Yearly Archives: 2024

District Court Holds Missouri’s “Anti-ESG” Rules are Preempted by Federal Law, Violate First Amendment, and are Unconstitutionally Vague

Charity E. Lee is a Counsel, Jared Gerber is a Partner, and Adrian Gariboldi is an Associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb memorandum by Ms. Lee, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Gariboldi, Francesca L. Odell and Robin M. Bergen.

On August 14, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the “District Court”) issued a decision ordering a permanent injunction against rules promulgated by the Missouri Securities Division, colloquially referred to as Missouri’s “Anti-ESG” Rules, requiring that broker dealers and investment advisers disclose to and obtain written consent from customers if their investment decisions or advice “incorporate[] a social objective or other nonfinancial objective” (the “Rules”).  The District Court held the Rules were preempted by both the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (“NSMIA”) and the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  The District Court also held the Rules violated the First Amendment’s protection against compelled speech and were unconstitutionally vague.  The decision highlights the limits of U.S. state power in policing the social objectives broker dealers and investment advisers incorporate into their practice and, if not overturned on appeal, suggests that broker dealers and investment advisers may face less legislative pushback, at least at the state level, in pursuing environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) objectives in the future.

READ MORE »

ISS Opens Survey for 2025 Policy Changes; Glass Lewis Seeks Informal Feedback

Michael Bergmann is a Partner and Michael Mencher and Luci Altman are Special Counsels at Cooley LLP. This post is based on a Cooley memorandum by Mr. Bergmann, Mr. Mencher, Ms. Altman, Brad Goldberg, Beth Sasfai, and Alessandra Murata.

ISS and Glass Lewis annual policy surveys have launched

  • As is typical, executive compensation issues are covered in the Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis annual policy surveys this year, with each survey seeking input on whether the policies should be revised to treat time-based equity awards with lengthy vesting periods more favorably than is presently the case.
  • While ISS focuses more on shareholder proposal-related policies, consistent with recent years, the Glass Lewis survey includes numerous questions regarding board oversight and performance, including director accountability.
  • Consistent with the relatively minor policy amendments from ISS and Glass Lewis in 2024, these surveys suggest that 2025 amendments also may be relatively low impact.
  • It is interesting to note that Glass Lewis has a question focused on director cross-company accountability, as any policy in this area would be impactful for companies in industries where cross-pollination of directors is common.

READ MORE »

The Sound of Silence in Corporate Director Resignations

Asaf Eckstein is an Associate Professor of Law and Ziv Granov is an LLB Student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This post is based on their recent article forthcoming in the Washington and Lee Law Review Journal.

One critical aspect of corporate governance is transparency between shareholders and management. Shareholders entrust managerial agents to run the firm’s operations while partaking in the profits from afar. This agency relationship creates information asymmetry between the passive shareholders and active day-to-day managers, limiting the shareholder’s ability to effectively monitor the firm’s operations (Jensen & Meckling, 1976).

Information disclosure, whether mandatory or voluntary, is an effective tool to mitigate this asymmetry. By requiring firms to periodically disclose material facts that may affect shareholders, policymakers minimize the informational gap between the parties and keep shareholders engaged. This exchange is especially relevant between shareholders and directors, who act as monitors and develop the firm’s long-term business strategy. The corporate literature often discusses increasing transparency with shareholders, specifically regarding topics like executive compensation, compliance and oversight, and ESG practices.

READ MORE »

Recent Developments for Directors

Julia ThompsonKeith Halverstam, and Jenna Cooper are Partners at Latham & Watkins LLP. This post is based on a Latham memorandum by Ms. Thompson, Mr. Halverstam, Ms. Cooper, Charles RuckRyan Maierson, and Joel Trotter.

Internal Accounting Controls Provide All-Purpose SEC Enforcement and Continued Focus on Cyber

Last month, the SEC announced another enforcement action emphasizing the need for early disclosure of cybersecurity events. In the recent action, the company had taken three weeks to act on internal alerts of malware on its network and experienced a ransomware attack that did not affect the company’s accounting systems. The SEC charged the company with failing to maintain internal accounting controls to limit unauthorized access to company assets and failing to maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures. The enforcement action continues the SEC’s pattern of enforcement based on an expansive view of internal accounting controls, following two prior cases alleging accounting controls violations for stock buyback authorizations that failed to satisfy the conditions for trading plans under Rule 10b5-1.

READ MORE »

The Sustainability J-Curve

Allen He is a Director and Jessica Pollock is a Senior Research Associate at FCLTGlobal. This post is based on their FCLTGlobal memorandum.

Ideal vs. Reality

Companies often argue that sustainability lies at the core of their business strategy and directly impacts their long-term profitability. At the individual company level, it pays more to operate sustainably – we know that allocating capital to R&Dinvesting in employees, aligning with our stakeholders and our long-term shareholders, sets us up for far greater value creation and ROI than grasping for short-term gains.

Ideally, investors are rewarded for their patience when these sustainability initiatives pay off. But in the meantime, corporate leaders feel that their sustainability initiatives are being thwarted from almost every angle. Activists are riding an anti-ESG wave prioritizing short-term profitability, and many investors remain skeptical of corporate sustainability investments due to unclear payoffs, misaligned time horizons, and confusing messaging. Fearing for their future, many companies have changed tack from trumpeting sustainability efforts to “green hushing.”

READ MORE »

Do I need to make money to go public?

Mark Mushkin is a Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. This post is based on his Orrick memorandum.

With signs of a measured return of the IPO markets, companies and investors are revisiting the fundamental question, “What do I need to look like to go public?”

In the pre-2020 market, a “unicorn” with a $1 billion valuation and $100 million in annual revenue was a promising IPO candidate (with some variation by vertical). But with the meteoric rise – and subsequent fall – of valuations over the past several years, what’s the right litmus test for IPO success? By some calculations, over 1,000 companies today claim a valuation of $1 billion or more on a post-money basis – but only a fraction of these unicorns are likely to reach IPO, whether due to underlying business fundamentals or macro dynamics that have resulted in companies staying private longer or pursuing M&A exits (Jamie Dimon, in his annual letter to shareholders, recently bemoaned that the number of publicly listed companies today has nearly halved from the mid-1990s). In particular, after the poor performance of many companies that went public via de-SPAC, it is clear that advisors and investors continue to be selective with their money and more rigorous in their views on listed companies’ prospects.

READ MORE »

Integrating Geopolitics and Sustainability for Future-Ready Leadership

Fatima Hadj is the Chair of Securitised Products at Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), and Chloe Demrovsky is a Senior Advisor and Frederik Otto is the Executive Director at The Sustainability Board (TSB). This post is based on their TSB memorandum.

In today’s global polycrisis, boards and executive teams alike must integrate a wider array of perspectives into their decision-making processes and align their businesses. A holistic approach that incorporates broader aspects of material risk is crucial for ensuring the resilience and sustainability of business operations. Here are key recommendations:

READ MORE »

Federal Court Issues Nationwide Injunction Blocking FTC Non-Compete Ban

Michael J. Schobel and Erica E. Aho are Partners and Jonathan C. Nickas is an Associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on their Wachtell Lipton memorandum.

On August 20, 2024, Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a permanent injunction setting aside the Federal Trade Commission’s final rule banning non-compete agreements in Ryan LLC v. FTC. Last month, the court afforded temporary relief as to the named plaintiffs only by issuing a preliminary injunction enjoining the rule’s application against them. In its most recent decision, the court specified that its ruling has permanent, nationwide effect. An appeal is likely to follow.

Set to take effect on September 4, 2024, as previously discussed here, the final rule would have prohibited enforcement of non-compete covenants with respect to nearly all U.S. workers and would have required employers to notify affected workers that their non-competes are unenforceable. The rule provided only limited exceptions for non-competes entered into with “Senior Executives” (as defined in the rule) prior to the rule’s effective date and non-competes entered into in connection with the sale of a business. In reaching its decision, the Texas court ruled that the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority as to unfair methods of competition, and that the FTC’s promulgation of the final rule was arbitrary and capricious because it was unreasonably overbroad and lacked reasonable explanation.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: August 16-22, 2024


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of August 16-22, 2024

Firm Boundaries and Voluntary Disclosure


The 2024 Proxy Season in 3 Charts


Insider Trading by Other Means


Post-Doctoral and Graduate Corporate Governance Fellowships


California in Spotlight as Massachusetts Avoids Bill Targeting Private Equity in Healthcare


Bridging the gap: Comparing board and C-suite perspectives


Navigating the Nuances of Board Diversity in NASDAQ-Listed Companies



SEC Enforcement – Top Seven Developments from June 2024


Managing Cyber Risk: Breach Risk Trends in Public Companies


Managing Cyber Risk: Breach Risk Trends in Public Companies

Subodh Mishra is Global Head of Communications at ISS STOXX. This post is based on an ISS-Corporate memorandum by Douglas Clare and Brian O’Leary.

Introduction

In the two years to January 2024, almost 700 cyber incidents were reported among Russell 3000 companies in the U.S., impacting more than 10% of the firms. One-third of those involved the compromise of a supplier or other third party, and the study also identified substantial third-party aggregate risk concentration across Russell 3000 firms.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • One-third of reported incidents among Russell 3000 firms involved a supplier or other third-party relationship, and incidents that impacted a large number of individuals were more likely to have a third-party as the root cause.
  • Aggregate risk exposure across the index is high, with more than 90% of Russell 3000 firms utilizing certain third-party technologies, and more than 1,000 different unique supplier/technology pairings each being utilized by more than 10% of constituent companies.
  • Companies that reported cyber incidents during the analysis period have higher risk, as measured by significantly lower ISS Cyber Risk Scores, than firms with no reported incidents.
  • Of those firms reporting an incident, the score effectively rank-orders incident risk by severity, as measured by the number of individuals impacted.

READ MORE »

Page 26 of 78
1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 78