. 

These amendments also added requirements for the disclosure of the amount of backlog orders, the source 

and availability of raw materials essential to the business, the importance, duration and effect of all material 

intellectual property held by the company, the number of employees, and the estimated dollar amount of 

research and development expenditures during the last two years. 

96 See Conclusions and Final Action on Rulemaking Proposals Relating to Environmental Disclosure, Release 

No. 33-5704 (May 6, 1976) [41 FR 21632]. As discussed in the adopting release, this rulemaking was part 

of the Commission’s consideration of the impact of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 on its 

disclosure regime. 

97 In 1976, the FASB issued SFAS No. 14, “Financial Reporting for Segments of a Business Enterprise,” 

which required corporations to disclose certain financial information by “industry segment” (as defined in 

SFAS No. 14) and by geographic area. The business description requirements adopted in 1977 as part of 

Regulation S-K sought to integrate the information to be furnished under SFAS No. 14 with the narrative 

and financial disclosures required in various forms. See Industry Segment Reporting; Adoption of 

Disclosure Regulation and Amendments of Disclosure Forms and Rules, Release No. 33-5893 (Dec. 23, 

1977) [42 FR 65554]. The FASB subsequently superseded SFAS No. 14 through the issuance of SFAS No. 

131, Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information, in June 1997. The guidance

from SFAS No. 131 is currently included in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification (FASB ASC) in 

Topic 280, Segment Reporting. 

98 See Industry Segment Reporting; Adoption of Disclosure Regulation and Amendments of Disclosure Forms 
35

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In connection with the Plain 

English disclosure reforms adopted in 1998, the requirements for “Available Information,” 

“Reports to Security Holders” and “Enforceability of Civil Liabilities Against Foreign Persons” 

were moved to the description of business, rather than being required on the inside front and back 

cover of the prospectus.99 In 1999, requirements for financial information about a registrant’s 

business segments were revised to reflect changes in U.S. GAAP standards for operating 

segments and guidance was provided to clarify that the requirements calling for disclosure about 

principal products and services are broader than the U.S. GAAP requirements and require a 

discussion of the principal markets for and methods of distribution of each segment’s products 

and services.100 

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. Item 101(h) 

provides scaled disclosure requirements for smaller reporting companies. A smaller reporting 

company is required to provide a description of the development of its business during the most 

recent three years, including its form and year of organization, any bankruptcy proceedings, any 

material reclassification, merger, sale or purchase of assets outside the ordinary course of business 

and a description of the business. The description of business requirements are less detailed than 

those for other reporting companies and do not require information about seasonality (as required 

for other registrants in Item 101(c)(1)(v)), working capital practices (Item 101(c)(1)(vi)), 

identification of significant customers (Item 101(c)(1)(vii)), backlog information (Item 

 

and Rules, Release No. 33-5893 (Dec. 23, 1977) [42 FR 65554]. 

99 See Plain English Disclosure, Release No. 33-7497 (Jan. 28, 1998) [63 FR 6370]. Current requirements for 

disclosure regarding the enforceability of civil liabilities against foreign persons are generally similar to the 

provisions of Guide 8 published in 1964. See Guides for Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements, 

Release No. 33-4666 (Feb. 15, 1964) [29 FR 2490]. 

100 See Segment Reporting, Release No. 33-7620 (Jan. 5, 1999) [64 FR 1728], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7620.txt. 
36

101(c)(1)(viii)) and certain material government contracts (Item 101(c)(1)(ix)). The scaled 

requirements also call for information about the need for government approval of principal 

products and services, which is not a specific requirement for other reporting companies. 

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. Two commenters

recommended eliminating from Item 101 the requirement to disclose the amount of backlog 

orders believed to be firm, asserting that the concept of backlog is not a meaningful metric for 

most emerging growth companies and that eliminating the requirement for emerging growth 

companies will not compromise the delivery of meaningful disclosure to investors.101 These

commenters also raised a question as to whether the concept of backlog (or for businesses other 

than industrials, some other measure of committed revenue that is not yet reflected in the financial 

statements) is more appropriately addressed in MD&A. Similar recommendations were made by 

another commenter, who suggested eliminating the requirement for all companies, not only 

emerging growth companies, or moving the requirement to MD&A.

102 This commenter believed 

that this was one example of requirements that should be reviewed because they are industry 

specific rather than applicable to all entities.

Item 102 – Description of Property 

General background. In 1935, the Commission adopted, as part of registration statement 

Form A-2, a requirement for a brief description of the general character and location of “principal 

plants and other important units” of the registrant and its subsidiaries (and, for property not held 

in fee, a description of how the property was held).103 That requirement also called for a brief 

 101 See Silicon Valley Letter and Letter from Mike Liles.

102 See Letter from Ernst & Young, dated September 11, 2012 (Letter from Ernst & Young”), available at

http://www.sec.gov/comments/jobs-title-i/reviewreg-sk/reviewreg-sk-3.pdf. 

103 See Release No. 33-276 (Jan. 14, 1935). 
37

description of the material franchises and concessions held by the registrant or its subsidiaries. In 

1977, a similar requirement for a description of property was one of the two original disclosure 

items contained in Regulation S-K.104 The 1977 requirement was substantially similar to the 

current requirement, except that it also contained provisions relating to extractive enterprises. At 

the time, the Commission proposed a requirement that would have required registrants to describe 

the physical properties that were material to each of its segments; instead, in response to 

commenters, the adopted requirement focused on properties that were material to the registrant 

and its subsidiaries and required registrants to identify the segments that use the property, in order 

to “improve an investor’s understanding of a particular segment’s future operations.”105

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1982, in connection with the 

integration of disclosure requirements, the Commission moved the provisions in this item relating 

to oil and gas operations into a new Industry Guide, Guide 2.106 In 1999, in connection with 

changes to segment reporting requirements, Item 102 was revised to require the identification of 

segments as reported in the financial statements.107 In 2008, the instructions to Item 102 were 

revised to reflect the new oil and gas disclosure provisions in Subpart 1200.108 

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

 104 See Industry Segment Reporting; Adoption of Disclosure Regulation and Amendments of Disclosure Forms 

and Rules, Release No. 33-5893 (Dec. 23, 1977) [42 FR 65554].

105 Industry Segment Reporting; Adoption of Disclosure Regulation and Amendments of Disclosure Forms and 

Rules, Release No. 33-5893 (Dec. 23, 1977) [42 FR 65554].

106 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure System, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380]. 

107 See Segment Reporting, Release No. 33-7620 (Jan. 5, 1999) [64 FR 1728], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7620.txt.

108 See Modernization of Oil and Gas Reporting, Release No. 33-8995 (Dec. 31, 2008) [74 FR 2157], available

at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/33-8995.pdf. The oil and gas provisions in Subpart 1200 updated 

and replaced Industry Guide 2. See Section III.F. Items 1201 to 1208 – Disclosure by Registrants Engaged 

in Oil and Gas Producing Activities. 
38

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. One commenter

recommended that property disclosure should not be required for entities where physical plant or 

properties are not a significant element of enterprise value.109

B. Requirements Relating to the Registrant’s Financial Condition 

Item 301 – Selected Financial Data

General background. This requirement was originally adopted in 1980 as part of Form 

10-K, to replace a former requirement calling for a summary of operations data,110 in light of a 

concern that the operations summaries provided by registrants duplicated information otherwise 

available in the financial statements and may have unduly emphasized income over other 

enterprise performance measures.111 The selected financial data requirement was designed to 

highlight historical trends in significant data relating to financial condition and results of 

operations over a five-year period. In 1982, upon the adoption of integrated disclosure 

requirements, this requirement was moved from Form 10-K into Regulation S-K.112 At that time, 

the requirement was amended to move provisions relating to the ratio of earnings to fixed charges 

to Item 503 of Regulation S-K and to add a requirement for a brief description of factors that 

could materially affect the comparability of the data or uncertainties that could cause the data to 

not be indicative of the registrant’s future financial condition or results of operations. 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1982, in connection with the 

adoption of an integrated disclosure system for non-U.S. registrants, this requirement was 

 109 See Letter from Ernst & Young.

110 A requirement for a five-year summary of operations data was added to Form 10-K in 1970. See Adoption 

of Revised Form 10-K, Release No. 34-9000 (Oct. 21, 1970) [35 FR 16919]. 

111 See Amendments to Annual Report Form, Related Forms, Rules, Regulations and Guides; Integration of 

Securities Act Disclosure Systems, Release No. 33-6231 (Sept. 2, 1980) [45 FR 63630].

112 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure System, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380].
39

amended by adding provisions applicable to foreign private issuers regarding exchange rates and 

currency used.113

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. Smaller reporting 

companies are not required to provide disclosure under Item 301.114 In a registration statement, an 

emerging growth company is permitted to provide selected financial data only for the periods for 

which audited financial statements are included in the registration statement. In periodic reports 

following its IPO, an emerging growth company may provide selected financial data for periods 

for which financial statements were presented in the IPO and periods thereafter.115

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Item 302 – Supplementary Financial Data

General background. A requirement for disclosure of selected quarterly financial data 

was originally adopted as part of Regulation S-X and required the disclosure as part of the 

financial statements. In 1980, in connection with an initiative to streamline Regulation S-X, this 

requirement was moved to Regulation S-K. 116 As indicated in the adopting release, this move 

was made, in part, because the information was not required to be audited and, therefore, it was 

considered appropriate to move the disclosure outside of the financial statements. For the same 

 113 See Adoption of Foreign Issuer Integrated Disclosure System, Release No. 33-6437 (Dec. 1, 1982) [47 FR 

54764].

114 See Item 301(c), adopted in 2007 in Smaller Reporting and Regulatory Relief and Simplification, Release 

No. 33-8876 (Dec. 19, 2007) [73 FR 934], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/33-8876.pdf.

115 See JOBS Act Section 102(b); Securities Act Section 7(a)(2)(A) [15 USC 77g(a)(2)(A)]; Exchange Act 

Section 13(a) [15 USC 78m(a)]. As discussed in Section I.B. of this report, Title I of the JOBS Act provided 

emerging growth companies with a variety of scaled disclosure and other accommodations, including 

exemptions from or modifications to certain Regulation S-K disclosure requirements. These provisions 

were effective upon enactment of the JOBS Act without rulemaking by the Commission.

116 See General Revision of Regulation S-X, Release No. 33-6233 (Sept. 2, 1980) [45 FR 63660].
40

reason, disclosure requirements relating to disagreements with accountants was also moved at that 

time from Regulation S-X to this item in Regulation S-K. 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1982, the Commission added 

requirements for supplemental oil and gas disclosure in connection with a change in accounting 

standards.117 In 1987, as a result of changes in accounting standards, the Commission adopted 

amendments that eliminated former requirements for the disclosure of the effects of changing 

prices on the registrant’s business.118 In 1999, the Commission expanded the application of this 

item to all registrants, other than foreign private issuers, with securities registered under Section 

12(b) or (g) of the Exchange Act.119 

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. Item 302 only 

applies to registrants, other than foreign private issuers, that have securities registered under 

Section 12(b) or (g) of the Exchange Act, and, accordingly, it would not apply to a typical IPO 

company until after the IPO. In addition, smaller reporting companies are not required to provide 

disclosure under Item 302.120 

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

 117 See Supplemental Disclosures of Oil and Gas Producing Activities, Release No. 33-644 (Dec. 15, 1982) [47 

FR 57911]. 

118 See Disclosure of the Effects of Inflation and Other Changes in Prices, Release No. 33-6728 (Aug. 6, 1987) 

[52 FR 30917]. 

119 See Audit Committee Disclosure, Release No. 34-42266 (Dec. 22, 1999) [64 FR 73389]. Before the 

amendments, only larger, more widely-held companies were subject to Item 302(a), which required 

disclosure of selected quarterly financial data as well as reconciliations and descriptions of any adjustments 

to quarterly information previously reported in a Form 10-Q, and the selected quarterly financial data was 

required to be reviewed by the company’s independent auditors. One of the objectives noted in the release 

was that “[i]nappropriate earnings management could be deterred by imposing more discipline on the 

process of preparing interim financial information before filing such information with the Commission.” Id., 

at 73392. 

120 See Item 302(c), adopted in 2007 in Smaller Reporting and Regulatory Relief and Simplification, Release 

No. 33-8876 (Dec. 19, 2007) [73 FR 934], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/33-8876.pdf. 
41

Item 303 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of 

Operations (MD&A)

General background. In 1968, the Commission published Guide 22, which called for a 

summary of earnings, including a discussion of unusual conditions that affected the 

appropriateness of the earnings presentation and requiring footnotes indicating adverse changes in 

operating results subsequent to the latest period included in the earnings summary.121 In 1974, the 

Commission expanded this requirement, publishing Exchange Act Guide 1 (for periodic reports) 

and amending Guide 22 to call for a narrative discussion of a registrant’s financial statements, 

under captions entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of the Summary of Earnings” 

and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of the Summary of Operations.”122 In addition to 

the summary, the amended guides called for a full narrative explanation that would enable 

investors to appraise the quality of earnings and operating results and included a percentage test 

for disclosure.

123 In 1980, the requirement was added to Regulation S-K, with expanded 

requirements relating to liquidity and capital resources, new requirements emphasizing trends and 

the identification of significant events or uncertainties, requirements for disclosure of the effects 

of inflation and changing prices, and the percentage tests for disclosure were eliminated.

124 

Rather than focusing on prescriptive, line-item disclosure requirements, MD&A requirements 

 121 See Guides for Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements, Release No. 33-4936 (Dec. 9, 1968) [33 

FR 18617].

122 See Guidelines for Registration and Reporting, Release No. 33-5520 (Aug. 14, 1974) [39 FR 31894].

123 Registrants were required to discuss items of revenue or expense that changed more than 10% from the prior 

period or changed more than 2% of the average net income or loss for the most recent three years presented. 

124 See Amendments to Annual Report Form, Related Forms, Rules, Regulations, and Guides; Integration of 

Securities Acts Disclosure Systems, Release No. 33-6231 (Sept. 2, 1980) [45 FR 63630].
42

were intended to function as principles-based requirements, in order to elicit meaningful, 

company-specific disclosure.125

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1982, the Commission 

adopted instructions for compliance by foreign private issuers.126 In 1987, the Commission 

adopted amendments to the instructions to this item to clarify that registrants are only required to 

discuss the impact of inflation and other changes in prices when those changes are considered 

material.127 In 2003, as mandated by Section 401 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Commission 

adopted requirements for the disclosure of off-balance sheet arrangements. At this time,

requirements for tabular disclosure of contractual obligations were also adopted, in order to 

consolidate information about a registrant’s future payment obligations and commitments in a 

single location to provide context for an assessment of a registrant’s liquidity and capital resource 

needs and demands.128

In addition, from time to time, the Commission has published interpretive guidance on 

various aspects of the MD&A requirements.

129

 125 See Commission Guidance Regarding Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and 

Results of Operations, Release No. 33-8350 (Dec. 19, 2003) [68 FR 75056], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-8350.htm. The MD&A requirements are intended to satisfy three 

principal objectives: (1) to provide a narrative explanation of a company’s financial statements that enables 

investors to see the company through the eyes of management, (2) to enhance the overall financial disclosure 

and provide the context within which financial information should be analyzed, and (3) to provide 

information about the quality of, and potential variability of, a company’s earnings and cash flow, so that 

investors can ascertain the likelihood that past performance is indicative of future performance. See id.

126 See Adoption of Foreign Issuer Integrated Disclosure System, Release No. 33-6437 (Dec. 1, 1982) [47 FR 

54764].

127 See Disclosure of the Effects of Inflation and Other Changes in Prices, Release No. 33-6728 (Aug. 3, 1987) 

[52 FR 30917].

128 See Disclosure in Management’s Discussion and Analysis About Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and 

Aggregate Contractual Obligations, Release No. 33-8182 (Jan. 28, 2003) [68 FR 5982], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8182.htm. 

129 See Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations, Release No. 

33-6349 (Sept. 28, 1981), 23 SEC Docket 962 [Release not published in the Federal Register]; Concept 

Release on Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, 
43

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. Smaller reporting 

companies and emerging growth companies that present only two years of financial statement 

information are permitted to provide analysis of two years rather than three years. In addition, 

smaller reporting companies are not required to comply with the contractual obligations table 

requirements in paragraph (a)(5). 

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. Several commenters 

submitted recommendations for updating MD&A requirements. Two commenters recommended 

eliminating or reducing disclosure in MD&A relating to a company’s historical practice for 

establishing the fair value of the company’s common stock in connection with stock-based 

compensation, suggesting that this information is not significant to investors.130 In contrast, 

 Release No. 6711 (April 17, 1987) [52 FR 13715] (seeking public comment on the adequacy of MD&A 

disclosures generally and on proposed revisions submitted by members of the professional accounting 

community); Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations; 

Certain Investment Company Disclosures, Release No. 33-6835 (May 18, 1989) [54 FR 22427], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-6835.htm; Statement of the Commission Regarding Disclosure of Year 

2000 Issues and Consequences By Public Companies, Investment Advisors, Investment Companies, and 

Municipal Securities Issuers, Release No. 33-7558 (July 29, 1998) [63 FR 41394], available at 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7558.htm; Cautionary Advice Regarding Disclosure About Critical 

Accounting Policies, Release No. 33-8040 (Dec. 12, 2001) [66 FR 65013], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/33-8040.htm; Commission Statement About Management’s Discussion and 

Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Release No. 33-8056 (Jan. 22, 2002) [67 FR 

3746], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/33-8056.htm; Commission Guidance Regarding 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Release No. 33-

8350 (Dec. 19, 2003) [68 FR 75056], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-8350.htm; 

Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Relating to Climate Change, Release No. 33-9106 (Feb. 2, 

2010) [75 FR 6290], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2010/33-9106.pdf; Commission Guidance 

on Presentation of Liquidity and Capital Resources Disclosures in Management’s Discussion and Analysis, 

Release No. 33-9144 (Sept. 17, 2010) [75 FR 59896], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2010/33-

9144.pdf. 

130 See Silicon Valley Letter and Letter from Mike Liles. These commenters acknowledge that Item 303 does 

not expressly require this disclosure. These commentators suggest that the disclosure is being provided by 

companies to address the Commission’s interpretive guidance regarding disclosure about critical accounting 

policies, the judgments and uncertainties affecting the application of those policies and the likelihood that 

materially different amounts would be reported under different conditions or different assumptions. See

Cautionary Advice Regarding Disclosure About Critical Accounting Policies, Release No. 33-8040 (Dec. 

12, 2001) [66 FR 65013], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/33-8040.htm, and Commission 

Guidance Regarding Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of 

Operations, Release No. 33-8350 (Dec. 19, 2003) [68 FR 75056], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-8350.htm. These commentators also assert that companies are providing 
44

another commenter strongly opposed that recommendation, noting that such disclosure is

meaningful for institutional investors.131

One commenter recommended that the requirement in annual reports for the repetition of 

prior year-over-year analysis should be eliminated, because the comparison detracts from a 

comprehensive analysis of a three-year trend, and, in any event, MD&A disclosures for the 

previous year can be easily obtained on EDGAR.132 This commenter also observed changes in 

accounting standards have created redundancies with MD&A requirements. As an example, this 

commenter noted that many of the required financial statement disclosures related to variable 

interest entities, now specified by FASB ASC Topic 810, Consolidation, address the objectives of 

the MD&A off-balance sheet arrangements requirements.133

Item 503 (d) – Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

General background. A requirement to present a ratio of earnings to fixed charges was 

first adopted in 1954 in connection with the adoption of Form S-9, a short-form registration 

statement for registration of non-convertible, fixed interest debt.

134 Use of Form S-9 was 

conditioned on the issuer’s ability to demonstrate a minimum coverage of fixed charges. Over 

time, the Commission added similar ratio requirements to other Commission registration 

statement and reporting forms (including Forms S-1, S-7, S-11, 10 and 10-K) as part of the 

 

this disclosure in response to comments from the Division of Corporation Finance. 

131 See Letter from Council of Institutional Investors, dated August 9, 2012, available at

http://www.sec.gov/comments/jobs-title-i/reviewreg-sk/reviewreg-sk-2.pdf.

132 See Letter from Ernst & Young.

133 See Letter from Ernst & Young (referring to Proposed Accounting Standards Update on FASB’s website, 

Financial Instruments (Topic 825): Disclosures about Liquidity Risk and Interest Rate Risk). 

134 Registration Statement, Release No. 33-3509 (July 21, 1954) [19 FR 4630] (noting that the new form 

substantially reduced the information requirements on the basis that “much of the information required by 

the general registration form is not of material significance to investors in view of the senior position of the 

securities, the history of the issuer, the earnings coverages, etc., of companies eligible to use the form.”). 
45

“Summary of Operations” requirements and adopted numerous changes in the requirements 

governing the calculation and presentation of the ratio.

135 In 1971, the Commission published 

interpretations on the calculation of the ratio.136 In 1980, the Commission issued a concept release 

that requested comments on whether the requirements for presentation of historical and pro forma 

ratios should be retained or deleted.137 In 1980, as part of amendments to Form 10-K in 

connection with the integrated disclosure project, the then-existing ratio requirements in the 

various forms were moved from the Summary of Operations to the Selected Financial Data 

provisions.138 In 1982, the Commission adopted amendments to the ratio of earnings to fixed 

charges and added the requirement to Item 503 of Regulation S-K.139

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1982, in connection with the 

adoption of the integrated disclosure system for foreign private issuers, this requirement was 

amended to add a provision regarding the calculation of the ratio by foreign private issuers on the 

 135 See Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges, Release No. 33-6285 (Feb. 6, 1981) [46 FR 12756] (describing 

history of ratio requirement). 

136 See Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges, Release No. 33-5158 (June 16, 1971) [36 FR 

11918](Accounting Series Release 119); and Coverage of Fixed Charges, Release No. 33-5176 (Aug. 10, 

1971)[36 FR 16506](Accounting Series Release 122). 

137 See Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges, Release No. 33-6196 (Mar. 7, 1980) [45 FR 16498]. For a 

summary of the comments received in connection with the concept release, see Ratio of Earnings to Fixed 

Charges, Release No. 33-6285 (Feb. 6, 1981)[46 FR 12757] (noting that commenters were split in their 

support for retaining the requirement, with some asserting the general usefulness of the disclosure as an 

analytical tool and a method for showing trends). 

138 See Amendments to Annual Report Form, Related Forms, Rules, Regulations, and Guides; Integration of 

Securities Acts Disclosure Systems, Release No. 33-6231 (Sept. 2, 1980) [45 FR 63630] (noting that, in light 

of the issuance of the related concept release, the ratio requirements were being included in the forms as an 

interim measure and a rule proposal was expected to be considered in the future). In 1981, the Commission 

proposed to amend Item 10 (“Selected Financial Data) of Regulation S-K to include a modified version of 

the ratio requirement. See Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges, Release No. 33-6285 (Feb. 6, 1981) [46 FR 

12756]. 

139 See Adoption of an Integrated Disclosure System, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380]. At 

the time, the Commission rescinded and withdrew the related Accounting Series Releases (Nos. 119 and 

122) and Topics 3B and 9B of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 40, because they discussed elements of the 

computation of the ratio that were covered in the amended rules. The release also notes that the provisions 

were located among the other offering-related items because the ratio was only being required in certain 

Securities Act filings. 
46

basis of their primary financial statements.140 In 1998, the Commission adopted a requirement to 

present the ratio in the summary section of the prospectus.141 In 2007, in connection with the 

simplification of rules for smaller reporting companies, the Commission added an exemption for 

smaller reporting companies to this item, in conformity with the former Regulation S-B 

requirements.142

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. Smaller reporting 

companies are not required to comply with this item.143

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. One commenter

recommended the elimination of the ratio of earnings to fixed charges requirement, as it “appears 

an anachronism in the age of sophisticated financial modeling and analysis, facilitated by the 

wealth of data available from issuer financial statements.”144

Item 304 – Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial 

Disclosure

General background. A requirement for disclosure of disagreements with accountants 

was originally adopted as part of Regulation S-X. In 1980, the disclosure requirement relating to 

disagreements with accountants was moved from Regulation S-X into the Regulation S-K 

 140 See Adoption of Foreign Issuer Integrated Disclosure System, Release No. 33-6437 (Dec. 1, 1982) [47 FR 

54764]. 

141 See Plain English Disclosure, Release No. 33-7497 (Jan. 28, 1998) [63 FR 6370], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7497.txt (also revising the numbering of the item, and adding a reference 

to the exhibit requirement in Item 601(b)(12) for the filing of a statement showing the computation of the 

components of the ratio). The related proposing release proposed to move the requirement to Item 301 

(“Selected Financial Data”) on the basis that most companies presented the information in that section; the 

adopting release does not address the reasons for changing that approach. See Plain English Disclosure, 

Release No. 33-7380 (Jan. 14, 1997) [62 FR 3152], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/34-

38164.txt. 

142 See Smaller Reporting Company Regulatory Relief and Simplification, Release No 33-8876 (Dec. 19, 2007) 

[73 FR 934], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/33-8876.pdf. 

143 See Item 503(e). 

144 See letter from Ernst & Young.
47

provisions requiring supplementary financial data (Item 302).

145 In 1988, the Commission 

adopted a new Item 304 that combined the requirements formerly included in Item 302 with the 

disclosure requirements in Form 8-K that relate to changes in accountants.146 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1989, the Commission 

adopted amendments to this item and to the requirements of Form 8-K to facilitate more timely 

disclosure regarding changes in a registrant’s independent accountants.147 

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Item 307 – Disclosure Controls and Procedures

General background. In 2002, in connection with the adoption of certification 

requirements mandated by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Commission also adopted 

new Item 307 requiring disclosure in the registrant’s quarterly and annual reports about its

evaluation of the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures and whether there have 

been significant changes in the registrant’s internal controls or in other factors that could 

significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the evaluation.

148 This requirement does not 

apply to filings made under the Securities Act. 

 145 See General Revision of Regulation S-X, Release No. 33-6233 (Sept. 2, 1980) [45 FR 63660].

146 See Disclosure Amendments to Regulations S-K, Form 8-K and Schedule 14A Regarding Changes in 

Accountants and Potential Opinion Shopping Situations, Release No. 33-6766 (April 12, 1988) [53 FR 

12924]. 

147 See Acceleration of the Timing for Filing Forms 8-K Relating to Changes in Accountants and Resignations 

of Directors; Amendments to Regulation S-K Regarding Changes in Accountants, Release No. 33-6822 

(March 2, 1989) [54 FR 9770].

148 See Certification of Disclosure in Companies’ Quarterly and Annual Reports, Release No. 33-8124 (Aug. 

29, 2002) [67 FR 57276], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8124.htm. Section 906 of the 

Sarbanes-Oxley Act imposed a separate certification requirement subject to specific federal criminal 

provisions that was effective upon enactment without Commission rulemaking. 
48

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 2003, the Commission 

amended the date to be used for the evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures (from “as of 

a date within 90 days of the filing date” to “as of the end of the period”).149 These amendments 

also moved disclosure requirements relating to changes in internal control over financial reporting 

to a new Item 308. 

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Item 308 – Internal Control over Financial Reporting

General background. As mandated by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the 

Commission adopted this provision in 2003 requiring registrants that are subject to Exchange Act 

reporting requirements to include in their annual reports a report of management on the 

registrant’s internal control over financial reporting and an attestation report by the registrant’s 

auditors on management’s assessment of the internal controls.150 This requirement does not apply 

to filings made under the Securities Act. 

 149 See Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in 

Exchange Act Periodic Reporting, Release No. 33-8238 (June 5, 2003) [68 FR 36636], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8238.htm.

150 Id. As initially adopted, accelerated filers were to comply with the requirements for their first fiscal year 

ending on or after June 15, 2004, and issuers that were not accelerated filers as of June 15, 2005 were to 

comply for their first fiscal year ending on or after April 15, 2005. In 2004, the Commission extended the 

compliance dates for accelerated and non-accelerated filers. See Management’s Report on Internal Control 

Over Financial Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic Reports, Release No. 33-

8392 (Feb. 24, 2004) [69 FR 9722] available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8392.htm. 

The Commission postponed the Section 404(b) auditor attestation requirement for non-accelerated filers 

twice in 2005. See Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and Certification of 

Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic Reports of Non-Accelerated Filers and Foreign Private Issuers; 

Extension of Compliance Dates, Release No. 33-8545 (Mar. 2, 2005) [70 FR 11528] available at 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8545.htm, and Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial 

Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic Reports of Companies that Are Not 

Accelerated Filers, Release No. 33-8618 (Sept. 22, 2005) [70 FR 56825] available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8618.pdf. 

In August 2006, the Commission postponed compliance for foreign private issuers that were accelerated 
49

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 2006, a transition provision 

was adopted for newly public companies, permitting such a registrant to delay compliance until it 

either had filed or had been required to file an annual report for the prior fiscal year.151 In 2007, 

the requirements were amended to clarify that the auditors are only required to provide a single 

opinion on the effectiveness of the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting (rather 

than two separate opinions covering the effectiveness of the internal controls and another on 

management’s assessment of their effectiveness).152 In 2010, pursuant to Section 989G of the 

 filers until their first fiscal year ending on or after July 15, 2007. See Internal Control Over Financial 

Reporting In Exchange Act Periodic Reports of Foreign Private Issuers that Are Accelerated Filers, Release 

No. 33-8730A (Aug. 9, 2006) [71 FR 47056] available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8730a.pdf. 

In December 2006, the Commission extended the compliance date for Section 404(a) for non-accelerated 

filers to their first fiscal year ending on or after December 15, 2007 and extended the Section 404(b) 

compliance date for non-accelerated filers to their first fiscal year ending on or after December 15, 2008. 

See Internal Control Over Financial Reporting in Exchange Act Reports of Non-Accelerated Filers and 

Newly Public Companies, Release No. 33-8760 (Dec. 15, 2006) [71 FR 76580], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8760.pdf. 

In June 2008, the Commission approved a further extension of the Section 404(b) compliance date for nonaccelerated filers to fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2009. See Internal Control Over Financial 

Reporting in Exchange Act Periodic Reports of Non-Accelerated Filers, Release No. 33-8934 (June 26, 

2008) [73 FR 38094] available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/33-8934.pdf. 

In October 2009, the Commission provided a final extension of the Section 404(b) compliance date for nonaccelerated filers to fiscal years ending after June 15, 2010. See Internal Control Over Financial Reporting 

in Exchange Act Reports of Non-Accelerated Filers, Release No. 33-9072 (Oct. 13, 2009) [74 FR 53628] 

available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2009/33-9072.pdf. 

Although the term “non-accelerated filer” is not defined in Commission rules, it is used in this report to refer 

to a reporting company that does not meet the definition of either an “accelerated filer” or a “large 

accelerated filer” under Exchange Act Rule 12b-2. Under Exchange Act Rule 12b-2, an accelerated filer is 

an issuer that “had an aggregate worldwide market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held 

by its non-affiliates of $75 million or more, but less than $700 million, as of the last business day of the 

issuer’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter” and a large accelerated filer is an issuer that “had an 

aggregate worldwide market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by its non-affiliates of 

$700 million or more, as of the last business day of the issuer’s most recently completed second fiscal 

quarter”. In addition, for both definitions, the issuer needs to have been subject to reporting requirements for 

at least 12 calendar months, have filed at least one annual report, and not be eligible to use the requirements 

for smaller reporting companies for its annual and quarterly reports. 

151 See Internal Control Over Financial Reporting in Exchange Act Reports of Non-Accelerated Filers and 

Newly Public Companies, Release No. 33-8760 (Dec. 15, 2006) [71 FR 76580], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8760.pdf.

152 See Amendments to Rules Regarding Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting, 

Release No. 33-8809 (June 20, 2007) [72 FR 35310], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/33-

8809.pdf. 
50

Dodd-Frank Act (which provides that Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not apply to 

registrants that are non-accelerated filers), the Commission adopted an exemption for nonaccelerated filers.

153

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. Non-accelerated 

filers, a category that generally includes smaller reporting companies, are not subject to the 

requirements of Item 308(b) (attestation report of the registered public accounting firm). In 

addition, a newly public company is not required to comply with Item 308(a) (management’s 

annual report on internal control over financial reporting) or Item 308(b) until it either has filed or 

has been required to file an annual report for the prior fiscal year. Under the JOBS Act, emerging 

growth companies are not required to provide Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 404(b) auditor 

attestations of internal control over financial reporting and, accordingly, are not subject to Item 

308(b). 

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None. 154

 153 See Internal Control over Financial Reporting in Exchange Act Periodic Reports of Non-Accelerated Filers, 

Release No. 33-9142 (Sept. 15, 2010) [75 FR 57385], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2010/33-

9142.pdf. 

154 Although no comments were submitted about this item to the Commission’s website, the staff notes that one 

of the recommendations emerging from the 31st Annual SEC Government-Business Forum on Small 

Business Capital Formation in 2012 was that the Commission should expand the exemption from the auditor 

attestation requirement of Item 308(b) to companies with less than $250 million in public float and possibly 

up to $500 million in public float. See 31st Annual SEC Government-Business Forum on Small Business 

Capital Formation Final Report (Nov. 15, 2012), available at http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/gbfor31.pdf. 

The staff of the Office of the Chief Accountant published a study in 2011 on the auditor attestation 

requirements for companies with less than $250 million in public float, as mandated by Section 989G(b) of 

the Dodd-Frank Act. See Study and Recommendations on Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 

2002 For Issuers With Public Float Between $75 million and $250 million, available at

http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2011/404bfloat-study.pdf. The United States Government Accountability 

Office published a study in 2013 on the exemption from auditor attestation requirements for smaller issuers, 

as mandated by Section 989I of the Dodd-Frank Act. See GAO-13-582, Internal Controls – SEC Should 

Consider Requiring Companies to Disclose Whether They Obtained An Auditor Attestation, available at

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655710.pdf.
51

C. Requirements Relating to Management, Security Holders and Corporate 

Governance

Item 401 – Directors, Executive Officers, Promoters and Control Persons

General background. This requirement is derived from the provisions in Schedule A of 

the Securities Act calling for the names and addresses of directors, executive officers, promoters 

and certain beneficial owners of securities.155 In 1933, the Commission’s predecessor adopted a 

similar requirement as part of registration statement Form A-1.

156 In 1935, the Commission 

adopted Form A-2, which added a requirement for a brief description of “the business experience 

of the principal executive officers for the last five years.”157 In 1973, following its investigation 

of the hot issues markets in 1971, the Commission adopted amendments to Form S-1 to expand 

the disclosure requirements relating to the performance and background of management, 

including expanded information about the nature of responsibilities in prior positions, the age of 

officers and directors, the nature of any family relationships amongst directors and officers, the 

involvement of officers and directors in specified types of legal proceedings during the past ten

years, and, for IPO companies, information about the experience of key personnel (such as 

research scientists or production managers) who, although they are not executive officers, are 

expected to make significant contributions to the business.158 In 1978, the requirement was added 

to Regulation S-K, combining the requirements from various forms.159 

 155 See Schedule A paragraphs 4 and 6. 

156 See Items 11 through 13 of Form A-1, adopted in Release No. 33-5 (July 6, 1933) [not published in the 

Federal Register]. 

157 See Items 30 and 31 of Form A-2. 

158 See New Ventures, Meaningful Disclosure, Release No. 33-5395 (June 1, 1973) [38 FR 17202]. At the 

time, a proposal to also require compensation information relating to previous positions held by executive 

officers was not adopted, because commenters believed that the information would not be material and could 

result in personnel problems. Id.

159 See Uniform and Integrated Reporting Requirements: Directors and Officers, Management Remuneration, 

Legal Proceedings, Principal Security Holders and Security Holdings of Management, Release No. 33-5949 
52

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1982, in connection with a 

comprehensive reexamination of the disclosure requirements and procedural provisions for the 

solicitation of proxies, the Commission revised the disclosure requirements relating to the 

business experience of executive officers and directors, by adding a requirement to also disclose 

whether the individual has been employed at an entity that is a parent, subsidiary or affiliate of the 

registrant.160 In 1984, in response to hearings in December 1983 held by the Subcommittee on 

Securities of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the Commission 

expanded the information required regarding involvement in legal proceedings relating to federal 

commodities law and added a requirement for disclosure about involvement in legal proceedings 

by promoters and control persons.161 In 2003, in connection with Section 407 of the SarbanesOxley Act, the Commission added new disclosure requirements applicable to annual reports or 

proxy statements calling for information about whether the registrant has an audit committee 

financial expert and information about the registrant’s audit committee.162 Later in 2003, 

following a review by the Division of Corporation Finance of the proxy rules relating to the 

 

(July 28, 1978) [43 FR 34402]. At this time, the Commission reduced the number of years (from ten years 

to five years) for which involvement in legal proceedings must be reported. 

160 See Disclosure of Certain Relationships and Transactions Involving Management, Release No. 33-6441 

(Dec. 2, 1982) [47 FR 55661]. 

161 See Disclosure of Certain Legal Proceedings Involving Directors, Executive Officers, Promoters and 

Control Persons, Release No. 33-65-45 (Aug. 9, 1984) [49 FR 32762]. In connection with the revisions to 

executive compensation disclosure requirements in 2006, the requirements for disclosure regarding 

promoters was changed to require disclosure if the registrant had a promoter at any time during the last five 

fiscal years, rather than if the registrant was organized within the last five fiscal years. See Executive 

Compensation and Related Party Disclosure, Release No. 33-8732A (Aug. 29, 2006) [71 FR 53158, at 

53203], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8732a.pdf.

162 See Disclosure Required by Sections 406 and 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Release No. 33-8177 

(Jan. 23, 2003) [68 FR 5110], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8177.htm, and Standards 

Relating to Listed Company Audit Committees, Release No. 33-8220 (April 9, 2003) [68 FR 18788], 

available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8220.htm. These requirements were subsequently 

consolidated and moved to Item 407 in connection with the revisions to executive compensation disclosure 

requirements in 2006. See Executive Compensation and Related Party Disclosure, Release No. 33-8732A 

(Aug. 29, 2006) [71 FR 53158], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8732a.pdf. 
53

election of directors, the Commission added a provision requiring disclosure when a registrant 

makes material changes to the procedures by which security holders may recommend nominees to 

the board of directors.163 In 2009, amendments were adopted to respond to investors’ increased 

focus on corporate accountability, expanding the requirements for disclosure of involvement in 

legal proceedings to span ten years (from five years) and adding additional covered proceedings 

including fraud and violations of Federal or state securities and commodities laws. These 

amendments also added new requirements for annual disclosure of the particular experience, 

qualifications, attributes or skills of each director or nominee that led the board to conclude that 

the person should serve as a director of the registrant.164

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None. In 2007, in 

connection with its Smaller Reporting Company Relief and Simplification initiative and the 

integration of the requirements of Regulation S-B into Regulation S-K, the Commission adopted 

amendments that required smaller reporting companies to comply with the same requirements as 

other companies under Item 401.165

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

 163 See Disclosure Regarding Nominating Committee Functions and Communications Between Security 

Holders and Boards of Directors, Release No. 33-8340 (Nov. 24, 2003) [68 FR 66992], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8340.htm.

164 See Proxy Disclosure Enhancements, Release No. 33-9089 (Dec. 16, 2009) [74 FR 68334], available at 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2009/33-9089.pdf. 

165 Under Regulation S-B the disclosure pertaining to petitions filed under Federal bankruptcy laws or state 

insolvency laws did not cover personal bankruptcy petitions. See Smaller Reporting Company Regulatory 

Relief and Simplification, Release No. 33-8876 (December 19, 2007) [73 FR 934], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/33-8876.pdf (noting that “it is appropriate to require disclosure about a 

personal bankruptcy petition filed by or against a director or officer of a smaller reporting company given 

that, in light of the generally smaller level of operations of smaller reporting companies, it may be material 

to an evaluation of the ability or integrity of any director or person to be nominated to become a director or 

executive office of the smaller reporting company”).
54

Item 402 – Executive Compensation

General background. Disclosure requirements regarding executive and director 

compensation are set forth in Schedule A to the Securities Act.

166 In 1933, the first form of 

registration statement, Form A-1, included a requirement similar to the Schedule A provision

calling for tabular disclosure of the total remuneration paid by the issuer, its subsidiaries and 

affiliates during the past year and the ensuing year to each director and to any officer or other 

person whose aggregate remuneration exceeds $25,000.

167 In 1935, new registration statement 

Form A-2 (for seasoned issuers), included a requirement calling for tabular disclosure of the name 

and aggregate remuneration of the three highest paid officers, the aggregate remuneration of all 

other officers of the registrant and the aggregate remuneration of all employees who received 

remuneration in excess of $20,000 during the fiscal year.168 In 1938, the Commission 

promulgated its first executive and director compensation disclosure rules for proxy statements.169

In 1942, the Commission adopted comprehensive revisions to the proxy requirements, 

including disclosure of management salaries and of corporate dealings with officers.

170 At the 

same time, the Commission adopted Form S-1 which incorporated the requirements of former 

 166 See Schedule A, paragraph 14 (calling for “the remuneration, paid or estimated to be paid, by the issuer or 

its predecessor, directly or indirectly, during the past year and ensuing year to....its officers and other 

persons, naming them wherever such remuneration exceeded $25,000 during any such year”). 

167 See Form A-1 Item 47, adopted in Release No. 33-5, (July 6, 1933) [not published in the Federal Register]. 

168 See Release No. 33-276 (Jan. 14, 1935) [not published in the Federal Register].

169 In 1935, the Commission adopted its first proxy rules, Regulation LA, which established standards for proxy 

solicitations without addressing disclosure requirements applicable to particular subject matters. See

Release No. 34-378 (Sept. 24, 1935). In 1938, the Commission adopted Regulation X-14, the predecessor of 

current Schedule 14A, which set forth specific disclosure requirements for proxy statements. Item 7(b) of 

these regulations required specified disclosure of compensation received by nominees if action was to be 

taken for director elections or other officials. See Amended Proxy Rules, Release No. 34-1823 (Aug. 11, 

1938) [3 FR 1991]. 

170 See Solicitation of Proxies Under the Act, Release No. 34-3347 (Dec. 18, 1942) [7 FR 10655].
55

Form A-2.

171 In 1947, the Commission amended the requirements of Form S-1 to clarify that 

separate compensation disclosure for individual officers, directors and specified other persons is 

only required where there is a material relationship to the registrant or to the registrant’s 

management.172 In 1948, the Commission amended Schedule 14A in order to clarify that 

information is required for compensation earned by directors or officers in all capacities as well as 

for services as directors or officers, to require a breakdown of the various types of compensation 

paid to the directors and three most highly paid officers, as well as additional information as to 

the indebtedness to the issuer of any director or officer.173 Later in 1948, the Commission

amended the requirements of Form S-1 to consolidate the requirements into a single item, to 

clarify that information is required as to pension and retirement payments for officers and 

directors and to change the disclosure requirement for each director and officer whose aggregate 

remuneration was in excess of $20,000 to any director whose aggregate remuneration was in 

excess of $25,000 and the three highest paid officers whose remuneration exceeded that 

amount.

174

In 1952, the Commission amended executive compensation requirements again in 

connection with revisions to Schedule 14A, permitting aggregated (rather than itemized) 

disclosure of compensation amounts and adding more detailed requirements for disclosure of 

deferred compensation.

175 In 1973, the Commission adopted amendments raising the disclosure 

 171 See Forms for Registration, Release No. 33-2887 (Dec. 18, 1942) [7 FR 10653].

172 See Miscellaneous Amendments, Release No. 33-3186 (Jan. 8, 1947) [12 FR 224]; See also Notice of 

Proposed Rules and Form and Proposed Repeal of Certain Forms, Release No. 33-3171 (Nov. 18, 1946) [11 

FR 13764] (describing the proposed changes adopted in Release No. 33-3186). 

173 See Solicitation of Proxies, Release No. 34-4185 (Nov. 5, 1948) [13 FR 6679].

174 See Miscellaneous Amendments, Release No. 33-3323 (Dec. 31, 1948) [14 FR 91]. 

175 See Solicitation of Proxies, Release No. 34-4775 (Dec. 11, 1952) [17 FR 11431] (introducing tabular 

disclosure requirements for pensions and deferred compensation).
56

threshold for named officers and directors to $40,000.176 In 1978, the Commission combined 

separate disclosure requirements (“Remuneration of Directors and Officers,” “Options to 

Purchase Securities,” and “Interest of Management and Others in Certain Transactions”) in the 

various forms into a single caption in Regulation S-K (“Management Remuneration and 

Transactions”) in order to standardize disclosure requirements relating to compensation and 

related party transactions.177

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1978, the Commission 

expanded the scope of executive compensation disclosure to reflect changes in the diversity and 

complexity of management remuneration packages.178 In 1980, the Commission adopted 

amendments to the tabular remuneration disclosure requirements to streamline the disclosure and 

to add a requirement for a separate pension table.179 In 1983, as part of its Proxy Review 

Program, the Commission adopted amendments that were intended to simplify disclosure 

requirements, reduce compliance burdens and allow registrants greater flexibility in selecting a 

presentation format for disclosure of executive compensation.180 These amendments limited 

 176 See New Ventures, Meaningful Disclosure, Release No. 33-5395 (June 1, 1973) [38FR 17202].

177 See Uniform and Integrated Reporting Requirements: Directors and Executive Officers, Management 

Remuneration, Legal Proceedings, Principal Security Holders and Security Holdings of Management, 

Release No. 33-5949 (July 28, 1978) [43 FR 34402].

178 See Uniform and Integrated Reporting Requirements: Management Remuneration, Release No. 33-6003 

(Dec. 4, 1978) [43 FR 58181] (raising the disclosure threshold from $40,000 to $50,000 in light of inflation, 

and requiring tabular disclosure for all forms of compensation, including requirements for disclosure of the 

dollar value of perquisites for named executive officers and by directors and officers as a group, and 

increasing the number of named executive officers and directors from three to five).

179 See Uniform and Integrated Reporting Requirements: Management Remuneration, Release No. 33-6261 

(Nov. 14, 1980) [45 FR 76982] (also clarified the definition of “executive officer” for purposes of 

individuals who may be included as named executive officers, confirming that employees of subsidiaries 

may be deemed executive officers of the registrant for purposes of compensation disclosure). 

180 See Disclosure of Executive Compensation, Release No. 33-6486 (Sept. 23, 1983) [48 FR 44467] (also 

eliminating directors from the group of named individuals for whom compensation disclosure was required, 

raising the disclosure threshold from $50,000 to $60,000 and adopting a threshold for the disclosure of 

“other compensation” of the lesser of $25,000 or 10% of the cash compensation reported in the cash 

compensation table). 
57

tabular disclosure to cash compensation and adopted a primarily narrative approach to 

compensation disclosure.

In 1992, the Commission adopted amendments that expanded disclosure requirements, 

mandating formatted tabular disclosure for all forms of compensation covering three years, 

requiring a compensation committee report and a stock performance graph, and changing the 

named executive officers for whom disclosure was required.

181 In 1993, the Commission 

expanded the scope of the covered executive officers to include any individual who served as 

chief executive officer during the year and any executive officer who departed during the year 

who would have qualified as one of the four highest paid executive officers.182

In 2006, following a reassessment of the executive compensation disclosure requirements, 

the Commission adopted amendments that combined a broader-based tabular disclosure 

presentation with expanded narrative disclosure designed to give investors information about how 

and why a company arrived at specific executive compensation decisions and policies.183 In 2009, 

 181 See Executive Compensation Disclosure, Release No. 33-6962 (Oct. 16, 1992) [57 FR 48126]. The 

amendments changed the group of named executive officers – previously requiring the five most highly 

compensated executive officers whose compensation exceeded $60,000 – to the CEO (regardless of level of 

pay) and the four most highly paid executive officers whose compensation exceeded $100,000. The 

amendments also required the compensation committee to report on the corporate performance factors that it 

relied on in making specific compensation awards for named executive officers and describe the general 

policies of the committee in determining senior executive compensation. The amendments also required the 

disclosure of a line graph showing the cumulative total return to shareholders of the registrant over a period 

of at least the previous five years, together with the comparable return to shareholders for stocks included in 

a recognized industry index or a group of peer companies selected by the registrant. In addition, the 

amendments raised the threshold for reporting perquisites to $50,000 in order to reflect the impact of 

inflation.

182 See Executive Compensation Disclosure; Securityholder Lists and Mailing Requests, Release No. 33-7032 

(Nov. 22, 1993) [58 FR 63010] (also adopting requirements to disclose year-end restricted stock holdings 

regardless of whether the grants were made during the period, requirements to disclosure specific 

assumptions and adjustments underlying grant-date valuations, and amendments to the timing of weighting 

self-constructed indices used in performance graph disclosure). 

183 See Executive Compensation and Related Person Disclosure, Release No. 33-8732A (Aug. 29, 2006) [71 FR 

53158], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8732a.pdf. Later in 2006, the Commission 

adopted further amendments to the summary compensation table and director compensation table with 

respect to stock awards and option awards to provide disclosure of the compensation cost of awards over the 
58

the Commission further amended its rules to require new disclosure regarding compensation and 

other corporate governance matters, which were intended to enable investors to better analyze 

board performance, decision making processes and compensation practices, including the new 

requirement for compensation disclosure and analysis (“CD&A”).

184 

In 2011, as directed by Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission adopted 

requirements relating to tabular and narrative disclosure of golden parachute compensation 

arrangements in the context of proxy statements for mergers and similar transactions.

185 In 2013, 

the Commission issued proposed rules to implement Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act that 

would require pay ratio disclosure.186 The Commission’s staff is currently working on

recommendations for proposals to implement Sections 953(a), 954 and 955 of the Dodd-Frank 

Act regarding pay-for-performance disclosure, stock exchange listing standards relating to 

compensation clawback policies, and employee and director hedging disclosure. 

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. Item 402(l) 

provides scaled disclosure requirements for smaller reporting companies, recognizing that 

executive compensation arrangements for these companies are typically less complex than those 

of larger public companies and, therefore, smaller reporting companies would likely be 

disproportionately burdened by disclosure requirements designed to capture more complicated 

 

requisite service period in accordance with FAS 123R, Share-Based Payment, along with disclosure of the 

grant date fair value of those awards on a grant-by-grant basis in the grants of plan-based awards table. See

Executive Compensation Disclosure, Release No. 33-8765 (Dec. 22, 2006) [71 FR 78338], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8765.pdf. 

184 See Proxy Disclosure Enhancements, Release No. 33-9089A (Dec. 16, 2009) [74 FR 68334], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2009/33-9089.pdf.

185 See Shareholder Approval of Executive Compensation and Golden Parachute Compensation, Release No. 

33-9178 (Jan. 25, 2011) [76 FR 6010], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2011/33-9178.pdf.

186 See Pay Ratio Disclosure, Release No. 33-9452 (Sept. 18, 2013) [78 FR 60559], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml.
59

compensation arrangements.187 Smaller reporting companies are only required to provide 

information in the summary compensation table for the last two fiscal years, rather than three. In 

addition, they are only required to provide compensation information about the principal 

executive officer, the two most highly compensated executive officers and up to two additional 

individuals no longer serving as executive officers at year end (rather than the principal executive 

officer, the principal financial officer, the three most highly paid executive officers and up to two 

additional individuals no longer serving as executive officers). In addition, the scaled 

requirements do not call for disclosure in the summary compensation table of the change in 

present value of pension benefits, do not call for disclosure of a pension benefits table and do not 

require CD&A. In connection with the say-on-pay requirements, smaller reporting companies 

were granted a temporary exemption that allows smaller reporting companies and IPO companies

that qualify as smaller reporting companies to delay compliance until the first annual or other 

meeting of shareholders occurring on or after January 21, 2013.

In addition, under Section 102(c) of the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies are 

permitted to follow the same requirements that are applicable to smaller reporting companies and 

are exempt, under Section 102(a) of the JOBS Act, from the requirements of Section 953(b) of the 

Dodd-Frank Act relating to CEO pay ratio disclosure.

188

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.189

 187 See Executive Compensation and Related Person Disclosure, Release No. 33-8732A (Aug. 29, 2006) [71 FR 

53158, 53192], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8732a.pdf. 

188 See JOBS Act Section 102(a) and (c). As discussed in Section I.B. of this report, Title I of the JOBS Act 

provided emerging growth companies with a variety of scaled disclosure and other accommodations, 

including exemptions from or modifications to certain Regulation S-K disclosure requirements. 

189 One of the recommendations emerging from the 29th Annual SEC Government-Business Forum on Small 

Business Capital Formation in 2010, was that the Commission exempt smaller reporting companies from the 

golden parachute vote provisions and, in particular, the chart in Item 402(t). Forum participants also 

recommended that the Commission not require smaller reporting companies to comply with the 
60

Item 403 – Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

General background. This requirement is derived from the provision in Schedule A of the 

Securities Act calling for the amount of securities held by each member of management and

owners of more than 10% of any class of the issuer’s stock and the amount for which each has

indicated an intention to subscribe.190 In 1933, the Commission’s predecessor included similar 

provisions in Form A-1.191 In 1935, the Commission adopted more streamlined requirements in 

Form A-2, but still called for the name and address of both the record holder and the beneficial 

owner (if known).192 In 1947, the Commission adopted revisions to Form S-1, consolidating the 

requirements relating to security holdings into one item and amending requirements for individual 

reporting of share ownership of management with a requirement for aggregate amounts of equity 

securities owned by directors and officers as a group.193 In 1948, the Commission simplified the 

format of the tabular presentation.194 In 1977, following the passage of the Williams Act in 1968 

(which added Section 13(d) to the Exchange Act)195 and a series of public hearings held in 1974 

by the Commission and Congress on beneficial ownership reporting,196 the Commission adopted 

 

requirements of Section 953 of the Dodd-Frank Act, when adopted. 

190 See paragraph (7) of Schedule A. This provision also calls for security ownership of underwriters. 

191 See Items 28 and 29 of Form A-1. The requirements called for disclosure of the name and address of both 

the holder of record and the beneficial owner. Form A-1 also provided that, if no shareholder owned more 

than 10% of the outstanding stock of the issuer, then disclosure was required for the ten largest shareholders 

of record or beneficial owners. 

192 See Items 33 and 34 of Form A-2. Disclosure for principal shareholders was limited to holders of more than 

10% of any class of voting stock, and the alternative requirement for disclosure of the ten largest 

shareholders was eliminated. The form also required separate disclosure for holdings as of a recent date and 

as of approximately a year prior to the recent date. See also instruction to Item 33. 

193 See Item 30 of Form S-1. Adopted in Miscellaneous Amendments, Release No. 33-3186 (Jan. 8, 1947) [12 

FR 224]. See also Notice of Proposed Rules and Form and Proposed Repeal of Certain Forms, Release No. 

33-3171 (Nov. 18, 1946) [11 FR 13764] (describing the proposed changes adopted in Release No. 33-3186). 

194 See Miscellaneous Amendments, Release No. 33-3323 (Dec. 31, 1948) [14 FR 91]. 

195 15 U.S.C. § 78m (d).

196 See Investigation into the Matter of Beneficial Ownership, Takeovers and Acquisitions of Securities by 
61

beneficial ownership reporting requirements to provide more objective standards for the 

application of Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and, in doing so, integrated the information 

concerning beneficial ownership of securities of publicly owned corporations into registration 

statement disclosure and periodic reporting requirements.197 In 1978, the requirement was added 

to Regulation S-K, combining the requirements from various forms into a new Item 6.198

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1982, as part of the 

expansion and reorganization of Regulation S-K, the requirements of former Item 6 were moved 

to Item 403, without substantive changes. Later in 1982, the Commission adopted amendments to 

the instructions to Item 403 in order to clarify beneficial ownership disclosure requirements.199 In 

1992, the Commission added a requirement for separate disclosure of the security ownership of 

each named executive officer.200 In 2006, the Commission adopted additional requirements for 

 

Foreign and Domestic Persons, Release Nos. 33-5526 (Sept. 9, 1974) and 33-5538 (Nov. 5, 1974); 

Disclosure of Corporate Ownership, S. Doc. 93-62, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974) and Hearings on Corporate 

Disclosure Before the Subcommittees on Inter-Governmental Relations and on Budgeting, Management and 

Expenditures of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1974). See also

Disclosure of Corporate Ownership, Release No. 33-5609 (Aug. 25, 1975) [40 FR 42212] (proposing release 

notes that, since the adoption of Sections 13(d) and 14(d) of the Exchange Act in 1968 there had been 

questions raised about the standards to be applied for determination of beneficial ownership for purposes of 

the reporting requirements of Sections 13(d) and 14(d), and “the need for improved disclosure in this area 

has become more apparent recently because of public interest in the identity and nationality of any person 

who has the power to influence or effect changes in the control of companies”). 

197 See Adoption of Beneficial Ownership Disclosure Requirements, Release No. 33-5808 (Feb. 24, 1977) [42 

FR 12342].

198 See Uniform Integrated Reporting Requirements: Directors and Officers, Management Remuneration, Legal 

Proceedings, Principal Security Holders and Security Holdings of Management, Release No. 33-5949 (July 

28, 1978) [43 FR 34402]. At this time, the Commission reduced the number of years (from ten years to five 

years) for which involvement of legal proceedings must be reported.

199 See Disclosure of Certain Relationships and Transactions Involving Management, Release No. 33-6441 

(Dec. 2, 1982) [47 FR 55661] (amending Instruction 5 to clarify that shares should only be counted once 

when computing totals under paragraph (b) and amending Instruction 1 to permit companies to omit the 

disclosure of ownership percentages that amount to less than 1% of the class of securities). 

200 See Executive Compensation Disclosure, Release No. 33-6992 (Oct. 16, 1992) [57 FR 48126]. Before this 

requirement, disclosure was only required for directors and officers as a group. In connection with 

amendments to executive compensation disclosure, the Commission proposed a new table entitled “Total 

Common Equity Based Holdings,” designed to show the nature and scope of each named executive’s equity 

stake in the registrant. At the time, the Commission acknowledged that “Many corporate and shareholder 
62

disclosure of shares pledged as collateral by named executive officers, directors and director 

nominees,201 as well as the disclosure of directors’ qualifying shares.

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Item 404 – Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

General background. Schedule A contained a requirement for the disclosure of “the full 

particulars of the nature and extent of the interest, if any,” of any director, principal executive 

officer and principal shareholders “in any property acquired, not in the ordinary course of 

business of the issuer, within two years preceding the filing of the registration statement.202 That 

requirement was included in Form A-1 adopted in 1933, but included underwriters in the list of 

related parties covered by the rule. In 1935, the Commission included the requirement in Form 

A-2 and added a requirement for disclosure of the cost of the property to the related party. In 

1948, the Commission revised Form S-1 to expand the requirement from disclosure about 

interests in property recently acquired by the registrant to disclosure about interests in any 

material transactions, whether or not they involve the acquisition of property.203 In 1978, the 

 

commenters alike have stated that the most effective means of assessing the alignment of stockholder and 

management interests is by examining the nature and the extent of management equity ownership in the 

company.” See Executive Compensation Disclosure, Release No. 33-6940 (June 23, 1992) [57 FR 29582]. 

As noted in the adopting release, this proposed requirement was not adopted in Item 402, and a requirement 

for security ownership by the named executive officers was added to Item 403(b), as suggested by a number 

of commenters in order to minimize redundant disclosure.

201 See Executive Compensation and Related Person Disclosure, Release No. 33-8732A (Aug. 29, 2006) [71 FR 

53158], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8732a.pdf, at 53192. As noted in the adopting 

release, the Commission believed that, to the extent that shares beneficially owned by named executive 

officers and directors are used as collateral, the shares may be subject to material risks or contingencies that 

do not apply to the other shares beneficially owned by these individuals, which could have the potential to 

influence management’s performance and decision-making. 

202 See paragraph (22) of Schedule A.

203 See Item 32 of Form S-1. Adopted in Miscellaneous Amendments, Release No. 33-3323 (Dec. 31, 1948) 

[14 FR 91]. 
63

Commission added requirements relating to executive officer transactions and relationships to the 

executive compensation provisions of Regulation S-K.204 Item 404 was adopted in 1982 in 

connection with the Commission’s comprehensive reexamination of the disclosure requirements 

and procedural provisions relating to the solicitation of proxies.205 This item was based primarily 

on two disclosure requirements relating to transactions and relationships involving the registrant 

and management or persons connected with management: (1) a requirement in Item 402 of 

Regulation S-K that was based on the requirements in Schedule A, Forms A-2 and S-1 that called 

for information regarding transactions involving management and (2) a requirement in Schedule 

14A that was adopted in 1978 to elicit disclosure regarding relationships between directors or 

nominees for director and significant customers, suppliers or creditors of the registrant.206

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. Item 404 was amended in 2006, 

in connection with amendments to executive compensation disclosure.207 The requirements were 

reorganized in an effort to make the requirements clearer and easier to follow, while removing 

some of the instructions that served to delineate which transactions were excludable or reportable 

based on bright line tests rather than general materiality analysis.208 The amendments retained the 

 204 See Uniform and Integrated Reporting Requirements: Directors and Officers, Management Remuneration, 

Legal Proceedings, Principal Security Holders and Security Holdings of Management, Release No. 33-5949 

(July 28, 1978) [43 FR 34402]. 

205 See Disclosure of Certain Relationships and Transactions Involving Management, Release No. 33-6441 

(Dec. 2, 1982) [47 FR 556611]. 

206 See Release No. 34-3347 (Dec. 18, 1942) [7 FR 10653] and Release No. 34-15385 (Dec. 6, 1978) [43 FR 

58552].

207 See Executive Compensation and Related Person Disclosure, Release No. 33-8732A (Aug. 29, 2006) [71 FR 

53158], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8732a.pdf.

208 The amendments also removed longstanding instructions as to the materiality standards applicable to the 

Item (former Instructions 1 and 9 to Item 404(a)), on the basis that they were repetitive of the general 

materiality standards applicable to all disclosure. 
64

disclosure threshold, but raised it from $60,000 (the level established in 1983) to $120,000.209 

Certain requirements were moved to a new Item 407 in order to consolidate disclosure 

requirements relating to corporate governance matters and other provisions were streamlined to 

eliminate duplicative requirements. In addition, a new provision was added to require a 

description of the registrant’s policies and procedures for the review, approval or ratification of 

transactions with related persons that are reportable under this item. Also at that time, the 

requirements for disclosure regarding promoters was changed to require disclosure if the 

registrant had a promoter at any time during the last five fiscal years, rather than if the registrant 

was organized within the last five fiscal years. 

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. Smaller reporting 

companies are permitted to follow the scaled requirements set forth in paragraph (d) of this item. 

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. One commenter

recommended revising or eliminating the bright-line quantitative disclosure threshold of $120,000 

for related party transactions, in order to provide a better scaling based on the size of the issuer 

and the nature of the transaction.210

Item 405 – Compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act 

General background. In response to developments in the trading of derivatives, the 

prevalence of complex and diverse employee benefit plans and an increase in Section 16 filing 

delinquencies, the Commission undertook a comprehensive review of the rules and forms under 

 209 At the time, commenters expressed diverse views as to what the appropriate threshold should be. Some 

supported the increase to $120,000, while others recommended retaining the $60,000 threshold, using a 

minimal dollar threshold, not including any de minimis dollar threshold or increasing the threshold further 

using a sliding scale. The Commission concluded that a fixed dollar threshold would provide the most 

certainty as to the size of transactions that must be tracked for disclosure purposes and that an increase in the 

amount based on inflation was appropriate. 

210 See Letter from Ernst & Young.
65

Section 16 of the Exchange Act in 1987.

211 As a result of that review, in 1991 the Commission 

adopted a requirement that a registrant identify directors, officers and certain beneficial owners of 

its securities who failed to file or to timely file required reports under Section 16(a) and the 

number of delinquent filings.212 This requirement does not apply to filings made under the 

Securities Act.

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In order to improve the 

visibility of the disclosure, a provision was added in 1996 to require the disclosure to be presented 

under a separate caption.213 Also at that time, the item was amended to clarify the nature of a 

registrant’s obligation to review insiders’ filings in order to determine whether any delinquent 

reports require disclosure. In 2005, following amendments pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 

that required electronic filing of Section 16 reports with the Commission, the item was further 

 211 In general, Section 16 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78p] was designed to provide the public with 

information about securities transaction and holdings of an issuer’s directors, officers and significant 

stockholders and to deter these “insiders” from profiting from short-term trading in issuer securities while in 

possession of material, non-public information. See Ownership Reports and Trading by Officers, Directors 

and Principal Security Holders, Release No. 34-37260 (May 31, 1996) [61 FR 30376], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/37260a.txt and http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/37260b.txt. Section 16 applies 

to every person who is the beneficial owner of more than 10% of any class of equity security registered 

under Section 12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78l] and each officer and director, generally referred to as 

reporting persons. Upon becoming a reporting person, or upon the Section 12 registration of a class of 

equity security, Section 16(a) requires a reporting person to file an initial report with the Commission 

disclosing his or her beneficial ownership of all equity securities of the issuer. To keep this information 

current, Section 16(a) also requires reporting persons to report changes in such ownership or the purchase or 

sale of a security-based swap agreement involving those equity securities. 

For purposes of Section 16(a) reporting obligations and Section 16(b) short-swing profit recovery, Rule 16a1(a)(2) uses a different definition of “beneficial owner” than is used under Section 13(d) and the 

Commission’s rules thereunder. Rule 16a-1(a)(2) defines beneficial owner based on whether the person has 

or shares a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the securities. 

212 See Ownership Reports and Trading by Officers, Directors and Principal Security Holders, Release No. 34-

28869 (Feb. 8, 1991) [56 FR 7242]. 

213 See Ownership Reports and Trading by Officers, Directors and Principal Security Holders, Release No. 34-

37260 (May 31, 1996) [61 FR 30376], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/37260a.txt and 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/37260b.txt.
66

revised to eliminate a provision for the presumption of timely filing for a Section 16 report 

received by the issuer within three days of the required filing date.214 

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. Item 405 only 

applies to registrants that have a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the 

Exchange Act.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Item 406 – Code of Ethics

General background. This requirement for disclosure about the registrant’s code of ethics 

and waivers granted under that code was adopted as mandated by Section 406 of the SarbanesOxley Act.

215 This requirement permits a registrant to satisfy the requirement to file a copy of the 

code of ethics with the Commission by posting it on its website or undertaking in its annual report 

to provide a copy upon request. This requirement does not apply to filings made under the 

Securities Act.

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. There have been no substantive 

amendments since the requirement was added to Regulation S-K.

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Item 407 – Corporate Governance

General background. This item was adopted in 2006 in connection with amendments to 

executive compensation disclosure, in order to consolidate various corporate governance 

 214 See Ownership Reports and Trading by Officers, Directors and Principal Security Holders, Release No. 33-

8600 (Aug. 3, 2005) [70 FR 46080], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8600.pdf. 

215 See Disclosure Required by Sections 406 and 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Release No. 33-8177 

(Jan. 23, 2003) [68 FR 15353], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8177.htm.
67

requirements into a single item.216 Not all of the requirements of this item apply to filings under 

the Securities Act; for example, only disclosure under Item 407(a) (Director independence) is 

required by Form S-1.

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 2009, an additional provision 

was adopted to require disclosure of whether (and if so, how) the registrant’s nominating 

committee considers diversity in identifying nominees for director.217 This amendment also 

requires (1) disclosure of the implementation and effectiveness of any policy the registrant has 

relating to the consideration of diversity in the identification of nominees, (2) a description of the 

board’s leadership structure and the board’s role in the oversight of risk and (3) expanded 

disclosure about the role of compensation consultants in determining the amount or form of 

executive and director compensation. In 2012, as mandated by Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank 

Act, the Commission adopted expanded disclosure requirements relating to compensation 

consultant conflicts of interest.218

 216 See Executive Compensation and Related Person Disclosure, Release No. 33-8732A (Aug. 29, 2006) [71 FR 

53158], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8732a.pdf (combining requirements of former 

Items 306, 401(h), (i) and (j), 404(b) of Regulation S-K and Item 7 of Exchange Act Schedule 14A). 

Requirements for disclosure of the existence and composition of the audit committee were added to the 

Commission’s proxy rules in 1974. See Registrants and Independent Accountants: Amended Rules for 

Increased Disclosure of Relationships, Release No. 33-5550 (Dec. 20, 1974) [40 FR 1010]. In 1999, Item 

306 was added to Regulation S-K based on the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee on 

Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees, which called for the inclusion in the proxy 

statement of an audit committee report. See Audit Committee Disclosure, Release No. 34-42266 (Dec. 22, 

1999), available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-42266.htm. In 2006, as part of the consolidation of 

corporate governance disclosure requirements, the requirement for disclosure of an Audit Committee Report 

under Item 306 was moved to Item 407. Item 407 reordered some of the requirements of former Item 306 

but did not make substantive changes to the requirements. See id., at note 471. 

The requirements of former Item 404(b) for disclosure about director relationships that could affect 

independence were replaced in 2006 with requirements that were consistent with changes to listing 

standards. See Executive Compensation and Related Person Disclosure, Release No. 33-8732A (Aug. 29, 

2006) [71 FR 53158], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8732a.pdf. 

217 See Proxy Disclosure Enhancements, Release No. 33-9089 (Dec. 16, 2009) [74 FR 68334], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2009/33-9089.pdf. 

218 See Listing Standards for Compensation Committees, Release No. 33-9330 (June 20, 2012) [77 FR 38421], 
68

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. Pursuant to 

paragraph (g), a smaller reporting company is not required to provide disclosure of whether it has 

an audit committee financial expert until its second annual report following the effective date of 

its initial registration statement under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. Smaller reporting 

companies are exempt from the requirement to provide disclosure regarding compensation 

committee interlocks and insider participation or a compensation committee report. 

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Item 702 – Indemnification of Directors and Officers

General background. The original disclosure requirements relating to indemnification of 

directors and officers were included in Form S-1 in 1947, in order to codify disclosure practice

followed at the time.219 In 1968, a similar requirement was added to the Guides for Preparation 

and Filing of Registration Statements.220 In 1982, this requirement for disclosure about 

indemnification arrangements for officers and directors was adopted in its current form as part of 

the expansion and reorganization of Regulation S-K.221 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. There have been no substantive 

amendments since the requirement was added to Regulation S-K.

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

 

available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/33-9330.pdf.

219 See Miscellaneous Amendments, Release No. 33-3186 (Jan. 8, 1947) [12 FR 224]. See also Notice of 

Proposed Rules and Form and Proposed Repeal of Certain Forms, Release No. 33-3171 (Nov. 18, 1946) [11 

FR 13764] (describing the proposed changes adopted in Release No. 33-3186). 

220 See Guides for Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements, Release No. 33-4936 (Dec. 9, 1968) [33 

FR 18617]. 

221 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380].
69

D. Requirements Relating to the Registrant’s Securities

Item 201 – Market Price of and Dividends on the Registrant’s Common Equity and Related 

Stockholder Matters

General background. In 1933, the Commission’s predecessor included as part of Form A1 a requirement for disclosure of historical dividend rates and method of payment for three years 

in connection with each outstanding class of capital stock.222 In 1964, the Commission published 

Guide 10 calling for a statement of dividend policy,

223 later revised as Guide 26 in 1968,224 and 

published Guide 13 calling for information about market quotations or disclosure of the absence 

of an established trading market.225 In 1980, a requirement for disclosure of market price and 

dividends on common equity was added to Regulation S-K,

226 aggregating the requirements of 

paragraph (8) of Rule 14a-3 (which required market price information to be included in the annual 

report to security holders), Guide 26, Guide 13, and Item 9 of the previous Form 10-K (which 

required information as to the approximate number of equity security holders). 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1982, in connection with the 

reorganization and expansion of Regulation S-K, the requirement was re-designated as Item 

201,227 and, later that year, instructions were added relating to disclosure by foreign private issuers 

 222 See Item 16 of Form A-1. In contrast, Form A-2, adopted in 1935, only required a statement about the 

dividend rights of capital stock and any limitations in indentures or other agreements on the payment of 

dividends. See Item 17 of Form A-2. 

223 See Guides for Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements, Release No. 33-4666 (Jan. 20, 1964) [29 

FR 2490].

224 See Guides for Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements, Release No. 33-4936 (Dec. 9, 1968) [33 

FR 18617].

225 See Guides for Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements, Release No. 33-4666 (Jan. 20, 1964) [29 

FR 2490].

226 See Amendments to Annual Report Form, Related Forms, Rules, Regulations and Guides; Integration of 

Securities Acts Disclosure Systems, Release No. 33-6231 (Sept. 2, 1980) [45 FR 63630]. 

227 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure System, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380]. 
70

regarding securities issued in bearer form or as American Depositary Receipts.228 In 2001, the 

Commission adopted additional requirements for tabular disclosure regarding securities 

authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans, including number of securities, 

weighted average exercise price, securities available for future issuance and a description of any 

equity compensation plan that was adopted without the approval of security holders.229 In 2006, 

in connection with revisions to executive compensation disclosure requirements, the stock 

performance graph was moved from Item 402 to new paragraph (e) of Item 201.230

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. Smaller reporting 

companies are not required to provide the stock performance graph.

231 In addition, the stock 

 228 See Adoption of Foreign Issuer Integrated Disclosure System, Release No. 33-6437 (Dec.1, 1982) [47 FR 

54768].

229 See Disclosure of Equity Compensation Plan Information, Release No. 33-8048 (Dec. 21, 2001) [67 FR 

232], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8048.htm. The disclosure of the weighted average 

exercise price of options, warrants and rights was added to the final rule in response to recommendations 

from commenters who asserted that investors need that information to assess the dilutive effect of a 

registrant’s equity compensation program. 

Later, in 2003, the SEC approved rules for the NASD and Nasdaq that required shareholder approved of 

equity compensation plans for companies listed on those exchanges. See Order Approving NYSE and 

Nasdaq Proposed Rule Changes and Nasdaq Amendment No. 1 and Notice of Filing and Order Granting 

Accelerated Approval to NYSE Amendments No. 1 and 2 and Nasdaq Amendments No. 2 and 3 Thereto 

Relating to Equity Compensation Plans, Release No. 34-48108 (June 30, 2003) [68 FR 39995], available at 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/34-48108.htm.

230 See Executive Compensation and Related Person Disclosure, Release No. 33-8732A (Aug. 29, 2006) [71 FR 

53158], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2006/33-8732a.pdf. 

The requirement for a stock performance graph was originally adopted in 1992 in connection with an 

expansion of executive compensation disclosure requirements. See note 181, supra. The graph was 

intended to complement the newly required discussion in the compensation committee report of the 

relationship between executive compensation and corporate performance. See Executive Compensation 

Disclosure, Release No. 33-6940 (June 23, 1992) [57 FR 29582] (briefly noting, in support of the proposed 

amendments, academic research on the correlation between executive compensation and corporate 

performance). 

In connection with the 2006 rulemaking, the performance graph was proposed to be eliminated given the 

widespread availability of stock price information and because the disclosure in the Compensation 

Discussion and Analysis was intended to elicit a broader discussion than the relationship of compensation to 

performance as reflected by stock price alone. The final rule, however, retained the performance graph due 

to recommendations by commenters who asserted that the graph provides an easily accessible visual 

comparison of a company’s performance relative to its peers and the market. 

231 See Instruction 6 to Item 201(e). 
71

performance graph is only required in an annual report to security holders that precedes or 

accompanies a proxy or information statement relating to the election of directors.232

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. One commenter

recommended the elimination of historical stock price disclosure requirements because “data 

manipulation tools and daily stock information on most finance websites have made the historical 

stock price disclosures mandated by Item 201 of Regulation S-K largely obsolete.”233 

Two commenters recommended the elimination of requirements under Item 201(d) 

relating to the securities issued under compensation plans approved by shareholders and those not 

approved by shareholders, on the basis that it provides limited information not otherwise available 

to investors and that information is of marginal significance.234 In contrast, another commenter

strongly opposed that recommendation, noting that such information is meaningful for 

institutional investors.235

Item 202 – Description of Registrant’s Securities 

General background. This requirement stems from a requirement in Schedule A calling 

for disclosure of the capitalization of the issuer including a description of the classes of capital 

stock and funded debt and any securities covered by options.236 In 1933, the Commission’s 

predecessor included in Form A-1 tabular requirements similar to Schedule A requirements.237 In 

1935, the Commission included in Form A-2 requirements calling for detailed tabular and 

 232 See Instruction 7 to Item 201(e).

233 See Letter from Ernst & Young.

234 See Silicon Valley Letter and Letter from Mike Liles. 

235 See Letter from Council of Institutional Investors.

236 See paragraphs (9) through (12) of Schedule A.

237 See Form A-1 Items 19 through 25. 
72

narrative disclosure about outstanding securities and securities to be issued.

238 In 1947, the 

Commission adopted amendments to Form S-1 that eliminated the description of securities that 

are not being registered, except to the extent material to an evaluation of the securities being 

registered.239 In 1955, the Commission adopted amendments to Form S-1 that simplified the 

tabular requirements regarding capitalization as part of Form S-1 and streamlined the 

requirements for the description of capital stock, long-term debt or other securities being 

registered.240 In 1982, Item 202 was added to Regulation S-K, combining requirements from 

registration statement forms into a single item.241

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1982, in connection with the 

adoption of the integrated disclosure system for foreign private issuers, the Commission adopted 

amendments that added requirements for disclosure regarding American Depositary Receipts and 

instructions regarding disclosure about fees and charges in connection with American Depositary 

Receipts.242 

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

 238 See Form A-2 Items 9 through 20. Tabular disclosure included details about amounts authorized, amounts 

outstanding, related balance sheet information, amounts held in treasury, held by subsidiaries and parent 

companies, amounts reserved for officers and employees and amounts reserved for options and warrants. 

239 See Miscellaneous Amendments, Release No. 33-3186 (Jan. 8, 1947) [12 FR 224]. See also Notice of 

Proposed Rules and Form and Proposed Repeal of Certain Forms, Release No. 33-3171 (Nov. 18, 1946) [11 

FR 13764] (describing the proposed changes adopted in Release No. 33-3186). 

240 See Application for Registration of Securities, Release No. 33-3584 (Oct. 21, 1955) [20 FR 8284]. See also

Forms for Registration Statements; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Release No. 33-3540 (April 26, 1955) 

[20 FR 2965]. 

241 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380]. The 

proposing release noted that the market and dividend information and the description of securities to be 

registered were separated into two items, 201 and 202, in order to exclude from Item 201 any requirements 

that are not applicable to a Form 10-K or annual report to security holders. See Proposed Revision of 

Regulation S-K and Proposed Rescission of Guides for the Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements 

and Reports, Release No. 33-6332 (Aug. 5, 1981) [46 FR 41925]. 

242 See Adoption of Foreign Issuer Integrated Disclosure System, Release No. 33-6437 (Dec. 1, 1982) [47 FR 

54764]. 
73

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Item 701 – Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities; Use of Proceeds from Registered Securities

General background. This requirement partially stems from paragraph 19 of Schedule A 

of the Securities Act. A requirement for the disclosure of recent sales of securities by a registrant 

was included in the first registration statement forms adopted by the Commission.243 Item 701 

was adopted in 1982 in order to address abusive practices in connection with the sale of equity 

securities, and requires disclosure of information about recent sales of unregistered securities.244 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1996, the Commission added 

a requirement to disclose the terms of conversion or exercise for convertible or exchangeable 

securities, warrants or options when the disclosure is provided in a periodic or current report.245 

In 1997, based on the recommendations of the Task Force on Disclosure Simplification, the 

Commission rescinded Form SR (which required the reporting of the use of proceeds following 

an IPO) and moved the requirements to paragraph (f) of Item 701.246

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. Two commenters

recommended the elimination of Item 701 information, on the basis that it is not meaningful to 

investors and can be covered by MD&A requirements for liquidity and capital resources 

disclosure.247 These commenters further recommended the elimination of the requirements of 

 243 See, e.g., Form A-2, Item 38. 

244 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380].

245 See Periodic Reporting of Unregistered Equity Sales, Release No. 34-37801 (Oct. 10, 1996) [61 FR 54506], 

available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-37801.txt.

246 See Phase Two Recommendations of Task Force on Disclosure Simplification, Release No. 33-7431 (July 

18, 1997) [62 FR 39755], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-38850.txt; 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/3438850a.txt.

247 See Silicon Valley Letter and Letter from Mike Liles.
74

Item 701(f) (and Securities Act Rule 463) because the continuing requirement to provide 

information in periodic reports regarding the application of proceeds does “not provide investors 

with useful information inasmuch as cash is fungible and it is impossible for a company to 

determine whether a dollar of revenue was spent versus a dollar from the net proceeds of a 

securities offering” and the discussion of cash flow in MD&A should discuss material uses of 

cash.248

Item 703 – Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

General background. This requirement was adopted in 2003 in order to enhance 

transparency of security repurchases by the issuer and its affiliates.249 As noted in the adopting 

release, most commenters agreed that this disclosure would provide investors with useful 

information about the level, frequency and purpose of these repurchase activities.250 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. There have been no substantive 

amendments since the requirement was added to Regulation S-K.

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

E. Requirements Relating to Risk and Risk Management

Item 503 (c) – Risk Factors

 248 See id. 

249 See Purchases of Certain Equity Securities by the Issuer and Others, Release No. 33-8335 (Nov. 10, 2003) 

[68 FR 64952], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8335.htm.

250 See id.
75

General background. The requirement for disclosure of a summary of risk factors relating 

to an offering was first set forth in 1968 in Guide 6.251 Item 503(c) was added to Regulation S-K 

in 1982 as part of the adoption of the integrated disclosure system, combining the provisions of 

Guide 6 with the provisions of Guide 5 calling for disclosure of risks arising out of a lack of a 

trading market.

252 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1995, this provision was 

amended to add a requirement that the risk factors section of a prospectus be captioned with the 

heading “Risk Factors” and that the section be presented following the summary.253 In 1998, in 

connection with the plain English disclosure amendments, this provision was revised to include 

guidance on presenting risk factors.254 In 2005, the Commission added risk factor disclosure 

requirements to annual reports and quarterly reports.

255

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Item 103 – Legal Proceedings

General background. In 1933, the Commission’s predecessor adopted a requirement, as 

part of Form A-1, calling for a statement of all litigation pending that may materially affect the 

value of the security to be offered, describing the origin, nature and name of parties to the 

 251 See Guide 6, in Guides for the Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements, Release No. 33-4936 (Dec. 

9, 1968) [33 FR 18618].

252 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure System, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380].

253 See Prospectus Delivery; Securities Transactions Settlements, Release No. 33-7168 (May 11, 1995) [60 FR 

26604], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/prosdel.txt. 

254 See Plain English Disclosure, Release No. 33-7497 (Jan. 28, 1998) [63 FR 6370], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7497.txt.

255 See Securities Offering Reform, Release No. 33-8591 (July 19, 2005) [70 FR 44722], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8591.pdf. 
76

litigation.256 In 1935, the Commission included in Form A-2 a requirement for a brief description 

of material, pending legal proceedings and proceedings by governmental authorities, where such 

proceedings depart from the ordinary routine litigation incident to the kind of business conducted 

by the registrant or its subsidiaries.

257 The requirement was later expanded in Form S-1 to include 

(1) a requirement for identification of the court or agency, the date instituted and the names of the 

principal parties, (2) a requirement that material bankruptcy proceedings involving the registrant 

or its significant subsidiaries be described and any material proceeding involving a director, 

officer, affiliate or principal security holder and (3) an exemption for disclosure of proceedings 

involving claims of less than 15% of the registrant’s consolidated current assets.258 In connection 

with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the legal proceedings disclosure 

requirements in Form S-1 and Form 10-K were expanded to require additional disclosure about 

environmental matters. 259 At the same time, the item was amended to require disclosure of the 

factual basis of proceedings and the nature of relief sought and the disclosure threshold was 

reduced from 15% to 10%. The requirement was moved from the forms to Regulation S-K in 

1978 as Item 5.260 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. There have been no substantive 

amendments since the requirement was added to Regulation S-K.

 256 See Item 17 of Form A-1. 

257 See Item 40 of Form A-2, adopted in Release No. 33-276 (Jan. 14, 1935).

258 See Application for Registration of Securities, Release No. 33-3584 (Oct. 21, 1955) [20 FR 8284]. See also

Forms for Registration Statements; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Release No. 33-3540 (April 26, 1955) 

[20 FR 2965].

259 See Disclosure with Respect to Compliance with Environmental Requirements and Other Matters, Release 

No. 33-5386 (April 10, 1973) [38 FR 1200]. 

260 See Integrated Reporting Requirements: Directors and Officers, Management Remuneration, Legal 

Proceedings, Principal Security Holders and Security Holdings of Management, Release No. 33-5949 (July 

28, 1978) [43 FR 34402]. 
77

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. One commenter

recommended that the current disclosure threshold, 10% of consolidated current assets, should be 

reconsidered, because for some companies, the amount of current assets, as opposed to total 

company value or liquidity, may not appropriately represent materiality.261

Item 305 – Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

General background. Noting that the use of derivative financial instruments, other 

financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments had increased significantly, and that 

some companies had suffered significant, and sometimes unexpected, losses, the staff undertook a 

review of annual reports in 1994 to assess the quality of disclosure about market risk sensitive 

instruments, and, following this review, the Commission adopted Item 305 in 1997.

262 In general, 

this requirement was designed to provide additional information about market risk sensitive 

instruments, which investors can use to better understand and evaluate the market risk exposures 

of a registrant.263 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. There have been no substantive 

amendments since the requirement was added to Regulation S-K.

 261 See Letter from Ernst & Young. In recommending a reassessment of quantitative disclosure thresholds, this 

commenter also suggested that disclosure rules should be coordinated with accounting standards so that the 

concept of materiality is more consistently applied across disclosures and financial statements. For example, 

FASB ASC Subtopic 450-20 Loss Contingencies sets forth requirements for the accrual and disclosure of 

loss contingencies, including those arising in connection with legal proceedings. The requirements of ASC 

Subtopic 450-20 and Item 103 are not identical, and, as noted by this commenter, the applicable standards of 

materiality differ. 

262 See Disclosure of Accounting Policies for Derivative Financial Instruments and Derivative Commodity 

Instruments and Disclosure of Quantitative and Qualitative Information about Market Risk Inherent in 

Derivative Financial Instruments, Other Financial Instruments and Derivative Commodity Instruments, 

Release No. 33-7386 (Jan. 31, 1997) [62 FR 6044], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7386.txt.

263 Id. 
78

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. Although smaller 

reporting companies are exempt from this disclosure requirement,

264 the adopting release notes 

that “if market risk represents a material known risk or uncertainty, [smaller reporting 

companies], like other registrants, will continue to be required to discuss those risks and 

uncertainties to the extent required by Management’s Discussion and Analysis.”265

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. Two commenters suggest 

that emerging growth companies should be exempt from Item 305 disclosure. These commenters 

note that companies that have not yet reached the revenue or market capitalization thresholds that 

would disqualify them from emerging growth company status are unlikely to face meaningful 

market risks. These commenters assert that prior to their IPOs, very few emerging growth 

companies have such significant cash balances or outstanding borrowings that they are subject to 

interest rate risk that is material to the company and they generally do not engage in hedging 

activities or commodity trading. Although growing companies increasingly conduct business 

globally and therefore face traditional foreign exchange rate risk, these companies tend to not 

trade in foreign currencies and tend to complete offshore sales in U.S. dollars, making exchange 

rate risk to not typically be a meaningful risk to emerging growth companies.

266 

 264 See Item 305(e). 

265 Disclosure of Accounting Policies for Derivative Financial Instruments and Derivative Commodity 

Instruments and Disclosure of Quantitative and Qualitative Information about Market Risk Inherent in 

Derivative Financial Instruments, Other Financial Instruments and Derivative Commodity Instruments, 

Release No. 33-7386 (Jan. 31, 1997) [62 FR 6044], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7386.txt , 

at 10.

266 See Silicon Valley Letter and Letter from Mike Liles.
79

Another commenter observed that the FASB has issued for comment an Exposure Draft 

on liquidity and interest rate disclosures that could create redundancies with some of the 

disclosures currently required in Items 305 and 303.

267

F. Specialized Disclosure Requirements268

Items 1201 to 1208 – Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Oil and Gas Producing Activities

General background. Adopted in 2008, these rules replace former Industry Guide 2 with 

updated and codified in Regulation S-K requirements for oil and gas disclosure, particularly 

requirements relating to oil and gas reserves.

269 The Commission initially implemented oil and 

gas disclosure requirements in 1978 and 1982, pursuant to a directive in the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975.270 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. There have been no substantive 

amendments since the requirement was added to Regulation S-K.

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

 267 See Letter from Ernst & Young (referring to Proposed Accounting Standards Update on FASB’s website, 

Financial Instruments (Topic 825): Disclosures about Liquidity Risk and Interest Rate Risk).

268 In August 2012, as mandated by Sections 1502 and 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission adopted 

new rules and forms for the disclosure of certain payments by resource extraction issuers and for 

information about the use of conflict minerals. See Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers, 

Release No. 34-67717 (Aug. 22, 2012) [77 FR 56365], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/34-

67717.pdf, and Conflict Minerals, Release No. 34-67716 (Aug. 22, 2012) [77 FR 56273], available at.

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/34-67716.pdf. These disclosure requirements are not part of Regulation 

S-K. The resource extraction issuer disclosure rules have been vacated and remanded by the District Court 

for the District of Columbia (see American Petroleum Institute v. SEC, Civ. A. No. 12-1688, 2013 WL 

3307114, (D.D.C. Jul. 2, 2013) and the conflict minerals rule remains the subject of ongoing litigation (see

National Ass’n of Mfrs. v. SEC, Civ. A. No. 12-cv-635, 2013 WL 3803918 (D.D.C. Jul. 23, 2013).

269 See Modernization of Oil and Gas Reporting, Release No. 33-8995 (Dec. 31, 2008) [74 FR 2157], available

at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/33-8995.pdf.

270 The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 directed the Commission to “take such steps as may be 

necessary to assure the development and observance of accounting practices to be followed in the 

preparation of accounts by persons engaged, in whole or in part, in the production of crude oil or natural gas 

in the United States.” See 42 U.S.C. 6201-6422. 
80

Item 104 – Mine Safety

General background. The requirement for disclosure about mine safety was adopted as 

mandated by Section 1503 of the Dodd-Frank Act.271 Item 104 became effective January 27, 

2012. 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. There have been no substantive 

amendments since the requirement was added to Regulation S-K.

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None. Note, 

however, that Item 104 only applies to entities that are required to file reports under Section 13(a) 

or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and operate, or have a subsidiary that operates, a coal or other mine. 

Accordingly, it does not apply to registrants conducting an IPO or, more generally, to registrants 

that do not operate, or have a subsidiary that operates, a mine. 

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Items 901 to 915 – Roll-up Transactions

General background. Adopted in 1991 to respond to concerns raised in Congressional 

hearings about roll-up transactions,272 these requirements were intended to enhance the quality of 

information provided to investors in connection with transactions involving roll-ups of limited 

partnerships and similar entities.273 

 271 See Mine Safety Disclosure, Release No. 33-9286 (Dec. 21, 2011) [76 FR 81762], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2011/33-9286.pdf.

272 A roll-up transaction is a combination or reorganization of one or more public or private limited partnerships 

or other similar finite-life entities in which the investors in those finite-life entities receive new equity 

interests in the successor entity. 

273 See Roll-Up Transactions, Release No. 33-6922 (Oct. 30, 1991) [56 FR 57237]. 
81

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. Other than changes adopted in 

1994 in connection with amendments to Section 14 of the Exchange Act274 under the Limited 

Partnership Rollup Reform Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-202, Title III, 107 Stat 2344 (1993)),275 these 

items have not been amended. 

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Items 801 and 802 – Industry Guides 

General background. From time to time, the Commission has published guides for the 

preparation and filing of registration statements and periodic reports, representing the policies and 

disclosure standards followed by the Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance.276 In 

connection with the integrated disclosure system, the guides relating to specific industries were 

redesignated as industry guides and were listed (but not codified) in Items 801 and 802 of 

Regulation S-K, in order to remind issuers of industry-specific guidance. 277 Since 1982, some of 

the Industry Guides have been rescinded or modernized.278 The following Industry Guides 

 274 15 U.S.C. 78n(h). 

275 See Limited Partnership Roll-Up Transactions, Release No. 33-7113 (Dec. 1, 1994) [59 FR 63676]. 

276 See Rescission of Guides and Redesignation of Industry Guides, Release No 33-6384 (March 3, 1982) [47 

FR 11476] (describing history of Industry Guides). 

277 See note 16, supra.

278 For example, Industry Guide 1 was eliminated in 1996. See Phase One Recommendations of Task Force on 

Disclosure Simplification, Release No. 33-7300 (May 31, 1996) [61 FR 30397], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7300.txt. Industry Guide 1 was originally published in 1968 as Guide 30 

(Disclosure of Principal Sources of Electric and Gas Revenues). 

Industry Guide 2 was eliminated in 2008, upon the adoption of Subpart 1200 of Regulation S-K. See

Modernization of Oil and Gas Reporting, Release No. 33-8995 (Dec. 31, 2008) [74 FR 2157], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/33-8995.pdf. In 1982, the disclosure requirements for oil and gas 

operations contained in Item 2(b) of Regulation S-K were recast as Industry Guide 2, in order to place all 

industry specific information requirements into the Industry Guides. 
82

generally have not been updated substantively since they were redesignated as part of Items 801 

and 802 in 1982:

• Securities Act and Exchange Act Industry Guide 3 – Statistical Disclosure by Bank 

Holding Companies279

• Securities Act Industry Guide 4 – Prospectuses Relating to Interests in Oil and Gas 

Programs280 

• Securities Act Industry Guide 5 – Preparation of Registration Statements Relating to 

Interests in Real Estate Limited Partnerships281

• Securities Act Industry Guide 6 and Exchange Act Industry Guide 4 – Disclosures 

Concerning Unpaid Claims and Claim Adjustment Expenses of Property-Casualty 

Insurance Underwriters282

• Securities Act and Exchange Act Industry Guide 7 – Description of Property by Issuers 

Engaged or To Be Engaged in Significant Mining Operations.283

 279 Note, however, that revisions to Industry Guide 3 relating to non-performing loan disclosure requirements 

were implemented in 1983, and revisions relating to exposures to borrowers in certain foreign countries 

were implemented in 1986. See Revision of Industry Guide Disclosures for Bank Holding Companies, 

Release No. 33-6478 (Aug. 11, 1983) [48 FR 37609] and Amendments to Industry Guide Disclosures by 

Bank Holding Companies, Release No. 33-6677 (Nov. 25, 1986) [51 FR 43594]. Industry Guide 3 was first 

published in 1976 as Securities Act Guide 61 and Exchange Act Guide 3. See Guides for Statistical 

Disclosure by Bank Holding Companies, Release No. 33-5735 (Aug. 31, 1976) [41 FR 39007]. In 1982, 

these Guides were redesignated as Industry Guide 3, applicable under both the Securities Act and the 

Exchange Act. See Rescission of Guides and Redesignation of Industry Guides, Release No. 33-6384 

(March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11476]. 

280 While the substantive disclosures relating to oil and gas producing activities were modernized in 2008 (at 

which time Industry Guide 2 was eliminated), the changes did not impact Securities Act Industry Guide 4. 

Securities Act Industry Guide 4 is focused on disclosure relating to the offering of interests in oil and gas 

programs, such as, among others, the terms of the offering, the participation in costs and revenues, 

application of proceeds and risk factors. Securities Act Industry Guide 4 was first published in 1970 as 

Guide 55, which was redesignated as Securities Act Industry Guide 4 in 1982. See Definitive Guide for the 

Preparation of Prospectuses Relating to Interests in Oil and Gas Programs, Release No. 33-5036 (Jan. 19, 

1970) [35 FR 1233].

281 Securities Act Industry Guide 5 was originally published in 1976 as Guide 60 and redesignated as Securities 

Act Industry Guide 5 in 1982. See Guide for Preparation of Registration Statements Relating to Interests in 

Real Estate Limited Partnerships, Release No. 33-5692 (Mar. 17, 1976) [41 FR 17403]. 

282 Securities Act Industry Guide 6 and Exchange Act Industry Guide 4 were first published in 1984. See Rules 

and Guide for Disclosures Concerning Reserves for Unpaid Claims and Claim Adjustment Expenses of 

Property-Casualty Underwriters, Release No. 33-6559 (Nov. 27, 1984) [49 FR 47594]. 

283 Substantive disclosure requirements relating to mining companies were originally promulgated in 1941 as 

part of Form S-3, a registration statement to be used for shares of mining companies in the promotional 

stage. See Adoption of Form S-3 for Registration Under the Act of Shares of Mining Corporations in the 

Promotional Stage, Release No. 33-2672 (Sept. 29, 1941) [6 FR 4964]. In 1981, the Commission rescinded 

Form S-3 and incorporated the industry specific disclosure requirements into Form S-18, the form for small 

business issuers. See Availability of Simplified Registration Form to Certain Mining Companies, Release 
83

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

G. Requirements Relating to Securities Offerings

Item 504 – Use of Proceeds

General background. This requirement is derived from the provisions in Schedule A of 

the Securities Act calling for disclosure of the estimated net proceeds to be derived from the 

security to be offered,

284 as well as details about the specific purposes and approximate amounts 

of the proceeds to be used and information about the sources of any additional funds to be used.285 

Schedule A also requires detailed disclosure about acquisitions of any property or goodwill

outside of the ordinary course of business using proceeds of the offering,286 and certified financial 

statements for any business to be acquired using the proceeds of the offering.287 In 1933, the 

Commission’s predecessor adopted provisions in registration statement Form A-1 that required 

tabular disclosure about the proceeds of the offering, the offering expenses and the use of 

proceeds and further details about transactions in which the proceeds are used to acquire property 

outside the ordinary course of business.288 In 1935, the Commission adopted similar provisions in 

Form A-2 and included instructions about proceeds used to discharge loans, proceeds used for 

 No. 33-6299 (March 18, 1981) [46 FR 18947]. In 1992, in connection with the Commission’s small 

business initiatives that rescinded Form S-18, Item 17A of Form S-18 was redesignated as Industry Guide 7, 

so that the industry specific guidance would be applicable to all issuers engaged in mining operations, not 

only to small business issuers. See Small Business Initiatives, Release No. 33-6949 (July 20, 1992) [57 FR 

36447]. A rulemaking petition to amend Industry Guide 7 was submitted to the Commission in October 

2012. See Letter from The Society For Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc., dated October 1, 2012, 

available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/petitions/2012/petn4-654.pdf.

284 Schedule A paragraph (15).

285 Schedule A paragraph (13).

286 Schedule A paragraph (21). 

287 Schedule A (27). 

288 See Form A-1 Items 26, 27, 37, 40 and 51.
84

working capital and proceeds to be used in conjunction with other funds.289 In 1964, the 

Commission published Guide 21 regarding the circumstances under which registrants may 

disclose in a registration statement alternative uses of proceeds or a statement that management 

may change the use of proceeds.290 In 1972, the Commission added a provision to Guide 21 

calling for a graphic depiction (in the form of pie charts) of the use of proceeds.291 This item was 

added to Regulation S-K as part of the expansion and reorganization of Regulation S-K in 1982, 

combining the requirements of Form S-1 and Guide 21, but eliminating the requirement for the 

pie chart.

292

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. There have been no substantive 

amendments since the requirement was added to Regulation S-K.

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. In connection with 

the disclosure simplification for smaller reporting companies, references to Regulation S-X in 

Instruction 6 to Item 504 were clarified to specifically include references to the scaled financial 

statement requirements in Article 8 of Regulation S-X for smaller reporting companies.293 

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Item 505 – Determination of Offering Price

General background. This requirement is partially derived from the provisions in 

paragraph 16 of Schedule A of the Securities Act calling for disclosure of the proposed offering 

 289 See Form A-2 Items 27 through 29. See also Instructions to Item 28.

290 See Guides for Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements, Release No. 33-4666 (Jan. 20, 1964) [29 

FR 2490].

291 See Contents of Prospectuses and Guides for Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements, Release No. 

33-5378 (July 26, 1972) [37 FR 15985].

292 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380].

293 See Smaller Reporting Company Regulatory Relief and Simplification, Release No. 33-8876 (Dec. 19, 

2007) [73 FR 934], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/33-8876.pdf.
85

price or the method by which the price is to be computed and any proposed variation in price to 

be offered to particular investors or classes of investors.

294 Following the Commission’s 

investigation of the hot issues markets in 1971, the guides were revised in 1972 to include 

disclosure about how the offering price was determined in the absence of an established trading 

market.295 This item was added to Regulation S-K as part of the expansion and reorganization of 

Regulation S-K in 1982, based on the provisions of Guide 5 relating to the determination of the 

offering price.

296

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. There have been no substantive 

amendments since the requirement was added to Regulation S-K.

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Item 506 – Dilution

General background. This requirement stems from a similar provision that was first 

included in the guides in 1968.297 Following the Commission’s investigation of the hot issues 

markets in 1971, the guides were revised in 1972 to include instructions for registrants to 

 294 Schedule A paragraph (16).

295 Guide 5 (Voluminous and Verbose Prospectuses) was significantly expanded in 1972 and renamed Guide 5 

(Preparation of Prospectuses). This new Guide 5 included two notes, one of which related to disclosure of 

the determination of the offering price and the other related to disclosure for offerings that were not 

underwritten on a firm commitment basis. See Guide 5, in Guides for the Preparation and Filing of 

Registration Statements, Release No. 33-5278 (July 26, 1972) [37 FR 15985]. Guide 5 was rescinded in 

1982 as part of the Commission’s program to integrate the disclosure requirements of the Securities Act and 

the Exchange Act. See Rescission of Guides and Redesignation of Industry Guides, Release No. 33-6384 

(March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11476]. 

296 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380]. See also

Proposed Revision of Regulation S-K and Guides for the Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements 

and Reports, Release No. 33-6276 (Dec. 23, 1980) [46 FR 78] at 91. 

297 See Guide 6, in Guides for the Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements, Release No. 33-4936 (Dec. 

9, 1968) [33 FR 18618]. 
86

illustrate graphically the dilution of shareholders’ equity.298 In adopting Item 506 as part of 

Regulation S-K, the Commission noted that commenters believed in the usefulness of dilution 

disclosure generally, but did not support a mandatory requirement for a graphical illustration of 

dilution. As adopted, Item 506 did not include a graphical illustration requirement and it 

contained changes “to minimize the instances where such disclosure would be required of more

seasoned companies whose securities are selling on the basis of earnings, and where dilution of 

book value generally is not material to investors.” 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. There have been no substantive 

amendments since the requirement was added to Regulation S-K.

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. Two commenters

recommend that emerging growth companies be exempted from dilution disclosure requirements, 

because, according to this commenter, the amount of dilution sustained by investors in an IPO 

does not appear to be a matter that is regarded as meaningful by investors.299 These commenters

also assert that dilution disclosure can be even less meaningful in the context of companies that 

have relatively limited operating history because they will rarely have an amount of net tangible 

book value per share that approaches the level of the initial public offering price in the IPO. These

commenters suggest that investors interested in dilution are able to review the recent balance 

sheet and capitalization information provided in the prospectus to enable them to determine the 

level of dilution that would be sustained from purchasing shares in the offering.

 298 See Guide 6, in Guides for the Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements, Release No. 33-5278 (July 

26, 1972) [37 FR 15985]. 

299 See Silicon Valley Letter and Letter from Mike Liles.
87

In contrast, another commenter strongly opposed this recommendation, noting that such 

dilution is an important metric for institutional investors.300

Item 507 – Selling Security Holders

General background. The disclosure of the names of any selling security holders, the 

amount of securities owned and the amount to be offered were required in Form S-1.301 This 

requirement was first adopted in Regulation S-K as an instruction (Instruction 8 to Item 6) to the 

requirement relating to security ownership of certain beneficial owners and management.302 In 

1982, the Commission revised the requirement and adopted Item 507, based on a provision in 

Form S-16 (which was originally adopted as a registration statement form for secondary 

offerings).303

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. There have been no substantive 

amendments since the requirement was added to Regulation S-K. Changes to the procedures for 

identifying selling security holders in offering documents were adopted in 2005 in connection 

with the Commission’s Securities Offering Reform, in order to alleviate timing concerns 

associated with resale registration statements.

304

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

 300 See Letter from Council of Institutional Investors.

301 See, e.g., Form S-1 Instruction 3 to Item 1 and Instruction 3 to Item 19. See Application for Registration of 

Securities, Release No. 33-3584 (Oct. 21, 1955) [20 FR 8284]. See also Forms for Registration Statements; 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Release No. 33-3540 (April 26, 1955) [20 FR 2965].

302 See Integrated Reporting Requirements: Directors and Officers, Management Remuneration, Legal 

Proceedings, Principal Security Holders and Security Holdings of Management, Release No. 33-5949 (July 

28, 1978) [43 FR 34402]. 

303 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380].

304 See Securities Offering Reform, Release No. 33-8591 (July 19, 2005) [70 FR 44722], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8591.pdf. 
88

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. Two commenters

recommended eliminating the requirement to identify each stockholder selling shares in an 

offering and recommended that disclosure about the amount of shares being sold in the offering 

by shareholders not identified under Item 403 should be presented in the aggregate.305

Item 508 – Plan of Distribution

General background. This requirement is derived from requirements in Schedule A 

calling for disclosure of the names and addresses of the underwriters and detailed disclosure of 

commissions or discounts paid to the underwriters. In 1935, in connection with the adoption of 

Form A-2, the Commission adopted expanded disclosure requirements relating to underwriting 

arrangements.306 In 1947, the Commission rescinded Form A-2 and adopted amendments to Form 

S-1 that eliminated the requirement for a complete outline of the material provisions of each 

underwriting contract with the principal underwriters (formerly Item 23 of Form A-2).307 In 1955, 

the Commission streamlined the plan of distribution and underwriting discounts and commissions 

requirements in Form S-1.308 In 1964, the Commission published Guide 2 (Finders), Guide 7 

(Underwriter’s Compensation from Conversion of Funds into Foreign Currency) and Guide 22 

(Identification of Members of Board of Directors Selected by Underwriters).309 In 1968, the 

 305 See Silicon Valley Letter and Letter from Mike Liles. 

306 See Items 21 through 26 of Form A-2. 

307 See Miscellaneous Amendments, Release No. 33-3186 (Jan. 8, 1947) [12 FR 224].

308 See Application for Registration of Securities, Release No. 33-3584 (Oct. 21, 1955) [20 FR 8284]. See also

Forms for Registration Statements; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Release No. 33-3540 (April 26, 1955) 

[20 FR 2965]. In 1955, Item 2 of Form S-1 required disclosure of the names of the principal underwriters 

and the respective amounts underwritten, any material relationships between the principal underwriters and 

the registrant, the nature of the underwriting arrangements and a brief statement of the discounts and 

commissions allowed to dealers and sub-underwriters. Item 1 of Form S-1 required tabular information of 

the price to the public, underwriting discounts and commissions, including finders’ fees and proceeds to the 

registrant or other persons. 

309 See Guides for Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements, Release No. 33-4666 (Jan. 20, 1964) [29 

FR 2490].
89

Commission published amendments to various guides, expanding information about underwriting 

arrangements and adopting new Guide 16 (Disclosure with Respect to Newly Organized 

Underwriting Firms), Guide 17 (Disclosure of Underwriting Discounts and Commissions) and 

Guide 53 (Information As to Over-the-Counter Market for Securities to be Registered) which 

included disclosure regarding known market makers.310 In 1973, following the Commission’s 

investigation of the hot issues markets, the Commission adopted amendments to Form S-1 that 

required, in IPO registration statements, disclosure of the principal underwriter’s intentions to 

confirm sales to their discretionary accounts.

311 This item was added to Regulation S-K as part of 

the expansion and reorganization of Regulation S-K in 1982 and combined the requirements from 

Form S-1 and Guides 5, 6, 11, 14, 16, 17, 35 and 53.

312 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. In 1993, in connection with 

amendments to Exchange Act Rule 10b-6 to permit passive market making activities under 

certain circumstances, the Commission adopted a new requirement for a brief description of 

passive market-making to be added to the plan of distribution.313 In 1997, in connection with the 

adoption of Regulation M, the Commission adopted a new requirement for the disclosure of 

 310 See Guides for Preparation and Filing of Registration Statements, Release No. 33-4936 (Dec. 9, 1968) [33 

FR 18617]. At this time, former Guide 2 (Finders) was redesignated as Guide 11; former Guide 7 

(Underwriter’s Compensation from Conversion of Funds into Foreign Currency) was revised and 

redesignated as Guide 14; former Guide 22 (Identification of Members of Board of Directors Selected by 

Underwriters) was redesignated as Guide 35; and additional provisions regarding disclosure of underwriting 

arrangements were added to Guide 5 (Voluminous and Verbose Prospectuses) and Guide 6 (Introductory 

Statements).

311 See New Ventures, Meaningful Disclosure, Release No. 33-5395 (June 1, 1973) [38 FR 17202].

312 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380].

313 See Passive Market Making, Release No. 33-6991(April 8, 1993) [58 FR 19598]. The adopting release noted 

that prospectus disclosure was required because “passive market making represents a significant change in 

the level of distribution participant activity in the market, and bears some resemblance to stabilization 

activity....”. Id, at 19603.
90

intended stabilizing and other similar activities by selling group members.314 In 1998, in 

connection with the adoption of plain English disclosure rules, the Commission adopted revisions 

that moved requirements regarding stabilization legends and underwriters compensation from 

Item 502 to Item 508.315

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

Item 511 – Other Expenses of Issuance and Distribution

General background. This requirement stems from a requirement in Schedule A calling 

for disclosure of amounts of expenses, itemized in reasonable detail, incurred in connection with 

the sale of the securities being offered, including legal, engineering, certification, authentication 

and other charges.316 The Commission’s first registration statement forms incorporated a similar 

requirement.317 This requirement was adopted in its current form as part of the expansion and 

reorganization of Regulation S-K in 1982.318

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. There have been no substantive 

amendments since the requirement was added to Regulation S-K.

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

 314 See Anti-Manipulation Rules Concerning Securities Offerings, Release No. 33-7375 (Jan. 3, 1997) [62 FR 

520], available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-38067.txt.

315 See Plain English Disclosure, Release No. 33-7497 (Jan. 28, 1998) [63 FR 6370], available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7497.txt. 

316 See Schedule A paragraph (18). 

317 See, e.g., Item 37 of Form A-1 and Item 27(b) of Form A-2. 

318 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380].
91

Item 509 – Interests of Named Experts and Counsel

General background. A requirement for the disclosure of the interests of named experts 

has been required since the initial registration statement forms adopted by the Commission.319 In 

1970, the Commission authorized the publication of a guide relating to disclosure of the interests 

of counsel and experts in the registrant.320 The release explained that, “where counsel are named 

in the prospectus as having passed upon legal matters in connection with the registration or 

offering of securities potential investors should be told of any interests which such counsel may 

have in the issuer or in the offering in order that they may judge for themselves the independence 

and objectivity of such counsel.”321 Pursuant to this guidance, disclosure was not required for 

interests not exceeding $30,000 for firms and $10,000 for individuals. In 1982, this requirement 

for disclosure about the interests of named experts and counsel was adopted as part of the 

expansion and reorganization of Regulation S-K and the threshold for disclosure was raised to 

$50,000 for any expert or counsel, including their firms.

322 

Summary of past substantive changes to the requirement. There have been no substantive 

amendments since the requirement was added to Regulation S-K.

Scaled requirements or exemptions for specified classes of registrants. None.

Comments submitted to the Commission’s JOBS Act website. None.

 319 See, e.g., Item 50 of Form A-1, adopted in 1933, and Item 42 of Form A-2, adopted in 1935. 

320 See Definitive Guide Relating to Interest of Counsel and Experts in Registrant, Release No. 33-5094 (Oct. 

21, 1970) [35 FR 16919]. 

321 Id.

322 See Adoption of Integrated Disclosure, Release No. 33-6383 (March 3, 1982) [47 FR 11380]. 
92

H. Other Comments Received Relating to Disclosure Requirements 

One commenter323 recommended that Regulation S-K should be harmonized with the 

Staff’s Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations,324 and other sources of interpretation and 

guidance, in order to reduce the complexity facing registrants. 

One commenter recommended that, to review Regulation S-K, the Commission develop 

and articulate a disclosure framework of guiding principles and objectives consistent with its 

missions and statutory responsibilities and also consult with FASB to establish clear boundaries 

between financial statement disclosure principles and objectives and those of supplemental 

disclosures beyond the financial statements. The commenter suggested that the Commission use 

four factors to review the requirements of Regulation S-K and determine whether disclosure 

requirements warrant elimination or revision: (1) disclosures created to address a void in GAAP 

requirements in the past that may now be redundant with footnote disclosures that were mandated 

later, (2) disclosures of information investors can more easily obtain from sources other than SEC 

filings, (3) disclosures that have become industry-specific rather than applicable to all entities and 

(4) disclosures based on purely quantitative thresholds without regard for materiality.325 

IV. Recommendations

A. Overview of Possible Next Steps

The staff’s review of the regulatory history of the disclosure items in Regulation S-K 

reveals the incremental development of the current requirements, as changes over time have 

generally sought to address specific disclosure gaps and, in some cases, mandated policy 

 323 See Letter from Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, dated June 22, 2012, available at

http://www.sec.gov/comments/jobs-title-i/general/general-32.pdf. 

324 The Staff’s Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations are available at 

http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/regs-kinterp.htm. 

325 See Letter from Ernst & Young LLP. 
93

objectives. Although comprehensive reviews of the Commission’s disclosure requirements have 

been conducted from time to time, the last such review was the 1996 Task Force on Disclosure 

Simplification. Since that time, technological advances have continued to significantly change 

the ways that businesses operate and communicate with investors, as well as the ways that capital 

markets function and market participants receive and use information. Also, several events have 

occurred since 1996 that could be further relevant in motivating a review of disclosure rules: the 

rise and collapse of the technology sector in 2000, the collapse of Enron, the enactment of the 

Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the financial crisis of 2008, the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act and the 

enactment of the JOBS Act. In light of these changes and events, the staff believes that the 

Commission’s disclosure requirements should be reevaluated in order to ensure that existing 

security holders, potential investors and the marketplace are provided with meaningful and, to the 

extent possible in the Commission’s rules, non-duplicative information upon which to base 

investment and voting decisions, that the information required to be disclosed by reporting 

companies continues to be material and that the disclosure requirements are flexible enough to 

adapt to dynamic circumstances. 

While the study conducted in connection with this report serves as an important starting 

point, the staff believes that further information gathering and review is warranted in order to 

formulate specific recommendations regarding specific disclosure requirements. In particular, 

input from market participants is needed to facilitate the identification of ways to update or add 

requirements for disclosure that is material to an investment or voting decision, ways to 

streamline and simplify disclosure requirements to reduce the costs and burdens on public 

companies, including emerging growth companies, ways to enhance the presentation and 

communication of information and to understand how technology can play a role in addressing 
94

any of these issues. These market participants would include, among others, issuers of all sizes, 

investors of all sizes, intermediaries, exchanges and other trading venues, standard setters, 

analysts, legal and accounting professionals, industry and professional organizations, economists 

and academics, each of which has a unique perspective. 

In addition, the staff notes that economic analysis must further inform any reevaluation of 

disclosure requirements. In that regard, the following economic principles should be given 

consideration when reviewing and considering changes to disclosure requirements: 

• Improving and maintaining the informativeness of disclosure to existing security holders, 

potential investors and the marketplace, which is particularly relevant to emerging growth 

companies that need capital to invest in their businesses; 

• The historical objectives of a given rule should be considered, including a consideration of 

any specific disclosure gaps, mandated policy objectives or other conditions sought to be 

addressed by a given requirement’s adoption, whether such conditions are still applicable,

and, if not, whether the potential for a return of those conditions poses risks to potential 

scaling or elimination of the requirement;

• Whether the information provided by a given rule is available to existing security holders, 

potential investors and the marketplace on a non-discriminatory basis from reliable 

sources and, if so, any costs or benefits to such persons from obtaining such information 

from sources other than the issuer, including the ability of investors to seek appropriate 

redress;

• The extent to which a given disclosure requirement entails high administrative and 

compliance costs, especially for emerging growth companies;

• The extent to which disclosure of a company’s proprietary information may have 

competitive or other economic costs, which may be particularly relevant to emerging 

growth companies;
95

• Maintenance of the Commission’s ability to conduct an effective enforcement program 

and deter fraud, especially regarding disclosures shown to be instrumental in detection and 

deterrence; and

• The importance of maintaining investor confidence in the reliability of public company 

information, in order to, among other things, encourage capital formation. 

Therefore, after considering the information gathered in connection with the preparation of 

this report, the staff recommends the development of a plan to systematically review (on either a 

comprehensive or a targeted basis, as discussed below) the disclosure requirements in the 

Commission’s rules and forms, including Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X, and the related 

rules concerning the presentation and delivery of information to investors and the marketplace. 

The review should also include disclosure requirements developed through interpretations in 

Commission releases and staff interpretations and guidance. In addition, the review should 

consider whether there are factors external to the Commission’s rules that may have contributed 

to the length and complexity of company filings and the costs of compliance, such as Commission 

enforcement actions and judicial opinions. The plan would set forth the scope of the review by 

identifying the broad topics to be covered and, for each topic, would identify preliminary issues to 

be considered and the recommended means for gathering information from necessary parties. 

After conducting the review and related information gathering, the staff would, as appropriate, 

recommend to the Commission proposals for revisions to the disclosure requirements in the 

Commission’s rules and forms and the related rules concerning presentation and delivery of 

information. 

The staff has identified two alternative frameworks for structuring such a review: a 

comprehensive approach (reviewing and updating requirements on a wholesale basis, taking into 

account the appropriateness of substantive requirements as a whole as well as presentation and 
96

delivery issues) and a targeted approach (reviewing and updating requirements on a topic by topic 

basis). A comprehensive approach has the benefit of addressing the interplay between all sources 

of disclosure requirements in order to be better positioned to modernize and simplify the 

requirements, while also addressing issues relating to presentation and delivery of information. In 

addition, viewing the disclosure requirements in their entirety would likely help keep the focus on 

disclosure that is relevant to the total mix of information and better address repetition in filings. 

The staff acknowledges, however, that such an approach would likely be a longer-term project 

involving significant staff resources across the Commission.

Alternatively, a targeted approach might allow for a more in-depth analysis of each topic 

and allow changes to be made more quickly. In addition, a targeted approach could allow the 

staff to identify and prioritize the review of the most challenging aspects of the current rules. On 

the other hand, a targeted approach could inhibit efforts to simplify the disclosure regime as a 

whole, resulting in less streamlined disclosure overall. For example, some requirements, such as 

the executive compensation disclosure rules, have been, over the years, the focus of successive indepth reviews but have not been recently considered in the context of the complete set of 

disclosure requirements. For this reason, any targeted approach should still, as much as 

practicable, retain an emphasis on the overarching disclosure framework. In a targeted approach, 

after an open comment period, the Commission would address each of the topics outlined below 

under the heading “Potential Areas for Further Study,” proposing streamlined and principlesbased requirements. This approach could allow for faster movement to adoption of revised rules. 

The staff believes that a comprehensive approach would be able to achieve the dual goals 

of streamlining requirements for companies, including emerging growth companies, and focusing 

on useful and material information for investors. This is due, in part, to the nature of events and 
97

changes that have occurred since the last comprehensive review in 1996, and in part to balancing 

the economic principles outlined above. Although the staff is mindful of the practical 

considerations outlined above with respect to each of the approaches, the staff recommends 

undertaking a comprehensive review.

Finally, as noted above, the staff expects that such a review would require significant 

information gathering and analysis and would be of great interest to market participants. 

Accordingly, in formulating the scope of the review and in conducting the review, the staff 

recommends gathering information using a variety of methods, including, but not limited to, the 

staff performing its own research and seeking comment from, holding discussions with, and 

analyzing information from interested parties, including investors, issuers, auditors, attorneys, 

underwriters and investment banking professionals, professional and industry organizations, other 

regulators, standard setters, and academics. 

B. Potential Areas for Further Study 

This section briefly summarizes the staff’s preliminary suggestions for further study and 

information gathering. These suggestions are not intended to be exclusive or to prioritize any 

potential areas of further study. 

Review of Requirements in Regulation S-K.

Using the information in this report as a starting point for understanding the regulatory 

history of the requirements, the staff recommends further review and information gathering to 

identify ways to modernize and simplify the requirements in Regulation S-K in a manner that 

reduces the costs and burdens on companies while still providing material information. 

The staff believes that any such review could be more effective if it addresses the 

following four issues:
98

• First, as a general matter, the staff believes that any recommended revisions 

should emphasize a principles-based approach as an overarching component of 

the disclosure framework, in order to address the tendency toward

implementation of increasing layers of static requirements, while preserving the 

benefits of a rules-based system affording consistency, completeness and 

comparability of information across registrants.326 Similar to the current rules and 

guidance for MD&A disclosure, a disclosure model based on broad principles 

could be supplemented, as needed, by timely and transparent guidance by the 

Commission or staff in order to assist companies in tailoring the broad principles 

to their facts and circumstances.

• Second, the staff believes that any review of the disclosure requirements should 

include an evaluation of the appropriateness of current scaled disclosure 

requirements and whether further scaling would be appropriate for emerging 

growth companies or other categories of issuers. 

• Third, the staff believes that any review of the disclosure requirements should 

include an evaluation of methods of information delivery and presentation, both 

through the EDGAR system and other means. For example, the review could 

explore a possible filing and delivery framework based on the nature and 

frequency of the disclosures, including a “core” disclosure or “company profile” 

filing with information that changes infrequently, periodic and current disclosure 

filings with information that changes from period to period, and transactional 

filings that have information relating to specific offerings or shareholder 

solicitations. 

• Finally, the staff believes that any review of disclosure requirements should 

consider ways to present information that would improve the readability and 

 326 For example, one of the recommendations emerging from the 31st Annual SEC Government-Business 

Forum on Small Business Capital Formation in 2012 was that the Commission add a general instruction to 

Regulation S-K that would permit smaller reporting companies to omit disclosure pursuant to a line item in 

Regulation S-K in the event such disclosure is not material from the perspective of a reasonable investor, 

similar to Rule 502(b) for purposes of disclosure under Regulation D. Forum participants felt that this 

would “add an element of principles-based disclosure to Regulation S-K.” 
99

navigability of disclosure documents and explore methods for discouraging 

repetition and the disclosure of immaterial information. In that regard, the review 

could explore whether technology could be used to make disclosure documents 

easier to prepare and easier to use. For example, the use of dynamic crossreferencing (such as hyperlinks) could reduce redundancy while ensuring that 

investors have access to information where relevant. The review could also 

reevaluate the use of quantitative thresholds and other standards of materiality

incorporated into the rules.

327 In addition, this review could identify and reassess 

requirements calling for information that is already readily accessible to market 

participants, such as historical stock price information. 

In addition to these issues, the staff has identified the following specific areas of 

Regulation S-K that could benefit from further review: 

Risk-related requirements. The requirements for risk-related disclosures should be 

reviewed in order to improve the disclosures and to identify whether different risk-related 

disclosures should be required. The review could consider, for example, whether to consolidate 

requirements relating to risk factors, legal proceedings and other quantitative and qualitative 

information about risk and risk management into a single requirement. As part of this review, the 

staff could revisit the requirements for quantitative and qualitative market risk in Item 305 and 

could review whether alternative approaches to risk disclosures could be more appropriate. 

Requirements relating to a registrant’s business and operations. The requirements for 

description of business and description of properties disclosure should be reviewed for continuing 

relevance in light of changes that have occurred in the way that businesses operate. For example, 

 327 For example, there are quantitative thresholds in Item 103 (Legal Proceedings), Item 404 (Transactions with 

Related Persons, Promoters and Certain Control Persons) and Item 509 (Interests of Named Experts and 

Counsel). The staff could revisit the recommendations of the 1996 Disclosure Simplification Task Force to 

replace quantitative thresholds with general materiality standards and consider providing guidance as 

necessary with respect to factors that could be considered in making materiality determinations in 

connection with particular disclosure Items. 
100

information about principal properties, mines and plants was relevant when all businesses needed 

a physical presence, but is no longer as relevant for businesses that do not require physical 

locations to operate or can easily substitute physical locations without any material impact on 

their operations. For businesses that do have properties that are material, disclosure requirements 

could be refocused on material facts about those properties that would inform investors about the 

significance of the property to the business and any trends or uncertainties in connection with that 

property, rather than requiring a list of locations, capacity and ownership. Changes in the way 

that businesses operate may also make other disclosures relevant that are not expressly addressed 

under current requirements. For example, requirements could be more specific as to additional 

disclosure that would be necessary where a business relies heavily on intellectual property owned 

by a third party or relies on service agreements with third parties to perform necessary business 

functions. 

Requirements relating to description of the business should be reviewed to confirm that 

the information elicited remains relevant, and such a review could consider issues relating to 

presentation and delivery of the information, as well as the potential for calibrating the 

information for different types of investors. In addition, the requirements could be reevaluated in 

light of their particular emphasis on disclosure relating to non-U.S. operations and risks relating 

to dependence of any segments on non-U.S. operations. 

Corporate governance disclosure requirements. The requirements for corporate 

governance disclosure should be reviewed to confirm that the information is material to investors 

and develop ways to obtain disclosure that is presented in a manner that provides investors with 

effective access to material information and avoids boilerplate. Alternative forms of presentation 
101

of the information, such as including the information in a filing that is only updated when changes 

occur, should also be evaluated. 

Executive compensation requirements. Although the requirements for executive 

compensation disclosure have been amended more often than any of the other disclosure 

requirements in Regulation S-K, executive compensation disclosure is sometimes pointed to by 

companies and practitioners as an area with lengthy, technical disclosure.328 The executive 

compensation disclosure requirements should be evaluated in light of these concerns and 

reviewed to confirm that the required information is useful to investors. The review could also 

evaluate whether further scaling is appropriate. 

Offering-related requirements. The requirements for disclosure relating to offerings have 

not been reviewed comprehensively, although offerings have significantly changed over the years. 

These requirements, including, among others, requirements for the presentation of information in 

prospectuses, required legends and undertakings, should be reviewed in light of the changes in 

offerings and the shift from paper-based offering documents to electronically-delivered offering 

materials. In addition, requirements pertaining to underwriting arrangements and compensation 

could be updated to reflect changes in market practice. Further review could also explore using 

principles-based requirements for disclosure that are currently required, such as use of proceeds 

and offering expenses, or combining information about dilution, shares eligible for future sale and 

securities authorized for issuance under equity plans and under outstanding securities and 

agreements. Disclosure requirements relating to the securities of a registrant should also be 

reviewed with a focus on whether principles-based requirements would be appropriate. 

 328 See, e.g., the 2011 survey of Financial Executives International summarized in KPMG & Financial 

Executives Research Foundation, Disclosure Overload and Complexity: Hidden in Plain Sight (2011),

available at http://www.kpmg.com/US/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/disclosureoverload-complexity.pdf.
102

Exhibit requirements. Since the last comprehensive review of exhibit requirements was 

conducted (in 1980), the number of required exhibits has grown. The staff is also aware that 

some exhibit filings can be difficult to locate on the Commission’s EDGAR system,329 which can 

cause frustration to market participants. The staff believes it would be beneficial to review the 

manner in which exhibits are made publicly available on the Commission’s website, as well as 

comprehensively review the requirements to confirm whether the documents called for remain 

relevant and useful and whether other documents should be added. 

Other General Requirements Included in Item 10. Since its adoption in 1977, Regulation 

S-K has been a catch-all for requirements of general applicability, such as the Commission’s 

policy on the use of securities ratings in filings, the conditions for the use of non-GAAP financial 

measures and the scaled disclosure requirements for smaller reporting companies. A 

comprehensive approach to review of the disclosure requirements should also include these 

topics.

Regulation M-A. The staff recommends considering whether the requirements of 

Regulation M-A should be included in the review, given that it was adopted more recently (in 

1999) than other portions of Regulation S-K. It could be beneficial to seek the input of market 

participants on whether these requirements should be reviewed. 

Emerging Growth Companies.

The staff recommends further consideration of the criteria to be used for purposes of 

eligibility for potential further scaling of disclosure requirements and, in particular, whether 

companies that meet criteria other than the qualifications for emerging growth company status 

 329 This issue was raised in the 1996 Report of the Task Force on Disclosure Simplification, but the changes to 

filing procedures recommended at the time were not implemented. 
103

would be appropriate. Careful consideration also should be given to the difference between small 

business requirements and emerging growth company requirements. The five economic 

principles discussed above should be considered in determining which companies should be 

allowed to scale their disclosures and how companies should migrate to a standard disclosure 

regime as they mature and the extent to which disclosure of previously undisclosed information 

should later be required. This review should also include consideration of the definitional 

thresholds for smaller reporting companies, as well as the definitional thresholds for accelerated 

filers and large accelerated filers. 

Industry Guides.

The staff recommends reviewing the Industry Guides to evaluate whether they still elicit 

useful information and conform to industry practice and trends. For example, this could include 

an evaluation of the guidance set forth in Industry Guide 3 in light of the growth and complexity 

of financial institutions since it was last amended in 1986, as well as developments in 

international regulatory reforms in this area. Likewise, the requirements of Industry Guide 5 

could be evaluated in light of the changes to the business and financial practices relating to real 

estate companies since it was issued in 1976. In addition, review could be made as to whether 

any of the Industry Guide provisions should be codified in Regulation S-K, whether information 

is duplicative with accounting standards and whether scaled requirements or transition periods 

should be available for certain classes of registrants. 

Financial Reporting and Disclosure Requirements.

The financial reporting requirements of Regulation S-X could be comprehensively 

reviewed, as the last such review was conducted in connection with the implementation of the 

integrated disclosure system. Another area to review is disclosure requirements that may now be 
104

redundant with financial statement disclosure requirements mandated at a later time. Part of this 

review could also address the Regulation S-K requirements for annual and quarterly selected 

financial data disclosure and the ratio of earnings to fixed charges. 

Disclosure Requirements Contained in Rules and Forms.

The staff recommends reviewing the disclosure requirements that are contained in rules 

and forms, such as Form 10-Q and Form 8-K, as part of a comprehensive review of all disclosure 

requirements as well as in connection with issues relating to presentation and delivery of 

information to investors (including, as noted above, a possible filing and delivery framework 

based on the nature and frequency of the disclosures).

C. Conclusion

In light of the number and breadth of prior initiatives to review the Commission’s 

disclosure requirements summarized in this report, and the detailed inventory of Regulation S-K 

illustrating the range of topics covered by the disclosure requirements, the staff has identified two 

possible approaches (a comprehensive approach and a targeted approach) for further work to 

develop particular recommendations for revised disclosure requirements for all registrants, 

including emerging growth companies. Although a comprehensive approach would likely be a 

longer-term project involving significant staff resources across the Commission, the staff believes 

that a comprehensive approach would be able to achieve the dual goals of streamlining 

requirements for companies, including emerging growth companies, and focusing on useful and 

material information for investors. Accordingly, the staff recommends that a comprehensive 

approach should be used to review and revise the disclosure requirements.