Daily Archives: Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Democratic Senators and the Buyback Boogeyman

Jesse Fried is the Dane Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Charles C.Y. Wang is the Glenn and Mary Jane Creamer Associate Professor of Business Administration. This post was authored by Professor Fried and Professor Wang. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Short-Termism and Capital Flows by Professor Fried and Professor Wang (discussed on the Forum here).

Last month, Senator Chuck Schumer, along with Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, declared they would introduce “bold” legislation to prohibit a public firm from repurchasing its own stock, unless the firm first invests in employees and communities, including paying workers at least $15 per hour and offering “decent” pension and health benefits. Welcome to Washington’s newest political ritual: Senators seeking to demonstrate their concern for workers by proposing bills that severely restrict—or even outlaw—buybacks. Unfortunately, these proposals appear motivated by misleading measures of corporate capital flows, as well as on a profound misunderstanding of how the U.S. economy works. If enacted, such bills could threaten not only the capital markets but the employees and communities the Senators claim to care about.

Leading Senate Democrats appear to believe that repurchases, when added to existing levels of dividends, harm workers and impair long-term investment by starving firms of needed capital. The Schumer-Sanders bill would join legislation introduced by Schumer and Senator Tammy Baldwin to give the Securities and Exchange Commission authority to reject buybacks that, in its judgment, hurt workers. It also would require boards to “certify” that a repurchase is in the “best long-term financial interest of the company.” Senator Baldwin has introduced another bill, co-sponsored by Senator (and presidential candidate) Elizabeth Warren that goes even further: It bans all open-market repurchases.

READ MORE »

Beyond Beholden

Da Lin is Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. This post is based on her recent article, forthcoming in the Journal of Corporation Law. 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).

Corporate law has long been concerned with director independence. In controlled companies, the perceived problem is that directors might feel pressured to reciprocate a past kindness from the controlling shareholder or fear retaliation. As a result, the conventional marker of independence is the absence of substantial prior or ongoing relationships to the controlling shareholder.

In my forthcoming article, Beyond Beholden, I challenge that standard narrative. I argue that the prospect of future rewards from the controlling shareholder also influences director behavior. Simply put, directors may be motivated to be on good terms with controlling shareholders because controlling shareholders may reward them in return.

READ MORE »

Pre-Litigation Demand and Director Committees

Richard S. Horvath, Jr, is partner at Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. This post is based on his Allen Matkins memorandum and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

On February 12, 2019, in the matter captioned City of Tamarac Firefighters’ Pension Trust Fund v. Corvi, et al., C.A. No. 2017-0341-KSJM, Vice Chancellor McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery provided further guidance on the pre-litigation demand requirement. This decision reaffirms and applies the principle under Delaware law that, while a pre-litigation demand “tacitly concedes” a board of directors is disinterested and independent for purposes of responding to the demand that concession only goes so far. As such, the board, or a subcommittee designated with the task of investigating and responding to the demand, must still in fact act independently, disinterestedly, in good faith, and with due care. While the derivative claims in Corvi were ultimately dismissed, the Court’s decision provides a helpful outline of the steps a board of directors should take in responding to a pre-litigation demand.

READ MORE »