normes de droit | Page 2

Bel article de Les Échos qui continue la réflexion sur la loi PACTE et le droit des sociétés : « Raison d’être, entreprise à mission, intérêt élargi… quels engagements et risques ? » (24 septembre 2019).

Extrait :

Une possible suppression du statut

Le statut de société à mission, également prévu par la loi Pacte , est plus engageant. Pour Bruno Dondero, avocat associé au sein du cabinet CMS Francis Lefebvre Avocats, la démarche est loin d’être anodine : «  Si un dirigeant se contente d’inscrire sa démarche dans les statuts, et qu’il ne fait rien pour prendre en compte les enjeux sociaux ou environnementaux dans ses choix, ou que son comportement est contraire à ses engagements, le ministère public ou toute personne intéressée, comme un fournisseur, un client ou une organisation associative, pourra demander la suppression de la mention », prévient l’avocat. Les risques qui pèsent sur le dirigeant sont-ils aussi importants pour la raison d’être ? Pas si sûr. «  Les conséquences juridiques de cette nouvelle notion sont assez incertaines. Cela dépend en partie de la façon dont la raison d’être est rédigée dans les statuts, tout en sachant que les associés pourront la modifier ou la supprimer. Plus elle est précise, plus elle sera contraignante  », estime Nicolas Borga. Mais une raison d’être définie de façon excessivement large pourrait également avoir des effets pervers tant son champ d’application serait vaste et tant elle donnerait prise à interprétation. 

Des labels pour sortir du lot

Une entreprise, dont la raison d’être serait de promouvoir le travail en France, qui déciderait de fermer une usine et de la délocaliser dans un pays où les coûts de production sont moins élevés, pourrait être chahutée. «  Une association pourrait se plaindre des effets d’une telle décision. Mais pourra-t-on reprocher à cette société d’avoir méconnu sa raison d’être lorsqu’elle sera en mesure d’établir qu’il en allait de sa survie et que son intérêt social commandait la prise d’une telle décision ? C’est improbable, poursuit Nicolas Borga. La raison d’être pourrait donc plus s’apparenter à un outil marketing. » Pour éviter qu’elle ne se limite à un effet de mode, sans lien avec la stratégie, les entreprises peuvent se tourner vers des labels. Des agréments comme Esus (entreprise solidaire d’utilité sociale), le label Lucie, ou B Corp, dont l’objectif est d’identifier et de faire progresser les entreprises qui intègrent à leurs activités des objectifs sociaux et environnementaux, vont réellement prendre de l’ampleur et devenir le moyen le plus évident de repérer les entreprises qui s’engagent.

Le 7 mars 2019, ecoDa a pris position sur le devoir de loyauté des administrateurs : « ecoDa’s position paper on Directors Duties »

Extrait :

ecoDa supports the fundamental concept of Corporate purpose. However the European Commission should propose policy principles and refrains from trying to standardize directors’ duties among Member States and sectors. ecoDa believes that soft law through Corporate Governance codes is more suitable to adapt to an evolving context.

Acknowledging that shareholders define the company’s purpose does not mean neither that the interests of other stakeholders should not be taken into account by the directors when fulfilling their duties towards the company. On the contrary, there is no doubt that boards are taking such interests into account to an extent deemed consistent with the company’s purpose. Basically, there is a sound business case for more social and environmental involvement. Understanding consumers’ expectations and employees’ aspiration is becoming a prerequisite to become more innovative, to attract the right talents and to ensure sustainability in the long run. It is obvious that companies cannot be run in a sustainable manner if boards ignore the context in which they operate.

Therefore, the European Commission should refrain from trying to harmonize the fundamental concept of corporate interest and directors’ duties due to the very important legal differences across Europe and the different contexts across sectors. No law should hold directors accountable to several “principals”, arguably with often mutually contradictory interests. The board can solely be accountable to the company for the discharge of its duty to promote the purpose of the company. If the criteria for liability are not clearly defined, the boards will be liable to nobody for nothing or to everybody for anything. “Being liable to everybody means being liable to nobody”. Legal certainty is the basis of a competitive economic environment.

À la prochaine…

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, la sénatrice Élisabeth Warren vient d’introduire un projet de loi très ambitieux (!) : le S.3348 – Accountable Capitalism Act.

Plusieurs points saillants ressortent de ce projet :

• La création d’un Office of United States Corporations.
• La possibilité de s’enregistrer auprès de cet organisme fédéral (alors que jusqu’à maintenant, rappelons-le, l’enregistrement se faisait auprès des États et notamment celui du Delaware).
• Les salariés représenteraient 40 % du CA.
• L’entreprise devrait poursuivre une mission sociétale.
• La redéfintion des devoirs des administrateurs et hauts-dirigeants.

Pour en savoir plus, lire cet article ici du The Guardian.

Extrait du projet de loi

SEC. 5. Responsibilities of United States corporations.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) GENERAL PUBLIC BENEFIT.—The term “general public benefit” means a material positive impact on society resulting from the business and operations of a United States corporation, when taken as a whole. (…)

(1) IN GENERAL.—The charter of a large entity that is filed with the Office shall state that the entity is a United States corporation.

(2) CORPORATE PURPOSES.—A United States corporation shall have the purpose of creating a general public benefit, which shall be—

(A) identified in the charter of the United States corporation; and

(B) in addition to the purpose of the United States corporation under the articles of incorporation in the State in which the United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable.

(c) Standard of conduct for directors and officers.—

(c) Standard of conduct for directors and officers.—

(1) CONSIDERATION OF INTERESTS.—In discharging the duties of their respective positions, and in considering the best interests of a United States corporation, the board of directors, committees of the board of directors, and individual directors of a United States corporation—

(A) shall manage or direct the business and affairs of the United States corporation in a manner that—

(i) seeks to create a general public benefit; and

(ii) balances the pecuniary interests of the shareholders of the United States corporation with the best interests of persons that are materially affected by the conduct of the United States corporation; and

(B) in carrying out subparagraph (A)—

(i) shall consider the effects of any action or inaction on—

(I) the shareholders of the United States corporation;

(II) the employees and workforce of—

(aa) the United States corporation;

(bb) the subsidiaries of the United States corporation; and

(cc) the suppliers of the United States corporation;

(III) the interests of customers and subsidiaries of the United States corporation as beneficiaries of the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation;

(IV) community and societal factors, including those of each community in which offices or facilities of the United States corporation, subsidiaries of the United States corporation, or suppliers of the United States corporation are located;

(V) the local and global environment;

(VI) the short-term and long-term interests of the United States corporation, including—

(aa) benefits that may accrue to the United States corporation from the long-term plans of the United States corporation; and

(bb) the possibility that those interests may be best served by the continued independence of the United States corporation; and

(VII) the ability of the United States corporation to accomplish the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation;

(ii) may consider—

(I) other pertinent factors; or

(II) the interests of any other group that are identified in the articles of incorporation in the State in which the United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable; and

(iii) shall not be required to give priority to a particular interest or factor described in clause (i) or (ii) over any other interest or factor.

(2) STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR OFFICERS.—Each officer of a United States corporation shall balance and consider the interests and factors described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) in the manner described in paragraph (1)(B)(iii) if—

(A) the officer has discretion to act with respect to a matter; and

(B) it reasonably appears to the officer that the matter may have a material effect on the creation by the United States corporation of a general public benefit identified in the charter of the United States corporation.

(3) EXONERATION FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY.—Except as provided in the charter of a United States corporation, neither a director nor an officer of a United States corporation may be held personally liable for monetary damages for—

(A) any action or inaction in the course of performing the duties of a director under paragraph (1) or an officer under paragraph (2), as applicable, if the director or officer was not interested with respect to the action or inaction; or

(B) the failure of the United States corporation to pursue or create a general public benefit. (…)

(d) Right of action.—

(1) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY OF CORPORATION.—A United States corporation shall not be liable for monetary damages under this section for any failure of the United States corporation to pursue or create a general public benefit.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Le professeur Bernard S. Sharfman a publié il y a deux ans un article très intéressant sur la primauté de la valeur actionnariale en droit des sociétés : « Shareholder Wealth Maximization and Its Implementation Under Corporate Law », 66 Fla. L. Rev. 389 (2015). À redécouvrir !

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.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bel article du Journal de Montréal : « Le rendement à court-terme, une menace pour nos entreprises » (22 novembre 2016). Une occasion de discuter gouvernance d’entreprise en se concentrant sur la situation actuelle caractérisée par une omniprésence des investisseurs institutionnels !

Auparavant, les petits investisseurs québécois conservaient leurs actions en bourse en moyenne 10 ans. Aujourd’hui, à peine quatre mois. Quelque chose a changé dans notre rapport aux entreprises. Et pas pour le mieux, dit Gaétan Morin, président et chef de la direction du Fonds de solidarité FTQ.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian