<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/07/22/d-c-circuit-strikes-down-proxy-access-rules/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2026 11:32:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.9</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>D.C. Circuit Strikes Down Proxy Access Rules</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/07/22/d-c-circuit-strikes-down-proxy-access-rules/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=d-c-circuit-strikes-down-proxy-access-rules</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/07/22/d-c-circuit-strikes-down-proxy-access-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:36:21 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Elections & Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. federal courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=19774?d=20150113161653EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an opinion issued today in the challenge brought by the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the SEC’s adoption of proxy access,  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the entire proxy access regime as an “arbitrary and capricious” exercise of the SEC’s authority.  The opinion, written by Judge [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Adam O. Emmerich, Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, on Friday, July 22, 2011 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.wlrk.com/Page.cfm/Thread/Attorneys/SubThread/Search/Name/Emmerich,%20Adam%20O." target="_blank">Adam Emmerich</a> is a partner in the corporate department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &amp; Katz focusing primarily on mergers and acquisitions and securities law matters. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton firm memorandum. Other posts about proxy access, including several papers from the Program on Corporate Governance, are available <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/tag/proxy-access/">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>In an opinion issued today in the challenge brought by the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the SEC’s adoption of proxy access,  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the entire proxy access regime as an “arbitrary and capricious” exercise of the SEC’s authority.  The <a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/89BE4D084BA5EBDA852578D5004FBBBE/$file/10-1305-1320103.pdf" target="_blank">opinion</a>, written by Judge Ginsburg, chides the SEC for failing “adequately to assess the economic effects” of  the rules. The court levels particular criticism at the SEC’s analysis of the likely costs associated with, and the frequency of, proxy contests utilizing the access rules, reliance upon “insufficient empirical data” to support a conclusion that proxy access would improve board performance, and failure to address the possibility that unions and pension funds would use the rules as a bargaining chip in unrelated negotiations with issuers.  While noting that these overall defects in the rule render it invalid with respect to all types of issuers, the opinion offers lengthy criticism in particular of the decision to subject investment companies to the proxy access rules, due to the enhanced regulation imposed by the Investment Company Act of 1940.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/07/22/d-c-circuit-strikes-down-proxy-access-rules/#more-19774" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading D.C. Circuit Strikes Down Proxy Access Rules">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/07/22/d-c-circuit-strikes-down-proxy-access-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
