Monthly Archives: August 2021

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

Antonia M. Apps and Adam Fee are partners and Matthew Laroche is special counsel at Milbank LLP. This post is based on their Milbank memorandum.

On July 20, 2021, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) unsealed a 46-page indictment charging former Trump Administration Advisor Thomas Joseph Barrack and two co-defendants with acting and conspiring to act as unregistered foreign agents of the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”). [1] The Indictment alleges, among other things, that Barrack acted on UAE’s behalf to influence the foreign policy position of the United States. While media reports have sometimes described these charges as being brought under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”), which generally requires agents of foreign principals to register with the DOJ, that is not the case. Barrack was charged under a related but distinct and more serious criminal statute (18 U.S.C. § 951) that makes it unlawful to act within the United States as “an agent of a foreign government” without prior notification of the Attorney General.

Regardless, the charges against Barrack, as well as several other recent FARA prosecutions, reinforce that there is now a real risk of civil and criminal exposure for U.S. individuals and companies assisting foreign clients. It is important that companies working with non-U.S. customers or clients understand the current enforcement environment, including the DOJ’s renewed focus on foreign agent investigations and prosecutions. Companies are now facing increased scrutiny when assisting foreign clients, and they must ensure that they have appropriate policies and procedures in place, with board oversight, in order to anticipate and address foreign agent issues.

READ MORE »

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

Allison Herren Lee and Caroline Crenshaw are Commissioners at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on their recent public statement. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Lee and Commissioner Crenshaw, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

Today [August 6, 2021], the Commission approved Nasdaq Stock Market LLC’s proposed rule changes related to board diversity and disclosure. [1] The new listing standards will require each Nasdaq-listed company, subject to certain exceptions, to have at least two diverse board members or explain why it does not. [2] The new listing standards also will require disclosure, in an aggregated form, of information on the voluntary self-identified gender, racial characteristics, and LGBTQ+ status of the company’s board. [3] We support the proposal because it represents a step forward for investors on board diversity.

As we have noted in the past, investors are increasingly demanding diverse boards and diversity-related information about public companies. [4] Nasdaq’s proposal should improve the quality of information available to investors for making investment and voting decisions by providing consistent and comparable diversity metrics. [5]

READ MORE »

Statement by Commissioner Roisman on the Commission’s Order Approving Exchange Rules Relating to Board Diversity

Elad L. Roisman is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The following post is based on his recent public statement. The views expressed in this post are those of Mr. Roisman and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.

A Goal for All

Today [August 6, 2021], the Commission approved rule changes proposed by The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or the “Exchange”) relating to board diversity. [1] One will offer certain listed companies free access, for a limited time, to a board recruitment service with access “to a network of board-ready diverse candidates.” [2] The other will “require each Nasdaq-listed company, subject to certain exceptions, to publicly disclose in an aggregated form, to the extent permitted by applicable law, information on the voluntary self-identified gender and racial characteristics and LGBTQ+ status (all terms defined [in the Approval Order]) of the company’s board of directors.” [3] It will also “require each Nasdaq-listed company, subject to certain exceptions, to have, or explain why it does not have, at least two members of its board of directors who are Diverse, including at least one director who self-identifies as female and at least one director who self-identifies as an Underrepresented Minority or LGBTQ+ [all terms are defined in the Approval Order].” [4] Failure to comply could eventually, after a specified period, subject companies to delisting.

Nasdaq’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, demonstrated through its work to promote a financial industry that includes, at the highest levels of leadership, more women, individuals from underrepresented minority communities, and people identifying as LGBTQ+ is commendable. Throughout history, there have been too many barriers preventing deserving individuals from participating fully in our economy. Not only have those individuals been denied opportunities, but society at large has missed out on the value their talents offer. As I have said before, it is important for all of us to assess the causes for such barriers and move to address them; and the SEC has a critical role to play in identifying barriers that its own regulations have created over the years preventing people from participating in our capital markets. [5]

READ MORE »

Shareholder Meetings and Freedom Rides: The Story of Peck v. Greyhound

Harwell Wells is the I. Herman Stern Professor of Law at Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law. This post is based on his recent paper.

My new paper, Shareholder Meetings and Freedom Rides, is a story about the history of corporate and securities laws that begins in an unlikely place.

In 1947, James Peck and Bayard Rustin, members of the radical pacifist group the Fellowship of Reconciliation and its offshoot the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), were preparing for a civil rights protest they called the Journey of Reconciliation, now remembered as the first Freedom Ride. Inspired by Quaker pacifism, Ghandian nonviolence, and their own experiences as conscientious objectors during World War II, Peck, who was white, and Rustin, who was African-American, would ride with other members of the Fellowship as an interracial group in buses across the upper South. On the ride the group intended to defy rules requiring segregation in transport, in an attempt to force bus lines to follow the Supreme Court’s 1946 decision in Morgan v Virginia, which held state-mandated segregation in interstate travel unconstitutional. But before they embarked on the Journey of Reconciliation, Peck and Rustin did something else radical: they bought shares in a corporation.

A year later, after their travels in the South had led to terror, death threats, beatings, and in Rustin’s case a term on a chain gang, they brought their activism to a new site of protest, the annual meeting of the corporation of which they were now shareholders, Greyhound Bus Lines, which even after Morgan had as a matter of company policy continued to segregate passengers on its interstate routes. At the meeting Peck and Rustin offered a proposal condemning the company’s policy, and invoked a different body of Federal law, the Federal securities laws, to insist that Greyhound provide all its shareholders the opportunity to vote on their proposal. The law they cited was only a few years old; in 1942 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had adopted a new rule, Rule X14a-7 (now 14a-8), the “Shareholder Proposal Rule,” giving a shareholder under some circumstances the power to make proposals to corporate management and requiring companies to send those proposals to all their shareholders in their annual proxy solicitations—at the company’s expense.

READ MORE »

SEC Brings SPAC Enforcement Action and Signals More to Come

Adam Brenneman, Rahul Mukhi, and Jared Gerber are partners at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary memorandum by Mr. Brenneman, Mr. Mukhi, Mr. Gerber, Nick Grabar, JD Colavecchio, and Julian Cardona.

On July 13, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced a major enforcement action related to a proposed merger between a special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”) and a privately held target company (“Target”). This followed numerous warnings by the SEC staff over several months of enhanced scrutiny of such transactions under the federal securities laws. [1] The respondents, except for the Target’s CEO, settled the action by collectively agreeing to civil penalties of approximately $8 million and to certain equitable relief described below. [2]

Background of the Allegations

The SPAC, Stable Road Acquisition Company, raised $172.5 million in an IPO in November 2019 and considered a number of possible merger targets before entering into a merger agreement with the Target, Momentus, in October 2020. In connection with the merger (or “de-SPAC”) transaction, the SPAC engaged in a private placement of shares (referred to as a “PIPE transaction”), securing investor commitments in an aggregate amount of $175 million.

The SPAC filed with the SEC a registration statement with respect to the merger in November 2020. In late January 2021, the SEC issued a subpoena to the SPAC, and around the same time the Target’s CEO resigned from his position. The announcement of a settlement in July 2021 represents an unusually fast resolution of the matter, presumably reflecting urgency for both the SPAC, which is still seeking to complete its de-SPAC transaction before it is required to return its capital to shareholders, [3] and the SEC, which presumably intended to convey an important message to SPACs and their sponsors.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: July 30-August 5, 2021


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of July 30-August 5, 2021.

The Small, Young Company Board



Trust: A Critical Asset



SEC Returns Spotlight to Cybersecurity Disclosure Enforcement



Rethinking Securities Law


Quarterly Review of Shareholder Activism


SEC Focuses Enforcement Efforts on SPAC Transactions


Litigation Risk and Debt Contracting: Evidence from a Natural Experiment


Comment on Climate Disclosure


Delaware M&A Update


Hall of Mirrors: Corporate Philanthropy and Strategic Advocacy


2021 Say on Pay Changes


Managing CEO Transitions Just Got Harder


Locating Stablecoins within the Regulatory Perimeter


2021 Proxy Season Review

Shirley Westcott is a Senior Vice President at Alliance Advisors LLC. This post is based on her Alliance Advisors memorandum.

Overview

The year-long pandemic and economic lock-downs that denoted 2020 gave way to a dynamic 2021 annual meeting season as investors wielded their proxy votes to express their views on an array of environmental, social and governance proposals issues, executive compensation plans and corporate board quality and effectiveness.

Environmental and social (E&S) resolutions drew some eye-popping support levels, including over a dozen on diversity, climate change and political spending that scored over 80% (see Table 1). A total of 34 E&S proposals have received majority support to date— surpassing last year’s record 21—and included six that were unopposed by the boards. Some newly emergent resolutions on racial audits, access to COVID-19 medicines and say-on-climate (SOC) advisory votes also did remarkably well for their first year, reaching vote averages in the 30% range.

READ MORE »

Locating Stablecoins within the Regulatory Perimeter

Howell E. Jackson is the James S. Reid, Jr., Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Morgan Ricks is Professor of Law and Enterprise Scholar at Vanderbilt University Law School.

Stablecoins are suddenly very much front and center in the minds of policy makers. Last month, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen assembled the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG) to explore this increasingly important form of cryptocurrency, and, in a subsequent press release, the Department indicated that in coming months the PWG will release a report exploring how stablecoins fit into our current regulatory framework along with recommendations for addressing any regulatory gaps. [1]

In analyzing stablecoins, one of the first challenges facing the Treasury Department staff will be to determine where, if at all, stablecoins fit within our current regulatory framework. Do these instruments fall within existing regulatory perimeters, making them already subject to some established system of financial regulation? Or is new legislation required to deal with stablecoins? To a considerable degree, early forms of cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, have escaped primary oversight from financial regulators and Congress has so far failed to expand our regulatory perimeters to reach these first-generation cryptocurrencies in a coherent manner.

READ MORE »

Managing CEO Transitions Just Got Harder

Robert Stark is co-lead of CEO Succession Services in North America at Spencer Stuart; Dan-Meng Chen is a core member of CEO Succession and Leadership Advisory Services at Spencer Stuart; and Woomi Yun is Senior Vice President of Financial Communications at Edelman. This post is based on a Spencer Stuart/Edelman memorandum by Mr. Stark, Mr. Chen, Ms. Yun, Lex Suvanto, Global Managing Director of Financial Communications at Edelman; Mustafa Riffat, Executive Vice President of Financial Communications at Edelman; and Ben Machtiger, Chief Marketing & Communications Officer at Spencer Stuart.

Managing CEO succession has always been one of the most critical responsibilities that boards shoulder. With daunting stakes, they must carefully orchestrate everything, from articulating what they need in their future CEO, evaluating candidates, to managing a range of delicate dynamics.

As if those challenges were not enough, multiple societal forces have converged to make the role of CEOs far more complex than ever – with implications for both the attributes of future CEOs and how boards manage the succession process. The seeds of some of these forces were planted some time ago, but their combination is now effecting profound changes. We now live in a vastly more transparent and viral world. The shift to “stakeholder capitalism” – significantly augmented in 2020 by the Covid-19 pandemic and social unrest – has dramatically expanded expectations on corporations to respond to issues beyond core business matters. In fact, the 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals that public trust in societal institutions is at historic lows; business, in contrast, is perceived as more ethical and competent. Against this backdrop, the pressure is on CEOs to step in and fill the void that governments and other entities have created.

READ MORE »

2021 Say on Pay Changes

Todd Sirras is Managing Director, Justin Beck is Consultant, and Austin Vanbastelaer is Senior Consultant at Semler Brossy LLP. This post is based on a Semler Brossy memorandum by Mr. Sirras, Mr. Beck, Mr. Vanbastelaer, Alexandria AgeeSarah Hartman, and Kyle McCarthy. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes the book Pay without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation, by Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried.

Emerging themes from this year’s Say on Pay and proxy voting season suggests a fundamental shift in shareholder and proxy advisor perspectives on compensation. The primary themes of the 2021 proxy season include:

  1. S&P 500 companies have received more scrutiny and lower vote results.
    The S&P 500 failure rate is 3.7% compared to 2.8% for the Russell 3000, even though the ISS “Against” recommendation rate is lower for the S&P 500 (10.2%) than the Russell 3000 (11.0%). Last year the difference was minimal.
  2. Shareholders have been highly critical of special awards and long-term incentive adjustments.
    Shareholders and proxy advisors maintain that special awards should be granted infrequently and to specific executives, with rigorous performance conditions and not be additive to regular annual pay. S&P 500 companies that made positive adjustments to payouts or in-flight PSUs had a nearly 10 percentage point higher failure rate.
  3. Environmental and social proposals received greater support, especially involving matters on EEO, diversity and inclusion, and climate impact.
    The percent of social and environmental proposals that received above 50% support is 18% and 40%, respectively, which is significantly higher than the 9% and 16% rates at this time last year.

Proxy advisors and several institutional investors released guidelines at the onset of Covid-19 to set expectations on how they would evaluate various Covid-related compensation plan adjustments. Most guidance homed in on acceptable adjustments to add discretion in short-term plans, while advising against long-term plan adjustments. Shareholders and proxy advisors held many companies accountable to these communicated guidelines; however, the rules were more rigidly applied to larger cap companies. Elevated scrutiny of the largest companies raises a discussion about how shareholders have evaluated Covid-19 actions in relation to potential long-term compensation changes.

READ MORE »

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