Category: Corporate Governance

Shareholder activism and sustainability: why and how do shareholders engage?

Teaser for a lunch seminar on 20 November 2025

In recent years, the corporate world has experienced an increased focus on sustainability. The pressure for climate action and social responsibility is no longer stemming solely from regulators, NGOs or the media. In fact, increasingly the push is coming from shareholders themselves. We have seen institutional investors and activist hedge funds use their shareholder rights to steer companies towards more sustainable business practices.

But how does this so-called ‘shareholder activism’ actually work in the context of sustainability? What motivates shareholders to engage on sustainability topics? And how much influence do they really have over corporate policy in jurisdictions such as Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US? 

These questions will take centre stage at the upcoming seminar on ‘Shareholder Activism and Sustainability’ organized by the Belgian Centre for Company Law, held on 20 November 2025 from 12-14h at Linklaters’ Brussels office.

The seminar will consist of the following speakers: Tom Vos (Maastricht University, University of Antwerp and Linklaters LLP), Lucia Jeremiašová (Maastricht University), Isabella Ritter (ShareAction), Rients Abma (Eumedion), Thierry L’Homme (Linklaters), Vincent Van Bueren (Gimv) and Florence Bindelle (EuropeanIssuers).

More information and registration can be found here. 

Below, we already give a teaser of the topics that will be covered in the seminar.

What is sustainability-focused shareholder activism?

Shareholder activism is not a novel, nor a recent idea. It refers to shareholders’ attempts to pressure management for changes in corporate policies and governance with the aim of improving firm performance. But in recent years, a new form of shareholder activism has emerged: sustainability-focused shareholder activism (sometimes also called ESG activism) which is focused on improving a company’s social and environmental impact, not (only) its financial performance.

This form of activism differs from ‘external stakeholder activism’ (such as litigation or protests by NGOs, unions, or consumers) because it operates from within the company’s shareholder base. Shareholders use the rights attached to their shares to advocate for change, whether through engagement with management, proposing resolutions at the general meeting, or voting against directors.

At the same time, different types of shareholder activists exist. Hedge funds, institutional investors, NGOs and even retail investors can all be active on sustainability issues. Their motives and methods may differ greatly. Some activists pursue sustainability because they see it as part of long-term financial value creation. Others act on the basis of broader social or environmental considerations, even when these do not align with shareholders’ financial interests.

The result is a complex landscape that blurs the boundaries between profit-driven engagement and purpose-driven advocacy.

Why would shareholders care about sustainability?

The motivations behind sustainable shareholder activism are as diverse as the activists themselves. Three main theoretical explanations for why investors care about corporate sustainability can be distinguished.

  1. Impact on long-term financial performance
    Many institutional investors engage on sustainability issues because they believe these affect long-term financial performance. A company that ignores environmental risks, for instance, might face future compliance- and litigation-related costs or reputational damage. Engagement thus becomes a way to protect portfolio value. However, this theory has limits. Index funds and “quasi-indexers”, which hold shares in nearly all major companies, may lack the financial incentives to monitor individual firms closely. And at some point, improving sustainability and maximising shareholder value may diverge.
  2. The ‘universal owner’ hypothesis
    According to another view, large diversified investors internalise externalities across their portfolios. As climate change and other societal issues may affect the long-term health of the entire economy and financial system, these ‘universal owners’ are motivated to promote sustainability to safeguard the value of their broadly diversified investments.  Thus, they engage for sustainability not because it improves a single firm’s returns, but because it protects their portfolio as a whole. The challenge, as scholars like Tallarita note, is that few portfolios are truly universal in practice.[1]
  3. Responding to investor demand
    Finally, asset managers may act on sustainability because they compete for investors’ capital. Many end-investors increasingly seek responsible management of their investments, and by implementing engagement strategies and robust ESG policies, firms can attract and retain these conscientious clients. Although it is of note to mention that this also raises the risk of “greenwashing” or what Christie calls “rational hypocrisy”: claiming to be committed to sustainability while avoiding costly or robust actions that such a commitment would require.[2]

Empirical evidence supports a nuanced picture. Studies find that institutional ownership is often associated with better environmental and social performance,[3] especially when investors engage collaboratively.[4] However, not all investors act on their words as some ESG funds vote strategically or selectively, supporting sustainability proposals only when their votes are non-decisive.[5]

The bottom line here is that shareholder activism has the potential to drive sustainability, but its effectiveness depends on who the activist is, how coordinated their efforts are and whether their incentives truly align with long-term value creation.

What are the tools of shareholders to influence sustainability?

Shareholder activists have several tools at their disposal to influence sustainability policy internally. These range from dialogue and engagement to formal mechanisms within corporate governance. Below, we touch on four key tools that are increasingly used to influence corporate sustainability agendas:

  1. Public Letters
    Activists may send open letters urging companies to adopt more ambitious climate targets or disclose sustainability information. These letters can attract media attention and signal investor expectations to the market.
  2. Shareholder Proposals
    In many jurisdictions, shareholders can submit proposals for consideration at the general meeting. These give investors a formal channel to put sustainability issues on the agenda at the general meeting. Such proposals are typically non-binding but may be impactful as signals of investor concern, attract attention of other shareholders, and influence board decisions. 
  3. Director Elections 
    Because boards set long-term strategy, electing or removing directors can be one of the most powerful ways to influence sustainability policy. Shareholders can support or oppose candidates of the board based on their sustainability stance, or, in some instances even propose their own alternative candidates. The 2021 Engine No. 1 campaign at ExxonMobil underscores the manner in which even small investors can make a significant impact.
  4. Say-on-Climate Votes
    A newer development, “say-on-climate” votes, allows shareholders to vote on companies’ climate policies. These votes may either be voluntarily offered by companies, proposed by shareholders, required by law or required by a company’s articles of association. Climate votes are becoming more common across jurisdictions and highlight the growing demand for corporate sustainability. 

​​Together, the aforementioned tools form a fast-evolving set of tools for shareholders, shifting the topic of sustainability from the sidelines of annual reports to the centre of corporate governance debates today.

Questions for Debate

The upcoming seminar will not only describe the mechanisms above but also invite discussion on their implications for corporate law and governance. Among the questions to be debated:

  • Will there be an increasing trend of shareholder activism on sustainability?
  • What can boards do to avoid shareholder activism on sustainability? How should they respond?
  • Should shareholders be able to file non-binding proposals on sustainability,?
  • Does current Belgian company law give shareholders sufficient means to influence corporate sustainability strategies?
  • Should Belgium introduce a mandatory “Say on Climate” vote?
  • Should shareholders have (more of) say on corporations’ sustainability policies; or is this best left to the discretion of boards?
  • Finally, will greater accountability to shareholders make companies more sustainable?

The seminar promises a lively exchange between academics, practitioners and policy experts. If you want to join us for this discussion, you can find more information and registration here.

Tom Vos
Assistant professor at Maastricht University, visiting professor at the University of Antwerp, Research Fellow at KU Leuven and attorney at Linklaters LLP

Lucia Jeremiašová
PhD candidate and lecturer at Maastricht University

Ehrin Belic
Student intern at the Institute for Corporate Law, Governance and Innovation Policies, Maastricht University

[1] Roberto Tallarita, “The Limits of Portfolio Primacy”, 76 Vanderbilt Law Review 2:511 (2023).

[2] Anna Christie, “The Agency Costs of Sustainable Capitalism”, 55 University of California, 875 (2021).

[3] Alexander Dyck, Karl V. Lins, Lukas Roth, Hannes F. Wagner, “Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence” (2019), Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 131, Issue 3, p. 693-714,

[4] Marco Ceccarelli, Simon Glossner, Mikael Homanen, Daniel Schmidt, “Which institutional investors drive corporate sustainability?” (2021), <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3988058>.

[5] Roni Michaely, Guillem Ordonez-Calafi, Silvina Rubio, “Mutual Funds’ Strategic Voting on Environmental and Social Issues” (2021), ECGI Finance Working Paper No. 774/2021.

Kortetermijndenken bij vennootschapsbestuurders

Wat is kortetermijndenken bij vennootschappen? Is er empirisch bewijs dat kortetermijndenken een groot en systematisch probleem is bij bestuurders van beursgenoteerde vennootschappen? Leidt aandeelhoudersactivisme tot kortetermijndenken? En stimuleren loyauteitsstmerechten en controlerende aandeelhouders langetermijndenken?

Dit zijn vragen die reeds in eerdere blogposts op deze blog aan bod kwamen (zie bijvoorbeeld hier, hier, hier en hier).

In een recent webinar voor Instituut voor Filosofische en Sociaalwetenschappelijke Educatie (Ifese), probeerde ik een antwoord te geven op deze en gerelateerde vragen inzake kortetermijndenken bij vennootschapsbestuurders. Een opname van mijn presentatie is beschikbaar op YouTube.

Mijn presentatie was gebaseerd op een FWO-onderzoeksproject dat ik uitvoer samen met drs. Theo Monnens over “Short-termism in corporate governance: a continental European perspective” en op verschillende papers die ik over dit thema publiceerde met co-auteurs (bijvoorbeeld hier, hier en hier).

Een kort voorproefje van mijn conclusies vindt u hier:

  • Het probleem van kortetermijndenken moet onderscheiden worden van het probleem van externaliteiten veroorzaakt door vennootschappen;
  • Kortetermijndenken kan worden veroorzaakt door kortetemijngerichte investeerders (en te veel aandeelhoudersmacht) of kortetermijngerichte managers (en te weinig aandeelhoudersmacht);
  • Er is geen overtuigend bewijs van systematische macro-economische effecten van kortetermijndenken;
  • Er is geen overtuigend bewijs dat hedge fonds activisten gemiddeld genomen kortetermijngericht zijn;
  • Er is geen overtuigend bewijs dat loyauteitsstemrecht helpt bij het probleem van kortetermijndenken, behalve door het faciliteren van controlerende aandeelhouders;
  • Er zijn goede theoretische en empirische argumenten dat controlerende aandeelhouders zowel positief als negatief kunnen zijn voor langetermijndenken – het hangt af van het type van controlerende aandeelhouder;
  • “One size does not fit all” in corporate governance – ook niet om kortetermijndenken tegen te gaan;
  • Dwingende wetgeving om een zogenaamd probleem van kortetermijndenken aan te pakken is daarom op basis van het huidige bewijs niet gerechtvaardigd.

Voor de volledige redenering verwijs ik naar de YouTube opname of de hierboven genoemde papers.

Tom Vos
Assistant professor, Maastricht University
Visiting professor, Jean-Pierre Blumberg Chair at the University of Antwerp
Research fellow, KU Leuven
Attorney, Linklaters LLP

Het beleidsvoorstel rond omzetting van de MVS Richtlijn: voorgestelde aanpassingen rond soortdisproportionele uitgiftes en het soortoverstijgend wettelijk voorkeurrecht

Een post door Michiel Stuyts (Eubelius, UAntwerpen)

Een werkgroep binnen het Belgisch Centrum voor Vennootschapsrecht / Centre belge du Droit des Sociétés (BCV-CDS) heeft een beleidsvoorstel uitgewerkt dat advies uitbrengt aan de Belgische wetgever over de omzetting van de Europese richtlijn betreffende structuren met aandelen met meervoudig stemrecht (“MVS Richtlijn”). Het volledige voorstel, dat inzet op een bredere beleidsherziening, is hier beschikbaar, en is in een eerdere blogpost geïntroduceerd.

Deze post gaat nader in op twee van de voorgestelde aanpassingen: een opt-out-mogelijkheid in verband met zogenaamde “soortdisproportionele uitgiftes”, en een terugkeer naar een algemeen “soortoverstijgend” (d.i. niet soortgebonden) wettelijk voorkeurrecht.

Continue reading “Het beleidsvoorstel rond omzetting van de MVS Richtlijn: voorgestelde aanpassingen rond soortdisproportionele uitgiftes en het soortoverstijgend wettelijk voorkeurrecht”

Steward ownership: enkel nobele intenties?

Een post door Sofie Cools en Lisa Bueken (Jan Ronse Instituut, KU Leuven)

1. In 2022 haalde het welbekende outdoormerk Patagonia de krantenkoppen toen oprichter Yvon Chouinard alle aandelen in Patagonia Inc. wegschonk aan een trust en een non-profitorganisatie. Patagonia Perpetual Purpose Trust ontving alle aandelen met stemrecht. De aandelen zonder stemrecht en mét winstrechten gingen naar de non-profit organisatie Holdfast Collective. De trust moet haar stemrechten op de algemene vergadering van Patagonia Inc. uitoefenen in lijn met de waarden van Patagonia Inc. en Holdfast Collective moet de dividenden die ze ontvangt van Patagonia Inc. gebruiken om de klimaatcrisis tegen te gaan. “Earth is now our only shareholder” luidde het. Op deze manier hoopte Yvon Chouinard de missie van Patagonia Inc. op lange termijn veilig te stellen.

2. De nieuwe eigendomsstructuur van Patagonia wordt gezien als een schoolvoorbeeld van steward ownership. Het begrip steward ownership vindt zijn oorsprong in Duitsland, waar het door de Purpose Foundation werd gelanceerd. Sindsdien is de steward ownership-beweging wereldwijd in opmars. In steeds meer landen ontstaan organisaties die het model promoten, zoals Steward-Owned in België. Heel wat literatuur over steward ownership is sterk gebaseerd op publicaties van dergelijke organisaties en daardoor soms een tikkeltje idealistisch. Het doel van deze bijdrage is om het fenomeen met een open blik, maar ook kritisch onder de loep te nemen.

Continue reading “Steward ownership: enkel nobele intenties?”

Multiple voting rights vs. loyalty shares: exploring how Belgium’s governance framework might evolve

Belgian companies whose shares are listed on a regulated market or an MTF are currently not allowed to issue ‘true’ multiple voting rights shares (MVS). With the adoption of the Belgian Code on Companies and Associations (BCCA) in 2019, the legislator (re)introduced the possibility for non-listed companies to create MVS, but this option remained unavailable for listed companies. Instead, Article 7:53 of the BCCA only allows listed Belgian companies to include a provision in their articles of association for so-called ‘loyalty’ voting rights shares (LVS), which grant an extra vote per share to shareholders who have continuously held their shares in registered form for at least two years (and provided that the shares are fully paid-up)[1].

Five years since its introduction, the Belgian LVS regime has not quite delivered on its promise of strengthening long-term shareholder engagement in listed companies: its practical uptake has been modest, and its benefits largely concentrated among controlling shareholders[2]. Compared to MVS, the effectiveness of LVS as a control-enhancing mechanism is limited by the fact that (i) it only grants one additional vote per share and (ii) this additional vote is lost when the share is transferred (with limited exceptions). Moreover, LVS have not really contributed to more initial or secondary public offerings but have mainly allowed controlling shareholders to reduce their capital investment while maintaining the same level of voting control.

As part of the EU’s broader effort to make public capital markets more attractive, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the MVS Directive[3] requires Member States to permit MVS structures for companies listing on multilateral trading facilities (MTFs). In Belgium, there is growing momentum to go beyond the MVS Directive’s minimum requirements by allowing MVS structures not only on MTFs but also on regulated markets, and by enabling their introduction not just at the IPO stage but also later (hence also for companies that are already listed today). A group of legal experts working under the auspices of the Belgian Centre for Company Law has published a detailed proposal in this sense (see “MVS proposal Belgian Centre for Company Law” and “Multiple voting shares in listed companies in Belgium”) which has received attention in the newspapers recently.[4]

Hereafter, we explore how the introduction of MVS for listed companies may impact the current LVS regime in Belgium and the proposals formulated in this regard by the aforementioned legal expert group. The LVS regime falls outside the scope of the MVS Directive since it does not involve the creation of separate share classes[5]. Nonetheless, when transposing the MVS Directive, the Belgian legislator will have to make certain important policy choices that will also affect LVS.

Continue reading “Multiple voting rights vs. loyalty shares: exploring how Belgium’s governance framework might evolve”

Juridische complexiteit: een conceptueel denkader

Ons rechtsbestel wordt al decennia geassocieerd met een groeiende complexiteit. In publieke debatten wordt gesproken over ‘regelneverij’, ‘juridische doolhoven’ en ‘overregulering’. Burgers, ondernemingen en maatschappelijke stakeholders ervaren regelgeving vaak als nodeloos ingewikkeld. Bedrijven in het bijzonder klagen over de torenhoge compliancekosten die een rem zouden zetten op innovatie en investeringen. Politici en beleidsmakers beloven steevast te streven naar vereenvoudiging en betere regelgeving.

Toch blijft de kern van de discussie vaak erg vaag. Wat wordt net bedoeld met de vaststelling dat ons recht ‘ingewikkeld’ of ‘complex’ is. Wat bedoelen we met complexiteit in juridische zin? Bestaat er een objectieve maatstaf? Is complexiteit altijd negatief? En zijn eenvoudige regels een realistische doelstelling of een onhaalbaar ideaalbeeld?

In mijn bijdrage ‘A Conceptual Framework on Legal Complexity’ bied ik een conceptueel raamwerk aan dat juridische complexiteit multidimensionaal benadert, onderscheid maakt tussen systeemniveau en regelniveau, en inzichtelijk maakt welke trade-offs schuilgaan achter pogingen tot vereenvoudiging. Het artikel illustreert dit met voorbeelden uit het Belgische vennootschapsrecht, maar de analyse is naar mijn mening transversaal toepasbaar op alle rechtsdomeinen.

Continue reading “Juridische complexiteit: een conceptueel denkader”

Reshaping control: the Multiple Voting Shares Directive and its potential impact on the Belgian rules on public takeover bids

A post by Carl Clottens and Göktug Celik (NautaDutilh)

On 4 December 2024, as part of the so-called Listing Act package, the EU adopted Directive (EU) 2024/2810 on multiple voting share structures, commonly known as the MVS Directive. This directive requires EU Member States to allow companies seeking admission to trading on multilateral trading facilities (MTFs) to introduce or maintain multiple voting share structures, provided that certain safeguards are respected (see “Europese richtlijn betreffende meervoudig stemrecht voor genoteerde vennootschappen gepubliceerd – Corporate Finance Lab”).

A group of legal experts working under auspices of the Belgian Centre for Company Law has used the MVS Directive as a starting point for proposing a comprehensive and more far-reaching reform of multiple voting rights in Belgian listed companies (see “MVS proposal Belgian Centre for Company Law”) . The main elements of this proposal have already been set out in an earlier blogpost (see “Multiple voting shares in listed companies in Belgium”).

Continue reading “Reshaping control: the Multiple Voting Shares Directive and its potential impact on the Belgian rules on public takeover bids”

Loyalty- and multiple voting shares and regulatory competition in the EU

Following the special issue on loyalty- and multiple voting shares in European Company Law

European company law seems to be divided in two camps on how to regulate loyalty‑ and multiple‑voting shares: rule‑heavy ex ante regimes and flexible (and uncertain) ex post models. This blog post summarizes the new special issue of European Company Law, where seven country studies map recent developments in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom and analyse the race to attract IPOs. The discussion highlights the different approaches and shifting voting caps, sunset clauses and minority safeguards.

Continue reading “Loyalty- and multiple voting shares and regulatory competition in the EU”

Cassatie over de peildatum bij de vennootschapsrechtelijke geschillenregeling (bis)

Cass. 27 juni 2025 (C.24.0081.N)

Ongeveer één jaar geleden, op 28 juni 2024, verdedigde ik aan de KU Leuven mijn proefschrift over misbruik van de uittreding en uitsluiting van aandeelhouders. De aanleiding voor deze nostalgische verjaardagsviering (en de daarmee gepaard gaande product placement) is een arrest van het Hof van Cassatie op de vooravond van deze verjaardag (Cass. 27 juni 2025,          c.24.0081.n – zie tekst hieronder). Het onderwerp? Eén van de evergreens waarover het Hof meer discussies creëert dan het oplost, namelijk de verschuiving van de peildatum.

Continue reading “Cassatie over de peildatum bij de vennootschapsrechtelijke geschillenregeling (bis)”

Multiple voting shares in listed companies in Belgium

Discussion of a new policy proposal

Multiple voting shares have been prohibited for listed companies in Belgium for a long time. This will, however, be (partly) subject to change as the Belgian legislator is required to implement the Multiple-Vote Share Structures Directive (‘MVS Directive’). In this blog post, we will discuss the policy proposal of a working group within the Belgian Centre for Company Law (BCV-CDS) that offers advice to the Belgian legislator on transposing the MVS Directive and aims to facilitate a broader policy reform (full proposal available here). This fascinating topic will also be discussed at the Conference on Loyalty and Multiple Voting Rights in Europe, which will take place on the afternoon of 15 May 2025 at the University of Antwerp (Antwerp) (more information on the conference website).

MVS Directive

In December 2024, the EU adopted the MVS Directive[1], as part of the broader EU Listing Act package. The MVS Directive aims to facilitate access to capital markets for SME companies and requires that member states allow multiple voting shares in companies that seek admission to the trading on a multilateral trading facility (‘MTF’). The idea is that the attractiveness of listing on a capital market increases, as multiple voting shares allow the controlling shareholders to retain control over the company while raising funds from the public. 

In the case of Belgium, the transposition of the MVS Directive requires a change of stance towards multiple voting shares. Under current Belgian company law, it is prohibited for companies listed on a regulated market or MTF to issue multiple voting shares. They only have the possibility to adopt loyalty voting shares, which grant double voting rights to shareholders who have held their shares in registered form for at least two years. Therefore, Belgian law will need to be updated, (at least) allowing multiple voting shares for companies that seek a listing on an MTF (in Belgium: Euronext Access and Euronext Growth). 

However, the MVS Directive also offers the opportunity for a broader policy debate on the desirability of multiple voting shares for companies listed on regulated markets. To offer advice to the Belgian legislator on the implementation of the MVS Directive, a working group within the Belgian Centre for Company Law[2] has drafted a comprehensive policy proposal, which is available on the website of the Centre. 

In short, this policy proposal encompasses a broader reform of multiple voting shares and is based on three overarching principles: (i) it extends the scope of the reform to allow multiple voting shares not only for companies that seek listing on an MTF, but also for companies that seek listing on a  regulated market or that are already listed on an MTF or regulated market, (ii) it allows companies flexibility to design a multiple voting share structure in line with their needs, while also protecting minority shareholders when multiple voting shares are adopted by an already listed company (“midstream” adoption), and (iii) it adapts certain existing rules to make them more compatible with the new possibility for companies to adopt multiple voting shares.

Multiple voting shares for companies listed on a regulated market 

In the first place, the working group advises the Belgian legislator to extend the scope of the reform and allow multiple voting shares for companies that seek listing on a regulated market. The proposed extension of the scope is based on several arguments.

First, limiting the reform to MTFs will likely have a small effect on the attractiveness of stock exchange listings in Belgium, given the small size of both MTF markets in Belgium. Second, allowing multiple voting shares for MTFs, but not for regulated markets, would limit the possibility of ‘uplisting’ (i.e. transferring from trading on an MTF to trading on a regulated market). Third, the competitiveness of Belgium as an incorporation destination for listed companies requires that Belgium keeps up with the trend in other countries that already allow multiple voting shares for companies listed on a regulated market. 

Underlying these arguments is the working group’s belief that multiple voting shares could be valuable for at least some listed companies. Indeed, multiple voting shares can facilitate controlling shareholders to take their company public while retaining control over the company. Such controlling shareholders may have good incentives to monitor management and engage in long-term value creation due to their large share participation. At the same time, multiple voting shares entrench controlling shareholders and decouple their cash flow and voting rights, which may increase their incentives to extract private benefits, at the cost of the overall shareholder value. Nevertheless, on balance, the working group believes that companies should be free to decide on their optimal governance structure, including on the use of multiple voting shares. 

Maximum multiplicator of 1:20

Furthermore, the MVS Directive requires member states to adopt either of two safeguards to protect the interests of minority shareholders: a maximum voting ratio or the neutralization of the multiple voting rights for certain decisions of the general meeting that require a qualified majority. 

The working group recommends adopting a maximum voting ratio of 1:20: such a voting ratio is deemed high enough to be attractive, whilst being low enough to ensure that controlling shareholders retain some financial ‘skin in the game’. The second safeguard was deemed less appropriate, as it would detract from the purpose of the reform and harm the attractiveness of listing with multiple voting shares.    

In addition, the MVS Directive provides the possibility for member states to impose additional safeguards, such as sunset clauses which convert the multiple voting rights into normal voting rights under specific circumstances or after a designated period of time.  Although a sunset clause may make sense for some companies, and companies should be free to adopt such a clause, the working group opposes the idea of introducing a mandatory sunset clause. Indeed, it would be difficult to design a sunset clause that fits the needs of all companies. Moreover, sunset clauses diminish the controlling shareholders’ certainty that they will be able to retain their control over the company, which may discourage them from taking the company public in the first place.

Midstream adoption of multiple voting shares

Even though the scope of the MVS Directive is limited to companies that seek listing (on an MTF) for the first time, the working group recommends to also make it possible for multiple voting shares to be introduced when a company is already listed on a regulated market or MTF (i.e. ‘midstream’ adoption). Multiple voting shares may become useful during the lifecycle of the company, for example, when a cash-constrained controlling shareholder wants to raise additional capital to finance investment without losing control over the company. Moreover, since the Belgian companies that are already listed never had the opportunity to adopt multiple voting shares before the reform, banning midstream introductions of multiple voting shares would create an uneven playing field between companies that were already listed at the time of the reform and those that were not. 

However, the working group recognizes that there are significant risks to the midstream adoption of multiple voting shares. Multiple voting shares may be primarily extractive in some companies, and such risk of an inefficient midstream adoption may not have been discounted into the stock price, as multiple voting shares were banned. In addition, unlike at the moment of the IPO, when shareholders are free to invest in a company with multiple voting shares, the midstream adoption of multiple voting shares will likely not be approved by all shareholders. 

Nevertheless, the working group considers that the risks associated with midstream adoptions of multiple voting shares do not justify a complete ban but only require sufficient safeguards. To protect minority shareholders, the proposal provides that multiple voting shares can only be introduced – either through the issuance of new shares or an amendment to the articles of association – with the approval of a qualified majority of the disinterested shareholders. This would prevent the beneficiaries of the multiple voting rights, typically the controlling shareholders, from approving the midstream adoption of multiple voting shares unilaterally. 

Amendments to the loyalty voting shares regime 

Finally, the working group proposes some changes to the regime for loyalty voting shares. Currently, loyalty voting shares can be introduced with a lower majority threshold than regular amendments to the articles of association (two-thirds majority instead of 75% majority). This has led to the situation where loyalty voting shares have been introduced in the midstream phase supported by the existing reference shareholders (who tend to benefit from loyalty voting rights) but without the approval of minority shareholders. To better protect minority shareholders, the working group proposes to increase the majority requirement to a regular 75% majority. 

The working group also proposes that loyalty voting shares and multiple voting shares (if they were to be allowed) cannot be combined. The reason is to avoid abuses and to increase the transparency of each system. 

Conclusion

The policy proposal drafted by the working group within the Belgian Centre for Company Law aims to launch the debate on the implementation of the MVS Directive in Belgium and the desirability of a more flexible legal framework for multiple voting shares in Belgium. In addition, the introduction of multiple voting shares also requires technical changes to several other rules, such as the rules on amendment of class rights (article 7:155 BCCA), preferential subscription rights (article 7:188 BCCA), capital increases (article 7:193 BCCA) and mandatory bids (article 5 and 74 Takeover Law). We aim to discuss these proposals for technical changes in future blogposts.

We welcome feedback on this policy proposal, which can be found on the website of the Belgian Centre for Company Law (BCV-CDS).

We also invite you to discuss this topic with us during the conference on “Loyalty and Multiple Voting Rights in Europe”, which will take place on the afternoon of 15 May 2025 at the University of Antwerp (Antwerp) (more information on the conference website).

Carl Clottens, Steven Declercq, Jeroen Delvoie, Stijn Deschepper, Thierry L’Homme, Theo Monnens, Michiel Stuyts, Tom Vos and Marieke Wyckaert

[1] Directive (EU) 2024/2810 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on multiple-vote share structures in companies that seek admission to trading of their shares on a multilateral trading facility, OJ L 2810, 14 November 2024. 

[2] The working group consists of (in alphabetic order) Carl Clottens, Steven Declercq, Jeroen Delvoie, Stijn Deschepper, Thierry L’Homme, Theo Monnens, Michiel Stuyts, Tom Vos and Marieke Wyckaert. 

Conference on loyalty and multiple voting rights in Europe (15 May)

The Jean-Pierre Blumberg Chair (University of Antwerp), the Institute for Corporate Law, Governance, and Innovation Policies (ICGI) (Maastricht University) and journal European Company Law are pleased to announce the “Conference on Loyalty and Multiple Voting Rights in Europe”. The conference will take place on the afternoon of 15 May 2025 at the University of Antwerp (Antwerp). Further details and registration information are available on the conference website. 

The conference will discuss recent developments in loyalty and multiple voting rights in European corporate governance. In the last decade, several European jurisdictions have reconsidered their stance regarding deviations from the “one share, one vote” principle in listed corporations to boost the attractiveness of listing on the national stock exchange. More recently, the EU has also adopted the Multiple-Vote Share Structures Directive, as part of the broader EU Listing Act package, with the aim to facilitate access to capital markets for SME corporations, by partly harmonizing the rules of multiple voting rights on multilateral trading facilities.

From a policy perspective, legislators generally consider loyalty and multiple voting rights for two primary reasons. First, they could stimulate the number of listings on the national stock exchange by allowing founders or controlling shareholders to stay in control over the corporation, while taking their company public. Second, they empower the position of controlling shareholders, which could have a positive effect on the long-term performance of the company, as controlling shareholders may have better incentives to monitor management and engage in long-term value creation due to their relatively large participation. 

On the flipside, loyalty and multiple voting rights pose certain risks for minority shareholders. The entrenched position of controlling shareholders and the decoupling of cash flow and voting rights could incentivize controlling shareholders to take certain actions to extract private benefits, at the cost of the overall shareholder value. It is therefore important that minority shareholders are adequately protected, especially when loyalty and multiple voting rights are introduced while the corporation is already listed (so-called ‘midstream’ introduction). Possible safeguards could be a majority-of-the-minority vote with regards to the introduction of loyalty or multiple voting rights, a maximum voting ratio, sunset clauses or limitations to the use of loyalty and multiple voting rights in certain cases. 

Despite the attempt at harmonisation in the Multiple-Vote Share Structures Directive, significant differences in national approaches still exist. Some jurisdictions have long permitted loyalty and multiple voting rights, while others – traditionally more restrictive – have only recently considered or implemented more flexible regimes. In this context, the implementation of the Multiple-Vote Share Structures Directive will force certain European member states, including Belgium, to reconsider their ban on multiple voting rights for certain market segments, which in turn creates the opportunity for a broader policy debate. But the Multiple-Vote Share Structures Directive leaves significant discretion for member states to decide how to implement the possibility of multiple voting rights.

During the conference, we will discuss these recent legal developments in various European jurisdictions and reflect on the question how loyalty and multiple voting rights should be regulated. We have invited experts from several jurisdictions to share their insights and perspectives on this fascinating topic, with plenty of time for discussion following each presentation (see the programme below). 

If you would like to attend the conference, you can find more information and register (required) on the website of the conference. Registration is free for students and academics, while registration for practitioners costs 100 EUR and includes accreditation for the OVB, IBJ, and Compliance Officers of the FSMA. It is also possible to attend the conference online via a livestream. 

Programme

13h30 – 13h45 : Introduction – Tom Vos (University of Antwerp & Maastricht University) 

13h45 – 14h30 : Belgium: current legal landscape and proposed reform – Jeroen Delvoie (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) & Theo Monnens (University of Antwerp) 

14h30 – 15h00 : Germany – (To be announced)

15h00 – 15h30 : United Kingdom – Bobby Reddy (University of Cambridge) 

15h30 – 16h00 : France – Edmond Schlumberger (Université Paris 1 Pantéon-Sorbonne) 

16h00 – 16h30 : Coffee break

16h30 – 17h00 : Italy – Irene Pollastro (Università di Torino) 

17h00 – 17h30 : The Netherlands – Titiaan Keijzer (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

17h30 – 18h00 : Comparative conclusion – Bastiaan Kemp (Maastricht University) 

18h00 – 18h30 : Lessons for the future – Marieke Wyckaert (KU Leuven) 

18h30 – 19h30 : Reception

Tom Vos
Assistant professor, Maastricht University
Visiting professor, Jean-Pierre Blumberg Chair at the University of Antwerp
Attorney, Linklaters LLP

Theo Monnens
PhD Candidate, University of Antwerp

Is de belangenconflictprocedure van toepassing op de inkoop van eigen aandelen?

Cassatie zegt: het hangt ervan af

Moet een vennootschap de belangenconflictprocedure toepassen op de inkoop van eigen aandelen? Op 24 november 2022 had het hof van beroep van Antwerpen negatief geantwoord op deze vraag, omdat de beslissing tot inkoop volgens het hof van beroep “niet van toepassing [is] op beslissingen die tot de bevoegdheid van de algemene vergadering zelf behoren, zoals de inkoop van eigen aandelen” (zie hier op deze blog en hier voor een annotatie in het TRV-RPS). Het arrest betrof de oude belangenconflictprocedure in artikel 523 W.Venn., maar de vraag blijft relevant onder artikel 7:96 WVV.

In een arrest van 17 januari 2025 bevestigt het Hof van Cassatie het arrest van het hof van beroep. Net als het hof van beroep stelt het Hof van Cassatie: “De belangenconflictprocedure is niet van toepassing op beslissingen die behoren tot de bevoegdheid van de algemene vergadering.” 

Continue reading “Is de belangenconflictprocedure van toepassing op de inkoop van eigen aandelen?”

Europese richtlijn betreffende meervoudig stemrecht voor genoteerde vennootschappen gepubliceerd

Een post door gastblogger Carl Clottens

‘De Belgische wetgever zal wellicht diverse bepalingen moeten aanpassen , zoals de procedure voor de wijziging van soortrechten, het wettelijk voorkeurrecht en de procedure voor de uitgifte van aandelen aan welbepaalde personen. Ook de verhouding met het loyauteitsstemrecht zal moeten worden bekeken.’

Richtlijn 2024/2810 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 23 oktober 2024 betreffende structuren met aandelen met meervoudig stemrecht in ondernemingen die om de toelating tot de handel van hun aandelen op een multilaterale handelsfaciliteit verzoeken (hierna de ‘MVS-richtlijn’), werd vandaag gepubliceerd in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/NL/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202402810). De richtlijn treedt in werking op 4 december 2024 en dient te worden omgezet tegen 4 december 2026.

De MVS-richtlijn maakt deel uit van de zgn. EU Listing Act, een geheel van maatregelen om de Europese kapitaalmarktunie verder te ontwikkelen[1]. De Listing Act brengt onder meer ook belangrijke wijzigingen (versoepelingen) aan in de marktmisbruikverordening (‘MAR’) en de prospectusverordening[2].

De MVS-richtlijn is tot nu toe enigszins onderbelicht in de nieuwsbrieven die over de Listing Act verschenen zijn. In een notendop houdt deze richtlijn het volgende in[3]:

Continue reading “Europese richtlijn betreffende meervoudig stemrecht voor genoteerde vennootschappen gepubliceerd”

Betreffen rechten verbonden aan de persoon of hoedanigheid van de aandeelhouder soortrechten?

Soortvorming- en wijziging kwam hier eerder al regelmatig aan bod. Het Adviescomité inzake Vennootschappen en Verenigingen in de schoot, zoals dat heet, van het BCV en FedNot leverde nu een advies af over de vragen:

  • Is de toekenning van specifieke rechten die verbonden zijn aan de persoon of hoedanigheid van een aandeelhouder een verschijningsvorm van soortrechten?
  • Is het toegelaten om in de statuten van een BV of NV specifieke rechten toe te kennen die verbonden zijn aan de persoon of hoedanigheid van een aandeelhouder, naar analogie met wat is bepaald voor de CV?
  • Welke procedure dient in voorkomend geval te worden nageleefd voor de invoering en afschaffing? Is de procedure van de artikelen 5:102, 6:87 en 7:155 WVV van toepassing?

Continue reading “Betreffen rechten verbonden aan de persoon of hoedanigheid van de aandeelhouder soortrechten?”

Governance van kloostervereniging – Niet al abt wat de klok slaat

Een post door gastblogger Steven Verschoot

Een recent experiment op deze blog maakt een zeer boeiende vergelijking tussen bestuur governance in een vennootschap, een huwelijk en monastieke verenigingen. Daarin wordt onder de titel ‘monastic governance’ onder meer verwezen naar de positie van de abt onder de Regel van Benedictus[i], en in het bijzonder naar het autoritair karakter van diens positie, het agentuurprobleem dat daaruit voortvloeit en de botsing van deze positie met moderne westerse verwachtingen omtrent persoonlijke autonomie. Dit is echter niet het volledige verhaal.

De abt[ii] is en was in zijn abdij inderdaad, net als een CEO of staatshoofd vandaag, een machtig en relatief autoritair figuur. Echter, onder de oppervlakte vormt zijn functie uiteindelijk slechts een (vrij belangrijk) radertje in een meer uitgebalanceerd, participatief model.[iii] Dit model houdt al sinds de vroege middeleeuwen (de regel van Benedictus dateert van de 6e eeuw[iv]) het midden tussen een autoritair leiderschap en een democratie.[v]

Continue reading “Governance van kloostervereniging – Niet al abt wat de klok slaat”