I recently read an article suggesting that companies need to consider appointing a chief resilience officer. That got me thinking about all the other “chief” positions that pundits may be encouraging companies to create. Here’s a partial list:
| Chief Analytics Officer | Chief Happiness Officer |
| Chief Automation Officer | Chief Inclusion Officer |
| Chief Behavioral Officer | Chief Information Officer |
| Chief |
Spoiler alert – despite the title and the creepy photo, this is not about zombies, vampires, or anything else of a spooky nature. Rather, it’s how we can hopefully make some of the deadwood in our proxy statements meaningful.
I realize that the upcoming
Boards of directors have a lot – maybe too much – to do. Subjects long believed to be the province of management are now viewed as being in the board’s wheelhouse, and when a problem arises with respect to any of those subjects, the first question asked by investors, regulators, the media, and others is often “where was the board?” So it is with a degree of reluctance that I am writing to suggest another subject that I believe boards need to address.
Some background may be in order. A few weeks ago, I attended a meeting of the American Bar Association International Law Section in Madrid. (How a US-centric lawyer ended up at that meeting is a tale for another day.) The trip, the city, and the conference were wonderful; I met some extraordinary people and was beyond grateful that I was able to go. I also learned a lot, mostly on things like international trade and customs law, cross-border discovery, and other topics that I don’t often encounter in my practice.
Another panel that I thought had little to do with my practice turned out to be the most compelling panel of them all, and it definitely is relevant to my practice and to the observation above about the ever-growing responsibilities of the board. The title of the panel was “Recognizing Human Trafficking as a Common Occurrence During Conflict, and Building Protection and Anti-Trafficking Strategies into Global Responses”. I suppose the title of the panel could have been more succinct, but – as the moderator of the panel suggested – a more helpful change might have been to give a trigger warning before the panel got underway.
Continue Reading Yet another thing for boards to consider
The Nasdaq Stock Market has developed a reputation for being the hip securities exchange, technologically and otherwise. In many ways, it deserves this reputation. For example:
So it is not particularly surprising that, once again, in August 2021, Nasdaq took center stage and became the first major stock exchange to adopt a board diversity rule for its listed companies.
WHY THIS RULE? WHY NOW?
The answer to the first question is clear. Notwithstanding widespread acknowledgement by corporate America that board diversity leads to greater innovation, smarter decision-making, and improvements to the bottom line, actual board diversity remains elusive. As of 2020, only 20.9% of Fortune 500 board seats were held by White women, and a mere 5.7% were held by Black and Latina women; and while 2021 saw gains of 300% in new directors who are Black and 200% gains in Latino directors, 80% of all Fortune 500 board members are White, and 70% are male.[1] So even though the new rule will not create “instant” diversity, it will create measurable board diversity goals, forcing companies that have given lip service to diversity to act – or to disclose that they have failed to act.
Why now? Personally, I ask, “Why not before?” The answers to those questions, however, are beyond the scope of this blog. For this moment, I am cautiously optimistic that Nasdaq’s new diversity rule can be a catalyst for meaningful change that leads to the bona fide board diversity that corporate America has been incapable of accomplishing thus far.
Continue Reading Nasdaq’s Board Diversity Rule: The “Hip” Exchange Does It Again
In 1729, the great satirist, Jonathan Swift, penned an essay called “A Modest Proposal.” The essay suggested that rather than allowing poor, starving children to be a burden on society, they should be fattened up and eaten.
How does this relate to corporate governance, you ask? Well, here goes. Anyone who has ever had children or spent any time around children knows that at some point most rug rats become incessant and indefatigable interrogators, their favorite question being “why?” “Why do I have to eat vegetables?” [Because they’re good for you.] “Why?” [Because if you don’t eat vegetables you won’t grow to be big and strong] “Why?” [Because vegetables have vitamins and minerals that you need] “Why?” And so on. These wee tads are never satisfied with any answers, regardless of their logic or compelling authority; thus, responses like “Because I’m your father and I make the rules” go unheeded. The “whys” just keep on coming, ad nauseam (literally).
Continue Reading A Modest Proposal II: Don’t eat children; put them on boards instead!
It’s no secret that the smaller a company’s market cap, the less likely it is to be concerned with governance “nice-to-haves,” such as independent board leadership, annual elections of directors, and board diversity. Over the years, I’ve heard time and time again, “next year is the year when all these things will begin to trickle down to the smaller-cap companies.” After a while, these assurances began to sound like the old line about quitting smoking – “I can quit whenever I want – after all, I’ve done it many times.”
Perhaps the great governance trickle-down has begun. On December 1, 2020, Nasdaq announced that it had filed with the SEC a proposed change in its listing standards that “would require all companies listed on Nasdaq’s U.S. exchange to publicly disclose consistent, transparent diversity statistics regarding their board of directors [and] to have, or explain why they do not have, at least two diverse directors, including one who self-identifies as female and one who self-identifies as either an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+.” An “underrepresented minority” is “an individual who self-identifies in one or more of the following groups: Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander or Two or More Races or Ethnicities.” If adopted, the proposal would be implemented based on a company’s listing tier and would eventually apply to the roughly 3,000 companies listed on Nasdaq.
Continue Reading Has the great governance trickle-down begun? Nasdaq pushes for board diversity
One of the principal duties of corporate directors and officers is the duty of confidentiality. That’s not just my personal opinion; it’s supported by case law, corporate governance treatises, law review articles, and more. Generally viewed as a subset of the duty of loyalty, the duty of confidentiality means that directors and officers are expected to keep their knowledge of the company to themselves or, at a minimum, to disseminate it on a strict “need to know” basis.
My conviction (all puns intended) was reinforced some years ago, when Rajat Gupta, the former CEO of McKinsey and a member of the board of Goldman Sachs, among others, was convicted of insider trading for spilling secrets he learned in Goldman’s board room to Raj Rajaratnam. Following his conviction, there was a flurry of activity among corporate governance nerds (present company included) as to the appropriateness and reasonability of asking directors and officers to enter into confidentiality agreements with the companies they served. It seemed to me at the time that asking a member of your board – a person charged with oversight of your company, and effectively your boss – to sign a confidentiality agreement might be viewed as insulting or worse.
Events, both recent and not-so-recent, are changing my mind. To start with the not-so-recent, in my many years of in-house practice, I came across the occasional director or officer who, to put it bluntly, was a media whore. They love seeing their names in the paper and being quoted as authorities. I get that; I’ve been quoted in some publications, and it’s very nice. However, in at least one case, a director’s leaks to a reporter resulted in my getting calls from that reporter, literally demanding that I provide information, some of which was clearly privileged, arguing that if it was good enough for a board member it was good enough for me. (I declined.)
Continue Reading Shhh!
I’ve often said that lawyers representing corporations should never underestimate the creativity of the plaintiffs’ bar. However, it seems that the white collar criminal defense bar may not be slouches in the creativity department either.
I’m referring to a recent report in The Wall Street Journal that the legal team representing Elizabeth Holmes, the “disgraced Theranos founder,” is considering using her mental health (presumably, the lack thereof) as a defense in her upcoming federal trial for engaging in a variety of frauds.
I’m prepared to admit that I am totally if morbidly fascinated by the Theranos case: I’ve read the phenomenal book, Bad Blood, by John Carreyrou – twice, in fact – and will surely be among the first to see the movie (which reportedly will star Jennifer Lawrence as Holmes in what strikes me as the best casting choice ever); I’ve attended programs featuring Tyler Shultz, the whistleblower who blew the top off the fraud (and whose grandfather, former Secretary of State George Shultz, was on the Theranos board at the time in a family saga worthy of Aeschylus); I’ve listened to the podcast; I’ve watched the HBO documentary; and much more. Still, it seems just surreal.
Continue Reading Legal surrealism
For both public and private companies, it’s important to determine the skills and other attributes needed to form a good or, hopefully, great board. Of course, there are basics that always apply, such as integrity, intelligence, and a good mix of collegiality and candor. However, once you get past those basics, it’s desirable to figure out what the organization really needs. If the company has a consumer-facing business, you probably want to have a director or two with experience in that and related fields, such as marketing. If it’s a defense contractor, you likely need someone with expertise in government relations. And so on. However, in searching for and, hopefully, finding those board members, it’s also desirable to find individuals whose abilities extend beyond a single area of experience or expertise.
The notion of avoiding such “one-trick ponies” came to me while reading an article in a recent article in the Financial Times. Since a subscription may be needed to access the article, the headline reads “US companies urged to appoint Covid-19 experts to boards.” In fairness, the headline was a bit misleading; the article itself said that “the dean of Harvard’s school of public health has called on companies to put public health professionals [i.e., not Covid-19 experts] on their boards… to manage a pandemic threat that could hang over businesses for years.”
Continue Reading One-trick ponies and hordes of directors
In my last post, I expressed some thoughts about the need to address our history and continuing practice of racial discrimination and inequality. I’m still thinking about specific actions that I can take to put my actions where my mouth is. However, in the meantime, I want to share a communication I received today