Nouvelles diverses | Page 6

Quel bel article d’Alana Semuels dans The Atlantic (ici) ! Cette étude revient sur la politique des fonds de couverture (hedge funds) et l’implication de leur activisme sur les politiques et les stratégies mises en place par les entreprises américaines.

Extrait :

DuPont is one of dozens of American companies that have abandoned a long-term approach to doing business after being the target of so-called activist investors. These investors buy up shares of a company and attempt to maximize the returns to their shares, usually by replacing members of the board of directors with hand-picked candidates who will push the company to cut costs. Activity by such investors has skyrocketed of late. In a 20-month stretch in 2005 and 2006, there were only 52 activist campaigns, according to John C. Coffee, a professor at Columbia University Law School. Between 2010 and early 2014, by contrast, there were 1,115 activist campaigns. “Hedge-fund activism has recently spiked, almost hyperbolically,” Coffee writes in a 2016 paper, “The Wolf at The Door: The Impact of Hedge Fund Activism on Corporate Governance.”

These campaigns are damaging to the long-term outlook of individual companies like DuPont and also to America’s economy more generally. They often result in big cuts to research and development, substantial reductions in the workforce, and a focus on outcomes—in particular short-term profit—that hurt a company’s ability to survive in the long-term. The threat of activism affects companies across the economy: Even public companies not targeted by activists often change their behavior and cut costs to avoid becoming a target. This may be one of the reasons why America is slipping in funding research and development projects when compared with other countries.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Un article du Timely Disclosure de Me Lindzon Russell aborde la situation des entreprises canadiennes face à l’activismes des investisseurs : « Canadian Issuers Continue To Have Success Against Activist Investors ». Résultat : elles résistent bien !

As noted in the Globe and Mail’s recent article, “In Canada’s boardrooms, activist investors are striking out” (subscription to the Globe and Mail required), Canadian listed public companies have continued to have success against activist investors. In fact, since January 1, 2015, Canadian listed issuers have a perfect record against “professional” activists in formal proxy contests, having won all six such contests to make changes to the board which were initiated by hedge funds or institutional investors. This success may be driven, at least in part, by issuers’ increased emphasis on advance preparation, including shareholder engagement. If issuers are more attuned to the views of their shareholders, it stands to reason that they will be in a better position to assess the likelihood of successfully defending against an activist in a formal proxy contest and pre-emptively settle those situations that they do not believe they can win. This explanation, while compelling, may be incomplete. With that in mind, I offer the following five observations based on a review of the public record of unsuccessful contests recently initiated by “professional” activists.

Je vous laisse découvrir les 5 observations de l’auteur…

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, ce matin, je vous propose de retourner sur l’intéressant sujet des agences de conseil en vote (proxy advisors) au travers ce billet du Harvard Law School Forum : « The Role of Proxy Advisory Firms: Evidence from a Regression-Discontinuity Design » (par Nadya Malenko et Yao Shen).

À quelle conclusion arrivent ces auteurs ?

Overall, our article suggests that at least based on the sample of 2010-2011 say-on-pay votes, the influence of ISS does not seem overstated. Our findings contribute to the ongoing debate on the role and economic impact of proxy advisory firms.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Intéressant éclairage apporté par Paula Loop sur LinkedIn à propos de la notion d’engagement qui est devenu une notion incontournable de droit de la gouvernance d’entreprise : « Shareholder engagement: What does success look like? ».

Petit extrait :

Shareholder engagement is a hot topic these days and one that is frequently debated in the C-suite and boardroom. Traditionally, executives put a lot of emphasis on the role of Investor Relations in the engagement process, only rolling up their sleeves and getting involved if there was an issue or an event that called for additional effort.

Calls for more frequent director communication

But now we’re hearing investors say that they would like to hear from key executives—and even directors—on a more regular basis. Depending on the facts and circumstances, investors might like to hear from the company annually, or in some cases, more often. For some executives and directors, this is a new paradigm

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian