SEC Corp Fin's McNair Clarifies New Shareholder Proposal Guidance

By Randi Morrison posted 11-14-2017 03:51 PM

Recommend

Further to these prior Riches posts: "New Shareholder Proposal Guidance Calls for Prompt Clarity" and "Webcast: Shareholder Proposal Guidance," here are some of the key takeaways from SEC Corp Fin Senior Special Counsel Matt McNair's remarks (subject to the standard SEC disclaimer) on today's webcast concerning the new shareholder proposal guidance on the Rule 14a-8(i)(7) “ordinary business” and Rule 14a-8(i)(5) “economic relevance” exceptions:

1) Companies may - but are not required to - include a board analysis with their Rule 14a-8(i)(7) and Rule 14a-8(i)(5) no-action requests. As to both of these exceptions, Staff is focused on the nexus between the issue raised in the proposal and the company's operations. If the proposal is clearly excludable based on the company's ordinary business operations (14a-8(i)(7)) or significant relation to the company's business (14a-8(i)(5)), Staff doesn't expect to see a board analysis (but an analysis isn't prohibited either).

2) Even in those instances when a board analysis would be helpful to Staff in evaluating the no-action request, a board analysis is not "required" in connection with these no-action requests. A board analysis will be an important factor, but won't be determinative as respects Staff's decision.

3) In those cases where a board analysis would be helpful (i.e., not clearly ordinary or significantly related), greater weight will be given to a more developed board analysis. Along those lines, Staff is deferring to the board as to the scope of its involvement, including whether the processes it uses "to ensure that its conclusions are well-informed and well-reasoned" are fully delegated to a board committee. However, a well-developed analysis prepared by a board committee that is then reviewed and approved by the full board will carry more weight than a committee-only-approved analysis.

4) Subject to the foregoing, Staff is not expecting boards to follow any specific process, but rather is relying on companies and boards to determine what they believe is most appropriate. The lack of specifics in the SLB was deliberate in that regard.

5) Similarly, Staff has no preconceived notions as to what boards need to or should provide in the way of information about their processes other than they should provide whatever they believe would be most useful/helpful to Staff in making its decision, understanding that the premise of this aspect of the guidance is that the board is in a better position than Staff is to understand the nexus between the issue(s) raised in the proposal and the company's operations. In that regard, past no-action request "precedent" may differ from future determinations, as Staff did not have the benefit of board input.

6) Staff does not expect board materials to accompany the no-action request and, in fact, companies are reminded that whatever materials they submit will become part of the public record. However, this isn't prohibited either.

7) Companies may supplement pending no-action requests with a board analysis; however, this will logically require that additional time be earmarked for the no-action request determination process to allow Staff sufficient time to evaluate the additional information.

You may access the webcast audio archive (which also addresses proposals by proxy) via one of these links:

Access webcast via HTML5 player
Access webcast via WindowsMedia
Access webcast via Flash

See also this Cooley post. We will post the webcast transcript on our Shareholder Proposals topical page as soon as it is available.

0 comments

471 views

Permalink

https://www.societycorpgov.org/blogs/randi-morrison/2017/11/14/sec-corp-fins-mcnair-adds-clarity-to-new-shareholder-proposal-guidance

Blogs