Monthly Archives: September 2025

New SEC Policy Opens Door to Mandatory Investor Arbitration

Emily Drazan Chapman is a Legal AI Architect, Neil McCarthy is Co-Founder and Chief Product Officer, and James Palmiter is Co-Founder and CEO at DragonGC. This post is based on a DragonGC memorandum by Ms. Chapman, Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Palmiter, G. Michael Weiksner, Markus Hartmann, and Jennifer Carberry.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On September 17, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a groundbreaking policy statement that fundamentally alters the regulatory landscape for public companies considering mandatory arbitration provisions. The Commission has determined that mandatory arbitration provisions requiring investors to arbitrate securities law claims will not impact SEC decisions to accelerate the effectiveness of registration statements. This represents the most significant development in securities law arbitration policy in decades and creates immediate strategic opportunities and considerations for public companies.

READ MORE »

Regulatory Climate Shift: Updates on the SEC Climate-Related Disclosure Rules

Anna Pinedo is a Partner, Liz Walsh is Counsel, and Carlos Juarez is a Law Clerk at Mayer Brown LLP. This post is based on their Mayer Brown memorandum.

In March 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”) adopted rules entitled The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors (the “Rules”), intended to standardize how public companies report material climate-related risks and greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Rules were almost immediately the subject of litigation, which was subsequently consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the “Eighth Circuit”), and, since April 2024, the Rules have been subject to a voluntary stay pending judicial review.

READ MORE »

The Trillion Dollar Man? Comparing Musk’s 2018 Pay Plan to His Latest Tesla Award

Courtney Yu is Director of Research at Equilar, Inc. This post is based on his Equilar memorandum.

The compensation saga of Tesla’s Elon Musk is under the spotlight once again. On Friday, Tesla announced in an SEC filing that the Company is proposing to grant its CEO Elon Musk an equity award that could make him a trillionaire. This new grant, subject to shareholder approval, comes off the heels of Tesla granting Musk an “interim” award in August while his 2018 equity grant goes through the courts.

In light of the news, Equilar examined the key elements from Musk’s 2018 pay package and the latest award from Tesla, highlighting the differences in plan details and target performance goals.

The 2018 options granted to Elon Musk were ordered to be rescinded by the Delaware Chancery Court. The court ruled that Tesla’s shareholders were not fully informed about the 2018 options at the time they were granted. The award, consisting of 303 million options, was considered unprecedented at the time. Not just because of its large grant date fair value (making it the largest equity grant at the time) but because of its vesting structure. The options would only vest if lofty performance goals were met. The award was split into 12 different tranches. Each tranche would only vest if (1) a market capitalization goal was reached, and (2) a corresponding revenue or adjusted EBITDA goal was reached. The full award was earned in early 2023.

READ MORE »

Pay for Performance Mandated SEC Proxy Disclosures – Role of PVP and CAP

Ira Kay is a Managing Partner, and John Sinkular is a Partner at Pay Governance LLC. This post is based on their Pay Governance memorandum.

  • In 2022, the SEC implemented a new executive pay regulation/disclosure from Dodd-Frank of Pay versus Performance (PVP), which introduced a new definition of compensation, Compensation Actually Paid (CAP). According to the SEC, CAP was developed based on the same concept as “realizable pay” and intended to allow investors and others to evaluate whether executive compensation is aligned with total shareholder return (TSR).
  • The PVP disclosure provides consistent, mandated comparisons of a company’s performance and named executive officer (NEO) pay over a 5-year period to evaluate a company’s relative CAP and TSR for shareholder alignment. As a result, PVP/CAP can be helpful in evaluating the TSR and performance sensitivity of the officer pay program.
  • Several Pay Governance research studies demonstrate that PVP/CAP, not Summary Compensation Table (SCT) total compensation, are excellent tools for evaluating pay-for-performance alignment. Our studies show strong alignment of CAP and TSR — in both relative percentile rankings and year-over-year absolute percentage changes.
  • The use of CAP, which is sensitive to financial and stock price fluctuations, is a significant improvement in evaluating pay for performance relative to using SCT total compensation, which is dominated by grant date equity values that are static and do not reflect stock price and/or company performance after the grant date.
  • The recent SEC roundtable discussed evaluating PVP, and other proxy disclosure rules, including the potential elimination of PVP without replacement with a better pay-for-performance evaluation requirement like potential realizable pay. While investors at the roundtable generally supported PVP and wanted to keep it, some executive teams initially found it challenging to calculate.
  • If PVP is eliminated, the mandated consistent quantitative comparisons of pay and performance would disappear and could lead to some investors and other interested parties pushing for new pay-for-performance disclosure rules to be implemented in the future.

READ MORE »

SEC Issues Policy Statement Clarifying View on Mandatory Arbitration Provisions

Tamara Brightwell, Amy Simmerman, and Ignacio Salceda are Partners at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. This post is based on a Wilson Sonsini memorandum by Ms. Brightwell, Ms. Simmerman, Mr. Salceda, Brad Sorrels, Caz Hashemi, and Michael Nordtvedt.

On September 17, 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) approved a Policy Statement clarifying the SEC’s position on accelerating the effective date of registration statements for the offer and sale of securities under the Securities Act filed by companies that have mandatory arbitration provisions in their governing documents. The Policy Statement represents a significant development in the SEC’s approach to filings by companies with mandatory arbitration provisions applicable to claims under the federal securities laws—and potentially other governance claims as well. The Policy Statement also comes at a time of growing debate over the proper role of stockholder litigation as a policy matter and the optimal approach to such matters under state corporate law.

READ MORE »

The Forecast on Quarterly Reporting

David A. Katz is a Partner, and Laura A. McIntosh is a Consulting Attorney at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on their Wachtell Lipton memorandum.

Every few years, the question arises as to whether quarterly reporting is the optimal timeframe for U.S. public companies.  Now, with both President Donald Trump and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Paul Atkins as active proponents of ending quarterly SEC reporting, regulatory reform seems more likely than ever before.  Thanks to experimentation with reporting frequency in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK), it is possible to make a few observations about potential reforms and a few predictions as to how regulatory change would affect financial reporting in practice.

Overall, reducing reporting from a quarterly to a semi-annual schedule is likely to have less effect than either its critics fear or its proponents hope, as demonstrated by the EU and UK experience.  Revising the mandatory reporting schedule will not, on its own, remove short-termism from the capital markets.  And it will not suffice to reverse the long and troubling decline in the number of public companies in the United States.  However, it would be a step in the right direction.

READ MORE »

Activists Say ‘Yes’ to ‘Vote No’ Campaigns in 2025

Elizabeth R. Gonzalez-Sussman is a Partner, and Louis M. Davis is an Associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on their Skadden memorandum.

Key Points

  • The 2025 proxy season has seen a marked rise in “vote-no” or withhold campaigns against directors.
  • These campaigns, which can be launched any time, without warning, can result in high withhold votes against directors, even when the activist only issues a single press release, creating significant pressure on boards to voluntarily effect board, management or strategic change in response.
  • Companies that regularly assess director skill sets, engage early and often with key investors, communicate their strategy and explain why each director has been selected to serve, will be better positioned to confront these potential activist attacks.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: September 19-25, 2025


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of September 19-25, 2025

Remarks by Chair Atkins at the Investor Advisory Committee Meeting


Exxon’s Auto-Voting Plan: Implications for Shareholder Activism and Considerations for Companies



The Hidden C-Suite Risk Of AI Failures


The Political Economy of Global Stock Exchange Competition


2025 Proxy Season Review: Compensation-Related Matters



Fair Corporate Suffrage or Federal Overreach? The 1943 Hearings and Rule 14a-8


DExit: Reincorporation Data Seem to Support the Hype


What Do Women Bring to the Boardroom? Evidence from Corporate Environmental Performance


Recap of the 2025 Say on Pay Season


SEC’s Spring 2025 Regulatory Flex Agenda Signals a Strategic Pivot


Proxy Season Global Briefing: Trends on Executive Pay


When Disclosure Pays: Evidence from the Over-The-Counter Markets


Risk Management and the Board of Directors


Risk Management and the Board of Directors

Martin Lipton is a Founding Partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on his Wachtell Lipton memorandum.

This post is based on a Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz memorandum by Martin Lipton, Karessa Cain, Sarah Eddy, Kevin Schwartz, Lina Tetelbaum, David Adlerstein, and Anna D’Ginto.

I. INTRODUCTION

Overview

Public companies and their boards of directors face an increasingly complex array of risks that test the resilience of corporate values, strategies, operations, and enterprise risk management frameworks. Tighter monetary policies, deepening geopolitical tensions, widening domestic political polarization, labor shortages, severe weather events, growing challenges tied to nature and biodiversity loss, and the uncertainties surrounding generative AI are among the varied risks that companies have had to contend with in recent years.

These risks are likely to persist and even intensify—against the backdrop of unpredictable trade and foreign policy, ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East, and China’s sluggish post-pandemic recovery. Severe wildfires, heatwaves and flooding across the globe, rising insurance costs, and the exodus of insurers from large pockets of the country underscore the burgeoning financial risks and challenges of climate risks. Cybersecurity risk continues to increase in scale and scope while the geopolitical rivalry between China and the United States remains unabated. According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025, the majority of the business leaders polled anticipate some instability and a moderate risk of global catastrophes, while another 31% expect even more turbulent conditions over the next two years.

READ MORE »

When Disclosure Pays: Evidence from the Over-The-Counter Markets

Robert Bartlett is the W. A. Franke Professor of Law and Business and the faculty co-director of the Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford Law School, and Colleen Honigsberg is the Associate Dean of Curriculum, a Professor of Law, and also the faculty co-director of the Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford Law School. This post is based on their recent paper.

A familiar concern among policymakers is the shrinking number of U.S. publicly traded companies. For instance, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce recently highlighted that the number of listed firms has fallen from approximately 8,000 in 1996 to around 4,200 in mid-2022. Increasing the supply of public companies has been a bipartisan policy objective.

Yet this debate often overlooks thousands of firms traded outside national exchanges on the over-the-counter (OTC) market. While not “listed” in the traditional sense, many of these firms’ securities are publicly traded via broker-dealers and interdealer quotation systems (IDQS). OTC Markets Group, for example, enables retail investors to buy and sell the stock of nearly 5,000 U.S. issuers. By a functional definition of “publicly traded,” the U.S. market may be considerably larger than the standard narrative suggests.

A critical distinction, however, lies in disclosure. Exchange-traded firms must comply with Section 13 of the Exchange Act, which ties eligibility for exchange trading to mandatory, periodic disclosures. In contrast, many OTC issuers historically provided no ongoing public financial information while continuing to benefit from broker-dealer quotations. This separation of public trading and ongoing disclosure is unusual in U.S. securities markets, where the two are typically bundled.

In a new paper titled When Disclosure Pays: Evidence from the Over-The-Counter Markets, we study a recent regulatory reform—amendments to SEC Rule 15c2-11— that, for the first time, directly tied periodic disclosure and public trading in the OTC market. This reform ended the longstanding anomaly in which firms’ could be publicly quoted without making periodic public disclosures. In so doing, we provide new estimates of the costs and benefits, in terms of liquidity and valuation, of a mandatory disclosure regime that bundles together disclosure and public trading. READ MORE »

Page 1 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6