United States: US SEC Provides Guidance on Excluding Shareholder Proposals from Proxy Statements

Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 permits shareholders who have owned either at least $2,000 in market value or 1 percent of the voting stock of a company for at least one year to submit a proposal that a company must include in its proxy statement, unless the proposal has specified procedural deficiencies or can be excluded based on one of the substantive grounds that are set forth in the rule.

For example, Rule 14a-8(i)(9) permits exclusion of a shareholder proposal if "the proposal directly conflicts with one of the company's own proposals to be submitted to shareholders at the same meeting." In the past, the staff of the US Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Corporation Finance (the Staff) has granted no-action relief on this basis—even where the management proposal was on the same topic but with more restrictive terms—including in situations when the management proposal was developed only after the shareholder proposal was received.

In December 2014, the Staff took a no-action position pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(9) with respect to excluding a proxy access shareholder proposal received by Whole Foods Market Inc. that conflicted with a management proxy access proposal that had different terms than the shareholder proxy access proposal.1 Following the controversy generated by certain shareholders and shareholder groups as a result of this no-action letter, SEC Chair Mary Jo

White directed the Staff to review and report on the scope and application of Rule 14a-8(i)(9) as grounds for excluding shareholder proposals. Pending completion of the review, the Staff suspended giving no-action relief on this basis for any type of shareholder proposal, not just for proxy access proposals.

Another substantive basis for a company to exclude a shareholder proposal from its proxy statement is provided by Rule 14a-8(i)(7), which applies "[i]f the proposal deals with a matter relating to the company's ordinary business operations." In Trinity Wall Street v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,2 a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a shareholder proposal submitted to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., was excludable under Rule 14a- 8(i)(7). In applying the Rule 14a-8(i)(7) test, the court employed a new two-part test that went beyond the Staff's past interpretations of this ground for excluding a shareholder proposal. The court concluded that, for the significant policy exception to the ordinary business exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(7) to apply, "a shareholder must do more than focus its proposal on a significant policy issue; the subject matter of its proposal must 'transcend' the company's ordinary business."

On October 22, 2015, the Staff issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H3 (SLB 14H) addressing the scope and application of the grounds for exclusion of shareholder proposals from company proxy statements provided by Rule 14a-8(i)(9) and Rule 14a-8(i)(7).

Rule 14a-8(i)(9)

As described in SLB 14H, when reviewing a noaction request made under Rule 14a-8(i)(9), the Staff will now focus on whether a reasonable shareholder could logically vote for both the shareholder proposal and the management proposal. Under this new Staff analysis, a shareholder proposal would directly conflict with a management proposal, and thereby be excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(9), only if a reasonable shareholder could not logically vote in favor of both proposals (i.e., where a vote for one proposal would be tantamount to a vote against the other proposal). The Staff indicated that it will not view a shareholder proposal as directly conflicting with a management proposal if a reasonable shareholder, although possibly preferring one proposal over the other, could logically vote for both.

SLB 14H provides the following examples of situations where shareholder proposals cannot be excluded on the grounds of conflicting with management proposals:

  • A shareholder proposal that would permit a shareholder or group of shareholders holding at least 3 percent of the company's outstanding stock for at least three years to nominate up to 20 percent of the directors would not directly conflict with a management proposal that would allow shareholders holding at least 5 percent of the company's stock for at least five years to nominate for inclusion in the company's proxy statement 10 percent of the directors; and
  • A shareholder proposal asking the compensation committee to implement a policy that equity awards would have no less than four-year annual vesting would not directly conflict with a management proposal to approve an incentive plan that gives the compensation committee discretion to set the vesting provisions for equity awards.

Under SLB 14H, it is possible for a precatory shareholder proposal to directly conflict with a management proposal on the same subject, even though the shareholder proposal is not binding. SLB 14H also recognizes that a shareholder proposal may be in direct conflict with a management proposal even if the management proposal is approved by the company's board of directors after the shareholder proposal was received by the company.

Rule 14a-8(i)(7)

While the Staff granted a no-action letter to Wal- Mart under Rule 14a-8(i)(7), agreeing that Wal- Mart could exclude a shareholder proposal regarding the sale of products potentially raising public safety issues,4 it disagreed with the court's analysis in Trinity, even though the court reached a similar conclusion. In SLB 14H, the Staff expressed concern that the new analytical approach introduced by the Third Circuit may lead to the unwarranted exclusion of shareholder proposals.

According to SLB 14H, the majority opinion in Trinity viewed a proposal's focus as separate and distinct from whether a proposal transcends a company's ordinary business, while the SEC has stated that proposals focusing on a significant policy issue are not excludable under the ordinary business exception "because the proposals would transcend the day-to-day business matters and raise policy issues so significant that it would be appropriate for a shareholder vote." The Staff makes clear in SLB 14H that it will not permit the exclusion of a shareholder proposal on a significant policy that transcends a company's ordinary business operations, even if the significant policy issue relates to the "nitty-gritty" of the company's core business. Practical Considerations

While the Staff review of its prior application of direct conflict exclusions was prompted by a proxy access no-action letter, the SLB 14H guidance impacts use of Rule 14a-8(i)(9) for any type of shareholder proposal, including proposals permitting shareholders to call a special meeting which, in the past, have been excluded as a result of management proposals with differing thresholds. In any event, it is important that companies carefully consider all of the options available to them when deciding how to respond to a shareholder proposal.

Because of the Staff's new position, it will be more difficult for companies to exclude shareholder proposals from their proxy statements pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(9) based on a management proposal on the same topic. A company likely will not be able to obtain a noaction letter from the Staff by developing a variation of the shareholder proposal with terms that it believes are more appropriate.

If the board of directors decides to implement the subject matter of a shareholder proposal, but believes that different terms would be better for the company, management can still create its own competing proposal to submit to shareholders. Following the suspension of the availability of Rule 14a-8(i)(9) as a basis for exclusion during the 2015 proxy season, there were a number of companies that included both shareholder and management proxy access or special meeting proposals in their proxy statements, with shareholders voting on both proposals. This trend is likely to continue, providing a concrete way for management to demonstrate its support for the subject matter of a shareholder proposal while explaining why it believes its variation is in the best interests of the company.

If a company decides to include a management proposal in its proxy statement on the same subject as a non-binding, precatory shareholder proposal, it needs to decide what action it plans to take if both the management proposal and the shareholder proposal are approved, or if only the shareholder proposal is approved.

Companies considering a management proposal on the same topic as a shareholder proposal may find it possible to negotiate with the proponent, seeking withdrawal of the shareholder proposal based on management's commitment to adopt or submit to shareholders a mutually agreed upon version of the proposal.

Some companies may adopt their preferred version of proxy access or other proposal in anticipation of a shareholder proposal on the topic in the hope of averting a shareholder proposal, or excluding one under Rule 14a- 8(i)(10). Thereafter, if a company receives a shareholder proposal with terms that differ from the provision on the same topic that the company already adopted, the company might be able to exclude that shareholder proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(10) on the ground that the company already substantially implemented the shareholder proposal. Although Rule 14a- 8(i)(10) does not require that a proposal be fully implemented, companies seeking to rely on this basis for exclusion must demonstrate that the proposal has already been substantially implemented.While SLB 14H does not address the "substantially implemented" ground for exclusion, the new guidance may reflect that the Staff's current views tend toward narrowly interpreting the scope of exclusions. In this regard, the next big test for Rule 14a-8 no-action letters may be over the interpretation of what it means for a proposal to have been "substantially implemented."

Although SLB 14H challenged a recent court formulation of the significant policy exception to the ordinary business exclusion pursuant to Rule14a-8(i)(7), the Staff affirmed its existing position on the issue. Therefore, existing noaction precedent construing whether a shareholder proposal raises a significant policy issue remains applicable.

As a reminder, companies receiving shareholder proposals for their proxy statements should promptly evaluate whether the technical and procedural requirements of Rule 14a-8 are met because deficiencies that are timely identified may provide a basis of exclusion for a shareholder proposal that is not otherwise excludable on substantive grounds.

Finally, as evidenced by the Trinity case discussed in SLB 14H, the Staff's no-action process is not the only method for determining whether a shareholder proposal may be excluded from a company's proxy statement. Although the no-action procedure is the most prevalent, parties sometimes turn to the courts to resolve the question of whether a shareholder proposal must be included in a company's proxy statement. In particular, one new factor for companies to consider if they can bring an action in the Third Circuit and are looking at the Rule 14a-8(i)(7) exclusion is whether they are likely to have a more favorable outcome dealing with the SEC's no-action letter process under Rule 14a-8 or with the Third Circuit and its current interpretation of the exclusion.


1 Available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cfnoaction/14a-8/2014/jamesmcritchie120114.pdf.

2 792 F.3d 323 (3d Cir. 2015).

3 Available at http://www.sec.gov/interps/legal/cfslb14h.htm.

4 Available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cfnoaction/14a-8/2014/trinitychurch032014-14a8.pdf.


Learn more about our Corporate & Securities practice.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2015. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions