normes de droit

The Guardian publie un éditorial qui se veut critique de la réforme qui va être mise en place au Royaume-Uni : « The Guardian view on corporate governance reform: be stronger, not weaker ». C’est le 29 août 2017 que le Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy a publié la réponse du gouvernement britannique à la consultation lancée le 27 novembre 2016 qui avait un objectif ambitieux affiché par le premier Ministre. Intitulé « Corporate Governance Reform : The Government Response to the Green Paper Consultation », ce document fait la synthèse des 375 commentaires reçus et émet une série de propositions qui vont être mises en place. Deux axes forts ressortent des initiatives à venir : un meilleur alignement de la rémunération des hauts-dirigeants avec le salaire des employés au travers de la publication d’un ratio et un renforcement de la portée de l’article 172 de la loi des sociétés de 2006 par le biais d’une divulgation accrue relativement à la mise en œuvre de cette disposition.

Petit extrait :

Mrs May’s concern about these issues is right and rational. They are unfinished business for modern Britain. Unfortunately there is little that measures up in this package. Several of the ideas that Mrs May floated in 2016 – themselves fairly modest in the first place – have now been trimmed back or dropped altogether, in response to lobbying by the chancellor, Philip Hammond. Binding annual votes by shareholders on executive pay have bitten the dust. Now the City’s self-regulatory code will require companies only to publish the pay ratio between CEOs and their workforce average. Plans to put employee representatives on company boards have been abandoned. Now the appointment of a non-executive director “to represent employees” will suffice.

The dilution of the proposals reflects several things.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

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

Le 10 octobre, The National Law Review a publié un article intéressant revenant sur la situation britannique et les réformes à venir en gouvernance d’entreprise : « UK Corporate Governance: Change Has Got to Come! ».

A number of themes trailed in UK’s Theresa May’s first speech after securing the Conservative nomination, were repeated at last week’s Conservative Party conference in Birmingham. The new Government reiterated its intention to occupy the centre ground of British politics and the delivery of this political objective will undoubtedly have implications for corporate Britain – in the words of the Prime Minister “ a change has got to come.”

At the moment we are short on detail, but the Government has promised to publish plans later this year to have consumers and workers represented on company boards of directors. Speech soundbites also focussed on executive pay, the taxation of international business and the payment of excessive dividends, together with a more general promise to protect and enhance workers’ rights.

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

Dans un article du 11 septembre 2015 (« Crise financière : la justice américaine veut poursuivre les banquiers individuellement »), le journaliste Stéphane Lauer du Monde nous apprend que la numéro 2 du département de la justice a émis une directive pour inciter les procureurs à poursuivre judiciairement les banquiers et dirigeants d’entreprise indélicats.

Si les amendes infligées aux banques de Wall Street se sont multipliées ces derniers mois pour atteindre plusieurs dizaines de milliards de dollars, les responsables réellement impliqués dans les excès de la crise financière ont, pour la plupart, échappé aux sanctions. Cette situation a entretenu une profonde frustration dans l’opinion sur le fonctionnement de la justice américaine et sur la sincérité de la promesse de Barack Obama, lors de son élection à la présidence américaine, de punir les fautifs. Pour tenter de répondre à cette frustration, le ministère de la justice a diffusé, mercredi 9 septembre, une directive qui encourage les procureurs à poursuivre individuellement les banquiers et dirigeants d’entreprise indélicats.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian