Anticipating Shareholder Proposals During the 2015 Proxy Season

Sep 29, 2014

Reading Time : 3 min

In addition to engagement with shareholders, companies should consider off-season communications with proxy advisory firms. Such communication will not only inform companies of any concerns the proxy advisory firms may have, but, more importantly, it will give a company the opportunity to explain prior voting outcomes, discuss how the company will respond to these outcomes and determine the issues that advisory firms may find relevant for the next proxy season.

Of course, it is important for companies to avoid selective disclosure of any material, nonpublic information. Having a prepared agenda to limit the discussion to specific topics of discussion will ensure full and fair disclosure. Additionally, it will help a company identify inadvertent disclosure of nonpublic information so that such information can be widely disseminated in compliance with Regulation FD.

2014 Proxy Results

Corporate Governance Proposals. As in past years, shareholder proposals relating to governance represented a significant portion of the proposals during the 2014 proxy season. The three most successful governance proposals for 2014 were (1) the elimination of classified boards, (2) the adoption of majority voting in director elections and (3) the elimination of supermajority voting provisions. Other governance-related shareholder proposals include those relating to having an independent chair, a shareholder right to act by written consent, a shareholder right to call special meetings and proxy access. These received solid shareholder support in 2014, but relatively few actually passed (for purposes of this blog, a proposal passes when it receives a majority of the votes cast, which is how Institutional Shareholder Services measures voting results).

Social/Political Proposals. Shareholder proposals relating to social and political issues continue to be common. They fail, however, in almost all cases and usually by a wide margin. In fact, in 2014, only four of these actually passed. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the most common of this category of proposals is related to political expenditures and lobbying costs. After that, proposals related to environmental issues are most common.

Compensation-Related Proposals. The mandatory say-on-pay vote provides shareholders with an alternative means to express any concerns over executive compensation. Accordingly, the number of compensation-related proposals is far lower than it was in years immediately before the say-on-pay votes began in 2011. Nevertheless, these types of proposals continue to appear, predominantly falling into two categories: (1) those seeking to prohibit single-trigger, accelerated vesting of performance and other equity awards, and (2) those seeking stock retention requirements for executives. In any case, only a few actually pass.

Emerging Trends and Topics

As the more mainstream governance proposals continue to be enacted by large-cap companies, fewer targets remain. As a result, these types of proposals are making their way onto the proxy statements of mid- and small-cap companies. At the same time, new governance proposals will likely emerge among large-cap companies.

For instance, board tenure is attracting greater attention from investors who feel that lengthy board service may compromise a director’s independence. While Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) does not currently have a voting policy relating to director tenure, it is a negative factor in ISS’s QuickScore 2.0 governance rating system. Additionally, ISS’s 2013-2014 policy survey found that 74 percent of institutional investors indicated that they viewed long director tenure as “problematic.” ISS announced last year that it would be soliciting input on whether to reclassify long-tenured directors as non-independent or to examine the mix of director tenures on a board as a key factor when making voting recommendations as to nominating committee members. Accordingly, it is likely that director tenure will be another subject of an ISS voting policy.

Board diversity is another emerging issue. In 2014, more than two dozen companies were pressed to improve the gender and ethnic makeup of their boards. Often, these proposals were withdrawn when companies committed to adding a diversity policy to their nominating committee charters.

Conclusion

As a company engages shareholders, analyzes 2014 voting data and identifies emerging trends, it will position itself to more effectively respond to shareholder concerns. Such a response may be in the form of its own proposal or by preemptively implementing changes. In some cases, a company may determine that the interests of the company are not advanced by adopting the particular proposal. However, even here, meaningful engagement may help produce compromises between management and shareholders. In the end, a proactive approach to shareholder proposals will allow management to articulate and develop its own ideas while simultaneously responding to shareholder concerns. 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.