June 4, 2021 | Activist David Threatens Exxon Mobil Goliath
Hilliard MacBeth Author of When the Bubble Bursts: Surviving the Canadian Real Estate Crash
Exxon Mobil suffered a setback at its annual shareholder meeting in voting for members of the board of directors. Exxon lost the vote on three members, giving an activist investment fund a quarter of the seats on the twelve-member board. This new firm, called Engine No. 1, says that it is “pursuing long-term value by harnessing the power of capitalism.”
Will this new David be able to slay Goliath?
Exxon Mobil has come under attack for its corporate governance as well as its non-action on climate change. Until now Exxon has managed to fend off its nay-sayers and continued to pursue a “business as usual” approach even as the oil and gas industry is facing enormous challenges.
PDAC: Embracing ESG can offer greater access to lower-cost capital, says Sprott’s Daniella Dimitrov
Daniella Dimitrov, partner at Sprott Capital, at PDAC 2021. Credit: PDAC.
Mineral exploration and mining companies that incorporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles as “true value drivers” as part of their corporate culture will outperform and have greater access to more long-term capital and at lower costs, says Sprott Capital’s Daniella Dimitrov.
The principles of ESG are not new to the mining industry, Dimitrov told the virtual audience at this year’s PDAC. “For many years, the industry has been focused on doing the right thing to obtain and maintain our social license to operate.”
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The SEC’s long-awaited final rules governing voting advice provided by proxy advisory firms such as Institutional Shareholders Service (ISS) and Glass Lewis (the “final rules”) became effective on November 2, 2020. The final rules confirm that proxy advice constitutes a solicitation under the federal proxy rules, and provide proxy advisory firms with a conditioned exemption from the filing and information requirements that would normally apply to such solicitations. To secure the exemption, proxy advisory firms must (i) provide disclosure of conflicts of interest and (ii) adopt policies and procedures to inform public companies of the firm’s proxy voting advice and notify the firm’s clients of the availability of public company responses to this advice. The final rules provide two safe harbors to satisfy these conditions as well as additional guidance on the applicability of the proxy rules’ anti-fraud provisio
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The SEC s long-awaited final rules governing voting advice provided by
proxy advisory firms such as Institutional Shareholders Service
(ISS) and Glass Lewis (the final rules ) became
effective on November 2, 2020. The final rules confirm that proxy
advice constitutes a solicitation under the federal proxy rules,
and provide proxy advisory firms with a conditioned exemption from
the filing and information requirements that would normally apply
to such solicitations. To secure the exemption, proxy advisory
firms must (i) provide disclosure of conflicts of interest and (ii)
adopt policies and procedures to inform public companies of the
How Companies Can Prepare for SEC Proxy Advisor Reform Tuesday, January 12, 2021
The SEC’s long-awaited final rules governing voting advice provided by proxy advisory firms such as Institutional Shareholders Service (ISS) and Glass Lewis (the “final rules”) became effective on November 2, 2020. The final rules confirm that proxy advice constitutes a solicitation under the federal proxy rules, and provide proxy advisory firms with a conditioned exemption from the filing and information requirements that would normally apply to such solicitations. To secure the exemption, proxy advisory firms must (i) provide disclosure of conflicts of interest and (ii) adopt policies and procedures to inform public companies of the firm’s proxy voting advice and notify the firm’s clients of public company responses to this advice. The final rules provide two safe harbors to satisfy these conditions as well as additional guidance on the applicability of the proxy rules’ anti-f