April 2015

Perhaps this post would have been timelier before the spring submission cycle, but hopefully it will be helpful in framing title options for pieces being developed this summer.  One of the many benefits of co-authorship is learning substantive and procedural knowledge from your collaborators.  On a recent article, I worked with three economists who have different skill sets, perspectives, and discipline standards.  When we were trying to finalize our title, we came up with several different categories or types of article titles—a framework that I will utilize again in the future and which I am sharing with you today.  We selected the “themed” based title for our article, Institutional Investing When Shareholders Are Not Supreme, and a play on words, Institutional Investors’ Appetite for Alternatives, for a shorter piece appearing on Columbia Blue Sky Blog.

 Title Framework:

SOBER: Institutional Investing after Constituency Statutes

QUESTION:  Does Changing Shareholder Value Maximization Standards Change Institutional Investors’ Behavior?

CONTRAST:  Institutional Investors Behavior Before and After Constituency Statutes

PLAY ON WORDS:  Appetite for Alternatives:  Institutional Investors’ Behavior in the Fact of Shareholder Value Maximization Pressures

FORWARD THINKING:  What Does Institutional Investors Behavior after Constituency Statutes Tell Us Regarding…

OK.  So, Tennessee is not Delaware.  But the Tennessee legislature and Supreme Court have been busy bees this spring on business law matters.   Here’s the brief report.

In the last week of the legislative term, the Tennessee Senate and House adopted the For-Profit Benefit Corporation Act, about which I earlier blogged here, here, and here.  Although I remain skeptical of the legislation, it looks like the governor will sign the bill.  So, we will have benefit corporations in Tennessee.  We’ll see where things go from there . . . .

The Tennessee legislature also passed a technical corrections bill for the Tennessee Business Corporation Act.  The bill was drafted by the Tennessee Bar Association’s Business Entity Study Committee (on which I serve and to which I have referred in the past), a joint project of the Tennessee Bar Association’s Business Law Section and Tax Law Section.  The governor has already signed this bill into law.

Separately, in a bit of a stealth move (!), the Tennessee Supreme Court recently announced the establishment of a business court, an institution many other jurisdictions already have.  The court is being introduced as a pilot project in Davidson County (where Nashville resides)–but only, as I understand it, to iron the kinks out before introducing the court on a permanent basis.  Interestingly, the Tennessee Bar Association Business Law Section Executive Council was not informed about the new court project until its public announcement in the middle of March.  Although we found that a bit odd, the “radio silence” is apparently attributable to the excitement of the Tennessee Supreme Court to get the project started effective as of May 1 and the deemed lack of need for a study on the subject before proceeding.  Regardless, I think it’s safe to say that the bar welcomes the introduction of a court that specializes in business law cases as a matter of principle.  Again, we’ll see where it goes from here.

A few reflections on all this follow.

Last week, the Deal Professor, Steven Davidoff Solomon, wrote an article titled, The Boardroom Strikes Back. In it, he recalls that shareholder activists won a number of surprising victories last year, and more were predicted for this year. That prediction made sense, as activists were able to elect directors 73% of the time in 2014.  This year, though, despite some activist victories, boards are standing their grounds with more success.  

I have no problem with shareholders seeking to impose their will on the board of the companies in which they hold stock.  I don’t see activist shareholder as an inherently bad thing.  I do, however, think  it’s bad when boards succumb to the whims of activist shareholders just to make the problem go away.  Boards are well served to review serious requests of all shareholders, but the board should be deciding how best to direct the company. It’s why we call them directors.  

As the Deal Professor notes, some heavy hitters are questioning the uptick in shareholder activism: 

Some of the big institutional investors are starting to question the shareholder activism boom. Laurence D. Fink, chief executive of BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset manager, with $4 trillion, recently issued a well-publicized letter that criticized some of the strategies pushed by hedge funds, like share buybacks and dividends, as a “short-termist phenomenon.” T. Rowe Price, which has $750 billion under management, has also criticized shareholder activists’ strategies. They carry a big voice.

I am on record being critical of boards letting short-term planning be their primary filter, because I think it can hurt long-term value in many instances.  I don’t, however, think buybacks or dividends are inherently incorrect, either.  Whether the idea comes from an activist shareholder or the board doesn’t really matter to me.  The board just needs to assess the idea and decide how to proceed.  

[Please click below to read more.]

The following guest blog post on my recent article,  Institutional Investing When Shareholders Are Not Supreme, is available at Columbia’s Blue Sky Blog discussing institutional investors’ attitudes towards alternative business forms and similar issues raised by Etsy’s IPO.

-Anne Tucker

Many of you have probably heard of bitcoin, the private digital currency that some mainstream merchants are now accepting. (Rand Paul recently became the first presidential candidate to accept donations in bitcoin.)

Bitcoin was developed by a software programmer who used the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. It is built on cryptography software known as the blockchain, which both issues the currency and authenticates transactions using it.

If you haven’t heard of bitcoin or you don’t know much about it, I strongly recommend an interesting, informative new book : The Age of Cryptocurrency: How Bitcoin and Digital Money are Challenging the Global Economic Order, by Paul Vigna and Michael J. Casey.

Vigna and Casey are reporters for the Wall Street Journal. I think they’re a little too optimistic about the future of digital currency, but their book is an excellent non-technical introduction to the bitcoin phenomenon and the blockchain software that underlies it. The book isn’t limited to bitcoin; Vigna and Casey talk about other digital currency. They also discuss other potential applications for the blockchain software, such as gambling, self-enforcing “smart” contracts, and currency exchange.

The book’s discussion of regulatory issues is limited. If you’re looking for a discussion…

Bain Deval

The New York Times DealB%k recently reported that Deval Patrick, former governor of Massachusetts, will join Bain Capital to head a new social impact fund.

These types of social impact funds seem to becoming more and more common. Social impact funds, however, vary greatly. Some social impact funds appear to be primarily focused on profits (while simply avoiding some “sin stocks“), others focus on serious social enterprises, and others fall somewhere in-between.  

I recently finished my law review submission season, placing two articles: The Social Enterprise Law Market at Maryland Law Review (on jurisdictional competition and social enterprise entity forms) and An Early Report on Benefit Reports at West Virginia Law Review (on data collected last summer on statutory reporting compliance by benefit corporations).

Below, I share a few words of advice for my new law review editors and any law review editor readers. I share this advice acknowledging that I disregarded much of it when I was an editor on my school’s law review. Also, as mentioned below, I fully recognize and appreciate the work law review editors put into our articles.   

Consider Blind Review. I still haven’t heard a good argument against law reviews moving to blind review of articles. A very few, maybe two, of the top-ranked journals appear to have made the move, but the vast majority have not. 

Consider Peer Review. I understand, a bit better, the pushback against a traditional peer-review system, but consider involving your faculty in the process more heavily and consider obtaining outside faculty reviewers (as some of the elite journals are already doing). 

Consider Exclusive Submission Windows. A few journals are…

 

BU LAW TO BECOME FIRST U.S. LAW SCHOOL TO OFFER A MOOC IN COMPLIANCE

Course series will focus on legal risk management for companies doing businesses overseas

(APRIL 23, 2015) -­‐ Boston University School of Law will launch a massive open online course, Legal Risk Management Strategies for Multinational Enterprises, in October, becoming the first U.S. law school to offer a MOOC in the fast-­‐growing field of compliance.  In a partnership with BU’s Digital Learning Initiative, the School of Law will deliver the four-­‐part series on the edX online platform. 

“BU Law is committed to using new technologies to open up our classrooms not only to our students, but to all qualified practitioners with an interest in studying legal topics,” says BU Law Dean Maureen O’Rourke. “I am pleased that our very first MOOC will focus on compliance, and will provide all students, both with and without law degrees, with marketable skills for which there is significant demand in the US and abroad.”

The course will examine the issues that multinational companies face in adhering to the numerous laws and regulations that govern their operations. Students will be introduced to new tools for managing risk in the global marketplace…

An ongoing issue in many securities cases concerns the precise state of mind necessary to satisfy the element of scienter in a Section 10(b) violation.  The basic dispute is about whether the defendant must have intended to harm investors, or whether it is sufficient if the defendant simply intended to mislead them.

One would have thought this issue was settled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).  There, the defendants lied to investors by falsely claiming that they were not engaged in merger negotiations.  The lie was not intended to harm anyone; if anything, the defendants intended to benefit investors by concealing the talks so as not to prejudice a beneficial deal.  The Supreme Court did not weigh in on the definition of scienter per se, but it did emphasize that the defendants’ benign motives would not immunize them from liability.  As the Court put it, “[W]e think that creating an exception to a regulatory scheme founded on a prodisclosure legislative philosophy, because complying with the regulation might be ‘bad for business,’ is a role for Congress, not this Court.”

Similarly, in Nakkhumpun v. Taylor, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5547 (10th Cir. Apr. 7, 2015), the Tenth Circuit rejected a defendant’s argument that his false statements – in that case, false characterizations as to why a corporate asset sale had fallen through – were intended to benefit investors by attracting new deal partners.  The Tenth Circuit held that whatever the defendant’s ultimate motive, Section 10(b) liability would be imposed if he intentionally or recklessly misled investors.

Nonetheless, courts continue to sporadically define Section 10(b) scienter in a more limited manner.

[More under the jump]