SEC Issues Public Statement Regarding the Impact of COVID-19 on Earnings Guidance
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.20
With first calendar quarter earnings set to be released by issuers in the coming weeks, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Jay Clayton and the SEC’s Director of the Division of Corporation Finance, William Hinman, issued a public statement on April 8, 2020, encouraging issuers to provide meaningful forward-looking disclosures regarding the impact of COVID-19 in their upcoming earnings releases and on calls with analysts and investors. This follows on the heels of the March 25, 2020 release of Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 9 by the Division of Corporation Finance, which provides its current views regarding disclosure and other securities law obligations that issuers should consider with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic and related business and market disruptions.
The impact of COVID-19 will not be easy to appraise and quantify for many issuers, but may nonetheless be material to an investor’s decision making. Furthermore, in the view of the Chairman and Director, the broad dissemination and exchange of company-specific plans for addressing the effects of COVID-19 under various scenarios will substantially contribute to the nation’s collective effort to fight and recover from COVID-19.
The statement of the Chairman and Director encourages issuers to provide as much COVID-19-related forward-looking information as practicable regarding their (1) current operating status and future operating plans under COVID-19 mitigation conditions, (2) current liquidity positions and expected financial resource needs, and (3) actions and changes to company policy that are likely to impact operations. Additionally, to the extent an issuer has or anticipates receiving COVID-19-related federal or state financial assistance, such issuer should consider how the assistance may be reasonably likely to have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations, and should provide disclosure of the nature, amounts and effects of such assistance.
The statement of the Chairman and Director acknowledges the difficulty in providing detailed forward-looking information regarding financial condition or results of operations, which may ultimately differ substantially from what would now appear to be a reasonable estimate at this stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. The statement says that the SEC does not expect to second guess an issuer’s good faith attempts to provide investors and other market participants appropriately framed forward-looking information. Nonetheless, we strongly encourage all issuers to have their forward-looking disclosures reviewed and analyzed by experienced securities counsel prior to public dissemination in order to ensure that whatever material an issuer proposes to disclose, or not disclose, is appropriate, adequate and complies with applicable securities laws.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
