In remarks on July 9, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Paul Atkins argued that the staff’s decision not to issue substantive responses to most exclusions of Securities Exchange Act Rule 14a-8 proposals served as a “proof of concept” for the SEC’s role in shareholder proposals.[1] In his view, giving market participants more responsibility for applying the proxy rules and resolving disputes about them did not result in chaos, but instead led to more productive engagement between companies and their shareholders.

The SEC has since gone even further, releasing proposed rules on Sept. 16 to entirely rescind Rule 14a-8.

These developments are expected to have little impact on traditional hedge fund activism, which has historically avoided shareholder proposals in favor of director election contests. Nonetheless, Atkins’ July 9 claim that refraining from “calling balls and strikes” on shareholder proposals allows the market to self correct provides a useful backdrop for reviewing shareholder activism in the most recent proxy season.

Proxy contests have long proceeded under a framework in which the SEC has a limited role focused on establishing disclosure rules, while companies and activists distribute their own materials to make their competing cases for shareholders to decide whether change is warranted. While few activism campaigns proceed to formal proxy solicitations, the federal proxy framework shapes the parties’ leverage and conduct long before any proxy filings are made.

This season’s combination of elevated campaign activity, limited formal escalation and measured voting outcomes under the universal proxy card rules illustrates how that framework functions in practice and why a targeted SEC role remains important.

(more…)