Monthly Archives: September 2023

Risk Management and the Board of Directors

Martin Lipton is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy. John F. Savarese and Sarah K. Eddy are Partners in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on their Wachtell Lipton memorandum.

This post is based on a Wachtell article by Martin Lipton, John Savarese, Sarah K. Eddy, Ryan McLeod, Elina Tetelbaum, David Adlerstein, and Carmen Lu.

I. INTRODUCTION

Overview

Public companies and their boards of directors face an increasingly complex array of risks that test the resilience of corporate values, strategies, operations, and enterprise risk management frameworks. Tightening monetary policies, deepening geopolitical tensions, widening domestic political polarization, labor shortages, severe weather events, growing challenges tied to biodiversity loss, and the uncertainties surrounding generative AI are among the varied risks that companies have had to contend with over the past year.

Looking to the year ahead, these risks are likely to persist and even intensify—against the backdrop of an election year in the United States, ongoing war in Ukraine, and China’s sluggish post-pandemic recovery. Severe wildfires, heatwaves and flooding across the globe, rising insurance costs, and the exodus of insurers from certain regions underscore the burgeoning financial challenges of climate risks. Cybersecurity risk is bound to increase while the geopolitical rivalry between China and the United States continues to grow. And with presidential primary campaigns already in full swing, candidates are capitalizing on political divisions by publicly targeting corporations across a range of social issues. According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2023, more than four in five business leaders polled anticipate increased volatility over the next two years.

READ MORE »

Startup Failure

Elizabeth Pollman is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Institute for Law and Economics at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. This post is based on her recent paper forthcoming in the Duke Law Journal. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes What Matters in Corporate Governance? (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen and Allen Ferrell.

Venture-backed startups famously aim for “exit.” On the path to building great companies, entrepreneurs raise rounds of venture financing and assemble a team to develop an innovative product or service that can grow fast. Success for startups is often framed as reaching a liquidity event, or exit, that provides financial returns and rewards to the investors, founders, and employees. There are two main ways to do this: sell the company or go public. Each of the two paths to a successful exit—going public or an M&A sale—have been the subject of significant scholarly examination and public debate in recent years.

Most venture-backed startups, however, never reach either of these paths, or if they do it is in a state of distress. Approximately 75% of venture-backed startups fail – the number is difficult to measure, however, and by some estimates it is far greater. In general, a startup can be said to fail when it ultimately falls short of reaching an exit at a valuation that would provide a return to all equity holders. This can occur for a wide variety of reasons—such as running out of cash, problems in the team, shortcomings with product development or business model, getting outcompeted, a lack of market need, or changed circumstances. The participants may not expressly call this a “failure”—and indeed they may work mightily to find a “soft landing” that allows them to characterize it otherwise—but it is distinctly an end that is not a going-public transaction or M&A sale that results in returns to all equity holders.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: September 22-28, 2023


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of September 22-28, 2023

Who are the new directors?


The EU’s New ESG Disclosure Rules Could Spark Securities Litigation in the US


SEC Adopts Substantive Requirements for Advisers to Private Funds


‘Killer Acquisitions’ Reexamined: Economic Hyperbole in the Age of Populist Antitrust


2023 Corporate Governance developments


Institutional Investors, Climate Disclosure, and Carbon Emissions


Potentially Unfinished Leadership Business from the McDonald’s Decisions


Regulatory Intensity and Firm-Specific Exposure


The Activism Vulnerability Report


How Prevalent Are Short Squeezes? Evidence From the US and Europe


Testimony by Chair Gensler Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services


Testimony by Chair Gensler Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services

Gary Gensler is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on his recent testimony. The views expressed in this post are those of Chair Gensler, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.

Good morning, Chairman McHenry, Ranking Member Waters, and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. As is customary, I’d like to note that my views are my own as Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and I am not speaking on behalf of my fellow Commissioners or the SEC staff.

Protecting the Public for 90 Years

For 90 years, the federal securities laws and the SEC’s work to oversee them have played a crucial role for the public both in good times and in times of stress. The core principles of U.S. securities markets regulation have contributed to America’s economic success and geopolitical standing around the globe.

At this remarkable agency, we serve investors building for a better future and issuers raising money to fund innovation, while overseeing the $100 trillion capital markets where they meet. The essence of this is captured in our three-part mission to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.

The SEC is the cop on the beat watching out for your constituents. In the last year, we’ve filed approximately 750 enforcement actions and conducted approximately 3,000 examinations of registrants. We engage with more than 40,000 registrants—asset managers, brokers, dealers, exchanges, fund complexes, public companies, and many more.

READ MORE »

How Prevalent Are Short Squeezes? Evidence From the US and Europe

Angel Tengulov is an Assistant Professor of Finance at the University of Kansas School of Business. This post is based on a working paper by Franklin Allen, Marlene Haas, Matteo Pirovano, and Angel Tengulov. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Stock Investors’ Returns are Exaggerated (discussed on the Forum here) by Charles Wang, Jesse Fried, and Paul Ma.

A short squeeze is triggered if there is pressure on short sellers to cover their positions because of a sharp price increase or a recall of borrowed shares. This drives short sellers to close their positions early. In this article, we construct a novel measure for identifying short-squeeze events triggered by sharp price increases, i.e., a market squeeze. This measure is distinct from and complimentary to existing lender squeeze measures, i.e., measures that identify short squeezes based on borrowed shares that are recalled by the lender. The market squeeze measure was motivated by historical short-squeeze events described in the extant empirical literature on the topic, such as the January 2021 “meme” stocks squeezes (see e.g., Allen, Haas, Nowak, Pirovano, and Tengulov (2023)) and the 2008 Volkswagen squeeze (see e.g., Allen, Haas, Nowak, and Tengulov (2021)) and can be applied to all types of financial markets including equity, commodities, and bond markets.

READ MORE »

The Activism Vulnerability Report

Jason Frankl and Brian G. Kushner are Senior Managing Directors at FTI Consulting. This post is based on their FTI Consulting memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian A. Bebchuk, Alon Brav, and Wei Jiang; Dancing with Activists (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian A. Bebchuk, Alon Brav, Wei Jiang, and Thomas Keusch; and Who Bleeds When the Wolves Bite? A Flesh-and-Blood Perspective on Hedge Fund Activism and Our Strange Corporate Governance System (discussed on the Forum here) by Frankl and Kushner Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Introduction

R-E-S-P-E-C-T … One year down in UPC!

UPC, also known as Universal Proxy Card, has surely garnered “respect” from both issuers and activists alike. FTI Consulting’s Activism and M&A Solutions team touches on this, as well as how a culture change in Japan is igniting a surge of activism, in our September 2023 Activism Vulnerability Report. This iteration presents our 2Q23 Activism Vulnerability Screener results, as well as our commentary on notable trends in the world of shareholder activism.

activism vulnerability report industry movers sep 23 

During the first half of 2023, financial institutions faced their most challenging period in more than a decade, even calling into question the viability of the regional banking model. At the same time, activist campaigns targeting financial institutions increased by more than 60% year-over-year during the first half of the year. By the end of 2Q23, fundamental concerns for the sector waned with the Regional Banks and Savings Banks industries appearing substantially less vulnerable in our rankings. By contrast, Utilities’ vulnerability increased dramatically, moving from number 14 last quarter (out of 36 industries) to the industry most vulnerable to activism. Additionally, industries in the Healthcare Services sector, including the Life Sciences, Pharmaceuticals and Health Services industries, all increased in vulnerability during 2Q23.

READ MORE »

Regulatory Intensity and Firm-Specific Exposure

Joseph Kalmenovitz is an Assistant Professor of Finance at the Simon Business School, University of Rochester. This post is based on his recent paper forthcoming in the Review of Financial Studies.

Summary

Regulation is a fundamental economic concept. It triggers heated political debates, and it is also constantly on the minds of business owners, who cite regulation as a major factor that affects capital structure, employment, and innovation. Despite its importance, there is surprisingly little research on the economics of regulation. Of course, many studies focus on cost-benefit analyses of specific rules. But little is known on how regulation as a whole impacts business decisions. In particular, missing is a rigorous measure that consistently quantifies the costs of a wide range of regulations. Consequently, it is difficult to evaluate different theories of regulation and explore empirically how regulation affects economic decisions. In this paper, I take one step in that direction. I measure the cost of compliance with all federal paperwork regulations, using machine-learning techniques and a novel administrative data set, and then study the impact of regulatory burden on key economic outcomes. The new measures I created, labelled RegIn, are posted on my website, and I invite scholars to use them for subsequent academic research.

READ MORE »

Potentially Unfinished Leadership Business from the McDonald’s Decisions

Michael W. Peregrine is a Partner at McDermott Will & Emery LLP, and Charles W. Elson is the Founding Director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance and Woolard Chair in Corporate Governance (ret.) at the University of Delaware. This post is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

With the benefit of a half-year of hindsight, it is worthwhile to confirm the compliance and risk-related lessons arising from the two recent. Delaware decisions addressing the McDonald’s workforce culture controversy.[1] For notwithstanding their technical Caremark guidance,[2] it has become clear over time that these decisions offer very practical lessons for corporate leadership as to their oversight and decision-making duties

Implementing major fiduciary duty lessons often comes slowly to organizations, especially when they have compliance and risk overtones. But as to McDonald’s, it’s not too late to put those lessons into practice.

READ MORE »

Institutional Investors, Climate Disclosure, and Carbon Emissions

Shira Cohen is an Assistant Professor of Business at Fowler College of Business, San Diego State University. Igor Kadach is an Assistant Professor of Accounting and Control, and Gaizka Ormazabal is an Associate Professor of Accounting and Control, both at the University of Navarra IESE Business School. This post is based on their recent paper forthcoming in Journal of Accounting & Economics. 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 TallaritaHow Much Do Investors Care about Social Responsibility? (discussed on the Forum here) by Scott Hirst, Kobi Kastiel, and Tamar Kricheli-Katz; and Does Enlightened Shareholder Value add Value (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian Bebchuk, Kobi Kastiel, Roberto Tallarita.

Institutional Investors, climate disclosure, and carbon emissions

There is an ongoing debate over the role institutional investors play in the global effort to control climate risk. While some contend that asset managers can contribute significantly in pushing companies to reduce their carbon footprint, others are more skeptical and recommend that authorities focus on traditional regulatory tools. This skepticism is fueled by the perception that a substantial number of institutional investors engage in “greenwashing” (i.e., “window-dressing” actions that have little real impact on the reduction of actual emissions).

Our paper contributes to this debate by exploring two specific interrelated questions: Does institutional investor request for climate-related data pressure firms to disclose this information? And is such firm disclosure followed by a decrease in carbon emissions?

READ MORE »

2023 Corporate Governance developments

Melissa Sawyer, Lauren Boehmke, and Marc Treviño are Partners at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. This post is based on a Sullivan & Cromwell memorandum by Ms. Sawyer, Ms. Boehmke, Mr. Treviño, Susan M. Lindsay, June Hu, and H. Rodgin Cohen.

Hot Topics for Boards and Committees

Board Agenda Topics

Addressing the Use of Artificial Intelligence

Many boards are seeking a general understanding of AI, how their companies and peers are using it, and potential risks and concerns arising from the use of AI, including any cybersecurity, privacy and other liability issues, as well as employee and ethical implications. Although there is not one correct approach for overseeing AI risks, boards of companies that rely on AI for material products, services or operations (or relevant committee members) may want to consider receiving training on AI and associated risks, as well as management reports on the company’s use of AI.

Assessing the Business Impact of Macro Trends

As political, social, economic, climate and health conditions continue to fluctuate, challenging some companies’ ability to manage risks, some boards are asking management to sensitize the assumptions underlying the company’s strategic plan to take account of different potential scenarios. Some boards will also receive periodic updates from outside advisors on conditions in the various markets in which the company operates, with a particular focus on China.

Preparing for Heightened Antitrust Scrutiny

With antitrust scrutiny intensifying in the U.S. and internationally, some boards are obtaining briefings on the competitive landscape, potential regulatory risks and opportunities, and the increased time and cost required to engage in M&A transactions.

READ MORE »

Page 1 of 5
1 2 3 4 5