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
- Environmental, 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 guidance
- Financial intermediaries
- Financial projections
- 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
- Forward-looking information
- Founder’s letters
- Fraudulent activities
- Free Stock
- Free Stock Offerings
- FTC
- General Motors Co.
- General solicitation
- Glass Lewis
- Global Warming
- 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 10(b)
- 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
- Safe harbor for forward-looking information
- 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 27A of the Securities Act of 1933
- 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
- Growth Companies Should Disclose Financial Projections In IPO Prospectuses
- SEC Announces That It Will Aggressively Scrutinize Issuer’s Climate Change Disclosure
- 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
Archives
- April 2021
- March 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
Contact Us
(212) 451-2300
www.olshanlaw.com
Institutional Shareholder Services Announces Results of its 2017-2018 Global Policy Survey Covering Governance Issues Relevant to Shareholder Activism
On September 25, 2017, Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) issued the results of its survey for its 2017-2018 policy cycle. The survey, which is an important part of ISS’ yearly global benchmark policy formation process, covers five “select high-profile governance” topics, three of which we believe are particularly relevant to shareholder activism and are summarized in this blog post.
The survey was open to institutional investors, company executives, company directors and other constituencies. There were approximately 600 responses to the survey, broken down as follows: approximately 78.5% of the responses were from corporate issuers, company advisors, company directors and other company representatives and service providers (“non-investors”) and approximately 21.5% of the responses were from institutional investors and organizations that represent or provide services to institutional investors (“investors”).
Below is a summary of ISS’ key findings of the survey that we believe are most relevant to shareholder activism.
Multi-Class Share Structures with Unequal Voting Rights
In light of the rise of dual class share structures with unequal voting rights, especially in the tech industry (think Google IPO in 2004 and, more recently, the Snap IPO) intended to concentrate voting power among founders or a particular group of investors, ISS solicited views on this topic.
43% of investor respondents indicated that multi-class structures with unequal voting rights are “never appropriate” for public companies while 43% indicated that unequal voting rights structures may be justified at new public companies if they are subject to sunset provisions or if periodically approved by the shareholders with the diminished voting rights. A very small percentage of investors responded that companies should be allowed to use their own discretion when choosing their voting rights structures.
50% of non-investor respondents indicated that companies should be allowed to use their own discretion when choosing their voting rights structures, 27% indicated that unequal voting rights structures may be justified at new public companies if they are subject to sunset provisions or if periodically approved by the shareholders with diminished voting rights, and 11% indicated that multi-class structures with unequal voting rights are never appropriate.
Board Gender Diversity
Board diversity is currently one of the hottest corporate governance topics and will be highly relevant during the upcoming proxy season. Recognizing this, ISS asked respondents whether the absence of a woman on a public company board would be “problematic.” A majority of both investor and non-investor respondents indicated that an all-male board is problematic.
69% of investor respondents stated that the complete lack of gender diversity on a board would be problematic. 43% of investor respondents stated that an all-male board could indicate that there are issues with the board’s process for recruiting directors. 26% stated that concerns with the lack of gender diversity would be mitigated if the company disclosed a policy to increase diversity. Less than 10% of investor respondents would not be concerned with a lack of gender diversity. Of significant relevance to shareholder activists, among the investors who indicated that a lack of gender diversity is problematic, the highest-favored response for addressing the issue was board engagement, the second highest-favored response was to consider supporting a shareholder proposal to take action to increase diversity, and the third highest-favored response was to support a director candidate nominated by a shareholder.
54% of non-investor respondents stated that an all-male board would be problematic, more than half of which also indicated that their concerns may be mitigated if the company disclosed a policy to increase diversity. 19% of non-investor respondents indicated that they would not be concerned with a lack of gender diversity. The most popular measure cited by non-investors to address gender diversity issues was board engagement. However, departing from their investor counterparts, the non-investors indicated that they would prefer to vote against members of the nominating committee of a company with gender diversity issues rather than support a shareholder-nominated director.
Virtual and Hybrid Meetings
ISS also solicited views on the increasing number of companies in the U.S. and abroad that are holding shareholders meetings exclusively by electronic means (i.e., virtual-only meetings) as well as virtual shareholders meetings simultaneously with physical meetings (i.e., hybrid meetings). As ISS noted, concerns have been raised that “replacing physical meetings with virtual-only meetings may hinder meaningful exchanges between board members and shareholders.” From a shareholder activist standpoint, we are equally concerned that virtual-only meetings could be used by management during a contested meeting to obtain an unfair advantage over the dissident by taking complete, unfettered control over all meeting and voting mechanics.
While 19% of investor respondents found virtual-only or hybrid meetings to be acceptable, 8% of investors were opposed to either form of meeting. 36% of investor respondents stated that hybrid meetings were acceptable but were opposed to virtual-only meetings. 32% of investor respondents found hybrid meetings to be acceptable and would come around to supporting virtual-only meetings if they afforded the same rights that shareholders have at physical meetings.
42% of non-investor respondents found virtual-only or hybrid meetings to be acceptable. Among the majority of non-investor respondents who disagreed, 22% indicated that hybrid meetings are generally acceptable and would come around to supporting virtual-only meetings if they afforded the same rights that shareholders have at physical meetings and 15% were not supporters of either hybrid or virtual-only meetings.
* * * *
According to ISS, a more comprehensive supplemental survey covering other issues will remain open until October 6, 2017. ISS will publish draft 2018 policy updates in late October and anticipates releasing final policy updates in mid-November. Please contact the Olshan attorney with whom you regularly work or one of the attorneys listed above if you would like to discuss further or have questions regarding the survey.