Skip main navigation (Press Enter).
Log in
Toggle navigation
About
About the Society
Leadership
Governance
Society & Board Committees
National Committees & Communities
Partnering Opportunities
Service Provider Policies
Employment Opportunities
Press Center
Bracebridge H. Young Award
Contact Us
Membership
Member Benefits
Membership Rates & Categories
Renew Your Membership
Maximize Your Engagement
Programs
Program Calendar
National Virtual Programs
Chapter Programs
2025 National Conference
2026 Essentials
Event Policies
Advocacy
Advocacy Overview
SEC
Other Federal Agencies
Congress
Courts
States
Standard Setters
Proxy Advisors
International
Comment Letter Archive
Maximize Your Engagement
Resources
Society Blog
Directors' Cut
Resource Center
Governance Handbook
Resource Libraries
Career Center
Service Provider Directory
Directory Information
Corporate Secretary Role
Communities
Chapters
Member Directory
All Communities
Maximize Your Engagement
Post a Message
Log in
Calendar
Certification
Contact Us
Join/Renew
Account
Blogs
×
New Shareholder Proposal Guidance: Corp Fin Elaborates on Board Analysis & Disclosure
By
Randi Morrison
posted
11-10-2017 02:16 PM
Recommend
Further to our prior reports
here
,
here
and
here
, below are some very important takeaways for implementing Corp Fin's new shareholder proposal guidance that Davis Polk counsel & Society member
Ning Chiu gleaned
from Director Bill Hinman's remarks at this week's PLI 49th Annual Institute on Securities Regulation:
The board analysis set forth in the SLB is not required for a company to make an argument on the basis of ordinary business or economic relevance. The staff does not expect the analysis to be included in every no-action letter making 14a-8(i)(7) arguments, especially where there is already a “well worn” path. This would seem to imply that to the extent that there is a long line of precedents supporting an ordinary business argument, those should continue to be persuasive to permit proposals on the same subject matters to be excluded. The new SLB then may only come into play on close calls, particularly if there is already a presumption that the proposal transcends ordinary business. Including a board analysis in those cases may serve to help rebut that presumption.
The SLB represents a recognition that determining whether a proposal is significant is a difficult judgment for the Staff, and Hinman said that the process would be improved if there is a “more developed board record” that is explained in the letter. We understand that the board’s analysis may well be limited to a company’s specific facts and circumstances. The key finding pertains to the proposal’s significance to the company, and unlike the Rule 14a-8(i)(7) analysis that the Staff undertakes, a determination of how the proposal topic weighs generally on society as a whole may be irrelevant.
Hinman emphasized that the reason the Staff considers a board to be well positioned to take on this analysis is because of the board’s fiduciary duties but also an expectation that the board has engaged with shareholders and is aware of, or has a sense of, the matters that are of interest to shareholders. The issues should be analyzed with the company’s own shareholder base in mind, and the Staff believes that this will potentially foster more engagement with shareholders. This suggests to us that, for example, a company could argue that a proposal that received fairly low support the prior year, although above the thresholds for resubmission, is clearly an indication that most shareholders do not support it.
The Staff expects most of the work to be done by the governance committee, who can develop a record and give that to the board. It appears then that although the governance committee can and is expected to handle the bulk of the workload, the board itself would need to be involved eventually. The Staff will look at the board’s thoughts as described in the letter and “weigh that into the analysis.” This suggests that the Staff will consider the board’s determination, but it would not be dispositive, as there is some speculation regarding how much deference the Staff would give the board’s determination.
In terms of what the analysis may entail, Hinman noted that the Staff does not expect to letter to follow any particular format, nor does the Staff need to see the board book. The Staff anticipates that the letter will explain that the board has considered the issues and may describe, although it is not required to, that they have met with the proponent. Ultimately it is up to the company to decide how much to include that it believes will be compelling to the Staff.
The requirements under the proposal by proxy authorizations were elements that the Staff expects would “be useful for someone to give to the SEC.” Hinman emphasized that there is an opportunity to cure the defect.
We are continuing to post the abundant analysis and commentary on this topic on our Shareholder Proposals page
here
.
Watch for more in next week's Society
Alert
!
0 comments
328 views
Related Content
New Shareholder Proposal Guidance Calls for Prompt Clarity
Randi Morrison
Added 11-11-2017
Blog Entry
New Shareholder Proposal Guidance Implications
Randi Morrison
Added 11-02-2017
Blog Entry
SEC Corp Fin Elaborates on Shareholder Proposal Guidance
Randi Morrison
Added 12-23-2018
Blog Entry
SLB 14I: Does a Board Analysis Matter?
Randi Morrison
Added 07-05-2018
Blog Entry
ICOs: SEC Corp Fin Director Hinman Details Securities Analysis
Randi Morrison
Added 06-18-2018
Blog Entry
Permalink
https://www.societycorpgov.org/blogs/randi-morrison/2017/11/10/new-shareholder-proposal-guidance-corp-fin-elaborates-on-board-analysis-disclosure
Powered by Higher Logic