Yesterday, the Division of Corporation Finance issued a statement indicating that, except for no-action letters seeking to exclude shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8(i)(1), it’s out of the Rule 14a-8 no-action letter business for the remainder of 2025 and 2026. This excerpt summarizes Corp Fin’s action and reminds issuers of their continuing notice obligations:

The Division of Corporation Finance has thoroughly considered its role in the Rule 14a-8 process for the 2025-2026 proxy season. Due to current resource and timing considerations following the lengthy government shutdown and the large volume of registration statements and other filings requiring prompt staff attention, as well as the extensive body of guidance from the Commission and the staff available to both companies and proponents, the Division has determined to not respond to no-action requests for, and express no views on, companies’ intended reliance on any basis for exclusion of shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8, other than no-action requests to exclude a proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(1).

Pursuant to Rule 14a-8(j), companies that intend to exclude shareholder proposals from their proxy materials must still notify the Commission and proponents no later than 80 calendar days before filing a definitive proxy statement. We remind companies and proponents, however, that this requirement is informational only, there is no requirement that companies seek the staff’s views regarding their intended exclusion of a proposal, and no response from the staff is required.

In light of recent developments regarding the application of state law and Rule 14a-8(i)(1) to precatory proposals, the Division has determined that there is not a sufficient body of applicable guidance for companies and proponents to rely on. As such, the Division will continue to review and express its views on no-action requests related to Rule 14a-8(i)(1) until such time as it determines there is sufficient guidance available to assist companies and proponents in their decision-making process.

Corp Fin’s willingness to have the Staff continue to referee disputes over whether precatory proposals
are excludable should be read in the context of Chairman Atkins’ remarks last month indicating the Staff’s readiness to entertain arguments that such proposals are excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(1) as not being proper subjects for shareholder action under state law.

Corp Fin’s statement applies to the current proxy season (October 1, 2025 – September 30, 2026) as well as no-action requests received before October 1, 2025 that haven’t yet been responded to by the Staff.

Although no-action letters are mostly off the table for now, the statement provides that if a company wants to receive a response from the Staff about its exclusion of a proposal, it may include, as part of the required notification, “an unqualified representation that the company has a reasonable basis to exclude the proposal based on the provisions of Rule 14a-8, prior published guidance, and/or judicial decisions.” Companies that follow this procedure will receive a response from Corp Fin to the effect that based solely on that representation, the Division won’t object if the company omits the proposal from its proxy materials.

Commissioner Crenshaw issued her own statement on Corp Fin’s action, and it probably won’t surprise you to find that she’s doesn’t find much to like in it:

Today’s Announcement is a Trojan horse. It cloaks itself in neutrality by expressing that the Division will not weigh in on any company’s exclusion of shareholder proposals, but then it hands companies a hall pass to do whatever they want. It effectively creates unqualified permission for companies to silence investor voices (with “no objection” from the Commission). This is the latest in a parade of actions by this Commission that will ring the death knell for corporate governance and shareholder democracy, deny voice to the equity owners of corporations, and elevate management to untouchable status. In a neutral way, of course.

I’ve got to admit that I’m still processing this blockbuster, and at this point the first response that comes to mind is “Holy Smokes!”  This is a huge change, and it’s likely to have some pretty profound implications for the shareholder proposal process.  I’ll speculate about some of what those implications might be in the next blog.

– John Jenkins