Court Rebuffs Activist on Forced Arbitration Provisions
POMERANTZ MONITOR | JULY AUGUST 2021
Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) has been involved since March 2019 in litigation against a small shareholder represented by Professor Hal S. Scott, the Director of the Program on International Financial Systems at Harvard Law School. Professor Scott is seeking to have J&J shareholders vote on a proxy proposal instituting a corporate bylaw that would require all securities fraud claims against the company to be pursued through mandatory arbitration, and that would waive shareholders’ rights to bring securities class actions. The litigation arose after J&J rejected the proposal because it would be contrary to New Jersey law. Professor Scott then decided to file an action in Federal District Court in New Jersey contesting J&J’s rejection, in an action called The Doris Behr 2012 Irrevocable Trust v. Johnson & Johnson. Pomerantz has been involved in the litigation on behalf of the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association (“Colorado PERA”), as an intervenor seeking to ensure that investors’ rights are protected.
On June 30, 2021, Judge Michael A. Shipp of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey handed down an important victory for shareholders when it granted J&J’s and the Intervenors’ Motion to Dismiss. This decision was the result of several years of legal maneuvering. First, on April 8, 2019, the court denied Professor Scott’s motion for an order compelling J&J to include the proposal in its proxy for its 2019 shareholder meeting because he acted too late for that year. Then, after Professor Scott filed an amended complaint on May 21, 2020, J&J informed him, apparently to avoid further litigation, that if he were to properly submit his shareholder proposal for inclusion in the company’s 2021 proxy materials, the company would include it and allow its shareholders to vote on the proposal at J&J’s 2021 annual meeting.
Rather than take J&J up on its offer, which would have allowed Professor Scott to achieve his purported goal of having J&J’s shareholders decide on whether they actually want his proposed forced arbitration provision, Professor Scott continued with his litigation. As J&J explained in its motion to dismiss:
Given the Company’s agreement to include the Proposal in the 2021 Proxy Materials, there is no reason to continue to litigate this action. The only explanation for Plaintiff’s refusal to voluntarily dismiss this action is Plaintiff’s trustee’s academic interest in obtaining a judicial decision on the validity of mandatory arbitration bylaws—a crusade that Plaintiff’s trustee has pursued for years. But it is well-established that this Court cannot issue an academic decision that would amount to no more than a hypothetical advisory opinion.
The Court agreed. Judge Shipp explained in his decision granting the motion to dismiss that plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief as to the past proxy materials is moot because the time for that proposal has passed. The Court also ruled that plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief as to potential future proxy proposals is not ripe because it is “too hypothetical at this juncture and contingent on future events.” This is because the plaintiffs “fail[ed] to identify any specific shareholder meeting for which they ‘wish’ to resubmit the proposal, let alone the next shareholder meeting in 2022,” as well as the fact that J&J informed plaintiffs that the company “will no longer exclude the Trust’s proposal from its annual proxy materials.” The Court therefore also determined that it could not issue an opinion as to whether the Proxy Proposal is permitted under New Jersey law, because such a ruling “would amount to an advisory opinion.” Federal courts may not issue advisory opinions because they “may not decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigations in the case before them or give opinions advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.”
The court allowed plaintiffs a final opportunity to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 13, 2021, stating that they plan to resubmit their shareholder proposal for consideration at Johnson & Johnson’s 2022 annual shareholder meeting, and seek a declaratory judgment as to the legality of the proposal. The litigation will therefore continue for the time being and Pomerantz will continue to ensure that the interests of shareholders are represented therein.
This litigation raises the critical right of shareholders to bring securities class actions in court rather than being forced into arbitration proceedings that would preclude shareholders’ ability to band together as a class. These rights are essential for shareholders to be able to seek recovery, and hold companies accountable, for securities fraud for several important reasons. One is that it would otherwise be prohibitively costly and difficult for most investors to bring claims on an individual basis. Moreover, in addition to allowing individual investors to seek redress, the availability of securities class actions provides the market and investors with an important prophylactic mechanism that deters companies and their executives from committing securities fraud. The transparency and accountability of the public court system, as opposed to the private and closed nature of arbitration, is essential for these protections to function properly.
Historically, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has opposed proposals to mandate arbitration of securities claims. The SEC even issued a No Action letter in this matter, telling J&J that it would not object to the company’s exclusion of Professor Scott’s Proposal. (See our prior discussion of this action: https://pomlaw.com/ monitor-issues/can-shareholders-propose-bylaws-requiring-mandatory-arbitration-of-securities-fraud-claims). This has even been the rare issue about which investors and company management have tended to agree. In addition to J&J initially rejecting the mandatory arbitration proposal here, the board of directors of Intuit, another prominent public company, recently recommended against a similar proposal by Professor Scott, because it was “not in the best interest of Intuit or its shareholders.” Over 97.6% of Intuit’s shareholders agreed when they rejected the proposal. (See https://pomlaw.com/monitor-issues/intuit-shareholders-and-directors-reject-forced-arbitration-proposalintuit-shareholders-and-directors-reject-forced-arbitration-proposal).
Pomerantz has actively defended shareholders against forced arbitration beyond the courtroom as well. Several years ago, when the SEC hinted that it might consider allowing companies to include mandatory arbitration clauses in their bylaws, Pomerantz organized a coalition of large institutional investors from around the globe to meet with then-SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and later, with both Republican and Democratic Senate staffers. On November 13, 2018 – two weeks after the SEC meetings – ten Republican State Treasurers, in a letter co-authored by the State Financial Officers Foundation, urged the SEC to maintain their existing stance against forced arbitration. (See https://pomlaw.com/monitor-issues/protecting-share-holder-rights-forcing-away-forced-arbitration-clauses).
Shareholders must continue to be vigilant in protecting their right to bring securities class actions. Professor Scott is continuing to pursue his case against J&J, others seeking to impose mandatory arbitration on shareholders might continue to take up the matter in other forums, and the issue has not been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Even so, the dismissal of Professor Scott’s earlier complaint against J&J is a great result for shareholders, especially given the overwhelming rejection by Intuit’s shareholders of Professor Scott’s mandatory arbitration proposal. J&J’s calling Professor Scott out on his true intention of pursuing his longstanding “academic interest” in seeking a favorable court ruling, rather than focusing on whether shareholders actually want his proposal, explains why there was no need for the Court to rule here on a purely hypothetical question.