Hunton Retail Law Resource

One novel feature of the 2020 proxy season has been the surge in virtual shareholder meetings. For example, one provider of virtual meeting services reported four times as many virtual shareholder meetings as last year. Although the rise in virtual meetings this year resulted from safety precautions surrounding COVID-19, after weighing the benefits and becoming more comfortable with conducting business remotely, it is likely that many companies will continue to use virtual shareholder meetings or hybrid in-person and virtual meetings in the future.

Recently, Hunton Andrews Kurth launched a new blog, C-Suite Compensation Center. The blog will discuss compensation issues that are increasingly complex due to evolving laws, changing administrative rules and increasing shareholder activity.

The members of our Compensation practice group are multi-disciplinary within the various substantive areas of compensation. As multi-disciplinary practitioners, we take a holistic and full-service approach to compensation matters that considers all substantive areas of compensation.

Read the latest blog posts.

As the 2018 proxy season is winding down, some trends have begun to emerge regarding CEO pay ratio disclosure, shareholder proposals and virtual shareholder meetings.

At the end of February, the SEC staff issued a No-Action Letter to Dunkin’ Brands Group, Inc., permitting the company to exclude a shareholder proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(5), often referred to as the economic relevance exception. This is the first no-action relief granted under the rule since the SEC issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14I (“SLB 14I”) on November 1, 2017, and it could have implications for other retailers seeking to exclude shareholder proposals under the rule in the future.

Once the sole province of hedge funds and special interest groups, many mainstream institutional investors have now also embraced a more activist perspective with regard to their portfolio companies. In his most recent letter to CEOs, Blackrock chairman Larry Fink advocated in favor of a series of Environmental-Social-Governance (“ESG”) issues and rhetorically asked companies, “What role do we play in the community?” Other institutional money managers, like New York City’s Comptroller Scott Stringer, have also accelerated their ESG-focused shareholder activism in recent years, targeting well-known retailers such as Kroger, Walmart and Home Depot in the process. 

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) allowed Apple Inc. to exclude a shareholder proposal from its proxy statement that requested that Apple “produce a report assessing the climate benefits and feasibility of adopting store-wide requirements for having all retail locations implement a policy on keeping entrance doors closed when climate control (especially air-conditioning during warm months) is in use.” 

On November 1, 2017, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14I, which provides additional guidance for public companies (including retailers) seeking to exclude certain shareholder proposals from their proxy materials. Under this bulletin, the SEC staff now expects boards of directors to analyze shareholder proposals before companies make no-action requests to exclude such proposals from proxy materials under Rule 14a-8(i)(7) (the ordinary business exception) or Rule 14a-8(i)(5) (the economic relevance ...

On September 8, 2017, New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer and the New York City Pension Funds announced the second phase of their Boardroom Accountability Project, which will focus on board diversity and composition. Stringer sent a letter to the nominating and governance committee chairs of 151 portfolio companies held by the New York City Pension Funds, requesting board engagement regarding the director refreshment process and disclosure of a director qualification matrix that identifies directors’ relevant skills and experience and their gender and race/ethnicity. The list of companies included several major retailers and consisted of companies that have adopted proxy access in response to shareholder proposals from the NYC Pension Funds and those where the NYC Pension Funds’ proxy access proposals received majority support in 2017. 

When say-on-pay (i.e., shareholders with the right to vote on the remuneration of executives) was introduced under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, there was a requirement that companies conduct say-on-pay frequency votes every six years for shareholders to decide whether say-on-pay votes should be held every one, two or three years. Companies first held say-on-pay frequency votes in 2011, so for many companies the 2017 proxy season is the first time that shareholders have revisited the matter since then.

As media outlets recently highlighted Equal Pay Day on April 4, 2017, publicly held retailers should be aware that the focus on pay equity is becoming increasingly popular among activist shareholders. This proxy season, more than 20 publicly traded companies are facing shareholder proposals at their annual meetings to vote on whether they should research and report on pay gaps by gender and race.

A recent report by MSCI examined proxy access among the 565 United States incorporated companies in the MSCI USA Index. In two years, the percentage of companies with proxy access grew from less than 1 percent to 41.2 percent as of December 14, 2016. Additionally, of the 110 companies targeted by the New York City Comptroller’s Office and the New York City pension funds’ Boardroom Accountability Project during the 2015 and 2016 proxy seasons, 90.9 percent have adopted proxy access. Although these numbers show a substantial increase in adoption by companies, making the push for proxy access appear successful, the report notes that the companies adopting proxy access are mostly ones that already have fairly strong shareholder rights.

As with other areas of the law, the recent presidential election will present both challenges and opportunities for retailers concerned with financial and securities regulation. While President-elect Trump did not articulate his views on financial services regulation on the campaign trail in any detailed manner, he did suggest that the Dodd-Frank Act should be repealed as it has increased costs for businesses, impeded economic growth and severely reduced lending without any clear benefits to investors or consumers.

Earlier this month, proxy advisory firms Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) and Glass Lewis recommended that shareholders vote for retailer Chico’s FAS Inc.’s (“Chico’s”) board of director candidates, instead of the two candidates nominated by activist investor Barington Capital Group LP (“Barington”). This prompted Barington to abandon its proxy fight.

The 2016 proxy season is in full swing, and similarly to 2015, the number of shareholder proposals has increased. According to a report by The Manhattan Institute's Proxy Monitor, for Fortune 250 companies with annual meetings scheduled on or before April 30, there was a 7.5 percent increase in shareholder proposals compared to last year. Many of these proposals involve environmental, political and social issues, among others.

In 2015, there was a record number of activist shareholder campaigns in the United States. Although activist hedge funds targeted companies across numerous industries, several retail companies found themselves in activists’ crosshairs. These included companies such as fast-food restaurant chains, convenience store operators, auto parts retailers and department store retailers.

On October 22, 2015, staff in the Division of Corporation Finance (the “Division”) at the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) issued Staff Legal Bulletin 14H (the “Bulletin”). The Bulletin is the latest in a series of Division interpretations under Rule 14a-8 governing shareholder proposals. The Bulletin focuses specifically on circumstances in which the Division will grant no-action relief to exclude a shareholder proposal under two hot-button issues from last year’s proxy season: (1) Rule 14a-8(i)(7), for proposals dealing with a company’s ordinary business operations, and (2) Rule 14a-8(i)(9), for a proposal that directly conflicts with one of the company’s own proposals to be submitted to shareholders at the same meeting. We discuss the Bulletin below.