During this section there was a very notable proposal introduced by the Franciscan Sisters of Allegany, NY requesting that the General Dynamics Board of Directors prepare a human rights report. The proposal points out that General Dynamics’ products and services are used by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, and U.S. government agencies at the U.S.-Mexico border. As General Dynamics’ weapons are used in war crimes and human rights violations against Yemenis, Palestinians, asylum-seekers and beyond, this proposal rightfully calls for General Dynamics to develop and provide transparency on their process to address and remedy the “actual and potential human rights impacts associated with high-risk products and services.”
Further scuttling a proposed settlement for FirstEnergy’s shareholders, a federal judge demanded their lawyers, within 24 hours, answer his question about which company officials ordered what has been described as the largest political bribery scheme in Ohio history. Both FirstEnergy and its shareholders were on the cusp of a settling the shareholders’ derivative lawsuit, announcing an agreement in February pending judicial review. It calls for FirstEnergy’s insurers to pay the company $180 million for damages incurred in the scandal. The proposed settlement also would force out six members of the board of directors when their terms expire and require corporate reforms related to “political and lobbying activities.”
In April, a judge ruled that a lawsuit filed by former investors in the shale oil company Alta Mesa could proceed. Their case alleges multiple instances of fraud and reveals that not only did engineers in the company warn executives that they were lying to investors about oil production estimates but that executives went on to ignore those warnings. Alta Mesa is among a string of oil and gas companies that in recent years have either been accused or found guilty of fraud, including ExxonMobil and Miller Energy. Many of these emerging fraud cases show a consistent pattern of employees warning leadership that they were misleading investors about how much oil the companies could reasonably produce in the future, but rather than changing course the employees were ignored or fired.
Activist shareholders are pushing for the proposals to be adopted during this week’s annual meetings, the first to be held after a year that’s included nationwide Black Lives Matter protests, a deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol and challenging working conditions for many on-site workers in the tech industry.
Popular Information focuses a lot of attention on the activities of corporate PACs, even though the dollar figures involved are relatively small. Corporate PACs can contribute a maximum of $5,000 per election to a federal candidate. For a typical candidate that has a primary and general election, that's $10,000 per cycle. So why do we spend so much time tracking this spending? Because corporate PACs are one of the few aspects of corporate political spending that is fully transparent. All of the money donated by corporate PACs to federal candidates is reported to the FEC. Things are a bit more complex on the state level, but it's a similar dynamic. Most states also have fairly regular disclosure of corporate PAC donations. Some states allow corporations to donate directly to candidates but those donations still must be disclosed.
Shareholders have submitted a resolution calling on Dominion Energy to fully disclose its lobbying efforts. The resolution will be voted on Wednesday morning at Dominion’s annual meeting. When Dominion released a statement encouraging shareholders to oppose the resolution, the shareholders responded with a 12 page memo explaining why they should vote yes on Item #4 Dominion’s Report on Lobbying. The memo includes a deep dive into Dominion’s involvement with organizations associated with fraud, corruption and the recent rally before the insurrection attempt on January 6 at the US Capitol Building. From the memo: “Proponents believe Dominion’s trade associations’ activities are jeopardizing our Company’s reputation.
The activist investor leading a proxy fight to reshape Exxon Mobil Corp on Monday named the four directors it wants shareholders to remove at the oil company’s upcoming annual general meeting. The investor, Engine No. 1, is a small fund that last year took on the top U.S. oil producer for what it said was poor financial returns and a lagging approach to cleaner fuels. Exxon since has vowed to cut its debt, invest more in low-carbon initiatives, and improve returns. The fund singled out for removal three former chief executives of prominent U.S. companies and the former head of Malaysia’s state-run oil firm who joined the board last month. Its nominees for the board include a former U.S. Energy Department official and an executive at a wind turbine developer-manufacturer.
Washington - In a shocking move by Procter & Gamble’s shareholders that defied the company’s own recommendations, two-thirds of Procter & Gamble (P&G) shareholders voted “yes” at the company’s annual meeting on Tuesday, October 13, to pass a proposal on forest sourcing and impacts. The vote is a clear indication that despite repeated insistence from company executives, the world’s largest consumer goods company is not doing enough to deal with the financial threats of deforestation and forest degradation in its supply chains.
When we think about ways to pressure corporations to improve their practices, we may think of petitions, street demonstrations, boycotts, or social media campaigns. Yet there’s another way that’s been used effectively for decades. It involves those who stand to gain from keeping companies healthy over the long term. It’s called shareholder action. Surprised? Shareholders, who are part-owners of the companies in which they invest, can use their investor status to pressure companies to be better corporate citizens. You’re a shareholder if you buy stock in a company. While not usually in the limelight, people who care about the social and environmental impacts of the companies in which they invest have helped improve corporate conduct for decades.
By Inequality.org staff. Investor and philanthropist Stephen Silberstein has set up a CEO pay showdown at the May 25 BlackRock annual meeting in New York City. The Wall Street firm’s CEO, Laurence Fink, is a classic example of “pay for nonperformance,” hauling in $26 million in compensation last year despite a significant drop in the company’s share price. But it gets worse. As the world’s largest money manager, BlackRock holds shares in thousands of U.S. corporations. And when it comes time to vote every year on those corporations’ executive pay packages, BlackRock nearly always rubberstamps the proposals — no matter how bloated they may be. Silberstein has filed a shareholder resolution with BlackRock that would require management to come up with plans for “bringing its voting practices in line with its stated principle of linking executive compensation and performance.” Inequality.org co-editor Sarah Anderson talked with Steve about his strategy.
A group of investment firms and foundations with widely-diversified investment portfolios today called upon the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt network neutrality rules that would protect an open Internet. They recommended reclassification of broadband Internet service under Title II of the Communications Act, giving the FCC clear regulatory authority over the Internet network infrastructure that serves millions of individuals, entrepreneurs and established businesses throughout the U.S. Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet content and applications should be treated equally regardless of the source. It prohibits blocking and discrimination and bars Internet service providers from offering paid priority “fast lanes” for some content. “We believe open Internet policies help drive the economy, encourage innovation and reward investors,” the group said. The FCC filing highlighted the importance of network neutrality rules for start-up and technology companies as well as small and medium-sized businesses and companies that address critical needs such as healthcare, education and banking.
The agenda for Cameco’s annual general meeting took a turn Wednesday when a group of protesters showed up at Cameco’s head office. The focus shifted from updating shareholders on the financial future of the company to the ethics and environmental impact of uranium mining in northern Saskatchewan. The protest of about 25 people was organized by members of the English River First Nation but was attended by people from all over the province including Lumsden, Outlook, Standing Buffalo, Saskatoon and an outspoken woman from La Ronge. “All we will have done is increase the amount of radioactivity on the land,” said Kirsten Scansen, of La Ronge, Sask. “It’s making our food, our land base, our wild meats, our fish, our plants, our berries, making them more dangerous in our lives and decreasing our livelihood, decreasing our health, decreasing our well being.” The protesters biggest concerns are the radioactive tailings ponds left in the north and the high grade nuclear waste being disposed of.
On Friday May 30th, outside of Lowe’s Annual Shareholder Meeting, members of SumOfUs.org, joined by beekeepers from around the country, and a giant inflatable bee, will draw attention to the corporation’s continued sale of neonicotinoids, commonly known as neonics, a type of pesticides that has been linked to the collapse of bee populations worldwide. WHEN: Friday, May 30th. Protest and visuals start at 8:00am ET. Press conference and remarks at 9:00am ET. Lowe’s Shareholder Meeting starts at 10:00am ET. WHERE: 10000 Ballantyne Commons Pkwy, at the intersection of John J. Delaney Dr. Charlotte, NC 28277 Beekeepers outside join Lowe’s shareholders inside asking the corporation to remove bee-killing neonic pesticides from its shelves, and to promote alternative products that are not toxic to bees. More than 730,000 people have signed onto a petition from SumOfUs.org, urging Lowe’s and Home Depot to stop selling the bee-killing pesticides.
Casey Hinds showed up at her first McDonald's annual shareholder meeting in Illinois Thursday—to crash it. For months, she and five other nutrition-blogger moms prepared to confront McDonald's executives about marketing strategies aimed at children, like the use of cartoons and celebrities. They're part of a nationwide network called #MomsNotLovinIt, organized by the nonprofit Corporate Accountability International (CAI) to curb the marketing of junk food to kids and the rise of diet-related disease. Hinds had never done anything like this, she told YES!, and she was nervous. Outside the meeting, hundreds of protesters had gathered for the second day in a row to demand better pay for low-wage McDonald's workers (138 people were arrested Wednesday for trespassing—and 101 of them were McDonald's workers). When Hinds and the other moms arrived inside the meeting, they found that, rather than being invited to approach the microphone with their concerns, this year they had to submit questions ahead of time to be screened by CEO Don Thompson. Only one of the six moms who prepared statements were invited to speak.
Demonstrators gathered this morning outside Comcast Corporation’s annual shareholders’ meeting to show opposition to the company’s proposed merger with Time Warner Cable. Outside the Kimmel Center, Delara Derakhshani, policy counsel for Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, says a merger between the two media giants would result in worse customer service, higher prices, and fewer choices. “I would say that they’re sort of notorious for lousy customer service, and they’re just going to have less of an incentive, I think, to address customer needs,” she told KYW Newsradio. Meanwhile, Comcast spokesperson John Demming was on hand to read a written statement from Comcast: “The combination of Comcast and Time Warner Cable will bring significant benefits to consumers, including faster Internet speeds, net neutrality protection, a more reliable and more secure network, low-cost Internet access, and more diverse and independent programming to millions of Americans across the nation,” he read. But Steven Renderos, with the Center for Media Justice, doesn’t think the merger will help consumers at all. “All it really does is it puts Comcast in a position to have more power,” he said.