TheCorporateCounsel.net

Glass Lewis recently blogged about its observations on shareholder proposals during the 2026 proxy season. The excerpt notes that the early trend toward issuers including a greater percentage of shareholder proposals following the SEC’s withdrawal from the Rule 14a-8 process continued throughout the season:

One of the main trends that we observed mid-season appears to have been borne out: in the absence of no-action relief from SEC staff, companies were far less likely to exclude shareholder proposals. Compared to 2025, barely half the number of exclusion notices were filed. . .

When the SEC’s decision was announced in November 2025, there was speculation that far fewer shareholder proposals would go to vote in proxy season 2026, given that issuers appeared to have free rein to set their AGM agenda. Ultimately, issuers were reluctant to exclude proposals without SEC backing, largely offsetting the reported decline in the number of proposals being submitted.

Even though the number of shareholder proposals filed is down by as much as 47%, the number of shareholder proposals that went to a vote is only down by approximately 12.4% compared to 2025. That’s largely because over the same period, the number of exclusion requests filed by companies dropped by 48.5%.

When it comes to deciding which proposals to exclude, Glass Lewis said that the identity of the proponent mattered a lot.  Issuers were much more likely to exclude proposals submitted by individual proponents – particularly those named John Chevedden – than they were to exclude proposals from asset managers, pension funds, and “mission-driven investors.”  The blog also discusses, among other things, the basis upon which issuers excluded proposals, and how investors have responded to exclusions.

– John Jenkins