Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Part 8 Corporate governance and director's duties: Comparative study


30. Are there restrictions on who can be the company's auditors?
France

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Only legal entities or natural persons registered on a special list can act as statutory auditors. This list provides for several conditions regarding professional integrity and qualification, among others.
There are several restrictions, for example:
·         The office of statutory auditor is incompatible with any employment, commercial business activity or activity that may restrict the auditor's independence.
·         Any former managers or employees of a company within the last five years cannot be appointed as statutory auditors of that company.
Germany

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Only auditors that are officially appointed by the German Chamber of Auditors and auditing companies recognised as such by the German Chamber of Auditors are eligible for the appointment as auditor. In addition, auditors and auditing companies must have an effective certificate of participation in quality controls. Auditors must fulfil certain requirements under the German Auditor's Code (Wirtschaftsprüferordnung, WPO), for example regarding independence and impartiality. A person cannot act as auditor for a company if, for example:
·         There is a suspicion of partiality due to business, financial or personal relations.
·         The person owns shares in the company being audited.
·         The person is a legal representative, member of the supervisory board or employee of the company being audited or an affiliate thereof.
·         The person played a part in the preparation of the annual financial statements.
There are further restrictions for auditors in relation to companies listed for official trading. Restrictions apply to auditors and audit companies who:
·         Provided legal or tax consultancy services to the company that is being audited in the year to be audited.
·         Have generated more than 15% of their revenue from the company that is being audited in each of the preceding five years.
The DCGK recommends that the supervisory board should obtain a declaration from the auditor in relation to its business, financial, personal or other relations with the company to determine its independence. The auditor must inform the supervisory board of any conflicts of interest arising during the audit.
India

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
An auditor must be a chartered accountant within the meaning of the Chartered Accountants Act 1949. The following persons cannot be appointed as the company's auditor:
·         A body corporate.
·         An officer or employee of the company.
·         A person who is a partner of, or who is employed by, an officer or employee of the company.
·         A person who is indebted to the company for an amount exceeding INR1,000 or who has given any guarantee or provided any security in connection with the indebtedness of any third person to the company for an amount exceeding INR 1,000.
·         A person holding any security of the company after a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act 2000.
The Netherlands

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
The general meeting typically appoints the company's auditor. If the general meeting fails to appoint the auditor on time, the supervisory board (or if the supervisory board is absent or fails to appoint the auditor on time, the management board) can do so. The appointment of an auditor cannot be restricted to a limited list of candidates and the appointment can be withdrawn at any time by the general meeting or the company body that appointed the auditor. An appointment of an auditor by the management board can also be withdrawn by the supervisory board. The auditor may withdraw its appointment itself. Withdrawal of the appointment can only be based on just grounds and not on a difference of opinion regarding the methods of financial reporting or the auditing process. The company informs the Authority on Financial Markets of the withdrawal.
There is no formal limit on the duration of the appointment of a company's auditor, except for companies of public significance (including listed companies), where audits cannot be conducted by individual auditors for a continuous period longer than seven years, after which the auditor is not allowed to audit the annual accounts for the same company for a two-year period. A draft European regulation extends the latter to three years and introduces a maximum appointment of an accounting firm to six years with a minimum of two years.
For listed companies, the CGC recommends that the auditor should be appointed by a general meeting and the supervisory board should nominate a candidate for this appointment after consulting the audit committee and the management board. The CGC states that the supervisory board and the audit committee should emphasise that the auditing firm should arrange for frequent circulation of auditors in charge of the auditing task and conduct a thorough assessment of the auditor at least once every four years.
UK (England and Wales)

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
The auditors of a company must be statutory auditors under the Companies Act 2006, that is, they must be members of a recognised supervisory body (such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales) and be eligible for appointment under the rules of that body, as well as being appropriately qualified.
An auditor cannot be an officer or employee of the company being audited or of an associated undertaking (such as a parent or subsidiary company), nor a partner or employee of such a person.
United States

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
If the corporation is a public company, the corporation’s audit committee is responsible for hiring an independent registered public accounting firm as its auditor. The auditor must then be approved by the entire board and the retention of the firm is typically put before the shareholders for ratification. While there is no requirement for the company to rotate the accounting firm, the accounting firm must change the audit partners responsible for co-ordinating and reviewing the corporation’s audit every five years.

31. Are there restrictions on non-audit work that auditors can do for the company that they audit accounts for?
France

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Statutory auditors are prohibited from providing any company audited by them, or any company controlled by or controlling that company, with any consulting or other services not directly covered by the scope of their assignment as statutory auditor.
Germany

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Auditors are not subject to specific restrictions on non-audit work they can do for the company they audit accounts for. However, auditors cannot perform the following non-audit services if they are already appointed for the auditing of accounts:
·         Bookkeeping.
·         Preparation of annual statements.
·         Participation in internal audit.
·         Provision of financial services or actuarial services.
In addition, auditors of companies listed for official trading are not allowed to provide legal or tax consultancy services to the company concerned. Other non-audit services can be restricted as well if they resemble a participation in the preparation of the annual financial statements.
The European Commission is currently considering a prohibition of non-audit work in a Green Paper dated 13 October 2010.
India

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Auditors cannot undertake non-audit work for the company they audit accounts for.
The Netherlands

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
Auditors must be registered as chartered accountants or accountant-administrative consultants under the Accountants-Administrative Consultants Act (Wet op de Accountants-Administratieconsulenten) and must be independent of the company for which they audit accounts.
UK (England and Wales)

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
There are no statutory restrictions on other work that auditors can do for a company, but professional rules impose some constraints. Investors in listed companies are often wary of auditors carrying out such work and the Code requires:
·         An audit committee to decide what work is permitted and what not.
·         An explanation in the company's annual report as to how auditor objectivity and independence is safeguarded.
United States

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
A public company’s auditors must be independent under the federal securities laws and the rules of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). Auditors of public corporations must also be registered with the PCAOB. Certain relationships can disqualify an auditor from being independent. The largest independent accounting firms audit a vast majority of the largest public companies.

32. What is the potential liability of auditors to the company, its shareholders and third parties if the audited accounts are inaccurate? Can their liability be limited or excluded?
France

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Statutory auditors are liable to the company and third parties for any prejudice caused by misconduct and negligence committed in the performance of their duties. They are bound by a best efforts obligation.
Statutory auditors may incur criminal liability in the following cases:
·         Breach of professional secrecy.
·         Non-disclosure of criminal acts to the state prosecutor (procureur de la république).
·         Issuance or confirmation of false information on the company's situation.
·         Failure to mention major investments or acquisitions of other companies located in France in their report.
·         Issuance of inaccurate information in the report submitted to the shareholders' meeting called to vote on the deletion of shareholders' preferential subscription rights.
·         Performance of acts that may infringe their independence or breach of the applicable legal incompatibilities.
If they breach their obligations, statutory auditors can also be subject to disciplinary penalties (for example, a temporary ban or formal exclusion). They can subscribe to professional liability insurance, although their liability cannot be limited in any way.
Germany

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Auditors are obliged to perform their services carefully, impartially and confidentially. If they are in breach of their duties they are generally liable to the company and have to compensate the company with regard to damages incurred. However, their liability is limited by the HGB to EUR1 million in case of acting negligently (EUR 4 million for companies listed for official trading) per audit. Further limitations or exclusions of the liability by contract are prohibited.
Auditors are liable to shareholders of the audited company and third parties if they damage them intentionally. With respect to negligent behaviour, auditor's liability to shareholders and third parties is in dispute in Germany: some lower courts have decided that liability to third parties is possible, other courts have decided otherwise.
Furthermore, auditors are liable under criminal law if they knowingly include information in the audit report that is misleading or false (for example, fraud and breach of trust).
India

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
An auditor may be liable if, in any return, report, certificate, balance sheet and so on, he makes a statement which:
·         Is false in any material respect, knowing it to be false.
·         Omits any material fact.
A company cannot indemnify an auditor against any negligence, default, misfeasance, breach of duty or breach of trust of which he may be guilty in relation to the company (section 201, Act).
The Netherlands

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
For unlisted companies, there are no restrictions on non-audit work that can be done by auditors for the company.
For listed companies, instructions to the auditor to provide non-audit services must be approved by the supervisory board, on the recommendation of the audit committee and after consulting the management board (CGC).
As yet, there are no formal rules on the type of work that auditors can and cannot do. However, as a general principle, an auditor linked to an organisation that provides consulting and auditing services to the same company must show that he is in a position to independently form an opinion on the accounts.
An auditor cannot audit the accounts of any organisations of public significance (including listed companies) if either (sections 23 and 24, Audit Firms (Supervision) Act 2006 (Wet toezicht Accountantsorganisaties)):
·         The accounting firm that is linked to the auditor was involved in compiling and/or administrating the financial information that the audit relates to in the two years before the period to which the audit relates.
·         A significant part of the financial information to which the audit relates has been compiled and/or administrated by the accounting firm to which the auditor is linked.
·         The auditor has audited the annual accounts for the same company for seven consecutive years (see Question 30).
UK (England and Wales)

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
It is a criminal offence if an auditor knowingly or recklessly allows an audit report to:
·         Include anything which is materially misleading, false or deceptive.
·         Omit certain statements which may be required.
The auditors also have a liability to the company if their work is negligent. They may be in breach of the terms of their engagement letter with the company, and of an implied term that they will act with reasonable skill and care. Shareholders as a body may also have a claim for the auditors' breach of duty and negligence. Claims by third parties against auditors may succeed if loss has been caused by relying on the audit report and there is some relationship between the third party and the auditors.
Auditors may each year agree with a company that their liability is capped at a certain amount, but the shareholders must consent to such a limitation at the AGM and a court may, in the case of a particular claim, increase the limit to a figure which is fair and reasonable. Few companies have entered into such agreements which are in any event difficult to justify as likely to promote the success of the company.
United States

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
Federal securities laws prohibit a corporation’s auditors from performing certain services for their audit clients. The following are prohibited non-audit services:
·         Bookkeeping or other services related to the accounting records or financial statements.
·         Financial information systems design and implementation.
·         Appraisal or valuation services, fairness opinions or contribution-in-kind reports.
·         Actuarial services.
·         Internal audit outsourcing services.
·         Management functions or human resources.
·         Broker or dealer, investment adviser or investment banking services.
·         Legal services and expert services unrelated to the audit.
·         Tax services during the audit engagement period to a person (or an immediate family member) in a financial reporting oversight role at an audit client generally.
·         Any other service that the PCAOB determines is impermissible.
All other non-audit activities must be approved in advance by the corporation’s audit committee.

Corporate social responsibility
33. Is it common for companies to report on social, environmental and ethical issues? Please highlight, where relevant, any legal requirements or non-binding guidance/best practice on corporate social responsibility.
France

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
In listed companies the board's report to the shareholders' meeting must include information on how the company deals with the social and environmental impacts of its business activity. For fiscal years closing after 1 January 2011, in listed companies, this board report must also detail the company’s undertakings regarding sustainable development. For certain large unlisted companies, the same details will also have to be given but the decree regarding the thresholds for being a “large” company has not been released yet.
In practice, listed companies often also publish ethical codes of conduct on social or environmental matters.
Germany

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
It is quite common for companies to report on social, environmental and ethical issues. Directive 2003/51/EC amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings provides for the disclosure of such non-financial issues and has been implemented in Germany. Under the HGB, certain large public limited companies must include information regarding non-financial performance indicators (in particular environmental and employee issues) in the company's annual management report.
India

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
In India, most leading companies are involved in corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes in areas such as education, health, creation of employment, development of skills and empowerment of weaker sections of the society.
The MCA has issued Voluntary Guidelines for Corporate Social Responsibility. These Guidelines intend to encourage best practices in corporate social responsibility and state that the CSR initiatives of Indian companies should become integral to the overall business policy and aligned with the companies' business goals.
The Netherlands

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
Failure to properly audit the accounts can result in the auditor being liable to:
·         The company for a breach of contract.
·         Third parties in tort.
The test that the courts apply is that liability of an accountant for defective or deficient audit of the accounts arises if the accountant has not acted as expected from a reasonably acting and skilled accountant in light of exercising its task with due care while observing the interests of the party relying on the accounts.
An exclusion or limitation of liability agreed by the company with the auditor does not affect the auditor's liability to third parties. Any limitation of liability will not be accepted by the courts if the auditor has been grossly negligent.
UK (England and Wales)

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Larger listed companies commonly produce a corporate social responsibility (CSR) report as part of their annual report and accounts to demonstrate their CSR credentials.
Directors must have regard to community and environmental issues and the interests of employees when considering their duty to promote the success of their company (see Question 15, General duties). The business review in the annual directors' report for a listed company must include information about the impact of the business on the environment, together with information on employees and social and community issues.
Under the Code, a board should set the company's values and standards and ensure that its obligations to its shareholders and others are understood and met. Institutional shareholders also publish guidance on disclosures which they want to see on environmental, social and governance risks, including whether these are taken into account when deciding remuneration for senior executives.
United States

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
Auditors are potentially liable to the company, shareholders and third parties if the audited accounts are inaccurate. Generally, auditors cannot limit their liability to their audit clients because these limitations are viewed as impeding their independence. It may, however, be possible for auditors to limit in their engagement letter the punitive damages an audit client can claim. An auditor can be held liable for negligent misrepresentation to third persons when the auditor knows the third persons will rely on the audit opinion or knows that the auditor's client intends for third persons to rely on the audit opinion. An auditor can be liable to shareholders for statements made either:
·         In the audit or internal controls over financial reporting opinion.
·         In the context of a securities offering by a corporation, under the 1933 Act, based on the financial statements and attestation to the corporation’s internal controls over financial reporting included in the corporation’s registration statement.

Company secretary
34. What is the role of the company secretary in corporate governance?
France

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
There is no requirement for a company secretary (secrétaire général) to be appointed. In practice it is unusual for the company secretary to sit on the board of directors.
Germany

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
German corporate law does not recognise the office of company secretary.
India

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Every company with a paid-up share capital of INR50 million must have a company secretary who does the following:
·         Maintains the corporate and statutory records of a company.
·         Sends out the notices for the board and shareholders meetings and drafts the minutes thereof.
·         Co-ordinates with the statutory auditors and the internal auditors.
The Netherlands

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
The DCC does not require companies (listed or unlisted) to report on social, environmental or ethical issues. Although not required and not based on general guidelines or best practice recommendations, many listed companies publish a report (social report) that addresses these issues. Collective labour agreements sometimes impose an obligation to publish annual social reports on certain companies in certain sectors, mostly semi-governmental or care institutions.
UK (England and Wales)

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
The company secretary is increasingly seen as the guardian of the good governance of a company and as a semi-independent adviser to the board. Under the Code, the company secretary "should be responsible for advising the board through the chairman on all governance matters". The secretary is also responsible for good information flows within the board and its committees and between senior management and the non-executive directors, as well as facilitating the induction of new directors and further training.
The Code requires that the secretary's appointment and removal should be decided on by the full board.
United States

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
Public companies often highlight their achievements related to social and ethical responsibilities in their annual reports or on their corporate websites. These disclosures are largely driven more by best practices and pressure from “watchdog” organisations than legal requirements. However, there are general disclosure requirements for certain of these matters as well as more extensive disclosure requirements on environmental matters and the potential impact of climate change.

Institutional investors and shareholder groups
35. How influential are institutional investors and other shareholder groups in monitoring and enforcing good corporate governance? Please list any such groups with significant influence in this area.
France

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Institutional investors and other shareholder groups, representing over 80% of the shareholders of CAC 40 companies, are influential in monitoring and enforcing best practice in corporate governance. Their growing strength as shareholders of French listed companies has led to the adoption of new corporate governance codes.
ADAM, led by Colette Neuville, is the main organisation in France dedicated to protecting the rights of listed companies' minority shareholders.
Germany

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Institutional investors and shareholder groups are becoming more and more influential in Germany. International institutional investors currently own more than 50% of the shares of AGs listed on the German Index DAX. International and German institutional investors (for example, DWS) influence corporate governance not only with their voting rights but also through meetings with the management and supervisory boards. Investment associations such as DSW or SdK disclose their voting behaviour and therefore influence the decisions at shareholder meetings. The European Commission is currently considering the introduction of a code of conduct for institutional investors based on the model of the UK Stewardship Code 2010.
India

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Active participation by the shareholders in monitoring and enforcing good corporate governance is still emerging in India. Institutional investors with a significant shareholding in Indian companies are developing the practice of questioning the corporate governance practices of a company.
The Netherlands

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
Dutch corporate law does not recognise the position of a company secretary. Tasks normally associated with a company secretary are the responsibility of the management board.
The CGC recognises the company secretary who assists the supervisory board in the actual organisation of the affairs of the supervisory board (information, agenda, evaluation, training programme, and so on). The company secretary is, either on the recommendation of the supervisory board or otherwise, appointed and dismissed by the management board, after obtaining the approval of the supervisory board. The company secretary can also assist the management board, and need not necessarily be an employee of the company.
UK (England and Wales)

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
The Code encourages boards to talk to their shareholders and the related Stewardship Code requires institutional shareholders to engage with the companies in which they invest. On certain corporate governance related issues such as directors' remuneration or the split of responsibilities between a chief executive and the chairman, institutional investors often make their views known and are prepared to vote against remuneration reports and directors in protest.
The following trade bodies and shareholder advisory bodies are most vocal:
·         Association of British Insurers (ABI), whose members hold nearly 15% of the shares listed on the London Stock Market.
·         National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF), whose members are also heavy investors in listed companies.
·         Pensions and Investment Research Consultants (PIRC), an independent research and advisory consultancy used by some institutional shareholders.
United States

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
The company’s general counsel (or an assistant counsel) is often also the company secretary and in this capacity:
·         Attends board meetings.
·         Assists the board with respect to corporate governance issues.
·         Prepares minutes of the meetings.
·         Maintains corporate records, among other things.

Whistleblowing
36. Is there statutory protection for whistleblowers (persons who disclose criminal activity or serious malpractice within a company)?
France

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Subject to criminal penalties, statutory auditors must disclose to the state prosecutor any criminal facts revealed to them in the context of their assignment and must inform the authorities of any fact or decision justifying their intention to refuse to grant certification for the accounts.
The Data Protection Authority (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés) (CNIL) publishes a list of guidelines giving conditions for whistleblowing mechanisms. Companies must:
·         Restrict the scope of such proceedings to a specific field (particularly accounts and anti-corruption measures).
·         Not encourage anonymous denunciations.
·         Set up a specific organisation to gather and handle alerts.
·         Inform the person concerned as soon as any evidence has been saved.
Any employee alerting either his employer or the authorities regarding corruption he discovered in the course of the performance of his duties is protected by law against any penalties, dismissal or other discriminatory measures.
Germany

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Whereas some statutory provisions for civil servants exist, there is no general statutory protection for whistleblowers in Germany. However, draft laws are being discussed. Labour courts and the constitutional court have decided that whistleblowing should not have negative effects under civil law. Until a general statutory protection is issued the legal position remains unclear.
India

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Clause 49 of the Listing Agreement imposes a non-mandatory requirement on listed companies to have a whistleblowing policy. A company may establish a mechanism for employees to report to the management concerns about unethical behaviour, actual or suspected fraud or violation of the company's code of conduct or ethics policy. This mechanism could also provide adequate safeguards against victimisation of employees who use the mechanism and direct access to the chairman of the audit committee in exceptional cases.
There is no other statute in force, which provides statutory protection for whistleblowers.
The Netherlands

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
Institutional investors and other shareholder groups monitor corporate governance, but, considering they have limited legal tools to enforce good corporate governance, their influence is limited.
Special interest groups that assert influence and monitor on behalf of shareholders are more active in monitoring corporate governance than institutional investors and shareholder groups. Examples of these special interest groups are:
·         Deminor BV.
·         Eumedion.
·         The VEB (Vereniging van effectenbezitters).
The Committee involves a number of institutional investors with its annual corporate governance review on a voluntary basis.
UK (England and Wales)

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 protects individuals who make disclosures of information in the public interest and allows for compensation to be awarded in the case of victimisation or dismissal. The information may relate to a criminal act, health and safety breaches or environmental damage, among other things.
The Code requires the audit committee to keep under review arrangements whereby staff may raise in confidence concerns on improprieties in financial reporting and other areas.
United States

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
Institutional investors and other shareholder groups have become increasingly influential in monitoring and enforcing best practices in corporate governance. Many large investors have established corporate governance guidelines that they want corporations in which they invest to follow and have published these guidelines on their websites. In addition, there are institutional advisory firms, such as Institutional Shareholder Services Inc (ISS) and Glass, Lewis & Co, LLC, which recommend how shareholders should vote on matters proposed to shareholders in corporations’ proxy statements.
In addition, traditional shareholder activists, such as large pension funds, continue to be a powerful influence and are often successful in encouraging corporations to adopt their desired practices. These institutional investors often submit shareholder proposals in corporate governance policies.
Institutional shareholders and hedge funds are increasingly engaging corporations in discussions of their perspectives on matters affecting the corporation, such as capital structure, use of capital, strategic investments and acquisitions. In 2012, 49 of the Top 100 US Companies included governance related shareholder proposals in their proxy statements (2012 S&S Corporate Governance Survey).

Reform
37. Please summarise any proposals for reform and state whether they are likely to come into force and, if so, when.
France

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
There are currently no proposals for reform.
Germany

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
On statutory level, there are currently no pending reforms in relation to corporate governance. Draft laws to protect whistleblowers are being discussed (see Question 36).
The DCGK is reviewed and updated annually. However, no updates were issued by the German Corporate Governance Code Commission in 2011 to give enough time to companies to implement the latest amendments.
One of the most discussed issues is the necessity of a fixed women's quota for corporate bodies. The German Corporate Governance Code Commission is also following the developments regarding the Green Paper on the European Corporate Governance Code issued by the European Commission.
India

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Clause 49 of the Listing Agreement is amended from time to time but there are no immediate plans to introduce a new corporate governance code.
However, SEBI has indicated in a press release of February 2011 that it proposes to make a recommendation to the MCA to "suitably amend" the Companies Bill 2009, "to disallow interested shareholders from voting on special resolutions in relation to prescribed related party transactions".
The Netherlands

Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
Greater flexibility
The Flexible Private Company legislation is aimed at making private companies more flexible. The bill was adopted and entered into force on 1 October 2012.
Before introduction of the bill, the legal regime for non-listed public companies and private companies was almost equal, with minor differences mainly regarding capital and shares. The Flexible Private Company amends the DCC to create a different legal regime for private companies with important differences. The main features of private companies include:
·         Greater structural freedom for shareholders, with the following safeguards:
o    a balanced system of protection for creditors;
o    a more effective exit right for minority shareholders who lack manoeuvrability.
·         Founders of a BV deciding themselves on the extent of its financing, if any. This means that companies will no longer be required to put together EUR18,000. The minimum amount will be one share of EUR0.01.
·         Scrapping capital protection rules.
·         Creditors will be protected by means of a payment test in which the management board must assess whether, following a proposed payment to shareholders, the company will still be able to keep paying its due and short-term debts. If insufficient care is taken in making these payments, then the managing directors can be held liable, the shareholders must return the payments received (see Question 16, Other).
·         Aside from depositary receipts, a BV will be able to issue any kind of shares as long as these shares at least have voting rights or entitlements to profit.
·         Other participations may be issued. However, they will not qualify as shares and will grant only contractual rights and not corporate rights to their holder.
·         Simplification of the dispute settlement procedure.
Management and supervision
The Amendment Management and Supervision has been adopted and will enter into force as of 1 January 2013. During development of this bill the government announced a repair law, clarifying a number of elements of the Amendment Management and Supervision and introducing additional changes to the DCC (Reparation Act). The Amendment Management and Supervision will enter into force at the same time as the Reparation Act, as of 1 January 2013.
The main changes, in addition to the amendments to the DCC, of both the Amendment Management and Supervision and the Reparation Act are as follows:
·         Introduction of the possibility of a one-tier board structure with both executive and non-executive directors. The articles of association must provide for the basis of a one-tier board. Tasks of the executive and non-executive directors in a one-tier board as well as the power to adopt resolutions regarding these tasks may be allocated under or pursuant to the articles, but the general meeting must specify whether a director is an executive or a non-executive director.
·         Allocation of the following tasks to the exclusive control of the non-executive directors:
o    the position of the chairman of the board;
o    remuneration of executive directors;
o    nomination of directors for appointment;
o    supervision of the performance of the board.
·         Allocation of tasks can contribute, in certain circumstances, to exoneration of an individual director.
·         Other tasks that have not been allocated fall within the responsibility (and therefore liability) of the management board as a whole.
·         New statutory rules on conflicts of interest of the management board (see Question 20).
·         The relationship between the company and a director will no longer be considered an employment relationship (seeQuestion 10, Directors employed by the company). However, the Amendment does not state what the nature of the relationship will be.
·         Under similar (but not the same) principles in the CGC, a person that is appointed as managing director cannot have more than two supervisory positions or be a chairman of the supervisory board with companies that are not exempted from certain prescriptions for the annual accounts due to their size. Similarly, a person that is appointed as supervisory or non-executive director cannot have more than five supervisory positions (the role of chairman of the supervisory board counts as two) with companies that are not exempted due to their size. The criteria for this exemption are (two out of three for two consecutive years):
o    asset value is no more than EUR17.5 million;
o    net turnover is less than EUR35 million;
o    yearly average number of employees is less than 250 persons.
Group companies that are part of the consolidated accounts must be taken into account.
·         A temporary part of the Amendment Management and Supervision (effective until 1 January 2016) provides for a division of positions of at least 30% men and 30% women on the management board and supervisory board. Companies that are not exempted from prescriptions for annual accounts due to their size, similar to those applicable to the quota of supervisory positions, should take the gender quota into account when appointing, nominating or drafting profiles of new directors.
Clawback legislation
To remedy trends of increasing remuneration in times of financial recession (qualified as "perverse incentives"), the government wants to combat excessive remuneration and bonuses of company directors, especially of financial and listed companies. It empowers the supervisory board to (partially or completely) claw back bonuses granted to managing directors on the basis of incorrect information about the achieved goals, and to adjust and reclaim bonuses or variable remuneration if that remuneration would be unfair and unreasonable. This is similar to the provision of the CGC for listed companies. However, it is now also applied to any public company and banks and insurance companies that are private companies, as well as financial companies under the Wft. The draft legislation is currently being amended with a focus on combating incentives for unjust opinion forming regarding take-over situations and to increase the base of support of the general meeting and works council of the remuneration policy. The draft legislation is still under debate and subject to amendments. It is unclear when this act is expected to come into force.
Corporate governance
The draft legislation on corporate governance (Amendment Corporate Governance) aims to incorporate a number of recommendations of the Committee by amending the DCC, the Wft and other legislation. The main elements of the legislative proposal concern the lowered notification threshold of shareholders of listed companies from 5% to 3%. In addition, listed companies can demand information about the identity of their shareholders from relevant institutions and intermediates. In addition, the threshold for shareholders of listed companies to put items on the agenda will be raised to 3% (see Question 25). Short positions will qualify for the calculation of shareholdings in listed companies and may trigger threshold notifications. The act has been adopted. This act is expected to come into force as of 1 July 2013.
UK (England and Wales)

Law stated as at 01-Apr-2011
Following a wide-ranging review which led to the Companies Act 2006, there are no proposals for major company law reform in the near future.
Government and regulators are consulting on changes to company reporting, with the aim of simplifying requirements so that company accounts and reports give a clearer picture of a company's business and prospects.
Following the Davies Report on Women on Boards, proposals are currently under consultation for voluntary quotas for the number of female directors on the boards of FTSE 350 companies. No decision on how this will be implemented is expected until the second half of 2011.
United States


Law stated as at 01-Dec-2012
The global financial crisis has increased activity and interest by regulators, legislators and the private sector in enhancing US public companies' corporate governance practices. In this context, the role of US public company boards continues to be under intense scrutiny. There are numerous initiatives pending in the US Congress and being considered by the SEC, including further SEC rulemaking in response to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act. Many of the proposed initiatives and recently approved rule changes are aimed at giving shareholders a greater say in the governance of the public corporations in which they invest.


No comments:

Post a Comment