In less than two years, seven states, including New York, New Jersey and California, have enacted laws creating a new hybrid type of corporation designed for businesses that want to simultaneously pursue profit and benefit society. Advocates for this new type of entity—typically called a benefit corporation, or B Corp– say that it fills a gap between traditional corporations and non-profits by giving social entrepreneurs flexibility to achieve the dual objectives of doing well and doing good. [1]

At first glance, the B Corp seems a welcome addition to the corporate governance landscape, that promises to advance the cause of socially responsible business. Indeed, B Corp proponents have been remarkably successful in making their case to lawmakers; the statutes were passed without a single dissenting vote in both houses of the New York and New Jersey legislatures last year, and similar proposals are pending in four additional states. Meanwhile, hundreds of businesses, most notably the outdoor clothing company Patagonia, have chosen to organize under the B Corp banner.

But viewed from a broader corporate governance perspective, the B Corp initiative—however well-intentioned–has troubling implications. The problem is that its primary rationale rests on the mistaken, though widely-held, premise that existing law prevents boards of directors from considering the impact of corporate decisions on other stakeholders, the environment or society at large. This crabbed view of directorial fiduciary duties perpetuates the unfortunate misconception that existing law compels companies to single-mindedly maximize profits and share price, and in so doing undermines the very values that corporate governance advocates should seek to promote: responsible, sustainable corporate decision-making by companies of any stripe.

…continue reading: Benefit Corporations vs. “Regular” Corporations: A Harmful Dichotomy

Thank you for permitting me to testify before you today on cost-benefit analysis conducted by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). I am speaking today on behalf of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation (Committee), of which I am the Executive Director for Research. The Committee has, since its 2006 Interim Report, [1] strongly supported improved cost-benefit analysis by both the SEC and other agencies. Today, the need for improved cost-benefit analysis is particularly evident in the agencies’ respective rulemakings under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank). We are deeply concerned that the inadequate cost-benefit analysis in the vast majority of rulemakings under Dodd-Frank could expose these rules to judicial challenge, prevent important rules from taking effect, and contribute to uncertainty in our markets over their fate.

The broad scope of new regulation under Dodd-Frank, issued by agencies including the SEC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and others, will result in fundamental changes across the financial industry. Sound cost-benefit analysis must be a part of this process, to ensure that in each case, the proposed rule is optimal among all reasonable alternatives. In light of the ruling last July by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Business Roundtable v. Securities and Exchange Commission, [2] and a current lawsuit seeking to strike down the CFTC’s recently promulgated position limits rule, [3] we believe many of the rules under Dodd-Frank could be subject to successful challenge in court. It would be an unfortunate outcome if, after the Dodd-Frank rulemaking process has run its course for several years, important rules are invalidated because of inadequate analysis. Even if such rules are not eventually invalidated, prolonged uncertainty around their fate threatens to hamper economic activity.

…continue reading: The Need for Improved Cost-Benefit Analysis of Dodd-Frank Rulemaking

In our study, CEO Succession Practices (2012 Edition), which The Conference Board recently released, we document and analyze 2011 cases of CEO turnover at S&P 500 companies. The study is organized in four parts.

Part I: CEO Succession Trends (2000-2011) illustrates year-by-year succession rates and examines specific aspects of the succession phenomenon, including the influence on firm performance on succession and the characteristics of the departing and incoming CEOs.

Part II: CEO Succession Practices (2011) details where boards assign responsibilities on leadership development, the role performed within the board by the retired CEO, and the extent of the disclosure to shareholders on these matters.

Part III: Notable Cases of CEO Succession (2011) includes summaries of 10 episodes of CEO succession that made headlines in the past two years and that were carefully chosen to highlight key circumstances of the process.

Part IV: Shareholder Activism on CEO Succession Planning (2011) reviews examples of companies that have recently faced shareholder pressure in this area.

…continue reading: CEO Succession Practices

On April 5, 2012, President Obama signed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (“JOBS Act” or the “Act”) into law. While the Act and recent commentary have focused primarily on common equity issuances by “Emerging Growth Companies” (or “EGCs”), the JOBS Act also impacts companies that have issued only debt securities in registered transactions, typically pursuant to an “A/B” exchange for privately offered high-yield debt securities. Many of these companies subsequently become “voluntary filers” of SEC Exchange Act reports to comply with on-going debt covenants.

The attached chart summarizes how certain JOBS Act provisions apply to these debt-only issuers. As indicated in the chart, they may benefit from a number of JOBS Act provisions with regard to their Securities Act registration statements and Exchange Act reports, including:

• potentially indefinite EGC status, assuming the $1 billion revenue, $1 billion debt issuance every three years, and certain other thresholds are never crossed;
• the option to submit to the SEC confidential drafts of Securities Act registration statements for any offering prior to the issuer’s first sale of its common equity securities pursuant to an effective Securities Act registration statement;
• the option to comply with new accounting standards applicable to public companies on the schedule that is applicable to private issuers; and
• the option to provide scaled back executive compensation disclosure.

In addition, after the SEC adopts implementing rules, companies that issue debt securities privately will be permitted to engage in general solicitation and general advertising in connection with offerings made in reliance on Rule 506 of Regulation D and Rule 144A under the Securities Act, just as they will be able to do with respect to equity offerings.

…continue reading: JOBS Act Applies to Debt-Only Issuers

On May 4, 2012, Chancellor Strine of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an opinion finding that Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. breached two confidentiality agreements with Vulcan Materials Company when it commenced a $5.5 billion hostile bid for Vulcan in December 2011. Despite the absence of an explicit standstill provision in either confidentiality agreement, which were signed by the parties in the spring of 2010 in connection with then-friendly discussions about a possible merger, the Court enjoined Martin Marietta for four months from pursuing its bid for Vulcan. We expect the Court’s decision to influence the negotiation of M&A confidentiality agreements. See Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Vulcan Materials Co., No. 7102-CS (Del. Ch. May 4, 2012).

The Court concluded that Martin Marietta breached the confidentiality agreements by using confidential information in determining whether to launch a hostile bid and disclosing extensive details regarding the confidential merger discussions and other confidential information in its securities filings and other communications. The Court’s opinion highlights a number of considerations that M&A practitioners should bear in mind when drafting and negotiating confidentiality agreements:

…continue reading: Delaware Court Issues Guidance about M&A Confidentiality Agreements

On April 3, 2012 the Financial Stability Oversight Council issued its final rule and interpretive guidance governing its process for designating a nonbank financial company as a systemically important financial institution under the Dodd-Frank Act. The adoption of the Final Rule marks the completion of the highly anticipated standards for designating SIFIs, a process that first began in October 2010. While there have been changes made to the process, much remains to be understood how the FSOC will use its authority to determine whether a nonbank financial company should be supervised and subject to prudential standards. It is widely anticipated that designations of some SIFIs will be made before year-end, making us wonder whether the designation process has been underway without final rules being in place.

The Statute

Section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act [1] authorizes the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”) to designate a nonbank financial company to be supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) and be subject to prudential standards. [2] The FSOC will make a designation after determining that material financial distress at the company or the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the activities of the company could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.

…continue reading: Final Rule Issued on Systemically Important Firms, Many Unknowns Remain

As we continue to monitor developments in the unfolding 2012 proxy season, here are some key themes that have emerged thus far:

What are the overall vote results?

Of the first 180 companies of the Russell 3000 to report the results of say-on-pay proposals, approximately:

• 65 percent have passed with more than 90 percent support;
• 25 percent have passed with between 70.1 percent and 90 percent support;
• 8 percent have passed with between 50 percent and 70 percent support;
• 2 percent (three companies) obtained less than 50 percent support — Actuant and International Game Technology were discussed in our prior mailing and KB Home is discussed below. In a vote result reported after the cutoff date for the calculations above, news reports indicated that Citigroup Inc.’s say-on-pay proposal received 45 percent of votes cast, making it the fourth company (and the largest company) whose say-on-pay proposal has received less than 50 percent support this year.

Thus far, these percentages are not materially different from the full-year results for the 2011 proxy season.

…continue reading: Continuing Developments in the 2012 Proxy Season

Corporations subject to criminal and civil regulatory investigations have long grappled with the highly charged decision over whether to provide the government with privileged communications and attorney work product or whether to maintain those materials as privileged despite a governmental inquiry. On the one hand, a corporation may hope to avoid criminal prosecution or civil regulatory action, as well as potential downstream effects of such actions on insurance rights and indemnification, by forthright disclosure of “relevant facts” to the government, including information that may be protected by attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. See Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations, reprinted in United States Attorneys’ Manual, tit. 9 ch. 9-28.710, 9-28.720(a). On the other hand, in disclosing privileged materials and work product to the government, the corporation risks having waived the privilege over those very same materials as to third parties, including civil litigants seeking to recover monetary damages from the corporation.

…continue reading: Court Rejects Selective Waiver Doctrine for Privileged Materials

On March 14, 2012, the UK Government published a consultation paper on its proposals to give shareholders of quoted companies a greater influence over executive pay.

The Government proposes to introduce a binding shareholder vote on executive pay policy (possibly requiring a 65% or 75% super majority), a non-binding shareholder vote on the subsequent application of that pay policy and a binding shareholder vote on exit payments in excess of one year’s basic salary.

The new rules would apply to certain UK quoted companies. The new rules would apply to those companies with either a standard or a premium listing on the London Stock Exchange main market and UK incorporated companies listed on the NYSE, NASDAQ or officially listed in another EEA member state but would not apply to companies trading on AIM or the Plus Growth market. The rules would replace the existing requirement for a non-binding vote on the director’s remuneration report.

Existing Regulation of Executive Pay

Since 2003 UK company law has required that quoted companies produce a directors’ remuneration report (which forms part of their annual report and accounts) and seek an advisory vote on that remuneration report. These reports provide detailed disclosure of the pay and benefits for the financial year in question but contain limited information about the bonus and incentive targets for the following financial year.

…continue reading: Proposals for Binding Shareholder Votes on Executive Pay in the UK

On March 26, 2012, in Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, the U.S. Supreme Court held 8-0 that the two-year statute of limitations for suits under the short-swing liability rules of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is not tolled (i.e., suspended) until an insider files a Section 16(a) disclosure statement; the limitations period can begin running even if the disclosure statement is filed at a later date or never filed at all. The Court’s decision provides insiders of U.S. public companies with better protection and more certainty against time-barred claims.

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, which had held, citing to its precedent, that the limitations period is tolled until an insider files the Section 16(a) disclosure statement “regardless of whether the plaintiff knew or should have known of the conduct at issue”. In dicta, the Supreme Court also rejected the Second Circuit’s rule that the limitations period is tolled until the plaintiff “gets actual notice that a person subject to Section 16(a) has realized specific short-swing profits that are worth pursuing”.

The Supreme Court did indicate some willingness to permit equitable tolling of the Section 16(b) limitations period, but under circumstances more limited than the “disclosure” rule of the Ninth Circuit or the “actual notice” rule of the Second Circuit.

…continue reading: Court Rules on Short-swing Liability Rules