Yearly Archives: 2016

Weekly Roundup: May 27–June 2, 2016


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of May 27–June 2, 2016.


CFPB and Class Action Arbitration


Fed, FDIC, and “Not Credible” Resolution Plans












Divorce, Wall Street Style

Daniel E. Wolf is a partner focusing on mergers and acquisitions at Kirkland & Ellis LLP. The following post is based on a Kirkland memorandum by Mr. Wolf.

Taking a page from the Hollywood tabloids, recent deal press has been overtaken by a stream of reported breakups, real or speculated. With The Wall Street Journal recently citing broken deal values in excess of $300 billion so far in 2016, we take a closer look at the M&A environment to look for any macro trends that may be contributing to these record numbers.

Before identifying any trends, it is worth pausing to note that deals with a range of very different fact patterns are being grouped under the broad heading of “broken” deals. Many of the “busted” transactions featured in the headlines are either unsolicited offers that are subsequently withdrawn or deals or offers that are withdrawn due to a topping bid. These “withdrawn” deals are part of the ordinary churn of the M&A market, particularly one that may have hit peak activity and value levels.
READ MORE »

How the Financial System Fails Us and How To Fix It

Stephen Davis is associate director and a senior fellow at the Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance. This post is based on the new book by Davis, Jon Lukomnik, and David Pitt-Watson, What They Do With Your Money: How the Financial System Fails Us and How to Fix It (Yale University Press).

“Where were the directors?” is the plea often heard in the wake of corporate failure. [1] Critics will also ask “Where were the shareholders?”, by which they typically mean institutional investors. [2] But observers usually ignore an equally important question: Where were the beneficiaries? Statutes, regulations and codes around the world have sequentially addressed the duties of corporate managers, the responsibilities and structure of boards of directors, and optimum stewardship behavior by institutional investors. But the governance ecosystem includes few parallel efforts to generate guidance, safeguards or incentives to animate retail savers as a force in corporate governance. This would seem perverse since, in the US alone, an estimated 92 million Americans entrust retirement and other capital to investing institutions, and would presumably have a powerful interest in ensuring that their nest eggs are deployed at portfolio companies in ways that promote value over the long term. However, structural barriers have impeded accountability of institutional investors to beneficiaries, making it difficult for retail savers to police the stewardship behavior of their agents in respect of investee companies. Such barriers have roots in law, regulation and commercial practice that have failed to keep pace with market change. But with hostility to Wall Street a recurring theme across political parties in the US presidential campaign, prudent remedial steps may be in sight.
READ MORE »

ISS 2016 Board Practices Study

Carol Bowie is Head of Americas Research at Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). This post is based on a recent publication authored by ISS U.S. Research analysts Andrew Borek, Liz Williams, and Rob Yates. Information on how to obtain the full report is available here.

ISS’ latest update of the structure and composition of boards and individual director attributes at Standard & Poor’s U.S. “Super 1,500” companies (i.e., companies in the S&P 500, MidCap 400, and SmallCap 600 indices) found a number of new and continuing trends in board practices and director attributes at these key index companies.
READ MORE »

The Buffett Essays Symposium: Annotated 20th Anniversary Transcript

Lawrence Cunningham is the Henry St. George Tucker III Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School. This post is based on Mr. Cunningham’s recently published book, The Buffett Essays Symposium: Annotated 20th Anniversary Transcript.

Warren Buffett spoke from the front row about director stewardship: “As a stockholder, I’m really only interested in the board accomplishing two ends. One is to get a first class manager and the second is to intervene in some way when even that first class manager will have interests that are contrary to the interests of the owners.”

The occasion was a 1996 symposium I hosted with Warren, and his business partner Charlie Munger, featuring Buffett’s letters to Berkshire shareholders, which I had rearranged thematically in The Essays of Warren Buffett: Lessons for Corporate America.
READ MORE »

SEC, Financial Reporting, and Financial Fraud

Paul A. Ferrillo is counsel at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP specializing in complex securities and business litigation. This post is based on a Weil publication by Mr. Ferrillo, Robert F. Carangelo, and Andrew Cauchi; the complete publication, including footnotes, is available here.

For those who have been through multiple business cycles, the SEC’s recent focus on financial fraud and accounting irregularities is nothing new. While there have been periods of time during which the SEC focused on financial fraud, there are also intervals when other issues are more prominent, like the most recent financial crisis.

Nevertheless, it appears that the SEC is once again paying increased attention to financial reporting cases. In 2015, the SEC brought enforcement cases against 191 parties (in contrast to 128 parties in 2014), a significant increase over prior years. Simply scanning the list of settled enforcement cases supports SEC Chair White’s recent statement that the SEC “has reinvigorated its investigative and enforcement efforts” in this area, and is closely scrutinizing “the gatekeepers of financial reporting, continuing to hold accountants, auditors, and audit committees accountable under appropriate circumstances.”

READ MORE »

Holding Activists and Proxy Advisory Firms Accountable?

David A. Katz is a partner and Laura A. McIntosh is a consulting attorney at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. The following post is based on an article by Mr. Katz and Ms. McIntosh that first appeared in the New York Law Journal. 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 Law and Economics of Blockholder Disclosure by Lucian Bebchuk and Robert J. Jackson Jr. (discussed on the Forum here); and Pre-Disclosure Accumulations by Activist Investors: Evidence and Policy by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, Robert J. Jackson Jr., and Wei Jiang.

The nation’s capital is center stage for the latest round of debates as to the impact of shareholder activism on American business. With the introduction of the Brokaw Act by four Democratic senators in March, followed by the announcement in May of a new D.C.-based lobbying organization formed by a bipartisan group of prominent activists, the long-running controversy over the unprecedented influence of shareholder activism has officially reached Washington. The activist agenda now includes public policy, and it appears that the influence of these powerful investors is to be wielded on K Street as it has been on Wall Street. By raising their own profile via a Washington-based lobbying entity, activists will place themselves and their business practices squarely in the spotlight. Perhaps a more significant public presence will engender a more favorable reputation for activists, or perhaps it will increase activist accountability to lawmakers and public shareholders; or, perhaps, it will do both.
READ MORE »

Merrill Lynch v. Manning

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, Charles E. DavidowRichard A. Rosen, Walter Rieman, and Audra J. Soloway.

In Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, No. 14-1132 (May 16, 2016), the Supreme Court held that the provision of exclusive federal jurisdiction in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) does not generally extend to claims brought under state law even if the complaint refers to purported Exchange Act violations. This ruling gives greater latitude to plaintiffs seeking to keep their cases in state court while invoking the language of federal securities laws or regulations in their complaints—so long as they do not actually assert federal causes of action.

READ MORE »

An Examination of Changes in Earnings Management after Receiving SEC Comment Letters

Scott Johnson is Assistant Professor of Accounting at Virginia Tech. This post is based on an discussion paper authored by Professor Johnson; Lauren Cunningham, Assistant Professor of Accounting at the University of Tennessee; Bret Johnson, Assistant Professor of Accounting at George Mason University; and Ling Lei Lisic, Associate Professor of Accounting at George Mason University.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has long been concerned that earnings management practices result in adverse consequences for investors, including masking the true nature of economic transactions, and has often called for increased regulatory oversight of the financial reporting process. In our paper, The Switch Up: An Examination of Changes in Earnings Management after Receiving SEC Comment Letters, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we examine the influence of firm-specific regulatory oversight, in the form of SEC comment letters, on firms’ earnings management practices.

READ MORE »

SEC Enforcement Actions against Public Companies and Subsidiaries

David Marcus is Senior Vice President at Cornerstone Research; and Stephen Choi is Murray and Kathleen Bring Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law, and Director of the Pollack Center for Law & Business at New York University. This post relates to a report co-authored by the NYU Pollack Center for Law & Business and Cornerstone Research, available here.

A report released [May 17, 2016] by the NYU Pollack Center for Law & Business and Cornerstone Research finds that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission enforcements against public companies and their subsidiaries increased more than 50 percent in fiscal year 2015 and are on a pace to equal or exceed that high-water mark in FY 2016.

The SEC brought 84 actions against public companies and their subsidiaries in FY 2015, compared to 55 actions in the previous fiscal year. In the first half of FY 2016, the SEC filed 43 new enforcement actions against public companies and their related subsidiaries.

READ MORE »

Page 50 of 78
1 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 78