<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/12/30/sec-mandatory-arbitration-policy-evolution-and-supreme-court-precedent/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 11:32:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>SEC &#038; Mandatory Arbitration: Policy Evolution and Supreme Court Precedent</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/12/30/sec-mandatory-arbitration-policy-evolution-and-supreme-court-precedent/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=sec-mandatory-arbitration-policy-evolution-and-supreme-court-precedent</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/12/30/sec-mandatory-arbitration-policy-evolution-and-supreme-court-precedent/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2025 12:30:26 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities act of 1933]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/?p=178101?d=20251223121833EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Introduction On September 17, 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) published a policy statement concerning the inclusion of mandatory arbitration provisions in registration statements for investor claims arising under the federal securities laws. The policy statement marked an important development in the United States’ securities regulatory regime. For the first time, the Commission directly [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Peter Altman, Marshall Baker and John Patrick Clayton, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, on Tuesday, December 30, 2025 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;">Peter Altman, Marshall Baker, and John Patrick Clayton are Partners at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &amp; Feld LLP. This post is based on an Akin Gump memorandum by Mr. Altman, Mr. Baker, Mr. Clayton, Garrett DeVries, Lauren Huennekens, and Jessica Ro.</p>
</div></hgroup><h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>On September 17, 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) published a <a href="https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/policy/33-11389.pdf">policy statement</a> concerning the inclusion of mandatory arbitration provisions in registration statements for investor claims arising under the federal securities laws. The policy statement marked an important development in the United States’ securities regulatory regime.</p>
<p>For the first time, the Commission directly addressed the role and treatment of mandatory arbitration provisions in registration statements filed under the Securities Act of 1933. In determining that such arbitration provisions will not serve as a basis to grant, deny or otherwise affect the acceleration of registration statements, the Commission’s new approach reflects alignment with established U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. It also marks a shift from previous regulatory interpretations that viewed mandatory arbitration with skepticism, at best.</p>
<p>In this alert, we review the context of the Commission’s policy evolution, the Supreme Court precedents that underpin the changed approach, the implications for issuers, investors and others (especially in light of a recent amendment to Delaware law) and the emerging key practical takeaways.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/12/30/sec-mandatory-arbitration-policy-evolution-and-supreme-court-precedent/#more-178101" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading SEC &#038; Mandatory Arbitration: Policy Evolution and Supreme Court Precedent">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/12/30/sec-mandatory-arbitration-policy-evolution-and-supreme-court-precedent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
