Law Times

August 7, 2017

The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario

Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/857884

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 7 of 15

Page 8 August 7, 2017 • LAw times www.lawtimesnews.com Bringing federal corporate governance up to speed BY MICHAEL MCKIERNAN For Law Times A long-awaited bill will bring federal corporate governance laws up to speed with standards already expected by the coun- try's securities exchanges and regulators, lawyers say. Without a major overhaul since the turn of the century, the Canada Business Corpora- tions Act hasn't kept pace with advances over the last decade in the realm of director elections and board diversity. But proposed amendments to the law in Bill C-25, which passed third reading in the House of Commons earlier this year and is currently under discussion in the Senate, could change that. "We have already seen a lot of these changes adopted in one form or other by the Toronto Stock Exchange and different provincial securities regulators, so, in some respects, the CBCA is just catching up," says Heidi Gordon, a Toronto lawyer in the business law practice group at McCarthy Tétrault LLP. Virginia Schweitzer, a corpo- rate finance partner in the Ot- tawa office of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, says one of the most significant changes under C-25 is the promise to embrace majority voting. Businesses incorporated under the CBCA still use the plurality standard, which gives shareholders just two options in uncontested elections for direc- tors. They can either vote for the nominee presented by manage- ment or they can withhold their vote. When it comes to tallying the scores, the withheld votes don't count against the nominee and are treated instead like absten- tions. Not only does it mean that directors can win elections without the support of a major- ity of shareholders, but taken to the extreme, they could secure a spot on the board with just one positive vote. And since directors are usually sharehold- ers themselves, that single vote could even be their own. Since 2014, the TSX has man- dated majority voting, which requires nominees in an uncon- tested election to get the support of most of the votes cast during a shareholder meeting in order to be accepted on to the board. In fact, Schweitzer says the CBCA version of majority vot- ing included in C-25 goes even further because of its tougher rules on when boards can over- rule the shareholder vote. "Under the TSX require- ments, voting policies are often written to allow boards discre- tion on whether to follow the vote or not," she says. In practice, that means cor- porations listed on the TSX have been able to treat the votes as ad- visory, and some have appointed nominees anyway in the face of an apparent rejection by share- holders. If C-25 passes as written, it would virtually remove that op- tion from the hands of boards by prescribing the very narrow circumstances in which a minor- ity of positive votes can still result in a director's appointment. The only way boards could carry out an appointment in the absence of a majority vote would be in circumstances where they were needed to meet the 25-per-cent Canadian content quota or to meet the legislated minimum of two non-employee or non-officer directors on a board. "These rules are much more absolute," Schweitzer says. The bill would also ban slate voting for many corporations operating under the CBCA, a practice that sees the board pre- sented to voters for approval as a single package, allowing poten- tially objectionable directors to slip through in the crowd. Canada stood almost alone in the developed world for its widespread use of slate voting until the TSX barred its compa- nies from running elections that way in 2012, and C-25 would cement the move away from the practice. "Instead, you will have to have individual votes, for or against each director, as opposed to vot- ing for the entire slate," Schweitzer says. She says the C-25 proposals on board diversity are also po- tentially more robust than ones that already exist under pro- vincial securities regulations. Assuming it passes, the new CBCA would require publicly traded corporations to make an annual disclosure on diversity among its board members and senior management, mirroring the rules adopted by almost all provincial securities regulators. However, draft regulations released by the federal gov- ernment suggest the CBCA "comply-or-explain" model will go further than the provincial versions, which only apply to gender. The draft rules indicate the federal act will require dis- closures on a second category of diversity "other than gender." "It doesn't go as far as imposing a quota, but the definition goes much broader than we have seen so far in Canada," Schweitzer says. "There is definitely an increased focus on diversity in the corpo- rate world since the CBCA was last amended." In a submission on the bill, several practice area sections of the Canadian Bar Association welcomed the amendments "as a first step to encourage greater diversity in Canada's corporate leadership." However, the CBA also warned that the lack of a defini- tion in the bill of the term "di- versity" could cause problems. "Vague requirements create uncertainty, making it difficult for corporations to comply, and hindering effective monitoring and oversight," the submission reads. Gordon says some companies incorporated under the CBCA are worried about more than the vagueness of the regulations on diversity. "Some have welcomed the idea, and others feel corporate legislation and regulations are not the place for this type of measure," she says. LT FOCUS ON Corporate/Commercial Law Virginia Schweitzer says one of the most significant changes under federal Bill C-25 is the promise to embrace majority voting. FOCUS canadianlawyermag.com/surveys Survey is open August 8 - September 11 What's your biggest challenge managing in-house? Growth of your organization? Recruiting? Legal costs? Weigh in on these and other issues. The annual Canadian Lawyer Corporate Counsel Survey Untitled-2 1 2017-07-27 2:26 PM

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Law Times - August 7, 2017