I May Be Pettifogging, But I Have to Ask: Is It Time To Dump The Proxy And Give Shareholders A Ballot?

The proxy is the most misunderstood and mischaracterized of all instruments.  For the record, a “proxy” is “a written authorization signed or an electronic transmission authorized by a shareholder or the shareholder’s attorney in fact giving another person or persons power to vote with respect to the shares of such shareholder.”  Cal. Corp. Code § 178.  Fundamentally, a proxy “is evidence of an agent’s authority to vote shares owned by another.”  Eliason v. Englehart, 733 A.2d 944 (Del. 1999).  This isn’t new learning, the Delaware Court of Chancery said as much 74 years ago in Duffy v. Loft, 151 A. 223, 227 (Del. Ch. 1930), aff’d. 152 A. 849 (Del. 1930) (stating that “the paper writing which we call a proxy is nothing more than evidence of a relationship. It is not the relationship. It simply testifies that A. has constituted B. his agent to act for him in a vicarious capacity”).

The one thing that a proxy is not is a vote.  This is clear because an agent can always fail to carry out her responsibilities.  Id.  In real life, a client once had a shareholder file its own proxy statement, solicit proxies, come to the meeting but fail to turn in a ballot.

Nonetheless, virtually every proxy statement equates the giving of a proxy as voting.  For example, many proxy statements include statements such as the following:

All shareowners of record also can vote by touchtone telephone within the U.S., U.S. territories and Canada, using the toll-free telephone number on the notice or proxy card, or through the Internet, using the procedures and instructions described on the notice or proxy card.

Other proxy statements describe how a shareholder may change her vote.  What is really going on is that shareholders can give voting instructions to a proxy and can change those instructions.

If the world is committed to using proxy and vote interchangeably, maybe the answer is to get rid of the proxy and simply have people execute ballots.  This mechanism is already available to, and used by, some nonprofit public benefit corporations pursuant to Section 5513 of the California Corporations Code.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP on:

Popular Topics
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.