normes de droit | Page 54

Très beau papier dans The Economist intitulé « The Dark Art ». Cet article revient sur la puissance des grandes entreprises qui leur permet de développer des stratégies favorisant leurs seuls intérêts au détriment de celui des États et des consommateurs (évasion fiscale, lobbying…)

Companies are by nature competitive. That is mostly to be welcomed, but sometimes their competitive instincts play out in less welcome ways as they engage in some of the darker arts of management. The two most obvious ones are to pay as little tax as is legally possible, and to lobby governments and a variety of other bodies to gain an advantage over rivals. To a greater or lesser extent all companies do this. The big difference is that the superstar companies, being good at everything they do, are also much better than the rest at practising these dark arts and taking them mainstream

Les moyens des grandes entreprises les conduisent à être bonnes dans beaucoup de domaines dont celui de jouer avec les règles juridiques ou de les orienter :

This raises three worries. The first is that they will keep getting better at them, applying the same creative excellence to rule-bending as they do to running their business in general. Second, superstars might use the combination of these and other skills to build up impregnable advantages, giving them growing monopoly power. Third, as their businesses become more mature, they may come to rely increasingly on those dark arts.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Un article d’un journalise de la presse.ca (Sylvain Larocque) met en lumière les difficultés attachées de la responsabilité sociétale et à contrer l’évasion fiscale des entreprises : « Évasion fiscale: le fisc cogne à la porte des quincailliers » (la presse.ca, 20 septembre 2016).

Dans une requête datée de décembre 2015 obtenue par Le Journal de Montréal, Revenu Canada demande à Rona de lui fournir la liste de tous les particuliers et entreprises ayant un compte chez elle. Rona, qui appartient désormais au détaillant américain Lowe’s, conteste la requête, y voyant une forme d’«intimidation» à l’endroit de l’industrie de la construction.

Or, une vingtaine d’entreprises de quincaillerie québécoises ciblées par le fisc ont déjà accepté de remettre leurs listes de clients, dont Groupe BMR pour ses 15 magasins non franchisés. Notons que la démarche ne vise pas les commerçants, mais leurs clients.

(…) Dans les listes remises par la vingtaine d’entreprises, Revenu Canada a dénombré plus de 6500 clients commerciaux, dont 1277 (soit près de 20%) «avaient omis de produire leur déclaration d’impôt pour au moins une année d’imposition sur la période s’échelonnant de 2008 à 2012», peut-on lire dans un document cité par Le Journal de Montréal.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, le Parlement devrait adopter d’ici à la fin du mois d’octobre la loi Sapin 2 qui impose notamment un vote contraignant des actionnaires des sociétés cotées en AG concernant la rémunération des dirigeants. Une démarche à risques estime Fabrice Rémon, Fondateur de Gouvernance en Actions.

Accéder ici à capsule-vidéo

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