Yearly Archives: 2020

Coalitions Among Plaintiffs’ Attorneys in Securities Class Actions

Stephen Choi is the Murray and Kathleen Bring Professor of Law at NYU Law School; Jessica M. Erickson is Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law; and Adam C. Pritchard is the Frances and George Skestos Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School. This post is based on their recent paper.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) revolutionized the competitive landscape for plaintiffs’ attorneys in securities class actions. By creating a presumption that the lead plaintiff will be the shareholder or group of shareholders with the largest financial interest, the PSLRA gives law firms a strong incentive to form coalitions of shareholders to aggregate losses. These coalitions often involve multiple law firms sharing the lead counsel role. In our paper Coalitions among Plaintiffs’ Attorneys in Securities Class Actions, we examine this coalition building among law firms to determine when law firms join together to serve as co-lead counsel.

To examine this question, we collected data from lead plaintiff motions and rulings available on Bloomberg Law for every federal securities class action involving a disclosure claim from 2005 to 2016. We collected the names of the proposed lead plaintiff(s) for each initial motion, whether the plaintiffs were institutional investors, their claimed losses, and the law firm(s) filing the motion. We also collected data on the allegations in the final consolidated complaint, potentially dispositive motions, and the resolution of each case. In every case that ended with a settlement, we collected data regarding the terms of the settlement, the fees requested by lead counsel and awarded by the court, and the hours worked and lodestar data. Finally, we supplemented the litigation data with the defendant corporations’ market capitalization measured on the last day of the class period.

READ MORE »

Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: An Emerging Area of Board Oversight Responsibility

Vivek Katyal is Chief Operating Officer, Risk and Financial Advisory, and Cory Liepold and Satish Iyengar are Principals, Risk and Financial Advisory, at Deloitte & Touche LLP. This post is based on a Deloitte memorandum by Mr. Katyal, Mr. Cory Liepold, Mr. Iyengar, Nitin Mittal, and Irfan Saif.

Introduction

The unprecedented situation the entire world finds itself in due to the COVID-19 pandemic presents fundamental challenges to businesses of all sizes and maturities. As the thinking shifts from crisis response to recovery, it is clear that there will be a greater need for scenario planning in a world remade by COVID-19. Artificial Intelligence (AI) will likely be at the forefront of data- driven scenario planning given its ability to deal with large volumes and varieties of data to match the velocity of a rapidly changing landscape.

Even before the pandemic, the areas for which boards of directors have oversight responsibility seemed to expand on a daily basis. The last few years have seen increased calls for board oversight in areas such as cyber, culture, and sustainability, to name just a few areas of focus. And the challenges posed by the pandemic have further increased the number and importance of boards’ responsibilities. In addition, boards will increasingly be called upon to address an emerging area of oversight responsibility at the intersection of AI and ethics.

READ MORE »

NYC Comptroller’s Boardroom Accountability 3.0 Results

Michael Garland is Assistant Comptroller for Corporate Governance and Responsible Investment, Jennifer Conovitz is Special Counsel of Pensions, and Yumi Narita is Executive Director of Corporate Governance in the Office of New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Politics and Gender in the Executive Suite by Alma Cohen, Moshe Hazan, and David Weiss (discussed on the Forum here).

This spring, New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer and the New York City Retirement Systems (NYCRS) announced the successful initial results of Boardroom Accountability Project 3.0. Building on the “Rooney Rule” pioneered by the National Football League (NFL), Boardroom 3.0 calls on major companies to adopt search policies requiring the consideration of women and racially/ethnically diverse candidates for board directors and chief executive officers (CEOs). The initiative marks the first time that a large institutional investor has called for such structural reform for CEO searches.

The Comptroller’s Office successfully negotiated Board and CEO diversity search policies with 14 companies, including 13 in response to shareholder proposals submitted to 17 companies for the spring 2020 proxy season, and a fourteenth more recently in response to a subsequent filing for a fall 2020 annual shareholder meeting. While many companies already have similar policies governing director searches, the Comptroller’s Office believes that these are the first public companies to extend the policy to external CEO searches. [1]

READ MORE »

Say on Pay and the Effects of the CEO Pay Ratio: Key Findings From the 2020 Proxy Season

Amit Batish is Manager of Content and Courtney Yu is Director of Research at Equilar, Inc.

With the 2020 proxy season now concluded, thousands of U.S. public companies have filed their proxy statements highlighting key trends with regards to their governance practices. Among the many trends captured from this year’s proxy season are those related to Say on Pay and the CEO Pay Ratio. In this post, Equilar analyzes Say on Pay voting results and the effects of the CEO Pay Ratio on Say on Pay among Equilar 500 companies—the 500 largest U.S. public companies by revenue.

A decade following its inception, Say on Pay continues to play a pivotal role in providing shareholders a platform to voice discontent over executive compensation pay practices. In particular, shareholders seek for executive pay plans to align with company performance and shareholder return, and when that alignment is not present, executive pay is likely to come under some level of scrutiny.

While executive compensation packages have been largely accepted by investors, approval percentages have steadily declined in recent years. During the first five years following the implementation of Say on Pay, a large proportion of companies passed their Say on Pay votes with over 95% support. However, so far in 2020, just 28.1% of Equilar 500 companies passed with more than 95% support—this represents a near 20 percentage point decrease from 2016 when 47.8% of companies passed with such level of support (Figure 1). Three-fourths of companies still passed their Say on Pay votes with over 90% support.

READ MORE »

Governing Through the Pandemic

Debbie McCormack is a managing director and Robert Lamm is an independent senior advisor at the Center for Board Effectiveness, Deloitte LLP. This post is based on their Deloitte memorandum.

Introduction

It is too soon to know whether, how, and to what extent the COVID-19 pandemic will lead to permanent changes—the “next normal”—in how companies are governed or if, post-pandemic, we will go back to the way things were just a few short months ago. In the meantime, governing through the pandemic and the post-pandemic recovery raises a host of new challenges, while also offering potential opportunities. The purpose of this On the board’s agenda is to consider some ways in which boards may get through the pandemic and to contemplate the future of governance in a post-COVID-19 world. [1]

An agile approach to long- and short-term focus

In the recent past, boards have been urged to take a long-term approach to areas like strategic planning, rather than focusing on short-term concerns such as the current or next quarter’s earnings per share. The very concept of “sustainability” implies a longer view. However, COVID-19 has forced boards to focus quickly and intensely on many short-term issues, ranging from the health and well-being of the workforce; ruptured supply chains; and immediate and severe drops in revenues, liquidity, and cashflows, to overseeing difficult decisions on such issues as laying off or furloughing employees, shutting down facilities, and in some cases closing the business permanently. Boards may also need medium-term and long-term perspectives for the recovery and beyond, asking management key questions focused on workforce strategies, including the safety and well-being of the employees.

READ MORE »

The Harvard-Oxford Debate on Stakeholder Capitalism

Tami Groswald Ozery is a co-Editor of the Forum and a Fellow at the Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita (discussed on the Forum here) and Toward Fair and Sustainable Capitalism by Leo E. Strine, Jr (discussed on the Forum here).

This Thursday, June 25, 2020, the Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford will hold a debate titled Stakeholder versus Shareholder Capitalism: the Great Debate. The debate will be held between Harvard Law School Professor Lucian Bebchuk and Oxford University Professor Colin Mayer.

In the tradition of Oxford debates, the audience watching it will be asked to vote on the question being debated: Whether corporate leaders should serve the interests of all stakeholders or just shareholders. The event will be publicly broadcast live at 9am EST, and information about how to watch the debate is available on the Oxford University website here.

Lucian Bebchuk is the James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Economics, and Finance and Director of the Program on Corporate Governance at Harvard Law School. His recent article with Roberto Tallarita, The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance, challenges the “stakeholderism” view under which corporate leaders should give independent weight to the interests of all stakeholders. The article conducts a conceptual, economic, and empirical analysis of stakeholderism and its expected consequences. It conclude that stakeholderism should be rejected, including by those who care deeply about the welfare of stakeholders.

Colin Mayer, CBE, is the Peter Moores Professor of Management Studies at, and former Dean of, the Saïd Business School of the University of Oxford. His recent book, Prosperity: Better Business Makes the Greater Good, puts forward a case for stakeholder capitalism. And his recent ECGI Discussion Paper, Shareholderism versus Stakeholderism – A Misconceived Contradiction: A Comment on “The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance” by Lucian Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita, takes issue with and responds to the Bebchuk-Tallarita challenge to stakeholder capitalism.

The Problem with Foreign Issuers

Alissa Kole Amico is the Managing Director of GOVERN. This post is based on a GOVERN memorandum by Ms. Amico.

A common denominator

What is the common denominator between a Chinese company listed in the United States and an Emirati company listed in the United Kingdom? Both are foreign issuers currently embroiled in massive governance scandals, the details of which are creating fascinating corporate dramas, spilling all over front pages of financial media. Both companies are presently in the process of being delisted, following a whistleblower campaign initiated by Muddy Watters, an American investment research firm, as it announced its short positions.

The parallels between Luckin Coffee, a Chinese company listed on NASDAQ, and NMC Health, an Emirati company listed on the London Stock Exchange are, indeed, remarkable. Both were founded by reputed, established entrepreneurs, backed by prominent sovereign and private investors and creditors, and held leading positions in their respective industries. Fast-forward to today, both are subject to investigations of flagrant fraud: in the case of Luckin Coffee, of $310 million of fictitious sales, and in the case of NMC of over $4 billion of undisclosed debt.

READ MORE »

Coronavirus: 15 Emerging Themes for Boards and Executive Teams

Cindy Levy, Jean-Christophe Mieszala, and Hamid Samandari are senior partners at McKinsey & Company. This post is based on a McKinsey memorandum by Ms. Levy, Mr. Mieszala, Mr. Samandari, and Mihir Mysore.

As Winston Churchill said, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” We are seeing some faint signs of progress in the struggle to contain the pandemic. But the risk of resurgence is real, and if the virus does prove to be seasonal, the effect will probably be muted. It is likely never more important than now for boards of directors and executive management teams to tackle the right questions and jointly guide their organizations toward the next normal.

Recently, we spoke with a group of leading nonexecutive chairs and directors at companies around the world who serve on the McKinsey Resilience Advisory Council, a group of external advisers that acts as a sounding board and inspiration for our latest thinking on risk and resilience. They generously shared the personal insights and experiences gained from their organizations’ efforts to manage through the crisis and resume work. The 15 themes that emerged offer a guide to boards and executive teams everywhere. Together, they can debate these issues and set an effective context for the difficult decisions now coming up as companies plan their return to full activity.

READ MORE »

A Hierarchy of Stakeholder Needs

Sarah Keohane Williamson is the Chief Executive Officer of FCLTGlobal. This post is based on her FCLTGlobal memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita (discussed on the Forum here) and Socially Responsible Firms by Alan Ferrell, Hao Liang, and Luc Renneboog (discussed on the Forum here).

Amid unforeseen circumstances, how do companies prioritize their stakeholders?

In his 1943 paper “A Theory of Human Motivation”, Abraham Maslow put forward his seminal theory on the “Hierarchy of Needs.” The theory describes how we as humans must fulfill certain basic needs before we can progress to higher levels of needs and desires. For example, humans need to eat so they are willing to forego safety if they can’t fulfill the need for food. Both of these basic needs precede psychological needs, such as relationships, friendships, and feelings of accomplishment. Maslow did not consider these needs to be direct trade-offs, but rather as a foundation for the level that follows. READ MORE »

The Rise of Standardized ESG Disclosure Frameworks in the United States

Catherine M. Clarkin and Melissa Sawyer are partners and Joshua L. Levin is an associate at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. This post is based on a Sullivan & Cromwell memorandum by Ms. Clarkin, Ms. Sawyer, Mr. Levin, June M. Hu, and Susan M. Lindsay.

Over the last several years, U.S. public companies have faced increasing pressure from investors and other stakeholders to disclose their environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) risks, practices and impacts. In the last few years, with more U.S. public companies publishing sustainability reports [1] and other ESG disclosures, some investors have expressed concern that the lack of a standardized ESG disclosure framework, which makes it difficult for investors to meaningfully evaluate and compare companies’ ESG practices and risks, reduces the value of such disclosures.

Although a number of ESG disclosure standards have been developed and some have been incorporated into mandatory reporting regimes by non-U.S. regulators, any implementation by a U.S. company of an ESG disclosure framework remains voluntary at this time. Despite several proposals in 2019 from U.S. federal lawmakers on ESG disclosure requirements (which have not been adopted to date), the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) January 2020 proposed amendments to the MD&A rules did not include requirements for specific ESG or climate-related disclosures. SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and Commissioner Hester Peirce issued statements reaffirming the existing principles-based, materiality-focused approach the Commission adopted in its 2010 guidance, [2] and highlighted threshold issues that pose challenges to imposing a standardized ESG disclosure regime, including the complex landscape surrounding ESG disclosures and the forward-looking nature of climate-related ESG disclosure. [3] However, public companies are facing mounting pressure from investors—including influential institutional investors such as BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, which have indicated in public statements in the past year that they are in support of companies making ESG disclosures aligned with both the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (“SASB”) and Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”) frameworks [4]—to voluntarily adopt certain ESG disclosure standards, especially the SASB and the TCFD frameworks, which have gained particular traction in the United States. In light of the increased investor attention and the lack of a mandatory framework, it is important for U.S. issuers to closely monitor developments in this area, and consider whether the voluntary adoption of an ESG disclosure standard makes sense in light of the issuer’s specific circumstances—e.g., the views of its investors, the costs and benefits of implementation and feasibility of establishing adequate internal controls over any such disclosure—before implementing any such framework.

READ MORE »

Page 49 of 96
1 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 96