Seritage Growth Properties Reports Shareholder Vote Results on Trustees, Pay

What Happened

• Seritage Growth Properties (SRG) filed an 8-K on June 11, 2026 reporting results from its annual shareholder meeting. Six trustees — John T. McClain, Adam Metz, Talya Nevo‑Hacohen, Mitchell Sabshon, Allison L. Thrush and Mark Wilsmann — were re-elected for terms ending at the 2027 annual meeting. Each received fewer than the two‑thirds affirmative votes required by the company’s bylaws, but under the company’s Declaration of Trust and Maryland law they will continue to serve until successors are elected and qualified.
• Shareholders ratified Deloitte & Touche LLP as SRG’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2026.
• Shareholders rejected the advisory (non‑binding) vote to approve the company’s executive compensation for named executive officers (the "say‑on‑pay" proposal).

Key Details

• Trustee vote totals (For / Against / Abstain / Broker Non‑Vote):
  • John T. McClain: 17,810,591 / 18,413,263 / 1,013,085 / 5,970,638
  • Adam Metz: 20,641,494 / 16,511,550 / 83,895 / 5,970,638
  • Talya Nevo‑Hacohen: 19,740,403 / 17,400,314 / 96,222 / 5,970,638
  • Mitchell Sabshon: 19,683,261 / 17,457,571 / 96,107 / 5,970,638
  • Allison L. Thrush: 20,024,044 / 17,116,688 / 96,207 / 5,970,638
  • Mark Wilsmann: 20,000,466 / 17,140,366 / 96,107 / 5,970,638
• Auditor ratification vote: For 27,029,802; Against 2,674,904; Abstain 13,502,871; Broker Non‑Vote 0.
• Advisory executive compensation vote: For 16,048,602; Against 18,687,428; Abstain 2,500,909; Broker Non‑Vote 5,970,638.

Why It Matters

• The trustee votes show shareholder dissatisfaction relative to the company’s bylaw threshold (two‑thirds) even though the trustees remain in office under governing law; this could signal governance concerns investors should monitor.
• Ratification of Deloitte & Touche LLP confirms continuity of the company’s independent auditor for fiscal 2026.
• Rejection of the advisory say‑on‑pay indicates a meaningful number of shareholders oppose the company’s executive compensation approach; while non‑binding, a failed vote often prompts board-level review or enhanced investor engagement on pay practices.