SEC Proposal Would Relax ICFR Auditor Attestation Requirement for Certain Smaller Reporting Companies

Aug 15, 2019

Reading Time : 3 min

These proposed amendments have the potential to reduce compliance costs for many public companies and could have a significant impact on lower-revenue companies to whom the ICFR auditor attestation requirement can be particularly burdensome. SRCs with less than $100 million in revenue should begin thinking about how the proposed amendments, if adopted, could impact their business and reporting processes. With the recent closure of the 60-day comment period on July 29, 2019, SRCs should be on the lookout for any SEC rule changes that may be adopted in light of the comments received.

Background on the ICFR Auditor Attestation Requirement

Currently, all public companies are required to have their management annually review the effectiveness of the issuer’s ICFR under Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). However, “accelerated” filers (market capitalization between $75 million and $700 million) and “large accelerated” filers (market capitalization greater than $700 million) are subject to an additional requirement under SOX 404(b). For these filers, an independent auditor must review and attest to management’s internal assessment of the company’s ICFR. Public companies that are not accelerated or large accelerated filers are explicitly exempt from ICFR auditor attestation requirement pursuant to SOX 404(c).

The ICFR auditor attestation requirement is intended to improve the accuracy and reliability of SEC disclosures. However, many public companies find that this assurance comes at a significant price. Indeed, this requirement can be the most costly aspect of being an accelerated filer and costs and fees associated with the ICFR auditor attestation requirement may also divert capital from core business needs.

The SEC amended the SRC definition in June 2018 (discussed here) to increase the SRC market capitalization ceiling from $75 million to $250 million and include companies with less than $100 million in annual revenues if such companies also have a market capitalization of less than $700 million. Prior to such amendments, the SRC category of filers generally did not overlap with either the accelerated or large accelerated filer categories. Following these amendments, however, it became possible for a company to be both an SRC, which is intended to have reduced reporting obligations, and an accelerated filer, which is subject to the ICFR auditor attestation requirement, as well as a number of other increased or accelerated reporting requirements.

SEC’s Proposal

The SEC’s proposed amendments, which were subject to public comment period until July 29, 2019, would provide a narrow carve-out from the current definitions of accelerated filer and large accelerated by excluding any company that both:

  1. Qualifies as a SRC.
  2. Has less than $100 million in annual revenues during the most recent fiscal year for which audited financial statements are available.

Most significantly, these companies would no longer be subject to the SOX 404(b) auditor attestation requirement. Practically speaking, the SEC estimates that the amendments would result in 539 additional issuers being classified as nonaccelerated filers and no longer subject to the ICFR auditor attestation requirement.

Additionally, these companies would no longer need to comply with the shorter deadlines for filing periodic reports applicable to accelerated filers and large accelerated filers. They also would not be required to provide disclosure about unresolved staff comments on their periodic and/or current reports or disclosure required by about whether they make filings available on or through their Internet websites.

The SEC’s proposed amendments also revise the transition provisions for entering and exiting accelerated filer and large accelerated filer status by increasing the transition thresholds to align them with those contained in the SRC definition. Notably, SRCs with market capitalizations between $75 million and $250 million would still be subject to all of the accelerated filer requirements if their annual revenues exceed $100 million.

Comment Letters

The majority of the comment letters expressed support for the proposed amendments. Out of the 61 comment letters received by the SEC, 49 of them (which included comments from each of the big four accounting firms, several SRCs (particularly those in the biotech industry), various law firms and Nasdaq) were in favor of the amendments. Of these 49, seven were strongly in favor.

The remaining 12 comment letters (generally from academics and industry groups) were opposed to the relaxed standards that would be introduced by the new amendments, emphasizing that, together, the risk of (i) significantly weaker internal controls and (ii) an increased number of accounting restatements outweighed any potential cost savings benefit that would result from the amendments.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 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.