Tag Archives: David A. Katz

BlackRock’s Voting Choice Program Expands to Accommodate Diverging Client Priorities with More Tailored Voting Guidelines

by Adam O. Emmerich, David A. Katz, Karessa L. Cain, Elina Tetelbaum, and Carmen X. W. Lu

Left to right: Adam O. Emmerich, David A. Katz, Karessa L. Cain, Elina Tetelbaum and Carmen X. W. Lu. (Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

In recent years, one of the most significant developments in corporate governance has been the adoption and expansion of voting choice programs by the largest institutional investors. Such changes have come in response to growing scrutiny and pressure from asset owners and regulators with diametrically opposed and fervently held views on the role of environmental and social issues such as climate change and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in investment decisions. In furtherance of this trend, BlackRock has now adopted separate voting guidelines tailored towards specific funds and investors.

Early this month, BlackRock released climate and decarbonization stewardship guidelines for its funds with explicit decarbonization or climate-related investment objectives or other funds where clients have instructed BlackRock to apply these guidelines to their holdings. These new guidelines will supplement BlackRock’s benchmark policies applicable to all assets under management and will focus attention on how companies have aligned their business model and strategies to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. A total of 83 funds with $150 billion of combined assets are expected to be covered by the new guidelines. BlackRock has indicated that it will apply the guidelines to those companies held by covered funds and clients who have opted into the guidelines and that produce goods and services that “contribute to real world decarbonization,” have a “carbon intensive business model” or face “outsized impacts from the low carbon transition,” based on their Scopes 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions.

Continue reading →

Delaware and Caremark: An Update

by Theodore N. Mirvis, David A. Katz, and Sebastian Niles.

Recent Delaware decisions have reminded boards of directors of the obligation to make a good faith effort to put in place a compliance system designed to help ensure that their companies operate within the bounds of the law and that their products, services, and operations do not cause harm to consumers, community members, or the environment. That duty —famously associated with the Delaware Court of Chancery’s 1996 decision in Caremark — is a core responsibility of independent directors, working in concert with company management, that requires them to make a good faith effort to identify the key compliance risks the company poses to others and faces itself, and to put in place a reasonable oversight structure to address them.
Continue reading →

Investor Advisory Committee Urges SEC to Advance Mandatory ESG Disclosures

by David M. Silk, David A. Katz, Sabastian V. Niles, and Carmen X. W. Lu

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Investor Advisory Committee (IAC) has recommended (PDF: 241 KB) that the SEC begin an “earnest” effort to update reporting requirements to include “material, decision-useful, ESG factors.” The IAC recommendation was high level and modest: it neither endorsed any particular disclosure framework nor made any specific prescriptions. Rather, recognizing the growing demand from investors and other market participants for standardized, comparable and reliable ESG data, and concluding that the SEC is best positioned to set a framework, the IAC recommendation calls on the SEC to begin outreach to investors, issuers and other market participants to develop “well-constructed, principles-based reporting.” The IAC reasoned that if the SEC does not take the lead with this type of disclosure, it is highly likely that U.S. issuers will be bound to follow standards imposed by other jurisdictions. Continue reading →

Preparing for the California Consumer Privacy Act in an Evolving Privacy Landscape

by David A. Katz, Marshall L. Miller, and Zachary M. David

Just a month after the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (PDF: 146 KB) took effect, California enacted the most expansive data privacy law in the United States to date. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2020, will impose unprecedented data obligations on companies doing business in California, requiring increased data use transparency and the observance of novel consumer data rights. Notwithstanding any GDPR compliance fatigue, companies need to take steps to prepare for compliance with the CCPA.

The CCPA was a hastily crafted legislative package passed to preempt a statewide ballot initiative set to qualify for California’s November 2018 ballot. The initiative—which promised to be even more far-reaching—was withdrawn by its ballot sponsors in exchange for passage of the CCPA. The statute remains a work in progress, with numerous legislative amendments currently under consideration and implementing regulations from the California Attorney General expected this fall. Continue reading →

FTC’s Cybersecurity Remedial Authority Limited

by David A. Katz, Marshall L. Miller, and Jonathan Siegel

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a Federal Trade Commission cease-and-desist order that required a medical laboratory company to implement a “reasonably designed” cybersecurity program after customer data on the company’s systems were compromised. LabMD, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (PDF: 548 KB). The decision represents a judicial curb on FTC enforcement efforts seeking expansive cease-and-desist orders requiring companies to maintain “reasonable” or “appropriate” data security systems in the wake of cyber incidents. By limiting the FTC to orders that prohibit specific unfair conduct, or that require specific responsive remedial action, this ruling may alter the cyber enforcement landscape and affect the balance between the FTC and companies affected by cyber incidents. Continue reading →

SEC Releases New Guidance on Cybersecurity Disclosures and Controls

by John F. Savarese, David A. Katz, Wayne M. Carlin, David B. Anders, Sabastian V. Niles, Marshall L. Miller, and Jonathan Siegel

Yesterday, in keeping with a heightened governmental focus on cybersecurity, as exemplified by the Justice Department’s formation of a new Cyber-Digital Task Force (PDF: 62 KB) earlier this week, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced new guidance on cybersecurity disclosures by public companies (the “Guidance (PDF: 139 KB)”).

Much of the Guidance tracks 2011 interpretive guidance from the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance and retains a focus on “material” cyber risks and incidents. However, the expanded details and heightened pressure to disclose indicated in the Guidance, along with its issuance by the Commission itself, signal that the SEC expects public companies to consider more detailed disclosure of cyber risks and incidents, and to maintain “comprehensive” policies and procedures in this area. The SEC is also encouraging, though not requiring, forward-leaning approaches, such as with respect to disclosures about the company’s cyber risk management programs and the engagement of the board of directors with management on cybersecurity issues. SEC Chairman Jay Clayton has also directed (PDF: 92 KB) SEC staff to monitor corporate cyber disclosures. Continue reading →

Compliance and Enforcement