Three federal district courts have issued the first substantive Rule 14a-8 rulings of the season with mixed results: two courts denied shareholder requests for injunctive relief, and one granted relief subject to a $20,000 bond. As a practical matter, two companies filed their 2026 proxies without the challenged proposals, while the third included the proposal. None of the three, however, is a final merits decision; each reflects a court’s likelihood-of-success forecast, not a definitive ruling on excludability. Notably, all three decisions turned on Rule 14a-8(i)(7), the “ordinary business” basis, described by one court as a “perplexing” issue and by two courts as the “most perplexing” substantive exclusion ground. This alert walks through what the courts said, what they did not say, and what the rulings suggest for issuers still navigating exclusion decisions.

(more…)