Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
This week’s edition of Corporate highlights includes news on ESMA’s update to the MAR Q&As, Institutional Shareholder Services 2018 benchmark policy updates and three corporate governance stories on corporate reporting and combating the gender pay gap. We also have an updated Getting the Deal Though: Private M&A in 2018 practice note in our international topic area.
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has updated its Q&A document regarding the implementation of the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR). ESMA has added two new Q&As, which relate to the interpretation of Article 19 on insider dealing and the types of ‘transaction’ by a person discharging managerial responsibilities (PDMR) prohibited during a closed period.
The first of the new Q&As clarifies that the insider dealing prohibition contained in Article 14 of MAR applies during closed periods referred to in Article 19(11) of MAR in the same way as it does at any other time, and must therefore be complied with by PDMRs. It further notes that this means that when an issuer allows a PDMR to trade under Article 19(12) of MAR, the general insider dealing provisions still apply and the PDMR must always give consideration as to whether the relevant transaction would constitute insider dealing.
The second of the new Q&As: (a) clarifies that he types of ‘transaction’ by a PDMR prohibited during a closed period under Article 19(11) of MAR are the same as those types of transaction subject to the notification requirements set out under Article 19(1) of the same regulation, and (b) further notes that Article 19(11) of MAR only applies to a PDMR when conducting transactions on its own account or for the account of a third party whereas the notification of transactions required under Article 19(1) of MAR also applies to persons closely associated to a PDMR.
For further information, see LNB News 21/11/2017 48.
The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has announced that, in 2018/19, it will supplement its routine monitoring programme with a series of thematic reviews of corporate reports and audits. The objective of the supplementary reviews is to stimulate improvement in corporate reporting and auditing.
The thematic reviews will be of certain aspects of corporate reports and audits where there is particular shareholder interest, and scope for improvement and learning from good practice.
The corporate reports and audits selected for review in 2018/19 will have regard to priority sectors, these include the financial services, oil and gas, general retailers and business support services.
For further information, see LNB News 01/01/0001 2138.
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) has published its 2018 benchmark policy updates. The updated policies will generally be applied for shareholder meetings on or after 1 February 2018. The principal change is the introduction of a new policy to deal with the evolving practice of virtual shareholder meetings, where the ISS generally recommends against proposals that allow for the convening of virtual-only shareholder meetings, ie a shareholder meeting that is held exclusively through the use of online technology without a corresponding physical, in-person meeting. Other changes include ones around: (a) the policies on director overboarding, which the ISS has now clarified, (b) audit and remuneration committee composition, where the ISS has clarified that such committees should be solely comprised of independent directors, (c) threshold levels for long-term incentive plans (LTIPs) and (d) share issuances without pre-emption rights.
For further information, see LNB News 17/11/2017 94.
The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) has found a lack of clarity and substantial disparities in the FTSE-100’s corporate reporting practices on workforce-related issues. As well as this, the report also shows FTSE-100 companies are rarely willing to disclose information about their workforces and often only do so if legally required. The research, conducted with Lancaster University Management School, aims to find the composition, stability, skills and capabilities and engagement levels of pension funds investee companies’ workforce. 90% of schemes believe this information is determinant of their long-term performance.
The report shows, among other things that: (a) 43% of companies report how employees added value to company strategy, whereas in contrast 91% discussed the workforce in relation to risk management, (b) 4% of companies provide a breakdown of workforce by full-time and part-time workers and only 7% provide data or policies on their use of agency workers and (c) 64% of companies disclose mechanisms for dialogue between the workforce and senior management but only 9% reference trade union coverage.
For further information, see LNB News 20/11/2017 91.
The European Commission has outlined an action plan to ‘step up’ ongoing measures to tackle the gender pay gap in 2018/19. The plan includes eight areas the Commission intends to prioritise for action which include: (a) improving the application of the equal pay principle, (b) combating segregation in occupations and sectors, (c) better valorising women’s skills, efforts and responsibilities, (d) unveiling inequalities and stereotypes, and (e) enhancing partnerships to tackle the gender pay gap..
A third of EU Member States adopted the Evaluation report of the pay transparency recommendation in 2014, which includes measures to increase pay transparency. However these appear to be ‘entirely absent’.
In 2018, the Commission will also be addressing the need to clarify the legal provisions on equal pay that are in the Directive on equal treatment between women and men in employment and occupation (Directive 2006/54/EC).
For further information, see LNB News 21/11/2017 13.
This case, which was heard in the High Court (Chancery Division), dealt with issues including those relating to: the proper payment method for the allotment of shares, circumstances when forfeiture of allotted shares may occur, and whether on the facts of the case a shareholder might be entitled to relief under section 606 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006).
The facts of the case centred around a company, Z, which was incorporated in England and Wales. On incorporation, N had 30% of the shares in Z, which came to 360 million shares. S held 70% of the shares. Following incorporation, the whole of the ordinary share capital in a Malaysian telecommunications company, ZB, was transferred to Z. The ordinary issued shareholders of ZB included N and nominees of N.
The issue arose in the case as to whether N was obliged to pay up the 360 million shares that he had received on the incorporation of Z in cash, or whether it had been arranged or agreed that the par value would be satisfied by the transfer to Z of shares in ZB and, if it had been, what the legal consequences of that might be.
The High Court held among other matters on the facts of the case that: (a) N had been obliged to pay in cash for shares in Z, (b) Z was entitled to forfeit N’s shares, (c) Z was not estopped from asserting that N‘s shares were unpaid, (d) N’s application for relief under the CA 2006, s 606 should be dismissed, due in part to the fact N’s shares had been taken in Z on its date of incorporation, and at the date of incorporation Z had not received the ZB shares from N and (e) Z was not under an obligation to make restitution to N.
For further information, see Zavarco plc v Nasir; Nasir v Zavarco plc.
Did you know that you can set up your own personal alerts to let you receive all of our news stories on either a daily or a weekly basis? Go to your ‘News’ tab and amend your personal settings to subscribe to regular updates by clicking on either ‘Email’ or ‘RSS’ (depending on how you prefer to receive them) on the right hand side of the blue banner.
We have published the following updated practice note from our international topic area:
We have licensed the following guidance notes from ICSA:
ICSA guidance notes are widely regarded as beacons of best market practice for large listed companies. The notes are otherwise only available to ICSA members.
New Q&As added this week:
0330 161 1234