 |
Home | Previous Page | |
|
||
 |
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
International Reporting and Disclosure Issues
|
| The Securities and Exchange Commission, as a matter of policy, disclaims responsibility for any private publication or statement of any of its employees. This outline was prepared by members of the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners, or other members of the staff. |
I. Overview of Disclosure Rules Applicable To Foreign Issuers
II. Recent Commission Actions and Other Topical Information
A. Mandatory EDGAR for Foreign Private Issuers 22
B. Issues Related to Other Recently Adopted Rules and Releases
III. Adoption of International Disclosure Rules
B. Age of Financial Statements
C. Audit Report Reference to Compliance with US GAAS
D. Other Issues Associated with the New Form 20-F
IV. Staff Processing and Review of Filings
A. Matters of Interest to Initial Filers
C. Quality of Audits and Reconciliations to US GAAP
V. Audit Reports and Independent Auditors
A. Restrictions on Use of Audit Report
B. Audit Opinion Qualifications
D. Reference to the US GAAP Reconciliation
E. Reports on Comparative Periods
G. Changes in Accounting Principles
I. References to Another Auditor
VI. Issues Encountered in Reconciliations to US GAAP
A. Issues Related to Recent US GAAP Pronouncements
C. Consolidation and Proportional Consolidation
VII. AICPA International Practices Task Force
B. Summary of Relevant Issues since Inception of the Task Force
C. Recent Issues affecting Particular Countries
A. Selection of Reporting Currency
C. Changes in Reporting Currency
E. Reporting Currency for Domestic Registrants and non Foreign Private Issuers
IX. Other Disclosure Issues and Staff Interpretations
A. Updating Interim Financial Information -- Item 8.A.5 of Form 20-F
B. Changing to US GAAP for the Primary Financial Statements
C. Other Changes in Basis of Presenting the Financial Statements
D. Pro Forma Information that Departs from Article 11 of Regulation S-X
E. Disclosure in Specialized Industries
F. Disclosure about New Accounting Rules
G. Management Discussion and Analysis
H. Regulation M-A - Merger and Acquisitions
I. Financial Statements for Subsidiary Issuers and Guarantors
X. Reporting in Highly Inflationary Economies
A. Price-Level Adjusted Financial Statements
B. Determining whether an Economy is Highly Inflationary for FASB Statement 52
XI. Privatizations of Government-Owned Enterprises
A. Predecessor Financial Statements
E. Issuances of Government-owned Shares to Employees
XII. Domestic Issuers With Acquired Foreign Businesses
A. Rule 3-05 and 3-09 Reconciliation Requirements
Over the last ten years, the number of foreign companies accessing the U.S. public markets has increased dramatically. Since 1997, over 600 foreign companies have registered securities with the SEC for the first time. As of December 31, 2002, there were over 1,300 foreign companies from 58 countries filing periodic reports with the Commission.
A foreign company that seeks to list its securities on the New York or American Stock Exchanges or the Nasdaq Stock Market must register its securities with the SEC by filing an Exchange Act registration statement, and must subsequently file annual reports. Form 20-F is the form used by most publicly traded, foreign companies for Exchange Act registration and annual reporting because its requirements are tailored specifically for foreign issuers. Form 20-F requires comprehensive disclosure about the company, including information about its business operations and its financial statements.
The Securities Act requires companies to register each public offering of securities in the U.S. In an initial public offering, a foreign company registers its securities using a Form F-1 registration statement. The registration statement includes the prospectus, which is the principal document used to market securities to investors. The disclosure contained in a prospectus generally is the same as that required by Form 20-F and also includes various matters that are specific to the offering.
The integrated disclosure system designed for foreign private issuers provides a number of accommodations to practices in other jurisdictions. These accommodations include:
Instructions for financial statements and the reconciliation to US GAAP are included in Item 17 and Item 18 of Form 20-F.
The Division of Corporation Finance has a separate office -- the Office of International Corporate Finance (OICF) -- that serves as the central point of contact for foreign private issuers registering with the SEC. Senior attorneys in the Office are able to help guide foreign registrants through the registration process. OICF may be contacted at (202) 942-2990.
On May 14, 2002, the Commission adopted amendments to the rules that govern the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system. These amendments require foreign private issuers and foreign governments to file electronically through the EDGAR system most of their securities documents, including registration statements under the Securities Act of 1933 and registration statements, reports and other documents under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Securities Act Release 33-8809). By mandating the electronic filing of foreign issuers' securities documents on EDGAR, the Commission hopes to realize the same investor benefits and the same efficiencies in information transmission, dissemination, retrieval and analysis achieved since mandatory EDGAR filing for domestic issuers began in 1993. The rule amendments also clarify when an electronic or paper filer may submit an English summary instead of an English translation of a foreign language document.
The adopted amendments require the electronic filing of:
The rule amendments are effective for any securities documents filed or submitted on or after November 4, 2002. Registrants that filed a registration statement in paper before November 4, 2002, were permitted to continue to file amendments to that registration statement in paper through Tuesday, December 31, 2002. Filings incorrectly made in paper after the effective dates will be returned to the filer for electronic re-submission.
As described more fully in Section IV.B, the staff will continue to accept confidential drafts of initial registration statements from foreign private issuers in paper. However, the public filing of the registration statement must be made electronically. At that time, all correspondence related to the review of the registration statement must also be submitted electronically.
In Financial Reporting Release 62 (March 18, 2002), the Commission adopted temporary reporting rules and accommodations for audit clients of Andersen. These rules and accommodations are applicable to foreign private issuers. On April 1, 2002, the staff published Application of Requirements for Arthur Andersen Auditing Clients - Frequently Asked Questions which provides additional guidance about the rules and accommodations.
Section IV.B below, Quality of Reconciliation to US GAAP, describes the policies and procedures followed by AICPA SEC Practice Section member firms with foreign associated firms whose audit reports are included in SEC filings. During 2002, Andersen's foreign associated firms ceased to be associated with Andersen. Many of these firms (or their partners and staff) became part of other firms that are associated with an SECPS member firm. Provided that the new firm immediately makes the former Andersen affiliate part of its SECPS practices and procedures, the staff will continue to accept audit reports of the former Andersen affiliate. If a former Andersen affiliate has not become part of a new member firm's SECPS practices and procedures, the staff would expect the former affiliate to demonstrate its knowledge and experience in applying US GAAP, US GAAS, SEC financial reporting rules and SEC independence requirements before the staff would accept its audit reports.
In September 2002, the US Auditing Standards Board issued an interpretation of Statement on Auditing Standards 58 (AU Section 508) Reporting As Successor Auditor When Prior-Period Audited Financial Statements Were Audited by a Predecessor Auditor Who Has Ceased Operations. The Interpretation addresses the current auditor's responsibilities in circumstances where retroactive reclassifications, adjustments or corrections of errors will result in revisions to comparative financial statements that were audited by a predecessor auditor who has ceased operations.
On September 28, 1999, the Commission adopted changes to its non-financial statement disclosure requirements for foreign private issuers, to conform those requirements more closely to the International Disclosure Standards endorsed by IOSCO in September 1998 (Securities Act Release No. 7745). The changes are intended to harmonize disclosure requirements on fundamental topics among the securities regulations of various jurisdictions.
The rule changes incorporate the international disclosure standards into Form 20-F. While the IOSCO standards were specifically developed for equity offerings, the Commission has extended their applicability to other registered offerings, listings, and annual reports. The rule changes are effective for registration statements filed after September 30, 2000 and annual reports filed with respect to fiscal years ending on or after September 30, 2000.
The amendments do not change the financial statement reconciliation requirements for foreign issuers, and the Commission will continue to require disclosure on topics not covered by the International Disclosure Standards, such as disclosures relating to market risk and specialized industries such as banks, insurance companies and resource companies. The Commission also revised the definition of "foreign private issuer," which determines an issuer's eligibility to use certain Commission forms and benefit from certain accommodations under Commission rules, to clarify how issuers should calculate their US ownership for purposes of the definition. The full text of the rule changes can be found on the SEC's web site at: www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-41936.htm. In June 2001, the Commission issued certain technical corrections to Form 20-F (Securities Act Release No. 7983).
a) General
Form 20-F includes new Item 8 that specifies the form, content and age of financial statements of the registrant. New Item 8 supercedes Rule 3-19 of Regulation S-X. The US GAAP reconciliation requirements in Items 17 and 18 of Form 20-F have been retained without substantive change. In general, the financial reporting requirements for foreign registrants will not change, except for the age of financial statements in a registration statement.
Item 8.A.4 of Form 20-F reduces the period before audited financial statements of the most recent fiscal year are required in a registration statement from 18 months old (six months after fiscal year end) to 15 months old (three months after fiscal year end). However, an instruction to Item 8 retains the 18 month period for the following types of offerings where the "blackout" period would be disruptive - (a) exercise of outstanding rights granted by the issuer, if the rights are granted pro rata to all existing security holders, (b) dividend or interest reinvestment plans, and (c) conversion or exercise of outstanding convertible securities or warrants.
b) Annual Updating
The new rules require a foreign registrant to update a registration statement with audited annual financial statements three months after its fiscal year-end. This updating is required regardless of whether the registration statement includes audited interim financial statements for a recent period. A registrant cannot satisfy its obligation to file annual statements by filing interim statements. The Commission's June 2001 release of technical corrections to Form 20-F clarified this point.
c) Initial Public Offerings
Also, Item 8.A.4 requires that audited financial statements in initial public offerings be no more than 12 months old at the time of filing. The Item states that this requirement may be satisfied with an audit as of an interim date. This requirement is in addition to the requirement that the audited annual financial statements be no more than 15 months old at the time of effectiveness of a registration statement. However, an instruction clarifies that this applies only where the registrant is not public in any jurisdiction. Further, the instruction indicates that the staff will waive the 12-month requirement where it is not applicable in the registrant's other filing jurisdictions and is impracticable or involves undue hardship. As a result, we expect that the vast majority of IPOs will be subject only to the 15-month rule. The only times that we anticipate audited financial statements will be filed under the 12-month rule are when the registrant must comply with the rule in another jurisdiction, or when those audited financial statements are otherwise readily available. If the 12-month audit is waived in a filed registration statement, the representation must be filed as an exhibit per Instruction 2 to Item 8.A.4. The staff will consider a request for waiver of the 12-month audit at the time of filing the initial registration statement or submitting the initial confidential draft when the registrant knows that a waiver will be necessary prior to effectiveness of the registration statement.
d) Interim updating
Item 8.A.5 reduces the updating period for interim financial statements from 10 months after fiscal year end to nine months after fiscal year end. If interim financial statements are required, they must cover a period of at least six months. Item 8.A.5 also requires financial information more current than the required interim period to be included in a registration statement if that information has been made public. Instructions to this item essentially retain the disclosure provisions of old Rule 3-19(f).
e) Delayed and Continuous Offerings
Item 512(a)(4) of Regulation S-K requires a foreign private issuer to file a post-effective amendment to its registration statement to include any financial statements required by Item 8.A of Form 20-F at the start of a delayed offering or throughout a continuous offering under Rule 415. For this purpose, delayed or continuous offerings include exchange offers, merger and acquisition transactions registered on Form F-4, and takedowns from effective shelf registration statements. For these types of offerings, Item 8.A. ordinarily requires the annual audited financial statements to be not more than 15 months old, and the unaudited interim financial statements to be not more than nine months old. Takedowns from existing shelf registration statements and other types of delayed offerings may not be commenced, and continuous offerings must be suspended, during periods when the financial statements are not current under the Item 512(a)(4) undertaking. This means that the financial statements must remain current throughout the entire time that an exchange offer is outstanding. It also means that the financial statements must remain current in a merger or acquisition transaction until shareholder approval has occurred. However, this provision does not apply to a registration statement for a typical firm commitment underwritten offering priced under Rule 430A or a listing.
f) Capitalization Table
Item 3.B of Form 20-F requires a capitalization table prepared as of a date within 60 days of the effectiveness of a registration statement. However, Item 8 permits the most recent balance sheet (from which a capitalization table is ordinarily derived) to be as much as 9 months old. As written, the age requirement for the capitalization table is also considerably more stringent than the 135-day window customarily used by US issuers in their registration statements.
Consistent with historical practice, the staff will not object if a foreign private issuer presents its capitalization table as of the same date as the most recent balance sheet required in the registration statement. If there have been significant subsequent changes in capitalization such as debt or equity issuances, recapitalizations, or special dividends, these changes should be reflected in "as adjusted" columns or footnotes to the table.
g) Annual Report
The revised age of financial statement requirements in Item 8 did not change the due date for filing an annual report on Form 20-F, which continues to be six months after fiscal year end.
Item 8 of Form 20-F requires the annual financial statements to be audited "in accordance with a comprehensive body of auditing standards." An instruction clarifies that in SEC filings the financial statements must be audited in accordance with US generally accepted auditing standards (US GAAS). This instruction changes the staff's practice of accepting audit reports that state the audit was conducted in accordance with local auditing standards that are "substantially similar" or "similar in all material respects" to US GAAS. That practice was originally adopted to accommodate audit report styles in different jurisdictions that differ from the audit report wording specified by US GAAS. The practice was not intended to relieve the auditor of the responsibility to perform all auditing procedures necessary under US GAAS. The staff will continue to accept wording variations in audit reports to comply with local reporting formats. In all other respects, however, in order to avoid ambiguity, the report must say that the audit was performed in accordance with US GAAS. This guidance is intended to apply to all foreign private issuers other than those reporting under the Canadian Multi-Jurisdictional Disclosure System (MJDS).
Note - The auditing standards required for audits of financial statements in SEC filings are referred to as "US GAAS" throughout this outline. In December 2003 the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) adopted Auditing Standard No. 1 (AS 1), which has not yet been proposed or approved by the SEC. If approved, AS 1 would require the auditor's report to state compliance with "the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)". AS 1 is available on the PCAOB website at www.pcaobus.org, and when proposed for comment by the Commission will be available on the SEC website.
Except in two limited transitional situations, the audit report should state that the audit was conducted in conformity with US GAAS for all periods presented. The first exception relates to existing registrants that changed auditors in periods ended prior to September 30, 2000. Because full compliance would require the former auditor to issue a report different than the report originally filed with the SEC, the staff would not object if the former auditor re-issues its original report that includes the "substantially similar" language. This exception would not apply to initial filings.
The second exception relates to Canadian registrants. Under the special Canadian MJDS rules, Canadian GAAS audits continue to be acceptable in filings on MJDS forms. In the past, Canadian registrants not under MJDS have also been permitted to file Canadian GAAS audit reports that did not assert substantial similarity to US GAAS. Canadian registrants not under MJDS must now comply with the US GAAS audit requirement. The staff strongly encourages Canadian registrants not under MJDS to file audit reports that state the audit was conducted in conformity with US GAAS for all periods presented, but will not insist that they do so for comparative periods ended prior to September 30, 2000. In any event, a Canadian auditor's report should clearly state which GAAS has been followed each period. Also, consistent with Article 2 of Regulation S-X, an auditor should not assert compliance with US GAAS for any period unless it is true.
Inclusion of Canadian GAAS reports by MJDS registrants is acceptable only when their financial statements are included in MJDS forms. In certain circumstances, financial statements of a MJDS company may be required in a filing by a domestic issuer or a non-MJDS foreign private issuer. For example, the MJDS company may be a target company in a business combination transaction on Form F-4 or S-4, an acquired business under Rule 3-05, an equity investee under Rule 3-09 or a guarantor under Rule 3-10. In those situations, a US GAAS audit is required.
The requirement for US GAAS audits applies to any required financial statements, including those of foreign businesses, foreign investees, and foreign guarantors under Rules 3-05, 3-09 and 3-10 of Regulation S-X.
As stated in the adopting release, the staff will continue to accept wording variations solely to comply with local reporting formats. For example, the staff views the Canadian "addendum" paragraph that describes substantial doubt about a registrant's ability to continue in business as an acceptable style variation of the US GAAS going concern reporting requirement.
The staff has historically viewed audit reports which state that the financial statements "give a true and fair view" of financial position, results of operations and cash flows as constituting an acceptable style variation of the "fairly presents" language in US GAAS. However, the staff has recently encountered circumstances where the true and fair view language continued to be used despite the discovery of material uncorrected errors in the financial statements. Given the lack of a practicable way to distinguish which "true and fair view" reports mean "presents fairly", the staff now expects the opinion paragraph to follow the wording requirements of US GAAS.
Some registrants currently file an audit report that contains both a local GAAS opinion paragraph and a US GAAS opinion paragraph. That practice continues to be acceptable.
a) Selected Financial Data
Under Item 3.A of Form 20-F, selected data for the earliest two years of the five year period may be omitted if the registrant represents that the information cannot be provided without unreasonable effort or expense, and states the reasons for the omission in the filing. If only some of the required data, such as revenues, is available for the two earliest years, that data usually should be provided. The Instruction to Item 3.A requires that the document disclose any omission as well as the reasons supporting the omission. Pre-clearance from the staff is not required if a registrant meets the criteria. As with any disclosure, the explanation of the reasons for omission is subject to staff review.
Instruction 2 to Item 3.A requires selected financial data to include amounts under US GAAP in addition to those presented on the basis of the primary financial statements. If any amount required to be presented in selected financial data on a home-country GAAP basis is different on a US GAAP basis, then the corresponding amount under US GAAP should also be shown. However, measures that are neither required by home-country GAAP nor US GAAP need not be presented in selected financial data. For example, income from operations per share specified by Item 3.A need not be presented if it is not presented in the primary financial statements.
As clarified in the Commission's June 2001 technical corrections to Form 20-F, selected data is required for any predecessors of a registrant.
b) Impact on MJDS
Canadian registrants that use the MJDS are not required to follow revised Form 20-F and are generally not affected by those rule revisions. However, Form F-10 under MJDS requires any financial statements included in the registration statement to be reconciled to US GAAP using Item 18 of Form 20-F. A literal application of that requirement would result in MJDS registrants reconciling interim information more currently than any other foreign private issuers. Historically, the staff has not objected if a MJDS registrant reconciled to US GAAP only those periods that would be required if the filing had been made on a regular foreign form. That is, the registrant could apply the age of financial statement requirements in Rule 3-19 of Regulation S-X. However, as of October 1, 2000, Item 8 of revised Form 20-F superceded Rule 3-19. An MJDS registrant may still rely on this age of financial statement accommodation, but it must now follow the more stringent age requirements in new Form 20-F.
As foreign issuers plan to list or offer securities in the United States, management may identify many procedural or substantive compliance questions. Issuers are encouraged to contact the staff of the Commission to discuss these questions when they arise. The Commission staff also has implemented procedures to review foreign issuers' initial disclosure documents in draft form, if requested by the issuer. Companies are encouraged to contact Paul Dudek, Chief of the Office of International Corporate Finance (202-942-2990), early in their planning process to answer questions, arrange meetings, or discuss the timing of a confidential review.
Questions about the required financial statements or unusual accounting and financial reporting issues may be directed to Craig Olinger, Deputy Chief Accountant in the Division of Corporation Finance (202-942-2850). On complex accounting questions, the Division's staff will consult with the Commission's Office of the Chief Accountant.
While the staff will respond to inquiries about form requirements or procedures informally, more complex or sensitive disclosure and accounting issues are usually best submitted to the staff on a pre-filing basis in writing. The inquiry should identify clearly the company, its country of incorporation and the issue on which staff guidance or relief is requested. Because the form, content and periods of financial information required in an SEC filing may vary depending on the security or transaction being registered, the request should also describe the company's capital structure and listing or offering plans. The request should also identify the comprehensive basis of accounting and reporting currency to be used in the company's financial statements, as well as the number of periods being reconciled to US GAAP. The extent of information provided about the company's business will depend on the nature of the issue, but should be sufficient to permit the staff to make an informed analysis of the question. The request should explain clearly the basis for the company's conclusion or need for relief. The request should indicate whether the company's auditor has been consulted about the matter, and whether it concurs with the company's conclusion.
A first-time registrant must reconcile its home-country GAAP financial statements for only the two most recently completed fiscal years plus interim periods, rather than all three of the years for which complete financial statements must be included. The transition reconciliation requirements do not affect the basic financial statements that are required. Statements of cash or funds flow and shareholders' equity are required for all periods for which an income statement is presented in the primary financial statements.
A foreign private issuer that presents US GAAP financial statements as its primary financial statements in its initial registration statement may include those audited income statements and cash flow statements for two years, without furnishing complete audited financial for the earlier of the three years. In this case, the registrant may present the 5 years of selected financial data required in the registration statement on the basis of its home-country GAAP, rather than 5 years of US GAAP selected financial data.
Some foreign registrants have concluded that it is not feasible to obtain the actuarial information necessary to implement FASB Statement 87 as of the effective date specified in the standard, which was January 1, 1989 for foreign plans with a calendar year-end. The staff will not object if a foreign registrant that cannot implement FAS 87 as of that effective date due to the unavailability of actuarial data adopts the standard as of a later date. However, the standard must be adopted as of a date no later than the beginning of the first period for which US GAAP reconciled data is required in a Commission filing.
A foreign registrant adopting FAS 87 later than the effective date specified in the standard should allocate a portion of the transition obligation/asset directly to equity on the adoption date based on the ratio of: (a) the years elapsed between the effective date in the standard and the adoption date, to (b) the remaining service period of employees expected to receive benefits as estimated at the adoption date. This process uses the service period at the adoption date as a surrogate for the service period at the effective date specified in FAS 87. Using this method, the transition asset/obligation should be extinguished at the same date as if FAS 87 were adopted on the effective date.
To illustrate the mechanics of this accommodation, assume FAS 87 is adopted on January 1, 1998. At that date, the transition obligation is £15,000 and the remaining service period is 15 years. Nine years have elapsed since the effective date of FAS 87. Accordingly, 9/15ths, or £9,000 of the transition obligation would be recorded as a direct reduction of equity in the opening balance sheet under US GAAP. The remaining £6,000 would be amortized as part of pension expense over the next 6 years.
Foreign registrants implementing this accommodation should include the following disclosures:
The disclosure of this information is necessary for financial statements prepared under either Item 17 or Item 18 of Form 20-F, and should be furnished whenever an income statement for the period in which FAS 87 was adopted is included in the filing.
The SEC's review of filings by public companies is generally transparent to the public and usually involves the public filing of amendments to remedy disclosure deficiencies identified by staff reviewers. The SEC staff recognizes that a foreign registrant often has special concerns about that transparency. This is particularly true when a foreign registrant's securities trade publicly in its home market, and the company will be making new and different disclosure as a result of its registration with the SEC. To address these concerns, the SEC staff often reviews and screens draft submissions of foreign registrants on a non-public basis. In 2001, however, the staff revised its practice in this area. The staff generally will continue to accept draft submissions in connection with an issuer's initial registration with the SEC. Except in unusual circumstances, however, once a foreign issuer has registered a transaction under the Securities Act or a class of securities under the Exchange Act, the staff will no longer accept from that issuer additional draft submissions and will not review or screen a registration statement until it is publicly filed. The timing and scope of staff review of these draft registration statements is generally the same as for publicly filed registration statements. Foreign companies are encouraged to contact the Office of International Corporate Finance (202-942-2990) to discuss the availability of any relief or accommodation early in the planning stages of a transaction or listing.
The time period required for the staff to review, comment on, and ultimately declare effective a registration statement depends upon the completeness of the draft registration statement and degree of compliance with the disclosure requirements. Draft registration statements must be complete in all material respects at the time of first submission, unless special arrangements have been agreed in advance with the Office of International Corporation Finance. Common examples of incompleteness include missing or partial US GAAP reconciliations, missing or partial US GAAP disclosure under Item 18, missing annual or interim periods, missing Industry Guide data, and missing financial statements of acquirees and investees. The staff will defer the review of an incomplete or deficient draft registration statement.
The staff will expect the auditor's report to be signed and dated at the time the draft registration statement is first submitted, unless special arrangements have been agreed in advance with the Office of International Corporation Finance.
Accounting firms that routinely audit financial statements that are prepared in accordance with US GAAP and filed with the Commission can be expected to be most knowledgeable about current US accounting practices and interpretations. Because of the importance of the reconciliation to US GAAP in filings with the Commission, registrants and their accountants should assure that appropriate competence is brought to that disclosure before materials are filed or submitted.
Most accountants that practice before the Commission were members of the SEC Practice Section (SECPS) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Effective January 1, 2000, SECPS members had to seek the adoption of policies and procedures by their foreign associated firms whose audit reports are included in SEC filings that were consistent with SECPS objectives for audits of SEC registrants. The SECPS member reported to the AICPA the name and country of any foreign associated firms that demonstrated compliance with that objective. The foreign associated firm would be subject to scrutiny as part of the peer review process for the SECPS member firm. The rules also established minimum requirements for the review of SEC filings and confidential submissions by a designated "filing reviewer" within the US firm or international organization knowledgeable about US GAAP, US GAAS, US auditor independence and SEC reporting requirements.
The filing reviewer requirement in the SECPS rules is modeled on policies and procedures already in place at many firms. To complement those procedures, the staff has adopted certain practices upon receipt of draft submissions from foreign registrants audited by foreign associated firms. Prior to commencing review, the staff requests written confirmation that the SECPS member firm's review procedures were applied to the submission. We also request the name of the designated filing reviewer that the staff may contact with any questions concerning the application of those policies and procedures to the draft submission. The staff's procedure is not intended to specify or alter the nature or scope of a firm's policies or procedures, nor to specify or alter how a firm selects its filing reviewers. The purpose of the procedure is to ensure that foreign associated firms appropriately involve their designated filing reviewer prior to submission of draft registration statements. The staff will consider deferring the review of a draft submission where the application of the firm's policies and procedures to that submission cannot be confirmed.
SEC rules do not require an auditor to be a member of the SECPS. A foreign auditor that is not a member or affiliate of a SECPS member firm may practice before the SEC, provided that the auditor meets all requirements of Article 2 of Regulation S-X and demonstrates sufficient knowledge and experience in applying US GAAP, US GAAS, SEC financial reporting rules, and SEC independence requirements. An auditor seeking to practice before the SEC for the first time is expected to demonstrate its knowledge and experience before its audit reports are included in SEC filings. The Office of the Chief Accountant may request supplemental information from a foreign auditor to ascertain that the foreign auditor has the necessary knowledge and experience.
Foreign audit firms whose audit reports are included in SEC filings are required to be registered with the PCAOB by April 19, 2004. The PCAOB has proposed that the deadline for registration be extended to July 19, 2004. Under Section 102 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, it will be unlawful, after the registration deadline, for any audit firm that is not registered to prepare, issue, or participate in the preparation or issuance of any audit report with respect to any issuer.
In late 2003, the activities of the SECPS were discontinued. However, the SECPS membership requirements described above regarding quality control policies and procedures and reviews of SEC filings by designated filing reviewers were adopted by the PCAOB in April 2003 as part of its interim establishment of auditing, attestation, quality control, ethics, and independence standards. The interim quality control standards are contained in Rule 3400T, available in PCAOB Release No. 2003-006 on the PCAOB website at www.pcaobus.org.
An audit report that contains language restricting the use of the report is not acceptable in SEC filings.
In 2002 the Supreme Court of Scotland issued a ruling in Royal Bank of Scotland v. Bannerman Johnston MacLay and Others (the Bannerman case) regarding the auditor's duty of care to third parties. In response to the ruling, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAE&W) issued a technical release in January 2003 entitled The Audit Report and Auditors' Duty of Care to Third Parties. The release recommended that auditors provide specific language regarding a disclaimer of responsibility in their report and suggested the following wording:
This report is made solely to the company's members, as a body, in accordance with Section 235 of the Companies Act 1985. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might state to the company's members those matters we are required to state to them in an auditor's report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the company and the company's members as a body, for our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed.
Further information regarding the Bannerman case may be found in the November 25, 2002 Highlights of the AICPA International Practices Task Force at www.aicpa.org/belt/sec-hl.htm. In a letter to the ICAE&W dated February 28, 2003, the staff stated that an audit report that contains language restricting the use of the report is not acceptable in SEC filings. The staff's letter may be found on the SEC website at www.sec.gov/info/accountants/staffletters/icaew022803.htm.
The staff has received several requests to accept audit report qualifications in circumstances where a foreign registrant has deviated from home-country GAAP or IFRS to facilitate a position taken for tax purposes, to produce an accounting effect similar to that of a particular accounting principle generally accepted in a different country, or for other purposes. Home-country law or regulation did not require these deviations, although the home-country securities or industry regulator may have approved them at the registrant's request. The deviations might have continuing effects on reported results of future periods, and might be applicable to similar transactions occurring in future periods.
Financial statements that require a qualification in the accompanying audit report as to compliance with the applicable body of accounting standards do not satisfy the requirements for filings with the Commission. This is true whether the primary basis of accounting is US GAAP, home country GAAP, or IFRS. Adjustment of the deviation as part of the reconciliation to US GAAP would not cure the deficiency.
Under Rule 3-05 of Regulation S-X, the period for which audited financial statements must be presented for a recently acquired business varies from one to three years depending upon its significance to the registrant. Some systems of GAAP, such as IFRS, specifically require prior year comparative financial statements to be presented when the most recent fiscal year is presented.
In situations where only one year is required by Rule 3-05, the staff would not object if the audit report includes a qualification under IFRS or home-country GAAP solely for the absence of comparative prior year financial statements.
Certain GAAPs do not require the restatement of previously issued financial statements upon discovery of an error that relates to prior periods. For example, IAS 8 permits two treatments when fundamental errors in the financial statements are discovered in a subsequent period. The benchmark treatment is restatement of prior periods. The allowed alternative treatment is cumulative adjustment in the current period income statement, with pro forma disclosures. While both are acceptable under IFRS, use of the allowed alternative would ordinarily cause comparative periods to continue to be materially misstated. Accordingly, the allowed alternative treatment would not be acceptable in SEC filings. Generally, the staff would also follow the same approach for registrants that report under home-country GAAP. Registrants who report in a home-country GAAP that requires correction of an error in the current period income statement, rather than restatement of prior periods, should consult with the staff prior to filing.
Certain registrants have presented US GAAP reconciling items for errors that were considered immaterial under home-country GAAP, but material for US GAAP, where there was no difference in the underlying accounting principles involved. The staff will ordinarily challenge that practice.
The reconciliation provided pursuant to Item 17 or 18 of Form 20-F must be included in notes to the financial statements and, accordingly, must be considered by the auditor when expressing an opinion of the financial statements taken as a whole. The auditor's report is required to comply with Rule 2-02 of Regulation S-X, and need not refer specifically to the note containing the reconciliation. However, if the reconciliation furnished in the notes to the financial statements fails to include disclosure of all material departures from US GAAP or the quantification of the effects of accounting differences is materially misstated, the financial statements would be presumed to be materially misleading and an exception should be cited in the auditor's report. Similarly, the restatement of a previously filed US GAAP reconciliation to correct errors should be referenced in the auditor's report.
The staff expects that there would be no material difference between net income and shareholders' equity amounts reported in a reconciliation to US GAAP and the corresponding amounts that would be reported if the financial statements were presented directly in US GAAP. Accordingly, neither the auditor's report nor the notes to the financial statements should characterize US GAAP net income or shareholders' equity amounts as "estimated" or "approximated."
Form 20-F requires compliance with the audit reporting provisions of Article 2 of Regulation S-X. Article 2 requires a manually signed audit report for each period required to be audited. Audit reports on all comparative periods must be included in all registration statements and annual reports on Form 20-F. This is true even if comparative periods were audited by a different auditor. The former auditor must perform the procedures specified by US GAAS in order to re-issue its report, and must manually sign that report. Rule 402 under the 1933 Act and Rule 12b-11 under the 1934 Act address the mechanics of furnishing signatures in typewritten or electronic form, and how long the manually signed report must be retained by the registrant. Registrants should note that it is not acceptable to merely file a photocopy of a previously issued audit report, without obtaining a manually-signed, re-issued report. Among other potential consequences, the staff will not declare effective, or commence the review of, a registration statement where the staff is aware that this has occurred.
Notwithstanding the above, registrants formerly audited by Andersen may obtain the relief outlined in Financial Reporting Release 62 with respect to comparative period reports and consents.
Item 10.G of Form 20-F requires an accountant's consent to be filed when an audit report is included in the filing. Instruction 1 to that Item clarifies that a consent need not be filed in annual reports on Form 20-F. However, the consent is required in an Exchange Act registration statement on Form 20-F. For example, the consent would be required in the registration statement for a listing on the NYSE. The consent should be dated as close as practicable to the effective date of the registration statement on Form 20-F, in the same manner as a 1933 Act registration statement.
General Instruction D of Form 40-F requires an accountant's consent to be filed when an audit report is included in the filing. Form 40-F is used for Exchange Act registration and annual reports by Canadian registrants under the MJDS system. In this case, the Form specifically requires the consent to be provided for the annual report. Because an annual report has no effective date, the staff will not object as long as the consent is dated on or after the date of the audit report.
If the primary financial statements are prepared in accordance with home-country GAAP and reconciled to US GAAP, the auditor's report does not need to refer to a change in United States accounting principles. In this situation, however, the staff would expect the following items to be disclosed:
Pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation S-X, a change in the accounting principles used to prepare the primary financial statements should be disclosed in the auditor's report. Disclosure in a separate addendum to the report in the style suggested by Canadian standard setters for US- Canada Reporting Conflicts is acceptable.
Form 20-F does not have a requirement for a preferability letter. Therefore no preferability letter is required for a change in home country or US GAAP accounting principles.
Legislation in certain foreign jurisdictions requires the financial statements to give a "true and fair view" of the state of affairs (balance sheet) of the company and its profit or loss. Such provisions may require the departure from a specific accounting standard (override) to the extent necessary to give a true and fair view.
In some cases, an override is necessary to address a conflict between the particular requirements of UK GAAP and the UK Companies Act. For example, Financial Reporting Standard 6 requires certain "group reconstruction" transactions (similar to reorganizations of entities under common control in the US GAAP literature) to be recognized at historical cost. But under the Companies Act, all business combination transactions must be characterized as either acquisitions (purchases) or mergers (pooling of interests). Since a group reconstruction ordinarily will not meet the conditions for merger accounting, an override of the Companies Act is necessary to comply with UK GAAP. The staff may inquire about such a matter to ensure that it is adequately explained to US investors, but would not object to this type of override.
In other situations, registrants have overridden specific requirements of home-country GAAP or IFRS in the absence of any legal conflict. Generally, the accounting treatments adopted in lieu of the prescribed treatment have been highly unusual. In some cases, the registrant's adopted treatment appeared to be unique, and not identifiable as an accepted accounting practice in any system of GAAP. In some cases, the prescribed treatment would be consistent with US GAAP, and a reconciliation to the prescribed treatment was furnished. In each case, the staff will challenge the basis on which such an override has been used and the basis on which the auditors have given an unqualified report.
Both UK GAAP and IAS have specific disclosure requirements that include identification of the required treatment from which the enterprise has departed, the nature of the departure, including the treatment that would be required, the reason why that treatment would not give a true and fair view, the treatment adopted and the financial impact of the departure on the enterprise's financial statements. Certain additional disclosures are required under IFRS. In the rare circumstances where an override can be justified by the registrant's circumstances and home country practices, the staff will expect full compliance with the disclosure requirements. The disclosure should discuss why an override is necessary, clearly describe the adopted treatment, explain how and when it is applied, disclose the key assumptions or estimates inherent in the method, and quantify its effects on the financial statements.
Whenever the principal auditor refers to the work of another auditor, the report of the other auditor must be included in the filing. In some cases, the report issued by the other auditor may refer to financial statements that have been prepared using different accounting standards. For example, the consolidated financial statements may be prepared in accordance with US GAAP, but the other auditor's report on a subsidiary refers to financial statements prepared in accordance with UK GAAP. The staff expects the division of responsibility among the auditors to be clear. One of the auditor's reports should clearly state who is responsible for auditing the "conversion" of the financial statements from the foreign GAAP into the GAAP used in the primary financial statements.
Article 2 of Regulation S-X requires that an independent accountant be licensed and in good standing under the laws of the place of the accountant's residence or principal office. The rule does not address whether the accountant's state or country of licensure must coincide with the location of the registrant's corporate offices or place where the registrant conducts its principal operations.
The staff ordinarily will not object if a foreign private issuer is audited by a foreign accountant that meets the requirements of Article 2 and has demonstrated sufficient knowledge and experience in applying US GAAP, US GAAS, SEC financial reporting rules, and SEC independence requirements. See Section IV.B. The staff may question the location from which the audit report was rendered if there does not appear to be a logical relationship between that location and the location of the registrant's corporate offices or place where the registrant conducts its principal operations.
The Staff interprets Article 2 to require the audit report on the financial statements of a registrant that is not a foreign private issuer to be rendered ordinarily by an auditor licensed in the US. This includes both US-incorporated registrants and foreign- incorporated registrants that do not meet the foreign private issuer definition. However, certain of these registrants may be headquartered, conduct their principal operations, or have most of their assets, outside the US. In these circumstances, the staff encourages registrants and their auditors to consult the staff prior to filing. The staff will consider all relevant factors in evaluating the appropriateness of the location from which the audit report was rendered. The following factors are likely to be significant in most situations:
The staff will not ordinarily consider the language of the country where the auditor resides to be a presumptive factor.
In determining whether to accept a report from a non-US auditor, the staff also will expect the auditor to be subject to the same quality controls, including completion of filing reviewer procedures, as described in Section IV.C above under "Quality of Audits and Reconciliations to US GAAP" with respect to audits of foreign private issuers.
The staff has recently become aware of situations where a US auditor predominantly performed the audit but one of its foreign affiliated firms signed the audit report. In these cases the U.S. auditor will be expected to sign the audit report. If there is a legal requirement for the foreign affiliated firm to sign the audit report, the staff ordinarily would not object if both firms signed the report.
Generally, financial statements filed with the SEC are required to be presented in, or reconciled to, US GAAP as if the financial statements had always been prepared in accordance with US GAAP. An entity applying US GAAP for the first time must account for derivative instruments and hedging activities in accordance with Statement 133 in all fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2000. Statement 133 provides that, upon its adoption by a company, all hedging relationships must be designated anew and documented pursuant to the provisions of Statement 133. Thereafter, companies may use hedge accounting for those hedging relationships that, at inception of the hedging relationship, were documented and designated as hedges in a manner that would satisfy the requirements of Statement 133.
A registrant that prepares US GAAP financial statements (or reconciles to US GAAP) for the first time in a period subsequent to the required adoption date of Statement 133 may apply hedge accounting pursuant to Statement 133 if the entity had formally documented its hedging relationships in a manner consistent with Statement 133's requirements. For example, an entity that had previously prepared its financial statements in accordance with IFRS, including preparation of documentation of its hedging relationships that satisfies the requirements of Statement 133, could apply Statement 133 hedge accounting when preparing (or reconciling to) US GAAP financial statements for the first time.
FAS 130 defines the required presentation of comprehensive income as a new basic financial statement, rather than an item of disclosure. Therefore, a statement of comprehensive income or its equivalent is required under both Item 17 and Item 18 of Form 20-F. A foreign registrant may present the statement of comprehensive income in any format permitted by FAS 130. It may be prepared using either US GAAP or home-country GAAP amounts. In the later case, reconciliation to comprehensive income measured on a US GAAP basis is encouraged, but not required.
Paragraph 26 of FAS 130 requires presentation of the components of the accumulated balance of other comprehensive income items on the face of the financial statements or in footnotes. This disclosure is not required under Item 17.
In certain countries, equity components under home-country GAAP are included in retained earnings and are not separately tracked. Reconstruction of these amounts may be impracticable. The staff will generally not object if a registrant concludes, and discloses in its filings, that it is not practical to present the components of the accumulated balance of other comprehensive income items specified by paragraph 26 of FAS 130.
A Statement of Total Recognized Gains and Losses prepared under UK GAAP in accordance with FRS 3 is regarded as being consistent with FAS 130. Also, a statement of changes in equity prepared under IFRS in accordance with IAS 1 is regarded as consistent with the requirements of FAS 130.
If a registrant recognizes revaluations of assets in conformity with home country GAAP, the statement of other comprehensive income should include such changes.
a) Home-country versus US GAAP basis
FAS 131 requires reported segment information to conform to the information reported to management even if that information is not US GAAP. A foreign registrant preparing segment information to comply with the disclosure requirements of US GAAP should present the information using whatever basis of accounting is used for internal management reporting, even if that information is on a home-country GAAP basis. However, segment data should be presented in the same reporting currency as the consolidated financial statements, even if a different currency is used for internal management reporting. As required by FAS 131, the measurement basis for this data would be disclosed. For purposes of applying the 10% significance criteria in FAS 131, a foreign registrant should use its internal basis of accounting in determining whether segments are reportable. As required by FAS 131, reported segments must comprise at least 75% of consolidated revenues.
FAS 131 requires a reconciliation of the segment data to the consolidated financial statements. This presentation should be reconciled to the basis of accounting used in the primary financial statements. Reconciling items from the internal management-reporting basis should be isolated in a separate column and described. A foreign registrant using home country GAAP is not required to further reconcile the segment amounts to US GAAP.
Segment reporting in some countries is based on products and services rather than the management approach. For example, possible differences between the types of segments that would be reported under IAS 14 and FAS 131 could require certain registrants to present two sets of segment data.
Item 5 of Form 20-F permits the MD&A discussion to be based on the primary financial statements. However, Instruction 2 to Item 5 and Staff Accounting Bulletin 88 require discussion of matters relating to differences between home country GAAP and US GAAP that impact an understanding of the financial statements taken as a whole. If the Statement 131 segment information provides new information as to how management views the business, or indicates material trends or relationships not apparent from the local GAAP segmental disclosures, that information should be discussed within MD&A.
b) Changes in Reportable Segments
Paragraphs 34 and 35 of FAS 131 require registrants to recast prior period information to correspond with current reportable segments, or to otherwise provide comparable information. If management changes the structure of its internal organization after fiscal year end, or intends to make a change, the new segment structure should not be presented in financial statements until operating results are reported on the basis of the new management structure.
When a period is being reported for the first time, the staff would expect the segment presentation to be based on the structure that was actually used to manage the business during that period. This is true for the most recent annual period even if a registrant has published information for a more recent interim period based on its new reportable segments. However, the staff would not object if a registrant also provided supplementary data based on the new segment structure.
The applicability of FAS 123 to foreign registrants depends on whether the financial statements are prepared in accordance with Item 17 or Item 18 of Form 20-F. Registrants filing under Item 18 should comply with the disclosure and pro forma measurement principles of FAS 123 in the same manner as a US company. If a foreign registrant elects not to use the fair value method of accounting for stock based compensation in the reconciliation to US GAAP, the pro forma disclosures of net income and earnings per share, along with all of the other disclosures required by FAS 123, should be provided in the annual financial statements. Foreign registrants filing under Item 17 would not be required to provide pro forma net income and earnings per share or any of the other disclosures specified by FAS 123. However, the registrant should disclose the method of accounting that is followed for purposes of complying with US GAAP. Foreign registrants that follow APB Opinion 25 are reminded that recently issued FASB Interpretation 44 provides significant guidance regarding the application of APB 25.
Under both Item 17 and Item 18 registrants must comply with the requirements of FAS 123 and 148 in accounting for transactions with non-employees.
FAS 109 states that deferred tax assets and liabilities should be adjusted for the effects of a change in tax law or rates in the period that includes the enactment date. In the US, enactment date is considered to be the date that the President of the United States signs the legislation and it becomes law.
FAS 109 does not address specifically how to determine the enactment date in jurisdictions outside the US. Simply stated, enactment date is when all steps in the process for legislation to become law have been completed. For example, in Australia enactment date would be when Royal Assent is given to the bill, not when a bill is passed by Parliament. This conclusion is equally applicable to foreign subsidiaries of US companies.
In Brazil, the tax law is sometimes significantly altered by provisional measures that remain in force for three months and expire automatically if they are not extended for an additional three-month period. The provisional measures are not enacted by the legislature and should not be used as the enacted rate for the purpose of recognizing the tax effect of temporary differences under FAS 109.
In some cases there may be pervasive differences between the accounting for business combinations under home-country GAAP and US GAAP. For example:
In both of these situations, virtually all of the amounts for pre-acquisition periods in the primary financial statements would be materially different from the amounts presented under US GAAP. In effect, the financial statements presented as the primary financial statements are of a different reporting entity than would be required under US GAAP.
In these circumstances, reconciliation of net income and stockholders' equity alone will not produce an information content substantially similar to US GAAP with respect to the pre-acquisition periods. Additional reconciling disclosures that result in an information content consistent with Item 17 or 18 of the US GAAP reporting entity for the pre-acquisition periods will be necessary.
The reconciliation should be in sufficient detail to allow a user to understand the differences between the amounts reflected in the primary financial statements and the amounts reflected in the US GAAP reconciliation. For example, if the income statement is pooled for all periods under home-country GAAP, then a columnar reconciliation that removes the acquired business and a separate column with "normal" US GAAP adjustments to reconcile to the US GAAP amounts may be appropriate. In some cases, the differences may be so pervasive that a complete set of US GAAP financial statements may be necessary.
While each situation is unique, the following generally is the minimum level of disclosure that would be expected:
In addition, depending on the circumstances condensed Operating and Financial Review and Prospects using US GAAP amounts may be necessary.
Paragraph 48 of FASB Statement 141 specifies the date that a purchase business combination should be recognized in the financial statements under US GAAP. Ordinarily that is the date assets of the acquired business are received in exchange for consideration from the acquirer. A purchase business combination should not be recognized as of an earlier date unless a written agreement provides that effective control is transferred to the acquirer at an earlier date without restrictions except those required to protect the stockholders of the acquired company.
Some merger agreements in various countries may include designation of a retroactive effective date, such as the beginning of the fiscal year. In most of these cases, the rare conditions in paragraph 93 of APB Opinion 16 are not met prior to the exchange of consideration, and the business combination should not be recognized for any period before consummation.
FAS 141 and FASB Statement 94 require consolidation of a business acquired in a purchase beginning with the date of acquisition. Some registrants have a practice of applying the equity method or cost method to newly acquired businesses for the period from the consummation date through the end of the fiscal year in which the acquisition occurred. US GAAP does not permit that practice.
A number of foreign companies have obtained a listing in the US by merging into a nonoperating US public shell company whose securities are already registered with the Commission. The transaction is typically accounted for as a "reverse recapitalization." Notwithstanding that substantially all of the registrant's operations after the merger will be conducted outside of the US, the registrant is not a foreign private issuer and must comply with the rules applicable to US public companies. Accordingly, the registrant must file a Form 8-K containing financial statements of the foreign company within 75 days of the merger. To facilitate the initial filing of the foreign company's statements, the staff will not object if the financial statements included in the 8-K are prepared in accordance with a foreign GAAP, but reconciled to US GAAP in accordance with Item 18 of Form 20-F. However, the first Form 10-K following the merger, and any registration statement, should include financial statements prepared in accordance with US GAAP for all periods presented, including those periods prior to consummation of the reverse recapitalization. Financial statements in a foreign GAAP reconciled to US GAAP would not be acceptable.
The age of the pro forma financial information included in a registration statement should be based on the age of financial statements requirement applicable to the registrant. If a foreign private issuer files a Form F-4 and the target company is a US domestic registrant, the age of the pro forma information may be determined by reference to Item 8 of Form 20-F. That is, the pro forma information need only be as current as the most recent balance sheet date required for the registrant, which could be as much as 9 months old at the time of effectiveness. By contrast, if a US domestic registrant files a Form S-4 and the target company is a foreign private issuer, the age of the pro forma information must be determined by reference to Rule 3-12 of Regulation S-X. That is, the pro forma information would generally need to be current within 135 days at the time of effectiveness.
Depending on the fiscal year ends of a domestic registrant and a foreign target company, application of the age of financial statement rules may require the foreign target company to include a period in the pro forma information more current than its separate historical financial statements. Article 11 of Regulation S-X permits the ending date of the periods included for the target company to differ from those of the registrant by up to 93 days, and may provide sufficient relief. The staff also will consider combinations of periods that involve overlaps or gaps in the information of the target company of up to 93 days, provided that the resulting annual and interim periods are of the same length required for the registrant, and there are no overlaps or gaps in the registrant's information. However, the staff would not permit a registrant to omit an interim pro forma presentation because of different fiscal periods.
Companies are required to disclose the accounting principles used in the preparation of their financial statements. That disclosure should include the consolidation principles applied. In some circumstances, the staff has noted instances where majority-owned subsidiaries were not consolidated, yet disclosure of the reasons for non-consolidation was not made. The staff has objected to the use of boilerplate disclosures regarding an enterprise's consolidation policy when majority owned subsidiaries are appropriately excluded from consolidation. The disclosure should allow an investor to clearly understand why the registrant does not control the subsidiary.
The staff also believes that a comparable level of disclosure should be provided when a registrant appropriately consolidates a less-than majority owned subsidiary. The requirement for clear and complete consolidation policy disclosure applies to foreign registrants using home-country GAAP, and applies both under Item 17 and Item 18 of Form 20-F. The staff believes the disclosure in this area is necessary to meet the requirement for an information content that is substantially similar to U.S. GAAP.
Issuers that use proportional consolidation under home country GAAP for investments in joint ventures that would be equity method investees under US GAAP may omit reconciling differences related to classification or display, and instead provide summarized footnote disclosure of the amounts proportionately consolidated. Equity investee financial statements would not be required under Rule 3-09 as the joint venture is included in the registrant's consolidated financial statements. The accommodation is available only if the joint venture is an operating entity, the significant financial operating policies of which are, by contractual arrangement, jointly controlled by all parties having an equity interest in the entity. The accommodation does not apply to situations in which the "joint venture" would be consolidated under US GAAP.
The staff has recently noted situations where the accommodation was used for investees that were characterized as joint ventures, but not all parties with an equity interest had the right to share in control. For example, a supermajority voting provision permitted several large equity holders to control the investee without the consent of several small equity holders. The staff has objected to use of the accommodation in these circumstances.
Certain investments in majority-owned entities are accounted for using the equity method under US GAAP because EITF 96-16 precludes consolidation where certain minority shareholders have substantive rights to participate in certain financial and operating policies of the entity. It is unlikely that such an investment would meet the relevant conditions for the accommodation. For example, the existence of significant participating rights that preclude consolidation under EITF 96-16 would ordinarily mean that not all significant financial and operating policies of the entity are jointly controlled by all parties with an equity interest.
Generally, financial statements of foreign private issuers prepared using a comprehensive basis of accounting but containing a departure from that basis with respect to a material item are not acceptable in Commission filings. However, in limited circumstances the staff has not challenged presentations financial statements using US GAAP except that investments in joint ventures are reported using the proportionate consolidation method. This is consistent with the accommodation in Form 20-F that permits registrants to not reconcile classification and display differences of proportionately consolidated joint ventures to the equity method.
The staff would generally not challenge that accounting departure by a foreign private issuer that meets the following conditions:
Foreign registrants with significant subsidiaries that are consolidated under home-country GAAP, but would be accounted for using the equity method under US GAAP, are encouraged to discuss with the staff the information that should be disclosed in the US GAAP reconciliation. At a minimum, the staff would expect disclosure of the following information: 1) condensed information of the equity investee required by Rule 4-08(g) of Regulation S-X, and 2) a sufficiently detailed reconciliation to allow an investor to reconstruct financial statements prepared in accordance with US GAAP and Regulation S-X. Based on the specific facts and circumstances, the staff may request additional disclosure either in the financial statements or MD&A as well as financial statements of the investee pursuant to Rule 3-09 of Regulation S-X.
The International Practices Task Force reports to the AICPA SEC Regulations Committee and acts as a liaison with other AICPA committees that deal with international matters affecting accountants and auditors. The Task Force provides advice and assistance to the accounting profession on financial reporting matters and auditing issues applicable to non-US entities entering the US capital markets, with particular focus on those entities that register with the US SEC. In this capacity, the Task Force brings to the attention of the SEC staff issues and suggestions for improving and expediting filings by foreign registrants with respect to financial accounting issues (including issues that come to its attention relative to IFRS matters) and financial statement form and content matters.
The International Practices Task Force has published a Summary of Issues discussed at meetings of the Task Force from its inception through March 2003 that continue to be relevant to foreign issuers. The Summary is periodically updated to reflect recently discussed topics. The Summary is available on the AICPA website at www.aicpa.org/download/belt/iptf2003_01.pdf.
The following issues affecting particular countries were discussed at recent meetings of the Task Force. Further information regarding these issues is published in Highlights of the applicable meetings available on the AICPA website at www.aicpa.org/belt/sec-hl.htm.
Argentina
Brazil
Canada
China
Europe
Mexico
Russia
South Africa
Taiwan
Venezuela
Rule 3-20 of Regulation S-X permits a foreign private issuer to file financial statements prepared in any currency that management believes is appropriate. The rule requires disclosure of:
The rule does not apply to financial statements of acquirees or equity investees. However, these financial statements can be prepared either in the same currency as the issuer or in the currency that normally is used for preparation of such entities' financial statements. Accordingly, a domestic issuer can prepare financial statements of an acquiree or investee in US dollars.
While there is effectively free choice in the selection of the reporting currency, there is not free choice in the selection of the currency used for measurement. All operations including the parent company that do not operate in a hyperinflationary environment should use the currency of their primary economic environment to measure transactions. While not specifically referring to FASB Statement 52, Rule 3-20 of Regulation S-X is conceptually consistent with that standard. That is, assets and liabilities are translated at the period end exchange rate, and the income statement is translated at the weighted average exchange rate. The translation effects of exchange rate changes are included in a separate component of equity.
Rule 3-20 requires the financial information for all periods presented in a filing to be stated in the same reporting currency. If an issuer elects to change its reporting currency, financial information for previous periods should be recast into the new reporting currency using a methodology consistent with FAS 52. The objective of this procedure is to present financial statements as if the issuer had always used the new reporting currency. This means that an issuer should translate income statements from the old reporting currency into the new reporting currency using weighted average exchange rates for the applicable period, and the balance sheets should be similarly translated using the applicable period end exchange rates. The methodology used should produce the same results as though the respective consolidating functional currency statements had been translated directly into the new reporting currency.
Rule 3-20 of Regulation S-X requires that the financial statements should be stated in the same currency for all periods presented. This requirement applies to financial statements of a predecessor as well as those of the registrant. That is, the reporting currency used in financial statements of the predecessor should be the same as that of the registrant.
SEC rules permit, but do not require or encourage, presentation of a convenience translation. If a convenience translation is presented, Rule 3-20(b) of Regulation S-X specifies that the translation should be presented using the exchange rate as of the most recent balance sheet included in the filing, except that a rate as of the most recent practicable date shall be used if materially different.
Various Asian currencies declined significantly in value subsequent to December 31, 1997. The staff has received questions regarding the applicability of the guidance in Rule 3-20(b) to registrants that report in a currency with a significant decline after the balance sheet date. Some believe that literal application of the rule using the more recent rate could result in a potentially misleading presentation. For example, if a registrant's debt were denominated in US dollars or other major currencies, the convenience translation would depict the debt at a much lower US dollar amount than the registrant's actual debt service requirements.
The staff will not object if a registrant uses the exchange rate at the date of the most recent balance sheet in preparing a convenience translation for inclusion in an annual report on Form 20-F or a registration statement, or if it omits a convenience translation. The staff also will not object if a registrant uses a more current exchange rate. However, all amounts presented for a given period must be translated using the same exchange rate. If convenience translations are presented in a registration statement that includes all required financial statements, such as Form F-1, the same exchange rate should be used for the most recent fiscal year presented and any subsequent interim period. If a registrant files a registration statement that incorporates by reference financial statements previously filed on Form 20-F, the staff will not require amendment of the previously filed financial statements to reflect a convenience translation based on a more current exchange rate.
In any event, registrants should highlight a material currency devaluation and provide full, balanced disclosures regarding its effects on the registrant's results of operations, liquidity, and cash flows in MD&A. Also, FAS 52 requires disclosure of significant changes in currency exchange rates occurring after the balance sheet date and the effects on unsettled balances pertaining to foreign currency transactions.
Regulation S-X presumes that a US-incorporated registrant will present its financial statements in US dollars. In rare instances, the staff has not objected to the use of a different reporting currency. Those instances have been limited to situations where the US-incorporated registrant had little or no assets and operations in the US, substantially all the operations were conducted in a single functional currency other than the US dollar, and the reporting currency selected was the same as the functional currency. In these circumstances, reporting in the foreign currency would produce little or no foreign currency translation effects under FASB Statement No. 52. The staff has also not objected when a foreign issuer who does not meet the definition of a foreign private issuer applies this approach in similar circumstances.
NOTE - Rule 3-19(f) was superceded by Item 8.A.5 of Form 20-F and related instructions beginning October 1, 2000. The disclosure requirements of Rule 3-19(f) have been retained in the new Item and the staff intends to continue to interpret the requirements as described below.
Item 8.A.5 requires interim financial information that is made available to shareholders, exchanges or others on a more current basis than that otherwise required by SEC rules to be included in the registration statement. This information is not required to be reconciled to US GAAP. However, narrative disclosures about differences in accounting principles are required and material reconciling items that have not been previously addressed in the filing must be quantified. The intent of the disclosure is to ensure that the information available to a US investor is as current as information available to a foreign investor.
Item 8.A.5 should not be interpreted as limiting the disclosure only to information on revenues and income. Rather, if the information disclosed in the foreign jurisdiction includes revenues and income, then all financial information that is made public should be included in the registration statement.
Item 8.A.5 applies to annual as well as interim financial information. For example, if the foreign issuer publicly distributes annual financial information before the audited statements are available, the registration statement should include such information.
Occasionally, the interim information that is publicly distributed in the issuer's home country will be prepared using accounting standards that are different from those used in the US registration statement. In this instance, the US investor has not had the benefit of knowing the reconciling items between home-country GAAP and US GAAP. Therefore, the information disclosed pursuant to Item 8.A.5 would have to be supplemented with a description and quantification of differences in accounting principles.
For example, a foreign issuer uses US GAAP in its primary financial statements in filings with the Commission, but reports in a foreign GAAP in its home country. The company releases more recent earnings information in its home country in foreign GAAP. Item 8.A.5 requires that information to be included in the prospectus. However, the issuer has never filed reconciliations from foreign GAAP to US GAAP, so a US investor cannot interpret the foreign GAAP information. In this situation, an issuer may either (a) reconcile the Item 8.A.5 information to US GAAP or (b) provide a reconciliation from US GAAP to foreign GAAP (reverse reconciliation) for at least the most recent fiscal year required in the registration statement.
Issuers occasionally will be required to adopt a new US accounting standard in their first interim financial statements. The disclosure of financial information required by Item 8.A.5 does not result in the requirement to adopt the new standard and quantify its effect under US GAAP.
Inclusion of published information under Item 8.A.5 does not ordinarily trigger a requirement to include full interim financial statements more recent than otherwise required. For example, if complete financial statements related to the most recent quarter (but not the comparative period) are distributed in a foreign issuer's home country, that information must be included in the US registration statement. Comparative prior period information is not required because the information provided is included only because of Item 8.A.5. In order to avoid confusing US readers, the registrant should include disclosure explaining why the information is provided particularly when the information is placed with other financial statements and may look incomplete.
However, if the information provided contains a reconciliation to US GAAP, the staff believes that inclusion of reconciled information for the comparative prior periods generally will also be necessary to prevent the current period information from being misleading. A foreign private issuer is not ordinarily required to provide US GAAP information in its home jurisdiction. Accordingly, when a foreign private issuer presents more current US GAAP information, it effectively has decided to present interim financial statements, and is also required to present comparatives as required by Item 8.A.5 of new Form 20.F. In these circumstances the current and comparative interim period would need to be covered by MD&A and pro forma information would need to be updated to that date.
A registrant that loses its foreign private issuer status becomes subject to the reporting requirements for a domestic company on that date. While previous Exchange Act reports do not need to be amended upon the loss of foreign private issuer status, all future filings are required to fully comply with the requirements for a domestic company. The financial statements and selected financial data should be recast into US GAAP and US dollar reporting currency for all periods presented. The first filing containing US GAAP financial statements should set out in full the accounting policies under US GAAP that the registrant has adopted.
Similarly, when a registrant voluntarily changes from home-country GAAP to US GAAP all periods must be restated. The timing of the restatement will depend on whether the registrant has also voluntarily elected to file on domestic forms. If so, the change is ordinarily made in the first quarter of a new fiscal year. The first Form 10-Q and each subsequent Form 10-Q should reflect US GAAP in all current and comparative interim periods presented. The annual comparative periods are then recast when the next annual report is filed.
However, the timing of the restatement will be accelerated in the event of a registration statement. Interim financial statements included in a registration statement must be prepared on the same basis of accounting and reporting currency as the annual financial statements, so all comparative interim and annual periods must be restated at that time. This is true even if a registrant is eligible to incorporate previously filed documents by reference.
Registrants must also comply with the requirement of Item 302(a) of Regulation S-K to provide summarized quarterly data for each quarter of the two most recent fiscal years, beginning with the first Form 10-K that the registrant must file after its change in status. This means that the registrant must provide quarterly information on a US GAAP basis for certain periods preceding the change in status. Prospective application is not acceptable. In some cases the change in status may be triggered by transactions among shareholders or other circumstances outside the control of the registrant. The staff will not ordinarily waive the requirements of Item 302(a). However, registrants that believe it is impracticable to obtain the comparative data may consult with the staff in advance of the filing of the Form 10-K.
Under the present rules, it would be necessary for a registrant that had previously reported under home-country GAAP or US GAAP and decided to change their primary financial statements to IFRS in their SEC filings to file IFRS financial statements for all periods presented. The registrant would be required to provide a reconciliation to US GAAP for all periods presented, in accordance with Item 17 or Item 18 as applicable.
Under the present rules, a registrant may change the basis of presentation of its primary financial statements from US GAAP to home-country GAAP in their filings with the SEC. However, the Staff would be troubled if a registrant filed an initial registration statement under US GAAP and then immediately thereafter, for the purpose of their periodic reporting requirements, changed their primary GAAP.
In any event, registrants intending to change their primary GAAP should consider any undertakings made to investors in the past regarding the basis of presentation and should consult their own attorneys on matters of interpretation.
A foreign regulator may require presentation of certain "pro forma" information that may be a mixture of historical and forecasted amounts or otherwise not comply with Article 11 of Regulation S-X. For example, it might eliminate the impact of certain charges such as restructurings or recalculate revenues based on new sales contracts. Since the information is included in the foreign prospectus, the registrant may conclude that the information must also be included in the US prospectus so that the same information is disclosed to all investors. Although the presentation does not comply with Article 11, the staff has not objected to the disclosure in the US registration statement provided the information indicates clearly what the presentation represents, states that this pro forma information does not comply with Article 11 and explains why the information is included.
In some countries, compilation reports by independent accountants on pro forma information may be included in registration statements used in cross-border offerings pursuant to requirements in the foreign country. While such reports normally would not be allowed in US filings, the staff will not object to the inclusion of a compilation report provided that the registration statement includes a statement from the independent accountants that addresses the following items:
Presentation of these comments in the manner in which the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants recommends for differences between US and Canadian reporting standards would be acceptable. The registration statement should include a letter from the independent accountants acknowledging the use of the report.
Foreign banks will frequently have difficulty obtaining certain information to comply with the statistical disclosure requirements of Industry Guide 3. The staff recognizes that the categories and classifications specified by Guide 3 are heavily influenced by US banking regulation, and that some categories and classifications may not be the most relevant in understanding a foreign bank's operations. The staff will generally accept alternative classifications and presentation formats that provide an information content substantially similar to that specified by Guide 3, and may grant accommodations on the number of periods to be presented in certain circumstances. However, the staff believes that a robust presentation about loan quality and loss reserving is critical to an investor's understanding, and will pay particular attention to the completeness and meaningfulness of the information provided in response to Items III and IV of the Guide.
Foreign insurance companies will often have difficulty obtaining sufficient data regarding property casualty (general insurance) claim reserves to prepare the 10-year loss reserve development table in Industry Guide 6. When appropriate, the staff has granted limited accommodations on the number of periods to be presented. The staff will also consider presentations that encompass substantially all of the loss reserves, if the registrant lacks sufficient data in certain jurisdictions with small operations.
US oil and gas companies are required to file quarterly reports containing full cost ceiling tests under Rule 4-10(c) of Regulation S-X. Foreign registrants generally are not required to file quarterly reports. As a result, the staff does not object to foreign registrants limiting the application of the full cost ceiling test to the periods in which US GAAP balances are provided. In the event that comparative interim information is included in a registration statement for a period that was not previously presented, the full cost write-down for the interim period would be the lesser of the write-down for the year, or the excess over the ceiling amount at the end of the interim period. Foreign registrants should disclose the frequency with which the ceiling test is performed and the date of the latest test.
Mining companies should provide explicit disclosure of the types of reserves that are included in the base used for computing depletion - proven and probable reserves. The SEC staff has indicated in Industry Guide 7 that disclosure of reserve information is limited to proven and probable reserves. As disclosure of possible reserves is prohibited, the base of depletion should also not include such amounts. Excluding possible reserves from the base may result in a difference from home-country GAAP that needs to be addressed in the reconciliation to US GAAP.
A number of significant IFRS standards with extended transition dates have been issued in recent years. Certain other countries, such as the UK, also have substantial recent standard-setting activity.
Staff Accounting Bulletin 74 requires that when a new accounting standard has been issued but has not yet been adopted, the registrant should discuss the effect that the new standard will have on the registrant's financial statements when adopted. If alternative adoption methods and dates are permitted, the registrant should indicate the anticipated method and adoption date.
The SAB 74 disclosure requirement applies not only to the US GAAP information presented by foreign registrants but also to the GAAP used to prepare the primary financial statements included in SEC filings. The following disclosures should be provided:
In addition, disclosure of the potential impact of other significant matters that the registrant believes might result from the adoption of the new standard (e.g., technical violations of debt covenants, planned or intended changes in business practices) is encouraged.
In a number of the IAS standards, the impact of adopting the new or revised standard is likely to be known because similar determinations are necessary to prepare the US GAAP reconciliation.
In certain circumstances, the unusual nature or highly significant amount of a particular US GAAP reconciling item warrants further MD&A disclosure based on the guidance in Staff Accounting Bulletin 88. In these situations, the following factors may indicate the need for additional MD&A disclosure:
An expanded presentation of selected financial data on a US GAAP basis also may be necessary in these circumstances to highlight unusual or highly significant matters that otherwise might not be disclosed with sufficient prominence.
In August 1998 the Commission issued a cease and desist order against Sony Corporation. The Commission found that Sony violated the periodic reporting requirements of the Exchange Act of 1934. The Commission issued a similar order against Sony's Director of Investor Relations who was found to be a cause of the violations.
The Commission found that during the four months preceding Sony's $2.7 billion goodwill writedown related to its Sony Pictures subsidiary in November 1994, Sony made inadequate disclosures about the nature and extent of Sony Picture's losses and their impact on consolidated results. These deficiencies were contained in the MD&A to Sony's annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 1994, as well as in two Form 6-Ks that included copies of Sony's quarterly earnings releases.
Sony Pictures experienced significant losses throughout the periods since its acquisition, but those losses were not disclosed. Instead, disclosures about Sony Pictures focused on positive aspects like revenue trends and Academy Award results. The SEC noted that Sony did not report Sony Pictures as a separate industry segment, but instead combined its results with Sony's highly profitable music business as a single "entertainment" segment, thus obscuring the large losses of Sony Pictures.
The Commission ordered Sony to cease and desist from periodic reporting violations and to comply with three undertakings:
The Commission also sought and obtained a $1 million civil penalty in a related federal court proceeding.
Forms F-4 and S-4 permit foreign target companies that present financial statements under home-country GAAP to reconcile to US GAAP using Item 17 of Form 20-F. These Forms also permit a foreign target company that is not subject to Exchange Act reporting requirements to omit the US GAAP reconciliation if the reconciliation is unavailable or not obtainable without unreasonable cost or expense. If the conditions for omission of the numerical reconciliation are met, a narrative description of all material variations in accounting principles, practices, and methods is required.
Registrants should consider all relevant facts and circumstances in determining whether the US GAAP reconciliation is unavailable or not obtainable without unreasonable cost or expense. For example, the staff has objected to the omission of the US GAAP reconciliation in circumstances where the non-reporting target company was a subsidiary (or investee) of a larger reporting company, and considerable reconciling information for the subsidiary would have already been necessary to prepare the parent company's US GAAP reconciliation.
Registrants should note that the accommodation to omit the US GAAP reconciliation for a target company does not extend to the pro forma information required by Form F-4 and S-4. Pro forma information reflecting the effects of the business combination between the registrant and target company must be either presented on a US GAAP basis or reconciled to US GAAP, even if the target company is permitted to omit the US GAAP reconciliation in its separate financial statements.
The instructions to Item 17(b)(5) to Form F-4 state that the financial statements of a non-reporting target company for the fiscal years before the latest fiscal year need not be audited if they were not previously audited. A similar provision is included in Form S-4. However, if financial statements of a non-reporting foreign target have been previously audited using auditing standards other than US GAAS, and those financial statements have been published for general distribution in the target's home jurisdiction or elsewhere, the staff would generally expect financial statements to be audited in accordance with US GAAS and included in the registration statement. Registrants that anticipate difficulties should consider contacting the staff in advance.
Revised Rule 3-10 provides guidance for presenting condensed consolidating financial information about subsidiary issuers and guarantors in the notes to the parent company's consolidated financial statements. Where the parent company's consolidated financial statements are prepared on a basis other than US GAAP, Rule 3-10(i)(12) requires the information in each column of the condensed consolidating information to be reconciled to US GAAP to the extent necessary to allow investors to evaluate the sufficiency of the guarantees. The reconciling information may be based on Item 17 of Form 20-F, and need not duplicate information included elsewhere in the reconciliation of the consolidated financial statements. When applying this guidance, registrants should consider all relevant facts and circumstances regarding the nature, magnitude, direction and trend of reconciling items affecting subsidiary issuers and guarantors, and the extent to which those items are fully communicated in the reconciliation of the parent company's consolidated reconciliation.
The Release addresses the application of Rule 3-10 and Rule 12h-5 to the Exchange Act reporting requirements for parent companies that are foreign private issuers. The Release clarifies that a parent company that files annual reports on Form 20-F is not required to provide quarterly condensed consolidating information about its subsidiary issuers and guarantors, even if those subsidiaries are incorporated in the US.
In a registration statement under the Securities Act, however, a parent company that is a foreign private issuer is required to include condensed consolidating information about its subsidiary issuers and guarantors for all required annual and interim periods. The periods to be presented are determined by reference to Item 8.A of Form 20-F.
Pre-combination financial statements of an acquired business under Rule 3-05 of Regulation S-X are not required in a registration statement if the business combination was accounted for as a "pooling of interests" and is already reflected in the registrant's restated audited financial statements. While Rule 3-05 was originally written in the context of US GAAP, the Staff historically had not required pre-combination financial statements of the acquired business in situations where pooling was applied in the home-country GAAP financial statements, even if the business combination was reported as a purchase in the US GAAP reconciliation.
With the adoption of FASB Statement No. 141, pooling of interests is no longer an acceptable method of accounting for a business combination under US GAAP. In addition, certain other jurisdictions also have recently changed their GAAP to prohibit poolings, or are contemplating such a change.
As a result, the staff believes that the historical interpretation no longer produces an information content similar to that required by US GAAP. Consequently, if a foreign issuer reports a business combination under pooling of interests accounting in its home country GAAP financial statements, the staff will require the registrant to file the pre-combination financial statements of the acquired business under Rule 3-05. This would apply with respect to business combination transactions initiated after June 30, 2002.
Various countries that have experienced high rates of inflation require or permit financial statements to comprehensively include the effects of price level changes under home-country GAAP. In some countries, that reporting continues to apply even though the cumulative three-year inflation rate may be below 100%. The most commonly used approach is historical cost/constant currency, which recasts comparative period amounts into equivalent units of current purchasing power using a general price-level index. In some countries, a current (replacement) cost approach may be used. Form 20-F permits the inclusion of comprehensive price-level adjusted financial statements in SEC filings where that reporting is required or permitted by home-country GAAP.
Price-level adjustment approaches differ fundamentally from the methods used to translate historical cost results of foreign operations under FAS 52. Because of the inherent difficulties in producing meaningful information, an accommodation in Form 20-F permits foreign registrants that prepare comprehensive price-level adjusted financial statements to not reconcile the effects of price level changes to US GAAP. Registrants who use this accommodation must describe the basis of presentation of the price-level adjustments, and must state that the effects of the price level adjustments have not been reconciled to US GAAP.
Foreign private issuers operating in a highly inflationary environment that would like to prepare their primary financial statements in accordance with US GAAP can apply APB Statement No. 3, Financial Statements Restated for General Price-Level Changes (APS 3). The effects of the application of price level accounting do not have to be quantified in the reconciliation to US GAAP, as APS 3 is US GAAP. The staff has addressed several issues regarding the application of APS 3 including the acceptability of netting certain costs, discounting of trade receivables and payables and capitalization of interest. The definition of "highly inflationary" in FAS 52 and Rule 3-20 of Regulation S-X should be used when applying APS 3.
All price level adjusted financial information in a foreign private issuer's registration statement should be presented in equi