Corporate Securities Law Blog

On January 25, 2012, the New York Stock Exchange issued an Information Memo to its member organizations stating that effective immediately, brokers may not vote on corporate governance proposals supported by company management without instructions from their clients. NYSE’s rules affect the voting of all shares held in “street name” by NYSE member organizations, regardless of whether the vote is for an issuer listed on the NYSE. This new position follows a recent regulatory and legislative trend disfavoring discretionary broker voting. The notification is a significant departure from historical practice where brokers used their discretion to cast votes on behalf of “street name” shareholders who fail to provide voting instructions with respect to what were previously viewed as “routine” matters. The NYSE’s new position will affect the voting dynamics for company-supported governance proposals, including those that companies may put forward this proxy season to avoid shareholder proposals on similar matters.

1. Higher Thresholds For HSR Filings

On January 24, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced revised, higher thresholds for premerger filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. The filing thresholds are revised annually, based on the change in gross national product and will be effective thirty days after publication in the Federal Register. Publication is expected within a week, so the new thresholds will most likely become effective in late February 2012. Acquisitions that have not closed by the effective date will be subject to the new thresholds.

As previously reported in the January 9th blog article, today is the last day to file Form 8937 to report 2011 corporate actions that affect stock basis, as required under Internal Revenue Code section 6045B. Because the actual IRS Form 8937 was only very recently released, and because a number of questions about the form have arisen following its release, the IRS issued a Notice (Notice 2012-11) stating that it will not impose penalties for reporting incorrect information, provided that the issuer makes a good-faith effort to report timely and accurately. Further, the Notice states that the issuer can satisfy its filing requirement by posting the required information in a readily accessible format to an area of its primary public Web site.

For further information, please contact Matthew Richardson at (213) 617-4222.

In Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. Superior Court, 2011 WL 6382110 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Dec. 21, 2011), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held that “plac[ing] products into the stream of commerce in a foreign country (or another state), aware that some may or will be swept into the forum state[,]” is not, by itself, sufficient to support the forum state’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer of the products. The Court’s decision explores the limits of personal jurisdiction after the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 8780 (2011), and provides more certainty to foreign corporations regarding the likelihood of being forced to litigate in California courts.

On January 6, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced that it has modified its settlement policy for enforcement actions that also involve a criminal conviction or admissions by a defendant of criminal violations. Under its new policy, the traditional “neither admit nor deny” language will be deleted from its settlement documents. Instead, the SEC will recite the facts and nature of the related criminal proceeding. Enforcement staff will have the discretion to incorporate into SEC settlement documents any relevant facts admitted by the defendant in the criminal proceedings.

As previously reported in the March 15 blog article, Section 6045B of the Internal Revenue Code imposes new reporting requirements on issuers of "specified securities" engaging in organizational actions after December 31, 2010 that affect the tax basis of their specified securities. Generally, a "specified security" includes shares of stock and interests treated as stock (such as an American Depository Receipt).

Just before 2011 year-end, the SEC adopted final rules first proposed in January 2011 to exclude the value of an investor's home when determining if an investor meets the net worth test for an accredited investor. A person's status as an accredited investor affects eligibility, sophistication and information requirements for certain unregistered securities offerings. The final rules differ from the proposed rules by addressing home equity indebtedness incurred in the 60 days prior to an offering, and by grandfathering securities purchase rights held prior to enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ("Dodd-Frank").

In Assured Guaranty (UK) Ltd. v. J. P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09162, 2011 WL 6338898 (N.Y. Dec. 20, 2011), the New York Court of Appeals held that the Martin Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law art. 23-A — New York’s “blue sky” law designed to address fraudulent practices in the marketing of securities — does not preempt common law causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence in connection with the marketing or sale of securities, even if the alleged wrongdoing also would fall within the purview of the Martin Act. This decision thus eliminates a defense to New York common law causes of action relating to securities.

In Espinoza v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 208, 2011 WL 5838882 (Del. Nov. 21, 2011), the Delaware Supreme Court held that shareholders seeking inspection of corporate books and records under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, 8 Del. C. § 220 (“Section 220”), must demonstrate that the records sought are “essential” to the “articulated purpose for the inspection.” In so holding, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery’s holding that a report prepared in connection with an internal investigation into sexual harassment allegations made against Hewlett-Packard’s (“HP”) former Chief Executive Officer was not “essential” to plaintiff’s “articulated purpose for the inspection.” The decision provides insight into the limits of corporate documents a shareholder may obtain pursuant to a Section 220 demand and the proper legal analysis for determining whether a shareholder is within his or her right to inspect such documents.
 

In Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, Nos. 02-56256, 02-56390, 09-56381, 2011 WL 5041927 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit became the latest Circuit to hold that corporations may be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350. As previously reported here and here, the Second Circuit held last year in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010), that the scope of liability under the ATS does not extend to corporations because imposing liability on corporations for violations of the law of nations has not achieved a sufficiently “specific, universal, and obligatory” character so as to be considered a norm of customary international law. In Sarei, the Ninth Circuit joined the District of Columbia Circuit, the Seventh Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit in reaching the opposite conclusion. The current circuit split will be resolved by the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to Kiobel on October 17, 2011.