Advertisement

May 21, 2013

Preparing for the 2012 Proxy Season

As the directors and officers of public companies know, the rules and regulations governing proxy materials are dynamic and continually changing. In the past year, for instance, one proxy access rule has been vacated and another has been implemented. This is a summary of the changes in the past year that may affect companies’ 2012 proxy materials.

The Mandatory Proxy Access Rule Vacated (Rule 14a-11).

In the Summer 2011, the SEC’s year-old but yet-to-be-implemented Rule 14a-11 was invalidated by the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. The SEC decided that, while it may revisit the issue in the future, it would not appeal the ruling. This means that the issue of mandatory proxy access has been shelved for now. The mandatory proxy access rule would have allowed shareholders or groups of shareholders holding at least 3% of the voting power of a company’s securities (who must have also held their shares for at least three years) to force the company to include that group’s nominees for directors in their proxy materials.

Private Ordering of Proxy Access (Rule 14a-8(i)(8)).

Subsequent to the mandatory proxy access rule being vacated, the SEC lifted a voluntary stay it had placed on an amendment to another rule, Rule 14a-8(i)(8), and the amendment took effect in September 2011. This amendment narrows a company’s power to exclude shareholder proposals for the election of directors. Rule 14a-8(i)(8), prior to the amendment, allowed for liberal exclusion of shareholder proposals relating to the election of directors. The rule now requires companies to include in their proxy materials shareholder proposals providing for the adoption of a proxy access mechanism. This is known as the “private ordering” of proxy access.

Remaining Reasons to Exclude.

Under the amended rules providing for the private ordering of proxy access, there are still a few valid reasons to exclude a shareholder proposal for proxy access. For instance, if certain submission deadlines are not met by a shareholders’ proposal, then that proposal can be excluded. (More specifically, certain separate proxy rules that apply to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) require shareholder proposals to be received at least 120 days before the anniversary date that the company’s previous year’s proxy statement was sent or those proposals can be excluded.) Other potential reasons to exclude shareholders' proposals could be provided by state law. The rules still allow for additional reasons for exclusion based on state law.

ISS 2012 Proxy Policies.

The leading proxy advisory firm, Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”), annually issues policies which can impact companies’ proxy materials. Some of the most significant ISS policies relating to the 2012 proxy season are listed below.

  • Say-on-Pay Evaluation - ISS has refined its policies on the Say-on-Pay regulations that became effective before the 2011 proxy season. When undertaking its Say-on-Pay evaluations, ISS compares executive compensation against total shareholder return (“TSR”) for different time periods. In an effort to establish a longer term perspective for Say-on-Pay evaluations, ISS will now use a five-year TSR yardstick in addition to the one-year and three-year TSR yardsticks already in use. ISS also tweaked its Say-on-Pay evaluation policies and metrics in several other minor ways.
  • 2011 Say-on-Pay Vote - All companies who held a 2011 Say-on-Pay vote are required to discuss the results of the vote when determining its current compensation. While all companies who held a Say-on-Pay vote in 2011 are required to discuss the vote, ISS has indicated that they will specifically focus on companies whose compensation policies received less than 70% of the votes cast in their 2011 Say-on-Pay vote. ISS may recommend voting against Directors who are Compensation Committee members for such companies.
  • Newly Public Companies – ISS’ 2012 policies also indicate that it will now scrutinize the equity plans of newly public companies more closely and under additional standards.

Monitoring of Proxy Rule Changes.

The legal environment surrounding proxy materials will likely continue to evolve in the near future. Certain rules and regulations seem to be in flux. We will continue to monitor the changes and anticipate potential issues for our clients.

© 2013 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Susan B. Zaunbrecher is Chair of the Corporate Department and Chair of the Financial Institutions Practice Group. Susan is a member of the firm's Board of Directors. She is the founder, former chair and now member of the firm's Professional Development Committee and Leadership Academy and founder and member of the Diversity Committee. Susan is experienced in all areas of corporate law, mergers and acquisitions and securities law, particularly as it pertains to all types of financial institutions. She has been involved with organizing...

513-977-8171

About the Author

Associate

Russell helps businesses accomplish transactions and solve problems. Russell works with companies on acquisitions, mergers, financing, organizing denovo institutions, regulatory oversight (by federal, state, and/or local authorities), and general corporate counseling. Russell goes above and beyond to help businesses efficiently navigate the complexities involved in transactions and governmental oversight. He recently led a merger of two notable local entities and helped them undertake a significant construction project. Russell previously served in The White House as a member of the...

(513) 977-8368

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.