header-logo header-logo

A continuing storm

01 February 2013 / Kathryn Cearns
Issue: 7546 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Will government proposals for shareholder votes on directors’ pay be effective. Kathryn Cearns reports

As the financial crisis segues into a longer term recession and sovereign debt issue, the corporate world continues to suffer an onslaught of criticism over the pay of directors of public companies. What started as specific complaints over bank executive pay has moved into broader attacks on rewards at the top of the wider corporate community. The government has proposed further legislation in this area (through amendments to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill), to facilitate the engagement of investors with the issue, but what will it achieve? Indeed, there is a question which seems further than ever from being answered: what is the appropriate level of executive pay?

The current situation

Since 2002, UK quoted companies (as defined by the Companies Act 2006, s 385) have been obliged to give an advisory vote to their shareholders on their directors’ remuneration report (DRR). This gives a means for shareholders to express their views on the overall approach to director

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll