|
Relevance
Rule 14a-8(5)
Overview
|
This exclusion basis has seen increasingly
limited utility in recent
years. The 'otherwise significantly related" language has been
interpreted broadly, so as to deny exclusion of matters that had anything
more than a de minimis impact on the company
From
11.01.04 through 8.10.07, only ten requests for no-action letters cited Rule
14a-8(i)(5) as a basis for excluding a shareholder proposal
Cases
- At least one district court has reinforced the
weight of this "not significantly related to company business" prong of
the exclusion ground. Lovenheim v. Iroquois Brands, 618 F. Supp. 544
Dist. D.C. 1985 shareholder proposal regarding cruelty of force-feeding
geese to produce French pat could not be omitted because of
ethical and social significance, despite the fact that pat sales fell below 5%
threshold
Override
mechanism
- SEC proposed
permitting 3% of a companys
shareownership to override the "ordinary business" exclusion and the "relevance"
exclusion, paragraphs (7) and (5) under Question 9.
- Final release 34-40018 1998 VI
Change
to relevance standard
- SEC proposed
proposed to revise the rule to apply a purely economic standard
- Final release 34-40018 1998 VI
|
Regulatory History
SEC_CODE_REF_0090001192884
2007 -2008 No-Action Letters
|
Not
excludable
- Indiana State District Council of Laborers and
HOD Carriers Pension Fund
- Report on the company's mortgage practices
- Not excludable per Rule 14a-8(i)(7) nor Rule
14a-8(i)(5)
- ...A shareholder proposal, which requests that an
independent committee of this company's board prepare a report on how the
company is responding to rising regulatory, competitive and public pressure to
significantly reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, may not be omitted from the company's proxy material under rule
14a-8(i)(5) or (i)(6)
|
Related Topics
|