Here’s something Liz shared last week on TheCorporateCounsel.net blog:
We cover a lot of “shareholder activism” developments over on DealLawyers.com, and last week, Meredith blogged about a recent Delaware case that came down in favor of a company that relied on an advance notice bylaw to reject a dissident nominee. This MoFo memo says that case is part of a broader trend of companies being sticklers for compliance with “advance notice” provisions. In the past 18 months, 17 companies rejected dissident director nominations for failure to comply with advance notice bylaws – and Delaware courts are tending to uphold those decisions.
The memo urges companies to make sure that their advance notice bylaws incorporate the latest protective features, without going so far that the bylaw will be struck down when it’s enforced. This excerpt outlines what to consider when you’re dealing with these provisions:
– Review the company’s bylaws and, in particular, advance notice provisions regularly. The recent introduction of the “universal proxy card” provides a good point of departure for a bylaw review, if one has not been undertaken already.
– Adopt any changes to the advance notice bylaws on a “clear day,” if possible, i.e., before any dissident stockholder surfaces.
– Advance notice bylaws should be clear and unambiguous, as any ambiguity or lack of clarity may be resolved in favor of the dissident.
– The board must act reasonably when it considers whether a stockholder nomination complied with the advance notice bylaws. “Inequitable acts towards stockholders do not become permissible because they are legally possible.”
– Advance notice bylaws should be in line with market standards. Courts see standard advance notice bylaws as commonplace and as serving a legitimate purpose. However, if they are overly aggressive or burdensome compared to market standards, they may be subject to challenge.
– Meredith Ervine