Monthly Archives: January 2024

Non-GAAP Adjustments: Impact of Merger and Acquisition Activity on Performance Targets and Results

Mike Kesner is a Partner and Steve Pakela is a Managing Partner at Pay Governance. This post is based on their Pay Governance memorandum.

Introduction

One of the more complex issues when measuring performance for incentive plan purposes is how to consider the effect of mergers, acquisitions, dispositions, and the related transaction costs (M&A activity) on financial performance during the performance period. This is due in large part to the difficulty in anticipating/budgeting M&A activity when setting incentive plan targets at the beginning of the performance period and the outsized effect such activity can have on financial results (both positive and negative), depending on the measures being used and the effect the transaction may have on shareholder value. Based on our experience, approaches to adjusting for M&A activity are highly situational, and it is difficult to quantify what constitutes “typical” market practice.

This Viewpoint explores the key considerations that drive the treatment of M&A adjustments, and alternatives companies may consider when determining performance for incentive plan purposes using some common transactional situations. READ MORE »

Trends in Director Compensation

Lawrence A. Cunningham is Special Counsel in Mayer Brown’s New York office, and Carlos Juarez is a Project Administrator at Mayer Brown LLP and J.D. Candidate at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. This post is based on their Mayer Brown memorandum.

A REVIEW OF COMPENSATION SURVEYS

Historically, public company directors served without pay and with light workloads. Even after 1969, when Delaware law first authorized directors to set their own compensation, pay remained nominal. Directors generally kept a low profile, with a mandate often limited to advising or cheering on the chief executive.

All that has changed—gradually for several decades and more rapidly in recent years. Today, serving as a public company director entails increased demands on directors, along with related liability risks.  Directors are expected to adhere to stringent independence standards; preside over both strategic direction and oversight of every possible risk; and be on call to respond to crises.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: January 19-25, 2024


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of January 19-25, 2024

Mergers and Acquisitions—2024


Chancery Court Confirms High Bar to Pleading Caremark Oversight Claims Against Officers


US Deals 2024 outlook


SEC enforcement against public companies – A recap of 2023


Indexing and the Incorporation of Exogenous Information Shocks to Stock Prices


Navigating ESG Fatigue in Shareholder Voting


Chancery Court Invalidates Advance Notice Bylaws – Kellner v. AIM.


When Myopic Managers Must Mark to Market


CSRD Compliance: A Stitch in Time Will Save Nine


Global M&A Activity Endures Headwinds in 2023 and Displays Resilience Going Into 2024


Initiation Payments


Is Degrowth the Next Step in Stakeholder Governance?



Statement by Commissioner Uyeda on Final Rules Regarding SPACs, Shell Companies, and Projections


Statement by Chair Gensler on Final Rules Regarding SPACs, Shell Companies, and Projections


Statement by Chair Gensler on Final Rules Regarding SPACs, Shell Companies, and Projections

Gary Gensler is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on his recent statement. 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.

Today, the Commission is considering whether to adopt final rules that will strengthen protections for investors in special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). I am pleased to support these final rules because they will better align the protections investors receive when investing in SPACs with those provided to them when investing in traditional IPOs.

READ MORE »

Statement by Commissioner Uyeda on Final Rules Regarding SPACs, Shell Companies, and Projections

Mark T. Uyeda is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on his recent statement. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Uyeda, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Staff.

Thank you, Chair Gensler, and thank you to the staff for your presentations.

Today, the Commission considers a lengthy adopting release of nearly 600 pages that extensively describes numerous disclosure, dissemination, forward looking statement, liability, and accounting provisions purportedly designed to advance investor protection and facilitate capital formation for special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). But there may be a far simpler explanation behind what the Commission is doing for SPACs: we simply do not like them. In order to achieve this desired outcome, the Commission seeks to impose crushingly burdensome regulations on SPACs as a form of merit regulation in disguise.

READ MORE »

Corporate Governance Practices and Trends in Silicon Valley and at Large Companies Nationwide

David A. Bell is Partner and Co-Chair of Corporate Governance, and Ron C. Llewellyn is Corporate Governance Counsel at Fenwick & West LLP. This post is based on portions of their Fenwick publication.

Corporate governance practices vary significantly among public companies. This reflects many factors, including:

  • Differences in their stage of development, including the relative importance placed on various business objectives (for example, focus on growth and scaling operations may be given more importance for technology and life sciences companies);
  • Differences in the investor base for different types of companies;
  • Differences in expectations of board members and advisors to companies and their boards, which can vary by a company’s size, age, stage of development, geography, industry and other factors; and
  • The reality that corporate governance practices that are appropriate for large, established public companies can be meaningfully different from those for newer, smaller companies.

Since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which signaled the initial wave of modern corporate governance reforms among public companies, each year Fenwick has surveyed the corporate governance practices of the companies included in the Standard & Poor’s 100 Index (S&P 100) and the technology and life sciences companies included in the Fenwick – Bloomberg Law Silicon Valley 150 List (SV 150).[1]

READ MORE »

Is Degrowth the Next Step in Stakeholder Governance?

Matt Orsagh is Co-Founder and Head of Americas at RISE Sustainable Investment Consultancy and Chief Content Officer at ED4S Academy. This post is based on his RISE 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 Tallarita; How Much Do Investors Care about Social Responsibility? (discussed on the Forum here) by Scott Hirst, Kobi Kastiel, and Tamar Kricheli-Katz; Big Three Power, and Why it Matters (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Scott Hirst; Companies Should Maximize Shareholder Welfare Not Market Value (discussed on the Forum here) by Oliver Hart and Luigi Zingales; and Exit vs. Voice (discussed on the Forum here) by Eleonora Broccardo, Oliver Hart and Luigi Zingales.

You may not have heard much about the term degrowth, but that’s likely to change.

As we stare down multiple environmental challenges to our way of life and economic systems, more people are looking to degrowth and its promise of a more sustainable economic model.

What is degrowth? I’ll leave it to those who have been working on this much longer than myself to define it:

“An equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short and long term.”

READ MORE »

Initiation Payments

Scott Hirst is Associate Professor of Law at Boston University. This post is based on an article recently published in the Journal of Corporation Law. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Big Three Power, and Why it Matters (discussed on the Forum here), Index Funds and the Future of Corporate Governance: Theory, Evidence and Policy (discussed on the Forum here), and The Specter of the Giant Three (discussed on the Forum here) all by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Scott Hirst; The Agency Problems of Institutional Investors (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian A. Bebchuk, Alma Cohen, and Scott Hirst.

In an article recently published in the Journal of Corporation Law, I propose that corporations implement “initiation payments”—payments for investors that initiate corporate changes that investors would collectively prefer. These would apply to the most obvious forms of investor initiation, shareholder proposals and proxy contests. The initiation payments would be paid by the corporation only if a proposal put forward under Rule 14a-8 or in an investor’s own proxy statement was approved either by a majority of independent investors, or by the board of directors. The payment would be calculated to cover the cost to the investor of initiating the corporate change, and to provide some additional reward for doing so.

Initiation payments would resolve a fundamental question in corporate governance: is there under-initiation of corporate changes? If there is under-initiation, initiation payments would eliminate it. They are a concrete, tractable, and readily implementable solution. In contrast to other potential solutions to under-initiation, initiation payments could be implemented by private ordering, and so would not require (unlikely) legislative, regulatory or judicial intervention. All that would be required is the support of institutional investors. This also means that whether or not initiation payments are implemented is effectively a test of whether institutional investors believe there is under-initiation, and if so, whether they wish to eliminate it.

READ MORE »

Global M&A Activity Endures Headwinds in 2023 and Displays Resilience Going Into 2024

Dohyun Kim is a Partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on her Skadden memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Are M&A Contract Clauses Value Relevant to Target and Bidder Shareholders? (discussed on the Forum here) by John C. Coates, IV, Darius Palia, and Ge Wu; and The New Look of Deal Protection (discussed on the Forum here) by Fernan Restrepo and Guhan Subramanian.

Key Points

  • While interest rates, uncertainty and other factors negatively impacted deal activity in 2023, we saw a steady flow of carve-outs, spin-offs and joint ventures that offered creative ways to achieve strategic goals.
  • Financial sponsors remained active, though at reduced levels, using larger equity contributions, seller rollovers and alternative forms of financing to navigate tighter and more costly financing markets.
  • Persistent valuation gaps and heightened regulatory scrutiny meant longer negotiations over economic terms and risk-sharing provisions, and more earnouts and contingent payment constructs.
  • Activism remained a significant factor, with many campaigns pressing for M&A transactions as a means to enhance shareholder value.

READ MORE »

CSRD Compliance: A Stitch in Time Will Save Nine

Ben Herskowitz and Bryan Armstrong are Senior Managing Directors, and Alanna Fishman is a Managing Director at FTI Consulting. This post is based on a FTI Consulting memorandum by Mr. Herskowitz, Ms. Fishman, Mr. Armstrong, Michael Davies, Lukas Kay, and Tim Hines. 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 Tallarita; How Twitter Pushed Stakeholders Under The Bus (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian A. Bebchuk, Kobi Kastiel, and Anna Toniolo; 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.

Key Takeaways

  • Many U.S. companies with subsidiaries in the EU will be subject to reporting requirements[1] in 2026 based on fiscal year 2025, leaving around 13 months to assess gaps and implement proper processes and controls to track new metrics beginning in 2025.
  • In contrast to publicly listed companies, privately held firms may be less familiar with ESG reporting and related data collection and may face an uphill battle in terms of compliance.
  • Although many professional services firms may be equipped to provide clients with a checklist of the CSRD’s requirements, fewer will have wide-ranging experience across ESRS topics, strategy, audit and controls, financial reporting and data management and analytics. Now is the time for companies to start considering what the CSRD will mean for their operations, reporting processes and reputations.

READ MORE »

Page 2 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6