Yearly Archives: 2018

Weekly Roundup: February 23–March 1, 2018


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of February 23–March 1, 2018.


Public Company Cybersecurity Disclosures


Key Trends in Corporate Incidents


New NYSE Rules For Non-IPO Listings


Stockholder Agreements


SEC Enforcement Priorities in the Trump Era


Banks and Labor as Stakeholders: Impact on Economic Performance




Turning Words into Action





Looking Beyond Sustainability Disclosure


Securities Law in the Sixties: The Supreme Court, the Second Circuit, and the Triumph of Purpose Over Text


The Governance of Foundation-Owned Firms


The New New Regime in Delaware Appraisal Law


Boardroom Accountability

Boardroom Accountability

Michael Garland is Assistant Comptroller for Corporate Governance and Responsible of Investment and Rhonda Brauer is Director of Corporate Engagement in the Office of New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer. Comptroller Stringer is investment advisor to, and custodian and a trustee of, the New York City Pension Funds. The post is based on a recent campaign launched by the New York City Pension Funds and Comptroller Stringer.

Following up on the successful “Boardroom Accountability Project” launched in the fall of 2014 to give investors a meaningful voice in director elections through proxy access, New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer and the New York City Pension Funds (the “NYC Funds”) launched the “Boardroom Accountability Project 2.0” in September 2017. The next phase of the campaign ratchets up pressure on companies to improve the quality of their boards of directors, with particular emphasis on diversity of gender and race and on climate competence, so that they are positioned to deliver better long-term sustainable returns for investors.

READ MORE »

The New New Regime in Delaware Appraisal Law

Theodore N. MirvisWilliam Savitt, and Ryan A. McLeod are partners at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell publication by Mr. Mirvis, Mr. Savitt, Mr. McLeod, and Nicholas Walter, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

A recent spate of appraisal decisions signals that the Delaware courts will be skeptical of claims that the “fair value” of a company’s stock, as determined in a judicial proceeding brought by a dissenter from the merger, will be higher than the price paid in the transaction. To the contrary, in the context of strategic transactions—which may include synergy value to which dissenting stockholders are not entitled under the appraisal statute—Delaware has made clear that the appraised value may well be less than the deal price.

These decisions follow the important and welcome rulings of the Delaware Supreme Court in DFC and Dell last year. DFC and Dell were the high court’s first detailed appraisal guidance in several years. In DFC, the Supreme Court stressed the significance of “real world evidence” and held that the Court of Chancery should defer to the market’s view of value rather than a “guess” by a valuation expert hired by a party to the litigation. In Dell, the Supreme Court reiterated these points and strongly suggested that the price paid by a third party in a transaction should act as a ceiling in an appraisal valuation: “Fair value entails at a minimum a price some buyer is willing to pay—not a price which no class of buyers in the market would pay.”

READ MORE »

The Governance of Foundation-Owned Firms

Henry Hansmann is Oscar M. Ruebhausen Professor of Law at Yale Law School, and Steen Thomsen is Professor of International Economics and Management and Chairman of the Center for Corporate Governance at Copenhagen Business School. This post is based on their recent paper.

A number of highly successful companies around the world are owned by foundations. Examples include world-class companies such as Bertelsmann, Heineken, Ikea, Robert Bosch, Rolex, the Tata Group, and Carlsberg. The so-called “industrial foundations” that own them are nonprofit institutions which typically combine business ownership and philanthropy, but give priority to the business goal. Contrary to the predictions of agency theory, foundation-owned companies are, on average roughly as profitable as investor- or family-owned companies. But how is it done?

READ MORE »

Securities Law in the Sixties: The Supreme Court, the Second Circuit, and the Triumph of Purpose Over Text

Adam C. Pritchard is the Frances and George Skestos Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School and Robert B. Thompson is Peter P. Weidenbruch, Jr. Professor of Business Law at Georgetown University Law Center. This post is based on their recent paper.

Key pillars of modern securities law—insider trading regulation, implied private rights of action, and “federal corporation law”—were born in the 1960s, not as a result of legislative enactment, but rather, judicial pronouncement. In our paper, Securities Law in the Sixties: The Supreme Court, the Second Circuit, and the Triumph of Purpose over Text, we show how the judicial approach to securities law transformed in that decade. In our paper we focus on the key Supreme Court cases of the period, looking not only at the published opinions, but also at the papers of each of the justices. This archival research shows the exchange of ideas among the justice and how the opinions evolved in the drafting. The Supreme Court of the Sixties did not simply apply the text as enacted as a mere agent of Congress, but instead made itself a partner of Congress in shaping the securities laws. Under this approach, the purpose of the securities laws became the touchstone of interpretation. The interpretive space opened by the invocation of purpose allowed a dramatic expansion in the law of securities fraud.

READ MORE »

Looking Beyond Sustainability Disclosure

Linda-Eling Lee is Global Head of ESG Research at MSCI, and Matt Moscardi is Head of Financial Sector Research for MSCI ESG Research. This post is based on an MSCI publication by Ms. Lee and Mr. Moscardi.

For years, a growing number of institutional investors have pressured companies to disclose more of their ESG practices. Companies are responding, but voluntary disclosure has its limits in providing a full picture of companies’ ESG risks. In 2018, we anticipate that the disclosure movement reaches a tipping point, as investors seek broader data sources that can balance the corporate narrative and yield better signals for understanding the ESG risk landscape actually faced by portfolio companies.

Companies historically have been caught between investor demands for transparency and a desire to control their corporate narrative. On one side, investors have supported numerous efforts to encourage company disclosure. [1] They have enlisted regulators to compel disclosure on select topics or metrics and influenced exchanges to require more disclosure on sustainability as part of their listing requirements. [2] On the other side, some companies may carefully manage disclosures through a painstaking editing and brand-polishing process [3] while protecting proprietary information.

READ MORE »

An Overview of U.S. Shareholder Proposal Filings

Subodh Mishra is Executive Director at Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. This post is based on an ISS Analytics publication by Kosmas Papadopoulos, Managing Editor at ISS Analytics.

The 2018 U.S. proxy season is around the corner, and an early overview of shareholder proposal filings may give us a first taste of what is in store for investors and companies in terms of hot-button issues and overall market dynamics. Based on our analysis of shareholder proposal filings available in ISS’ shareholder filings database, we identified 450 proposals filed at Russell 3000 companies, of which 334 are still pending, while the rest have already made on ballots or were omitted and withdrawn.

Environmental and social issues dominate the agenda

This year promises to continue the recent trend of social and environmental issues overshadowing governance- and compensation-related proposals. More than two-thirds of filed proposals are related to social or environmental issues, with political spending and actions, board and workplace diversity and parity and climate and sustainability being the key themes.

READ MORE »

Mandatory Arbitration: An Illusory Remedy for Public Company Shareholders

Rick A. Fleming is an Investor Advocate with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Mr. Fleming’s recent remarks at the Practising Law Institute. The views expressed in this post are those of Mr. Fleming and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.

Today [February 24, 2018] is a special day for the Office of the Investor Advocate. I started this job four years ago today, and because I am the first Investor Advocate that is also the day the Office of the Investor Advocate came into existence. During the past four years, through the efforts of the talented and dedicated individuals who have joined my Office and work so hard to advocate for investors, we have helped to elevate the Commission’s thinking about the needs of today’s investors. And we continue to make progress in some important areas. For example, the SEC Ombudsman, Tracey McNeil, has recently launched an electronic Ombudsman Matter Management System (OMMS) to make it easier for investors to let us know of any concerns about the SEC or a self-regulatory organization. An electronic OMMS form is available at the Ombudsman’s website, www.sec.gov/ombudsman, and we encourage investors to check it out.

This morning, I would like to share some of my views on the issue of mandatory arbitration and, more specifically, on efforts to force public company shareholders to forego class action lawsuits and seek recovery individually through arbitration. This has been a matter of concern to investors recently, [1] after commentators have suggested that U.S. IPO issuers should consider including arbitration provisions in their articles or bylaws. [2]

READ MORE »

Keeping Shareholders on the Beat: A Call for a Considered Conversation About Mandatory Arbitration

Robert J. Jackson, Jr. is Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on his recent remarks at the CEO Investor Forum, available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Jackson and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff

Thank you so much, Gianna [McCarthy], for that very kind introduction. I’m so glad to be back home here in New York. It’s an incredible honor to be speaking after Mayor Bloomberg today [Feb. 26, 2018]. And I’m sure the Mayor will be pleased to know that I plan to return and speak in New York often, if only so I can get a decent slice of pizza. [1]

I was born in the Bronx, just a few subway stops from here, to a big Irish Catholic family. My father was one of five kids and my mother was one of nine, and I’ve got dozens of cousins spread all around New York. In fact, it would be great if you could keep the news that I’m in town just among us. Otherwise, I’m going to have to spend the rest of the week visiting everyone.

READ MORE »

Turning Words into Action

Bruce F. Freed is president of the Center for Political Accountability; Karl J. Sandstrom is a former Federal Election Commissioner and practices law at Perkins Coie LLP. This post is based on a CPA publication by Mr. Freed and Mr. Sandstrom. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending and Corporate Political Speech: Who Decides?, both by Lucian Bebchuk and Robert Jackson (discussed on the Forum here and here), and Corporate Politics, Governance, and Value Before and after Citizens United by John C. Coates.

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink’s recent annual letter to corporate leaders (discussed on the Forum here) correctly urges companies to contribute to society. At a time when the private sector is being pressed to address major societal issues, his call is especially important. There’s a glaring omission, however: A business cannot begin to evaluate its social impact and business risk if it doesn’t openly and forthrightly address its spending to influence political elections, and the consequences of that spending.

READ MORE »

Page 71 of 86
1 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 86