Monthly Archives: June 2025

Caremark’s Politics

Itai Fiegenbaum is an Assistant Professor of Law at St. Thomas University College of Law. This post is based on his recent article forthcoming in Cardozo Law Review, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

How and why do corporate rules evolve? Delaware is the unquestioned jurisdiction of choice for most publicly traded US corporations. And since the decision of where to incorporate belongs to corporate insiders, one might attribute Delaware’s market dominance to a corporate law that caters to their needs. According to this view, Delaware corporate law habitually relaxes the restraints that hamper insider expropriation of gains that would otherwise be distributed to outside investors. Conversely, because insiders anticipate the need to tap the capital markets for future funding, Delaware’s supremacy might be due to the lower cost of capital enjoyed by Delaware-incorporated companies. Subscribers of this view highlight Delaware’s robust legal constraints that deter self-dealing and other harmful actions by powerful insiders.

These two views, commonly known as the “race to the bottom” and the “race to the top,” share a point of commonality regarding Delaware’s apprehension of being displaced by a competing state as the trigger for corporate law evolution. In practice, no other state comes close to Delaware’s market share of publicly traded corporations. If not the fear of competition from other jurisdictions, what external forces influence the trajectory of Delaware corporate law? Professor Mark Roe provided a compelling answer to this question: State corporate law is not the only game in town. If displeased with the level of investor protection provided at the state level, Congress will enact corrective federal legislation. Congressional intervention, however, only occurs for issues that reach national prominence. Delaware’s concern for the value of its corporate brand incentivizes it to nip public debate about those issues in the bud. In practical terms, the Delaware courts – as arbiters of Delaware law – will appear to be sufficiently vigilant in protecting outside investors lest Congress assume that task.

READ MORE »

Evolving DEI Disclosure Practices in SEC Filings

Hayden Goudy is a Director of Responsible Business Solutions, Tierra Piens is a Senior Associate, and Meghan Conway is a Senior Responsible Business Solutions Research Analyst at Orrick. This post is based on an Orrick memorandum by Mr. Goudy, Ms. Piens, Ms. Conway, and Mike Delikat.

Evolving DEI Disclosure Practices in SEC Filings

In the first four months of the Trump Administration, many companies have modified and, in some cases, ended their diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) related commitments, policies, programs and practices. The extent of these changes is illustrated by the fact that a large majority of the S&P 500 have significantly revised or removed DEI-related disclosures from their recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

We analyzed evolving DEI-related disclosure practices in recent SEC filings among major corporations, with a spotlight on the financial sector, [1] and found a marked shift in how companies disclose their approach to what was previously described as DEI. While the majority of large public companies in the US have removed references to “DEI” and related language from their SEC filings, most of these companies still have at least one diversity-related disclosure in their most recent annual report or proxy statement, reflecting a change in corporate disclosure and internal approaches to diversity-related policies, programs and practices that is still evolving.

Executive Action by the Trump Administration

In the first week of his administration, President Trump issued a series of executive orders regarding DEI-related programs in the public and private sectors. This included Executive Order 14173, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”, signed by President Trump on January 21, 2025. Executive Order 14173 READ MORE »

Midyear Observations on the 2025 Board Agenda

David A. Brown is Executive Director at KPMG LLP. This post is based on a KPMG memorandum by John H Rodi, Anne C Zavarella, and Patrick A. Lee.

Disruption, volatility, and uncertainty aren’t new operating conditions by any means. But the assumptions that have long driven corporate thinking—the role of government, geopolitical norms, and consistency in US policies as administrations change, and the speed of technological advances—are being upended. Few business leaders have experienced the scope, complexity, and combination of issues companies are facing today—and many will earn their stripes in the months ahead. As one director noted during the 2025 KPMG Board Leadership Conference, “It’s prime time for leaders to lead.”

Approaching midyear, post-election exuberance among business leaders has been overshadowed by a significant decline in confidence about the growth prospects for the US economy and the opportunities ahead for their companies. As one CEO noted, “High volatility and low visibility are difficult conditions.” Amid growing concern about tariffs and their inflationary effect, a near majority of CEOs anticipate a recession, price hikes, and potential job losses.[1] At the same time, the macro forces of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), climate, and geopolitics are calling for deeper boardroom conversations about risk, resilience, strategy, and talent, and what the future will look.

Based on our ongoing work with directors and business leaders and discussions during the 2025 KPMG Board Leadership Conference[2]—we offer observations READ MORE »

Corporate Actions as Moral Issues

Zwetelina Iliewa is an Assistant Professor of Finance at the Department of Economics at the University of Bonn, Elisabeth Kempf is an Associate Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, and Oliver G. Spalt is a Professor of Finance at University of Mannheim. This post is based on their recent paper.

 

In recent years, a growing body of research in finance and economics has explored how nonpecuniary preferences—moral, ethical, or social concerns that are not directly tied to financial returns—shape the decisions of investors, consumers, and managers. Much of this work has focused on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations and has reinvigorated the broader debate over the objective function of the firm.

In our new paper, Corporate Actions as Moral Issues, we contribute to this discussion by asking: which corporate actions do people care most about from a moral perspective, and why? Using a representative sample of more than 2,000 Americans, we examine how respondents evaluate a broad set of corporate actions, ranging from CEO pay to fossil fuel usage, while holding constant the financial value created by these decisions.

Our findings provide robust evidence that many corporate actions are viewed through a moral lens, and that these moral views are strongly shaped by individual differences in moral universalism—the tendency to extend concern equally to others, regardless of social or geographic distance. READ MORE »

Recent Developments for Directors

Julia ThompsonKeith Halverstam, and Jenna Cooper are Partners at Latham & Watkins LLP. This post is based on a Latham memorandum by Ms. Thompson, Mr. Halverstam, Ms. Cooper, Charles RuckRyan Maierson, and Joel Trotter.

Delaware Legislature Acts to Stop Corporate Exodus

In an effort to reverse corporate departures from Delaware, its state legislature amended the Delaware General Corporation Law to overturn multiple Chancery Court decisions. Notably, the amendments:

  • limit controlling stockholder liability by excluding any stockholder or group that owns less than a third of a company’s voting power and by establishing that, other than in going-private or squeeze-out transactions, courts will not review a controlling stockholder transaction approved either by a committee of independent directors or by an informed and uncoerced vote of a majority of other stockholders;
  • limit stockholder rights to inspect corporate books and records to core documents such as governing documents, minutes, board books, financial statements, and D&O questionnaires; and
  • presume the independence of directors who satisfy stock exchange independence standards.

Companies have applauded these updates to Delaware law. Texas and Nevada in turn continue to READ MORE »

CEO Pay Study

Amit Batish is Sr. Director of Content & Communications at Equilar, Inc. This post is based on his Equilar memorandum. The data in the study was provided by Courtney Yu, Director of Research at Equilar, Inc.

The corner offices of corporate America are home to some of the most influential executives in business today, notably chief executive officers (CEOs). The CEO’s position is the most pivotal for any corporation, driving strategy and financial growth, particularly during periods of uncertainty and transition. The leadership and steady guidance of top-performing CEOs often come at a premium, and companies have seldom shied away from offering generous compensation, despite ongoing public scrutiny.

Equilar and the Associated Press have partnered for 15 years to examine CEO compensation packages across the S&P 500. The annual study identifies trends in compensation awards for CEOs who served in that role at an S&P 500 company for at least two years as of the most recent fiscal year end. To qualify for inclusion in this year’s study, companies must have filed a proxy between January 1 and April 30, 2025. READ MORE »

Remarks by Commissioner Peirce before the International Center for Insurance Regulation

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.

Thank you, Christian. I appreciate the chance to be part of this event. I must first let you know that my views are my own as a Commissioner and not necessarily those of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or my fellow Commissioners. Speaking of my views, they may not overlap much with those of Theodor Adorno, the famed early 20th century intellectual whose legacy is so prominent at this university. But his assertion that “progress occurs where it ends”[1] aptly describes my views of much of the global environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) movement.

The ESG era, though marketed as progress, has harmed investors, companies, regulators, and society. Nothing is new about companies and investors taking a wide range of factors into account in deciding how to allocate capital. The materiality framework of our U.S. securities regulatory regime elicits disclosure about issues determinative to a company’s long-term financial value, including, when applicable, ESG issues. Our framework distinguishes between what is material to an investment decision and what is not material even though some investors might care deeply about it. Only the former warrants mandatory disclosure.

READ MORE »

Remarks by Commissioner Peirce at the Meeting of the Investor Advisory Committee

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.

Thank you, Brian [Schorr]. Good morning and thank you to all of the Committee members and panelists for your participation today. Your two panel discussions should be interesting, and I hope you will have a robust discussion about the draft recommendation on investment adviser arbitration.

Pass-through voting for funds arose as a response to concerns that some fund advisers seemed to have forgotten to whom voting rights belong. Advisers, for example, were signing on to pledges to vote the shares of the funds they advised in accordance with third-party principles, and some asset manager stewardship teams were making cross-complex voting recommendations without regard for disparate fund objectives. As noted in today’s meeting agenda, “[t]he right to vote at a shareholder meeting belongs to the registered shareowner under state law.”[1] In the case of investment funds, the right belongs not to the adviser and not even to the fund investors, but to the fund itself.[2]

A fund’s board may delegate voting power to its adviser, but the adviser must exercise it in the interests of that fund and that fund alone. In making the voting decision, the adviser owes a fiduciary duty to its client—the fund—not to fund investors.[3] An asset manager that advises a large passive index fund and a small environmental impact fund may be tempted to use the leverage afforded by the index fund’s large holding in a company to pressure the company to take actions that would align with the environmental fund’s objectives. Such active engagement, however, is at odds with the passivity of the index fund.[4]

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: May 30-June 5, 2025


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of May 30-June 5, 2025

Investor Views on AI Oversight: What Do Proxy Votes Tell Us?


Chancery Court Dismisses Challenge to Removal of Tag-Along Rights in Healthcare Merger


Making Sure Newly Cautious Shareholders Get the Information They Want


A Playbook for Unplanned CEO Transitions


The Singular Role of Public Pension Funds in Corporate Governance


More and Better Options: Strengthening Long-Term CEO Succession Planning


What DOJ’s New Enforcement Plan Means for Health Care Companies


The Value of Privacy and the Choice of Limited Partners by Venture Capitalists



Nevada Amends Corporate Law to Attract Incorporations


An Eras Tour of Delaware Law


Why Women CEOs Leave Sooner – and How Boards Can Help All CEOs Thrive


Court Finds Up-C Reorganization Claim Derivative


What Newly Amended DGCL §144 Says (and Does Not Say) about Controlling Stockholder Transactions


Season-End Summary of Challenges under Rule 14a-8


Remarks by Chair Atkins

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 the Staff.

Good afternoon and welcome to the second Investor Advisory Committee meeting of 2025, and the first of my Chairmanship. I wish I could be there with you in person. I am now in my third tour of duty at the SEC—having previously served from 1990-1994 on the staff of former Chairmen Richard Breeden and Arthur Levitt, as a Commissioner from 2002-2008, and now as Chairman. As I have said before, it is a new day at the SEC, and I look forward to working with the Committee in this important work.

Earlier this year, the Commission made a call for candidates to fill vacancies on the Committee. We received almost 200 submissions. Commission staff is now in the process of reviewing these submissions to make recommendations to the Commissioners on which candidates to interview. Hopefully, final selections will be made in time for the new members to join your next quarterly meeting in September. The substantial interest in joining the Committee demonstrates the importance of the work that all of you are doing, and I thank you for your commitment to public service.

At today’s meeting, the Committee will discuss the proxy voting process for funds and trends in pass-through voting. The topic of proxy voting, proxy advisors, and shareholder activism is extremely important to me, READ MORE »

Page 6 of 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8