Following a tense period of debate and comments, on September 23, 2020, the SEC adopted amendments to Rule 14a-8 governing shareholder proposals in the proxy process.Ā The proposed rule was published almost a year before in November 2019 (see HERE).Ā The amendment increases the ownership threshold requirements required for shareholders to submit and re-submit proposals to be included in a companyās proxy statement.Ā The ownership thresholds were last amended in 1998 and the resubmission rules have been in place since 1954.Ā The new rules represent significant changes to a shareholderās rights to include matters on a companyās proxy statement.
Shareholder proposals, and the process for including or excluding such proposals in a companyās proxy statement, have been the subject of debate for years.Ā The rules have not been amended in decades and during that time, shareholder activism has shifted.Ā Main Street investors tend to invest more through mutual funds and ETFās, and most shareholder proposals come from a small group of investors which need to meet a very low bar for doing so.
In October 2017, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued a report to President Trump entitled āA Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities; Capital Marketsā in which the Treasury department reported on laws and regulations that, among other things, inhibit economic growth and vibrant financial markets.Ā The Treasury Report stated that ā[A]ccording to one study, six individual investors were responsible for 33% of allĀ shareholderĀ proposals in 2016, while institutional investors with a stated social, religious, or policy orientation were responsible for 38%. During the period between 2007 and 2016, 31% of allĀ shareholderĀ proposals were a resubmission of a priorĀ proposal.āĀ Among the many recommendations by the Treasury Department was to amend Rule 14a-8 to substantially increase both the submission and resubmission threshold requirements.Ā A study completed in 2018 found that 5 individuals accounted for 78% of all the proposals submitted by individual shareholders.
The amendment alters the current ownership requirements for the submission of shareholder proposals to: (i) incorporate a tiered approach that provides for three options involving a combination of amount of securities owned and length of time held; (ii) specify documentation that must be provided when submitting a proposal; (iii) require shareholder proponents to specify dates and times they can meet with company management either in person or on the phone to discuss the submission; and (iv) provide that a person may only submit one proposal, either directly or indirectly, for the same shareholders meeting.Ā The amendment also raise the current thresholds for the resubmission of proposals from 3, 6 and 10 percent to 5, 15 and 25 percent.
The final amendments go into effect 60 days after being published in the federal register and will apply to any proposal submitted for an annual or special meeting to be held on or after January 1, 2022.
Background ā Current Rule 14a-8
The regulation of corporate law rests primarily within the power and authority of the states. However, for public companies, the federal government imposes various corporate law mandates including those related to matters of corporate governance. While state law may dictate thatĀ shareholders have the right to elect directors, the minimum and maximum time allowed for notice ofĀ shareholderĀ meetings, and what matters may be properly considered byĀ shareholders at an annual meeting,Ā Section 14Ā of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (āExchange Actā) and the rules promulgated thereunder govern the proxy process itself for publicly reporting companies. Federal proxy regulations give effect to existing state law rights to receive notice of meetings and forĀ shareholders to submitĀ proposals to be voted on by fellowĀ shareholders.
All companies with securities registered under the Exchange Act are subject to the Exchange Act proxy regulations found in Section 14 and its underlying rules. Section 14 of the Exchange Act and its rules govern the timing and content of information provided toĀ shareholders in connection with annual and special meetings with a goal of providingĀ shareholders meaningful information to make informed decisions, and a valuable method to allow them to participate in theĀ shareholderĀ voting process without the necessity of being physically present. As with all disclosure documents, and especially those with the purpose of evoking a particular active response, such as buying stock or returning proxy cards, theĀ SECĀ has established robust rules governing the procedure for, and form and content of, the disclosures.
Rule 14a-8Ā allowsĀ shareholders to submitĀ proposals and, subject to certain exclusions, require a company to include suchĀ proposals in the proxy solicitation materials even if contrary to the position of the board of directors.Ā Rule 14a-8 has been the source of considerable contention.Ā Rule 14a-8 in particular allows a qualifyingĀ shareholderĀ to submitĀ proposals that subject to substantive and procedural requirements must be included in the companyās proxy materials for annual and special meetings, and provides a method for companies to either accept or attempt to exclude suchĀ proposals.
State laws in general allow aĀ shareholderĀ to attend a meeting in person and at such meeting, to make aĀ proposalĀ to be voted upon by theĀ shareholders at large. In adopting Rule 14a-8, the SEC provides a process and parameters for which theseĀ proposals can be made in advance and included in the proxy process.Ā By giving shareholders an opportunity to have their proposals included in the company proxy, it enables the shareholder to present the proposal to all shareholders, with little or no cost to themselves.Ā It has been challenging for regulators to find a balance between protecting shareholder rights by allowing them to utilize company resources and preventing an abuse of the process to the detriment of the company and other shareholders.
The rule itself is written in āplain Englishā in a question-and-answer format designed to be easily understood and interpreted byĀ shareholders relying on and using the rule. Other than based on procedural deficiencies, if a company desires to exclude a particularĀ shareholderĀ process, it must have substantive grounds for doing so.Ā Under the current Rule 14a-8 to qualify to submit a proposal, a shareholder must:
- Continuously hold a minimum of $2,000 in market value or 1% of the companyās securities entitled to vote on the subjectĀ proposal, for at least one year prior to the date theĀ proposal, is submitted and through the date of the annual meeting;
- If the securities are not held of record by theĀ shareholder, such as if they are in street name in a brokerage account, theĀ shareholderĀ must prove its ownership by either providing a written statement from the record owner (i.e., brokerage firm or bank) or by submitting a copy of filed Schedules 13D or 13G or Forms 3, 4 or 5 establishing such ownership for the required period of time;
- If theĀ shareholderĀ does not hold the requisite number of securities through the date of the meeting, the company can exclude anyĀ proposalĀ made by thatĀ shareholderĀ for the following two years;
- Provide a written statement to the company that the submittingĀ shareholderĀ intends to continue to hold the securities through the date of the meeting;
- Clearly state theĀ proposalĀ and course of action that theĀ shareholderĀ desires the company to follow;
- Submit no more than oneĀ proposalĀ for a particular annual meeting;
- Submit theĀ proposalĀ prior to the deadline, which is 120 calendar days before the anniversary of the date on which the companyās proxy materials for the prior yearās annual meeting were delivered toĀ shareholders, or if no prior annual meeting or if theĀ proposalĀ relates to a special meeting, then within a reasonable time before the company begins to print and send its proxy materials;
- Attend the annual meeting or arrange for a qualified representative to attend the meeting on their behalf ā provided, however, that attendance may be in the same fashion as allowed for otherĀ shareholders such as in person or by electronic media;
- If theĀ shareholderĀ or their qualified representative fail to attend the meeting without good cause, the company can exclude anyĀ proposalĀ made by thatĀ shareholderĀ for the following two years;
- TheĀ proposal, including any accompanying supporting statement, cannot exceed 500 words. If theĀ proposalĀ is included in the companyāsĀ proxy materials, the statement submitted in support thereof will also be included.
AĀ proposalĀ that does not meet the substantive and procedural requirements may be excluded by the company. To exclude theĀ proposalĀ on procedural grounds, the company must notify theĀ shareholderĀ of the deficiency within 14 days of receipt of theĀ proposalĀ and allow theĀ shareholderĀ to cure the problem. TheĀ shareholderĀ has 14 days from receipt of the deficiency notice to cure and resubmit theĀ proposal. If the deficiency could not be cured, such as because it was submitted after the 120-day deadline, no notice or opportunity to cure must be provided.
Upon receipt of aĀ shareholderĀ proposal, a company has many options. The company can elect to include theĀ proposalĀ in the proxy materials. In such case, the company may make a recommendation to vote for or against theĀ proposal, or not take a position at all and simply include theĀ proposalĀ as submitted by theĀ shareholder. If the company intends to recommend a vote against theĀ proposalĀ (i.e., Statement of Opposition), it must follow specified rules as to the form and content of the recommendation. A copy of the Statement of Opposition must be provided to theĀ shareholderĀ no later than 30 days prior to filing a definitive proxy statement with the SEC.Ā If included in the proxy materials, the company must place theĀ proposalĀ on the proxy card with check-the-box choices for approval, disapproval or abstention.
As noted above, the company may seek to exclude theĀ proposalĀ based on procedural deficiencies, in which case it will need to notify theĀ shareholderĀ and provide a right to cure. The company may also seek to exclude theĀ proposalĀ based on substantive grounds, in which case it must file its reasons with the SEC which is usually done through a no-action letter seeking confirmation of its decision and provide a copy of the letter to theĀ shareholder. Ā The SEC has issued a dozen staff legal bulletins providing guidance on shareholder proposals, including interpretations of the substantive grounds for exclusion.Ā Finally, the company may meet with theĀ shareholderĀ and provide a mutually agreed upon resolution to the requestedĀ proposal.
Substantive grounds for exclusion include:
- TheĀ proposalĀ is not a proper subject forĀ shareholderĀ vote in accordance with state corporate law;
- TheĀ proposalĀ would bind the company to take a certain action as opposed to recommending that the board of directors or company take a certain action;
- TheĀ proposalĀ would cause the company to violate any state, federal or foreign law, including other proxy rules;
- TheĀ proposalĀ would cause the company to publish materially false or misleading statements in its proxy materials;
- TheĀ proposalĀ relates to a personal claim or grievance against the company or others or is designed to benefit that particularĀ shareholderĀ to the exclusion of the rest of theĀ shareholders;
- TheĀ proposalĀ relates to immaterial operations or actions by the company in that it relates to less than 5% of the companyās total assets, earnings, sales or other quantitative metrics;
- TheĀ proposalĀ requests actions or changes in ordinary business operations, including the termination, hiring or promotion of employees ā provided, however, thatĀ proposals may relate to succession planning for a CEO (I note this exclusion right has also been the subject of controversy and litigation and is discussed in SLB 14H);
- TheĀ proposalĀ requests that the company take action that it is not legally capable of or does not have the legal authority to perform;
- TheĀ proposalĀ seeks to disqualify a director nominee or specifically include a director for nomination;
- TheĀ proposalĀ seeks to remove an existing director whose term is not completed;
- TheĀ proposalĀ questions the competence, business judgment or character of one or more director nominees;
- The company has already substantially implemented the requested action;
- TheĀ proposalĀ is substantially similar to anotherĀ shareholderĀ proposalĀ that will already be included in the proxy materials;
- TheĀ proposalĀ is substantially similar to aĀ proposalĀ that was included in the company proxy materials within the last five years and received fewer than a specified number of votes;
- TheĀ proposalĀ seeks to require the payment of a dividend; or
- TheĀ proposalĀ directly conflicts with one of the companyās ownĀ proposals to be submitted toĀ shareholders at the same meeting.
Final Amended Rule
The need for a change in the rules has become increasingly apparent in recent years.Ā As discussed above, a shareholder that submits a proposal for inclusion shifts the cost of soliciting proxies for their proposal to the company and ultimately other shareholders and, as such, is susceptible to abuse.Ā In light of the significant costs for companies and other shareholders related to shareholder proxy submittals, and the relative ease in which a shareholder can utilize other methods of communication with a company, including social media, the current threshold of holding $2,000 worth of stock for just one year is just not enough of a meaningful stake or investment interest in the company to warrant inclusion rights under the rules.Ā Prior to proposing the new rules, the SEC conducted in-depth research including reviewing thousands of proxies, shareholder proposals and voting results on those proposals.Ā The SEC also conducted a Proxy Process Roundtable and invited public comments and input.Ā The SEC continued its research, including reviewing a plethora of comment letters, after the rule proposals.
Submission Eligibility and Process
The final rule changes amend eligibility to submit and resubmit proposals but do not alter the underlying substantive grounds upon which a company may reject a proposal.Ā The amendments:
(i) Update the criteria, including the ownership requirements that a shareholder must satisfy to be eligible to have a shareholder proposal included in a companyās proxy statement such that a shareholder would have to satisfy one of three eligibility levels: (a) continuous ownership of at least $2,000 of the companyās securities for at least three years (updated from one year); (b) continuous ownership of at least $15,000 of the companyās securities for at least two years; or (c) continuous ownership of at least $25,000 of the companyās securities for at least one year;
(ii) Investors who currently are eligible to submit proposals under the current $2,000 threshold/one-year minimum holding period, but currently do not satisfy the new requirements, will continue to be eligible to submit proposals through the expiration of the transition period that extends for all annual or special meetings held prior to January 1, 2023, provided they continue to hold at least $2,000 of a companyās securities;
(iii) Eliminate the 1% test as it historically is never used;
(iv) Eliminate the ability to aggregate ownership with other shareholders to meet the threshold for submittal.Ā Shareholders can still co-file or co-sponsor proposals, but each one must meet the eligibility threshold;
(v) Require that if a shareholder decides to use a representative to submit their proposal, they must provide documentation that the representative is authorized to act on their behalf and clear evidence of the shareholderās identity, role and interest in the proposal including a signed statement by the shareholder;
(vi) Require that each shareholder that submits a proposal state that they are able to meet with the company, either in person or via teleconference, no less than 10 calendar days, nor more than 30 calendar days, after submission of the proposal (regardless of prior communications on the subject), and provide contact information (of the shareholder, not its representative) as well as business days and specific times (i.e., more than one date and time) that the shareholder is available to discuss the proposal with the company.
One Proposal Requirement
The final amendments change the āone proposalā requirements in Rule 14a-8(c) to:
(i) apply the one-proposal rule to each person rather than each shareholder who submits a proposal, such that a shareholder would not be permitted to submit one proposal in his or her own name and simultaneously serve as a representative to submit a different proposal on another shareholderās behalf for consideration at the same meeting. Likewise, a representative would not be permitted to submit more than one proposal to be considered at the same meeting, even if the representative were to submit each proposal on behalf of different shareholders.
Resubmission Thresholds
The final amendments also increase the resubmission thresholds.Ā Under certain circumstances, Rule 14a-8(i)(12) allows companies to exclude a shareholder proposal that ādeals with substantially the same subject matter as another proposal or proposals that has or have been previously included in the companyās proxy materials within the preceding 5 calendar years.ā
The final amendments amend the shareholder proposal resubmittal eligibility in Rule 14a-8(i)(12) to increase the current resubmission thresholds of 3%, 6% and 10% of shareholder support related to matters voted on once, twice or three or more times in the last five years, respectively, to 5%, 15% and 25%.
The final amendments did not adopt an amendment from the proposed rule release that would have: (i) add a new provision that would allow for exclusion of a proposal that has been previously voted on three or more times in the last five years, notwithstanding having received at least 25% of the votes cast on its most recent submission, if the proposal (a) received less than 50% of the votes cast and (ii) experienced a decline in shareholder support of 10% or more compared to the immediately preceding vote.Ā Commenters strongly objected to this proposals and the SEC agreed with their reasoning.
SEC Process
As discussed above, a company may also seek to exclude theĀ proposalĀ based on substantive grounds, in which case it must file its reasons with the SEC which is usually done through a no-action letter seeking confirmation of its decision and provide a copy of the letter to theĀ shareholder.Ā In its proposing release, the SEC asked for comments on this process and how it might be improved upon, or whether the SEC should remove itself from the process altogether deferring to state law.Ā After reviewing comments, the SEC declined to implement any changes to the process.
The Author
Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Anthony L.G., PLLC
A Corporate Law Firm
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provide ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded public companies as well as private companies going public on the Nasdaq, NYSE American or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For more than two decades Anthony L.G., PLLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service.Ā The firmās reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker-dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firmās focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions, securities token offerings and initial coin offerings, Regulation A/A+ offerings, as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-3, S-8 and merger registrations on Form S-4; compliance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including Nasdaq and NYSE American; general corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Ms. Anthony and her firm represent both target and acquiring companies in merger and acquisition transactions, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. The ALG legal team assists Pubcos in complying with the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the small-cap and middle marketās top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, Corporate Finance in Focus. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Ms. Anthony is a member of various professional organizations including the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA), Palm Beach County Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association, the American Bar Association and the ABA committees on Federal Securities Regulations and Private Equity and Venture Capital. She is a supporter of several community charities including siting on the board of directors of the American Red Cross for Palm Beach and Martin Counties, and providing financial support to the Susan Komen Foundation, Opportunity, Inc., New Hope Charities, the Society of the Four Arts, the Norton Museum of Art, Palm Beach County Zoo Society, the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts and several others. She is also a financial and hands-on supporter of Palm Beach Day Academy, one of Palm Beachās oldest and most respected educational institutions. She currently resides in Palm Beach with her husband and daughter.
Ms. Anthony is an honors graduate from Florida State University College of Law and has been practicing law since 1993.
Contact Anthony L.G., PLLC. Inquiries of a technical nature are always encouraged.
Follow Anthony L.G., PLLC on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Pinterest and Twitter.
Listen to our podcast on iTunes Podcast channel.
lawĀ·cast
Noun
Lawcast is derived from the term podcast and specifically refers to a series of news segments that explain the technical aspects of corporate finance and securities law. The accepted interpretation of lawcast is most commonly used when referring to LawCast.com, the securities law network. Example: āLawCast expounds on NASDAQ listing requirements.ā
Anthony L.G., PLLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Anthony L.G., PLLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual readerās personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
Ā© Anthony L.G., PLLC