To read this content please select one of the options below:

SEC issues Staff Legal Bulletin after four-year comprehensive review of proxy system

John E. Sorkin (Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, New York, USA)
Abigail Pickering Bomba (Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, New York, USA)
Steven Epstein (Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, New York, USA)
Jessica Forbes (Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, New York, USA)
Peter S. Golden (Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, New York, USA)
Philip Richter (Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, New York, USA)
Robert C. Schwenkel (Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, New York, USA)
David Shine (Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, New York, USA)
Arthur Fleischer (Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, New York, USA)
Gail Weinstein (Senior Counsel for Legal Developments, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP)

Journal of Investment Compliance

ISSN: 1528-5812

Article publication date: 5 May 2015

190

Abstract

Purpose

To provide an overview of the guidance for proxy firms and investment advisers included in the Staff Legal Bulletin released this year by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after its four-year comprehensive review of the proxy system.

Design/methodology/approach

Discusses briefly the context in which the SEC’s review was conducted; the general themes of the guidance provided; the most notable aspects of the guidance; and the matters that were expected to be, but were not, addressed by the SEC.

Findings

The guidance does not go as far in regulating proxy advisory firms as many had anticipated it would. The key obligations specified in the guidance are imposed on the investment advisers who engage the proxy firms. The responsibilities, policies and procedures mandated do not change the fundamental paradigm that has supported the influence of proxy firms – that is, investment advisers continue to be permitted to fulfill their duty to vote client shares in a “conflict-free manner” by voting based on the recommendations of independent third parties, and continue to be exempted from the rules that generally apply to persons who solicit votes or make proxy recommendations.

Practical implications

The SEC staff states in the Bulletin that it expects that proxy firms and investment advisers will conform to the obligations imposed in the Bulletin “promptly, but in any event in advance of [the 2015] proxy season.”

Originality/value

Practical guidance from experienced M&A lawyers.

Keywords

Acknowledgements

© Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP´

Citation

Sorkin, J.E., Bomba, A.P., Epstein, S., Forbes, J., Golden, P.S., Richter, P., Schwenkel, R.C., Shine, D., Fleischer, A. and Weinstein, G. (2015), "SEC issues Staff Legal Bulletin after four-year comprehensive review of proxy system", Journal of Investment Compliance, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 63-65. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-01-2015-0006

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2015, Authors

Related articles