23.1.2020

New Corporate Governance Code for Listed Companies 2020: Some Observations

After a year of work, the Securities Market Association’s new Corporate Governance Code has been completed. The new code entered into force on 1 January 2020. I chaired the committee that prepared the new code. Our primary task was to amend the code to line up with new legislation. We focused particularly on the EU’s Second Shareholder Rights Directive and on the national legislative amendments based on it. The largest changes were to the section on remuneration reporting, which was completely rewritten. Of the actual recommendations, the ones concerning related party transactions and the audit committee changed the most.

Over the course of the year, we noted a few times that the directive addresses a problem that we don’t really have in Finland. For example, it seems strange that the remuneration policy goes into detail on the fees of the board of directors, when the Finnish practice is that the general meeting resolves on remuneration each year. At worst, the remuneration policy could limit the decision-making power of the shareholders if it describes remuneration in too much detail.

We tried to leave room for common sense and flexibility in the new code. Fortunately we had a wide range of experience in the committee, and we were able to look at things from numerous perspectives. We’ll find out how well we did when new code is tested in real-world situations.

We have received numerous questions relating to the application of the code. I address a few of these questions below.

What Are Governing Bodies?

By law, the remuneration policy and report for governing bodies only concern the governing bodies referred to in the Limited Liability Companies Act, which are the board of directors, possible supervisory board, managing director and possible deputy managing director registered in the Trade Register. As a reminder of this, we put the words ‘governing bodies’ in the titles of the documents, even though it leads to them being quite a mouthful. 

In order to maintain the consistency of market practices, listed companies shouldn’t include management team remuneration in either the remuneration policy or report. However, in order to maintain transparency, information on the remuneration of the management team must be published on the company’s website along with current information on the remuneration of governing bodies. Otherwise, the current remuneration situation could remain unclear, as the report takes a historical perspective and the policy looks to the future.

When Do the New Remuneration Policy and Report Have to be Published?

The first new remuneration policy has to be presented to shareholders in the general meeting held during the spring of 2020. The first remuneration report then has to be published a year later during the spring of 2021. The report assesses how the remuneration policy has been applied in the company. Companies that want to get a head start are free to draft the remuneration report for 2019 according to the new rules.

Listed companies are already hard at work preparing new remuneration documentation. One question that has come up is whether the new remuneration policy has to be ready as soon as the code enters into force at the start of January. The answer is no. The remuneration policy is presented to the general meeting, which issues an advisory resolution on whether it supports the policy. Before this, the company must publish is proposal to the general meeting for a remuneration policy. The valid remuneration policy must be available to the public on the company’s website, and the website must also state whether the general meeting has voted on the policy.  

During the reform and circulation for comments of the code, we discussed whether the policy should be ready to publish already in connection with the notice convening the general meeting or whether it is sufficient to publish it three weeks prior to the general meeting. Based on substantial feedback, we chose the latter alternative in order to leave enough time for drafting the policy.

We did not consider a situation in which the board of directors would approve the remuneration policy before deciding to convene the general meeting. I don’t imagine that this situation came up when the legislation was being drafted, either, as the provisions clearly point to the general meeting. The point of confusion here is that the general meeting only has an advisory role, which means that the board’s resolution is decisive with respect to approval. Even if the general meeting does not support the remuneration policy presented to it, the company continues to apply the policy. A new, amended policy is then presented to the shareholders no later than in the annual general meeting of the following year.

However, my interpretation of the legislation is that the policy does not have to be ready yet on 1 January 2020. The most clear and sensible approach would be for the board to approve and publish the remuneration policy at the same time as the notice convening the general meeting. After being discussed by the general meeting, the policy is also published on the company’s website.

Why Does the Code Have Related Party Instructions?

The board of directors has to decide on related party transactions that are not part of the company’s ordinary course of business or are not implemented under arms-length terms. Related party transactions are rare, but companies still need to be familiar with the processes related to them. The board won’t be able to fulfil its obligation unless it knows 1) who the company’s related parties are and 2) what business dealings the company has with them.

Companies have to compile information on their related parties in order to be able to identify related party transactions. Related parties are defined in the IAS 24 standard, which unfortunately is quite complex. It is worth collecting or reviewing this information at regular intervals and also to request that related parties notify your company of any changes themselves.

In order to fulfil its obligations, the board of directors must establish principles for monitoring and assessing related party transactions. The board must particularly consider how the company identifies related party transactions, who they are reported to and who supervises the procedure. When drafting these principles, the board needs to take a thorough look at how the company’s processes work.

Establishing these principles may feel like an extra burden, but defining and identifying related parties really shouldn’t be anything new, as related party transactions already have to be reported in IFRS financial statements. It is worth taking this opportunity to check that your companies processes work.

The Securities Market Association published a Q&A on its website in the near future, which provide answers to the most common questions. For now they are available only in Finnish. We are also eager to get more feedback on the new corporate governance code. Please contact Pauliina Tenhunen, pauliina.tenhunen@castren.fi.

Latest references

Our partner Pauliina Tenhunen acts as the administrator of the bankruptcy estate of European Battery Technologies Oy. The bankruptcy estate sold all assets of the bankrupt company, including its battery factory equipment and IP rights related to the operations. The equipment sold was the first of its kind in the 2010s and the factory was the first in Europe to produce LFP batteries. The buyer is Estonia and Germany-based Skeleton Technologies, a global developer and manufacturer of energy storage solutions. The buyer will continue operations in the premises rented by the bankrupt company in Varkaus, Finland. The owner of the premises is Keski-Savon Teollisuuskylä Oy, a company owned by the city of Varkaus. The bankruptcy administration is very pleased with this outcome as the continued operation of the battery factory was a priority also for the bankruptcy estate.
Case published 26.5.2023
We advised Litorina Capital, a Swedish private equity house, in the merger of two leading indoor playground chains in the Nordics, Leo’s Lekland and HopLop. Litorina IV fund, the main owner of Leo’s Lekland, and CapMan Special Situations I, the main owner of HopLop, agreed on an ownership arrangement that will unite Leo’s Lekland and HopLop into Europe’s leading indoor playground group. Both parties will continue their ownership in the new combined group. The HopLop chain continues to operate in Finland under the HopLop brand. The new group will be Europe’s largest family focused activity and exercise company. It has a total of 68 parks in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Germany. Leo’s Lekland is the largest indoor playground chain in the Nordic countries, with a total of 50 parks in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Germany. There are 7 parks in Finland. HopLop is the largest children’s adventure and indoor playground chain and the most significant family focused activity and exercise company in Finland. There are 17 HopLop parks in Finland and 1 in Germany. Litorina is a private equity investment firm based in Stockholm, Sweden. It was founded in 1998. It invests in niche market leading companies with headquarters in the Nordics. Currently it has 13 portfolio companies.
Case published 2.2.2023
Relacom Finland Oy was declared bankrupt in 2019 upon the company’s own application. Relacom Finland Oy was one of the leading telecommunication services companies in Finland, and it had activities across Finland. The company offered, for example, installation and maintenance of telecommunication networks and power grids. When bankruptcy was declared, the company had around 400 employees. The bankruptcy proceedings were concluded in approximately three years, and the creditors approved the final settlement of accounts in December 2022. Attorney Pekka Jaatinen served as the administrator of the bankruptcy estate. After the beginning of the bankruptcy, the bankruptcy estate examined the company’s unfinished projects and finished them to the extent that was profitable. The rest of the projects were shut down in a controlled manner and handed over to the customer. Some of the projects were also socially important. The bankruptcy estate hired 112 of the company’s employees for fixed-term employment to finish projects and to ensure that the shutdown was carried out in a controlled manner. However, the bankruptcy administration did not continue the company’s business. The company’s fixed assets and inventories consisted of, among other things, various tools, equipment and several vehicles. The bankruptcy estate identified different options for efficient ways to liquidate assets, and selling was carried out in cooperation with an external liquidator. The liquidation result from finishing projects and selling the company’s movable property was significant and higher than the book value. Unsecured creditors accrued approximately 41% disbursements in the bankruptcy.
Case published 11.1.2023
Otso Gold Oy, an ore exploration and mining company, filed an application for initiating restructuring proceedings to the Oulu District Court on 3 December 2021. At that time, the company owned the Laivakangas gold mine, which is located in Raahe, Finland, on one of the biggest gold deposits in the Nordic countries. The company’s restructuring proceedings commenced on 17 February 2022, and the District Court ordered Attorney Pekka Jaatinen to serve as the administrator. At the time of commencement of the proceedings, the company was part of the Otso Gold group, whose Canadian parent company Otso Gold Corp is listed on the Toronto stock exchange. Due to the cross-border nature of the group, simultaneous restructuring applications were filed in Finland, Sweden and Canada. Otso Gold needed to carry out a financing and ownership arrangement in order to safeguard the continuation of its business and the fulfilment of its restructuring programme. Through the restructuring proceedings, Otso Gold was able to carry out a corporate transaction whereby the restructuring and the related proceedings were based on the sale of the company’s entire share capital to Pilar Gold Inc., a Canadian gold mining company. Simultaneously, Otso Gold was provided with financing for the implementation of the restructuring programme. Creditors representing over 93% of all debts of Otso Gold supported the restructuring programme based on the transaction concerning the entire company. The District Court of Oulu affirmed the one-day restructuring programme in October 2022 and appointed Attorney Pekka Jaatinen as supervisor of the programme.  The restructuring programme and its payment programme were carried out in their entirety approximately one week later, and the restructuring programme ended successfully on 17 November 2022.
Case published 29.12.2022