Daily Archives: Friday, November 19, 2021

SEC Dramatically Changes the Rules for Proxy Contests

Kai Liekefett, Derek Zaba, and Beth Berg are partners at Sidley Austin LLP. This post is based on their Sidley memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Universal Proxies by Scott Hirst (discussed on the Forum here).

On November 17, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted new Rule 14a-19 and amendments to existing rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the use of “universal” proxy cards in all nonexempt director election contests at publicly traded companies in the U.S. The new “Universal Proxy Rules” contain only slight modifications from rules the SEC first proposed in October 2016, for which the SEC reopened the public comment period during 2021. The rules will take effect for shareholder meetings after August 31, 2022. We expect a significant increase in proxy contest threats once the Universal Proxy Rules go in effect.

Members of Sidley’s Shareholder Activism & Corporate Defense Practice sent a formal comment letter to the SEC regarding the proposed rules — the only letter from a U.S. law firm suggesting material amendments that would protect against the potential for misuse of a mandatory universal proxy system. As we argued previously, the Universal Proxy Rules create the equivalent of “proxy access on steroids.” While comparable to the vacated Rule 14a-11, which allowed shareholders holding at least 3% of a company’s outstanding shares for three years to put dissident directors on the company’s proxy statement, the Universal Proxy Rules confer substantially more significant rights to shareholders without any minimum ownership requirements (i.e., owning only one share for one minute will be sufficient). Although this was a concern voiced by several Commissioners, the SEC proceeded with the adoption of the Universal Proxy Rules as originally proposed. The new rules will reshape the process by which hostile bidders, activist hedge funds, social and environmental activists, and other dissident shareholders may utilize director elections to influence control and policy at public companies.

As the rules will dramatically change the methods by which proxy contests at public companies have been conducted for decades, this article summarizes the principal mechanics of the Universal Proxy Rules and the implications of the rules for public companies.

READ MORE »

Statement by Commissioner Roisman on Proposed Amendments Related to Proxy Voting Advice

Elad L. Roisman is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The following post is based on his recent public statement. The views expressed in this post are those of Mr. Roisman and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.

Over the past several years, much has been said about what the rise in fund ownership throughout our equity markets might mean for our economy. [1] But one outcome of increasing fund growth is clear: as funds come to own an ever larger percentage of U.S. corporate equities, they can influence the outcome of a variety of matters that companies submit to a shareholder vote. [2] As recently as a month ago, [3] the Commission acknowledged this fact and pursued policies designed to ensure that those who manage funds approach voting in a manner that serves the best interest of their clients. [4]

I. The Importance of Proxy Voting Advice to Investors

One cannot consider the implications of fund voting without also considering the role of those unique businesses that have become integral to the voting processes of so many asset managers: proxy voting advice businesses, also known as proxy advisory firms or proxy advisors. [5] Since fund portfolios often hold securities of many public companies, asset managers often face the prospect of voting on hundreds—if not thousands—of proposals relating to hundreds of fund portfolio companies each year, with the significant portion of those voting decisions concentrated in a period of a few months. [6] Proxy advisory firms offer services to assist them. Most substantively, these services include providing research and analysis regarding the matters subject to a vote; developing voting guidelines that asset managers can adopt; and making recommendations about how funds should vote on specific matters. [7] Proxy advisors also commonly provide electronic vote management systems through which asset managers can access not only their voting advice, but also proxy ballots pre-populated with the proxy advisor’s voting recommendations, ready for submission to be counted. [8]

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: November 12-18, 2021


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of November 12-18, 2021.

M&A/PE Update


Optimizing The World’s Leading Corporate Law: A 20-Year Retrospective and Look Ahead


Roundup of Director Overboarding Policies


2021 U.S. Board Index



FSOC Issues Report Declaring Climate Change as Emerging Threat to U.S. Financial Stability


Investment Management Regulatory Update




DOJ Announces Revisions Strengthening Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies


Hearing on Board Gender Diversity Statute


Elizabeth Holmes and The Mythology of Silicon Valley


Stockholder Nominees Barred For Noncompliance With “Clear Day” Advance Notice Bylaw



Remarks by Commissioner Crenshaw Remarks at the PepsiCo-PwC CPE Conference



Statement by Commissioner Peirce on Universal Proxy


Statement by Commissioner Crenshaw on Universal Proxy