This case was last updated from PACER on 10/14/2021 at 07:33:41 (UTC).

National Association of Manufacturers et al v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission et al

Case Summary

On October 13, 2021, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and Natural Gas Services Group, Inc. (NGS) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), represented by Debbie E. Green of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, filed a civil action involving review of government regulations against United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Gary Gensler (collectively “Defendants”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for SEC’s suspension of the Proxy Advice Rule as allegedly unlawful. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas with Judges David Counts and Ronald C. Griffin presiding. 

 

In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that “In view of these serious concerns, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) extensively investigated whether it should implement basic safeguards with respect to proxy voting advice. After collecting numerous examples of voting advice offered notwithstanding an undisclosed conflict of interest, as well as examples of routine inaccurate information, the SEC promulgated a rule—the Proxy Advice Rule—to impose modest protections for investors and issuers alike. See generally Exemptions from the Proxy Rules for Proxy Voting Advice, 85 Fed. Reg. 55,082 (Sept. 3, 2020) (Proxy Advice Rule).”

 

Plaintiffs further alleged that “In summary, the Rule clarifies that the provision of proxy voting advice generally constitutes a solicitation under the federal proxy rules. Usually, entities soliciting a proxy are subject to various information and filing requirements. The Rule exempts proxy firms from these requirements, provided that they disclose potential conflicts of interest to their clients, supply companies subject to their analyses with information about their final voting recommendations, and notify their clients prior to the vote if the subject companies respond to their recommendations. It also subjects proxy firms to the federal proxy rules’ antifraud provisions. The Rule thus functions as an exemption to more burdensome requirements to which the proxy firms’ activity would normally subject them under federal law.”

 

Plaintiffs also alleged that “This action immediately harms publicly traded companies and their shareholders, precluding them from receiving the disclosures that the SEC earlier determined were essential to protect the public markets. The SEC’s suspension of the Proxy Advice Rule is flatly unlawful. The SEC may not decide that it no longer stands by a regulation it earlier lawfully promulgated, and—absent any rulemaking process—simply suspend its application. To the contrary, the procedural provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exist precisely to bring regularity to agency action.”

 

Plaintiffs have laid down one claim for relief which relates to the Administrative Procedure Act – unlawful amendment of a binding regulation. Plaintiffs alleged that by purporting to delay the compliance date for the Proxy Advice Rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment pursuant to the APA, the SEC has acted “without observance of procedure required by law” and “otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The agency’s purported suspension of the compliance date must therefore be “set aside.” 

 

In their prayer for relief, Plaintiffs requested the court to “[S]et aside” Defendants’ suspension of the compliance date for the Proxy Advice, issue a declaratory judgment declaring that Defendants’ suspension of the compliance date for the Proxy Advice Rule is unlawful and void, enjoin Defendants from enforcing or otherwise carrying out the suspension of the compliance date for the Proxy Advice Rule, and award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    7:21-CV-00183

  • Filing Date:

    10/13/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Administrative Procedure Act

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

David Counts

Referral Judge

Ronald C. Griffin

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

National Association of Manufacturers

Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.

Defendants

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Gary Gensler

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Debbie E. Green

Attorney at McDermott Will & Emery LLP

2501 North Harwood Street, Suite 1900

Dallas, TX 75201

 

Court Documents

#1

1 #1

Exhibit A

1 #2

Exhibit B

1 #3

Exhibit C

1 #4

Civil Cover Sheet

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

4 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#11) Pro Hac Vice Letter to Attorney Paul W. Hughes. (jb3) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#10) Pro Hac Vice Letter to Attorney Erica T. Klenicki (jb3) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) Pro Hac Vice Letter to Attorney Andrew A. Lyons-Berg. (jb3) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) Pro Hac Vice Letter to Attorney Patrick D. Hedren. (jb3) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) Summons Issued as to Gary Gensler. (jb3) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) Summons Issued as to United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (jb3) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketCase assigned to Judge David Counts and Judge Ronald C. Griffin. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (jb3) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) RULE 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.. (Green, Debbie) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) RULE 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by National Association of Manufacturers. (Green, Debbie) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by National Association of Manufacturers, Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.. (Green, Debbie) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by National Association of Manufacturers, Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.. (Green, Debbie) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0542-15324942), filed by National Association of Manufacturers, Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Green, Debbie) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Debbie E. Green