Yearly Archives: 2019

FCPA and the Commodity Exchange Act: A New Relationship

David Yeres is senior counsel, and David DiBari and Robert Houck are partners at Clifford Chance US LLP. This post is based on a Clifford Chance memorandum by Mr. Yeres, Mr. DiBari, Mr. Houck, Brendan Stuart and Ben Peacock.

On March 6, 2019, the Enforcement Division of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or the “Commission”) issued an Enforcement Advisory applicable to non-registered companies and individuals regarding its cooperation and self-reporting program specifically relating to violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) that involve foreign corrupt practices (the “CFTC Foreign Corrupt Practices Advisory” or the “Advisory”). [1] The CFTC Foreign Corrupt Practices Advisory indicates a potential new front of the CFTC’s enforcement program based on a novel application of the CEA. In recent remarks, the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement Director has indicated that the Commission may bring enforcement actions in cases involving foreign corrupt practices under CEA provisions that are analogous to those contained in statutes enforced by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). [2] In addition, the Advisory builds upon and incorporates the CFTC’s January 2017 and September 2017 Enforcement Advisories, which promised meaningful reductions in penalties where a company or individual self-reports, fully cooperates, and takes remedial measures (see our January 2017 and September 2017 client briefings). And in keeping with the CFTC’s stated desire to harmonize its enforcement regime with those of authorities holding concurrent jurisdiction, the Advisory echoes guidance that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) published in its November 2017 FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. [3]

READ MORE »

The SEC and Self-Reporting of Financial Conflicts of Interest

Shamoil T. Shipchandler, Sarah L. Levine, and Laura S. Pruitt are partners at Jones Day. This post is based on a Jones Day memorandum by Mr. Shipchandler, Ms. Levine, Ms. Pruitt, and David P. Bergers.

Initial results of the SEC’s Share Class Disclosure Initiative indicate a heightened focus on disclosures made to retail investors and consequences for any failure to self-report.

On February 12, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission launched its “Share Class Selection Disclosure Initiative” (“SCSDI”), which provided incentives to investment advisers to self-report violations of the federal securities laws related to undisclosed conflicts of interest in mutual fund share class selections. In establishing the initiative, the SEC warned that any failure by a firm to self-report under the initiative would likely result in even more significant sanctions.

READ MORE »

Proxy Preview 2019

Heidi Welsh is Executive Director at the Sustainable Investments Institute (Si2) and Michael Passoff is the founder and CEO of Proxy Impact. This post is based on a joint report from Proxy Impact, Si2, and As You Sow, authored by Ms. Welsh, Mr. Passoff, and Andrew Behar. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Social Responsibility Resolutions by Scott Hirst (discussed on the Forum here).

Proponents have filed at least 386 shareholder resolutions on environmental, social and sustainability issues for the 2019 proxy season, Environmental, Social & Sustainability Resolutions with 303 still pending as of February 15. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff have allowed the omission of only six proposals so far in the face of company challenges, far fewer than the 27 omitted at this point last year because the SEC was included in the recent six-week government shutdown. Companies have lodged objections to at least 54 more proposals that have yet to be decided.

Proponents have already withdrawn more proposals than they had last year—71, up from 62 in mid-February 2018. Usually these are a sign that proponents and companies have reached an agreement.

Last year, the overall tally of resolutions reached 460 by year’s end, down from 494 in 2017. The proportion voted on dropped by 10 percentage points, to 177 resolutions, the lowest level of the decade and well below a high of 243 in 2016. Proponents withdrew 210 resolutions in 2018, nearly half of all they filed. Companies omitted a total of 65 proposals after SEC challenges in 2018, down from 77 in 2017.

READ MORE »

Negative Activism

Barbara Bliss is assistant professor of finance at the University of San Diego School of Business; Peter Molk is associate professor of law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law; and Frank Partnoy is the Adrian A. Kragen Professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law. This is based on their recent article, forthcoming in the Washington University Law Review. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, and Wei Jiang (discussed on the Forum here); Dancing with Activists by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, Wei Jiang, and Thomas Keusch (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).

What we call “positive activism” is familiar to readers here. A hedge fund acquires a stake in a company, announces it, and demands reform. The targeted company’s stock price typically increases, and a battle ensues.

We focus on the mirror image of positive activism, which we term “negative activism.” Negative activists take short positions and profit from share price declines. They have the financial incentive to destroy, rather than create, company value.

In our article Negative Activism, we identify and systematically address the concept of negative activism. First, we set forth an analytic framework, grouping negative activism into three categories. Informational negative activism seeks to reduce company values by releasing negative information about those companies. We provide empirical evidence showing that, across a wide variety of informational categories, informational negative activism is associated with statistically significant decreases in company values. Operational negative activism seeks to destroy companies’ operations, in the process reducing those companies’ stock prices.  We offer a mix of empirical and anecdotal evidence highlighting negative activists’ success in doing so.  Finally, unintentional negative activists are failed positive activists; their interventions are meant to increase company values but are instead associated with negative returns.  We provide empirical evidence on the surprising frequency of this phenomenon.

READ MORE »

Mandatory Arbitration Shareholder Proposal Goes to Court

Cydney S. Posner is special counsel at Cooley LLP. This post is based on a Cooley memorandum by Ms. Posner.

You might remember this no-action letter to Johnson & Johnson granting relief to the company if it relied on Rule 14a-8(i)(2) (violation of law) to exclude a shareholder proposal requesting adoption of mandatory shareholder arbitration bylaws. (See this PubCo post.) In that letter, the staff relied on an opinion from the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, the state’s chief legal officer, which advised the SEC that the proposal was excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(2) because “adoption of the proposed bylaw would cause Johnson & Johnson to violate applicable state law.” The issue was so fraught that SEC Chair Jay Clayton felt the need to issue a statement supporting the staff’s hands-off position: “The issue of mandatory arbitration provisions in the bylaws of U.S. publicly-listed companies has garnered a great deal of attention. As I have previously stated, the ability of domestic, publicly-listed companies to require shareholders to arbitrate claims against them arising under the federal securities laws is a complex matter that requires careful consideration,” consideration that would be more appropriate at the Commissioner level than at the staff level. However, mandatory arbitration was not an issue that he was anxious to have the SEC wade into at that time. To be sure, if the parties really wanted a binding answer on the merits, he suggested, they might be well advised to seek a judicial determination. And, you guessed it—Clayton’s words to the proponent’s ears—the proponent filed this complaint on March 21.

READ MORE »

Mutant Q—Foundational Studies on Entrenchment, Staggered Boards, and Activism

Neil Whoriskey is partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb memorandum by Mr. Whoriskey. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes What Matters in Corporate Governance? by Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen, and Allen Ferrell.

If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”
— Ernest Rutherford

Sometimes you need to get into the fundamentals to understand if your belief system is sound. In corporate governance literature of the last two decades, there is no more fundamental concept than Tobin’s Q, which legions of law professors have used as a proxy for firm value. Based on regression analyses examining variations in Tobin’s Q, they have made definitive pronouncements about any number of corporate governance topics, from staggered boards to the value of activism. Yet tracing the evolution of Tobin’s Q to its current state—a state completely alien to the original conception—reveals a twisted tale, proceeding like an epidemiological disaster in which Tobin’s Q transforms from an innocent and useful organism in macroeconomics to an unrecognizably mutated and widespread disease in corporate governance literature, infecting policies and practices throughout the corporate governance world.
READ MORE »

Glass Lewis’ Report Feedback Service: Direct, Unfiltered Commentary from Issuers and Shareholder Proponents

Katherine Rabin is CEO of Glass, Lewis & Co. This post is based on a Glass Lewis memorandum by Ms. Rabin.

Glass Lewis has long been an advocate of bringing transparency, accuracy and efficiency to the proxy voting process. Following the expansion of our direct engagement program and Issuer Data Report (“IDR”) service, the Report Feedback Statement (“RFS”) service is an important next step in facilitating informed dialogue among all stakeholders.

Providing corporate governance services to institutional investors is Glass Lewis’ core business and sole focus. Indeed, Glass Lewis does not offer consulting services to corporate issuers, directors, dissident shareholders or shareholder proposal proponents. That said, we recognize that there are legitimate questions about the opportunities available for issuers and shareholder proponents to raise concerns if they disagree with a proxy advisory firm’s recommendations.

READ MORE »

The Most Overpaid CEOs: Are Fund Managers Asleep at The Wheel?

Rosanna Landis Weaver is a Program Manager at As You Sow. This post is based on her As You Sow memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The CEO Pay Slice by Lucian Bebchuk, Martijn Cremers and Urs Peyer (discussed on the Forum here) and Paying for Long-Term Performance by Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried (discussed on the Forum here).

In 2015, As You Sow embarked on a mission to identify and report on the most overpaid CEOs of the S&P 500 and whether or not pension funds and financial managers held companies accountable for such excessive compensation. At the time, we found that far too many funds and managers were rubber stamps for these excesses.

This 2019 study is the fifth report of our research results. During these five years, what has changed? Quite a bit, and not enough. Significantly, more large shareholders are voting against more CEO pay packages. Those who are not are more isolated and defensive.

READ MORE »

Independent Directors: New Class of 2018

Steve W. Klemash is America’s Leader, Jamie C. Smith is Associate Director, and Kellie C. Huennekens is Associate Director, all at EY Center for Board Matters. This post is based on their EY memorandum.

The EY Center for Board Matters took a close look at independent directors newly elected in 2018 by investors to Fortune 100 boards, and we are pleased to present the findings of our analysis of this “new class of 2018.”

The report analyzes what these directors bring to the boardroom and how companies are showcasing those strengths, based on a review of corporate disclosures highlighting the skills, expertise and backgrounds associated with these new nominees. In the third year of this series, we also reviewed the same 83 companies’ entering class of directors in prior years to enable consistent year-on-year comparisons. What follows is our perspective on the changes and trends we identified.

READ MORE »

Director Onboarding and the Foundations of Respect

David A. Katz is partner and Laura A. McIntosh is consulting attorney at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on an article first published in the New York Law Journal.

Increased demands on public company directors have created significant challenges for corporate boards. Qualified individuals are serving on fewer boards, as directors and corporate executives face increasing constraints on their public company board service. There is a need for new independent director candidates, and there is also a steep learning curve for incoming directors, particularly those who are not industry insiders and those who are new to public company board service. Accordingly, onboarding new directors is becoming a more extensive and significant undertaking than it has been in the past. At the same time, the onboarding process is increasingly important to the success of the board in fulfilling its oversight role.

READ MORE »

Page 72 of 95
1 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 95