[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 140 (Thursday, July 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42982-43020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17615]
[[Page 42981]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Securities and Exchange Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17 CFR Parts 240, 270, 274, et al.
Concept Release on the U.S. Proxy System; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 140 / Thursday, July 22, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 42982]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
17 CFR Parts 240, 270, 274, and 275
[Release Nos. 34-62495; IA-3052; IC-29340; File No. S7-14-10]
RIN 3235-AK43
Concept Release on the U.S. Proxy System
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.
ACTION: Concept release; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is publishing this concept release to solicit
comment on various aspects of the U.S. proxy system. It has been many
years since we conducted a broad review of the system, and we are aware
of industry and investor interest in the Commission's consideration of
an update to its rules to promote greater efficiency and transparency
in the system and enhance the accuracy and integrity of the shareholder
vote. Therefore, we seek comment on the proxy system in general,
including the various issues raised in this release involving the U.S.
proxy system and certain related matters.
DATES: Comments should be received on or before October 20, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept.shtml);
Send an e-mail to [email protected]. Please include
File Number S7-14-10 on the subject line; or
Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number S7-14-10. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept.shtml). Comments
are also available for Web site viewing and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All
comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond A. Be or Lawrence A.
Hamermesh, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3500, Susan M.
Petersen or Andrew Madar, Division of Trading & Markets, at (202) 551-
5777, Holly L. Hunter-Ceci or Brian P. Murphy, Division of Investment
Management, at (202) 551-6825, or Joshua White, Division of Risk,
Strategy, and Financial Innovation, at (202) 551-6655, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. The Current Proxy Distribution and Voting Process
A. Types of Share Ownership and Voting Rights
1. Registered Owners
2. Beneficial Owners
B. The Process of Soliciting Proxies
1. Distributing Proxy Materials to Registered Owners
2. Distributing Proxy Materials to Beneficial Owners
a. The Depository Trust Company
b. Securities Intermediaries: Broker-Dealers and Banks
C. Proxy Voting Process
D. The Roles of Third Parties in the Proxy Process
1. Transfer Agents
2. Proxy Service Providers
3. Proxy Solicitors
4. Vote Tabulators
5. Proxy Advisory Firms
III. Accuracy, Transparency, and Efficiency of the Voting Process
A. Over-Voting and Under-Voting
1. Imbalances in Broker Votes
a. Securities Lending
b. Fails To Deliver
2. Current Reconciliation and Allocation Methodologies Used by
Broker-Dealers To Address Imbalances
a. Pre-Reconciliation Method
b. Post-Reconciliation Method
c. Hybrid Reconciliation Methods
3. Potential Regulatory Responses
4. Request for Comment
B. Vote Confirmation
1. Background
2. Potential Regulatory Responses
3. Request for Comment
C. Proxy Voting by Institutional Securities Lenders
1. Background
2. Lack of Advance Notice of Meeting Agenda
a. Background
b. Potential Regulatory Responses
c. Request for Comment
3. Disclosure of Voting by Funds
a. Background
b. Potential Regulatory Responses
c. Request for Comment
D. Proxy Distribution Fees
1. Background
a. Current Fee Schedules
b. Notice and Access Model
c. Current Practice Regarding Fees Charged
2. Potential Regulatory Responses
3. Request for Comment
IV. Communications and Shareholder Participation
A. Issuer Communications With Shareholders
1. Background
2. Potential Regulatory Responses
3. Request for Comment
B. Means To Facilitate Retail Investor Participation
1. Background
2. Potential Regulatory Responses
a. Investor Education
b. Enhanced Brokers' Internet Platforms
c. Advance Voting Instructions
d. Investor-to-Investor Communications
e. Improving the Use of the Internet for Distribution of Proxy
Materials
3. Request for Comment
C. Data-Tagging Proxy-Related Materials
1. Background
2. Potential Regulatory Responses
3. Request for Comment
V. Relationship Between Voting Power and Economic Interest
A. Proxy Advisory Firms
1. The Role and Legal Status of Proxy Advisory Firms
2. Concerns About the Role of Proxy Advisory Firms
a. Conflicts of Interest
b. Lack of Accuracy and Transparency in Formulating Voting
Recommendations
3. Potential Regulatory Responses
a. Potential Solutions Addressing Conflicts of Interest
b. Potential Solutions Addressing Accuracy and Transparency in
Formulating Voting Recommendations
4. Request for Comment
B. Dual Record Dates
1. Background
2. Difficulties in Setting a Voting Record Date Close to a
Meeting Date
3. Potential Regulatory Responses
4. Request for Comment
C. ``Empty Voting'' and Related ``Decoupling'' Issues
1. Background and Reasons for Concern
2. Empty Voting Techniques and Potential Downsides
a. Empty Voting Using Hedging-Based Strategies
b. Empty Voting Using Non-Hedging-Based Strategies
3. Potential Regulatory Responses
4. Request for Comment
VI. Conclusion
I. Introduction
Regulation of the proxy solicitation process is one of the original
responsibilities that Congress assigned to the Commission in 1934. The
Commission has actively monitored the proxy process since receiving
this
[[Page 42983]]
authority and has considered changes when it appeared that the process
was not functioning in a manner that adequately protected the interests
of investors.\1\ In recent years, a number of our proxy-related
rulemakings have been spurred by the Internet and other technological
advances that enable more efficient communications. For example, we
have adopted the ``notice and access'' model for the delivery of proxy
materials,\2\ as well as rules to facilitate the use of electronic
shareholder forums.\3\ Perceived deficiencies in the proxy distribution
process have prompted other proxy-related rulemakings, such as rules to
reinforce the obligation of issuers to distribute proxy materials to
banks and brokers on a timely basis \4\ and to permit the
``householding'' of proxy materials.\5\ We have also periodically
revised our rules requiring certain types of disclosures in the proxy
statement, such as information on executive compensation and corporate
governance matters.\6\ We also have pending a proposal to adopt rules
that would require, under certain circumstances, a company to include
in its proxy materials a shareholder's, or group of shareholders',
nominees for director.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For a history of the Commission's efforts to regulate the
proxy process since 1934, see Jill E. Fisch, From Legitimacy to
Logic: Reconstructing Proxy Regulation, 46 Vand. L. Rev. 1129 (Oct.
1993).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.14a-16; Shareholder Choice Regarding Proxy
Materials, Release No. 34-56135 (July 26, 2007) [72 FR 42222]
(``Notice and Access Release''); Amendments to Rules Requiring
Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, Release No. 33-9108 (Feb.
22, 2010) [75 FR 9074].
\3\ 17 CFR 240.14a-17; Electronic Shareholder Forums, Release
No. 34-57172 (Jan. 18, 2008) [73 FR 4450]. These amendments
clarified that participation in an electronic shareholder forum that
could potentially constitute a solicitation subject to the proxy
rules is exempt from most of the proxy rules if all of the
conditions to the exemption are satisfied. In addition, the
amendments state that a shareholder, issuer, or third party acting
on behalf of a shareholder or issuer that establishes, maintains or
operates an electronic shareholder forum will not be liable under
the federal securities laws for any statement or information
provided by another person participating in the forum. The
amendments did not provide an exemption from Rule 14a-9 [17 CFR
240.14a-9], which prohibits fraud in connection with the
solicitation of proxies.
\4\ See 17 CFR 14b-1 and 14b-2; Timely Distribution of Proxy and
Other Soliciting Material, Release No. 34-33768 (Mar. 16, 1994) [59
FR 13517].
\5\ Delivery of Proxy Statements and Information Statements to
Households, Release No. 33-7912 (Oct. 27, 2000) [65 FR 65736].
``Householding'' permits a securities intermediary to send only one
copy of proxy materials to multiple accounts within the same
household under specified conditions. Id.
\6\ See, e.g., Proxy Disclosure Enhancements, Release No. 33-
9089 (Dec. 16, 2009) [74 FR 68334] and Executive Compensation and
Related Person Disclosure, Release No. 33-8732A (Aug. 9, 2006) [71
FR 53158].
\7\ See Facilitating Shareholder Director Nominations, Release
Nos. 33-9046, 34-60089, IC-287665 (June 10, 2009) [74 FR 29024].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During many of these previous proxy-related rulemakings,
commentators raised concerns about the proxy system as a whole.\8\ In
addition, the Commission's staff often receives complaints from
individual investors about the administration of the proxy system.\9\
We believe that these concerns and complaints merit attention because
they address a subject of considerable importance--the corporate
proxy--which, given the wide dispersion of shareholders, is the
principal means by which shareholders can exercise their voting rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., Request for Rulemaking Concerning Shareholder
Communications, April 12, 2004-Business Roundtable Petition 4-493
(``BRT Petition''); comment letter to Release No. 33-9046, note 7,
above, from Altman Group; comment letters to Security Holder
Director Nominations, Release No. 34-48626 (Oct. 14, 2003) [68 FR
60784] from Intel and Georgeson Shareholder Communications.
\9\ Most commonly submitted to the Commission's Office of
Investor Education and Advocacy, these complaints raise issues such
as, for example, technical problems with electronic voting platforms
offered by proxy service providers and failures by issuers to
respond to shareholder complaints about proxy-related matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, in this release, we are reviewing and seeking public
comment as to whether the U.S. proxy system as a whole operates with
the accuracy, reliability, transparency, accountability, and integrity
that shareholders and issuers should rightfully expect. With over 600
billion shares voted every year at more than 13,000 shareholder
meetings,\10\ shareholders should be served by a well-functioning proxy
system that promotes efficient and accurate voting. Moreover, recent
developments, such as the revisions to Rule 452 of the New York Stock
Exchange (``NYSE'') limiting the ability of brokers to vote
uninstructed shares in uncontested director elections \11\ and other
corporate governance trends such as increased adoption of a majority
voting standard for the election of directors \12\ have highlighted the
importance of accuracy and accountability in the voting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Broadridge 2009 Key Statistics and Performance Ratings,
available at http://www.broadridge.com/investor-communications/us/2009ProxyStats.pdf.
\11\ Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as modified by
Amendment No. 4, to Amend NYSE Rule 452 and Corresponding Listed
Company Manual Section 402.08 to Eliminate Broker Discretionary
Voting for the Election of Directors, Except for Companies
Registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, and to Codify
Two Previously Published Interpretations that Do Not Permit Broker
Discretionary Voting for Material Amendments to Investment Advisory
Contracts with an Investment Company, Release No. 34-60215 (July 1,
2009) [74 FR 33293] (Commission approval of amendments to NYSE Rule
452).
\12\ Historically, many corporate directors were elected under a
plurality standard, which required only that a candidate receive
more votes than other candidates, but not a majority of the votes.
Since there ordinarily are not more candidates than seats, the
election threshold has historically been low and shareholder
participation was less important to electing directors. See American
Bar Association Section of Business Law, Report of the Committee on
Corporate Laws on Voting by Shareholders for the Election of
Directors (Mar. 13, 2006), available at http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/committees/CL270000pub/directorvoting/20060313000001.pdf.
From 2005 to 2007, however, a majority of companies in the S&P 500
index adopted a voting policy, through bylaw amendments or changes
in corporate governance principles, that requires directors who do
not receive a majority of votes cast at the meeting in favor of
their election to tender their resignation to the board, which
resignation the board may or may not accept. See Claudia H. Allen,
Study of Majority Voting in Director Elections (Nov. 12, 2007),
available at http://www.ngelaw.com/files/upload/majoritystudy111207.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The manner in which proxy materials are distributed and votes are
processed and recorded involves a level of complexity not generally
understood by those not involved in the process. This complexity stems,
in large part, from the nature of share ownership in the United States,
in which the vast majority of shares are held through securities
intermediaries such as broker-dealers or banks; this structure supports
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, yet adds significant complexity to the proxy voting
process.\13\ As a result, the proxy system involves a wide array of
third-party participants in addition to companies and their
shareholders, including brokers, banks, custodians, securities
depositories, transfer agents, proxy solicitors, proxy service
providers, proxy advisory firms, and vote tabulators.\14\ The use of
some of these third parties improves efficiencies in processing and
distributing proxy materials to shareholders, while at the same time
the increased reliance on these third parties--some of which are not
directly regulated by federal or state securities regulators--adds
complexity to the proxy system and makes it less
[[Page 42984]]
transparent to shareholders and to issuers. Studies of the proxy
systems in other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom and the
European Union, have made similar observations.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Final Report of the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the Practice of Recording the Ownership of Securities in the
Records of the Issuer in Other than the Name of the Beneficial Owner
of such Securities Pursuant to Section 12(m) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Dec. 3, 1976 (the ``Street Name Study'').
\14\ The focus of this release is the U.S. proxy system. We
recognize, however, that many U.S. persons hold shares in non-U.S.
issuers. While this release does not address the processes and
procedures followed by participants when non-U.S. issuers distribute
proxy-related materials to U.S. persons, we are interested in
information about those processes and procedures. We also seek
comment about whether we should consider regulatory responses to
issues that may arise in that area.
\15\ A report from the United Kingdom has characterized its
voting process as one in which the chain of accountability is
complex, where there is a lack of transparency and where there are a
large number of different participants, each of whom may give a
different priority to voting. See Review of the impediments to
voting UK shares: Report by Paul Myners to the Shareholder Voting
Working Group (Jan. 2004) (``Myners Report''). The European Union
also has considered issues related to proxy voting and has enacted
rules and legislation in response. As a result, the European Union
passed a directive on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders
in listed companies in July 2007, which covers many of the matters
discussed in this release. See Directive 2007/36/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council (July 11, 2007) (``Shareholder Rights
Directive''). The Shareholder Rights Directive addresses the issues
of record dates, transparency, electronic communications, conflicts
of interest, financial intermediaries and other parties involved in
the proxy voting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We begin this concept release with an overview of the U.S. proxy
system. We then outline some of the concerns that have been raised
regarding the accuracy, reliability, transparency, accountability, and
integrity of this system, as well as possible regulatory responses to
these concerns. These concerns generally relate to three principal
questions:
Whether we should take steps to enhance the accuracy,
transparency, and efficiency of the voting process;
Whether our rules should be revised to improve shareholder
communications and encourage greater shareholder participation; and
Whether voting power is aligned with economic interest and
whether our disclosure requirements provide investors with sufficient
information about this issue.
In reviewing the performance of the proxy system, the Commission's
staff has recently had numerous discussions with a variety of
participants in the proxy voting process, and we appreciate the
insights these participants have provided.\16\ While we set forth a
number of general and specific questions, we welcome comments on any
other concerns related to the proxy process that commentators may have,
and we specifically invite comment on any costs, burdens or benefits
that may result from possible regulatory responses identified in this
release. We recognize that the various aspects of the proxy system that
we address in this release are interconnected, and that changes to one
aspect may affect other aspects, as well as complement or frustrate
other potential changes.\17\ We encourage the public to consider these
relationships when formulating comments. Interested persons are also
invited to comment on whether alternative approaches, or a combination
of approaches, would better address the concerns raised by the current
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Beginning in September of 2009, the Commission's staff has
met with representatives of the following groups and individuals to
discuss issues about the U.S. proxy system: The Altman Group;
Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.; Broadridge Steering Committee;
Council of Institutional Investors (``CII''); Edwards, Angell,
Palmer & Dodge; Glass, Lewis & Co.; the Hong Kong Securities &
Futures Commission; International Corporate Governance Network
(``ICGN''); InvestShare; McKenzie Partners; Mediant Communications;
Moxy Vote; National Investor Relations Institute (``NIRI''); Proxy
Governance, Inc.; RiskMetrics Group; Professor Edward Rock;
Shareholder Communications Coalition; Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''); Society of Corporate
Secretaries and Governance Professionals; Sodali; Target Corp.;
TIAA-CREF; the U.K. Financial Reporting Council; and Weil, Gotshal &
Manges, LLP. The staff has also been in communication with other
regulators, including the Federal Reserve, FDIC, Office of the
Comptroller of Currency, and Office of Thrift Supervision. Several
of the above-listed parties provided written materials to the staff,
which we are including in the public comment file for this release.
The SEC Investor Advisory Committee has also recommended an inquiry
into data-tagging proxy information, as described in Section IV.C
below.
\17\ For example, the feasibility of establishing a means of
vote confirmation may depend on whether and to what extent we
continue to allow beneficial owners to object to the disclosure of
their identities to issuers. See Sections III.B and IV.A, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are mindful that, while we have recently amended--and are
considering amending--a number of our rules that relate to the proxy
process, further amendments to those rules or additional guidance about
our views on their application may be appropriate to address concerns
raised by the application of those rules. Although the discussion in
this release generally focuses on the broader proxy system, we remain
interested in ways to improve our proxy disclosure, solicitation, and
distribution rules. We seek public comment on the concerns about those
rules.
II. The Current Proxy Distribution and Voting Process
A fundamental tenet of state corporation law is that shareholders
have the right to vote their shares to elect directors and to approve
or reject major corporate transactions at shareholder meetings.\18\
Under state law, shareholders can appoint a proxy to vote their shares
on their behalf at shareholder meetings,\19\ and the major national
securities exchanges generally require their listed companies to
solicit proxies for all meetings of shareholders.\20\ Because most
shareholders do not attend public company shareholder meetings in
person, voting occurs almost entirely by the use of proxies that are
solicited before the shareholder meeting,\21\ thereby resulting in the
corporate proxy becoming ``the forum for shareholder suffrage.'' \22\
Issuers with a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') and issuers that are
registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Investment
Company Act'') are required to comply with the federal proxy rules in
Regulation 14A when soliciting proxies from shareholders.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See, e.g., Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, Sec. Sec. 211 and 212;
Model Bus. Corp. Act Sec. Sec. 7.01 and 7.21. While voting in the
election of directors is largely the exclusive right of
stockholders, state law may permit the corporation to grant voting
rights to holders of other securities, such as debt. See, e.g., Del.
Code Ann. tit. 8, Sec. 221. For a brief review of the rationale for
voting by shareholders, see Frank H. Easterbrook and Daniel R.
Fischel, The Economic Structure of Corporate Law (1991). We refer to
Delaware law frequently because of the large percentage of public
companies incorporated under that law. The Delaware Division of
Corporations reports that over 50% of U.S. public companies are
incorporated in Delaware. We refer to the Model Business Corporation
Act as well because the corporate statutes of many states adopt or
closely track its provisions.
\19\ See, e.g., Del Code Ann. tit. 8, Sec. 212(b); Model Bus.
Corp. Act Sec. 7.22(b).
\20\ See, e.g., NYSE Listed Company Manual Sec. 402.04(a);
Nasdaq Listing Rule 5620(b).
\21\ Although voting rights in public companies are exercised
only at the meeting of shareholders, the votes cast at the meeting
are almost entirely by proxy and the voting decisions have been made
during the proxy solicitation process.
\22\ Roosevelt v. E.I duPont de Nemours & Co., 958 F.2d 416, 422
(D.C. Cir. 1992).
\23\ 17 CFR 240.14a-1 et seq.; 17 CFR 270.20a-1. However,
securities of foreign private issuers are exempt from the proxy
rules. See 17 CFR 240.3a12-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Types of Share Ownership and Voting Rights
The proxy solicitation process starts with the determination of who
has the right to receive proxy materials and vote on matters presented
to shareholders for a vote at shareholder meetings. The method for
making this determination depends on the way the shares are owned.
There are two types of security holders in the U.S.--registered owners
and beneficial owners.
1. Registered Owners
Registered owners (also known as ``record holders'') have a direct
relationship with the issuer because their ownership of shares is
listed on records maintained by the issuer or its transfer agent.\24\
State corporation law
[[Page 42985]]
generally vests the right to vote and the other rights of share
ownership in registered owners.\25\ Because registered owners have the
right to vote, they also have the authority to appoint a proxy to act
on their behalf at shareholder meetings.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The Uniform Commercial Code (``UCC'') defines the term
``registered form,'' as applied to a certificated security, as a
form in which the security certificate specifies a person entitled
to the security, and a transfer of the security may be registered on
books maintained for that purpose by or on behalf of the issuer, or
the security certificate so states. UCC 8-102(a)(13) (1994). Rule
14a-1 under the Exchange Act [17 CFR 240.14a-1] defines the term
``record holder'' for purposes of Rules 14a-13, 14b-1 and 14b-2 [17
CFR 240.14a-13, 14b-1, 14b-2] to mean any broker, dealer, voting
trustee, bank, association or other entity that exercises fiduciary
powers which holds securities on behalf of beneficial owners and
deposits such securities for safekeeping with another bank.
Additionally, the Commission's transfer agent rules refer to
registered owners as security holders, which means owners of
securities registered on the master security holder file of the
issuer. Rule 17Ad-9 under the Exchange Act [17 CFR 240.17Ad-9]
defines master security holder file as the official list of
individual security holder accounts.
\25\ See, e.g., Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, Sec. 219(c); Model Bus.
Corp. Act Sec. 1.40(21); but see Model Bus. Corp. Act Sec. 7.23
(permitting corporations to establish procedures by which beneficial
owners become entitled to exercise rights, including voting rights,
otherwise exercisable by shareholders of record).
\26\ See, e.g., Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, Sec. 212(b); Model Bus.
Corp. Act Sec. 7.22(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered owners can hold their securities either in certificated
form \27\ or in electronic (or ``book-entry'') form through a direct
registration system (``DRS''),\28\ which enables an investor to have
his or her ownership of securities recorded on the books of the issuer
without having a physical securities certificate issued.\29\ Under DRS,
an investor can electronically transfer his or her securities to a
broker-dealer to effect a transaction without the risk, expense, or
delay associated with the use of securities certificates. Investors
holding their securities in DRS retain the rights of registered owners,
without having the responsibility of holding and safeguarding
securities certificates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ A securities certificate evidences that the owner is
registered on the books of the issuer as a shareholder. State
commercial laws specify rules concerning the transfer of the rights
that constitute securities and the establishment of those rights
against the issuer and other parties. See Official comment to
Article 8-101, The American Law Institute and National Conference of
Commissioners of Uniform State Laws, Uniform Commercial Code, 1990
Official Text with Comments (West 1991).
\28\ For more information about DRS generally, see Securities
Transactions Settlement, Release No. 33-8398 (Mar. 11, 2004) [69 FR
12922]. For a detailed description of DRS and the DRS facilities
administered by DTC, see Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Procedures to Establish a
Direct Registration System, Release No. 34-37931 (Nov. 7, 1996) [61
FR 58600] (order granting approval to establish DRS) and Notice of
Filing of Amendment and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Implementation of the Profile
Modification System Feature of the Direct Registration System,
Release No. 34-41862 (Sept. 10, 1999) [64 FR 51162] (order approving
implementation of the Profile Modification System).
\29\ DRS is an industry initiative aimed at dematerializing
equities in the U.S. market. Dematerialization of securities occurs
where there are no paper certificates available, and all transfers
of ownership are made through book-entry movements. Immobilization
of securities occurs where the underlying certificate is kept in a
securities depository (or held in custody for the depository by the
issuer's transfer agent) and transfers of ownership are recorded
through electronic book-entry movements between the depository's
participants' accounts. Securities are partially immobilized (as is
the case with most U.S. equity securities traded on an exchange or
securities association) when the street name positions are
immobilized at the securities depository but certificates are still
available to investors directly registered on the issuer's books.
Although most options, municipal, government and many debt
securities trading in the U.S. markets are currently dematerialized,
many equity and some debt securities remain immobilized or partially
immobilized at the Depository Trust Company (``DTC''). For more
information about DTC, see Section II.B.2.a, below. Most if not all
equity securities not on deposit at DTC but trading publicly in the
U.S. markets remain fully certificated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Beneficial Owners
The vast majority of investors in shares issued by U.S. companies
today are beneficial owners, which means that they hold their
securities in book-entry form through a securities intermediary, such
as a broker-dealer or bank.\30\ This is often referred to as owning in
``street name.'' A beneficial owner does not own the securities
directly. Instead, as a customer of the securities intermediary, the
beneficial owner has an entitlement to the rights associated with
ownership of the securities.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ For purposes of Commission rules pertaining to the transfer
of certain securities, a ``securities intermediary'' is defined
under Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-20 [17 CFR 240.17Ad-20] as a clearing
agency registered under Exchange Act Section 17A [15 USC 78q-1] or a
person, including a bank, broker, or dealer, that in the ordinary
course of its business maintains securities accounts for others in
its capacity as such. The UCC defines the term slightly differently,
but for purposes of this release, this distinction is irrelevant.
See UCC 8-102(a)(14) (1994).
\31\ The rights and interests that a customer has against a
securities intermediary's property are created by the agreements
between the customer and the securities intermediary, as well as by
the UCC, as adopted in the relevant jurisdiction. Under the UCC,
beneficial owners have a ``securities entitlement'' to the fungible
bulk of securities held by the broker-dealer or bank. An
``entitlement holder'' is defined as a person identified in the
records of a securities intermediary as the person having a security
entitlement against the securities intermediary. UCC 8-503 (1994). A
securities intermediary is obligated to provide the entitlement
holder with all of the economic and governance rights that comprise
the financial asset and that the entitlement holder can look only to
that intermediary for performance of the obligations. See generally
UCC 8-501 et seq. (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Process of Soliciting Proxies
The following diagram illustrates the flow of proxy materials that
typically occurs during a solicitation. The steps illustrated in the
diagram and descriptions of the relevant parties are discussed below.
[[Page 42986]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JY10.124
1. Distributing Proxy Materials to Registered Owners
It is a relatively simple process for an issuer to send proxy
materials to registered owners because their names and addresses are
listed in the issuer's records, which are usually maintained by a
transfer agent. As the left side of Diagram 1 illustrates, proxy
materials are sent directly from the issuer through its transfer agent
or third-party proxy service provider to all registered owners in paper
or electronic form.\32\ Registered owners execute the proxy card and
return it to the issuer's transfer agent or vote tabulator for
tabulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Commission rules provide, generally, that proxy materials
can be provided electronically to shareholders who have
affirmatively consented to electronic delivery. See Use of
Electronic Media for Delivery Purposes, Release No. 33-7233 (Oct. 6,
1995) [60 FR 53458]. In addition, the Commission has adopted the
notice and access model that permits issuers to send shareholders a
Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials in lieu of the
traditional paper packages including the proxy statement, annual
report and proxy card. See Notice and Access Release, note 2, above.
These two concepts work in tandem. Although an issuer electing to
send a Notice in lieu of a full package generally would be required
to send a paper copy of that Notice, it may send that Notice
electronically to a shareholder who has provided an affirmative
consent to electronic delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Distributing Proxy Materials to Beneficial Owners
As the right side of Diagram 1 illustrates, the process of
distributing proxy materials to beneficial owners is more complicated
than it is for registered owners. The indirect system of ownership in
the U.S. permits securities intermediaries to hold securities for their
customers, and there can be multiple layers of securities
intermediaries leading to one beneficial owner. This potential for
multiple tiers of securities intermediaries presents a number of
challenges in the distribution of proxy materials.
a. The Depository Trust Company
In most cases, the chain of ownership for beneficially owned
securities of U.S. companies begins with the Depository Trust Company
(``DTC''), a registered clearing agency acting as a securities
depository.\33\ Most large U.S. broker-dealers and banks are DTC
participants, meaning that they deposit securities with, and hold those
securities through, DTC.\34\ DTC's nominee, Cede & Co., appears in an
issuer's stock records as the sole registered owner of securities
deposited at DTC. DTC holds the deposited securities in ``fungible
bulk,'' meaning that there are no specifically identifiable shares
directly owned by DTC participants.\35\ Rather, each
[[Page 42987]]
participant owns a pro rata interest in the aggregate number of shares
of a particular issuer held at DTC. Correspondingly, each customer of a
DTC participant--such as an individual investor--owns a pro rata
interest in the shares in which the DTC participant has an interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ DTC provides custody and book-entry transfer services of
securities transactions in the U.S. market involving equities,
corporate and municipal debt, money market instruments, American
depositary receipts, and exchange-traded funds. In accordance with
its rules, DTC accepts deposits of securities from its participants
(i.e., broker-dealers and banks), credits those securities to the
depositing participants' accounts, and effects book-entry movements
of those securities. For more information about DTC, see http://www.dtcc.com/about/subs/dtc.php.
\34\ Participants in DTC are usually broker-dealers or banks.
Currently, there are approximately 400 DTC participants. See http://www.dtcc.com/customer/directories/dtc/dtc.php. Other jurisdictions
have entities similar to the DTC. For example, Canada has the
Clearing and Depository Services Inc., which is its national
securities depository and clearing and settlement entity.
\35\ See UCC 8-503(b) (1994) (a beneficial owner's property
interest with respect to shares ``is a pro rata property interest in
all interests in that financial asset held by the securities
intermediary'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once an issuer establishes a date for the shareholder meeting and a
record date for shareholders entitled to vote on matters presented at
the meeting, it sends a formal announcement of these dates to DTC,
which DTC forwards to all of its participants.\36\ The issuer then
requests from DTC a ``securities position listing'' \37\ as of the
record date, which identifies the participants having a position in the
issuer's securities and the number of securities held by each
participant.\38\ DTC must promptly respond by providing the issuer with
a list of the number of shares in each DTC participant's account as of
the record date.\39\ The record date securities position listing
establishes the number of shares that a participant is entitled to vote
through its DTC proxy.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ NYSE-listed issuers are also required to provide the NYSE
with notification of the record and meeting dates. See NYSE Listed
Company Manual Sec. 401.02.
\37\ Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-8 defines a ``securities position
listing'' as a list of those participants in the clearing agency on
whose behalf the clearing agency holds the issuer's securities and
of the participant's respective positions in such securities as of a
specified date. 17 CFR 240.17Ad-8(a).
\38\ Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-8, DTC may charge
issuers requesting securities position listings a fee designed to
recover the reasonable costs of providing the list. 17 CFR 240.17Ad-
8(b). An issuer or its agent, generally a transfer agent or
authorized third-party service provider, can subscribe to DTC's
service that allows the subscriber to obtain the securities position
listing once or on a weekly, monthly, or more frequent basis.
\39\ Upon request, a registered clearing agency must furnish a
securities position listing promptly to each issuer whose securities
are held in the name of the clearing agency or its nominee. 17 CFR
140.17Ad-8(b).
\40\ In addition to the shares held in its DTC account, some
participants may also own additional securities at other securities
depositories, through custodians, or in registered form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each shareholder meeting, DTC executes an ``omnibus proxy''
\41\ transferring its right to vote the shares held on deposit to its
participants.\42\ In this manner, broker-dealer and bank participants
in DTC obtain the right to vote directly the shares that they hold
through DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Rather than issue each participant a separate proxy to vote
its shares, DTC drafts a single proxy (the ``omnibus proxy'')
granting to each of the multiple participants listed in the proxy
the right to vote the number of shares attributed to it in the
omnibus proxy.
\42\ As noted in recent litigation, the execution by DTC of an
omnibus proxy is neither automatic nor legally required, but occurs
as a matter of common practice. Kurz v. Holbrook, 989 A.2d 140, 170
(Del. Ch. 2010), rev'd on other grounds, Crown EMAK Partners, LLC v.
Kurz, 992 A.2d 377 Del. 2010) (``There does not appear to be any
authority governing when a DTC omnibus proxy is issued, who should
ask for it, or what event triggers it. The parties tell me that DTC
has no written policies or procedures on the matter.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Securities Intermediaries: Broker-Dealers and Banks
Once the issuer identifies the DTC participants holding positions
in its securities, it is required to send a search card \43\ to each of
those participants, as well as other securities intermediaries that are
registered owners, to determine whether they are holding shares for
beneficial owners and, if so, the number of sets of proxy packages
needed to be forwarded to those beneficial owners. This process may
involve multiple tiers of securities intermediaries holding securities
on behalf of other securities intermediaries, with search cards
distributed to each securities intermediary in the chain of ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The search card must request: (1) The number of beneficial
owners; (2) the number of proxy soliciting materials and annual
reports needed for forwarding by the intermediaries to their
beneficial owner customers; and (3) the name and address of any
agent appointed by the bank or broker-dealer to process a request
for a list of beneficial owners. The search card must be sent out at
least 20 business days prior to the record date unless
impracticable, in which case it must be sent as many days before the
record date as practicable. 17 CFR 240.14a-13(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission rules require broker-dealers to respond to the issuer
within seven business days with the approximate number of customers of
the broker-dealer who are beneficial owners of the issuer's
securities.\44\ The Commission's rules also require banks to follow a
similar process except that banks must respond to the issuer within one
business day with the names and addresses of all respondent banks \45\
and must respond within seven business days with the approximate number
of customers of the bank who are beneficial owners of shares.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 17 CFR 240.14b-1(b)(1).
\45\ A respondent bank is a bank that holds securities through
another bank that is the record holder of those securities. See
Facilitating Shareholder Communications, Release No. 34-23276 (May
29, 1986) [51 FR 20504].
\46\ 17 CFR 240.14b-2(b)(1) and 17 CFR 240.14b-2(b)(2). Banks
are required to execute omnibus proxies in favor of respondent
banks. 17 CFR 240.14b-2(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the search card process is complete, the issuer should know
the approximate number of beneficial owners owning shares through each
securities intermediary. The issuer must then provide the securities
intermediary, or its third-party proxy service provider, with copies of
its proxy materials (including, if applicable, a Notice of Internet
Availability of Proxy Materials) for forwarding to those beneficial
owners. The securities intermediary must forward these proxy materials
to beneficial owners no later than five business days after receiving
such materials.\47\ Securities intermediaries are entitled to
reasonable reimbursement for their costs in forwarding these
materials.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 17 CFR 240.14b-1(b)(2) and 17 CFR 240.14b-2(b)(3). The
exchanges have rules that regulate the process and procedures by
which member firms must transmit proxy materials to beneficial
owners, collect voting instructions from beneficial owners, and vote
shares held in the member firm's name. See, e.g., NYSE Rules 450
through 460 and FINRA Rule 2251.
\48\ 17 CFR 240.14a-13(a)(5). In addition, most of the exchanges
have rules specifying the maximum rates that member firms may charge
listed issuers as reasonable reimbursement. For example, the NYSE
rule includes a schedule of ``fair and reasonable rates of
reimbursement'' of member broker-dealers for their out-of-pocket
expenses, including reasonable clerical expenses, incurred in
connection with issuers' proxy solicitations of beneficial owners.
NYSE Rule 465 Supplemental Material. The other exchanges have
similar rules. See the discussion on proxy distribution fees in
Section III.D below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of receiving and executing a proxy card (as registered
owners receive and do), the beneficial owner receives a ``voting
instruction form'' or ``VIF'' from the securities intermediary, which
permits the beneficial owner to instruct the securities intermediary
how to vote the beneficially owned shares. Although the VIF does not
give the beneficial owner the right to attend the meeting, a beneficial
owner typically can attend the meeting by requesting the appropriate
documentation from the securities intermediary.
C. Proxy Voting Process
Once the proxy materials have been distributed to the registered
owners and beneficial owners of the securities, the means by which
shareholders vote their shares differs. As Diagram 1 illustrates,
registered owners execute the proxy card and return it to the vote
tabulator, either by mail, by phone, or through the Internet.
Beneficial owners, on the other hand, indicate their voting
instructions on the VIF and return it to the securities intermediary or
its proxy service provider, either by mail, by phone, or through the
Internet.\49\ The securities intermediary, or its proxy service
provider, tallies the voting instructions
[[Page 42988]]
that it receives from its customers. As discussed in further detail in
Section IV.A of this release, the securities intermediary, or its proxy
service provider, then executes and submits to the vote tabulator a
proxy card for all securities held by the securities intermediary's
customers.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Beneficial owners' voting instructions submitted by
telephone account for a very small percentage of votes received by
proxy service providers; for the shares of most beneficial owners
who do not vote through a proprietary service for institutional
investors, voting instructions are conveyed by paper or via the
Internet, in approximately the same proportion. See Broadridge 2009
Key Statistics and Performance Ratings, note 10, above.
\50\ As noted above, the securities intermediary receives the
right to execute a proxy through the omnibus proxy executed in its
favor by DTC and the other securities intermediaries in the chain of
ownership through which it holds the securities. Although Rule 14b-
2(b)(3) [17 CFR 240.14b-2(b)(3)] explicitly permits a bank to
execute a proxy in favor of its beneficial owners, and nothing in
our rules prohibits a broker-dealer from doing so, it is our
understanding that these intermediaries usually solicit voting
instructions from their beneficial owner and execute proxies on
behalf of their beneficial owners rather than executing proxies that
delegate their voting authority to those beneficial owners.
Beneficial owners may, however, request a proxy and attend the
shareholder meeting. It is our understanding that both banks and
broker-dealers will issue a proxy that the beneficial owner may use
to attend a meeting if requested to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In certain situations, a broker-dealer may use its discretion to
vote shares if it does not receive instructions from the beneficial
owner of the shares. Historically, broker-dealers were generally
permitted to vote shares on uncontested matters, including uncontested
director elections, without instructions from the beneficial owner.\51\
The NYSE recently revised this rule to prohibit broker-dealers from
voting uninstructed shares with regard to any election of
directors.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See NYSE Rule 452.
\52\ NYSE Rule 452 and NYSE Listed Issuer Manual Sec.
402.08(B). This prohibition does not apply to issuers registered
under the Investment Company Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. The Roles of Third Parties in the Proxy Process
Issuers, securities intermediaries, and shareholders often retain
third parties to perform a number of proxy-related functions, including
forwarding proxy materials, collecting voting instructions, voting
shares, soliciting proxies, tabulating proxies, and analyzing proxy
issues.
1. Transfer Agents
Issuers are required to maintain a record of security holders for
state law purposes \53\ and often hire a transfer agent \54\ to
maintain that record.\55\ Transfer agents, as agents of the issuer, are
obliged to confirm to a vote tabulator (if the transfer agent does not
itself perform the tabulation function) matters such as the amount of
shares outstanding, as well as the identity and holdings of registered
owners entitled to vote. Transfer agents are required to register with
the Commission, which inspects and currently regulates some of their
functions.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ E.g., Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, Sec. 219(a); Model Bus. Corp.
Act Sec. 16.01(c).
\54\ Section 3(a)(25) of the Exchange Act defines a ``transfer
agent'' as any person who engages on behalf of an issuer of
securities or on behalf of itself as an issuer of securities in (1)
countersigning such securities upon issuance, (2) monitoring the
issuance of such securities with a view to preventing unauthorized
issuance, (3) registering the transfer of securities, (4) exchanging
or converting such securities, or (5) transferring record ownership
of securities by bookkeeping entry without the physical issuance of
securities certificates. For more information about the role of
transfer agents, see http://www.stai.org.
\55\ Exchange Act Rules 17Ad-6, 17Ad-7, 17Ad-9, 17Ad-10, and
17Ad-11 govern how transfer agents acting for issuers of securities
registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act (or that would have
to be registered but for the exemption under Section 12(g)(2)(b)(i)
and (ii) of the Exchange Act) must maintain certain records of the
issuer, including, but not limited to, the official record of
ownership (i.e., the ``masterfile'') and the official record of the
number of securities issued and outstanding (i.e., the ``control
book'' or the ``registrar''). These rules do not address the
distribution of issuer communications, including proxy materials, or
the remittance of proxies or voting instructions. To a lesser
extent, the UCC, as adopted by states, also governs certain aspects
of transfer agent activity relating to rights of issuers,
shareholders, securities intermediaries, and those holding through
securities intermediaries, some of which relate to the right to
vote. The application of the UCC in this context is beyond the scope
of this release.
\56\ Persons acting as transfer agents for any security
registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act or which would be
required to be registered except for the exemption from registration
provided by subsection (g)(2)(B) or (g)(2)(G) of Section 12 must
register with the Commission (or, for transfer agents that are
banks, with their appropriate regulatory agency) and pursuant to
Section 17A of the Exchange Act must comply with Commission rules
and regulations. 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(c)(1) and (d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proxy Service Providers
To facilitate the proxy material distribution and voting process
for beneficial owners, securities intermediaries typically retain a
proxy service provider to perform a number of processing functions,
including forwarding the proxy materials by mail or electronically and
collecting voting instructions.\57\ To enable the proxy service
provider to perform these functions, the securities intermediary gives
the service provider an electronic data feed of a list of beneficial
owners and the number of shares held by each beneficial owner on the
record date. The proxy service provider, on behalf of the intermediary,
then requests the appropriate number of proxy material sets from the
issuer for delivery to the beneficial owners. Upon receipt of the
packages, the proxy service provider, on behalf of the intermediary,
mails either the proxy materials with a VIF, or a Notice of Internet
Availability of Proxy Materials,\58\ to beneficial owners. Although we
do not directly regulate such proxy service providers, our regulations
governing the proxy process-related obligations of securities
intermediaries apply to the way in which proxy service providers
perform their services because they act as agents for, and on behalf
of, those intermediaries and typically vote proxies on behalf of those
intermediaries pursuant to a power of attorney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ A single proxy service provider, Broadridge Financial
Services, Inc. (``Broadridge''), states that it currently handles
over 98% of the U.S. market for such proxy vote processing services.
See http://www.broadridge.com/investor-communications/us/institutions/proxy-disclosure.asp.
\58\ A Notice is sent pursuant to provisions in Rule 14a-16. 17
CFR 240.14a-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Proxy Solicitors
Issuers sometimes hire third[dash]party proxy solicitors to
identify beneficial owners holding large amounts of the issuers'
securities and to telephone shareholders to encourage them to vote
their proxies consistent with the recommendations of management. This
often occurs when there is a contested election of directors, and
issuer's management and other persons are competing for proxy authority
to vote securities in the election (commonly referred to as a ``proxy
contest''). In addition, an issuer may hire a proxy solicitor in
uncontested situations when voting returns are expected to be
insufficient to meet state quorum requirements or when an important
matter is being considered. Issuers and other soliciting persons are
required to disclose the use of such services and estimated costs for
such services in their proxy statements.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Item 4 of 17 CFR 240.14a-101. If similar services are
performed by employees of the issuer, however, the estimated costs
of such services need to be disclosed only if the employees are
specially engaged for the solicitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Vote Tabulators
Under many state statutes, an issuer must appoint a vote tabulator
(sometimes called ``inspectors of elections'' or ``proxy tabulators'')
to collect and tabulate the proxy votes as well as votes submitted by
shareholders in person at a meeting.\60\ We understand that often the
issuer's transfer agent will act as the vote tabulator because most
[[Page 42989]]
major transfer agents have the infrastructure to communicate with
registered holders, proxy service providers, and securities
intermediaries, while also being able to reconcile the identity of
voters that are registered owners and the number of votes to the
issuer's records. However, sometimes the issuer will hire an
independent third party to perform this function, often to certify
important votes. The vote tabulator is ultimately responsible for
determining that the correct number of votes has been submitted by each
registered owner.\61\ In addition, proxies submitted by securities
intermediaries that are not registered owners, but have been granted
direct voting rights through DTC's omnibus proxy, are reconciled with
DTC's securities position listing. Although the Commission does
regulate transfer agents (which often serve as vote tabulators) in
their roles as transfer agents, the Commission does not currently
regulate vote tabulators or the function of tabulating proxies by
transfer agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See, e.g., Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, Sec. 231; Model Bus.
Corp. Act Sec. 7.29.
\61\ Id. As noted above, transfer agents, who already possess
the list of record owners, often tabulate the vote, so they possess
the necessary information to make this determination. It is our
understanding that, when the vote tabulator is an entity other than
the transfer agent, the issuer or its transfer agent typically will
provide the vote tabulator with the list of record owners to enable
the vote tabulator to make this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Proxy Advisory Firms
Institutional investors typically own securities positions in a
large number of issuers. Therefore, they are presented annually with
the opportunity to vote on many matters and often must exercise
fiduciary responsibility in voting.\62\ Some institutional investors
may retain an investment adviser to manage their investments, and may
also delegate proxy voting authority to that adviser. To assist them in
their voting decisions, investment advisers (or institutional investors
if they retain voting authority) frequently hire proxy advisory firms
to provide analysis and voting recommendations on matters appearing on
the proxy. In some cases, proxy advisory firms are given authority to
execute proxies or voting instructions on behalf of their client. Some
proxy advisory firms also provide consulting services to issuers on
corporate governance or executive compensation matters, such as helping
to develop an executive compensation proposal to be submitted for
shareholder approval. Some proxy advisory firms may also qualitatively
rate or score issuers, based on judgments about the issuer's governance
structure, policies, and practices. As discussed in more detail
elsewhere in this release, some of the activities of a proxy advisory
firm can constitute a solicitation, which is governed by our proxy
rules.\63\ Some, but not all, proxy advisory firms operating in our
markets are currently registered with us as investment advisers.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See Section V.A.1, below.
\63\ Id.
\64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Accuracy, Transparency, and Efficiency of the Voting Process
Investor and issuer interests may be undermined when perceived
defects in the proxy system--or uncertainties about whether there are
any such defects--are believed to impair its accuracy, transparency,
and cost-efficiency. Because even the perception of such defects can
lead to lack of confidence in the proxy process, we seek to explore
concerns that have been expressed about the accuracy, transparency, and
efficiency of that process and ways in which those concerns might be
addressed.
A. Over-Voting and Under-Voting
On occasion, vote tabulators (including transfer agents acting in
that capacity) receive votes from a securities intermediary that exceed
the number of shares that the securities intermediary is entitled to
vote. The extent to which such votes are accepted depends on
instructions from the issuer, state law, and the vote tabulator's
internal policies. For example, it is our understanding that some vote
tabulators accept votes from a DTC participant on a ``first-in'' basis
up to the aggregate amount indicated in DTC's records--that is, once
the votes cast by the participant exceed the number of positions
indicated on the securities position listing, the vote tabulator will
refuse to accept any votes subsequently remitted. Conversely, other
vote tabulators, we understand, refuse to accept any votes from a
securities intermediary if the aggregate number of votes submitted
exceeds the vote tabulator's records for that intermediary.
In an attempt to address issuers' concerns about the potential for
over-voting, securities intermediaries and their service providers have
implemented systems that compare the number of votes submitted by a
securities intermediary to its ownership positions as reflected in
DTC's records and notify that securities intermediary when it has
submitted votes in excess of its ownership positions. The securities
intermediary may then adjust its vote to reflect the correct number of
votes before the service provider submits that vote to the vote
tabulator.\65\ The corrected information is then sent to the vote
tabulator. The means by which securities intermediaries reconcile these
differences has raised some concern regarding the accuracy of the vote,
including whether the votes are being allocated to the beneficial
owners in the correct amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ SIFMA and individual broker-dealers have suggested several
different methodologies as to how this may be accomplished, but we
do not believe there is consensus among the industry participants or
a standard operating procedure currently in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Imbalances in Broker Votes
For securities held at DTC, a DTC participant may vote only the
number of securities held by that participant in its DTC account on the
record date for a shareholder meeting. Sometimes the number of
securities of a particular issuer held in the DTC participant's account
will be less than the number of securities that the DTC participant has
credited in its own books and records to its customers' accounts.
Although there may be many reasons why the number of securities held by
a broker-dealer at DTC does not match the total number of securities
credited to the broker-dealer's customers' accounts, as discussed in
more detail below, this situation principally arises in connection with
lending transactions and ``fails to deliver'' \66\ in the clearance and
settlement system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See Section III.A.1.b, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the way broker-dealers track securities lending
transactions,\67\ if all of a broker-dealer's customers owning a
particular issuer's securities actually voted, the broker-dealer may
receive voting instructions for more securities than it is entitled to
vote. Moreover, the existing clearance and settlement system was not
designed to assign particular shares of a security to a particular
investor, due to netting and holding securities in fungible bulk.\68\
Thus, it is not currently possible to match a particular investor's
vote to a specific securities position held at a securities depository.
When a broker-dealer has fewer positions or shares reflected on the
securities position listing \69\ than it has reflected on its books and
records, the broker-dealer must determine if and how it should allocate
the votes it has among its customer and proprietary accounts and
[[Page 42990]]
then reconcile the actual voting instructions it receives with the
number of securities the broker-dealer is permitted to vote with the
issuer. Depending on a variety of factors, this process can lead to
over-voting or under-voting by beneficial owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ We understand that because securities are held in fungible
bulk, broker-dealers typically do not allocate loaned securities to
a particular account.
\68\ See Section IV.A.1, below.
\69\ See Section I.B.2.a, above, for a discussion of securities
position listings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Securities Lending
When a customer purchases shares on margin, a portion of the
securities in the customer's account may be used to collateralize the
margin loan.\70\ As part of the customer's margin agreement, the
customer typically agrees to allow the broker-dealer to use those
securities to raise money to fund the margin loan. Consequently,
broker-dealers may lend out customers' margin securities. In addition,
broker-dealers may enter into stock loan arrangements with investors
(typically institutional investors or other broker-dealers) whereby the
broker-dealer borrows the investors' fully-paid securities.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ A broker-dealer must maintain possession and control of all
fully-paid and excess margin securities. 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(b)(1).
\71\ When borrowing fully-paid securities, Exchange Act Rule
15c3-3(b)(3) requires, among other things, that a broker-dealer
enter into a separate written agreement with the customer and
provide the customer with a schedule of the securities actually
borrowed as well as the collateral provided to the customer. 17 CFR
240.15c3-3(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock loan agreements typically transfer to the borrower the right
to vote the borrowed securities.\72\ Thus, for example, when an
institutional investor, such as a fund, lends its portfolio securities
to a borrower, the right to vote those securities also transfers to the
borrower.\73\ As a result, the institutional investor that lends its
portfolio securities generally loses its ability to vote those
securities, unless and until the loan is terminated and the securities
are returned before the record date in question.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See Master Securities Lending Agreement at 6, available at
www.sifma.org/services/stdforms/pdf/master_sec_loan.pdf.
\73\ If an institutional lender lends out portfolio securities
after the record date for a particular shareholder vote, the lender
would normally retain the right to vote the proxies for that
particular shareholder vote.
\74\ If the lending broker-dealer attempts to recall the loan,
the borrowing broker-dealer may not be able to return the securities
in a timely manner because, among other things, it may have reloaned
or sold the security to another party and is unable to obtain shares
to return to the lending broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though a broker-dealer has the ability to lend its customers'
margin securities pursuant to a stock loan agreement, because shares
are held in fungible bulk, it may not be practical to inform a customer
when an actual loan has been made and it may be unclear which lending
investor has lost the right to vote. Therefore, a customer may expect
to vote all of its securities because it does not necessarily know
whether its securities have in fact been loaned. If the lending broker-
dealer does not allocate a certain number of shares to a lending
investor as having been borrowed, but instead sends a VIF indicating
that the lending investor has the right to vote all of the securities
credited to its account, including the loaned margin securities, both
the lending and borrowing broker-dealers may submit voting instructions
from two customers for a single share, which may give rise to an over-
voting situation.
b. Fails to Deliver
An imbalance between a securities intermediary's position reflected
on the securities position listing and the position reflected in its
own books and records may also occur because of fails to deliver in the
clearance and settlement system.\75\ Every day the NSCC, a registered
clearing agency, nets each of its members' trades to a single buy or
sell obligation for each issue traded.\76\ Because NSCC acts as a
central counterparty for its members' trades, its members are obligated
to deliver securities to, and entitled to receive securities from, NSCC
at settlement, and not to or from other broker-dealers. Although the
delivery of securities usually occurs as expected on the settlement
date, there are occasions when broker-dealers fail to make timely
delivery, often for reasons outside of their control.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Fails to deliver in all equity securities have declined
significantly since the adoption of Interim Final Temporary Rule
204T in October 2008. See Amendments to Regulation SHO, Release No.
34-58773 (Oct. 14, 2008) [73 FR 61706]. See also Memorandum from the
Staff Re: Impact of Recent SHO Rule Changes on Fails to Deliver,
Nov. 4, 2009, available at http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/shortsales/oeamemo110409.pdf (stating, among other things, that the average
daily number of aggregate fails to deliver for all securities
decreased from 2.21 billion to 0.25 billion for a total decline of
88.5% when comparing a pre-Rule to post-Rule period); Memorandum
from the Staff Re: Impact of Recent SHO Rule Changes on Fails to
Deliver, Nov. 26, 2008, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-30-08/s73008-37.pdf; Memorandum from the Staff Re: Impact of Recent
SHO Rule Changes on Fails to Deliver, Mar. 20, 2009, available at
http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-30-08/s73008-107.pdf.
\76\ NSCC nets securities in its ``Continuous Net Settlement''
system pursuant to rules and procedures approved by the Commission.
For more information on NSCC's rules and procedures, see
www.dtcc.com/legal/rules_proc/nscc_rules.pdf. See Section IV.A.1,
below, for additional information about the role of NSCC.
\77\ For example, broker-dealers may fail to deliver securities
because of: (1) Delays by customers delivering to the broker-dealer
the shares being sold; (2) a broker-dealer's inability to purchase
or borrow shares needed for settlement; or (3) a broker-dealer's
inability to obtain transfer of title of securities in time for
settlement. For more information on fails to deliver in the U.S.
clearance and settlement system, see Short Sales, Release No. 34-
50103 (July 28, 2004) [69 FR 48008] and Amendments to Regulation
SHO, Release No. 34-60388 (July 27, 2009) [74 FR 38266].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to NSCC rules, if an NSCC broker-dealer member ``fails to
deliver'' the securities it owes to NSCC on the settlement date, NSCC
will allocate this fail to one of many contra-side broker-dealers due
to receive securities without trying to attribute the fail to the
specific broker-dealer that originally traded with the broker-dealer
that failed to deliver.\78\ The broker-dealer to which the fail is
allocated will not receive the securities and will not be credited with
this position at DTC until delivery is actually made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ If a broker-dealer fails to deliver securities to NSCC,
NSCC allocates this fail to a broker-dealer member that is due to
receive the securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though the broker-dealer has not actually received the
securities, the broker-dealer usually will credit its customers'
accounts with the purchased securities on settlement date. If the
broker-dealer's fail-to-receive position continues through the record
date for a corporate election, DTC may not yet recognize the broker-
dealer's entitlement to vote this position. As with loaned securities,
the broker-dealer may still try to allocate votes to all of its
customers that its records reflect as owning those securities, even
though DTC has not credited the broker's account with those securities
or with the corresponding right to vote those securities through DTC.
2. Current Reconciliation and Allocation Methodologies Used by Broker-
Dealers To Address Imbalances
Because the ownership of individual shares held beneficially is not
tracked in the U.S. clearance and settlement system, when imbalances
occur, broker-dealers must decide which of their customers will be
permitted to vote and how many shares each customer will be permitted
to vote. Neither our rules nor SRO rules currently mandate that a
reconciliation be performed, or the use of a particular reconciliation
or allocation methodology. Broker-dealers have developed a number of
different approaches as to how votes are ``allocated'' among customer
accounts.\79\
[[Page 42991]]
We understand that these approaches are often influenced by whether the
broker-dealers' customers are primarily retail or institutional
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ For more information on proxy processing and broker-
dealer's reconciliation and allocation processes, see ``Briefing
Paper: Roundtable on Proxy Voting Mechanics,'' (May 24, 2007),
available at http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/proxyprocess/proxyvotingbrief.htm (``Roundtable Briefing Paper''), or
``Unofficial Transcript of the Roundtable Discussion on Proxy Voting
Mechanics,'' (May 24, 2007), available at http://www.sec.gov/news/openmeetings/2007/openmtg_trans052407.pdf (``Roundtable
Transcript''). The term ``allocation'' refers to the process by
which a broker-dealer determines which of its customers will be
allowed to vote and how many shares will be allotted to each of
those customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most broker-dealers have adopted a reconciliation method to balance
the aggregate number of shares they are entitled to vote with the
aggregate number of shares credited to customer and proprietary
accounts.\80\ The primary reconciliation methods are: (1) Pre-mailing
reconciliation (``pre-reconciliation''); (2) post-mailing
reconciliation (``post-reconciliation''); and (3) a hybrid form of the
pre-reconciliation and post-reconciliation methods.\81\ These methods
are described in more detail below. If the broker-dealer finds that it
is holding fewer shares at DTC than it has credited to customer and
proprietary accounts, it may choose to give up its own votes, as
represented by shares credited to its proprietary accounts, by
allocating some or all of those votes to its customers, or it may
choose to allocate to its customers only the voting rights attributable
to customer accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Not all broker-dealers have developed policies and
procedures to address the reconciliation and allocation of votes
among their customers because historically broker-dealers have
usually had enough shares on deposit at DTC to provide a vote to all
customers wanting to vote.
\81\ Roundtable Transcript, note 79, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Pre-Reconciliation Method
A broker-dealer using the pre-reconciliation method compares the
number of shares it holds in aggregate at DTC and elsewhere with its
aggregate customer account position before it sends VIFs to its
customers.\82\ If the aggregate number of shares it holds is less than
the number of shares the broker-dealer has credited to its customer
accounts, then the broker-dealer will determine which of its customers
will be permitted to vote and how many votes will be allocated to each
of those customers. Broker-dealers using the pre-reconciliation method
request voting instructions from their customers with respect to only
those customer positions to which votes have been allocated. We
understand that most broker-dealers give customers with fully-paid
securities and excess margin securities first priority in the
distribution of votes. It is also our understanding that broker-dealers
using the pre-reconciliation method tend to have more institutional
customers than retail customers.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Id.
\83\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broker-dealers using the pre-reconciliation method have indicated
that this method ensures that the votes customers cast will be
counted.\84\ On the other hand, given that some broker-dealers have
estimated that only 20% to 30% of their retail customers usually vote,
some believe that pre-reconciliation may result in an ``under-vote''
because investors allocated the ability to vote may not do so, and
other investors who do vote may be allocated a number of votes fewer
than the number of shares they beneficially own. In addition, some
broker-dealers have indicated that the pre-reconciliation method is
more expensive than the post-reconciliation method because post-
reconciliation only needs to be performed when a broker-dealer receives
voting instructions in excess of the number of shares that it holds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Post-Reconciliation Method
A broker-dealer using the post-reconciliation method compares its
aggregate position at DTC and elsewhere\85\ with its actual aggregate
customer account position only after receiving VIFs from its customers.
Broker-dealers using the post-reconciliation method request voting
instructions from their customers with respect to all shares credited
to their customer accounts, including for those shares that may have
been purchased on margin, loaned to another entity, or not received
because of a fail to deliver. We understand that broker-dealers using
the post-reconciliation method tend to have primarily retail customers
rather than institutional customers.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ The aggregate number of shares the broker-dealer is
entitled to vote may constitute more than just its position on
deposit at DTC. For example, the broker-dealer may have additional
securities on deposit at a foreign depository or in certificated
form.
\86\ Roundtable Transcript, note 79, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event that a broker-dealer receives voting instructions from
its customers in excess of its aggregate securities position, the
broker-dealer adjusts its vote count prior to casting its vote with the
issuer. The manner in which the adjustment is made varies among broker-
dealers. Some firms simply reduce the number of proprietary position
votes cast. Others allocate fewer votes to customers with securities
purchased on margin or on loan.
Because of the low level of participation by retail voters, some of
the broker-dealers using the post-reconciliation method have indicated
to the Commission that the number of over-vote situations is not a
significant problem and can be addressed in a number of ways,
including, but not limited to, the broker-dealer using its proprietary
positions to redress any imbalance. The costs associated with the post-
reconciliation method are generally considered to be less than those
associated with the pre-reconciliation method because the broker-dealer
does not have to go through the costly process of allocating votes
among customers unless its customers remit VIFs for more shares than
the broker-dealer is entitled to vote in the aggregate.
c. Hybrid Reconciliation Methods
Some broker-dealers have developed hybrid reconciliation methods
that use aspects of both pre- and post-reconciliation methods. For
example, in one hybrid reconciliation method, a broker-dealer will
allocate votes to all of its customers with fully-paid securities but
will also allow each margin account customer to instruct the broker-
dealer that it would like to vote its shares. The broker-dealer will
allocate any shares not needed to cover fully-paid account holders to
those margin customers who indicated they wanted to vote, thereby
giving these margin customers priority over other margin customers.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Potential Regulatory Responses
Broker-dealers have indicated to the Commission staff that most
broker-dealers select an allocation and reconciliation method that best
accommodates their particular customer base and best advances the
firm's particular business strategy. For example, those firms focusing
on retail customers generally will have more customer accounts owning
smaller amounts of securities and casting relatively few votes and, as
a result, may prefer the post-reconciliation method over the pre-
reconciliation method.
The customers of a broker-dealer may not be aware of the allocation
and reconciliation method used by the firm. We are interested in
receiving views on whether it would be helpful to investors if broker-
dealers publicly disclosed the allocation and reconciliation method
used by the firm during each proxy season, as well as the likely effect
of that method on whether the customers' voting instructions would
actually be reflected in the broker-dealer's proxy sent to the vote
tabulator. Such disclosure could be in writing and provided to
customers upon opening an
[[Page 42992]]
account and on an annual basis, and made available to the general
public on the broker-dealer's Web site. This disclosure could help
investors to decide if a particular broker-dealer's method suits their
investment goals. Alternatively, we are interested in receiving views
on whether it would be beneficial to investors if broker-dealers were
required to use a particular reconciliation method.
Given the lack of empirical data on whether over-voting or under-
voting is occurring and if so, to what extent, we also would like to
receive views on whether investors, issuers, and the proxy system
overall would benefit from having additional data from proxy
participants regarding over-voting and under-voting to determine
whether further regulatory action should be considered. This data would
allow us to determine the scope of the problem, if any, and give us
detailed information that would further assist us in determining
whether current regulations are effective or additional regulation is
appropriate. Such information may also indicate if one particular
method is working better for investors and the market than other
methods.
4. Request for Comment
What are the advantages or disadvantages of the various
methods of allocation or reconciliation currently used by securities
intermediaries and the effectiveness of such methods?
Is there any evidence, statistical, anecdotal or
otherwise, of material over-voting or under-voting, and if so, what is
the size and impact of over-voting or under-voting? For example, is
there any evidence that over-voting or under-voting has determined the
outcome of a vote or materially changed the voting results?
Are there any concerns caused by over-voting or under-
voting that are not described above? Are there particular concerns
regarding the impact of either over-voting or under-voting with respect
to specific types of voting decisions, such as merger transactions, the
election of directors where a majority vote is required, or shareholder
advisory votes regarding executive compensation? What, if any,
alternatives should we consider to the current system, and what would
be the costs and benefits of any alternative process?
Would requiring broker-dealers to disclose their
allocation and reconciliation process adequately address the concerns
related to over-voting and under-voting by beneficial owners?
Would information about vote allocation and reconciliation
methods be helpful to investors or adequately address any concerns
related to those processes?
Would a particular type of vote allocation and
reconciliation method better protect investors' interests?
Do the varying methods of vote allocation affect the
potential to audit votes cast by beneficial holders?
Should investors who have fully paid for their securities
be allocated voting rights over those who purchased the securities on
margin? Should beneficial holders be allocated voting rights over
broker-dealer proprietary accounts?
Should brokers be required to disclose the effect of share
lending programs on the ability of retail investors to cast votes?
Does the current system of settlement and clearance of
securities transactions in the U.S. create any problems or
inefficiencies in the proxy process in regard to matters other than
over-voting or under-voting? If so, what are they, and what steps
should we consider in order to address them?
B. Vote Confirmation
1. Background
A number of market participants, including both individual and
institutional investors, have raised concerns regarding the inability
to confirm whether an investor's shares have been voted in accordance
with the investor's instructions. As discussed more fully in Section
II, beneficial owners cast their votes through a securities
intermediary, which, in turn, uses a proxy service provider to collect
and send the votes to the vote tabulator.\88\ Beneficial owners,
particularly institutional investors, often want or need to confirm
that their votes have been timely received by the vote tabulator and
accurately recorded. Similarly, securities intermediaries want to be
able to confirm to their customers that their votes have been timely
received and accurately recorded. Issuers also want to be able to
confirm that the votes that they receive from securities intermediaries
on behalf of beneficial owners properly reflect the votes of those
beneficial owners. We understand that, on occasion, errors have been
made when a third party fails to timely submit votes on behalf of its
clients.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Some securities intermediaries may not have sufficient
shares on deposit at DTC to allocate a vote to every share position
credited to every customer's account. In those cases, the securities
intermediary may have to allocate a specific number of votes to some
customers that is fewer than the number of shares credited to those
customers' accounts. See Section III.A, above, for a more in-depth
discussion of why and how securities intermediaries reconcile and
allocate votes to their customers.
\89\ See, e.g., Adam Jones, ``Riddle of the Missing Unilever
Votes Solved,'' Financial Times, Aug. 15, 2003; ``Mum on a
Recount,'' Pensions & Investments, Aug. 10, 2009, available at
http://www.pionline.com/article/20090810/PRINTSUB/308109996; Meagan
Thompson-Mann, Policy Briefing No. 3--Voting Integrity: Practices
for Investors and the Global Proxy Advisory Industry, The Millstein
Center for Corporate Governance and Performance, Mar. 2, 2009, at
10-11 (``Thompson-Mann Policy Briefing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inability to confirm voting information is caused in part
because no one individual participant in the voting process--neither
issuers, transfer agents, vote tabulators, securities intermediaries,
nor third party proxy service providers--possesses all of the
information necessary to confirm whether a particular beneficial
owner's vote has been timely received and accurately recorded. A number
of market participants contend that some proxy service providers,
transfer agents, or vote tabulators are unwilling or unable to share
voting information with each other or with investors and securities
intermediaries. There are currently no legal or regulatory requirements
that compel these entities to share information with each other in
order to allow for vote confirmations.
The inability to confirm that votes have been timely received and
accurately recorded creates uncertainty regarding the accuracy and
integrity of votes cast at shareholder meetings. At a time when votes
on matters presented to shareholders are increasingly meaningful and
consequential to all shareholders, this lack of transparency could
potentially impair confidence in the proxy system.\90\ Because of the
inability to ascertain the integrity of the votes cast by beneficial
owners, concerns have been raised by investors that it may be difficult
to assess the accuracy of the current proxy system as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ The Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development
(``OECD''), consisting primarily of jurisdictions with high income
and developed markets, has voiced similar concerns about this lack
of transparency in several jurisdictions and recommends addressing
it through legal and regulatory changes. Corporate Governance: A
Survey of OECD Countries (2004) (``OECD Survey'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Potential Regulatory Responses
In the Commission's view, both record owners and beneficial owners
should be able to confirm that the votes they cast have been timely
received and accurately recorded and included in the tabulation of
votes, and issuers should be able to confirm that the votes that they
receive from securities intermediaries/proxy advisory firms/
[[Page 42993]]
proxy service providers on behalf of beneficial owners properly reflect
the votes of those beneficial owners. We understand that there may be a
number of operational and legal complexities with any proposed solution
and that the costs and benefits associated with any options should be
carefully weighed.
One possible solution may be for all participants in the voting
chain to grant to issuers, or their transfer agents or vote tabulators,
access to certain information relating to voting records, for the
limited purpose of enabling a shareholder or securities intermediary to
confirm how a particular shareholder's shares were voted. To protect
the identities of objecting beneficial owners from issuers, a system
could assign each beneficial owner a unique identifying code, which
could then be used to create an audit trail from beneficial owner to
proxy service provider to transfer agent/vote tabulator. Issuers (or
their agents, such as transfer agents or vote tabulators) would, in
turn, confirm to record owners, beneficial owners, and securities
intermediaries upon request that any particular votes cast by them or
on their behalf have been received and voted as instructed. This
process could be fully automated such that a vote confirmation could be
provided by the issuer (or its agent) to the record owner or, in the
case of beneficial owners, to the securities intermediary or proxy
service provider and sent by e-mail to the beneficial owner.
Confirmation of the vote information may also facilitate the
ability of market participants and state and federal regulatory
authorities or courts to ascertain the accuracy of a particular
election or the overall proxy system. Moreover, transparency of the
process should promote investor confidence as well.
3. Request for Comment
To what extent have shareholders had difficulty in
confirming whether their submitted votes have been tabulated? To what
extent have issuers had difficulty in determining whether the votes
submitted by securities intermediaries/proxy advisory firms/proxy
service providers accurately reflect the voting instructions submitted
by beneficial owners?
To what extent do investors believe that their votes have
not been accurately transmitted or tabulated, and what is the basis for
such belief? Is there sufficient information about the ways that
investors actually place their votes, for example, by telephone, on
paper, or via the Internet? \91\ Do investors have concerns about
whether the method they use to place their votes affects the likelihood
that their vote will be accurately recorded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See note 49, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should all participants in the voting chain grant access
to their share voting records to issuers and their transfer agents/vote
tabulators, for the limited purpose of enabling confirmation of a
shareholder's vote? What are the benefits and costs associated with
sharing such information?
What is the best way to preserve any continuing anonymity
of those investors who choose not to have their identities disclosed to
the issuer?
Would the creation of a unique identifier for each
beneficial owner be feasible? Would such a system achieve the objective
of allowing record owners and beneficial owners to confirm that their
vote was cast in accordance with their instructions and confirm the
number of shares cast on their behalf? What are the costs and benefits
associated with such a system?
Should issuers (and their agents) confirm to registered
owners, beneficial owners, or securities intermediaries that the issuer
has received and properly tabulated their votes? Should this
confirmation be limited to an informal confirmation that votes have
been counted, or should shareholders be able to obtain some form of
proof that their votes have been counted? What type of documentation
would constitute sufficient proof? What are the benefits and costs of
such alternatives? Are there other steps that would enable beneficial
owners to verify that their votes have been counted?
Should investors also be able to obtain access to share
voting records for the limited purpose of enabling an audit of the
shareholder vote?
Should issuers and securities intermediaries (and their
agents) be required to reconcile and verify voting at the beneficial
owner level? Would this be consistent with state law, which vests
voting rights in the registered owner? Would other reconciliation and
verification requirements be consistent with the purposes underlying
state law?
Should proxy participants periodically evaluate and test
the effectiveness of their voting controls and procedures? If so, to
whom should the results of these tests or the participants' conclusions
on effectiveness be disclosed? Should disclosure be to the Commission,
to clients, or also to the public?
C. Proxy Voting by Institutional Securities Lenders
Institutional securities lenders play a significant role in the
proxy voting process, and we believe that it is important to evaluate
the impact of their share lending on that process, and to consider ways
in which the efficacy and transparency of share voting on the part of
such institutions could potentially be improved. In particular, and as
discussed below, we seek to examine whether decisions to recall loaned
securities in connection with shareholder votes might be more timely
and better informed. We also seek to examine whether increased
disclosure of the votes cast by institutional securities lenders might
improve the transparency of the voting process.
1. Background
Many institutions with investment portfolios of securities--such as
insurance companies, pension funds, mutual funds, and college
endowments--engage in securities lending to earn additional income on
securities that would otherwise be sitting idle in their portfolios.
When an institution lends out its portfolio securities, all incidents
of ownership relating to the loaned securities, including voting
rights, generally transfer to the borrower for the duration of the
loan.\92\ Accordingly, if the lender wants, or is obligated, to vote
the loaned securities, the lender must terminate the loan and recall
the loaned securities prior to the record date.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See, e.g., Thomas P. Lemke et al., Regulation of Investment
Companies at 8.02[1][2][vi][A] (2006) (``legal title to the [loaned]
securities (along with voting rights and rights to dividends and
distributions) passes to the borrower for the term of the loan; when
the securities are returned, the fund regains title''). See also
Master Securities Loan Agreement, note 72, above, at 7.1 (generally
the borrower receives all the incidents of ownership of the borrowed
securities while loan is open).
\93\ It is not typically feasible for the lender to retain proxy
voting rights while the loan is open because the borrower typically
transfers the loaned securities (for example, in a short sale), and
the eventual transferee needs full right and title to the acquired
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Lack of Advance Notice of Meeting Agenda
a. Background
Some institutional securities lenders have proxy voting policies
that require the lender, in the event of a material vote, to get back
the loaned securities in order to vote the proxies.\94\ While issuers
are required to provide information in the proxy statement
[[Page 42994]]
about the matters to be voted on at a shareholder meeting, the proxy
statement typically is not mailed out until after the record date.
Therefore, those institutional lenders that desire, or are obligated,
to vote proxies with respect to securities on loan in the event of a
material vote face the challenge of learning what matters will be voted
on at shareholder meetings sufficiently in advance of the record date
so that the lenders can determine whether they want to get the loaned
securities back before the record date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ For example, the Commission staff has agreed not to object
if voting rights pass with the lending of securities provided that
if the management of the lending fund has knowledge that a material
event will occur with respect to a security on loan, the fund
directors would be obligated to recall such loan in time to vote the
proxies. See, e.g., State Street Bank & Trust Company, SEC Staff No-
Action Letter (Sept. 29, 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We understand that some institutional securities lenders may try to
obtain timely information about meeting agendas through a variety of
informal means, including media reports. We are also told, however,
that this informal process is not an effective substitute for a formal
process that would alert securities lenders to the matters to be voted
on at shareholder meetings in time to terminate the loan and receive
the loaned securities. We understand that, in some instances,
securities lenders learn of material votes too late to recall the loans
to vote the proxies.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See Roundtable Transcript, note 79, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Potential Regulatory Responses
In considering possible solutions, we note that, under Section
401.02 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, NYSE-listed issuers must
provide the exchange with notice of the record and meeting dates for
shareholder meetings at least ten days prior to the record date for the
meeting, unless it is not possible to do so. That notice must describe
the matters to be voted upon at the meeting, unless it is accompanied
by printed material being sent to shareholders which describes those
matters. We understand, however, that this formal notice is not
disseminated to the public and may not contain specific descriptions of
all matters to be voted on at the meeting.
Consequently, one possible regulatory response is to ask the NYSE
to revise its rules to require public dissemination of a notice, in
advance of the record date, that contains information about the record
and meeting dates as well as specific descriptions of all matters to be
voted upon. Other SROs could also be asked to adopt similar rules. An
alternative possibility is a requirement for all issuers subject to our
proxy rules to disclose the agenda by public means, such as by filing a
report on Form 8-K (or as an alternative to such a filing requirement,
permitting the issuance of a press release or a posting on a corporate
Web site).
In identifying these alternatives, we are mindful that it can be
difficult for issuers to disclose complete meeting agendas in advance
of the record date because the agenda may not be established at that
time for a variety of reasons, including board consideration of
initiatives proposed by management and Commission staff review of no-
action requests regarding Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposals.
c. Request for Comment
Should the Commission propose a rule to require issuers to
disclose publicly the meeting agenda sufficiently in advance of the
record date to permit securities lenders to determine whether any of
the matters warrant a termination of the loan so that they may vote the
proxies? If so, how many days would constitute sufficient notice to the
public?
What are the advantages and disadvantages, practical and
as a matter of policy, to requiring issuers to provide this advance
notice to the public? For instance, would the issuer know, sufficiently
in advance, all of the items to be on the agenda, particularly
shareholder proposals which may be the subject of a request for no-
action relief being considered by the Commission's staff? \96\ How
could such a requirement provide notice of contested matters and other
non-management proposals to be considered at the meeting? Could we
address concerns by allowing issuers to publish an agenda that is
``subject to change''? If so, should we limit such changes to
shareholder proposals for which the issuer is seeking no-action relief?
How often does uncertainty about a meeting agenda preclude issuers from
disclosing the agenda in sufficient time for shareholders to recall
loans before the record date?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ When an issuer seeks to exclude a shareholder proposal
submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-8, it must file its reasons with the
Commission. 17 CFR 240.14a-8(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would a mechanism that alerts lending shareholders to
meeting agendas well in advance of record dates have positive and
desirable effects on the proxy solicitation system such that the
Commission should encourage and facilitate this? Would such a mechanism
increase the number of lenders recalling loans, and result in greater
loan instability, with adverse effects on the capital markets? If there
are competing interests, which should prevail, and why?
How could an advance notice requirement be effected?
Should the Commission propose rules applicable to all issuers subject
to the proxy rules? Or, should the SROs amend or adopt listing
standards requiring their listed issuers to provide advance notice to
the public of record and meeting dates and specific descriptions of all
matters to be voted on at the shareholder meeting?
If we required advance notice, through what medium should
such notice to shareholders be made? Should issuers be required to
issue a press release or make a company Web site posting in addition to
filing a notice with the Commission? Would such notice be sufficient
for shareholders?
We also request data regarding the recall of loaned
securities by institutional shareholder lenders in order to vote the
shares. Please include information regarding the circumstances in which
the recalls did and did not occur, and whether the shares were
ultimately voted.
3. Disclosure of Voting by Funds
a. Background
Management investment companies registered under the Investment
Company Act (collectively, ``funds'') are required to disclose on Form
N-PX how they vote proxies relating to portfolio securities.\97\ In
adopting this requirement in 2003, the Commission stated that
``[i]nvestors in mutual funds have a fundamental right to know how the
fund casts proxy votes on shareholders' behalf.'' \98\ Indeed, the
Commission required funds to disclose whether they cast their vote for
or against management, in an effort to benefit fund shareholders by
improving transparency and enabling them to monitor whether their funds
approved or disapproved of the governance of portfolio companies.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Proxy Voting
Records by Registered Management Investment Companies, Release No.
IC-25932 (Jan. 31, 2003) [68 FR 6564].
\98\ Id. at 6566.
\99\ Id. at 6565.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, when a fund lends its portfolio securities, all
incidents of ownership relating to the loaned securities, including
proxy voting rights, generally transfer to the borrower for the
duration of the loan.\100\ Accordingly, the fund generally loses its
ability to vote the proxies of such securities, unless and until the
loan is terminated and the securities are returned to the lender prior
to the record date in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ See note 92, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, Form N-PX requires disclosure of proxy voting
information ``for each matter relating to a portfolio security
considered at any shareholder meeting held during the period covered by
the report and with respect to which
[[Page 42995]]
the registrant was entitled to vote.'' \101\ However, Form N-PX does
not require disclosure of the number of shares for which proxies were
voted, nor does the Form require disclosure with respect to portfolio
securities on loan when, as is generally the case, the fund is not
entitled to vote proxies relating to those securities. Thus, for
example, if a fund lends out 99% of its portfolio holdings of XYZ
Corporation and therefore votes only 1% of its holdings of XYZ, Form N-
PX would disclose that the fund voted proxies with respect to shares of
XYZ, but would not also disclose that the fund did not vote 99% of its
holdings of XYZ because they were on loan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ See Item 1 to Form N-PX. Form N-PX requires disclosure of
the following: The name of the issuer of the portfolio security; the
exchange ticker symbol of the portfolio security; the Council on
Uniform Securities Identification Procedures (CUSIP) number for the
portfolio security; the shareholder meeting date; a brief
identification of the matter voted on; whether the matter was
proposed by the issuer or by a security holder; whether the fund
cast its vote on the matter; how the fund cast its vote (e.g., for
or against proposal, or abstain; for or withhold regarding election
of directors); and whether the fund cast its vote for or against
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Potential Regulatory Responses
We seek to examine whether Form N-PX should be amended to require
disclosure of the actual number of votes cast by funds.
c. Request for Comment
Should Form N-PX require disclosure of the actual number
of shares voted? Should Form N-PX require disclosure of the number of
portfolio securities for which a fund did not vote proxies because the
securities were on loan or for other reasons?
What would be the costs to funds of disclosing the actual
number of proxy votes? What would be the costs to funds of disclosing
the number of portfolio securities for which a fund did not vote
proxies?
D. Proxy Distribution Fees
1. Background
One of the most persistent concerns that has been expressed to the
Commission's staff, particularly by issuers, involves the structure and
size of fees charged for the distribution of proxy materials to
beneficial owners.
a. Current Fee Schedules
Pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 14b-1 and 14b-2, respectively,
broker-dealers and banks must distribute certain materials received
from an issuer or other soliciting party to their customers who are
beneficial owners of securities of that issuer. These materials include
proxy statements, information statements, annual reports, proxy cards,
and other proxy soliciting materials.\102\ A broker-dealer or bank does
not need to satisfy this obligation, however, unless the issuer
provides ``assurance of reimbursement of the broker's or dealer's
reasonable expenses, both direct and indirect,'' that the broker-dealer
will incur in distributing the materials to its customers.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ 17 CFR 240.14b-1(b); 17 CFR 240.14b-2(b).
\103\ 17 CFR 240.14b-1(c)(2); 17 CFR 240.14b-2(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In adopting these rules, we did not determine what constituted
``reasonable expenses'' that were eligible for reimbursement. Rather,
the SROs submitted rule filings with us pursuant to Section 19(b) of
the Exchange Act to establish these amounts.\104\ Because SROs
represent both issuers and broker-dealers, we believed that SROs would
be best positioned to ``make a fair evaluation and allocation'' of the
costs associated with the distribution of shareholder materials.\105\
Accordingly, SRO-adopted rules, approved by the Commission, establish
the maximum amount that an SRO member may receive for soliciting
proxies from, and distributing other issuer materials to, beneficial
owners on behalf of issuers.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). See, e.g., Order Granting Approval to
Proposed Rule Change and Notice of Filing and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 1 to Proposed Rule Change
Relating to a One-Year Pilot Program for Transmission of Proxy and
Other Shareholder Communication Material, Release No. 34-38406 (Mar.
14, 1997) [62 FR 13922]. We note that, in approving a rule filing,
we must find that such filing is consistent with the Exchange Act.
For example, Section 6(b)(4) of the Exchange Act requires that the
rules of an exchange ``provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and
issuers and other persons using its facilities.'' 15 U.S.C.
78f(b)(4).
\105\ See Release No. 34-38406, note 104, above.
\106\ See text accompanying notes 116 to 120, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1937, the New York Stock Exchange has required issuers, as a
matter of policy, to reimburse its members for out of pocket costs of
forwarding proxy materials.\107\ Reimbursement rates were formally
established by rule in 1952, and have been revised periodically since
then.\108\ Today, NYSE Rules 451 and 465 establish the fee structure
for which a NYSE member organization may be reimbursed \109\ for
expenses incurred in connection with the forwarding of proxy materials,
annual reports, and other materials to beneficial owners.\110\ The NYSE
initially proposed this fee structure as part of a one-year pilot
program, which elicited a number of comments before the Commission
approved the pilot program in 1997.\111\ The pilot program was extended
several times, during which time the NYSE participated in the Proxy
Voting Review Committee, which was established to review the pilot fee
structure.\112\ In 2002, the NYSE proposed to implement the fee
structure on a permanent basis, with some changes, in light of the
recommendations of the Proxy Voting Review Committee.\113\ Some
commentators raised concerns about the amount of the fees and the
absence of competition that might help determine the appropriate level
for those fees.\114\ In approving the fee structure on a permanent
basis, we stated that we expected the NYSE to monitor the fees to
confirm that they continued to relate to ``reasonable expenses.'' \115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See Report and Recommendations of the Proxy Working Group
to the New York Stock Exchange (``Proxy Working Group Report''),
June 5, 2006, available at http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/REVISED_NYSE_Report_6_5_06.pdf, at 23.
\108\ Id.
\109\ It should be noted that the NYSE fee schedule under Rule
451 for expenses incurred in connection with proxy solicitations is
the same as the fee schedule for expenses incurred in mailing
interim reports or other material pursuant to Rule 465. For purposes
of this release, references to fees will cite to NYSE Rule 465.
Pursuant to Rule 465, member organizations are entitled to receive
reimbursement for all out of pocket expenses, including clerical
expenses as well as actual costs, including postage costs, the cost
of envelopes, and communication expenses incurred in receiving
voting returns either electronically or telephonically. See NYSE
Rule 465(2) and Supplementary Material to Rule 465.20.
\110\ The vast majority of firms that distribute issuer material
to beneficial owners are reimbursed at the NYSE fee schedule rates
because most of the brokerage firms are NYSE members or members of
other exchanges that have rules similar to the NYSE's rules.
\111\ See Release No. 34-38406, note 104, above.
\112\ See Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No.
1 Thereto by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Amending Its Rules
Regarding the Transmission of Proxy and Other Shareholder
Communication Material and the Proxy Reimbursement Guidelines Set
Forth In Those Rules, and Requesting Permanent Approval of the
Amended Proxy Reimbursement Guidelines, Release No. 34-45644 (Mar.
25, 2002) [67 FR 15440] (``NYSE Fee Structure Order'').
\113\ Id.
\114\ Id. See also Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to
Amendment No. 1 to Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Reimbursement of Member Organizations for Costs Incurred in the
Transmission of Proxy and Other Shareholder Communication Material,
Release No. 34-41177 (Mar. 16, 1999) [64 FR 14294].
\115\ See NYSE Fee Structure Order, note 112, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the rates set by the NYSE for the forwarding of an
issuer's proxy materials include: \116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ See NYSE Supplementary Material to Rule 465.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42996]]
A ``Base Mailing Fee'' of $0.40 for each beneficial owner
account when there is not an opposing proxy (the ``Base Mailing Fee'').
This fee applies for each set of proxy materials, regardless of whether
the materials have been mailed or the mailing has been suppressed or
eliminated.
An ``Incentive Fee'' of $0.25 per beneficial owner account
for issuers whose securities are held by many beneficial owners and
$0.50 per account for issuers with few beneficial owners.\117\ This
fee, which is in addition to the Base Mailing Fee, applies when the
need to mail materials in paper format has been eliminated, for
instance, by eliminating duplicative mailings to multiple accounts at
the same address.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ The Incentive Fee is $0.25 for each account for issuers
whose shares are held in at least 200,000 nominee accounts, and $.50
for each account for issuers whose shares are held in fewer than
200,000 accounts. According to the NYSE, the cost to service large
issuers, i.e., issuers whose shares are held in at least 200,000
nominee accounts, is less than the cost to service small issuers
because of economies of scale, which justifies a smaller Incentive
Fee for large issuers. See NYSE Fee Structure Order, note 112,
above.
\118\ NYSE Rule 465 includes the following examples as being
eligible for the Incentive Fee: ``multiple proxy ballots or forms in
one envelope with one set of material mailed to the same household,
by distributing multiple proxy ballots or forms electronically
thereby reducing the sets of material mailed, or by distributing
some or all material electronically.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A ``Nominee Coordination Fee'' of $20 per ``nominee''--
i.e., securities intermediaries that are either registered holders or
identified on the DTC securities position listing--which is paid to a
proxy service provider that coordinates the mailings for multiple
securities intermediaries.
An additional ``Nominee Coordination Fee'' of $0.05 per
beneficial owner account for issuers whose securities are held by many
beneficial owners \119\ and $0.10 per account for issuers with few
beneficial owners.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ The per-account Nominee Coordination Fee is $0.05 for each
account for each issuer's securities for issuers whose shares are
held in at least 200,000 beneficial owner accounts held by nominees,
and $.10 for each account for each issuer's securities for issuers
whose shares are held in fewer than 200,000 beneficial owner
accounts held by nominees. See NYSE Fee Structure Order, note 112,
above. According to the NYSE, as with Incentive Fees, the cost to
service large issuers is less than the cost to service small issuers
because of economies of scale, which justifies a smaller Nominee
Coordination Fee per account for large issuers. Id.
\120\ For example, if an issuer's securities are held in 10,000
beneficial owner accounts holding in street name, and those accounts
are divided among ten securities intermediaries, the fees discussed
above would be assessed as follows:
Base Mailing Fee of 10,000 accounts x $0.40 per account, or
$4,000;
Incentive Fee of 5,000 accounts suppressed x $0.50 per account,
or $2,500 (assuming 50% of the accounts are eligible for the
incentive fee);
Nominee Coordination Fee of 10 securities intermediaries x $20
per intermediary, or $200; and
Additional Nominee Coordination Fee of 10,000 accounts x $0.10
per account, or $1,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While a member organization, such as a securities intermediary, may
seek reimbursement for less than the approved rates, it may not seek
reimbursement for an amount higher than the approved rates listed in
Rule 465, or for items or services not enumerated in Rule 465,
``without the prior notification to and consent of the person
soliciting proxies or the issuer.'' \121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ See NYSE Supplementary Material to Rule 465.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the fees were approved in 2002, we expected the NYSE ``to
continue its ongoing review of the proxy fee process, including
considering alternatives to SRO standards that would provide a more
efficient, competitive, and fair process.'' \122\ We also indicated
that market participants should consider ways in which market forces
could determine reasonable rates of reimbursement, rather than have
these rates be set by the NYSE under its rules.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ See NYSE Fee Structure Order, note 112, above. In the NYSE
Order, we also stated that we expected NYSE to ``periodically review
these fees to ensure they are related to `reasonable expenses * * *
in accordance with the [Exchange] Act, and propose changes where
appropriate.'' Id.
\123\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, the Proxy Working Group considered the NYSE's current fee
structure and indicated that Rule 465's fees ``may be expensive to
issuers but generally result[] in shareholders receiving and being able
to vote proxies in a timely manner. This is an important benefit of the
current system.'' \124\ The Proxy Working Group also noted, however,
that ``issuers and shareholders deserve periodic confirmation that the
system is performing as cost-effectively, efficiently and accurately as
possible, with the proper level of responsibility and accountability in
the system.'' \125\ The Proxy Working Group also recommended that the
NYSE should ``continue to explore alternative systems * * * such that a
competitive system, with fees set by the free market, could eventually
succeed the current system.'' \126\ The Proxy Working Group recommended
that the NYSE engage an independent third party to analyze and make
recommendations regarding the structure and amount of fees paid under
Rule 465 and to study the performance of the proxy service provider
that currently has the largest market share and the business process by
which the distribution of proxies occurs. To date, this review has not
been done. Subsequently, the Proxy Working Group's Cost and Pricing
Subcommittee considered the changes brought about through the notice
and access model and decided that the notice and access fees were not
covered under current NYSE fee rules and concluded that they should
allow participants to negotiate their own fees.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Proxy Working Group Report, note 107, above, at 5.
\125\ Id., at 26.
\126\ Id., at 29.
\127\ See August 27, 2007 Addendum to the Report and
Recommendations of the Proxy Working Group to the New York Stock
Exchange dated June 5, 2006 (``Proxy Working Group Addendum''),
available at http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/PWGAddendumfinal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the NYSE fee structure for proxy distribution was established
on a permanent basis in 2002, other SROs adopted similar rules. For
example, the NYSE Amex LLC (``Amex'') and the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') revised their rules (Amex Rule
576, Amex Section 722 of the Amex Company Guide, and NASD IM-2260,
respectively) to adopt similar provisions.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ See Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change by the American Stock Exchange LLC Amending
Exchange Rules 576 and 585, and Sections 722 and 725 of the Amex
Company Guide, Release No. 34-46146 (June 28, 2002) [67 FR 44902]
and Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
Relating to an Amendment to NASD Interpretive Material 2260, Release
No. 34-47392 (Feb. 21, 2003) [68 FR 9730]. NASD Rule 2260 and NASD
IM-2260 were recently renumbered as FINRA Rule 2251 in the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. See Order Granting Approval of Proposed
Rule Change to Adopt FINRA Rule 2251 (Forwarding of Proxy and Other
Issuer-Related Materials) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook,
Release No. 34-61052 (Nov. 23, 2009) [74 FR 62857].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Notice and Access Model
Neither the NYSE nor any other SRO has established maximum fees
that member firms may charge issuers for deliveries of proxy materials
using the notice and access method. The majority of broker-dealers have
contracts with one proxy service provider to distribute proxies to
beneficial owners.\129\ If an issuer elects the ``notice-only''
delivery option for any or all accounts, that proxy service provider
currently charges an ``Incremental Fee,'' ranging from $0.05 to $0.25
per account for positions
[[Page 42997]]
in excess of 6,000,\130\ in addition to the other fees permitted to be
charged under NYSE Rule 465. This Incremental Fee is charged to all
accounts, even if the issuer has elected to continue ``full set''
delivery to some accounts. Several issuers have expressed concerns
about these fees associated with the notice and access model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ Broadridge, as the service provider for most U.S. broker-
dealers holding customer accounts, distributes the vast majority of
proxy mailings to beneficial owners. See Proxy Working Group Report,
note 107, above, at 24 (``ADP [(now Broadridge) is] the agent for
almost all banks and brokerage houses.'').
\130\ The Incremental Fee for 1 to 6,000 positions is $1,500.
Above 6,000 positions, the fee is charged on a per-account basis,
and varies according to the number of positions. As such, the
Incremental Fee ranges from $.25 per account for 6,001 to 10,000
positions to $.05 per account for greater than 500,000 positions.
See Broadridge Fee Schedule, at http://www.broadridge.com/notice-and-access/pdfs/Reference_Rev1_31.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Current Practice Regarding Fees Charged
As noted above, broker-dealers generally outsource their delivery
obligations to proxy service providers.\131\ The proxy service provider
enters into a contract with the broker-dealer and acts as a billing and
collection agent for that broker-dealer. As such, the proxy service
provider bills issuers on behalf of the broker-dealer with which it has
contracted, collects the fees from the issuer to which the broker-
dealer is entitled pursuant to SRO rules, and pays to the broker-dealer
any difference between the fee that the broker-dealer is entitled to
collect and the amount that the broker-dealer has agreed to pay the
proxy service provider for its services.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ See NYSE Fee Structure Order, note 112, above. According
to the NYSE, this shift was attributable to the fact that member
firms believed that proxy distribution ``was not a core broker-
dealer business and that capital could be better used elsewhere.''
Id.
\132\ See Release No. 34-38406, note 104, above. See also
Broadridge Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is our understanding that Broadridge currently bills issuers, on
behalf of its broker-dealer clients, the maximum fees allowed by NYSE
Rule 465.\133\ However, we understand that the fees that Broadridge
charges its large broker-dealer clients for its services sometimes are
less than the maximum NYSE fees charged to issuers on the broker-
dealers' behalf, resulting in funds being remitted from Broadridge to a
subset of its broker-dealer clients. This practice raises the question
as to whether the fees in the NYSE schedule currently reflect
``reasonable reimbursement.'' While the issuer pays the proxy
distribution fees, the issuer has little or no control over the process
by which the proxy service provider is selected, the terms of the
contract between the broker-dealer and the proxy service provider, or
the fees that are incurred through the proxy distribution process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ See Broadridge Fee Schedule, note 130, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several other issues concerning the appropriateness of fees have
also been raised in recent years. For example, it is our understanding
that, once a paper mailing is suppressed, the securities intermediary,
or its agent, collects the Incentive Fee, not only for the year in
which the shareholder makes that election, but also for every
subsequent year, even though the continuing role of the securities
intermediary, or its agent, in eliminating these paper mailings is
limited to keeping track of the shareholder's election.\134\ Further,
it is our understanding that, with respect to certain managed accounts,
where hundreds or thousands of beneficial owners may delegate their
voting decisions to a single investment manager, the Base Mailing Fee
and the Incentive Fee are assessed for all accounts, even though only
one set of proxy materials is transmitted to the investment
manager.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ This Incentive Fee is intended to encourage securities
intermediaries to reduce proxy distribution costs on behalf of
issuers because intermediaries otherwise may have no motivation to
reduce an issuer's forwarding costs. See SIFMA, Report on the
Shareholder Communications Process with Street Name Holders, and the
NOBO-OBO Mechanism (June 10, 2010) (``SIFMA Report''), at 14
(describing categories of ongoing costs of maintaining current e-
mail addresses and related databases and systems), available in the
public comment file to this release.
\135\ See letter from Thomas L. Montrone of The Securities
Transfer Association to Chairman Mary Schapiro, dated June 2, 2010
(stating that ``We believe that many issuers are being assessed
unreasonable fees under Rule 465 related to share ownership in
separate managed accounts (``SMAs'') in which the investor has
delegated responsibility for management of the account and is not
being provided with any proxy materials''), available in the public
comment file to this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, many issues have been raised about fees, focusing
mostly on whether the current fee structure for delivering proxy
materials to beneficial owners reflects reasonable rates of
reimbursement.
2. Potential Regulatory Responses
We have previously recognized the potential benefits of allowing
the marketplace, rather than SRO rules and guidelines, to determine
reasonable rates of reimbursement for the distribution of proxy
materials. As noted above, at the time of adoption of the current fee
structure, we did not expect that the discussion of reasonable rates of
reimbursement would end. Rather, we noted that market forces should
ultimately determine competitive and reasonable rates of reimbursement,
and urged the NYSE to identify ways to achieve this goal, consistent
with the continued protection of shareholder voting rights in a
competitive marketplace for proxy distribution.\136\ While the Proxy
Working Group did suggest ways to re-evaluate the NYSE's current fee
structure, such as conducting ``cost studies, commission audits and
surveys of various constituencies involved,'' \137\ to date those
suggestions have not been implemented. A proxy distribution process
that fosters competition could give issuers, which are responsible for
reimbursing only reasonable proxy distribution costs, more control over
that process and remove the Commission and SROs from the business of
setting rates. However, we understand that, without a competitive
market, there may be a continued need for regulated fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ See NYSE Fee Structure Order, note 112, above.
\137\ See Proxy Working Group Report, note 107, above, at 26-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we recognize the importance of maintaining a proxy
distribution system that is efficient, reliable, and accurate. We note
that various groups have previously attested to the efficiency,
reliability, and accuracy of the current proxy distribution
system.\138\ However, given developments in the securities market
overall and proxy solicitation rules, such as the notice and access
model, it appears to be an appropriate time for SROs to review their
existing fee schedules to determine whether they continue to be
reasonably related to the actual costs of proxy solicitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ See, e.g., letter from Donald D. Kittell, Securities
Industry Association, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission,
dated Feb. 13, 2006 (``The current system for delivering proxies to
80 percent of shareholders--those holding in `street name'--has
proven to be very efficient and cost-effective.'') available in the
public comment file to this release. See also Proxy Working Group
Report, note 107, above, at 25 (citing to letter from Richard H.
Koppes, Facilitator, Proxy Voting Review Committee, to Sharon
Lawson, Senior Special Counsel, Commission, dated Feb. 28, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One alternative that has been suggested by a commentator is the
creation of a central data aggregator that is given the right to
collect beneficial owner information from securities intermediaries,
but is required to provide that information to any agent designated by
the issuer.\139\ The aggregator would be entitled to structured
compensation for its activities. This could create competition among
service providers for the distribution of the proxy materials by making
the beneficial owner
[[Page 42998]]
information available to all service providers, allowing them to
compete in providing services to forward proxy materials. This would
also place the choice of proxy service provider in the hands of the
entity that must pay for the distribution--the issuer--rather than the
securities intermediary, which has no incentive to reduce costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ See Shareholder Communications Coalition, Public Issuer
Proxy Voting: Empowering Individual Investors and Encouraging Open
Shareholder Communications (Aug. 4, 2009) (``SCC Discussion
Draft''), at 6, available in the public comment file to this
release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the other potential regulatory responses discussed in this
release also would affect the current system of distributing proxy
materials and, therefore, the process of setting proxy distribution
fees. For instance, adopting a system under which securities
intermediaries grant proxies to underlying beneficial owners (as
discussed in Section III.A) would permit issuers to negotiate fees and
services with proxy service providers because the issuers would be
directly soliciting proxies from those beneficial owners.
3. Request for Comment
Does the current fee/rebate structure reflect reasonable
expenses? Why or why not? If not, how should these rates be revised?
Should the fee structure allow for reimbursement of the
Incentive Fee on an ongoing basis once the paper mailings have already
been eliminated?
How are proxy distribution fees billed with respect to
separately managed accounts? Should certain kinds of accounts, such as
separately managed accounts, where multiple beneficial owners may
delegate their voting decisions to a single investment manager, be
eligible for different treatment under the current fee structure?
Are separately managed accounts different from ``wrap''
accounts for which issuers may not be charged suppression fees for
providing proxy communication services to holders of WRAP accounts?
\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ It is our understanding that a wrap account is a certain
type of account that is managed by an outside investment manager.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the current fee structure discourage issuers from
communicating with beneficial owners beyond delivery of the required
proxy materials?
Should there be an independent third-party audit of the
current fee structure, as recommended by the Proxy Working Group?
Do broker-dealers using a proxy service provider incur
costs that justify rebates from the proxy service provider? If so, what
are the costs, can they be quantified, and are they commensurate with
the payments received from the proxy service provider? Do these costs
exist only for larger broker-dealers or for broker-dealers of all
sizes? Should the current rebates between Broadridge and larger broker-
dealers be permitted under the current fee structure? Should current
contractual arrangements between proxy service providers and their
clients affect the determination of whether fees are fair and
reasonable?
Currently, SRO rules do not set rates for reimbursement of
expenses associated with the notice and access model. In the absence of
SRO rules, on what basis do market participants currently determine
whether the reimbursement of expenses associated with the notice and
access model is, in fact, reasonable?
Should the current fee structure that is set forth in SRO
rules be revised to include fees for notice and access delivery? If so,
what fees for the notice and access model might constitute ``reasonable
reimbursement?''
Does the current proxy distribution system--in which the
proxy service provider is selected by a broker-dealer but paid by the
issuer--create a lack of incentives to reduce costs for issuers? Should
the issuer have more control over the selection and payment of the
proxy service provider, and if so, what alternatives to the current
system would facilitate this? What are the potential benefits and
drawbacks of such alternatives?
What factors are currently affecting the level of
competition in the market for proxy service providers and their fees?
What principles should guide the Commission's current consideration of
competition among proxy service providers? Would multiple competing
service providers affect the quality of service?
What steps would be necessary to enable prices to be based
on competitive market forces? What are the potential benefits and
drawbacks of moving to a system where prices are determined by
competitive market forces? What effect, if any, would this have in
terms of accuracy, accountability, reliability, cost, and efficiency of
the proxy distribution system? Would a market-based model increase or
decrease costs for issuers? Would cost increases or decreases be more
likely for small to midsize issuers?
If issuers were able to solicit proxies directly from
beneficial owners, what effect would that likely have on proxy
distribution costs? Would costs be reduced through the introduction of
competition and better alignment of economic incentives? Or, could the
loss of economies of scale increase costs? Would each issuer likely
negotiate fees on its own with a proxy service provider? Would the
impact be different for large, medium, or small issuers?
What are the practical and legal implications of
deregulating fees in light of the existing contracts between proxy
service providers and broker-dealers? For example, would these
contracts need to be re-negotiated?
What are the potential merits and drawbacks of having a
central data aggregator collect beneficial owner information from
securities intermediaries? How would reimbursement to the aggregator,
as the distributor of information, be determined?
Would changes to the OBO/NOBO mechanism, or the creation
of a central data aggregator, encourage competition in the proxy
distribution sector? Would competition increase or lower costs? Would
competition increase or decrease accountability?
A number of investors have complained about the services
of proxy service providers (and transfer agents performing similar
functions). How are investors' interests addressed, if at all, in the
selection of proxy service providers? Are the interests of investors in
this process given adequate weight?
IV. Communications and Shareholder Participation
We first examine a number of concerns relating to the ability of
issuers to communicate with shareholders, the level of shareholder
participation in the proxy voting process, and the ability of investors
to obtain and evaluate information pertinent to voting decisions.
Because of the importance of shareholder voting, as discussed above, we
seek additional information about ways in which issuer communications
with shareholders, shareholder participation and shareholder use of
information might be improved.
A. Issuer Communications With Shareholders
1. Background
The first area of concern that we address arises out of the
practice of holding securities in street name--that is, interposing
securities intermediaries between issuers and the beneficial owners of
their securities. This practice developed in order to facilitate the
prompt and accurate processing of an increasingly large volume of
securities transactions.\141\ The efficiency of the
[[Page 42999]]
clearance and settlement system in the U.S. is due in large part to the
ability to ``net'' transactions, whereby contracts to buy or sell
securities between broker-dealers are replaced with net obligations to
a registered clearing agency, the National Securities Clearing
Corporation (``NSCC''). To make netting possible, securities must be
held in fungible bulk at DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ For a history of the U.S. shareholder system, see Alan L.
Beller & Janet L. Fisher, The OBO/NOBO Distinction in Beneficial
Ownership: Implications for Shareowner Communications and Voting
(February 2010), available at http://www.cii.org/UserFiles/file/CII%20White%20Paper%20-%20The%20OBO-
NOBO%20Distinction%20in%20Beneficial%20Ownership%20February%202010.pd
f, at 8-10. This report (the ``CII OBO/NOBO Report'') was published
by the Council of Institutional Investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is broad consensus \142\ that the enormous volume of
transactions cleared and settled in the U.S., which currently involve
transactions valued at over $1.48 quadrillion annually,\143\ requires a
centralized netting facility (i.e., NSCC) and a depository (i.e., DTC)
that facilitates book-entry settlement of securities transactions. It
is our understanding that this approach to clearance and settlement has
produced significant efficiencies, lower costs, and risk management
advantages. At the same time, however, the practice of holding
securities in fungible bulk has made it more difficult for issuers to
identify their beneficial owners and to communicate directly with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ See ``Recommendations for Securities Settlement Systems,''
CFSS/IOSCO Task Force (Nov. 2001) and ``Global Clearing and
Settlement, A Plan of Action,'' published by the Group of Thirty
(``G-30'') (Jan. 30, 2003).
\143\ See http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/ statistics.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of recent developments in corporate governance, including
the elimination of the broker discretionary vote on uncontested
elections of directors, commentators have claimed a greater need for
issuers to be able to communicate with their shareholders.\144\ These
commentators have argued that the number of contested issues in
shareholder meetings has increased, that voting outcomes are under more
pressure, and that, as a result, certain changes should be made to our
rules in order to facilitate communications by issuers with their
beneficial owners.\145\ More broadly, commentators have questioned
whether the current system of share ownership and the Commission's
communications and proxy rules adequately serve the needs of investors
and issuers.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ See Proxy Working Group Report, note 107, above, at 22
(discussing comments received with respect to a then-proposed
amendment, which was recently adopted, to Rule 452 eliminating
broker-dealer voting in the election of directors).
\145\ See, e.g., CII OBO/NOBO Report, note 141, above, at 11
(``Recent developments in corporate governance will place more
pressure on voting outcomes and increase the need for both companies
and shareowners to have an effective and reliable framework for
communications.''); letter from Shareholder Communications Coalition
to Chairman Mary Schapiro (Aug. 4, 2009), available at http://www.shareholdercoalition.com/SCCLetterto
SECChairmanMarySchapiroAug2009.pdf.
\146\ In 2004, the BRT Petition urged the Commission ``to
conduct a thorough review of the current shareholder communications
system.'' BRT Petition, note 8, above. The petition recommended that
``the Commission require brokers and banks to provide issuers with
contact information for all beneficial owners and permit the direct
mailing of all communications (including proxy materials) to
beneficial owners.'' Id. See also Marcel Kahan & Edward B. Rock, The
Hanging Chads of Corporate Voting, 96 Georgetown Law Journal 1227
(2008); J. Robert Brown Jr., The Shareholder Communication Rules and
the Securities and Exchange Commission: An Exercise in Regulatory
Utility or Futility, 13 Journal of Corporation Law 683 (1988); David
C. Donald, The Rise and Effects of the Indirect Holding System: How
Corporate America Ceded Its Shareholders to Intermediaries (Sept.
26, 2007), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1017206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The history of our efforts to address the impediments to
communication associated with our securities ownership system goes back
more than three decades.
In 1976, we reported to Congress on the effects of the practice of
holding securities in street name.\147\ While we concluded that the
practice of registering securities in nominee (that is, DTC or a
securities intermediary) and street name was consistent with the
purposes of the Exchange Act, we recognized that issuers were
experiencing difficulties in communicating with their shareholders who
hold securities in nominee and street name. In an effort to enhance
communication, we revised the proxy rules to require issuers, as more
fully described above, to do the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ Street Name Study, note 13, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inquire of securities intermediaries whether other persons
beneficially owned the securities they held of record; and
Supply securities intermediaries with a sufficient number
of sets of proxy materials to forward to beneficial owners.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Notice of Adoption of Amendments to Rules 14a-3, 14c-3 and
14c-7 under the Exchange Act to Improve the Disclosure in, and the
Dissemination of, Annual Reports to Security Holders and to Improve
the Dissemination of Annual Reports on Form 10-K or 12-K Filed with
the Commission Under the Exchange Act, Release No. 34-11079 (Oct.
31, 1974) [39 FR 40766]. These requirements, which were originally
included in Rule 14a-3(d), are currently set forth in Rule 14a-13
[17 CFR 240.14a-13]. Facilitating Shareholder Communications,
Release No. 34-22533 (Oct. 15, 1985) [51 FR 44276]. Based in part on
the recommendation of the Street Name Study, we adopted additional
rules in 1977 facilitating the transmission of proxy materials from
issuers to beneficial owners. Requirements for Dissemination of
Proxy Information to Beneficial Owners by Issuers and Intermediary
Broker-Dealers, Release No. 34-13719 (July 5, 1977) [42 FR 35953].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To promote direct communication between issuers and their
beneficial owners, we adopted rules in 1983, effective in 1985, to
require broker-dealers and banks to provide issuers, at their request,
with lists of the names and addresses of beneficial owners who did not
object to having such information provided to issuers.\149\ These
owners are often referred to as ``non-objecting beneficial owners'' or
``NOBOs.'' When a beneficial owner objects to disclosure of its name
and address to the issuer--often referred to as ``objecting beneficial
owners'' or ``OBOs''--the beneficial owner may be contacted only by the
securities intermediary (or the intermediary's agent) with the customer
relationship with the beneficial owner.\150\ According to one estimate,
70% to 80% of all public issuers' shares are held in street name, and
75% of those shares, or 52% to 60% of all shares, are held by
OBOs.\151\ It is our understanding that some types of large
institutional investors, such as mutual funds \152\ and retirement
plans, often choose OBO status.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ See Facilitating Shareholder Communications Provisions,
Release No. 34-20021 (July 28, 1983) [48 FR 35082]. Exchange Act
Rule 14a-13(b)(5) enables an issuer to obtain a list of its NOBOs
only, which means that broker-dealers and banks must classify their
beneficial owners as either objecting or non-objecting beneficial
owners, based on the investor's election. A requesting issuer must
reimburse the intermediaries for their reasonable expenses in
preparing the NOBO list. 17 CFR 240.14a-13(b)(5). The NYSE and other
exchanges establish a per-holder fee that member brokers can charge
for preparation of the NOBO list. E.g., NYSE Rule 465.
Notwithstanding these limitations on the fees, issuers, particularly
those with large shareholder bases, have indicated that the cost to
obtain such lists can be prohibitive.
\150\ See 17 CFR 240.14b-1(b)(3)(i). Several commentators have
indicated that, in a number of foreign jurisdictions, public issuers
have the right to learn the identity of individuals and institutions
with voting rights or beneficial owner interests in their shares.
See, e.g., BRT Petition, note 8, above; Kahan, note 146, above;
Donald, note 146, above.
\151\ Proxy Working Group Report at 10-11, note 107, above.
\152\ Although mutual funds disclose their securities holdings
on Forms N-Q and N-CSR, those disclosures are made as of the end of
the quarter, which may not coincide with the record date used to
determine shareholders entitled to vote at a meeting.
\153\ One recent report states that while ``73% of retail
shareholders are NOBOs, * * * [m]ost institutional shareholders--
about 71%--are OBOs, accounting for about 91% of all institutionally
held shares.'' SIFMA Report, note 134, above, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We understand that there are concerns about the cost and efficiency
of the current system of communications between issuers and investors,
including the following: \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Concerns about whether or not to disclose shareholder
identities are shared by regulators in several jurisdictions. For
example, in Canada, companies are under no obligation to send proxy
materials to shareholders who do not disclose their underlying
identity. See OECD Survey, note 90, above. In the United Kingdom,
companies have the right to ask any person whom the company knows or
has reasonable cause to believe has an interest in its shares to
declare that interest. UK Companies Act 2006--Section 793: Notice by
company requiring information about interests in its shares,
available at (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060046_en_45) The failure to do so may enable the company to apply for a
court order directing that the shares in question be subject to
certain restrictions involving voting rights, transfers and other
limitations. UK Companies Act 2006--Sections 794 and 797. Given that
shareholders have the right to dismiss the board at any time in the
United Kingdom, companies generally believe it is important that the
board know who its shareholders are and pay attention to what they
want. Thus, the company should be entitled to know who owns its
shares in order to ensure accountability in both directions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43000]]
Issuers have indicated to the staff that the majority of
their street name securities are held by OBOs through securities
intermediaries, making it very difficult to determine the identity and
holdings of their investors. Issuers believe that the recent changes in
corporate governance, including the move to majority voting of
directors, the elimination of broker discretionary voting in
uncontested director elections, and a possible drop in retail voting
percentages,\155\ call for more direct communication between issuers
and their shareholders. These communications may include using a proxy
solicitor to contact shareholders by telephone. However, an issuer
cannot make these direct appeals for shareholders to participate in the
issuer's corporate governance if it does not know the identity of those
shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ It is unclear whether such a drop has occurred. See note
196 and accompanying text, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issuers also have indicated to the staff that they face
considerable expense in communicating with beneficial owners, either
OBOs or NOBOs, indirectly through securities intermediaries or their
agents. Issuers are required to reimburse securities intermediaries for
expenses incurred in forwarding communications to beneficial owners.
These expenses include reimbursement for postage, envelopes and
communication expenses as well as fees to proxy service providers.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ See Section III.D, above. See also Supplementary Material
to NYSE Rules 451 and 465; NYSE Listed Issuer Manual Sec.
402.10(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some issuers have claimed that the expense of obtaining
the list of NOBOs from the securities intermediary or its proxy service
provider deters some issuers, particularly widely-held issuers, from
using the NOBO list to communicate with beneficial owners.\157\ We have
also received expressions of concern from broker-dealers about the
difficulty of maintaining an accurate NOBO list when a class of
securities is actively traded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ Under current NYSE rules, the issuer is required to pay
$0.065 per NOBO name, plus reasonable expenses of the broker-
dealer's agent in providing the information. NYSE Rule 465
Supplementary Material, available at http://nyserules.nyse.com/NYSETools/PlatformViewer.asp?searched=1&selectednode=chp%5F1%5F5%5F13%5F1&CiRestriction=465&manual=%2Fnyse%2Frules%2Fnyse%2Drules%2F; FINRA Rule
2251 Supplementary Material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also have heard that issuers may desire more
flexibility to design the proxy materials (e.g., forms of VIFs,
packaging of materials, etc.) that are sent to beneficial owners. Some
issuers believe that the current uniform appearance of proxy materials
used by some of the proxy service providers may lead to reduced
interest in the materials by beneficial owners. Other commentators have
suggested that VIFs do not sufficiently inform shareholders as to how
their shares will be voted if they do not provide instructions on all
the matters included on the VIFs.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ See James McRitchie, Request for rulemaking to amend Rule
14a-4(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit
conferring discretionary authority to issuers with respect to non-
votes on the voter information form or proxy. No. 4-583 (May 15,
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some issuers also have expressed concerns regarding
potential quality control problems that have arisen, from time to time,
with the services provided by proxy service providers. Similarly,
retail investors have complained to our Office of Investor Education
and Advocacy, from time to time, that proxy materials have been
delivered late. To the extent that delivery of proxy materials is
delayed, the utility of issuer-investor communication through the proxy
process is impaired.
2. Potential Regulatory Responses
Many issuers, securities intermediaries and commentators believe
that there can be more efficient and cost-effective ways for issuers to
communicate directly with their shareholders. Some commentators have
advocated for significant changes. The 2004 Business Roundtable
rulemaking petition (``BRT Petition'') \159\ recommended that the
Commission enable issuers to communicate directly with their beneficial
owners by requiring broker-dealers and banks to execute an omnibus
proxy in favor of their underlying beneficial owners and by eliminating
the ability of beneficial owners to object to the disclosure of their
identities to issuers. The BRT Petition argued that eliminating
objecting beneficial owner status would create a more efficient proxy
system by allowing issuers to bypass securities intermediaries and
their agents in forwarding proxy materials and by simplifying the
voting and tabulation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ See BRT Petition, note 8, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, the Shareholder Communications Coalition \160\ filed a
letter supporting the BRT Petition and providing more specific
recommendations on how to implement a system that eliminates objecting
beneficial owner status and grants the right to vote directly to the
beneficial owners through an omnibus proxy.\161\ This proposed system
would separate the functions of beneficial owner data aggregation and
proxy communications distribution, thereby making beneficial owner data
available to the issuer's (and not the securities intermediary's)
agent. The system would identify all beneficial owners except those
that elect to remain anonymous by registering shares in a nominee
account.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ The Shareholder Communications Coalition is an umbrella
group that represents the views of The Business Roundtable, the
Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals, the
National Investor Relations Institute, and the Securities Transfer
Association.
\161\ See SCC Discussion Draft, note 139, above.
\162\ A beneficial owner could continue to remain anonymous by
hiring a third party to hold the securities for the beneficial
owner. In this circumstance, however, the cost of this agency
arrangement would be borne by the beneficial owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Others advocate less comprehensive change and encourage adoption of
an approach in which an issuer would be entitled to a list of all
beneficial owners, but only as of the record date for a particular
meeting.\163\ In such a system (an ``annual NOBO'' system), objecting
beneficial owners would not be able to shield their identity for
purposes of a shareholder meeting. At any other time during the year,
objecting beneficial owner information would not be available to the
issuer or any other party. An annual NOBO system would enable issuers
to communicate directly with all of their shareholders, both registered
and beneficial owners, for purposes of a shareholder meeting, while
minimizing the possibility that the investor information will be used
for purposes other than proxy solicitation,
[[Page 43001]]
such as determining an investor's trading strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ The Altman Group, ``Practical Solutions to Improve the
Proxy Voting System'' (Oct. 2009), available at http://altmangroup.com/pdf/PracticalSolutionTAG.pdf (identifying this
approach as the ``ABO'' or ``all beneficial owners''system). We use
the term ``annual NOBO'' because we believe it better reflects the
fact that, under the system, an OBO would be treated as if it were a
NOBO, but only annually or for specific proxy solicitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Others have suggested more gradual change.\164\ In order to
encourage holding in NOBO rather than OBO status, some have suggested
various steps to promote selection of NOBO status, such as educating
investors about OBO and NOBO status when they open their accounts or
periodically. Other steps may involve the elections made by investors
when they open their accounts. While our rules contemplate that
investors must object to disclosure of their identities to
issuers,\165\ neither our rules nor self-regulatory organization
(``SRO'') rules currently require disclosure of the consequences of
choosing OBO or NOBO status, or specify broker-dealer policies or
procedures with regard to their clients' choice of OBO or NOBO status.
In particular, if a securities intermediary's standard customer
agreement includes a default election of OBO status, it could promote a
less than fully considered election of OBO status. While several
broker-dealers have informed us that they currently default beneficial
owners to NOBO status, it has been recommended that the default
agreement used by all broker-dealers be NOBO status, or that broker-
dealers provide informational materials to their customers prior to
allowing the customers to elect OBO status and contact customers who
elect OBO status periodically to re-elect their OBO/NOBO status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ See, e.g., CII OBO/NOBO Report, note 141, above.
\165\ See Exchange Act Rule 14b-1(b)(3)(i) [17 CFR 240.14b-
1(b)(3)(i)] (requiring broker-dealers to provide names, addresses,
and securities positions of customers who have not objected to
disclosure of such information); Exchange Act Rule 14b-2(b)(4) [17
CFR 240.14b-1(b)(3)(i)] (requiring banks to provide names,
addresses, and securities positions of customers that have not
objected to disclosure of such information for customer accounts
established after December 28, 1986, but requiring affirmative
consent to disclosure of such information for customer accounts
opened before that date).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, there remains the issue of whether beneficial owners
have a privacy right with respect to the disclosure of their ownership
positions. We have been informed of a variety of privacy
considerations: some investors, particularly institutional investors,
select OBO status for competitive reasons, in order to mask their
investment strategies; other investors may prefer OBO status in order
to minimize the communications (particularly telephone calls) they
receive regarding their investments.\166\ In either case, however,
according to a study by the NYSE, investor preference for OBO status
may be cost-sensitive and perhaps even overstated.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ See SIFMA Report, note 134, above, at 10, 12, 20-22.
\167\ Investor Attitudes Study Conducted for NYSE Group--April
7, 2006, available at http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/Final_ORC_Survey.pdf. In that study, 71% of respondents indicated that they
would provide contact information to the issuers in which they
invest if asked. In addition, the study notes that investor
preference for NOBO status increases if fees are imposed on
continuing to maintain OBO status: with the imposition of a $50
annual fee, preference for OBO status declines from 36% to 5%. Id.
at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Request for Comment
As discussed above, we are considering whether regulatory action is
needed to make it easier for issuers to communicate with their
investors. In particular, we seek comment on whether we should
eliminate the OBO/NOBO distinction, thereby making all beneficial owner
information available to the issuer, or require broker-dealers to
disclose the consequences of choosing OBO or NOBO status, or whether
OBO or NOBO status should be the default choice. We also are exploring
ways in which issuers can communicate directly with beneficial owners,
such as requiring securities intermediaries to transfer proxy voting
authority to some or all beneficial owners, so that issuers can solicit
proxies directly from such holders. In this regard, we seek comment on
the following questions:
Do our existing rules inappropriately inhibit issuers from
effectively communicating with investors? If so, what changes should we
make to our rules to improve investor communication? Even if our rules
do not inappropriately inhibit issuers from effectively communicating
with investors, do the rules significantly raise the cost of
communicating? Do any non-Commission rules inappropriately inhibit
issuers from effectively communicating with investors? What are the
benefits and costs of the various changes proposed by commentators?
Do investors consider the degree and manner of
communication with issuers to be adequate?
To what extent are proxy materials not being delivered in
a timely fashion? Are any changes in our rules or other rules required
to improve timeliness of delivery, either with respect to registered or
beneficial owners?
What impact does the uniform appearance of proxy materials
such as the VIF have on shareholder participation in proxy voting?
Would investors, especially retail investors, be more likely to vote if
there was less uniformity in the appearance of proxy materials?
Is the format and layout of proxy cards and VIFs clear and
easy to use from the perspective of investors? Could the layout be
improved to enhance investor participation? Do the formats of proxy
cards and VIFs appropriately set out the consequences of not voting or
giving voting instructions on one or more specific matters?
To what extent has the loss of broker discretionary votes
in uncontested elections of directors increased the likelihood that
issuers will not meet quorum requirements? Would the availability of
less-costly means of communication with shareholders improve issuers'
ability to meet quorum requirements?
Do investors have legitimate privacy interests with
respect to the disclosure of their share ownership? In what ways would
an investor be harmed if his or her identity and the size of his or her
holdings are disclosed to issuers? Should an investor be able to
indicate that he or she does not wish to be contacted by an issuer? Do
broker-dealers or banks have legitimate commercial interests in keeping
the identities of their customers confidential? How should these
interests be balanced against an issuer's interest in identifying and
communicating with its investors? Is this balance different for
individual and institutional investors, and if so, would different
treatment in regard to OBO status be appropriate? Are there
technological solutions that would facilitate communication while
protecting the identities of shareholders?
Issuers have expressed interest in not only communicating
with shareholders, but also in identifying them. While these interests
can be complementary, is one more important than the other? Should any
regulatory changes that may be considered by the Commission emphasize
one over the other?
Are there merits to, or concerns about, establishing a
central beneficial owner data aggregator for use by issuers, as
suggested by the Shareholder Communications Coalition and as described
above?
Is competition in the proxy distribution service market
needed, and if so, what changes to facilitate issuers' communications
with investors would also encourage competition in the proxy
distribution service market?
Should we consider rules that would shift the cost of
distributing proxy materials to broker-dealers for customers who choose
to be objecting beneficial owners?
[[Page 43002]]
Do our rules adequately address how beneficial owners
elect objecting or non-objecting beneficial owner status when they open
their accounts? Should there be a requirement that beneficial owners'
account agreements adopt any specific election as the default choice?
If so, would it matter whether the Commission, FINRA, or the stock
exchanges imposed that requirement? Should the required default choice
be for objecting or non-objecting beneficial owner status? Are there
other ways in which default positions can be established for customers
of securities intermediaries? Should there be a standardized form for
customers to elect either NOBO or OBO status?
Should we or SROs instead, or in addition, consider
requiring securities intermediaries to provide informational materials
to their customers prior to allowing the customer to elect OBO or NOBO
status? What should be included in such informational materials, and
how frequently should investors be provided with such materials? Should
we consider requiring securities intermediaries to inform customers of
the reasons for and against choosing to disclose or shield their
identities?
Should a broker-dealer periodically request that customers
reaffirm their OBO/NOBO status selection? If so, how should the cost of
this periodic evaluation be allocated?
Should we consider revising our rules to require that
securities intermediaries provide an omnibus proxy to their underlying
beneficial owners and identify them to the issuer? If we were to
propose such a rule, should we limit it to granting proxies to NOBOs
since their identities are already available to issuers? How would such
a system address the way securities transactions are cleared and
settled?
What are the costs and benefits of the annual NOBO system
suggested by commentators? Would disclosure of all beneficial owners,
limited to information as of the record date of a shareholder meeting,
harm those investors (for example, would it reveal trading strategies
of those investors)? Would implementing the annual NOBO system
adversely affect any privacy interests of OBOs? As a practical matter,
would issuers be able to contact OBOs using this information for
subsequent shareholder meetings?
What problems might arise if issuers or their transfer
agents have greater access to or control of shareholder lists? How
could we provide for fair and efficient access to those lists by other
soliciting parties?
B. Means To Facilitate Retail Investor Participation
1. Background
As we seek to promote and facilitate shareholder voting in general,
we understand that the level of voting by retail investors is a
particular area of concern. Retail investor participation rates in the
proxy voting process historically have been low.\168\ Given the
importance of proxy voting, we view significant lack of participation
by retail investors in proxy voting as a source of concern, even in
companies in which retail share ownership represents a relatively small
portion of total voting power. We understand that this situation is not
limited to the U.S., as the level of voting by shareholders in other
jurisdictions has also caused concern.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ See Roundtable Briefing Paper, note 79, above.
\169\ See, e.g., Myners Report, note 15, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Potential Regulatory Responses
a. Investor Education
Commentators have indicated that there is confusion among investors
regarding the proxy voting process and the importance of voting.\170\
Investors accustomed to brokers voting their shares on their behalf may
be unaware that, as a result of the recent revisions to NYSE Rule 452,
brokers can no longer vote investors' shares in uncontested elections
of corporate directors without instructions from the investors. In
addition, many investors may be confused by the distinction between
record and beneficial ownership and how that may affect their voting
rights. These commentators have recommended the development of a
significant investor education campaign to inform investors about the
proxy voting process and the importance of voting as one way in which
communication and proxy voting could be improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ See Proxy Working Group Report, note 107, above, at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that improved investor education may help dispel some of
these potential misunderstandings and create interest in the voting
process. There are several ways in which we can enhance the educational
opportunities for investors. We recently created a new section on our
investor site, http://www.investor.gov, to provide educational
materials about proxy mechanics generally and the notice and access
model for the delivery of proxy materials. The new proxy matters
section can be found at http://www.investor.gov/proxy-matters.\171\ We
understand that a number of issuers and shareholder organizations have
provided links from their Web sites to these educational materials. In
addition, NYSE recently revised examples of letters containing the
information and instructions required to be given by NYSE members to
beneficial owners to inform beneficial owners that brokers are no
longer allowed to vote shares held by beneficial owners on uncontested
elections of directors, unless the beneficial owner has provided voting
instructions.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ The staff of the Commission initiated an educational
program on proxy voting matters for retail investors with the goal
of increasing investor awareness about the importance of
participating in director elections and other issues brought before
shareholders at annual and special meetings. A plain-language
``Spotlight on Proxy Matters page'' in question and answer format
was developed on the SEC Web site to explain proxy voting
procedures. In addition, the staff of our Office of Investor
Education and Advocacy has spoken before investor and issuer
organizations to promote the Web site material and to urge their
involvement in proxy voting educational programming. To date, this
ongoing effort has yielded more than 25,000 unique visits to the
Proxy Matters Web site and 1,430 references on Google. The staff
plans to continue and expand the education and outreach to retail
investors in preparation for the 2011 proxy season. As part of this
outreach program, we are exploring potential opportunities to link
proxy educational materials directly to online brokerage accounts
and other locations that may be visited frequently by retail
shareholders.
\172\ See Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change to Modify the Sample Broker Letters Set Forth
In Rule 451, Release No. 34-61046 (Nov. 20, 2009) [74 FR 62849].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another possible venue for investor education is issuers' Web sites
and brokers' Web sites. Many investors go to issuer Web sites to obtain
information about the issuers in which they invest, and an increasing
number of investors review their holdings and effect securities
transactions through their brokers' Web sites. More proxy-related
educational materials located on an issuer's or broker's Web site may
be helpful to investors. In addition, although some explanation of how
the proxy process works is often included on the back of the proxy card
(or on the VIF), that information can be difficult to read and is often
presented in small print. We are interested in whether improving the
presentation of information on the proxy card or VIF would have an
effect on voting participation.
Finally, we are interested in whether we should also consider the
scope, format, and content of the communications between brokers and
their customers that occur in connection with opening customers'
accounts. The account-opening process may be a good
[[Page 43003]]
opportunity to communicate important information about the shareholder
voting process.
b. Enhanced Brokers' Internet Platforms
As noted above, many investors use their brokers' Web sites as
``one-stop shopping'' for their investment needs. It is our
understanding, however, that many of these Web sites do not provide
information about upcoming corporate actions or enable retail investors
to use the same platform for proxy voting. Rather, many brokers hire a
third-party proxy service provider to handle the collection of voting
instructions. Therefore, those investors must go to a different Web
site, not run by the broker, in order to submit voting instructions to
their broker. We are interested in receiving views on whether receiving
notices of upcoming corporate votes and having the ability to access
proxy materials and a VIF through the investor's account page on the
broker's Web site would be helpful to investors. We also wish to
explore whether other communications from broker to customer could
encourage more active and better informed participation in the proxy
voting process.
c. Advance Voting Instructions
Some commentators have recommended that we adopt rules to
facilitate what has been called ``client-directed voting'' as a means
to increase investor participation in the voting process.\173\ In
general, this concept contemplates that brokers or other parties \174\
would solicit voting instructions from retail investors on particular
topics (e.g., election of directors, ratification of auditors, approval
of equity compensation plans, action on shareholder proposals) in
advance of their receiving the proxy materials from companies.\175\ The
advance voting instructions would then be applied to proxy cards or
VIFs related to the investors' securities holdings, unless the
investors changed those instructions. Investors would be able (but not
required) to instruct their securities intermediaries or other parties
to vote their shares in any number of ways, including the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ See Proxy Working Group Addendum, note 127, above. We use
the term ``advance voting instructions'' rather than ``client-
directed voting'' because we believe it more precisely identifies
the salient feature of this approach to shareholder voting.
\174\ Such parties could include proxy advisory firms or other
third parties offering voting platforms to facilitate voting by
retail investors.
\175\ As noted above, proxy advisory services sometimes submit
votes on behalf of their institutional investor clients pursuant to
the clients' proxy voting policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote shares in accordance with the board of directors'
recommendations;
Vote shares against the board of directors'
recommendations;
Vote shares related to particular types of proposals (for
example, shareholder proposals related to environmental or social
issues) consistent with recommendations issued by specified interest
groups, proxy advisory firms, investors, or voting policies;
Abstain from voting shares; or
Vote shares proportionally with the brokerage firm's
customers' instructed votes, or the instructed votes of its
institutional or retail customers only.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ See Proxy Working Group Addendum, note 127, above; see
also John Wilcox, Fixing the Problems with Client-Directed Voting,
March 5, 2010, available at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/03/05/fixing-the-problems-with-client-directed-voting/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The advance voting instructions would generally be given by the
investors at the time they sign their brokerage agreements or sign up
for the proxy voting service, or periodically thereafter, and would
always be revocable. Investors would also be able to change the advance
voting instructions at any time.
In connection with each proxy solicitation, investors who had given
advance voting instructions would receive a proxy card or VIF pre-
marked in accordance with those voting instructions, along with the
proxy materials required by the federal securities laws. Investors
could override any of the advanced voting instructions applicable to
that proxy solicitation by checking or clicking on an appropriate
election box before the vote is submitted. Absent instructions to the
contrary, the securities intermediary or other party would vote the
investor's shares in accordance with the advance voting instructions as
pre-marked on the proxy card or VIF.
In connection with the proposal to amend NYSE Rule 452,\177\ we
received several comment letters that discussed advance voting
instructions as an alternative to the NYSE Rule 452 amendment \178\ or
advocated that such voting instructions should be considered in
conjunction with the NYSE Rule 452 amendment.\179\ In the order
approving the NYSE Rule 452 amendment, we noted that advance voting
instructions raise a variety of questions and concerns, such as
requiring investors to make a voting decision in advance of receiving a
proxy statement containing the disclosures mandated under the federal
securities laws and possibly without consideration of the specific
issues to be voted upon.\180\ The Proxy Working Group also expressed
concern that advance voting instructions could act as a disincentive
for retail investors to vote after reviewing proxy materials if they
had already given such instructions.\181\ On the other hand, supporters
of advance voting instructions stated that the implementation of voting
based on such instructions could help issuers solve quorum problems,
encourage greater retail shareholder participation in the voting
process by making it easier for investors to vote, better permit
shareholders to exercise their franchise, and result in more discussion
and involvement between investors and their brokers on proxy
issues.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ On July 1, 2009, the Commission approved an amendment to
NYSE Rule 452 and Section 402.08 of the NYSE Listed Issuer Manual
that eliminated discretionary voting by brokers in uncontested
director elections. See Release No. 34-60215, note 11, above.
\178\ See comment letters from American Bar Association (``ABA
Letter''); American Business Conference; Agilent Technologies, Inc.;
Business Roundtable; United States Chamber of Commerce; Connecticut
Water; DTE Energy; First Financial Holdings, Inc.; Furniture Brands
International; General Electric; Intel Corporation; Jacksonville
Bancorp Inc.; McKesson Corporation; Monster Worldwide, Inc.; Nucor
Corporation; Provident Bank; Provident Financial Services, Inc.;
Quest Diagnostics Inc.; Synalloy Corporation; and Veeco Instruments
Inc to Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as modified by
Amendment No. 4, to Amend NYSE Rule 452 and Listed Company Manual
Section 402.08 to Eliminate Broker Discretionary Voting for the
Election of Directors and Codify Two Previously Published
Interpretations That Do Not Permit Broker Discretionary Votes for
Material Amendments to Investment Advisory Contracts, Release No.
34-59464 (Feb. 26, 2009), available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2006-92/nyse200692.shtml.
\179\ See comment letters from American Express; Society of
Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals (``Governance
Professionals Letter''); Honeywell; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; and
Shareholder Communications Coalition to Release No. 34-59464, note
178, above, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2006-92/nyse200692.shtml.
\180\ See Release No. 34-60215, note 11, above, at 34.
\181\ See Proxy Working Group Addendum, note 127, above, at 5.
\182\ Id. at 5-6. See also Governance Professionals Letter, note
179, above; ABA Letter, note 177, above; and Frank G. Zarb, Jr. and
John Endean, ``The Case for `Client Directed Voting,' '' Law 360
(Jan. 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we will continue to consider the advisability of allowing
third parties, such as broker-dealers, to solicit instructions
regarding the voting of shares by retail investors without the benefit
of information that is contained in disclosures that our rules require
in connection with shareholder votes, we recognize that facilitating
the use of advance voting instructions can be
[[Page 43004]]
viewed as providing retail investors with a component of the services
now made available to institutional investors by proxy advisory firms.
However, retail investors are not necessarily in the same position as
institutional investors. Some institutional investors rely upon pre-
developed voting policies and procedures to ensure consistency across
portfolios, to aid in post-vote monitoring and reporting, and otherwise
to comply with applicable fiduciary duties. Some retail shareholders
may not be as likely to monitor, or hire others to monitor, the
application of their advance voting instructions.
There is currently no applicable exemption for securities
intermediaries to solicit advance voting instructions from their
customers. Exchange Act Rule 14a-2(a)(1) provides an exemption from the
proxy solicitation rules to securities intermediaries when they forward
proxy materials on behalf of issuers and request voting
instructions.\183\ This exemption, however, requires securities
intermediaries to ``promptly furnish'' proxy materials to the person
solicited. By definition, brokers seeking to obtain advance voting
instructions from customers would not be able to satisfy this
requirement. In the absence of an applicable exemption for the
solicitation of advance voting instructions, Rule 14a-4(d) states that
no proxy shall confer authority to vote at any annual meeting other
than the next annual meeting after the date on which the form of proxy
is first sent.\184\ In addition, that rule prohibits a proxy from
granting authority to vote with respect to more than one meeting.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ 17 CFR 240.14a-2(a)(1).
\184\ 17 CFR 240.14a-4(d)(2).
\185\ 17 CFR 240.14a-4(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To pursue this alternative further, there are a number of issues
that would need to be considered. Advance voting instructions could be
solicited to varying levels of detail. For instance, such an
instruction could be very broad, such as ``vote consistent with
management's recommendations'' or ``vote consistent with the
recommendations of XYZ Environmental Group.'' The grant of such broad
authority could raise concerns about the extent to which the investor's
vote is an informed one. Greater specificity in a request for
instructions, however, could provide an investor with greater certainty
regarding what his or her instruction relates to. For example, an
instruction to ``vote consistent with [management's or other party's]
recommendations regarding corporate governance issues'' would provide
more certainty.
In addition, if we were to permit advance voting instructions, we
would need to address other issues including whether such instructions
should be re-affirmed on a periodic basis; whether they should apply to
the voting of shares of issuers that the investor did not own when the
original instructions were submitted; whether they should be re-
affirmed each time an investor purchases additional shares of an
issuer's stock for which that investor has already submitted voting
instructions; and whether brokers can seek from investors advance
voting instructions that vary by company.
We are interested in receiving views on whether permitting advance
voting instructions would increase retail investor participation in the
voting process, and on whether such instructions would be appropriate
as a general matter. If such instructions would increase retail
investor participation and would be appropriate, we are interested in
receiving views on any conditions or requirements that we should
consider applying to the solicitation of such instructions.
d. Investor-to-Investor Communications
We are interested in receiving views on whether investor interest
in matters presented to shareholders is affected by the extent to which
investors are able to communicate with other investors about their
opinions regarding matters up for a vote. It is our understanding that
there tends to be higher voting participation in situations that
involve increased communications and high investor interest, such as
well-publicized proxy contests. We have, in the past, adopted several
provisions designed to enhance shareholder communications between
investors and the issuer, as well as among investors, including:
Exempting communications with investors from the proxy
statement delivery and disclosure requirements where the soliciting
person is not seeking proxy authority and does not have, among other
things, a substantial interest in the matter (other than as an investor
in the issuer);\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ 17 CFR 240.14a-2(b)(1). The rule specifies certain
individuals and entities, such as affiliates of the registrant, that
are not entitled to rely on the exemption. Also, if the shareholder
owns more than $5 million of the registrant's securities, it must
furnish a Notice of Exempt Solicitation to the Commission. 17 CFR
240.14a-6(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permitting an investor to publicly announce how it intends
to vote and provide the reasons for that decision without having to
comply with the proxy rules;\187\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ 17 CFR 240.14a-1(l)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadening the types of communications that are
permissible prior to the distribution of a definitive proxy
statement.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ 17 CFR 240.14a-12; Regulation of Takeovers and Security
Holder Communications, Release No. 33-7760 (Oct. 22, 1999) [64 FR
61408].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in 2007, we adopted rules promoting the use of
electronic shareholder forums on the Internet for investor
communications.\189\ It is our understanding that such forums have not
been used extensively. We are interested in receiving views on whether,
if further steps are taken to facilitate informed discussion among
investors, the level of investor voting participation and informed
proxy voting would be likely to increase. In addition, we are
interested in receiving views on whether any additional forums for
shareholder-to-shareholder communications would be helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ See Release No. 34-57172, note 3, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Improving the Use of the Internet for Distribution of Proxy
Materials
In 2007, we amended the proxy rules to adopt a ``notice and access
model.'' \190\ This model provides issuers with two options for making
their proxy materials available: the ``notice-only option'' \191\ and
the ``full set delivery option.'' Under the notice-only option, the
issuer must post its proxy materials on a publicly-accessible Web site
and send a notice to shareholders at least 40 days before the
shareholder meeting date to inform them of the electronic availability
of the proxy materials, and explain how to access those materials.\192\
Under this option, an issuer must also provide paper or e-mail copies
of proxy materials at no charge to shareholders who request such
copies.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ See Notice and Access Release, note 2, above.
\191\ The notice and access model is a concept separate from,
but complementary to, electronic delivery. The notice and access
model permits an issuer (or a securities intermediary at the
direction of the issuer) to deliver a notice (typically in paper)
informing shareholders that proxy materials are available on the
Internet in lieu of sending a full paper set of proxy materials.
Electronic delivery, on the other hand, arises from our guidance in
Release No. 33-7233, note 32, above. In that release, we explained
that delivery of materials (including proxy materials) may be made
electronically under certain circumstances, including if a
shareholder has provided affirmative consent to electronic delivery.
An issuer or securities intermediary may send this notice
electronically to a shareholder if that shareholder has
affirmatively consented to electronic delivery.
\192\ See 17 CFR 240.14a-16; Notice and Access Release, note 2,
above.
\193\ 17 CFR 240.14a-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issuers may also select the ``full set delivery'' option, where the
issuer
[[Page 43005]]
delivers a full set of proxy materials to shareholders, along with the
Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials on a Web site, and
posts the proxy materials to a publicly-accessible Web site.\194\ An
issuer may use the notice-only option to provide proxy materials to
some shareholders, and the full set delivery option to provide proxy
materials to other shareholders.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Id. The issuer may elect to include all of the information
required to appear in the Notice in the proxy statement and proxy
card. Id.
\195\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been suggested that our adoption of rules permitting the
dissemination of proxy materials through a ``notice and access'' model
has contributed to a decline in retail investor participation in
voting. We believe that it is difficult to conclude, based on existing
data, that notice and access has caused changes in voter participation.
To be sure, the number of retail accounts submitting voting
instructions when issuers use the notice-only option is lower than the
number of retail accounts submitting voting instructions when issuers
use the full-set delivery option. The number of retail shares being
voted, however, does not appear to differ substantially.\196\ More
importantly, because issuers can elect whether to use the notice-only
model, it is difficult to discern whether patterns in voting behavior
are due to notice and access or to other factors. Issuers who choose
the notice-only model may differ from other issuers in ways that may
also correlate with voter participation, such as size or other
characteristics. Some issuers have chosen a hybrid model, continuing to
distribute full packages of proxy solicitation materials to selected
shareholders based on the size of their holdings or their voting
histories,\197\ suggesting that these issuers may believe that full-set
delivery affects voter participation in some cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ See Broadridge, Notice and Access: 2010 Statistical
Overview of Use with Beneficial Shareholders, available at http://www.broadridge.com/notice-and-access/FY10_full_year.pdf (``2010
Broadridge Statistical Overview''). This report indicates that,
during the 2009 and 2010 proxy seasons, 31.95% and 27.29%,
respectively, of retail shares were voted at issuers not using
notice and access, while 28.70% and 31.01%, respectively of retail
shares were voted at issuers using notice and access. On the other
hand, 19.39% and 19.21%, respectively, of retail accounts were voted
at issuers not using notice and access, while 12.72% and 13.85%,
respectively, of retail accounts were voted at issuers using notice
and access.
\197\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another possible option to encourage shareholder participation,
while still allowing issuers to use the notice-only option, would be to
permit the inclusion of a proxy card or VIF with the Notice of Internet
Availability of Proxy Materials when an issuer or other soliciting
shareholder elects to use the notice-only option under the notice and
access model for the delivery of proxy materials. Currently, Exchange
Act Rule 14a-16 explicitly prohibits the soliciting party from
including a proxy card or VIF with the Notice in the same mailing.\198\
Although we initially proposed a model that would have allowed
soliciting parties to include a proxy card or VIF with the Notice, we
ultimately adopted a rule that prohibited the inclusion of the proxy
card or VIF and noted commentators' concerns that ``physically
separating the card from the proxy statement, as originally proposed,
may lead to the type of uninformed voting that the proxy rules are
intended to prevent.'' \199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ 17 CFR 240.14a-16(e). A proxy card or VIF may be included
with a Notice if at least 10 days have passed since the date a
Notice was first sent to shareholders. 17 CFR 240.14a-16(h)(1).
\199\ Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, Release No. 34-
55146 (Jan. 22, 2007) [72 FR 4148] at 4153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Request for Comment
With respect to investor education, we ask the following questions:
To what extent should we take additional steps to
encourage retail investor participation in the proxy process?
To what extent would greater use of plain English, some
form of summary of proxy materials, or layered formats in Web-based
disclosure make proxy materials more accessible to retail investors?
To what extent are retail voter participation levels
affected by process-related impediments to participation? If affected
by impediments, what are they and should we seek to remove them? What
costs and benefits are associated with efforts to increase
participation?
Would additional investor education improve retail
investor participation in the proxy process? How could such a program
best reach both registered owners and beneficial owners? What would be
the benefits and costs of such a program? What should be in the
educational materials and who should decide what goes in them?
Should brokers more clearly highlight and disclose key
policies, including a shareholder's voting rights and default
positions, such as OBO/NOBO, when a customer enters into a brokerage
agreement? Should brokers provide counseling to potential customers to
enhance understanding of such provisions in the brokerage agreement?
When a customer enters into a brokerage agreement, should brokers be
required to obtain the preferences of the client regarding whether to
receive proxy materials electronically, and inform issuers of that
election automatically when securities of that issuer are purchased?
What role should the Commission play in promoting or
developing the education campaign? How can the SEC's investor education
Web sites be made more useful? For example, should the Web site provide
interactive instruction?
With respect to enhanced issuers' and brokers' Internet platforms,
we ask the following questions:
Would an issuer's Web site or a broker's Web site be a
useful location for investor educational information? Are there other
methods to effectively educate investors? What would be the costs and
benefits of requiring issuers or securities intermediaries to include
such information on their Web sites?
Should issuers or brokers enhance their Web sites, if they
have one, to provide the issuers' shareholders or the brokers'
customers, respectively, with the ability to receive notices of
upcoming corporate votes, to access proxy materials and to vote shares
through their personal account pages? What would be the costs of such a
system? Would adding this service for investors make them more likely
to vote? To what extent do issuers and brokers currently provide such
functionality on their Web sites?
Should we encourage the creation of inexpensive or free
proxy voting platforms that would provide retail investors with access
to proxy research, vote recommendations, and vote execution? If so,
how?
With respect to advance voting instructions, we ask the following
questions:
Should we consider allowing securities intermediaries to
solicit voting instructions in advance of distribution of proxy
materials pursuant to an exemption from the proxy solicitation rules?
Should there be any conditions on any such exemption, and if so, what
should they be?
To what extent would voting instructions made without the
benefit of proxy materials result in less informed voting decisions?
Are there countervailing benefits to permitting the solicitation of
such instructions? To what extent does the revocability of advance
voting instructions mitigate concerns over less informed voting
decisions?
With regard to the use of advance voting instructions, are
retail investors at a disadvantage as compared to institutional
investors that use the
[[Page 43006]]
services of a proxy advisory firm? If so, how? Are there aspects of the
services and relationship between proxy advisory firms and their
clients that would not exist between securities intermediaries
soliciting advance voting instructions and their customers? If so, how
should these differences be addressed, if at all?
If such solicitation of advance voting instructions were
permitted, what level of specificity should the solicitation of
advanced voting instructions be required (or permitted) to have? Is it
appropriate to permit the solicitation of a broad scope of voting
authority?
Should we allow the solicitation by securities
intermediaries of advance voting instructions for all types of proxy
proposals, or should it be limited to certain types of proposals? For
example, should we permit solicitation of advance voting instructions
with respect to shareholder proposals, proxy contests, or proposals
subject to ``vote no'' campaigns?
If solicitation of advance voting instructions were
permitted, should the investor be permitted to instruct the securities
intermediary to vote in accordance with the recommendations of
management, a proxy advisory firm, or other specified persons? How
neutral or balanced should the solicitation of advance voting
instructions be?
If we were to allow the solicitation of advance voting
instructions, should we require an investor to reaffirm its voting
instructions periodically? If so, how often? Should we require an
investor to reaffirm its voting instructions every time it purchases
additional shares of a stock for which that investor has already
submitted a voting instruction, or when it purchases shares of a new
issuer?
If we were to allow advance voting instructions, what
would be an appropriate range of options available to an investor?
Should advance voting instructions only be permitted when the investor
has meaningful options from which to choose?
How difficult would it be to obtain advance voting
instructions from existing brokerage customers? What would be the costs
of obtaining advance voting instructions for existing accounts? Who
should bear the costs of soliciting such instructions?
If we were to allow the solicitation of advance voting
instructions, would it undermine or promote the purpose of the recent
amendment to NYSE Rule 452 to prohibit brokers from voting uninstructed
shares in uncontested elections of directors?
With respect to investor-to-investor communications, we ask the
following questions:
To what extent are investor interest in matters presented
to shareholders and investor voting participation affected by the lack
of investor-to-investor communications regarding those matters?
Have electronic shareholder forums been used extensively?
Are there any revisions to Rule 14a-2(b)(6), which currently provides
an exemption for electronic shareholder forums, that would make it
easier to establish such forums? For example, is there a way for an
entity establishing an electronic shareholder forum to confirm the
shareholder status of participants on the forum? If a securities
intermediary provides information, such as a control number, to enable
such confirmation, should precautions be taken to ensure that personal
information about those investors is not disclosed?
Should we consider revising the electronic shareholder
forum rules to shorten the 60-day period to promote more shareholder-
to-shareholder communication closer to the meeting date? If so, what
would be an appropriate time period?
Are there any other new rules or revisions to existing
rules that would facilitate communications among investors? If so, what
would those revisions be?
Would any additional guidance regarding the scope of our
rules and definitions, such as the definition of the term
``solicitation,'' improve the extent and quality of investor
participation in the proxy voting process?
With respect to possible revisions to the notice and access model,
we ask the following questions:
Should we consider requiring that companies using a
``notice and access'' model for distributing proxy materials use that
model on a stratified basis to encourage retail voting participation?
For example, should we require that issuers send full sets of proxy
materials to shareholders who have voted on paper in the past two
years?
Should we consider amending our rules to permit inclusion
of a proxy card or VIF with a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy
Materials?
Are there other changes that we can make to the notice and
access model to improve voting participation? For example, should we
require affirmative consent from a shareholder before an issuer is
allowed to send that customer only a Notice of Internet Availability of
Proxy Materials? Should we eliminate the notice and access model
altogether?
C. Data-Tagging Proxy-Related Materials
1. Background
Issuers soliciting proxies are required to distribute a proxy
statement \200\ and to disclose the results of shareholder votes within
four business days after the end of the meeting at which the vote was
held.\201\ Funds are generally required to disclose annually on Form N-
PX \202\ how they vote proxies relating to portfolio securities.\203\
In the discussion below, we address whether this information could be
organized and made available to investors in ways that might enhance
the level and quality of shareholder participation in the proxy voting
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ The proxy statement must include the information required
by Schedule 14A of the Exchange Act. [17 CFR 240.14a-101] The
Commission's rules also generally require issuers not soliciting
proxies from shareholders entitled to vote on a matter to distribute
an information statement that must include the similar information
required by Schedule 14C of the Exchange Act [17 CFR 240.14c-101].
Accordingly, the data-tagging discussion in this Section IV.C
relates to the information required by Schedule 14C in the same
manner it relates to corresponding information required by Schedule
14A.
\201\ Item 5.07 of Form 8-K [referenced in 17 CFR 249.308].
\202\ 17 CFR 274.129. See Section III.C, above, for a further
discussion of Form N-PX.
\203\ In this Section IV.C, we use the term ``proxy statement
and voting information'' to refer collectively to the information
required by Schedule 14A, Schedule 14C, Item 5.07 of Form 8-K and
Form N-PX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, as part of our longstanding efforts to increase
transparency in general and the usefulness of information in
particular, we began an initiative to assess the benefits of
interactive data \204\ and its potential for improving the timeliness,
accuracy, and analysis of financial and other filed information.\205\
Data becomes interactive when it is labeled, or ``tagged,'' using a
computer markup language that can be processed by software for
analysis. Such computer markup languages use standard sets of
definitions, or ``taxonomies,'' that translate text-based information
in Commission filings into interactive data that can be retrieved,
searched, and analyzed through automated means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ In this Section IV.C, we generally refer to ``tagged
data'' as ``interactive data'' because users are able to interact
with the data by processing it.
\205\ See Press Release No. 2004-97 (July 22, 2004), available
at http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-97.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our efforts regarding interactive data thus far have resulted in
our adoption of rules that, in general, currently or ultimately will
require:
Public issuers, including foreign private issuers, to
provide their financial statements to the Commission and on their
corporate Web sites, if any,
[[Page 43007]]
in interactive data format using eXtensible Business Reporting Language
(``XBRL''); \206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ Interactive Data to Improve Financial Reporting, Release
No. 33-9002 (Jan. 30, 2009) [74 FR 6776] as corrected by Interactive
Data to Improve Financial Reporting, Release No. 33-9002A (Apr. 1,
2009) [74 FR 15666]. Issuers that are or will be required to provide
their financial statements in interactive data format using XBRL are
permitted to provide such interactive data before they are required
to do so. Funds are permitted to provide financial information in
interactive data format using XBRL as an exhibit to certain filings
in our electronic filing system under a voluntary filer program that
initially was implemented in 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mutual funds \207\ to provide the risk/return summary
section of their prospectuses to the Commission and on their Web sites,
if any, in XBRL format; \208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ In this Section IV.C, we use the term ``mutual fund'' to
mean an open-end management investment company. An open-end
management investment company is an investment company, other than a
unit investment trust or face-amount certificate company, which
offers for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which
it is the issuer. See Sections 4 and 5(a)(1) of the Investment
Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-4 and 80a-5(a)(1)].
\208\ Interactive Data for Mutual Fund Risk/Return Summary,
Release No. 33-9006 (Feb. 11, 2009) [74 FR 7748] as corrected by
Interactive Data for Mutual Fund Risk/Return Summary; Correction,
Release No. 33-9006A (May 1, 2009) [74 FR 21255]. Mutual funds are
permitted to provide their risk/return summary information in
interactive data format (using XBRL) before they are required to do
so. The public companies, foreign private issuers and mutual funds
permitted or required to provide financial statement or risk/return
summary information in interactive data format are required to
continue to provide the information in traditional format as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating agencies to provide certain ratings information on
their Web sites in XBRL format; \209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical
Rating Organizations, Release No. 34-61050 (Nov. 23, 2009) [74 FR
63832] and Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical
Rating Organizations, Release No. 34-59342 (Feb. 2, 2009) [74 FR
6456].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Money market funds to provide portfolio holdings
information to the Commission in interactive data format using
eXtensible Markup Language (``XML''); \210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ Money Market Fund Reform, Release No. IC-29132 (Feb. 23,
2010) [75 FR 10060]. The XBRL format is compatible with and derives
from the XML format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer agents to provide registration, activity and
withdrawal information to the Commission in XML format; \211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ Electronic Filing of Transfer Agent Forms, Release No. 34-
54864 (Dec. 4, 2006) [71 FR 74698].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issuers to provide notice of Regulation D \212\ exempt
offering information to the Commission in XML format \213\ or through
the Commission's online forms Web site that tags the information in
XML; \214\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ 17 CFR 230.501-508.
\213\ See EDGAR Form D XML Technical Specification (Version
7.4.0), available at http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/formdxmltechspec.htm.
\214\ Electronic Filing and Revision of Form D, Release No. 33-
8891 (Feb. 6, 2008) [73 FR 10592].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officers, directors, and principal owners to provide
beneficial ownership information under Section 16(a) of the Exchange
Act \215\ to the Commission in XML format \216\ or through the
Commission's online forms Web site that tags the information in
XML.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ 15 U.S.C. 78p(a).
\216\ See EDGAR Ownership XML Technical Specification (Version
3), available at http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/ownershipxmltechspec.htm.
\217\ Mandated Electronic Filing and Web Site Posting for Forms
3, 4 and 5, Release No. 33-8230 (May 7, 2003) [68 FR 25788].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, proxy statement and voting information is neither
required nor permitted to be provided to the Commission in interactive
data format. As a result, shareholders cannot retrieve, search, and use
this information through automated means in the form in which it is
provided to the Commission.
2. Potential Regulatory Responses
We are interested in receiving views on whether it would be
beneficial to investors to permit or require issuers, including funds,
to provide proxy statement and voting information in interactive data
format in addition to the traditional format. We are also interested in
understanding the costs of providing additional tagged information. A
significant amount of the textual data in the proxy statement is well-
structured and may be suitable for data tagging. If issuers provided
reportable items in interactive data format, shareholders may be able
to more easily obtain specific information about issuers, compare
information across different issuers, and observe how issuer-specific
information changes over time as the same issuer continues to file in
an interactive data format. This could both facilitate more informed
voting and investment decisions and assist in automating regulatory
filings and business information processing.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ We anticipate that any interactive data format version of
the information permitted or required would not replace the
traditional format version, at least not initially. In general,
interactive data currently is machine-readable only. Without the use
of software, interactive data is illegible to the human eye. As a
result, we expect that any interactive data would be provided in a
separate schedule or exhibit. It is possible, however, that at some
point in the future technology will evolve in a manner that would
permit human-readable text and interactive data to appear in the
same document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under our current rules, issuers are permitted or required to
provide specified information in interactive data format only as
described above. We have, however, previously considered, and sought
comment on, permitting or requiring interactive data for other types of
information in XBRL or another format.\219\ Most recently, in the 2008
release proposing the required filing of financial statements in XBRL
format,\220\ we expanded upon our 2006 request for comment on making
executive compensation information available in interactive data
format.\221\ In the 2008 release, we did not propose permitting or
requiring interactive data for executive compensation, but asked a
series of questions related to whether we should. As noted in the 2009
release adopting the financial statement XBRL requirements, some
commentators supported the idea of eventually tagging non-financial
statement information such as executive compensation because of its
usefulness to investors,\222\ while others expressed concern that
variations among issuers in executive compensation practices may not
lend themselves to the development of standard tags and suggested that
any tagging be voluntary rather than required.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ With regard to format, we solicited comment in our 2004
interactive data concept release regarding the ability of
interactive data to add value to Commission filings, whether in XBRL
or another interactive data format. Enhancing Commission Filings
Through the Use of Tagged Data, Release No. 33-8497 (Sept. 27, 2004)
[69 FR 59111].
\220\ Interactive Data to Improve Financial Reporting, Release
No. 33-8924 (May 30, 2008) [73 FR 32794].
\221\ Executive Compensation and Related Party Disclosure,
Release No. 33-8655 (Jan. 27, 2006) [71 FR 6542]. In 2007, as
further discussed below, our staff used XBRL to tag Summary
Compensation Table data provided by large filers and created
rendering software that enabled investors to not only view
compensation information but also manually calculate compensation
and compare compensation across companies. The software was called
the Executive Compensation Reader. We made these efforts to show how
interactive data might provide investors with easier and faster
analysis. SEC Press Release 2007-268 (Dec. 21, 2007).
\222\ See, e.g., comment letter to Release No. 33-9002, note
206, above, from California Public Employees' Retirement System.
\223\ See, e.g., comment letters to Release 33-9002, note 206,
above, from American Bar Association, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer,
General Mills, and Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance
Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with our efforts to improve communication in the
proxy context, we are interested in receiving views on whether we
should reconsider whether to permit or require proxy statement and
voting information to be provided in interactive data format.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ Our solicitation of comment regarding providing proxy
statement and voting information in interactive data format is
consistent with the Resolution on Tag Data for Proxy and Vote
Filings adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission Investor
Advisory Committee. See http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/invadvcomm/iacproposedresproxyvotingtrans.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43008]]
3. Request for Comment
Should we permit issuers, including funds, to provide
proxy statement and voting information to the Commission and on their
corporate Web sites, if any, in an interactive data format? If so, are
there benefits to one tagging language (e.g., XBRL) over another? \225\
Should we require issuers to provide such information to the Commission
and on their corporate Web sites, if any, in an interactive data
format? Should we also permit or require the tagging of executive
compensation information even if it is not in the proxy statement, but
rather, in the annual report on Form 10-K? \226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ Currently, there apparently is no standard set of XBRL
definitions, or ``taxonomy,'' available to enable an issuer to
provide proxy statement and voting information or any subset of such
information in XBRL format. XBRL US, however, is developing a
taxonomy for at least some information a proxy statement requires.
See http://xbrl.us/Learn/Pages/Initiatives.aspx (``Broadridge
Financial Solutions contributed a proxy taxonomy to XBRL US in Q4
2008. XBRL US will incorporate the taxonomy into a master digital
dictionary of terms.'').
\226\ 17 CFR 249.310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there any other types of information for which we
should permit or require tagging in order to improve the efficiency and
quality of proxy voting? For example, should we permit or require
tagging of information contained in proxy statements filed by non-
management parties?
If we permit or require interactive data for the
information contained in a proxy statement, should we permit or require
it for only a subset of that information, such as executive
compensation,\227\ director experience \228\ and other
directorships,\229\ transactions with related persons,\230\ or
corporate governance? \231\ Should we permit or require it for only a
subset of executive compensation information, such as the Summary
Compensation Table,\232\ Director Compensation Table,\233\ Outstanding
Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End Table,\234\ or Compensation Discussion
and Analysis? \235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ As we noted in Release No. 33-8924, note 220, above, there
was substantial interest in financial Web pages that linked to the
Executive Compensation Reader that temporarily was posted on our Web
site beginning in late 2007. The Executive Compensation Reader
displayed the Summary Compensation Table disclosure of 500 large
companies that followed the executive compensation rules adopted in
2006 in reporting 2006 compensation information in their proxy
statements filed with the Commission. By using the reader, an
investor could view amounts included in the Summary Compensation
Table Stock Awards and Option Awards columns based on either the
full grant date fair value of the awards granted during the fiscal
year, or the compensation cost of awards recognized for financial
statement reporting purposes with respect to the fiscal year, and
recalculate the Total Compensation column accordingly.
\228\ Item 401(e)(1) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR 229.401(e)(1)].
\229\ Item 401(e)(2) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR 229.401(e)(2)].
\230\ Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR 229.404(a)].
\231\ Item 407 of Regulation S-K [17 CFR 229.407].
\232\ Items 402(c) and 402(n) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR
229.402(c) and 402(n)].
\233\ Items 402(k) and 402(r) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR
229.402(k) and 402(r)].
\234\ Items 402(f) and 402(p) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR
229.402(f) and 402(p)].
\235\ Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR 229.402(b)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it be useful to investors for issuers to provide
their proxy statement and voting information, or some subset of that
information, in interactive data format? If so, would it be useful for
issuers to provide the information both to the Commission and on their
corporate Web sites, if any? Would data-tagging enable investors to
access proxy information more easily or to compare information
regarding different issuers and/or changes in information over time
with respect to a specific issuer or a set of issuers? Would this
ability result in better informed voting decisions? For insance, should
officer and director identities be tagged and linked to their unique
Commission Central Index Key (CIK) identifier, which would enable
investors to more easily determine whether they have relationships with
other Commission filers? Would investors benefit if governance
attributes, such as board leadership structure \236\ and director
independence, were tagged? \237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ Item 407(h) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR 229.407(h)].
\237\ Item 407(a) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR 229.407(a)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would requiring issuers to provide proxy statements and
voting information in interactive data format assist issuers in
automating their business information processing?
Approximately how much would it cost issuers to provide
each of the following in interactive data format:
All information contained in a proxy statement;
Executive compensation information only; and
Voting information disclosed pursuant to Item 5.07 of
Form 8-K or Form N-PX?
With respect to cost, would it be preferable to defer any
requirement to tag proxy-related materials until the issuer has been
fully phased-in to the financial statement interactive data
requirements, or would it be relatively easy to accomplish the tagging
of proxy-related materials before, or at the same time as, becoming
subject to the financial statement requirements?
Is it feasible for funds to tag Form N-PX in a manner that
provides for uniform identification of each matter voted (e.g., for
every fund to assign the same tag to the election of directors at XYZ
Corporation) if issuers of portfolio securities do not themselves
create these tags by tagging their proxy statements? What alternatives
exist, other than having issuers of portfolio securities tag their
proxy statements and assign tags to each matter on their proxy
statements, that could result in uniform tags being assigned by all
funds on Form N-PX to each corporate matter? What would be the costs
associated with those alternatives?
Whether or not we permit or require interactive data
tagging, should Form N-PX require standardized reporting formats so
that comparisons between funds are easier?
Should persons other than the issuer be required to file
proxy materials in interactive data format?
How will retail investors have access to interactive data/
XBRL software that will enable them to take advantage of interactive
data formats?
V. Relationship Between Voting Power and Economic Interest
As discussed below, investor and issuer confidence in the
legitimacy of shareholder voting may be based on the belief that,
except as expressly agreed otherwise, shareholders entitled to vote in
the election of directors and other matters have a residual economic
(or equity) interest in the company that is commensurate with their
voting rights. To the extent that votes are cast by persons lacking
such an economic interest in the company, confidence in the proxy
system could be undermined. This section examines the possibility of
misalignment of voting power in general and three areas in which
concerns have been expressed about whether our regulations play a role
in the misalignment of voting power from economic interest: The
increasingly important role of proxy advisory firms; the impediments in
our rules to allowing issuers to set voting record dates that more
closely match the date on which voting actually occurs; and hedging and
other strategies that allow the voting rights of equity securities to
be held or controlled by persons without an equivalent economic
interest in the company.
[[Page 43009]]
A. Proxy Advisory Firms
1. The Role and Legal Status of Proxy Advisory Firms
Over the last twenty-five years, institutional investors, including
investment advisers, pension plans, employee benefit plans, bank trust
departments and funds, have substantially increased their use of proxy
advisory firms, reflecting the tremendous growth in institutional
investment as well as the fact that, in many cases, institutional
investors have fiduciary obligations to vote the shares they hold on
behalf of their beneficiaries.\238\ Institutional investors typically
own securities positions in a large number of issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\ See, e.g., GAO Report to Congress, Corporate Shareholder
Meetings--Issues Relating to Firms That Advise Institutional
Investors on Proxy Voting (June 2007) (``GAO Report'') at 6-7
(attributing the growth in the use of proxy voting advisers, in
part, to the Commission's recognition of fiduciary obligations
associated with voting proxies by registered investment advisers and
its adoption of the proxy voting Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-6(17 CFR
275.206(4)-6), requiring registered investment advisers to ``adopt
and implement written policies and procedures that are reasonably
designed to ensure that you vote client securities in the best
interest of clients, which procedures must include how you address
material conflicts that may arise between your interests and those
of your clients'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every year, at shareholders' meetings, these investors face
decisions on how to vote their shares on a significant number of
matters, ranging from the election of directors and the approval of
stock option plans to shareholder proposals submitted under Exchange
Act Rule 14a-8,\239\ which often raise significant policy questions and
corporate governance issues. At special meetings of shareholders,
investors also face voting decisions when a merger or acquisition or a
sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the company is
presented to them for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ 17 CFR 240.14a-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to assist them in exercising their voting rights on
matters presented to shareholders, institutional investors may retain
proxy advisory firms to perform a variety of functions, including the
following:
Analyzing and making voting recommendations on the matters
presented for shareholder vote and included in the issuers' proxy
statements;
Executing votes on the institutional investors' proxies or
VIFs in accordance with the investors' instructions, which may include
voting the shares in accordance with a customized proxy voting policy
resulting from consultation between the institutional investor and the
proxy advisory firm, the proxy advisory firm's proxy voting policies,
or the institution's own voting policy;
Assisting with the administrative tasks associated with
voting and keeping track of the large number of voting decisions;
Providing research and identifying potential risk factors
related to corporate governance; and
Helping mitigate conflict of interest concerns raised when
the institutional investor is casting votes in a matter in which its
interest may differ from the interest of its clients.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ See Proxy Voting by Investment Advisers, Release No. IA-
2106 (Jan. 31, 2003) at text accompanying note 25 (stating that an
adviser could demonstrate that the vote was not a product of a
conflict of interest if it voted client securities, in accordance
with a pre-determined policy, based upon the recommendations of an
independent third party).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firms that are in the business of supplying these services to
clients for compensation--in particular, analysis of and
recommendations for voting on matters presented for a shareholder
vote--are widely known as proxy advisory firms.\241\ Institutional
clients compensate proxy advisory firms on a fee basis for providing
such services, and proxy advisory firms typically represent that their
analysis and recommendations are prepared with a view toward maximizing
long-term share value or the investment goals of the institutional
client.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ E.g., GAO Report, note 238, above, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issuers may also be consumers of the services provided by some
proxy advisory firms. Some proxy advisory firms provide consulting
services to issuers on corporate governance or executive compensation
matters, such as assistance in developing proposals to be submitted for
shareholder approval. Some proxy advisory firms also qualitatively rate
or score issuers' corporate governance structures, policies, and
practices,\242\ and provide consulting services to corporate clients
seeking to improve their corporate governance ratings. As a result,
some proxy advisory firms provide vote recommendations to institutional
investors on matters for which they also provided consulting services
to the issuer. Some proxy advisory firms disclose these dual client
relationships; others also have opted to attempt to address the
conflict through the creation of ``fire walls'' between the investor
and corporate lines of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\242\ For example, The RiskMetrics Group (``RiskMetrics'')
publishes ``governance risk indicators.'' Information on these
ratings is available at http://www.riskmetrics.com/GRId-info. Proxy
advisory firms are not the only types of businesses that offer
corporate governance ratings or scores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depending on their activities, proxy advisory firms may be subject
to the federal securities laws in at least two notable respects. First,
because of the breadth of the definition of ``solicitation,'' \243\
proxy advisory firms may be subject to our proxy rules because they
provide recommendations that are reasonably calculated to result in the
procurement, withholding, or revocation of a proxy. As a general
matter, the furnishing of proxy voting advice constitutes a
``solicitation'' subject to the information and filing requirements in
the proxy rules.\244\ In 1979, however, we adopted Exchange Act Rule
14a-2(b)(3) \245\ to exempt the furnishing of proxy voting advice by
any advisor to any other person with whom the advisor has a business
relationship from the informational and filing requirements of the
federal proxy rules, provided certain conditions are met.\246\
Specifically, the advisor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ Exchange Act Rule 14a-1(l)(iii) [17 CFR 240.14a-1(l)(iii)]
defines the solicitation of proxies to include ``[t]he furnishing of
a form of proxy or other communication to security holders under
circumstances reasonably calculated to result in the procurement,
withholding or revocation of a proxy.''
\244\ See Shareholder Communications, Shareholder Participation
in the Corporate Electoral Process and Corporate Governance
Generally, Release No. 34-16104 (Aug. 13, 1979) at note 25. Of
course, the issue of whether or not a particular communication
constitutes a solicitation depends both upon the specific nature and
content of the communication and the circumstances under which it is
transmitted. See Broker-Dealer Participation in Proxy Solicitations,
Release No. 34-7208 (Jan. 7, 1964).
\245\ 17 CFR 240.14a-2(b)(3).
\246\ See Shareholder Communications and Shareholder
Participation in the Corporate Electoral Process and Corporate
Governance Generally, Release No. 34-16356 (Nov. 21, 1979) [44 FR
68769]. In 1992, the Commission confirmed that the Rule 14a-2(b)(3)
exemption is available to proxy advisory firms that render only
proxy voting advice. See Regulation of Communications Among
Shareholders, Release No. 34-31326 (Oct. 16, 1992) [57 FR 48276], at
note 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Must render financial advice in the ordinary course of its
business;
Must disclose to the person any significant relationship
it has with the issuer or any of its affiliates, or with a shareholder
proponent of the matter on which advice is given, in addition to any
material interest of the advisor in the matter to which the advice
relates;
May not receive any special commission or remuneration for
furnishing the proxy voting advice from anyone other than the
recipients of the advice; and
May not furnish proxy voting advice on behalf of any
person soliciting proxies.
Even if exempt from the informational and filing requirements of
the federal
[[Page 43010]]
proxy rules, the furnishing of proxy voting advice remains subject to
the prohibition on false and misleading statements in Rule 14a-9.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ 17 CFR 240.14a-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, when proxy advisory firms provide certain services, they
meet the definition of investment adviser under the Advisers Act and
thus are subject to regulation under that Act. A person is an
``investment adviser'' if the person, for compensation, engages in the
business of providing advice to others as to the value of securities,
whether to invest in, purchase, or sell securities, or issues reports
or analyses concerning securities.\248\ As described above, proxy
advisory firms receive compensation for providing voting
recommendations and analysis on matters submitted for a vote at
shareholder meetings. These matters may include shareholder proposals,
elections for boards of directors, or corporate actions such as
mergers. We understand that typically proxy advisory firms represent
that they provide their clients with advice designed to enable
institutional clients to maximize the value of their investments. In
other words, proxy advisory firms provide analyses of shareholder
proposals, director candidacies or corporate actions and provide advice
concerning particular votes in a manner that is intended to assist
their institutional clients in achieving their investment goals with
respect to the voting securities they hold. In that way, proxy advisory
firms meet the definition of investment adviser because they, for
compensation, engage in the business of issuing reports or analyses
concerning securities and providing advice to others as to the value of
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ Advisers Act Section 202(a)(11) [15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11)].
Sections 202(a)(11)(A) through (G) of the Advisers Act address
exclusions to the definition of the term ``investment adviser.'' [15
U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11)(A)-(G)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court has construed Section 206 of the Advisers Act as
establishing a federal fiduciary standard governing the conduct of
investment advisers.\249\ The Court stated that ``[t]he Advisers Act of
1940 reflects a congressional recognition of the delicate fiduciary
nature of an investment advisory relationship as well as a
congressional intent to eliminate, or at least to expose, all conflicts
of interest which might incline an investment adviser--consciously or
unconsciously--to render advice which was not disinterested.'' \250\ As
investment advisers, proxy advisory firms owe fiduciary duties to their
advisory clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S.
11, 17 (1979); SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S.
180, 191-192 (1963).
\250\ Capital Gains, 375 U.S. at 191-192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Section 206 of the Advisers Act,\251\ the antifraud
provision, applies to any person that meets the definition of
investment adviser, regardless of whether that person is registered
with the Commission. Section 206(1) of the Advisers Act prohibits an
investment adviser from ``employ[ing] any device, scheme, or artifice
to defraud any client or prospective client.'' \252\ Section 206(2)
prohibits an investment adviser from engaging in ``any transaction,
practice or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit on
any client or prospective client.'' \253\ As we stated recently, the
Commission has authority under Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act to
adopt rules ``reasonably designed to prevent, such acts, practices, and
courses of business as are fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative.''
\254\ Congress gave the Commission this authority to, among other
things, address the ``question as to the scope of the fraudulent and
deceptive activities which are prohibited [by Section 206],'' \255\ and
thereby permit the Commission to adopt prophylactic \256\ rules that
may prohibit acts that are not themselves fraudulent.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-6.
\252\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-6(1).
\253\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-6(2).
\254\ Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers,
Advisers Act Release No. 3043 (July 1, 2010) at 16, citing 15 U.S.C.
80b-6(4). Section 206(4) was added to the Advisers Act in Pub. L.
No. 86-750, 74 Stat. 885, at sec. 9 (1960).
\255\ See H.R. REP. NO. 2197, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., at 7-8
(1960) (stating that ``[b]ecause of the general language of section
206 and the absence of express rulemaking power in that section,
there has always been a question as to the scope of the fraudulent
and deceptive activities which are prohibited and the extent to
which the Commission is limited in this area by common law concepts
of fraud and deceit * * * [Section 206(4)] would empower the
Commission, by rules and regulations to define, and prescribe means
reasonably designed to prevent, acts, practices, and courses of
business which are fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative. This is
comparable to Section 15(c)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act [15
U.S.C. 78o(c)(2)] which applies to brokers and dealers.''). See also
S. REP. NO. 1760, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., at 8 (1960) (``This [section
206(4) language] is almost the identical wording of section 15(c)(2)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in regard to brokers and
dealers.''). The Supreme Court, in United States v. O'Hagan,
interpreted nearly identical language in section 14(e) of the
Securities Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78n(e)] as providing the
Commission with authority to adopt rules that are ``definitional and
prophylactic'' and that may prohibit acts that are ``not themselves
fraudulent * * * if the prohibition is `reasonably designed to
prevent * * * acts and practices [that] are fraudulent.' '' United
States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 667, 673 (1997). The wording of the
rulemaking authority in section 206(4) remains substantially similar
to that of section 14(e) and section 15(c)(2) of the Securities
Exchange Act. See also Prohibition of Fraud by Advisers to Certain
Pooled Investment Vehicles, Advisers Act Release No. 2628 (Aug. 3,
2007) [72 FR 44756] (stating, in connection with the suggestion by
commenters that section 206(4) provides us authority only to adopt
prophylactic rules that explicitly identify conduct that would be
fraudulent under a particular rule, ``We believe our authority is
broader. We do not believe that the commenters' suggested approach
would be consistent with the purposes of the Advisers Act or the
protection of investors.'').
\256\ S. REP. NO. 1760, note 255, above, at 4, 8. The Commission
has used this authority to adopt eight rules that address abusive
advertising practices, custodial arrangements, the use of
solicitors, required disclosures regarding advisers' financial
conditions and disciplinary histories, prohibition against political
contributions by certain investment advisers (``pay to play''),
proxy voting, compliance procedures and practices, and deterring
fraud with respect to pooled investment vehicles. 17 CFR 275.206(4)-
1; 275.206(4)-2; 275.206(4)-3; 275.206(4)-4; 275.206(4)-5;
275.206(4)-6; 275.206(4)-7; and 275.206(4)-8.
\257\ See HR. REP. NO. 2197, note 255, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proxy advisory firms also may have to register with the Commission
as investment advisers. Whether a particular investment adviser is
required to register with the Commission depends on several factors.
Investment advisers are generally prohibited from registering with the
Commission if they have less than $25 million in assets under
management.\258\ Congress established this threshold in 1996 to
bifurcate regulatory responsibility between the Commission and the
states.\259\ The Commission retains authority to exempt advisers from
the prohibition on registration if the prohibition would be ``unfair, a
burden on interstate commerce, or otherwise inconsistent with the
purposes'' of the prohibition.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ Advisers Act Section 203A [15 USC 80b-3(a)]. If such an
adviser is an adviser to an investment company registered under the
Investment Company Act, however, it must register with the
Commission. See id.
\259\ National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, Pub.
L. No. 104-290, 110 Stat. 3416 (codified as amended in scattered
sections of the United States Code).
\260\ Advisers Act Section 203A(c) [15 U.S.C. 80b-3(c)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proxy advisory firms are unlikely to have sufficient assets under
management to register with the Commission because they typically do
not manage client assets.\261\ Proxy advisory firms may nonetheless be
eligible to register because they qualify for one of the exemptions
from the registration prohibition under Rule 203A-2 under the Advisers
Act. In particular, some proxy advisory firms
[[Page 43011]]
may be able to rely on the exemption for ``pension consultants'' \262\
if they have pension plan clients with an aggregate minimum value of
$50 million.\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\ For the purpose of calculating assets under management, an
adviser must look to those securities portfolios for which it
provides ``continuous and regular supervisory or management
services.'' See Instruction 5 to Item 5F of Form ADV [17 CFR 279.1].
\262\ Advisers Act Rule 203A-2(b) [17 CFR 275.203A-2(b)]
provides that ``[a]n investment adviser is a pension consultant * *
* if the investment adviser provides investment advice to: Any
employee benefit plan described in Section 3(3) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (``ERISA'') [29 U.S.C.
1002(3)]; Any governmental plan described in Section 3(32) of ERISA
(29 U.S.C. 1002(32); or Any church plan described in Section 3(33)
of ERISA (29 U.S.C. 1002(33).''
\263\ See id. A number of proxy advisory firms are currently
registered with the Commission under the pension consultant
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proxy advisory firms that are registered as investment advisers
with the Commission are subject to a number of additional regulatory
requirements that provide important protections to the firm's clients.
For example, registered investment advisers have to make certain
disclosures on their Form ADV.\264\ Among other things, these
disclosures include information about arrangements that the adviser has
that involve certain conflicts of interest with its advisory
client.\265\ In addition, proxy advisory firms that are registered
investment advisers are required to adopt, implement, and annually
review an internal compliance program consisting of written policies
and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent the adviser or
its supervised persons from violating the Advisers Act.\266\ Every
registered proxy advisory firm that is registered as an investment
adviser also must designate a chief compliance officer to oversee its
compliance program. This compliance officer must be knowledgeable about
the Advisers Act and have authority to develop and enforce appropriate
compliance policies and procedures for the adviser.\267\ A proxy
advisory firm that is registered as an investment adviser also is
required to establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material non-public
information.\268\ Proxy advisory firms that are registered as
investment advisers also are required to create and preserve certain
records that our examiners review when performing an inspection of an
adviser.\269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\264\ See Advisers Act Rule 203-1 [17 CFR 275.203-1]. Form ADV
consists of two parts. The information provided by advisers in Part
I of that form provides the Commission with census-like information
on investment adviser registrants and is critical to the examination
program in assessing risk and planning examinations. It also
requires investment advisers to report disciplinary events of the
adviser and its employees. See Advisers Act Rule 204-1 [17 CFR
275.204-1].
\265\ Part II of Form ADV, or a brochure containing the
information in the Form, is required to be delivered to advisory
clients or prospective clients by Rule 204-3 under the Advisers Act
[17 CFR 275.204-3]. In addition to the disclosure of certain
conflicts of interest, Part II contains information including the
adviser's fee schedule and the educational and business background
of management and key advisory personnel of the adviser. Part II is
currently not submitted to the SEC but must be kept by advisers in
their files and made available to the SEC upon request and is
``considered filed.'' See Advisers Act Rule 204-1(c) [17 CFR
275.204-1(c)]. Form ADV must be updated at least annually or when
there are material changes. See Advisers Act Rule 204-1 [17 CFR
275.204-1].
\266\ Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-7 [17 CFR 275.206(4)-7].
\267\ Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-7(c) [17 CFR 275.206(4)-7(c)].
\268\ Section 204A of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 80b-4a].
\269\ Advisers Act Rule 204-2 [17 CFR 275.204-2].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Concerns About the Role of Proxy Advisory Firms
The use of proxy advisory firms by institutional investors raises a
number of potential issues. For example, to the extent that conflicts
of interest on the part of proxy advisory firms are insufficiently
disclosed and managed, shareholders could be misled and informed
shareholder voting could be impaired. To the extent that proxy advisory
firms develop, disseminate, and implement their voting recommendations
without adequate accountability for informational accuracy in the
development and application of voting standards, informed shareholder
voting may be likewise impaired. Furthermore, some have argued that
proxy advisory firms are controlling or significantly influencing
shareholder voting without appropriate oversight, and without having an
actual economic stake in the issuer.\270\ In evaluating any potential
regulatory response to such issues, we are interested in learning
commentators' views regarding appropriate means of addressing these
issues, including the application of the proxy solicitation rules and
Advisers Act registration provisions to proxy advisory firms. We are
also interested in learning commentators' views as to whether these
issues are affected--and if so, how--by the fact that there is one
dominant proxy advisory firm in the marketplace, Institutional
Shareholder Services (``ISS''),\271\ whose long-standing position,
according to the Government Accountability Office, ``has been cited by
industry analysts as a barrier to competition.'' \272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\270\ See comment letters to Release No. 33-9046, note 7, above,
from The Business Roundtable and IBM. It has been suggested, for
example, that some issuers have adopted corporate governance
practices simply to meet a proxy advisory firm's standards, even
though they may not see the value of doing so. See GAO Report, note
238, above, at 10.
\271\ See GAO Report, note 238, above, at 13 (stating that,
``[a]s the dominant proxy advisory firm, ISS has gained a reputation
with institutional investors for providing reliable, comprehensive
proxy research and recommendations, making it difficult for
competitors to attract clients and compete in the market''). As of
June 2007, ISS's client base included an estimate of 1,700
institutional investors, more than the other four major firms
combined. Id. ISS was acquired by RiskMetrics in January 2007, which
in turn was acquired on June 1, 2010 by MSCI, Inc. See ``MSCI
Completes Acquisition of RiskMetrics,'' (June 1, 2010), available at
http://www.riskmetrics.com/news_releases/20100601_msci.
\272\ GAO Report, note 238, above, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to address these issues, which we describe in additional
detail below, we would like to receive views about the role that proxy
advisory firms play in the proxy voting process, which could, for
instance, assist in determining whether additional regulatory
requirements might be appropriate, such as the extent to which
oversight of proxy advisory firms registered as investment advisers
might be improved. Below we outline the two principal areas of concern
about the proxy advisory industry that have come to our attention.
a. Conflicts of Interest
Perhaps the most frequently raised concern about the proxy advisory
industry relates to conflicts of interest.\273\ The Government
Accountability Office has issued two reports since 2004 examining
conflicts of interest in proxy voting by institutional investors.\274\
The GAO Report issued in 2007 addressed, among other things, conflicts
of interest that may exist for proxy advisory firms, institutional
investors' use of the firms' services and the firms' potential
influence on proxy vote outcomes, as well as the steps that the
Commission has taken to oversee these firms.\275\ The GAO Report noted
that the most commonly cited conflict of interest for proxy advisory
firms is when they provide both proxy voting recommendations to
investment advisers and other institutional investors and consulting
services to corporations seeking assistance with proposals to be
presented to
[[Page 43012]]
shareholders or with improving their corporate governance ratings.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ See generally Thompson-Mann Policy Briefing, note 89,
above, at 8; GAO Report, note 238, above.
\274\ GAO Report, note 238, above. The GAO issued an earlier
report in 2004 that described, among other things, conflicts of
interest in the proxy voting system with respect to pension plans
and actions taken to manage them by plan fiduciaries. See GAO,
Pension Plans: Additional Transparency and Other Actions Needed in
Connection with Proxy Voting (Aug. 10, 2004), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04749.pdf.
\275\ GAO Report, note 238, above. That report noted that the
Commission had not identified any major violations in its
examinations of such firms that were registered as investment
advisers.
\276\ In its report, GAO described the business model of ISS as
containing this particular conflict and noted that the proxy
advisory firm took steps to manage the conflict by disclosing the
relationships it had with corporate governance clients and
implementing policies and procedures to separate its consulting
services from proxy voting services. See GAO Report, note 238,
above, at 10-11. These potential conflicts of interest of proxy
advisory firms are not limited to the United States. See OECD
Survey, note 90, above (expressing concern about the integrity of
financial intermediaries and the need for more concrete rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, this conflict of interest arises if a proxy advisory
firm provides voting recommendations on matters put to a shareholder
vote while also offering consulting services to the issuer or a
proponent of a shareholder proposal on the very same matter.\277\ The
issuer in this situation may purchase consulting services from the
proxy advisory firm in an effort to garner the firm's support for the
issuer when the voting recommendations are made.\278\ Similarly, a
proponent may engage the proxy advisory firm for advice on voting
recommendations in an effort to garner the firm's support for its
shareholder proposals. The GAO Report also noted that the firm might
recommend a vote in favor of a client's shareholder proposal in order
to keep the client's business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ See GAO Report, note 238, above. Not all proxy advisory
firms provide both types of services; some proxy advisory firms
differentiate their services by not providing consulting services to
corporations. See http://www.ejproxy.com/about.aspx; http://www.glasslewis.com/solutions/proxypaper.php; and
www.marcoconsulting.com/2.3.html.
\278\ See Thompson-Mann Policy Briefing, note 89, above, at 9.
See also comment letter to Proxy Disclosure and Solicitation
Enhancements, Release No. 33-9052 (July 10, 2009) [74 FR 35076],
from Pearl Meyer and Partners, at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conflict also arises when a proxy advisory firm provides
corporate governance ratings on issuers to institutional clients, while
also offering consulting services to corporate clients so that those
issuers can improve their corporate governance ranking.\279\ The GAO
Report also described the potential for conflicts of interest when
owners or executives of the proxy advisory firm have significant
ownership interests in, or serve on the board of directors of, issuers
with matters being put to a shareholder vote on which the proxy
advisory firm is offering vote recommendations. In such cases,
institutional investors told the GAO that some proxy advisory firms
would not offer vote recommendations to avoid the appearance of a
conflict of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\279\ See Paul Rose, The Corporate Governance Industry, 32 Iowa
J. Corp. L. 887, 903 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is our understanding that at least one proxy advisory firm
provides a generic disclosure of such conflicts of interest by stating
that the proxy advisory firm ``may'' have a consulting relationship
with the issuer, without affirmatively stating whether the proxy
advisory firm has or had a relationship with a specific issuer or the
nature of any such relationship. Some have argued that this type of
general disclosure is insufficient, even if the proxy advisory firm has
confidentiality walls between its corporate consulting and proxy
research departments.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\280\ See generally comment letter to Release No. 33-9052, note
278, above, from Oppenheimer Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Lack of Accuracy and Transparency in Formulating Voting
Recommendations
Some commentators have expressed the concern that voting
recommendations by proxy advisory firms may be made based on materially
inaccurate or incomplete data, or that the analysis provided to an
institutional client may be materially inaccurate or incomplete.\281\
To the extent that a voting recommendation is based on flawed data or
analysis, issuers have expressed a desire for a process to correct the
mistake. We understand, however, that proxy advisory firms may be
unwilling, as a matter of policy, to accept any attempted communication
from the issuer or to reconsider recommendations in light of such
communications. Even if a proxy advisory firm entertains comment from
the issuer and amends its recommendation, votes may have already been
cast based on the prior recommendation. Accordingly, some issuers have
expressed a desire to be involved in reviewing a draft of the proxy
advisory firm's report, if only for the limited purpose of ensuring
that the voting recommendations are based on accurate issuer data. Some
proxy advisory firms have claimed that they are willing to discuss
matters with issuers, but that some issuers are unwilling to enter into
such discussions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ See, e.g., White Paper on RiskMetrics Report on Target
Corporation, available at http://tgtfiles.target.com/empl/pdfs/RMG_Analysis.pdf (identifying asserted inaccurate or misleading
statements or assessments in RiskMetrics' report on the 2009 proxy
contest involving Target Corporation); Matthew Greco, ``New, New
Ranking of the Shareholder Friendly, Unfriendly,'' Securities Data
Publishing, May 13, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There also is a concern that proxy advisory firms may base their
recommendation on one-size-fits-all governance approach.\282\ As a
result, a policy that would benefit some issuers, but that is less
suitable for other issuers, might not receive a positive
recommendation, making it less likely to be approved by shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\282\ The concern regarding a potential one-size-fits-all
approach to proxy advice is not limited to U.S. proxy participants.
The OECD also has expressed concern that there is a danger of one-
size-fits-all voting advice (e.g., applicable to compensation and a
box-ticking approach by shareholders minimizing analysis and
responsibilities of shareholders) so that a competitive market for
advice needs to be encouraged. See OECD, Corporate Governance and
the Financial Crisis: Key Findings and Main Messages (June 2009),
available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/10/43056196.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 14a-2(b)(3)'s exemption of proxy advisory firms does not
mandate that a firm relying on the exemption have specific procedures
in place to ensure that its research or analysis is materially accurate
or complete prior to recommending a vote.\283\ While voting advice by
firms relying on the Rule 14a-2(b)(3) exemption remains subject to the
antifraud provisions of the proxy rules contained in Rule 14a-9 \284\--
and those antifraud provisions should deter the rendering of voting
advice that is misleading or inaccurate--it is our understanding that
certain participants in the proxy process believe that additional
oversight mechanisms could improve the likelihood that voting
recommendations are based on materially accurate and complete
information. In addition, as a fiduciary, the proxy advisory firm has a
duty of care requiring it to make a reasonable investigation to
determine that it is not basing its recommendations on materially
inaccurate or incomplete information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\283\ 17 CFR 240.14a-2(b)(3).
\284\ 17 CFR 240.14a-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Potential Regulatory Responses
a. Potential Solutions Addressing Conflicts of Interest
Revising or providing interpretive guidance on the proxy rule
exemption in Exchange Act Rule 14a-2(b)(3) \285\ could be one potential
solution to the concerns regarding a proxy advisory firm's disclosures
about conflicts of interest. Exchange Act Rule 14a-2(b)(3)(ii) requires
that a person furnishing proxy voting advice to another person must
disclose to its client ``any significant relationship'' it has with the
issuer, its affiliates, or a shareholder proponent of the matter on
which advice is given. It appears that some proxy advisory firms
currently provide disclosure limited to the fact that the firm ``may''
provide consulting
[[Page 43013]]
or other advisory services to issuers. However, we believe that such
disclosure should be examined further to determine whether it
adequately indicates to shareholders the existence of a potential
conflict with respect to any particular proposal. Therefore, we are
interested in receiving views on whether this rule should be revised or
whether we should provide additional guidance regarding the
requirements of this rule. Specifically, we could revise the rule to
require more specific disclosure regarding the presence of a potential
conflict.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ 17 CFR 240.14a-2(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatively, or in addition, we seek comment on whether proxy
advisory firms operate the kind of national business or have an impact
on the securities markets that Advisers Act Section 203A(c) \286\ was
designed to address, and whether, as a result, we should establish an
additional exemption from the prohibition on federal registration for
proxy advisory firms to register with the Commission as investment
advisers. We could also provide additional guidance, if necessary, on
the fiduciary duty of proxy advisors who are investment advisers to
deal fairly with clients and prospective clients, and to disclose fully
any material conflict of interest. We also could provide guidance or
propose a rule requiring specific disclosure by proxy advisory firms
that are registered as investment advisers regarding their conflicts of
interest, including, for example, on Form ADV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-3a(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in light of the similarity between the proxy advisory
relationship and the ``subscriber-paid'' model for credit ratings, we
could consider whether additional regulations similar to those
addressing conflicts of interest on the part of Nationally Recognized
Statistical Rating Organizations (``NRSROs'') \287\ would be useful
responses to stated concerns about conflicts of interest on the part of
proxy advisory firms. For example, such regulations could prohibit
certain conflicts of interest and require proxy advisory firms to file
periodic disclosures, akin to Form NRSRO, describing any conflicts of
interest and procedures to manage them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\287\ NRSROs are credit rating agencies that assess the
creditworthiness of obligors as entities or with respect to specific
securities or money market instruments and that have elected to be
registered with the Commission under Section 15E of the Exchange
Act. 15 U.S.C. 78o-7. Sections 15E and 17 of the Exchange Act
provide the Commission with exclusive authority to implement
registration, recordkeeping, financial reporting, and oversight
rules with respect to NRSROs. 15 U.S.C. 78o-7 and 78q.
One commentator has suggested that the Commission's rules that
govern NRSROs may be useful templates for developing a regulatory
program addressing conflicts of interest and other issues with
respect to the accuracy and transparency of voting recommendations
provided by proxy advisory firms. Such rules include provisions
that: (i) Require rating actions to be made publicly available on
the NRSRO's Internet Web site [17 CFR 240.17g-2(d)(3)]; (ii)
prohibit certain conflicts of interest [17 CFR 240.17g-5(c); Form
NRSRO Exhibits 6-7]; (iii) require the disclosure and management of
certain other conflicts of interest that arise in the normal course
of engaging in the business of issuing credit ratings [17 CFR
240.17g-5(b)]; and (iv) require disclosure of, among other things,
performance measurement statistics, sources of information, models
and metrics used, qualifications and compensation of analysts, and
procedures and methodologies used to determine credit ratings,
including procedures for (A) interacting with management of rated
issuers, (B) informing issuers of rating decisions, and (C)
appealing final or pending rating decisions. [Form NRSRO, Exhibits
1, 2, 8 and 13]. We recognize that the role of NRSROs and proxy
advisory firms differ and that following a similar regulatory
approach might not be appropriate. We also recognize that the costs
and benefits of the NRSRO regulation differ from the costs and
benefits of potential additional regulation of proxy advisory firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Potential Solutions Addressing Accuracy and Transparency in
Formulating Voting Recommendations
We have identified a number of potential approaches that might
address concerns about accuracy or transparency in the formulation of
voting recommendations by proxy advisory firms. For example, proxy
advisory firms could provide increased disclosure regarding the extent
of research involved with a particular recommendation and the extent
and/or effectiveness of its controls and procedures in ensuring the
accuracy of issuer data. Proxy advisory firms could also disclose
policies and procedures for interacting with issuers, informing issuers
of recommendations, and handling appeals of recommendations.\288\ We
could also consider requiring proxy advisory firms to file their voting
recommendations with us as soliciting material, at least on a delayed
basis, to facilitate independent evaluation by market participants of
the quality of those recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ See, e.g., Thompson-Mann Policy Briefing, note 89, above,
at 25 (advocating that a proxy advisory firm should, where feasible
and appropriate, prior to issuing or revising a recommendation,
advise the issuer of the critical information and principal
considerations upon which a recommendation will be based and afford
the issuer an opportunity to clarify any likely factual
misperceptions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Request for Comment
As discussed above, we are considering the extent to which the
voting recommendations of proxy advisory firms serve the interests of
investors in informed proxy voting, and whether, and if so, how, we
should take steps to improve the utility of such recommendations to
investors. In particular, we seek comment on whether we should clarify
existing regulations or propose additional regulations to address
concerns about the existence and disclosure of conflicts of interest on
the part of proxy advisory firms, and about the accuracy and
transparency of the formulation of their voting recommendations.
Accordingly, we seek commentators' views generally on proxy advisory
firms and invite comment on the following questions:
Do proxy advisory firms perform services for their clients
in addition to or different from those noted above?
Is additional regulation of proxy advisory firms necessary
or appropriate for the protection of investors? Why or why not? If so,
what are the implications of regulation through the Advisers Act or the
proxy solicitation rules under the Exchange Act? Are any other
regulatory approaches equally or better suited to provide appropriate
additional regulation? Are there regulatory approaches used in
connection with NRSROs that may be appropriate to consider applying to
proxy advisory firms?
Are there conflicts of interest (other than those
described above) when a proxy advisory firm provides services to both
investors, including shareholder proponents, and issuers? If so, are
those conflicts appropriately addressed by current laws, regulations,
and industry practices?
Are there conflicts of interest where a proxy advisory
firm is itself a publicly held company? If so, what are they and how
should they be addressed?
What policies and procedures, if any, do proxy advisory
firms use to ensure that their voting recommendations are independent
and not influenced by the fees they receive for services to corporate
clients or shareholder proponent clients?
Is the disclosure that proxy advisory firms currently
provide to investor clients regarding conflicts of interest adequate?
Would specific disclosure of potential conflicts and conflict of
interest policies be sufficient, or is some other form of regulation
necessary (e.g., prohibiting such conflicts)?
Do issuers modify or change their proposals to increase
the likelihood of favorable recommendations by a proxy advisory firm?
Do issuers adopt particular governance standards solely to
meet the standards of a proxy advisory firm? If so, why do issuers
behave in this manner?
[[Page 43014]]
Should proxy advisory firms be required to disclose
publicly their decision models for approval of executive compensation
plans? Would this alleviate concerns regarding potential conflicts of
interest when issuers pay consulting fees for access to such models?
What is the competitive structure of the market for proxy
advisory firms, and what are the reasons for it? Does competition vary
across the types of services provided by the proxy advisory firms or
the subset of issuers that they cover? Does the industry's competitive
structure affect the quality of the recommendations? If there is, as we
understand it, one proxy advisory firm that has a significantly larger
market share than other firms,\289\ does that affect the quality of the
recommendations made by that proxy advisory firm or by other proxy
advisory firms? Are there any other effects caused by the fact that
there is one dominant proxy advisory firm?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\289\ GAO Report, note 238, above, at 13 (describing ISS as
``the dominant proxy advisory firm'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do institutional investors use the voting
recommendations provided by proxy advisory firms? What empirical data
exists regarding how, and to what extent, institutional investors vote
consistently, or inconsistently, with such recommendations?
What criteria and processes do proxy advisory firms use to
formulate their recommendations and corporate governance ratings? Does
the lack of a direct pecuniary interest in the effects of their
recommendations on shareholder value affect how they formulate
recommendations and corporate governance ratings? Would greater
disclosure about how recommendations and corporate governance ratings
are generated and how voting recommendations are made affect the
quality of the ratings and the recommendations?
Are existing procedures followed by proxy advisory firms
sufficient to ensure that proxy research reports provided to investor
clients are materially accurate and complete? If not, how should proxy
advisory firms be encouraged to provide investors with the information
they need to make informed voting decisions?
If additional oversight is needed, should it be in the
form of regulatory oversight or issuer involvement? Would requiring
delayed public disclosure of voting recommendations be an appropriate
means to promote accurate voting recommendations?
Do proxy advisory firms control or significantly influence
shareholder voting without appropriate oversight? If so, is there
empirical evidence that demonstrates this control or significant
influence? If such proxy advisory firms do control or significantly
influence shareholder voting, is that inappropriate, and if so, should
the Commission take action to address it? If so, what specific action
should the Commission take?
Are there any proxy advisory firms that cannot rely on an
exemption to the prohibition on Advisers Act registration? If so, why
do the exemptions not apply to those proxy advisory firms?
Do proxy advisory firms operate the kind of national
business that the Advisers Act Section 203A(c) was designed to address?
Should we create an additional exemption from the prohibition on
federal registration for proxy advisory firms to register as investment
advisers? If so, what standard should we use?
Do the current regulatory requirements for registered
investment advisers adequately address advisers whose business is
primarily providing proxy voting services? If we consider new
rulemaking in this area, what should the rules address? Should we amend
Form ADV to require specific disclosures by registered investment
advisers that are proxy advisory firms?
Do proxy advisory firms maintain an audit trail for votes
cast on behalf of clients? Do proxy advisory firms monitor whether
votes cast are appropriately counted, and if so, how?
B. Dual Record Dates
1. Background
Under state corporation law, issuers set a record date in advance
of a shareholder meeting, and holders of record on the record date are
entitled to notice of the meeting and to vote at the meeting. State
corporation law also governs how far in advance of the meeting a record
date can be--typically, no more than 60 days before the date of the
meeting.\290\ The record date that an issuer selects has implications
under the federal securities laws. Our rules require issuers that have
a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act
and certain investment companies to provide either proxy materials or
an information statement to every investor of the class entitled to
vote.\291\ Additionally, Rule 14a-13 requires that if an issuer intends
to solicit proxies for an upcoming meeting and knows that its
securities are held by securities intermediaries, it generally must
make an inquiry of each such securities intermediary at least 20
business days prior to the record date to ascertain the number of
copies of sets of proxy materials needed to supply the materials to the
beneficial owners.\292\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\ See, e.g., Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, Sec. 213(a) ; Model
Bus. Corp. Act Sec. 7.05.
\291\ Additionally, Section 402.04 of the NYSE Listed Issuer
Manual provides that ``[a]ctively operating issuers are required to
solicit proxies for all meetings of shareholders,'' and NASDAQ
Listing Rule 5620(b) provides that ``[e]ach Issuer that is not a
limited partnership shall solicit proxies and provide proxy
statements for all meetings of Shareholders.''
\292\ 17 CFR 240.14a-13. Rule 14c-7 contains a parallel
requirement for issuers intending to distribute information
statements. 17 CFR 240.14c-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, the same record date has been used for determining
both which shareholders are entitled to notice of an upcoming meeting
and which shareholders are entitled to vote. However, some states are
enacting changes to this procedure. For example, effective August 1,
2009, the Delaware General Corporation Law permits, but does not
require, Delaware corporations to use separate record dates for making
these two determinations.\293\ One important result of this change is
that it potentially allows an issuer, by establishing a voting record
date close to the meeting date, to decrease the likelihood that as of
the meeting date persons entitled to vote at the meeting (i.e., the
holders on the voting record date) will no longer have an economic
interest in the issuer.\294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, Sec. 213(a). Section 213 provides
that the record date for determining which shareholders are entitled
to notice of a meeting ``shall not be more than 60 nor less than 10
days before the date of such meeting,'' and that Unless the board
determines otherwise, ``such date shall also be the record date for
determining the stockholders entitled to vote at such meeting.'' The
August 1, 2009 amendment provides that as an alternative, the board
may determine ``that a later date on or before the date of the
meeting shall be the date for making such determination.'' Recently
proposed amendments to the Model Business Corporation Act,
especially Sec. 7.07(e) of that Act, adopt a similar approach in
permitting dual record dates. See Changes in the Model Business
Corporation Act--Proposed Amendments to Shareholder Voting
Provisions Authorizing Remote Participation in Shareholder Meetings
and Bifurcated Record Dates, 65 Bus. Law. 153, 156-160 (Nov. 2009).
\294\ See James L. Holzman and Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., ``Review
of Developments in Delaware Corporation Law,'' Apr. 2009, at 2,
available at http://www.prickett.com/PrinterFriendly/Articles/2009_Review_of_Developments.pdf (explaining that the ability to move
the voting record date closer to meeting date should promote voting
only by those who continue to have an economic interest).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Difficulties in Setting a Voting Record Date Close to a Meeting Date
Although Delaware's amended statute permits a voting record date
\295\ to be as
[[Page 43015]]
late as the date of the meeting itself,\296\ certain logistical and
legal matters currently prevent issuers from setting such a voting
record date.\297\ For example, Rule 14c-2(b) requires that if
information statements are being distributed, they must be sent or
given to holders of the class of securities entitled to vote at least
20 calendar days prior to the meeting date. Because the investors
entitled to receive the information statements, by definition, cannot
be identified until the voting record date,\298\ issuers intending to
distribute information statements currently would be unable to set a
voting record date that is fewer than 20 calendar days prior to the
corresponding meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\ For purposes of this release, the term ``voting record
date'' refers to the date used in determining the stockholders
entitled to vote at the meeting, and the term ``notice record date''
refers to the date used for determining the stockholders entitled to
notice of the meeting. ``Voting-record-date shareholders'' and
``notice-record-date shareholders'' refer to shareholders who hold
their shares as of the record date that is specified.
\296\ See Charles M. Nathan, ```Empty Voting' and Other Fault
Lines Undermining Shareholder Democracy: The New Hunting Ground for
Hedge Funds,'' available at http://lw.com/upload/pubContent/_pdf/pub1878_1.Commentary.Empty.Voting.pdf (explaining that, ``[w]ith
modern technology, there is no apparent need to retain an advance
record date concept to manage shareholder voting. Rather, the record
date could be as late as the close of business on the night
preceding the meeting, with a voting period (i.e., the time for
which the polls remain open) at or in conjunction with the meeting
lasting several hours or perhaps a full working day.'').
\297\ Conversely, the record date for traded companies in the
United Kingdom must be set at a time that is not more than 48 hours
before the time for the holding of the meeting. The Companies
(Shareholders' Rights) Regulations 2009 No. 1632 (Regulation 20,
section 360B), available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20091632_en_3#pt3-l1g9.
\298\ Rules 14a-1(h) and 14c-1(h) define ``record date'' as
``the date as of which the record holders of securities entitled to
vote at a meeting or by written consent or authorization shall be
determined'' (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have not adopted a 20 calendar day requirement with respect to
proxy materials,\299\ but we have stated that ``the materials must be
mailed sufficiently in advance of the meeting date to allow five
business days for processing by the banks and broker-dealers and an
additional period to provide ample time for delivery of the material,
consideration of the material by the beneficial owners, return of their
voting instructions, and transmittal of the vote from the bank or
broker-dealer to the tabulator.'' \300\ Additionally,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\299\ We note, however, that Section 401.03 of the NYSE Listed
Issuer Manual ``recommends that a minimum of 30 days be allowed
between the record and meeting dates so as to give ample time for
the solicitation of proxies.''
\300\ Release No. 34-33768, note 4, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructions to Schedule 14A, Form S-4, and Form F-4
prescribe certain situations in which, if the materials being sent to
shareholders incorporate information by reference, the issuer must send
its proxy statement or prospectus to investors at least 20 business
days before the meeting; \301\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\301\ See Note D.3 to Schedule 14A, General Instruction A.2 to
Form S-4, and General Instruction A.2 to Form F-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 14a-16(a)(1) requires issuers not relying on the full
set delivery option to provide a Notice of Internet Availability of
Proxy Materials at least 40 calendar days before the meeting date;
\302\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\302\ 17 CFR 240.14a-16(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of our rules and forms require that if a limited
partnership roll-up transaction is being proposed, the disclosure
document must be distributed no later than the lesser of 60 calendar
days prior to the meeting date or the maximum number of days permitted
for giving notice under applicable state law.\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\303\ Section 14(h)(1)(J) of the Exchange Act, Rule 14a-6(l),
Rule 14c-2(c), General Instruction I.2 to Form S-4, and General
Instruction G.2 to Form F-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because these provisions require a period of time between the
mailing of materials and the meeting date and because, under a dual
record date system, the investors to whom the materials must be mailed
(that is, those investors entitled to vote at the meeting) would not be
identified until the voting record date,\304\ issuers are limited in
how close to the meeting date their voting record date can be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\304\ Under our rules, the issuer must send an information
statement to all shareholders entitled to vote at a meeting, but
from whom no proxy is being solicited. 17 CFR 240.14c-2. Thus, the
issuer effectively must send either a proxy statement or an
information statement to any shareholder entitled to vote at a
meeting, including those that acquire the securities after the
notice record date, but before the voting record date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issuers also need to consider logistical matters in deciding the
timing of their voting record date and their mailing. They need to find
out how many copies of their materials to print, print the materials,
and distribute the materials to transfer agents and to proxy service
providers so that they can be delivered to registered and beneficial
owners. Exchange Act Rules 14a-13, 14b-1, 14b-2, and 14c-7 govern this
process, but we understand that in practice those rules reflect only a
subset of the time-consuming logistical hurdles issuers need to go
through. In this release, we are inviting submission of additional
information on this process and suggestions for streamlining it.
3. Potential Regulatory Responses
In light of the changes to state law, we seek to explore whether to
propose action to accommodate issuers that wish to use separate record
dates where permitted by state law, and if so, what action we should
take. In analyzing this situation, we are faced with competing
considerations. On one hand, the closer to a meeting date a voting
record date is, the more likely it is that investors who are entitled
to vote will still have an economic interest in the issuer at the time
of the shareholder meeting. Thus, setting the voting record date close
to the meeting date avoids disenfranchising the shareholders who
purchase their shares after the record date for notice of the meeting.
Moreover, facilitating the use of a notice record date that
significantly precedes a voting record date may assist shareholders in
recalling loaned securities in order to vote them. On the other hand,
investors who are entitled to vote need adequate time to receive the
proxy materials and consider the matters presented to them for
approval. Inadequate time can lead to uninformed voting decisions or,
in some cases, a decision by the investor not to vote at all, a problem
that was highlighted in 2007 as we considered adopting the notice and
access rules.\305\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\305\ See Release 34-55146, note 199, above, at note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we choose to facilitate issuers' use of separate record dates,
we could choose between two general models, one focusing principally on
the notice record date and the other focusing principally on the voting
record date. The first model would be to require issuers to provide
proxy materials or an information statement, as applicable, to those
who are investors as of the notice record date. This model parallels
the Delaware provision in that it focuses the information-delivery
obligation on persons who are investors as of the notice record date.
One open question under this first model is whether issuers should
subsequently be obligated to send the disclosure document to those who
were not investors as of the notice record date but who become
investors by the voting record date.\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\306\ The theory for not imposing this requirement would be that
voting-record-date shareholders will have the information available
to them if they desire to see it. The information will be available
on the Internet pursuant to Rule 14a-16(b)(1) and (d), and in many
cases press releases and media reports would publicize the
availability of the information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second model would be to require issuers to provide the
disclosure document to those who are investors as of the voting record
date. An open issue under this model is whether and how issuers should
be obligated to make the disclosure document public at some point
before the voting record date.
[[Page 43016]]
Under either model, it is possible that some investors will obtain
a proxy card or VIF, fill it out and submit it, and then buy additional
shares or sell some shares, all prior to the voting record date. Thus,
the number of shares held at the time of submission of the proxy or VIF
may differ from the number of shares that are ultimately voted on
behalf of the investor. In such a situation, we would need to consider
how the proxy or VIF already submitted by the investor would be
affected, as well as the legal and operational implications that this
situation may impose on broker-dealers and their customers and the
costs associated with developing a process to address it, in light of
the complex beneficial ownership structure described earlier in this
release.
Investors may benefit from receiving information about the effect
that trades subsequent to the submission of their proxy or VIF will
have on their voting rights. Therefore, additional disclosure may be
necessary in proxy and information statements. One possible disclosure
would be to establish that if an investor submits a proxy or VIF prior
to the voting record date, all of the shares held by the investor as of
the voting record date would be voted in accordance with the proxy or
VIF, in the absence of specific contrary instructions from the
investor.\307\ Another alternative would be to clarify that a proxy or
VIF would not be used to vote more shares than the investor held at the
time he or she submitted the proxy or VIF, so that shares acquired
after the notice record date would not be voted unless that investor
submits a separate proxy or voting instruction for those shares.
However, it appears that each of these approaches may risk undermining
the purpose of facilitating a voting record date that is closer to the
meeting date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\307\ The investor would, of course, continue to be able to
revise his or her previous votes prior to the meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Request for Comment
Do issuers wish to use dual record dates? If so, why?
The Delaware amendment became effective on August 1, 2009.
Should we first see how popular the dual-record-date provision is
before providing a regulatory response? Or, are our rules an impediment
to using dual record dates, so that it is difficult to assess whether
this new approach would be viewed favorably by issuers or investors
unless we change our rules?
In view of the competing policy considerations described
above, if we respond, should we respond in a way that generally
facilitates issuers' ability to use the dual-record-date approach or in
a way that discourages it? Which direction would be better for
investors? Is there a more neutral approach that would better serve the
interests of investors?
Even if it is too early for us to take action that either
facilitates or discourages issuers' use of dual record dates, does the
mere existence of a two-record-date regime create confusion or
uncertainty in the interpretation of any of our existing rules? If so,
which rules need to be clarified or revised? For example, should we
consider proposing to clarify or to revise:
Rules 14a-1(h) and 14c-1(h), which define ``record date''
as, essentially, the voting record date;
Item 6(b) of Schedule 14A, which requires issuers to
``[s]tate the record date, if any, with respect to this solicitation'';
or
Rules 14a-13(a)(3) and 14c-7(a)(3), which require issuers
to send an inquiry at least 20 business days prior to the record date?
Would any SRO rules or recommendations need to be revised
or clarified in order to facilitate the use of dual record dates?
Under the first model described above, after an issuer
distributes its disclosure document to investors as of the notice
record date, the issuer might need to send the disclosure document, or
at least a notice of the availability of the disclosure document, to
those who become investors after the notice record date but before the
voting record date.
Would this obligation be appropriate?
If not, how would new investors obtain the means to vote,
such as a proxy card, a VIF, or a control number to vote electronically
or telephonically? Would they be limited to attending the meeting in
person? Would new beneficial owners be able to vote or attend at all?
Given that the investors who are entitled to vote are the
investors as of the voting record date, would the first model (in which
some investors who ultimately would not be entitled to vote would
receive proxy materials) serve any useful interest if such an
obligation were not imposed?
If we do not impose such an obligation on issuers, should
they be able to choose which new investors to send the disclosure
document to, or should an ``all or none'' requirement apply? If they
should have a choice, on what basis should they be able to choose?
Finally, what impact would the first model have on the
costs of distributing proxy materials?
Under the second model described above, because the voting
record date might be close to, or on, the meeting date, would it be
necessary to require issuers to make public their disclosure document
at some point before the voting record date? What would be the most
appropriate way for them to do so, and how far in advance of the voting
record date or the meeting date should they be required to do so?
Should we consider different requirements for different sizes of
issuers (for example, permit more reliance on media outlets and less
reliance on physical mailings for larger issuers)?
Which of the two general approaches outlined above is more
appropriate? What other general approaches should we consider?
Would broker-dealers be able, or have sufficient time, to
track accurately which beneficial owners would have the right to vote
on the voting record date if it is close to the shareholder meeting? If
so, what would be the cost to broker-dealers to establish such tracking
systems?
As discussed above, some of our rules specify a minimum
number of days before a meeting by which an issuer must distribute its
disclosure document. Should we consider shortening or eliminating any
of these time periods? If we shorten any of them, what is an
appropriate amount of time to replace it with?
Should we propose to specify a minimum number of days that
must elapse between the mailing of a proxy statement and a meeting, as
Rule 14c-2(b) does with information statements? If we were to do so,
what would be an appropriate number of days, and should the number be
flexible to account for such possibilities as overnight or electronic
delivery, or electronic or telephonic voting? \308\ In what ways can or
should we rely on technology to reduce these time periods?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\308\ The OECD recommends that measures should be taken, both by
regulators and by all the institutions involved in the voting chain
(issuers, custodians, etc.) to remove obstacles and to encourage the
use of flexible voting mechanisms such as electronic voting.
Corporate Governance and the Financial Crisis--Key Findings and Main
Messages, note 282, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should we propose that federal proxy rules prescribe a
form of proxy that permits the shareholder to specify the extent to
which an executed proxy should be applied to shares that are bought
after the proxy is submitted and before the voting record date?
[[Page 43017]]
Would voting all of the shares in accordance with the
instructions on the proxy or VIF present issues under Rule 14a-10(b),
which prohibits the solicitation of ``any proxy which provides that it
shall be deemed to be dated as of any date subsequent to the date on
which it is signed by the security holder''? If so, should that rule be
amended, and how?
C. ``Empty Voting'' and Related ``Decoupling'' Issues
1. Background and Reasons for Concern
As noted in the Introduction, this release primarily focuses on
whether the U.S. proxy system operates with the accuracy, reliability,
transparency, accountability, and integrity that shareholders and
issuers should rightfully expect. These expectations are shaped in part
by the Commission's proxy solicitation, disclosure and other rules, the
rules of the national securities exchanges, as well as by the
substantive rights granted under state corporate law and the charter
and bylaw provisions of individual corporations.
At their core, these expectations are based on the foundational
understanding that, absent contractual or legal provisions to the
contrary, a ``shareholder'' possesses both voting rights and an
economic interest in the company.
The ability to separate a share's voting rights from the economic
stake through, for instance, what has been dubbed ``empty voting'' and
``decoupling'' challenges this foundational understanding.\309\ The
term ``empty voting'' has been defined to refer to the circumstance in
which a shareholder's voting rights substantially exceed the
shareholder's economic interest in the company.\310\ In this
circumstance, the exercise of the right to vote is viewed as ``empty''
because the votes have been emptied of a commensurate economic interest
in the shares (and, at the extreme, may even be associated with a
negative economic interest in the sense of benefiting from a decline in
the share price). Here, the bundle of rights and obligations
customarily associated with share ownership has been ``decoupled.''
Empty voting is an example of decoupling and can occur in a variety of
ways, some of which we describe briefly below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\309\ See, e.g., Henry T. C. Hu & Bernard Black, Equity and Debt
Decoupling and Empty Voting II: Importance and Extensions, 156
University of Pennsylvania Law Review 625-739 (2008) [hereinafter,
Hu & Black, Empty Voting II]; Henry T. C. Hu & Bernard Black, Debt,
Equity, and Hybrid Decoupling: Governance and Systemic Risk
Implications, 14 European Financial Management 663-709 (2008)
[hereinafter Hu and Black, Debt and Hybrid Decoupling]. Henry Hu
currently serves as the Director of the Division of Risk, Strategy,
and Financial Innovation at the Commission.
\310\ For the purposes of this release, empty voting does not
include dual class or similar share structures in which the
corporate charter prescribes disproportionate allocation of voting
and economic rights, albeit in a fully disclosed fashion. Likewise,
for purposes of this release empty voting does not encompass the
situation in which the individuals within an institutional investor
who determine that investor's voting decisions act independently of
the person or persons making economic investment decisions in regard
to the security being voted. See, e.g., Charles M. Nathan & Parul
Mehta, The Parallel Universes of Institutional Investing and
Institutional Voting (Mar. 6, 2010), available at http://www.lw.com/upload/pubContent/_pdf/pub3463_1.pdf; cf. James McRitchie,
Parallel Universes Undercuts Its Own Arguments (Apr. 16, 2010),
available at http://corpgov.net/wordpress/?tag=nathan. Unlike the
dual class situation, this latter situation could involve
undisclosed decoupling of voting decisions from economic
considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such decoupling raises potential practical and theoretical
considerations for voting of shares. For example, an empty voter with a
negative economic interest in the company may prefer that the company's
share price fall rather than increase. Such a person's voting
motivation contradicts the widely-held assumption that equity
securities are voted based on an interest in increasing shareholder
value and in a way to protect shareholders' interests or enhance the
value of the investment in the securities. That assumption--a core
premise of state statutes requiring shareholder votes to elect
directors and approve certain corporate decisions--may be undermined by
the possibility that persons with voting power may have little or no
economic interest or, even worse, have a negative economic interest in
the shares they vote. It is a source of some concern that elections of
directors and other important corporate actions, such as business
combinations, might be decided by persons who could have the incentive
to elect unqualified directors or block actions that are in the
interests of the shareholders as a whole. Significant decoupling of
voting rights from economic interest could potentially undermine
investor confidence in the public capital markets.\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\311\ For an academic analysis of many of the efficiency-related
effects of equity decoupling, positive as well as negative, see Hu &
Black, Debt and Hybrid Decoupling, note 309, above, at 667-672. For
a discussion of how outsiders as well as incumbent management (e.g.,
managers, controlling shareholders, and corporations themselves) may
try engaging in equity decoupling strategies, see Hu & Black, Empty
Voting II, note 309, above, at 628-654 and 661-681.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, empty voting may not always be contrary to the
interests of shareholders. One article argues, for instance, that
informed investors \312\ could potentially improve electoral outcomes
through empty voting by taking long economic positions, acquiring
disproportionate voting power from less informed shareholders,\313\ and
casting votes that are more informed and thus more likely to contribute
to shareholder value.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\312\ We do not express an opinion as to whether any particular
class of investor will always make a shareholder-maximizing vote.
For purposes of this discussion, it is sufficient to assume that,
generally speaking, a highly informed investor is more likely to
vote in a manner that will add to shareholder value than a less
informed investor.
\313\ Notably, the nature of the decoupling in these
circumstances is qualitatively different than that in which a person
holding the right to vote has no economic interest, or a negative
economic interest, in the issuer. Rather, such an investor has a
positive economic interest, and while there is decoupling insofar as
that investor holds voting rights that derive from shares owned by a
different investor, that investor has voting interests that are
aligned with the economic interest of investors generally.
\314\ See Susan E. K. Christoffersen, Christopher C. Geczy,
David K. Musto, and Adam V. Reed, Vote Trading and Information
Aggregation, Journal of Finance, Vol. 62, 2007, pp. 2897-2929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed below, regardless of whether empty voting is deemed to
be ``good'' or ``bad,'' there is a strong argument for ensuring that
there is transparency about the use of empty voting. If a voter
acquires shares with a view to influencing or controlling the outcome
of a vote but takes steps to reduce the risk of economic loss or even
achieve a negative economic interest, disclosure of the empty voter's
status and intentions could be important information to other
shareholders.\315\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\315\ Item 6 of Schedule 13D requires disclosure of contracts,
arrangements, understandings, or relationships with respect to the
securities covered by the Schedule, but the filing of Schedule 13D
is triggered only when a person owns greater than 5% of a Section
12-registered equity security, as such ownership is calculated
according to the pertinent rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission needs to further evaluate empty voting and related
techniques in order to properly review the reliability, accuracy,
transparency, accountability, and integrity of the current proxy system
and the challenges that may be posed by empty voting and related
techniques. Therefore, we are seeking information on the myriad ways in
which decoupling can occur, and its nature, extent, and effects on
shareholder voting and the proxy process.\316\ We understand that
responses explicitly intended to address aspects of empty voting have
already
[[Page 43018]]
started to occur at the state corporate law and individual corporation
level.\317\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\316\ Separately, as described in Section V.C.2.b, below, the
staff has initiated a project to review longstanding requirements as
to disclosure of holdings of securities. The information gathered in
connection with both projects, as well as any rule changes that may
flow from such projects, could be helpful to the Commission, as well
as to shareholders, issuers and state legislatures.
\317\ For example, Delaware has amended its General Corporation
Law to allow corporations to adopt measures to respond to certain
record date capture strategies. See Bryn Vaaler, United States: DGCL
Amendments Authorize Proxy Access And Expense Reimbursement Bylaws,
Reverse Schoon v. Troy Corp., Mondaq Business Briefing, May 12,
2009, available at http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/article.asp?articleid=79322. Some corporations have adopted bylaws
that, under certain circumstances, require shareholders submitting a
proposal to disclose how they have hedged the economic interests
associated with their share positions. See Matt Andrejczak, ``Sara
Lee, Coach set rules to deter devious shareholders,'' MarketWatch,
Apr. 2, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Empty Voting Techniques and Potential Downsides
a. Empty Voting Using Hedging-Based Strategies
A variety of techniques can be used to accomplish empty voting. One
technique is to hold shares but to hedge the economic interest in those
shares. A shareholder could hedge that economic interest in a wide
variety of ways, including by buying either exchange-traded or OTC put
options. In a recent Commission enforcement action, a registered
investment adviser agreed to settle charges that it had violated
Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act in furtherance of a strategy of
``essentially buying votes.'' \318\ The investment adviser purchased
shares of a prospective acquirer ``for the exclusive purpose of voting
the shares in a merger and influencing the outcome of the vote'' on a
proposed acquisition of a company in which the investment adviser owned
a large block of stock.\319\ At the same time, the investment adviser
entered into swap transactions with the banks from which it purchased
the acquirer's shares, so that it ``was able to acquire the voting
rights to nearly ten percent of [the acquirer]'s stock without having
any economic risk and no real economic stake in the company, [and] was
able to do this without making a significant financial outlay.'' \320\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\318\ See In the Matter of Perry Corp., Release No. 34-60351,
July 21, 2009 at ]19, available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2009/34-60351.pdf.
\319\ Id. at ]33.
\320\ Id. at ]18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the practice of empty voting was not asserted as a
substantive violation in the enforcement action, the matter illustrates
how hedging techniques can be used to obtain voting power without
having economic exposure on the securities being voted. The use of
hedging by insiders also can result in empty voting. Executives
entering into ``collars'' transactions, for instance, retain full
voting rights despite having hedged a portion of their economic
interest.\321\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\321\ In a ``collar'' transaction, the investor sells a call
option at one strike price and purchases a put option at a lower
strike price. For little or no cost, the investor thereby limits the
potential for appreciation or depreciation to the range--the
``collar''--defined by the two strike prices. Academic research
indicates that CEOs, directors, and senior executives have used this
strategy to hedge their economic interest in the firm's stock. See
Carr Bettis, John Bizjak, and Michael Lemmon, Managerial Ownership,
Incentive Contracting, and the Use of Zero-Cost Collars and Equity
Swaps by Corporate Insiders, Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, 2001, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Empty voting can also be accomplished by the use of credit
derivatives (rather than through the use of put options and other
equity derivatives), a process dubbed ``hybrid decoupling.'' \322\ For
example, instead of using put options to hedge its economic interest in
shares, a shareholder may enter into credit default swap transactions
with a derivatives dealer. If a company experiences poor economic
performance, the likelihood of the company defaulting on its debt
increases, and so the shareholder's credit default swap holdings will
likely rise in value.\323\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\322\ See Hu & Black, Debt and Hybrid Decoupling, note 309,
above, at 688-690.
\323\ And just as ``equity decoupling'' and ``hybrid
decoupling'' could sometimes incentivize some shareholders to use
their voting rights against the best interests of the company and
other shareholders, some believe that a pattern that has been termed
``debt decoupling''--the unbundling of the economic rights,
contractual control rights, and other rights normally associated
with debt--may sometimes raise incentive issues as to some
debtholders. These debtholders, dubbed ``empty creditors,'' may
sometimes even have the incentive to use the control rights the
debtholders have in their loan agreements or bond indentures to try
to cause a company to go into bankruptcy. See Hu & Black, Debt and
Hybrid Decoupling, note 309 above, at 665-66 and 679-688; ``CDSs and
bankruptcy--No empty threat,'' The Economist, June 18, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, hedging-based strategies need not even involve holding
either the debt or equity of the company in which the shareholder is
voting, or derivatives linked to such debt or equity. A shareholder
may, for instance, be able to hedge its exposure to a company's shares
through purchasing assets correlated in some fashion to the company's
share price. In the case of an acquisition, for example, a shareholder
in the potential acquirer which also holds a larger equity interest in
the target company, may arguably be characterized as being an empty
voter with a negative economic interest in the acquirer. That is, the
more the acquirer overpays for the target, the more net profit the
investor would achieve. Other correlated assets that may be used in
empty voting strategies may include, for example, shares of a
competitor or a supplier.
b. Empty Voting Using Non-Hedging Based Strategies
There are a variety of situations in which empty voting may arise
without any hedging at all. For example, active trading between a
voting record date and the actual voting date may result in many voters
having voting rights different from their economic stakes. An investor
who sells shares after the voting record date retains the right to vote
the shares without having any economic interest in them. Another
example of empty voting without hedging is the voting of employees'
unallocated shares in an employee stock ownership plan (``ESOP''). In
an ESOP, while employees only have a contingent economic interest in
the unallocated shares, the shares have full voting rights and are
voted by a trustee, who either exercises discretion in voting or votes
in proportion to vested ESOP shares. Effectively, either the trustee or
the employees may become empty voters.\324\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\324\ See Hu & Black, Empty Voting II, note 309 above, at 648-
651 (as to restricted stock voting rights and certain ESOPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One important non-hedging based technique that appears to have been
used outside the United States is borrowing shares in the stock lending
market. Under standard stock lending arrangements, the borrower of the
shares has the voting rights associated with the shares borrowed, but
relatively little or no economic interest in the shares.\325\ Thus,
simply by paying a fee to borrow the shares, the borrower can ``buy''
votes associated with the shares without having any corresponding
economic interest. And the size of the fee could be reduced by
borrowing the shares immediately before the record date, and returning
the shares immediately afterwards.\326\ Within the U.S. this sort of
practice appears to be limited by Regulation T, under which securities
loans by institutional investors through their broker-dealers are
restricted to distinct ``permitted purposes'' under the Federal Reserve
Board's Regulation T, such as execution of a short sale.\327\
[[Page 43019]]
Borrowing securities to obtain the right to vote, however, may occur
outside the purview of Regulation T in certain circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\325\ See, e.g., Master Securities Lending Agreement at 7.1-7.5,
note 72, above.
\326\ Some observers believe that this stock lending-based
strategy has occurred in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. See Kara
Scannell, ``Outside Influence: How Borrowed Shares Swing Company
Votes--SEC and Others Fear Hedge-Fund Strategy May Subvert
Elections,'' Wall Street Journal, Jan. 26, 2007, at page A1.
\327\ See Federal Reserve Board Regulation T, 12 CFR Sec.
220.2. This regulation limits the purposes for which broker-dealers
who do not transact with customers from the general public may lend
shares. Regulation T's ``purpose test'' generally provides that
borrowers may only borrow securities for short selling, covering
delivery fails, and similar purposes. For a fuller description of
Regulation T, see Charles E. Dropkin, ``Developing Effective
Guidelines for Managing Legal Risks-U.S. Guidelines,'' Securities
Lending and Repurchase Agreements 167, 172-176 (Frank J. Fabozzi and
Steven V. Mann, eds., 2005). Essentially, Regulation T requires
broker-dealers to make a good faith effort to ascertain the
borrower's purpose and cannot lend shares for voting purposes
because that is not a permitted purpose under Regulation T. 17 CFR
220.10(a). The standard securities lending agreement in the U.S.
generally will contain a representation and warranty that the
borrower, and any person to whom the borrower relends the borrowed
securities, are only borrowing consistent with the ``purpose test''
(unless the borrowed securities are ``exempted securities''). See,
e.g., Master Securities Lending Agreement, note 72, above, at 9.5
(at www.sifma.org/services/stdforms/pdf/master_sec_loan.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Potential Regulatory Responses
As one possible response to empty voting and related phenomena, the
Commission could consider requiring disclosure that creates
transparency.\328\ The proxy rules, the periodic reporting system, and
rules adopted pursuant to statutory provisions such as Sections 13(d),
13(f), and 13(g) of the Exchange Act might be modified or a new
disclosure system could be developed to elicit fuller disclosure of
empty voting. More robust disclosure may be helpful to all of the
participants in the proxy process as well as for regulators. For
instance, if an investor acquires substantial voting rights that are
not disclosed, then the other shareholders may not be aware of the
potentially heightened importance of their vote. Without such
information, shareholders may have insufficient information as to the
need to vote and to take coordinated or other actions to protect their
interests. By improving transparency, investors would have the option
to choose to respond to such information and make a better informed
investment or voting decision. Issuers also may be in a position to
take responsible and appropriate action in response to disclosure of
empty voting strategies, such as increasing their solicitation efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\328\ The staff is also working on the separate but related
project of reviewing current disclosure requirements relating to
holdings of financial instruments, including short sale positions
and derivatives positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond gathering information and enhancing transparency, the
following are some of the possible responses to empty voting and other
types of decoupling that could be considered by the Commission,
Congress, state legislatures, and individual issuers.
Require voters to certify on the form of proxy or VIF that
they held the full economic interest in the shares being voted at the
time the proxy was executed, or, if not, disclose the extent to which
their economic interest in the shares was shorted or hedged.
Require disclosure of the shareholder meeting agenda
sufficiently ahead of the record date to enable investors who have
loaned their securities to recall those loans to retain voting control
of those securities.\329\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\329\ See Section III.C.2, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit only persons who possess pure long positions (i.e.,
economic interests not shorted or hedged) in the underlying shares to
vote by proxy, or allow proxy voting only commensurate with their net
long positions (e.g., economic interests after adjusting for equity or
credit derivative-based hedging or short positions), or require a
cooling-off period for those who have no or negative economic interests
(after public disclosure) before voting.
Prohibit empty voting, especially in situations where
there is a negative economic interest.
4. Request for Comment
What is the potential for, and actual prevalence of, all
forms of equity, debt, and hybrid decoupling (including empty voting)?
Are these techniques employed differently by ``outside'' investors,
company insiders, and the company itself? Does decoupling raise public
policy concerns, for example in relation to the disclosure requirements
of Section 13(d)? Are existing disclosure requirements under Section
13(d) and other provisions of federal securities laws sufficient to
address the entire range of concerns raised by equity, debt, and hybrid
decoupling?
Can the potentially beneficial and potentially detrimental
aspects of debt, equity, or hybrid decoupling be meaningfully
distinguished? Are there adverse consequences if there are empty
voters, or even empty voters with negative economic interests,
especially if their votes are outcome determinative? Are there examples
of situations in which empty voting was outcome determinative?
What are the mechanisms that result in debt, equity, and
hybrid decoupling giving rise to public policy concerns? How important
are these different mechanisms? To what extent can credit derivatives,
correlated assets (such as, for example, shares of other participants
in a takeover battle), or other financial instruments be used, and to
what extent are they being used, to accomplish empty voting? To what
extent does debt decoupling raise issues similar to those raised by
equity decoupling or hybrid decoupling and how might regulatory or
other responses to debt decoupling differ?
At what economic threshold or percentage of voting power
threshold is decoupling--by any one individual, by group, or by
shareholders in the aggregate--material to the company and its security
holders?
Are certain companies (for instance, due to their
ownership or capital structure) particularly vulnerable to potential
adverse effects of debt, equity, or hybrid decoupling?
Do concerns about decoupling economic interests and voting
rights extend to the decoupling of voting and investment management
functions within institutional investors? \330\ If so, would one or
more regulatory responses, involving disclosure or otherwise, be
appropriate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\330\ See Nathan & Mehta, note 310, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under what circumstances should disclosure of a
shareholder's net economic interest be required, along with any
associated decoupling? If such net economic interest is required to be
disclosed, how should ``net economic interest'' be defined, given the
myriad ways in which such decoupling can occur? Should our rules
require disclosure regarding, and/or certification of, beneficial and
economic ownership as part of the form of proxy or VIF? Or should this
matter be left to state law or bylaws adopted by individual companies?
If companies and company executives themselves engage in
decoupling, do existing disclosure requirements result in sufficient
transparency for investors to observe this behavior? If not, what level
of disclosure would provide sufficient transparency? What changes to
Schedules 13D or 13G, periodic disclosure requirements, Securities Act
disclosure rules, the proxy rules, or other aspects of securities law
are advisable?
Are there circumstances (such as empty voting while
holding a negative economic interest) where debt, equity, and hybrid
decoupling appear to be fundamentally detrimental to the shareholders,
debtholders, or the issuer itself? Are existing disclosure
requirements, or changes to existing disclosure requirements,
sufficient to address any such concerns? Should the Commission consider
additional remedial actions? What role should federal law, state law
and individual corporate actions play in addressing any such concerns?
Should we propose rule changes to provide more disclosure
and transparency as to equity, debt, or
[[Page 43020]]
hybrid decoupling? If so, should this disclosure be in proxy
solicitation materials, periodic reports, or disclosures pursuant to
Sections 13(d), 13(g), and/or 13(f)? Should we develop a specific new
form or report relating to short sales, short sale positions, and debt,
equity, or other derivatives that could be used to identify instances
of potential or actual empty voting or other kinds of equity, debt, or
hybrid decoupling? Should any requirements related to decoupling
disclosure also require disclosure of credit derivatives positions, as
would occur with hybrid decoupling? Should debt decoupling be subject
to disclosure requirements and, if so, what disclosure requirements
would be appropriate? To what extent would new legislation be necessary
in order to impose any of these requirements?
If we were to propose any enhanced or new disclosure
requirements, what should the filing deadlines be under various
circumstances in order to inform the marketplace on a timely basis,
while providing adequate time for those responsible for complying with
the requirement to collect the information and prepare the filing?
What should be the triggers for such disclosure
requirements? For instance, in establishing such a trigger, is the more
than 5% equity ownership threshold of Exchange Act Section 13(d)
analogous in any way? Are the current ``beneficial owner'' concepts
contemplated by Regulation 13D-G, some variation of such concepts, or
some altogether different concept of ownership appropriate for
determining whether a disclosure requirement is triggered? Or should
decoupling-related disclosures not be based on conceptions of
ownership, but instead be based on the nature of the investor and
presence of investment discretion, as with Form 13F? Are there
alternatives to ``ownership,'' the nature of the investor, and presence
of investment discretion that should be considered?
What level of detail should be required for decoupling-
related disclosures, recognizing the complexity of, for example, many
OTC derivatives?
If, pursuant to state law or a company's articles or
bylaws, there are substantive limitations on empty voting or other
forms of decoupling, should the Commission accommodate the
implementation of such limitations by, for instance, requiring
disclosure or ownership certifications on the form of proxy or VIF?
To what extent is Regulation T, by its terms, effective in
limiting the borrowing of shares for voting purposes? Should the
Commission or another regulator propose a new rule that would prohibit
or restrict borrowing securities for purposes of obtaining the right to
vote those securities?
VI. Conclusion
The U.S. proxy system is the fundamental infrastructure of
shareholder suffrage since the corporate proxy is the principal means
by which shareholders exercise their voting rights. The development of
issuer, securities intermediary, and shareholder practices over the
years, spurred in part by technological advances, has made the system
complex and, as a result, less transparent to shareholders and to
issuers. It is our intention that this system operate with the
reliability, accuracy, transparency, and integrity that shareholders
and issuers should rightfully expect.
We are interested in the public's opinions regarding the matters
discussed in this concept release. We encourage all interested parties
to submit comment on these topics. In addition, we solicit comment on
any other aspect of the mechanics of proxy distribution and collection
that commentators believe may be improved upon.
Dated: July 14, 2010.
By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17615 Filed 7-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P