As we’ve blogged about recently, Texas has taken a number of steps to bolster its reputation as a business-friendly state. The latest is a new law aimed at making it harder for shareholder proponents to get a proposal (other than a director nomination) on the ballot at a meeting of shareholders. This bill, which is fairly bare bones, has been approved by the Texas Legislature and awaits the governor’s signature to become law. If signed, it would become effective on September 1, 2025. Here are five wild things to consider: 1. Companies with a Texas headquarters or that are listed on the coming Texas Stock Exchange can take advantage – Companies with stock listed on a national stock exchange and that either have their principal office in Texas or are listed on the Texas Stock Exchange can take advantage of these enhanced thresholds. 2. Companies must affirmatively elect by modifying their charters or bylaws and notify shareholders in their proxy beforehand – A company would have to modify one of its governing documents to affirmatively elect to be governed by this new law, as well as disclose in a proxy before it modifies a governing document that it intends to do so. 3. Shareholder proponents would have to solicit 67% of the voting power of the shares entitled to vote – The proposal submission thresholds are pretty steep, particularly the requirement to solicit 67% of the voting power of the shares entitled to vote. In addition, a shareholder or group of shareholders would have to own either $1 million worth of stock or 3% of the company’s voting shares, and hold such shares for the six months prior to the annual shareholders meeting. 4. Proxies would have to describe the proposal process – Companies would need to include disclosure about the proposal process, including how shareholders can contact other shareholders for purposes of satisfying the ownership requirements. 5. How this Texas law stands alongside the SEC’s Rule 14a-8 – Rule 14a-8 only regulates when a proposal must be included in a company’s proxy statement; it doesn’t dictate whether the proposal needs to actually be brought at the meeting, which is a state law issue. #corpgov https://lnkd.in/edUiZQqP
Texas passes law to limit shareholder proposals
More Relevant Posts
-
SEC Chair Questions Legality of Non-Binding Shareholder Proposals In a recent address, SEC Chair, Paul Atkins, questioned whether Delaware law actually requires companies to include non-binding shareholder proposals in their corporate proxy statements. His remarks suggest that there is a sound basis under which these proposals may be excluded from proxy statements of Delaware corporations – a position that, if adopted, could upend historical shareholder engagement practices related to shareholder proposals. While the Chairman’s view remains untested, its ultimate resolution may rest with Delaware’s courts before exclusion of such shareholder proposals becomes settled practice. Click the link in the comments to read the full client alert.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
In a speech on October 9, SEC Chair Paul Atkins stated that “[t]he view that Delaware law does not provide shareholders the right to have their precatory proposals addressed by companies is not a new one” and questioned why more Delaware companies “have not sought to exclude precatory shareholder proposals pursuant to paragraph (i)(1)” of Rule 14a-8. This memo summarizes the key considerations related to Chair Atkins’s statement on Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposals. Subscribe to our memos: https://lnkd.in/eJ2NJfei Learn more: https://lnkd.in/eCZMMhTD
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Paul Atkins delivered remarks on October 9 exploring arguments that nonbinding shareholder proposals are not a right under Delaware law. This could eventually result in the elimination of nearly all Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposals as we know them. Read more from Cooley LLP with the link below.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Paul Atkins delivered remarks on October 9 exploring arguments that nonbinding shareholder proposals are not a right under Delaware law. This could eventually result in the elimination of nearly all Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposals as we know them. Read more from Cooley LLP with the link below.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
SEC Chair Paul Atkins delivered remarks on October 9 exploring arguments that nonbinding shareholder proposals are not a right under Delaware law. This could eventually result in the elimination of nearly all Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposals as we know them. Read more from Cooley LLP with the link below.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
From a Bloomberg Law post: “Big capital providers are flocking to Arizona to pour money into “alternative” law firms as investors become comfortable with risk in the fledgling space.” “A Bloomberg Law review of approved ABS applications shows details of the business models of new entrants gaining a foothold in Arizona. This article is based on documents received via a public records request to the Arizona Supreme Court.” As Wall Street looks for returns that aren’t correlated to more traditional equity and fixes-income investments, it capitalizes (pun intended) on law firm regulatory reform. https://lnkd.in/eyuwU-6N #legaltechnology #legaltech
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Can a corporation’s failure to comply with statutory transparency obligations be challenged at any time? A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision confirmed that limitation periods are applicable to shareholder compliance applications. Read about the decision and its key takeaways for business owners and minority shareholders. Authored by: Gleb Matushansky #MTInsights #CommercialLitigation
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Last month, Delaware enacted Senate Bill 21 (SB 21) — a seismic shift in how conflicted transactions involving interested directors or controlling shareholders are reviewed under Delaware corporate law. Under the new regime, to qualify for the “safe harbor” under Section 144, a transaction now needs only one procedural approval — either from independent directors or informed minority shareholders — rather than both. The amendment also relaxes the requirement that a special committee be fully independent, reducing it to just a majority of disinterested directors. Why this matters: - It recalibrates the balance of power between boards and minority investors. - It challenges entrenched court precedents that demanded stricter safeguards. - It may influence where companies choose to incorporate (or re-incorporate). - It sets up new battlegrounds over fiduciary duty, fairness review, disclosure obligations, and enforcement. In practice, counsel and directors will need to rethink how they structure conflicted deals, how they document decision processes, and how they manage risk of post-closing challenges. Question for you: In your view, does SB 21 meaningfully weaken investor protection — or is it a necessary modernization for Delaware to stay competitive? I’d love to debate this. Feel free to comment or DM me your take. #CorporateLaw #Governance #FiduciaryDuties #DelawareLaw #MergersAndAcquisitions #ShareholderRights #LegalInnovation
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
New BainbridgeOnCorporations post: SEC Chair Paul Atkins Continues His Focus on Reforming SEC Rule 14a-8 (The Shareholder Proposal Rule): Part II—The case for repeal or meaningful reform of the shareholder proposal rule
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
With no end in sight, the U.S. government shutdown may prove to dampen activity in Big Law capital market practices, which have seen a surge of IPO deals this year. The shutdown is already causing headaches on closing initial public offerings, but it could become more troublesome for transactions the longer the shutdown continues, attorneys and legal consultants say. Margaret Rhoda, a securities and capital markets partner at New York-based firm Harter Secrest & Emery who primarily works with small publicly traded companies, said she sees the impact on clients trying to raise capital. “For smaller public companies, unless you have your registration statement declared effective before the doors closed, you are kind of left in the cold until the government reopens,” said Rhoda. There’s still plenty of work to be done that doesn’t require government review. “All the securities offering and transactional processes that we have ongoing remain ongoing and in process,” said Matthew Kaplan, chair of Debevoise & Plimpton’s corporate department. Full story from Abigail Adcox: https://lnkd.in/eKVXJ2cR
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Broadridge•1K followers
10moThanks for sharing, Broc! Good information!