Application of mediation in corporate disputes/conflicts
Про застосування медіації в корпоративних спорах/конфліктах розповіла адвокат, сертифікований корпоративний секретар, комплаєнс-офіцер, медіатор, членкиня Центру правничої лінгвістики ВША НААУ Надія Тарасова під час заходу з підвищення професійного рівня адвокатів, що відбувся у Вищій школі адвокатури НААУ.
Матеріали заходів
07.08.2025

Лектор докладно проаналізувала разом з учасниками застосування медіації в корпоративних спорах, а саме:

 

1. Vocabulary.

2. Boardroom conflict.

3. Corporate governance-related disputes.

4. What is Mediation?

5. Mediation Techniques to Improve Board Governance.

6. Skills Required for Mediating Corporate Governance Disputes.

7. Recommendations.

У рамках характеристики медіації в корпоративних спорах акцентовано на наступному:

1. Vocabulary:

  • Медіація - спроба врегулювати спір за допомогою нейтральної третьої сторони, де всі сторони беруть активну участь у процесі прийняття рішень.

  • Application of mediation - застосування медіації.

  • To bring a dispute to trial - доведення спору до суду.

  • Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) - альтернативне вирішення спорів (АВС).

  • Boardroom conflict - конфлікт у раді директорів.

  • Independent-minded - незалежно мислячий.

  • Skilled - досвідчений.

  • Outspoken - відвертий.

  • Resignation - відставка (formally telling your employer that you are giving up your job).

  • Became embroiled - бути втягнутим (в конфлікт).

  • Significant increase in the share price - значне зростання ціни акцій.

  • Corporate governance-related disputes - спори пов'язані з корпоративним управлінням.

  • Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) - the field of (commercial or company) law that deals with companies purchasing interests in other companies and combining with each other.

  • Злиття і поглинання (англ. mergers and acquisitions або англ. takeovers) — термін, який використовується в Україні для позначення правочинів, в результаті яких:

  • існуючий власник контрольного пакету акцій публічного або приватного акціонерного товариства відчужує на погоджених умовах належний йому контрольний пакет іншій особі (приватному покупцю) або;

  • відбувається скупівля особою (ініціатором поглинання) у міноритарних акціонерів публічного або приватного акціонерного товариства належних ним акцій з метою концентрації ініціатором поглинання контролю над товариством, або;

  • відбувається об'єднання активів декількох компаній з метою створення нової компанії.

  • Takeover – (поглинання, захоплення) when a company gets control of another company by buying over 50% of its shares.

  • Impartiality – неупередженість.

  • Discretion – дискретність.

  • Non-binding - необов'язковість.

  • Voluntary – добровільний.

  • Сompensation package- - компенсаційний пакет.

  • Self-interested transactions - транзакції з власними інтересами.

  • Discharge of individual board members/executives - звільнення окремих членів правління/керівників.

  • Сorporate legal framework - корпоративна правова база.

2. Boardroom conflict

In the boardroom, conflict is often unavoidable especially when the Board is composed of independent-minded, skilled, and outspoken directors.

Governance issues, standards, and requirements can be a fertile source for misunderstandings and conflict.

Such examples include:

  • therelationship between independent directors and the CEO;

  • theline between oversight and management;

  • the directors’ need for information versus management providing too much or too little information; and,

  • thebalancing of the company’s short- and long-term interests.

Ситуації, що спричиняють конфлікти в радах директорів:

  1. Перехідні періоди, наприклад, після злиття або поглинання, коли до складу ради входить значна група нових директорів.

  2. Відсутність згоди щодо ролі ради або її комітетів у порівнянні з роллю менеджменту.

  3. Новий генеральний директор, який має проблеми з побудовою відносин з радою або окремими директорами.

  4. Розбіжності або незадоволеність змістом та проведенням засідань.

  5. Складний період для компанії, пов'язаний з несприятливою публічністю, низькими доходами, динамікою акцій, етичними порушеннями або неправомірною поведінкою керівництва.

  6. Нові довгострокові стратегії.

  7. Незадовільна робота директорів.

  8. Незадоволеність ради директорів роботою СЕО чи іншого вищого керівництва.

  9. Взаємодія директорів з корпоративними групами, такими як акціонери, громади чи працівники.

Boardroom Conflict over Appointing New Board Members:

  • Phoenix Timber Corporation:

In 1985, a group of minority shareholders, led by board member Michael Hermann, sought to appoint three independent directors. The board’s chairman then, Dennis Cook, wanted to keep executive members on the board. Hermann argued that the existing structure was counter-productive and lacked innovation and team spirit due to high internal competition. In a very stormy meeting, both sides claimed to represent the legacy of the former CEO. Hermann’s request was neither heard nor followed; the board structure remained the same. The board’s instability nevertheless continued and led to poor corporate performance. Phoenix had to announce a substantial loss for that year. This, in turn, led to the resignation of several directors, including its chairman, in the year following the dispute.

  • Dispute over a Merger: The Hewlett-Packard Case:

In 2002, the board became embroiled in a fight over the company’s strategy, specifically whether HP should merge with Compaq. Every director supported the merger except for Walter Hewlett, the son of HP co founder Bill Hewlett. Soon after Walter Hewlett voiced his opposition, the family of David Packard, the other co-founder of HP, supported the Hewlett family’s position. Together, the two families owned 18 percent of the outstanding voting shares. The rest of the board was very vocal in supporting the merger; they authorized letters to shareholders that discredited Walter Hewlett’s opinion, saying that he was a “musician and academic” and “never worked for the company.” Walter Hewlett responded by revealing that the CEOs of the two companies would receive a total compensation package of $115 million if the merger is completed. HP management then accused Walter Hewlett of disseminating misinformation about employment terms of senior executives. They also clarified that the CEO of HP then, Carly Fiorina, would only get a sizable compensation package if she remained in her position for three years and delivered a significant increase in the share price. The dispute between Walter Hewlett and the board led to a costly lawsuit for both sides. Walter Hewlett was not reappointed as a director on the merged HP-Compaq company, and the company’s image washurt by the media campaign.

3. Corporate governance-related disputes

Categories of Corporate governance-related Disputes:

  • Self-interested transactions: Related party transactions, insider trading, conflicts of interest by board members, executives, and senior management.

  • Annual accounts: Disputes between shareholders and the board and/or auditor over the withholding of shareholder approval.

  • Nomination/appointment of board members: Disputes between shareholders and the nomination committee and/or the board over nomination and/or appointment of board members/executives, as well as the criteria for nomination/appointment.

  • Remuneration/bonuses of board members: Disputes between shareholders and the remuneration committee and/or the board over remuneration and/or bonuses of board members/executives, as well as the criteria for remuneration/ bonuses.

  • Share valuation: Disputes between shareholders and the board and/or auditors on the valuation method in case of (a) squeeze out, and (b) share/bond issues.

  • Takeover procedures: Disputes between shareholders and boards regarding terms and conditions of a proposed takeover, and/or compliance with internal (articles of association) and/or external (listing rules, securities legislation, etc.) rules.

  • Disclosure requirements: Disputes between shareholders and boards regarding compliance with nonfinancial disclosure requirements.

  • Corporate control (in M&A transactions): Disputes between shareholders and boards regarding a proposed acquisition or disposal of a substantial part of the company’s assets.

  • Minority shareholders’ rights: Disputes between majority and minority shareholders in squeeze-out scenarios or on nomination/appointment of board members.

  • Bankruptcy/suspension of payments: Disputes between shareholders and/ or bondholders and boards and/or receivers in corporate restructuring.

  • Share/bond issues: Disputes between shareholders/ bondholders and boards on dilution issues.

  • Discharge of individual board members/executives: Disputes between shareholders and board members/executives on individual discharge regarding their performance in the past fiscal year Mismanagement Disputes between shareholders and boards on alleged mismanagement of the company.

  • Non-compliance with corporate governance codes: Disputes between shareholders and boards on the application of “comply or explain” principles as provided in corporate governance codes.

  • Works’ council: Disputes between shareholders/ boards and works’ councils on the interpretation and applicability of works’ council legal corporate governancerelated rights.

  • Disputes among corporate officers: Auditing, conflict of interest or remuneration issues.

  • Disputes among investors (shareholders and/or bondholders): Share valuation, a proposed takeover, acquisition or disposal of company assets.

  • Disputes between shareholders and the corporation: Voting rights or dividend payments.

  • Disputes between the corporation and its corporate officers: These typically concern fiduciary breach. The shareholders, acting in the corporation’s name, may initiate such disputes. The shareholders then usually present a claim against the board for allowing misconduct or rule violation. Since shareholders act as if they are the aggrieved party, these disputes are referred to as “derivative disputes.”

4. What is Mediation?

Mediation can help prevent and effectively deal with corporate governancerelated disputes.

Mediation is the most common ADR technique. The term is now internationally accepted. In some cases, these techniques are no longer depicted as “alternative” but instead are called “effective dispute resolution”.

Mediation (or conciliation) is formally defined in Article 1 of the 2002 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation as, “a process … whereby parties request a third person or persons … to assist them in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute arising out of or relating to a contractual or other legal relationship. The conciliator does not have the authority to impose upon the parties a solution to the dispute.

Characteristics, Benefits of Mediation:

Cost: Transaction costs are considerably lower than those of adjudication.

Speed: The process can start as soon as the parties agree to mediation. This rarely takes more then a few days.

Quality: Mediators can be selected according to their skills and field of expertise.

Predictability: The decision cannot be imposed on the parties.

Control: The parties own the dispute and craft its solution.

Flexibility: The parties can decide on the type of mediation and how to set up the procedure, including the timing and the location.

Confidentiality: Parties can disclose only what they wish to. The content of the mediation and information exchanged usually remains confidential, but the parties may agree on disclosing the agreement.

Limited risk: Parties do not have to settle and have the choice to seek another form of dispute resolution – including a court decision.

Liability: It doesn’t have to be admitted to reach a settlement.

Non-binding: While the process is non-binding, the outcome may be enforced as a contract or registered as a consent judgment.

Voluntary: Unless required by court, the parties do not have to go to mediation. In all cases, parties do not have to settle.

Perspective: Parties can gain a more objective, detached view of their positions before their views solidify and the battle lines are drawn, which makes a resolution more difficult to achieve. Further, the parties’ circumstances may have altered from those prevailing when the conflict occurred, thus allowing for an interim assessment.

5. Mediation Techniques to Improve Board Governance:

  • Identifying interests as opposed to positions;

  • Surfacing issues, both emotional and factual, involved in potential or actual disputes;

  • Helping the parties focus on their long-term objectives and interests;

  • Using procedures that encourage collaboration and emphasize flexibility;

  • Promoting discussions and encouraging free flow of ideas;

  • Uncovering information relevant to the problem and its solution;

  • Facilitating the parties’ collaborative development of their own solutions, rather than imposing solutions on them;

  • Using a third party, when appropriate, to facilitate and broker communications.

6. Skills Required for Mediating Corporate Governance Disputes:

  • Impartiality;

  • Independence;

  • Diligence;

  • Discretion;

  • Reputation;

  • Responsibility;

  • Tact;

  • Interpersonal relations;

  • Experience with corporate governance disputes;

  • Conceptual understanding of corporate governance;

  • Understanding of corporate governance issues;

  • Knowledge of corporate legal framework.

7. Recommendations:

  1. Corporate boards should ensure that proper ADR policies are adopted and carried out to effectively deal with any type of corporate disputes prior to engaging in litigation.

  2. Board members and other stakeholders involved in or advising on the governance of corporations should familiarize themselves with ADR and conflict management and prevention techniques. They should continue to improve their understanding of how these tools can benefit corporations.

  3. Chairmen, lead directors, corporate secretaries in particular, should be trained on mediation techniques within the context of traditional professional development.

  4. Modules on mediation techniques and conflict resolution should usefully be included in any director training curriculum.

  5. Professional mediators specialized in corporate and commercial disputes should improve their knowledge of corporate governance issues and corporate ownership–related disputes.

  6. Professional organizations such as Institutes of Directors should be encouraged to provide mediation services and conflict management training to their members.

  7. Stock exchanges or regulatory bodies should establish conflict resolution or arbitration processes.

  8. Listing rules should require companies to agree to seek out mediation prior to filling a court case.

  9. Corporate governance codes of best practice should recommend the use of mediation to deal with governance disputes and recommend that directors receive training in ADR.

  1. International organizations and supra-national bodies should provide adequate guidelines to promote industry pledges and help introduce corporate governance dispute resolution clauses in codes of best practice, corporate by laws, and contracts.