Monthly Archives: August 2021

Business Groups: Panics, Runs, Organ Banks and Zombie Firms

Asli M. Colpan is Professor at Kyoto University Graduate School of Management, and Randall Morck is Jarislowsky Distinguished Chair and Distinguished University Professor at the University of Alberta. This post is based on their recent paper.

Unlike in the US, large firms in many foreign stock markets come in business groups: sets of seemingly distinct firms—each with its own stock price, annual reports, public shareholders, board of directors and CEO—but all effectively controlled by on apex firm, often itself controlled by a tycoon of wealthy family. Business groups were commonplace in the economic histories of most of today’s developed economies and in today’s emerging market economies. Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means, members of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “brain trust” deemed large business groups undue concentrations of power and successive New Deal reforms largely expunged this mode of corporate governance from the US. Institutional reforms later marginalized business groups in in Australia, Britain and Canada.

Investors and boards of directors contemplating investments elsewhere must factor in the non-independence of firms in each business group. This is especially important where banks, near-banks and other financial firms such as pension fund portfolio managers, belong to business groups. How this plays out depends on where agency lies within the business group. This is because the apex controlling party often has a larger real investment in some group firms and a minor real stake in others, yet controls them all via super-voting shares, board appointment rights, or (most commonly) control pyramids.

READ MORE »

Let Your Mission Guide Your Executive Pay

Seymour Burchman is a senior advisor and Mark Emanuel is a managing director at Semler Brossy LLC. This post is based on their Semler Brossy memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Paying for Long-Term Performance by Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried (discussed on the Forum here).

Many business thinkers have criticized corporate “short-termism” that discourages crucial long-term investments in intangible capabilities. Executive pay programs get much of the blame, as even “long-term incentives” last only three years, with the goals for each year’s tranche reset annually.

Those brief periods are understandable given that most company strategies in fast-paced markets require agile responses to near-term market developments. But then how can companies carry out long-term investments?

One answer is to realign pay programs to support the company’s larger mission and purpose, rather than a particular strategy. Boards can link a new set of incentives to progress toward achieving the mission, with an eye to promoting sustainable growth. Once executives are focused on and paid for long-term, mission-driven success, they’ll be more inclined to make the necessary investments.

These new incentives could replace existing three-year plans or become an entirely new set of incentives to complement the existing annual and three-year plans. Two incentive programs would be simpler to communicate and would minimize redundancy. But many boards might prefer a separate, third program to ease the transition from current incentive practices.

READ MORE »

DOJ Indicts Founder of Nikola for Allegedly Defrauding Retail SPAC Investors

Jonathan Kolodner, Rahul Mukhi, and Jared Gerber are partners at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary memorandum by Mr. Kolodner, Mr. Mukhi, Mr. Gerber, and JD Colavecchio.

On July 29, 2021, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed a securities and wire fraud indictment against Trevor Milton, the founder and one-time chairman of Nikola Corporation (“Nikola”), a pre-revenue electric- and hydrogen-powered vehicle company which went public through a merger with a special-purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”). [1] The Indictment alleges that Milton made deceptive, false, and misleading claims regarding Nikola’s products and technology, which were directed at retail investors through social media and television, print, and podcast interviews. The SEC also filed a parallel civil action against Milton, alleging violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and which contends that Milton engaged in a “relentless public relations blitz” on social media and the popular press directed at “Robinhood investors” in order to inflate Nikola’s stock price.

These actions further confirm the heightened law enforcement and regulatory scrutiny of SPACs, as well as continuing interest by government authorities in protecting retail investors in so-called meme stocks. [2]

The Allegations

The Indictment alleges that from at least November 2019 through September 2020, Milton made false and misleading claims regarding the development of Nikola’s products and technology, which “addressed nearly all aspects of the business.” These alleged misstatements included: (1) claiming that the company had early success in creating a “fully functioning” semi-truck prototype, when Milton allegedly knew the prototype was inoperable; (2) falsely asserting that Nikola had engineered and built an electric- and hydrogen-powered pickup truck; (3) stating that the company was producing hydrogen at a reduced rate, when Milton allegedly knew “no hydrogen was being produced at all by Nikola”; (4) claiming Nikola had developed batteries and other components in-house, when Milton knew they were being acquired from third parties; and (5) stating that the company had binding orders representing billions in future revenue, while knowing that “the vast majority of those orders could be cancelled at any time and were for a truck Nikola had no intent to produce in the near-term.”

READ MORE »

Don’t Wait to Prepare for an Emergency Succession

James M. Citrin and Cassandra Frangos are Consultants and Melissa Stone is Director of Development and Operations at Spencer Stuart. This post is based on a Spencer Stuart memorandum by Mr. Citrin, Ms. Frangos, Ms. Stone, and Joseph M. Kopsick.

Most boards address emergency CEO succession in some way, even if it’s just discussing the “name in the envelope” who could be quickly tapped for an interim period of time. The COVID-19 crisis underscored the importance of having a robust, formal emergency succession plan and raised questions about how prepared most organizations really are.

In this post, we highlight best practices for developing an emergency succession plan, including:

  • Defining the criteria and responsibilities of an interim CEO
  • Aligning on the “name in the envelope”
  • Maintaining a view of relevant external talent
  • Codifying the plan

Define the criteria for the interim successor

Boards historically have prioritized continuity and the likely investor reaction when selecting an interim CEO successor—someone who can give investors confidence that the company is in good hands until a permanent successor is selected. Not surprisingly, the most common interim leaders in emergency successions are the board chair, another board director, the CFO, the COO and, occasionally, a division president or general counsel.

In a crisis, the board may prioritize different criteria depending on the context and stakeholder needs: a “culture carrier” or leader with significant followership who can calm the organization and maintain continuity in the short term; an executive who is able to rally the leadership team; a highly effective communicator; or the CFO, who is closest to the financials and may be best positioned to manage through a cash crunch.

READ MORE »

2021 Proxy Season Trends: Executive Compensation

Pamela Marcogliese and Lori Goodman are partners and Elizabeth Bieber is counsel at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. This post is based on a Freshfields memorandum by Ms. Marcogliese, Ms. Goodman, Ms. Bieber, and Maj Vaseghi. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Paying for Long-Term Performance by Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried (discussed on the Forum here).

Average support remains high in 2021, currently approximately 90.8% at Russell 3000 companies, reflecting similar averages compared to 2020 in the same period, despite a higher failure rate in 2021 to date compared to 2020 (see below)

Proxy advisory firms continue to have a significant impact on vote results, although current ISS “against rates” are slightly lower in 2021 than in 2020

READ MORE »

Court of Chancery Decision Provides Guidance for Drafting MAE Clauses

Gail Weinstein is senior counsel, and Philip Richter and Steven Epstein are partners at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. This post is based on a Fried Frank memorandum by Ms. Weinstein, Mr. Richter, Mr. Epstein, Brian T. Mangino, Randi Lally, and Erica Jaffe, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

In Bardy Diagnostics v. Hill-Rom (July 9, 2022), the Delaware Court of Chancery followed its almost invariable pattern of finding that an event arising between signing and closing of a merger agreement did not constitute a Material Adverse Effect that permitted the buyer to terminate the deal.

The decision is noteworthy for the court’s award of the remedy of prejudgment interest, running from the time the merger would have closed. The court also ordered specific performance, but denied the target’s request for other compensatory damages. Most importantly, the decision provides insight into the court’s interpretation of the drafting of a number of MAE provisions (as discussed below).

In this case, the event was an unexpected and dramatic reduction in the Medicare reimbursement rate for the target company’s sole product (a patch used to detect heart arrhythmias and related services). The court, following Delaware’s traditional approach to evaluating whether an MAE occurred, concluded that the effects of the event did not have “durational significance”; and that, in any event, the language of the MAE provision in the merger agreement excluded this event from constituting an MAE. The court therefore ordered the buyer to close.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: August 6–12, 2021


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of August 6–12, 2021.

SEC Brings SPAC Enforcement Action and Signals More to Come




Statement by Commissioners Lee and Crenshaw on Nasdaq’s Diversity Proposals


The Impact of DOJ’s Charges Against a Former Trump Advisor on Companies Working with Foreign Clients


The Missing Element of Private Equity


SPAC-Related Litigation Risks and Mitigation Strategies





Are Enhanced Index Funds Enhanced?


Public Company Guide—Planning for Shareholder Engagement


The SEC’s Cyber Priorities and Four Ways for Companies to Reduce Regulatory Risk


Early SEC Enforcement Trends from Chairman Gensler’s First 100 Days


2021 Proxy Season Review: Shareholder Proposals on Environmental Matters



2021 Proxy Season Trends: Proxy Advisory Firms


Moving the Needle on DEI in the Workplace

Moving the Needle on DEI in the Workplace

Michael Delikat is Partner, Tierra D. Piens is Managing Associate, and Rudi-Ann Miller is a Summer Associate at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. This post is based on their Orrick 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); For Whom Corporate Leaders Bargain by Lucian A. Bebchuk, Kobi Kastiel, and Roberto Tallarita (discussed on the Forum here); Socially Responsible Firms by Alan Ferrell, Hao Liang, and Luc Renneboog (discussed on the Forum here); and Restoration: The Role Stakeholder Governance Must Play in Recreating a Fair and Sustainable American Economy—A Reply to Professor Rock by Leo E. Strine, Jr. (discussed on the Forum here).

In the wake of the Black Lives Matter Movement of 2020 and the resulting national conversation on race and equity, many companies have taken meaningful steps to achieve greater diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in their respective workplaces. The technology industry, in particular, has made several notable strides towards these laudable goals.

We analyzed publicly available DEI information from 25 of the top tech companies [1] in the United States and found several approaches to driving holistic and lasting change in workplaces across all industries. We have highlighted the best practices we have seen as advisors to many companies looking to make progress in DEI while, at the same time, taking steps to minimize legal issues that can arise from some initiatives. These best practices include hiring a Global Head of Diversity, implementing a diverse slate hiring protocol, and creating and supporting employee resource groups (ERGs).

Best Practice 1: Hire a Global Head of Diversity

We canvassed public records and confirmed that 23 of the 25 leading tech companies now have a Global Head of Diversity role—also designated in some companies as the Chief Diversity Officer or Diversity Director. For many companies, hiring a Global Head of Diversity is a helpful tool in the arsenal of DEI strategies. Heads of Diversity lay the foundation for internal and external DEI initiatives, including defining and measuring success, allocating resources, securing partnerships, and pushing the DEI agenda forward. The existence of such a role also sends an important message to current and prospective employees, clients, shareholders, and investors about the company’s values.

READ MORE »

2021 Proxy Season Trends: Proxy Advisory Firms

Pamela Marcogliese and Lori Goodman are partners and Elizabeth Bieber is counsel at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. This post is based on a Freshfields memorandum by Ms. Marcogliese, Ms. Goodman, Ms. Bieber, and Maj Vaseghi.

ISS 2021 Proxy Voting Guidelines

ISS’ revised polices for the 2021 proxy season indicate a significant focus on social and environmental issues, the importance of board diversity, shareholder litigation rights and COVID-19 recovery era policies

Social and Environmental Issues

  • Governance failures – Material E&S Risk Oversight: Recommend withhold votes against directors, committees or the entire board for E&S issues (including climate change) which constitute a material risk oversight failure
  • Mandatory arbitration: Recommend voting for shareholder proposals requesting reports about a company’s use of mandatory arbitration in employment claims on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the company’s existing policies, public standing with respect to any controversies and the company’s disclosure of policies compared to its peers
  • Sexual harassment: Recommend a case-by-case analysis of shareholder proposals requesting reports on the actions taken by a company to prevent sexual harassment or on the risks posed by the company’s failure to take such actions, taking into account the company’s existing policies, any recent controversies and the company’s disclosure of policies compared to its peers

READ MORE »

A Deeper Dive Into Talent Management: The New Board Imperative

Paul DeNicola is Principal at the Governance Insights Center, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on his PwC memorandum.

As companies plan for a post-pandemic economy, and continue tackling social issues, they must also contend with rapid business transformation. Talent management is more critical than ever—and so is director oversight.

Corporate directors have traditionally focused their talent management efforts on the C-suite, leaving oversight of the broader workforce to senior executives. But the pandemic, pressure to advance diversity and inclusion efforts, and the astonishing pace of business and digital change have made it critical for boards to provide greater oversight of talent management at multiple levels of the organization.

Rethinking talent

Providing oversight of a company’s top talent has long been a core responsibility of corporate boards. They play a critical role in hiring and firing the CEO, evaluating the performance of top executives, developing leadership succession plans, and ensuring their companies have a robust pipeline of talent to execute company strategy.

Traditionally, directors have focused their talent management efforts on the C-suite, leaving oversight of the broader workforce to senior executives. But many boards have come to understand that a strategy is only as good as a company’s ability to execute it. And strong execution requires talented people at all levels of the organization—particularly when most companies are reinventing themselves amid widespread disruption and planning for a post-pandemic world.

READ MORE »

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