Strasbourg, 15/03/2007 (Agence Europe) - At the beginning of the week, during the plenary debate on the oral question she posed on behalf of the EP's economic and monetary affairs committee on the “one share one voice” principle, Pervenche Berès declared: “Why fund a study to the tune of €450,000 when we already know the result? What's the point of helping lobbies finance their overblown arguments from the results of a study sponsored by the European Commission?” She added that “those who successfully appealed for a study to be drafted on 'one share, one vote' are well known to have, on a number of occasions, spoken in favour of this very principle”.
In September 2006, the European Commission commissioned the Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and the European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) to carry out an external study on how proportionality between capital and corporate inspections is applied in member states, and how national regulation impacts on investors' decisions. Commissioner Markos Kyprianou, who replaced his colleague Commissioner McCreevy, responsible for the internal market, declared, “the study will cover multiple voting rights, non-voting preferential shares, company pyramids and other instruments which fulfil the same function of protecting controlling shareholders, and the study will include golden shares and the attribution of special rights for public authorities”. McCreevy defended the “one share, one vote” principle on a number of occasions, which he believes helps to prevent discriminatory treatment of shareholders (EUROPE 9074). At that time he even planned on drawing up a recommendation.
The text on the oral question explains that ISS is the company that votes the most by proxy in the USA by a long way. Its role in the merger of Hewlet Packard and Compaq was heavily criticised and the situation prompted the US Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) to open an investigation into a possible conflict of interest. Kyprianou, however, said that the contractors selected through a call for tenders had presented the best proposal. The commissioner explained: “Both contractors and subcontractors have a strong record of original, independent, high-quality research in areas of company law and corporate governance…the study team provided the best offer based on scientific competency, professional reputation and integrity”.
The Commission also points out that the conclusions of the advocate general at the EU Court of Auditors in the “Volkswagen” affair (C-112/05) ruled that German regulation undermined competition (EUROPE 9365). On the basis of the results of the external study and its impact study, it has indicated that it will take a decision on the possibility of presenting a legislative proposal. (mb)