objectifs de l’entreprise | Page 2

Petite lecture sur l’ouverture des sociétés par actions au long-terme avec cet article de Arjya Majumdar : « A Legal Basis for Corporate Long-Termism » (Oxford Business Law Blog, 9 Jan 2018).

My recent paper attempts to reconcile the divergent positions of the shareholder and stakeholder primacy debate by proposing that directors- acting for the corporation- should preserve intergenerational equity. Three arguments are presented in course of this proposition.

Firstly, there has been a slew of judgments in UK common law which suggest that courts are reticent to recognize fiduciary duties that directors may have towards shareholders. The primary reason for this is that the assets controlled, administered and managed by directors belong to the corporation as a legal entity separate from its shareholders. As a result, directors have a higher fiduciary duty to the corporation and future shareholders, over that of present shareholders.

Secondly, corporations are perpetual in nature or, at least, are designed to be, and their continuing existence is predicated upon the ability of individual owners to transfer their ownership. This aspect of corporate perpetuity is little discussed, but of considerable significance in conjunction with fiduciary duties to corporations.

If directors owe their primary duty to the corporation, they must ensure -to the best of their abilities- that the corporation is maintained in good condition throughout. This forms the legal basis of protection to future shareholders. Since the survival of the corporation is paramount compared to the investment of the shareholder, directors are under an obligation to preserve the corporation.

Finally, in order to safeguard the interests of future shareholders, corporations must necessarily strive to preserve the natural and social environments upon which the future of the corporation and the wealth of future shareholders depends. Businesses must, therefore, either create sustainable methods of harvesting resources, or move to an alternative. Failure to do so would result in non-viability and consequent ‘extinction’ of the business itself.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, dans le cadre de la Proposition de loi « Entreprise nouvelle et nouvelles gouvernances » (n° 476 2e rectifié, déposée le 6 décembre 2017), le rapport n° 544 de M. Dominique Potier vient d’être déposé.

La conception de l’entreprise, telle qu’elle existe dans le droit des sociétés français, apparaît désuète et en décalage avec la réalité de ce début de XXIème siècle. On assiste, sous l’effet d’une concentration et d’une internationalisation croissante, au développement d’entreprises toujours plus puissantes, qui entrent en concurrence directe avec les États pour la production de normes et l’allocation des ressources. C’est à ce phénomène que répond la présente proposition de loi.

La rédaction de ce texte, puis son examen par l’Assemblée nationale, ont été précédés d’un important travail collectif avec la société civile. Ont été, par ailleurs, auditionnés par le rapporteur, et – comme c’est la règle – l’ensemble des membres de la commission des Lois qui le souhaitaient, pas moins de trente experts, syndicalistes ou responsables associatifs. Les organisations patronales, consultées avant le dépôt de la proposition de loi, ont été à nouveau invitées à s’exprimer et ont adressé des contributions écrites. Le rapporteur a également rencontré le cabinet du ministre de l’Économie et des Finances.

Il est ainsi proposé de reprendre et de poursuivre des travaux entamés sous la précédente législature, pour que l’entreprise serve le bien commun. Plusieurs textes majeurs avaient alors vu le jour : on mentionnera, entre autres, la loi du 31 juillet 2014 relative à l’économie sociale et solidaire (5), la loi du 9 décembre 2016 relative à la transparence, à la lutte contre la corruption et à la modernisation de la vie économique (dite « Sapin 2 ») (6), ou encore la loi du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre (7), que votre rapporteur avait eu l’honneur, déjà, de rapporter.

C’est dans leur prolongement que le groupe Nouvelle Gauche a pris l’initiative d’inscrire cette proposition de loi à l’ordre du jour de sa journée réservée du jeudi 18 janvier 2018.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Dans The New York Times, vous trouverez la lettre annuelle de BlackRock : « BlackRock: Focus on Society and Profits » (16 janvier 2018).

Extraits :

the public expectations of your company have never been greater. Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society. Companies must benefit all of their stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate. Without a sense of purpose, no company, either public or private, can achieve its full potential.

Furthermore, the board is essential to helping a company articulate and pursue its purpose, as well as respond to the questions that are increasingly important to its investors, its consumers, and the communities in which it operates. In the current environment, these stakeholders are demanding that companies exercise leadership on a broader range of issues. And they are right to: A company’s ability to manage environmental, social, and governance matters demonstrates the leadership and good governance that is so essential to sustainable growth, which is why we are increasingly integrating these issues into our investment process. Companies must ask themselves: What role do we play in the community? How are we managing our impact on the environment? Are we working to create a diverse workforce? Are we adapting to technological change?

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