SEC Staff Withdraws Guidance on Proxy Firms and Holds Proxy Roundtable; Chairman Clayton Indicates that SEC Will Act in 2019

Dechert LLP

Dechert LLP

In connection with the public roundtable on the proxy voting process (Roundtable) held by the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2018, the staff of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management (IM Staff) has partially withdrawn guidance relating to the use of proxy advisory firms by investment advisers.1 Specifically, the IM Staff withdrew the 2004 Egan-Jones Proxy Services (Egan-Jones) and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) no-action letters, on which many investment advisers previously relied to engage proxy advisory firms for both substantive and procedural assistance in fulfilling their proxy-voting responsibilities with respect to client securities.2

However, the IM Staff did not withdraw complementary guidance in Staff Legal Bulletin No. 20 (Proxy Bulletin),3 the status of which is instead expected to be determined as part of the Roundtable’s broader review of the role of proxy firms in the proxy process.4 Although the continued effectiveness of the Proxy Bulletin should limit the legal impact of the withdrawal of the Egan-Jones and ISS no-action letters at this time, stakeholders with views regarding the use of proxy firms by investment advisers may wish to develop and submit comments to the SEC for consideration in connection with the Roundtable.

This OnPoint reviews the applicable law and guidance with respect to the use of proxy advisory firms, as well as certain themes from the Roundtable’s panel discussion regarding proxy advisory firms. Note that, following the Roundtable, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton indicated that it would be a priority for the SEC to act on staff recommendations from the Roundtable process in 2019.5 In addition, on November 13, 2018, three Republican and three Democratic Senators introduced a bill in the Senate that would require the SEC to regulate proxy advisory firms as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.6

Overview of the Proxy Rule and Related Guidance regarding Proxy Advisory Firms

The Proxy Rule

In 2003, the SEC adopted Rule 206(4)-6 (Proxy Rule) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, to integrate into the federal securities laws certain aspects of an investment adviser’s fiduciary obligations in the context of proxy voting.7 The Proxy Rule requires an investment adviser with proxy voting authority to implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that: the investment adviser votes proxies in the best interest of its clients; and such procedures provide for the ongoing identification and resolution of material conflicts of interest that may arise between the investment adviser and its clients.8 In the Proxy Rule adopting release, the SEC indicated that one method of resolving an investment adviser’s conflicts of interest with its clients would be for the investment adviser to base its proxy-voting decisions on the recommendations of an “independent third party” pursuant to a pre-determined policy.

The Egan-Jones and ISS No-Action Letters

Shortly after the adoption of the Proxy Rule, the IM Staff published the now-withdrawn Egan-Jones no-action letter to clarify the circumstances under which the IM Staff would consider a third party to be “independent,” such that an investment adviser’s reliance on its voting recommendations could “cleanse” that investment adviser’s conflicts of interest.9 The IM Staff explained that it would generally consider a third party to be independent “if that person is free from influence or any incentive to recommend that the proxies should be voted in anyone’s interest other than the adviser’s clients.” Furthermore, the IM Staff stated that an investment adviser intending to rely on such a third party’s recommendations “should take reasonable steps to verify that the third party is in fact independent ... based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances,” which steps would include, with respect to a proxy firm, performing sufficient due diligence as to the firm’s independence and implementing procedures to address any conflicts of interest that may arise on an ongoing basis in connection with the proxy firm.

Following Egan-Jones, the IM Staff published the now-withdrawn ISS no-action letter to clarify the level of due diligence an investment adviser could reasonably perform to ascertain a proxy firm’s independence. According to the ISS no-action letter, reasonable due diligence under the Proxy Rule would not necessarily involve the investment adviser’s “case-by-case evaluation of a proxy voting firm’s potential conflicts of interest” but could instead consist of “a thorough review of the proxy voting firm’s conflict procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation.”10 Although the IM Staff cautioned that the appropriate level of due diligence would ultimately “depend[ ] on all of the relevant facts and circumstances” concerning a proxy firm and its potential conflicts, the ISS no-action letter was understood by many stakeholders to have facilitated, together with Egan-Jones, a compliance framework that permitted investment advisers facing conflicts of interest to substantially rely on proxy firms in fulfilling their proxy-voting responsibilities under the Proxy Rule, provided that the advisers could satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the firms’ conflicts procedures. Some stakeholders interpreted the letters as having a greater impact, arguing that they facilitated the “delegation” by some advisers of their proxy voting responsibilities to proxy advisory firms.

Policy Questions and the Proxy Bulletin

Since its establishment in the 1980s, the proxy firm industry had been focused in a few firms, primarily the recipient of the ISS no-action letter, Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (ISS), and Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (Glass Lewis), which ultimately has grown into ISS’s largest competitor. The consolidation of proxy advisory services in ISS and Glass Lewis led many corporate issuers to express the view that these firms held unduly significant and unaccountable influence in corporate elections and governance matters. Some observers viewed the continued growth and influence of proxy firms as a partial consequence of the Egan-Jones and ISS no-action-letters.

Partly in response, the SEC issued a 2010 concept release (Concept Release) seeking public comment on a number of issues that had been raised regarding the proxy system.11 In particular, the Concept Release inquired into: (i) the potential conflict of interest of proxy firms – like ISS – that provide both voting recommendations to investors and corporate governance consulting to issuers; (ii) the risk that voting recommendations may be based on flawed analyses or data; and (iii) the potential concern that proxy firms may base recommendations on an improper “one-size-fits-all” governance approach. Following a hearing on the influence of proxy firms held by the House of Representatives Financial Services Subcommittee in June 2013 – at which former SEC Chairman Harvey L. Pitt, advocating on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, claimed that “ISS and Glass Lewis ha[d] become the de facto standard setters for corporate governance policies in the U.S.”12 – the SEC held a public roundtable in December 2013 to further discuss the policy questions that had been raised regarding use of proxy firms by investment advisers.

Subsequently, in July 2014, the IM Staff issued the Proxy Bulletin, which does not rescind but instead effectively restates the duties set forth in the Egan-Jones and ISS no-action letters with greater specificity and additional considerations. Citing to the now-withdrawn letters in approval, the Proxy Bulletin reaffirms that investment advisers that retain proxy firms should (i) implement policies and procedures to identify and address any conflicts of interest of the retained proxy firms and (ii) perform reasonable due diligence on proxy firms, including a thorough review of a proxy firm’s conflicts procedures and a review of any material changes thereto on an ongoing basis.13

Furthermore, in apparent response to corporate issuers’ expressed view that proxy firms’ voting recommendations may be based on flawed analyses or data, the Proxy Bulletin states that an investment adviser retaining a proxy firm should ascertain that the firm has the ability and competence to adequately analyze proxy issues. This includes the firm’s ability to make recommendations based on materially accurate information (i.e., to conduct reasonable (and ongoing) due diligence that would include a review of whether the proxy firm’s policies and procedures adequately ensure that recommendations are based on current and accurate information).14

The Proxy Bulletin also indicates that an investment adviser wanting to demonstrate compliance with its proxy policies and procedures may consider periodically back-testing samples of proxy votes cast on behalf of its clients, especially “a sample of proxy votes that relate to certain proposals that may require more analysis.” In sum, the Proxy Bulletin provides additional considerations and more specific due diligence requirements relating to investment advisers’ use of proxy firms, but does not otherwise change the compliance framework introduced by the Egan-Jones and ISS no-action letters.

The November 2018 Roundtable

Public issuers’ expressed concerns regarding proxy firms are currently a focus for the SEC and its staff,15 as well as for other government agencies.16 In July 2018, Chairman Clayton announced the Roundtable on the proxy voting process and advised the IM Staff to include the following topics in the Roundtable’s agenda:

  • Whether current legal requirements have resulted in overreliance on proxy firms by investment advisers;
  • Whether corporate issuers have an appropriate opportunity to contest proxy firms’ recommendations, especially when a recommendation is based on flawed information;
  • Whether proxy firms are adequately transparent regarding their voting policies and procedures, such that stakeholders (including corporate issuers) may understand how proxy firms have formulated their particular recommendations;
  • Whether proxy firms cause a conflict of interest by providing both voting recommendations to investors and corporate governance consulting to issuers or other conflicts of interest, and, if so, whether such conflicts are adequately disclosed and mitigated; and
  • The appropriate regulatory regime for proxy firms and whether the Egan-Jones and ISS no-action letters, as well as the Proxy Bulletin, should be modified, rescinded or supplemented.

As noted above, the IM Staff withdrew the Egan-Jones and ISS no-action letters in September but did not jointly withdraw the Proxy Bulletin, which will remain in effect pending further consideration as part of the Roundtable process. Although the continued effectiveness of the Proxy Bulletin should limit the legal impact of withdrawing the no-action letters at this time,17 stakeholders with views regarding investment advisers’ use of proxy firms under the Proxy Rule may want to develop and submit comments to the SEC for consideration in connection with the Roundtable, as well as review comments submitted by other stakeholders. The SEC Commissioners and IM Staff present at the Roundtable’s panel discussions solicited additional comments to be submitted after the Roundtable.

A number of themes emerged from the Roundtable’s panel regarding the use of proxy firms, as follows:

  • The panelists, which included (among others) representatives from the investment adviser, institutional investor, proxy firm and public issuer industries, generally recognized the important role that proxy firms serve in facilitating work-flow management and data aggregation and analysis for investment advisers and institutional investors.
  • The potential concern that proxy firms may base recommendations on an improper “one-size-fits-all” governance approach was generally not supported by the panelists, including with respect to the representatives of public issuers; and the representatives from investment advisers, institutional investors and proxy firms generally attested that the services and processes currently provided by proxy firms are sufficiently tailored to their firms and are holding-specific.
  • The primary concern expressed by the representatives of public issuers regarded the lack of a defined, consistent and viable process to correct factual errors that may influence recommendations or reports from proxy firms to their clients. The proxy firm representatives were generally receptive to this concern and discussed processes whereby public issuers could access and dispute factual errors in data before the issuance of a related recommendation or report. However, the proxy firm representatives stressed that access to such data would be provided only in a manner that would not compromise the forthcoming recommendation or report by giving public issuers advance notice of the proxy firm’s judgments or conclusions.
  • The panelists generally recognized that it may be difficult to fully distinguish between factual errors made by proxy firms (which the proxy firm representatives suggested were, in any case, few) and subjective disagreements of judgment between proxy firms and public issuers. An investment adviser representative suggested that the burden of correcting such subjective disagreements may better lie with public issuers, who are able to communicate and address these disagreements directly with their shareholders prior to voting, as opposed to providing public issuers greater involvement in the preceding process of developing proxy firm recommendations, which could serve to diminish the independence of proxy firms.
  • In addressing the potential conflict of interest of proxy firms that provide both voting recommendations to investors and corporate governance consulting to issuers, the panelists generally did not dispute that there are currently sufficient controls and disclosures to investment advisers and institutional investors in place to mitigate this conflict of interest. However, an investment adviser representative queried whether the SEC considers this the type of conflict that may be cured by disclosures, and a public issuer representative further considered that it may be appropriate for these disclosures to be broadened and provided in some manner to the clients of investment advisers and beneficiaries of institutional investors as well.
  • When prompted, no panelist advanced the prospect of specific changes to the Proxy Rule or Proxy Bulletin. Investment adviser and institutional investor representatives expressed the concern that regulatory changes could lead to increased costs, the diminished independence of proxy firms and compressed timeframes for consideration of a proxy firm’s recommendation, if public issuers were offered the opportunity to in any way rebut the recommendation before it is issued. Furthermore, investment adviser representatives suggested that increased costs may simply lead to less proxy voting and engagement overall, as investment advisers are not mandated to vote their clients securities under the Proxy Rule. Although public issuer representatives did not offer any specific regulatory changes in this regard, a representative noted that, if the Roundtable ultimately does not produce any change to the current process, there may be a need to revisit these issues through legislation.
  • Former Senator Gramm of Texas, on behalf of the American Enterprise Institute, argued that a conflict of interest exists with respect to the involvement of proxy firms and investment advisers in voting client securities on what he described as special interest issues, such as labor or social reform matters. He argued that the impact of these matters on the value of a client security may be unclear but that the vote may nonetheless advance the marketability of the proxy firm or investment adviser. He suggested that the SEC clarify that investment advisers are not required to vote client securities and that they should vote client securities only when consistent with their fiduciary duties to act in the best economic interest of their clients.

Anticipated Action in 2019

As noted above, following the Roundtable, Chairman Clayton stated in a speech on the SEC’s 2019 agenda that the SEC would act on staff recommendations concerning proxy firms sometime next year. Chairman Clayton expressed his view that “some changes are warranted” in this regard, such as (i) clarifying the appropriate relationship between investment advisers and proxy firms and (ii) requiring investment advisers to use (and thus proxy firms to generally provide) holding-specific analytics in connection with certain proxy matters.18 Additionally, Chairman Clayton stated that the Commission should consider issues related to “the framework for addressing conflicts of interest at proxy advisory firms.” Chairman Clayton did not appear to suggest that public issuers should have a more direct role or input into proxy firms’ processes. He asked instead whether shareholders currently have “effective access” to a public issuer’s potential response to information in a recommendation.

The public issuer community and its representatives will likely continue to press the SEC, other government agencies and Congress on the further regulation of proxy firms. It should be noted again, for instance, that three Republican and three Democratic Senators have introduced a bill titled the “Corporate Governance Fairness Act” that would subject proxy firms to registration as investment advisers and periodic examination by the SEC.19


1) Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Investment Management, Information Update: Statement Regarding Staff Proxy Advisory Letters (Sept. 13, 2018) (Withdrawal Update).

2) See Egan-Jones Proxy Services, SEC Staff No-Action Letter (May 27, 2004); Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc., SEC Staff No-Action Letter (Sept. 15, 2004). These no-action letters have been relied on by many investment advisers in considering and structuring relationships with proxy advisory firms, as well as determining the appropriate level of due diligence to perform on such firms, particularly in cases where an investment adviser may have a conflict of interest in determining how to vote client securities.

3) Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Investment Management, Proxy Voting: Proxy Voting Responsibilities of Investment Advisers and Availability of Exemptions from the Proxy Rules for Proxy Advisory Firms, Staff Legal Bulletin No. 20 (June 30, 2014). For additional discussion of the Egan-Jones and ISS no-action letters and the Proxy Bulletin, see Andrew L. Oringer, Edward L. Pittman and Michael L. Sherman, A Vote in Favor of Balance and Care in Policies Regarding the Use of Proxy Advisors, The Investment Lawyer Vol. 21, No. 9 (Sept. 2014).

4) According to the Withdrawal Update, the IM Staff “expects to utilize what it learns [at the Roundtable] in any future recommendations to the Commission with respect to proxy advisory firms.”

5) SEC Chairman Jay Clayton, SEC Rulemaking Over the Past Year, the Road Ahead and Challenges Posed by Brexit, LIBOR Transition and Cybersecurity Risks (Dec. 6, 2018) (Speech).

6) Corporate Governance Fairness Act, S. 3614, 115th Cong. (2018).

7) See Proxy Voting by Investment Advisers, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2106 (Jan. 23, 2003), at nn. 2–3 and accompanying text (describing the Proxy Rule as building upon an investment adviser’s fiduciary duties of care and loyalty in the context of proxy voting).

8) By its terms, the requirements of the Proxy Rule apply only to investment advisers that “are registered or required to be registered” under the Advisers Act. However, any investment adviser, regardless of its registration status, is subject to certain fiduciary duties, as well as the Advisers Act’s general anti-fraud provisions. Unregistered advisers that have the authority to vote proxies on behalf of their clients should, therefore, also consider the Proxy Rule and its related guidance as instructive.

9) See Egan-Jones, supra note 2, at n.6 and accompanying text.

10) See ISS, supra note 2. In accordance with the ISS no-action letter, an investment adviser reviewing a proxy firm’s conflict procedures should “assess the adequacy of those procedures in light of the particular conflicts of interest that the firm faces in making voting recommendations,” “have a thorough understanding of the proxy voting firm’s business and the nature of the conflicts of interest that the firm faces in making voting recommendations,” and “assess whether the firm’s conflicts procedures negate the conflicts,” as well as “whether the proxy voting firm has fully implemented the conflict procedures.”

11) See Concept Release on the U.S. Proxy System, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3052 (July 14, 2010).

12) Statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee Hearing entitled Examining the Market Power and Impact of Proxy Advisory Firms (June 5, 2013).

13) Notably, the Bulletin explicitly neither adopts nor calls into question the statement in Egan-Jones that an investment adviser’s reliance on an independent third party may “cleanse” its conflicts in the context of proxy voting.

14) The Proxy Bulletin also states that investment advisers may consider “the adequacy and quality of the proxy advisory firm’s staffing and personnel.”

15) See, e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, Examination Priorities for 2015 (including “examin[ing] select proxy advisory service firms ... and investment advisers’ compliance with their fiduciary duty in voting proxies on behalf of investors” as examination priorities).

16) See Department of the Treasury, A Financial System That Creates Economic  Opportunities: Capital Markets (October 2017) (recommending “further study and evaluation of proxy advisor firms”); Government Accountability Office, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate: Corporate Shareholder Meetings – Proxy Advisory Firms’ Role in Voting and Corporate Governance Practices (June 2007).

17) Cf. Commissioner Robert J. Jackson Jr., Statement on Shareholder Voting (Sept. 14, 2018) (stating that “the law governing investor use of proxy advisors is no different [now] than it was [before the withdrawal of the Egan-Jones and ISS no-action letters]” and expressing concern that the SEC’s “efforts to fix corporate democracy will be stymied by misguided and controversial efforts to regulate proxy advisors,” which “has long been a top priority for corporate lobbyists”).

18) Speech, supra note 5.

19) See Corporate Governance Fairness Act, supra note 6.


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.

© Dechert LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Dechert LLP

Dechert LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at:

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.