Normes d’encadrement | Page 101

May expressed discontent with the current model of corporate governance used by FTSE companies and in particular the effectiveness of supposedly independent non-executive directors. ‘In practice, they are often drawn from the same narrow social and professional circles as the executive team and the scrutiny they provide is often limited,’ she said. So, she suggests, workers and even consumers should be given a seat at the table.

May wrote she wants to tackle the ‘unhealthy and growing gap between what these companies pay their workers and what they pay their bosses.’ Specifically she wants to make shareholder votes on corporate pay packages binding instead of advisory and ‘simplify the way bonuses are paid so that the bosses’ incentives are better aligned with the long-term interests of the company.’

Excellent Law Working Paper de l’ECGI (No. 316/2016) de John Armour, Dan Awrey, Paul L. Davies, Luca Enriques, Jeffrey N. Gordon, Colin Mayer et Jennifer Payne consacré à la gouvernance d’entreprise des banques : « Bank Governance ».

Voici le résumé :

According to a common narrative, in addition to inadequate capital and liquidity, the failure of banks in the financial crisis also reflected their poor governance. By governance we mean broadly the oversight that comes from banks’ own shareholders and other stakeholders of the way in which they are run.

The problem of bank governance stems from the way in which banks are financed and regulated, from the externalities bank failures produce, and from the nature of their assets. In the period leading up to the financial crisis, it was believed that regulation would cause banks to internalize the costs of their activities, meaning that what maximized bank shareholders’ returns would also be in the interests of society.

Consequently large banks used the same governance tools as non-financial companies to minimize shareholder-management agency costs, namely independent boards, shareholder rights, the shareholder primacy norm, the threat of takeovers, and equity-based executive compensation. Unfortunately, such tools had the adverse effect of encouraging bank managers to take excessive risks: as we describe in this chapter, banks that had the most ‘pro-shareholder’ boards and the closest alignment between executive returns and the stock price were those which took the most risks prior to, and suffered the greatest losses during, the crisis.

Consequently, a significant rethink about the way in which banks are governed is required. The structure and function of bank boards, the compensation of bank executives and the function of risk management within organizations needs careful crafting if governance reforms are to address not exacerbate bank failures.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Le blog de l’Université d’Oxford publie un très récent billet analysant sur le dilemme et la position délicate dans laquelle peut être placé l’État actionnaire : « Exercise of Shareholder Control Over a State Owned Enterprise – Comments on Comissão de Valores Mobiliários’s decision in the Eletrobras case » (par le professeur Mario Engler Pinto Junior).

The Comissão de Valores Mobiliários (CVM), the Brazilian equivalent of the SEC, has recently imposed sanctions on the Federal Government for actions taken as the controlling shareholder of the public company Eletrobras. More precisely, the sanctions were imposed on the Federal Government for voting in a general meeting to grant approval of an Elecrobras significant transaction. CVM considered that the Federal Government had a conflict of interest and should have abstained from voting in a shareholders’ meeting called to approve the renewal of the concession contract held by Eletrobras and its subsidiaries for electrical power generation.

 In Brazil, the Federal Government is also the public authority responsible for regulating the electrical sector. According to CVM, the renewal of the concession contract for electrical power generation was a related party transaction that could bring indirect economic benefits to the Federal Government.

My paper criticizes CVM’s approach, arguing that the contract renewal was a legitimate public policy decision in the context of the electrical sector as a whole.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Beau rapport du cabinet Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP qui montre que la RSE ne peut plus être ignoré par les entreprises : « Governance Goes Green ».

It’s not just us tree-huggers. Increasingly, institutional investors, pension plans and regulators are calling for (and in some cases requiring) companies to assess and report on the sustainability of their business operations and investments. Climate change and other environmental concerns are at the forefront of these calls. Institutional investors are focusing on sustainable business practices – a broad category in which environmental and social risks, costs and opportunities of doing business are analyzed alongside conventional economic considerations – as a key factor in long-term financial performance. Sustainability proponents are looking to boards of directors and management to integrate these considerations into their companies’ long-term business strategies.

Éléments essentiels à retenir :

• Institutional investors increasingly regard environmental and other sustainability issues as strategic matters for companies.
• Shareholders continue to submit environmental and other sustainability proposals, successfully garnering attention and prompting companies to make changes, despite their failure to win majority votes.
• Independent organizations are developing standards for sustainability and environmental reporting to provide investors with consistent metrics for assessing and comparing the sustainability of companies’ practices.
• Sustainability and environmental reporting remains in the SEC’s sights as it evaluates the effectiveness of current disclosure requirements and considers changes for the future.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Encore un exemple de résistance des actionnaires à la rémunération proposée au PDG : « Les actionnaires d’Alstom se prononcent contre la rémunération de Patrick Kron » (Les Échos.fr, 5 juillet 2016). 62% des actionnaires ont voté contre la septième résolution présentée à l’assemblée générale, définissant les éléments de rémunération de Kron, qui a quitté l’entreprise le 31 janvier dernier.

L’assemblée générale des actionnaires d’Alstom a émis un vote négatif sur la rémunération de Patrick Kron, ancien PDG du groupe industriel français. Au total, 62% des actionnaires ont voté contre la septième résolution présentée à l’assemblée générale, définissant les éléments de rémunération de Kron, qui a quitté l’entreprise le 31 janvier dernier, deux mois avant la fin de l’exercice décalé (2015-2016) de l’entreprise.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian