Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate Governance Blogs -> The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Corporate Governance

: The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog

Concerns About New Proxy Access Rule

By Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance

ADVERTISEMENTS

Editor?s Note: Troy A. Paredes is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Paredes' statement at a recent open meeting of the SEC, which is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Paredes and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff. The post relates to the adoption of a final SEC rule on proxy access; the adopting release is available here. Additional posts relating to proxy access are available here.

Today, the Commission is adopting rule changes to provide shareholders with ?proxy access.? New Exchange Act Rule 14a-11 creates for shareholders a minimum federal right of access to a company?s proxy materials to nominate directors. As amended, Exchange Act Rule 14a-8 will allow shareholders to include in a company?s proxy materials a proposal to amend the company?s bylaws to provide for proxy access, subject to a major exception. That is, shareholders are unable to opt out of the Rule 14a-11 access regime, even if they want to. The proxy access right the Commission is establishing under Rule 14a-11 is mandatory.

The Rule 14a-8 amendment facilitates shareholders in crafting what the shareholders believe to be an appropriate access regime for a particular company. I welcome the Rule 14a-8 amendment as a sensible step that empowers shareholders, respects the traditional role of states in regulating internal corporate affairs, and allows for efficient private ordering.

Unfortunately, the Commission has chosen to do more than amend Rule 14a-8. The Commission also is adopting Rule 14a-11, the mandates of which displace private ordering and state law and negate the import and effect of shareholder choice when it comes to determining the contours of proxy access. Neither theory nor data adequately substantiate the Commission?s imposition of the mandatory Rule 14a-11 proxy access right. Accordingly, I am not able to support the final rule before us and respectfully dissent. [1]

Click here to read the complete post...

Full post as published by The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog on August 26, 2010 (boomark / email).