In a November 1st letter to the Chairman of the SEC, Christopher Cox, 9 members of the Senate Banking Committee, or almost ten percent of the full U.S. Senate, wrote urging the SEC to maintain the current set of proxy rules and regulations. In the view of these members, "neither proposal should be adopted."
(For our response, see:
http://twisri.blogspot.com/2007/10/response-to-sec-shareholder-proposals.html)
Current federal law leaves regulation of the proxy process up to the SEC. Period. In a side conversation at a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Proxy Access held on 9/27, we warned Tim Smith, Chairman of the Social Investing Forum against believing that pushing to hold a hearing or getting letters written will block implementation of one of the two proposed rules. The issue is similar to what occurred in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004:) what matters is the relevant vote, not the popular vote. In this case, the relevant vote is that of the Commission. Unless you have a seat on the Commission, you don't get to vote on the matter.
The views of the other 91 U.S. Senators are not known at this time. This means there is a good chance Mr. Cox will be able to approve one of these proposals and stay in his position, at least for the next twelve months.
We see nothing here to change our opinion that the more restrictive of the two proposals, S7-17-07 and S7-16-07, will be adopted.
(For our response, see:
http://twisri.blogspot.com/2007/10/response-to-sec-shareholder-proposals.html)
Current federal law leaves regulation of the proxy process up to the SEC. Period. In a side conversation at a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Proxy Access held on 9/27, we warned Tim Smith, Chairman of the Social Investing Forum against believing that pushing to hold a hearing or getting letters written will block implementation of one of the two proposed rules. The issue is similar to what occurred in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004:) what matters is the relevant vote, not the popular vote. In this case, the relevant vote is that of the Commission. Unless you have a seat on the Commission, you don't get to vote on the matter.
The views of the other 91 U.S. Senators are not known at this time. This means there is a good chance Mr. Cox will be able to approve one of these proposals and stay in his position, at least for the next twelve months.
We see nothing here to change our opinion that the more restrictive of the two proposals, S7-17-07 and S7-16-07, will be adopted.