Yearly Archives: 2021

HLS Forum Sets Several New Records in 2020

Posted by Leeor Ofer (Harvard Law School), on

Monday, February 8, 2021

Leeor Ofer is a co-Editor of the Forum and a Fellow at the Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance.

The operations of the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance during 2020 set several new records. During this year, in which the Forum published more than 950 posts, the Forum:

Attracted more than 200,000 unique readers a month (an increase of 48% compared to 2019).
Attracted more than 3.6 million page views (an increase of 38% compared to 2019).

Established in 2006 by Professor Lucian Bebchuk and the Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance, the Forum has become the leading online resource and the central outlet for the exchange of ideas and debate in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation. As in past years, the Forum attracted readers from over 225 countries and territories. As former Delaware Chief Justice Leo Strine observed, “[i]t is amazing to see the [Forum] become required reading among the intelligentsia … of corporate governance.”

The Forum’s posts are distributed daily, not only through its website, but also via Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook, and the Forum’s daily email announcement. Followers of the Forum have increased during 2020 to over 13,600 on Twitter, over 11,600 on LinkedIn, over 1,600 on Facebook, and the number of subscribers to the Forum’s daily email release of new posts has grown to over 7,000. To subscribe to our daily email release or to follow the Forum through any of these channels, please click the icons at the top of our sidebar.

To date, the Forum has published more than 8,900 posts by more than 6,900 different contributors, including prominent academics, public officials, executives, legal and financial advisors, institutional investors, and other market participants.

In the past fifteen years, Forum posts have had considerable influence on the corporate governance field. Forum posts have attracted over 1400 citations in articles by academics and practitioners (see our post on these citations) and over 90 citations in materials issued by courts, regulators, and national organizations (see our post on these citations).

While most posts are solicited by the Editors, the Forum welcomes submissions of unsolicited posts for consideration. Further information about submitting posts can be found here.

Members of the Forum’s editorial team have commonly been drawn from the Fellows of the Program on Corporate Governance. Former members of the editorial team who now hold academic positions include Itai Fiegenbaum (Willamette University), Tamar Groswald Ozery (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Scott Hirst (Boston University), Robert Jackson (NYU), Kobi Kastiel (Tel Aviv University), James Naughton (Virginia), Yaron Nili (Wisconsin), Noam Noked (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Greg Shill (Iowa), R. Christopher Small (University of Houston), Holger Spamann (Harvard), and Andrew Tuch (Washington University).

The success of the Forum has been made possible by the contribution of numerous authors, as well as by the engagement of the Forum’s ever-growing readership. As we celebrate another record-breaking year, we are deeply grateful for the support of our contributors and readers and look forward to continued fruitful engagement this year!

Corporations Should Reconsider the Value of Their Political Action Committees

Posted by Douglas Chia, Soundboard Governance, on

Monday, February 8, 2021

Disclosure, ESG, Lobbying, Political spending, Transparency
More from: Douglas Chia, Soundboard Governance

Douglas Chia is Founder and President of Soundboard Governance LLC and a Fellow at the Rutgers Center for Corporate Law and Governance. This post is based on his Soundboard Governance memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Untenable Case for Keeping Investors in the Dark by Lucian Bebchuk, Robert J. Jackson Jr., James David Nelson, and Roberto Tallarita (discussed on the Forum here); and Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending by Lucian Bebchuk and Robert J. Jackson Jr., (discussed on the Forum here).

The fallout from the storming of the Capitol building on January 6, 2020 by organized groups of militant and militarized Trump supporters at the behest of the President himself has been widespread, and there has been a backlash by corporate America. Scores of major corporations were quick to restrain or press the “pause” button on their political action committee (PAC) contributions.

Ongoing Calls for Corporate Disclosure

Corporate political spending has long been an issue in corporate governance, and the objections have steadily grown louder and gained more support. Prominent corporate governance experts have been calling for regulatory action for years now, most notably 10 professors (including Director of the Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance, Lucian Bebchuk, and future SEC Commissioner Robert Jackson) who filed a rule-making petition to the SEC in 2011 that received over one million comment letters in support, and Bruce Freed of the Center for Political Accountability who has led the movement to persuade corporations be more transparent about their political contributions. Former Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice Leo Strine has also contributed scholarly work to the conversation.

The Future of the Virtual Board Room

Posted by Andrew Lepczyk and Barton Edgerton, National Association of Corporate Directors, on

Monday, February 8, 2021

Board meetings, Boards of Directors, COVID-19, Cybersecurity, Virtual meetings
More from: Andrew Lepczyk, Barton Edgerton, NACD

Andrew Lepczyk is a research analyst and Barton Edgerton is associate director of research at the National Association of Corporate Directors. This post is based on their NACD memorandum.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19–induced lockdowns, there has been no shortage of experts forecasting drastic shifts in the way that work gets done—including the work of the board. In the second half of the year, NACD surveyed 749 directors to better understand the impact of COVID-19 on corporate governance. Although there were initial challenges in adapting to a virtual working environment, directors were able to continue to govern effectively. Directors reported major shifts in the role that digital technology played in corporate governance, suggesting that the virtual setting for board meetings will be more popular following the pandemic. This increased adoption could show up first in committee meetings in the near term, but long term, it has the potential for increasing adoption for full-board meetings as directors become more comfortable with the technology.

Most of these changes are due to the abrupt shift to working remotely, sparked by the pandemic, and the relatively seamless ability for directors, and society as a whole, to adapt to these new circumstances. Recent survey data from NACD confirms this effect in corporate governance, suggesting that the adaptation of working remotely is here to stay.

ESG Disclosures

Posted by David M. Silk, Sabastian V. Niles, and Carmen X. W. Lu, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on

Sunday, February 7, 2021

Climate change, Environmental disclosure, ESG, International governance, SASB, SEC, Securities regulation, Sustainability, UK
More from: Carmen Lu, David Silk, Sabastian Niles, Wachtell Lipton

David M. Silk and Sabastian V. Niles are partners and Carmen X. W. Lu is an associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on their Wachtell memorandum.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced the appointment of Satyam Khanna as its Senior Policy Advisor for Climate and ESG. Mr. Khanna will advise the agency on environmental, social, and governance matters and advance related new initiatives across the SEC’s offices and divisions. In addition to prior positions with the SEC, including as counsel to former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson Jr., Mr. Khanna previously served with the Financial Stability Oversight Council at the U.S. Treasury Department and as an advisor to Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI). This latest appointment, together with the Biden Administration’s executive order issued last week aimed at tackling the climate crisis, indicate a clear shift towards greater regulatory focus and oversight on climate change and other ESG matters.

In the past, the SEC has declined calls to implement ESG-specific disclosures, preferring to rely on traditional materiality formulations as the benchmark for disclosures. In the absence of regulatory directives, investors, asset managers and companies have pushed forward with voluntary ESG disclosure frameworks in an effort to generate comparable, decision-useful data that can be used to measure companies’ ESG risks, progress and performance. It now appears that U.S. regulators will consider playing a more central role in disclosure practices: the Biden Administration’s executive order stated that “[t]he Federal Government must drive assessment, disclosure, and mitigation of climate pollution and climate-related risks in every sector of our economy.” Similarly, acting SEC chair Allison Herren Lee has supported a disclosure regime that would ensure that financial institutions produce standardized disclosure of their exposure to climate risks, and it is widely expected that incoming SEC chair Gary Gensler will support ESG-related rulemaking. The SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee (some of whose former members are now in the Biden Administration) also last year recommended that the SEC focus on updating reporting requirements to include “material, decision-useful ESG factors,” highlighting investor need for such information in connection with investment and voting decisions, the benefits of direct disclosure by issuers, the need to level the playing field between issuers and opportunities to promote the flow of capital to the U.S. markets and domestic issuers of all sizes. The SEC’s Asset Management Advisory Committee has also been considering ESG-related matters and potential recommendations.

SEC Issues Guidance in Light of Ongoing Surge in SPAC IPOs

Posted by William B. Brentani, Mark A. Brod, and Daniel N. Webb, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, on

Sunday, February 7, 2021

Capital formation, Conflicts of interest, Contracts, Disclosure, Equity offerings, Incentives, IPOs, Mergers & acquisitions, SEC, SEC rulemaking, Securities regulation, Special purpose vehicles
More from: Atif Azher, Daniel Webb, Elizabeth Cooper, Mark Brod, Michael Wolfson, William Brentani, Simpson Thacher

William B. Brentani, Mark A. Brod, and Daniel N. Webb are partners at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. This post is based on a Simpson Thacher memorandum by Mr. Brentani, Mr. Brod, Mr. Webb, Atif Azher, Elizabeth A. Cooper, and Michael O. Wolfson.

Last year, in particular the second half of the year, saw a vibrant market for initial public offerings (“IPOs”) of special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”). Coming out of this surge in SPAC offerings, the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Staff”) published new disclosure guidance on December 22, 2020. [1] With the publication of this guidance, the Staff sought to remind SPAC sponsors, underwriters and other market participants of key concerns they have noted in their comment letters for SPAC filings in connection with IPOs and business combination transactions.

This guidance is particularly focused on the potential conflict of interest between a SPAC’s public shareholders, on the one hand, and a SPAC’s sponsor, directors, officers and their affiliates (the “insiders”), on the other hand. The insiders’ economic interests in the SPAC often differ from the economic interests of public shareholders in a number of important ways. As the Staff notes, this difference may lead to conflicts of interest, in particular as the insiders evaluate potential targets for the SPAC’s initial business combination.

The Staff notes that, unlike in the traditional IPO process where a private operating company’s securities are valued through market-based price discovery, the SPAC insiders are solely responsible for deciding how to value potential targets. While this is often cited as a reason why SPACs provide greater certainty for private companies considering a traditional IPO, the Staff points out that this can lead to potential conflicts of interest and risks for the public shareholders of the SPAC. Therefore, the Staff repeatedly emphasizes the importance of clear disclosure regarding these potential conflicts of interest and the nature of the insiders’ economic interests in the SPAC.

New Human Capital Disclosure Requirements

Posted by Margaret Engel, Compensation Advisory Partners, on

Saturday, February 6, 2021

Disclosure, Diversity, ESG, Executive Compensation, Form 10-K, Human capital, SEC, SEC rulemaking, Securities regulation
More from: Margaret Engel, Compensation Advisory Partners

Margaret Engel is a founding partner at Compensation Advisory Partners. This post is based on her CAP memorandum.

Effective November 9, 2020, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) issued final rules that modernized the requirements of Regulation S-K applicable to disclosure of the description of the business (Item 101), legal proceedings (Item 103) and risk factors (Item

105). The new rules require companies to greatly expand their human capital management disclosure using a principles-based approach. Relatively few aspects of the rules are prescriptive, giving companies wide latitude to tailor disclosure. Given this latitude, we anticipate that companies will struggle when deciding what human capital disclosure should be included in their 10-Ks. CAP has reviewed early disclosures to provide some guidance to calendar year end companies on the topics that early human capital disclosures address and how much detail companies have typically provided.

Compensation Advisory Partners (CAP) provides a summary of the amendments of Regulation S-K related to human capital disclosure below. We also reviewed a sample of human capital disclosures made by early filers with fiscal years ending before December 31, 2020. Insights gleaned from our review will be helpful to calendar year companies who will soon be crafting their own human capital disclosure for the first time early in 2021.

Private Equity – Year in Review and 2021 Outlook

Posted by Andrew J. Nussbaum, Steven A. Cohen, and Katherine L. Chasmar, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on

Saturday, February 6, 2021

Buyouts, COVID-19, ESG, Executive Compensation, Leveraged acquisitions, Mergers & acquisitions, PIPE, Private equity, SPACs, Tech companies
More from: Andrew Nussbaum, Igor Kirman, Jodi Schwartz, Katherine Chasmar, Nicholas Demmo, Steven Cohen, Wachtell Lipton

Andrew J. Nussbaum and Steven A. Cohen are partners, and Katherine L. Chasmar is an associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell memorandum by Mr. Nussbaum, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Chasmar, Jodi J. Schwartz, Nicholas G. Demmo, and Igor Kirman.

2020 was a tale of two halves: during the first half of the year, global private equity deal volume fell precipitously, declining more than 20% relative to the same period in 2019; in the second half of the year, private equity dealmaking roared back to life, ending the year at approximately $582 billion, its highest level since 2007, as private equity firms acquired and invested in companies and businesses in record numbers even as the global Covid-19 pandemic continued to wreak havoc on the broader economy.

We review below some of the key themes that drove private equity deal activity in 2020 and our expectations for 2021.

Pandemic Takes a Toll. As we describe in our recent memo, Mergers and Acquisitions—2021, the Covid-19 pandemic took a toll on pending M&A transactions in the first half of 2020. Private equity was no exception to this trend, with private equity buyers alleging violations of interim operating covenants and pointing to “material adverse effect” clauses in transaction agreements as justification to call off deals or renegotiate. In May 2020, Sycamore Partners and L Brands announced that they had mutually agreed to terminate a deal signed earlier in the year in which Sycamore would pay $525 million for a majority stake in Victoria’s Secret, after Sycamore had sued alleging breaches of interim operating covenants, among other things. That same month, Carlyle and Singapore sovereign wealth fund GIC announced that they would abandon their deal, entered into in December 2019, to acquire a 20% stake in American Express Global Business Travel. In other cases, deals survived, but the terms were recut. For example, after Advent International signaled that it wanted out of its agreement to acquire Forescout Technologies for $1.9 billion struck in February 2020, the parties ultimately agreed to proceed with the transaction at a reduced price of $1.6 billion.

Incentive Design Changes in Response to COVID-19: Russell 3000

Posted by Justin Beck and Felipe Rubio, Semler Brossy Consulting Group LLC, on

Friday, February 5, 2021

COVID-19, Equity-based compensation, Executive Compensation, Firm performance, Incentives, Pay for performance, Say on pay
More from: Blair Jones, Felipe Rubio, Greg Arnold, Justin Beck, Semler Brossy

Justin Beck is a consultant and Felipe Rubio is an associate at Semler Brossy Consulting Group LLC. This post is based on a Semler Brossy memorandum by Mr. Beck, Mr. Rubio, Blair Jones, and Greg Arnold. 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).

Sample Overview

N = 234 Russell 3000 Companies

SEC Adopts Revised Investment Adviser Marketing Rule

Posted by Jessica Forbes, Stacey Song, and Joanna D. Rosenberg, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, on

Friday, February 5, 2021

Disclosure, Form ADV, No-action letters, SEC, SEC enforcement, SEC rulemaking, Securities enforcement, Securities regulation, Solicitation
More from: Jessica Forbes, Joanna Rosenberg, Stacey Song, Fried Frank

Jessica Forbes and Stacey Song are partners and Joanna D. Rosenberg is an associate at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. This post is based on their Fried Frank memorandum.

On December 22, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted amendments to modernize and consolidate Rule 206(4)-1 (“Advertising Rule”) and Rule 206(4)-3 (“Solicitation Rule”) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). The amendments are intended to modernize the existing rules governing investment adviser advertising and payments to solicitors, which have not been substantively changed since they were adopted in 1961 and 1979, respectively. The amendments combine the Advertising Rule and the Solicitation Rule into amended Rule 206(4)-1 (“Marketing Rule”), and rescind the Solicitation Rule. The Marketing Rule is discussed at a high level below.

Overview of Marketing Rule

The Marketing Rule (i) expands the definition of “advertisement”; (ii) replaces the four per se prohibitions in the Advertising Rule with a set of seven principles-based prohibitions; (iii) permits testimonials, endorsements, and third-party ratings, subject to certain restrictions and conditions; and (iv) includes specific requirements for the presentation of performance results. In a departure from the proposed amendments, the Marketing Rule does not define and distinguish between retail and non-retail advertisements, does not require the review and approval of advertisements prior to dissemination, and codifies existing staff no-action letters regarding the ability to advertise performance achieved at another firm.

Weekly Roundup: January 29-February 4, 2021

Posted by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance & Financial Regulation, on

Friday, February 5, 2021

Weekly Roundup
More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of January 29-February 4, 2021.

The Congressional Review Act and the Biden Administration’s Approach to Financial Regulation

Posted by Paul Rose and Christopher J. Walker (The Ohio State University), on Friday, January 29, 2021

Tags: Congressional Review Act, Donald Trump, Institutional Investors, Joe Biden, Proxy advisors, SEC, SEC rulemaking, Securities enforcement, Securities regulation, US Senate

S&P 500 CEO Compensation Increase Trends

Posted by Aubrey Bout and Brian Wilby, Pay Governance LLC, on Friday, January 29, 2021

Tags: Executive Compensation, Firm performance, Incentives, Index funds, Long-Term value, Management, Pay for performance

ESG and Sustainability: Key Considerations for 2021

Posted by David M. Silk, Sabastian V. Niles, and Carmen X. W. Lu, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on Saturday, January 30, 2021

Tags: Boards of Directors, Climate change, Diversity, Environmental disclosure, ESG, Human capital, Stakeholders, Sustainability

Letter to CEOs

Posted by Larry Fink, BlackRock, Inc., on Saturday, January 30, 2021

Tags: Asset management, BlackRock, Climate change, Corporate purpose, COVID-19, Diversity, ESG, Index funds, Institutional Investors, Sustainability

Thank You, Chairman Clayton

Posted by David A. Katz and Laura McIntosh, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on Sunday, January 31, 2021

Tags: Capital markets, Diversity, ESG, Institutional Investors, Investor protection, Oversight, Proxy advisors, SEC, Securities regulation

Sustainability and ESG: The Governance Factor and What It Means for Businesses

Posted by Elizabeth Robertson, Scott Hopkins and Simon Toms, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, on Sunday, January 31, 2021

Tags: Accountability, Diversity, Engagement, Environmental disclosure, ESG, Institutional Investors, International governance, Reputation, Risk management, Stakeholders, Sustainability, UK

The Short-Termism Debate

Posted by Nicolas Grabar and Fernando Martinez, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, on Monday, February 1, 2021

Tags: COVID-19, Earnings announcements, Financial reporting, Form 10-K, Form 10-Q, Long-Term value, SEC, Securities regulation, Short-termism

Leadership Change at the SEC: What Activists Could Expect

Posted by Sebastian Alsheimer and Andrew Freedman, Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, on Monday, February 1, 2021

Tags: ESG, Hedge funds, Proxy advisors, SEC, SEC enforcement, Section 13(d), Securities enforcement, Securities regulation, Shareholder activism

The Domains of Loyalty: Relationships Between Fiduciary Obligation and Intrinsic Motivation

Posted by Deborah DeMott (Duke University), on Monday, February 1, 2021

Tags: Behavioral finance, Conflicts of interest, Decision making, Duty of loyalty, Fiduciary duties, Related parties

The 2021 Boardroom Agenda

Posted by Debbie McCormack and Robert Lamm, Deloitte LLP, on Tuesday, February 2, 2021

Tags: Board composition, Boards of Directors, Corporate culture, Corporate purpose, COVID-19, Diversity, ESG, Liquidity, Stakeholders

Corporate Social Responsibility and Imperfect Regulatory Oversight: Theory and Evidence from Greenhouse Gas Emissions Disclosures

Posted by Jean-Etienne de Bettignies (Queen’s University), Hua Fang Liu (Brandon University), and David T. Robinson (Duke University), on Tuesday, February 2, 2021

Tags: Climate change, Corporate purpose, Corporate Social Responsibility, Environmental disclosure, ESG, Shareholder primacy, Stakeholders, Sustainability

Page 81 of 90

« Previous 1 … 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Next »

Yearly Archives: 2021

HLS Forum Sets Several New Records in 2020

Corporations Should Reconsider the Value of Their Political Action Committees

Ongoing Calls for Corporate Disclosure

The Future of the Virtual Board Room

ESG Disclosures

SEC Issues Guidance in Light of Ongoing Surge in SPAC IPOs

New Human Capital Disclosure Requirements

Private Equity – Year in Review and 2021 Outlook

Incentive Design Changes in Response to COVID-19: Russell 3000

Sample Overview

SEC Adopts Revised Investment Adviser Marketing Rule

Overview of Marketing Rule

Weekly Roundup: January 29-February 4, 2021

The Congressional Review Act and the Biden Administration’s Approach to Financial Regulation

S&P 500 CEO Compensation Increase Trends

ESG and Sustainability: Key Considerations for 2021

Letter to CEOs

Thank You, Chairman Clayton

Sustainability and ESG: The Governance Factor and What It Means for Businesses

The Short-Termism Debate

Leadership Change at the SEC: What Activists Could Expect

The Domains of Loyalty: Relationships Between Fiduciary Obligation and Intrinsic Motivation

The 2021 Boardroom Agenda

Corporate Social Responsibility and Imperfect Regulatory Oversight: Theory and Evidence from Greenhouse Gas Emissions Disclosures

OFAC Will See You Now

The Ethics of Diversity

Corporate Political Contributions

Don’t Let the Short-Termism Bogeyman Scare You

The End of the Anonymous Shell Company in the United States

US Sanctions on Chinese Company Securities: Further Developments

No-Fault Default, Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, and Financial Institutions

Subscribe or Follow

Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board

HLS Faculty & Senior Fellows