After nearly three years of drafting, discussion and negotiation, lawmakers on Friday passed amendments to the Company Act (公司法) into law.
Billed as the largest revision of the act in 17 years, the amended law aims to create a safer and more flexible business environment in Taiwan, making changes in areas such as the disclosure of shareholder information, the arrangement of dividend distributions and procedures regarding board and shareholder meetings.
In addition, the revised act is intended to improve corporate governance while bolstering Taiwan’s mechanisms to prevent money laundering.
The amendments have sparked heated debate from all sides over the past year and still received mixed reviews after becoming law over the weekend.
An amendment to Article 173-1 of the act stipulates that shareholders who have held more than a 50 percent stake in a company for three months or longer are eligible to call a special general meeting. Business groups said that the article could trigger proxy fights and create uncertainty over the control of companies, or even lead to hostile takeovers, while others praised the amendment, as it allows dissident shareholders to take on companies that are poorly run, reject reforms and are controlled by long-serving board members.
The amendment has also created uncertainty for publicly listed companies as to which law governs extraordinary shareholder meetings, as Article 43-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act (證券交易法) requires that shareholders controlling at least half of a listed company’s shares through a public tender offer obtain approval from the board to call such a meeting.
Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) Chairman Wellington Koo (顧立雄) on Saturday clarified the issue, saying that eligible shareholders could choose to follow whichever law they prefer, as they face two different requirements: One allows shareholders who have held a majority stake for more than three months to call a special general meeting without requesting permission, while the other does not stipulate a minimum length of ownership, but demands that shareholders gain permission from the board.
Whichever law dissident shareholders or activist investors follow, there is an increased chance that they will seek ways to oust longtime board members and force management to make changes.
The bill also lowered the threshold for minority shareholders to request that a court-appointed inspector examine the operational and financial condition of the company if alleged misconduct by board members is found to harm shareholders’ interests.
Clearly, the government intends to change the rules of the game, enabling shareholders to put pressure on management and giving managers no place to hide. Longtime board members will not be able to relax until they put their job on the line by setting out new strategies or reform plans.
Media and critics have dubbed the revised Article 173-1 the “Tatung clause,” in reference to proxy fights between activist investors and home appliance maker Tatung Co’s founding Lin (林) family over the years. However, the revised article is actually an “empowering clause” that supports shareholders, helping them protect their interests and exert more influence over companies, versus Article 203-1, which entitles board members to call board meetings to debate issues or make decisions.
Major shareholders and board members could work together to increase their holdings and bolster their control over companies, so worries about an increase in proxy fights, while legitimate, should not be exaggerated. Rather, such concerns reflect the Taiwanese business environment’s persistent bias in favor of existing board members, major shareholders and big business.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US