Just Say No to Proxy Access


In an October 2010 Gardere Public Securities Alert, we reported that the SEC had delayed the effectiveness of its new proxy access rule pending resolution of a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the SEC’s rule on July 22, 2010.

The appeals court held that the SEC was arbitrary and capricious in promulgating the rule, because it did not properly analyze the economic impact of the rule—its costs and benefits.  As noted by the Securities Law Prof Blog, this is not the first time the court has pulled the plug on an SEC rule because of the cost-benefit analysis.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable jointly lauded the result as a “big win” for business.

Based on the court’s analysis, the SEC minimized or ignored certain of the foreseeable costs associated with the new rule, sometimes employing speculative assumptions.  The court also noted that the SEC relied on insufficient empirical data to support its conclusion that proxy access would improve board performance and increase shareholder value.  The SEC itself had acknowledged the many studies reaching the opposite conclusion, but instead relied on two studies that the court found unpersuasive.  The court also ruled that while generally arbitrary and capricious, the rule was invalid with respect to investment companies.

The proxy access rule was originally proposed by the SEC in June 2009.

OUR TAKE:  For proxy access, it is not at all clear what the SEC’s next step might be.  An appeal seems unlikely and a rigorous cost-benefit analysis would be costly and time-consuming, and with no certainty as to the conclusion.  More broadly, this ruling may energize efforts to attack other SEC rulemaking stemming from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  Perhaps the new whistleblower program adopted in May 2011, which has been widely criticized?

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.


AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top