Tag archives: proxy advisors

Trends and strategies for companies involved in M&A transactions

In a report entitled “M&A Activism: A Special Report”[1] (the Report), the editor-in-chief of Activist Insight describes the types of companies most at risk of being targeted by shareholder demands, providing steps that can be taken to increase the resilience of M&A transactions.

The Report identifies a number of trends and findings, as summarized below:

  • Deal Prevention: M&A demands from shareholders have increased in recent years in both Canada and the United States, most commonly by activists seeking to prevent deals, to pursue appraisal rights, and to make their own takeover bids. Notably, 45% of Canadian shareholder activism
Continue Reading

A Changing Climate for Proxy Advisory Firms: Developments in the US and Canada

The role of proxy advisory firms in the marketplace has been a focal point on both sides of the border as recent guidance by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) highlights the powerful influence of proxy advisory firms and need for increased accountability and transparency.

In the US, the SEC Staff released a bulletin in June entitled Proxy Voting: Proxy Voting Responsibilities of Investment Advisers and Availability of Exemptions from the Proxy Rules for Proxy Advisory Firms (the Bulletin) which places some onus on the investment advisor, as … Continue Reading

The Polarizing Effect of National Policy 25-201

In our recent post on June 24, 2014, we reported that the Canadian Securities Administrator (CSA) published for comment proposed National Policy 25-201 Guidance for Proxy Advisory Firms (NP 25-201). At its core, the purpose of NP 25-201 is to set out non-prescriptive guidelines for proxy advising firms to address issues relating to conflicts of interest, transparency, reporting standards and public consultation. Some issuers are concerned that NP 25-201 lacks the regulatory teeth to ensure compliance while certain institutional investors feel the policy is unnecessary and inefficient, suggesting that issuers take it up with their investors instead.… Continue Reading

LexBlog