Normes d’encadrement | Page 2

Le choix de renforcer le pouvoir des actionnaires est-il « le » bon choix ? Au travers de l’exemple de la banque d’investissement Morgan, Jill Fisch aborde cette thématique dans une de ces dernières études intitulé : « The Mess at Morgan: Risk, Incentives and Shareholder Empowerment » (ECGI Law Working Paper No. 311/2016, mars 2016).

The financial crisis of 2008 focused increasing attention on corporate America and, in particular, the risk-taking behavior of large financial institutions. A growing appreciation of the “public” nature of the corporation resulted in a substantial number of high profile enforcement actions. In addition, demands for greater accountability led policymakers to attempt to harness the corporation’s internal decision-making structure, in the name of improved corporate governance, to further the interest of non-shareholder stakeholders. Dodd-Frank’s advisory vote on executive compensation is an example.

This essay argues that the effort to employ shareholders as agents of public values and, thereby, to inculcate corporate decisions with an increased public responsibility is misguided. The incorporation of publicness into corporate governance mistakenly assumes that shareholders’ interests are aligned with those of non-shareholder stakeholders. Because this alignment is imperfect, corporate governance is a poor tool for addressing the role of the corporation as a public actor.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Le MÉDAC a publié une nouvelle intéressante sur les propositions actionnariales aux États-Unis (ici).

En 2015, le nombre total de propositions d’actionnaires aurait atteint son niveau le plus élevé en cinq ans aux États-Unis.

Ces propositions auraient surtout visé des enjeux de bon gouvernement d’entreprise, comme l’accès par procuration, le vote sur la rémunération des dirigeants, la composition des conseils d’administration, la planification de la relève, les engagements mutuels entre émetteurs et actionnaires, la participation accrue des administrateurs, ainsi que la création de valeur à long terme.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Yvan Allaire de l’Institut sur la gouvernance (IGOPP) va publier sous peu un nouvel article intitulé « The Canadian Coalition for Good Governance strikes a false note » qui a été soumis au Financial Post pour publication.

Jacques Grisé qui anime le blogue Gouvernance nous en livre un extrait en exclusivité (ici). Je me permets de le reprendre, le voici…

No doubt that “proxy access” is the next governance battlefield, with arguments and studies launched at each other in massive quantity by both sides. This debate raises important issues which must be considered carefully before adopting a position on the subject. But both sides agree on one point: if policy makers were to allow shareholders some “proxy access” so that candidates proposed by them would go on the same proxy voting ballot sent to all shareholders, that right should be exercised under a very specific set of conditions:

1. The shareholders should own a substantial quantity of shares: for instance 1% or 2% or, most frequently, 3% of all outstanding shares (with provision of a larger percentage for companies with small market capitalization);
2. To acquire the right to proxy access, these shareholders should have owned their shares for a given period of time: for at least 1 year or 2 years or, most frequently 3 years, or 5 years;
3. The number, or percentage, of board members that may be nominated through this process in any given year should be limited: 3 members or a maximum of 20% or 25% of board members, for instance;
4. There should be a cap on the number of shareholders that may join together to reach the minimum shareholding threshold: for instance 5 shareholders or 15 or 25, etc.

Proponents of “proxy access” all agree to these conditions or some variant thereof; but in a policy paper issued this week the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance (CCGG) stands apart and alone in the North American investment world on a most important condition of proxy access: the CCGG would place no holding time requirement whatsoever before shareholders acquire the right to nominate board members…

Pour celles et ceux qui veulent accéder à la position de la Coalition canadienne pour la bonne gouvernance (« Shareholder Involvement in the Director Nomination Process: Enhanced Engagement and Proxy Access »), cliquez ici.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian