normes de droit | Page 8

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

Alors que le colloque du SASE va bientôt avoir lieu à Berkeley aux Etats-Unis, je reviens aujourd’hui sur ce que j’avais présenté au colloque qui s’était tenu en 2014 à Chicago : “Enterprise” and Lawyer’s view: By by Irresponsibility and Welcome in a New Area ».

Accédez au diaporama : PPT SASE 2014 version anglaise

Voici le résumé de cette intervention :

As institutions corporations and enterprises are the basis of capitalism and the subject of great interest for legal studies. Beyond regulation, the inherent nature of corporations raises sensitive legal questions, indeed, since its first appearance in the 18^th century. Inspired by economic and financial sciences, legal theories incorporate corporations to contracts (referred to as “aggregate theory”), a private government (referred to as “artificial theory”) and an autonomous entity (“entity theory” or “doctrine de l’entreprise” in Continental Europe). It is indeed argued that incorporating corporations to a simple nexus of contracts has been the subject of great attention since the 1970s, provided that none of the above theories have definitely won unanimity in law, as seen by a comparative reading of the Canadian, American and European jurisprudence. Corporate governance rules clearly demonstrate such incorporation. In its essence, however, the contractual analysis regards the corporation as a means to serving private interests whereby the liability schemes are limited to protecting the supplier of capital. The contractual analysis’s vision is indeed restricted, and it summarizes its goals, to the sought-after maximization of the corporation’s shareholders value. At the heart of the corporation’s issues lies the financial aspect. Within this framework, non-financial concerns appear far away and are dealt with as simple externality that poses management problems. Nonetheless, the corporation’s activities are bearing an economic power that is today seen as ever increasingly significant and its financial and non-financial consequences should be the basis of further thinking. Yet, Canadian law has engaged into this pathway. On the one hand, Canadian corporate law has experienced a profound re-assessment through the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Peoples (2004) and BCE (2008). Far from being a strict contractual reading of the corporation, these decisions have shed light on the importance of different paradigms such as corporate social responsibility and the stakeholders’ theory. Indeed, new incorporated corporate concepts have reshaped the way the corporation is perceived and its relationship with the environment. On the other hand, Canadian competition law attempts at integrating social concerns into its political sphere. In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed the commencement of proceedings by indirect purchasers by way of a class action (see cases of Pros-sys, Sun-Rype and Infineon). Case law contemplates limiting the negative impact of anti-competition practices implemented by multinational corporations. The objective is to reinstate an economic balance as between corporations and its clients. The consumer is indeed called upon to play a protective role in the market in addition to the Canadian Competition authority’s competence. As affirmed by the Canadian Competition Tribunal in the decision of Visa/Master Card certain competition disputes between merchants are of common interest. Thus, the public should be made aware of the difficulties met by the businesses in the market. In light of the recent Canadian case law standpoint, it most certainly raises questions about the role that competition policies play within the corporation’s economic activities framework. This paper suggests showing the current legal positions of Canadian corporations and its competition law framework, in addition to putting them into perspective with  their US and European counterparts. In addition to demonstrating their convergence in favor of a more social concern, we stand for the proposition that corporations, as has been defined by the jurist, does not only form a contract. Indeed, it is an institution that carries responsibilities as against its own environment.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Comme l’indique un récent article de TheTyee.ca de David Ball, les choses ont peu bougé en matière de RSE au Bangladesh malgré l’affaire du Raza Plana : « Bangladesh Factory Safety Fixes ‘Far Behind Schedule’: Investors ». « Garment factory collapse killed 1,134 workers. But some warn progress is too slow » mentionne le journaliste. Face à cette situation, les investisseurs d’alarment.

Morceau choisi :

On Thursday, a letter signed by 140 organizations hoping to leverage their investment portfolios to improve conditions warned that despite some progress made since the disaster in setting safety standards, inspecting facilities, and signing accords, efforts to actually fix unsafe Bangladeshi factories have been too slow.

« While expert inspections have identified thousands of issues, the vast majority of corrective action plans are far behind schedule, » the letter states. « The lack of significant progress in addressing persistent systemic issues [will] continue to not only put workers at risk, but also pose material, financial and reputational risk for companies and their investors. »

One of the letter’s signatories was the Shareholder Association for Research & Education (SHARE), an organization that represents large institutional investors such as unions, pension plans and churches.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Comment échapper au Panama Papers depuis ce matin ? Le journaliste Jérôme Fenoglio propose un bel éditorial à ce propos dans le quotidien Le Monde intitulé « « Panama papers » : le tournis, le vertige et la nausée ».

Face à la multitude des papiers consacrés aux informations obtenus par les journalistes d’investigation membres du consortium international, je vous renvoie à cet article de Le Devoir qui revient sur les outils (notamment juridique) utilisés : « Les outils pour passer entre les mailles du filet » (d’Eléonore Dermy et de Valentin Bontemps)… très instructif !

Montages offshore, sociétés écran, actions au porteur… Le scandale du « Panama papers » met en lumière la sophistication des stratégies d’évasion fiscales utilisées par les fraudeurs. Comment fonctionnent ces instruments ? Sont-ils illégaux ? Sont-ils suffisamment combattus ? Au coeur des stratégies pour dissimuler des avoirs figurent les sociétés écrans, utilisées pour cacher l’identité du propriétaire réel d’un compte ou d’une société. Parmi elles, on trouve les « trusts », des structures juridiques « offshore » — autrement dit basées à l’étranger et bien souvent dans des paradis fiscaux — administrées par des personnes qui apparaissent comme les responsables de ces structures. Ce qui permet de passer sous silence l’identité des véritables bénéficiaires, qui échappent à l’impôt de leur pays d’origine.

Pour les sociétés off-shore pour les nuls (ou 101), je vous renvoie à cet article : ici.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian