RiskMetrics Update
Continues to Hamper Director Discretion
Posted by David A.
Katz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on Friday February 20, 2009 at
1:14 pm
(Editor’s Note:
Previous posts on this blog concerning RiskMetric Group’s policy updates
are available
here and
here.)
My colleague Laura A.
McIntosh and I (with help from our colleague
David Adlerstein) wrote an article entitled “RiskMetrics
Update Continues to Hamper Director Discretion,” which
discusses the 2009 updates to the domestic and international corporate
governance policies of RiskMetrics Group (formerly know as ISS). RMG’s
policy updates continue its trend of espousing policies that tend to shift
corporate decision-making from boards of directors to shareholders,
including activists and special interest groups. In particular, RMG’s
updated policies seek to further limit directors’ discretion in areas
traditionally within the board of directors’ clear authority under state
law, including executive compensation, corporate governance matters and
social policy. As an example, RMG has revised its policy with
respect to management proposals to ratify a shareholder rights plan. In
addition to considering whether a shareholder rights plan includes RMG’s
prescribed attributes (such as a 20 percent or higher triggering threshold
and a shareholder redemption feature), RMG also will take into
consideration a company’s existing governance structure, including board
independence, existing takeover defenses and “any problematic governance
concerns.” In the face of these new, subjective criteria, it remains to be
seen in what circumstances RMG would, in fact, recommend in favor of
adopting a shareholder rights plan. Importantly, RMG is continuing its
policy of recommending “withhold votes” against an entire board of
directors, if the board adopts or renews a rights plan without shareholder
approval, does not commit to putting the rights plan to a shareholder vote
within one year of adoption, or reneges on a commitment to put the rights
plan to a vote and has not yet received a “withhold vote” recommendation
for this issue. The article explains why we believe this policy update
could be problematic for corporations in the current troubled market
environment.
The article is
available here.
© 2008 The
President and Fellows of Harvard College |
|