David Lopez and Jared Gerber are partners and Jonathan Povilonis is an associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on their Cleary memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance (discussed on the Forum here) and Will Corporations Deliver Value to All Stakeholders?, both by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita; For Whom Corporate Leaders Bargain by Lucian A. Bebchuk, Kobi Kastiel, and Roberto Tallarita (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 2021, investors and regulators continued to focus on the scope and quality of public company disclosure of environmental, social and governance (ESG) information. In the background, the controversial debate intensified over whether ESG information, while of interest to many stakeholders, should be considered “material” for the purposes of the securities laws such that disclosure of inaccurate or misleading ESG information could be a basis for liability. Some commentators have recently defended the traditional view of financial materiality that focuses on the impact of disclosure on the economic value of a company, for which share price is often used as a proxy, whereas others have suggested a broader notion of materiality that would include any information investors decide is important to them.
While the debate rages on, however, market trends may well bypass the discussion altogether, with implications for risk assessment by boards and management. As ESG considerations become mainstream investment criteria for larger numbers of investors, the potential for ESG information to impact investment allocations (and therefore share price), and thus meet the traditional definition of financial materiality, increases significantly. If these trends continue into 2022 and beyond, public companies could face potential legal exposure concerning the accuracy of their voluntary ESG disclosure—even if the legal definition of materiality remains unchanged.
Statement by Chair Gensler on Reopening of Comment Period for Pay Versus Performance
More from: Gary Gensler, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Gary Gensler is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on his recent public statement. The views expressed in the post are those of Chair Gensler, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Staff.
Today [January 28, 2022], the Commission is reopening the comment period for a proposed rule for corporate disclosure of “pay versus performance.” I support this proposed rule because, if adopted, it would strengthen the transparency and quality of executive compensation disclosure.
The rule proposal would fulfill a mandate from Congress under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, passed after the 2008 financial crisis.
“Pay versus performance” disclosures describe the relationship between the executive compensation an issuer actually paid and the financial performance of that issuer. Such disclosures would make it easier for shareholders to assess the company’s decision-making with respect to its executive compensation policies.
The Commission has long recognized the value of information on executive compensation to investors. The first requirements to make disclosures about executive compensation originated in the 1933 Act. Since then, from time to time the Commission has continued to update compensation disclosure requirements.
In 2015, the Commission proposed rules to implement the Dodd-Frank Act’s “pay versus performance” requirement. These proposed rules relied upon total shareholder return as the sole measure of financial performance. Some commenters expressed concerns that total shareholder return would provide an incomplete picture of performance.
READ MORE »