Carney on Shareholder Activists

Dealbreaker’s John Carney opines:

It’s important to remember that our system of corporate governance has generated enormous wealth for shareholders and workers over the years, bringing us unprecedented prosperity. We should exercise caution when seeking major reforms, especially when the costs of those reforms will be difficult to measure and the reforms will be next to impossible to reverse. By creating a uniform, national rule for proxy access, the proposed reforms would shut off jurisdictional competition and experimentation between the states. Worse, the proxy access reform is clearly viewed by many of its proponents as a first step in what they view as a revolution in corporate governance. There will be more to come. The proxy access reforms are precedent not a final resting place. ...

Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of the debate over the proxy access rules has been the success the proponents have had at portraying themselves as the friend of the ordinary shareholder. As we’ve pointed out twice now, this friendship is illusory. Many of the proponents are ideologically committed or self-dealing representatives of special interests who hope to take advantage of public ignorance on matters of corporate governance. Their behavior in this debate is just a prelude to the manipulation of public opinion that will follow if the proxy access rule is enacted and they begin their campaigns to intimidate and unseat corporate directors.

Exactly. Both points have been at the core of my critique of shareholder access proposals, as exemplified by this article on the SEC’s last bout of shareholder “democracy” idiocy.

Posted on Saturday, September 29 2007 | Permalink

AS much as I am skeptical of government, as I;ve watched duirng the 30 years of my career business ethics have taken a real tumble, with fraud and self-dealing seemingly unstoppable.

The idea that “as long as we make money the shareholders and government should leave us alone” doesn’t fly with me - perhaps I am naive.

Posted by  on  10/01  at  10:02 AM

How is it that the more pro-access of the two proposals creates “a uniform, national rule for proxy access”?  It allows shareholders to propose bylaws.  Those bylaws may differ wildly from each other, if proponents so choose.  Furthermore, states may choose to make such bylaws, or some of them, invalid under state law, in which case those bylaws would still be excludable in firms incorporated in such states (although my sense is that currently such bylaws would be valid in all states).  This proposal thus allows for flexibility and experimentation between corporations and states.  That is its main advantage over the 2003 proposal, which would indeed have imposed the same scheme on all firms that met the conditions for opting into the scheme.

Posted by  on  10/01  at  12:45 PM

Introduction


Recent Law & Business Entries


Hot Topics on Food & Wine

Hot Topics on Punditry



Punditry RSS Feed

Archives

My Books




Blogroll