The registrant is directly or conditionally liable for an essential obligation for him under an off-balance sheet agreement Since the current rule sometimes causes the disclosure of real estate that is not really essential, such as.B. Information relating to the company`s registered office or other offices, the final amendments clarify that the disclosure of real estate is only necessary to the extent that: in which the property is essential for the business, and encourage each company to “base itself on a global vision of the importance of its properties.” These amendments also specify that disclosure should “focus on physical properties that are essential to the registrant and that may, where appropriate, be made available collectively”. The revisions also harmonize certain descriptors (with the exception of sectoral descriptors) by providing a single disclosure standard based on the essentials. “In many cases, it would not be necessary to repeat the entire discussion of the earliest year, presented in the previous MD&A presentation, if management believes that this discussion is not necessary to understand the financial position, changes in financial position and results of operations. This is the standard that applies to all MD&A, and our amendments do not change that standard. The obligation of a registrant is to provide investors with all essential information that is appropriate to the particular circumstances of the business and that is presented in a way that best reflects the discussion and analysis of the business from the perspective of those who run it. We continue to encourage registrants to take the opportunity to reassess their disclosure in light of these changes and determine whether it is still essential to discuss the information from the first year. We believe that these amendments underline the continued relevance of the Commission`s guidelines in the 2003 MD&A press release, which states that “it is increasingly important for companies to focus their MD&A on essential information. When preparing MD&A, companies should evaluate the issues presented in previous periods and consider reducing or omitting the debate on those that may no longer be essential or useful, or revising discussions in which a review would show the continued relevance of a topic. “The final version reflects two substantial changes to the proposal. The SEC had originally proposed to remove the debate on the first year, provided that “i) this discussion is not essential to the understanding of the financial condition of the registrant, changes in financial condition and results of operations and (ii) the registrant has submitted its form 10-K of the previous year on EDGAR containing MD &A” of this year omitted. However, a number of commentators have questioned the interpretation and application of the “essential to an understanding” condition in practice, suggesting that the uncertainty (and the potential risk of litigation) would result in some companies being reluctant to omit the discussion of the first year “for fear that their judgment will be challenged”. As a result, the SEC eliminated the first condition.
. . .