Yearly Archives: 2017

Appraisal Practice Points Post-SWS

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, Brian T. ManginoRobert C. Schwenkel, Andrea Gede-Lange, and David L. Shaw. This post is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

As we discussed in our post last week, the Delaware Court of Chancery, in its SWS decision issued May 30, 2017, relying on a discounted cash flow analysis, determined that the appraised “fair value” of SWS Group, Inc. (the “Company”) was 7.8% below the merger price paid by the acquiror, Hilltop Holdings, Inc. In our study of appraisal decisions since 2010, there have been only two other cases in which the court found fair value to be below the merger price—both of which involved unusual facts and, in one, the fair value determination was only nominally below the merger price.

READ MORE »

Second Circuit Rejects Shaw‘s “Extreme Departure Test”

Robert Loeb and Robert Stern are partners at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. This post is based on an Orrick publication by Mr. Loeb, Mr. Stern, and Jeremy Peterman.

[On June 21] in Stadnick v. Vivint Solarthe Second Circuit provided important guidance for determining when an omission in a registration statement is material for purposes of a Section 11 claim. The decision holds that the materiality of an omission is not determined by asking whether the omitted information constitutes an “extreme departure from the range of results which could be anticipated,” as the First Circuit did in Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1210 (1st Cir. 1996) (emphasis added), but rather by asking whether the reasonable investor would view the omission as “significantly alter[ing] the ‘total mix’ of information made available.” DeMaria v. Anderson, 318 F.3d 170, 180 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 428, 449 (1976)).

READ MORE »

2017 Proxy Season Review

Mark Manoff is Americas Vice Chair and Stephen W. Klemash is a Partner with the EY Center for Board Matters. This post is based on a publication from the EY Center for Board Matters by Mr. Manoff and Mr. Klemash.

Amid regulatory and legislative uncertainty, investors remain committed to holding boards, and themselves, to higher levels of accountability, transparency and engagement. The 2017 proxy season is marked by the launch of a historic US stewardship code and the emergence of proxy access as standard practice across large companies.

These developments unite many leading investors behind common governance and stewardship principles and encourage other investors to take a more active approach to stewardship responsibilities. They also grant investors more influence over the companies they own.

READ MORE »

British Prosecutors Criminally Charge Global Bank and Former Top Executives

John F. Savarese is a partner and Noah B. Yavitz is an associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton publication by Mr. Savarese and Mr. Yavitz.

Earlier this week, the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) charged Barclays, its former CEO, and three other former top executives with criminal fraud. The prosecution stems from a long-running inquiry into whether Barclays failed to adequately disclose £322 million paid to Qatari investors in late 2008, during a period when the bank received billions in funding from affiliates of the Qatari government. Investigators reportedly examined whether Barclays and its former executives arranged for portions of the payments to be funneled into the Qatari bailout, in violation of British law. Despite this novel action, market reaction was muted, with Barclays’ shares trading in line with other U.K. banks.

READ MORE »

How Your Board Can Be Ready for Crisis

Paula Loop is Leader of the Governance Insights Center at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on a PwC publication by Ms. Loop.

Most companies experience at least one crisis every four or five years. Regularly discussing the crisis plan with management and the results from testing it lets the board understand where there might be gaps in readiness. And it’s always better to know about those gaps before a crisis hits. Directors themselves might even need to take a more active role if a crisis spins out of control. Is your board prepared?

READ MORE »

The Law & Brexit XII

Thomas J. Reid is Managing Partner of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. This post is based on a Davis Polk publication by Mr. Reid. Additional posts on the legal and financial impact of Brexit are available here.

On June 23, 2017, we passed the one year mark since the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. Although certainty on the eventual consequences of that decision is in short supply, the UK and the EU finally began the Brexit negotiation process in Brussels. The unexpected result of the June general election in the UK (where the ruling Conservative Party lost its majority in the House of Commons) means that the UK negotiating team begins the Brexit process without the clear mandate that had been sought by the UK Prime Minister. It is not yet apparent how the consequent lack of political stability in the UK will affect the UK’s position in the negotiations. In this post, however, we focus on the EU side of the negotiating table in relation to financial services.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: June 30–July 6, 2017


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of June 30–July 6, 2017.












Trap for the Unwary Shareholder Activist: The Latest Tactic by Companies to Tilt the Playing Field in Proxy Contests

Andrew M. Freedman is Partner and Co-Chair of the Activist & Equity Investment Group at Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP. This post is based on an Olshan publication by Mr. Freedman, Steve Wolosky, and Ron S. Berenblat.

Shareholder activists seeking to nominate director candidates for election to the boards of their portfolio companies are advised to be on the lookout for the latest trap for the unwary designed by company defense law firms to further entrench board members. The trap is embedded in questionnaires and representation agreements that are now commonly required to be submitted by a nominating shareholder’s director nominees under nomination procedures contained in company bylaws. Taking the bait can give the company a significant strategic advantage over the dissident in an election contest.

READ MORE »

Congressional Lawmakers Push SEC Chairman to Focus on Board Diversity Disclosure

Ning Chiu is counsel at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. This post is based on a Davis Polk publication by Ms. Chiu.

Two letters from members of the House of Representatives directed Chairman Clayton to continue his predecessor’s efforts toward requiring companies to provide more information on the diversity composition of their boards.

Citing research that found that only half of S&P 100 companies referenced gender when disclosing their board diversity, Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Donald Beyer (D-VA) asked Clayton to consider the SEC staff’s review of the existing rule previously ordered by former SEC Chair White. In March, Representative Maloney reintroduced a bill on board gender diversity that would require the SEC to establish a group to study and make recommendations on ways to increase gender diversity on boards. Companies must also disclose the gender composition of their boards.

READ MORE »

Internal Investigations Special Committees Resource

Gregory A. Markel is a partner and Heather E. Murray is an associate at Seyfarth Shaw LLP. This post is based on a ThomsonReuters Practical Law publication by Mr. Markel and Ms. Murray.

In recent years, companies increasingly have been undertaking internal investigations in an effort to uncover and remediate corporate wrongdoing. Some internal investigations are handled by the company’s board of directors, if a majority of the board is comprised of independent directors, while others are carried out by the audit committee (see Box, Audit Committee Investigations, below) or other existing board committee. In many cases, however, the board creates a special committee of independent board members specifically to conduct the investigation.

READ MORE »

Page 40 of 83
1 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 83