Before the AGM cut-off.
posted on
Oct 13, 2020 07:09PM
An advance notice by-law or policy allows an issuer to fix a deadline by which shareholders must submit director nominations and stipulate the information that must be included in the nomination notice. It effectively prevents dissidents from ambushing a shareholders’ meeting by nominating directors from the floor. The TSX has acknowledged in its notice that such policies may be legitimately used to preserve shareholder interests, provided they do not unreasonably limit the ability of shareholders to nominate directors. Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis hold similar views and will generally support an advance notice policy provided it meets certain requirements.
The TSX has provided the following guidance regarding advance notice policies, which is generally consistent with the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis:
Notification periods prior to a meeting to nominate directors
Requirements and procedures for nominators and nominees
Board discretion
For more information, the TSX Staff Notice is accessible here.
Author:
Global | Publication | March 2017
Just in time for the 2017 shareholder meeting season, the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) has released new guidance regarding its majority voting requirements and the use of advance notice policies. While there are no new rules relating to these two director election issues, the notice provides guidance to help issuers comply with the existing rules and includes examples of policy provisions that do not comply.
The TSX guidance on majority voting follows hot on the heels of the federal government announcement of proposed changes to the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) which, if enacted, would enshrine majority voting in federal corporate legislation. The TSX guidance on advance notice policies is consistent with that articulated by the proxy advisory firms in their most recent voting guidelines.
The TSX introduced a requirement in June 2014 that each director of a TSX-listed issuer must be elected by a majority of the votes cast by shareholders, other than at contested shareholder meetings, failing which he or she must immediately tender his or her resignation. Because corporate law currently only allows shareholders to vote “for” or “withhold” their vote, a director would still be elected even if he or she only received one vote in favour and 100 votes were “withheld.” The majority voting policy provides a way for the will of the shareholders to prevail, by forcing a director who does not receive a majority of the votes to resign, absent exceptional circumstances that permit the board to refuse to accept the resignation.
The proposed amendments to the CBCA would require each nominee director to receive a majority of votes to be elected in the first place so that a resignation policy would not be needed. The CBCA proposed amendments go further than the TSX requirements, however, by providing that a nominee that does not receive a majority of the votes cast cannot be appointed a director by the board before the next shareholders’ meeting (except if required to comply with CBCA requirements to have at least two directors who are not officers or employees of the corporation or to satisfy Canadian residency requirements). For additional information regarding the proposed CBCA amendments, click here and here.
The key elements of the TSX requirements for a company’s majority voting policy and process are as follows:
Director must immediately tender his/her resignation
Board must make a determination within 90 days
Board must accept the resignation absent exceptional circumstances
Director cannot participate in the meeting where the resignation is considered
Company must issue a press release and provide a copy to the TSX
An advance notice by-law or policy allows an issuer to fix a deadline by which shareholders must submit director nominations and stipulate the information that must be included in the nomination notice. It effectively prevents dissidents from ambushing a shareholders’ meeting by nominating directors from the floor. The TSX has acknowledged in its notice that such policies may be legitimately used to preserve shareholder interests, provided they do not unreasonably limit the ability of shareholders to nominate directors. Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis hold similar views and will generally support an advance notice policy provided it meets certain requirements.
The TSX has provided the following guidance regarding advance notice policies, which is generally consistent with the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis:
Notification periods prior to a meeting to nominate directors
Requirements and procedures for nominators and nominees
Board discretion
For more information, the TSX Staff Notice is accessible here.