Archive | SEC no-action letters

Chevedden Group Proxy Proposals

For years, the “Chevedden group” (Chevedden, McRitchie/Young and Steiner) has focused almost exclusively on governance proposals. More democratic corporations are likely to listen to their shareholders on other issues as well.  Democracies facilitate voice and the exchange of ideas. Fighting for environmental and social issues, while extremely important, felt like addressing symptoms, rather than root causes.

Chevedden group proposals seek to declassify boards, require majority votes to elect directors, allow proxy access, and allow shareholders to call special meetings. Since many large cap companies have now adopted such provisions, we are broadening our scope to also focus on other issues. Below are some preliminary results for 2018. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading · 0

Glass Lewis 2018 Proxy Advice Update

Glass Lewis 2019 proxy advice updates address many issues. See 2019 Proxy Paper Guidelines: An Overview of the Glass Lewis Approach to Proxy Advice.

I have reproduced much of the summary of changes below, leaving off the section discussing clarifying amendments. One that stands out for our small group of so-called ‘gadflies’ addresses our concern that several boards hijacked shareholder proposals this past season by seeking ratification of existing policies and the exclusion of a shareholder proposal though a no-action request. In an email, John Chevedden noted the following: Continue Reading →

Continue Reading · 0

SEC Jeopardizes Shareholders’ Fight for LGBT

LGBT rights are under fire at the SEC. Despite gains in the push for equality, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals still face significant discrimination and harassment in the workplace.  A 2017 survey by the Center for American Progress found that 25% of LGBT respondents reported experiencing discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity within the past year. Discrimination, or fear of discrimination, can lead to poor workplace morale, increased employee turnover (and related costs), mistrust among colleagues, and reduced productivity. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading · 0

Transparent Political Spending: Ford Lost No-Action

The Ford Motor Company ($F) challenged my resolution on Transparent Political Spending and lost. I created a new posting category, “SEC no-action letters.” Posts under this category will include what I believe are precedent setting decisions. By including them on CorpGov.net I will be creating a searchable database going forward of significant decisions for ready future reference. Hopefully, it will reduce the need to recreate the wheel and will save on time defending similar proposals. Read the full no-action file at the SEC. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

AES “Games” SEC: CII Seeks Correction

CII sent an important letter to the SEC on a recent no-action issued to the AES Corporation (AES) (not yet posted). A similar no-action had been granted in 2016 to Illumina (ILMN) on a proposal I (James McRitchie) had submitted. ISS referenced both. From the facts regarding AES, it appears John Chevedden submitted a proposal to lower the required threshold for shareholder to call a special meeting. The current standard is 25%. Chevedden’s proposal requested 10%. The SEC’s no-action letter gave the following rationale: Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes