<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/05/21/rebuttal-to-delaware-law-permits-companies-to-adopt-mandatory-arbitration-clauses/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 20:45:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Rebuttal to &#8220;Delaware Law Permits Companies to Adopt Mandatory Arbitration Clauses&#8221;</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/05/21/rebuttal-to-delaware-law-permits-companies-to-adopt-mandatory-arbitration-clauses/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rebuttal-to-delaware-law-permits-companies-to-adopt-mandatory-arbitration-clauses</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/05/21/rebuttal-to-delaware-law-permits-companies-to-adopt-mandatory-arbitration-clauses/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 11:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Academic Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Arbitration Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities and Exchange Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SpaceX]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/?p=181298?d=20260520161255EDT</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Delaware Law Does Bar Mandatory Arbitration of Federal Securities Claims In an earlier post for the Harvard Forum on Corporate Governance, Freshfields lawyers Doru Gavril and Mia Tsui argue that, “contrary to conventional wisdom,” Delaware law permits public companies to adopt mandatory arbitration clauses for federal securities claims in their charters and bylaws. But their [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Mohsen Manesh (University of Oregon), on Thursday, May 21, 2026 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="https://law.uoregon.edu/directory/faculty-staff/all/mohsen">Mohsen Manesh</a> is the Mr. &amp; Mrs. L.L. Stewart Professor of Business Law at the University of Oregon School of Law.</p>
</div></hgroup><h3>Delaware Law Does Bar Mandatory Arbitration of Federal Securities Claims</h3>
<p>In an earlier <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/05/13/delaware-law-permits-companies-to-adopt-mandatory-arbitration-clauses-for-federal-securities-claims/">post for the Harvard Forum on Corporate Governance</a>, Freshfields lawyers Doru Gavril and Mia Tsui argue that, “contrary to conventional wisdom,” Delaware law permits public companies to adopt mandatory arbitration clauses for federal securities claims in their charters and bylaws. But their hyper-textual reading of DGCL § 115(c) is wrong. It conflicts with the statute&#8217;s own legislative synopsis, the parallel architecture between DGCL § 115(a) and (c), and the unanimous reading of the corporate bar. The Federal Arbitration Act preemption argument they advance is not new, and it is not the slam dunk it claims to be.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/05/21/rebuttal-to-delaware-law-permits-companies-to-adopt-mandatory-arbitration-clauses/#more-181298" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Rebuttal to &#8220;Delaware Law Permits Companies to Adopt Mandatory Arbitration Clauses&#8221;">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/05/21/rebuttal-to-delaware-law-permits-companies-to-adopt-mandatory-arbitration-clauses/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
