This blog by Cooley’s Cydney Posner describes the circumstances surrounding this new no-action response given to H&R Block a few weeks ago (also see this blog from Ning Chiu). It involves a proposal from Jim McRitchie asking the company to amend its existing proxy access bylaw provisions – and the company sought to exclude the proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(10)’s “substantially implemented” basis.
Corp Fin did not allow the exclusion – but that doesn’t necessarily mean the tactic of a company implementing their own version of proxy access to stave off a possible shareholder proposal on the topic is dead. So Corp Fin isn’t back to “Square #1,” as explained in this blog. And here’s the conclusion from Cydney’s blog:
Arguably, depending on your point of view, the practical effect of the staff’s new position may be to repudiate the prior line of 14a-8(i)(10) no-action letters issued commencing in February, even though it is not technically doing so. Whether this position will be repeated or could possibly be anomalous remains to be seen. In any event, given the proponent involved, companies that adopted versions of proxy access that McRitchie et al would view as “proxy access lite” may well be seeing new proposals for revisions to proxy access bylaws.
Audit Report Reform: The PCAOB’s Resource Page
Yesterday, the PCAOB launched this resource page dedicated solely to its re-proposal regarding audit reports. The format is friendly for mobile – but a little difficult to navigate on a laptop as the font is huge and requires much scrolling. Scrolling feels natural on a smart phone; not so much for a laptop…
Conflict Minerals: IPSA Uncertainty Likely to Carry Over to ’17
Here’s the intro from this note from Elm Sustainability Partners:
With the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision earlier this year to forego an appeal to the US Supreme Court of NAM v. SEC, much uncertainty hangs around the requirement for filers of Form SD and Conflict Minerals Reports (CMRs) to conduct an Independent Private Sector Audit (IPSA) for filing year 2016. We expected the question to be resolved once and for all before the end of CY2016. However, that now appears doubtful.
As of last Friday, a judge had not yet been assigned to the case in the lower court that is to provide the SEC direction. And the SEC’s Flex Agenda published June 6, 2016 does not list the matter as a rule making activity currently planned by the Commission.
So for the time being, it appears the the CY2016 IPSA trigger will be identical to CY2015 – the IPSA is necessary only when an issuer voluntarily chooses to classify a product as “DRC Conflict Free” or “not DRC Conflict Free” after due diligence. It is important to understand that when the Reasonable Country of Origin (RCOI) indicates that there is no reason to believe that tin, tantalum, tungsten or gold in a product did originate – or may have originated – in the Covered Countries, only a Form SD is to be filed and no IPSA is required in such instances.
Here’s a scary piece from Carl Hagberg’s “Shareholder Service Optimizer”:
The SEC’s Enforcement Division has issued wide-ranging subpoenas to the four largest ADR banks – and to many of their top officials, we are told – demanding detailed information going all the way back to 1997, according to our source – the chief whistleblower, who, while wanting to be anonymous for now, knows the ADR business inside and out.
The Treasury Department and the FBI are also heavily involved – investigating the use of ADR programs to launder money on a huge, global scale according to our source, who has provided investigators with a detailed “roadmap” as to exactly how it’s done. The Senate Banking Committee is following this closely too, with one staffer reportedly sending a message to regulators that “We will not be looking for millions in fines and penalties, but billions.”
All four banks have ‘lawyered up’ with four of the country’s biggest and best-known law firms, who are scrambling like mad to reach a settlement and avert disclosures that are likely to rock the banks in a major way. More class action suits will be filed soon, according to our source, revolving around foreign exchange transactions that were systematically rigged in favor of the big-four players – and the big-four ADR banks recently settled massive IRS claims for back taxes on their ill-gotten, and we guess, previously concealed gains – “for pennies on the dollar.”
And oh yes, a book – and a movie – entitled “ADRmageddon” are on the drawing boards as we write this.
For over 25 years we have been asking why there are ADRs anymore – since issuers of securities are perfectly capable of issuing ‘ordinary shares’ – and easily making any and all payouts in currency of the owners’ choosing, based on current, and well-publicized exchange rates.
The answer is a simple one: ADR banks have been charging excessive fees for buying, selling and ‘lending’ ADRs, short-changing owners on the exchange rates and ‘nicking’ the proceeds a second and sometimes a third time with fees and surcharges…because they make tons of money this way and have been blithely getting away with it….until now.
We think the upcoming revelations may well turn out to be an Armageddon for ADRs…and may do serious harm to the already tarnished reputations of several major banks – which we used to expect would deal with clients fairly, and honestly…so do stay tuned.
Our August Eminders is Posted!
We have posted the August issue of our complimentary monthly email newsletter. Sign up today to receive it by simply inputting your email address!
Below is some news from Shas Das of Hunton & Williams. Shas recently joined Hunton from the PCAOB, most recently serving as an Associate Director in the PCAOB’s Office of International Affairs, where he negotiated bilateral agreements providing for cross-border inspections with Germany, Denmark, Greece. He also served as the PCAOB’s chief liaison with the Chinese regulatory authorities for five years. Recently, Shas was reading through some PCAOB releases and noticed some fine print in the EU’s recent adequacy directive that suggests the EU would like to move away from joint inspections with the PCAOB in favor of US authorities recognizing the work of their European counterparts:
Two weeks ago, the PCAOB issued a “Staff Inspection Brief” outlining the scope, focus, and objectives of its ongoing 2016 inspections of auditors of public companies. While the inspection brief addressed topics ranging from recurring or common audit deficiencies found during previous inspections cycles (including auditing internal control over financial reporting, assessing and responding to risks of material misstatement, auditing accounting estimates), to cybersecurity risks, the document conspicuously avoids any reference to the fact that on that very same day, the European Commission renewed the PCAOB’s adequacy decision for an additional six years (until 2022), thereby allowing the PCAOB continued access to the audit work papers of its EU counterparts, but notably, unlike previous EU Directives, it provides that joint inspections will only be conducted in “exceptional circumstances.”
With limited exception, the PCAOB conducts its inspections of registered audit firms based overseas jointly with the home country regulator; in other words, the PCAOB will obtain access to audit work papers and relevant audit firm personnel in coordination with its EU counterparts – and, in most if not all cases, will share its inspections findings with its EU audit regulator counterpart. Typically, such inspections are facilitated through the execution of Statement of Protocols with the EU audit oversight authority in the jurisdiction where the audited firm registered with the PCAOB is located – these SOPs govern how the inspection will be conducted and generally reflect the product of extensive negotiations, balancing the importance of the PCAOB’s need to conduct its inspections in a manner that enables it to achieve its audit oversight objectives pursuant to Section 104 of Sarbanes-Oxley with the local law of the EU member state. The last such agreement negotiated by the PCAOB with any foreign regulator (EU or otherwise) was executed in September 2015 (with Luxembourg).
Before any EU member state or audit authority can transfer audit work papers to a foreign authority, under applicable EU law, the foreign authority must be deemed “adequate.” The term “adequacy” refers to the ability of a third country authority to fulfill the requirements set out in the EU’s Statutory Audit Directive (2006/43/EC) and, in particular, its capacity to enter into reciprocal working arrangements with the EU Member States with regard to the exchange of audit working papers or other relevant documents between competent authorities. This also covers the preservation of the confidentiality of any such documents that authorities from third countries may receive from EU Member States.
Notably, the EU’s recently issued adequacy decision that relates to the PCAOB provides for the following:
“(17) The ultimate objective of cooperation on audit oversight between Member States’ competent authorities and the competent authorities of the United States is to reach mutual reliance on each other’s oversight systems. In that way, transfers of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms and of inspection or investigation reports should become the exception. Mutual reliance would be based on the equivalence of auditor oversight systems of the Union and of the United States [emphasis added].
(18) The competent authorities of the United States intend to further evaluate the auditor oversight systems in the Member States before deciding to fully rely on the oversight performed by their competent authorities. Therefore, the mechanism of cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States and the competent authorities of the United States should be reviewed to assess the progress made towards reaching mutual reliance on each other’s oversight systems. For that reason, this Decision should be applicable for a limited period of time.
(19) Notwithstanding the time limitation, the Commission will monitor developments in the supervisory and regulatory cooperation on a regular basis. This Decision will be reviewed as appropriate in light of the supervisory and regulatory changes in the Union and in the United States, taking into account available sources of relevant information. That review may lead to the withdrawal of the declaration of adequacy [emphasis added].”
The EU has previously adopted decisions recognizing the adequacy of the auditor oversight systems in Canada, Japan, Switzerland, and most recently Brazil, the Dubai International Financial Centre, Guernsey, Indonesia, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Malaysia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. In addition to the aforementioned countries, the EU has declared auditor public oversight systems in the following jurisdictions to be “equivalent” to the EU Member States’ auditor public oversight systems, thus allowing EU members states to exempt the auditors and audit firms located in these jurisdictions from the requirements to be registered and subject to EU oversight: Australia, Canada, China, Croatia, Japan, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea and Switzerland. Though the US audit oversight system has also been deemed equivalent with the EU audit oversight system, this decision has been time-limited due to the fact that the US has not, in the past, fully supported the goal of reaching mutual, full reliance. Nevertheless, in keeping with the latest extension of the adequacy decision for six years, it now appears that the PCAOB (with the SEC’s concurrence) has determined to proceed along a path of full, mutual reliance that may result in very few joint inspections conducted by the PCAOB in the EU during the coming years – raising questions about the continued efficacy of the PCAOB’s international inspections program.
The PCAOB has bilateral cooperation agreements with 22 foreign audit regulators, of which 13 are located in Europe (including Norway and Switzerland). The ramifications of the EU’s renewal of the adequacy decision, and more specifically the severe limitations placed on the PCAOB’s access to audit work papers and ability to conduct joint inspections, could have far reaching effects and negatively impact the PCAOB’s long-standing negotiations with the Chinese regulators regarding access to sensitive audit work papers of Chinese companies listed in the U.S.
It will be interesting to see how the Chinese regulators and audit firms view the new terms of engagement between the PCAOB and the EU on cross-border inspections, particularly when taking into account references in the EU’s adequacy decision that “cooperation should always take place under the conditions set out in Article 47(2) of Directive 2006/43/EC and in this Decision, in particular as regards the need to respect sovereignty, confidentiality and reciprocity [see paragraph 11 of the EU’s Adequacy Decision].”
More on “The Mentor Blog”
We continue to post new items daily on our blog – “The Mentor Blog” – for TheCorporateCounsel.net members. Members can sign up to get that blog pushed out to them via email whenever there is a new entry by simply inputting their email address on the left side of that blog. Here are some of the latest entries:
– Directors Survey: Internal Audit Makes The Grade
– Compliance: Increased Regulation Cited as #1 Challenge
– Corporate Human Rights Benchmark Launched
– IT/Cyber Oversight: Guidance for Directors
– Standalone Board Risk Committee Considerations
A few days ago, as noted in this blog, Corp Fin revised Regulation S-K CDI 140.02 – and withdrew Reg S-K CDI 240.04. Revised CDI 140.02 now states:
Question: If a selling security holder is not a natural person, how does a registrant satisfy the obligation in Item 507 of Regulation S-K to disclose the nature of any position, office, or other material relationship that the selling security holder has had within the past three years with the registrant or any of its predecessors or affiliates?
Answer: In addition to disclosing any material relationships between the registrant and the selling security holder entity, the registrant must disclose the Item 507 information about any persons (entities or natural persons) who have control over the selling entity and who have had a material relationship with the registrant or any of its predecessors or affiliates within the past three years. In such case, the registrant must identify each such person and describe the nature of any relationships. [July 26, 2016]
As part of my “Big Legal Minds” podcast series – check out this 11-minute podcast, during which Shannon Kinney of ConocoPhillips describes how to best disclose a compensation committee’s decision to exercise negative discretion for an annual incentive plan, including:
1. How has the company improved the format & usability of the proxy in recent years?
2. Can you give us the background of how the compensation committee applied negative discretion for its annual incentive plan?
3. How did the company decide to describe its decision to apply negative discretion (pages 49-52 of the 2016 proxy)?
Remember that these podcasts are also available on iTunes or Google Play (use the “My Podcasts” app on your iPhone and search for “Big Legal Minds”; you can subscribe to the feed so that any new podcast automatically downloads…
Regulation A+: Secondary Market
As noted in this blog by Steve Quinlivan, the SEC has posted this presentation about the secondary market for Regulation A+ offerings – and in this commentary, SEC Chair White noted there have been over 60 Regulation Crowdfunding offerings so far with a total of $4.4 million in funds committed – and 12 funding portals registered with the SEC and become members of FINRA.
With all the proxy statements now filed for this proxy season, we will have to continue to wait for our first “Schedule 14N.” You will recall that a Schedule 14N must be filed by any shareholder – from outside the company – who nominates a director using the proxy access process. With over 240 companies having adopted proxy access (all of them listed in the appendix of this memo), it could be soon that we see one since it’s been over 5 years from when Schedule 14N was “born.”
Poll: When Will We See Our 1st “Schedule 14N”?
But I’ll let you make your own guess for when we see that first one in this anonymous poll:
As the transcript for our recent webcast – “Non-GAAP Disclosures: The SEC Speaks!” – continues to be wildly popular since it featured Corp Fin’s Chief Accountant Mark Kronforst & heavyweights Meredith Cross and Dave Lynn, we continue to post a ton of memos about Corp Fin’s new CDIs – as well as this new non-GAAP tool for audit committees.
As part of its focus on non-GAAP measures, Corp Fin has questioned whether companies (& their audit committees) have implemented appropriate controls regarding the disclosure of such measures. This memo discusses the types of controls that could be established and provides high-level examples of control issues and related responses for consideration in connection with non-GAAP measures.
General Motors recently tweeted earnings results including adjusted results. And here’s a few MarketWatch pieces entitled:
Non-GAAP Measures: A Review of Old Corp Fin Comments
This Audit Analytics blog analyzes Corp Fin comments in the non-GAAP area from a period – 2014-2015 – before the new CDIs were issued. These comments don’t necessarily reflect what Corp Fin is focusing on now given the new guidance…
More on our “Proxy Season Blog”
We continue to post new items regularly on our “Proxy Season Blog” for TheCorporateCounsel.net members. Members can sign up to get that blog pushed out to them via email whenever there is a new entry by simply inputting their email address on the left side of that blog. Here are some of the latest entries:
– Japan: First Signs of Activism
– Investor Policies: Director Age & Tenure Limits
– NYC Pension Funds: Proxy Voting Guidelines Updated
– State Street Global Advisors: How It Voted
– Who Decides Whether a Shareholder Has Complied With An Advance Notice Bylaw?
As part of my “Big Legal Minds” podcast series – check out this one-hour podcast, during which Lynn Turner describes his diverse – and fascinating – career, as well as offers his perspectives on the state of things, including:
1. How did you wind up becoming an accountant?
2. How did working as a CFO prepare you to serve as the SEC’s Chief Accountant?
3. What was it like serving as the SEC’s Chief Accountant?
4. What was your role in drafting Sarbanes-Oxley?
5. What was it like working for Glass Lewis?
6. What are the things about the auditing profession that drive you the most crazy?
7. Does the PCAOB enforce its regulations sufficiently?
8. What are the aspects of teaching that you like the most?
Remember that these podcasts are also available on iTunes or Google Play (use the “My Podcasts” app on your iPhone and search for “Big Legal Minds”; you can subscribe to the feed so that any new podcast automatically downloads…
Wes Bricker Named SEC’s Interim Chief Accountant
As noted in this press release, the SEC has tapped Wes Bricker to serve as the interim Chief Accountant. Jim Schnurr is recovering from a serious bike accident – so Wes was promoted from Deputy. Meanwhile, Deputy Chief Accountant Brian Croteau is leaving the SEC…
Conflict Minerals: Year Three Brings Better Reporting
This blog from Audit Analytics has some nifty charts – and these kinds of stats:
– By the May 31 deadline, 1,225 Forms SD were filed, representing a decline of about 4% from 2015 and 8% from 2014.
– In 2016, only 19 companies (about 1.8% of all Form SD filers) provided IPSAs. While this is a substantial increase relative to the four IPSAs filed in 2014, the number is still very low. Of the 19 companies to provide an IPSA, seven were “Conflict Free,” five were dual opinions, and seven were “Conflict Undeterminable.”
The effort by 13 prominent business leaders – including Warren Buffett & Jamie Dimon – and large institutional investors to draw up a set of “Commonsense Corporate Governance Principles” is complete. Not an easy thing to do; getting folks to agree on anything these days. Some participants in the process dropped out along the way, including Fidelity and Wellington Asset Management.
As could be expected, most of the principles are high level – and address topics that have been commonsense (and mainstream) for quite some time (although a few of them are emerging ideas, like rotating committee chairs and lead directors – and some are controversial, like limiting dual-class voting). So the real news probably is what is missing from them – as those are the items that shareholders & management seem to still disagree about.
These memos summarize the principles (also see this blog). Here’s a statement from CII that welcomes the principles – but then goes on to note they should have gone further on shareholder rights. See this DealBook piece…and then there’s this “Idiot’s Guide to Mocking ‘Common Sense’“…
SEC Amends ALJ Rules
As noted in these memos posted in our “SEC Enforcement” Practice Area, with the SCOTUS portion of the ALJs saga behind us regarding the SEC’s use of administrative law judges for its enforcement proceedings, the SEC has adopted changes to its rules of practice for administrative proceedings last week. Here’s the intro from this blog by Steve Quinlivan:
The SEC has approved a final rule amending its rules of practice for administrative proceedings. The changes make incremental improvements but fall short of what is necessary to make the proceedings more fair. Among other things, the final rules would adjust the timing of administrative proceedings and give parties additional opportunities to take depositions of witnesses.
Davis Polk’s New Podcast Series! Linda Thomsen on “Directors as SEC Enforcement Targets”
I’m very excited to report that Davis Polk has joined my “Big Legal Minds” with their own podcast series devoted to governance topics! Their series is called “Before the Board” and available on iTunes or by RSS feed. Or it can be accessed on the firm’s site – the 1st episode is a 20-minute interview conducted by Joe Hall with Linda Chatman Thomsen (now with Davis Polk & former SEC Enforcement Chief) about recent trends in SEC enforcement actions involving directors. Awesome!
Recently, I blogged about how it wasn’t clear what Congress would mean if it passed a budget bill that wouldn’t allow the SEC to conduct rulemaking or enforce certain rules. I indicated that the SEC hasn’t been faced with that type of law before. But I have since discovered that other federal agencies have – and that Congress has been playing this game with other agencies more often these days. For example, Congress recently limited the US Consumer Product Safety Commission’s ability to use appropriated funds to proceed with proposed rulemaking.
Without getting too far into the arcane details of federal appropriations law (for that, see this report), agencies are allowed to use appropriated funds only for “the objects for which the appropriations were made, except as otherwise provided by law.” There is a multi-part “purpose test” that is applied. If Congress makes a specific use of funds impermissible, then appropriated funds may not be spent for the prohibited purpose. The risk of spending appropriated funds in violation of Congressional limitations, among other things, is a possible “Antideficiency Act” violation, which must be reported to Congress and the President – and which could result in disciplinary action, civil and possible criminal penalties for the employees responsible for the violation.
An agency subject to this sort of limitation (if enacted and signed into law) must restrict its Staff from spending time on the prohibited activities. Just how far that agency has to go will depend on the exact language of the limitation. If drafted appropriately, the limitation could preclude a government employee from spending any type of time on the prohibited actions. In other words, Congress could prevent an agency’s staff from spending any time on implementation, enforcement or interpretation of a rule – even if that rule has been promulgated in final form (whether or not the effective date has arrived).
The bigger point is that this technique – which is quite controversial & has resulted in Presidential veto threats – is not unique to the SEC. And it’s increasingly being advocated by any number of special interest groups, depending on the agency and the substance. Hat tip to Stephanie Tsacoumis for her help sorting this out!
SEC’s Revolving Door: Will It End If Clinton Wins?
The reform-minded wing of the Democratic Party, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren, takes credit for pushing an affirmation of the classic political adage, “personnel is policy”, into the platform. The platform says it will nominate regulators who aren’t beholden to the industries they regulate, crack down on the revolving door between the private sector and Wall Street, and ban golden parachutes for those taking government jobs.
So does that spell a Wall Street-free administration if Hillary Clinton is elected? Maybe not. Former Commodity Futures Trading Commission chairman Gary Gensler, now the chief financial officer of the Hillary Clinton campaign, is frequently mentioned as a possible Treasury Secretary candidate in a Clinton administration despite being a former executive of Goldman Sachs GS.
Binding Say-on-Pay: Finally Coming to the UK?
You might recall that the concept of non-binding say-on-pay came from across the pond. The British had implemented say-on-pay a decade before the US. More recently, the UK has been close to adopting binding say-on-pay (see this blog that I wrote on CompensationStandards.com) – and even the European Commission proposed it a few years back.
In the wake of Brexit, it looks like the new UK Prime Minister Theresa May is seeking a number of governance reforms – as noted in this excerpt from the Glass Lewis blog:
On July 11 Theresa May launched her subsequently successful campaign to become leader of the Conservative Party and, by extension, Prime Minister of the UK, under the slogan “A country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few”. Having outlined her broader vision for the economy, Ms. May’s speech quickly turned to matters of corporate governance under the themes of “Putting people back in control” and “Getting tough on corporate irresponsibility”.
In detailing her priorities, Ms. May vowed to push for employee representatives on boards and to make shareholder votes on executive remuneration legally binding, moves which are likely intended to address growing inequality and perceived public distrust in the establishment, business and politicians.
Our Executive Pay Conferences: 10% Reduced Rate: We have posted the registration information for our popular conferences – “Tackling Your 2017 Compensation Disclosures: Proxy Disclosure Conference” & “Say-on-Pay Workshop: 13th Annual Executive Compensation Conference” – to be held October 24-25th in Houston and via Live Nationwide Video Webcast. Here are the agendas – 20 panels over two days.
Discounted Rates – Act by September 9th: Huge changes are afoot for executive compensation practices with pay ratio disclosures on the horizon. We are doing our part to help you address all these changes – and avoid costly pitfalls – by offering a special early bird discount rate to help you attend these critical conferences (both of the Conferences are bundled together with a single price). So register by September 9th to take advantage of the 10% discount.
This proxy season, a number of companies were successful in excluding proxy access shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8(i)(10) – the “substantially implemented” exclusion – by adopting proxy access bylaws of their own. Proxy access proposals are typically considered substantially implemented if the ownership threshold and holding period match what is requested by the proposal, even though other aspects may differ (i.e. number of nominees, limits on number of shareholders in a group, etc.).
As noted in a blog by Steve Quinlivan, frequent proponent Jim McRitchie has suggested that companies that went this route should be prepared to receive binding proxy access proposals next year. In a lengthy post on his own blog, Jim said:
Entrenched boards and managers who think they have won by gaming the system with unworkable proxy access bylaws will find only temporary ‘relief’ from shareholder action by filing for an exemption under Staff’s newly defined definition of ‘substantial implementation.’ We will be back next year and every year after that if necessary. Binding bylaw resolutions are much more prescriptive than precatory proposals. Gaming the system is likely to come back to haunt you because your hands will be tied when those resolutions pass… and they will.
Whether these proposals will actually be successful is yet to be seen. Companies will fight much harder to keep out a binding bylaw proposal – and given the stakes, the Staff tends to be pickier when it comes to the language of binding proposals. If they do make it past the no-action process, it will be interesting to see whether these proposals can muster enough shareholder enthusiasm at companies that have already implemented proxy access on their own. Also see this blog by Davis Polk’s Ning Chiu…
Inline XBRL: First Filing Made with SEC
We have our pioneer! This blog by Steve Quinlivan explains how Lennar became the first company to make a filing with the SEC using inline XBRL…
Director Conflicts: How Might Personal Charitable Efforts Impinge on Board Duties?
This Fortune article entitled “Why Facebook Should Ask Peter Thiel to Resign from the Board” raises some interesting issues. Here’s an excerpt that gets to the heart of the matter:
Thiel has said that he considers the lawsuits he funded against Gawker to be an act of philanthropy. But any board member engaging in activities, including charitable efforts, that conflicts with the company’s business needs to exit. So, did Thiel inform Facebook’s board that he was secretly funding lawsuits against one of the social media firm’s clients and suppliers? Or did the board find out from a Facebook newsfeed? Peter Thiel and Facebook did not respond to requests seeking comment.
Then again, Facebook may not care very much about corporate governance. After all, it has one controlling shareholder in Mark Zuckerberg. It has granted fewer voting rights to one class of shares and plans to issue a new class of shares that have no voting power. (A shareholder suit has been filed related to the new class.) It has directors with past relationships, like those between Thiel and Marc Andreessen (PayPal). And the disclosures of directors’ backgrounds on its website are grossly out of date. (Just one example: Marc Andreessen left the eBay board in 2014.)
But when board members agree to serve on a corporate board, they are supposed to act as fiduciaries, putting the company first. That includes not engaging in activities that could harm the company’s business.
