Lexplug logoLexplug

Lovenheim v. Iroquois Brands, Ltd.

District Court, District of Columbia
1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21260, 618 F. Supp. 554 (1985)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A shareholder proposal may be 'otherwise significantly related to the issuer's business' under SEC Rule 14a-8(c)(5), and thus not excludable from proxy materials, even if it is not economically significant, provided it has sufficient ethical or social significance.


Facts:

  • Peter C. Lovenheim owned 200 shares of common stock in Iroquois Brands, Ltd. (Iroquois/Delaware).
  • Iroquois/Delaware imported and sold paté de foie gras, a product made from goose liver in France.
  • Lovenheim learned that the production of paté often involves the force-feeding of geese, a practice he considered a form of animal cruelty.
  • Lovenheim submitted a proposal for inclusion in the company's proxy materials, requesting that the Board of Directors form a committee to study the production methods of its French supplier.
  • The proposal asked the committee to report on whether the methods caused animal suffering and whether distribution of the product should be discontinued until a more humane method was found.
  • The company's paté sales were approximately $79,000 in the prior year, resulting in a net loss of $3,121 and involving less than .05 percent of the company's total assets.
  • Iroquois/Delaware refused to include Lovenheim's proposal in its proxy materials, claiming it was excludable because the paté business was economically insignificant to the company.

Procedural Posture:

  • Peter C. Lovenheim sued Iroquois Brands, Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
  • Lovenheim sought a preliminary injunction to compel Iroquois/Delaware to include his shareholder proposal in its 1985 proxy statement.
  • Iroquois/Delaware opposed the motion, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction, that service of process was improper, and that the proposal was properly excludable under SEC Rule 14a-8(c)(5).
  • The District Court considered Lovenheim's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does SEC Rule 14a-8(c)(5) permit a corporation to exclude a shareholder proposal that has significant ethical and social implications but relates to operations accounting for less than five percent of the corporation's assets, earnings, and sales?


Opinions:

Majority - Gasch, District Judge

No. A shareholder proposal may not be excluded from proxy materials solely on economic grounds if it is otherwise significantly related to the issuer's business through its ethical or social significance. The text of Rule 14a-8(c)(5) allows exclusion if a proposal concerns operations below a 5% economic threshold AND is 'not otherwise significantly related to the issuer's business.' The court reasoned that the word 'otherwise' indicates that factors other than economic significance must be considered. Reviewing the SEC's history in amending the rule, the court found clear intent that the rule should not be 'hinged solely on the economic relativity of a proposal.' Citing the D.C. Circuit's decision in Medical Committee for Human Rights v. SEC, the court emphasized the importance of shareholder democracy and the right of shareholders to control important corporate decisions, including those with significant social or political implications. Therefore, because Lovenheim's proposal raises significant ethical questions about animal cruelty directly related to a product the company sells, it is 'otherwise significantly related' to the business and cannot be excluded.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the 'otherwise significantly related' exception in SEC Rule 14a-8(c)(5), establishing that social and ethical considerations can render a shareholder proposal includable even if it is economically de minimis. The ruling empowers shareholder activism on a wide range of social policy issues, preventing corporations from using a purely economic test to shield themselves from proposals concerning controversial business practices. It solidifies the principle that corporate governance extends beyond pure profit-maximization to include ethical and social responsibilities that are of concern to shareholders.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Lovenheim v. Iroquois Brands, Ltd. (1985) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Lovenheim v. Iroquois Brands, Ltd.