Introduction: Institutional Stewardship Meets Structural Reform
The 2025 proxy season is proving to be a defining chapter in the evolution of corporate governance. Central to this shift is the now-embedded application of the Universal Proxy Card (UPC), a reform initiated by the SEC under Rule 14a-19, which mandates equal treatment of management and dissident nominees on a single proxy card. While the rule officially took effect in late 2022, this year marks the first cycle where its influence is fully observable across the public markets.
For institutional investors—particularly fiduciaries entrusted with long-duration capital—the UPC is not merely a technical adjustment. It represents a structural rebalancing of power between boards and their owners. The ability to “mix and match” nominees provides precision in board composition, improves contest dynamics, and raises expectations for stewardship. This article outlines key developments from the 2025 proxy season, analyzes the strategic implications of the UPC, and provides Buxton Helmsley’s perspective on deploying this tool to enhance portfolio value and governance outcomes.
Historically, proxy contests forced shareholders to choose between binary slates—either supporting all company nominees or those of the dissident. The UPC eliminates this artificial constraint by allowing shareholders to vote across both slates, akin to in-person voting.
While the total number of contested elections has not surged dramatically—consistent with trends observed in Lazard’s 2024 Q1 Shareholder Activism Update—the nature of those contests has changed. Mixed outcomes, where shareholders elect a blend of management and dissident nominees, are increasingly the norm.
Case in Point: Politan Capital’s evolving engagement with Masimo Corporation illustrates this shift. After securing one board seat in 2023, Politan added a second in 2024, demonstrating that strategic persistence and calibrated targeting are replacing traditional full-slate contests. Boards are responding with greater openness to negotiated settlements, and investors are demonstrating a willingness to install incremental change agents over multiple seasons.
Investors are elevating the standard of review applied to board nominees. The industry-wide adoption of board skills matrices—popularized by BlackRock, State Street, and CalSTRS—has become a baseline expectation. These matrices now regularly assess capabilities such as:
This evolution reflects the view that board composition should not merely check boxes, but align dynamically with corporate strategy and risk.
Over 60% of activist campaigns now focus on focused governance interventions: modest board refreshment, enhanced pay-for-performance alignment, or separation of chair and CEO roles.[1] This “precision activism” contrasts sharply with the adversarial campaigns of the past.
Investor engagement models have adapted in parallel. Leading managers—including T. Rowe Price and Capital Group—are deploying internal governance specialists to meet directly with both slates in contested elections. This level of due diligence empowers them to differentiate between symbolic candidacies and transformational leadership.
There is mounting pressure on institutional stewards—particularly asset managers with pass-through voting mandates—to disclose not only how they voted, but why. Regulators and asset owner coalitions, including the PRI and Council of Institutional Investors, are pushing for standardized stewardship reporting frameworks.
Best Practice Example: TCI Fund’s activist campaign at Canadian National Railway remains a gold standard. Their public release of an extensive whitepaper laid out quantitative underperformance benchmarks, a coherent plan for strategic reform, and granular justifications for board replacement—demonstrating that transparency, not opacity, builds legitimacy in shareholder capitalism.
Institutional investors now face a higher fiduciary bar. The UPC offers more influence—but also requires greater rigor. Here is how Buxton Helmsley sees operationalizing the UPC for maximum long-term value creation:
Go beyond biographical data. Use a composite framework that integrates:
Director evaluation should mirror the same analytical discipline used to underwrite investments.
Initiate early, direct dialogues with both management and dissident nominees. Prioritize governance philosophy, track record under stress, and boardroom culture fit. These qualitative touchpoints often reveal far more than public filings.
Institutional investors who engage early avoid reactionary decision-making and gain leverage in shaping board outcomes before the proxy vote is even triggered.
Develop internal policies requiring documentation of voting logic for each director decision. Consider publishing anonymized versions of these decisions to set expectations with issuers and beneficiaries alike. This reinforces stewardship credibility and enhances regulatory readiness.
Monitor whether elected nominees deliver on promised reforms. Track KPIs over time (total shareholder return, governance scores, strategic execution). These learnings should loop into next season’s evaluation protocols.
The Universal Proxy Card has altered the calculus of corporate control. But the value it creates—or destroys—will depend entirely on how thoughtfully it is deployed. Institutional investors are now arbiters, not observers, in contested board dynamics. With influence comes responsibility: to evaluate rigorously, vote transparently, and engage strategically.
At Buxton Helmsley, we view the UPC as a tool for fiduciary advantage. Our team partners with investors to build actionable governance frameworks, assess campaign quality, and drive boardroom accountability. To learn how we can support your stewardship mission in this evolving landscape, please contact us.
Referenced Sources:
[1] Lazard. Shareholder Activism: Q1 2024 Update. Lazard Financial Advisory, April 2024. https://www.lazard.com/media/454479/laz-q1-2024-shareholder-activism-update.pdf