Publications

Publications publications de l'équipe

L’art de la juste équivalence en droit : discussion autour du mot « corporate » de l’expression corporate governance

Cet article a été publié en 2015 dans la Revue de la Recherche Juridique – Droit prospectif.

Résumé :

As law breaths new life to words, the modern translation of the term “corporate governance” arouses some considerations. Two issues arise from this particular translation of the term “corporate governance” and must be here exposed: first, the mistaken equalization, in the field of economics, of the terms “corporate” and “firm” (same language miswording) and, second, the unconsidered translating, from English to French, of the term “corporate” into the term “entreprise” (different language miswording). Long considered the corpus mysticum of the French jurists, the corporate governance is a field of study that must be vested by these legal experts. Notwithstanding the difficulty of this task, they must contribute to the identification of the right counterpart of corporate governance to bring light to the foundations of every economic venture, a business within the very heart of society. By referring to the term “corporate”, this study proposes that the legal experts have already every intellectual tool (e.g. the North-American theories and French theories) to properly tackle the corporate governance of tomorrow, which is a corporate governance that won’t be leaning on exclusively on the theory of contracts and shareholders supremacy. »

Référence : Ivan TCHOTOURIAN, « L’art de la juste équivalence en droit : discussion autour du mot « corporate » de l’expression corporate governance », Revue de la Recherche Juridique – Droit prospectif, vol. XL-157, n° 2, 2015, p. 455-502.

À bientôt pour une prochaine publication ….

autres publications Normes d'encadrement

Business Roundtable Governance Guidelines

Bonjour à tous et à toutes, le Business Roundtable (association privée regroupant les plus importants président de la haute-direction) vient de publier son dernier guide des principes de gouvernance d’entreprise. Intitulé « Business Roundtable’s Principles of Corporate Governance », ce guide

 

The latest edition of the Business Roundtable’s Principles of Corporate Governance makes one particular principle much more fundamental than it was in the previous edition of the guide.

That principle is diversity, a hot topic in the association world. In a key section of the report, the Roundtable emphasizes that a board should encompass in its members a variety of diverse backgrounds and experiences.

 

Les principes mis de l’avant sont les suivants :

  1. The board approves corporate strategies that are intended to build sustainable long-term value; selects a chief executive officer (CEO); oversees the CEO and senior management in operating the company’s business, including allocating capital for long-term growth and assessing and managing risks; and sets the “tone at the top” for ethical conduct.
  2. Management develops and implements corporate strategy and operates the company’s business under the board’s oversight, with the goal of producing sustainable long-term value creation.
  3. Management, under the oversight of the board and its audit committee, produces Financial statements that fairly present the company’s financial condition and results of operations and makes the timely disclosures investors need to assess the financial and business soundness and risks of the company.
  4. The audit committee of the board retains and manages the relationship with the outside auditor, oversees the company’s annual financial statement audit and internal controls over Financial reporting, and oversees the company’s risk management and compliance programs.
  5. The nominating/corporate governance committee of the board plays a leadership role in shaping the corporate governance of the company, strives to build an engaged and diverse board whose composition is appropriate in light of the company’s needs and strategy, and actively conducts succession planning for the board.
  6. The compensation committee of the board develops an executive compensation philosophy, adopts and oversees the implementation of compensation policies that fit within its philosophy, designs compensation packages for the CEO and senior management to incentivize the creation of long-term value, and develops meaningful goals for performance-based compensation that support the company’s longterm value creation strategy.
  7. The board and management should engage with long-term shareholders on issues and concerns that are of widespread interest to them and that affect the company’s long-term value creation. Shareholders that engage with the board and management in a manner that may affect corporate decisionmaking or strategies are encouraged to disclose appropriate identifying information and to assume some accountability for the long-term interests of the company and its shareholders as a whole. As part of this responsibility, shareholders should recognize that the board must continually weigh both short-term and long-term uses of capital when determining how to allocate it in a way that is most beneficial to shareholders and to building long-term value.
  8. In making decisions, the board may consider the interests of all of the company’s constituencies, including stakeholders such as employees, customers, suppliers and the community in which the company does business, when doing so contributes in a direct and meaningful way to building long-term value creation.

 

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

autres publications Gouvernance normes de droit

Gouvernance d’entreprise : le Parlement britannique lance une consultation

En Grande-Bretagne, The Business, Innovation, and Skills (BIS) Committee vient de lancer une consultation publique sur la gouvernance d’entreprise : « Corporate Governance inquiry launched ».

 

The Business, Innovation, and Skills (BIS) Committee has today launched an inquiry on corporate governance, focussing on executive pay, directors duties, and the composition of boardrooms, including worker representation and gender balance in executive positions.

 

Les questions abordées sont très intéressantes :


Directors Duties

  • Is company law sufficiently clear on the roles of directors and non-executive directors, and are those duties the right ones? If not, how should it be amended?
  • Is the duty to promote the long-term success of the company clear and enforceable?
  • How are the interests of shareholders, current and former employees best balanced?
  • How best should the decisions of Boards be scrutinised and open to challenge?
  • Should there be greater alignment between the rules governing public and private companies? What would be the consequences of this?
  • Should additional duties be placed on companies to promote greater transparency, e.g. around the roles of advisors. If so, what should be published and why? What would the impact of this be on business behaviour and costs to business?
  • How effectively have the provisions of the 1992 Cadbury report been embedded? How best can shareholders have confidence that Executives are subject to independent challenge?
  • Should Government regulate or rely on guidance and professional bodies to ensure that Directors fulfil their duties effectively?

Executive pay

  • What factors have influenced the steep rise in executive pay over the past 30 years relative to salaries of more junior employees?
  • How should executive pay take account of companies’ long-term performance?
  • Should executive pay reflect the value added by executives to companies relative to more junior employees? If so, how?
  • What evidence is there that executive pay is too high? How, if at all, should Government seek to influence or control executive pay?
  • Do recent high-profile shareholder actions demonstrate that the current framework for controlling executive pay is bedding in effectively? Should shareholders have a greater role?

Composition of Boards

  • What evidence is there that more diverse company boards perform better?
  • How should greater diversity of board membership be achieved? What should diversity include, e.g. gender, ethnicity, age, sexuality, disability, experience, socio-economic background?
  • Should there be worker representation on boards and/or remuneration committees? If so, what form should this take?
  • What more should be done to increase the number of women in Executive positions on boards?

 

Attention : la réponse est à envoyer pour le 26 octobre 2016 !

 

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

autres publications

La gouvernance en chiffre (un billet à consommer sans modération !)

Mon collègue Jacques Grisé publie sur son blog un billet très intéressant tiré du Harvard Law School Forum (Corporate Governance by the Numbers de Ann Yerger, EY Center for Board Matters) : « La gouvernance en chiffre ».

Ce billet présente les principales données sur la gouvernance des sociétés américaines en les présentant sous forme chiffrée. L’auteur a compilé les données de plus de 3 000 sociétés publiques aux États-Unis, en les présentant selon les 5 indices les plus importants : S&P 500, S&P MidCap 400, S&P SmallCap 600, S&P 1500 et Russell 3000.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

autres publications Normes d'encadrement Nouvelles diverses

Européanisation de la gouvernance d’entreprise par la soft law

Sur le blogue de l’Université d’Oxford, Idoya Ferrero-Ferrero et Robert Ackrill publie une synthèse de leur dernier article : « Is Europeanization Though Soft-Law a Reality in Corporate Governance Policies? ». La question qu’il aborde est simple mais très pertinente pour les juristes : Est-ce que la soft law européenne en matière de gouvernance d’entreprise fait évoluer les cadres juridiques étatiques (et ce, sans avoir besoin d’édicter des règles contraignantes !) ? La réponse est oui…

 

Europeanization addresses the impacts of EU membership on national politics and policies, via both the processes by which EU decision-making manifests itself at the national level; and the outcomes of that EU decision-making. Over time, as EU membership and policy scope have expanded, new approaches to policy-making have been developed and, therefore, new channels created by which Europeanization can occur. One such has been the use of ‘soft law’ processes. These have allowed for greater discussion of ‘sensitive’ policy issues, where national policy sovereignty continues to dominate, given that these discussions do not result in legal texts binding on the member states. That said, the purpose of soft law is still to deliver national policy change. Which begs the question – can they work?

 

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

autres publications Gouvernance

Volkswagen : quelle leçon pour la gouvernance ?

Le professeur John Armour offre une analyse synthétique des liens entre l’affaire Volkswagen et la gouvernance d’entreprise dans un billet de blog paru sur le site de l’Université d’Oxford : « Volkswagen’s Emissions Scandal: Lessons for Corporate Governance? (Part 1) ».

 

At this point, it remains unclear precisely how and why VW came to do this. US law firm Jones Day have been retained by VW to conduct an internal investigation, the results of which are due in the fourth quarter of 2016. VW’s official line is that this was the result of the actions of a few engineers and programmers. Let’s call this the ‘rogue technicians’ theory. However, with such a large number of vehicles, over a period of about seven years, it seems—as was argued in a recent post by J.S. Nelson—more plausible that senior management might have been aware of the scheme (or warning signs of it) at some point prior to its revelation. Let’s call this the ‘management inaction’ theory.

 

J’ai hâte de lire la partie 2 !

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

 

 

autres publications Nouvelles diverses

Six enjeux de gouvernance d’entreprise

Excellent dossier de La presse consacré à la gouvernance d’entreprise publié ce 3 mai ! Plusieurs articles sont ainsi consacré à la gouvernance d’entreprise et notamment un que je retiens dans le cadre du blogue : « Six enjeux de la gouvernance d’entreprise ».

L’activisme des actionnaires d’entreprises cotées en Bourse fait maintenant partie du paysage. Dénote-t-il des besoins de réformes majeures ? Va-t-il amener des changements de comportement chez l’élite des sociétés ? Survol des principaux enjeux en gouvernance d’entreprise.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian