Yearly Archives: 2017

The Evolution and Current State of Director Compensation Plans

John Ellerman is a partner, Peter England is a consultant, and Blaine Martin is a consultant at Pay Governance LLC. This post is based on a Pay Governance publication by Mr. Ellerman, Mr. England, and Mr. Martin.

Over the past 20 years, there has been a major shift in how large public companies have compensated their outside Directors. [1] These changes have included the elimination of Board meeting fees, granting of equity compensation in the form of full-value shares, the elimination of Director retirement plans and other perquisites, adoption of stock ownership guidelines for Directors, and giving of supplemental cash retainers to Committee Chairs in recognition of their substantial time commitments to committee work.

A recent Pay Governance review of Director compensation among S&P 500 companies reveals that these trends have become embedded in the policies and compensation in large U.S. companies. [2] The survey, which reports 2016 Board compensation, shows that the median total direct compensation awarded to an S&P 500 corporate Director was $265,487. This represents a <1% (i.e., 0.5%) annual compensation increase for 2016 compared to 2015.

READ MORE »

CSX Attracts New CEO and Stock Price Rises Sharply

Joseph E. Bachelder is special counsel in the Tax, Employee Benefits & Private Clients practice group at McCarter & English, LLP. The following post is based on a column by Mr. Bachelder which first appeared in the New York Law Journal. Andy Tsang, a senior financial analyst with the firm, assisted in the preparation of this post.

In 2017, CSX Corporation, a leading railroad company, paid or committed to pay (subject to certain conditions) over $200 million (including grant-date value of a stock option discussed below) to attract E. Hunter Harrison as its new chief executive officer.

On January 18, 2017, Canadian Pacific Railway Limited announced that Mr. Harrison was resigning as its CEO. The Wall Street Journal reported (after regular trading hours ended) that Mr. Harrison, who is age 72, was “joining with an activist investor in an attempt to shake up management at rival railroad CSX Corp. They are expected to try to put Mr. Harrison in a senior management position at CSX….” [1] The following day, January 19, the price of CSX shares on the Nasdaq Stock Market jumped approximately $8 billion to $42 billion—an increase of 23 percent from $34 billion. As of June 30, CSX’s stock market value had increased over $16 billion to $50 billion, an increase of 47 percent, since the day before the public announcement.

READ MORE »

CFOs on Boards: Higher Pay, Lower Performance

Dan Marcec is Director of Content at Equilar, Inc. This post is based on an Equilar publication by Mr. Marcec which was originally published in the Equilar Knowledge Center.

A top corporate executive serving on another company’s board of directors may provide strategic advantages for both the executive and the company. With the additional perspective gained from unique sets of issues faced by another company, he or she may bring back valuable insights that can help improve strategy and operations. In addition, for the executives themselves, serving on another company’s board can be a valuable professional development opportunity, to the point that some are actively seeking board positions for their top executives to aid their succession planning programs.

It’s well known that CEOs of public companies frequently serve on other boards of directors, to the point that investor advisors have made explicit guidelines about the appropriate commitment to other boards from these individuals. Beyond the CEO however, there is far less research into how many top executives in other positions are on outside boards of directors. Equilar recently undertook a study of CFOs at large-cap companies over the past three years to identify how many also serve on other public company boards of directors.

READ MORE »

NYDFS Cybersecurity Regulations Take Effect

Daniel Ilan and Katherine Mooney Carroll are partners at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb publication by Mr. Ilan, Ms. Carroll, Jon Kolodner, Michael Krimminger, Rahul Mukhi, and Daniel Esannason.

New York’s new cybersecurity regulations (the “Regulations”) become effective on August 28, 2017, marking a significant milestone in what is likely to be a new era in cybersecurity regulation on both a national and international level. As governments grapple with how best to address cyber threats to their citizens, businesses and national security, there is an increasing focus on the potential use of regulatory requirements to impose minimum cybersecurity standards, particularly in the financial services sector. As more states and nation states adopt cybersecurity requirements, financial institutions are facing increased compliance costs and potentially a diversion of resources away from risk mitigation to compliance with regulatory requirements. As this trend develops, key factors in managing the growing patchwork of requirements will be working to avoid overly prescriptive, highly specific requirements and trying to ensure a degree of harmonization, for example with the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Cybersecurity Framework. In the short term, financial firms will focus on identifying the applicable regulatory framework that sets the highest bar and building systems to comply that should generally provide for compliance globally. As of today, the Regulations are a key element of that high bar and already are playing a role in setting expectations for best practices across the industry. As the Regulations come into effect, we briefly take stock of their requirements and related global developments.

READ MORE »

Corporate Governance—the New Paradigm

Martin Lipton is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy; Sabastian V. Niles is a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, focusing on rapid response shareholder activism and preparedness, takeover defense and corporate governance. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton publication by Mr. Lipton and Mr. Niles.

This week witnessed two very significant developments in the new paradigm for corporate governance, one in the U.S. and one in the U.K. Both will have cross-border impact. Both have the purpose of promoting investment to achieve sustainable long-term investment and growth.

In the U.K., government proposals for corporate governance reform center on (1) better aligning executive pay with performance and with explaining, if not actually improving, worker wages by publicizing and focusing the attention of corporate directors on the ratio of average worker wages to executive compensation, and (2) improving governance by emphasizing that Section 172 of the Company Law, a constituency statute, provides that directors owe fiduciary duties not just to shareholders, but to customers, suppliers, workers and the community and economy. There is a provision for worker-board engagement by a designated independent director, a formal worker advisory council or a director from the workforce. The report directly relates improving stakeholder governance to mitigating inequality in the U.K. society.
READ MORE »

Political Uncertainty and Firm Disclosure

Audra Boone is the C.R. Williams Professor in Financial Services at the Neeley School of Business at Texas Christian University. This post is based on a recent paper authored by Dr. Boone; Abby Kim, Financial Economist at the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC); and Joshua White, Assistant Professor of Finance at Vanderbilt University’s Owen Graduate School of Management. The views expressed in the post are those of Dr. Boone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commissioners, or the Staff.

Recently, there has been an increasing focus on how political uncertainty affects economic activity. Elections, in particular, generate uncertainty regarding future governmental policies that could impact firm cash flows. Academic research shows that firms often respond by reducing capital raising and investment activities (e.g., Baker et al., 2016; Jens, 2017). Importantly, declines in real activity can have negative long-term consequences for the firm and its investors. Therefore, it is important to understand the actions managers can take to mitigate such effects.

In our paper, Political Uncertainty and Firm Disclosure, recently made public on SSRN, we examine how political uncertainty affects a firm’s mandatory and voluntary disclosure properties. We posit that a reduction in real activities prior to an election could influence a firm’s information environment through a corresponding decline in required public disclosures. Consequently, there would be less ongoing information produced by firms during periods of heightened political uncertainty, thereby exacerbating information asymmetries between managers and investors. Given that managers likely possess better information on how government policy changes could impact firm cash flows, we study whether managers alter their disclosure properties to ameliorate the effects of political uncertainty.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: August 25–31, 2017


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of August 25–31, 2017.



Far Beyond the Quarterly Call




Proxy Access: Best Practices 2017






NAIC Adopts Model Cybersecurity Law



Make-Whole Premiums and the Agency Costs of Debt


MeadWestvaco Highlights the Extremely High Bar To Personal Liability of Disinterested Directors

Gail Weinstein is senior counsel and Philip Richter is a partner at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. This post is based on a Fried Frank publication by Ms. Weinstein, Mr. Richter, Steven Epstein, and Scott B. Luftglass. This post is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

In In re MeadWestvaco Stockholders Litigation (Aug. 17, 2017), the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed claims against target company directors for breach of the duty of loyalty based on allegations that they had acted in bad faith in approving a merger.

  • The decision—in which the court suggests that the standards of “waste” and “bad faith” are equivalent—highlights the extremely high bar to potential liability of disinterested target company directors. We note that if, under Corwin, business judgment review applies in a post-closing action for damages, the only basis on which a transaction can be successfully challenged is that it constituted “waste”; and that if Corwin does not apply, then, given the effect of the exculpation statute, the only route to a successful post-closing action for damages is that the directors’ conduct in approving the transaction was so egregious that it constituted “bad faith.” In MeadWestvaco, the court indicated that the two standards are essentially equivalent—and virtually impossible to meet.
  • Non-controller, non-Revlon transactions (like the stock-for-stock merger in MeadWestvaco) continue to be subject to business judgment review both pre-closing and post-closing. We note that Corwin—which when applicable transforms the standard of review post-closing to business judgment (regardless of what the standard was pre-closing)—should have no practical impact on non-Revlon transactions.
  • Although the court did not address the issue, MeadWestvaco may signal that there remains some uncertainty whether Corwin “cleanses” bad faith by directors. As discussed below, although one early post-Corwin decision stated that Corwin does cleanse bad faith, and a number of decisions since then have stated that Corwin cleanses breaches of the duty of loyalty (of which, we note, the duty of good faith is a part), MeadWestvaco may signal that some uncertainty remains as to whether Corwin would cleanse director action that is “so ‘egregious,’ so ‘irrational,’ or ‘so far beyond the bounds of reasonable judgment’ as to be ‘inexplicable on any ground other than bad faith.’”

READ MORE »

Make-Whole Premiums and the Agency Costs of Debt

Richard Squire is Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law. This post is based on his recent book chapter, forthcoming in the Elgar Research Handbook on Bankruptcy Law.

A make-whole premium is a contractual penalty a borrower must pay for prepaying a loan. In several recent bankruptcy cases, the court ruled that the debtor triggered its make-whole obligations by voluntarily filing for bankruptcy and thereby accelerating all of its debts. In such cases, the questions then arise whether, and at what level of priority, the make-whole premium is recoverable as a statutory matter from the bankruptcy estate.

In a forthcoming book chapter, I argue that a make-whole premium automatically triggered by a bankruptcy filing shifts risk onto the debtor’s general creditors and thus increases the agency costs of debt. Risk-shifting occurs because a make-whole that is automatically triggered by a bankruptcy filing is an instance of correlation-seeking: the incurring of a contingent liability whose risk of being triggered correlates positively with the debtor’s insolvency risk. Correlation-seeking generates social costs that reduce the joint surplus from lending arrangements. The anticipation of it induces creditors to incur monitoring costs and debtors to incur bonding costs. When correlation-seeking is undeterred, it encourages overinvestment: the committing of capital to projects that are expected to benefit the firm’s shareholders only because they are subsidized by a transfer of value away from general creditors.

READ MORE »

SEC Announces Results of Cybersecurity Examination Initiative

Amy Ward Pershkow is a partner at Mayer Brown LLP. This post is based on a Mayer Brown publication by Ms. Pershkow, Matthew Rossi, Jeffrey Taft, Jerome Roche, Adam Kanter and Matthew Bisanz.

On August 7, 2017, the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced the results of its second cybersecurity examination initiative. [1] This initiative built on the SEC’s 2014 cybersecurity examination initiative (“Cybersecurity 1 Initiative”) but “involved more validation and testing of procedures and controls surrounding cybersecurity preparedness.” [2]

Beginning in September 2015 and over roughly a one-year period, OCIE examined 75 regulated entities—broker-dealers (“BDs”), investment advisers (“IAs”) and investment companies (“funds”)—focusing on (1) governance and risk assessment, (2) access rights and controls, (3) data loss prevention, (4) vendor management, (5) training and (6) incident response.

READ MORE »

Page 28 of 83
1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 83