Yearly Archives: 2025

Delaware Court Upholds Private Equity-Led Company Sale Under Business Judgment Rule

Jason Halper, Peter Marshall, and Sara Brauerman are Partners at Vinson & Elkins LLP. This post is based on a Vinson & Elkins memorandum by Mr. Halper, Mr. Marshall, Ms. Brauerman, and Anna Boos, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

On January 7, 2025, Vice Chancellor Glasscock issued a 68-page post-trial decision in Manti Holdings, LLC v. The Carlyle Group Inc., in which he rejected plaintiffs’ claims of breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of Authentix Acquisition Company, Inc. (“Authentix” or the “Company”) to private equity firm Blue Water Energy LLP (“BWE”) in September 2017. The plaintiffs, minority stockholders of Authentix, alleged that the Carlyle Group Inc. and its affiliates (“Carlyle”), as a controlling stockholder, compelled the Authentix board to approve a “fire sale” of the Company to meet its own liquidity needs coinciding with the end of the initial term of the primary Carlyle fund that acquired Authentix. The Court found that, while Carlyle was a controlling stockholder by virtue of its ownership of over 50% of the Company’s common and preferred stock (giving it voting control), and that a majority of the board was not independent of Carlyle, it did not have a disabling conflict of interest nor did it obtain a “non-ratable benefit denied” to other stockholders so as to trigger entire fairness review in connection with the “arms-length” sale to BWE. Applying deferential business judgment rule review, the Court found for the defendants after a seven-day trial in January 2024.

READ MORE »

A New Regulatory Environment for Climate and Other ESG Reporting Rules

Amelie ChampsaurHelena Grannis, and Shuangjun Wang are Partners at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary memorandum by Ms. Champsaur, Ms. Grannis, Ms. Wang, and Léa Delanys.

The Ill-Fated SEC Climate Rule

On March 6, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules “to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures for investors,” which included, among other things, requirements to disclose material climate-related risks and related governance policies and practices and mitigation and adaptation activities, targets and goals, Scope 1 and 2 emissions reports and financial statement effects of severe weather events and other natural conditions, including related costs and expenditures (the Climate Rule). [1]

Almost immediately upon release of the Climate Rule, multiple lawsuits were filed in federal court objecting to the rule on multiple bases, including that the rule is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, the rule exceeds the SEC’s statutory authority and the rule violates the First Amendment by compelling political speech. [2] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was randomly selected as the venue for consolidating the nine filed lawsuits and on April 4, 2024 the SEC voluntarily stayed the rules pending the outcome of the litigation. Briefs have been filed by all parties and the case is currently pending a hearing date.

On December 4, 2024, President-elect Donald Trump announced that Paul Atkins would be his nominee to the SEC as Chairman. Current Chair Gensler and Commissioner Lizárraga both announced their intentions to step down in January 2025 before the inauguration, meaning the SEC will have a majority of Republican Commissioners even before Atkins can be confirmed. The change in administration is expected to bring a deregulatory focus and anticipated reduction in budget and spending for administrative agencies, which, together with the quick turnover at the SEC, is anticipated to mean the end of certain ESG related SEC rulemaking initiatives, including the Climate Rule (along with any new proposed rules on board diversity disclosure and human capital management reporting). Procedurally, the SEC under the new administration could abandon the defense of the rule in court (leading to its vacatur); alternatively, it could take regulatory action to rescind the rule (which would require formal rulemaking, including new notice and comment periods), and, pending a final determination, the SEC could announce that it will not lift the stay or enforce the rule, so that in practice it is never implemented.

READ MORE »

Delaware’s Rocky Year–What Lies Ahead?

Mark E. McDonald and Roger A. Cooper are Partners, and Peter Carzis is an Associate, at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on their Cleary memorandum and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

2024 was a remarkable year in Delaware.

For the first time in as long as anyone can remember, people began to seriously question whether Delaware would retain its dominance as the go-to jurisdiction for incorporating companies. There was an uproar following several decisions by the Delaware Court of Chancery that seemed to shake the market’s confidence in Delaware law’s venerable predictability. One such decision invalidated shareholder agreement provisions that had long been commonplace and another found that a board had not validly approved a merger agreement because, as is typical, the board had not received a draft in final form. At the same time, a certain well-known CEO’s $50 billion compensation package was struck down, leading him to publicly declare “Never incorporate your company in the state of Delaware.” [1]

In the face of this public pressure, the Delaware legislature moved at unprecedented speed to amend the Delaware General Corporation Law in order to “overrule” several of the decisions that caused the most immediate concern (to the consternation of many, including the judges who had decided the cases that were overruled). But a sense of unease persists, especially regarding the Delaware courts’ recent perceived hostility towards controlling stockholders. For this reason, several controlled companies have already elected to leave Delaware for other jurisdictions such as Nevada or Texas–in one such case, the Delaware Court of Chancery found the decision to leave should be reviewed under the entire fairness test, although the Delaware Supreme Court quickly accepted an interlocutory appeal (which remains pending) to reconsider that issue.

Still, notwithstanding the turbulence in Delaware, there has been no mass “DExit.” [2] In large part, that is because it remains unclear whether other jurisdictions would “solve” the perceived problems Delaware is facing. Nevada and Texas, among others, have publicly sought to lure companies away from Delaware, including by setting up dedicated business courts intended to operate like the Delaware Court of Chancery and pointing to differences in their corporate statutes. But it remains to be seen how these courts will operate in practice, and numerous questions abound as to how these states’ corporate laws will be applied in the seemingly countless circumstances that have been addressed by Delaware’s statutory and decisional law over many decades. Meanwhile, notwithstanding the grumbling, Delaware courts remain unparalleled in their sophistication on corporate issues and in their ability to decide complex cases expeditiously.

Below we summarize some of the key developments in Delaware law over the past year and give a preview of what we think is coming in 2025.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: January 31-February 6, 2025


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of January 31-February 6, 2025

Thoughts for Boards: Key Issues in Corporate Governance for 2025



Action Items for U.S. Public Companies for 2025


Financial Institutions MA Key Trends and Outlook


Private Equity for Pension Plans? Evaluating Private Equity Performance from an Investor’s Perspective


CEO and C-Suite ESG Priorities for 2025


Approach to Corporate Enforcement May Become More Business-Friendly


Embedded Culture as a Source of Comparative Advantage


Proxy Voting Policy for U.S. Portfolio Companies


White-Collar and Regulatory Enforcement: What Mattered in 2024 and What to Expect in 2025


How the EU’s Sustainability Due Diligence Directive Could Reshape Corporate America


Looking Ahead to 2025


Outlook for M&A and Activism in 2025


Political Power and Market Power


Anti-ESG Proposals Have Increased in Volume, but Fare Poorly


Anti-ESG Proposals Have Increased in Volume, but Fare Poorly

Jeremy Ho is a Senior Research Analyst at Equilar, Inc. This post is based on his Equilar memorandum.

The movement for greater corporate responsibility over environmental, social and governance issues, commonly known as ESG, has become increasingly prevalent across boardrooms and shareholder meetings in recent years. However, alongside this momentum, there has been growing opposition to corporate ESG initiatives, and groups critical of these efforts have grown in tandem. The debate over ESG has been a hot-button topic for years—further exacerbated since the COVID-19 pandemic—and has only continued to grow in importance within shareholder meetings.

A recent example can be seen in Costco’s latest proxy filing, where the Company defended its DEI program against an anti-ESG proposal that criticized the initiative as financially irresponsible and discriminatory. This comes at a time when an increasing number of companies are rolling back similar programs. The pressure from anti-ESG shareholder proposers continues to grow, making its way into corporate boardrooms.

This Equilar study analyzes all anti-ESG shareholder proposals that have been presented at companies’ general shareholder meetings within the Equilar 500—the 500 largest U.S. public companies by revenue—over the last five years. Shareholder proposals were categorized as anti-ESG if they mention calling for a decrease in claiming corporate responsibility for issues that span environmental, social and governance topics or are critical of investor intervention that call for companies to be held liable for social or environmental issues. READ MORE »

Political Power and Market Power

Bo Cowgill is an Assistant Professor at Columbia Business School, Andrea Prat is the Richard Paul Richman Professor of Business at Columbia Business School, and Tommaso M. Valletti is a Professor of Economics at Imperial College London. This post is based on their recent paper

Does market power lead to political power? This longstanding question, raised by Louis Brandeis in 1914, remains strikingly relevant today. As industries become more concentrated, firms not only shape markets but also seek to influence the regulatory and political landscape. In our study, Political Power and Market Power, we examine this connection using detailed data on U.S. mergers, lobbying expenditures, and campaign contributions over two decades. Our findings suggest that corporate consolidation is often followed by a significant and persistent increase in political influence activities, with implications for policy and governance.

READ MORE »

Outlook for M&A and Activism in 2025

Kyle A. Harris and Kimberly R. Spoerri are Partners at Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on their Cleary Gottlieb memorandum.

Many have predicted an M&A boom in 2025 and recent CEO surveys exhibit rising confidence.

Psychology is as important to the merger market as any human endeavor, so one should not discount the power of renewed optimism to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. We expect reality to be more nuanced, however, although 2025 should be a strong year (the usual caveats about fiscal and macro uncertainty aside).

On the corporate side, as in recent years, portfolio reshaping and de-conglomeration will remain a significant driver of transactions, as the market continues to reward simplicity and focus. We also expect elevated interest in cross-border transactions into the U.S. from European corporates looking for greater exposure to the higher-growth U.S. market.

Ultimately, however, private equity will need to be a key driver of the rebound.

READ MORE »

Looking Ahead to 2025

Krista Parsons is a Managing Director and Bob Lamm is an Independent Senior Advisor at Deloitte LLP. This post is based on their Deloitte memorandum.

Serving on an audit committee in 2025 might be daunting even if the committee could be assured that it would not have to take on any added responsibilities in the new year. After all, even the most basic perennial responsibilities of audit committees, such as overseeing the audit of the financial statements and compliance with financial reporting requirements, are far from routine. However, no such assurance is likely to be forthcoming. In fact, as audit committees contemplate the onset of a new year, the number and complexity of new issues and concomitant responsibilities seem likely to grow.

Moreover, 2025 may be a particularly busy year. With the change in administration, we could see significant changes in regulatory priorities, financial reporting, and corporate governance. Additionally, the increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), ongoing cybersecurity threats, and a renewed focus on enterprise risk management at a time of geopolitical uncertainty will likely keep audit committees busy. And, to the extent that companies face unanticipated risks and challenges, it seems almost inevitable that audit committees will be viewed as the default “home” for such developments.

Given this background, audit committees would be well advised to consider a wide variety of continuing and emerging issues that they may need to deal with in 2025, bearing in mind that a complete list of such issues would be far longer than can be addressed in this publication.

READ MORE »

How the EU’s Sustainability Due Diligence Directive Could Reshape Corporate America

Luca Enriques is a Professor of Business Law at Bocconi University, Matteo Gatti is a Professor of Law at Rutgers Law School, and Roy Shapira is Professor of Law at  Reichman University (IDC). This post is based on their recent paper.

One of the most important developments in corporate governance is the growing divide between the US and the EU on issues of corporate social responsibility. The starkest example of this divide comes from the new EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CS3D). The Directive holds large corporations legally accountable for protecting various human rights and addressing environmental issues, such as forced labor, collective bargaining, biodiversity, and pollution. In fact, companies are required to prevent and remediate these social and environmental harms not just in their own operations, but also in the operations of their subsidiaries and even their suppliers and distributors. Importantly, the CS3D directly applies also to American corporations that generate significant revenues in the European market.

In a new paper, we examine how the Directive will be implemented and enforced in the US.

READ MORE »

White-Collar and Regulatory Enforcement: What Mattered in 2024 and What to Expect in 2025

David B. Anders, Ralph M. Levene, and Randall W. Jackson are Partners at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell memorandum by Mr. Anders, Mr. Levene, Mr. Jackson, Kevin Schwartz, Aline Flodr, and Michael Holt.

As we write this memorandum, President Trump’s second administration is forming in Washington, with new leadership teams being appointed at DOJ, the SEC and across other regulatory and law-enforcement agencies. In 2017, when President Trump first took office, we avoided predicting what the administration’s significant white-collar and regulatory enforcement priorities and policies might be in the absence of noteworthy signals from President Trump or his nominees and in light of the then slow pace of leadership confirmations. Eight years later, however, the lessons from President Trump’s first administration, as well as the track record and statements from his recent nominees and closest advisors, offer some insights into the new administration’s likely enforcement priorities. Given that, we have some thoughts on what to expect from President Trump’s second term:

READ MORE »

Page 67 of 75
1 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75