It is axiomatic in the current global economy that every business needs to have a China strategy. Most business enterprises are drawn to the world’s most populous country and second-largest economy. But while China represents an attractive business marketplace, it can also in many respects be a perilous place to try to do business, particularly from a regulatory and compliance standpoint. While most businesses may recognize these challenges, many may struggle to try and address the concerns. A new book entitled “Governance, Risk and Compliance Management in China” (here), which I review below, may provide substantial help to companies trying to address compliance concerns arising from doing business in China. Of particular interest to this blog’s readers, the book includes an interesting chapter on D&O insurance issues in China.  
Continue Reading Book Review: Governance and Risk Management in China

It is now well known and understood that cybersecurity is a board level issue. This generalization is true not just for companies in the United States but for all companies around the world. In the following guest post, Joel Pridmore, Asia Pacific Underwriting Manager, Specialty, Corporate Insurance Partner, Munich Re Group, Saket Modi, CEO of Lucideus Technologies Pvt Ltd, and Richa Shukla, Partner, Khaitan Legal Associates take a look at this issue, with a particular focus on concerns for Indian companies. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Cyber Risk: A Board Level View

In the great pendulum swing that characterizes the mood toward government oversight of companies and corporate governance, the pendulum in the U.S. has swung against regulation and against mandated governance requirements. However, in the U.K., the pendulum is on the opposite end of the arc, as the current government is moving quickly to adopt new corporate governance requirements.

As discussed in an earlier post (here), the current U.K. governance initiative kicked off with the Prime Minister’s November 2016 Corporate Governance Reform Green Paper, which focused on executive pay, private companies, and workers on boards. The Green Paper solicited comments on its various proposals. The comments have been received and processed and the result is an August 2017 report entitled “Corporate Governance Reform, The Government Response to the Green Paper Consultation” (here). The report sets out a list of governance reform proposals the government intends to put into effect in the coming year.
Continue Reading U.K. Government Announces Corporate Governance Reform Proposals

eu flagukJust as the new Presidential administration leads a charge to roll back corporate regulation, “the rest of the world seems to be headed in the opposite direction,” according to a recent post in the PubCo@Cooley blog. Last month, the European Parliament approved a new Shareholder Rights Directive that is intended to “sharpen big EU firms’ focus on their long-run performance, by fostering their shareholders’ commitment to it, according to the legislature’s press release announcing the Directive’s adoption. As the same time, a recent report from a U.K. Parliamentary Committee may signal further governance changes ahead in the U.K., as well. Both of these initiatives proceed from perceived governance shortcoming and concerns over disproportional corporate focus on short-term results.
Continue Reading A Continued Focus on Corporate Governance in Europe and the U.K.

wells fargoOne of the recurrent governance proposals to remedy corporate excesses has been the idea of clawing back the compensation paid to company officials who presided over corporate scandals. Both the Sarbanes Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act included provisions mandating compensation clawbacks for corporate executives at companies that restate their financial statements. As Columbia Law School Professor John Coffee details in his November 21, 2016 CLS Blue Sky Blog article entitled “Clawbacks in the Age of Trump” (here), despite these statutory revisions, the use of “extreme incentive compensation” continues to motivate corporate behavior. In order to counter-balance the impact of incentive compensation, Coffee suggests that companies should adopt their own compensation clawback requirements that apply more broadly than the statutory clawback provisions.
Continue Reading Carrot and Stick: Incentive Compensation and Compensation Clawbacks

Peregrine_M_7869_L
Michael W. Peregrine

In the following guest post, Michael W. Peregrine, a partner at the McDermott, Will & Emery law firm, take a look at regulators’ new “gatekeeper” expectations that now face corporate directors. This article is reprinted with permission from Corporate Board Member, First Quarter, 2016. I would like to thank Michael for his willingness to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Michael’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Managing Gatekeeper Anxiety

floridaOne of the more interesting recent developments in the world of corporate and securities litigation has been the litigation reform bylaw movement. Among the types of bylaws with which various companies have experimented are the forum selection bylaws (now permitted by statute in Delaware) and fee-shifting bylaws (now prohibited in Delaware for stock corporations, as discussed here). Yet another type of litigation reform bylaw that has  attracted attention is the minimum stake to sue bylaw, which requires shareholder claimants to show that the represent a specified interest of the company’s ownership interest in order to be able to pursue a class or derivative claim.
Continue Reading Lawsuit Challenging Minimum Stake to Sue Bylaw Dismissed

NevadaAs I noted in a recent post, when the Wall Street Journal has a front-page article asking the question whether Delaware’s claim as the preferred home jurisdiction for many U.S. corporations continues to be warranted, it might be time to wonder whether Delaware’s preeminence might actually be under serious challenge. And if a recent article on Law 360 is any indication, the good citizens of Nevada – or at least one member of its legal bar in particular – are quite sure where U.S. companies should turn next, at least for the resolution of corporate disputes. That is, Nevada.

That’s right, Nevada.

In an August 11, 2015 article entitled “Strike Suit Certainty Remains the Status Quo in Nevada” (here, subscription required), Jeffrey S. Rugg of the Browstein Hyatt Farber Schreck law firm in Las Vegas argues that Nevada provides an advantageous forum compared to Delaware because of the expeditiousness with which Nevada courts resolve M&A-related strike suits. In Delaware, Rugg argues, “the consideration and resolution of strike suits … has become increasingly uncertain and, as a result, expensive,” whereas Nevada “continues to provide all parties with the certainty of consistent application of law and efficient resolution of motions.”
Continue Reading Should Nevada Be the New Preferred Forum? (That’s Right, Nevada.)

Lebovitch_Mark_300dpiOne of the more significant recent developments in the corporate and securities litigation arena has been the emergence of the debate over fee-shifting bylaws following the Delaware Supreme Court’s May 2014 decision in ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund. Draft proposed legislation is now being considered by the Delaware legislature that would address

floridaIn prior posts, I have noted the growing phenomenon of companies adopting various types of bylaws as a self-help version of litigation reform. Delaware’s courts have already approved the facially validity of both forum-selection bylaws and of fee-shifting bylaws, although measures pending in Delaware legislature in 2015 could address the fee-shifting bylaw. Other