Director Elections: All Quiet on the Proxy Front, but Will It Last?

Rajeev Kumar is a Senior Managing Director at Georgeson, and Meighan McGowan is the Head of Business Development for Investor Engagement North America at Computershare.

For many US public companies, the 2026 proxy season has been notably calm in two areas that boards and management teams watch closely: director elections and ‘say on pay’.

Director nominees continue to receive strong shareholder support, and executive compensation programs have been passing at high rates. At first glance, the results suggest that investors remain broadly supportive of management on these core annual meeting items.

That conclusion is accurate, but incomplete.

The evolving dynamics of proxy voting. The underlying voting environment is changing – from changes in proxy advisor models to investor stewardship practices and fresh regulatory approaches.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: June 5-11, 2026


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of June 5-11, 2026


Chancery Holds Specific Oral Statements About Post-Closing Plans May Exceed Mere Puffery




Corporate M&As and Labor Market Concentration: Efficiency Gains or Power Grabs?



Excessive Executive Compensation: Investor Guidance


Too Liable To Regulate: The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuel Decommissioning and Remediation



Shareholder Activism – 2026 Mid-Year Review


Lessons from ExxonMobil


The 2026 Proxy Season: Shareholder Proposal Trends


2026 Proxy Season Trends: The Fracturing of Shareholder Power


2026 Proxy Season Trends: The Fracturing of Shareholder Power

Arthur B. Crozier is Executive Chair, Gabrielle E. Wolf is a Senior Director, and Jonathan L. Kovacs is a Director at Innisfree M&A Incorporated.

Introduction

The 2026 proxy season confounded many of the assumptions that issuers, activists, and advisors have relied upon for more than a decade. While headlines suggest a retreat of shareholder activism and a rollback of ESG‑driven governance, the reality is more complex—and, in many respects, more destabilizing. Rather than a return to management dominance or a recalibration of investor priorities, the current environment reflects a fracturing of shareholder voting blocs.

For years, issuers and proxy solicitors could model vote outcomes with relative confidence around a handful of predictable centers of gravity: proxy advisor benchmark policies, the cohesive stewardship practices of the largest passive asset managers, and a stable framework for shareholder proposal adjudication. In 2026, those anchors are loosening. Legal challenges, regulatory intervention, political scrutiny, and market‑driven adaptation are simultaneously eroding the influence of proxy advisors, splintering passive investor voting blocs, and decentralizing stewardship decision‑making.

This article examines the most consequential developments of the 2026 proxy season and considers what this fractured landscape means for issuers navigating an increasingly unpredictable voting environment.

READ MORE »

The 2026 Proxy Season: Shareholder Proposal Trends

Jennifer Zepralka is a Partner, and Ali Perry and Liz Walsh are Counsels at Mayer Brown LLP. This post was prepared for the Forum by Ms. Zepralka, Ms. Perry, Ms. Walsh, Anna Pinedo, and Milly Kim.

The 2026 proxy season thus far has been out-of-the-ordinary, impacted by regulatory and policy developments that required companies and shareholders to adapt their shareholder proposal and engagement strategies. As a result of these unusual circumstances, particularly when coupled with uncertainty about the evolving role of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and potential rule changes on the horizon, it is somewhat difficult to rely on this year’s shareholder proposal experience as a reliable indicator of future trends. Nevertheless, examination of the proposals submitted and voted upon this season can still provide useful insights into the topics of greatest interest to shareholders and can help guide public companies’ engagement efforts and priorities.

READ MORE »

Lessons from ExxonMobil

Katherine Terrell Frank and Meredith Jeanes Lyons are Partners and Robert L. Kimball is a Senior Partner at Vinson & Elkins LLP.

After 144 years of legal domicile in New Jersey, ExxonMobil Corporation, which has been physically headquartered in Texas since 1989, is consolidating its legal and physical homes to Texas. With approximately 71 percent of votes cast in favor at its 2026 annual meeting, Exxon’s reincorporation to Texas reflects the Lone Star State’s growing competitiveness as a corporate law jurisdiction and demonstrates that reincorporation into Texas may be an achievable result for widely-held public companies. Exxon Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods explained that Texas has cultivated a policy and regulatory environment that enables companies to focus on creating shareholder value rather than navigating unnecessary red tape and political interference.[1]

Boards considering reincorporation into Texas should carefully consider the corporate governance and shareholder outreach strategies employed by Exxon and other successfully redomiciled public companies. Because proxy advisors have generally opposed reincorporation to Texas, favorable votes for reincorporation are not guaranteed for corporations that lack a controlling shareholder or a large, friendly voting block. Successful reincorporations will require companies to work well in advance of shareholder meetings to solicit investor feedback, determine an acceptable Texas corporate governance structure, and educate voters on the benefits of reincorporation.

READ MORE »

Shareholder Activism – 2026 Mid-Year Review

Ken Mantel and Meagan Reda are Partners at Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP.

A strong 2025 for shareholder activism has carried forward into the first half of 2026, with a variety of significant activist engagements and campaigns this proxy season. Activist campaigns have largely focused on operational, strategic, capital allocation, and governance-related improvements, with new activity in the M&A and IPO markets expected to impact activist demands and the corporate governance landscape overall. Settlement agreements remain a key means for activists to change the composition of boards of directors, and C-suite turnover prior to and following campaigns reinforces the importance of succession planning and accountability in the boardroom. The evolving regulatory environment, geopolitical uncertainty, and a shift in institutional investor engagement have also impacted this proxy season, with the growing importance of AI also playing a significant role.

We discuss a number of key developments and themes we’ve seen so far this year, and what we expect over the rest of the proxy season, below.

READ MORE »

The Current Strategic Landscape for Investment Stewardship

Rickard Nilsson is Director of Stewardship at Glass, Lewis & Co. This post is based on his Glass Lewis memorandum.

Key Takeaways

  • Glass Lewis 2026 Investment Stewardship Survey respondents report that their engagement priorities are anchored in climate change and governance.
  • Regional patterns show European investors emphasizing sustainability topics more strongly, while North American investors place greater weight on traditional governance issues.
  • A hybrid approach to stewardship has become the dominant operating model, balancing broad baseline expectations with targeted company-specific engagement.
  • Engagement prioritization reflects a multi-factor approach, with policy alignment most common but investors also weighing factors such as materiality, ownership levels, and resource capacity.
  • Efforts to improve stewardship quality are framed around stronger links to investment decision-making, better prioritization and research, credible escalation strategies, and more effective outcomes reporting.

READ MORE »

Too Liable To Regulate: The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuel Decommissioning and Remediation

Joshua Macey is a Professor of Law at Yale Law School, Terra Baer holds a JD from Yale Law School, and Pranjal Drall is a JD-PhD candidate in Financial Economics at Yale University. This post is based on their recent paper.

Too Liable To Regulate, forthcoming in the California Law Review, documents how environmental cleanup and financial assurance rules have produced firms that are “too liable to regulate.” This phrase refers to firms that hold such significant environmental liability that it deters regulators from taking enforcement actions. Regulators, aware that an enforcement action could force too-liable-to-regulate firms into liquidation, decline to enforce reclamation laws, seemingly out of concern that doing so would lead to abandoned wells and mines and thus leave taxpayers and regulators responsible for environmental remediation. This is a version of the judgment-proof problem.

To analyze this phenomenon, we compiled every state and federal coal-reclamation and onshore P&A law, assembled twenty years of bonding and production data for most onshore gas wells and coal mines, and obtained asset-level information through open-records requests. The article then examines two firms—Diversified Energy and Indemnity National—as case studies of a broader pattern in extractive industries. Once environmental liability exceeds a firm’s ability to pay, it stops deterring harm. Firms keep unproductive assets limping along to defer cleanup, and well-capitalized companies sell their dirtiest assets to operators that cannot afford to remediate them. Regulators respond by reducing enforcement, as that would risk pushing a distressed firm into liquidation, leaving abandoned and coal mines and gas wells and potentially forcing taxpayers to bear the costs of environmental remediation.

READ MORE »

Excessive Executive Compensation: Investor Guidance

Matthew Illian is the Director of Responsible Investing at United Church Funds, and Rosanna Landis Weaver is a Consultant at the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR). This post is based on their ICCR & United Church Funds report.

Introduction

For decades, ICCR members have called attention to the widening gap between corporate executive pay and the compensation of everyone else. In recent decades, the average CEO of the largest U.S. company has made around 300 times as much as the median worker. This gap highlights a fundamental imbalance in how companies distribute resources, with outsized executive compensation awarded alongside wages that often fail to meet the basic needs of most employees.

This wasn’t always the case. In 1965, CEOs were paid just 21 times as much as a typical worker.

READ MORE »

Tracking Shareholder Proposals and Company Exclusions: Mid-Season Observations

Courteney Keatinge is the Vice President of ESG Research and Dimitri Zagoroff is a Senior Editor at Glass, Lewis & Co. This post is based on their Glass Lewis memorandum.

Key Takeaways

  • In the absence of SEC no-action relief, companies are moving to exclude far fewer shareholder proposals — which has largely offset the reported decline in the number of proposals
  • The proponent’s identity matters: companies are seeking to omit more proposals submitted by individual shareholders, while allowing proposals from institutional and “anti-ESG” proponents onto the ballot.
  • The SEC’s current “no objection” approach creates a more complex landscape for engagement and negotiation, while leaving boards (and the SEC itself) exposed to litigation.
  • The number of shareholder proposals covering social topics continues to decline, while the proportion focusing on governance continues to surge.

How has the SEC’s new approach to no-action requests [1] impacted the shareholder proposal landscape? It’s a question that Glass Lewis is monitoring throughout this year’s U.S. proxy season.

Four months into the year, and with proxy season at its peak, some notable trends are emerging. In the second instalment of an ongoing series on shareholder proposals and company exclusions, we share what we’ve observed at meetings held through April 30.

READ MORE »

Page 1 of 1304
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1,304