US appeals court voids SEC rollback of proxy voting advice rules
Adds details from decision, comment from trade group challenging the SEC rule, context about proxy advice firms, case citation, byline
By Jonathan Stempel
June 26 (Reuters) -A federal appeals court on Wednesday struck down part of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's 2022 rollback ofrules that critics said impeded the independence of proxy advice firmsthat helpinvestors vote in corporate elections.
By a 3-0 vote, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the SEC's explanation for rescinding rules adopted just two years earlier during the Trump administration was"arbitrary and capricious and therefore unlawful."
Therollback covered requirements thatproxy firms such as Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis notify companies abouttheir advice no later than when they notify clients, and provideclients a means toobtain companies' written responses to thatadvice.
Inannouncing the changes, SEC Chair Gary Gensler said it would promote "the timeliness and independence of proxy voting advice, which would help to protect investors and facilitate shareholder democracy."
An SEC spokeswoman said the regulator is reviewing the decision and will determine its appropriate next steps.
The rollback was challenged by Natural Gas Services Group NGS.N, which supplies compression equipment to the energy industry, and the National Association of Manufacturers.
"Today's decision confirms that federal agencies are bound by the rule of law, even as administrations change," Linda Kelly, the trade group's chief legal officer, said in a statement.
The dispute is part of a long-running battle over how to regulate firms that advise investors how to vote on corporate matters such as shareholder proposals, the election of directors, and whether to approve mergers.
Writing for the appeals court, Circuit Judge Edith Jones said the SEC failed to adequately explain what was wrong with its earlier finding that the 2020 rules posed little or no risk to the timeliness and independence of proxy voting.
She also said the SEC failed to reasonably explain why the risks were so significant that rescission became necessary.
"This was the agency equivalent of saying, 'That was then--this is now,'" Jones wrote.
The New Orleans-based 5th Circuit is perhaps the most conservative of the 13 federal appeals courts. The three judges in Wednesday's panel decision were appointed by Republican presidents.
The case is National Association of Manufacturers et al v SEC et al, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-51069.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York, editing by Deepa Babington and Diane Craft
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
