Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale

Le 15 janvier 2025, la jurisprudence américaine a rendu un arrêt qui aborde le contenu des devoirs fiduciaires des gestionnaires de fonds.

Dans l’affaire Spence v. American Airlines, Inc. 2025 WL 225127 (N.D. Tex. 2025), le plaignant a intenté une action collective contre American Airlines et son comité des avantages sociaux des employés (« EBC ») en invoquant des manquements aux obligations fiduciaires de loyauté et de prudence résultant des pratiques d’investissement des fiduciaires du plan.

Extrait tiré du site du cabinet Miller Canfield (ici) :

Defendants Breached the Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty

The district court in American Airlines concluded that the plan fiduciaries breached their duty of loyalty by failing to act solely in the retirement plan’s best financial interest when the plan fiduciaries allowed their corporate interests to influence management and investment of plan assets. The court found it apparent that the plan fiduciaries failed to question BlackRock’s ESG activities, either because the plan sponsor’s corporate objectives were aligned with BlackRock’s ESG objectives or because the plan fiduciaries were afraid to question a large shareholder (or both).

The court took note of the following factors that showed the various corporate ties to BlackRock that were inappropriately leveraged to influence management of the plan:

• BlackRock was one of American Airline’s largest shareholders.
• BlackRock managed billions of dollars in plan assets at a time that it owned 5% of American Airline’s stock.
• BlackRock financed roughly $400 million of American Airline’s corporate debt when American Airlines was experiencing financial difficulty.

Defendants Did Not Breach the Fiduciary Duty of Prudence

Despite finding that the plan fiduciaries breached the duty of loyalty, the court found that their investment monitoring practices were consistent with prevailing industry practices and that the plan fiduciaries acted in a manner similar to other fiduciaries in the industry. Accordingly, the court did not find that the plan fiduciaries breached the duty of prudence when using BlackRock as an investment manager.

À la prochaine…

Intéressant ce que relaie le Time. Il y a un des candidats à l’élection présidentielle américaine a invoqué le devoir fiduciaire pour justifier les politiques d’évitement fiscales qu’il a mises en œuvre pendant de nombreuses années : « Donald Trump’s ‘Fiduciary Duty’ Excuse on Taxes Is Just Plain Wrong ». Qu’en penser ? Pour la journaliste Rana Foroohar, la réponse est claire : « The Donald and his surrogates say he has a legal responsibility to minimize tax payments for his shareholders. It’s not a good excuse ».

It’s hard to know what to say to the New York Times’ revelation that Donald Trump lost so much money running various casino and hotel businesses into the ground in the mid-1990s ($916 million to be exact) that he could have avoided paying taxes for a full 18 years as a result (which may account for why he hasn’t voluntarily released his returns—they would make him look like a failure).

But predictably, Trump did have a response – fiduciary duty made me do it. So, how does the excuse stack up? Does Donald Trump, or any taxpayer, have a “fiduciary duty,” or legal responsibility, to maximize his income or minimize his payments on his personal taxes? In a word, no. “His argument is legal nonsense,” says Cornell University corporate and business law professor Lynn Stout,

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian