Internet Availability of Proxy Materials
A few weeks ago, I wrote about shareholder meeting timelines, which included a brief discussion as to how a company can increase, or decrease, a meeting timeline by delivering proxy materials by making them available on the internet – see HERE. This week I am going to drill down on Rule 14a-16 including disclosure obligation and technical requirements for utilizing “Internet Availability of Proxy Materials.”
Rule 14a-16 – Internet Availability of Proxy Materials
Rule 14a-16 governs a company’s ability to make proxy materials available over the internet, as opposed to printing and mailing, which can be expensive and time consuming. Rule 14a-16 provides that when a company is making proxy materials available over the internet, it must mail a notice to all security holders a minimum of 40 calendar days before the meeting, or if there is no meeting, before the consents or authorizations may be used to affect the consented upon corporate action.
Companies may not
Understanding the Shareholder Meeting Timeline
Proxy season is fast approaching. Whether it is for an annual meeting or special shareholder meeting, clients are always asking how quickly they can schedule a shareholder meeting, or where action is taken by consent, how quickly the company can effectuate such consented upon action. The answer depends on several factors, including whether the meeting is a special or annual meeting, if annual, whether there are any “non-routine” items on the agenda, and whether the company intends to mail out all proxy materials or just a notice of internet availability of such materials. Although I have written about the proxy rules many times, this is the first blog where I drill down and focus on the timeline.
The federal proxy rules can be found in Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and the rules promulgated thereunder. The rules apply to any company which has securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act. Section 14
Virtual Annual Meetings
As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to disrupt normal business operations and impede a third proxy/annual meeting season, the SEC has issued guidance regarding compliance with the federal proxy rules for upcoming annual meetings considering health, transportation, and other logistical issues raised by the spread of Covid. Layering onto the guidance directed at extra-ordinary circumstances is the growing underlying belief that virtual and hybrid meetings are here to stay and public America must navigate a new road map.
SEC Guidance
On January 19, 2022, the SEC Divisions of Corporation Finance (“CorpFin”) and of Investment Management issued guidance related to meeting the requirements of the federal proxy rules for holding annual meetings in light of Covid disruptions. In addition to the specific guidelines, the SEC strongly encourages all market participants, including broker-dealers, transfer agents, and proxy service providers to be flexible and work collaboratively with one another with the goal of facilitating a company’s obligation to hold an annual meeting.
As I’ve
SEC Proposes To Tighten Shareholder Proposal Thresholds
As anticipated on November 5, 2019, the SEC issued two highly controversial rule proposals. The first is to amend Exchange Act rules to regulate proxy advisors. The second is to amend Securities Exchange Act Rule 14a-8(b) to increase the ownership threshold requirements required for shareholders to submit and re-submit proposals to be included in a company’s proxy statement. The ownership thresholds were last amended in 1998 and the resubmission rules have been in place since 1954. Together the new rules would represent significant changes to the proxy disclosure and solicitation process and shareholder rights to include matters on a company’s proxy statement. Not surprisingly, given the debate surrounding this topic, each of the SEC Commissioners issued statements on the proposed rule changes.
I am in support of both rules. This blog addresses the proposed rule changes related to shareholder proposals. Shareholder proposals, and the process for including or excluding such proposals in a company’s proxy statement, have been
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
