Catégorie : Règlementation en gouvernance

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.

Tendances en gouvernance et CA du futur | PwC’s 2014 Annual Corporate Directors Suveys


Il y a dans le document de PwC un exposé clair des principales tendances en gouvernance au cours des prochaines années. Le site de PwC  présente également les chapitres individuels du rapport.

Voici un résumé de l’échantillon des entreprises, suivi d’un rappel des 12 tendances observées. Vous trouverez beaucoup de points communs avec l’article que j’ai publié dans le journal Les Affaires : Gouvernance : 12 tendances à surveiller

Bonne lecture !

In the summer of 2014, 863 public company directors responded to our survey. Of those directors, 70% serve on the boards of companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue, and participants represented nearly two-dozen industries. In PwC’s 2014 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, directors share their views on governance trends that we believe will impact the board of the future, including: board performance and diversity, board priorities and practices, IT and cybersecurity oversight, strategy and risk oversight, and executive compensation and director communications.

Trends shaping governance and the board of the future | PwC’s 2014 Annual Corporate Directors Suveys

Board performance takes center stage

 Many boards are giving even more attention to enhancing their own performance and acting on issues identified in their self-assessments.

 

Board composition is scrutinized

Board composition is under pressure to evolve to meet new business challenges and stakeholder expectations. Today’s directors are more focused than ever on ensuring their boards have the right expertise and experience to be effective.

 

Board diversity gets attention

Stakeholders are more interested in board diversity, and boards are increasingly focused on recruiting directors with diversity of background and experience.

 

More pressure on board priorities and practices

Director performance continues to face scrutiny from investors, regulators, and other stakeholders, causing board practices to remain in the spotlight.

 

Activist shareholders get active

With over $100 billion in assets under activist management1, more directors are discussing how to deal with potential activist campaigns.

 

The influence of emerging IT grows

Companies and directors increasingly see IT as inextricably wed to corporate strategy and the company’s business. IT is now a business issue, not just a technology issue.

 

Increased concerns about the Achilles’ heel of IT—cybersecurity

Cybersecurity breaches are regularly and prominently in the news. And directors are searching for answers on how to provide effective oversight in this area.

 

It’s still all about risk management

Risk management is a top priority for investors, and they have high expectations of boards in this regard.

 

Investors question company strategies

Effective oversight requires that the board receive the right information from management to effectively address key elements of strategy.

 

Executive compensation remains a hot topic

Boards are devoting even more time and attention to the critical issue of appropriate compensation.

 

Stakeholders are showing continuing interest in how proxy advisory firms operate.

The interest of stakeholders in the proxy advisory industry is a key trend.

 

Increasing expectations about director communications

In response, boards must determine their role in stakeholder communications—and evaluate their processes and procedures governing such communications

 

Le rôle de l’audit interne dans la compréhension de la culture organisationnelle


Vous trouverez, ci-après, un document de l’Institut de l’audit interne (IIA) du Royaume-Uni (UK) partagé par Denis Lefort, expert conseil en gouvernance, audit interne et contrôle, qui porte sur le rôle de l’audit interne sur la culture organisationnelle.

Auditer la culture organisationnelle est une activité qui peut s’avérer complexe mais qui peut apporter néanmoins  une grande valeur ajoutée. Le présent guide de l’IIA UK saura vous apporter un éclairage intéressant et utile à cet égard.

Le document de l’IIA est très intéressant car il expose clairement la problématique d’intervention de l’audit interne dans ce domaine, tout en agrémentant les actions à entreprendre de plusieurs exemples concrets d’intervention.

Bonne lecture !

Culture and the role of internal audit

Looking below the surface

The approach taken by IIA report on culture is reflected in the new (September 2014) FRC Corporate Governance Code, which says « One of the key roles for the board includes establishing the culture, values and ethics of the company. It is important that the board sets the correct ‘tone from the top’. »

The accompanying FRC guidance on risk management – exercising responsibilities says “The board should establish the tone for risk management and internal control and put in place appropriate systems to enable it to meet its responsibilities effectively”

“In deciding what arrangements are appropriate the board should consider, amongst other things:

  1. The culture it wishes to embed in the company, and whether this has been achieved.
  2. What assurance the board requires, and how this is to be obtained.”

How should internal audit support boards in giving assuarance on culture?

Culture report cover

Foreword

Public trust in business has ebbed and flowed over recent years but a significant minority (circa 40%) of those questioned by Ipsos MORI believe companies are ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ ethical in the way they behave. Responsibility and ownership for addressing this lies with those who sit in the boardroom. This is supported by regulators in the way that they now monitor and review the culture of organisations.

Internal audit is a unique function within an organisation with its independence and access to give assurance to those in the boardroom. This can provide confidence that there is a strong commitment to good conduct and that it is actually being translated into everyday behaviours, but also, more importantly, where it is not. To have this information allows the board an opportunity to mitigate the risk of integrity failure.

Leaders need to send a message and show by example that culture and values matter, demonstrating this by putting in place all the necessary measures. I believe this report will support boards and audit committees to help rebuild public trust by making the best use of internal audit as they develop their thinking around how to improve ethical conduct for the benefit of customers, employees, all other stakeholders and for business itself.

Philippa Foster Back CBE
Director
Institute of Business Ethics

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.

Deux grandes approches réglementaires à la diversité sur les C.A. : (1) les quotas ou les mesures ciblées et (2) l’obligation de divulgation


Aujourd’hui, j’aimerais partager avec vous une étude empirique vraiment très intéressante portant sur deux approches réglementaires à la diversité sur les conseils d’administration:

(1) les quotas ou les mesures ciblées et

(2) l’obligation de divulgation.

Aaron A. Dhir,  professeur associé de droit à la Osgoode Hall Law School de Toronto, présente plusieurs réflexions fort pertinentes sur l’expérience norvégienne d’imposition de quotas pour accroître le nombre de femmes sur les conseils d’administration.

Plusieurs règlementations se sont inspirées de cette approche pour prendre en compte cette variable fondamentale. La conclusion de l’auteur au sujet de cette première approche réglementaire est résumée de la façon suivante :

My study of the Norwegian quota model demonstrates the important role diversity can play in enhancing the quality of corporate governance, while also revealing the challenges diversity mandates pose.

En ce qui concerne l’approche basée sur l’obligation de divulgation des mesures de diversité adoptée par la Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), il appert que la règle ne donne aucune définition de la diversité et que les entreprises peuvent l’interpréter comme bon leur semble.

L’étude montre cependant que les organisations ont tendance à définir la diversité de manière très large, notamment en faisant référence à l’expérience antérieure pertinente des administrateurs (qui n’a rien à voir avec les caractéristiques sociodémographiques telles que le genre).

L’auteur avance également que cette réglementation a donné lieu à beaucoup d’efforts de définition de la diversité :

My study shows that “diversity” carries multiple connotations for these firms. My most salient finding, however, is that when interpreting this concept in the absence of regulatory guidance, the dominant corporate discourse is experiential rather than identity-based. Firms most frequently define diversity with reference to a director’s prior experience or other non-identity-based factors rather than his or her socio-demographic characteristics. The data provide a unique window into the potential meanings of “diversity” in the corporate governance setting, as well as the limits of a strategy that permits corporations to give the term their own definition.

L’auteur nous incite à lire les chapitres 1, 4 et 6 qui ont été publiés sur le réseau SSRN (Social Science Research Network). Le chapitre 1 présente l’objet de l’étude, la méthodologie, les deux variables étudiées, les résultats sommaires et les perspectives futures eu égard au débat sur la diversité.

Bonne lecture !

Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity: Corporate Law, Governance, and Diversity

The lack of gender parity in the governance of business corporations has ignited a heated global debate, leading policymakers to wrestle with difficult questions that lie at the intersection of market activity and social identity politics. In my new book, Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity: Corporate Law, Governance, and Diversity (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming in 2015), I draw on semi-structured interviews with corporate board directors in Norway and documentary content analysis of corporate securities filings in the United States to investigate empirically two distinct regulatory models designed to address diversity in the boardroom—quotas and disclosure.IMG_00001049

In Chapter 4, recently made available on SSRN, I explore the quota-based approach to achieving gender balance in corporate boardrooms. Quotas and related target-based measures for publicly traded firms are currently in place in a number of countries, including Iceland, Belgium, France, Italy, and Norway and are at different stages of consideration in other jurisdictions, including Canada, the European Union, and Germany.

I present findings from my qualitative, interview-based study of Norwegian corporate directors in order to provide empirical elucidation of how quota-based regimes operate in practice. The identity narratives of Norwegian board members offer particularly rich sources of insight, given that Norway was the first jurisdiction to pursue the quota path and thus has the most mature quota regime. While highly contentious when adopted, the Norwegian quota project unquestionably set the stage for subsequent legislative developments in other countries.

I delve into the lived experiences of Norwegian directors who gained appointments as a result of Norway’s quota law, as well as those who held appointments before the law was enacted. Several questions frame my investigation. How have these individuals subjectively experienced, and made sense of, this intrusive form of regulation? How does legally required gender diversity affect their economic and institutional lives? And how has it shaped boardroom cultural dynamics and decision making, as well as the overall governance fabric of the board?

The forced repopulation of boards along gender lines has disturbed the traditional order of corporate governance systems, dislocating established hierarchies of power in key market-based institutions. Norway represents the paradigmatic case of this disturbance and has set in motion a wave of corporate governance reform unlike any other. As such, it constitutes a fascinating and appropriate case study through which to consider the implications of quota regimes. My study of the Norwegian quota model demonstrates the important role diversity can play in enhancing the quality of corporate governance, while also revealing the challenges diversity mandates pose.

In Chapter 6, also recently made available on SSRN, I explore the disclosure-based approach to addressing diversity in corporate governance. In 2009, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a rule requiring publicly traded firms to report on whether they consider diversity in identifying director nominees and, if so, how. The rule also requires firms that have adopted a diversity policy to describe how they implement the policy and assess its effectiveness. The rule does not define “diversity,” however, leaving it to corporations to give this term meaning.

I present findings from my mixed-methods content analysis of corporate disclosures submitted during the first four years of the rule in order to provide empirical elucidation of how the rule operates in practice. The research sample consists of a hand-collected dataset of the 2010–2013 definitive proxy statements of S&P 100 firms. I am interested in learning how these firms, in responding to the rule, construct the concept of diversity through their public discourse. What does diversity, viewed through the prism of legal regulation, mean to market participants? How do they interpret and understand this socio-political idea in the absence of a regulatory definition? How is diversity constituted and discursively performed?

The SEC’s disclosure rule has caused US corporations to establish a vocabulary of diversity. My study shows that “diversity” carries multiple connotations for these firms. My most salient finding, however, is that when interpreting this concept in the absence of regulatory guidance, the dominant corporate discourse is experiential rather than identity-based. Firms most frequently define diversity with reference to a director’s prior experience or other nonidentity-based factors rather than his or her socio-demographic characteristics. The data provide a unique window into the potential meanings of “diversity” in the corporate governance setting, as well as the limits of a strategy that permits corporations to give the term their own definition.

Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity aims to deepen ongoing policy conversations and offer new insights into the role law can play in reshaping the gendered dynamics of corporate governance cultures. The full version of Chapter 1 is available for download here.

Notions de gouvernance 101 | Que font les administrateurs ?


Vous trouverez ci-dessous un article de Lucy P. Marcus*, experte en gouvernance, qui présente, de manière vulgarisée, en quoi consiste le travail des administrateurs de sociétés aujourd’hui.

On y trouvera une bonne définition des responsabilités des administrateurs ainsi qu’une métaphore intéressante qui montre comment le travail des administrateurs a considérablement changé au cours des vingt dernières années.

L’auteure distingue entre les activités qui sont de nature « grounding » (connaissances de bases de la performance et des obligations de conformité) et celles, toujours plus importantes, qui sont de l’ordre du « stargazing » (la vision à long terme et la stratégie).

Je vous invite à lire ce bref article qui tient lieu de notions de gouvernance 101 !

Bonne lecture !

Boardroom 101: What, exactly, do directors do?

 

The boardroom is changing at a fast pace. The agenda items we discuss, the expectations of board directors and the responsibility we hold are all areas that are going through a much needed, and, in my experience, a very welcome, transition.

When my son was around 5 years old, I was preparing for a board meeting and he asked what that was and what I was going to do there.

Lucy P. Marcus
Lucy P. Marcus*, experte en gouvernance

That’s a question many adults have, too. What, exactly, is a board and what does a board director do?

Searching for an explanation, I finally went with this: « You know about King Arthur and the Round Table? Well, like King Arthur and the Round Table, a group of wise people gather together every month or so. We sit around a table and talk about what the people we are helping have been doing and what they are planning to do next. We try to make sure they are acting honourably and following the law and doing what is best for everyone. »

He seemed fairly satisfied with that answer, but it got me thinking — was the metaphor apt? Is that really what directors are doing in practice?

It does seem sometimes like the board is an arcane and distant body. A caricature would be one where the doors open with a whoosh to reveal suited people sitting around a table in an oak panelled room, having confidential discussions in hushed tones, drawing on deep expertise and thinking big thoughts. And of course, those discussions would be spoken in a special « thee and thou » language.

There are parts of that caricature which do ring true. We board directors generally do sit around a table, and I’d like to think we generally have robust discussions. Strangely, we do often speak in formal ways, referring to “Mr Chairman” and the like. As for the “deep expertise” and “big thoughts” part, I’m not sure we are always well equipped with enough information to make decisions.

Changes afoot

The boardroom is changing at a fast pace. The agenda items we discuss, the expectations of board directors and the responsibility we hold are all areas that are going through a much needed, and, in my experience, a very welcome, transition.

Board agendas used to be rigid and mostly focused on traditional oversight topics such as compensation and compliance. That mandate has grown to include a great deal more.

To better understand the changes and how they affect our job as directors, it is useful to think of the tasks and the agenda items of the board as being broadly divided into a balance of what I call “grounding” and “stargazing”.

The “grounding” side consists of what you might think of as the tick-boxing items: questions around the structure and performance of the organisation in the “here and now”. Is it behaving legally and responsibly? Is it following the rules and regulations? Are its financial accounts in good order? Does it meet to the expectations not just of its shareholders but also of other stakeholders in the broader ecosystem in which it operates?

The “stargazing” side is about strategy. This is the essence of what and where the organisation wants to be in the future. It is about asking questions about how the sector is changing and how the organisation plans to grow. It is also about challenging it to make the necessary changes as the world around it changes too, and to be a driver of positive change. It is about building innovation and a sense of excitement about the future into the DNA.

The old agendas were heavily weighted towards the “grounding” side of the equation, but today, a good balance of “grounding” and “stargazing” is vital to preparing the organisation for the future. The board must look closely at the here and now, making sure everything is working correctly; otherwise we run the risk of missing signs of everything from neglect to malfeasance. We must also look into the next 10 to 15 years to make sure that the organisation has a robust future to look forward to.

Responsibilities increase

The world around us has changed at an exponential pace. Companies are seen as having a greater responsibility for the role they play in the health and well-being of society. They also bear some responsibility for the individuals that they touch, be it employees, partners, or people who live in the community. At the same time, social media and niche publications amplify the voices of shareholders, communities and consumers. Also, boards and companies no longer operate in a black box — with the advent of everything from Twitter to Google Earth, there is more transparency than ever before.

Partly as a consequence of these changes in the boardroom and beyond, the responsibilities and expectations of directors, particularly independent directors, have increased exponentially. It is not sufficient to skim the board papers, ask a couple of superficial questions, eat the lovely meal, and be on your merry way home.

Board directors are now, rightly, expected to read the papers, come prepared, and ask the tough questions. Though the boardroom has traditionally been a black box room, much has changed. Individual directors will increasingly find themselves being held to account for the choices that they have made in the boardroom in many areas, be it around executive compensation or “innovative” tax strategies.

It means that we as directors must be more diligent and make sure we are only voting ‘yes’ for things when we have a thorough understanding of what the implications of the ‘yes’ is — both now and in the longer term. We must take into account those whose lives are impacted directly, such as people who work for the company and those who live in the area where the company sits, as well as the people who use the company’s products and services. It also about those who are impacted indirectly, such as shareholders whose life savings may be at stake. Those are all positives, in my view.

In the end, if we are to live up to the ideal of King Arthur and the Round Table, chivalrous knights who are guided by the ideals of courtesy, courage, and honour, we must ask ourselves every time we gather, “Why are we here and who do we serve?” so that the decisions we take are made wisely and judiciously, not only to serve the needs of the few, but to ensure that we help the organisation to live up to its potential, and do so in an honourable way.

_________________________

*, CEO, Non-Exec Board Director, Prof IE Biz School, Project Syndicate & BBC columnist.

Clarifications au sujet des deux principaux systèmes de gouvernance | One Tier vs Two Tier


Ici, en Amérique du Nord, on entend quelquefois parler des distinctions entre le modèle de gouvernance européen et le modèle de gouvernance à l’américaine. Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, une brève synthèse des particularités des modèles de gouvernance européens eu égard à la distinction one tier/two tier systèmes de gouvernance.

Cette conclusions est basée sur une recherche de type « Benchmarking » conduite par ecoDa* (The European Confederation of Directors Associations) auprès de ses membres des Instituts de gouvernance européens ainsi qu’auprès d’autres membres non-européens, tel que le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS).

À la suite de l’extrait présentant les grandes lignes de ces modèles de gouvernance, vous trouverez un portrait plus précis des principales différences entre les deux systèmes, dont les deux plus représentatifs (UK, One Tier; Allemagne, Two Tier).

Bonne lecture !

 

Although the European Union tries to undermine the differences, the corporate law and corporate governance is highly diversified throughout Europe, embedded in a long history of specific societal and economic approaches towards the organisation of the business world, aligning governance with these quite different societal priorities.IMG_20140520_212116

In the two tier system, supervisory board members control the strategy but don’t define it. In the two tier system, there is also a clear cut between management and control responsibilities. In the one tier system, the board governs the company e. g. controls the direction, defines the strategic options and can address any issues related to the performance of the company.

People advocating for the two tier model always point out that having distance between management and oversight creates independence that makes sense. People defending the one-tier system consider that having executives and non-executives on the same board provides a better flow of information and helps to overcome problems that boards can face in understanding what is going on in the company. The one-tier system would also enable the non-executive to see how executive operate together as a team. The non-executive would be more involved in forward-looking of the strategy. As a downside effect of the one tier system, it is difficult for non-executives to draw distinction between monitoring and oversight.

The one tier system is often seen as an English model while the two-tier system is more of a German style. But the reality is more complex than that over the different countries in the European Union. The Nordic Corporate Governance (CG) model is quite unique with a strictly hierarchical governance structure and a direct chain of command among the general meeting, the board and the CEO. The Italian CG model is also special with the distinction between the managing body (sole administrator or, in the collective form of a board of directors) and the controlling organ (so called “board of statutory auditors”)

 

One-tier board system Two-tier board system 
Organisation
A single board. A supervisory body and a management body.
Composition
Mixed, executive and non-executive directors may serve on the board. Separate, executive and non-executive directors serve on separate boards (i.e., a supervisory board composed exclusively of non-executive directors and a management board composed exclusively of executive directors).
Organisation
Unitary Binary
Committees
Mandatory or recommended Supervisory and advisory committees(Mandatory) oversight and advisory committees such as the audit committee, the remuneration committee and the nomination (appointments) committee, composed of a majority of non-executive directors, one or more of whom must be independent.Supervisory committee

Optional committee entrusted with supervising the company, composed of both executive and non-executive directors.

Usually differs slightly from a true supervisory board (as found in the two-tier system) in terms of powers, composition and role.

 

Mostly found in countries which present characteristics of a one-tier system while incorporating certain features of a two-tier system.

 

 OptionalHistorically not required but oversight and advisory committees are increasingly important in the two-tier system as well.
Roles
Board of directors Managerial roleDirection and executive actsDecision-taking, management and oversightPerformance enhancement

Supervisory role

Accountability

Strategic and financial oversight

 

 Management board Managerial roleDirection and executive actsDecision-taking and managementPerformance enhancement

Service and strategic role

 

Supervisory board

 

Supervisory role

Accountability

Decision-taking and oversight

Monitoring role

Strategic and financial oversight

 

 
CEO duality
Allowed.The same person can serve as both CEO and chair of the board of directors (although this is generally not recommended by corporate governance practices). 

 

 Restricted.No CEO duality (although the CEO can sometimes be a member or attend meetings of the supervisory board.)
Executive directors
Appointed by the general meeting of shareholders, based on a proposal by the board or appointments committee (if any).A director may be appointed by the board of directors when the term of office of another director comes to an end, in order to prevent the board from being paralyzed, for example if the board no longer has a sufficient number of members as required by law or the articles (co-optation procedure).The appointment of a co-opted director must be confirmed at the first general meeting of shareholders following his or her appointment.  Appointed by the supervisory board or the general meeting of shareholders, based on a proposal by the board or the appointments committee (if there is one).
Non-Executive (supervisory directors)
Idem. Appointed by the general meeting of shareholders or, based on a proposal by the supervisory board or the appointments committee (if there is one).
Conflicts perspective
Negatively associated with the separation of decision-management and decision-oversight roles due to its composition (a majority of executive directors) and unitary structure.Diffusion of tasks and responsibilities weakens the non-executive directors’ ability to oversee the implementation of decisions, especially where executive and non-executive directors face the same potential legal liability.Higher risk of conflicts of interest between management and shareholders. 

To avoid conflicts of interest, it is often recommended that the one-tier board be composed of a majority of non-executive directors, due to   (i)

their experience and knowledge, (ii) their contacts, which may enhance management’s ability to secure external resources, and (iii) their independence from the CEO.

 

In companies which have achieved a certain level of development, risks of conflicts of interest are often reduced through the creation of committees allowing these functions to be segregated. In addition, legal provisions aimed at preventing and resolving conflict of interest exist in most jurisdictions.

  		•  Positively associated with the separation of decision-management and decision-oversight roles, due to the composition of the supervisory board (independent directors) which ensures independence and its binary structure.No diffusion of tasks and responsibilities. 

    Lower risk of conflicts of interest between management and shareholders.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    (Dis)advantages
    AdvantagesSpirit of partnership and mutual respect between directors, which allows greater interaction amongst all board members.Non-executive directors have more contact with the company itself and are more involved in the decision-making process. Non-executive directors have direct access to information.

     

    Decision-making process is faster.

     

    A lighter administrative burden as only a single management body needs to hold meetings and only a single set of minutes need be drawn up.

     

    Board meetings take place more regularly.

     

    Disadvantages

    A single body is entrusted with both managing and supervising the company’s operations.

     

    More difficult to guarantee the independence of board members and there is a greater risk of non-executive directors aligning too much with executive directors.

     

    More liability for non-executive directors.

     

     

    		 Advantages Clear distinction between the supervisory and management functions within the company.Clear distinctions of liabilities between the members of the supervisory and management bodies.Supervisory board members are more independent.

     

    Clear separation of the roles of chairman and CEO.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Disadvantages

    It is more difficult for directors to build relationships of trust, thereby potentially undermining communication between the two boards.

     

    Supervisory board members only receive limited information (from the management board) and at a later stage (decreased involvement). There is a heightened risk of the supervisory board not discovering shortcomings or discovering them too late.

     

    Decision-making process is delayed due to less frequent supervisory board meetings.

     

    Non-executive directors face several challenges which appear to be typical of the two-tier board model, such as difficulties (i) building relationships of trust, thereby potentially undermining communication and flows of information between the two boards, and (ii) fully understanding and ratifying strategic initiatives by the management board, thereby frustrating the decision-making processes.

     

    _______________________________________________

    ecoDa (The European Confederation of Directors Associations) is a not-for-profit association based in Brussels, which acts as the « European voice of directors » and represents around 60,000 board directors from across the European Union (EU) member states. The organisation acts as a forum for debate and public advocacy by influencing the public policy debate at EU level and by promoting appropriate director training, professional development and boardroom best practice.

    Les risques de gouvernance associés à l’OPA d’Alibaba


    , professeur de droit, d’économique et de finance, et directeur des programmes sur la gouvernance corporative à la Harvard law School vient de publier un article très important dans le New York Times.

    L’auteur met les investisseurs en garde contre de réels risques de gouvernance liés à l’offre publique d’achat (OPA) de l’entreprise chinoise Alibaba.

    Je crois qu’il est utile de mieux comprendre les enjeux de gouvernance avant d’investir dans cette immense OPA.

    Bonne lecture !

     

    Wall Street is eagerly watching what is expected to be one of the largest initial public offering in history: the offering of the Chinese Internet retailer Alibaba at the end of this week. Investors have been described by the media as “salivating” and “flooding underwriters with orders.” It is important for investors, however, to keep their eyes open to the serious governance risks accompanying an Alibaba investment.

    Several factors combine to create such risks. For one, insiders have a permanent lock on control of the company but hold only a small minority of the equity capital. Then, there are many ways to divert value to affiliated entities, but there are weak mechanisms to prevent this. Consequently, public investors should worry that, over time, a significant amount of the value created by Alibaba would not be shared with them.

    In Alibaba, control is going to be locked forever in the hands of a group of insiders known as the Alibaba Partnership. These are all managers in the Alibaba Group or related companies. The Partnership will have the exclusive right to nominate candidates for a majority of the board seats. Furthermore, if the Partnership fails to obtain shareholder approval for its candidates, it will be entitled “in its sole discretion and without the need for any additional shareholder approval” to appoint directors unilaterally, thus ensuring that its chosen directors always have a majority of board seats.

    Alibaba is scheduled to become a publicly traded company later this week.

    Many public companies around the world, especially in emerging economies, have a large shareholder with a lock on control. Such controlling shareholders, however, often own a substantial portion of the equity capital that provides them with beneficial incentives. In the case of Alibaba, investors need to worry about the relatively small stake held by the members of the controlling Alibaba Partnership.

    After the I.P.O., Alibaba’s executive chairman, Jack Ma, is expected to hold 7.8 percent of the shares and all the directors and executive officers will hold together 13.1 percent. Over time, insiders may well cash out some of their current holding, but Alibaba’s governance structure would ensure that directors chosen by the Alibaba Partnership will forever control the board, regardless of the size of the stake held by the Partnership’s members.

    With an absolute lock on control and a limited fraction of the equity capital, the Alibaba insiders will have substantial incentives to divert value from Alibaba to other entities in which they own a substantial percentage of the equity. This can be done by placing future profitable opportunities in such entities, or making deals with such entities on terms that favor them at the expense of Alibaba.

    Alibaba’s prospectus discloses information about various past “related party transactions,” and these disclosures reflect the significance and risks to public investors of such transactions. For example, in 2010, Alibaba divested its control and ownership of Alipay, which does all of the financial processing for Alibaba, and Alipay is now fully controlled and substantially owned by Alibaba’s executive chairman.

    Public investors should worry not only about whether the Alibaba’s divesting of Alipay benefited Mr. Ma at the expense of Alibaba, but also about the terms of the future transactions between Alibaba and Alipay. Because Alibaba relies on Alipay “to conduct substantially all of the payment processing” in its marketplace, these terms are important for Alibaba’s future success.

    Mr. Ma owns a larger fraction of Alipay’s equity capital than of Alibaba’s, so he would economically benefit from terms that would disfavor Alibaba. Indeed, given the circumstances, the I.P.O. prospectus acknowledges that Mr. Ma may act to resolve Alibaba-Alipay conflicts not in Alibaba’s favor.

    The prospectus seeks to allay investor concerns, however, by indicating that Mr. Ma intends to reduce his stake in in Alipay within three to five years, including by having shares in Alipay granted to Alibaba employees. But stating such an intention does not represent an irreversible legal commitment. Furthermore, transfers of Alipay ownership stakes from Mr. Ma to other members of the Alibaba Partnership would still leave the Partnership’s aggregate interest to be decidedly on the side of Alipay rather than Alibaba.

    Given the significant related party transactions that have already taken place, and the prospect of such transactions in the future, Alibaba tried to placate investors by putting in a “new related party transaction policy.” But this new policy hardly provides investors with solid protection. Unlike charter and bylaw provisions, corporate policies are generally not binding. Furthermore, Alibaba’s policy explicitly allows the board, where the nominees of Alibaba partnership will always have a majority, to approve any exceptions to the policy that the board chooses.

    Of course, the Alibaba partners might elect not to take advantage of the opportunities for diversion provided to them by Alibaba’s structure. And, even if the partners do use such opportunities, the future business success of Alibaba might be large enough to make up for the costs of diversions and leave public investors with good returns on their investment.

    Before jumping in, however, investors rushing to participate in the Alibaba I.P.O. must recognize the substantial governance risks that they would be taking. Alibaba’s structure does not provide adequate protections to public investors.

    __________________________________________

    Article relié :

    Alibaba Raises the Fund-Raising Target for Its I.P.O. to $21.8 Billion (Sept. 15, 2014)

    Une perspective française sur le « Say on Pay » et la réalité de la transparence


    Ce matin, je porte à votre attention une courte vidéo produite par la chaîne française Xerfi Canal qui aborde le sujet du « Say on Pay », une importation du système réglementaire américain.

    Entendez le point de vue de l’expert français Philippe Portier, avocat-associé au cabinet JeantetAssociés, qui répond aux questions Thibault Lieurade sur l’efficacité de ce dispositif appliqué au système de gouvernance français.

    Quel est votre avis sur l’application de certaines mesures de gouvernance dans un contexte culturel différent ?

    Voici une brève description du contenu. Bon visionnement !

    Depuis la mi-2013 en France, les actionnaires des entreprises cotées assujetties au code de gouvernance AFEP-MEDEF émettent un avis sur les rémunérations des dirigeants. C’est le principe du Say on Pay.

    L’objectif théorique est double :

    (1) limiter l’inflation jugée inacceptable socialement des rémunérations des dirigeants et

    (2) redonner du pouvoir aux actionnaires.

    Rémunération des dirigeants : « say on pay » et transparence réelle

     

    Philippe-Portier-Remuneration-des-dirigeants-say-on-pay-et-transparence-reelle
    Philippe Portier | Rémunération des dirigeants : « say on pay » et transparence réelle

    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

    Dix pratiques exemplaires à l’intention des membres de comités d’audit


    Vous trouverez ci-dessous un article publié par Naomi Snyder* dans BankDirector.com qui présente une synthèse des caractéristiques des comités d’audit performants dans le domaine bancaire.

    Bien sûr, ces pratiques peuvent aussi s’appliquer à tout autre comité d’audit. Bonne lecture !

    10 Best Practices for Audit Committee Members

    Serving on the audit committee can be one of the toughest jobs on the board, which is why audit committee members often are paid more than what members of other committees receive. Audit committee members have more duties than ever before, thanks to heightened regulatory scrutiny that banks have received in recent years, and are under more pressure than ever to get it right.

    Sal Inserra, a partner at accounting and advisory firm Crowe Horwath LLP, spoke at Bank Director’s Bank Audit Committee Conference in Chicago recently, and laid out some of the qualities of highly functioning audit committee members. This is not his list, but was created based on his talk.

    1. Be a skeptic.
      “If you notice inconsistencies, ask the question,’’ Inserra said. “It’s not necessarily wrong. You are just trying to find out.”
    2. Understand your business.
      If you enter a new business line, you must understand that new line of business. Trust departments present banks with a minefield of compliance issues, for example.
    3. Meet with regulators.
      Examiners are more likely now to have a discussion with board members than years past. Regulators are interested in learning about the audit committee’s understanding of the risks in the organization. Attend some meetings with examiners to get a flavor for the bank’s relationship with its regulators and to prepare you for any problems ahead of time.6-28-13_Naomi_Article.png
    4. Support the internal audit department and its findings.
      Make sure the department is adequately funded and staffed. “I have seen way too many situations where internal audit was not a functional unit of the bank because no one respected them,’’ Inserra said. The internal audit chief should report directly to the audit committee chairman.
    5. Look for red flags.
      Red flags include when management delivers the audit committee book without sufficient time for members to digest it before the audit committee meetings. Other red flags include problematic findings that remain unaddressed between audits.
    6. Take control of the audit committee meetings.
      Don’t let management control the meeting agenda by burying you under a mountain of detail. It’s your meeting. Put the priorities at the beginning of the meeting, instead of starting with the easiest things. Get summaries of reports with the most important points highlighted. Who can read a 600 page audit in two nights?
    7. Make sure every member is contributing.
      Three to six people should serve on the audit committee. If it’s politically problematic to remove someone who is no longer contributing, add people you do need on the audit committee.
    8. Hold management accountable.
      Actively monitor management’s action plans. If remediation plans aren’t followed or completed on time, why not?
    9. Communicate with internal and external auditors.
      Be proactive. Have executive sessions with members of the internal auditing staff on a regular basis, as well as with external auditors.
    10. Improve the committee’s knowledge of technology by recruiting an IT expert to be a member, or hire a consultant to advise the board.
      If you are getting third party reports on your bank’s information security you don’t fully understand, then you need help.

    Of course, there are many more aspects of being a great audit committee member. This is just a small sample. But at a time when audit committees have an increasing amount of responsibilities, it is important that the audit committee performs at the top of its game.

    ______________________________________________

    *Naomi Snyder is the managing editor for Bank Director, an information resource for directors and officers of financial companies.

    Les devoirs des administrateurs selon la description de la règlementation UK


    Aujourd’hui, je prends l’initiative de vous présenter un résumé de la règlementation UK eu égard aux devoirs des administrateurs de sociétés, accompagnée d’une explication de David Doughty*, expert en gouvernance, sur les sept (7) principaux devoirs principaux de ceux-ci.

    Il n’y a rien de bien nouveau quant aux responsabilités qui incombent aux administrateurs en Grande-Bretagne. En fait, le UK Company Act date de 2006 et on y trouve une description claire, et toujours d’actualité, des fonctions d’administrateurs qui s’appliquent autant aux indépendants qu’aux non-indépendants (plus particulièrement, les membres de la hautes direction qui siègent au conseil).

    Ce texte est tiré d’un récent billet paru sur le blogue de David Doughty. Bonne lecture !

    Les devoirs des administrateurs selon la description de la règlementation UK

     

    « The 2006 Companies Act, which set out to streamline and simplify UK Company law, ended up being one of the largest pieces of legislation ever written!

    However, it did, for the first time, specify exactly what a Company Director’s duties are (which apply equally to both Executive and Non-Executive Directors), as follows:

    1. To act within powers
    2. To promote the success of the company
    3. To exercise independent judgement
    4. To exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence
    5. To avoid conflicts of interest
    6. Not to accept benefits from third parties
    7. To declare interest in proposed transaction or arrangement with the company

    To take them one by one – To act within powers – how does a director know what powers he or she is required to act within?

    A good place to start is the Articles of Association (previously known as the Memorandum and Articles or ‘Mem and Arts’) – when was the last time you looked at these? When did your board last review them to make sure that they are still appropriate? These, together with any shareholder agreements, contracts, covenants and other items form the company’s constitutional documents which define your powers as a director.

    P1020182

    If you haven’t looked at these for a while, or worse still, have never looked at them, then ask your Company Secretary for copies as soon as possible.

    Next – To promote the success of the company – prior to the 2006 Act it used to be the case that company directors were responsible to shareholders and providing they endeavoured to ensure a decent return on the shareholders investment then they were complying with their duties.

    Following the ‘unacceptable face of capitalism’ scandals of Lonrho and Slater Walker in the 1970s and the corporate failures of the ’80s leading to the Cadbury Report and the UK Corporate Governance Code it became clear that company directors had much wider duties which are now enshrined in the 2006 Companies Act, especially in respect of promoting the success of the company.

    To promote the success of the company – having regard (amongst other matters) to:

    The likely consequences of any decision in the long term;

    The interests of the company’s employees;

    The need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others;

    The impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment;

    The desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct; and

    The need to act fairly as between the members of the company

    Clearly, the new act, which applies equally to Executive and Non-Executive company directors in the UK, establishes a legal duty for directors to avoid short-termism in their strategic decision making and take into account the legitimate interests of their staff, suppliers, customers, the community and the environment as well as their shareholders.

    With regard to the need To exercise independent judgement – it is important that, regardless of job title or board role or independence, all directors come to the boardroom table as equals, with joint and several liability for the decisions that they make and that they are not unduly swayed or influenced in making those decisions.

    All directors are expected To exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence – which means that they should devote sufficient time to their role (which limits the number of directorships any individual may hold) and come to every board meeting well prepared, having read all the board papers and where possible, having had off-line conversations with fellow directors about key strategic matters.

    Turning up to board meetings late and trying to read the papers during the meeting for the first time is unlikely to lead to an effective contribution to decision making or a satisfactory discharge of your duties as a company director.

    Holding more than one board position or running your own business whilst serving on the board of another company are likely to compromise your legal duty To avoid conflicts of interest – whilst it is not always possible to avoid conflicts of interest, you should be aware of the possibility and alert the board when conflicts are likely to occur.

    A well run board will have a Register of Interests, which will be reviewed annually, containing a list of all directors’ outside interests. The standing agenda for each board meeting should include an item for Declarations of Interests, at which point directors should declare if they have an interest in an agenda item. Often, if this is the case, the director will formally leave the meeting whilst the matter is being discussed and will only re-join once a decision has been made.

    All directors should be aware of the requirement Not to accept benefits from third parties – compliance with this aspect of the act can be demonstrated by maintaining a Gifts and Hospitality register and ensuring that there is a company-wide policy on entertainment paid for by third parties.

    Finally, directors need to comply with the requirement To declare interest in proposed transaction or arrangement with the company – most commonly this covers property transactions or contracts with businesses that a director has an interest in. The sphere of interests that need to be declared also usually includes the director’s spouse, children and immediate family.

    If you are a company director and you have been aware of your duties under the 2006 Companies Act and you have been complying with them then you can be satisfied that you are acting within the law – if not, then you should review how you and your board operates to make sure that you are discharging your director’s duties correctly ».

    __________________________________

    *David Doughty, Corporate Governance Expert, Chartered Director, Chairman, Non-Executive Director, Entrepreneur. He works with company directors to help them and their boards to be more effective. He provides Investment Due-dilligence, Board Evaluation, Director Development and facilitated Board Strategic Away-days.

    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

    Les « Hedge Funds » contribuent-ils à assurer la croissance à long terme des entreprises ciblées ?


    Voici un article publié par IEDP (International Executive Development Programs) et paru sur le site http://www.iedp.com

    Comme vous le constaterez, l’auteur fait l’éloge des effets positifs de l’activisme des actionnaires qui, contrairement à ce que plusieurs croient, ajoutent de la valeur aux organisations en opérant un assainissement de la gouvernance.

    Je sais que les points de vue concernant cette forme d’activisme sont très partagés mais les auteurs clament que les prétentions des anti-activistes ne sont pas fondées scientifiquement.

    En effet, les recherches montrent que les activités des « hedges funds » contribuent à améliorer la valeur ajoutée à long terme des entreprises ciblées.

    La lecture de cet article vous donnera un bon résumé des positions en faveur de l’approche empirique. Votre idée est-elle faite à ce sujet ?

     

    Do Hedge Funds Create Sustainable Company Growth ?

     

    Hedge funds get a bad press but are they really a negative force? Looking at their public face, on the one hand we see so the called ‘vulture’ funds that this month forced Argentina into a $1.5bn default, on the other hand we recall that the UK’s largest private charitable donation, £466 million, was made by hedge fund wizard Chris Cooper-Hohn. Looking beyond the headlines the key question is, do hedge funds improve corporate performance and generate sustainable economic growth or not?

    Researchers at Columbia Business School, Duke Fuqua School of Business and Harvard Law School looked at this most important question and discovered that despite much hype to the contrary  the long-term effect of hedge funds and ‘activists shareholders’ is largely positive. They tested the conventional wisdom that interventions by activist shareholders, and in particular activist hedge funds, have an adverse effect on the long-term interests of companies and their shareholders and found it was not supported by the data.

    Their detractors have long argued that hedge funds force corporations to sacrifice long-term profits and competitiveness in order to reap quick short-term benefits. The immediate spike that comes after interventions from these activist shareholders, they argue, inevitably leads to long-term declines in operating performance and shareholder value.

    Three researchers, Lucian Bebchuk of Harvard Law School, Alon Brav of Duke Fuqua School of Business, and Wei Jiang of Columbia Business School argue that opponents of shareholder activism have no empirical basis for their assertions. In contrast, their own empirical research reveals that both short-term and long-term improvements in performance follow in the wake of shareholder interventions. Neither the company nor its long-term shareholders are adversely affected by hedge fund activism.

    Their paper published in July 2013 reports on about 2,000 interventions by activist hedge funds during the period 1994-2007, examining a long time window of five years following the interventions. It found no evidence that interventions are followed by declines in operating performance in the long term. In fact, contrary to popular belief, activist interventions are followed by improved operating performance during the five-year period following these interventions. Furthermore the researchers discovered that improvements in long-term performance, were also evident when the intervention were in the two most controversial areas – first, interventions that lower or constrain long-term investments by enhancing leverage, beefing up shareholder pay-outs, or reducing investments and, second, adversarial interventions employing hostile tactics.

    There was also no evidence that initial positive share price spikes accompanying activist interventions failed to appreciate their long-term costs and therefore tend to be followed by negative abnormal returns in the long term; the data is consistent with the initial spike reflecting correctly the intervention’s long-term consequences.

    ‘Pumping-and-dumping’ (i.e. when the exit of an activist is followed by long-term negative returns) is much sited by critics. But no evidence was found of this. Another complaint, that activist interventions during the years preceding the financial crisis rendered companies more vulnerable, was also debunked, as targeted companies were no more adversely affected by the crisis than others.

    In light of the recent events in Argentina it is salutary to recall this important research. The positive aspect of activist hedge fund activity that it reveals should be born in mind when considering the ongoing policy debates on corporate governance, corporate law, and capital markets regulation. Business leaders, policy makers and institutional investors should reject the anti-hedge fund claims often used by detractors as a basis for limiting the rights and involvement of shareholders, and should support expanding rather than limiting the rights and involvement of shareholders. Boards and their executives should carefully monitor these debates in order to prepare for corporate governance’s evolving policy environment.

    La sauvegarde des grands principes de gouvernance | Le mirage du changement !


    Voici un article qui présente la conduite des actionnaires activistes comme relativement symbolique, c’est-à-dire exempte de véritables enjeux critiques, paru récemment sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.

    Les auteurs Marcel Kahan et Edward Rock, professeurs de droit des affaires à l’Université de Pennsylvanie, ont observé que l’ensemble des positions des différents acteurs (actionnaires, activistes, administrateurs, dirigeants …) renforcent les grands principes de la gouvernance corporative en limitant les effets trop drastiques de leurs actions, tout en préservant l’intérêt des principaux protagonistes.

    Les revendications des activistes, du point de vue de la gouvernance, sont largement symboliques et ont pour résultats la préservation de la primauté d’une « gouvernance orientée vers les intérêts des actionnaires », une gouvernance qui met l’accent sur les besoins des actionnaires.

    La synthèse de l’article est présentée clairement au dernier paragraphe du texte ci-dessous. Quel est votre opinion à ce sujet ?

    Croyez-vous que les manœuvres des activistes et des dirigeants donnent lieu à peu de changements significatifs et que celles-ci consistent surtout à renforcer le point de vue d’une gouvernance centrée sur le pouvoir des actionnaires plutôt que sur le pouvoir du conseil d’administration ?

    Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont appréciés.

    Symbolic Corporate Governance Politics

     

    « Corporate governance politics display a peculiar feature: while the rhetoric is often heated, the material stakes are often low. Consider, for example, shareholder resolutions requesting boards to redeem poison pills. Anti-pill resolutions were the most common type of shareholder proposal from 1987–2004, received significant shareholder support, and led many companies to dismantle their pills. Yet, because pills can be reinstated at any time, dismantling a pill has no impact on a company’s ability to resist a hostile bid. Although shareholder activists may claim that these proposals vindicate shareholder power against entrenched managers, we are struck by the fact that these same activists have not made any serious efforts to impose effective constraints on boards, for example, by pushing for restrictions on the use of pills in the certificate of incorporation. Other contested governance issues, such as proxy access and majority voting, exhibit a similar pattern: much ado about largely symbolic change.

    What accounts for this persistent gap between rhetoric and reality? In our article, Symbolic Corporate Governance Politics, we consider several explanations drawn from “public interest” and “public choice” perspectives. Ultimately, we conclude that Thurman Arnold’s “symbolic” view of politics, developed in his magnum opus, The Folklore of Capitalism, complements these explanations to provide a fuller understanding.

    DSCN13806

    From a “public interest” perspective, the pursuit by shareholder activists of reforms with minimal direct impact can be rationalized in a number of ways. For one, the cost of such activism is low, both in relation to the value of public companies and in relation to the portfolio on institutional investors. Moreover, even largely symbolic reforms can have a larger indirect impact: they may educate investors, directors, and managers about the importance of shareholder-centric governance; they may serve as show of strength of shareholder power and thereby lead directors, managers, and policy makes to pay more attention to shareholder interests; or they may be a first step in a longer battle for more meaningful reform.

    From a “public choice” perspective, shareholder activists may pursue activism for its own sake, to keep themselves busy (and employed). And even if the stakes are low, pro-management forces may oppose meaningless changes to prove loyalty to their clients and generate business.

    These explanations, however, leave several questions unanswered: Why the heated rhetoric? What explains the selection of the largely symbolic issues that are being pursued? If these issues are (wrongly) depicted as important, won’t their pursuit divert energy from other issues that are more consequential?

    Thurman Arnold’s theory of the role of symbols, myth, and folklore can provide some answers. As a society, Arnold would argue, we need to believe that managers are held accountable even—and especially—in the largest corporations. It is only because “shareholders” exercise ultimate control over managers that it is acceptable that a small group of managers control huge concentrations of capital and get paid princely sums for doing so. This creates a tension. On the one hand, individual shareholders do not, in fact, play that role. On the other hand, large concentrations of capital are necessary for many businesses operating in world product and capital markets. It thus becomes necessary to develop a procedure for reconciling the ideal with practical reality by constantly attacking “the separation of ownership and control” on rational legal and economic ground, while at the same time never really interfering with it. The battles over shareholder power fulfill this function.

    But to serve the ceremonial function of asserting shareholder control, shareholder activists must pick issues where the chances of success are reasonably high. Symbolic activism thus serves everyone’s interests. For shareholder activists, who lack strong monetary incentives that directly reward them for increasing share values, symbolic affirmations of shareholder power has allure and is likely to be supported by other shareholders. For managerialists, losing is acceptable and actual (as opposed to rhetorical) resistance is not too high. Activism keeps the activists busy. Plausible arguments for shareholder benefit, combined with low potential costs, assure little internal opposition.

    Our analysis has several implications for governance debates. First, the rhetoric used by activists on all sides should be taken with a large pinch of salt: most issues described as momentous generally are not. Second, one should be aware that symbolic battles may divert attention (for better or for worse) from more meaningful reform. Third, shareholder activists and managers and their defenders all have more complex motivations than maximizing firm value or protecting privileges. Rather than epic battles between the forces of good and evil, governance debates typically involve disputes between different shades of grey. Finally, looking out through Thurman Arnold’s eyes, one may observe all the battles and conclude that we live, if not in the best of all possible worlds, then at least in a pretty good one. Despite the back and forth, corporate governance in the U.S. is characterized by a high degree of stability and slow paced, gradual change. Because we ritually affirm the principle of shareholder control—maintained by the symbolic, and largely harmless, disputes we have discussed in this article—the current system of corporate governance enjoys widespread support. Shareholder activism, rather than undermining the legitimacy of the current system, serves an important, legitimating function by showing that shareholders have power and that reform for the better is possible ».

    The full paper is available for download here.

     

    Le C.A. doit clarifier les rôles de chef de la conformité (CCO) et de chef des affaires juridiques (General Counsel)


    On note une ambigüité de rôle croissante entre les fonctions de chef de la conformité (CCO) et de chef du contentieux (General Counsel).  Cet article de Michael W. Peregrine, associé de la firme McDermott Will & Emery vise à souligner les responsabilités réciproques de chaque poste ainsi qu’à montrer que celles-ci ont intérêt à être mieux définies afin d’éviter les risques de conflits associés à leur exécution.

    L’auteur suggère que le rôle de chef de la conformité prend une place de plus en plus prépondérante dans la structure des organisations, en vertu du caractère « d’indépendance » rattaché à cette fonction. Les deux postes doivent donc être dissociés, le chef du contentieux se rapportant au PDG et le chef de la conformité se rapportant au conseil d’administration !

    L’article insiste sur une meilleure description de ces deux postes et sur le rôle que doit jouer le conseil d’administration à cet égard.

    Je vous invite à lire ce court article paru sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance afin de mieux connaître la nature des arguments invoqués. Bonne lecture !

    Compliance or Legal? The Board’s Duty to Assure Clarity

    Key Developments

    Government Positions. The first, and perhaps most pronounced, of these developments has been efforts of the federal government to encourage (and, in some cases, to require) that the positions of compliance officer and general counsel be separate organizational positions held by separate officers; that the compliance officer not report to the general counsel; and that the compliance officer have a direct reporting relationship to the governing board.

    There also appears to be a clear trend—while certainly not universal—among many corporations to follow the government’s lead and adopt the “separate relationship” structure, for a variety of valid and appropriate reasons. Yet, the focus on compliance officer “independence” obscures the need for compliance programs to have leadership from, coordination of or other connection to, the general counsel.P1030083

    Another concern arises from the (dubious) perspective that the compliance officer should not have a reporting relationship to the general counsel. One of the underlying premises here is that the general counsel somehow has at least a potential, if not actual, conflict of interest with respect to advice that the compliance officer may provide to management or the board. However, this perspective ignores critical professional responsibility obligations of the general counsel (e.g., Rules 1.6, 1.7 and 1.13).

    The third, and potentially most significant of these potential concerns relates to the preservation of the attorney-client privilege when the chief compliance officer is not the general counsel. In a recent published article, a leading corporate lawyer argues persuasively that the forced separation of the compliance and legal functions jeopardizes the ability to preserve the privilege in connection with corporate compliance based investigations.

    Corporate Guardian. A second, and more subtle, development has been a series of public comments by compliance industry thought leaders suggesting that the role of “guardian of the corporate reputation” is exclusively reserved for the corporate compliance officer; that the compliance officer is the organizational “subject matter expert” for ethics and culture, as well as compliance. This “jurisdictional claim” appears to be premised on the questionable perspective that “lawyers tell you whether you can do something, and compliance tells you whether you should”.

    This perspective ignores the extent to which the general counsel is specifically empowered to provide such advice by virtue of the rules of professional responsibility; principally Rule 2.1 (“Advisor”). It is also contrary to long standing public discourse that frames the lawyer’s role as a primary guardian of the organizational reputation. For example, the estimable Ben Heineman, Jr. has described the role of the general counsel as the “lawyer-statesman”, the essence of which is the responsibility to “move beyond the first question—‘is it legal?’—to the ultimate question—‘is it right?’”

    Job Descriptions. The third significant development is efforts by compliance industry commentators to extend the portfolio of the CCO, to a point where it appears to conflict with the expanding role of the general counsel. As one prominent compliance authority states, “The CCO mandate is ambitious, broad, and complex; no less than to oversee the organization’s ability to ‘prevent and detect misconduct’”.

    This point of view is being used to justify greater compliance officer involvement in matters such as internal investigations, corporate governance, conflict of interest resolution, the development of codes of ethics, and similar areas of organizational administration.

    The debate over roles and responsibilities is exacerbated by the extent to which the term “compliance” continuously appears in the public milieu in the form of “shorthand”. In this way, the term appears to reference some sort of broad organizational commitment to adherence with applicable law; i.e., more as a state of corporate consciousness than as an executive-level job description. To the extent that “compliance” is used loosely in the business and governance media, it serves to confuse corporate leadership about the real distinctions between accepted legal and compliance components.

    Expansive definitions of the compliance function are also at odds with new surveys that depict the expanding organizational prominence of the general counsel. These new surveys lend empirical support to the view that the general counsel of a sophisticated enterprise (such as a health care system) has highly consequential responsibilities, and thus should occupy a position of hierarchical importance within the organization.

    The Board’s Role

    As developments cause the roles and responsibilities of the compliance officer and the general counsel to become increasingly blurred, the board has an obligation to establish clarity and reduce the potential for organizational risk. The failure to clearly delineate the respective duties of these key corporate officers can create administrative waste and inefficiency; increase internal confusion and tension; jeopardize application of the attorney-client privilege, and “draw false distinctions between organizational and legal risk”.

    An effective board response would certainly include directing the compliance officer and general counsel, with the support of the CEO and outside advisors, to prepare for board consideration a set of mutually acceptable job descriptions for their respective positions. This would include a confirmation of the board reporting rights of both officers. It would also include the preparation of a detailed communication protocol that would address important GC/CCO coordination issues.

    The perceptive board may also wish to explore, with the support of external advisors, the very sensitive core issues associated with compliance officer independence, and with the hierarchical position of the compliance officer; i.e., should that position be placed in the corporate hierarchy on an equal footing with the corporate legal function, or in some subordinate or other supporting role.

    The board can and should be assertive in adopting measures that support the presence of a vibrant, effective compliance program that teams productively with the general counsel.

     

    Séparation des fonctions de président du conseil et de chef de la direction : retour sur un grand classique !


    Voici le deuxième billet présenté par le professeur Ivan Tchotourian de la Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval, élaboré dans le cadre de son cours de maîtrise Gouvernance de l’entreprise.

    Dans le cadre d’un programme de recherche, il a été proposé aux étudiants non seulement de mener des travaux sur des sujets qui font l’actualité en gouvernance de l’entreprise, mais encore d’utiliser un format original permettant la diffusion des résultats. Le présent billet expose le résultat des recherches menées par Nadia Abida, Arnaud Grospeillet, Thomas Medjir et Nathalie Robitaille.

    Ce travail revient sur les arguments échangés concernant la dissociation des fonctions de président du conseil d’administration et de chef de la direction. Ce billet alimente la discussion en faisant une actualité comparative des normes et des éléments juridiques, et en présentant les dernières statistiques en ce domaine.

    Le papier initial des étudiants a été retravaillé par Nadia Abida afin qu’il correspondre au style du blogue . Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires et vos points de vue sont les bienvenus.

    « Je vous en souhaite bonne lecture et suis certain que vous prendrez autant de plaisir à le lire que j’ai pu en prendre à le corriger. Merci encore à Jacques de permettre la diffusion de ce travail et d’offrir ainsi la chance à des étudiants de contribuer aux riches discussions dont la gouvernance d’entreprise est l’objet ».  (Ivan Tchotourian)

     

    Séparation des fonctions de président du conseil et de chef de la direction : retour sur un grand classique

     

    Nadia Abida, Arnaud Grospeillet, Thomas Medjir, Nathalie Robitaille

    Anciens étudiants du cours DRT-6056 Gouvernance de l’entreprise

     

    La séparation entre les fonctions de président du conseil d’administration (CA) et du chef de la direction est l’un des facteurs incontournables de l’indépendance des administrateurs. Cette dernière est un indicateur de pratique de bonne gouvernance d’entreprise. Cependant, et malgré l’importance avérée de la séparation des deux fonctions, nombre d’entreprises continuent à en pratiquer le cumul. Les arguments foisonnent de part et d’autre, et ne s’accordent pas sur la nécessité de cette séparation.

    redaction-des-statuts-de-sa

    Un retour sur une proposition d’actionnaires de la banque JP Morgan démontre la nécessité de ne pas laisser ce sujet sans réflexions. Cette proposition en faveur d’une séparation des fonctions a été émise à la suite d’une divulgation par la société d’une perte s’élevant à 2 milliards de dollars… perte essuyée sous la responsabilité de son PDG actuel [1].

    Ce n’est un secret pour personne que cette société a un passif lourd avec des pertes colossales engendrées par des comportements critiquables sur lesquels la justice a apporté un éclairage. Les conséquences de cette gestion auraient-elles été identiques si une séparation des pouvoirs avait était mise en place entre une personne agissant et une personne surveillant ?

     

    Silence du droit et positions ambiguës

     

    Les textes législatifs (lois ou règlements) canadiens, américains ou européens apportent peu de pistes de solution à ce débat. La plupart se montrent en effet silencieux en ce domaine faisant preuve d’une retenue étonnamment rare lorsque la gouvernance d’entreprise est débattue. Dans ses lignes directrices [2], l’OCDE – ainsi que la Coalition canadienne pour une saine gestion des Entreprises dans ses principes de gouvernance d’entreprise [3] – atteste pourtant de l’importance du cloisonnement entre les deux fonctions.

    De ce cloisonnement résulte l’indépendance et l’objectivité nécessaires aux décisions prises par le conseil d’administration. Au Canada, le comité Saucier dans son rapport de 2001 et le rapport du Milstein center [4] ont mis en exergue l’importance d’une telle séparation. En comparaison, la France s’est montrée plus discrète et il n’a pas été question de trancher dans son Code de gouvernement d’entreprise des sociétés cotées (même dans sa version amendée de 2013) [5] : ce dernier ne privilégie ainsi ni la séparation ni le cumul des deux fonctions [6].

     

    Quelques chiffres révélateurs

     

    Les études contemporaines démontrent une nette tendance en faveur de la séparation des deux rôles. Le Canadian Spencer Stuart Board Index [7] estime qu’une majorité de 85 % des 100 plus grandes entreprises canadiennes cotées en bourse ont opté pour la dissociation entre les deux fonctions. Dans le même sens, le rapport Clarkson affiche que 84 % des entreprises inscrites à la bourse de Toronto ont procédé à ladite séparation [8]. Subsistent cependant encore de nos jours des entreprises canadiennes qui  permettent le cumul. L’entreprise Air Transat A.T. Inc en est la parfaite illustration : M. Jean-Marc Eustache est à la fois président du conseil et chef de la direction. A contrario, le fond de solidarité de la Fédération des travailleurs du Québec vient récemment de procéder à la séparation des deux fonctions. Aux États-Unis en 2013, 45 % des entreprises de l’indice S&P500 (au total 221 entreprises) dissocient les rôles de PDG et de président du conseil. Toutefois, les choses ne sont pas aussi simples qu’elles y paraissent : 27 % des entreprises de cet indice ont recombiné ces deux rôles [9]. Évoquons à ce titre le cas de Target Corp dont les actionnaires ont refusé la dissociation des deux fonctions [10].

     

    Il faut séparer les fonctions !

     

    Pendant longtemps, il a été d’usage au sein des grandes sociétés par actions, que le poste de président du conseil soit de l’apanage du chef de la direction. Selon les partisans du non cumul, fusionner ces deux fonctions revient néanmoins à réunir dans une seule main un trop grand pouvoir et des prérogatives totalement antagonistes, voir même contradictoires. En ce sens, Yvan Allaire [11] souligne qu’il est malsain pour le chef de la direction de présider aussi le conseil d’administration. Rappelons que le CA nomme, destitue, rémunère et procède à l’évaluation du chef de la direction. La séparation des deux fonctions trouve pleinement son sens ici puisqu’elle crée une contre mesure du pouvoir : le président du CA est chargé du contrôle permanent de la gestion, et le directeur général est en situation de subordination par rapport au CA.

    Sous ce contrôle, le directeur général ne peut être que plus diligent et prudent dans l’exercice de ses fonctions, puisqu’il doit en rendre compte au CA. Des idées et décisions confrontées et débattues sont de loin plus constructives que des décisions prises de manière unilatérale. N’y a-t-il pas plus d’esprit dans deux têtes que dans une comme le dit le proverbe ? De plus, les partisans du non cumul avancent d’autres arguments. Il en va ainsi de la rémunération de la direction. Le cumul des deux fonctions irait de pair avec la rémunération conséquente. Celui qui endosse les deux fonctions est enclin à prendre des risques qui peuvent mettre en péril les intérêts financiers de la société pour obtenir une performance et un rendement qui justifieraient une forte rémunération. Par ailleurs, le cumul peut entrainer une négligence des deux rôles au profit de l’un ou de l’autre. Aussi, le choix du non cumul s’impose lorsque l’implication de la majorité ou encore, de la totalité des actionnaires ou membres dans la gestion quotidienne de la société, est faible. Cette séparation permet en effet aux actionnaires ou aux membres d’exercer une surveillance adéquate de la direction et de la gestion quotidienne de ladite société [12].

     

    Attention à la séparation !

     

    Nonobstant les arguments cités plus haut, la séparation des deux fonctions ne représente pas nécessairement une meilleure gestion du conseil d’administration. Les partisans du cumul clament que non seulement l’endossement des deux fonctions par une seule personne unifie les ordres et réduit les couts de l’information, mais que c’est aussi un mécanisme d’incitation pour les nouveaux chefs en cas de transition. Cela se traduit par la facilité de remplacer une seule personne qui détient les deux pouvoirs, à la place de remplacer deux personnes. Par ailleurs, la séparation limiterait l’innovation et diluerait le pouvoir d’un leadership effectif [13] en augmentant la rivalité entre les deux responsables pouvant même aller jusqu’à semer la confusion.

     

    Coûts et flexibilité du choix

     

    En dépit de la critique classique du cumul des fonctions, les deux types de structures sont potentiellement sources de bénéfices et de coûts, bénéfices et coûts que les entreprises vont peser dans leur choix de structure. Les coûts de la théorie de l’agence impliquent des arrangements institutionnels lorsqu’il y a séparation entre les fonctions de président et de chef de la direction [14]. Ces coûts sont occasionnés par exemple par la surveillance du CA sur le chef de la direction. Il devient plus cher de séparer les deux fonctions que de les unifier.

    Cependant, une antithèse présentée par Andrea Ovans [15] soutient qu’au contraire il est plus cher d’unifier les deux fonctions que de les séparer. Comment ? Simplement à travers la rémunération (salaire de base, primes, incitations, avantages, stock-options, et les prestations de retraite). L’imperméabilité entre les deux fonctions qui apparaît comme « la » solution en matière de bonne gouvernance pourrait ne pas l’être pour toutes les entreprises.

    Si le cumul des fonctions et les autres mécanismes de surveillance fonctionnement bien, pourquoi faudrait-il prévoir un changement ? De surcroit, le « one size fits all » n’est pas applicable en la matière. Devrait-on prévoir les mêmes règles en termes de séparation pour les grandes et petites entreprises ? Rien n’est moins sûr… Le cumul des fonctions apparaît plus adapté aux entreprises de petite taille : ceci est dû à la fluidité de communication entre les deux responsables et à la faiblesse de la quantité d’informations à traiter [16].

    [1] Investors seek to split JP Morgan CEO, Chairman http://www.wfaa.com/news/business/192146051.html, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 12 Juillet 2014.

    [2] http://www.oecd.org/fr/gouvernementdentreprise/ae/gouvernancedesentreprisespubliques/34803478.pdf, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 12 juillet 2014. Dans le même sens, voir l’instruction générale 85-201 et le rapport Cadbury en 1992.

    [3] CCGG : Principes de gouvernance d’entreprise pour la mise en place de conseils d’administration performants, http://www.ccgg.ca/site/ccgg/assets/pdf/Principes_de_gouvernance.pdf, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 12 juillet 2014

    [4] « Split CEO/Chair Roles: The Geteway to Good Governance? », http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/ResearchCentres/ClarksonCentreforBoardEffectiveness/CCBEpublications/SplitCEO.aspx, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 18 juillet 2014.

    [5] Code de gouvernement d’entreprise des sociétés cotées (révisé en juin 2013), http://www.medef.com/fileadmin/www.medef.fr/documents/AFEP-MEDEF/Code_de_gouvernement_d_entreprise_des_societes_cotees_juin_2013_FR.pdf, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 15 juillet 2014.

    [6] L’Union européenne ne s’est pas prononcée sur la séparation des deux fonctions. Voir à ce propos Richard Leblanc.

    [7] Canadian Spencer Stuart Board Index 2013, https://www.spencerstuart.com/~/media/Canadian-Board-Index-2013_27Jan2014.pdf, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 12 Juillet 2014 ; p. 19.

    [8] Public Submissions on Governance Issues, http://www.powercorporation.com/en/governance/public-submissions-governance-issues/may-12-2014-canada-business-corporations-act/#_ftn12, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 18 juillet 2014.

    [9] Spencer Stuart Board Index 2013 (US), https://www.spencerstuart.com/~/media/PDF%20Files/Research%20and%20Insight%20PDFs/SSBI13%20revised%2023DEC2013.pdf, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 25 juillet 2014.

    [10] Target shareholders narrowly reject splitting CEO, Chairman posts, http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2014/06/13/target-shareholders-narrowly-reject-splitting-ceo.html, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 18 juillet 2014.

    [11] Yvan Allaire, « Un « bon » président du CA ? », http://droit-des-affaires.blogspot.ca/2007/11/un-bon-prsident-du-ca.html, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 23 juillet 2014.

    [12] À ce propos, voir André Laurin, « La fonction de président de conseil d’administration », http://www.lavery.ca/upload/pdf/fr/DS_080203f.pdf, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 21 juillet 2014, p. 2.

    [13] Aiyesha Dey, Ellen Engel and Xiaohui Gloria Liu, « CEO and Board Chair Roles: to Split or not to Split? », December 16, 2009, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1412827, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 22 juillet 2014.

    [14] Idem.

    [15] Voir Coûts élevés associés à la combinaison des rôles du président du conseil et du président de la société : https://jacquesgrisegouvernance.com/2014/06/29/couts-eleves-associes-a-la-combinaison-des-roles-du-president-du-conseil-et-du-president-de-la-societe/, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 21 juillet 2014.

    [16] Aiyesha Dey, « What JPMorgan Shareholders Should Know About Splitting the CEO and Chair Roles », Research, http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/05/research-what-jpmorgan-shareho/, <en ligne>, date de consultation : 21 juillet 2014.