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.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
RSS