Yearly Archives: 2018

Appointments Clause & SEC Administrative Judges

Joshua D. Roth is partner, Justin J. Santolli is special counsel, and J. Zachery Morris is an associate at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. This post is based on a Fried Frank publication by Mr. Roth, Mr. Santolli, and Mr. Morris.

On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split concerning the constitutionality of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) administrative law judges (“ALJs”). In Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, — U.S. —, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3836 (June 21, 2018), the Court held that SEC ALJs are “officers of the United States,” and thus subject to the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which limits the power to appoint “officers” to the President, “Courts of Law” or “Heads of Departments.” Because the ALJ who presided over Lucia’s administrative proceeding was not appointed by the SEC itself (the functional equivalent of a “Head of Department”), the Court held that the ALJ’s appointment was unconstitutional and ordered the SEC to provide Lucia with a new hearing in front of a new (constitutionally appointed) ALJ. The Court threw out the SEC’s prior order finding Lucia and his firm liable for securities violations and imposing monetary and equitable sanctions. As discussed further below, the Court’s decision will likely have a significant effect on many pending and already-concluded SEC administrative proceedings but also leaves a number of questions unanswered.

READ MORE »

When Political Spending and Core Values Conflict

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 report 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.

The Center for Political Accountability (CPA) released in mid-June a report entitled “Collision Course: The Risks Companies Face When Their Political Spending and Their Core Values Conflict, and How to Address Them.” It is the first report to analyze the heightened risk that political spending poses in today’s polarized political environment.

The report examines how ill-considered political spending creates reputational risk and raises unwanted questions for corporate governance. This perspective lends the report added importance for management, who are involved in the company’s political spending decisions, and directors, who oversee a company’s political spending and set relevant policies for it.

The report launches a new CPA educational initiative focused on the role of the corporation in our democracy. It is an invitation to the corporate. legal and academic communities, to continue the debate on the rules, internal and external, that should govern corporate political participation.

READ MORE »

Creditor Control Rights and Board Independence

Daniel Ferreira is Professor of Finance at the London School of Economics; Miguel Ferreira is Banco BPI Chair in Finance at Nova School of Business and Economics; and Beatriz Mariano is Lecturer in Banking at Cass Business School. This post is based on their recent article, forthcoming in the Journal of Finance.

After a loan covenant violation, creditors can use the threat of accelerating loan payments and/or terminating credit agreements to extract concessions from borrowers in exchange for contract renegotiation. In practice, creditors rarely need to carry out such threats; most covenant violations lead to contract renegotiation. However, covenant violations enhance creditors’ bargaining position in renegotiations and such an improvement in creditors’ bargaining power is described as an increase in “creditor control rights.”

In our article, Creditor Control Rights and Board Independence, we show that covenant violations trigger profound changes on a firm’s governance. By changing governance, covenant violations can thus affect firm policies many years after the event, implying that current and past credit agreements have a long-lasting impact on a firm’s governance.

READ MORE »

Legal and Practical Limits on Indemnification and Advancement in Delaware Corporate Entities

Paul J. Lockwood is a partner and Arthur Bookout is an associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is a version of Legal and Practical Limits on Indemnification and Advancement in Delaware Corporate Entities, a whitepaper Mr. Lockwood and Mr. Bookout published in partnership with AIG Financial Lines. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP is a member of AIG Financial Lines’ Management Liability Panel Counsel Program. This post is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Directors and officers of Delaware corporations generally expect that the company will provide them with indemnification and advancement in corporate lawsuits.

Indemnification is where the company reimburses the director or officer for the attorneys’ fees and costs, and potentially judgments, incurred in connection with claims arising out of the director’s or officer’s service to the company. Advancement is where the company pays the director’s or officer’s attorneys’ fees and costs prior to the final disposition of the litigation, and is sometimes subject to an undertaking to repay the company if it is ultimately determined that indemnification is unwarranted.

READ MORE »

The Directors’ E&S Guidebook

Barbara Zvan is Chair of the E&S Committee at the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance (CCGG) and Chief Risk & Strategy Officer of the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund. Stephen Erlichman is Executive Director of the CCGG and partner at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. This post is based on a CCGG memorandum by Ms. Zvan and Mr. Erlichman.

Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Social Responsibility Resolutions by Scott Hirst (discussed on the Forum here); and Socially Responsible Firms by Alan Ferrell (discussed on the Forum here).

Since inception, CCGG has focused on good governance, and has, over the years, become an authority on best practice governance guidance for boards of directors. In recent years, CCGG has observed growing shareholder emphasis on environmental and social (E&S) factors. Companies have come under greater pressure to demonstrate that the right frameworks, practices, and capabilities are in place to identify and address material E&S factors as they emerge and to provide relevant and sufficient disclosures to shareholders along the way. Investors are facing increased responsibility to include E&S factors in their investment decision-making.

In 2016 CCGG initiated a process both to strengthen its existing best practice guidance for boards by including oversight of E&S factors and to provide guidance for issuers in the preparation of E&S disclosures to investors. Benefiting from its unique access to the boards of public companies in Canada and abroad, CCGG interviewed directors who sat on the boards of companies considered to be leaders in the management of E&S factors.

READ MORE »

Passive Mutual Funds and ETFs: Performance and Comparison

Edwin J. Elton and Martin J. Gruber are Professors Emeritus and Scholars in Residence at NYU Stern School of Business, and Andre de Souza is Assistant Professor of Finance and Economics at St. John’s University Peter J. Tobin College of Business. This post is based on their recent paper.

Over 25% of the assets held by investment companies are held in the form of passive index funds and passive exchange traded funds. Furthermore, many indexes are followed by multiple passive funds. Empirical evidence shows that active funds underperform indexes by about 75 basis points. Given these facts, it is important for investors to understand how to make the choice among and between index funds and ETFs for any particular index. The purpose of this paper is to explain what affects performance and how to choose between passive vehicles.

In the first part of the paper, we examine return pre-expenses which measures management’s performance. Managers closely follow their index resulting in an average R2 above .996 and an average beta of 1 for ETFs and .998 for index funds. On average, ETFs pre-expenses slightly outperform the index they follow, while index funds slightly underperform.

READ MORE »

Fiduciary Duties of Buy-Side Directors: Recent Lessons Learned

Steven Haas is a partner and Richard Massony is an associate at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. This post is based on a Hunton Andrews Kurth memorandum by Mr. Haas and Mr. Massony, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Independent Directors and Controlling Shareholders, by Lucian Bebchuk and Assaf Hamdani (discussed on the Forum here).

Significant acquisitions always present risks to the acquiring entity and its stockholders. These risks may arise from, among other things, integration challenges or failing to identify operational problems or liabilities during due diligence that adversely affect the price paid to the sellers. Nevertheless, in the context of an acquisition—even a significant, “bet the company” transaction—the directors of the
acquiring company are almost always protected by the business judgment rule. Two recent cases, however, show potential pitfalls when the buyer’s board of directors may have conflicts of interest. When a majority of the directors is conflicted or there is a controlling stockholder on both sides of the transaction, courts will not apply the business judgment rule unless certain procedural safeguards are in place.

READ MORE »

ESG and Sustainability: The Board’s Role

David M. Silk, David A. Katz, and Sabastian V. Niles are partners at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Silk, Mr. Katz, Mr. Niles, and Carmen X. W. Lu.

Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Socially Responsible Firms by Alan Ferrell (discussed on the Forum here).

In light of evolving—and sometimes actively debated—perspectives on the role of public companies with respect to sustainability, corporate social responsibility and other ESG matters (e.g., Barron’s recent report on Sustainable Investing), we are providing a high-level overview of how boards of directors and senior management teams may wish to approach these issues:

  • Be aware that sustainability has become a major, mainstream governance topic that encompasses a wide range of issues, including a company’s long-term durability as a successful enterprise, climate change and other environmental risks and impacts, systemic financial stability, management of human capital, labor standards, resource management, and consumer and product safety, and consider how your company presents itself with respect to these matters.
  • Recognize that the role of the board in these areas is generally one of partnership with management and appropriate oversight, rather than unilateral board-level mandates. This includes achieving internal clarity on which stakeholder interests are critical to the long-term success of the company, investors, employees, customers, communities, and the economy and society as a whole. These issues should be considered as part of a company’s annual strategy review.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: June 22-28, 2018


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of June 22-28, 2018.

A Public Option for Bank Accounts (or Central Banking for All)


Gender Quotas on California Boards


REIT M&A in a Complex Market




Web-Delivery of Shareholder Reports


Business Groups and Firm-Specific Stock Returns


The Highest-Paid CEO by U.S. State



The Missing Profits of Nations


Peer Selection and the Wisdom of the Crowd: Considerations for Companies and Investors


Clarifying Class Action Tolling


Trade Secrets Protection and Antitakeover Provisions



FIRRMA Is Coming: How to Get Ready


ETF Ownership and Corporate Investment


The SEC Draft Strategic Plan for 2018-2022

The SEC Draft Strategic Plan for 2018-2022

This post is based on the SEC Draft Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2018-2022, released for public comments on June 19, 2018.

Our Mission

To protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.

Our Vision

To promote capital markets that inspire public confidence and provide a diverse array of financial opportunities to retail and institutional investors, entrepreneurs, public companies, and other market participants.

Our Values

Integrity: We inspire public confidence and trust by adhering to the highest ethical standards.

Excellence: We are committed to excellence in pursuit of our mission on behalf of the American public.

Accountability: We embrace our responsibilities and hold ourselves accountable to the American public.

Teamwork: We recognize that success depends on a skilled, diverse, coordinated team committed to the highest standards of trust, hard work, cooperation, and communication.

Fairness: We treat investors, market participants, and others fairly and in accordance with the law.

Effectiveness: We strive for innovative, flexible, and pragmatic regulatory approaches that achieve our goals and recognize the ever-changing nature of our capital markets.

READ MORE »

Page 42 of 86
1 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 86