I’m not referring to the kind of proposal at the right; rather, I’m referring to shareholder proposals – one of the topics of a recent Executive Order signed by our fearless leader. (Yes, that is a reference to Rocky and Bullwinkle).
I’ve already commented on the possible impact of the Executive Order on proxy advisory
It’s early days, but I’m pleased to report that the optimism I expressed about the SEC in the aftermath of the 2024 election may have been warranted. At a minimum, the actions taken by the SEC since January 20 demonstrate support for the issuer community, an interest in pursuing the traditional goals of the SEC, and a willingness to help those of us who advise clients with respect to SEC rules and the many interpretations of those rules.
What the Commissioners Are Saying
First, on January 27, Commissioner Hester Peirce spoke before the Northwestern Securities Regulation Institute. Her remarks were witty (as always) and, for the most part, spot on, to the point that I considered copying them here. (I haven’t, though I have copied some of her choice remarks below.) I do take issue with a few of her remarks (also as always), including her view that a corporation’s singular focus should be on building value for shareholders; it seems to me that it is not possible to build value without focusing on other constituencies such as customers, suppliers, and – yes – even the community at large. Those matters aside, Ms. Peirce made the following good points, among others:Continue Reading So Far, So Good
In case you think that corporate minutes and other corporate formalities are for sissies, think again. And read the opinion in the case of KT4 Partners vs. Palantir, decided by the Delaware Supreme Court in January 2019.
KT4 had submitted a demand under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, seeking to inspect Palantir’s books and records. Because such an inspection must be for a “proper purpose,” KT4 noted that, among other things, Palantir had failed to hold stockholder meetings and to give proper notice under stockholder agreements.
The demand ended up in the Delaware Court of Chancery, which granted some of KT4’s demands but rejected demands for emails exchanged among directors and officers relating to an investor rights agreement. KT4 appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, which reversed that rejection.Continue Reading Minutes count (as do other formalities)
It may be nice to be your own boss, but setting your own compensation – and, at least arguably, giving yourself excessive pay – may get you in trouble. A number of boards of directors have found that out, as courts have given them judicial whacks upside the head for paying themselves too much. Not surprisingly, shareholders have gotten on the bandwagon as well.
Executive compensation – at least for public companies – has to be scrutinized and blessed by independent directors and, since the advent of Say on Pay, approved by shareholders (albeit on a non-binding basis). In contrast, directors have long set their own pay, with little or no scrutiny and no requirement for independent review, much less approval. (Director plans generally must get shareholder approval if they provide for equity grants, but neither the overall director compensation program nor specific awards have to be approved.)
Continue Reading Pigs and hogs — a note on director compensation
No, I’m not referring to my age (I’m old, but not THAT old).
Rather, I’m referring to the supermajority shareholder votes that ISS has required, and that Glass Lewis now requires, for various matters. Specifically, for the past several years, ISS policy has looked askance at any company whose say-on-pay proposal garnered less than 70% of the votes cast. More recently, Glass Lewis has adopted a policy stating that boards should respond to any company proposal, including say-on-pay, that fails to receive at least 80% shareholder approval or any shareholder proposal that receives more than 20% approval.
Putting aside the irony that ISS and Glass Lewis have long railed against supermajority voting requirements imposed by companies, one wonders what the rationale is for upping the ante. One possible reason is frustration that, despite negative voting recommendations from proxy advisory firms, the overwhelming majority of say-on-pay proposals pass – and by relatively large margins. However, my hunch is that the real frustration is that companies don’t usually respond to shareholder proposals that don’t pass, and most shareholder proposals don’t pass.Continue Reading 80 is the new 50
Yes, it’s that time of year again. Turkey, Black Friday, decking the halls, office parties, and the annual issuance of ISS’s voting policies for the coming year.
To make sure I’m on Santa’s good list, I need to be honest – and, to be honest, the 2018 changes seem rather benign. In fact, as noted below, ISS hasn’t gone as far as some of its mainstream members in terms of encouraging board diversity and sustainability initiatives.
Here’s a quick rundown on the key changes for 2018:
I don’t know when Congress decided that every piece of legislation had to have a nifty acronym, but the House Financial Services Committee recently passed (on a partisan basis) what old-fashioned TV ads might have called the new, improved version of the “Financial CHOICE Act”. The word “choice” is in solid caps because it stands for “Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs”.
Whether and for whom it creates hope, opportunity or something else entirely may depend upon your perspective, but whatever else can be said of the Act, it is long (though at 589 pages, it is slightly more than half as long as Dodd-Frank), and it addresses a very broad swath of issues. Here’s what it has to say about some key issues in disclosure, governance and capital formation, along with some commentary.
Continue Reading The Financial CHOICE Act – everything you’ve ever wanted, and more?
It remains to be seen whether the new administration will actually drain the swamp or do away with political correctness, but one hope that some of us have – regardless of our views on the election – is that the SEC may finally get around to some issues that have been on the back burner for years.
One such issue is a long-overdue overhaul of the rules surrounding shareholder proposals, including the submission and resubmission thresholds for proposals under SEC Rule 14a-8. Many organizations, including the Society for Corporate Governance, have repeatedly urged the SEC to update these rules, which have been in place for many years. However, the SEC has been reluctant to plunge into the area due to the likely political firestorm that would result.
Now, another organization has jumped in. At the end of October, the Business Roundtable published “Modernizing the Shareholder Proposal Process”, a rational and well thought-out series of suggestions for bringing shareholder proposals into the 21st Century.Continue Reading A modest proposal about more modest proposals
In the wake of the election of Donald Trump as the next President, there has been a lot of speculation about the effect of a Trump administration on securities law and corporate governance. Looking into a crystal ball is always risky, but here are some observations.
Conflict Minerals: It’s too soon to tell whether Dodd-Frank will be repealed in its entirety, if it will die the death of 1,000 cuts, or if it will stay pretty much as is. What I will say is that few will cry if the conflict minerals provisions are eliminated (and I will not be among those few). Complying with the conflict minerals rules is time-consuming (and therefore costly), and it’s questionable whether many people care. Perhaps of equal or greater importance is that there is some evidence that the conflict minerals requirements are actually hurting the people they were supposed to help.
Pay Ratio: More of the same here. There is some support for pay ratio disclosure among labor pension funds, but that’s about it. Companies don’t like it (duh…), and mainstream investors have no use for it. Given how the Democrats seem to have fared in the industrial states, it’s not clear that they would fall on their collective sword to save this one.
Continue Reading The SEC’s brave new (Trump) world
A week or two ago I was asked to speak at a meeting of the Small- and Mid-Cap Companies Committee of the Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals. That’s not unusual or even noteworthy, as I’m a long-time, active member of the Society and often speak at Society functions.
What was unusual and perhaps noteworthy is the topic on which I was asked to speak and the reason I was asked to speak on it. Specifically, one of the Committee members had asked the Chair if someone could give a general primer on shareholder proposals, because his/her company had received its first shareholder proposal ever.Continue Reading Be scared…be very scared