The Shareholder ForumTM

Electronic Participation in Shareholder Meetings

Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

"E-Meetings" Home Page

"E-Meetings" Program Reference


For a copy of the transfer agent's report of annual meeting data described in the article below, see


IR Magazine | Inside Investor Relations, July 20, 2010 article


Inside Investor Relations

Activism fails to emerge at US annual meetings

| 20 Jul 2010

Shareholder activism and Rule 452 changes fail to make waves

The 2010 annual meeting season was meant to unleash a shower of trouble on companies, from activism provoked by the financial crisis to problems bringing in the retail vote. But according to a report issued by BNY Mellon Shareowner Services, the 2010 season was more notable for what didn’t happen: activism didn’t rise, Rule 452 didn’t harm director elections, and meetings didn’t get long and complicated. 

The conclusions come from BNY Mellon’s internal survey of 460 client annual meetings, covering the type and number of proxy proposals, the impact of changes to voting rules and the use of proxy solicitors. A summary of the results is available to download from BNY Mellon.

‘When all was said and done, we were a little bit surprised,’ admits Robert Folinus, vice president and meeting services product manager for BNY Mellon. ‘All of us in the industry expected to see things happen differently.’

In the wake of the financial crisis, with increased media scrutiny on executive pay, say-on-pay proposals and new compensation, discussion and analysis disclosures, a high level of activism was predicted. Yet proposals were kept to a minimum, with a total of three or fewer proposals at 68 percent of the companies in BNY Mellon’s study. 

Only 11 percent had more than five proposals. Besides votes for directors, now classified as non-routine under Rule 452, there were very few other non-routine proposals, and only 15 proposals failed out of the total of 1,000 at meetings BNY Mellon supported. 

The biggest surprise was how little Rule 452 changes affected proxy voting. Companies feared that eliminating the broker vote in director elections could make it hard for them to reach a quorum or elect directors. As it turned out, BNY Mellon saw a drop in the vote for directors at only 35 of the hundreds of companies it studied. The average drop was 11 percent of votes cast, which didn’t have any real impact on the outcome of the votes. 

Out of all the possible reasons behind activism’s no-show and the Rule 452 anti-climax, BNY Mellon says it was companies’ careful planning that kept the peace. ‘Many companies made sure their meetings were compliant, just covering the essentials, while staying away from things that might cause controversy. This led to a smoother season overall,’ Folinus says. 

However, Folinus warns that a peaceful 2010 is no indicator of things to come. ‘In fact, I have every belief that 2011 is going to be different,’ he says, pointing to last week’s proxy mechanics concept release from the SEC and the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. ‘Later this year we’re going to see how all this impacts our clients and then we will be able to make our prognostications,’ he adds. 

While BNY Mellon has always collected information about the annual meetings it works on as a vote tabulator and inspector of elections, this is the first time it has taken a systematic approach to collecting data. Folinus says next year’s study should yield clear comparisons and identify trends between annual meeting seasons.


© Copyright Cross Border Ltd. 1995–2010.




This Forum program is open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of standards for conducting shareholder meetings with electronic participation. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the Forum's purpose is to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant is expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

The organization of this Forum program was encouraged by Walden Asset Management, and is proceeding with the invited leadership support of Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. and Intel Corporation to address issues relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices, rather than investor decisions relating to only a single company. The Forum may therefore invite program support of several companies that can provide both expertise and examples of leadership relating to the issues being addressed.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.