Popular Topics
All Topics
- "Gun Jumping"
- "Test-the-Waters" communications
- 2016 SEC Agenda
- ABL
- Accelerated Filer
- Accelerated filers
- Access to Capital and Market Liquidity Report
- Accounting
- Accredited investor
- Advance Notice Bylaws
- Airbnb
- Alternative Trading Systems
- Annual meeting
- Annual reports
- ASC Topic 740
- Asset Management
- asset-based loan
- ATS
- Auction IPOs
- Audit committee
- Auditor attestation
- Authentication document
- BlackRock
- Blank-check companies
- Blockchain
- blue sky
- Board committees
- Board Diversity
- Board independence
- Board of Directors
- Boilerplate
- Boilerplate in securities documents
- borrower
- Broker-dealer
- Broker-dealer registration
- Broker-dealers
- Calculation of Registration Fee
- California
- California Assembly Bill 979
- Capital formation
- capital markets
- Capital raising
- CEO letters
- Certified B corporation
- Chair Mary Jo White
- Chairman’s letters
- Chairperson’s letters
- Climate Change
- coal companies
- coal company IPOs
- coal miners
- coal mining
- collateral
- Columbia Law School
- Commencement of an offering
- Compensation sharing
- Compensatory offerings
- Compensatory sales
- Compensatory securities
- Compensatory securities offerings and sales
- Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation 110.02
- conditions precedent
- conference
- Confidential filings
- Confidential information
- Confidential treatment
- Confidentiality agreements
- coronavirus
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Corporate social responsibility
- Corporate social responsibility: CSR
- Corporate Stock-Givaway Program
- covenants
- COVID-19
- credit agreement
- Crowdfunding
- CSR
- Cyber breach
- cyber incident
- Cyber risk
- Cyber-attack
- cybersecurity
- DAO
- December 31 Fiscal year end
- Decimalization
- Definition of a Security
- Delaware corporate law
- Delaware Law
- Delaying amendment
- Description of Business
- Designer stock
- Digital Advertising
- Digital securities
- Direct listings
- Direct marketing programs
- Direct response marketing
- Director Nominees
- Director Questionnaire
- Directors
- Disclosure
- Disclosure and Reporting
- Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative
- Disclosure Obligations
- Disclosure Regime
- Disclosure regulation
- Disclosure Requirements
- Disclosure Rules
- Disclosure simplification
- Disclosure updates and simplification release
- Diversity
- Dodd Frank
- Dodd-Frank Act
- Domino's Piece of the Pie Rewards
- Domino's Pizza
- Donald Trump
- Dual Class Shares
- Dual-class Capitalization
- Dual-Class Common Stock
- Dual-class shareholder voting
- Due diligence
- earnings guidance
- Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
- EDGAR Filing Manual
- EGC
- Electronic signatures
- Emerging growth companies
- Emerging Growth Company
- engagement letter
- environment, social and governance
- Equity Market Structure
- ESG
- event of default
- events of default
- Exchange Act
- Exchange Act Rule 12b-2
- Exchange listing
- Exchanges
- executive compensation
- Exempt offerings
- Exempt securities offerings
- Exhibits to Registration Statement
- FAST Act
- FDA
- Female
- Fictitious regulators
- Filing review comments
- financial forecasts
- Financial intermediaries
- Financial sophistication
- Financial statements
- Financing Alternatives
- Finders
- Finders exception
- Finders exemption
- FINRA
- First-day pop
- Five-factor test
- Form 10-K
- Form 10-Q
- Form D
- Form S-1
- Form S-3
- Form S-4
- Founder’s letters
- Fraudulent activities
- Free Stock
- Free Stock Offerings
- FTC
- General Motors Co.
- General solicitation
- Glass Lewis
- Golden Leashes
- Greenlight Capital, Inc.
- Hart-Scott-Rodino
- HSR Act
- Impersonators of genuine firms
- Incorporation by reference
- Indications of Interest
- Influencer Marketing
- Information asymmetry
- Initial coin offering
- Initial listing requirements
- Initial public offerings
- Insider Trading
- Integration
- interest
- Interest rate system
- Interest rates
- Intrastate offerings
- Investment banking
- Investment Company Act
- Investor Advisory Committee
- Investor Alert
- IPO
- IPO disclosure
- IPO drawbacks
- IPO pricing
- IPOs
- ISS
- Item 101
- Item 103
- Item 103 of Regulation S-K
- Item 105
- Item 401 of Regulation S-K
- Item 501(b)(7)
- Item 601(b)(24) of Regulation S-K
- James Mackintosh
- JOBS Act
- Ken Langone
- Large Accelerated Filer
- Larry Fink’s 2019 letter to CEOs
- Legal proceedings
- lender
- LGBTQ+
- LIBOR
- line of credit
- loan agreement
- Loan Agreements
- Loan transactions
- Loans
- Loyalty Programs
- Lyft, Inc.
- MAE
- Management
- management disclosure and analysis
- Management; Executive officers and directors
- Mark Cuban
- Material contract exhibits
- Material nonpublic information
- MD&A
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Modernization
- Multi-Class Shares
- NASDAQ
- Nasdaq Independence Rules
- Nasdaq Listing Rules
- Nomination Letter
- Non-accelerated Filer
- Non-GAAP Financial Measures
- NSMIA
- NYSE
- Offering fees
- Offering statement on Form 1-A
- Offering statement on Form C
- Ordinary Course Covenant
- OTC
- OTC Market Group
- OTC Pink
- OTC quoted companies
- OTCQB
- Paid-for Research
- pandemic
- Pay Ratio Disclosure
- Pay Ratio Rule
- perfection certificate
- Periodic reports
- Perpetual dual-class stock
- Power of Attorney
- Prescriptive-based disclosure
- Primary issuances
- Principal Executive Offices
- Principles-based disclosure
- Private Equity
- Private fund knowledgeable employees
- Private placements
- Prof. John C. Coffee, Jr.
- Proposed Rule 5605(f)
- Prospectuses
- proxy advisory firms
- Proxy Contests
- Proxy fights
- Proxy materials
- Proxy statement
- Proxy voting
- Public benefit corporation
- Public Companies
- Public company acquisitions
- Public Float
- Public M&A
- Public offerings
- Purpose & Profit
- Purpose of the corporation
- Qualified institutional buyer
- Reference interest rates
- Reg S-K
- Registered offerings
- Registration Filing Fee
- Registration statement
- Registration statements
- Regulation A activity
- Regulation A+
- Regulation Crowdfunding
- Regulation D
- Regulation FD
- Regulation of finders
- Regulation S
- Regulation S-K
- Regulation S-K Item 10(f)(1)
- Regulation S-T
- Regulations S-K
- Regulatory Entrepreneurship
- Release No. 34-90112
- Reporting Category
- representations
- resource extraction antigraft rule
- restricted stock
- Reverse mergers
- revolver
- Rights offerings
- Risk Factors
- Rule 10b-5
- Rule 10b5-1 plan
- Rule 144A
- Rule 14a-4
- Rule 163B under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 21F-17
- Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- Rule 253(f)
- Rule 302(b)
- Rule 4(a)(2) offering
- Rule 406 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 473 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 483 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 506(b)
- Rule 506(c)
- Rule 701
- S&P Dow Jones
- Safe Harbor
- SAFEs
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act §404(b)
- Say-on-Pay Frequency Vote
- SEC
- SEC approval of offerings
- SEC Comments
- SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson Jr.
- SEC disclosure
- SEC disgorgement
- SEC Division of Economics and Risk Analysis
- SEC Filing Deadlines
- SEC Filing Reviews
- SEC Form 10
- SEC Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
- SEC Release No. 33-10591
- SEC Report of Investigation
- SEC Rule 152
- SEC shutdown
- Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
- Section 21F
- Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
- securities
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Securities Act
- Securities Act of 1933
- Securities Act Rule 257
- Securities Act Rule 405
- Securities Act Section 17(b)
- Securities Exchange Act
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- Securities litigation
- Securities offerings
- securities transactions
- Severance Agreements
- Sexual harassment
- Sexual misconduct
- Shareholder Activism
- shareholder activists
- Shareholder nominations
- Shareholder rights
- Shareholder voting
- Shareholder Voting Rights
- Signatures in Registration Statement
- Simple Agreement for Future Equity
- Small business
- Small-cap
- Small-cap Companies
- Small-cap Issuers
- Smaller reporting companies
- Smaller reporting company
- Snap IPO
- Social Capital Hedosophia
- Social Media
- Social Media Marketing
- SOFR
- SPAC
- SPAC's
- Special Purpose Acquisition Company
- Special situations
- Spin-offs
- Sponsorship
- Spotify
- SRC
- Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 118
- Staleness date
- Startups
- State securities laws
- stock options
- Stock Ownership Guidelines
- Stock Promotion Schemes
- Strategic spin-offs
- Sunset provisions
- Supreme Court
- Sustainability
- Switch, Inc.
- T+2
- Targeted stocks
- Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Tech IPOs
- Tech M&A
- Tech unicorns
- term loan
- term sheet
- Termination or Completion of an offering
- The CLS Blue Sky Blog
- The Wall Street Journal
- Third Party Payments
- Tick Pilot
- Tick Size
- Tick Size Pilot Program
- Tick Sizes
- Token sales
- Tracking stocks
- Trade Settlement
- Trading
- trading platforms
- Transaction-based compensation
- U.S. dollar LIBOR
- U.S. federal income tax reform
- Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Underrepresented Minority
- Underwriting allocations
- Underwriting fees
- Undisclosed Fees
- Unequal Voting Rights
- Universal proxy ballots
- Unregistered finders
- Unregistered offerings
- Unregistered Soliciting Entities
- Uplisting
- US Supreme Court
- Use of boilerplate
- venture capital
- venture capital investors
- venture capital terms
- Venture exchanges
- Verification of accredited status
- Virtual currency
- voting control
- voting power
- warranties
- Whistleblower Program
- Whistleblowers
- “Tandy” Representations
- “Testing the Waters”
Recent Posts
- Leadership Change at the SEC: What Activists Could Expect from Gary Gensler and the Biden Administration
- Delaware Chancery Court Provides Important Guidance on COVID-19’s Impact on a Buyer’s Obligation to Close:
- New York State Updates State Securities Regulations
- Nasdaq Proposes New Listing Rules Related to Board Diversity
- SEC Adopts Amendments to Permit the Use of Electronic Signatures for SEC Filings
- The SEC Rebuilds the Integration Principles Guiding Concurrent Private and Public Offerings of Securities
- The SEC Proposes a Safe Harbor for Permissible Capital-Raising Activities by Unregistered Finders
- SEC Issues 100th Whistleblower Award Just Days after Adopting Amendments to Whistleblower Program
- SEC Reduces Registration Filing Fee Beginning in October 2020
- The SEC Amends Regulation S-K Disclosure Rules to Empower Companies to Determine What and How Much Disclosure is Appropriate for Shareholders and Investors
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
Contact Us
(212) 451-2300
www.olshanlaw.com
Delaware Court Rules That Overbroad Questionnaires “Went Too Far” in Decision to Enjoin Closed-End Funds From Invalidating Shareholder Nominations
On June 27, 2019, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an injunction requiring the boards of trustees of two closed-end investment funds (the “Funds”) to count the votes in favor of director candidates nominated by shareholder Saba Capital at the annual meetings scheduled for July 8, 2019. Saba Capital had timely given notice of its nominations in compliance with the Funds’ advance notification bylaws. In a response weeks later, the Funds asked that the nominees complete a supplemental questionnaire, which had “nearly one hundred questions over forty-seven pages, and was due in five business days.” The Funds declared the nominations invalid after Saba Capital missed the five-day deadline for submitting the questionnaires. In the case captioned Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. v. BlackRock Credit Allocation Income Trust, et al., Vice Chancellor Zurn granted Saba Capital’s request for injunctive relief, finding that the Funds’ rejection of the nominations submitted by Saba Capital violated the Funds’ bylaws. As discussed in this Client Alert, the Court’s ruling is consistent with views recently expressed by Olshan that overzealous defense advisors continue to “cross the line” by using onerous, overbroad questionnaires as traps to thwart shareholder nominations and chill activist campaigns.
Saba Capital had timely given notice of its nominations in compliance with the Funds’ advance notification bylaws. In a response weeks later, the Funds asked that the nominees complete a supplemental questionnaire, which had “nearly one hundred questions over forty-seven pages, and was due in five business days.” The Funds declared the nominations invalid after Saba Capital missed the five-day deadline for submitting the questionnaires (although Saba Capital eventually provided the completed questionnaires).
Saba Capital filed suit on June 4 and sought expedited injunctive relief, bringing claims for breach of the Funds’ bylaws and breach of the Boards’ fiduciary duties. The Court denied injunctive relief on the fiduciary claims, but granted an injunction on the claim for breach of the bylaws, prohibiting the Boards from invalidating Saba Capital’s nominations and allowing votes in favor of its competing slate to be counted.
The Court viewed Saba Capital’s request for injunctive relief from the bylaw infractions as a breach of contract claim based on the unambiguous provisions of the bylaws. Section 1 of Article II of the bylaws (“Section 1”) sets forth a list of qualifications that trustees must satisfy in order to serve on the Boards. Saba Capital’s nomination letters addressed these trustee qualification requirements, “albeit at a high level and without much context or explanation.”
Section 7(e) of Article I of the bylaws (“Section 7(e)”) allows the Boards to ask nominating shareholders to provide supplemental information regarding their nominees, stating:
A shareholder of record, or group of shareholders of record, providing notice of any nomination ... shall further update and supplement such notice, if necessary, so that: … (ii) any subsequent information reasonably requested by the Board of Directors to determine that the Proposed Nominee has met the director qualifications as set out in Section 1 of Article II is provided, and such update and supplement shall be delivered to or be mailed and received by the Secretary at the principal executive offices of the Fund no later than five (5) business days after the request by the Board of Directors for subsequent information regarding director qualifications has been delivered to or mailed and received by such shareholder of record, or group of shareholders of record providing notice of any nomination. (emphasis added)
Relying on this language, the Court found that the bylaws “imposed three restrictions on the Boards’ right to request updates and supplements to the Nomination Letters: the desired information must be (a) for the purpose of determining whether Saba’s nominees met Section 1’s enumerated [trustee qualification] requirements, (b) ‘reasonably requested’ with that scope in mind, and (c) ‘necessary’ for the Boards’ determinations.”
The Court stated that while the Boards were entitled to ask for additional information under Section 7(e) to evaluate whether the nominees met the trustee qualification requirements of Section 1 and a subset of the questions contained in the questionnaire related to these trustee qualifications, the Boards “went too far . . . By including in the Questionnaire a substantial number of questions unrelated to Section 1’s director qualifications, and nonetheless enforcing the strict five-day deadline to invalidate Saba’s nominations, Defendants overstepped their authority under [Section 7(e)] while demanding strict compliance from Saba.” Accordingly, the Court found that the questionnaire “was not ‘reasonably requested’ or ‘necessary’ to determine whether Saba’s nominees met Section 1’s requirements.”
Separately, the Court ruled that, based on the limited, pre-discovery record before it, Saba Capital had not established a likelihood of success on its claim for breach of the fiduciary duties by the Funds’ trustees. Notably, the Court criticized Saba Capital for delaying in filing suit, thus hampering its ability to obtain discovery in the case to support its factual allegations, noting that it could have filed suit roughly four weeks earlier than it had.
While this case involved a specific set of facts and circumstances regarding advance notice bylaws and corresponding nominee questionnaires, the decision nevertheless represents an important development in furtherance of quelling the continuing attempts by defense advisors to use onerous, open-ended nomination requirements as an entrenchment tool to thwart shareholder nominations and chill activist campaigns. We will continue to monitor and report on developments in this all-important area of shareholder rights.
Please contact the Olshan attorney with whom you regularly work or one of the attorneys listed below if you would like to discuss further or have questions.