Yearly Archives: 2024

Proposed AI Reporting Requirements: Key Takeaways for Companies

Harry Clark, Jeanine McGuinness, and Elizabeth Zane are Partners at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. This post is based on an Orrick memorandum by Mr. Clark, Ms. McGuinness, Ms. Zane, Gregory Hume, and Allison Bradham.

The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has proposed a rule that would establish reporting requirements to track development of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models, in accordance with instructions in an October 2023 executive order.

The proposed rule is intended to bolster the government’s understanding of the capabilities and security of dual-use foundational AI models.   BIS emphasizes that the U.S. government must be ready to take action to ensure the models are appropriately trained, can operate in a safe and reliable manner, and are not vulnerable to cyberattacks such that they are available to support the U.S. defense industrial base.

BIS is seeking comments on the proposed rule, with all comments due by October 11, 2024.  BIS has expressed a particular interest in comments on the quarterly notification schedule, best practices for collecting and storing data submitted pursuant to the reporting requirements, and the technical thresholds that trigger the proposed reporting requirements.

The proposed regulation and underlying executive order demonstrate the seriousness of both (i) the U.S. government’s concerns about misuse of AI models in ways that would, in its view, undermine U.S. security, and (ii) the government’s belief that it is critical to have advanced AI models for use by the U.S. government.

READ MORE »

From the Ballot to the Boardroom: Lessons Learned From Election Disinformation Efforts

Naureen Kabir is a Managing Director at Teneo. This post is based on her Teneo memorandum.

Election-related disinformation campaigns have become a staple of modern election cycles, both in the U.S. and globally. Whether driven by foreign influence operations or domestic political or extremist groups, disinformation efforts are now an election mainstay.

While the effect of disinformation efforts on voters is difficult to assess, trends reveal how tactics leveraged in recent campaigns – from polarizing false narratives on mainstream and fringe social media platforms to coordinated bot attacks and deepfake videos – can be used to target organizations, brands and leaders long after the polls close.

Disinformation can be a powerful weapon to undermine trust, painting organizations and executives as politically compromised or unethical. False narratives can not only tarnish reputations, but also spark protests, civil unrest and cyberattacks, exposing organizations to real security risks. This analysis identifies five key disinformation trends to watch, along with strategies for staying ahead of these growing threats and related developments in the lead-up to the November 5 U.S. elections and beyond.

READ MORE »

2024 Annual Corporate Directors Survey: Uncertainty and transformation in the modern boardroom

Ray Garcia is a Leader, Paul DeNicola is a Principal, and Catie Hall is a Director at  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on their PwC memorandum.

Introduction

Historically, a looming presidential election has had notable impacts for corporate boards and their agendas, necessitating scenario planning for potential regulatory shifts.

The 2024 election matters more than usual. Not only is the American electorate more polarized than anytime in modern history — making corporate leaders’ every statement and decision subject to public criticism — the results could rapidly reshape the business landscape. Which political party emerges victorious in November, in the White House and/or the houses of Congress, may prove enormously consequential for how every industry functions.

The impacts could be dramatic. Policy changes on tariffs, sanctions, treaties and alliances could upend international trade and disrupt supply chains. Revised tax policy, enforcement priorities and infrastructure spending plans could influence capital investment decisions. White House moves could encourage or undercut DEI and ESG programs; antitrust lawsuits could ramp up or cease. Differing approaches to immigration lawmaking and enforcement could upend labor markets. Perhaps most significant for many industries, the incentives that have fueled recent sustainability investments could grow further — or be diminished.

READ MORE »

2024 Proxy Season Review: Corporate Resilience in a Polarized Landscape

Merel Spierings is a Senior Researcher at The Conference Board. This post is based on The Conference Board, Russell Reynolds Associates, and Rutgers Law School memorandum by Ms. Spierings and Matteo Tonello.

The 2024 proxy season was marked by increased partisanship and political uncertainty, making shareholder proposals even more contentious compared to the past. This report outlines the key developments of the 2024 proxy season and offers practical insights for companies to strengthen offseason investor engagement as well as prepare for the challenges of the 2025 proxy season.

Key Insights

  • The high volume and specificity of shareholder proposals has emboldened companies to counter them through no-action requests and more pointed proxy statement disclosures, leading to a rise in omissions and a drop in average support.
  • While overall support for shareholder proposals declined, 2024 saw a notable increase in average support for governance proposals, signaling a focus on governance as a cornerstone of corporate success.
  • In today’s polarized environment, with competing and conflicting demands from proponents on both sides of the political aisle, it’s vital for companies to clearly connect their environmental and social (E&S) initiatives to their core business strategy.
  • While directors received strong average support in the 2024 proxy season, governance concerns remain key factors driving investors to vote against directors.
  • 2024 saw an uptick in average support for say-on-pay, but companies engaging in controversial pay practices will face an uphill battle in justifying their decisions to investors

READ MORE »

De-risking Litigation Exposure: Conflict Management as an Integral Part of Business Administration

Leonor Díaz-Córdova is a Managing Director at FTI Consulting and Adjunct Professor at IE University. This post is based on her FTI Consulting memorandum.

In today’s interconnected global economy, multinational corporations are increasingly exposed to a wide array of litigation risks. These risks, ranging from class action lawsuits to regulatory enforcement, contractual disputes and intellectual property infringements, pose significant threats to a company’s operations, reputation and financial health. As highlighted in our recent research, litigation has transitioned from being merely an operational concern to becoming a strategic priority for the highest levels of corporate governance, such as boards and executive committees.

The Decade of Disputes report by FTI Consulting confirms that litigation risk is now firmly on the boardroom agenda. This heightened focus is due to a number of factors ─ an increase in the frequency and materiality of litigation, the rise in class actions and escalating regulatory scrutiny across jurisdictions worldwide. Notably, over 59% of business leaders report an increase in litigation over the past year, with 52% expressing concern about potential future litigation.

Given the potential for substantial disruption, companies need to rethink their approach to managing litigation risk. This is where conflict management emerges as an essential component of business administration.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: October 4-10, 2024


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of October 4-10, 2024

ESG Shareholder Resolutions


2024 Top 250 Annual Incentive Plan Report


Sustainability and ESG: Where Are We Now?


Key Updates to the DOJs Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs


Sustainable Investing: Evidence From the Field


2024 proxy season recap: Disclosures catch up with investor expectations



A Diverse View on Board Diversity


Technology Leadership in the Boardroom: Driving Trust and Value


Uncertainty on Governance Rights in Stockholders Agreements Continues Pending a Decision in the Appeal of Moelis


The Surprising Survival—So Far—of the Corporate Contribution Ban


Investor Choice


Preparing for California’s Climate Disclosure Laws


Control and Its Discontents


Climate Shareholder Proposals: A More Sophisticated Discourse


Climate Shareholder Proposals: A More Sophisticated Discourse

Subodh Mishra is Global Head of Communications at ISS STOXX. This post is based on an ISS-Corporate memorandum by Kosmas Papadopoulos, Head of Sustainability Advisory-Americas, at ISS-Corporate.

Shareholder proposals offer a glimpse into investor and market sentiment on key corporate governance issues, including how companies are managing environmental and social impacts, risks, and opportunities. The topic of climate features prominently in shareholder proposal campaigns, as it remains a key priority for policymakers, investors, and corporate boards. ISS-Corporate analyzed shareholder proposals and voting results data from the past decade to discern key trends in voting patterns among investors as well as the underlying dynamics that may affect voting in relation to climate change-related engagements between companies and their shareholders. The analysis finds that climate-related shareholder proposals continue to rank high on the agenda of shareholder engagements , but these discussions are becoming more nuanced, as corporate disclosures and climate-related practices evolve and continue to improve. At the same time, investors appear to be taking a more targeted approach in dealing with these topics from a stewardship and voting perspective.

READ MORE »

Control and Its Discontents

Jill E. Fisch is the Saul A. Fox Distinguished Professor of Business Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, and Steven Davidoff Solomon is the Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law. This post is based on their article, forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

In Control and its Discontents, forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, we examine the Delaware courts’ growing skepticism toward corporate actions in controlled companies. This skepticim culminated in three recent decisions — Tornetta, Match and Sears Hometown – which have potentially wide-ranging implications. Language in the decisions suggests the possibility that, going forward, the Delaware courts will apply entire fairness to a wide range of transactions and to an arguably increasingly expansive set of controlling shareholders.

These decisions reflect an evolving approach to the role and responsibilities of controlling shareholders. We trace its development from the traditional analysis of controlling shareholder duties which, as we explain focused primarily on majority shareholder freeze-outs and similar transactions. Our concern is not whether this evolution is faithful to the languge of the earlier decisions but whether the curent approach to control theoertically defensible or pragmatically appropriate.

READ MORE »

Preparing for California’s Climate Disclosure Laws

Leah Malone is a Partner, Emily Holland is a Counsel, and Alexis Capati is an Associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. This post is based on their Simpson Thacher memorandum.

When California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 253 and 261 [1] into law last year—creating the first broad, industry-agnostic domestic climate reporting obligations for U.S. companies doing business in California—he did so with a caveat. His signing statements pointed out infeasible implementation deadlines (here and here) and potentially “inconsistent” reporting that could result based on the required reporting protocol under SB 253, and called upon his Administration to work with the bills’ authors and the state legislature to address those concerns in the 2023-2024 legislative session. Since then, the laws have been somewhat in limbo, first due to lack of funding in the Governor’s proposed budget, and then as negotiations ensued over revisions to the implementation timelines. [2]

Now the picture has finally cleared, with funding secured in the Governor’s finalized budget (signed in June 2024) to enable the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) to draft regulations, and a new bill enacted to amend SB 253 and 261. Senate Bill 219, signed by Gov. Newsom last week after the state’s legislative session closed, maintains the original 2026 timing for Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions reporting and 2027 for Scope 3 GHG emissions, but postpones the deadline for implementing regulations by six months. Appendix A and B provide further detail regarding the requirements (as amended) under each of the laws.

While SB 219 tweaked certain elements of SB 253 and 261, key questions (including as to scoping) will remain unanswered until CARB finalizes its implementing regulations. However, with the first reporting period kicking off just three months from now in 2025, it’s prudent to take action to prepare for compliance.

READ MORE »

Investor Choice

John Galloway is Global Head of Investment Stewardship at Vanguard, Inc. This post is based on a Vanguard Investment Stewardship memorandum.

First announced in November 2022, Vanguard’s Investor Choice pilot program has enabled individual investors to express their perspective on shareholder matters at the companies held in their equity index funds. We believe that Investor Choice is an impactful way to empower individual investors in specific Vanguard funds to more directly influence how their proxies are voted, improve the corporate governance ecosystem, and reinforce our passive, investor-owned, and time-tested approach that supports millions of investors. [1] We have been encouraged by investor reception and interest since Vanguard Investor Choice launched in 2023; we expanded the pilot to additional equity index funds in 2024 and intend to expand it further in 2025. We are committed to further exploring how to best provide proxy voting options and empower more investors in the coming years.

READ MORE »

Page 16 of 78
1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 78