To: C.K. Houston who wrote (11526 ) 2/17/1998 6:53:00 PM From: Judge Respond to of 31646
Two important points about supply chain disruption risks and one minor quibble: 1. Most manufacturers today engage in "just-in-time" inventory management to keep SG&A as low as possible, so even a minor "hiccup" in supply can idle a customer's operations; and 2. More and more frequently manufacturers are entering into "single-source" or "requirements" contracts in order to obtain favorable discounts and better treatment from their suppliers. This, too, can leave a customer without an alternate source in the event the "single-source" has hiccups. As an added note, bear in mind that many highly-regulated manufacturers (such as pharmaceutical manufacturers) must obtain regulatory approval for items obtained from certain suppliers (such as constituent chemicals and packaging), a time-intensive and very expensive process. Consequently, most such manufacturers have at least TWO sources for such supplies, but a hiccup by even one of two "qualified" suppliers can have a substantial negative effect on the manufacturer's ability to perform its own obligations. The quibble (intended in a gentle & friendly manner): Actually, the SEC doesn't care at all whether any individual reporting company is compliant or noncompliant: that's not in their regulatory portfolio. They care about complete, accurate and timely DISCLOSURE of material information concerning such companies' businesses, operations & financial condition. To the extent that Year 2000 issues will affect those things in a material way, the SEC Staff has made clear that it believes "specific and meaningful" discussion is required. Since no public company wants to have to say that Year 2000 issues are likely to have a material adverse effect on its business, operations or financial condition, the pressure to become compliant is enormous. I point this nuance out only, Cheryl, because I know it's as important to you as it is to me to get things right, which is one of the reasons I have the regard for you that I do. NOTE: The above discussion is only a general discussion and is not intended to constitute legal advice, which may differ according to the facts in a specific case. Recipients should consult their own legal counsel. Best regards, Cheryl. Cathleen