As I’ve blogged before (here), a hot issue among shareholder activists this proxy season is majority voting for the election of directors. As mentioned in my previous post, a number of companies have taken a pre-emptive strike approach and voluntarily adopted modified plurality or majority voting standards in an effort to stave off the activists.
Chicago law firm Neal Gerber Eisenber LLP has prepared a survey that lists details about the modified plurality or majority voting standards adopted by 87 companies. Click here for the executive summary and here for the survey.
Related posts:
Sjostrom, Majority Voting for Directors
Sjostrom, Voluntary Adoption of Majority Voting
Update: The new ISS Corporate Governance blog has a post today (click here) speculating whether majority vote proposals on the agenda at several corporations via Rule 14a-8 will receive shareholder approval. The post also notes that the practical difference I identify in my comment below between a real majority vote standard and the Pfizer approach may not be a practical difference afterall–it is standard practice at many companies “to appoint new directors to office before the annual meeting, which would give those new nominees incumbent status.”
