NASDAQ

Subscribe to NASDAQ

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied review of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s approval of proposed rules promulgated by the Nasdaq Stock Market concerning the diversity of directors on Nasdaq-listed companies’ boards. The rules require listed companies to disclose director-diversity information and either to have a certain number of diverse directors or to explain why not. The decision in Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC held that the rules do not violate the Constitution and that the SEC did not violate its statutory obligations in approving them.

The Nasdaq rules do not require board diversity; they require only disclosures and explanations. But the need to comply with the rules could have the practical effect of increasing diversity on boards of Nasdaq-listed companies.

After much debate, the SEC on Friday approved a Nasdaq proposal that will require listed companies to adopt several diversity-related measures.  Nasdaq first made this proposal, which requires listed companies to publicly disclose diversity information about their board members and either hire “diverse” members to their boards or explain why they do not in writing, last December.  Under SEC regulations, self-regulatory organizations such as Nasdaq must formally submit proposed rule changes to the Commission.  Nasdaq made some minor revisions to the proposed rule in February that granted smaller boards and newly listed companies some compliance leeway, but the proposal has otherwise survived scrutiny from conservatives, corporate interests, and popular newspaper editorial boards.

In a recent case arising from the Facebook IPO, NASDAQ OMX Group v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 13-Civ. 2657 (2d Cir. October 31, 2014), the Second Circuit determined that the federal courts had jurisdiction to enjoin an arbitration against NASDAQ, finding that the case implicated important federal issues regarding the regulation of an orderly securities market, even though the underlying claims were based solely upon state law.  In a strong dissent, Judge Chester J. Straub argued that majority decision extended federal court jurisdiction “far beyond its permissible bounds,” and that the decision would likely lead to an unwarranted increase in federal litigation.