We recently submitted a comment letter in connection with a rulemaking petition, currently before the SEC, urging the development of rules to require public companies to disclose the use of corporate resources for political activities. The Petition was submitted by the Committee on Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending, a group of ten corporate and securities law experts that we co-chaired. In further support of the rules advocated by the Petition, our comment letter submitted for consideration by the SEC our Article Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending, which was published recently in the Georgetown Law Journal.

The submitted Article puts forth a comprehensive, empirically-grounded case for the rules advocated in the Petition. The Article also provides a detailed response to each of the ten objections that have been raised by the Petition’s opponents, either in the comment file or elsewhere. The Article shows that none of these objections, either individually or collectively, provides a basis for opposing rules requiring public companies to disclose political spending.

The main part of our comment letter discusses and reviews the analysis in the attached article as follows:

…continue reading: SEC Comment Letter: Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending

In July 2011, we co-chaired a committee of ten corporate and securities law experts that petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission to develop rules requiring public companies to disclose their political spending. In a post eleven months ago, we noted that the petition had attracted more than 250,000 comment letters. In this post, we report that, as reflected in the SEC’s webpage for comments filed on our petition, the SEC has now received more than half a million comment letters regarding the petition. To our knowledge, the petition has attracted more comments than any other SEC rulemaking petition—or, indeed, than any other issue on which the Commission has accepted public comment—in the history of the SEC.

As in the past, it remains the case that the overwhelming majority of comment letters filed with the SEC are supportive of the petition. In November 2012, the then-Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance said that the Division was “looking at the [petition] and we have 300,000 comments on it. So in light of this interest, we’re taking a look at whether to make a recommendation to the Commission.” The comment letters submitted over the last several months reinforce the strength of interest noted by the Director.

We should note that, of the filed comments, 497,024 came from individuals who expressed their views through one of fourteen common types of letters filed with the Commission. While these comments use standard form letters, each was separately submitted by individuals who presumably were interested enough in this subject to write to the SEC. Furthermore, the petition has separately attracted 3,363 distinct comment letters, and the overwhelming majority of these letters is also supportive of the petition.

…continue reading: Rulemaking Petition on Disclosure of Political Spending Attracts Support from More Than 500,000 Comment Letters Filed with the SEC

In our first four posts in this series (collected here), we examined four objections raised by opponents of mandating disclosure of political spending and explained why these objections provide no basis for opposing such rules. In this post, we focus on a fifth objection raised by opponents of these rules: the claim that the SEC should not require disclosure in this area because shareholder proposals requesting disclosure of corporate spending on politics generally have not received the support of a majority of investors.

Several opponents of the petition have argued that the SEC should not mandate disclosure of corporate political spending because, in many cases, shareholder proposals seeking such disclosure at individual companies are supported by less than a majority of voting shares. For example, Paul Atkins, a former SEC commissioner, argued in a recent article that “majorities of shareholders routinely refuse to support mandatory disclosure” of corporate political spending—and, thus, that shareholders are simply not interested in this information.

…continue reading: Responding to Objections to Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending (5): The Claim that Shareholder Proposals Requesting Disclosure Do Not Receive Majority Support

In our first three posts in this series (available here, here and here), we examined three objections raised by opponents of mandating disclosure of political spending and explained why these objections provide no basis for opposing such rules. In this post, we focus on a fourth objection that opponents of these rules have raised: the claim that requiring disclosure of corporate political spending would create an important imbalance in the information that is provided to investors and voters about two of the most significant sources of spending on politics: corporations and labor unions.

Several opponents of the petition have argued that disclosure of corporate political spending would convey an important political advantage to labor unions—organizations that, opponents argue, may also engage in undisclosed spending on politics. For example, Senator John McCain has argued that disclosure of corporate spending on politics “forces some entities to inform the public about the origins of their financial support, while allowing others—most notably, those affiliated with organized labor—to fly below the radar.”

…continue reading: Responding to Objections to Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending (4): The Claim that Such Disclosure Would Give a Political Advantage to Unions

In a new study, The Myth that Insulating Boards Serves Long-Term Value (forthcoming, Columbia Law Review, October 2013), I comprehensively analyze – and  debunk – the view that insulating corporate boards serves long-term value.

Advocates of board insulation claim that shareholder interventions, and the fear of such interventions, lead companies to take myopic actions that are costly in the long term – and that insulating boards from such pressure therefore serves the long-term interests of companies and their shareholders. This claim is regularly invoked to support limits on the rights and involvement of shareholders and has had considerable influence. I show, however, that this claim has a shaky conceptual foundation and is not supported by the data.

In contrast to what insulation advocates commonly assume, short investment horizons and imperfect market pricing do not imply that board insulation will be value-increasing in the long term. I show that, even assuming such short horizons and imperfect pricing, shareholder activism, and the fear of shareholder intervention, will produce not only long-term costs but also some significant countervailing long-term benefits.

Furthermore, there is a good basis for concluding that, on balance, the negative long-term costs of board insulation exceeds its long-term benefits. To begin, the behavior of informed market participants reflects their beliefs that shareholder activism, and the arrangements facilitating it, are overall beneficial for the long-term interest of companies and their shareholders. Moreover, a review of the available empirical evidence provides no support for the claim that board insulation is overall beneficial in the long term; to the contrary, the body of evidence favors the view that shareholder engagement, and arrangements that facilitate it, serve the long-term interests of companies and their shareholders.

I conclude that, going forward, policy makers and institutional investors should reject arguments for board insulation in the name of long-term value.

Here is a more detailed account of the analysis in the article:

…continue reading: The Myth that Insulating Boards Serves Long-Term Value

The SEC is expected to consider a rulemaking petition requesting that the SEC develop rules requiring that public companies disclose their spending on politics. The petition has received significant support—including nearly half a million comment letters urging the SEC to act as advocated by the petition—but has also attracted opponents. In our article Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending and in this post series, we respond to each of the objections that opponents of the petition have raised.

In our first two posts (available here and here), we explained why opponents’ claims that corporate spending on politics is immaterial to investors, and that disclosure in this area would empower special interest investors, provide no basis for opposing rules requiring public companies to disclose their political spending. In this post, we focus on a third objection that opponents of these rules have raised: the claim that political spending is good for shareholders—and that disclosure will discourage directors and executives from engaging in spending on politics that would be beneficial for investors.

…continue reading: Responding to Objections to Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending (3): The Claim that Political Spending is Good for Shareholders

The SEC is expected to consider a rulemaking petition requesting that the SEC develop rules requiring that public companies disclose their spending on politics. The petition has received significant support—including more than 490,000 comment letters urging the SEC to act as advocated by the petition—but has also attracted opponents, including prominent members of Congress. The SEC recently indicated that it plans to address the petition’s request this year. Given the SEC’s expected consideration of the petition, we have written an article, Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending, that puts forth a comprehensive case for the rulemaking advocated in the petition—and responds to each of the ten objections that opponents of the petition have raised.

In our post last week, we explained why opponents’ claims that corporate spending on politics is immaterial to investors provide no basis for opposing rules requiring public companies to disclose their political spending. In this post, we focus on a second objection that opponents of these rules have raised: the claim that disclosure rules on political spending will empower shareholders who have special interests, such as pension funds, at the expense of other investors.

…continue reading: Responding to Objections to Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending (2): Claims of Special Interest Influence

In a memorandum issued recently by the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (WLRK), WLRK co-founder Martin Lipton criticized me for supporting shareholder activism that allegedly has detrimental effects in the long term. The memorandum followed two earlier, strongly-worded WLRK memoranda signed by Lipton and several other prominent corporate partners at the firm, titled “The Shareholder Rights Project is Wrong” and “The Shareholder Rights Project is Still Wrong“. Those memoranda criticized the work of a program I direct, the Shareholder Rights Project (SRP), for destroying long-term value by contributing to numerous board declassifications.

I am currently carrying out research work that addresses the view held by WLRK and others that investor activism is generally detrimental to the long-term interests of companies and their shareholders. In the meantime, however, the SRP’s recent release of its 2013 results provides an appropriate opportunity to respond to WLRK claims that the SRP’s work, in particular, has contributed to the destruction of long-term value. As I explain below, these results indicate that relevant institutional investors and corporate boards have largely rejected WLRK’s views – and require that WLRK reconsider its position.

…continue reading: Wachtell Lipton Was Wrong About the Shareholder Rights Project

A committee of academics that we co-chaired has submitted a rulemaking petition urging that the SEC develop rules requiring disclosure of corporate political spending. Our petition has attracted more than 490,000 comment letters, the overwhelming majority of which support the petition. The petition has also attracted opponents, including prominent members of Congress, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, legal academics, and intermediaries that facilitate undisclosed corporate political spending such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And the SEC has indicated that the agency plans to address the petition’s request for rules in this area during 2013.

Given the expected SEC consideration of the subject, we have written an article, Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending, coming out this month in the Georgetown Law Journal, that puts forward a comprehensive case for the rulemaking we advocated in the petition and responds to each of the ten objections that opponents have raised in comment letters filed with the SEC or elsewhere. We show in this article that these objections, either individually or collectively, provide no basis for opposing rules requiring public companies to disclose political spending to their investors.

…continue reading: Responding to Objections to Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending (1): The Claim of Immateriality

As a result of the work of the Shareholder Rights Project (SRP) and SRP-represented investors, declassification proposals will be voted on in April and May 2013 at the annual meetings of 36 S&P 500 and Fortune 500 companies:

• At 28 companies, agreed-upon management proposals to declassify will be brought to a shareholder vote of approval pursuant to agreements entered into with SRP-represented investors;
• At 8 companies, where such agreements have not been reached, precatory proposals that the SRP has submitted on behalf of SRP-represented investors will go to a vote.

These 36 proposals are in addition to 9 proposals that already went to a vote and were approved at annual meetings of S&P 500 and Fortune 500 companies in 2013 (3 management proposals and 6 precatory proposals), as well as the many additional declassification proposals (both agreed-upon management proposals and precatory proposals) that will go to a vote at subsequent annual meetings.

…continue reading: 36 Declassification Proposals Going to a Vote in April and May