Yearly Archives: 2018

Corporate Governance Update: Boards, Sexual Harassment, and Gender Diversity

David A. Katz is partner and Laura A. McIntosh is consulting attorney at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton publication by Mr. Katz and Ms. McIntosh which originally appeared in the New York Law Journal.

In light of recent events, corporate directors may consider adding an item to the agenda for their next board meeting: the issue of potential sexual misconduct at the company. A recent study indicates that the topic would be new for most public company boards, notwithstanding the fact that it relates to key elements of board-level governance: company culture, tone-at-the-top, risk management, and crisis management. Sexual misconduct in the workplace can take a devastating human toll. Moreover, the issue implicates gender equality and gender diversity concerns more broadly, and boards that include a meaningful proportion of female directors should be better positioned to address sexual harassment and gender equality issues.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: January 19–25, 2018


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of January 19–25, 2018.






The Option to Quit: The Effect of Employee Stock Options on Turnover





The Appraisal Landscape: Key Points, Open Issues, and Practice Points




Remarks on Securities Market Regulation


Bebchuk Leads SSRN’s 2017 Citation Rankings




Evolution or Revolution for Companies with Multi-Class Share Structures

Pamela Marcogliese is a partner and Elizabeth Bieber is an associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb publication by Ms. Marcogliese and Ms. Bieber. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Untenable Case for Perpetual Dual-Class Stock by Lucian Bebchuk and Kobi Kastiel (discussed on the Forum here).

This past year has been marked by significant and, in some cases, opposing attitudes and practices with respect to multi-class share structures. We are likely to see some of this churn continue in 2018 as the various market participants continue to define or refine their positions on this issue.

In 2016, a coalition of investors and pension funds lobbied against multi-class structures and, in 2017, the Council for Institutional Investors (CII) was vocal about its view that one vote per share is central to good governance. This movement is largely in connection with a minority trend of multi-class high-vote/low-vote and, sometimes, no-vote equity structures. In the spring of 2017, the initial public offering (IPO) of Snap Inc. put significant pressure on the issue when Snap offered its no-vote common stock to the public, followed shortly by Blue Apron’s IPO, which sold a class of low-vote stock to the public, while its capital structure also has a class of non-voting stock. Both companies suffered significant stock price drops following their IPOs.

READ MORE »

U.S. Tax Reform: Changes to 162(m) and Implications for Investors

David Kokell is Head of U.S. Compensation Research, John Roe is Head of ISS Analytics, and Kosmas Papadopoulos is Managing Editor at Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. This post is based on an ISS publication by Mr. Kokell, Mr. Roe, and Mr. Papadopoulos.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 introduces significant changes to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, which regulates several compensation-related practices in the United States. The changes raise many questions about how companies will adapt with respect to disclosure practices, general meeting agendas, and—more importantly—pay structures. To help make sense of it all, we turned to David Kokell, Head of U.S. Compensation Research at ISS, who provided insight into how ISS will assess potential changes in compensation practices as a result of the new legislation. Before we delve into the discussion, it is worth reviewing the changes to 162(m) in order to understand their potential impact.

READ MORE »

Say on Pay: Is It Needed? Does it Work?

Stephen F. O’Byrne is the President of Shareholder Value Advisors. This post is based on an article by Mr. O’Byrne, forthcoming in the Journal of Applied Corporate Finance.

There is little need for shareholder oversight of executive pay if directors do a good job providing oversight themselves or have strong incentives to do a good job. In this article, we’ll show that there is substantial evidence that directors do a poor job overseeing executive pay and that directors have weak incentives to pursue shareholder interests in executive pay. We’ll then look at Say on Pay and present evidence that Say on Pay voting is sensitive to differences in pay for performance, but so forgiving that extraordinary pay premiums are required to elicit a majority “no” vote. We will show that three quarters of institutional investors have lower SOP voting quality—that is, less informed and fair voting ‐ than the average investor and almost all have a short‐term focus, with much greater vote sensitivity to current year grant date pay premiums than to long‐term pay alignment and cost. We’ll conclude with a proposal explaining how institutional investors can improve their SOP voting.

READ MORE »

Bebchuk Leads SSRN’s 2017 Citation Rankings

Statistics released publicly by the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) indicate that, as of the end of 2017, Professor Lucian Bebchuk continued to lead SSRN citation rankings for law professors. Bebchuk ranked first among all law school professors in all fields in terms of the total number of citations to his work. Bebchuk has led the SSRN citation rankings for law professors at the end of each of the preceding ten years.

Professor Bebchuk’s works (available on his SSRN page here) have attracted a total of 4,411 citations. His top ten studies in terms of citations are as follows:

READ MORE »

Remarks on Securities Market Regulation

Kara M. Stein is Commissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Stein’s recent concluding remarks at an SEC-NYU Dialogue on Securities Market Regulation. The views expressed in this post are those of Ms. Stein and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.

Good afternoon everyone. Thank you all for coming and contributing to a very lively discussion about how today’s companies interact with their shareholders. In particular, I want to thank our host, the NYU Salomon Center for the Study of Financial Institutions, because so much work goes into hosting events like today’s.

I also would like to thank each of the panelists, Jen Juergens and the rest of the SEC staff in the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and the Division of Corporation Finance.

As you know, today’s [Jan. 19, 2018] discussion is the fourth in a series of dialogues sponsored by NYU and the SEC focused on an exchange of ideas on today’s securities laws and whether our regulatory framework is effective in today’s environment. This past year, our conversations have covered a range of important topics—from crowdfunding and IPOs, to exchange-traded products, and now, shareholder engagement.

READ MORE »

Engagement—Succeeding in the New Paradigm for Corporate Governance

Martin Lipton is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton publication by Mr. Lipton, Steven A. RosenblumKaressa L. Cain, and Sabastian V. Niles.

The accelerated interest in sustainability, ESG, corporate social responsibility and investment for long-term growth and value creation (the new paradigm) as most cogently exemplified by Value Act’s newly formed Spring Fund focusing on promoting environmental and social goals of the companies in which it invests; by the promotion by the World Economic Forum of The New Paradigm: A Roadmap for an Implicit Corporate Governance Partnership Between Corporations and Investors to Achieve Sustainable Long-Term Investment and Growth; by the creation of the Investors’ Stewardship Group and its issuance of its principles for stewardship which embrace ESG and long-term investment; and, finally, by the policy positons of the three largest index fund managers, BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard as to what they expect in the way of governance and engagement, especially the January 12, 2018 letter from Larry Fink, BlackRock’s CEO, to the CEOs of the companies in which BlackRock invests in which “corporate purpose” is stressed, prompts us to update our January 2017 memo on engagement with investors.

READ MORE »

Doubling Down on Two-Degrees: The Rise in Support for Climate Risk Proposals

Cristina Banahan is an Advisor with ISS Corporate Solutions. This post is based on an publication by ISS, the parent company of ISS Corporate Solutions.

[Last week], BlackRock CEO Larry Fink released his annual letter to CEOs, an important signpost for investor priorities in the coming year. In his letter, titled “A Sense of Purpose,” Mr. Fink says:

“In order to make engagement with shareholders as productive as possible, companies must be able to describe their strategy for long-term growth.

The statement of long-term strategy is essential to understanding a company’s actions and policies, its preparation for potential challenges, and the context of its shorter-term decisions. Your company’s strategy must articulate a path to achieve financial performance. To sustain that performance, however, you must also understand the societal impact of your business as well as the ways that broad, structural trends—from slow wage growth to rising automation to climate change [emphasis added]—affect your potential for growth.”

READ MORE »

The Appraisal Landscape: Key Points, Open Issues, and Practice Points

Gail Weinstein is senior counsel, and Philip Richter and Scott B. Luftglass are partners at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. This post is based on a Fried Frank publication by Ms. Weinstein, Mr. Richter, Mr. Luftglass, Brian T. Mangino, Robert C. Schwenkel, and Warren S. de Wied, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

In the second half of 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court issued two seminal decisions concerning appraisal—DFC Global v. Muirfield (Aug. 1, 2017) and Dell v. Magnetar (Dec. 15, 2017). These decisions are likely to accelerate the trends already developing in the recently changed landscape for appraisal actions. Below, we discuss (i) the key points arising from the decisions; (ii) the background of the cases; (iii) the likely practical effect of the decisions; (iv) open issues; and (v) related practice points.

READ MORE »

Page 80 of 86
1 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86