This Article tackles the question of when courts should intervene in the decision-making of a corporation and review a corporate business decision for shareholder wealth maximization. This Article takes a very traditional approach to answering this question. It notes with approval that courts have historically been very hesitant to participate in the process of determining if a corporate decision is wealth maximizing. Courts have restrained themselves from interfering with board decision-making because they understand that it is the board of directors (the board) in coordination with executive management that has the best information and expertise to determine if a corporate decision meets the objective of shareholder wealth maximization. Nevertheless, the courts have found that they can play a wealth-enhancing role if they focus on making corporate authority accountable when there is sufficient evidence to show that the corporate decision was somehow tainted. Therefore, the courts will interpose themselves as a corrective mechanism when a board decision is tainted with a conflict of interest, lack of independence, or where gross negligence in the process of becoming informed in the making of a business decision is implicated.
When judicial review veers from this traditional approach, the court’s opinion must be closely scrutinized to see if the court had valid reasons for implementing a different approach. Such a veering from the traditional path can be found in the Delaware Chancery case of eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Newmark, a case where the court, in its review of a shareholder rights plan under the Unocal test, required the directors to demonstrate that the corporate policy being defended by the poison pill enhanced shareholder value. As argued here, the court was wrong in its approach, and in general courts should never be in the position of adding this additional component of analyzing board decisions for shareholder wealth maximization unless the business decision was tainted with a conflict of interest, lack of independence, or gross negligence.
In a recent article (the draft of which is available here), I put forward a proposal to advance an important aspect of UK corporate law in the making, namely by suggesting the use of alternative means available in the soft law sphere that could support a more pluralistic and democratic formation of corporate decision-making. The Corporate Governance Code (the ‘Code’) should make provision for the inclusion of an additional section, Section F, which should stipulate that:
‘Main Principle: There should be a dialogue with stakeholders based on the mutual understanding of objectives. The board as a whole, has responsibility for ensuring that a satisfactory dialogue with stakeholders takes place and that during the board’s decision-making process the board has regard (amongst other matters) to—
(a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b) the interests of the company’s employees,
(c) the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
(d) the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment,
(e) the impact of the company’s operations on social and human rights issues,
(f) the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct.’
The proposal put forward aligns with the concept of ‘Environmental, Social and Governance’, which appears in the UN Principles for Responsible Investment and refers to extra-financial material information about the challenges and performance of a company regarding these aspects, enabling shareholders to better assess risks and opportunities.
La Division of Corporation Finance de la Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a publié le 1er novembre 2017 un Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14 intitulé « Shareholder proposals ».
Extrait :
This staff legal bulletin provides information for companies and shareholders regarding Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
This bulletin is part of a continuing effort by the Division to provide guidance on important issues arising under Exchange Act Rule 14a-8. Specifically, this bulletin contains information about the Division’s views on:
the scope and application of Rule 14a-8(i)(7);
the scope and application of Rule 14a-8(i)(5);
proposals submitted on behalf of shareholders; and
the use of graphs and images consistent with Rule 14a-8(d).
Despite this potential similarity and the satisfactory quantitative results produced by both models, the relative success of each program remains hard to determine at this relatively early point.
To date, it appears that the lack of financial awards has not negatively affected the AMF whistleblower program. Beyond the total number of received reports however, it is possible that financial incentives have a qualitative impact on whistleblower disclosures. Only when we have data on the quality of the received tips and the likelihood of these tips to result in actual proceedings, will we be able to accurately appreciate the value of each model.
In any event, the AMF program’s early success will certainly comfort the Alberta Securities Commission, who announced earlier this year that it was exploring the creation of a whistleblower program but ruled out offering financial incentives to whistleblowers, that it made the right decision.
À toutes fins utiles, je vous rappelle que j’avais publié un billet de blogue sur Contact au sujet du programme de dénonciation mis en place au Québec : « Dénonciation: nouvel outil éthique des entreprises » (13 octobre 2016).
MSCI Inc., whose indexes guide the investment of about $11 trillion in assets, delayed a decision on whether companies that deprive public shareholders of voting rights should be barred from its benchmarks.
The company also broadened its investigation to consider “a discussion on the treatment of all types of unequal voting structures,” according to a statement Thursday.
(…) In its statement Thursday, MSCI noted such concerns. MSCI has been reviewing what to do since June. During that process, a minority of firms that voiced opinions “were strongly against the exclusion of non-voting shares from equity benchmarks and expressed concerns that this would result in equity benchmarks that less clearly represent the overall opportunity set,” the New York-based company said.
(…) MSCI temporarily banned companies with “unequal voting structures” from being added to two broad benchmarks: the MSCI ACWI Investable Market Index and MSCI US Investable Market 2500 Index. Current members won’t be bumped from the indexes, however.
Les Autorités canadiennes en valeurs mobilières (ACVM) ont publié le 25 octobre pour commentaires le Document de consultation 52‑404 des ACVM, Approche en matière d’indépendance des administrateurs et membres du comité d’audit, qui vise à lancer un large débat sur la pertinence de l’approche des ACVM en matière d’indépendance des administrateurs et membres du comité d’audit.
Le document de consultation présente l’historique des principaux jalons du régime de gouvernance institué par les ACVM, expose leur approche en matière d’indépendance des administrateurs et membres du comité d’audit, décrit les approches en matière d’indépendance d’autres pays, et examine les avantages et limites de l’approche des ACVM.
« L’indépendance de jugement des conseils d’administration et de leurs comités constitue un élément fondamental de la gouvernance », a déclaré Louis Morisset, président des ACVM et président-directeur général de l’Autorité des marchés financiers. « Cette consultation a pour but de recueillir des avis sur la pertinence de notre approche en matière d’indépendance pour tous les émetteurs du marché canadien ».
Cliquez ici pour accéder au Document de consultation 52-404 des ACVM : Approche en matière d’indépendance des administrateurs et membres du comité d’audit
Attention, vous avez jusqu’au 25 janvier 2018 pour répondre !
Japanese corporate culture is being blamed for the mistakes. Economists Naoshi Ikeda, Kotaro Inoue and Sho Watanabe of the Tokyo Institute of Technology recently set out to test the « quiet-life hypothesis, » which is, as Bloomberg describes, « the idea that without shareholder pressure, managers will tend to avoid big decisions and content themselves with managing stable corporate empires, letting their companies stagnate. »
The researchers found that there’s a lot of this « quiet-life » business activity going on in Japan. Cross-shareholding (Keiretsu), where corporations own each other’s stock is rife, and this means companies are reluctant to challenge each other. The researchers found that at companies with a considerable level of cross-ownership, R&D spending and growth CapEx is relatively low compared to the rest of the market.
But progress is being made. Three and a half years after the government introduced a stewardship code for local institutional investors and more than two years since the launch of a governance code for listed Japanese companies, listed companies are moving in the right direction. Dividend payouts have reached a record, and there has been a quadrupling of firms with two or more independent directors on their boards over the past four years. There has also been an increase in of “constructive,” or friendly, activists (referred to as engagement funds rather than activist funds), which aim to tackle corporate governance issues, but with an explicitly low-key, humble approach.
