Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The User-Friendly Proxy Statement
Attention, public companies: While your proxy statement is likely your most read disclosure document, its readership is spotty. Your retail owners and employees likely focus on some of the compensation information, but little else. And many institutional owners ' the ones who can determine the outcomes of your voting matters ' readily admit that they spend little or no time reading it, in many cases relying on the voting recommendations of proxy advisory firms.
There is, however, a better way. Every year, more and more companies are making their proxy statements more effective as communications and advocacy documents. They are attracting positive attention from institutional and retail investors alike for making their disclosures clear, crisp and readable. And they are resulting in more support for the board's positions and in fewer broker non-votes, which can often make the difference between victory and defeat on shareholder proposals and other “non-routine” matters.
This trend started a few years ago, when a few companies ' generally, those who could afford to and some that could not afford not to (due to low levels of voting support on say-on-pay and other matters) ' began to rethink their proxy statement disclosures, using their considerable strengths in consumer branding and other areas to support their positions on board- and shareholder-sponsored voting proposals alike. What's the secret sauce? Here are some of the ingredients.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.