Search results

1 – 4 of 4
Per page
102050
Citations:
Loading...
Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 5 May 2015

John E. Sorkin, Abigail Pickering Bomba, Steven Epstein, Jessica Forbes, Peter S. Golden, Philip Richter, Robert C. Schwenkel, David Shine, Arthur Fleischer and Gail Weinstein

To provide an overview of the guidance for proxy firms and investment advisers included in the Staff Legal Bulletin released this year by the Securities and Exchange Commission…

192

Abstract

Purpose

To provide an overview of the guidance for proxy firms and investment advisers included in the Staff Legal Bulletin released this year by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after its four-year comprehensive review of the proxy system.

Design/methodology/approach

Discusses briefly the context in which the SEC’s review was conducted; the general themes of the guidance provided; the most notable aspects of the guidance; and the matters that were expected to be, but were not, addressed by the SEC.

Findings

The guidance does not go as far in regulating proxy advisory firms as many had anticipated it would. The key obligations specified in the guidance are imposed on the investment advisers who engage the proxy firms. The responsibilities, policies and procedures mandated do not change the fundamental paradigm that has supported the influence of proxy firms – that is, investment advisers continue to be permitted to fulfill their duty to vote client shares in a “conflict-free manner” by voting based on the recommendations of independent third parties, and continue to be exempted from the rules that generally apply to persons who solicit votes or make proxy recommendations.

Practical implications

The SEC staff states in the Bulletin that it expects that proxy firms and investment advisers will conform to the obligations imposed in the Bulletin “promptly, but in any event in advance of [the 2015] proxy season.”

Originality/value

Practical guidance from experienced M&A lawyers.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 16 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 3 June 2014

Abigail Pickering Bomba, Steven Epstein, Philip Richter, David Shine, John E. Sorkin and Gail Weinstein

To inform on recent developments in shareholder activism, a phenomenon well-documented in North America and Europe and now spreading to Latin America, and summarize the key…

505

Abstract

Purpose

To inform on recent developments in shareholder activism, a phenomenon well-documented in North America and Europe and now spreading to Latin America, and summarize the key considerations for corporate boards.

Design/methodology/approach

The article discusses a recent development involving Cartica Capital, a USA hedge fund and minority shareholder in CorpBanca, a Chilean bank pursuing a merger with Itau Unibanco Holding SA, Latin America’s biggest bank by market value, Cartica.

Findings

Shareholder activism will continue to be an expanding global phenomenon.

Practical implications

Boards must continue to plan accordingly when structuring a strategic transaction, both in and outside the USA market.

Originality/value

Practical overview of recent developments in shareholder activism with a review of the key considerations for practitioners.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 15 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

Available. Content available
Article
Publication date: 5 May 2015

Henry A Davis

132

Abstract

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 16 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Available. Content available
Article
Publication date: 3 June 2014

Henry Davis

96

Abstract

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 15 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

1 – 4 of 4
Per page
102050