Tag Archives | no-action letters

CII: William Hinmam Interviewed

Keynote Interview: William Hinman of the SEC

William Hinman, Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, was interviewed by CII Co-Chair Gregory Smith, Executive Director, Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association at #, I scribbled a few notes.

As you can well imagine for someone speaking from such a sensitive position, there were no bombshell announcements. However, it is certainly good to have a dialogue between CII members and the head of CorpFin. William Hinman did not disappoint. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Gadfly Proposals Reduce Value?

Deal Professor Envisions Corporate Gadfly

Starting with Corporations

Gadfly proposal on your corporate proxy? One implicit conclusion from a recent academic study is that you should short the company as soon as the SEC disapproves the company’s no-action request, since a proposal from a gadfly is likely to reduce the company’s value. Even though their intent is primarily to show why managers generally oppose proposals, that is the takeaway investment strategy one might conclude from a paper by John G. Matsusaka, Oguzhan Ozbas and Irene Yi entitled Why Do Managers Fight Shareholder Proposals? Evidence from No-Action Letter Decisions. (Why Do Managers Fight Shareholder Proposals, pdf)

Investors Skeptical of Gadfly Proposals

Researchers found a statistical correlation between Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC) staff decisions to block a no-action request and negative abnormal returns over the period of 2007-2016, “suggesting that investors agree with managers that these proposals are value-destroying.” “[O]ur main finding is that the market responded positively to the granting of a no-action letter.” “Investors are not particularly skeptical of proposals by unions and public pensions, but appear to view proposals by individual ‘gadfly’ shareholders as value-destroying.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Foiled Without Binding Proxy Access Proposals

There will be no rush to binding proxy access proposals, thanks to a July 21 denial of a no-action request filed by H&R Block. Corporations (HRB) continue with Wile E. Coyote type plots to derail genuine proxy access. See this incoming no-action request from Microsoft (MFST). However, in the case of H&R Block we foiled the latest plot to keep corporate governance a democratic-free zone without resorting to binding proxy access proposals. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Substantial Implementation: Proxy Access Lite

Substantial ImplementationSubstantial implementation, that’s what SEC staff deemed proxy access ‘lite’ last week. Investor rights were eroded again as staff granted a number of no-action letters on February 12th to companies based on “substantial implementation” of proxy access. At its founding, the SEC was largely a champion of shareholder rights. The SEC required companies to include proposals on any proper subject in the proxy in order to approximate the conditions of the annual meeting. The SEC even took Transamerica to court in 1947 for refusing to place shareholder proposals in their proxy. From that high point, the SEC began chipping away at shareholder proxy rights. Last week’s decisions inferring proxy access lite to be substantial implementation provided further evidence of an agency more concerned with protecting entrenched managers than shareholder rights. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

2013 Proxy Season Review

ProxyAccessSteven Hall Partners published a list of all the failed “say on pay” votes this season to date. 56 companies  failed with an average 60% ‘Against’ vote.

  • Two additional company received less than 50% ‘For’ but considered the vote a win because ‘For’ votes outnumbered ‘Against’ votes due to abstentions. I say they’re crazy. They failed.
  • Nine companies have failed previous votes
    • Abercrombie & Fitch Co. failed in 2012
    • Big Lots, Inc. failed in 2012
    • Cogent Communications failed in 2011
    • Comstock Resources failed in 2012
    • Freeport McMoran Copper & Gold, Inc. failed in 2011
    • Gentiva Health Services failed in 2012
    • Three companies have failed all three of their say on pay votes (2011, 2012 & 2013)
Continue Reading ·

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes