SEC Guidance on Voting During M&A Transactions

Ettore A. Santucci and John T. Haggerty are partners at Goodwin Procter LLP. This post is based on a Goodwin Procter publication by Messrs. Santucci, Haggerty, and David W. Bernstein. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Bundling and Entrenchment by Lucian Bebchuk and Ehud Kamar (discussed on the Forum here).

On October 27, 2015, the Division of Corporation Finance of the SEC modified Section 201 of its Question and Answer guidance regarding SEC Rule 14a-4(a)(3) to require that if a material amendment to an acquiror’s organizational documents would require shareholder approval under state law, stock exchange rules or otherwise if presented on a standalone basis, if the change is effected by a merger (including a triangular merger) and is required by the transaction documents, the shareholders of both the acquiror and the target company must be given the opportunity to vote on the change in the organizational documents separately from their vote on whether to approve the merger or the merger agreement.


The Fed’s Finalized Liquidity Reporting Requirements

Dan Ryan is Leader of the Financial Services Advisory Practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on a PwC publication by Mr. Ryan, Mike Alix, Adam Gilbert, and Armen Meyer. The complete publication, including Appendix, is available here.

On November 13th, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) finalized liquidity reporting requirements for large US financial institutions and US operations of foreign banks (FBOs). [1] The requirements were proposed last year and are intended to improve the FRB’s monitoring of the liquidity profiles of firms that are subject to the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) [2] and their foreign peers, and to enhance the FRB’s view of liquidity across institutions.


Does Majority Voting Improve Board Accountability?

Edward B. Rock is the Saul A. Fox Distinguished Professor of Business Law at University of Pennsylvania Law School. This post is based on a paper, Does Majority Voting Improve Board Accountability?, authored by Professor Rock, Stephen J. Choi, Murray and Kathleen Bring Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law, Jill E. Fisch, Perry Golkin Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and Marcel Kahan, George T. Lowy Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law.

Directors have traditionally been elected by a plurality of the votes cast (the Plurality Voting Rule or PVR). This means that the candidates who receive the most votes are elected, even if a candidate does not receive a majority of the votes cast. Indeed, in uncontested elections, a candidate who receives even a single vote is elected. Proponents of “shareholder democracy” have advocated a shift to a Majority Voting Rule (MVR), under which a candidate must receive a majority of the votes cast to be elected. This, proponents say, will make directors more accountable to shareholders.


Shedding Light on Dark Pools

Luis A. Aguilar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Aguilar’s recent public statement at an open meeting of the SEC; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Aguilar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

Today, [November 18, 2015], the Commission considers proposing much-needed enhancements to the regulatory regime for alternative trading systems (“ATSs”) that trade national market system (“NMS”) stocks. I will support these proposals because they could go a long way toward helping market participants make informed decisions as they attempt to navigate the byzantine structure of today’s equity markets.


Rural/Metro and Disclosure Settlements

Joel E. Friedlander is President of Friedlander & Gorris, P.A. This post relates to Mr. Friedlander’s recent article, How Rural/Metro Exposes the Systemic Problem of Disclosure Settlements. This post is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

There is no aspect of merger and acquisitions litigation more pervasive or significant than the disclosure settlement. It is the mechanism by which stockholder claims are conclusively resolved for approximately half of all public company acquisitions greater than $100 million. [1] For that half of major acquisitions, the contracting parties and their directors, officers, affiliates, and advisors receive a court-approved global release of known and unknown claims relating to the merger in exchange for supplemental disclosures to stockholders prior to the stockholder vote. [2] The supplemental disclosures have no impact on stockholder approval of the merger. Nevertheless, in almost every such case, class counsel for the stockholder plaintiff receives a court-approved six-figure fee award for having conferred a benefit on the stockholder class.


Navigating the Cybersecurity Storm in 2016

Paul A. Ferrillo is counsel at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP specializing in complex securities and business litigation. This post is based on a summary of a Weil publication; the complete publication is available here.

“Our nation is being challenged as never before to defend its interests and values in cyberspace. Adversaries increasingly seek to magnify their impact and extend their reach through cyber exploitation, disruption and destruction.”

—Admiral Mike Rogers, Head of US Cyber Command September 9, 2015

A very recent article in the UK publication The Guardian, entitled “Stuxnet-style code signing of malware becomes darknet cottage industry,” [1] raises the specter of bad actors purchasing digital code signatures, enabling their malicious code to be viewed as “trusted” by most operating systems and computers. Two recent high profile hacks utilized false or stolen signatures: Stuxnet, the code used to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program, allegedly jointly developed by America and Israel, and the Sony hack which was allegedly perpetrated by the government of North Korea. Both of these instances involve sovereign states, with effectively unlimited resources.


The Pursuit of Gender Parity in the American Boardroom

Mary Jo White is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The following post is based on Chair White’s recent Keynote Remarks at the Women’s Forum of New York; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in this post are those of Chair White and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

The Women’s Forum of New York remains the critical, groundbreaking organization for successful women that it was when it held its first meeting in 1974. That was, by coincidence, the year I graduated from Columbia Law School. As one benchmark of progress, that year’s graduating class was only 17 percent women. Today that number is 45 percent and, in some years, it is higher.

We all have indeed come a long way since 1974. Today, women receive more than half of all bachelors’, masters’ and doctorate degrees, and more than a third of MBAs. Women are approximately half of the total workforce and half of all managers. But there remain areas stubbornly resistant to the progress that objectively should have already occurred. One in the legal profession is the percentage of women who are equity partners at law firms—18 percent. That number has only increased two percent since 2006, and we had achieved 12.9 percent back in 1994. Another resistant area is the financial arena—we now account for 29 percent of senior officials in finance and insurance, and no woman has, for example, ever been CEO of one of the 22 largest U.S. investment banks or financial firms. A third critical area that has been a particular priority for the Women’s Forum of New York is the focus of today’s event: gender diversity in U.S. boardrooms.


Increasing Transparency of Alternative Trading Systems

Kara M. Stein is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Stein’s recent remarks at a recent open meeting of the SEC; the complete publication, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Stein and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

Today [November 18, 2015], the Commission meets to consider a proposal to increase the transparency of alternative trading systems (ATS). Many ATSs are commonly referred to as “dark pools”. To most people, dark pools are a little bit of a mystery, and that’s because they often function in great secrecy. Today’s proposal seeks to shine a light into that darkness.

Modern ATSs are a product of the rapid technological advances that have revolutionized the way stocks are bought and sold. An ATS is an electronic order matching system operated by a broker-dealer. Much like an exchange, it brings together buyers and sellers. There are many types of ATSs, and they facilitate the purchase and sale of all types of securities ranging from equities to corporate bonds to Treasuries, and more. Unlike an exchange, which must disclose publicly quotes and prices at which securities transactions occur, an ATS can operate in the dark with only limited information about its operations.


ISS 2016 Voting Policies

Andrew R. Brownstein is partner and co-chair of the Corporate practice group, and David A. Katz is a partner specializing in the areas of mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance and activism, and crisis management at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Brownstein, Mr. Katz, David M. Silk, Trevor S. NorwitzSabastian V. Niles, and S. Iliana Ongun.

[November 20, 2015], ISS announced its final U.S. voting policies for the 2016 proxy season. ISS had previously released draft proposals on several of the topics in October. Changes to non-U.S. policies were also announced, including with respect to Brazil, Canada, France, Hong Kong & Singapore, India, Japan, the Middle East & Africa and the U.K. & Ireland. ISS also released an updated equity plan scorecard “FAQ,” which contains a new model index for large companies that are newly public or emerging from bankruptcy, as well as other minor adjustments to scorecard factors.


Corporate Law and The Limits of Private Ordering

James D. Cox is the Brainerd Currie Professor of Law of Duke Law School. The following post is based on an article forthcoming in the Washington University Law Review. This post is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Private Ordering and the Proxy Access Debate by Lucian Bebchuk and Scott Hirst (discussed on the Forum here).

Solomon-like, the Delaware legislature in 2015 split the baby by amending the Delaware General Corporation Law to authorize forum-selection bylaws and to prohibit charter or bylaw provisions that would shift to the plaintiff defense costs incurred in connection with shareholder suits that were not successfully concluded. The legislature acted after the Boilermakers Local 154 Retirement Fund. v. Chevron Corp ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund, broadly empowered the board vis-à-vis the shareholders through the board’s power to amend the bylaws. Repeatedly the analysis used by each court referenced the contractual relationship the shareholders had through the articles of incorporation and the bylaws with their corporation. The action of the Delaware legislation hardly puts the important question raised by each opinion to bed: are there limits on the board of directors to act through the bylaws to alter the rights shareholders customarily enjoy? Stated differently, can the board of directors’ authority to amend the bylaws extend to changing both the procedural and substantive relationship shareholders have with their corporation. In examining this question, the article, Corporate Law and The Limits of Private Ordering, develops two broad points: the shareholder’s relationship is more than just a contract and, even if the relationship was contractual, bedrock contract law does not support the results reached in Boilermakers and ATP Tour, Inc. In conclusion, the article also uncovers an issued overlooked in the debate over the relative prerogatives of shareholders and the board of directors, namely that bylaws proposed by the board of directors carry a strong presumption of propriety whereas those proposed by shareholders do not.


  • Subscribe

  • Cosponsored By:

  • Supported By:

  • Programs Faculty & Senior Fellows

    Lucian Bebchuk
    Alon Brav
    Robert Charles Clark
    John Coates
    Alma Cohen
    Stephen M. Davis
    Allen Ferrell
    Jesse Fried
    Oliver Hart
    Ben W. Heineman, Jr.
    Scott Hirst
    Howell Jackson
    Robert J. Jackson, Jr.
    Wei Jiang
    Reinier Kraakman
    Robert Pozen
    Mark Ramseyer
    Mark Roe
    Robert Sitkoff
    Holger Spamann
    Guhan Subramanian

  • Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board

    William Ackman
    Peter Atkins
    Joseph Bachelder
    John Bader
    Allison Bennington
    Daniel Burch
    Richard Climan
    Jesse Cohn
    Isaac Corré
    Scott Davis
    John Finley
    David Fox
    Stephen Fraidin
    Byron Georgiou
    Larry Hamdan
    Carl Icahn
    Jack B. Jacobs
    Paula Loop
    David Millstone
    Theodore Mirvis
    James Morphy
    Toby Myerson
    Morton Pierce
    Barry Rosenstein
    Paul Rowe
    Rodman Ward