Reincorporation proposal seeks to address “major issues in corporate governance”
Submitted by: Subodh Mishra, Governance Institute
A new shareholder proposal filed this week calls on The Hain Celestial Group to reincorporate to North Dakota in light of legislation there requiring companies to provide for an advisory vote on pay, majority voting in director elections, and other shareholder-friendly measures.
“The North Dakota law is far ahead of any other state corporation law in providing rights for stockholders,” wrote proposal proponent Kenneth Steiner in the resolution’s supporting statement. “It addresses each of the major issues in corporate governance.”
The North Dakota statute, which took effect on July 1, 2007, is among the friendliest to shareholders, according to those familiar with the resolution. The law mandates the separation of the chairman and CEO positions, annual election of directors, and the right of 5 percent shareholders owning stock for two years or more to nominate corporate directors, as well as another half-dozen or so measures widely seen as empowering shareholders.
“It’s an intriguing idea and someone was bound to do it sooner or later,” said Cornish Hitchcock, an attorney for the Amalgamated Bank’s LongView fund. “It will be interesting to see how it plays out in terms of shareholder approval.”
Advocates of the North Dakota statute believe the measure will generate measurable support among investors should it come to a vote. “I would think any shareholder who understands the benefits of the North Dakota law would support this proposal,” said William H. Clark, Jr., a Philadelphia-based attorney with Drinker Biddle & Reath.
Clark, who served as president of the North Dakota Corporate Governance Council, which drafted the statute, also noted that the law required shareholders nominating director candidates not nominated by management to be reimbursed for their proxy expenses “to the extent they are successful.” That automatic right of reimbursement for solicitation expenses has gained added import in light of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision late last year to bar proxy access proposals and a pending decision by Delaware’s judiciary as to whether or not a reimbursement proposal filed at Long Island-based CA would violate Delaware law.
The proposal also may fare well based on support given to other recent proposals to reincorporate to another jurisdiction. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America filed proposals at a handful of Ohio-based companies’ 2007 annual meetings calling for their reincorporation to Delaware. At the time, Ohio law required companies to use a plurality voting standard, and the proposals served to eventually pressure local lawmakers to amend Ohio corporate law statutes to allow for a majority voting standard in director election. The proposal was voted on at FirstEnergy, DPL, and Convergys, according to RiskMetrics records, where it received 34.9, 32.6, and 59.5 percent support of the “for” and “against” votes, respectively.
But the view that the North Dakota reincorporation resolution will be well received by shareholders is not shared by all, with some observers arguing incorporation in Delaware is more beneficial to investors. “Ultimately, it comes down to the judiciary, and the view is that the Delaware judiciary is investor protective,” said Delaware University professor Charles Elson. “There is no corporate judiciary in North Dakota dedicated to the resolution of corporate disputes.”
That underlying premise is flawed, argues Clark, because the need to rely on the Delaware judiciary effectively concedes that the Delaware corporation law is fundamentally “not protective” of investor rights. “My preference as an investor would be to make sure the law is clear, rather than having to run to the courts to establish my rights,” said Clark. “The Delaware judiciary is limited by the statute in the rights it can provide investors. There’s no way, for example, that the Delaware judiciary could create a right of proxy access, which North Dakota has.”
Hain officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on receipt of the resolution and whether they would seek to challenge it at the SEC. Of 17 proposals relating to reincorporation over the past decade, just three were omitted at the SEC, according to RiskMetrics records. Hain held its 2007 annual meeting on April 1 of this year and will hold its 2008 annual meeting sometime this fall.
Shareholder activist John Chevedden, who worked with Steiner on drafting and filing the proposal, said he had so far not engaged in any dialogue with the company on governance concerns. Chevedden also said he will be looking into filing the proposal at other companies as deadlines approach for submissions for 2009 annual meetings.
To view the proposal, please Download file.
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
Tuesday, June 24, 2008 |
 |
Sovereign Wealth Funds and Emerging Governance Issues
Submitted by: Subodh Mishra, Governance Institute
Although they have been in existence for decades, sovereign wealth funds have found themselves in the spotlight in recent months. While much of the recent attention given to these funds has focused on the political implications of their investment, sovereign funds’ impact on fellow shareholders has received scant coverage. Indeed, their growing presence has sparked discussion within the global institutional investor community on how best to define, understand, interact, and potentially influence these funds.
As such, RiskMetrics Group's new report, Sovereign Wealth Funds & Emerging Governance Issues, is intended to: (1) provide an overview of sovereign wealth funds; (2) identify key and emerging issues of interest to institutional investors; and (3) explore potential solutions to concerns related to the transparency practices of sovereign investors.
Key takeaways from the paper include the following:
* Sovereign wealth funds are firmly established. There are now roughly 40 such funds—half of which came into being since 2000—collectively managing assets in the range of $1.9 to $2.9 trillion. Macroeconomic trends, including a weak U.S. dollar, tightening of credit, growth in commodity prices, and market volatility suggest that sovereign investment, and its influence, will only grow.
* Traditional institutional shareholders are seeking to understand the investment objectives and strategies of these potential power brokers. The International Monetary Fund is now involved in consultations with more than two dozen sovereign wealth funds in an effort to develop a code of conduct for their transparency, and market regulators across the globe are considering guidelines for disclosure and related issues. Mainstream investors will wish to monitor and potentially influence these efforts.
* There are concerns that sovereign funds will primarily be “disengaged” investors in equities. Some traditional investors have suggested that they will ride the coattails of other shareholders who press underperforming management for change through governance activism; or that their proclivity for non-voting stakes could help to entrench or otherwise insulate underperforming management.
* Substantial investment from sovereign funds could lessen pressure on governments and corporations in developing economies to raise corporate governance standards in such markets.
* Sovereign wealth investors with long-term investment horizons may serve as a stabilizing force in the market, however. Most are not bound by the constraints of many traditional investors who may have to withdraw capital on short notice for income or liquidity needs. Moreover, sovereign investors have demonstrated their willingness and ability to expeditiously shore up the capital base of distressed companies.
* There is no standard disclosure model for sovereign wealth investors. But some sovereigns may be more comfortable with disclosure models other than that of Norway’s fund—widely viewed as the gold standard for transparency—and traditional institutional investors may wish to promote alternatives such as Temasek’s approach to transparency. Temasek, a Singapore-based fund, is an active investor disclosing key investment objectives and strategies though does not disclose its full portfolio or voting record.
* Pressure from lawmakers and regulators for sovereign investors to meet elevated standards of disclosure could have unintended consequences. Such pressure might lead to the funds avoiding direct investment in corporate issuers and allocating more of their capital to private equity and hedge funds, potentially leading to greater acquisition activity and proxy fights.
To access RiskMetrics new paper, Sovereign Wealth Funds and Emerging Governance Issues, please visit here.
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
Friday, June 13, 2008 |
|
CSX Proxy Fight Preview
Submitted by: L. Reed Walton, Publications
Questions of shareholder value, board competency, and transparency continue to drive the high-profile proxy contest between rail company CSX and two hedge funds.
The Children’s Investment Fund (TCI), a London-based equity group, and Cayman Islands-based 3G Capital Partners say they’re seeking board seats because CSX has refused to engage in dialogue about the firm’s business model. Together, TCI and 3G own 8.7 percent of the Jacksonville, Fla.-based company, and have an additional 12.3 percent stake through stock swaps.
The June 25 proxy contest will be the 30th challenge to go to a vote at a U.S. company this year. The fight for CSX has received the most media attention after Carl Icahn’s proxy bid at Internet firm Yahoo!, which is slated for an Aug. 1 vote. TCI’s decision in December to seek five seats on CSX’s 12-member board has led to a war of words in the press, legal actions on both sides, and even Congressional hearings.
The dissident slate includes TCI Managing Partner and founder Chris Hohn; Gilbert Lamphere, a former director at Canadian National; Timothy O’Toole, managing director of the London Underground subway system; Gary Wilson, former board chair at Northwest Airlines; and Alexandre Behring, managing director at 3G and former CEO of Latin American rail company America Latina Logistica. TCI aims to replace the four longest-tenured directors: Elizabeth Bailey (18 years); Robert Kunisch (17 years); William Richardson (15 years); and Frank Royal (14 years). The fifth targeted director, Jacksonville-based contractor Steven Halverson, has only one year of board service; TCI contends that he lacks experience with both CSX and with railroad management.
Hohn said his fund, which is CSX’s second-largest shareholder with a 4.4 percent stake, has tried unsuccessfully for over a year to engage the firm in a productive dialogue about the company’s future. The proxy contest was a last resort, but “it is impossible for us to effect the change we see as possible if we don’t change the board,” Hohn told Risk & Governance Weekly.
Though Hohn has said repeatedly that his dissident slate does not want to take over the company or oust management, CSX Chairman and CEO Michael Ward told Financial Week on May 21 that the proxy contest is specifically aimed at removing him. CSX maintains that it repeatedly agreed to meet with TCI representatives and offered board seats, lead director Ned Kelly said at a June 9 forum hosted by RiskMetrics Group.
Since its founding in 2003, TCI has sought to find “great companies with underperforming shares,” and attempt to engage with directors to turn performance around, Hohn said at the June 9 forum. TCI has a history of prompting action at its portfolio companies, recently catalyzing board and management change at German stock exchange holding company Deutsche Börse and bringing about the sale of Dutch financial firm ABN Amro to a consortium of European banks.
CSX, the third-largest U.S. railroad, argues that it does not need a turnaround. The company’s share price has risen more than 270 percent since January 2004. TCI counters that most of the stock gains stem from rising prices and productivity in the rail industry as a whole, rather than just at CSX. North America’s largest railroad companies have all posted stock price growth during the same period--Union Pacific (131 percent), Norfolk Southern (185 percent), Burlington Northern Santa Fe (257 percent), and Canadian National (154 percent)--though none as pronounced as CSX’s share gain.
Continue reading "CSX Proxy Fight Preview
Submitted by: L. Reed Walton, Publications" »
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
Friday, June 6, 2008 |
|
RiskMetrics Group to Hold Governance Forum Webcast on the Proxy Contest at CSX Corporation
On Monday, June 9 at 11 a.m. EDT, RiskMetrics Group will host a special Governance Forum on the proxy contest being waged at CSX Corporation. On this webcast, executives from both CSX Corporation and the dissident shareholders, The Children’s Investment Fund (TCI) and 3G Capital Partners, will make their cases for their respective slates. The Jacksonville, Florida-based railroad operator’s annual meeting is June 25, 2008.
Christopher Young, head of M&A Research for RiskMetrics Group, will moderate the forum, which will run two hours in order to provide both sides with ample time to speak and field questions from the audience. To register for this governance forum, please visit here.
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
Tuesday, June 3, 2008 |
|
Proxy Season Preview: Japan
Submitted by: Marc Goldstein, Director of Governance Research-Japan
“Poison pills” and other takeover defenses will once again dominate the agenda at Japan’s corporate meetings this year.
The vast majority of Japanese companies hold their shareholder meetings over a two-week period in late June. This year, the largest number of annual meetings will take place on June 27--when companies such as beauty products firm Kao, electronic manufacturer TDK, and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group will hold meetings--although many will be held on June 18-20, and June 24-26. A few meetings, such as those at electronics firm Idec and construction toolmaker Trusco Nakayama, will be held as early as the week of June 9.
The most controversial issue this year will again be the introduction and renewal of various types of anti-takeover measures. In the wake of takeover attempts at Hokuetsu Paper, Bull-Dog Sauce, and Sapporo Holdings, and the belated legalization in May 2007 of stock-swap acquisitions by foreign firms (called “triangular mergers”), many Japanese firms are in a state of near-panic over the possibility of being acquired.
Their fears may be overblown, however. Triangular mergers are used overwhelmingly for friendly acquisitions, not hostile takeovers; and the difficulties of successfully managing a company after a hostile acquisition will help to ensure that the number of such cases will be limited. Also, some of the firms implementing pills are not especially vulnerable, because founding families, business partners, or other insiders own more than a third of outstanding shares. This is enough to veto any special resolution, such as an article amendment or a merger, severely limiting what a hostile bidder could hope to accomplish.
Nevertheless, several hundred companies will introduce or renew pills this year. One in seven Japanese companies likely will have a pill in place by the end of June. Since 2006, the vast majority of poison pills have been so-called “advance warning-type” plans. With these pills, the board announces a set of disclosure requirements it expects any bidder to comply with, plus a waiting period between receipt of information and the bid, before any offers are made. Advance warning defenses do not require shareholder approval, but in most cases, companies are choosing to put them to a shareholder vote, believing that doing so will put the company in a stronger position in the event of a lawsuit. As long as the bidder complies with the rules, the company “in principle” will take no action to block the bid, but will allow shareholders to decide.
Exceptions are usually allowed when the bid is judged to be clearly detrimental to shareholder interests. These include cases involving “greenmail” (when the bidder buys enough shares to threaten a takeover and forces the company to buy the shares back at a premium to avoid a buyout), a possible stripping of company assets by the bidder, or coercive two-tier offers. Usually, judgments on shareholder harm are made by a “special committee” or “independent committee,” which may or may not include members of the board, but the committee’s decision is usually subject to being overruled by the board. At some companies, the decisions are made by the board with no committee input at all.
Many of the poison pills introduced in the past few years will be up for renewal in 2008. Shareholders at Shin-Etsu Chemical and Sharp, for example, will vote on takeover defense renewals this year. Some companies, while not putting a poison pill on the ballot, will seek to pave the way for the eventual introduction of a pill through measures such as increasing authorized capital. Investors also will be asked to approve other article amendments designed to ward off hostile takeovers, such as the elimination of vacant board seats that could be filled by shareholder nominees, and the tightening of procedures for removing a director from office.
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
Friday, May 30, 2008 |
|
RiskMetrics Group to Host June 2 Webcast on Pension & Post-Retirement Plans Under Pressure
Submitted by: Stephanie O'Neil, Marketing
In 2007, many companies’ pension and postretirement expenses benefited from a combination of rising interest rates and strong equity market returns in the years prior to 2007. In late 2007, this beneficial environment changed rapidly, affecting these expenses, as equity markets suffered and the Federal Reserve began aggressively cutting interest rates.
RiskMetrics Group will host a webcast with analyst Dan Mahoney on June 2, at 10:00 am that will cover why the rapid market environment changes raise our concern that the lower pension and post-retirement expenses enjoyed by companies in 2007 may not be sustainable. During the forum, he will discuss the trends in pension and post-retirement expenses, and the affect such expenses have on mid- to large-cap companies traded on the major exchanges in the U.S.
To register for this webcast, please visit here.
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
Friday, May 23, 2008 |
|
U.S. Midseason Review
Submitted by: L. Reed Walton, Publications
Shareholder proposals requesting an annual advisory vote on pay--“say on pay”--have received slightly higher support at U.S. companies this year.
Pay vote proposals have averaged 43.1 percent support over 35 meetings where preliminary or final results are known, compared to 42.5 percent support in 2007, according to RiskMetrics Group data. So far this year, “say on pay” has won majority support at six companies. The most recent majority vote came at the May 20 meeting of Alaska Air Group, where a resolution submitted by shareholder William Davidge won 53 percent support, according to news reports. Another recent majority result came at the May 17 meeting of utility company PG&E, where a “say on pay” measure received 52 percent support, proponents say.
Other firms where advisory vote proposals have garnered over 50 percent support include South Financial Group, Lexmark, Motorola, and Apple. The AFL-CIO, which submitted the pay resolutions at Apple and Motorola, plans to ask the companies in July and August to start holding annual non-binding votes on compensation. (For more information, please see the “In Brief” section of the May 9 issue of Risk & Governance Weekly.)
Earlier this season, support for “say on pay” slumped at several financial firms where the issue was voted on last year. Support for advisory vote proposals dropped at Citigroup on (from 46.2 percent to 41.9 percent this year), at Wachovia (from 38.7 percent to 30.6 percent), and at Merrill Lynch (45.6 percent to 37.5 percent).
Overall, there has been higher median support for “say on pay” this year. Last year, three pay vote proposals received less than 30 percent support, and 33 won over 40 percent support. So far in 2008, no proposals have received less than 30 percent support, and 26 have won over 40 percent. Investors filed more than 80 “say on pay” proposals this year; more than 70 resolutions will go to a vote during the traditional U.S. proxy season, which concludes at the end of June. Upcoming meetings that have pay vote proposals on the ballot include Altria Group and ExxonMobil on May 28, Raytheon on May 29, and General Motors on June 3.
It’s difficult to assess the support for other shareholder proposals on executive pay this year since few results have been released so far by companies or reported by the news media. A new proposal from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees that asks firms to eliminate tax “gross-up” payments on CEO perks and compensation has gone to a vote at four meetings so far. The measure won a 48.2 percent vote at CVS Caremark, according to proponents. The drugstore company noted in its most recent proxy statement that former Caremark CEO William Spalding--who left the post after the buyout by CVS--was given an approximate $2.9 million excise tax gross-up payment last year.
Requests to link executive pay to company performance are faring about as well as last year, though many of the vote tallies have yet to be released by companies. The resolutions--mostly sponsored by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners--have averaged 30.8 percent support at five meetings thus far, compared with 29.8 over 38 meetings during the 2007 proxy season. About as many pay-for-performance proposals will be voted this year as last. Proponents withdrew 18 resolutions after negotiations with companies, leaving 37 proposals on company ballots.
This year, there are also fewer shareholder proposals asking for an investor vote on supplemental executive retirement plans (SERPs) or exit pay packages. Few results have been released, but a SERP proposal won a 45 percent vote at Black & Decker, proponents say, and a “golden parachute” proposal won 35 percent support at Boeing, according to proponents.
Resolutions asking companies to abolish the practice of granting stock options to executives--submitted at five firms by investor Evelyn Y. Davis--has averaged 6.4 percent support. This is slightly higher than last year’s average of 4.3 percent across six meetings.
Continue reading "U.S. Midseason Review
Submitted by: L. Reed Walton, Publications" »
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
Thursday, May 22, 2008 |
|
Explorations in Executive Compensation
Submitted by: Gary Hewitt, Marketing
This week RiskMetrics Group introduced a new research initiative that looks at the always complex issues surrounding executive compensation. The project, Explorations in Executive Compensation is offered in the hopes of sparking constructive dialogue and stirring new ways of thinking about this issue - and in the process help move investors and companies towards a common language for creating, evaluating and communicating about executive pay systems.
The project initially consists two sets of white papers. The first set, Considerations, defines and puts into context the basic elements of U.S. executives' pay packages, with special attention paid to emerging key considerations for investors in evaluating pay and equity plans in particular.
The second set, Innovations, offer a pair of new methods of looking at critical issues in executive pay: peer group benchmarking and and the degree of alignment between the risks borne by investors and by shareholders.
We're excited about this opportunity to advance dialogue and transparency on compensation issues - and are eagerly seeking your feedback on the ideas put forth in the project. Explorations in Executive Compensation is posted online at www.riskmetrics.com/compensation, with an interactive executive summary and online tools to explore the new benchmarking and risk profiling methodologies. Please visit the site and let us know what you think.
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
Monday, May 19, 2008 |
|
E-Proxy: Retail Voting Still Low
Submitted by: L. Reed Walton, Publications
U.S. companies using online proxies and mailed notices--also known as “notice and access”--continue to see sharp declines in voting by individual investors, but some shareholder advocates are re-examining their previously pessimistic views on e-proxy.
Since July, when firms could begin electronic distribution of their proxy materials, 92 companies have held annual meetings, according to Broadridge Financial, which processes proxy votes for most of the issuers that have adopted notice and access. At those 92 firms, retail shareholder participation dropped more than 75 percent from the previous year. Only 4.5 percent of individual investors voted at e-proxy firms in late 2007 and early 2008, down from 19.2 percent participation in late 2006 and early 2007, according to Broadridge.
According the latest statistics from Broadridge, 283 public companies adopted electronic proxy material delivery as of March 31. In July 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a rule allowing public firms an alternative to sending full packets of proxy materials to each shareholder--the “notice and access” model--whereby issuers would mail a notice to shareholders telling them that proxy materials are available via a Web site other than the SEC’s EDGAR site. By January, large companies were required to post proxy materials online, though they could still choose to send full packets of voting materials in advance of their annual meetings. Small companies will have until 2009 to post proxy information online.
The possibility of a drop in retail shareholder participation was raised by many of the investors who commented on the SEC’s notice and access rule. During the first comment period in 2006, shareholders Nick and Emil Rossi warned in a letter to the SEC that electronic proxy delivery “is another attempt to disenfranchise small individual shareholders.” A survey conducted by Forrester Research--on behalf of Broadridge and included in the proxy processing company’s comments to the SEC--indicated that 38 percent of shareholders who vote would be less likely to look at proxy materials online and less likely to vote under a notice and access model.
At the time, investor groups expressed concern that older or less technologically savvy shareholders would be reluctant to use the computer technology required to view e-proxies. The Association of BellTel Retirees wrote in its letter that it was “premature” of the SEC to expect that retirees and other shareholders over the age of 65 are comfortable enough with the Internet to access corporate proxy disclosures.
The initial decline in retail voting appears to bear out these warnings. But the dip may be temporary, some advocates say. Richard Clayton, research director for the CtW Investment Group, told Risk & Governance Weekly that a number of factors could be contributing to the drop in retail participation--including frustration with a flagging economy and a declining real estate market. Trouble using the new online proxy voting applications could contribute to a temporary drop in participation, as well. “With a lot of online services, there tends to be a learning curve,” Clayton said.
Richard Ferlauto, director of pension and benefit policy for the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, agreed. Ferlauto told R&GW that it would probably take at least five years for some retail shareholders to become familiar with the technology, have the broadband network access necessary to download large files, and cope with the hassle and expense of printing out long proxy forms. “These are significant barriers that will be overcome with time,” Ferlauto said.
Ferlauto also noted that notice and access may have dampened support levels for “say and pay” and other shareholder proposals this year. However, CtW’s Richard Clayton told R&GW that because it’s difficult to measure how many retail investors are voting for shareholder resolutions, it’s too early to tell whether the e-proxy rules are having a real effect on proposal support.
A number of early-adopter companies reported shareholder complaints over the mailed notice cards. A few shareholders wrote their votes on the notice cards and sent those back to the company, Gail Smith, director of corporate development for pharmaceutical firm Pharmos, said in a January interview on e-proxies with Broadridge.
Dominic Jones, editor of the IR Web Report, wrote about problems he had accessing online proxy materials for Applied Micro Circuits in July of last year. Mistyping the Web address for Broadridge’s proxy voting site, Investor E-Connect, brought up a “spam” advertising site he suspected preyed on people who accidentally visited the wrong Web page, Jones wrote. Other investors complained about the mailed notice that Broadridge used to alert shareholders to online availability. The notice form was too small and not very “user-friendly,” Helen Kaminski, assistant general counsel for food company Sara Lee told Broadridge.
Broadridge has no plans now to redesign its mailed notice, Chuck Callan, the company’s senior vice president of regulatory affairs, told Risk & Governance Weekly. This is partly because the SEC requires that certain text be printed on the notice of online proxy material availability. “You get the notice, but it’s not in and of itself a ballot,” Callan said.
He contends that the new, unfamiliar proxy delivery method is causing retail shareholder participation to drop. According to Broadridge statistics, in cases in which e-proxy companies sent certain shareholders a “full set” of proxy materials, and among the 0.5 percent of shareholders who “opted in” for full paper copies, voting was much higher. For retail shareholders receiving the full set of proxy materials this year, the voting rate was approximately 66.5 percent. “The basic conclusion is that opt-in rates are low, opt-out rates are low, and if there is a change in the default, people tend to take no action,” Callan told R&GW.
Two new initiatives may also help individual investors become more informed about governance matters and vote their shares. A new Web site, ProxyDemocracy.org allows shareholders to see how institutional investors plan to vote at upcoming meetings. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Calvert Funds, Christian Brothers Investment Services, and Domini Social Investments are among the investors that have signed up to make their vote recommendations available on the site. Investors can also assign their voting rights to a third party, such as an environmental or social group, through the Investor Suffrage Movement. The proxy exchange, currently in trial phase, will help members transfer ballot rights to other members online.
Continue reading "E-Proxy: Retail Voting Still Low
Submitted by: L. Reed Walton, Publications" »
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
Monday, May 12, 2008 |
|
Judge Rejects Two Stock Option Settlements
Submitted by: Ted Allen, Publications
In pair of rulings that may have significant implications for scores of stock-option backdating lawsuits, a federal judge has rejected settlements reached at Zoran and CNET Networks.
In separate rulings on April 7, U.S. Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California refused to approve two proposed settlements of derivative lawsuits over misdated option grants. In a derivative lawsuit, investors sue on behalf of a company to recover damages from executives and directors over alleged violations of their duties to investors.
The Zoran settlement, which is similar to those reached in other cases, called for the repricing or cancellation of options, governance reforms, and a payment to the lawyers for the investors. Zoran is a Sunnyvale, Calif.-based maker of chips for DVD players. As lawyer Kevin M. LaCroix noted in his “D&O Diary” weblog, “the two opinions have important implications for the way that settlements are presented to the court, and could have important effects on the settlement dynamic in other cases going forward.”
Under the Zoran settlement, the company agreed to reprice or cancel options received by two executives (an economic benefit of $1.65 million, the parties asserted), and pay $1.2 million to the investors' lawyers. Zoran also agreed to adopt various governance changes, including a more structured grant process, the appointment of a new independent director, and increased officer and director education.
Alsup, who stressed the role of federal judges to protect absent shareholders against “collusive settlements,” concluded that the terms were “far too modest,” given the $16 million in damages claimed by an expert for the investor plaintiffs. “The corporation would recover no cash, all the cash going to counsel. The cancellation of underwater options is the only concession of any value and even that is small,” the judge wrote.
The judge discounted the value of the repriced options, noting that those options had been repriced in December 2006--more than a year before the settlement was presented to the court. Alsup also dismissed many of the governance changes as “purely cosmetic,” and pointed out that the company adopted five of those changes before entering settlement negotiations. “These ‘reforms’ do not compensate the company for the damages suffered by the company as a result of defendants’ backdating,” he wrote.
In the CNET case, Alsup said it was premature to consider the merits of the settlement until the investor plaintiffs completed their pre-trial evidence gathering and presented more information about the viability of their claims and potential damages. The judge also noted that investors had not yet satisfied the “demand” requirement to establish their right to sue on behalf of the San Francisco-based technology news company.
| Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Print Article | Back To Top |
