On March 14, 2023, DXC Technology Company (“DXC”) settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for $8 million regarding alleged misleading disclosures in DXC’s public filings. The SEC claimed DXC made misleading disclosures related to its non-GAAP financial performance between 2018 and 2020.
The SEC Allegation
From 2018 through the third quarter of 2020, DXC included in its quarterly and annual filings non-GAAP net income and earnings per share metrics that excluded, among other things, certain transactions, separation and integration expenses (“TSI”). TSI costs were described as costs related to the integration of DXC in its current form, following a merger creating the present corporation in April 2017. DXC presented these non-GAAP measures for the stated purpose of providing investors with meaningful supplemental financial information to evaluate its core operating performance, excluding one-time or nonrecurring expenses.
However, the SEC alleged that DXC’s internal controls and procedures failed to ensure that its expense classifications were consistent with its own public description of TSI costs. DXC also neglected to adequately and consistently review costs attributed to TSI. As a result, the SEC charged DXC with negligently misclassifying millions of dollars of expenses as TSI costs, improperly excluding them and resulting in non-GAAP net income and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share that were materially misleading.
DXC failed to implement disclosure controls and procedures related to its non-GAAP measures. DXC did not have a non-GAAP policy, nor did it have any formal guidance that employees could rely upon to determine which costs should be appropriately attributed to TSI as excluded in the company’s publicly disclosed non-GAAP measures. Instead, DXC had an informal process where business units submitted their expenses to the Financial Planning & Analysis department, who made subjective determinations about TSI costs.
Once classified as a TSI cost, the amounts were aggregated into spreadsheets with tens of thousands of line items and forwarded to DXC’s controller’s office for a quarterly review before their inclusion in DXC’s publicly disclosed non-GAAP measures. According to the allegations, DXC’s controller’s office was unable to appropriately review the classifications due to the large number of line items. Further, the controller’s team thought the Financial Planning & Analysis department had a more robust process in place for analyzing TSI costs before sending the spreadsheet to the controller.
DXC also did not require documentation of TSI costs and company discussions about TSI costs were often addressed orally without a record showing how the decisions were made. Any documentation DXC could provide was incomplete or inaccurate. DXC’s controller’s office raised concerns about certain TSI costs and whether the TSI costs complied with the SEC’s non-GAAP requirements, but its concerns went unaddressed.
The SEC charged DXC with violations of Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) for negligently violating the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act and reporting provisions of federal securities laws. DXC consented to a cease-and-desist order, agreed to pay an $8 million penalty, and undertook to develop and implement appropriate non-GAAP policies and disclosure controls and procedures. DXC did not admit to nor deny the findings in the order.
The SEC continues to focus on non-GAAP financial measures. This case highlights the importance for companies to maintain a formal non-GAAP policy and implement adequate disclosure controls and procedures for the use of non-GAAP measures. Not only do companies need to ensure the use and presentation of non-GAAP numbers are correct, companies should ensure the non-GAAP numbers themselves are accurate.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
© 2023 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
Jim Kennedy practices in the Business Representation & Transactions Group. The focus of his practice is corporate, securities, and financing law, where he has extensive experience in mergers, acquisitions and ...
Mark Reuter advocates for business clients in transactions, proceedings and conflicts regulated by federal and state securities laws and stock exchange rules. A partner in the firm’s Business Representation & Transaction ...
As a partner in the firm’s Business Representation & Transactions Group, Allie Westfall’s insight and proven analytical skills help translate the complexities of the often-challenging securities laws. Allie’s counsel ...
Olivia King practices in the firm’s Business Representation & Transactions Group, where she assists private and publicly held companies with a wide variety of corporate transactions.
Olivia earned her law degree from the ...
- Securities Law
- Securities Regulation
- Corporate Transparency Act
- Corporate Law
- Clawback Rules
- SEC Enforcement
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Law
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Tax Planning
- Economic Sanctions
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Ohio LLC Act
- Corporate Tax
- JOBS Act
- FAST Act
- Corporate Governance
- Proxy Access Rules
- Securities Litigation
- Consumer Protection Act
- Cybersecurity Regulation
- Conflict Minerals
- Real Estate Law
- Emerging Growth Companies
- Pay Ratio Disclosure
- Private Offerings
- Intellectual Property
- Opportunity Zone
- Accredited Investors
- Sales Tax
- United States Supreme Court
- Executive Compensation
- Health Care Act
- Online Trading Platforms
- Registration Statement
- Wall Street Reform
- Annual Reports
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Director Compensation
- Family-Controlled Entities
- Gift and Estate Transfers
- Board of Directors
- Director Independence
- Cyber Insurance
- Data Breach
- Regulation A
- Regulation D
- Total Shareholder Return
- Receivership Statute
- Compensation Committee Certification
- CDFI Fund
- Community Development Entities
- Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
- Government Shutdown
- New Markets Tax Credit
- NMTC Financing
- Regulation Fair Disclosure
- Social Media
- Healthcare Reform
- Public Company Transition Rules
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Tax Credit
- FinCEN Extends the Corporate Transparency Act Reporting Deadline for Newly Created Entities
- SEC Postpones Share Repurchase Modernization Disclosure Rules
- Effective Date of SEC Clawback Rule Finally In Sight
- SEC Sued Over Newly Adopted Share Repurchase Rules
- SEC Extends Period to Act on Exchange Clawback Rules
- SEC Charges Public Company for Misleading Non-GAAP Disclosures
- NYSE and Nasdaq Propose Clawback Listing Standards: What You Need to Know
- Corporate Transparency Act Update – FinCEN Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
- SEC Amends Insider Trading Rules: New Conditions, Requirements, and Related Disclosures
- SEC Reopens Comment Period for 11 Proposed Rules Due to Technological Error