Normes d’encadrement | Page 94

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, la province de l’Alberta a décidé d’aller de l’avant avec le thème de la féminisation des CA. Aussi, sa commission des valeurs mobilières vient-elle de lancer une consultation publique sur un projet de type « se conformer ou s’expliquer » (Janet McFarlane, « Alberta Securities Commission proposes gender diversity rule », The Globe and Mail, 14 septembre 2014). Pour rappel, cette règle du « conformer ou s’expliquer » a été mis en place dans la plupart des autres provinces canadiennes à l’exception de l’Alberta, de la Colombie-Britannique et de l’Île du Prince Édouard..

Alberta’s securities regulator is reversing course and has unveiled a proposal to adopt new reporting rules requiring companies to disclose their approach to gender diversity on their boards.

The Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) said Wednesday it will seek public comment on a proposal to adopt “comply or explain” rules requiring companies to explain their policies regarding the representation of women on their boards and executive positions, including whether they have internal targets for women.

The rule, open for comment until Oct. 14, would not require companies to add women to their ranks or adopt a diversity policy, but would require them to explain why they have opted not to have one. Companies would also have to report on the proportion of women on their boards and in executive officer roles.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Marc T. Moore offre un beau papier sur la place de la valeur actionnariale en Grande-Bretagne dans une perspective historique : « Shareholder Primacy, Labour and the Historic Ambivalence of UK Company Law » (Oxford University, 20 septembre 2016).

Most directors and senior managers of British companies would likely regard it as trite law that, in undertaking their functions, they are accountable first and foremost to their employer firm’s general body of shareholders. It follows that the interests of other corporate constituencies – and, in particular, those of employees – must ultimately cede to those of shareholders in the event of conflict. Although frequently taken for granted today, the lexical priority that the British company law framework affords to the interests of shareholders is remarkable, not least when viewed alongside the correspondingly disempowered corporate governance status of labour in the UK.

On first reflection, it is somewhat curious that the interests of employees have not figured more prominently within British company law, especially when one considers the general political disposition of the country in modern times. Throughout the course of the last century, the UK has witnessed 37 years of Labour government (or 42 years if one includes Labour’s participation in the wartime coalition government). And although the UK is acknowledged on the whole as having a more neo-liberal (ie right-wing) political orientation than many of its northern European counterparts, it nonetheless has a comparatively strong social-democratic (ie left-wing) political tradition in relation to other English-speaking and former-Commonwealth countries, at least since the Second World War. It is thus not unreasonable to expect that, at some point during the post-war era, democratic public policy measures might have been taken to effect the direct integration of worker interests into the heart of the British corporate legal structure.

Une de ses conclusion est intéressante :

However, whilst the centrality of shareholders’ interests to the doctrinal and normative fabric of contemporary UK company law is both manifest and incontrovertible, this has curiously not always been the case. With respect to the fundamental question of the proper corporate objective (that is, as to whose interest British company directors are expected to serve while carrying out their functions), UK company law up until 2006 adopted a highly ambiguous position. Moreover, British company law has in the fairly recent past come precariously close to adopting a radically different board representation model, in which worker interests would formally have shared centre-stage with those of shareholders in a similar vein to the traditional German corporate governance model.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, je vous informe qu’Andrew Ceresney (directeur de la division Enforcement à la SEC) s’est exprimé lors de la Sixteenth Annual Taxpayers Against Fraud Conference à Washington le 14 septembre 2016 (« The SEC’s Whistleblower Program: The Successful Early Years »). À cette occasion, M. Ceresney est revenu sur la dénonciation, son histoire et son succès actuel… ainsi que l’influence qu’a exercé le programme de dénonciation américain pour le Canada (Ontario et Québec) et l’Australie.

Whistleblowers provide an invaluable public service, often at great personal and professional sacrifice and peril. I cannot overstate the appreciation we have for the willingness of whistleblowers to come forward with evidence of potential securities law violations. I often speak of the transformative impact that the program has had on the Agency, both in terms of the detection of illegal conduct and in moving our investigations forward quicker and through the use of fewer resources.

Dans son allocution, M. Ceserney fournit des chiffres :

1. The success of the program can be seen, in part, in the over $107 million we have paid to 33 whistleblowers for their valuable assistance, in cases with more than $500 million ordered in sanctions
2. Since the inception of the program, the Office has received more than 14,000 tips from whistleblowers in every state in the United States and from over 95 foreign countries. What’s more, tips from whistleblowers increased from 3,001 in fiscal year 2012 — the first full fiscal year that the Commission’s Whistleblower Office was in operation — to nearly 4,000 last year, an approximately 30% increase. And we are on target to exceed that level this year. During fiscal year 2015, the Office returned over 2,800 phone calls from members of the public. By the end of fiscal year 2015, the Commission and Claims Review Staff had issued Final Orders and Preliminary Determinations with respect to over 390 claims for whistleblower awards.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

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

Bonsoir à toutes et à tous, l’agence Novethic revient sur le devoir de vigilance pour rappeler que ce devoir est pour bientôt en France : « Dominique Potier : « la loi sur le devoir de vigilance doit être votée en l’état » ».

Le rapporteur de la proposition de loi sur le devoir de vigilance à l’Assemblée nationale, le député socialiste Dominique Potier, est confiant quant à la promulgation du texte avant la fin du quinquennat. Celui-ci impose aux entreprises donneuses d’ordre françaises (de plus de 5 000 salariés en France et 10 000 à l’étranger) de mettre en place un plan de vigilance afin d’identifier, de prévenir et d’atténuer les risques et les atteintes aux droits de l’Homme dans leur chaîne d’approvisionnement, sous peine de s’exposer à des sanctions financières allant jusqu’à 10 millions d’euros. Si la France adoptait une telle législation, elle ferait figure de pionnière.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Dans Compliance Week, Paul Hodgson publie une tribune sous ce titre favorable à l’entrée des salariés dans les conseils d’administration (« I’m alright, Jack: worker representation on boards », 13 septembre 2016).

Probably the most European of new Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May’s fairly European corporate governance reform proposals is the proposal to have employee/worker representation on the board. It’s a concept unknown outside the European Union, and the United Kingdom is one of the few EU countries that has not yet introduced it.

But the idea was so far off anyone’s governance radar, except for the Trades Union Congress, that the proposal has taken almost everyone else by surprise, including companies, advisers, investors, and proxy advisers.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian