First, thank you for the invitation to be the March Student Blogger. I have significant experience in blogs. But perhaps unfortunately for this blog, that experience is restricted to Nebraska football and Lost blogs. And I don’t think this is the proper forum for discussions of the Huskers’ 2011 recruiting class or how the Valenzetti Equation may answer all your questions regarding Lost. However, I am open to requests during my March tenure.
Moving on.
Several blogs on this site have addressed election issues and reform in the judicial and political spheres. Yet, despite imminent changes with regard to the election of corporate directors, any discussion of corporate election reform has been noticeably absent. I do not doubt that the rules regarding the election of directors will change significantly this year.
Specifically, on June 10, 2009, the SEC published proposed amendments to the federal proxy rules that would facilitate shareholders’ ability to nominate directors to company boards of directors. Under the current director election rules, shareholders seeking to nominate a competing slate of director candidates have to bear all costs of a proxy campaign. Yet, all costs for the campaigns of the incumbent board’s nominees are paid for out of corporate funds. That advantage to the board’s nominees coupled with the significant costs in mounting a proxy contest serve as effective barriers to dissident shareholders seeking to initiate an election contest.