<?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/2012/06/28/proxy-access-proposals-review-of-2012-results-and-outlook-for-2013/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, 08 May 2026 11:32:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Proxy Access Proposals: Review of 2012 Results and Outlook for 2013</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/28/proxy-access-proposals-review-of-2012-results-and-outlook-for-2013/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=proxy-access-proposals-review-of-2012-results-and-outlook-for-2013</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/28/proxy-access-proposals-review-of-2012-results-and-outlook-for-2013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:07:04 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Elections & Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Precatory proposals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule 14a-11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule 14a-8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder proposals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=30233?d=20150113141801EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pursuant to SEC rule changes that took effect in September 2011, shareholders are now permitted to submit and vote on “proxy access proposals” – that is, proposals to give shareholders the right to include director nominees in the company’s proxy materials. Over 20 such shareholder proposals (half of which were binding) were submitted during the [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by James Morphy, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, on Thursday, June 28, 2012 </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.sullcrom.com/lawyers/detail.aspx?attorney=246" target="_blank">James Morphy</a> is a partner at Sullivan &amp; Cromwell LLP specializing in mergers &amp; acquisitions and corporate governance. This post is based on a Sullivan &amp; Cromwell publication, available <a href="http://www.sullcrom.com/files/Publication/efef6acc-c684-42d5-a745-c2c106c6b794/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/49338814-b2c6-4456-963d-c92ff7f41e2b/SC_Publication_Proxy_Access_Proposals_Review_of_2012_Results_and_Outlook_for_2013.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>. Work on proxy access from the Program on Corporate Governance includes <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1513408" target="_blank">Private Ordering and the Proxy Access Debate</a> by Bebchuk and Hirst.</p>
<p><strong>Update: </strong>An updated version of the memo on which this post is based is available <a href="http://www.sullcrom.com/SC-Publication-Proxy-Access-Proposals-Review-2012-Results-2013/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>Pursuant to SEC rule changes that took effect in September 2011, shareholders are now permitted to submit and vote on “proxy access proposals” – that is, proposals to give shareholders the right to include director nominees in the company’s proxy materials. Over 20 such shareholder proposals (half of which were binding) were submitted during the 2012 proxy season, of which only eight have come to a vote. Many of the proposals that did not come to a vote were deemed excludable from proxy statements by the staff of the SEC for a variety of technical reasons. We have included on the following page a chart of the terms and outcomes of proxy access proposals submitted to date.</p>
<p>The vote results from this limited pool suggest that shareholders are hesitant to approve proposals that would give a proxy access right to holders of a small number of shares, but are more supportive of proposals that have ownership requirements that are similar to the 3%/3-year threshold that would have applied under the SEC’s now-vacated mandatory proxy access rule.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/28/proxy-access-proposals-review-of-2012-results-and-outlook-for-2013/#more-30233" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Proxy Access Proposals: Review of 2012 Results and Outlook for 2013">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/28/proxy-access-proposals-review-of-2012-results-and-outlook-for-2013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
