SPAC Director And Sponsor Fiduciary Obligations
A year following the Delaware Chancery Court’s decision in Multiplan Corp. Stockholders Litigation (f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp III), the court again issued an opinion supporting a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action against SPAC directors and sponsors and confirming that a de-SPAC transaction should be reviewed using the “entire fairness” standard. In the January 2023 case of Delman v. Gigacquisitions3, LLC, et al. the Delaware Court denied a motion to dismiss by SPAC sponsors and directors, upholding their potential liability. Interestingly, the Delman motion was in front of the same vice-chancellor as was Multiplan. My blog on the Multiplan Corp. Stockholders Litigation (f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp III) case and its ramifications can be read HERE.
In addition to confirming the inherent conflict of interest of SPAC sponsors and directors, the cases will undoubtedly cause practitioners and market participants to implement new policies and procedures related to proxy statement disclosures, diligence, board discussions, financial valuations, capital raising
SEC Adopts Amendments To Rules Governing Proxy Advisory Firms
On July 13, 2022, the SEC adopted amendments to the rules governing proxy voting advice, in essence undoing material provisions in the new rules that had been adopted in July 2020. The newest rules were proposed in November 2021 but had effectively been in place since June 2021 when SEC Chair Gary Gensler issued a statement making it clear that the SEC would not be enforcing the 2020 amendments to certain rules governing proxy advisory firms or the SEC guidance on those new rules.
The final rules rescind two of the rules adopted in 2020 and specifically, the conditions to the availability of two exemptions from the proxy rules’ information and filing requirements on which proxy voting advice businesses may rely. Those conditions require that: (i) companies that are the subject of proxy voting advice have such advice made available to them in a timely manner; and (ii) clients of proxy voting advice businesses are provided with a means of
SEC Re-Opens Comments On The Use Of Universal Proxy Cards
On April 16, 2021, the SEC voted to reopen the comment period on the proposed rules for the use of Universal proxy cards in all non-exempt solicitations for contested director elections. The original rules were proposed on October 16, 2016 (see HERE) with no activity since. However, it is not surprising that the comment period re-opened, and it is not as a result of the new administration. The SEC’s Spring and Fall 2020 semi-annual regulatory agendas and plans for rulemaking both included universal proxies as action items in the final rule stage. Prior to that, the topic had sat in the long-term action category for years.
In light of the several years since the original proposing release, change in corporate governance environment, proliferation of virtual shareholder meetings, and rule amendments related to proxy advisory firms (see HERE) and shareholder proposals in the proxy process (see HERE), the SEC believed it prudent to re-open a public comment period.
SEC Amendments To Rules Governing Proxy Advisory Firms
In a year of numerous regulatory amendments and proposals, Covid, newsworthy capital markets events, and endless related topics, and with only one blog a week, this one is a little behind, but with proxy season looming, it is timely nonetheless. In July 2020, the SEC adopted controversial final amendments to the rules governing proxy advisory firms. The proposed rules were published in November 2019 (see HERE). The final rules modified the proposed rules quite a bit to add more flexibility for proxy advisory businesses in complying with the underlying objectives of the rules.
The final rules, together with the amendments to Rule 14a-8 governing shareholder proposals in the proxy process, which were adopted in September 2020 (see HERE), will see a change in the landscape of this year’s proxy season for the first time in decades. However, certain aspects of the new rules are not required to be complied with until December 1, 2021.
The SEC has
SEC Guidance On Proxy Presentation Of Certain Matters In The Merger And Acquisition Context
In late October the SEC issued its first updated Staff Legal Bulletin on shareholder proposals in years – Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H (“SLB 14H”). Please see my blog on SLB 14H HERE. On the same day the SEC published two new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DI”) related to the unbundling of matters presented for a vote to shareholders in merger and acquisition transactions. The new C&DI has in essence granted voting rights to target company shareholders, on acquiring company organizational documents, where none existed before and has in essence pre-empted state law on the issue.
Unbundling under Rule 14a-4(a)(3) in the M&A Context
Exchange Act Rule 14a-4 relates to the requirements for a proxy card general. Rule 14a-4(a) provides:
(a) The form of proxy:
(1) Shall indicate in bold-face type whether or not the proxy is solicited on behalf of the registrant’s board of directors or, if provided other than by a majority of the board
SEC Guidance on Shareholder Proposals and Procedural Requirements
In late October the SEC issued its first updated Staff Legal Bulletin on shareholder proposals in years – Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H (“SLB 14H”). The legal bulletin comes on the heels of the SEC’s announcement on January 16, 2015, that it would no longer respond to no-action letters seeking exclusion of shareholder proposals on the grounds that the proposal directly conflicts with one of the company’s own proposals to be submitted to shareholders and the same meeting, as further discussed herein. SLB 14H will only allow exclusion of a shareholder proposal if “a reasonable shareholder could not logically vote in favor of both proposals.” As a result of the restrictive language in SLB 14H, it is likely that the direct conflict standard will rarely be used as a basis for excluding shareholder proposals going forward. With the publication of SLB 14H, the SEC will once again entertain and review no-action requests under the “direct conflict” grounds for exclusion.
SLB
