|
|
Table of Contents
Purpose Proposals
Jill E. Fisch, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Clarifications from the Singapore Court of Appeal – Directors’ Duties, Causation and Abuse of Process
Ben Chester Cheong, Singapore University of Social Sciences
Due Process Alignment in Mass Restructurings
Sergio J. Campos, University of Miami School of Law Samir D. Parikh, Lewis & Clark Law School, Fulbright Schuman Scholar, Bloomberg Law, Fulbright Commission
Recent Law Reforms in EU Sustainable Finance: Regulating Sustainability Risk and Sustainable Investments
Félix E. Mezzanotte, Trinity College Dublin
| |
FIDUCIARY LAW eJOURNAL
"Purpose Proposals"
U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 22-21 University of Chicago Business Law Review, Forthcoming European Corporate Governance Institute - Law Working Paper No. 638/2022
JILL E. FISCH, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) Email: jfisch@law.upenn.edu
Repurposing the corporation is the hot issue in corporate governance. Commentators, investors and increasingly issuers, maintain that corporations should shift their focus from maximizing profits for shareholders to generating value for a more expansive group of stakeholders. Corporations are also being called upon to address societal concerns – from climate change and voting rights to racial justice and wealth inequality.
The shareholder proposal rule, Rule 14a–8, offers one potential tool for repurposing the corporation. This Article describes the introduction of innovative proposals seeking to formalize corporate commitments to stakeholder governance. These “purpose proposals” reflect a new dynamic in the debate over stakeholder governance by enabling shareholders to communicate their views about corporate purpose to their fellow shareholders and management. At the same time, purpose proposals highlight the potential problems with a shareholder voting process dominated by a handful of institutional intermediaries whose interests, particularly with respect to corporate purpose, may not be aligned with those of their beneficiaries.
This Article provides the first analysis of purpose proposals. It presents data on the introduction of these proposals and the extent to which they have commanded shareholder support. It interrogates the justifications for the proposals offered by their proponents. Finally, it considers the role of the shareholder proposal rule in offering a mechanism for shareholder debate over corporate purpose.
"Due Process Alignment in Mass Restructurings"
Fordham Law Review, Forthcoming
SERGIO J. CAMPOS, University of Miami School of Law Email: scampos@law.miami.edu SAMIR D. PARIKH, Lewis & Clark Law School, Fulbright Schuman Scholar, Bloomberg Law, Fulbright Commission Email: sparikh@lclark.edu
Mass tort defendants have recently begun exiting multi-district litigation (MDL) by filing for bankruptcy. This new strategy ushers defendants into a far more hospitable forum that offers accelerated resolution of all state and federal claims held by both current and future victims. Bankruptcy’s structural, procedural, and substantive benefits also provide defendants unique optionality.
Bankruptcy’s resolution promise is alluring, but the process relies on a very large assumption: future claimants can be compelled to relinquish property rights – their cause of action against the corporate defendant and others – without consent or notice. Bankruptcy builds an entire resolution structure on the premise that the Bankruptcy Code’s untested interest representation scheme satisfies Due Process strictures. This Article questions that assumption, and identifies two compromised pillars that could render bankruptcy’s mass tort framework unconstitutional. Primarily, the process for selecting the fiduciary that represents future victims’ interests and irrevocably binds them to the agreed settlement is fundamentally broken. Further, the process by which bankruptcy courts estimate the value of thousands of mass tort claims places too much pressure on a jurist unfamiliar with personal injury claims. These compromised pillars raise the risk that the victims’ settlement trust will be underfunded and fail prematurely. In this outcome, future victims would have no recourse but to argue that the restructuring process did not satisfy Due Process, and the entire settlement should be unwound.
This Article proposes that the risk of a prematurely insolvent victims’ trust can be reduced considerably by bolstering these two pillars. Our proposal seeks to (i) rebuild the FCR construct in order to ensure that future victims’ interests are effectively represented and (ii) recalibrate the claim estimation process by facilitating coordination between the bankruptcy court and the federal district court.
"Recent Law Reforms in EU Sustainable Finance: Regulating Sustainability Risk and Sustainable Investments"
American University Business Law Review, Forthcoming
FÉLIX E. MEZZANOTTE, Trinity College Dublin Email: Felix.Mezzanotte@tcd.ie
Responding to increasingly degrading environmental and social conditions, the European Commission has undertaken important legal and regulatory reforms to promote sustainable finance policy in Europe. However, these reforms have been numerous, complex, and fast-paced. They have proved difficult to grasp and contextualize, while exacerbating the intricacies of an already highly sophisticated EU legal and regulatory regime. This article outlines and examines such reforms with the purpose of providing necessary insights into the current state of EU law and policy in the area of sustainable finance. The first part of the article conceptualizes the meaning of sustainability risk and of sustainable investments. Understanding these two concepts is crucial as they underlie the entire reform process, from climate risk management to the development of sustainable markets and products. The second part of this article provides an overview and analysis of key sustainability-related reforms. Changes to the non-financial information disclosure regime are outlined covering the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, and the EU Taxonomy Regulation. Emphasis is placed on the ‘double materiality’ principle in sustainability reporting. Modifications to EU financial services law are also examined with focus on changes made to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II), which is the central legislation governing securities regulation in Europe. Finally, a brief overview of the evolving prudent person rule contained in the Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision Directive is offered. The article concludes by shedding light on key challenges afflicting reform implementation.
| ^top
About this eJournal
This area includes content relating to fiduciary law in myriad private and public contexts. Fiduciary principles govern a remarkably broad and diverse set of relationships, offices, and institutions. They govern a wide array of professional relationships, including interactions between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, and investment advisors and clients. They also underlie basic legal categories of relationship, including agency, trusts, and partnerships. They are the basis on which most private and public offices are held and executed. Not incidentally, they provide the core governance framework for the administration of private and public organizations, from corporations, charities, and hospitals to universities and school boards. Both U.S. political theory and international legal theory also share a rich tradition of employing fiduciary principles to explain and justify the exercise of state authority. Cutting across many varied fields of legal studies, the eJournal is designed to serve a cross-indexing function for legal scholars interested in fiduciary law, with the ultimate objective of stimulating communication and cross-fertilization. The eJournal welcomes a broad range of methodological approaches, including those drawn from economics, history, philosophy, political science, psychology, and sociology.
SubmissionsTo submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submissions button at top of page.
Distribution ServicesIf your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: sales@ssrn.com
Distributed by Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
Directors
| |