CCRcorp Sites  

The CCRcorp Network unlocks access to a world of insights, research, guides and information in a range of specialty areas.

Our Sites

TheCorporateCounsel

TheCorporateCounsel.net

A basis for research and practical guidance focusing on federal securities laws, compliance & corporate governance.

DealLawyers

DealLawyers.com

An educational service that provides practical guidance on legal issues involving public and private mergers & acquisitions, joint ventures, private equity – and much more.

CompensationStandards

CompensationStandards.com

The “one stop” resource for information about responsible executive compensation practices & disclosure.

Section16.net

Section16.net

Widely recognized as the premier online research platform providing practical guidance on issues involving Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and all of its related rules.

PracticalESG

PracticalESG.com

Keeping you in-the-know on environmental, social and governance developments

Last November, the SEC announced that it would allow companies to exclude precatory shareholder proposals as a matter of course. Now, two investor groups known for shareholder advocacy are suing the SEC. Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and As You Sow argue that this change in policy violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). They allege that the no-objection policy is not in accordance with the law. The complaint states:

“The APA requires a reviewing court to set aside agency action that is ‘not in accordance with law…’ The No-Objection Policy deviates from Rule 14a-8 in several ways, and it is therefore contrary to law… First, the No-Objection Policy is inconsistent with the burden of persuasion established by Rule 14a-8. Because the company bears the burden of persuasion to establish that it may exclude a proposal, if the evidence supporting and negating the invoked basis for excluding the proposal ‘is evenly balanced,’ the company ‘must lose…’

The No-Objection Policy derogates from that standard. Under the new No-Objection Policy, a company will receive a no-objection letter ‘based solely on the company’s or counsel’s representation’ that it has a reasonable basis to exclude the proposal. Thus, a company can obtain a no-objection letter without bearing the burden of persuading the SEC that it can properly exclude the proposal, even if the arguments and evidence favor the proponent.”

Plaintiffs also contend that the policy violates the APA by being arbitrary and capricious. Additionally, they assert that the no-objection policy is tantamount to an administrative rule-making that failed to follow the notice and comment period or commission vote. If the lawsuit is successful, we’ll likely see the SEC pursue this policy through an official rule-making.

Our members can learn more about ESG litigation here.

If you’re not already a member, sign up now and take advantage of our no-risk “100-Day Promise” – during the first 100 days as an activated member, you may cancel for any reason and receive a full refund. But it will probably pay for itself before then. Members also save hours of research and reading time each week by using our filtered and curated library of ESG/sustainability resources covering over 100 sustainability subject areas – updated daily with practical and credible information.

Practical Guidance for Companies, Curated for Clarity.

Image credit: JHVEPhoto – stock.adobe.com

Back to all blogs

The Editor

Zachary Barlow is a licensed attorney. He earned his JD from the University of Mississippi and has a bachelor’s in Public Policy Leadership. He practiced law at a mid-size firm and handled a wide variety of cases. During this time he assisted in overseeing compliance of a public entity and litigated contract disputes, gaining experience both in and outside of the courtroom. Zachary currently assists the PracticalESG.com editorial team by providing research and creating content on a spectrum of ESG… View Profile