Monthly Archives: March 2026

Impact of Tariffs on 2025 and 2026 Incentives

Mike Kesner is a Partner at Pay Governance LLC. This post is based on his Pay Governance memorandum.

Introduction

The impact of tariffs and potential tariff refunds will require companies to closely examine 2025 and 2026 incentive plan payouts to ensure fairness to management and shareholders. The unfortunate timing of both the imposition of new tariffs in 2025 and the possibility of a tariff refund—should the Supreme Court determine the new tariffs were unlawful in the coming weeks—makes it highly unlikely that incentive plan targets incorporated these unplanned events. This may require after‑the‑fact compensation committee decision‑making and possibly the exercise of discretion to ensure a fair outcome. To the extent companies have incorporated certain tariffs into 2026 incentive plan targets that turn out to be unlawful, adjustments may also need to be made to those targets.

READ MORE »

Will Curbs on Proxy Advisors Make Shareholder Votes Less Predictable?

Elizabeth R. Gonzalez-Sussman is a Partner, Ron S. Berenblat is of Counsel, and Roy Cohen is an Associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on their Skadden memorandum.

Key Points

  • The role of proxy advisors in shareholder voting is changing, as some institutional investors take that decision-making in-house and regulators challenges the use of DEI and ESG factors in voting recommendations.
  • Some votes may now be determined by internal stewardship teams, in part with the use of AI tools.
  • As decision-making by institutional investors becomes less centralized, companies will need to reassess the way they build support for important votes.
  • Companies may also need to refine proxy and other disclosures to make sure that rationales and explanations are clear, with an eye to the way they could be read by AI models.

READ MORE »

Pause, Pivot, Pressure

Kai H.E. Liekefett and Derek Zaba are Partners at Sidley Austin LLP. This post is based on a Diligent piece by Mr. Liekefett, Mr. Zaba, Josh Black, and Antoinette Giblin.

2025 offered a reminder, to boards and investors alike, that shareholder activism does not move in a straight line.

Market volatility, best exemplified by the second-quarter turmoil surrounding “Liberation Day,” prompted many activists to pause or recalibrate. Engagement rebounded with force in the second half of the year, a period marked by the speed with which participants adapted. This reinforced a theme we always tell clients: activism is no longer limited to the traditional proxy season, but rather is a persistent and structural feature of the public company environment.

READ MORE »

Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of SB21 Provisions Providing Safe Harbors for Controlling Stockholder Transactions

Arthur R. Bookout, Edward B. Micheletti, and Joseph O. Larkin are Partners at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on a Skadden memorandum by Mr. Bookout, Mr. Micheletti, Mr. Larkin, Cliff C. Gardner, Jenness E. Parker, and Faiz Ahmad, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Executive Summary

  • What’s new: The Delaware Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of amendments to the DGCL under SB21, which provide procedural safe harbors for transactions involving controlling stockholders.
  • Why it matters: The decision shields directors, officers and controlling stockholders from equitable relief and damages if safe harbor provisions are met.
  • What to do next: Companies should ensure that transactions with controlling stockholders are approved by an informed committee of disinterested directors and/or disinterested minority stockholders to benefit from the safe harbor protections.

READ MORE »

Remarks by Chair Atkins on Disclosure Reform and Financial Innovation

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.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to our first Investor Advisory Committee meeting of the year. Before I make some opening remarks, let me offer 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. Of course, I should also like to acknowledge those of you for whom today marks your final IAC meeting. This Committee has an important mission to give considered input to the Commission. I am grateful for the service that you have given—and for the contributions that you have made. READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: March 6-12, 2026


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of March 6-12, 2026


Key Issues for Companies and Activist Investors Heading into the 2026 Proxy Season



Five Ways AI Could Transform Coming Proxy Seasons


Delaware Supreme Court Reverses Moelis


Top Governance & Stewardship Trends for 2026


Quarterly Review on Q4 2025 Trends in M&A, Activism and Corporate Governance


CEO Tenure is More Important than the CEO-Chair Debate


Shareholder Activism in Life Sciences: Risks, Responses, and Outlook



Winter 2026 ESG Investing Quarterly Update


The 2025 Activist Watchlist


The 2025 Activist Watchlist

Josh Black is the Editor-in-Chief and Antoinette Giblin is Publications Editor at Diligent Market Intelligence (DMI). This post is based on their Diligent memorandum.

Each year, Diligent Market Intelligence (DMI) creates a ranking of the most prolific activists over the past year, based on the quantity and size of their activist investments, comprehensively derived from the DMI database.

The following categories have been used to create a points-based ranking of each activist for this year’s list: number of companies publicly subjected to activist demands, average market capitalization of targeted companies, success of public demands and the depth of news coverage on the activist on DMI in 2025. The methodology excludes investors that do not regularly employ an activist strategy and have targeted fewer than three companies in the period.

READ MORE »

Winter 2026 ESG Investing Quarterly Update

Elizabeth Goldberg is a Partner, and Rachel Mann and Yara Ismael are Associates at Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. This post is based on their Morgan Lewis memorandum.

This update summarizes key recent developments regarding legislative, regulatory, litigation, and enforcement updates related to environmental, social, and governance (ESG), with a particular focus on federal agency enforcement trends and executive orders, state proxy voting and disclosure laws, and climate initiative updates.

ESG investing continues to be subject to political attention, with related regulatory and litigation challenges. From state laws regulating ESG-investment considerations and disclosure mandates to efforts by the US administration to rescind or replace prior federal guidance, the ESG landscape is rapidly evolving in both substance and focus. For asset managers, fiduciaries, and companies, these developments raise increasingly complex compliance considerations and legal risks.

READ MORE »

US AI Oversight Through Three Lenses: Investor Expectations, the S&P 100 and Company-Specific Analysis

Sarah Wenger is the Lead Analyst of Policy and Content at Glass Lewis. This post is based on her Glass Lewis memorandum.

Key Takeaways

  • U.S. investors increasingly expect board-level oversight and disclosure of AI governance, with most favoring formalized oversight structures and transparent reporting.
  • Among S&P 100 companies, just over half disclose board-level AI oversight and fewer than one-third disclose both oversight and a formal AI policy, which may reflect uneven governance practices amid limited regulatory guidance.
  • Company approaches to AI governance can vary significantly, as shown by the differing approaches from Meta, Citigroup and Lockheed Martin.
  • AI-related risks, including bias, copyright infringement, cybersecurity threats, fraud, and reputational harm, are increasing in frequency and materiality, prompting heightened investor scrutiny and shareholder proposals.
  • In the absence of comprehensive regulatory guardrails, evolving SEC recommendations and shareholder expectations are likely to drive more robust AI governance frameworks and enhanced disclosure practices in upcoming proxy seasons.

READ MORE »

Shareholder Activism in Life Sciences: Risks, Responses, and Outlook

Leonard Wood is Chair of the Shareholder Activism and Takeover Defense Practice, and Rob Masella is Co-Head of the Public M&A and Life Sciences M&A Groups at Goodwin Procter LLP. This post is based on their Goodwin memorandum.

Shareholder activism in the life sciences sector has intensified in recent years, with activist funds and other event-driven investors increasingly targeting companies to influence management, governance, strategy, and capital deployment. Since 2020, more than 320 public campaigns and related engagements have been initiated across life sciences and healthcare companies, driven largely by the prevalence of pre-revenue business models, binary valuation dynamics tied to clinical and regulatory inflection points, persistent trading below cash or asset value, and the susceptibility of companies in these industries to activist narratives on strategic optionality and capital allocation.

For boards and management teams, understanding the evolving activism landscape, identifying vulnerability indicators, and implementing proactive preparedness measures have become essential components of effective oversight and management. This article reviews major activism trends from 2025, analyzes the structural and market dynamics that shape life sciences campaigns, and offers practical guidance for companies preparing for activism in 2026 and beyond.

READ MORE »

Page 4 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6