
Kenneth C. Oh
Counsel
212-784-6911 koh@sh-law.comFirm News
Author: Kenneth C. Oh
Date: March 19, 2015
Counsel
212-784-6911 koh@sh-law.comIn light of the directive, the Division of Corporation Finance announced that it would express no views on the application of the rule during the current proxy proposals season.
Pursuant to Rule 14a-8 of the Exchange Act, shareholders are authorized to submit proposals for inclusion in a company’s proxy materials for a vote at a shareholder meeting. The company must include the shareholder proposal in its proxy statement provided that the shareholder satisfies all of the procedural requirements, and the proposal does not fall under one of the rule’s exclusions.
For instance, Exchange Act Rule 14a-8(i)(9) allows a company to exclude a shareholder proposal if it “directly conflicts with one of the company’s own proposals to be submitted to shareholders at the same meeting.” Under the SEC’s interpretation of the rule, the shareholder proposal does not need to be identical in order to be excluded. Rather, exclusion is permissible if the proposal “would present alternative and conflicting decisions for the shareholders and would create the potential for inconsistent and ambiguous results.”
Questions have recently arisen regarding the application of Rule 14a-8(i)(9) to “proxy access” proposals in which shareholders seek to amend a corporation’s governing documents to allow them to nominate directors to the board. As these proposals have become more prevalent, so have no-action requests seeking to exclude them.
Given the inability to obtain no-action relief from the SEC, excluding a shareholder proposal on the basis of Rule 14a-8(i)(9) will be more risky during the 2015 proxy season. In addition to a potential SEC enforcement action, companies also run the risk of shareholder suits. Accordingly, corporations should consult with experienced counsel to explore their legal options.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Ronald S. Bienstock and William C. Sullivan, Jr. of Scarinci Hollenbeck Recognized as 2025 Leaders in Law by NJBIZ Little Falls, NJ – March 6, 2025 – One of New Jersey’s leading business journals, NJBIZ, has recognized Ronald S. Bienstock, Partner and Chair of the Intellectual Property Group, and William C. Sullivan, Jr., Partner and […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Scarinci Hollenbeck Named in U.S. News & World Report’s 2025 Best Companies to Work For Law Firms Little Falls, NJ – March 4, 2025 − U.S. News & World Report, the global authority in rankings and consumer advice, has named Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC one of the best law firms to work for in its […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
ROI-NJ Continues to Feature Donald Scarinci and Donald M. Pepe on Annual Influencers in Law List Little Falls, NJ – February 26, 2025 – Partner and Chair of Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC’s Commercial Real Estate Department Donald M. Pepe and Founding & Managing Partner Donald Scarinci have once again been named to ROI-NJ’s Influencers: Law […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Tax, Trusts and Estates Partner Marc J. Comer and Three Senior Associates Join Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC Little Falls, NJ – February 20, 2025 – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce the addition of one new Partner. The firm also welcomes three Senior Associate attorneys. The expansion strengthens the firm’s capabilities across several practice […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Pioneering Networking Opportunities: James M. Meaney, Jesse M. Dimitro, and Christopher D. Warren Lead Initiative to Enhance Business Collaboration and Growth New York, NY – February 13, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is proud to announce that James M. Meaney, Jesse M. Dimitro, and Christopher D. Warren have taken the initiative to establish a […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
John M. Scagnelli Featured as Panelist on “The Impact that the Proposed Resilient Environments and Landscapes (NJ PACT) Regulations will have on Redevelopment” Little Falls, NJ – January 29, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is proud to announce that Partner John M. Scagnelli, a member of the firm’s Environmental Law section, was recently featured […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
In light of the directive, the Division of Corporation Finance announced that it would express no views on the application of the rule during the current proxy proposals season.
Pursuant to Rule 14a-8 of the Exchange Act, shareholders are authorized to submit proposals for inclusion in a company’s proxy materials for a vote at a shareholder meeting. The company must include the shareholder proposal in its proxy statement provided that the shareholder satisfies all of the procedural requirements, and the proposal does not fall under one of the rule’s exclusions.
For instance, Exchange Act Rule 14a-8(i)(9) allows a company to exclude a shareholder proposal if it “directly conflicts with one of the company’s own proposals to be submitted to shareholders at the same meeting.” Under the SEC’s interpretation of the rule, the shareholder proposal does not need to be identical in order to be excluded. Rather, exclusion is permissible if the proposal “would present alternative and conflicting decisions for the shareholders and would create the potential for inconsistent and ambiguous results.”
Questions have recently arisen regarding the application of Rule 14a-8(i)(9) to “proxy access” proposals in which shareholders seek to amend a corporation’s governing documents to allow them to nominate directors to the board. As these proposals have become more prevalent, so have no-action requests seeking to exclude them.
Given the inability to obtain no-action relief from the SEC, excluding a shareholder proposal on the basis of Rule 14a-8(i)(9) will be more risky during the 2015 proxy season. In addition to a potential SEC enforcement action, companies also run the risk of shareholder suits. Accordingly, corporations should consult with experienced counsel to explore their legal options.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!