Monthly Archives: February 2026

Comment Letter on Nasdaq’s Proposed Additional Initial Listing Criteria for Companies Primarily Operating in China

Emmanuel Tamrat is the Senior Research Analyst at the Council of Institutional Investors. This post is based on his CII letter to the SEC.

I write on behalf of the Council of Institutional Investors (CII), a nonprofit, nonpartisan association of U.S. public, corporate and union employee benefit funds, other employee benefit plans, state and local entities charged with investing public assets, and foundations and endowments with combined assets under management of approximately $5.2 trillion. Our member funds include major long-term shareowners with a duty to protect the retirement savings of millions of workers and their families, including public pension funds with more than fifteen million participants – true “Main Street” investors through their pension funds. Our associate members include non-U.S. asset owners with about $5.8 trillion in assets, and a range of asset managers with more than $74 trillion in assets under management.[1]

CII values the opportunity to respond to the SEC’s notice dated December 23, 2025, that it is instituting proceedings on whether to approve or disapprove Nasdaq’s proposed rule regarding the adoption of additional initial listing criteria for companies primarily operating in China.[2] Nasdaq submitted this proposal dated September 3, 2025, in which it seeks a minimum $25 million in proceeds from newly listed companies, along with two other changes concerning Chinese companies, for review by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

READ MORE »

Recent Developments for Directors

Julia ThompsonKeith Halverstam, and Jenna Cooper are Partners at Latham & Watkins LLP. This post is based on a Latham memorandum by Ms. Thompson, Mr. Halverstam, Ms. Cooper, Charles RuckRyan Maierson, and Joel Trotter.

Boards and Committees Sharpen Focus on AI Oversight

AI has become a regular boardroom topic as its applications proliferate and its evolving capabilities pervade daily life. Boards are formalizing AI oversight and signaling that AI is integral to long-term strategy. Nearly half of Fortune 100 company boards have delegated AI oversight to a specific committee, such as the audit or governance committee. Committee responsibilities for AI oversight include the review of AI strategy, deployment, and risks. Boards face a fundamental question of who will own AI governance and the risks and opportunities it poses for the enterprise. Boards are tasking specific directors with oversight of AI-related matters and adding directors with AI expertise to facilitate board-level monitoring and oversight. READ MORE »

Artificial Intelligence in the Boardroom

Beena Ammanath is an Executive Director at Deloitte. This post is based on her Deloitte memorandum.

Artificial intelligence (AI) types and applications are proliferating across industries, from machine learning and Generative AI to agentic systems and physical AI. While the use cases have grown, so, too, have the risks AI creates. For boards, the AI era has exposed new challenges in governance and risk management. Most boards (72%) report having one or more committees responsible for risk oversight, and more than 80% have one or more risk management experts, according to a Deloitte survey. For all the attention and investment in managing other kinds of business risk, AI demands the same treatment.

AI security risks can compromise sensitive data, biased outputs can raise compliance problems, and irresponsible deployment of AI systems can have crosscutting ramifications for the enterprise, consumers, and society at large. Given the impact, boards can serve a vital role in helping the organization address AI risks.

Here are five things board members can do to prepare for the future with AI.

READ MORE »

Succession Planning in Private Equity: A Strategic Imperative for GPs and LPs

Emily Taylor and Heather Hammond are Consultants, and Courtney Byrne is an Associate at Russell Reynolds Associates. This post is based on their Russell Reynolds memorandum.

Private equity (PE) has expanded to an unprecedented scale, with industry assets under management exceeding $15.5 trillion and global buyout firms holding $1.2 trillion in dry powder.[1] Yet despite this growth, complexity, and institutional scrutiny, leadership models have remained largely unchanged, and general partner (GP) turnover remains exceptionally low.

Academic research indicates that only around 6% of GP leaders transition over a five-year period, vs. turnover rates above 50% over comparable horizons for public company CEOs.[2] What was once viewed as a marker of stability is increasingly revealing a different risk: the concentration of authority, economics, and client relationships in a small number of people, amplifying key-person risk.

READ MORE »

Delaware Supreme Court Affirms D&O Coverage

Anthony B. Crawford is Chair of the Insurance Coverage Law Practice at Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP. This post is based on his Olshan memorandum and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

On January 27, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed coverage for Harman International Industries, Inc. (“Harman”) in a $28 million federal securities class action settlement. The court held that the D&O policies’ “bump‑up” provision did not apply to exclude the settlement, even though the underlying Section 14(a) claim alleged inadequate deal consideration in connection with a merger. Harman was acquired by Samsung in a reverse triangular merger.[1] Following the closing, a federal securities class action (the “Baum Action”) was filed alleging violations of Section 14(a) due to allegedly misleading proxy disclosures. The complaint alleged that the management projections used to support the board’s recommendation understated Harman’s standalone strategy and value, thereby depriving stockholders of a fully informed vote and full and fair value. The parties reached a $28 million settlement. Harman tendered the settlement to its D&O carriers, who denied coverage under the policies’ “bump‑up” provision. READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: February 13-19, 2026


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of February 13-19, 2026

CEO and C-Suite ESG Priorities for 2026


A Proxy Odyssey: What Will 2030 U.S. Proxy Season Look Like?


The Art of Indemnifying Attorneys’ Fees for M&A Disputes


US Proxy-Voting Trends: 2025 in Review


Preparing for the 2026 Annual Reporting and Proxy Season


2016 vs 2026: Lessons from a Decade of Corporate Climate Action


2025 Activism Retrospective


Remarks by Chair Atkins on Revitalizing U.S. Capital Markets and State Competition in Corporate Law


SEC Investment Management Director Questions ‘Vote-All’ Proxy Practices and Adviser Reliance on Proxy Advisors


Practicing Law in a Lawless Time


How Boards Can Lead in a World Remade by AI


How Boards Can Lead in a World Remade by AI

Lee Henderson is the Center for Board Matters Leader, and Jamie Smith is the Center for Board Matters Investor Outreach and Corporate Governance Director at EY. This post is based on their EY memorandum.

In brief

  • AI’s impacts on strategy, talent, and risk make it essential for boards to adapt their oversight approaches.
  • The board’s guidance is key to helping companies harness AI for growth, maintain needed skills, and drive accountability for AI’s uses and outputs.
  • Leading boards can fulfill this responsibility by adopting new ways to engage with management, embed AI into oversight, and keep current with AI developments.

Picture this: You’ve just opened your favorite news site to catch up on today’s hot topics. You’re pleased to see a feature article suggesting that your company’s new AI-powered services have poised it for rapid growth. However, you’re taken aback by a headline about another company’s corporate scandal involving the failure to check inaccurate AI-generated information. There’s also an editorial voicing concerns that AI could lead to mass unemployment—a sore spot for you, since the board you sit on has just reviewed a management proposal to cut more than a third of the junior workforce “because now we can do it with AI.”

Events like these are emblematic of how AI is driving significant change on many fronts. Below, we explore three shifts that boards should consider—and how these shifts require directors to challenge old assumptions about how they engage with management, with each other, and with the world around them.

READ MORE »

Practicing Law in a Lawless Time

Leo E. Strine, Jr. is the Michael L. Wachter Distinguished Fellow in Law and Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. This post is based on his recent paper.

There have been many periods in our nation’s history where serious and legitimate questions were raised about the effectiveness and integrity not only of corporate governance practices, but about the corporate bar itself, such as during the financial crisis.  With power and influence come corresponding responsibility.  At the turn of the 19th into the 20th century, figures like Elihu Root and Louis Brandeis advocated for corporate lawyers to counsel America’s burgeoning large corporations to conduct themselves in a law-abiding manner.  In the wake of the market-shaking frauds associated with the savings and loan crisis in the 1980s and companies like Enron and Worldcom around the turn of this century, the legal profession came under close scrutiny again.  The same was true when it came to light that law firms had helped tobacco and other companies develop approaches to shield the harmful impact of their products from public disclosure.

But this moment is different for a fundamental and disturbing reason.  In prior moments, the assumption was that those charged with enforcing the law in an even-handed manner were committed to doing so in good faith.  The questions in prior moments were whether corporations and their legal advisors were taking advantage of the inevitable inability of regulators to catch every violation or to update regulations rapidly enough to address new innovations in areas like finance that hazarded fraud and financial failure.  That is, it could mostly be taken for granted that the government, regardless of which party was in charge, would in the large main be true to the enacted laws of the nation and apply them in a fair, non- retributive, non-discriminatory way. READ MORE »

SEC Investment Management Director Questions ‘Vote-All’ Proxy Practices and Adviser Reliance on Proxy Advisors

Michael A. Asaro, Peter I. Altman, and Jason Daniel are Partners at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. This post is based on an Akin Gump memorandum by Mr. Asaro, Mr. Altman, Mr. Daniel, Douglas A. Rappaport, William K. Wetmore, and Barbara Niederkofler.

Key Points

  • On January 8, 2026, Brian Daly, Director of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management, delivered remarks at the New York City Bar Association addressing proxy voting practices, including whether advisers may have defaulted to automated voting processes that rely heavily on proxy advisory firm recommendations rather than judgments made in their clients’ best interests.
  • Director Daly framed his remarks as part of a broader reassessment of proxy voting practices, encouraging advisers to move away from rote, box-checking approaches and to re-evaluate whether their current practices align with their investment mandates and client objectives.
  • The remarks come amid heightened focus on proxy voting, including a recent Executive Order by President Trump and public statements by SEC Chairman Paul Atkins indicating increased attention to the role of proxy advisors. More broadly, they also reflect an effort across various divisions of the SEC to re-examine longstanding regulatory practices to assess whether they continue to function as intended.

READ MORE »

Remarks by Chair Atkins on Revitalizing U.S. Capital Markets and State Competition in Corporate Law

Paul S. Atkins is the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on his recent remarks. The views expressed in the post are those of Chairman Atkins and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.

Thank you, David [Woodcock], for your generous introduction. And good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am delighted to be here, and grateful for this opportunity to share a few reflections.

Let me begin by thanking our hosts at the Texas A&M University School of Law for convening today’s program. Though only in its second year, the symposium has already earned a reputation for rigor and insight. So, to address leading judges, scholars, and practitioners here, at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, is a profound honor. And before I begin, let me add the customary disclaimer that the views I express here are my own as Chairman and not necessarily those of the SEC as an institution or of the other Commissioners.

Now, some of you may recall that last fall, I addressed a conference at the University of Delaware’s Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance. [1] I spoke candidly about the declining number of public companies in our capital markets and the reforms that I believe are necessary to revitalize them. I also emphasized the important role that States play in these reforms, especially in the areas of litigation reform and shareholder proposals. That speech took place during a period when prominent firms were raising concerns about continuing to be domiciled in Delaware, with some moving elsewhere and encouraging others to follow suit. [2]

READ MORE »

Page 2 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6