What You are Likely to Hear in the Boardroom: Boardroom Decisions Shaping Compensation Strategy

Steve DeMaria is a Consultant and Lane Ringlee is a Partner at Pay Governance LLC. This post is based on their Pay Governance memorandum.

Key Takeaways

Compensation committees are increasingly focused on how executive compensation programs support talent, leadership, and long-term business strategy given the volatile external environment. This Part 2 of our two-part Viewpoint series explores several emerging trends shaping boardroom discussions, including:

Compensation Design and Program Evolution

  1. Stick with PSUs or “Go Long”?
  2. Evolution from ESG Metrics to Broader Human Capital Focus

Talent, Governance, and Organizational Priorities

  1. Differentiating High Performers and Top Skills
  2. Navigating Shifts to Split Leadership Structures
  3. Continued Focus on Executive Security

READ MORE »

Supreme Court Rejects Investor Loss Requirement for SEC Disgorgement

Luke Cadigan is the Partner in Charge, Boston, and Tejal Shah and Elizabeth Skey are Partners at Cooley LLP. This post is based on their Cooley memorandum.

On June 4, 2026, the US Supreme Court held that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) need not prove that investors suffered actual financial loss to obtain disgorgement in a civil action. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Sripetch v. SEC, the Court reached this conclusion by relying on “traditional equitable principles,” which “do not require a showing of pecuniary loss before a court may issue an award of unjust profits.”

This ruling creates uniformity nationwide on an issue that had split the circuits, with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit previously holding that pecuniary loss was required to obtain disgorgement, and the First and Ninth Circuits holding it was not. The SEC’s ability to continue seeking disgorgement without showing pecuniary loss is meaningful, given the SEC obtained orders for $10.8 billion in disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and prejudgment interest in fiscal year 2025.[1]

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: July 24-30, 2026


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of July 24-30, 2026



New Day, New Rules: Five Key Aspects of Amended DGCL Section 144 and Section 220










Anticipating the Swing of the Corporate Responsibility Pendulum

Michael Peregrine is a retired attorney and a Fellow of both the American College of Governance Counsel and the American Health Law Association.

Boards of directors are encouraged to anticipate a renewed focus on corporate responsibility and ethics, which would be grounded at least initially in corporate self-regulation and new governance principles, rather than in new legislation or enforcement policy shifts.

The American Bar Association has defined “corporate responsibility” as referring to “behavior by corporate leaders that conforms with the law and results from the proper exercise of fiduciary duties, as well as ethical behavior beyond that required by minimum legal requirements [emphasis added]. [1] Corporate responsibility is a respected governance doctrine that first emerged in response to deficiencies in governance, leadership, and professional advice that contributed to the Enron-era financial crises. After being dormant for a number of years, it is now poised to make a boardroom comeback.

A new treatment of corporate responsibility principles would differ from their original iteration in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the corporate governance and legal ethics principles it prompted. Those laws, regulations, and principles arose from catastrophic bankruptcies that undermined the credibility of financial reporting and deeply weakened financial markets. Many of the Sarbanes-related efforts were thus focused on topics such as internal controls, financial reporting, accounting improvements, and changes to governance oversight and legal ethics.

READ MORE »

Are Hints Disclosures? Delaware Supreme Court Revives M&A Fraud Claim Despite Buyer’s Red Flags

Jonathan A. Dhanawade and Frank J. Favia Jr. are Partners and Andrew J. Stanger is Knowledge Counsel at Mayer Brown LLP. This post is based on their Mayer Brown memorandum and is part of the Delaware Law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

The Delaware Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Paragon Metals v. Smith[1] is a pointed reminder for M&A dealmakers: hints, partial disclosures, or due diligence “red flags” may not neutralize false contractual representations when the seller is actively concealing the truth. The case involved a CEO’s strategy to conceal damaging information about the target company while still attempting to avoid a fraud claim by providing enough hints about the situation to arguably put the buyer on inquiry notice about the issues. In reversing a trial court opinion, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the buyer could justifiably rely on the CEO’s representations despite imperfect due diligence because the CEO concealed critical customer-loss information and responded untruthfully when pressed. For M&A practitioners, the opinion sharpens several recurring issues, including when flawed due diligence becomes willful blindness, what standard of proof applies to Delaware fraud claims, how broadly a forward-looking “no material adverse effect” representation may reach, and what anti-reliance language can—and cannot—do.

READ MORE »

2026 Proxy Season Review

Shannon Saffari is a Partner at Anteris Advisors. This post is based on her Anteris Advisors memorandum.

A less predictable, more complex path to the annual meeting

The path to the annual meeting grew less predictable and more complex in 2026, not because of a single landmark change, but because of compounding shifts. Legal challenges, regulatory intervention, political scrutiny and market driven adaptation are decentralizing stewardship decision-making and reshaping how proxy votes are decided. The result is a voting environment that is less transparent, less predictable, and more procedurally complex. The effect of these developments has shifted more of the burden onto issuers and steadily increased the risk borne by the board. Therefore, ongoing and proactive shareholder engagement has become a necessity for issuers. The 2026 vote outcomes brought those implications to bear across activism, compensation, and shareholder proposals.

READ MORE »

SEC Issues Guidance on Disclosure Obligations for Activist Fund Structures Under Schedules 13D and 14A

J.T. Ho and Lillian Tsu are Partners and Julie Rong is an Associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb memorandum by Mr. Ho, Ms. Tsu, Ms. Rong, and Adam Fleisher.

On July 9, the Staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) issued three new Corporation Finance Interpretations (CFIs) addressing disclosure obligations under Schedules 13D and 14A.

The guidance targets a specific but increasingly common activism structure: special-purpose vehicles that raise capital from investors to buy a single issuer’s securities and conduct an activism or proxy campaign. Activists who form these vehicles must now name the underlying investors in their 13D and contested proxy filings.

CFI 110.09: Investors in Company-Specific Activist Special Purpose Vehicles Must be Named in Schedule 13D

Under the guidance provided by CFI 110.09, an entity (such as a special purpose vehicle) formed specifically to raise funds to acquire the securities of a specific issuer and engage in an activism campaign at that issuer must disclose the identities of its investors under Item 3 of Schedule 13D (Source and Amount of Funds or Other Consideration). Item 3 requires reporting persons to name all parties to any transaction through which they obtained funds “for the purpose of acquiring, holding, trading or voting the securities” of the issuer. Because investors in a purpose-built vehicle contribute capital for exactly that purpose, filers must identify them in the Schedule 13D filing.

READ MORE »

Comment Letter on the Proposed Semiannual Reporting Rule

Nell Minow is the Vice Chair at ValueEdge Advisors. This post is based on her SEC comment letter.

I write in strong opposition to the proposal to reduce reporting to file semiannual reports on the new Form 10-S in lieu of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. I note that this was prepared entirely by me, without the aid of AI or any LLMs.

I agree with many of the thoughtful comments from investors, like the excellent comment from Marcie Frost, CEO of CalPERS, especially this:

If the Commission’s objective is to lengthen corporate decision-making horizons, then the more effective and well-targeted lever, as we have urged in prior comment letters, is to discourage the voluntary issuance of forward quarterly earnings guidance, not to dilute the historical financial reporting on which investors depend.

READ MORE »

The Delaware Supreme Court Issues a 3-2 Split Decision Allowing Post-Demand Evidence to Be Admissible in Section 220 Actions

Lauren Rosenello is a Counsel and Tanisha Brown is an Associate  at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on their Skadden memorandum, and is part of the Delaware Law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

There have been several notable split decisions over the years in the Delaware Supreme Court, but it is a rara avis to see the justices split 3-2 over an issue involving access to books and records.

On March 25, 2026, a divided Delaware Supreme Court majority held that in exceptional circumstances, the Court of Chancery may consider post-demand evidence in the Section 220 context when analyzing whether a stockholder had a credible basis to suspect wrongdoing.

Justice Gary F. Traynor authored the majority’s opinion, ruling, among other things, that “nothing in [8 Del. C.] Section 220’s text prohibits the consideration of post-demand evidence,” and that a blanket prohibition could result in inefficiencies such as a repetitive process of updated demands and complaints.[1]

Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz, Jr. and Justice Karen L. Valihura dissented, arguing that, from a policy standpoint, a bright-line rule barring post-demand evidence would “discourage a premature race to the courthouse to attempt to gain a foothold for later merits-based litigation” and also would respect the intended summary nature of Section 220 proceedings.

READ MORE »

What You are Likely to Hear in the Boardroom: External Forces Reshaping Executive Compensation

Steve DeMaria is a Consultant and Lane Ringlee is a Partner at Pay Governance LLC. This post is based on their Pay Governance memorandum.

Key Takeaways

The external environment surrounding executive compensation is changing rapidly. Economic uncertainty, evolving SEC priorities, shareholder activism, and shifts in proxy voting practices are creating new considerations for compensation committees as they prepare for the 2026–2027 proxy season. In Part 1 of this two-part Viewpoint series, we examine:

External Environment and Regulatory Landscape
1. Economic Uncertainty, Supply Constraints, and … Stock Market Highs?
2. Upcoming Shifts in Disclosure Requirements
3. Fallout from Excluding Shareholder Proposals

Investor Landscape and Proxy Voting Dynamics
4. Changing Say-on-Pay Voting Climate
5. Emergence of AI-Based Proxy Voting

Part 2 will review key trends in compensation strategy.

READ MORE »

Page 1 of 1313
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1,313