Monthly Archives: May 2025

Five Ways Public Companies Can Prepare for Shareholder Activism in Times of Turbulence

Shaun J. Mathew, Evan Johnson, and Daniel E. Wolf are Partners at Kirkland & Ellis LLP. This post is based on their Kirkland & Ellis memorandum.

As public companies navigate a landscape marked by rapid and substantial market volatility, regulatory uncertainty and geopolitical shifts, there is growing concern inside boardrooms that these same factors may increase vulnerability to a more familiar threat: shareholder activism. Whether or not catalyzed by this uncertainty, activists remain persistent. Through the first few months of 2025, the drumbeat of activist campaign launches has surpassed the highs of recent years. While some investors are hitting “pause” on making large new investments, others (including activist funds) are seizing opportunities to invest in high-quality companies at attractive valuations.

READ MORE »

Stock Buybacks: Show me the Money!

Allison Wyderka is the Head of Product and Research for Proxy Services, and Wickham Egan is the Director of Business Development and Operations, at Egan-Jones Ratings Company. This post is based on their Egan-Jones memorandum.

Just as it was the job of fictional sports agent Jerry Maguire (played by Tom Cruise) to get his clients the best deal possible, corporate executives and boards have the same responsibility for their shareholders. Perhaps the most direct way for boards to show investors the money is a stock buyback.

In the past decade, share repurchases have drawn the ire of many, with critics arguing that they line the pockets of executives at the expense of long-term shareholder value. However, in our view, share repurchases often accomplish the very purpose for which a public corporation exists: increasing shareholder wealth. Share repurchases serve to increase the ownership of each individual investor and boost the stock price while avoiding the income tax that accompanies a dividend.

READ MORE »

Ransomware and the Board’s Role: What You Need to Know

Ray Garcia is a Leader, Matt Gorham is a Global Cybersecurity and Privacy Leader, and John Boles is a Partner of Cyber, Privacy, & Forensics at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on their PwC memorandum.

Ransomware attacks are increasingly making global headlines as the ransomware as a service ecosystem evolves, attack methods become more sophisticated and ransom demands escalate. Add to this environment the expanded use of AI to launch more sophisticated and frequent attacks, ongoing digitalization of companies, the prevalence of remote workforces, along with the increased number of companies doing business with third parties — these all may create greater vulnerability to ransomware attacks.

The proliferation of ransomware attacks has become a significant concern for companies, as threat actors continually refine their strategies to maximize impact and profit. These cybercriminals meticulously select their targets based on the presence of known vulnerabilities and the company’s ability to pay the ransom. Once successfully attacked, companies face the difficult decision of whether to pay the ransom, carefully weighing the associated risks and consequences.

Boards will want to engage with management to make sure they are strengthening their cybersecurity measures and resilience planning capabilities to defend against the threat landscape and adequately preparing for a potential ransomware attack.

READ MORE »

Remarks by Commissioner Peirce at the SEC’s 31st International Institute for Securities Market Growth and Development

Hester M. Peirce is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on her recent remarks. The views expressed in this post are those of Commissioner Peirce and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.

Welcome to the penultimate day of the SEC’s 31st International Institute for Securities Market Growth and Development. Before I begin, as I am sure you anticipate based on what you have heard from many SEC speakers this week, my views are my own as a Commissioner and not necessarily those of the SEC or my fellow Commissioners.

The Institute’s longevity signals the importance of capital formation and the development of capital markets. These topics can get lost in regulatory conversations, which tend to focus on what government can do to protect investors, rather than what markets can do to protect investors. Efficient, flourishing capital markets do more than serve investors; their function is much grander—to serve humanity. As the lifeblood of businesses and innovation, capital markets help a nation’s economy to meet its people’s needs and generate the societal prosperity that enriches the lives of individuals and their communities. Affording investors an opportunity to share in the fruits of the economy’s growth is a welcome byproduct of well-functioning capital markets and a central element of investor protection.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: May 2-8, 2025


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of May 2-8, 2025

Are Executive Incentive Plan Payouts for AIP and PSUs Aligned with Shareholder Returns?


Corporate Climate Disclosures and Practices: Risk, Emissions, and Targets


Court of Chancery Issues Rare Pre-Discovery Dismissal of Entire Fairness Claim






Testimony in House Hearing: “Exposing the Proxy Advisory Cartel: How ISS & Glass Lewis Influence Markets”


Reshaping a Company’s Board Post-Bankruptcy


The Resurgence of Executive Perquisites


The Evolving Role of the CHRO in the Boardroom


2025 Filings Show Robust CEO Pay Increases at U.S. Large Cap Companies


2025 Filings Show Robust CEO Pay Increases at U.S. Large Cap Companies

Subodh Mishra is Global Head of Communications at ISS STOXX. This post is based on an ISS-Corporate memorandum by Roy Saliba, Managing Director, and Audrey Dedrick, Senior Associate, at ISS-Corporate.

NEW YORK (April 24, 2025) – ISS-Corporate, a leading provider of compensation, governance, cyber risk monitoring, and sustainability offerings to help companies improve shareholder value and reduce risk, today announced the results of a preliminary analysis of CEO pay changes at S&P 500 companies with shareholder meetings on or after January 1, 2025.

The study, which analyzed 320 S&P 500 companies at which the CEO was in the same role for the current and previous filing years, found a median CEO pay increase of 7.5 percent from the 2024 to 2025 filing periods. This rate of growth represents a slight decrease from the 9.2 percent rise observed between the 2023 and 2024 filing periods, suggesting a continued robust growth in CEO pay levels despite recent market turbulence.

Median pay for CEOs at the included large cap companies stood at $16.8 million, the analysis found. More than 69 percent of S&P 500 CEOs in the study received a pay increase while compensation fell for around 31 percent of them. For the segment of companies that increased pay for their chief executives, the median change was 13.2 percent, while for the segment of companies where pay dropped, compensation decreased by a median of 7.2 percent.

READ MORE »

The Evolving Role of the CHRO in the Boardroom

Matteo Tonello is the Head of Benchmarking and Analytics at The Conference Board, Inc. This post is based on a Conference Board memorandum by Rita Meyerson, Principal Researcher, Human Capital, Andrew Jones, Principal Researcher, ESG Center, Marion Devine, Principal Researcher, Human Capital, Matt Rosenbaum, Principal Researcher, Human Capital, and Christine Guinessey, Program Manager, ESG Center, at The Conference Board, Inc.

The role of the chief human resources officer (CHRO) in corporate management and governance is expanding as companies increasingly recognize the need for human capital expertise in business performance, risk management, and value creation. As the next generation of CHROs emerges, this report examines how CHRO-board engagement is evolving at publicly traded companies in the US and Europe.

Key Insights

  • The CHRO’s role is expanding beyond traditional transactional HR specialist to encompass greater responsibility for corporate governance, as boards and senior management place greater emphasis on human capital strategies to meet evolving business, regulatory, and investor expectations.
  • Boards and CEOs expect CHROs to act as enterprise leaders who align human capital strategy with financial, operational, and risk priorities and drive workforce strategy, succession planning, mergers & acquisitions, and business transformation in collaboration with the wider C-Suite.
  • Four key derailers can undermine CHROs’ board engagement and strategic impact: 1) perceptions of HR as solely administrative, 2) succession planning friction, 3) CEO-imposed access limits, and 4) limited commercial and financial acumen. Addressing these challenges requires clearer board designation of responsibilities, more structured processes, and greater recognition of human capital’s strategic role.
  • Boards and CEOs can empower CHROs by enhancing board access, recognizing and reinforcing CHROs’ neutrality in executive and operational matters, and fostering a trusted partnership for candid workforce risk insights that inform high-level decision-making.
  • CHROs’ board engagement will likely grow as generational workforce shifts, AI transformation, and sustained regulatory uncertainty underscore human capital management as a core governance issue. This expanded engagement will require CHRO leadership in talent strategy, workforce risk management, and AI oversight.

READ MORE »

The Resurgence of Executive Perquisites

Krishna Shah is a Senior Director of North American Compensation Research at Glass, Lewis & Co. This post is based on a Glass Lewis memorandum by Ms. Shah and Dimitri Zagoroff.

Compensation policies are adopted to align with a company’s culture, its business needs and strategies and market trends. An effective compensation program plays a pivotal role in attracting and retaining key talent without incurring unnecessary costs.

Perquisites, while usually a small component of executive pay packages, are currently soaring — and becoming a point of focus among shareholders and the public. Perquisites are often provided to support the executives in performing their duties, but the exclusivity it offers can also serve as a status symbol. They can become problematic when they become excessive, underscoring broader concerns with executive compensation practices. Ultimately, while perquisites will remain a constant feature of executive pay packages, a recent spike in perquisite costs is testing shareholder tolerance. In this post, we look at what is driving that spike, with a focus on aircraft, housing and security, and at how companies are reporting the costs.

READ MORE »

Reshaping a Company’s Board Post-Bankruptcy

Heather Hammond, Noah Schwarz, and Emily Taylor are Managing Directors at Russell Reynolds Associates. This post is based on a Russell Reynolds memorandum by Ms. Hammond, Mr. Schwarz, Ms. Taylor, and Courtney Byrne.

Since Russell Reynolds Associates originally reported on board restructuring five years ago, pressures on businesses have only increased. New geopolitical tensions, macroeconomic challenges, elevated interest rates, and technological change are further straining organizations, resulting in a growing number of businesses finding themselves in a stressed or distressed financial position. Bankruptcy filings are at a new high since the GFC, resulting in a surge of company restructurings.1

Notable in the current environment is the increasing prominence of alternative capital, including private credit. Private credit providers are distributing more flexible and creative capital to struggling companies. Private lending and debt-for-equity transactions have enabled countless organizations to avoid Chapter 11 filings and supported restructurings. Debt-for-equity swaps result in investors managing companies that emerge with a clean balance sheet, but have other complex challenges to address. And unlike private equity or buyout investors, who scope strategic and operational value creation plans during due diligence, these lenders generally have less active management experience.

These combined challenges highlight a pressing need: building an effective corporate board post-restructuring. Yet this is not an easy task. The normal complexity of director recruitment and onboarding, not to mention the effective implementation of corporate governance practices, is only increased as a result of the company’s legal and financial challenges.

Combining insights from our latest work supporting clients who are reestablishing their organizations, as well as recommendations shared by experienced board members, investors and industry professionals, this paper intends to provide a best practice road map for investors and companies looking to build a strong, highly effective board post-restructuring.

READ MORE »

Testimony in House Hearing: “Exposing the Proxy Advisory Cartel: How ISS & Glass Lewis Influence Markets”

Charles Crain is the Managing Vice President of Policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. This post is based on his testimony in a hearing of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets of the House Committee on Financial Services.

Good afternoon Chair Wagner, Ranking Member Sherman, and members of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets. My name is Charles Crain, and I am the Managing Vice President of Policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. On behalf of the NAM’s 14,000 members and the 13 million people who make things in America, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today to illustrate the impact that the entrenched proxy firm duopoly has on manufacturers of all sizes—and to make the case for urgent action by Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission to rein in these powerful market actors.

Proxy firms set corporate governance standards for publicly traded companies, and they provide voting recommendations based on those standards to institutional investors who vote at public companies’ annual meetings. Proxy firms have substantive beliefs and normative agendas about how public companies should be run. In other words, they are not disinterested third parties; rather, they seek to guide corporate behavior to align with their own interests. Further, proxy firms do not have a fiduciary duty to the underlying investors in America’s public companies—teachers, firefighters, and manufacturing workers saving for a secure retirement—so they are free to exert their outsized influence as they see fit. They do so by recommending that institutional investors vote in accordance with their pre-set, one-size-fits-all voting guidelines.

Proxy firm “recommendations” are no mere suggestions, however. Rather, institutional investors—who do have a fiduciary duty to the Main Street investors whose assets they manage—generally vote in lockstep with the proxy firms’ recommendations, and in many cases the proxy firms actually cast votes on institutions’ behalf via their automated “robo-voting” services. This degree of influence over companies’ proxy voting results means that ISS and Glass Lewis—the two major proxy firms, which together control over 97% of the U.S. proxy advice market—effectively dictate corporate governance policies for America’s capital markets. READ MORE »

Page 5 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6