TheCorporateCounsel.net

The National Association of Manufacturers has filed its brief to appeal a February decision from the D.C. Federal District Court that would vacate the SEC’s 2020 rule to regulate proxy advisors. The rule was premised on the notion that proxy advisor services are a “solicitation” under Rule 14a-1 – and are exempt from information & filing requirements only if they comply with certain conditions, including giving companies an opportunity to review & respond to voting recommendations.

This blog from Cooley’s Cydney Posner reports details from NAM’s brief. Here’s an excerpt:

NAM professed that, in its statutory analysis, the district court made “three fatal errors.” First, NAM claimed, the district court failed to take into account “Congress’s express delegation of authority to the SEC to define statutory terms like ‘solicit.’” Citing Loper Bright (see this PubCo post), NAM contended, “when Congress expressly gives an agency definitional authority, the court must ‘independently identify and respect such delegations of authority, police the outer statutory boundaries of those delegations, and ensure that agencies exercise their discretion consistent with the APA.’”

In adopting its definition of “solicit”—a definition that “falls within the word’s acknowledged range of meanings”—the SEC was acting pursuant to Congress’s delegation, NAM asserted. As a result, NAM argued, the district court “should have ‘respect[ed]’ Congress’s explicit delegation, not overridden it in favor of a narrower interpretation.” This case, NAM argued, “presents a question of statutory construction: whether the SEC’s definitional amendment regarding ‘solicit‘ is consistent with the Exchange Act. That is the Court’s domain, not the SEC’s.”

Second, NAM looked to the “ordinary tools of statutory interpretation” to find a broad meaning for the term “solicit”: according to NAM, this broad scope is supported by contemporaneous authorities, the structure of Section 14(a), the “historical circumstances and remedial purpose of the Exchange Act,” and the “near-century worth of enforcement.”

Third, NAM contended that “the district court rewrote the statute by concluding that the SEC may only regulate proxy solicitors who have an interest in the underlying corporate ballot measure. The Exchange Act contains no such requirement.” Nothing about the term “solicit,” NAM argued, necessarily implies that the solicitor has an underlying interest in the matter submitted for a vote. “If a person asks a shareholder for their proxy—soliciting it in the most literal sense—and then votes based on a coinflip, that person would surely be subject to SEC regulation, despite lacking an interest in the measure’s outcome.

The district court’s conclusion to the contrary yields disastrous and absurd results. The Court should reverse.”

It’s not clear where we’ll go from here with this case and with proxy advisor regulation in general. The 2020 rule was adopted when Jay Clayton chaired the SEC – it was welcomed by companies and resulted from years of advocacy. Unsurprisingly, ISS promptly challenged the rule (and guidance that had preceded it), but the litigation has inched along and been confusing to follow, in part because the SEC partially repealed the rules in 2022. The rollback generated its own wave of lawsuits in the 5th Circuit – with the most recent decision on that front being that the SEC’s 2022 repeal was arbitrary & capricious and the 2020 rule should stay in place. So, that 5th Circuit decision was somewhat at odds with the one that NAM is challenging here, from the D.C. District Court.

Cydney notes that for this case, ISS’s brief is due in mid-January. The SEC had been aligned with NAM in this litigation, but it dropped out of the appeal last spring. This Bloomberg Law article says that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed an amicus brief in support of NAM’s positions.

– Liz Dunshee