-
Supported By:
Subscribe or Follow
HLS Faculty & Senior Fellows
Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board
- Peter Atkins
- David Bell
- Kerry E. Berchem
- Richard Brand
- Daniel Burch
- Paul Choi
- Jesse Cohn
- Arthur B. Crozier
- Renata J. Ferrari
- Andrew Freedman
- Ray Garcia
- Joseph Hall
- Jason M. Halper William P. Mills
- David Millstone
- Theodore Mirvis
- Philip Richter
- Elina Tetelbaum
- Sebastian Tiller
- Marc Trevino
- Steven J. Williams
Author Archives: Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation
Setting Forth Goals for 2015
Editor’s Note: Luis A. Aguilar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Aguilar’s recent address at the Practising Law Institute’s SEC Speaks in 2015 Conference; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Aguilar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.
During the past seven years, the SEC has taken action on a significant number of issues. There is little doubt, that these years have been one of the most active periods in SEC history. For example, during this period, the Commission voted on almost 250 rulemaking releases, both proposing rules and adopting final rules. Many of these rulemakings have been ground-breaking.
Still, even with all that activity, the SEC has not finished its work on many ongoing issues, such as the need to improve disclosures related to target-date funds and municipal securities. The Commission also has not completed many of its outstanding statutory mandates. I plan to use my time with you today [February 20, 2015] to lay out a few important priorities that the SEC should pursue in 2015 in order to move toward completing its outstanding work, to strengthen the Commission and do right by the public.
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Practitioner Publications, Regulators Materials, Securities Litigation & Enforcement, Securities Regulation, Speeches & Testimony
Tagged Accountability, Crowdfunding, Derivatives, Diversity, Dodd-Frank Act, Investor protection, JOBS Act, SEC, SEC rulemaking, Securities enforcement, Securities regulation
Comments Off on Setting Forth Goals for 2015
A Fair, Orderly, and Efficient SEC
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 address at the Practising Law Institute’s SEC Speaks in 2015 Conference; 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.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today [Feb. 20, 2015] with so many of the SEC staff, former SEC staff, and other members of the securities community. “SEC Speaks” provides us with the chance to reflect on all of the Commission’s accomplishments in the past year, which are the result of the hard work and dedication of the staff. At the same time, it is also an appropriate venue for considering what else we can do to effectively carry out our mission to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. I would suggest that the answer to how we can build upon the accomplishments of the past year is to apply the same objective that we have for the markets we regulate—that they be fair, orderly, and efficient—to ourselves. And so, I would like to discuss how we can make the SEC a more fair, orderly, and efficient agency.
Before going any further, lest you think that what I say necessary reflects the views of the Commission or my fellow Commissioners, I want to assure all of you that the views I express today are solely my own.
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Practitioner Publications, Regulators Materials, Securities Litigation & Enforcement, Securities Regulation, Speeches & Testimony
Tagged Disclosure, Dodd-Frank Act, Insider trading, SEC, SEC enforcement, SEC rulemaking, Securities enforcement, Securities litigation, Securities regulation
Comments Off on A Fair, Orderly, and Efficient SEC
Proxy Access, SEC Uncertainty and Related Issues in 2015
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Bill Libit, Chief Operating Partner concentrating in corporate and securities and municipal finance at Chapman and Cutler LLP, and is based on a Chapman publication by Mr. Libit and Todd Freier; the complete publication, including footnotes, is available here.
The rise of shareholder activism in the realm of corporate governance has increasingly focused on board performance and the right of shareholders to replace those directors who are perceived to underperform. One proposed approach to facilitate the replacement of underperforming directors is to give shareholders direct access to the company’s proxy materials, including permitting the inclusion of a shareholder-proposed director nominee (or slate of nominees) and a statement in support thereof in the company’s proxy statement (which such approach is more commonly referred to as “proxy access”). Although current U.S. securities regulations do not grant shareholders access to company proxy materials, proxy access may be available to shareholders by way of a company’s organizational documents (e.g., articles of incorporation, bylaws or corporate governance guidelines), as permitted by state corporate law.
While proxy access did not garner significant attention over the past two proxy seasons, it is one of the most notable early developments of the 2015 proxy season. It has been reported that shareholders have submitted an estimated 100 proxy access proposals to U.S. companies, a considerable number of which will be voted upon by shareholders over the next several months. Proxy access will very likely be one of the most contentious corporate governance issues this proxy season.
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Boards of Directors, Institutional Investors, Practitioner Publications, Securities Regulation
Tagged BlackRock, Boards of Directors, CalPERS, CalSTRS, Florida SBA, Glass Lewis, Institutional Investors, ISS, Proxy access, Proxy advisors, Proxy season, Securities regulation, SSgA, Vanguard
3 Comments
Say on Pay in Italian General Meetings
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Sabrina Bruno at University of Calabria and Fabio Bianconi at Georgeson Srl.
Our paper, Say on Pay in Italian General Meetings: Results and Future Perspectives, provides an analysis of the empirical data of shareholders’ say on pay in Italian general meetings in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Say on pay, a shareholders’ advisory vote on a company’s remuneration policy, was introduced in Italy following the European Commission (EC) Recommendations N. 2004/913/EC, N. 2005/162/EC, N. 2009/384/EC and N. 2009/385/EC, which allowed member States to choose between implementing a binding or non-binding advisory shareholder vote on a company’s remuneration policy. Like most European states, Italy has opted for the “weaker” non-binding option. Reference is made to both approval votes (by controlling shareholders) and dissenting votes sometimes casted by minority shareholders (mainly, foreign institutional investors). The dissenting vote, in particular, shows a paramount critical value as originating by shareholders who are independent from the directors involved by the resolution—unlike the controlling shareholders who have nominated and subsequently elected the directors (to whom may often be linked by family or economic ties). In recent years, a significant increase in voting by minority shareholders, mainly foreign institutional investors, regarding—but not limited to—remuneration policies has been noted. This is a direct consequence of the procedural changes introduced by the Shareholder Rights’ Directive n. 36/2007/EC (e.g. record date, reduction of threshold to call special meeting, relaxation of proxy voting and solicitation rules, extension of time—prior to general meeting—to release relevant information for the items of the agenda and translation of documents into English, etc.).
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Academic Research, Boards of Directors, Executive Compensation, International Corporate Governance & Regulation
Tagged Boards of Directors, Compensation disclosure, Controlling shareholders, EU, Executive Compensation, International governance, Italy, Minority shareholders, Say on pay, Shareholder rights
Comments Off on Say on Pay in Italian General Meetings
The CEO-Employee Pay Ratio
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Steve Crawford of the Department of Accounting & Taxation at the University of Houston, and Karen Nelson and Brian Rountree, both of the Accounting Area at Rice University.
Will knowing how much the CEO makes relative to rank and file employees provide information to investors? We may soon find out as a result of a provision in the Dodd Frank Act that requires companies to report the ratio of the CEO’s compensation to that of the median employee. A number of different sources have developed industry-based estimates of the ratio using information about CEO pay from corporate disclosures and employee pay from the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. For instance, an article in Bloomberg BusinessWeek on May 2, 2013 found the ratio of CEO pay to the typical worker rose from about 20-to-1 in the 1950s to 120-to-1 in 2000, with the ratio reaching nearly 500-to-1 for the top 100 companies.
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Academic Research, Executive Compensation
Tagged Compensation ratios, Dodd-Frank Act, Executive Compensation, Say on pay
Comments Off on The CEO-Employee Pay Ratio
Making the Municipal Securities Market More Transparent, Liquid, and Fair
Editor’s Note: Luis A. Aguilar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Aguilar’s recent public statement; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Aguilar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of the municipal securities market. There is perhaps no other market that so profoundly influences the quality of our daily lives. Municipal securities provide financing to build and maintain schools, hospitals, and utilities, as well as the roads and other basic infrastructure that enable our economy to flourish. Municipal bonds’ tax-free status also makes them an important investment vehicle for individual investors, particularly retirees. Ensuring the existence of a vibrant and efficient municipal bond market is essential, particularly at a time when state and local government budgets remain stretched.
Unfortunately, despite its size and importance, the municipal securities market has been subjected to a far lesser degree of regulation and transparency than other segments of the U.S. capital markets. In fact, investors in municipal securities are afforded “second-class treatment” under current law in many ways. This has allowed market participants to cling to outdated notions about how the municipal securities market should operate. The result is a market that, in the view of many, is excessively opaque, illiquid, and decentralized.
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Accounting & Disclosure, Institutional Investors, Practitioner Publications, Regulators Materials, Securities Regulation, Speeches & Testimony
Tagged Bonds, Disclosure, Institutional Investors, Investor protection, Liquidity, Municipal securities, SEC, Securities regulation, Transparency
Comments Off on Making the Municipal Securities Market More Transparent, Liquid, and Fair
Financial Market Utilities: Is the System Safer?
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.
It has been two and a half years since the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) designated select financial market utilities (FMUs) as “systemically important.” These entities’ respective primary supervisory agencies have since increased scrutiny of these organizations’ operations and issued rules to enhance their resilience.
As a result, systemically important FMUs (SIFMUs) have been challenged by a significant increase in regulatory on-site presence, data requests, and overall supervisory expectations. Further, they are now subject to heightened and often entirely new regulatory requirements. Given the breadth and evolving nature of these requirements, regulators have prioritized compliance with requirements deemed most critical to the safety and soundness of financial markets. These include certain areas within corporate governance and risk management such as liquidity risk management, participant default management, and recovery and wind-down planning.
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Banking & Financial Institutions, Bankruptcy & Financial Distress, Financial Regulation, Practitioner Publications
Tagged Capital markets, Clearing houses, Federal Reserve, Financial institutions, Financial regulation, FSOC, Liquidity, Recovery & resolution plans, Risk management, Risk oversight, SIFIs, Stress tests, Systemic risk
Comments Off on Financial Market Utilities: Is the System Safer?
Ensuring the Proxy Process Works for Shareholders
Editor’s Note: Luis A. Aguilar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Aguilar’s recent public statement; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Aguilar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.
Today’s [February 19, 2015] Roundtable on Proxy Voting is certainly timely since over the course of the next several months, thousands of America’s public companies will hold annual shareholders meetings to elect directors and to vote on many important corporate governance issues. The start of the annual “proxy season” is an appropriate time to consider the annual process by which companies communicate with their shareholders and get their input on a variety of issues. Whether it’s voting on directors, executive compensation matters, or other significant matters, the annual meeting is the principal opportunity for shareholders—the true owners of public companies—to have their voices heard by the corporate managers of their investments. At these annual meetings, shareholders can express their support, or disappointment, with the direction of their companies through the exercise of their right to vote.
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Boards of Directors, Corporate Elections & Voting, Practitioner Publications, Regulators Materials, Securities Regulation, Speeches & Testimony
Tagged Boards of Directors, Proxy materials, Proxy voting, SEC, Securities regulation, Shareholder nominations, Shareholder voting
Comments Off on Ensuring the Proxy Process Works for Shareholders
Governance Issues in Spin-Off Transactions
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Stephen I. Glover, Partner and Co-Chair of the Mergers & Acquisitions practice at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and is based on a Gibson Dunn M&A Report by Mr. Glover, Elizabeth Ising, Lori Zyskowski, and Alisa Babitz. The complete publication, including footnotes, is available here.
Spin-off transactions require a focused, intensive planning effort. The deal team must make decisions about how best to allocate businesses, assets and liabilities between the parent and the subsidiary that will be spun-off. It must address complex tax issues, securities law questions and accounting matters, as well as issues related to capital structure, financing and personnel matters. In addition, it must resolve a long list of governance issues, including questions about the composition of the spin-off company board, the importance of mechanisms for dealing with conflicts of interest and the desirability of robust takeover defenses.
Click here to read the complete post…
Click here to read the complete post
Posted in Boards of Directors, Mergers & Acquisitions, Practitioner Publications, Securities Regulation
Tagged Board independence, Boards of Directors, Charter & bylaws, Forum selection, General governance, Mergers & acquisitions, Shareholder rights, Spinoffs, Subsidiaries, Takeover defenses
Comments Off on Governance Issues in Spin-Off Transactions