Exchange Act Rule 14a-4(a)(3)

Question: Management of a registrant has negotiated concessions from holders of a series of its preferred stock to reduce the dividend rate on the preferred stock in exchange for an extension of the maturity date. Must a single proposal submitted by management to holders of the registrant’s common stock to approve a charter amendment containing these modifications be unbundled into separate proposals under Rule 14a­4(a)(3) – one relating to the reduction of the dividend rate, and another relating to the extension of the maturity date?

Answer: No. Multiple matters that are so “inextricably intertwined” as to effectively constitute a single matter need not be unbundled. The staff, in this particular case, would view the matters relating to the terms of the preferred stock as being inextricably intertwined, because each of the proposed provisions relates to a basic financial term of the same series of capital stock and was the sole consideration for the countervailing provision. Note, however, that the staff would not view two arguably separate matters as being inextricably intertwined merely because the matters were negotiated as part of a transaction with a third party, nor because the matters represent terms of a contract that one or the other of the parties considers essential to the overall bargain. [Jan. 24, 2014]

Question: Management of a registrant intends to present an amended and restated charter to shareholders for approval at an annual meeting. The proposed amendments would change the par value of the common stock, eliminate provisions relating to a series of preferred stock that is no longer outstanding and is not subject to further issuance, and declassify the board of directors. Under Rule 14a­4(a)(3), must the individual amendments that are part of the restatement be unbundled into separate proposals?

Answer: No. The staff would not ordinarily object to the bundling of any number of immaterial matters with a single material matter. While there is no bright-line test for determining materiality in the context of Rule 14a­4(a)(3), registrants should consider whether a given matter substantively affects shareholder rights. While the declassification amendment would be material under this analysis, the amendments relating to par value and preferred stock do not substantively affect shareholder rights, and therefore both of these amendments ordinarily could be included in a single restatement proposal together with the declassification amendment. However, if management knows or has reason to believe that a particular amendment that does not substantively affect shareholder rights nevertheless is one on which shareholders could reasonably be expected to wish to express a view separate from their views on the other amendments that are part of the restatement, the amendment should be unbundled.

The staff notes that the analysis under Rule 14a-4(a)(3) is not governed by the fact that, for state law purposes, these amendments could be presented to shareholders as a single restatement proposal. If, for example, the restatement proposal also included an amendment to the charter to add a provision allowing shareholders representing 40% of the outstanding shares to call a special meeting, the staff would view the special meeting amendment as material and therefore required to be presented to shareholders separately from the similarly material declassification amendment. [Jan. 24, 2014]

Question: Management of a registrant intends to present for a vote of shareholders a single proposal covering an omnibus amendment to a registrant’s equity incentive plan. The amendment makes the following changes to the terms of the plan:

• increases the total number of shares reserved for issuance under the plan;
• increases the maximum amount of compensation payable to an employee during a specified period for purposes of meeting the requirements for qualified performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code;
• adds restricted stock to the types of awards that can be granted under the plan; and
• extends the term of the plan.

Must any of these proposed changes be unbundled into a separate proposal pursuant to Rule 14a­4(a)(3)?

Answer: No. While the staff generally will object to the bundling of multiple, material matters into a single proposal – provided that the individual matters would require shareholder approval under state law, the rules of a national securities exchange, or the registrant’s organizational documents if presented on a standalone basis – the staff will not object to the presentation of multiple changes to an equity incentive plan in a single proposal. See Section III of Exchange Act Release No. 33229 (Nov. 22, 1993). This is the case even if the changes can be characterized as material in the context of the plan and the rules of a national securities exchange would require shareholder approval of each of the changes if presented on a standalone basis. [Jan. 24, 2014]

Question: Rule 14a-4(a)(3) requires that the form of proxy “identify clearly and impartially each separate matter intended to be acted upon.” Rule 14a-4(b)(1) further requires that the form of proxy provide a means for shareholders “to specify by boxes a choice … with respect to each separate matter referred to therein as intended to be acted upon.” In a merger, acquisition, or similar transaction in which shareholders of the target are receiving equity securities of the acquiror, amendments to the organizational documents of the acquiror can often be required by the transaction agreement. Under these proxy rules, under what circumstances must a target seeking shareholder approval of such a transaction present separately on its form of proxy a proposal or proposals relating to the amendments to the organizational documents of the acquiror? In other words, when are these amendments which are embedded within the transaction agreement a “separate matter” for target shareholders?

Answer: As a preliminary matter, if a material amendment to the acquiror’s organizational documents would require the approval of its shareholders under state law, the rules of a national securities exchange, or its organizational documents if presented on a standalone basis, the acquiror’s form of proxy must present any such amendment separately from any other material proposal, including, if applicable, approval of the issuance of securities in a triangular merger or approval of the transaction agreement in a direct merger. See Question 101.02 relating to “Unbundling under Rule 14a-4(a)(3) Generally.” As a general principle, however, only material matters must be unbundled, and acquirors should consider whether the provisions in question substantively affect shareholder rights. Examples of provisions meeting this standard that may be adopted in connection with a transaction include governance- and control-related provisions, such as classified or staggered boards, limitations on the removal of directors, supermajority voting provisions, delaying the annual meeting for more than a year, eliminating the ability to act by written consent, or changes in minimum quorum requirements. In contrast, provisions such as name changes, restatements of charters, or technical changes, such as those resulting from anti-dilution provisions, would likely be immaterial.

If, consistent with the guidance in Question 101.02, the acquiror is required under Rule 14a-4(a)(3) to present an amendment or multiple amendments separately on its form of proxy, or would be so required if it were conducting a solicitation subject to Regulation 14A, then a target subject to Regulation 14A also must present any such amendment separately on its form of proxy. This is because the amendment, which is a term of the transaction agreement that target shareholders are being asked to approve, would effect a material change to the equity security that target shareholders are receiving in the transaction. Target shareholders should have an opportunity to express their views separately on these material provisions that will establish their substantive rights as shareholders, even if as a matter of state law these provisions might not require a separate vote. Similarly, if the acquiror presents a material amendment on its form of proxy as the only matter to be approved by acquiror’s shareholders, then the target must present the amendment separately on its form of proxy. The target need not present as a separate matter on its form of proxy an amendment to increase the number of authorized shares of the acquiror’s equity securities, provided that the increase is limited to the number of shares reasonably expected to be issued in the transaction.

In all cases, the parties are free to condition completion of a transaction on shareholder approval of any separate proposals. Any such conditions should be clearly disclosed and indicated on the form of proxy. [October 27, 2015]

Question 201.02

Question: Does the answer to Question 201.01 change if the parties form a new entity to act as an acquisition vehicle that will issue equity securities in the transaction?

Answer: No. In that case, the party whose shareholders are expected to own the largest percentage of equity securities of the new entity following consummation of the transaction would be considered the acquiror for purposes of this analysis. As in Question 201.01, the acquiror must present separately on its form of proxy any material provision or provisions of the new entity’s organizational documents that are a term of the transaction agreement, if the provision or provisions represent a material change from the acquiror’s organizational documents, and the change would require the approval of the acquiror’s shareholders under state law, the rules of a national securities exchange, or its organizational documents if proposed to be made directly to its own organizational documents. Provisions that are required by law in the jurisdiction of incorporation of the new entity need not be presented separately on the form of proxy. As in Question 201.01, if the acquiror is or would be required under Rule 14a-4(a)(3) to present separately on its form of proxy any provision of the new entity’s organizational documents that is a term of the transaction agreement, then a target subject to Regulation 14A must also present the same provision separately on its form of proxy. [October 27, 2015]

Question: Rule 14a-4(a)(3) requires that the form of proxy “identify clearly and impartially each separate matter intended to be acted upon.” How specifically must a registrant describe a Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposal on its proxy card?

Answer: The proxy card should clearly identify and describe the specific action on which shareholders will be asked to vote. This same principle applies to both management and shareholder proposals. For example, it would not be appropriate to describe a management proposal to amend a company’s articles of incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of common stock as “a proposal to amend our articles of incorporation.” Similarly, it would not be appropriate to describe a shareholder proposal to amend a company’s bylaws to allow shareholders holding 10% of the company’s common stock to call a special meeting as “a shareholder proposal on special meetings.” The following descriptions of shareholder proposals also would not satisfy Rule 14a-4(a)(3):

• A shareholder proposal on executive compensation;
• A shareholder proposal on the environment;
• A shareholder proposal, if properly presented; and
• Shareholder proposal #3.

[March 22, 2016]