November 14, 2019

November 13, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 12, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 11, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

SEC Proposes Amendments Relating to Proxy Voting Advice

On November 5, the Securities and Exchange Commission voted to propose amendments to the rules governing proxy solicitations to expressly apply them to proxy voting advisors. The proposed amendments would codify the SEC’s position that proxy voting advice is a “solicitation” within the meaning of the proxy rules, place certain disclosure requirements on proxy voting advice and define what would be impermissible false or misleading disclosure in the context of proxy voting advice.

Proxy voting advice has been an area of recent focus and attention. The SEC’s recent guidance on this subject was previously discussed in the August 23, 2019 edition of Corporate & Finance Weekly Digest. The previous guidance is also the subject of a lawsuit filed by Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS), which was previously discussed in the November 1, 2019 edition of Corporate & Finance Weekly Digest.

Solicitation

In the SEC’s August 2019 release, the SEC expressed its position that proxy voting advice constitutes a “solicitation” within the meaning of the federal proxy rules and is subject to the general antifraud provisions of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 14a-9 (False or Misleading Statements).

The proposed amendments to the proxy rules would codify this interpretation, amending the definition of the terms “solicit” and “solicitation” to include any proxy voting advice that makes a recommendation to a shareholder as to its vote, consent or authorization on a specific matter for which shareholder approval is solicited when furnished by a person that markets its expertise as a provider of such advice (separate from other forms of investment advice) and sells such advice for a fee. Such conduct, the SEC determined, is the type of activity that raises the investor protection concerns about inadequate or materially misleading disclosures that the proxy rules are intended to address.

The proposed amendments would exclude any proxy voting advice furnished in response to an unprompted request by someone not claiming to be an expert in proxy voting advice.

Disclosure Requirements

Generally, any person engaged in a proxy solicitation is subject to the filing and information requirements of the proxy rules, unless exempt from such requirements. Typically, proxy voting advisory firms could have relied on two exemptions from the filing and information requirements in order to provide proxy advice without being subject to the filing and information requirements: Rule 14a-2(b)(1) which exempts solicitations made by persons who do not seek the power to act as a proxy for a shareholder and do not have a substantial interest in the subject of the communication and Rule 14a-2(b)(3) which exempts proxy voting advice by an advisor to any person with whom the advisor has a business relationship.

The proposed amendments would continue to allow proxy voting advisors to rely on these exemptions from the filing and information requirements of the proxy rules only if they include disclosure on any material interests of the proxy voting advisor in the matter or parties relating to the advice, any material transaction or relationship between the proxy voting advisor and the registrant, other soliciting parties or any shareholder proponent and other material information regarding its interests in the transaction. The disclosure also would need to address any policies or procedures used by the proxy voting advisor to identify and address any material conflicts of interest.

The proposed amendments would require proxy voting advisors relying on an exemption from the filing and information requirements of the proxy rules to provide registrants with time to review and provide feedback on the proxy voting advice before it is disseminated to clients.

Under the proposed amendments, if the registrant files its definitive proxy statement less than 45 days but at least 25 days before its shareholder meeting, the proxy voting advisor would be required to provide at least three business days for the registrant to review and provide feedback. If the registrant files its definitive proxy 45 days or more before the meeting, the proxy voting advisor would be required to provide at least five business days for the registrant to review and provide feedback. These proposed review periods are designed to provide proxy voting advisors a reasonable amount of time to engage with registrants without jeopardizing their ability to provide timely advice to their clients. Once the review is complete, proxy voting advisors would be required to provide registrants a final notice of voting advice with the version of the advice to be sent to clients at least two business days in advance of delivery to clients. Registrants may request that the proxy voting advisor include a hyperlink in its voting advice that leads to a registrant’s statement about the proxy advisor’s voting advice.

False or Misleading Statements

Rule 14a-9 generally prohibits any proxy solicitation from containing a false or misleading statement with respect to any material fact. While solicitations made by proxy voting advisors may be exempt from the information and filing requirements of the proxy rules, they are subject to Rule 14a-9. Currently, Rule 14a-9 provides examples of certain statements that may be misleading in the context of the rule, including predictions as to specific future market values. The proposed amendments would add a new example to the rule, stating that failure by a proxy voting advisor to disclose information such as the proxy voting advisor’s methodology, source of information and conflicts of interest may be misleading.

The proposed amendments have garnered significant public reaction, with the New York City Comptroller opposing the proposed changes and industry groups like the National Association of Manufacturers coming out in favor of the proposed amendments.

The SEC’s proposing release is available here.

©2019 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Brian Hecht Corporate Lawyer Katten
Partner

Brian Hecht is a Corporate partner in Katten's New York office. He offers broad transactional experience in capital markets transactions, mergers and acquisitions and corporate governance matters. Within capital markets, Brian's practice focuses on initial public offerings, high yield offerings, spin-offs, tender offers and investment grade debt offerings. Within mergers and acquisitions, he represents private equity funds and public companies in both public and private acquisitions and divestitures.

Prior to joining Katten, Brian was a...

212.940.8516
Mark Reyes Securities Lawyer Katten Muchin law firm Chicago office
Partner

Mark J. Reyes concentrates his practice in corporate and securities matters, including representing issuers and investors in public offerings and private placements of equity and debt securities and advising clients in complex corporate transactions such as mergers, acquisitions, private investments in public equity (PIPEs), private equity investments and joint ventures. He also counsels public companies on securities law compliance, disclosures and corporate governance matters.

Shown below is a selection of Mark’s engagements.

  • Representation of hospitality company in connection with its initial public offering and listing on NYSE, as well as ongoing counseling with respect to compliance with securities laws and NYSE rules, disclosure and corporate governance matters.
  • Representation of NASDAQ-listed public company in the banking industry in connection with strategic transactions, capital raising transactions, compliance with securities laws and NYSE rules, disclosure and corporate governance matters, including strategic acquisitions, notes offering and at-the-market offering.
  • Representation of clean tech manufacturer for industrial equipment in connection with alternative public offering and listing on NASDAQ, as well as ongoing counseling with respect to compliance with securities laws and NASDAQ rules, disclosure and corporate governance matters.
  • Representation of NASDAQ-listed issuer in connection with selling stockholder block trades.
  • Representation of NYSE-listed industrial manufacturer with respect to compliance with securities laws and NYSE rules, disclosure and corporate governance matters.
  • Representation of NASDAQ-listed medical device company with respect to compliance with securities laws and NASDAQ rules, disclosure and corporate governance matters.
312-902-5612
Mark D. Wood, corporate securities lawyer Katten Muchin Chicago Law firm
Partner

Mark D. Wood is head of Katten's Securities practice and concentrates in corporate and securities law. Mark represents public companies, issuers and investment banks in initial public offerings (IPOs) and other public offerings, private investment in public equity (PIPE) transactions, debt securities and other securities matters.

Mark also represents clients in complex corporate transactions, including tender offers, mergers, acquisitions, dispositions, going-private transactions, private equity investments, joint ventures and...

312-902-5493