What does Finrep do for SEC reporting teams?

Finrep provides purpose-built workflows for SEC reporting including roll-forward analysis, peer alignment benchmarking, comment letter risk detection, filing readiness checks, and AI-assisted disclosure drafting — all grounded in evidence and peer precedent.

How does Finrep help with 10-K and 10-Q drafting?

Finrep's Disclosure Drafting workflow drafts or refines 10-K and 10-Q sections using peer precedent, prior period language, and applicable ASC guidance as grounding sources. Every output is traceable to its source.

Can Finrep help respond to SEC comment letters?

Yes. Finrep's Comment Letter Response workflow drafts substantive, defensible responses to SEC staff comment letters by referencing peer company responses and applicable accounting guidance.

What workflows does Finrep offer for CFO and Controller teams?

Finrep offers Certification Readiness, Cross-Period Consistency, and Board Briefing workflows — covering pre-certification risk summaries, narrative consistency checks, and audit committee-ready disclosure summaries.

Does Finrep support ESG and sustainability reporting?

Yes. Finrep includes ESG Disclosure Benchmark and ESG Regulatory Monitoring workflows, supporting TCFD, SASB, and GRI framework alignment as well as SEC climate disclosure rule tracking.

Which teams in the CFO office does Finrep support?

Finrep supports SEC Reporting, Technical Accounting, Legal Counsel, Investor Relations, Disclosure Committee, CFO and Controller, Tax Team, and ESG Reporting functions.

What litigation categories are covered?

Securities litigation, employment and labor, product liability, IP disputes, regulatory investigations, environmental, antitrust, and sector-specific categories. Custom categories configurable.

What does the quantification benchmark show?

Whether peers quantify exposure for each category, at what threshold they begin quantifying, and whether they quantify in Item 103, the footnote, or both.

Are peer excerpts verbatim?

Yes. Verbatim language from the peer's actual filing, linked to the EDGAR source paragraph. Full spectrum from most to least specific shown per category.

How is the peer set configured?

By ticker, SIC, GICS, market cap, or litigation profile. Sector-appropriate comparison is critical given how disclosure practice varies by industry.

Does it identify comment letter risk?

Yes. Categories where your disclosure falls below peer median on specificity or coverage are flagged as potential comment letter risk areas.

Can I run this for a 10-Q as well?

Yes. Item 103 and ASC 450 disclosures benchmarked for both annual and quarterly filings against peers' most recent comparable period.

Legal Counsel

Litigation Disclosure Benchmark

A litigation disclosure benchmark compares your Item 103 legal proceedings and ASC 450 contingency footnote against peers by litigation category, showing where your treatment sits on specificity, quantification, and coverage. Finrep pulls verbatim peer language for each category, EDGAR-linked, so the specificity-versus-protection balance is calibrated against actual market practice.

Item 103 + ASC 450

Both disclosure locations benchmarked

Category-level

Specificity, quantification, coverage compared

EDGAR-linked

Verbatim peer language per category

See sample reports

Sample Litigation Disclosure Benchmark Reports

See what a Finrep litigation disclosure benchmark looks like. Download and review the full output.

Today's reality

Litigation Disclosure Benchmark without Finrep

Specificity calibrated from memory and prior period language, not peer data
No category-level comparison across peers on the same litigation types
Quantification decisions made without knowing where peers draw the line
Comment letter risk from under-disclosure and legal exposure from over-disclosure both unquantified

Legal Counsel · Pre-Filing

Too much specificity is a litigation risk. Too little is a comment letter.

Litigation disclosure sits between two pressures. More specificity satisfies the SEC Staff and signals transparency to investors. Less specificity protects the company from admissions that plaintiffs will use. Both pressures are real, and the right balance is not in the codification.

It is in peer practice. How specific are your sector peers when disclosing the same categories of litigation? What do they quantify and what do they leave unquantified? Without that data, the disclosure decision is judgment without a benchmark. And that benchmark requires reading dozens of peer filings.

Without Finrep

Manual process

Specificity calibrated from memory and prior period language, not peer data
No category-level comparison across peers on the same litigation types
Quantification decisions made without knowing where peers draw the line
Comment letter risk from under-disclosure and legal exposure from over-disclosure both unquantified

With Finrep

Automated workflow

Category-by-category comparison against peers on specificity, quantification, and coverage
Verbatim peer language per category, EDGAR-linked, showing the actual spectrum of practice
Quantification benchmark visible: which peers quantify, which do not, and at what threshold
Balance calibrated against market practice, not internal judgment alone

From your litigation disclosures to peer-benchmarked comparison in four steps

Upload your filing or litigation disclosures

Drop your 10-K or 10-Q (or just Item 103 and the ASC 450 footnote). Finrep maps each disclosure to its litigation category.

Define your peer set

Select by ticker, SIC, GICS, or market cap. Finrep retrieves Item 103 and ASC 450 disclosures from each peer's most recent filing.

Review the category-level benchmark

Each litigation category shows your disclosure alongside peer language: specificity level, quantification approach, and coverage depth. Verbatim peer excerpts EDGAR-linked.

Calibrate and route

Adjust disclosure based on peer benchmark. Export the comparison for legal and disclosure committee review.

What you get

Category-level litigation disclosure benchmark with verbatim peer language

EDGAR SearchPeer BenchmarkingDisclosure Analysis

Legal Counsel

What Litigation Disclosure Benchmark does at a glance

Team: Legal Counsel
Filing phase: Pre-Filing
Output: Category-level litigation disclosure benchmark with verbatim peer language
Modules: EDGAR SearchPeer BenchmarkingDisclosure Analysis

What changes when the specificity-versus-protection balance has a benchmark

Item 103 and ASC 450 benchmarked together

Both disclosure locations compared simultaneously. Item 103 legal proceedings and ASC 450 contingency footnote mapped to the same litigation categories. Shows where your Item 103 and footnote are internally consistent and where peers treat the two differently.

Three-dimension comparison per category

Each litigation category assessed on three dimensions: specificity (how much detail peers provide on the nature and status), quantification (whether peers quantify exposure and at what threshold), and coverage (which sub-categories within each type peers address). All three shown relative to the peer set.

Verbatim peer language EDGAR-linked

Every peer excerpt is verbatim language from the peer's actual filing, linked to the EDGAR source paragraph. Shows the full spectrum: most specific to least specific within each category. Legal counsel sees exactly what the market has said, not a summary of it.

Sector-calibrated peer set

Peer set configured by sector, size, litigation profile, or custom list. Litigation disclosure practice varies significantly by industry. A pharmaceutical company's peer set for product liability disclosures differs from a technology company's peer set for IP litigation. Sector-appropriate comparison.

Built for the people who own the specificity-versus-protection decision

Legal Counsel

Category-level peer benchmark with verbatim EDGAR-linked language. The balance calibrated against what the market is actually saying, not what you remember reading.