Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NYSE-Listed Corporations: Your Time Is Now
Much of the waiting for final rules promulgated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the Act), including new corporate governance standards approved by the SEC on Nov. 4, 2003 for New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)-listed companies, is over. It is now time for NYSE-listed corporations to set into motion the implementation and effective management of these myriad new rules. Extensive new disclosure is required to be included in proxy statements and Forms 10-K filed on or after Jan. 15, 2004, and consequently, processes should already have been put in place to allow adequate time for companies to review the effectiveness of newly adopted procedures.
After reading the new rules and the associated commentary, it is clear that the Exchange does not take a “one-size-fits-all” approach. A great deal of interpretation and flexibility is left to each board, or in some cases, the board committees, to make determinations according their company's size, specific needs, businesses or circumstances. The most important tool to ward off an unforeseen disclosure oversight or omission is communication among the board, its committees and management. Some highlights and ideas for the implementation of the new rules follow.
Director of Independence
- Rule:
NYSE-listed companies are now required to have a majority of independent directors on the board [NYSE 303A.02(a)]. The independence of each board member must be formally determined by the board of directors pursuant to independence criteria established by the company as well as certain criteria set forth in the listing standards of the Exchange. A board may adopt and disclose categorical standards in determining independence and make a general disclosure of whether a director meets such independence criteria, without detailing the basis of the immaterial relationships between the director and the company.
- Implementation:
The composition of the board should be revisited annually after careful review of responses to the D&O questionnaires and discussions with members of the board. It is essential that the directors and officers are well acquainted with the NYSE's and board's own independence criteria so they can immediately notify the appropriate person on the board or member of company management of any relevant change of circumstance. In some cases, such communication may prevent an event from occurring that would change the independence status of a director or tip the board's balance.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?