Skip to content Skip to footer

Stockholder Proposal


Right to Act by Written Consent

The Board recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal

This stockholder proposal has been submitted by John Chevedden, 2215 Nelson Avenue, No. 205, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (the beneficial owner of 200 shares of HP Common Stock). The proponent has requested we include the proposal and supporting statement in this proxy statement, and, if properly presented, the proposal will be voted on at the annual meeting.

This proposal and supporting statement are quoted verbatim below and HP is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained in them.

The HP Board recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal and its opposition statement can be found below the proposal.

Proposal 4 – Shareholder Right to Act by Written Consent

Shareholders request that our board of directors take such steps as may be necessary to permit written consent by the shareholders entitled to cast the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize an action at a meeting at which all shareholders entitled to vote thereon were present and voting. This includes shareholder ability to initiate any appropriate topic for written consent.

This proposal topic won 88%-support at an AT&T annual meeting. We gave 51% support to this proposal topic in 2018. Plus we gave 49% support to this proposal topic in 2020. The 2020 vote was in effect a 51% vote because management put its hand on the scale in regard to the 2020 proposal. Management spent shareholder money to do extra advertisements against the 2020 proposal. Plus management also made it less difficult for shareholders to call a special shareholder meeting in an attempt to pacify shareholders. And this was before the shareholder right to call a special in-person shareholder meeting was eliminated by the 2020 pandemic.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (BK) said it adopted written consent in 2019 after 45%-support for a written consent shareholder proposal. This was clearly less than our 51% vote. And this BK action was a year before the pandemic made in-person shareholder meetings a dinosaur - perhaps forever. It is so much easier for management to conduct an online shareholder meeting that management is now spoiled and will never want to return to an in-person shareholder meeting.

Shareholders need to be able to accomplish more outside of a shareholder meeting due to the onslaught of tightly controlled online shareholder meetings.

With the near universal use of online annual shareholder meetings, which can last only 10-minutes, shareholders are severely restricted in making their views known because all challenging questions and comments can be screened out.

For instance Goodyear management hit the mute button right in the middle of a formal shareholder proposal presentation at its 2020 shareholder meeting. Goodyear management simply did not want shareholders to hear constructive criticism.

Plus AT&T management would not allow any sponsors of shareholder proposals to speak at the 2020 AT&T online annual meeting during the pandemic.

Please see:

AT&T investors denied a dial-in as annual meeting goes online

Online meetings also give management a blank check to make false statements. For instance management at scores of 2020 online annual meetings falsely stated that there were no more shareholder questions. Online shareholders were powerless to point out that their questions were not answered.

Please see:

Schwartz-Ziv, Miriam, How Shifting from In-Person to Virtual Shareholder Meetings Affects Shareholders' ’Voice (August 16, 2020).

Available at SSRN: or

Now more than ever shareholders need to have the option to take action outside of a shareholder meeting since tightly controlled online shareholder meetings are a shareholder engagement wasteland.

Please vote yes:
Shareholder Right to Act by Written Consent - Proposal 4

Statement In Opposition

The Board has carefully reviewed this proposal and unanimously recommends a vote AGAINST it for the following key reasons:

  • a nearly identical proposal was considered and rejected by stockholders at our 2020 Annual Meeting;
  • the existing right of HP stockholders to call a special meeting of stockholders at a 15% threshold;
  • HP’s strong stockholder engagement practices year-round, including recently and specifically with respect to a proposal to permit stockholders to act by written consent without a meeting of stockholders; and
  • the Board’s belief that the proposal would circumvent the protections, procedural safeguards and advantages provided to all stockholders by stockholder meetings.

HP continually evaluates stockholder feedback and developments in corporate governance and implements appropriate changes to its corporate governance policies and practices that it believes are in the best interests of HP and its stockholders.

Our stockholders were given an opportunity to consider a nearly identical proposal at our 2020 Annual Meeting. At that meeting, an advisory proposal to provide stockholders with the ability to act by written consent without a meeting of stockholders failed to receive support from a majority of the shares present and entitled to vote on the proposal. Specifically, of the share present and entitled to vote, 49.7% supported the proposal, while 50.3% voted against the proposal or abstained from voting (which has the same effect as a vote against). As a percentage of outstanding shares, 37.5% supported the proposal.

Following the receipt of this proposal, the Board revisited its review and analysis from last year. Specifically, the Board considered whether there have been any material changes to the factors that the Board considered last year with respect to the potential adoption of a written consent right. After thorough consideration, the Board determined that adopting a written consent right is not in the best interests of HP or our stockholders at this time for the following reasons:

  • a nearly identical written consent stockholder proposal having failed at our 2020 Annual Meeting;
  • HP’s most recent stockholder engagement conducted in January 2021, which included stockholders representing approximately 30% of our outstanding stock as of December 31, 2020, confirmed once again that many of our stockholders continue to be satisfied with our current corporate governance profile, robust record of engagement with and responsiveness to stockholders, and commitment to transparency;
  • other governance rights we already provide our stockholders, including a meaningful proxy access right;
  • the fact that the written consent process is less transparent and less democratic than action at a stockholder meeting, because stockholder action by written consent may not result in all stockholders receiving advance notice of a proposed action prior to its approval by written consent and does not permit a variety of views on a proposal to be exchanged;
  • the fact that action by written consent can create substantial confusion and disruption, as different stockholder groups may solicit multiple written consents simultaneously, some of which may be duplicative or contradictory; and
  • our current stockholder base and the relatively consistent presence of at least one stockholder that has owned or controlled the vote of more than 10% of our outstanding shares over the past few years, which makes the 15% threshold to call a special meeting realistic to achieve.

The Board also took note of the closeness of the vote on a written consent proposal at the 2018 Annual Meeting, where, of the shares present and entitled to vote, 50.4% (or 37.5% of our outstanding shares) supported the proposal. In response to the vote at the 2018 Annual Meeting, the Board conducted further engagement with our stockholders to better understand the vote results and incorporate stockholder feedback into the Board’s ultimate response to that vote. Based on the feedback received from stockholders during such engagement, the Board determined it would be consistent with the wishes of the broadest group of our stockholders and responsive to the vote on the written consent proposal at the 2018 Annual Meeting to further facilitate the ability of stockholders to act in between annual meetings. Specifically, in lieu of adopting a written consent right, effective as of February 7, 2019, the Board amended our Bylaws to lower the threshold share ownership required to call a special meeting from 25% to 15% of our outstanding shares. We believe that stockholder support of the Board’s response to the vote on the written consent proposal at the 2018 Annual Meeting is evidenced by our stockholders rejecting a nearly identical proposal at the 2020 Annual Meeting.

For all of the above reasons, the Board continues to believe that the risk of abuse associated with stockholder action by written consent, including bypassing procedural protections that offer transparency and advance notice, both of which are afforded with a stockholder meeting, as well as HP’s commitment to good corporate governance, HP’s strong stockholder engagement program and HP stockholders’ existing right to call a special meeting with a 15% threshold, make this proposal not in the best interest of all of our stockholders.

Board Recommendation

The Board believes that adoption of this proposal is unnecessary and not in HP’s or our stockholders’ best interests for the reasons described above. Accordingly, the Board recommends that you vote AGAINST this proposal.

Vote Required

Approval of this stockholder proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of HP common stock present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote on the proposal at the annual meeting.

Return to top
© 2020 HP Development Company, L.P.