As we are all aware, the SEC has been closed since December 27th as a result of the ongoing partial shutdown of the federal government. While there are staff members available to respond to emergency situations involving market integrity and investor protection, including law enforcement, and the SEC continues to operate certain systems such as the EDGAR system, most activities are currently suspended. The SEC does not have staff in place to review registration statements and other filings, acceleration requests, Rule 3-13 waiver requests, and no-action letter requests, including with respect to shareholder proposal exclusions. As discussed in our previous post available here, the Staff has provided an FAQ page regarding operations during the shutdown. These FAQs were updated and supplemented recently. You should continue to visit the SEC’s website, including the FAQs, for any additional updates both during and shortly after the shutdown.
Shareholder Proposals
Commonsense Principles 2.0 Released
On October 18, 2018, the Commonsense Principles 2.0 (the “Principles 2.0") were released. They are an update to the Commonsense Principles of Corporate Governance (the “Previous Principles") developed in 2016 by a group of 13 business and investment leaders, including representatives of Berkshire Hathaway, BlackRock and State Street and the chief executive officers of several large public companies, available here, and discussed in a previous client alert.
SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance Issues Guidance Regarding the Voluntary Filing of Notices of Exempt Solicitation under Exchange Act Rule 14a-6(g)
As we first noted in our March 2018 blog post, available here, and further discussed in our July 2018 client alert discussing shareholder proposals submitted to public companies during the 2018 proxy season, available here, both institutional and individual investors increasingly have used Notices of Exempt Solicitations under Exchange Act Rule 14a-6(g) as a means of publicizing shareholder proposals or addressing other matters being voted on at annual meetings. Rule 14a-6(g) requires a person who owns more than $5 million of a company’s stock and who conducts an exempt solicitation of the company’s shareholders (in which the person does not seek to have proxies granted to them) to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission") all written materials used in the solicitation.
New Twist for Old Shareholder Proposal Tactic
Each year some public pension funds and other institutional shareholders voluntarily file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a Notice of Exempt Solicitation under Exchange Act Rule 14a-6(g). This rule requires a person who owns more than $5 million of a company’s securities and who conducts an exempt solicitation of the company’s shareholders (in which the person does not seek to have proxies granted to them) to file with the SEC all written materials used in the solicitation. However, these funds also file these Notices, which appear on EDGAR as “PX14A6G” filings, typically to respond to a company’s statement in opposition to a shareholder proposal included in the proxy statement or to otherwise encourage (but not solicit proxies from) shareholders to vote a specific way on shareholder proposals, say on pay proposals and in “vote no” campaigns.
SEC Staff Grants No-Action Request Concurring with Exclusion of Shareholder Proposal On Virtual-Only Annual Meetings
In recent years, an increasing number of companies have opted to hold annual shareholder meetings exclusively online. These annual meetings are commonly referred to as “virtual-only annual meetings”. In a decision critical for companies that currently hold or are contemplating switching to virtual-only annual meetings, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC Staff”) recently issued a no-action letter permitting a company to exclude a shareholder proposal that objected to virtual-only annual meetings. Specifically, the shareholder proposal requested that the company’s board adopt a policy to initiate or restore in-person annual meetings. The SEC Staff concurred that the proposal could be excluded under Rule 14a-8(i)(7) on the grounds that the decision whether to hold in-person annual meetings is related to the company’s ordinary business operations because the proposal “relates to the determination of whether to hold annual meetings in person.” The SEC Staff’s decision is not yet available on the SEC’s website.
Schedule 13G “Passive” Investor Status – When Being A Little Active Is Still Passive!
On Thursday, July 14, 2016, the Staff in the Division of Corporation Finance posted a new C&DI on Section 13(d) that provides stockholders (and issuers) with some helpful insights, and perhaps greater clarity, on when significant stockholders can engage in a dialogue with management and still remain on Schedule 13G. As many practitioners know, Schedule 13G (the “short form” for reporting beneficial ownership of equity positions of 5% or more) often requires an affirmative certification from the reporting person(s) that the securities were not acquired, and are not held, with the purpose or effect of changing or influencing control of the issuer. This is commonly referred to as the “passive” investor certification which is set forth at the end of Schedule 13G, directly above the signature line.