Yearly Archives: 2018

Untangling the Tangled Web of Cybersecurity Disclosure Requirements: A Practical Guide

Pamela L. Marcogliese is partner and Rahul Mukhi is counsel at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb publication by Ms. Marcogliese, Ms. Mukhi, Olivia Espy, Richard Cipolla, and Stephanie Kelly.

The consequences of a cybersecurity incident can be severe. The economic loss associated with an incident can often be compounded by reputational damage, loss of trade secrets, destruction of assets, operational impairment, lost revenue following the announcement of the cybersecurity incident and the expense of implementing remedial measures. The timing and content of any public communication about a suspected or confirmed cybersecurity incident can exacerbate this loss and have a significant impact on the trading price of the issuer’s securities. The disclosure considerations become even more complex when a company is subject to overlapping, and potentially conflicting, regulatory obligations in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union (“EU”). This issue is now at the forefront with the EU’s new data security and privacy regime, the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which became effective on May 25, 2018.

READ MORE »

The Law and Finance of Initial Coin Offerings

Aurelio Gurrea Martínez is a Fellow of the Program on Corporate Governance at Harvard Law School and Executive Director of the Ibero-American Institute for Law and Finance; Nydia Remolina is Senior Advisor for Innovation, Regulation and Digital Transformation at Grupo Bancolombia and Lecturer in International Financial Regulation at Javerina University. This post is based on their recent paper.

The rise of new technologies is changing the way companies raise funds. Along with the increase of crowdfunding in recent years, the use of Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) has emerged more recently as a new form to raise capital. Companies in the United States raised more than $4 billion in 2017 and over $6.3 billion were raised through ICOs in the first three months of 2018. In a typical ICO, a company receives cryptocurrencies in exchange for certain rights embodied in “tokens”, whose nature, treatment and implications are generating controversy among securities regulators around the world.

In a recent paper, entitled The Law and Finance of Initial Coin Offerings, we address the primary legal and finance issues raised by ICOs. In our view, the first challenge for securities regulators should consist of clarifying the nature of tokens in order to determine whether, and if so when, they should be subject to securities laws. For that purpose, we propose a definition of tokens based on both their function and their legal nature. As to their function, we follow the classification suggested by FINMA. Therefore, we distinguish between asset tokens (those that resemble shares, bonds, etc.), utility tokens (those that offer access to goods and services) and payment tokens (those that represent cryptocurrencies). As to their legal nature, we distinguish between security tokens (those that qualify as “securities” under a particular country´s securities laws) and non-security tokens (everything else). We argue that the legal classification of the token, which should be the relevant one for securities regulation depends on the features, structure, distribution, and marketing of the issuance of tokens, as well as a particular country´s securities laws. Hence, even though the function of the token may help determine its legal nature, a further analysis will be required.

READ MORE »

Don’t Blame Stock Markets for Peril of Short-Termism

Mark Roe is the David Berg Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. This post is based on an op-ed by Professor Roe that was published today in The Financial Times and is based on his paper, Stock-Market Short-Termism’s Impact, (discussed on the Forum here).

Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Myth that Insulating Boards Serves Long-Term Value by Lucian Bebchuk (discussed on the Forum here); The Uneasy Case for Favoring Long-term Shareholders (discussed on the Forum here) by Jesse Fried, and Can We Do Better by Ordinary Investors? A Pragmatic Reaction to the Dueling Ideological Mythologists of Corporate Law by Leo E. Strine (discussed on the Forum here).

The Business Roundtable, a prestigious organisation of the CEOs of the largest American companies, last week urged large public companies to stop telling investors what senior executives expect quarterly earnings will be. Their effort arises from the widespread belief that the scourge of market-driven short-termism is seriously damaging the American economy. Ending this quarterly earnings advice would help. Respected business leaders like Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffett have promoted the idea under the headline that “Short-Termism is Harming the Economy”.

The advice on forgoing advance projections of quarterly earnings is sensible as such efforts largely waste managerial time—the earnings will be announced soon enough. But the thinking behind the advice, that market-driven short-termism is seriously harming the American economy, is unsound. Critiquing short-termism is now an idea whose time has come and, for many, its severity is so obvious that the idea needs no support. Like the recent attacks on open trade, basic marketplace advantages do not seem as advantageous, even to market leaders like the Business Roundtable, as they once did.

READ MORE »

Remarks to the SEC Investor Advisory Committee

Jay Clayton is Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Chairman Clayton’s recent remarks to the SEC Investor Advisory Committee, available here. The views expressed in this post are those of Mr. Clayton and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.

I’d like to start by extending a special welcome to the three individuals who have generously agreed to serve as new Committee members. Paul Maloney, Lydia Mashburn, and J.W. Verret, thank you for joining us. I look forward to your contributions to the important work of this Committee.

I would also like to thank our host, the Georgia State University College of Law and Dean Wendy Hensel. The SEC has an outstanding Regional Office in Atlanta, and I think I speak for my colleagues when I say that we have all felt very welcome in Atlanta. Atlanta is a perfect place for the first IAC meeting outside of Washington. It is important to me that we—all of us at the SEC—spend time with Main Street investors across the country. These are the women and men who depend on our nation’s capital markets to provide quality, long-term investment opportunities that will enhance their lives and their futures.

As I hope you know, ensuring that Main Street investors have quality investment opportunities, and that they are well informed and well protected, are my focus and the focus of the staff at the SEC. In fact, I often say, the interests of our long term retail investors is the touchstone by which we should view each and every action we take. It is certainly at in the heart of the SEC staff and is central to the topics that we are discussing today.

READ MORE »

Highlights of Proposal to Simplify the Volcker Rule

Katherine Mooney CarrollDerek Bush, and Hugh C. Conroy, Jr. are partners at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a recent Cleary Gottlieb publication by Ms. Mooney Carroll, Mr. Bush, Mr. Conroy, Michael Mazzuchi, Patrick Fuller, and Alexander Young-Anglim.

[On May 30, 2018], the Federal Reserve Board approved a 373-page notice of proposed rulemaking that represents a first step toward simplifying and clarifying the Volcker Rule. The other four agencies responsible for implementation are expected to approve the notice in the coming days. Below is a brief summary of the key headlines and proposals from the release.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: June 8-June 14, 2018


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of June 8-June 14, 2018.


The Enforceability of Employment Arbitration Agreements





Cost of Experimentation and the Evolution of Venture Capital


Implementation of MFW Standard in New York



Index Fund Stewardship


Rolling Back the Dodd-Frank Reforms


Stock Buyouts and Corporate Cashouts


Marking to Market Versus Taking to Market




The Big Thumb on the Scale: An Overview of the Proxy Advisory Industry

The Big Thumb on the Scale: An Overview of the Proxy Advisory Industry

David F. Larcker is James Irvin Miller Professor of Accounting and Brian Tayan is a Researcher with the Corporate Governance Research Initiative at Stanford Graduate School of Business; and James R. Copland is the director of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy. This post is based on their recent paper.

Proxy advisory firms have significant influence over the voting decisions of institutional investors and the governance choices of publicly traded companies. However, it is not clear that the recommendations of these firms are correct and generally lead to better outcomes for companies and their shareholders. We recently published a paper on SSRN (“The Big Thumb on the Scale: An Overview of the Proxy Advisory Industry”) that provides a comprehensive review of the proxy advisory industry and the influence of these firms on voting behavior, corporate choices, and outcomes, and it outlines potential reforms for the industry. [1]

Shareholder Voting

READ MORE »

The Main Street Investors Coalition is an Industry-Funded Effort to Cut Off Shareholder Oversight

Nell Minow is Vice Chair of ValueEdge Advisors.

Here’s a tip from a long-time Washington DC lawyer: the more folksy or patriotic the name of the group, the more likely that it is funded by people who are promoting exactly the opposite of what it is trying to pretend to be. And thus we have the Main Street Investors Coalition, which bills itself as “bring[ing] together groups and individuals who have an interest in amplifying the voice of America’s retail investor community.”

In reality, it is a corporate-funded group with no real ties to retail investors, and its advocacy is as fake as its name. MSIC uses inflammatory language, unsupported assertions, and out-and-out falsehoods to try to discredit the institutional investors who file and support non-binding shareholder proposals. While these proposals are filed at a very small fraction of publicly traded companies and even a 100 percent vote does not require the company to comply, somehow, this very foundational aspect of free market checks and balances is so overwhelming a prospect to corporate executives that they are unable to provide a substantive response and instead establish what in Washington is referred to as an “astroturf” (fake grassroots) organization, setting up a false dichotomy between the interests of large and small shareholders.

READ MORE »

Board Ready: Shareholder Activism, Corporate Governance and the Hunt for Long-Term Value

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 memorandum by Mr. Niles.

Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Myth that Insulating Boards Serves Long-Term Value by Lucian Bebchuk (discussed on the Forum here); The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, and Wei Jiang (discussed on the Forum here); and Who Bleeds When the Wolves Bite? A Flesh-and-Blood Perspective on Hedge Fund Activism and Our Strange Corporate Governance System by Leo E. Strine, Jr. (discussed on the Forum here).

As the spotlight on boards, management teams, corporate performance and governance intensifies, as articles like the Bloomberg and Fortune profiles of Elliott Management (“The World’s Most Feared Investor—Why the World’s CEOs Fear Paul Singer” and “Whatever It Takes to Win—How Paul Singer’s Hedge Fund Always Wins”) and other activist investors become required reading in every boardroom and C-suite, and as activist campaigns against successful companies of all sizes increase worldwide, below are fifteen themes expected to impact boardroom, CEO and investor behavior and decision-making in the coming years.

  1.  The CEO, the Board and the Strategy.
  2.  Activism Preparedness Grows Up.
  3.  Companies Standing Up, Playing Offense and Showing Conviction without Capitulation.
  4.  Activists Standing Down.
  5.  “Shock, Awe & Ambush” Meets the Power of Behind the Scenes Persuasion.
  6.  Better Index IR and Not Taking the Passives (or Other Investors) for Granted.
  7.  Quarterly Earnings Rituals.
  8.  Embracing the New Paradigm and Long-Termism.
  9.  Convergence on ESG and Sustainability.
  10. Dealing with the Proxy Advisory Firms.
  11. Board Culture, Corporate Culture and Board Quality.
  12. Capital Allocation.
  13. Directors as Investor Relation Officers.
  14. The General Counsel as Investor Relations Officer.
  15. The Nature of Corporate Governance.

READ MORE »

Marking to Market Versus Taking to Market

Guillaume Plantin is Professor at Sciences Po and Jean Tirole is Chairman at the University of Toulouse School of Economics. This is post is based on their recent article, forthcoming in the American Economic Review.

Accounting statements are the primary source of verified information that firms provide to their stakeholders, and therefore an important ingredient of corporate governance. Accounting measurements are in particular explicit inputs in executive compensation contracts, debt covenants, and regulations such as prudential rules for financial institutions. They also play a more implicit but pervasive role in the enforcement of stakeholders’ rights during events that are defining for corporations, such as takeovers, proxy contests, bankruptcy procedures, or rounds of venture-capital and private-equity financing.

Amidst a global debate that has been raging for years, accounting conventions have evolved from the use of historical costs towards “fair-value” measurements of assets and liabilities. The International Accounting Standard Board defines fair value as “the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date”. This contrasts with historical-cost accounting whereby, broadly, balance-sheet items remain recorded at their entry value instead of reflecting all relevant data accruing from markets for similar items.

READ MORE »

Page 46 of 86
1 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 86