Acceptance From Foreign Private Issuers of Financial Statements Prepared in Accordance With International Financial Reporting Standards Without Reconciliation to U.S. GAAP, 986-1012 [E7-25250]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
986
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
17 CFR Parts 210, 230, 239 and 249
[Release Nos. 33–8879; 34–57026;
International Series Release No. 1306; File
No. S7–13–07]
RIN 3235–AJ90
Acceptance From Foreign Private
Issuers of Financial Statements
Prepared in Accordance With
International Financial Reporting
Standards Without Reconciliation to
U.S. GAAP
Securities and Exchange
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Commission is adopting
rules to accept from foreign private
issuers in their filings with the
Commission financial statements
prepared in accordance with
International Financial Reporting
Standards (‘‘IFRS’’) as issued by the
International Accounting Standards
Board (‘‘IASB’’) without reconciliation
to generally accepted accounting
principles (‘‘GAAP’’) as used in the
United States. To implement this, we
are adopting amendments to Form 20–
F, conforming changes to Regulation S–
X, and conforming amendments to other
regulations, forms and rules under the
Securities Act and the Securities
Exchange Act. Current requirements
regarding the reconciliation to U.S.
GAAP do not change for a foreign
private issuer that files its financial
statements with the Commission using a
basis of accounting other than IFRS as
issued by the IASB.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 2008.
Compliance Date: Amendments
regarding acceptance of financial
statements prepared in accordance with
IFRS as issued by the IASB are
applicable to financial statements for
financial years ending after November
15, 2007 and interim periods within
those years contained in filings made
after the effective date. Amendments to
General Instruction G of Form 20–F
relating to first-time adopters of IFRS
are applicable to filings made after the
effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael D. Coco, Special Counsel,
Office of International Corporate
Finance, Division of Corporation
Finance, at (202) 551–3450, or Katrina
A. Kimpel, Professional Accounting
Fellow, Office of the Chief Accountant,
at (202) 551–5300, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549–3628.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
The
Commission is amending Form 20–F 1
under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ‘‘Exchange Act’’),2 Rules 1–02,
3–10 and 4–01 of Regulation S–X,3
Forms F–4 and S–4 under the Securities
Act of 1933 (the ‘‘Securities Act’’),4 and
Rule 701 under the Securities Act.5
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Proposed Amendments
B. Overview of Comments Received
C. Summary of Final Amendments
II. Acceptance of IFRS Financial Statements
from Foreign Private Issuers Without a
U.S. GAAP Reconciliation
A. The IASB
1. Governance and Structure
2. Funding
B. The Convergence Process
C. Investor Understanding and Education
D. Consistent and Faithful Application of
IFRS in Practice
E. Regulatory Processes and Infrastructure
to Promote Consistent and Faithful
Application of IFRS
III. Discussion of the Amendments
A. Eligibility and Implementation
1. Foreign Private Issuer Status
2. IFRS as Issued by the IASB
3. Implementation
B. Amendments to Effect Acceptance of
IFRS Financial Statements without
Reconciliation to U.S. GAAP
1. General
2. Interim Period Financial Statements
a. Financial Information in Securities Act
Registration Statements and
Prospectuses and Initial Exchange Act
Registration Statements Used Less Than
Nine Months After the Financial Year
End
b. Financial Statements in Securities Act
Registration Statements and
Prospectuses and Initial Exchange Act
Registration Statements Used More Than
Nine Months after the Financial Year
End
1 17
CFR 249.220f.
U.S.C. 78a et seq. Form 20–F is the combined
registration statement and annual report form for
foreign private issuers under the Exchange Act. It
also sets forth disclosure requirements for
registration statements filed by foreign private
issuers under the Securities Act of 1933. 15 U.S.C.
77a et seq.
The term ‘‘foreign private issuer’’ is defined in
Exchange Act Rule 3b–4(c) [17 CFR 240.3b–4(c)]. A
foreign private issuer means any foreign issuer
other than a foreign government except an issuer
that meets the following conditions: (1) More than
50 percent of the issuer’s outstanding voting
securities are directly or indirectly held of record
by residents of the United States; and (2) any of the
following: (i) The majority of the executive officers
or directors are United States citizens or residents;
(ii) more than 50 percent of the assets of the issuer
are located in the United States; or (iii) the business
of the issuer is administered principally in the
United States.
3 17 CFR 210.1–02, 17 CFR 210.3–10 and 17 CFR
210.4–01. Regulation S–X sets forth the form and
content of requirements for financial statements.
4 17 CFR 239.34 and 17 CFR 239.13.
5 17 CFR 230.701.
2 15
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
c. Transition Period Interim Financial
Statements in Securities Act Registration
Statements and Prospectuses and Initial
Exchange Act Registration Statements
C. Related Accounting and Disclosure
Issues
1. Selected Financial Data
2. Other Form 20–F Disclosure
a. Reference to U.S. GAAP
Pronouncements in Form 20–F
b. Disclosure from Oil and Gas Companies
c. Market Risk Disclosure and the Safe
Harbor Provisions
3. IFRS Treatment of Certain Areas
4. Other Considerations Relating to IFRS
and U.S. GAAP Guidance
5. First-Time Adopters of IFRS
6. Check Boxes on the Cover Page of Form
20–F
D. Regulation S–X
1. Application of the Amendments to Rules
3–05, 3–09, and 3–16
a. Significance Testing
b. Separate Historical Financial Statements
of Another Entity Provided under Rule
3–05 or 3–09
2. Pro Forma Financial Statements
Provided under Article 11
3. Financial Statements Provided under
Rule 3–10
4. Conforming Amendment to Rule 4–01
E. Application of the Amendments to other
Forms, Rules and Schedules
1. Conforming Amendments to Securities
Act Forms F–4 and S–4
2. Conforming Amendment to Rule 701
3. Schedule TO and Schedule 13E–3
4. Small Business Issuers
F. Application to Filings under the
Multijurisdictional Disclosure System
G. Periodic Reporting Deadlines for
Foreign Private Issuers
H. Quality Control Issues
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. Background
B. Burden and Cost Estimates Related to
the Accommodation
1. Form 20–F
2. Form F–1
3. Form F–4
4. Form S–4
5. Rule 701
V. Cost-Benefit Analysis
A. Expected Benefits
B. Expected Costs
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
VII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy,
Burden on Competition and Promotion
of Efficiency, Competition and Capital
Formation Analysis
VIII. Statutory Basis and Text of Final
Amendments
I. Executive Summary
A. Proposed Amendments
The Commission has long viewed
reducing the disparity between the
accounting and disclosure practices of
the United States and other countries as
an important objective both for the
protection of investors and the
efficiency of capital markets.6 The use
6 See ‘‘Acceptance from Foreign Private Issuers of
Financial Statements Prepared in Accordance with
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
of a single set of high-quality globally
accepted accounting standards by
issuers will help investors understand
investment opportunities outside the
United States more clearly and with
greater comparability than if those
issuers disclosed their financial results
under a multiplicity of national
accounting standards, and it will enable
issuers to access capital markets
worldwide at a lower cost.
Towards this end, the Commission
has undertaken several measures to
foster the use of International Financial
Reporting Standards (‘‘IFRS’’) as issued
by the International Accounting
Standards Board (‘‘IASB’’) and fully
supports the efforts of the IASB and the
Financial Accounting Standards Board
(‘‘FASB’’) to converge their accounting
standards.7 Specifically, the
Commission has adopted rules to
encourage the use of IFRS, which has
become increasingly widespread
throughout the world. Approximately
100 countries now require or allow the
use of IFRS, and many other countries
are replacing their national standards
with IFRS. Following the adoption of a
regulation in the European Union
(‘‘EU’’) to require companies
incorporated in one of its Member States
and whose securities are listed on an EU
regulated market to use IFRS beginning
with their 2005 financial year,8 we
adopted an accommodation to allow any
foreign private issuer preparing its
financial statements using IFRS for the
first time to provide two years rather
than three years of financial statements
in their filings with the Commission.9
Acknowledging the significant efforts
expended by many foreign private
issuers in their transition to IFRS, we
also extended compliance dates for
management’s report on internal control
over financial reporting.10
International Financial Reporting Standards
without Reconciliation to U.S. GAAP,’’ Release No.
33–8818 (July 2, 2007) [72 FR 37962 (July 11, 2007)]
(the ‘‘Proposing Release’’) for a summary of the
Commission’s past consideration of a single set of
globally accepted accounting standards.
7 See the Proposing Release for a summary of the
IASB, the FASB and the process of convergence.
8 Consistent with Form 20–F, IFRS and general
usage outside the United States, we use the term
‘‘financial year’’ to refer to a fiscal year. See
Instruction 2 to Item 3 of Form 20–F.
9 Release No. 33–8567 (April 12, 2005) [70 FR
20674 (April 20, 2005)] (the ‘‘2005 Adopting
Release’’). Other than first-time adopters of IFRS
eligible to rely on that accommodation, foreign
private issuers that register securities with the SEC,
and that report on a periodic basis thereafter under
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, are
required to present audited statements of income,
changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for
each of the past three financial years.
10 Release No. 33–8545 (March 2, 2005) [70 FR
11528 (March 8, 2005)].
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
Most recently, on July 11, 2007, the
Commission issued for public comment
a proposal to amend Form 20–F and
Regulation S–X to accept financial
statements of foreign private issuers that
are prepared on the basis of the English
language version of IFRS as published
by the IASB without a reconciliation to
U.S. GAAP.11 We did not propose to
change existing reconciliation
requirements for foreign private issuers
that file their financial statements under
other sets of accounting standards, or
that are not in full compliance with
IFRS as issued by the IASB.12 As part
of our efforts to foster a single set of
globally accepted accounting standards,
we are now adopting amendments to
accept from foreign private issuers
financial statements prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB in filings with the Commission
without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP.
B. Overview of Comments Received
In the Proposing Release we sought
comment on a number of issues,
including the goal of achieving a single
set of global accounting standards, the
role of the IASB as standard setter, the
potential effect of the proposed rule
changes on convergence, the ability of
investors and others to understand and
use IFRS financial statements without a
U.S. GAAP reconciliation, and the
application of IFRS by preparers of
financial statements. We received
approximately 125 comment letters in
response to the Proposing Release from
a wide variety of respondents, including
investors, analysts, foreign and U.S.
issuers, business associations,
accounting firms, law firms, credit
rating agencies and regulators.13 The
majority of commenters agreed that,
overall, the use of high-quality,
internationally accepted accounting
standards was an important and
worthwhile goal. In general,
commenters supporting the proposal,
which included many foreign private
11 As used in this release the phrase ‘‘IFRS as
issued by the IASB’’ refers to the authoritative text
of IFRS, which, according to the IASC Foundation
Constitution, is published in English. See
‘‘International Financial Reporting Standards
(IFRSs), including International Accounting
Standards (IASs) and Interpretations as at 1 January
2007,’’ Preface to International Financial Reporting
Standards, at 23. As described below in Section
III.A.2., the Proposing Release used the phrase
‘‘IFRS as published by the IASB’’ to refer to the
authoritative text of IFRS.
12 See Items 17 and 18 of Form 20–F; see also
Article 4 of Regulation S–X. See the Proposing
Release for a history of the reconciliation
requirement.
13 These comment letters are available on the
Commission’s Internet Web site, located at https://
www.sec.gov/comments/s7–13–07/s71307.shtml,
and in the Commission’s Public Reference Room in
its Washington, DC headquarters.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
987
issuers, accounting firms, legal firms
and foreign standard setters, as well as
some investors, agreed that IFRS were
suitable to be used as an internationally
accepted set of standards. Further, they
expressed that allowing IFRS without a
U.S. GAAP reconciliation would be
perceived as recognition of the
adequacy of the convergence process to
date and would promote and encourage
the ongoing convergence process.
However, the views of several other
commenters, including those
representing some institutional
investors and analysts, were mixed.
While these commenters also expressed
the view that IFRS have the potential to
fulfill the role of a set of high-quality,
international standards at some time in
the future, some thought the time was
not yet ripe for accepting those financial
statements without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation. Among the varying
reasons cited by those who believed the
time had not yet come were that the
convergence process is insufficient to
date and adopting the proposal would
likely slow, and possibly halt, the
convergence process. Other commenters
did think that the time was ripe to
accept financial statements prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation.
Regarding the effect on information
quality if the U.S. GAAP reconciliation
was removed, many commenters in
support of the proposal stated that the
reconciliation information is highly
technical and not widely understood.
These commenters also generally
expressed confidence in the quality of
application of IFRS in practice. On the
other hand, commenters that expressed
concerns with the proposal supported
the usefulness of both the quantitative
and qualitative aspects of the U.S.
GAAP reconciliation. These
commenters cited the presence of
significant differences in important line
items, such as net income, in the U.S.
GAAP reconciliations of many foreign
private issuers as evidence that the
convergence process is not sufficiently
complete. In their view, such
differences would be more difficult to
discern without the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation. They also asserted that
the U.S. GAAP reconciliation is helpful
to financial statement quality, and they
advocated further cross-jurisdictional
structural and enforcement efforts
regarding IFRS, including efforts to
strengthen governance of the IASB and
funding of the International Accounting
Standards Committee (‘‘IASC’’)
Foundation, the stand-alone
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
988
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
organization responsible for overseeing
the activities of the IASB.
Many commenters that supported the
proposal also urged the Commission to
make amendments that go further than
those we proposed. These commenters
suggested that the Commission also
accept from foreign private issuers
financial statements prepared using
jurisdictional adaptations of IFRS
without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation,
jurisdictional adaptations of IFRS with
a reconciliation to IFRS as issued by the
IASB, or any home country GAAP with
a reconciliation to IFRS as issued by the
IASB.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
C. Summary of Final Amendments
The Commission has considered the
comments received and believes it is
appropriate at this time to adopt
revisions, substantially as proposed, to
Items 17 and 18 of Form 20–F to allow
foreign private issuers to include in
their filings with the Commission
financial statements prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB without reconciliation to U.S.
GAAP. However, the amendments
adopted differ in some areas in
consideration of the responses we
received to questions we asked in the
Proposing Release.
In summary, the Commission is
adopting amendments that:
• Permit foreign private issuers to file
financial statements prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB without reconciliation to U.S.
GAAP;
• Require that foreign private issuers
taking advantage of this option state
explicitly and unreservedly in the notes
to their financial statements that such
financial statements are in compliance
with IFRS as issued by the IASB and
provide an unqualified auditor’s report
that opines on that compliance;
• Allow these foreign private issuers
also to file financial statements for
required interim periods without
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP (and
without providing disclosure under
Article 10 of Regulation S–X) if the
interim financial statements fully
comply with IAS 34;
• Extend indefinitely the two-year
accommodation contained in General
Instruction G of Form 20–F to all firsttime adopters of IFRS as issued by the
IASB; and
• Make conforming amendments to
Rules 1–02, 3–10 and 4–01 of
Regulation S–X, Securities Act Forms
F–4 and S–4, and Securities Act Rule
701.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
II. Acceptance of IFRS Financial
Statements From Foreign Private
Issuers Without a U.S. GAAP
Reconciliation
In the Proposing Release, the
Commission requested comment on a
number of broad areas with regard to
whether we should proceed with our
proposal to accept from foreign private
issuers IFRS financial statements
without a reconciliation to U.S. GAAP.
Commenters had a range of views on
these areas and offered useful input, and
we considered many factors in our
determination to adopt these
amendments. We received mixed views
on the utility of the information
provided by the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation of IFRS financial
statements. Some commenters
expressed concern about the overall
quality of IFRS, either due to
institutional considerations such as the
governance or funding of the IASB or
due to operational considerations such
as the future of the convergence process.
As described below, there are initiatives
that directly address these concerns. We
believe these initiatives will be more
effective in addressing concerns than
any indirect effects of retaining the
reconciliation requirement to U.S.
GAAP for financial statements that
comply with IFRS as issued by the
IASB.
We believe that it is appropriate to
adopt these amendments at this time
because we expect our acceptance of
IFRS financial statements without a U.S.
GAAP reconciliation will encourage
more foreign issuers to prepare financial
statements in accordance with IFRS. We
also expect it will facilitate capital
formation for foreign private issuers that
are registered with the Commission.
Adopting these amendments now may
serve as an incentive to encourage the
use of IFRS as issued by the IASB, as
well as to support their development as
a truly globally accepted set of highquality accounting standards.
A. The IASB
In the Proposing Release we noted
that the IASB’s sustainability,
governance and continued operation in
a stand-alone manner as a standard
setter are significant considerations in
our acceptance of IFRS financial
statements without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation, as those factors relate to
the ability of the IASB to continue to
develop high-quality globally accepted
standards. We solicited comment on
ways in which the Commission could
further support the IFRS standardsetting and interpretive processes, and
also how the Commission should
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
consider its role with regard to the
IASB.
1. Governance and Structure
Commenters generally agreed that the
IASB is a stand-alone standard setter
with a robust due process in its
standard-setting procedures.14 Although
most commenters did not express
concerns over governance, a few
commenters identified several concerns
relating to the organization, governance
and operation of the IASB as standard
setter. Specifically, these commenters
felt that improvements were needed to
enhance the geographic diversity of the
board,15 and to better align its
membership with investor interests.16
In reflection on these comments and
its own considerations, the Commission
has joined other authorities responsible
for capital market regulation—the
European Commission, the Financial
Services Agency of Japan and the
International Organization of Securities
Commissions (‘‘IOSCO’’)—to work
together to achieve a means of greater
accountability for the IASB and the
IASC Foundation to those governmental
authorities charged with protecting
investors and regulating capital
markets.17 This interest in increasing
the accountability of the IASB and the
IASC Foundation is a reflection of the
widespread acceptance of IFRS. The
increased use of IFRS has raised interest
in establishing formal ties between
securities regulatory stakeholders and
the IASC Foundation.
The authorities described in the
paragraph above propose to utilize the
occasion of the IASC Foundation’s 2008
Constitution review to put forward, in
collaboration with the IASC
Foundation, certain changes to
strengthen the IASC Foundation’s
governance framework, while
emphasizing the continued importance
of an independent standard-setting
process. Central to this effort is the
establishment of a new monitoring body
within the governance structure of the
IASC Foundation to reinforce the
existing public interest oversight
function of the IASC Foundation
Trustees. Likewise we note the IASC
Foundation Trustees’ announcement of
their proposals, following a strategy
14 See, for example, letters from American
Bankers Association, Georg Merkl (‘‘Merkl’’), and
UBS AG (‘‘UBS’’).
15 See, for example, letter from Korean
Accounting Institute and Korean Accounting
Standards Board (‘‘KAI–KASB’’).
16 See, for example, letter from CFA Institute
Centre for Financial Market Integrity (‘‘CFA
Institute’’).
17 See, SEC Press Release No. 2007–226,
November 7, 2007, available at: https://www.sec.gov/
news/press/2007/2007-226.htm.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
review over recent months, to enhance
the organization’s governance
arrangements and reinforce the
organization’s public accountability.18
As described in the Proposing
Release, the Commission participates in
the development of IFRS primarily
through its participation in IOSCO, in
which it takes an active role in
reviewing and contributing to comments
on exposure drafts of standards issued
by the IASB and in contributing to its
working groups. The Commission staff,
as an IOSCO representative, serves as a
non-voting observer at International
Financial Reporting Interpretations
Committee (‘‘IFRIC’’) meetings.19 The
Commission also is an observer of the
IASB Standards Advisory Council,
whose responsibilities include
consulting with the IASB as to technical
issues on the IASB’s agenda and project
priorities. Most commenters that
addressed the role of the Commission
with respect to the IASB felt that the
Commission should continue to
participate in the IASB and IFRIC’s due
process.20 Many felt that continued
interaction with the IASB through
IOSCO was appropriate.21
One commenter noted that in July
2006, following the reaffirmation of the
IASB and the FASB of their
commitment to convergence, the IASB
announced that it would not require the
application of new standards before
January 1, 2009.22 The establishment of
that lead time for the application of
major new standards was intended to
allow increased opportunity for
consultation, to set a clear target date for
adoption, and to provide stability in the
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
18 See,
IASC Foundation Press Release, ‘‘Trustees
Announce Strategy to Enhance Governance—Report
on Conclusions at Trustees Meeting,’’ November 6,
2007, available at https://www.iasb.org/News/Press+
Releases/Trustees+Announce+Strategy+to+
Enhance+Governance+-+Report+on+Conclusions+
at+Trustees++Meeting.htm (the ‘‘IASC Foundation
November 6 Press Release’’).
19 IFRIC interprets IFRS and reviews accounting
issues that are likely to receive divergent or
unacceptable treatment in the absence of
authoritative guidance, with a view to reaching
consensus on the appropriate accounting treatment.
The IFRIC is currently comprised of twelve voting
members, and the IASC Foundation has recently
approved an increase to fourteen voting members.
All IFRIC members are appointed by the IASC
Foundation Trustees for renewable terms of three
years. IFRIC Interpretations are ratified by the IASB
prior to becoming effective.
20 See, for example, letters from Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu (‘‘Deloitte’’), Institute of International
Finance, London Investment Banking Association
(‘‘LIBA’’), PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (‘‘PwC’’)
and the Swedish Export Credit Corporation
(‘‘SEK’’).
21 See, for example, letters from UBS and PwC.
22 The press release in which the IASB made this
announcement is available at: https://www.iasb.org/
News/Press+Releases/IASB+takes+steps+to+assist+
adoption+of+IFRSs+and+reinforce+consultation+
No+new+IFRSs+effective+until.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
IFRS platform of standards for issuers
that had already adopted IFRS. The
commenter expressed concern that the
2009 effective date would delay
improvement in the quality of financial
statements and disclosures, and argued
that our acceptance of IFRS financial
statements without reconciliation
should not occur until after the IASB
lifted its ‘‘moratorium’’ on new
standards.23 We note, however, that the
IASB continues to issue new standards
even if it does not require their
application before January 1, 2009, and
that voluntary early adoption of new
standards prior to their mandatory
effective date generally is allowed.
2. Funding
Several comment letters, including
those from financial statement users and
investors, raised the independence of
IASB funding as an issue.24 Most of
these commenters were concerned that
the current voluntary nature of
contributions might impact at least the
appearance of the IASB’s independence
as well as the quality and timeliness of
its standards.25 A few commenters
pointed out that the concentration of
private contributions was a concern that
led to the FASB’s current funding
mechanism.26
We support a strong, independent
IASB, and as we noted in the Proposing
Release, there are initiatives underway
to address its funding structure. We
believe promotion of these efforts is a
more efficient and productive course of
action than continuing to require a U.S.
GAAP reconciliation for financial
statements prepared in accordance with
IFRS as issued by the IASB. Currently
the operations of the IASC Foundation
are financed by a combination of
voluntary, private contributions and
levied funds. Trustees of the IASC
Foundation have indicated that a longterm objective of its funding plan is to
move away from relying on voluntary,
private contributions. In June 2006, the
IASC Foundation Trustees agreed on
four elements that should govern the
establishment of a funding approach
that would enable the IASC Foundation
to remain a stand-alone, private sector
organization with the necessary
resources to conduct its work in a
23 See
letter from CFA Institute.
for example, letters from California Public
Employees’ Retirement System, CFA Institute, and
Goldman Sachs.
25 See, for example, letters from ColgatePalmolive Company and Investors Technical
Advisory Committee (‘‘ITAC’’).
26 See, for example, letters from Council of
Institutional Investors (‘‘CII’’), Lawrence A.
Cunningham, and Gaylen R. Hansen.
24 See,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
989
timely fashion.27 The Trustees continue
to make progress in obtaining stable
funding that satisfies those elements.
Commenters have indicated that such a
change would be beneficial to the
stability of the organization, as it would
spread the costs more equitably.28
In light of the comments received and
its own considerations, the Commission
has taken note of the IASC Foundation’s
funding progress as most recently
announced following an October 31,
2007 IASC Foundation Trustee
meeting.29 The Commission is
encouraged by the progress in
diversifying the sources of the IASC
Foundation’s funding among and within
jurisdictions, as well as by the number
of jurisdictions (such as Australia, the
Netherlands, New Zealand and the
United Kingdom) that have moved away
from a voluntary funding scheme either
to a levy or national payment.
B. The Convergence Process
As discussed in the Proposing
Release, continued progress towards
convergence between U.S. GAAP and
IFRS as issued by the IASB is another
consideration in our acceptance of IFRS
financial statements without a U.S.
GAAP reconciliation. We believe that
investors can understand and work with
both IFRS and U.S. GAAP and that these
two systems can co-exist in the U.S.
public capital markets in the manner
described in this rulemaking, even
though convergence between IFRS and
U.S. GAAP is not complete and there
are differences between reported results
under IFRS and U.S. GAAP. As we
27 The Trustees determined that ‘‘characteristics
of the new scheme for 2008 would be:
• Broad-based: Fewer than 200 companies and
organizations participate in the current financing
system. A sustainable long-term financing system
must expand the base of support to include major
participants in the world’s capital markets,
including official institutions, in order to ensure
diversification of sources.
• Compelling: Any system must carry with it
enough pressure to make free riding very difficult.
This could be accomplished through a variety of
means, including official support from the relevant
regulatory authorities and formal approval by the
collecting organizations.
• Open-ended: The financial commitments
should be open-ended and not contingent on any
particular action that would infringe on the
independence of the IASC Foundation and the
International Accounting Standards Board.
• Country-specific: The funding burden should
be shared by the major economies of the world on
a proportionate basis, using Gross Domestic Product
as the determining factor of measurement. Each
country should meet its designated target in a
manner consistent with the principles above.’’
See https://www.iasb.org/About+Us/
About+the+Foundation/Future+Funding.htm.
28 See the letter from KPMG IFRG Limited
(‘‘KPMG’’).
29 See the IASC Foundation November 6 Press
Release.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
990
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
stated in the Proposing Release, we do
not believe that eliminating the
reconciliation should be contingent
upon achieving a particular degree of
convergence. Rather, the robustness of
the convergence process over time,
among other factors, is of greater
importance.
The majority of commenters agreed
that attaining a single set of high-quality
global accounting standards was a
worthwhile goal, with several agreeing
that a specific level of convergence was
not required to eliminate the
reconciliation requirement.30 In
highlighting that acceptance of IFRS
financial statements without a U.S.
GAAP reconciliation should not be
contingent on achieving a particular
level of convergence, one commenter
noted, ‘‘[e]ven today users cannot
assume that the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation always ensures direct
comparability with U.S. GAAP financial
statements of other entities.’’ 31
We received a variety of viewpoints
about the level of convergence between
U.S. GAAP and IFRS as issued by the
IASB and about the potential effect of
eliminating the reconciliation
requirement on the convergence
process. Respondents in favor of the
amendments generally felt that
acceptance of IFRS financial
statements 32 without a reconciliation to
U.S. GAAP would be perceived as an
indication of the adequacy of
convergence and the convergence
process to date.33 Many of those not in
favor of the amendments believed that
convergence to date was insufficient to
merit the removal of the reconciliation
requirement at this time,34 or that
acceptance of IFRS financial statements
without reconciliation would impede
progress on further convergence.35
Some commenters who took the latter
view cited the presence of substantial
differences in important items in the
30 See, for example, letters from the American
Insurance Group, Inc. (‘‘AIG’’), Ernst & Young LLP
(‘‘Ernst & Young’’), PwC, American Accounting
Association—Financial Accounting Standards
Committee.
31 See letter from KPMG.
32 The phrase ‘‘IFRS financial statements’’ as used
in this release refers to financial statements
prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB, unless otherwise specified.
33 See, for example, letters from Institute of
Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
(‘‘ICAEW’’), Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
(‘‘Siemens’’), KPMG, Goldman Sachs, and
Federation of European Accountants (‘‘FEE’’).
34 See, for example, letters from New York State
Society of Certified Public Accountants
(‘‘NYSSCPA’’), Maverick Capital (‘‘Maverick’’), and
ITAC.
35 See, for example, letters from CFA Institute,
ITAC, NYSSCPA, R.G. Associates, and Terry
Warfield (‘‘Warfield’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
reconciliation as evidence that the
convergence process is not sufficiently
complete, and gave examples of several
items that are disclosed in the
reconciliation of which they would be
unaware if they had to rely on IFRS
financial statements alone.36 Several
commenters suggested that if we accept
IFRS financial statements without
reconciliation, users of financial
statements would benefit if issuers
continued to provide qualitative
disclosure of the nature of the
differences between IFRS and the
unreported U.S. GAAP results.37 Other
commenters representing users of
financial statements, though, noted that
the reconciling information is not very
useful to them in evaluating IFRS
financial statements,38 and many
foreign issuers commented that they
rarely receive questions from securities
analysts and others relating to their U.S.
GAAP reconciliations.39 Many
commenters believed that market forces
and demand for comparable information
in global capital markets will continue
to provide sufficient incentive for
further convergence of U.S. GAAP and
IFRS as issued by the IASB.40
IFRS as issued by the IASB and U.S.
GAAP are both sets of high-quality
accounting standards that are similar to
one another in many respects, and the
convergence efforts to date have
progressed in eliminating many
differences. We recognize, however, that
there are still a number of differences
between U.S. GAAP and IFRS as issued
by the IASB, and that there remain
specific accounting subjects that IFRS
has yet to address fully. One goal of the
convergence effort underway with the
FASB and IASB is to remove the
remaining differences and to avoid
creating significant new differences as
standard setters continue to address
existing and emerging accounting
issues.
These rule amendments are based on
many factors, including the progress of
the IASB and the FASB towards
convergence, the joint commitment that
both boards have expressed to achieving
further convergence of accounting
standards in the future, and our belief
that investors and capital markets are
36 See, for example, letters from the CFA Institute,
Maverick, and R.G. Associates.
37 See, for example, letters from AIG, BP plc
(‘‘BP’’), and Fitch Ratings.
38 See, for example, letters from Corporate
Reporting Users’ Forum (‘‘CRUF’’), Goldman Sachs,
and Merrill Lynch & Company.
39 See, for example, letters from Novartis and
Nokia.
40 See, for example, letters from British Bankers’
Association, Microsoft Corporation (‘‘Microsoft’’),
Ernst & Young, PwC, Prudential plc (‘‘Prudential’’),
and Fitch Ratings.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
best served with high-quality
accounting standards. Our focus is on
whether IFRS is a set of high-quality
accounting standards established
through a robust process, the
application of which yields information
investors can understand and work with
despite any differences with U.S. GAAP.
We anticipate that the process
towards convergence will continue,
because capital markets will provide an
ongoing incentive for a common set of
high-quality globally accepted
accounting standards, regardless of the
existence of an IFRS to U.S. GAAP
reconciliation requirement. The IASB
and the FASB are now developing
standards in areas where improvement
is warranted. These circumstances exist
regardless of whether the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation requirement is in place.
The IASB and the FASB have, in 2002
and 2006, issued Memoranda of
Understanding that acknowledge their
joint commitment to developing highquality global standards, the
establishment of which remains a longterm strategic priority for both Boards.
In November 2007, the Trustees of the
IASC Foundation reiterated their
support for continuing the convergence
work program described in these
Memoranda, noting that future work is
largely focused on areas in which the
objective is to develop new world-class
international standards.41
It also is important to note that some
reconciling differences between IFRS
and U.S. GAAP will continue to exist
independent of the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation and the convergence
process. Due to their sources, these
differences between U.S. GAAP and
IFRS will remain regardless of the level
of future convergence that can be
attained. These differences include the
effects of legacy transactions, such as
business combinations, that occurred
before U.S. GAAP and IFRS became
more converged, and of self-selected
differences that arise as a function of
differing accounting elections (e.g.
hedge accounting) that foreign private
issuers make under IFRS and U.S.
GAAP.
C. Investor Understanding and
Education
In the Proposing Release we posed
several questions about the ability of
investors to understand and use
financial statements prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation, and whether that ability
would depend on the size or nature of
41 See the IASC Foundation November 6 Press
Release.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
the investor, the value of the
investment, or other considerations.
Commenters noted that investors vary
considerably in their ability to
understand and use IFRS financial
statements and that the same is true of
their ability to understand and use
financial statements prepared using U.S.
GAAP.42 However, many commenters
were encouraged by the apparent lack of
difficulty with transition to IFRS in the
EU from many different country-specific
GAAPs.43 One respondent took an
opposing view and asserted that the
present lack of investor understanding
of IFRS should be a factor in deciding
whether to eliminate the reconciliation
requirement.44 That commenter
believed that eliminating the
reconciliation will require more work
(and possibly self-education) by
investors to understand IFRS financial
statements, which may result in
investment decisions becoming more
costly.45 Another commenter indicated
its belief that currently there is a lack of
IFRS-based educational programs.46
As is also the case with U.S. GAAP,
we understand investors and other users
of financial statements do not all
possess the same level of understanding
of IFRS or the resources that would
facilitate gaining such an
understanding. We anticipate, however,
that by encouraging the use of IFRS as
issued by the IASB, these amendments
will help investors to understand
international investment opportunities
more clearly and with greater
comparability in the long-term than if
they had to continue to rely on a
multiplicity of national accounting
standards. The disclosures provided
pursuant to the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation are not an exact substitute
for an issuer preparing its financial
statements in U.S. GAAP. While some
commenters have indicated that the U.S.
GAAP reconciliation is useful, it is not
the equivalent of U.S. GAAP financial
statements. Investors currently must
make use of IFRS financial statements
and financial statements under various
national GAAPs, even when
accompanied by a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation. We are encouraged by
comments from other institutional
investors indicating their degree of
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
42 See,
for example, letters from BDO Global
Coordination B.V. (‘‘BDO’’), ICAEW, Merkl, and
Shell International B.V. (‘‘Shell’’).
43 See, for example, letters from British Bankers’
Association, LIBA, International Swaps and
Derivatives Association (‘‘ISDA’’), and Financial
Reporting Council.
44 See letter from ITAC.
45 Id.
46 See letter from CFA Institute.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
comfort and familiarity with IFRS
financial statements.47
The present use of IFRS financial
statements described above does not
diminish the importance of recognizing
that some investors are not as familiar
with using IFRS financial statements as
they are with using U.S. GAAP financial
statements or the information provided
in the U.S. GAAP reconciliation. These
investors may need to obtain training or
education in IFRS before they are
comfortable working without the U.S.
GAAP reconciliation. In this regard, we
note the amendments we are adopting
will affect a small number of issuers
relative to the overall size of the U.S.
public capital markets. In addition, we
are allowing only financial statements
prepared in accordance with IFRS as
issued by the IASB to be filed without
a U.S. GAAP reconciliation, so concern
over having to learn multiple
jurisdictional variations of IFRS is not a
factor. More broadly, as companies
increasingly move to IFRS, investors
that have gained familiarity with IFRS
should see an increasing return on their
investment in education. A number of
accounting firms and other
organizations currently provide
information about IFRS as issued by the
IASB on their web sites free of charge.
As more countries adopt IFRS as the
basis of accounting for their listed
companies, we anticipate that investors
who are not yet familiar with IFRS will
have the opportunity to gain such
familiarity.
D. Consistent and Faithful Application
of IFRS in Practice
The degree of consistency and
faithfulness with which IFRS is applied
is another consideration in our
acceptance of IFRS financial statements
without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP.
The Commission staff has gained an
increasing understanding of the
application of IFRS standards through
its regular review of the periodic reports
of publicly registered companies, a
number of which prepare their financial
statements in accordance with IFRS.48
The Commission staff will continue to
review and comment on IFRS financial
statements and disclosure as part of its
normal review function.49
47 See,
for example, letter from CRUF.
Staff of the Commission’s Division of
Corporation Finance has published its observations
on the review of IFRS financial statements included
in the annual reports of more than 100 foreign
private issuers. Those observations are available at
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/
ifrs_staffobservations.htm.
49 Pursuant to Section 408 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the Commission is required to review
disclosures made by reporting issuers with
securities listed on a national securities exchange
48 The
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
991
Commenters had a range of views
with regard to our request for comments
on the application of IFRS as issued by
the IASB. Some commenters who
favored the amendments highlighted the
fact that IFRS has been applied for more
than two years by thousands of
companies throughout the world,
including approximately seven
thousand in the EU, and that investors
are already employing information from
IFRS financial statements to make
investment decisions.50 In contrast,
some commenters who were not
supportive of the proposal noted that
the U.S. GAAP reconciliation offers
auditors a quality control mechanism
that identifies IFRS application issues,
and referred to the staff’s ‘‘Observations
in the Review of IFRS Financial
Statements’’ as evidence that supports
their concerns about the consistent
application of IFRS by reporting
issuers.51 One such commenter also felt
that it would be difficult to audit for
compliance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB because of the current state of
IFRS-based training for auditors.52
Auditors, however, generally
commented that they do have sufficient
experience and familiarity with IFRS to
be able to opine on IFRS financial
statements, and that the elimination of
the U.S. GAAP reconciliation would
provide an incentive to develop IFRS
capabilities faster than if the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation were retained.53 Some
respondents believed that latitude in the
application of IFRS results in
inconsistent reporting,54 while several
supporters of the proposal believed
application of IFRS did not vary
between companies that are registered
under the Exchange Act and those that
are not.55 One firm, while
acknowledging diversity in the
application of IFRS, felt that such
diversity should diminish with time as
application and interpretive issues are
identified and addressed.56
As described in the Proposing
Release, the Commission has a long
or traded on an automated quotation facility of a
national securities association on a regular and
systematic basis for the protection of investors.
Such review shall include a review of the issuer’s
financial statements.
50 See, for example, letters from Deutsche Bank,
Ernst & Young, HSBC Holdings plc (‘‘HSBC’’), SEK,
and Siemens.
51 See, for example, letters from ITAC, R.G.
Associates, CFA Institute.
52 See letter from CFA Institute.
53 See, for example, letter from Grant Thornton
LLP (‘‘Grant Thornton’’).
54 See, for example, letters from Robert Mladek,
and Fund for Stockowners Rights.
55 See, for example, letters from HSBC, Cleary
Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (‘‘Cleary’’), Syngenta AG
(‘‘Syngenta’’).
56 See letter from Deloitte.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
992
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
history of supporting the work of the
IASB and its predecessor the
International Accounting Standards
Committee in developing high-quality
global accounting standards. In addition
to understanding the standards, the
Commission staff has developed a
growing familiarity with their
application. The Commission staff has
reviewed and commented upon the
filings of foreign private issuers that
prepare their financial statements using
IFRS. The staff has indicated that issues
that it has observed in its ordinary
review of IFRS financial statements do
not appear to be more pervasive or
significant than those it has identified in
U.S. GAAP financial statements. We
anticipate that the increasing use of
IFRS as issued by the IASB will lead to
even greater consistency of application,
as well as to increased training
opportunities for preparers, auditors,
and investors.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
E. Regulatory Processes and
Infrastructure to Promote Consistent
and Faithful Application of IFRS
In the Proposing Release, we
discussed the cooperative infrastructure
that regulators have put in place to
identify and avoid inconsistent or
inaccurate applications of IFRS globally
so as to foster the consistent and faithful
application of IFRS around the world.
This infrastructure includes IOSCO, in
which the Commission participates,
which has established a database among
member regulators for sharing
regulators’ decisions on the application
of IFRS.57 The Commission and the
Committee of European Securities
Regulators (‘‘CESR’’), which the
European Commission has charged with
evaluating the implementation of IFRS
in the EU, have established a work plan
in which they agree to consult with one
another with the goal of avoiding
conflicting conclusions regarding the
application and enforcement of IFRS.58
In the Proposing Release, we asked for
feedback regarding our work with other
regulators to provide for the
enforcement of IFRS as issued by the
IASB. Many commenters did not
express concern with the current
processes and infrastructure that have
been established between regulators to
promote consistent and faithful
application of IFRS. Most commenters
responding on this topic believed that
the infrastructure is in place to identify
57 See IOSCO’s press release regarding its IFRS
database at https://www.iosco.org/news/pdf/
IOSCONEWS92.pdf.
58 The press release announcing the SEC–CESR
work plan, and the text of the work plan, are
available at https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006/
2006-130.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
and avoid inconsistent and inaccurate
applications of IFRS globally.59 Some of
these commenters noted the
Commission’s involvement and
leadership role in IOSCO and
encouraged the Commission to continue
to work through IOSCO to coordinate
with other regulators in bringing matters
to the IASB and to IFRIC.60 Several of
these commenters also supported the
Commission’s continued involvement in
information sharing arrangements with
other regulators and the interaction with
CESR.61 Some commenters who did not
support the proposal believed that the
lack of a global enforcement mechanism
means that the necessary controls to
successfully implement global standards
are currently lacking.62 The
Commission believes the current system
can be effective, and will continue its
work in this area to support multilateral
and bilateral efforts, including its
participation in IOSCO and its
collaboration with CESR and other
regulators as appropriate.
III. Discussion of the Amendments
We are adopting the amendments
substantially as proposed. We have,
however, in response to comments,
made some modification in certain
areas, as discussed below.
A. Eligibility and Implementation
1. Foreign Private Issuer Status
The amendments the Commission is
adopting will apply only to foreign
private issuers that file on Form 20–F,
regardless of whether the issuer
complies with IFRS as issued by the
IASB voluntarily or in accordance with
the requirements of the issuer’s home
country regulator or exchange on which
its securities are listed.
A large number of comment letters
addressed eligibility requirements and
commenters almost unanimously
supported the applicability of the
proposed amendments to all foreign
private issuers.63 Some commenters
indicated that other types of issuers also
should be permitted to file IFRS
financial statements without a U.S.
GAAP reconciliation, for example
reporting U.S. subsidiaries of foreign
private issuers that use IFRS to prepare
59 See, for example, letters from HSBC, LIBA, and
SIFMA.
60 See, for example, letters from Business Europe,
BP, HSBC, and UBS.
61 See, for example, letters from International
Finance, LIBA, PwC, and Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (‘‘SIFMA’’).
62 See, for example, letters from CFA Institute,
and Brent Kobayashi.
63 See, for example, letters from Grant Thornton,
Microsoft, and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (‘‘Sullivan
& Cromwell’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
their consolidated financial
statements 64 or reporting foreign issuers
that did not fall within the definition of
foreign private issuer under Rule 3b–4
under the Exchange Act.65 We note that
the scope of our proposal was limited to
foreign private issuers, for which the
Commission has an established
disclosure regime distinct from that
applicable to companies that are not
foreign private issuers. The question of
which disclosure regime an entity
should report under was beyond the
scope of the proposal, and thus we are
not extending the application of the
adopted amendments to entities that do
not satisfy the definition of foreign
private issuer under Rule 3b–4, or
foreign private issuers that do not file
their annual report on Form 20–F. We
are examining the possibility of the
broader use of IFRS by entities that are
not foreign private issuers in the
Concept Release on Allowing U.S.
Issuers to Prepare Financial Statements
in Accordance with International
Financial Reporting Standards.66
We requested comment as to whether
we should place limitations on the
eligibility of a foreign private issuer to
file financial statements prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation. We also asked whether
our acceptance of IFRS financial
statements without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation should be phased in
based on, for example, issuer size or
other criteria. Most commenters
opposed any limitations on the
application of any final rules, and did
not see any benefit to a transition
approach that phases in registrants.67
One commenter pointed out that
appropriate application of IFRS would
not be dependent on an issuer’s size,68
while others stated that smaller
companies face a greater relative burden
in preparing a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation.69 One commenter also
opposed a phase-in based on issuers’
experience with IFRS, as it would be
difficult to establish meaningful criteria
to evaluate that experience.70 We are not
adopting any issuer limitations or
phase-in for the application of the
64 See, for example, letter from Financial Security
Assurance Holdings Ltd.
65 See memorandum from the Executive Staff on
a meeting with representatives of INVESCO plc.
66 Release No. 33-8831 (August 7, 2007) [72 FR
45600 (August 14, 2007)], available on the
Commission Web site at https://www.sec.gov/rules/
concept/2007/33-8831.pdf.
67 See, for example, letters from Cleary, Deloitte,
Fitch Ratings, PwC, and Sullivan & Cromwell.
68 See letter from Fitch Ratings.
69 See, for example, letters from Cleary, Deloitte,
Grant Thornton, and Sullivan & Cromwell.
70 See letter from Grant Thornton.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
adopted amendments, as we believe that
to do so would not effectively encourage
the use by foreign private issuers of
IFRS as issued by the IASB and may
create inappropriate disparity in our
treatment of foreign private issuers.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
2. IFRS as Issued by the IASB
We are adopting as proposed the
amendments to Items 17 and 18 of Form
20–F. Under the amendments, a foreign
private issuer is eligible to omit the
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP if it states,
unreservedly and explicitly in an
appropriate note to the financial
statements, that its financial statements
are in compliance with IFRS as issued
by the IASB.71 Also, the independent
auditor must opine in its report on
whether those financial statements
comply with IFRS as issued by the
IASB. As described in the Proposing
Release, the auditor’s report can include
this language in addition to any opinion
relating to compliance with standards
required by the home country.
The majority of commenters believed
that auditors should be able to provide
audit opinions that financial statements
were fully compliant with IFRS as
issued by the IASB.72 Several
commenters indicated that they were
not aware of any reason why the auditor
and the issuer would not be able to
provide the dual statement of
compliance with both IFRS as issued by
the IASB and a jurisdictional variation
of IFRS in cases where accounting
policy choices ensure compliance with
both IFRS as issued by the IASB and the
jurisdictional variation of IFRS.73 One
commenter, however, believed that the
additional opinion in the auditor’s
report relating to compliance with IFRS
as issued by the IASB would be both
duplicative and unnecessary, as the
auditor would already be expected to
issue a qualified opinion if it found
deviations from IFRS as issued by the
IASB given an issuer’s unreserved
statement of compliance.74 We believe
that in cases where there is no
discrepancy between IFRS as issued by
the IASB and a jurisdictional variation,
the issuer and the auditor should be
71 The amendments would not encompass use of
the IASB’s proposed IFRS for Small and Mediumsized Entities (‘‘IFRS for SMEs’’), because those
proposed standards relate only to smaller issuers
that do not have debt or equity securities listed on
a public market. More information on IFRS for
SMEs is available on the IASB Web site at https://
www.iasb.org/Current+Projects/IASB+Projects/
Small+and+Medium-sized+Entities/
Small+and+Medium-sized+Entities.htm.
72 See, for example, letters from Galileo Global
Advisors LLC, Grant Thornton, Microsoft, PwC, and
UBS.
73 See, for example, letters from PwC and UBS.
74 See letter from CESR.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
able to provide the dual statements
without undue difficulty.
A foreign private issuer will continue
to be required to provide a
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP under these
amendments if its financial statements
include deviations from IFRS as issued
by the IASB, if it does not state
unreservedly and explicitly that its
financial statements are in compliance
with IFRS as issued by the IASB, if the
auditor does not opine on compliance
with IFRS as issued by the IASB, or if
the auditor’s report contains any
qualification relating to compliance
with IFRS as issued by the IASB. A
foreign private issuer using a
jurisdictional or other variation of IFRS
will be able to rely on the amendments
if that issuer also is able to state
compliance with both IFRS as issued by
the IASB and a jurisdictional variation
of IFRS (and does so state), and its
auditor opines that the financial
statements comply with both IFRS as
issued by the IASB and the
jurisdictional variation, as long as the
statement relating to the former is
unreserved and explicit.
Many commenters supported the
objective of encouraging the
development of a single set of highquality international accounting
standards, but suggested that we also
accept without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation financial statements
prepared in accordance with a
jurisdictional variation of IFRS, and in
particular IFRS as adopted by the EU.75
75 Many commenters noted that issuers listed in
the EU are required to prepare their statutory
financial statements using IFRS as adopted by the
EU. Commenters noted that presently the only
difference between IFRS as issued by the IASB and
IFRS as adopted by the EU relates to IAS 39,
‘‘Financial Instruments: Recognition and
Measurement,’’ whereby IFRS as adopted by the EU
offers greater flexibility with respect to hedge
accounting for certain financial instruments than
does IFRS as issued by the IASB. We understand
that few companies make use of this ability to
‘‘carve-out’’ these provisions of IAS 39 from IFRS
as issued by the IASB. As the European
Commission noted in its comment letter, ‘‘[f]or the
vast majority of EU issuers listed in the U.S., this
carve-out has no practical significance and as such
their financial statements prepared under IFRS as
adopted by the EU would be identical to those
prepared under IFRS as published by the IASB.’’ As
a practical matter, this difference applies only to
foreign financial institutions, several of which have
commented that they do not avail themselves of the
approach afforded by the EU-endorsed standard
(see letters from Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Lloyds), and
that therefore they would be able to assert
compliance with both IFRS as endorsed by the EU
and IFRS as issued by the IASB. Other commenters
either did not address the issue or did not express
concern about their ability to assert dual
compliance at the present time.
Issuers expressed concern, however, that they
may not be able to express dual compliance in the
future if the timing of the EU’s endorsement of new
standards, or an EU decision not to endorse a
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
993
Some of these and other commenters
thought it would be appropriate also to
permit a reconciliation from a
jurisdictional variation of IFRS to IFRS
as issued by the IASB. Further, some
commenters suggested the Commission
also permit a reconciliation from any
home country GAAP to IFRS as issued
by the IASB. Commenters did not
suggest that accepting financial
statements that comply with IFRS as
issued by the IASB from foreign private
issuers was dependent on implementing
any of these additional suggested
approaches. We are not extending the
proposal to these variations because we
believe that allowing any of these
approaches would not as effectively
foster the development and use of a
single set of high-quality global
accounting standards.
In the Proposing Release, the phrase
we used to describe the authoritative
text of IFRS was ‘‘the approved English
language version of IFRS as published
by the IASB.’’ The final amendments
refer to the same authoritative text of
IFRS as it is provided for by the IASC
Foundation Constitution, although we
are using the phrase ‘‘IFRS as issued by
the IASB’’ to describe it. As one
commenter pointed out, according to
the IASC Foundation Constitution, ‘‘the
authoritative text of any Exposure Draft
or International Accounting Standard or
International Financial Reporting
Standards or Draft or final Interpretation
shall be that published by the IASB in
the English language’’ and, for this
reason, there is no need to make
reference to language when describing
the authoritative text.76 Further, because
the standards are issued by the Board
and published by the IASC Foundation,
it is to standards ‘‘issued’’ that we refer.
3. Implementation
In the Proposing Release we sought
input on what commenters thought
might be an appropriate compliance
date if the Commission were to adopt
the proposed amendments, as well as on
issues relating to the timing of
implementation for any adopted
amendments.
Of the commenters who provided
feedback relating to implementation and
timing, a majority of those who
supported acceptance of IFRS financial
statements without reconciliation
standard, were to create differences between EU
IFRS and IFRS as issued by the IASB such that
compliance with EU IFRS necessarily precluded
compliance with IFRS as issued by the IASB.
See Section III.A.3. below for a discussion of
transition provisions applicable to European
companies that make use of the EU’s carve-out from
IAS 39.
76 See letter from KPMG.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
994
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
indicated that the amendments should
be effective for filings covering the 2008
financial year, with some of those
commenters indicating that such timing
would allow investors and other
affected parties more time to familiarize
themselves with IFRS.77 A significant
portion of commenters that supported
the proposed rules felt that the
amendments should be effective at the
earliest date possible.78
Commenters did not indicate that the
number of issuers that prepare their
financial statements in accordance with
IFRS should be a factor in determining
the implementation of any adopted
rules, and some stated that acceptance
of IFRS financial statements without a
U.S. GAAP reconciliation would
encourage other issuers to adopt IFRS,
which may assist in promoting the
achievement of a single set of highquality internationally accepted
accounting standards.79 Most
commenters responding to our question
as to whether the timing of any rule
should be based on further experience
and knowledge of IFRS stated that these
should not be factors in determining the
implementation timing,80 with some
noting that there was already sufficient
experience in the application of IFRS to
warrant immediate effectiveness of the
amendments.81 Some commenters,
including some from the investor
community, however, felt that
elimination of the reconciliation may be
premature, or thought deferral of
adopting the amendments would be
appropriate until more experience was
gained with IFRS even if they supported
the idea of accepting IFRS without
reconciliation as a move towards the use
of a single set of high-quality
international accounting standards.82
Those that thought taking action at this
time was premature cited the
‘‘readiness’’ concerns described in Part
II above; namely concerns regarding
IASC Foundation’s governance and
funding, the state of and prospects for
convergence of IFRS and U.S. GAAP,
investor education, regulators’
mechanisms for interaction, and so
forth. The Commission’s consideration
of those comments is noted in Part II
with respect to its decision to adopt rule
amendments at this time.
77 See,
for example, letter from Syngenta.
for example, letters from Citigroup,
Financial Reporting Counsel, and PwC.
79 See, for example, letters from BP, British
Bankers’ Association, and UBS.
80 See, for example, letters from Deutsche Bank,
Fitch Ratings, and ICAEW.
81 See, for example, letter from Deloitte.
82 See, for example, letters from CFA Institute,
William Craven, Gaylen R. Hansen, and ITAC.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
78 See,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
The Commission has concluded that
the amendments to accept financial
statements from foreign private issuers
prepared in accordance with IFRS as
issued by the IASB will be applicable to
annual financial statements for financial
years ending after November 15, 2007,
and to interim periods within those
years, that are contained in filings made
after the effective date of these rule
amendments.
In deciding to make the rule
amendments available for financial
statements that cover the 2007 financial
year for many foreign private issuers,
the Commission considered the fact that
it was not awaiting any particular event
to support its policy decision and,
further, by making the rule amendments
available for the 2007 financial year for
many foreign private issuers, the
Commission’s objectives in
implementing this policy decision
would begin to be realized that much
sooner.
The Commission notes that there may
be foreign private issuers that are
existing Commission registrants who—
pursuant to policy decisions the
European Union made in its role as an
‘‘early adopter’’ of IFRS—have already
been preparing their financial
statements by applying the EU’s ‘‘carve
out’’ from IAS 39 with respect to hedge
accounting for certain financial
instruments (the ‘‘IAS 39 carve out’’), as
described above in Section III.A.2.83
Given the timing of this decision,
registrants who may have taken
advantage of the IAS 39 carve out would
have done so without the knowledge
that its use would be at odds with the
IFRS reporting alternative that the
Commission is adopting today.
Accordingly, the Commission is making
available temporary transition relief to
these existing registrants. Specifically,
for only their first two financial years
that end after November 15, 2007, the
Commission will accept from existing
SEC registrants from the EU that have
already utilized the IAS 39 carve out in
financial statements previously filed
with the Commission financial
statements that do not include a
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP, if those
financial statements otherwise comply
with IFRS as issued by the IASB and
contain a reconciliation to IFRS as
issued by the IASB. This reconciliation
to IFRS as issued by the IASB is to
contain information relating to financial
statement line items and footnote
disclosure based on full compliance
with IFRS as issued by the IASB. It is
to be prepared and disclosed in the
83 See https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/
en/oj/2004/l_363/l_36320041209en00010065.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
same manner that foreign private issuers
presently provide reconciliations of
their financial statements to U.S. GAAP
under Item 17 and Item 18 of Form 20–
F. All financial statements of foreign
private issuers that used the IAS 39
carve out for periods prior to the
financial year that ends after November
15, 2007 must continue to be reconciled
to U.S. GAAP. At the end of this
transition period, these registrants will
have the same financial statement
reporting choices as that of any foreign
private issuer (e.g., if they continue to
use the IAS 39 carve out as described in
Section III.A.2., above, they will remain
subject to the U.S. GAAP reconciliation
requirements of Items 17 and 18). The
Commission has adopted an amendment
to Items 17 and 18 of Form 20–F to
accommodate this transition provision.
The Commission observes that the
IAS 39 carve out relates to hedge
accounting for certain financial
instruments. The Commission and its
staff have had several opportunities to
consult and discuss with different
constituencies regarding the accounting
for derivative and hedging transactions.
The Commission will make its staff
available to the staffs of the IASB, FASB
and European Commission to identify
any ways to address this area.
B. Amendments To Effect Acceptance of
IFRS Financial Statements Without
Reconciliation to U.S. GAAP
1. General
The basic financial statement
requirements for foreign private issuers
are described in Items 17 and 18 of
Form 20–F. Under Item 17(c), a foreign
private issuer must either prepare its
financial statements and schedules in
accordance with U.S. GAAP or, if the
financial statements and schedules are
prepared using another basis of
accounting, include a reconciliation to
U.S. GAAP as described under Item
17(c)(2). This reconciliation includes a
narrative discussion of reconciling
differences,84 a reconciliation of net
income for each year and any interim
periods presented,85 a reconciliation of
major balance sheet captions for each
year and any interim periods,86 and a
reconciliation of cash flows for each
year and any interim periods.87 The
Commission is adopting as proposed
amendments to Item 17(c) so that a
reconciliation will no longer be required
from foreign private issuers that prepare
84 See
Item 17(c)(1) of Form 20–F.
Item 17(c)(2)(i) of Form 20–F.
86 See Item 17(c)(2)(ii) of Form 20–F.
87 See Item 17(c)(2)(iii) of Form 20–F, containing
the exception relating to IAS 7 ‘‘Cash Flow
Statements.’’
85 See
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
financial statements that comply with
IFRS as issued by the IASB.
Several subparagraphs of Item 17(c)(2)
relate to reconciling disclosures that
rely on certain International Accounting
Standards (‘‘IAS’’) and were available to
foreign private issuers that use home
country GAAP or IFRS. We proposed to
delete Items 17(c)(2)(iv)(B) and (C),
which relate to reconciling disclosures
from issuers that rely on IAS 21, ‘‘The
Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange
Rates.’’ Because some commenters
recommended that the IAS 21
accommodation could continue to be
useful to foreign private issuers that
may operate in a hyperinflationary
economy, we are retaining that
provision.88 We are eliminating Item
17(c)(2)(viii), which relates to
reconciling disclosures to be provided
by issuers that use IAS 22, ‘‘Business
Combinations,’’ as IAS 22 has been
superseded by IFRS 3, ‘‘Business
Combinations.’’ Because IAS 22 may no
longer be used by an issuer preparing
IFRS financial statements, we also are
deleting Instruction 6 to Item 17 as
proposed.
A reconciliation to U.S. GAAP under
Item 18 of Form 20–F requires that an
issuer provide all information required
by U.S. GAAP and Regulation S–X, in
addition to the reconciling information
for line items specified in Item 17(c).
Because our acceptance of financial
statements prepared using IFRS as
issued by the IASB without a U.S.
GAAP reconciliation is intended to
apply equally to an Item 18
reconciliation, we are revising Item
18(b) as proposed to indicate that U.S.
GAAP and Regulation S–X disclosures
will not be required if the issuer files
financial statements using IFRS as
issued by the IASB.
2. Interim Period Financial Statements
We are adopting as proposed that a
foreign private issuer that is eligible to
omit a U.S. GAAP reconciliation from
its audited annual financial statements
also will be able to omit a reconciliation
from its unaudited interim period
financial statements which, to the extent
such financial statements are required,89
also will have to be prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB. Based on the responses that we
received to questions posed in the
Proposing Release relating to the ability
of issuers to prepare interim period
financial statements that are in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
88 See, for example, letters from Deloitte and
Shell.
89 See Item 8.A.5 of Form 20–F for requirements
relating to interim period financial statements.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
IASB,90 we believe that the preparation
of interim period financial statements in
accordance with the provisions of IFRS
as issued by the IASB that pertain to
interim financial reporting will not
create difficulties for issuers, and that
issuers that have changed to IFRS as
issued by the IASB for their annual
financial statements and prepare interim
financial statements will do so in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB.
a. Financial Information in Securities
Act Registration Statements and
Prospectuses and Initial Exchange Act
Registration Statements Used Less Than
Nine Months After the Financial Year
End
In registration statements and
prospectuses under the Securities Act
and initial registration statements under
the Exchange Act, if the document is
dated less than nine months after the
end of the last audited financial year,
foreign private issuers are not required
to include interim period financial
information. If a foreign private issuer
has published interim period financial
information, however, Item 8.A.5 of
Form 20–F requires these registration
statements and prospectuses to include
that information.91 The intent of this
requirement is to make information
available in U.S. offering documents as
current as information that is available
elsewhere.
The instructions to Item 8.A.5 require
that an issuer which provides published
interim financial information describe
any material variations between the
accounting principles used and U.S.
GAAP and quantify any material
variations that have not been quantified
in the annual financial statements. We
are adopting as proposed an instruction
to Item 8.A.5 of Form 20–F to clarify
that interim period financial
information that is made public by a
foreign private issuer need not be
reconciled to U.S. GAAP if the basis of
accounting used in the audited annual
financial statements and the published
interim information is IFRS as issued by
the IASB.
90 See, for example, letters from BP, Deutsche
Bank, Shell, and UBS.
91 Under Item 512(a)(4) of Regulation S–K [17
CFR 22.512(a)(4)], a foreign private issuer that
registers securities on a shelf registration statement
also is required to undertake to include any
financial statements required by Item 8.A of Form
20–F at the start of any delayed offering or
throughout a continuous offering.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
995
b. Financial Statements in Securities
Act Registration Statements and
Prospectuses and Initial Exchange Act
Registration Statements Used More
Than Nine Months After the Financial
Year End
In registration statements and
prospectuses under the Securities Act
and initial registration statements under
the Exchange Act, if the document is
dated more than nine months after the
end of the last audited financial year,
foreign private issuers must provide
consolidated interim period financial
statements covering at least the first six
months of the financial year and the
comparative period for the prior
financial year.92 These unaudited
financial statements must be prepared
using the same basis of accounting as
the audited financial statements
contained or incorporated by reference
in the document and include or
incorporate by reference a reconciliation
to U.S. GAAP.93
We proposed a new instruction to
Item 8.A.5 to clarify that an issuer
would not need to provide that
reconciliation if it prepares its interim
financial statements using IFRS as
issued by the IASB. Under the proposed
amendment, an issuer relying on the
new instruction to provide IFRS
financial statements for an interim
period without reconciliation would
continue to be required to comply with
Article 10 of Regulation S–X with regard
to the minimum content of the financial
statements for interim periods, when
that information is required under Item
8.A.5 of Form 20–F.
In the Proposing Release we
enumerated several differences between
the requirements of Article 10 of
Regulation S–X and IAS 34, ‘‘Interim
Financial Reporting,’’ which prescribes
the minimum content of an interim
financial report and the principles for
recognition and measurement in interim
period financial statements. These
differences relate primarily to the detail
required for major headings and
subtotals used in the financial
statements, statements regarding the
sufficiency of the interim disclosures,
minimum contingent liability
disclosures, and footnote disclosure of
summarized data for equity investees.
Many commenters did not view
differences between IAS 34 and Article
10 as significant 94 and felt that IAS 34
92 See Item 8.A.5 of Form 20–F and Item 512(a)(4)
of Regulation S–K.
93 See Items 17(c) and 18 of Form 20–F.
94 See, for example, letters from BP, British
Bankers Association, Ernst & Young, and Royal
Bank of Scotland Group plc.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
996
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
information was sufficient without
needing to require compliance with
Article 10 when preparing IFRS
financial statements for interim
periods.95 Accordingly, under the rules
we are adopting a foreign private issuer
that relies on the new instruction to
provide IFRS financial statements for an
interim period without reconciliation to
U.S. GAAP will not be required to
comply with Article 10 of Regulation
S–X for interim period financial
statements provided pursuant to Item
8.A.5 of Form 20–F, if it complies with
and explicitly states compliance with
IAS 34.
IASB.97 One commenter noted that
efforts to keep the previously filed
selected U.S. GAAP financial
information current, for example due to
retrospective effects of changes of
accounting methods or discontinued
operations, would not be costeffective.98
We are amending Item 3.A. of Form
20–F as proposed to clarify that selected
financial data based on the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation is required only if the
issuer prepares its primary financial
statements using a basis of accounting
other than IFRS as issued by the IASB.
c. Transition Period Interim Financial
Statements in Securities Act
Registration Statements and
Prospectuses and Initial Exchange Act
Registration Statements
Eligible foreign private issuers will be
able to omit the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation from their unaudited
financial statements relating to interim
periods only if the audited annual
financial statements included or
incorporated by reference for all
required periods are prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB, as described in Section III.A.2.
above. If the audited annual financial
statements are not so prepared, then in
order to be able to omit the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation from required interim
period financial statements, an issuer
would amend prior filings in order to
appropriately revise the audited
financial statements.96
a. Reference to U.S. GAAP
Pronouncements in Form 20–F
Several non-financial statement
disclosure items in Form 20–F refer to
specific U.S. GAAP pronouncements.99
We proposed to add an Instruction to
Item 5 and Item 11 stating that an IFRS
filer that will not be required to provide
a U.S. GAAP reconciliation will
continue to respond to those items of
Form 20–F that make reference to U.S.
GAAP pronouncements. Under the
proposed instruction, in providing that
disclosure the issuer would apply the
appropriate corresponding IFRS
pronouncements that embody the
principles contained in the referenced
U.S. GAAP pronouncement.
A number of commenters suggested
that individual issuers may reach
different determinations as to which
IFRS pronouncement to look to in
response to Form 20–F item
requirements that refer to U.S. GAAP
provisions. To facilitate the use of Form
20–F by IFRS users, those commenters
recommended that we revise the nonfinancial statement disclosure
requirements to itemize the specific
IFRS pronouncements that correspond
to the referenced U.S. GAAP
pronouncements.100
In evaluating these comments, we
concluded that in responding to the
non-financial statement disclosure
requirements of Form 20–F, issuers
should continue to meet the objective of
the stated disclosure regardless of the
C. Related Accounting and Disclosure
Issues
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
1. Selected Financial Data
Under Item 3.A. of Form 20–F, issuers
must provide five years of selected
financial data. We proposed to revise
the instruction to Item 3.A. to clarify
that selected financial data based on the
U.S. GAAP reconciliation is required
only if the issuer prepares its primary
financial statements using a basis of
accounting other than IFRS as issued by
the IASB.
Almost all commenters that addressed
the issue believed that U.S. GAAP
selected financial data should not be
required if an issuer prepares its
primary financial statements in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
95 See, for example, letters from AXA, Deloitte,
KAI–KASB, and Group of 100.
96 For example, an issuer that previously had filed
an annual report on Form 20–F containing financial
statements which were not prepared in accordance
with IFRS as issued by the IASB, as described in
Section III.A.2. above, could file an amendment to
that annual report which included financial
statements that were so prepared.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
2. Other Form 20–F Disclosure
97 See, for example, letters from BP,
DaimlerChrysler, Deloitte, and KAI-KASB.
98 See letter from PwC.
99 See, for example, Item 5 (‘‘Operating and
Financial Review and Prospects’’), which contains
references to FASB Interpretations No. 45
‘‘Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure
Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect
Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others’’ and No. 46
‘‘Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities,’’ and
Item 11, which contains reference to multiple FASs.
100 See, for example, letters from Accounting
Standards Committee of Germany and Germany
Accounting Standards Board, and Center for Audit
Quality (‘‘CAQ’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
basis on which the financial statements
are prepared. We believe issuers should
not have undue difficulty in
determining the objective of those
disclosure requirements. We therefore
are adopting instructions to Item 5 and
Item 11 to indicate that issuers
preparing their financial statements in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB should provide, in responding to
paragraphs of those items that refer to
specific pronouncements of U.S. GAAP,
disclosure that satisfies the objective of
the item’s disclosure requirements. If
information called for by the nonfinancial statement requirements of
Form 20–F duplicates information that
is contained in the IFRS financial
statements, an issuer need not repeat
such information but may crossreference to the appropriate footnote in
the audited financial statements. We
will continue to evaluate whether
specific changes to the non-financial
statement disclosure items of Form
20–F would be beneficial.
b. Disclosure From Oil and Gas
Companies
We proposed to amend Item 18 of
Form 20–F to expressly require that any
issuer that provides disclosure under
FAS 69, ‘‘Disclosures about Oil and Gas
Producing Activities,’’ continue to
provide that disclosure even if the
issuer is preparing financial statements
in accordance with IFRS as issued by
the IASB without a reconciliation to
U.S. GAAP.101 We are adopting this
amendment as proposed to continue to
require FAS 69 disclosure. Most
commenters responding to our question
on this matter supported our proposal to
continue to require FAS 69 disclosure,
which they felt was useful to investors
and analysts.102 Some issuers indicated,
however, that FAS 69 disclosure should
cease to be required once the IASB
issues disclosure requirements for oil
and gas related activities.103 We will
continue to consider appropriate
revisions to our requirements in this
area in light of future developments.
c. Market Risk Disclosure and the Safe
Harbor Provisions
We recognize that IFRS filers have
expressed particular concerns related to
the applicability of the safe harbor for
forward-looking statements provided
under Section 27A of the Securities
Act 104 and Section 21E of the Exchange
101 Disclosure provided pursuant to FAS 69 is
supplementary information that is provided with
the financial statements.
102 See, for example, letters from Ernst &Young
and Deloitte.
103 See, for example, letters from BP and Shell.
104 15 U.S.C. 77z–2.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Act.105 Those safe harbor provisions
expressly exclude any information
‘‘included in a financial statement
prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles.’’ 106
Because forward-looking market risk
disclosure required by IFRS 7,
‘‘Financial Instruments: Disclosure,’’
will appear in the footnotes to audited
IFRS financial statements, it is not
covered by the safe harbor provisions. In
contrast, market risk disclosure
provided pursuant to Item 11 of Form
20–F is not included as part of the
financial statements in a filing and is
expressly subject to the safe harbor
provisions.
In the Proposing Release, while we
did not propose any changes, we did
solicit feedback on the non-availability
of the safe harbor provisions to financial
statement information, including
disclosure required by IFRS 7. In
response, a number of commenters
indicated that the Commission should
address the implications of the safe
harbor provisions and financial
statement disclosure, including forwardlooking information called for by IFRS
7.107 This is an issue that exists
currently even with a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation, and therefore is distinct
from our acceptance of IFRS financial
statements without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation and affects foreign private
issuers generally.108 We therefore
believe the question warrants further
consideration and, if appropriate, we
may address it through a separate
rulemaking initiative.
3. IFRS Treatment of Certain Areas
In the Proposing Release we noted
that although IFRS as issued by the
IASB constitutes a comprehensive basis
of accounting that may be used by
foreign private issuers in the
preparation of their financial statements
contained in Commission filings, there
are certain areas in which the IASB has
yet to develop standards or in which
IFRS permits disparate options. As
discussed in the Proposing Release,
IFRS does not have a specific standard
or interpretation on accounting
treatment for common control mergers,
recapitalization transactions,
reorganizations, acquisitions of minority
shares not resulting in a change of
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
105 5
U.S.C. 78u–5.
Securities Act Section 27A(b)(2)(A) and
Exchange Act Section 21E(b)(2)(A).
107 See, for example, letters from American Bar
Association, CAQ, and PwC.
108 Some foreign private issuers have early
adopted IFRS 7 in their financial statements relating
to their 2006 financial years.
106 See
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
control and similar transactions.109
While IFRS does include a standard on
financial statement presentation, it lacks
specific conventions as to the form and
content of the income statement.110 We
did not receive extensive comments in
these areas. Other examples given in the
Proposing Release include accounting
for insurance contracts and extractive
activities.
IFRS 4, ‘‘Insurance Contracts,’’
provides some requirements in
accounting for issued insurance
contracts and held reinsurance
contracts. As IFRS 4 was the first part
of a two-phase project, the standard
generally permits a company to
continue to apply its home country
accounting principles for insurance
contracts, though it imposes certain
accounting requirements in order to
eliminate certain inconsistencies in
application, and establishes many
disclosure requirements. The IASB has
a project to further address the
accounting for insurance contracts and
has issued a discussion paper on its
preliminary views on such a
standard.111
IFRS 6, ‘‘Exploration for and
Evaluation of Mineral Resources,’’
provides some requirements in
accounting for exploration and
evaluation activities of oil and gas and
mining companies. For limited areas of
accounting for extractive activities, IFRS
6 establishes guidelines under which
preparers can continue to apply home
country accounting principles.
In the Proposing Release we solicited
comment as to whether there are any
accounting subject areas that the IASB
should address before we accept IFRS
financial statements without
reconciliation, and whether investors
can understand and use IFRS financial
statements which include activities in
areas for which IFRS does not have a
specific standard. Some commenters
noted that IFRS is not alone in having
gaps in accounting for certain areas, and
gave as examples the lack of standards
for property, plant and equipment,
revenue recognition, consolidation and
joint venture accounting under U.S.
GAAP.112
Several commenters indicated that,
where gaps might exist in IFRS,
preparers may look to accounting
guidance issued by other standards,
such as U.S. GAAP, pursuant to IAS 8,
‘‘Accounting Policies, Changes in
Accounting Estimates and Errors.’’ 113 In
areas for which an IFRS does not exist,
IAS 8 requires preparers to use
judgment in developing accounting
policies such that financial information
is provided that, among other things, is
relevant to the needs of users and the
financial statements reliably reflect the
economic substance of transactions. In
applying such judgment, preparers must
consider other guidance found in IFRS
and, if no analogous guidance is found,
the definitions, criteria and concepts in
the IFRS conceptual framework. Finally,
IAS 8 allows preparers to consider
pronouncements of other standardsetting bodies to the extent that such
guidance does not conflict with the
concepts underlying IFRS. In areas that
are not addressed by IFRS, we expect
companies, consistent with IAS 1 and
IAS 8, to provide full and transparent
disclosure in the financial statements
and operating and financial review and
prospects disclosure 114 about the
accounting policies selected and the
effects of those policies on the IFRS
financial statements.115
Accounting for insurance contracts
was the area most frequently cited by
commenters as lacking complete
standards, and some letters addressed
extractive activities as well.116 However,
most of the commenters believed that,
while IFRS 4 has not addressed many
recognition and measurement items for
insurance contracts, the rule
amendments to allow the filing of IFRS
financial statements without
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP should not
be delayed and noted that European
investors are currently using financial
statements prepared under IFRS by
112 See,
109 The
IASB and the FASB are expected to issue
a final standard for the accounting for business
combinations and non-controlling interests. This
joint project is expected to converge numerous
areas of application and reduce certain alternative
treatments currently available under IFRS, but will
not address all areas listed herein.
110 Early in 2008, the IASB and the FASB are
expected to publish a discussion document relating
to financial statement presentation, including the
presentation of information on the face of the
financial statements.
111 The IASB currently has projects underway
addressing accounting for insurance contracts and
extractive activities. See the IASB work plan for
further detail at https://www.iasb.org/
Current+Projects/IASB+Projects/
IASB+Work+Plan.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
997
for example, letter from Kurt S. Schulzke.
for example, letters from Diageo plc
(‘‘Diageo’’) and Ernst & Young.
114 See Item 5 of Form 20–F.
115 For example, the embedded deposit
component of certain types of insurance contracts
written by an insurance company might be
unbundled as a liability, or might not be unbundled
and thus included in premium revenues and policy
benefit expenses. Similarly, exploration and
evaluation costs of a company in the extractive
industries might be expensed as incurred, or
capitalized as assets and subsequently depreciated.
Similarly, common control mergers, reorganizations
or recapitalizations might be reported at the
historical cost basis of the entit(ies) involved or at
a new basis in whole or in part.
116 See, for example, letters from CFA Institute
and Fitch Ratings.
113 See,
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
998
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
insurance companies to make financial
decisions.117 One commenter noted that
even though the implementation of an
insurance standard may occur after the
Commission’s acceptance of IFRS
financial statements without
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP, global
practices in this area are sufficiently
developed to not require
reconciliation.118 Another commenter
indicated that IFRS 4 does provide
minimum requirements for insurance
contracts accounting and requires
extensive disclosure of the accounting
policies used and other matters so that
investors can inform themselves. The
commenter noted that in some areas
these disclosures are more extensive
than those called for under U.S.
GAAP.119 Another commenter indicated
that although IFRS provides more
options in the selection of accounting
policies in some areas compared to U.S.
GAAP, it also provides sufficient
transparency of the options chosen such
that the U.S. GAAP reconciliation does
not provide added benefit.120
In a few cases, commenters
recommended that some or all
insurance companies be excluded from
the scope of the proposed amendments
or that additional disclosure
requirements be imposed because IFRS
4 may not provide the same level of
transparency to investors as other IFRS
applicable to other sectors of the
financial services industry.121 Another
commenter said that once there is a
robust IFRS on insurance, the lack of
convergence should not further delay
the elimination of the reconciliation.122
The IASB continues to make progress
towards developing standards under
IFRS for both insurance and extractive
activities. As we accept and support the
use of IFRS as issued by the IASB as a
comprehensive basis of accounting for
the preparation of financial statements
included in filings with the Commission
by foreign private issuers, we do not
believe that the IFRS standards in these
or other discrete areas should delay our
full acceptance of IFRS as issued by the
IASB without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
4. Other Considerations Relating to IFRS
and U.S. GAAP Guidance
As discussed in the Proposing Release
and in Section III.C.3. of this release, the
Commission recognizes that an issuer
117 See, for example, letters from Allianz,
Prudential, and PwC.
118 See letter from AIG.
119 See letter from ING.
120 See letter from PwC.
121 See, for example, letters from ACLIG,
American Academy of Actuaries, and GNAIE.
122 See letter from Fitch Ratings.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
that will not be required to reconcile its
IFRS financial statements to U.S. GAAP
may, nevertheless, pursuant to the
application of IAS 8 look for guidance
from Commission sources, such as rules
and regulations, and including
Accounting Series Releases (‘‘ASRs’’)
and Financial Reporting Releases
(‘‘FRRs’’).123 In addition, such an issuer
may look to the guidance that the
Commission staff provides in Staff
Accounting Bulletins (‘‘SABs’’), and, if
the company is engaged in certain lines
of business, various Industry Guides.124
As described in the Proposing
Release, we believe that a company that
is no longer required to reconcile its
IFRS financial statements to U.S. GAAP
under the adopted amendments, and its
auditor, must continue to follow any
Commission guidance that relates to
auditing issues.125
5. First-Time Adopters of IFRS
General Instruction G to Form 20–F
provides for an accommodation that
permits a foreign private issuer in its
first year of reporting under ‘‘IFRS as
published by the IASB’’ to file two years
rather than three years of statements of
income, changes in shareholders’ equity
and cash flows prepared in accordance
with IFRS, with appropriate related
disclosure in its registration statements
or annual report filed with the
Commission.126 The amendments to
accept financial statements prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB that we are adopting today will
apply to, among others, foreign private
issuers that are able to rely on the
accommodation to first-time adopters of
IFRS contained in General Instruction
123 FRRs contain the Commission’s views and
interpretations relating to financial reporting. Prior
to 1982, the Commission published its views and
interpretations relating to financial reporting in
Accounting Series Releases (ASRs). In FRR 1,
Adoption of the Financial Reporting Release Series
and Codification of Currently Relevant ASRs, the
Commission codified certain previously issued
ASRs on financial reporting matters.
124 Staff Accounting Bulletins reflect the
Commission staff’s views regarding accountingrelated disclosure practices. They represent
interpretations and policies followed by the
Division of Corporation Finance and the Office of
the Chief Accountant in administering the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities
laws. Industry Guides serve as expressions of the
policies and practices of the Division of Corporation
Finance. They are of assistance to issuers, their
counsel and others preparing registration
statements and reports, as well as to the
Commission’s staff. SABs and Industry Guides are
not rules, regulations, or statements of the
Commission. The Commission has neither
approved nor disapproved these interpretations.
125 In addition, foreign private issuers are
required to have audits conducted in accordance
with the Standards of the PCAOB (U.S.) regardless
of the comprehensive basis of accounting they use
to prepare their financial statements.
126 See the 2005 Adopting Release.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
G. As a conforming amendment, we are
changing all references to ‘‘IFRS as
published by the IASB’’ contained in
General Instruction G to ‘‘IFRS as issued
by the IASB,’’ which has the same
definition.
We proposed to amend General
Instruction G to provide consistency
with the proposed acceptance of
financial statements prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation. Commenters were
supportive of the conforming
amendments as proposed, which we are
adopting. Specifically, we are revising
paragraph (a) of General Instruction G,
‘‘Omission of Certain Required
Financial Statements,’’ to provide for
this. We also are revising paragraph (d)
of General Instruction G, ‘‘Information
on the Company,’’ to refer to ‘‘a U.S.
GAAP reconciliation’’ rather than ‘‘the
U.S. GAAP reconciliation’’ to avoid any
inference that a reconciliation would be
required. In addition, we are revising
paragraph (e) to eliminate the reference
to the U.S. GAAP reconciliation, which
will no longer be required.
Contained in paragraph (f) of General
Instruction G are three options by which
an issuer relying on the two-year
accommodation could satisfy the
interim financial statement
requirements of Item 8.A.5 of Form
20–F in a transitional registration
statement. One of these options allows
for two years of audited financial
statements and interim financial
statements prepared in accordance with
IFRS as issued by the IASB and
reconciled to U.S. GAAP as required by
Item 17(c) or 18 of Form 20–F. We
proposed to eliminate the reconciliation
requirement from this option in a
manner consistent with the proposed
amendments to Items 17 and 18. We did
not receive extensive comment on this
aspect of the proposal, and are
eliminating the reconciliation
requirement from this option as
proposed. We are retaining the other
options as they currently stand, and
note that few if any issuers appeared to
use the option requiring condensed U.S.
GAAP financial information as a bridge
between three years of previous GAAP
financial statements and two years of
IFRS interim information. We also note
that issuers may continue to contact the
staff if they are unable to comply with
one of the options but have comparable
information available.127
We are adopting as proposed the
revisions to paragraph (h) of General
Instruction G to eliminate the U.S.
127 See the Instruction to General Instruction G(f)
of Form 20–F.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
GAAP reconciliation requirement for
the two most recent financial years for
which financial statements prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB are filed. We also are adopting the
conforming amendment to Instruction
2.b of General Instruction G(h) to
specify that disclosure on operating and
financial review and prospects provided
in response to Item 5 of Form 20–F need
not refer to a reconciliation to U.S.
GAAP. That revision is intended to
clarify that disclosure should not refer
to any U.S. GAAP reconciling
information prepared for previous years.
As we noted in the Proposing Release,
the accommodation to first-time
adopters of IFRS contained in General
Instruction G was scheduled to expire
after the first financial year starting on
or after January 1, 2007. That timing was
intended to comport with the
requirements of the EU Regulation
relating to the transition to IFRS of
European companies, although the
accommodation is available to an
eligible first-time adopter of IFRS from
any jurisdiction. As many other
countries are expected to adopt IFRS in
the coming years, we proposed to
extend the accommodation contained in
General Instruction G to Form 20–F for
five years to cover financial statements
for the 2012 financial year or earlier that
are included in annual reports or
registration statements. We also
solicited comment as to whether
extending the accommodation for a
longer or indefinite period would be
appropriate.
All commenters addressing this
matter supported extension of the
accommodation contained in General
Instruction G.128 Rather than the fiveyear extension as proposed, most
commenters believed that the
accommodation should be extended
indefinitely to provide an ongoing
incentive for the adoption of IFRS as
issued by the IASB in filings with the
Commission.129 We agree with this
view, and therefore are extending the
accommodation to first-time adopters of
IFRS as issued by the IASB contained in
General Instruction G for an indefinite
period.
One accounting firm commented that
temporary or permanent recognition or
measurement differences between IFRS
as issued by the IASB and local
variations of IFRS may create
difficulties in the ability of an issuer to
rely on IFRS 1, ‘‘First-time Adoption of
International Financial Reporting
Standards.’’ 130 The firm indicated that
similar difficulties may arise if an entity
that prepares its financial statements in
accordance with a local GAAP that has
converged with IFRS over time has not
gone through the adoption process of
IFRS 1 with appropriate transition
adjustments. We recognize that a
specific issuer may need to make a
determination as to when it may rely on
IFRS 1 as a first-time adopter of IFRS.
We believe that an issuer may rely on
the provisions of General Instruction G
if and only if that issuer has not
previously stated its reliance on IFRS 1.
Further, an issuer may only rely on the
provisions of General Instruction G
once.
Paragraph (i) of General Instruction G
contains a special instruction that
requires European issuers that prepare
their financial statements using IFRS as
adopted by the EU to reconcile their
financial statements to IFRS as issued
by the IASB to qualify for the
accommodation. A U.S. GAAP
reconciliation also is required. This
paragraph presently applies only to
issuers incorporated in an EU Member
State, and would cease to be applicable
after the 2007 financial year, at which
time the mandatory switch to IFRS
under the EU Regulation will be
complete. Because the provisions will
no longer be applicable after that time,
we are deleting General Instruction G(i)
of Form 20–F.131
6. Check Boxes on the Cover Page of
Form 20–F
We proposed adding check boxes to
the cover page of Form 20–F in which
a filer would indicate whether the
financial statements included in the
filing have been prepared using U.S.
GAAP, IFRS as issued by the IASB, or
another basis of accounting. If, in
response to this check box, an issuer has
indicated that it uses a basis of
accounting other than U.S. GAAP or
IFRS as issued by the IASB, the issuer
would then indicate in response to a
subsequent check box whether it
follows Item 17 or 18 to prepare its U.S.
GAAP reconciliation.
We also proposed to revise the cover
page of Form 20–F to require that
issuers provide contact information for
a person to whom Commission or staff
enquiries may be directed.132 This
130 See
letter from Ernst & Young.
transition provisions discussed in Section
III.A.3. relating to IFRS as adopted by the EU are
available only for existing registrants, all of whom
have already been first-time adopters of IFRS.
132 An example of this enquiry would be a staff
comment letter. Identifying the person on the cover
131 The
128 See, for example, letters from CAQ and
Deloitte.
129 See, for example, letters from BDO, CAQ,
Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Grant Thornton, ICAEW,
PwC, and Shell.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
999
information would include the name of
an individual at the company or its legal
counsel and the telephone, e-mail, and/
or facsimile number, or other means by
which that person can be contacted.
Information provided on the Form 20–
F in response to the proposed check
boxes and the company contact
information will constitute required
disclosure that is subject to all
applicable federal securities laws.
We did not receive extensive
comment on these proposed revisions to
Form 20–F. One commenter thought
that the naming of individuals on the
cover page would be viewed as sensitive
because of potential exposure to
litigation, and suggested that we obtain
contact information by non-public
means.133 Because identification on the
cover page does not expose that
individual to additional liability or
responsibility for the contents of the
filing, we are adopting the amendments
as proposed.134 We also note that forms
for domestic issuers already require
contact information. Consistent with the
usage throughout the amendments we
are adopting today, however, the
reference in the check boxes on the
Form 20–F cover page has been changed
to ‘‘IFRS as issued by the IASB’’ rather
than the proposed ‘‘IFRS as published
by the IASB.’’ 135
D. Regulation S–X
Regulation S–X contains, among other
things, the form and content
requirements for financial statements
included in filings made with the
Commission. It also includes many
provisions that do not relate to U.S.
GAAP, for example, requirements for
auditor qualifications and reports.
Regulation S–X will continue to apply
to the filings of all foreign private
issuers, including those who file
financial statements prepared using
IFRS as issued by the IASB without
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP.136
1. Application of the Amendments to
Rules 3–05, 3–09, and 3–16
Under Rules 3–05, 3–09 and 3–16 of
Regulation S–X, an issuer, in certain
page would not make that person an agent for
service of process.
133 See letter from Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &
Jacobson (London), LLP.
134 We will consider the possibility of including
this information as an EDGAR header.
135 EU companies using the transition provisions
discussed in Section III.A.3. should check the
‘‘IFRS as issued by the IASB’’ box.
136 Foreign private issuers that file financial
statements prepared in accordance with IFRS as
issued by the IASB will comply with IASB
requirements for form and content within the
financial statements, rather than with the specific
presentation and disclosure provisions in Articles
4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of Regulation S–X.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
1000
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
circumstances, must include the
financial statements of another entity in
its filings.137 We did not propose any
changes to Rules 3–05, 3–09, and 3–16
of Regulation S–X, although the
amendments that we are adopting to
accept IFRS financial statements
without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation will
apply equally in their application. In
response to our questions, respondents
found the description in the Proposing
Release of how the new amendments
would apply to the preparation of
financial statements provided under
Rules 3–05, 3–09, and 3–16 to be
sufficiently clear. We have summarized
below the guidance provided in the
Proposing Release.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
a. Significance Testing
Requirements for significance testing
are governed by the financial statements
of the issuer.138 Generally, a foreign
private issuer that prepares its own
financial statements using IFRS as
issued by the IASB also would perform
the significance tests under Rules 3–05,
3–09, and 3–16 using IFRS as issued by
the IASB, regardless of the basis of
accounting used by the other entity. If
the significance thresholds under Rule
3–05, 3–09, or 3–16 are met, then the
issuer must provide on a separate basis
audited annual financial statements of
the subject entity.
Some commenters pointed out that
significance testing under Rule 1–02(w)
has historically been performed using
U.S. GAAP amounts and,
notwithstanding the amendments we
are adopting today, an issuer would still
need to prepare a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation for the purpose of
significance testing even if such a
reconciliation was no longer required to
be disclosed.139 In order to clarify our
intent and to implement fully our
acceptance from foreign private issuers
137 Rule 3–05 specifies the requirements for
financial statements of businesses acquired or to be
acquired. Rule 3–09 specifies the requirements for
financial statements of unconsolidated majorityowned subsidiaries and 50 percent or less owned
investments accounted for by the equity method.
Both Rule 3–05 and 3–09 require financial
statements when the applicable entity is significant
to the issuer.
Rule 3–16 specifies the requirement for financial
statements of affiliates whose securities
collateralize an issue registered or being registered.
The requirement to provide separate financial
statements under Rule 3–16 is based upon whether
or not the securities are a substantial portion (as
defined) of the collateral for the class of securities
registered or being registered.
138 An entity is significant to the issuer if the
issuer’s investment in the entity exceeds 20% of the
issuer’s total assets, the entity’s income (as defined)
exceeds 20% of the issuer’s corresponding income,
or (for Rule 3–05 only) the entity’s total assets
exceed 20% of the issuer’s total assets.
139 See, for example, letter from CAQ.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
of financial statements prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB, we are revising Rule 1–02(w) to
specify significance testing using
amounts determined under IFRS as
issued by the IASB when the issuer’s
financial statements are prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB.
b. Separate Historical Financial
Statements of Another Entity Provided
Under Rule 3–05 or 3–09
Generally, the historical financial
statement requirements for a foreign
acquired business or investee under
Rule 3–05 or 3–09 are governed by the
status of that entity, and do not impose
a higher presentation burden on a nonissuer entity than on an issuer. In
applying the amendments, if the entity’s
audited financial statements are in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB, those financial statements will
not be required to be reconciled to U.S.
GAAP. For example, under Rule 3–05
both foreign private issuers and U.S.
companies that acquire a ‘‘significant’’
foreign business will be permitted,
under the adopted rules, to include the
acquiree’s financial statements prepared
in accordance with IFRS as issued by
the IASB without reconciliation to U.S.
GAAP, in accordance with U.S. GAAP,
or in accordance with another
comprehensive basis of accounting
reconciled to U.S. GAAP. The same is
true for the financial statements of a
‘‘significant’’ foreign investee under
Rule 3–09.
An issuer that includes financial
statements for a foreign entity under
Rule 3–05 or Rule 3–09 currently is
permitted to omit the reconciliation to
U.S. GAAP for that entity, regardless of
the comprehensive basis of accounting
in which that entity’s financial
statements are presented, if the
significance of that entity, as defined in
Rule 1–02(w) of Regulation S–X, does
not exceed 30 percent of the
registrant.140 Although we are not
amending Rules 3–05 or 3–09, we are
revising Items 17(c)(2)(v) and (vi) of
Form 20–F as proposed to clarify,
respectively, that if the financial
statements of a foreign entity filed under
Rule 3–05 or 3–09 are presented in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB, those financial statements may
omit the reconciling information
specified under Item 17(c)(2)(i)–(iii)
regardless of the significance of the
entity.
140 See
PO 00000
Item 17(c)(2)(v) and (vi) of Form 20–F.
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2. Pro Forma Financial Statements
Provided Under Article 11
Article 11 of Regulation S–X requires
issuers to prepare unaudited pro forma
financial information that is intended to
give effect as if a particular transaction,
such as a significant recent or probable
business combination, had occurred at
the beginning of the financial period.
Following the adoption of the
amendments described in this release,
requirements for pro forma financial
information under Article 11 continue
to be governed by the financial
statements of the issuer rather than of
the acquiree or other entity, as the pro
forma results must be presented using
the same basis of accounting as the
issuer. Similarly, the rules that we are
adopting do not impose a higher
presentation burden on pro forma
financial information than would be
imposed on the historical financial
statements of the issuer.
As proposed, we are not amending
Article 11, although the amendments
that we are adopting will affect the
application of Article 11. Accordingly, a
foreign private issuer using IFRS as
issued by the IASB as its basis of
accounting will not be required to
reconcile to U.S. GAAP its pro forma
financial information. Therefore, an
issuer using IFRS as issued by the IASB
will prepare the pro forma financial
information by presenting its IFRS
results and converting the financial
statements of the business acquired (or
to be acquired) into IFRS as issued by
the IASB.
3. Financial Statements Provided Under
Rule 3–10
Rule 3–10 of Regulation S–X specifies
financial statement requirements for
issuers of guaranteed securities and
guarantors.141 Generally, under this rule
both the issuer of the guaranteed
security and the guarantor must follow
the financial statement requirements of
a registrant. If both entities are reporting
foreign private issuers filing on Form
20–F, we will accept financial
statements prepared in accordance with
IFRS as issued by the IASB without
reconciliation from each one under the
rules we are adopting.142
Rule 3–10 permits modified reporting
by subsidiary issuers of guaranteed
141 A guarantee of a registered security is itself a
security, so a guarantor of a registered security is
itself considered an issuer of a security. See
Securities Act Section 2(a)(1).
142 In this situation, when an issuer of a
guaranteed security and a guarantor each file
complete audited financial statements, the separate
financial statements of each entity also may be on
a different basis of accounting and, if not prepared
under U.S. GAAP or IFRS as published by the IASB,
must be reconciled to U.S. GAAP.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
securities and subsidiary guarantors.
Separate financial statements need not
be filed for subsidiaries meeting the
applicable conditions contained in
Rules 3–10(b) through 3–10(f). Instead,
condensed consolidating financial
information is presented in the parent
company’s reports in an additional
audited footnote to the financial
statements. In applying modified
reporting under Rule 3–10, however, the
reconciliation requirement would be
based on the consolidated financial
statements of the parent company, as
under current rules. A parent issuer or
guarantor that presents consolidated
financial statements in accordance with
IFRS as issued by the IASB would
present the condensed consolidating
financial information on the basis of
IFRS as issued by the IASB, without
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP. As noted
in the Proposing Release, we do not
believe that any substantive revision to
Rule 3–10 is necessary to implement the
acceptance of financial statements
prepared using IFRS as issued by the
IASB without reconciliation.
As a conforming amendment, we did
propose to revise the reference to the
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP of the
condensed consolidating financial
information contained in Rule 3–10 to
clarify that we would accept the
condensed consolidating financial
information without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation if it is prepared using
IFRS as issued by the IASB.
Commenters generally agreed that this
change was sufficient, and we are
adopting it as proposed.143
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
4. Conforming Amendment to Rule 4–01
Rule 4–01 of Regulation S–X sets out
the general requirements for financial
statements included in Commission
filings and requires that foreign private
issuers include an Item 18
reconciliation if they use a basis of
accounting other than U.S. GAAP,
except as otherwise stated in the
applicable form.144 In order to
implement fully the proposed
acceptance of financial statements
prepared using IFRS as issued by the
IASB and to avoid ambiguity for issuers,
we proposed to revise Rule 4–01 to
clarify that financial statements of
foreign private issuers may be prepared
using IFRS as issued by the IASB
without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP.
Commenters generally agreed that this
approach was sufficient, and we are
143 See,
for example, letters from Ernst & Young
and UBS.
144 As noted above, Item 17 reconciliation is
permitted in various circumstances.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
adopting the revision to Rule 4–01 as
proposed.
E. Application of the Amendments to
Other Forms, Rules and Schedules
1. Conforming Amendments to
Securities Act Forms F–4 and S–4
In order to implement fully our
acceptance of financial statements
prepared in accordance with IFRS as
issued by the IASB without
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP,145 we
proposed to make certain conforming
amendments to references to the U.S.
GAAP reconciliation that are contained
in Securities Act Forms F–4 and S–4.146
Based on the comments received, our
acceptance of IFRS financial statements
from foreign private issuers in both
Exchange Act and Securities Act filings
appears to be well understood. Many of
the commenters that responded to the
questions we posed indicated that the
proposed changes were sufficiently
clear, and did not believe that any other
rules or forms would need to be
specifically amended to permit the
filing of IFRS financial statements
without a reconciliation to U.S.
GAAP.147 A few commenters thought
that various other forms, rules and
regulations would require modification,
and set forth the changes they thought
would be necessary in their comment
letters.148 After considering the
suggestions, we continue to believe that
the proposed revisions to other rules
and forms were sufficiently clear, and
therefore we do not believe additional
revisions are necessary and are adopting
the revisions proposed.
We therefore are adopting as proposed
the revisions to the references to the
U.S. GAAP reconciliation contained in
Items 10, 12 and 17 of Form F–4 to
make that form consistent with the
amendments we are adopting to Items
17(c) and 18(b) of Form 20–F to indicate
that the referenced U.S. GAAP
reconciliation would be required only
for financial statements prepared using
a basis of accounting other than U.S.
GAAP or IFRS as issued by the IASB.
We also are adopting as proposed the
analogous revision to the reference to
145 Form 20–F serves as the combined registration
statement and annual report for foreign private
issuers under the Exchange Act, and also sets forth
the disclosure requirements for registration
statements filed by foreign private issuers under the
Securities Act.
146 Form F–4 is the registration statement for
securities of foreign private issuers in certain
business combinations, and Form S–4 is the
registration statement for securities of domestic
issuers issued in business combinations.
147 See, for example, letters from UBS and
Deutsche Bank.
148 See, for example, letters from Ernst & Young
and Cleary.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1001
the U.S. GAAP reconciliation contained
in the instruction to Item 17 of Form
S–4.
2. Conforming Amendment to Rule 701
Rule 701 under the Securities Act
provides an exemption from registration
for offers and sales made under certain
compensatory benefit plans. The
exemption generally is not available to
issuers that have a reporting obligation
under the Exchange Act and does not
involve the filing of any information
with the Commission. However, an
issuer conducting an offering under
Rule 701 must deliver to investors
certain information, including financial
statements, if more than $5 million in
securities are sold over a 12-month
period. For foreign private issuers,
financial statements provided under
Rule 701 must include a reconciliation
under Item 17 of Form 20–F if they are
not prepared in accordance with U.S.
GAAP. To implement fully our
acceptance of IFRS financial statements
without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP,
we proposed to amend Rule 701 to
clarify that a foreign private issuer that
conducts an offering under Rule 701
and prepares its financial statements
using IFRS as issued by the IASB should
not be required to present a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation. Commenters were
supportive of the revision to Rule 701 as
a means of facilitating stock ownership
and compensatory plans for employees
of foreign private issuers,149 which we
are adopting as proposed.
3. Schedule TO and Schedule 13E–3
Schedule TO, the tender offer
statement under the Exchange Act, and
Schedule 13E–3, the transaction
statement under Section 13(e) of the
Exchange Act, both contain a reference
to U.S. GAAP reconciliation in
accordance with Item 17 of Form 20–F.
Respondents who commented on the
issue, including accounting firms and
foreign private issuers, generally felt
that changes to Schedule TO and
Schedule 13E–3 were not necessary
where changes to Item 17 of Form 20–
F were made.150 Other accounting firms
and law firms suggested additional
specific revisions to those schedules to
clarify that no reconciliation or
discussion of differences from U.S.
GAAP would be necessary if financial
statements that complied with IFRS as
issued by the IASB were included.151
The amendments we are adopting to
Form 20–F to implement our acceptance
149 See,
for example, letter from Cleary.
for example, letters from PwC, Deloitte,
Deutsche Bank, and UBS.
151 See, for example, letters from Cleary and Ernst
& Young.
150 See,
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
1002
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
of IFRS financial statements without
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP are
intended to apply to all Securities Act
and Exchange Act filings that reference
the U.S. GAAP reconciliation
requirement contained in Item 17 or
Item 18 of Form 20–F. We therefore are
not adopting any revision to Schedule
TO or Schedule 13E–3.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
4. Small Business Issuers
Under rules currently in effect, a
Canadian foreign private issuer that
qualifies as a small business issuer
under Regulation S–B may elect to
provide disclosure in its registration
statements and annual reports, in
compliance with forms based on
Regulation S–B rather than on Form
20–F.152 Regulation S–B describes the
financial statement requirements for a
small business issuer, which must be
prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP
or, if filed by a foreign private issuer
that also is a small business issuer,
reconciled to U.S. GAAP in accordance
with the requirements of Items 17 or 18
of Form 20–F, as appropriate.153
We recently adopted amendments
under which disclosure requirements
for smaller companies previously
contained in Regulation S–B are
integrated into Regulation S–K 154 and
smaller reporting companies that file
annual reports on Form 20–F or a
Securities Act registration statement
based on Form 20–F will be able to file
financial statements prepared using U.S.
GAAP, IFRS as issued by the IASB
without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation, or
another comprehensive basis of
accounting with a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation. If that issuer chooses to
file a registration statement or annual
report on a domestic form based on
Regulation S–K, financial statements
prepared using U.S. GAAP would be
required. Because we adopted these
amendments for smaller company
regulatory simplification, we are not
making any revisions to Regulation
S–B as part of our final rules to accept
152 17 CFR 228. A ‘‘small business issuer’’ is
defined in Item 10 of Regulation S–B (17 CFR
228.10) as a company that (i) has revenues of less
than $25,000,000; (ii) is a U.S. or Canadian issuer;
and (iii) is not an investment company and is not
an asset-backed issuer; and (iv) if a majority owned
subsidiary, the parent corporation is also a small
business issuer. An entity that meets all of these
criteria is not a small business issuer if it has a
public float (defined as the aggregate market value
of the issuer’s outstanding voting and non-voting
common equity held by non-affiliates) of
$25,000,000 or greater.
153 See Notes 1 and 2 to Item 310 of Regulation
S–B.
154 See ‘‘Smaller Reporting Company Regulatory
Relief and Simplification,’’ Release No. 33-8819
(July 5, 2007), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/
proposed/2007/33–8819.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
IFRS financial statements from foreign
private issuers.
In the Proposing Release we solicited
comment asking whether we should
permit the use in Form 1–A of financial
statements prepared in accordance with
IFRS as issued by the IASB without a
reconciliation.155 Presently, a Canadian
issuer that files a
Form 1–A may use unaudited financial
statements reconciled to U.S. GAAP. We
received several comment letters noting
that it would be appropriate to make
such an amendment to Form 1–A once
Canada officially adopts IFRS,156 with
one commenter indicating that requiring
a reconciliation could make a
Regulation A offering cost prohibitive
for a Canadian issuer that did not use
U.S. GAAP.157 Some issuers supported
immediate revision to Form 1–A in this
way as a means of furthering our
acceptance of IFRS.158 While we fully
support the use of financial statements
prepared in accordance with IFRS as
issued by the IASB in filings with the
Commission by foreign private issuers,
we are not at this time revising Form
1–A as it appears that Canadian issuers
filing on that form would not be able to
avail themselves of the adopted
amendments until Canadian accounting
standards setters permit the use of IFRS,
as discussed below in Section III.F.
F. Application to Filings Under the
Multijurisdictional Disclosure System
Certain Canadian foreign private
issuers file registration statements and
annual reports under the
Multijurisdictional Disclosure System
(‘‘MJDS’’), which permits eligible
Canadian companies to use their
disclosure documents prepared in
accordance with Canadian requirements
in filings with the Commission. Certain
filings under the MJDS are not required
to contain a reconciliation to U.S.
GAAP.159 A U.S. GAAP reconciliation is
required, however, in registration
statements and annual reports on Form
155 Form 1–A is the Securities Act form for
offerings made under Regulation A, a conditional
exemption from Securities Act registration for
securities offerings not exceeding $5 million.
Regulation A may be used by eligible U.S. or
Canadian issuers that do not have a reporting
obligation under the Exchange Act.
156 See, for example, letter from CAQ.
157 See letter from CAQ.
158 See, for example, letters from BP and Deloitte.
159 A U.S. GAAP reconciliation is not required
under Form F–7 relating to rights offers, Forms
F–8 and F–80 for exchange offers and business
combinations, Form F–9 relating to investmentgrade securities, and Form 40–F when used as an
annual report relating to an issuer’s Section 15(d)
reporting obligations for any of the these offerings
or a Section 13(a) reporting obligation relating to
investment-grade securities.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
40–F 160 and registration statements on
Form F–10,161 each when used for
common equity securities, securities
convertible into common equity
securities and other securities not rated
investment grade. Canadian issuers that
participate in the MJDS generally use
either Canadian GAAP, with a U.S.
GAAP reconciliation when required, or
U.S. GAAP in their filings with the
Commission.
Canadian accounting standards setters
have indicated that they expect to
permit the use of IFRS as issued by the
IASB as the basis of accounting for all
Canadian public companies. The date
for application of IFRS in Canada has
not yet been confirmed, but is expected
to be 2011.162 A number of commenters
therefore have felt that it would be too
early to describe acceptance of IFRS by
a Canadian company before Canadian
requirements allow the use of IFRS.163
Canadian issuers supported the
acceptance of IFRS financial statements
without reconciliation, and urged that it
should apply equally to MJDS filers.164
We are not adopting any revisions to
the MJDS forms. As described in the
Proposing Release, we do not believe
any amendments to Forms 40–F and
F–10 would be necessary to permit an
MJDS issuer to file financial statements
prepared in accordance with IFRS as
issued by the IASB without
reconciliation. Some commenters
shared this view, as Forms 40–F and
F–10 already contain a cross-reference
to the U.S. GAAP reconciliation
requirement under Items 17 and 18 of
Form 20–F which are being amended.165
G. Periodic Reporting Deadlines for
Foreign Private Issuers
In the Proposing Release we solicited
comment on periodic reporting due
dates for foreign private issuers,
including whether it would be
appropriate to shorten the current sixmonth deadline for annual reports on
Form 20–F if a reconciliation were not
required. We received significant
feedback from commenters raising a
number of considerations applicable to
reporting deadlines for foreign private
issuers that are independent of the
reconciliation requirement, including
annual report deadlines in home
jurisdictions and time needed for
160 17
CFR 249.240f.
CFR 239.40.
162 See letter from Canadian Accounting
Standards Board.
163 See, for example, letters from PwC and Ernst
& Young.
164 See letter from Manulife Financial.
165 See, for example, letter from Deloitte.
161 17
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
language translation, among others.166
Most commenters indicated that in no
event should the Form 20–F deadline be
earlier than in an issuer’s home
jurisdiction, and ideally the Form 20–F
should be due after the home country
filing deadline.167 A number of
commenters support consideration of
deadlines for Form 20–F in a separate
rulemaking.168 Given the many
considerations that may affect our
consideration of periodic reporting
deadlines, which may apply to foreign
private issuers generally, we believe it is
appropriate to consider the issue in a
separate rulemaking initiative so as to
obtain broader public input.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
H. Quality Control Issues
As part of the quality control
standards of the PCAOB, Appendix K
applies to PCAOB-registered firms that
are associated with international firms
and establishes procedures to enhance
the quality of SEC filings by registrants
whose financial statements are audited
by foreign associated firms.169
Appendix K procedures require that the
international organization or individual
foreign associated firm of PCAOBregistered firms adopt policies and
procedures that address the review of
filings by persons knowledgeable about
U.S. GAAP, U.S. generally accepted
auditing standards, and independence
matters. We did not propose and are not
adopting any amendments to our rules
that relate to the continued need for
compliance with standards of the
PCAOB, including Appendix K.
However, in the Proposing Release we
did provide commenters the
opportunity to address compliance with
PCAOB standards, including Appendix
K, in the context of the proposed
acceptance of IFRS financial statements
without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation. In
particular, we asked whether we should
be concerned about PCAOB-registered
firm requirements to have persons
knowledgeable in U.S. auditing and
independence standards review IFRS
financial statements filed with the
Commission.
Several commenters, including those
from registered public accounting firms,
pointed out that since the Appendix K
166 See, for example, letters from HSBC, ING, and
Sullivan & Cromwell.
167 See, for example, letters from European
Association of Listed Companies and Union of
Issues Quoted in Europe, UNIQUE, New York City
Bar, and ING.
168 See, for example, letters from Ernst & Young,
and LIBA.
169 The text of Appendix K is available at:
https://www.pcaobus.org/Standards/Interim_
Standards/Quality_Control_Standards/SECPS_
1000.08_Appendicies_
bookmarks.pdf#nameddest=k.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
procedures were adopted in 1999 the
concerns that it sought to address have
been mitigated by developments in the
global financial reporting
environment.170 Because of these
changes, they believed that it is no
longer necessary for the Appendix K
procedures to require the involvement
of a filing reviewer. Commenters also
pointed out that if U.S. GAAP
information were no longer required,
then a primary focus of Appendix K
filing reviews would no longer apply.171
However, some commenters believe that
Appendix K procedures would still be
useful because U.S. auditing standards,
independence rules, and SEC rules still
would apply.172 We understand that the
PCAOB is aware of this matter.173
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. Background
The final amendments contain
‘‘collection of information’’
requirements within the meaning of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(‘‘PRA’’).174 We are submitting the
amendments to the Office of
Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for
review in accordance with the PRA.175
The titles for the affected collections of
information are:
(1) ‘‘Form 20–F’’ (OMB Control No.
3235–0288);
(2) ‘‘Form F–1’’ (OMB Control No.
3235–0258);
(3) ‘‘Form F–4’’ (OMB Control No.
3235–0325);
(4) ‘‘Form S–4’’ (OMB Control No.
3235–0324); and
(5) ‘‘Rule 701’’ (OMB Control No.
3235–0522).
These forms were adopted pursuant to
the Exchange Act and the Securities Act
and set forth the disclosure
requirements for annual reports and
registration statements filed by foreign
private issuers. The hours and costs
associated with preparing, filing and
sending these forms constitute reporting
and cost burdens imposed by each
collection of information. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a
170 See, for example, letters from CAQ, KPMG,
PwC, and Deloitte.
171 See, for example, letter from KPMG.
172 See, for example, letters from ICAEW and
Syngenta.
173 The audit implications of IFRS financial
statements in SEC filings was a matter on the
agenda of the PCAOB Standing Advisory Group
Meeting on October 18, 2007. See https://
www.pcaobus.org/News_and_Events/Events/2007/
10-18.aspx. A PCAOB briefing paper on the subject
is available at: https://www.pcaobus.org/Standards/
Standing_Advisory_Group/Meetings/2007/10-18/
IFRS_Briefing_Paper.pdf.
174 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
175 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1003
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
The amendments will allow a foreign
private issuer that prepares its financial
statements in accordance with IFRS as
issued by the IASB to file those
financial statements in its registration
statements and periodic reports filed
with the Commission without
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP. These
amendments are collections of
information for purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act. For purposes
of this Paperwork Reduction Analysis,
these amendments will result in a
decrease in the hour and cost burden
calculations. We believe these
amendments will eliminate potential
burdens and costs for foreign issuers
that use IFRS. The disclosure will be
mandatory. There will be no mandatory
retention period for the information
disclosed, and responses to the
disclosure requirements will not be kept
confidential.
We are adopting the amendments
substantially as proposed, and do not
believe any differences between the
proposed and adopted amendments will
impact our burden estimates for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act. We solicited comments on the
Paperwork Reduction Analysis included
in the Proposing Release. The few
commenters who addressed the issue
thought, based on their experience in
preparing their U.S. GAAP
reconciliation, that we had
underestimated the number of hours by
which registrant burdens would be
reduced if the amendments were
adopted.176 We note, however, that the
time required to prepare a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation may vary greatly between
issuers. We are not changing our
estimates of the percentage of
incremental decrease in the burden
resulting from our amendments. Our
Paperwork Reduction Analysis for Form
F–1 and Rule 701 is unchanged from the
Proposing Release. However, we are
revising our estimates for Forms 20–F,
F–4, and S–4. For Form 20–F, we have
revised our estimate of the number of
filers affected by the amendments from
110 to 140. For Form F–4, the total
burden hour estimates were revised
from 24,503 hours to 24,599 hours
subsequent to the issuance of the
Proposing Release. We are revising our
analysis for Form F–4 accordingly,
although we are not changing our
estimate of the percentage of
incremental decrease in burden that we
expect to result from the adopted
176 See, for example, letters from Diageo and
Syngenta.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
1004
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
amendments. For Form S–4, we are
revising the analysis to reflect an
assumption that 25% of the burden to
prepare financial statements for that
form is borne by the registrant and 75%
is borne by outside professionals
retained by the registrant at an average
cost of $400 per hour.
For purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, we estimate that the
incremental decrease in the paperwork
burden for all foreign private issuers
that use IFRS and issuers that acquire
foreign private issuers that use IFRS will
be approximately 4,945 hours of
company time and approximately
$5,934,000 for the services of outside
professionals. We estimated the average
number of hours each entity spends
completing the forms and the average
hourly rate for outside professionals.
That estimate includes the time and the
cost of in-house preparers, reviews by
executive officers, in-house counsel,
outside counsel, independent auditors
and members of the audit committee.177
Our estimates of the number of affected
foreign private issuers are based on the
number of recent filings received from
issuers that we believe may be
immediately eligible to rely on the
adopted amendments.
B. Burden and Cost Estimates Related to
the Accommodation
1. Form 20–F
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
We estimate that currently foreign
private issuers file 942 Form 20–Fs each
year. We assume that 25% of the burden
required to produce the Form 20–Fs is
borne internally by foreign private
issuers, resulting in 619,601 annual
burden hours borne by foreign private
issuers out of a total of 2,478,404 annual
burden hours. Thus, we estimate that
2,631 total burden hours per response
currently are required to prepare the
Form 20–F. We further assume that 75%
of the burden to produce the Form 20–
Fs is carried by outside professionals
retained by foreign private issuers at an
average cost of $400 per hour, for a total
cost of $743,520,600.
We estimate that approximately 140
companies that file Form 20–F may be
currently impacted by the
amendment.178 We expect that the
177 In connection with other recent rulemakings,
we have had discussions with several private law
firms to estimate an hourly rate of $400 as the cost
to companies for the services of outside
professionals retained to assist in the preparation of
these disclosures. For Securities Act registration
statements, we also consider additional reviews of
the disclosure by underwriter’s counsel and
underwriters.
178 We are using this figure for purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Analysis based on the
number of Form 20–Fs that were filed with IFRS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
amendment would cause those foreign
private issuers to have fewer burden
hours. We estimate that for each of the
companies affected by the proposal,
there would occur a decrease of 5% (132
hours) in the number of burden hours
required to prepare their Form 20–F, for
a total decrease of 18,480 hours. We
expect that 25% of these decreased
burden hours (4,620 hours) will be
saved by foreign private issuers. We
further expect that 75% of these
decreased burden hours (13,860 hours)
will be saved by outside firms, at an
average cost of $400 per hour, for a total
of $5,544,000 in decreased costs to the
respondents of the information
collection.
Thus, we estimate that the
amendment to Form 20–F will decrease
the annual burden borne by foreign
private issuers in the preparation of
Form 20–F from 619,601 hours to
614,981 hours. We further estimate that
the amendment will decrease the total
annual burden associated with Form
20–F preparation to 2,459,924 burden
hours, which will decrease the average
number of burden hours per response to
2,611. We further estimate that the
amendment will decrease the total
annual costs attributed to the
preparation of Form 20–F by outside
firms to $737,977,200.
2. Form F–1
We estimate that currently foreign
private issuers file 42 registration
statements on Form F–1 each year. We
assume that 25% of the burden required
to produce a Form F–1 is borne by
foreign private issuers, resulting in
18,999 annual burden hours incurred by
foreign private issuers out of a total of
75,996 annual burden hours. Thus, we
estimate that 1,809 total burden hours
per response currently are required to
prepare a registration statement on Form
F–1. We further assume that 75% of the
burden to produce a Form F–1 is carried
by outside professionals retained by
foreign private issuers at an average cost
of $400 per hour, for a total cost of
$22,798,800.
We estimate that currently
approximately five companies that file
registration statements on Form F–1 will
be impacted by the amendment.179 We
expect that the proposed amendment
will cause those foreign private issuers
to have fewer burden hours. We
estimate that each company affected by
financial statements during the last twelve months.
As additional jurisdictions adopt IFRS as their basis
of accounting in the future, the number of issuers
that use IFRS is expected to increase.
179 This figure is based on our estimate of the
number of Form F–1s that were filed with IFRS
financial statements during the 2006 calendar year.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the amendment would have a 5%
decrease (90.45 hours) in the number of
burden hours required to prepare their
registration statements on Form F–1, for
a total decrease of 452 hours. We expect
that 25% of these decreased burden
hours (113 hours) will be saved by
foreign private issuers. We further
expect that 75% of the decreased
burden hours (339 hours) will be saved
by outside firms, at an average cost of
$400 per hour, for a total of $135,600 in
decreased costs to the respondents of
the information collection.
Thus, we estimate that the
amendment to Form 20–F will decrease
the annual burden incurred by foreign
private issuers in the preparation of
Form F–1 from 18,999 hours to 18,886
hours. We further estimate that the
amendment will decrease the total
annual burden associated with Form F–
1 preparation to 75,544 burden hours,
which will decrease the average number
of burden hours per response to 1,799.
We further estimate that the amendment
will decrease the total annual costs
attributed to the preparation of Form F–
1 by outside firms to $22,663,200.
3. Form F–4
We estimate that currently foreign
private issuers file 68 registration
statements on Form F–4 each year. We
assume that 25% of the burden required
to produce a Form F–4 is borne
internally by foreign private issuers,
resulting in 24,599 annual burden hours
incurred by foreign private issuers out
of a total of 98,396 annual burden hours.
Thus, we estimate that 1,447 total
burden hours per response currently are
required to prepare a registration
statement on Form F–4. We further
assume that 75% of the burden to
produce a Form F–4 is carried by
outside professionals retained by foreign
private issuers at an average cost of $400
per hour, for a total cost of $29,518,800.
We estimate that currently
approximately 5 companies that file
registration statements on Form F–4 will
be impacted by the amendment.180 We
expect that the amendment will cause
those foreign private issuers to have
fewer burden hours. We estimate that
each of the affected companies will have
a decrease of 5% (72 hours) in the
number of burden hours required to
prepare their registration statements on
Form F–4, for a total decrease of 360
hours. We expect that 25% of these
decreased burden hours (90 hours) will
be saved by foreign private issuers. We
further expect that 75% of the decreased
180 This figure is based on our estimate of the
number of Form F–4s that were filed with IFRS
financial statements during the 2006 calendar year.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
burden hours (270 hours) will be saved
by outside firms at an average cost of
$400 per hour, for a total of $108,000 in
decreased costs to the respondents of
the information collection.
Thus, we estimate that the
amendment to Form 20–F will decrease
the annual burden incurred by foreign
private issuers in the preparation of
Form F–4 from 24,599 hours to 24,509
hours. We further estimate that the
amendment will decrease the total
annual burden associated with Form F–
4 preparation to 98,036 burden hours,
which will decrease the average number
of burden hours per response to 1,441.
We further estimate that the amendment
will decrease the total annual costs
attributed to the preparation of Form F–
4 by outside firms to $29,410,800.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
4. Form S–4
When a domestic issuer files a
registration statement on Form S–4 for
the acquisition of a foreign business, the
domestic issuer may be required to
include the financial statements of the
acquired business in the Form S–4. If
those financial statements are prepared
using a basis of accounting other than
U.S. GAAP, the domestic issuer must
provide a reconciliation to U.S. GAAP,
unless a U.S. GAAP reconciliation is
unavailable or not obtainable without
unreasonable cost or expense.
We estimate that issuers file 619
registration statements on Form S–4
each year. We estimate that 4,065 total
burden hours per response currently are
required to prepare a registration
statement on Form S–4. We assume that
25% of the burden required to prepare
the financial statements for use in a
Form S–4 is borne by the registrant,
resulting in 629,059 annual burden
hours incurred by registrants out of a
total of 2,516,236 annual burden hours.
We further assume that 75% of the
burden to produce financial statements
for a Form S–4 is carried by outside
professionals retained by the issuer at
an average cost of $400 per hour for a
total cost of $754,871,000.
We estimate that currently
approximately 6 registration statements
filed on Form S–4 will contain the
financial statements of a foreign target
that will be impacted by the
amendment.181 We expect that the
amendment will cause registrants that
file Form S–4 registration statements to
have fewer burden hours. We estimate
that for each of these registrants, there
will be a decrease of 2% (81 hours) in
181 This figure is based on our estimate of the
number of Form S–4s that were filed during the
2006 calendar year that contained IFRS financial
statements.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
the number of burden hours required to
prepare their registration statements on
Form S–4, for a total decrease of 486
hours.182 We expect that 25% of these
decreased burden hours (122 hours) will
be saved by issuers. We further expect
that 75% of the decreased burden hours
(364 hours) will be saved by outside
professionals at an average cost of $400
per hour for a total of $145,600 in
decreased costs to the respondents of
the information collection.
Thus, we estimate that the
amendment will decrease the annual
burden incurred by issuers in the
preparation of Form S–4 from 629,059
hours to 628,937 hours. We further
estimate that the amendment will
decrease the total annual burden
associated with Form S–4 preparation to
2,515,748 burden hours, which will
decrease the average number of burden
hours per response to 4,064. We further
estimate that the amendment will
decrease the total annual costs
attributed to the preparation of Form S–
4 by outside firms to $754,725,400.
5. Rule 701
Rule 701 provides an exemption from
registration for offers and sales of
securities pursuant to certain
compensatory benefit plans and
contracts relating to compensation.
Issuers conducting employee benefit
plan offerings in excess of $5 million in
reliance on Rule 701 are required to
provide employees covered by the plan
with certain disclosures, including
financial statement disclosures. This
disclosure is a collection of information.
We estimate that currently 300 issuers
provide information under Rule 701,
and that the estimated number of
burden hours per respondent is two.
Therefore, we estimate an aggregate of
600 burden hours per year. We believe
that the reduction in burden hours
caused by the rules will be insignificant.
Therefore, we do not believe the rules
will alter current burden estimates
associated with Rule 701.
V. Cost-Benefit Analysis
The adopted amendments provide
foreign private issuers the option of not
including a U.S. GAAP reconciliation in
their Commission filings if their
financial statements comply with IFRS
as issued by the IASB. We are not
amending the current reconciliation
182 We estimate the burden decrease for purposes
of this Paperwork Reduction Analysis would be less
for Form S–4 than for other forms described in this
section because, in the case of Form S–4, the
registrant is obtaining the U.S. GAAP reconciliation
from the foreign private issuer. Further, the
registrant is not required to provide the
reconciliation if it is unavailable or unobtainable
without unreasonable cost or expense.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1005
requirements for foreign private issuers
that prepare their financial statements
using a basis of accounting other than
IFRS as issued by the IASB.
The amendments apply to a foreign
private issuer’s financial statements
contained in annual reports and
registration statements on Form 20–F as
well as to financial statements included
in Securities Act registration statements
filed by foreign private issuers or, when
applicable, included in a registration
statement or reported pursuant to Rules
3–05, 3–09 or 3–16 of Regulation S–X.
We also are adopting a conforming
amendment to Rule 701, which provides
an exemption from Securities Act
registration for securities offered in
certain employee benefit plans, to
clarify that a foreign private issuer
conducting an offering in excess of $5
million in reliance on that rule may
furnish investors with financial
statements prepared using IFRS as
issued by the IASB without
reconciliation.
The amendments are available to any
foreign private issuer that files financial
statements that comply with IFRS as
issued by the IASB, whether voluntarily
or in accordance with the requirements
of the issuer’s home country regulator or
exchange on which its securities are
listed.
We recognize that the acceptance of
financial statements that comply with
IFRS as issued by the IASB without
reconciliation does not affect all foreign
private issuers equally, as there are
some issuers that will continue to find
it more attractive to reconcile their
financial statements to U.S. GAAP or to
continue to prepare financial statements
in U.S. GAAP. Approximately 140 of
approximately 1,100 foreign private
issuers currently file financial
statements in which they represent in
the footnotes to the financial statements
that the financial statements either
comply with IFRS as issued by the IASB
or a jurisdictional variation of IFRS
where such jurisdictional variation may
not prevent compliance with IFRS as
issued by the IASB. If these issuers are
able to state, and their auditors are able
to opine, that the financial statements
comply with IFRS as issued by the
IASB, then these issuers will be able to
file their IFRS financial statements
without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP. In
coming years, as more countries adopt
IFRS as their basis of accounting or
permit companies to use IFRS as issued
by the IASB as their basis of accounting,
we believe that the number of foreign
private issuers that will be eligible to
rely on the adopted amendments will
increase. For instance, approximately 80
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
1006
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
foreign private issuers from Israel 183
and approximately 500 from Canada 184
file financial statements with the
Commission and both of these countries
have announced moves to IFRS
reporting. Additionally, foreign private
issuers incorporated in other
jurisdictions would be able to take
advantage of the adopted amendments
by preparing financial statements in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB for purposes of Commission
filings. Finally, approximately 40
additional foreign private issuers that
are incorporated in jurisdictions that
have moved to IFRS historically have
included in their filings with the
Commission financial statements
prepared using U.S. GAAP. Some of
these issuers also may be in a position
to file financial statements that comply
with IFRS as issued by the IASB
without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation
under the amendments.185
Although few commenters provided
quantitative data to support their
views,186 the Commission has revised
the proposed amendments in response
to the concerns that the commenters
expressed. The Commission expects that
the adopted amendments will result in
the following benefits and costs to
investors.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
A. Expected Benefits
Our acceptance of financial
statements prepared using IFRS as
issued by the IASB is expected to help
foster the use of IFRS as issued by the
IASB as a way of moving to a single set
of globally accepted accounting
standards, which we believe will have
positive effects on investors. Financial
statements prepared using a common,
high-quality set of accounting standards
are expected to help investors better
understand and compare investment
opportunities as compared to financial
statements prepared under differing sets
of national accounting standards.
Without a common standard, global
investors are likely to incur the extra
costs of time and effort to understand
financial statements reported using
183 Israel Accounting Standard No. 29 ‘‘Adoption
of International Financial Reporting Standards,’’
stipulating that Israeli public companies that
prepare their primary financial statements in
accordance with Israeli GAAP are obliged to adopt
IFRS unreservedly for years starting on January 1,
2008.
184 See ‘‘Implementation Plan for Incorporating
International Financial Reporting Standards into
Canadian GAAP,’’ available at https://
www.acsbcanada.org/client_asset/document/3/2/7/
3/5/document_8B452E12-FAF5-7113C4CB8F89B38BC6F8.pdf?sfgdata=4.
185 The figures contained in this paragraph are per
staff estimates based on the jurisdiction of the filers.
186 See, for example, letters from Diageo and
Syngenta.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
different bases of accounting so that
they can compare opportunities. While
financial statements filed with the
Commission and prepared under a set of
home country accounting standards
have included a reconciliation to U.S.
GAAP, this reconciliation is not a
complete substitute for comparing
financial statements prepared using U.S.
GAAP.
The benefits of a single set of globally
accepted, high-quality accounting
standards that improve financial
statement comparability may be
diminished if there is a wide latitude in
application of IFRS that results in
inconsistent reporting. This latitude
potentially harms investors’ ability to
compare financial statements across
companies and potentially allows more
opportunity for obfuscatory reporting as
noted by one commenter.187 As noted in
Section II., the Commission and its staff
continue to be involved in efforts to
promote consistent and faithful
application of IFRS. We believe, based
on the staff’s review of IFRS financial
statements, that financial statements
prepared in accordance with IFRS as
issued by the IASB are of sufficient
quality. Investors therefore should be
able to understand and work with them,
a situation which will contribute to the
use of globally accepted accounting
standards, likely resulting in a more
efficient allocation of capital.
The amendments are expected to
increase the likelihood of realizing the
net benefits to investors of the use of
globally accepted accounting standards.
This benefit is due to potential network
effects of the proposed amendments: the
more issuers that use IFRS as issued by
the IASB, the greater the incentive for
other issuers to do so. The utility for
investors of a set of accounting
standards increases as the number of
issuers using it increases. For example,
a foreign private issuer may be
concerned about public perception
costs, as it may be perceived as being
the outlier if companies with which it
competes for capital report using a
different basis of accounting. The
perception costs of being an outlier in
such a case are likely to be smaller if a
critical mass of issuers with whom the
issuer competes for capital (such as
those in its industry sector) report
pursuant to the same set of standards,
such as IFRS as issued by the IASB. In
such situations, the use of IFRS as
issued by the IASB is expected to make
it more efficient for investors to analyze
an issuer’s financial results in
comparison with the results of others
with whom that issuer competes for
187 See
PO 00000
letter from Maverick.
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
capital. At the same time, the issuers
reporting in home country GAAP may
experience higher perception costs if a
critical mass of comparable issuers
adopts IFRS as issued by the IASB.
We believe that issuers will be
affected by the amendments in a
number of ways, including needing
fewer resources to prepare Commission
filings.188 Issuers that commented on
our estimates of the cost of
reconciliation believe we
underestimated these costs suggesting
that accepting IFRS financial statements
without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation will
result in greater than expected savings
to issuers.189 Investors will benefit to
the extent that an issuer relying on the
amendments can reallocate its cost
savings from not preparing a
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP or possibly
a second set of financial statements in
U.S. GAAP to higher earning
opportunities and not suffer an even
greater increase in its cost of capital
relative to the cost of reconciling to U.S.
GAAP.
The amendments are expected to
facilitate capital formation by foreign
companies in the United States capital
markets. Our amendments to accept
IFRS financial statements without
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP are
expected to reduce regulatory burdens
for foreign private issuers that rely on
them, thereby lowering the information
disclosure preparation cost of raising
capital in the United States for those
issuers. We believe that foreign private
issuers therefore may be more likely to
enter or remain in the U.S. capital
markets. To the extent our acceptance of
IFRS financial statements without
reconciliation encourages foreign
private issuers to enter or remain in the
U.S. capital markets, investors also will
benefit from the protections of the U.S.
regulatory and disclosure system
relative to the protections they may
receive if purchasing those securities
overseas and the ease of investing in
these opportunities in the United States.
188 For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Analysis, as described above, we have estimated
that the incremental decrease in the paperwork
burden for all foreign private issuers that currently
use IFRS and issuers that acquire foreign private
issuers that currently use IFRS would be
approximately 3,943 hours of company time and
approximately $4,731,120 for the services of outside
professionals. For purposes of these calculations,
we estimated the average number of hours each
entity spends completing the forms and the average
hourly rate for outside professionals, including the
time and the cost of in-house preparers, reviews by
executive officers, in-house counsel, outside
counsel, independent auditors and members of the
audit committee. The impact on an individual
issuer may vary, based on its specific
circumstances.
189 See, for example, letters from Diageo and
Syngenta.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
The expected benefits of a single set
of high quality accounting standards
may be mitigated if the standards were
not to continue to be of a high quality.
Investors may face uncertainty about the
future quality of IFRS. Factors that
could affect the quality of IFRS are both
institutional with respect to the IASC
Foundation including its governance
and funding, as discussed in Section II.
above, as well as operational with
respect to the actual standard setting
process. We recognize that our
relationship with the IASB is less direct
than our relationship with the FASB
and that there are more and varied
constituents of the IASB than of the
FASB. The result may be that our view
will be one of many views that the IASB
receives from around the world and
considers when developing future
standards. We continue to support the
IASC Foundation’s objectives for its
work to achieve a stable and
independent funding structure.
B. Expected Costs
Under the amendments, the minimum
required financial information that
investors in the U.S. capital markets
receive from any foreign private issuer
will differ from what it was previously.
The extent to which an investor receives
less information for a particular foreign
private issuer who reports under the
amendments will depend upon how the
issuer previously reported its financial
statements. For instance, if the foreign
private issuer currently files financial
statements prepared in U.S. GAAP and
transitions to reporting in IFRS, then
this may or may not represent a loss of
required information in absolute terms.
Whether there is an absolute loss of
information will depend upon whether
IFRS financial statements yielded more
or less information about a particular
issuer than the U.S. GAAP financial
statements yielded. On the other hand,
if the foreign private issuer currently
prepares its financial statements in IFRS
and includes reconciling information to
U.S. GAAP, then a loss of information
will result as the reconciling
information is omitted. A potential cost
could be incurred if an investor loses
information contained in the
reconciliation that the investor would
use to understand differences in certain
financial results under IFRS and U.S.
GAAP for a particular issuer. The
usefulness of this omitted information
depends on the extent to which the
investor uses the information provided
by the reconciliation to U.S. GAAP.
Some investors, including investors
who appear to be familiar with IFRS,
currently make use of the information
provided in the U.S. GAAP
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
reconciliation by quantifying or
estimating differences in certain
financial results under IFRS and U.S.
GAAP and comparing results in certain
line items such as net income of foreign
private issuers with those of domestic
issuers.190 Alternatively, other investors
are familiar with IFRS as a basis of
accounting and therefore may make
limited use of the reconciliation from
IFRS to U.S. GAAP.191 Because
investors may be differently situated in
the market and have varying levels of
familiarity with IFRS and with the
information provided in the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation, investors may not all
bear the cost from the amendments
equally and some commenters
recognized this.192 The use that a
particular investor may make of the
reconciliation will depend on many
factors including the size and nature of
the investor and the industry to which
the issuer in question belongs.
Additionally, under the amendments,
the comparability of IFRS and U.S.
GAAP results may change. To the extent
that an issuer elected IFRS accounting
policies that were consistent with U.S.
GAAP solely to avoid having to disclose
a U.S. GAAP reconciling item, future
accounting policy elections may not be
influenced by this incentive. This may
result in future IFRS financial
information from that issuer differing
from U.S. GAAP. Eligible foreign private
issuers who register their securities after
this rulemaking is effective will not be
influenced by this incentive.
The amendments may lead to some
costs to both investors and to issuers. If
the investor community prefers the
information communicated by a U.S.
GAAP reconciliation, a foreign private
issuer that uses IFRS as issued by the
IASB to prepare financial statements
may face a reduced following in the
marketplace. Investors that are not
sufficiently familiar with IFRS
accounting standards may prefer a U.S.
GAAP reconciliation. In addition,
unfamiliarity with IFRS as issued by the
IASB may have an adverse effect on
investors’ confidence in the reported
results which may lead them to insist on
a risk premium.
The reconciliation may highlight the
areas in which IFRS and U.S. GAAP are
not converged, thus providing a possible
benchmark to gauge convergence,
although the efficacy of this benchmark
could be affected by many other factors,
and convergence may not eliminate all
190 See, for example, letters from ITAC, Maverick,
R.G. Associates, and Standard & Poor’s.
191 See, for example, letter from CRUF.
192 See, for example, letters from CFA Institute
and ITAC.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1007
differences. With respect to IFRS
financial statements, there are generally
three sources for differences identified
in the reconciliation to U.S. GAAP:
• Legacy differences arising from
transactions that occurred before U.S.
GAAP and IFRS became more
converged;
• Self-selected differences that arise
as a function of differing accounting
elections that foreign private issuers
make in accounting for the same area
under IFRS and U.S. GAAP; and
• Regenerating differences that
continue to recur each year in areas in
which the standards are not converged.
With the differing reasons for
reconciling items, we do not believe that
the reconciliation solely or primarily
provides investors or the IASB and
FASB with an understanding of areas
that are not yet converged.
There may be differing incentives for
the convergence of IFRS and U.S. GAAP
to continue. We believe, however, that
the needs of the marketplace will
support the IASB and the FASB working
together to develop the best
international standards to be used in the
U.S. and internationally regardless of
our regulatory requirement to reconcile
financial statements. The current
convergence work program includes
topics such as revenue recognition,
financial statement presentation, and
leases. These are topics on which both
the IASB and the FASB seek to develop
better standards (rather than using the
existing U.S. GAAP or IFRS standards).
We believe that investors and issuers
seek comparable information in global
capital markets thereby providing an
incentive for continued convergence of
U.S. GAAP and IFRS.
This rulemaking also may create costs
to investors in domestic issuers required
by the Commission’s rules to prepare
their financial statements under U.S.
GAAP. The desire of potential investors
for comparability of financial
information among companies that
report in IFRS and domestic issuers that
report in U.S. GAAP may create an
incentive for domestic issuers to
provide financial information prepared
under IFRS as issued by the IASB in
addition to U.S. GAAP financial
statements. If domestic issuers make
this choice, their investors bear
additional preparation cost, while
benefiting from additional information
provided. Domestic issuers currently
compete internationally for capital with
companies who provide financial
information prepared under IFRS. In
spite of this international competition
for capital, we do not believe it is
currently a widespread practice for
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
1008
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
domestic issuers to provide financial
information under IFRS.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
Under Section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act,193 the
Commission certified that the proposed
amendments to Form 20–F under the
Exchange Act, Forms F–4 and S–4 and
Rule 701 under the Securities Act and
Regulation S–X contained in this
release, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. It
included this certification in Part VII of
the Proposing Release. While the
Commission encouraged written
comments regarding this certification,
none of the commenters responded to
this request.
VII. Consideration of Impact on the
Economy, Burden on Competition and
Promotion of Efficiency, Competition
and Capital Formation Analysis
Section 2(b) of the Securities Act 194
and Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act195
require us, when engaging in
rulemaking that requires us to consider
or determine whether an action is
necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, to consider whether the action
will promote efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. When adopting
rules under the Exchange Act, Section
23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act 196 requires
us to consider the impact that any new
rule would have on competition. In
addition, Section 23(a)(2) prohibits us
from adopting any rule that would
impose a burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
In the Proposing Release we
considered the proposed amendments
in light of the standards set forth in the
above statutory sections. We solicited
comment on whether, if adopted, the
proposed rule amendments would result
in any anti-competitive effects or
promote efficiency, competition and
capital formation. We further
encouraged commenters to provide
empirical data or other facts to support
their views on any anti-competitive
effects or any burdens on efficiency,
competition or capital formation that
might result from adoption of the
proposed amendments.
We did not receive any comments or
any empirical data in this regard
concerning the proposed amendments.
Accordingly, since the adopted rules are
193 5
U.S.C. 605(b).
U.S.C. 77b(b).
195 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
196 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
194 15
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
substantially similar to the proposed
rules, we continue to believe the new
rules will contribute to efficiency,
competition and capital formation. The
purpose of the amendments to Form 20–
F under the Exchange Act, Forms F–4
and S–4 and Rule 701 under the
Securities Act, and Regulation S–X is to
allow foreign private issuers that
prepare financial statements that
comply with IFRS as issued by the IASB
to include those financial statements in
their annual reports and registration
statements filed with the Commission
without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP.
These amendments are designed to
increase efficiency, competition and
capital formation by helping to move
towards a set of globally accepted
accounting standards, as well as by
alleviating the burden and cost that
eligible companies would face if
required to prepare a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation for inclusion in annual
reports and registration statements filed
with us. Due to the cost to issuers of
preparing the reconciliation to U.S.
GAAP from IFRS, we believe that the
amendments are likely to promote
efficiency by eliminating financial
disclosure that is costly to produce. We
believe that investors would have
adequate information on which to base
their investment decisions and that
capital may be allocated on a more
efficient basis.
The amendments are expected to
facilitate capital formation by foreign
companies in the U.S. capital markets
by reducing regulatory compliance
burdens for foreign private issuers that
rely on them. Reduced compliance
burdens are expected to lower the cost
of preparing disclosure for purposes of
raising capital in the United States for
those issuers.
The amendments also may have other
impacts on efficiency and capital
formation, which may not be felt
equally by all market participants. For
example, the amendments may have a
more favorable competitive impact on
foreign private issuers from jurisdictions
in which the use of IFRS is already
required or permitted. Issuers from such
jurisdictions may be able to benefit from
the amendments more quickly than
issuers from jurisdictions that do not
permit the use of IFRS. Also, some
foreign private issuers may be
concerned about the public perception
costs of not including a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation, particularly if they
compete for capital with other foreign
companies that provide a reconciliation
or that prepare financial statements that
comply with U.S. GAAP.
The amendments also are expected to
have effects on efficiency and capital
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
formation to the extent that investors
need to increase their familiarity with
IFRS in order to compare investment
opportunities without reference to a
U.S. GAAP reconciliation. If investors
prefer the information provided in a
U.S. GAAP reconciliation, a foreign
private issuer that uses IFRS as issued
by the IASB without reconciliation may
face adverse competitive effects in the
capital markets. For example, investor
unfamiliarity with IFRS may adversely
affect investor confidence in issuers that
prepare IFRS financial statements
without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP.
This may lead investors to insist on a
risk premium in those companies,
which would affect their
competitiveness in the capital markets.
Also, if investors must incur costs in
order to understand IFRS financial
statements without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation, there may be an
incentive for intermediary parties to
provide U.S. GAAP reconciliation
services.
VIII. Statutory Basis and Text of Final
Amendments
We are adopting the amendments to
Exchange Act Form 20–F, Regulation S–
X Rules 1–02, 3–10 and 4–01, Securities
Act Forms F–4 and S–4, and Securities
Act Rule 701 pursuant to Sections 6, 7,
10, and 19 of the Securities Act of 1933
as amended, Sections 3, 12, 13, 15, 23
and 36 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Sections 3(c)(2) and 108(c)
of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.
Text of Amendments
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Parts 210,
230, 239 and 249
Accounting, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
I In accordance with the foregoing,
Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 210—FORM AND CONTENT OF
AND REQUIREMENTS FOR FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS, SECURITIES ACT OF
1933, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934, PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING
COMPANY ACT OF 1935, INVESTMENT
COMPANY ACT OF 1940, AND
ENERGY POLICY AND
CONSERVATION ACT OF 1975
1. The authority citation for part 210
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s,
77z–2, 77z–3, 77aa(25), 77aa(26), 78c, 78j–1,
78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78q, 78u–5, 78w(a),
78ll, 78mm, 80a–8, 80a–20, 80a–29, 80a–30,
80a–31, 80a–37(a), 80b–3, 80b–11, 7202,
7218 and 7262, unless otherwise noted.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
2. Section 210.1–02 is amended by
adding a note following paragraph
(w)(3) before the computational note to
read as follows.
I
§ 210.1–02 Definitions of terms used in
Regulation S–X (17 CFR Part 210).
*
*
*
(w) * * *
(3) * * *
*
*
Note to paragraph (w): A registrant that
files its financial statements in accordance
with or provides a reconciliation to U.S.
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
shall make the prescribed tests using
amounts determined under U.S. Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles. A foreign
private issuer that files its financial
statements in accordance with IFRS as issued
by the IASB shall make the prescribed tests
using amounts determined under IFRS as
issued by the IASB.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 210.3–10 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text of
paragraph (i), and
I b. Revising paragraph (i)(12).
The revisions read as follows.
I
I
5. The authority citation for Part 230
continues to read, in part, as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Instructions for preparation of
condensed consolidating financial
information required by paragraphs (c),
(d), (e) and (f) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(12) Where the parent company’s
consolidated financial statements are
prepared on a comprehensive basis
other than U.S. Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles or International
Financial Reporting Standards as issued
by the International Accounting
Standards Board, reconcile the
information in each column to U.S.
Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles to the extent necessary to
allow investors to evaluate the
sufficiency of the guarantees. The
reconciliation may be limited to the
information specified by Item 17 of
Form 20–F (§ 249.220f of this chapter).
The reconciling information need not
duplicate information included
elsewhere in the reconciliation of the
consolidated financial statements.
I 4. Amend § 210.4–01 by revising
paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
Form, order and terminology.
(a) * * *
(2) In all filings of foreign private
issuers (see § 230.405 of this chapter),
except as stated otherwise in the
applicable form, the financial
statements may be prepared according
to a comprehensive set of accounting
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
PART 230—GENERAL RULES AND
REGULATIONS, SECURITIES ACT OF
1933
I
§ 210.3–10 Financial statements of
guarantors and issuers of guaranteed
securities registered or being registered.
§ 210.4–01
principles, other than those generally
accepted in the United States or
International Financial Reporting
Standards as issued by the International
Accounting Standards Board, if a
reconciliation to U.S. Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles and the
provisions of Regulation S–X of the type
specified in Item 18 of Form 20–F
(§ 249.220f of this chapter) is also filed
as part of the financial statements.
Alternatively, the financial statements
may be prepared according to U.S.
Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles or International Financial
Reporting Standards as issued by the
International Accounting Standards
Board.
*
*
*
*
*
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77b, 77c, 77d, 77f,
77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77z–3, 77sss, 78c, 78d,
78j, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78t, 78w, 78ll(d),
78mm, 80a–8, 80a–24, 80a–28, 80a–29, 80a–
30, 80a–37, 7202 and 7218, unless otherwise
noted.
*
*
*
*
*
6. Amend § 230.701 by revising
paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows:
I
§ 230.701 Exemption for offers and sales
of securities pursuant to certain
compensatory benefit plans and contracts
relating to compensation.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(4) Financial statements required to be
furnished by Part F/S of Form 1–A
(Regulation A Offering Statement)
(§ 239.90 of this chapter) under
Regulation A (§§ 230.251 through
230.263). Foreign private issuers as
defined in Rule 405 must provide a
reconciliation to generally accepted
accounting principles in the United
States (U.S. GAAP) if their financial
statements are not prepared in
accordance with U.S. GAAP or
International Financial Reporting
Standards as issued by the International
Accounting Standards Board (Item 17 of
Form 20–F (§ 249.220f of this chapter)).
The financial statements required by
this section must be as of a date no more
than 180 days before the sale of
securities in reliance on this exemption.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 239—FORMS PRESCRIBED
UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
7. The authority citation for part 239
continues to read, in part, as follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1009
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s,
77z–2, 77z–3, 77sss, 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n,
78o(d), 78u–5, 78w(a), 78ll, 78mm, 80a–2(a),
80a–3, 80a–8, 80a–9, 80a–10, 80a–13, 80a–
24, 80a–26, 80a–29, 80a–30, 80a–37, 7202
and 7218, unless otherwise noted.
*
*
*
*
*
8. Amend Form S–4 (referenced in
§ 239.25) by revising instruction 2 to
Item 17 to read as follows:
I
Note: The text of Form S–4 does not and
this amendment will not appear in the Code
of Federal Regulations.
FORM S–4
*
*
*
*
*
Item 17. Information with Respect to
Companies other than S–3 Companies.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Instructions:
*
*
*
2. If the financial statements required by
this paragraph are prepared on the basis of
a comprehensive body of accounting
principles other than U.S. GAAP or
International Financial Reporting Standards
as issued by the International Accounting
Standards Board, provide a reconciliation to
U.S. GAAP in accordance with Item 17 of
Form 20–F (§ 249.220f of this chapter) unless
a reconciliation is unavailable or not
obtainable without unreasonable cost or
expense. At a minimum, provide a narrative
description of all material variations in
accounting principles, practices and methods
used in preparing the non-U.S. GAAP
financial statements from those accepted in
the U.S. when the financial statements are
prepared on a basis other than U.S. GAAP.
*
*
*
*
*
9. Amend Form F–4 (referenced in
§ 239.34) by:
I a. Revising Item 10(c)(2);
I b. Revising Item 10(c)(3);
I c. Revising Item 12(b)(2)(iii) and (iv);
and
I d. Revising the Instruction to Item
17(b)(5) and (b)(6).
The revisions read as follows.
I
Note: The text of Form F–4 does not and
this amendment will not appear in the Code
of Federal Regulations.
FORM F–4
*
*
*
*
*
Item 10. Information With Respect to F–3
Companies.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Restated financial statements prepared
in accordance with or, if prepared using a
basis of accounting other than International
Financial Reporting Standards (‘‘IFRS’’) as
issued by the International Accounting
Standards Board (‘‘IASB’’), reconciled to U.S.
GAAP and Regulation S–X if there has been
a change in accounting principles or a
correction of an error where such change or
correction requires a material retroactive
restatement of financial statements;
(3) Restated financial statements prepared
in accordance with or, if prepared using a
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
1010
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
basis of accounting other than IFRS as issued
by the IASB, reconciled to U.S. GAAP and
Regulation S–X where one or more business
combinations accounted for by the pooling of
interest method of accounting have been
consummated subsequent to the most recent
fiscal year and the acquired businesses,
considered in the aggregate, are significant
pursuant to Rule 11–01(b) of Regulation S–
X (§ 210.11–01(b) of this chapter); or
*
*
*
*
*
Item 12. Information With Respect to F–3
Registrants.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Restated financial statements prepared
in accordance with or, if prepared using a
basis of accounting other than IFRS as issued
by the IASB, reconciled to U.S. GAAP and
Regulation S–X if there has been a change in
accounting principles or a correction of an
error where such change or correction
requires a material retroactive restatement of
financial statements;
(iv) Restated financial statements prepared
in accordance with or, if prepared using a
basis of accounting other than IFRS as issued
by the IASB, reconciled to U.S. GAAP and
Regulation S–X where one or more business
combinations accounted for by the pooling of
interest method of accounting have been
consummated subsequent to the most recent
fiscal year and the acquired businesses,
considered in the aggregate, are significant
pursuant to Rule 11–01(b) of Regulation S–
X; and
*
*
*
*
*
Item 17. Information With Respect to
Foreign Companies Other Than F–3
Companies.
*
*
*
*
*
Instruction to paragraph (b)(5) and (b)(6):
If the financial statements required by
paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) are prepared on
the basis of a comprehensive body of
accounting principles other than U.S. GAAP
or IFRS as issued by the IASB, provide a
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP in accordance
with Item 17 of Form 20–F (§ 249.220f of this
chapter) unless a reconciliation is
unavailable or not obtainable without
unreasonable cost or expense. At a minimum,
provide a narrative description of all material
variations in accounting principles, practices
and methods used in preparing the non-U.S.
GAAP financial statements from those
accepted in the U.S. when the financial
statements are prepared on a basis other than
U.S. GAAP.
b. Add a check box to the cover page
indicating the basis of accounting used
to prepare the financial statements
below the accelerated filer line;
I c. Revise the check box on the cover
page indicating whether Item 17 or Item
18 was used below the new check box
indicating the basis of accounting;
I d. Revise General Instruction G.(a);
I e. Remove General Instruction
G.(b)(1)(A) and G.(b)(2)(A);
I f. Redesignate General Instructions
G.(b)(1)(B) and (G).(b)(1)(C) as General
Instructions (G).(b)(1)(A) and G.(b)(1)(B)
and redesignate General Instructions
(G).(b)(2)(B) and (G).(b)(2)(C) as General
Instructions (G).(b)(2)(A) and G.(b)(2)(B);
I g. Revise General Instructions G.(d)
and (e);
I h. Revise General Instructions
G.(f)(2)(B)(ii) and G.(f)(2)(B)(iii);
I i. Revise General Instruction G.(h)(2);
I j. Revise Instruction 2.b. to General
Instruction G.(h);
I k. Remove General Instruction G.(i);
I l. Revise Item 3.A, Instruction 2;
I m. Add Instruction 5 to Item 5;
I n. Add a sentence to the end of
Instruction 3 in Item 8.A.5;
I o. Add Instruction 4 to Item 8.A.5;
I p. Add an Instruction to Item 11
before Instruction to Item 11(a);
I q. Revise the introductory text of Item
17(c);
I r. Add a sentence at the end of Items
17(c)(2)(v) and (c)(2)(vi);
I s. Remove Item 17(c)(2)(viii);
I t. Remove Item 17, Instruction 6;
I u. Add a Special Instruction to the
end of Item 17;
I v. Revise Item 18(b);
I w. Revise the Instruction to Item 18;
and
I x. Add a Special Instruction to the end
of Item 18.
The additions and revisions read as
follows.
I
Note: The text of Form 20–F does not, and
this amendment will not, appear in the Code
of Federal Regulations.
FORM 20–F
*
*
PART 249—FORMS, SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
10. The authority citation for part 249
continues to read, in part, as follows:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
I
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., 7202,
7218, 7233, 7241, 7262, 7264, and 7265; and
18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted.
*
*
*
*
*
11. Amend Form 20–F (referenced in
§ 249.220f) as follows:
I a. Add issuer contact information to
the cover page below the address line;
I
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
*
*
*
*
(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or
Facsimile number and Address of Company
Contact Person)
*
*
*
*
Indicate by check mark which basis of
accounting the registrant has used to prepare
the financial statements included in this
filing:
U.S. GAAP lll. International Financial
Reporting Standards as issued by the
International Accounting Standards Board
lll. Other lll.
If ‘‘Other’’ has been checked in response to
the previous question, indicate by check
mark which financial statement item the
registrant has elected to follow.
Item 17 lll. Item 18 lll.
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00026
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4700
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
*
*
*
*
*
G. First-Time Application of International
Financial Reporting Standards
(a) Omission of Certain Required Financial
Statements. An issuer that changes the body
of accounting principles used in preparing its
financial statements presented pursuant to
Item 8.A.2 (‘‘Item 8.A.2’’) to International
Financial Reporting Standards (‘‘IFRS’’)
issued by the International Accounting
Standards Board (‘‘IASB’’) may omit the
earliest of three years of audited financial
statements required by Item 8.A.2 if the
issuer satisfies the conditions set forth in this
Instruction G. For purposes of this
instruction, the term ‘‘financial year’’ refers
to the first financial year beginning on or
after January 1 of the same calendar year.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Information on the Company. The
reference in Item 4.B to the ‘‘body of
accounting principles used in preparing the
financial statements,’’ means IFRS as issued
by the IASB and not the basis of accounting
that was previously used (‘‘Previous GAAP’’)
or accounting principles used only to prepare
a U.S. GAAP reconciliation.
(e) Operating and Financial Review and
Prospects. The issuer shall present the
information provided pursuant to Item 5. The
discussion should focus on the financial
statements for the two most recent financial
years prepared in accordance with IFRS as
issued by the IASB. No part of the discussion
should relate to financial statements
prepared in accordance with Previous GAAP.
(f) Financial Information.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(B) * * *
(ii) Two financial years of audited financial
statements and interim financial statements
(which may be unaudited) for the current and
comparable prior year period, prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB;
(iii) Three financial years of audited
financial statements prepared in accordance
with Previous GAAP; interim statements
(which may be unaudited) for the current and
comparable prior year period prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB;
and condensed financial information
prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP for
the most recent financial year and the current
and comparable prior year interim period
(the form and content of this financial
information shall be in a level of detail
substantially similar to that required by
Article 10 of Regulation S–X).
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Financial Statements.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) U.S. GAAP Information. The U.S.
GAAP reconciliation referenced in Item 17(c)
or 18 shall not be required for periods
presented in accordance with IFRS as issued
by the IASB.
Instructions:
*
*
*
*
*
2. * * *
b. Present or incorporate by reference
operating and financial review and prospects
information pursuant to Item 5 that focuses
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
on the financial statements for the two most
recent financial years prior to the most recent
financial year that were prepared in
accordance with Previous GAAP. The
discussion should not refer to a
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP. No part of the
discussion should relate to financial
statements prepared in accordance with
IFRS.
interim period financial statements in
compliance with IAS 34 ‘‘Interim Financial
Reporting,’’ and explicitly states its
compliance with IAS 34 in the notes to the
interim financial statements.
*
Instruction to Item 11: An issuer filing
financial statements that comply with IFRS
as issued by the IASB should, in providing
information in response to paragraphs of this
Item 11 that refer to pronouncements of the
FASB, provide disclosure that satisfies the
objective of the Item 11 disclosure
requirements. In responding to this Item 11,
an issuer need not repeat information
contained in financial statements that
comply with IFRS as issued by the IASB.
*
*
*
*
Item 3. Key Information
*
*
*
*
*
Instructions to Item 3.A:
*
*
*
*
*
2. You may present the selected financial
data on the basis of the accounting principles
used in your primary financial statements. If
you use a basis of accounting other than IFRS
as issued by the IASB, however, you also
must include in this summary any
reconciliations of the data to U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles and
Regulation S–X, pursuant to Item 17 or 18 of
this Form. For financial statements prepared
using a basis of accounting other than IFRS
as issued by the IASB, you only have to
provide selected financial data on a basis
reconciled to U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles for (i) those periods for
which you were required to reconcile the
primary annual financial statements in a
filing under the Securities Act or the
Exchange Act, and (ii) any interim periods.
*
*
*
*
*
Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and
Prospects
*
*
*
*
*
Instructions to Item 5:
*
*
*
*
*
5. An issuer filing financial statements that
comply with IFRS as issued by the IASB
should, in providing information in response
to paragraphs of this Item 5 that refer to
pronouncements of the FASB, provide
disclosure that satisfies the objective of the
Item 5 disclosure requirements. In
responding to this Item 5, an issuer need not
repeat information contained in financial
statements that comply with IFRS as issued
by the IASB.
*
*
*
*
*
Item 8. Financial Information
*
*
*
*
*
Instructions to Item 8.A.5:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
*
*
*
*
*
3. * * *
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
A registrant filing financial information
that complies with IFRS as issued by the
IASB is not required to provide the
information described in paragraphs 3(a) and
(b) to this Instruction to Item 8.A.5. if that
registrant prepares its annual financial
statements in accordance with IFRS as issued
by the IASB.
4. A registrant that files interim period
financial statements pursuant to Item 8.A.5
is not required to comply with Article 10 of
Regulation S–X if that registrant prepares its
annual financial statements in accordance
with IFRS as issued by the IASB, prepares its
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
*
*
*
*
*
Item 11. Quantitative and Qualitative
Disclosures About Market Risk.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Item 17. Financial Statements.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(c)(2)(v) * * * Issuers that prepare
financial statements using IFRS as issued by
the IASB that are furnished pursuant to
§ 210.3–05 may omit the disclosures
specified by paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii),
and (c)(2)(iii) of this Item regardless of the
size of the business acquired or to be
acquired.
(c)(2)(vi) * * * Issuers that prepare
financial statements using IFRS as issued by
the IASB that are furnished pursuant to
§ 210.3–09 may omit the disclosures
specified by paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii),
and (c)(2)(iii) of this Item regardless of the
size of the investee.
*
*
*
*
*
Special Instruction for Certain European
Issuers:
An issuer incorporated in a Member State
of the European Union that has complied
with the carve out to IAS 39 ‘‘Financial
Instruments: Recognition and Measurement,’’
as adopted by the European Union, in
financial statements previously filed with the
Commission, may file financial statements
for its first two financial years that end after
November 15, 2007 without reconciling to
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
U.S. GAAP if that issuer’s financial
statements otherwise comply with IFRS as
issued by the IASB and the issuer provides
an audited reconciliation to IFRS as issued
by the IASB. This reconciliation to IFRS as
issued by the IASB is to contain information
relating to financial statement line items and
footnote disclosure based on full compliance
with IFRS as issued by the IASB, and is to
be prepared and disclosed in the same
manner that an issuer would provide a
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP, following the
requirements in Item 17(c)(2). All financial
statements of such an issuer for periods prior
to the financial year that ends after November
15, 2007 must continue to be reconciled to
U.S. GAAP. For financial years following the
two financial years ending after November
15, 2007, such an issuer will be required to
include reconciliations to U.S. GAAP unless
the issuer complies with the requirements in
Item 17(c).
Item 18. Financial Statements.
*
*
(c) The financial statements and schedules
required by paragraph (a) above may be
prepared according to U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles or IFRS as
issued by the IASB. If the financial
statements comply with IFRS as issued by
the IASB, such compliance must be
unreservedly and explicitly stated in the
notes to the financial statements and the
auditor’s report must include an opinion on
whether the financial statements comply
with IFRS as issued by the IASB. If the notes
and auditor’s report of an issuer do not
contain the information in the preceding
sentence, then the U.S. GAAP reconciliation
information described in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) must be provided. Alternatively,
such financial statements and schedules may
be prepared according to a comprehensive
body of accounting principles other than
those generally accepted in the United States
or IFRS as issued by the IASB if the following
are disclosed:
1011
*
*
*
*
(b) If the financial statements are prepared
using a basis of accounting other than IFRS
as issued by the IASB, all other information
required by U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles and Regulation S–X
unless such requirements specifically do not
apply to the registrant as a foreign issuer.
However, information may be omitted (i) for
any period in which net income has not been
presented on a basis reconciled to United
States generally accepted accounting
principles, or (ii) if the financial statements
are furnished pursuant to § 210.3–05 or lessthan-majority owned investee pursuant to
§ 210.3–09 of this chapter.
Instructions to Item 18:
1. All of the instructions to Item 17 also
apply to this Item, except Instruction 3 to
Item 17, which does not apply.
2. An issuer that is required to provide
disclosure under FASB Statement of
Accounting Standards No. 69, ‘‘Disclosures
about Oil and Gas Producing Activities,’’
shall do so regardless of the basis of
accounting on which it prepares its financial
statements.
Special Instruction for Certain European
Issuers:
An issuer incorporated in a Member State
of the European Union that has complied
with the carve out to IAS 39 ‘‘Financial
Instruments: Recognition and Measurement,’’
as adopted by the European Union, in
financial statements previously filed with the
Commission, may file financial statements
for its first two financial years that end after
November 15, 2007 without reconciling to
U.S. GAAP if that issuer’s financial
statements otherwise comply with IFRS as
issued by the IASB and the issuer provides
an audited reconciliation to IFRS as issued
by the IASB. This reconciliation to IFRS as
issued by the IASB is to contain information
relating to financial statement line items and
footnote disclosure based on full compliance
with IFRS as issued by the IASB, and is to
be prepared and disclosed in the same
manner that an issuer would provide a
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP, following the
requirements in Item 18. All financial
statements of such an issuer for periods prior
to the financial year that ends after November
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
1012
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15, 2007 must continue to be reconciled to
U.S. GAAP. For financial years following the
two financial years ending after November
15, 2007, such an issuer will be required to
include reconciliations to U.S. GAAP unless
the issuer complies with the requirements in
Item 18(a).
Dated: December 21, 2007.
By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–25250 Filed 1–3–08; 8:45 am]
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES3
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04JAR3.SGM
04JAR3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 3 (Friday, January 4, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 986-1012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-25250]
[[Page 985]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Securities and Exchange Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17 CFR Parts 210, 230, 239 and 249
Acceptance From Foreign Private Issuers of Financial Statements
Prepared in Accordance With International Financial Reporting Standards
Without Reconciliation to U.S. GAAP; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2008 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 986]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
17 CFR Parts 210, 230, 239 and 249
[Release Nos. 33-8879; 34-57026; International Series Release No. 1306;
File No. S7-13-07]
RIN 3235-AJ90
Acceptance From Foreign Private Issuers of Financial Statements
Prepared in Accordance With International Financial Reporting Standards
Without Reconciliation to U.S. GAAP
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is adopting rules to accept from foreign
private issuers in their filings with the Commission financial
statements prepared in accordance with International Financial
Reporting Standards (``IFRS'') as issued by the International
Accounting Standards Board (``IASB'') without reconciliation to
generally accepted accounting principles (``GAAP'') as used in the
United States. To implement this, we are adopting amendments to Form
20-F, conforming changes to Regulation S-X, and conforming amendments
to other regulations, forms and rules under the Securities Act and the
Securities Exchange Act. Current requirements regarding the
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP do not change for a foreign private issuer
that files its financial statements with the Commission using a basis
of accounting other than IFRS as issued by the IASB.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 2008.
Compliance Date: Amendments regarding acceptance of financial
statements prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB are
applicable to financial statements for financial years ending after
November 15, 2007 and interim periods within those years contained in
filings made after the effective date. Amendments to General
Instruction G of Form 20-F relating to first-time adopters of IFRS are
applicable to filings made after the effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Coco, Special Counsel,
Office of International Corporate Finance, Division of Corporation
Finance, at (202) 551-3450, or Katrina A. Kimpel, Professional
Accounting Fellow, Office of the Chief Accountant, at (202) 551-5300,
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549-3628.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is amending Form 20-F \1\
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act''),\2\
Rules 1-02, 3-10 and 4-01 of Regulation S-X,\3\ Forms F-4 and S-4 under
the Securities Act of 1933 (the ``Securities Act''),\4\ and Rule 701
under the Securities Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 17 CFR 249.220f.
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. Form 20-F is the combined registration
statement and annual report form for foreign private issuers under
the Exchange Act. It also sets forth disclosure requirements for
registration statements filed by foreign private issuers under the
Securities Act of 1933. 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.
The term ``foreign private issuer'' is defined in Exchange Act
Rule 3b-4(c) [17 CFR 240.3b-4(c)]. A foreign private issuer means
any foreign issuer other than a foreign government except an issuer
that meets the following conditions: (1) More than 50 percent of the
issuer's outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly
held of record by residents of the United States; and (2) any of the
following: (i) The majority of the executive officers or directors
are United States citizens or residents; (ii) more than 50 percent
of the assets of the issuer are located in the United States; or
(iii) the business of the issuer is administered principally in the
United States.
\3\ 17 CFR 210.1-02, 17 CFR 210.3-10 and 17 CFR 210.4-01.
Regulation S-X sets forth the form and content of requirements for
financial statements.
\4\ 17 CFR 239.34 and 17 CFR 239.13.
\5\ 17 CFR 230.701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Proposed Amendments
B. Overview of Comments Received
C. Summary of Final Amendments
II. Acceptance of IFRS Financial Statements from Foreign Private
Issuers Without a U.S. GAAP Reconciliation
A. The IASB
1. Governance and Structure
2. Funding
B. The Convergence Process
C. Investor Understanding and Education
D. Consistent and Faithful Application of IFRS in Practice
E. Regulatory Processes and Infrastructure to Promote Consistent
and Faithful Application of IFRS
III. Discussion of the Amendments
A. Eligibility and Implementation
1. Foreign Private Issuer Status
2. IFRS as Issued by the IASB
3. Implementation
B. Amendments to Effect Acceptance of IFRS Financial Statements
without Reconciliation to U.S. GAAP
1. General
2. Interim Period Financial Statements
a. Financial Information in Securities Act Registration
Statements and Prospectuses and Initial Exchange Act Registration
Statements Used Less Than Nine Months After the Financial Year End
b. Financial Statements in Securities Act Registration
Statements and Prospectuses and Initial Exchange Act Registration
Statements Used More Than Nine Months after the Financial Year End
c. Transition Period Interim Financial Statements in Securities
Act Registration Statements and Prospectuses and Initial Exchange
Act Registration Statements
C. Related Accounting and Disclosure Issues
1. Selected Financial Data
2. Other Form 20-F Disclosure
a. Reference to U.S. GAAP Pronouncements in Form 20-F
b. Disclosure from Oil and Gas Companies
c. Market Risk Disclosure and the Safe Harbor Provisions
3. IFRS Treatment of Certain Areas
4. Other Considerations Relating to IFRS and U.S. GAAP Guidance
5. First-Time Adopters of IFRS
6. Check Boxes on the Cover Page of Form 20-F
D. Regulation S-X
1. Application of the Amendments to Rules 3-05, 3-09, and 3-16
a. Significance Testing
b. Separate Historical Financial Statements of Another Entity
Provided under Rule 3-05 or 3-09
2. Pro Forma Financial Statements Provided under Article 11
3. Financial Statements Provided under Rule 3-10
4. Conforming Amendment to Rule 4-01
E. Application of the Amendments to other Forms, Rules and
Schedules
1. Conforming Amendments to Securities Act Forms F-4 and S-4
2. Conforming Amendment to Rule 701
3. Schedule TO and Schedule 13E-3
4. Small Business Issuers
F. Application to Filings under the Multijurisdictional
Disclosure System
G. Periodic Reporting Deadlines for Foreign Private Issuers
H. Quality Control Issues
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. Background
B. Burden and Cost Estimates Related to the Accommodation
1. Form 20-F
2. Form F-1
3. Form F-4
4. Form S-4
5. Rule 701
V. Cost-Benefit Analysis
A. Expected Benefits
B. Expected Costs
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
VII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy, Burden on Competition
and Promotion of Efficiency, Competition and Capital Formation
Analysis
VIII. Statutory Basis and Text of Final Amendments
I. Executive Summary
A. Proposed Amendments
The Commission has long viewed reducing the disparity between the
accounting and disclosure practices of the United States and other
countries as an important objective both for the protection of
investors and the efficiency of capital markets.\6\ The use
[[Page 987]]
of a single set of high-quality globally accepted accounting standards
by issuers will help investors understand investment opportunities
outside the United States more clearly and with greater comparability
than if those issuers disclosed their financial results under a
multiplicity of national accounting standards, and it will enable
issuers to access capital markets worldwide at a lower cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See ``Acceptance from Foreign Private Issuers of Financial
Statements Prepared in Accordance with International Financial
Reporting Standards without Reconciliation to U.S. GAAP,'' Release
No. 33-8818 (July 2, 2007) [72 FR 37962 (July 11, 2007)] (the
``Proposing Release'') for a summary of the Commission's past
consideration of a single set of globally accepted accounting
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Towards this end, the Commission has undertaken several measures to
foster the use of International Financial Reporting Standards
(``IFRS'') as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board
(``IASB'') and fully supports the efforts of the IASB and the Financial
Accounting Standards Board (``FASB'') to converge their accounting
standards.\7\ Specifically, the Commission has adopted rules to
encourage the use of IFRS, which has become increasingly widespread
throughout the world. Approximately 100 countries now require or allow
the use of IFRS, and many other countries are replacing their national
standards with IFRS. Following the adoption of a regulation in the
European Union (``EU'') to require companies incorporated in one of its
Member States and whose securities are listed on an EU regulated market
to use IFRS beginning with their 2005 financial year,\8\ we adopted an
accommodation to allow any foreign private issuer preparing its
financial statements using IFRS for the first time to provide two years
rather than three years of financial statements in their filings with
the Commission.\9\ Acknowledging the significant efforts expended by
many foreign private issuers in their transition to IFRS, we also
extended compliance dates for management's report on internal control
over financial reporting.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See the Proposing Release for a summary of the IASB, the
FASB and the process of convergence.
\8\ Consistent with Form 20-F, IFRS and general usage outside
the United States, we use the term ``financial year'' to refer to a
fiscal year. See Instruction 2 to Item 3 of Form 20-F.
\9\ Release No. 33-8567 (April 12, 2005) [70 FR 20674 (April 20,
2005)] (the ``2005 Adopting Release''). Other than first-time
adopters of IFRS eligible to rely on that accommodation, foreign
private issuers that register securities with the SEC, and that
report on a periodic basis thereafter under Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Exchange Act, are required to present audited statements of
income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of
the past three financial years.
\10\ Release No. 33-8545 (March 2, 2005) [70 FR 11528 (March 8,
2005)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, on July 11, 2007, the Commission issued for public
comment a proposal to amend Form 20-F and Regulation S-X to accept
financial statements of foreign private issuers that are prepared on
the basis of the English language version of IFRS as published by the
IASB without a reconciliation to U.S. GAAP.\11\ We did not propose to
change existing reconciliation requirements for foreign private issuers
that file their financial statements under other sets of accounting
standards, or that are not in full compliance with IFRS as issued by
the IASB.\12\ As part of our efforts to foster a single set of globally
accepted accounting standards, we are now adopting amendments to accept
from foreign private issuers financial statements prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB in filings with the
Commission without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ As used in this release the phrase ``IFRS as issued by the
IASB'' refers to the authoritative text of IFRS, which, according to
the IASC Foundation Constitution, is published in English. See
``International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs), including
International Accounting Standards (IASs) and Interpretations as at
1 January 2007,'' Preface to International Financial Reporting
Standards, at 23. As described below in Section III.A.2., the
Proposing Release used the phrase ``IFRS as published by the IASB''
to refer to the authoritative text of IFRS.
\12\ See Items 17 and 18 of Form 20-F; see also Article 4 of
Regulation S-X. See the Proposing Release for a history of the
reconciliation requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Overview of Comments Received
In the Proposing Release we sought comment on a number of issues,
including the goal of achieving a single set of global accounting
standards, the role of the IASB as standard setter, the potential
effect of the proposed rule changes on convergence, the ability of
investors and others to understand and use IFRS financial statements
without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation, and the application of IFRS by
preparers of financial statements. We received approximately 125
comment letters in response to the Proposing Release from a wide
variety of respondents, including investors, analysts, foreign and U.S.
issuers, business associations, accounting firms, law firms, credit
rating agencies and regulators.\13\ The majority of commenters agreed
that, overall, the use of high-quality, internationally accepted
accounting standards was an important and worthwhile goal. In general,
commenters supporting the proposal, which included many foreign private
issuers, accounting firms, legal firms and foreign standard setters, as
well as some investors, agreed that IFRS were suitable to be used as an
internationally accepted set of standards. Further, they expressed that
allowing IFRS without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation would be perceived as
recognition of the adequacy of the convergence process to date and
would promote and encourage the ongoing convergence process. However,
the views of several other commenters, including those representing
some institutional investors and analysts, were mixed. While these
commenters also expressed the view that IFRS have the potential to
fulfill the role of a set of high-quality, international standards at
some time in the future, some thought the time was not yet ripe for
accepting those financial statements without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation. Among the varying reasons cited by those who believed
the time had not yet come were that the convergence process is
insufficient to date and adopting the proposal would likely slow, and
possibly halt, the convergence process. Other commenters did think that
the time was ripe to accept financial statements prepared in accordance
with IFRS as issued by the IASB without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ These comment letters are available on the Commission's
Internet Web site, located at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-13-07/
s71307.shtml, and in the Commission's Public Reference Room in its
Washington, DC headquarters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the effect on information quality if the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation was removed, many commenters in support of the proposal
stated that the reconciliation information is highly technical and not
widely understood. These commenters also generally expressed confidence
in the quality of application of IFRS in practice. On the other hand,
commenters that expressed concerns with the proposal supported the
usefulness of both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the U.S.
GAAP reconciliation. These commenters cited the presence of significant
differences in important line items, such as net income, in the U.S.
GAAP reconciliations of many foreign private issuers as evidence that
the convergence process is not sufficiently complete. In their view,
such differences would be more difficult to discern without the U.S.
GAAP reconciliation. They also asserted that the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation is helpful to financial statement quality, and they
advocated further cross-jurisdictional structural and enforcement
efforts regarding IFRS, including efforts to strengthen governance of
the IASB and funding of the International Accounting Standards
Committee (``IASC'') Foundation, the stand-alone
[[Page 988]]
organization responsible for overseeing the activities of the IASB.
Many commenters that supported the proposal also urged the
Commission to make amendments that go further than those we proposed.
These commenters suggested that the Commission also accept from foreign
private issuers financial statements prepared using jurisdictional
adaptations of IFRS without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation, jurisdictional
adaptations of IFRS with a reconciliation to IFRS as issued by the
IASB, or any home country GAAP with a reconciliation to IFRS as issued
by the IASB.
C. Summary of Final Amendments
The Commission has considered the comments received and believes it
is appropriate at this time to adopt revisions, substantially as
proposed, to Items 17 and 18 of Form 20-F to allow foreign private
issuers to include in their filings with the Commission financial
statements prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB
without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP. However, the amendments adopted
differ in some areas in consideration of the responses we received to
questions we asked in the Proposing Release.
In summary, the Commission is adopting amendments that:
Permit foreign private issuers to file financial
statements prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB
without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP;
Require that foreign private issuers taking advantage of
this option state explicitly and unreservedly in the notes to their
financial statements that such financial statements are in compliance
with IFRS as issued by the IASB and provide an unqualified auditor's
report that opines on that compliance;
Allow these foreign private issuers also to file financial
statements for required interim periods without reconciliation to U.S.
GAAP (and without providing disclosure under Article 10 of Regulation
S-X) if the interim financial statements fully comply with IAS 34;
Extend indefinitely the two-year accommodation contained
in General Instruction G of Form 20-F to all first-time adopters of
IFRS as issued by the IASB; and
Make conforming amendments to Rules 1-02, 3-10 and 4-01 of
Regulation S-X, Securities Act Forms F-4 and S-4, and Securities Act
Rule 701.
II. Acceptance of IFRS Financial Statements From Foreign Private
Issuers Without a U.S. GAAP Reconciliation
In the Proposing Release, the Commission requested comment on a
number of broad areas with regard to whether we should proceed with our
proposal to accept from foreign private issuers IFRS financial
statements without a reconciliation to U.S. GAAP. Commenters had a
range of views on these areas and offered useful input, and we
considered many factors in our determination to adopt these amendments.
We received mixed views on the utility of the information provided by
the U.S. GAAP reconciliation of IFRS financial statements. Some
commenters expressed concern about the overall quality of IFRS, either
due to institutional considerations such as the governance or funding
of the IASB or due to operational considerations such as the future of
the convergence process. As described below, there are initiatives that
directly address these concerns. We believe these initiatives will be
more effective in addressing concerns than any indirect effects of
retaining the reconciliation requirement to U.S. GAAP for financial
statements that comply with IFRS as issued by the IASB.
We believe that it is appropriate to adopt these amendments at this
time because we expect our acceptance of IFRS financial statements
without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation will encourage more foreign issuers
to prepare financial statements in accordance with IFRS. We also expect
it will facilitate capital formation for foreign private issuers that
are registered with the Commission. Adopting these amendments now may
serve as an incentive to encourage the use of IFRS as issued by the
IASB, as well as to support their development as a truly globally
accepted set of high-quality accounting standards.
A. The IASB
In the Proposing Release we noted that the IASB's sustainability,
governance and continued operation in a stand-alone manner as a
standard setter are significant considerations in our acceptance of
IFRS financial statements without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation, as those
factors relate to the ability of the IASB to continue to develop high-
quality globally accepted standards. We solicited comment on ways in
which the Commission could further support the IFRS standard-setting
and interpretive processes, and also how the Commission should consider
its role with regard to the IASB.
1. Governance and Structure
Commenters generally agreed that the IASB is a stand-alone standard
setter with a robust due process in its standard-setting
procedures.\14\ Although most commenters did not express concerns over
governance, a few commenters identified several concerns relating to
the organization, governance and operation of the IASB as standard
setter. Specifically, these commenters felt that improvements were
needed to enhance the geographic diversity of the board,\15\ and to
better align its membership with investor interests.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, for example, letters from American Bankers
Association, Georg Merkl (``Merkl''), and UBS AG (``UBS'').
\15\ See, for example, letter from Korean Accounting Institute
and Korean Accounting Standards Board (``KAI-KASB'').
\16\ See, for example, letter from CFA Institute Centre for
Financial Market Integrity (``CFA Institute'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reflection on these comments and its own considerations, the
Commission has joined other authorities responsible for capital market
regulation--the European Commission, the Financial Services Agency of
Japan and the International Organization of Securities Commissions
(``IOSCO'')--to work together to achieve a means of greater
accountability for the IASB and the IASC Foundation to those
governmental authorities charged with protecting investors and
regulating capital markets.\17\ This interest in increasing the
accountability of the IASB and the IASC Foundation is a reflection of
the widespread acceptance of IFRS. The increased use of IFRS has raised
interest in establishing formal ties between securities regulatory
stakeholders and the IASC Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, SEC Press Release No. 2007-226, November 7, 2007,
available at: https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-226.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authorities described in the paragraph above propose to utilize
the occasion of the IASC Foundation's 2008 Constitution review to put
forward, in collaboration with the IASC Foundation, certain changes to
strengthen the IASC Foundation's governance framework, while
emphasizing the continued importance of an independent standard-setting
process. Central to this effort is the establishment of a new
monitoring body within the governance structure of the IASC Foundation
to reinforce the existing public interest oversight function of the
IASC Foundation Trustees. Likewise we note the IASC Foundation
Trustees' announcement of their proposals, following a strategy
[[Page 989]]
review over recent months, to enhance the organization's governance
arrangements and reinforce the organization's public
accountability.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See, IASC Foundation Press Release, ``Trustees Announce
Strategy to Enhance Governance--Report on Conclusions at Trustees
Meeting,'' November 6, 2007, available at https://www.iasb.org/News/
Press+Releases/Trustees+Announce+Strategy+to+Enhance+Governance+-
+Report+on+Conclusions+at+Trustees++Meeting.htm (the ``IASC
Foundation November 6 Press Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the Proposing Release, the Commission participates
in the development of IFRS primarily through its participation in
IOSCO, in which it takes an active role in reviewing and contributing
to comments on exposure drafts of standards issued by the IASB and in
contributing to its working groups. The Commission staff, as an IOSCO
representative, serves as a non-voting observer at International
Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (``IFRIC'') meetings.\19\
The Commission also is an observer of the IASB Standards Advisory
Council, whose responsibilities include consulting with the IASB as to
technical issues on the IASB's agenda and project priorities. Most
commenters that addressed the role of the Commission with respect to
the IASB felt that the Commission should continue to participate in the
IASB and IFRIC's due process.\20\ Many felt that continued interaction
with the IASB through IOSCO was appropriate.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ IFRIC interprets IFRS and reviews accounting issues that
are likely to receive divergent or unacceptable treatment in the
absence of authoritative guidance, with a view to reaching consensus
on the appropriate accounting treatment. The IFRIC is currently
comprised of twelve voting members, and the IASC Foundation has
recently approved an increase to fourteen voting members. All IFRIC
members are appointed by the IASC Foundation Trustees for renewable
terms of three years. IFRIC Interpretations are ratified by the IASB
prior to becoming effective.
\20\ See, for example, letters from Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
(``Deloitte''), Institute of International Finance, London
Investment Banking Association (``LIBA''), PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP (``PwC'') and the Swedish Export Credit Corporation (``SEK'').
\21\ See, for example, letters from UBS and PwC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter noted that in July 2006, following the reaffirmation
of the IASB and the FASB of their commitment to convergence, the IASB
announced that it would not require the application of new standards
before January 1, 2009.\22\ The establishment of that lead time for the
application of major new standards was intended to allow increased
opportunity for consultation, to set a clear target date for adoption,
and to provide stability in the IFRS platform of standards for issuers
that had already adopted IFRS. The commenter expressed concern that the
2009 effective date would delay improvement in the quality of financial
statements and disclosures, and argued that our acceptance of IFRS
financial statements without reconciliation should not occur until
after the IASB lifted its ``moratorium'' on new standards.\23\ We note,
however, that the IASB continues to issue new standards even if it does
not require their application before January 1, 2009, and that
voluntary early adoption of new standards prior to their mandatory
effective date generally is allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The press release in which the IASB made this announcement
is available at: https://www.iasb.org/News/Press+Releases/
IASB+takes+steps+to+assist+adoption+of+IFRSs+and+reinforce+consultati
on+No+new+IFRSs+effective+until.htm.
\23\ See letter from CFA Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Funding
Several comment letters, including those from financial statement
users and investors, raised the independence of IASB funding as an
issue.\24\ Most of these commenters were concerned that the current
voluntary nature of contributions might impact at least the appearance
of the IASB's independence as well as the quality and timeliness of its
standards.\25\ A few commenters pointed out that the concentration of
private contributions was a concern that led to the FASB's current
funding mechanism.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See, for example, letters from California Public Employees'
Retirement System, CFA Institute, and Goldman Sachs.
\25\ See, for example, letters from Colgate-Palmolive Company
and Investors Technical Advisory Committee (``ITAC'').
\26\ See, for example, letters from Council of Institutional
Investors (``CII''), Lawrence A. Cunningham, and Gaylen R. Hansen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We support a strong, independent IASB, and as we noted in the
Proposing Release, there are initiatives underway to address its
funding structure. We believe promotion of these efforts is a more
efficient and productive course of action than continuing to require a
U.S. GAAP reconciliation for financial statements prepared in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB. Currently the operations of
the IASC Foundation are financed by a combination of voluntary, private
contributions and levied funds. Trustees of the IASC Foundation have
indicated that a long-term objective of its funding plan is to move
away from relying on voluntary, private contributions. In June 2006,
the IASC Foundation Trustees agreed on four elements that should govern
the establishment of a funding approach that would enable the IASC
Foundation to remain a stand-alone, private sector organization with
the necessary resources to conduct its work in a timely fashion.\27\
The Trustees continue to make progress in obtaining stable funding that
satisfies those elements. Commenters have indicated that such a change
would be beneficial to the stability of the organization, as it would
spread the costs more equitably.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The Trustees determined that ``characteristics of the new
scheme for 2008 would be:
Broad-based: Fewer than 200 companies and organizations
participate in the current financing system. A sustainable long-term
financing system must expand the base of support to include major
participants in the world's capital markets, including official
institutions, in order to ensure diversification of sources.
Compelling: Any system must carry with it enough
pressure to make free riding very difficult. This could be
accomplished through a variety of means, including official support
from the relevant regulatory authorities and formal approval by the
collecting organizations.
Open-ended: The financial commitments should be open-
ended and not contingent on any particular action that would
infringe on the independence of the IASC Foundation and the
International Accounting Standards Board.
Country-specific: The funding burden should be shared
by the major economies of the world on a proportionate basis, using
Gross Domestic Product as the determining factor of measurement.
Each country should meet its designated target in a manner
consistent with the principles above.''
See https://www.iasb.org/About+Us/About+the+Foundation/
Future+Funding.htm.
\28\ See the letter from KPMG IFRG Limited (``KPMG'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the comments received and its own considerations, the
Commission has taken note of the IASC Foundation's funding progress as
most recently announced following an October 31, 2007 IASC Foundation
Trustee meeting.\29\ The Commission is encouraged by the progress in
diversifying the sources of the IASC Foundation's funding among and
within jurisdictions, as well as by the number of jurisdictions (such
as Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United Kingdom) that
have moved away from a voluntary funding scheme either to a levy or
national payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See the IASC Foundation November 6 Press Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Convergence Process
As discussed in the Proposing Release, continued progress towards
convergence between U.S. GAAP and IFRS as issued by the IASB is another
consideration in our acceptance of IFRS financial statements without a
U.S. GAAP reconciliation. We believe that investors can understand and
work with both IFRS and U.S. GAAP and that these two systems can co-
exist in the U.S. public capital markets in the manner described in
this rulemaking, even though convergence between IFRS and U.S. GAAP is
not complete and there are differences between reported results under
IFRS and U.S. GAAP. As we
[[Page 990]]
stated in the Proposing Release, we do not believe that eliminating the
reconciliation should be contingent upon achieving a particular degree
of convergence. Rather, the robustness of the convergence process over
time, among other factors, is of greater importance.
The majority of commenters agreed that attaining a single set of
high-quality global accounting standards was a worthwhile goal, with
several agreeing that a specific level of convergence was not required
to eliminate the reconciliation requirement.\30\ In highlighting that
acceptance of IFRS financial statements without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation should not be contingent on achieving a particular level
of convergence, one commenter noted, ``[e]ven today users cannot assume
that the U.S. GAAP reconciliation always ensures direct comparability
with U.S. GAAP financial statements of other entities.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See, for example, letters from the American Insurance
Group, Inc. (``AIG''), Ernst & Young LLP (``Ernst & Young''), PwC,
American Accounting Association--Financial Accounting Standards
Committee.
\31\ See letter from KPMG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received a variety of viewpoints about the level of convergence
between U.S. GAAP and IFRS as issued by the IASB and about the
potential effect of eliminating the reconciliation requirement on the
convergence process. Respondents in favor of the amendments generally
felt that acceptance of IFRS financial statements \32\ without a
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP would be perceived as an indication of the
adequacy of convergence and the convergence process to date.\33\ Many
of those not in favor of the amendments believed that convergence to
date was insufficient to merit the removal of the reconciliation
requirement at this time,\34\ or that acceptance of IFRS financial
statements without reconciliation would impede progress on further
convergence.\35\ Some commenters who took the latter view cited the
presence of substantial differences in important items in the
reconciliation as evidence that the convergence process is not
sufficiently complete, and gave examples of several items that are
disclosed in the reconciliation of which they would be unaware if they
had to rely on IFRS financial statements alone.\36\ Several commenters
suggested that if we accept IFRS financial statements without
reconciliation, users of financial statements would benefit if issuers
continued to provide qualitative disclosure of the nature of the
differences between IFRS and the unreported U.S. GAAP results.\37\
Other commenters representing users of financial statements, though,
noted that the reconciling information is not very useful to them in
evaluating IFRS financial statements,\38\ and many foreign issuers
commented that they rarely receive questions from securities analysts
and others relating to their U.S. GAAP reconciliations.\39\ Many
commenters believed that market forces and demand for comparable
information in global capital markets will continue to provide
sufficient incentive for further convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS as
issued by the IASB.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The phrase ``IFRS financial statements'' as used in this
release refers to financial statements prepared in accordance with
IFRS as issued by the IASB, unless otherwise specified.
\33\ See, for example, letters from Institute of Chartered
Accountants in England and Wales (``ICAEW''), Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft (``Siemens''), KPMG, Goldman Sachs, and
Federation of European Accountants (``FEE'').
\34\ See, for example, letters from New York State Society of
Certified Public Accountants (``NYSSCPA''), Maverick Capital
(``Maverick''), and ITAC.
\35\ See, for example, letters from CFA Institute, ITAC,
NYSSCPA, R.G. Associates, and Terry Warfield (``Warfield'').
\36\ See, for example, letters from the CFA Institute, Maverick,
and R.G. Associates.
\37\ See, for example, letters from AIG, BP plc (``BP''), and
Fitch Ratings.
\38\ See, for example, letters from Corporate Reporting Users'
Forum (``CRUF''), Goldman Sachs, and Merrill Lynch & Company.
\39\ See, for example, letters from Novartis and Nokia.
\40\ See, for example, letters from British Bankers'
Association, Microsoft Corporation (``Microsoft''), Ernst & Young,
PwC, Prudential plc (``Prudential''), and Fitch Ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IFRS as issued by the IASB and U.S. GAAP are both sets of high-
quality accounting standards that are similar to one another in many
respects, and the convergence efforts to date have progressed in
eliminating many differences. We recognize, however, that there are
still a number of differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS as issued by
the IASB, and that there remain specific accounting subjects that IFRS
has yet to address fully. One goal of the convergence effort underway
with the FASB and IASB is to remove the remaining differences and to
avoid creating significant new differences as standard setters continue
to address existing and emerging accounting issues.
These rule amendments are based on many factors, including the
progress of the IASB and the FASB towards convergence, the joint
commitment that both boards have expressed to achieving further
convergence of accounting standards in the future, and our belief that
investors and capital markets are best served with high-quality
accounting standards. Our focus is on whether IFRS is a set of high-
quality accounting standards established through a robust process, the
application of which yields information investors can understand and
work with despite any differences with U.S. GAAP.
We anticipate that the process towards convergence will continue,
because capital markets will provide an ongoing incentive for a common
set of high-quality globally accepted accounting standards, regardless
of the existence of an IFRS to U.S. GAAP reconciliation requirement.
The IASB and the FASB are now developing standards in areas where
improvement is warranted. These circumstances exist regardless of
whether the U.S. GAAP reconciliation requirement is in place. The IASB
and the FASB have, in 2002 and 2006, issued Memoranda of Understanding
that acknowledge their joint commitment to developing high-quality
global standards, the establishment of which remains a long-term
strategic priority for both Boards. In November 2007, the Trustees of
the IASC Foundation reiterated their support for continuing the
convergence work program described in these Memoranda, noting that
future work is largely focused on areas in which the objective is to
develop new world-class international standards.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See the IASC Foundation November 6 Press Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also is important to note that some reconciling differences
between IFRS and U.S. GAAP will continue to exist independent of the
U.S. GAAP reconciliation and the convergence process. Due to their
sources, these differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS will remain
regardless of the level of future convergence that can be attained.
These differences include the effects of legacy transactions, such as
business combinations, that occurred before U.S. GAAP and IFRS became
more converged, and of self-selected differences that arise as a
function of differing accounting elections (e.g. hedge accounting) that
foreign private issuers make under IFRS and U.S. GAAP.
C. Investor Understanding and Education
In the Proposing Release we posed several questions about the
ability of investors to understand and use financial statements
prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB without a U.S.
GAAP reconciliation, and whether that ability would depend on the size
or nature of
[[Page 991]]
the investor, the value of the investment, or other considerations.
Commenters noted that investors vary considerably in their ability
to understand and use IFRS financial statements and that the same is
true of their ability to understand and use financial statements
prepared using U.S. GAAP.\42\ However, many commenters were encouraged
by the apparent lack of difficulty with transition to IFRS in the EU
from many different country-specific GAAPs.\43\ One respondent took an
opposing view and asserted that the present lack of investor
understanding of IFRS should be a factor in deciding whether to
eliminate the reconciliation requirement.\44\ That commenter believed
that eliminating the reconciliation will require more work (and
possibly self-education) by investors to understand IFRS financial
statements, which may result in investment decisions becoming more
costly.\45\ Another commenter indicated its belief that currently there
is a lack of IFRS-based educational programs.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See, for example, letters from BDO Global Coordination B.V.
(``BDO''), ICAEW, Merkl, and Shell International B.V. (``Shell'').
\43\ See, for example, letters from British Bankers'
Association, LIBA, International Swaps and Derivatives Association
(``ISDA''), and Financial Reporting Council.
\44\ See letter from ITAC.
\45\ Id.
\46\ See letter from CFA Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is also the case with U.S. GAAP, we understand investors and
other users of financial statements do not all possess the same level
of understanding of IFRS or the resources that would facilitate gaining
such an understanding. We anticipate, however, that by encouraging the
use of IFRS as issued by the IASB, these amendments will help investors
to understand international investment opportunities more clearly and
with greater comparability in the long-term than if they had to
continue to rely on a multiplicity of national accounting standards.
The disclosures provided pursuant to the U.S. GAAP reconciliation are
not an exact substitute for an issuer preparing its financial
statements in U.S. GAAP. While some commenters have indicated that the
U.S. GAAP reconciliation is useful, it is not the equivalent of U.S.
GAAP financial statements. Investors currently must make use of IFRS
financial statements and financial statements under various national
GAAPs, even when accompanied by a U.S. GAAP reconciliation. We are
encouraged by comments from other institutional investors indicating
their degree of comfort and familiarity with IFRS financial
statements.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See, for example, letter from CRUF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The present use of IFRS financial statements described above does
not diminish the importance of recognizing that some investors are not
as familiar with using IFRS financial statements as they are with using
U.S. GAAP financial statements or the information provided in the U.S.
GAAP reconciliation. These investors may need to obtain training or
education in IFRS before they are comfortable working without the U.S.
GAAP reconciliation. In this regard, we note the amendments we are
adopting will affect a small number of issuers relative to the overall
size of the U.S. public capital markets. In addition, we are allowing
only financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by
the IASB to be filed without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation, so concern
over having to learn multiple jurisdictional variations of IFRS is not
a factor. More broadly, as companies increasingly move to IFRS,
investors that have gained familiarity with IFRS should see an
increasing return on their investment in education. A number of
accounting firms and other organizations currently provide information
about IFRS as issued by the IASB on their web sites free of charge. As
more countries adopt IFRS as the basis of accounting for their listed
companies, we anticipate that investors who are not yet familiar with
IFRS will have the opportunity to gain such familiarity.
D. Consistent and Faithful Application of IFRS in Practice
The degree of consistency and faithfulness with which IFRS is
applied is another consideration in our acceptance of IFRS financial
statements without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP. The Commission staff
has gained an increasing understanding of the application of IFRS
standards through its regular review of the periodic reports of
publicly registered companies, a number of which prepare their
financial statements in accordance with IFRS.\48\ The Commission staff
will continue to review and comment on IFRS financial statements and
disclosure as part of its normal review function.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The Staff of the Commission's Division of Corporation
Finance has published its observations on the review of IFRS
financial statements included in the annual reports of more than 100
foreign private issuers. Those observations are available at https://
www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/ifrs_staffobservations.htm.
\49\ Pursuant to Section 408 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the Commission is required to review disclosures made by reporting
issuers with securities listed on a national securities exchange or
traded on an automated quotation facility of a national securities
association on a regular and systematic basis for the protection of
investors. Such review shall include a review of the issuer's
financial statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters had a range of views with regard to our request for
comments on the application of IFRS as issued by the IASB. Some
commenters who favored the amendments highlighted the fact that IFRS
has been applied for more than two years by thousands of companies
throughout the world, including approximately seven thousand in the EU,
and that investors are already employing information from IFRS
financial statements to make investment decisions.\50\ In contrast,
some commenters who were not supportive of the proposal noted that the
U.S. GAAP reconciliation offers auditors a quality control mechanism
that identifies IFRS application issues, and referred to the staff's
``Observations in the Review of IFRS Financial Statements'' as evidence
that supports their concerns about the consistent application of IFRS
by reporting issuers.\51\ One such commenter also felt that it would be
difficult to audit for compliance with IFRS as issued by the IASB
because of the current state of IFRS-based training for auditors.\52\
Auditors, however, generally commented that they do have sufficient
experience and familiarity with IFRS to be able to opine on IFRS
financial statements, and that the elimination of the U.S. GAAP
reconciliation would provide an incentive to develop IFRS capabilities
faster than if the U.S. GAAP reconciliation were retained.\53\ Some
respondents believed that latitude in the application of IFRS results
in inconsistent reporting,\54\ while several supporters of the proposal
believed application of IFRS did not vary between companies that are
registered under the Exchange Act and those that are not.\55\ One firm,
while acknowledging diversity in the application of IFRS, felt that
such diversity should diminish with time as application and
interpretive issues are identified and addressed.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See, for example, letters from Deutsche Bank, Ernst &
Young, HSBC Holdings plc (``HSBC''), SEK, and Siemens.
\51\ See, for example, letters from ITAC, R.G. Associates, CFA
Institute.
\52\ See letter from CFA Institute.
\53\ See, for example, letter from Grant Thornton LLP (``Grant
Thornton'').
\54\ See, for example, letters from Robert Mladek, and Fund for
Stockowners Rights.
\55\ See, for example, letters from HSBC, Cleary Gottlieb Steen
& Hamilton (``Cleary''), Syngenta AG (``Syngenta'').
\56\ See letter from Deloitte.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the Proposing Release, the Commission has a long
[[Page 992]]
history of supporting the work of the IASB and its predecessor the
International Accounting Standards Committee in developing high-quality
global accounting standards. In addition to understanding the
standards, the Commission staff has developed a growing familiarity
with their application. The Commission staff has reviewed and commented
upon the filings of foreign private issuers that prepare their
financial statements using IFRS. The staff has indicated that issues
that it has observed in its ordinary review of IFRS financial
statements do not appear to be more pervasive or significant than those
it has identified in U.S. GAAP financial statements. We anticipate that
the increasing use of IFRS as issued by the IASB will lead to even
greater consistency of application, as well as to increased training
opportunities for preparers, auditors, and investors.
E. Regulatory Processes and Infrastructure to Promote Consistent and
Faithful Application of IFRS
In the Proposing Release, we discussed the cooperative
infrastructure that regulators have put in place to identify and avoid
inconsistent or inaccurate applications of IFRS globally so as to
foster the consistent and faithful application of IFRS around the
world. This infrastructure includes IOSCO, in which the Commission
participates, which has established a database among member regulators
for sharing regulators' decisions on the application of IFRS.\57\ The
Commission and the Committee of European Securities Regulators
(``CESR''), which the European Commission has charged with evaluating
the implementation of IFRS in the EU, have established a work plan in
which they agree to consult with one another with the goal of avoiding
conflicting conclusions regarding the application and enforcement of
IFRS.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See IOSCO's press release regarding its IFRS database at
https://www.iosco.org/news/pdf/IOSCONEWS92.pdf.
\58\ The press release announcing the SEC-CESR work plan, and
the text of the work plan, are available at https://www.sec.gov/news/
press/2006/2006-130.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Proposing Release, we asked for feedback regarding our work
with other regulators to provide for the enforcement of IFRS as issued
by the IASB. Many commenters did not express concern with the current
processes and infrastructure that have been established between
regulators to promote consistent and faithful application of IFRS. Most
commenters responding on this topic believed that the infrastructure is
in place to identify and avoid inconsistent and inaccurate applications
of IFRS globally.\59\ Some of these commenters noted the Commission's
involvement and leadership role in IOSCO and encouraged the Commission
to continue to work through IOSCO to coordinate with other regulators
in bringing matters to the IASB and to IFRIC.\60\ Several of these
commenters also supported the Commission's continued involvement in
information sharing arrangements with other regulators and the
interaction with CESR.\61\ Some commenters who did not support the
proposal believed that the lack of a global enforcement mechanism means
that the necessary controls to successfully implement global standards
are currently lacking.\62\ The Commission believes the current system
can be effective, and will continue its work in this area to support
multilateral and bilateral efforts, including its participation in
IOSCO and its collaboration with CESR and other regulators as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See, for example, letters from HSBC, LIBA, and SIFMA.
\60\ See, for example, letters from Business Europe, BP, HSBC,
and UBS.
\61\ See, for example, letters from International Finance, LIBA,
PwC, and Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(``SIFMA'').
\62\ See, for example, letters from CFA Institute, and Brent
Kobayashi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion of the Amendments
We are adopting the amendments substantially as proposed. We have,
however, in response to comments, made some modification in certain
areas, as discussed below.
A. Eligibility and Implementation
1. Foreign Private Issuer Status
The amendments the Commission is adopting will apply only to
foreign private issuers that file on Form 20-F, regardless of whether
the issuer complies with IFRS as issued by the IASB voluntarily or in
accordance with the requirements of the issuer's home country regulator
or exchange on which its securities are listed.
A large number of comment letters addressed eligibility
requirements and commenters almost unanimously supported the
applicability of the proposed amendments to all foreign private
issuers.\63\ Some commenters indicated that other types of issuers also
should be permitted to file IFRS financial statements without a U.S.
GAAP reconciliation, for example reporting U.S. subsidiaries of foreign
private issuers that use IFRS to prepare their consolidated financial
statements \64\ or reporting foreign issuers that did not fall within
the definition of foreign private issuer under Rule 3b-4 under the
Exchange Act.\65\ We note that the scope of our proposal was limited to
foreign private issuers, for which the Commission has an established
disclosure regime distinct from that applicable to companies that are
not foreign private issuers. The question of which disclosure regime an
entity should report under was beyond the scope of the proposal, and
thus we are not extending the application of the adopted amendments to
entities that do not satisfy the definition of foreign private issuer
under Rule 3b-4, or foreign private issuers that do not file their
annual report on Form 20-F. We are examining the possibility of the
broader use of IFRS by entities that are not foreign private issuers in
the Concept Release on Allowing U.S. Issuers to Prepare Financial
Statements in Accordance with International Financial Reporting
Standards.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See, for example, letters from Grant Thornton, Microsoft,
and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (``Sullivan & Cromwell'').
\64\ See, for example, letter from Financial Security Assurance
Holdings Ltd.
\65\ See memorandum from the Executive Staff on a meeting with
representatives of INVESCO plc.
\66\ Release No. 33-8831 (August 7, 2007) [72 FR 45600 (August
14, 2007)], available on the Commission Web site at https://
www.sec.gov/rules/concept/2007/33-8831.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We requested comment as to whether we should place limitations on
the eligibility of a foreign private issuer to file financial
statements prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB
without a U.S. GAAP reconciliation. We also asked whether our
acceptance of IFRS financial statements without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation should be phased in based on, for example, issuer size
or other criteria. Most commenters opposed any limitations on the
application of any final rules, and did not see any benefit to a
transition approach that phases in registrants.\67\ One commenter
pointed out that appropriate application of IFRS would not be dependent
on an issuer's size,\68\ while others stated that smaller companies
face a greater relative burden in preparing a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation.\69\ One commenter also opposed a phase-in based on
issuers' experience with IFRS, as it would be difficult to establish
meaningful criteria to evaluate that experience.\70\ We are not
adopting any issuer limitations or phase-in for the application of the
[[Page 993]]
adopted amendments, as we believe that to do so would not effectively
encourage the use by foreign private issuers of IFRS as issued by the
IASB and may create inappropriate disparity in our treatment of foreign
private issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See, for example, letters from Cleary, Deloitte, Fitch
Ratings, PwC, and Sullivan & Cromwell.
\68\ See letter from Fitch Ratings.
\69\ See, for example, letters from Cleary, Deloitte, Grant
Thornton, and Sullivan & Cromwell.
\70\ See letter from Grant Thornton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. IFRS as Issued by the IASB
We are adopting as proposed the amendments to Items 17 and 18 of
Form 20-F. Under the amendments, a foreign private issuer is eligible
to omit the reconciliation to U.S. GAAP if it states, unreservedly and
explicitly in an appropriate note to the financial statements, that its
financial statements are in compliance with IFRS as issued by the
IASB.\71\ Also, the independent auditor must opine in its report on
whether those financial statements comply with IFRS as issued by the
IASB. As described in the Proposing Release, the auditor's report can
include this language in addition to any opinion relating to compliance
with standards required by the home country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ The amendments would not encompass use of the IASB's
proposed IFRS for Small and Medium-sized Entities (``IFRS for
SMEs''), because those proposed standards relate only to smaller
issuers that do not have debt or equity securities listed on a
public market. More information on IFRS for SMEs is available on the
IASB Web site at https://www.iasb.org/Current+Projects/IASB+Projects/
Small+and+Medium-sized+Entities/Small+and+Medium-sized+Entities.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of commenters believed that auditors should be able to
provide audit opinions that financial statements were fully compliant
with IFRS as issued by the IASB.\72\ Several commenters indicated that
they were not aware of any reason why the auditor and the issuer would
not be able to provide the dual statement of compliance with both IFRS
as issued by the IASB and a jurisdictional variation of IFRS in cases
where accounting policy choices ensure compliance with both IFRS as
issued by the IASB and the jurisdictional variation of IFRS.\73\ One
commenter, however, believed that the additional opinion in the
auditor's report relating to compliance with IFRS as issued by the IASB
would be both duplicative and unnecessary, as the auditor would already
be expected to issue a qualified opinion if it found deviations from
IFRS as issued by the IASB given an issuer's unreserved statement of
compliance.\74\ We believe that in cases where there is no discrepancy
between IFRS as issued by the IASB and a jurisdictional variation, the
issuer and the auditor should be able to provide the dual statements
without undue difficulty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See, for example, letters from Galileo Global Advisors LLC,
Grant Thornton, Microsoft, PwC, and UBS.
\73\ See, for example, letters from PwC and UBS.
\74\ See letter from CESR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A foreign private issuer will continue to be required to provide a
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP under these amendments if its financial
statements include deviations from IFRS as issued by the IASB, if it
does not state unreservedly and explicitly that its financial
statements are in compliance with IFRS as issued by the IASB, if the
auditor does not opine on compliance with IFRS as issued by the IASB,
or if the auditor's report contains any qualification relating to
compliance with IFRS as issued by the IASB. A foreign private issuer
using a jurisdictional or other variation of IFRS will be able to rely
on the amendments if that issuer also is able to state compliance with
both IFRS as issued by the IASB and a jurisdictional variation of IFRS
(and does so state), and its auditor opines that the financial
statements comply with both IFRS as issued by the IASB and the
jurisdictional variation, as long as the statement relating to the
former is unreserved and explicit.
Many commenters supported the objective of encouraging the
development of a single set of high-quality international accounting
standards, but suggested that we also accept without a U.S. GAAP
reconciliation financial statements prepared in accordance with a
jurisdictional variation of IFRS, and in particular IFRS as adopted by
the EU.\75\ Some of these and other commenters thought it would be
appropriate also to permit a reconciliation from a jurisdictional
variation of IFRS to IFRS as issued by the IASB. Further, some
commenters suggested the Commission also permit a reconciliation from
any home country GAAP to IFRS as issued by the IASB. Commenters did not
suggest that accepting financial statements that comply with IFRS as
issued by the IASB from foreign private issuers was dependent on
implementing any of these additional suggested approaches. We are not
extending the proposal to these variations because we believe th
