Monthly Archives: January 2021

Climate Activism: Status Check and Opportunities for Public Companies

Sanjay M. Shirodkar is of counsel, and Deborah R. Meshulam and Jeffrey L. Salinger are partners at DLA Piper. This post is based on a DLA Piper memorandum by Mr. Shirodkar, Ms. Meshulam, Mr. Salinger, Edward Hanover, and Arielle Katzman. 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); For Whom Corporate Leaders Bargain by Lucian A. Bebchuk, Kobi Kastiel, 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).

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992 with the goal of preventing “dangerous” human interference with the climate system.

The Paris Climate Agreement was the most recent attempt to establish international cooperation over climate change. Although the United States withdrew from the agreement effective November 4, 2020, President-elect Joe Biden has promised to rejoin the Paris Agreement on his first day in office. In addition, former Secretary of State John Kerry has been named special envoy to lead the Biden Administration’s efforts to fight climate change. In this role, it is expected that Mr. Kerry will coordinate programs to address climate change across multiple agencies.

As the new Administration is expected to make climate change a top priority, there is a broad consensus that climate change presents a profound challenge for humanity. We anticipate that public and private companies will face increasing pressure to respond to this challenge and act in climate-positive ways. In the short run, we expect this pressure will come principally from market participants, including during the upcoming 2021 proxy season. That pressure that has already started; discussions in boardrooms related to governance matters, ESG activism and other similar shareholder/investor driven initiatives are well under way, and climate-related topics have assumed increased prominence among areas of focus. Accordingly, as we wind down the unprecedented year of 2020 and look ahead to the 2021 proxy season, we want to focus your attention on climate activism.

READ MORE »

Financing Year in Review: From Crisis to Comeback

Benjamin S. Arfa is an associate, and Gregory E. Pessin and John R. Sobolewski are partners at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell memorandum by Mr. Arfa, Mr. Pessin, Mr. Sobolewski, Michael S. Benn, Emily D. Johnson, and Eric M. Rosoff.

The Covid pandemic and fears of a global recession roiled financial markets around the world in March and April: U.S. investment grade risk premiums reached their highest levels since the Great Recession and investment grade bond and commercial paper markets briefly froze; the leveraged loan and high-yield bond markets seized shut; and the amount of U.S. distressed debt (bonds yielding at least 1,000 basis points more than treasuries and loans trading for less than 80 cents on the dollar) ballooned to nearly $1 trillion.

Unlike in the Great Recession, global financial markets quickly stabilized, and markets and banks proved to be a source of strength for large and mid-sized companies of all credit profiles. Companies moved quickly to stockpile liquidity (first by drawing existing lines of credit and then by exploring more creative options) and secure temporary covenant relief. Some companies, such as Expedia and Gap, fully reconfigured their capital structures, moving swiftly and nimbly to strengthen their balance sheets and ride out the storm. Government stimulus programs and central bank activity—including the Federal Reserve’s cut in interest rates to zero and intervention directly in credit markets by buying corporate debt and ETFs—buoyed markets and set the stage for this binge on new borrowings.

By December, the script had reversed: investment grade spreads neared record-tight levels; CCC-rated bonds reached their lowest yields in more than five years; and the amount of U.S. distressed debt fell below pre-Covid levels to $184 billion. High-yield bond volumes reached their highest December level since 2006.

READ MORE »

The Rise of Growth Equity—Connecting PE and VC

Mike Turner and Shing Lo are partners at Latham & Watkins LLP. This post is based on their Latham memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Carrots & Sticks: How VCs Induce Entrepreneurial Teams to Sell Startups (discussed on the Forum here); Do Founders Control Start-Up Firms that Go Public? (discussed on the Forum here); and Do VCs Use Inside Rounds to Dilute Founders? Some Evidence from Silicon Valley (discussed on the Forum here), all by Jesse Fried and Brian Broughman.

Emerging companies have historically been backed by venture capital funds, but as Europe’s startup scene matures, involvement by more traditional private equity investors is growing, particularly in the tech, consumer, and digital health sectors. The number of PE investments in emerging companies has increased year on year, with investments in companies such as Wolt, Moonbug Entertainment, Zwift, Klarna, Epic Games, and Oatly demonstrating the range of opportunities available to PE sponsors in this space. While PE investors are increasingly familiar with VC deal dynamics, they are also pushing to align growth-deal terms more closely with traditional buyout concepts.

Relinquishing Control

Investors typically invest in a growth company as a minority investor at the top of a stack of existing institutional investors, meaning they are unable to exert the level of control usually seen in buyout deals. One board seat and a limited set of reserved matters are likely to be the limits of their influence. Alignment with fellow investors is therefore an important dynamic, and something that we are seeing deal teams consider at the outset of the transaction.

READ MORE »

CEO Succession Practices in the Russell 3000 and S&P 500

Matteo Tonello is Managing Director of ESG Research at The Conference Board, Inc. This post relates to CEO Succession Practices in the Russell 3000 and S&P 500: 2020 Edition, an annual benchmarking study and online dashboard published by The Conference Board, with Professor Jason Schloetzer of the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, and ESG data analytics firm ESGAUGE, in collaboration executive search firm Heidrick & Struggles.

CEO Succession Practices in the Russell 3000 and S&P 500: 2020 Edition provides a comprehensive set of benchmarking data and analysis on CEO turnover to support boards of directors and executives in the fulfillment of their succession planning and leadership development responsibilities.

The study reviews succession event announcements about chief executive officers made at Russell 3000 and S&P 500 companies in 2019 and, for the S&P 500, the previous 18 years. To provide a preliminary assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on top leadership changes, this edition is also supplemented with data on CEO succession announcements made in the Russell 3000 in the first six months of 2020.

The project is conducted by The Conference Board and ESG data analytics firm ESGAUGE, in collaboration with executive search firm Heidrick & Struggles. An online dashboard with data visualizations by business sectors and company size groups is available here.

Drawn from such a review, the following are the key findings and insights.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: January 8–14, 2020


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of January 8–14, 2020.

The New Paradigm in the C-Suite and the Boardroom






Where Things Stand at the End of 2020


Major Changes to MD&A and Related Requirements


Predicting Litigation Risk via Machine Learning


Report on Practices for Virtual Shareholder Meetings


REITs in 2021


COVID-19’s Impact on Buyer’s Obligation to Close



Allegations of Human Rights Violations and Other Litigation Trends




The SPAC Explosion: Beware the Litigation and Enforcement Risk


Compensation Season 2021


DeFi and the Future of Finance

DeFi and the Future of Finance

Campbell R. Harvey is Professor of Finance at Duke University Fuqua School of Business; Ashwin Ramachandran is an independent researcher; and Joey Santoro is founder of Fei Protocol. This post is based on their recent paper.

While the popular media focuses on Bitcoin reaching record highs, there is something else happening in the crypto space that is largely under the radar screen. It is called DeFi or Decentralized Finance, and we examine its structure, opportunities and risks in our recent paper, DeFi and the Future of Finance.

Consider the state of our financial system. Around the world, 1.7 billion are unbanked. Small businesses, even those with a banking relationship, often must rely on high-cost financing, such as credit cards, because traditional banking excludes them. High costs also impact retailers who lose 3% on every credit card sales transaction. These total costs for small businesses are enormous by any metric. The result is less investment and decreased economic growth.

Decentralized finance, or DeFi, poses a challenge to the current system and offers a number of potential solutions to the problems inherent in the traditional financial infrastructure. While there are many fintech initiatives, we argue that the ones that embrace the current banking infrastructure are likely to be fleeting. We argue those initiatives that use decentralized methods—in particular blockchain technology—have the best chance to define the future of finance.

READ MORE »

Compensation Season 2021

Jeannemarie O’Brien, Adam J. Shapiro, and David E. Kahan are partners at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell memorandum by Ms. O’Brien, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Kahan, Andrea K. Wahlquist, Michael J. Schobel, and Erica E. Bonnett. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes the book Pay without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation and Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem, both by Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried.

COVID-19 dominated the compensation landscape in 2020 and will remain a key factor in 2021. The most successful companies have proactively managed compensation programs in response to the pandemic, while maintaining a laser focus on attracting and retaining executive talent. We identify below some of the key factors that will impact the 2021 compensation season.

Assessing 2020 Performance. Director discretion will be as important as ever when it comes to assessing and rewarding 2020 performance. If a company’s preset financial goals for 2020 no longer provide a meaningful measure of company performance due to the impact of the pandemic, directors may need to exercise discretion and rely on subjective judgments regarding individual and company performance. Compensation committees that rely more heavily on discretion to assess 2020 performance should consider establishing a framework of key factors, including, for example, protecting and preserving the workforce and fortifying the company’s long-term liquidity.

READ MORE »

The SPAC Explosion: Beware the Litigation and Enforcement Risk

Bruce A. Ericson, Ari M. Berman, and Stephen B. Amdur are partners at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. This post is based on a Pillsbury memorandum by Mr. Ericson, Mr. Berman, Mr. Amdur, and Lee Brand.

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) have exploded in popularity. These so-called “blank check” companies are used as vehicles to take companies public without going through a traditional IPO process. In the life cycle of a SPAC, a management team forms a new public company (the SPAC) for the express purpose of identifying and acquiring an existing (but unspecified) private operating company and the SPAC sells shares of stock in the SPAC to the public (the SPAC IPO). Later, the SPAC’s management team identifies a private operating company for acquisition and then merges the target and the SPAC to create a continuing public entity that is the successor to the target’s business (the de-SPAC transaction). The year 2019 saw a record $13.6 billion raised across 59 SPAC IPOs. In 2020 through December 14, the value of SPAC investments has more than quintupled with $77.5 billion raised across 230 IPOs.

Although SPAC-related litigation has been relatively infrequent to date, that is likely to change given 2020’s explosion in SPAC IPOs. Tellingly, the price of D&O insurance for SPACs has reportedly nearly doubled in recent months, with insurers reducing their maximum exposure limits from $10 million to $5 million but continuing to charge similar premiums. In this climate, SPAC sponsors, investors and targets should be mindful of litigation risks presented by the SPAC process. In particular, any litigation filed after the de-SPAC transaction is complete will almost inevitably embroil all three of these constituencies and could prove a significant distraction to the continuing public entity that is the successor to the target’s business. Risks include litigation based on: (1) SPAC IPO registration statements; (2) de-SPAC proxy statements; (3) potential de-SPAC registration statements; (4) financial projections—which significantly distinguish SPAC disclosures from those made in traditional IPOS; (5) redemption of SPAC shares; (6) de-SPAC deadlines; and (7) post-SPAC public status.

READ MORE »

CEO’s Letter on SSGA 2021 Proxy Voting Agenda

Cyrus Taraporevala is President and CEO of State Street Global Advisors. This post is based on his 2021 letter to board members.

I hope this letter finds you and your colleagues safe and healthy. Each year, State Street Global Advisors engages with investee companies such as yours about issues of importance to investors that we will be focusing on in the coming months. We do so for a simple reason: as one of the world’s largest investment managers, we have a fiduciary responsibility to our clients to maximize the probability of attractive long-term returns.

Of course, 2020 was no ordinary year. From a global health crisis that has taken the lives of nearly 2 million people, to a global conversation about racial justice, to continued long-term risks around the threat of climate change, the past year has cast a stark light on systemic vulnerabilities and reinforced the connections we see across sustainability, inclusion, and corporate resiliency.

As such, our main stewardship priorities for 2021 will be the systemic risks associated with climate change and a lack of racial and ethnic diversity. In particular, I want to explain how we intend to use our voice—and our vote—to hold boards and management accountable for progress on providing enhanced transparency and reporting on these two critical topics.

READ MORE »

Reconsidering the Evolutionary Erosion Account of Corporate Fiduciary Law

William W. Bratton is Nicholas F. Gallicchio Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. This post is based on his recent paper. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Monetary Liability for Breach of the Duty of Care? by Holger Spamann (discussed on the Forum here).

My paper, Reconsidering the Evolutionary Erosion Account of Corporate Fiduciary Law, takes a new look at what has been the dominant account of corporate law’s duty of loyalty, an account that originated with Professor Harold Marsh, Jr.’s foundational paper, Are Directors Trustees? Conflicts of Interest and Corporate Morality, published in 1966. Marsh asserted that twentieth century courts steadily relaxed standards of fiduciary scrutiny applied to self-dealing by corporate managers. The law had degenerated in stages from a late nineteenth century rule of categorical prohibition to a regime of fairness review, much to the detriment of the shareholder interest. Marsh’s showing of historical lassitude complemented the then-prevailing account of a corporate governance system impaired by separated ownership and control and a legal system enervated by charter competition.

Marsh’s presentation of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century cases has been forcefully challenged in a recent book by David Kershaw, The Foundations of Anglo-American Corporate Fiduciary Law (Cambridge 2018). Building on previous work and making comparative reference to the law of the United Kingdom, Kershaw shows that, even as relaxation did indeed occur, Marsh much overstates its salience. Kershaw rejects the notion of an inappropriate accommodation of an unaccountable management class, instead explaining the relaxation as sensible adjustment in the ordinary course of the caselaw’s evolution—the result of judicial modification of principles from trust and agency law in their reapplication to corporate fact patterns. Kershaw does not erase erosion from corporate fiduciary law’s historical outline. But his account does negate the notion that categorical prohibition of self-dealing is the law’s natural base point.

READ MORE »

Page 5 of 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8