ISS and Glass Lewis 2026 Policy Updates

Shaun Bisman is a Partner and Gray Broaddus is an Analyst at Compensation Advisory Partners. This post is based on their CAP memorandum.

Both ISS and Glass Lewis recently released updates to their 2026 pay-for-performance models and proxy voting guidelines, which will apply to annual meetings held on or after February 1, 2026. This article outlines updates to executive and non-employee director compensation and director election voting recommendations that could affect proxy advisory firms’ voting recommendations for the 2026 proxy season.

READ MORE »

M&A Predictions and Guidance for 2026

Ethan Klingsberg is a Partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. This post is based on his Freshfields memorandum.

Here’s a quick overview of the new challenges and issues that I’m predicting the M&A eco-system will face in the coming year:

Antitrust – Just when you thought the going was good…. Early in Trump’s tenure, his populist picks to run the DOJ and FTC appeared ready to horseshoe themselves into where Biden’s progressives left off. Their public pronouncements frequently echoed the themes of the Biden enforcers, and a smiling Lina Khan appeared jointly with Steve Bannon. The agencies even embraced the new HSR rules and 2023 merger guidelines, both of which were promulgated under the Biden regime. There was though some hope that the Trump agencies would have more procedural discipline than Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter, who had regularly used “sand in the gears” tactics to delay and often litigate to block deals, even knowing they would most likely lose on the merits. The Khan/Kanter strategy, which often worked, was premised on the hope that one of the merger parties would try to back out or just not have the wherewithal to keep fighting during the 12+ months following the signing of the definitive agreement that it takes for the merger parties to prevail before a judge in their effort to defeat a US antitrust agency’s challenge to their merger. The anticipated procedural discipline materialized, and as 2025 wore on, the Administration’s emphasis on economic growth gained ascendancy. By the end of 2025 we had crossed into new territory where dealmakers declare that  “We can cut just a deal with the agency,” and “We’ve got a White House strategy,” when it comes to US antitrust approval of M&A. Thus far, this idea that you can either cut a deal with the DOJ or FTC or get the Oval Office to green-light your deal has fed transformational M&A fever. In 2026, look out for this perception to change dramatically. The unpredictability of reliance on “The White House strategy,” the rise of blue state antitrust regulators and new state antitrust review processes, the pushback by frontline civil servants within the antitrust agencies against politicization, ill-advised hiring by merger parties of lobbyists who attract unhelpful attention to mergers that do not merit attention, and anticipation of mid-term elections that will give rise to at least one Democrat-controlled house of Congress where hearings will be held to investigate big mergers while they are pending, will all combine, by the end of 2026, to put a damper on the current misperception in boardrooms that “anything goes” when it comes to US antitrust review of M&A. Meanwhile, despite statements from Europe and the UK that they want to facilitate the growth of stronger and larger players through consolidation, the regulators on the Continent and in the UK may nonetheless create headwinds for cross-border M&A due to their reduced appetite for greenlighting mergers where the combined company will not necessarily be all that local in culture, headquarters, leadership, branding, or talent. The results will be an even further uptick during 2026 in the intensity of negotiations of regulatory risk allocations, pressure for ever higher regulatory reverse termination fees, and extended outside dates.

READ MORE »

Harvard Corporate Faculty Excels in SSRN’s 2025 Citation Rankings

Statistics released by the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) indicate that, as of the end of 2025, Harvard Law School Corporate Faculty featured prominently on SSRN’s law school faculty rankings. These five HLS faculty members captured five of the top 50 slots among the top law school faculty members in all legal areas in terms of citations to their work.

Professor Lucian Bebchuk was ranked second among all law school professors in all fields. His papers, available on his SSRN page here, were reported to have a total of 4,557 citations.

In addition to Professor Bebchuk, four other professors associated with the Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance were included among SSRN’s list of top fifty law school faculty in all fields. These four professors are:

No corporate faculty group at any other law school matches this level of citation prominence. After Harvard comes Columbia Law School with two corporate law faculty members on the top-50 list (Justin McCrary, Ranked 17, and John Coffee, Ranked 41). Finally, five other law schools are represented by one corporate law faculty member each – Northwestern (Bernard Black, Ranked 5), Vanderbilt (Randal Thomas, Ranked 18), Berkeley (Frank Partnoy, Ranked 27), Stanford (Ron Gilson, Ranked 36), and Virginia (Mitu Gulati, Ranked 40).

SSRN is the leading electronic service for social science research. As of the end of 2025, its electronic library contained over 1,771,791 full-text documents by more than 2,543,222 authors. SSRN’s 2025 rankings in terms of citations are available here.

 

Section 16(a) Insider Reporting: Legislation Ends Foreign Private Issuer Exemption

Manuel Silva and Sarah Lewis are Partners, and Leticia Daruge is a Law Clerk at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on their Cleary Gottlieb memorandum.

On December 18, 2025, the President of the United States signed into law the Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable Act (“HFIAA”), making officers and directors of foreign private issuers (“FPIs”) subject to public reporting of holdings of, and transactions in, the issuers’ equity securities under Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The new law will become effective on March 18, 2026.

The HFIAA takes aim at the longstanding exemption from Section 16(a) beneficial ownership reporting requirements under the Exchange Act for insiders of FPIs. Under the new law, officers and directors of FPIs will become subject to the same disclosure regime that currently applies to their domestic issuer counterparts.

READ MORE »

Boards Enjoy Increased Investor Support as Markets Deliver and DEI Pressure Fades

Ross Carney is an Editorial Specialist at Diligent Market Intelligence. This post is based on a Diligent memorandum by Mr. Carney, Antoinette Giblin, and Josh Black.

According to Diligent Market Intelligence (DMI) Voting data, average support for director elections at U.S.-based companies during the 2024-2025 proxy season was 94.2%, up from 93.7% on the previous year, and 93.4% in the 2022-2023 season.

For companies in the Russell 3000, average support for director elections in the 2024-2025 season was 95%, up from 94.7% the previous year, and 94.3% in 2022-2023 season. In the S&P 500, support averaged at 96.3% this season, up from 96% the previous year, and 95.6% in the 2022-2023 season.

“It’s not surprising to see director votes increase. Companies deserve credit for doing a better job,” said John Wilson, executive director of corporate engagement for Calvert Research and Management.

READ MORE »

Executive Security: The Perk to Watch

Melisa Brower is a Partner, and K.J. Salameh and Elizabeth Edel are Associates at A&O Shearman. This post is based on their A&O Shearman memorandum.

The murder of a healthcare senior executive in midtown Manhattan in December 2024 prompted many companies to re-evaluate the measures in place to secure the physical safety of their executives. [1] More recently, a mass shooting occurred in an office tower in Manhattan, calling further attention to the enhanced need for executive security. While many companies that are household names, especially in the technology and media sectors, have for years reported large security benefits for their founders and corporate leaders, many more companies are accepting the reality of the need for security for their key executives and considering how to integrate security into their executive compensation frameworks.

This article examines current executive perquisite disclosure trends and the influence of proxy advisory firms with a focus on executive security and makes predictions on related trends in the 2026 proxy season. We anticipate many companies this year have provided executive security for the first time or have enhanced existing levels of security, which will trigger additional perquisites disclosure under the current disclosure rules. The executive compensation disclosure rules are presently under review by the SEC and these rules are among the requirements that are likely to be subject to disclosure reforms.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: January 9-15, 2026


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of January 9-15, 2026

New Year, New Proxy Voting Landscape


The Dual-Class Stock Revolution


House Passes Bipartisan Capital Formation Package: The INVEST Act


Delaware Court Applies Corwin to Dismiss Fiduciary Duty Claims



Key Considerations for the 2025 Annual Reporting Season


Divergent Mandates? A Comparative Analysis of the 2025 Proxy Record of Major Asset Managers


Matters To Consider for the 2026 Annual Meeting and Reporting Season: Disclosure Developments


On the 2026 Board Agenda


M&A, Activism and Corporate Governance


An Update on DExit, from the Corporate Census


Statement by Chair Atkins on Reforming Regulation S-K


Statement by Chair Atkins on Reforming Regulation S-K

Paul S. Atkins is the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on his recent remarks. The views expressed in the post are those of Chairman Atkins and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.

Since 1982, Regulation S-K has been the Commission’s central repository for filer disclosure requirements outside of the financial statements. Over the past forty-plus years, that repository has grown from the size of a gym locker to the size of an artificial-intelligence data center. Today, the disclosure that companies provide in response to the myriad requirements of Regulation S-K does not always reflect information that a reasonable investor would consider important in making an investment or voting decision. In other words, Regulation S-K currently elicits both material and a plethora of undisputably immaterial information. As Justice Thurgood Marshall suggested in his TSC Industries v. Northway opinion, burying shareholders in an avalanche of immaterial information is a result that neither protects investors nor facilitates capital formation.[1] The Commission’s disclosure regime should enable a reasonable investor to separate the wheat from the chaff when reviewing periodic reports and proxy statements.

With this goal in mind, I have instructed the Division of Corporation Finance to engage in a comprehensive review of Regulation S-K. The first step in this process took place last May, when the SEC solicited public comments and held a roundtable on the executive compensation disclosure requirements contained in Item 402 of Regulation S-K.[2] We have received over 70 unique comment letters,[3] and the staff is in the process of evaluating these letters and preparing recommendations to the Commission for revisions to Item 402. READ MORE »

An Update on DExit, from the Corporate Census

Andrew Verstein is a Professor at the UCLA School of Law. This post is based on his recent paper, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

An update on DExit, from the Corporate Census

Despite fears that Delaware’s recent judicial and legislative turmoil would trigger a corporate “DExit,” new formation data show the opposite: Delaware experienced a sharp increase in corporate incorporations in 2025, both absolutely and relative to other states.

The Specter of DExit

Is Delaware now in decline? This question became urgent with Tornetta v. Musk, a case upsetting the pay package of Tesla’s founder and influential shareholder, Elon Musk.[1] Three weeks later came Vice Chancellor Laster’s Moelis opinion constraining the power of shareholder agreements.[2] This latter opinion was criticized by some influential law firms and their clients as potentially undermining accepted market practices.[3] The Council of the Corporation Law Section of the Delaware Bar Association Counsel of the Corporate Law Section of Delaware bar association promptly proposed overturning Moelis by statute, which the legislature promptly did.[4] The legislature later substantially overturned the controlling shareholder jurisprudence undergirding Tornetta.[5]

These opinions and legislative responses have been controversial, and on both sides of the controversy is a worry that firms may flee Delaware if it mishandles this pivotal moment. For almost two years, the Delaware bar and corporate commentators have been watching public company reincorporations. Yet private companies represent the great majority of Delaware corporations – and about two thirds of Delaware’s chartering revenue. Any serious account of DExit must therefore look beyond public company migrations.[6] READ MORE »

M&A, Activism and Corporate Governance

G.J. Ligelis Jr., Andrew M. Wark, and Bethany A. Pfalzgraf are Partners at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. This post is based on a Cravath memorandum by Mr. Ligelis Jr., Mr. Wark, Ms. Pfalzgraf, Edward O. Minturn, Michael L. Arnold, and Evan A. Hill.

Mergers & Acquisitions

THE BIGGER THE BETTER: WHAT A SPIKE IN MEGA-DEALS IN Q3 MEANS FOR M&A PROFESSIONALS

While every M&A lawyer, banker or corporate development professional knows that a $200 million carve-out M&A transaction or joint venture formation can often present even more complexity in structuring and negotiation than a $20 billion U.S. all-cash public M&A transaction, there are several factors unique to mega-deals that need to remain top of mind when embarking on an M&A transaction at sizes above $10 billion, which saw a significant increase in the third quarter of 2025.
Speed of Execution: Leak risk is always a primary concern for any M&A transaction, but the stakes are often much higher for large public companies evaluating a mega-deal. These transactions are by definition transformative and often represent the culmination of the strategy crafted by the management team that will instantly receive widespread public attention. As a result, everyone involved must be prepared to move twice as fast once a decision has been made to get to a signing and announcement. Advance preparation across all possible fronts (e.g., due diligence, financial modeling, arrangement of financing, communications) is the only way to allow these deals to happen so quickly. For outside advisors, the premium is on bringing every resource to bear to quickly get to a signing, rather than a focus on efficiency and fees due to the size of the transaction.

READ MORE »

Page 1 of 1275
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1,275