Amendments to Proxy Advisor Rules Become Effective

Sep 30, 2022

Reading Time : 5 min

As described in more detail below, the amendments rescind two rules regarding proxy voting advice provided by PVABs that the SEC adopted in July 2020 (2020 Final Rules), as well as certain guidance that the SEC issued to investment advisers about their proxy voting obligations (2020 Supplemental Proxy Voting Guidance). Specifically, the amendments rescind:

  • Conditions to the availability of two exemptions from the proxy rules’ informational and filing requirements on which PVABs often rely; and
  • Changes made to the proxy rules’ liability provision—specifically, removing a note that provides examples of situations in which the failure to disclose certain information in proxy voting advice may be considered misleading within the meaning of the federal proxy rules’ prohibition on material misstatements or omissions.

Overview

Prior Rule—Rule 14a-2(b)(9), which provides conditions to the availability of two exemptions from the proxy rules’ informational and filing requirements on which PVABs rely, previously required that:

(1)  Companies that are the subject of proxy voting advice have such advice made available to them in a timely manner, and

(2)  Clients of PVABs be provided with a means of becoming aware of any written responses by companies to proxy voting advice.

Adopted Amendments—The adopted amendments rescind these conditions due to concerns about potential adverse effects on the independence, cost and timeliness of proxy voting advice.

Prior Rule—Rule 14a-9, which prohibits any proxy solicitation from containing false or misleading statements with respect to any material fact at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which the statements are made, previously included as Note (e) the following example of a potentially false and misleading statement or omission:

Failure to disclose material information regarding proxy voting advice, such as the PVABs’ methodology, sources of information, or conflicts of interest.

Adopted Amendments—The amendments delete Note (e) to Rule 14a-9 due to concerns over increased litigation risk, which could impair the independence and quality of proxy voting advice. Despite this deletion, a PVAB, like any other person engaged in solicitation covered by the SEC’s proxy rules, will continue to be subject to liability under the antifraud provisions of Rule 14a-9.1

A comparison of the prior rules to the amended rules is available in Appendix A.

Background

The 2020 Final Rules were intended to codify the SEC’s view that proxy voting advice generally constitutes a “solicitation” as defined in Rule 14a-1(l) and help ensure that investors who use proxy voting advice receive more transparent, accurate and complete information on which to make their voting decisions. The SEC recognized the “important and prominent role” that PVABs play in the proxy voting process and adopted the 2020 Final Rules, in part, to address certain concerns that registrants, investors and others have expressed about the role of PVABs2 while aiming to tailor the 2020 Final Rules to avoid imposing undue costs or delays that could adversely affect the timely provision of proxy voting advice.

Among other things, the 2020 Final Rules amended Rule 14a-2(b) by adding paragraph (9), which sets forth two conditions that a PVAB must satisfy in order to continue to rely on two exemptions from the proxy rules’ information and filing requirements commonly used by PVABs. Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(i) requires PVABs to provide their clients with certain conflicts of interest disclosures in connection with their proxy voting advice. In addition, Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii) requires that PVABs adopt and publicly disclose written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that:

(1)  Companies that are the subject of their proxy voting advice have such advice made available to them at or prior to the time when such advice is disseminated to the PVABs’ clients, and

(2)  PVABs provide their clients with a mechanism by which they can reasonably be expected to become aware of any written statements regarding their proxy voting advice by companies who are the subject of such advice, in a timely manner before the relevant shareholder meeting (or, if no meeting, before the votes, consents or authorizations may be used to effect the proposed action).

The 2020 Final Rules also amended Rule 14a-9 by adding a note that provides that failure to disclose material information regarding proxy voting advice, such as a PVAB’s methodology, sources of information or conflicts of interest, could be misleading under Rule 14a-9 and subject the PVAB to liability under the rule. Lastly, in connection with the 2020 Final Rules, the SEC issued the 2020 Supplemental Proxy Voting Guidance, which was prompted in part by the adoption of the Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii) conditions.

However, investors and others expressed concerns that these conditions will impose increased compliance costs on PVABs and impair the independence and timeliness of their proxy voting advice. Additionally, with regards to the liability provision, although the changes were intended to make clear that proxy voting advice is subject to liability under the proxy rules, investors and others expressed concerns that the 2020 changes created confusion, increased PVABs’ litigation risks and potentially impaired the independence and quality of the proxy voting advice. While the amendments to Rules 14a-1(l) and 14a-9 became effective on November 2, 2020, and the conditions set forth in the new Rule 14a-2(b)(9) were to become effective on December 1, 2021, SEC Chair Gary Gensler directed the staff on June 1, 2021, to reconsider the rulemaking, and the Division of Corporation Finance issued a statement that it would not recommend enforcement action based on the 2019 Interpretation and Guidance or the 2020 Final Rules during the period in which the SEC considered further regulatory action in the area. The amendments modify certain aspects of the 2020 Final Rules, while leaving in place others, such as provisions that increase needed transparency around conflicts of interest.


1 Before adopting the 2020 Final Rules, the SEC, in August 2019, stated that PVABs’ proxy voting advice generally would constitute a solicitation subject to the proxy rules. As a solicitation, proxy voting advice is subject to Rule 14a-9. Commission Interpretation and Guidance Regarding the Applicability of the Proxy Rules to Proxy Voting Advice, Release No. 34-86721 (Aug. 21, 2019) [84 FR 47416 (Sept. 10, 2019)].

2 See Exemptions from the Proxy Rules for Proxy Voting Advice, Release No. 34-89372 (Jul. 22, 2020) [85 FR 55082 (Sept. 3, 2020)].

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.