-
Supported By:
Subscribe or Follow
Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board
- Peter Atkins
- David Bell
- Kerry E. Berchem
- Richard Brand
- Daniel Burch
- Paul Choi
- Jesse Cohn
- Arthur B. Crozier Christine Davine
- Renata J. Ferrari
- Andrew Freedman
- Ray Garcia
- Byron Georgiou
- Joseph Hall
- Jason M. Halper William P. Mills
- David Millstone
- Theodore Mirvis
- Philip Richter
- Elina Tetelbaum
- Sebastian Tiller
- Marc Trevino Jonathan Watkins
- Steven J. Williams
HLS Faculty & Senior Fellows
Author Archives: Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation
The Benefits of Limits on Executive Pay
Our paper, When Less Is More: The Benefits of Limits on Executive Pay, forthcoming in the Review of Financial Studies, addresses the question of whether limits on executive compensation harm or benefit shareholders. In particular, our model shows that if regulation limits executive compensation, this can make it possible for the board to give the […]
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Academic Research, Boards of Directors, Executive Compensation
Tagged Agency model, Boards of Directors, Contracts, Equity-based compensation, Executive Compensation, Executive performance, Firm performance, Incentives
Comments Off on The Benefits of Limits on Executive Pay
Crossing State Lines Again—Appraisal Rights Outside of Delaware
Even as the Delaware appraisal rights landscape continues to evolve, dealmakers should not assume that the issues and outcomes will be the same in transactions involving companies incorporated in other states. Although once an afterthought on the M&A landscape, in recent years appraisal rights have become a prominent topic of discussion among dealmakers. In an […]
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Mergers & Acquisitions, Practitioner Publications
Tagged Appraisal rights, Arbitrage, Delaware law, Fair values, Firm valuation, Jurisdiction, Merger litigation, Mergers & acquisitions, State law
Comments Off on Crossing State Lines Again—Appraisal Rights Outside of Delaware
The Corporation as Time Machine
My article, The Corporation as Time Machine: Intergenerational Equity, Intergenerational Efficiency, and the Corporate Form, advances an explanation for the rise of the corporate form and an alternative perspective on its economic function. The article argues that the board-controlled corporate entity is a legal innovation that can transfer wealth forward and sometimes backward through time, […]
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Academic Research, Boards of Directors
Tagged Boards of Directors, Corporate forms, Growth rates, Long-Term value, Short-termism, Stock returns
Comments Off on The Corporation as Time Machine
The Evolving Landscape of Shareholder Activism: Developments and Potential Actions
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, and is based on a Sullivan & Cromwell publication by Jay Clayton, Mitchell S. Eitel, Joseph B. Frumkin, and Glen T. Schleyer.
It is clear that shareholder activism continues to evolve, expand and increase in influence. There is a growing emphasis, in particular by large mutual funds and other institutional investors, on shareholder engagement and shareholder-friendly governance structures that, together with the increased activity of activist hedge funds and other “strategic” activist investors, make shareholder engagement and preparedness an essential focus for public companies and their boards.
Most recently, BlackRock Inc. and the Vanguard Group, the largest and third largest U.S. asset managers with more than $7 trillion in combined assets under management, have made public statements emphasizing that they are focused on corporate governance and board engagement. Vanguard recently sent a letter to many of its portfolio companies cautioning them not to confuse Vanguard’s “predominantly passive management style” with a “passive attitude toward corporate governance.” The letter goes on to emphasize numerous corporate governance principles and to highlight in detail (as discussed further below) the importance of direct shareholder-director interactions. BlackRock recently updated its voting policies to make clear that they are more than just guides to how BlackRock votes–they represent “our expectations of boards of directors.” The new policies continue an emphasis on direct interaction between investors and directors.
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Boards of Directors, Institutional Investors, Practitioner Publications
Tagged Board communication, Boards of Directors, Engagement, Institutional Investors, Shareholder activism
Comments Off on The Evolving Landscape of Shareholder Activism: Developments and Potential Actions
Harvard Convenes the Corporate Governance Roundtable
The Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance and the Harvard Law School Program on Institutional Investors convened the Harvard Roundtable on Corporate Governance last Wednesday, March 18. The event brought together for a roundtable discussion 75 prominent experts with a wide range of perspectives on this subject, including those of investors, issuers, advisors, and academics. Participants in the event, and the topics of discussion, are set out below.
The Roundtable, which was co-organized by Lucian Bebchuk, Stephen Davis, and Scott Hirst, was sponsored by a number of co-sponsors (listed here), the supporting organizations of the Program on Corporate Governance (listed on the program site here), and the institutional members of the Harvard Institutional Investor Forum (listed here).
The Roundtable sessions focused on board composition, and other current issues in corporate governance. The Roundtable began with discussion of board composition issues. The participants discussed a variety of issues on the topic, including director experience and skills, director tenure and age, board refreshment, board diversity and board evaluations. The Roundtable then moved to a discussion of proxy access and other current issues in corporate governance, and engagement between issuers and investors on such issues.
The participants in the Harvard Roundtable on Corporate Governance included:
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Program News & Events
Tagged Corporate governance, Program on Corporate Governance, Program on Institutional Investors
Comments Off on Harvard Convenes the Corporate Governance Roundtable
SEC Charges Schedule 13D Filers for Untimely Disclosure
Editor’s Note: David A. Katz is a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz specializing in the areas of mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance, and complex securities transactions. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Katz and Alison Z. Preiss.
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced last week that it had charged eight directors, officers and major stockholders for failing to timely disclose steps taken to take their respective companies private in their beneficial ownership reports on Schedule 13D. The orders issued by the SEC indicate the SEC staff became aware of the violations in the course of their review of proxy and Schedule 13E-3 transaction statements, which described the steps taken in the required disclosures regarding the background of the transactions. The orders note that emails and other contemporaneous communications clearly indicate the steps taken that had not been properly disclosed. The orders issued by the SEC (to which the offending parties consented) resulted in cease-and-desist orders and payment of civil penalties.
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Accounting & Disclosure, Practitioner Publications, Securities Litigation & Enforcement
Tagged Beneficial owners, Disclosure, Schedule 13D, SEC, SEC enforcement, Securities enforcement
Comments Off on SEC Charges Schedule 13D Filers for Untimely Disclosure
Key Points From the 2015 Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR)
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Dan Ryan, Leader of the Financial Services Advisory Practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and is based on a PwC publication by Mike Alix, Steve Pearson, and Armen Meyer.
The 2015 stress test results published on March 11th as part of the Federal Reserve’s (“Fed”) CCAR follow last week’s release of Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (“DFAST”) results. [1] CCAR differs from DFAST by incorporating the 31 participating bank holding companies’ (“BHC” or “bank”) proposed capital actions and the Fed’s qualitative assessment of BHCs’ capital planning processes. The Fed objected to two foreign BHCs’ capital plans and one US BHC received a “conditional non-objection,” all due to qualitative issues.
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Banking & Financial Institutions, Financial Regulation, Practitioner Publications
Tagged Banks, Capital requirements, Distributions, Federal Reserve, Financial institutions, Financial regulation, G-SIB, Risk, SIFIs
Comments Off on Key Points From the 2015 Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR)
The Role of Academics and Industry in Improving Equity Market Structure
Editor’s Note: Michael S. Piwowar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Piwowar’s recent remarks at the University of Notre Dame, Mendoza College of Business, Center for the Study of Financial Regulation; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Piwowar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.
Today [March 13, 2015], I want to focus my remarks on the equities markets, and specifically equity market structure. Although it may be hard for some of you in this room to believe, in the 20 months since I began this job, some have suggested that I am a so-called “market structure expert.” While such comments are certainly flattering, I cannot accept the compliment. Of course, my academic research, my private and public sector experience, and my current role as a Commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) have all given me unique insights into the functioning of our equities markets. However, like many people in this room, I still consider myself a “student of markets.” With so many issues to examine and debate, and the continued evolution of the financial markets, I think we can agree there is more for all of us to observe and learn.
It has been fifteen months since I gave my first speech on equity market structure. Both before and since, my colleagues at the Commission have kept the issue of market structure in the forefront through their own public remarks. Congress also has been expressing keen interest in equity market structure, shining a bright light on the issue. And we have had some unsolicited prompting by a bestselling author, who, to put it lightly, does not have flattering things to say about the current state of the equity markets in what many refer to as simply “The Book.” Given all of this attention, I am frankly disappointed that we at the SEC have accomplished very little.
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Practitioner Publications, Regulators Materials, Securities Regulation, Speeches & Testimony
Tagged Algorithmic trading, Capital markets, Equity capital, Equity securities, High-frequency trading, Intermediaries, NASDAQ, SEC, SEC rulemaking, Securities regulation
Comments Off on The Role of Academics and Industry in Improving Equity Market Structure
A Few Observations on Shareholders in 2015
Editor’s Note: Mary Jo White is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Chair White’s recent address at Tulane’s 27th Annual Corporate Law Institute; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in this post are those of Chair White and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.
Today [March 19, 2015], I will share a few observations on three specific areas: the current state of shareholder activism; the shareholder proposal process; and fee-shifting bylaws. I know your next two panels take up aspects of these important topics, but I think the space is lively and big enough for all of us to comment.
The Current Activism Landscape
There are different views on what is meant by “shareholder activism,” but just the word “activism” triggers an adverse reaction from many companies. Reflexively painting all activism negatively is, in my view, using too broad a brush and indeed is counterproductive. To me, the term activism captures the range of efforts by investors to influence a company’s management or decision-making. Some of it is constructive. In certain situations, activism seeks to bring about important changes at companies that can increase shareholder value. Now, some of you may find the juxtaposition of the word “activism” with “shareholder value” does not comport with your sense of reality. Some of you also believe that activists are not interested in increasing long-term value for shareholders and other stakeholders. Still others will assert that activists are simply short-term traders looking to make a quick dollar. I did say this was a lively topic with many different views.
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Accounting & Disclosure, Practitioner Publications, Regulators Materials, Securities Regulation, Speeches & Testimony
Tagged Charter & bylaws, Disclosure, Engagement, No-action letters, Proxy access, Proxy fights, Proxy season, Rule 14a-8, SEC, Securities regulation, Shareholder activism, Shareholder proposals, Solicitation
2 Comments