The Business of Climate Change – Disclosure of “Stranded Assets”

Jan 31, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

The theory underlying this petition for the FASB to adopt disclosure requirements is straightforward.

  1. Publicly-traded companies assign value to their fossil fuel reserves on the assumption the reserves can be combusted for energy recovery.
  2. Governments are adopting regulatory measures to reduce carbon emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels.
  3. Publicly-traded companies should disclose to investors the expected financial impacts of government restrictions on the combustion of fossil fuels.

This would be fine if the world were a seminar. But the number and scope of the uncertainties inherently buried in any evaluation would render disclosure functionally meaningless. For example, companies would have to assess and assign a likelihood that any of the following factors might occur:

  • when regulatory requirements restricting fossil fuel use will be adopted
  • what the content of those restrictions will be
  • will some uses (e.g., electricity generation) be restricted more stringently than others (e.g., transportation)
  • which countries will agree to adopt such restrictions and which will not
  • which country’s restrictions will apply — the country in which the reserves are located, the country in which the raw fuel is refined, the country in which the final product is sold?

Of course, companies have, in recent years, included in their disclosures qualitative discussions of possible impacts of new regulatory requirements restricting carbon emissions. The step to a quantitative discussion, while certainly a laudable aspiration, remains to be achieved. To provide investors an opportunity to “pass judgment,” any disclosure would have to identify the assumptions underlying the disclosure and, perhaps, justify the selection of assumptions. Even then, while available models likely could produce precise figures to be included in disclosure documents, the uncertainties surrounding the accuracy of such figures severely discount any value added by the disclosure and could possibly create future hooks for securities litigation alleging false or misleading disclosures.

Notwithstanding these uncertainties, as calendar-year public companies approach annual reporting season, they should consider whether or not their current risk factor disclosures, as well as their “forward looking statements” language, are adequate in light of recent developments and any new regulatory requirements affecting possible “stranded assets.”

Issuers should approach the possibility of stranded assets as they would any other part of the business: if they are a significant factor that makes an investment in the company speculative or risky, then issuers should address it in their risk factor disclosures. Similarly, if a past occurrence or current risk of stranded assets is likely to have a material effect on operations or financial statements, then such incident or risk should be included in their Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Companies should also review their standard “forward looking statements” language to determine whether it could also use refreshing. In doing so, companies should consider whether or not the possibility of stranded assets posts a unique and material risk to their operations, and should discuss these risks in a way that avoids boilerplate language and statements of general risk applicable to all companies subject to government restrictions on the combustion of fossil fuels. 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Akin Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

Read More

Akin Deal Diary

2022-12-15

On December 14, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. The amendments aim to strengthen investor protections concerning insider trading and to help shareholders understand when and how insiders are trading in securities for which they may at times have material nonpublic information (MNPI). In light of these amendments, issuers should review and revise, if needed, their insider trading policies and equity grant policies.

Read more.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.