Reg FD Enforcement Update: the Perils of
Implied Messages

October 21, 2010

The SEC today announced settled Reg FD charges against Office Depot and its CEO and former CFO related to "signals" that Office Depot made in one-on-one conversations with analysts implying that it would not meet future earnings expectations.  The Office Depot settlement, which is the SEC's third Reg FD action in a little over a year after an approximately four-year hiatus, is distinctive because the challenged statements appear to have been crafted—unsuccessfully, as it turned out—to walk the FD compliance line by avoiding express references to changes in the company's business.

The Communications with Analysts

As a result of softening business conditions in early 2007, and despite general cautions expressed publicly by the company, consensus estimates for Office Depot's second quarter were still higher than internal forecasts.  The CEO and CFO, in an effort to temper expectations, directed investor relations to contact each of the 18 analysts covering the company, using the following talking points:

  • "Haven't spoken in a while, just want to touch base.
  • At beg. of Qtr we've talked about a number of head winds that we were facing this quarter including a softening economy, especially at small end.
  • I think the earnings release we have seen from the likes of [Company A], [Company B], and [Company C] have been interesting.
    • On a sequential basis, [Company A] and [Company B] domestic comps were down substantially over prior quarters.
    • [Company C] mentioned economic conditions as a reason for their slowed growth.
  • Some have pointed to better conditions in the second half of the year – however who knows?
  • Remind you that economic model contemplates stable economic conditions – that is mid-teens growth"

The predictable result of these calls was that almost all of the analysts lowered their estimates, and Office Depot's share price significantly dropped on increased trading volume.  Six days after the calls began, Office Depot filed a Form 8-K announcing to the market, among other things, that its sales and earnings would be negatively affected by the continued soft economy.  

If You Can't Say It, Don't Imply It.

The SEC's enforcement theory was that although Office Depot did not directly tell analysts privately that it would not meet their expectations (which would likely have been a textbook Reg FD violation), this message was "signaled" through its talking points.  Aggravating factors included:

  • private calls with analysts, which carry a high degree of risk under Reg FD, and which were initiated by the company;
  • the statements were made at the end of the quarter, implying that they were based on real data rather than forecasts;
  • the direct role of the CEO and CFO in orchestrating the communications; and
  • the prompt reaction of the analysts and the market, which supports the materiality of the statements to analysts.

The Office Depot settlement is a reminder that implicit messages can be tantamount to explicit ones for Reg FD purposes, and that an overly clever approach may seem less so if the enforcement people decide to give you a call.  Enforcement staff and the private bar have for many years talked about the risks of nods and winks and other forms of indirect communication.  This is also a reminder that one-on-one communications with market professionals, particularly late in a reporting period, are inherently dangerous.


If you have questions regarding this newsflash, please contact any of the lawyers listed below or your regular Davis Polk contact.

Michael Kaplan212 450
William M. Kelly 650 752 2003
Linda Chatman Thomsen202 962
Janice Brunner212 450


Notice: This is a summary that we believe may be of interest to you for general information. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented and should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you would rather not receive these memoranda, please respond to this email and indicate that you would like to be removed from our distribution list. If you have any questions about the matters covered in this publication, the names and office locations of all of our partners appear on our website,
© 2010 Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP