Tag: ISS v. SEC
What’s going on with the SEC’s proxy advisor rules?
Shall we catch up on some of the recent developments regarding the SEC’s proxy advisor rules? First, let’s take a look at what’s happening with the appeal of the opinion of the D.C. Federal District Court in ISS v. SEC, which, in February of this year, vacated the SEC’s 2020 rule that advice from proxy advisory firms was a “solicitation” under the proxy rules. Both the SEC and National Association of Manufacturers had filed notices of appeal in that case, but the SEC has mysteriously dropped out of that contest. Then, with regard to the separate ongoing litigation over the 2022 amendments to the proxy advisor rules—which reversed some of the key provisions in the 2020 rules—a new decision has been rendered by a three-judge panel of the 6th circuit, U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. SEC, upholding the 2022 amendments, thus creating a split with the recent decision of the 5th Circuit, National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC, on the same issue.
SEC and NAM appeal decision holding 2020 proxy advisor rule amendments unlawful
You probably remember the saga about the SEC’s rules regarding proxy advisory firms? Back in 2019, the SEC issued interpretive guidance that proxy advisory firms’ vote recommendations were, in the view of the SEC, “solicitations” under the proxy rules and subject to the anti-fraud provisions of Rule 14a-9. (See this PubCo post.) That guidance led ISS to sue the SEC and then-SEC Chair Jay Clayton. SEC rules codifying that interpretation were adopted in 2020. ISS amended its complaint, contending that the interpretation in the release and the subsequent rules were unlawful for a number of reasons, including that the SEC’s determination that providing proxy advice is a “solicitation” was contrary to law, that the SEC failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and that the views expressed in the release were arbitrary and capricious. The National Association of Manufacturers, which favored the 2020 amendments, intervened on the side of the SEC (and also became a defendant). Over four years later, in February 2024, the DC District Court held that the SEC’s rules regarding proxy advisory firms were invalid, stating that the “SEC acted contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority when it amended the proxy rules’ definition of ‘solicit’ and ‘solicitation’ to include proxy voting advice for a fee.” (See this PubCo post.) Now, both NAM and the SEC have filed notices of appeal with the DC Circuit.
After 1576 days, DC District Court holds proxy advisor rule invalid
A Federal District Court has just held invalid the SEC’s rule regarding proxy advisory firms. The case dates back to 2019(!), when ISS sued the SEC and then-SEC Chair Jay Clayton in connection with the SEC’s interpretive guidance that proxy advisory firms’ vote recommendations were, in the view of the SEC, “solicitations” under the proxy rules and subject to the anti-fraud provisions of Rule 14a-9. (See this PubCo post.) Rules confirming that interpretation were adopted in 2020. In its amended complaint, ISS contended that the interpretation in the release and the subsequent rules were unlawful for a number of reasons, including that the SEC’s determination that providing proxy advice is a “solicitation” is contrary to law, that the SEC failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and that the views expressed in the release were arbitrary and capricious. Now, after 1576 days, the DC District Court has agreed, holding that the “SEC acted contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority when it amended the proxy rules’ definition of ‘solicit’ and ‘solicitation’ to include proxy voting advice for a fee.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.