Yearly Archives: 2016

Refreshing the Board

Steven B. Stokdyk and Joel H. Trotter are global Co-Chairs of the Public Company Representation Practice Group at Latham & Watkins LLP. This post is based on an article originally featured in the NACD Directorship magazine by Mr. Stokdyk, Mr. Trotter, and Catherine Bellah Keller.

Recent press coverage and updated proxy voting guidelines suggest that board refreshment is a topic on fire. It’s a subject that inspires strong feelings and competing perspectives on director tenure or board diversity—or both. Yet, these incendiary dialogues scarcely help a board in considering what is best for its company and shareholders. We suggest boards step back and review their composition in light of the company’s goals and needs in three areas.

Board Self-Assessments

As part of their regular self-assessment process, public company boards should consider their current composition and the unique contributions of each current or prospective director. For example, boards may try to recruit directors with specialized experience, such as in technology or international operations, as well as directors whose experience is not represented or is underrepresented on the board. Indeed, Securities and Exchange Commission regulations require companies to disclose diversity considerations in the director nomination process. Mixing new and longer-tenured directors with different skill sets may add valuable perspectives and knowledge to a board.

READ MORE »

Creditors’ Incentives to Monitor: The Impact of CEO Compensation Structure

Francesco Vallascas is Chair in Banking at Leeds University Business School. This post is based on a recent paper by Professor Vallascas; Borja Amor-Tapia, Professor at Universidad de León; Paula Castro, Professor at Universidad de León; Kevin Keasey, Head of the Accounting and Finance Department at Leeds University Business School; and Maria T. Tascón at Universidad de León.

The presence of equity-based incentives in executive pay, by linking the value of compensation to stock return volatility and to stock price, are seen as aligning the interests of managers with those of shareholders (Brockman et al. [2010]; Coles et al. [2006]; Dow and Raposo [2005]; Lo [2003]).

Another effect of these incentives is, however, the potential increase in the agency costs of debt related to asset substitution problems, with managers being tempted to replace safe activities with riskier ones, thus transferring wealth from debtholders to shareholders. Nevertheless, creditors understand the risk-taking incentives in executive pay and the related potential negative effects for their wealth. In this regard, Brockman et al. [2010] show that the debt maturity shortens when the risk-taking incentives in CEO pay are larger.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: July 22–July 28, 2016


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of July 22–July 28, 2016.

Bail-in and Market Stabilization
















Is Your Company at Risk for an Activist Attack?

Paula Loop is Leader of the Governance Insights Center at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on a PwC publication by Ms. Loop and Aaron Gilcreast. 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), The Myth that Insulating Boards Serves Long-Term Value by Lucian Bebchuk (discussed on the Forum here).

The numbers are sobering: nine of the Fortune-100 and 38 of the Fortune-500 companies dealt with an activist campaign in 2015. [1] And of the latter group, four were targeted more than once. [2] But hedge fund activism is not confined to only the largest public companies—all businesses, along with every industry and part of the world have become fair game.

Activists’ reach is growing wider, they’re getting bolder, and they are wielding even greater war chests. With $173 billion in assets under their management (AUM), [3] hedge fund activists are constantly looking for opportunities to profit from your blind spots.

READ MORE »

Are Public Companies Spending Too Little on Law Firms?

Elisabeth de Fontenay is an Associate Professor at Duke University School of Law. This post is based on a recent article authored by Professor de Fontenay.

For at least the past decade, U.S. companies have been keenly focused on reducing their expenditures on outside counsel. Many have taken innovative and drastic actions to that end, such as negotiating alternative fee arrangements or making law firms compete for legal work in electronic auctions. Indeed, the conventional view remains that corporate clients are overpaying for legal services. But is that actually the case? One option for reducing legal expenditures is simply to engage a less expensive law firm. Yet surprisingly, there has been little research on whether corporate clients’ choice of law firms is value-maximizing.

In a recent article, Agency Costs in Law-Firm Selection: Are Companies Under-Spending on Counsel? (forthcoming in the Capital Markets Law Journal), I provide evidence suggesting that U.S. public companies may be selecting lower-quality counsel for their transactional work than is warranted. Specifically, using a large sample of syndicated loans, I find that public-company borrowers tend to engage lower-quality law firms than do private equity firms, for the very same types of financing transactions and controlling for key deal characteristics. Admittedly, some of this discrepancy in law-firm choice is likely attributable to value-maximizing behavior by both private equity firms and public companies. Yet it also raises the possibility that agency and other information problems within public companies are distorting their choice of counsel.
READ MORE »

The Operational Consequences of Private Equity Buyouts

Shai Bernstein is Assistant Professor of Finance at Stanford University. This post is based on an article authored by Professor Bernstein and Albert Sheen, Assistant Professor of Finance at the University of Oregon.

The private equity asset class has grown tremendously over the last thirty years, reaching $1.6 trillion in global transaction value between the years 2005 to 2007. At the same time, private equity (“PE”) firms generate much controversy. Critics argue that PE transactions are largely financial engineering schemes, burdening portfolio companies with high leverage and an excessive focus on short-term financial goals and cost cutting, which may adversely affect customers, employees, and long-term firm viability. In contrast, proponents argue that leveraged buyouts provide a superior governance form leading to better managed companies by mitigating management agency problems through the disciplinary role of debt, concentrated and active ownership, and high-powered managerial incentives which can lead to improved operations.

READ MORE »

SEC Approval of Nasdaq Rule Requiring “Golden Leash” Disclosure

Avrohom J. Kess is partner and head of the Public Company Advisory Practice and Yafit Cohn is an associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. This post is based on a Simpson Thacher memorandum by Mr. Kess and Ms. Cohn. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Law and Economics of Blockholder Disclosure by Lucian Bebchuk and Robert J. Jackson Jr. (discussed on the Forum here); Pre-Disclosure Accumulations by Activist Investors: Evidence and Policy by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, Robert J. Jackson Jr., and Wei Jiang; Servants of Two Masters? The Feigned Hysteria Over Activist-Paid Directors, by Yaron Nili (discussed on the Forum here); and The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, and Wei Jiang (discussed on the Forum here).

On July 1, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) approved a proposed rule filed by Nasdaq, as amended by Nasdaq on June 30, 2016, which would require listed companies to disclose annually any compensation or other payment provided by a third party to the company’s directors or director nominees in connection with their candidacy for or service on the company’s board of directors. [1] While recognizing that “there may be some overlap” with the SEC’s disclosure requirements, the SEC approved Nasdaq’s proposed rule change on an accelerated basis. [2] The rule will be effective July 31, 2016, though interested persons may comment on the rule change through July 28, 2016. [3]

READ MORE »

Commonsense Governance Principles: Returning Governance to its “Commonsense” Roots

Michael W. Peregrine is a partner at McDermott Will & Emery LLP. This post is based on an article by Mr. Peregrine; his views do not necessarily reflect the views of McDermott Will & Emery or its clients. The Commonsense Governance Principles are available here.

The new “Commonsense Principles of Corporate Governance” (“the Principles”) are a welcome and thoughtful contribution to corporate governance discourse.

Released on July 21, the Principles consist of a series of “commonsense” recommendations and guidelines concerning the roles and responsibilities of boards, companies and shareholders. They are intended to provide a basic framework for sound, long-term-oriented governance and, as such, are responsive to a growing desire across commercial interests for greater clarity in leading boardroom challenges.
READ MORE »

Do Independent Directors Face Incentives to Monitor Executives?

Quinn Curtis is Associate Professor at University of Virginia School of Law. This post is based on a recent paper authored by Professor Curtis and Justin J. Hopkins, Assistant Professor at University of Virginia Darden Graduate School of Business Administration.

Corporate directors who suspect malfeasance by managers may face conflicting incentives. On the one hand, encouraging transparency and demonstrating diligence by pressing for the investigation and disclosure of problems might be rewarded with re-election, appointment to seats on other boards, and greater shareholder support. On the other hand, revealing misconduct could draw negative attention to the company and result in worse career outcomes for directors. In Do Independent Directors Face Incentives to Monitor Executives? we empirically examine whether directors who publicly demonstrate diligent monitoring are rewarded. Our findings cast doubt on whether directors face strong incentives to monitor. Instead, our results suggest that directors sometimes benefit from looking the other way when they suspect problems.

READ MORE »

2016 Proxy Season Review

Glen T. Schleyer is a partner in the New York office of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. This post is based on the executive summary of a Sullivan & Cromwell publication by Mr. Schleyer, Janet Geldzahler, H. Rodgin Cohen and Heather Coleman.

This post summarizes significant developments relating to the 2016 U.S. annual meeting proxy season, including:

  • Proxy Access Proposals Continue to Drive Changes. The dominant trend in Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposals and corporate governance actions in 2016 related to proxy access. A record number of proxy access proposals were made for the 2016 proxy season (around 200 in total), and many companies responded by adopting proxy access bylaws with terms similar to the proposal, resulting in a slight decline in proposals actually voted on. Around 190 of the S&P 500 companies have now adopted proxy access.

READ MORE »

Page 37 of 78
1 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 78