normes de droit | Page 4

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

La professeure Georgina Tsagas propose un article intéressant sur l’Oxford Business Law Blog : « Section 172 of the UK Companies Act 2006: Desperate Times Call for Soft Law Measures » (1er septembre 2017). Elle fait une proposition originale pour donner du cœur à l’article 172 de la loi anglaise de droit des sociétés.

In a recent article (the draft of which is available here), I put forward a proposal to advance an important aspect of UK corporate law in the making, namely by suggesting the use of alternative means available in the soft law sphere that could support a more pluralistic and democratic formation of corporate decision-making. The Corporate Governance Code (the ‘Code’) should make provision for the inclusion of an additional section, Section F, which should stipulate that:

‘Main Principle: There should be a dialogue with stakeholders based on the mutual understanding of objectives. The board as a whole, has responsibility for ensuring that a satisfactory dialogue with stakeholders takes place and that during the board’s decision-making process the board has regard (amongst other matters) to—

(a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,

(b) the interests of the company’s employees,

(c) the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,

(d) the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment,

(e) the impact of the company’s operations on social and human rights issues,

(f) the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct.’

The proposal put forward aligns with the concept of ‘Environmental, Social and Governance’, which appears in the UN Principles for Responsible Investment and refers to extra-financial material information about the challenges and performance of a company regarding these aspects, enabling shareholders to better assess risks and opportunities.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Les Autorités canadiennes en valeurs mobilières (ACVM) ont publié le 25 octobre pour commentaires le Document de consultation 52‑404 des ACVM, Approche en matière d’indépendance des administrateurs et membres du comité d’audit, qui vise à lancer un large débat sur la pertinence de l’approche des ACVM en matière d’indépendance des administrateurs et membres du comité d’audit.

Le document de consultation présente l’historique des principaux jalons du régime de gouvernance institué par les ACVM, expose leur approche en matière d’indépendance des administrateurs et membres du comité d’audit, décrit les approches en matière d’indépendance d’autres pays, et examine les avantages et limites de l’approche des ACVM.

« L’indépendance de jugement des conseils d’administration et de leurs comités constitue un élément fondamental de la gouvernance », a déclaré Louis Morisset, président des ACVM et président-directeur général de l’Autorité des marchés financiers. « Cette consultation a pour but de recueillir des avis sur la pertinence de notre approche en matière d’indépendance pour tous les émetteurs du marché canadien ».

Cliquez ici pour accéder au Document de consultation 52-404 des ACVM : Approche en matière d’indépendance des administrateurs et membres du comité d’audit

Attention, vous avez jusqu’au 25 janvier 2018 pour répondre !

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Intéressant article offert par les professeurs Hanne Birkmose et Florian Möslein « Mapping Shareholders’ Duties » sur l’Oxford Business Law Blog (6 janvier 2017). Cet article revient sur la riche thématique des devoirs des actionnaires !

Recent developments in European company law and capital market law have heralded a break with the traditional perception in company law that shareholders have no duties when they invest in companies. Instead, they are increasingly subjected to various duties. As part of a research project on ‘Shareholders’ duties’, we map these shareholders’ duties in order to provide an overview of current and prospective duties. This mapping shows a great variety as well as variance of shareholders’ duties.

(…)

The mapping of shareholders’ duties shows that shareholders’ duties are not a rare and exotic phenomenon in European company and capital market law. On a closer look, there are indeed many examples, and they form fully integrated parts of the legal system instead of being rate exceptions.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Le fameux fonds BlackRock fait entendre sa voix pour le régulateur intervienne afin de mettre fin au capital-actions à classe multiple : « BlackRock opposes banning companies from indexes over voting rights » (Reuters, 23 octobre 2017). Voilà encore le sujet des actions privilégiées et subalternes sur le devant de la scène !

BlackRock Inc, the world’s largest asset manager, is lambasting the architects of market indexes like the S&P 500 .SPX for ostracizing companies that deny equal voting rights to shareholders, saying that doing so could limit the opportunities of investors in index funds.

BlackRock has said it supports all shareholders getting an equal vote. Yet, in a report published on the company’s website on Monday, the manager of nearly $6 trillion in assets said it is up to regulators to set corporate-governance policies, not index providers.

BlackRock said that, without regulatory changes, corporations should seek shareholders’ approval of capital structures that deprive some of voting rights, and that they should let shareholders exercise equal voting rights on specific topics, such as executive pay, that pose a conflict of interest.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian