Monthly Archives: July 2016

The Ever-Increasing Importance of the Shareholder Vote

Jason M. Halper is a partner in the Securities Litigation & Regulatory Enforcement Practice Group at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. This post is based on an Orrick publication by Mr. Halper and Gregory Beaman. This post is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

On June 30, 2016, the Delaware Chancery Court extended the Supreme Court’s holding in Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), to two-step mergers under DGCL § 251(h). The Chancery Court concluded that acceptance of a first-step tender offer by a fully informed and uncoerced majority of disinterested stockholders insulates a two-step merger from challenge except on the ground of waste, even if a majority of directors were not disinterested and independent. See In re Volcano Corp. S’holder Litig., C.A. No. 10485-VCMR. In this situation, the business judgment rule is “irrebutable” and dismissal is typically appropriate given the high bar for proving “waste” and the unlikelihood that a majority of informed stockholders would approve such a transaction. In re Volcano is the latest decision underscoring the critical importance of securing an uncoerced and fully informed majority vote of disinterested stockholders if boards wish to benefit from this extremely deferential standard of review.

READ MORE »

A Brexit Antitrust Primer

Paul McGeown is an antitrust partner in Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati’s Brussels office. This post is based on a WSGR memorandum by Mr. McGeown, Dr. Michael Rosenthal, and Götz Drauz. Related posts on the legal and financial impact of Brexit include Light at the End of the (Channel) Tunnel, from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP; Brexit: Possible Options and Impact, from Shearman & Sterling; Brexit: Legal Implications, from Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; The Day After Brexit, from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP; and The Legal Consequences of Brexit, from Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

The decision by the United Kingdom (UK) to leave the European Union (EU) will have far-reaching consequences for companies doing business in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Specific details of the UK’s withdrawal agreement with the EU will be the subject of intense negotiation over the next two years or longer, but the current key takeaways for businesses as they relate to antitrust concerns are:

READ MORE »

Women on Boards in Finance and STEM Industries

Renee Adams is Professor of Finance at the University of New South Wales and Tom Kirchmaier is a Researcher at the London School of Economics. This post is based on a recent article by Professor Adams and Dr. Kirchmaier.

Our forthcoming article in the American Economic Review (May Issue), Women on boards in Finance and STEM industries, is the first in a series of papers in which we connect two policy debates that are usually conducted separately: the debate about women’s underrepresentation in STEM fields and the debate about women’s underrepresentation on corporate boards (see also Adams and Kirchmaier, 2016). Using a comprehensive sample of board data for listed firms in 20 countries from 2001 to 2010, we show that the fraction of women on the board (Board Diversity) is lower for firms in the STEM and Finance sectors (STEM&F) than in non-STEM sectors. This finding is robust to controlling for firm and country characteristics and country and year fixed effects. On average STEM&F firms have 1.8% fewer women on boards than non-STEM firms. Relative to the sample mean of 7.56%, this represents an economically significant leadership gap in STEM&F fields.

READ MORE »

The New York Banking Regulator’s New AML and Sanctions Rule

Brad S. Karp is chairman and partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. This post is based on a Paul Weiss client memorandum by Mr. Karp, Roberto Gonzalez, Michael Gertzman, Jessica Carey, and Roberto Finzi.

Following Maria Vullo’s confirmation as Superintendent earlier this month, the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) yesterday finalized its closely watched proposed regulation on anti-money laundering (AML) monitoring and sanctions screening requirements for banks, branches, and other covered entities. According to DFS, the final regulation is motivated by its identification, through investigations, of shortcomings in monitoring and screening programs attributable to a “lack of robust governance, oversight, and accountability at senior levels.”

READ MORE »

Key Takeaways from the Fed’s 2016 Dodd-Frank Stress Tests

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.

Large banks will be less constrained in returning capital to shareholders based on this year’s Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST). The DFAST results published last Thursday are the Federal Reserve’s (Fed) first stress test results released in 2016. On June 29th, the Fed will release the more important Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) results. Those will indicate whether the banks passed both the Fed’s qualitative and quantitative assessments in order to return more capital to shareholders. [1]

READ MORE »

Shareholder Proposal Developments During the 2016 Proxy Season

Elizabeth Ising is a partner and Co-Chair of the Securities Regulation and Corporate Governance practice group at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. This post is based on a Gibson Dunn client alert by Ms. Ising, Ronald O. Mueller, and Lori Zyskowski. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Lucian Bebchuk’s The Case for Shareholder Access to the Ballot and The Myth of the Shareholder Franchise (discussed on the Forum here), and Private Ordering and the Proxy Access Debate by Lucian Bebchuk and Scott Hirst (discussed on the Forum here).

This post provides an overview of shareholder proposals submitted to public companies for 2016 shareholder meetings, including statistics, notable decisions from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission on no-action requests, and information about litigation regarding shareholder proposals. All shareholder proposal data in this post is as of June 1, 2016 unless otherwise indicated.

READ MORE »

Deposit Insurance: Savior or Subsidy?

Charles Calomiris is the Henry Kaufman Professor of Financial Institutions at Columbia Business School. This post is based on a paper authored by Professor Calomiris and Matthew Jaremski, Assistant Professor of Economics at Colgate University.

The insurance of bank liabilities began as an American experiment in a handful of states during the early-to-mid 19th century. The early state liability insurance systems disappeared by the 1860s, but a second wave of systems arose in the early 20th and U.S. federal deposit insurance was enacted in 1933. Worldwide, bank liability insurance remained a unique (and controversial) policy choice of the United States until the late 1950s, but it spread rapidly throughout the world in recent decades. Today it is a nearly ubiquitous feature of banking regulation endorsed by influential cross-border institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the European Union.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: July 1–July 7, 2016


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of July 1–July 7, 2016.








Brexit—What Now for Fund Managers?



The HLS Forum is Now on LinkedIn and Facebook




Settlement Agreements with Activist Investors—the Latest Entrenchment Device?

Derek D. Bork is a partner at Thompson Hine LLP and the Chair of its Takeovers and Shareholder Activism Group. This post is based on a Thompson Hine publication by Mr. Bork. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, and Wei Jiang (discussed on the Forum here), and The Myth that Insulating Boards Serves Long-Term Value by Lucian Bebchuk (discussed on the Forum here).

An increase in settlements between public companies and activist investors that have targeted a campaign against a company has been widely reported. An increase in the speed with which these settlements occur—meaning the number of days a settlement is reached after an activist initiates a campaign—has also been widely reported. Some commentators attribute increased settlements to boards being motivated to avoid the costs, distractions and negative publicity that usually come with an extended proxy contest. Other commentators suggest that increased settlements are an indication that boards have begun to recognize the value that activists and other shareholder representatives can bring to a board. The driving force behind increased settlements, however, may be altogether different. Companies may be more frequently seeking settlements with activists, not in the name of good corporate governance, but for a less noble reason—as a defensive measure.

READ MORE »

DGCL: Appraisal Actions and “Intermediate-Form” Mergers

Paul M. Kinsella is partner and Patrick O’Brien is partner and co-head of the securities and public companies practice at Ropes & Gray LLP. This post is based on a Ropes & Gray publication by Mr. Kinsella and Mr. O’Brien. This post is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

On June 16, 2016, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed into law House Bill 371, which amends the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) with respect to, among other things, appraisal proceedings and “intermediate-form” mergers.

Specifically, the bill amends Section 262 of the DGCL to limit de minimis appraisal claims and to provide surviving corporations with the right to pay stockholders exercising appraisal rights prior to the time the Delaware Court of Chancery makes a final value determination, thereby limiting the amount of interest that would accrue on an appraisal award.

READ MORE »

Page 6 of 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8