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.
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS