Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2020: Economic Downturn

Jan 22, 2020

Reading Time : 3 min

To prepare for these challenges, directors should be familiar with general legal and practical principles associated with operating in a low liquidity environment.

Evaluate Evolving Conditions

Directors should ensure that informational systems and controls are reviewed and established to ensure that management provides timely, accurate and complete financial and operational information to board members. Corporate directors should carefully review any information provided by management and insist upon clear and unambiguous answers to any questions raised by such review and consider whether the timing and content of board updates should be modified to address the evolving situation.

Any early signs of financial distress should be addressed with appropriate operational and reporting changes, and may merit an evaluation of available restructuring options with independent advisors.

Understand Fiduciary Duties

While directors are undoubtedly aware of their fiduciary duties, they should also consider that a weak economic environment may enlarge the group of stakeholders with standing (and motivation) to bring a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

In Delaware, for example, creditors gain standing to bring such a claim when a company becomes insolvent as judged by the company’s balance sheet. Against the backdrop of such suits and the shifting group of stakeholders to whom corporate directors may become responsible, they should rely on external counsel to provide advice on the scope of their duties.

An important defense against allegations of breached fiduciary duty lies in scheduling regular board meetings and keeping well-developed records showing the board’s consideration of various alternatives and input from advisors.

Review Access to Capital and Existing Restrictions

To decrease the likelihood of a liquidity crunch or crisis, corporate directors should understand the contractual restrictions imposed on their business’s ability to raise capital. These include limitations arising from lending agreements or agreements with shareholders.

Further, debt covenants under financing documents should be continually reviewed to provide warning signs regarding defaults or thin cushions, and/or to prompt early negotiations in the event of changing financial conditions.

Retain Independent Advisors

Retaining experienced, independent advisors in advance of a financial emergency can help preserve enterprise value and prevent worst-case scenarios. Restructuring attorneys, turnaround advisors and financial advisors each have a role in navigating complicated financial situations and creating or evaluating potential restructuring plans.

Review Terms of D&O Insurance

Working with knowledgeable subject matter experts, corporate directors should carefully review their directors and officers (D&O) insurance policies to identify provisions which may be implicated by financial distress or a potential restructuring.

Side A coverage, which provides direct coverage for individual directors and officers when the company is legally unable or unwilling to indemnify them, may be reviewed to:

  • Identify whether Side A payments have priority over payments under Side B (reimbursement to a company for indemnity payments it makes on behalf of directors or officers) or Side C (payments to the company for securities claims) coverages
  • Ensure that any proceeds related to Side A coverage are explicitly the property of the covered director
  • Confirm that such coverage will not be impacted or rescinded by a potential restructuring transaction.

It’s also a good idea for corporate directors to examine the coverage exceptions to insured-versus-insured (IvI) exclusions to determine whether potential suits commenced in connection with a restructuring transaction would be subject to the exclusion (and thus exempted from coverage). And corporate directors should consider seeking appropriate tail coverage in the event of a restructuring transaction that may trigger the termination of a D&O policy.

Plan an Orderly Restructuring

Transactions that impact a company’s capital structure can take a variety of forms and should be specifically tailored to fit a business’ needs and circumstances. Whether implemented as an out-ofcourt transaction (such as a debt-for-equity exchange or capital commitment transaction) or a Chapter 11 filing (prepackaged, pre-arranged or otherwise), restructuring transactions can take significant time and resources to plan, negotiate and implement.

Out-of-court negotiations with creditors and stakeholders can be contentious and complicated, while in-court deliberations will be subject to public and judicial scrutiny. As a practical matter, corporate directors should plan for restructuring transactions to take several months to complete. This timeframe, in the context of immediate capital needs and possibly worsening financial situations, makes early preparation and a clear, orderly process essential to maintaining control throughout a restructuring transaction.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.