Moreover, under the rules, a shareholder may only submit one proposal. The one-proposal rule applies per person such that a shareholder would not be permitted to submit one proposal in his or her own name and simultaneously serve as a representative to submit a different proposal on another shareholder’s behalf for consideration at the same meeting. Likewise, a representative would not be permitted to submit more than one proposal to be considered at the same meeting, even if the representative were to submit each proposal on behalf of different shareholders.
A proposal that does not meet the substantive and procedural requirements may be excluded by the company. To exclude the proposal on procedural grounds, the company must notify the shareholder of the deficiency within 14 days of receipt of the proposal and allow the shareholder to cure the problem. The shareholder has 14 days from receipt of the deficiency notice to cure and resubmit the proposal. If the deficiency could not be cured, such as because it was submitted after the 120-day deadline, no notice or opportunity to cure must be provided.
Upon receipt of a shareholder proposal, a company has many options. The company can elect to include the proposal in the proxy materials. In such case, the company may make a recommendation to vote for or against the proposal, or not take a position at all and simply include the proposal as submitted by the shareholder. If the company intends to recommend a vote against the proposal (i.e., Statement of Opposition), it must follow specified rules as to the form and content of the recommendation. A copy of the Statement of Opposition must be provided to the shareholder no later than 30 days prior to filing a definitive proxy statement with the SEC. If included in the proxy materials, the company must place the proposal on the proxy card with check-the-box choices for approval, disapproval or abstention.
As noted above, the company may seek to exclude the proposal based on procedural deficiencies, in which case it will need to notify the shareholder and provide a right to cure. The company may also seek to exclude the proposal based on substantive grounds, in which case it must file its reasons with the SEC which is usually done through a no-action letter seeking confirmation of its decision and provide a copy of the letter to the shareholder.
Substantive grounds for exclusion include:
The rules also set forth resubmission thresholds. Under certain circumstances, Rule 14a-8(i)(12) allows companies to exclude a shareholder proposal that “deals with substantially the same subject matter as another proposal or proposals that has or have been previously included in the company’s proxy materials within the preceding 5 calendar years.” In addition, under Rule 14a-8, in order to be eligible to resubmit a proposal, a proposal must achieve 5%, 15% and 25% shareholder approval on matters voted on once, twice or three or times in the last five years.
Staff Legal Bulletin 14L (SLB 14L)
On November 3, 2021, the SEC issued SLB 14L rescinding SLB Nos 14I, 14J and 14K and confirming that to the extent any other bulletin’s contain views contrary to new SLB 14L, SLB 14L controls. See here for my blog on SLB 14H – HERE.
SLB 14L focuses on Corp Fin’s views on Rule 14a-8(i)(7), which is the exception that allows a company to exclude proposals that come under ordinary operations, and Rule 14a-8(i)(5), the economic relevance exception. SLB 14L also addresses the use of graphics and images, proof of ownership letters and the use of e-mail for submission of proposals, delivery of notice of defects, and responses to those notices.
Ordinary Business Exception
The purpose of the ordinary business exception is “to confine the resolution of ordinary business problems to management and the board of directors, since it is impracticable for shareholders to decide how to solve such problems at an annual shareholders meeting.” Over the years, the SEC has taken a company-by-company facts and circumstances approach in analyzing whether a specific proposal fell within the ordinary course of business exception.
Going forward in analyzing whether a proposal falls within the ordinary course of business exception, the SEC will no longer consider company specific facts and circumstances but rather will consider the significance of the broader social policy behind a proposal. The SEC will consider whether a proposal raises issues with a broad societal impact, such that it transcends the ordinary business of the company. The SEC will allow shareholders “to bring important issues before other shareholders by means of the company’s proxy statement, while also recognizing the board’s authority over most day-to-day business matters.”
Obviously, the new approach is directed as ESG matters (for more on ESG, see HERE) and SLB 14L specifically lists human capital management as an example of a topic with significant social impact, even if it isn’t a significant issue for a particular company.
SLB 14L also backtracks on concerns that proposals can result in the micromanagement of a company or interfere with board discretion. Under the new guidance, the SEC intends to take a measured approach to evaluating companies’ micromanagement arguments – recognizing that proposals seeking detail or seeking to promote timeframes or methods do not, per se, constitute micromanagement. Instead, the SEC will focus on the level of granularity sought in the proposal and whether and to what extent it inappropriately limits discretion of the board or management. The SEC will expect the level of detail included in a shareholder proposal to be consistent with that is needed to enable investors to assess an issuer’s impacts, progress towards goals, risks or other strategic matters appropriate for shareholder input. As an example, a proposal could request that company management set targets covering the greenhouse gas emissions of the company’s operations and products but not impose specific methods for reaching those goals.
Historically, a concern with such proposals has been that the matters are too complex for shareholders as a group to make an informed judgment. In that regard, the SEC will now consider the sophistication of the shareholders and the availability of public information on the topic, including well-established national or international frameworks. Hammering home that the SEC has a completely different view, SLB 14L states, “[W]hile the analysis in this bulletin may apply to any subject matter, many of the proposals addressed in the rescinded SLBs requested companies adopt timeframes or targets to address climate change that the staff concurred were excludable on micromanagement grounds. Going forward we would not concur in the exclusion of similar proposals that suggest targets or timelines so long as the proposals afford discretion to management as to how to achieve such goals.”
Economic Relevance Exception
The “economic relevance” exception permits a company to exclude a proposal that “relates to operations which account for less than 5% of the company’s total assets at the end of its most recent fiscal year, and for less than 5% of its net earnings and gross sales for its most recent fiscal year, and is not otherwise significantly related to the company’s business. Under SLB 14L, proposals that raise issues of broad social or ethical concern related to the company’s business may not be excluded, even if the relevant business falls below the economic thresholds of Rule 14a-8.
Use of Images in Shareholder Proposals
Rule 14a-8 limits the word count of a shareholder proposal but does not mention the use of graphics. The SEC is of the view that Rule 14a-8(d) does not preclude shareholders from using graphics to convey information about their proposals. However, to avoid any abuse, the SEC states that graphics could be excluded if: (i) they make the proposal materially false or misleading; (ii) they render the proposal so inherently vague or indefinite that neither the stockholders voting on the proposal, nor the company in implementing it, would be able to determine with any reasonable certainty exactly what actions or measures the proposal requires; (iii) they directly or indirectly impugn character, integrity or personal reputation, or directly or indirectly make charges concerning improper, illegal, or immoral conduct or association, without factual foundation; or (iv) they are irrelevant to a consideration of the subject matter of the proposal, such that there is a strong likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would be uncertain as to the matter on which he or she is being asked to vote.
Proof of Ownership Letter
In relevant part, Rule 14a-8(b) provides that a proponent must prove eligibility to submit a proposal by offering proof that it “continuously held” the required amount of securities for the required amount of time. The SEC has recognized two common errors that shareholders make in providing proof of ownership and thus SLB 14L provides a suggested format to avoid such errors. In particular, the SEC suggests the following format for proof of ownership letters:
“As of [date the proposal is submitted], [name of shareholder] held, and has held continuously for at least [one year] [two years] [three years], [number of securities] shares of [company name] [class of securities].”
However, the SEC notes that the exact format is not required and failure to follow the exact format cannot be a basis for exclusion of a proposal as long as sufficient documentary support is provided to evidence the ownership.
Use of Email
Over the past few years, and particularly during the pandemic, both proponents and companies have increasingly relied on the use of emails to submit proposals and make other communications. However, proof of delivery of an email can be difficult. The SEC suggests that to prove delivery of an email for purposes of Rule 14a-8, the sender should seek a reply e-mail from the recipient in which the recipient acknowledges receipt of the e-mail. Since Rule 14a-8 provides for specific deadlines, care should be taken to ensure that email communications provide the proper evidence of timely action.
The Author
Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provide ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded public companies as well as private companies going public on the Nasdaq, NYSE American or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For more than two decades Anthony L.G., PLLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker-dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions, securities token offerings and initial coin offerings, Regulation A/A+ offerings, as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-3, S-8 and merger registrations on Form S-4; compliance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including Nasdaq and NYSE American; general corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Ms. Anthony and her firm represent both target and acquiring companies in merger and acquisition transactions, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. The ALG legal team assists Pubcos in complying with the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the small-cap and middle market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, Corporate Finance in Focus. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.
Ms. Anthony is a member of various professional organizations including the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA), Palm Beach County Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association, the American Bar Association and the ABA committees on Federal Securities Regulations and Private Equity and Venture Capital. She is a supporter of several community charities including siting on the board of directors of the American Red Cross for Palm Beach and Martin Counties, and providing financial support to the Susan Komen Foundation, Opportunity, Inc., New Hope Charities, the Society of the Four Arts, the Norton Museum of Art, Palm Beach County Zoo Society, the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts and several others. She is also a financial and hands-on supporter of Palm Beach Day Academy, one of Palm Beach’s oldest and most respected educational institutions. She currently resides in Palm Beach with her husband and daughter.
Ms. Anthony is an honors graduate from Florida State University College of Law and has been practicing law since 1993.
Contact Anthony L.G., PLLC. Inquiries of a technical nature are always encouraged.
Listen to our podcast on iTunes Podcast channel.
Lawcast is derived from the term podcast and specifically refers to a series of news segments that explain the technical aspects of corporate finance and securities law. The accepted interpretation of lawcast is most commonly used when referring to LawCast.com, the securities law network. Example: “LawCast expounds on NASDAQ listing requirements.”
Anthony L.G., PLLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.
This information is not intended to be advertising, and Anthony L.G., PLLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.
© Anthony L.G., PLLC
