Gouvernance | Page 35

Pour Paul Hodgson, il est temps de changer la done dans le domaine de la gouvernance d’entreprise : « Change to U.K. CEO pay or regulation seen as inevitable » (Compliance Week, 20 juillet 2016).

Voici un extrait :

wC’s latest report, called Time to Listen, is subtitled, “We need to find a way to respond to public concern about executive pay, or matters will be taken out of our hands.”

The report draws its conclusions on the need to address income inequality from both its own research and the British Social Attitudes 32 survey, published in 2015, which showed strong agreement, even among those voting conservative, to some stark statements:

• There is one law for the rich and another for the poor
• Ordinary people do not get their fair share of the nation’s wealth
• Management will always try to get the better of employees if it gets the chance
• Big business benefits owners at the expense of workers

(…) The paper concludes that CEO pay in listed companies is probably the result of market forces operating in imperfectly. It says that the current system of shareholder votes is working but has not been given time to “bed down” and that further regulation may do more harm than good. Finally, it says: “We should in any case be more concerned about pay structures than pay levels.” But the report says that action is not simply required at the top but also at the bottom; addressing stagnating pay and employment uncertainty for ordinary workers. Especially in a period of uncertainty caused by Brexit, “companies will be judged by how they treat the most vulnerable in their workforce.”

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Le décret n°2015-1811 du 23 décembre 2015 parachève l’édifice des textes relatifs à l’information des salariés en cas de vente de leur entreprise. Si des améliorations significatives ont été apportées au cadre législatif initial, certaines incertitudes subsistent quant aux modalités d’application de ce dispositif à l’efficacité pour le moins limitée. Me Pierre Bonneau (avocat associé du cabinet CMS Bureau Francis Lefebvre) y revient dans un billet de LEXplicite : « Information des salariés sur les opérations de cession : l’épilogue ? ».

Petit extrait :

Rappel du dispositif

Partant du constat que bon nombre d’entreprises «saines» disparaissent chaque année faute de repreneur, la loi relative à l’économie sociale et solidaire n°2014-856 du 31 juillet 2014, dite «loi Hamon» a créé deux dispositifs spécifiques :

• d’une part, une obligation triennale d’information des salariés sur les conditions d’une éventuelle cession de l’entreprise (dont le contenu vient d’être précisé par le décret n°2016-2 du 4 janvier 2016) ;
• et, d’autre part, une obligation d’information des salariés en cas de cession de fonds de commerce ou de la majorité des parts au sein d’une société de moins de 250 salariés. La loi oblige ainsi l’employeur à informer préalablement ses salariés en cas de cession de l’entreprise afin que ceux-ci puissent, le cas échéant, présenter une offre de reprise. Cette obligation se décline différemment selon que l’entreprise est ou non dotée d’un comité d’entreprise.

Ce second dispositif était le plus éloigné de l’objectif du législateur car il vise à faciliter la reprise d’entreprises par les salariés pour lesquelles un repreneur est d’ores et déjà identifié.

Pour autant, c’est celui qui a concentré les principales critiques en raison de son champ d’application très large, de sa faible sécurité juridique et de la sévérité de sa sanction, soit la nullité de la cession.

La loi Macron n°2015-990 du 6 août 2015 a permis la prise en compte d’une partie de ces critiques en rectifiant certains aspects du dispositif, lequel est désormais effectif au 1er janvier 2016 suite à la publication de son décret d’application le 23 décembre 2015.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

May expressed discontent with the current model of corporate governance used by FTSE companies and in particular the effectiveness of supposedly independent non-executive directors. ‘In practice, they are often drawn from the same narrow social and professional circles as the executive team and the scrutiny they provide is often limited,’ she said. So, she suggests, workers and even consumers should be given a seat at the table.

May wrote she wants to tackle the ‘unhealthy and growing gap between what these companies pay their workers and what they pay their bosses.’ Specifically she wants to make shareholder votes on corporate pay packages binding instead of advisory and ‘simplify the way bonuses are paid so that the bosses’ incentives are better aligned with the long-term interests of the company.’

Le blog de l’Université d’Oxford publie un très récent billet analysant sur le dilemme et la position délicate dans laquelle peut être placé l’État actionnaire : « Exercise of Shareholder Control Over a State Owned Enterprise – Comments on Comissão de Valores Mobiliários’s decision in the Eletrobras case » (par le professeur Mario Engler Pinto Junior).

The Comissão de Valores Mobiliários (CVM), the Brazilian equivalent of the SEC, has recently imposed sanctions on the Federal Government for actions taken as the controlling shareholder of the public company Eletrobras. More precisely, the sanctions were imposed on the Federal Government for voting in a general meeting to grant approval of an Elecrobras significant transaction. CVM considered that the Federal Government had a conflict of interest and should have abstained from voting in a shareholders’ meeting called to approve the renewal of the concession contract held by Eletrobras and its subsidiaries for electrical power generation.

 In Brazil, the Federal Government is also the public authority responsible for regulating the electrical sector. According to CVM, the renewal of the concession contract for electrical power generation was a related party transaction that could bring indirect economic benefits to the Federal Government.

My paper criticizes CVM’s approach, arguing that the contract renewal was a legitimate public policy decision in the context of the electrical sector as a whole.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Beau rapport du cabinet Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP qui montre que la RSE ne peut plus être ignoré par les entreprises : « Governance Goes Green ».

It’s not just us tree-huggers. Increasingly, institutional investors, pension plans and regulators are calling for (and in some cases requiring) companies to assess and report on the sustainability of their business operations and investments. Climate change and other environmental concerns are at the forefront of these calls. Institutional investors are focusing on sustainable business practices – a broad category in which environmental and social risks, costs and opportunities of doing business are analyzed alongside conventional economic considerations – as a key factor in long-term financial performance. Sustainability proponents are looking to boards of directors and management to integrate these considerations into their companies’ long-term business strategies.

Éléments essentiels à retenir :

• Institutional investors increasingly regard environmental and other sustainability issues as strategic matters for companies.
• Shareholders continue to submit environmental and other sustainability proposals, successfully garnering attention and prompting companies to make changes, despite their failure to win majority votes.
• Independent organizations are developing standards for sustainability and environmental reporting to provide investors with consistent metrics for assessing and comparing the sustainability of companies’ practices.
• Sustainability and environmental reporting remains in the SEC’s sights as it evaluates the effectiveness of current disclosure requirements and considers changes for the future.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian