Publication
Generative AI: A global guide to key IP considerations
Artificial intelligence (AI) raises many intellectual property (IP) issues.
United Kingdom | Update | 三月 2020
The Annual General Meeting (AGM) season is getting under way in many countries around the world for companies with December 31 year-ends.
AGMs provide one of the few opportunities shareholders have to question the board, engage directly with management, and hear the views of other shareholders.
However, the outbreak of the Coronavirus is causing companies to rethink their arrangements for 2020 AGMs in light of potential bans on large gatherings, travel restrictions and the risk that venues selected for the meetings may cease to be available due to unexpected closure.
Where AGM notices have already been sent out, or are in the process of being dispatched, companies are urging shareholders to check their websites for AGM updates, and recommending that shareholders submit their proxy votes on resolutions to be considered at the meeting as soon as possible, in case they are not able to attend the meeting in person. They are also making clear that if AGM meetings are held, they will not necessarily take place in the usual format. For example, meetings are likely to be shorter in duration as presentations by the chair and other members of the board are kept to a minimum, or replaced by webcasts.
Problems for companies are exacerbated by the fact that in a number of jurisdictions, including the UK and Hong Kong, there is a legislative requirement for public companies to hold an AGM within a specified period following their financial year-end (within six months in the case of the UK and Hong Kong). Most choose to hold their AGM well before that six-month deadline, but some may want to consider pushing the date back further where practicable. In doing so, however, they incur the risk of having to postpone again and running out of time before the statutory deadline expires.
In Singapore, where listed companies are required to hold their AGM within four months of their financial year-end, waivers have been issued by the Singapore Exchange Regulation, granting companies with December 31 year-ends a further two months (to June 30, 2020) within which to hold their AGM to approve financial results, provided certain criteria are met. It remains to be seen whether a similar approach will be taken in other jurisdictions.
Other AGM issues are considered below.
Virtual AGMs held exclusively online without a corresponding physical meeting are not uncommon in the US. However, they are less common in other jurisdictions (see our briefing Will the Coronavirus spark a new era of virtual shareholder meetings in Canada? for more information on the Canadian position).
In some jurisdictions, there may be legal uncertainty as to whether holding a purely online meeting would satisfy all legislative requirements that apply to shareholder meetings. In addition, guidance from proxy advisers and institutional investors in certain jurisdictions do not support virtual-only meetings. As a result, even for those companies which have included provision in their constitutional documents permitting them to hold a virtual-only AGM, this is not a route they are likely to follow unless that guidance changes imminently.
In order to hold a hybrid AGM (whereby shareholders may participate electronically in the AGM in conjunction with a physical meeting), companies may need to have the necessary provisions in their constitutional documents, depending on variations in local law. Those that have such provisions, if they have not already dispatched their AGM notices, may want to consider moving to a hybrid 2020 AGM in order to reduce the number of people attending the physical location. However, this will require, among other things, engaging a technology provider, adapting the AGM documentation sent to shareholders and incurring additional associated costs.
A company should consider whether, legally, it can postpone a shareholder meeting. In the UK, for instance, this is only possible if its constitutional documents permit this. However, in light of any requirements to hold an AGM within a fixed period after the financial year-end, as mentioned above, postponement will be a limited option if Coronavirus-related restrictions make it difficult to hold the AGM within that period.
Similar issues would arise in the case of an AGM adjournment. In common law jurisdictions, a company’s constitutional documents often provide the power to adjourn a shareholder meeting, although even without that power the chair of the meeting can adjourn in certain circumstances. However, adjournment to a later date first requires a physical meeting to be opened, with the necessary quorum requirements met, before the meeting can then be adjourned to a later date. Once again, this will be of limited value if there is a risk that the reconvened AGM could not be held within any applicable statutory window.
In the case of either postponement or adjournment, there will be implications for the resolutions to be proposed at the AGM. A number of resolutions commonly passed at AGMs, for example share allotment and disapplication authorities and buyback authorities, are drafted so as to expire at the following AGM, or at a long-stop date thereafter. If the 2020 AGM cannot be held until after the expiry of the long-stop date in the 2019 AGM resolutions, the company may not have any valid authority in these areas. By way of further example, UK companies putting a new remuneration policy to the 2020 AGM for approval will continue to be bound by their current remuneration policy until shareholder approval of the new policy can be sought.
While it is hoped that governments will legislate to extend the current statutory deadlines which apply to matters such as holding an AGM and laying accounts and reports before a general meeting, in the meantime the following are points that all companies should consider:
In the UK, the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (ICSA), in conjunction with other organisations, has published guidance for companies, AGMs and impact of Covid-19, which looks at some of the issues above in more detail. In particular, it looks at the following options:
The unique circumstances of COVID-19 (the Coronavirus) mean that all companies required to hold an AGM in the coming weeks and months are having to review their arrangements. Going forward, more companies are likely to consider proposing amendments to their constitutional documents to cater for hybrid meetings as a means of dealing with some of the practical problems currently arising from the need to hold a purely physical AGM, although this will not solve the problems encountered during the 2020 AGM season. It is hoped that governments and advisory bodies will provide direction to assist companies concerned about meeting statutory deadlines in order to help them make decisions about 2020 AGMs.
Please get in touch with your usual Norton Rose Fulbright contact or any of those listed if you would like to discuss any issues regarding your company’s 2020 AGM or any other shareholder meeting.
Publication
Artificial intelligence (AI) raises many intellectual property (IP) issues.
Publication
We are delighted to announce that Al Hounsell, Director of Strategic Innovation & Legal Design based in our Toronto office, has been named 'Innovative Leader of the Year' at the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) Awards.
Publication
After a lacklustre finish to 2022 when compared to the vintage year for M&A that was 2021, dealmakers expected 2023 to see the market continue to cool in most sectors, in response to the economic headwinds of rising inflation (with its corresponding impact on financing costs), declining market valuations, tightening regulatory scrutiny and increasing geopolitical tensions.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023