ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate Governance Blogs -> The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Corporate Governance

: The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog

Delaware Supreme Court Addresses Majority Voting Standards in Director Elections

By Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance

ADVERTISEMENTS
Editor?s Note: Steven Haas is an associate at Hunton & Williams specializing in mergers and acquisitions, securities laws and corporate governance matters. [*] This post relates to the decision of the Delaware Supreme Court in City of Westland Police & Fire Retirement System v. Axcelis Technologies, Inc. which is available here. An earlier post on City of Westland v. Axcelis is available here.

A recent Delaware Supreme Court decision has significant implications for corporations with majority voting standards where incumbent directors fail to receive the required level of support and tender their resignations to the board of directors. The decision, City of Westland Police & Fire Retirement System v. Axcelis Technologies, Inc., provides stockholders with a roadmap for inspecting a corporation?s books and records after a board refuses to accept the directors? resignations.

Background

In Axcelis, the corporation had a ?plurality plus? governance policy in which directors were elected by a plurality of the votes cast but were subject to a board policy that required directors to tender their resignations if the votes cast ?withheld? were greater than the number of votes cast ?for? such persons. At its 2008 annual meeting, the three directors who sat on the corporation?s classified board of directors failed to receive majority support from the stockholders and tendered their resignations. The board, however, refused to accept their resignations, noting that one of the directors was the corporation?s lead independent director and each of them sat on key board committees.

Click here to read the complete post...

Full post as published by The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog on September 28, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0022 secs (from cache 11/03/26 07:56:04)