Category: Corporate Governance
Delaware Supreme Court applies MFW framework to other conflicted transactions
In In re Match Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, the Delaware Supreme Court answered some important questions about the standard of review applicable to conflicted transactions under Delaware law. The first question relates to the application of the model used in Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp., commonly referred to as the “MFW framework.” In that 2014 case, the Delaware Supreme Court held that, instead of the more stringent “entire fairness” standard of review that would ordinarily apply in the context of mergers between a controlling stockholder and its corporate subsidiary, the business judgment standard of review should govern “where the merger is conditioned ab initio upon both the approval of an independent, adequately-empowered Special Committee that fulfills its duty of care; and the uncoerced, informed vote of a majority of the minority stockholders.” The question remained, however, whether, in the context of conflicted controlling stockholder transactions that do not involve freeze-out mergers, MFW may be applied to invoke the business judgment rule. And in a related question, can the business judgment rule be applied if the “defendant shows either approval by an independent special committee or approval by an uncoerced, fully informed, unaffiliated stockholder vote,” but not both? In addition, the Court addressed the question of whether all members of an “independent special committee” must be “independent” to satisfy the requirements of MFW.
Morris Nichols discusses proposed new amendments to the DGCL
You might be interested in this recent Alert from the Delaware firm, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell (including a more expansive article), which addresses amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law just proposed by the Council of the Corporation Law Section of the Delaware State Bar Association. It’s worth emphasizing that the proposed amendments have not yet been submitted to the Delaware General Assembly for its consideration and approval, so they are not yet effective. As the Alert indicates, the proposed new amendments are designed to address the effects of recent Delaware cases highlighting “that the legal requirements identified in the cases were not necessarily in line with market practice. The Amendments are designed to bring existing law in line with such practice.”
Can director commitments policies help prevent overextended boards?
There is a lot going on at companies, and—you may be surprised to hear—not all of it is new regulation. There are new technologies, such as AI, global political instability and social change, not to mention ESG and cybersecurity. Many of these topics, as they affect a company, fall within the remit of the board for oversight. The energy and time necessary can be overwhelming. In this article, Director Commitments Policies, Overboarding, and Board Refreshment, proxy advisory firm Glass Lewis discusses one way to help ensure that directors have “sufficient time and energy to fulfill their duties and obligations to shareholders”: a director commitments policy. As a corollary, GL maintains, these policies can also serve to boost board refreshment, and can represent a vital measure of corporate governance.
Can companies escape the trap of politics?
We hear a lot about companies taking public positions on political issues—as well as the backlash that many experience as a result. Whether you think corporate participation in politics is a good thing or a bad thing, you might be interested in this thought-provoking paper from the University of Pennsylvania Institute for Law & Economics, How Did Corporations Get Stuck in Politics and Can They Escape?,© by Professors Jill Fisch and Jeff Schwartz (All rights reserved, 2024). In their paper, the authors observe that, while, historically, companies have long engaged in politics and lobbying, something seems quite different today. How? The difference is that companies seem to be taking public positions on any number of hot political issues, even if those issues are not connected to the conduct of their businesses. That is, while companies may take these positions “for business reasons—to appeal to their customers, employees, or investors”—these issues are not necessarily intrinsic to their business operations. The authors contend that this type of corporate behavior, which they call “corporate political posturing,” is “problematic,” creating potential risks for the company, its shareholders and for society. The authors suggest some ways for companies to depoliticize, including through coordinated “voluntary disarmament.” Certainly, some ideas to think about.
New Cooley Alert: “Comparing the SEC Climate Rules to California, EU and ISSB Disclosure Frameworks”
If you’ve been following the developments in climate disclosure regulation, you know that many U.S. companies may well be subject to disclosure regulations beyond those of the SEC; regulations adopted in the European Union, countries outside the EU and in some states, such as California, could be applicable. And some aspects of those regulations are more sweeping—or just different—than those recently adopted by the SEC. For example, the EU employs the concept of “double materiality,” meaning the impacts of companies’ “business on the environment and society irrespective of the positive or negative effect of such impacts on companies’ financials”; by contrast, the SEC looks at materiality from the perspective of the reasonable investor making investment or voting decisions. In light of these and other differences, companies may face challenges in attempting to implement all of the applicable rules. This essential new Cooley Alert, Comparing the SEC Climate Rules to California, EU and ISSB Disclosure Frameworks, from our ESG group provides some welcome guidance in sorting through the requirements of the different frameworks.
Fifth Circuit grants motion for administrative stay of SEC final climate disclosure rules
Is it pencils down already? As has previously been reported, a number of groups have filed petitions in different circuits requesting review of the SEC’s final climate disclosure rules. On March 6, the date of adoption of the final rules, one group, Liberty Energy Inc. and Nomad Proppant Services LLC, petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review of the final rule. On March 8, Petitioners filed a motion asking the Court to issue an administrative stay and a stay pending review of the rule. Yesterday, in a one-sentence order, the Court granted Petitioners’ motion for an administrative stay.
Final SEC climate disclosure rules [UPDATED Part I]
Last week, by a vote of three to two, the SEC adopted final rules “to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures by public companies and in public offerings.” The disclosure, which will be included in registration statements and annual reports, will draw, in part, on disclosures provided for under the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. The new rules will require public companies to disclose information about the material climate-related risks, companies’ governance, risk management and any material climate-related targets or goals, as well as disclosure of the financial statement effects, such as costs and losses, of severe weather events and other natural conditions. Importantly, as widely rumored, in response to public feedback, the SEC has jettisoned the mandate for Scope 3 GHG emissions reporting; the final rules require disclosure of Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 GHG emissions on a phased-in basis only by accelerated and large accelerated filers when those emissions are material. Companies will also be allowed more time to file their emissions disclosures. The final rules provide for several phase-ins, as well as for some safe harbors. Although, in response to comments, the SEC made a serious effort to add materiality qualifiers—there are at least 1,003 references to “material” or “materiality,” but then, the release is 886 pages—and to eliminate many of the prescriptive granular requirements, don’t fear or celebrate (depending on your point of view) yet: there are still plenty of prescriptive granular requirements. The SEC insists that, in adopting the rules, its intent was not to effect a specific climate result or to shift governance behaviors—the word “agnostic” appears at least five times in the adopting release. Law 360 reports that three lawsuits have been filed against the rulemaking and at least two have been threatened—by the Chamber of Commerce and the Sierra Club.
SEC dials back final climate disclosure rules
We’ve been trying to read the tea leaves for two years now, speculating about where the SEC’s final climate disclosure rules might land, especially as criticism about the proposal from the corporate sphere and from Congress intensified, and snippets about the contents of the final rule leaked to the press. This conjecture is now at an end: yesterday, by a vote of three to two, the SEC adopted final rules “to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures by public companies and in public offerings.” If you tuned in to the SEC’s open meeting yesterday—with over two hours devoted to the climate rules—you didn’t see a lot of happy faces. The dissenters (Commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda) thought the rule was unnecessary and went too far and Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw thought the final rule didn’t go far enough, but was barely acceptable as a “floor” for disclosure. Only SEC Chair Gary Gensler and Commissioner Jaime Lizárraga seemed to think that the balance was about right. Apparently, a coalition of attorneys general from ten states isn’t very happy either. Law 360 is reporting that the group immediately petitioned the Eleventh Circuit to review the new climate rules. (See the SideBar below.)
The disclosure, which will be included in registration statements and annual reports, will draw, in part, on disclosures provided for under the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. The new rules will require public companies to disclose information about the material climate-related risks, companies’ governance, risk management and any material climate-related targets or goals, as well as disclosure of the financial statement effects, such as costs and losses, of severe weather events and other natural conditions. Importantly, as widely rumored, in response to public feedback, the SEC has jettisoned the mandate for Scope 3 GHG emissions reporting; the final rules require disclosure of Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 GHG emissions on a phased-in basis only by accelerated and large accelerated filers when those emissions are material. Companies will also be allowed more time to file their emissions disclosures. Attestation will also be phased in. According to Gensler,
“Our federal securities laws lay out a basic bargain. Investors get to decide which risks they want to take so long as companies raising money from the public make what President Franklin Roosevelt called ‘complete and truthful disclosure,’….Over the last 90 years, the SEC has updated, from time to time, the disclosure requirements underlying that basic bargain and, when necessary, provided guidance with respect to those disclosure requirements….These final rules build on past requirements by mandating material climate risk disclosures by public companies and in public offerings. The rules will provide investors with consistent, comparable, and decision-useful information, and issuers with clear reporting requirements. Further, they will provide specificity on what companies must disclose, which will produce more useful information than what investors see today. They will also require that climate risk disclosures be included in a company’s SEC filings, such as annual reports and registration statements rather than on company websites, which will help make them more reliable.”
Corp Fin staff advice on “eligible sell-to-cover” transactions under Rule 10b5-1
Many thanks to thecorporatecounsel.net blog for posting this memorandum to the ABA’s Joint Committee on Employee Benefits from three members of that committee regarding their informal discussions with SEC staff about a couple of questions that have arisen about the scope of the exception for “sell-to-cover” transactions under Rule 10b5-1.
Reuters scoop: SEC to jettison Scope 3 requirements from climate disclosure proposal
Today, Reuters reported exclusively that the SEC is indeed planning to eliminate some of the more controversial requirements in its climate disclosure proposal. Of course, we’re talking Scope 3. (See this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post.). To be sure, this news doesn’t come as a complete surprise. Even a year ago, the SEC floated the idea that, in response to concerns regarding potential litigation (among other things), it may well pare down and loosen up some of its proposed rules on climate disclosure. In this article in Politico and this article in the WSJ, “three people familiar with the matter” and “people close to the agency” told reporters that SEC Chair Gary Gensler was “considering scaling back a potentially groundbreaking climate-risk disclosure rule that has drawn intense opposition from corporate America.” But at that point, according to Politico, SEC officials stressed that “no decision has yet been made.” (See this PubCo post.) Reuters is now reporting that, according to “people familiar with the matter”—are they the same people, I wonder?—among the requirements the SEC plans to scrap in the final rules is the requirement to disclose Scope 3 GHG emissions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.