Last month, we described the increased threat of activists and acquirors seeking to capitalize on the COVID-19 sell-off to build positions in high-value companies at depressed prices. Even before the current crisis emerged, we recommended that all U.S. public companies regularly review their defense profile and have a shareholder rights plans “on the shelf.” For companies uniquely impacted by the crisis—especially those whose market capitalization has fallen below $1 billion—we suggested they re-assess their vulnerabilities in this new environment and consider whether now was the right time to adopt a rights plan to ward off potential opportunistic behavior. Some companies have done just that—since March 1, 2020, 24 U.S. public companies have adopted a defensive shareholder rights plan (6 other U.S. public companies have adopted NOL rights plans).
Continue Reading ISS and Glass Lewis Issue Guidance for Poison Pills in COVID-19 Pandemic
Boards of Directors
The Keys to Emergency Succession: Planning For Boards and Senior Management During a Health Pandemic
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread in the U.S. and abroad, public companies are grappling with the ramifications (real or potential) of a senior executive(s) contracting the virus. Together with senior management, boards of directors should be actively reviewing their emergency preparedness plans, including their emergency succession plans for key executives. Boards also need to proactively address the possibility that one or more directors become sick, including by reviewing the board’s contingency plans to ensure the board will be able to continue to perform its duties.
Continue Reading The Keys to Emergency Succession: Planning For Boards and Senior Management During a Health Pandemic
The Impact of COVID-19 on Activism and Hostile Attacks: Key Takeaways
On March 30, 2019, Paul Shim and Jim Langston joined Patrick Ramsey, Global Head of M&A at BofA Securities, and Amy Lissauer, Global Head of Activism and Raid Defense at BofA Securities, on a conference call panel titled “The Impact of COVID-19 on Shareholder Activism and Hostile M&A.”
The panelists shared their views on the state of activism and hostile attacks in the current environment, how the activism playbook may evolve, when and how the next wave of activism and hostile attacks is likely to emerge, and what companies can do today to prepare for the storm.
Dial-in Details are as follows:
U.S. toll-free: 888 203 1112
International: +1 719 457 0820
Passcode: 1219818
The replay will be available from Monday, March 30, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. through Wednesday, April 29, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern.
…
Continue Reading The Impact of COVID-19 on Activism and Hostile Attacks: Key Takeaways
Glass Lewis Revised Guideline Regarding Virtual Meetings for 2020 Proxy Season
Glass Lewis recently announced an update of its guidelines, which temporarily relaxes its standard policy against virtual meetings in light of COVID-19. The update provides that “[f]or companies opting to hold a virtual-only shareholder meeting during the 2020 proxy season (March 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020), [Glass Lewis] will generally refrain from recommending to vote against members of the governance committee on this basis, provided that the company discloses, at a minimum, its rationale for doing so, including citing COVID-19.”[1] This formal update of Glass-Lewis’s guidelines comes on the heels of statements by both Glass-Lewis and ISS indicating openness to relax their positions on virtual meetings, which we discussed here.
Continue Reading Glass Lewis Revised Guideline Regarding Virtual Meetings for 2020 Proxy Season
UPDATE: Coronavirus & Virtual Annual Meetings
This is an updated version of our prior post to address a new guideline issued by Glass Lewis.
With rising concerns around the spread of COVID-19 (“coronavirus”) in the United States and globally, in order to mitigate health risks, many public companies may consider adding a virtual component to the format of their annual shareholder meetings. In the United States, state law generally governs the availability of a virtual meeting format. At the federal level, the SEC regulates the filing and mailing of proxy solicitation materials. While we have not seen direct guidance from state legislatures on virtual or hybrid meetings in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, on March 13, 2020, the SEC released guidance (“SEC Coronavirus Guidance”) addressing annual shareholder meetings[1] in light of recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and other public health officials to cancel, or explicitly state policies that prohibit, large, in-person gatherings[2] in an effort to prevent the spread of coronavirus.[3] Set forth below are various considerations that a company should take into account when determining whether to move from an in-person to a virtual or hybrid[4] annual meeting
Continue Reading UPDATE: Coronavirus & Virtual Annual Meetings
Rewriting the Poison Pill Prescription: Consider Active Defenses During COVID-19
Amidst a market-wide sell-off of public equities in the face of coronavirus uncertainty, companies across nearly every industry have witnessed significant declines in stock prices. As the market turbulence shows no signs of abating in the near term, public companies should consider turning to shareholder rights plans (or “poison pills”) to protect against hostile attacks.…
Delaware Supreme Court Green Lights Federal-Forum Charter Provisions
On March 18, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an opinion in the closely watched appeal in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg, a case involving a challenge to charter provisions of three Delaware corporations requiring stockholder plaintiffs to litigate claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”) in federal court. The en banc Supreme…
Coronavirus & Postponing/Adjourning Annual Meetings
In light of the growing concern about COVID-19 (“coronavirus”) in the United States and globally, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and other public health officials have recommended cancelling large, in-person gatherings for the next several weeks.[1] As a result, some companies may be considering, or may in the coming weeks need to consider, postponing the date of their shareholder meeting. While moving to a virtual or hybrid meeting, as discussed in our blog post, “Coronavirus & Virtual Annual Meetings,” may be a good solution for certain companies, other companies may determine (or due to a lack of vendor capacity may be forced to determine) that the better course of action for them is to postpone or adjourn their annual meetings.
Continue Reading Coronavirus & Postponing/Adjourning Annual Meetings
London’s Premium Segment and High-growth Companies: Return of the Dual-class Structure?
In recent years there has been a material reduction in the number of companies seeking admission to the Premium Segment of the London Stock Exchange. In addition, a number of market participants believe that high-growth tech companies are materially under-represented on the Premium Segment. In an article published in late 2019, the Financial Times indicated…
View from the UK: Recent Developments in Brexit and Corporate Governance
The following post was originally included as part of our recently published memorandum “Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2020”.
In 2020, businesses operating in the UK will need to grapple with the continued uncertainty caused by Brexit and will need to closely monitor a number of important corporate governance and reporting…