Three years ago, there was a high-profile proxy vote battle between home appliance maker Tatung Co’s founding Lin (林) family and activist investors at the company’s annual general meeting, but the management team led by the family retained full control of the nine-member board.
Last week, another high-profile proxy vote battle emerged between the family and a group of even more aggressive activist investors, but — once again — the family-controlled management unexpectedly secured all of the seats on the board, simply because it deprived certain investors of their voting rights at a shareholders’ meeting — a move that was flawed and unprecedented, and was criticized by the Securities and Futures Investors Protection Center, which called it the biggest setback in Taiwan’s efforts to improve corporate governance.
Whether the family would lose control of the 102-year-old company was widely followed.
For some activist shareholders, a company like Tatung — which stopped distributing dividends in 2001 and has seen losses pile up in the past few years, but still has valuable real-estate assets nationwide — is a target. Some investors with big wallets had long said they wanted to topple the family and restore power to shareholders, while also calling for cost-cutting measures and asset sales.
In the face of the management crisis, Tatung could have acquired its own shares to bolster its control and boost its stock price. However, the family took a shortcut by blocking its opponents’ voting rights, which might have been the simplest and least expensive way to defy potential predators, but is a very questionable move and a step backward in terms of corporate governance.
The family last week said that the 27 investors who owned a combined 53 percent stake had been denied their voting rights because they had contravened the Business Mergers and Acquisitions Act (企業併購法), and the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例).
The family’s attorney also said that any disputes regarding voting rights should be part of a firm’s self-governance and are not subject to the deliberations of regulatory authorities.
However, only the authorities — including the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Investment Commission and the Financial Supervisory Commission — have the right to decide whether shareholders have contravened regulations, not a company itself.
Tatung’s attorney said investors could file lawsuits if they did not accept the company’s actions, suggesting that the family was prepared for a lengthy legal fight during which their grip on the company could not be contested.
In the wake of the family’s move, the Taiwan Stock Exchange changed the company’s classification to a full-delivery stock, effective on Friday, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs has demanded that the company submit the meeting minutes before it registers its new board members.
However, the authorities’ actions have not gone far enough, and inflict little pain on the company, much to the disappointment of people who expected the agencies to severely punish Tatung.
The authorities, which merely said shareholders could take legal action to seek the annulment of the board election according to the Company Act (公司法), are not only passing the buck, but are ignoring their regulatory duties.
If the Financial Supervisory Commission or the ministry cannot impose harsher sanctions on violations of corporate governance, more companies are likely to follow Tatung’s actions to protect their management rights — no matter how controversial, illegal and morally questionable that would be.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
RSS