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
© 2025 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 AllChancery Stays Action Pending Resolution of a Motion to Dismiss in a First-Filed Action to Which the Defendant Is Not a Party
5 minute readChancery Court Exercises Discretion in Setting Bond in a Case Involving Share Transfer Restriction
6 minute readRepurchase Option in LLC Agreement Tied to Nondisparagement Provision Does Not Violate the Absolute Litigation Privilege
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Eversheds Sutherland Adds Hunton Andrews Energy Lawyer With Cross-Border Experience
- 2Balancing Judicial Authority: Understanding Sanctions, Severance, and Interferences
- 3Up in the Air: Boeing’s Deferred Prosecution Saga Continues
- 4Legal Tech's Predictions for Knowledge Management in 2025
- 5Fenwick Shutters Shanghai Office
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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