Monthly Archives: May 2014

Automated Detection in SEC Enforcement

The following post comes to us from Jerry Arnold, Affiliated Academic at NERA Economic Consulting, and is based on a NERA publication by Dr. Arnold and Raymund Wong.

Although US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement actions related to financial fraud and issuer disclosures have been on a decline since 2007, recent statements and actions suggest that the SEC is likely to re-focus its efforts on detecting, pursuing, and preventing accounting fraud. [1] Since her confirmation as Chair of the SEC, Mary Jo White has made it clear that her administration will focus on identifying and investigating accounting abuses at publicly-traded companies. [2] Among the recent initiatives announced by the SEC are the increased focus on the whistle blower program and the establishment of the Financial Reporting and Audit Task Force, the Microcap Fraud Task Force, and the Center for Risk and Quantitative Analytics. [3]


Volcker Rule Clarity: Waiting for Godot

The following post comes to us from Dan Ryan, Leader of the Financial Services Advisory Practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and is based on a PwC publication by Mr. Ryan, David Sapin, Shyam Venkat, and Armen Meyer.

Five months after regulators released the final Volcker rule, banks are pressing ahead with their implementation efforts, but are still waiting for promised guidance to clarify the rule’s many ambiguities.

Reminiscent of last year when banks were expecting the final rule, industry commentators have already sounded false alarms regarding this guidance’s imminence. [1] Also, despite establishing an interagency taskforce this year to reconcile supervisory views, the five regulators are again having difficulty coordinating. The only regulatory guidance issued so far has come from the OCC acting alone (through the unusual approach of a “Dear CEO” letter), [2] which merely confirmed the rumored September 2, 2014 metrics reporting due date for the largest firms.


The Activism of Carl Icahn and Bill Ackman

Matteo Tonello is managing director of corporate leadership at The Conference Board. This post relates to an issue of The Conference Board’s Director Notes series authored by Richard Lee and Jason D. Schloetzer, both of Georgetown University. The complete publication, including footnotes, is available here. Recent work from the Program on Corporate Governance about hedge fund activism includes The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon P. Brav, and Wei Jiang.

Activist hedge funds merit the attention of corporate directors, as the value of the assets under management increases and activist funds’ targets expand well beyond small capitalization companies. This post reviews the tactics used by two prominent activist hedge fund managers to create change in 13 companies in their portfolio and highlights four perceived governance failures at target companies that attracted activist funds’ attention. This post also includes a review of characteristics of activist hedge funds, the incentives their managers have to generate positive returns, and current research investigating whether and how hedge fund activism affects target companies.


The Untouchables of Self-Regulation

Andrew Tuch is Associate Professor of Law at Washington University School of Law.

The conduct of investment bankers often arouses suspicion and criticism. In Toys “R” Us, the Delaware Court of Chancery referred to “already heightened suspicions about the ethics of investment banking firms” [1] ; in Del Monte, it criticized investment bankers for “secretly and selfishly manipulat[ing] the sale process to engineer a transaction that would permit [their firm] to obtain lucrative … fees”; [2] and, more recently, in Del Monte, it criticized a prominent investment banker for failing to disclose a material conflict of interest with his client, a failure the Court described as “very troubling” and “tend[ing] to undercut the credibility of … the strategic advice he gave.” [3] While the investment bankers involved in the cases inevitably escaped court-imposed sanctions, because they were not defendants, they also escaped sanctions from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the regulator primarily responsible for overseeing their conduct.


How Much Protection Do Indemnification and D&O Insurance Provide?

The following post comes to us from Jon N. Eisenberg, partner in the Government Enforcement practice at K&L Gates LLP, and is based on a K&L Gates publication by Mr. Eisenberg; the complete publication, including footnotes, is available here. This post is part of the Delaware law series, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

We consider below how advancement of legal fees, indemnification, and insurance operate when officers and directors become involved in regulatory investigations and proceedings. Part I addresses the enhanced risk officers and directors face today in an Age of Accountability. Part II addresses advancement of legal fees, which may be discretionary or mandatory depending on a company’s by-laws. Part III covers indemnification, which generally requires at least a conclusion that the officers and directors acted in good faith and reasonably believed that their conduct was in, or at least not contrary to, the best interests of the corporation. Part IV examines insurance coverage, which varies from carrier to carrier and may or may not provide meaningful protection. Finally, Part V summarizes the principal lessons from the analysis. Although there is significant overlap with similar principles that apply to private litigation, we limit our discussion here to advancement, indemnification, and insurance for regulatory investigations and proceedings.


To Whom are Directors’ Duties Really Owed?

The following post comes to us from Martin Gelter, Associate Professor of Law at Fordham University, and Geneviève Helleringer of ESSEC Business School Paris-Singapore and Oxford University.

In the paper, Lift not the Painted Veil! To Whom are Directors’ Duties Really Owed?, which we recently posted on SSRN, we identify a fundamental contradiction in the law of fiduciary duty of corporate directors across jurisdictions, namely the tension between the uniformity of directors’ duties and the heterogeneity of directors themselves. The traditional characterization of the board as a homogeneous, often largely self-perpetuating body is far from universally true internationally, and it tends to be increasingly less true even in the United States. Directors are often formally or informally selected by specific shareholders (such as a venture capitalist or an important shareholder) or other stakeholders of the corporation (such as creditors or employees), or they are elected to represent specific types of shareholders (e.g. minority investors). The law thus sometimes facilitates the nomination of what has been called “constituency” directors, or even requires their appointment (e.g. employee directors in some European systems). However, even in systems that require the appointment of such directors, legal rules tend nevertheless to treat directors as a homogeneous group that is expected to pursue a uniform goal. We explore this tension and ask why a director representing a specific shareholder cannot advance this shareholder’s interests on the board?


ISS Recommends Shareholders Withhold Votes for 6 Ashford Trust Directors

The following post comes to us from JJ Fueser, Research Coordinator at UNITE HERE.

UNITE HERE proposals to opt out of Maryland Unsolicited Takeover Act have received resounding support from shareholders of Ashford Hospitality Prime.

Over the past two years, activist shareholder UNITE HERE, the hospitality workers’ union, has been winning corporate governance reforms at lodging REITs, which are nearly all incorporated in Maryland.

Several proposals ask boards to opt out of Maryland statutes which provide a range of anti-takeover tools. The Maryland Unsolicited Takeover Act (MUTA), for example, allows boards to classify at any time without shareholder approval.

UNITE HERE has argued that without opting out of MUTA—and requiring shareholder approval to opt in—a Maryland REIT has not truly declassified its board. The proposals to opt out of Maryland’s anti-takeover statutes have gained traction, with six proposals withdrawn after full or substantial implementation.


Labor Representation in Governance as an Insurance Mechanism

E. Han Kim is Professor of Finance at the University of Michigan.

Worker participation in corporate governance varies across countries. While employees are rarely represented on corporate boards in most countries, Botero et al. (2004) state “workers, or unions, or both have a right to appoint members to the Board of Directors” in Austria, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, Norway, Slovenia, and Sweden. Such board representation gives labor a means to influence corporate policies, which may affect productivity, risk sharing, and how the economic pie is shared between providers of capital and labor.


Board Refreshment and Director Succession in Investee Companies

The following post comes to us from Rakhi Kumar, Head of Corporate Governance at State Street Global Advisors, and is based on an SSgA publication; the complete publication, including appendix, is available here.

State Street Global Advisors (“SSgA”) believes that board refreshment and planning for director succession are key functions of the board. Some markets such as the UK, have adopted best practices on a comply-or-explain basis that aim to limit a director’s tenure to nine years of board service, beyond which, investors may question a director’s independence from management. Such best practices have helped lower average board tenure, and have encouraged boards to focus on refreshment of director skills and plan for director succession in an orderly manner.


Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements—2013 Review

John Gould is senior vice president at Cornerstone Research. This post discusses a Cornerstone Research report, titled “Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements—2013 Review and Analysis,” available here.

The number of accounting case settlements in 2013 increased for the second year in a row, but remained low compared with the previous 10 years, according to Cornerstone Research’s latest report, Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements—2013 Review and Analysis. While the number of securities class action filings that included accounting allegations (47) remained relatively constant in 2013 compared with 2012, the market capitalization losses associated with these filings more than doubled.


Page 1 of 5
1 2 3 4 5