Yearly Archives: 2019

Whistleblower Award to Company Outsider

Jennifer Kennedy Park is a partner, Alex Janghorbani is a senior attorney, and Jim Wintering is an associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary memorandum by Ms. Kennedy Park, Mr. Janghorbani, and Mr. Wintering.

On March 4, 2019, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) announced a whistleblower award of over $2 million to an individual—unaffiliated with the company the CFTC charged—for providing expert analysis in conjunction with a related action instituted by another federal regulator. While the Securities and Exchange Commission, which possesses a similar whistleblower award regime, [1] has previously issued awards to multiple claimants for both related actions [2] and to company outsiders, [3] this is the first such award to be granted by the CFTC in either respect.

The award demonstrates the CFTC’s continued commitment to the Whistleblower Program, and to using all available means in conducting enforcement actions. This award also reflects both the CFTC’s willingness to collaborate with other federal regulators and to rely on external sources of expert data analysis and likely reflects the CFTC’s continued expansion of its Whistleblower Program, both in terms of sources of information and awards granted. 

READ MORE »

2018 Year in Review—Securities Litigation Against Technology Companies

Grant Fondo and Michael Jones are partners and Nicholas Reider is an associate at Goodwin Procter LLP. This post is based on a Goodwin memorandum by Mr. Fondo, Mr. Jones, Mr. Reider, Hayes Hyde, Daniel Mello, and Janie Miller.

In 2018, Plaintiffs filed 403 new federal securities class actions, which was a 2% decrease from 2017 but still nearly double the average of annual filings from 1997-2017. [1] The 2018 filings included more than 180 cases challenging disclosures made in connection with mergers and acquisitions (M&A filings) and the fifth-highest number of “core” filings (excluding M&A filings) on record. [2] As depicted in Figure 1 below, the number of filings against publicly traded companies in the Technology and Communications sectors (collectively referred to herein as “technology companies”) increased by 56% from 32 in 2017 to 50 in 2018. [3] In 2018, the likelihood of an S&P 500 technology company being targeted with a new securities class action rose to the highest level since 2002 with approximately 13% of such technology companies subject to new cases—up from 8.5% in 2017 and the second highest percentage across all sectors. [4]

These cases are typically filed by shareholders seeking to recover investment losses after a company’s stock price drops following corporate disclosures. Plaintiffs typically assert claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”) based upon allegedly false and misleading statements or omissions made by the company and its officers, and, if the alleged misstatements or omissions are made in connection with a securities offering, under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”). In the merger context, plaintiffs typically assert claims under Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act based upon allegedly false and misleading statements or omissions made by the selling and acquiring companies, and the selling companies’ officers and/or directors.

READ MORE »

Will Aruba Finish Off Appraisal Arbitrage and End Windfalls for Deal Dissenters? We Hope So

William J. Carney is Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law Emeritus at Emory University School of Law and Keith Sharfman is Professor at St. John’s University School of Law. This post is based on their article, recently published in the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law.Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Using the Deal Price for Determining “Fair Value” in Appraisal Proceedings (discussed on the Forum here) and Appraisal After Dell, both by Guhan Subramanian.

The corporate law world has been abuzz of late about the commendable effort by Delaware’s courts to scale back “appraisal arbitrage”: a trading strategy predicated on deal dissenters receiving via appraisal litigation more for their shares than the deal prices from which they dissent. For years, parties engaging in appraisal arbitrage enjoyed the opportunity to initiate essentially risk free appraisal litigation with substantial upside potential, because it was assumed by courts and litigants that “fair value” entitled dissenters to at least the price of the deal they were rejecting and potentially more. But happily, this misunderstanding and misapplication of the law of appraisal now appears finally to have reached its end.

The Delaware Supreme Court struck two blows against appraisal arbitrage in 2017 in its DFC Global and Dell decisions, which both held that the Court of Chancery should not award fair value in excess of the deal price absent compelling evidence that the deal price is not a reliable indicator of fair value. Such evidence is inherently lacking when a sale is conducted at arms’ length, without conflicts, in a robust competitive process.

READ MORE »

PE Professionals on the Boards of their Portfolio Companies

Glenn West is a partner and Miae Woo is an associate at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. This post is based on their Weil memorandum and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Private equity deal professionals frequently serve on the boards of the portfolio companies in which their fund invests. And many of those portfolio companies are incorporated under Delaware law. The role of the private equity professional as a board member of a Delaware corporation is fundamentally different than the role of the private equity professional acting on behalf of the fund as a shareholder. One of the most well-known of those differences is that the private equity professional, while acting as a director, typically has individual fiduciary duties (at least in the corporate context) to the portfolio company and its shareholders as a whole. A less well-known difference is the fact that, unlike communications among the private equity firm’s professionals concerning the status and performance of its investment in a portfolio company, communications among two or more board members serving on behalf of a private equity firm regarding their actions as board members may constitute “books and records of the company” for which any other director may, with a proper purpose, demand the right to inspect under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”). In this modern age, of course, those communications can include any of the various forms of electronic communications and social media now available, including text messages (by mobile carriers or via social media) and emails. And it matters not that those communications may have been sent through your or your firm’s phone, or on your firm’s email server or your private email account. Understanding this fact may cause some pause before pressing send on a text message to your colleague and fellow board member concerning another board member’s approach or competence in considering an appropriate course of action for the company.

READ MORE »

CFTC Enforcement Announcement: Commodity Exchange Act Violations Involving FCPA

Geoffrey F. Aronow is partner, Michael S. Sackheim is senior counsel, and Sharon A. Rose is counsel at Sidley Austin LLP. This post is based on their Sidley memorandum.

On March 6, 2019, at the American Bar Association’s (ABA) National Institute on White Collar Crime, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Division of Enforcement Director James McDonald announced a new Enforcement Advisory regarding guidance on self-reporting violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) carried out through foreign corrupt practices. [1] At the same time, he indicated that the CFTC is working with other enforcement agencies to consider when actions that might violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) may also violate the CEA. This suggests that the CFTC continues to explore new areas in which to apply its expanded authority over fraud and manipulation provided by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

READ MORE »

General Statements of Regulatory Compliance and Securities Fraud Claims

Roger Cooper, Jared Gerber, and Elizabeth Vicens are partners at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb memorandum by Mr. Cooper, Mr. Gerber, Ms. Vincens, Breon Peace, Matthew Slater, and Alexis Collins.

It has been a not infrequent occurrence over the past years that, after a company announces bad news or corporate mismanagement, securities class actions have been filed challenging general statements made by the company about its compliance with regulatory requirements or its own ethics policies and procedures. [On March 5, 2019], in Singh v. Cigna Corp., the Second Circuit issued yet another strong decision rejecting that tactic. In the wake of Cigna, it is now clear in the Second Circuit that generalized statements that a company has established policies to comply with regulatory requirements, and that it expects every employee to act with integrity and to comply with regulatory requirements, cannot provide a basis for a securities fraud claim—even if it turns out that during the time the company is making such public statements, the company is not complying with regulatory requirements and its employees are not acting with integrity.

Background

The general facts alleged in Cigna will be familiar to the readers of many recent securities fraud complaints, although they are particular in their detail. During the relevant time period, Cigna, a multi-national health services organization, filed annual reports with the SEC on Form 10-K in which Cigna stated, among other things, that it had “established policies and procedures to comply with applicable requirements” and that it “expect[ed] to continue to allocate significant resources to various compliance efforts.”

READ MORE »

New Developments in Shareholders’ Gender Pay Gap Proposals

Ryan Resch is a managing director and Ruby Tewani is a consultant at Willis Towers Watson. This post is based on their Willis Towers Watson memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Social Responsibility Resolutions by Scott Hirst (discussed on the Forum here).

Investors’ growing interest in the median gender pay gap (i.e., the wage difference between the median male employee and the median female employee) is the latest expression of a more granular approach to environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing. They are not only more focused on granularity, building on an initial call for public companies to disclose their gender pay gap, but are also casting a wider net to include more industries and companies. This trend continues in 2019. Arjuna Capital has once again issued shareholder proposals. What’s different from prior years is that the firm has asked 12 large, publicly-traded financial services and technology companies to disclose the median gender pay gap.

This is an interesting new development in gender pay-related shareholder proposals, as it specifically focuses on demographic representation. Previous shareholder proposals asked for information on the wage gap between male and female workers with directly comparable jobs, factoring in function, job level, geography and more (generally referred to as equal pay for work of equal value). Arjuna’s latest filings ask for the median wage gap, which is a statistically unadjusted figure. Simply put, a gap indicates that male employees as a group are occupying higher-paying positions than female employees, which does not allow female employees’ pay levels to trend upward. The gap is especially troublesome if there is a fair representation of female workers across the company, but not at the higher levels.

READ MORE »

Activist CEOs Speak Out—Is There a Way to Do it Better?

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

It feels like CEOs are stepping into it—the political fray, that is—all the time these days. And recently, there has been a lot of pressure on CEOs to voice their views on political, environmental and social issues. According to the Global Chair of Reputation at Edelman, the expectation that CEOs will be leaders of change is very high. Last year, Edelman’s Trust Barometer showed those expectations at a record high of 65 percent; “[t]his year, the call to action appears to be yet more urgent—a rise by 11 points in the public’s expectation that CEOs will speak up and lead change. Today, some 76 percent of respondents believe CEOs need to step up.” Similarly, in this year’s annual letter to CEOs, BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink focused on the responsibility of corporations to step into the breach created by political dysfunction: “Unnerved by fundamental economic changes and the failure of government to provide lasting solutions, society is increasingly looking to companies, both public and private, to address pressing social and economic issues. These issues range from protecting the environment to retirement to gender and racial inequality, among others.” In the absence of action from government, he counsels CEOs, “the world needs your leadership.” (See this PubCo post.) To be sure, a number of CEOs have jumped in to meet this challenge. But this study, The Double-Edged Sword of CEO Activism, suggests that, notwithstanding the public perception of widespread CEO activism, the incidence of CEO activism is actually relatively low. And public reaction seems to vary depending on the topic, but can, in some cases, lead to consumer backlash. Is there a better way to handle it? The authors of this article think so.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: March 15-21, 2019


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of March 15-21, 2019.


A Reminder About Corporate Crisis Communications




Updated Nasdaq Requirements for Direct Listings


Where’s the Greenium?


The Short-Termism Thesis: Dogma vs. Reality



Private Contracting, Law and Finance







Incentive Pay and Systemic Risk


ESG Rating and Momentum

ESG Rating and Momentum

Nimit Agarwal is an analyst and Yannick Ouaknine is Head of Sustainability Research at Société Générale S.A. The following post is based on a SG memorandum by Mr. Agarwal, Mr. Ouaknine, Aiswarya Sankar, Lorna Lucet, and Virgile Haddad. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Socially Responsible Firms by Alan Ferrell, Hao Liang, and Luc Renneboog (discussed on the Forum here).

Traditionally, asset managers have used Environmental, Social and Governance ratings in a defensive way to mitigate portfolio risk, but the model ESG portfolio we have run over the past five years has consistently outperformed the index (and by 27.7% over the full period). Also note that the top rated 10% of our ESG stocks outperformed in all 11 of the 11 semi-annual periods since it was launched. So clearly ESG may not just be for defensive purposes. In this post we go one step further to see whether companies that are improving their ESG ratings also outperform. We found that not only do they outperform the index, they also outperformed our portfolio.

Since launching our model ESG portfolio in 2013 we have rebalanced it twice a year using raw data from Sustainalytics. We found that the top 10% of stocks with good ESG ratings outperformed the benchmark (STOXX600) over the five years from March 2013 to March 2018 by 27.7%. In this post, we go one step further to examine this phenomenon of improving ESG ratings (positive ESG momentum).

READ MORE »

Page 74 of 95
1 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 95