insuranceneeds.in

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Sunday, 3 April 2011

Securities Law - SEC Approves Shareholder Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation

Posted on 18:03 by Unknown
The Securities and Exchange Commission by a 3-2 vote approved rules providing for shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation. The final rules as adopted largely follow the rules as proposed by the Commission.

Final Rule 14a-21(b) provides that companies are required at least once every six years to give shareholders an advisory vote as to whether the company’s “Say On Pay” vote will occur every one, two or three years. The votes are advisory only and as such are not binding on the company or the Board of Directors. The compensation of directors is not subject to Say On Pay vote. Results of the vote must be set forth in a Form 8-K within four business days after the shareholders meeting. Brokers are not permitted to vote uninstructed shares in a Say On Pay or Say On Frequency proposals.

The two negative votes were cast by the Republican members of the Commission.

Author’s Commentary
It appears to the author that the issue is over-analyzed, and, to a significant extent, a waste of time. For example, assume that shareholders of a given company over a period of years vote that the executive compensation is excessive and a shareholders’ lawsuit is filed claiming that the compensation is excessive and makes reference to the adverse votes by shareholders. It is unlikely that such a lawsuit would be successful. Existing precedent is to the effect that courts are not the best forum to determine the compensation and benefits of officers. Shareholders routinely lose such lawsuits.

The real concern is that the directors will acknowledge pressure to reduce or hold compensation down after votes suggesting the compensation is excessive.

In this proxy season companies have approached the new issue with a variety of approaches.

The author notes that Northern Trust gave the shareholder the right to select when the subject should be revisited. It states directors recommend you vote each year on the frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation.

The AT&T proxy card states that the Board of Directors recommends you vote every three years on executive compensation.

Northern’s direction is straight forward – “A vote every year is O.K. We can handle criticism.”
AT&T’s director approach is that executive compensation is for directors to set. AT&T wants as few votes on executive compensation as possible.

In sum, this issue is not nearly as important as the media reports have suggested.

Edward X. Clinton, Sr.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in Securities Law | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Corporate Law - LLC Statute Shields Member From Personal Liability
    Carollo v. Irwin, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 4th Div. 2011 - Google Scholar : The Illinois Appellate Court recently decided the above-...
  • Seventh Circuit Approves Securities Class Certification in Conseco Case
    The United States District Court for the Seventh District of Indiana approved class certification for a class of Conseco Investors. (Later C...
  • LLC Operating Agreement Defeats Unjust Enrichment and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
    WOSS, LLC v. 218 ECKFORD, LLC, 102 AD 3d 860 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. 2013 - Google Scholar : The plaintiff LLC was a member of the d...
  • Seventh Circuit Weighs In On Unjust Enrichment Debate
    Cleary v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2011 - Google Scholar : The Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismis...
  • Contract Law - Lewitton v. ITA Software, Incorporated (Seventh Circuit 08-3725)
    The Seventh Circuit Holds that An Employer Breached An Employment Contract When It Blocked A Former Employee From Exercising Options To Purc...
  • Securities Law - Wells Notice
    A Wells Notice advises a public company or a principal officer of a public company that the Securities & Exchange Commission is consider...
  • Fraud and Proof of Reliance
    In fraud cases, the plaintiff must prove, among other things, that she reasonably relied on the factual assertion made by the defendant. All...
  • District Court Holds That Moorman Doctrine Bars A Conversion Claim
    Lansing v. Carroll, Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2012 - Google Scholar : The economic loss or Moorman doctrine bars tort claims where the damage...
  • Business Debts - The Bankruptcy Court Will Not Discharge A Debt Where The Underlying Loan Was Procured Through Fraud
    In Ojeda v. Goldberg , No. 09-2008, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a determination of the District Court (Judge Gottschall) that a debt was no...
  • Shareholder Derivative Action Dismissed Because Plaintiff Failed To Make A Demand on the Board of Directors
    IN RE HURON CONSULTING GROUP, INC. v. HURON CONSULTING GROUP, INC., Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 2nd Div. 2012 - Google Scholar : This c...

Categories

  • Business Advice
  • Collection Law
  • Consumer Rights
  • Contract Law
  • Corporate Law
  • Creditor Rights
  • Federal Arbitration Act
  • Federal Rules of Evidence
  • Fraud Claims
  • Fraudulent Transfer
  • Insurance Coverage Disputes
  • Internet Collection Scam
  • Limited Liability Company Issues
  • Litigation Issues
  • Moorman Doctrine
  • Mortgage Foreclosure
  • Noncompetition Agreements
  • Personal Jurisdiction
  • Securities Law
  • Shareholder Derivative Actions
  • Too Many Lawyers and Too Many Law Students
  • Uniform Commercial Code

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (27)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (5)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2012 (34)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ▼  2011 (40)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ▼  April (3)
      • Is That Contract Provision A Penalty or a Liquidat...
      • Business Law (Illinois): Miscellaneous Operating I...
      • Securities Law - SEC Approves Shareholder Advisory...
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2010 (36)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2009 (18)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (4)
  • ►  2008 (1)
    • ►  September (1)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile