Yearly Archives: 2025

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 »

Proxy Season Global Briefing: Trends on Executive Pay

Kevin Gibb and James McQuerrey are Lead Analysts, and Alicja Bielawska is a Director at Glass, Lewis & Co. This post is based on a Glass Lewis memorandum by Mr. Gibb, Mr. McQuerry, Ms. Bielawska, Matti Jaakkola, Krishna Shah, and Dimitri Zagoroff.

In the fourth installment of our Proxy Season Global Briefing, we provide a rundown of the headlines and key trends relating to executive pay from around the globe. Glass Lewis clients can also access the full report via the content libraries on Viewpoint and Governance Hub. For earlier installments in the series, read part onepart two, and part three.

Whether you call it compensation or remuneration, how — and how much — executives get paid remains a lightning rod for companies and investors around the world. Read on below for this year’s trends.

READ MORE »

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

Samantha Nussbaum and Dina Bernstein are Principals at FW Cook. This post is based on a FW Cook memorandum.

On September 4, 2025, the SEC released its latest Spring 2025 Regulatory Flex Agenda, referred to below as the Agenda, outlining its rulemaking priorities under Chairman Paul Atkins. The Agenda marks a pronounced shift compared to those published under the prior administration, focusing on deregulation and streamlined disclosures. As foreshadowed in recent public remarks by Chairman Atkins and other senior SEC officials, the Agenda rolls back previously proposed ESG-related rulemakings, and while not detailed in this blog entry, contains a significant number of crypto-market related items and reforms.

READ MORE »

Recap of the 2025 Say on Pay Season

Linda Pappas is a Principal, and Perla Cuevas and Montserrat Longoria are Consultants at Pay Governance LLC. This post is based on their Pay Governance memorandum.

Introduction

Pay Governance has gathered information on Say on Pay (SOP) proposal outcomes and total shareholder return (TSR) for S&P 500 companies dating back to when SOP began with the 2011 proxy season. This article places into context how the most recent 2025 SOP outcomes are unfolding compared to recent history beginning in 2021. In both 2024 and 2025, we found that, overall, companies had greater SOP success, with proxy advisor opposition to SOP proposals and the number of companies failing SOP at record lows. Although the year has not yet ended, about 90% of S&P 500 SOP proposals have already been put to a shareholder vote through August 31, 2025.

READ MORE »

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

Po-Hsuan Hsu is the Tsing Hua Chair Professor and NTHU Ching-Jing Distinguished Talent Chair at the National Tsing Hua University, Kai Li is the W.M. Young Professor of Finance and the Canada Research Chair in Corporate Governance at the University of British Columbia, and Yihui Pan is an Associate Professor of Finance at the University of Utah. This post is based on their article forthcoming in Management Science.

Rising interest in board gender diversity has spurred debates in both academia and the business world about what women bring to the boardroom table. Proponents argue that female directors are less likely to succumb to groupthink, better positioned to identify long-term risks and opportunities, and more willing to prioritize stakeholder concerns. Skeptics question whether female directors have a measurable impact on firm outcomes.

Our recent paper, The Eco-Gender Gap in Boardrooms, available here, takes up these questions in the context of corporate environmental performance. We characterize our project as “E meets S and G”: Po has long worked on environmental issues, while Kai and Yihui have focused on corporate governance, including corporate social responsibility. Together, we examine how board gender diversity—a governance issue with social implications—affects firms’ environmental engagement.

Gender Differences in Prioritizing Environmental vs. Economic Issues

We begin with new survey evidence from the Gallup Social Series Poll. Across different income groups and time periods, we find a consistent gender gap: female respondents are more likely than male respondents to prioritize environmental protection over economic growth or energy supply. Male respondents, by contrast, more often emphasize short-run economic or energy benefits.

This finding echoes results from PwC’s Annual Corporate Directors Survey, which shows that female directors are more likely to prioritize environmental issues than their male counterparts. The survey also highlights a persistent challenge: 43% of directors surveyed report that it is difficult to voice a dissenting view in the boardroom.

We propose that one way to increase diversity of thought, especially on complex tradeoffs such as environmental investments, is through gender diversity inside the boardroom. READ MORE »

Page 18 of 75
1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 75