Yearly Archives: 2020

Delisting Chinese Firms: A Cure Likely Worse than the Disease

Jesse Fried is the Dane Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Matthew J. Schoenfeld is a Portfolio Manager based in Chicago. This post was authored by Professor Fried and Mr. Schoenfeld.

In May, the Senate unanimously passed a bill—the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act—designed to improve financial reporting by China-based firms trading on U.S. exchanges. Fraud at these firms—including most recently Luckin Coffee—has cost American investors tens of billions of dollars over the last decade. The bill thus targets a real problem. Unfortunately, its remedy is likely to hurt—not help— the American shareholders of these firms.

To reduce fraud, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires audits of every U.S.-traded firm to be inspected by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. But U.S.-traded firms based in China, whose market capitalizations collectively exceed $1 trillion, refuse to comply. They and Beijing say PCAOB inspection of China-based audit records would violate state-secrecy laws. Why hide these records from the PCAOB? Inspections would likely turn up improper payments to officials, putting them at risk and embarrassing the Chinese Communist Party.

READ MORE »

Climate Change Litigation Takes an Ominous Turn

William Savitt and Anitha Reddy are partners and Bita Assad is an associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on their Wachtell memorandum.

Last week witnessed a critical but largely unremarked advance for plaintiffs seeking to impose liability on major public companies for the social costs of climate change.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in City of Oakland v. BP PLC cleared the path for state-court litigation against corporate defendants on the theory that producing, distributing, using, or profiting from fossil fuels constitutes a “public nuisance.” The cities of Oakland and San Francisco sued large energy companies in California state court, seeking an order requiring them “to fund a climate change adaptation program for the cities.” The energy companies removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court agreed with the energy companies that the cities’ state-law nuisance claim was governed by federal law. “If ever a problem cried out for a uniform and comprehensive solution,” wrote the district judge, it is the “geophysical problem” of climate change. “A patchwork of fifty different answers to the same fundamental global issue would be unworkable.” Unpersuaded, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the cities’ claim neither presented a “substantial question of federal law” nor was completely preempted by the federal Clean Air Act.
READ MORE »

Stakeholder Capitalism and the Pandemic Recovery

Sanford Lewis is Director at the Shareholder Rights Group. This post is based on a Shareholder Rights Group 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).

As of this writing, the US COVID-19 pandemic impacts include 100,000 dead and almost 40 million newly unemployed. The reopening process is anticipated to yield a “roller coaster” recovery in which businesses will restart and then shut down again in response to workforce and regional outbreaks. Although all members of society are affected by this extended crisis, the pain is unequally distributed, with front-line workers and people of color among the hardest hit.

The pandemic is testing all of us, and it is also a litmus test for the 2019 pledge of 183 corporate CEOs to operate their businesses in the interests of employees, consumers, suppliers, and communities, as well as shareholders. When announced last year, it the new Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation (“the Statement”) by the Business Roundtable was seen by some as heralding a new era of Stakeholder Capitalism—an era of corporate responsibility to stakeholders that moved beyond shareholder primacy. Yet the Statement and the concept of Stakeholder Capitalism are devoid of implementing principles.

If stakeholder capitalism is to be made real, shouldn’t there be corresponding rules and concepts of stakeholder governance? Isn’t there a need for a coherent set of legal and operational principles for implementation? How will the fiduciary duties of directors and executives change to reflect these new commitments?

READ MORE »

The Politicization of Corporate Governance—A Viable Alternative?

Tami Groswald Ozery is a co-editor of the Forum and Fellow at the Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance. This post is based on her recent paper, forthcoming in the American Journal of Comparative Law.

It is accepted almost as a truism that without robust and efficiency-driven legal institutions, markets are limited in their ability to sustain capital market growth. Beyond early stages of market development, local alternatives are expected to give way to certain traits of corporate capitalism if further growth is to be achieved. This prevailing expectation is shared among development theorists, law and finance researchers, and comparative corporate governance scholars and has been the basis of rich academic writing and international policy.

Four decades of economic development in China challenge these conventions. In my paper The Politicization of Corporate Governance—A Viable Alternative?, forthcoming in the American Journal of Comparative Law, I contrast the prevailing approach above with the role played by political institutions in the governance of Chinese firms. Despite their apparent similarities, Chinese public firms, and the domestic capital markets within which they operate, sustain strong idiosyncrasies that go against many fundamentals in economics and legal thought. China’s public firms continue to rely on political influence as a substitute for conventional notions of sound corporate governance. With modern firms with global prominence and a capital market that is the second largest in the world, corporate governance in China seems to have passed the point of an “adjust or perish” prognostic.

Perhaps most strikingly, as the market continues to develop, the use of political substitutes not only has not receded, but has expanded and become more overt over time (with respect to firms with and without state ownership, and notwithstanding the locations of their listings). At its current inflection point, when the domestic demand for growth and the regime’s ability to sustain growth encounter great challenges, the Chinese government and specifically the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have moved to exercise an even more direct and transparent role in market activity. Public firms in present-day China are increasingly governed by a politicized corporate governance in which political institutions with corporate governance capacities are deployed both inside and outside firms. In my paper, I shed light on this process, which I term the “politicization of corporate governance”; evaluate the viability of political governance for the Chinese capital market; and consider its practical and theoretical implications to the global corporate governance discourse.

READ MORE »

Top 10 Key Trends at 2020 Proxy Mid-Season

Betty Moy Huber is counsel, Joseph A. Hall is a partner, and Paula H. Simpkins is an associate at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. This post is based on their Davis Polk memorandum.

It is impossible to discuss this proxy season without acknowledging the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had and its resulting highs and lows. While the virus has upended the planning and conduct of annual shareholder meetings, it has also caused regulators, issuers, third-party vendors and other market participants to collaborate to avoid significant disruption this season. The SEC has nimbly stepped into the fray with guidance and relief for issuers. State governments have issued emergency orders or amended legislation to allow for virtual shareholder meetings. Investors and proxy advisory firms have issued more flexible policies, all of which taken together has allowed meetings in the United States to proceed. Here are the key trends we are seeing mid-season:

1. Shift to Virtual Meetings

U.S. public companies are expected, as a result of the pandemic, to hold a record number of 1,500 virtual meetings this year as compared to only about 300 in 2019. Some investors and proxy advisors have traditionally expressed skepticism as to whether virtual meetings can provide the level of shareholder participation that physical meetings can, but this season has shown, based on reports from certain large-cap companies, that shareholder participation has in fact increased. Indeed, certain prolific shareholder proponents were able to “attend” more meetings this season with travel no longer a factor. Market participants were able to carry out the first ever contested virtual meeting. That’s good news. This virtual meeting “mass experiment,” however, has made more pronounced flaws in proxy plumbing. For companies that used multiple vendors to support their virtual meetings, vendors were asked to provide workarounds to compensate for clunky technology or privacy concerns, some of which were granted and some not, due to no fault of the providers or the companies, but to the limits of the system. We expect issuers to continue to host virtual meetings in 2021 and thereafter. When the dust settles this season, both issuers and investors will put forth best practices to try to address lingering concerns.

READ MORE »

Mitigating Accounting Fraud Risk During the Pandemic: Regulators’ Concerns and Prospective Solutions

Colleen Conry, Jeremiah Williams are partners at Ropes & Gray LLP and Meaghan Schmidt is Managing Director at AlixPartners. This post is based on a Ropes & Gray memorandum by Ms. Conry, Mr. Williams, Ms. Schmidt, and James Tsaparlis.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought with it economic downturn forcing businesses to compete with fewer resources and major operational hurdles. Historically, economic downturn yields more accounting fraud: Old fraud is uncovered amid heightened financial scrutiny [1] while the conditions for new fraud flourish. [2] We saw this in the 2008 financial crisis, but expect swifter and fiercer enforcement this time around, as the DOJ focuses on coronavirus-related frauds [3] and the SEC bolsters its Enforcement Division to ensure that “Main Street investors are not victims of fraud.” [4] Now more than ever, businesses must be extremely careful in preparing their financial statements. In this post, we argue for risk-mitigation strategies to curtail accounting fraud in three key coronavirus-impacted areas: disclosures, revenue recognition, and impairment.

Two recent SEC publications provide insight into likely areas of concern. Accounting issues coming out of crisis include not only the statement of figures, but their associated explanations and disclosures. In guidance released on March 25, 2020, the SEC’s Division of Corporate Finance (the March 25 Guidance) underscored that it is closely monitoring how companies report the risks and effects of COVID-19. [5] The March 25 Guidance lists a number of questions to consider in assessing and disclosing the impact of COVID-19 and details the appropriate use of non-GAAP metrics for items impacted by COVID-19.

READ MORE »

Shareholder Proposals Shaking Up Shareholder Say

Sofie Cools is professor of corporate law at the Jan Ronse Institute for Company and Financial Law. This post is based on a chapter, forthcoming in the Research Handbook on Comparative Corporate Governance. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Case for Shareholder Access to the Ballot by Lucian Bebchuk (discussed on the Forum here) and The Costs of Entrenched Boards by Lucian Bebchuk and Alma Cohen.

One of the most remarkable recent developments with regard to shareholder power is how American shareholders have forced boards of directors to amend even charter provisions to strengthen shareholder rights. In stark contrast, shareholder proposals have (so far) been relatively rare in Europe. Is the American abundance of successful shareholder proposals the epitome of strong shareholder power? In a paper that is forthcoming in the Research Handbook on Comparative Corporate Governance (Edward Elgar), I critically analyze the role of such shareholder proposals and their effects on shareholder power and warn of too much euphoria. A comparative analysis of shareholder proposal rights and substantive shareholder rights yields two important lessons.

First, shareholder power related proposals in American companies are essentially closing the gap in substantive shareholder power that existed between the United States and Europe. In the past fifteen years, shareholders have successfully made proposals in individual American corporations to de-stagger the board, to elect directors by majority instead of plurality vote, to allow shareholders to request special meetings and to allow shareholders to include director nominees on the company’s proxy. In doing so, they managed to break down or reduce some of the most important barriers for meaningful shareholder voice in director elections in Delaware companies—barriers that have been uncommon in Europe. At the same time, several European jurisdictions have gradually softened the rule of at will removal of directors, thus allowing directors a higher degree of protection against removal.

READ MORE »

A Framework for Management and Board of Directors Consideration of ESG and Stakeholder Governance

Martin Lipton is a founding partner, and Steven A. RosenblumWilliam Savitt are partners at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Lipton, Mr. Rosenblum, Mr. Savitt, and Karessa L. Cain. 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).

As directors and shareholders become increasingly attuned to ESG considerations and stakeholder-oriented governance, they have sought guidance about how to incorporate these imperatives into the board’s decision-making process—particularly regarding decisions that entail trade-offs or an allocation of resources between and among stakeholders and ESG objectives. Our answer to this question is rooted in the classic bedrock of board functioning: directors must exercise their business judgment. This is not only the practical answer—it is the essential animating principle of Delaware law.

Recently, many who continue to advocate for shareholder primacy, and therefore reject stakeholder governance, have sought to portray stakeholder interests in a zero-sum competition, arguing that it is impossible to properly exercise business judgment to reconcile such diverging interests. In their view, stakeholder governance is not only a radical departure from Delaware corporate law but also corrosive of the very essence of capitalism.

READ MORE »

Value Creation in Private Equity

Markus Biesinger is Associate, Private Equity at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; Çağatay Bircan is Senior Research Economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; and Alexander Ljungqvist is the Stefan Persson Family Chair in Entrepreneurial Finance at the Stockholm School of Economics. This post is based on their recent paper.

Private equity (PE) firms are often said to use their industry expertise and operational know-how to identify attractive investments, to develop value creation plans for those investments, and to generate attractive investors returns by implementing their value creation plans. Although many studies refer to such value creation plans, there is no systematic evidence on what these plans typically look like or whether they help improve company operations or investor returns.

In a recent paper, we open up the black box of value creation in private equity with the help of confidential information on value creation plans and their execution. We find that plans are tailored to each portfolio company’s needs and circumstances and have become more hands-on. Successful execution varies systematically across funds and is a key driver of investor returns. Company operations and profitability improve in ways consistent with successful execution, even beyond PE funds’ exit.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: May 29–June 4, 2020


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of May 29–June 4, 2020.

ESG in the Mainstream: Sell-Side Analysts Addressing ESG Concerns




COVID-19: Due Diligence Considerations for M&A Transactions



Corporate Governance Update: EESG and the COVID-19 Crisis


Finding the Proper Balance of Legal and Consulting Advice for Compensation Committees


The Forum Attracts Numerous Citations from Academics and Practitioners


Sharpening the Tools at Hand: New Rulings Provide Sensible Balance to Section 220 Litigation


Compensation Impacts of COVID-19 on Performance-Based Incentive Awards



Competition Laws, Norms and Corporate Social Responsibility





An Alternative Paradigm to “On the Purpose of the Corporation”

Page 53 of 96
1 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 96