Corp Fin Updates Procedures for Rule 14a-8 No-Action Requests and Posts No-Action Responses Chart

Dec 4, 2019

Reading Time : 4 min

Background

In September, Corp Fin announced that, beginning in the 2019-2020 proxy season, its staff (“Staff”) may respond orally to some Rule 14a-8 no-action requests rather than through the issuance of a written response letter as it traditionally has and that the Staff will inform the proponent and the company of its position, which may be to concur, disagree or to decline to state a view with respect to the company’s asserted basis for exclusion of a proposal. The Announcement stated that the Staff would still issue a response letter “where it believes doing so would provide value, such as more broadly applicable guidance about complying with Rule 14a-8.” However, the manner in which the Staff would provide its informal guidance as well as the amount of oral versus written responses expected was not described at the time of the Announcement and was open to speculation, which led to some concern regarding the transparency of the new disclosure regime.

In the past, when a company submitted a Rule 14a-8 no-action request, the Staff has expressed its enforcement position through the issuance of a no-action response to “assist both companies and shareholders in complying with the proxy rules.”1 After last year’s proxy season, Corp Fin reexamined its process of administering Rule 14a-8 no-action requests and found that this new procedure will allow the Staff to more “efficiently and effectively provide guidance where appropriate.”

In the Announcement, the Staff reiterated its position that no-action responses, whether written or oral, are the Staff’s informal, non-binding views as to whether it concurs that there is a legal basis to exclude the shareholder proposal in question under Rule 14a-8 and that the parties may seek formal, binding adjudication on the merits of the issue in court.

New Corp Fin Procedures

On November 21, the Corp Fin page for Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposals was updated to link viewers to incoming Rule 14a-8 no-action requests, a description of Corp Fin’s informal procedures regarding shareholder proposals and a chart tallying the Staff’s written and oral responses to Rule 14a-8 no-action requests issued on or after November 21, 2019, for the 2019-2020 shareholder proposal season. Rule 14a-8 no-action requests received by Corp Fin on or after September 27, 2019, will remain posted on the incoming Rule 14a-8 no-action request page throughout the season. Responses to the no-action requests, once available, are posted to the 2019-2020 Shareholder Proposal No-Action Responses page. It does not appear that any update is made to the incoming no-action request list when the Staff posts a response on the No-Action Responses Page.

For each Staff response, the chart on the 2019-2020 Shareholder Proposal No-Action Responses page lists (i) the name of the company that submitted the no-action request, (ii) the name of the shareholder that submitted the proposal, (iii) the date the company initially submitted the no-action request, (iv) the regulatory bases asserted by the company to exclude the proposal, (v) the Staff’s response, (vi) the date of the Staff’s response, and (vii) whether or not the Staff responded by letter. The chart contains hyperlinks to the correspondence submitted by the company as well as a hyperlink to the Staff’s response, “including any letter issued by the Staff, the company’s initial submission and any subsequent correspondence.” The hyperlinks are only available once the materials are posted to the SEC website, so a delay may occur between posting of the Staff’s response and the hyperlinking of the related items. TheCorporateCounsel.net’s blog post on November 22 provides an example of a Staff email that accompanied the Staff response (the Staff did not separately respond by letter in that instance). Note that, in cases where the Staff concurs with a company’s view that there is a basis to exclude the proposal, the Staff will only concur with exclusion on one of the bases asserted by the company and not address alternative bases. Even in instances where the Staff has responded to a no-action request orally, the Staff’s disposition will be recorded, providing guidance to the market, which should relieve concerns around transparency in Staff responses to no-action requests voiced after the Announcement. At the PLI Securities Regulation Institute that took place in New York City in early November, Corp Fin Deputy Director Shelley Parratt explained that the only real change in the Staff’s new response regime was in the form of the response; there was no intent to otherwise change policy (which alleviates commenter concerns regarding the potential expansion of “declines to state a view”). Parratt also stated that the Staff intended to continue to respond to every submitted Rule 14a-8 no-action request and continue to be transparent about the process.

 

1 Division of Corporation Finance: Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14.

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.