Posts Tagged ‘Fenwick’

Gender Diversity at Silicon Valley Public Companies 2013

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Monday January 20, 2014 at 9:08 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from David A. Bell, partner in the corporate and securities group at Fenwick & West LLP. This post is based on a Fenwick publication, titled Gender Diversity in Silicon Valley: A Comparison of Large Public Companies and Silicon Valley Companies; the complete survey is available here.

Significantly expanding on the data in the Fenwick Corporate Governance Survey (discussed on the Forum here), Fenwick has published the first survey to analyze gender diversity on boards and executive management teams of companies in the technology and life science companies included in the Silicon Valley 150 Index (SV 150) compared to the very large public companies included in the Standard & Poor’s 100 Index (S&P 100). [1] The Fenwick Gender Diversity Survey analyzes eighteen years of public filings regarding boards and management teams—beginning with the 1996 proxy season and ending with the 2013 proxy season—to better understand changes in the leadership of some of our most important companies, and the gradual gender diversity improvements taking place. The 70-page report includes detailed analysis of:

…continue reading: Gender Diversity at Silicon Valley Public Companies 2013

Silicon Valley Venture Survey—Third Quarter 2013

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Saturday December 14, 2013 at 9:06 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Barry J. Kramer, partner in the corporate and securities group at Fenwick & West LLP and is based on a Fenwick publication by Mr. Kramer and Michael J. Patrick; the full publication, including expanded detailed results and valuation data, is available here.

We analyzed the terms of venture financings for 128 companies headquartered in Silicon Valley that reported raising money in the third quarter of 2013.

Overview of Fenwick & West Results

Valuation results in 3Q13 showed a noticeable increase over 2Q13, including the greatest difference between up and down rounds in over six years. The software industry was especially strong, not only valuation-wise, but also in the number of deals.

Here are the more detailed results:

…continue reading: Silicon Valley Venture Survey—Third Quarter 2013

Corporate Governance at Silicon Valley Companies 2013

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Friday December 6, 2013 at 9:06 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from David A. Bell, partner in the corporate and securities group at Fenwick & West LLP. This post is based on portions of a Fenwick publication, titled Corporate Governance Practices and Trends: A Comparison of Large Public Companies and Silicon Valley Companies (2013); the complete survey is available here.

Since 2003, Fenwick has collected a unique body of information on the corporate governance practices of publicly traded companies that is useful for Silicon Valley companies and publicly-traded technology and life science companies across the U.S. as well as public companies and their advisors generally. Fenwick’s annual survey covers a variety of corporate governance practices and data for the companies included in the Standard & Poor’s 100 Index (S&P 100) and the high technology and life science companies included in the Silicon Valley 150 Index (SV 150). [1] In this report, we present statistical information for a subset of the data we have collected over the years. These include:

  • makeup of board leadership
  • number of insider directors
  • gender diversity on boards of directors
  • size and number of meetings for boards and their primary committees
  • frequency and number of other standing committees
  • majority voting
  • board classification
  • use of a dual-class voting structure
  • frequency and coverage of executive officer and director stock ownership guidelines
  • frequency and number of shareholder proposals
  • number of executive officers

…continue reading: Corporate Governance at Silicon Valley Companies 2013

Corporate Governance at Silicon Valley Companies 2012

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Thursday December 20, 2012 at 9:06 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from David A. Bell, partner in the corporate and securities group at Fenwick & West LLP. This post is based on portions of a Fenwick publication, titled Corporate Governance Practices and Trends: A Comparison of Large Public Companies and Silicon Valley Companies (2012); the complete survey is available here.

Since 2003, Fenwick has collected a unique body of information on the corporate governance practices of publicly traded companies that is useful for all Silicon Valley companies and publicly-traded technology and life science companies across the U.S. as well as public companies and their advisors generally. Fenwick’s annual survey covers a variety of corporate governance practices and data for the companies included in the Standard & Poor’s 100 Index (S&P 100) and the high technology and life science companies included in the Silicon Valley 150 Index (SV 150). [1] In this report, we present statistical information for a subset of the data we have collected over the years. These include:

…continue reading: Corporate Governance at Silicon Valley Companies 2012

Court Rejects Selective Waiver Doctrine for Privileged Materials

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Monday May 7, 2012 at 9:27 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Christopher J. Steskal, partner and chair of the White Collar/Regulatory Group at Fenwick & West LLP, and is based on a Fenwick Alert by Mr. Steskal, Susan S. Muck, Jennifer C. Bretan, and Alexis I. Caloza.

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

Corporate Governance at Silicon Valley Companies

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Wednesday February 29, 2012 at 9:30 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from David A. Bell, partner in the corporate and securities group at Fenwick & West LLP. This post is based on portions of a Fenwick publication titled Corporate Governance Practices and Trends: A Comparison of Large Public Companies and Silicon Valley Companies; the complete survey is available here.

As counsel to a wide range of public companies in the high technology and life science industries, primarily based in Silicon Valley and Seattle, Fenwick has collected information on the corporate governance practices of publicly traded companies in order to counsel our clients on best practices and industry norms in corporate governance. We have collected this data since 2003 and believe this unique body of information is useful for all Silicon Valley companies and publicly-traded technology and life science companies across the U.S. as well as public companies and their advisors generally.

Fenwick’s annual survey covers a variety of corporate governance practices and data for the companies included in the Standard & Poor’s 100 Index (S&P 100) and the high technology and life science companies included in the Silicon Valley 150 Index (SV 150). [1] In this report, we present statistical information for a subset of the data we have collected over the years. These include:

…continue reading: Corporate Governance at Silicon Valley Companies

IRS Issues Proposed Regulations Under Section 162(m) to Clarify Performance-Based Exception

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Saturday July 30, 2011 at 8:58 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Scott P. Spector, a Partner in the Corporate Group and Chair of the Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Group at Fenwick & West LLP, and is based on an Executive Compensation Alert by Fenwick.

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, denies a tax deduction to a public company if compensation paid to certain individuals (known as “covered employees”) exceeds one million dollars for the taxable year. A “covered employee” is defined as a public company’s chief executive officer and its three other most highly compensated officers (excluding the CFO) whose compensation is required by the SEC to be disclosed for a given year. However, the deduction limit is subject to certain exemptions, including compensation that is “performance-based” within the meaning of Section 162(m), and certain equity awards granted under an equity incentive plan that existed prior to a company becoming public.

Proposed Regulations

On June 23, 2011 the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued proposed regulations to clarify the existing regulations of Section 162(m) with respect to stock-based compensation plans and the exception to the $1 million limit for qualified performance-based compensation.

…continue reading: IRS Issues Proposed Regulations Under Section 162(m) to Clarify Performance-Based Exception

 
  •  » A "Web Winner" by The Philadelphia Inquirer
  •  » A "Top Blog" by LexisNexis
  •  » A "10 out of 10" by the American Association of Law Librarians Blog
  •  » A source for "insight into the latest developments" by Directorship Magazine