[16778]
November 18, 2003
TO: CLOSED-END INVESTMENT COMPANY COMMITTEE No. 60-03
SEC RULES COMMITTEE No. 93-03
RE: INSTITUTE DRAFT COMMENT LETTER ON AMEX’S PROPOSED CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE REQUIREMENTS; YOUR VIEWS REQUESTED BY NOVEMBER 20TH
As we previously informed you, the Securities and Exchange Commission recently
published for comment an American Stock Exchange proposal that would enhance board
independence and increase the role of independent directors on board committees for
companies listed on Amex.1 The Institute has prepared a draft comment letter, a copy of which
is attached and summarized below.
Comments are due to the SEC by this Friday, November 21st. If you have any comments
on the draft letter, please contact me by phone at (202) 218-3563, by fax at (202) 326-5827, or by
e-mail at ddonohue@ici.org no later than Thursday, November 20th.
The draft letter commends Amex for taking this initiative to improve corporate
governance by enhancing the role of independent directors and strengthening the oversight
responsibilities of audit committees. The draft letter notes that the Institute’s perspectives on
the proposal are as both investors in and issuers of securities. It points out that as investors in
equity securities, the Institute’s members rely on high-quality financial reporting to make
investment decisions. Accordingly, the letter states the Institute’s general support for the
proposal, and states our belief that the proposal will serve to enhance the interests of investors
by improving the governance structure of listed companies and the integrity of financial
reporting. The remainder of the draft letter is from the perspective of investment companies as
issuers.
The draft letter states that we are pleased that the proposal recognizes that because
closed-end investment companies “are subject to pervasive federal regulation” that it is not
necessary or appropriate to apply to them the proposed corporate governance requirements
with the exception of proposed new audit committee requirements to the extent required by
Rule 10A-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The draft letter states that we strongly
concur that with respect to closed-end investment companies, existing regulatory requirements
satisfy many of Amex’s policy goals, thereby making it unnecessary to apply the proposed
1 See Institute Memorandum to Closed-End Investment Company Committee No. 58-03, SEC Rules Committee No.
89-03 [16770], dated November 12, 2003.
2
requirements with respect to: independent directors; director nominations; executive
compensation; and codes of conduct and ethics. The draft letter also states that the Institute
concurs with Amex that it is not necessary to apply the proposed corporate governance
requirements to exchange-traded investment companies, given the nature and structure of these
companies except to the extent required by Rule 10A-3.
In addition, the draft letter states that we are pleased that the provisions of the Amex
proposal are very similar to analogous provisions in the NYSE and Nasdaq rules recently
published for comment by the SEC. The draft letter points out that such a coordinated
approach ensures that the self-regulatory organizations do not compete on the basis of
differences in their rules, encouraging a “race to the bottom” to attract new listings, to the
ultimate detriment of investors.
The draft letter also objects to the abbreviated 21-day comment period and recommends
that the SEC lengthen the comment period for future significant self-regulatory rules proposals.
Finally, the draft letter recommends that consistent with the NYSE and Nasdaq proposals,
Amex make clear in any adopting release that while it does not require any audit committee
members to satisfy the definition of audit committee financial expert set forth in Item 401(e) of
Regulation S-K, a board may presume that such person qualifies as a financially sophisticated
audit committee member.
Dorothy M. Donohue
Associate Counsel
Attachment (in .pdf format)
Latest Comment Letters:
TEST - ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Response to the European Commission on the Savings and Investments Union