Monthly Archives: August 2023

Moving Beyond Sustainability Rhetoric

Clarke Murphy is a Board and CEO Leadership Advisor at Russell Reynolds Associates. This post is based on his Russell Reynolds memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Roberto TallaritaDoes Enlightened Shareholder Value add Value (discussed on the Forum here) and Stakeholder Capitalism in the Time of COVID (discussed on the Forum here) both by Lucian Bebchuk, Kobi Kastiel, Roberto Tallarita; and Restoration: The Role Stakeholder Governance Must Play in Recreating a Fair and Sustainable American Economy—A Reply to Professor Rock (discussed on the Forum here) by Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Every year, we see large companies issue statements expressing their desire for sustainability. It’s easy to do, but turning words into effective action requires a distinct set of leadership skills that often come as a stretch or even an afterthought to many top executives.

1. Sometimes, sustainable leadership comes from a flash of inspiration

Many sustainable leaders have an “aha” moment that leads to a different mindset. Svein Tore Holsether, President and CEO of Yara International, heard his call to action on the streets of Paris. During a Redefiners episode, he described the profound impact of protesters outside the 2015 Paris Climate Conference on him and his company.

“Seeing the youth engagement, the demonstrations in front of the buildings, the fact that business was getting involved made a huge impression on me,” he told me. “I understood that everything I had thought about our strategy would change…I made the decision then that we need to think completely differently.” Svein’s global fertilizer company had always considered feeding the world its core purpose. His experience in Paris convinced him that Yara had to embed sustainability within that purpose.

And when sustainable leaders have experienced these redefining moments, they are not afraid to completely transform their business through sustainability. As Lynn Good, CEO of Duke Energy, who I interviewed for my book, told me: “Sustainability is not an adjunct; it’s not another initiative; it’s not something we keep track of on the side. Rather, it’s completely integrated with the company’s overall strategy, which is to be a leader in the clean energy transition.” And she’s done just that. As of 2021, the company had reduced CO2 emissions by 44%, sulfur dioxide emissions by 98%, and nitrogen oxide emissions by 83%.

READ MORE »

Public Environmental Enforcement and Private Lender Monitoring: Evidence from Environmental Covenants

Shushu Jiang is an Assistant Professor of Accounting at the National University of Singapore. This post is based on an article forthcoming in the Journal of Accounting & Economics by Professor Jiang; Stacey Choy, Ph.D. Student in Accounting at the University of Toronto; Scott Liao, Professor of Accounting at the University of Toronto; and Emma Wang, Assistant Professor of Accounting at Cornell University.

Corporate environmental pollution is a classic economic problem characterized by negative externalities from corporate activities. Public regulatory enforcement has been the primary force in compelling firms to internalize the negative externalities of corporate environmental pollution. However, such enforcement may not be sufficient to tackle the rapidly growing environmental challenges due to resource constraints or regulatory capture. As a result, there has been an increasing call for joint efforts between the public and private sectors to address environmental issues. In this forthcoming article, we examine whether and how public environmental enforcement affects private lenders’ environmental monitoring efforts and the effectiveness of such monitoring in curbing corporate pollution. We focus on private lender monitoring due to the growing importance of sustainable finance in fostering a green environment and lenders’ ability to influence borrowers’ operations through loan covenants.

To monitor borrowers’ environmental activities, lenders can use three major types of covenants (environmental covenants, hereafter): 1) disclosure covenants require borrowers to disclose material environmental matters to lenders or discuss environmental matters with lenders upon lenders’ request, 2) action covenants require borrowers to remedy or prevent environmental damages, and 3) audit covenants require borrowers to hire professionals to conduct environmental audits. Disclosure and audit covenants help lenders obtain information to assess and address environmental risks in a timely fashion, whereas action covenants prevent violations of environmental laws and reduce liabilities in the event of violations.

READ MORE »

Bringing an End to “Derivative” Section 14(a) Claims

Mark E. McDonald and Roger A. Cooper are Partners at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on their Cleary memorandum and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Much has been written lately about a circuit split on the question whether a company’s forum selection bylaw mandating shareholder derivative lawsuits be brought in Delaware state court trumps a federal lawsuit asserting a derivative claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which can only be asserted – if at all – in federal court).  The Seventh Circuit answered this question “no” [1] while the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc answered “yes,” [2] in both cases over vigorous dissents.  Many have speculated that the U.S. Supreme Court may weigh in to resolve this clear circuit split.

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court agrees to weigh in on the forum selection bylaw issue, however, there is a more direct path for public company boards to obtain dismissal of derivative Section 14(a) claims.  This path does not depend on enforcement of a forum selection bylaw (which not all public companies have) and thus does not directly implicate the policy considerations that have animated the split between the Seventh and Ninth Circuits.  But this path has so far been underutilized by the defense bar, despite a proliferation of cases filed in federal court seeking to assert derivative Section 14(a) claims against public company boards (in some cases successfully extracting significant settlements from the defendants). [3]

READ MORE »

New SEC Cybersecurity Disclosures

Emily Westridge Black, Erika Kent, and Harald Halbhuber are Partners at Shearman & Sterling LLP. This post is based on a Shearman & Sterling memorandum by Ms. Black, Ms. Kent, Mr. Halbhuber, Richard Alsop, Roberta B. Cherman and JB Betker.

On July 26, 2023, the SEC adopted final rules that require public companies to promptly disclose material cybersecurity incidents on Form 8-K and detailed information regarding their cybersecurity risk management and governance on an annual basis on Form 10-K.

Foreign private issuers (FPIs) will need to disclose in their Form 20-Fs the same information about cybersecurity risk management and governance as U.S. domestic companies, but FPIs will only be required to report material cybersecurity incidents on Form 6-K when they decide to publicly report those incidents or are required to do so under home country rules.

In this client alert, we summarize the new cybersecurity disclosures required by the final rules and highlight where there are meaningful changes from the SEC’s proposed rules from March 2022. We also offer some suggestions for what companies can do to prepare for compliance with the new requirements.

READ MORE »

Republicans Reintroduce House Bill to Limit ESG Considerations in Retirement Investing

Jason M. Halper is a Partner and Sara Bussiere is Special Counsel at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP. This post is based on their Cadwalader 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); How Much Do Investors Care about Social Responsibility? (discussed on the Forum here) by Scott Hirst, Kobi Kastiel, and Tamar Kricheli-Katz; Reconciling Fiduciary Duty and Social Conscience: The Law and Economics of ESG Investing by a Trustee by Max M. Schanzenbach and Robert H. Sitkoff (discussed on the Forum here); and Exit vs. Voice by Eleonora Broccardo, Oliver Hart and Luigi Zingales (discussed on the Forum here).

On June 21, two Republican members of Congress renewed efforts to enact legislation that arguably would restrict investment managers from taking into account ESG considerations in investing on behalf of retirement funds. U.S. Representatives Andy Barr (R-Ky.) and Rick Allen (R-Ga.) reintroduced the Ensuring Sound Guidance (ESG) Act, which would require investment advisers and ERISA retirement plan sponsors to consider “only pecuniary factors” in acting in the best interests of clients.

The bill, H.R. 4237, would amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Text of the bill has not yet been made available on the 118th Congress’s legislation portal. But the previous version of the bill, introduced in 2022 as H.R. 7151, stated that a client’s best interests would be determined using only pecuniary factors, unless the client specifically requested that non-pecuniary factors be considered. The previous version of the bill defined “pecuniary factor” as “a factor that a fiduciary prudently determines is expected to have a material effect on the risk and return of an investment based on appropriate investment horizons consistent with the plan’s investment objectives and the funding policy established pursuant to section 402(b)(1).”

READ MORE »

Corporate Fraud and the Consequences of Securities Class Action Litigation

Tamas Barko is a Researcher at Quoniam Asset Management, Luc Renneboog is a Professor of Corporate Finance at Tilburg University, and Hulai Zhang is a Researcher and PhD Candidate at Tilburg University. This post is based on their recent paper. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Rethinking Basic (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian Bebchuk and Allen Ferrell; and Price Impact, Materiality, and Halliburton II (discussed on the Forum here) by Allen Ferrell and Andrew H. Roper.

Large corporate scandals, such as those involving Enron, WorldCom, and Volkswagen were widely publicized in the media, but represent only the tip of the iceberg. Academics and practitioners both predict that a significant number of firms engages in fraud each year. Fraud not only causes directly measurable losses in corporate value, but has other, far-reaching effects on society, such as welfare loss due to foregone taxes and loss of trust in (corporate) leadership.

We examine class action lawsuits, the indictment of the firm and of its officers/directors by a large group (i.e., class) of shareholders, and whether the firm suffers from value declines in its assets and from (lasting) reputational damage. We also investigate whether litigation conveys valuable information to the market and how the competitive landscape changes both for indicted firms and their direct competitors. If a large shareholder or a group of investors becomes concerned with the firm’s operations and management, and takes legal steps to assert their claims, it may affect a firm’s outlook, competitive position, its risk premium, and hence discounted value. The extant literature on corporate fraud is predominantly concerned with the effects of prosecuted fraud, be it the stock market reaction, firm operating performance, or executive turnover. Our paper contributes to the discussion by examining fraud allegations, thus not restricting our investigation based on the eventual case outcome.

We evaluate the role of securities class action litigation as a corporate governance device and study the effect of class action litigation filings on the stock market performance of indicted firms and their peer companies. Our sample covers 2,910 firms in the period starting in 1996 and ending in 2019, which enables us to examine the long-term consequences after the litigation cases are closed. This paper examines all indictments and not merely the settled fraud cases, enabling us to measure the direct effects of litigation, including the effects on firms which are subsequently acquitted. We use data on class action filings to identify firms indicted for fraud (following a lack of transparency with respect to price-sensitive information, lack of care in product development, accounting fraud, embezzlement, etc.) Class actions are civil lawsuits initiated by investors and thus represent cases where corporate actions and management decisions exceed the tolerance threshold of shareholders and are hence not corporate problems arising from bad luck or an honest mistake. We focus on class actions for two reasons. First, relative to lawsuits where an individual shareholder claims to be harmed, there is broad consensus about managerial or corporate misconduct among shareholders in class action suits. Indicted firms in class action suits may erode trust and are potentially value destroying. Second, it is the enforcement channel with the lowest attrition rate in terms of data quality.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: August 4-10, 2023


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of August 4-10, 2023.

CEO Tenure Rates


Spotlight on Recent M&A Delaware Decisions


Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Board Action that Has a Disenfranchising Effect on a Stockholder



Mega Grants: Why Would a Board Approve Nine-Figure CEO Pay?




Index Providers: Whales Behind the Scenes of ETFs


IFRS Releases New Global Sustainability Disclosure Standards



ChatGPT and Corporate Policies



Guide to IPO


Seeking Common Ground in the Politicized Debate About ESG


Trends in ESG Litigation and Enforcement


Trends in ESG Litigation and Enforcement

Mike Delikat and Stacy Kray are Partners and Carolyn Frantz is a Senior Counsel at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. This post is based on an Orrick memorandum and Practical Law Publication by Mr. Delikat, Ms. Kray, Ms. Frantz,  Alex Talarides J.T. Ho, and Hong Tran. 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? (discussed on the Forum here) both by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Roberto TallaritaStakeholder Capitalism in the Time of COVID (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian Bebchuk, Kobi Kastiel, Roberto Tallarita; and Restoration: The Role Stakeholder Governance Must Play in Recreating a Fair and Sustainable American Economy—A Reply to Professor Rock (discussed on the Forum here) by Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Litigation and regulatory enforcement actions and threats related to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) company policies, practices, and disclosures have been in the spotlight recently. The topics encompassed by ESG, such as corporate diversity policies, workplace sexual harassment, and climate change-related issues, are not new areas for litigation. However, the increased focus by companies on ESG issues has engendered more litigation by private litigants and heightened scrutiny by governmental and regulatory agencies.

What kinds of ESG-related enforcement actions has the SEC taken to date?

The SEC is currently utilizing antifraud, reporting, and internal controls provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), as well as various related rules, to bring ESG-related enforcement actions. In March 2021, the SEC also announced the creation of a Climate and ESG Task Force (Task Force) within the Division of Enforcement that is tasked with developing initiatives to proactively identify ESG-related misconduct and focus on material gaps or misstatements in issuers’ disclosure of climate risks under existing rules (SEC: SEC Announces Enforcement Task Force Focused on Climate and ESG Issues). Since then, the Task Force has brought multiple ESG-related enforcement actions.

READ MORE »

Seeking Common Ground in the Politicized Debate About ESG

Robert Eccles is Visiting Professor of Management Practice at Oxford University Said Business School. This post is based on the author’s academic commentary on the HFSC hearing: “Examining Environmental and Social Policy in Financial Regulation.”

On July 12, 2023 the House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) held a hearing entitled “Protecting Investor Interests: Examining Environmental and Social Policy in Financial Regulation,” chaired by HFSC Chair Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC),which can be viewed here. The July 7, 2023 Memorandum explains the purpose of the hearing and lists the witnesses:

  • James Copland, Senior Fellow & Director, Manhattan Institute
  • Benjamin Zycher, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
  • Lawrence Cunningham, Special Counsel, Mayer Brown
  • Ted Allen, Vice President, Society for Corporate Governance
  • The Honorable Keith Ellison, Attorney General, State of Minnesota

ESG has become a very politicized topic in polarized America. That said, when one goes beneath the level of political theater, I think there is to be found. The first step in doing so is to distinguish between values-based and value-based investing. The foundation of the latter is “materiality,” the basis for determining which ESG issues matter to value creation. One of the topics at the center of the ESG debate is climate change. Here there are  number of prominent conservative voices who recognize the urgent need to address this challenge. The Securities and Exchange Commission is feeling pressure across the political spectrum regarding its climate disclosure rule. I argue that it has the authority to require disclosure of Scope 1 and 2 emissions but suggest that it not attempt to include universal disclosure of Scope 3 at this time.

READ MORE »

Guide to IPO

Mark Mandel, Adam B. Farlow, Fernando Castro are Partners at Baker McKenzie. This post is based on a Baker McKenzie memorandum by Mr. Mandel, Mr. Farlow, Mr. Castro, Joakim Falkner and Christina S.M Lee.

Companies should be aware of the following key issues often encountered when undertaking the process of capital raising and listing on a stock exchange.

Restructuring prior to listing

The business and corporate structure of a company’s operating group is an important issue to consider at the onset.

In some industries and/or jurisdictions, investors may favor companies that are narrowly focused on a core profit generating service or product over those that offer a wide range of services or products. Investor preferences such as these—which may shift over time—can factor into a company’s structuring decisions early on in the listing process.

There may also be foreign ownership restrictions that impact on the pre-IPO restructuring plans and legal advice should be taken at an early stage. Likewise, some jurisdictions may have more regulatory approval requirements than others in implementing a restructuring.

For corporate governance, tax or marketing reasons, a company may decide to reincorporate out of its home jurisdiction to another location. Companies that wish to take advantage of more flexible governance requirements or a different tax structure will often explore a reincorporation in conjunction with an initial listing.

READ MORE »

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