Monthly Archives: July 2025

Board Leadership in Navigating Volatility

Randi Lesnick and Andy Levine are Co-Chairs of Corporate Practice, and Joel May is a Partner at Jones Day. This post is based on a Jones Day memorandum by Ms. Lesnick, Mr. Levine, Mr. May, and Jennifer Lewis.

In Short

The Situation: Public company boards are facing an unprecedented convergence of destabilizing forces, including geopolitical shocks, inflation, supply-chain disruptions, social unrest, and rapid technological change. At the same time, stakeholders continue to have high expectations for effective board oversight and value creation.

The Result: Boards can seek to direct the management of this rapid pace of change by adopting structures and processes that promote swift, disciplined decision-making, continuous learning, and candid communication. With these elements in place, directors empower management to pivot decisively, safeguard the enterprise, and capitalize on emerging opportunities, thereby preserving and enhancing long-term value.

Looking Ahead: Forward-thinking boards treat volatility as a strategic catalyst rather than a threat. By anticipating issues, developing flexible response frameworks, and thoughtful stakeholder engagement, boards can create a governance framework that anticipates disruption rather than merely reacts to it. Directors who master this proactive approach fulfill their fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholders while positioning the company for success during volatile times.


READ MORE »

How to Control Controller Conflicts

Lucian Bebchuk is the James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Economics, and Finance and Director of the Program on Corporate Governance at Harvard Law School, and Kobi Kastiel is Professor of Law at Tel Aviv University. This post is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

We recently posted on SSRN our article How to Control Controller Conflicts, which will be published later this year in the Journal of Corporation Law’s fiftieth anniversary issue.

Our article provides a unified approach to protecting public investors in controlled companies in an effective and internally consistent manner. The article also provides a strong critique of Delaware’s recent legislation on the subject.

We focus on a question that Delaware law has grappled with for several decades: How should corporate law address agency problems in companies with a controlling shareholder (“controlled companies”)? Specifically, when—and to what extent—should approval by independent directors, without a supplemental majority-of-the-minority (MOM) approval, be sufficient to “cleanse” corporate actions involving a controller conflict? Viewing such actions as “cleansed” means that, despite the presence of a conflict, courts would apply the deferential business judgment standard, which generally governs unconflicted director decisions, and thereby preclude judicial scrutiny of the actions’ merits.

After decades-long swings of the judicial pendulum, a recent legislative amendment to the Delaware General Corporation Law, commonly referred to as SB21, adopted an approach that requires a different treatment for freezeout settings and non-freezeout settings. While a MOM vote alongside an independent director approval is necessary for cleansing freezeout decisions, an independent director approval alone is sufficient for cleansing decisions in non-freezeout settings.

Our analysis explains why SB21’s critical distinction between freezeouts and non-freezeout settings is untenable. Allowing cleansing by independent director approval alone in all non-freezeout transactions, we show, is conceptually inconsistent with SB21’s prescription that such approval can never suffice to cleanse freezeout decisions. READ MORE »

California Climate Accountability: Getting Started on SB 253 and SB 261 Reporting

Subodh Mishra is Global Head of Communications at ISS STOXX. This post is based on an ISS-Corporate memorandum by Fredrik Lundin, Senior Sustainability Solutions Product Manager, and Ravi Mahapatra, Sustainability Product Associate, at ISS-Corporate.

Key Takeaways:

  • Emissions Disclosure: SB 253 requires companies in scope to annually disclose scope 1 and 2 GHG Emissions (Scope 3 starting 2027)
  • Financial Risks: SB 261 requires companies to report biannually on climate-related financial risks
  • Future Guidance: CARB will develop guidance around the climate acts, but these will likely not be finalized until late 2025.
  • Getting Ready for Emissions Reporting: Companies can begin developing disclosures aligned with SB 253 requirements using available guidance and standards.
  • Framework Clarity: SB 261 is informed by the TCFD and IFRS S2 frameworks. Companies can proactively address the regulation by aligning their reporting with these standards, as CARB continues to finalize specific requirements.

READ MORE »

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act & M&A

Deborah Paul and Rachel Reisberg are Partners at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on their Wachtell memorandum.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the “OBBBA”) was signed into law on Friday, and, while not the paradigm shift of 2017’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJA”), it introduces important changes affecting both domestic and cross-border transactions, many of which are effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025.  The overall impact of the OBBBA in specific situations, especially for U.S. multinationals, will require careful analysis.  However, in many respects, the new law preserves or enhances the status quo, avoiding the disruption of otherwise sunsetting TCJA provisions and, in the domestic context, favoring acquirors of depreciable tangible assets and certain leveraged transactions.

Notably, the OBBBA omits the so-called “revenge tax” included in earlier versions of the bill that raised particular concern among debt issuers and lenders and threatened to decrease foreign investment into the United States.  The “revenge tax” would have increased federal income tax rates on certain income of residents of, and multinationals parented in, countries imposing extraterritorial or deemed discriminatory taxes (such as digital services taxes).  The provision was dropped as a result of negotiations with the G7, which agreed in principle to seek to exempt U.S.-parented groups from certain aspects of the OECD’s global minimum tax framework.  The longer-term impact of the G7 resolution, including whether and to what extent the OECD and member countries ultimately adopt exemptions for U.S. companies, remains to be seen.

On the domestic front, the OBBBA makes permanent several taxpayer-favorable TCJA provisions.  Taxpayers will again be entitled to deduct immediately 100% of the cost of depreciable tangible assets, likely increasing the appeal of acquiring assets as compared to stock.  The deduction for up to 20% of the business income of certain noncorporate investors in certain pass-through entities is made permanent, preserving the tax efficiency of partnership, rather than corporate, joint venture structures for those investors.  The OBBBA permanently restores the pre-2022 TCJA limitation on interest expense deductions by applying the 30% limit to an amount that approximates EBITDA, rather than EBIT.  But it imposes new limits by excluding from the EBITDA calculation certain foreign-source items of income.  The net impact of these changes on particular leveraged transactions will need to be assessed.

For U.S. multinationals, the OBBBA is a mixed blessing.  It widens the scope of income of U.S.-parented “controlled foreign corporations” (“CFCs”) that is subject to current federal income taxation, but generally improves the U.S. parent company’s ability to credit foreign income taxes.  Specifically, GILTI (the TCJA’s tax on CFC earnings in excess of a deemed 10% return on tangible assets) is replaced with a more costly tax on “net CFC tested income,” a concept that does not reflect a deduction for the return on tangible assets.  However, the OBBBA liberalizes the foreign tax credit regime by increasing the amount of foreign taxes that may be credited against net CFC tested income and by no longer requiring interest expense and research and experimental expenditures to be allocated against such income.  The OBBBA also revises the treatment of mid-year sales of CFCs, requiring a pro rata income allocation based on the period of stock ownership.

M&A participants in both the domestic and cross-border contexts should be mindful of the new law, and its provisions should be factored into the negotiation of deal pricing, structure and other terms.

What It Takes to Lead in the Boardroom: Insights for Prospective Directors

Evan Epstein is an Executive Director at the UC Center for Business Law at UC Law San Francisco, Jane Sadowsky is a Senior Advisor at Moelis & Company, and Kaley Karaffa is the Head of Board Advisory in the Americas at Nasdaq. This post is based on their Nasdaq Center for Board Excellence insights.

In today’s new era of governance, board members who can shape and sustain a strong board culture are emerging as enablers of organizational success. The Wharton Alumni for Boards community and Nasdaq Center for Board Excellence convened a panel of seasoned directors to share insights and practical strategies for enhancing board engagement. The panel included Evan Epstein, Executive Director at the UC Center for Business Law in San Francisco, and host and author of the Boardroom Governance podcast and newsletter, Jane Sadowsky, who currently serves on two public and one private equity-backed corporate boards and is a senior advisor at Moelis & Company and a founding member of Extraordinary Women on Boards, and Kaley Karaffa, Head of Board Advisory, Americas and APAC at Nasdaq.

READ MORE »

Chancery Court Applies Conditional Probability to Calculate Damages in Earnout Dispute

Rory K. Schneider is a Partner at Mayer Brown LLP. This post is based on his Mayer Brown memorandum, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

A recent Delaware Chancery Court opinion offers a significant example of how courts may apply complex probability analysis to determine the amount of damages in an earnout dispute. The case arose from Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s 2018 acquisition of Syntimmune, Inc. Our previous Legal Update analyzed in depth the Chancery Court’s September 2024 opinion (the “Liability Opinion”),[1] in which the Court concluded, among other things, that the buyer had failed to use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve certain post-closing milestones that could have resulted in the payment of hundreds of millions of dollars to the former stockholders of the target company under the terms of the merger agreement. The Liability Opinion left undecided the amount of the damages to which the former stockholders were entitled for that breach.

The Court addressed the calculation of damages in its June 2025 opinion (the “Damages Opinion”), [2] where it engaged in a painstaking analysis of the former stockholders’ expectation damages based on the probability that each unachieved milestone would have been attained absent the breach, and rejected the former stockholders’ attempt to invoke the “prevention doctrine” to secure full payment of each milestone. The Damages Opinion is yet another reflection of the uncertainty that arises in agreements that have a significant earnout component extending long after the closing—as is frequently the case in life sciences M&A transactions. The challenges associated with establishing the probability of uncertain events may result in an award that sellers consider an underpayment and that buyers consider an overpayment. This Legal Update discusses these issues and provides key takeaways from the Damages Opinion.

READ MORE »

Texas Enacts New Law to Regulate Proxy Advisory Firms

Randi Lesnick is Co-Chair of Corporate Practice, and Ferrell Keel and Joel May are Partners at Jones Day. This post is based on a Jones Day memorandum by Ms. Lesnick, Ms. Keel, Mr. May, Sidney Smith McClung, Mark Rasmussen, and Peter Zwick.

In Short

The Situation: On June 20, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 2337 (“SB 2337”) to impose first-of-its-kind regulation and significant disclosure obligations on proxy advisors, such as ISS and Glass Lewis. SB 2337 aims to limit proxy advice based on “nonfinancial” factors such as ESG and DEI and requires proxy advisors to provide a “specific financial analysis” for any recommendation in opposition to management’s position.

The Result: SB 2337 seeks to tie proxy advice to shareholder value by requiring proxy advisors to support their recommendations with financial analysis. It will be meaningfully more expensive for proxy advisors to provide this advice, and to the extent proxy advisor clients are unwilling to bear this additional cost, we may see fewer recommendations against companies headquartered or organized in Texas.

Looking Ahead: The bill will go into effect on September 1, 2025. We expect SB 2337 to fundamentally change the role of proxy advisors in Texas and have ripple effects on the broader corporate governance landscape.

READ MORE »

Oversight in the AI Era: Understanding the Audit Committee’s Role

Stephen Parker is a Partner, Barbara Berlin is a Managing Director, and Tracey Lee Brown is a Director at the Governance Insights Center, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on their PwC memorandum.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is fast becoming an intrinsic part of business: strategy, growth, product innovation, operations and more. It’s poised to redefine business models, revolutionize workflows and reshape entire industries.

The rapid evolution of AI is empowering companies to solve problems in unprecedented ways. Its transformative potential also reveals new avenues for growth, innovation and strategic business development.

This power does not come without risks. Realizing the full potential of AI requires understanding its risks as well as its upsides. This includes a risk management approach and appropriate policies, processes and controls to use AI responsibly in a manner that sustains trust.

The board’s role in this environment is to oversee management and advise on how AI may impact strategy and risks. Typically, the full board has primary oversight of AI. Sometimes, however, the audit committee may have been given primary responsibility. In these instances, audit committee members should be mindful to focus on the strategic opportunities, not just the risks.

READ MORE »

The Art and Science of Earn-Outs in M&A

F. Dario de Martino and Clare O’Brien are Partners, and Mara Goodman is an Associate at A&O Shearman. This post is based on an A&O Shearman memorandum by Mr. de Martino, Ms. O’Brien, Ms. Goodman, Steph Ference, and Olivia Zinzi.

I. Introduction | Why Use an Earn-Out?

Amid the relatively high interest rates and accompanying M&A slowdown of recent years, it has become more popular—or at least more visible—for buyers and sellers across sectors to take a page from the life-sciences playbook and consider structuring their M&A transactions to include an earn-out.

An earn-out is a mechanism to provide for contingent additional consideration based on a target’s post-closing performance.

Earn-outs can offer several advantages to both buyers and sellers in an M&A transaction. They can:

  • Help deal with uncertainty or volatility in the target’s revenue, earnings, or growth prospects, especially in emerging or disruptive sectors or markets;
  • Align the interests and expectations of sellers and buyers and incentivize sellers to remain involved and committed to the target’s post-closing operations while avoiding the use of rollover equity;
  • Reduce the upfront payment requirements for buyers and provide a mechanism for them to share the upside or downside of the target’s performance with sellers; or
  • Resolve valuation gaps between the parties, especially when there is a lack of comparable transactions or reliable projections.

While earn-out provisions may seem to be an attractive solution to the problem of pricing a transaction in an uncertain economy, they are typically bespoke, highly negotiated, and can lead to disputes if not carefully structured.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: July 4-10, 2025


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of July 4-10, 2025


Summary of Recent Changes to Delaware, Nevada, and Texas Corporate Law


The Expanding Compensation Committee Mandate


Climate and Carbon Litigation Trends


Why Financial Crises Recur


The Long and the Short of It: Institutional Investors’ Views on Activism


Maintaining Motivation in 2025 Short-Term Incentive Programs


The Limited Corporate Response to DEI Controversies


The Evolution of Overboarding Policies


Trends and Updates from the 2025 Proxy Season


CEO Succession: 10 Pitfalls Boards Must Avoid— and the CHRO Practices That Help


SEC Withdraws Gensler-Era Shareholder Proposal Rule


Voting for Value: Reforming Proxy Systems for Lasting Impact


Page 4 of 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7