SEC Issues Guidance on Proxy Voting Relevant to Proxy Advisers and Investment Advisers: Any Significant Impact on the Current Proxy Voting System Is Unlikely

Growing concerns regarding the increasingly prominent role of proxy advisory firms, including Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, were largely not addressed when, on June 30, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC”) Division of Investment Management and Division of Corporation Finance issued joint guidance — Staff Legal Bulletin No. 20, “Proxy Voting: Proxy Voting Responsibilities of Investment Advisers and Availability of Exemptions from the Proxy Rules for Proxy Advisory Firms” (“SLB No. 20”). Investment advisers routinely rely on proxy advisory firms’ voting recommendations for proposals presented for shareholder vote and on general recommendations regarding corporate voting matters, such as director elections and executive compensation. Many public companies take proxy advisory firms’ recommendations very seriously because such recommendations are able to have a meaningful impact on corporate voting results. While SLB No. 20 addressed some of these concerns, including with respect to potential conflicts of interest, proxy advisory firms are likely to retain a significant influence on the outcomes of corporate voting matters as investment advisers are expected to continue to rely on voting recommendations in making decisions on behalf of shareholders of their portfolio companies.

Composed of 13 Q&As, SLB No. 20 outlines the Division of Investment Management clarifications about investment advisers’ responsibilities in voting client proxies and retaining proxy advisory firms (Q&As 1–5) and the Division of Corporation Finance clarifications regarding the availability and requirements of two exemptions to the federal proxy rules that are often relied upon by proxy advisory firms (Q&As 6–13). As a practical matter, SLB No. 20 focuses on conflicts of interest and excessive reliance on voting recommendations of proxy advisory firms. Following SLB No. 20, proxy advisory firms are required to disclose to their clients any conflicts of interest if, for instance, a proxy advisory firm provides consulting services to a company on a matter central to a voting recommendation. Investment advisers are now required to adopt, implement and periodically evaluate proxy voting policies and procedures to ensure that, in following any voting recommendations, they are acting in their clients’ best interests.

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:


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.

© White & Case LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* 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.