[Corrected – conforming to non-substantive 

changes in Federal Register version] 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

17 CFR PARTS 200, 232, 240 and 249 

[Release Nos. 33-9136; 34-62764; IC-29384; File No. S7-10-09] 

RIN 3235-AK27 

FACILITATING SHAREHOLDER DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting changes to the federal proxy rules to facilitate the effective 

exercise of shareholders’ traditional state law rights to nominate and elect directors to company 

boards of directors. The new rules will require, under certain circumstances, a company’s proxy 

materials to provide shareholders with information about, and the ability to vote for, a 

shareholder’s, or group of shareholders’, nominees for director. We believe that these rules will 

benefit shareholders by improving corporate suffrage, the disclosure provided in connection with 

corporate proxy solicitations, and communication between shareholders in the proxy process. 

The new rules apply only where, among other things, relevant state or foreign law does not 

prohibit shareholders from nominating directors. The new rules will require that specified 

disclosures be made concerning nominating shareholders or groups and their nominees. In 

addition, the new rules provide that companies must include in their proxy materials, under 

certain circumstances, shareholder proposals that seek to establish a procedure in the company’s 

governing documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder director nominees in the 

company’s proxy materials. We also are adopting related changes to certain of our other rules 

and regulations, including the existing solicitation exemptions from our proxy rules and the 

beneficial ownership reporting requirements. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATES: Effective Date: November 15, 2010

Compliance Dates: November 15, 2010, except that companies that qualify as “smaller 

reporting companies” (as defined in § 17 CFR 240.12b-2) as of the effective date of the rule 

amendments will not be subject to Rule 14a-11 until three years after the effective date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillian Brown, Tamara Brightwell, or Ted 

Yu, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3200, or, with regard to investment 

companies, Kieran G. Brown, Division of Investment Management, at (202) 551-6784, U.S. 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are adding new Rule 82a of Part 200 Subpart D – 

Information and Requests,1

 and new Rules 14a-11,2 and 14a-18,3 and new Regulation 14N4 and 

Schedule 14N,5

 and amending Rule 136 of Regulation S-T,7 Rules 13a-11,8 13d-1,9 14a-2,10 14a4,11 14a-5,12 14a-6,13 14a-8,14 14a-9,15 14a-12,16 and 15d-11,17 Schedule 13G,18 Schedule 14A,19 

1 17 CFR 200.82a. 

2 17 CFR 240.14a-11. 

3 17 CFR 240.14a-18. 

4 17 CFR 240.14n et seq. 

5 17 CFR 240.14n-101. 

6 17 CFR 232.13. 

7 17 CFR 232.10 et seq. 

8 17 CFR 240.13a-11. 

9 17 CFR 240.13d-1. 

10 17 CFR 240.14a-2. 

11 17 CFR 240.14a-4. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and Form 8-K,20 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.21 Although we are not amending 

Schedule 14C22 under the Exchange Act, the amendments will affect the disclosure provided in 

Schedule 14C, as Schedule 14C requires disclosure of some items contained in Schedule 14A. 

12 17 CFR 240.14a-5. 

13 17 CFR 240.14a-6. 

14 17 CFR 240.14a-8. 

15 17 CFR 240.14a-9. 

16 17 CFR 240.14a-12. 

17 17 CFR 240.15d-11. 

18 17 CFR 240.13d-102. 

19 17 CFR 240.14a-101. 

20 17 CFR 249.308. 

21 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. (the “Exchange Act”). Part 200 Subpart D – Information and Requests and 

Regulation S-T are also promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.] (the 

“Securities Act”). 

22 17 CFR 240.14c-101. 

3
 
 

 

Table of Contents 

I.	 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF AMENDMENTS................................................ 7
 

A. Background......................................................................................................................... 7
 

B. Our Role in the Proxy Process.......................................................................................... 22
 

C. Summary of the Final Rules ............................................................................................. 23
 

II. CHANGES TO THE PROXY RULES ............................................................................... 34
 

A. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 34
 

B. Exchange Act Rule 14a-11 ............................................................................................... 35
 

1. Overview........................................................................................................................ 35 
 

2. When Rule 14a-11 Will Apply ...................................................................................... 37
 

a. Interaction with state or foreign law ........................................................................ 38
 

b. Opt-in not required................................................................................................... 40
 

c. No opt-out ................................................................................................................ 41
 

d. No triggering events................................................................................................. 46
 

e. Concurrent proxy contests ....................................................................................... 48
 

3. Which Companies Are Subject to Rule 14a-11 ............................................................. 54
 

a. General..................................................................................................................... 54
 

b.	 Investment companies.............................................................................................. 55
 

c.	 Controlled companies .............................................................................................. 62
 

d.	 “Debt only” companies............................................................................................ 65
 

e.	 Application of Exchange Act Rule 14a-11 to companies that voluntarily register a 

class of securities under Exchange Act Section 12(g)............................................. 66
 

f.	 Smaller reporting companies ................................................................................... 67
 

4. Who Can Use Exchange Act Rule 14a-11..................................................................... 72
 

a.	 General..................................................................................................................... 72
 

b.	 Ownership threshold ................................................................................................ 75
 

i.	 Percentage of securities......................................................................................... 76
 

ii.	 Voting power ........................................................................................................ 93
 

iii.	 Ownership position ............................................................................................... 95
 

iv.	 Demonstrating ownership ................................................................................... 102
 

c. Holding period ....................................................................................................... 105
 

d. No change in control intent.................................................................................... 113
 

e. Agreements with the company............................................................................... 117
 

f. No requirement to attend the annual or special meeting........................................ 120
 

g. No limit on resubmission....................................................................................... 121
 

5. Nominee Eligibility under Exchange Act Rule 14a-11 ............................................... 122
 

a. Consistent with applicable law and regulation ...................................................... 122
 

b. Independence requirements and other director qualifications ............................... 125
 

c. Agreements with the company............................................................................... 132
 

d. Relationship between the nominating shareholder or group and the nominee ...... 133
 

e. No limit on resubmission of shareholder director nominees ................................. 137
 

6.	 Maximum Number of Shareholder Nominees to Be Included in Company Proxy 

Materials ...................................................................................................................... 138
 

a.	 General................................................................................................................... 138
 

b.	 Different voting rights with regard to election of directors ................................... 143
 

4
 
 

 

c.	 Inclusion of shareholder nominees in company proxy materials as company 

nominees ................................................................................................................ 147
 

7. Priority of nominations received by a company .......................................................... 150
 

a.	 Priority when multiple shareholders submit nominees.......................................... 150
 

b.	 Priority when a nominating shareholder or group or a nominee withdraws or is 

disqualified............................................................................................................. 157
 

8. Notice on Schedule 14N .............................................................................................. 162
 

a. Proposed notice requirements................................................................................ 162
 

b. Comments on the proposed notice requirements................................................... 164
 

c. Adopted notice requirements ................................................................................. 166
 

i.	 Disclosure ........................................................................................................... 166
 

ii.	 Schedule 14N filing requirements ...................................................................... 175
 

9.	 Requirements for a Company That Receives a Notice from a Nominating Shareholder 

or Group....................................................................................................................... 181
 

a. Procedure if company plans to include Rule 14a-11 nominee .............................. 182
 

b. Procedure if company plans to exclude Rule 14a-11 nominee.............................. 183
 

c. Timing of Process .................................................................................................. 196
 

d. Information required in company proxy materials ................................................ 196
 

i.	 Proxy statement................................................................................................... 196
 

ii.	 Form of proxy ..................................................................................................... 201
 

e. No preliminary proxy statement ............................................................................ 205
 

10. Application of the Other Proxy Rules to Solicitations by the Nominating Shareholder or 

Group ........................................................................................................................... 205
 

a. Rule 14a-2(b)(7)..................................................................................................... 205
 

b. Rule 14a-2(b)(8)..................................................................................................... 216
 

11. 2011 Proxy Season Transition Issues .......................................................................... 224
 

C. Exchange Act Rule 14a-8(i)(8)....................................................................................... 225
 

1. Background.................................................................................................................. 225
 

2. Proposed Amendment.................................................................................................. 226
 

3. Comments on the Proposal .......................................................................................... 228
 

4. Final Rule Amendment................................................................................................ 230
 

5. Disclosure Requirements ............................................................................................. 233
 

D. Other Rule Changes ........................................................................................................ 241
 

1. Disclosure of Dates and Voting Information............................................................... 241
 

2. Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements .......................................................... 244
 

3. Exchange Act Section 16............................................................................................. 249
 

4. Nominating Shareholder or Group Status as Affiliates of the Company..................... 252
 

E.	 Application of the Liability Provisions in the Federal Securities Laws to Statements Made 

By a Nominating Shareholder or Nominating Shareholder Group................................. 255
 

III. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT.................................................................................. 263
 

A. Background..................................................................................................................... 263
 

B. Summary of the Final Rules and Amendments .............................................................. 264
 

C. Summary of Comment Letters and Revisions to Proposal ............................................. 268
 

D. Revisions to PRA Reporting and Cost Burden Estimates .............................................. 270
 

1. Rule 14a-11.................................................................................................................. 272
 

2. Amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8)................................................................................... 285
 

5
 
 

 

3. Schedule 14N and Exchange Act Rule 14a-18............................................................ 291
 

4.	 Amendments to Exchange Act Form 8-K.................................................................... 298
 

5.	 Schedule 13G Filings................................................................................................... 300
 

6.	 Form ID Filings............................................................................................................ 302
 

E.	 Revisions to PRA Reporting and Cost Burden Estimates .............................................. 303
 

IV.	 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 305
 

A.	 Background..................................................................................................................... 305
 

B.	 Summary of Rules........................................................................................................... 305
 

C.	 Factors Affecting Scope of the New Rules..................................................................... 307
 

D.	 Benefits ........................................................................................................................... 311
 

1.	 Facilitating Shareholders’ Ability to Exercise Their State Law Rights to Nominate and 

Elect Directors ............................................................................................................. 312
 

2.	 Minimum Uniform Procedure for Inclusion of Shareholder Director Nominations and 

Enhanced Ability for Shareholders to Adopt Director Nomination Procedures.......... 323
 

3.	 Potential Improved Board Performance and Company Performance.......................... 328
 

4.	 More Informed Voting Decisions in Director Elections Due to Improved Disclosure of 

Shareholder Director Nominations and Enhanced Shareholder Communications...... 340
 

E.	 Costs................................................................................................................................ 343
 

1.	 Costs Related to Potential Adverse Effects on Company and Board Performance..... 343
 

2. Costs Related to Additional Complexity of Proxy Process ......................................... 353
 

3.	 Costs Related to Preparing Disclosure, Printing and Mailing and Costs of Additional 

Solicitations and Shareholder Proposals...................................................................... 356
 

V.	 CONSIDERATION OF BURDEN ON COMPETITION AND PROMOTION OF 

EFFICIENCY, COMPETITION AND CAPITAL FORMATION................................... 365
 

VI.	 FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ..................................................... 383
 

A.	 Need for the Amendments .............................................................................................. 384
 

B.	 Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments.............................................................. 386
 

C.	 Small Entities Subject to the Rules................................................................................. 389
 

D.	 Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements.................................. 390
 

E.	 Agency Action to Minimize Effect on Small Entities .................................................... 392
 

VII. STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND TEXT OF THE AMENDMENTS .......................... 396
 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF AMENDMENTS 

A. Background 

On June 10, 2009, we proposed a number of changes to the federal proxy rules designed 

to facilitate shareholders’ traditional state law rights to nominate and elect directors. Our 

proposals sought to accomplish this goal in two ways: (1) by facilitating the ability of 

shareholders with a significant, long-term stake in a company to exercise their rights to nominate 

and elect directors by establishing a minimum standard for including disclosure concerning, and 

enabling shareholders to vote for, shareholder director nominees in company proxy materials; 

and (2) by narrowing the scope of the Commission rule that permitted companies to exclude 

shareholder proposals that sought to establish a procedure for the inclusion of shareholder 

nominees in company proxy materials.23 We recognized at that time that the financial crisis that 

the nation and markets had experienced heightened the serious concerns of many shareholders 

about the accountability and responsiveness of some companies and boards of directors to 

shareholder interests, and that these concerns had resulted in a loss of investor confidence. 

These concerns also led to questions about whether boards were exercising appropriate oversight 

of management, whether boards were appropriately focused on shareholder interests, and 

whether boards need to be more accountable for their decisions regarding issues such as 

compensation structures and risk management. 

See Facilitating Shareholder Director Nominations, Release No. 33-9046, 34-60089 (June 10, 2009) [74 FR 

29024] (“Proposal” or “Proposing Release”). The Proposing Release was published for comment in the 

Federal Register on June 18, 2009, and the initial comment period closed on August 17, 2009. The 

Commission re-opened the comment period as of December 18, 2009 for thirty days to provide interested 

persons the opportunity to comment on additional data and related analyses that were included in the public 

comment file at or following the close of the original comment period. In total, the Commission received 

approximately 600 comment letters on the proposal. The public comments we received are available on 

our website at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-09/s71009.shtml. Comments also are available for 

website 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 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. 

7
 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A principal way that shareholders can hold boards accountable and influence matters of 

corporate policy is through the nomination and election of directors. The ability of shareholders 

to effectively use their power to nominate and elect directors is significantly affected by our 

proxy regulations because, as has long been recognized, a federally-regulated corporate proxy 

solicitation is the primary way for public company shareholders to learn about the matters to be 

decided by the shareholders and to make their views known to company management.24 As 

discussed in detail below, in light of these concerns, we reviewed our proxy regulations to 

determine whether they should be revised to facilitate shareholders’ ability to nominate and elect 

directors. We have taken into consideration the comments received on the proposed 

amendments as well as subsequent congressional action25 and are adopting final rules that will, 

for the first time, require company proxy materials, under certain circumstances, to provide 

shareholders with information about, and the ability to vote for a shareholder’s, or group of 

shareholders’, nominees for director. We also are amending our proxy rules to provide 

24	 See, e.g., Securit[ies] and Exchange Commission Proxy Rules: Hearings on H.R. 1493, H.R. 1821, and 

H.R. 2019 Before the House Comm. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., at 17-19 

(1943) (Statement of the Honorable Ganson Purcell, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission) 

(explaining the initial Commission rules requiring the inclusion of shareholder proposals in company proxy 

materials: “We give [a stockholder] the right in the rules to put his proposal before all of his fellow 

stockholders along with all other proposals ... so that they can see then what they are and vote accordingly. 

... The rights that we are endeavoring to assure to the stockholders are those rights that he has traditionally 

had under State law, to appear at the meeting; to make a proposal; to speak on that proposal at appropriate 

length; and to have his proposal voted on. But those rights have been rendered largely meaningless through 

the process of dispersion of security ownership through[out] the country.... [T]he assurance of these 

fundamental rights under State laws which have been, as I say, completely ineffective ... because of the 

very dispersion of the stockholders’ interests throughout the country[;] whereas formerly ... a stockholder 

might appear at the meeting and address his fellow stockholders[, t]oday he can only address the assembled 

proxies which are lying at the head of the table. The only opportunity that the stockholder has today of 

expressing his judgment comes at the time he considers the execution of his proxy form, and we believe ... 

that this is the time when he should have the full information before him and ability to take action as he 

sees fit.”); see also S. Rep. 792, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 12 (1934) (“[I]t is essential that [the stockholder] be 

enlightened not only as to the financial condition of the corporation, but also as to the major questions of 

policy, which are decided at stockholders’ meetings.”). 

25	 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, §971, 124 Stat. 1376 

(2010) (“Dodd-Frank Act”). 

8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholders the ability to include in company proxy materials, under certain circumstances, 

shareholder proposals that seek to establish a procedure in the company’s governing documents 

for the inclusion of one or more shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy materials. 

Regulation of the proxy process was one of the original responsibilities that Congress 

assigned to the Commission as part of its core functions in 1934. The Commission has actively 

monitored the proxy process since receiving this authority and has considered changes when it 

appeared that the process was not functioning in a manner that adequately protected the interests 

of investors.26 One of the key tenets of the federal proxy rules on which the Commission has 

consistently focused is whether the proxy process functions, as nearly as possible, as a 

replacement for an actual in-person meeting of shareholders.27 This is important because the 

proxy process represents shareholders’ principal means of participating effectively at an annual 

or special meeting of shareholders.28 In our Proposal we noted our concern that the federal proxy 

rules may not be facilitating the exercise of shareholders’ state law rights to nominate and elect 

26	 For example, the Commission has considered changes to the proxy rules related to the election of directors 

in recent years. See Security Holder Director Nominations, Release No. 34-48626 (October 14, 2003) [68 

FR 60784] (“2003 Proposal”); Shareholder Proposals, Release No. 34-56160 (July 27, 2007) [72 FR 

43466] (“Shareholder Proposals Proposing Release”); Shareholder Proposals Relating to the Election of 

Directors, Release No. 34-56161 (July 27, 2007) [72 FR 43488] (“Election of Directors Proposing 

Release”); and Shareholder Proposals Relating to the Election of Directors, Release No. 34-56914 

(December 6, 2007) [72 FR 70450] (“Election of Directors Adopting Release”). When we refer to the 

“2007 Proposals” and the comments received in 2007, we are referring to the Shareholder Proposals 

Proposing Release and the Election of Directors Proposing Release and the comments received on those 

proposals, unless otherwise specified. 

27	 Professor Karmel has described the Commission’s proxy rules as having the purpose “to make the proxy 

device the closest practicable substitute for attendance at the [shareholder] meeting.” Roberta S. Karmel, 

The New Shareholder and Corporate Governance: Voting Power Without Responsibility or Risk: How 

Should Proxy Reform Address the De-Coupling of Economic and Voting Rights?, 55 VILL. L. REV. 93, 104 

(2010). 

28	 Historically, a shareholder’s voting rights generally were exercised at a shareholder meeting. As discussed 

in the Proposing Release, in passing the Exchange Act, Congress understood that the securities of many 

companies were held through dispersed ownership, at least in part facilitated by stock exchange listing of 

shares. Although voting rights in public companies technically continued to be exercised at a meeting, the 

votes cast at the meeting were by proxy and the voting decision was made during the proxy solicitation 

process. This structure continues to this day. 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

directors. Without the ability to effectively utilize the proxy process, shareholder nominees do 

not have a realistic prospect of being elected because most, if not all, shareholders return their 

proxy cards in advance of the shareholder meeting and thus, in essence, cast their votes before 

the meeting at which they may nominate directors. Recognizing that this failure of the proxy 

process to facilitate shareholder nomination rights has a practical effect on the right to elect 

directors, the new rules will enable the proxy process to more closely approximate the conditions 

of the shareholder meeting. In addition, because companies will be required to include 

shareholder-nominated candidates for director in company proxy materials, shareholders will 

receive additional information upon which to base their voting decisions. Finally, we believe 

these changes will significantly enhance the confidence of shareholders who link the recent 

financial crisis to a lack of responsiveness of some boards to shareholder interests.29 

The Commission has, on a number of prior occasions, considered whether its proxy rules 

needed to be amended to facilitate shareholders’ ability to nominate directors by having their 

nominees included in company proxy materials. 30 Most recently, in June 2009, we proposed 

amendments to the proxy rules that included both a new proxy rule, Exchange Act Rule 14a-11, 

that would require a company’s proxy materials to provide shareholders with information about, 

and the ability to vote for, candidates for director nominated by long-term shareholders or groups 

29	 See letters from American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (“AFL-CIO”); 

California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”); Council of Institutional Investors (“CII”); 

Lynne L. Dallas (“L. Dallas”); Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (“LACERA”); 

Laborers’ International Union of North America (“LIUNA”); The Nathan Cummings Foundation (“Nathan 

Cummings Foundation”); Pax World Management Corp. (“Pax World”); Pershing Square Capital 

Management, L.P. (“Pershing Square”); Relational Investors, LLC (“Relational”); RiskMetrics Group, Inc. 

(“RiskMetrics”); Shareowner Education Network and Shareowners.org (“Shareowners.org”); Social 

Investment Forum (“Social Investment Forum”); State of Wisconsin Investment Board (“SWIB”); 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“Teamsters”); Trillium Asset Management Corporation 

(“Trillium”); Universities Superannuation Scheme – UK (“Universities Superannuation”); Washington 

State Investment Board (“WSIB”). 

30	 For a discussion of the Commission’s previous actions in this area, see the Proposing Release and the 2003 

Proposal. 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of long-term shareholders with significant holdings, and amendments to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) to 

prohibit exclusion of certain shareholder proposals seeking to establish a procedure in the 

company’s governing documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder director nominees 

in the company’s proxy materials. We received significant comment on the proposed 

amendments. Overall, commenters were sharply divided on the necessity for, and the 

workability of, the proposed amendments. Supporters of the amendments generally believed 

that, if adopted, they would facilitate shareholders’ ability to exercise their state law right to 

nominate directors and provide meaningful opportunities to effect changes in the composition of 

the board.31 These commenters predicted that the amendments would lead to more accountable, 

responsive, and effective boards.32 Many commenters saw a link between the recent economic 

crisis and shareholders’ inability to have nominees included in a company’s proxy materials.33 

Commenters opposed to our Proposal believed that recent corporate governance 

developments, including increased use of a majority voting standard for the election of directors 

and certain state law changes, already provide shareholders with meaningful opportunities to 

participate in director elections.34 These commenters viewed the amendments as inappropriately 

31	 See letters from CII; Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association (“COPERA”); CtW Investment 

Group (“CtW Investment Group”); L. Dallas; Thomas P. DiNapoli (“T. DiNapoli”); Florida State Board of 

Administration (“Florida State Board of Administration”); International Corporate Governance Network 

(“ICGN”); Denise L. Nappier (“D. Nappier”); Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (“OPERS”); Pax 

World; Teamsters. 

32	 Id. 

33	 See letters from AFL-CIO; CalPERS; California State Teachers’ Retirement System (“CalSTRS”); CII; L. 

Dallas; LACERA; LIUNA; Nathan Cummings Foundation; Pax World; Pershing Square; Relational; 

RiskMetrics; Shareowners.org; Social Investment Forum; SWIB; Teamsters; Trillium; Universities 

Superannuation; WSIB. 

34	 See letters from Group of 26 Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals (“26 Corporate 

Secretaries”); 3M Company (“3M”); Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (“Advance Auto Parts”); The Allstate 

Corporation (“Allstate”); Avis Budget Group, Inc. (“Avis Budget”); American Express Company 

(“American Express”); Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko”); Association of Corporate Counsel 

(“Association of Corporate Counsel”); AT&T Inc. (“AT&T”); Lawrence Behr (“L. Behr”); Best Buy Co., 

Inc. (“Best Buy”); The Boeing Company (“Boeing”); Business Roundtable (“BRT”); Robert N. Burt (“R. 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35 

intruding into matters traditionally governed by state law or imposing a “one size fits all” rule for 

all companies and expressed concerns about “special interest” directors, forcing companies to 

focus on the short-term rather than the creation of long-term shareholder value, and other 

perceived negative effects of the amendments, if adopted, on boards and companies.35 Finally, 

Burt”); State Bar of California, Corporations Committee of Business Law Section (“California Bar”); Sean 

F. Campbell (“S. Campbell”); Carlson (“Carlson”); Caterpillar Inc. (“Caterpillar”); U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness (“Chamber of Commerce/CMCC”); Chevron 

Corporation (“Chevron”); CIGNA Corporation (“CIGNA”); W. Don Cornwell (“W. Cornwell”); CSX 

Corporation (“CSX”); Cummins Inc. (“Cummins”); Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (“Davis Polk”); Dewey 

& LeBoeuf (“Dewey”); E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”); Eaton Corporation (“Eaton”); 

Michael Eng (“M. Eng”); FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”); FMC Corporation (“FMC Corp.”); FPL Group, 

Inc. (“FPL Group”); Frontier Communications Corporation (“Frontier”); General Electric Company 

(“GE”); General Mills, Inc. (“General Mills”); Charles O. Holliday, Jr. (“C. Holliday”); Honeywell 

International Inc. (“Honeywell”); Constance J. Horner (“C. Horner”); International Business Machines 

Corporation (“IBM”); Jones Day (“Jones Day”); Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL (“Keating 

Muething”); James M. Kilts (“J. Kilts”); Reatha Clark King, Ph.D. (“R. Clark King”); Ned C. Lautenbach 

(“N. Lautenbach”); MeadWestvaco Corporation (“MeadWestvaco”); MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”); Motorola, 

Inc. (“Motorola”); O’Melveny & Myers LLP (“O’Melveny & Myers”); Office Depot, Inc. (“Office 

Depot”); Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”); Protective Life Corporation (“Protective”); Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 

(“S&C”); Safeway Inc. (“Safeway”); Sara Lee Corporation (“Sara Lee”); Shearman & Sterling LLP 

(“Shearman & Sterling”); The Sherwin-Williams Company (“Sherwin-Williams”); Sidley Austin LLP 

(“Sidley Austin”); Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (“Simpson Thacher”); Tesoro Corporation (“Tesoro”); 

Textron Inc. (“Textron”); Texas Instruments Corporation (“TI”); Gary L. Tooker (“G. Tooker”); 

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (“UnitedHealth”); Unitrin, Inc. (“Unitrin”); U.S. Bancorp (“U.S. 

Bancorp”); Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (“Wachtell”); Wells Fargo & Company (“Wells Fargo”); West 

Chicago Chamber of Commerce & Industry (“West Chicago Chamber”); Weyerhaeuser Company 

(“Weyerhaeuser”); Xerox Corporation (“Xerox”); Yahoo! (“Yahoo”). 

See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; American Bar Association (“ABA”); ACE Limited (“ACE”); 

Advance Auto Parts; AGL Resources (“AGL”); Aetna Inc. (“Aetna”); Allstate; Alston & Bird LLP 

(“Alston & Bird”); American Bankers Association (“American Bankers Association”); The American 

Business Conference (“American Business Conference”); American Electric Power Company, Inc. 

(“American Electric Power”); Anadarko; Applied Materials, Inc. (“Applied Materials”); Artistic Land 

Designs LLC (“Artistic Land Designs”); Association of Corporate Counsel; Avis Budget; Atlantic Bingo 

Supply, Inc. (“Atlantic Bingo”); L. Behr; Best Buy; Biogen Idec Inc. (“Biogen”); James H. Blanchard (“J. 

Blanchard”); Boeing; Tammy Bonkowski (“T. Bonkowski”); BorgWarner Inc. (“BorgWarner”); Boston 

Scientific Corporation (“Boston Scientific”); The Brink’s Company (“Brink’s”); BRT; Burlington Northern 

Santa Fe Corporation (“Burlington Northern”); R. Burt; California Bar; Callaway Golf Company 

(“Callaway”); S. Campbell; Carlson; Carolina Mills (“Carolina Mills”); Caterpillar; Chamber of 

Commerce/CMCC; Chevron; Rebecca Chicko (“R. Chicko”); CIGNA; Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”); 

Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs (“Competitive Enterprise 

Institute”); W. Cornwell; CSX; Edwin Culwell (“E. Culwell”); Cummins; Darden Restaurants, Inc. 

(“Darden Restaurants”); Daniels Manufacturing Corporation (“Daniels Manufacturing”); Davis Polk; 

Delaware State Bar Association (“Delaware Bar”); Tom Dermody (“T. Dermody”); Devon Energy 

Corporation (“Devon”); DTE Energy Company (“DTE Energy”); Eaton; The Edison Electric Institute 

(“Edison Electric Institute”); Eli Lilly and Company (“Eli Lilly”); Emerson Electric Co. (“Emerson 

Electric”); M. Eng; Erickson Retirement Communities, LLC (“Erickson”); ExxonMobil Corporation 

(“ExxonMobil”); FedEx; Financial Services Roundtable (“Financial Services Roundtable”); Flutterby 

Kissed Unique Treasures (“Flutterby”); FPL Group; Frontier; GE; Allen C. Goolsby (“A. Goolsby”); C. 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36 

commenters worried about the impact of the proposed amendments on small businesses.36 

After considering the comments and weighing the competing interests of facilitating 

shareholders’ ability to exercise their state law rights to nominate and elect directors against 

Holliday; IBM; Investment Company Institute (“ICI”); Intelect Corporation (“Intelect”); JPMorgan Chase 

& Co. (“JPMorgan Chase”); Jones Day; R. Clark King; Leggett & Platt Incorporated (“Leggett”); Teresa 

Liddell (“T. Liddell”); Little Diversified Architectural Consulting (“Little”); McDonald’s Corporation 

(“McDonald’s”); MeadWestvaco; MedFaxx, Inc. (“MedFaxx”); Medical Insurance Services (“Medical 

Insurance”); MetLife; Mary S. Metz (“M. Metz”); Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”); John R. Miller (“J. 

Miller”); Marcelo Moretti (“M. Moretti”); Motorola; National Association of Corporate Directors 

(“NACD”); National Association of Manufacturers (“NAM”); National Investor Relations Institute 

(“NIRI”); O’Melveny & Myers; Office Depot; Omaha Door & Window (“Omaha Door”); The Procter & 

Gamble Company (“P&G”); PepsiCo, Inc. (“PepsiCo”); Pfizer; Realogy Corporation (“Realogy”); Jared 

Robert (“J. Robert”); Marissa Robert (“M. Robert”); RPM International Inc. (“RPM”); Ryder System, Inc. 

(“Ryder”); Safeway; Ralph S. Saul (“R. Saul”); Shearman & Sterling; Sherwin-Williams; Raymond F. 

Simoneau (“R. Simoneau”); Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals, Inc. (“Society 

of Corporate Secretaries”); The Southern Company (“Southern Company”); Southland Properties, Inc. 

(“Southland”); The Steele Group (“Steele Group”); Style Crest Enterprises, Inc. (“Style Crest”); Tesoro; 

Textron; Theragenics Corporation (“Theragenics”); TI; Richard Trummel (“R. Trummel”); Terry Trummel 

(“T. Trummel”); Viola Trummel (“V. Trummel”); tw telecom inc. (“tw telecom”); Laura D’Andrea Tyson 

(“L. Tyson”); United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (“United Brotherhood of 

Carpenters”); UnitedHealth; U.S. Bancorp; VCG Holding Corporation (“VCG”); Wachtell; The Way to 

Wellness (“Wellness”); Wells Fargo; Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”); Xerox; Yahoo; Jeff Young (“J. 

Young”). 

See letters from ABA; American Mailing Service (“American Mailing”); All Cast, Inc. (“All Cast”); 

Always N Bloom (“Always N Bloom”); American Carpets (“American Carpets”); John Arquilla (“J. 

Arquilla”); Beth Armburst (“B. Armburst”); Artistic Land Designs; Charles Atkins (“C. Atkins”); Book 

Celler (“Book Celler”); Kathleen G. Bostwick (“K. Bostwick”); Brighter Day Painting (“Brighter Day 

Painting”); Colletti and Associates (“Colletti”); Commercial Concepts (“Commercial Concepts”); 

Complete Home Inspection (“Complete Home Inspection”); Debbie Courtney (“D. Courtney”); Sue 

Crawford (“S. Crawford”); Crespin’s Cleaning, Inc. (“Crespin”); Don’s Tractor Repair (“Don’s”); Theresa 

Ebreo (“T. Ebreo”); M. Eng; eWareness, Inc. (“eWareness”); Evans Real Estate Investments, LLC 

(“Evans”); Fluharty Antiques (“Fluharty”); Flutterby; Fortuna Italian Restaurant & Pizza (“Fortuna Italian 

Restaurant”); Future Form Inc. (“Future Form Inc.”); Glaspell Goals (“Glaspell”); Cheryl Gregory (“C. 

Gregory”); Healthcare Practice Management, Inc. (Healthcare Practice”); Brian Henderson (“B. 

Henderson”); Sheri Henning (“S. Henning”); Jaynee Herren (“J. Herren”); Ami Iriarte (“A. Iriarte”); 

Jeremy J. Jones (“J. Jones”); Juz Kidz Nursery and Preschool (“Juz Kidz”); Kernan Chiropractic Center 

(“Kernan”); LMS Wine Creators (“LMS Wine”); Tabitha Luna (“T. Luna”); Mansfield Children’s Center, 

Inc. (“Mansfield Children’s Center”); Denise McDonald (“D. McDonald”); Meister’s Landscaping 

(“Meister”); Merchants Terminal Corporation (“Merchants Terminal”); Middendorf Bros. Auctioneers and 

Real Estate (“Middendorf”); Mingo Custom Woods (“Mingo”); Moore Brothers Auto Truck Repair 

(“Moore Brothers”); Mouton’s Salon (“Mouton”); Doug Mozack (“D. Mozack”); Ms. Dee’s Lil Darlins 

Daycare (“Ms. Dee”); Gavin Napolitano (“G. Napolitano”); NK Enterprises (“NK”); Hugh S. Olson (“H. 

Olson”); Parts and Equipment Supply Co. (“PESC”); Pioneer Heating & Air Conditioning (“Pioneer 

Heating & Air Conditioning”); RC Furniture Restoration (“RC”); RTW Enterprises Inc. (“RTW”); Debbie 

Sapp (“D. Sapp”); Southwest Business Brokers (“SBB”); Security Guard IT&T Alarms, Inc. (“SGIA”); 

Peggy Sicilia (“P. Sicilia”); Slycers Sandwich Shop (“Slycers”); Southern Services (“Southern Services”); 

Steele Group; Sylvron Travels (“Sylvron”); Theragenics; Erin White Tremaine (“E. Tremaine”); Wagner 

Health Center (“Wagner”); Wagner Industries (“Wagner Industries”); Wellness; West End Auto Paint & 

Body (“West End”); Y.M. Inc. (“Y.M.”); J. Young. 

13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

potential disruption and cost to companies, we are convinced that adopting the proposed 

amendments to the proxy rules serves our purpose to regulate the proxy process in the public 

interest and on behalf of investors. We are not persuaded by the arguments of some commenters 

that the provisions of Rule 14a-11 are unnecessary.37 Those commenters argued that changes in 

corporate governance over the past six years have obviated the need for a federal rule to allow 

shareholders to place their nominees in company proxy materials and that shareholders should be 

left to determine whether, on a company-by-company basis, such a rule is necessary at any 

particular company. 

While we recognize that some states, such as Delaware,38 have amended their state 

corporate law to enable companies to adopt procedures for the inclusion of shareholder director 

nominees in company proxy materials,39 as was highlighted by a number of commenters, other 

37	 See, e.g., letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; 3M; Advance Auto Parts; Allstate; Avis Budget; American 

Express; Anadarko; Association of Corporate Counsel; AT&T; L. Behr; Best Buy; Boeing; BRT; R. Burt; 

California Bar; S. Campbell; Carlson; Caterpillar; Chamber of Commerce/CMCC; Chevron; CIGNA; W. 

Cornwell; CSX; Cummins; Davis Polk; Dewey; DuPont; Eaton; M. Eng; FedEx; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; 

Frontier; GE; General Mills; Joseph A. Grundfest, Stanford Law School (July 24, 2009) (“Grundfest”); C. 

Holliday; Honeywell; C. Horner; IBM; Jones Day; Keating Muething; J. Kilts; R. Clark King; N. 

Lautenbach; MeadWestvaco; Metlife; Motorola; O’Melveny & Myers; Office Depot; Pfizer; Protective; 

S&C; Safeway; Sara Lee; Shearman & Sterling; Sherwin-Williams; Sidley Austin; Simpson Thacher; 

Tesoro; Textron; TI; G. Tooker; UnitedHealth; Unitrin; U.S. Bancorp; Wachtell; Wells Fargo; West 

Chicago Chamber; Weyerhaeuser; Xerox; Yahoo. 

38	 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. See http://www.corp.delaware.gov. 

39	 Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, §112. In December 2009, the Committee on Corporate Laws of the American Bar 

Association Section of Business Law Committee adopted amendments to the Model Act that explicitly 

authorize bylaws that prescribe shareholder access to company proxy materials or reimbursement of proxy 

solicitation expenses. See ABA Press Release, “Corporate Laws Committee Adopts New Model Business 

Corporation Act Amendments to Provide For Proxy Access And Expense Reimbursement,” December 17, 

2009, available at http://www.abanet.org/abanet/media/release/news_release.cfm?releaseid=848. 

In addition, in 2007, North Dakota amended its corporate code to permit 5% shareholders to provide a 

company notice of intent to nominate directors and require the company to include each such shareholder 

nominee in its proxy statement and form of proxy. N.D. Cent. Code § 10-35-08 (2009); see North Dakota 

Publicly Traded Corporations Act, N.D. Cent. Code §10-35 et al. (2007). 

14
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

states have not.40 These commenters noted that, as a result, companies not incorporated in 

Delaware could frustrate shareholder efforts to establish procedures for shareholders to place 

board nominees in the company’s proxy materials by litigating the validity of a shareholder 

proposal establishing such procedures, or possibly repealing shareholder-adopted bylaws 

establishing such procedures. In addition, due to the difficulty that shareholders could have in 

establishing such procedures, we believe that it would be inappropriate to rely solely on an 

enabling approach to facilitate shareholders’ ability to exercise their state law rights to nominate 

and elect directors. Even if bylaw amendments to permit shareholders to include nominees in 

company proxy materials were permissible in every state, shareholder proposals to so amend 

company bylaws could face significant obstacles. 

We also considered whether the move by many companies away from plurality voting to 

a general policy of majority voting in uncontested director elections should lead to a conclusion 

that our actions are unnecessary or whether we should premise our actions on the failure of a 

company to adopt majority voting.41 We agree with commenters42 who argued that a majority 

voting standard in director elections does not address the need for a rule to facilitate the inclusion 

40	 See letters from American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”); 

AllianceBernstein L.P. (“AllianceBernstein”); Amalgamated Bank LongView Funds (“Amalgamated 

Bank”); Association of British Insurers (“British Insurers”); CalPERS; CII; The Corporate Library 

(“Corporate Library”); L. Dallas; Florida State Board of Administration; ICGN; LIUNA; D. Nappier; Paul 

M. Neuhauser (“P. Neuhauser”); Comment Letter of Nine Securities and Governance Law Firms (“Nine 

Law Firms”); Pax World; Pershing Square; theRacetotheBottom.org (“RacetotheBottom”); RiskMetrics; 

Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP (“Schulte Roth & Zabel”); Sodali (“Sodali”); Teachers Insurance and Annuity 

Association of America and College Retirement Equities Fund (“TIAA-CREF”); United States Proxy 

Exchange (“USPE”); ValueAct Capital, LLC (“ValueAct Capital”). 

41	 Despite the rate of adoption of a majority voting standard for director elections by companies in the S&P 

500, only a small minority of firms in the Russell 3000 index have adopted them. See discussion in 

footnote 69 in the Proposing Release. 

42	 See letters from AFSCME; AllianceBernstein; CalPERS; CII; L. Dallas; D. Nappier; P. Neuhauser; 

RiskMetrics; TIAA-CREF. One commenter characterized a majority voting standard as a mechanism for 

“registering negative sentiment” about an incumbent board nominee, not a mechanism to ensure board 

accountability. See letter from AFSCME. 

15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

of shareholder nominees for director in company proxy materials. While majority voting 

impacts shareholders’ ability to elect candidates put forth by management, it does not affect 

shareholders’ ability to exercise their right to nominate candidates for director. 

We also do not believe that the recent amendments to New York Stock Exchange 

(NYSE) Rule 452, which eliminated brokers’ discretionary voting authority in director elections, 

negate the need for the rule. Certain commenters specifically noted their concurrence with us on 

this point.43 The amendments to NYSE Rule 452 address who exercises the right to vote rather 

than shareholders’ ability to have their nominees put forth for a vote. While these and other 

changes have been important events, they bolster shareholders’ ability to elect directors who are 

already on the company’s proxy card, not their ability to affect who appears on that card. We 

therefore are convinced that the federal proxy rules should be amended to better facilitate the 

exercise of shareholders’ rights under state law to nominate directors. 

We also considered whether we should amend Rule 14a-8 to narrow the “election 

exclusion,” without also adopting Rule 14a-11. We note that a significant number of 

commenters supported the proposed amendments to Rule 14a-8(i)(8).44 We concluded, however, 

as certain commenters pointed out, that adopting only the proposed amendments to Rule 14a8(i)(8), without Rule 14a-11, would not achieve the Commission’s stated objectives.45 We 

believe that the amendments to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) will provide shareholders with an important 

mechanism for including in company proxy materials proposals that would address the inclusion 

of shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy materials in ways that supplement Rule 

43 See letters from CII; Sodali; USPE. 

44 For a list of these commenters, see footnotes 677, 678, and 679 below. 

45 See letters from CII; USPE. 

16
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14a-11, such as with a lower ownership threshold, a shorter holding period, or to allow for a 

greater number of nominees if shareholders of a company support such standards. 

We recognize that many commenters advocated that shareholders’ ability to include 

nominees in company proxy materials should be determined exclusively by what individual 

companies or their shareholders affirmatively choose to provide, or that companies or their 

shareholders should be able to opt out of Rule 14a-11 or otherwise alter its terms for individual 

companies (the “private ordering” arguments).46 After careful consideration of the numerous 

comments advocating this perspective,47 we believe that the arguments in favor of this 

perspective are flawed for several reasons. 

First, corporate governance is not merely a matter of private ordering. Rights, including 

shareholder rights, are artifacts of law, and in the realm of corporate governance some rights 

cannot be bargained away but rather are imposed by statute. There is nothing novel about 

mandated limitations on private ordering in corporate governance.48 

46	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; ACE; Advance Auto Parts; AGL; Aetna; Allstate; Alston 

& Bird; American Bankers Association; American Business Conference; American Electric Power; 

Anadarko; Applied Materials; Artistic Land Designs; Association of Corporate Counsel; Avis Budget; 

Atlantic Bingo; L. Behr; Best Buy; Biogen; J. Blanchard; Boeing; T. Bonkowski; BorgWarner; Boston 

Scientific; Brink’s; BRT; Burlington Northern; R. Burt; California Bar; Callaway; S. Campbell; Carlson; 

Carolina Mills; Caterpillar; Chamber of Commerce/CMCC; Chevron; R. Chicko; CIGNA; Comcast; 

Competitive Enterprise Institute; W. Cornwell; CSX; E. Culwell; Cummins; Darden Restaurants; Daniels 

Manufacturing; Davis Polk; Delaware Bar; T. Dermody; Devon; DTE Energy; Eaton; Edison Electric 

Institute; Eli Lilly; Emerson Electric; M. Eng; Erickson; ExxonMobil; FedEx; Financial Services 

Roundtable; Flutterby; FPL Group; Frontier; GE; A. Goolsby; Grundfest; C. Holliday; IBM; ICI; Intelect; 

JPMorgan Chase; Jones Day; R. Clark King; Leggett; T. Liddell; Little; McDonald’s; MeadWestvaco; 

MedFaxx; Medical Insurance; Metlife; M. Metz; Microsoft; J. Miller; M. Moretti; Motorola; NACD; 

NAM; NIRI; O’Melveny & Myers; Office Depot; Omaha Door; P&G; PepsiCo; Pfizer; Realogy; J. Robert; 

M. Robert; RPM; Ryder; Safeway; R. Saul; Shearman & Sterling; Sherwin-Williams; R. Simoneau; 

Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; Southland; Steele Group; Style Crest; Tesoro; 

Textron; Theragenics; TI; R. Trummel; T. Trummel; V. Trummel; tw telecom; L. Tyson; United 

Brotherhood of Carpenters; UnitedHealth; U.S. Bancorp; VCG; Wachtell; Wellness; Wells Fargo; 

Whirlpool; Xerox; Yahoo; J. Young. 

47	 See id. 

48	 For example, quite a few aspects of Delaware corporation law are mandatory (i.e., not capable of 

modification by agreement or provision in the certificate of incorporation or bylaws), including: (i) the 

17
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, the argument that there is an inconsistency between mandating inclusion of 

shareholder nominees in company proxy materials and our concern for the rights of shareholders 

under the federal securities laws49 mistakenly assumes that basic protections of, and rights of, 

particular shareholders provided under the federal proxy rules should be able to be abrogated by 

“the shareholders” of a particular corporation, acting in the aggregate. The rules we adopt today 

provide individual shareholders the ability to have director nominees included in the corporate 

proxy materials if state law50 and governing corporate documents permit a shareholder to 

nominate directors at the shareholder meeting and the requirements of Rule 14a-11 are satisfied. 

Those rules similarly facilitate the right of individual shareholders to vote for those nominated, 

whether by management or another shareholder, if the shareholder has voting rights under state 

law and the company’s governing documents. The rules we adopt today reflect our judgment 

that the proxy rules should better facilitate shareholders’ effective exercise of their traditional 

state law rights to nominate directors and cast their votes for nominees. When the federal 

securities laws establish protections or create rights for security holders, they do so individually, 

requirement to hold an annual election of directors (Del. Code Ann., tit. 8, §211(b); Jones Apparel Group v. 

Maxwell Shoe Co., 883 A.2d 837, 848-849 (Del. Ch. 2004) citing Rohe v. Reliance Training Network, Inc., 

2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 108 at *10-*11 (Del. Ch. July 21, 2000)); (ii) the limitation against dividing the 

board of directors into more than three classes (Del. Code Ann., tit. 8, §141(d); see also Jones Apparel); 

(iii) the entitlement of stockholders to inspect the list of stockholders and other corporate books and records 

(Del. Code Ann., tit. 8, §§219(a) and 220(b); Loew’s Theatres, Inc. v. Commercial Credit Co., 243 A.2d 

78, 81 (Del. Ch. 1968)); (iv) the right of stockholders to vote as a class on certain amendments to the 

certificate of incorporation (Del. Code Ann., tit. 8, §242(b)(2)); (v) appraisal rights (Del. Code Ann., tit. 8, 

§262(b)); and (vi) fiduciary duties of corporate directors (Siegman v. Tri-Star Pictures, Inc., C.A. No. 9477 

(Del. Ch. May 5, 1989, revised May 30, 1989), reported at 15 Del. J. Corp. L. 218, 236 (1990); cf. Del. 

Code Ann., tit. 8, §102(b)(7), permitting elimination of director liability for monetary damages for breach 

of the duty of care). See also Edward P. Welch and Robert S. Saunders, What We Can Learn From Other 

Statutory Schemes: Freedom And Its Limits In The Delaware General Corporation Law, 33 Del. J. Corp. 

L. 845, 857-859 (2008); Jeffrey N. Gordon, Contractual Freedom In Corporate Law: Articles & Comments; 

The Mandatory Structure Of Corporate Law, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 1549, 1554 n.16 (1989) (identifying 

several of these and other mandatory aspects of Delaware corporation law). 

49	 See letters from Grundfest; Form Letter Type A. Cf. letter from Nine Law Firms. 

50	 In the case of a non-U.S. domiciled issuer that does not qualify as a foreign private issuer (as defined in 

Exchange Act Rule 3b-4), we will look to the underlying law of the jurisdiction of organization. See Rule 

14a-11(a). 

18
 
 

 

not in some aggregated capacity. No provision of the federal securities laws can be waived by 

referendum. A rule that would permit some shareholders (even a majority) to restrict the federal 

securities law rights of other shareholders would be without precedent and, we believe, a 

fundamental misreading of basic premises of the federal securities laws. In addition, allowing 

some shareholders to impair the ability of other shareholders to have their director nominees 

included in company proxy materials cannot be reconciled with the purpose of the rules we are 

adopting today. In our view, it would be no more appropriate to subject a federal proxy rule that 

provides the ability to include nominees in the company proxy statement to a shareholder vote 

than it would be to subject any other aspect of the proxy rules – including the other required 

disclosures – to abrogation by shareholder vote. 

Third, the net effect of our rules will be to expand shareholder choice, not limit it. Our 

rules will result in a greater number of nominees appearing on a proxy card. Shareholders will 

continue to have the opportunity to vote solely for management candidates, but our rules will 

also give shareholders the opportunity to vote for director candidates who otherwise might not 

have been included in company proxy materials. 

In addition to these basic conclusions, we note that there are other significant concerns 

raised by a private ordering approach. A company-by-company shareholder vote on the 

applicability of Rule 14a-11 would involve substantial direct and indirect, market-wide costs, 

and it is possible that boards of directors, or shareholders acting with their explicit or implicit 

encouragement, might seek such shareholder votes, perhaps repeatedly, at no financial cost to 

themselves but at considerable cost to the company and its shareholders. Another concern 

relates to the nature of the shareholder vote on whether to opt out of Rule 14a-11: specifically, 

in that context management can draw on the full resources of the corporation to promote the 

19
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

adoption of an opt-out, while disaggregated shareholders have no similarly effective platform 

from which to advocate against an opt-out. 

In addition, the path to shareholder adoption of a procedure to include nominees in 

company proxy materials is by no means free of obstructions. While shareholders may 

ordinarily have the state law right to adopt bylaws providing for inclusion of shareholder 

nominees in company proxy materials even in the absence of an explicit authorizing statute like 

Delaware’s, the existence of that right in the absence of such a statute may be challenged. 

Moreover, we understand that under Delaware law, the board of directors is ordinarily free, 

subject to its fiduciary duties, to amend or repeal any shareholder-adopted bylaw.51 In addition, 

not all state statutes confer upon shareholders the power to adopt and amend bylaws, and even 

where shareholders have that power it is frequently limited by requirements in the company’s 

governing documents that bylaw amendments be approved by a supermajority shareholder vote.52 

After careful consideration of the options that commenters have suggested, we have 

determined that the most effective way to facilitate shareholders’ exercise of their traditional 

state law rights to nominate and elect directors would be through Rule 14a-11 and the related 

amendments to the proxy rules that we proposed in June 2009. We have concluded that the 

ability to include shareholder nominees in company proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-1153 

51	 It has been argued to us, as a basis for excluding a shareholder proposal under Rule 14a-8, that Delaware 

law does not permit a bylaw to deprive the board of directors of the power to amend or repeal it, where the 

corporation’s certificate of incorporation confers upon the board the power to adopt, amend and repeal 

bylaws. See, e.g., CVS Caremark Corp., No-Action Letter (March 9, 2010). See also Del. Code Ann., tit. 

8, §109(b) and Centaur Partners, IV v. National Intergroup, Inc., 582 A.2d 923, 929 (Del. 1990). 

52	 See Beth Young, The Corporate Library, “The Limits of Private Ordering: Restrictions on Shareholders’ 

Ability to Initiate Governance Change and Distortions of the Shareholder Voting Process” (November 

2009), available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-09/s71009-568.pdf. See, e.g., Ind. Code §23-1­

39-1; Okla. Stat., tit. 18, §18-1013. 

53	 Throughout this release, when we refer to “a nomination pursuant to Rule 14a-11,” a “Rule 14a-11 

nomination,” or other similar statement, we are referring to a nomination submitted for inclusion in a 

company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11. 

20
 
 

 

 

 

 

must be available to shareholders who are entitled under state law to nominate and elect 

directors, regardless of any provision of state law or a company’s governing documents that 

purports to waive or prohibit the use of Rule 14a-11. In this regard, we note that although the 

rules we are adopting do not permit a company or its shareholders to opt out of or alter the 

application of Rule 14a-11, the amendments do contemplate that any additional ability to include 

shareholder nominees in the company’s proxy materials that may be established in a company’s 

governing documents will be permissible under our rules. Moreover, our amendments to Rule 

14a-8 will facilitate the presentation of proposals by shareholders to adopt company-specific 

procedures for including shareholder nominees for director in company proxy materials, and our 

adoption of new Exchange Act Rule 14a-18 (which requires disclosure concerning the 

nominating shareholder or group and the nominee or nominees that generally is consistent with 

that currently required in an election contest) will help assure that investors are adequately 

informed about shareholder nominations made through such procedures. 

In contrast, if state law54 or a provision of the company’s governing documents were ever 

to prohibit a shareholder from making a nomination (as opposed to including a validly nominated 

individual in the company’s proxy materials), Rule 14a-11 would not require the company to 

include in its proxy materials information about, and the ability to vote for, any such nominee. 

The rule defers entirely to state law as to whether shareholders have the right to nominate 

directors and what voting rights shareholders have in the election of directors. 

While we have concluded that we should provide shareholders the means to have 

nominees included in proxy materials in certain circumstances, we also are mindful that to 

accomplish this goal the regulatory structure must arrive at a solution that ultimately is workable. 

In the case of a non-U.S. domiciled issuer that does not qualify as a foreign private issuer, we will look to 

the underlying law of the jurisdiction of organization. See footnote 50 above. 

21
 

54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accordingly, we are adopting a number of significant changes to the rules we proposed in order 

to address the many thoughtful and constructive comments we received on the specifics of our 

proposed amendments. The changes that we are making to the amendments are described in 

detail throughout this release. There also were a number of suggested changes that we 

considered and decided not to adopt, as detailed below. 

B. Our Role in the Proxy Process 

Several commenters challenged our authority to adopt Rule 14a-11.55 We considered 

those comments carefully but continue to believe that we have the authority to adopt Rule 14a-11 

under Section 14(a) as originally enacted.56 In any event, Congress confirmed our authority in 

this area and removed any doubt that we have authority to adopt a rule such as Rule 14a-11.57 As 

described more fully below, Rule 14a-11 is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and 

for the protection of investors.58 Additionally, as explained below, the terms and conditions of 

Rule 14a-11 are also in the interests of shareholders and for the protection of investors.59 

Therefore, this challenge is now moot. 

55	 See letters from Ameriprise; AT&T; L. Behr; BRT; Burlington Northern; CMCC; Dewey; M. Eng; FedEx; 

Grundfest; Keating Muething; OPLP; Sidley Austin. 

56	 When it adopted Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, Congress determined that the exercise of shareholder 

voting rights via the corporate proxy is a matter of federal concern, and the statute’s grant of authority is 

not limited to regulating disclosure. Roosevelt v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 958 F.2d 416, 421-422 

(D.C. Cir. 1992) (Congress “did not narrowly train [S]ection 14(a) on the interest of stockholders in 

receiving information necessary to the intelligent exercise of their” state law rights; Section 14(a) also 

“shelters use of the proxy solicitation process as a means by which stockholders ... may communicate with 

each other.”); see also, e.g., TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 449 n.10 (1976) (Section 

14(a) is a grant of “broad statutory authority”). The adoption of Rule 14a-11 reflects our continuing 

purpose to ensure that proxies are used as a means to enhance the ability of shareholders to make informed 

choices, especially on the critical subject of who sits on the board of directors. 

57	 Dodd-Frank Act § 971(a) and (b). These provisions expressly provide that the Commission may issue rules 

permitting shareholders to use an issuer’s proxy solicitation materials for the purpose of nominating 

individuals to membership on the board of directors of the issuer. 

58	 Exchange Act § 14(a) and Investment Company Act § 20(a). 

59	 Dodd- Frank Act § 971(b). 

22
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although our statutory authority to adopt Rule 14a-11 is no longer at issue, the 

constitutionality of Rule 14a-11 also has been challenged by commenters. We disagree with 

their arguments.60 Proxy regulations do not infringe on corporate First Amendment rights both 

because “management has no interest in corporate property except such interest as derives from 

the shareholders,” and because such regulations “govern speech by a corporation to itself” and 

therefore “do not limit the range of information that the corporation may contribute to the public 

debate.”61 Even if statements in proxy materials are viewed as more than merely internal 

communications, this communication is of a commercial – not political – nature, and regulation 

of such statements through Rule 14a-11 is consistent with applicable First Amendment 

standards.62 

C. Summary of the Final Rules 

As noted above, we carefully considered the comments and have decided to adopt new 

Exchange Act Rule 14a-11 with significant modifications in response to the comments. We 

believe that the new rule will benefit shareholders and protects investors by improving corporate 

suffrage, the disclosure provided in connection with corporate proxy solicitations, and 

communication between shareholders in the proxy process. Consistent with the Proposal, Rule 

14a-11 will apply only when applicable state law or a company’s governing documents do not 

prohibit shareholders from nominating a candidate for election as a director. In addition, as 

adopted, the rule will apply to a foreign issuer that is otherwise subject to our proxy rules only 

60	 See letter from BRT. 

61	 Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California, 475 U.S. 1, 14 n.10 (1986) 

(emphasis in original). 

62	 Nor does Rule 14a-11 violate the Fifth Amendment, as it does not constitute a regulatory taking. See, e.g., 

Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., 544 U.S. 528, 546-47 (2005); Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 

438 U.S. 104 (1978). 

23
 
 

 

 

 

 

when applicable foreign law does not prohibit shareholders from making such nominations. Also 

consistent with the Proposal, companies may not “opt out” of the rule – either in favor of a 

different framework for inclusion of shareholder director nominees in company proxy materials 

or no framework. In addition, as was proposed, the rule will apply regardless of whether any 

specified event has occurred to trigger the rule and will apply regardless of whether the company 

is subject to a concurrent proxy contest.63 Also as proposed, the final rule will apply to 

companies that are subject to the Exchange Act proxy rules, including investment companies and 

controlled companies, but will not apply to “debt-only” companies. The rule will apply to 

smaller reporting companies, but we have decided to delay the rule’s application to these 

companies for three years. We believe that a delayed effective date for smaller reporting 

companies should allow those companies to observe how the rule operates for other companies 

and should allow them to better prepare for implementation of the rules. Delayed 

implementation for these companies also will allow us to evaluate the implementation of Rule 

14a-11 by larger companies and provide us with the additional opportunity to consider whether 

adjustments to the rule would be appropriate for smaller reporting companies before the rule 

becomes applicable to them. To use Rule 14a-11, a nominating shareholder or group will be 

required to satisfy an ownership threshold of at least 3% of the voting power of the company’s 

securities entitled to be voted at the meeting. Shareholders will be able to aggregate their shares 

to meet the threshold. The required ownership threshold has been modified from the Proposal, 

which would have required that a nominating shareholder or group hold 1%, 3%, or 5% of the 

company’s securities entitled to be voted on the election of directors, depending on accelerated 

Throughout this release, the terms “proxy contest,” “election contest,” and “contested election” refer to any 

election of directors in which another party commences a solicitation in opposition subject to Exchange Act 

Rule 14a-12(c). 

24
 

63 
 

 

filer status or, in the case of registered investment companies, depending on the net assets of the 

company. The final rule requires that a nominating shareholder or group must hold both 

investment and voting power, either directly or through any person acting on their behalf, of the 

securities. In calculating the ownership percentage held, under certain conditions, a nominating 

shareholder or member of the nominating shareholder group would be able to include securities 

loaned to a third party in the calculation of ownership. In determining the total voting power 

held by the nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group, 

securities sold short (as well as securities borrowed that are not otherwise excludable) must be 

deducted from the amount of securities that may be counted towards the required ownership 

threshold. In addition, a nominating shareholder (or in the case of a group, each member of the 

group) will be required to have held the qualifying amount of securities continuously for at least 

three years as of the date the nominating shareholder or group submits notice of its intent to use 

Rule 14a-11 (on a filed Schedule 14N), rather than for one year, as was proposed. Consistent 

with the proposed amendments, we are adopting a requirement that the nominating shareholder 

or members of the group must continue to own the qualifying amount of securities through the 

date of the meeting at which directors are elected and provide disclosure concerning their intent 

with regard to continued ownership of the securities after the election of directors. In addition, 

the nominating shareholder (or where there is a nominating shareholder group, any member of 

the nominating shareholder group) may not be holding the company’s securities with the 

purpose, or with the effect, of changing control of the company or to gain a number of seats on 

the board of directors that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that the company could be 

required to include under Rule 14a-11, and may not have a direct or indirect agreement with the 

company regarding the nomination of the nominee or nominees prior to filing the Schedule 14N. 

25
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

The nominating shareholder or group must provide notice to the company of its intent to 

use Rule 14a-11 no earlier than 150 days prior to the anniversary of the mailing of the prior 

year’s proxy statement and no later than 120 days prior to this date. The final rule differs from 

the Proposal, which would have required the nominating shareholder or group to provide notice 

to the company no later than 120 days prior to the anniversary of the mailing of the prior year’s 

proxy statement or in accordance with the company’s advance notice provision, if applicable. As 

was proposed, under the final rule the nominating shareholder or group will be required to file on 

EDGAR and transmit to the company its notice on Schedule 14N on the same date. 

The rule also includes certain requirements applicable to the shareholder nominee. 

Consistent with the Proposal, the final rule provides that the company will not be required to 

include any nominee whose candidacy or, if elected, board membership would violate 

controlling state or federal law, or the applicable standards of a national securities exchange or 

national securities association, except with regard to director independence requirements that 

rely on a subjective determination by the board, and such violation could not be cured during the 

provided time period.64 In addition, the rule we are adopting provides that a company will not be 

required to include any nominee whose candidacy or, if elected, board membership would 

violate controlling foreign law. As we proposed, the rule does not include any restrictions on the 

relationships between the nominee and the nominating shareholder or group. 

As was proposed, under Rule 14a-11, a company will not be required to include more 

than one shareholder nominee, or a number of nominees that represents up to 25% of the 

company’s board of directors, whichever is greater. Where there are multiple eligible 

In the case of an investment company, the nominee may not be an “interested person” of the company as 

defined in Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(19)). See Section 

II.B.3.b. for a more detailed discussion of the applicability of Rule 14a-11 to registered investment 

companies. 

26
 

64 
 

 

nominating shareholders, the nominating shareholder or group with the highest percentage of the 

company’s voting power would have its nominees included in the company’s proxy materials, 

rather than the nominating shareholder or group that is first to submit a notice on Schedule 14N, 

as we had proposed. We also have clarified in the final rule that when a company has a 

classified (staggered) board, the 25% calculation would still be based on the total number of 

board seats. In addition, in response to public comment, we have added a provision to the rule 

designed to prevent the potential unintended consequences of discouraging dialogue and 

negotiation between company management and nominating shareholders. Under this provision, 

shareholder nominees of an eligible nominating shareholder or group with the highest qualifying 

voting power percentage that a company agrees to include as company nominees after the filing 

of the Schedule 14N would count toward the 25%. 

The notice on Schedule 14N will be required to include: 

•	 Disclosure concerning: 

•	 The amount and percentage of voting power of the company’s securities entitled 

to be voted by the nominating shareholder or group and the length of ownership 

of those securities; 

•	 Biographical and other information about the nominating shareholder or group 

and the shareholder nominee or nominees, similar to the disclosure currently 

required in a contested election; 

•	 Whether or not the nominee or nominees satisfy the company’s director 

qualifications, if any (as provided in the company’s governing documents); 

•	 Certifications that, after reasonable inquiry and based on the nominating 

shareholder’s or group’s knowledge, the: 

27
 
 

 

•	 Nominating shareholder (or where there is a nominating shareholder group, each 

member of the nominating shareholder group) is not holding any of the 

company’s securities with the purpose, or with the effect, of changing control of 

the company or to gain a number of seats on the board of directors that exceeds 

the maximum number of nominees that the company could be required to include 

under Rule 14a-11; 

28
 
 

 

•	 Nominating shareholder or group otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 

14a-11, as applicable; and 

•	 Nominee or nominees satisfy the requirements of Rule 14a-11, as applicable; 

•	 A statement that the nominating shareholder or group members will continue to hold 

the qualifying amount of securities through the date of the meeting and a statement 

with regard to the nominating shareholder’s or group member’s intended ownership 

of the securities following the election of directors (which may be contingent on the 

results of the election of directors); and 

•	 A statement in support of each shareholder nominee, not to exceed 500 words per 

nominee (the statement would be at the option of the nominating shareholder or 

group). 

These requirements for Schedule 14N are largely consistent with the Proposal, with some 

modifications made in response to comments. Among the modifications is the new disclosure 

requirement concerning whether, to the best of the nominating shareholder’s or group’s 

knowledge, the nominee or nominees satisfy the company’s director qualifications, if any (as 

provided in the company’s governing documents). We also have revised the certifications to 

require certification not only with regard to control intent, but also with regard to the other 

nominating shareholder and nominee eligibility requirements. 

A company that receives a notice on Schedule 14N from an eligible nominating 

shareholder or group will be required to include in its proxy statement disclosure concerning the 

nominating shareholder or group and the shareholder nominee or nominees, and include on its 

proxy card the names of the shareholder nominees. The nominating shareholder or group will be 

liable for any statement in the notice on Schedule 14N which, at the time and in light of the 

29
 
 

 

circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact or 

that omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein not false or 

misleading, including when that information is subsequently included in the company’s proxy 

statement. The company will not be responsible for this information. These liability provisions 

are included in the final rules largely as proposed, but with two changes in response to 

comments. Final Rule 14a-9(c) makes clear that the nominating shareholder or group will be 

liable for any statement in the Schedule 14N or any other related communication that is false or 

misleading with respect to any material fact, or that omits to state any material fact necessary to 

make the statements therein not false or misleading, regardless of whether that information is 

ultimately included in the company’s proxy statement. In addition, consistent with the existing 

approach in Rule 14a-8, under Rule 14a-11 as adopted, a company will not be responsible for 

any information provided by the nominating shareholder or group and included in the company’s 

proxy statement. Under the Proposal, a company would not have been responsible for any 

information provided by the nominating shareholder or group except where the company knows 

or has reason to know that the information is false or misleading. 

A company will not be required to include a nominee or nominees if the nominating 

shareholder or group or the nominee fails to satisfy the eligibility requirements of Rule 14a-11. 

A company that determines it may exclude a nominee or nominees must provide a notice to the 

Commission regarding its intent to exclude the nominee or nominees. The company also may 

submit a request for the staff’s informal view with respect to the company’s determination that it 

may exclude the nominee or nominees (commonly referred to as “no-action” requests). In 

addition, a company could exclude a nominating shareholder’s or group’s statement of support if 

the statement exceeds 500 words per nominee and could seek a no-action letter from the staff 

30
 
 

 

with regard to this determination if it so desired. In the event that a nominating shareholder or 

group or nominee withdraws or is disqualified prior to the time the company commences printing 

the proxy materials, under certain circumstances companies will be required to include a 

substitute nominee if there are other eligible nominees. Therefore, companies seeking a noaction letter from the staff with respect to their decision to exclude any Rule 14a-11 nominee or 

nominees would need to seek a no-action letter on all nominees that they believe they can 

exclude at the outset. 

We also have adopted two new exemptions, slightly modified from the Proposal, to the 

proxy rules for solicitations in connection with a Rule 14a-11 nomination. The first exemption 

applies to written and oral solicitations by shareholders who are seeking to form a nominating 

shareholder group. Reliance on this new exemption will require: 

•	 that the shareholder not be holding the company’s securities with the purpose, or with 

the effect, of changing control of the company or to gain a number of seats on the 

board of directors that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that the registrant 

could be required to include under Rule 14a-11; 

•	 limiting the content of written communications to certain information specified in the 

rule; 

•	 filing all written soliciting materials sent to shareholders in reliance on the exemption 

with the Commission or, in the case of oral communications, a filing under cover of 

Schedule 14N with the appropriate box checked before or at the same time as the first 

solicitation in reliance on the new exemption; and 

•	 no solicitations in connection with the subject election of directors other than 

pursuant to the provisions of Rule 14a-11 and the new exemption described below. 

31
 
 

 

 

Shareholders that do not want to rely on this new exemption could opt to rely on other 

exemptions from the proxy rules (e.g., Rule 14a-2(b)(2), which is limited to solicitations of not 

more than 10 persons). 

The second new exemption applies to written and oral solicitations by or on behalf of a 

nominating shareholder or group whose nominee or nominees are or will be included in the 

company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11 in favor of shareholder nominees or for or 

against company nominees. Reliance on this new exemption will require: 

•	 that the nominating shareholder or group does not seek the power to act as a proxy for 

another shareholder; 

•	 disclosing certain information (including the identity of the nominating shareholder or 

group, and a prominent legend about availability of the proxy materials) in all written 

communications; 

•	 filing all written soliciting materials sent to shareholders in reliance on the exemption 

with the Commission under cover of Schedule 14N with the appropriate box checked; 

and 

•	 no solicitations in connection with the subject election of directors other than 

pursuant to the provisions of Rule 14a-11 and this new exemption. 

Consistent with the Proposal, we also are amending our beneficial ownership reporting 

rules so that shareholders relying on Rule 14a-11 would not become ineligible to file a Schedule 

13G, in lieu of filing a Schedule 13D, solely as a result of activities in connection with inclusion 

of a nominee under Rule 14a-11. Also consistent with the proposed amendments, we are not 

adopting an exclusion from Exchange Act Section 16 for activities in connection with a 

nomination under Rule 14a-11 that may trigger a filing requirement by nominating shareholders. 

32
 
 

 

 

 

In addition, after considering the comments, we are not adopting a specific exclusion from the 

definition of affiliate for nominating shareholders. 

Finally, consistent with the Proposal, we are narrowing the scope of the exclusion in Rule 

14a-8(i)(8) relating to the election of directors. The revised rule will provide that companies 

must include in their proxy materials, under certain circumstances, shareholder proposals that 

seek to establish a procedure in the company’s governing documents for the inclusion of one or 

more shareholder director nominees in a company’s proxy materials. 

As we proposed, the final rules provide that a nominating shareholder that is relying on a 

procedure under state law or a company’s governing documents to include a nominee in a 

company’s proxy materials would be required to provide disclosure concerning the nominating 

shareholder and nominee or nominees to the company on Schedule 14N and file the Schedule 

14N on EDGAR. In response to comment, we have clarified that the disclosure also would be 

required for nominations made pursuant to foreign law.65 The disclosure requirements on 

Schedule 14N for nominations made pursuant to a procedure under state or foreign law, or a 

company’s governing documents largely mirror those for a Rule 14a-11 nomination. As with 

Rule 14a-11 nominees, a company would include in its proxy materials disclosure concerning the 

nominating shareholder or group and shareholder nominee similar to the disclosure currently 

required in a contested election. The nominating shareholder or group would have liability for 

any statement in the notice on Schedule 14N or in information otherwise provided to the 

company and included in the company’s proxy materials which, at the time and in light of the 

circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact or 

that omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein not false or 

See Section II.C.5. below. 

33
 

65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

misleading. The company would not be responsible for the information provided to the company 

and required to be included in the company proxy statement. 

II. CHANGES TO THE PROXY RULES 

A. Introduction 

After careful consideration of the comments received on the Proposal, we are adopting 

amendments to the proxy rules to facilitate the effective exercise of shareholders’ traditional 

state law rights to nominate and elect directors to company boards of directors. Under the new 

rules, shareholders meeting certain requirements will have two ways to more fully exercise their 

right to nominate directors. First, we are adopting a new proxy rule, Rule 14a-11, which will, 

under certain circumstances, require companies to provide shareholders with information about, 

and the ability to vote for, a shareholder’s, or group of shareholders’, nominees for director in the 

companies’ proxy materials. This requirement will apply unless state law, foreign law,66 or a 

company’s governing documents67 prohibits shareholders from nominating directors.68 In 

addition to the standards provided in new Rule 14a-11, provisions under state law, foreign law, 

or a company’s governing documents69 could provide an additional avenue for shareholders to 

submit nominees for inclusion in company proxy materials, but would not act as a substitute for 

Rule 14a-11. Thus, Rule 14a-11 will continue to be available to shareholders regardless of 

whether they also can avail themselves of a provision under state law, foreign law, or a 

66 See discussion in footnote 50 above. 

67 Under state law, a company’s governing documents may have various names. When we refer to governing 

documents throughout the release and rule text, we generally are referring to a company’s charter, articles 

of incorporation, certificate of incorporation, declaration of trust, and/or bylaws, as applicable. 

68 We are not aware of any law in any state or in the District of Columbia or in any country that currently 

prohibits shareholders from nominating directors. Nonetheless, should any such law be enacted in the 

future, Rule 14a-11 will not apply. 

69 See discussion in Section II.C.5. below. 

34
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

company’s governing documents. 

Second, we are amending Rule 14a-8(i)(8) to preclude companies from relying on Rule 

14a-8(i)(8) to exclude from their proxy materials shareholder proposals by qualifying 

shareholders that seek to establish a procedure under a company’s governing documents for the 

inclusion of one or more shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy materials. A 

company must include such a shareholder proposal under the final rules as long as the procedural 

requirements of Rule 14a-8 are met and the proposal is not subject to exclusion under one of the 

other substantive bases. In this regard, a shareholder proposal seeking to limit or remove the 

availability of Rule 14a-11 would be subject to exclusion under Rule 14a-8.70 

As described throughout this release, we have made many changes to the final rules in 

response to comments received. We believe the final rules reflect a careful balancing of the 

policy, workability, and other comments we received on the Proposal. 

B. Exchange Act Rule 14a-11 

1. Overview 

Based on the comments received in response to our solicitation of public input on the 

Proposal and on prior releases and in roundtables,71 we understand that shareholders face 

significant obstacles to effectively exercising their rights to nominate and elect directors to 

corporate boards. We have received significant public comment supporting the view that 

including shareholder nominees for director in company proxy materials would be the most 

70	 As would currently be the case if a state law permitted a company to prohibit shareholders from nominating 

candidates for director, a shareholder proposal seeking to prohibit shareholder nominations for director 

generally or, conversely, to allow shareholder nominations for director, would not be excludable pursuant 

to Rule 14a-8(i)(8). 

71	 See the Proposing Release; the 2003 Proposal; the Election of Directors Proposing Release; and the 

Shareholder Proposals Proposing Release. See also the Roundtable on the Federal Proxy Rules and State 

Corporation Law and the Roundtable on Proposals of Shareholders available at 

http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/proxyprocess.htm. 

35
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

direct and effective method of facilitating shareholders’ rights in connection with the nomination 

and election of directors.72 

On the other hand, many commenters have expressed concern that mandating shareholder 

access to company proxy materials would lead to more proxy contests or “politicized 

elections,”73 which would be distracting, expensive, time-consuming, and inefficient for 

companies, boards, and management.74 Commenters also opined that the increased likelihood of 

a contested election could discourage experienced and capable individuals from serving on 

boards, making it more difficult for companies to recruit qualified directors or create boards with 

the proper mix of experience, skills, and characteristics.75 The current filing and other 

72	 See letters from CII; COPERA; CtW Investment Group; L. Dallas; T. DiNapoli; Florida State Board of 

Administration; ICGN; D. Nappier; OPERS; Pax World; Teamsters. 

73	 See letters from ABA; Advance Auto Parts; Atlas Industries, Inc. (“Atlas”); J. Blanchard; Samuel W. 

Bodman (“S. Bodman”); Boeing; Brink’s; BRT; Burlington Northern; Callaway; Cargill (“Cargill”); 

Carlson; Carolina Mills; Chamber of Commerce/CMCC; Jaime Chico (“J. Chico”); Consolidated Edison, 

Inc. (“Con Edison”); Anthony Conte (“A. Conte”); W. Cornwell; Crown Battery Manufacturing Co. 

(“Crown Battery”); CSX; Darden Restaurants; Eaton; FedEx; FPL Group; Frontier; Hickory Furniture Mart 

(“Hickory Furniture”); IBM; Keating Muething; Little; Louisiana Agencies LLC (“Louisiana Agencies”); 

Massey Services, Inc. (“Massey Services”); John B. McCoy (“J. McCoy”); D. McDonald; MedFaxx; 

Metlife; M. Metz; Norfolk Southern Corporation (“Norfolk Southern”); O3 Strategies, Inc. (“O3 

Strategies”); Office Depot; Victor Pelson (“V. Pelson”); PepsiCo; Pfizer; Ryder; Sidley Austin; Southland; 

Style Crest; Tenet Healthcare Corporation (“Tenet”); TI; tw telecom; L. Tyson; United Brotherhood of 

Carpenters; T. White. 

74	 See letters from ABA; Anonymous letter dated June 26, 2009 (“Anonymous #2”); Atlas; AT&T; Book 

Celler; Carlson; Carolina Mills; Chamber of Commerce/CMCC; Chevron; Crespin; M. Eng; Erickson; 

ExxonMobil; Fenwick & West LLP (“Fenwick”); GE; General Mills; Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (“Glass 

Lewis”); Glaspell Goals (“Glaspell”); Intelect; R. Clark King; Koppers Inc. (“Koppers”); MCO Transport, 

Inc. (“MCO”); MeadWestvaco; MedFaxx; Medical Insurance; Merchants Terminal; Dana Merilatt (“D. 

Merilatt”); NAM; NIRI; NK; O3 Strategies; Roppe Holding Company (“Roppe”); Rosen Hotels and 

Resorts (“Rosen”); Safeway; Sara Lee; Schneider National, Inc. (“Schneider”); Southland; Style Crest; 

Tenet; TI; tw telecom; Rick VanEngelenhoven (“R. VanEngelenhoven”); Wachtell; Wells Fargo; 

Weyerhaeuser; Yahoo. 

75	 See letters from 3M; ABA; American Electric Power; Atlantic Bingo; AT&T; Avis Budget; Biogen; 

Boeing; BRT; Burlington Northern; Callaway; Carlson; Chamber of Commerce/CMCC; CIGNA; 

Columbine Health Plan (“Columbine”); Cummins; CSX; John T. Dillon (“J. Dillon”); Emerson Electric; 

Erickson; ExxonMobil; FedEx; Headwaters Incorporated (“Headwaters”); C. Holliday; IBM; Intelect; R. 

Clark King; Lange Transport (“Lange”); Louisiana Agencies; MetLife; NIRI; O3 Strategies; V. Pelson; 

PepsiCo; Pfizer; Roppe; Rosen; Ryder; Sara Lee; Sidley Austin; tw telecom; Wachtell; Wells Fargo; 

Weyerhaeuser; Yahoo. 

36
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

requirements applicable to shareholders who wish to propose an alternate slate are, in the view of 

these commenters, more appropriate than including shareholder nominees for director in 

company proxy materials.76 

As we also noted in the Proposing Release, we recognize that there are long-held and 

deeply felt views on every side of these issues. To the extent shareholders have the right to 

nominate directors at meetings of shareholders, the federal proxy rules should facilitate the 

exercise of this right. We believe the rules we are adopting today will better accomplish this 

goal and will further our mission of investor protection. 

New Rule 14a-11 will require companies to include information about shareholder 

nominees for director in company proxy statements, and the names of the nominee or nominees 

as choices on company proxy cards, under specified conditions.77 The rule will permit 

companies to exclude a nominee or nominees from the company’s proxy materials under certain 

circumstances, such as when a nominating shareholder or group fails to satisfy the eligibility 

requirements of the rule. In the following sections we describe, in detail, the final rules, 

comments received on the Proposal, and changes made in response to the comments. 

2. When Rule 14a-11 Will Apply 

In this section, we address the rule’s application, including when there are conflicting or 

overlapping provisions under state or foreign law or a company’s governing documents, during 

concurrent proxy contests, and in the absence of any specific triggering events. We also address 

the reasons why neither an opt-in nor opt-out provision is necessary or appropriate. 

76 See letters from Ameriprise; Anonymous #2; Artistic Land Designs; Chamber of Commerce/CMCC; 

Crown Battery; Evelyn Y. Davis (“E. Davis”); Kernan; Medical Insurance; Mouton; Unitrin; R. 

VanEngelenhoven; Wells Fargo. 

77 See new Exchange Act Rule 14a-11. 

37
 
 

 

 

 

 

a. Interaction with state or foreign law 

While we are not aware of any law in any state or in the District of Columbia that 

prohibits shareholders from nominating directors, consistent with the Proposal, a company to 

which the rule would otherwise apply will not be subject to Rule 14a-11 if applicable state law or 

the company’s governing documents prohibit shareholders from nominating candidates for the 

board of directors. The final rule also clarifies that, in the case of a non-U.S. domiciled issuer 

that does not meet the definition of foreign private issuer under the federal securities laws, the 

rule will not apply if applicable foreign law prohibits shareholders from nominating a candidate 

for election as a director.78 If a company’s governing documents prohibit shareholder 

nominations, shareholders could seek to amend the provision by submitting a shareholder 

proposal under Rule 14a-8.79 

Consistent with the Proposal, Rule 14a-11 will apply regardless of whether state or 

foreign law or a company’s governing documents prohibit inclusion of shareholder director 

nominees in company proxy materials or set share ownership or other terms that are more 

restrictive than Rule 14a-11 under which shareholder director nominees will be included in 

company proxy materials. For example, if applicable state or foreign law or a company’s 

governing documents were to require that shareholder nominees be included in company proxy 

materials only if submitted by a 10% shareholder of the company, a shareholder who does not 

meet the 10% threshold but does meet the requirements of Rule 14a-11, including the 3% 

ownership threshold described below, would be able to submit their nominee or nominees for 

inclusion in the company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11. If, on the other hand, 

78 See letters from S&C; Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP (“Curtis”). 

79 See footnote 70 above. 

38
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

applicable state or foreign law or a company’s governing documents sets the ownership 

threshold lower than the 3% ownership threshold required under Rule 14a-11, then Rule 14a-11 

would not be available to holders with ownership below the Rule 14a-11 threshold. Those 

shareholders meeting the lower ownership threshold would have the ability to have their 

nominees included in the company’s proxy materials to whatever extent is provided under 

applicable state or foreign law or the company’s governing documents. In this instance, new 

Exchange Act Rule 14a-18, discussed in Section II.C.5. below, would require specified 

disclosures concerning the nominating shareholder or group and the shareholder nominee or 

nominees. 

There also may be situations where applicable state or foreign law or a company’s 

governing documents are more permissive in certain respects, and more restrictive in other 

respects, than Rule 14a-11. For example, applicable state or foreign law or a company’s 

governing documents could require 10% ownership to have a nominee or nominees included in a 

company’s proxy materials, but allow a shareholder that owns 10% to have nominees up to the 

full number of board seats included in a company’s proxy materials or to otherwise have a 

change in control intent. While Rule 14a-11 would continue to be available in that case for a 

shareholder that is eligible to use it, a shareholder could choose to proceed under the alternate 

procedure and standards. In this instance, a shareholder would be required to clearly evidence its 

intent to rely either on Rule 14a-11 or on the applicable state or foreign law or company’s 

governing documents, and then meet all of the requirements of whichever procedure it selects.80 

A shareholder could not “pick and choose” different aspects of different procedures. If a 

New Schedule 14N, which is described further in Section II.B.8. below, includes check boxes where a 

nominating shareholder or group must specify whether it is seeking to include the nominee or nominees in 

the company’s proxy materials under Rule 14a-11 or pursuant to a provision in state law, foreign law, or a 

company’s governing documents. 

39
 

80 
 

 

 

 

 

81 

shareholder chooses to rely on a provision under applicable state or foreign law or a company’s 

governing documents to include a nominee in a company’s proxy materials, it would be required 

to satisfy the disclosure requirements of new Rule 14a-18. 

b. Opt-in not required 

In the Proposing Release, we requested comment on whether Rule 14a-11 should apply 

only if shareholders of a company elect to have it apply at their company. While commenters 

did not specifically address the possibility of shareholders opting into Rule 14a-11, many 

commenters opposed the Commission’s Proposal on the basis that it would create a “one size fits 

all” federal rule that intrudes into matters that traditionally have been the province of state or 

local law.81 Those commenters asked the Commission to permit private ordering so that 

companies and shareholders could devise, if they chose to, a process for the inclusion of 

shareholder director nominees in company proxy materials that best suits their particular 

circumstances. Commenters also expressed fears that the Commission’s Proposal, if adopted, 

would stifle future innovations relating to inclusion of shareholder director nominees in company 

See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; ACE; Advance Auto Parts; AGL; Aetna; Allstate; Alston 

& Bird; American Bankers Association; American Business Conference; American Electric Power; 

Anadarko; Applied Materials; Artistic Land Designs; Association of Corporate Counsel; Avis Budget; 

Atlantic Bingo; L. Behr; Best Buy; Biogen; J. Blanchard; Boeing; T. Bonkowski; BorgWarner; Boston 

Scientific; Brink’s; BRT; Burlington Northern; R. Burt; California Bar; Callaway; S. Campbell; Carlson; 

Carolina Mills; Caterpillar; Chamber of Commerce/CMCC; Chevron; R. Chicko; CIGNA; Comcast; 

Competitive Enterprise Institute; W. Cornwell; CSX; E. Culwell; Cummins; Darden Restaurants; Daniels 

Manufacturing; Davis Polk; Delaware Bar; T. Dermody; Devon; DTE Energy; Eaton; Edison Electric 

Institute; Eli Lilly; Emerson Electric; M. Eng; Erickson; ExxonMobil; FedEx; Financial Services 

Roundtable; Flutterby; FPL Group; Frontier; GE; A. Goolsby; Grundfest; C. Holliday; IBM; ICI; Intelect; 

JPMorgan Chase; Jones Day; R. Clark King; Leggett; T. Liddell; Little; McDonald’s; MeadWestvaco; 

MedFaxx; Medical Insurance; MetLife; M. Metz; Microsoft; J. Miller; M. Moretti; Motorola; NACD; 

NAM; NIRI; O’Melveny & Myers; Office Depot; Omaha Door; P&G; PepsiCo; Pfizer; Realogy; J. Robert; 

M. Robert; RPM; Ryder; Safeway; R. Saul; Shearman & Sterling; Sherwin-Williams; R. Simoneau; 

Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; Southland; Steele Group; Style Crest; Tesoro; 

Textron; Theragenics; TI;. R. Trummel; T. Trummel; V. Trummel; tw telecom; L. Tyson; United 

Brotherhood of Carpenters; UnitedHealth; U.S. Bancorp; VCG; Wachtell; Wellness; Wells Fargo; 

Whirlpool; Xerox; Yahoo; J. Young. 

40
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

proxy materials and corporate governance in general.82 On the other hand, some commenters 

expressed general support for uniform applicability of proposed Rule 14a-11, unless state law or 

the company’s governing documents prohibit shareholders from nominating candidates to the 

board.83 

Though we considered commenters’ views concerning a private ordering approach, as 

discussed in Section I.A. above, we have concluded that our rules should provide shareholders 

the ability to include director nominees in company proxy materials without the need for 

shareholders to bear the burdens of overcoming the substantial obstacles to creating that ability 

on a company-by-company basis. Rule 14a-11 is designed to facilitate the effective exercise of 

shareholder director nomination and election rights. Requiring shareholders to persuade other 

shareholders to opt into a system that better facilitates such state law rights would frustrate the 

benefits that our new rule seeks to promote. 

c. No opt-out 

In the Proposing Release, we sought comment on whether Rule 14a-11 should be 

inapplicable where a company has or adopts a provision in its governing documents that provides 

for, or prohibits, the inclusion of shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy 

materials. We also sought comment on whether Rule 14a-11 should apply in various 

circumstances, such as where shareholders approve provisions in the governing documents that 

are more or less restrictive than Rule 14a-11. 

Commenters were divided on whether companies and shareholders should be permitted 

to adopt alternative requirements for shareholder director nominations, or to completely opt out 

82 See letters from ABA; BRT; Davis Polk; Delaware Bar; Frontier; IBM; Protective. 

83 See letters from 13D Monitor (“13D Monitor”); AFL-CIO; CalPERS; CFA Institute Centre for Market 

Integrity (“CFA Institute”); CII; Florida State Board of Administration; ICGN; LIUNA; D. Nappier; P. 

Neuhauser; OPERS; Pax World; RiskMetrics; SWIB; Teamsters; USPE. 

41
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of Rule 14a-11. Many commenters generally supported a provision that would permit companies 

and shareholders to adopt alternative requirements for shareholder director nominations that 

could be either more restrictive or less restrictive than those of Rule 14a-11.84 Among these 

commenters, some argued that creating a “one-size-fits-all” rule that cannot be altered by 

companies and shareholders conflicts with the traditional enabling approach of state corporation 

laws and denies shareholder choice.85 Some commenters advocated allowing companies to opt 

out of Rule 14a-11 through a shareholder-approved bylaw (including through a Rule 14a-8 

shareholder proposal), with some suggesting that Rule 14a-11 apply initially only to companies 

that have not opted out through a shareholder-approved process by the time of the first annual 

meeting held after the adoption of the proposed rules.86 

On the other hand, several commenters expressed support for the uniform applicability of 

Rule 14a-11.87 These commenters expressed general support for the Commission’s Proposal that 

Rule 14a-11 apply to all companies subject to the federal proxy rules unless state law or the 

company’s governing documents prohibit shareholders from nominating candidates to the 

84	 See letters from ABA; Advance Auto Parts; Aetna; American Bankers Association; American Electric 

Power; American Express; Applied Materials; Association of Corporate Counsel; Best Buy; BRT; 

California Bar; Carlson; J. Chico; Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (“Cleary”); Comcast; Con 

Edison; CSX; Cummins; L. Dallas; Davis Polk; Devon; Dupont; ExxonMobil; Financial Services 

Roundtable; FPL Group; IBM; JPMorgan Chase; Keating Muething; Koppers; Alexander Krakovsky (“A. 

Krakovsky”); Group of 10 Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School Professors (“Lorsch et al.”); 

Brett H. McDonnell (“B. McDonnell”); Motorola; O’Melveny & Myers; P&G; Pfizer; S&C; Sara Lee; 

Group of Seven Law Firms (“Seven Law Firms”); Shearman & Sterling; Securities Industry and Financial 

Markets Association (“SIFMA”); Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; U.S. Bancorp; 

Wachtell. 

85	 See letters from ABA; BRT; Delaware Bar. 

86	 See letters from DTE Energy (endorsing the opt-out approach described in the letter submitted by the 

Society of Corporate Secretaries); JPMorgan Chase; P&G; Seven Law Firms; Society of Corporate 

Secretaries; U.S. Bancorp. 

87	 See letters from 13D Monitor; AFL-CIO; CalPERS; CFA Institute; CII; Florida State Board of 

Administration; ICGN; LIUNA; D. Nappier; P. Neuhauser; Pax World; OPERS; RiskMetrics; SWIB; 

Teamsters; USPE. 

42
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

board.88 Several commenters stated they oppose a provision that would permit companies to opt 

out of Rule 14a-11.89 Some commenters expressed a general concern that if companies are 

allowed to opt out of the rule, boards would adopt provisions in a company’s governing 

documents that are so restrictive that it would be impossible for shareholders to have their 

candidates included in company proxy materials,90 with one commenter noting that the laws of 

most states would allow a board to adopt such provisions in a company’s bylaws without a 

shareholder vote.91 Further, a commenter warned that boards would use corporate funds to defeat 

shareholders’ attempts to change such board-adopted provisions through shareholder proposals.92 

One commenter argued that the “idea that individual corporations should be given the right to 

‘opt out’ of the proposed regulations through bylaws or otherwise is contrary to the 

Commission’s entire regulatory scheme” and referred to Section 14 of the Securities Act,93 which 

voids “[a]ny condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person acquiring any security to 

waive compliance with any provision of this title or of the rules and regulations of the 

Commission....”94 

After carefully considering the comments, we have determined that Rule 14a-11 should 

88 See letters from 13D Monitor; AFL-CIO; CalPERS; CFA Institute; CII; Florida State Board of 

Administration; ICGN; LIUNA; D. Nappier; P. Neuhauser; Pax World; OPERS; RiskMetrics; SWIB; 

Teamsters; USPE. 

89 See letters from AFL-CIO; Amalgamated Bank; William Baker (“W. Baker”); Florida State Board of 

Administration; International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (“IAM”); The Marco 

Consulting Group (“Marco Consulting”); P. Neuhauser; Nine Law Firms; Norges Bank Investment 

Management (“Norges Bank”); Relational; Shamrock Capital Advisors, Inc. (“Shamrock”); TIAA-CREF; 

USPE; ValueAct Capital. 

90 See letters from Florida State Board of Administration; P. Neuhauser; Shamrock. 

91 See letter from Shamrock. 

92 See letter from P. Neuhauser. 

93 Letter from Nine Law Firms. 

94 15 U.S.C. 77n. 

43
 
 

 

 

 

 

not provide an exemption for companies that have or adopt a provision in their governing 

documents that provides for or prohibits the inclusion of shareholder director nominees in the 

company’s proxy materials. Thus, regardless of whether a company has a provision for the 

inclusion of shareholder nominees in its proxy materials, Rule 14a-11 will apply. As noted, the 

only exception is if state or foreign law or a company’s governing documents prohibits 

shareholders from making director nominations. 

We believe the rights to nominate and elect directors are traditional state law rights of all 

shareholders and we believe the current proxy rules could better facilitate the effective exercise 

of these state law rights. We do not believe that it is appropriate for our rules to permit a 

company’s board or a majority of shareholders to elect to opt out of Rule 14a-11 and thus 

deprive other shareholders of an effective means to exercise their state law right to nominate 

directors and to freely exercise their franchise rights. Thus, allowing a vote to opt out of the rule 

would contravene a fundamental rationale of Rule 14a-11 – improving the degree to which 

shareholders participating through the proxy process are able “to control the corporation as 

effectively as they might have by attending a shareholder meeting.”95 

When shareholders have the right to nominate candidates for director at a shareholder 

meeting, we believe shareholder choice is enhanced if our rules facilitate the ability of 

shareholders to nominate candidates for director through the proxy process. Allowing a 

company or a majority of its shareholders to opt out of the rule would diminish the rights of 

shareholders who participate by proxy by preventing shareholder nominees from being included 

in company proxy materials, thus reducing shareholder choice in the critical area of director 

Business Roundtable v. SEC, 905 F.2d 406, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1990). 

44
 

95 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

elections. Similarly, allowing a company or a majority of its shareholders to opt out of the rule 

would diminish the ability of shareholders to vote for nominees put forth by other shareholders. 

In addition, companies and their shareholders do not have the option to elect to opt out of 

other federal proxy rules and we do not believe they should have the ability to do so with this 

rule. In our view, shareholders’ electoral rights through the proxy process should not be 

impaired by a unilateral act of the board of directors, or even by a shareholder vote supported by 

management. Further, as we describe above, allowing some portion of shareholders to alter the 

application of Rule 14a-11 would effectively reduce choices for shareholders who do not favor 

that decision.96 

Finally, we considered the objections of some commenters to a “one-size-fits-all” rule 

and concerns that for some companies with various capital structures the rule may raise more 

complex issues.97 As we have noted, no federal proxy rule allows shareholders or boards to alter 

96	 Our view in this regard has been sharply criticized. E.g., Joseph A. Grundfest, The SEC’s Proposed Proxy 

Access Rules: Politics, Economics, and the Law, 65 BUS. LAW. 361, 370 (2010) (this article also was 

included as an attachment to the January 18, 2010 letter from Joseph A. Grundfest (“Grundfest II”)) (“there 

is no intellectually credible argument that shareholders are ... competent to elect directors but incompetent 

to determine the rules governing the election of directors. There is also no support for the proposition that 

shareholders can be trusted to relax the mandatory minimum standards established by the Commission, but 

not to strengthen them.”). In our view, these assertions are flawed. This is not an issue of shareholder 

competence. It is, instead, a recognition that permitting a company or a group of shareholders to prevent 

shareholders from effectively participating in governing the corporation through participation in the proxy 

process is fundamentally inconsistent with the goal of federal proxy regulation. See Business Roundtable, 

905 F.2d at 410. 

97	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; ACE; Advance Auto Parts; AGL; Aetna; Allstate; Alston 

& Bird; American Bankers Association; American Business Conference; American Electric Power; 

Anadarko; Applied Materials; Artistic Land Designs; Association of Corporate Counsel; Avis Budget; 

Atlantic Bingo; L. Behr; Best Buy; Biogen; J. Blanchard; Boeing; T. Bonkowski; BorgWarner; Boston 

Scientific; Brink’s; BRT; Burlington Northern; R. Burt; California Bar; Callaway; S. Campbell; Carlson; 

Carolina Mills; Caterpillar; Chamber of Commerce/CMCC; Chevron; R. Chicko; CIGNA; Comcast; 

Competitive Enterprise Institute; W. Cornwell; CSX; E. Culwell; Cummins; Darden Restaurants; Daniels 

Manufacturing; Davis Polk; Delaware Bar; T. Dermody; Devon; DTE Energy; Eaton; Edison Electric 

Institute; Eli Lilly; Emerson Electric; M. Eng; Erickson; ExxonMobil; FedEx; Financial Services 

Roundtable; Flutterby; FPL Group; Frontier; GE; A. Goolsby; C. Holliday; IBM; ICI; Intelect; JPMorgan 

Chase; Jones Day; R. Clark King; Leggett; T. Liddell; Little; McDonald’s; MeadWestvaco; MedFaxx; 

Medical Insurance; Metlife; M. Metz; Microsoft; J. Miller; M. Moretti; Motorola; NACD; NAM; NIRI; 

O’Melveny & Myers; Office Depot; Omaha Door; P&G; PepsiCo; Pfizer; Realogy; J. Robert; M. Robert; 

RPM; Ryder; Safeway; R. Saul; Shearman & Sterling; Sherwin-Williams; R. Simoneau; Society of 

45
 
 

 

 

 

how the rules apply to companies. The concept that our rules are not subject to company-bycompany variation is entirely consistent with our mandate to protect all investors. In this regard, 

we are not persuaded that we should allow our rules to be altered by shareholders or boards to 

the potential detriment of other shareholders. We believe that having a uniform standard that 

applies to all companies subject to the rule will simplify use of the rule for shareholders and 

allowing different procedures and requirements to be adopted by each company could add 

significant complexity and cost for shareholders and undermine the purposes of our new rule. 

While other procedures and standards could be adopted by companies or shareholders to 

supplement Rule 14a-11, shareholders would benefit from the predictability of the uniform 

application of Rule 14a-11 at all companies. 

It is important to note that while Rule 14a-11 facilitates the existing rights of shareholders 

and we do not believe the rule should be altered, it is not the exclusive way by which a candidate 

other than a management nominee may be put to a shareholder vote. Shareholders may continue 

to choose to conduct traditional proxy contests. Regardless of whether a shareholder uses Rule 

14a-11 or conducts a traditional proxy contest to nominate a candidate for director, a company 

concerned about how such a shareholder nominee fits into its particular capital structure or other 

unique fact patterns presumably would address that concern in its proxy materials. 

d. No triggering events 

Under the Commission’s 2003 Proposal, a company would have been subject to the 

shareholder director nomination requirements after the occurrence of one or both of two possible 

triggering events. The first triggering event was that at least one of the company’s nominees for 

Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; Southland; Steele Group; Style Crest; Tesoro; Textron; 

Theragenics; TI;. R. Trummel; T. Trummel; V. Trummel; tw telecom; L. Tyson; United Brotherhood of 

Carpenters; UnitedHealth; U.S. Bancorp; VCG; Wachtell; Wellness; Wells Fargo; Whirlpool; Xerox; 

Yahoo; J. Young. 

46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

the board of directors for whom the company solicited proxies received withhold votes from 

more than 35% of the votes cast at an annual meeting of shareholders at which directors were 

elected.98 The second triggering event was that a shareholder proposal submitted under Rule 

14a-8 providing that a company become subject to the proposed shareholder nomination 

procedure was submitted for a vote of shareholders at an annual meeting by a shareholder or 

group of shareholders that held more than 1% of the company’s securities entitled to vote on the 

proposal and the shareholder or group of shareholders held those securities for one year as of the 

date the proposal was submitted, and the proposal received more than 50% of the votes cast on 

that proposal at the meeting.99 In 2003, these triggering events were included because they were 

believed to be indications that a company had a demonstrated corporate governance issue, such 

that shareholders should have the opportunity to include director nominees in the company’s 

proxy materials. 

Unlike the 2003 Proposal, our current proposal did not include a triggering event 

requirement in Rule 14a-11. As noted in the Proposing Release, we did not include such a 

requirement because we were concerned that the federal proxy rules may be impeding the 

exercise of shareholders’ ability under state law to nominate and elect directors at all companies, 

not just those with demonstrated governance issues. In addition, we noted our concern, and the 

concern expressed by commenters on the 2003 Proposal, that the inclusion of triggering events 

would result in unnecessary complexity and would delay the operation of the rule. However, we 

solicited comment about whether triggers for the application of Rule 14a-11 would be 

appropriate. 

98	 This triggering event could not occur in a contested election to which Rule 14a-12(c) would apply or an 

election to which the proposed shareholder nomination procedure would have applied. 

99	 Only votes for and against a proposal would have been included in the calculation of the shareholder vote. 

47
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many commenters opposed the inclusion of a triggering event requirement,100 with some 

commenters expressing concern that triggering events would cause significant delays and 

introduce undue complexity into the rule.101 On the other hand, other commenters supported the 

inclusion of a triggering event requirement, believing that such a requirement would serve as a 

useful indicator of the companies with demonstrated governance issues (e.g., companies that do 

not act within a certain time period on a shareholder proposal that received majority support).102 

We remain concerned that the federal proxy rules may not be facilitating the exercise of 

shareholders’ ability under state law to nominate and elect directors and this concern is not 

limited to shareholders’ ability to nominate directors at companies with demonstrated 

governance issues. Indeed, allowing shareholders to include nominees in company proxy 

materials before there are demonstrated governance failures could have the benefit of increasing 

director responsiveness and avoiding future governance failures. In addition, we share the 

concerns of some commenters that inclusion of triggering events would introduce undue 

complexity to the rule. Therefore, we are adopting the rule as proposed, without a triggering 

event requirement. 

e. Concurrent proxy contests 

As proposed, Rule 14a-11 would apply regardless of whether a company is engaged in, or 

100	 See letters from AFSCME; CalSTRS; CFA Institute; CII; COPERA; T. DiNapoli; Florida State Board of 

Administration; ICGN; N. Lautenbach; LIUNA; D. Nappier; Nathan Cummings Foundation; OPERS; Pax 

World; Relational; Sodali; SWIB; TIAA-CREF; G. Tooker; USPE; ValueAct Capital. 

101	 See letters from AFSCME; CFA Institute; CII; T. DiNapoli; LIUNA. 

102	 See letters from Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (“ADP”); Alaska Air Group, Inc. (“Alaska Air”); Allstate; 

American Electric Power; Anadarko; AT&T; Avis Budget; Barclays Global Investors (“Barclays”); 

Biogen; Boeing; BRT; Burlington Northern; R. Burt; Callaway; Chevron; CIGNA; CNH Global N.V. 

(“CNH Global”); Comcast; Cummins; Deere & Company (“Deere”); Eaton; ExxonMobil; FedEx; FMC 

Corp.; FPL Group; Frontier; General Mills; C. Holliday; IBM; ITT Corporation (“ITT”); J. Kilts; Ellen J. 

Kullman (“E.J. Kullman”); N. Lautenbach; McDonald’s; J. Miller; Motorola; Office Depot; O’Melveny & 

Myers; P&G; PepsiCo; Pfizer; Protective; Ryder; Sara Lee; Sherwin-Williams; Theragenics; TI; tw 

telecom; G. Tooker; UnitedHealth; Xerox. 

48
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

anticipates being engaged in, a concurrent proxy contest; however, we requested comment on 

whether a company should be exempted from complying with Rule 14a-11 if another party 

commences or evidences its intent to commence a solicitation in opposition subject to Rule 14a12(c). Of the commenters that responded, a few stated that shareholders of a company that is the 

subject of a traditional proxy contest should be allowed to use Rule 14a-11 to have nominees 

included in the company’s proxy materials,103 and others stated that shareholders of a company 

engaged in a traditional proxy contest should not be allowed to use Rule 14a-11 to have 

nominees included in the company’s proxy materials.104 

In support of enabling shareholders to use Rule 14a-11 during a traditional proxy contest, 

one commenter argued that exempting companies subject to a traditional proxy contest from 

Rule 14a-11 would be inconsistent with the Commission’s objective of changing the proxy 

process to better reflect the rights shareholders would have at a shareholder meeting, and that 

dissatisfied shareholders who are not seeking a change in control and who otherwise meet the 

eligibility criteria under Rule 14a-11 would be disenfranchised.105 The commenter stated that 

dissatisfied shareholders should not be forced to make a choice between a change in control or 

“business as usual.” Another commenter stated that contested elections have been conducted 

successfully with more than two slates.106 

On the other hand, commenters that sought a limitation on use of Rule 14a-11 during a 

traditional proxy contest were concerned that Rule 14a-11 could have the effect of facilitating a 

103 See letters from CII; Florida State Board of Administration; Sodali; USPE. 

104 See letters from ABA; American Express; Biogen; BorgWarner; BRT; Davis Polk; Dewey; Eli Lilly; 

Fenwick; Honeywell; JPMorgan Chase; Leggett; PepsiCo; Seven Law Firms; Society of Corporate 

Secretaries; Tenet; U.S. Bancorp; Verizon; Wachtell. 

105 See letter from CII. 

106 See letter from Florida State Board of Administration. 

49
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

change in control of the company.107 Commenters noted that under certain staff positions,108 as 

well as the Commission’s discussion of Rule 14a-4(d)(4), as set forth in the Proxy Disclosure 

and Solicitation Enhancements proposing release,109 a dissident shareholder could “round out” its 

short-slate proxy card by seeking authority to vote for Rule 14a-11 shareholder nominees, 

thereby facilitating a change in control.110 Further, commenters believed that under the Proposal 

shareholders that submit nominees in reliance on Rule 14a-11 would not be barred from actively 

soliciting for the nominees of a shareholder using a traditional proxy contest and, conversely, a 

shareholder using a traditional proxy contest could actively engage in soliciting activities for 

Rule 14a-11 shareholder nominees.111 Commenters also worried that multiple groups of 

shareholders who simultaneously propose different directors for different purposes could lead to 

substantial confusion for other shareholders.112 Commenters warned that shareholder confusion 

would increase if there are two or more proxy cards with more than twice the number of 

nominees than available slots.113 According to these commenters, further confusion would result 

from any assumption by shareholders that the Rule 14a-11 slate is allied with the insurgent slate, 

despite the Rule 14a-11 representation regarding the lack of control intent.114 One commenter 

107 See letters from ABA; BRT; Davis Polk; Eli Lilly; Seven Law Firms; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

108 See Eastbourne Capital LLC No-Action Letter (March 30, 2009) and Icahn Associates Corp. No-Action 

Letter (March 30, 2009). 

109 Release No. 33-9052, 34-60280 (July 10, 2009) [74 FR 35076]. 

110 See letters from ABA; Eli Lilly; JPMorgan Chase; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

111 See letters from ABA; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

112 See letters from ABA; BRT; Davis Polk; Eli Lilly; PepsiCo; Seven Law Firms; Society of Corporate 

Secretaries. 

113 See letters from ABA; Davis Polk. 

114 See Section II.B.4. below for a further discussion of change in control intent and the certifications required 

by the new rules. 

50
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

also argued that, despite the Rule 14a-11 representation regarding the lack of control intent, it is 

“easy to imagine that in some contested elections, a [R]ule 14a-11 nominee would be the swing 

vote, tipping the majority of the board and thus control of the company.”115 Citing these same 

concerns, another commenter recommended that when a company’s board receives notice of a 

traditional proxy contest, the company should be permitted to exclude Rule 14a-11 nominees 

from the company’s proxy materials (and, if the proxy materials have already been distributed, to 

issue supplemental proxy materials eliminating these nominees from the company’s materials).116 

Finally, some commenters argued that Rule 14a-11 is unnecessary when a company is 

engaged in a traditional proxy contest because the company’s shareholders are already 

effectively exercising their rights under state law to nominate and elect directors.117 One 

commenter stated that if the Commission decides not to prohibit a concurrent vote on Rule 14a11 nominees and nominees presented through a traditional proxy contest, it should at least 

provide that the nominees presented through the traditional proxy contest be counted against the 

number of permissible Rule 14a-11 nominees to reduce the likelihood of a change in control.118 

The commenter stated that if Rule 14a-11 could be used concurrently with a traditional proxy 

contest, the nominating shareholder should not be allowed to be a “participant” (as defined under 

Schedule 14A) in the traditional proxy contest or to engage in any soliciting activity for a 

nominee of another shareholder. The commenter also suggested that dissidents in a traditional 

proxy contest be precluded from including Rule 14a-11 nominees on their proxy card. 

Acknowledging the possibility of collusion, shareholder confusion, and change in control, one 

115 Letter from Davis Polk. 

116 See letter from Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

117 See letters from BRT; Verizon. 

118 See letter from ABA. 

51
 
 

 

 

 

commenter expressed support for reasonable limitations on a Rule 14a-11 nomination if there is 

a simultaneous proxy contest.119 

While we appreciate commenters’ concerns, we do not believe that our efforts to 

facilitate the exercise of shareholders’ state law right to nominate directors should be limited by 

the activities of other persons engaged in a traditional proxy contest. We also believe that, as 

described below, Rule 14a-11 and the related rule amendments, together with our staff review 

process, can adequately address concerns about investor confusion and potential abuse of the 

process by those seeking a change in control. Therefore, we are adopting the rule as proposed, 

without an exception for companies that are subject to or anticipate being subject to a concurrent 

proxy contest. In this regard, we agree with those commenters that opposed including a 

limitation because to do so would be inconsistent with the goals of our rulemaking, which are not 

limited by the nomination activities of other persons. In addition, we note that there is no current 

limitation in the federal proxy rules on the number of proxy contests that can take place 

simultaneously and we do not believe that there is sufficient reason to provide such a limitation 

in this circumstance. Companies and shareholders have been able, to date, to successfully 

navigate multiple slates on those occasions when more than one person undertakes a proxy 

contest. In addition, we believe that a company can address commenters’ concerns through 

disclosure in its proxy materials. For example, the company may disclose in its proxy statement 

potential effects of electing non-management nominees (whether those nominees are included in 

the company’s materials or in other soliciting persons’ materials), such as the potential to cause 

the company to violate law or the independence requirements of the exchange listing standards, 

and allow shareholders to consider that information when making their voting decisions. 

See letter from P. Neuhauser. 

52
 

119 
 

 

 

 

 

Similarly, we believe that appropriate disclosure in the company’s proxy materials, as well as the 

dissident’s proxy materials, could serve to potentially avoid shareholder confusion about how 

many nominees a shareholder may vote for and how to mark the card. 

We also have not revised Rule 14a-11, as suggested by commenters, to count nominees 

put forth by persons outside of Rule 14a-11 for purposes of the calculation of the maximum 

number of nominees required to be included in the company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 

14a-11. We believe that to do so would, like an outright exception, be inconsistent with the goal 

of our rulemaking – to change the proxy process to better reflect the rights shareholders would 

have at a shareholder meeting, which are not limited by the nomination activities of other 

persons. 

While we are not adopting an exception from the rule for companies that are, or 

anticipate being, subject to a concurrent proxy contest, we do understand concerns about the 

possibility of confusion and abuse in this area absent clear guidance.120 Accordingly, we have 

made clear in our discussion, in Section II.B.10. below, that a nominating shareholder or group 

relying on new Rule 14a-2(b)(7) or (8) to engage in an exempt solicitation to form a nominating 

shareholder group or in connection with a nomination included in the company’s proxy materials 

pursuant to Rule 14a-11 would lose the exemption if they engage in a non-Rule 14a-11 

solicitation for directors or another person’s solicitation with regard to the election of directors. 

In addition, we are adopting an instruction to Rule 14a-11121 to make clear that, in order to rely 

on Rule 14a-11 to have a nominee or nominees included in a company’s proxy materials, a 

nominating shareholder or group or any member of the nominating shareholder or group may not 

120 See, e.g., letters from ABA; Seven Law Firms. 

121 See Instruction to Rule 14a-11(b). 

53
 
 

 

 

 

be a member of any other group with persons engaged in solicitations or other nominating 

activities in connection with the subject election of directors; may not separately conduct a 

solicitation in connection with the subject election of directors other than a Rule 14a-2(b)(8) 

exempt solicitation in relation to those nominees it has nominated pursuant to Rule 14a-11 or for 

or against the company’s nominees; and may not act as a participant in another person’s 

solicitation in connection with the subject election of directors. 

3. Which Companies Are Subject to Rule 14a-11 

a. General 

In this section, we discuss which companies will be subject to new Rule 14a-11, 

including the rule’s application to investment companies, controlled companies, “debt-only” 

companies, voluntary registrants, and smaller reporting companies. 

New Rule 14a-11 will apply to companies that are subject to the Exchange Act proxy 

rules, including investment companies registered under Section 8 of the Investment Company 

Act of 1940.122 The rule also will apply to controlled companies and those companies that 

choose to voluntarily register a class of securities under Section 12(g). Smaller reporting 

companies will be subject to the rule, but on a delayed basis. Consistent with the Proposal, we 

have excepted from the rule’s application companies that are subject to the proxy rules solely 

because they have a class of debt registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act. In addition, 

foreign private issuers are exempt from the Commission’s proxy rules with respect to 

15 U.S.C. 80a et seq. Registered investment companies currently are required to comply with the proxy 

rules under the Exchange Act when soliciting proxies, including proxies relating to the election of directors. 

See Investment Company Act Rule 20a-1 [17 CFR 270.20a-1] (requiring registered investment companies 

to comply with regulations adopted pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act that would be applicable 

to a proxy solicitation if it were made in respect of a security registered pursuant to Section 12 of the 

Exchange Act). 

54
 

122 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

solicitations of their shareholders, so the rule will not apply to these issuers.123 

b. Investment companies 

Under the Proposal, Rule 14a-11 would apply to registered investment companies. We 

sought comment on whether Rule 14a-11 should apply to these companies.124 

Several commenters supported including registered investment companies in the rule.125 

Commenters noted that investment company boards, like other boards, must be responsive and 

accountable to their shareholders;126 that some investment company boards are “too cozy” with 

the company’s investment adviser;127 and that the proposed rule will add competition to the board 

nomination process, which may create some traction in board negotiations with the company’s 

investment adviser.128 A number of commenters did not believe that the rule would result in 

unreasonable cost or an excessive number of contested elections.129 One commenter suggested 

that investment company shareholders would use the rule infrequently and then only if the 

investment company is experiencing a real governance or other failure.130 

On the other hand, a number of commenters, largely from the investment company 

123 Exchange Act Rule 3a12-3 [17 CFR 240.3a12-3] exempts securities of certain foreign issuers from Section 

14(a) of the Exchange Act. 

124 The Commission has considered the impact of this issue on investment companies on prior occasions. See, 

e.g., 2003 Proposal. 

125 See, e.g., letters from AFSCME; CalPERS; CII; Mutual Fund Directors Forum (“MFDF”); Julian Reid (“J. 

Reid”); Jennifer S. Taub (“J. Taub”); TIAA-CREF. 

126 See letter from MFDF. 

127 Letter from J. Reid. 

128 See letter from J. Taub. 

129 See, e.g., letters from AFSCME; J. Taub. 

130 See letter from J. Taub. 

55
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

industry, opposed the inclusion of registered investment companies in the rule.131 Commenters 

asserted that the Commission had not presented any empirical evidence of governance problems 

with respect to investment companies that would support extending the rule to them and that the 

trend for investment company boards is to have strong governance practices.132 Commenters also 

argued that investment companies are subject to a unique regulatory regime under the Investment 

Company Act that provides additional protection to investors, such as the requirement to obtain 

shareholder approval to engage in certain transactions or activities,133 and that investment 

companies and their boards have very different functions from non-investment companies and 

their boards.134 One commenter noted that the Proposal would be inappropriate and not 

131	 See, e.g., letters from ABA; American Bar Association (September 18, 2009) (“ABA II”); Barclays; ICI; 

Investment Company Institute and Independent Directors Counsel (“ICI/IDC”); Independent Directors 

Council (“IDC”); S&C; T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (“T. Rowe Price”); The Vanguard Group, Inc. 

(“Vanguard”). One commenter opposed the inclusion of business development companies in the rule for 

the same reasons that it opposed including registered investment companies in the rule. See letter from ICI. 

Business development companies are a category of closed-end investment companies that are not registered 

under the Investment Company Act, but are subject to certain provisions of that Act. See Sections 2(a)(48) 

and 54-65 of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(48) and 80a-53-64]. We are including 

business development companies in the rule for the same reasons provided below with respect to registered 

investment companies. 

132	 See letters from ICI; ICI/IDC; IDC; T. Rowe Price; S&C. Among other things, commenters noted that 

90% of fund complexes have boards that are 75% or more comprised of independent directors and the vast 

majority of fund boards have an independent director serving as chairman or as lead independent director. 

See letters from ICI/IDC; IDC. Two letters also cited a 1992 report by Commission staff that observed that 

the governance model embodied by the Investment Company Act is sound and should be retained with 

limited modifications. See letters from ICI; ICI/IDC. 

133	 One joint comment letter noted that the Investment Company Act requires investment companies to obtain 

shareholder approval of contracts with the company’s investment adviser and distributor and to change 

from an open-end, closed-end, or diversified company; to borrow money; to issue senior securities; to 

underwrite securities issued by other persons; to purchase or sell real estate or commodities; to make loans 

to other persons, except in accordance with the policy in the company’s registration statement; to change 

the nature of its business so as to cease to be an investment company; or to deviate from a stated policy 

with respect to concentration of investments in an industry or industries, from any investment policy which 

is changeable only by shareholder vote, or from any stated fundamental policy. The commenters also noted 

that investment company shareholders have the right to bring an action against the company’s investment 

adviser for breach of fiduciary duty with respect to receipt of compensation. See letter from ICI/IDC. 

134	 See letters from ABA; Barclays; ICI; ICI/IDC; IDC; T. Rowe Price; S&C; Vanguard. However, we note 

that, in response to the 2003 Proposal, ABA and ICI indicated that there were no reasons to treat 

investment companies differently from non-investment companies. See letter from Investment Company 

Institute (December 22, 2003) on File No. S7-19-03; letter from American Bar Association (January 7, 

56
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

particularly useful for most open-end management investment companies, because open-end 

management investment company shares are held on a short-term basis and open-end 

management investment companies are not typically required to hold annual meetings under 

state law.135 

Commenters also were concerned about the costs of the Proposal, particularly for fund 

complexes that utilize a “unitary” board consisting of one group of individuals who serve on the 

board of every fund in the complex, or “cluster” boards consisting of two or more groups of 

individuals that each oversee a different set of funds in the complex.136 Commenters noted that if 

a shareholder-nominated director were to be elected to a unitary or cluster board, the investment 

companies in the fund complex would incur significant additional administrative costs and 

burdens (e.g., the shareholder-nominated director would have to leave during discussions that 

pertain to the other investment companies in the complex, board materials would have to be 

2004) on File No. S7-19-03. 

135	 See letter from ABA. See also letter from S&C (urging that at a minimum Rule 14a-11 should not apply to 

open-end investment companies, “which do not generally hold regular meetings and for which compliance 

would be particularly burdensome”). An open-end management investment company is an investment 

company, other than a unit investment trust or face-amount certificate company, that 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)]. 

136	 See letters from ABA; ICI; ICI/IDC; IDC; MFDF; S&C; T. Rowe Price; Vanguard. Commenters noted 

that a recent survey of fund complexes representing 93% of the industry’s total net assets indicated that 

83% of fund complexes had a unitary board structure and 17% of fund complexes had a cluster board 

structure. See letters from ICI/IDC; IDC. However, one comment letter included materials noting that, 

while the average number of registered investment companies per fund complex is five, the median number 

of registered investment companies per fund complex is one. See letter from ICI/IDC. In cases where the 

fund complex consists of only one company, commenters’ concerns about the loss of the unitary board 

would not be present. 

Commenters also noted that among fund complexes that use unitary or cluster boards there are other 

aspects of board organization that vary from complex to complex. See letter from ICI/IDC. For example, 

one board may oversee all of the open-end funds in the complex and all but three of its closed-end funds, 

while a second board oversees the other closed-end funds. Alternatively, one board may oversee the openend and closed-end fixed income funds advised by one particular adviser, while a second board oversees 

the open-end and closed-end equity and international funds advised by a second adviser, etc. However, the 

commenters did not note any specific issues that would be raised by the use of different structures among 

fund complexes using unitary or cluster boards if the Proposal were to be adopted. 

57
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

customized for the director, and the fund complex would face challenges in preserving the status 

of privileged information) and the benefits of the unitary or cluster board that result in the 

increased effectiveness of such boards would be lost.137 One commenter also stated that if a 

shareholder nomination causes an election to be “contested” under rules of the New York Stock 

Exchange, brokers would not be able to vote client shares on a discretionary basis, making it 

difficult and more expensive for investment companies to achieve a quorum for a meeting.138 

After considering these comments, we agree with the commenters who believe that Rule 

14a-11 should apply to registered investment companies, as was proposed. The purpose of Rule 

14a-11 is to facilitate the exercise of shareholders’ traditional state law rights to nominate and 

elect directors to boards of directors and thereby enable shareholders to participate more 

meaningfully in the nomination and election of directors at the companies in which they invest. 

These state law rights apply to the shareholders of investment companies, including each 

investment company in a fund complex, regardless of whether or not the fund complex utilizes a 

unitary or cluster board.139 Moreover, although investment companies and their boards may have 

different functions from non-investment companies and their boards, investment company 

boards, like the boards of other companies, have significant responsibilities in protecting 

137	 Commenters noted that unitary and cluster boards can result in enhanced board efficiency and greater board 

knowledge of the many aspects of fund operations that are complex-wide in nature. See, e.g., letters from 

ABA; ICI; ICI/IDC; IDC; MFDF; S&C; T. Rowe Price; Vanguard. For instance, commenters noted that 

many of the same regulatory, valuation, compliance, disclosure, accounting, and business issues may arise 

for all of the funds that the unitary or cluster board oversees and that consistency among funds in the 

complex greatly enhances both board efficiency and shareholder protection. See, e.g., letter from ICI/IDC. 

One joint comment letter also suggested that “[b]ecause they are negotiating on behalf of multiple funds, 

unitary and cluster boards have a greater ability than single fund boards to negotiate with management over 

matters such as fund expenses; the level of resources devoted to technology; and compliance and audit 

functions.” See id. 

138	 See letter from S&C. 

139	 We note that “unitary” or “cluster” boards are not required by state law. 

58
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholder interests, such as the approval of advisory contracts and fees.140 Therefore, we are 

not persuaded that exempting registered investment companies would be consistent with our 

goals. We also do not believe that the regulatory protections offered by the Investment Company 

Act (including requirements to obtain shareholder approval to engage in certain transactions and 

activities), the trend asserted by commenters for investment companies to have good governance 

practices, or the fact that open-end management investment companies are not required by state 

law to hold annual meetings serves to decrease the importance of the rights that are granted to 

shareholders under state law.141 In fact, the separate regulatory regime to which investment 

companies are subject emphasizes the importance of investment company directors in dealing 

with the conflicts of interest created by the external management structure of most investment 

companies.142 We also note that some commenters have raised governance concerns regarding 

140	 See Jones v. Harris Assocs., 130 S.Ct. 1418, 1423, 176 L. Ed. 2d 265, 273-274 (2010). See also S. Rep. 

No. 91-184; 91st Congress 1st Session; S. 2224 (1969) (“This section is not intended to authorize a court to 

substitute its business judgment for that of the mutual fund’s board of directors in the area of management 

fees. . . . The directors of a mutual fund, like directors of any other corporation will continue to have . . . 

overall fiduciary duties as directors for the supervision of all of the affairs of the fund.”); letter from 

ICI/IDC (“The Investment Company Act of 1940 and the rules under it impose significant responsibilities 

on fund directors in addition to the duties of loyalty and care to which directors are typically bound under 

state law.”). 

141	 In the 1992 report cited by two comment letters in footnote 132 above, the Commission staff also observed 

that the Investment Company Act “establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework predicated upon 

principles of corporate democracy” and was intended to provide an additional safeguard for investors by 

according “voting powers to investment company shareholders beyond those required by state corporate 

law.” Division of Investment Management, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Protecting 

Investors: A Half Century of Investment Company Regulation, at pp. 251-52, 260 (May 1992) (emphasis 

added). 

142	 See, e.g., Commission Guidance Regarding the Duties and Responsibilities of Investment Company Boards 

of Directors with Respect to Investment Adviser Portfolio Trading Practices, Release No. IC-28345 (July 

30, 2008) [73 FR 45646, 45649 (August 6, 2008)] (“In addition to statutory and common law obligations, 

fund directors are also subject to specific fiduciary obligations relating to the special nature of funds under 

the Investment Company Act. . . . A fund board has the responsibility, among other duties, to monitor the 

conflicts of interest facing the fund’s investment adviser and determine how the conflicts should be 

managed to help ensure that the fund is being operated in the best interest of the fund’s shareholders.”) 

(footnotes omitted); Interpretive Matters Concerning Independent Directors of Investment Companies, 

Release No. IC-24083 (October 14, 1999) [64 FR 59877, 59877-78 (November 3, 1999)] (listing various 

duties and responsibilities of the independent directors of an investment company and noting that “Each of 

these duties and responsibilities is vital to the proper functioning of fund operations and, ultimately, the 

59
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the relationship between boards and investment advisers.143 

We are cognizant of the fact that the rule will impose some costs on investment 

companies. We believe, however, that policy goals and the benefits of the rule justify these 

costs. As discussed above, we believe that facilitating the exercise of traditional state law rights 

to nominate and elect directors is as much of a concern for investment company shareholders as 

it is for shareholders of non-investment companies. We continue to believe that parts of the 

proxy process may frustrate the exercise of shareholders’ rights to nominate and elect directors 

arising under state law, and thereby fail to provide fair corporate suffrage. The new rules seek to 

facilitate shareholders’ effective exercise of their rights under state law to both nominate and 

elect directors. In this regard, we note that commenters have stated that interest in mutual fund 

governance has increased in recent years.144 

We recognize that it may be more costly for investment companies to achieve a quorum 

at shareholder meetings if a shareholder director nomination causes an election to be “contested” 

under rules of the New York Stock Exchange and brokers cannot vote customer shares on a 

discretionary basis. Furthermore, for fund complexes that utilize unitary or cluster boards, the 

election of a shareholder director nominee may, in some circumstances, increase costs and 

potentially decrease the efficiency of the boards. 

We note, however, that these costs are associated with the state law right to nominate and 

elect directors, and are not costs incurred for including shareholder nominees in the company’s 

proxy statement. With respect to fund complexes utilizing unitary or cluster boards, we note that 

protection of fund shareholders.”). 

143 See letters from J. Reid; J. Taub. 

144 See letters from AFSCME; J. Taub. 

60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

any increased costs and decreased efficiency of an investment company’s board as a result of the 

fund complex no longer having a unitary or cluster board would occur, if at all, only in the event 

that investment company shareholders elect the shareholder nominee. Investment companies 

may include information in the proxy materials making investors aware of the company’s views 

on the perceived benefits of a unitary or cluster board and the potential for increased costs and 

decreased efficiency if the shareholder nominees are elected. Moreover, we note that a fund 

complex can take steps to minimize the cost and burden of a shareholder-nominated director by, 

for example, entering into a confidentiality agreement in order to preserve the status of 

confidential information regarding the fund complex.145 

We believe that the costs imposed on investment companies will be less significant than 

the costs imposed on other companies for three reasons. First, to the extent investment 

companies do not hold annual meetings as permitted by state law, investment company 

shareholders will have less opportunity to use the rule.146 Second, even when investment 

company shareholders do have the opportunity to use the rule, the disproportionately large and 

generally passive retail shareholder base of investment companies will probably mean that the 

rule will be used less frequently than will be the case with non-investment companies.147 Third, 

because we have sought to limit the cost and burden on all companies, including investment 

145	 Two commenters argued in a joint comment letter that there are a number of practical and legal issues that 

prevent confidentiality agreements from being sufficient to address the issues that arise when a 

shareholder-nominated director is elected to the board of an investment company in a fund complex using a 

unitary or cluster board. See letter from ICI/IDC. We emphasize that entering into a confidentiality 

agreement is only one method of preserving the confidentiality of information revealed in board meetings 

attended by the shareholder-nominated director. The fund complex can have separate meetings and board 

materials for the board with the shareholder-nominated director, especially if particularly sensitive legal or 

other matters will be discussed or to protect attorney-client privilege. For a further discussion of this 

comment, see Section IV.E.1. 

146	 See letters from ABA; MFDF. 

147	 See letter from J. Taub. 

61
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

companies, by limiting use of Rule 14a-11 to shareholders who have maintained significant 

continuous holdings in the company for at least three years, and because many funds, such as 

money market funds, are held by shareholders on a short-term basis,148 we believe that the 

situations where shareholders will meet the eligibility requirements will be limited. 

Although commenters argued that the election of a shareholder-nominated director to a 

unitary or cluster board will necessarily result in decreased effectiveness of the board, we 

disagree. In this regard, one commenter argued that competition in the board nomination process 

may improve efficiency by providing additional leverage for boards in negotiations with the 

investment adviser.149 In any event, we believe that investment company shareholders should 

have a more meaningful opportunity to exercise their traditional state law rights to elect a nonunitary or non-cluster board if they so choose. 

c. Controlled companies 

As proposed, Rule 14a-11 would allow eligible shareholders to submit director nominees 

at all companies subject to the Exchange Act proxy rules other than companies that are subject to 

the proxy rules solely because they have a class of debt registered under Section 12 of the 

Exchange Act. We sought comment on whether Rule 14a-11 also should provide an exception 

for controlled companies. 

In response to our request for comment, one commenter argued that controlled companies 

should not be excluded from Rule 14a-11,150 acknowledging that while there may be no 

mathematical possibility of a shareholder nominee submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-11 being 

148 See letter from ABA. 

149 See letter from J. Taub. 

150 See letter from P. Neuhauser. 

62
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

elected at a controlled company, in a controlled company there could be an even greater need for 

non-controlling shareholders to express their concerns. The commenter noted that a large – even 

if not a majority – vote by non-controlling shareholders could send an important message to the 

board. Other commenters noted that controlled companies are commonly structured with dual 

classes of stock, which allows shareholders of the non-controlling class of stock to elect a set 

number of directors that is less than the full board.151 Another commenter noted that dual-class 

companies with supervoting stock often can benefit the most from having the interests of noncontrolling shareholders better represented in the boardroom.152 This commenter encouraged the 

Commission to include some means by which minority shareholders of dual-class and parentcontrolled companies could meaningfully avail themselves of the rule, even if a different set of 

eligibility or disclosure requirements is determined to be more appropriate in these cases. 

On the other hand, several commenters argued that controlled companies should be 

excluded from Rule 14a-11.153 According to these commenters, providing shareholders the 

ability to include nominees in company proxy materials in this context would be ineffective and 

needlessly disruptive and costly because there is no prospect that a shareholder nominee would 

be elected.154 Two of these commenters also noted that subjecting these companies to Rule 14a11 would possibly cause investor confusion.155 These commenters remarked that shareholders 

would continue to have other avenues to express their views to the company, such as through the 

151 See letters from ABA; Duane Morris; Media General, Inc. (“Media General”); The New York Times 

Company (“New York Times”). 

152 See letter from T. Rowe Price. 

153 See letters from ABA; AllianceBernstein; Cleary; Seven Law Firms; Duane Morris LLP (“Duane Morris”); 

Sidley Austin. 

154 See letters from ABA; AllianceBernstein; Cleary; Seven Law Firms; Duane Morris; Sidley Austin. 

155 See letters from ABA; Seven Law Firms. 

63
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rule 14a-8 process. Commenters who supported an exclusion for controlled companies 

suggested that for purposes of the exclusion the definition of “controlled company” should be 

similar to the definition used by the national securities exchanges in connection with director 

independence requirements.156 Some commenters suggested that if Rule 14a-11 excluded 

controlled companies using the same definition as the national securities exchanges in 

connection with director independence requirements, then the rule should contain an instruction 

providing that whether more than 50% of the voting power of a company is held by an 

individual, group, or other company would be determined by any schedules filed under Section 

13(d) of the Exchange Act.157 

After considering the issue further, we are persuaded that Rule 14a-11 should apply to 

controlled companies, as we proposed. As commenters noted, it is common for companies 

structured with dual classes of stock to allow shareholders of the non-controlling class to elect a 

set number of directors that is less than the full board. In that situation, it may be useful for noncontrolling shareholders to be able to include shareholder nominations in company proxy 

materials with respect to the directors the non-controlling class is entitled to elect. In addition, 

though applying Rule 14a-11 to controlled companies would be unlikely to result in the election 

of shareholder-nominated directors in cases in which these are not directors elected exclusively 

by the non-controlling shareholders, we appreciate that shareholders at controlled companies 

may have other reasons for nominating candidates for director.158 

156	 See letters from ABA; AllianceBernstein; Cleary; Seven Law Firms; Duane Morris; Sidley Austin. See, 

e.g., New York Stock Exchange Rule 303A.00 and NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Rule 5615(c) (defining 

“controlled companies” as a company of which more than 50% of the voting power for the election of 

directors is held by an individual, group or another company). 

157	 See letters from AllianceBernstein; Duane Morris. 

158	 We note that controlled companies are not excluded from Rule 14a-8 despite the same improbability that a 

shareholder proposal will receive the approval of the majority of the votes cast at a controlled company. 

64
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d. “Debt only” companies 

As proposed, Rule 14a-11 would allow eligible shareholders to submit director nominees 

at all companies subject to the Exchange Act proxy rules other than companies that are subject to 

the proxy rules solely because they have a class of debt securities registered under Section 12 of 

the Exchange Act. We sought comment on whether this exclusion from Rule 14a-11 was 

appropriate. 

Commenters that specifically addressed this question agreed with our approach and stated 

generally that Rule 14a-11 should not apply to companies subject to the federal proxy rules 

solely because they have a class of debt securities registered under Exchange Act Section 12.159 

Most of these commenters stated that the ability to submit nominees for inclusion in a company’s 

proxy materials should be limited to holders of equity securities registered under the Exchange 

Act.160 One commenter warned that subjecting companies with a registered class of debt 

securities to Rule 14a-11 would deter private companies from accessing the public debt market 

and, in any case, private companies typically have shareholder agreements and other 

arrangements in place that address the election of directors.161 

We are adopting this exclusion as proposed. We note that this approach was supported 

by investor and corporate commenters. We believe that Rule 14a-11 should not apply to 

Shareholders may use Rule 14a-8 to submit a proposal to the board even though controlling shareholders 

may vote against the proposal and prevent it from being approved. 

159	 See letters from ABA; CII; Cleary; S&C. 

160	 See letters from ABA; Cleary; S&C. 

161	 See letter from S&C. This commenter also stated that Rule 14a-11 should not apply to those reporting 

companies who voluntarily continue to file Exchange Act reports while they are not required to do so under 

Exchange Act Section 13(a) or Section 15(d). It argued that these voluntary filers should be treated the 

same as companies with Exchange Act reporting obligations relating solely to debt securities. We note that 

Rule 14a-11 will not apply to a company filing Exchange Act reports when neither Exchange Act Section 

13(a) nor Section 15(d) requires that it do so (for example, to comply with a covenant contained in an 

indenture relating to outstanding debt securities). 

65
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

companies that are subject to the federal proxy rules solely because they have a class of debt 

securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act. 

e. Application of Exchange Act Rule 14a-11 to companies that 

voluntarily register a class of securities under Exchange Act 

Section 12(g) 

In the Proposing Release, we noted that Rule 14a-11 would apply to companies that have 

voluntarily registered a class of equity securities pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g); 

however, we solicited comment on whether Rule 14a-11 should apply to these companies.162 We 

also asked whether nominating shareholders of these companies should be subject to the same 

ownership eligibility thresholds as those shareholders of companies that were required to register 

a class of equity securities pursuant to Section 12, or whether we should adjust any other aspects 

of Rule 14a-11 for these companies. 

Three commenters stated that Rule 14a-11 should apply to companies that voluntarily 

register a class of equity securities under Exchange Act Section 12(g).163 One explained that 

investors in securities registered under Section 12 should be provided some assurance that the 

company is subject to various rules safeguarding their interests, such as the proposed rule, and 

expressed concern that less than uniform application could lead to investor confusion.164 One 

commenter stated that nominating shareholders of voluntarily-registered companies should be 

subject to the same ownership thresholds as shareholders of companies that were required to 

162	 A company must register a class of equity securities under Section 12(g) if, on the last day of its fiscal year, 

the class of equity securities is held by 500 or more record holders and the company has total assets of 

more than $10 million. An issuer may, however, register any class of equity securities under Section 12(g) 

even if these thresholds have not been met. Reporting after this form of voluntary registration is 

distinguished from a company that continues to file Exchange Act reports when neither Exchange Act 

Section 13(a) nor Section 15(d) requires that it do so. See footnote 161 above. 

163 See letters from ABA; CII; USPE. 

164	 See letter from USPE. 

66
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

register a class of securities under Exchange Act Section 12.165 

We agree with the commenters that Rule 14a-11 generally should apply to those 

companies that choose to avail themselves of the obligations and benefits of Section 12(g) 

registration. As Section 12 registrants, these companies are subject to the full panoply of the 

Exchange Act, including Section 14(a), and their shareholders receive proxy materials in 

connection with annual and special meetings of shareholders in accordance with the proxy rules. 

We believe disparate treatment among these Section 12 registrants is unwarranted and 

shareholders of these companies should enjoy the same protections generally available to 

shareholders of other companies with a class of equity securities registered pursuant to Section 

12. Accordingly, Rule 14a-11 will apply to companies that have voluntarily registered a class of 

equity securities pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g), with the same ownership eligibility 

thresholds as those of companies that were required to register a class of equity securities 

pursuant to Section 12. 

f. Smaller reporting companies 

Under the Proposal, Rule 14a-11 would apply to all companies subject to the proxy rules, 

other than companies that are subject to the proxy rules solely because they have a class of debt 

registered under Exchange Act Section 12. Thus, Rule 14a-11, as proposed, would apply to 

smaller reporting companies. We sought comment in the Proposal on what effect, if any, the 

application of Rule 14a-11 would have on any particular group of companies, and in particular, 

smaller reporting companies.166 

165 See letter from ABA. 

166 The Commission has considered this issue on prior occasions. See, e.g., 2003 Proposal; Division of 

Corporation Finance, Briefing Paper for Roundtable Discussion on the Proposed Security Holder Director 

Nominations Rules, February 25, 2004, available at http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/dir-nominations/dir-nombriefing.htm. 

67
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A number of commenters stated generally that Rule 14a-11 should not apply to small 

businesses.167 One commenter argued that Rule 14a-11 should be limited to accelerated filers 

and that there should possibly be a transition period where the rule was only applicable to large 

accelerated filers.168 That commenter believed that smaller companies would have trouble 

recruiting directors because the pool of qualified directors is already small for smaller 

companies, and directors would not want to risk the exposure to a proxy contest. Another 

commenter argued that we should implement Rule 14a-11 on a pilot basis for large accelerated 

filers for two years and then revisit whether application of the rule would be appropriate for 

smaller companies.169 

Other commenters stated that smaller reporting companies should not be excluded from 

the application of Rule 14a-11.170 One commenter agreed with the Commission that exempting 

167	 See letters from ABA; American Mailing; All Cast; Always N Bloom; American Carpets; J. Arquilla; B. 

Armburst; Artistic Land Designs; C. Atkins; Book Celler; K. Bostwick; Brighter Day Painting; Colletti; 

Commercial Concepts; Complete Home Inspection; D. Courtney; S. Crawford; Crespin; Don’s; T. Ebreo; 

M. Eng; eWareness; Evans; Fluharty; Flutterby; Fortuna Italian Restaurant; Future Form; Glaspell; C. 

Gregory; Healthcare Practice; B. Henderson; S. Henning; J. Herren; A. Iriarte; J. Jones; Juz Kidz; Kernan; 

LMS Wine; T. Luna; Mansfield Children’s Center; D. McDonald; Meister; Merchants Terminal; 

Middendorf; Mingo; Moore Brothers; Mouton; D. Mozack; Ms. Dee; G. Napolitano; NK; H. Olson; PESC; 

Pioneer Heating & Air Conditioning; RC; RTW; D. Sapp; SBB; SGIA; P. Sicilia; Slycers Sandwich Shop; 

Southern Services; Steele Group; Sylvron; Theragenics; E. Tremaine; Wagner; Wagner Industries; 

Wellness; West End; Y.M.; J. Young. 

168	 See letter from ABA. A large accelerated filer is an issuer that, as of the end of its fiscal year, had an 

aggregate worldwide market value of voting and non-voting common equity held by its non-affiliates of 

$700 million or more, as of the last business day of the issuer’s most recently completed second fiscal 

quarter; has been subject to the reporting requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act for at 

least 12 calendar months; has filed at least one annual report pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Act; 

and is not eligible to use the requirements for smaller reporting companies for its annual and quarterly 

reports. See Exchange Act Rule 12b-2(2). 

169	 See letter from Theragenics. See also letter from Alston & Bird, recommending that we consider adopting 

a phase-in approach, whereby companies would be permitted to follow a phase-in schedule for mandatory 

compliance based on their size, similar to the Commission’s rules regarding internal controls reporting and 

XBRL. See Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and Certification of 

Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic Reports, Release No. 33-8238; 34-47968 [69 FR 9722] (June 5, 

2003) and Interactive Data to Improve Financial Reporting, Release No. 33-9002; 34-59324 [74 FR 6776] 

(Jan. 30, 2009). 

170	 See letters from AFSCME; CII; D. Nappier. 

68
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

small entities would be inconsistent with the stated goals of the Proposal and the costs and 

burden for such entities would be minimal.171 Other commenters believed that small companies 

are “just as likely” to have poorly functioning boards as their larger counterparts.172 Another 

commenter argued that Rule 14a-11 would not impose a material burden on any company subject 

to the proxy rules because companies already have to distribute proxy cards and it would not be 

an imposition if they were required to add additional nominees to those cards.173 

In the recently enacted Dodd-Frank Act, Congress confirmed our authority to require 

inclusion of shareholder nominees for director in company proxy materials.174 In addition, in 

Section 971(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act Congress specifically provided the Commission with the 

authority to exempt an issuer or class of issuers from requirements adopted for the inclusion of 

shareholder director nominations in company proxy materials. In doing so, this provision 

instructs the Commission to take into account whether such requirement for the inclusion of 

shareholder nominees for director in company proxy materials disproportionately burdens small 

issuers.175 

171	 See letter from CII. 

172	 See letters from AFSCME; D. Nappier. 

173	 See letter from USPE. 

174	 Dodd-Frank Act §§ 971(a) and (b). 

175	 Dodd-Frank Act § 971(c). A comment letter on July 28, 2010 from the Society of Corporate Secretaries & 

Governance Professionals invoked this new legislation in support of a request to re-open the period for 

comment on the Proposal as it relates to small companies. As noted, we did specifically request comment 

in the Proposal on the rule’s effect on smaller reporting companies, and we received and have considered 

numerous comments on this topic. Accordingly, we believe we have substantially achieved the objective 

stated in that letter, namely to identify and evaluate any “unique and significant challenges that access to 

the proxy will create for small and mid-sized companies.” Moreover, our determination to delay 

implementation of Rule 14a-11 in respect of smaller companies will further allow us to evaluate the 

implementation of Rule 14a-11 by larger companies and provide us with the additional opportunity to 

consider whether adjustments to the rule would be appropriate for smaller reporting companies. 

69
 
 

 

 

 

After considering the comments, amended Section 14(a), and Section 971(c) of the DoddFrank Act, we continue to believe that Rule 14a-11 should apply regardless of company size, as 

was proposed. As noted above, the purpose of Rule 14a-11 is to facilitate the exercise of 

shareholders’ traditional state law rights to nominate and elect directors to company boards of 

directors and thereby enable shareholders to participate more meaningfully in the nomination and 

election of directors at the companies in which they invest. We are not persuaded that exempting 

smaller reporting companies would be consistent with these goals. As stated above, we expect 

the rule changes will further investor protection by facilitating shareholder rights to nominate 

and elect directors and providing shareholders a greater voice in the governance of the 

companies in which they invest. We believe shareholders of smaller reporting companies should 

be afforded these same protections. 

Nonetheless, we recognize that smaller reporting companies may have had less 

experience with existing forms of shareholder involvement in the proxy process (e.g., Rule 14a-8 

proposals), and thus may have less developed infrastructures for managing these matters. We 

believe that a delayed effective date for smaller reporting companies should allow those 

companies to observe how the rule operates for other companies and should allow them to better 

prepare for implementation of the rules. We also believe that delayed implementation for these 

companies will allow us to evaluate the implementation of Rule 14a-11 by larger companies and 

provide us with the additional opportunity to consider whether adjustments to the rule would be 

appropriate for smaller reporting companies before the rule becomes applicable to them. 

Therefore, we are delaying implementation for companies that meet the definition of smaller 

reporting company in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2.176 New Rule 14a-11 will become effective for 

See Exchange Act Rule 12b-2. A smaller reporting company is defined as “an issuer that is not an 

investment company, an asset-backed issuer, or a majority-owned subsidiary of a parent that is not a 

70
 

176 
 

 

 

 

these companies three years after the date that the rules become effective for companies other 

than smaller reporting companies. In addition, as discussed below, in an effort to limit the cost 

and burden on all companies subject to the rule, including smaller reporting companies, we have 

limited use of Rule 14a-11 to nominations by shareholders who have maintained significant 

continuous holdings in the company for an extended period of time. As discussed further below, 

we have extended the required holding period to at least three years at the time the notice of 

nomination is filed with the Commission and transmitted to the company. In addition, we have 

made modifications to the ownership threshold that, in combination with the three-year holding 

period, we believe should facilitate shareholders’ ability to exercise their state law rights to 

nominate and elect directors without unduly burdening companies, including smaller reporting 

companies. We proposed a tiered ownership threshold that included a 5% ownership threshold 

for non-accelerated filers; however, we are adopting a 3% ownership threshold for all companies 

subject to the rule. In adopting the uniform 3% ownership threshold, we carefully considered, 

among other factors, the potential that the rule would have a disproportionate impact on small 

issuers. Despite identifying that concern in the Proposal, however, the comments we received 

did not substantiate that concern, and comments from companies overwhelmingly supported 

uniform ownership thresholds for all public companies. Moreover, the data we examined did not 

smaller reporting company and that: had a public float of less than $75 million as of the last business day of 

its most recently completed second fiscal quarter, computed by multiplying the aggregate worldwide 

number of shares of its voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates by the price at which 

the common equity was last sold, or the average of the bid and asked prices of common equity, in the 

principal market for the common equity; or in the case of an initial registration statement under the 

Securities Act or Exchange Act for shares of its common equity, had a public float of less than $75 million 

as of a date within 30 days of the date of the filing of the registration statement, computed by multiplying 

the aggregate worldwide number of such shares held by non-affiliates before the registration plus, in the 

case of a Securities Act registration statement, the number of such shares included in the registration 

statement by the estimated public offering price of the shares; or in the case of an issuer whose public float 

as calculated under paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition was zero, had annual revenues of less than $50 

million during the most recently completed fiscal year for which audited financial statements are 

available.” Whether or not an issuer is a smaller reporting company is determined on an annual basis. 

71
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

indicate any substantial difference in share ownership concentrations between large accelerated 

filers and non-accelerated filers. Thus, we expect that the eligibility requirements will help 

achieve the stated objectives of the rule without disproportionately burdening any particular 

group of companies. 

4.	 Who Can Use Exchange Act Rule 14a-11 

a. General 

In an effort to facilitate fair corporate suffrage, we could have proposed and adopted a 

rule pursuant to which the ability to use Rule 14a-11 would be conditioned solely on whether the 

shareholder lawfully could nominate a director, and not include any ownership thresholds or 

holding period. However, we believe it is appropriate to take a measured approach that balances 

competing interests and seeks to ensure investor protection. Accordingly, Rule 14a-11 will be 

available to shareholders that hold a significant, long-term interest in the company, have 

provided timely notice of their intent to include a nominee in the company’s proxy materials, and 

provide specified disclosure concerning themselves and their nominees. More specifically, as 

described in detail in this section, a company will be required to include a shareholder nominee 

or nominees if the nominating shareholder or group:177 

• Holds, as of the date of the shareholder notice on Schedule 14N,178 either individually 

177	 In some circumstances, the requirements of Rule 14a-11 applicable to a nominating shareholder group must 

be satisfied by each member of the group individually (e.g., no member of the group may be holding the 

company’s securities with the purpose of, or with the effect, of changing control of the company or to gain 

more than the maximum number of nominees that the registrant would be required to include under the 

rule). See also Section II.B.4. 

178	 Throughout this release, when we say “as of the date of the notice on Schedule 14N” we mean the date the 

nominating shareholder or group files the Schedule 14N with the Commission and transmits the notice to 

the company. See Section II.B.8.c.ii. below for a further discussion of the timing requirements for filing a 

Schedule 14N. 

72
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or in the aggregate,179 at least 3% of the voting power (calculated as required under 

the rule)180 of the company’s securities that are entitled to be voted on the election of 

directors at the annual meeting of shareholders (or, in lieu of such an annual meeting, 

a special meeting of shareholders) or on a written consent in lieu of a meeting;181 

•	 Has held the qualifying amount of securities used to satisfy the minimum ownership 

threshold continuously for at least three years as of the date of the shareholder notice 

on Schedule 14N (in the case of a shareholder group, each member of the group must 

have held the amount of securities that are used to satisfy the ownership threshold 

continuously for at least three years as of the date of the shareholder notice on 

Schedule 14N);182 

179	 The manner in which a nominating shareholder or group would establish its eligibility to use new Rule 14a11 is discussed further in Section II.B.4.b.iv. below. 

180	 See Instruction 3 to new Rule 14a-11(b)(1). 

181	 See new Rule 14a-11(b)(1). 

182	 See new Rule 14a-11(b)(2). The three-year holding period requirement applies only to the amount of 

securities that are used for purposes of determining the ownership threshold. 

73
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Continues to hold the required amount of securities used to satisfy the ownership 

threshold through the date of the shareholder meeting;183 

•	 Is not holding any of the company’s securities with the purpose, or with the effect, of 

changing control of the company or to gain a number of seats on the board of 

directors that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that the company could be 

required to include under Rule 14a-11;184 

•	 Does not have an agreement with the company regarding the nomination;185 

•	 Provides a notice to the company on Schedule 14N, and files the notice with the 

Commission,186 of the nominating shareholder’s or group’s intent to require that the 

company include that nominating shareholder’s or group’s nominee in the company’s 

proxy materials no earlier than 150 calendar days, and no later than 120 calendar 

days, before the anniversary of the date that the company mailed its proxy materials 

for the prior year’s annual meeting;187 and 

183	 See new Rule 14a-11(b)(2). 

184	 See new Rule 14a-11(b)(6). 

185	 See new Rule 14a-11(b)(7). 

186	 See Section II.B.8. for a discussion of new Schedule 14N and the disclosures required to be filed. The 

Schedule 14N may be filed by an individual shareholder that meets the ownership threshold, an individual 

shareholder that is a member of a nominating shareholder group that is aggregating the individual 

members’ securities to meet the ownership threshold but is choosing to file the notice on Schedule 14N 

individually, or a nominating shareholder group through their authorized representative, as provided for in 

Rule 14n-1(b)(1). 

187	 The dates would be calculated by determining the release date disclosed in the previous year’s proxy 

statement, increasing the year by one, and counting back 150 calendar days and 120 calendar days for the 

beginning and end of the window period, respectively. In this regard, we note that the deadline could fall 

on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday. In such cases, the deadline should be treated as the first business day 

following the Saturday, Sunday or holiday, similar to the treatment filing deadlines receive under Exchange 

Act Rule 0-3. See Instruction 1 to Rule 14a-11(b)(10). If the company did not hold an annual meeting 

during the prior year, or if the date of the meeting has changed by more than 30 days from the prior year, 

then the nominating shareholder or group must provide notice pursuant to new Item 5.08 a reasonable time 

before the company mails its proxy materials, as specified by the company in a Form 8-K filed within four 

business days after the company determines the anticipated meeting date. See new Rule 14a-11(b)(10) and 

74
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

• Includes the certifications required in the shareholder notice on Schedule 14N.188 

b. Ownership threshold 

As proposed, a nominating shareholder or group would have been required to beneficially 

own 1%, 3%, or 5% of the company’s securities entitled to be voted on the election of directors 

at the shareholder meeting, depending on the company’s accelerated filer status or, in the case of 

registered investment companies, depending on the net assets of the company. We received 

significant comment on this topic, which we discuss further below, and have made alterations to 

the final rule to reflect the concerns expressed by commenters. 

As adopted, to rely on Rule 14a-11, a nominating shareholder or group will be required to 

hold, as of the date of the shareholder notice on Schedule 14N, either individually or in the 

aggregate, at least 3% of the voting power of the company’s securities that are entitled to be 

voted on the election of directors at the annual (or a special meeting in lieu of the annual) 

meeting of shareholders or on a written consent in lieu of a meeting. The nominating 

shareholder or group or member of a nominating shareholder group will be required to hold both 

the power to dispose of and the power to vote the securities, as discussed below. The nominating 

shareholder or member of a nominating shareholder group also will be required to have held the 

qualifying amount of securities for at least three years as of the date of the notice on Schedule 

14N, and to hold that amount through the date of the election of directors. Each aspect of the 

ownership requirement is discussed further below. 

Instruction 2 to that paragraph. See further discussion in Section II.B.8.c.ii. 

See new Rule 14a-11(b)(11) and Item 8 of new Schedule 14N. Pursuant to new Schedule 14N, the 

nominating shareholder or group would be required to include in its notice to the company a certification 

that the nominating shareholder or group satisfies the requirements in Rule 14a-11. 

75 

188 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 i. Percentage of securities 

We proposed tiered ownership thresholds for large accelerated, accelerated, and nonaccelerated filers in an effort to address the possibility that certain companies could be affected 

disproportionately based on their size.189 Many commenters criticized the proposed ownership 

thresholds or recommended generally higher thresholds.190 Of these, most commenters criticized 

the tiered ownership thresholds and recommended a uniform ownership threshold generally 

higher than the proposed thresholds.191 Many of these commenters questioned whether the data 

on shareholdings discussed in the Proposal in relation to the proposed thresholds took into 

189	 Similarly, we proposed tiered ownership thresholds for registered investment companies with the tiers 

based on net assets. 

190	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (“ACSI”); 

ADP; Advance Auto Parts; Aetna; Alaska Air; Alcoa Inc. (“Alcoa”); Allstate; American Express; 

Anadarko; Applied Materials; Association of Corporate Counsel; AT&T; Avis Budget; Barclays; Best Buy; 

J. Blanchard; Boeing; BorgWarner; BRT; Burlington Northern; R. Burt; Calvert Group, Ltd. (“Calvert”); 

Caterpillar; CFA Institute; Chevron; J. Chico; Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets 

(“CIEBA”); CIGNA; Peter Clapman (“P. Clapman”); Cleary; CNH Global; Comcast; Con Edison; Capital 

Research and Management Company (“CRMC”); CSX; Cummins; Darden Restaurants; Davis Polk; Deere; 

Dewey; W. Brinkley Dickerson, Jr. (“W. B. Dickerson”); J. Dillon; DTE Energy; DuPont; Craig Dwight 

(“C. Dwight”); Eaton; Edison Electric Institute; Eli Lilly; Emerson Electric; eWareness; ExxonMobil; 

FedEx; Financial Services Roundtable; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; GE; General Mills; A. Goolsby; Home 

Depot; Honeywell; IBM; ICI; Intel; ITT; JPMorgan Chase; J. Kilts; Koppers; E.J. Kullman; N. Lautenbach; 

Leggett; Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. (“Lionbridge Technologies”); Lorsch et al.; M. Metz; McDonald’s; 

MeadWestvaco; J. Miller; Motorola; Norfolk Southern; Northrop Grumman Corporation (“Northrop”); 

Office Depot; PepsiCo; Pfizer; P&G; Praxair, Inc. (“Praxair”); Protective; Stephen Lange Ranzini (“S. 

Ranzini”); Rosen; Ryder; Sara Lee; S&C; Seven Law Firms; Shearman & Sterling; Sherwin-Williams; 

SIFMA; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; Tenet; Tesoro; Textron; TI; TIAA-CREF; 

Tidewater Inc. (“Tidewater”); Tompkins Financial Corporation (“Tompkins”); G. Tooker; T. Rowe Price; 

tw telecom; L. Tyson; UnitedHealth; U.S. Bancorp; ValueAct Capital; Vanguard; Verizon 

Communications Inc. (“Verizon”); Bruno de la Villarmois (“B. Villarmois”); Wachtell; Wells Fargo; 

Weyerhaeuser; Xerox. 

191	 See letters from ACSI; ADP; Advance Auto Parts; Allstate; American Express; Applied Materials; 

Association of Corporate Counsel; AT&T; Avis Budget; Barclays; Best Buy; J. Blanchard; Boeing; BRT; 

Burlington Northern; R. Burt; Calvert; Caterpillar; CFA Institute; J. Chico; CIGNA; CNH Global; 

Comcast; Con Edison; CSX; Darden Restaurants; Davis Polk; Deere; Dewey; W. B. Dickerson; J. Dillon; 

DTE Energy; DuPont; Eaton; Edison Electric Institute; Eli Lilly; Emerson Electric; ExxonMobil; FedEx; 

Financial Services Roundtable; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; General Mills; Home Depot; IBM; Intel; ITT; 

JPMorgan Chase; J. Kilts; E.J. Kullman; Lorsch et al.; McDonald’s; M. Metz; Motorola; N. Lautenbach; 

Office Depot; PepsiCo; Praxair; Protective; S. Ranzini; Sara Lee; S&C; Seven Law Firms; Shearman & 

Sterling; Sherwin-Williams; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; Tesoro; Textron; TI; 

TIAA-CREF; Tompkins; G. Tooker; T. Rowe Price; tw telecom; L. Tyson; UnitedHealth; U.S. Bancorp; 

ValueAct Capital; Vanguard; Verizon; Weyerhaeuser; Xerox. 

76
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

account the fact that shareholders could aggregate their holdings in order to use Rule 14a-11.192 

One of these commenters described formation of a nominating group as “the most likely 

scenario” to qualify for use of Rule 14a-11,193 and another commenter submitted that with a 

significant ownership threshold an “inability to aggregate shareholders to reach the ownership 

threshold is unreasonable.”194 

A few commenters criticized generally the proposed thresholds as too high and 

recommended lower thresholds.195 One commenter opposed the tiered ownership thresholds 

because a number of companies regularly move from one category of filer to another as the 

aggregate worldwide market value of their voting and non-voting common equity changes from 

fiscal year to fiscal year, which the commenter believed would lead to uncertainty under the 

Commission’s tiered approach.196 Commenters from the investment company industry noted that 

the proposed eligibility thresholds were based on data for non-investment companies and were 

not supported by empirical data analysis for investment companies.197 

On the other hand, we also received comment generally supporting the proposed tiered 

ownership thresholds.198 One commenter expressed general support for the proposed thresholds 

192 See letters from ABA; ABA II; BRT; Business Roundtable (January 19, 2010) (“BRT II”); Cleary; Davis 

Polk; Honeywell; SIFMA. 

193 Letter from BRT II. 

194 Letter from California State Teachers’ Retirement System (Nov. 18, 2009)(“CalSTRS II”). 

195 See letters from Committee of Concerned Shareholders (“Concerned Shareholders”); L. Dallas; USPE. 

196 See letter from Shearman & Sterling. 

197 See, e.g., letters from ICI; S&C; T. Rowe Price. 

198	 See letters from AFL-CIO; AFSCME; British Insurers; CalPERS; CalSTRS; COPERA; CRMC; Florida 

State Board of Administration; Glass Lewis; IAM; ICGN; LACERA; Marco Consulting; D. Nappier; 

Nathan Cummings Foundation; P. Neuhauser; Norges Bank; OPERS; Pax World; RiskMetrics; David E. 

Romine (“D. Romine”); Shamrock; Sodali; Teamsters; WSIB. 

77
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and stated that the proposed thresholds would achieve the Commission’s and commenter’s 

shared objective of facilitating the exercise of shareholders’ nomination rights.199 Another 

commenter explained that the thresholds would “ensure[] that only those long-term shareholders 

who are seriously concerned about the governance of portfolio companies will have a seat at the 

table.”200 

With regard to an appropriate uniform ownership threshold, commenters recommended a 

number of different possibilities, including: 

•	 at least 1% of the company’s outstanding shares for an individual shareholder and 5% 

for a group of shareholders;201 

•	 at least 2% of a company’s voting securities;202 

•	 3% of a company’s shares;203 

•	 5% of the company’s voting securities for an individual shareholder and 10% for a 

group of shareholders;204 

199	 See letter from CII. 

200	 Letter from AFL-CIO. 

201	 See letter from Deere. 

202	 See letter from ADP. 

203	 See letters from CSI; Calvert; CFA Institute; Labour Union Co-operative Retirement Fund (“LUCRF”); S. 

Ranzini. 

204	 See letters from Advance Auto Parts; Alaska Air; American Express; Association of Corporate Counsel; 

Avis Budget; Best Buy; J. Blanchard; Boeing; BRT; Burlington Northern; Callaway; CIGNA; CNH 

Global; Comcast; Con Edison; Darden Restaurants; Dewey; J. Dillon; DTE Energy; DuPont; Eaton; Edison 

Electric Institute; Eli Lilly; Emerson Electric; ExxonMobil; FedEx; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; General 

Mills; Home Depot; Intel Corporation (“Intel”); JPMorgan Chase; E.J. Kullman; McDonald’s; N. 

Lautenbach; PepsiCo; Praxair; Protective (recommending this threshold if its proposed 35% withhold vote 

triggering event is not included; if included, it recommended a 3% threshold); Sara Lee; Seven Law Firms; 

Sherwin-Williams; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Textron; Tompkins; G. Tooker; Weyerhaeuser; 

Xerox. 

78
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 5% of a company’s outstanding shares;205 

•	 5% of a company’s outstanding shares for an individual shareholder and a higher but 

unspecified threshold for a group of shareholders;206 

•	 with regard to investment companies, a 5% threshold;207 

•	 from 5% to 10% of a company’s shares;208 

•	 10% of the company’s shares;209 

•	 10% of the company’s outstanding shares for an individual shareholder and 15% of 

the outstanding shares for a group of shareholders;210 

•	 5% to 15% of the company’s outstanding shares;211 

•	 15% of the company’s shares;212 and 

•	 20% of a company’s shares.213 

Two of the commenters that criticized the proposed threshold as too high recommended 

that Rule 14a-11 have the same ownership threshold as Rule 14a-8,214 with one of these 

205	 See letters from Applied Materials; R. Burt; CSX; Financial Services Roundtable; IBM (recommending 5% 

as one of the two acceptable thresholds); ITT; J. Kilts; Shearman & Sterling; Southern Company; Tesoro; 

TIAA-CREF; T. Rowe Price; tw telecom; UnitedHealth; U.S. Bancorp; Verizon. 

206	 See letters from Applied Materials; U.S. Bancorp. 

207	 See letters from S&C; TIAA-CREF. 

208	 See letters from Davis Polk; Lorsch et al. 

209	 See letters from Allstate; Caterpillar; J. Chico; W. B. Dickerson; IBM (recommending 10% as one of the 

two acceptable thresholds); ICI; M. Metz; Office Depot; L. Tyson; ValueAct Capital; Vanguard. 

210	 See letter from Motorola. 

211	 See letter from Barclays. 

212	 See letter from TI. 

213	 See letter from AT&T. 

214	 See letters from Concerned Shareholders; USPE. 

79
 
 

 

 

 

 

commenters expressing the belief that the proposal, with its ownership thresholds, would enable 

only institutional shareholders to access the corporate ballot.215 Another of the commenters 

opposing the proposed thresholds asserted that the threshold for non-accelerated filers is too high 

and cited figures indicating that a significant number of such filers do not have any shareholders 

that would satisfy the proposed threshold.216 This commenter suggested that for an individual 

shareholder or a group of shareholders, the threshold should be based on the dollar value of the 

shares held (e.g., $250,000) or a lower percentage of shares (e.g., 0.25%). 

After considering the comments, we believe that it is appropriate to apply a uniform 3% 

ownership threshold to all companies subject to the rule, regardless of whether they are classified 

as large accelerated, accelerated, or non-accelerated filers under the federal securities laws. As 

an initial matter, as we did at the time we issued the Proposing Release, we considered whether 

and why Rule 14a-11 should include any ownership threshold. Because the Commission’s proxy 

rules seek to enable the corporate proxy process to function, as nearly as possible, as a 

replacement for in-person participation at a meeting of shareholders, some may argue that once a 

shareholder has satisfied any procedural requirements to a director nomination that a company is 

allowed to impose under state law, then that nomination should be included in the company’s 

proxy materials. Each time we consider and adopt amendments to our rules, however, we 

balance competing interests. 

Based on our consideration of these competing interests, including balancing and 

facilitating shareholders’ ability to participate more fully in the nomination and election process 

against the potential cost and disruption of the amendments, we have determined that requiring a 

215 See letter from Concerned Shareholders. 

216 See letter from L. Dallas. 

80
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

significant ownership threshold is appropriate to use Rule 14a-11. Indeed, we believe that the 

3% ownership threshold – combined with the other requirements of the rule – properly addresses 

the potential practical difficulties of requiring inclusion of shareholder director nominations in a 

company’s proxy materials, and some concerns that both company management and other 

shareholders may have about the application of Rule 14a-11. Providing this balanced, practical, 

and measured limitation in Rule 14a-11 is consistent with the approach we have taken in many of 

our other proxy rules217 and reflects our desire to proceed cautiously with these new amendments 

to our rules. 

We also considered whether the ownership threshold we adopt for Rule 14a-11 should be 

tiered based on the size and related filing status (or net assets) of the company, or uniform for all 

companies, and what percentage of ownership would be most appropriate. We have decided to 

adopt a uniform standard for all companies for several reasons. First, we determined that a 

uniform standard would reduce the complexities of Rule 14a-11. As noted by one commenter,218 

the potential for the filing status of a company to change would result in uncertainty about the 

availability of the provisions of Rule 14a-11 as a result of market fluctuations in share prices, 

acquisitions, or divestitures. A uniform standard avoids that uncertainty and the resulting 

potential for the costs and burdens of disputes over the selection of the appropriate tier. 

Elimination of that uncertainty, moreover, would make the availability of Rule 14a-11 more 

predictable and therefore more useful for shareholders in planning nominations in reliance on the 

217 See, e.g., Exchange Act Rule 14a-8(b) (requiring shareholders to have “continuously held at least $2,000 in 

market value, or 1%, of the company’s securities entitled to be voted on the proposal at the meeting for at 

least one year by the date” they submit a shareholder proposal); Exchange Act Rule 14a-6(g) (requiring a 

soliciting person that “owns beneficially securities of the class which is the subject of the solicitation with a 

market value of over $5 million” to file a notice with the Commission); Regulation S-K, Item 404(a) 

(requiring disclosure of transactions with related parties that exceed $120,000). 

218 See letter from Shearman & Sterling. 

81
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rule. A uniform standard also will avoid any ability on the part of management to structure 

corporate actions to modify the impact of Rule 14a-11 by placing the company in a different tier. 

The concern we expressed in the Proposal – that companies could be disproportionately affected 

by adoption of the rule based on their size – was not supported by comments of potentially 

affected companies; to the contrary, comments from companies overwhelmingly supported 

uniform ownership thresholds.219 In addition, as discussed below, we are deferring 

implementation of Rule 14a-11 for smaller reporting companies.220 

A comparison of the share ownership concentrations in large accelerated filers and nonaccelerated filers produced relatively minor observable difference. The results, adjusted to give 

effect to a three-year holding period requirement, are summarized in the table below:221 

219	 See letters from General Mills; Tesoro; T. Rowe Price; ValueAct Capital; Verizon (explicitly opposing 

variation in percentage ownership requirement based on issuer size); and letters identified in footnotes 199­

211 above (commenters supporting various uniform ownership thresholds). 

220	 As noted in Section II.B.3.f., we have adopted a three-year delay in implementation for smaller reporting 

companies. 

221	 The percentages in the table are derived from the data set described in the Proposing Release involving 

companies that have held meetings between January 1, 2008 and April 15, 2009 (the “Proposing Release 

data”). See Section III.B.3. of the Proposing Release. The percentages have been adjusted, however, 

because the Proposing Release data did not give effect to any holding period requirement, and we have 

attempted to estimate what those percentages would have been had they given effect to the three-year 

holding period we are adopting. By the calculation described below, we have estimated a reasonable 

adjustment to the reported percentages in the Proposing Release data by using the data presented in a 

November 24, 2009 memorandum based on the analysis of Schedule 13F filings, data which did give effect 

to holding period requirements. See Memorandum from the Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial 

Innovation regarding the Share Ownership and Holding Period Patterns in 13F data (November 24, 2009), 

available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-09/s71009-576.pdf (the “November 2009 

Memorandum”). The two data sets have overlapping statistics that can be used for comparison and 

adjustment: both sets report percentages of a broad sample of public companies and identify percentages of 

companies having (i) at least one shareholder with holdings of 3% of more, (ii) at least two shareholders 

with holdings of 3% or more, (iii) at least one shareholder with holdings of 1% or more, and (iv) at least 

two shareholders with holdings of 1% or more. Comparing the percentages reflected in the November 

2009 Memorandum (giving effect to a three-year holding period requirement) with the percentages in the 

Proposing Release data (not reflecting any holding period requirement), we observe that the percentages 

reported in the Proposing Release data exceed the percentages reported in the November 2009 

memorandum by amounts ranging from 56% to 69%. In order to derive the approximate percentages in the 

table, we adjusted downward by 62.5% the percentages reported in the Proposing Release data, to account 

at least approximately for the application of the three-year holding period requirement. 

82
 
 

 

 

 

 Non-Accelerated Filers 

(approximate percentages) 

Large Accelerated Filers 

(approximate percentages) 

Companies with at least one 

1% shareholder 

37% 37% 

Companies with at least one 

3% shareholder 

33% 32% 

Companies with at least one 

5% shareholder 

22% 16% 

Companies with at least two 

1% shareholders 

36% 37% 

Companies with at least two 

1.5% shareholders 

33% 33% 

Companies with at least two 

2.5% shareholders 

27% 25% 

Our further review of relevant data has persuaded us that applying different ownership thresholds 

to large accelerated filers and non-accelerated filers is not justified.222 

As noted above, we have decided to adopt a uniform ownership threshold for all 

categories of public companies. We determined that a 3% ownership threshold is an appropriate 

standard for all such companies – not just accelerated filers. We believe that the 3% threshold, 

while higher for many companies and lower for others than the thresholds advanced in the 

Proposal, properly balances our belief that Rule 14a-11 should facilitate shareholders’ traditional 

state law rights to nominate and elect directors with the potential costs and impact of the 

amendments on companies. The ownership threshold we are establishing should not expose 

issuers to excessively frequent and costly election contests conducted through use of Rule 14a11, but it is also not so high as to make use of the rule unduly inaccessible as a practical matter. 

We selected the uniform 3% threshold based upon comments received, our analysis of the 

data available to us, and the fact that the rule allows for shareholders to form groups to aggregate 

their holdings to meet the threshold. We also considered that our amendments to Rule 14a-8 

See letter from P. Neuhauser (suggesting only two ownership eligibility tiers because data show “almost no 

difference in ownership characteristics between smaller accelerated filers and non-accelerated filers.”). 

83

222 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

remove barriers to the ability of shareholders to have proposals included in company proxy 

materials to establish a procedure under a company’s governing documents for the inclusion of 

one or more nominees in the company’s proxy materials. Because of these amendments, 

shareholders who believe the 3% threshold is too high can take steps to seek to establish a lower 

ownership threshold.223 

We note that we considered a lower threshold, such as 1%, and a higher threshold, such 

as 5%, both of which were thresholds in the proposed tiers. Quite a few commenters, including a 

number who generally supported the adoption of Rule 14a-11, advocated for an ownership 

threshold higher than the 1% level we proposed for large accelerated filers.224 One large 

institutional investor, for example, “strongly urg[ed] the adoption of proposed Rule 14a-11” and 

argued that “existing reforms are incomplete as long as boards retain the exclusive control of the 

proxy card and sole discretion over the mechanisms that govern their own elections,” but also 

stated the belief that “in order to use company resources to nominate a director, a significant 

amount of capital must be represented and 5% is an acceptable threshold.”225 Similarly, the 

manager of a large family of investment companies stated its “support [for] the Commission’s 

intent to facilitate shareholders’ rights to participate in the governance process,” yet commented 

that “a 1% threshold is too low, in our opinion, to maintain the critical balance between serving 

the interests of eligible nominating shareholders and serving the interests of a company’s 

223	 As noted in Section II.C., we are adopting an amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) to preclude companies from 

relying on that basis to exclude from their proxy materials shareholder proposals that seek to establish a 

procedure under a company’s governing documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder director 

nominees in the company’s proxy materials. Such a shareholder proposal would, of course, have to satisfy 

the other requirements of the rule, like other Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposals. 

224	 See letters from ACSI (advocating a uniform 3% threshold); Calvert (same); LUCRF (same); S. Ranzini 

(same); TIAA-CREF (advocating a uniform 5% threshold); T. Rowe Price (same). 

225	 Letter from TIAA-CREF. 

84
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholder base at large.”226 That commenter recommended a “flat 5% threshold for all 

companies” because it “represents significant economic stake.” Other commenters 

recommended a uniform 3% ownership threshold in the interest of avoiding “frivolous or 

vexatious nominations,”227 or because it “is not so small that it would allow a board nomination 

for only a de minimis investment in [a non-accelerated filer],” but “would not be so large as to 

prevent all but the largest institutional shareowners to submit nominees for [large accelerated 

filers].”228 

In light of such comments we have determined not to adopt the 1% threshold we had 

proposed with respect to large accelerated filers. We also have determined not to adopt, as the 

uniform standard, the 5% threshold we had proposed for non-accelerated filers. Several 

commenters from the investor community explicitly opposed a 5% uniform threshold, 

maintaining that it would as a practical matter exclude all but the largest institutional investors.229 

On the other hand, although some companies supported a uniform 5% threshold,230 most other 

companies urged the adoption of a substantially higher threshold, either for individual 

shareholders or for shareholder groups, or both. For example, companies and their counsel 

generally believed a higher threshold should apply to group nominations and overwhelmingly 

recommended a 10% minimum ownership requirement for nominations by shareholder groups.231 

226 Letter from T. Rowe Price. 

227 Letters from SCSI and LUCRF. 

228 Letter from CFA Institute. 

229 See letters from CFA Institute; P. Neuhauser; RiskMetrics. 

230 See letters from CSX; ITT; Southern Company; Tesoro; tw telecom; UnitedHealth; Verizon.
 

231 See letters from Advance Auto Parts; Alaska Air; American Express; Association of Corporate Counsel;
 

Avis Budget; Best Buy; J. Blanchard; Boeing; BRT; Burlington Northern; Callaway; CIGNA; CNH 

Global; Comcast; Con Edison; Darden Restaurants; Dewey; J. Dillon; DTE Energy; DuPont; Eaton; Edison 

Electric Institute; Eli Lilly; Emerson Electric; ExxonMobil; FedEx; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; General 

85
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We note, however, that at a 10% threshold for groups, the likelihood of forming a group 

sufficient to meet the minimum ownership requirement would likely be significantly reduced 

compared to a 3% threshold. Given a three-year holding period, the data in the November 2009 

Memorandum identify combinations totaling 10% or more but involving five or fewer 

shareholders as achievable in as little as 7% of public companies, compared to at least 21% of 

public companies at a 5% threshold and at least 31% of public companies at a 3% threshold. In 

addition, the data suggest that it would be even more unlikely that a company would have an 

individual shareholder that would meet a 10% ownership threshold.232 While some commenters 

suggested a 5% threshold was appropriate because that amount is consistent with other filing 

requirements such as Schedule 13D and 13G,233 we ultimately were not persuaded because the 

underlying principles of such filing requirements234 are quite different from those underlying the 

ownership condition to Rule 14a-11. After considering the comments and available data, we 

have decided that a 3% ownership threshold – including where shareholders form groups to 

Mills; Home Depot; Intel; JPMorgan Chase; E.J. Kullman; McDonald’s; N. Lautenbach; PepsiCo; Praxair; 

Protective (recommending this threshold if its proposed 35% withhold vote triggering event is not included; 

if included, it recommended a 3% threshold); Sara Lee; Seven Law Firms; Sherwin-Williams; Society of 

Corporate Secretaries; Textron; Tompkins; G. Tooker; Weyerhaeuser; Xerox. 

232	 The data in the November 2009 Memorandum suggest that just 4% of companies would have at least one 

shareholder with 10%. 

233	 See, e.g., letters from CSX; ITT; Shearman & Sterling; Tesoro; T. Rowe Price; tw telecom. 

234	 See, e.g., Release No. 34-26598, Reporting of Beneficial Ownership in Publicly-Held Companies (March 

6, 1989)(“The beneficial ownership reporting requirements embodied in Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the 

[Exchange Act] and the regulations adopted thereunder are intended to provide to investors and to the 

subject issuer information about accumulations of securities that may have the ability to change or 

influence control of the issuer.”). See also Release No. 34-50699 (proposing to require disclosure of 

persons holding 5% of an ownership interest in a securities exchange because the principles underlying 

such disclosure were similar to those underlying other filing requirements: “The 5% reporting threshold 

and the information proposed to be required to be disclosed about such ownership is modeled on the 

beneficial ownership reporting requirements of the Williams Act, embodied in Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of 

the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. These Exchange Act provisions are intended to 

provide information to the issuer and the marketplace about accumulations of securities that may have the 

potential to change or influence control of an issuer.”(footnotes omitted)). 

86
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

satisfy the threshold – is an appropriate and workable approach for the rule. 

In adopting a uniform 3% threshold for all companies, as opposed to a lower ownership 

threshold for all companies, we are mindful that the rule will allow shareholders to form a group 

by aggregating their holdings to meet the ownership threshold.235 Indeed, as we assumed in the 

Proposing Release and as some commenters told us, in many cases shareholders will need to 

form groups to meet the ownership threshold for the purpose of submitting director nominations 

pursuant to Rule 14a-11.236 Commenters also pointed to instances of coordinated shareholder 

activity in recent “vote no” campaigns as support for the ability of shareholders to form 

groups.237 We have adopted a number of amendments to our rules that will facilitate the 

formation of groups for this purpose.238 We understand the result of our ownership threshold 

determination may be that shareholders will need to convince other shareholders to support their 

attempt to use Rule 14a-11. We believe this outcome reduces the potential for excessive costs to 

be incurred by companies and their shareholders. 

The data available to us also suggest that reaching the 3% ownership threshold we are 

adopting is possible for a significant number of shareholders either individually or by a number 

of shareholders aggregating their holdings in order to satisfy the ownership requirement. In 

particular, the data presented in the November 2009 Memorandum indicate that a sizeable 

235 Some commenters suggested that the data on share ownership dispersion referred to in the Proposing 

Release were insufficient because we did not focus on the possibility that shareholders could form groups 

to satisfy the minimum ownership requirement. See letters from American Bar Association (January 19, 

2010) (“ABA III”); BRT II. 

236 See letters from AFL-CIO (“[I]t will be necessary to permit aggregation of holdings to prevent the 

Proposed Access Rule from being usable only by hedge funds.”); Florida Board of Administration (“Public 

funds would need to form a nominating group in order to meet the hurdle in nearly all cases.”). 

237 See letter from BRT II. 

238 See, e.g., Rule 14a-2(b)(7). 

87
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

percentage (33%) of public companies have at least one institutional investor owning at least 3% 

of their securities for at least three years, and thus potentially qualified to meet the Rule 14a-11 

ownership threshold individually. As noted, however, the data are based on Form 13F filings, 

which include holders that are custodians and may not be likely users of the rule. The data in the 

November 2009 Memorandum also suggest that forming nominating shareholder groups with 

holdings aggregating 3% is achievable at many companies by a relatively small number of 

shareholders. Even factoring in the requirement of continuous ownership for three years, 31% of 

public companies have three or more holders with at least 1% share ownership each; and 29% 

have two or more holders with at least 2% share ownership each.239 Moreover, neither of these 

categories includes companies with one holder of 2% and another holder of at least 1%, and none 

of these percentages includes companies having a relatively small number (e.g. four to ten) of 

holders whose aggregate holdings exceed 3% but whose individual holdings do not bring the 

company within any of the categories identified in the data. 

We are concerned, however, that use of Rule 14a-11 may not be consistently and 

realistically viable, even by shareholder groups, if the uniform ownership threshold were set at 

5% or higher. At the 5% minimum ownership requirement for individuals as advocated by many 

of those same commenters, only 20% of public companies had even one shareholder satisfying 

that requirement. Finally, even applying a 5% threshold for shareholder groups, the data identify 

combinations involving five or fewer shareholders that add up to 5% or more as theoretically 

achievable in as few as 21% of public companies – at least 25% fewer than with a 3% 

threshold.240 

239	 We note that it is unlikely that the ownership test used in calculating the data tracks the definition that we 

are adopting for Rule 14a-11. As a result, the percentages in the data may be over- or under-inclusive. 

240	 At the 10% threshold for groups urged by many commenters, for example, the likelihood of forming a 

88
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

All of these data thus suggest that a uniform 5% ownership requirement would be 

substantially more difficult to satisfy than the 3% requirement we are adopting. Moreover, our 

resulting concern about the viability of a 5% ownership threshold is exacerbated by several 

limitations on the data reported in the November 2009 Memorandum. While those data do 

account for the application of a three-year holding period requirement, they may overstate in 

several ways the potential to meet the ownership threshold. First, they may include controlling 

shareholders that may be unlikely to rely on Rule 14a-11. Second, the data are based on filings 

on Form 13F, in which ownership is defined differently than under Rule 14a-11, and thus may 

yield a higher number of larger shareholdings. Finally, the data include large shareholdings by 

institutions which report aggregated holdings of securities held for multiple beneficial owners.241 

Nevertheless, and principally because they give effect to holding period requirements, we 

considered the data in the November 2009 Memorandum to be the most pertinent to our selection 

of a uniform minimum ownership percentage. We received additional data relating to large 

companies, however, that offer some additional indication about the number of shareholders 

potentially available to form a group to meet the 3% ownership threshold. One study indicated 

that in the top 50 companies by market capitalization as of March 31, 2009, the five largest 

institutional investors held from 9.1% to 33.5% of the shares, and an average of 18.4% of the 

group sufficient to meet the minimum ownership requirement would be more sharply constrained: the data 

in the November 2009 Memorandum identify combinations totaling 10% or more but involving five or 

fewer shareholders as theoretically achievable in as little as 7% of public companies. 

On the other hand, the data in the November 2009 Memorandum may understate the number of large 

shareholdings, because the data may exclude smaller holdings in multiple institutions that are subject to 

common voting control, and in any event, do not include holdings of less than 1% at all, even though such 

holdings could contribute to the formation of a group eligible to use Rule 14a-11. Likewise, those data do 

not include securities held by institutions holding less than $100 million in securities because Exchange Act 

Section 13(f) does not require such institutions to report their holdings. See letters from ABA III; BRT II. 

89
 

241 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shares.242 That same study found that among a sample of 50 large accelerated filers, the median 

number of shareholders holding at least 1% of the shares for at least one year was 10.5, with 45 

of the 50 companies in the sample having at least seven such shareholders.243 Another study that 

was reported to us244 similarly suggests relatively high concentration of share ownership. 

According to that analysis of S&P 500 companies, 14 institutional investors could satisfy a 1% 

threshold at more than 100 companies, eight could meet that threshold at over 200 companies, 

five could meet it at over 300 companies, and three could meet it at 499 of the 500. Information 

from specific large issuers likewise suggests the achievability of shareholder groups aggregating 

3%.245 

We realize these data likely overstate the number of eligible shareholders or shareholders 

whose holdings could be grouped to meet the ownership threshold, as these data generally do not 

appear to reflect any continuous holding requirement. 

In any event, our assessment of the percentage of companies with various share 

ownership concentrations cannot be taken as an assurance that shareholder nominating groups 

will or will not be formed at any particular combination of percentage ownership and holding 

242	 See “Report on Effects of Proposed SEC Rule 14a-11 on Efficiency, Competitiveness and Capital 

Formation, in Support of Comments by Business Roundtable” by NERA Economic Consulting (“NERA 

Report”), Appendix Table 1, submitted with the letter from BRT. 

243	 Id. at 13-14, Figure 2. 

244	 See letter from JPMorgan Chase. 

245	 See letters from AT&T (eight shareholders owning 1% or more, although holding periods not identified); 

AGL Resources (same); CIGNA (20 1%+ shareholders, although holding periods not identified); Cummins 

(36 1+% shareholders, although holding periods not identified); General Mills (one 5%+ shareholder 

holding for at least 6 years, over 12 1%+ shareholders, and over 25 0.5%+ shareholders, although holding 

periods not identified); ITT (14 1%+ shareholders, although holding periods not identified); McDonald’s 

(10 holders owning 1% or more, one shareholder owning 5%, although holding periods not identified); 

UnitedHealth (four 3%+ shareholders, six 2%+ shareholders, nine 1%+ shareholders, 20 0.5%+ 

shareholders, 32 0.25% shareholders, applying a 2-year holding period); Weyerhaeuser (three 5%+ 

shareholders, 20 1%+ shareholders, although holding periods not identified). 

90
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

period requirements or of the likelihood that persons with large securities holdings would be 

inclined or disinclined to use Rule 14a-11.246 Taking all of this information into account, overall 

we believe that our selection of a 3% ownership threshold strikes an appropriate balance between 

the benefits of facilitating shareholder participation in the process of electing directors of public 

companies and the costs and disruption associated with contested elections of directors 

conducted pursuant to new Rule 14a-11. We also believe, and as noted, many commenters 

supported, that a threshold tied to a significant commitment to the company is an important 

feature of our amendments. Of course, to the extent that shareholders believe the 3% threshold is 

too high our amendments to Rule 14a-8 will facilitate their ability to adopt a lower ownership 

percentage.247 

We proposed to apply the same thresholds for registered investment companies and 

business development companies as for non-investment companies, except that the applicability 

of the particular thresholds for registered investment companies would have depended on the net 

assets of the company, rather than the company’s accelerated filer status. No commenters 

recommended a higher threshold for investment companies than for non-investment companies. 

While some commenters noted the absence of data specifically relating to the impact of various 

ownership thresholds on investment companies,248 no commenter supplied any data suggesting 

the need for an ownership threshold for investment companies different from that applicable to 

246 See letter from Council of Institutional Investors (January 14, 2010) (“CII II”). This comment refers to 

research indicating that in a small sample of accelerated and non-accelerated filers, the holdings of the ten 

largest public pension funds, if aggregated, would not exceed 5% and would also be unlikely to meet a 3% 

threshold, while a 1% threshold could be met. Apart from the sample size, however, this research itself 

appears limited in that it apparently does not include other types of shareholders and is not adjusted for any 

holding period. 

247 See footnote 223 above. 

248 See, e.g., letters from ICI; S&C; T. Rowe Price. 

91
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

non-investment companies.249 Although two commenters suggested a 5% ownership threshold 

for investment companies, both of these commenters also suggested a 5% threshold for noninvestment companies.250 

We believe that it is appropriate to apply to registered investment companies and 

business development companies the same 3% ownership threshold that we are applying to other 

companies. We also believe that, similar to non-investment companies, our selection of a 3% 

ownership threshold strikes an appropriate balance between the benefits of facilitating 

shareholder participation in the process of electing directors of investment companies and the 

costs and disruption associated with contested elections of directors conducted pursuant to Rule 

14a-11. 

We are not adopting the suggestion of commenters that the eligibility thresholds for 

investment companies be based on the holdings for the fund complex in the case of unitary 

boards or the cluster in the case of cluster boards.251 We believe that eligibility should be based 

on holdings for the investment company, not the entire fund complex or cluster, because under 

249	 One joint comment letter provided data regarding the net assets of investment companies and the dollar 

value of the shares that would be necessary to meet the proposed 1%, 3%, or 5% thresholds. See letter 

from ICI/IDC. The data provided by the commenters suggest that there are a limited number of small 

investment companies with net assets ranging from $50,000 to $351,000, where the 3% threshold could be 

met by an investment ranging from $1,500 to $10,530. However, the data also indicate that the vast 

majority of funds are significantly larger, and would therefore require a significantly larger investment to 

meet the 3% threshold (e.g., 90% of long-term mutual funds, money market funds, and closed-end funds 

have total net assets greater than $19 million, $100 million, and $57 million, respectively; the median 

long-term mutual fund, money market fund, and closed-end fund have total net assets of $216 million, $844 

million, and $216 million, respectively). 

250	 See letters from S&C (recommending “with respect to the ownership thresholds applicable to shareholders 

of [registered investment companies], a minimum percentage of no less than the 5% threshold 

recommended in the Seven Law Firm Letter” (to which Sullivan & Cromwell was a party and which 

recommended that ownership thresholds of non-investment companies be adjusted upwards to 5% for 

individual shareholders and higher for groups of shareholders)); TIAA-CREF (recommending “that the 

Commission adopt a 5% ownership requirement across the board regardless of the company’s size” and 

“[w]ith respect to investment companies, ... that the 5% requirement be applied at the fund complex level 

rather than at the individual fund level”). 

251	 See letters from Barclays; T. Rowe Price; TIAA-CREF. 

92
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

state law, shareholder voting is determined based on the holdings in the investment company. 

Fund complexes have flexibility to organize their funds into one or more investment companies. 

Thereafter, state law governs which shareholders vote as a group for directors. Because Rule 

14a-11 is intended to facilitate the exercise of traditional state law rights to nominate and elect 

directors, we believe that the rule should follow state law. 

ii. Voting power 

We proposed that the ownership threshold be determined as a percentage of the securities 

entitled to be voted on the election of directors. Some commenters sought clarification of how 

the ownership threshold would be calculated where companies have multiple classes of stock 

with varying voting rights.252 These commenters observed that the proposed rule did not 

adequately address voting regimes where the voting rights have been separated from the 

economic rights of ownership.253 One commenter explained that in situations where ownership 

of securities does not correlate with voting power,254 shares will have voting rights 

disproportionate to the number of shares held, and that creates a disparity between the two 

classes in terms of the economic value of a single vote.255 One commenter advised that further 

clarification was needed for companies with two or more outstanding classes of voting securities 

with disparate voting rights, including those companies with classes of voting securities and nonvoting securities, so that those companies would be treated in a manner consistent with 

252	 See letters from ABA; Duane Morris; Media General; P. Neuhauser; New York Times. These letters 

illustrated a scenario where one publicly-issued class of stock is entitled to one vote per share, while the 

privately-held controlling class of stock is entitled to 10 votes per share and both classes vote together on 

the election of directors. 

253	 See letters from ABA; P. Neuhauser; Duane Morris; Media General. 

254	 See, e.g., discussion in footnote 252 of common ten-to-one voting provisions of a structure with Class A 

and Class B securities. 

255	 See letter from ABA. 

93
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

companies that have one class of voting securities.256 

In proposing that the ownership threshold be determined as a percentage of securities 

entitled to be voted on the election of directors, our goal was to have the requirement tie to the 

percentage of votes that could be cast for the director nominees. In response to these 

commenters, we have revised the rule text to clarify that the ownership threshold will be 

determined as a percentage of voting power of the securities entitled to be voted on the election 

of directors at the meeting, rather than as a percentage of securities entitled to be voted on the 

election of directors, as was proposed. Accordingly, where a company has multiple classes of 

stock with unequal voting rights and the classes vote together on the election of directors, then 

voting power would be calculated based on the collective voting power.257 If a company has 

multiple classes of stock that do not vote together in the election of all directors (where, for 

example, each class elects a subset of directors), then voting power would be determined only on 

the basis of the voting power of the class or classes of stock that would be voting together on the 

election of the person or persons sought to be nominated by the nominating shareholder or group, 

rather than the voting power of all classes of stock.258 We believe this approach properly bases 

the availability of Rule 14a-11 on the right to vote for the nominees that may be included in the 

company’s proxy materials, which is both consistent with the intent of the provisions of a 

company’s governing documents and in accord with the principle that class directors are elected 

by the votes of the holders of the class. 

256 See letter from Duane Morris. 

257 See Rule 14a-11(b)(1) and Instruction 3 and the discussion below. 

258 See Instruction 3 to Rule 14a-11(b)(1). 

94
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iii. Ownership position 

In the Proposing Release, we solicited comment about whether beneficial ownership is 

the appropriate standard of ownership to use for purposes of the minimum ownership threshold 

in the rule or whether another standard would be more appropriate. In this regard, we requested 

comment about whether a net long requirement should be used and, if so, what other 

modifications would be required. We received a number of comments addressing the 

appropriate standard of ownership and supporting the inclusion of a net long requirement.259 

Commenters suggested that we adopt an “ultimate” beneficial owner definition that included, 

among other things, a requirement that the nominating shareholder or group hold the entire 

bundle of voting and economic rights to any securities used to determine eligibility under the 

rule.260 At least one of these commenters thought the ownership definition should be adopted this 

way in order to remove the possibility that multiple parties may count the same securities toward 

their individual securities ownership totals.261 Moreover, many commenters were concerned that 

without requiring net long ownership, shareholders could engage in hedging strategies to obtain 

the requisite amount of ownership while eliminating or reducing their economic exposure.262 

Some commenters expressed the view that shares loaned to a third party should be taken into 

account when determining whether the nominating shareholder or group satisfies the relevant 

259	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; Advance Auto Parts; Aetna; Alaska Air; Alcoa; Alston & Bird; 

American Express; BorgWarner; BRT; Burlington Northern; CSX; L. Dallas; Dewey; DuPont; FPL Group; 

Florida State Board of Administration; GE; Honeywell; ICI; JPMorgan Chase; Kirkland & Ellis LLP 

(“Kirkland & Ellis”); Leggett; P. Neuhauser; PepsiCo; Protective; Seven Law Firms; SIFMA: Society of 

Corporate Secretaries; T. Rowe Price; tw telecom; UnitedHealth; ValueAct Capital; Xerox. 

260	 See letters from BRT; Devon; IBM; P. Neuhauser; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

261	 See letter from ABA. 

262	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; Advance Auto Parts; Alaska Air; Allstate; Applied 

Materials; Association of Corporate Counsel; AT&T; J. Blanchard; Biogen; BRT; CIEBA; Cleary; Devon; 

Dewey; Headwaters; IBM; JPMorgan Chase; PepsiCo; Sara Lee; Seven Law Firms; Shearman & Sterling; 

Sidley Austin; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Verizon. 

95
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ownership threshold.263 Commenters explained that institutional investors who hold shares for 

the long-term may lend their shares to others periodically while retaining the right to recall those 

shares to cast votes.264 Commenters suggested several conditions for counting these shares: the 

shareholder has a legal right to recall the shares and cast votes;265 the shareholder discloses in the 

Schedule 14N an intention to vote the shares;266 the shareholder holds the shares through the date 

of the meeting;267 and the shares are held past the date of the election.268 

After considering the comments, we have modified in several respects the ownership 

requirement of Rule 14a-11 so that it is consistent with our intent to limit use of Rule 14a-11 to 

long-term shareholders with significant ownership interests. First, in order to satisfy the 

ownership requirement, the nominating shareholder or member of the nominating shareholder 

group must hold a class of securities subject to the proxy solicitation rules.269 Limiting Rule 14a11 nominations to holders of securities that are subject to the proxy rules appropriately excludes 

from the calculation private classes of voting securities held by persons that would have no 

expectation that our proxy rules would be available to facilitate their state law nomination rights. 

Further, if we included securities not covered by the proxy rules in the calculation, those 

securities could dilute the relative holdings of shareholders holding securities that our rules are 

263 See letters from AFL-CIO; CalPERS; CII; COPERA; IAM, LIUNA; Marco Consulting; P. Neuhauser; D. 

Nappier; Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund (“Sheet Metal Workers”); SWIB. 

264 See letters from AFL-CIO; Marco Consulting; Sheet Metal Workers; SWIB. 

265 See letters from CalPERS; CII; COPERA; IAM; LIUNA; D. Nappier. 

266 See letters from AFL-CIO; CalPERS; CII; IAM; D. Nappier. 

267 See letters from CalPERS; CII; IAM; D. Nappier. 

268 See letters from COPERA. 

269 This would include securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act or subject to 

Investment Company Act Rule 20a-1. 

96
 
 

 

 

 

 

designed to protect. Second, the nominating shareholder or member of the nominating 

shareholder group must hold both investment and voting power, either directly or through any 

person acting on their behalf, of the securities. By requiring that a nominating shareholder or 

member of a nominating shareholder group hold investment and voting power of the securities 

that are used for purposes of determining whether the ownership requirement has been met, we 

are addressing the concerns raised by certain commenters that the provisions of Rule 14a-11 

should only be available to shareholders that possess ultimate ownership rights over the shares. 

Similar to the provisions in Exchange Act Rule 13d-3,270 the definition of voting power 

for purposes of Rule 14a-11 includes the power to vote, or to direct the voting of, such securities 

and investment power for purposes of Rule 14a-11 includes the power to dispose, or to direct the 

disposition of, such securities.271 Unlike the provisions in Rule 13d-3, however, the ownership 

requirement of Rule 14a-11 includes both voting and investment power – as opposed to just one 

or the other – and voting and investment power for purposes of Rule 14a-11 does not exist over 

securities that a nominating shareholder or member of a nominating shareholder group merely 

has the right to acquire. For example, a nominating shareholder or member of a nominating 

shareholder group will not be able to count securities that could be acquired, such as securities 

underlying options that are currently exercisable but have not yet been exercised. 

For purposes of meeting the ownership threshold in Rule 14a-11, a nominating 

shareholder or group will include investment and voting power of the company’s securities that 

is held “either directly or through any person acting on their behalf.” We are adopting the 

270 17 CFR § 240.13d-3. Like the approach under Rule 13d-3, we are including and excluding certain 

securities from the determination of who has voting power for policy reasons. Those inclusions and 

exceptions and the policy reasons underlying them are discussed throughout this section. 

271 See Instruction 3.c. to Rule 14a-11(b)(1). 

97
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

ownership provisions with this language to account for the common situation when financial 

intermediaries, such as banks or brokers, hold securities on behalf of their clients.272 This 

additional language also covers relationships, such as parent and subsidiary, when for 

organizational or tax reasons, among others, investment and voting power is held by an entity 

that is controlled by another entity. This provision, however, would not include securities that 

are held in a pooled investment vehicle in which the nominating shareholder or member of a 

nominating shareholder group does not have voting and investment power over the securities 

held in the pooled investment vehicle. 

Third, we have adopted a provision in the ownership requirement in Rule 14a-11 that, 

subject to specific conditions, allows for securities that have been loaned to a third party by or on 

behalf of the nominating shareholder or member of a nominating shareholder group to be 

considered in the calculation. We recognize that share lending is a common practice, and we 

believe that loaning securities to a third party is not inconsistent with a long-term investment in a 

company.273 To capture only securities where voting power can ultimately be exercised by the 

nominating shareholder or member of a nominating shareholder group in the election of 

directors, however, securities that have been loaned by or on behalf of the nominating 

shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group to another person may be 

counted toward the ownership requirement only if the nominating shareholder or member of the 

nominating shareholder group: 

• has the right to recall the loaned securities; and 

272	 The rule also clarifies that financial intermediaries, such as banks or brokers, that may hold securities on 

behalf of their clients could not use the provisions of Rule 14a-11. See Instruction 3.c. to Rule 14a11(b)(1). 

273	 See letters from AFL-CIO; CalPERS; CII; COPERA; IAM; LIUNA; Marco Consulting; P. Neuhauser; D. 

Nappier; Sheet Metal Workers; SWIB. 

98
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• will recall the loaned securities upon being notified that any of the nominees will be 

included in the company’s proxy materials. 

Absent satisfaction of these conditions – in addition to holding the requisite investment power 

over the loaned securities – we believe it is appropriate to exclude securities that have been 

loaned to another person from the calculation of voting power because, generally, the person to 

whom the securities have been loaned has the ability to vote those securities.274 If the rule were 

to allow loaned securities that either will not or cannot be recalled to be included for purposes of 

the ownership calculation, then the voting power of a nominating shareholder or member of a 

nominating shareholder group may potentially be inflated because the calculation could include 

votes that the nominating shareholder or member of a nominating shareholder group cannot 

actually cast. 

In determining the total voting power of the company’s securities held by or on behalf of 

the nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group, the voting 

power would be reduced by the voting power of any of the company’s securities that the 

nominating shareholder or any member of a nominating shareholder group has sold in a short 

sale during the relevant periods.275 In addition, the rule text explicitly excludes borrowed shares 

because the rule is intended to be used by holders with a significant long-term commitment to the 

company, and including shares that are merely borrowed is inconsistent with that purpose. The 

274	 See letter from P. Neuhauser. 

275	 See Instruction 3.b.3 to Rule 14a-11(b)(1). We note that in a typical short sale the person selling the 

securities short would not have the power to vote the securities subject to the short sale. Nevertheless, the 

provisions of Rule 14a-11 require that the voting power of the securities subject to the short sale be 

deducted from the voting power held directly or on behalf of the nominating shareholder or member of the 

nominating shareholder group to address our concerns about limiting the application of Rule 14a-11 to 

shareholders that retain significant ownership interests in a company. Likewise, a person whose ownership 

of shares arises solely from borrowing them for purposes of short sale would be deemed to have no share 

ownership for purposes of the ownership requirement of Rule 14a-11(b)(1). 

99
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

instruction makes clear that to the extent borrowed securities are not already excluded through 

the subtraction of securities sold short, borrowed securities would be subtracted in computing the 

relevant amount. We recognize that by requiring the voting power of securities sold short or 

borrowed for purposes other than a short sale to be subtracted from the ownership calculation, 

we are potentially reducing the eligibility of certain shareholders to rely on Rule 14a-11.276 

Nevertheless, as noted above, we believe that eligibility for Rule 14a-11 should be limited to 

those shareholders that have a significant interest in the company.277 We agree with commenters 

who suggested that selling a company’s securities short may divest that shareholder of the 

economic risks of ownership.278 

For purposes of determining whether the nominating shareholder or any member of a 

nominating shareholder group has sold a company’s securities short, the term “short sale” will 

276	 The ownership provisions related to short sales do not apply to securities that have been sold in a short sale 

where the nominating shareholder or member of the nominating shareholder group had no control over 

such transactions. See Instruction 3.b.3. to Rule 14a-11(b)(1) (covering short sales by “the nominating 

shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group, as the case may be, or any person acting 

on their behalf...”). For example, a nominating shareholder would not be required to exclude securities 

that have been sold short by a pooled investment vehicle in which the nominating shareholder or member 

of a nominating shareholder group has invested as long as the shareholder does not have the ability to direct 

the investments held in the pooled investment vehicle. Similarly, securities held by the pooled investment 

vehicle with respect to which the shareholder does not have the ability to direct the investments held in the 

pooled investment vehicle would not be included in the amount of holdings of the shareholder. 

277	 We recognize that selling a company’s securities short is only one of a number of ways that a shareholder 

can hedge the economic risk of its investment. Indeed, a number of commenters suggested that we adopt a 

beneficial ownership definition for purposes of Rule 14a-11 that netted all hedging arrangements 

(derivatives, swaps, etc.). We believe, however, that it is appropriate at this time to adopt the ownership 

threshold for Rule 14a-11 with the provision only relating to short sales as it contributes significantly 

towards the goal of excluding votes from the ownership calculation securities where the voting and 

economic interests are separated and does not unduly complicate the rule. Further, by excluding securities 

that the holder merely has the right to acquire (such as securities underlying options) and securities that 

have been loaned and cannot be recalled, we have further narrowed the application of the rule to address 

concerns about separating economic interest and voting power. 

278	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; Advance Auto Parts; Alaska Air; Allstate; Applied 

Materials; Association of Corporate Counsel; AT&T; J. Blanchard; Biogen; BRT; CIEBA; Cleary; Devon; 

Dewey; Headwaters; IBM; JPMorgan Chase; PepsiCo; Sara Lee; Seven Law Firms; Shearman & Sterling; 

Sidley Austin; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Verizon. 

100
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

have the meaning provided in Exchange Act Rule 200(a).279 Under that rule, a short sale is “any 

sale of a security which the seller does not own or any sale which is consummated by the 

delivery of a security borrowed by, or for the account of, the seller.” 

In calculating the voting power required to satisfy the 3% voting power eligibility 

requirement described above, nominating shareholders or members of a nominating shareholder 

group must first determine the total number of votes that can be derived from their holdings of 

securities that are subject to the proxy rules. This determination is made as of the date the 

Schedule 14N is filed. The total number of votes can be increased by the number of votes 

attributable to securities which have been loaned (subject to the conditions previously noted) and 

must be reduced by the number of votes attributable to any securities that have been sold in a 

short sale that is not closed out as of that date or borrowed for purposes other than a short sale. 

This adjusted number of votes is the qualifying number of votes eligible to be used as the 

numerator in calculating the percentage held of the company’s total voting power. The number 

of securities to which these qualifying votes are attributable is the amount of securities that must 

be used for evaluating compliance with the continuous holding period requirements specified in 

Rule 14a-11(b)(2), and discussed below. 

In determining the total voting power of the company’s securities, nominating 

shareholders and members of a nominating shareholder group will be entitled to rely on the most 

recent quarterly, annual or current report filed by the company unless the nominating shareholder 

or member of a nominating shareholder group knows or has reason to know that the information 

17 CFR § 242.200(a). We note that certain of the provisions in Exchange Act Rule 200, including when a 

“person shall be deemed to own a security” as defined in Rule 200(b), differ from the provisions we have 

adopted for purposes of Rule 14a-11. For instance, Rule 200(b) extends ownership of a security to options 

that have been exercised. As noted above, however, we have not extended ownership for purposes of Rule 

14a-11 to options. We believe that these different, but not conflicting, approaches are appropriate and 

reflect the policy objectives for adopting each rule. 

101
 

279 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in the reports is inaccurate.280 We believe that a nominating shareholder or member of a 

nominating shareholder group should be able to rely on the filings made by the company in 

making the calculation of voting power for purposes of Rule 14a-11 even if the number of 

securities outstanding has changed since the last report so that a nominating shareholder or 

member of a nominating shareholder group can easily make a determination about the 

percentage of voting power that they hold. 

iv. Demonstrating ownership 

Under the Proposal, a nominating shareholder or member of a nominating shareholder 

group would be able to demonstrate ownership in several ways.281 If the nominating shareholder 

or member of the nominating shareholder group is the registered holder of the shares, he or she 

could state as much. In this instance, the company would have the ability to independently 

verify the shareholder’s ownership. Where the nominating shareholder or member of the 

nominating shareholder group is not the registered holder of the securities, the nominating 

shareholder or member of the nominating shareholder group would be required to demonstrate 

ownership by attaching to the Schedule 14N a written statement from the “record” holder of the 

nominating shareholder’s shares (usually a broker or bank) verifying that, at the time of 

submitting the shareholder notice to the company on Schedule 14N, the nominating shareholder 

or member of the nominating shareholder group continuously held the securities being used to 

280	 See Instruction 1 to Rule 14a-11(b)(1). In the case of a registered investment company, in determining the 

total voting power of the securities that are entitled to be voted on the election of directors for purposes of 

establishing whether the 3% voting power threshold has been met, the nominating shareholder or group 

may rely on information set forth in the following documents, unless the nominating shareholder or group 

knows or has reason to know that the information contained therein is inaccurate: (1) in the case of a series 

company, a Form 8-K that will be required to be filed in connection with the meeting where directors are to 

be elected; or (2) in the case of other registered investment companies, the company’s most recent annual 

or semi-annual report filed with the Commission on Form N-CSR. See Instruction 2 to Rule 14a-11(b)(1). 

281	 See Item 5 of proposed Schedule 14N. 

102
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

satisfy the applicable ownership threshold for a period of at least one year.282 In the alternative, if 

the nominating shareholder or member of the nominating shareholder group has filed a Schedule 

13D, Schedule 13G, Form 3, Form 4, and/or Form 5, or amendments to those documents, the 

shareholder or group member may so state and attach a copy or incorporate that filing or 

amendment by reference. 

Commenters generally did not object to the proposed methods of demonstrating 

ownership; however, they did suggest some revisions to the rule. Two commenters believed that 

the nominating shareholder or group, if requested by the company, should be required to provide 

evidence from its broker-dealer or custodian certifying that its ownership position meets the 

requisite threshold through a date that is within five days of the shareholders’ meeting.283 

Another commenter recommended a revision to the proposed rule to allow the written statement 

to be dated no more than seven days prior to the date of submission of the nomination to the 

company.284 The commenter explained that it may be difficult for a group of nominating 

shareholders to obtain letters from the “record” holders on the exact same date they submit the 

nomination to the company and file a Schedule 14N and cited similar problems in the context of 

the Rule 14a-8 process as an example. Another commenter recommended more generally that 

the written statement be dated a short period before the filing of the Schedule 14N.285 Other 

commenters submitted various suggestions as to who should provide the required written 

statement.286 

282 See the discussion below regarding the holding period we are adopting. 

283 See letters from BorgWarner; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

284 See letter from CII. 

285 See letter from P. Neuhauser.
 

286 See letters from ABA; CII; ICI; P. Neuhauser; Schulte Roth & Zabel; Seven Law Firms; S&C. Litigation 

103
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While we are adopting the requirements to demonstrate ownership as proposed, we agree 

with the commenters that additional clarity is needed with regard to how far in advance of the 

notice date the statement of the broker or bank may be dated, as well as what type of bank or 

broker may provide the written statement on behalf of the shareholder. We believe the date 

should be as close as practicable to the notice date, and believe that seven calendar days should 

provide a workable time frame that is still close in time to the notice date. Accordingly, we have 

revised the rule to clarify that the statement from the registered holder, broker, or bank may be 

dated within seven calendar days prior to the date the nominating shareholder or group submits 

the notice on Schedule 14N.287 

Also, to provide additional clarity about these requirements, the final rule includes an 

example of a form of written statement verifying share ownership that may be used if the 

nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group (i) is not the 

registered holder of the shares, (ii) is not proving ownership by providing previously filed 

Schedules 13D or 13G or Forms 3, 4, or 5, and (iii) holds the shares in an account with a broker 

or bank that is a participant in the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) or a similar clearing 

agency acting as a securities depository.288 An instruction to Schedule 14N describes more fully 

subsequent to the Proposal has underscored the utility of clarifying the source of verification of ownership 

by shareholders who are not themselves registered owners of the shares. See Apache Corp. v. Chevedden, 

696 F.Supp.2d 723 (S.D.Tex. Mar. 10, 2010) (interpreting the proof of ownership requirement in Rule 14a8(b)(2)). 

287	 We note that a nominating shareholder may have changed brokers or banks during the time period in which 

it has held the shares it is using to meet the ownership threshold. In such cases, the nominating shareholder 

would need to obtain a written statement from each broker or bank with respect to the shares held and 

specify the time period in which the shares were held. 

288	 This form of written statement from a bank or broker is a modification to the Proposal, and is provided as a 

non-exclusive example of an acceptable method of satisfying the requirement in Rule 14a-11(b)(3). See 

Instruction to Item 4 of new Schedule 14N. We note that the written statements would not reflect all 

aspects of the ownership requirement, such as the percentage of voting power held, and thus, would not be 

dispositive with regard to whether the nominating shareholder or group satisfied the ownership threshold. 

For purposes of complying with Rule 14a-11(b)(3), loaned securities may be included in the amount of 

104
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

what information should be provided if a nominating shareholder or any member of the 

nominating shareholder group holds the securities through a broker or bank (e.g., in an omnibus 

account) that is not a participant in DTC or a similar clearing agency.289 

We note that satisfying the requirement in Rule 14a-11(b)(3) to demonstrate ownership is 

different from satisfying the requirement in Rules 14a-11(b)(1) and 14a-11(b)(2) that a 

shareholder or shareholder group hold the requisite amount of the company’s securities that are 

entitled to be voted on the election of directors for three years, as calculated pursuant to the 

Instruction to paragraph (b)(2). It is possible for a shareholder to be able to demonstrate 

ownership pursuant to Rule 14a-11(b)(3), and yet not satisfy the total voting power and holding 

period requirements in Rules 14a-11(b)(1) and (b)(2). 

c. Holding period 

With respect to duration of ownership, we proposed a one-year holding requirement for 

each nominating shareholder or member of a nominating shareholder group. Although many 

commenters supported the proposed one-year holding period,290 the majority of commenters 

suggested a holding period longer than the proposed one-year period, with many recommending 

securities set forth in the written statements. Consistent with the Proposal, a nominating shareholder or 

group proving ownership by using a previously filed Schedule 13D or 13G or Form 3, 4, or 5 could attach a 

copy of the filing to the Schedule 14N or incorporate it by reference into the Schedule. We note that the 

calculation of voting power of a company’s securities for purposes of Rule 14a-11 differs from the 

determination of beneficial ownership for purposes of those schedules and forms. In addition, as adopted, 

we are clarifying that the schedules or forms used to provide proof of ownership must reflect ownership of 

the securities as of or before the date on which the three-year eligibility period begins. 

289	 See the Instruction to Item 4 of new Schedule 14N. 

290	 See letters from ADP; AFSCME; Callaway; CalPERS; CalSTRS; Calvert; CFA Institute; J. Chico; CII; 

Corporate Library; Dominican Sisters of Hope (“Dominican Sisters of Hope”); GovernanceMetrics 

International (“GovernanceMetrics”); ICGN; Lorsch et al.; LUCRF; Mercy Investment Program (“Mercy 

Investment Program”); Motorola; D. Nappier; Nathan Cummings Foundation; P. Neuhauser; Norges Bank; 

Pax World; RiskMetrics; Shamrock; Shearman & Sterling; Sisters of Mercy Regional Community of 

Detroit Charitable Trust (“Sisters of Mercy”); Social Investment Forum; Sodali; Tri-State Coalition for 

Responsible Investment (“Tri-State Coalition”); Trillium; T. Rowe Price; Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk 

(“Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk”); USPE; ValueAct Capital; Walden Asset Management (“Walden”). 

105
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

alternative holding periods ranging from 18 months to four years.291 Some commenters, for 

example, expressed a belief that increasing the duration of the minimum holding period would 

ensure that use of Rule 14a-11 is limited to holders of a significant, long-term interest and would 

dissuade shareholders from using the rule to nominate and elect directors to make short-term 

gains at the expense of long-term shareholders.292 A small number of commenters believed that 

Rule 14a-11 should not include a holding period requirement.293 One commenter believed that 

all holders of the same securities should have the same rights under Rule 14a-11 regardless of 

how long the securities have been held.294 Another commenter stated that a short-term 

shareholder has the same risk as long-term shareholders; thus their rights under Rule 14a-11 

should be equal.295 

After considering the comments, we have decided to adopt a three-year holding 

requirement, rather than the proposed one-year requirement. This decision is based on our belief 

that holding securities for at least a three-year period better demonstrates a shareholder’s long291	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; Advance Auto Parts; Aetna; AFL-CIO; Alaska Air; Alcoa; 

Allstate; Alston & Bird; Amalgamated Bank; American Express; Anadarko; Applied Materials; 

Association of Corporate Counsel; AT&T; Avis Budget; Biogen; J. Blanchard; Boeing; BorgWarner; BRT; 

Burlington Northern; Caterpillar; Chevron; CIEBA; CIGNA; CNH Global; P. Clapman; Comcast; Con 

Edison; CSX; CtW Investment Group; Cummins; L. Dallas; Darden Restaurants; E. Davis; Deere; Devon; 

Dewey; DTE Energy; DuPont; Eaton; Eli Lilly; ExxonMobil; FedEx; Fenwick; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; 

General Mills; Headwaters; Home Depot; Honeywell; IAM; IBM; ICI; Intel; ITT; JPMorgan Chase; 

Lionbridge Technologies; LIUNA; Marco Consulting; McDonald’s; M. Metz; J. Miller; NACD; D. 

Nappier (expressing a willingness to accept a two-year holding period instead of the proposed one-year 

holding period); Northrop; Office Depot; OPERS; Pfizer; P&G; Praxair; Protective; RiskMetrics (accepting 

a two-year holding period as alternative to the proposed one-year holding period); Sara Lee; S&C; Sheet 

Metal Workers; Sidley Austin; SIFMA; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; Teamsters; 

Tesoro; Textron; Theragenics; TI; TIAA-CREF; Tidewater; Time Warner Cable Inc. (“Time Warner 

Cable”); tw telecom; L. Tyson; UnitedHealth; U.S. Bancorp; Wells Fargo; Weyerhaeuser; Xerox; 

Vanguard; Verizon; B. Villiarmois. 

292	 See letters from BRT; CIEBA; IBM; McDonald’s; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

293	 See letters from 13D Monitor; ACSI; British Insurers; Ironfire Capital LLC (“Ironfire”); LUCRF. 

294	 See letter from British Insurers. 

295	 See letter from 13D Monitor. 

106
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

term commitment and interest in the company.296 We also based our decision to have a holding 

period longer than one year on the strong support of a variety of commenters. For instance, we 

received comments that advised that we should “adopt a more reasonable holding period of at 

least two years,”297 and “a minimum holding period of at least two years is appropriate” because 

a “shorter holding period would allow shareholders with a short-term focus to nominate directors 

who, if elected, would be responsible for dealing with a company’s long-term issues.”298 Another 

commenter stated that “three years would be a more reasonable test with respect to longevity of 

stock ownership.”299 Although two commenters suggested even longer holding periods,300 we 

believe that a three year holding period reflects our goal of limiting use of the rule to significant, 

long-term holders and appropriately responds to commenters’ suggestions regarding the length 

of the holding period. In this regard, as noted previously, some commenters suggested a two 

year holding period, but others stated it should be “at least” two years. Given the support 

expressed for a significant holding period, we believe a three year holding period, rather than one 

or two years, strikes the appropriate balance in providing shareholders with a significant, longterm interest with the ability to have their nominees included in a company’s proxy materials 

while limiting the possibility of shareholders attempting to use Rule 14a-11 inappropriately, as 

discussed further below. 

296 One commenter pointed to the Aspen Principles, available at 

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/pubs/Aspen_Principles_with_signers_April_0 

9.pdf, suggesting that companies that are often forced to react to short-term investors are constrained from 

creating valuable goods and services, investing in innovations, and creating jobs. See also letter from AFLCIO. 

297 Letter from Teamsters. 

298 Letter from BRT. 

299 Letter from Tesoro. 

300 See letters from E. Davis; Fenwick. 

107
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

301 

We also factored our desire to limit the use of Rule 14a-11 to shareholders who do not 

possess a change in control intent with regard to the company into our decision to extend the 

holding period. Although we have, as noted below, adopted specific requirements in Rule 14a11 to address the control issue, we believe that a longer holding period is another safeguard 

against shareholders that may attempt to inappropriately use Rule 14a-11 as a means to quickly 

gain control of a company. Finally, we note that if shareholders believe that the three-year 

period should be shorter, the amendment that we decided to adopt to Rule 14a-8 will remove 

barriers to proposals that seek to establish a different procedure with a lesser (or no) holding 

period condition. 

The requirement we are adopting is that shareholders seeking to use Rule 14a-11 to have 

a nominee or nominees included in a company’s proxy materials must have held the minimum 

amount of securities used to satisfy the 3% ownership threshold continuously for at least three 

years.301 Similar to the calculation of voting power discussed above, in order to satisfy the threeyear holding requirement, the nominating shareholder or member of the nominating shareholder 

group must have investment and voting power over the amount of securities, and the amount of 

securities held during the period will have to be reduced by the amount of securities of the same 

class that are the subject of short positions or are borrowed for purposes other than a short sale 

As proposed, a nominating shareholder or group would have been required to hold “the securities that are 

used for purposes of determining the applicable ownership threshold” and intend to continue to hold “those 

securities” through the date of the meeting. See proposed Rule 14a-11(b)(2). The Proposal also would 

have required the nominating shareholder or group to provide a statement that the nominating shareholder 

or group intends to continue to own the “requisite shares” through the date of the meeting. See proposed 

Rule 14a-18(f). As adopted, we are modifying Rule 14a-11 to require the nominating shareholder or each 

member of the nominating shareholder group to have held the “amount of securities” that are used for 

satisfying the ownership requirement and to continue to hold that amount of securities through the date of 

the meeting, rather than referring to the “requisite securities.” In addition, even though the ownership 

requirement is based on the percentage of voting power held, the requirement refers to “amount” rather 

than “percentage” so that satisfaction of the ownership requirement can be accurately determined. We 

believe it would be unduly burdensome to require that a nominating shareholder or group determine 

whether its holdings exceeded 3% of the company’s voting power continuously for a three-year period 

prior to the filing of the Schedule 14N. 

108
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

during the period.302 The rule also allows securities loaned to a third party to be considered held 

during the period, provided that the nominating shareholder or group has the right to recall the 

loaned securities during the period.303 As discussed above, we do not believe that the common 

practice of lending securities is inconsistent with a long-term investment. While we believe it is 

important to include both of the recall provisions for purposes of allowing loaned securities to be 

used in the 3% ownership threshold calculation in Rule 14a-11(b)(1), we believe it is only 

necessary for the nominating shareholder or member of a nominating shareholder group to have 

the right to recall the loaned securities to satisfy the three-year holding period requirement.304 

Finally, the rule requires the amount of securities to be adjusted for stock splits, reclassifications 

or other similar adjustments made by the company during the period.305 

A commenter suggested that we clarify that a nominating shareholder or each member of 

the group must have continuously held only the minimum number of shares used to satisfy the 

ownership requirement.306 We agree that a nominating shareholder or member of a nominating 

shareholder group is not required to have continuously held shares in excess of the amount used 

to attain eligibility for purposes of Rule 14a-11. For example, under Rule 14a-11(b)(2), which 

requires continuous holding of “the amount of securities that are used for purposes of satisfying 

302	 See the Instruction to Rule 14a-11(b)(2). For purposes of this calculation, the amount of the short position 

or borrowed securities at any point in time during the three year holding period would be deducted from the 

amount of securities otherwise held at that point in time. 

303	 Id. 

304	 Id. The recall provisions are discussed in Section II.B.4.b.iii. above. We note that at the time the 

nominating shareholder or group calculates its ownership and submits a nominee or nominees, it may not 

be certain that its nominee or nominees will be included in the company’s proxy materials. We do not 

believe it is necessary to require a nominating shareholder or group to recall loaned shares that it has the 

right to recall and vote prior to the time that the nominating shareholder or group is notified that its 

nominee or nominees will be included in the company’s proxy materials. 

305	 See the Instruction to Rule 14a-11(b)(2). 

306	 See letter from AFSCME. 

109
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

the minimum ownership required of paragraph (b)(1) ..., ” if a nominating shareholder owns 

400,000 shares and those shares comprise 4% of the issuer’s voting power as of the date of filing 

of the Schedule 14N, that shareholder is not required to have held 400,000 shares continuously 

during the preceding three years and through the date of election of directors. Rather, the 

nominating shareholder would be required to continuously hold the minimum amount of shares 

required to satisfy the 3% ownership threshold in paragraph (b)(1), assuming no adjustments (in 

this example, at least 300,000 shares). 

We also believe that it is important that any shareholder or member of a nominating 

shareholder group that intends to submit a nominee to a company for inclusion in the company’s 

proxy materials continue to maintain the qualified minimum amount of securities in the company 

needed to satisfy the ownership provisions in the rule through the date of the meeting at which 

the shareholder’s or group’s nominee is presented to a vote of shareholders. To meet the 

eligibility criteria in proposed Rule 14a-11(b)(2), a nominating shareholder or member of a 

nominating shareholder group would have been required to “intend to continue to hold” the 

securities used to meet the ownership threshold through the date of the meeting. Commenters on 

the Proposing Release generally supported a holding requirement through the date of the 

meeting,307 and one commenter suggested that we clarify that shareholders would be required to 

hold the securities used for determining ownership through the election of directors.308 We agree 

with the suggestion and are modifying the language in Rule 14a-11(b)(2) to clarify that a 

nominating shareholder or member of a nominating shareholder group “must continue to hold” 

307 See letters from ABA; Advance Auto Parts; Alston & Bird; American Express; Association of Corporate 

Counsel; J. Blanchard; BorgWarner; CalPERS; CII; Cleary; Comcast; CSX; Dewey; W. B. Dickerson; 

Florida State Board of Administration; General Mills; Headwaters; JPMorgan Chase; Nathan Cummings 

Foundation; Protective; Schulte Roth & Zabel; Seven Law Firms; Shearman & Sterling; Society of 

Corporate Secretaries; tw telecom; ValueAct Capital. 

308 See letter from ABA. 

110
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the requisite amount of securities through the date of the meeting.309 If a nominating shareholder 

or member of a nominating shareholder group fails to continue to hold the requisite amount of 

securities as required by the rule, a company could exclude the nominee or nominees submitted 

by the nominating shareholder or group.310 

We also are adopting, as proposed, the requirement that a nominating shareholder or 

member of a nominating shareholder group provide a statement as to the nominating 

shareholder’s or group member’s intent to continue to hold the qualifying minimum amount of 

securities through the date of the meeting.311 In addition, we proposed that nominating 

shareholders or members of a nominating shareholder group disclose their intent with regard to 

continued ownership of their shares after the election (which may be contingent on the election’s 

outcome). As noted above, commenters generally supported the requirement for the nominating 

shareholder or group to hold the requisite amount of securities through the date of the meeting, 

although some commenters expressed opposition to the proposed disclosure requirement or any 

requirement for the nominating shareholder or group to disclose their intent to hold the 

309	 For purposes of determining whether the requirement to hold the specified amount of securities from the 

date of the filing of the Schedule 14N through the date of the election of directors is satisfied, a nominating 

shareholder or group must hold (as determined pursuant to the instruction to the rule) the qualifying 

minimum amount of securities, which can include securities that are loaned to a third party if the 

nominating shareholder or group has the right to recall the securities, and will recall them upon being 

notified that any of the nominees will be included in the company’s proxy materials. Of course, between 

the date of the filing of the Schedule 14N and the date of the election of directors previously loaned 

securities may be returned. Likewise, the amount of securities held during the period from the filing of the 

Schedule 14N through the date of the election of directors must be reduced by the amount of securities of 

the same class that are sold in a short sale. 

310	 See new Rule 14a-11(b)(2) and Rule 14a-11(g). The company would be required to provide notice to the 

staff in accordance with Rule 14a-11(g) and could seek a no-action letter from the staff with regard to the 

determination to exclude the nominee at that time if the company so wished. In the event that the 

nominating shareholder’s or group’s failure to continue to hold the securities comes to light after the 

company has printed its proxy materials, the company would be permitted to exclude the nominee or 

nominees and send a revised proxy card to its shareholders. For additional information about a company’s 

obligations in the event a nominee withdraws or is disqualified, see Section II.B.7.b. below. 

311	 See new Rule 14a-11(b)(4) and proposed Rule 14a-18(f). 

111
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

company’s shares after the date of the election.312 One commenter explained that the nominating 

shareholder or group may not know its intent at the time the Schedule 14N is filed and, 

depending on the outcome of the director election, the nominating shareholder or group may, in 

fact, purchase more stock or sell some stock. 313 Another commenter observed that it is 

impractical for shareholders to represent that they would hold their position beyond the election 

and instead favored disclosure in an amended Schedule 14N of any change in the ownership of 

more than 1% of the voting shares or net economic position during a period after the election 

(e.g., 60 days).314 Other commenters supported the proposed disclosure requirement regarding 

the nominating shareholder’s or group’s intent to hold shares after the meeting, or recommended 

that the Commission require instead that the nominating shareholder or group hold the requisite 

amount of shares for a specific period after the date of the meeting.315 

We believe that a requirement to hold the securities through the date of the election of 

directors is appropriate to demonstrate the nominating shareholder’s or group member’s 

commitment to the director nominee and the election process. In addition, we are adopting the 

disclosure requirement, as proposed, concerning the nominating shareholder’s or group 

member’s intent with respect to continued ownership of their shares after the election.316 We are 

312 See letters from Alston & Bird; Amalgamated Bank; Calvert; CII; Florida State Board of Administration; 

P. Neuhauser; Norges Bank; Schulte Roth & Zabel; TIAA-CREF; USPE; ValueAct Capital. 

313 See letter from CII. 

314 See letter from Cleary. 

315 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; Aetna; AGL; Alaska Air; Alcoa; Anadarko; Applied 

Materials; Association of Corporate Counsel; Avis Budget; BRT; Burlington Northern; Callaway; 

Caterpillar; Comcast; L. Dallas; Darden Restaurants; Devon; W. B. Dickerson; Dupont; Eli Lilly; FPL 

Group; General Mills; Home Depot; Honeywell; Intel; Lionbridge Technologies; Lorsch et al.; Keating 

Muething; Office Depot; PepsiCo; Pfizer; Protective; Sara Lee; SIFMA; Tesoro; Textron; TI; 

UnitedHealth; U.S. Bancorp; Verizon; Xerox. 

316 See new Rule 14a-11(b)(5) and new Item 4(b) of Schedule 14N. 

112
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not, however, adopting a requirement for a nominating shareholder or member of a nominating 

shareholder group to continue to hold their shares for a certain period of time after the date of the 

election. We believe that disclosure of a nominating shareholder’s or group member’s intent 

with respect to continued ownership in a Schedule 14N or amended Schedule 14N will provide 

investors with the information they need for this purpose. 

d. No change in control intent 

Under the Proposal, to rely on Rule 14a-11, a nominating shareholder or member of a 

nominating shareholder group would have been required to provide a certification in the filed 

Schedule 14N that it did not hold the securities with the purpose, or with the effect, of changing 

the control of the company or gaining more than a limited number of seats on the board.317 We 

noted that this certification, along with the other required disclosures, would assist shareholders 

in making an informed decision with regard to any nominee or nominees put forth by the 

nominating shareholder or group, in that the information would enable shareholders to gauge the 

nominating shareholder’s or group’s interest in the company, longevity of ownership, and intent 

with regard to continued ownership in the company. 

Most commenters on this aspect of the Proposal agreed generally that Rule 14a-11 should 

not be available to shareholders seeking to effect a change in control of a company (or to obtain 

more than a specified number of board seats) and supported a certification requirement regarding 

the lack of change in control intent.318 Some commenters, however, expressed concern about the 

317	 See Item 8 of proposed Schedule 14N. 

318	 See letters from ABA; Advance Auto Parts; American Bankers Association; American Express; Americans 

for Financial Reform (“Americans for Financial Reform”); BRT; CalSTRS; CII; Cleary; COPERA; 

Corporate Library; Dewey; Dominican Sisters of Hope; Eli Lilly; Emerson Electric; Florida State Board of 

Administration; A. Goolsby; GovernanceMetrics; ICI; JPMorgan Chase; Sen. Carl Levin (“C. Levin”); 

Mercy Investment Program; Metlife; Nathan Cummings Foundation; P. Neuhauser; Protective; 

RiskMetrics; Seven Law Firms; SIFMA; Sisters of Mercy; Social Investment Forum; Society of Corporate 

Secretaries; Sodali; SWIB; TIAA-CREF; Trillium; Tri-State Coalition; T. Rowe Price; tw telecom; 

113
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lack of a remedy when a certification regarding control intent proves to be false or when a 

nominating shareholder or group changes its intent.319 Suggested remedies included excluding 

the nominee of any nominating shareholder or group that changes intent and barring the 

nominating shareholder or group from using the rule for the following two annual meetings,320 

requiring disclosure of a change of intent and resignation of the Rule 14a-11 director,321 and 

imposing liability under Rule 14a-9.322 

We are adopting this requirement with some modifications from the Proposal. To rely on 

Rule 14a-11, the nominating shareholder (or where there is a nominating shareholder group, any 

member of the nominating shareholder group) must not be holding any of the company’s 

securities with the purpose, or with the effect, of changing control of the company323 or to gain a 

number of seats on the board of directors that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that 

the registrant could be required to include under Rule 14a-11 and must provide a certification to 

this effect in its filed Schedule 14N.324 

The final requirement differs from the Proposal in three respects. First, in addition to 

Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk; Wachtell; Walden; B. Villiarmois. 

319	 See letters from American Bankers Association; Dewey; Emerson Electric; A. Goolsby; Metlife; 

Protective; Seven Law Firms; SIFMA. 

320	 See letter from Seven Law Firms. 

321	 See letter from Protective. 

322	 See letter from P. Neuhauser. 

323	 Although Rule 14a-11 does not contain a requirement that the shareholder nominee or nominees do not 

have an intent to change the control of the company, a nominating shareholder’s or group’s ability to meet 

the requirement and certify that it does not have such an intent will be impacted by the intentions and 

actions of its nominee or nominees. For example, a nominating shareholder would not be able to certify 

that it does not hold the company’s securities for the purpose, or with the effect, of changing the control of 

the company if its nominee is engaged in its own proxy contest or tender offer while the Rule 14a-11 

nomination is pending. 

324	 See certifications in Item 8 of new Schedule 14N. 

114
 
 

 

 

 

 

requiring the certification to address the absence of change in control intent or intent to gain 

more than the maximum number of seats provided under the rule, we also have added this 

condition as an explicit requirement to the rule.325 We believe that this more directly achieves 

our intent – that the rule not be used by shareholders that have an intent to change the control of 

the company or gain more than the maximum number of seats specified in the rule. 

Second, we have clarified the language of the requirements so that it provides that the 

rule is available only if the nominating shareholder or group members do not have an intent to 

change control of the company326 or gain more seats on the board than the maximum provided for 

under Rule 14a-11. We slightly revised the language of the requirement to clarify our intended 

meaning. The Proposal used the language “gain more than a limited number of seats on the 

board,” which was intended to refer to the limitations within the rule on the maximum number of 

nominees required to be included in the company’s proxy materials. The final rule states this 

more explicitly. 

Finally, we have added an instruction to clarify that in order to rely on Rule 14a-11 to 

include a nominee or nominees in a company’s proxy materials, a nominating shareholder or a 

member of a nominating shareholder group may not be a member of any other group with 

persons engaged in solicitations or other nominating activities in connection with the subject 

election of directors; may not separately conduct a solicitation in connection with the subject 

election of directors other than a Rule 14a-2(b)(8) exempt solicitation in relation to those 

nominees it has nominated pursuant to Rule 14a-11 or for or against the company’s nominees; 

and may not act as a participant in another person’s solicitation in connection with the subject 

325	 See Rule 14a-11(b)(6). 

326	 A change in control includes, but is not limited to, an extraordinary corporate action, such as a merger or 

tender offer. 

115
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

election of directors.327 

We understand that companies have concerns that shareholders using Rule 14a-11 may 

inaccurately assert that they do not have a change in control intent, and that this can be a difficult 

factual issue. If a company determines that it can exclude a nominee based on this eligibility 

condition, it will be required to notify the nominating shareholder, members of the nominating 

shareholder group, or, where applicable, the nominating shareholder group’s authorized 

representative, of a deficiency in its notice on Schedule 14N and provide the nominating 

shareholder or group the opportunity to respond. The company also would be required to submit 

a notice to the Commission stating its intent to exclude a nominee from its proxy materials 

(which would be required to include a description of the company’s basis for exclusion) and, if it 

wished to, it could seek the staff’s informal view with regard to its determination to exclude the 

nominee (commonly referred to as a “no-action” request).328 In addition, a nominating 

shareholder and each member of a nominating shareholder group will have liability under Rule 

14a-9 for a materially false or misleading certification in the Schedule 14N. Questions 

concerning the nomination also may be resolved by the parties outside the staff process provided 

in Rule 14a-11(g), including through private litigation where necessary, similar to the way they 

resolve issues arising in traditional proxy contests.329 Finally, we note that the Commission also 

could take enforcement action with respect to companies that inappropriately exclude nominees 

under Rule 14a-11 or shareholders that provide false certifications in their Schedule 14N. We 

believe these measures should provide sufficient means to address situations in which a 

327 See new Instruction to Rule 14a-11(b).
 

328 See Section II.B.9.b. below for further discussion of determinations to exclude a nominee or nominees. 

329 See Sections II.B.8. and II.B.9. for an explanation of the disclosure requirements applicable to a nomination
 

made pursuant to Rule 14a-11 and the process for excluding a nominee. 

116
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nominating shareholder or member of a nominating shareholder group provides a false 

certification regarding change in control intent. 

e. Agreements with the company 

In the Proposing Release, we noted that a shareholder nomination process that includes 

limits on the number of nominees that a company is required to include in its proxy materials 

presents the potential risk of nominating shareholders or groups acting merely as a surrogate for 

the company or its management in order to block usage of the rule by another nominating 

shareholder or group. We proposed to address this concern by providing that a nominating 

shareholder or group using Rule 14a-11 would be required to represent that no agreement 

between the nominating shareholder or group and the company and its management exists.330 To 

avoid any uncertainty about the breadth of this requirement, the Proposal included an instruction 

noting that prohibited agreements would not include unsuccessful negotiations with the company 

to have the nominee included in the company’s proxy materials as a management nominee, or 

negotiations that are limited to whether the company is required to include the shareholder 

nominee in the company’s proxy materials under Rule 14a-11. 

Commenters generally supported the proposed requirement, including the clarifying 

instruction regarding certain negotiations with the company.331 One commenter specifically 

supported the portion of the proposed rule providing that unsuccessful negotiations or 

negotiations that were limited to whether the company is required to include a shareholder 

nominee under Rule 14a-11 would not be deemed to be a direct or indirect agreement.332 One 

330 In this regard, we also proposed to require a nominating shareholder or group to represent that no 

relationships or agreements between the nominee and the company and its management exist. This aspect 

of the rule is discussed in Section II.B.5.c. below. 

331 See letters from ADP; BRT; Calvert; CFA Institute; CII; Seven Law Firms; TIAA-CREF; USPE. 

332 See letter from CII. 

117
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

commenter was concerned about possible manipulation by companies and supported a 

prohibition on agreements.333 According to that commenter, negotiations that resulted in a 

nomination being included in the proxy statement should be treated as a company nominee and 

not a shareholder nominee under Rule 14a-11. 

Some commenters encouraged us to allow negotiations that resulted in inclusion of 

shareholder nominees as management nominees and cautioned that the proposal could 

discourage constructive dialogue between companies and shareholders.334 Three commenters 

opposed limits on some or all relationships between the company and the nominating 

shareholder, group, or shareholder nominee.335 These commenters believed that the Commission 

should not prohibit agreements between a company and a nominating shareholder or group. 

They warned that restricting the ability of companies to reach agreements with a nominating 

shareholder or group would limit the dialogue between companies and investors. One 

commenter suggested that proposed Rule 14a-18(d) be revised to permit a company to agree not 

to contest the eligibility of a shareholder nominee.336 The commenter also suggested that if a 

company settled a threatened election contest by placing a shareholder nominee on the board, 

additional shareholder nominees should not be permitted for a specified period of time. 

After careful review of the comments, we continue to believe that it is appropriate to 

provide that a nominating shareholder or group will not be eligible to have a nominee or 

nominees included in a company’s proxy materials under Rule 14a-11 if the nominating 

shareholder, group, or any member of the nominating shareholder group, has any agreement with 

333 See letter from USPE. 

334 See letters from BRT; Seven Law Firms; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

335 See letters from ABA; Steve Quinlivan (“S. Quinlivan”); Verizon. 

336 See letter from S. Quinlivan. 

118
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the company with respect to the nomination. We have revised the rule to make it clearer that this 

is an eligibility condition by listing it as a condition in the rule, rather than only a representation 

required in Schedule 14N.337 We have incorporated, as proposed, the instruction with respect to 

unsuccessful negotiations (i.e. negotiations that do not result in an agreement) regarding whether 

a company is required to include a nominee in order to make clear that those negotiations would 

not be disqualifying. 

As described above, a nominating shareholder or group will not be eligible to use Rule 

14a-11 if there is an agreement with the company regarding the nomination of the nominee.338 

When a nominating shareholder or group files its Schedule 14N, this requirement will apply, and 

the certification required by Schedule 14N will have the effect of confirming that there are no 

agreements. We believe this is an important safeguard to prevent actions that could undermine 

the purpose of the rule. If, after the Schedule 14N is filed, a nominating shareholder or group 

reached an agreement with the company for the nominee to be included in the company’s proxy 

materials as a management nominee, the nominating shareholder or group would no longer be 

proceeding under Rule 14a-11. Consequently, there is no need to revise the “no agreements” 

requirement in Rule 14a-11 to address that fact pattern. 

Although we are adopting the “no agreements” requirement largely as proposed, we are 

persuaded by commenters that we should revise our final rules so that they do not unnecessarily 

337	 We note that a nominating shareholder or members of a nominating shareholder group will be required to 

provide a certification in the Schedule 14N that the requirements of Rule 14a-11 are satisfied, which will 

include the “no agreements” requirement. A nominating shareholder or member of a nominating 

shareholder group will be liable, pursuant to Rule 14a-9(c), for a false or misleading certification provided 

in Schedule 14N. 

338	 See Rule 14a-11(b)(7). See also Rule 14a-11(d)(7) which clarifies that if a nominee, nominating 

shareholder or any member of a nominating group has an agreement with the company or an affiliate of the 

company regarding the nomination of a candidate for election, other than as specified in Rule 14a-11(d)(5) 

or (6), any nominee or nominees from such shareholder or group shall not be counted in calculating the 

number of shareholder nominees for purposes of Rule 14a-11(d). 

119
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

discourage constructive dialogue between shareholders and companies. However, we believe 

this concern is more appropriately addressed in the method of calculation of the maximum 

number of permissible nominees, and the question of whether that number should include 

management nominees that were originally put forward as shareholder nominees under Rule 14a11. Our revisions to that provision are discussed in Section II.B.6. below. 

f. No requirement to attend the annual or special meeting 

Under Rule 14a-11 as proposed, a nominating shareholder or group would have no 

obligation to attend the annual or special meeting at which its nominee or nominees is being 

presented to shareholders for a vote. We received comment on the Proposal, however, 

suggesting that we require a nominating shareholder or group, or a qualified representative of the 

nominating shareholder or group, to attend the company’s shareholder meeting and nominate its 

director candidate(s) in person.339 One commenter explained that this requirement would be 

consistent with state law requirements for nominations and many companies’ advance notice 

bylaws.340 Another commenter suggested that, as required under Rule 14a-8(h)(3) for 

shareholder proposals, if the nominating shareholder or group (or its qualified representative) 

fails, without good cause, to appear and nominate the candidate, the company should be 

permitted to exclude from its proxy materials for the following two years all nominees submitted 

by that nominating shareholder or members of the nominating group.341 

We have decided not to include a requirement that the nominating shareholder or 

qualified representative appear at the meeting and present the nominee because we believe that 

339 See letters from ABA; BRT. 

340 See letter from ABA. 

341 See letter from BRT. 

120
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholders will have sufficient incentive to take steps to assure that their nominees are voted 

on at the meeting, whether through attending the meeting or sending a qualified representative, 

or through other arrangements with the company, and we do not want to add unnecessary 

complexities and burdens to the rule. We note that state law will control what happens if a 

candidate is not nominated at the meeting because the person supporting the candidate does not 

attend the meeting or make other arrangements.342 

g. No limit on resubmission 

Under the Proposal, a nominating shareholder’s or group’s ability to use Rule 14a-11 

would not be impacted by prior unsuccessful use of the rule. In response to our request for 

comment, a number of commenters supported a provision that would render a nominating 

shareholder or group ineligible to use Rule 14a-11 for a period of time (e.g., one, two, or three 

years) if the nominating shareholder or group presented a nominee who failed to receive 

significant shareholder support in a previous election (e.g., 10%, 15%, 25%, or 30%).343 One 

commenter indicated that this resubmission threshold would have a dual purpose: (i) when the 

nominee failed to garner significant support from shareholders, it would be inappropriate to 

342	 While state statutes are largely silent on the subject of presentation of nominations, motions or other 

business at meetings of shareholders, the chairman of the meeting typically has broad discretionary 

authority over its conduct (see, e.g., Model Business Corporation Act § 7.08(b)). As we understand, it is 

prevailing practice for the chairman to invite nominations of directors from the meeting floor. See David 

A. Drexler, et al., Delaware Corporation Law and Practice, ¶ 24.05[3] (2009 supp.); Carroll R. Wetzel, 

Conduct of a Stockholders’ Meeting, 22 BUS. LAW. 303, 313-314 (1967); American Bar Association 

Corporate Laws Committee and Corporate Governance Committee, Business Law Section, Handbook for 

the Conduct of Shareholders’ Meetings (2d ed. 2010) at 151. 

343	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; ADP; Advance Auto Parts; Aetna; Alcoa; 

AllianceBernstein; Anadarko; Applied Materials; Avis Budget; Boeing; BorgWarner; BRT; Burlington 

Northern; Caterpillar; Chevron; CIGNA; Cleary; Comcast; CSX; Darden Restaurants; Deere; Dewey; DTE 

Energy; Dupont; Eaton; FedEx; Florida State Board of Administration; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; General 

Mills; Headwaters; Intel; ITT; JPMorgan Chase; Kirkland & Ellis; E.J. Kullman; Leggett; P. Neuhauser; 

Northrop; PepsiCo; Pfizer; Protective; RiskMetrics; Sara Lee; Seven Law Firms; SIFMA; Society of 

Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; T. Rowe Price; tw telecom; U.S. Bancorp; Wells Fargo; 

Weyerhaeuser; Whirlpool; Xerox. 

121
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

require the company to expend resources repeatedly to include the unsuccessful nominee;344 and 

(ii) other shareholders would have an opportunity to submit their own nominations.345 On the 

other hand, some commenters opposed a provision that would render a nominating shareholder 

or group ineligible to use Rule 14a-11 for a period of time if the nominating shareholder or group 

presented a nominee who failed to receive a specified percentage of shareholder votes at a 

previous election.346 One commenter pointed out that management nominees are not subject to 

similar limits.347 After consideration of the comments we do not believe it is necessary or 

appropriate to include a limitation on use of Rule 14a-11 by nominating shareholders or groups 

that have previously used the rule. We continue to believe that such a limitation would not 

facilitate shareholders’ traditional state law rights and would add unnecessary complexity to the 

rule’s operation. 

5. Nominee Eligibility under Exchange Act Rule 14a-11 

a. Consistent with applicable law and regulation 

Under the Proposal, a company would have been able to exclude a nominee where the 

nominee’s candidacy or, if elected, board membership would violate controlling state law, 

federal law, or rules of a national securities exchange or national securities association (other 

than rules of a national securities exchange or national securities association that set forth 

requirements regarding the independence of directors, which the rule addresses separately) and 

344 See discussion in Section II.B.5.e. below with regard to resubmission of unsuccessful shareholder 

nominees. 

345 See letter from Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

346 See letters from CII; Norges Bank; Solutions; USPE; Walden. 

347 See letter from CII. 

122
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

such violation could not be cured.348 

Commenters generally supported this requirement.349 These commenters suggested that 

the rule require the nominating shareholder or group to provide any information necessary to 

ensure compliance with these laws or regulations. Some of these commenters noted that there 

are various federal and state laws that govern or affect the ability of a person to serve as a 

director, such as the Federal Power Act and related FERC regulations, federal maritime laws and 

regulations, Department of Defense security clearance requirements, Department of State export 

licensing requirements, bank holding company laws, FCC licensing requirements, state gaming 

licensing requirements, Federal Reserve regulations, FDIC regulations, U.S. government 

procurement regulations, Section 8 of the Clayton Act, Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and 

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.350 One commenter, for example, explained that 

banking laws and regulations impose their own eligibility standards for directors.351 One 

commenter stated more generally that it does not oppose the proposed requirement that a 

company would not have to include a shareholder nominee in its proxy materials if the 

nominee’s candidacy or election would violate federal law or state law and such violation could 

not be cured.352 It noted, however, that “there is not a lot of law” that disqualifies a person from 

serving as a director and described concerns about state law barriers as a “red herring.” 

348	 In the Proposing Release, we described an exception from the provision if the violation could be cured. We 

inadvertently did not include language for this provision in the proposed regulatory text. 

349	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; American Bankers Association; Association of Corporate 

Counsel; BRT; Dewey; Emerson Electric; Financial Services Roundtable; GE; Intel; JPMorgan Chase; 

O’Melveny & Myers; Protective; Sidley Austin; Tenet; Xerox. 

350	 See letters from American Bankers Association; BRT; Emerson Electric; GE; O’Melveny & Myers; Sidley 

Austin; Tenet. 

351	 See letter from American Bankers Association. 

352	 See letter from CII. 

123
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, one commenter stated that a company should not be allowed to 

exclude a shareholder nominee from its proxy materials because the election of the nominee 

would result in the violation of state law or federal law.353 The commenter explained that 

allowing such exclusion “would make it prohibitively expensive for most shareowners to submit 

nominations under the proposed rule. It would lead to many shareowner nominees being 

disqualified based on technicalities or invented legal theories.” 

After considering the comments, we continue to believe that Rule 14a-11 should address 

federal law, state law, and applicable exchange requirements (other than the requirements related 

to objective independence standards, which are addressed separately under the rule). Requiring 

compliance with basic legal requirements regarding nominees should encourage nominating 

shareholders to bring forward candidates that may be more likely to be able to be elected and 

serve as directors, and should reduce disruption and expense for companies of opposing a 

candidate who could not serve on the board if elected because their service would violate law.354 

Thus, under Rule 14a-11, a nominee will not be eligible to be included in a company’s proxy 

materials if the nominee’s candidacy, or if elected, board membership will violate federal law, 

state law, or applicable exchange requirements, if any,355 other than those related to independence 

standards, and such violation could not be cured during the time period provided in the rule.356 

353	 See letter from USPE. 

354	 We note that this condition would not disqualify a nominee unless the violation could not be cured during 

the time period in which a nominating shareholder or group has to respond to a company’s notice of 

deficiency. 

355	 We are not aware of other exchange requirements related to director qualifications, but should an exchange 

adopt new requirements, this provision would apply. 

356	 As discussed in Section II.B.9.b., a company that intends to exclude a shareholder nominee or nominees 

will be required to notify the nominating shareholder or group of the basis on which the company plans to 

exclude the nominee or nominees and the nominating shareholder or group will have 14 calendar days to 

cure the deficiency (where curable). 

124
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. Independence requirements and other director qualifications 

Under the Proposal, the nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating 

shareholder group would have been required to provide a representation that the shareholder 

nominee meets the objective criteria for “independence” of the national securities exchange or 

national securities association rules applicable to the company, if any, or, in the case of a 

registrant that is an investment company, a representation that the nominee is not an “interested 

person” of the registrant, as defined in Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act.357 For 

registrants other than investment companies, the representation would not have been required in 

instances where a company is not subject to the requirements of a national securities exchange or 

a national securities association. We also noted that exchange rules regarding director 

independence generally include some standards that depend on an objective determination of 

facts and other standards that depend on subjective determinations.358 Under our Proposal, the 

representation would not cover subjective determinations. Also, the representation would not 

cover additional independence or director qualification requirements imposed by a board on its 

357	 Pursuant to proposed Rule 14a-18(c), a nominating shareholder or group would include a representation in 

its notice to the company that the nominee satisfies the existing independence or “interested person” 

standards. 

358	 See proposed Rule 14a-18(c) and the Instruction to paragraph (c). For example, the NYSE listing standards 

include both subjective and objective components in defining an “independent director.” As an example of 

a subjective determination, Section 303A.02(a) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual provides that no 

director will qualify as “independent” unless the board of directors “affirmatively determines that the 

director has no material relationship with the listed company (either directly or as a partner, shareholder or 

officer of an organization that has a relationship with the company).” On the other hand, Section 

303A.02(b) provides that a director is not independent if he or she has any of several specified relationships 

with the company that can be determined by a “bright-line” objective test. For example, a director is not 

independent if “the director has received, or has an immediate family member who has received, during 

any twelve-month period within the last three years, more than $120,000 in direct compensation from the 

listed company, other than director and committee fees and pension or other forms of deferred 

compensation for prior service (provided such compensation is not contingent in any way on continued 

service).” Similar to the NYSE rules, the NASDAQ Listing Rules require a company’s board to make an 

affirmative determination that individuals serving as independent directors do not have a relationship with 

the company that would impair their independence. The NASDAQ rules include certain objective criteria, 

similar to those provided in NYSE Section 303A.02(b), for making such a determination. See NASDAQ 

Rule 5605(a)(2) and IM-5605. 

125
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

independent members, although we requested comment on whether it should. 

Commenters generally supported the requirement regarding the objective independence 

standards.359 Institutional and other investors agreed that nominating shareholders should not be 

required to represent that nominees satisfy the subjective independence standards of the relevant 

exchange or national securities association, and also agreed that they should not be subject to any 

director independence or qualification standards set by the board or the nominating committee.360 

One of these commenters expressed agreement with the Proposal that where a company is not 

subject to the independence standards of an exchange or national securities association, the 

nominating shareholder or group should not be required to provide disclosure concerning 

whether nominees would be independent.361 To the extent that a company has independence 

standards that are more stringent than those of an exchange, then the commenter would not 

oppose the application of those standards to the shareholder nominee as long as the standards are 

objective. Two commenters expressed the view that the Section 2(a)(19) test is more appropriate 

for investment company directors than the independence standard applied to non-investment 

company directors,362 with one noting that the Section 2(a)(19) test is tailored to the types of 

359	 See letters from ABA; ACSI; Advance Auto Parts; Aetna; Alaska Air; Alcoa; Anadarko; Avis Budget; 

Biogen; The Board Institute (“Board Institute”); BorgWarner; BRT; Burlington Northern; Callaway; 

CalSTRS; Caterpillar; CIGNA; Cleary; Comcast; Con Edison; CII; COPERA; CSX; Cummins; Darden 

Restaurants; Deere; Dewey; DTE Energy; Eaton; Edison Electric Institute; Einstein Noah Restaurant 

Group, Inc. (“Einstein Noah”); Emerson Electric; ExxonMobil; FedEx; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; General 

Mills; A. Goolsby; Headwaters; Home Depot; Honeywell; Horizon Lines, Inc. (“Horizon”); C. Horner; 

IBM; Intel; JPMorgan Chase; Keating Muething; E.J. Kullman; LUCRF; McDonald’s; Merchants 

Terminal; Metlife; P. Neuhauser; Norfolk Southern; Northrop; Office Depot; O’Melveny & Myers; P&G; 

PepsiCo; Pfizer; Protective; S&C; Seven Law Firms; Sidley Austin; SIFMA; Society of Corporate 

Secretaries; Southern Company; Tenet; Tesoro; Theragenics; TI; TIAA-CREF; Tompkins; tw telecom; 

UnitedHealth; U.S. Bancorp; ValueAct Capital; Verizon; Wells Fargo; Weyerhaeuser. 

360	 See letters from ACSI; CalSTRS; CII; COPERA; LUCRF; P. Neuhauser; TIAA-CREF; ValueAct Capital. 

361	 See letter from CII. 

362	 See letters from ABA II; ICI. 

126
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

conflicts of interest faced by investment company directors and that the Section 2(a)(19) 

provision is critical given that investment companies must have a specified percentage of 

independent directors to be able to comply with certain statutory and regulatory requirements.363 

A significant number of commenters from the corporate community stated generally that 

shareholder nominees should satisfy not just the objective director independence standards of the 

relevant exchange or national securities associations, but all of the company’s director 

qualifications and independence standards (including, if applicable, more stringent objective 

independence standards imposed by the board, subjective director independence standards, 

director qualification standards, board service guidelines, and code of conduct in the company’s 

governance principles and committee charters) applicable to all directors and director 

nominees.364 Many commenters warned that exempting shareholder nominees from a company’s 

director independence and qualification standards could cause the company to be exposed to 

legal issues, lower the quality and diversity of the board, and create difficulties in recruiting 

qualified directors.365 Other commenters also believed that exempting shareholder nominees 

from the subjective director independence standards of the relevant exchange or national 

securities association would put companies at risk of noncompliance with the exchange’s or 

association’s rules regarding independent directors, burden the remaining independent directors 

363	 See letter from ICI. One commenter stated that the application of the “interested person” standard of 

Section 2(a)(19) is unnecessary. See letter from Norges Bank. 

364	 See letters from ABA; Advance Auto Parts; Aetna; Alaska Air; Alcoa; Anadarko; Avis Budget; Biogen; 

Board Institute; BorgWarner; BRT; Burlington Northern; Callaway; Caterpillar; CIGNA; Cleary; Comcast; 

Con Edison; CSX; Cummins; Darden Restaurants; Deere; Dewey; DTE Energy; Eaton; Edison Electric 

Institute; Einstein Noah; Emerson Electric; ExxonMobil; FedEx; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; General Mills; 

A. Goolsby; Headwaters; Home Depot; Honeywell; Horizon; C. Horner; IBM; Intel; JPMorgan Chase; 

Keating Muething; E.J. Kullman; McDonald’s; Merchants Terminal; Metlife; Norfolk Southern; Northrop; 

Office Depot; O’Melveny & Myers; P&G; PepsiCo; Pfizer; Protective; S&C; Seven Law Firms; Sidley 

Austin; SIFMA; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; Tenet; Tesoro; Theragenics; TI; 

Tompkins; tw telecom; UnitedHealth; U.S. Bancorp; Verizon; Wells Fargo; Weyerhaeuser. 

365	 See letters from Board Institute; BRT; Con Edison; C. Horner; TI; Verizon. 

127
 
 

 

 

 

with additional duties by forcing them to serve on more board committees, make it more difficult 

for companies to recruit the independent directors needed for the board committees, and force 

companies to increase the size of the board and conduct additional searches for directors 

qualifying as independent.366 

After carefully considering the comments, we are adopting the requirement largely as 

proposed. We believe that the Rule 14a-11 process should be limited to nominations of board 

candidates who meet any objective independence standards of the relevant securities exchange. 

While we understand the concerns expressed by many commenters from the corporate 

community, particularly with respect to the risk of noncompliance with listing standards, we 

continue to believe that the rule should not extend to subjective independence standards. We 

note that Rule 14a-11 only addresses when a company must include a nominee in its proxy 

materials – it does not preclude a nominee from ultimately being subject to any subjective 

determination of independence for board committee positions. We believe the concerns 

regarding independent directors being forced to take on additional duties, companies needing to 

increase the size of the board or conducting additional searches for independent directors are best 

addressed through disclosure. A company could include disclosure in its proxy materials 

advising shareholders that the shareholder nominee would not meet the company’s subjective 

criteria, as appropriate. This would provide shareholders with the opportunity to make an 

informed choice with regard to the candidates for director. 

We believe that it is in both the company’s and shareholders’ interest for the company to 

continue to meet any applicable listing standards, and requiring that Rule 14a-11 nominees meet 

the objective independence standards will further that interest. It also should help reduce 

See letters from Metlife; O’Melveny & Myers; Seven Law Firms; Wells Fargo. 

128
 

366 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

disruption and expense for companies opposing a candidate it believes would cause it to violate 

applicable listing standards. To clarify that this is an affirmative requirement for Rule 14a-11 

nominees, we have revised the rule to include this provision as an eligibility requirement rather 

than a representation.367 

A nominating shareholder or group also will be required to provide a statement in 

Schedule 14N that the nominee or nominees meets the objective independence standards of the 

applicable exchange rules.368 For this purpose, the nominee would be required to meet the 

definition of “independent” that is applicable to directors of the company generally and not any 

particular definition of independence applicable to members of the audit committee of the 

company’s board of directors.369 To the extent a rule imposes a standard regarding independence 

that requires a subjective determination by the board or a group or committee of the board (for 

example, requiring that the board of directors or any group or committee of the board of directors 

make a determination that the nominee has no material relationship with the listed company), 

this element of an independence standard would not have to be satisfied.370 Where a company 

(other than an investment company) is not subject to the standards of a national securities 

exchange or national securities association, the requirement would not apply. 

While we acknowledge commenters’ concerns about nominees not being subject to 

367 See Rule 14a-11(b)(9).
 

368 See Item 5(f) of new Schedule 14N.
 

369 See new instruction to paragraph (b)(9) in Rule 14a-11. 

370 The rule addresses only the requirements under Rule 14a-11 to be included in a company’s proxy materials 

– it would not preclude a nominee from ultimately being subject to the subjective determination test of 

independence for board committee positions. A company could include disclosure in its proxy materials 

advising shareholders that the shareholder nominee for director would not meet the company’s subjective 

criteria, as appropriate. If a shareholder nominee is elected and the board determines that the nominee is 

not independent, the board member presumably would be included in the group of non-independent 

directors for purposes of applicable listing standards. 

129
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

subjective independence requirements, we believe that including such requirements would create 

undue uncertainty for shareholders seeking to nominate directors and make it difficult to evaluate 

the board’s conclusion regarding independence. In addition, if a board believes a nominee would 

not be considered independent under its subjective independence evaluation, it could describe its 

reasons for that view in its proxy statement. In this regard, we note that in a traditional proxy 

contest an insurgent’s nominee or nominees do not have to comply with any requirements, 

including the independence requirements applicable to the company.371 We also agree with the 

commenter who noted that the “interested person” test under Section 2(a)(19) is tailored to the 

types of conflicts of interest faced by investment company directors and that the Section 2(a)(19) 

provision is critical given that investment companies must have a specified percentage of 

independent directors to be able to comply with certain statutory and regulatory requirements.372 

Accordingly, under the final rule, a company will be required to include a shareholder nominee 

in its proxy materials if the shareholder nominee meets the objective criteria for “independence” 

of the national securities exchange or national securities association rules applicable to the 

company, if any, or, in the case of a company that is an investment company, the nominee is not 

an “interested person” of the registrant, as defined in Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment 

Company Act.373 

As noted above, we did not propose to require a shareholder nominee submitted pursuant 

371 If a shareholder nominee did not meet the independence requirements of a listed market, that listed market 

may provide for a cure period during which time the company may resolve this deficiency. See, e.g., 

NASDAQ Rule 5810(c)(3)(E) (“If a Company fails to meet the majority board independence requirement 

in Rule 5605(b)(1) due to one vacancy, or because one director ceases to be independent for reasons 

beyond his/her reasonable control, the Listing Qualifications Department will promptly notify the Company 

and inform it has until the earlier of its next annual shareholders meeting or one year from the event that 

caused the deficiency to cure the deficiency.”). 

372 See letter from ICI. 

373 See new Rule 14a-11(b)(9). 

130
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to Rule 14a-11 to be subject to the company’s director qualification standards. With regard to 

these standards, we believe that a nominee’s compliance with a company’s director 

qualifications is best addressed through disclosure. Under state law, shareholders generally are 

free to nominate and elect any person to the board of directors, regardless of whether the 

candidate satisfies a company’s qualification requirement at the time of nomination and 

election.374 Many commenters recommended a requirement that the shareholder nominee 

complete the company’s standard director questionnaire or otherwise provide information 

required of other nominees.375 While we do not believe nominees submitted pursuant to Rule 

14a-11 should be required to complete a company’s director questionnaire, we are persuaded that 

information should be provided regarding whether the nominee meets the company’s director 

qualifications, if any. Accordingly, although we have not revised the rule to allow exclusion of 

nominees who do not meet any director qualification requirements, we have adopted a 

requirement that a nominating shareholder or group disclose under Item 5 of Schedule 14N 

whether, to the best of their knowledge, the nominating shareholder’s or group’s nominee meets 

the company’s director qualifications, if any, as set forth in the company’s governing 

documents.376 The company also may choose to provide disclosure in its proxy statement about 

whether it believes a nominee satisfies the company’s director qualifications, as is currently done 

in a traditional proxy contest. Where a company’s governing documents establish certain 

374	 See, e.g., Triplex Shoe Co. v. Rice & Hutchins, Inc., 152 A. 342, 375 (Del. 1930). See also 1-13 David A. 

Drexler et al., Delaware Corporation Law and Practice §13.01 n. 42 (citing Triplex for the proposition that 

“a bylaw requiring a director to be a stockholder required a director to own stock prior to entering into the 

office of director, not prior to election”). 

375	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; Advance Auto Parts; Alaska Air; Anadarko; Aetna; American 

Express; Association of Corporate Counsel; BorgWarner; BRT; Callaway; Caterpillar; Dewey; DTE 

Energy; Dupont; Emerson Electric; eWareness; ExxonMobil; Financial Services Roundtable; IBM; ICI; 

McDonald’s; O’Melveny & Myers; PepsiCo; Praxair; Seven Law Firms; Society of Corporate Secretaries; 

Theragenics; UnitedHealth; U.S. Bancorp; Xerox. 

376	 See Item 5(e) of new Schedule 14N. 

131
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

qualifications for director nominees that, consistent with state law, would preclude the company 

from seating a director who does not meet these qualifications, we believe this would be 

important disclosure for shareholders. 

c. Agreements with the company 

As discussed above with regard to the eligibility requirements for a nominating 

shareholder or group, we recognize that certain limitations of the rule create the potential risk of 

nominating shareholders or groups acting merely as a surrogate for the company or its 

management in order to block usage of the rule by another nominating shareholder or group.377 

Under the Proposal as it relates to nominee eligibility, a nominating shareholder or group would 

have been required to represent that no agreements between the nominee and the company and 

its management exist regarding the nomination of the nominee.378 The Proposal included an 

instruction clarifying that negotiations between a nominating shareholder or group, nominee, and 

nominating committee or board of a company to have the nominee included in the company’s 

proxy materials, where the negotiations were unsuccessful or were limited to whether the 

company was required to include the nominee in accordance with Rule 14a-11, would not 

represent a direct or indirect agreement with the company.379 

Commenters generally supported this proposed requirement.380 Most of the comments 

addressed negotiations or agreements between the nominating shareholder or group and the 

377	 See the discussion in Section II.B.4.e. above regarding relationships or agreements between the nominating 

shareholder or group and the company and its management. 

378	 In this regard, we also proposed to require a nominating shareholder or group to represent that no 

relationships or agreements between the nominee and the company and its management exist. This aspect 

of the rule is discussed in Section II.B.5.d. below. 

379	 See instruction to proposed Rule 14a-18(d). 

380	 See letters from ADP; BRT; Calvert; CFA Institute; CII; Seven Law Firms; TIAA-CREF; USPE. 

132
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

company rather than the relationship or agreements between a nominee and the company.381 

Consistent with our approach to agreements with nominating shareholders, we are 

adopting the requirement that there not be any agreements between the nominee and the 

company and its management regarding the nomination of the nominee largely as proposed. In 

this regard, we believe it would undermine the purpose of the rule to allow nominees under Rule 

14a-11 to have such agreements with the company because of the potential risk of a nominating 

shareholder or group acting merely as a surrogate for a company. In order to clarify that this is 

an affirmative requirement of Rule 14a-11, we have revised the rule to make clear that this is an 

eligibility condition by listing it as a condition in the rule, rather than only in a representation 

required in Schedule 14N. 

d. Relationship between the nominating shareholder or group 

and the nominee 

We did not propose a requirement that the nominee must be independent or unaffiliated 

with the nominating shareholder or group, but we requested comment on whether we should 

include such a requirement.382 A large number of commenters supported generally an 

independence requirement that would limit some or all relationships between the nominating 

shareholder or group and its nominee.383 Commenters explained that an independence 

requirement would reduce the risk that a successful shareholder nominee would represent only 

381	 See Section II.B.4.e. above for a further discussion of the comments. 

382	 The 2003 Proposal included such a requirement. For a discussion of this aspect of the 2003 Proposal and 

the comments received, see the Proposing Release. 

383	 See letters from ABA; Advance Auto Parts; Aetna; Alaska Air; Association of Corporate Counsel; Avis 

Budget; Biogen; Boeing; BorgWarner; Brink’s; BRT; Callaway; Caterpillar; CIGNA; Comcast; Cummins; 

Darden Restaurants; Deere; Dewey; Dupont; Eaton; Eli Lilly; ExxonMobil; FedEx; Financial Services 

Roundtable; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; General Mills; Headwaters; Honeywell; JPMorgan Chase; E.J. 

Kullman; Leggett; Norfolk Southern; Office Depot; O’Melveny & Myers; Pax World; Protective; Sara Lee; 

Seven Law Firms; SIFMA; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; Tenet; U.S. Bancorp; 

Vinson & Elkins LLP (“Vinson & Elkins”); Wells Fargo; Weyerhaeuser. 

133
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the nominating shareholder or group, avoid potential disruptions and divisiveness from having 

“special interest” directors, ameliorate the issue of preserving confidentiality within the 

boardroom and avoiding misuse of material non-public information, and lessen the likelihood 

that Rule 14a-11 would be used for change in control attempts.384 

With regard to the degree of independence needed and types of relationships that should 

be prohibited, numerous commenters recommended a prohibition on any affiliation between the 

nominating shareholder or group and the shareholder nominee.385 Some commenters 

recommended that Rule 14a-11 prohibit a shareholder nominee from being (1) a nominating 

shareholder, (2) a member of the immediate family of any nominating shareholder, or (3) a 

partner, officer, director or employee of a nominating shareholder or any of its affiliates.386 They 

noted that a similar limitation was included in the 2003 Proposal. Two commenters 

recommended that the Commission impose the same restrictions and disclosure requirements 

that were included in the 2003 Proposal.387 

One commenter noted the Commission’s assertion in the Proposing Release that “such 

limitations may not be appropriate or necessary” because, if elected, a director would be subject 

to state law fiduciary duties owed to the company.388 The commenter, however, expressed 

skepticism that fiduciary obligations would adequately resolve the issue of “special interest” 

384 See letters from ABA; Alaska Air; Eli Lilly; Leggett. 

385 See letters from Advance Auto Parts; Aetna; Association of Corporate Counsel; Avis Budget; Boeing; 

Brink’s; CIGNA; Cummins; Deere; Eaton; FedEx; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; General Mills; E.J. Kullman; 

Pax World; Protective; Sara Lee. 

386 See letters from Alaska Air; BorgWarner; Caterpillar; JPMorgan Chase; O’Melveny & Myers; Society of 

Corporate Secretaries. 

387 See letters from BRT; Intel. 

388 Letter from BRT. 

134
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

directors. One commenter would not require independence between the nominating shareholder 

or group and the nominee if the nominating shareholder or group could use Rule 14a-11 to 

nominate only one candidate; however, if the nominating shareholder or group is allowed to 

nominate more than one candidate using Rule 14a-11, then the commenter believed 

independence between the nominating shareholder or group and the nominees is needed.389 The 

commenter asserted that a lack of an independence requirement between multiple nominees and the 

nominating shareholder could give rise to control issues because the nominees, if elected, could be 

beholden to a single nominating shareholder or group. In addition, the commenter claimed that a 

lack of independence could give rise to “single issue” or “special interest” directors, thereby causing 

balkanization of boards. According to this commenter, if independence is not required, then 

Schedule 14N should require detailed disclosure about the nature of relationships between the 

nominating shareholder or group and the nominees.390 

A few commenters recommended requiring disclosure in the Schedule 14N of any direct 

or indirect relationships between the nominating shareholder or group and the nominee, 

including family or employment relationships, ownership interests, commercial relationships and 

any other arrangements or agreements.391 One commenter recommended that a nominating 

shareholder or group provide “[d]isclosure about any agreements or relationships with the Rule 

14a-11 nominee other than those relating to the nomination of the nominee.”392 

389 See letter from Seven Law Firms. 

390 Id. The recommended disclosures included: familial relationships with a nominating shareholder or group 

member; ownership interests (or other participation) in a nominating shareholder, group member, or 

affiliates; employment history with a nominating shareholder, group member, or affiliates; prior advisory, 

consulting or other compensatory relationships with a nominating shareholder, group member, or affiliates; 

and agreements with a nominating shareholder, group member, or affiliates (other than relating to the 

nomination). 

391 See letters from O’Melveny & Myers; SIFMA; UnitedHealth. See also letter from CII. 

392 Letter from IBM. 

135
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other commenters opposed generally any requirement that the nominating shareholder or 

group be independent from the shareholder nominee.393 Of these, some commenters 

recommended the Commission require full disclosure of any affiliations and business 

relationships instead of an outright prohibition.394 One commenter noted that no such restriction 

or prohibition applies to current director candidates, some of whom have various personal and 

professional links to the company and its executives.395 Another commenter noted that the NYSE 

recognized the issue of share ownership when crafting its director independence rules and 

determined that even significant share ownership should not be dispositive as to a determination 

of a director’s independence.396 Two commenters opposed a prohibition on any affiliation 

between the nominating shareholder and its nominee because they believed that fears regarding 

the election of “special interest” directors are unfounded or exaggerated, as any nominee would 

have to gain the support of a broad array of shareholders to be elected.397 One commenter 

asserted that existing fiduciary duties are an adequate safeguard against “special interest” 

directors.398 

We continue to believe that such limitations are not appropriate or necessary. Rather, we 

believe that Rule 14a-11 should facilitate the exercise of shareholders’ traditional state law rights 

and afford a shareholder or group meeting the requirements of the rule the ability to propose a 

393 See letters from Amalgamated Bank; CalSTRS; CFA Institute; CII; COPERA; Nathan Cummings 

Foundation; P. Neuhauser; Norges Bank; Pershing Square; Relational; RiskMetrics; Solutions by Design 

(“Solutions”); TIAA-CREF; USPE; B. Villiarmois. 

394 See letters from CFA Institute; CII; COPERA; P. Neuhauser; Pershing Square; Relational; USPE; B. 

Villiarmois. 

395 See letter from CII. 

396 See letter from Relational. 

397 See letters from CII; Nathan Cummings Foundation. 

398 See letter from TIAA-CREF. 

136
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nominee for director that, in the nominating shareholder’s view, better represents the interests of 

shareholders than those put forward by the nominating committee or board. We note that once a 

nominee is elected to the board of directors, that director will be subject to state law fiduciary 

duties and owe the same duty to the corporation as any other director on the board.399 To the 

extent a company board is concerned that a director nominee will not represent the views of 

shareholders, the board could address those points in the company’s proxy materials opposing 

the candidate’s election. In addition, we believe the disclosure requirements about the 

relationships between a nominating shareholder or group and the nominee that we are adopting, 

combined with the fact that any nominee elected will be subject to fiduciary duties, should help 

address any “special interest” concerns. 

e. No limit on resubmission of shareholder director nominees 

Under the Proposal, an individual would not be limited in their ability to stand as a 

nominee under the rule based on prior unsuccessful nominations under the rule. A number of 

commenters supported a provision under which a shareholder nominee who failed to receive a 

specified threshold (e.g., 10%, 15%, 25%, or 30%) of support at a previous election would be 

ineligible to be nominated again pursuant to Rule 14a-11 for a specified period (e.g., one, two, or 

three years).400 One commenter reasoned that “[t]his would allow more shareholders to 

participate in the process and would motivate them to propose high quality candidates.”401 On 

the other hand, other commenters opposed a provision under which a shareholder nominee who 

399	 See E. Norman Veasey & Christine T. DiGuglielmo, How Many Masters Can a Director Serve? A Look at 

the Tensions Facing Constituency Directors, 63 BUS. LAW. 761 (2008). 

400	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; Aetna; Anadarko; BorgWarner; BRT; Burlington 

Northern; Caterpillar; Cummins; Dewey; Headwaters; JPMorgan Chase; Kirkland & Ellis; Leggett; P. 

Neuhauser; Northrop; PepsiCo; Pfizer; Protective; Sara Lee; SIFMA; Society of Corporate Secretaries; 

TIAA-CREF; T. Rowe Price; Xerox. 

401	 Letter from Northrop. 

137
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

failed to receive significant support at a previous election would be ineligible to be nominated 

again pursuant to Rule 14a-11 for a specified period.402 One commenter reasoned that “[s]imilar 

resubmission requirements aren’t applicable to management’s candidates, so they shouldn’t 

apply to candidates suggested by shareowners.”403 We agree with those commenters who 

opposed a provision that would limit the ability of a shareholder nominee to be nominated based 

on the level of support received in a prior election. We do not believe that such a limitation 

would facilitate shareholders’ traditional state law rights and would add undue complexity to the 

rule’s operation. 

6. Maximum Number of Shareholder Nominees to Be Included in 

Company Proxy Materials 

a.	 General 

Under the Proposal, a company would be required to include no more than one 

shareholder nominee or the number of nominees that represents 25% of the company’s board of 

directors, whichever is greater.404 Where the term of a director that was nominated pursuant to 

Rule 14a-11 continues past the meeting date, that director would continue to count for purposes 

of the 25% maximum. 

As noted in the Proposing Release, we do not intend for Rule 14a-11 to be available for 

any shareholder or group that is seeking to change the control of the company or to gain more 

402	 See letters from CII; Corporate Library; Dominican Sisters of Hope; First Affirmative Financial Network 

LLC (“First Affirmative”); Mercy Investment Program; Sisters of Mercy; Social Investment Forum; TriState Coalition; Trillium; Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk; USPE. 

403	 Letter from CII. 

404	 See proposed Rule 14a-11(d)(1). According to information from RiskMetrics, based on a sample of 1,431 

public companies, in 2007, the median board size was 9, with boards ranging in size from 4 to 23 members. 

Approximately 40% of the boards in the sample had 8 or fewer directors, approximately 60% had between 

9 and 19 directors, and less than 1% had 20 or more directors. 

138
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

than a limited number of seats on the board.405 The existing procedures regarding contested 

elections of directors are intended to continue to fulfill that purpose.406 We also noted that by 

allowing shareholder nominees to be included in a company’s proxy materials, part of the cost of 

the solicitation is essentially shifted from the individual shareholder or group to the company and 

thus, all of the shareholders.407 We do not believe that we should require that an election contest 

conducted by a shareholder to change the control of the company or to gain a number of seats on 

the board of directors that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that the registrant could be 

required to include under Rule 14a-11 be funded out of corporate assets. 

 Some commenters supported generally the proposed limit on the number of shareholder 

nominees.408 While agreeing that the Commission’s proposed limit on the number of shareholder 

nominees is needed to ensure a more measured approach towards inclusion of shareholder 

nominees in company proxy materials, one commenter supported the general principle that 

shareholders should be entitled to nominate as many directors as necessary to focus the board’s 

attention on optimizing company performance, profitability and sustainable returns.409 On the 

other hand, many commenters disagreed with the proposed limit or recommended different 

limits.410 Some commenters expressed a general concern that the proposed limit would affect a 

405	 The final rule clarifies the second part of this requirement by specifying that a nominating shareholder or 

group may not be seeking to gain a number of seats on the board of directors that exceeds the maximum 

number of nominees that the registrant could be required to include under Rule 14a-11. 

406	 See, e.g., Exchange Act Rule 14a-12(c). 

407	 In this regard, we anticipate that shareholders seeking election of nominees included in the company’s 

proxy materials may need to engage in solicitation efforts for which they will incur expenses. 

408	 See letters from CalPERS; CalSTRS; CFA Institute; ICGN; Nathan Cummings Foundation; P. Neuhauser; 

Norges Bank; Protective; RiskMetrics; TIAA-CREF; T. Rowe Price; WSIB. 

409	 See letter from CalPERS. 

410	 See letters from 13D Monitor; ABA; ACSI; Advance Auto Parts; Aetna; Alcoa; Allstate; American 

Express; Americans for Financial Reform; Association of Corporate Counsel; Avis Budget; Best Buy; J. 

139
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

significant portion of the board, disrupt the board, facilitate a change in control of the company, 

and possibly require companies to integrate numerous new directors into their boards each 

year.411 Other commenters wanted more shareholder nominees to be allowed because they feared 

that a single shareholder-nominated director would be ineffective due to the lack of a second for 

motions at board meetings, hostile board members, possible exclusion from key committees, and 

being effectively cut out of key discussions.412 Commenters’ suggestions as to the appropriate 

limitation on the number of shareholder nominees ranged from a limit of one shareholder 

nominee, regardless of the size of the board,413 to at least two nominees, but less than a majority 

of the board.

414 Other commenters recommended various limits ranging from 10% to 15% of the 

board.415 

Blanchard; Boeing; BorgWarner; BRT; Burlington Northern; R. Burt; Callaway; CalPERS; Caterpillar; 

CIGNA; CII; Cleary; CNH Global; Comcast; Concerned Shareholders; COPERA; Cummins; L. Dallas; 

Darden Restaurants; Deere; Dupont; Eaton; Eli Lilly; Dale C. Eshelman (“D. Eshelman”); ExxonMobil; 

FedEx; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; Frontier; GE; General Mills; Headwaters; C. Holliday; Honeywell; IBM; 

ICI; ITT; JPMorgan Chase; J. Kilts; E. J. Kullman; N. Lautenbach; Leggett; C. Levin; Lionbridge 

Technologies; LUCRF; McDonald’s; Motorola; Office Depot; O’Melveny & Myers; OPERS; P&G; 

Nathan Cummings Foundation; Northrop; Pax World; PepsiCo; Sara Lee; S&C; Schulte Roth & Zabel; 

Sherwin-Williams; Sidley Austin; SIFMA; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Solutions; SWIB; Teamsters; 

TI; G. Tooker; tw telecom; Universities Superannuation; U.S. Bancorp; Verizon; USPE; B. Villiarmois; 

Wachtell; Wells Fargo; Weyerhaeuser; WSIB. 

411	 See letters from BRT (citing a July 2009 survey showing many companies would have to integrate multiple 

new directors); CII; Eaton; N. Lautenbach; McDonald’s; Sherwin-Williams; Sidley Austin; Society of 

Corporate Secretaries; G. Tooker; WSIB. 

412	 See letters from CII; L. Dallas; C. Levin; Nathan Cummings Foundation; Universities Superannuation. 

413	 See letters from Advance Auto Parts; Avis Budget; BRT; Caterpillar; CIGNA; CNH Global; Comcast; 

Cummins; Darden Restaurants; Deere; Eaton; Eli Lilly; FedEx; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; Frontier; General 

Mills; ICI; ITT; E. J. Kullman; N. Lautenbach; Leggett; McDonald’s; Office Depot; O’Melveny & Myers; 

PepsiCo; Sherwin-Williams; TI; G. Tooker; tw telecom; Verizon; Wachtell; Weyerhaeuser. 

414	 See letters from ACSI; Americans for Financial Reform; CalPERS; CII (stating that while it supports the 

Commission’s proposed limit, shareholders should be allowed to nominate two candidates in all cases); 

COPERA; C. Levin; LUCRF; Nathan Cummings Foundation; SWIB; Teamsters. 

415	 See, e.g., Aetna; Association of Corporate Counsel; Barclays; J. Blanchard; BorgWarner; Dewey; 

ExxonMobil; Headwaters; Honeywell; Lionbridge Technologies; Northrop; Sidley Austin; Society of 

Corporate Secretaries; U.S. Bancorp. 

140
 
 

 

 

 

We carefully considered commenters’ concerns regarding the limitation on the number of 

Rule 14a-11 nominees; however, we are adopting the limitation largely as proposed. We believe 

the rule we are adopting strikes the appropriate balance in allowing shareholders to more 

effectively exercise their rights to nominate and elect directors, but does not provide nominating 

shareholders or groups using the rule with the ability to change control of the company. The 

limitation on the number of Rule 14a-11 nominees that a company is required to include should 

also limit costs and disruption as compared to a rule without such a limit. We also believe that a 

lower threshold, such as 10% or 15%, may result in only one shareholder-nominated director at 

many companies. In addition, we note that our rule only addresses the inclusion of nominees in 

the company’s proxy materials. After reviewing all of the disclosures provided by the company 

and the nominating shareholder or group, shareholders will be able to make an informed decision 

as to whether to vote for and elect a shareholder nominee. We believe that the modifications we 

are making to the rule, as described below, help to alleviate concerns that the election of 

shareholder nominees would unduly disrupt the board. As to concerns about the possibility that 

a single shareholder-nominated director would be ineffective due to actions of other members of 

the board, the rule is not intended to address the interactions of board members after the election 

of directors. In this respect, we note that any shareholder-nominated directors and boardnominated directors would be subject to fiduciary duties under state law. 

As adopted, Rule 14a-11(d) will not require a company to include more than one 

shareholder nominee or the number of nominees that represents 25% of the company’s board of 

directors, whichever is greater.416 Consistent with the Proposal, where a company has a director 

(or directors) currently serving on its board of directors who was elected as a shareholder 

See new Rule 14a-11(d)(1). 

141
 

416 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nominee pursuant to Rule 14a-11, and the term of that director extends past the date of the 

meeting of shareholders for which the company is soliciting proxies for the election of directors, 

the company will not be required to include in its proxy materials more shareholder nominees 

than could result in the total number of directors serving on the board that were elected as 

shareholder nominees being greater than one shareholder nominee or 25% of the company’s 

board of directors, whichever is greater.417 We believe this limitation is appropriate to reduce the 

possibility of a nominating shareholder or group using Rule 14a-11 as a means to gain a number 

of seats on the board of directors that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that the 

company could be required to include under Rule 14a-11 or to effect a change in control of the 

company by repeatedly nominating additional candidates for director. One commenter requested 

that we explain how Rule 14a-11 would apply to different board structures, and in particular, 

classified boards.418 In the case of a staggered board, the rule provides that the 25% limit will be 

calculated based on the total number of board seats,419 not the lesser number that are being voted 

on because it is the size of the full board, not the number up for election, that would be relevant 

for considering the effect on control. 

We note that in the 2003 Proposal, the Commission proposed to require companies to 

include a set number of nominees, rather than a percentage of the board.420 We believe that using 

417	 See new Rule 14a-11(d)(2). This requirement is adopted as it was proposed in Rule 14a-11(d)(2). 

Depending on board size, 25% of the board may not result in a whole number. In those instances, the 

maximum number of shareholder nominees for director that a registrant will be required to include in its 

proxy materials will be the closest whole number below 25%. See the Instruction to paragraph (d)(1). 

418	 See letter from ABA. 

419	 See Rule 14a-11(d)(2). 

420	 Comments on the 2003 Proposal provided a range of views regarding the appropriate number of 

shareholder nominees. Commenters that supported the use of a percentage, or combination of a set number 

and a percentage, to determine the number of shareholder nominees suggested percentages ranging from 

20% to 35%. See Comment File No. S7-19-03, available at 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s71903.shtml. 

142
 
 

 

 

 

 

a percentage in the rule will promote ease of use and alleviate any concerns that a company may 

increase its board size in an effort to reduce the effect of a shareholder nominee elected to the 

board. 

We understand the concerns addressed by some commenters that this limitation could 

result in shareholder-nominated directors being less influential,421 as well as the concerns of other 

commenters that the possibility of 25% of the board changing through the Rule 14a-11 process 

could present significant changes to the board.422 For the reasons discussed above, we believe the 

limitation as adopted strikes an appropriate balance and is an appropriate safeguard to assure that 

the Rule 14a-11 process is not used as a means to effect a change in control. 

Though we are adopting this requirement largely as proposed, we have added certain 

clarifications, which are described below, to address situations at companies where shareholders 

are able to elect only a subset of the board, revised the standard for determining which 

nominating shareholder or group will have their nominee or nominees included in the company’s 

proxy materials where there is more than one eligible nominating shareholder or group, and 

made other modifications designed to facilitate negotiations between companies and nominating 

shareholders. 

b. Different voting rights with regard to election of directors 

Several commenters responded to the Commission’s request for comment about how to 

calculate the maximum number of candidates a nominating shareholder or group could nominate 

under Rule 14a-11 when certain directors are not elected by all shareholders. Some commenters 

421 See letters from CII; L. Dallas; C. Levin; Nathan Cummins Foundation; Universities Superannuation. 

422 See letters from BRT (citing a July 2009 survey showing many companies would have to integrate multiple 

new directors); CII; Eaton; N. Lautenbach; McDonald’s; Sherwin-Williams; Sidley Austin; Society of 

Corporate Secretaries; G. Tooker; WSIB. 

143
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

noted that controlled companies are commonly structured with dual classes of stock which allow 

shareholders of the non-controlling class of stock to elect a set number of directors that is less 

than the full board.423 

In the context of a company where shareholders are only entitled to elect a subset of the 

total number of directors, the rule as proposed potentially would have allowed shareholders to 

nominate more candidates than may be elected by the nominating shareholders. Two 

commenters argued that Rule 14a-11 should be modified so that the maximum number of 

shareholder nominees is based on the number of directors that may be elected by the class of 

securities held by the shareholders making the nomination, as opposed to the number of total 

directors.424 Another commenter urged us to revise Rule 14a-11 so that it would be limited to a 

percentage of the number of directors that are elected by the public shareholders (rather than a 

percentage of all directors) and would not apply to directors that are elected by shareholders of a 

class of stock having a right to nominate and elect a specified number or percentage of directors, 

or preferred shareholders having such right as a result of the company’s failure to pay 

dividends.425 Another commenter argued that, as proposed, Rule 14a-11 would not allow 

companies with multiple classes of voting shares the ability to make choices about how to best 

implement access to the company’s proxy to fit their capital structure.426 One commenter 

suggested that Rule 14a-11 address how it would apply to companies with multiple classes of 

stock to prevent shareholders from using the rule to change control of the class of directors those 

423 See letters from ABA; Duane Morris; Media General; New York Times. 

424 See letters from Media General; New York Times. 

425 See letter from Sidley Austin. 

426 See letter from BRT. 

144
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholders have the right to elect.427 Other commenters, by contrast, believed that the 

maximum number of nominees that companies should be required to include should be based on 

the total number of director seats, regardless of whether a class of shares only gets to elect a 

subset of the board.428 

We also sought comment on how to calculate the maximum number of nominees where 

the company is contractually obligated to permit a certain shareholder or group to elect a set 

number of directors to the board. Commenters’ views differed on how to calculate the maximum 

number of nominees a shareholder or shareholder group may nominate in that case. Some 

commenters believed that the maximum number of nominees should be based on the total board 

size, regardless of whether a company has granted rights to nominate.429 One such commenter 

noted that if Rule 14a-11 contained an exception for board seats subject to contractual rights, 

companies would have an incentive to enter into contractual agreements in order to evade its 

application.430 Other commenters, however, asserted that the maximum number of nominees that 

shareholders should be permitted to nominate under Rule 14a-11 should be limited to 25% of the 

“free” seats on the board – that is, only those board seats that are not subject to a contractual 

nomination right that existed as of the date of the submission and filing of a Schedule 14N.431 

These commenters suggested taking board seats subject to contractual nomination rights “off the 

table” and basing the 25% calculation on the number of nominees that the nominating committee 

is free to name. One such commenter remarked that unless board seats subject to contractual 

427 See letter from Media General. 

428 See letters from CII; P. Neuhauser. 

429 Id. 

430 See letter from P. Neuhauser. 

431 See letters from Seven Law Firms; Sidley Austin; ValueAct Capital. 

145
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nomination rights are excluded, companies may be limited in their ability to offer contractual 

nominating rights to shareholders without running a heightened risk of change of control, which 

could result in increased costs of capital and a decrease in the number of strategic alternatives.432 

We believe that the maximum number of candidates a shareholder can nominate using 

Rule 14a-11 at companies with multiple classes of stock should be based on the total board size, 

as is the case at other companies. Thus, we are adopting this requirement as proposed. We 

believe the changes we are adopting with regard to calculating ownership and voting power, as 

discussed above, should address concerns about the possibility that the rule could be used to 

change control of the company or to affect the rights of shareholders as established by a 

particular company’s capital structure.433 Where shareholders have the right to elect a subset of 

the full board, however, we believe it is appropriate to provide that the maximum number of 

nominees a company may be required to include under Rule 14a-11 may not exceed the number 

of director seats the class of shares held by the nominating shareholder is entitled to elect.434 We 

believe the right to nominate is an integral part of the right to elect, therefore we are linking the 

ability under Rule 14a-11 for a shareholder to nominate directors to instances in which the 

shareholder can elect directors. Limiting the number of nominations to the number of director 

seats the class of shares held by the nominating shareholder is entitled to elect presumably would 

allow to be fully expressed the views of the shareholder about who should sit in the director seats 

in respect of which the shareholder has nomination rights. 

The shareholder nomination provisions in Rule 14a-11 are available only for holders of 

432 See letter from Seven Law Firms. 

433 See Section II.B.4.b. above. 

434 See new Rule 14a-11(d)(3). 

146
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

classes of securities that are subject to the Exchange Act proxy rules, provided that a company is 

otherwise subject to the rule. If a company subject to Rule 14a-11 has multiple classes of 

eligible securities, however, the maximum number of candidates a shareholder can nominate will 

be determined based on the number of director seats the class of shares held by the nominating 

shareholder is entitled to elect.435 

c. Inclusion of shareholder nominees in company proxy materials 

as company nominees 

As discussed in Section II.B.4.e. above, commenters expressed concern that the rule, as 

proposed, might discourage constructive dialogue between shareholders and companies.436 These 

commenters noted that companies would be discouraged from discussing potential board 

candidates with shareholders planning to use Rule 14a-11 and including them as management 

nominees because such nominees would not reduce the maximum number of shareholder 

nominees that the company would be required to include under Rule 14a-11. Subject to certain 

safeguards, we believe our rule should not discourage dialogue between nominating shareholders 

and companies and agree that the rule, as proposed, could have the effect of discouraging 

constructive dialogue if shareholder nominees nominated by a company as a result of that 

dialogue do not count toward the maximum number of shareholder nominees a company is 

required to include in its proxy materials. Consequently, under our final rule, where a company 

negotiates with the nominating shareholder or group that has filed a Schedule 14N before 

beginning any discussion with the company about the nomination and that otherwise would be 

eligible to have its nominees included in the company’s proxy materials, and the company agrees 

to include the nominating shareholder’s or group’s nominees on the company’s proxy card as 

435 See new Rule 14a-11(d)(3). 

436 See letters from BRT; Seven Law Firms; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

147
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

company nominees, those nominees will count toward the 25% maximum set forth in the rule.437 

As noted, this would only apply where the nominating shareholder or group has filed its notice 

on Schedule 14N before beginning discussions with the company. Although this limitation may 

reduce somewhat the utility of this provision, we believe limiting the treatment to situations in 

which the nominating shareholder or group has filed a Schedule 14N will reduce the possibility 

that this exception is used by a company to avoid having to include shareholder director 

nominees submitted by shareholders or groups of shareholders that are not affiliated with or not 

working on behalf of the company. 

In the Proposing Release, we requested comment as to whether it would be appropriate 

for the rule to take into account incumbent directors who were nominated pursuant to Rule 14a11 for purposes of determining the maximum number of shareholder nominees, or whether there 

should be a different means to account for such incumbent directors. One commenter argued 

that incumbent Rule 14a-11 directors should not count towards the 25% limit.438 It reasoned that, 

once elected, the Rule 14a-11 director represents all shareholders and that future use of 

Rule 14a-11 by other shareholders should not be restricted. A number of commenters stated that 

incumbent Rule 14a-11 directors should count towards the maximum number of shareholder 

nominees allowed under the rule,439 with some suggesting that this should be the case in limited 

circumstances, such as when a Rule 14a-11 director is re-nominated by the board or as long as 

437 See new Rule 14a-11(d)(4). In this regard, we note that we would view such an agreement as a termination 

of a Rule 14a-11 nomination. Thus, the nominating shareholder or group would be required to file an 

amendment to Schedule 14N to disclose the termination of the nomination as a result of the agreement with 

the company regarding the inclusion of the nominee or nominees. See Item 7 of Schedule 14N and Rule 

14n-2. 

438 See letter from Florida State Board of Administration. 

439 See letters from ABA; Aetna; American Express; BorgWarner; BRT; Chevron; Cleary; Davis Polk; DTE 

Energy; Dupont; Edison Electric Institute; Eli Lilly; ExxonMobil; FPL Group; Home Depot; ICI; 

JPMorgan Chase; Metlife; P. Neuhauser; Pfizer; Protective; RiskMetrics; S&C; Seven Law Firms; Sidley 

Austin; SIFMA; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Verizon; Vinson & Elkins; Wells Fargo. 

148
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

the director continues on the board.440 Commenters expressed concerns that the method of 

calculating the maximum number of directors subject to Rule 14a-11 nominations – which as 

proposed would not include directors previously elected following a Rule 14a-11 nomination 

unless they are nominated again by a shareholder using Rule 14a-11 – would not encourage 

boards to integrate these directors.441 Some commenters asserted that failing to count such a 

director toward the 25% limit would cause boards to be disinclined to include these directors as 

company nominees in future elections.442 They viewed this as counterproductive to efficient 

board integration and functioning. 

While we appreciate commenters’ views, we are not persuaded that it is appropriate to 

provide an exception to the general method of calculating the maximum number of Rule 14a-11 

nominees in the case of a shareholder-nominated incumbent director that is re-nominated by the 

company. As noted previously, by adopting Rule 14a-11 we are seeking to facilitate 

shareholders’ ability under state law to nominate and elect directors, not necessarily to enhance 

shareholder representation on the board. We do not believe that a Commission rule is needed to 

facilitate the working relationship between the shareholder-nominated director and the companynominated directors, or to provide an incentive for the board to integrate the shareholdernominated director into its activities. To the extent that a shareholder nominee is elected to the 

board, the company-nominated directors and the shareholder-nominated director will have a 

fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. 

440 See letters from P. Neuhauser; RiskMetrics. 

441 See letters from ABA; BRT; Seven Law Firms. 

442 See letters from Davis Polk; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

149
 
 

 

 

 443 

7. Priority of nominations received by a company 

a. Priority when multiple shareholders submit nominees 

Proposed Rule 14a-11(d)(3) addressed situations where more than one shareholder or 

group would be eligible to have its nominees included in the company’s form of proxy and 

disclosed in its proxy statement pursuant to the proposed rule. In those situations, the company 

would have been required to include in its proxy materials the nominee or nominees of the first 

nominating shareholder or group from which it receives timely notice of intent to nominate a 

director pursuant to the rule, up to and including the total number of shareholder nominees 

required to be included by the company. We proposed this standard because we believed that 

there would be a benefit to enabling companies to begin preparing their proxy materials and 

coordinating with the nominating shareholder or group immediately upon receiving an eligible 

nomination rather than requiring companies to wait to see whether another nomination from a 

larger nominating shareholder or group was submitted before the notice deadline. 

Commenters were almost uniformly opposed to the proposed “first-in” standard. A large 

number of commenters expressed general opposition to the proposed first-in approach, with 

many presenting their own recommendations.443 Commenters expressed concern that the first-in 

See letters from 13D Monitor; 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; ACSI; Advance Auto Parts; Aetna; AFLCIO; AFSCME; Allstate; Alston & Bird; Amalgamated Bank; American Bankers Association; Anadarko; 

Applied Materials; Avis Budget; Blue Collar Investment Advisors (“BCIA”); Best Buy; Boeing; 

BorgWarner; Brink’s; BRT; Burlington Northern; CalPERS; CalSTRS; Caterpillar; CFA Institute; 

Chevron; CIGNA; CII; Cleary; Con Edison; COPERA; Corporate Library; CSX; Cummins; Darden 

Restaurants; Deere; Devon; Dewey; T. DiNapoli; Dominican Sisters of Hope; DuPont; Eaton; Emerson 

Electric; ExxonMobil; FedEx; Financial Services Roundtable; First Affirmative; Florida State Board of 

Administration; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; Frontier; General Mills; A. Goolsby; Honeywell; IAM; IBM; ICI; 

Intel; JPMorgan Chase; Kirkland & Ellis; C. Levin; Leggett; LIUNA; LUCRF; Marco Consulting; J. 

McCoy; McDonald’s; Joel M. McTague (“J. McTague”); MeadWestvaco; Mercy Investment Program; 

Metlife; Motorola; D. Nappier; Nathan Cummings Foundation; P. Neuhauser; Norfolk Southern; Norges 

Bank; Office Depot; OPERS; PACCAR Inc. (“PACCAR”); Pershing Square; PepsiCo; Pfizer; S. 

Quinlivan; RacetotheBottom; RiskMetrics; Ryder; Sara Lee; Social Investment Forum; Seven Law Firms; 

Shearman & Sterling; Sheet Metal Workers; Sidley Austin; SIFMA; Sisters of Mercy; Society of Corporate 

Secretaries; Sodali; Southern Company; SWIB; Teamsters; Tenet; TI; TIAA-CREF; Tri-State Coalition; 

Trillium; T. Rowe Price; Textron; tw telecom; Universities Superannuation; Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk; 

150
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

approach would rush shareholders to submit nominations.444 One commenter worried that even if 

the Commission included a window period for submission of shareholder nominees in the final 

rule, the first-in approach would encourage a race to file, discourage constructive dialogue 

between shareholders and management, and encourage a “gamesmanship” attitude among 

possible nominating shareholders or groups.445 Another commenter argued that the first-in 

approach would undercut the Commission’s stated objectives in proposing Rule 14a-11.446 One 

commenter worried that the “first in” approach would favor large shareholders, who have greater 

resources to prepare their submission materials, over small shareholders who must aggregate to 

reach the ownership threshold and need to pool resources to prepare their submission 

materials.447 

Some commenters expressed general concern about how companies should handle 

multiple nominations received on the same date.448 Two commenters worried that it would be 

difficult for companies to determine which nomination was received first because nominations 

could be submitted by various methods (e.g., fax transmission, mail, hand delivery) or arrive on 

the same date.449 Another commenter feared that a company that receives several nominations on 

the same date could choose the nomination submitted by shareholders friendly to management.450 

U.S. Bancorp; USPE; ValueAct Capital; Verizon; Wachtell; Walden; Wells Fargo; Weyerhaeuser; 

Whirlpool; WSIB; Xerox. 

444 See letters from ABA; BRT; Con Edison; First Affirmative; C. Levin; Verizon. 

445 Letter from ABA. 

446 See letter from BRT. 

447 See letter from Con Edison. 

448 See letters from IBM; S. Quinlivan; USPE; Verizon; Xerox.
 

449 See letters from IBM; Verizon.
 

450 See letter from USPE. 

151
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many commenters that opposed the first-in approach suggested alternatives. Of these, 

the majority preferred to give priority to the largest shareholder or group that submits a 

nomination.451 Noting that the 2003 Proposal included this standard and that it received the most 

support, one commenter argued that what matters most is not who is the fastest to nominate but 

which shareholder or group has the “greatest stake in the director election and, ultimately, the 

long-term performance of the company” (with the added benefits of avoiding “gamesmanship” 

and “administrative challenges”).452 Further, commenters believed that an approach based on the 

largest holdings would provide sufficient certainty because the number of shares of the largest 

shareholder or group could be determined from the Schedule 14N filing.453 

Commenters presented a wide range of views or recommendations for determining 

priority. Some commenters suggested that when the largest shareholder or group nominates 

fewer than the maximum number of nominees allowed under Rule 14a-11, then the second 

largest shareholder or group should have the right to have its nominees included (up to the 

451	 See letters from 13D Monitor; 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA (recommending this approach as one of 

several recommendations); ACSI; Advance Auto Parts; Aetna; AFL-CIO; AFSCME; Allstate; 

Amalgamated Bank; Anadarko; Applied Materials; Avis Budget; BCIA; Best Buy; Boeing; BorgWarner; 

Burlington Northern; CalPERS; CalSTRS; Caterpillar; CFA Institute; Chevron; CIGNA (recommending 

this approach as an alternative to another recommendation that the shareholder that held the shares the 

longest be given priority); CII; Cleary; Con Edison; COPERA; Corporate Library; Cummins; Darden 

Restaurants; Deere; Devon; Dominican Sisters of Hope; DuPont; Eaton; Emerson Electric; ExxonMobil; 

FedEx; Financial Services Roundtable; First Affirmative; Florida State Board of Administration 

(supporting this approach as an alternative to the first-in approach); FMC Corp.; Frontier; A. Goolsby; 

IAM; ICI; JPMorgan Chase; Kirkland & Ellis; C. Levin; Leggett; LIUNA; LUCRF; Marco Consulting; J. 

McCoy; McDonald’s; J. McTague; Mercy Investment Program; Metlife; D. Nappier; Nathan Cummings 

Foundation; P. Neuhauser; Norfolk Southern; Office Depot; PACCAR; Pershing Square; PepsiCo; Pfizer; 

RiskMetrics; Ryder; Sara Lee; Shamrock; Social Investment Forum; Sodali; Seven Law Firms; Shearman 

& Sterling; Sheet Metal Workers; Sidley Austin; SIFMA; Sisters of Mercy; Society of Corporate 

Secretaries; Southern Company; SWIB; Teamsters; Tenet; TI; TIAA-CREF; Tri-State Coalition; Trillium; 

T. Rowe Price; Textron; tw telecom; Universities Superannuation; Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk; U.S. 

Bancorp; Verizon; Wachtell; Walden; Wells Fargo; Whirlpool; WSIB. 

452	 Letter from CII. 

453	 See letters from CII; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

152
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

maximum number allowable), and so on.454 Commenters also suggested that a nominating 

shareholder or group be required to “rank” their nominees in the order of preference to facilitate 

any necessary “cutbacks.”455 

A few commenters stated that in the case of competing nominations submitted by 

shareholders with equally-sized holdings, the shareholder that held the shares for the longest 

period of time should be allowed to include its nominees.456 Two commenters recommended that 

when determining the order of priority, an individual shareholder should have priority over a 

nominating group.457 

One commenter recommended that nominees be ordered in accordance with the largest 

qualifying shareholdings, but subject to the qualification that the Commission impose a cap on 

either the permitted number of members in a nominating group or on the aggregate holdings of a 

nominating group and limit each nominating shareholder or group to only one Rule 14a-11 

nomination at an annual meeting.458 If shareholders are not limited to one nomination, then 

companies should be allowed to order the nominees based on the largest holdings. Alternatively, 

the commenter recommended awarding Rule 14a-11 nomination slots first to the nominating 

shareholder or group with the largest holdings, next to the nominating shareholder or group with 

the longest holding period, then to the next largest holder, and so on. 

One commenter stated that priority should be given to the largest nominating shareholder 

454 See letters from Amalgamated Bank; CII; COPERA; P. Neuhauser; Protective; T. Rowe Price. 

455 See letters from Amalgamated Bank; CFA Institute; CII; COPERA; P. Neuhauser; Protective; T. Rowe 

Price. 

456 See letters from Allstate; Boeing; Pfizer. 

457 See letters from Honeywell; Sara Lee. 

458 See letter from ABA. 

153
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or group based on the number of voting securities over which such shareholder or group has 

voting control (as opposed to beneficial ownership).459 Another commenter stated that in the case 

of nominating groups, the determination of the largest holder should be based on the largest 

shareholder within the nominating group.460 

Other commenters recommended that the shareholder or group holding a company’s 

shares for the longest period be permitted to submit nominees under Rule 14a-11.461 These 

commenters argued that this approach would be more consistent with the Commission’s stated 

goal of making Rule 14a-11 available to shareholders with a long-term interest. 

Some commenters preferred to give priority based on a combination of factors, such as 

length of ownership and size of ownership stake.462 Several commenters preferred to let 

companies (e.g., the nominating committee) choose either the shareholder nominees or the 

method for deciding which shareholder nominees are included in the proxy materials when there 

are multiple nominations.463 Under this approach, companies would disclose the method in the 

previous year’s proxy statement or in a Form 8-K. 

A small number of commenters supported the proposed first-in approach.464 While 

understanding the concern about “a rush to the courthouse,” one commenter indicated that this 

459 See letter from Kirkland & Ellis. 

460 See letter from Seven Law Firms. 

461 See letters from BRT; CIGNA (recommending this approach as an alternative to its recommendation that 

the largest shareholder be given priority); Cummins; Darden Restaurants; FPL Group; General Mills; IBM 

(recommending this approach as an alternative to its recommendation that the largest shareholder be given 

priority); Motorola; TIAA-CREF; Xerox. 

462 See letters from L. Dallas; T. DiNapoli; Nathan Cummings Foundation; OPERS; Southern Company. 

463 See letters from Alston & Bird; CSX; Textron. 

464 See letters from Calvert; Florida State Board of Administration; Hermes Equity Ownership Services Ltd. 

(“Hermes”); Protective. 

154
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

concern may not necessarily be justified because the “‘first’ proponent may have sufficiently 

prepared beforehand for the nomination process.”465 Further, the commenter believed that 

“[a]llowing the largest shareholder group to essentially trump the first smaller, but no less 

committed or relevant, shareholder submission is not good governance.” Another commenter 

believed that the first-in approach would best give effect to the proposed rule.466 If the standard 

was based on the amount of securities held instead, the commenter would be concerned that 

long-term owners of companies with index-tracking portfolios might be frozen out of the 

process. One commenter believed the first-in approach would provide certainty, but companies 

should be required to set the dates in calendar form and announce the dates in Form 8-K filings 

at least 30 days prior to the date of effectiveness.467 

After considering the comments, we have revised the manner in which the rule addresses 

multiple qualifying nominations. Rather than a first-in standard, as was proposed, a company 

will be required to include in its proxy materials the nominee or nominees of the nominating 

shareholder or group with the highest qualifying voting power percentage.468 In this regard, in 

light of the comments received, we are concerned that a first-in standard would result in 

shareholders rushing to submit nominations, discourage constructive dialogue between 

shareholders and management, and encourage gamesmanship among possible nominating 

shareholders or groups. When there are multiple qualifying nominations, giving priority to the 

465 Letter from Calvert. 

466 See letter from Hermes. 

467 See letter from Florida State Board of Administration. 

468 See Rule 14a-11(e). Rule 14a-11(e)(4) prescribes a limited variation on this principle where the company 

has more than one class of voting shares subject to the proxy rules and eligible nominating shareholders or 

shareholder groups from more than one of those classes submit nominations that exceed the 25% 

maximum. In this circumstance, priority of nominations will be determined by reference to the relative 

voting power of the classes in question. 

155
 
 

 

 

 

shareholder or group with the highest voting power percentage is consistent with our overall 

approach to facilitate director nominations by shareholders with significant commitments to 

companies. Finally, we seek to avoid the confusion that could result if multiple nominating 

shareholders or groups submitted their notices on the same day. 

We believe that the standard we are adopting, under which the nominating shareholder or 

group with the highest qualifying voting power percentage will have its nominees included in the 

company’s proxy materials, up to the maximum of 25% of the board, addresses these concerns. 

We are persuaded that this standard is more consistent with the other limitations of Rule 14a-11 

that seek to balance facilitating shareholder rights to nominate directors with practical 

considerations. 

As adopted, Rule 14a-11 addresses situations where more than one shareholder or group 

would be eligible to have its nominees included on the company’s proxy card and disclosed in its 

proxy statement pursuant to the rule. Given that we are adopting a highest qualifying voting 

power percentage standard rather than a first-in standard, the company will determine which 

shareholders’ nominees it must include in its proxy statement and on its proxy card by 

considering which eligible nominating shareholder or group has the highest qualifying voting 

power percentage, as opposed to which eligible nominating shareholder or group submitted a 

timely notice first. A company will be required to include in its proxy statement and on its proxy 

card the nominee or nominees of the nominating shareholder or group with the highest qualifying 

voting power percentage in the company’s securities as of the date of filing the Schedule 14N, up 

to and including the total number of shareholder nominees required to be included by the 

company.469 Where the nominating shareholder or group with highest qualifying voting power 

See new Rule 14a-11(e) and proposed Rule 14a-11(d)(3). 

156
 

469 
 

 

 

 

 

 

percentage that is otherwise eligible to use the rule and that filed a timely notice does not 

nominate the maximum number of directors allowed under the rule, the nominee or nominees of 

the nominating shareholder or group with the next highest qualifying voting power percentage 

that is otherwise eligible to use the rule and that filed a timely notice of intent to nominate a 

director pursuant to the rule would be included in the company’s proxy materials, up to and 

including the total number of shareholder nominees required to be included by the company. 

This process would continue until the company included the maximum number of nominees it is 

required to include in its proxy statement and on its proxy card or the company exhausts the list 

of eligible nominees. If the number of eligible nominees exceeds the maximum number required 

under Rule 14a-11 and the shareholder or group with the next highest qualifying voting power 

percentage submitted more nominees than there are remaining available director slots, the 

nominating shareholder would have the option to specify which of its nominees are to be 

included in the company’s proxy materials.470 

b.	 Priority when a nominating shareholder or group or a nominee 

withdraws or is disqualified 

Under the Proposal, we did not address what would be expected of a company if a 

nominating shareholder or group or nominee withdraws or is disqualified after the company has 

provided notice to the nominating shareholder or group of its intent to include the nominee in the 

company’s proxy materials. One commenter asked for guidance on how to handle such 

situations.471 Another commenter stated that it opposed allowing a nominating shareholder group 

to change its composition to correct an identified deficiency, such as a failure of the group to 

470 See Instruction 2 to new Rule 14a-11(e). 

471 See letter from Best Buy. 

157
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meet the requisite ownership threshold.472 Two commenters believed that if any member of a 

nominating shareholder group becomes ineligible due to a failure to own the requisite number of 

shares, then the entire group and its nominee also should be ineligible to use Rule 14a-11.473 On 

the other hand, one commenter recommended that a nominating shareholder group should be 

allowed to change its composition to correct an identified deficiency, such as the failure of the 

group to meet the requisite threshold.474 The commenter also addressed a situation in which a 

nominating shareholder group qualifies to use Rule 14a-11, provides the necessary notice, 

submits its nominees, but then becomes disqualified before the meeting at which its nominees 

would have been put to a shareholder vote. The commenter stated that while it “generally 

believe[s] that the nominating shareowner should have a short window within which to add a 

shareowner who would meet all eligibility requirements, a lapse that cannot be cured in that 

fashion should be remedied by going to the ‘second’ candidate(s).” 

Consistent with the Proposal, under our final rules, neither the composition of the 

nominating shareholder group nor the shareholder nominee may be changed as a means to 

correct a deficiency identified in the company’s notice to the nominating shareholder or 

nominating shareholder group – those matters must remain as they were described in the notice 

to the company.475 We believe that to allow otherwise could serve to undermine the purpose of 

the notice deadline provided for in the rule. Thus, a nominating shareholder or group should be 

sure that it and its nominees meet the requirements of the rule – including the ownership and 

holding period requirements – before it files its Schedule 14N, as a nominating shareholder or 

472 See letter from ABA. 

473 See letters from CFA Institute; Verizon. 

474 See letter from CII. 

475 See Instruction 2 to Rule 14a-11(g) and proposed Rule 14a-11(f)(6). 

158
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

group will not be permitted to add or substitute another shareholder or nominee in order to 

satisfy the requirements.476 

In the Proposing Release, we solicited comment on how we should address situations 

where a nomination is submitted and the nominating shareholder subsequently becomes 

ineligible under the rule. We also sought comment as to the circumstances under which a second 

shareholder or group should be able to have its nominees included in a company’s proxy 

materials. Some commenters stated that if a nominating shareholder or group does not remain 

eligible, the company should be allowed to withdraw the nominating shareholder’s or group’s 

candidate from its proxy materials.477 Some commenters believed that a company should not be 

required to include a substitute shareholder nominee if the original shareholder nominee is 

excluded by a company after receiving a no-action letter from the Commission staff regarding 

the nomination, is withdrawn by the nominating shareholder or group, or otherwise becomes 

ineligible.478 These commenters generally argued that a company would not have enough time to 

seek the exclusion of such a substitute nominee. Still other commenters argued that a 

nominating shareholder or group should be allowed to submit a new nominee if its original 

nominee is determined to be ineligible,479 especially if the company sought and obtained a no476	 In this regard, we note that if a member of a nominating shareholder group withdraws, the nominating 

shareholder group and its nominee or nominees would continue to be eligible so long as the group 

continues to meet the requirements of the rule. If the withdrawal of a member of the nominating 

shareholder group would result in the group failing to meet the ownership threshold, a company would no 

longer be required to include any nominees submitted by the nominating shareholder group. As another 

example, if after a nominating shareholder or group submits one nominee for inclusion in a company’s 

proxy materials and the nominee subsequently withdraws or is disqualified, a company will not be required 

to include a substitute nominee from that nominating shareholder or group. 

477	 See letters from BorgWarner; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

478	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; Allstate; American Express; BorgWarner; DTE Energy; 

Dupont; FPL Group; Honeywell; IBM; Pfizer; RiskMetrics; Seven Law Firms; Society of Corporate 

Secretaries; Xerox. 

479	 See letters from AFL-CIO; P. Neuhauser; USPE. 

159
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

action letter from the staff concerning the company’s determination to exclude the nominee.480 

One commenter worried that a prohibition on substitute shareholder nominees would encourage 

an unduly adversarial approach by both sides.481 Another commenter recommended that if the 

first nominating shareholder or group becomes ineligible, then the nominating shareholder or 

group with the second-largest holdings should be allowed to submit their own nominees.482 

Our final rule provides that if a nominating shareholder or group withdraws or is 

disqualified (e.g., because the nominating shareholder or a member of the group483 failed to 

continue to hold the qualifying amount of securities) after the company provides notice to the 

nominating shareholder or group of the company’s intent to include the nominee or nominees in 

its proxy materials, the company will be required to include in its proxy statement and form of 

proxy the nominee or nominees of the nominating shareholder or group with the next highest 

voting power percentage that is otherwise eligible to use the rule and that filed a timely notice in 

accordance with the rule, if any.484 This process would continue until the company included the 

maximum number of nominees it is required to include in its proxy materials or the company 

exhausts the list of eligible nominees. 

If a nominee withdraws or is disqualified after the company provides notice to the 

nominating shareholder or group of the company’s intent to include the nominee in its proxy 

materials, the company will be required to include in its proxy materials any other eligible 

480 See letter from P. Neuhauser.
 

481 See letter from Universities Superannuation.
 

482 See letter from CFA Institute. 

483 If one member of a group becomes ineligible to use the rule but the group continues to qualify to use the 

rule without that member, the group would remain eligible overall. 

484 See new Rule 14a-11(e)(2). 

160
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

nominee submitted by that nominating shareholder or group.485 If that nominating shareholder or 

group did not include any other nominees in its notice filed on Schedule 14N, then the company 

will be required to include the nominee or nominees of the nominating shareholder or group with 

the next highest voting power percentage that is otherwise eligible to use the rule and that filed a 

timely notice in accordance with the rule, if any, until the maximum number of nominees is 

included in the company’s proxy materials or the list of eligible nominees is exhausted. 

We believe that these requirements are appropriate in order to give effect to the intent of 

our rule – to facilitate shareholders’ ability to nominate and elect directors. If the nominating 

shareholder or group with the highest voting power percentage used all available Rule 14a-11 

nominations in a company’s proxy materials and the nominating shareholder or group with the 

second highest voting power percentage had its nominees excluded even after one or more 

nominees from the nominating shareholder or group with the highest voting power percentage 

withdrew or was disqualified, we believe the purpose of our rule would be undermined. 

However, in order to address practical considerations, Rule 14a-11(e)(2) provides that once a 

company has commenced printing its proxy materials it will not be required to include a 

substitute nominee or nominees. We believe that at that point in the process it would be too 

difficult and costly for a company to change course to include a new nominee or nominees. If a 

nominating shareholder or group or nominee withdraws or is disqualified after the company has 

commenced printing its proxy materials, the company may determine whether it wishes to print 

(and furnish) additional materials and a proxy card, delete the disqualified or withdrawn 

nominee, or instead provide disclosure through additional soliciting materials informing 

shareholders about the change.486 

485 See new Rule 14a-11(e)(3). 486 We note that pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 14a-4(c)(5) a completed proxy card containing a disqualified 

161
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Notice on Schedule 14N 

a. Proposed notice requirements 

As proposed, in order to submit a nominee for inclusion in the company’s proxy 

statement and form of proxy, Rule 14a-11 would require that the nominating shareholder or 

group provide a notice on Schedule 14N to the company of its intent to require that the company 

include that shareholder’s or group’s nominee or nominees in the company’s proxy materials.487 

The shareholder notice on Schedule 14N also would be required to be filed with the Commission 

on the date it is first sent to the company. 

We proposed to require the notice to be provided to the company and filed with the 

Commission by the date specified in the company’s advance notice bylaw provision, or where no 

such provision is in place, no later than 120 calendar days before the date the company mailed its 

proxy materials for the prior year’s annual meeting. If the company did not hold an annual 

meeting during the prior year, or if the date of the meeting changes by more than 30 calendar 

days from the prior year, the nominating shareholder must provide notice a reasonable time 

before the company mails its proxy materials. The company would be required to disclose the 

date by which the shareholder must submit the required notice in a Form 8-K filed pursuant to 

proposed Item 5.07 within four business days after the company determines the anticipated 

meeting date.488 

As proposed, the notice on Schedule 14N would include disclosures relating to the 

nominating shareholder’s or group’s interest in the company, length of ownership, and eligibility 

or withdrawn nominee or nominees could, under certain circumstances, confer discretionary authority to 

vote on the election of a substitute director or directors. 

487 See proposed Rule 14a-11(c), Rule 14a-18 and Rule 14n-1. 

488 See proposed Instruction 2 to Rule 14a-11(a) and proposed Rule 14a-18. 

162 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to use Rule 14a-11. The notice on Schedule 14N also would include disclosure required by 

proposed Rule 14a-18 about the nominating shareholder or group and the nominee for director, 

as well as disclosure regarding the nature and extent of relationships between the nominating 

shareholder or group and nominee or nominees and the company. The disclosure provided by 

the nominating shareholder or group would be similar to the disclosure currently required in a 

contested election and would be included by the company in its proxy materials. 

In addition, as proposed, the notice on Schedule 14N also would include the following 

representations by the nominating shareholder or group: 

•	 the nominee’s candidacy or, if elected, board membership, would not violate 

controlling state or federal law, or rules of a national securities exchange or national 

securities association other than rules relating to director independence;489 

•	 the nominating shareholder or group satisfies the eligibility conditions in Rule 14a11;490 

•	 in the case of a company other than an investment company, the nominee meets the 

objective criteria for “independence” of the national securities exchange or national 

securities association rules applicable to the company, if any, or, in the case of a 

company that is an investment company, the nominee is not an “interested person” of 

the company as defined in Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act of 

489	 See proposed Rule 14a-18(a). Proposed Rule 14a-11 also included this provision as a direct requirement. 

Thus, a company would not be required to include a shareholder nominee in its proxy materials if the 

nominee’s candidacy or, if elected, board membership would violate controlling state law, federal law, or 

rules of a national securities exchange or national securities association (other than rules of a national 

securities exchange or national securities association that set forth requirements regarding the independence 

of directors). 

490	 See proposed Rule 14a-18(b) (which referred to the requirements in proposed Rule 14a-11(b)). 

163
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1940;491 and 

•	 neither the nominee nor the nominating shareholder (or any member of a nominating 

shareholder group) has an agreement with the company regarding the nomination of 

the nominee.492 

Proposed Item 8 of Schedule 14N would have required a certification from the nominating 

shareholder or each member of the nominating shareholder group that the securities used for 

purposes of meeting the ownership threshold in Rule 14a-11 are not held for the purpose, or with 

the effect, of changing control of the company or to gain more than a limited number of seats on 

the board. 

b. Comments on the proposed notice requirements 

Commenters generally supported the proposed content requirements of Schedule 14N on 

the general principle that the Commission should impose disclosure requirements on nominating 

shareholders and their nominees.493 Two of these commenters also stated that additional 

disclosures or representations are not needed.494 In addition, some commenters recommended 

that all nominees be subject to any new disclosure rules adopted by the Commission as part of its 

proxy disclosure and solicitation enhancements rulemaking.495 Four commenters asked that 

companies be allowed to require additional disclosure from a nominating shareholder or group 

491	 See proposed Rule 14a-18(c). 

492	 See proposed Rule 14a-18(d). 

493	 See letters from ABA; Alston & Bird; Americans for Financial Reform; CalSTRS; CFA Institute; CII; 

Corporate Library; Dominican Sisters of Hope; Florida State Board of Administration; GovernanceMetrics; 

ICI; Mercy Investment Program; Protective; RiskMetrics; Sisters of Mercy; Tri-State Coalition; Ursuline 

Sisters of Tildonk; USPE; Walden. 

494	 See letters from CII; USPE. 

495	 See letters from ABA; Alaska Air; Robert A. Bassett (“R. Bassett”); BorgWarner; Eli Lilly; NACD; 

O’Melveny & Myers; Pfizer; Society of Corporate Secretaries; UnitedHealth. 

164
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

through, for example, the advance notice bylaws, as long as such requirements are consistent 

with state law.496 One commenter argued that the nominating shareholder, group, or nominee 

should provide any disclosure required under a company’s governing documents as long as such 

disclosure is required of all nominees.497 One commenter asked that all content requirements be 

set forth in Schedule 14N itself, as it found the structure of the Schedule and the references to 

disclosure requirements to be unnecessarily complicated.498 The commenter recommended that 

we include a requirement that the nominating shareholder or group disclose information about 

the nature and extent of the relationships between the nominating shareholder, group and the 

nominee and the company or its affiliates.499 Another commenter recommended the rules include 

a representation that the nominee is not controlled by the nominating shareholder or group.500 

We also sought comment on the proposed representations to be provided by the 

nominating shareholder or group in Schedule 14N. One commenter stated that the proposed 

representations are appropriate and no additional representations are needed.501 This commenter 

opposed a requirement for a shareholder nominee to make any representation either in addition 

to, or instead of, those made by the nominating shareholder or group. One commenter stated 

simply that none of the proposed representations in Schedule 14N should be eliminated.502 It also 

observed generally that the shareholder nominee should be required to make the representations 

496 See letters from ABA; Chevron; Sidley Austin; SIFMA. 

497 See letter from Cleary. 

498 See letter from ABA. 

499 Id. 

500 See letter from IBM. 

501 See letter from CII. 

502 See letter from ABA. 

165
 
 

 

 

 

 

(e.g., regarding independence) because he or she would know the facts relating to the 

representations and therefore should accept responsibility. One commenter opposed the 

requirement for a representation that a shareholder nomination (or election of the shareholder 

nominee) would not violate state law, federal law, or listing standards.503 The commenter also 

believed it would be inappropriate to require a representation that the nomination complies with 

any independence requirement under federal law, state law, or listing standards. 

c. Adopted notice requirements 

We are adopting the notice requirements substantially as proposed, with differences noted 

below. In addition, we agree that the rules as proposed could be streamlined to reduce 

complexity. As adopted, Schedule 14N will contain the disclosure items that were included in 

the Schedule as proposed, as well as the disclosures proposed in Rule 14a-11, Rule 14a-18 and 

Rule 14a-19. We believe that the disclosure requirements we are adopting will provide 

transparency and facilitate shareholders’ ability to make an informed voting decision on a 

shareholder director nominee or nominees without being unnecessarily burdensome on 

nominating shareholders or groups. 

i. Disclosure 

Schedule 14N will require a nominating shareholder or group to provide the following 

information about the nominating shareholder or group and the nominee:504 

•	 The name and address of the nominating shareholder or each member of the 

nominating shareholder group; 

•	 Information regarding the amount and percentage of securities held and entitled to 

503	 See letter from USPE. 

504	 The disclosure requirements proposed in Rule 14a-18(e) – (l) are now contained in new Item 4(b) and new 

Item 5 of Schedule 14N. 

166
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vote on the election of directors at the meeting and the voting power derived from 

securities that have been loaned or sold in a short sale that remains open, as specified 

in Instruction 3 to Rule 14a-11(b)(1);505 

•	 A written statement from the registered holder of the shares held by the nominating 

shareholder or each member of the nominating shareholder group, or the brokers or 

banks through which such shares are held, verifying that, within seven calendar days 

prior to submitting the notice on Schedule 14N to the company, the shareholder 

continuously held the qualifying amount of securities for at least three years;506 

•	 A written statement of the nominating shareholder’s or group’s intent to continue to 

hold the qualifying amount of securities through the shareholder meeting at which 

directors are elected. Additionally, the nominating shareholder or group would 

provide a written statement regarding the nominating shareholder’s or group’s intent 

with respect to continued ownership after the election;507 

•	 A statement that the nominee consents to be named in the company’s proxy statement 

and form of proxy and, if elected, to serve on the board of directors;508 

•	 Disclosure about the nominee as would be provided in response to the disclosure 

requirements of Items 4(b), 5(b), 7(a), (b), and (c) and, for investment companies, 

505	 See Item 3 of new Schedule 14N. 

506	 See Item 4(a) of new Schedule 14N. A nominating shareholder would not be required to provide this 

statement if the nominating shareholder is the registered holder of the shares or is attaching or 

incorporating by reference a previously filed Schedule 13D, Schedule 13G, Form 3, Form 4, and/or Form 5, 

or amendments to those documents to prove ownership. 

507	 See Item 4(b) of new Schedule 14N. These requirements were proposed in Rule 14a-18(f) and Item 5(b) of 

Schedule 14N. 

508	 See Item 5(a) of new Schedule 14N and proposed Rule 14a-18(e). 

167
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 22(b) of Schedule 14A, as applicable;509 

•	 Disclosure about the nominating shareholder or each member of a nominating 

shareholder group as would be required in response to the disclosure requirements of 

Items 4(b) and 5(b) of Schedule 14A, as applicable;510 

•	 Disclosure about whether the nominating shareholder or any member of a nominating 

shareholder group has been involved in any legal proceeding during the past ten 

years, as specified in Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K;511 

•	 Disclosure about whether, to the best of the nominating shareholder’s or group’s 

knowledge, the nominee meets the director qualifications set forth in the company’s 

governing documents, if any;512 

•	 A statement that, to the best of the nominating shareholder’s or group’s knowledge, in 

the case of a company other than an investment company, the nominee meets the 

objective criteria for “independence” of the national securities exchange or national 

securities association rules applicable to the company, if any, or, in the case of a 

company that is an investment company, the nominee is not an “interested person” of 

the company as defined in Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act of 

509	 See Item 5(b) of new Schedule 14N and proposed Rule 14a-18(g). 

510	 See Item 5(c) of new Schedule 14N and proposed Rule 14a-18(h). If a nominating shareholder is organized 

in a form other than a corporation or partnership, comparable disclosure with respect to persons in similar 

capacities would be required. 

511	 See Item 5(d) of new Schedule 14N and proposed Rule 14a-18(i). As proposed, the rule would have 

required disclosure regarding a nominating shareholder’s involvement in any legal proceedings during the 

past five years. Recently, the Commission amended Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K to require disclosure 

regarding involvement in legal proceedings for the prior ten years. See Proxy Disclosure Enhancements, 

Release No. 33-9089; 34-61175 (Dec. 16, 2009) [74 FR 68334] (“Proxy Disclosure Enhancements 

Adopting Release”). Accordingly, as adopted, Item 5(d) will require disclosure about a nominating 

shareholder’s involvement in legal proceedings during the past ten years. 

512	 See Item 5(e) of new Schedule 14N. 

168
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1940;513 

•	 Disclosure about the nature and extent of the relationships between the nominating 

shareholder or group, the nominee, and/or the company or any affiliate of the 

company,514 such as: 

•	 Any direct or indirect material interest in any contract or agreement between the 

nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group, the 

nominee, and/or the company or any affiliate of the company (including any 

employment agreement, collective bargaining agreement, or consulting 

agreement); 

•	 Any material pending or threatened litigation in which the nominating shareholder 

or any member of the nominating shareholder group and/or the nominee is a party 

or a material participant, and that involves the company, any of its officers or 

directors, or any affiliate of the company; and 

•	 Any other material relationship between the nominating shareholder or any 

member of the nominating shareholder group, the nominee, and/or the company 

or any affiliate of the company not otherwise disclosed;515 

•	 Disclosure of any Web site address on which the nominating shareholder or group 

may publish soliciting materials;516 and 

•	 If desired to be included in the company’s proxy statement, a statement in support of 

513	 See Item 5(f) of new Schedule 14N. 

514	 We note that this disclosure requirement would apply to relationships between the nominating shareholder 

or group and the nominee, as well as the relationships between the nominating shareholder or group or the 

nominee and the company or its affiliates. See Item 5(g) of new Schedule 14N. 

515	 See Item 5(g) of new Schedule 14N and proposed Rule 14a-18(j). 

516	 See Item 5(h) of new Schedule 14N and proposed Rule 14a-18(k). 

169
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the shareholder nominee or nominees, which may not exceed 500 words per 

nominee.517 

The disclosure provided by the nominating shareholder or group in Item 5 of Schedule 14N 

would be included by the company in its proxy materials,518 along with the company’s disclosure 

in response to Items 4(b) and 5(b) of Schedule 14A.519 

In a traditional proxy contest, shareholders receive the disclosure required by Items 4(b), 

5(b), 7, and 22, as applicable, of Schedule 14A from both the company and the insurgent when 

the contest relates to an annual election of directors. The new Schedule 14N disclosure 

requirements are somewhat more expansive in that they also include the disclosures concerning 

ownership amount, length of ownership, intent to continue to hold the shares through the date of 

the meeting and with respect to continued ownership after the meeting, and disclosure regarding 

the nature and extent of the relationships between the nominating shareholder or group and 

nominee and the company or any affiliate of the company. We believe that these disclosures will 

517	 See Item 5(i) of new Schedule 14N and proposed Rule 14a-18(l). This requirement is discussed in more 

detail in this section. If a nominating shareholder or group submits a statement in support that exceeds 500 

words per nominee, a company will be required to include the nominee or nominees, provided that the 

eligibility requirements are met, but may exclude the statement in support from its proxy materials pursuant 

to Rule 14a-11(g). In this instance, the company would provide notice to the staff and could, if desired, 

seek a no-action letter from the staff. See new Rule 14a-11(c) and Rule 14a-11(g). The 500 words would 

be counted in the same manner as words are counted under Rule 14a-8. Any statements that are, in effect, 

arguments in support of the nomination would constitute part of the supporting statement. Accordingly, 

any “title” or “heading” that meets this test would be counted toward the 500-word limitation. Inclusion of 

a Web site address in the supporting statement would not violate the 500-word limitation; rather, the Web 

site address would be counted as one word for purposes of the 500-word limitation. 

518	 See Item 7(e) of Schedule 14A. Similarly, if a company receives a nominee for inclusion in its proxy 

materials pursuant to a procedure set forth under applicable state or foreign law, or the company’s 

governing documents providing for the inclusion of shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy 

materials, the disclosure provided by the nominating shareholder or group in response to Item 6 of 

Schedule 14N would be included in the company’s proxy materials. See Item 7(f) of Schedule 14A. 

519	 Instruction 3 to Rule 14a-12(c) clarifies that though inclusion of a nominee pursuant to Rule 14a-11 or 

solicitations by a nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group that are made in connection 

with that nomination would constitute solicitations in opposition subject to Rule 14a-12(c), they would not 

be treated as such for purposes of Exchange Act Rule 14a-6(a). 

170
 
 

 

 

 

 

assist shareholders in making an informed voting decision with regard to any nominee or 

nominees put forth by the nominating shareholder or group using Rule 14a-11, in that the 

disclosures will enable shareholders to gauge the nominating shareholder’s or group’s interest in 

the company, longevity of ownership, and intent with regard to continued ownership in the 

company. These disclosures also will be important to the company in determining whether the 

nominating shareholder or group is eligible to rely on Rule 14a-11 to require the company to 

include a nominee or nominees in the company’s proxy materials. 

In some cases, the requirements in new Schedule 14N are slightly different than we 

proposed. We have clarified that the nominating shareholder or group will be required to include 

disclosure in the Schedule 14N concerning specified relationships between the nominating 

shareholder or group and the nominee or nominees. As discussed in Section II.B.5.d. above, we 

received comment suggesting that, in the absence of a limitation on relationships between the 

nominating shareholder or group and their nominee or nominees, we should adopt a disclosure 

requirement concerning relationships between the parties.520 Similarly, and as discussed in 

Section II.B.5.b., we have added a requirement that a nominating shareholder or group disclose 

whether, to the best of their knowledge, the nominating shareholder’s or group’s nominee meets 

the company’s director qualifications, if any, as set forth in the company’s governing 

documents.521 We added this requirement because we believe that this information will be useful 

to shareholders in making a voting decision by enabling them to consider whether shareholder 

nominees would meet a company’s director qualifications. Shareholders will provide this 

disclosure “to the best of their knowledge” to address the fact that the standards will be company 

520 See letters from CII; IBM; O’Melveny & Myers; SIFMA; UnitedHealth. 

521 See Item 5(e) of new Schedule 14N. 

171
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

standards and thus could be subject to interpretation. 

We also have added an instruction to Item 4 of Schedule 14N to provide a form of written 

statement that may be used for verifying the amount of securities held by the nominating 

shareholder, and that the qualifying amount of securities has been held continuously for at least 

three years.522 A statement will be required from a nominating shareholder that is not the 

registered holder of the securities and is not proving ownership by providing previously filed 

Schedules 13D or 13G, or Forms 3, 4, or 5. We believe that providing a form of written 

statement will make it easier for nominating shareholders and the persons through which they 

hold their securities to comply with the requirement and reduce complexity for shareholders and 

companies in determining whether satisfactory proof of ownership has been provided.523 In 

addition, as noted above, Item 5(d) will require disclosure about each nominating shareholder’s 

involvement in legal proceedings during the past ten years rather than the past five years as 

proposed, consistent with the changes recently adopted by the Commission for board nominees 

in general. 

In connection with our revisions to the rule concerning calculation of ownership, we also 

have added new Items 3(c) and (d) to the Schedule 14N to require disclosure of the voting power 

attributable to securities that have been loaned or sold in a short sale that is not closed out, or that 

have been borrowed for purposes other than a short sale, as specified in Instruction 3 to Rule 

14a-11(b)(1). 

Finally, as proposed, a nominating shareholder or group could provide a statement in 

522 See the Instruction to Item 4 of new Schedule 14N. 

523 In this regard, we note that providing proper proof of ownership has proved to be an area of confusion for 

some shareholder proponents using Rule 14a-8 who must obtain a written statement from the “record” 

holder of the proponent’s securities. Thus, we believe that providing a form of written statement that may 

be used to provide proof of ownership for purposes of Rule 14a-11(b)(3) will alleviate any potential 

confusion that could arise in this context. 

172
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

support of a shareholder nominee or nominees, which could not exceed 500 words if the 

nominating shareholder or group elects to have such a statement included in the company’s 

proxy materials. Two commenters stated that a limit of 500 words would be appropriate,524 five 

commenters recommended that a nominating shareholder or group be permitted to include a 

supporting statement of more than 500 words,525 and four commenters proposed a limit of either 

750 or 1000 words.526 We believe it is appropriate to allow a nominating shareholder or group to 

provide a statement in support of the shareholder nominee or nominees which may not exceed 

500 words for each nominee, rather than 500 words for all nominees in total,527 if the nominating 

shareholder or group elects to have such a statement included in the company’s proxy materials. 

We believe that a limitation of 500 words per nominee is sufficient for a nominating shareholder 

or group to express their support for a nominee. In this regard, we note that shareholders and 

companies are familiar with the 500 word limitation, as it is the limit on the number of words 

that may be used to support a shareholder proposal submitted under Rule 14a-8. While we 

believe it is appropriate to limit the length of the supporting statement that the company is 

required to include, we note that if a nominating shareholder or group wishes to provide 

additional information, it is free to do so in supplemental materials, provided it complies with the 

requirements of Rule 14a-2(b)(8). If a nominating shareholder or group submits a statement in 

support that exceeds 500 words per nominee, a company will be required to include the nominee 

or nominees, provided that the eligibility requirements are met, but the company may exclude the 

statement in support from its proxy materials provided it provides notice to the staff of its intent 

524 See letters from CII; Florida State Board of Administration. 

525 See letters from ACSI; AFSCME; Hermes; Pax World; USPE. 

526 See letters from AFSCME; L. Dallas; P. Neuhauser; USPE. 

527 We are adopting this modification in Item 5(i) of Schedule 14N. 

173
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to do so.528 

As noted above, we proposed to require certain representations to be provided in the 

Schedule 14N, either in the form of representations or as certifications. As adopted, we are 

including the proposed representations and certifications as direct requirements in Rule 14a-11.529 

Consequently, we have simplified the requirements so that under the final rules a nominating 

shareholder or group will be required to certify, in its notice on Schedule 14N filed with the 

Commission, that it does not have a change in control intent or an intent to gain more than the 

maximum number of board seats provided for under Rule 14a-11 and that the nominating 

shareholder and the nominee satisfies the applicable requirements of Rule 14a-11.530 We have 

retained the certification with regard to no change in control intent or intent to gain more than the 

maximum number of board seats provided for under Rule 14a-11, even though this is also a 

direct requirement in Rule 14a-11 as adopted, because we believe it is important to highlight this 

requirement for nominating shareholders or groups signing the certification. As was proposed, 

the nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating shareholder group (or authorized 

representative) will be required to certify when signing the Schedule 14N that, “after reasonable 

inquiry and to the best of my knowledge and belief,” the information in the statement is “true, 

complete and correct.” Though all disclosure in the Schedule 14N would be covered by this 

representation, we have specifically included it in the certifications concerning compliance with 

528	 See new Rule 14a-11(c) and Rule 14a-11(g). 

529	 See also Section II.B.4. and Section II.B.5. above, regarding nominating shareholder and nominee 

eligibility. 

530	 See new Rule 14a-11(b)(11) and Item 8(a) of new Schedule 14N. We note that in some cases, an 

authorized representative may file a Schedule 14N for each member of a nominating shareholder group and 

would provide the required disclosures and certifications. In such cases, each member of the nominating 

shareholder group represented by the authorized representative will be deemed to have provided the 

certifications. 

174
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the requirements of Rule 14a-11 as well. 

We have revised the rule to delete the provision that had the effect of allowing exclusion 

of a nominee if any required representation or certification was materially false or misleading.531 

Rather than allowing companies to exclude Rule 14a-11 nominees on that basis, we believe 

companies should address any concerns regarding false or misleading disclosures through their 

own disclosures, as in traditional proxy contests. This change will limit the bases on which a 

company may exclude a nominee,532 but we emphasize that the nominating shareholder or group 

will have Rule 14a-9 liability for any statement included in the Schedule 14N or which it causes 

to be included in a company’s proxy materials which, at the time and in light of the 

circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact or 

that omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein not false or 

misleading. In addition, as discussed in Section II.E. below, we have provided in the final rules 

that the company is not responsible for the information provided by the nominating shareholder 

or group in its Schedule 14N and included by the company in its proxy materials. 

ii. Schedule 14N filing requirements 

We proposed to require the notice to be provided to the company and filed with the 

Commission by the date specified in the company’s advance notice bylaw provision, or where no 

such provision is in place, no later than 120 calendar days before the date the company mailed its 

proxy materials for the prior year’s annual meeting. A significant number of commenters 

531 See proposed Rule 14a-11(a)(5). 

532 See Section II.B.9. below for a discussion of the requirements for a company receiving a nomination 

submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-11 and the process for seeking a staff no-action letter with respect to a 

company’s decision to exclude a nominee. As noted below, assertions that a certification or disclosure 

provided by a nominating shareholder or group is false or misleading will not be a basis for excluding a 

nominee or nominees. A company seeking a no-action letter from the staff with regard to a determination 

to exclude a nominee or nominees would need to assert that a requirement of the rule has not been met. 

175
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

suggested using a uniform deadline for all companies, as is the case in Rule 14a-8.533 Many of 

these commenters believed that the proposed timing requirement would create difficulties for 

companies with advance notice bylaws providing a later deadline and, thus, would preclude 

those companies from engaging in the proposed staff process.534 Some commenters supported 

the proposed default 120 calendar day deadline,535 while others argued that the 120 calendar day 

deadline would provide too little time for companies.536 Some commenters worried that the 

proposed deadline would not give sufficient time for companies to resolve any eligibility issues 

presented by potential nominees, including resolution through the Rule 14a-11 no-action process, 

Commission appeals, and litigation.537 

We are adopting a uniform deadline of no later than 120 calendar days before the 

anniversary of the date that the company mailed its proxy materials for the prior year’s annual 

meeting for all companies subject to the rule.538 We believe that a uniform deadline will benefit 

shareholders by providing them with one standard to comply with at all companies and should 

533	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; Alaska Air; American Express; Anadarko; Boeing; 

BorgWarner; BRT; Caterpillar; CIGNA; CII; Dewey; Florida State Board of Administration; FPL Group; 

Honeywell; JPMorgan Chase; Keating Muething; P. Neuhauser; PepsiCo; Pfizer; Praxair; Schulte Roth & 

Zabel; Seven Law Firms; Shearman & Sterling; Sidley Austin; Society of Corporate Securities; Thompson 

Hine LLP (“Thompson Hine”); TI; USPE; Wells Fargo; Xerox. 

534	 See letters from ABA; Alaska Air; BRT; Caterpillar; CIGNA; Dewey; Honeywell; JPMorgan Chase; 

Keating Muething; PepsiCo; Sidley Austin; Society of Corporate Securities; Thompson Hine; TI; Wells 

Fargo. 

535	 See letters from Alaska Air; Boeing; BorgWarner; CII; Dewey; JPMorgan Chase; P. Neuhauser; 

O’Melveny & Myers; PepsiCo; Praxair; Seven Law Firms; Shearman & Sterling; Society of Corporate 

Secretaries; Thompson Hine; USPE. 

536	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; Alcoa; Allstate; American Express; Boeing; BRT; Con 

Edison; Davis Polk; FPL Group; JPMorgan Chase; McDonald’s; P. Neuhauser; Pfizer; Protective; 

RiskMetrics; Seven Law Firms; TI; Xerox. 

537	 See letters from ABA; BRT; Con Edison; TI. 

538	 See new Rule 14a-11(b)(10). The Schedule 14N would, of course, have to contain all required disclosure 

as of the date of filing. 

176
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

address concerns of companies that an advance notice bylaw deadline would provide too little 

time. We also believe that a deadline of 120 calendar days will provide adequate time for 

companies to take the steps necessary to include or, where appropriate, to exclude a shareholder 

nominee for director that is submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-11.539 

In the Proposing Release, we solicited comment as to whether a window period should be 

provided for the submission of the notice on Schedule 14N and the appropriate time period for 

the window. A number of commenters recommended a window period during which a 

nominating shareholder or group could submit its Rule 14a-11 nomination.540 These commenters 

believed that including such a requirement would prevent a race to file among shareholders that 

could discourage dialogue with the board and force the board to address nominations throughout 

the year.541 We agree and are adopting a window period for the submission of the notice to the 

539	 We note that as with Rule 14a-8, Rule 14a-11 requires a company to provide notice to the Commission if it 

intends to exclude a nominee. Also as with Rule 14a-8, if a company determines that it may exclude a 

nominee, the rule does not require the company to seek a no-action letter from the staff with regard to the 

determination to exclude the nominee. In this regard, we note that the 120-day deadline in Rule 14a-8 

appears to provide companies with sufficient time in which to consider complex matters. For example, 

companies routinely consider whether a proposal submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-8 would cause the 

company to violate federal or state law and submit requests for no-action letters, along with detailed legal 

opinions, with respect to those proposals. We believe that a company will consider nominees submitted 

pursuant to Rule 14a-11 in a similar manner. Thus, we believe a deadline of 120 calendar days before the 

date that the company mailed it proxy materials the prior year is sufficient. 

540	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; Aetna; Allstate; Boeing; BorgWarner; L. Dallas; DuPont; Florida 

State Board of Administration; FPL Group; Kirkland & Ellis; Leggett; P. Neuhauser; PepsiCo; Pfizer; S. 

Quinlivan; RiskMetrics; Schulte Roth & Zabel; Shearman & Sterling; SIFMA; Society of Corporate 

Secretaries; Southern Company; TI; USPE; Wells Fargo; Xerox. 

541	 The commenters generally mentioned various 30 day ranges that we requested comment on (e.g., no earlier 

than 180 days and no later than 150 days before the date that the company mailed its proxy materials for 

the prior year’s annual meeting; no earlier than 150 calendar days and no later than 120 calendar days 

before the date that the company mailed its proxy materials for the prior year’s annual meeting; no earlier 

than 120 calendar days and no later than 90 calendar days prior to the anniversary of the company’s last 

annual meeting). One commenter suggested that the Commission limit the nomination process to a 45-day 

window period commencing four months after the company’s annual shareholder meeting. See letter from 

Aetna. Another commenter suggested that nominations be submitted within a 30-day period commencing 

five months after the company’s annual meeting. See letter from SIFMA. We believe that starting the 

period for nominations earlier than 150 calendar days before the anniversary of the date the company 

mailed its proxy materials for the prior year’s annual meeting would not provide the current board with 

sufficient opportunity to perform its duties and demonstrate its performance, nor would it provide 

177
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

company. Limiting the time period during which Rule 14a-11 nominations could be made 

should help reduce disruptions that might occur when a company receives shareholder 

nominations for director submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-11. In this regard, as noted above, 

commenters generally supported a 30-day window period. We believe that a window of 30 days 

is sufficient for the submission of the notice on Schedule 14N because it provides shareholders 

with an opportunity to submit a nomination, as well as the opportunity to consider any 

nominations that have been submitted and whether the shareholder would like to submit a 

nomination, either individually or as a group. Therefore, we are adopting a requirement that the 

notice on Schedule 14N be transmitted to the company and filed with the Commission no earlier 

than 150 calendar days, and no later than 120 calendar days, before the anniversary of the date 

that the company mailed its proxy materials for the prior year’s annual meeting. As proposed, 

we are adopting a requirement that if the company did not hold an annual meeting during the 

prior year, or if the date of the meeting has changed by more than 30 calendar days from the 

prior year, then the nominating shareholder must provide notice a reasonable time before the 

company mails its proxy materials.542 In that case, the company will be required to disclose the 

date by which the shareholder must submit the required notice in a Form 8-K filed pursuant to 

new Item 5.08 within four business days after the company determines the anticipated meeting 

date.543 

shareholders with enough time to evaluate the board’s performance, to make an informed decision with 

respect to a potential nomination. 

542	 In addition, if a company is holding a special meeting in lieu of an annual meeting, the nominating 

shareholder must provide notice a reasonable time before the company mails its proxy materials. 

543	 See new Rule 14a-11(b)(10). See also proposed Instruction 2 to Rule 14a-11(a) and Rule 14a-18. This 

would be similar to the requirement currently included in Rule 14a-5(f), which specifies that, where the 

date of the next annual meeting is advanced or delayed by more than 30 calendar days from the date of the 

annual meeting to which the proxy statement relates, the company must disclose the new meeting date in 

the company’s earliest possible quarterly report on Form 10-Q. Although registered investment companies 

178
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As noted, the notice on Schedule 14N must be transmitted to the company544 and filed 

with the Commission on the same day.545 Consistent with the Proposal, the Schedule 14N must 

be filed with the Commission on EDGAR. To file the Schedule 14N on EDGAR, a nominating 

shareholder or group and any nominee will need to have or obtain EDGAR filing codes and user 

identification numbers, which may be obtained by filing electronically a Form ID in advance of 

filing the Schedule 14N.546 We encourage nominating shareholders and groups to take the steps 

necessary to obtain an EDGAR filing code and CIK code well in advance of the deadline for 

filing a notice on Schedule 14N. 

The Schedule 14N will: 

• Include a cover page in the form set forth in Schedule 14N with the appropriate box 

generally are not required to file Form 8-K, we are requiring them to file a Form 8-K disclosing the date by 

which the shareholder notice must be provided if the company did not hold an annual meeting during the 

prior year, or if the date of the meeting has changed by more than 30 calendar days from the prior year. For 

a further discussion of the Form 8-K filing requirement for registered investment companies, see Section 

II.D.1. 

544	 Rule 14n-3 specifies that the Schedule 14N must be transmitted to the company at its principal executive 

office. 

545	 See new Rule 14n-1. In this regard, we are adopting an amendment to Rule 13(a)(4) of Regulation S-T, as 

proposed, to provide that a Schedule 14N will be deemed to be filed on the same business day if it is filed 

on or before 10 p.m. Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Saving Time, whichever is currently in 

effect. This will allow nominating shareholders additional time to file the notice on Schedule 14N and 

transmit the notice to the company. 

546	 To file the Schedule 14N on EDGAR, a nominating shareholder or group and any nominee that does not 

already have EDGAR filing codes, and to which the Commission has not previously assigned a user 

identification number, which we call a “Central Index Key (CIK)” code, will need to obtain the codes by 

filing electronically a Form ID (17 CFR 293.63; 249.446; and 274.402) at 

https://www.filermanagement.edgarfiling.sec.gov. The applicant also will be required to submit a 

notarized authenticating document. If the authenticating document is prepared before the applicant makes 

the Form ID filing, the authenticating document may be uploaded as a Portable Document Format (PDF) 

attachment to the electronic filing. An applicant also may submit the authenticating document by faxing it 

to the Commission within two business days before or after electronically filing the Form ID. The 

authenticating document would need to be manually signed by the applicant over the applicant’s typed 

signature, include the information contained in the Form ID, and confirm the authenticity of the Form ID. 

If the authenticating document is filed after electronically filing the Form ID, it would need to include the 

accession number assigned to the electronically filed Form ID as a result of its filing. See 17 CFR 

232.10(b)(2). 

179
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on the cover page marked to specify that the filing relates to a Rule 14a-11 

nomination;547 

•	 Be made under the subject company’s Exchange Act file number (or in the case of a 

registered investment company, under the subject company’s Investment Company 

Act file number); and 

•	 Be made on the date the notice is first transmitted to the company. 

We are adopting, as proposed, a requirement that the Schedule 14N be amended promptly 

for any material change to the disclosure and certifications provided in the originally-filed 

Schedule 14N.548 In this regard, we would view withdrawal of a nominating shareholder or 

group (or any member of the group), or of a director nominee, and the reasons for any such 

withdrawal, as a material change. For example, such a withdrawal could be material because it 

may result in a group no longer meeting the required ownership threshold under Rule 14a-11. 

We also would view as material entering into an agreement between the company and the 

nominating shareholder or group for the company to include a nominee in the company’s proxy 

materials as a company nominee.549 The nominating shareholder or group also will be required, 

as proposed, to file a final amendment to the Schedule 14N disclosing within 10 days of the final 

results of the election being announced by the company the nominating shareholder’s or group’s 

intention with regard to continued ownership of its shares.550 As discussed above, the nominating 

547	 The Schedule 14N also would be used for disclosure concerning the inclusion of shareholder nominees in 

company proxy materials when made pursuant to an applicable state or foreign law provision or a 

company’s governing documents. See new Rule 14a-18 and proposed Rule 14a-19, as discussed in Section 

II.C.5. below. 

548 See new Rule 14n-2(a). 

549 We note that if this occurs, the nominee would no longer be a Rule 14a-11 nominee. See Section II.B.6.c. 

for a discussion of how this would affect the calculation of the maximum number of Rule 14a-11 nominees. 

550 See new Rule 14n-2(b). 

180
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholder or group would be required to disclose its intent with regard to continued ownership 

of the company’s securities in its original notice on Schedule 14N.551 Filing an amendment to the 

Schedule 14N within 10 days after the announcement of the final results of the election will 

provide shareholders with information as to whether the outcome of the election may have 

altered the intent of the nominating shareholder or group and what further plans the nominating 

shareholder or group may have with regard to the company. 

As was proposed,552 the Schedule 14N may be signed either by each person on whose 

behalf the statement is filed or his or her authorized representative. We assume that in many 

cases group members will choose to appoint an authorized representative from among the group. 

If the statement is signed on behalf of a person by his authorized representative other than an 

executive officer or general partner of the filing person, evidence of the representative’s 

authority to sign on behalf of such person must be filed with the statement, provided, however, 

that a power of attorney for this purpose which is already on file with the Commission may be 

incorporated by reference. 

The Schedule 14N, as filed with the Commission, as well as any amendments to the 

Schedule 14N, will be subject to the liability provisions of Exchange Act Rule 14a-9 pursuant to 

new paragraph (c) to the rule.553 

9. Requirements for a Company That Receives a Notice from a 

Nominating Shareholder or Group 

551	 See Item 4(b) of new Schedule 14N. 

552	 While the proposed Schedule 14N included the instruction regarding the signing of the Schedule by an 

authorized representative, we did not discuss this aspect of the proposed rule text in the narrative portion of 

the release. 

553	 For further discussion, see Section II.E. 

181
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Procedure if company plans to include Rule 14a-11 nominee 

In the Proposing Release, we proposed a process for a company to follow once it received 

a nomination submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-11. Upon receipt of a shareholder’s or group’s 

notice of its intent to require the company to include in its proxy materials a shareholder nominee 

or nominees pursuant to Rule 14a-11, the company would determine whether it would include 

the nominee or whether it believed it would be desirable to, and that the company had a basis 

upon which it could rely to, exclude a nominee. If a company determined it would include the 

nominee, the company would notify in writing the nominating shareholder or group no later than 

30 calendar days before the company files its definitive proxy statement and form of proxy with 

the Commission that it will include the nominee or nominees.554 The company would be required 

to provide this notice in a manner that provides evidence of timely receipt by the nominating 

shareholder or group. 

We are adopting this requirement as proposed, with a clarification regarding the timing of 

the company’s transmission of the notice and receipt by the nominating shareholder or group.555 

As adopted, if a company will include a shareholder nominee, a company will be required to 

notify the nominating shareholder or group (or their authorized representative). Rather than 

including the proposed requirement that the company must provide the notice in a manner that 

evidences timely receipt by the shareholder, we are adopting a requirement that the notification 

must be postmarked or transmitted electronically no later than 30 calendar days before it files its 

definitive proxy materials with the Commission.556 We believe this will provide for ease of use 

554 See proposed Rule 14a-11(f)(2). 

555 See new Rule 14a-11(g)(1) and Instruction 1 to Rule 14a-11(g). 

556 This 30-day deadline for this notice should provide a nominating shareholder or group with sufficient time 

to engage in soliciting activities with respect to its nominee or nominees, if it has not done so already, or 

pursue any legal remedies that may be available if the company determines it will exclude the nominating 

182
 
 

 

 

 

 

and administration because it should be clear when the notice was transmitted. We also note that 

it is consistent with the transmission standard we are adopting for submitting a notice of intent 

with respect to a nomination pursuant to Rule 14a-11(b)(10). We note that while we are not 

adopting a requirement regarding the evidence of timely receipt by the nominating shareholder 

or group, we believe it is in a company’s interest to send the notice to the nominating shareholder 

or group in a manner that will allow the company to demonstrate that the nominating shareholder 

or group received the notice, as doing so may avoid potential disputes. 

b. Procedure if company plans to exclude Rule 14a-11 nominee 

The Proposal also included a process for a company to follow if it determined that it 

could exclude a nominee submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-11.557 As proposed, a company could 

determine that it is not required under Rule 14a-11 to include a nominee from a nominating 

shareholder or group in its proxy materials if: 

•	 Proposed Rule 14a-11 is not applicable to the company; 

•	 The nominating shareholder or group has not complied with the requirements of Rule 

14a-11; 

•	 The nominee does not meet the requirements of Rule 14a-11; 

•	 Any representation required to be included in the notice to the company is false or 

misleading in any material respect; or 

•	 The company has received more nominees than it is required to include by proposed 

Rule 14a-11 and the nominating shareholder or group is not entitled to have its 

shareholder’s or group’s nominee or nominees. 

The process was modeled after the staff no-action process used in connection with shareholder proposals 

under Rule 14a-8. 

183 

557 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nominee included under the criteria proposed in Rule 14a-11(d)(3).558 

Under the Proposal, the nominating shareholder or group would need to be notified of the 

company’s determination not to include the shareholder nominee in sufficient time to consider 

the validity of any determination to exclude the nominee and respond to such a notice.559 In this 

regard, we noted the time-sensitive nature of Rule 14a-11 and the interpretive issues that may 

arise in applying the new rule. After the company provided such a notice to a nominating 

shareholder or group and afforded the nominating shareholder or group the opportunity to 

respond, the company would be required to provide a notice to the Commission regarding its 

intent not to include a shareholder nominee in its proxy materials. The company could seek a 

no-action letter from the staff with respect to its decision to exclude the nominee.560 

The proposed process would have afforded a nominating shareholder or group the 

opportunity to remedy certain eligibility or procedural deficiencies in a nomination.561 The 

various time deadlines set out in the proposed process were determined by considering the 

appropriate balance between companies’ needs in meeting printing and filing deadlines for their 

shareholder meetings with shareholders’ need for adequate time to satisfy the requirements of the 

558	 See proposed Rule 14a-11(a). More specifically, under the proposal a company would not be required to 

include a nominee where (1) applicable state law or the company’s governing documents prohibit the 

company’s shareholders from nominating a candidate for director; (2) the nominee’s candidacy, or if 

elected, board membership, would violate controlling state law, federal law or rules of a national securities 

exchange or national securities association; (3) the nominating shareholder or group does not meet the 

rule’s eligibility requirements; (4) the nominating shareholder’s or group’s notice is deficient; (5) any 

representation in the nominating shareholder’s or group’s notice is false in any material respect, or (6) the 

nominee is not required to be included in the company’s proxy materials due to the proposed limitation on 

the number of nominees required to be included. 

559	 See proposed Rule 14a-11(f). 

560	 See proposed Rule 14a-11(f)(7) – (14). 

561	 See proposed Rule 14a-11(f)(3) – (6). 

184
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rule.562 Specifically, as proposed, a company determining that the nominating shareholder or 

group or nominee or nominees has not satisfied the eligibility requirements could exclude the 

shareholder nominee or nominees, subject to the following requirements: 

•	 The company would notify in writing the nominating shareholder or group of its 

determination. The notice would be required to be postmarked or transmitted 

electronically no later than 14 calendar days after the company receives the 

shareholder notice of intent to nominate. The company would have to provide the 

notice in a manner that provides evidence of receipt by the nominating shareholder or 

group;563 

•	 The company’s notice to the nominating shareholder or group that it determined that 

the company may exclude a shareholder nominee or nominees would be required to 

include an explanation of the company’s basis for determining that it may exclude the 

nominee or nominees;564 

•	 The nominating shareholder or group would have 14 calendar days after receipt of the 

written notice of deficiency to respond to the notice and correct any eligibility or 

procedural deficiencies identified in the notice. The nominating shareholder or group 

would have to provide the response in a manner that provides evidence of its receipt 

by the company;565 

562	 We considered the timing requirements and deadlines in Rule 14a-8 when crafting the proposed 

requirements and deadlines for Rule 14a-11; however, due to the potential complexity of the nomination 

process, we determined in the proposal that it would be appropriate to provide additional time for the 

process. 

563	 See proposed Rule 14a-11(f)(3). 

564	 See proposed Rule 14a-11(f)(4). 

565	 See proposed Rule 14a-11(f)(5). 

185
 
 

 

 

 

 

•	 If, upon review of the nominating shareholder’s or group’s response, the company 

determines that the company still may exclude the shareholder nominee or nominees, 

after providing the requisite notice of and time for the nominating shareholder or 

group to remedy any eligibility or procedural deficiencies in the nomination, the 

company would be required to provide notice of the basis for its determination to the 

Commission no later than 80 calendar days before it files its definitive proxy 

statement and form of proxy with the Commission. The Commission staff could 

permit the company to make its submission later than 80 calendar days before the 

company files its definitive proxy statement and form of proxy if the company 

demonstrates good cause for missing the deadline;566 

•	 The company’s notice to the Commission would be required to include: 

•	 Identification of the nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating 

shareholder group, as applicable; 

•	 The name of the nominee or nominees; 

•	 An explanation of the company’s basis for determining that it may exclude the 

nominee or nominees; and 

•	 A supporting opinion of counsel when the company’s basis for excluding a 

nominee or nominees relies on a matter of state law;567 

•	 The company would be required to file its notice of intent to exclude with the 

Commission and simultaneously provide a copy to the nominating shareholder or 

566 See proposed Rule 14a-11(f)(7). 

567 See proposed Rule 14a-11(f)(8). 

186
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

each member of the nominating shareholder or group;568 

•	 The nominating shareholder or group could submit a response to the company’s 

notice to the Commission. The response would be required to be postmarked or 

transmitted electronically no later than 14 calendar days after the nominating 

shareholder’s or group’s receipt of the company’s notice to the Commission. The 

nominating shareholder or group would be required to provide a copy of its response 

to the Commission simultaneously to the company;569 

•	 If requested by the company, the Commission staff would, at its discretion, provide 

an informal statement of its views (commonly known as a no-action letter) to the 

company and the nominating shareholder or group;570 

•	 The company would provide the nominating shareholder or group with notice, no 

later than 30 calendar days before it files its definitive proxy statement and form of 

proxy with the Commission, of whether it will include or exclude the shareholder 

nominee or nominees.571 

Some commenters supported the proposed staff review process for handling disputes 

regarding a company’s determination to exclude a shareholder nominee.572 Other commenters 

expressed concerns about the staff’s expertise and ability to handle disputes in a timely 

manner.573 With respect to the timing requirements in the proposed process, two commenters 

568 See proposed Rule 14a-11(f)(10). 

569 See proposed Rule 14a-11(f)(11). 

570 See proposed Rule 14a-11(f)(12). 

571 See proposed Rule 14a-11(f)(13). 

572 See letters from CFA Institute; CII; P. Neuhauser; Schulte Roth & Zabel; Universities Superannuation.
 

573 See letters from ABA; Anadarko; BRT; Cleary; Davis Polk; Delaware Bar; ExxonMobil; E.J. Kullman; 

187
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

supported the proposed 14-day time period for the company to respond to a nominating 

shareholder’s or group’s notice.574 A number of commenters criticized the proposed 14-day time 

period as too short or requested a longer time period for the company to respond.575 Commenters 

explained that boards would need time to consider various issues, such as if the election of a 

shareholder nominee would trigger issues under the laws and regulations relevant to the 

company’s business (e.g., antitrust laws, government procurement, security clearances and 

export control) as well as under listing standards and state law.576 Two commenters supported 

the proposed 14-day time period for a nominating shareholder or group to respond to a 

company’s notice of deficiency.577 Two commenters worried the 14-day time period would give 

too little time for a response and recommended instead a 21-day time period.578 One commenter 

warned that the Commission is underestimating the number of boards that would challenge 

shareholder nominees and the level of intensity of these challenges.579 This commenter 

suggested that such challenges and possible litigation would demand significant time and 

resources from the Commission’s staff.580 Commenters also argued that challenges to Rule 14a11 nominations likely would raise highly complex issues that fall outside the scope of the staff’s 

Protective; S. Quinlivan; Seven Law Firms; Weyerhaeuser. 

574 See letters from CFA Institute; CII. 

575 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; Boeing; Con Edison; Honeywell; Kirkland & Ellis; Pfizer; 

Protective; UnitedHealth; USPE; Wells Fargo; Whirlpool. 

576 See letters from Boeing; Honeywell. 

577 See letters from CFA Institute; CII. 

578 See letters from Protective; USPE. 

579 See letter from BRT. 

580 Id. 

188
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

expertise (e.g., whether a candidacy would violate state law).581 One commenter pointed to 

difficulties arising from the “dueling” legal opinions situation in the Rule 14a-8 no-action 

process.582 A couple commenters believed that courts, rather than the staff, would be better able 

to resolve disputes regarding shareholder director nominations.583 

After considering the comments, we believe that it is in shareholders’ and companies’ 

interest to have a process available for seeking to resolve certain disputes regarding nominations 

submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-11.584 Therefore, the rules we are adopting set out the process by 

which a company would determine whether to include a shareholder nominee and notify the 

nominating shareholder or group (or their authorized representative) of its determination.585 The 

rules also include a process by which a company would notify a nominating shareholder or group 

(or their authorized representative) of a deficiency in its notice on Schedule 14N, the nominating 

shareholder or group would have the opportunity to respond, and the company would send a 

notice to the Commission if the company intends to exclude a shareholder nominee from its 

proxy materials. Consistent with the Proposal, a company making the determination to exclude a 

shareholder nominee will be required to submit a notice to the Commission regarding its 

determination, and it may also choose to avail itself of the process to seek a no-action letter from 

581	 See letters from ABA; BRT. 

582	 See letter from ABA. 

583	 See letters from ABA; Delaware Bar. 

584	 In this regard, we note that the staff process for aiding in the resolution of disputes related to nominations 

made pursuant to Rule 14a-11 is non-exclusive. As discussed throughout this release, a company can seek 

the staff’s view with regard to its determination to exclude a nominee from its proxy materials, but it is not 

required to do so. A company could engage in negotiations with a nominating shareholder or group and 

ultimately reach a resolution outside of the staff process, or the parties could avail themselves of other 

alternatives, such as litigation. 

585	 Other than the modifications to the standards relating to transmission and receipt of notices and responses, 

which are described below, we are adopting the process as proposed. 

189
 
 

 

 

 

 

the staff with respect to its decision.586 While we understand the concerns raised by commenters 

regarding the rule’s timing requirements, we believe the requirements are appropriate in light of 

the need to facilitate the process between a company and its shareholders in time for an annual 

meeting.587 In addition, the staff is committed to timely addressing these matters. 

We are changing and clarifying the requirements related to the timing of sending and 

receiving notifications. As proposed, if a company determined that it could exclude a 

shareholder nominee, it would be required to notify the nominating shareholder or group and the 

notification would be required to be postmarked or transmitted electronically no later than 14 

calendar days after the company received the notice on Schedule 14N. The proposed rule stated 

that the company would be responsible for providing the notice in a manner that evidences 

timely receipt by the nominating shareholder or group. The proposed rule also included similar 

requirements for a response to the notice by the nominating shareholder or group. As adopted, 

the rules will keep the deadlines as they were proposed but will use a transmission standard in 

determining the deadlines, similar to the standard discussed above for new Rule 14a-11(g)(1). 

We believe using such a uniform standard for all notification aspects of the rule will provide 

clarity and ease of use. Under the final rule, a company’s notification must be postmarked or 

transmitted electronically no later than 14 calendar days after the close of the window period for 

submission of nominations pursuant to Rule 14a-11. We believe this change from the Proposal 

586	 We encourage companies and shareholders to attempt to resolve disputes independently. To the extent that 

a company and nominating shareholder or group are able to resolve an issue at any point during the staff 

process, the company should withdraw its request for a no-action letter from the staff. 

587	 The final rule does not include the proposed 30-calendar day notice requirement when a company 

determines to exclude a nominee. We believe this requirement is rendered unnecessary by the requirement 

in paragraph (g)(3) of Rule 14a-11 that the company provide notice to the Commission staff and 

nominating shareholder or group no later than 80 calendar days before the company files its definitive 

proxy statement and form of proxy. In addition, if a company seeks the staff’s informal view with respect 

to the company’s determination to exclude a nominee, promptly following receipt of the staff’s response a 

company would be required to provide a notice to the nominating shareholder or group stating whether it 

will include or exclude the nominee. 

190
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

588 

is appropriate because it will allow shareholders to submit their nominations, and companies to 

receive all the nominations, before requiring a company to send a notice to the nominating 

shareholder or group (or their authorized representative) as to whether it will include or exclude 

a nominee. Thus, a company will be able to make an informed decision with respect to 

individual nominations because it will be able to evaluate and respond to all the nominations it 

has received at one time, rather than evaluating and responding to the nominations as they are 

received. This approach should help reduce the possibility of any confusion that could result 

from requiring a company to respond to each nomination no later than 14 days after it is 

transmitted.588 A nominating shareholder’s or group’s response to the company’s notice must be 

postmarked or transmitted electronically no later than 14 calendar days after receipt of the 

company’s notification. We note that a timely transmission standard applies in both instances; 

however, we urge companies to send the notification, and nominating shareholders or groups to 

send a response, in a manner that will allow them to demonstrate when the communication is 

received, as doing so may avoid potential disputes. 

Under new Rule 14a-11(g), a company may exclude a shareholder nominee because: 

• Rule 14a-11 is not applicable to the company; 

• the nominating shareholder or group or nominee failed to satisfy the eligibility 

For example, suppose a company decided it did not have a reason to exclude a nominee submitted by a 

nominating shareholder during the first week of the window period. If we were to require that a company 

must respond to a nomination no later than 14 days after it was transmitted, the company would be required 

to respond to the nominating shareholder or group before the window period closed, and the company 

would inform the nominating shareholder that it intends to include the nominee. If, subsequent to the 

company sending a notice to the nominating shareholder of its intent to include the nominee, a nominating 

shareholder with a higher qualifying ownership percentage submits a nomination for the maximum number 

of nominees the company would be required to include under the rule, the company would be required to 

include those nominees assuming that the company determined that it did not have a reason to exclude the 

nominees. In that situation, confusion could result because, under the rule, the company would no longer 

be required to include the nominee submitted by the nominating shareholder during the first week of the 

window period, even though the company had informed the nominating shareholder it would include its 

nominee. 

191
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

requirements in Rule 14a-11(b);589 or 

•	 including the nominee or nominees would result in the company exceeding the 

maximum number of nominees it is required to include in its proxy statement and 

form of proxy.590 

In addition, a company would be permitted to exclude a statement in support of a 

nominee or nominees if the statement in support exceeds 500 words for each nominee.591 In such 

cases, a company would be required to include the nominee or nominees, provided the eligibility 

requirements were satisfied, but would be permitted to exclude the statement in support. 

Although we did not propose to allow for exclusion of a supporting statement that exceeds the 

length specified in the rule, we believe that it is appropriate to provide the ability to do so in the 

final rule.592 

We note that, in a change from the Proposal, under the final rule a company may not 

exclude a nominee or a statement in support on the basis that, in the company’s view, the 

Schedule 14N (which will include the statement in support) contains materially false or 

misleading statements. Nominating shareholders and groups will have liability for any 

materially false or misleading information or for making a false or misleading certification in the 

589	 Specifically, the final rule provides that a company could exclude a shareholder nominee because the 

nominating shareholder or group, or the nominee, fails to satisfy the applicable eligibility requirements in 

Rule 14a-11(b). In this regard, we note that the nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating 

shareholder group (or authorized representative) would be required to certify that, after reasonable inquiry 

and to the best of its knowledge and belief, the nominating shareholder or member of the nominating 

shareholder or group and the nominee satisfied the applicable requirements of Rule 14a-11(b). 

590	 See new Rule 14a-11(d). 

591	 See new Rule 14a-11(c). 

592	 In this regard, we note that this is consistent with Rule 14a-8, which specifies that a company may exclude 

a proposal if the proposal, including any accompanying supporting statement, exceeds 500 words. 

192
 
 

 

 

 

notice filed on Schedule 14N, and companies will not be responsible for this information.593 We 

believe that such disputes concerning whether information is false or misleading should be 

handled through disclosure, and if necessary, through private litigation, rather than through 

exclusion of the nominee under our rule. A company and the nominating shareholder or group 

will be in possession of the facts and circumstances regarding any disputes that arise about the 

truthfulness or accuracy of information or representations made by a nominating shareholder or 

group; thus, they will be in a better position than the staff to resolve those disputes. In addition, 

we note that in traditional proxy contests, companies and insurgents regularly use disclosure to 

communicate with a company’s shareholders about an insurgent’s nominee(s) and provide 

related information, including disclosure disputing the information provided by the other party. 

We believe that it is appropriate for companies and nominating shareholders engaged in the Rule 

14a-11 nomination process to work together to resolve these types of issues. While we 

encourage private parties to resolve disputes under this provision, the Commission could, of 

course, bring enforcement actions in appropriate instances. All filings associated with a 

nomination included in the company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11, including the 

Schedule 14N, the company’s proxy statement and any additional soliciting materials provided 

by the company or the nominating shareholder, will be subject to the staff’s proxy contest review 

procedures and, as noted, will be subject to the Rule 14a-9 prohibition against materially false or 

misleading statements. 

In the Proposing Release, we noted that: 

•	 Unless otherwise provided in Rule 14a-11 (e.g., the nominating shareholder’s or 

group’s obligation to demonstrate that it responded to a company’s notice of 

deficiency, where applicable, within 14 calendar days after receipt of the notice of 

See new Rule 14a-9(c) and Rule 14a-11(f). 

193
 

593 
 

 

 

 

 

deficiency), the burden would be on the company to demonstrate that it may exclude 

a nominee or nominees; and 

• All materials submitted to the Commission in relation to proposed Rule 14a-11(g) 

would be publicly available upon submission. 

We are adopting these aspects of the rules as proposed. We did not receive significant comment 

on these aspects of the proposed rules, although two commenters requested that companies bear 

the burden of proof when objecting to a nominee.594 The rule, as adopted and proposed, specifies 

that the burden is on the company to demonstrate that it may exclude a nominee or statement of 

support, unless otherwise specified.595 In addition, as we discussed in the Proposing Release, the 

staff’s responses to the submissions made pursuant to new Rule 14a-11(g) would reflect only 

informal views. The staff determinations reached in these responses would not, and cannot, 

adjudicate the merits of a company’s position with respect to exclusion of a shareholder nominee 

under Rule 14a-11. Accordingly, a discretionary staff determination would not preclude an 

interested person from pursuing a judicial determination regarding the application of Rule 14a11. 

As noted above, if a nominee withdraws or is disqualified, a company will be required to 

include an otherwise eligible nominee submitted by the shareholder or group with the next 

highest qualifying ownership percentage, if any. The company would be required to continue 

replacing withdrawn or disqualified nominees until it included the maximum number of 

nominees it is required to include in its proxy materials or the list of shareholder nominees is 

exhausted. As described above, a company will be required to give notice that it plans to 

594	 See letters from CII; Universities Superannuation. 

595	 In the Proposal, we noted that the exclusion of a nominee or nominees where the exclusion was not 

permissible would result in a violation of the rule. We are adopting that provision as proposed. 

194
 
 

 

exclude a nominee for any nominee that it intends to exclude, and the notice must include the 

reasons for the exclusion. If a company anticipates that it would seek a no-action letter from the 

staff with respect to its decision to exclude any Rule 14a-11 nominee or nominees, it should seek 

a no-action letter with regard to all nominees that it wishes to exclude at the outset and should 

assert all available bases for exclusion at that time. For example, if a company receives more 

nominees than it is required to include, its reasons for exclusion would note that basis. In 

addition, if the company believes it has other bases to exclude the nominee, it should note those 

other bases in its notice and include the other bases in its request for a no-action letter. 

195
 
 

 

c. Timing of Process 

The process generally would operate as follows: 

Due Date Action Required 

No earlier than 150 calendar days, and no later 

than 120 calendar days, before the anniversary 

of the date that the company mailed its proxy 

materials for the prior year’s annual meeting 

Nominating shareholder or group must provide 

notice on Schedule 14N to the company and 

file the Schedule 14N with the Commission 

No later than 14 calendar days after the close 

of the window period for submission of 

nominations 

Company must notify the nominating 

shareholder or group (or its authorized 

representative) of any determination not to 

include the nominee or nominees 

No later than 14 calendar days after the 

nominating shareholder’s or group’s receipt of 

the company’s deficiency notice 

Nominating shareholder or group must respond 

to the company’s deficiency notice and, where 

applicable, cure any defects in the nomination 

No later than 80 calendar days before the 

company files its definitive proxy statement 

and form of proxy with the Commission 

Company must provide notice of its intent to 

exclude the nominating shareholder’s or 

group’s nominee or nominees and the basis for 

its determination to the Commission and, if 

desired, seek a no-action letter from the staff 

with regard to its determination 

No later than 14 calendar days after the 

nominating shareholder’s or group’s receipt of 

the company’s notice to the Commission 

Nominating shareholder or group may submit a 

response to the company’s notice to the 

Commission staff 

As soon as practicable If requested by the company, Commission staff 

would, at its discretion, provide an informal 

statement of its views to the company and the 

nominating shareholder or group 

Promptly following receipt of the staff’s 

informal statement of its views 

Company must provide notice to the 

nominating shareholder or group stating 

whether it will include or exclude the nominee 

d. Information required in company proxy materials 

i. Proxy statement 

As discussed in Section II.B.8. above, we proposed and are adopting a requirement that a 

company that is including a shareholder director nominee in its proxy statement and form of 

proxy pursuant to Rule 14a-11 include certain disclosure about the nominating shareholder or 

group and the nominee in the company proxy statement. This disclosure will be provided by the 

nominating shareholder or group in its notice on Schedule 14N in response to Item 5 of that 

196
 
 

 

 

 

 

Schedule and will be included in the company’s proxy statement pursuant to Item 7(e) (and, in 

the case of investment companies, Item 22(b)(18)) of Schedule 14A.596 As we proposed, the 

company will not be responsible for the disclosure; rather, the nominating shareholder or group 

will have liability for any materially false or misleading statements.597 

As discussed in Section II.B.8., the disclosures to be included in the company’s proxy 

statement include: 

•	 A statement that the nominee consents to be named in the company’s proxy statement 

and form of proxy and, if elected, to serve on the company’s board of directors; 

•	 Disclosure about the nominee as would be provided in response to the disclosure 

requirements of Items 4(b), 5(b), 7(a), (b) and (c) and, for investment companies, 

Item 22(b) of Schedule 14A, as applicable; 

•	 Disclosure about the nominating shareholder or each member of a nominating 

shareholder group as would be required of a participant in response to the disclosure 

requirements of Items 4(b) and 5(b) of Schedule 14A, as applicable; 

•	 Disclosure about whether the nominating shareholder or any member of a nominating 

shareholder group has been involved in any legal proceeding during the past ten 

years, as specified in Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K; 

•	 Disclosure about whether, to the best of the nominating shareholder’s or group’s 

knowledge, the nominee meets the director qualifications set forth in the company’s 

governing documents, if any; 

596	 Refer to Section II.B.8. for a discussion of comments received on the proposed disclosure and changes 

made in response to these comments. We did not receive comment specifically on new Items 7(e) or 

22(b)(18) of Schedule 14A. 

597	 See new Rule 14a-11(f). 

197
 
 

 

• A statement that, to the best of the nominating shareholder’s or group’s knowledge, 

in the case of a registrant other than an investment company, the nominee meets the 

objective criteria for “independence” of the national securities exchange or national 

securities association rules applicable to the company, if any, or, in the case of a 

registrant that is an investment company, the nominee is not an “interested person” of 

the registrant as defined in Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act of 1940; 

•	 The following information regarding the nature and extent of the relationships 

between the nominating shareholder or group, the nominee, and/or the company or 

any affiliate of the company: 

•	 Any direct or indirect material interest in any contract or agreement between 

the nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder 

group, the nominee, and/or the company or any affiliate of the company 

(including any employment agreement, collective bargaining agreement, or 

consulting agreement); 

•	 Any material pending or threatened litigation in which the nominating 

shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group and/or the 

nominee is a party or a material participant, and that involves the company, 

any of its officers or directors, or any affiliate of the company; 

•	 Any other material relationship between the nominating shareholder or any 

member of the nominating shareholder group, the nominee, and/or the 

company or any affiliate of the company not otherwise disclosed; and 

•	 The Web site address on which the nominating shareholder or nominating 

shareholder group may publish soliciting materials, if any. 

198
 
 

 

The disclosures set out in Items 4(b) and 5(b) of Schedule 14A are specifically tailored to 

contested elections and currently are provided by both companies and insurgents in traditional 

proxy contests. The disclosures required pursuant to Item 4(b) include: 

•	 Who is making the solicitation and the methods of solicitation; 

•	 If employees of the soliciting party are engaged in the solicitation, what types of 

employees are engaged in the solicitation and the manner and nature of their 

employment; 

•	 If specially engaged employees are engaged in the solicitation, the material features 

of the engagement, the cost, and the number of employees; 

•	 The total amount estimated to be spent and the total expenditures to date for the 

solicitation; 

•	 Who will bear the cost of the solicitation; and 

•	 The terms of any settlement between the company and the soliciting parties, including 

the cost to the company. 

The disclosures included pursuant to Item 5(b) include: 

•	 Any substantial interest of the soliciting party in the matter to be voted on; 

•	 Certain biographical information about the soliciting party, such as name and 

business address, principal occupation, and any criminal convictions in the past 10 

years; 

•	 The amount of company securities beneficially owned and owned of record; 

•	 Dates and amounts of any securities purchased or sold within the past two years and 

the amount of funds borrowed and owed to purchase the securities; 

•	 Whether the soliciting person is or was within the past year a party to any contracts, 

199
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

arrangements or understandings with respect to the company’s securities and the 

terms of the contract, arrangement or understanding; 

•	 Beneficial ownership of company securities by any associate of the soliciting person; 

•	 Beneficial ownership by the soliciting person of any parent or subsidiary of the 

company; 

•	 Disclosure responsive to Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K with regard to the soliciting 

person and any associate; 

•	 Disclosure of any arrangements concerning future employment or transactions with 

the company; and 

•	 Any substantial interest in the vote, either by security holdings or otherwise, held by a 

party to an arrangement or understanding related to a director nominee. 

The company also will include in its proxy statement disclosure about the management 

nominees responsive to Items 4(b), 5(b), 7(a), (b) and (c) and, for investment companies, Item 

22(b) of Schedule 14A, as applicable, as well as disclosure concerning the persons making the 

solicitation for the management nominees responsive to Items 4(b) and 5(b) of Schedule 14A, as 

applicable. We did not amend the disclosure requirements in this regard, as companies are 

already required to make these disclosures in the context of a “solicitation in opposition,” under 

Rule 14a-12(c).598 

In addition, as discussed in Section II.B.8., we proposed and adopted a requirement that 

the company include in its proxy statement the nominating shareholder’s or group’s statement in 

We have clarified in new Instruction 3 to Rule 14a-12 that inclusion of a shareholder director nominee 

pursuant to Rule 14a-11, an applicable state or foreign law provision, or a company’s governing documents 

as they relate to the inclusion of shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy materials, or 

solicitations that are made in connection with that nomination, constitute solicitations subject to Rule 14a12(c), except for purposes of the requirement for the company to file their proxy statement in preliminary 

form pursuant to Rule 14a-6(a). 

200
 

598 
 

 

 

 

 

 

support of the shareholder nominee or nominees, if the nominating shareholder or group elects to 

have such statement included in the company’s proxy materials. As discussed in Section II.B.8., 

we had proposed that this statement not exceed 500 words total, but in response to commenters’ 

concerns, we have revised this provision in the final rule to enable a nominating shareholder or 

group to include up to 500 words for each nominee. The company also would have the option to 

include a statement of support for the management nominees.599 

ii. Form of proxy 

Under the Proposal, a company that is required to include a shareholder nominee or 

nominees on its form of proxy could identify the shareholder nominees as such and recommend 

whether shareholders should vote for, against, or withhold votes on those nominees and 

management nominees on the form of proxy.600 In addition, the company could determine the 

order in which its nominees and any shareholder nominees are listed in the form of proxy. The 

company would otherwise be required to present the nominees in an impartial manner in 

accordance with Rule 14a-4. 

Under the current rules, a company may provide shareholders with the option to vote for 

or withhold authority to vote for the company’s nominees as a group, provided that shareholders 

also are given a means to withhold authority for specific nominees in the group. In our view, as 

we stated in the Proposal, this option would not be appropriate where the company’s form of 

599 In the Proxy Disclosure Enhancements Adopting Release, we amended our rules to require disclosure about 

directors that will provide investors with more meaningful disclosure to enable them to determine whether 

and why a director or nominee is an appropriate choice for a particular company. The information is 

required in the company’s proxy statement for each director nominee and each director who will continue 

to serve after the shareholder meeting. Under revised Item 401 of Regulation S-K, a nominating 

shareholder or group will be required to discuss the particular experience, qualifications, attributes or skills 

of the nominee or nominees that led the nominating shareholder or group to conclude that the person should 

be put forward as a candidate for director on the company’s board of directors. 

600	 This would be similar to the current practice with regard to shareholder proposals submitted pursuant to 

Rule 14a-8 where companies identify the shareholder proposals and provide a recommendation to 

shareholders as to how they should vote on each of those proposals. 

201
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

proxy includes shareholder nominees, as grouping the company’s nominees may make it easier 

to vote for all of the company’s nominees than to vote for the shareholder nominees in addition 

to some of the company nominees. Accordingly, when a shareholder nominee is included (either 

pursuant to Rule 14a-11, an applicable state law provision, or a company’s governing 

documents), we proposed an amendment to Rule 14a-4 to provide that a company may not give 

shareholders the option of voting for or withholding authority to vote for the company nominees 

as a group, but instead must require that shareholders vote on each nominee separately. 

Commenters were mixed on the appropriate presentation of nominees on the form of 

proxy. Several commenters supported the proposed amendments to Rule 14a-4 to prohibit the 

option of voting for management’s slate as a whole,601 with one of these commenters 

characterizing the current option of “elect all directors” as “a convenience in uncontested 

director elections” but warning that providing that option in contested elections “tilts the scales 

unduly in favor of management.”602 The commenter believed that shareholders would not have 

any difficulty in identifying the management nominees and disagreed with the argument that a 

form of proxy listing all nominees would be confusing. As a possible solution, the commenter 

suggested a legend such as “There are six candidates. Vote for no more than five.” Another 

commenter argued that the advantage of voting for each individual nominee is the de facto 

plurality voting standard that would result.603 Numerous commenters opposed the proposed 

amendments to Rule 14a-4 and argued that the form of proxy should allow shareholders to vote 

for the entire slate of management nominees.604 Many of these commenters believed that such an 

601 See letters from CII; COPERA; P. Neuhauser; RiskMetrics; USPE. 

602 Letter from CII. 

603 See letter from RiskMetrics. 

604 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; ABA; Aetna; Alcoa; American Express; Anadarko; Boeing; 

202
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

option is needed to minimize shareholder confusion,605 with several commenters justifying such 

an option on the basis that boards expend considerable efforts in selecting the complete slate of 

management nominees (e.g., considering issues as the independence of the board as whole).606 

One commenter stated that individual shareholders (unlike large institutional investors who have 

outsourced the actual proxy voting process for their portfolio) would be discouraged from voting 

if the proxy voting process becomes overly tedious as a result of the inability to vote for (or 

withhold votes for) a group of nominees.607 The commenter analogized to the shareholders’ 

voting options for shareholder proposals, where shareholders are allowed to vote on all matters 

as recommended by management through the exercise of discretionary voting authority. It noted 

that, under the existing proxy rules, companies often allow shareholders to vote “For All, except” 

and then allow them to identify the specific nominees for whom the proxy is not authorized to 

vote. The commenter recommended that companies be permitted to have this same option when 

there are shareholder nominees included in the proxy materials (with a clear statement in the 

form of proxy that the shareholder should indicate a vote for the shareholder nominee in the 

space provided for that nominee). One commenter argued that the ability to vote on the entire 

slate is essential in the event that the proposed rules are applied to investment companies, as such 

entities have a far higher proportion of retail shareholders than most operating companies and 

consequently have more difficulty in achieving a quorum.608 

BorgWarner; BRT; ExxonMobil; Fenwick; Honeywell; ICI; Intel; JPMorgan Chase; Pfizer; Seven Law 

Firms; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Tenet; U.S. Bancorp. 

605	 See letters from Aetna; American Express; Boeing; BorgWarner; JPMorgan Chase; Seven Law Firms; 

Society of Corporate Secretaries; U.S. Bancorp. 

606	 See letters from BorgWarner; Pfizer; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Tenet. 

607	 See letter from ABA. 

608	 See letter from ICI. 

203
 
 

 

 

 

 

We are adopting this aspect of the Proposal largely as proposed,609 because we continue to 

believe that grouping the company’s nominees and permitting them to be voted on as a group 

would make it easier to vote for all of the company’s nominees than to vote for the shareholder 

nominees in addition to some of the company nominees. This would result in an advantage to 

the management nominees and would be inconsistent with an impartial approach and the goals of 

Rule 14a-11. The final rule clarifies that the change would apply not only when a nominee is 

included pursuant to Rule 14a-11, applicable state law, or a company’s governing documents, 

but also where a nominee is included pursuant to a provision in foreign law. 

We believe that potential confusion that may result from not providing the option to vote 

for the company’s slate can be mitigated to the extent that companies provide clear voting 

instructions, particularly with respect to the number of candidates for which a shareholder can 

vote. In addition, we do not believe that requiring shareholders to vote for candidates 

individually, rather than as a group, creates a burden that will result in discouraging shareholders 

See new Rule 14a-4(b)(2)(iv). We anticipate that companies would continue to be able to solicit 

discretionary authority to vote a shareholder’s shares for the company nominees, as well as to cumulate 

votes for the company nominees in accordance with applicable state law, where such state law or the 

company’s governing documents provide for cumulative voting. 

204
 

609 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

from voting at all in director elections. In this regard, we note that a company could clearly 

designate the nominees on its form of proxy as company nominees or shareholder nominees. 

e. No preliminary proxy statement 

Under the Proposal, inclusion of a shareholder nominee in the company’s proxy materials 

would not require the company to file a preliminary proxy statement provided that the company 

was otherwise qualified to file directly in definitive form. In this regard, the Proposal made clear 

that inclusion of a shareholder nominee would not be deemed a solicitation in opposition.610 We 

did not receive a significant amount of comment on this aspect of the rule, although two 

commenters agreed that inclusion of a Rule 14a-11 shareholder nominee should not require the 

company to file preliminary proxy materials.611 We are adopting this provision largely as 

proposed. As adopted, a company would not be required to file a preliminary proxy statement in 

connection with a nomination made pursuant to Rule 14a-11, an applicable state or foreign law 

provision, or a company’s governing documents.612 

10. Application of the Other Proxy Rules to Solicitations by the 

Nominating Shareholder or Group 

a. Rule 14a-2(b)(7) 

As noted in the Proposing Release, we anticipate that shareholders may engage in 

communications with other shareholders in an effort to form a nominating shareholder group to 

aggregate their holdings to meet the applicable minimum ownership threshold to nominate a 

director. While consistent with the purpose of Rule 14a-11, such communications would be 

deemed solicitations under the proxy rules. Accordingly, we proposed an exemption from the 

610 See proposed revisions to Rule 14a-6(a)(4) and Note 3 to that rule. 

611 See letters from ABA; CII. 

612 See also discussion in footnote 598 above. 

205
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

proxy rules for written communications made in connection with using proposed Rule 14a-11613 

that are limited in content and filed with the Commission.614 As noted in the Proposal, we 

believed this limited exemption would facilitate shareholders’ use of proposed Rule 14a-11 and 

remove concerns shareholders seeking to use the rule may have regarding certain 

communications with other shareholders regarding their intent to submit a nomination pursuant 

to the rule. 

Some commenters supported the proposed exemption for soliciting activities by 

shareholders seeking to form a group for purposes of Rule 14a-11.615 One of these commenters 

stated that because “many institutional investors lack incentives to invest actively in seeking 

governance benefits that would be shared by their fellow shareholders,” the rule should avoid 

imposing unnecessary hurdles or costs on shareholders organizing or joining a nominating 

group.616 Another supporter of the exemption stated that soliciting activities to form a group for 

the purpose of submitting nominations under Rule 14a-11, state law, or a company’s governing 

documents generally should be exempt, with no filing requirement prior to giving the company 

notice and filing a Schedule 14N.617 Another commenter also recommended that any exemption 

also cover solicitations for nominations submitted under state law or a company’s governing 

documents.618 Finally, one commenter expressed support for the proposed exemption so 

613 Under the Proposal, the exemption would not apply to solicitations made when seeking to have a nominee 

included in a company’s proxy materials pursuant to a procedure specified in the company’s governing 

documents or pursuant to applicable state law (as opposed to pursuant to Rule 14a-11). 

614 See proposed Rule 14a-2(b)(7)(i). 

615 See letters from Group of 80 Professors of Law, Business, Economics and Finance (“Bebchuk, et al.”); 

CalSTRS; CII; P. Neuhauser; RiskMetrics; Schulte Roth & Zabel; USPE. 

616 Letter from Bebchuk, et al. 

617 See letter from CII. 

618 See letter from P. Neuhauser. 

206
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholders could communicate with other investors to explain their nominee’s qualifications 

and the rationale for submitting their nominations as long as they file all materials with the 

Commission and do not solicit proxies on behalf of their nominees.619 

On the other hand, several commenters opposed the creation of a new exemption for 

soliciting activities to form a nominating group.620 Two of these commenters stated that the 

proposed exemption in Rule 14a-2(b)(7) is unnecessary, given the existing exemptions available 

to nominating shareholders (e.g., Rule 14a-2(b)(2) exemption for communications with up to 10 

shareholders and Rule 14a-2(b)(6) for communications in an electronic shareholder forum).621 

One commenter indicated that a solicitation to form a “control” group could have significant 

implications affecting control of a company if there are no limits on the number of shareholders 

or aggregated holdings of a nominating group.622 The commenter asserted that, absent these 

limits, a shareholder could build a nominating group with hundreds of shareholders owning far in 

excess of the ownership threshold needed to use Rule 14a-11. The commenter warned that the 

proposed exemption could facilitate avoidance of the proposed requirements of Rule 14a-11 

because the exempt solicitations could be the first stage of a campaign against incumbent 

directors and in favor of shareholder nominees. This commenter also believed that the 

exemption should not apply to solicitations undertaken by shareholders to form a nominating 

shareholder group in order to submit nominees pursuant to state law or a company’s governing 

documents.623 

619 See letter from RiskMetrics. 

620 See letters from ABA; Anadarko; BRT; Seven Law Firms. 

621 See letters from ABA; Seven Law Firms. 

622 See letter from ABA. 

623 Id. 

207
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commenters also suggested the following changes to the proposed exemption: 

•	 The exemption should not be available if the shareholder or any member of the 

nominating group uses another available exemption for a nomination to be presented 

at the same shareholder meeting;624 

•	 The exemption should not be available for a “data gathering strategy” in which a 

shareholder is “testing the waters” for other purposes, such as for a traditional proxy 

contest;625 

•	 The shareholder should certify that it has a bona fide intent to present a Rule 14a-11 

nomination and the shareholder should be prohibited from nominating directors at the 

same meeting through means other than Rule 14a-11;626 and 

•	 The exemption should not be available if the company or another shareholder has 

publicly announced that the company would be facing a traditional proxy contest.627 

One commenter stated generally that allowing the “permitted activity among shareholders 

wishing to nominate a director” would “increase the need for the Commission to police group 

activity that may be undertaken with an undisclosed control intent.”628 

Two commenters agreed with the Commission that the Rule 14a-2(b)(7) exemption 

should not be available for solicitations conducted through oral communications.629 These 

commenters warned that there would be no way to ensure that orally-communicated information 

624 See letters from ABA; Seven Law Firms. 

625 Id. 

626 See letter from ABA. 

627 See letters from ABA; Seven Law Firms. 

628 Letter from Biogen. 

629 See letters from ABA; Seven Law Firms. 

208
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is being provided to shareholders in a consistent manner and in accordance with the rule’s 

requirements. One commenter recommended specific changes to the rule to clarify that the 

exemption is not available for oral communications.630 On the other hand, several commenters 

believed that oral communications should be exempt.631 Some commenters pointed out that such 

communications are exempt in other contexts and are difficult to monitor in any case.632 To 

mitigate the risk of inappropriate communications, one commenter suggested that the 

Commission require that oral communications made in reliance on the exemption not be 

inconsistent with any communications previously filed by the shareholder in connection with the 

nomination.633 

Two commenters expressed general support for the proposal requiring that a nominating 

shareholder or group file any soliciting materials published, sent or given to shareholders 

pursuant to the exemption no later than the date that the material is first published, sent, or 

given.634 One commenter argued that if the Commission retains the requirement that solicitations 

be in writing, then it should relax the “date of first use” filing deadline (with a three business day 

deadline being its preference).635 One commenter supported the filing requirement of 

Rule 14a-2(b)(7)(ii) for soliciting materials published, sent or given to shareholders solicited to 

become part of a nominating group,636 while three commenters opposed the filing requirement.637 

630 See letter from Seven Law Firms. 

631 See letters from CII; Cleary; P. Neuhauser; Schulte Roth & Zabel; USPE. 

632 See letters from CII; USPE. 

633 See letter from Cleary. 

634 See letters from ABA; CII. 

635 See letter from Schulte Roth & Zabel. 

636 See letter from ABA. 

209
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of those opposing the requirement, one commenter noted that under the Williams Act, persons 

contemplating an actual change in control are not required to publicly disclose their activities 

until a group owning 5% of the company’s shares has been formed.638 One commenter stated 

that it is possible that a group of shareholders ultimately may decide not to submit a shareholder 

nominee.639 Therefore, this commenter believed, any requirement for filings before the group 

submits a nominee would place an unfair disadvantage on the process of first determining if a 

nomination is the right course of action, and if so, who the nominee should be. Another 

commenter suggested that the filing requirement be triggered on the date the shareholder 

proposes a nominee, not on the date of solicitation.640 The commenter believed that a shareholder 

should not be burdened with the filing requirement at the initial stages of determining the 

feasibility of forming a group. 

Three commenters recommended that communications made for the purpose of forming a 

nominating shareholder group should be permitted to identify possible or proposed nominees,641 

with one commenter adding the condition that the nominee first agree to being named.642 Two 

commenters recommended the following additional disclosure in any written soliciting materials 

used in reliance on the Rule 14a-2(b)(7) exemption: 

• the period that the soliciting shareholder held the specified number of shares; 

• a description of any short positions or other hedging arrangements through which the 

637 See letters from CalSTRS; COPERA; P. Neuhauser. 

638 See letter from P. Neuhauser. 

639 See letter from COPERA. 

640 See letter from CalSTRS. 

641 See letters from ABA; CII; USPE. 

642 See letter from ABA. 

210
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

soliciting shareholder reduced or otherwise altered its economic stake in the 

company; 

•	 a description of any contracts, arrangements, understandings or relationships between 

the soliciting shareholder and any other person with respect to any securities of the 

company; and 

•	 a description of any plans or proposals of the shareholder or group with respect to the 

organization, business or operations of the company.643 

One commenter added that the required disclosure should be consistent with that required by 

Items 4 and 6 of Schedule 13D,644 while another commenter stated that shareholders should be 

permitted to include a brief statement of the reasons for the formation of the nominating group.645 

After considering the comments, we are adopting the proposed exemption with certain 

modifications, including modifications to enable shareholders to communicate orally, to require 

the filing of a cover page in the form set forth in Schedule 14N (with the appropriate box on the 

cover page marked) no later than when the solicitation commences, and to clarify the 

circumstances under which the exemption will be available.646 We believe that this limited 

exemption will facilitate shareholders’ use of Rule 14a-11 and remove concerns shareholders 

643	 See letters from ABA; Seven Law Firms. 

644	 See letter from ABA. 

645	 See letter from Schulte Roth & Zabel. 

646	 Shareholders also would have the option to structure their solicitations in connection with the formation of 

a nominating shareholder group, whether written or oral, to comply with an existing exemption from the 

proxy rules, including the exemption for solicitations of no more than 10 shareholders (Exchange Act Rule 

14a-2(b)(2)) and the exemption for certain communications that take place in an electronic shareholder 

forum (Exchange Act Rule 14a-2(b)(6)). For example, a shareholder could rely on Rule 14a-2(b)(2) to 

solicit no more than 10 shareholders in an effort to form a nominating shareholder group. If the 

shareholder’s efforts did not result in the formation of a group large enough to meet the ownership 

thresholds, the shareholder could then rely on Rule 14a-2(b)(7) to continue its efforts to form a nominating 

shareholder group for the purpose of submitting a nomination pursuant to Rule 14a-11. 

211
 
 

 

seeking to use the rule may have regarding certain communications with other shareholders 

regarding their intent to submit a nomination pursuant to the rule. 

New Rule 14a-2(b)(7) provides an exemption from the generally applicable disclosure, 

filing, and other requirements of the proxy rules for solicitations by or on behalf of any 

shareholder in connection with the formation of a nominating shareholder group, provided that 

the shareholder is not holding the company’s securities with the purpose, or with the effect, of 

changing control of the company or to gain a number of seats on the board of directors that 

exceeds the maximum number of nominees that the registrant could be required to include under 

Rule 14a-11(d). In addition, any written communication may include no more than: 

•	 A statement of the shareholder’s intent to form a nominating shareholder group in 

order to nominate a director under Rule 14a-11; 

•	 Identification of, and a brief statement regarding, the potential nominee or nominees 

or, where no nominee or nominees have been identified, the characteristics of the 

nominee or nominees that the shareholder intends to nominate, if any; 

•	 The percentage of voting power of the company’s securities that are entitled to be 

voted on the election of directors that each soliciting shareholder holds or the 

aggregate percentage held by any group to which the shareholder belongs; and 

•	 The means by which shareholders may contact the soliciting party. 

Any written soliciting material published, sent or given to shareholders in accordance 

with the terms of this provision must be filed with the Commission by the nominating 

shareholder or group, under the company’s Exchange Act file number (or in the case of a 

registered investment company, under the company’s Investment Company Act file number), no 

later than the date the material is first published, sent or given to shareholders. The soliciting 

212
 
 

 

 

 

 

material would be required to be filed with a cover page in the form set forth in Schedule 14N, 

with the appropriate box on the cover page marked to identify the filing as soliciting material 

pursuant to Rule 14a-2(b)(7).647 This requirement is largely consistent with the Proposal; 

however, under the final rule, the solicitation will be filed on Schedule 14N rather than as 

definitive additional soliciting materials on Schedule 14A, as was proposed. We have made this 

change to avoid confusion between soliciting materials filed in connection with the formation of 

a nominating shareholder group under Rule 14a-11 (or in connection with a Rule 14a-11 

nomination), as discussed further below, and other proxy materials that may be filed by 

companies or by participants in a traditional proxy contest. 

We also have expanded the exemption to cover oral solicitations. As noted in the 

Proposal, we originally proposed to limit the exclusion to written communications to address our 

concern that oral communications could not easily satisfy the filing requirement (which would 

make it more difficult to monitor use of the exemption). However, after further consideration, 

we agree with commenters that oral communications should be included within the exemption 

because it is likely that shareholders will need to speak to each other in order to effectively form 

a nominating shareholder group. Oral communications will not be limited in content in the way 

that written communications are limited. In an effort to better monitor and avoid abuse under the 

exemption, however, a shareholder seeking to form a nominating shareholder group in reliance 

on the exemption in Rule 14a-2(b)(7) will be required to file a Schedule 14N notice of 

commencement of the oral solicitation. Because there are no limits on the number of holders 

that can be solicited in reliance on the new rule, or the contents of the oral communications, we 

Materials filed in connection with the new solicitation exemptions will be filed under a cover page of 

Schedule 14N and will appear as a Schedule 14N-S on EDGAR. See new Rule 14a-2(b)(7)(ii). We note 

that written communications include electronic communications, such as e-mails and Web site postings, 

and scripts used in connection with oral solicitations. 

213
 

647 
 

 

believe it is important for our staff and the markets to be aware of the commencement of these 

activities. 

The Schedule 14N filing for oral solicitations will consist of a cover page in the form set 

forth in Schedule 14N, with the appropriate box on the cover page marked to identify the filing 

as a notice of solicitation pursuant to Rule 14a-2(b)(7). This filing would be made under the 

company’s Exchange Act file number (or in the case of a registered investment company, under 

the company’s Investment Company Act file number), no later than the date of the first 

communication made in reliance on the rule. 

As noted above, some commenters were opposed to the filing requirement for 

solicitations for various reasons. We have decided to adopt the filing requirement because we 

believe it is important to provide companies and shareholders with information about potential 

nominations under Rule 14a-11 when the new solicitation exemption is used to pursue such a 

nomination. We do not believe that the filing requirement is burdensome, particularly in light of 

the fact that we are providing shareholders with the opportunity to engage in activities for which 

they would otherwise need to file a proxy statement or have another exemption available. 

More generally, we understand commenters’ concerns regarding the solicitation 

exemptions, including the exemption for oral communications when seeking to form a group, 

being used as a means to engage in a contest for control, but we believe that requiring a 

nominating shareholder or group to file a Schedule 14N to provide notice of such 

communications, along with the other limitations in the rule we are adopting, should mitigate 

these concerns. In response to commenters’ concerns, we have clarified in the rule that a 

shareholder or group that chooses to rely on new Rule 14a-2(b)(7) would lose that exemption if 

they subsequently engaged in a non-Rule 14a-11 nomination or solicitation in connection with 

214
 
 

 

 

 

 

the subject election of directors other than solicitations exempt under Rule 14a-2(b)(8), or if they 

become a member of a group, as determined under Section 13(d)(3) of the Exchange Act and 

Rule 13d-5(b)(1), or otherwise, with persons engaged in soliciting or other nominating activities 

in connection with the subject election of directors.648 This could result in the shareholder or 

group being deemed to have engaged in a non-exempt solicitation in violation of the proxy rules. 

In addition, we have clarified that, consistent with Rule 14a-11, the exemption is available only 

where the shareholder is not holding the company’s securities with the purpose, or with the 

effect, of changing control of the company or to gain a number of seats on the board of directors 

that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that the registrant could be required to include 

under Rule 14a-11(d). Thus, we do not believe that it is likely that a shareholder or group will 

use the exemption as a means to engage in a contest for control. 

Consistent with the Proposal, neither this exemption nor the exemption set forth in Rule 

14a-2(b)(8) (discussed below) will apply to solicitations made when seeking to have a nominee 

included in a company’s proxy materials pursuant to a procedure specified in the company’s 

governing documents (as opposed to pursuant to Rule 14a-11). As we noted in the Proposal, in 

this instance, companies and/or shareholders would have determined the parameters of the 

shareholder’s or group’s access to the company’s proxy materials. Given the range of possible 

criteria companies and/or shareholders could establish for nominations, we continue to believe it 

would not be appropriate to extend the exemption to those circumstances. Also consistent with 

the Proposal, we have not extended the exemption to nominations made pursuant to applicable 

state law provisions,649 again because state law could establish any number of possible criteria for 

648	 See new Instruction to Rule 14a-2(b)(7). 

649	 Similarly, the exemption would not be available for solicitations in connection with nominations made 

pursuant to foreign law provisions. 

215
 
 

 

 

 

nominations. A shareholder would need to determine whether one of the existing exemptions 

applies to their solicitation conducted in connection with a nomination made pursuant to a 

company’s governing documents or state law. 

b. Rule 14a-2(b)(8) 

Both the nominating shareholder or group and the company may wish to solicit in favor 

of their nominees for director by various means, including orally, by U.S. mail, electronic mail, 

and Web site postings. While the company ultimately would file a proxy statement and therefore 

could rely on the existing proxy rules to solicit outside the proxy statement,650 shareholders could 

be limited in their soliciting activities under the current proxy rules. Accordingly, our Proposal 

included a new exemption to the proxy rules for solicitations by or on behalf of a nominating 

shareholder or group in support of its nominee who is included in the company’s proxy statement 

and form of proxy. 

As proposed, the exemption would be available only where the shareholder is not seeking 

proxy authority. In addition, any written communications would be required to include specified 

disclosures, including: 

•	 the identity of the nominating shareholder or group; 

•	 a description of his or her direct or indirect interests, by security holdings or 

otherwise; and 

•	 a legend advising shareholders that a shareholder nominee is or will be included in 

the company’s proxy statement and that they should read the company’s proxy 

statement when available and that the proxy statement, other soliciting material, and 

any other relevant documents are or will be available at no charge on the 

See Exchange Act Rule 14a-12. 

216
 

650 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commission’s Web site. 

Under the Proposal, written soliciting materials also would be required to be filed with the 

Commission under the company’s Exchange Act file number no later than the date the material 

is first published, sent or given to shareholders.651 The soliciting material would be required to 

include a cover page in the form set forth in Schedule 14A, with the appropriate box on the cover 

page marked.652 

Three commenters supported the proposed Rule 14a-2(b)(8) exemption for soliciting 

activities by or on behalf of a nominating shareholder or group in support of the shareholder 

nominees included in a company’s proxy materials, with soliciting materials filed no later than 

the date that the materials are first used.653 Two of these commenters explained that because 

management would solicit votes against the shareholder nominees and for their own nominees, 

the nominating shareholder, group, and shareholder nominees should have the same ability to 

solicit, so long as they do not request proxy authority.654 Another commenter stated that the 

exemption should apply to solicitations for nominations made pursuant to Rule 14a-11, state law, 

or a company’s governing documents.655 The commenter opposed any limitations on the 

soliciting activities by a nominating shareholder or group and viewed such soliciting activities as 

the same as a company’s disclosure opposing a shareholder proposal. One commenter supported 

the Rule 14a-2(b)(8) exemption for solicitations by a nominating shareholder or group in favor of 

651 For a registered investment company, the filing would be made under the company’s Investment Company 

Act file number. 

652 See proposed Rule 14a-2(b)(8)(iii). 

653 See letters from CII; COPERA; P. Neuhauser. 

654 See letters from COPERA; P. Neuhauser. 

655 See letter from CII. 

217
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a shareholder nominee who is included in a company’s proxy materials (or against a 

management nominee), but recommended that the rule specify that the exemption only applies to 

solicitations in favor of a shareholder nominee (or against a board nominee) that occur after the 

distribution of the company’s proxy materials – this would help avoid confusion and 

misunderstandings about whether solicitation may occur before the company’s proxy materials 

are available.656 This commenter also recommended that the exemption not be available if the 

company or another shareholder has publicly announced that the company would be facing a 

traditional proxy contest, even from an unrelated shareholder. The commenter also believed that 

the exemption should be available for any written solicitation by or on behalf of a nominating 

shareholder or group in support of a nominee included in a company’s proxy materials pursuant 

to state law or the company’s governing documents, as long as the nominating shareholder or 

group does not use a form of proxy that differs from that of the company, does not furnish or 

otherwise request a form of revocation, abstention, consent or authorization, and files its 

solicitation material for its nominees (or against the management nominees) with the 

Commission on the date of first use. 

To the extent that it is not included in either the company’s proxy materials or Schedule 

14N, the commenter also recommended that additional disclosure be required to be included in 

solicitations made pursuant to Rule 14a-2(b)(8).657 Another commenter also stated that Rule 14a2(b)(8) should apply only to solicitations in favor of a shareholder nominee that occur after the 

656 See letter from ABA. 

657 The recommended disclosures included: the period that the soliciting shareholder held the specified 

number of shares; a description of any short positions or other hedging arrangements through which the 

soliciting shareholder reduced or otherwise altered its economic stake in the company; a description of any 

contracts, arrangements, understandings or relationships between the soliciting shareholder and any other 

person with respect to any securities of the company; and a description of any plans or proposals of the 

shareholder or group with respect to the organization, business or operations of the company. 

218
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mailing of a company’s proxy materials.658 Further, the commenter explained that solicitations 

should not occur at a time when shareholders do not have access to the more complete and 

balanced disclosure about all of the nominees in a company’s proxy materials. 

As adopted, Rule 14a-2(b)(8) provides an exemption from the generally applicable 

disclosure, filing, and other requirements of the proxy rules for solicitations by or on behalf of a 

nominating shareholder or group, provided that: 

•	 The soliciting party does not, at any time during such solicitation, seek directly or 

indirectly, either on its own or another’s behalf, the power to act as proxy for a 

shareholder and does not furnish or otherwise request, or act on behalf of a person 

who furnishes or requests, a form of revocation, abstention, consent or 

authorization;659 

•	 Each written communication includes:660 

•	 The identity of the nominating shareholder or group and a description of his or her 

direct or indirect interests, by security holdings or otherwise; 

•	 A prominent legend in clear, plain language advising shareholders that a 

shareholder nominee is or will be included in the company’s proxy statement and 

that they should read the company’s proxy statement when available because it 

includes important information. The legend also must explain to shareholders that 

658	 See letter from Seven Law Firms. 

659	 See new Rule 14a-2(b)(8)(i). The language in this provision generally follows the language in Rule 14a2(b)(1) and, therefore, we interpret both provisions in the same manner. In this regard, we note the 

discussion in the Proxy Disclosure and Solicitation Enhancements proposing release of our view of the 

scope of the term “form of revocation” within the meaning of Rule 14a-2(b)(1) and the proposed 

amendment to that rule to clarify that the term does not include an unmarked copy of the company’s proxy 

card that is requested to be returned directly to management. See Securities Act Release No. 33-9052; 34­

60280 (July 10, 2009) [74 FR 35076]. If we act on the proposed amendments to Rule 14a-2(b)(1), we 

would expect to make conforming changes to Rule 14a-2(b)(8). 

660	 See new Rule 14a-2(b)(8)(ii). 

219
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

they can find the proxy statement, other soliciting material, and any other relevant 

documents at no charge on the Commission’s Web site; and 

•	 Any soliciting material published, sent or given to shareholders in accordance with 

this exemption must be filed by the nominating shareholder or group with the 

Commission on Schedule 14N, under the company’s Exchange Act file number or, in 

the case of an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 

1940, under the company’s Investment Company Act file number, no later than the 

date the material is first published, sent or given to shareholders. Three copies of the 

material would at the same time be filed with, or mailed for filing to, each national 

securities exchange upon which any class of securities of the company is listed and 

registered. The soliciting material would be required to include a cover page in the 

form set forth in Schedule 14N, with the appropriate box on the cover page marked.661 

We are adopting certain modifications to Rule 14a-2(b)(8) from the Proposal to clarify 

when a party may begin to rely on the exemption and to require that all soliciting material be 

filed on new Schedule 14N.662 The exemption is otherwise consistent with the Proposal. 

We have added a new instruction to the exemption clarifying that a nominating 

shareholder or group may rely on the exemption provided in Rule 14a-2(b)(8) after receiving 

notice from the company in accordance with Rule 14a-11(g)(1) or (g)(3)(iv) that the company 

will include the nominating shareholder’s or group’s nominee or nominees.663 As proposed, a 

nominating shareholder or group would not have been able to rely on the exemption until their 

661 See new Rule 14a-2(b)(8)(iii). 

662 As noted above, the soliciting material will be filed under cover of Schedule 14N and will appear as 

Schedule 14N-S on EDGAR. 

663 See Instruction 1 to Rule 14a-2(b)(8). 

220
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

nominee or nominees are actually included in the company’s proxy materials. We received little 

comment on the appropriate timing for commencement of soliciting activities under the proposed 

exemption, with one commenter suggesting that Rule 14a-2(b)(8) apply only to solicitations that 

occur after the mailing of a company’s proxy materials,664 and another suggesting generally that 

there should be no limitations on soliciting activities by nominating shareholders or groups.665 

After further consideration, we have determined that a nominating shareholder or group 

should be able to begin soliciting once there is certainty as to whether their nominees will be 

included in the company’s proxy materials rather than being required to wait for the company to 

furnish its proxy materials. In this regard, we note that the exemption is consistent with the 

treatment of insurgent soliciting materials in a traditional proxy contest, as an insurgent may rely 

on Rule 14a-12(a) to engage in soliciting activities before furnishing shareholders with a proxy 

statement provided that the soliciting party provides certain disclosure and files a definitive 

proxy statement before or at the same time as the forms of proxy, consent or authorization are 

furnished to or requested from shareholders.666 We have included the requirement that the 

nominating shareholder or group have received notice that their nominee or nominees will be 

included in the company’s proxy materials before commencing solicitations to avoid confusion 

and potential abuse of the exemption. 

We also have modified the filing requirements for written soliciting materials. Similar to 

the filing requirements for relying on Rule 14a-2(b)(7), any written soliciting material published, 

sent or given to shareholders in accordance with the terms of Rule 14a-2(b)(8) must be filed with 

664 See letter from ABA. 

665 See letter from CII. 

666 See Exchange Act Rule 14a-12(a). 

221
 
 

 

 

 

the Commission on a Schedule 14N, under the company’s Exchange Act file number (or in the 

case of a registered investment company, under the company’s Investment Company Act file 

number), no later than the date the material is first published, sent or given to shareholders. The 

soliciting material would be required to be filed with a cover page in the form set forth in 

Schedule 14N, with the appropriate box on the cover page marked to identify the filing as 

soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-2(b)(8). This requirement is largely consistent with the 

Proposal, however, under the final rule, the solicitation will be filed on Schedule 14N rather than 

as definitive additional soliciting materials on Schedule 14A, as was proposed. As noted above, 

we received comment supporting the filing of soliciting materials,667 however, the commenters 

did not specifically address whether the filing should be made under cover of Schedule 14N or 

Schedule 14A. As discussed above with respect to filings made pursuant to Rule 14a-2(b)(7),we 

have made the change to Schedule 14N to avoid confusion between soliciting materials filed in 

connection with the formation of a nominating shareholder group under Rule 14a-11 (or in 

connection with a Rule 14a-11 nomination) and other proxy materials that may be filed by 

companies or by participants in a traditional proxy contest. 

As described in Section II.B.2.e. above, the rules we are adopting today will not prohibit 

shareholders from submitting Rule 14a-11 nominations for inclusion in company proxy materials 

when a proxy contest is being conducted by another person concurrently. We are, however, 

adding a clarification to new Rule 14a-2(b)(8), similar to Rule 14a-2(b)(7), in response to 

commenters’ concern that the exemptions could be used as the first stage of a contest for control. 

As adopted, the exemption will be lost if a shareholder or group subsequently engages in a nonRule 14a-11 nomination or solicitation in connection with the subject election of directors or if 

See letters from CII; COPERA; P. Neuhauser. 

222
 

667 
 

 

 

 

 

 

they become a member of a group, as determined under Section 13(d)(3) of the Exchange Act 

and Rule 13d-5(b)(1), or otherwise, with persons engaged in soliciting or other nominating 

activities in connection with the subject election of directors. The risk of losing the Rule 14a2(b)(8) exemption and potential liability for engaging in non-exempt solicitations should prevent 

nominating shareholders or groups from soliciting in relation to any other person’s nominees.668 

Further, as discussed in Sections II.B.2.e. and II.B.10.a. above, under Rule 14a-11 a company 

will not be required to include a nominee or nominees if the nominating shareholder or group is a 

member of any other group with persons engaged in solicitations in connection with the subject 

election of directors or other nominating activities; separately conducts a solicitation in 

connection with the subject election of directors other than a Rule 14a-2(b)(8) exempt 

solicitation in relation to those nominees it has nominated pursuant to Rule 14a-11 or for or 

against the company’s nominees; or is acting as a participant in another person’s solicitation in 

connection with the subject election of directors. All of these restrictions are designed to address 

commenters’ concerns about collusion and potential abuse of the process. We also believe these 

restrictions are consistent with the desire to limit Rule 14a-11 to those shareholders or groups 

that do not have an intent to change the control of the company or to gain a number of seats on 

the board of directors that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that the registrant could be 

required to include under Rule 14a-11. Finally, we have clarified in an instruction to Rule 14a2(b)(8)669 that Rule 14a-2(b)(8) is the only exemption upon which Rule 14a-11 nominating 

shareholders or groups may rely for their soliciting activities in support of nominees that are or 

will be included in the company’s proxy materials or for or against company nominees. This 

will help ensure that these persons will not seek proxy authority and will file written 

668 See Instruction 3 to Rule 14a-2(b)(8). 

669 See Instruction 2 to Rule 14a-2(b)(8). 

223
 
 

 

 

 

 

communications in connection with their soliciting efforts and, we believe, will help to address 

some of commenters’ concerns with regard to confusion and potential abuse of the exemption. 

Consistent with the Proposal and as discussed above with regard to Rule 14a-2(b)(7), the 

exemption will not apply to solicitations made when seeking to have a nominee included in a 

company’s proxy materials pursuant to a procedure specified in the company’s governing 

documents (as opposed to pursuant to Rule 14a-11). As we noted in the Proposal, in this 

instance, companies and/or shareholders would have determined the parameters of the 

shareholder’s or group’s access to the company’s proxy materials. Given the range of possible 

criteria that companies and/or shareholders could establish for nominations, we continue to 

believe it would not be appropriate to extend the exemption to those circumstances. Also 

consistent with the Proposal, we have not extended the exemption to nominations made pursuant 

to applicable state law provisions, again because state law could establish any number of 

possible criteria for nominations.670 A shareholder would need to determine whether one of the 

existing exemptions applies to their solicitation conducted in connection with a nomination made 

pursuant to a company’s governing documents or state law. 

11. 2011 Proxy Season Transition Issues 

Rule 14a-11 contains a window period for submission of shareholder nominees for 

inclusion in company proxy materials of no earlier than 150 calendar days, and no later than 120 

calendar days, before the anniversary of the date that the company mailed its proxy materials for 

the prior year’s annual meeting.671 Shareholders seeking to use new Rule 14a-11 would be able 

to do so if the window period for submitting nominees for a particular company is open after the 

670	 Similarly, the exemption would not be available for solicitations in connection with nominations made 

pursuant to foreign law provisions. 

671	 See Rule 14a-11(b)(10) and discussion in Section II.B.8.c.ii. above. 

224
 
 

 

 

 

 

effective date of the rules. For some companies, the window period may open and close before 

the effective date of the new rules. In those cases, shareholders would not be permitted to submit 

nominees pursuant to Rule 14a-11 for inclusion in the company’s proxy materials for the 2011 

proxy season. For other companies, the window period may open before the effective date of the 

rules, but close after the effective date. In those cases, shareholders would be able to submit a 

nominee between the effective date and the close of the window period. 

C. Exchange Act Rule 14a-8(i)(8) 

1. Background 

Currently, Rule 14a-8(i)(8) allows a company to exclude from its proxy statement a 

shareholder proposal that relates to a nomination or an election for membership on the 

company’s board of directors or a procedure for such nomination or election. This provision 

currently permits the exclusion of a proposal that would result in an immediate election contest 

or would set up a process for shareholders to conduct an election contest in the future by 

requiring the company to include shareholders’ director nominees in the company’s proxy 

materials for subsequent meetings. 

When the Commission adopted the current language of Rule 14a-8(i)(8) in December 

2007,672 it noted that many disclosures are required for election contests that are not provided for 

in Rule 14a-8.673 In this regard, several Commission rules, including Exchange Act Rule 14a-12, 

regulate contested proxy solicitations to assure that investors receive disclosure to enable them to 

make informed voting decisions in elections. The requirements to provide these disclosures to 

672 See Election of Directors Adopting Release. 

673 See Election of Directors Adopting Release. 

225
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholders from whom proxy authority is sought are grounded in Rule 14a-3, which requires 

that any party conducting a proxy solicitation file with the Commission, and furnish to each 

person solicited, a proxy statement containing the information in Schedule 14A. Items 4(b) and 

5(b) of Schedule 14A require numerous specified disclosures if the solicitation is subject to Rule 

14a-12(c), and Item 7 of Schedule 14A also requires important specified disclosures for any 

director nominee. Finally, all of these disclosures are covered by the prohibition on making a 

solicitation containing materially false or misleading statements or omissions that is found in 

Rule 14a-9. 

2. Proposed Amendment 

In the Proposal, we proposed an amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8), the election exclusion, 

to enable shareholders, under certain circumstances, to require companies to include in their 

proxy materials shareholder proposals that would amend, or that request an amendment to, a 

company’s governing documents regarding nomination procedures or disclosures related to 

shareholder nominations, provided the proposal does not conflict with proposed Rule 14a-11.674 

The purpose of the proposed amendment was to further facilitate shareholders’ rights to 

nominate directors and promote fair corporate suffrage, while still providing appropriate 

disclosure and liability protections. 

Under the proposed amendment, the shareholder proposal would have to meet the 

Under the Proposal, Rule 14a-8(i)(8) would allow shareholders to propose additional means, other than 

Rule 14a-11, for inclusion of shareholder nominees in company proxy materials. Therefore, under the 

Proposal, a shareholder proposal that sought to provide an additional means for including shareholder 

nominees in the company’s proxy materials pursuant to the company’s governing documents would not be 

deemed to conflict with Rule 14a-11 simply because it would establish different eligibility thresholds or 

require more extensive disclosures about a nominee or nominating shareholder than would be required 

under Rule 14a-11. A shareholder proposal would conflict with proposed Rule 14a-11, however, to the 

extent that the proposal would purport to prevent a shareholder or shareholder group that met the 

requirements of proposed Rule 14a-11 from having their nominee for director included in the company’s 

proxy materials. 

226
 

674 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

procedural requirements of Rule 14a-8 (e.g., the proposal could be excluded if the shareholder 

proponent did not meet the ownership threshold under Rule 14a-8) and not be subject to one of 

the other substantive bases for exclusion in the rule.675 The proposed revision of Rule 14a-8(i)(8) 

would not restrict the types of amendments that a shareholder could propose to a company’s 

governing documents to address the company’s provisions regarding nomination procedures or 

disclosures related to shareholder nominations, although any such proposals that conflict with 

proposed Rule 14a-11 or state law could be excluded.676 

In the Proposal, we stated that we continued to believe that, under certain circumstances, 

companies should have the right to exclude proposals related to particular elections and 

nominations for director from company proxy materials where those proposals could result in an 

election contest between company and shareholder nominees without the important protections 

provided for in the proxy rules. Therefore, while proposing the revision to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) as 

discussed above, we also proposed to codify certain prior staff interpretations with respect to the 

types of proposals that would continue to be excludable pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(8). As 

proposed, a company would be permitted to exclude a proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(8) if it: 

•	 Would disqualify a nominee who is standing for election; 

•	 Would remove a director from office before his or her term expired; 

•	 Questions the competence, business judgment, or character of one or more nominees 

or directors; 

•	 Nominates a specific individual for election to the board of directors, other than 

675	 Currently, Rule 14a-8 requires that a shareholder proponent have continuously held at least $2,000 in 

market value, or 1%, of the company’s securities entitled to be voted on the proposal at the meeting for a 

period of at least one year by the date the proponent submits the proposal. See Rule 14a-8(b). These 

requirements would remain the same. 

676	 In this regard, the proposed revision to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) would not make a distinction between binding and 

non-binding proposals. 

227
 
 

 

 

 

 

677 

pursuant to Rule 14a-11, an applicable state law provision, or a company’s governing 

documents; or 

• Otherwise could affect the outcome of the upcoming election of directors. 

The proposed codification was not intended to change the staff’s prior interpretations or 

limit the application of the exclusion; it was intended to provide more clarity to companies and 

shareholders regarding the application of the exclusion. 

3. Comments on the Proposal 

The proposal to amend Rule 14a-8 to revise the election exclusion received widespread 

support. Numerous commenters expressed general support for the proposed amendments to Rule 

14a-8(i)(8), with many of the commenters supporting the Commission’s proposal as a whole677 

See letters from 13D Monitor; ACSI; AFL-CIO; AFSCME; Joseph Ahearn (“J. Ahearn”); Rahim Ali (“R. 

Ali”); AllianceBernstein; Amalgamated Bank; Americans for Financial Reform; Australian Reward 

Investment Alliance (“ARIA”); AUST(Q) Superannuation (“AUST(Q)”); W. Baker; Barclays; BCIA; 

Bebchuk, et al.; R. Blake; William B. Bledsoe (“W. Bledsoe”); Brigham and Associates, LLC (“Brigham”); 

British Insurers; Ethan S. Burger (“E. Burger”); J. Burke; CalPERS; CalSTRS; Calvert; Cbus (“Cbus”); 

CFA Institute; John P. Chaney (“J. Chaney”); The Christopher Reynolds Foundation of New York 

(“Christopher Reynolds Foundation”); CII; COPERA; Corporate Library; Central Pension Fund of the 

International Union of Operating Engineers (“CPF”); CRMC; L. Dallas; Mike G. Dill (“M. Dill”); T. 

DiNapoli; Dominican Sisters of Hope; Andrew H. Dral (“A. Dral”); D. Eshelman; First Affirmative; 

Florida State Board of Administration; Martin Fox (“M. Fox”); Raymond E. Frechette (“R. Frechette”); 

Glass Lewis; James J. Givens (“J. Givens”); Governance for Owners (“Governance for Owners”); 

GovernanceMetrics; Michael D. Grabowski (“M. Grabowski”); Greenlining Institute (“Greenlining”); 

Hermes; HESTA Super Fund (“HESTA”); Sheryl Hogan (“S. Hogan”); David G. Hood (“D. Hood”); IAM; 

ICGN; Frank Coleman Inman (“F. Inman”); Ironfire; Melinda Katz (“M. Katz”); Michael E. Kelley (“M. 

Kelley”); Peter C. Kelly (“P. Kelly”); Key Equity Investors, Inc. (“Key Equity Investors”); Victor Kimball 

(“V. Kimball”); Jeffery Kondracki (“J. Kondracki”); A. Krakovsky; Paul E. Kritzer (“P. Kritzer”); 

LACERA; C. Levin; Lanny D. Levin (“L. Levin”); LIUNA; LUCRF; Marco Consulting; Maine Securities 

Corporation (“Maine Securities”); B. McDonnell; James McRitchie (“J. McRitchie”); Mercy Investment 

Program; M. Metz; David B. Moore (“D. Moore”); Karen L. Morris (“K. Morris”); Robert Moulton-Ely 

(“R. Moulton-Ely”); Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Limited (“MTAA”); 

Murray & Murray & Co., LPA (“Murray & Murray”); William J. Nassif (“W. Nassif”); Tom Nappi (“T. 

Nappi”); D. Nappier; Nathan Cummings Foundation; P. Neuhauser; Nine Law Firms; New Jersey State 

Investment Council (“NJSIC”); Norges Bank; Non-Government School Superannuation Fund (“NonGovernment”); Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (“Ontario Teachers”); OPERS; Thomas Paine (“T. 

Paine”); Pax World; Pershing Square; Karl Putnam (“K. Putnam”); S. Ranzini; RacetotheBottom; Joan 

Reekie (“J. Reekie”); Relational; RiskMetrics; D. Roberts; D. Romine; Joseph Rozbicki (“J. Rozbicki”); 

Schulte Roth & Zabel; Shamrock; Shareowners.org; Sheet Metal Workers; Sisters of Mercy; Social 

Investment Forum; Sodali; Solutions; Laszlo Sterbinszky (L. Sterbinszky”); Stringer Photography 

(“Stringer”); SWIB; J. Taub; Teamsters; Aleta Thielmeyer (“A. Thielmeyer”); TIAA-CREF; Trillium; 

TriState Coalition; T. Rowe Price; L. Tyson; Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk; Universities Supernnuation; 

USPE; ValueAct Capital; The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (“Value Alliance”); R. 

228
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and other commenters supporting the amendments while opposing Rule 14a-11.678 Some 

commenters expressly supported the adoption of both Rule 14a-11 and amendments to Rule 14a8(i)(8).679 Some commenters indicated that the adoption of only the proposed amendments to 

Rule 14a-8(i)(8), without Rule 14a-11, would not address current shortcomings in corporate 

governance and achieve the Commission’s stated objectives.680 Of the commenters that 

supported the Rule 14a-8 amendments but opposed Rule 14a-11, many believed the amendments 

to Rule 14a-8 would allow procedures for the inclusion of shareholder nominees in company 

proxy materials to evolve and private ordering under state law to continue, unfettered by the 

complexities of a federal standard that would apply uniformly to differently situated companies 

operating under diverse state law regimes.681 

While supporting the amendments to Rule 14a-8(i)(8), some commenters expressed 

concerns about certain aspects of the amendments or recommended certain changes.682 Two 

VanEngelenhoven; Walden; B. Wilson; Leslie Wolfe (“L. Wolfe”); Steve Wolfe (“S. Wolfe”); Neil 

Wollman (“N. Wollman”); WSIB; Marcelo Zinn (“M. Zinn”). 

678	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; 3M; ABA; Advance Auto Parts; Aetna; AGL; Alcoa; Allstate; 

Alston & Bird; Ameriprise; American Bankers Association; American Express; Anadarko; Applied 

Materials; Association of Corporate Counsel; Avis Budget; Best Buy; Boeing; Boston Scientific; Brink’s; 

BRT; Burlington Northern; California Bar; Callaway; Caterpillar; Chevron; P. Clapman; Comcast; CSX; 

Cummins; Davis Polk; Deere; Devon; DTE Energy; DuPont; Eaton; Einstein Noah; Eli Lilly; ExxonMobil; 

FedEx; Financial Services Roundtable; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; Frontier; GE; General Mills; A. Goolsby; 

C. Holliday; Home Depot; Honeywell; IBM; ICI; Intel; JPMorgan Chase; E. J. Kullman; N. Lautenbach; 

MetLife; Microsoft; J. Miller; Motorola; NACD; NIRI; O’Melveny & Myers; Office Depot; P&G; 

PepsiCo; Pfizer; Piedmont; Praxair; Protective; Ryder; S&C; Safeway; Seven Law Firms; Shearman & 

Sterling; Sherwin-Williams; SIFMA; Simpson Thacher; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern 

Company; Tenet; Tesoro; Textron; Theragenics; Tidewater; Tompkins; G. Tooker; tw telecom; United 

Brotherhood of Carpenters; U.S. Bancorp; The Valspar Corporation (“Valspar”); Wachtell; Wells Fargo; 

Xerox. 

679	 See letters from AFL-CIO; CFA Institute; CII; Governance for Owners; C. Levin; Marco Consulting; 

SWIB. 

680	 See letters from CII; USPE. 

681	 See letters from American Express; Brink’s; BRT; CSX; Davis Polk; DuPont; C. Holliday; GE; General 

Mills; MetLife; Safeway; Tenet; Verizon. 

682	 See letters from ABA; BorgWarner; CII; J. McRitchie; P. Neuhauser; O’Melveny & Myers; Seven Law 

229
 
 

 

 

 

 

commenters expressed concerns about the codification of staff policies and interpretations under 

the current version of Rule 14a-8(i)(8).683 One commenter expressed concerns that the proposed 

amendments to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) are broader than necessary to allow proposals seeking to 

establish access to a company’s proxy materials and have the potential of significantly changing 

the administration of Rule 14a-8(i)(8) with respect to other types of proposals.684 The commenter 

also noted that the fact that only four types of proposals have been addressed by the staff in the 

Rule 14a-8 process could be attributed to the fact that the current standard under Rule 14a-8(i)(8) 

operated to avoid other impermissible proposals from being presented in the first place. If the 

current standard is repealed, this commenter worried that the staff would have no basis upon 

which to assess proposals that attempt to circumvent or supplement the Commission’s proxy 

solicitation rules. The commenter believed that eliminating the current standard would go 

beyond what is needed to permit shareholders to submit proposals seeking to amend, or request 

an amendment to, a company’s governing documents to establish a procedure for including 

shareholder-nominated candidates for director in a company’s proxy materials. The commenter 

suggested retaining the current standard in Rule 14a-8(i)(8) and amending the language only to 

specifically authorize proposals seeking to establish access to a company’s proxy materials and 

require the disclosure provided in proposed Rule 14a-19. 

4. Final Rule Amendment 

As noted above in Section I.A., we do not believe that adopting changes to Rule 14a8(i)(8) alone, without adopting Rule 14a-11, will achieve our goal of facilitating shareholders’ 

Firms. 

683 See letters from ABA; Seven Law Firms. 

684 See letter from ABA. 

230 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ability to exercise their traditional state law rights to nominate directors. We believe that 

revising Rule 14a-8 will provide an additional avenue for shareholders to indirectly exercise 

those rights; therefore, the final rules include a revision to Rule 14a-8(i)(8). As adopted, 

companies will no longer be able to rely on Rule 14a-8(i)(8) to exclude a proposal seeking to 

establish a procedure in a company’s governing documents for the inclusion of one or more 

shareholder nominees for director in the company’s proxy materials.685 

In addition, we are adopting the proposed amendment to codify the prior staff 

interpretations largely as proposed. As adopted, companies will be permitted to exclude a 

shareholder proposal pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) if it: 

•	 Would disqualify a nominee who is standing for election; 

•	 Would remove a director from office before his or her term expired; 

•	 Questions the competence, business judgment, or character of one or more nominees 

or directors; 

•	 Seeks to include a specific individual in the company’s proxy materials for election to 

the board of directors; or 

•	 Otherwise could affect the outcome of the upcoming election of directors.686 

685	 As we stated in the Proposing Release, a proposal would continue to be subject to exclusion under other 

provisions of Rule 14a-8. For example, a proposal would be excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(2) if its 

implementation would cause the company to violate any state, federal, or foreign law to which it is subject, 

or under Rule 14a-8(i)(3), if the proposal or supporting statement was contrary to any of the Commission’s 

proxy rules. 

686	 We note that the rule text adopted differs slightly from the proposed rule text as a result of technical 

modifications we made to better reflect our intent with respect to the rule. We are adopting amended Rule 

14a-8(i)(8) with the language “seeks to include a specific individual in the company’s proxy materials for 

election to the board of directors” rather than “nominates a specific individual for election to the board of 

directors, other than pursuant to Rule 14a-11, an applicable state law provision, or a company’s governing 

documents.” The change in the language from “nominates” to “seeks to include” more accurately reflects 

the fact that Rule 14a-8 cannot be used as a means to nominate a candidate for election to the board of 

directors. We also deleted the language regarding Rule 14a-11, an applicable state law provision, or a 

company’s governing documents because we believe it is unnecessary. 

231
 
 

 

We believe that shareholders and companies will benefit from the enhanced clarity that the 

amended rule will provide concerning the application of the rule. We do not believe that the 

amendments will result in confusion with regard to the rule’s application because the 

amendments do not change the manner in which Rule 14a-8(i)(8) has been, and will continue to 

be, interpreted by the staff with respect to other types of proposals. 

The amendments to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) could result in shareholders proposing amendments 

to a company’s governing documents that would establish procedures under a company’s 

governing documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder nominees for director in 

company proxy materials. These proposals could seek to include a number of provisions relating 

to nominating directors for inclusion in company proxy materials, and disclosures related to such 

nominations, that require a different ownership threshold, holding period, or other qualifications 

or representations than those contained in Rule 14a-11. To the extent that shareholders are 

successful in adopting amendments to a company’s governing documents to establish procedures 

for the inclusion of one or more shareholder nominees for director in the company’s proxy 

materials, we note that the provision would be an additional avenue for shareholders to submit 

nominees for inclusion in company proxy materials, not a substitute for, or restriction on, Rule 

14a-11. While such amendments proposed by shareholders through Rule 14a-8 would not be 

excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(8) as amended, a company may seek to exclude such a proposal 

on another basis. For example, to the extent a proposal sought to limit the application of Rule 

14a-11, a company could seek to exclude the proposal pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(3) on the basis 

that it is contrary to the proxy rules. We considered whether permitting proposals to allow 

additional means for shareholder director nominees to be included in company proxy materials 

would create confusion or lack of certainty for companies and their shareholders in light of the 

232
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

final provisions of Rule 14a-11. In the end, however, we have concluded that this possibility of 

confusion can be addressed through disclosure and is more than offset by the benefits of 

facilitating shareholders’ ability to determine that their companies should have additional 

provisions allowing for inclusion of shareholder nominees in company proxy materials. 

One commenter opposed the application of proposed Rule 14a-8(i)(8) to investment 

companies for the same reasons that it opposed the application of proposed Rule 14a-11 to 

investment companies.687 We have decided to make amended Rule 14a-8(i)(8) applicable to 

investment companies for the same reasons that we are making Rule 14a-11 applicable to 

investment companies. Rule 14a-8(i)(8) is intended to further facilitate shareholders’ traditional 

state law rights to nominate directors, which apply to the shareholders of investment companies. 

As discussed above, we do not believe that the regulatory protections offered by the Investment 

Company Act or the fact that open-end management investment companies are not required by 

state law to hold annual meetings serves to decrease the importance of the rights that are granted 

to shareholders under state law. For further discussion of our reasons for applying the rule to 

investment companies, see Section II.B.3.b. 

5. Disclosure Requirements 

We did not propose any new disclosure requirements for a shareholder that submits a 

proposal that would amend, or that requests an amendment to, a company’s governing 

documents to address the company’s nomination procedures for inclusion of shareholder 

nominees in company proxy materials or disclosures related to those shareholder provisions.688 

687 See letter from ICI. 

688 Shareholders submitting a proposal that seeks to establish a procedure under a company’s governing 

documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy 

materials would be subject to Rule 14a-8’s current requirements. See footnote 685 above. 

233
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We solicited comment on whether additional disclosure from a shareholder submitting such a 

proposal would be appropriate. Three commenters opposed requiring disclosure from 

shareholders who submit such a proposal pursuant to Rule 14a-8 that differs from disclosure 

required of shareholders who submit other types of Rule 14a-8 proposals.689 Three commenters 

recommended generally that a shareholder who submits a Rule 14a-8 proposal regarding a 

procedure to include shareholder nominees for director in a company’s proxy materials should be 

required to provide additional disclosure (e.g., disclosure about its long-term interest in the 

company and intentions regarding the shareholder proposal) so that other shareholders could 

make a fully-informed voting decision.690 They argued that disclosure at the time of a 

nomination pursuant to such a procedure would relate only to the election of specific nominees; 

it would not provide shareholders with enough information to make a voting decision on the 

proposed procedure and its effect. 

As we stated in the Proposing Release, it is our view that disclosure at the time a nominee 

is submitted and an actual vote is taken on a shareholder nominee is sufficient. Therefore, we 

are not adopting any new disclosure requirements for a shareholder simply submitting such a 

proposal because we believe that a shareholder may simply want to amend the company’s 

procedures for including shareholder nominees in company proxy materials, but may not intend 

to nominate any particular individual.691 

In proposing amendments to Rule 14a-8(i)(8), we noted that the amendments could result 

689 See letters from CII; Florida State Board of Administration; United Brotherhood of Carpenters. 

690 See letters from ICI; Keating Muething; O’Melveny & Myers. 

691 This approach is different from the disclosure requirements the Commission proposed in the Shareholder 

Proposals Release in 2007; however, it is consistent with the overall requirements relating to the 

submission of shareholder proposals – generally, shareholder proponents are not required to provide any 

specific type of disclosure along with their proposal. 

234
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in shareholder proposals that would establish procedures for nominating directors and 

disclosures related to such nominations that require a different ownership threshold, holding 

period, or other qualifications or representations than those proposed in Rule 14a-11. In 

addition, a state could set forth in its corporate code,692 or a company may choose to amend its 

governing documents, to establish nomination or disclosure provisions in addition to those 

provided pursuant to Rule 14a-11 (e.g., a company could choose to allow shareholders to have 

their nominees included in the company’s proxy materials regardless of ownership – in that 

instance, the company’s provision would apply for certain shareholders who otherwise could not 

have their nominees included in the company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11). 

Accordingly, we proposed amendments to our proxy rules to address the disclosure requirements 

when a nomination is made pursuant to such a provision.693 

As proposed, Rule 14a-19 would apply to a shareholder nomination for director for 

inclusion in the company’s proxy materials made pursuant to procedures established pursuant to 

state law or by a company’s governing documents. The proposed rule would require a 

nominating shareholder or group to include in its shareholder notice on Schedule 14N (which, 

under the Proposal, also would be filed with the Commission on the date provided to the 

company) disclosures about the nominating shareholder or group and their nominee that are 

similar to what would be required in an election contest.694 

Specifically, the notice on Schedule 14N, as proposed, would be required to include: 

692 See North Dakota Publicly Traded Corporations Act, N.D. Cent. Code § 10-35-08 (2009). In 2007, North 

Dakota amended its corporate code to permit five percent shareholders to provide a company notice of 

intent to nominate directors and require the company to include each such shareholder nominee in its proxy 

statement and form of proxy. See N.D. Cent. Code § 10-35 et al (2007). 

693 See proposed Rule 14a-19. 

694 See proposed Rule 14a-19. 

235
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 A statement that the nominee consents to be named in the company’s proxy statement 

and to serve on the board if elected, for inclusion in the company’s proxy statement;695 

•	 Disclosure about the nominee complying with the requirements of Item 4(b), Item 

5(b), and Items 7(a), (b) and (c) and, for investment companies, Item 22(b) of 

Exchange Act Schedule 14A, as applicable, for inclusion in the company’s proxy 

statement;696 

•	 Disclosure about the nominating shareholder or members of a nominating shareholder 

group consistent with the disclosure currently required pursuant to Item 4(b) and Item 

5(b) of Schedule 14A;697 

•	 Disclosure about whether the nominating shareholder or any member of a nominating 

shareholder group has been involved in any legal proceeding during the past five 

years, as specified in Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K. Disclosure pursuant to this 

section need not be provided if provided in response to Items 4(b) and 5(b) of 

Schedule 14A;698 

•	 The following disclosure regarding the nature and extent of the relationships between 

695	 See proposed Rule 14a-19(a). 

696	 See proposed Rule 14a-19(b). This information would identify the nominee, describe certain legal 

proceedings, if any, related to the nominee, and describe certain of the nominee’s transactions and 

relationships with the company. See Items 7(a), (b), and (c) of Schedule 14A. This information also would 

include biographical information and information concerning interests of the nominee. See Item 5(b) of 

Schedule 14A. With respect to a nominee for director of an investment company, the disclosure would 

include certain basic information about the nominee and any arrangement or understanding between the 

nominee and any other person pursuant to which he was selected as a nominee; information about the 

positions, interests, and transactions and relationships of the nominee and his immediate family members 

with the company and persons related to the company; information about the amount of equity securities of 

funds in a fund complex owned by the nominee; and information describing certain legal proceedings 

related to the nominee, including legal proceedings in which the nominee is a party adverse to, or has a 

material interest adverse to, the company or any of its affiliated persons. See paragraph (b) of Item 22 of 

Schedule 14A. 

697	 See proposed Rule 14a-19(c). 

698	 See proposed Rule 14a-19(d). 

236
 
 

 

 

 

 

the nominating shareholder or group and nominee and the company or any affiliate of 

the company: 

•	 Any direct or indirect material interest in any contract or agreement between the 

nominating shareholder or group or the nominee and the company or any affiliate 

of the company (including any employment agreement, collective bargaining 

agreement, or consulting agreement); 

•	 Any material pending or threatened litigation in which the nominating shareholder 

or group or nominee is a party or a material participant, and that involves the 

company, any of its officers or directors, or any affiliate of the company; and 

•	 Any other material relationship between the nominating shareholder or group or 

the nominee and the company or any affiliate of the company not otherwise 

disclosed;699 and 

• Disclosure of any Web site address on which the nominating shareholder or group 

may publish soliciting materials.700 

These disclosures would be included in the company’s proxy materials pursuant to proposed new 

Item 7(f) of Schedule 14A, or in the case of investment companies, proposed Item 22(b)(19) of 

Schedule 14A. 

In addition, under the Proposal, the nominating shareholder or group would be required 

to identify the shareholder or group making the nomination and the amount of their ownership in 

the company on Schedule 14N. The filing would be required to include, among other 

disclosures: 

699 See proposed Rule 14a-19(e). 

700 See proposed Rule 14a-19(f). 

237
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 The name and address of the nominating shareholder or each member of the 

nominating shareholder group; and 

•	 Information regarding the aggregate number and percentage of the securities entitled 

to be voted, including the amount beneficially owned and the number of shares over 

which the nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating shareholder 

group has or shares voting or disposition power. 

We did not receive a significant amount of comment specifically addressing proposed 

Rule 14a-19. One commenter believed that the disclosure requirements of Rules 14a-18 and 

14a-19 should be virtually identical.701 The commenter highlighted certain discrepancies, such as 

the intent to retain the requisite shares through, and subsequent to, the date of election. Another 

commenter saw no need for a separate rule to deal with nominations submitted under state law or 

a company’s governing documents and therefore urged the Commission not to adopt Rule 14a19.702 The commenter believed there are no policy grounds to justify disparate treatment of 

nominations submitted under state law or a company’s governing documents. It warned that a 

separate rule would only create confusion. Another commenter suggested that we extend the 

disclosure requirement to nominations submitted pursuant to a provision under foreign law.703 

As we stated in the Proposing Release, we believe the proposed additional disclosure 

requirements are necessary to provide shareholders with full and fair disclosure of information 

that is material when a choice among directors to be elected is presented; thus, we are adopting 

the disclosure requirement largely as proposed.704 As noted above, one commenter suggested 

701 See letter from P. Neuhauser. 

702 See letter from Cleary. 

703 See letter from Curtis. 

704 As noted in footnote 511 above, the applicable disclosure requirement in Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K 

238
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

that the disclosure standard should apply to nominations made pursuant to foreign law. We 

agree that the disclosure is necessary regardless of the source of the ability to nominate 

candidates for director. We therefore have clarified that the disclosure requirement extends not 

only to nominations made pursuant to state law or a company’s governing documents, but also 

pursuant to foreign law (in the case of a non-U.S. domiciled company that does not qualify as a 

foreign private issuer). We continue to believe that these disclosures will assist shareholders in 

making an informed voting decision with regard to any nominee or nominees put forth by the 

nominating shareholder or group, in that the disclosures would enable shareholders to gauge the 

nominating shareholder’s or group’s interest in the company. We understand the concern that a 

separate disclosure rule for nominations made pursuant to state or foreign law provisions, or a 

company’s governing documents could create confusion. We note, however, that certain 

disclosure provisions or certifications applicable to Rule 14a-11 nominations may not be 

applicable to nominations made pursuant to other provisions. For example, state or foreign law 

provisions, or the company’s governing documents may require different ownership thresholds 

or holding periods. Therefore, we believe it is necessary to have separate disclosure 

requirements for nominations made pursuant to state or foreign law, or a company’s governing 

documents. As with disclosures made in connection with a Rule 14a-11 nomination, the 

nominating shareholder or group would be liable for any materially false or misleading 

statements in these disclosures pursuant to new paragraph (c) of Rule 14a-9.705 

was amended in the Proxy Disclosure Enhancements Adopting Release to require disclosure regarding 

legal proceedings for the past 10 years as opposed to past five years. Thus, disclosure would be required 

about a nominee’s or nominating shareholder’s participation in legal proceedings during the past 10 years. 

We also are making clarifying changes to the disclosure required regarding the nature and extent of 

relationships between the nominating shareholder or group and/or nominee and/or the company or its 

affiliates. See footnote 514 and accompanying text in Section II.B.8.c.i. above. 

See proposed Rule 14a-9(c). 

239
 

705 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As noted above, we have restructured Rule 14a-11, Rule 14a-18, and Schedule 14N. 

Similarly, while we are adopting the disclosure requirements largely as proposed in Rule 14a19,706 they are now included in Item 6 of Schedule 14N. In addition, because we moved the 

disclosure requirements for Rule 14a-11 from proposed Rule 14a-18 into Schedule 14N, the 

requirements for shareholders submitting nominations pursuant to a provision in state law or a 

company’s governing documents are being adopted as new Rule 14a-18. 

Under the Proposal, a shareholder submitting a nomination pursuant to a state law 

provision or a provision in a company’s governing documents would be required to file a 

Schedule 14N (with the disclosures required by that Schedule) by the date specified in the 

advance notice provision, or where no such provision is in place, no later than 120 calendar days 

before the date the company mailed its proxy materials for the prior year’s annual meeting.707 

We are adopting this requirement as proposed. We note that it is likely that a state or foreign law 

provision or a provision in a company’s governing documents will provide a deadline for 

submission of nominations made pursuant to those provisions. While we believe that 

shareholders submitting nominations pursuant to those provisions should provide the disclosure 

required by Schedule 14N, we believe it is appropriate to defer to the deadline, if any, set forth in 

those provisions. In this regard, we note that timing concerns present in the Rule 14a-11 

nomination context (e.g., timing requirements for engaging in the staff no-action process) are not 

present in this context. 

706 As adopted, Item 6(d) of Schedule 14N will require disclosure about a nominating shareholder’s 

involvement in legal proceedings during the past ten years, rather than five years as was proposed. This is 

due to the Commission’s recent amendment of Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K. See footnotes 511 and 704 

above. 

707 If a company did not hold an annual meeting during the prior year, or if the date of the meeting has 

changed by more than 30 calendar days from the prior year, then the nominating shareholder or group must 

provide notice a reasonable time before the registrant mails its proxy materials. 

240
 
 

 

 

 

 

D. Other Rule Changes 

1. Disclosure of Dates and Voting Information 

As proposed, if a company did not hold an annual meeting during the prior year, or if the 

date of the meeting has changed by more than 30 days from the prior year, within four business 

days of determining the anticipated meeting date a company would be required to file a Form 8­

K to disclose the date by which a nominating shareholder or group must submit notice to include 

a nominee in the company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11.708 The date disclosed as 

the deadline for such shareholder nominations for director would be required to be a reasonable 

time before the company mails its proxy materials for the meeting. We also proposed to require 

a registered investment company that is a series company to file a Form 8-K disclosing the 

company’s net assets as of June 30 of the calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year 

of the meeting and the total number of the company’s shares that are outstanding and entitled to 

vote for the election of directors (or if votes are to be cast on a basis other than one vote per 

share, then the total number of votes entitled to be voted and the basis for allocating votes) at the 

annual meeting of shareholders (or, in lieu of such an annual meeting, a special meeting of 

shareholders) as of the end of the most recent calendar quarter. 

We did not receive much comment on this aspect of the rule. One commenter urged the 

Commission not to require the Form 8-K filing for investment companies, which generally are 

not required to file Form 8-K.709 The commenter favored instead a requirement for investment 

companies to inform shareholders through another method (or combination of methods) of 

disclosure reasonably designed to provide notice of the date, including via a press release or 

708 See proposed Item 5.07 to Form 8-K. 

709 See letter from ICI. 

241
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

posting information on the company’s Web site. One commenter supported the proposed 

instruction to Item 5.07 of Form 8-K.710 

We are adopting this requirement substantially as proposed, although the requirement 

will be in new Item 5.08 of Form 8-K. A company will be required to file a Form 8-K, within 

four business days of determining the anticipated date of the meeting, disclosing the date by 

which a nominating shareholder or group must submit notice to include a nominee in the 

company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11, which date shall be a reasonable time 

before the registrant mails its proxy materials for the meeting.711 We also have clarified that 

where a company is required to include shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy 

materials pursuant to an applicable state or foreign law provision, or a provision in the 

company’s governing documents then the company is required to disclose the date by which a 

nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group must submit the Schedule 14N required 

pursuant to Rule 14a-18. 

A registered investment company that is a series company also must disclose the total 

number of the company’s shares that are outstanding and entitled to vote for the election of 

directors (or if votes are to be cast on a basis other than one vote per share, then the total number 

of votes entitled to be voted and the basis for allocating such votes) at the shareholder meeting as 

of the end of the most recent calendar quarter.712 We believe it is important to provide 

710	 See letter from ABA. 

711	 See new Item 5.08 of Form 8-K and new General Instruction B.1. to Form 8-K. A late filing of such form 

would result in the registrant not being current or timely for purposes of rules and regulations related to 

form eligibility and the resale of securities. The company would be deemed current once the Form 8-K is 

filed. 

712	 See General Instruction B.1 and Item 5.08(b) of Form 8-K; Rules 13a-11(b)(3) and 15d-11(b)(3); and 

Instruction 2 to Rule 14a-11(b)(1). In the case of registered investment companies, nominating 

shareholders may rely on the information contained in the Form 8-K filed in connection with the meeting, 

unless the nominating shareholder or group knows or has reason to know that the information contained 

242
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholders with information regarding the deadline for submitting such nominations in the 

event that the date of the meeting at which the election of directors will take place changes 

significantly. Moreover, we have decided to require registered investment companies to make 

the disclosures on Form 8-K, as proposed, rather than through another method or combination of 

methods because we believe that the information that we are requiring is important information 

that should be filed with the Commission and accessible on EDGAR rather than merely disclosed 

on a Web site or in a press release.713 

Exchange Act Rule 14a-5 requires registrants to disclose in a proxy statement the 

deadlines for submitting shareholder proposals and matters submitted pursuant to advance notice 

bylaws. We are amending Rule 14a-5 to also require companies to disclose the deadline for 

submitting nominees for inclusion in the company’s proxy materials for the company’s next 

annual meeting of shareholders. This provision will apply with respect to inclusion of 

nominations in a company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11, an applicable state or 

foreign law provision, or a company’s governing documents.714 We believe that it is necessary to 

conform the existing requirements in Rule 14a-5, consistent with the proposal to give adequate 

notice to shareholders about their ability to submit a nominee or nominees for inclusion in a 

company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11. The change should help to avoid any 

potential confusion regarding the date by which shareholders seeking to have a nominee included 

in a company’s proxy materials would need to submit a Schedule 14N pursuant to Rule 14a-11 

therein is inaccurate. See discussion in footnote 280. 

713	 We are not adopting the proposed requirement that a registered investment company that is a series 

company file a Form 8-K disclosing the company’s net assets as of June 30 of the calendar year 

immediately preceding the calendar year of the meeting. We proposed this requirement in connection with 

our proposal to use tiered thresholds based on net assets to determine eligibility under Rule 14a-11. Since 

the rule we are adopting does not use tiered thresholds, the proposed requirement is no longer necessary. 

714	 See new Rule 14a-5(e)(3). 

243
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or Rule 14a-18. 

2. Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements 

As adopted, Rule 14a-11 requires that a nominating shareholder or group hold at least 3% 

of the voting power of the company’s securities entitled to be voted on the election of directors. 

Although unnecessary to be able to use the rule, it is possible that in aggregating shares to meet 

the ownership requirement, a nominating shareholder or group will trigger the reporting 

requirements of Regulation 13D-G, which requires that a shareholder or group that beneficially 

owns more than 5% of a voting class of any equity security registered pursuant to Section 12 file 

beneficial ownership reports.715 Therefore, nominating shareholders will need to consider 

whether they have formed a group under Exchange Act Section 13(d)(3) and Rule 13d-5(b)(1) 

that is required to file beneficial ownership reports. Any person (which includes a group as 

defined in Rule 13d-5(b)(1)) who is directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than 5% 

of a class of equity securities registered under Exchange Act Section 12 must report that 

ownership by filing an Exchange Act Schedule 13D with the Commission.716 There are 

exceptions to this requirement, however, that permit such a person to report that ownership on 

Schedule 13G rather than Schedule 13D. One exception permits filings on Schedule 13G for a 

specified list of qualified institutional investors who have acquired the securities in the ordinary 

course of their business and with neither the purpose nor the effect of changing or influencing 

control of the company.717 A second exception applies to persons who beneficially own more 

715 The term equity security also includes any equity security of any insurance company which would have 

been required to be registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act except for the exemption 

contained in Section 12(g)(2)(G) of the Act or any equity security issued by a closed-end investment 

company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. See Exchange Act Rule 13d-1(i). 

716 See Exchange Act Rule 13d-1. 

717 See Exchange Act Rule 13d-1(b). 

244
 
 

 

 

 

 

than 5% of a subject class of securities if they acquired the securities with neither the purpose 

nor the effect of changing or influencing control of the company and they are not directly or 

indirectly the beneficial owner of 20% or more of the subject class of securities.718 

Central to Schedule 13G eligibility under the exceptions discussed above is that the 

shareholder be a passive investor that has acquired the securities without the purpose, or the 

effect, of changing or influencing control of the company. In addition, shareholders who are 

filing as qualified institutional investors must have acquired the securities in the ordinary course 

of their business. Typically, persons who seek to nominate candidates for a company’s board of 

directors would be unable to meet these eligibility requirements to file on Schedule 13G. As we 

stated in the Proposing Release, however, we believe that the formation of a shareholder group 

solely for the purpose of nominating one or more directors pursuant to proposed Rule 14a-11, the 

nomination of one or more directors pursuant to proposed Rule 14a-11, or soliciting activities in 

connection with such a nomination (including soliciting in opposition to a company’s nominees) 

should not result in a nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group losing its 

eligibility to file on Schedule 13G. As a result, we proposed to revise the requirement that the 

first and second categories of persons who may report their ownership on Schedule 13G must 

have acquired the securities without the purpose or effect of changing or influencing control of 

the company and, in the case of Rule 13d-1(b), in the ordinary course of business, to provide an 

exception for activities solely in connection with a nomination under Rule 14a-11. 

Comments on the proposal were mixed. Some commenters generally supported the 

proposed exceptions from the Schedule 13D filing obligation for a nominating shareholder or 

group conducting activities solely in connection with a Rule 14a-11 nomination so that it would 

See Exchange Act Rule 13d-1(c). 

245
 

718 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

be eligible to report on Schedule 13G rather than Schedule 13D.719 One such commenter added 

that the exceptions also should be available to a nominating shareholder or group submitting 

nominees pursuant to state law or a company’s governing documents.720 One commenter 

predicted the amendment would encourage use of Rule 14a-11 by large shareholders who are 

knowledgeable about the company but may be reluctant to take action that may jeopardize their 

Schedule 13G filer status.721 One commenter observed more generally that a Schedule 13D filing 

is unnecessary if the filing requirement of Rule 14a-2(b)(7) is retained because such filings 

would provide sufficient notice to the market.722 Even if such filing requirement is not retained, 

the commenter believed that a Schedule 13D is unnecessary because the underlying assumption 

of Rule 14a-11 is that there is no control intent. 

On the other hand, other commenters opposed generally the proposed exceptions from 

the Schedule 13D filing obligation.723 Some of these commenters expressed reservations about 

creating a broad exemption or carve-out from Exchange Act Section 13(d) “control” concepts.724 

One commenter noted that Rules 13d-1(b), (c) and (e) track the use of the phrase “changing or 

719	 See letters from CalSTRS; CFA Institute; CII; Florida State Board of Administration; ICI; Schulte Roth & 

Zabel. Another commenter, ICGN, did not expressly address the proposed amendment but asked the 

Commission to clarify the definition of “group” so that shareholders would not be dissuaded from acting 

collectively to use Rule 14a-11 out of concern that a Schedule 13D filing obligation would arise. 

720	 See letter from CII. In contrast, two commenters stated that the proposed exceptions should not be 

extended outside the context of Rule 14a-11, and agreed that it would not be possible to address the 

eligibility standards in provisions of state law or a company’s governing documents or ensure that there is 

no change in control attempt. See letters from ABA; Alston & Bird. 

721	 See letter from Schulte Roth & Zabel. 

722	 See letter from P. Neuhauser. 

723	 See letters from ABA; Alston & Bird; BRT; Cleary; Microsoft; Seven Law Firms; Shearman & Sterling; 

Society of Corporate Secretaries; Vinson & Elkins. 

724	 See letters from ABA; Cleary; Microsoft; Seven Law Firm; Shearman & Sterling. 

246
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

influencing control of the issuer” from Exchange Act Section 13(d)(5).725 This commenter did 

not believe there is a persuasive basis for the Commission to provide that, under all 

circumstances, a shareholder or group seeking to nominate a director, in opposition to the 

election of incumbent directors, is not seeking to “influence” control of the company. One 

commenter stated that most election contests would fall within the concept of “influencing the 

control of the issuer” because they focus on the governance, strategic direction and policy 

initiatives of the company.726 Another commenter noted that the Schedule 14N certifications 

require only that a nominating shareholder has no intention of “changing control” of the 

company, but does not require the nominating shareholder to certify that it has no intention of 

“influencing control.”727 Several commenters expressed concerns about inadequate disclosures 

that would result from the proposed exceptions or pointed to the useful disclosure required by 

Schedule 13D.728 One commenter observed that if a nominating shareholder or group has no 

plans regarding significant changes in the company or relationships with other parties regarding 

securities of the company, a Schedule 13D filing would not require significant information from 

a nominating shareholder or group beyond that required by Schedule 14N.729 This commenter 

noted that if a nominating shareholder or group, however, has more complicated relationships or 

intentions relating to the company or its securities, the Schedule 13D filing would provide 

725 See letter from ABA. 

726 See letter from Seven Law Firms. 

727 See letter from ABA. 

728 See letters from ABA; Alston & Bird; BRT; Seven Law Firms; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Vinson & 

Elkins. 

729 See letter from ABA. 

247
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

additional information that shareholders would find useful.730 

We continue to believe that it is appropriate to provide an exception for activities solely 

in connection with a nomination pursuant to Rule 14a-11 to allow a nominating shareholder or 

group to report on Schedule 13G. Accordingly, we are adopting, as proposed, the exception 

from the requirement to file a Schedule 13D (and therefore permitting filing on Schedule 13G) 

for activities undertaken solely in connection with a nomination under Rule 14a-11. In addition, 

we are adopting a change to the certifications in Schedule 13G to reflect this exception.731 

It is important to note that any activity other than those provided for under Rule 14a-11 

would make the exception inapplicable. For example, approaching a company’s board and 

urging them to consider strategic alternatives (e.g., sale of non-core assets or a leveraged 

recapitalization) would constitute activities outside of the Rule 14a-11 nomination, and any 

nominating shareholder or group engaging in such activities most likely would be ineligible to 

file on Schedule 13G. The rule changes will not apply to nominating shareholders or groups that 

submit a nomination pursuant to an applicable state or foreign law provision, or a company’s 

governing documents because in those instances the applicable provisions may not limit the 

number of board seats for which a shareholder or group could nominate candidates or include a 

requirement that the nominating shareholder or group lack intent to change the control of the 

issuer or to gain a number of seats on the board of directors that exceeds the maximum number 

of nominees that the registrant could be required to include under Rule 14a-11 (as is the case 

under Rule 14a-11). Accordingly, we do not believe it would be appropriate to make a general 

determination by rule as to whether a nominating shareholder or group under an applicable state 

730	 Id 

731	 We did not propose the change to the certifications in Schedule 13G; however, we believe this conforming 

change is necessary to reflect the intent of the exception. 

248
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

or foreign law provision, or a company’s governing documents would be eligible to file on 

Schedule 13G. Instead, this would be a fact-specific inquiry. 

We believe that the disclosures about the nominating shareholder or group required by 

Rule 14a-11 and Schedule 14N are adequate to allow shareholders to make an informed decision 

and to keep the market apprised of developments regarding board nomination activities, and do 

not believe that requiring the additional disclosures in Schedule 13D is necessary for activities 

solely in connection with a nomination under Rule 14a-11. Because this exception is only 

available for purposes of the nomination, a nominating shareholder or group would need to 

reassess its eligibility to continue to report on Schedule 13G as a passive or qualified institutional 

investor after the election. For example, if a nominating shareholder is also the nominee and is 

successfully elected to the board, then the shareholder would likely be ineligible to continue 

filing on Schedule 13G due to its ability as a director to directly or indirectly influence the 

management and policies of the company. We believe the limited scope of the exemption 

addresses commenters’ concerns about nominating shareholders or groups influencing control of 

the issuer while reporting on Schedule 13G. 

3. Exchange Act Section 16 

 Section 16732 applies to every person who is the beneficial owner of more than 10% of 

any class of equity security registered under Exchange Act Section 12 (“10% owners”), and each 

officer and director (collectively with 10% owners, “insiders”) of the issuer of such security. We 

did not propose an exemption from Section 16 for groups formed solely for the purpose of 

nominating a director pursuant to Rule 14a-11.733 In the Proposal, we explained that we believed 

732	 15 U.S.C. 78p. 

733	 As discussed in the Proposing Release, the Commission had previously proposed, in 2003, that a group 

formed solely for the purpose of nominating a director pursuant to Rule 14a-11, soliciting in connection 

249
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the existing analysis of whether a group has formed734 and whether Section 16 applies735 should 

continue to apply. We also explained that because the proposed ownership thresholds for Rule 

14a-11 were significantly lower than 10%, we did not believe that the lack of an exclusion would 

have a deterrent effect on the formation of groups, and therefore did not believe it was necessary 

to propose an exclusion from Section 16. 

We also noted in the Proposal that some shareholders, particularly institutions and other 

entities, may be concerned that successful use of Rule 14a-11 to include a director nominee in 

company proxy materials may result in the nominating person also being deemed a director 

under the “deputization” theory developed by courts in Section 16(b) short-swing profit recovery 

cases.736 Under this theory it is possible for a person to be deemed a director subject to Section 

16, even though the issuer has not formally elected or otherwise named that person a director. 

We did not propose standards for establishing the independence of the nominee from the 

nominating shareholder, or members of the nominating shareholder group. 

Although we did not propose an exemption from Section 16, we requested comment on, 

among other things, whether a nominating shareholder group should be excluded from Section 

16 and whether subjecting such groups to Section 16 would be a disincentive to using Rule 14awith the election of that nominee, or having that nominee elected as a director be exempted from Exchange 

Act Section 16 reporting. 

734 See Exchange Act Rule 13d-5(b) [17 CFR 240.13d-5(b)]. 

735 See Exchange Act Rule 16a-1(a)(1) [17 CFR 240.16a-1(a)(1)]. 

736 See Feder v. Martin Marietta Corp., 406 F.2d 260 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1036 (1970); Blau 

v. Lehman, 368 U.S. 403 (1962); and Rattner v. Lehman, 193 F.2d 564 (2d Cir. 1952). The judicial 

decisions in which this theory was applied do not establish precise standards for determining when 

“deputization” may exist. However, the express purpose of Section 16(b) is to prevent the unfair use of 

information by insiders through their relationships to the issuer. Accordingly, one factor that courts may 

consider in determining if Section 16(b) liability applies is whether, by virtue of the “deputization” 

relationship, the “deputizing” entity’s transactions in issuer securities may benefit from the deputized 

director’s access to inside information. 

250
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. A few commenters recommended that the Commission create an exemption from Section 16 

for a group of shareholders that aggregated their holdings in order to submit a nominee pursuant 

to Rule 14a-11.737 Commenters reasoned that members of a nominating group that owns more 

than 10% of the shares could not reasonably be considered company “insiders.”738 These 

commenters noted that the group would exist for the sole purpose of nominating a candidate and, 

absent special facts, would have no access to inside information about the company. Thus, these 

commenters argued that the statutory purpose of Section 16 – the prevention of insider trading – 

would not be relevant to such groups. Other commenters did not support an exemption from 

Section 16.739 Some of these commenters further agreed that no standard should be adopted 

regarding application of the judicial doctrine concerning “deputized directors.”740 

After considering the comments, we continue to believe that an exclusion from Section 

16 is not appropriate for groups formed solely for the purpose of nominating a director pursuant 

to Rule 14a-11, soliciting in connection with the election of that nominee, or having that 

nominee elected as director. We also believe that it is not necessary to change the existing 

analysis of whether a group has formed and whether Section 16 applies. Because the ownership 

threshold we are adopting for Rule 14a-11 eligibility is significantly less than 10%, shareholders 

will be able to form groups with holdings sufficient to meet the Rule 14a-11 threshold without 

reaching the 10% threshold in Section 16. Thus, we do not believe that Section 16 commonly 

will be a deterrent to use of Rule 14a-11. As such, we believe that shareholders forming a group 

to submit a nominee for director pursuant to Rule 14a-11 should be analyzed in the same way as 

737 See letters from ICI; Schulte Roth & Zabel; ValueAct Capital. 

738 See letters from ICI; Schulte Roth & Zabel. 

739 See letters from ABA; Alston & Bird; CII; Seven Law Firms. 

740 See letters from ABA; CII; Seven Law Firms. 

251
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

any other group for purposes of determining whether group members are 10% owners subject to 

Section 16. Similarly, we are not adopting standards regarding application of the “deputized 

director” doctrine, which will be left to existing case law and courts. 

4. Nominating Shareholder or Group Status as Affiliates of the 

Company 

We proposed that Rule 14a-11(a) contain a safe harbor providing that a nominating 

shareholder would not be deemed an “affiliate” of the company under the Securities Act or the 

Exchange Act solely as a result of using Rule 14a-11.741 Under the Proposal, this safe harbor 

would apply not only to the nomination of a candidate, but also where that candidate is elected, 

provided that the nominating shareholder or group does not have an agreement or relationship 

with that director otherwise than relating to the nomination. We were concerned that, without 

such a safe harbor, some nominating shareholders may be deterred from using Rule 14a-11. 

We solicited comment on the appropriateness of the proposed safe harbor and posed 

some specific questions concerning its application. We also asked whether we should include a 

similar safe harbor provision for nominating shareholders that submit a nominee for inclusion in 

a company’s proxy materials pursuant to an applicable state law provision or a company’s 

governing documents rather than using the proposed rule. 

Three commenters provided statements of general support for the proposed safe harbor.742 

One commenter believed that a safe harbor also would be warranted for shareholders submitting 

741	 This safe harbor was set forth in Instruction 1 to proposed Rule 14a-11(a). The safe harbor was intended to 

operate such that the determination of whether a shareholder or group is an “affiliate” of the company 

would continue to be made based upon all of the facts and circumstances regarding the relationship of the 

shareholder or group to the company, but a shareholder or group would not be deemed an affiliate “solely” 

by virtue of having nominated that director. 

742	 See letters from CII; Protective; Schulte Roth & Zabel. 

252
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nominees pursuant to state law or a company’s governing documents.743 Another commenter 

believed the safe harbor should not be available once the shareholder nominee is elected.744 One 

commenter recommended that Instruction 1 to Rule 14a-11(a) clarify that the presence of 

agreements, other than those relating only to the nomination, between a nominating shareholder 

and a candidate or director would not necessarily confer affiliate status on the nominating 

shareholder, and that Rule 14a-11 is not intended to change the current law regarding affiliate 

status.745 

Two commenters opposed the safe harbor.746 One commenter believed that we should not 

adopt such a safe harbor without addressing the issue of affiliate status more broadly.747 It argued 

that as long as the Commission follows the historical, facts-and-circumstances analysis for the 

determination of affiliate status in other contexts, it also should follow this practice in the context 

of Rule 14a-11. Both commenters opposing the safe harbor also did not believe that proposed 

Instruction 1 to Rule 14a-11(a) would significantly reduce the interpretive analysis needed to 

determine whether a nominating shareholder is an “affiliate.”748 They argued that it rarely would 

be clear whether a nominating shareholder’s relationship with the company would consist 

“solely” of its nominating and soliciting activities, no matter how a safe harbor may be worded. 

They also expressed concern that the safe harbor would discourage nominating shareholders 

743 See letter from CII. 

744 See letter from Protective. 

745 See letter from Schulte Roth & Zabel. The commenter explained that nominees often request agreements, 

such as indemnification agreements, that clearly relate only to their nomination. In other situations, 

however, nominees and nominating shareholders enter into other agreements, including compensation 

agreements, which may not relate exclusively to the nomination. 

746 See letters from ABA; Seven Law Firms. 

747 See letter from ABA. 

748 See letters from ABA; Seven Law Firms. 

253
 
 

 

from participating in potentially fruitful discussions with the company, for fear that such 

participation would go beyond “solely” nominating and soliciting for a director candidate. 

After considering the comments, we do not believe that the proposed safe harbor would 

provide a level of certainty to nominating shareholders concerning their potential “affiliate” 

status sufficient to warrant a departure from the current application of the term. We believe it is 

more appropriate to conduct a facts-and-circumstances analysis in this regard, as would currently 

be the case in other situations. We agree with commenters’ views on the limited utility of the 

safe harbor’s application in practice, acknowledging that a nominating shareholder would be 

obligated to conduct a facts-and-circumstance analysis to determine affiliate status even if we 

were to adopt the safe harbor as proposed. We also recognize that some nominating shareholders 

or members of nominating shareholder groups may be reluctant to engage in certain activities 

that would further the general purpose of Rule 14a-11 due to concerns that such activities would 

jeopardize their ability to use the safe harbor. 

In this light, it does not appear that the proposed safe harbor would meaningfully 

facilitate use of Rule 14a-11, if at all, and may, in fact, deter it because some nominating 

shareholders or members of nominating shareholder groups may limit their activities out of 

concern that their activities would jeopardize reliance on the safe harbor. Accordingly, we have 

decided neither to adopt a safe harbor under the rule nor to adopt a similar safe harbor for 

shareholders submitting nominees pursuant to state law or a company’s governing instruments. 

Instead, as is currently the case in other contests, those who use the rule will need to analyze 

affiliate status on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all relevant facts and 

circumstances, including the circumstances surrounding a nomination and election of a 

shareholder nominee. 

254
 
 

 

E. Application of the Liability Provisions in the Federal Securities Laws to 

Statements Made By a Nominating Shareholder or Nominating Shareholder 

Group 

It is our intent that a nominating shareholder or group relying on Rule 14a-11, an 

applicable state or foreign law provision, or a company’s governing documents to include a 

nominee in company proxy materials be liable for any statement included in the Schedule 14N or 

other related communications, or which it causes to be included in a company’s proxy materials, 

which, at the time and in light of the circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading 

with respect to any material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the 

statements therein not false or misleading. To this end, we proposed to add a new paragraph (c) 

to Rule 14a-9 to specifically address a nominating shareholder’s or group’s liability when 

providing information on a Schedule 14N to be included in a company’s proxy materials 

pursuant to Rule 14a-11. 

As proposed, new paragraph (c) stated that “no nominee, nominating shareholder or 

nominating shareholder group, or any member thereof, shall cause to be included in a registrant’s 

proxy materials, either pursuant to the federal proxy rules, an applicable state law provision, or a 

registrant’s governing documents as they relate to including shareholder nominees for director in 

registrant proxy materials, any statement which, at the time and in the light of the circumstances 

under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact, or which omits to 

state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein not false or misleading 

or necessary to correct any statement in any earlier communication with respect to a solicitation 

for the same meeting or subject matter which has become false or misleading.” 

Commenters generally supported the proposal to impose Rule 14a-9 liability on 

nominating shareholders or groups that caused false or misleading statements to be included in a 

255
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

company’s proxy materials. One commenter supported the use of Rule 14a-9 as the standard for 

assigning liability, as the standards under that rule are well known and therefore would promote 

uniformity.749 The commenter further stated that Rule 14a-9(c) makes sufficiently clear that a 

nominating shareholder or group would be liable for statements included in its Schedule 14N or 

notice to the company that is included in the company’s proxy materials. As for the 

consequences of providing materially false information or representations in a Schedule 14N, the 

commenter stated that such a situation should be handled in the same way as materially false 

statements or omissions in a Schedule 14A or other soliciting material filed in connection with a 

proxy contest. Another commenter suggested that the disclosure provided to the company by the 

nominating shareholder or group and included in the company’s proxy materials be treated as the 

shareholder’s or group’s soliciting materials.750 The commenter did not believe that Rule 14a9(c) makes clear that the nominating shareholder or group would be liable for any information 

included in its Schedule 14N or notice to the company that is included in the company’s proxy 

materials. One commenter stated that members of a nominating group should be jointly and 

severally liable to the company for material misstatements or omissions provided to the company 

about the group or its members.751 Another commenter, noting investors’ concerns about 

exposure to joint liability from participating with other investors to nominate a candidate, 

requested that the Commission add additional commentary about the limits of joint liability for 

unapproved statements of other members of a nominating group.752 One commenter suggested 

that a nominating shareholder or group should be required to indemnify the company for any 

749 See letter from CII. 

750 See letter from Protective. 

751 See letter from Verizon. 

752 See letter from Universities Superannuation. 

256
 
 

 

 

 

costs incurred in connection with any misstatements or omissions in the information provided to 

the company for inclusion in the company’s proxy materials.753 

We are adopting Rule 14a-9(c) largely as proposed, but with specific references to 

statements made in the Schedule 14N and other related communications and a clarification that 

the rule would apply where a nominee is submitted pursuant to a foreign law provision in 

addition to a state law provision or the company’s governing documents. New Rule 14a-9(c) 

provides that “no nominee, nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group, or any 

member thereof, shall cause to be included in a registrant’s proxy materials, either pursuant to 

the federal proxy rules, an applicable state or foreign law provision, or a registrant’s governing 

documents as they relate to including shareholder nominees for director in registrant proxy 

materials, include in a notice on Schedule 14N, or include in any other related communication, 

any statement which, at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, is 

false or misleading with respect to any material fact, or which omits to state any material fact 

necessary in order to make the statements therein not false or misleading or necessary to correct 

any statement in any earlier communication with respect to a solicitation for the same meeting or 

subject matter which has become false or misleading.” The changes to the rule text are intended 

to clarify that a nominating shareholder or group would be liable for statements it makes 

regarding the nomination, regardless of whether those statements ultimately appear in the 

company’s proxy statement, as we consider any statements that are made in the Schedule 14N or 

in other communications to be part of the solicitation by the nominating shareholder or group. 

Consistent with this view, the Schedule 14N filing (as well as any other related communications) 

would be considering soliciting materials for purposes of Section 14(a) liability. 

See letter from Verizon. 

257
 

753 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Under the Proposal, the rule also included express language providing that the company 

would not be responsible for information that is provided by the nominating shareholder or group 

under Rule 14a-11 and then repeated by the company in its proxy statement, except where the 

company knows or has reason to know that the information is false or misleading.754 A similar 

provision was proposed in Rule 14a-19 with regard to information provided by the nominating 

shareholder or group in connection with a nomination made pursuant to an applicable state law 

provision or a company’s governing documents.755 

A number of commenters opposed the “knows or has reason to know” standard.756 Many 

commenters argued generally that because the Commission’s Proposal would eliminate the 

board’s involvement in selecting the shareholder nominees and prevent a company from 

excluding any information from its proxy materials, the company should not be liable for 

information provided by the nominating shareholder, group, or nominee.757 Commenters further 

noted that companies would not have adequate time or sufficient means to investigate the 

statements made by the nominating shareholder, group, or nominee.758 Therefore, these 

commenters argued that it would be inappropriate to shift onto companies any liability for 

statements made by a nominating shareholder, group, or nominee or impose a duty to investigate 

or otherwise confirm the accuracy of the information provided by a nominating shareholder, 

754	 See proposed Rule 14a-11(e). 

755	 See Note to proposed Rule 14a-19. 

756	 See letters from ABA; Alaska Air; American Bankers Association; Ameriprise; BorgWarner; BRT; 

Caterpillar; Cleary; DTE Energy; ExxonMobil; Honeywell; ICI; Protective; S. Quinlivan; Seven Law 

Firms; Sidley Austin; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; UnitedHealth; Verizon. 

757	 See letters from American Bankers Association; Ameriprise; BorgWarner; BRT; Caterpillar; ExxonMobil; 

Honeywell; S. Quinlivan; UnitedHealth; Verizon. 

758	 See letters from Alaska Air; BorgWarner; BRT; DTE Energy; Protective; Seven Law Firms; Society of 

Corporate Secretaries. 

258
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

group, or nominee.759 One commenter predicted that if a company is liable for information 

provided by a nominating shareholder or group and included in a company’s proxy materials 

pursuant to Rule 14a-11, an applicable state law provision, or a provision in a company’s 

governing documents, it would challenge in court any information provided by a nominating 

shareholder, group, or nominee that it suspects is materially false or misleading.760 The 

commenter asserted that this type of expensive and time-consuming litigation likely would 

undermine the Commission’s goals for the rule. Some commenters believed that the appropriate 

standard would be the standard in Rule 14a-8(l)(2) and Rule 14a-7(a)(2)(i): “the company is not 

responsible for the contents of [the shareholder proponent’s] proposal or supporting 

statement.”761 Other commenters recommended generally that the Commission allow companies 

to provide certain disclaimers in their proxy materials regarding the statements provided by the 

nominating shareholder or group,762 with one commenter suggesting that companies also should 

be able to set the nominating shareholder’s or group’s statements apart from their own statements 

by using different fonts, colors, graphics or other visual devices.763 

Two commenters addressed the issue of a company’s liability for disclosure provided by 

a nominating shareholder or group that is determined to be materially false or misleading after 

the proxy materials have been sent.764 One commenter stated that companies should not have 

759 See letters from Alaska Air; BorgWarner; BRT; DTE Energy; Protective; Seven Law Firms; Sidley Austin; 

Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; United Health; Verizon. 

760 See letter from ABA. 

761 See letters from ABA; BorgWarner; BRT; Caterpillar; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern 

Company. 

762 See letters from Alaska Air; BorgWarner; BRT; ICI; Protective. 

763 See letter from BRT. 

764 See letters from ABA; Sidley Austin. 

259
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

liability for failing to correct or recirculate proxy materials if, after the company mails its proxy 

materials, it is notified (or learns) that the information provided by a nominating shareholder or 

group is (or has become) materially false or misleading.765 The commenter noted that the burden 

of updating and correcting information provided by a nominating shareholder or group should be 

solely the obligation of that shareholder or group. Another commenter provided similar views, 

noting that “[i]n situations where the registrant’s changes have not been permitted, and certainly 

after the proxy materials have been published, we think the burden [of correcting or recirculating 

proxy materials] should be on the nominating shareholder and that the exception imposing 

liability on the registrant should not apply.”766 One commenter recommended that if Rule 14a-11 

is adopted, the rule should state that liability is only attached when “the company knows or is 

grossly negligent in not knowing that the information is false or misleading.”767 Another 

commenter asked that the company be liable for false and misleading information provided by a 

nominating shareholder or group only if it knew the information was false or misleading.768 

After considering the comments, we are adopting the proposed provision stating that 

companies will not be responsible for information that is provided by the nominating shareholder 

or group under Rule 14a-11 and then repeated by the company in its proxy statement. This is the 

same standard used in Rule 14a-8. We modified the proposed provision in response to 

commenters to remove the reference to information that the company knows or has reason to 

know is false or misleading. We believe that the standard that currently is used in Rule 14a-8 is 

well understood and that it would add unnecessary confusion and create significant uncertainty 

765 See letter from ABA. 

766 Letter from Sidley Austin. 

767 See letter from Ameriprise. 

768 See letter from ICI. 

260
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

for companies to alter the standard in the context of Rule 14a-11. Using the Rule 14a-8 standard 

also is consistent with our revision to Rule 14a-11 to remove as a basis for exclusion of a 

nominee that information in the Schedule 14N is false or misleading. Accordingly, the final rule 

contains express language providing that the company will not be responsible for information 

that is provided by the nominating shareholder or group under Rule 14a-11 and then reproduced 

by the company in its proxy statement.769 A similar provision is included in an instruction to new 

Rule 14a-18 with regard to information that is provided by the nominating shareholder or group 

in connection with a nomination made pursuant to an applicable state or foreign law provision, or 

the company’s governing documents.770 

As noted above, commenters raised concerns about correcting or recirculating proxy 

materials and potential liability for failing to correct or recirculate proxy materials after learning 

that material a nominating shareholder or group provided is false or misleading. As discussed 

above, under the rules as adopted, a company will not be responsible for any information that is 

provided by the nominating shareholder or group under Rule 14a-11 and then reproduced by the 

company in its proxy statement – the nominating shareholder or group will have liability for that 

information. Accordingly, a company will not be required to recirculate or correct proxy 

materials if it learns that the materials provided to shareholders included false or misleading 

information from the nominating shareholder or group. 

Under the Proposal, any information provided to the company in the notice from the 

nominating shareholder or group under Rule 14a-11 (and, as required, filed with the Commission 

by the nominating shareholder or group) and then included in the company’s proxy materials 

769 See Rule 14a-11(f). 

770 See Instruction to new Rule 14a-18. See also Note to proposed Rule 14a-19. 

261
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

would not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act, the Exchange 

Act, or the Investment Company Act unless the company determines to incorporate that 

information by reference specifically into that filing.771 A similar provision was proposed 

regarding information provided by the nominating shareholder or group in connection with a 

nomination made pursuant to an applicable state law provision or a company’s governing 

documents.772 

Those commenting on this provision stated that information provided by a nominating 

shareholder, group, or nominee should not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into 

Securities Act, Exchange Act or Investment Company Act filings,773 but if it is, it should be 

treated as the responsibility of the nominating shareholder, group, or nominee rather than the 

company.774 

We are adopting this provision as proposed.775 To the extent the company does 

specifically incorporate the information by reference or otherwise adopt the information as its 

own, however, we will consider the company’s disclosure of that information as the company’s 

own statements for purposes of the anti-fraud and civil liability provisions of the Securities Act, 

the Exchange Act, or the Investment Company Act, as applicable. 

771	 See the Instruction to proposed Item 7(e) of Schedule 14A; Instruction to proposed Item 22(b)(18) of 

Schedule 14A. 

772	 See the Instruction to proposed Item 7(f) of Schedule 14A; Instruction to proposed Item 22(b)(19) of 

Schedule 14A. 

773	 See letters from ABA; CII; Protective. 

774	 See letters from ABA; Protective. 

775	 See the Instruction to Item 7(e) of Schedule 14A and Instruction to Item 22(b)(18) of Schedule 14A with 

regard to information provided in connection with a Rule 14a-11 nomination. See the Instruction to Item 

7(f) of Schedule 14A and Instruction to Item 22(b)(19) of Schedule 14A with regard to information 

provided in connection with a nomination made pursuant to applicable state law or a company’s governing 

documents. 

262
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III.	 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT 

A. Background 

Certain provisions of the final rules contain “collection of information” requirements 

within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.776 We published a notice 

requesting comment on the collection of information requirements in the Proposing Release for 

the rules, and we submitted these requirements to the Office of Management and Budget for 

review in accordance with the PRA.777 The titles for the collections of information are: 

(1)	 “Proxy Statements – Regulation 14A and Schedule 14A” (OMB Control No. 

3235-0059); 

(2)	 “Information Statements – Regulation 14C and Schedule 14C” (OMB Control 

No. 3235-0057); 

(3)	 “Form ID” (OMB Control No. 3235-0328); 

(4) “Schedule 14N”; 

(5) “Securities Ownership – Regulation 13D and 13G (Commission Rules 13d-1 

through 13d-7 and Schedules 13D and 13G)” (OMB Control No. 3235-0145); 

(6) “Form 8-K” (OMB Control No. 3235-0060); and 

(7) “Rule 20a-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, Solicitations of Proxies, 

Consents, and Authorizations” (OMB Control No. 3235-0158). 

These regulations, rules and forms were adopted pursuant to the Exchange Act and the 

Investment Company Act, among other statutes, and set forth the disclosure requirements for 

securities ownership reports filed by investors, proxy and information statements,778 and current 

776	 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

777	 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. 

778	 The proxy rules apply only to domestic companies with securities registered under Section 12 of the 

Exchange Act and to investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act. The number of 

annual reports by reporting companies may differ from the number of proxy and information statements 

263
 
 

 

 

reports filed by companies to provide investors with the information they need to make informed 

voting or investing decisions. The hours and costs associated with preparing, filing, and sending 

these schedules and forms constitute reporting and cost burdens imposed by each collection of 

information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, 

a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

Compliance with the rules is mandatory. Responses to the information collection will not be 

kept confidential and there is no mandatory retention period for the information disclosed. 

B. Summary of the Final Rules and Amendments 

As discussed above in more detail, the final rules provide shareholders with two ways to 

more fully exercise their traditional state law rights to nominate and elect directors. First, new 

Exchange Act Rule 14a-11 will, under certain circumstances, require companies to include in 

their proxy materials shareholder nominees for director submitted by long-term shareholders or 

groups of shareholders with significant holdings. Rule 14a-11 will apply to all reporting 

companies subject to the Exchange Act proxy rules, with a few exceptions. Rule 14a-11 will 

apply only when applicable state or foreign law or a company’s governing documents do not 

prohibit shareholders from nominating a candidate for election as a director. Further, Rule 14a11 will not apply to companies subject to the proxy rules solely because they have a class of debt 

securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act. Rule 14a-11 will apply to smaller 

reporting companies, but on a delayed basis. Consistent with the Proposal, companies are not 

able to “opt out” of the rule in favor of a different framework for including shareholder director 

filed with the Commission in any given year. This is because some companies are subject to reporting 

requirements by virtue of Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and therefore are not covered by the proxy 

rules. Also, some companies are subject to the proxy rules only because they have a class of debt 

registered under Section 12. These companies generally are not required to hold annual meetings for the 

election of directors. In addition, companies that are not listed on a national securities exchange or national 

securities association may not hold annual meetings and therefore would not be required to file a proxy or 

information statement. 

264
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nominees in company proxy materials. In addition, as was proposed, the rule will apply 

regardless of whether any specified event has occurred to trigger the rule and regardless of 

whether the company is subject to a concurrent proxy contest. 

A nominating shareholder or group seeking to use Rule 14a-11 to require a company to 

include a nominee or nominees in the company’s proxy materials will be required to meet certain 

conditions, including an ownership threshold and holding period and filing a Schedule 14N to 

provide required disclosures and certifications. Under the rule, a company will not be required 

to include a shareholder nominee or nominees for director in the company’s proxy materials 

where the nominating shareholder or group holds the securities with the purpose, or with the 

effect, of changing control of the company or to gain a number of seats on the board of directors 

that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that the company could be required to include 

under Rule 14a-11. A company also will not be required to include a nominee submitted 

pursuant to Rule 14a-11 who does not meet the requirements of the rule. For example, a 

company would not be required to include a nominee if that nominee’s candidacy, or if elected, 

board membership, would violate applicable federal law, state law, foreign law, or the rules of a 

national securities exchange or a national securities association (other than the rules related to 

director independence) and such violation could not be cured during the time period provided in 

the rule.779 

Second, the new amendment to Exchange Act Rule 14a-8(i)(8)780 will preclude a 

company from relying on Rule 14a-8(i)(8) to exclude from its proxy materials shareholder 

779 For an additional discussion of the Rule 14a-11 eligibility requirements, see Section II.B.4 above. 

780 Exchange Act Rule 14a-8 requires a company to include a shareholder proposal in its Schedule 14A unless 

the shareholder has not complied with the procedural requirements in Rule 14a-8 or the proposal falls 

within one of the 13 substantive bases for exclusion in Rule 14a-8, including Rule 14a-8(i)(8). 

265
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

proposals by qualifying shareholders seeking to establish procedures under a company’s 

governing documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder nominees in a company’s 

proxy materials including, for example, proposals to allow lower ownership thresholds or higher 

numbers of shareholder director nominees.781 

In connection with Rule 14a-11 and the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8), we also are 

adopting new rules that will require a notice to be filed with the Commission on new Schedule 

14N, and transmitted to the company, when a shareholder seeks to submit a nomination to a 

company pursuant to Rule 14a-11 or pursuant to applicable state or foreign law provision or the 

company’s governing documents.782 The Schedule 14N will require a nominating shareholder or 

group to provide disclosure similar to the disclosure currently required in a contested election. 

The company will be required to include the disclosure provided by the nominating shareholder 

or group in its proxy materials. Thus, the new rules will require a company to provide additional 

disclosure on Schedules 14A and 14C,783 as well as Form 8-K, and a nominating shareholder or 

group to provide disclosure on new Schedule 14N. 

781	 In this regard, we note that to the extent that a shareholder proposal seeks to establish a procedure for the 

inclusion of shareholder nominees for director in a company’s proxy materials, generally any such proposal 

adopted by shareholders would not affect the availability of Rule 14a-11. To the extent that a proposal 

seeks to restrict shareholder reliance on Rule 14a-11, the proposal would be subject to exclusion pursuant 

to Rule 14a-8(i)(2) because it would cause the company to violate federal law or pursuant to Rule 14a8(i)(3) because the proposal would be contrary to the proxy rules. 

782	 See Sections II.B.8 and II.C.5 above. 

783	 Schedule 14A prescribes the information that a company with a class of securities registered under 

Exchange Act Section 12, or a person soliciting shareholders of such a company, must include in its proxy 

statement to provide shareholders with material information relating to voting decisions. 

Schedule 14C prescribes the information that a company with a class of securities registered under 

Exchange Act Section 12 must include in its information statement in advance of a shareholders’ meeting 

when it is not soliciting proxies from its shareholders, including when it takes corporate action by written 

authorization or consent of shareholders. 

Investment Company Act Rule 20a-1 requires registered investment companies to comply with Exchange 

Act Regulation 14A or 14C, as applicable. The annual responses to Investment Company Act Rule 20a-1 

reflect the number of proxy and information statements that are filed by registered investment companies. 

266
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When filed in connection with Rule 14a-11, Schedule 14N requires disclosure about the 

amount and percentage of securities entitled to be voted on the election of directors by the 

nominating shareholder or group and the length of ownership of such securities. Schedule 14N 

also requires disclosure similar to the disclosure currently required for a contested election and 

disclosure of whether the nominee satisfies the company’s director qualifications.784 Schedule 

14N also requires a certification that the nominating shareholder or group is not holding any of 

the company’s securities with the purpose, or with the effect, of changing control of the company 

or to gain a number of seats on the board of directors that exceeds the maximum number of 

nominees that the company could be required to include under Rule 14a-11. A nominating 

shareholder or group also will be required to certify that the nominating shareholder or group and 

the nominee satisfy the applicable requirements of Rule 14a-11. 

When a Schedule 14N is filed in connection with a nomination pursuant to an applicable 

state or foreign law provision or a company’s governing documents providing for the inclusion 

of one or more shareholder director nominees in company proxy materials, the Schedule 14N 

requires similar, but more limited, disclosures than a Schedule 14N filed in connection with a 

nomination pursuant to Rule 14a-11.785 In addition, a nominating shareholder or group filing a 

Schedule 14N in connection with a nomination submitted for inclusion in a company’s proxy 

materials pursuant to applicable state or foreign law or a company’s governing documents will 

be required to provide a more limited certification than is required for a nomination pursuant to 

Rule 14a-11.786 

784 See Item 5 of Schedule 14N. 

785 See Item 6 of Schedule 14N. 

786 See Item 8(b) of Schedule 14N. 

267
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We also are adopting two new exemptions from the proxy rules for solicitations by a 

shareholder or group in connection with a nomination pursuant to Rule 14a-11.787 The first 

exemption addresses written and oral solicitations by shareholders that are seeking to form a 

nominating shareholder group, provided that certain requirements are met.788 The second new 

exemption will apply to written and oral solicitations by or on behalf of a nominating 

shareholder or group that has met the requirements of Rule 14a-11 in favor of shareholder 

nominees or for or against company nominees.789 Each of these new exemptions requires the 

shareholder or group soliciting in connection with a nomination pursuant to Rule 14a-11 to file 

under cover of Schedule 14N any written materials published, sent or given to shareholders no 

later than the date such materials are first published, sent or given to shareholders. In addition, 

persons relying on Rule 14a-2(b)(7) to commence oral solicitations must file a notice of such 

solicitation under cover of Schedule 14N. 

C. Summary of Comment Letters and Revisions to Proposal 

We requested comment on the PRA analysis in the Proposing Release. Three 

commenters addressed our estimate of 30 burden hours for a company that is associated with 

including a nominee in its proxy materials.790 According to a survey that BRT conducted, two 

commenters noted that if a company determines that it will include a shareholder nominee, the 

costs of preparing a written notice to the nominating shareholder or group, as well as including in 

the company’s proxy materials the name of, and other disclosures concerning, the nominee, and 

787 For further discussion of these exemptions, see Section II.B.10 above. 

788 See new Rule 14a-2(b)(7).
 

789 See new Rule 14a-2(b)(8).
 

790 See letters from BRT; S&C; Society of Corporate Secretaries. In response to these comments, we have 

increased some of our burden estimates. See footnotes 815 and 817 below. 

268
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

preparing the company’s own statement regarding the shareholder nominee would require a total 

of an average of 99 hours of company personnel time and outside costs of $1,159,073 per 

company for each shareholder nominee.791 One commenter asserted that we underestimated the 

burden associated with these three actions because our estimate did not account for the fact that a 

company or its corporate governance committee is likely to undertake a lengthy process before 

determining whether to support the candidate.792 This commenter asserted that our estimate 

began only once a company has already determined to include the nominee, and did not account 

for the amount of time necessary for a company to fully and completely evaluate shareholder 

nominees. This would include, for example, determinations about the nominee’s eligibility, 

investigation and verification of information provided by the nominee, research into the 

nominee’s background, analysis of the relative merits of the shareholder nominee as compared to 

management’s own nominees, multiple meetings of the relevant board committees, and analysis 

of whether a nomination would conflict with any federal law, state law or director qualification 

standards. 

The commenter asserted that our burden estimate of 65 hours for a company that 

determines not to include a nominee in its proxy materials does not account for “significant” 

costs and the “enormous” amount of time that management and the board will likely spend on 

the proxy contest itself. 793 The commenter also indicated that our estimates did not account for 

the burdens on registered investment companies as a result of their unique circumstances. The 

commenter noted that subjecting registered investment companies to Rule 14a-11 will result in 

791 See letters from BRT; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

792 See letter from S&C. 

793 Id. 

269
 
 

 

 

 

 

significant administrative burdens on open-end funds and fund complexes, and increased costs. 

This commenter, however, did not provide alternative cost estimates. Another commenter 

questioned our assumption that the cost of submitting a no-action request pursuant to Rule 14a11 is comparable to that of a no-action request submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-8.794 This 

commenter argued that due to the fundamental issues at stake, boards will likely expend 

significantly more resources to challenge shareholder nominees and elect their own nominees 

than they will to oppose a shareholder proposal submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-8. 

One commenter submitted the results of a survey it conducted in which the participants 

predicted that, on average, 15% of companies listed on U.S. exchanges could expect to face a 

shareholder director nomination under Rule 14a-11 in 2011.795 As explained in greater detail 

below, we believe the actual number of shareholders or groups of shareholders that will seek to 

use Rule 14a-11 may be much smaller. While we note that there are inherent uncertainties 

involved in providing this estimate, we estimate for purposes of the PRA requirements, based on 

available data on the number of contested elections, that 45 companies other than registered 

investment companies and six registered investment companies with shareholders eligible to 

submit nominees pursuant to Rule 14a-11 will receive such a nomination each year. 

D. Revisions to PRA Reporting and Cost Burden Estimates 

As discussed above, the rules we are adopting include several substantive modifications 

to the Proposal; however, the Schedule 14N disclosure requirements we are adopting are 

substantially similar to the proposed disclosure requirements. In addition to the disclosure we 

proposed to be included in Schedule 14N, the schedule also will require disclosure of whether 

794	 See letter from BRT. 

795	 See letter from Altman. The survey had 47 participants that were primarily issuers. The median forecast of 

this survey was 10%. The survey was based on the eligibility criteria contained in the Proposing Release. 

270
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the shareholder nominee satisfies the company’s director qualifications.796 As discussed more 

fully below, we are revising our estimates in response to commenters’ suggestions and the 

modifications to the Proposal that we are adopting in the final rules. The burden estimates 

discussed below relate to the hours and costs associated with preparing, filing and sending the 

above schedules and forms, and constitute estimates of reporting and cost burdens imposed by 

each collection of information. 

For purposes of the PRA, we estimate the total annual incremental paperwork burden 

resulting from new Rule 14a-11 and the related rule changes for reporting companies (other than 

registered investment companies) and registered investment companies to be approximately 

4,113 hours of internal company or management time and a cost of approximately $548,200 for 

the services of outside professionals.797 For purposes of the PRA, we estimate the total annual 

incremental paperwork burden to nominating shareholders and groups from Schedule 14N to be 

approximately 7,870 hours of shareholder personnel time, and $1,049,300 for services of outside 

professionals. As discussed further below, these total costs include all additional disclosure 

burdens associated with the final rules, including burdens related to the notice and disclosure 

requirements. The total costs described above also include the burden hours resulting from the 

new exemptions for solicitations by nominating shareholders or groups in connection with a 

nomination pursuant to Rule 14a-11.798 As noted above, smaller reporting companies will not be 

subject to Rule 14a-11 until three years after the effective date of the rule. For purposes of the 

796 See Item 5(e) of Schedule 14N. 

797 For convenience, the estimated PRA hour burdens have been rounded to the nearest whole number. We 

estimate an hourly cost of $400 for the service of outside professionals based on our consultations with 

several registrants and law firms and other persons who regularly assist registrants in preparing and filing 

proxy statements and related disclosures with the Commission. 

798 See new Rules 14a-2(b)(7) and 14a-2(b)(8). 

271
 
 

 

 

 

PRA, we have calculated the burden estimates as if the rule has been fully phased in for all 

companies. 

As amended, Rule 14a-8(i)(8) will no longer permit companies to exclude, under that 

basis, shareholder proposals that seek to establish a procedure under a company’s governing 

documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder director nominees in the company’s 

proxy materials. For purposes of the PRA, we estimate the total annual incremental paperwork 

burden resulting from the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) and the related rule changes for 

reporting companies (other than registered investment companies), registered investment 

companies, and shareholders to be approximately 17,994 hours of internal company or 

shareholder time and a cost of approximately $2,399,200 for the services of outside 

professionals.799 

1. Rule 14a-11 

 New Rule 14a-11 will require any company subject to the rule to include disclosure 

about a nominating shareholder’s or group’s nominee or nominees for election as director in the 

company’s proxy statement, and the name of the nominee or nominees on the company’s proxy 

card, when the conditions of the rule are met. The rule will not apply if the company is subject 

to the proxy rules solely as a result of having a class of debt registered under Section 12 of the 

Exchange Act or if state law, foreign law or a company’s governing documents prohibit 

shareholders from nominating a candidate or candidates for election as director. A nominating 

shareholder or group will be required to file Schedule 14N to disclose information about the 

nominating shareholder or group and the nominee or nominees, and the company will be 

This corresponds to 6,510 hours of shareholder time and $868,000 for the shareholders’ use of outside 

professionals and 11,484 hours of company time and $1,531,200 for the company’s use of outside 

professionals. 

272
 

799 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

required to include certain information regarding the nominating shareholder or group and 

nominee or nominees in the company’s proxy statement unless the company determines that it is 

not required to include the nominee or nominees in its proxy materials.800 A nominating 

shareholder or group also will be afforded the opportunity to include in the company’s proxy 

statement a statement of support for its nominee or nominees not to exceed 500 words per 

nominee. The nominee or nominees also will be included on the company’s form of proxy in 

accordance with Exchange Act Rule 14a-4. 

Under the final rule, shareholders or groups owning at least 3% of the voting power of a 

company’s securities entitled to be voted on the election of directors for at least three years as of 

the date of filing their notice on Schedule 14N with the Commission, and transmitting the notice 

to the company, will be eligible to submit a nominee for election as director to be included in the 

company’s proxy materials,801 provided certain other eligibility requirements are met802 and 

subject to certain limitations on the overall number of shareholder nominees for director. 

In the Proposing Release, we estimated that 208 companies with eligible shareholders 

would receive nominations pursuant to Rule 14a-11. That number was based in part on data, 

which we used to estimate that approximately 4,163 reporting companies (other than registered 

investment companies) would have at least one shareholder who met the eligibility criteria set 

forth in the Proposing Release. We then estimated that 5% of those companies would receive a 

800	 The burdens associated with Schedule 14N are discussed below. 

801	 See Section II.B.4.b. above for a discussion of how voting power is determined. 

802	 The eligibility requirements are provided in Rule 14a-11(b). As discussed in more detail in Section II.B.4., 

a nominating shareholder or group must not be holding the securities used to meet the ownership threshold 

with the purpose, or with the effect, of changing the control of the company or to gain a number of seats on 

the board of directors that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that the company could be required 

to include under Rule 14a-11. A nominating shareholder or group also must provide certain statements and 

disclosure regarding its ownership and the nominee or nominees must meet the applicable eligibility 

requirements. 

273
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nomination from an eligible shareholder or group of shareholders, resulting in 208 companies 

receiving nominations pursuant to Rule 14a-11 annually.803 In the Proposing Release, we also 

estimated that 61, or 5%, of 1,225 registered investment companies responding to Rule 20a-1 

each year would receive shareholder nominations for inclusion in their proxy materials. After 

further consideration, we believe that a better indicator of how many shareholders might submit 

a nomination is the number of contested elections and board-related shareholder proposals that 

have been submitted to companies. 804 We believe starting with this number is better because it 

indicates shareholders or groups of shareholders who have shown an interest in using currently 

available means under our rules to influence governance matters. The number of contested 

elections and board-related shareholder proposals, however, does not reflect the additional 

eligibility requirements that are being adopted in new Rule 14a-11. For example, Rule 14a-11 

requires that a shareholder or group of shareholders satisfy an ownership threshold of at least 3% 

of the company’s voting power; that amount of securities must have been held continuously for 

at least three years as of the date the nominating shareholder or group submits notice of its intent 

to use Rule 14a-11; and the nominating shareholder or group must execute a certification that it 

is not holding the securities with the purpose, or with the effect, of changing control of the 

803	 If we used the same data for estimating the number of nominees that would be submitted pursuant to the 

final rules as adopted, there would be approximately 2,117 companies with at least one shareholder eligible 

to submit a nomination. If we were to assume that 5% of those companies with at least one shareholder 

eligible to submit a nomination would receive a nomination, then we would estimate that 106 companies 

would receive a nomination each year. 

804	 In this regard, we note that it is estimated that there were 57 contested solicitations in 2009. See 

Georgeson, 2009 Annual Corporate Governance Review Executive Summary (available at 

http://www.georgeson.com/usa/acgr09.php) and footnote 828 below. In addition, approximately 118 Rule 

14a-8 shareholder proposals related to board issues were submitted to shareholders for a vote in the 2008­

2009 proxy season. Board related proposals include proposals to have an independent chairman of the 

board, proposals to allow for cumulative voting and proposals to require a majority vote to elect directors. 

See RiskMetrics 2009 Proxy Season Scorecard, May 15, 2009. We believe these actions related to 

contested solicitations or board issues, 175 in total, provide useful information about the degree of interest 

in using Rule 14a-11. 

274
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

company or to gain a number of board seats that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that 

the company could be required to include under Rule 14a-11. As a result of the additional 

eligibility requirements and certifications required by Rule 14a-11, we believe it is reasonable to 

significantly reduce the number of contested elections and board-related shareholder proposals 

for purposes of estimating the number of shareholders or groups of shareholders who may submit 

a nomination pursuant to Rule 14a-11. For purposes of this analysis, we estimate that 45 

companies other than registered investment companies will receive nominees from 

shareholders805 for inclusion in their proxy materials.806 We further estimate that six registered 

investment companies will receive nominees from shareholders pursuant to Rule 14a-11 

annually.807 

We estimate for PRA purposes that each company that receives nominees pursuant to 

805	 We further estimate that 75% of the 45 submissions, or 34, will be made by groups of shareholders, and the 

remaining 11 will be made by individuals. See the discussion below regarding the estimated increase in 

Schedule 13G filings. 

806	 For the reasons noted above, we discounted the 175 contested elections and board-related shareholder 

proposals by approximately 75% to reflect the much more stringent eligibility requirements under new 

Rule 14a-11 as compared to Rule 14a-8. The 45 filings that we estimate for purposes of the PRA are equal 

to 2.1% of the 2,117 companies we estimate to have at least one eligible shareholder meeting the ownership 

requirements of the rule. 

807	 In this regard, we estimate that there were 11 contested elections in 2009, based on the number of EDGAR 

filings on form-type PREC14A with respect to unique investment companies in 2009. In addition, the 

average number of no-action letters issued by the staff regarding proposals seeking to amend a registered 

investment company’s bylaws to provide for shareholder director nominations received in calendar years 

2007, 2008 and 2009, rounded to the nearest whole number greater than zero, is one. We estimate that 

investment companies currently receive as many proposals regarding nomination procedures or disclosures 

as there are contested elections and no-action letters issued by the staff, resulting in a total of 24 contested 

elections and board-related shareholder proposals per year. For reasons similar to those articulated above 

for non-investment companies, we believe these actions related to contested solicitation or board issues, 24 

in total, provide useful information about the degree of interest in using Rule 14a-11. However, as 

discussed above, Rule 14a-11 contains different eligibility requirements than our current rules that will 

likely result in fewer companies receiving nominations submitted pursuant to the rule. Similar to noninvestment companies, we believe it is reasonable to discount the 24 contested elections and board-related 

shareholder proposals by approximately 75%, resulting in six investment companies receiving nominations 

pursuant to Rule 14a-11. We further estimate that 75% of the submissions, or five, will be made by groups 

of shareholders and the remaining one will be made by an individual. See the discussion below regarding 

the estimated increase in Schedule 13G filings. 

275
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rule 14a-11 will receive two nominees from one shareholder or group. The median board size 

based on a 2007 sample of public companies was nine.808 Approximately 60% of the boards 

sampled had between nine and 19 directors. In the case of registered investment companies, we 

estimate that the median board size is eight.809 Thus, although some shareholders or groups could 

seek to include fewer than two nominees and others would be permitted to include more than two 

nominees, depending on the size of the board, we assume for purposes of the PRA that each 

shareholder or group would submit two nominees. As a result, for reporting companies, we 

estimate up to 211 total company burden hours per company (which is the sum of the bullets 

below doubled where appropriate to reflect two nominees) which corresponds to 158 hours (211 

x 0.75) of company time, and a cost of approximately $21,100 (211 x 0.25 x $400) for the 

services of outside professionals. In each case, this estimate includes: 

•	 if the company determines that it will include a shareholder nominee, the company’s 

preparation of a written notice to the nominating shareholder or group (five burden 

hours per notice); 

•	 the company’s inclusion in its proxy statement and form of proxy of the name of, and 

other related disclosures concerning, a person or persons nominated by a shareholder 

or shareholder group (five burden hours per nominee);810 

•	 the company’s preparation of its own statement regarding the shareholder nominee or 

808	 According to information from RiskMetrics, based on a sample of 1,431 public companies the median 

board size in 2007 was 9, with boards ranging in size from 4 to 23 members. Approximately 40% of the 

boards in the sample had 8 or fewer directors, approximately 60% had between 9 and 19 directors, and less 

than 1% had 20 or more directors. 

809	 See Investment Company Institute and Independent Directors Council, Overview of Fund Governance 

Practices 1994-2006, at 6-7 (November 2007), available at 

http://www.ici.org/pdf/rpt_07_fund_gov_practices.pdf (noting that the median number of independent 

directors per fund complex in 2006 was six and that independent directors held 75% or more of board seats 

in 88% of fund complexes). 

810	 The requirement is in amended Rule 14a-4. 

276
 
 

 

 

 

nominees (40 burden hours per nominee); and 

•	 if a company determines that it may exclude a shareholder nominee submitted 

pursuant to the new rule, the company’s preparation of a written notice to the 

nominating shareholder or group followed by written notice of the basis for its 

determination to exclude the nominee to the Commission staff (116 burden hours per 

notice).811 

For purposes of this PRA analysis, we assume that approximately 41 (or 90% of 45) 

reporting companies (other than registered investment companies) and 5 (or 90% of 6) registered 

investment companies that receive a shareholder nominee for director will be required to include 

the nominee in their proxy materials. In the other 10% of cases, we assume that the company 

will be able to exclude the shareholder nominee (after providing notice of its reasons to the 

Commission). If a company determines to include a shareholder nominee, it must provide 

written notice to the nominating shareholder or group. We estimate the burden associated with 

preparing this notice to be five hours. For reporting companies (other than registered investment 

companies), this will result in 205 aggregate burden hours (41 companies x 5 hours/company), 

which corresponds to 154 burden hours of company time (41 companies x 5 hours/company x 

0.75) and $20,500 in services of outside professionals (41 companies x 5 hours/company x 0.25 

x $400). For registered investment companies, this will result in 25 aggregate burden hours (5 

companies x 5 hours/company), which corresponds to 19 burden hours of company time (5 

companies x 5 hours/company x 0.75), and $2,500 for services of outside professionals (5 

companies x 5 hours/company x 0.25 x $400). 

We estimate the annual disclosure burden for companies to include nominees and related 

As discussed below, for companies that exclude a nominee but do not request no-action relief, we estimate 

this burden to be 100 hours. 

277
 

811 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

disclosure in their proxy statements and on their form of proxy to be 5 burden hours per 

nominee, for a total of 410 aggregate burden hours (41 responses x 5 hours/response x 2 

nominees) for reporting companies (other than registered investment companies), and 50 

aggregate burden hours (5 responses x 5 hours/response x 2 nominees) for registered investment 

companies. For reporting companies (other than registered investment companies), this 

corresponds to 308 burden hours of company time, and $41,000 for services of outside 

professionals.812 For registered investment companies, this corresponds to 38 hours of company 

time, and $5,000 for services of outside professionals.813 

We estimate that 41 reporting companies (other than registered investment companies) 

and 5 registered investment companies will include a statement with regard to the shareholder 

nominees.814 We anticipate that the burden to include a statement will include time spent to 

research the nominee’s background, determinations about the nominee’s eligibility, investigation 

and verification of information provided by the nominee, analysis of the relative merits of the 

shareholder nominee as compared to management’s own nominees, multiple meetings of the 

relevant board committees, analysis of whether a nomination will conflict with any federal law, 

state law or director qualification standards, preparation of the statement, and company time for 

review of the statement by, among others, the nominating committee and legal counsel. In the 

Proposing Release we estimated that this burden will be approximately 20 hours per nominee. 

Based on comments received, however, we believe it is appropriate to increase this estimate to 

812	 The calculations for these numbers are: 410 burden hours x 0.75 = 308 burden hours of company time and 

410 burden hours x 0.25 x $400 = $41,000 for services of outside professionals. 

813	 The calculations for these numbers are: 50 burden hours x 0.75 = 38 hours of company time and 50 burden 

hours x 0.25 x $400 = $5,000 for services of outside professionals. 

814	 We assume that each company that includes a shareholder nominee in its proxy materials would include 

such a statement. 

278
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40 hours per nominee.815 For reporting companies (other than registered investment companies), 

this will result in 3,280 aggregate burden hours (41 statements x 40 hours/statement x 2 

nominees). This corresponds to 2,460 hours of company time (41 statements x 40 

hours/statement x 2 nominees x 0.75) and $328,000 for services of outside professionals (41 

statements x 40 hours/statement x 2 nominees x 0.25 x $400) for reporting companies (other than 

registered investment companies). For registered investment companies, this will result in 400 

aggregate burden hours (5 statements x 40 hours/statement x 2 nominees). This corresponds to 

300 hours of company time (5 statements x 40 hours/statement x 2 nominees x 0.75) and $40,000 

for services of outside professionals (5 statements x 40 hours/statement x 2 nominees x 0.25 x 

$400). 

Further, for purposes of this analysis, we assume that approximately 9 (or 20% of 45) 

reporting companies (other than registered investment companies) and 1 (or 20% of 6) registered 

investment companies that receive a shareholder nominee for director for inclusion in their proxy 

materials will make a determination that they are not required to include a nominee in their proxy 

materials because the requirements of Rule 14a-11 are not met and will file a notice of intent to 

exclude that nominee.816 We further estimate that 3 (or 33% of 9) of those reporting companies 

815	 In its comment letter and based on its survey of its members, BRT estimated that the preparation of a notice 

to the nominating shareholder, inclusion of related disclosure in the company’s proxy materials, and 

preparation of its own statement regarding the shareholder nominee will require an average of 99 hours of 

personnel time. In the Proposing Release, we estimated the burden for these three actions to be 30 hours. 

We note that the survey conducted by the BRT provides useful information regarding the amount of 

personnel time that a company will spend responding to a Rule 14a-11 nomination, however, the survey 

represents a limited number of companies. While we are persuaded that the burden to companies of 

preparing a statement with regard to the shareholder nominee may require more than the 20 hours we 

estimated in the Proposing Release, we believe that 99 hours may represent the high end of the range. In 

light of this information, we believe it is appropriate to increase our estimate and we believe it is adequate 

to double our estimate of this component from 20 to 40 hours to reflect the average burden across all 

companies. Thus, we estimate that the internal burden associated with these three actions would be 50 

hours. 

816	 With respect to companies other than registered investment companies, we assume that 6 of these 

submissions ultimately would be excludable under the rule. 

279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(other than registered investment companies) will not seek no-action relief from the Commission 

and will only provide the required notice to the nominating shareholder or group and the 

Commission. We estimate that the remaining 6 reporting companies other than registered 

investment companies and the one registered investment company that makes a determination 

that it is not required to include a nominee in its proxy materials will seek no-action relief in 

order to exclude the nomination. We estimate that the burden hours associated with preparing 

and submitting the company’s notice to the nominating shareholder or group and the 

Commission regarding its intent to exclude a shareholder nominee that includes a request for noaction relief would be 116 hours per notice.817 We estimate that the burden hours associated with 

preparing and submitting the company’s notice to the nominating shareholder or group and the 

Commission regarding its intent to exclude a shareholder nominee and its reasons for doing so 

would be 100 hours.818 One commenter questioned our assumption that submitting a request to 

817	 This estimate is based on data provided by the BRT in its comment letter dated August 17, 2009. In its 

letter, the BRT provided data from a survey of its own members indicating that the average burden 

associated with preparing and submitting a single no-action request to the Commission staff in connection 

with a shareholder proposal is approximately 47 hours and associated costs of $47,784. Although the letter 

did not specify as much, assuming these costs correspond to legal fees, which we estimate at an hourly cost 

of $400, we estimate that this cost is equivalent to approximately 120 hours ($47,784/$400). We note that 

this estimate is higher than the 65 hours we estimated in the Proposing Release, where we relied on 2003 

data provided by the American Society of Corporate Secretaries indicating 30 hours and associated costs of 

$13,896, or 35 hours ($13,896/$400). The BRT survey also indicated that if a company opposes a 

shareholder nominee, it would incur an additional average of 302 hours of company time. This would be in 

addition to its estimate of 99 hours for the actions described above. As noted above, the survey conducted 

by the BRT provides useful estimates for us to consider, but the survey represents a limited number of 

companies. In addition, it is unclear whether the 302 hours is inclusive of the no-action process. We 

believe this estimate is high and believe the revised number discussed below is a better estimate because it 

attempts to reflect the burden across all companies. For purposes of the PRA, we assume that submitting 

the notice and reasons for excluding a shareholder nominee to the staff will be comparable to preparing a 

no-action request to exclude a proposal under Rule 14a-8. While it appears, based on commenters’ 

estimates, that associated costs may have increased since 2003, based on estimates provided by other 

commenters on the costs of preparing and submitting a no-action request (see, e.g., letter from S&C), we 

believe an average of the two estimates provides a more representative estimate of the spectrum of 

reporting companies, as opposed to those who participated in the BRT survey. Thus, we estimate that the 

burden to submit the notice and reasons for excluding a shareholder nominee and request no-action relief 

would be approximately 116 hours ([167 hrs + 65 hrs] / 2). 

818	 We believe that even if a company is not seeking no-action relief the company will still spend significant 

time preparing its notice to exclude the nominee. Because the notice will be required to include the reasons 

280
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

the staff to exclude a shareholder nominee will be comparable to preparing a no-action request to 

exclude a proposal under Rule 14a-8.819 This commenter argued that due to the fundamental 

issues at stake, boards are likely to expend significant resources to challenge shareholder 

nominees and elect their own nominees. We recognize the possibility that companies might 

expend greater resources in opposing a shareholder nominee than a shareholder proposal. We 

believe, however, that some of the resources to oppose a shareholder nominee will be allocated 

to the use of other means outside of the required disclosure in the proxy statement (e.g., “fight 

letters”) so we have not factored that into our collection of information estimate. We believe that 

a portion of the burden associated with this will be reflected in the company’s preparation of its 

own statement regarding the shareholder nominee, rather than in the preparation of a no-action 

request, and accordingly, as discussed above, we have increased our estimate of the associated 

burden from 20 to 40 hours. Although we have increased the burden to the company associated 

with preparing its own statement, we are not persuaded that also increasing the burden associated 

with preparing a request to exclude the nominee will be an accurate estimate. We are, however, 

as discussed above, increasing to 116 hours our estimate for preparing a notice of intent to 

exclude the nominee and request no-action relief based on 2009 data received from 

commenters.820 

In the case of reporting companies (other than registered investment companies) that have 

determined they may exclude a nominee and seek no-action relief from the staff, we estimate that 

this will result in an aggregate burden of 696 hours (6 notices x 116 hours/notice), corresponding 

that the nominee is being excluded, we believe that the burden will be similar to, though not quite as 

extensive as, preparing a request for no-action relief. 

819 See letter from BRT. 

820 Our prior estimate of 65 hours in the Proposing Release was based on 2003 data. 

281 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to 522 hours of company time (6 notices x 116 hours/notice x 0.75) and $69,600 for the services 

of outside professionals (6 notices x 116 hours/notice x 0.25 x $400). In the case of registered 

investment companies that have determined they may exclude a nominee and seeking no-action 

relief from the staff, we estimate that this will result in 116 aggregate burden hours (1 notice x 

116 hours/notice), which will correspond to 87 hours of company time (1 notice x 116 

hours/notice x 0.75) and $11,600 for the services of outside professionals (1 notice x 116 

hours/notice x 0.25 x $400). For companies (other than registered investment companies) that 

have determined they may exclude a nomination but not to seek no-action relief from the staff, 

we estimate that this will result in an aggregate burden of 300 hours (3 notices x 100 

hours/notice), corresponding to 225 hours of company time (3 notices x 100 hours/notice x 0.75) 

and $30,000 for the services of outside professionals (3 notices x 100 hours/notice x 0.25 x 

$400).821 These burdens would be added to the PRA burdens of Schedules 14A and 14C or, in 

the case of registered investment companies, Rule 20a-1. 

We also estimate that the annual burden for the nominating shareholder’s or group’s 

participation in the no-action process822 available pursuant to Rule 14a-11 would average 60 

hours per nomination.823 For nominating shareholders or groups of reporting companies (other 

821	 As discussed above, we estimate that only one registered investment company will make a determination 

that it is not required to include a nominee in its proxy material and that this company will seek no-action 

relief. 

822	 There is no corresponding burden for shareholders or groups whose nomination is excluded by the 

company, and the company does not seek no-action relief. If the shareholder objects to the exclusion, there 

is no requirement that the shareholder seek redress from the staff or the Commission. As a result, we have 

not provided an estimated burden. 

823	 As noted in footnote 817, we estimate that the average burden to a company associated with preparing and 

submitting a no-action request to the staff is approximately 116 burden hours. We believe that the average 

burden for a shareholder proponent to respond to a company’s no-action request is likely to be less than a 

company’s burden to prepare the request; therefore, we estimate it will take approximately half the time (or 

60 burden hours) for a nominating shareholder or group to respond to a company’s notice to the 

Commission of its intent to exclude. 

282
 
 

 

 

 

than registered investment companies), this will result in 360 total burden hours (6 responses x 

60 hours/response). This will correspond to 270 hours of shareholder time (6 responses x 60 

hours/response x 0.75) and $36,000 for services of outside professionals (6 responses x 60 

hours/response x 0.25 x $400). For nominating shareholders or groups of registered investment 

companies, this will result in 60 total burden hours (1 response x 60 hours/response). This will 

correspond to 45 hours of shareholder time (1 response x 60 hours/response x 0.75) and $6,000 

for services of outside professionals (1 response x 60 hours/response x 0.25 x $400). This 

burden would be added to the PRA burden of Schedule 14N. 

We also are adopting two new exemptions from the proxy rules for solicitations by 

shareholders or groups in connection with a nomination pursuant to Rule 14a-11. The first 

exemption addresses written and oral solicitations by shareholders that are seeking to form a 

nominating shareholder group, provided that certain requirements are met.824 Solicitations made 

in reliance on this exemption would be required to be filed under cover of Schedule 14N with the 

appropriate box marked on the cover page. As discussed above, we estimate that 34 of the 

submissions made to companies (other than registered investment companies) pursuant to Rule 

14a-11 will be by groups of shareholders formed for purposes of satisfying the eligibility 

requirements of the rule. We estimate that 31 (90% of 34) of these groups will avail themselves 

of Rule 14a-2(b)(7). In the case of reporting companies (other than registered investment 

companies), this will result in an aggregate burden of 31 hours (31 solicitations x 1 

hour/solicitation), which corresponds to 23 hours of shareholder time (31 solicitations x 1 

hour/solicitation x 0.75) and $3,100 for the services of outside professionals (31 solicitations x 1 

hour/solicitation x 0.25 x $400). In the case of registered investment companies, we estimate 

See new Rule 14a-2(b)(7). 

283
 

824 
 

 

 

 

that five of the submissions made pursuant to Rule 14a-11 will be by groups of shareholders 

formed for purposes of satisfying the eligibility requirements of the rule. We estimate that all of 

these groups will avail themselves of Rule 14a-2(b)(7) (90% of 5 rounds up to 5). This will 

result in an aggregate burden of 5 hours (5 solicitations x 1 hour/solicitation), which corresponds 

to 4 hours of shareholder time (5 solicitations x 1 hour/solicitation x 0.75) and $500 for the 

services of outside professionals (5 solicitations x 1 hour/solicitation x 0.25 x $400). These 

burden hours would be added to the PRA burden of Schedule 14N. 

The second new exemption will apply to written and oral solicitations by or on behalf of 

a nominating shareholder or group that has met the requirements of Rule 14a-11 in favor of 

shareholder nominees or for or against company nominees.825 Although nominating shareholders 

or groups will not be required to engage in written solicitations, if the nominating shareholder or 

group does so, the exemption will require inclusion in any written soliciting materials filed under 

cover of Schedule 14N of a legend advising shareholders to look at the company’s proxy 

statement when available and advising shareholders how to find the company’s proxy statement. 

For purposes of this analysis, we assume that 50% of nominating shareholders or groups 

ultimately included in a company’s proxy statement will solicit in favor of their nominee or 

nominees outside the company’s proxy statement. In the case of reporting companies (other than 

registered investment companies), this will result in an aggregate burden of 20 hours (20 

solicitations x 1 hour/solicitation), which corresponds to 15 hours of shareholder time (20 

solicitations x 1 hour/solicitation x 0.75) and $2,000 for services of outside professionals (20 

solicitations x 1 hour/solicitation x 0.25 x $400). These burden hours would be added to the 

PRA burden of Schedule 14N. In the case of registered investment companies, this will result in 

See new Rule 14a-2(b)(8). 

284
 

825 
 

 

an aggregate burden of 3 hours (3 solicitations x 1 hour/solicitation), which corresponds to 2 

hours of shareholder time (3 solicitations x 1 hour/solicitation x 0.75) and $300 for services of 

outside professionals (3 solicitations x 1 hour/solicitation x 0.25 x $400). These burden hours 

would be added to the PRA burden of Schedule 14N. 

2. Amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) 

Under our amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8), the election exclusion, a company will no 

longer be able to rely on this basis to exclude a shareholder proposal that seeks to establish a 

procedure under a company’s governing documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder 

director nominees in the company’s proxy materials. The shareholder proposal will have to meet 

the procedural requirements of Rule 14a-8 and not be subject to one of the substantive exclusions 

other than the election exclusion (e.g., the proposal could be excluded if the shareholder 

proponent did not meet the ownership threshold under Rule 14a-8). 

Historically, shareholders have made relatively few proposals relating to shareholder 

access to a company’s proxy materials. The staff received 368 no-action requests from 

companies seeking to exclude shareholder proposals during the 2006-2007 fiscal year. Of these 

requests, only three (or approximately one percent) related to proposals for bylaw amendments 

providing for shareholder nominees to appear in the company’s proxy materials. During the 

2007-2008 fiscal year, the staff received 423 no-action requests to exclude shareholder proposals 

pursuant to Rule 14a-8. Of these no-action requests, six (or approximately two percent) related 

to proposals for bylaw amendments providing for shareholder nominees to appear in the 

company’s proxy materials. During the 2008-2009 fiscal year, the staff received 365 no-action 

requests to exclude shareholder proposals pursuant to Rule 14a-8. Of these requests, seven 

related to shareholders’ ability to have their nominee included in a company’s proxy materials. 

285
 
 

 

 

 

One such request sought to exclude a proposal to directly amend a company’s governing 

documents to permit shareholder director nominations; the remaining six no-action requests 

related to proposals requesting that the company reincorporate in North Dakota where the 

relevant state corporate law gives qualified shareholders the right to submit director nominees for 

inclusion in the company’s proxy materials.826 Although these reincorporation proposals did not 

seek to amend the companies’ bylaws, by seeking reincorporation into North Dakota it appears 

they sought the ability for shareholders to have nominees included in a company’s proxy 

materials. As of July 23, 2010, during the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the staff has received 353 noaction requests to exclude shareholder proposals pursuant to Rule 14a-8, none of which related to 

shareholders’ ability to have their nominee included in a company’s proxy materials. While we 

believe that these proposals are helpful in gauging the level of shareholder interest in nominating 

directors, because our amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) narrows the scope of the exclusion and no 

longer permits companies to exclude certain proposals that are excludable under current Rule 

14a-8(i)(8), and Rule 14a-11 as adopted includes meaningful eligibility standards, we believe 

there may be an increase in the number of shareholder proposals seeking to establish procedures 

under a company’s governing documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder nominees 

in a company’s proxy materials to allow, for example, lower ownership thresholds or higher 

numbers of shareholder director nominees. 

While the number of no-action requests the staff has received in the past is a useful 

starting point for the PRA analysis, other data also is helpful to gauge shareholder interest in 

nominating directors and to predict the anticipated impact on the number of proposals submitted 

pursuant to Rule 14a-8 that seek to establish procedures under a company’s governing 

documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder nominees in a company’s proxy 

See North Dakota Publicly Traded Corporations Act, N.D. Cent. Code § 10-35-08 (2009). 

286
 

826 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

materials that otherwise would be excludable under current Rule 14a-8(i)(8). For example, 

based on publicly available information, from 2001 to 2005, there were, on average, 14 contested 

elections per year.827 It is estimated that in 2009 there were at least 57 contested elections,828 and 

in 2008 it is estimated that there were at least 50 contested elections.829 For purposes of the PRA, 

we believe that as a result of the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8), shareholders may submit at 

least as many shareholder proposals to establish procedures under a company’s governing 

documents for the inclusion of shareholder nominees for director in company proxy materials as 

there are contested elections. We believe that if shareholders are willing under the current proxy 

rules to put forth the expense and effort to wage a contest to put forth their own nominees in 57 

instances, there may be a similar number of proposals submitted to companies pursuant to Rule 

14a-8, as amended, because companies will no longer be permitted to exclude some proposals 

that currently are excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(8). We also believe that some shareholders 

that have submitted proposals in the past with regard to other board issues will submit proposals 

seeking to establish procedures under a company’s governing documents for the inclusion of 

shareholder nominees for director in company proxy materials. As noted in the Proposing 

Release, according to information from RiskMetrics, approximately 118 Rule 14a-8 shareholder 

proposals regarding board issues were submitted to shareholders for a vote in the 2008-2009 

827	 See Lucian A. Bebchuk, The Myth of the Shareholder Franchise, 93 VA. L. REV. 675, 683 (2007) 

(“Bebchuk (2007)”)(citing data from proxy solicitation firm Georgeson Shareholder). See footnote 314 in 

the Proposing Release. 

828	 See Georgeson, 2009 Annual Corporate Governance Review (stating that as of the end of September 2009 

it had tracked 57 formal proxy contests); see also RiskMetrics Group, 2009 Postseason Report Summary, A 

New Voice in Governance: Global Policymakers Shape the Road to Reform, October 2009, available at 

http://www.riskmetrics.com/docs/2009-postseason-report (noting that during the 2009 proxy season there 

were at least 39 proxy contests, and 36 negotiated settlements prior to a shareholder vote). 

829	 See letter from BRT (citing data from Georgeson, “2008 Annual Corporate Governance Review”). See 

also RiskMetrics Group, 2008 Postseason Report Summary, Weathering the Storm: Investors Respond to 

the Global Credit Crisis, October 2008, available at 

http://www.riskmetrics.com/docs/2008postseason_review_summary. 

287
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

proxy season.830 For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that approximately half of these 

shareholders may submit a proposal regarding procedures for the inclusion of shareholder 

nominees for director in company proxy materials, resulting in up to 59 proposals in lieu of 

proposals related to other board issues.831 

In the case of reporting companies (other than registered investment companies), we 

believe that the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) may result in an increase of up to 64 (57 + 7 

2009 shareholder proposals) proposals annually from 2009, and a total of 123 proposals (59 

proposals + 57 + 7) to companies per year regarding procedures for the inclusion of shareholder 

nominees for director in company proxy materials.832 We estimate the annual incremental burden 

for the shareholder to prepare the proposal to be 10 burden hours per proposal, for a total of 640 

burden hours (64 proposals x 10 hours/proposal). This will correspond to 480 hours of 

shareholder time (64 proposals x 10 hours/proposal x 0.75) and $64,000 for the services of 

outside professionals (64 proposals x 10 hours/proposal x 0.25 x $400).833 

We recognize that a company that receives a shareholder proposal has no obligation to 

submit a no-action request to the staff under Rule 14a-8. We anticipate that because the 

830	 See footnote 804 above. 

831	 We note that we used this estimate in the Proposing Release and did not receive comment on it. See 

Section IV.C.2. of the Proposing Release. We acknowledge the possibility that the number of Rule 14a-8 

proposals relating to director nomination procedures may decrease with shareholders’ ability to submit a 

nominee for inclusion in company proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11, but we believe that any 

decrease may be countered by an increase in shareholder proposals to establish company-specific 

requirements that are different than Rule 14a-11. 

832	 The increase is calculated by adding the number of proxy contests in 2009 (57) plus the number of noaction requests received in 2009 regarding proposals seeking to amend a company’s bylaws to provide for 

shareholder director nominations (seven). We have not included an estimated 59 proposals in this increase 

because we believe they will be submitted in lieu of other types of proposals (a shareholder is limited to 

submitting one shareholder proposal to each company). 

833	 We note that this calculation is for incremental, not total, costs. One commenter estimated that the average 

approximate total cost for shareholders to include a Rule 14a-8 proposal was $30,000. See letter from 

CalPERS. Assuming these costs correspond to legal fees, which we estimate at an hourly cost of $400, we 

estimate that this cost will be equivalent to approximately 75 hours. 

288
 
 

 

 

 

proposals that would be submitted pursuant to amended Rule 14a-8 could affect the composition 

of the company’s board of directors, nearly all companies receiving such proposals would submit 

a written statement of its reasons for excluding the proposal to the staff. We estimate that there 

will be a total of 123 proposals per year regarding procedures for the inclusion of shareholder 

nominees in the company’s proxy statement. This number includes the 64 (57 + 7) new 

proposals plus the 59 proposals submitted in lieu of other proposals. Thus, we estimate that 90% 

of the estimated 123 companies receiving proposals seeking to establish procedures under a 

company’s governing documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder nominees in a 

company’s proxy materials will submit a written statement of their reasons for excluding the 

proposal to the staff and would seek no-action relief. 

We estimate that companies would determine that they could exclude, and would seek 

staff concurrence through the no-action letter process for, 110 proposals (123 proposals x 90%) 

per proxy season. We estimate that the annual burden for the company’s submission of a notice 

of its intent to exclude the proposal and its reasons for doing so would average 116 hours per 

proposal, for a total of 12,760 burden hours (110 proposals x 116 hours/proposal) for reporting 

companies (other than registered investment companies). This will correspond to 9,570 hours of 

company time (110 proposals x 116 hours/proposal x 0.75) and $1,276,000 for the services of 

outside professionals (110 proposals x 116 hours/proposal x 0.25 x $400). 

We also estimate that the annual burden for the proponent’s participation in the Rule 14a8 no-action process would average 60 hours per proposal, for a total of 6,600 burden hours (110 

proposals x 60 hours/proposal).834 This will correspond to 4,950 hours of shareholder time (110 

As noted in footnote 817 above, we estimate that the average burden to a company associated with 

preparing and submitting a no-action request to the staff was approximately 116 burden hours. As noted 

above in footnote 823, we estimate 60 burden hours for a shareholder proponent to respond to a company’s 

notice of intent to exclude and request for no-action relief to the Commission. In this regard, we also 

289
 

834 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

proposals x 60 hours/proposal x 0.75) and $660,000 for services of outside professionals (110 

proposals x 60 hours/proposal x 0.25 x $400). These burdens would be added to the PRA burden 

of Schedules 14A and 14C. 

In the case of registered investment companies, we anticipate that the amendment to Rule 

14a-8(i)(8) will result in an increase of 12 proposals annually, and a total of 24 proposals 

regarding procedures for the inclusion of shareholder nominees for director in company proxy 

materials to companies per year.835 We estimate the annual incremental burden for the 

shareholder proponent to prepare the proposal to be 10 hours per proposal, for a total of 120 

burden hours (12 proposals x 10 hours/proposal). This would correspond to 90 hours of 

shareholder time (12 proposals x 10 hours/proposal x 0.75) and $12,000 for the services of 

outside professionals (12 proposals x 10 hours/proposal x 0.25 x $400). 

Similar to reporting companies other than investment companies, we assume that 90% of 

registered investment companies that receive a shareholder proposal seeking to establish 

procedures under a company’s governing documents for the inclusion of one or more 

shareholder nominees in a company’s proxy materials will determine that they may exclude the 

proposal from their proxy materials and request concurrence through the no-action letter process 

estimate that the average incremental burden for a shareholder proponent to submit a shareholder proposal 

would be 10 hours. We note that one commenter estimated that the average approximate cost to 

shareholders of submitting a proposal is $30,000. See letter from CalPERS. We note that this 

commenter’s estimate corresponds to the burden to shareholders of submitting a proposal, whereas our 

estimate of 60 burden hours corresponds to the burden to shareholders in responding to a company’s noaction request. 

The increase is estimated based on the number of registered investment company proxy contests in calendar 

year 2009 (11) plus the average number of no-action letters issued by the staff regarding proposals seeking 

to amend a registered investment company’s bylaws to provide for shareholder director nominations 

received in calendar years 2007, 2008, and 2009 rounded to the nearest whole number greater than zero (1). 

In addition, we estimate that investment companies currently receive as many proposals regarding 

nomination procedures or disclosures as there are contested elections and no-action letters issued by the 

staff, resulting in a total of an estimated 24 proposals regarding nomination procedures or disclosures 

related to director nominations to companies per year. 

290
 

835 
 

 

(so registered investment companies will seek to exclude 22 such proposals per proxy season). 

Also similar to reporting companies other than registered investment companies, we assume that 

the annual burden for the company’s submission of a notice of its intent to exclude the proposal 

and its reasons for doing so would average 116 hours per proposal, for a total of 2,552 burden 

hours for registered investment companies (22 proposals x 116 hours/proposal). This 

corresponds to 1,914 hours of company time (22 proposals x 116 hours/proposal x 0.75) and 

$255,200 for the services of outside professionals (22 proposals x 116 hours/proposal x 0.25 x 

$400). We also estimate that the annual burden for the proponent’s participation in the Rule 14a8 no-action process would average 60 hours per proposal, for a total of 1,320 burden hours (22 

proposals x 60 hours/proposal). This corresponds to 990 hours of shareholder time (22 proposals 

x 60 hours/proposal x 0.75) and $132,000 for the services of outside professionals (22 proposals 

x 60 hours/proposal x 0.25 x $400). These burdens would be added to the PRA burden of Rule 

20a-1. 

3. Schedule 14N and Exchange Act Rule 14a-18 

Rule 14n-1 establishes a new filing requirement for the nominating shareholder or group, 

under which the nominating shareholder or group will be required to file notice of its intent to 

include a shareholder nominee or nominees for director pursuant to Rule 14a-11, applicable state 

law provisions, or a company’s governing documents, as well as disclosure about the nominating 

shareholder or group and nominee or nominees on new Schedule 14N. New Schedule 14N was 

modeled after Schedule 13G, but with more extensive disclosure requirements than Schedule 

13G. Schedule 14N will require, among other items, disclosure about the amount and percentage 

of securities owned by the nominating shareholder or group, the length of ownership of such 

amount, and a written statement that the nominating shareholder or group will continue to hold 

291
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

the securities through the date of the meeting. 

In addition, Schedule 14N will contain the disclosure required to be included in the 

nominating shareholder’s or group’s notice to the company of its intent to require that the 

company include the shareholder’s or group’s nominee in the company’s proxy materials 

pursuant to Rule 14a-11 or pursuant to applicable state or foreign law provisions or a company’s 

governing documents. With regard to the latter, we are seeking to assure that nominating 

shareholders or groups that submit a shareholder nomination for inclusion in a company’s proxy 

materials pursuant to applicable state or foreign law provisions or the company’s governing 

documents also provide disclosure similar to the disclosure required in a contested election to 

give shareholders the information needed to make an informed voting decision. 

Schedule 14N will require disclosures regarding the nature and extent of the relationships 

between the nominating shareholder or group, the nominee and the company or any affiliate of 

the company. Pursuant to Items 7(e)-(f) of Schedule 14A and, in the case of an investment 

company, Items 22(b)(18)-(19) of Schedule 14A, the company will be required to include certain 

information set forth in the shareholder’s notice on Schedule 14N in its proxy materials. A 

nominating shareholder or group filing a Schedule 14N to provide disclosure when submitting a 

nominee for inclusion in a company’s proxy materials pursuant to applicable state or foreign law 

provisions or the company’s governing documents will not be required to provide certain 

statements and certifications required for nominating shareholders or groups using Rule 14a-11. 

We estimate that compliance with the Schedule 14N requirements will result in a burden 

greater than Schedule 13G836 but less than a Schedule 14A.837 Therefore, we estimate that 

836	 We currently estimate the burden per response for preparing a Schedule 13G filing to be 12.4 hours. 

837	 We currently estimate the burden per response for preparing a Schedule 14A filing to be 101.5 hours and a 

Schedule 14C to be 102.62 hours. 

292
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

compliance with Schedule 14N will result in 47 hours per response per nominee submitted 

pursuant to Rule 14a-11.838 We also note that the burden associated with filing a Schedule 14N 

in connection with a nomination made pursuant to an applicable state or foreign law provision or 

the company’s governing documents may be slightly less than a nomination made pursuant to 

Rule 14a-11 because certain disclosures, statements, and certifications will not be required 

(including a statement that the nominating shareholder will continue to own the amount of 

securities through the date of the meeting, disclosure about the nominating shareholder’s or 

group’s intent with respect to continued ownership of the securities after the election, the 

certifications that will be required to use Rule 14a-11 (such as the certification concerning lack 

of intent to change control or to gain a number of seats on the board that exceeds the maximum 

number of nominees that the company could be required to include under Rule 14a-11, or the 

certifications that the nominating shareholder or group and the nominee satisfy the requirements 

of Rule 14a-11), and a supporting statement from the nominating shareholder or group. 

Therefore, we estimate that compliance with Schedule 14N when a shareholder or group submits 

a nominee or nominees to a company pursuant to an applicable state or foreign law provision or 

the company’s governing documents will result in 40 hours per response per nominee. 

For purposes of the PRA, we estimate the total annual incremental burden for nominating 

shareholders or groups to prepare the disclosure that will be required under this portion of the 

final rules to be approximately 7,870 hours of shareholder time, and $1,049,300 for the services 

We estimate that the burden of preparing the information in Schedule 14N for a nominating shareholder or 

group would be 1/3 of the disclosures typically required by a Schedule 14A filing, which results in 

approximately 34 burden hours. For purposes of this analysis, we estimate that the 34 burden hours will be 

added to the 12.4 hours associated with filing a Schedule 13G, resulting in a total of approximately 47 

burden hours. We estimate that 75% of the burden of preparation of Schedule 14N will be borne internally 

by the nominating shareholder or group, and that 25% will be carried by outside professionals. We believe 

the nominating shareholder or group will work with their nominee to prepare the disclosure and then have it 

reviewed by outside professionals. 

293
 

838 
 

 

 

 

of outside professionals.839 This estimate includes the nominating shareholder’s or group’s 

preparation and filing of the notice and required disclosure and, as applicable, certifications on 

Schedule 14N and filings related to new Rules 14a-2(b)(7) and 14a-2(b)(8). 

We do not expect that every shareholder that meets the eligibility threshold to submit a 

nominee for inclusion in a company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11, an applicable 

state or foreign law provision, or a company’s governing documents will do so. As discussed 

above, we estimate that 45 reporting companies (other than registered investment companies) 

and 6 registered investment companies will receive notices of intent to submit nominees pursuant 

to Rule 14a-11. We anticipate that some companies will receive nominees from more than one 

shareholder or group, though, as discussed above, for purposes of PRA estimates, we assume 

companies with an eligible shareholder would receive two nominees from only one shareholder 

or group. 

We estimate that compliance with the requirements of Schedule 14N submitted pursuant 

to Rule 14a-11 will require 4,230 burden hours (45 notices x 47 hours/notice x 2 

nominees/shareholder) in aggregate each year for nominating shareholders or groups of reporting 

companies (other than registered investment companies), which corresponds to 3,173 hours of 

shareholder time (45 notices x 47 hours/notice x 2 nominees/shareholder x 0.75) and costs of 

$423,000 (45 notices x 47 hours/notice x 2 nominees/shareholder x 0.25 x $400) for the services 

of outside professionals. In the case of registered investment companies, we estimate that a 

nominating shareholder’s or group’s compliance with the requirements of Schedule 14N will 

require 564 burden hours (6 responses x 47 hours/response x 2 nominees) in aggregate each year, 

This figure represents the aggregate burden hours attributed to Schedule 14N and is the sum of the burden 

associated with Schedules 14N submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-11, applicable state or foreign law 

provisions, and a company’s governing documents. 

294
 

839 
 

 

which corresponds to 423 hours of shareholder time (6 responses x 47 hours/response x 2 

nominees x 0.75) and costs of $56,400 for the services of outside professionals (6 responses x 47 

hours/response x 2 nominees x 0.25 x $400). Therefore, we estimate a total of 4,794 burden 

hours for all reporting companies, including investment companies, broken down into 3,596 

hours of shareholder time and $479,400 for services of outside professionals. 

We assume that all nominating shareholders or groups will prepare a statement of support 

for the nominee or nominees, and we estimate the disclosure burden for the nominating 

shareholder or group to prepare a statement of support for its nominee or nominees to be 

approximately 10 burden hours per nominee. In the case of companies other than registered 

investment companies, this results in an aggregate burden of 900 (45 statements x 10 

hours/statement x 2 nominees/shareholder), which corresponds to 675 hours of shareholder time 

(45 statements x 10 hours/statement x 2 nominees/shareholder x 0.75) and $90,000 for services 

of outside professionals (45 statements x 10 hours/statement x 2 nominees/shareholder x 0.25 x 

$400) for shareholders of reporting companies (other than registered investment companies). 

For registered investment companies, this will result in an aggregate burden of 120 (6 statements 

x 10 hours/statement x 2 nominees/shareholder), which corresponds to 90 hours of shareholder 

time (6 statements x 10 hours/statement x 2 nominees/shareholder x 0.75) and $12,000 for 

services of outside professionals (6 statements x 10 hours/statement x 2 nominees/shareholder x 

0.25 x $400). Therefore, we estimate a total of 1,020 burden hours for all reporting companies, 

including investment companies, broken down into 765 hours of shareholder time and $102,000 

for services of outside professionals. 

When a nominating shareholder or group submits a nominee or nominees to a company 

pursuant to an applicable state or foreign law provision or the company’s governing documents, 

295
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

840 

the nominating shareholder or group will be required to file a Schedule 14N to provide 

disclosure about the nominating shareholder or group and the nominee or nominees. As 

discussed, a company will be required to include certain disclosures about the nominating 

shareholder or group and the nominee or nominees in its proxy statement. As noted above, we 

estimate that the burden associated with filing a Schedule 14N in connection with a nomination 

made pursuant to an applicable state or foreign law provision or a company’s governing 

documents is 40 hours per nominee. We also estimate that approximately 30 nominating 

shareholders or groups of reporting companies (other than registered investment companies) will 

submit a nomination pursuant to an applicable state or foreign law provision or a company’s 

governing documents.840 Thus, we estimate compliance with the requirements of Schedule 14N 

for nominating shareholders or groups submitting nominations pursuant to an applicable state or 

foreign law provision or the company’s governing documents would result in 2,400 aggregate 

burden hours (30 notices x 40 hours/notice x 2 nominees/shareholder) each year for nominating 

shareholders or groups of reporting companies (other than registered investment companies), 

broken down into 1,800 hours of shareholder time (30 notices x 40 hours/notice x 2 

nominees/shareholder x 0.75) and costs of $240,000 for the services of outside professionals (30 

notices x 40 hours/notice x 2 nominees/shareholder x 0.25 x $400). In the case of registered 

investment companies, we estimate that approximately 12 nominating shareholders or groups 

As discussed above, according to information from RiskMetrics, approximately 118 Rule 14a-8 

shareholder proposals regarding board issues were submitted to shareholders for a vote in the 2008-2009 

proxy season. See footnote 804. We believe this data is a useful starting point for estimating the number 

of shareholders who may avail themselves of our new rules, including the use of Schedule 14N. Also as 

discussed above, we estimate that approximately half of these shareholders may submit a proposal pursuant 

to Rule 14a-8 regarding procedures for the inclusion of shareholder nominees for director in company 

proxy materials, resulting in 59 proposals. We believe the number of shareholders submitting nominees 

pursuant to a state or foreign law provision will be lower than the number of shareholders submitting 

proposals pursuant to Rule 14a-8. As a result, we estimate that approximately 30 shareholder proponents 

will submit nominations pursuant to applicable state or foreign law provisions or a company’s governing 

documents. 

296
 
 

 

 

 

 

will submit a nomination pursuant to an applicable state or foreign law provision or a company’s 

governing documents.841 We estimate that a nominating shareholder’s or group’s compliance 

with the requirements of Schedule 14N would result in 960 aggregate burden hours (12 notices x 

40 hours/notice x 2 nominees/shareholder) each year, which corresponds to 720 hours of 

shareholder time (12 notices x 40 hours/notice x 2 nominees/shareholder x 0.75) and costs of 

$96,000 for the services of outside professionals (12 notices x 40 hours/notice x 2 

nominees/shareholder x 0.25 x $400). Therefore, we estimate that the total burden hours would 

be 3,360 for all reporting companies, including investment companies, broken down into 2,520 

hours of shareholder time and $336,000 for services of outside professionals. 

We assume that all nominating shareholders or groups that submit a nominee or 

nominees pursuant to an applicable state or foreign law provision or a company’s governing 

documents will prepare a statement of support for the nominee or nominees,842 and we estimate 

the disclosure burden for the nominating shareholder or group to prepare a statement of support 

for its nominee or nominees to be approximately 10 burden hours per nominee. This results in 

an aggregate burden of 600 hours (30 statements x 10 hours/statement x 2 nominees/shareholder) 

for shareholders of reporting companies (other than registered investment companies), which 

corresponds to 450 hours of shareholder time (30 statements x 10 hours/statement x 2 

nominees/shareholder x 0.75) and $60,000 for services of outside professionals (30 statements x 

10 hours/statement x 2 nominees/shareholder x 0.25 x $400). For registered investment 

841	 We estimate that approximately half of the 24 shareholders submitting proposals to registered investment 

companies regarding the inclusion of one or more shareholder nominees for director in company proxy 

materials will make submissions pursuant to applicable state or foreign law provisions or a company’s 

governing documents. As a result, we estimate that approximately 12 shareholder proponents will submit 

to registered investment companies nominations pursuant to applicable state or foreign law provisions or a 

company’s governing documents. 

842	 We are assuming for PRA purposes that any applicable state or foreign law provision or company’s 

governing documents will allow for inclusion of such a statement by the nominating shareholder or group. 

297
 
 

 

 

 

companies, this results in an aggregate burden of 240 hours (12 statements x 10 hours/statement 

x 2 nominees/shareholder), which corresponds to 180 hours of shareholder time (12 statements x 

10 hours/statement x 2 nominees/shareholder x 0.75) and $24,000 for services of outside 

professionals (12 statements x 10 hours/statement x 2 nominees/shareholder x 0.25 x $400). 

This results in a total of 840 burden hours, broken down into 630 hours of shareholder time and 

$84,000 for the services of outside professionals. 

4. Amendments to Exchange Act Form 8-K 

Under Rule 14a-11, a nominating shareholder or group will be required to file with the 

Commission, and transmit to the company, a notice on Schedule 14N of its intent to require the 

company to include the nominating shareholder’s or group’s nominee in the company’s proxy 

materials. The nominating shareholder or group must file and transmit the notice on Schedule 

14N no earlier than 150, and no later than 120, calendar days before the anniversary of the date 

that the company mailed its proxy materials for the prior year’s annual meeting. If the company 

did not hold an annual meeting during the prior year, or if the date of the meeting has changed 

more than 30 days from the prior year, then the nominating shareholder or group will be required 

to provide notice a reasonable time before the company mails its proxy materials, as specified by 

the company in a Form 8-K filed pursuant to new Item 5.08 of Form 8-K. The final rules also 

require a registered investment company that is a series company to file a Form 8-K disclosing 

the total number of the company’s shares that are entitled to vote for the election of directors at 

the annual meeting of shareholders (or, in lieu of such an annual meeting, a special meeting of 

shareholders) as of the end of the most recent calendar quarter. 843 

The amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) is not expected to impact Form 8-K, so the burden estimates solely 

reflect the burden changes resulting from new Item 5.08, including when a nomination is submitted 

pursuant to a company’s governing documents or pursuant to applicable state law. 

298
 

843 
 

 

 

 

 

For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that approximately 4% of reporting companies 

(other than registered investment companies) will be required to file a Form 8-K because the 

company did not hold an annual meeting during the prior year, or the date of the meeting has 

changed by more than 30 days from the prior year.844 Based on our estimate that there are 

approximately 11,000 reporting companies (other than registered investment companies), this 

corresponds to 440 companies that will be required to file a Form 8-K. In accordance with our 

current estimate of the burden of preparing a Form 8-K, we estimate 5 burden hours to prepare, 

review and file the Form 8-K, for a total burden of 2,200 hours (440 filings x 5 hours/filing). 

This total burden corresponds to 1,650 hours of company time (440 filings x 5 hours/filing x 

0.75) and $220,000 for services of outside professionals (440 filings x 5 hours/filing x 0.25 x 

$400). 

In the case of registered investment companies, we estimate that, similar to reporting 

companies other than registered investment companies, 4% of registered closed-end management 

investment companies subject to Rule 14a-11 that are traded on an exchange would be required 

to file a Form 8-K because the company did not hold an annual meeting during the prior year or 

the date of the meeting has changed by more than 30 days from the prior year.845 We estimate 

that approximately 625 of the 1,225 registered investment companies responding to Investment 

Company Act Rule 20a-1 are closed-end funds that are traded on an exchange, resulting in 25 

closed-end funds that will be required to file Form 8-K for these purposes (625 registered closed844 Based on information obtained in 2003 from the Investor Responsibility Research Center, 3.75% of 

companies (other than registered investment companies) did not hold an annual meeting during the prior 

year or the date of the meeting changed by more than 30 days from the prior year. See also footnote 195 in 

the 2003 Proposal. 

845 We believe that the percentage for registered closed-end investment companies will be similar to other 

reporting companies because such investment companies are traded on an exchange and are required to 

hold annual meetings of shareholders. 

299
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

end management investment companies x 0.04).846 However, we estimate that few, if any, 

registered open-end management investment companies regularly hold annual meetings. 

Therefore, we estimate that 600 registered investment companies are not closed-end investment 

companies and will be required to file Form 8-K. This results in a total of 625 registered 

investment companies required to file Form 8-K (25 closed-end management investment 

companies + 600 other registered investment companies) and 3,125 burden hours (625 filings x 5 

hours/filing). This total burden corresponds to 2,344 hours of company time (625 filings x 5 

hours/filing x 0.75) and $312,500 for services of outside professionals (625 filings x 5 

hours/filing x 0.25 x $400).847 Adding the totals for reporting companies (other than registered 

investment companies) and registered investment companies results in a total burden of 5,325, 

which corresponds to 3,994 hours of company time and $532,500 for services of outside 

professionals. This includes the requirement for a registered investment company that is a series 

company to file a Form 8-K disclosing the total number of the company’s shares that are entitled 

to vote for the election of directors at the annual meeting of shareholders (or, in lieu of such an 

annual meeting, a special meeting of shareholders) as of the end of the most recent calendar 

quarter. 

5. Schedule 13G Filings 

Shareholders will be permitted to aggregate holdings for purposes of meeting the 

eligibility threshold in Rule 14a-11 and therefore we anticipate that some groups of shareholders 

846 We estimate that 1,225 registered investment companies hold annual meetings each year based on the 

number of responses to Rule 20a-1. Based on data provided by Lipper, the Commission estimates that 

approximately 625 registered closed-end management investment companies are traded on an exchange. 

847 Consistent with the current estimates for Form 8-K, we estimate that that 75% of the burden of preparation 

of Form 8-K is carried by the company and that 25% of the burden of preparation of Form 8-K is carried by 

outside professionals at an average cost of $400 per hour. The burden includes disclosure of the date by 

which a nominating shareholder or group must submit the notice required by Rule 14a-11(c) as well as 

disclosure of net assets, outstanding shares, and voting. 

300
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

may beneficially own in the aggregate more than 5% of a voting class of an equity security 

registered pursuant to Section 12. In these circumstances, nominating shareholders will need to 

consider whether they have formed a group under Exchange Act Section 13(d)(3) and Rule 13d5(b)(1) that is required to file beneficial ownership reports. 848 To the extent nominating 

shareholder groups exceed the 5% threshold and file a Schedule 13G, this will result in an 

increased number of Schedule 13G filings. With respect to reporting companies other than 

registered investment companies, we estimate that 25% (11) of the nominees submitted pursuant 

to Rule 14a-11 will be from shareholders who individually meet the eligibility thresholds (25% 

of 45), and 75% (34) will be from shareholder groups (75% of 45). We estimate that 75% of the 

34 groups formed will exceed the 5% threshold and will file a Schedule 13G. As a result, we 

estimate that an additional 26 Schedule 13G filings will be made annually. The total burden 

associated with this increase in the number of filings is 322 burden hours (26 additional Schedule 

13Gs x 12.4 hours/schedule). This burden corresponds to 81 hours of shareholder time (26 

additional Schedule 13Gs x 12.4 hours/Schedule x 0.25) and $96,720 for services of outside 

professionals (26 additional Schedule 13Gs x 12.4 hours/Schedule x 0.75 x $400). 

With respect to registered investment companies, we estimate that approximately 3 (50% 

of 6) of the shareholder nominees will be submitted by shareholders of closed-end funds whose 

shareholders are required to file beneficial ownership reports under the Exchange Act.849 We 

848	 We recognize that each shareholder group will need to analyze its own facts and circumstances in order to 

determine whether it is required to file a Schedule 13G; however, we expect that most groups will file a 

Schedule 13G. 

849	 Under Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act, only holders of equity securities of closed-end funds are required 

to file beneficial ownership reports with the Commission. Holders of open-end funds are not subject to this 

requirement. Previously, we estimated that approximately 625 (or slightly over 50%) of the 1,225 

registered investment companies responding to Investment Company Act Rule 20a-1 are closed-end funds 

that are traded on an exchange. We estimate that the percentage of the shareholder nominees that will be 

submitted by shareholders of closed-end funds will be approximately equal to the percentage of closed-end 

funds that are traded on an exchange. 

301
 
 

 

 

estimate that 25% (1) of the nominees for director of closed-end funds submitted pursuant to 

Rule 14a-11 will be from shareholders who individually meet the eligibility thresholds (25% of 

3), and 75% (2) will be from shareholder groups (75% of 3). We estimate that 75% of the two 

groups formed to nominate directors of closed-end funds will exceed the 5% threshold and file a 

Schedule 13G. As a result, we estimate that an additional 2 Schedule 13G filings will be made 

annually (75% of two groups rounds up to two). The total burden associated with this increase in 

the number of filings is approximately 25 burden hours (2 additional Schedule 13Gs x 12.4 

hours/schedule). This burden corresponds to 6 hours of shareholder time (2 additional Schedule 

13Gs x 12.4 hours/schedule x 0.25) and $7,440 for services of outside professionals (2 additional 

Schedule 13Gs x 12.4 hours/schedule x 0.75 x $400). 

Adding the totals for reporting companies (other than registered investment companies) 

and registered investment companies results in a total burden of 347 hours, which corresponds to 

87 hours of shareholder time and $104,160 for services of outside professionals. 

6. Form ID Filings 

Under Rule 14n-1 and Rule 14a-11, a shareholder who submits a nominee or nominees 

for inclusion in the company’s proxy statement must provide notice on Schedule 14N to the 

company of its intent to require that the company include the nominee or nominees in the 

company’s proxy materials. The notice on Schedule 14N must be filed with the Commission on 

the date the notice is transmitted to the company. We anticipate that some shareholders who 

submit a nominee or nominees for inclusion in a company’s proxy materials will not previously 

have filed an electronic submission with the Commission and will file a Form ID. Form ID is 

the application form for access codes to permit filing on EDGAR. The final rules are not 

changing the form itself, but we anticipate that the number of Form ID filings may increase due 

302
 
 

 

 

 

to shareholders filing Schedule 14N when submitting a nominee or nominees to a company for 

inclusion in its proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11, applicable state or foreign law 

provisions, or a company’s governing documents. We estimate that 90% of the shareholders 

who submit a nominee or nominees for inclusion in a company’s proxy materials will not have 

filed previously an electronic submission with the Commission and will be required to file a 

Form ID. As noted above, we estimate that approximately 45 reporting companies (other than 

registered investment companies) and 6 registered investment companies will receive 

shareholder nominations submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-11. This corresponds to 46 additional 

Form ID filings (90% of 51). In addition, as noted above, we estimate that approximately 30 

reporting companies (other than registered investment companies) and 12 registered investment 

companies will receive shareholder nominations submitted pursuant to an applicable state or 

foreign law provision or a company’s governing documents. This corresponds to an additional 

38 Form ID filings (90% of 42). As a result, the additional annual burden would be 13 hours (84 

filings x 0.15 hours/filing).850 For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that the additional burden 

cost resulting from the new rules will be zero because we estimate that 100% of the burden will 

be borne internally by the nominating shareholder or group. 

E. Revisions to PRA Reporting and Cost Burden Estimates 

Table 1 below illustrates the incremental annual compliance burden of the collection of 

information in hours and in cost for securities ownership reports filed by investors, proxy and 

information statements, and current reports under the Exchange Act. The burden was calculated 

by multiplying the estimated number of responses by the estimated average number of hours 

each entity spends completing the form. We estimate that 75% of the burden of preparation of 

We currently estimate the burden associated with Form ID is 0.15 hours per response. 

303
 

850 
 

 

 

the proxy and information statement and current reports is carried by the company internally, 

while 25% of the burden of preparation is carried by outside professionals at an average cost of 

$400 per hour. We estimate that 75% of the burden of preparation of Schedule 14N, any 

soliciting materials with regard to formation of a nominating shareholder group, and any 

soliciting materials regarding the nomination will be carried by the nominating shareholder or 

group internally and that 25% of the burden of preparation will be carried by outside 

professionals retained by the nominating shareholder or group. We estimate that 25% of the 

burden of preparation of Schedule 13G (for nominating shareholder groups that beneficially own 

more than 5% of a voting class of any equity security registered pursuant to Section 12) will be 

carried by the nominating shareholder or group internally and that 75% of the burden of 

preparation will be carried by outside professionals retained by the nominating shareholder or 

group. The portion of the burden carried by outside professionals is reflected as a cost, while the 

portion of the burden carried internally by the company and nominating shareholder or group is 

reflected in hours. 

Table 1: Calculation of Incremental PRA Burden Estimates* 

Current 

Annual 

Responses 

(A) 

Proposed 

Annual 

Responses 

(B) 

Current 

Burden 

Hours 

(C) 

Increase 

in 

Burden 

Hours 

(D) 

Proposed 

Burden 

Hours 

(E) 

=C+D 

Current 

Professional 

Costs 

(F) 

Increase in 

Professional 

Costs 

(G) 

Proposed 

Professional 

Costs 

=F+G 

Sch 14A 7,300 7,300 671,970 16,370 688,340 $79,214,887 $2,182,590 $81,397,477 

Sch 14C 680 680 631,152 1,819 632,971 $7,393,639 $242,510 $7,636,149 

Sch 14N 0 162 0 7,870 7,870 $0 $1,049,300 $1,049,300 

Form 8-K 115,795 116,860 493,436 3,994 497,430 $65,791,500 $532,500 $66,324,000 

Form ID 65,700 65,784 9,855 13 9,868 $0 $0 $0 

Sch 13G 12,500 12,528 35,577 87 35,664 $42,694,200 $104,160 $42,798,360 

Rule 20a-1 1,225 1,225 142,958 3,438 146,396 $20,090,000 $458,300 $20,548,300 

Total 33,591 $4,569,360 

* The incremental burden estimate for Rule 20a-1 includes the disclosure that would be required on Schedule 14A and 

304 
 

 

14C, discussed above, with respect to funds. 

IV. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 

A. Background 

The Commission is adopting new rules that, under certain circumstances, will require 

companies to include in their proxy materials shareholder nominees for director, as well as other 

disclosure regarding those nominees and the nominating shareholder or group. In addition, the 

new rules will require companies, under certain circumstances, to include in their proxy 

materials a shareholder proposal that seeks to establish a procedure in the company’s governing 

documents for the inclusion of shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy materials. 

As a result, a company’s proxy materials may be required, under certain circumstances, to 

provide shareholders with information about, and the ability to vote for, a shareholder nominee 

for director. The new rules will therefore facilitate shareholders’ ability to exercise their 

traditional state law rights to nominate and elect directors by improving the disclosure provided 

in connection with corporate proxy solicitations and communication between shareholders in the 

proxy process. 

We requested comment on all aspects of the cost-benefit analysis contained in the 

Proposing Release, including identification of any additional costs and benefits. We have 

considered these comments carefully and made responsive changes to the rules in order to 

minimize the potential costs. Below we consider the benefits and costs of the economic effects 

of the new rules and discuss the comments we received, as applicable. 

B. Summary of Rules 

Rule 14a-11 will require companies to include shareholder nominations for director and 

disclosure about the nominating shareholder or group and the nominee in a company’s proxy 

materials if, among other things, the nominating shareholder or group held, as of the date of the 

305
 
 

 

 

 

 

shareholder notice on Schedule 14N, either individually or in the aggregate, at least 3% of the 

voting power of the company’s securities that are entitled to be voted on the election of directors 

at the annual meeting of shareholders (or, in lieu of such an annual meeting, a special meeting of 

shareholders) or on a written consent in lieu of such meeting and has held the qualifying amount 

of securities used to satisfy the ownership threshold continuously for at least three years as of the 

date of the shareholder notice on Schedule 14N (in the case of a shareholder group, each member 

of the group must have held the amount of securities that are used to satisfy the ownership 

threshold for at least three years as of the date of the shareholder notice on Schedule 14N). The 

nominating shareholder or group also will be required to hold the shares through the date of the 

meeting. A nominating shareholder or group that includes a nominee or nominees in a 

company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11 will be required to provide in its notice on 

Schedule 14N filed with the Commission and transmitted to the company disclosures similar to 

the disclosures required in a traditional contested election. Pursuant to Item 7(e) of Schedule 

14A (and, in the case of registered investment companies and business development companies, 

Item 22(b)(18) of Schedule 14A), the company will be required to include in its proxy materials 

certain disclosure provided by the nominating shareholder or group in its notice on Schedule 

14N. In addition, the new rules will enable shareholders to engage in limited solicitations to 

form nominating shareholder groups and engage in solicitations in support of their nominee or 

nominees without disseminating a proxy statement.851 

The Commission also is adopting an amendment to Rule 14a-8 to narrow the exclusion in 

paragraph (i)(8) of the rule, which addresses director elections. Under the amendment, a 

See Rules 14a-2(b)(7) and 14a-2(b)(8). 

306
 

851 
 

 

 

 

company will not be permitted to rely on Rule 14a-8(i)(8) to omit from its proxy materials a 

shareholder proposal that seeks to establish a procedure in the company’s governing documents 

for the inclusion of shareholder nominees for director in the company’s proxy materials. The 

current procedural requirements for submitting a shareholder proposal pursuant to Rule 14a-8 

will remain the same. No additional disclosures will be required from any shareholder that 

submits such a proposal; however, a nominating shareholder or group that includes a nominee or 

nominees in a company’s proxy materials pursuant to an applicable state or foreign law provision 

or the company’s governing documents will be required to file with the Commission and 

transmit to the company, in its notice on Schedule 14N, disclosures similar to the disclosures 

required in a traditional contested election. Pursuant to Item 7(f) of Schedule 14A (and, in the 

case of registered investment companies and business development companies, Item 22(b)(19) of 

Schedule 14A), the company will be required to include in its proxy materials certain disclosures 

provided by the nominating shareholder or group in its notice on Schedule 14N. 

C. Factors Affecting Scope of the New Rules 

Our discussion of the economic effects of the new rules takes into account various 

factors, such as the incentives and actions of certain parties, that will affect the rules’ scope and 

influence. 

Any future actions of the states and their legislatures could affect the applicability of the 

new rules. Rule 14a-11, for instance, will not apply to companies incorporated in states or other 

jurisdictions that prohibit nominations of directors by shareholders or permit companies to 

prohibit such nominations and where the company’s governing documents do so.852 Under Rule 

14a-8, shareholder proposals must be proper subjects for action by shareholders under the laws 

As noted above, we are not aware of any states that currently prohibit shareholder nominations for director. 

307
 

852 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of the jurisdiction of the company’s organization. To the extent that states or other jurisdictions 

change their laws, for example, to prohibit the nomination of directors by shareholders, Rule 

14a-11 and Rule 14a-8 would apply less broadly. 

Future actions of boards may affect the applicability of the new rules. In the case of Rule 

14a-11, we believe that the applicability of the rule is not likely to be affected by future actions 

of a board because companies generally may not prohibit shareholders from nominating directors 

under existing state law.853 In addition, a company will not be permitted to exclude pursuant to 

amended Rule 14a-8(i)(8) a shareholder proposal that would establish a procedure under a 

company’s governing documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder nominees for 

director in the company’s proxy materials. It is reasonable to expect that some shareholders will 

submit this type of proposal, particularly shareholders who perceive that the current board does 

not represent, or possibly may come to not represent, their interests and are not otherwise able to 

use Rule 14a-11 (such as if the shareholder does not qualify to submit a nominee or if larger 

shareholders have exhausted the nomination slots available pursuant to Rule 14a-11). Finally, 

boards seeking to limit the effect of shareholder-nominated candidates submitted pursuant to 

Rule 14a-11 and elected as directors may, in some instances, choose to expand the board size to 

dilute, to an extent, the influence of those directors.854 

The actions and intentions of shareholders also may affect the applicability of the new 

rules. To rely on Rule 14a-11, the nominating shareholder (or where there is a nominating 

853	 Several commenters also stated that they were unaware of any law in any state or in the District of 

Columbia that prohibits shareholders from nominating directors. See letters from ABA; BRT; CII; Eaton. 

854	 As an example, a board of eight directors, with two new shareholder-nominated directors, may expand to 

up to 11 directors. Such an expansion would dilute the influence of the shareholder-nominated directors 

without increasing the number of director slots for shareholder nominees for director in the proxy materials 

because Rule 14a-11 includes a provision allowing companies to round down the number of nominees that 

must be included when calculating the 25% maximum. 

308
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholder group, each member of the nominating shareholder group) must not be holding any 

of the company’s securities with the purpose, or with the effect, of changing control of the 

company855 or to gain a number of seats on the board of directors that exceeds the maximum 

number of nominees that the company could be required to include under Rule 14a-11 and must 

provide a certification to this effect in its filed Schedule 14N.856 The effect of the rule also is 

affected by the limitation on the number of shareholder director nominees that a company is 

required to include in its proxy materials. Under Rule 14a-11, a company will not be required to 

include shareholder nominations for more than a maximum of one director or 25% of the 

existing board, whichever is greater. If one shareholder or group that is eligible to use Rule 14a11 nominates the maximum allowable number of candidates, a company will be permitted to 

exclude any other shareholder’s or group’s nominees from the company’s proxy materials.857 

Further, if the maximum allowable number of existing shareholder director nominees is currently 

in place on the board, additional shareholder director nominees are not required to be disclosed 

in the proxy materials pursuant to the rule.858 

855	 Although Rule 14a-11 does not contain a requirement that the shareholder nominee or nominees do not 

have an intent to change the control of the company, a nominating shareholder’s or group’s ability to meet 

the requirement and certify that it does not have such an intent will be impacted by the intentions and 

actions of its nominee or nominees. For example, a nominating shareholder will not be able to certify that 

it does not hold the company’s securities for the purpose, or with the effect, of changing the control of the 

company if its nominee launches its own proxy contest or tender offer. For further discussion, see Section 

II.B.4.d. above. 

856	 See certifications in Item 8 of new Schedule 14N. 

857	 Prior to the time a company has commenced printing its proxy statement and a form of proxy, if a 

nominating shareholder or group withdraws its shareholder director nominee or the nominee becomes 

disqualified, the company will be required to include in its proxy materials the director nominee or 

nominees of the nominating shareholder or group with the next highest voting power percentage that is 

otherwise eligible to use the rule and that filed a timely notice in accordance with the rule, if any. This 

process will continue until the company includes the maximum number of nominees that it is required to 

include in its proxy materials or the company exhausts the list of eligible nominees. For further discussion, 

see Section II.B.7.b above. 

858	 This could be the case when shareholder-nominated candidates for director are elected at a company with a 

classified board or when a company decides to nominate previously-elected shareholder-nominated 

309
 
 

 

 

 

Shareholders seeking to establish a procedure in a company’s governing documents and 

submit nominees for director using such a provision will need to initiate a two-step process to 

have their nominees included in a company’s proxy materials.859 Unlike the use of Rule 14a-11, 

this two-step process depends on both the likelihood that a shareholder will initiate such a 

process and on its success at each step of the process (e.g., the successful inclusion of the 

shareholder proposal in the company’s proxy materials and adoption of the proposal by the 

appropriate shareholder vote). The likelihood that a shareholder will initiate the two-step process 

could be limited by the costs arising from the time needed to complete the process (e.g., 

including opportunity costs of holding securities where the shareholder may consider the 

company’s board composition to be sub-optimal) and the added risk of failure due to the need to 

complete two separate steps to include its director nominees in the proxy materials. The 

likelihood that a shareholder will initiate this process is also affected by the existence of Rule 

14a-11, which some eligible shareholders may seek to use instead. 

Lastly, the scope of the effects of Rule 14a-11, including the expected benefits and costs 

described below, is affected by the size of the eligible population of shareholder groups and 

companies. Consequently, the scope of the direct effects of Rule 14a-11 will narrow to the 

extent that the rule’s eligibility criteria reduce the number of shareholders eligible to take 

advantage of the rule. According to the data from Form 13F filings, 33% of the 6,416 public 

issuers included in the sample would have one or more shareholders that, on its own, satisfies the 

directors after their first term in office. 

The first step of this two-step process would be the submission of a shareholder proposal pursuant to Rule 

14a-8 seeking to establish a procedure in a company’s governing documents for the inclusion of 

shareholder nominees for director in the company’s proxy materials and shareholder approval of the 

proposal. The second step would be the submission and inclusion of shareholder director nominees in the 

company’s proxy materials pursuant to the nomination procedures adopted by shareholders. 

310 

859 
 

 

 

 

3% ownership threshold and three-year holding period requirement of Rule 14a-11.860 Our 

extension of the holding period from a one-year period, as proposed, to the three-year period in 

the final rule, as well as the increase in the ownership threshold from that proposed for large 

accelerated filers, limit the number of shareholders eligible to use the rule and the number of 

companies directly affected by the rule. For non-accelerated filers, the uniform 3% ownership 

threshold is lower than the 5% ownership threshold that we proposed for that class of filers. This 

may result in an increase in the number of shareholders eligible to use Rule 14a-11 and the 

number of companies directly affected by the rule as compared to those shareholders and 

companies affected under the proposed one year and 5% minimum standards; however, we 

believe that the extension of the holding period from one to three years may limit any increase in 

the number of shareholders eligible to use the rule at smaller reporting companies. The 

comments we received on the Proposal did not substantiate the concern that the rule would have 

a disproportionate impact on small issuers, and comments from companies overwhelmingly 

supported uniform ownership thresholds for all public companies. 

D. Benefits 

We believe that Rule 14a-11 and the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8), where applicable, 

will (1) facilitate shareholders’ ability to exercise their traditional state law rights to nominate 

and elect directors; (2) establish a minimum uniform procedure pursuant to which shareholders 

will be able to include their director nominees in a company’s proxy materials and enhance 

shareholders’ ability to propose alternative procedures that further shareholders’ rights to 

nominate and elect directors; (3) potentially improve overall board and company performance; 

and (4) result in more informed voting decisions in director elections due to improved disclosure 

November 2009 Memorandum. See Section II.B.4.b. above for a discussion of the data, including its 

limitations. 

311
 

860 
 

 

 

 

of shareholder director nominations and enhanced communications between shareholders 

regarding director nominations. 

1. Facilitating Shareholders’ Ability to Exercise Their State Law Rights 

to Nominate and Elect Directors 

Facilitating shareholders’ ability to exercise their traditional state law rights to nominate 

and elect directors is a direct benefit of the new rules for shareholders. The new rules do so by 

requiring the company proxy materials to include shareholder nominees under certain conditions 

and, as a result, providing alternative means for shareholders to nominate and elect director 

candidates other than through a traditional proxy contest. Some eligible shareholders may view 

the new rules as more advantageous than traditional proxy contests and, hence, the new rules 

may influence their behavior. In addition, eligible shareholders who would have considered 

launching a proxy contest for purposes other than to change control of the company may prefer 

to use the new rules instead. The availability of the new rules also may encourage shareholders 

who would not have previously considered conducting a proxy contest to take a greater role in 

the governance of their company by using the new rules to have their nominees for director 

included in a company’s proxy materials. 

The precise level of the direct benefits to shareholders will depend on a number of other 

factors. The benefits may be enhanced to the extent that companies’ governing documents are 

modified to require inclusion of shareholder nominees for director in the company’s proxy 

materials from a broader spectrum of shareholders (for example, by lowering the ownership 

threshold required to have a nominee included in the company’s proxy materials or shortening 

the holding period).861 The instances of such changes to provisions in governing documents may 

As adopted, Rule 14a-11 requires the nominating shareholder individually, or the nominating group in the 

aggregate, to hold at least 3% of the total voting power of the company’s securities that are entitled to be 

voted on the election of directors at the annual (or a special meeting in lieu of the annual) meeting of 

312
 

861 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

increase as a result of the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8).862 We also recognize the possibility 

that certain quantifiable benefits for shareholders, such as a nominating shareholder’s or group’s 

savings in the direct costs of printing and mailing proxy materials, may be less than the 

quantifiable costs for a company subject to the new rules. We note, however, that the benefits of 

the new rules are not limited to those that are quantifiable (such as the direct savings in printing 

and mailing costs) and instead include benefits that are not as easily quantifiable (such as the 

possibility of greater shareholder participation and communication in the director nomination 

process), as discussed below. We believe that these benefits, collectively, justify the costs of the 

new rules. 

We discuss below the ways in which the new rules will facilitate shareholders’ exercise 

of their traditional state law rights and the benefits for shareholders (particularly as compared to 

a traditional proxy contest). We discuss specific monetary cost savings, both direct and indirect, 

as well as other changes and the resulting benefits for shareholders. 

Shareholders generally have the right under state law to nominate and elect their own 

director candidates – a right that many shareholders believe they should be able to exercise.863 

Currently, however, a shareholder or group that wishes to present its director nominations for a 

shareholder vote must generally conduct a proxy contest, which is a costly endeavor. The 

nominating shareholder or group would have to incur costs involved with preparing proxy 

shareholders, or on a written consent in lieu of such meeting, on the date the nominating shareholder or 

nominating group provides notice to the company on Schedule 14N. 

862	 As amended, companies will no longer be able to rely on Rule 14a-8(i)(8) to exclude a shareholder 

proposal that seeks to establish a procedure in the company’s governing documents for the inclusion of 

shareholder nominees for director in the company’s proxy materials. 

863	 See letters from AFSCME; Sodali; Universities Superannuation (citing a June 2009 survey conducted by 

ShareOwners.org showing that 82% of the respondents believed that shareholders should be able to 

“nominate and elect directors of their own choosing to the boards of the companies they own,” while 16% 

of the respondents stated that “shareholders should not be able to propose directors to sit on the boards of 

the companies they own.”). 

313
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

materials with the required disclosures regarding the director nominations and mailing the proxy 

materials to each shareholder solicited.864 Several commenters stated that the costs of traditional 

proxy contests have made them prohibitively expensive for shareholders wishing to exercise 

their traditional state law rights to nominate and elect directors.865 

Further, the concern about the costs of conducting a traditional proxy contest is not 

limited to the fact that the nominating shareholder or group must incur these costs directly. A 

collective action problem also exists. The time and effort spent by a shareholder in nominating 

and advocating for new directors are not shared by other shareholders. This unequal cost sharing 

may serve to discourage any one shareholder from assuming the costs of running a traditional 

proxy contest on its own, even though a successful contest could result in a greater aggregate 

benefit for all shareholders.866 As a result, there is the added economic cost of foregone 

opportunities where a qualified director candidate fails to be nominated because no one 

shareholder or group wishes to bear alone the costs of an election contest for the benefit of all 

shareholders. 

We believe Rule 14a-11 will further our stated goal of facilitating shareholders’ ability to 

864	 Proxy contests waged in connection with efforts to obtain control may involve costs related to not only 

preparing proxy materials and engaging in solicitation efforts, but to the purchase or lock-up of a 

significant amount of the voting securities of the target company. Such costs could be high. 

865	 See letters from Americans for Financial Reform; CalPERS; CII; Florida State Board of Administration; M. 

Katz; J. McRitchie; S. Ranzini; Teamsters. 

866	 See, e.g., letters from Bebchuk, et al. (“In evaluating eligibility and procedural requirements, the SEC 

should also keep in mind that many institutional investors lack incentives to invest actively in seeking 

governance benefits that would be shared by their fellow shareholders.”); Lucian A. Bebchuk and Scott 

Hirst (“Bebchuk/Hirst”) (submitting the article by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Scott Hirst, Private Ordering and 

the Proxy Access Debate, 65 BUS. LAW. 329 (2010)(“Bebchuk and Hirst (2010)”), in which the authors 

state: “Thus, challengers who might be able to improve the management of the company may be 

discouraged from running because they will bear all of the costs but capture only a fraction of the benefits 

from any improvement in governance.” See also Lynn A. Stout, The Mythical Benefit of Shareholder 

Control, 93 VA. L. REV. 789, 789 (2007)(“Stout (2007)”)(“In a public company with widely dispersed 

share ownership, it is difficult and expensive for shareholders to overcome obstacles to collective action 

and wage a proxy battle to oust an incumbent board.”)(cited in the Proposing Release, Section V.B.1.). 

314
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nominate and elect their own director candidates by allowing shareholders to avoid certain direct 

costs of conducting a traditional proxy contest and reducing the overall costs to shareholders for 

nominating and electing directors – a belief shared by several commenters.867 The new rules also 

will mitigate collective action and free-rider concerns that may have otherwise deterred many 

shareholders from exercising their rights under state law to nominate directors. 

Direct cost savings, particularly as compared to the cost of a traditional proxy contest, 

come from two sources. First, a nominating shareholder or group may see direct cost savings 

due to reduced printing and postage costs. Based on the information available,868 we calculate 

that a shareholder using Rule 14a-11 to submit a director nominee or nominees to be included in 

a company’s proxy materials will save at least $18,000 on average in printing and postage costs. 

Second, and significantly, a nominating shareholder or group may see direct cost savings 

related to reduced expenditures for advertising and promotion of its candidates as a result of its 

867	 See letters from CII; Key Equity Investors; Pershing Square. The benefit of a reduction in the cost of a 

proxy solicitation exists only to the extent that the nominating shareholder or group views Rule 14a-11 as a 

substitute for a traditional proxy contest. Even with the adoption of Rule 14a-11, some shareholders may 

prefer to conduct a traditional proxy contest due to the various restrictions on the use of the rule. For 

example, the rule restricts the number of shareholder director nominees that a company will be required to 

include in its proxy materials. The rule also will be available only to shareholders that do not hold the 

securities in the company with the purpose, or with the effect, of changing control of the company. These 

elements of Rule 14a-11 impose restrictions that are not present in a traditional proxy contest. Some 

shareholders also may prefer a traditional proxy contest over Rule 14a-11 for reasons related to their 

strategy for the conduct of the election contest, such as having greater control over the mailing schedule 

and contents of their proxy materials. See, e.g., letter from Carl T. Hagberg (“C. Hagberg”)(stating that 

“most truly serious nominators of director candidates will surely produce their own proxy materials, and 

take control of their own ‘electioneering’ with materials and proxy cards of their own, if they want to stand 

a reasonable chance to win.”). Therefore, while Rule 14a-11 may encourage some shareholders seeking to 

nominate and elect their candidates to use the rule instead of conducting a traditional proxy contest, other 

shareholders may continue to prefer a traditional contest. For such shareholders, the expected reduction in 

a shareholder’s proxy solicitation costs will not materialize. 

868	 According to a study of proxy contests conducted during 2003, 2004, and 2005, the average cost of a proxy 

contest to a soliciting shareholder was $368,000. See letter from Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (April 

20, 2006) regarding Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, Exchange Act Release No. 34-52926 

(December 8, 2005)(File No. S7-10-05). The costs included those associated with proxy advisors and 

solicitors, processing fees, legal fees, public relations, advertising, and printing and mailing of proxy 

materials. Approximately 95% of the costs were unrelated to printing and postage. The cost of printing 

and postage averaged approximately $18,000. 

315
 
 

 

 

 

 

ability to use the company’s proxy materials to directly solicit other shareholders. To the extent 

that the nominating shareholder or group decides to reduce its public relations and advertising 

expenditures to promote its candidates, or to engage proxy solicitors, the cost savings will be 

greater. These reductions in costs may remove a disincentive for shareholders to submit their 

own director nominations, mitigate the collective action concern, and serve the goal of 

facilitating shareholders’ ability to exercise their traditional state law rights to nominate and elect 

directors. 

We received significant comment questioning the need for the new rules to reduce the 

costs described above or the degree to which the reduction in costs will actually facilitate 

shareholder director nominations.869 One commenter characterized the direct printing and 

mailing cost savings as the sole benefit of the new rules for shareholders and one that is not 

justified by the costs and disruption that would result from the rules.870 The commenter observed 

that the average of $18,000 in estimated savings identified in the Proposing Release represented 

less than 5% of the cost of a traditional proxy contest and did not include costs that would be 

incurred by a shareholder actively seeking the election of its nominee, such as costs related to 

legal counsel, proxy solicitors, public relations advisers and advertising. 

We recognize that the adoption of the new rules may not relieve a nominating 

shareholder or group of all expenditures that could be incurred for an active campaign that may 

be more successful to support the election of its candidate to the company’s board of directors. 

The new rules, however, are not intended to serve that purpose. Instead, the new rules’ goal is to 

869 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; 3M; Ameriprise; Association of Corporate Counsel; BRT; 

Cummins; DuPont; ExxonMobil; FMC Corp.; Frontier; GE; General Mills; Honeywell; IBM; Keating 

Muething; Motorola; Schneider; Sidley Austin; Simpson Thacher; Time Warner Cable; Wachtell; Wells 

Fargo; Xerox. 

870 See letter from BRT. 

316
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

facilitate shareholders’ ability to present their own director nominees for a vote at a shareholder 

meeting by eliminating or reducing barriers in the proxy solicitation process – one of which is 

the direct cost of printing and mailing proxy materials – that have contributed to frustrating 

shareholder director nominations.871 

We also recognize that the direct printing and mailing cost savings of $18,000, on their 

own, may not be viewed by some to be significant enough to drive the behavior of large 

shareholders of public companies. The comments that we received regarding the likely increase 

in the number of election contests resulting from the new rules, however, seem to undercut this 

view and suggest instead that shareholders’ behavior may indeed be influenced by the rules.872 

The extent to which election contests are predicted to increase as a result of shareholders 

nominating their own director candidates for inclusion in the company’s proxy materials strongly 

indicates that the benefits of the new rules cannot be fairly characterized as a “mere $18,000 in 

estimated savings”873 – a characterization that we believe obfuscates the significance of this 

benefit of our new rules. 

We received comment that while certain shareholders may be relieved of certain costs to 

run a traditional proxy contest as a result of the new rules, the rules may simply shift those costs 

onto the company and, indirectly, all shareholders.874 Therefore, while the rules may reduce the 

871	 We recognize that other factors may have similarly frustrated the effective exercise of this state law right. 

We discuss below these factors and how the new rules will reduce or eliminate these factors. 

872	 See, e.g., letters from Altman (stating that participants in its survey predicted that, on average, 15% of 

companies listed on U.S. exchanges could expect to face a shareholder director nomination submitted under 

Rule 14a-11 in 2011, based on the eligibility criteria of the Proposal); BRT (stating that the new rules “will 

increase the frequency of contested elections...”); Chamber of Commerce/CCMC (noting that if the new 

rules are adopted, “it is likely that proxy contests (in which the company is required to solicit proxies on 

behalf of shareholders) will increase greatly and may become customary.”). 

873	 See letter from BRT. 

874	 See letter from ABA. We recognized this possibility in the Proposing Release as well, noting that the rule 

“may result in a decrease in costs to shareholders that would have to conduct proxy contests in the absence 

317
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

direct costs of solicitation by a particular shareholder for its director nominees, it may result in 

an increase in the overall cost of a company’s proxy solicitation for a director election (e.g., 

additional printing and mailing costs arising from the disclosure of the shareholder director 

nominations) and indirectly the cost to all shareholders, particularly if the new rules lead to an 

increase in the number of shareholder director nominations. We have some reason to believe, 

however, that the increased costs for the company may not be as much as would otherwise result 

if that shareholder engaged in a traditional proxy contest.875 We also note that, to the extent that 

the new rules help to address the collective action concern, it could remove disincentives that 

previously deterred shareholders from submitting director nominations that may have ultimately 

benefited all shareholders. 

 Other commenters observed that savings in printing and mailing costs could be 

obtained through our notice and access model for electronic delivery of proxy materials876 or 

stated that the notice and access model has already reduced the costs for shareholders to effect 

changes in the membership of a board.877 We note that this observation applies only to the direct 

of [proposed] Rule 14a-11, but may increase the costs for companies.” See Proposing Release, Section 

V.C.3. 

875	 One commenter on the 2003 Proposal estimated that a Rule 14a-11 contest would cost a company 

approximately one-third what a full proxy contest costs. See letter from Stephen M. Bainbridge submitted 

in connection with the 2003 Proposal (File No. S7-19-03)(“Bainbridge 2003 Letter”). Based on this 

assumption and relying on data from a late 1980s survey, this commenter estimated that the costs of such a 

contest to a public company would be $500,000. This commenter also cited data estimating companies’ 

annual expenditures on Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposals to be $90 million. While this commenter noted 

the belief that it is unlikely that there will be as many Rule 14a-11 election contests as Rule 14a-8 

shareholder proposals, the commenter asserted that incumbent boards are likely to spend considerably more 

on opposing each Rule 14a-11 contest than on opposing a Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposal. This 

commenter estimated that $100 million may be an appropriate estimate for the lower boundary of the range 

within which Rule 14a-11’s direct costs will fall. Commenters did not provide any data during the 

comment period for the Proposal that compared these costs for a company. 

876	 See, e.g., letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; Ameriprise; BRT. 

877	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; 3M; Ameriprise; Association of Corporate Counsel; BRT; 

Cummins; DuPont; ExxonMobil; FMC Corp.; Frontier; GE; General Mills; Honeywell; IBM; Keating 

Muething; Motorola; Schneider; Sidley Austin; Simpson Thacher; Time Warner Cable; Wachtell; Wells 

318
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

printing and mailing costs, rather than all of the other monetary cost savings discussed 

throughout this section. We agree that the notice and access model may decrease significantly 

the printing and mailing costs associated with a proxy solicitation. To the extent that a 

shareholder chooses to nominate and elect its director candidates through a traditional proxy 

contest using the notice and access model, the expected benefit of a reduction in printing and 

mailing costs will be somewhat lower. The notice and access model, however, may not 

necessarily provide a soliciting shareholder with the same cost savings possible under Rule 14a11. Under the model, a soliciting shareholder will still incur the costs of printing and mailing 

notices of availability of proxy materials to shareholders from whom the person is soliciting 

proxy authority.878 Further, as we recognized at the time we created the notice and access model, 

additional printing and mailing costs will be incurred to the extent that a solicited shareholder 

requests paper copies of the proxy materials.879 A soliciting shareholder also may prefer using 

the new rules over a traditional proxy contest conducted through the notice and access model for 

reasons related to its strategy for the conduct of the election contest, such as avoiding the need 

and cost to use Exchange Act Rule 14a-7 to obtain a shareholder list from the company (or have 

Fargo; Xerox. 

878	 Exchange Act Rule 14a-16(l)(2). A soliciting person other than the company could limit the cost of a 

solicitation by soliciting proxies only from a select group of shareholders, such as those with large 

holdings, without furnishing other shareholders with any information. This flexibility would allow a 

soliciting person other than the company to reduce even further its printing and mailing costs by soliciting 

only those persons who have not previously requested paper copies of the proxy materials. Certain 

practical reasons, however, may deter a soliciting person other than the company from taking full 

advantage of this flexibility, such as the fact that institutional investors may prefer receiving paper copies 

of proxy materials. See Jeffrey N. Gordon, Proxy Contests in an Era of Increasing Shareholder Power: 

Forget Issuer Proxy Access and Focus on E-Proxy, 61 VAND. L. REV. 476, 488 (2008)(noting that 

institutional investors “generally may request paper delivery to minimize their own printing costs.”)(cited 

in the letters from BRT and Simpson Thacher). 

879	 See Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, Release No. 34-55146 (January 22, 2007)(“Internet Proxy 

Availability Release”)(noting that “to the extent that some shareholders request paper copies of the proxy 

materials, the benefits of the amendments in terms of savings in printing and mailing costs will be 

reduced.”). 

319
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

the company send proxy materials on its behalf)880 as well as the requirement to file preliminary 

proxy materials at least ten calendar days before definitive materials are first sent to 

shareholders. 881 

The new rules will do more than reduce the direct monetary costs described above. We 

recognize that shareholders today are widely dispersed and the corporate proxy is the principal 

means through which state law voting rights are exercised. The dispersed nature of ownership 

creates certain intangible disincentives to the effective exercise of shareholders’ ability to 

nominate and elect their own director candidates, as discussed below. As we stated in the 

Proposing Release, the proxy process provides the only practical means for shareholders to 

solicit votes from other shareholders in favor of the election of their nominees. The current 

inability of many shareholders to utilize the proxy process for this purpose means that 

shareholder director nominees do not have a realistic prospect of being elected because most, if 

not all, shareholders would have cast their votes well in advance of the shareholder meeting. 

Shareholders are deprived of not only the ability to exercise a traditional state law right, but the 

opportunity to assess and vote on qualified candidates who could have been presented for a vote 

880	 Exchange Act Rule 14a-7 sets forth the obligation of companies either to provide a shareholder list to a 

requesting shareholder or to send the shareholder’s proxy materials on the shareholder’s behalf. The rule 

provides that the company has the option to provide the list or send the shareholder’s materials, except 

when the company is soliciting proxies in connection with a going-private transaction or a roll-up 

transaction. Under Rule 14a-7(e), the shareholder must reimburse the company for “reasonable expenses” 

incurred by the company in providing the shareholder list or sending the shareholder’s proxy materials. 

881	 Exchange Act Rule 14a-6 requires that preliminary copies of the proxy statement and form of proxy be 

filed with the Commission at least ten calendar days prior to the date that definitive copies of such 

materials are first sent or given to security holders, except if the solicitation relates to certain matters to be 

acted upon at the meeting of security holders. Accordingly, the proxy statement and form of proxy for a 

traditional proxy contest must be filed in preliminary form. By contrast, under the amendments to Rule 

14a-6 that we are adopting today, the inclusion of a shareholder director nominee in the company’s proxy 

materials will not require the company to file preliminary proxy materials, provided that the company is 

otherwise qualified to file directly in definitive form. In this regard, the inclusion of a shareholder director 

nominee will not be deemed a solicitation in opposition for purposes of the exclusion from filing 

preliminary proxy materials. 

320
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

882 

if the proxy process functioned as intended. As with the direct monetary costs, reducing the 

costs arising from the dispersed nature of ownership discussed below will help address any 

related collective action concerns. 

Some commenters observed that a shareholder seeking to nominate and elect its own 

director candidates through a traditional proxy contest is disadvantaged by the fact that its 

candidates are presented to shareholders through a separate set of proxy materials.882 

A nominating shareholder or group may encounter difficulties in having its nominees evaluated 

in the same manner as those of management by shareholders who are used to receiving only the 

company’s proxy materials and who may react differently, and perhaps negatively, to the 

shareholder’s nominees simply because the nominees are presented in a separate, unfamiliar set 

of proxy materials. 

As we stated throughout this release, the federal proxy rules should not frustrate the 

exercise of a shareholder’s traditional state law right to present its own director candidates for a 

shareholder vote. To the extent that the exercise of this right is hindered simply because of a 

See letters from Bebchuk/Hirst (submitting the Bebchuk and Hirst (2010) study, which noted the ability of 

shareholders to include their nominees in the company’s proxy materials would “avoid intangible 

disadvantages that may result from being on a separate card.”); Pershing Square (stating that “the absence 

of universal ballots, on which shareholders can vote from among all nominees regardless of who proposed 

them, is glaring and clearly anti-choice” and that “[o]ur hope is that, outside the control context, selection 

of the best nominees in a contest will be based more on character, competency, and relevancy of their 

experience rather than the identity of the person nominating the candidate.”). 

At the October 7, 2009 “Proxy Access Roundtable” held by the Harvard Law School Program on Corporate 

Governance (the transcript of which was submitted as part of a comment letter from S. Hirst), Roy 

Katzovicz, the Chief Legal Officer of Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. explained: 

As a cultural matter, there are two sub-points. First and foremost, having the decision of 

choosing two people, one next to the other, invites, we think, a more intelligent analysis 

on the part of shareholders generally. In particular, we think that if the basis for election 

for a nominee is their merit as an individual, a fund or an investor of any type that can 

identify the deadweight on the board, and in place of that deadweight find ideal 

candidates from a skills perspective to round out the board, they’re going to have an 

easier time getting shareholder support for their nominee. Their ability to vote among all 

the nominees and from all proponents, I think, facilitates that kind of person-by-person 

analysis, versus slate-by-slate analysis. 

321
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

nominating shareholder’s or group’s need to deliver a separate set of proxy materials and 

potentially negative reaction by shareholders to the appearance of this set of materials, we 

believe that our new rules will help address that concern. With the new rules, a shareholder will 

have the ability to include its director nominees in the company’s proxy materials, provided that 

the rules’ requirements are met. The fact that a nominating shareholder or group could have its 

director nominees included in a company’s proxy materials – as opposed to being included in its 

own proxy materials – pursuant to the new rules may be viewed by the shareholder or group as a 

significant improvement in its ability to have its nominees evaluated by shareholders in the same 

manner as they evaluate management’s nominees. Shareholders who are interested in effecting a 

change in the company’s leadership or direction may be less likely to be deterred by the prospect 

that their director nominees will not be assessed on their merit. Nominating shareholders also 

may see less need for additional soliciting efforts, such as the hiring of proxy solicitors, public 

relations advisors, or advertising, if their director nominees are presented alongside those of 

management in a set of company proxy materials with which the company’s shareholders are 

familiar.883 

Shareholders also may be hindered in making their voting decisions in a traditional proxy 

contest due to the fact that they have to evaluate more than one set of proxy materials – one sent 

by a company and another sent by an insurgent shareholder – when evaluating whether and how 

to grant authority to vote their shares by proxy.884 Presenting the competing director nominees 

883 As discussed in Section II.B.9.d.ii. above, we have adopted the proposed amendments to Exchange Act 

Rule 14a-4 out of a similar desire to avoid giving management’s director nominees an advantage over those 

of a nominating shareholder or group and to create an impartial presentation of the nominees for whom a 

shareholder may vote. 

884 One commenter stated that if enabling shareholders to evaluate a board more efficiently and make more 

informed voting decisions is the goal of the Proposal, then enhancing proxy disclosure, rather than 

facilitating proxy contests, will better achieve that goal. See letter from Davis Polk. We recognize the 

importance of enhancing the disclosure provided in connection with proxy solicitations and recently 

322
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on one proxy card, with the related disclosure contained in one proxy statement, may simplify 

the shareholder’s decision-making process and reduce the potential for any confusion on the part 

of shareholders.885 The result may be a greater degree of participation by shareholders through 

the proxy process in the governance of their companies. 

2. Minimum Uniform Procedure for Inclusion of Shareholder Director 

Nominations and Enhanced Ability for Shareholders to Adopt 

Director Nomination Procedures 

Rule 14a-11, as adopted, will provide shareholders of companies subject to the federal 

proxy rules the ability to include their director nominees in the company’s proxy materials, 

provided that the rule’s requirements are met.886 Further, with our adoption of the amendment to 

Rule 14a-8(i)(8), shareholders will be able to present in the company’s proxy materials a 

proposal that would seek to establish a procedure in the company’s governing documents for the 

inclusion of shareholder nominees for director in the company’s proxy materials.887 Shareholders 

will have a greater ability to present for a shareholder vote a director nomination procedure with 

requirements, such as the requisite ownership threshold or holding period, that differ from those 

adopted new rules to better enable shareholders to evaluate the leadership of public companies. See Proxy 

Disclosure Enhancements Adopting Release. These rules, however, do not dispense with the need for Rule 

14a-11 and the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8). The new rules we are adopting will complement the 

recently-adopted proxy disclosure enhancement rules by enabling shareholders to submit their own director 

nominees if, after evaluating a company’s public disclosures and performance, they are displeased with that 

company’s current leadership or direction. 

885	 As discussed in Section IV.D.4. below, the new disclosure requirements that we are adopting for 

shareholder director nominations submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-11, a state or foreign law provision, or a 

provision in the company’s governing documents also will facilitate more informed voting decisions by 

providing shareholders with important disclosures and enhancing their ability to communicate with each 

other regarding director nominations. 

886	 For a discussion of the companies that are subject to Rule 14a-11, see Section II.B.3. above. As discussed 

in that section, foreign private issuers and companies that are subject to the federal proxy rules solely 

because they have a class of debt securities registered under Exchange Act Section 12 will not be subject to 

Rule 14a-11. For smaller reporting companies, Rule 14a-11 will become effective three years after the date 

that the rule becomes effective for all other companies. 

887	 As previously discussed, a shareholder proposal seeking to establish such a procedure will continue to be 

subject to exclusion under other provisions of Rule 14a-8. 

323
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of Rule 14a-11.888 

We received significant comment regarding the uniform applicability of Rule 14a-11 and 

the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8).889 While there was widespread support for the amendment to 

Rule 14a-8(i)(8), commenters were divided on the extent to which companies and shareholders 

should be permitted to use Rule 14a-8 to propose alternative requirements for shareholder 

director nominations and on the related issue of whether shareholders and companies should be 

able to opt out of Rule 14a-11 entirely. Some commenters believed that the amendment to Rule 

14a-8(i)(8) should facilitate private ordering under state law by enabling shareholders to include 

in the company’s proxy materials a Rule 14a-8 proposal that would impose more restrictive 

eligibility criteria than those of Rule 14a-11.890 A number of commenters also believed that 

shareholders should be able to elect to have their companies opt out of Rule 14a-11, including 

through the submission of a Rule 14a-8 proposal.891 To facilitate private ordering, a significant 

number of commenters supported the adoption of the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) while 

opposing adoption of Rule 14a-11.892 

By contrast, other commenters supported an amendment enabling shareholders to include 

888	 As discussed in Section II.C. above, a provision in a company’s governing documents establishing a 

procedure for the inclusion of shareholder director nominees in a company’s proxy materials will not affect 

the operation of Rule 14a-11, regardless of whether the company’s shareholders have approved the 

provision. 

889	 For further discussion of the comments regarding the uniform applicability of Rule 14a-11 and the 

amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8), see Sections II.B.2. and II.C. above. 

890	 See letters from American Express; BorgWarner; Brink’s; BRT; CIGNA; P. Clapman; Con Edison; CSX; 

Davis Polk; DTE Energy; DuPont; GE; General Mills; C. Holliday; JPMorgan Chase; Metlife; P&G; 

Pfizer; Safeway; Seven Law Firms; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; Tenet; U.S. 

Bancorp; Verizon. 

891	 See letters from DTE Energy; JPMorgan Chase; P&G; Seven Law Firms; Society of Corporate Secretaries; 

U.S. Bancorp. 

892 See, e.g., letters from ABA; BRT; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

324
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in a company’s proxy materials a Rule 14a-8 proposal that establishes a shareholder director 

nomination procedure but only if the procedure would provide shareholders with a greater ability 

to include their director nominees in the company’s proxy materials.893 A number of commenters 

also opposed any provision that would permit companies to opt out of Rule 14a-11894 and 

preferred the uniform applicability of Rule 14a-11 to all companies.895 

We considered these comments carefully. As discussed above, and noted in the Proposal, 

the purpose of the rules is to facilitate shareholders’ traditional state law rights to nominate and 

elect their own director candidates. As such, we believe that a uniform application of Rule 14a11 to companies subject to the federal proxy rules is the best way to enable shareholders of these 

companies to do so without having to incur the types of costs and other disadvantages that 

shareholders traditionally have encountered. A single, uniform rule will provide shareholders of 

any company subject to the rule with the ability to meaningfully exercise their traditional state 

law rights to present their own director candidates for a vote at a shareholder meeting may be 

invoked through the proxy process. With the adoption of the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8), 

shareholders will be able to establish procedures that can further facilitate this ability, if they 

wish. 

By contrast, we believe that exclusive reliance on private ordering under state law would 

not be as effective and efficient in facilitating the exercise of these rights. Commenters 

identified procedural and legal difficulties that they believe would hinder the establishment of a 

893 See letters from CII; Governance for Owners; D. Nappier. 

894 See letters from AFL-CIO; Amalgamated Bank; W. Baker; Florida State Board of Administration; IAM; 

Marco Consulting; P. Neuhauser; Nine Law Firms; Norges Bank; Relational; Shamrock; TIAA-CREF; 

USPE; ValueAct Capital. 

895 See letters from AFSCME; CalPERS; CalSTRS; CII; COPERA; Florida State Board of Administration; 

John C. Liu (“J. Liu”); D. Nappier; Nathan Cummings Foundation; Phil Nicholas (“P. Nicholas”); OPERS; 

State Universities Retirement System of Illinois (“SURSI”); SWIB; WSIB. 

325
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholder director nomination procedure under private ordering, including: a supermajority 

voting standard for approval of the proposal;896 the constraints imposed by the 500-word limit for 

a Rule 14a-8 proposal;897 the significant percentage of companies that restrict shareholders’ 

ability to amend or propose bylaws;898 and the potential ability of a board to repeal or amend a 

shareholder-adopted bylaw procedure.899 Some commenters also expressed a general concern 

that under private ordering, the provisions in a company’s governing documents regarding 

shareholder director nominations may be so restrictive that it would be impossible for 

shareholders to have candidates included in company proxy materials.900 Other commenters, 

however, disagreed that these difficulties would actually interfere with the establishment of a 

procedure under a private ordering approach.901 

As previously discussed, we believe that our rules should provide shareholders with the 

ability to include director nominees in a company’s proxy materials without the need for 

896	 See B. Young, footnote 52, above (“Data on bylaw amendment limitations show that at between 38 and 

43% of companies, depending on the index, shareholders are either unable to amend the bylaws or face 

significant challenges in the form of supermajority vote requirements.”); see also letters from AFSCME; 

Bebchuk/Hirst; Florida State Board of Administration; J. Liu. 

897	 See letters from Bebchuk/Hirst; CII; Florida State Board of Administration. 

898	 See letters from AFSCME; Florida State Board of Administration; Nathan Cummings Foundation; SWIB. 

899	 See letters from AFSCME; Corporate Library; Sodali. See also Michael E. Murphy, The Nominating 

Process for Corporate Boards of Directors: A Decision-Making Analysis, 5 BERKELEY BUS. L.J. 131, 144 

(2008)(discussing how a company’s management defeated a shareholder proposal regarding shareholder 

director nominations through the use of a bylaw requiring a super-majority shareholder vote in favor of 

such a shareholder proposal and noting that “[t]he super-majority requirement was one of several potential 

defenses that management might have employed; it might also have imposed inconvenient notice 

requirements, stringent shareholder qualification rules, or restrictions mirroring the conditions of SEC rule 

14a-8. If these barriers proved insufficient, management might have considered counter-initiatives; it is an 

open question in Delaware and certain other states whether the board of directors has the power to repeal a 

shareholder-initiated bylaw by adopting a superseding bylaw amendment.”) 

900	 See letters from Florida State Board of Administration; P. Neuhauser; Shamrock. 

901	 See letters from AT&T; ABA; BRT; J. Grundfest; Keller Group; Lemonjuice.biz (“Lemonjuice”); Seven 

Law Firms. 

326
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholders to bear the burdens of overcoming substantial obstacles to creating that ability on a 

company-by-company basis.902 Private ordering based on an opt-in approach would require 

shareholders to incur significant costs, regardless of the presence of the difficulties described 

above. Shareholders would need to expend both time and funds to draft and submit a proposal, 

such as a Rule 14a-8 proposal, establishing a shareholder director nomination procedure on a 

company-by-company basis.903 These costs may be higher if the company opposes and solicits 

against adoption of the proposal – a possibility that is very likely at companies where 

disagreements between incumbent directors and a nominating shareholder or group already 

exist.904 Further, shareholders may be disinclined to undergo a two-step process to submit their 

own nominees – first, to establish a nomination procedure through a Rule 14a-8 shareholder 

proposal and, second, to submit their director candidates for inclusion in the company’s proxy 

materials – given the length of time that they will have to hold the requisite amount of securities 

and, perhaps more importantly, the risk of failure at each step of the process. 

Different but equally significant issues would arise under an opt-out approach. 

Shareholders who wish to retain their ability to include their director nominees in the company’s 

proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11 may find it difficult to successfully oppose an opt-out 

proposal due to management’s ability to draw on the company’s resources to promote the 

902	 See Section II.B.2. above, for additional discussion of our consideration of a private ordering approach. 

903	 See letters from CalPERS; Florida State Board of Administration; D. Nappier; P. Neuhauser. One of these 

commenters estimated that the approximate cost for shareholders of “running a proposal” is $30,000. See 

letter from CalPERS. The commenter estimated that it would cost $351,000,000 to attempt to establish the 

right of shareholders of Russell 3000 companies to include their director nominees in a company’s proxy 

materials. 

904	 The reluctance of companies to support the establishment of a shareholder director nomination procedure 

was noted in an article submitted by a commenter. See letter from Bebchuk/Hirst (referring to Bebchuk 

and Hirst (2010)). In their article, the authors observed that while the establishment of such a procedure is 

permissible under the existing laws of some states, including Delaware, only three companies have in fact 

established a shareholder director nomination procedure. 

327
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

adoption of the proposal.905 We also believe that if we were to allow an opt-out approach, even 

one in which only shareholders could approve an opt out, there is a high likelihood that the effort 

to procure such approval could be supported by management and funded by company assets, 

while opposing views could not be advanced effectively. Shareholders of these companies 

would find themselves, once again, left without an effective or efficient ability to nominate and 

elect their own director candidates. Further, as some commenters observed, both the opt-in and 

opt-out approaches may impose unnecessary complexity and administrative burdens for 

shareholders with diversified holdings in numerous companies and may hinder their exercise of a 

traditional state law right.906 

3. Potential Improved Board Performance and Company Performance 

As discussed throughout this release, we are adopting the new rules with the goal of 

facilitating shareholders’ ability under state law to nominate and elect directors for election to the 

board. Because state law provides shareholders with the right to nominate and elect directors to 

ensure that boards remain accountable to shareholders and to mitigate the agency problems 

associated with the separation of ownership from control, facilitating shareholders’ exercise of 

905	 In this regard, we note that a survey that one commenter conducted showed that, if available, a large 

majority of its member companies – approximately two-thirds – would seek to implement an opt-out from 

Rule 14a-11. See letter from Society of Corporate Secretaries. This survey suggests that shareholders of 

many companies may, once again, be limited in their ability to have their director candidates included in 

the companies’ proxy materials. 

906	 See letters from CFA Institute; CII; COPERA; D. Nappier; OPERS. One commenter countered that most 

long-term institutional shareholders are unlikely to submit director candidates at a large number of 

companies simultaneously and predicted that private ordering will lead to “some degree of standardization” 

in the types of shareholder director nomination procedures. See letter from Society of Corporate 

Secretaries. While we appreciate these points, we believe that adoption of Rule 14a-11, in fact, provides 

such “standardization.” The amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) complements Rule 14a-11 by enabling 

shareholders to consider and vote on proposals that provide shareholders with an even greater ability to 

present their own director candidates for a shareholder vote. Lastly, we recognize that the amendment to 

Rule 14a-8(i)(8) could result in some complexity as well, in that shareholders could establish director 

nomination procedures that require, for example, a different ownership threshold or holding period than 

those contained in Rule 14a-11. We believe, however, that such complexity is justified because it furthers 

our goal of facilitating, as much as possible, the effective exercise of shareholders’ traditional state law 

right of shareholders to nominate their own director candidates for a vote at a shareholder meeting. 

328
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

these rights may have the potential of improving board accountability and efficiency and 

increasing shareholder value. In the Proposing Release, we requested comment on the assertion 

that the Proposal could improve board performance and, hence, company performance – both for 

boards that include shareholder-nominated directors elected pursuant to the new rules and for 

boards that may be more attentive and responsive to shareholder concerns to avoid the 

submission of shareholder director nominations pursuant to the new rules.907 

We received significant comment regarding this assertion. Many commenters agreed that 

the new rules may result in the benefit of more accountable, more responsive, and generally 

better-performing boards.908 Other commenters, however, questioned whether the new rules 

would in fact promote board accountability,909 warned of the costs of distracting and expensive 

election contests,910 and disputed the conclusions of a study regarding the benefits enjoyed by 

companies with “hybrid boards” that was cited in the Proposing Release.911 Commenters also 

907	 See Proposing Release, Section V.B.3. 

908	 See letters from AFSCME; Bebchuk, et al.; Brigham; CalPERS; CII; L. Dallas; T. DiNapoli; A. Dral; 

GovernanceMetrics; Governance for Owners; Hermes; M. Katz; LUCRF; J. McRitchie; R. Moulton-Ely; 

D. Nappier; P. Neuhauser; NJSIC; OPERS; Pax World; Pershing Square; Relational; RiskMetrics; D. 

Romine; Shareowners.org; Social Investment Forum; Teamsters; TIAA-CREF; Universities 

Superannuation; USPE; Walden. One commenter added that the benefits of the right to include shareholder 

director nominees in the company’s proxy materials, including enhanced shareholder value from hybrid 

boards and directors becoming “more alert to their duties,” are “less easy to quantify.” See letter from P. 

Neuhauser. 

909	 See, e.g., letters from Alaska Air; Ameriprise; Brink’s; Comcast; CSX; General Mills; Piedmont; Praxair; 

William H. Steinbrink (“W. Steinbrink”); Time Warner Cable; United Brotherhood of Carpenters. 

910	 See letters from ABA; Atlas; AT&T; Book Celler; Carlson; Carolina Mills; Chamber of 

Commerce/CCMC; Chevron; Crespin; M. Eng; Erickson; ExxonMobil; Fenwick; GE; General Mills; Glass 

Lewis; Glaspell; Intelect; R. Clark King; Koppers; MCO; MeadWestvaco; MedFaxx; Medical Insurance; 

Merchants Terminal; D. Merilatt; NAM; NIRI; NK; O3 Strategies; Roppe; Rosen; Safeway; Sara Lee; 

Schneider; Southland; Style Crest; Tenet; TI; tw telecom; R. VanEngelenhoven; Wachtell; Wells Fargo; 

Weyerhaeuser; Yahoo. 

911	 See, e.g., letters from IBM; Simpson Thacher. These commenters questioned the conclusions of the study 

by Chris Cernich, et al., “Effectiveness of Hybrid Boards,” IRRC Institute for Corporate Responsibility 

(May 2009)(“Cernich (2009)”), available at 

http://www.irrcinstitute.org/pdf/IRRC_05_09_EffectiveHybridBoards.pdf (cited in the Proposing Release, 

Section V.B.3.). For example, one of these commenters stated that the study “demonstrates that the 

329
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

912 

challenged the basis for any suggestions in the Proposing Release that the recent economic crisis 

was somehow linked to the inability of shareholders to include their director nominees in the 

company’s proxy materials, pointing out that we have contemplated similar regulatory efforts 

several times before the recent crisis occurred.912 

The comments reflect the sharp divide on the question of whether facilitating 

shareholders’ ability to exercise their rights to nominate and elect directors would lead to the 

benefit of improved board and company performance. We have considered these comments 

carefully and appreciate both the fact that the empirical evidence may appear mixed and the 

potential for negative effects due to management distraction and discord on the board that some 

objectives of successful dissidents were often short-term in nature” and “suggests that companies with 

dissidents on their board perform better than their peers over a one-year period, but that they perform worse 

over a three-year period.” See letter from Simpson Thacher. The other commenter stated that “the only 

conclusion that could fairly be drawn from the data is that some companies perform better, and many 

perform worse, under such circumstances” and “of the companies with dissident directors studied for three 

years after the contest period, share performance averaged just 0.7%, which is 6.6% less than peer 

companies.” 

We recognize the limitations of the Cernich (2009) study as well. While it provides useful documentation 

of patterns of behavior of activist investors, its long-term findings on shareholder value creation are 

difficult to interpret. Return estimates are presented without standard errors. For long-term returns in 

particular, this shortcoming makes it difficult to infer whether results arise because returns are different 

than peers in expectation, or because of random chance. Other studies cited in this release do use standard 

statistical inference techniques to approach similar questions. See, e.g., J. Harold Mulherin and Annette B. 

Poulsen, Proxy Contests and Corporate Change: Implications For Shareholder Wealth, J. FIN. ECON. 

(March 1998)(“Mulherin and Poulsen (1998)”)(cited in the NERA Report submitted as part of the letter 

from BRT). 

See letters from 3M; ACE; Ameriprise; American Bankers Association; BRT; Devon; Dewey; GE; A. 

Goolsby; C. Holliday; Honeywell; IBM; Jones Day; Norfolk Southern; Pfizer; Sidley Austin; Simpson 

Thacher; TI; tw telecom; Unitrin; Wachtell. See also letters from BRT (submitting the study by Andrea 

Beltratti and René M. Stulz, Why Did Some Banks Perform Better During the Credit Crisis? A CrossCountry Study of the Impact of Governance and Regulation (July 2009)(“Beltratti and Stulz (2009)”), in 

which the authors found “no consistent evidence that better governance led to better performance during 

the crisis” but found “strong evidence that banks with more shareholder-friendly boards performed 

worse.”); Chamber of Commerce/CCMC (submitting an article by Brian R. Cheffins, Did Corporate 

Governance “Fail” During the 2008 Stock Market Meltdown? The Case of the S&P 500 (“Cheffins 

(2010)”), which stated that because “corporate governance functioned tolerably well in companies removed 

from the S&P 500 and that a combination of regulation and market forces will likely prompt financial firms 

to scale back the free-wheeling business activities that arguably helped to precipitate the stock market 

meltdown, the case is not yet made for fundamental reform of current corporate governance 

arrangements.”). 

330
 
 

 

commenters identified. After assessing the costs and benefits identified by commenters, and for 

reasons discussed below, we believe that the totality of the evidence and economic theory 

supports the view that facilitating shareholders’ ability to include their director nominees in a 

company’s proxy materials has the potential of creating the benefit of improved board 

performance and enhanced shareholder value – both in companies with the actual election of 

shareholder-nominated directors and in companies that react to shareholders’ concerns because 

of the possibility of such directors being elected. Thus, as discussed below, it is our conclusion 

that the potential benefits of improved board and company performance and shareholder value 

justify the potential costs. 

By facilitating shareholders’ exercise of their traditional state law rights to nominate and 

elect directors, we believe that eligible shareholders may prefer to use the new rules over a costly 

traditional proxy contest, making election contests a more plausible avenue for shareholders to 

participate in the governance of their company. This may have two beneficial effects on the 

governance of a company. First, the board and management of a company may be increasingly 

responsive to shareholders’ concerns, even when contested elections do not occur, because of 

shareholders’ ability to present their director nominees more easily. Second, new shareholdernominated directors may be more inclined to exercise judgment independent of the company’s 

incumbent directors and management. 

The new rules will remove or reduce some of the current disincentives to shareholders’ 

exercise of their traditional state law rights to nominate director candidates. Once the rules 

become effective, boards’ responsiveness to concerns expressed by shareholders may increase 

because shareholders could more easily nominate their own directors to run against incumbent 

331
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

directors.913 In response to the Proposal, commenters submitted studies regarding the effects of 

reducing incumbent directors’ insulation from removal, which showed measures that make 

incumbent directors more vulnerable to replacement by shareholder action have salutary 

deterrent effects against board complacency and improve corporate governance and shareholder 

value.914 Further, by creating a new threat of removal, the new rules could lead to greater 

accountability on the part of incumbent directors to the extent they see a close link between their 

performance and the prospect of removal.915 In response to the Proposal, one commenter also 

913	 The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) underscores the 

importance of board responsiveness to shareholder concerns. In Citizens United, the government asserted 

an interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations in political campaigns in order to prevent 

dissenting shareholders from being compelled to fund corporate political speech with which they disagreed. 

Citizens United, 130 S.Ct. at 911. The Court, however, stated that any such coercion could be addressed 

“through the procedures of corporate democracy.” Id., quotation omitted. 

914	 See letter from L. Bebchuk (noting the article by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Alma Cohen, The Costs of 

Entrenched Boards, J. FIN. ECON. (November 2005)(“Bebchuk and Cohen (2005)”), in which the authors 

stated: “Staggered boards are associated with an economically meaningful reduction in firm value...[w]e 

also provide suggestive evidence that staggered boards bring about, and not merely reflect, an economically 

significant reduction in firm value...[f]inally, the correlation with reduced firm value is stronger for 

staggered boards that are established in the corporate charter (which shareholders cannot amend) than for 

staggered boards established in the company’s bylaws (which shareholders can amend).”). 

Commenters also submitted empirical studies indicating that facilitating shareholders’ rights and voice may 

result in better company performance. See letters from L. Bebchuk; CalSTRS; Nathan Cummings 

Foundation (noting the study by Paul Gompers, Joy Ishii and Andrew Metrick, Corporate Governance and 

Equity Prices, 118 Q.J. ECON. 107 (2003), in which the authors found that “firms with stronger 

shareholder rights had higher firm value, higher profits, higher sales growth, lower capital expenditures, 

and made fewer corporate acquisitions.”); letters from CalSTRS; Nathan Cummings Foundation (noting the 

study by B. Lawrence Brown and Marcus Caylor, The Correlation Between Corporate Governance and 

Company Performance, Research Commissioned Institutional Shareholder Services (2004), in which the 

authors found that “firms with weaker governance perform more poorly, are less profitable, more risky, and 

have lower dividends than firms with better governance.”). See also letter from T. Yang (noting the study 

by Bonnie Buchanan, Jeffry M. Netter, and Tina Yang, Proxy Rules and Proxy Practice: An Empirical 

Study of US and UK Shareholder Proposals (September 2009)(“Buchanan, Netter, and Yang (2009)”), in 

which the authors found that “after receiving a shareholder proposal, [U.S.] firms exhibit higher stock 

returns and the improvement is greater [] when the proposal is likely to be wealth maximizing or sponsored 

by a shareholder owning a relatively large equity stake in the target firm.”). 

915	 As we noted in the Proposing Release, economists have put forth theory and evidence on the link between 

incentives that are associated with accountability and performance. See, e.g., Benjamin E. Hermalin and 

Michael S. Weisbach, Endogenously Chosen Board of Directors and Their Monitoring of the Board, 88 

AM. ECON. REV. 96 (1998)(cited in the Proposing Release, Section V.B.3); Milton Harris and Artur Raviv, 

Control of Corporate Decisions: Shareholders vs. Management (May 29, 2008), available at 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=965559 (cited in the Proposing Release, Section 

V.B.3.). 

332
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

submitted studies that showed that anti-takeover provisions protecting incumbent management 

are associated with economically significant reductions in firm valuation, returns and 

performance, and share prices increase when activists prompt elimination of provisions such as 

staggered boards.916 Conversely, the creation of a staggered board structure was found to be 

associated with a reduction in firm value.917 Because our new rules may make director elections 

more competitive by facilitating shareholders’ ability to nominate and elect their own director 

candidates and, hence, also make some incumbent directors less secure in their positions, we 

believe that the rules may have analogous salutary effects. 

As we noted in the Proposing Release, the presence of directors nominated by 

shareholders may have an effect on company performance and shareholder value.918 We also 

noted in the Proposing Release that academic literature indicates the benefit to shareholders of 

916	 See Bebchuk and Hirst (2010)(noting the “substantial empirical evidence indicating that director insulation 

from removal is associated with lower firm value and worse performance.”). See also letter from L. 

Bebchuk (noting the following articles: Lucian A. Bebchuk, Alma Cohen and Allen Ferrell, What Matters 

in Corporate Governance?, 22 REV. FIN. STUDS. 783 (2009)(“Bebchuk, Cohen, and Ferrell (2009)”)(“We 

put forward an entrenchment index based on six provisions: staggered boards, limits to shareholder bylaw 

amendments, poison pills, golden parachutes, and supermajority requirements for mergers and charter 

amendments...[w]e find that increases in the index level are monotonically associated with economically 

significant reductions in firm valuation as well as large negative abnormal returns during the 1990-2003 

period.”); Re-Jin Guo, Timothy A. Kruse and Tom Nohel, Undoing the Powerful Anti-Takeover Force of 

Staggered Boards, J. CORP. FIN. (June 2008)(“Guo, Kruse and Nohel (2008)”)(“We find that de-staggering 

the board creates wealth and that shareholder activism is an important catalyst for pushing through this 

change.”); Olubunmi Faleye, Classified Boards, Firm Value, and Managerial Entrenchment, J. FIN. ECON. 

(February 2007)(“Faleye (2007)”)(noting that “classified boards significantly insulate management from 

market discipline, thus suggesting that the observed reduction in value is due to managerial entrenchment 

and diminished board accountability.”)). 

917	 See Bebchuk and Hirst (2010); Bebchuk and Cohen (2005). 

918	 See Proposing Release, Section V.B.3. (citing Cernich (2009)). Moreover, as we noted in the same section 

of the Proposing Release, empirical evidence has indicated that the ability of significant shareholders to 

hold corporate managers accountable for activity that does not benefit investors may reduce agency costs 

and increase shareholder value. See, e.g., Brad M. Barber, “Monitoring the Monitor: Evaluating CalPERS’ 

Activism” (November 2006), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=890321 

(cited in the Proposing Release, Section V.B.3.). See also Deutsche Bank, Global Equity Research, 

“Beyond the Numbers: Corporate Governance in Europe,” (March 5, 2005)(cited in the Proposing Release, 

Section V.B.3). 

333
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

having an independent, active and committed board of directors.919 Directors are charged under 

state law to act as disinterested fiduciaries on behalf of all shareholders, but it has been 

recognized that the difficult agency problem created by the separation in public companies of 

ownership from control creates conflicts not completely addressed by state law. We received 

comment expressing concern regarding the close relationships between directors and a 

company’s management and the degree to which the nomination process is dominated by 

management.920 Directors nominated by shareholders pursuant to the new rules will owe their 

presence on the board to their nomination by one or more significant shareholders and therefore 

may be independent in a way that is fundamentally different from directors nominated by the 

incumbent directors. We found to be relevant the empirical evidence cited in our Proposing 

Release and by commenters regarding the effect on shareholder value of so-called “hybrid 

boards” (i.e., boards composed of a majority of incumbent directors and a minority of dissident 

directors).921 Such boards are a close, but not perfect, analog to the results from an election in 

919	 See Proposing Release, Section V.B.3. (citing Fitch Ratings, “Evaluating Corporate Governance” 

(December 12, 2007), available at 

http://www.fitchratings.com/corporate/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=363502). 

920	 See, e.g., letters from CII (noting that “some boards are dominated by the chief executive officer, who often 

plays the key role in selecting and nominating directors” and quoting a view expressed by a prominent 

investor that “[t]hese people [chief executive officers] aren’t looking for Dobermans . . . . They’re looking 

for cocker spaniels.”); J. McRitchie (“It is well known that until recently the vast majority of board 

vacancies were filled via recommendations from CEOs who also are typically chairmen of the 

boards...Recent requirements for an ‘independent’ nominating committee provide little assurance against 

continued management domination. These ‘independent’ board members serve at the pleasure of the CEOs 

and the other board members; they have no independent base of power.”). 

921	 Cernich (2009). See also letters from D. Romine; GovernanceMetrics; P. Neuhauser; Social Investment 

Forum; TIAA-CREF; Universities Superannuation. 

As we previously noted, the Cernich (2009) study cites long-term return results, relative to peers, which are 

positive over the subsequent year but negative over the subsequent three years. However, these results are 

not reported with standard errors, making it difficult to determine whether the expected returns following 

contests are different from peers, or whether the realized long-term returns during the sample period are 

merely the result of random chance. Other research, such as Mulherin and Poulsen (1998), is consistent 

with these findings, but investigates the impact of proxy contests generally, rather than hybrid boards. 

334
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

which shareholder nominees submitted pursuant to the new rules are elected and typically result 

when the shareholder’s nominees join the board through an actual or threatened proxy contest, 

but without a change of control. In the study cited in the Proposing Release, ongoing businesses 

with a minority of dissident directors posted increases in shareholder value of 9.1%, relative to 

peers, during the contest period, indicating that the market viewed the contest as having a 

positive effect on shareholder value.922 Other commenters adduce evidence that boards with a 

minority of dissident directors produce positive changes in corporate governance structures and 

strategy and result in increased shareholder value measured in both absolute returns and relative 

to peers.923 Amending our proxy rules to facilitate the operation of state laws permitting 

shareholder nominations of directors may allow shareholders to elect directors who, without 

obtaining control, can exercise similar influence over decisions critical to shareholder value. 

We recognize the existence of studies that reached conclusions contrary to those 

discussed above.924 Other commenters warn that the new rules will lead to election contests that 

922	 Cernich (2009). 

923	 See letters from D. Romine; GovernanceMetrics; P. Neuhauser; Social Investment Forum; TIAA-CREF; 

Universities Superannuation. See also Mulherin and Poulsen (1998); James F. Cotter, Anil Shivdasani, and 

Marc Zenner, Do Independent Directors Enhance Target Shareholder Wealth During Tender Offers?, J. 

FIN. ECON. (February 1997)(finding, after examining a sample of 169 tender offers conducted from 1989 

through 1992, that target shareholder gains from tender offers were approximately 20% greater when the 

board was independent). 

924	 See letter from BRT (referring to the “Report on Effects of Proposed SEC Rule 14a-11 on Efficiency, 

Competitiveness and Capital Formation, in Support of Comments by Business Roundtable” by NERA 

Economic Consulting (“NERA Report”)); David Ikenberry and Joself Lakonishok, Corporate Governance 

Through the Proxy Contest: Evidence and Implications, 66 J. BUS. 420 (1993)(“Ikenberry and Lakonishok 

(1993))(claiming that “companies with dissident board members substantially underperform compared to 

their peers.”)(cited in the NERA Report); Lisa Borstadt and Thomas Zwirlein, The Efficient Monitoring 

Role of Proxy Contests: An Empirical Analysis of Post-Contest Control Changes and Firm Performance, 

FIN. MGM’T (1992)(“Borstadt and Zwirlein (1992)”)(asserting that, in the long run, proxy contests destroy 

shareholder value)(cited in NERA Report); Beltratti and Stulz (2009)(submitted as part of the letter from 

BRT and cited in letters from AT&T, BRT, and Seven Law Firms); Cheffins (2010)(examining thirtyseven companies removed from the S&P 500 index during 2008 and concluding that corporate governance 

functioned “tolerably well” in these companies to negate the need for fundamental reform of the current 

corporate governance arrangements)(submitted as part of the letter from Chamber of Commerce/CCMC); 

Ali C. Akyol, Wei Fen Lim and Patrick Verwijmeren, Shareholders in the Boardroom: Wealth Effects of 

335
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

will be distracting, time-consuming, and inefficient for companies, boards, and management.925 

We have reviewed these studies and have reason to question some of their conclusions 

either because of questions raised by subsequent studies,926 limitations acknowledged by the 

studies’ authors,927 or our own concerns about the studies’ methodology or scope.928 While we 

the SEC’s Rule to Facilitate Director Nominations (December 14, 2009)(“Akyol, Lim, and Verwijmeren 

(2009)”)(documenting negative stock price reactions to the announcements of regulatory activities related 

to shareholders’ right to include director nominees in the company’s proxy materials, including the 

Proposal)(submitted as part of the letter from J. Grundfest); David F. Larcker, Gaizka Ormazabal and 

Daniel J. Taylor, The Regulation of Corporate Governance (January 16, 2010) )(“Larcker, Ormazabal, and 

Taylor (2010)”)(submitted as part of the letter from David F. Larcker (“D. Larcker”)). 

925	 See letters from ABA; Atlas; AT&T; Book Celler; Carlson; Carolina Mills; Chamber of 

Commerce/CCMC; Chevron; Crespin; M. Eng; Erickson; ExxonMobil; Fenwick; GE; General Mills; Glass 

Lewis; Glaspell; Intelect; R. Clark King; Koppers; MCO; MeadWestvaco; MedFaxx; Medical Insurance; 

Merchants Terminal; D. Merilatt; NAM; NIRI; NK; O3 Strategies; Roppe; Rosen; Safeway; Sara Lee; 

Schneider; Southland; Style Crest; Tenet; TI; tw telecom; R. VanEngelenhoven; Wachtell; Wells Fargo; 

Weyerhaeuser; Yahoo. 

926	 For example, we note that a study highlighted a methodological flaw in the Ikenberry and Lakonishok 

(1993) study. Mulherin and Poulsen (1998) noted that this study had required that companies exist as the 

same entity in the COMPUSTAT database subsequent to the contest, eliminating some of the most 

favorable outcomes of proxy contests from consideration and biasing the estimate of long-term returns 

downward. After making corrections for this statistical bias and examining a sample of 270 proxy contests 

for board seats conducted from 1979 to 1994, the authors found that the market had a favorable response to 

the initiation of the proxy contest with an average abnormal return of 8.04% in the initiation period, 

followed by long-run returns statistically indistinguishable from those of comparable stocks. Their analysis 

showed that the wealth gains during proxy contests stemmed mainly from firms that were acquired. 

Overall, the authors concluded that proxy contests generally create value, and for companies that were not 

acquired, “the occurrence of management turnover [had] a significant, positive effect on shareholder wealth 

relative to the firms that do not replace senior management.” In the Borstadt and Zwirlein (1992) study, the 

finding of a negative risk-adjusted return, conditional on dissidents winning, was based on a sample of 32 

firms. Borstadt and Zwirlein note that, overall, “dissident activity leads to gains for shareholders and is 

often followed by corporate reforms... such that the realized gains over the contest period appear to be 

permanent.” A survey article on corporate governance confirmed that this is the current academic 

consensus, stating that “[t]he latest evidence suggests that proxy fights provide a degree of managerial 

disciplining and enhance shareholder value.” See Marco Becht, Patrick Bolton and Ailsa Roell, Corporate 

Governance and Control, HANDBOOK OF THE ECONOMICS OF FINANCE (2003)(“Becht, Bolton and Roell 

(2003)”). 

927	 For example, we believe that attempts to draw sharp inferences from the Beltratti and Stulz (2009) study 

may not be warranted because, as the authors themselves noted, the evidence leaves much to interpretation. 

The authors concluded that negative conclusions about board effectiveness may be unwarranted because it 

is unfair to evaluate ex-ante decisions using hind-sight. In particular, they explained that: 

Such a result does not mean that good governance is bad. Rather it is consistent with the 

view that banks that were pushed by their boards to maximize shareholder wealth before 

the crisis took risks that were understood to create shareholder wealth, but were costly ex 

post because of outcomes that were not expected when the risks were taken. 

336
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

recognize that there are strongly-held views on every side of this debate, we believe that, as 

discussed throughout this release and supported by commenters’ views and empirical data, we 

have a reasonable basis for expecting the benefits described above. 

We are aware, of course, that the new rules are additive to many existing means of 

monitoring and “disciplining” a company’s board and management,929 which include: hostile 

takeovers; stockholders “voting with their feet” by selling their shares; board members being 

replaced by other means when the company’s stock performance is poor; and management 

turnover following poor performance or wrongdoing.930 

We acknowledge these alternatives, but believe that, for the reasons noted above, 

directors nominated pursuant to the new rules will have a degree of independence that is not 

present in the existing means of “disciplining” a company’s board and management. Moreover, 

the ability of shareholders to “vote with their feet” or submit to a takeover bid may be 

unattractive from a shareholder’s perspective if those transactions occur after a period of weak 

management that has depressed the company’s share price. Further, shareholders who invest in 

Beltratti and Stulz (2009) at 3. 

928	 For example, the relatively short timeframe and small number of companies examined in Cheffins (2010) 

study alone justify some caution in attempting to draw any sharp inferences from the study. As for the 

Akyol, Lim, and Verwijmeren (2009) and Larcker, Ormazabal, and Taylor (2010) studies, we note that, 

even if facilitating shareholders’ ability to include their nominees in a company’s proxy materials enhances 

shareholder value, it may be possible to observe negative stock price reactions for a particular set of public 

announcement dates. The problem lies in ascertaining the first time investors learned about the regulatory 

efforts to facilitate this shareholder right. On that initial date, investors may have adjusted share prices for 

both the capitalized value of the benefits (or costs) associated with the regulatory effort and the probability 

of the effort’s success. Subsequent public announcements may simply cause investors to update these 

initial assessments of the valuation impact and the probability of success. Consequently, it is difficult to 

infer whether the price reactions are independent of past announcements or simply a revision of the 

investors’ prior expectations. It is important, therefore, to disentangle investor expectations about the 

probability of the success of the regulatory effort from the associated valuation implications. It appears that 

the Akyol, Lim, and Verwijmeren (2009) and Larcker, Ormazabal, and Taylor (2010) studies did not focus 

on this distinction. 

929	 See NERA Report. 

930	 Id. 

337
 
 

 

 

 

 

indices may not be readily able to sell securities of a particular company that is part of the index, 

making it difficult for them to “vote with their feet.” The high costs involved with other existing 

mechanisms for “management discipline,” such as a traditional proxy contest, often mean that 

the prospect of replacing incumbent directors is remote unless the company’s performance falls 

below a very low threshold. By that time, a significant amount of shareholder value will have, 

by hypothesis, already been lost and will require additional time to recoup. We believe that the 

new rules will help shareholders exert “management discipline” by reducing the cost of, and 

otherwise making more plausible, shareholder nominations. 

We also acknowledge concerns expressed by commenters that the Proposal would 

encourage boards to make decisions to improve results in the short-term at the expense of longterm shareholder value creation.931 For the reasons described above, we believe the new rules 

have the potential to lead to improved company performance and enhanced shareholder value for 

both short-term and long-term shareholders. Evidence suggests that, historically, proxy contests 

have created value in both the short-run and long-run for shareholders.932 The possible inclusion 

and potential election of shareholder director nominees in company proxy materials would not 

negate the board’s fiduciary obligations, which are to all shareholders. Finally, shareholder 

director nominees are subject to election by both long-term and short-term shareholders, who 

will express their interest through their vote. In sum, we do not expect that the prospect that such 

holders would nominate directors should lead boards to take short-term actions that would 

detract from long-term value in order to avoid nominations. 

A number of commenters expressed special concerns with respect to the Proposal’s effect 

on investment companies, asserting that the election of a shareholder director nominee may, in 

931 See, e.g., letters from BRT; GE; General Mills; IBM; Metlife; Office Depot; Safeway; Wachtell. 

932 See Mulherin and Poulsen (1998) and discussion in footnote 926 above. 

338
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

some circumstances, increase costs and potentially decrease the effectiveness and efficiency of a 

unitary or cluster board utilized by a fund complex.933 Some of these commenters noted their 

belief that investment company governance presents a special case, arguing that the rules should 

not be extended to them absent empirical evidence specifically related to boards in this 

industry.934 Commenters also argued that investment companies are subject to a unique 

regulatory regime under the Investment Company Act that provides additional protection to 

investors, such as the requirement to obtain shareholder approval to engage in certain 

transactions or activities, and that investment companies and their boards have very different 

functions from non-investment companies and their boards.935 We understand these concerns, 

but we also note that some commenters have raised governance concerns regarding the 

relationship between boards and investment advisers.936 Moreover, although investment 

companies and their boards may have different functions from non-investment companies and 

their boards, investment company boards, like the boards of other companies, have significant 

responsibilities in protecting shareholder interests, such as the approval of advisory contracts and 

fees.937 We also do not believe that the regulatory protections offered by the Investment 

Company Act (including requirements to obtain shareholder approval to engage in certain 

transactions and activities) serve to decrease the importance of the rights that are granted to 

933 See, e.g., letters from ABA; ICI; ICI/IDC; IDC; MFDF; S&C; T. Rowe Price; Vanguard. 

934 See letters from ICI; ICI/IDC; S&C; T. Rowe Price. 

935 See letters from ABA; Barclays; ICI; ICI/IDC; IDC; T. Rowe Price; S&C; Vanguard. 

936 See letters from J. Reid; J. Taub. 

937 See Jones v. Harris Assocs., 130 S.Ct. 1418, 1423, 176 L. Ed. 2d 265, 273-274 (2010). See also S. Rep. 

No. 91-184; 91st Congress 1st Session; S. 2224 (1969) (“This section is not intended to authorize a court to 

substitute its business judgment for that of the mutual fund’s board of directors in the area of management 

fees. . . . The directors of a mutual fund, like directors of any other corporation will continue to have . . . 

overall fiduciary duties as directors for the supervision of all of the affairs of the fund.”). 

339
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholders under state law. In fact, the separate regulatory regime to which investment 

companies are subject emphasizes the importance of investment company directors in dealing 

with the conflicts of interest created by the external management structure of most investment 

companies.938 

Lastly, improved board performance may result from the possible increase in the pool of 

qualified director candidates. When a company does not include shareholder nominees for 

director in its proxy materials, it loses the opportunity to increase the pool of qualified nominees. 

Further, it deprives shareholders of the opportunity to consider and assess all qualified candidates 

if asked to make an informed voting decision in director elections. As we stated in the Proposing 

Release, facilitating shareholders’ ability to include director nominations in a company’s proxy 

materials may result in a larger pool of qualified director nominees from which to choose.939 By 

allowing shareholders to submit their own director nominees for inclusion in the company’s 

proxy materials, the demand for qualified individuals who may be willing to serve as 

shareholder-nominated directors also may increase. This increased demand may, in turn, 

encourage more individuals to present themselves as potential shareholder director nominees, 

resulting in a large pool of potential candidates. We recognize, however, this benefit may be 

offset by the possibility that some qualified individuals may be less willing to be nominated to 

serve on a board if faced with a contested election.940 

4.	 More Informed Voting Decisions in Director Elections Due to 

Improved Disclosure of Shareholder Director Nominations and 

Enhanced Shareholder Communications 

938 See footnote 142 above. 

939 See Proposing Release, Section V.B.3. 

940 For a more detailed discussion, see Section IV.E.1. below. 

340
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was widespread support among commenters for the principle that the Commission 

should require disclosures regarding nominating shareholders and their nominees.941 The new 

requirements in Rule 14a-11, Rule 14n-1, and Schedule 14N will require certain disclosures and 

certifications to be provided on Schedule 14N by shareholders who submit a nominee under Rule 

14a-11. A nominating shareholder or group will be required to provide disclosure of the 

information similar to that currently required in a proxy contest regarding the nominating 

shareholder and nominee942 as well as certain certifications required for use of Rule 14a-11.943 

Rule 14a-18, Rule 14n-1 and Schedule 14N will require similar disclosures when a shareholder 

or group uses an applicable state or foreign law provision or company’s governing documents to 

include shareholder nominees for director in the company’s proxy materials. The information 

provided by the disclosures and certifications will help provide transparency to shareholders 

when voting on shareholder nominees for director and therefore may lead to better informed 

voting decisions. 

With respect to Rule 14a-8(i)(8), companies previously have been permitted to exclude 

shareholder proposals to establish procedures for including shareholder director nominees in the 

941	 See letters from ABA; Alston & Bird; Americans for Financial Reform; CalSTRS; CFA Institute; CII; 

Corporate Library; Dominican Sisters of Hope; Florida State Board of Administration; GovernanceMetrics; 

ICI; Mercy Investment Program; Protective; RiskMetrics; Sisters of Mercy; Tri-State Coalition; Ursuline 

Sisters of Tildonk; USPE; Walden. 

942	 Among the information included in Schedule 14N is the disclosure required by Items 4(b), 5(b), 7 and, for 

investment companies, Item 22(b) of Schedule 14A. This disclosure is the same disclosure required for a 

solicitation subject to Exchange Act Rule 14a-12(c). 

943	 Item 8 of Schedule 14N. These certifications include: a certification that the nominating shareholder (or 

where there is a nominating shareholder group, each member of the nominating shareholder group) is not 

holding any of the company’s securities with the purpose, or with the effect, of changing control of the 

company or to gain a number of seats on the board that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that the 

company could be required to include under Rule 14a-11; a certification that the nominating shareholder or 

group satisfies the applicable eligibility requirements of Rule 14a-11; a certification that the shareholder 

director nominee satisfies the applicable eligibility requirements of Rule 14a-11; and a certification that the 

information set forth in the notice on Schedule 14N is true, complete, and correct. 

341
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

company’s proxy materials. This exclusion arose out of the concern that allowing such 

proposals would result in the occurrence of contested elections without the disclosure that 

otherwise would be required in a traditional proxy contest.944 The new disclosure requirements 

applicable to nominations made pursuant to state or foreign law or a company’s governing 

documents address that concern by mandating disclosure that is similar to that required in a 

traditional proxy contest.945 

In addition to improved disclosure, our new rules will enhance shareholders’ ability to 

communicate with each other regarding director nominations and elections through the proxy 

process. Shareholders eligible to use Rule 14a-11 will be able to utilize the company’s proxy 

materials to present their own director nominees for a vote by other shareholders. They will be 

able to include in the company’s proxy materials a statement supporting their director 

nominees.946 Shareholders who are dissatisfied with the company’s existing board or the 

company’s director nominees will be able to communicate this view and their preference for 

alternative candidates through the votes they cast under the proxy process. 

The new solicitation exemptions also will facilitate communications between 

shareholders.947 Shareholders interested in forming a nominating group to use Rule 14a-11 can 

contact other shareholders – through both oral and written communications – for that purpose 

without fear that their communications would be viewed as solicitations under the proxy rules, as 

944 See Shareholder Proposal Proposing Release (proposing amendments to Rule 14a-8 to “make clear that 

director nominations made pursuant to [bylaw amendments concerning shareholder nominations of 

directors] would be subject to the disclosure requirements currently applicable to proxy contests” and 

noting that such disclosure is of “great importance” to an informed voting decision by shareholders). 

945 See Rule 14a-18, Rule 14n-1, and Schedule 14N. 

946 See Item 7(e) of Schedule 14A and Item 5(i) of Schedule 14N. 

947 See Rules 14a-2(b)(7) and 14a-2(b)(8). 

342
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

long as the exemption’s conditions are satisfied.948 If its director nominees are included in the 

company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11, the nominating shareholder or group can 

solicit other shareholders to vote in favor of its nominees, or against the company’s own 

nominees, as long as the exemption’s conditions are satisfied.949 

With the new amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8), shareholders will benefit from a greater 

ability to present a proposal to establish an alternative procedure under a company’s governing 

documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder director nominees in the company’s 

proxy materials. Thus, shareholders will be able to present for consideration by other 

shareholders a director nomination procedure that they believe is appropriate for their company. 

Through their votes on the proposal, shareholders will then have an opportunity to communicate 

their views on this proposal to other shareholders and the company’s management. 

E. Costs 

We anticipate that the new rules, where applicable, may result in costs related to (1) 

potential adverse effects on company and board performance; (2) additional complexity in the 

proxy process; and (3) preparing the required disclosures, printing and mailing, and costs of 

additional solicitations. 

1. Costs Related to Potential Adverse Effects on Company and Board 

Performance 

Rule 14a-11 and the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) may result in potential adverse 

effects on the performance of a company and its board of directors. 

First, we received significant comment stating that election contests are distracting and 

948 See Rule 14a-2(b)(7). 

949 See Rule 14a-2(b)(8). 

343
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

time-consuming for companies, boards, and management.950 Further, to the extent that a more 

competitive nomination and election process motivates incumbent directors to be more 

responsive to shareholders’ concerns, the board may incur costs in attempting to institute policies 

and procedures it believes will address shareholder concerns. It is possible that the time a board 

spends on shareholder relations could reduce the time that it otherwise would spend on strategic 

and long-term thinking and overseeing management, which, in turn, may negatively affect 

shareholder value.951 

We considered these comments and appreciate commenters’ concerns regarding these 

costs. We believe it is important to note that these costs are associated with the traditional state 

law right to nominate and elect directors, and are not costs incurred for including shareholder 

nominees for director in the company’s proxy materials. Further, the ownership threshold and 

holding period that we adopted in response to commenters’ concerns should limit the use of Rule 

14a-11 to only holders who demonstrate a long-term, significant commitment to the company. 

950	 See letters from ABA; Atlas; AT&T; Book Celler; BRT; Carlson; Carolina Mills; Chamber of 

Commerce/CCMC; Chevron; Crespin; M. Eng; Erickson; ExxonMobil; Fenwick; GE; General Mills; Glass 

Lewis; Glaspell; Intelect; R. Clark King; Koppers; MCO; MeadWestvaco; MedFaxx; Medical Insurance; 

Merchants Terminal; D. Merilatt; NAM; NIRI; NK; O3 Strategies; Roppe; Rosen; Safeway; Sara Lee; 

Schneider; Southland; Style Crest; Tenet; TI; tw telecom; R. VanEngelenhoven; Wachtell; Wells Fargo; 

Weyerhaeuser; Yahoo. 

951	 See, e.g., Akyol, Lim, and Verwijmeren (2009)(finding that, based on the market response of a sample of 

1,315 firms, “the proposed rule is perceived as costly by shareholders,” “that increasing shareholder rights, 

specifically by facilitating director nominations by shareholders, may actually be detrimental to shareholder 

wealth,” and that “empowering shareholders is not necessarily perceived as a good thing by most 

shareholders.”); Stout (2007)(“Perhaps the most obvious [economic function of board governance] is 

promoting more efficient and informed business decisionmaking. It is difficult and expensive to arrange 

for thousands of dispersed shareholders to express their often-differing views on the best way to run the 

firm.”); see generally Stephen M. Bainbridge, Response to Increasing Shareholder Power: Director Primacy 

and Shareholder Disempowerment, 119 HARV. L. REV. 1735 (2006)(discussing how concern for 

accountability may undermine decision-making discretion and authority)(cited in the Proposing Release, 

Section V.C.1.). But see Lucian Arye Bebchuk, The Case for Increasing Shareholder Power, 118 HARV. L. 

REV. 833, 883 (2005) (“[M]ere recognition that back-seat driving might sometimes be counter-productive 

is hardly sufficient to mandate general deference to management. Such mandated deference would follow 

only if one assumes that shareholders are so irrational or undisciplined that they cannot be trusted to decide 

for themselves whether deference would best serve their interests.”)(cited in the Proposing Release, Section 

V.C.1.). 

344
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

To encourage constructive dialogue between a company and a nominating shareholder or group 

regarding the director nominees to be presented to shareholders for a vote, we revised the rule so 

that if a company negotiates with the nominating shareholder or group that otherwise would be 

eligible to have its nominees included in the company’s proxy materials after the nominating 

shareholder or group has submitted its nomination on Schedule 14N, and the company agrees to 

include the nominating shareholder’s or group’s nominees on the company’s proxy card as 

company nominees, those nominees will count toward the 25% maximum set forth in the rule.952 

We believe that the cost described above may be offset by other factors as well. The additional 

communication between a board and the company’s shareholders may lead to enhanced 

transparency into the board’s decision-making process, more effective monitoring of this process 

by shareholders, and, ultimately, a better decision-making process by the board. The cost also 

may be offset to the extent that shareholders understand that the board’s time and other resources 

are in scarce supply and will take these considerations into account in deciding to nominate 

directors, recognizing that the cost of a distracted board may not justify pursuing their own 

specific concerns. 

Second, the new rules may lead some companies to re-examine their current procedures 

for shareholders to submit their own director nominees for consideration by either the company’s 

board or nominating committee, especially if the company is subject to, or thinks it likely will be 

subject to, shareholder-nominated director candidates submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-11. These 

companies may incur costs associated with such a re-examination and any resulting adjustments 

to their procedures.953 These costs may be limited, however, to the extent that the new rules 

952 See new Rule 14a-11(d)(5). For a discussion of this modification, see Section II.B.6.c. above. 

953 See, e.g., letters from Biogen; GE. 

345
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

improve the overall efficiency of the director nomination process and lead to improvements in 

the existing procedures for director nominations. 

Third, the new rules could, in some cases, result in lower quality boards.954 The quality of 

a company’s board may decrease if, as some commenters predicted, unqualified individuals are 

elected to the board.955 Commenters worried, in particular, that a shareholder director nominee 

will be elected without undergoing the same extensive vetting process or having to comply with 

the same independence or director qualification standards applicable to other director 

nominees.956 The presence of directors who lack the proper qualifications may result in a lower 

quality board and represent a cost to companies and shareholders. It is important to recognize 

that Rule 14a-11 provides for only the inclusion of a shareholder director nominee in the 

company’s proxy materials, not the election of that nominee. Further, the new disclosure 

requirements contained in the Proposal will provide shareholders with information for them to 

assess whether a shareholder nominee possesses the necessary qualifications and experience to 

954	 See letters from 3M; ABA; American Electric Power; Atlantic Bingo; AT&T; Avis Budget; Biogen; 

Boeing; BRT; Burlington Northern; Callaway; Carlson; Chamber of Commerce/CCMC; CIGNA; 

Columbine; Cummins; CSX; J. Dillon; Emerson Electric; Erickson; ExxonMobil; FedEx; Headwaters; C. 

Holliday; IBM; Intelect; R. Clark King; Lange; Louisiana Agencies; Metlife; NIRI; O3 Strategies; V. 

Pelson; PepsiCo; Pfizer; Roppe; Rosen; Ryder; Sara Lee; Sidley Austin; tw telecom; Wachtell; Wells 

Fargo; Weyerhaeuser; Yahoo. See also Stephen M. Bainbridge, A Comment on the SEC Shareholder 

Access Proposal (November 14, 2003) at 17, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=470121 (“The likely 

effects of electing a shareholder representative therefore will not be better governance. It will be an 

increase in affectional conflict . . . . It will be a reduction in the trust-based relationships that causes 

horizontal monitoring within the board to provide effective constraints on agency costs.”)(cited in the 

Proposing Release, Section V.C.1.). 

955	 See letters from AGL; Air Tite, Inc. (“Air Tite”); All Cast; John C. Astle (“J. Astle”); Astrum Solar 

(“Astrum”); Atlantic Bingo; Burlington Northern; Glen Burton (“G. Burton”); R. Chicko; Columbine; 

Darden Restaurants; Erickson; Fluharty; Horizon; Lange; Mama’s; Massey Services; NIRI; O3 Strategies; 

P&G; PepsiCo; W. Steinbrink; Stringer; Theragenics; VCG; Wachtell; and Wells Fargo. 

956	 See letters from AGL; Astrum; Boeing; R. Burt; G. Burton; S. Campbell; Carolina Mills; Columbine; W. 

Cornwell; Erickson; Fenwick; FPL Group; Intelect; Little; McDonald’s; MedFaxx; Norfolk Southern; 

P&G, Rosen; UnitedHealth; VCG; Wells Fargo; Xerox; Yahoo. 

346
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

serve as a director.957 Accordingly, as other commenters have noted, an unqualified individual, 

even if nominated, will still need to receive the support of a significant number of shareholders 

in order to be elected to the board.958 Therefore, the cost arising from unqualified directors may 

be limited to the extent that shareholders understand that experience and competence are 

important director qualifications and cast their votes for the most-qualified candidates. 

Moreover, as adopted, the rule will require a company to include in its proxy materials no more 

than one shareholder director nominee or a number of nominees that represent 25% of the 

company’s board, whichever is greater.959 We believe that this provision will limit the effect of 

any potential decrease in the overall quality of a board. Lastly, to the extent that there is a risk of 

unqualified individuals being elected as directors, it is a risk that arises because shareholders are 

given the right under state or foreign law to determine who sits on the board of directors. 

The quality of a board also may decrease if, as some commenters warned, the increased 

likelihood of a contested election discourages experienced and capable individuals from serving 

on boards, making it more difficult for companies to recruit qualified directors or create a board 

with the proper mix of experience, skills, and characteristics.960 Some commenters noted that it 

is already difficult to recruit qualified independent directors.961 Other commenters, however, did 

957	 See Rules 14a-11, 14a-18 and 14n-1, and Schedule 14N. 

958	 See letters from BCI; Bebchuk, et al.; CII; T. DiNapoli; Florida State Board of Administration; Governance 

for Owners; A. Krakovsky; P. Neuhauser; NJSIC; Relational; Shamrock; Social Investment Forum. 

959	 See Rule 14a-11(d)(1). 

960	 See letters from 3M; ABA; American Electric Power; Atlantic Bingo; AT&T; Avis Budget; Biogen; 

Boeing; BRT; Burlington Northern; Callaway; Carlson; Chamber of Commerce/CCMC; CIGNA; 

Columbine; Cummins; CSX; J. Dillon; Emerson Electric; Erickson; ExxonMobil; FedEx; Headwaters; C. 

Holliday; IBM; Intelect; R. Clark King; Lange; Louisiana Agencies; Metlife; NIRI; O3 Strategies; V. 

Pelson; PepsiCo; Pfizer; Roppe; Rosen; Ryder; Sara Lee; Sidley Austin; tw telecom; Wachtell; Wells 

Fargo; Weyerhaeuser; Yahoo. 

961	 See, e.g., letters from Ameriprise; BRT; Chamber of Commerce/CCMC. 

347
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not believe that Rule 14a-11 will discourage experienced, capable directors from serving,962 with 

one commenter stating that it encountered no difficulty in finding executives willing to serve on 

a shareholder-nominated slate.963 To the extent that the prospect of a contested election deters an 

otherwise qualified individual from considering a board seat, this will represent a cost to both the 

company and its shareholders. This cost may be mitigated, however, by the ability of other 

individuals – those who would not have been considered or nominated by the incumbent 

directors – to be nominated and presented for a shareholder vote pursuant to Rule 14a-11 or a 

procedure in the company’s governing documents established through Rule 14a-8. The cost may 

be further mitigated to the extent that the new rules lead to the election of individuals who will 

present a greater diversity of views for the board’s consideration, thereby leading to a better 

decision-making process, and, ultimately, greater shareholder value.964 Lastly, as we stated in the 

Proposing Release,965 the possibility of qualified candidates being discouraged from running for a 

board seat may be limited by shareholders’ understanding that board dynamics can be important, 

and that changing them may not always be beneficial. 

Fourth, potential disruptions in boardroom deliberations represent another possible cost 

to shareholders and companies. If a shareholder director nominee is elected and disruptions or 

polarization in boardroom dynamics occur as a result, the disruptions may delay or impair the 

962	 See letters from Florida State Board of Administration; Pershing Square. 

963	 See letter from Pershing Square. 

964	 See letters from L. Dallas (citing Jerry Goodstein et al., The Effects of Board Size and Diversity on 

Strategic Change, 15 STRATEGIC MGMT. J. 241 (1994) and Lynne L. Dallas, The New Managerialism and 

Diversity on Corporate Boards of Directors, 76 TULANE L. REV. 1363 (2002)); LIUNA; RiskMetrics 

(noting that it tracked over a four-year period the returns of a portfolio of companies where activists gained 

board seats in 2005, found that the portfolio outperformed the S&P 500 index even during the recent 

market turmoil, and saw no indication that the presence of dissident directors on boards had a detrimental 

impact on shareholder value); Teamsters. 

965	 See Proposing Release, Section V.C.1. 

348
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

board’s decision-making process. Such boardroom disruption may occur when one or more 

directors seek to promote an agenda that conflicts with that of the rest of the board. We received 

significant comment that the presence of shareholder-nominated directors could disrupt the 

collegiality and efficiency of boards.966 We recognize the view that for companies whose boards 

are already well-functioning, such disruption could be counterproductive and could delay the 

board’s decision-making process and a delay or impairment in the decision-making process 

could constitute an indirect economic cost to shareholder value. For the reasons discussed 

above, however, we believe that boards with directors who were not nominated by the incumbent 

directors would, on balance, improve company performance and increase shareholder value.967 

In addition, it may be possible for an investor to submit director nominees through the 

new rules with the intention of having the nominees, if elected, advocate for board decisions that 

maximize the investor’s private gains but at the expense of other shareholders.968 In the case of 

Rule 14a-11, the cost may be limited to the extent that the ownership threshold and holding 

requirement allow the use of the rule by only holders who demonstrated a significant, long-term 

commitment to the company. This cost may be limited to the extent that a director nominee with 

966	 See, e.g., letters from Association of Corporate Counsel; BRT; Chamber of Commerce/CCMC; GE; IBM; 

McDonald’s; O’Melveny & Myers; P&G; PepsiCo; Seven Law Firms; Society of Corporate Secretaries 

(also presenting data that the average hedge fund ownership is 7.15%, the number of S&P 500 companies 

with hedge fund ownership at or above 5% is 273, and the number of S&P 500 companies with hedge fund 

ownership at or above 10% is 104); Vinson & Elkins; Wachtell; Xerox; Yahoo. See also Larcker, 

Ormazabal, and Taylor (2010)(stating that “the evidence suggests shareholders react negatively to 

regulation of proxy access, and that the reaction is decreasing in the number of large blockholders and 

increasing in the number of small institutional investors,” and that “the market perceives that shareholders 

of firms with many large blockholders are harmed by proxy access and is consistent with critics’ claims 

that large blockholders will use the privileges afforded them by proxy access regulation to manipulate the 

governance process to make themselves better off at the expense of other shareholders.”). 

967	 See Section IV.D.3. above. 

968	 See, e.g., letters from BRT; Eaton; IBM; McDonald’s; Seven Law Firms; Society of Corporate Secretaries; 

UnitedHealth. See also Stout (2007) at 794 (“[B]y making it easier for large shareholders in public firms to 

threaten directors, a more effective shareholder franchise might increase the risk of intershareholder ‘rentseeking’ in public companies.”). 

349
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

narrow interests must still gain the support of a significant number of shareholders to be 

elected.969 The disclosure requirements that we are adopting also may alert shareholders to the 

narrow interests of the nominating shareholder or group in advance of the election so that they 

can cast their votes in favor of the candidate who will best serve the interests of all 

shareholders.970 The cost may be further limited to the extent that a shareholder director 

nominee, once elected to the board, will be subject to the same fiduciary duties applicable to all 

other directors.971 The possibility of a director seeking to promote private gain at the expense of 

shareholders generally – and the related costs to the board’s overall performance and dynamics – 

should be limited to the extent that such a director recognizes these duties and strives to fulfill 

these legal obligations. The cost also may be limited to the extent that shareholders recognize 

the potential harm from misuse of the board’s decision-making process and therefore do not vote 

for the nominee if they view the cost as sufficiently high. 

Fifth, to the extent that the need to comply with the new rules makes the U.S. public 

equity markets less attractive,972 discourages private companies from conducting public offerings 

in the U.S., 973 or encourages U.S. reporting companies to become non-reporting companies, this 

would be a cost of the new rules because investors’ investment opportunities could be limited. 

This cost may be mitigated to the extent that the new rules help improve board accountability 

969 See letters from BCIA; Bebchuk, et al.; CII; T. DiNapoli; Florida State Board of Administration; 

Governance for Owners; A. Krakovsky; P. Neuhauser; NJSIC; Relational; Shamrock; Social Investment 

Forum. 

970 See Rule 14a-11, Rule 14a-18, Rule 14n-1, and Schedule 14N. 

971 See letter from CII. See also Veasey & DiGuglielmo, above. 

972 See letter from BRT. 

973 See letters from Altman (stating that its survey of 36 public companies showed that 80.85% of respondents 

believe the new rules “will deter some U.S. private companies from going public and some foreign 

companies from listing on U.S. exchanges.”); BRT; Richard Tullo (“R. Tullo”). 

350
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

and corporate governance, generate stronger company performance, and increase shareholder 

value. Investors may be more willing to invest or continue to invest in companies in which they 

have the ability to present their own shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy 

materials if they are displeased with the company’s performance. We also note that shareholders 

in many foreign countries already have the ability to include their director nominees in the 

company’s proxy materials.974 We therefore believe that the new rules may bring the U.S. capital 

markets closer in line with international practice by giving shareholders of U.S. companies an 

ability that may already be enjoyed by shareholders of many non-U.S. companies. 

Lastly, with respect to investment companies, a number of commenters expressed 

concern that the election of a shareholder director nominee may, in some circumstances, increase 

costs and burdens (e.g., the shareholder-nominated director would have to leave during 

discussions that pertain to the other investment companies in the complex, board materials would 

have to be customized for the director, and the fund complex would face challenges in preserving 

the status of privileged information) and potentially decrease the efficiency of a unitary or cluster 

board utilized by a fund complex.975 We recognize that for fund complexes that utilize unitary or 

cluster boards, the election of a shareholder director nominee may, in some circumstances, 

increase costs and potentially decrease the efficiency of the boards.976 We note, however, that 

these costs are associated with the traditional state law right to nominate and elect directors, and 

are not costs incurred for including shareholder nominees in the company’s proxy materials. We 

also note that any increased costs and decreased efficiency of an investment company’s board as 

974 See letters from ACSI; CalPERS; ICGN; LUCRF; Pax World; RiskMetrics; Social Investment Forum; 

SWIB. 

975 See, e.g., letters from ABA; ICI; ICI/IDC; IDC; MFDF; S&C; T. Rowe Price; Vanguard. 

976 See, e.g., letters from ICI; ICI/IDC; IDC; MFDF; Vanguard. 

351
 
 

 

 

 

a result of the fund complex no longer having a unitary or cluster board would occur, if at all, 

only in the event that the investment company shareholders elect the shareholder nominee. 

Investment companies may include information in the proxy materials making investors aware of 

the company’s views on the perceived benefits of a unitary or cluster board and the potential for 

increased costs and decreased efficiency if the shareholder nominees are elected. Moreover, we 

note that a fund complex can take steps to minimize the cost and burden of a shareholdernominated director who is elected by, for example, entering into a confidentiality agreement in 

order to preserve the status of confidential information regarding the fund complex. 

Two commenters in a joint comment letter argued that there are a number of practical and 

legal issues that prevent confidentiality agreements from being sufficient to protect the interests 

of fund shareholders, and included a memorandum from a law firm discussing concerns about 

Regulation FD, enforceability of confidentiality agreements, whether shareholder-nominated 

directors would sign confidentiality agreements, compliance, and loss of attorney-client 

privilege.977 We considered the issues raised by the joint comment letter. To the extent that 

material non-public information is discussed by boards in a fund complex, we emphasize that 

entering into a confidentiality agreement is only one method of preserving the confidentiality of 

information revealed in board meetings attended by the shareholder-nominated director. The 

fund complex can have separate meetings and board materials for the board with the shareholdernominated director, especially if particularly sensitive legal or other matters will be discussed or 

to protect attorney-client privilege. Finally, we believe the concerns expressed in the 

memorandum about confidentiality agreements were either not compelling or speculative in 

nature. 

See letter from ICI/IDC (including attached legal memorandum). 

352
 

977 
 

 

 

 

 

Although commenters argued that the election of a shareholder-nominated director to a 

unitary or cluster board will necessarily result in decreased effectiveness of the board, we 

disagree. In this regard, one commenter argued that competition in the board nomination process 

may improve efficiency by providing additional leverage for boards in negotiations with the 

investment adviser.978 In any event, we believe that investment company shareholders should 

have the opportunity to exercise their traditional state law rights to elect a non-unitary or noncluster board if they so choose. 

2. Costs Related to Additional Complexity of Proxy Process 

The new rules that we are adopting will, for the first time, require that company proxy 

materials include information about, and the ability to vote for, director nominees submitted by 

shareholders. The rules will facilitate shareholders’ ability to exercise their traditional state law 

rights to nominate and elect their own director candidates. One of the costs of this newlyenhanced ability, however, is the additional complexity in the proxy process as both companies 

and shareholders may have to consider and address the issue of shareholder director nominations 

more frequently than in the past. 

Several commenters expressed concern that the inability of companies and shareholders 

to opt out of Rule 14a-11, or establish a shareholder director nomination procedure with criteria 

different than those of Rule 14a-11, may create workability and implementation issues for 

companies, as they struggle to comply with a rule that does not fit their specific capital and 

governance structures.979 One commenter, for example, identified several of these issues, such 

978	 See letter from J. Taub. 

979	 See, e.g., letters from ABA (“Workability requires that the rule or bylaw be easily understandable, be able 

to be readily administered, address all relevant issues, operate in a time frame that permits proper conduct 

of shareholder meetings and action by a fully informed shareholder body, recognize the role and fiduciary 

responsibility of the board of directors, comply with the requirements of the Commission’s rules and other 

applicable law and allow the company and its shareholders sufficient flexibility to respond to changed 

353
 
 

 

 

 

as: the operation of the rule in a company with multiple classes of stock, a cumulative voting 

standard, or a majority voting standard; the treatment of derivatives and other synthetic 

ownership under the rule; the need for adequate protection against use of the rule for change of 

control attempts; and the consequences of false certifications by a nominating shareholder or 

group.980 We recognize the possibility that attempting to comply with a highly-complex rule 

without the necessary flexibility to adapt the rule to a company’s specific situation may create 

certain costs for companies, such as the cost of legal advice and possible litigation if 

uncertainties must be resolved in courts. We also recognize the possibility that shareholders may 

have to incur similar costs if they attempt to use a highly-complex and unclear rule. 

The requirements of Rule 14a-11, such as the eligibility criteria, may add a certain degree 

of complexity in the proxy process. For example, the process of determining which shareholder 

director nominee will be in the company’s proxy materials and the limitations on the number of 

shareholder nominees for director that a company is required to include in its proxy materials 

may add complexity. If several shareholders or groups desire (and qualify) to nominate the 

maximum number of directors they are allowed to place in the company’s proxy materials, only 

the shareholder or group holding the largest qualifying ownership interest will succeed. Another 

potential source of complexity under Rule 14a-11 is the number of shareholder director 

nominees that a nominating shareholder or group may submit to a company during a particular 

proxy season. For example, if the maximum allowable number of shareholder director nominees 

currently serves on the board, a company will not be required to include additional shareholder 

director nominees in the company’s proxy materials. These sources of complexity and any 

circumstances in a timely manner.”); Keller Group; Wachtell. 

See letter from Wachtell. 

354 

980 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uncertainty that may arise in implementing the new rules could result in costs to companies, 

shareholders seeking to have their nominees included in the companies’ proxy materials, and 

shareholder director nominees. For example, both companies and shareholders could incur costs 

to seek legal advice in connection with shareholder nominations submitted pursuant to Rule 14a11, the inclusion of shareholder director nominees in a company’s proxy materials, submission 

of a notice of intent to exclude a nominee or nominees, and the process set forth in the rule for 

seeking an informal statement of the staff’s views with respect to the company’s determination to 

exclude a shareholder director nominee. Companies and shareholders also could incur costs to 

seek legal advice in connection with shareholder proposals submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-8 and 

the process for submission of a no-action request to exclude the proposal. To the extent disputes 

on whether to include particular nominees or proposals are not resolved between the company 

and shareholders, companies and/or shareholders may seek recourse in courts, which will 

increase costs. 

As discussed throughout the release, the rules we are adopting include modifications to 

the proposed rules. We believe that the modifications will help minimize the complexity of the 

new rules and clarify uncertainties as much as possible. For example, our decision to adopt a 

uniform ownership threshold instead of the proposed tiered approach simplifies this particular 

eligibility requirement and should reduce some of the uncertainties identified by a commenter.981 

We also clarified the availability of Rule 14a-11 when there is a concurrent proxy contest,982 

provided standards for the order of priority of shareholder director nominees upon the 

981 See letter from Shearman & Sterling (opposing the tiered ownership thresholds because a number of 

companies regularly move from one category of filer to another as the aggregate worldwide market value 

of their voting and non-voting common equity changes from fiscal year to fiscal year, which it believed 

would lead to uncertainty). 

982 See Section II.B.2.e. above. 

355
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

withdrawal or disqualification of another shareholder director nominee,983 addressed issues 

regarding the application of Rule 14a-11 to certain corporate structures (such as staggered boards 

and different classes of voting securities),984 and adopted a uniform deadline for the submission 

of shareholder director nominations pursuant to Rule 14a-11 that is generally applicable to 

companies subject to the rule.985 The costs arising from any complexity or uncertainty arising 

from the new rules may be mitigated to the extent that companies and shareholders gain greater 

familiarity with the new rules over time,986 additional guidance is provided by the Commission or 

its staff,987 and, if necessary, uncertain legal issues are resolved by courts. 

Lastly, as discussed above, we believe the overall proxy solicitation process for contested 

director elections may be less confusing for shareholders as a result of our new rules.988 

Presenting the competing director nominees on one proxy card, with the related disclosure 

contained in one proxy statement, may simplify the shareholder’s decision-making process, 

reduce the potential for any confusion on the part of shareholders, and address any reluctance on 

the part of shareholders to consider an insurgent shareholder’s nominee solely because the 

nominee was not presented in the company’s proxy materials. 

3. Costs Related to Preparing Disclosure, Printing and Mailing and 

Costs of Additional Solicitations and Shareholder Proposals 

983 See Section II.B.7.b. above. 

984 See Sections II.B.4.b. and II.B.6.a. above.
 

985 See Section II.B.8.c.ii. above. 

986 See letter from CII. 

987 For example, we are adopting, as proposed, a procedure by which companies could send a notice to the 

Commission where the company intends not to include a shareholder director nominee in its proxy 

materials and could seek informal staff views – through a no-action request – with respect to that 

determination. 

988	 See Section IV.D.1. above. 

356
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The new rules will impose additional direct costs on companies and shareholders related 

to the preparation of required disclosure, printing and mailing costs, and costs of additional 

solicitations that may be undertaken as a result of including one or more shareholder nominees 

for director in the company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11, a company’s governing 

documents, or an applicable state or foreign law provision.989 

First, the new rules will impose direct costs onto companies and shareholders due to the 

rules’ disclosure and procedural requirements. For example, companies that determine that they 

may exclude a shareholder director nominee pursuant to Rule 14a-11 will be required to provide 

a notice to the nominating shareholder or group regarding any eligibility or procedural 

deficiencies in the nomination and provide to the Commission notice of the basis for its 

determination.990 Companies also may incur costs in preparing any statements regarding the 

shareholder director nominees that they wish to include in their proxy materials. Nominating 

shareholders or groups and the nominees also will be required to disclose information about 

themselves, which may be costly.991 Most of this disclosure will be provided by the nominating 

shareholder or group in the notice to the company, which would be filed on new Schedule 14N. 

The Schedule 14N also will include information regarding the length of ownership, 

certifications, and other information. Companies could incur additional costs to investigate or 

verify the information regarding shareholder director nominees provided by nominating 

shareholders or groups, determine whether nominations will conflict with any laws, and analyze 

989	 We note that these increased costs may be less for companies using the notice and access model. See 

Internet Proxy Availability Release. 

990	 For purposes of the PRA analysis, we estimate these disclosure requirements would result in 225 burden 

hours of company time, and $30,000 for the services of outside professionals. 

991	 For purposes of the PRA analysis, we estimate the total burden for Schedule 14N for shareholders 

submitting nominees pursuant to Rule 14a-11 would result in a total of 7,870 hours of shareholder time and 

$1,049,300 for the services of outside professionals. 

357
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the relative merits of the shareholder director nominees and the companies’ own director 

nominees.992 For purposes of the PRA analysis, we estimate that the disclosure burden of Rule 

14a-11 on reporting companies (other than registered investment companies) and registered 

investment companies is 4,113 hours of personnel time and $548,200 for the services of outside 

professionals. We also estimate for purposes of the PRA analysis that the disclosure burden to 

shareholders of Schedule 14N will be 7,870 hours of shareholder time and $1,049,300 for the 

services of outside professionals. We also received estimates from commenters regarding the 

costs described above.993 These estimates are described in the PRA analysis above.994 

Companies also could incur costs due to the potential increase in the number of 

shareholder proposals submitted to companies as a result of the expansion in the types of 

proposals permitted under Rule 14a-8. Under the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8), companies 

will no longer be able to rely on this basis to exclude from their proxy materials shareholder 

proposals that seek to establish a procedure in the company’s governing documents for the 

inclusion of shareholder nominees for director in the company’s proxy materials. This will 

likely result in increased costs to companies related to reviewing and processing such proposals 

to determine matters such as shareholder eligibility and whether there is another basis for 

excluding these proposals under Rule 14a-8. If a company decides to exclude the shareholder 

proposal, it will have to incur the costs, such as legal fees, needed to prepare and submit a notice 

to the Commission regarding its basis for excluding the proposal. In this regard, we received 

several estimates from commenters regarding the costs related to a Rule 14a-8 shareholder 

992 See, e.g., letter from S&C. 

993 See letters from BRT; Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

994 See Section III.C. above, for discussion of the estimates included in the letters from BRT and Society of 

Corporate Secretaries. 

358
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

proposal. Based on its July 2009 survey of its member companies, one commenter stated that 

companies spend an estimated 47 hours and associated costs of $47,784 to prepare and submit a 

notice of intent to exclude a shareholder proposal.995 An investment company estimated that its 

costs for including a shareholder proposal in its complex-wide proxy materials exceeded $3 

million in “tabulation expenses.”996 One commenter, however, described the costs to companies 

resulting from the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) as “negligible” (with such costs confined to 

any additional costs of printing and distributing the proposal in the company’s proxy 

materials).997 For purposes of the PRA analysis, we estimate that shareholders will submit a total 

of 147 proposals regarding procedures for the inclusion of shareholder nominees in company 

proxy materials per year to reporting companies, including registered investment companies. 

Assuming that 90% of reporting companies (including registered investment companies), or 132 

companies, prepare and submit a notice of intent to exclude these proposals, the resulting costs to 

companies will result in approximately 11,484 hours and $1,531,200 for the services of outside 

professionals.998 These costs could decrease to the extent that the Rule 14a-8 no-action process 

995	 See letter from BRT. 

996	 See letter from Vanguard. The commenter did not elaborate on the nature of these “tabulation expenses.” 

It also noted that this figure does not include “incremental printing and mailing costs because the proposal 

was included in the proxy statement and did not require a separate mailing.” 

997	 See letter from CII. 

998	 This estimate is based on the assumption that shareholders of reporting companies (other than registered 

investment companies) will submit approximately 123 proposals per year regarding procedures for 

inclusion of shareholder nominees for director in company’s proxy materials, and that 90% of companies 

that receive such a shareholder proposal will seek to exclude the proposal from their proxy materials. Thus, 

we estimate that companies will seek to exclude 110 such proposals (123 proposals x 90%) per proxy 

season. We estimate that the annual burden for the company’s submission of a notice of its intent to 

exclude the proposal and its reasons for doing so would average 116 hours per proposal, for a total of 

12,760 burden hours (110 proposals x 116 hours/proposal) for reporting companies (other than registered 

investment companies). This will correspond to 9,570 hours of company time (110 proposals x 116 

hours/proposal x 0.75) and $1,276,000 for the services of outside professionals (110 proposals x 116 

hours/proposal x 0.25 x $400). For registered investment companies, we estimate for purposes of the PRA 

that the total burden hours will be 2,552 hours, which corresponds to 1,914 hours of company time and 

$255,200 for the services of outside professionals. See Section III.D.2. above. 

359
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

provides guidance from the staff on which types of proposals are excludable. Further, because a 

company that receives a shareholder proposal has no obligation to make a submission under Rule 

14a-8 unless it intends to exclude the proposal from its proxy materials, these costs also may 

decrease to the extent that the company does not seek to exclude the proposal. Lastly, the costs 

may be limited to the extent that shareholders do not submit proposals related to director 

nomination procedures due to the uniform applicability of Rule 14a-11 to all companies subject 

to the rule and availability of the rule for eligible shareholders.999 

Second, the new rules may increase the incremental costs of printing and mailing a 

company’s proxy materials due to the need to include additional names and background 

information of shareholder director nominees in the proxy materials and the increased weight of 

these materials. These costs may increase as the number of shareholder director nominees to be 

included in the company’s proxy materials increases. Thus, this may result in a decrease in the 

costs to shareholders that would have had to conduct traditional proxy contests in the absence of 

Rule 14a-11, but may increase the costs for companies.1000 

Companies also will incur additional printing and mailing costs with respect to the 

inclusion of a shareholder proposal related to changes to a company’s governing documents 

regarding inclusion of shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy materials. We 

have two sources of information estimating such costs. Based on its July 2009 survey of its 

member companies, one commenter stated that companies spend an estimated 20 hours and 

associated costs of $18,982 to print and mail one shareholder proposal.1001 The responses to a 

999	 As discussed in Section II.B.3. above, Rule 14a-11 will not apply to certain types of companies. 

1000	 However, as explained in footnote 875 above, the increased costs for the company may not be as much as 

would otherwise result if the shareholders engaged in a traditional proxy contest. 

1001	 See letter from BRT. This cost is in addition to the estimated 47 hours and associated costs of $47,784 that 

companies spend to prepare and submit a notice of intent to exclude a shareholder proposal. 

360
 
 

 

 

questionnaire that the Commission made available in 1997 relating to 1998 amendments to Rule 

14a-8 suggest such costs to the responding companies averaged $50,000.1002 As noted above, for 

purposes of the PRA, we estimate that the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) could result in the 

annual submission of 147 shareholder proposals regarding procedures for the inclusion of 

shareholder director nominees in company proxy materials. Based on this information, for 

purposes of our analysis, we assume printing and mailing costs of one shareholder proposal in a 

company’s proxy materials could be in the range of approximately $18,000 to $50,000. 

Assuming each of these proposals were included in company proxy materials, it could result in a 

total cost of approximately $2,646,00 to $7,350,00 for the affected companies. 

Finally, the new rules may lead to an increase in soliciting activities by both companies 

and shareholders. Companies may increase solicitations to vote for their slate of directors, to 

vote against shareholder director nominees, or to vote against shareholder proposals. 

Shareholders may increase solicitations to vote for shareholder proposals, to withhold votes for a 

company’s nominees for director, or to vote for the shareholder director nominees. This increase 

in soliciting activities by both companies and shareholders will result in an increase in costs as 

well. These solicitation costs are not, however, required under our rules. 

We received a significant amount of comment regarding the extent to which companies 

will solicit against the election of a shareholder director nominee. One commenter predicted that 

boards will take “extraordinary efforts” to campaign against the shareholder director nominees, 

including significant media and public relations efforts, advertising in a number of forums, mass 

1002 In the adopting release for the amendments to Rule 14a-8 in 1998, we noted that responses to a 

questionnaire we made available in February 1997 suggested the average cost spent on printing costs (plus 

any directly related costs, such as additional postage and tabulation expenses) to include shareholder 

proposals in company proxy materials was approximately $50,000. The responses received may have 

accounted for the printing of more than one proposal. 

361
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mailings, and other communication efforts, as well as the hiring of outside advisors and the 

expenditure of significant time and effort by the company’s employees.1003 As examples of these 

costs, the commenter pointed to the costs of recent proxy contests, which ranged from $14 

million to $4 million, as well as the costs of contests at smaller companies, which ranged from 

$3 million to $800,000. Another commenter conducted a survey of its member companies and 

indicated that an average total of 302 hours of company personnel and director time will be 

needed if a company opposes a shareholder director nominee.1004 One commenter estimated its 

own annual costs for defending against a shareholder director nominee to be approximately 

$330,000 and 275 hours of management’s time.1005 Another commenter noted that it had direct 

costs of approximately $11 million in 2008 and more than $9 million in 2009 – in addition to the 

substantial indirect costs in management time and attention – as a result of the proxy contests 

that it faced.1006 

We understand that company boards may be motivated by the issues at stake to expend 

significant resources to challenge shareholder director nominees, elect their own nominees, or 

solicit votes against a shareholder proposal. We therefore recognize that, as a practical matter, it 

can reasonably be expected that the boards of some companies likely would oppose the election 

of shareholder director nominees. If the incumbent board members incur large expenditures to 

defeat shareholder director nominees, those expenditures will represent a cost to the company 

and, indirectly, all shareholders. It is also possible that some shareholders may perceive the use 

of corporate funds to oppose the election of nominees submitted by shareholders as having a 

1003 See letter from Chamber of Commerce/CCMC. 

1004 See letter from BRT. 

1005 See letter from Ryder. 

1006 See letter from Biogen. 

362
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

negative effect on the value of their investments. 

These costs, however, may be limited by two factors. They may be limited to the extent 

that the directors’ fiduciary duties prevent them from using corporate funds to resist shareholder 

director nominations for no good-faith corporate purpose.1007 Some commenters, in fact, 

characterized the costs incurred by incumbent directors to defeat shareholder director nominees 

as discretionary because Rule 14a-11 itself does not require such efforts.1008 Other commenters 

disagreed with this characterization, asserting that the directors’ fiduciary duties may compel 

them to expend company resources to oppose a shareholder director nominee.1009 We recognize 

that, under certain circumstances, company directors likely would oppose a particular 

shareholder director nominee and expend company resources in that effort, which would increase 

the costs to the company resulting from Rule 14a-11.1010 However, the costs for companies may 

be less to the extent that directors determine not to expend such resources to oppose the election 

of the shareholder director nominees and simply include the shareholder director nominees and 

the related disclosure in the company’s proxy materials.1011 The requisite ownership threshold 

1007	 See Hall v. Trans-Lux Daylight Picture Screen Corp., 171 A. 226, 228 (Del. Ch. 1934)(“where reasonable 

expenditures are in the interest of an intelligent exercise of judgment on the part of the stockholders upon 

policies to be pursued, the expenditures are proper; but where the expenditures are solely in the personal 

interest of the directors to maintain themselves in office, expenditures made in their campaign for proxies 

are not proper.”). 

1008	 See letters from CalSTRS; CII; Florida State Board of Administration. 

1009	 See letters from ABA; BRT. 

1010	 The Commission is not expressing a view as to the scope of directors’ state law fiduciary duties in 

responding to shareholder director nominations or expressing a view as to what conduct would be 

consistent with these duties. 

1011	 For example, the costs that are incurred only if the incumbent directors choose to challenge or solicit 

against a shareholder director nominee (e.g., the legal fees arising from the company’s efforts to exclude 

the nominee from its proxy materials) are distinguishable from the costs that must be incurred irrespective 

of whether the directors oppose the shareholder director nomination (e.g., the increased printing costs 

caused by the inclusion of the shareholder director nominees and related disclosures in the company’s 

proxy materials). 

363
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

and holding period of Rule 14a-11 may also limit the number of shareholder director 

nominations that a board may receive, consider, and possibly contest. 

4. Other Costs 

The new rules may result in additional costs, as described below. 

With respect to investment companies, one commenter stated that if a shareholder 

nomination causes an election to be “contested” under rules of the New York Stock Exchange, 

brokers would not be able to vote client shares on a discretionary basis, making it difficult and 

more expensive for investment companies to achieve a quorum for a meeting.1012 We recognize 

that it may be more costly for investment companies to achieve a quorum at shareholder 

meetings if a shareholder director nomination causes an election to be “contested” under the 

rules of the New York Stock Exchange and brokers cannot vote shares on a discretionary basis. 

We believe, however, that the costs imposed on investment companies will be limited for three 

reasons. First, to the extent investment companies do not hold annual meetings as permitted by 

state law, investment company shareholders will have less opportunity to take advantage of the 

new rules.1013 Second, even when investment company shareholders do have the opportunity to 

take advantage of the new rules, the disproportionately large and generally passive retail 

shareholder base of investment companies suggests that the new rules will be used less 

frequently than will be the case with non-investment companies.1014 Third, because we have 

sought to limit the cost and burden on all companies, including investment companies, by 

limiting Rule 14a-11 to nominations by shareholders who have maintained significant 

1012 See letter from S&C. NYSE Rule 452 provides that, with respect to registered investment companies, 

brokers may not vote uninstructed shares in contested elections. 

1013 See letters from ABA; MFDF. 

1014 See letter from J. Taub. 

364
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

continuous holdings in the company for at least three years, and because, as suggested by one 

commenter, many funds, such as money market funds, are held by shareholders on a short-term 

basis,1015 we believe that the situations where shareholders will meet the eligibility requirements 

will be limited. 

Our decision to adopt, as proposed, the revisions to Rule 14a-6(a)(4) and Note 3 to the 

rule1016 means that the inclusion of a shareholder director nominee in the company’s proxy 

materials will not require the company to file preliminary proxy materials, provided that the 

company was otherwise qualified to file directly in definitive form. Because the proxy materials 

will not be filed in preliminary form, the Commission staff may not have the opportunity to 

review these proxy materials before companies make definitive copies available to shareholders. 

Staff review of preliminary materials can benefit shareholders by helping to assure that 

companies comply with the federal proxy rules and provide appropriate disclosure to 

shareholders. We believe, however, that any cost related to the staff’s inability to review 

preliminary proxy materials is mitigated by the staff’s ability to review the disclosure contained 

in the Schedule 14N as well as in any additional soliciting materials filed by either the company 

or the nominating shareholder or group. Further, as we recently stated, the staff retains the right 

to comment on proxy materials filed in definitive form if the staff deems that to be appropriate 

under the circumstances.1017 

V. CONSIDERATION OF BURDEN ON COMPETITION AND PROMOTION OF 

1015	 See letter from ABA. 

1016	 The revisions make clear that inclusion of a shareholder director nominee would not be deemed a 

solicitation in opposition for purposes of the exclusion from filing preliminary proxy materials. 

1017	 See Shareholder Approval of Executive Compensation of TARP Recipients, Exchange Act Release No. 34­

61335 (Jan. 12, 2010)(adopting an amendment to Exchange Act Rule 14a-6(a) to add the shareholder 

advisory vote on executive compensation required for participants in the Troubled Asset Relief Program 

(“TARP”) to the list of items that do not trigger a preliminary filing requirement). 

365
 
 

 

 

 

 

EFFICIENCY, COMPETITION AND CAPITAL FORMATION 

Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act1018 requires us, when adopting rules under the 

Exchange Act, to consider the impact that any new rule would have on competition. In addition, 

Section 23(a)(2) prohibits us from adopting any rule that would impose a burden on competition 

not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Section 3(f) of 

the Exchange Act1019 and Section 2(c) of the Investment Company Act1020 require us, when 

engaging in rulemaking that requires us to consider or determine whether an action is necessary 

or appropriate in the public interest, to consider, in addition to the protection of investors, 

whether the action will promote efficiency, competition and capital formation. 

We are adopting new rules that will, under certain circumstances, require that company 

proxy materials include information about, and the ability to vote for, director nominees 

submitted by shareholders. The rules will facilitate the exercise of shareholders’ rights to 

nominate and elect directors and provide shareholders with information about a nominating 

shareholder or group and its nominees for director. Rule 14a-11 will provide for the inclusion of 

shareholder nominees for director in the company’s proxy materials under certain circumstances 

and disclosure regarding the nominating shareholder or group and nominees submitted pursuant 

to the rule. The amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) will provide an avenue for shareholders to 

submit proposals that would seek to establish a procedure under a company’s governing 

documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder director nominees in the company’s 

proxy materials. No longer permitting companies to exclude these types of proposals pursuant to 

1018 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2). 

1019 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

1020 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(c). 

366
 
 

 

 

 

 

Rule 14a-8(i)(8) should enable shareholders to better reflect their preferences for director 

nomination procedures that would further facilitate their ability to nominate and elect their own 

director candidates. In addition, the new rules require disclosure of information regarding 

nominating shareholders or groups and any nominees submitted pursuant to an applicable state 

or foreign law provision or a company’s governing documents, which provides shareholders a 

more informed basis for deciding how to vote for nominees for election to the board of directors. 

We requested comment on whether the new rules will promote efficiency, competition 

and capital formation or have an impact or burden on competition. We received a number of 

comments that addressed this section. The comments we received, and our consideration of 

those comments, are discussed below. 

The analysis below is based on our understanding that while no state currently prohibits 

shareholders from nominating candidates for the board of directors,1021 shareholders generally do 

not have a right under existing state law to require a company to include their director nominees 

in the company’s proxy materials.1022 

We expect that the new rules will promote efficiency in the capital markets in a number 

of ways. First, we have already considered extensively the expected costs and benefits of the 

new rules in the Cost-Benefit Analysis and throughout the release. As we believe the benefits 

(including the possible benefit of improved board accountability and company performance) 

justify the costs, we expect the new rules to promote efficiency of the economy on the whole. 

1021	 We are not aware of any law in any state or in the District of Columbia that prohibits shareholders from 

nominating directors. For further discussion, see Section II.B.2.a. above. 

1022	 One notable exception exists under the North Dakota Publicly Traded Corporations Act, which permits 

holders of at least five percent of the outstanding shares of a company subject to the statute to submit a 

notice of intent to nominate directors and requires the company to include each such shareholder nominee 

in its proxy statement and form of proxy. See North Dakota Publicly Traded Corporations Act, N.D. Cent. 

Code §10-35-08 (2009). 

367
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We believe the new rules will promote efficiency by reducing several different types of 

costs that previously discouraged potentially beneficial actions. The new rules will reduce the 

cost of shareholders’ exercise of their rights to nominate and elect directors.1023 To the extent that 

facilitating shareholders’ ability to nominate and elect directors of their own choosing is 

expected to produce the economic benefits for investors described elsewhere in this release, the 

new rules will bring about these benefits at a reduced cost and thereby promote efficiency. Some 

commenters asserted that although the new rules may relieve certain shareholders of costs that 

they are unwilling to incur to run a traditional short-slate election contest, those costs will simply 

be shifted onto the company and indirectly borne by all shareholders.1024 This burden may be 

justified, however, because these costs may not be as much as would otherwise result if that 

shareholder engaged in a traditional proxy contest,1025 resulting in a reduction in the overall cost 

of changing a limited percentage of a board’s membership. The burden may be further justified 

because the new rules may mitigate any collective action concerns.1026 

The new rules also will promote efficiency by reducing the cost of administering 

informed shareholder voting – to the extent that a shareholder director nominee is submitted for 

inclusion in a company’s proxy materials pursuant to Rule 14a-11, a company’s governing 

1023	 Many commenters noted the general ineffectiveness or prohibitive cost of the existing means to effect a 

change in the membership of a board, such as a traditional proxy contest, Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposals, 

and communications with a company’s nominating committee or board. See letters from Americans for 

Financial Reform; Brigham; CalPERS; CII; Florida State Board of Administration; Ironfire; M. Katz; J. 

McRitchie; Nathan Cummings Foundation; P. Neuhauser; Pax World; S. Ranzini; Teamsters; TIAA-CREF; 

USPE. Moreover, only a traditional proxy contest was viewed by some commenters to be a realistic 

method of effecting change in the board’s membership. See letters from Americans for Financial Reform; 

CalPERS; CII; Florida State Board of Administration; M. Katz; J. McRitchie; S. Ranzini; Teamsters. Yet, 

according to these commenters, the high costs of such a proxy contest hinder shareholders’ ability to 

nominate and elect directors. For further discussion of these costs, see Section IV.C.1. above. 

1024	 See letter from ABA. 

1025	 See Bainbridge 2003 Letter. 

1026	 See Section IV.D.1. above. 

368
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

documents, or a state or foreign law provision – by providing for director nominees to be 

included on one proxy card with clear disclosure1027 for shareholders to evaluate when deciding 

whether and how to grant authority to vote their shares by proxy, as opposed to having to 

evaluate more than one set of proxy materials sent by a company and an insurgent 

shareholder.1028 Presenting the competing director nominees on one proxy card, with the related 

disclosure contained in one proxy statement, may simplify the shareholder’s decision-making 

process, reduce the potential for any confusion on the part of shareholders, and address any 

reluctance on the part of shareholders to consider an insurgent shareholder’s nominee solely 

because the nominee was not presented in the company’s proxy materials.1029 

The new rules could promote efficiency by reducing the cost of effective communication 

between shareholders and directors, potentially resulting in enhanced board responsiveness and 

accountability as described elsewhere in the release.1030 Such communications may, in some 

cases, address the concerns that prompted the shareholders to submit their own director 

nominations and help avert any distracting election contests.1031 Enhanced communication with 

shareholders also may result in better decision-making by the board as shareholders may provide 

1027	 It is assumed here that the private cost of making the required disclosure and the cost to the company for 

including the disclosure in the company’s proxy materials is lower than the total information cost for voting 

shareholders. 

1028	 As discussed in footnote 884 above, we do not believe that our recent adoption of rules enhancing proxy 

solicitation disclosure dispenses with the need for Rule 14a-11 and the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8). 

1029	 See Section IV.D.1. above. 

1030	 See letters from AFSCME; Bebchuk, et al.; Brigham; CalPERS; CII; L. Dallas; T. DiNapoli; A. Dral; 

GovernanceMetrics; Governance for Owners; Hermes; M. Katz; LUCRF; J. McRitchie; R. Moulton-Ely; 

D. Nappier; P. Neuhauser; NJSIC; OPERS; Pax World; Pershing Square; Relational; RiskMetrics; D. 

Romine; Shareowners.org; Social Investment Forum; Teamsters; TIAA-CREF; Universities 

Superannuation; USPE; Walden. According to these commenters, the prospect of an election contest may 

create greater incentives for incumbent directors to communicate with shareholders, address their concerns, 

and consider shareholders’ preferences regarding nominations for director. 

1031	 We have changed certain provisions of Rule 14a-11 from their proposed form to further encourage 

communication between boards and shareholders. See, e.g., Rule 14a-11(d)(5). 

369
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

the board with new ideas or information that the board has not considered. 

We considered potential negative effects of the new rules on the efficiency of U.S. public 

companies, as discussed below. 

As discussed elsewhere in the release, if the number of election contests increases as a 

result of the new rules, boards may end up devoting less time to overseeing their companies’ 

business operations. Election contests have been described by many commenters as distracting, 

time-consuming, and inefficient for companies, boards, and management.1032 To the extent that a 

board’s attention is drawn away by the demands of election contests or shareholders, the new 

rules may impair companies’ ability to compete efficiently. To limit the use of Rule 14a-11 to 

only holders who demonstrate a significant, long-term commitment to the company, we adopted 

a uniform 3% ownership threshold and three-year holding period. We also continue to believe 

that this concern may be mitigated to the extent that shareholders, while voicing their concerns 

and seeking the board’s attention, understand the board’s time may be in scarce supply and take 

this factor into consideration when deciding to nominate director candidates.1033 

The efficiency of U.S. public companies could be negatively affected if shareholders use 

the new rules to promote their narrow interests at the expense of other shareholders.1034 If the 

1032	 See, e.g., letters from ABA; Atlas; AT&T; Book Celler; Carlson; Carolina Mills; Chamber of 

Commerce/CCMC; Chevron; Crespin; M. Eng; Erickson; ExxonMobil; Fenwick; GE; General Mills; Glass 

Lewis; Glaspell; Intelect; R. Clark King; Koppers; MCO; MeadWestvaco; MedFaxx; Medical Insurance; 

Merchants Terminal; D. Merilatt; NAM; NIRI; NK; O3 Strategies; Roppe; Rosen; Safeway; Sara Lee; 

Schneider; Southland; Style Crest; Tenet; TI; tw telecom; R. VanEngelenhoven; Wachtell; Wells Fargo; 

Weyerhaeuser; Yahoo. 

1033	 See Proposing Release, Section V.C.1. 

1034	 See, e.g., letters from 3M; ACE; AGL; Alaska Air; Alcoa; Allstate; American Bankers Association; 

American Business Conference; American Express; Ameriprise; Artistic Land Designs; Association of 

Corporate Counsel; J. Astle; Astrum; Atlantic Bingo; Avis Budget; J. Blanchard, Board Institute; Boeing; 

Boston Scientific; Brink’s; BRT; Burlington Northern; Callaway; S. Campbell; Cargill; Carpet and Tile 

(“Carpet and Tile”); Caterpillar; Chamber of Commerce/CCMC; Kevin F. Clune (“K. Clune”); P. 

Clapman; Chevron; J. Chico; CIGNA; CNH Global; Columbine; Competitive Enterprise Institute; A. 

Conte; W. Cornwell; Crown Battery; Cummins; Darden Restaurants; Data Forms, Inc. (“Data Forms”); 

370
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

new rules facilitate the ability of shareholders with narrow interests to place directors on the 

board, the new rules may impair efficiency by increasing the cost of board deliberations and 

resulting in companies taking actions that benefit only a few shareholders. This negative effect, 

however, could be limited to the extent that the disclosure requirements related to Rule 14a-11 

alert shareholders to the narrow interests of the nominating shareholder or group in advance of 

the election so that they can cast their votes in favor of the candidate who will best serve the 

interests of all shareholders.1035 Directors with potentially narrow interests also will be subject to 

the same fiduciary duties as directors nominated by the company.1036 

The increased likelihood of a contested election may discourage some qualified 

candidates from running for a board seat, making it more difficult for companies to recruit 

qualified directors and negatively affecting the efficiency of U.S. public companies.1037 

Deere; T. Dermody; Dewey; A. Dickerson; W. B. Dickerson; J. Dillon; Eaton; Emerson Electric; A. 

England; Engledow; Mike Emis (“M. Emis”); FedEx; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; Frontier; GE; General 

Mills; Healthcare Practice; Home Depot; Honeywell; Horizon; Karen L. Hubbard (“K. Hubbard”); IBM; 

ICI; Instrument Piping Tech; Theodore S. Jablonski (“T. Jablonski”); Keating Muething; Koppers; C. 

Leadbetter; Leggett; Little; Louisiana Agencies; ITT; Leggett; Brittany D. Lunceford (“B. Lunceford”); 

Melvin Maltz (“M. Maltz”); Massey Services; J. McCoy; McDonald’s; D. McDonald; MCO; McTague; 

MeadWestvaco; MedFaxx; D. Merilatt; Metlife; M. Metz; J. Miller; E. Mitchell; Moore Brothers; 

Motorola; MT Glass; NAM; NIRI; Norfolk Southern; O’Melveny & Myers; Office Depot; Omaha Door; 

P&G; V. Pelson; PepsiCo; Pinch a Penny (“Pinch a Penny”); Protective; Realogy; J. Rosen; RTW; Ryder; 

S&C; Safeway; Sara Lee; R. Saul; Schneider; Seven Law Firms; Sidley Austin; Southern Company; 

Southern Services; M. Sposato; Ralph Strangis (“R. Strangis”); Tenet; Tesoro; E. Tremaine; tw telecom; L. 

Tyson; UnitedHealth; U.S. Bancorp; VCG; Vinson & Elkins; Wachtell; Wagner Industries; Wells Fargo; 

Weyerhaeuser; Xerox; Yahoo. One commenter added that many recent election contests were directed 

towards achieving short-term financial objectives, including proposals to sell the company or effect a 

buyback or special dividend. See letter from Simpson Thacher. 

1035	 See Rule 14a-11, Rule 14a-18, Rule 14n-1, and Schedule 14N. 

1036	 Veasey & DiGuglielmo, at 774 (“Directors will generally be responsible for protecting the best interests of 

the corporation and all its stockholders, despite the directors’ designation by some particular constituency, 

because fiduciary duties generally will trump contractual expectations in the corporate context.”). See also 

letters from ACSI; LUCRF (indicating that they are unaware of any breaches of fiduciary or statutory 

duties, including Regulation FD, by shareholder-nominated directors in jurisdictions that allow shareholder 

director nominations in the company’s proxy materials). 

1037	 See letters from 3M; ABA; American Electric Power; Atlantic Bingo; AT&T; Avis Budget; Biogen; 

Boeing; BRT; Burlington Northern; Callaway; Carlson; Chamber of Commerce/CCMC; CIGNA; 

Columbine; Cummins; CSX; J. Dillon; Emerson Electric; Erickson; ExxonMobil; FedEx; Headwaters; C. 

371
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nevertheless, as discussed elsewhere in the release, a countervailing effect that the new rules 

may have is the impact on the labor market for director candidates and potential increase in the 

demand for individuals who can serve as shareholder director nominees.1038 

Finally, compliance with the new rules may impose additional financial costs on 

companies, such as for legal services, printing and mailing of proxy materials, and additional 

proxy solicitation efforts.1039 The workability and implementation issues identified by 

commenters, in particular, may force companies to incur significant time and funds to resolve.1040 

Increased litigation costs also represent a possible negative effect of the new rules, as companies 

and nominating shareholders or groups expend resources to resolve legal disputes in federal and 

state courts. Incurring such costs could negatively affect the efficiency of the capital markets. 

As discussed throughout the release, we have modified several aspects of the rules we proposed 

to clarify any uncertainties identified by commenters and to address workability issues. We also 

have taken steps to address commenters’ concerns regarding a company’s liability for 

misrepresentations or omissions in the nominating shareholder’s or group’s information that is 

repeated in the company’s proxy materials.1041 As described above, we have made modifications 

Holliday; IBM; Intelect; R. Clark King; Lange; Louisiana Agencies; Metlife; NIRI; O3 Strategies; V. 

Pelson; PepsiCo; Pfizer; Roppe; Rosen; Ryder; Sara Lee; Sidley Austin; tw telecom; Wachtell; Wells 

Fargo; Weyerhaeuser; Yahoo. 

1038	 See Section IV.D.3. above. 

1039	 For a discussion of these costs, see Section IV.E.3. above. 

1040	 See, e.g., letters from ABA; Wachtell. 

1041	 See letters from ABA; Alaska Air; American Bankers Association; Ameriprise; BorgWarner; BRT; 

Caterpillar; Cleary; DTE Energy; ExxonMobil; Honeywell; ICI; Protective; S. Quinlivan; Seven Law 

Firms; Sidley Austin; Society of Corporate Secretaries; Southern Company; UnitedHealth; Verizon. 

As originally proposed, under Rule 14a-11(e) and Note to Rule 14a-19, a company would not be 

responsible for information that is provided by the nominating shareholder or group under Rule 14a-11, an 

applicable state law provision, or the company’s governing documents and then repeated by the company 

in its proxy statement, except where the company “knows or has reason to know that the information is 

372
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to clarify that a company will not be liable for materially false or misleading information 

provided by the nominating shareholder or group.1042 Finally, additional guidance from the 

Commission, its staff, or courts should further resolve any uncertainties regarding the new rules’ 

implementation and may reduce the need for parties to resort to litigation. 

With respect to investment companies, a number of commenters expressed concern that 

the election of a shareholder director nominee may, in some circumstances, decrease the 

effectiveness and efficiency of a unitary or cluster board utilized by a fund complex.1043 In 

addition, one commenter noted that small investment companies are likely to be particularly 

affected by the Proposal and its attendant costs, including the loss of the benefits of a cluster or 

unitary board.1044 According to the commenter, “the expected smaller rate of return on capital 

may dissuade some entrepreneurs from entering the investment company industry, and force the 

exit of some fund advisers with thin profit margins,” negatively affecting both efficiency and 

competition. 

We recognize that for fund complexes that utilize unitary or cluster boards, the election 

of a shareholder director nominee may, in some circumstances, increase costs and potentially 

decrease the efficiency of the boards.1045 We note, however, that any decrease in efficiency and 

competition is associated with the state law right to nominate and elect directors, and not from 

including shareholder nominees in the company’s proxy materials. We also note that any 

decreased efficiency of an investment company’s board, or any decrease in competition, as a 

false or misleading.” 

1042 For further discussion, see Section II.E. above. 

1043 See, e.g., letters from ABA; ICI; ICI/IDC; IDC; MFDF; S&C; T. Rowe Price; Vanguard. 

1044 See letter from ICI. 

1045 See, e.g., letters from ICI; ICI/IDC; IDC; MFDF; Vanguard. 

373
 
 

 

 

 

result of the fund complex no longer having a unitary or cluster board would occur, if at all, only 

in the event that investment company shareholders elect the shareholder nominee. Investment 

companies may include information in the proxy materials making investors aware of the 

company’s views on the perceived benefits of a unitary or cluster board and the potential for 

increased costs and decreased efficiency if the shareholder nominees are elected. Furthermore, 

we believe that exempting small investment companies from the new rules would not be 

appropriate because doing so would interfere with achieving the goal of facilitating shareholders’ 

ability to participate more meaningfully in the nomination and election of directors and to 

promote the exercise of shareholders’ traditional state law rights to nominate and elect 

directors.1046 Although commenters argued that the election of a shareholder-nominated director 

to a unitary or cluster board will necessarily result in decreased effectiveness of the board, we 

disagree. In this regard, one commenter argued that competition in the board nomination process 

may improve efficiency by providing additional leverage for boards in negotiations with the 

investment adviser.1047 In any event, we believe that investment company shareholders should 

have the opportunity to exercise their traditional state law rights to elect a non-unitary or noncluster board if they so choose. 

We considered the possible effects that the new rules may have on competition, as 

discussed below. 

With the possible effect of improved board accountability and corporate governance, the 

new rules may ultimately increase shareholder value, generate stronger company performance, 

and increase competition. Investors also may be more willing to invest in companies in which 

1046	 For a specific discussion of the impact of the rule on small companies and the alternatives we considered in 

lieu of applying the rule to such entities, see Section VI. below. 

1047	 See letter from J. Taub. 

374
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

they have the ability to present their own shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy 

materials if they become displeased with the company’s performance. Nevertheless, it is 

possible that some companies may be more reluctant to conduct public offerings in the U.S. or 

may wish to avoid being a reporting company due to the need to comply with new rules, making 

the U.S. public equity markets less attractive.1048 Companies may instead attempt to raise capital 

through private placements or in foreign equity markets instead of through public offerings in the 

U.S. equity markets. We note that shareholders in many foreign countries already have the 

ability to include their director nominees in the company’s proxy materials.1049 We therefore 

believe that the new rules may bring the U.S. capital markets closer in line with international 

practice by giving shareholders of U.S. companies an ability that may already be enjoyed by 

shareholders of many non-U.S. companies. Lastly, we note that the new rules will not apply to 

foreign private issuers because they are exempt from the Commission’s proxy rules.1050 

Therefore, we do not believe that the new rules will affect the willingness of such issuers to raise 

capital in the U.S. capital markets. 

 We also believe that directors nominated by shareholders pursuant to the new rules and 

elected to the board may be more inclined to exercise independent judgment in the boardroom 

due to the fact that they were nominated by shareholders, not the incumbent directors. The 

impact of these shareholder-nominated directors may lead to greater competition when the board 

considers strategic alternatives, including in the market for corporate control. Board members 

1048	 See letters from Altman (stating that its survey of 36 public companies showed that 80.85% of respondents 

believe the new rules “will deter some U.S. private companies from going public and some foreign 

companies from listing on U.S. exchanges.”); BRT; R. Tullo. 

1049	 See letters from ACSI; CalPERS; ICGN; LUCRF; Pax World; RiskMetrics; Social Investment Forum; 

SWIB. 

1050	 Exchange Act Rule 3a12-3 exempts securities of certain foreign issuers from Section 14(a) of the Exchange 

Act. 

375
 
 

 

 

play a key role in evaluating corporate control transactions and, while the new rules are not 

intended to facilitate a change in control, shareholder-nominated directors may not share the 

same bias as incumbent directors regarding a transaction that may be contrary to their interests 

but beneficial for shareholders. The presence of these directors, therefore, may lead to increased 

competition in the market for corporate control. We recognize that since the number of 

shareholder director nominees that a company is required to include in its proxy materials 

pursuant to Rule 14a-11 is limited, the potential effect on competition for corporate control may 

also be limited. 

Lastly, the requirement that a nominating shareholder or member of the nominating 

shareholder group using Rule 14a-11 provide proof of ownership in the form of written 

statements with respect to securities held on deposit with a clearing agency acting as a securities 

depository may affect the competitive position of brokers or banks that are not securities 

depository participants.1051 Due to the need for a nominating shareholder or member of a 

nominating shareholder group to obtain a separate written statement from a broker or bank that is 

not a clearing agency participant (e.g., when a broker or bank of the nominating shareholder or 

member of the nominating shareholder group holds shares of the shareholder or member in an 

omnibus account at another broker or bank), it is possible that some shareholders may prefer to 

hold their securities directly through a clearing agency participant to avoid having to obtain more 

than one written statement to prove their ownership of the requisite amount of securities. If so, 

the competitive positions of clearing agency participants and clearing agencies themselves in the 

marketplace may be enhanced. Their competitive position also may be enhanced if a nominating 

shareholder is reluctant to change its broker or bank because it would need to obtain a written 

statement from each broker or bank with respect to the shares that it is using to meet the 

1051 See Instruction 4 to new Schedule 14N. 

376
 
 

 

 

 

ownership threshold and specify the time period during which the shares were held. 

We considered the possible effects that the new rules may have on capital formation, as 

discussed below. 

We expect that potential investors may be more willing to invest in a company if they 

have greater confidence in the abilities of the company’s board members. The new rules allow 

for a more competitive election process – one in which shareholders will have the opportunity to 

evaluate qualified alternatives to the board’s own nominees and select the person that they feel is 

most qualified. To the extent that the overall quality of a company’s board increases as a result 

of a more competitive election, the company’s ability to attract the necessary capital in the 

marketplace may be enhanced as well. 

Further, potential investors may be more willing to invest in a company if they know that 

they have a meaningful way to nominate directors for election. The new rules will facilitate 

investors’ ability to nominate and elect director candidates, and may thereby have the effect of 

holding boards more accountable. Investors may also be attracted to the potential increase in 

shareholder value that may result from an increased ability to replace directors and enhancement 

of shareholders’ rights.1052 Lastly, potential investors could prefer to invest in companies with 

boards that they feel are more open and responsive to their views. 

By enabling greater board accountability to shareholders, the new rules also may 

contribute to restoring investor confidence in the U.S. markets and address any reluctance to 

invest in U.S. companies.1053 Companies attempting to raise capital in the U.S. markets may 

1052 See Section IV.D.3. above. 

1053 See, e.g., letters from AFSCME and Sodali (noting a June 2009 survey of investors conducted by 

ShareOwners.org that indicated 57% of the respondents feel strong federal action would “restore their lost 

confidence in the fairness of the markets” and 81% of the respondents identified “overpaid CEOs and/or 

unresponsive management and boards” as the top reason for the loss of investor confidence in the markets); 

letter from Universities Superannuation (noting that “Governance Metrics International now ranks the 

377
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

therefore encounter greater willingness on the part of potential investors to participate in their 

securities offerings.1054 

As part of our rulemaking process, we considered possible alternatives to the new rules 

that may serve the same function – and to the same degree – of promoting efficiency, 

competition, and capital formation. In this regard, we received significant comment that the 

rules are unnecessary in light of recent corporate governance reforms that already increased the 

accountability of boards to shareholders.1055 While each of these reforms may enhance to some 

degree the boards’ accountability and responsiveness to shareholders or shareholders’ ability to 

effect change in the board’s membership, we believe they may not be as efficient, effective, or 

optimal as the new rules. Our consideration of recent corporate governance reforms and 

suggested alternatives are discussed throughout the release. 

We recognize the passage of recent amendments to state corporation laws to enable 

companies to provide in their governing documents an ability for shareholders to include their 

director nominees in the company’s proxy materials, and that private ordering is an alternative to 

United States behind Britain, Australia, Canada, and Ireland in corporate governance quality” and that “the 

CFA Institute 2009 Financial Market Integrity Index survey of investment professionals found a marked 

decline over the past year in global sentiment of investment professionals toward the United States, with 

only 43 percent of non-U.S. respondents reporting they would recommend investing in the United States 

(based solely on ethical behavior and regulation of capital market systems), down from 67 percent a year 

earlier.”). 

1054	 See letter from Universities Superannuation. 

1055	 See letters from 26 Corporate Secretaries; 3M; Advance Auto Parts; Allstate; Avis Budget; American 

Express; Anadarko; Association of Corporate Counsel; AT&T; L. Behr; Best Buy; Boeing; BRT; R. Burt; 

California Bar; S. Campbell; Carlson; Caterpillar; Chamber of Commerce/CCMC; Chevron; CIGNA; W. 

Cornwell; CSX; Cummins; Davis Polk; Dewey; DuPont; Eaton; M. Eng; FedEx; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; 

Frontier; GE; General Mills; C. Holliday; Honeywell; C. Horner; IBM; Jones Day; Keating Muething; J. 

Kilts; R. Clark King; N. Lautenbach; MeadWestvaco; Metlife; Motorola; O’Melveny & Myers; Office 

Depot; Pfizer; Protective; S&C; Safeway; Sara Lee; Shearman & Sterling; Sherwin-Williams; Sidley 

Austin; Simpson Thacher; Tesoro; Textron; TI; G. Tooker; UnitedHealth; Unitrin; U.S. Bancorp; Wachtell; 

Wells Fargo; West Chicago Chamber; Weyerhaeuser; Xerox; Yahoo. 

378
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

our new rules.1056 However, as discussed throughout the release, we have reason to believe that 

reliance on private ordering under state law would be insufficient to meet our goal of facilitating 

the exercise of shareholders’ traditional state law rights to nominate and elect directors.1057 For 

example, companies, particularly those that have performed poorly or have activist shareholders, 

may be reluctant to amend their governing documents to provide for an ability of shareholders to 

include director nominees in the company’s proxy materials, even if permitted by state 

corporation law.1058 In that regard, one commenter observed that most of the companies currently 

able to provide such an ability in their governing documents under state law have, in fact, not 

done so.1059 Further, as previously discussed, establishing such an ability on a company-bycompany basis may be more costly and inefficient than under our new rules.1060 For shareholders 

with a diverse portfolio of securities, the administrative burden of tracking each company’s 

requirements for including a director nominee in the company’s proxy materials may add another 

degree of inefficiency.1061 Some commenters also expressed concerns about the ability of 

1056	 For example, Delaware recently amended the Delaware General Corporation Law to add new Section 112 

clarifying that the bylaws of a Delaware corporation may provide that, if the corporation solicits proxies 

with respect to an election of directors, the corporation may be required to include in its solicitation 

materials one or more individuals nominated by a shareholder in addition to the individuals nominated by 

the board of directors. The obligation of the corporation to include such shareholder nominees will be 

subject to the procedures and conditions set forth in the bylaw adopted under Section 112. In addition, the 

American Bar Association’s Committee on Corporate Laws has adopted similar changes to the Model 

Business Corporation Act. See American Bar Association, Section of Business Law, Committee on 

Corporate Laws Amendments to The Model Business Corporation Act Approved on Third Reading at the 

Committee’s Meeting on December 12, 2009 (available at 

http://www.abanet.org/media/docs/Amendments_to_MCBA_121709.pdf). 

1057	 See Sections II.B.2. and IV.D.2. above. 

1058	 See letters from CalPERS; D. Nappier; P. Neuhauser; Pershing Square; Schulte Roth & Zabel. 

1059	 See letter from TIAA-CREF. Further, based on its survey of its member companies, one commenter stated 

that a large majority – approximately two-thirds – would seek to opt out of Rule 14a-11, if possible. See 

letter from Society of Corporate Secretaries. 

1060	 See letters from CalPERS; D. Nappier; P. Neuhauser. 

1061	 See letter from CII. 

379
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shareholders to adopt a provision in a company’s governing documents for the inclusion of 

shareholder director nominees through the Rule 14a-8 process due to the rule’s requirements 

(such as the 500-word limit on shareholder proposals)1062 or procedural requirements for 

shareholder-proposed bylaw amendments, such as a super-majority voting requirement for 

adoption of amendments.1063 

We considered the recent amendments to state corporation laws to enable a company to 

include in its governing documents a provision for reimbursement of a shareholder’s proxy 

solicitation costs.1064 We note, however, that poorly-performing companies may be reluctant to 

include such a provision, forcing shareholders to undergo the potentially costly and timeconsuming process of establishing such a provision themselves (for example, through a Rule 

14a-8 shareholder proposal). Even if reimbursement arrangements were to exist at all public 

companies, we believe that the ability of shareholders to be reimbursed for their proxy 

solicitation costs may be less efficient in facilitating changes in the board or increasing board 

accountability or responsiveness because shareholders would still need funds to maintain an 

election contest.1065 This may create a disparity among shareholders as shareholders with greater 

resources are able to take advantage of the right and conduct a proxy contest (with the 

knowledge they will be reimbursed) while those who lack such resources are unable to do so. 

1062 Id. 

1063 See letter from CII (stating that, based on a November 2009 white paper commissioned by the CII and 

ShareOwners.org, many companies have supermajority voting requirements to amend the bylaws, thereby 

“making shareholder-proposed bylaw amendments nearly impossible to implement”). 

1064 Delaware also added new Section 113 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which allows a Delaware 

corporation’s bylaws to include a provision that the corporation, under certain circumstances, will 

reimburse a shareholder for the expenses incurred in soliciting proxies in connection with an election of 

directors. 

1065 See letter from Florida State Board of Administration. 

380
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We also considered the trend towards adopting a majority voting standard in director 

elections, which gives shareholders a greater voice in director elections and the company’s 

corporate governance. It is important to note, however, that a majority voting standard in 

director elections, while increasingly common, is not yet used by all companies.1066 Further, 

commenters pointed out that even with a majority voting standard, some boards have disregarded 

the outcome of the elections by, for example, refusing to accept the resignations of directors who 

failed to receive a majority vote.1067 Further, while a majority voting standard facilitates 

shareholders’ ability to elect candidates put forth by a company’s management, it does not 

facilitate shareholders’ ability to exercise their right to nominate candidates for director. 

We considered the growing effectiveness of “withhold” or “vote no” campaigns in 

director elections, particularly at companies with a majority voting standard for director 

elections. “Withhold” or “vote no” campaigns have long been available but appear only 

occasionally to have resulted in a change in composition of the board or senior management.1068 

By definition, however, such campaigns lack what Rule 14a-11 facilitates, namely a direct means 

to include shareholder-nominated candidates for election as directors, rather than merely express 

disapproval of incumbent directors.1069 

1066 See letters from CalPERS (noting that the standard has “only been adopted by 294 companies in the S&P 

500 and just 734 companies out of the 3,369 companies according to the Corporate Library Board Analyst 

database.”); TIAA-CREF (noting that “[o]nly about half of S&P 500 companies and a small minority of 

Russell 3000 companies have adopted this reform.”). 

1067 See letters from CalPERS; RiskMetrics; TIAA-CREF (noting that “[t]here are currently over 40 directors at 

U.S. companies who continue to serve without having received majority support.”). See also City of 

Westland Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Axcelis Technologies, Inc., 2009 Del. Ch. LEXIS 173 (September 28, 

2009), aff’d, 2010 Del. LEXIS 382 (Del., August 11, 2010) (finding “no credible basis” to infer 

wrongdoing by directors who refused to accept resignations by other directors who failed to achieve the 

majority vote required by board policy). 1068 See J.W. Verret, Pandora’s Ballot Box, Or a Proxy with Moxie? Majority Voting, Corporate Ballot Access, 

and the Legend of Martin Lipton Re-Examined, 62 BUS. LAW. 1007, 1014 (2007) (reporting on one 

replacement of a board chairman following a withhold campaign resulting in a 43% withhold vote). 

1069 See letter from AFSCME. 

381
 
 

 

 

 

 

We considered the effect of adoption of our notice and access model for electronic 

delivery of proxy materials, which reduces the printing and mailing costs for shareholders’ proxy 

solicitations. As discussed above, the notice and access model, while reducing the printing and 

mailing costs, does not necessarily provide the same cost savings as Rule 14a-11.1070 Further, a 

shareholder may find the use of the model to be unattractive for the reasons related to its strategy 

for the conduct of the election contest.1071 

Lastly, one commenter pointed out that the market already provides multiple means of 

“management discipline.”1072 Shareholders could express their displeasure with current 

management by selling their securities in the company, board members could be replaced, and 

managers could be removed for wrongdoing. In addition, the commenter stated that the threat of 

takeover attempts that management faces and higher levels of board independence suggest the 

success of existing means of “management discipline.” 

While we are aware of these means of “management discipline,” we believe the relevant 

issue is whether investors will benefit from our new rules. Shareholders’ ability to express their 

displeasure with current management through the sale of securities may be limited if the market 

for the securities is illiquid or the shareholder is constrained by its policies to invest in all 

companies within a given index. Replacing board members or removing managers under the 

current regulatory scheme is expensive and often requires considerable time during which 

significant shareholder value may be lost. By providing a more efficient means for shareholders 

1070 See Section IV.D.1. above. 

1071 Id. 

1072 See letter from BRT (referring to the NERA Report). 

382
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

with a significant, long-term stake to nominate directors, the new rules will promote competition 

and enable shareholders to nominate and elect directors. 

Commenters also argued that it was not necessary to make investment companies subject 

to the new rules because they are subject to a unique regulatory regime under the Investment 

Company Act that provides additional protection to investors, such as the requirement to obtain 

shareholder approval to engage in certain transactions or activities.1073 However, we do not 

believe that the regulatory protections offered by the Investment Company Act (including 

requirements to obtain shareholder approval to engage in certain transactions and activities) 

serve to decrease the importance of the rights that are granted to shareholders under state law. In 

fact, the separate regulatory regime to which investment companies are subject emphasizes the 

importance of investment company directors in dealing with the conflicts of interest created by 

the external management structure of most investment companies.1074 

VI. FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 

This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) has been prepared in accordance 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.1075 It relates to amendments to the rules and forms under the 

Exchange Act and the Investment Company Act that would, under certain limited circumstances, 

require companies to include in their proxy materials shareholder nominees for election as 

director. It also relates to the amendments to the rules that will prohibit companies from 

excluding shareholder proposals pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) that seek to establish a procedure 

under a company’s governing documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder director 

1073 ABA; Barclays; ICI; IDC; T. Rowe Price; S&C; Vanguard. 

1074 See footnote 142 above. 

1075 5 U.S.C. 601. 

383
 
 

 

nominees in the company’s proxy materials. The amendments will require, under certain 

circumstances, a company’s proxy materials to provide shareholders with information about, and 

the ability to vote for, a shareholder’s, or group of shareholders’, nominees for director. The 

amendments will facilitate the exercise of shareholders’ traditional state law rights to nominate 

and elect directors to boards of directors and thereby enable shareholders to participate more 

meaningfully in the nomination and election of directors at the companies in which they invest. 

A. Need for the Amendments 

As described in this release and the Proposing Release, the final rules include features 

from the proposals on this topic in 2003 and 2007, and reflect much of what we learned through 

the public comment that the Commission has received concerning this topic over the past seven 

years. The final rules are intended to facilitate shareholders’ ability to participate more 

meaningfully in the nomination and election of directors, to promote the exercise of 

shareholders’ traditional state law rights to nominate and elect directors, to open up 

communication between a company and its shareholders, and to provide shareholders with more 

information to make an informed voting decision by requiring disclosure about a nominating 

shareholder or group and its nominee or nominees. In particular, the final rules will enable longterm shareholders, or groups of long-term shareholders, with significant holdings to have their 

nominees for director included in company proxy materials. In addition, the amendment to Rule 

14a-8(i)(8) will narrow the exclusion and will not permit companies to exclude, under Rule 14a8(i)(8), shareholder proposals that seek to establish a procedure under a company’s governing 

documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder director nominees in the company’s 

proxy materials. 

The final rules are intended to achieve the stated objectives without unduly burdening 

384
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

companies. We sought to limit the cost and burden on companies by limiting Rule 14a-11 to 

nominations by shareholders who have maintained a significant continuous ownership interest in 

the company for at least three years at the time the notice of nomination is submitted, and by 

limiting the number of nominees a company is required to include in its proxy materials under 

Rule 14a-11. These aspects of the final rules will limit the number of nominees a company will 

be required to consider for inclusion in its proxy materials and thus will lower the cost to 

companies while facilitating the exercise of shareholders’ traditional state law rights to nominate 

and elect directors to boards of directors, thereby enabling shareholders to participate more 

meaningfully in the nomination and election of directors at the companies in which they invest. 

We believe the new rules will benefit shareholders by improving corporate suffrage, the 

disclosure provided in connection with proxy solicitations, and communication between 

shareholders through the proxy process. 

The final rules include a phase-in period that delays the compliance date for Rule 14a-11 

for smaller reporting companies, which include most small entities, for three years from the 

effective date of the rule for other companies.1076 We believe the delayed compliance date will 

allow those companies to observe how the rule operates for other companies and may allow them 

to better prepare for the implementation of the rules. We also believe that delayed 

implementation for these companies will provide us with the opportunity to evaluate the 

implementation of Rule 14a-11 by larger companies and to consider whether adjustments to the 

rule would be appropriate for smaller reporting companies before the rule becomes applicable to 

1076 For purposes of this FRFA, we are required to consider the impact of our rules on small entities, including 

“small business.” See footnote 1088 and the related discussion. The new rules will have a delayed 

effective date for smaller reporting companies as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2. Whether a 

company is a small business is determined based on a company’s assets while the determination of whether 

a company is a smaller reporting company is generally based on a company’s public float. We expect that 

most small businesses that would be subject to the new rules also would qualify as smaller reporting 

companies. 

385
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

them.1077 In addition, in an effort to limit the cost and burden on all companies subject to the 

rule, including smaller reporting companies, we have limited use of Rule 14a-11 to nominations 

by shareholders who have maintained significant continuous holdings in the company, and we 

have extended the required holding period to at least three years at the time the notice of 

nomination is filed with the Commission and transmitted to the company. We expect that these 

eligibility requirements will help achieve the stated objective without unduly burdening any 

particular group of companies. 

B. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments 

In the Proposing Release, we requested comment on any aspect of the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Act Analysis (“IRFA”), including the number of small entities that would be affected 

by the proposed rules, the nature of the impact, how to quantify the number of small entities that 

would be affected, and how to quantify the impact of the proposed rules. We also considered, 

and sought comment on, excluding from operation of the rule smaller reporting companies either 

permanently or on a temporary basis through staggered compliance dates based on company size. 

We did not receive comments specifically addressing the IRFA. Several commenters, however, 

addressed aspects of the proposed rules that could potentially affect small entities. 

In particular, many commenters stated generally that Rule 14a-11 should not apply to 

small businesses.1078 Some commenters argued that the Proposal, if adopted, would hurt their 

1077	 As discussed in Section II.B.3. above, the recent Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act provided the Commission with exemptive authority with respect to rules permitting the inclusion of 

shareholder director nominations in company proxy materials. In doing so, Congress noted that the 

Commission shall take into account whether any such requirement to permit inclusion of shareholder 

nominees for director in company proxy materials would disproportionately burden small issuers. 

1078	 See letters from ABA; American Mailing; All Cast; Always N Bloom; American Carpets; J. Arquilla; B. 

Armburst; Artistic Land Designs; C. Atkins; Book Celler; K. Bostwick; Brighter Day Painting; Colletti; 

Commercial Concepts; Complete Home Inspection; D. Courtney; S. Crawford; Crespin; Don’s; T. Ebreo; 

M. Eng; eWareness; Evans; Fluharty; Flutterby; Fortuna Italian Restaurant; Future Form; Glaspell; C. 

386
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

larger corporate suppliers which would, in turn, increase their own costs of doing business.1079 

Two commenters recommended that Rule 14a-11 exclude companies that are not at least 

accelerated filers and be limited, at least initially, to large accelerated filers.1080 These 

commenters expressed concern about the burden Rule 14a-11 would place on smaller companies, 

including difficulty in recruiting qualified directors and costs of conducting due diligence on 

shareholder nominees.1081 One commenter noted that small investment companies, which may 

operate with thin profit margins, would be particularly affected by the Proposal and its attendant 

costs, including the loss of the benefits of a cluster or unitary board.1082 By contrast, some 

commenters stated that Rule 14a-11 should apply to small businesses.1083 At least one 

commenter argued that Rule 14a-11 would not impose a material burden on any company subject 

to the proxy rules because companies already have to distribute proxy cards and it would not be 

Gregory; Healthcare Practice; B. Henderson; S. Henning; J. Herren; A. Iriarte; J. Jones; Juz Kidz; Kernan; 

LMS Wine; T. Luna; Mansfield Children’s Center; D. McDonald; Meister; Merchants Terminal; 

Middendorf; Mingo; Moore Brothers; Mouton; D. Mozack; Ms. Dee; G. Napolitano; NK; H. Olson; PESC; 

Pioneer Heating & Air Conditioning; RC; RTW; D. Sapp; SBB; SGIA; P. Sicilia; Slycers Sandwich Shop; 

Southern Services; Steele Group; Sylvron; Theragenics; E. Tremaine; Wagner; Wagner Industries; 

Wellness; West End; Y.M.; J. Young. 

1079	 See letters from Always N Bloom; Brighter Day Painting; Caswells; Complete Home Inspection; Darrell’s 

Automotive; Data Forms; Fluharty; E. Garcia; S. Henning; T. Luna; Magnolia; American Mailing; H. 

Olson; T. Roper; Solar Systems; E. Sprenkle; Steele Group; R. Trummel; T. Trummel; V. Trummel; 

Wagner; T. White. 

1080	 See letters from ABA; Theragenics. 

1081	 In this regard, one commenter suggested that our estimate of the burden to companies of evaluating a 

shareholder nominee’s background to determine eligibility, investigation and verification of information 

provided by the nominee, research into the nominee’s background, analysis of the relative merits of the 

shareholder nominee as compared to management’s own nominee, meetings of the relevant board 

committees, and analysis of whether a nomination would conflict with any federal or state law, or director 

qualification standards was too low. This commenter estimated that the burden hours associated with the 

above actions would be 99 hours of company personnel time. See letter from S&C (citing results of a 

survey conducted by BRT). For a discussion of burden estimates, see Section III. above. 

1082	 See letter from ICI. 

1083	 See letters from AFSCME; CII; D. Nappier. 

387
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an imposition if they were required to add additional nominees to those cards.1084 Another 

commenter argued that exempting small entities would be inconsistent with the stated goals of 

the Proposal and the costs and burden to such entities would be minimal.1085 

We believe that exempting small companies, including small investment companies, from 

the new rules would not be appropriate because doing so would interfere with achieving the goal 

of facilitating shareholders’ ability to participate more meaningfully in the nomination and 

election of directors, to promote the exercise of shareholders’ rights to nominate and elect 

directors, to open up communication between a company and its shareholders and to provide 

shareholders with better information from which to make an informed voting decision. Some 

commenters noted that small companies are “just as likely” to have dysfunctional boards as their 

larger counterparts.1086 Also, one commenter agreed that exempting small entities would be 

inconsistent with the stated goals of the Proposal and the costs and burdens to these entities 

would be minimal.1087 However, we are cognizant of the fact that the new rules will increase the 

burden on all companies and therefore the potential burden on smaller reporting companies as 

defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act. To address concerns about the potential impact 

on smaller reporting companies, the final rule delays the compliance date for Rule 14a-11 for 

smaller reporting companies for a period of three years from the effective date of the rule for 

other companies so that smaller reporting companies can observe how the rule operates and 

allow them to better prepare for the implementation of the rules. We also believe that delayed 

implementation for these companies will allow us to evaluate the implementation of Rule 14a-11 

1084 See letter from USPE. 

1085 See letter from CII. 

1086 See letters from AFSCME; D. Nappier. 

1087 See letter from CII. 

388
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by larger companies and provide us with the additional opportunity to consider whether 

adjustments to the rule would be appropriate for smaller reporting companies before the rule 

becomes applicable to them. In addition, in an effort to limit the cost and burden on all 

companies subject to the rule, including smaller reporting companies, we have limited use of 

Rule 14a-11 to nominations by shareholders who have maintained significant continuous 

holdings in the company, and we have extended the required holding period to at least three 

years at the time the notice of nomination is filed with the Commission and transmitted to the 

company. We expect that these eligibility requirements will help achieve the stated objective 

without unduly burdening any particular group of companies. 

C. Small Entities Subject to the Rules 

The final rules will affect some companies that are small entities. The Regulatory 

Flexibility Act defines “small entity” to mean “small business,” “small organization,” or “small 

governmental jurisdiction.”1088 The Commission’s rules define “small business” and “small 

organization” for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act for each of the types of entities 

regulated by the Commission. Securities Act Rule 1571089 and Exchange Act Rule 0-10(a)1090 

define a company, other than an investment company, to be a “small business” or “small 

organization” if it had total assets of $5 million or less on the last day of its most recent fiscal 

year. We estimate that there are approximately 1,209 issuers that may be considered small 

entities.1091 

1088 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

1089 17 CFR 230.157. 

1090 17 CFR 240.0-10(a).
 

1091 The estimated number of reporting small entities is based on 2009 data, including the Commission’s 

EDGAR database and Standard & Poor’s. 

389
 
 

 

 

For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an investment company is a small entity if 

it, together with other investment companies in the same group of related investment companies, 

has net assets of $50 million or less as of the end of its most recent fiscal year.1092 We estimate 

that approximately 168 registered investment companies and 33 business development 

companies meet this definition. The new rules may affect each of the approximately 201 issuers 

that may be considered small entities, to the extent companies and shareholders take advantage 

of the rules. 

D. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 

The final rules are designed to require, under certain circumstances, Exchange Act 

reporting companies (other than debt-only companies and companies whose applicable state or 

foreign law provisions or governing documents prohibit shareholder nominations) subject to the 

federal proxy rules, including small entities, to include shareholder nominees for director in the 

company’s proxy materials. Nominating shareholders or groups, including nominating 

shareholders that are small entities, will be required to meet certain eligibility requirements and 

to provide disclosure in Schedule 14N about the nominating shareholders and the nominee, and 

companies will be required to include the disclosure provided by the nominating shareholder or 

group in the company’s proxy materials. 

The final rules also will enable shareholders to include proposals in the company’s proxy 

materials that seek to establish a procedure under a company’s governing documents for the 

inclusion of one or more shareholder director nominees in the company’s proxy materials. A 

nominating shareholder or group, including a nominating shareholder or group that is a small 

entity, using an applicable state or foreign law provision or a provision in the company’s 

1092 17 CFR 270.0-10(a). 

390
 
 

 

 

 

governing documents to submit a nomination for director to be included in a company’s proxy 

materials will be required to provide disclosure in new Schedule 14N about the nominating 

shareholder or group and the nominee. Companies also will be required to include disclosure 

about the nominating shareholder or group and the nominee in the company’s proxy materials 

when a shareholder submits a nomination for director for inclusion in the company’s proxy 

materials pursuant to an applicable state or foreign law provision or a company’s governing 

documents. 

We have no reason to expect that the amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) will substantially 

increase the number of shareholder proposals to smaller companies and likely will have little 

impact on small entities. With respect to Rule 14a-11, there is some data indicating that smaller 

companies are subject to more proxy contests as a group than larger companies,1093 but the data 

do not demonstrate that the frequency is disproportionately larger at smaller companies relative 

to other companies. In addition, we did not receive data substantiating a disproportionate impact 

on smaller companies. 

With respect to investment companies, we assume that small investment companies, 

which may operate with thin profit margins, would be particularly affected by the rules and the 

attendant costs, including the loss of the benefits of a cluster or unitary board.1094 However, the 

costs resulting from the loss of the benefits of a cluster or unitary board are costs associated with 

the traditional state law rights to nominate and elect directors, and are not costs incurred for 

including shareholder nominees in the company’s proxy materials. We also note that any 

increased costs and decreased efficiency of an investment company’s board as a result of the 

1093 See, e.g., Bebchuk (2007). 

1094 See letter from ICI. 

391
 
 

 

 

fund complex no longer having a unitary or cluster board would occur, if at all, only in the event 

that investment company shareholders elect the shareholder nominee. Investment companies 

may include information in the proxy materials making investors aware of the company’s views 

on the perceived benefits of a unitary or cluster board and the potential for increased costs and 

decreased efficiency if the shareholder nominees are elected. 

E. Agency Action to Minimize Effect on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs us to consider significant alternatives that would 

accomplish the stated objective, while minimizing any significant adverse impact on small 

entities. In connection with the new rules, we considered the following alternatives: 

•	 the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that 

take into account the resources available to small entities; 

•	 the clarification, consolidation or simplification of the rule’s compliance and 

reporting requirements for small entities; 

•	 the use of performance rather than design standards; and 

•	 an exemption for small entities from coverage under the proposals. 

As noted in the Proposing Release, the Commission has considered a variety of reforms 

to achieve its regulatory objectives while minimizing the impact on small entities. As one 

possible approach, we considered in 2003 requiring companies to include shareholder nominees 

for director in a company’s proxy materials only upon the occurrence of certain events so that the 

rule would apply only in situations where there was a demonstrated failure in the proxy process 

related to director nominations and elections. We sought comment in the Proposing Release on 

this approach, with commenters arguing both for1095 and against1096 the approach. We have not 

1095	 See letters from ADP; Alaska Air; Allstate; American Electric Power; Anadarko; AT&T; Avis Budget; 

Barclays; Biogen; Boeing; BRT; Burlington Northern; R. Burt; Callaway; Chevron; CIGNA; CNH Global; 

392
 
 

 

 

 

taken this approach in the final rules because we do not believe it is appropriate to limit the rule 

to companies where specified events have occurred. Moreover, we are not aware of data 

suggesting that such specified events are less likely to occur at smaller companies than at larger 

companies. 

We considered changes to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) in 2007 that would enable shareholders to 

have their proposals for bylaw amendments regarding the procedures for nominating directors 

included in the company’s proxy materials provided the shareholder submitting the proposal 

made certain disclosures and beneficially owned more than 5% of the company’s shares. 

Although this approach could potentially reduce the number of shareholder proposals submitted 

to smaller entities by establishing a minimum threshold for having such proposals included in the 

company’s proxy statement, we have not taken this approach because, as noted above, we do not 

expect the final rule to substantially increase the number of shareholder proposals to smaller 

companies. In addition, we have not relied exclusively on an amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) to 

achieve our regulatory goals because we seek to provide shareholders with a more immediate 

and direct means of effecting change in the boards of directors of the companies in which they 

invest. For these reasons, as well as the reasons discussed throughout the release, we believe that 

these final rules may better achieve the Commission’s objectives. 

We also sought comment on whether the proposed tiered approach – under which 

shareholders or shareholder groups at larger companies would have to satisfy a lower ownership 

Comcast; Cummins; Deere; Eaton; ExxonMobil; FedEx; FMC Corp.; FPL Group; Frontier; General Mills; 

C. Holliday; IBM; ITT; J. Kilts; E.J. Kullman; N. Lautenbach; McDonald’s; J. Miller; Motorola; Office 

Depot; O’Melveny & Myers; P&G; PepsiCo; Pfizer; Protective; Ryder; Sara Lee; Sherwin Williams; 

Theragenics; TI; TW Telecom; G. Tooker; UnitedHealth; Xerox. 

1096	 See letters from ABA; AFSCME; CalSTRS; CFA Institute; CII; COPERA; T. DiNapoli; Florida State 

Board of Administration; ICGN; N. Lautenbach; LIUNA; D. Nappier; Nathan Cummings Foundation; 

OPERS; Pax World; Relational; Sodali; SWIB; TIAA-CREF; G. Tooker; USPE; ValueAct Capital. 

393
 
 

 

 

 

threshold than shareholders or shareholder groups at smaller companies in order to rely on Rule 

14a-11 – is appropriate and workable. We considered whether the effect of the tiered approach 

may make it less likely that shareholders at smaller companies will nominate directors under 

Rule 14a-11, but determined not to adopt this approach because the data available to us did not 

indicate a meaningful difference between small entities and entities generally in regard to 

concentration of long-term share ownership.1097 

We considered whether a delayed compliance date for Rule 14a-11 for smaller reporting 

companies, which would include most small entities, would reduce the burden on these entities. 

After considering the comments discussed above, we have determined to delay the compliance 

date of Rule 14a-11 for smaller reporting companies for a period of three years from the effective 

date for other companies. We believe that a delayed compliance date for smaller reporting 

companies will allow those companies to observe how Rule 14a-11 operates for other companies 

and may allow them to better prepare for the implementation of the rules and, as noted, will give 

us a further opportunity to consider adjustments for smaller reporting companies. In addition, in 

an effort to limit the cost and burden on all companies subject to the rule, including smaller 

reporting companies, we have limited use of Rule 14a-11 to nominations by shareholders who 

have maintained significant continuous holdings in the company, and we have extended the 

required holding period to at least three years at the time the notice of nomination is filed with 

the Commission and transmitted to the company. We expect that these eligibility requirements 

will help achieve the stated objective without unduly burdening any particular group of 

companies. 

We are not adopting different disclosure standards based on the size of the issuer. We 

believe uniform disclosure will be helpful to voting decisions on shareholder-nominated 

1097 For further discussion, see Section II.B.4. above. 

394
 
 

 

directors at companies of all sizes. Because we are delaying the compliance date of Rule 14a-11 

for smaller reporting companies, we believe this will allow them additional time to prepare to 

comply with the new rule and observe the rule’s impact on larger companies, which should allow 

smaller reporting companies to be able to comply with the same disclosure standards when the 

rule becomes applicable to them. 

We considered the use of performance standards rather than design standards in the final 

rules. The final rule contains both performance standards and design standards. We proposed 

design standards to the extent that we believe compliance with particular requirements are 

necessary. However, to the extent possible, our rules impose performance standards. For 

example, under Rule 14a-11, a nominating shareholder or group can provide a 500-word 

statement of support concerning each of its nominee or nominees for director, but we do not 

specify the content. Similarly, shareholders can submit a proposal that seeks to establish a 

procedure under a company’s governing documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder 

director nominees in the company’s proxy materials. By allowing shareholders to submit such 

proposals, we seek to provide shareholders and companies with a measure of flexibility to tailor 

the means through which they can comply with the standards. Even though Rule 14a-11 

provides a procedure from which companies may not opt out, companies and shareholders are 

not prohibited from adopting nominating procedures that could further facilitate shareholders’ 

ability to include their own director nominees in company proxy materials. Amended Rule 14a8(i)(8) facilitates this process. In that respect, the rules provide both design and performance 

standards, as appropriate. 

Lastly, as discussed above, we believe that the final rules should apply regardless of 

395
 
 

 

 

company size, as was proposed.1098 The purpose of the rules is to facilitate the exercise of 

shareholders’ traditional state law rights to nominate and elect directors to company boards of 

directors and thereby enable shareholders to participate more meaningfully in the nomination and 

election of directors at the companies in which they invest. We believe that shareholders of 

smaller reporting companies should be able to exercise these rights to the same extent as 

shareholders of larger reporting companies. Therefore, we are not persuaded that exempting 

smaller reporting companies from the final rules would be consistent with this goal. 

Nonetheless, as discussed above, we recognize that smaller reporting companies may 

have had less experience with existing forms of shareholder involvement in the proxy process 

and may have less-developed infrastructures for managing these matters. The final rules 

therefore include a phase-in period that delays the compliance date of Rule 14a-11 for smaller 

reporting companies for three years from the effective date of the rule. 

VII. STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND TEXT OF THE AMENDMENTS 

The amendments are made pursuant to Sections 3(b), 13, 14, 15, 23(a) and 36 of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Sections 10, 20(a) and 38 of the Investment 

Company Act of 1940, as amended, and Sections 971 (a) and (b) of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

List of Subjects 

17 CFR Parts 200 

Freedom of information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities. 

17 CFR Parts 232, 240, and 249 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities. 

In accordance with the foregoing, the Securities and Exchange Commission is amending 

Title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

1098 See Section II.B.3.f. above. 

396
 
 

 

PART 200 – ORGANIZATION; CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND INFORMATION AND 

REQUESTS 

Subpart D – Information and Requests 

1. The authority citation for Part 200, Subpart D, continues to read, in part, as 

follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 77f(d), 77s, 77ggg(a), 77sss, 78m(F)(3), 

78w, 80a-37, 80a-44(a), 80a-44(b), 80b-10(a), and 80b-11. 

* * * * * 

2. Add § 200.82a to read as follows: 

§ 200.82a Public availability of materials filed pursuant to § 240.14a-11(g) and related 

materials. 

Materials filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 14a-11(g) under the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (17 CFR 240.14a-11(g)), written communications related thereto received 

from interested persons, and each related no-action letter or other written communication issued 

by the staff of the Commission, shall be made available to any person upon request for 

inspection or copying. 

PART 232 – REGULATION S-T – GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR 

ELECTRONIC FILINGS 

3. The authority citation for Part 232 continues to read, in part, as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 

78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, 80a-6(c), 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 

1350. 

* * * * * 

4. Amend § 232.13 by revising paragraph (a)(4) (the note remains unchanged) to 

read as follows: 

397
 
 

 

§ 232.13 Date of filing; adjustment of filing date. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a Form 3, 4 or 5 (§§ 249.103, 

249.104, and 249.105 of this chapter) or a Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101 of this chapter) 

submitted by direct transmission on or before 10 p.m. Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight 

Saving Time, whichever is currently in effect, shall be deemed filed on the same business day. 

* * * * * 

PART 240 – GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

ACT OF 1934 

5. The authority citation for Part 240 continues to read, in part, as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 

77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, and 7201, et 

seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350 and 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3), unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

6. Amend § 240.13a-11 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 240.13a-11 Current reports on Form 8-K (§ 249.308 of this chapter). 

* * * * * 

(b) This section shall not apply to foreign governments, foreign private issuers required 

to make reports on Form 6-K (17 CFR 249.306) pursuant to § 240.13a-16, issuers of American 

Depositary Receipts for securities of any foreign issuer, or investment companies required to file 

reports pursuant to § 270.30b1-1 of this chapter under the Investment Company Act of 1940, 

except where such an investment company is required to file: 

(1) Notice of a blackout period pursuant to § 245.104 of this chapter; 

398
 
 

 

(2) Disclosure pursuant to Instruction 2 to § 240.14a-11(b)(1) of information concerning 

outstanding shares and voting; or 

(3) Disclosure pursuant to Instruction 2 to § 240.14a-11(b)(10) of the date by which a 

nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group must submit the notice required 

pursuant to § 240.14a-11(b)(10). 

* * * * * 

7. Amend § 240.13d-1 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (c)(1) and adding 

Instruction 1 to paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 240.13d-1 Filing of Schedules 13D and 13G. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) * * *
 

(i) Such person has acquired such securities in the ordinary course of his business and 

not with the purpose nor with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the issuer, nor 

in connection with or as a participant in any transaction having such purpose or effect, including 

any transaction subject to § 240.13d-3(b), other than activities solely in connection with a 

nomination under § 240.14a-11; and 

* * * * * 

Instruction 1 to paragraph (b)(1). For purposes of paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the 

exception for activities solely in connection with a nomination under § 240.14a-11 will not be 

available after the election of directors. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Has not acquired the securities with any purpose, or with the effect, of changing or 

399
 
 

 

influencing the control of the issuer, or in connection with or as a participant in any transaction 

having that purpose or effect, including any transaction subject to § 240.13d-3(b), other than 

activities solely in connection with a nomination under § 240.14a-11; 

* * * * * 

Instruction 1 to paragraph (c)(1). For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the 

exception for activities solely in connection with a nomination under § 240.14a-11 will not be 

available after the election of directors. 

* * * * * 

8. Amend § 240.13d-102 by revising the sentences following the introductory text in 

Items 10(a) and (c) as follows: 

§ 240.13d-102 Schedule 13G – Information to be included in statements filed pursuant to § 

240.13d-1(b), (c), and (d) and amendments thereto filed pursuant to § 240.13d-2. 

* * * * * 

Item 10. Certifications 

(a) * * * 

By signing below I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the securities 

referred to above were acquired and are held in the ordinary course of business and were not 

acquired and are not held for the purpose of or with the effect of changing or influencing the 

control of the issuer of the securities and were not acquired and are not held in connection with 

or as a participant in any transaction having that purpose or effect, other than activities solely in 

connection with a nomination under § 240.14a-11. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

By signing below I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the securities 

400
 
 

 

referred to above were not acquired and are not held for the purpose of or with the effect of 

changing or influencing the control of the issuer of the securities and were not acquired and are 

not held in connection with or as a participant in any transaction having that purpose or effect, 

other than activities solely in connection with a nomination under § 240.14a-11. 

* * * * * 

9. Amend § 240.14a-2 by: 

a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; and 

b. Adding paragraphs (b)(7) and (b)(8). 

The revision and additions read as follows: 

§ 240.14a-2 Solicitations to which § 240.14a-3 to § 240.14a-15 apply. 

* * * * * 

(b) Sections 240.14a-3 to 240.14a-6 (other than paragraphs 14a-6(g) and 14a-6(p)), § 

240.14a-8, § 240.14a-10, and §§ 240.14a-12 to 240.14a-15 do not apply to the following: 

* * * * * 

(7) Any solicitation by or on behalf of any shareholder in connection with the formation 

of a nominating shareholder group pursuant to § 240.14a-11, provided that: 

(i) The soliciting shareholder is not holding the registrant’s securities with the purpose, 

or with the effect, of changing control of the registrant or to gain a number of seats on the board 

of directors that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that the registrant could be required 

to include under § 240.14a-11(d); 

(ii) Each written communication includes no more than: 

(A) A statement of each soliciting shareholder’s intent to form a nominating shareholder 

group in order to nominate one or more directors under § 240.14a-11; 

401
 
 

 

(B) Identification of, and a brief statement regarding, the potential nominee or nominees 

or, where no nominee or nominees have been identified, the characteristics of the nominee or 

nominees that the shareholder intends to nominate, if any; 

(C) The percentage of voting power of the registrant’s securities that are entitled to be 

voted on the election of directors that each soliciting shareholder holds or the aggregate 

percentage held by any group to which the shareholder belongs; and 

(D) The means by which shareholders may contact the soliciting party. 

(iii) Any written soliciting material published, sent or given to shareholders in 

accordance with this paragraph must be filed by the shareholder with the Commission, under the 

registrant’s Exchange Act file number, or, in the case of a registrant that is an investment 

company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.), under 

the registrant’s Investment Company Act file number, no later than the date the material is first 

published, sent or given to shareholders. Three copies of the material must at the same time be 

filed with, or mailed for filing to, each national securities exchange upon which any class of 

securities of the registrant is listed and registered. The soliciting material must include a cover 

page in the form set forth in Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101) and the appropriate box on the cover 

page must be marked. 

(iv) In the case of an oral solicitation made in accordance with the terms of this section, 

the nominating shareholder must file a cover page in the form set forth in Schedule 14N (§ 

240.14n-101), with the appropriate box on the cover page marked, under the registrant’s 

Exchange Act file number (or in the case of an investment company registered under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.), under the registrant’s Investment 

Company Act file number), no later than the date of the first such communication. 

402
 
 

 

Instruction to paragraph (b)(7). The exemption provided in paragraph (b)(7) of this 

section shall not apply to a shareholder that subsequently engages in soliciting or other 

nominating activities outside the scope of § 240.14a-2(b)(8) and § 240.14a-11 in connection with 

the subject election of directors or is or becomes a member of any other group, as determined 

under section 13(d)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(d)(3) and § 240.13d-5(b)), or otherwise, with 

persons engaged in soliciting or other nominating activities in connection with the subject 

election of directors. 

(8) Any solicitation by or on behalf of a nominating shareholder or nominating 

shareholder group in support of its nominee that is included or that will be included on the 

registrant’s form of proxy in accordance with § 240.14a-11 or for or against the registrant’s 

nominee or nominees, provided that: 

(i) The soliciting party does not, at any time during such solicitation, seek directly or 

indirectly, either on its own or another’s behalf, the power to act as proxy for a shareholder and 

does not furnish or otherwise request, or act on behalf of a person who furnishes or requests, a 

form of revocation, abstention, consent or authorization; 

(ii) Any written communication includes: 

(A) The identity of each nominating shareholder and a description of his or her direct or 

indirect interests, by security holdings or otherwise; 

(B) A prominent legend in clear, plain language advising shareholders that a shareholder 

nominee is or will be included in the registrant’s proxy statement and that they should read the 

registrant’s proxy statement when available because it includes important information (or, if the 

registrant’s proxy statement is publicly available, advising shareholders of that fact and 

encouraging shareholders to read the registrant’s proxy statement because it includes important 

403
 
 

 

information). The legend also must explain to shareholders that they can find the registrant’s 

proxy statement, other soliciting material, and any other relevant documents at no charge on the 

Commission’s Web site; and 

(iii) Any written soliciting material published, sent or given to shareholders in 

accordance with this paragraph must be filed by the nominating shareholder or nominating 

shareholder group with the Commission, under the registrant’s Exchange Act file number, or, in 

the case of a registrant that is an investment company registered under the Investment Company 

Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.), under the registrant’s Investment Company Act file 

number, no later than the date the material is first published, sent or given to shareholders. Three 

copies of the material must at the same time be filed with, or mailed for filing to, each national 

securities exchange upon which any class of securities of the registrant is listed and registered. 

The soliciting material must include a cover page in the form set forth in Schedule 14N (§ 

240.14n-101) and the appropriate box on the cover page must be marked. 

Instruction 1 to paragraph (b)(8). A nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder 

group may rely on the exemption provided in paragraph (b)(8) of this section only after receiving 

notice from the registrant in accordance with § 240.14a-11(g)(1) or § 240.14a-11(g)(3)(iv) that 

the registrant will include the nominating shareholder’s or nominating shareholder group’s 

nominee or nominees in its form of proxy. 

Instruction 2 to paragraph (b)(8). Any solicitation by or on behalf of a nominating 

shareholder or nominating shareholder group in support of its nominee included or to be included 

on the registrant’s form of proxy in accordance with § 240.14a-11 or for or against the 

registrant’s nominee or nominees must be made in reliance on the exemption provided in 

paragraph (b)(8) of this section and not on any other exemption. 

404
 
 

 

Instruction 3 to paragraph (b)(8). The exemption provided in paragraph (b)(8) of this 

section shall not apply to a person that subsequently engages in soliciting or other nominating 

activities outside the scope of § 240.14a-11 in connection with the subject election of directors or 

is or becomes a member of any other group, as determined under section 13(d)(3) of the Act (15 

U.S.C. 78m(d)(3) and § 240.13d-5(b)), or otherwise, with persons engaged in soliciting or other 

nominating activities in connection with the subject election of directors. 

* * * * * 

10. Amend § 240.14a-4 by: 

a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(2) introductory text; and 

b. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (b)(2) concluding text. 

The revision and addition read as follows: 

§ 240.14a-4 Requirements as to proxy. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) A form of proxy that provides for the election of directors shall set forth the names of 

persons nominated for election as directors, including any person whose nomination by a 

shareholder or shareholder group satisfies the requirements of § 240.14a-11, an applicable state 

or foreign law provision, or a registrant’s governing documents as they relate to the inclusion of 

shareholder director nominees in the registrant’s proxy materials. * * * 

* * * Means to grant authority to vote for any nominees as a group or to withhold 

authority for any nominees as a group may not be provided if the form of proxy includes one or 

more shareholder nominees in accordance with § 240.14a-11, an applicable state or foreign law 

provision, or a registrant’s governing documents as they relate to the inclusion of shareholder 

405
 
 

 

director nominees in the registrant’s proxy materials. 

* * * * * 

11. Amend § 240.14a-5 by: 

a. Revising paragraph (e)(1) to remove “and” at the end of the paragraph; 

b. Revising paragraph (e)(2) to remove the period at the end of the paragraph and 

add in its place “; and”; and 

c. Adding paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 240.14a-5 Presentation of information in proxy statement. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) The deadline for submitting nominees for inclusion in the registrant’s proxy 

statement and form of proxy pursuant to § 240.14a-11, an applicable state or foreign law 

provision, or a registrant’s governing documents as they relate to the inclusion of shareholder 

director nominees in the registrant’s proxy materials for the registrant’s next annual meeting of 

shareholders. 

* * * * * 

12. Amend § 240.14a-6 by: 

a. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) as paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6), 

(a)(7), and (a)(8) respectively; 

b. Adding new paragraph (a)(4); 

c. Adding a sentence at the end of Note 3 to paragraph (a); and 

d. Adding paragraph (p). 

The revisions and additions read as follows: 

406
 
 

 

 

§ 240.14a-6 Filing requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(4) A shareholder nominee for director included pursuant to § 240.14a-11, an applicable 

state or foreign law provision, or a registrant’s governing documents as they relate to the 

inclusion of shareholder director nominees in the registrant’s proxy materials. 

* * * * * 

Note 3. * * * The inclusion of a shareholder nominee in the registrant’s proxy materials 

pursuant to § 240.14a-11, an applicable state or foreign law provision, or a registrant’s governing 

documents as they relate to the inclusion of shareholder director nominees in the registrant’s 

proxy materials does not constitute a “solicitation in opposition” for purposes of Rule 14a-6(a) (§ 

240.14a-6(a)), even if the registrant opposes the shareholder nominee and solicits against the 

shareholder nominee and in favor of a registrant nominee. 

* * * * * 

(p) Solicitations subject to § 240.14a-11. Any soliciting material that is published, sent 

or given to shareholders in connection with § 240.14a-2(b)(7) or (b)(8) must be filed with the 

Commission as specified in that section. 

13. Amend § 240.14a-8 by revising paragraph (i)(8) as follows: 

§ 240.14a-8 Shareholder proposals. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(8) Director elections: If the proposal: 

(i) Would disqualify a nominee who is standing for election; 

(ii) Would remove a director from office before his or her term expired; 

407
 
 

 

(iii) Questions the competence, business judgment, or character of one or more nominees 

or directors; 

(iv) Seeks to include a specific individual in the company’s proxy materials for election 

to the board of directors; or 

(v) Otherwise could affect the outcome of the upcoming election of directors. 

* * * * * 

14. Amend § 240.14a-9 by adding a paragraph (c), removing the authority citation 

following the section, and redesignating notes (a), (b), (c), and (d) as a., b., c., and d. 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 240.14a-9 False or misleading statements. 

* * * * * 

(c) No nominee, nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group, or any 

member thereof, shall cause to be included in a registrant’s proxy materials, either pursuant to 

the federal proxy rules, an applicable state or foreign law provision, or a registrant’s governing 

documents as they relate to including shareholder nominees for director in a registrant’s proxy 

materials, include in a notice on Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101), or include in any other related 

communication, any statement which, at the time and in the light of the circumstances under 

which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact, or which omits to state 

any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein not false or misleading or 

necessary to correct any statement in any earlier communication with respect to a solicitation for 

the same meeting or subject matter which has become false or misleading. 

* * * * * 

15. Add § 240.14a-11 to read as follows: 

408
 
 

 

 

§ 240.14a-11 Shareholder nominations. 

(a) Applicability. In connection with an annual (or a special meeting in lieu of an 

annual) meeting of shareholders, or a written consent in lieu of such meeting, at which directors 

are elected, a registrant will be required to include in its proxy statement and form of proxy the 

name of a person or persons nominated by a shareholder or group of shareholders for election to 

the board of directors and include in its proxy statement the disclosure about such nominee or 

nominees and the nominating shareholder or members of the nominating shareholder group as 

specified in Item 5 of Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101), provided that the conditions set forth in 

paragraph (b) of this section are satisfied. This rule will not apply to a registrant if: 

(1) The registrant is subject to the proxy rules solely because it has a class of debt 

securities registered under section 12 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78l); or 

(2) Applicable state or foreign law or a registrant’s governing documents prohibit the 

registrant’s shareholders from nominating a candidate or candidates for election as director. 

(b) Eligibility. A shareholder nominee or nominees shall be included in a registrant’s 

proxy statement and form of proxy if the following requirements are satisfied: 

(1) The nominating shareholder individually, or the nominating shareholder group in the 

aggregate, holds at least 3% of the total voting power of the registrant’s securities that are 

entitled to be voted on the election of directors at the annual (or a special meeting in lieu of the 

annual) meeting of shareholders or on a written consent in lieu of such meeting, on the date the 

nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group files the notice on Schedule 14N (§ 

240.14n-101) with the Commission and transmits the notice to the registrant; 

Instruction 1 to paragraph (b)(1). In the case of a registrant other than an investment 

company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.), for 

409
 
 

 

purposes of (b)(1) of this section, in determining the total voting power of the registrant’s 

securities that are entitled to be voted on the election of directors, the nominating shareholder or 

nominating shareholder group may rely on information set forth in the registrant’s most recent 

quarterly or annual report, and any current report subsequent thereto, filed with the Commission 

pursuant to this Act, unless the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group knows 

or has reason to know that the information contained therein is inaccurate. In the case of a 

registrant that is an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, 

for purposes of (b)(1) of this section, in determining the total voting power of the registrant’s 

securities that are entitled to be voted on the election of directors, the nominating shareholder or 

nominating shareholder group may rely on information set forth in the following documents, 

unless the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group knows or has reason to know 

that the information contained therein is inaccurate: 

a. In the case of a registrant that is a series company as defined in Rule 18f-2(a) under 

the Investment Company Act of 1940 (§ 270.18f-2(a) of this chapter), the Form 8-K (§ 249.308 

of this chapter) described in Instruction 2 to paragraph (b)(1) of this section; or 

b. In the case of other investment companies, the registrant’s most recent annual or semiannual report filed with the Commission on Form N-CSR (§ 249.331 and § 274.128 of this 

chapter). 

Instruction 2 to paragraph (b)(1). If the registrant is an investment company that is a 

series company (as defined in § 270.18f-2(a) of this chapter), the registrant must disclose 

pursuant to Item 5.08 of Form 8-K (§ 249.308 of this chapter) the total number of shares of the 

registrant outstanding and entitled to be voted (or if the votes are to be cast on a basis other than 

one vote per share, then the total number of votes entitled to be voted and the basis for allocating 

410
 
 

 

such votes) on the election of directors as of the end of the most recent calendar quarter. 

Instruction 3 to paragraph (b)(1). 

a. When determining the total voting power of the registrant’s securities, which is the 

denominator in the calculation of the percentage of voting power held by the nominating 

shareholder individually or the nominating shareholder group in the aggregate, calculate the 

aggregate number of votes derived from all classes of securities of the registrant that are entitled 

to vote on the election of directors regardless of whether solicitation of a proxy with respect to 

those securities would require compliance with Exchange Act Regulation 14A (§240.14a-1 et 

seq.). 

b. When determining the total voting power of the registrant’s securities held by the 

nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group, which is the 

numerator in the calculation of the percentage: 

1. Calculate the number of votes derived only from securities with respect to which 

solicitation of a proxy would require compliance with Exchange Act Regulation 14A (§ 240.14a1 et seq.) and over which the nominating shareholder or any the member of the nominating 

shareholder group, as the case may be, has voting power and investment power, either directly or 

through any person acting on their behalf; 

2. Notwithstanding the voting power calculation specified in paragraph b.1. of this 

instruction, add to the result of the calculation specified in paragraph b.1. of this instruction any 

votes attributable to securities with respect to which solicitation of a proxy would require 

compliance with Exchange Act Regulation 14A (§ 240.14a-1 et seq.) that have been loaned by or 

on behalf of the nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group to 

another person, if the nominating shareholder or member of the nominating shareholder group, 

411
 
 

 

as the case may be, or any person acting on their behalf, has the right to recall the loaned 

securities, and will recall the loaned securities upon being notified that any of the nominating 

shareholder’s or group’s nominees will be included in the registrant’s proxy statement and proxy 

card; and 

3. Subtract from the result of the calculation specified in paragraphs b.1. and b.2. of this 

instruction the number of votes attributable to securities of the registrant entitled to vote on the 

election of directors, regardless of whether solicitation of a proxy with respect to those securities 

would require compliance Exchange Act Regulation 14A (§ 240.14a-1 et seq.), that the 

nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group, as the case may be, 

or any person acting on their behalf, has sold in a short sale, as defined in 17 CFR 242.200(a), 

that is not closed out, or has borrowed for purposes other than a short sale. 

c. For purposes of the voting power calculation in paragraph b.1. of this instruction: 

1. A shareholder has voting power directly only when the shareholder has the power to 

vote or direct the voting, and investment power directly only when the shareholder has the power 

to dispose or direct the disposition, of the securities; and 

2. A securities intermediary (as defined in § 240.17Ad-20(b)) shall not have voting 

power or investment power over securities for purposes of paragraph b.1. of this instruction 

solely because such intermediary holds such securities by or on behalf of another person, 

notwithstanding that pursuant to the rules of a national securities exchange such intermediary 

may vote or direct the voting of such securities without instruction. 

Instruction 4 to paragraph (b)(1). If a registrant has more than one class of outstanding 

securities entitled to vote on the election of directors and those classes do not vote together in the 

election of all directors, then the voting power of the registrant’s securities for purposes of the 

412
 
 

 

calculation of both the numerator and denominator specified in Instruction 3 to paragraph (b)(1) 

should be determined only on the basis of the voting power of the class or classes of securities 

that would be voting together on the election of the person or persons sought to be nominated by 

the nominating shareholder or the nominating shareholder group. 

(2) The nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating shareholder group 

has held the amount of securities that are used for purposes of satisfying the minimum ownership 

requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this section continuously for at least three years as of the date 

the notice on Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101) is filed with the Commission and transmitted to the 

registrant and must continue to hold that amount of securities through the date of the subject 

election of directors; 

Instruction to paragraph (b)(2). To determine whether the amount of securities that are 

used for purposes of satisfying the minimum ownership requirement of paragraph (b)(1) has 

been held continuously during the three year period prior to the date the Schedule 14N (§ 

240.14n-101) is filed and during the period after the Schedule 14N is filed through the date of the 

subject election of directors, and with respect to all points in time during those periods: 

a. Include only the amount of securities with respect to which a solicitation of a proxy 

would require compliance with Exchange Act Regulation 14A (§ 240.14a-1 et seq.) and over 

which the nominating shareholder or the member of the nominating shareholder group, as the 

case may be, has voting power and investment power, either directly or through any person 

acting on their behalf; 

b. Notwithstanding the voting power determination specified in paragraph a. of this 

instruction, include the amount of securities that have been loaned by or on behalf of the 

nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group to another person, if 

413
 
 

 

the nominating shareholder or member of the nominating shareholder group, as the case may be, 

or any person acting on their behalf: 

1. Has the right to recall the loaned securities; and 

2. With respect to the period from the date the Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101) is filed 

through the date of the subject election of directors, will recall the loaned securities upon being 

notified that any of the person’s nominees will be included in the registrant’s proxy statement 

and proxy card; 

c. Reduce the amount of securities held by the amount of securities, on a class basis, that 

the nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group, as the case may 

be, or any person acting on their behalf, sold in a short sale, as defined in 17 CFR 242.200(a), 

during the periods, or borrowed for purposes other than a short sale; and 

d. Adjust the amount of securities held to give effect to any changes in the amount of 

securities during the periods resulting from stock splits, reclassifications or other similar 

adjustments by the registrant. 

(3) The nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating shareholder group 

provides proof of ownership of the amount of securities that are used for purposes of satisfying 

the ownership and holding period requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. If 

the nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating shareholder group is not the 

registered holder of the securities, the nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating 

shareholder group must provide proof of ownership in the form of one or more written 

statements from the registered holder of the nominating shareholder’s securities (or the brokers 

or banks through which those securities are held) verifying that, as of a date within seven 

calendar days prior to filing the notice on Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101) with the Commission 

414
 
 

 

and transmitting the notice to the registrant, the nominating shareholder or each member of the 

nominating shareholder group, continuously held the amount of securities being used to satisfy 

the ownership threshold for a period of at least three years. The written statement or statements 

proving ownership must be attached as an appendix to Schedule 14N on the date the notice is 

filed with the Commission and transmitted to the registrant, and provide the information 

specified in Item 4 of Schedule 14N. In the alternative, if the nominating shareholder or member 

of the nominating shareholder group has filed a Schedule 13D (§ 240.13d-101), Schedule 13G (§ 

240.13d-102), Form 3 (§ 249.103 of this chapter), Form 4 (§ 249.104 of this chapter), and/or 

Form 5 (§ 249.105 of this chapter), or amendments to those documents, reflecting ownership of 

the securities as of or before the date on which the three-year eligibility period begins, the 

nominating shareholder or member of the nominating shareholder group may attach the filing as 

an appendix to the Schedule 14N or incorporate the filing by reference into the Schedule 14N; 

Instruction to paragraph (b)(3). If the nominating shareholder or member of the 

nominating shareholder group must provide proof of ownership in the form of a written 

statement with respect to securities held through a broker or bank that is a participant in the 

Depository Trust Company or other clearing agency acting as a securities depository, then a 

statement from such broker or bank will satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. If the securities are held through a broker or bank (e.g., in an omnibus account) that is 

not a participant in a clearing agency acting as a securities depository, the nominating 

shareholder or member of the nominating shareholder group must also obtain and submit a 

separate written statement specified in the Instruction to Item 4 of Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n101). 

415
 
 

 

(4) The nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating shareholder group 

provides a statement, as specified in Item 4(b) of Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101), on the date the 

notice on Schedule 14N is filed with the Commission and transmitted to the registrant, that the 

nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating shareholder group intends to continue 

to hold the amount of securities that are used for purposes of satisfying the minimum ownership 

requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this section through the date of the meeting; 

(5) The nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating shareholder group 

provides a statement, as specified in Item 4(b) of Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101), on the date the 

notice on Schedule 14N is filed with the Commission and transmitted to the registrant, regarding 

the nominating shareholder’s or group’s intent with respect to continued ownership of the 

registrant’s securities after the election; 

(6) The nominating shareholder (or where there is a nominating shareholder group, each 

member of the nominating shareholder group) is not holding any of the registrant’s securities 

with the purpose, or with the effect, of changing control of the registrant or to gain a number of 

seats on the board of directors that exceeds the maximum number of nominees that the registrant 

could be required to include under paragraph (d) of this section; 

(7) Neither the nominee nor the nominating shareholder (or where there is a nominating 

shareholder group, any member of the nominating shareholder group) has an agreement with the 

registrant regarding the nomination of the nominee; 

Instruction to paragraph (b)(7). Negotiations between the nominee, the nominating 

shareholder or nominating shareholder group and the nominating committee or board of the 

registrant to have the nominee included in the registrant’s proxy statement and form of proxy as 

a registrant nominee, where those negotiations are unsuccessful, or negotiations that are limited 

416
 
 

 

to whether the registrant is required to include the shareholder nominee in the registrant’s proxy 

statement and form of proxy in accordance with this section, will not represent a direct or 

indirect agreement with the registrant. 

(8) The nominee’s candidacy or, if elected, board membership would not violate 

controlling federal law, state law, foreign law, or rules of a national securities exchange or 

national securities association (other than rules regarding director independence) or, in the case 

that the nominee’s candidacy or, if elected, board membership would violate such laws or rules, 

such violation could not be cured by the time provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section; 

(9) In the case of a registrant other than an investment company, the nominee meets the 

objective criteria for “independence” of the national securities exchange or national securities 

association rules applicable to the registrant, if any, or, in the case of a registrant that is an 

investment company, the nominee is not an “interested person” of the registrant as defined in 

section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(19)); 

Instruction to paragraph (b)(9). For purposes of this provision, the nominee would be 

required to meet the definition of “independence” that is generally applicable to directors of the 

registrant and not any particular definition of independence applicable to members of the audit 

committee of the registrant’s board of directors. To the extent a national securities exchange or 

national securities association rule imposes a standard regarding independence that requires a 

subjective determination by the board or a group or committee of the board (for example, 

requiring that the board of directors or any group or committee of the board of directors make a 

determination regarding the existence of factors material to a determination of a nominee’s 

independence), the nominee would not be required to meet the subjective determination of 

independence as part of the shareholder nomination process. 

417
 
 

 

(10) The nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group provides notice to the 

registrant on Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101), as specified by § 240.14n-1, of its intent to require 

that the registrant include that shareholder’s or group’s nominee in the registrant’s proxy 

statement and form of proxy. This notice must be transmitted to the registrant on the date it is 

filed with the Commission. The notice must be filed with the Commission and transmitted to the 

registrant no earlier than 150 calendar days, and no later than 120 calendar days, before the 

anniversary of the date that the registrant mailed its proxy materials for the prior year’s annual 

meeting, except that, if the registrant did not hold an annual meeting during the prior year, or if 

the date of the meeting has changed by more than 30 calendar days from the prior year, or if the 

registrant is holding a special meeting or conducting an election of directors by written consent, 

then the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group must transmit the notice to the 

registrant and file its notice with the Commission a reasonable time before the registrant mails its 

proxy materials, as specified by the registrant in a Form 8-K (§ 249.308 of this chapter) filed 

pursuant to Item 5.08 of Form 8-K; and 

Instruction 1 to paragraph (b)(10). If the registrant held a meeting the previous year and 

the date of the current year’s annual meeting has not changed by more than 30 calendar days 

from the date of the previous year’s annual meeting, the window period for filing a notice on 

Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101) with the Commission and transmitting that notice to the registrant 

should be calculated by determining the release date disclosed in the registrant’s previous year’s 

proxy statement, increasing the year by one, and counting back 150 calendar days and 120 

calendar days for the beginning and end of the window period, respectively. Where the 120 

calendar day deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the deadline will be treated as the 

first business day following the Saturday, Sunday or holiday. 

418
 
 

 

Instruction 2 to paragraph (b)(10). If the registrant did not hold an annual meeting the 

previous year, or if the date of the current year’s annual meeting has been changed by more than 

30 calendar days from the date of the previous year’s annual meeting, or if the registrant is 

holding a special meeting or conducting the election of directors by written consent, the 

registrant must disclose pursuant to Item 5.08 of Form 8-K (§ 249.308 of this chapter) the date 

by which a shareholder or group must submit the notice required pursuant to paragraph (b)(10) 

of this section, which date shall be a reasonable time prior to the date the registrant mails its 

proxy materials for the meeting. 

(11) The nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group provides the 

certifications required by Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101) on the date the notice on Schedule 14N 

is filed with the Commission and transmitted to the registrant. 

Instruction to paragraph (b). A registrant will not be required to include a nominee or 

nominees submitted by a nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group pursuant to 

this section if the nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group 

also submits any other nomination to that registrant and/or is participating in more than one 

nominating shareholder group for that registrant. In addition, a registrant will not be required to 

include a nominee or nominees if a nominating shareholder or member of a nominating 

shareholder group: 

a. Is or becomes a member of any other group, as determined under section 13(d)(3) of 

the Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(d)(3) and § 240.13d-5(b)), or otherwise, with persons engaged in 

soliciting or other nominating activities in connection with the subject election of directors; 

b. Is separately conducting a solicitation in connection with the subject election of 

directors other than a solicitation subject to § 240.14a-2(b)(8) in relation to those nominees it has 

419
 
 

 

nominated pursuant to this section or for or against the registrant’s nominees; or 

c. Is acting as a participant in another person’s solicitation in connection with the subject 

election of directors. 

(c) Statement of support. A registrant will be required to include a statement of support 

submitted by a nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group in Item 5(i) of the 

notice on Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101), provided that the statement of support does not exceed 

500 words per nominee. If a statement of support submitted by a nominating shareholder or 

nominating shareholder group exceeds 500 words per nominee, the registrant will be required to 

include the nominee or nominees, provided that the eligibility requirements and other conditions 

of the rule are satisfied, but the registrant may exclude the supporting statement(s). 

(d) Maximum number of shareholder nominees. (1) A registrant will be required to 

include in its proxy statement and form of proxy one shareholder nominee or the number of 

nominees that represents 25% of the total number of the registrant’s board of directors, 

whichever is greater, submitted by a nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group 

pursuant to this section, subject to the limitations in paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5) 

of this section. A registrant may exclude a nominee or nominees if including the nominee or 

nominees would result in the registrant exceeding the maximum number of nominees it is 

required to include in its proxy statement and form of proxy pursuant to this provision. 

Instruction to paragraph (d)(1). Depending on board size, 25% of the board may not 

result in a whole number. In those instances, the registrant will round down to the closest whole 

number below 25% to determine the maximum number of shareholder nominees for director that 

the registrant is required to include in its proxy statement and form of proxy. 

420
 
 

 

(2) Where the registrant has one or more directors currently serving on its board of 

directors who were elected as a shareholder nominee pursuant to this section, and the term of that 

director or directors extends past the election of directors for which it is soliciting proxies, the 

registrant will not be required to include in the proxy statement and form of proxy more 

shareholder nominees than could result in the total number of directors who were elected as 

shareholder nominees pursuant to this section and serving on the board being more than one 

shareholder nominee or 25% of the total number of the registrant’s board of directors, whichever 

is greater. 

(3) Where the registrant has multiple classes of securities and each class is entitled to 

elect a specified number of directors, the registrant will be required to include the lesser of the 

number of nominees that the nominating shareholder’s or group’s class is entitled to elect or 25% 

of the registrant’s board of directors, but in no case less than one nominee. 

(4) Where the registrant agrees to include in its proxy statement and form of proxy, as 

an unopposed registrant nominee, the nominee or nominees of the nominating shareholder or 

nominating shareholder group that otherwise would be eligible under this section to have its 

nominees included in the registrant’s proxy materials, the nominee will be considered a 

shareholder nominee for purposes of calculating the maximum number of shareholder nominees 

that must be included in the registrant’s proxy statement and form of proxy, provided that the 

nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group filed its notice on Schedule 14N (§ 

240.14n-101) before beginning communications with the registrant about the nomination. 

(5) A nominee included in a registrant’s proxy statement and form of proxy as a result of 

an agreement between the nominee or nominating shareholder (or where there is a nominating 

shareholder group, any member of the nominating shareholder group) and the registrant, other 

421
 
 

 

than as specified in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, will not be counted as a shareholder nominee 

for purposes of calculating the maximum number of shareholder nominees that the registrant is 

required to include in its proxy statement and form of proxy. 

Instruction to paragraph (d)(5). Negotiations between the nominee, the nominating 

shareholder or nominating shareholder group and the nominating committee or board of the 

registrant to have the nominee included in the registrant’s proxy statement and form of proxy as 

a registrant nominee, where those negotiations are unsuccessful, or negotiations that are limited 

to whether the registrant is required to include the shareholder nominee in the registrant’s proxy 

statement and form of proxy in accordance with this section, will not represent a direct or 

indirect agreement with the registrant. 

(e) Order of priority for shareholder nominees. (1) In the event that more than one 

eligible shareholder or group of shareholders submits a nominee or nominees for inclusion in the 

registrant’s proxy materials pursuant to this section, the registrant shall include in the proxy 

statement and form of proxy the nominee or nominees of the nominating shareholder or 

nominating shareholder group with the highest qualifying voting power percentage disclosed as 

of the date of filing the Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101) (as determined in calculating ownership 

to satisfy the requirement as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section) from which the 

registrant received a notice filed and transmitted as specified in paragraph (b)(10) of this section, 

up to and including the total number of nominees required to be included by the registrant 

pursuant to this section. Where the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group 

with the highest qualifying voting power percentage that is otherwise eligible to rely on this 

section and that filed and transmitted the notice as specified in paragraph (b)(10) of this section 

does not nominate the maximum number of individuals required to be included by the registrant, 

422
 
 

 

the nominee or nominees of the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group with 

the next highest qualifying voting power percentage from which the registrant received the 

notice filed and transmitted as specified in paragraph (b)(10) of this section would be included in 

the registrant’s proxy statement and form of proxy, if any, up to and including the total number 

required to be included by the registrant. This process would continue until the registrant has 

included the maximum number of nominees it is required to include in its proxy statement and 

form of proxy pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section or the registrant exhausts the list of 

eligible nominees. 

(2) Prior to the time a registrant has commenced printing its proxy statement and form of 

proxy, if a nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group withdraws or is disqualified, 

a registrant will be required to include in its proxy statement and form of proxy the nominee or 

nominees of the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group with the next highest 

qualifying voting power percentage, disclosed as of the date of filing the Schedule 14N (§ 

240.14n-101) (as determined in calculating ownership to satisfy the requirement as specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section), from which the registrant received a notice filed and transmitted 

as specified in paragraph (b)(10) of this section, if any, up to and including the total number 

required to be included by the registrant. This process would continue until the registrant 

included the maximum number of nominees it is required to include in its proxy statement and 

form of proxy pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section or the registrant exhausts the list of 

eligible nominees. If the registrant has commenced printing its proxy statement and form of 

proxy, the registrant will not be required to include a nominee or nominees in its proxy statement 

and form of proxy in place of a nominee or nominees that has withdrawn or has been 

disqualified. 

423
 
 

 

(3) If a nominee or nominees withdraws or is disqualified after the registrant provides 

notice to the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group of the registrant’s intent to 

include the nominee or nominees in its proxy statement and form of proxy, the registrant will be 

required to include in its proxy statement and form of proxy any other eligible nominee 

submitted by that nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group. If that nominating 

shareholder or nominating shareholder group did not include any other eligible nominees in its 

notice filed on Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101), then the registrant will be required to include the 

nominee or nominees of the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group with the 

next highest voting power percentage, disclosed as of the date of filing the Schedule 14N (§ 

240.14n-101) (as determined in calculating ownership to satisfy the requirement as specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section), from which the registrant received a notice filed and transmitted 

as specified in paragraph (b)(10) of this section, if any, up to and including the total number 

required to be included by the registrant. This process would continue until the registrant 

included the maximum number of nominees it is required to include in its proxy statement and 

form of proxy pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section or the registrant exhausts the list of 

eligible nominees. If the registrant has commenced printing its proxy statement and form of 

proxy, the registrant will not be required to include a nominee or nominees in its proxy statement 

and form of proxy in place of a nominee or nominees that has withdrawn or has been 

disqualified. 

(4) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this paragraph, if a registrant has multiple 

classes of securities and each class is entitled to elect a specified number of directors, and 

nominating shareholders or groups of nominating shareholders of more than one of those classes 

submit a number of eligible nominees for inclusion in the registrant’s proxy materials pursuant to 

424
 
 

 

this section that is greater than 25% of the total number of the registrant’s board of directors, the 

registrant shall include in the proxy statement and form of proxy the nominee or nominees of the 

nominating shareholders or groups on the basis of the proportion of total voting power in the 

election of directors attributable to each class, rounding to the closest whole number, if 

necessary, and otherwise in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section. 

Instruction 1 to paragraph (e). In determining the priority of the nominee or nominees to 

be included in the registrant’s proxy materials, the registrant will be required to consider only the 

nominee or nominees that would otherwise be required to be included under the provisions of 

this section. 

Instruction 2 to paragraph (e). If the registrant is including shareholder director nominees 

from more than one nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group, as described in 

this paragraph, and including all of the shareholder director nominees of the nominating 

shareholder or nominating shareholder group that is last in priority would result in exceeding the 

maximum number required under paragraph (d) of this section, the nominating shareholder or 

nominating shareholder group that is last in priority may specify which of its nominees are to be 

included in the registrant’s proxy materials. 

(f) False or misleading statements. The registrant is not responsible for any information 

in the notice from the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group submitted as 

required by paragraph (b)(10) of this section or otherwise provided by the nominating 

shareholder or nominating shareholder group that is included in the registrant’s proxy materials. 

(g) Determinations regarding eligibility. (1) If the registrant determines that it will 

include a shareholder nominee, it must notify the nominating shareholder or nominating 

shareholder group (or their authorized representative) upon making this determination. In no 

425
 
 

 

event should the notification be postmarked or transmitted electronically later than 30 calendar 

days before it files its definitive proxy statement and form of proxy with the Commission. 

(2) If the registrant determines that it may exclude a shareholder nominee pursuant to a 

provision in paragraph (a), (b), (d), or (e) of this section, or exclude a statement of support 

pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, the registrant must notify in writing the nominating 

shareholder or nominating shareholder group (or their authorized representative) of this 

determination. This notice must be postmarked or transmitted electronically to the nominating 

shareholder or nominating shareholder group (or their authorized representative) no later than 14 

calendar days after the close of the period for submission specified in paragraph (b)(10) of this 

section. 

(i) The registrant’s notice to the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder 

group (or their authorized representative) that it has determined that it may exclude a shareholder 

nominee or statement of support must include an explanation of the registrant’s basis for 

determining that it may exclude the nominee or statement of support. 

(ii) The nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group shall have 14 calendar 

days after receipt of the registrant’s notice pursuant to paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section to 

respond to the registrant’s notice and correct any eligibility or procedural deficiencies identified 

in that notice. The nominating shareholder’s or nominating shareholder group’s response must 

be postmarked or transmitted electronically to the registrant no later than 14 calendar days after 

receipt of the registrant’s notice. 

(3) If the registrant intends to exclude a shareholder nominee or statement of support, 

after providing the requisite notice of and time for the nominating shareholder or nominating 

shareholder group to remedy any eligibility or procedural deficiencies in the nomination or 

426
 
 

 

statement, the registrant must provide notice of the basis for its determination to the Commission 

no later than 80 calendar days before it files its definitive proxy statement and form of proxy 

with the Commission. The Commission staff may permit the registrant to make its submission 

later than 80 calendar days before the registrant files its definitive proxy statement and form of 

proxy if the registrant demonstrates good cause for missing the deadline. 

(i) The registrant’s notice to the Commission shall include: 

(A) Identification of the nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating 

shareholder group, as applicable; 

(B) The name of the nominee or nominees; 

(C) An explanation of the registrant’s basis for determining that the registrant may 

exclude the nominee or nominees or a statement of support; and 

(D) A supporting opinion of counsel when the registrant’s basis for excluding a nominee 

or nominees relies on a matter of state or foreign law. 

(ii) The registrant must file its notice to the Commission and simultaneously provide a 

copy to the nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating shareholder group (or 

their authorized representative). At the time the registrant files its notice, the registrant also may 

seek an informal statement of the Commission staff’s views with regard to its determination to 

exclude from its proxy materials a nominee or nominees or a statement of support. The 

Commission staff may provide an informal statement of its views to the registrant along with a 

copy to the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group (or their authorized 

representative); 

(iii) The nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group may submit a 

response to the registrant’s notice to the Commission. This response must be postmarked or 

427
 
 

 

transmitted electronically to the Commission no later than 14 calendar days after the nominating 

shareholder’s or nominating shareholder group’s receipt of the registrant’s notice to the 

Commission. The nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group must simultaneously 

provide to the registrant a copy of its response to the Commission. 

(iv) If the registrant seeks an informal statement of the Commission staff’s views with 

regard to its determination to exclude a shareholder nominee or nominees, the registrant shall 

provide the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group (or their authorized 

representative) with notice, either postmarked or transmitted electronically, promptly following 

receipt of the staff’s response, of whether it will include or exclude the shareholder nominee; and 

(v) The exclusion of a shareholder nominee or a statement of support by a registrant 

where that exclusion is not permissible under paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section 

shall be a violation of this section. 

Instruction 1 to paragraph (g). When a registrant must provide a notice to a nominating 

shareholder, member of a nominating shareholder group, or authorized representative of a 

nominating shareholder group, the registrant is responsible for providing the notice in a manner 

that evidences timely transmission. Where a nominating shareholder, member of a nominating 

shareholder group, or authorized representative of a nominating shareholder group responds to a 

notice, the nominating shareholder, member of a nominating shareholder group, or authorized 

representative of a nominating shareholder group is responsible for providing the response in a 

manner that evidences timely transmission. 

Instruction 2 to paragraph (g). Neither the composition of the nominating shareholder 

group nor the shareholder nominee may be changed as a means to correct a deficiency identified 

in the registrant’s notice to the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group under 

428
 
 

 

paragraph (g)(2) of this section; however, where a nominating shareholder or nominating 

shareholder group submits a number of nominees that exceeds the maximum number required to 

be included by the registrant under the circumstances set forth in paragraph (d) of this section, 

the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group may specify which nominee or 

nominees are not to be included in the registrant’s proxy materials. 

Instruction 3 to paragraph (g). Unless otherwise indicated in this section, the burden is 

on the registrant to demonstrate that it may exclude a nominee or statement of support. 

16. Amend § 240.14a-12 by removing the heading following paragraph (c)(2)(iii) 

“Instructions to § 240.14a-12”; by removing the numbers 1. and 2. of instructions 1 and 2 to § 

240.14a-12 and adding in their places the phrases “Instruction 1 to § 240.14a-12.” and 

“Instruction 2 to § 240.14a-12.”, respectively; and adding Instruction 3 to § 240.14a-12 to read 

as follows: 

§ 240.14a-12 Solicitation before furnishing a proxy statement. 

* * * * * 

Instruction 3 to § 240.14a-12. Inclusion of a nominee pursuant to § 240.14a-11, an 

applicable state or foreign law provision, or a registrant’s governing documents as they relate to 

the inclusion of shareholder director nominees in the registrant’s proxy materials, or solicitations 

by a nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group that are made in connection with 

that nomination constitute solicitations in opposition subject to § 240.14a-12(c), except for 

purposes of § 240.14a-6(a). 

17. Add § 240.14a-18 to read as follows: 

§ 240.14a-18 Disclosure regarding nominating shareholders and nominees submitted for 

inclusion in a registrant’s proxy materials pursuant to applicable state or foreign law, or a 

registrant’s governing documents. 

429
 
 

 

To have a nominee included in a registrant’s proxy materials pursuant to a procedure set 

forth under applicable state or foreign law, or the registrant’s governing documents addressing 

the inclusion of shareholder director nominees in the registrant’s proxy materials, the nominating 

shareholder or nominating shareholder group must provide notice to the registrant of its intent to 

do so on a Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101) and file that notice, including the required disclosure, 

with the Commission on the date first transmitted to the registrant. This notice shall be 

postmarked or transmitted electronically to the registrant by the date specified by the registrant’s 

advance notice provision or, where no such provision is in place, no later than 120 calendar days 

before the anniversary of the date that the registrant mailed its proxy materials for the prior 

year’s annual meeting, except that, if the registrant did not hold an annual meeting during the 

prior year, or if the date of the meeting has changed by more than 30 calendar days from the 

prior year, then the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group must provide notice 

a reasonable time before the registrant mails its proxy materials, as specified by the registrant in 

a Form 8-K (§ 249.308 of this chapter) filed pursuant to Item 5.08 of Form 8-K. 

Instruction to § 240.14a-18. The registrant is not responsible for any information 

provided in the Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101) by the nominating shareholder or nominating 

shareholder group, which is submitted as required by this section or otherwise provided by the 

nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group that is included in the registrant’s 

proxy materials. 

18. Amend § 240.14a-101 by: 

a. Revising Item 7 as follows: 

i. Redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (g); and 

ii. Adding new paragraph (e) and paragraph (f); and 

430
 
 

 

b. Adding paragraphs (18) and (19) to Item 22(b). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 240.14a-101 – Schedule 14A. Information required in proxy statement. 

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION 

* * * * * 

Item 7. * * * 

* * * * * 

(e) If a shareholder nominee or nominees are submitted to the registrant for inclusion in 

the registrant’s proxy materials pursuant to § 240.14a-11 and the registrant is not permitted to 

exclude the nominee or nominees pursuant to the provisions of § 240.14a-11, the registrant must 

include in its proxy statement the disclosure required from the nominating shareholder or 

nominating shareholder group under Item 5 of § 240.14n-101 with regard to the nominee or 

nominees and the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group. 

Instruction to Item 7(e). The information disclosed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this Item 

will not be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 

U.S.C. 77a et seq.), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), or the 

Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.), except to the extent that the 

registrant specifically incorporates that information by reference. 

(f) If a registrant is required to include a shareholder nominee or nominees submitted to 

the registrant for inclusion in the registrant’s proxy materials pursuant to a procedure set forth 

under applicable state or foreign law, or the registrant’s governing documents providing for the 

inclusion of shareholder director nominees in the registrant’s proxy materials, the registrant must 

include in its proxy statement the disclosure required from the nominating shareholder or 

431
 
 

 

nominating shareholder group under Item 6 of § 240.14n-101 with regard to the nominee or 

nominees and the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group. 

Instruction to Item 7(f). The information disclosed pursuant to paragraph (f) of this Item 

will not be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 

U.S.C. 77a et seq.), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), or the 

Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.), except to the extent that the 

registrant specifically incorporates that information by reference. 

* * * * * 

Item 22. Information required in investment company proxy statement. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(18) If a shareholder nominee or nominees are submitted to the Fund for inclusion in the 

Fund’s proxy materials pursuant to § 240.14a-11 and the Fund is not permitted to exclude the 

nominee or nominees pursuant to the provisions of § 240.14a-11, the Fund must include in its 

proxy statement the disclosure required from the nominating shareholder or nominating 

shareholder group under Item 5 of § 240.14n-101 with regard to the nominee or nominees and 

the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group. 

Instruction to paragraph (b)(18). The information disclosed pursuant to paragraph (b)(18) 

of this Item will not be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act 

of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), or 

the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.), except to the extent that the 

Fund specifically incorporates that information by reference. 

(19) If a Fund is required to include a shareholder nominee or nominees submitted to the 

432
 
 

 

 

Fund for inclusion in the Fund’s proxy materials pursuant to a procedure set forth under 

applicable state or foreign law or the Fund’s governing documents providing for the inclusion of 

shareholder director nominees in the Fund’s proxy materials, the Fund must include in its proxy 

statement the disclosure required from the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder 

group under Item 6 of § 240.14n-101 with regard to the nominee or nominees and the 

nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group. 

Instruction to paragraph (b)(19). The information disclosed pursuant to paragraph (b)(19) 

of this Item will not be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act 

of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), or 

the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.), except to the extent that the 

Fund specifically incorporates that information by reference. 

* * * * * 

19. Amend Part 240 by adding an undesignated center heading and §§ 240.14n-1 

through 240.14n-3 and § 240.14n-101 to read as follows: 

REGULATION 14N: FILINGS REQUIRED BY CERTAIN NOMINATING SHAREHOLDERS 

§ 240.14n-1 Filing of Schedule 14N. 

(a) A shareholder or group of shareholders that submits a nominee or nominees in 

accordance with § 240.14a-11 or a procedure set forth under applicable state or foreign law, or a 

registrant’s governing documents providing for the inclusion of shareholder director nominees in 

the registrant’s proxy materials shall file with the Commission a statement containing the 

information required by Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101) and simultaneously provide the notice on 

Schedule 14N to the registrant. 

(b)(1) Whenever two or more persons are required to file a statement containing the 

433
 
 

 

information required by Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101), only one statement need be filed. The 

statement must identify all such persons, contain the required information with regard to each 

such person, indicate that the statement is filed on behalf of all such persons, and include, as an 

appendix, their agreement in writing that the statement is filed on behalf of each of them. Each 

person on whose behalf the statement is filed is responsible for the timely filing of that statement 

and any amendments thereto, and for the completeness and accuracy of the information 

concerning such person contained therein; such person is not responsible for the completeness or 

accuracy of the information concerning the other persons making the filing. 

(2) If the group’s members elect to make their own filings, each filing should identify all 

members of the group but the information provided concerning the other persons making the 

filing need only reflect information which the filing person knows or has reason to know. 

§ 240.14n-2 Filing of amendments to Schedule 14N. 

(a) If any material change occurs with respect to the nomination, or in the disclosure or 

certifications set forth in the Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101) required by § 240.14n-1(a), the 

person or persons who were required to file the statement shall promptly file or cause to be filed 

with the Commission an amendment disclosing that change. 

(b) An amendment shall be filed within 10 calendar days of the final results of the 

election being announced by the registrant stating the nominating shareholder’s or the 

nominating shareholder group’s intention with regard to continued ownership of their shares. 

§ 240.14n-3 Dissemination. 

 One copy of Schedule 14N (§ 240.14n-101) filed pursuant to §§ 240.14n-1 and 240.14n2 shall be mailed by registered or certified mail or electronically transmitted to the registrant at 

its principal executive office. Three copies of the material must at the same time be filed with, or 

434
 
 

 

____________________ 

____________________ 

____________________ 

____________________ 

mailed for filing to, each national securities exchange upon which any class of securities of the 

registrant is listed and registered. 

§ 240.14n-101 Schedule 14N – Information to be included in statements filed pursuant to § 

240.14n-1 and amendments thereto filed pursuant to § 240.14n-2. 

Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C. 20549 

Schedule 14N 

Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(Amendment No._)* 

(Name of Issuer) 

(Title of Class of Securities) 

(CUSIP Number) 

[ ] Solicitation pursuant to § 240.14a-2(b)(7) 

[ ] Solicitation pursuant to § 240.14a-2(b)(8) 

[ ] Notice of Submission of a Nominee or Nominees in Accordance with § 240.14a-11 

[ ] Notice of Submission of a Nominee or Nominees in Accordance with Procedures Set 

 Forth Under Applicable State or Foreign Law, or the Registrant’s Governing Documents 

*The remainder of this cover page shall be filled out for a reporting person’s initial filing on this 

form, and for any subsequent amendment containing information which would alter the 

disclosures provided in a prior cover page. 

435
 
 

 

_________________ 

The information required in the remainder of this cover page shall not be deemed to be “filed” 

for the purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) or otherwise 

subject to the liabilities of that section of the Act but shall be subject to all other provisions of the 

Act. 

(1) Names of reporting persons: ___________________ 

(2) Mailing address and phone number of each reporting person (or, where applicable, the 

authorized representative): ___________________ 

(3) Amount of securities held that are entitled to be voted on the election of directors held by 

each reporting person (and, where applicable, amount of securities held in the aggregate by the 

nominating shareholder group), but including loaned securities and net of securities sold short or 

borrowed for purposes other than a short sale: ___________________ 

(4) Number of votes attributable to the securities entitled to be voted on the election of directors 

represented by amount in Row (3) (and, where applicable, aggregate number of votes attributable 

to the securities entitled to be voted on the election of directors held by group): 

Instructions for Cover Page: 

(1) Names of Reporting Persons – Furnish the full legal name of each person for whom 

the report is filed – i.e., each person required to sign the schedule itself – including each member 

of a group. Do not include the name of a person required to be identified in the report but who is 

not a reporting person. 

(3) and (4) Amount Held by Each Reporting Person – Rows (3) and (4) are to be 

436
 
 

 

completed in accordance with the provisions of Item 3 of Schedule 14N. 

Notes: Attach as many copies of parts one through three of the cover page as are needed, one 

reporting person per copy. 

Filing persons may, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication, answer items on Schedule 

14N by appropriate cross references to an item or items on the cover page(s). This approach may 

only be used where the cover page item or items provide all the disclosure required by the 

schedule item. Moreover, such a use of a cover page item will result in the item becoming a part 

of the schedule and accordingly being considered as “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Act 

or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section of the Act. 

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLYING WITH SCHEDULE 14N 

Under Sections 14 and 23 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and 

regulations thereunder, the Commission is authorized to solicit the information required to be 

supplied by this Schedule. The information will be used for the primary purpose of determining 

and disclosing the holdings and interests of a nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder 

group. This statement will be made a matter of public record. Therefore, any information given 

will be available for inspection by any member of the public. 

Because of the public nature of the information, the Commission can use it for a variety 

of purposes, including referral to other governmental authorities or securities self-regulatory 

organizations for investigatory purposes or in connection with litigation involving the Federal 

securities laws or other civil, criminal or regulatory statutes or provisions. Failure to disclose the 

information requested by this schedule may result in civil or criminal action against the persons 

involved for violation of the Federal securities laws and rules promulgated thereunder, or in 

some cases, exclusion of the nominee from the registrant’s proxy materials. 

437
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General instructions to item requirements 

The item numbers and captions of the items shall be included but the text of the items is 

to be omitted. The answers to the items shall be prepared so as to indicate clearly the coverage 

of the items without referring to the text of the items. Answer every item. If an item is 

inapplicable or the answer is in the negative, so state. 

Item 1(a). Name of registrant 

Item 1(b). Address of registrant’s principal executive offices 

Item 2(a). Name of person filing 

Item 2(b). Address or principal business office or, if none, residence 

Item 2(c). Title of class of securities 

Item 2(d). CUSIP No. 

Item 3. Ownership 

Provide the following information, in accordance with Instruction 3 to § 240.14a11(b)(1): 

(a) Amount of securities held and entitled to be voted on the election of directors (and, 

where applicable, amount of securities held in the aggregate by the nominating shareholder 

group): ________. 

(b) The number of votes attributable to the securities referred to in paragraph (a) of this 

Item: _________. 

(c) The number of votes attributable to securities that have been loaned but which the 

reporting person: 

(i) has the right to recall; and 

438
 
 

 

(ii) will recall upon being notified that any of the nominees will be included in the 

registrant’s proxy statement and proxy card: ________. 

(d) The number of votes attributable to securities that have been sold in a short sale that 

is not closed out, or that have been borrowed for purposes other than a short sale: _______. 

(e) The sum of paragraphs (b) and (c), minus paragraph (d) of this Item, divided by the 

aggregate number of votes derived from all classes of securities of the registrant that are entitled 

to vote on the election of directors, and expressed as a percentage: _______. 

Item 4. Statement of Ownership from a Nominating Shareholder or Each Member of 

a Nominating Shareholder Group Submitting this Notice Pursuant to § 

240.14a-11 

(a) If the nominating shareholder, or each member of the nominating shareholder group, 

is the registered holder of the shares, please so state. Otherwise, attach to the Schedule 14N one 

or more written statements from the persons (usually brokers or banks) through which the 

nominating shareholder’s securities are held, verifying that, within seven calendar days prior to 

filing the shareholder notice on Schedule 14N with the Commission and transmitting the notice 

to the registrant, the nominating shareholder continuously held the amount of securities being 

used to satisfy the ownership threshold for a period of at least three years. In the alternative, if 

the nominating shareholder has filed a Schedule 13D (§ 240.13d-101), Schedule 13G (§ 240.13d102), Form 3 (§ 249.103 of this chapter), Form 4 (§ 249.104 of this chapter), and/or Form 5 (§ 

249.105 of this chapter), or amendments to those documents, reflecting ownership of the 

securities as of or before the date on which the three-year eligibility period begins, so state and 

incorporate that filing or amendment by reference. 

(b) Provide a written statement that the nominating shareholder, or each member of the 

nominating shareholder group, intends to continue to hold the amount of securities that are used 

439
 
 

 

for purposes of satisfying the minimum ownership requirement of § 240.14a-11(b)(1) through 

the date of the meeting of shareholders, as required by § 240.14a-11(b)(4). Additionally, provide 

a written statement from the nominating shareholder or each member of the nominating 

shareholder group regarding the nominating shareholder’s or nominating shareholder group 

member’s intent with respect to continued ownership after the election of directors, as required 

by § 240.14a-11(b)(5). 

Instruction to Item 4. If the nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating 

shareholder group is not the registered holder of the securities and is not proving ownership for 

purposes of § 240.14a-11(b)(3) by providing previously filed Schedules 13D or 13G or Forms 3, 

4, or 5, and the securities are held in an account with a broker or bank that is a participant in the 

Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) or other clearing agency acting as a securities depository, a 

written statement or statements from that participant or participants in the following form will 

satisfy § 240.14a-11(b)(3): 

As of [date of this statement], [name of nominating shareholder or member of the 

nominating shareholder group] held at least [number of securities owned continuously for at least 

three years] of the [registrant’s] [class of securities], and has held at least this amount of such 

securities continuously for [at least three years]. [Name of clearing agency participant] is a 

participant in [name of clearing agency] whose nominee name is [nominee name]. 

 [name of clearing agency participant] 

 By: [name and title of representative] 

 Date: 

If the securities are held through a broker or bank (e.g. in an omnibus account) that is not a 

participant in a clearing agency acting as a securities depository, the nominating shareholder or 

440
 
 

 

member of the nominating shareholder group must (a) obtain and submit a written statement or 

statements (the “initial broker statement”) from the broker or bank with which the nominating 

shareholder or member of the nominating shareholder group maintains an account that provides 

the information about securities ownership set forth above and (b) obtain and submit a separate 

written statement from the clearing agency participant through which the securities of the 

nominating shareholder or member of the nominating shareholder group are held, that (i) 

identifies the broker or bank for whom the clearing agency participant holds the securities, and 

(ii) states that the account of such broker or bank has held, as of the date of the separate written 

statement, at least the number of securities specified in the initial broker statement, and (iii) 

states that this account has held at least that amount of securities continuously for at least three 

years. 

If the securities have been held for less than three years at the relevant entity, provide 

written statements covering a continuous period of three years and modify the language set forth 

above as appropriate. 

For purposes of complying with § 240.14a-11(b)(3), loaned securities may be included in 

the amount of securities set forth in the written statements. 

Item 5. Disclosure Required for Shareholder Nominations Submitted Pursuant to § 

240.14a-11 

If a nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group is submitting this notice in 

connection with the inclusion of a shareholder nominee or nominees for director in the 

registrant’s proxy materials pursuant to § 240.14a-11, provide the following information: 

(a) A statement that the nominee consents to be named in the registrant’s proxy 

statement and form of proxy and, if elected, to serve on the registrant’s board of directors; 

(b) Disclosure about the nominee as would be provided in response to the disclosure 

441
 
 

 

requirements of Items 4(b), 5(b), 7(a), (b) and (c) and, for investment companies, Item 22(b) of 

Schedule 14A (§ 240.14a-101), as applicable; 

(c) Disclosure about the nominating shareholder or each member of a nominating 

shareholder group as would be required of a participant in response to the disclosure 

requirements of Items 4(b) and 5(b) of Schedule 14A (§ 240.14a-101), as applicable; 

(d) Disclosure about whether the nominating shareholder or any member of a nominating 

shareholder group has been involved in any legal proceeding during the past ten years, as 

specified in Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K (§ 229.10 of this chapter). Disclosure pursuant to this 

paragraph need not be provided if provided in response to Item 5(c) of this section; 

Instruction 1 to Item 5 (c) and (d). Where the nominating shareholder is a general or 

limited partnership, syndicate or other group, the information called for in paragraphs (c) and (d) 

of this Item must be given with respect to: 

a. Each partner of the general partnership; 

b. Each partner who is, or functions as, a general partner of the limited partnership; 

c. Each member of the syndicate or group; and 

d. Each person controlling the partner or member. 

Instruction 2 to Item 5 (c) and (d). If the nominating shareholder is a corporation or if a 

person referred to in a., b., c. or d. of Instruction 1 to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this Item is a 

corporation, the information called for in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this Item must be given with 

respect to: 

a. Each executive officer and director of the corporation; 

b. Each person controlling the corporation; and 

c. Each executive officer and director of any corporation or other person ultimately in 

442
 
 

 

control of the corporation. 

(e) Disclosure about whether, to the best of the nominating shareholder’s or group’s 

knowledge, the nominee meets the director qualifications, if any, set forth in the registrant’s 

governing documents; 

(f) A statement that, to the best of the nominating shareholder’s or group’s knowledge, 

in the case of a registrant other than an investment company, the nominee meets the objective 

criteria for “independence” of the national securities exchange or national securities association 

rules applicable to the registrant, if any, or, in the case of a registrant that is an investment 

company, the nominee is not an “interested person” of the registrant as defined in section 

2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(19)). 

Instruction to Item 5(f). For this purpose, the nominee would be required to meet the 

definition of “independence” that is generally applicable to directors of the registrant and not any 

particular definition of independence applicable to members of the audit committee of the 

registrant’s board of directors. To the extent a national securities exchange or national securities 

association rule imposes a standard regarding independence that requires a subjective 

determination by the board or a group or committee of the board (for example, requiring that the 

board of directors or any group or committee of the board of directors make a determination 

regarding the existence of factors material to a determination of a nominee’s independence), the 

nominee would not be required to meet the subjective determination of independence as part of 

the shareholder nomination process. 

(g) The following information regarding the nature and extent of the relationships 

between the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group, the nominee, and/or the 

registrant or any affiliate of the registrant: 

443
 
 

 

(1) Any direct or indirect material interest in any contract or agreement between the 

nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group, the nominee, 

and/or the registrant or any affiliate of the registrant (including any employment agreement, 

collective bargaining agreement, or consulting agreement); 

(2) Any material pending or threatened legal proceeding in which the nominating 

shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group and/or the nominee is a party or 

a material participant, and that involves the registrant, any of its executive officers or directors, 

or any affiliate of the registrant; and 

(3) Any other material relationship between the nominating shareholder or any member 

of the nominating shareholder group, the nominee, and/or the registrant or any affiliate of the 

registrant not otherwise disclosed; 

Note to Item 5(g)(3). Any other material relationship of the nominating shareholder or 

any member of the nominating shareholder group or nominee with the registrant or any affiliate 

of the registrant may include, but is not limited to, whether the nominating shareholder or any 

member of the nominating shareholder group currently has, or has had in the past, an 

employment relationship with the registrant or any affiliate of the registrant (including consulting 

arrangements). 

(h) The Web site address on which the nominating shareholder or nominating 

shareholder group may publish soliciting materials, if any; and 

(i) Any statement in support of the shareholder nominee or nominees, which may not 

exceed 500 words for each nominee, if the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder 

group elects to have such statement included in the registrant’s proxy materials. 

Item 6. Disclosure Required by § 240.14a-18 

444
 
 

 

If a nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group is submitting this notice in 

connection with the inclusion of a shareholder nominee or nominees for director in the 

registrant’s proxy materials pursuant to a procedure set forth under applicable state or foreign 

law, or the registrant’s governing documents provide the following disclosure: 

(a) A statement that the nominee consents to be named in the registrant’s proxy 

statement and form of proxy and, if elected, to serve on the registrant’s board of directors; 

(b) Disclosure about the nominee as would be provided in response to the disclosure 

requirements of Items 4(b), 5(b), 7(a), (b) and (c) and, for investment companies, Item 22(b) of 

Schedule 14A (§ 240.14a-101), as applicable; 

(c) Disclosure about the nominating shareholder or each member of a nominating 

shareholder group as would be required in response to the disclosure requirements of Items 4(b) 

and 5(b) of Schedule 14A (§ 240.14a-101), as applicable; 

(d) Disclosure about whether the nominating shareholder or any member of a nominating 

shareholder group has been involved in any legal proceeding during the past ten years, as 

specified in Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K (§ 229.10 of this chapter). Disclosure pursuant to this 

paragraph need not be provided if provided in response to Item 6(c) of this section; 

Instruction 1 to Item 6(c) and (d). Where the nominating shareholder is a general or 

limited partnership, syndicate or other group, the information called for in paragraphs (c) and (d) 

of this Item must be given with respect to: 

a. Each partner of the general partnership; 

b. Each partner who is, or functions as, a general partner of the limited partnership; 

c. Each member of the syndicate or group; and 

d. Each person controlling the partner or member. 

445
 
 

 

Instruction 2 to Item 6(c) and (d). If the nominating shareholder is a corporation or if a 

person referred to in a., b., c. or d. of Instruction 1 to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this Item is a 

corporation, the information called for in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this Item must be given with 

respect to: 

a. Each executive officer and director of the corporation; 

b. Each person controlling the corporation; and 

c. Each executive officer and director of any corporation or other person ultimately in 

control of the corporation. 

(e) The following information regarding the nature and extent of the relationships 

between the nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group, the nominee, and/or the 

registrant or any affiliate of the registrant: 

(1) Any direct or indirect material interest in any contract or agreement between the 

nominating shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group, the nominee, 

and/or the registrant or any affiliate of the registrant (including any employment agreement, 

collective bargaining agreement, or consulting agreement); 

(2) Any material pending or threatened legal proceeding in which the nominating 

shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group and/or nominee is a party or a 

material participant, involving the registrant, any of its executive officers or directors, or any 

affiliate of the registrant; and 

(3) Any other material relationship between the nominating shareholder or any member 

of the nominating shareholder group, the nominee, and/or the registrant or any affiliate of the 

registrant not otherwise disclosed; and 

Instruction to Item 6(e)(3). Any other material relationship of the nominating 

446
 
 

 

shareholder or any member of the nominating shareholder group with the registrant or any 

affiliate of the registrant may include, but is not limited to, whether the nominating shareholder 

or any member of the nominating shareholder group currently has, or has had in the past, an 

employment relationship with the registrant or any affiliate of the registrant (including consulting 

arrangements). 

(f) The Web site address on which the nominating shareholder or nominating 

shareholder group may publish soliciting materials, if any. 

Item 7. Notice of Dissolution of Group or Termination of Shareholder Nomination 

Notice of dissolution of a nominating shareholder group or the termination of a 

shareholder nomination shall state the date of the dissolution or termination. 

Item 8. Signatures 

(a) The following certifications shall be provided by the filing person submitting this 

notice pursuant to § 240.14a-11, or in the case of a group, each filing person whose securities are 

being aggregated for purposes of meeting the ownership threshold set out in § 240.14a-11(b)(1) 

exactly as set forth below: 

I, [identify the certifying individual], after reasonable inquiry and to the best of my 

knowledge and belief, certify that: 

(1) I [or if signed by an authorized representative, the name of the nominating 

shareholder or each member of the nominating shareholder group, as appropriate] am [is] not 

holding any of the registrant’s securities with the purpose, or with the effect, of changing control 

of the registrant or to gain a number of seats on the board of directors that exceeds the maximum 

number of nominees that the registrant could be required to include under § 240.14a-11(d); 

(2) I [or if signed by an authorized representative, the name of the nominating 

447
 
 

 

shareholder or each member of the nominating shareholder group, as appropriate] otherwise 

satisfy [satisfies] the requirements of § 240.14a-11(b), as applicable; 

(3) The nominee or nominees satisfies the requirements of § 240.14a-11(b), as applicable; 

and 

(4) The information set forth in this notice on Schedule 14N is true, complete and 

correct. 

(b) The following certification shall be provided by the filing person or persons 

submitting this notice in connection with the submission of a nominee or nominees in accordance 

with procedures set forth under applicable state or foreign law or the registrant’s governing 

documents: 

I, [identify the certifying individual], after reasonable inquiry and to the best of my 

knowledge and belief, certify that the information set forth in this notice on Schedule 14N is true, 

complete and correct. 

Dated: ___________ 

Signature: __________________ 

Name/Title: _____________________ 

The original statement shall be signed by each person on whose behalf the statement is 

filed or his authorized representative. If the statement is signed on behalf of a person by his 

authorized representative other than an executive officer or general partner of the filing person, 

evidence of the representative’s authority to sign on behalf of such person shall be filed with the 

statement, provided, however, that a power of attorney for this purpose which is already on file 

with the Commission may be incorporated by reference. The name and any title of each person 

448
 
 

 

who signs the statement shall be typed or printed beneath his signature. 

Attention: Intentional misstatements or omissions of fact constitute Federal criminal 

violations (see 18 U.S.C. 1001). 

20. Amend § 240.15d-11 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 240.15d-11 Current reports on Form 8-K (§ 249.308 of this chapter). 

* * * * * 

(b) This section shall not apply to foreign governments, foreign private issuers required 

to make reports on Form 6-K (17 CFR 249.306) pursuant to § 240.15d-16, issuers of American 

Depositary Receipts for securities of any foreign issuer, or investment companies required to file 

reports pursuant to § 270.30b1-1 of this chapter under the Investment Company Act of 1940, 

except where such an investment company is required to file: 

(1) Notice of a blackout period pursuant to § 245.104 of this chapter; 

(2) Disclosure pursuant to Instruction 2 to § 240.14a-11(b)(1) of information concerning 

outstanding shares and voting; or 

(3) Disclosure pursuant to Instruction 2 to § 240.14a-11(b)(10) of the date by which a 

nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group must submit the notice required 

pursuant to § 240.14a-11(b)(10). 

* * * * * 

PART 249 – FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

21. The authority citation for Part 249 continues to read, in part, as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise 

noted. 

* * * * * 

449
 
 

 

22. Amend Form 8-K (referenced in § 249.308) by: 

a. Adding a sentence at the end of General Instruction B.1; 

b. Removing the phrase “Section 5.06” in the heading and adding in its place “Item 

5.06”; and 

c. Adding Item 5.08. 

The additions read as follows: 

Note: The text of Form 8-K does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. 

Form 8-K 

* * * * * 

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 

* * * * * 

B. Events to be Reported and Time for Filing Reports 

1. * * * A report pursuant to Item 5.08 is to be filed within four business days after the registrant 

determines the anticipated meeting date. 

* * * * * 

Item 5.08 Shareholder Director Nominations 

(a) If the registrant did not hold an annual meeting the previous year, or if the date of this 

year’s annual meeting has been changed by more than 30 calendar days from the date of the 

previous year’s meeting, then the registrant is required to disclose the date by which a 

nominating shareholder or nominating shareholder group must submit the notice on Schedule 

14N (§ 240.14n-101) required pursuant to § 240.14a-11(b)(10), which date shall be a reasonable 

time before the registrant mails its proxy materials for the meeting. Where a registrant is 

required to include shareholder director nominees in the registrant’s proxy materials pursuant to 

450
 
 

 

either an applicable state or foreign law provision, or a provision in the registrant’s governing 

documents, then the registrant is required to disclose the date by which a nominating shareholder 

or nominating shareholder group must submit the notice on Schedule 14N required pursuant to § 

240.14a-18. 

(b) If the registrant is a series company as defined in Rule 18f-2(a) under the Investment 

Company Act of 1940 (§ 270.18f-2 of this chapter), then the registrant is required to disclose in 

connection with the election of directors at an annual meeting of shareholders (or, in lieu of such 

an annual meeting, a special meeting of shareholders) the total number of shares of the registrant 

outstanding and entitled to be voted (or if the votes are to be cast on a basis other than one vote 

per share, then the total number of votes entitled to be voted and the basis for allocating such 

votes) on the election of directors at such meeting of shareholders as of the end of the most 

recent calendar quarter. 

* * * * * 

By the Commission. 

 Elizabeth M. Murphy 

Secretary 

Date: August 25, 2010 

451