Yearly Archives: 2025

Activism in 2025 and Beyond: Universal Proxy, Litigation Leverage and a New Playbook for Preparedness

Bill Roegge, Jamie Leigh, and Sean W. Brownridge are Partners at Cooley LLP. This post is based on a Cooley memorandum by Mr. Roegge, Ms. Leigh, Mr. Brownridge, and Polina Demina.

Activism didn’t pause in 2025 – it evolved.

Campaign counts are up, tactics have multiplied, and boards are settling faster and earlier. As Goldman Sachs’ Neil Rudisill put it on Cooley’s Market Talks panel, “We’re on track for probably the third largest year ever in terms of activism,” with US campaign levels up roughly 11% year-over-year through late summer and Q1/Q3-heavy “velocity” as funds recalibrated around tariff-driven volatility. Just as notably, the center of gravity continues to shift toward operational and M&A demands, with activists reenergized by stronger equity markets, an improving regulatory landscape for dealmaking and buoyant sponsor appetite.

Below are the trends that matter most for boards and management teams heading into 2026 – and the clear-day steps to get ready.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: October 17-23, 2025


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of October 17-23, 2025

Withhold Campaigns: Communications Considerations for Companies


U.S. Government Shutdown: What Public Companies Should Know


Holding Power: S&P 500 Snapshot


Chastain: Pushing the Boundaries of Insider Trading


The Board’s Role in CEO and Director Compensation


The Next Era of Sustainability Leadership: CEO Survey Shows the Business Case is Now


Tokyo Stock Exchange Initiative on Cost of Capital and Stock Price Conscious Management


Red Herring: Shareholder Proposals and Director Elections



How Board and C-Suite Collaboration Can Build Organizational Resilience


2025 Annual Corporate Directors Survey: Driving a Culture of Accountability in the Boardroom


When Should Boards Fight


When Should Boards Fight

John Johnston is Counsel at Vinson & Elkins LLP, and Christine O’Brien is a Senior Advisor at Edelman Smithfield. This post was prepared for the Forum by Mr. Johnston, Ms. O’Brien, Francisco Morales Barrón, and Lex Suvanto.

In the headlines today, it is common to see announcements about activist campaigns or activists taking equity positions in public companies. Nonetheless, full-scale proxy fights have become relatively rare. Most public company boards opt to settle with activists, seeking to avoid costly, time-intensive and uncertain contests that distract directors and management from running their business. Settlements are widely viewed as a way to preserve value, reduce disruption and maintain greater control over outcomes.

As advisors, we always advocate that companies engage in constructive dialogue with shareholders. However, settlements are not always in the best interest of the company and its broader shareholder base. Some activist demands pose risks that no responsible board can accept, making a full-fledged proxy fight necessary to protect the company from unacceptable terms and potential value destruction. Boards and management teams must understand the various dynamics at play, the pros and cons of settling and when it may be advisable to resist settling and commence a fight. In the following paragraphs, we weigh the benefits of settlement versus prosecuting a proxy fight and highlight certain settlement terms and tactics that should be opposed.

READ MORE »

2025 Annual Corporate Directors Survey: Driving a Culture of Accountability in the Boardroom

Ray Garcia is a Partner, Paul DeNicola is a Principal, and Catie Hall is a Director at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on a PwC memorandum by Mr. Garcia, Mr. DeNicola, Ms. Hall, and Ariel Smilowitz.

Introduction

The role of a corporate director has never been more challenging — or more critical. 2025 has continued to usher in a wave of disruptive forces, ranging from an uncertain regulatory environment and geopolitical instability to artificial intelligence (AI) transformation. The complexity of board responsibilities is only expanding under the weight of these external pressures, demanding a deeper commitment and more active participation from directors to provide effective oversight.

As this complexity has grown, so has a sense of dissatisfaction among directors about the boardroom experience. For the first time, PwC’s Annual Corporate Directors Survey reveals that more than half of directors believe at least one fellow board member should be replaced. What is fueling this perception of underperformance? Is it a lack of commitment or specialized expertise? Or is it symptomatic of deeper cultural barriers that limit open, candid dialogue in the boardroom?

Our survey of over 600 public company directors suggests that simply relying on current practices or maintaining the status quo is no longer sufficient. Just as executives and employees have continually reinvented themselves to stay relevant, board members must adapt and evolve for the success of their companies.

READ MORE »

How Board and C-Suite Collaboration Can Build Organizational Resilience

Anna Marks is the Global Chair, Prof. Dr. Arno Probst is the Global Boardroom Program Leader, and Benjamin Finzi is the Global CEO Program Leader at Deloitte LLP. This post is based on a Deloitte memorandum by Ms. Marks, Prof. Dr. Probst, Mr. Finzi, and Karen Edelman.

From economic volatility to technological advancement: Tracking the shift in board and C-suite priorities

Building resilience today can require organizations to respond to near-term opportunities, challenges, and risk-related priorities while also maintaining focus on longer-term goals and growth opportunities. When it comes to risks, however, the survey shows that boards and C-suite respondents are juggling multiple priorities simultaneously.

The survey asked respondents to identify their top immediate (2025) and longer-term priorities (2026 and beyond). What is interesting is the shift in priorities depending on the time horizon being considered.

In the short term, through 2025, survey respondents say they’re focused most on geopolitical and economic volatility (55%), security and cybersecurity (50%), and rapid technological advancements and digital disruption (42%). And although human capital ranks fourth, at 41%, it’s a top near-term concern for a sizable number of respondents as well (figure 1).

READ MORE »

The Call of Conscience and the Current Moment: A Reflection Honoring William T. Allen and John L. Weinberg

Leo E. Strine, Jr. is the Michael L. Wachter Distinguished Fellow in Law and Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and a Senior Fellow at the Harvard Program on Corporate Governance. This post is based on his recent keynote lecture and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Abstract

This keynote lecture honors the intellectual contributions of John L. Weinberg and William T. Allen on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. The lecture surfaces common themes in the extensive writings of Chancellor and Professor Allen on corporate governance, and in the singular lengthy writing of John Weinberg, his senior thesis focusing on the critical role of boards of directors in governing public companies. Both considered it critical to educate corporate leaders about their duties, and the relationship those duties had to not just the best interests of the corporation and its stockholders, but to society itself. Both also stressed the need for high integrity corporate leadership, characterized by a commitment to speak with candor and act with independence when that was necessary to do what was right. Both believed deeply in the nation’s commitment to the rule of law and freedom, and believed that principled corporate leadership was vital to ensuring that our society as a whole benefited from a market economy. The lecture addresses these themes and finishes by relating them to the current moment during which fundamental principles Weinberg and Allen accepted as essential to our society are under serious challenge, and the ethical and moral questions this moment poses to leaders of not just business corporations, but of all key institutions in our society.

READ MORE »

Red Herring: Shareholder Proposals and Director Elections

Allison Wyderka is the Director of 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.

Key Takeaway

Shareholder proposals that seek to promote ESG measures tend to gain significant attention. However, director elections tend to have a much greater impact on corporations. Thus, activist shareholders tend to focus on what matters and so should the public at large.

READ MORE »

Tokyo Stock Exchange Initiative on Cost of Capital and Stock Price Conscious Management

Haruyuki Yamashita is the Head of Policy Engagement at the Tokyo Stock Exchange New York Office.

Introduction

The Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE) has advanced governance reforms through Japan’s Corporate Governance Code and related initiatives, with the aim of supporting sustainable growth and enhancing corporate value over the mid- to long-term. In April 2022, TSE restructured its market segments to provide an attractive cash equity market that underpins the sustainable growth and corporate value creation of listed companies, while gaining strong support from a diverse base of domestic and international investors.

Among the new market segments, the Prime Market has been positioned as one “centered on constructive dialogue with global investors.” Correspondingly, the revised Corporate Governance Code introduced specific requirements applicable only to Prime Market companies, most notably the raising of the minimum threshold for independent outside directors to one-third of the board and the strengthening of English disclosures which has been a longstanding request, particularly from overseas investors. These measures go beyond the traditional “defensive” role of governance, such as preventing corporate scandals, and place equal emphasis on “proactive” governance, which enhances companies’ capacity to generate earnings. The latter has gained particular importance as Japan seeks to shift from a deflationary, cost reduction-oriented economy toward a growth economy driven by wage increases and investment, where companies are expected to take appropriate risk in pursuit of sustainable growth and corporate value enhancement.

Against this backdrop, in March 2023 TSE launched a new initiative requesting that listed companies implement “management that is conscious of the cost of capital and stock price” (hereafter, the “TSE Initiative”). The TSE Initiative seeks to encourage management to strengthen capital efficiency and pursue strategies that enhance mid- to long-term corporate value by improving profitability, raising valuation metrics, and earning investor confidence. The TSE Initiative has attracted significant attention both domestically and abroad, serving as a reference point for other exchanges in Asia.

This article will revisit the rationale behind the TSE Initiative, review its progress to date, and provide an assessment of its current status.

READ MORE »

The Next Era of Sustainability Leadership: CEO Survey Shows the Business Case is Now

Sam Eastwood is a Partner, James Ford is an Associate, and Elinam Amegadzie is a Trainee Solicitor at Mayer Brown LLP. This post is based on their Mayer Brown memorandum.

Sustainability has undergone a profound transformation over the past two decades.  What began as a moral movement—rooted in reputation management and risk mitigation—has increasingly become a strategic business imperative.  The latest annual report published by the UN Global Compact and Accenture [1] underlines how the business case for sustainability leadership to be at the core of a company’s strategy is stronger than ever.  The report highlights the acceleration and complexity of global sustainability regulations, draws on the insights of nearly 2,000 CEOs across 128 countries, and outlines some of the compliance challenges presented by regulatory fragmentation.

Among other things, the report finds that 86% of CEOs are reporting steps to integrate sustainability into their business and that 88% believe the business case for sustainability is stronger than it was five years ago.  Yet, only half feel comfortable communicating their progress publicly, reflecting a tension derived from external stakeholder scrutiny, the politicisation of ESG issues, and recent pushback against the EU’s sustainability legislative agenda. Notwithstanding these obstacles, 99% of CEOs intend to maintain or expand their commitments going forwards.  Indeed, the report sets out five critical themes for CEOs and businesses to consider implementing to drive forward the next era of sustainability leadership.

READ MORE »

The Board’s Role in CEO and Director Compensation

Kyle Eastman is a Partner, and Grace Tan is a Senior Analyst at Compensation Advisory Partners. This post is based on their CAP memorandum.

Executive and non-employee director compensation are two of the most visible and scrutinized responsibilities of the board. Yet, even among the largest companies, governance practices diverge on two fundamental questions: Who approves CEO pay – the compensation committee or the full board – and who oversees director pay – the compensation committee or the nominating/governance committee?

To better understand prevailing practices, CAP examined governance disclosures among the 110 largest companies in the S&P 500 (the ten largest by market capitalization in each GICS sector). Our findings confirm that board practice is far from uniform. This article presents CAP’s findings and explores the trade-offs between the various approaches.

READ MORE »

Page 13 of 75
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 75