Yearly Archives: 2011

Corporate Law Lessons from Ancient Rome

The following post comes to us from Andreas M. Fleckner, Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law.

How did the Romans finance capital-intensive endeavors such as the erection of temples, the pavement of roads, or the trading of goods from foreign countries? This question has fascinated generations of classical readers and scholars. It is, however, also of interest to the corporate lawyer of today, because Ancient Rome helps us better understand the functions of corporate law and its role within the broader economic, social, political, and legal setting.

What We Know About Ancient Rome

For more than 175 years, historians, economists, and lawyers have speculated or even claimed that, as early as the Roman Republic (6th to 1st century BC), businessmen formed large firms with publicly traded shares similar to modern stock corporations (since Orelli, 1835). Most recently, a longer Journal of Economic Literature article argues that there was evidence for such an “early form of shareholder company” (Malmendier, 2009).

In a new book, however, I conclude that such claims are unwarranted. [1] I consider all legal and literary sources, both in Latin and classical Greek, that have come down to us, such as the works of Polybius (2nd century BC), Cicero (1st century BC), Livy (around the time of Christ’s birth), Pliny the Elder (1st century AD), or Plutarch (2nd century AD), as well as great collections like the New Testament (1st/2nd century AD) or the Digest (6th century AD). None of these sources brings to light evidence for larger “capital associations” (my term for entities that helped finance projects which, on account of their scope, duration or risk, exceeded the capacity of single individuals), let alone associations with publicly traded shares.

READ MORE »

Does CEO Education Matter?

Matteo Tonello is Director of Corporate Governance for The Conference Board, Inc. This post is based on a Conference Board Director Note by Sanjai Bhagat, Brian Bolton, and Ajay Subramanian, and relates to a paper by these authors discussed on the Forum here.

Selecting a new CEO is among the most delicate decisions a board of directors will ever face. The selection process is exposed to so many unknowns: personality, integrity, technical skills, and experience. Such intangibles are very hard to assess, let alone compare among candidates. In this evaluation, the education of a candidate may be one of the few pieces of information that is certain: the quality and relevance of that education may be debatable, but the simple facts are known and verifiable. To provide guidance to corporate boards on the validity of that indicator, this report analyzes data on the education of 1,800 individuals who served as CEOs of Standard & Poor’s Composite 1500 companies to determine the effect of education on CEO turnover and firm performance.

What makes a CEO great? Recent history has produced many successful CEOs, with vastly different backgrounds and personalities: Warren Buffett, Jack Welch, and Steve Jobs, to name just a few. As outsiders, we characterize these CEOs as “successful” because of the results they produce. Their companies have created new products, penetrated new markets, and provided substantial returns to investors and other stakeholders. It is easy to define a CEO as a great leader after his or her company has become successful; what is much more difficult is identifying a great candidate for CEO before that success has materialized.

READ MORE »

Criteria for an Independent Accounting Standard Setter

Donna Street is the Mahrt Chair in Accounting at the University of Dayton.

In 2008, the Council of Institutional Investors (Council) adopted a policy regarding the independence of international accounting and auditing standard setters. The Council’s policy supports the goal of convergence to a single set of high quality accounting standards designed to produce comparable, reliable, timely, transparent and understandable financial information that will meet the needs of investors and other consumers of financial reports. Importantly, the policy also opposes replacing U.S. accounting standards and standard setters with international accounting standards and standard setters unless and until seven criteria have been achieved.

In a recent white paper commissioned by the Council of Institutional Investors, Criteria for an Independent Accounting Standard Setter How Does the IASB Rate? I explore evidence and views regarding each of the seven criteria. The paper is designed to assist Council members and other interested parties in evaluating whether the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and its International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) satisfy any or all of the criteria. This evaluation is particularly timely.

READ MORE »

Qualifications and Evaluations of Directors and Boards

Martin Lipton is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton firm memorandum.

As part of a continuing study, on April 5 the European Commission issued a consultation green paper on corporate governance. It is a very thoughtful study. It covers many of the same issues that have been the subject of the corporate governance debate in the United States. Of special interest, and relevance to us, is the discussion of the composition of the board and the qualifications of the directors:

READ MORE »

Using Bank Performance in 1998 to Explain Bank Performance During the Recent Financial Crisis

René Stulz is a Professor of Finance at Ohio State University.

Rudiger Fahlenbrach, Robert Prilmeier and I have made available a paper on SSRN titled This Time Is the Same: Using Bank Performance in 1998 to Explain Bank Performance During the Recent Financial Crisis. In this paper, we show that banks that performed poorly during the Russian crisis of 1998 also performed poorly during the recent financial crisis.

Russia defaulted on its domestic debt on August 17, 1998. This event started a dramatic chain reaction. As Thomas Friedman from the New York Times put it, “the entire global economic system as we know it almost went into meltdown.” The Russian crisis was described as the biggest crisis since the Great Depression. The financial crisis that started in 2007 would eventually be described as the biggest financial crisis of the last 50 years, supplanting the crisis of 1998 for that designation.

The similarity between the crisis of 1998 and the recent financial crisis raises the question of how a bank’s experience in one crisis is related to its experience in another crisis. In our recent paper, we examine this question.

READ MORE »

The SEC’s First Deferred Prosecution Agreement

Wayne Carlin is a partner in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton firm memorandum by Mr. Carlin, Theodore A. Levine, John F. Savarese, David B. Anders and Joshua A. Naftalis.

The SEC recently announced its first use of a deferred prosecution agreement, one of the initiatives announced in January 2010 (and discussed in our previous memo here) to encourage greater cooperation in enforcement investigations.  See SEC Press Release.  The announcement of this agreement with Tenaris S.A. follows the agency’s first non-prosecution agreement in December 2010 with Carter’s Inc. (and discussed in our previous memo here).

Tenaris, a manufacturer of steel pipe products, is incorporated in Luxemburg and has American Depository Receipts listed on the New York Stock Exchange.  Tenaris allegedly bribed Uzbekistan government officials in bidding for government pipeline contracts, and made almost $5 million in profits from the contracts.  A world-wide internal investigation triggered by other matters and conducted by outside counsel revealed Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations in Uzbekistan.  The company self-reported to the SEC and the Department of Justice, cooperated with the government and undertook extensive remediation efforts.

READ MORE »

Delaware Court of Chancery Refines Rules for Mixed-Consideration Mergers

William Savitt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton firm memorandum by Mr. Savitt, Steven A. Rosenblum and James Cole, Jr. This post is part of the Delaware law series, which is co-sponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

The Delaware Court of Chancery last week provided fresh guidance on the standards of director conduct applicable to part-cash, part-stock mergers and reaffirmed the rules of the road for board process and deal protection provisions in strategic mergers. In re Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. S’holder Litig., C.A. 6164-VCP (May 20, 2011).

In a merger agreement announced on January 23, Smurfit-Stone, a leading containerboard manufacturer, agreed to merge with Rock-Tenn Corporation. The agreement provides that Smurfit-Stone stockholders will receive consideration valued at $35.00 per share as of the date of the merger agreement, representing a 27 percent premium over the stock’s pre-announcement trading price, with 50 percent of the consideration payable in cash and the other 50 percent payable in Rock-Tenn common stock. Shareholder plaintiffs sought to enjoin the deal, alleging that the Smurfit-Stone board had improperly failed to conduct an auction and that the deal protection provisions in the merger agreement were impermissible as a matter of Delaware law.

READ MORE »

Should Size Matter When Regulating Firms?

The following post comes to us from Deniz Anginer, Financial Economist in the Development Research Group at the World Bank; M. P. Narayanan, Professor of Finance at the University of Michigan; Cindy Schipani, Professor of Business Law at the University of Michigan; and H. Nejat Seyhun, Professor of Finance at the University of Michigan.

In our paper, Should Size Matter When Regulating Firms? Implications from Backdating of Executive Options [15 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y (forthcoming Winter 2011)], we present a data point relevant to significant issues of policy concerning areas of law where small firms have either been granted exemption from regulations or not investigated for violations of laws that, on their face, apply to them. Whether small firms should be exempted is an empirical question the answer to which depends on the likelihood of such firms violating regulations.

There are numerous instances in the law where small firms have been granted exemptions from regulatory restrictions. The major justification offered by the proponents for this exemption of small firms is the claim that regulation has a disproportionate effect on these companies. For example, in the area of securities law, regulation of small firms has drawn criticism throughout the years. It has been lamented that “the [Securities Exchange Commission] SEC [has] never . . . understood small businesses, their capital needs, their importance to our economy, and the special circumstance they face…” Similarly, since its enactment in 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation (SOX) has been highly criticized for the level of expense it has imposed upon firms’ efforts to comply with the legislation. In order to decide if regulation should be lenient towards small firms, we need to first understand what types of firms are likely to be engaged in illicit activity. If we knew that small firms are also likely to violate laws, as a matter of public policy, should we continue to exempt firms from regulatory scrutiny solely due to size? That is, should size matter in regulatory policy decisions? Furthermore, should size be a factor when prosecutors target firms for investigation?

READ MORE »

June 2011 Dodd-Frank Rulemaking Progress Report

Margaret E. Tahyar is a partner in the Financial Institutions Group at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. This post discusses a Davis Polk report which is available here. A post about the previous progress report is available here. Other posts about the Dodd-Frank Act are available here.

This posting, the Davis Polk Dodd-Frank Rulemaking Progress Report, is the third in a series of Davis Polk presentations that illustrate graphically the progress of the rulemaking work that has been done and is yet to occur under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Progress Report has been prepared using data from the Davis Polk Regulatory Tracker™, an online subscription service offered by Davis Polk to help market participants understand the Dodd-Frank Act and follow regulatory developments on a real-time basis.

READ MORE »

Strine Nominated for Chancellor

The HLS Forum was pleased to learn that Vice Chancellor Leo Strine, Jr., a Senior Fellow of the Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance, has been nominated for the position of Chancellor of the Delaware Chancery Court.

Vice Chancellor Strine is the author of many important and influential decisions, as well as numerous insightful academic articles. Forum posts about his decisions appear here (relating to Yucaipa American Alliance Fund II, L.P. v. Riggio), here (discussing Production Resources Group v. NCT Group, Inc.), and here (discussing the American International Group, Inc. Consolidated Derivative Litigation).

At Harvard, Vice Chancellor Strine has been co-teaching the Mergers & Acquisitions course with Professor Robert Clark, and has participated in the activities of the Program on Corporate Governance, including most recently the Program’s M&A Roundtable. We wish Vice Chancellor Strine the best of luck with the important role of Chancellor.

Page 28 of 49
1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 49