APPLE-Amend Proxy Access for Director Nominations

RESOLVED: Shareholders of Apple, Inc. (the “Company” or “Apple”) ask the board of directors (the “Board”) to amend its “Proxy Access for Director Nominations” bylaw, and any other associated documents, to include the following changes or their equivalent for the purpose of increasing the potential number of nominees: 

The number of “Shareholder Nominees” eligible to appear in proxy materials shall be 20% of the directors then serving or 2, whichever is greater.

Supporting Statement: Current proxy access bylaws restrict Shareholder Nominees to 20% of directors rounded down to the nearest whole number. Apple has only 7 directors. 20% of 7, rounding down to the nearest whole number is 1. Therefore, Apple allows shareholders to nominate only one director, given the current board size.

The Council of Institutional Investors notes: “It is important that shareholder nominees have meaningful representation on the board, and in many or most cases, one director is insufficient to achieve that goal. Having at least two nominees helps ensure that the nominees, if elected, can serve on multiple committees and have greater opportunities to bring an independent perspective into board decisions.” (Proxy Access: Best Practices 2017,

Sidley Austin reports that 86% of companies with proxy access allow either a minimum of 2 directors to be nominated or 25% of the board. Only 14% have the same standard as Apple – 20% of the board with no minimum. (Proxy Access: A Five-Year Review,

Apple’s previous opposition statement argued, “Our proxy access bylaws overall are well within the mainstream of public company practices and share similar features with the proxy access bylaws of many other companies.” However, the majority of companies with a similar standard, 20% of the board with no minimum, have boards of 10 or more, so 20% still yields at least 2 nominees. Only a very small minority of the 14%, like Arch Coal and EOG Resources (formerly Enron Oil & Gas Company), limit proxy access candidates to 1. Should these distinct outliers really be our peer group? Are these laggards really the “mainstream” companies we want Apple to emulate?

In a request to the SEC, our Company alleged the Proposal’s Supporting Statement “falsely describes the Company as a “distinct outlier” and a “laggard” in regards to its access bylaw. These statements are objectively and demonstrably false and misleading…”

The SEC flatly rejected Apple’s request. “We are unable to conclude that you have demonstrated objectively that the Proposal is materially false and misleading.” ( Apple has proxy access but is out of step with industry best practices, which allow shareholders to nominate up to 20% of the board or 2, whichever is greater.