Monthly Archives: July 2015

Court of Chancery Again Looks to Merger Price in Appraisal Ruling

Theodore N. Mirvis is a partner in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. The following post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Mirvis, William Savitt, and Ryan A. McLeod. 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.

The Delaware Court of Chancery this week held that the “fair value” payable in a statutory appraisal proceeding was less than the merger price. LongPath Capital, LLC v. Ramtron Int’l Corp., C.A. No. 8094-VCP (Del. Ch. June 30, 2015). The decision adds to a growing body of Delaware case law confirming the importance of the market in establishing fair value in the context of increasingly frequent (and increasingly economically significant) “appraisal arbitrage” litigation.

The case arose from Cypress Semiconductor Corp.’s hostile bid for Ramtron in 2012. In response to the bid, Ramtron tested the market but no other buyers emerged. Ramtron eventually agreed to be acquired by Cypress for $3.10 per share, a substantial premium to the stock’s trading price. After the merger was announced, LongPath, a hedge fund in the business of buying appraisal claims, acquired almost 500,000 shares of Ramtron, with the purpose of bringing an appraisal action.

READ MORE »

Proxy Access: The 2015 Proxy Season and Beyond

Marc S. Gerber and Richard J. Grossman are partners in the Mergers & Acquisitions practice at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on a Skadden alert.

Although the 2015 annual meeting season is still winding down, there is no doubt that proxy access has gained considerable momentum and will remain a front-and-center corporate governance issue for the foreseeable future. For the boards of directors of the many companies who were bystanders on this issue for the 2015 proxy season, the question will be whether to act now or wait and watch for further developments. In any event, as proxy access is likely to be a topic of discussion during companies’ “off season” shareholder engagement efforts, companies and their boards should understand how the proxy access landscape has evolved.

The Lead-Up to 2015

In important ways, the groundwork for the 2015 proxy access campaign was carefully laid in the 2012-14 proxy seasons. Targets of proxy access shareholder proposals modeled on the vacated SEC proxy access rule—granting holders of 3 percent of a company’s shares for three years access to the company’s proxy statement for nominees for up to 25 percent of the board—were carefully selected, and a coalition of institutional investors came together to provide majority support for most of these proposals. As a result, a small number of large companies—including Hewlett-Packard, Western Union, CenturyLink and Verizon Communications—walked through the proxy access door, making it only a matter of time before other companies—willingly or unwillingly—would have to follow.

READ MORE »

DGCL Amendments Authorize Exclusive Forum Provisions and Prohibit Fee-Shifting Provisions

Laura D. Richman is counsel and Andrew J. Noreuil is partner at Mayer Brown LLP. This post is based on a Mayer Brown Legal Update, and 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.

A great deal of attention has been paid over the past few years to efforts made by corporations to control in which courts internal corporate claims may be brought or to compel unsuccessful plaintiffs in internal corporate claims to pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees and costs. Recently enacted amendments [1] to the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) address, among other things, two types of charter or bylaw provisions on these topics that some companies have adopted.

The amendments specifically authorize provisions that specify Delaware as the exclusive forum for internal corporate claims, defined as “claims, including claims in the right of the corporation, (i) that are based upon a violation of a duty by a current or former director or officer or stockholder in such capacity, or (ii) as to which this title confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Chancery.” However, the amendments ban fee-shifting provisions that would impose liability for attorneys’ fees and costs on stockholders bringing unsuccessful internal corporate claims. The amendments to the DGCL become effective on August 1, 2015.

READ MORE »

SEC and CFTC Turn to Swaps and Security-Based Swaps Enforcement

Annette Nazareth is a partner in the Financial Institutions Group at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, and a former commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on a Davis Polk client memorandum.

The week of June 15, 2015 saw two of the first publicly announced enforcement actions brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) to enforce security-based swap and swap regulatory requirements under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. The SEC accepted an offer of settlement from a web-based “exchange” for, among other things, offering security-based swaps to retail investors in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In a separate action, the CFTC obtained a federal court order against a Kansas City man in a case alleging violations of the antifraud provisions of the swap dealer external business conduct rules in Part 23 of the CFTC regulations. [1] Swap dealers and security-based swap market participants may wish to consider these orders and the agencies’ approach to enforcement as firms further develop, review and update their compliance programs.

READ MORE »

Fed’s Volcker Relief for Foreign Funds

Dan Ryan is Leader of the Financial Services Advisory Practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on a PwC publication by Mr. Ryan, David Harpest, Scott Levine, and Armen Meyer.

On Friday, June 12, 2015, the Federal Reserve (Fed) began addressing the question of whether foreign funds should be considered “banking entities” under the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA), and therefore be subject to the Volcker Rule’s proprietary trading restriction. The Fed’s guidance (provided in the form of a “Frequently Asked Question,” or FAQ) clarifies that foreign public funds (e.g., UCITS [1]) will not be considered banking entities merely due to their boards being controlled by an affiliate (i.e., an affiliate within the BHC capable of holding a majority of a fund’s director seats). [2]

However, with only weeks to go before the July 21, 2015 deadline, the FAQ does not resolve two other questions that have vexed foreign banks regarding the application of “banking entity” to foreign funds. First, the board control provision still applies to foreign private funds (i.e., foreign funds that are privately offered to institutional or high net worth investors in a manner similar to US hedge fund offerings). Second, another BHCA provision which establishes control when 25% or more of a fund’s voting shares are owned by an affiliate still applies to foreign private funds, and to a lesser extent to foreign public funds.

READ MORE »

SEC Proposes Rules on Mandatory Clawback Policies

Renata J. Ferrari is partner tax & benefits department at Ropes & Gray LLP. This post is based on a Ropes & Gray Alert.

On July 1, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed rules to require issuers of securities listed on U.S. stock exchanges to adopt and enforce clawback policies applicable to incentive-based compensation received by current and former executives in the three-year period preceding the date the issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to material noncompliance with financial reporting requirements. The proposed rules would implement the “no fault” clawback rule requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Section 10D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended).

READ MORE »

Clawbacks of Erroneously Awarded Compensation

Michael S. Piwowar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Piwowar’s recent remarks at a recent open meeting of the SEC; the full text is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Piwowar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

A few months ago, the baseball world celebrated the 90th birthday of Yogi Berra, the legendary former catcher and manager for the New York Yankees. Yogi Berra is well-known for his witty comments, often referred to as “Yogi-isms.” [1] Several come to mind today, as we consider another rulemaking related to executive compensation.

“Pair up in threes.”

Following our earlier efforts on hedging and pay versus performance, today’s proposal is the third relating to executive compensation that we have considered in 2015. The Commission has yet again spent significant time and resources on a provision inserted into the Dodd-Frank Act that has nothing to do with the origins of the financial crisis and affects Main Street businesses that are not even part of the financial services sector. Why does the Commission continue to prioritize our agenda with these types of issues, when rulemakings that are directly related to the financial crisis remain unaddressed?

READ MORE »

Does the SEC’s New “Compensation Actually Paid” Help Shareholders?

Ira Kay is a Managing Partner and Blaine Martin is a Consultant at Pay Governance LLC. This post is based on a Pay Governance memorandum.

On April 29, 2015, the SEC released proposed rules on public company pay‐for‐performance disclosure mandated under the Dodd‐Frank Act. Pay Governance has analyzed the proposed rules and the implications for our clients’ proxy disclosures and pay‐for‐performance explanations to investors. We are concerned about the validity of describing a company’s pay‐for‐performance alignment using the disclosure mandated under the SEC’s proposed rules, and its implications for Say on Pay votes.

The disclosure of “compensation actually paid” (CAP) as defined by the SEC may prove helpful for investors and other outside parties to estimate the amount of compensation earned by executives, in contrast to the compensation opportunity as disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table (SCT). However, the SEC’s proposed rules are explicitly intended to compare executive compensation earned with company stock performance (TSR), per the relevant section of the Dodd‐Frank legislation. [1] If the rules are intended to help shareholders understand the linkage between executive compensation programs and stock performance, then the technical nuance of the proposed methodology may be problematic.

READ MORE »

Making Executive Compensation More Accountable

Luis A. Aguilar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Aguilar’s remarks at a recent 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. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance about CEO pay includes Paying for Long-Term Performance (discussed on the Forum here) and the book Pay without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation, both by Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried.

When it comes to compensation, Americans believe you should earn your money. They also believe, just as strongly, that you should not keep what you did not earn. It’s fundamental to our values. However, when companies have to restate their financial statements because they violated applicable reporting requirements, their executives may not be required to reimburse any incentive-based compensation that was erroneously paid. In other words, they get to keep what they never should have received in the first place.

And, quite often, we are talking about very large amounts. In today’s corporate world, many executives are earning eye-catching sums. Much of the increase in executive compensation is commonly attributed to the impact of incentive-based compensation, including equity and other performance-based compensation plans.

Incentive-based compensation plans are intended to align the interests of company managers and shareholders. However, when a company is required to issue a restatement, and when its executives have been paid compensation based on inflated financial results, this alignment disappears. In such cases, it is only fair that these erroneously awarded payments be recovered.

READ MORE »

Public Pension Funds’ Shareholder-Proposal Activism

James R. Copland is the director of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy. The following post is based on a report from the Proxy Monitor project; the complete publication, including footnotes, is available here.

America’s largest publicly traded companies are facing more shareholder proposals in 2015, driven principally by a “proxy access” campaign led by New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer, who oversees the city’s $160 billion pension funds for public employees. Elected in 2013, Stringer has launched a Boardroom Accountability Project seeking, in part, proxy access, which grants shareholders with a certain percentage of a company’s outstanding shares the right to list a certain number of candidates for the company’s board of directors on the company’s proxy statement. As noted in an earlier finding, Comptroller Stringer’s proxy-access campaign has won substantial shareholder support at most companies where his proposal was introduced.

Although it is too soon to assess the impact of Comptroller Stringer’s push for proxy access, we can evaluate shareholder-proposal activism by state and municipal public employee pension funds in previous years. From 2006 to the present, state and municipal pension funds have sponsored 300 shareholder proposals at Fortune 250 companies. More than two-thirds of these were introduced by the pension funds for the public employees of New York City and State.

READ MORE »

Page 5 of 5
1 2 3 4 5
  • Subscribe or Follow

  • Supported By:

  • Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board

  • Programs Faculty & Senior Fellows