Catégorie : Actionnaires activistes

Responsabilités des administrateurs au Canada | Osler


Voici un excellent guide sur les responsabilités et les obligations des administrateurs de sociétés au Canada produit par Osler.

La version présentée ici est en anglais (la version française sera bientôt disponible).

Bonne lecture !

Directors’ Responsibilities in Canada : Osler

Le guide Responsabilités des administrateurs au Canada, issu de la collaboration entre Osler et l’Institut des administrateurs de sociétés, est un outil de référence de choix dont tous les administrateurs ont besoin pour comprendre les pratiques exemplaires en matière de gouvernance et pour s’acquitter de leurs responsabilités, dans le contexte actuel des tendances commerciales en constante évolution et des changements dans le marché.

Le guide couvre :

  1. les devoirs et l’obligation de rendre compte des administrateurs, et le rôle des actionnaires DirectorsResponsibilities-LGthumb-F
  2. les questions de gouvernance, y compris les conflits d’intérêts des administrateurs, les lois sur les valeurs mobilières et les exigences des marchés boursiers
  3. les obligations d’information des sociétés ouvertes
  4. les questions de financement, de marchés des capitaux et d’offres publiques d’achat
  5. les responsabilités imposées par la loi, y compris les opérations d’initiés, la législation sur l’environnement et les questions d’ordre fiscal
  6. la responsabilité pour les infractions en vertu des lois sur les sociétés
  7. la gestion du risque

 

Inscrivez-vous pour obtenir un exemplaire en cliquant sur le lien ci-dessous. Il vous sera envoyé par courriel dès sa publication.

Request a copy-French

 

Gouverner dans l’anxiété | Effet insoupçonné de l’actionnariat activiste ?


M. François Dauphin, directeur de projets de l’IGOPP, nous fait parvenir le billet suivant à titre de blogueur invité.

L’article insiste sur les conséquences, souvent dysfonctionnelles, de gouverner dans un climat d’appréhension relié aux probabilités d’interventions d’actionnaires activistes, qui, selon lui, sont généralement à court terme et bénéficient surtout à ces deniers.

Il semble cependant que ce phénomène continuera sa progression et que les conseils d’administration doivent être de plus en plus vigilants car les « fonds activistes savent cibler des sociétés dont les conseils d’administration n’ont pas été à la hauteur ».

Cet article apporte un éclairage très pertinent aux administrateurs de sociétés, notamment en affirmant que la peur des fonds activistes est exagérée dans les cas de sociétés qui observent des règles de gouvernance exemplaires.

Bonne lecture !

Gouverner dans l’anxiété : Serait-ce un effet insoupçonné de l’actionnariat activiste ?

Par

François Dauphin, MBA, CPA, CMA

Directeur de projets, IGOPP

En septembre dernier, nombreux sont ceux qui n’ont pu réprimer un sourire en observant la dernière salve de l’actionnaire activiste Starboard Value contre le conseil d’administration et la haute direction de Darden Restaurants (société mère qui regroupe plusieurs chaînes de restaurants, dont Olive Garden, Longhorn Steakhouse et, jusqu’à très récemment, Red Lobster). En effet, dans une présentation de près de 300 pages, l’activiste ridiculisait la façon dont l’entreprise gérait son réseau de restaurants, allant jusqu’à souligner l’incapacité des cuisiniers à bien faire cuire les pâtes ou le nombre de pains trop élevés laissé par les serveurs sur les tables.

Rappelons qu’un investisseur « activiste » est un actionnaire qui acquière une participation dans une entreprise publique, et qui utilise différentes techniques (souvent hostiles) afin de contraindre le conseil d’administration ou la direction de l’entreprise ciblée à se conformer à ses requêtes, lesquelles visent essentiellement à créer rapidement de la valeur pour les actionnaires. Les recettes sont relativement toujours les mêmes : distribuer les liquidités excédentaires sous forme de dividendes spéciaux ou de rachats d’actions ou même endetter l’entreprise pour ce faire, vendre des actifs dont le rendement apparaît insuffisant, séparer l’entreprise en deux ou plusieurs entités qui seront inscrites en bourse, forcer la vente de l’entreprise, etc. Le moyen le plus utilisé est de faire planer la menace d’une course aux procurations pour remplacer plusieurs membres du conseil si les administrateurs en place n’obtempèrent pas.

P1030055

Dans le cas de Darden, Starboard Value a gagné son pari : les 12 membres du conseil d’administration ont été remplacés, dans un résultat sans précédent pour une telle course aux procurations, surtout en considérant que Starboard ne détenait que 8,8% des votes. Le conseil d’administration de Darden n’était pas sans faute, après tout, il avait procédé à la vente de Red Lobster à peine quelque temps avant que les actionnaires ne se prononcent sur le sujet, un geste que certains qualifieront de panique en réaction aux pressions exercées par les activistes.

L’exemple de Darden est certes étonnant. Toutefois, il traduit un malaise bien réel qui tend à s’accentuer. Une étude récente de PwC (Annual Corporate Directors Survey 2014) montre que 85% des conseils d’administration d’entreprises dont les revenus excèdent les 10 milliards de dollars (75% des entreprises dont les revenus sont moins d’un milliard de dollars) ont eu des discussions au sujet de la préparation (ou de la réaction) pour faire face à un éventuel (réel) actionnaire activiste. La crainte de devoir affronter un de ces investisseurs – et de perdre, puisque les activistes, disposant de ressources sans précédent, remportent la majorité de leurs affrontements – pousse de plus en plus d’entreprises à abdiquer rapidement lorsqu’un activiste se manifeste, ou encore à agir de manière préventive en tentant d’anticiper ce qu’un activiste potentiel pourrait réclamer.

Ainsi, on constate déjà les effets de telles décisions. Du côté de ceux qui ont capitulé, on retrouve des exemples comme Hertz (3 sièges au conseil offerts à l’activiste Carl Icahn en moins d’une semaine) et Walgreen (2 sièges au conseil offerts à Jana Partners, un activiste qui ne détenait pourtant qu’une participation de 1,2%), alors que du côté des conseils d’administration préventifs (craintifs) on retrouve des exemples comme Symantec (annonce de la séparation de l’entreprise en deux entités distinctes) ou Adidas (annonce d’un programme de rachat d’actions massif à la suite d’une rumeur suggérant un intérêt de la part d’activistes).

On pourrait conclure qu’il en est ainsi parce que ces fonds activistes savent cibler des sociétés dont les conseils d’administration n’ont pas été à la hauteur.

Malheureusement, la perspective d’une capitulation massive devant la menace de ces investisseurs n’annonce rien de bien favorable. En effet, les entreprises deviendront de plus en plus réticentes à investir dans leur avenir et se concentreront davantage sur le très court terme (qui se mesure maintenant en trimestres et non en années). Si certains actionnaires pourront profiter de cette nouvelle réalité – les activistes au premier rang  –, les autres parties prenantes risquent au contraire d’en subir les contrecoups.

Les détenteurs de titres de dette, par exemple, subissent fréquemment les effets corollaires de l’activisme. Moody’s publiait déjà en 2007 un avis soulignant que la cote de crédit des émetteurs ciblés par les activistes était presque universellement revue à la baisse; de son côté, Standard & Poor’s a récemment publié un rapport soulignant que 40% des entreprises qui ont exécuté un essaimage (« spin-off » d’actifs) ont vu leur cote de crédit être révisée à la baisse sur le long terme.

Ainsi, plusieurs entreprises sont plus à risque, davantage fragilisées après le passage d’un activiste. Et voilà que des conseils d’administration optent pour des stratégies qui fragiliseront l’avenir de leur propre entreprise simplement pour éviter d’apparaître sur le radar d’un hypothétique actionnaire activiste! Si le phénomène ne s’est pas encore manifesté sous sa forme la plus acrimonieuse au Québec, cela ne signifie pas qu’il faille l’ignorer, bien au contraire!

La peur n’est généralement pas un état favorisant la prise de décision réfléchie, l’éclosion d’idées nouvelles ou le développement d’une vision d’avenir dynamisante.

Le rôle du conseil d’administration est remis en cause par cette forme d’actionnariat prônant une démocratie directe. Si le conseil d’administration comme entité mérite de préserver sa place, il devra le prouver en se renouvelant, en se montrant vigilant, aussi « activiste » que les fonds mais avec, comme objectif, l’intérêt à long terme de la société et de toutes ses parties prenantes.

Étude du Conference Board sur les récentes interventions des actionnaires activistes


Comme vous le savez, je suis désireux d’être au fait des derniers développements eu égard aux interventions des actionnaires activistes car je pense que ce mouvement peut avoir des conséquences positives sur la gouvernance des sociétés, même si le management a tendance à se défendre âprement contre les « intrusions des actionnaires activistes et opportunistes »

L’article ci-dessous, paru sur le site du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, nous fait part d’une récente étude du Conference Board* sur l’évolution du phénomène de l’activisme aux É.U.

L’étude en question, Proxy Voting Analytics (2010-2014), montre que le mouvement, loin de s’essouffler, a continué d’avoir un impact significatif sur les relations entre les actionnaires et les dirigeants des grandes entreprises américaines.

Voici donc un résumé des faits saillants de cette étude. Bonne lecture !

The Recent Evolution of Shareholder Activism

Proxy Voting Analytics (2010-2014), a report recently released by The Conference Board in collaboration with FactSet, reviews the last five years of shareholder activism and proxy voting at Russell 3000 and S&P 500 companies.

Data analyzed in the report includes:

  1. Shareholder activism, including proxy fights, exempt solicitations, and other public agitations for change.
  2. Most frequent activist funds and their tactics.
  3. Volume, sponsors, and subjects of shareholder proposals.IMG00571-20100828-2241
  4. Voted, omitted, and withdrawn shareholder proposals.
  5. Voting results of shareholder proposals.
  6. Shareholder proposals on executive compensation.
  7. Shareholder proposals on corporate governance.
  8. Shareholder proposals on social and environmental policy.
  9. Volume and subjects of management proposals.
  10. Failed say-on-pay proposals among Russell 3000 companies.
  11. Say-on-pay proposals that received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast.

Additional insights (including volume by index, industry, and sponsor, most frequent sponsors, and support levels) are offered with respect to key issues from the last few proxy seasons, including: majority voting; board declassification; supermajority vote requirements; independent board chairmen; proxy access; sustainability reporting; political issues; election of dissident’s director nominee.

The report pays special attention to trends and developments that have emerged in the last few months. In fact, what started as an unremarkable proxy voting season has blossomed into a series of developments that may influence annual general meetings for years to come.

There is a clear indication that activist investors are turning their attention to new issues. For example, in the Russell 3000, five investor-sponsored proposals restricting golden parachutes received the support of a majority of shareholders. While the volume remains low, it is the highest ever recorded on this topic and it signals that voting on executive compensation issues other than say on pay can still find its way to general meetings of shareholders. Political spending and lobbying activities, a topic virtually absent from voting ballots until a few years ago, became the most frequently submitted shareholder proposal type of 2014, with 86 voted proposals and five receiving more than 40 percent of votes cast (compared to only one in 2013). Finally, support for resolutions on proxy access reached a tipping point in the first six months of the year, with five proposals approved and four receiving more than 40 percent of votes cast in favor.

The advisory vote on executive compensation was a game changer for corporate/investor relations and, in 2014, more than ever before, shareholders have been pursuing opportunities to engage with senior management and be heard ahead of a shareholder meeting. This trend was reflected in the rate of withdrawals of shareholder proposals, which doubled from a few years ago as companies chose to preempt a vote on certain investor requests by voluntarily implementing their own reforms. It was not all a product of engagement, however, and guidelines on board responsiveness from proxy advisory firm ISS also drove the surge of management proposals on issues previously raised by activists.

Increased dialogue with senior executives and board members as well as the progress made by many large companies in the adoption of baseline corporate governance practices prompted large institutional investors to reconsider their role as agents of corporate change. For example, while some public pension funds such as the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) cut back significantly on their submissions in 2014, others such as the New York City Employees’ Retirement Systems remained prolific proponents and galvanized around proxy access requests. Similarly, the popularity of social and environmental policy issues observed this year is in part explained by the larger number of proposals filed by labor-affiliated investment funds, which, before the introduction of mandatory say on pay, had always concentrated on executive compensation issues. Despite the traditional focus of this type of fund on industrial sectors, in 2014, for the first time, more than 20 percent of the 86 proposals submitted by labor unions were directed at companies in the finance industry.

Social media and other new technologies allow a broad outreach that was unimaginable only a few years ago, and activists are perfecting their use. This year, a growing number of activist investors, especially hedge funds, have agitated for change without even filing a shareholder proposal, let alone waging a proxy fight. Despite the increase in activism campaign announcements, there was a sensible decline in the number of campaigns related to shareholder meetings held in the first six months of 2014. This decline suggests that, rather than urge other shareholders to oppose a director election or vote for a certain resolution, these activism campaign announcements now serve to publicize the investor’s view of the business strategy or organizational performance. It is a first step that may lead to the future filing of a proposal or the solicitation of proxies but that may also prove sufficient to persuade the company to seek dialogue and reach a compromise.

The following are the major findings of the report:

Although activism campaign announcements in the Russell 3000 were up in 2014, the number of campaigns related to a shareholder meeting declined, as some hedge funds chose to agitate for change without even filing a shareholder proposal.

 

Observations made in 2013 that hedge funds were starting to set their sights on larger companies appear disputed by numbers for 2014, when a sharp decline in activism campaign volume was recorded among S&P 500 companies.

 

Proxy contests were the only type of activist campaign related to a shareholder vote to increase among Russell 3000 companies in 2014, with a concentration in the retail trade and finance industries, and dissidents reported their highest success rates in years.

 

Engagement between corporations and investors has not curbed the most hostile forms of activism, as the volume of proposals to elect a dissident’s nominee remains fairly high.

 

Shareholder proposal volume was slightly lower this year, with a sharper decline among larger companies as investors focus on new topics and broaden their targets.

 

Excess cash on US companies’ balance sheets fueled the growth of the activist hedge fund industry, and the number of resolutions sponsored by hedge funds surpassed the record levels of 2008.

 

The 2014 proxy season marked another sharp year-over-year decline in the number of proposals submitted by multiemployer investment funds affiliated with labor unions, as those investors showed new interests, especially in social and environmental policy issues.

 

Proposals on corporate governance, once a stronghold for pension funds, were sharply reduced as more companies introduced engagement policies with large investors.

 

Shareholder resolutions on social and environmental policy rose to unprecedented levels, while some institutional investors dropped governance issues that were a staple of their past activity but never garnered widespread support.

 

The rate of withdrawals of shareholder proposals doubled from a few years ago as companies preempted some of the issues by voluntarily implementing their own reforms.

 

As large groups of institutional investors reduced their 14a-8 filings or shifted their attention to new and less popular topics, the percentage of voted proposals winning the support of a majority of shareholders reached a new low.

 

Proposals on board declassification and majority voting have become a sure bet for labor unions and public pension funds, as they are widely recognized as a baseline in corporate governance.

 

A surge in requests from corporate gadflies made the separation of CEO and chairman roles the top shareholder proposal topic by volume, but the institutional investment community remains skeptical of a one-size-fits-all approach to board leadership.

 

For the first time in the same proxy season, five investor-sponsored proposals restricting golden parachutes received majority support, signaling that voting on executive compensation issues other than say on pay may still find its way to the AGM.

 

 hareholder proposals on political spending and lobbying activities skyrocketed this year, with five receiving more than 40 percent of votes cast (compared to only one in 2013).

 

Support for shareholder proposals on proxy access rights reached a tipping point in 2014, with five proposals approved and four others receiving the support of more than 40 percent of votes cast, and a handful of companies submitted board-sponsored proposals.

 

Say-on-pay analysis confirms a significant turnover in failed votes, with several companies losing the confidence of their shareholders this year after winning the vote by a wide margin in 2013.

__________________________________________________

*Matteo Tonello is vice president at The Conference Board. This post relates to a report released jointly by The Conference Board and FactSet, authored by Dr. Tonello and Melissa Aguilar of The Conference Board. The Executive Summary is available here (the document is free but registration is required).

Débat sur la contribution des actionnaires activistes au sein des conseils d’administration


Voyez le panel de discussion sur les aspects pratiques liés aux activités des actionnaires activistes, diffusé par la National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD).

Cette vidéo montre comment les activistes opèrent sur les marchés mais aussi au sein des conseils d’administration. C’est une présentation vraiment très utile pour mieux saisir les différentes catégories d’activistes ainsi que les motivations qui les animent.

Excellente discussion sur la montée de l’activisme. À visionner !

Activist Shareholders in the Boardroom

Activism is on the rise. When and how can activist shareholders in the boardroom be a force for positive change? Directors need to be prepared.  Janet Clark, , , and Andrew Shapiro discuss the issues around strategy and corporate governance at an NACD board leadership conference.NACDlogo

The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) is certainly a recognized authority, when it comes to discussing and establishing leading boardroom practices in the United States.

Informed by more than 35 years of experience, NACD delivers insights and resources that more than 14,000 corporate director members from the public, private and non-profit sectors rely upon to make sound strategic decisions and confidently confront complex business challenges.

Proposition pour un changement significatif dans la gouvernance des sociétés | Richard Leblanc


Voici un article de Richard Leblanc, avocat, expert-conseil en gouvernance et professeur-chercheur, publié récemment dans le HuffPost Business Canada, qui alimentera les discussions portant sur les changements requis en gouvernance au Canada.

L’auteur présente un changement réglementaire qui permettrait à des actionnaires d’avoir accès à la circulaire d’information pour fins de votation aux assemblées annuelles. Présentement, les actionnaires n’ont pas la possibilité de faire inscrire des candidatures d’administrateurs dans la circulaire de la direction; cela est du ressort du conseil d’administration qui fait des propositions de candidatures basées sur les recommandations d’un comité de gouvernance formé de membres du C.A.

Cette façon de fonctionner, selon Richard Leblanc, a pour résultat de bloquer la nomination de nouveaux administrateurs issus de la base actionnariale, ouvrant ainsi la voie à de grandes batailles d’opinions lorsque les actionnaires-investisseurs activistes exigent des changements à la gouvernance des sociétés.

La proposition de Richard Leblanc permettrait l’inclusion de candidatures d’actionnaires dans le prospectus de sollicitation à certaines conditions :

(1)   L’actionnaire ou le groupe d’actionnaires doit posséder un minimum d’actions dans l’entreprise (disons environ 3 %);

(2)  Les actions doivent avoir été acquises depuis une certaine période de temps (disons trois ans);

(3)  Les actionnaires peuvent soumettre annuellement des candidatures d’administrateurs jusqu’à un maximum de 25 % des administrateurs proposés dans la circulaire (dans le cas d’une élection non contestée, c’est-à-dire dans le cas où un changement de contrôle n’est pas envisagé).

L’auteur est très conscient que le management des entreprises est susceptible de résister à un tel changement car il ne veut pas de surprises (le management veut conserver son pouvoir d’influence dans le processus …). De plus, le C.A. veut conserver ses prérogatives de choisir ses pairs !

Que pensez-vous de cette approche ? En quoi celle-ci peut-elle améliorer la gouvernance ? Les actionnaires minoritaires auront-ils un rôle significativement plus crucial à jouer ? Est-ce le bon moyen pour susciter une plus grande participation des actionnaires ?

L’argumentation pour les changements proposés est développée dans l’article de Richard Leblanc présenté ci-dessous.

Bonne lecture ! Je souhaite avoir votre opinion sur cette approche, à première vue, favorable aux actionnaires.

The Corporate Governance Game Changer That Needs to Come to Canada

I teach my students and counsel board clients that shareholders elect directors; directors appoint managers; directors are accountable to shareholders; and managers are accountable to directors. This is largely theoretical.

Here is the reality: Shareholders: (i) cannot select directors; (ii) cannot communicate with directors; and (iii) cannot remove directors, by law, without great cost and difficulty. Therefore, directors are largely homogenous groups who are selected by themselves, or, worse yet, management.

Addressing the foregoing is the one piece of reform that will change corporate governance and performance for the better. The rest is, as they say, window dressing.

I have encouraged institutional investors and regulators to consider advocating what is known as « proxy access. » This means that a shareholder, or a group of shareholders, who (i) own a modest, minimum threshold of shares (say 3 per cent, although the percentage could be higher or lower, or floating, depending on the size of the company); (ii) for a period of time (say three years, although the time period could be shorter); (iii) can select up to 25 per cent of proposed directors, of the total board size, in an uncontested election (meaning a change of control is not desired by the shareholders) in a given year.P1030704

When shareholders « select » their nominees for the board, these directors would be alongside, in the management proxy circular, in alphabetical order, with profile parity (short bios and areas of competency), the management slate of directors. Management would be obliged to include shareholder-nominated directors, at a cost to the company, not shareholders, if the above ownership and time requirements are met. There would be no costly proxy battles or dissident slates. There would be no undue influence by management to marginalize shareholder-nominated directors within or outside of the proxy. Rules of the road will be set.

Then, shareholders get to decide, as they should, on the best directors from among the management-proposed and the shareholder-proposed directors. Ideally, the selection should be as blind or neutral as possible. The focus should be solely on the qualifications, competencies and track record of the proposed directors for election at that company. May the best directors win, as should be the case in any election, versus a slate of management-nominated directors, which is the case now. Under this new regime, there will be winners and losers. The practical effect may be that legacy or unqualified directors may withdraw from this scrutiny, as Canadian Pacific directors did at the time of shareholder Pershing Square’s involvement. This is not an undesired outcome and creates a market for the most qualified directors to rise to the top.

When proxy access was proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the U.S., management and lawyers who work for management used shareholder money to fight proxy access proposed under Dodd Frank, and won in the U.S. Court of Appeals, on the basis of an inadequate cost benefit analysis. Canadian investors and regulators should learn from this experience. Proxy access now is left to companies on a one-off basis, rather than being system wide. Meaningful proxy access has only occurred at a small number of companies as a result. The SEC should revisit proxy access. Industry Canada is currently looking at implementing proxy access at the 5 per cent level for all federally incorporated companies.

Opponents to proxy access argue that shareholders selecting directors will propose special purpose directors or directors who lack the background or experience. The evidence is the opposite. Shareholders are better at proposing directors who have the shareholder track record and industry expertise that the current board lacks. Recall Canadian Pacific, where not a single director possessed rail experience prior to shareholder involvement. There are other examples at Hess, Office Depot, Darden, Bob Evans, Abercrombie and Occidental Petroleum (see Field Experience Helps Win Board Seats), where shareholder-advocated directors were either better than incumbent ones, or caused the renewal of management-advocated ones. A director qualification dispute is welcome and will focus the lens on competencies of directors, including industry expertise, which is a good thing. Ann C. Mule and Charles Elson report in « Directors and Boards » that « One study concludes that more powerful CEOs tend to avoid independent expert directors. »

Herein lies the real resistance to proxy access: Management does not want it, and, the record shows, will fight vigorously to resist it. Management-retained advocates hired to oppose proxy access should disclose whom their client is. Directors however, when deciding to support proxy access, or not, should not be beholden to management, nor their advisors, nor act out of self-interest in entrenching themselves, but should be guided only by the best interests of the company, including its shareholders.

There is evidence that the market values strong proxy access positively, leading to an increase in shareholder wealth. If a director possesses the independence of mind, and the competency and skills to serve on the board, they should welcome proxy access. It will mean that the under performing directors on the board will be ferreted out, and current directors can avoid this uncomfortable task. Shareholders and the new competitive market for corporate directors will do it for them.

Les modèles de gouvernance fondés sur la prise en compte des intérêts des « Stakeholders » sont-ils efficaces ?


Dans ce billet, nous attirons votre attention sur une étude remarquable, récemment publiée par Franklin Allen, professeur d’économie à l’Université de Pennsylvanie et à Imperial College, Londres; Elena Carletti, professeure de finance à l’université Bocconi ; et Robert Marquez, professeur de finance à l’Université de Californie (Davis), paru sur le blogue de Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.

L’étude montre que les entreprises peuvent adopter deux modèles relativement distincts de gouvernance.

Le premier modèle, celui qui règne dans les pays Anglo-Saxons, adopte la perspective de la théorie de l’agence selon laquelle il doit exister une nette séparation des pouvoirs entre les actionnaires-propriétaires et les dirigeants de l’organisation. Dans ces pays (U.S., Canada, UK, Australie), les lois précisent assez clairement que les actionnaires sont les propriétaires de l’entreprise et que les managers ont le devoir fiduciaire d’agir en fonction de leurs intérêts, tout comme les administrateurs qui sont les représentants élus des actionnaires.

La situation canadienne est un peu particulière parce que certains jugements stipulent que les administrateurs doivent aussi tenir compte des conséquences des décisions sur les diverses parties prenantes.

Il y a plusieurs pays qui adoptent un deuxième modèle de gouvernance, un modèle qui accorde une importance capitale aux parties prenantes (Stakeholders), plus particulièrement aux employés.

Par exemple, en Allemagne, le système de cogestion exige un nombre égal de sièges d’actionnaires et d’employés au conseil de supervision. Les intérêts des parties prenantes sont également pris en compte par une représentation significative d’employés en Autriche, en France, aux Pays-Bas, au Danemark, en Suède.

D’autres pays tels que la Chine et le Japon ont des modèles de gouvernance qui se fondent sur des normes se rapportant aux consensus sociaux.

Quel modèle de gouvernance peut le mieux optimiser la performance des entreprises, tout en répondant aux impératifs de rentabilité, de compétitivité et de pérennité de ces dernières ?

Vous ne serez peut-être pas étonnés d’apprendre que le modèle Anglo-Saxon, fondé sur la propriété des actionnaires, n’est pas nécessairement le plus efficace ! Mais pourquoi ?

Voilà ce que cette étude examine en profondeur. Voici quelques extraits de l’article, dont la conclusion suivante :

« If workers and shareholders are made better off by co-determination and consumers are made worse off, then it is still likely that co-determination will be implemented. The reason is that workers and shareholders are usually better organized and are in a position to lobby in favor of co-determination, whereas consumers are dispersed. Such a political economy approach can help shed light on the emergence of stakeholder governance. In turn, the present study illustrates one of the likely consequences of the adoption of a stakeholder approach to corporate governance ».

Stakeholder Governance, Competition and Firm Value

 

….. These differences in firms’ corporate orientation are confirmed by the results of a survey of senior managers at a sample of major corporations in Japan, Germany, France, the US, and the UK, who were asked whether “A company exists for the interest of all stakeholders” or whether “Shareholder interest should be given the first priority” (Yoshimori, 2005). The results of the survey strongly suggest that stakeholders are considered to be very important in Japan, Germany and France, while shareholders’ interests represent the primary concern in the US and the UK. The same survey reports that firm continuity and employment preservation are important concerns for managers of corporations located in Japan, Germany and France, but not for those located in the US and the UK. All these considerations suggest that in many countries the legal system or social conventions have as a common objective the inclusion of parties beyond shareholders into firms’ decision-making processes. In particular, workers are seen as important stakeholders in the firm, with continuity of employment being an important objective.IMG_20140516_140943

In our paper, Stakeholder Governance, Competition and Firm Value, forthcoming in the Review of Finance, we examine these issues, and provide an understanding of how imposing stakeholder governance affects firms’ behavior even when this involves a trade-off between the interests of shareholders and those of other stakeholders. Our main idea is that stakeholder firms internalize the effects of their behavior on stakeholders other than shareholders. In particular, they are concerned with the benefits that their stakeholders would lose should the firm not survive. As a consequence, stakeholder firms are more concerned with avoiding bankruptcy since this prevents their stakeholders from enjoying their benefits. The different concern for survival affects firms’ strategic behavior in the product market and, in particular, the way they behave in the presence of uncertainty.

Specifically, we develop a model where firms compete in the product market with other firms, and have to choose the prices at which to sell their goods. Firms are subject to uncertainty, and can go bankrupt if they fail to turn a profit either because the expected sales did not quite materialize, or because costs turned out to be higher than anticipated. The possibility, and fear, of bankruptcy thus induces firms to be more conservative in their pricing policies, preferring to maintain a larger cushion between their revenues and their costs, than in seeking out (possibly) larger sales but at thinner margins.

A concern for stakeholders makes a firm even more concerned about avoiding bankruptcy to the extent that it may lead to dislocation of its workers, and makes it even more conservative in its pricing policies. While the direct consequence of this is to move a firm away from the objective of maximizing profits and thus shareholder value, there is an indirect effect coming through the interaction between competing firms in the product market: when one firm becomes less aggressive, other firms have an incentive to follow suit. This reduction in aggression (i.e., competition) industry-wide benefits the stakeholder-oriented firm, so much so that shareholders may in fact be better off when their firm can commit to internalizing stakeholder concerns. In other words, stakeholders’, such as employees, and shareholders’ interests become aligned through the competitive interactions among firms, rather than being at odds as they would appear to be if one ignores firms’ product market interactions.

We use this basic idea to study a number of issues ranging from state-mandated inclusion of stakeholders in corporate governance (e.g., the case of Germany), to globalization that makes it commonplace for firms from shareholder-oriented societies to compete with those from countries with a stakeholder orientation. We also study the implications of financial constraints for the capital structure of stakeholder-oriented firms, and show that the same conservative stance in the product market translates into more conservative capital structure.

Our study raises a number of unanswered questions about the ultimate effect of stakeholders’ orientations on firm behavior and value, and suggests directions for future research. One of the interesting questions is why some countries adopt stakeholder governance while others do not, and why governments adopt such governance although it may benefit firms and employees at the expense of consumers. There is a growing literature on corporate governance and political economy that emphasizes that the political process plays a very important part in determining the corporate governance structure in a country (see, e.g., Pagano and Volpin, 2005; Perotti and von Thadden, 2006; and Perotti and Volpin, 2007). For example, if workers and shareholders are made better off by co-determination and consumers are made worse off, then it is still likely that co-determination will be implemented …..

Toute la lumière sur les attentes envers les C.A. | L’état de situation selon Lipton


Aujourd’hui, je veux vous faire partager le point de vue de Martin Lipton*, expert dans les questions de fusion et d’acquisition ainsi que dans les affaires se rapportant à la gouvernance des entreprises, sur les enjeux des C.A.. L’auteur met l’accent sur les pratiques exemplaires en gouvernance et sur les comportements attendus des conseils d’administration.

Ce texte, paru sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance,résume très bien les devoirs et les responsabilités des administrateurs de sociétés de nos jours et renforce la nécessité, pour les conseils d’administration, de gérer les situations d’offres hostiles.

Bonne lecture ! Êtes-vous d’accord avec les attentes énoncées ? Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.

The Spotlight on Boards

 

The ever evolving challenges facing corporate boards prompts an updated snapshot of what is expected from the board of directors of a major public company—not just the legal rules, but also the aspirational “best practices” that have come to have almost as much influence on board and company behavior.

Boards are expected to:

Establish the appropriate “Tone at the Top” to actively cultivate a corporate culture that gives high priority to ethical standards, principles of fair dealing, professionalism, integrity, full compliance with legal requirements and ethically sound strategic goals.IMG_20140523_112914

Choose the CEO, monitor his or her performance and have a succession plan in case the CEO becomes unavailable or fails to meet performance expectations.

Maintain a close relationship with the CEO and work with management to encourage entrepreneurship, appropriate risk taking, and investment to promote the long-term success of the company (despite the constant pressures for short-term performance) and to navigate the dramatic changes in domestic and world-wide economic, social and political conditions. Approve the company’s annual operating plan and long-term strategy, monitor performance and provide advice to management as a strategic partner.

Develop an understanding of shareholder perspectives on the company and foster long-term relationships with shareholders, as well as deal with the requests of shareholders for meetings to discuss governance and the business portfolio and operating strategy. Evaluate the demands of corporate governance activists, make changes that the board believes will improve governance and resist changes that the board believes will not be constructive. Work with management and advisors to review the company’s business and strategy, with a view toward minimizing vulnerability to attacks by activist hedge funds.

Organize the business, and maintain the collegiality, of the board and its committees so that each of the increasingly time-consuming matters that the board and board committees are expected to oversee receives the appropriate attention of the directors.

Plan for and deal with crises, especially crises where the tenure of the CEO is in question, where there has been a major disaster or a risk management crisis, or where hard-earned reputation is threatened by a product failure or a socio-political issue. Many crises are handled less than optimally because management and the board have not been proactive in planning to deal with crises, and because the board cedes control to outside counsel and consultants.

Determine executive compensation to achieve the delicate balance of enabling the company to recruit, retain and incentivize the most talented executives, while also avoiding media and populist criticism of “excessive” compensation and taking into account the implications of the “say-on-pay” vote.

Face the challenge of recruiting and retaining highly qualified directors who are willing to shoulder the escalating work load and time commitment required for board service, while at the same time facing pressure from shareholders and governance advocates to embrace “board refreshment”, including issues of age, length of service, independence, gender and diversity. Provide compensation for directors that fairly reflects the significantly increased time and energy that they must now spend in serving as board and board committee members. Evaluate the board’s performance, and the performance of the board committees and each director.

Determine the company’s reasonable risk appetite (financial, safety, cyber, political, reputation, etc.), oversee the implementation by management of state-of-the-art standards for managing risk, monitor the management of those risks within the parameters of the company’s risk appetite and seek to ensure that necessary steps are taken to foster a culture of risk-aware and risk-adjusted decision-making throughout the organization.

Oversee the implementation by management of state-of-the-art standards for compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, monitor compliance and respond appropriately to “red flags.”

Take center stage whenever there is a proposed transaction that creates a real or perceived conflict between the interests of stockholders and those of management, including takeovers and attacks by activist hedge funds focused on the CEO.

Recognize that shareholder litigation against the company and its directors is part of modern corporate life and should not deter the board from approving a significant acquisition or other material transaction, or rejecting a merger proposal or a hostile takeover bid, all of which is within the business judgment of the board.

Set high standards of social responsibility for the company, including human rights, and monitor performance and compliance with those standards.

Oversee relations with government, community and other constituents.

Review corporate governance guidelines and committee charters and tailor them to promote effective board functioning.

To meet these expectations, it will be necessary for major public companies

(1) to have a sufficient number of directors to staff the requisite standing and special committees and to meet expectations for diversity;

(2) to have directors who have knowledge of, and experience with, the company’s businesses, even if this results in the board having more than one director who is not “independent”;

(3) to have directors who are able to devote sufficient time to preparing for and attending board and committee meetings;

(4) to provide the directors with regular tutorials by internal and external experts as part of expanded director education; and

(5) to maintain a truly collegial relationship among and between the company’s senior executives and the members of the board that enhances the board’s role both as strategic partner and as monitor.

________________________________________________

* Martin Lipton is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy

Le point de vue sans équivoque de l’activiste Carl Icahn


Depuis quelques années, on parle souvent d’activistes, d’actionnaires activistes, d’investisseurs activistes ou de Hedge Funds pour qualifier la philosophie de ceux qui veulent assainir la gouvernance des entreprises et redonner une place prépondérante aux « actionnaires-propriétaires » !

Pour ceux qui sont intéressés à connaître le point de vue et les arguments d’un actionnaire activiste célèbre, je vous invite à lire l’article écrit par Carl Icahn le 22 août sur son site Shareholders’ Square Table (SST).

Vous aurez ainsi une très bonne idée de cette nouvelle approche à la gouvernance qui fait rage depuis quelque temps.

Je vous invite aussi à lire l’article de Icahn qui s’insurge contre la position de Warren Buffet de ne pas intervenir dans la décision de la rémunération globale « excessive » à Coke, suivi de la réponse de Buffet.

My article from Barron’s on Warren Buffett’s abstention from a vote on Coke’s executive-pay plan

À vous de vous former une opinion sur ce sujet ! Bonne lecture !

The Bottom Line | Carl Icahn

Among other things, I’m known to be a “reductionist.”  In my line of work you must be good at pinpointing what to focus on – that is, the major underlying truths and problems in a situation.  I then become obsessive about solving or fixing whatever they may be. This combination is what perhaps has lead to my success over the years and is why I’ve chosen to be so outspoken about shareholder activism, corporate governance issues, and the current economic state of America. IMG00570-20100828-2239

Currently, I believe that the facts “reduce” to one indisputable truth which is that we must change our system of selecting CEOs in order to stay competitive and get us out of an extremely dangerous financial situation.  With exceptions, I believe that too many companies in this country are terribly run and there’s no system in place to hold the CEOs and Boards of these inadequately managed companies accountable. There are numerous challenges we are facing today whether it be monetary policy, unemployment, income inequality, the list can go on and on… but the thing we have to remember is there is something we can do about it: Shareholders, the true owners of our companies, can demand that mediocre CEOs are held accountable and make it clear that they will be replaced if they are failing.

I am convinced by our record that this will make our corporations much more productive and profitable and will go a long way in helping to solve our unemployment problems and the other issues now ailing our economy.

…….

L’état des travaux de recherche relatifs à la contribution des investisseurs activistes


Ainsi que mon billet du 19 août en faisait état, le débat est de plus en plus vif en ce qui regarde la contribution des « Hedge Funds » à l’amélioration de la performance à long terme des entreprises ciblées.

Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un court billet de Martin Lipton, partenaire fondateur de la firme Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, paru sur le site du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, qui décrit la problématique et les principaux enjeux liés au comportement des investisseurs « activistes ».

L’auteur accorde une grande place aux travaux d’Yvan Allaire et de François Dauphin de l’IGOPP (Institut sur la Gouvernance d’Organisations Privées et Publiques) qui pourfendent l’approche économétrique de la recherche phare de Bebchuk-Brav-Jiang.

Le résumé ci-dessous relate les principaux jalons relatifs à cette saga !

The post puts forward criticism of an empirical study by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, and Wei Jiang on the long-term effects of hedge fund activism; this study is available here, and its results are summarized in a Forum post and in a Wall Street Journal op-ed article. As did an earlier post by Mr. Lipton available here, this post relies on the work of Yvan Allaire and François Dauphin that is available here. A reply by Professors Bebchuk, Brav, and Jiang to this earlier memo and to the Allaire-Dauphin work is available here. Additional posts discussing the Bebchuk-Brav-Jiang study, including additional critiques by Wachtell Lipton and responses to them by Professors Bebchuk, Brav, and Jiang, are available on the Forum here.

 

The Long-Term Consequences of Hedge Fund Activism

The experience of the overwhelming majority of corporate managers, and their advisors, is that attacks by activist hedge funds are followed by declines in long-term future performance. Indeed, activist hedge fund attacks, and the efforts to avoid becoming the target of an attack, result in increased leverage, decreased investment in CAPEX and R&D and employee layoffs and poor employee morale.IMG_00002145

Several law school professors who have long embraced shareholder-centric corporate governance are promoting a statistical study that they claim establishes that activist hedge fund attacks on corporations do not damage the future operating performance of the targets, but that this statistical study irrefutably establishes that on average the long-term operating performance of the targets is actually improved.

In two recent papers, Professor Yvan Allaire, Executive Chair of the Institute for Governance of Private and Public Organizations, has demonstrated that the statistics these professors rely on to support their theories are not irrefutable and do not disprove the real world experience that activist hedge fund interventions are followed by declines in long-term operating performance. The papers by Professor Allaire speak for themselves:

“Activist” hedge funds: creators of lasting wealth? What do the empirical studies really say?

Hedge Fund Activism and their Long-Term Consequences; Unanswered Questions to Bebchuk, Brav and Jiang