Gouvernance | Page 10

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, Mhir Naniwadekar et Umakanth Varottil publient un billet sur le blog de l’Université Oxford sous le titre : « Directors’ Duties and Stakeholder Interests: Comparing India and the United Kingdom » (28 août 2016). Vraiment intéressant et qui montre toute l’incertitude de la protection des parties prenantes malgré les nouveaux articles 172 au Royaume-Uni et 166 en Inde !

La version longue de ce papier est à consulter sur SSRN : Mihir Naniwadekar et Umakanth Varottil, « The Stakeholder Approach Towards Directors’ Duties Under Indian Company Law: A Comparative Analysis » (August 11, 2016). NUS – Centre for Law & Business Working Paper No. 16/03; NUS Law Working Paper No. 2016/006.

Quelle conclusion ?

Our principal thesis in this paper is that while section 166(2) of the 2013 Act in India, at a superficial level, extensively encompasses the interests of non-shareholder constituencies in the context of directors’ duties and textually adheres to the pluralist stakeholder approach, a detailed analysis based on an interpretation of the section and the possible difficulties that may arise in its implementation substantially restricts the rights of stakeholders in Indian companies. Moreover, while the stated preference of the Indian Parliament veers towards the pluralist approach that recognizes the interests of shareholders and non-shareholder constituencies with equal weight, the functioning of the Companies Act, as well as the principles of common law relating to directors’ duties, make the Indian situation not altogether different from the ESV model followed in the UK. As such, proponents of the stakeholder theory in India should not declare victory with the enactment of section 166(2). Arguably, the magnanimity of its verbiage and rhetoric in favour of stakeholders merely pays lip service to them and obscures any real teeth or legal ammunition available to non-shareholder constituencies to assert those rights as a matter of law.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Voilà la théorie des parties prenantes pleinement appréhendée par le droit ! Le cas de l’entreprise française Morlex démontre que le droit français protège d’autres parties prenantes que les simples actionnaires et que le droit a pleinement un rôle à jouer. Le Monde vient de publier l’issue d’un litige qui opposait entreprise et salariés dans le cadre d’une décision prise en faveur des actionnaires : « Molex : le licenciement de 191 salariés jugé « sans cause réelle ni sérieuse » »

Après des années de combat, les « Molex » obtiennent une victoire de taille. Mardi 9 août, la cour d’appel de Toulouse a jugé « sans cause réelle ni sérieuse » le licenciement de 191 salariés du groupe de connectique automobile Molex, dont l’usine de Villemur-sur-Tarn (Haute-Garonne) a fermé en 2009. La justice a estimé que l’employeur avait agi « avec légèreté » dans ces licenciements et a accordé au total environ 7 millions d’euros d’indemnités

(…) La décision de fermer l’usine de Villemur-sur-Tarn a été prise « alors que le secteur n’était pas en difficulté », a encore jugé la cour d’appel, selon l’avocat. « Tous les rapports révèlent qu’au cours de la période 2004-2009, les dividendes versés aux actionnaires par le groupe ont été multipliés par six et représentaient en 2009 un montant total de 100 millions de dollars (environ 72 millions d’euros, au taux de l’époque) », peut-on en effet lire dans l’arrêt.

« Big funds push back against activist investor settlements » (Reuters, 18 juillet 2016)… Cet article est à lire, tant il témoigne d’une évolution lente et progressive vers un modèle de gouvernance moins axé vers le court-termisme. Le temps de faire siéger les investisseurs court-termistes (tels les fonds de couverture) dans les CA serait-il révolu ?

After years of support for companies that hand board seats to activists to avoid a bruising public fight, some of the world’s largest institutional investors are pushing back.

BlackRock Inc (BLK.N), the world’s largest asset manager, and Norges Bank Investment Management, Norway’s $872 billion sovereign wealth fund are among the major funds resisting, encouraging companies to consult them before responding to an activist.

These investors argue that in certain cases, giving board seats to frustrated shareholders with a shorter-term investment horizon could jeopardize the company’s long-term performance.

Activist investors, which Thomson Reuters data show launched a record 511 campaigns last year, are usually hedge funds that buy up a minority stake in a company they believe is undervalued, and push publicly for changes to boost the stock.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Michael J. Mauboussin et Alfred Rappaport ont publié il y a quelques jours un article dans la Harvard Business Review qui revient sur la valeur actionnariale : « Reclaiming the Idea of Shareholder Value ». Les auteurs insistent sur l’importance de définir et de communiquer clairement l’objectif des entreprises.

Corporate governance issues are constantly in the headlines. Activist investors challenge management strategies. Investors and others ask why companies binge on buybacks while skimping on value-creating investment opportunities. But discussions of corporate governance invariably miss the real problem: most public companies have extensive governance procedures but no governing objective. As a result, there is no sound basis for stakeholders, including shareholders, to assess the performance of the company and its executives.

Corporate governance is a system of checks and balances that a company designs to ensure that it faithfully serves its governing objective. The governing objective is the cornerstone upon which the organization builds its culture, communications, and choices about how it allocates capital. Think of it as a clear statement of what a company is fundamentally trying to achieve.

Today there are two camps that aim to define the idea of governing objective, but neither is effective. The first believes the company’s goal is to maximize shareholder value. Countries that operate under common law, including the United States and the United Kingdom, lean in this direction.

The second advocates that the company balance the interests of all stakeholders. Countries that operate under civil law, including France, Germany, and Japan, tend to be in this camp.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Un article de The Wall Street Journal « The End of Economic Forecasting » revient (pour la critiquer sévèrement) sur la domination de la logique financière sur les grandes entreprises actuelles.

Because financial markets and financial investors are increasingly driving the world economy and it is inherently volatile. Total global assets under professional management have now increased to an astonishing $75 trillion, according to Boston Consulting Group. These gigantic amounts are rocketing around the globe looking for returns. The result is that commodity markets, corporations, governments and other sectors are being relentlessly financialized—or tied to the fortunes of investments in markets—and thus less predictable.

(…) Financial factors also are increasingly dominating corporations—and the result is very short-term behavior. The rise of shareholder activism, hostile takeovers and newer techniques of executive compensation have put managements and boards of directors under tremendous pressure to deliver returns to shareholders now. The result is increasing focus on immediate earnings and share-price movements.

Nearly 80% of respondents to a 2014 CFO survey in the Harvard Business Review said they would sacrifice “economic value” to meet Wall Street targets. This is why so much capital has been used for share-buyback programs, rather than for long-term investment. With corporations themselves losing focus on the long term, it is harder for anyone to forecast their performance.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, voici un très bel article de Susan Holmberg et Mark Schmitt accessible en ligne : « The Milton Friedman Doctrine Is Wrong. Here’s How to Rethink the Corporation » (Evonomics, 9 juin 2016).

The compensation of American executives—CEOs and their “C-suite” colleagues—has long been a matter of controversy, especially recently, as the wages of average workers have stagnated and economic inequality has moved to the center of the national debate. Just about every spring, the season of corporate proxy votes, we see the rankings of the highest-paid CEOs, topped by men (they’re all men until number 21) like David Cote of Honeywell, who in 2013 took home $16 million in salary and bonus, and another $9 million in stock options.

(…)

The problem isn’t that the political system doesn’t want to deal with excessive CEO pay. There have been any number of formal efforts to rein in executive pay, involving a host of direct regulation and tax changes. But most of the specific efforts to reduce executive pay—through major policies such as a limit on the tax deductibility of high salaries, as well as more modest accounting and disclosure legislation—have fallen short. That’s because the story of skyrocketing executive pay is a story about our conception of the corporation and its responsibilities. And until we rethink our deepest assumptions about the corporation, we won’t be able to master the challenge of excessive CEO pay, or the inequality it generates. Is the CEO simply the agent of the company’s shareholders? Is the corporation’s only obligation to return short-term gains to shareholders? Or can we begin to think of the corporation in terms of the interests of all those who have a stake in its success—its customers, its community, and all of its employees? If we take the latter view, the challenge of CEO pay will become clearer and more manageable.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian