U.S. Appeals Court Vacates Proxy Access Rule

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
On July 22, 2011, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated Rule 14a-11 under the Securities Exchange Act, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (Commission) "proxy access" rule adopted in August 2010.
United States Corporate/Commercial Law

On July 22, 2011, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated Rule 14a-11 under the Securities Exchange Act, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (Commission) "proxy access" rule adopted in August 2010. The rule would have made it easier for investors to get their own nominees onto public company boards by requiring companies to include such nominees on the corporate proxy ballot in certain circumstances.

In September 2010, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable sued to overturn Rule 14a-11. In response to the litigation, in October 2010, the Commission stayed Rule 14a-11 and amendments to Rule 14a-8 that would require a company to include in its proxy statement a shareholder proposal that seeks proxy access.

In vacating Rule 14a-11, the court found that the Commission acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in not appropriately considering the economic impacts of the rule. The court was critical of the Commission, noting that "the Commission inconsistently and opportunistically framed the costs and benefits of the rule; failed adequately to quantify the certain costs or to explain why those costs could not be quantified; neglected to support its predictive judgments; contradicted itself; and failed to respond to substantial problems raised by commenters."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More