Tag Archives | iRobot

IRBT HQs

IRBT Proxy Voting Recommendations

IRBT (iRobot Corporation) designs, builds, and sells robots for the consumer market worldwide. Most shareholders do not vote because reading through 70+ pages of the proxy is not worth the time for the small difference your vote will make. Below, I tell you how I am voting and why. If you have read these posts related […]

Continue Reading ·
iRobot Adopts Proxy Access

iRobot Adopts Proxy Access: McRitchie Withdraws – Contest Looms

iRobot adopts proxy access bylaws filed with SEC Form 8-K on March 9, 2016 (See Section 11). James McRitchie, publisher of Corporate Governance (CorpGov.net) conditioned withdrawal of his proposal for proxy access at iRobot (IRBT) on the amended bylaws, including several key elements meeting best practices as outlined by the Council of Institutional Investors.  (more…)

Continue Reading ·

iRobot Corporation: Proxy Score 33

iRobot Corporation (NASD:IRBT), one of the stocks in my portfolio, offers consumer , defense and security products, remote presence products and handles contract research and development projects. Their annual meeting is coming up on 5/20/2015. ProxyDemocracy.org had no votes from funds when I checked and voted on 5/13/2015. I voted with the Board 33% of the time and assigned […]

Continue Reading ·

Proxy Access at Bank of America May 8th

Re opposition to John Harrington’s proxy access proposal at Bank of America ($BAC), based on language that I helped develop.  For background, see Bank of America (BAC) Faces Proxy Access on May 8th. I hope opponents will reconsider. From one analysis recommending a vote against: While this amount ($660 million) is significant in absolute terms, shareholders may have […]

Continue Reading ·

Proxy Access Proposals Move Forward

On March 26, 2012, SEC staff issued their decision on a request by iRobot (IRBT) to exclude my proxy access proposal from their proxy. Although similar proposals had survived no-action requests last year, IRB management held out hopes that small changes made in the proposal might have made the proposal “vague” under rule 14a-8(1)(3) or “ordinary […]

Continue Reading ·

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes