Report: Delaware Forum Selection Bylaws 'Spreading Like Wildfire' in Energy Sector
Among the trends the report highlighted is a growing use of proxy access for voting and the inclusion of "intent to serve" language in amendments to company bylaws
September 17, 2018 at 02:56 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
|
Public companies in the energy industry are increasingly designating Delaware as the exclusive venue for stockholder lawsuits, according to a new report from Orrick on corporate governance in the energy sector.
“Public Company Corporate Governance Features in the Energy Sector,” released last week, outlines boardroom structure trends based on 54 companies in the Dow Jones Energy Sector Index and the S&P Energy Index, Including Chevron, Halliburton and World Fuel Services Corp.
The report said the vast majority of public energy sector companies are incorporated in Delaware and that more and more of them are adopting bylaws that require stockholder litigation to be filed in the state.
“Almost one half of companies have adopted exclusive forum bylaws, which restrict stockholder litigation to a single litigation forum/venue—almost always Delaware, as the favorite state of incorporation,” the report said, adding, “Although slightly more than one half of companies thus have not adopted the provisions, the incidence rate still represents the feature spreading like wildfire, since the provisions have only gained significant attention in the past few years.”
The report also noted that companies are permitted to waive those provisions if they believe it would be more favorable to resolve the case outside of Delaware, “so the 'exclusive' nature is really an option in the company's favor.”
Other findings in the report included companies' growing adoption of proxy access, which usually allows certain shareholders to nominate director candidates during an election. More than 60 percent of the companies surveyed have adopted such provisions.
Orrick partner Ed Batts, who led the report, said in an email that he was surprised by the rapid adoption of proxy access over the past five years. And he said it's likely the trend will grow even more.
“I expect to continue to see proxy access spread like wildfire. Many boards, particularly of midsize or small public companies, tend to want to move 'with the herd' and be in the middle of the pack,” Batts said.
“It is clear that governance activists have the support of major institutions in pressing for proxy access. And it has become so widely adopted in such a relatively short period that, like majority voting … it is becoming the accepted standard. Companies would do well to seriously consider adopting the provisions before being approached by governance activists,” he continued.
He said the trend also could lead to the actual nomination of and voting on director nominees using proxy access provisions.
Other emerging trends identified in the report are the adoption of majority voting provisions for uncontested director elections—which 90 percent of industry companies now have—and the use of ”intent to serve” language in amendments to company bylaws now found in nearly 15 percent of surveyed companies.
“There is no drawback—it closes an avenue that otherwise could jeopardize stockholders having adequate time to fully evaluate and listen to the merits of arguments in favor or against specific candidates,” Batts said.
“While not having it still allows for a 'throw the bums out' type of vote—allowing full scale substitutions, even if they are named by the time a competing proxy is sent, defeats the purpose of advance notice bylaws in any event,” he added. “This is something all public companies should seriously consider.”
Orrick previously has published a similar report with tech sector companies, where more public companies have dual class stock structures than their energy sector counterparts.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCourt of Chancery Rejects 'Caremark' Liability for Imperfect Compliance With Legal Obligations
5 minute readCourt of Chancery Invalidates Election of Directors Where Board Improperly Set the Record Date
4 minute readJohnson & Johnson Must Pay $1B in Damages for Surgical Robotics Contract Breaches, Fraud
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Pryor Cashman have entered appearances for Diageo Americas Supply d/b/a Ciroc Distilling Co. and Sony Songs, a division of Sony Music Publishing, respectively, in a pending lawsuit. The case was filed Sept. 10 in New York Southern District Court by the Bloom Firm and IP Legal Studio on behalf of Dawn Angelique Richard. The plaintiff, who performed as a member of producer Sean 'Diddy' Combs girl group Danity Kane and later his band, Diddy - Dirty Money, claims that she was financially exploited by Combs and subjected to inhumane working conditions. Among other violations, Richard claims that Combs required group members to remain at his residences and studios, deprived them of adequate food and sleep and forced them to rehearse for 36 to 48 hours without breaks. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, is 1:24-cv-06848, Richard v. Combs et al.
Who Got The Work
Mathilda McGee-Tubb and Kevin M. McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, as well as Jesse W. Belcher-Timme of Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, have stepped in to defend Peter Pan Bus Lines in a pending consumer class action. The suit, filed Sept. 4 in Massachusetts District Court by Hackett Feinberg PC and KalielGold PLLC, accuses the defendant of charging undisclosed 'junk fees' on top of ticket prices during checkout. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni, is 3:24-cv-12277, Mulani et al v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250