<?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/2012/07/21/2012-proxy-season-review-overall-trends-in-shareholder-proposals/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>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 11:32:05 +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>2012 Proxy Season Review: Overall Trends in Shareholder Proposals</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/07/21/2012-proxy-season-review-overall-trends-in-shareholder-proposals/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=2012-proxy-season-review-overall-trends-in-shareholder-proposals</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/07/21/2012-proxy-season-review-overall-trends-in-shareholder-proposals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2012 12:40:30 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Elections & Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Board independence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Forum selection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy season]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder proposals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social policies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=30885?d=20150113141216EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 2012 proxy season saw a continued high rate of governance-related shareholder proposals at large U.S. public companies, including proposals on separation of the roles of the CEO and chair, the right to call special meetings, action by written consent, declassified boards and majority voting. As in prior years, these governance-related proposals received high levels [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by James Morphy, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, on Saturday, July 21, 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 an abridged version of a Sullivan &amp; Cromwell publication, titled <em>2012 Proxy Season Review</em>, available in full <a href="http://www.sullcrom.com/SC-Publication-2012-Proxy-Season-Review-7-9-2012/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>The 2012 proxy season saw a continued high rate of governance-related shareholder proposals at large U.S. public companies, including proposals on separation of the roles of the CEO and chair, the right to call special meetings, action by written consent, declassified boards and majority voting. As in prior years, these governance-related proposals received high levels of support, and were the category of proposal that had the best chance of receiving shareholder approval. Proposals on social issues (particularly those related to political contributions and lobbying costs) and compensation-related issues (including equity retention policies) also remained common but, as in the past, these proposals rarely received a majority vote, generally had lower levels of support than governance-related proposals, and served primarily as a vehicle for shareholder activists to express their views.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/07/21/2012-proxy-season-review-overall-trends-in-shareholder-proposals/#more-30885" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading 2012 Proxy Season Review: Overall Trends in Shareholder Proposals">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/07/21/2012-proxy-season-review-overall-trends-in-shareholder-proposals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
