For more than four decades, Fenwick & West has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.
Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.
From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.
At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.
Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:
We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.
At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.
Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
San Francisco Office
555 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
1191 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Over the past several months, plaintiffs' lawyers have stepped up attacks on executive compensation disclosures in proxy statements. Although to date most of these attacks have been unsuccessful, the number of case filings is expected to increase in the weeks ahead as more companies head into this proxy season. Understanding the relevant litigation background and the claims typically made in these suits can help companies minimize their litigation risks.
In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ("Dodd-Frank") became effective. The statute requires public companies to conduct non-binding shareholder votes on executive compensation ("say-on-pay" votes) at least once every three years. In 2011 (the first year the requirement was in effect), say-on-pay proposals received a good deal of attention from proxy advisory services, activist shareholders and others – including the plaintiffs' bar. A number of derivative suits were filed in various courts around the country, based principally on the theory that a negative vote supported a finding that directors had breached their fiduciary duties with regard to executive compensation. Those cases have met with a notable lack of success, in large part because Dodd-Frank expressly provides that the say-on-pay requirement does not alter the fiduciary duties of directors or impose additional fiduciary duties upon them.
Undaunted, plaintiffs' lawyers have adopted a new tactic: filing class action suits (most often in state courts) challenging the sufficiency of disclosures relating to say-on-pay votes and other compensation-related proposals. More than a dozen companies have been hit with these suits in recent months, with actions filed in California, Illinois, Missouri, New York and Washington. The typical case is commenced shortly after the company files its proxy with the SEC, and seeks to enjoin the upcoming shareholder meeting.
Types of Claims Being Asserted
Thus far, these class actions have typically not alleged that the challenged proxy statements are false or inaccurate, or that they fail to comply with applicable SEC requirements. Instead, claims are premised on the theory that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to furnish additional information necessary for shareholders to vote on the say-on-pay or other compensation-related proposals. In reality, though, the purported "omissions" tend to be immaterial detail consistent with what is already in the proxy or publicly available data. Examples include:
Early Results Have Not Been Favorable For Plaintiffs
A number of companies have elected to settle these cases to avoid the burdens and risks of litigation. However, in those instances where companies have chosen to fight, courts have been appropriately skeptical of plaintiffs' claims. In Gordon v. Symantec Corp., the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, denied a motion to enjoin a say-on-pay vote where the company was able to demonstrate that the additional disclosures sought were: (i) not material; (ii) consistent with what was already discussed in detail in the proxy; and (iii) publicly available information concerning other companies. Bolstering those arguments was the declaration of a corporate governance expert establishing that the challenged proxy satisfied all relevant SEC requirements, met the goals of Dodd-Frank, and was consistent with the disclosures provided by other comparable companies (both identified peers and a group consisting of the largest companies in Silicon Valley). Likewise, in Noble v. AAR Corp., a federal court in Illinois denied a motion for a temporary restraining order on the grounds that plaintiff could not establish that the additional disclosures sought were required by applicable law. A New York state court judge reached a similar result in Wenz v. Globecomm Sys., Inc. In Mancuso v. Clorox Co., the California Superior Court, Alameda County, denied a preliminary injunction motion on the grounds that plaintiff failed to establish either a likelihood of success or irreparable harm, although it did order the parties to prepare for an expedited trial on the merits of plaintiff's claims (where the issue will apparently be whether plaintiff can demonstrate the propriety of requiring supplemental votes on a say-on-pay proposal and share increase). And in at least two other cases (involving Cisco Systems, Inc. and Microsoft Corp.), plaintiffs filed suit but then withdrew their requests to enjoin the shareholder meetings.1
In fact, there are apparently only a few instances in which plaintiffs have had even limited success. In Knee v. Brocade Communications Sys., Inc., the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, enjoined a shareholder vote on proposed increases to an equity incentive plan pending further disclosures regarding projected dilution. Notably, though, no additional disclosures were required with respect to Brocade's say-on-pay vote or any other proposal. In St. Louis Police Ret. Sys. v. Severson, a federal judge in the Northern District of California enjoined a vote on a proposal by Abaxis, Inc. to increase the number of shares available under an equity incentive plan, on the grounds that the proxy did not adequately disclose the reasons for that proposal (even though the information was apparently contained in other SEC filings).
As the proxy season begins in earnest and additional cases are anticipated, more companies will need to assess whether to settle quickly or litigate. In making that assessment, it is important to recognize that those companies that have elected to fight have had considerable success in court, especially in cases challenging the sufficiency of disclosures provided in connection with say-on-pay votes. Cases involving amendments to equity incentive plans may, in some circumstances, present slightly different issues; however, by spending a bit more time focusing on those issues before the proxy is finalized, and ensuring that discussions of the reasons and impact of any proposed amendments are robust and comprehensive, companies can minimize the risks of adverse litigation results.
1. Fenwick & West LLP represents Symantec Corp. and Cisco Systems, Inc. in these actions.