<?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/2013/03/06/unbundling-rules-and-say-on-pay-decisions-in-apple-shareholder-case/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>Sun, 26 Apr 2026 11:30:51 +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>Unbundling Rules and Say-on-Pay Decisions in Apple Shareholder Case</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/03/06/unbundling-rules-and-say-on-pay-decisions-in-apple-shareholder-case/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=unbundling-rules-and-say-on-pay-decisions-in-apple-shareholder-case</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/03/06/unbundling-rules-and-say-on-pay-decisions-in-apple-shareholder-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:26:20 +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[Securities Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy season]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule 14a-4]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Say on pay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder meetings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder proposals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder suits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. federal courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=41379?d=20150113105350EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On February 22, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York enjoined Apple, Inc. from proceeding with a planned vote at its annual shareholders’ meeting on amendments to certain provisions of its articles of incorporation on the grounds that the proposed amendments, which were presented as a single matter to [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by James Morphy, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, on Wednesday, March 6, 2013 </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 C. Morphy</a> is a partner at Sullivan &amp; Cromwell LLP specializing in mergers &amp; acquisitions and corporate governance. The following post is based on a Sullivan &amp; Cromwell publication.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>On February 22, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York enjoined Apple, Inc. from proceeding with a planned vote at its annual shareholders’ meeting on amendments to certain provisions of its articles of incorporation on the grounds that the proposed amendments, which were presented as a single matter to be voted upon, likely violated SEC rules prohibiting the “bundling” of separate matters into a single vote.</p>
<p>In the same opinion, the court rejected a shareholder petition to enjoin Apple’s “say-on-pay” vote. In that regard, the shareholder made similar arguments as those in complaints received by numerous companies in recent months – namely, that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section was not compliant with SEC rules because it gave insufficient detail on the compensation committee’s decision-making process and the information the committee had. The court disagreed, holding that Apple’s disclosure was “plainly sufficient under SEC rules.”</p>
<p>The unbundling decision serves as a reminder that companies preparing their proxy statements for upcoming annual meetings should ensure that all material, separate matters are presented for separate votes. The mere fact that multiple matters are included in a single charter amendment, or that the matters are all broadly “shareholder-friendly,” is not, based on the Apple decision, sufficient to avoid a violation of the unbundling rules.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/03/06/unbundling-rules-and-say-on-pay-decisions-in-apple-shareholder-case/#more-41379" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Unbundling Rules and Say-on-Pay Decisions in Apple Shareholder Case">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/03/06/unbundling-rules-and-say-on-pay-decisions-in-apple-shareholder-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
