<?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/2015/02/24/proxy-access-sec-uncertainty-and-related-issues-in-2015/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 Apr 2026 11:31:36 +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, SEC Uncertainty and Related Issues in 2015</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2015/02/24/proxy-access-sec-uncertainty-and-related-issues-in-2015/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=proxy-access-sec-uncertainty-and-related-issues-in-2015</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2015/02/24/proxy-access-sec-uncertainty-and-related-issues-in-2015/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:09:34 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Boards of Directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Institutional Investors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BlackRock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CalPERS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CalSTRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida SBA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glass Lewis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy advisors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy season]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SSgA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vanguard]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=68435?d=20150310152002EDT</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<div style="background: #F8F8F8;padding: 10px;margin-top: 5px;margin-bottom: 10px"><strong>Editor's Note:</strong> The following post comes to us from <a href="http://www.chapman.com/attorneys-William-Libit.html" target="_blank">Bill Libit</a>, Chief Operating Partner concentrating in corporate and securities and municipal finance at Chapman and Cutler LLP, and is based on a Chapman publication by Mr. Libit and <a href="http://www.chapman.com/attorneys-Todd-Freier.html" target="_blank">Todd Freier</a>; the complete publication, including footnotes, is available <a href="http://www.chapman.com/media/publication/485_Chapman_Corporate_Governance_Q1_2015_Proxy_Season_SEC_Uncertainty_021015.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>

<p>The rise of shareholder activism in the realm of corporate governance has increasingly focused on board performance and the right of shareholders to replace those directors who are perceived to underperform. One proposed approach to facilitate the replacement of underperforming directors is to give shareholders direct access to the company’s proxy materials, including permitting the inclusion of a shareholder-proposed director nominee (or slate of nominees) and a statement in support thereof in the company’s proxy statement (which such approach is more commonly referred to as “proxy access”). Although current U.S. securities regulations do not grant shareholders access to company proxy materials, proxy access may be available to shareholders by way of a company’s organizational documents (e.g., articles of incorporation, bylaws or corporate governance guidelines), as permitted by state corporate law.</p>

<p>While proxy access did not garner significant attention over the past two proxy seasons, it is one of the most notable early developments of the 2015 proxy season. It has been reported that shareholders have submitted an estimated 100 proxy access proposals to U.S. companies, a considerable number of which will be voted upon by shareholders over the next several months. Proxy access will very likely be one of the most contentious corporate governance issues this proxy season.</p>

<p><a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2015/02/24/proxy-access-sec-uncertainty-and-related-issues-in-2015/#more-68435" target="_blank">Click here to read the complete post...</a></p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Tuesday, February 24, 2015 </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;">The following post comes to us from <a href="http://www.chapman.com/attorneys-William-Libit.html" target="_blank">Bill Libit</a>, Chief Operating Partner concentrating in corporate and securities and municipal finance at Chapman and Cutler LLP, and is based on a Chapman publication by Mr. Libit and <a href="http://www.chapman.com/attorneys-Todd-Freier.html" target="_blank">Todd Freier</a>; the complete publication, including footnotes, is available <a href="http://www.chapman.com/media/publication/485_Chapman_Corporate_Governance_Q1_2015_Proxy_Season_SEC_Uncertainty_021015.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>The rise of shareholder activism in the realm of corporate governance has increasingly focused on board performance and the right of shareholders to replace those directors who are perceived to underperform. One proposed approach to facilitate the replacement of underperforming directors is to give shareholders direct access to the company’s proxy materials, including permitting the inclusion of a shareholder-proposed director nominee (or slate of nominees) and a statement in support thereof in the company’s proxy statement (which such approach is more commonly referred to as “proxy access”). Although current U.S. securities regulations do not grant shareholders access to company proxy materials, proxy access may be available to shareholders by way of a company’s organizational documents (e.g., articles of incorporation, bylaws or corporate governance guidelines), as permitted by state corporate law.</p>
<p>While proxy access did not garner significant attention over the past two proxy seasons, it is one of the most notable early developments of the 2015 proxy season. It has been reported that shareholders have submitted an estimated 100 proxy access proposals to U.S. companies, a considerable number of which will be voted upon by shareholders over the next several months. Proxy access will very likely be one of the most contentious corporate governance issues this proxy season.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2015/02/24/proxy-access-sec-uncertainty-and-related-issues-in-2015/#more-70522" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Proxy Access, SEC Uncertainty and Related Issues in 2015">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2015/02/24/proxy-access-sec-uncertainty-and-related-issues-in-2015/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
