Worldwide All Cap

During the quarter there were 546 proposals from 35 companies to vote on. On behalf of our clients, we voted against 20 proposals and abstained from voting on four proposals.

We voted against the appointment of the auditor at Arista Networks, Brown & Brown, Edwards Lifesciences, Fortinet, Glodon, Markel, Roper Technologies, Texas Instruments, Veeva Systems and Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (Wabtec) as they have been in place for over 10 years. The companies have given no information on rotating their auditors, a practice we believe is important to ensure a fresh perspective is brought to their accounts. (10 proposals)

We voted against changing the terms of the board at EPAM Systems as the proposed changes would require all directors to stand for election annually instead of on staggered terms. While we understand the rationale for annual elections, we believe that a staggered approach provides continuity and helps prevent excessive turnover. We also voted against changes to limit the liability of certain officers, as we believe the company has demonstrated its ability to attract and retain an admirable management team under the current structure, which encourages managers to think and act as long-term owners. Finally, we voted against the appointment of the auditor as they have been in place for over 10 years. The company has given no information on rotating its auditor, something we believe is important to ensure a fresh perspective on their accounts. (three proposals)

We voted against the election of an employee shareholder representative at Nexans. With two candidates standing for election, we chose to support the candidate who was elected by employees who are registered shareholders and was also the board's preferred candidate, due to  their international experience as a corporate officer. (one proposal)

We voted against the recasting of votes (the ability for voters to change their original votes on a particular matter in response to new information or changes to a proposal) for directors and the supervisory council at RaiaDrogasil. We believe the principle of recasting votes for an amended group of candidates is poor practice and would prefer the group to be resubmitted for voting. (two proposals)

We abstained from voting on proposals at Rentokil Initial that would grant the company the authority to issue shares as it did not disclose the reasons for the issuance. Without clearer information regarding the potential capacity expansion and/or acquisition for which this issuance is intended, it is difficult for investors to assess the potential value creation and strategic fit of such an investment. (three proposals)

We voted against the recasting of votes for the supervisory council at WEG as we believe the principle of recasting votes for an amended group of candidates is poor practice and would prefer the group to be resubmitted for voting. We also abstained from voting on a request for a separate board election and the election of a supervisory council position. According to Brazilian voting practices, we are unable to vote for this proposal while simultaneouslysupporting the board in its candidate elections. (two proposals)

We voted against a shareholder proposal regarding simple majority voting at EPAM Systems as this topic was already covered by the company's own proposal, which we supported. (one proposal)

We voted against a shareholder proposal requesting that an independent director serve as chair of the board at Fortinet. We continue to support the current CEO and chair of the board. (one proposal)

We voted against a shareholder proposal regarding simple majority voting at Markel as we support the stewards of the company. (one proposal)

We supported a shareholder proposal regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions disclosure at Markel to encourage improved transparency and better disclosure of relevant emissions data. (one proposal)

We supported a shareholder proposal regarding the right to call a special meeting at Texas Instruments as we believe that a stock ownership threshold of 10% to call a meeting is appropriate, considering the company’s size and shareholder base. (one proposal)

During the quarter there were 114 resolutions from eight companies to vote on. On behalf of clients, we voted against eight resolutions.

We voted against the remuneration policy at Diploma as we believe the increase in short-term (annual) bonus incentive does not encourage long term decision making. (one resolution)

We voted against executive remuneration and the remuneration report at Roche as we believe amounts paid to executives is high and lacks key metrics to determine and/or justify the amounts. We voted against a proposal on transaction of business as the company did not provide enough information about the proposal. We wanted to avoid giving them unrestricted decision-making power without sufficient clarity. (four resolutions)

We voted against the election of two directors and an audit committee member at Samsung Electronics as we do not believe them to be truly independent. (three resolutions) 

During the quarter there were 31 resolutions from five companies to vote on. On behalf of clients, we did not vote against any resolutions.

During the quarter there were 88 resolutions from seven companies to vote on.  On behalf of clients, we voted against seven resolutions.

We voted against the appointment of the auditor at Advanced Drainage Systems as they have been in place for over ten years. The company has given no information on intended rotation which we believe is important for ensuring a fresh perspective on the accounts. (one resolution)

We voted against remuneration motions at Ashtead Group as we were concerned about excesses in CEO salary. (two resolutions)

We voted against proposals related to amendments to articles (rules and regulations that govern the company's operations) at DiaSorin as the company did not provide enough information on the amendments. (three resolutions*)

We voted against the appointment of the auditor at Vitasoy as they have been in place for over ten years. The company has given no information on intended rotation which we believe is important for ensuring a fresh perspective on the accounts. (one resolution)

*The same proposal was voted on different stock lines.