Monthly Archives: June 2026

The Effective Board: A Guide to Drive Board Performance

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

What does it take for a board to be truly effective today, what gets in the way, and how are leading boards overcoming those barriers?

In brief

  • Directors say the quality and flow of information from management is a key driver of board effectiveness, but performance is uneven across boards.
  • Boards want more time on AI, talent and geopolitics, and leading boards improve information and meeting practices to get it instead of just adding hours.
  • Directors see board composition as an area of weakness, but many are taking steps to refresh membership to acquire new skills.

Your board agenda is packed, your board book is longer than ever, and the topics that matter most are moving faster than the scheduled meeting cycle. Coupled with stakeholders’ rising expectations of board members and activists on the hunt for targets, directors cannot afford missteps. The fundamentals of board effectiveness are urgently needed to navigate a world whose challenges are becoming daily more acute.

READ MORE »

First Court of Chancery Decision Interpreting New DGCL Amendments Provides Greater Certainty for Boards and M&A

Rick Horvath and Eric Siegel are Partners, and Molly Wang is an Associate at Dechert LLP. This post is based on their Dechert memorandum and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Key Takeaways

  • In 2025, sweeping amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”) were adopted, including a new Section 144 safe harbor for conflicted transactions and a heightened presumption of director disinterestedness.
  • The Court of Chancery recently applied this presumption of director disinterestedness to a derivative complaint outside of the Section 144 safe harbor, and made clear that bare allegations of director compensation, overlapping board service, business relationships, and minority co-investments in professional sports teams will not suffice to rebut the presumption of director disinterestedness.
  • While addressed in the context of a derivative complaint, the Court’s analysis provides helpful guidance and, if applied in future cases, would remove much of the uncertainty related to conflicted transactions.

READ MORE »

U.S. Proxy Season: Say-on-Pay, One-Time Awards, and Equity Plan Trends

Subodh Mishra is the Global Head of Communications at ISS STOXX. This post is based on an ISS-Corporate memorandum by Tim Sessing, Compensation & Governance Advisory Associate, and Chris Sayo, Senior Associate for Data Analytics at ISS-Corporate.

Strength in Say-on-pay outcomes suggests that investors view most compensation programs as reasonably aligned with performance, even as certain pay practices—such as one-time equity awards—persist.

The 2026 U.S. proxy season reflects continued strength in Say-on-Pay (SOP) outcomes relative to recent years. While headline voting results jump to a five-year high, shifts in both the prevalence and structure of one-time equity awards suggest that companies are once again relying on targeted compensation tools to address retention, leadership transitions, and ongoing market uncertainty. Meanwhile, activity related to equity plan proposals remains elevated, reinforcing the central role of equity in pay design. These dynamics point to broad but nuanced investor support for key executive compensation proposals.

READ MORE »

Opting Out of Court? Reputation and Informal Norms in Private Equity

Kobi Kastiel is a Professor of Law at Tel Aviv University, and Yaron Nili is a Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law. This post is based on their recent article, forthcoming in the Vanderbilt Law Review.

Private equity sits at the heart of global finance. This $13 trillion industry thrives on contracts that lock in billions of dollars over decades, and on relationships between investors—the limited partners (“LPs”)—and the general partners (“GPs”) who manage their money. In an arena where LPs hand over vast sums, have limited say during a fund’s life, and have few exit options, one would expect courts to play a central role in policing the relationship. Yet they do not. In stark contrast to public markets, where shareholder litigation helps deter misconduct and shape corporate norms, private equity operates in a near-litigation-free zone. Lawsuits against GPs are rare, and when they happen, they are reserved for the most egregious breaches, such as outright fraud.

This presents a genuine puzzle. In an industry where fiduciary conflicts and misaligned incentives are not uncommon, why do LPs almost never turn to the courts to enforce their rights? And if litigation is largely off the table, how does the industry resolve disputes and discipline misconduct?

In a new Article, forthcoming in the Vanderbilt Law Review, we offer the first account of the rarity of litigation in private equity, of its underlying causes, and of the ecosystem of extralegal relations and informal norms that serves as a partial substitute for formal legal channels. Drawing on a proprietary dataset of limited partnership agreements (“LPAs”), a comprehensive search of four decades of state and federal litigation, and a unique set of interviews with senior investment officers and legal advisors to both LPs and GPs, we make three contributions to the literature on private equity.

READ MORE »

Delaware Court of Chancery Dismisses Stockholder Claims as Derivative, Unripe, and Untimely

Robin Wechkin is a Counsel and Madison Ferraro is a Managing Associate at Sidley Austin LLP. This post is based on their Sidley memorandum and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

On April 13, 2026, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed all 12 claims asserted in The Gregory M. Raiff 2000 Trust v. Jenzabar, Inc., 2026 WL 992587 (Del. Ch. Apr. 13, 2026). Some claims were exclusively derivative, some were unripe, some were time-barred, and some were deficient for a combination of these reasons. The court cited Brookfield’s holding that dilution claims without more are derivative and rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that their claims fell within two exceptions to Brookfield. The opinion also reinforces the well-established distinction between indemnification and advancement of fees and illustrates the perils for plaintiffs who file too early or too late.

READ MORE »

Delaware Court of Chancery Interprets New Section 144 and Applies Heightened Presumption of Director Independence

Amy Simmerman and Brad Sorrels are Partners and Jordan Cramer is an Associate at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. This post is based on a Wilson Sonsini memorandum by Ms. Simmerman, Mr. Sorrels, Ms. Cramer, Daniyal Iqbal, and Shannon German, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

On June 15, 2026, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an Opinion interpreting Section 144 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the DGCL), the landmark statutory measure adopted last year to provide safe harbors for certain conflicted transactions and address director independence, among other reforms.[1] The Opinion arose in a common context in Delaware stockholder litigation: claims over director and management compensation. In the decision, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will applied, for the first time, the statute’s heightened presumption of independence for directors of public companies determined by the board to be independent under the relevant NYSE or Nasdaq listing standards to dismiss derivative claims on demand futility grounds.

READ MORE »

AI in Incentive Plans: Opportunity, Risk, and the Role of the Compensation Committee

Pat Haggerty is a Managing Director at Pearl Meyer & Partners, LLC. This post is based on his Pearl Meyer memorandum.

Summary: As AI reshapes business performance, compensation committees face new governance questions around measurement integrity, accountability, and whether existing incentive frameworks still reflect how value is created.

READ MORE »

Shareholder Activism Approaching the 2026 Midpoint: Trends, Lessons, and What to Expect for the Rest of the Season

Sebastian Alsheimer is a Partner and Head of the Shareholder Engagement and Activism Defense Practice, J.T. Ho is a Partner, and Paul J. Shim is a Partner and Co-Leader of the Americas M&A Group at Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP.

As the 2026 proxy season approaches its midpoint, the early data confirm rather than reverse the structural shifts that defined 2025. Shareholder activism remains a feature of the public markets that virtually every issuer must confront, whatever its size, maturity, reputation, or governance profile. So far in 2026, activists have launched more campaigns than they did in the same period last year. They have pressed for more M&A demands, concentrated their activity among a familiar set of well-capitalized hedge funds, and turned their attention toward larger companies and the technology sector. Settlements remain the main path to the boardroom, even though board seats have grown harder to win. This post offers a mid-season assessment in two parts: the key issues that have emerged so far, and the lessons and outlook for the rest of the year. Unless we note otherwise, the figures below come from Deal Point Data and cover identified activist campaigns launched between January 1 and June 1 of each year, at companies with a market capitalization of at least $300 million.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: June 19-25, 2026


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of June 19-25, 2026

Stay Grounded on Moonshot IPOs


Supreme Court: SEC May Seek Disgorgement of Profits Without Proving Investor Loss



AI Drafting Board Minutes? Hold Up, Wait a Minute. It’s Complicated






Explaining Delaware’s Dominance




CEO Pay Levels in the U.S. Are Converging Amid Increased Benchmarking



What Directors’ Career Histories May Reveal About the Capabilities of Fortune 100 Company Boards

Christine Davine is a Managing Partner, Caroline Schoenecker is a Managing Director, and Jamie McCall is a Research & Insights Manager at Deloitte LLP. This post is based on a Deloitte memorandum by Ms. Davine, Ms. Schoenecker, Mr. McCall, Elizabeth Molacek, and Timothy Murphy.

As businesses face volatility and market shifts, many corporate boards are having to make critical decisions amid heightened uncertainty to help top management deliver growth while strengthening resilience. Against this backdrop, improving board composition could be a key strategy for enterprises seeking to build long-term strength. This potential is underscored by a recent Deloitte Global survey of 739 board directors and C-suite executives, in which 38% of respondents identified it as a leading driver of long-term resilience, second only to open communication between the board and the CEO (66%).

Having broader functional experience in the boardroom could help enterprises adapt more effectively to shifting market conditions. To assess that potential, we examined how directors’ career backgrounds may influence the capabilities of Fortune 100 boards, drawing on the last six leadership roles held by each director (see “About the data”).[1] The objective is practical: to provide a baseline for board refreshment discussions and help focus director education efforts.

READ MORE »

Page 1 of 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7