Contact us with your California corporate & securities law questions (949) 353-6347 or Contact us here

Outré Shareholder Proposal Seeks Elimination Of Cumulative Voting Protections

Last month, Cisco Systems, Inc. submitted a no-action letter request to exclude a shareholder proposal submitted by James McRitchie.  The fact that Mr. McRitchie has submitted a proposal is by no means newsworthy - he has filed scores this proxy season (see this list).  What is unusual is that he is seeking to do away with the protections that California affords to minority shareholders through cumulative voting.  He is asking Cisco's Board of Directors "to undertake such steps as may be necessary to permit removal of individual directors by a majority vote of shareholders with or without cause and without suppositions with regard to cumulative voting."

Cisco is a California corporation.  As such, director removal without cause is governed by Section 303 of the Corporations Code.  That statute generally provides that any or all of the directors may be removed without cause by approval of the outstanding shares (i.e., the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote).  However, except in the case of a classified board, no director may be removed (unless the entire board is removed) when the votes cast against removal, or not consenting in writing to the removal, would be sufficient to elect the director if voted cumulatively at an election at which the same total number of votes were cast (or if the action is taken by written consent, all shares entitled to vote, were voted).   This provision applies even when a corporation, like Cisco, does not permit cumulative voting. 

While this additional requirement could prevent, or make more difficult, the removal of a director, it is intended to protect minority shareholder rights.  Without such a provision, a director elected by cumulative voting could be removed without cause by the majority shareholder(s).  This would vitiate the minority's power to elect directors.  

Based on the Mr. McRitchie's supporting statement, he seems to be motivated by Vice Chancellor Laster's ruling in In re Vaalco Energy Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 11775-VCL (Del. Ch. Dec. 21, 2015) (Laster, V.C.) (Transcript Opinion).  That case, of course, concerned Delaware (not California) law and addressed the validity of charter provisions providing that stockholders may only remove directors for cause.  Accordingly, Vaalco has no relevance whatsoever to California's without cause removal statute.  

Share on:

ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING CALIFORNIA CORPORATE AND SECURITIES LAW? CONTACT US DIRECTLY

We offer expert advice with the intricacies of California law.

Our years of experience and expertise allow us to help clients navigate the business laws in California.

CONTACT US

ABOUT OUR AUTHOR

30172DBAB0084D3A8F39D7AF0A8E79BC.ashx Keith Paul Bishop
Partner at Allen Matkins
(949) 353-6328
 Contact me
Learn More About Keith

RECOGNITION
JD Supra Readers Choice Top Author 2020

NationalLawReview



nominee-badge

Get the latest news and analysis about California Corporate & Securities law. Subscribe to our newsletter today!

We respect your email privacy

CATEGORIES

see all

YOUTUBE

FACEBOOK