Monthly Archives: June 2026

Tracking Shareholder Proposals and Company Exclusions: Mid-Season Observations

Courteney Keatinge is the Vice President of ESG Research and Dimitri Zagoroff is a Senior Editor at Glass, Lewis & Co. This post is based on their Glass Lewis memorandum.

Key Takeaways

In the absence of SEC no-action relief, companies are moving to exclude far fewer shareholder proposals — which has largely offset the reported decline in the number of proposals
The proponent’s identity matters: companies are seeking to omit more proposals submitted by individual shareholders, while allowing proposals from institutional and “anti-ESG” proponents onto the ballot.

The SEC’s current “no objection” approach creates a more complex landscape for engagement and negotiation, while leaving boards (and the SEC itself) exposed to litigation.
The number of shareholder proposals covering social topics continues to decline, while the proportion focusing on governance continues to surge.

How has the SEC’s new approach to no-action requests [1] impacted the shareholder proposal landscape? It’s a question that Glass Lewis is monitoring throughout this year’s U.S. proxy season.

Four months into the year, and with proxy season at its peak, some notable trends are emerging. In the second instalment of an ongoing series on shareholder proposals and company exclusions, we share what we’ve observed at meetings held through April 30.

READ MORE »

Tracking Shareholder Proposals and Company Exclusions: Mid-Season Observations

Courteney Keatinge is the Vice President of ESG Research and Dimitri Zagoroff is a Senior Editor at Glass Lewis. This post is based on their Glass Lewis memorandum.

Key Takeaways

  • In the absence of SEC no-action relief, companies are moving to exclude far fewer shareholder proposals — which has largely offset the reported decline in the number of proposals being filed.
  • The proponent’s identity matters: companies are seeking to omit more proposals submitted by individual shareholders, while allowing proposals from institutional and “anti-ESG” proponents onto the ballot.
  • The SEC’s current “no objection” approach creates a more complex landscape for engagement and negotiation, while leaving boards (and the SEC itself) exposed to litigation.
  • The number of shareholder proposals covering social topics continues to decline, while the proportion focusing on governance continues to surge.

How has the SEC’s new approach to no-action requests[1] impacted the shareholder proposal landscape? It’s a question that Glass Lewis is monitoring throughout this year’s U.S. proxy season.

Four months into the year, and with proxy season at its peak, some notable trends are emerging. In the second instalment of an ongoing series on shareholder proposals and company exclusions, we share what we’ve observed at meetings held through April 30.

READ MORE »

Corporate M&As and Labor Market Concentration: Efficiency Gains or Power Grabs?

David Cicero is a Professor of Finance and Mo Shen is an Associate Professor of Finance at Auburn University’s Harbert College of Business; and Jaideep Shenoy is an Associate Professor of Finance at the University of Connecticut School of Business. This post is based on their recent article, forthcoming in the Journal of Finance.

Mergers and acquisitions reshape not only the product markets that firms operate in, but also the labor markets where firms compete for workers. When two firms that compete for labor merge, labor market concentration can increase substantially. This raises an important and increasingly policy-relevant question: do mergers create value by improving labor efficiency, or by increasing employers’ power over workers?

The issue has become central to modern antitrust debates. The 2023 Merger Guidelines issued by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission explicitly recognize labor market effects as a key dimension of merger review. Policymakers and scholars have increasingly expressed concern that mergers may create monopsony power in labor markets, allowing firms to suppress wages or reduce employment opportunities for workers. At the same time, mergers may generate legitimate labor efficiency gains through workforce integration. READ MORE »

Evolving Legal and Regulatory Dynamics for DEI Challenges and its Impact on Corporate Disclosures

Michael Delikat is a Partner, Lauren Goldsmith is a Senior Associate, and Hayden Goudy is Director of Responsible Solutions at Orrick. This post is based on their Orrick memorandum.

The legal and regulatory landscape surrounding corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs has undergone significant transformation over the past year. What started with an Executive Order (EO) signed by President Trump on the day he was inaugurated for his second term in early 2025 has quickly expanded into coordinated, multi-federal agency and states attorneys general enforcement efforts—one that now impacts nearly every aspect of corporate DEI strategy. Federal contractors and subcontractors, in particular, face new certification requirements and heightened risk of potential False Claims Act (FCA) liability. At the same time, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has intensified its scrutiny of DEI initiatives leading to litigation and subpoena enforcement efforts, and companies must navigate an increasingly complex patchwork of sometimes conflicting state and federal requirements.

These changes have already begun to reshape how public companies approach and disclose information to their shareholders about their own diversity initiatives. In 2025, we observed early signs that S&P 500 companies were revising, shortening, or eliminating DEI-related disclosures from their 10-K filings.[1] That trend has accelerated sharply: by early 2026, only 55 percent of S&P 500 companies included any diversity-related disclosure in their 10-K—down from 97 percent in 2024. Notably, just 8 percent continued to use the term “DEI” or similar language in their 10-K filings, a sharp decline from 90 percent only two years earlier.

This article provides an updated analysis of these evolving legal and regulatory dynamics affecting corporate DEI programs. We also examine how disclosure practices are changing across the S&P 500, with a focus on the financial sector and the new terminology companies are now adopting in place of DEI.

READ MORE »

Why Public Markets Need Trust, Not a Race to the Bottom

Jen Sisson is the CEO and Jakub Brejdak is a Senior Policy Executive at International Corporate Governance Network. This post is based on their ICGN memorandum.

Governance as a Market Advantage is a new ICGN blog series exploring how strong governance supports investor confidence, attracts long-term capital and strengthens well-functioning capital markets. Across the series, we will look at the role of governance in rebuilding confidence in public markets, supporting effective investor participation, and helping companies navigate a more complex geopolitical environment. At a time when policymakers are seeking to revive listings, deepen liquidity and mobilise capital, our message is clear: governance should not be viewed as a regulatory burden, but as a core part of market competitiveness.

READ MORE »

Chancery Holds Specific Oral Statements About Post-Closing Plans May Exceed Mere Puffery

Gail Weinstein is a Senior Counsel, Philip Richter is a Partner, and Steven Epstein is the Managing Partner at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. This post is based on a Fried Frank memorandum by Ms. Weinstein, Mr. Richter, Mr. Epstein, Randi Lally, Maxwell Yim, and Colum Weiden, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

In Shareholder Representative Services LLC v. Sphera Solutions, Inc. (Mar. 31, 2026), a Magistrate for the Court of Chancery, in a letter decision, at the pleading stage of the litigation, declined to dismiss the plaintiff’s fraud claims that were based on oral statements that Sphera Solutions, Inc. allegedly made during the negotiations leading up to its acquisition of SupplyShift, Inc. Sphera allegedly told SupplyShift that, post-closing, it would focus on and provide resources for cross-selling SupplyShift’s products to Sphera’s customers. The plaintiff claimed that SupplyShift had relied on those statements in deciding to sell to Sphera and agreeing to a significant earnout; that, after closing, Sphera did not fulfill those “oral promises” and thus the earnout threshold was not met; and that, at the time the promises were made, Sphera had already finalized a post-closing budget (the “Budget”) that reflected that it had had no intention of fulfilling the promises. Critically, the Merger Agreement did not contain an anti-reliance provision.

READ MORE »

How DEI Shareholder Proposals Are Faring in 2026

David A. Bell is a Partner and Co-Chair of Corporate Governance, and Wendy Grasso is a Corporate Governance Counsel at Fenwick & West LLP.

What You Need To Know

  • Pro-DEI proposals have declined sharply for the 2026 proxy season, with only 10 proposals submitted through May 31, 2026, compared to approximately 47 submitted for the full 2025 proxy season. Of the five pro-DEI proposals voted on thus far, average support has been approximately 13%, with results varying significantly by proposal category.
  • Anti-DEI proposals are dominating the 2026 landscape, with 43 submitted through May 31, 2026, driven primarily by proposals requesting reports on the risk of discrimination based on social viewpoints. However, anti-DEI proposals continue to receive minimal shareholder support, with the 22 proposals voted on thus far averaging approximately 1% approval.

The 2026 proxy season marks a continuation and, in many respects, an acceleration of the trends observed in 2025. This year, anti-DEI proposals represent the dominant form of DEI-related shareholder activism, while pro-DEI proposals have receded significantly in both volume and voter support. This trend appears to be consistent with Proxy Analytics’ recently reported results, which found that conservative-leaning proponents are making up a larger share of submitted proposals overall in 2026.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: May 29-June 4, 2026


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of May 29-June 4, 2026

From Scorched Earth to Mars: Corporate Governance Goes Rogue in 2026






Activist Investors Are Holding Boards Accountable for AI Strategy



Even Musk Admirers Should Be Troubled by SpaceX’s Governance


The SEC’s Proposal on Registered Offering Reform


Corporate Criminal Liability and Firm Value


Executive Compensation Disclosure Changes


SEC Proposes Rules Simplifying Filer Status Determinations and Increasing Disclosure Accommodations


Mirroring the Market: Passive Voting and Outcome Non-Neutrality


CEO Pay Trends: A Post-Proxy Season Recap


CEO Pay Trends: A Post-Proxy Season Recap

Joyce Chen is an Associate Editor at Equilar, Inc. This post is based on an Equilar memorandum by Ms. Chen and Courtney Yu.

The 2026 proxy season has officially come to a close, as companies have finished filing their annual proxy statements (DEF 14A) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These disclosures provide a detailed view into executive compensation programs and workforce pay dynamics across the U.S.

This analysis examines fiscal year 2025 proxy statements filed by Equilar 500 companies—the largest U.S. public companies by revenue—to identify emerging trends in executive compensation. By tracking data from 2021 through 2025, the study provides a multi-year perspective on how CEO pay has evolved relative to median employee compensation and explores ongoing developments in gender pay equity among top executives.

READ MORE »

Mirroring the Market: Passive Voting and Outcome Non-Neutrality

Nathan Atkinson is an Assistant Professor and John W. Rowe Junior Faculty Fellow at the University of Wisconsin Law School and Jonathan Macey is the Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, and Securities Law at Yale Law School. This post is based on their recent paper.

As equity ownership becomes increasingly concentrated in index funds, concerns have grown over their outsized influence on corporate governance. Mirror voting has emerged as a leading mechanism to ensure that passive capital doesn’t improperly determine corporate election outcomes. By matching (or “mirroring”) the ratio of votes cast by active investors, index funds aim to achieve their stated promise of passivity in corporate elections and to insulate themselves from claims of interference. Current mirror voting proposals and industry policies envision a proportional approach: passive funds observe the way that active shareholders vote and then vote their shares in the same “yes” and “no” percentages.

While we generally support the concept of mirror voting, in our recent article “Mirroring the Market: Passive Voting and Outcome Non-Neutrality”, we show that the regulatory consensus on proportional mirror voting relies on a flawed heuristic. While proportional mirroring appears to achieve neutrality, a closer examination of corporate voting mechanics reveals a different reality. Rather than remaining neutral, proportional mirror voting ignores quorum requirements and the shifting, dynamic denominators in the way that corporate law requires votes to be tabulated. The current, proportional implementation of mirror voting policies creates a subsidy that both artificially validates meetings that would otherwise fail to achieve a quorum, and systematically lowers the threshold for proposals to pass below what state law and internal contracts and governance rules intend.

READ MORE »

Page 1 of 2
1 2