Delaware Chancery Clarifies Implied Covenant Limits

Gail Weinstein is a Senior Counsel, Philip Richter is a Partner and Co-Head of the M&A and Private Equity Practice, and Steven Epstein is the Managing Partner at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. This post is based on a Fried Frank memorandum by Ms. Weinstein, Mr. Richter, Mr. Epstein, Roy TannenbaumAdam Cohen, and Liza Andrews, and is part of the Delaware Law Series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Key Points

  • The decision clarifies that a party’s using a contractual gap to “intentionally harm” the counterparty may constitute a breach of the implied covenant. The court rejected ASM’s argument that the parties had intentionally left a contractual gap with respect to the efforts ASM had to use to obtain the consents, in order to allocate the risk to the Vendor of the landlords not giving the consent for any reason. The court stated that, at the pleading stage, it was reasonably conceivable that, without a standard of efforts set forth in the agreement, ASM could have been neutral with the landlords, but, based on the implied covenant, could not use the contractual gap to “intentionally harm” the Vendor.
  • The decision underscores the need for careful drafting of third party consent conditions. Parties should consider whether to specify in their agreement a standard of efforts for obtaining such consents and may wish to specify the extent to which the other party can participate in the process of seeking to obtain them. Where a standard of efforts is not set forth, the party responsible for seeking a consent should keep in mind that, depending on the specific facts and circumstances, advocating for the third party not to give the consent may be considered to be intentionally harming the counterparty and thus a breach of the implied covenant.

READ MORE »

Comment Letter on the SEC’s Proposal to Replace Quarterly Reporting with Semiannual Reporting

Carine Smith Ihenacho is the Chief Governance and Compliance Officer and Snorre Gjerde is the Lead Investment Stewardship Manager at Norges Bank Investment Management. This post is based on their SEC comment letter.

We refer to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s request for comment on the proposed amendments to allow companies to file semiannual reports on new Form 10-S in lieu of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q to meet their interim reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. We appreciate the opportunity to contribute our perspective.

Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) is the investment management division of the Norwegian Central Bank that manages the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global. We work to safeguard and build financial wealth for future generations. As of year-end 2025, we managed over 2 trillion USD in assets, with the United States representing our largest market at 53% of total investments. Within our equity portfolio, 822 billion USD was invested in shares of 1,306 U.S. public companies. We are a minority shareholder in U.S. public companies, with an average equity ownership of 1.18 percent.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: July 17-23, 2026


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of July 17-23, 2026




Chancery Finds Potential Liability for Blocking Company Financings Despite Contractual Veto Rights



International Sustainability Reporting – Divergence and Equivalence




Are AI Legal Chats by Non-Lawyer Officers and Directors Discoverable?




The 2026 Shareholder Proposal Exclusion Experience and Takeaways for the 2027 Season



Emission Impossible: Corporate Climate Goals Moving from Adoption to Execution

Matteo Tonello is the Head of Data Benchmarking and Analytics at The Conference Board, Inc. This post is based on a report developed by The Conference Board in partnership with ESGAUGE and authored by Andrew Jones, Principal Researcher, Governance & Sustainability Center at The Conference Board.

This report draws on executive insights and disclosure data from US public companies to assess where corporate climate targets are credible, where emissions trends are off track, and what business leaders should do to govern, track, and communicate climate commitments more effectively.


Trusted Insights for What’s Ahead®

  • Setting climate goals is a mainstream large-company practice. Some 84% of S&P 500 companies disclosed a climate target in 2025, compared with 34% of the Russell 3000.
  • Many climate targets are at risk. About 58% of S&P 500 companies with Scope 1 (direct emissions from operations) targets and 62% with Scope 3 (indirect value chain emissions) targets have reported flat or rising emissions since 2021, while only 24% of polled sustainability leaders are fully confident in their goals.
  • Scope 1 remains the hardest operational challenge. Median Scope 1 emissions fell 41% across the Russell 3000 from 2021 to 2025 but were flat among S&P 500 companies, and utilities saw emissions rise in 2025 as power demand increased.

READ MORE »

The 2026 Shareholder Proposal Exclusion Experience and Takeaways for the 2027 Season

Marc S. Gerber is a Partner and Jeongu Gim is an Associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on their Skadden memorandum.

Executive Summary

  • What’s new: Under the SEC Staff’s hands-off approach to company exclusions of shareholder proposals, companies excluding shareholder proposals in 2026 experienced litigation, the threat of proposal submissions under advance notice bylaws and the risk of lower voting support for directors.
  • Why it matters: The SEC Staff’s hands-off approach is expected to continue for the 2027 proxy season. Company experiences from this proxy season will inform the approach companies take for the upcoming proxy season.
  • What to do next: Companies will want to review the bases for exclusion, assess the risks in light of 2026 experiences and, where exclusion is chosen, clearly explain the bases for exclusion to minimize the risks of adverse reactions.

READ MORE »

Remarks by Chair Atkins on Revitalizing Public Markets and Expanding Small Business Access to the IPO Market

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.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for being here today.

I should like to begin by extending a warm welcome to the Committee’s new members—Anya Coverman, Joseph Lucosky, Andrew Prystai, Rodrigo Seira, and Erik Syvertsen. I am certain that your collective expertise and many contributions will prove invaluable as we work to widen pathways to capital for small businesses.

Today, we turn to that very objective, as the Committee continues its consideration of a matter that I maintain to be among the most consequential before us: how to incentivize more companies—especially those small and growing—to go and remain public.

READ MORE »

The Enduring Value Of Holding Ourselves To Our Enduring Values: A Reflection Honoring The OECD’s Guidelines For Multinational Enterprises On Responsible Business Conduct

Leo E. Strine, Jr. is the Michael L. Wachter Distinguished Fellow in Law and Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and the former Chief Justice and Chancellor of the State of Delaware. This post is based on his recent paper.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the OECD’s Guidelines For Multinational Corporations For Responsible Business Conduct, a set of principles to which the United States, the other OECD nations, and additional signatories totaling 52 nations comprising nearly two-thirds of the world’s economic activity and the bulk of market-based, democratic nations, adhere.  In this condensed set of remarks, the longer version of which can be found here, I was honored to help set the stage for a discussion of the importance of and ways to strengthen the Guidelines among leading representatives of business, labor, and governmental stakeholders.

We gather at a time when the citizens of OECD nations have reason to be cynical about whether political and business leaders can be trusted.

Facing incontrovertible evidence that human-caused climate change is accelerating and poses enormous economic and human harm, business leaders have abandoned commitments to help arrest warming before it is too late.  Knowing that artificial intelligence poses great dangers, the AI industry has pivoted from recognizing that legal regulation is necessary to advocating a “just trust us” approach, spending enormous sums to influence the political process against responsible regulation, and seismically expanding their use of climate-harming energy.

READ MORE »

Are AI Legal Chats by Non-Lawyer Officers and Directors Discoverable?

Gail Weinstein is a Senior Counsel, Philip Richter is a Partner and a Co-Head of the M&A and Private Equity Practice, and Steven Epstein is the Managing Partner at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. This post is based on a Fried Frank memorandum by Ms. Weinstein, Mr. Richter, Mr. Epstein, Steven J. Steinman, Randi Lally, and Colum J. Weiden, and is part of the Delaware Law Series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

One might expect the response to be uncomplicated—say, that such conversations would not be protected from discovery, under either the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine, because AI is not an attorney. But courts are just beginning to grapple with this question, and the answers have been varied:

  • In U.S. v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026), a federal district court in New York held that a criminal defendant’s exchanges with a consumer version of Claude, which were not directed by his lawyer, were discoverable.
  • And, in Fortis Advisors v. Krafton (Del. Ct. Ch. Mar. 19, 2026), the Delaware Court of Chancery considered as evidence a CEO’s ChatGPT exchanges that provided a legal strategy for the company to avoid having to pay an earnout obligation.
  • However, in Warner v. Gilbarco Inc. (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2026), a federal district court in Michigan held that a pro se litigant’s use of AI was work product, and so was protected from discovery, because it was used in anticipation of litigation and in a manner not likely to get into an adversary’s hands.

READ MORE »

Governance Proposals Dominate the 2026 Proxy Season

Subodh Mishra is the Global Head of Communications at ISS STOXX. This post is based on an ISS-Corporate memorandum by Henry Mbom, Vice President, Compensation and Governance Advisory; and Toby Huang, Senior Associate, Data Analytics, at ISS-Corporate.

As the 2026 U.S. proxy season draws to a close, both the volume of shareholder proposals brought to a vote and the level of investor support they received show a dramatic change from previous years in the shareholder proposal landscape.

Early in 2025, the SEC issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14M (SLB 14M), revising shareholder proposal framework and providing issuers greater flexibility to obtain no-action relief. This change had a significant impact during the 2025 proxy season, greatly increasing the number of proposals being omitted from the ballot. The shareholder proposal landscape was further upended ahead of the 2026 proxy season, with the SEC’s Division of Corporate Finance retreating from its traditional role as an arbitrator of shareholder proposals, declining to review or express views on most requests for shareholder proposal exclusions.

READ MORE »

Disclosure Schedules are a Waste of Money

Melissa Sawyer is Global Co-Head of M&A at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

This article is the sequel to the author’s previous article entitled Merger Agreements are Too Long.

In public company M&A deals, the target’s disclosure schedules typically consist of lists of facts about the target and its businesses.  Most of the listed items are either exceptions to detailed representations and warranties (the “reps”) or information specifically required by the reps to be listed out.  For example, disclosure schedules might include lists of all of the target’s registered trademarks or descriptions of all of the target’s pending litigation matters.  The resulting schedules can be hundreds of pages long and add little value from a risk allocation perspective for either buyers or targets.  Dealmakers should eliminate this burdensome “tree-killer” from the public company M&A playbook.

READ MORE »

Page 1 of 1312
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1,312