Nouvelles diverses

actualités internationales Gouvernance normes de droit place des salariés

Un panel et des actions pour faire participer plus les salariés

Telles sont les propositions des professeurs Konstantinos Sergakis et Andreas Kokkinis dans leur article intitulé « Employee Advisory Panels: A New Paradigm for Shareholder-based Governance? » (25 mars 2020). À découvrir…

Extrait :

Employee participation in corporate governance refers to a range of institutions, voluntary or legally mandated, that engage employees in corporate decision-making, such as works councils with co-decision powers on labour matters, advisory panels, information and consultation committees, employee share ownership schemes and board representation. Corporate contractarian literature dismisses employee participation as inefficient on the grounds that, if it were efficient, it would be voluntarily adopted widely. In our paper, we argue that the scarcity of employee participation in the UK can be attributed to shareholder short-termism and behavioural biases and, therefore, that the question of its efficiency remains open for companies that want to explore this possibility. We thus propose a flexible approach that companies can follow to implement employee participation. Our approach takes into account the broader UK institutional framework by creating adaptable and long-term solutions for both listed and large private companies. Nevertheless, it can be adopted in any other national context where employee board representation has not been mandated by company law provisions.

We argue that the most pragmatic way to encourage efficient employee participation is through the introduction of formal and permanent employee advisory panels and, in the longer term, the proliferation of employee share ownership schemes coupled with special rights to appoint a number of directors in tandem with the size of employee share ownership. Our approach relies on an incremental participation model, whereby employees should first be given a dialogue channel through advisory panels to gain adequate experience before appointing board members. 

À la prochaine…

engagement et activisme actionnarial Gouvernance Nouvelles diverses

Fonds d’investissement passifs (indexés par exemple) : devraient-ils voter ?

En voilà une question qui ne manque pas de pertinence ! La professeure Dorothy Shapiro Lund aborde la question des fonds passifs et de leur conséquence en matière de gouvernance d’entreprise dans un article publié sur l’Oxford Business Law Blog : « The Case Against Passive Shareholder Voting » (11 septembre 2017).

In the past few years, investors have begun to embrace the reality that academics have been championing for decades—that a broad-based passive indexing strategy is superior to picking individual stocks or actively managed mutual funds. As a result, millions of investors have abandoned actively managed mutual funds, or ‘active funds,’ in favor of passively managed funds, or ‘passive funds.’ This past year alone, investors in the United States withdrew $340 billion from active funds (approximately 4 percent of the total) while investing $533 billion into passive funds (growing the total by 9 percent).

This historically unprecedented shift in investor behavior is good news for investors, who benefit from greater diversification and lower costs. But the implications for corporate governance are ominous. Unlike active funds, which pick stocks based on their performance, passive funds—a term that includes index funds and ETFs—are designed to automatically track a market index. For this reason, I contend that the growth of passive funds will exacerbate agency cost issues at corporations.

That is because passive funds do not choose investment securities for their performance but automatically to match an index or part of the market.

(…)

What can be done to prevent the governance distortion created by the rise of passive investing? I offer a novel policy proposal: Restrict passive funds from voting at shareholder meetings.

 

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

engagement et activisme actionnarial Gouvernance normes de droit Nouvelles diverses

Proposition actionnariale et meilleur intérêt d’une entreprise

Executives Act in Company Interest when Challenging Résolutions » (30 décembre 2016), l’auteure résume habillement un article publié récemment établissant que des dirigeants d’une entreprise agissent dans le meilleur intérêt de cette dernière lorsqu’ils contestent une proposition actionnariale.

 

This may surprise some shareholder advocates, but executives appear to act in the company’s best interest when they challenge shareholder resolutions via the Securities and Exchange Commission’s no-action process.

(…) The study concluded that corporate managers resist these shareholder resolutions because they could hurt the company’s bottom line, and that investors agree the proposals are “value-destroying.” The study also found that investors are especially skeptical of resolutions by so-called “gadfly” proponents, i.e., individual shareholders who submit numerous resolutions at companies.

“Among the different types of shareholders whose proposals are challenged by managers, we find that proposals from individual shareholders are the most value-destroying,” the study said.

 

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Gouvernance normes de droit Nouvelles diverses

Réforme britannique de la gouvernance d’entreprise : qu’en pensent les PDG et la haute-direction ?

Dans un article paru le 2 février 2017 (« CEOs share their views on corporate governance reform », The Telegraph), des PDG et des chefs de la haute-direction partage leur analyse de la réforme proposée par Theresa May.

 

So what changes, in what could be the most significant reform of corporate governance since the 2005 Greenbury report, is the paper proposing to make – and how are business leaders responding?

 

Morceaux choisis :

  • “Unions are angry that the proposal to have workers on boards has been dropped, in favour of advisory panels for workers and consumers, and the allocation of special responsibilities to non-executives. Large private companies will be dismayed about proposals about new rules for them. They may argue that this has been based on the poor behaviour of a small minority.”
  • “The paper toes a very careful line – raising important questions – and then delivering fairly watered-down recommendations. For example, the paper suggests a binding annual shareholder vote on executive pay, but excludes some elements of executive pay packages from the vote.
  • “I welcome any effort that encourages business to do the right thing, but corporate governance is about so much more than regulating executive pay. The boardroom sets the standard for the whole of the business and must be accountable for that ».
  • « For reform to be taken forward, business leaders should be encouraged to focus on changes that drive long-term prospects ».

 

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Gouvernance Nouvelles diverses Structures juridiques

Vers une réforme du droit des groupes en Europe

Le groupe européen d’experts en droit des sociétés vient de faire une proposition pour un droit des groupes : « A proposal for reforming group law in the European Union – Comparative observations on the way forward, October 2016 ».

 

The legal regime applicable to groups of companies in the European Union has been discussed for many years. National legislations have been adopted in a certain number of member states, and new initiatives are being considered by the European Commission and in academic writing. The central issues in groups of companies is the relationship between the controlling shareholder, often the parent company and the subsidiaries, and the potential for abuse to the detriment of the latter’s minority shareholders and creditors. Several answers have been formulated, going from a duty of the parent to indemnify the subsidiary for the charges imposed by the parent, to the acceptance of these charges provided they result in some benefit to the subsidiary and provided they do not endanger the subsidiary’s solvency. In a third approach, these issues may be solved by other common company law, e.g.  on the basis of the unfair prejudice provisions.  With respect to shareholder and creditor protection, a comparative analysis concludes that there is no need for additional regulatory safeguards. The present approaches indicate that group relations are often characterised by conflicts of interest. Therefore, it is proposed to develop a standard for dealing with these, especially under the form of Related Party Transactions.   The specific conditions for dealing with intragroup related party transactions are submitted for further discussion.

 

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian