Business Roundtable v. Securities and Exchange Commission

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · Corporations

CorporationsCorporate governanceShareholder voting rightsSEC authoritySelf-regulatory organizationsRule 19c-4one share one votedual class stock

Facts

After General Motors proposed issuing a second class of common stock with one-half vote per share, the proposal conflicted with the NYSE's one-share/one-vote listing rule. The NYSE later proposed relaxing that rule, but instead of approving the exchange's proposal, the SEC adopted Rule 19c-4 on its own initiative in 1988. Rule 19c-4 barred national securities exchanges and associations from listing stock of corporations that took actions nullifying, restricting, or disparately reducing the per-share voting rights of existing common shareholders. The rule applied even when the transaction had been approved by shareholders through a vote conducted on one-share/one-vote principles.

Issue

Whether Exchange Act § 19(c), especially its authorization for SEC amendments to SRO rules 'otherwise in furtherance of the purposes' of the Act, empowered the SEC to adopt Rule 19c-4 regulating shareholder voting rights and capital structure through listing standards.

Rule

Although § 19 gives the SEC broad authority to review and amend SRO rules, that authority is limited by the purposes of the Exchange Act as Congress actually chose them. Section 19(c)'s catch-all language does not authorize the SEC to regulate substantive allocations of voting power among shareholders or other matters of internal corporate governance traditionally governed by state law, absent a clear indication from Congress. Broad statutory references to the 'public interest' or 'fair corporate suffrage' must be confined to the specific purposes and context of the Act and cannot be used to create a general federal corporate law through listing standards.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The SEC adopts a rule under Exchange Act § 19(c) directing national securities exchanges to delist any company that adopts a staggered board after already having a single annual election for all directors. The Commission explains that staggered boards weaken shareholder influence and therefore undermine fair corporate suffrage, even when the board structure was approved by fully informed shareholders in Phoenix, Arizona.

Is the SEC rule most likely valid?

Explanation. The majority held that § 19(c)'s catch-all phrase, allowing SEC action 'otherwise in furtherance of the purposes' of the Exchange Act, cannot be used to regulate substantive allocations of corporate power traditionally left to state law. A staggered board rule governs internal corporate governance, not merely disclosure or voting procedure. The case also rejects the idea that broad appeals to fair corporate suffrage or investor protection can federalize corporate law through listing standards. (Derived from Business Roundtable v. Securities and Exchange Commission (n.d.).)