Published April 28, 2026
Executive Summary
Access the full text here.
In the 2026 proxy season, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance upended a long-standing practice of issuing informal decisions on whether shareholder proposals are excludable by the companies receiving them.
Although the SEC shareholder proposal rule, Rule 14a-8, remained in force, the SEC’s administrative dispute resolution mechanism—neutral staff review through the no-action process—was gone. The Division cited resource constraints and the sufficiency of existing guidance to justify suspending the no-action process for the current proxy season. As it stated on November 17, “due to current resource and timing considerations… as well as the extensive body of guidance from the Commission and the staff available to both companies and proponents… the Division has determined to not respond to no-action requests…” How did these changes affect the ability of shareholders to use the proposal process to raise potentially material issues with their companies and fellow shareholders? How did the SEC’s absence as a neutral arbiter of exclusion claims affect how issuers and proponents behaved? How did it affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the shareholder proposal process as a means of placing important questions before shareholders on corporate proxy statements? This analysis examines how the shareholder proposal process functioned during the 2025–2026 proxy season to identify patterns in how companies and shareholders navigated the process in the absence of routine staff review, to assess issues of fairness, balance, and efficiency and to make recommendations based on the lessons from the season.
The data indicate a chilling effect on both proponents and issuers. Shareholders filed approximately 20% fewer proposals for the 2026 season. Companies filed over 100 fewer exclusion notices.
Many companies, it seems, made a prudent judgment: without SEC staff guidance on individual proposals, unilateral exclusion carried too much risk, including proponent litigation, reputational risk, potential fuel for a proxy fight over director elections, and other concerns. Rather than exploit the absence of oversight, many companies receiving proposals let the proposals go to the proxy, sometimes even explicitly citing the lack of SEC guidance as their reason for including proposals they believed might otherwise be excludable. Other companies similarly situated engaged with proponents to produce settlement agreements.
The rate at which proposals were excluded by companies in proportion to the number of proposals filed, in the absence of the SEC’s informal determinations, was similar to the rate excluded last year after SEC determinations. Yet, analysis of these exclusions revealed several important trends.
One of most common justifications for excluding proposals was the ordinary business rule—a determination that typically turns on subjective factors and has historically benefited from substantive SEC staff evaluation. Unfortunately, the largest portion of these exclusions clearly disadvantaged proponents who were either filing proposals on emerging risks on which staff had not previously opined or had refined a prior proposal’s language to address prior SEC staff concerns about prescriptive language. In both categories, the absence of SEC involvement undermined an orderly process and fair resolution of disputes over excludability, allowing exclusions to proceed despite the lack of staff guidance.
This exclusion trend is particularly troubling for proposals addressing an issue on which the staff has never opined. Even if the proposal concerned a significant emerging risk, exclusion could proceed despite the lack of staff guidance.
For example, at proposal at Amazon requesting company-specific disclosure of workforce risks tied to evolving U.S. immigration policy was excluded despite the absence of prior staff guidance on the topic. Proponents sought analysis of how recent and anticipated changes to immigration rules—particularly those affecting H-1B visa holders, warehouse labor, and truck drivers—could disrupt workforce, logistics capacity, and operating costs. Given the scale of Amazon’s workforce and reliance on these labor segments, this is an issue that a reasonable investor could view as financially material and decision-useful, yet the proposal was excluded without the benefit of any staff position addressing similar subject matter.
Similarly, on a year-to-year basis, the SEC sends signals to proponents and issuers regarding whether proposal language is too prescriptive, allowing proponents to revise proposals accordingly. This iterative feedback loop aligns proposal drafting with evolving staff interpretations. However, in the 2026 proxy season, such revisions were not ratified by staff review. As a result, issuers exercised unilateral discretion, and even proposals that may have been revised in good faith to conform with prior SEC guidance were nevertheless excluded.
For example, at AbbVie Inc., shareholders requested that the board oversee human rights due diligence to produce an impact assessment identifying actual and potential adverse human rights impacts in the company’s operations and supply chain, including effects on the right to health. Notably, this proposal appears to have been drafted to be less prescriptive than a prior 2025 proposal seeking a human rights impact assessment submitted to Eli Lilly, which the staff had permitted to be excluded on micromanagement grounds. The Eli Lilly proposal explicitly mandated the assessment cover “operations, activities, business relationships, and products”. By contrast, the AbbVie proposal narrowed and generalized the request—focusing on board oversight and an impact assessment framework rather than dictating exhaustive coverage parameters. Despite this apparent effort to align with prior staff reasoning and reduce prescriptiveness, AbbVie relied on the earlier Eli Lilly determination to justify exclusion. This illustrates how, in the absence of updated staff review, even materially revised proposals that address prior deficiencies can be excluded based on inapposite precedent.
Thus, an analysis of the ordinary business exclusions reveals that exclusions during this season disproportionately blocked (i) proposals addressing emerging issues lacking precedent and (ii) proposals that had undergone compliance-oriented revisions based on prior staff signals. The absence of no-action letters was therefore not neutral—it both impeded shareholders’ ability to surface new, financially relevant risks and disrupted the established corrective process that typically refines proposal language over time.
In another significant portion of exclusions, the companies claimed that their own activities substantially implemented the proposal. SEC staff is better positioned to provide a neutral evaluation of whether the company activities go as far as a proposal requests. These determinations are not appropriately left to the issuers.
Technical grounds—such as providing inadequate documentation that the proponent owned the necessary shares, or missing filing deadlines—accounted for another meaningful portion of exclusions. Some of these deficiencies seemed clear-cut. But without a structured opportunity for proponents to respond, questions remained about whether some of these technical exclusions rested on incomplete or disputed records that SEC staff would historically have scrutinized.
The disappearance of routine administrative review also caused at least six proponents to bring their disputes into federal court. Three of these cases resolved quickly after the companies agreed to include the proposals or provide the requested disclosure. These cases underscore how, in the absence of staff intermediation, formal legal action began to substitute for what had previously been an administrative and negotiated process. As proponent driven litigation became the primary enforcement mechanism for Rule 14a-8, a structural imbalance also took shape: the ability to defend a proposal increasingly depended on having the financial and legal resources to sue, in contradiction of the rule’s share ownership thresholds—which were designed to give even modest Main Street shareholders a voice.
This shift reflects a broader reconfiguration of how the rule operates in practice. Rule 14a-8 has historically depended on a combination of administrative oversight, evolving staff interpretation, and iterative dialogue between companies and investors. When the administrative layer was removed, interpretive authority shifted to issuers, and dispute resolution migrated to litigation and market pressure.
In that environment, the dynamics between proponents and companies changed materially. Proponents—who typically seek collaborative engagement with the company and dialogue with fellow shareholders—were forced into a position where they must consider escalation, including litigation, to ensure inclusion of proposals on the proxy.
The report concludes with five key recommendations for strengthening Rule 14a-8 and the shareholder proposal framework:
Preserve Rule 14a-8. The shareholder proposal mechanism is a vital communication channel between investors and corporate management. Weakening or eliminating it would undermine shareholders’ ability to raise governance concerns and hold management accountable.
Restore the no-action process. The SEC should revive its administrative process for resolving proposal exclusion disputes. Without it, conflicts are pushed into costly federal litigation or contentious shareholder campaigns. Some streamlining is possible for clear-cut procedural defects, but contested or fact-dependent claims still require meaningful staff review.
Eliminate “no-objection” letters. The practice of issuing no objection letters based solely on a company’s own unverified representations is inconsistent with Rule 14a-8’s intent. It implies administrative endorsement of unilateral exclusions regardless of consistency with the rule, and should be discontinued.
Issue clearer, more objective guidance. While appropriately restoring clarity about ensuring that proposals are relevant to the companies receiving them, Staff Legal Bulletin 14M also introduced excessive subjectivity into key exclusion determinations—particularly on “ordinary business” and “micromanagement” grounds. The subjective criteria provide staff with too much discretion; returning to more objective standards would improve predictability and reduce the need for repeated case-by-case adjudication.
Protect smaller shareholders’ access. Any reforms should ensure the process remains accessible to individual investors and smaller asset managers, who are unlikely to pursue litigation and who have historically filed some of the most important proposals on potentially material issues for their companies.
The 2025–2026 proxy season ultimately demonstrates both the resilience and the fragility of the shareholder proposal system. Shareholders kept raising concerns about governance, risk oversight, and corporate conduct. Some companies kept engaging constructively. But the absence of consistent regulatory oversight has introduced uncertainty, uneven outcomes, and shifted investor-company relations onto a more adversarial footing, dependent on litigation and escalatory tactics, rather than orderly SEC staff assessment of whether a proposal is consistent with the rule.