Proxy Access–Dead for Now


We posted on Jul. 29, 2011 that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had vacated the SEC’s proxy access rule.  SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro confirmed on Sep. 6, 2011 that the SEC would not seek a rehearing or an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While she confirmed her support for proxy access through shareholder nomination of directors, Chairman Schapiro indicated that the staff would revisit how best to proceed, taking into account the appellate court’s decision and comments received with respect to the intended rule.  The proxy access rule was originally proposed by the SEC in June 2009.  The SEC adopted new Rule 14a-11 in August 2010 effective for the 2011 proxy season, but then vacated the rulemaking in October 2010 pending resolution of the petition for review that challenged the rule.

The Wall Street Journal reported that institutional investors are not happy with the decisionIn a letter addressed to Chairman Schapiro (PDF), the Council of Institutional Investors express its “disappointment” with the SEC’s decision, but affirmed its commitment to a “uniform proxy access rule.”

The Commission also disclosed that the amendments to Rule 14a-8 regarding shareholder proposals would be effective when the appellate court’s decision is finalized, which is expected to be Sep. 13, 2011.  Although not challenged in the lawsuit, the Rule 14a-8 amendments were stayed at the same time as new Rule 14a-11 (PDF) in order to avoid confusion pending final resolution of the petition for review.

OUR TAKE:  With this decision, it is back to the drawing board for the SEC.  While there is still considerable pressure from shareholder groups for greater access, the SEC’s challenge is to craft a rule that both satisfies the perceived need and has a solid foundation of analysis to support it.

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