<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/02/board-focus-2012-issues-and-developments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 19:10:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Board Focus 2012: Issues and Developments</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/02/board-focus-2012-issues-and-developments/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=board-focus-2012-issues-and-developments</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/02/board-focus-2012-issues-and-developments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:54:41 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Boards of Directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers & Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Audits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder proposals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=25430?d=20150113151732EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Governance developments in 2011 brought some good news. Shareholder governance proposals were at their lowest level since 2002. Support declined for controversial proposals, such as shareholders’ right to call special meetings or act by written consent, and ISS conceded that its recommendations about written consent proposals should reflect the company’s governance as a whole. Even [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Victor I. Lewkow, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, on Thursday, February 2, 2012 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.cgsh.com/vlewkow/" target="_blank">Victor Lewkow</a> is a partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen &amp; Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb alert memorandum by Mr. Lewkow, <a href="http://www.cgsh.com/dbecker/" target="_blank">David Becker</a>, <a href="http://www.cgsh.com/abeller/" target="_blank">Alan Beller</a>, <a href="http://www.cgsh.com/jfisher/" target="_blank">Janet Fisher</a>, <a href="http://www.cgsh.com/akohn/" target="_blank">Arthur Kohn</a>, and <a href="http://www.cgsh.com/ru/eklingsberg/" target="_blank">Ethan Klingsberg</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>Governance developments in 2011 brought some good news. Shareholder governance proposals were at their lowest level since 2002. Support declined for controversial proposals, such as shareholders’ right to call special meetings or act by written consent, and ISS conceded that its recommendations about written consent proposals should reflect the company’s governance as a whole. Even say-on-pay voting had some worthwhile effects. It gave shareholders the means to express more targeted dissatisfaction, driving a decline in opposition to director incumbents, and it prompted more and better dialogue between many companies and their major shareholders and better disclosure about the business rationale for pay decisions.</p>
<p>But regulators and shareholders remain energized. The SEC brought a record number of enforcement proceedings in 2011, a trend likely to continue, and it and the PCAOB have several important regulatory initiatives underway. For their part, shareholders remain acutely focused on stock performance as the yardstick to evaluate a company’s execution, despite market swings experienced in 2011 that reflected more than anything else fragile economic and political conditions worldwide. The Eurozone crisis and election year politics will keep business prospects extremely challenging and uncertain. In this context, it is critical for boards to frame their deliberative processes in a way that assures the protection of the business judgment rule, while positioning themselves and management to meet expectations of regulators and investors alike. We highlight below some of the issues we believe boards should keep in mind in 2012.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/02/board-focus-2012-issues-and-developments/#more-25430" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Board Focus 2012: Issues and Developments">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/02/02/board-focus-2012-issues-and-developments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
