Yearly Archives: 2024

DOJ Revises Corporate Enforcement Policy to Incentivize Companies to Voluntarily Self-Report

Helen V. Cantwell, Jane Shvets, and Andrew M. Levine are Partners at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. This post is based on a Debevoise memorandum by Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Shvets, Mr. Levine, Winston M. Paes, Douglas S. Zolkind, and Erich O. Grosz.

On November 22, 2024, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri announced several important changes to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Corporate Enforcement Policy (the “CEP”). The changes seek to further incentivize companies to voluntarily self-disclose misconduct, cooperate with DOJ and remediate any wrongdoing. In particular, these revisions provide that: (i) a company can receive significant benefits from a good-faith self-disclosure to DOJ, even if the disclosure does not technically qualify as a “voluntary self-disclosure” under the CEP; (ii) to qualify as a “voluntary self-disclosure,” the company must disclose “original” information of which DOJ was not previously aware; and (iii) a company that voluntarily self-discloses can receive a presumption of a declination even if it earned “significant profit” from the misconduct.

READ MORE »

What to Expect from the Mandatory Sustainability Disclosure Standards for Non-EU Companies

Beth Sasfai is a Partner, Emma Bichet is a Special Counsel, and Jack Eastwood is an Associate at Cooley LLP. This post is based on their Cooley memorandum.

The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) is in the process of finalizing its draft sustainability reporting standards for non-EU parent companies (NESRS), which will shortly be subject to public consultation. Recent drafts for discussion were published on November 18, 2024. These provide a good indication as to the expected direction of CSRD reporting for non-EU parent companies that come in-scope of the CSRD from financial years starting on or after January 1, 2028. The draft NESRS largely mirror the ESRS which have already been adopted by the European Commission (First Set of ESRS) in terms of their format and the sustainability topics covered. Nevertheless, there are some key differences that we discuss below.

READ MORE »

What Companies Can Do to Protect against Cyberattacks

Jenness E. Parker, William E. Ridgway, and David A. Simon are Partners at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on a Skadden memorandum by Ms. Parker, Mr. Ridgway, Mr. Simon, Joshua Silverstein and Claire K. Atwood.

Key Points

  • Companies should critically assess the strength of their cybersecurity defenses against evolving threats, including third parties’ vulnerabilities.
  • Recent changes in regulatory expectations for cybersecurity have underscored the need for board oversight of this potential risk.
  • Many boards are now revisiting whether and how to assign cybersecurity oversight to a board committee.
  • A well-designed governance framework for managing cybersecurity risks can help minimize the legal risks companies and directors will face after an attack. Companies that implement policies and procedures for rapidly reporting, escalating and thoroughly documenting the board’s oversight of cybersecurity issues will be well positioned to defend against post-attack litigation.

READ MORE »

The ISSB Puts Portfolio Materiality on the Table

Frederick Alexander is the CEO of the Shareholder Commons.

ISSB ADOPTS INITIAL STANDARDS WITH COMPANY-SPECIFIC MODEL OF MATERIALITY

In a prior post on this Forum, I discussed the need for the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) to adopt a “sesquimateriality” approach to disclosure: one that would require reporting companies to disclose any sustainability information that was material to the performance of a diversified portfolio, rather than limiting mandatory disclosure to matters that would impact the prospects of the reporting company itself. At that time, the ISSB was just beginning its process. Now, more than two years later, it has adopted two standards, one on general requirements and one on climate, and more than 20 jurisdictions are using or taking steps to introduce the framework into their disclosure mandates.

Neither standard utilized the portfolio lens of sesquimateriality, but there are indications that could change, at least for future standards. As discussed below, the change would improve investor decision-making, fortify corporate accountability, and create more efficient capital markets, all in keeping with the tripartite mission of the IFRS.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: November 29-December 5, 2024


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of November 29-December 5, 2024

Listing Migration: A Conflicted Path to Value Creation


SEC Enforcement – FY24 Review: Key Themes and End-of-Year Actions


Investor Stewardship 2024


By the Numbers: How Companies Pay Execs They Promote to CEO


Regulatory and Investor Demands to Use ESG Performance Metrics in Executive Compensation: Right Instrument, Wrong Method


Discretionary Adjustment or Pay Flexibility?


Supermajority Requirement Inapplicable in the Context of a Reincorporation to Nevada


Preference Dynamics and Risk-Taking Incentives


Texas et al. v. BlackRock, Inc. et al.


California Climate Disclosure Laws: Recent Developments


Getting to Yes: The Role of Coercion in Debt Renegotiations


Policy Survey 2024: Executive Pay


Activists Continue to Target Director Tenure


AI and Finance


Carbon Credits: An Overview of a Climate Controversy


Carbon Credits: An Overview of a Climate Controversy

Subodh Mishra is Global Head of Communications at ISS STOXX. This post is based on an ISS ESG memorandum by Ritika Iyer, Climate Solutions Associate; Livia Wack, Climate Solutions Senior Associate; and Patricia Perez Arias, Climate Solutions Associate Director at ISS ESG.

Introduction

With the recent COP29 conference developing standards for carbon credit markets, ESG investors may wish to learn more about such credits and the debates surrounding them. A carbon credit is an emissions unit that is issued by a carbon crediting program and represents an emission reduction or removal of greenhouse gases (GHG). Carbon credits are uniquely serialized, issued, tracked, and cancelled by means of an electronic registry. They can be exchanged either in compliance carbon markets, which are regulated and involve emissions reductions that are mandated by law, such as under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme or in Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCMs).

Companies can buy carbon credits to “offset” or “compensate” their unabated GHG emissions within their value chain. Countries are also able, under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, to transfer carbon credits earned from the reduction or removal of GHG emissions to help one or more other countries meet their emission reduction targets as set out in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

Carbon markets have also been promoted as a valuable source of climate finance for developing nations. Some argue such markets can mobilize resources more effectively and at a lower cost than traditional loans from development financial institutions.

However, in recent years, carbon credits have also been criticized for alleged “significant uncertainties in [their] real impact” and for allowing companies to make “questionable claims of carbon neutrality” that rely on offsets rather than encouraging them to invest in long-term solutions to climate change.

READ MORE »

AI and Finance

Andrea L. Eisfeldt is the Laurence D. and Lori W. Fink Endowed Chair in Finance at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, and Gregor Schubert is an Assistant Professor of Finance at the UCLA Anderson School of Management. This post is based on their recent paper.

Generative AI has emerged as a major technology that is disrupting both the finance industry and financial research methodologies. The release of ChatGPT in November 2022, followed by rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs), has led to changes in firm valuations, hiring, and profitability, as well as changes in occupational earnings.  Our research shows that ChatGPT has a wide impact across firms, affecting corporate outcomes in all industries, not just the technology sector.  We also show that the impact varies widely both across and within industries.  In this post, which is based on our working paper, AI and Finance, we summarize research exploring how Generative AI tools influence firm value, firm decisions, and financial research.  We also offer practical insights on how generative AI can enhance financial research, as well as asset management and corporate finance decisions. 

READ MORE »

Activists Continue to Target Director Tenure

Elizabeth R. Gonzalez-Sussman is a Partner and Louis M. Davis and Alexander J. Vargas are Associates at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on their Skadden memorandum.

Key Points

  • Proxy advisory firms and institutional investors increasingly view tenures over nine years as too long, questioning the independence of directors who have served longer than that.
  • Board refreshment is a frequent demand of activists, so companies may find themselves vulnerable to activist campaigns if they have very long-serving directors.
  • As boards review their own composition for skills and other attributes, they should explain to investors the value that long-serving directors bring to the board.
  • While few U.S. companies have formal tenure limits, age limits are more common but less favored by proxy advisory firms.

READ MORE »

Policy Survey 2024: Executive Pay

Dimitri Zagoroff is Senior Editor at Glass, Lewis & Co. This post is based on Glass Lewis’ 2024 Policy Survey by Mr. Zagoroff, Brianna Castro, Courteney Keatinge, Chris Rushton, Eric Shostal, and Maria Vu.

This post provides an overview of Glass Lewis’ 2024 Policy Survey, conducted to inform their annual “benchmark” policy guideline updates.

Executive Pay

Make-Whole Awards For executive recruitment, companies sometimes agree to provide “make -whole” grants to compensate for awards that the candidate must forfeit upon leaving their current employer. There is a significant gap in investor and non-investor expectations regarding disclosures related to “make-whole” grants. On average, 63.4% of investors expect disclosure of the terms of the award, along with explicit confirmation that awards are time-restricted and the same size as those forfeited, vs 30.1% among non-investors. By contrast, nearly half of non-investors responded that companies should only need to provide minimum disclosure (48.4%, vs 15.5% of investors).

READ MORE »

Getting to Yes: The Role of Coercion in Debt Renegotiations

Vince Buccola is Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School and Marcel Kahan is the George T. Lowy Professor of Law at New York University School of Law. This post is based on their recent paper.

How parties to a loan agreement or bond indenture can change the terms of their deal is an important, if frequently neglected, aspect of debt financing. Bonds and loans represent a company’s obligation to repay a debt, with interest, over time. But only a small fraction of what goes into an indenture or a loan agreement relates directly to the debtor’s financial obligations. Most of the material, by word count and complexity, consists of rules that bind the debtor while the debt is outstanding and which are designed to increase, relative to a naked promise to repay, the likelihood that the debtor will make good on its debt and that the investors will be able to recover otherwise if it doesn’t. The problems of incomplete contracting plague these supporting rules, however. Parties to a debt contract thus try to articulate sensible terms when they strike their agreement knowing full well that the world will change and might change in ways that undermine the initial terms’ commercial desirability. Sometimes it will make sense for the deal to change.

READ MORE »

Page 5 of 78
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 78